All_Pro_Bills

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.

Fixed. Maybe a look in the mirror and reality check for some here?

Great response and ideas. I think there are places we agree and disagree. I don't see my view as being overly negative but rather skeptical. For one I want details and some answers to critical questions. I'll just leave it at that and write down a few ideas for thought. My read of the general consensus on the "Green" plan is we're going to unplug from the oil economy and plug into the renewable economy without missing a beat. A seamless and relatively pain free transition. I think that's a linear view of things but a review of human history reveals a more cyclical perspective on the advancement of human civilization. One step back, two steps forward if you will. My expectation is the transition period will be a time of great hardship and radical changes in lifestyle which people are not prepared to face. I drive down the street and see a sign on a neighbors lawn saying "Climate Action Now!" and I see a 4K sq ft home with 5 BR's, a 3 car garage with 5 vehicles in the driveway including 2 big gas guzzling SUV's plus a gas heated built-in pool and I ask myself if these people really have any comprehension of what they're asking for and are they prepared or willing to make any changes or sacrifices. I expect the transition will require some major changes in several things. Our living arrangements with the land and nature for one. Among other things, this means an end to 5 acre suburban 4K sq ft mega-homes on the fringes of wilderness and farm areas. It might mean commerce and business arrangements on a more localized scale. It means better use of land, for forests, for wildlife, for farming, and denser developments and maybe an end to the ex-urbs. Before the early 1950's and the introduction of the federal highway system and the automobile to the masses the suburbs really didn't exist. Another main theme is the replacement of the ICE vehicle fleet with an EV fleet. My thinking is we also need to consider options that will eliminate the need for all these cars. (see above). All this requires a lot of material inputs. Where is all of that coming from? All resources are finite and generally with the mining industry most of the cheap and easy stuff is out of the ground already. So costs are high, energy needs are high, grades are relatively low, and resources can be remote or in hostile areas or jurisdictions. Not the optimal scenario. It seems obvious the administration and environmentalists are going to block any big new domestic mining operations. Is somebody going to steamroll the movement and push it through? And then there's litigation and regulations. Are materials coming from China? The sole source of many rare earth metals. All signs point to a deteriorating relationship so I have my doubts. What about other countries? Lithium for example. There are sources in places where there is just as much resistance to mining as there is domestically. Where water is a scarce commodity. What if they don't want to ruin their local environment in order to provide Americans the pleasure of driving their EV's? Are we going to war with these countries? Force them to produce the metal by some other means? My final point is the build out of the new system isn't the only cost and challenge. There's maintenance and repair expenses and resources. All those batteries need periodic replacement. And solar and wind are weather dependent. How much back up and redundancy is needed? Where are the engineering plans and write ups containing anything like detailed specs and requirements? Right now all this stuff is at the idea level, there's no proof of concept or demonstration projects at scale to show it works, and the plan just lacks detail. If there was some national effort lead by researcher and electrical, civil, nuclear engineers and scientists from places like MIT in partnership with Federal research labs I'd feel much better about the prospects going forward. Without these details and a working prototype energy self-sufficient working community to prove out the idea I just see most of it as a dangerous fantasy.

Nixon was aware of the plans of his subordinates to break into the Democratic Committee office and they actually broke into the office. And were arrested. The focus of the investigation into his actions was more on the cover up of the truth rather than the pursuit of the truth itself. Sure Trump's no Constitutional or legal scholar but from the sound of it all Trump directed or asked officials to do specific things which they declined and refused to do citing ethical and legal objections to his requests. So they didn't break the law. The vote counts and the electoral results in the States were certified. So does it all boil down to is it a crime to ask somebody to break the law regardless of the fact they either refuse or don't commit the act? It sounds like the argument is the President asked me to do something I concluded was illegal and I said no. Was Trump stupid? Absolutely. But is it criminal ? That just seems weak to me given the world of politics today.

I've got nothing against the idea of trying to clean up the environment or anything in particular against renewable energy. But I do insist on reality. And physics and math, and an acknowledgement of the available resources and limitations of the physical world. My contention has always been the resources simply don't exist in the right place, at the right amount, at the right cost to produce the amount of renewable devices like solar panels to replace all the energy output produced by oil and gas at a cost that can be paid that allows civilization to progress. Its illogical to stake the exist of our civilization on the ability of them to produce the necessary energy output at cost and scale and reliably. It always a topic environmentalists and climate activists and renewable energy advocates avoid. Their argument is based on magical thinking. I think they know it. And given I believe most of them are very smart people it concerns me they're engaging in massive and collective deception which might lead to questioning their actual motives. If you look at the evolution of human development and civilization you'll find that over time new, more efficient and cheaper energy sources have replaced the previously dominant source of energy. This supported what is characterized as progress. Given better and more efficient sources and availability of energy even the poorest American lives a comparably better life than somebody living before the oil age. Renewables just don't meet that criteria when compared to oil and gas. They are both more costly and less efficient. Its a step in the wrong direction. So you either need to downsize civilization and energy use. Its a given we need to look for a replace for oil and gas as they're finite resources that are being depleted over time while the cheapest and easiest to produce sources are mostly used up. But solar and wind aren't the answer.

I think the real bottleneck is refining capacity. Which has been falling. I suspect some of it might be a grade issue where most gulf coast refineries are configured for heavier crude grades and what might be available is lighter which is not producing as much diesel for example. But I haven't dug into the details. Given the negativity towards the industry from the President and his administration campaigning with vows to eliminate and cripple the industry. pressuring banks and investment funds to starve the industry of capital, and on day one cancelling Keystone (which if left alone would be operational today), I'd like to hear a compelling argument that might convince a refiner to spend 3 or 4 billion dollars to add capacity in the face of the we're going to eliminate oil and gas mantra. My major problem with Biden's operating style here is that nothing seems to be thought out ahead of time and there's little concern or intelligence being utilized to consider consequences of actions and policies. Like everything is a surprise and the effect is to blame but never the cause. So let's put sanctions on Russian oil exports and sales and financial transactions but not think about how that might impact supply and prices. Stupid or don't care. Pick one, both are bad. The other thing is I don't think there's a single member of his cabinet or inner circle of advisors that have any clue or understanding of how the private sector and businesses work.

That's a lot of it. Another big part of it is they've been preparing to exist outside of the dollar based reserve currency and trade settlement system for several years. And so has China. That system is what provides the US special privileges not available to other nations. As both countries have aspirations for bigger roles on the world stage they know the path to this goal requires the establishment of a new reserve/trade settlement system and the destruction and elimination of the current system of advantages afforded the Americans. This, the financial war, is what its all about. Not some conquest of territory. Control the value of money, control everything! While I think Ukraine is clearly a US proxy military confrontation against Russia I also conclude the ongoing financial battle here is a proxy war of Russia fronting for China against the US.

I don't think that hypothetical is remotely comparable to what's happening in Ukraine. The Ukraine opposition party members are questioning the government's war policy. They are not siding or advocating for the enemy. They're questioning the government for engaging in the conflict and sacrificing Ukrainian lives under what they say is a war controlled and directed by American interests. The last part I completely agree with, Washington pulls the strings and Zelensky dances.

Make that 11 political parties that have been banned. In May, Zelensky signed into law a bill that allows the government to ban and seize the assets of any party that opposes the government's policies pertaining to the war. In other words, all public debate about the course of the war and the execution of the war is forbidden. So Ukrainian citizens questioning the merits and purpose of their governments war policies and efforts simply by expressing their "democratic" right of expression are targeted and labeled as Russian assets and following Putin's talking points. I'm wondering where they picked up that routine? It has a familiar ring, but I just can't put my finger on it!

This committee is not a court of law. But if a witness committed perjury giving testimony to the committee a couple things would need to happen in order to charge and prove they lied. 1. Who or how could anyone know they lied? My assumption is their testimony would be in contradiction with other witnesses, facts and figures, audio or video evidence, other submitted evidence, or previously provided depositions. 2. Who would need to indict and try them for that offense? My understanding is it would be referred to the DOJ for investigation and potential prosecution. Does that sound right? My problem with the perjury angle here is that every single witness testifying supports the States case. So whether they are telling the truth or not telling the truth, as long as their testimony supports the States case why would the State want to indict any witnesses for lying? As long as the committee gets a "conviction" do you really believe they care if witnesses are telling the truth or not? There just no potential for consequences or penalties for lying. Period. Absent skeptics and doubters being allowed to ask questions and provide testimony I propose they don't care one way or the other. That's the problem with this 1/6 circus.

On face value it might be concluded the US economy is doing "better" than the rest of the world. And that may be correct. The cleanest pig in the mud hole scenario. But the more important question on the price movements of the market indexes is "why" rather than "what". For me it boils down to interest rate decisions by various central banks and the relative changes in currency values and pairings. Most notably the US dollar vs. <other currencies> and the impact of economic sanctions as a result of the Ukraine war. The majors, the Euro, the Yen, the British Pound to mention a few are getting pummeled. The DOJ executed a market intervention overnight which only caused the Yen to sink further. These moves imply "money" coming out of these currencies and "into" the US dollar. Which partially explains the US markets over-performance. As the fed increases rates the Emerging Markets typically get hit the hardest. Most international loans are costed in dollars but they earn local currency on domestic sales. When the local currency falls it takes more local 'units" of currency to service borrowing. Professional investors normally flee these markets first. So crash, bang, boom goes their markets. The curious thing is one currency outperforming the US dollar is the Russian Ruble. Which for me implies the sanctions seeking to punish Russia are not working and are punishing allies and non-aligned countries more by sucking the life out of their economies and markets. A logical action might be to stop. But I'm not expecting that to happen anytime soon. My expectation is US Q222 GDP will print negative and given Q122 was negative the standard criteria of two consecutive quarters of negative GDP indicates a recession will be met. I don't know what these economists are talking about when they say they expect a recession in 2023 or 2024. Its here now. The fundamental question is how far is the Fed willing to go higher with interest rates and how high is high enough to blow everything up? My expectation is not much higher. Every one percent rise in rates adds about $300B to the annual interest expense on the US debt. So how is that going to be accounted for in the annual budget? Raise taxes? Doubtful. Cut spending somewhere else? Unlikely. Print more money? Winner! More inflation, higher unemployment, less output! I expect ultimately we're headed for an inflationary depression. One thing I've been accumulating lightly are larger capitalization gold and silver royalty and streamers like Franco-Nevada, Wheaton, and Royal Gold as I expect gold will be going much higher and these stocks will see capital gains along with generous dividend payments.