On eve of the election

Just a few days away now. The lefties are getting hysterical. There is no need for such hysteria, and there never was. The hysteria is fed by fear, and as Bongino said, fear is the coin of the realm for the lefties. It's all they've got left.

Their biggest hope is us, believe it or not. They need us to fail in our duty. The first duty of all is not to let yourselves be deceived. Note how that was written---"let yourselves be deceived". The fact is that you have to let yourself be deceived, because nobody can lie to you without your permission. Their biggest hope is that "we the people" let ourselves be deceived yet again.

This may be quite repetitive, but it is for a reason. The other side can get themselves believed due to their repetition of their lies. How much better can you do if you keep repeating the truth as insistently as the liars repeat their lies? The biggest lie of all is that this is a choice between the left and the right. It is not that at all. It is about freedom.

Ronald Reagan proved that this can win. Why the GOP continually refuses to do that is amazing. Even those who claim to be admirers will use that Marxist formulation of dividing the people up into the left and right. All people have the one thing in common. They want to be free. But wanting and getting aren't necessarily the same thing. They'll believe the lie that the opposition wants to enslave you, while at the same time they are forging the chains of bondage with this lie of a choice between right and left.

The most significant part of the yesterday's rant was that so many on the GOP ACCEPTS the premises of their purported opponents. It should be no small wonder that the GOP ends up losing even if they do win. If you don't know what you are fighting against, then you have at best a 50% chance of winning. In case of the GOP, it is a lot closer to zero.

You have to know yourselves as well as the opponent if you're going to have a meaningful victory. No true American can believe in Marxism. It is an import that we can do without.

I sure wished that people on the side of freedom would stop using that abominable formulation.

Covid forgiveness?

Rageaholic says do not forgive nor forget

Language alert: There is more salt to this rant than in the world's oceans.

If he was a black dude, they'd call him reverend. Know what I mean, Vern?

All the same, Amen, bro!

Paul Pelosi (update)

Update:

Paul Pelosi update

This is a post that may require stitching together of many sources. Beginning with the link above, the tendency towards projection is duly noted. It seems to be everywhere for anyone to notice. But some folks may need some nudging. The above goes over all the pecularities of this case. Rather than expound upon them one by one here, just watch the video, and continue on with this post. Without doing so, you'll miss the point of this post.

Back again? If you wished to note, the FBI agent who took the affadavit, is practically a newly minted agent. This particular agent looks to be someone that is investigating J6 type cases. What does THAT have to do with THIS? It is a simple case of break and entry with intent to do harm, so we are to understand. But now, it is somehow been elevated to an insurrectionary plot. What's going on here?

Hillary Clinton did the same kind of thing, if you recall. ( She tweeted it and Elon Musk piped in with his own thoughts) By the way, Hillary should keep quiet, and the whole thing goes away. She could have done that with the Paul Jones case when Slick Willy was in the White House, and there wouldn't have been an impeachment. Is there a method to the madness?

A bit of speculation here. Hillary then as well as now, is trying to protect someone at the top from embarrassing revelations. However, she's going about it in the most unusual way. Instead of being quiet, she is making a lot of noise. This doesn't make it go away, it fans the flames of controversy. Why would she do that? Is she a genius, or is she a fool? Well, she's still around, and some say she's running for President again, so there's that.

Here's another link about the Bushes, who came after Bill Clinton. It is about Bush's daughters. Barbara Bush the Younger

Please note that the 43rd President's daughter is involved in same-sex marriage activism. If this was known, would it have made a difference in the 2000 race? It may have. I sure didn't know about it. It was kept under the radar, so to speak. IT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN GOOD POLITICS FOR THE BUSHES at the time.

There's a pattern here that I've think I've detected. A pattern of dishonesty and fakery. The Bushes got into office by pretending to be more conservative than they really were. It is meant to deceive conservative voters out there. So, the thing I'm getting at is that there is this very concerted effort at concealing some embarrassing truth from the public for political reasons. This Pelosi business may have a connection. The Pelosi's don't want any attention being drawn to this, and Nancy is asking for privacy. However, it is too big now for that.

One more link from the Bongino show yesterday shows the pattern of censorship. There was something I wished to point out how there was a distortion worth noting that shows the intent to deceive for political gain. He claims that nefarious types are doing the lying, but he does a whopper himself. The whopper is about the man "in shorts". This guy says that it was all normal because it was only Pelosi in shorts, but what is being said is that the guy who allegedly broke in was the one wearing in shorts. It was unusal to have someone in shorts breaking in, don't you think. That's what he leaves out. Bongino quotes him at about the 29 minute mark.

How does a guy in underwear get past security in a gated community? This is the richest area in San Francisco. How do they not have security out the wazoo? A guy in shorts gets past security? Of course there should be questions, but these guys want to censor Twitter ( and force Musk to change his stated intentions). They are doing this for political reasons. BUT THEY ARE THE ONES WHO POLTICIZED IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. If Hillary kept her mouth shut, this all goes away. The Pelosi's desire for privacy is kicked to the curb.

All of this is being done for a reason, but it seems crazy. If it works, then they win. All anyone with an independent judgement ought to ask why would they want to take Twitter down now that Musk has taken it over? Why would they politicize this just before an election? Who's the target?

You can bet it isn't the Bushes. Nope, it is probably those that they are trying to protect. As in the 2000 election, when embarrassing information about the Bush's daughters may have influenced the outcome to this latest business with Pelosi, the people being deceived is who you should be looking at. Who are they trying to fool with this? The neo-con voters? The true blue bluest types? Who would believes this nonsense after all we've been through lately?

This is the topic de jour these days. If the political left didn't try to politicize this in their favor, it might have gone away on its own. Because of the likes the major media taking up the cause in favor of Democrats, it draws people in. Now there's plenty of other sources of info to weigh in. Thank goodness for that.

What's the moral here? In a free society, you can get both sides. In an unfree society, you'll only get a one-sided story. The story that you'd get without the free press ( to the extent that it actually exists) is that a bunch of right wing wackos came after the Speaker's husband in order to cause him harm. The other side of the story is that this was no break-in, and that Pelosi actually invited the dude into his house. Those two sides of the story are as far apart as it gets.

Give me the free society that would actually cover this story in its entirety and faithfully, and I guarantee you that the Democrats wouldn't be talking the way they are right now. The political left has something to hide. That's the second moral here. To put it succinctly, that moral is that the left will make the most noise in their accusations when they have the most to hide.

A third moral is that to hide the truth from the public, they political left will try to censor the other side of the story. That is evident of a guilty mind. There are so many examples of this today. The amazing thing is that the Democrats have any political support left.

What is the other side? That Pelosi is a homosexual, who was seeking the sexual favors of a male prostitute? In a former time, much less than this was enough to force a Houston mayor out of office. This was back in the seventies, when Mayor Fred Hofheinz was alleged to have frequented a certain kind of bar (aka "gay" bar).

When the left tries to hide stories, it means something. That something is probably pretty bad, and they know it. Perhaps it is a sign that the virtue that was once commonplace is still out there, because they have to lie about so much. The truth is not on their side, and they know it.

The downside is that too many people believe the lies. What would it take to finally put down this house of cards?

GDP gimmicks before elections

 

Brandon avoids 3 quarters of negative GDP growth with gimmickry

The economy went into a recession in the first quarter, and followed it with another negative print in the second quarter. To avoid an election year problem with this kind of negative information, Brandon went into denial on the public stage, and went into gear privately to avoid another negative print just before the election. How did Brandon do it?

He sold oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This is not what the SPR is for. It is for national emergencies, not political emergencies caused by bad public policy. When the Russians blocked oil and gas from Europe, Brandon arranged it so that the sales could be made with American produced gas. Meanwhile, he is blocking new production at home. The main point here is that these policies won't work long term. It is just good enough to get him past election day. The SPR will take imports to refill, and the blockage of oil and gas production will cause prices to go back up.

As the quote below shows, "trade" is what produced the positive GDP number. The rest of the ecomomy is still in the tank.

Weapons to Europe also bolstered the GDP number. Brandon has depleted US weapons inventories to defend Ukraine. It could be very costly to replace these stocks. Not to mention the weapons may be needed for OUR OWN USE. It is only to help Brandon in the election, not to help folks here at home.

These are short term gimmicks to improve the appearance of a failing economy. All of this is intended to help with the elections. Once the elections are over, there's nothing to be done until the next election. Here's the quote that summarizes the point---

Quote (from Zero Hedge):

"On the positive side net exports rose by 2.77% courtesy of a 1.63% increase in exports and a decline in imports which contributed another 1.14% to the GDP print. As noted above, this alone was enough to explain the entire gain in Q3 GDP, and is a function of US support of the European war economy as the US exports record amount of commodities (oil and gas) as well as weapons to Europe."

The most important right we've got is to throw the bums out. If the bums aren't held accountable, then we'll all be stuck with them. If the bums actually win, they may make it permanent. Imagine not being able to get rid of these bums. That's the choice we have. Either we keep our rights, or we lose them. Brandon and company do not care about anybody but themselves. But you've still got the right to say no. Use it or lose it.

Why I knew early on that there was not any Russian Collusion in 2016

Why I knew early on that there wasn't any Russian Collusion in 2016

This link shows how somebody managed to obtain confidential information for use in a political campaign. This is a tactic seen many times over the years, but I have yet to see this tactic employed against a DEMOCRAT. Got that? If there was ANY information of the type that would have shown collusion in 2016, the Democrats would have obtained it. It wouldn't have to legitimately obtained either. It could have been any kind of information, illicitly obtained or otherwise.

What we DID see was the Steele Dossier, which turned out to be a pure fabrication. It was doubtful to me that any of the things that was claimed there were accurate to begin with. If there was anything, they wouldn't have had to use something like the dossier in order to "prove" a case that didn't exist in the first place.

That sums of why I knew that there was no collusion. If it existed, then it would have been found--one way or another. It simply didn't exist. Also, the Democrats have shown an increasing tendency to make stuff up. That isn't new, but it is getting more and more common. These days, it seems that the Democrats have absolutely nothing to recommend themselves, so they have to resort to the sleaziest tactics imaginable.

Pelosi was quoted as saying she couldn't understand why anyone would vote for Republicans. Actually, it should have been the other way around. As a matter of fact, I think Pelosi and the rest know that they aren't worth a damn. They are hoping enough people believe them that they can make it all continue to work, and that means just enough to be within the margin of cheat.

It really has gotten to that point with them. If there was any justice, the Democrats should get absolutely crushed in this election. But it wouldn't surprise me at all that they don't.

Lowered expectatations

What should the GOP do if they were to regain control of Congress? The answer is not a whole lot. The most likely outcome would be narrow majorities. With such an outcome, very little could be done, except to control the agenda going forward. Even if anything were to pass both houses, Brandon would veto it.

Furthermore, in a closely divided Congress, any defections would likely prevent anything substantive to be passed anyway.

The one thing that would have to happen has already not happened. There would have to have been a lot of incumbents who lost in the primaries. Too many survived on the GOP side. There are a lot of Establisment GOP types remaining, who will probably "gum up the works", thus preventing anything useful from being done.

The best thing to happen would be a crushing defeat to the Democrats. It won't happen.

I wouldn't be surprised if they steal another election.

The only way to "save" democracy is to make sure that elections are honest. There's a lot of effort being expended to ensure that this won't happen. So I won't be surprised if it doesn't.

The obvious is not always obvious

This may seem excessive, but I'll take the risk anyway. This will be another post about the JFK assassination. Why write it? Number one, it is of interest to me. Second, there may be something important that is getting overlooked. So, as amazing as it may have sounded to me, I rented the Oliver Stone movie, and watched it all again. Yet, I do not write to critique the film. There is no need. In the Bugliosi book, it was mentioned that Stone received so much criticism at the time, that he admitted he was making a "counter-myth" that was to compete with what he called the myth of the Warren Commission. If Stone is already admitting lying, then there is no need to beat that dead horse. The movie has no credibility, even in Stone's own words.

Again, this isn't a critique of the film. But there was something that caught my attention while watching it. In the trial scene, Garrison mentions the alternative is "fascism". Ka-ching! So all of this was about fighting fascism? Funny way of doing it, in my opinion. Creating a pack of lies in order to fight "fascism". All the while, he is extolling the value of "truth". It just seems a funny way of defending anything. In fact, it would seem a risky way, because if the lies were discovered, the opposite of what was intended could result. Or at least, that is what I thought.

People still believe in the conspiracy theory. So, I am fascinated by that. Why believe in something, for which there is no evidence? What's going on here? The whys and wherefores of that may be the bigger story. So, here I am. It would seem to belabor the obvious, but if it was so obvious, why do people reject the obvious?

I could segue into a personal story, but I won't. The personal story is a painful and embarrassing one for me, and this isn't going to be that kind of post. But I'd like to use the experience anyway to try to show how you can be blinded to the truth. That blindness can lead to some unfortunate outcomes, as it did in my own experience. If it happened to me, it could happen to others. It can also happen on a mass scale. That is why I offer it. But not in a way that could be the most effective. I would tell the entire story to be the most effective, or in the hopes that it would be. Let it suffice here that I was blind to something that should have been obvious. It caused an cascade of errors. Such is life. All you can do is learn from experience, and try to do better in the future.

Could the broad public be blind to something here about this assassination and its aftermath? So many seem to believe this conspiracy. Well, the conspiracy is true or it isn't. I've looked at it and I think that it isn't true. Not everybody would agree. There are still people out there who seem to believe in it. Some prominent people like Dick Morris. He called the assassination a coup detat. Dick Morris advised a President. So, here is a person who has been connected to the highest councils in our government. He believes it. Why wouldn't others? But I won't be influenced by that.

All I've read about the assassination, and of the following murder of Oswald, there's no mention of the obvious. The obvious regarding Oswald was his motive. As Sigmund Freud said, there are two primary urges, to wit: 1) the sexual urge, and 2) the urge to be great. Oswald's motive was to make a name for himself, and so he did. And Ruby's? Ruby was motivated by grief, and an urge to avenge Kennedy's death. In both cases, an opportunity presented itself. Motive and opportunity existed, and that is why it happened. It is the simplest explanation and the most obvious. Keeping to the Occam's Razor principle, it is the most likely to be correct.

Occam's Razor was not known to me back when I was making my mistakes. Perhaps for a lot of people, it is the one thing that principle is the least obvious. There has to be more to it than that!!! Nothing so momentous could possibly be so simple. But on the other hand, why not?

But why mention it at all today after all this time? It happened almost sixty years ago.

If Stone made a movie that was counter factual to fight fascism, then it could that the same kind of mistake is being made today. If there is a real need to fight fascism, wouldn't it be better to think rationally about how to fight it? Stuff like making up a pack of lies won't work. It will only lead to bad outcomes. Or is something else afoot?

If you are going to fight a war, then you need the truth. If you are lying, then what exactly are you fighting?