All_Pro_Bills

In a majority opinion authored by chief justice John Roberts, the justices ruled the Environmental Protection Agency was not specifically authorized by Congress to reduce carbon emissions when it was set up in 1970. The ruling leaves the Biden administration dependent on passing legislation if it wants to implement sweeping regulations to curb emissions. So far the common theme of the court is legislate through the legislature.

You might be on to something here. Maybe they left a confession note or signed copies of their elaborate and foolproof insurrection plan somewhere like on Adam Schiff's desk? Or mailed a copy to the NYT's? Or a napkin found in the trash at the local IHOP?

No. The idiots are the people believing the fantasy that you can execute a successful coup without any support from the military or other people with lots of guns acting in coordination at multiple sites around the country to take over key and critical facilities and infrastructure.

Unemployment claims reported on 6.30.22 for previous week at 231K. Trend is higher.

As former Trump lawyer and Scranton based office manager Michael Scott is quoted "that's what she said!"

There it is. "Proof"! Of the conspiracy to plan and commit the world's worst planned and executed insurrection. All uncovered and verified by the testimony of an administrative assistant of the former administration that was told something by somebody else. First, organize an unarmed, untrained, and clueless group of misfits, out of shape seniors, and other people with nothing much else going on in their lives. Then take over the Capitol building, make sure to take a lot of selfies, wander around the building in an unorganized manner without purpose to throw off the guards that for some reason couldn't sense any problem and let you in., then proclaim you are in control of the government, and then sit around inside while you're eventually surrounded by thousands of heavily armed military personnel, National Guard troop, and Federal and local law enforcement agents and officers. Realizing at that point you have no chance something magical or supernatural happens and the entire country bows to your actions and you rule for another 4 years. Simply brilliant! And the Committee's work to uncover the devious and dangerous plot? Even more brilliant! How do they do it? By generating a lot of horseshit.

Well said. I don't have an EE degree but I'm good at basic math. I just don't see how to make the numbers work with Solar and Wind when you scale it up to supporting entire population centers, States, and the country. And eventually the world. All while supporting current population levels and forecasted growth numbers into the future. It seems inconceivable. I think much of the "green" energy initiatives are based more on magical thinking than they are on science and engineering. I think they ignore the low yield, unreliable nature of the technologies that depends on the weather. The sun shining and the wind blowing. And the variation in those actions of nature both geographically and seasonally. I wonder where all the materials that need to be mined, produced, transformed into components, assemblies and parts, and then deployed coming from and how they're going to be manufactured and produced without oil and gas as energy inputs into the manufacturing process? I also think counting on some unpredictable and future technologies to "save us" is a terrible plan from the perspective of risk management and assessment. Putting all your eggs in one basket. A basket that has yet to be woven. I recall a study from the 1980's NASA performed on a project called Solar Power Satellite System (SPSS). The plan was to deploy miles long and wide solar arrays in space (something like 24 solar collectors) in orbit around the Earth that would supply uninterruptable power beamed down to the surface. Estimates of resources, time, cost, manufacturing and materials and labor and facilities, lift requirements, construction in space, personnel needed, collection and power distribution. The Reagan administration killed the study. I can't imagine how much it would cost today. Trillions I suspect. If it wasn't cancelled 40 years ago some of it might be operational today and we'd be facing a different set of circumstances.

Actually it is hearsay as it meets the definition (somebody told me something somebody else said or did) but hearsay is admissible here. The police might characterize such statements as "a lead". And if the intent of the Committee, beyond putting on a good show for the faithful, is to produce some sort of recommendation that gets forwarded to the DOJ to bring charges this kind of "evidence" and testimony won't be admissible in any judicial setting there. I suspect this witness wouldn't be called or wiling to testify in a courtroom setting. Already the statement about Trump lunging for the steering wheel has been refuted by the driver and Secret Service on duty that day. Something they've stated they're willing to testify to under oath. Will the committee call them?

Rest assured, Liz Chaney is going to land on her feet somewhere. The fact the establishment summoned her for the task of participating on the Committee in an apparent act of political suicide shows how serious they are to discredit and eliminate Trump from the political scene. Populist movements that reject the core agenda of both parties, whether initiated from the left or from the right are dangerous to the establishment agenda. Many like me whether Democrats or Republicans, see the agenda of neither major political party representing their interests. This is something more and more citizens are concluding in greater numbers. Social and economic conditions are accelerating this trend. The Washington establishment's concern is the movement gains traction, picks off candidates and current office holders representing embedded special interests and replaces them with populist office holders at all levels. Representatives that believe they are sent to serve and represent "the people". Once that happens and a majority is achieved current leadership is out on the street. And the agenda will swing in another direction. This is most likely going to happen as social and economic forces are hurtling us in the direction of a major crisis but by neutralizing Trump they buy some time.

Word Hutchinson was going to testify brought back memories of Oliver North where he skated on charges of destroying evidence in the Iran-Contra affair. His secretary, who today would be titled as an administrative assistants, smuggled out secret and incriminating documents out of government offices in her panties which were later shredded. The documents that is, were shredded. Ms. Hall while having her 15 minutes of fame in testifying to Congress, also escaped any formal punishment. Ms. Hutchinson's testimony provided no such salacious details. The 1980's were simpler times but the tradition of establishment actors breaking American law while meddling in the affairs of foreign countries going unpunished (unless they're whistleblowers exposing illegal acts of powerful players) regardless of party affiliation still remains in place today.

Well it sounds like you're okay with butchering children in late term abortions which something like 173 of 180 countries in the world prohibit. Place like China and North Korea are good with that. So my views are not exactly some fringe outlier. The idea of abortion on demand at any time for any reason regardless of circumstances pushed by fringe pro-choice advocates is the extreme. The big majority, including myself, think there needs to be limits and conditions where the "rights" of the women at some point need to be weighed with the "rights" of the child.

So your okay being a primitive savage?

As opposed to the other extreme where a doctor murders a late term aborted child and dismembers the dead body with saws and knives in a scene akin to some sacrificial ritual then sells the body parts and organs to researchers and for other purposes. Anybody got a video of that they want to share on social media?

Most likely Republicans will gain a majority in the House and Nancy will be relegated to minority leader. Assuming Democrats don't revolt against her rule and appoint somebody 100 years younger with high standards of moral and ethical character to the job. The House will then hold hearing on the escapades of Joe and Hunter. I expect complete cooperation from Federal law enforcement agencies and the intelligence community while all the networks will air the hearings on prime time television and lead off their nightly news shows with updates to the developing story while asking the tough questions to expose any and all corrupt activities. And expose threats to our democracy resulting from selling out to foreign powers and engaging in corrupt activities at the expense of US policy interests. Raise you hand if you believe any of this paragraph?

All I asked is for anyone supporting the idea the Constitution protects the "right" to an abortion is for them to identify which Article or Amendment grants that right. There are some 7 Articles and 27 Amendments. Pick one.

We agree on that. I've heard and seen a lot of slogans and one-liners from pro-choice supporters and advocates and politicians but no intelligent and clear argument that provides an answer to that question. I think this question is the first issue. The second is what kind and type of "protections" make sense. For the women and the unborn child. Most of the arguments I hear tend to mix the two together. One other thing I find ironic (there always seems to be something) is the same cast of characters raging on about "my body, my choice" are the same cast of characters supporting and encouraging the idea of sending storm troopers out during the pandemic in a house-to-house search to force vaccinate any non-conformers.

That's interesting because the essence of Friday's SCOTUS ruling is the Roe v. Wade precedent established by the 1970's era court was invalid because the Constitution has no such protection. And therefore, they voided the previous ruling while sending it back to Congress and State legislatures. I re-read the Constitution this morning and conclude there is no such protection, and the current court is correct. I'm curious what Article (or Section) or Amendment anyone thinks provides protection or extends the "right" for abortions.

Are you telling me to laugh at you?

Statements like this, while meant for dramatic effect are just a joke or display ignorance of the Constitution and the role played by the Supreme Court in our Republic and its three branches of government. But the question is simply preposterous. The court can't bring back slavery because there is a Constitutional amendment that prohibits and abolishes slavery. The 13th Amendment. If abortion proponents want Constitutional protection, then introduce an amendment in Congress, pass the amendment, and send it to the States for consideration and ratification. That's how our democracy works. You know. The one I see so many posts saying they revere and cherish. As long as they get their way I guess. So follow the rules and deal with it. If you can't pass the Amendment in Congress and get enough States to ratify the Amendment, then that's just democracy in action.

One of my big takeaways with the COVID vaccines is the distinction between clinical trial data vs, real world data or evidence. A disparity between the trial endpoint objectives and the results of the trial and the rhetoric used by officials. The trial objectives were to demonstrate infection free efficacy. Nowhere in the trial objectives or endpoints were the terms, measurements, conditions, or observations of "protection from serious illness and hospitalization". In the trial an observation of inflection with protection was a "fail". In the real world use interpretation of official a case of infection with protection, defined as non-critical illness and no hospitalization was a "pass". This positive outcome was something public health officials made up after real world evidence demonstrated the vaccine did not grant or provide immunity. Which leads to my opinion that the trial claimed to demonstrate efficacy and the vaccine was approved based on the trial but real world use and data demonstrates immunity is not achieved, only "protection". So that indicates some deficiency in the trial set up, incorrect interpretation of the data, and an error by the FDA regarding approval, maybe some other mistakes or errors. Approval generally being the target intervention of the trial does what it says the trail objectives state ,which it clearly doesn't in real life use. In simple terms, the vaccine doesn't work as advertised so it should not have been approved based on the trial which was invalid based on real life experience and data where the actual level of immunity appears to be a fraction of the 95% efficacy against infection the trials claimed to have achieved. So somebody's lying here. The vaccine producers, the trial managers, the FDA, public health and medical community members. Take your pick.

If we learned anything this week, it's that the extreme left has been faking it and that yesterday's court decision has forced them to reveal they do really understand what a "women" is and they admit that men cannot get pregnant. Maybe next week we're see some intelligent debate and compromise in legislatures between the extreme positions of the "right" to abortion on demand at any time during a pregnancy without limitations or conditions paid by the taxpayers vs. a complete and total ban with no exceptions. I've got confidence that can be worked through and that 99% of American's agree a proper compromise and correct decision is someplace between those two extremes.

That's odd because what I found is French law allows abortions in the first 14 weeks and requires 2 doctors to certify the women's life is at risk or if the fetus has some fatal condition afterward. Which sounds quite restrictive relative to what it is/was here. Is that correct?

If you can get that mis-information czar lady to sing and record the lyrics to music you might have a Grammy winner here!

I'll donate a thousand bucks if Nancy demonstrates her conviction to the cause by sitting in the street in front of the Supreme Court, pours gasoline over herself, and then starts herself on fire.

I expect any sympathy and support Democrats might gain will literally go up in flames with what many expect to be violent protests and attacks on churches, pregnancy center, and other organizations and facilities. Like petulant children the left has shown no restraint if they don't get their way.