All_Pro_Bills

JB projects weakness and frailty which might be the perfect symbol for an empire in decline. His rambling and confusing statements and answers to questions are becoming more frequent. And its impossible for me to accept in any way the belief he is fully executing all the duties of the office and there are no forces or individuals in the background calling the shots here.

It is an important question. Along with a question I posed a couple weeks ago which is given there was no defense in place against "the plot" what actually stopped the "insurrectionists" from taking more serious and damaging actions? What happened is consistent with looters breaking into a store with no cops in sight and just stealing the gum and candy near the register while leaving the flat screens and home entertainment equipment behind. It would appear to make no sense and require some level of explanation.

So I'm watching a short segment on Carlson with professed liberal comedian Jimmy Dore. Found his perspective interesting. His somewhat outside-the-box assessment might be worth a look regardless of your perspectives here. His basic premise is the left used to focus on discussions concerning economic disparities and issues. But now all discussions are centered around identify politics. And the reason for that is the establishment has found a way to co-op the progressive movement including capturing the discussions on identity and race issues, and as a result it has avoiding discussions on economics and left them free to loot and pillage society without any focus on those activities. All these discussions on things like CRT are just smoke and mirror diversions. "You want to help black people then give them free college, a living wage, medicare for all. What did Biden do? Made Juneteenth a holiday and gave government workers another day off". So is this the game here? Simple misdirection? You've got elite billionaires, cultural & social elites, intellectual elites, elite corporate CEO's & BOD's, elite politicians, and I should add the military industrial complex. All beating the drum of racism. All getting rich while the rest of us, black, white, brown, run faster and faster while falling behind. While they redirect the focus away from themselves and on to the average guy in the street. Its not their fault their collective elite class is so well off and everyone else is not. its the fault of all those damn white supremacists, all white people, except them of course while paying off the attack dogs on the left to steer clear of them and find other targets. Pitting the citizens against one another, the identified oppressor and the oppressed fighting against each other over table scraps while leaving them free to do pretty much what they want. Unnoticed and getting away with it. Robbing us all blind while our backs are turned faced off against one another. I think this guy is on to some good insights. I bookmarked his site.

Things like this statement: "And we must be the leader of the free world. If we don’t do it, nobody good is likely to do it or has the capacity to do it. I really mean it. I genuinely mean it. So, it’s the thing, Don, that is the only time — and by the way, the first time I walked down stairs and they played “Hail to the Chief,” I wondered, “Where is he?”

One step at a time my friend. Lets find out why Nancy didn't call the cops in the face of obvious danger from "insurrectionists". It will come out eventually.

That's your best? Come on smarty. Shoot some holes in my theory. I want real feedback.

Are you attempting sarcasm? Here's some facts. Maybe you are familiar with the concept of facts? Or maybe not? Or perhaps the concept of logical thinking. Let me illustrate a lesson in that subject below. Everybody knew there was going to be a big demonstration that day. That's a fact. Everybody knew there was dissatisfaction among the protesters with the election results. That's a fact. Everybody knew there was "talk" of disrupting or stopping the certification of results in the House. That's a fact. And therefore the risk and threat of violence was present. That would seem obvious to anyone paying attention. That's a fact. Everybody knows the the Capitol Police suspecting potential trouble requested the call up of National Guard to deploy at the Capitol. This request was made before and during the protest. 5 times this was requested. That's a fact. Everybody knows the Sargent at Arms who reports to the Speakers office rejected all requests for National Guard troops both before and during the attack. That's a fact. What we don't know is why the requests from the Capitol Police were rejected. And why the Guard wasn't called up in the face of obvious danger. But the House Speaker knows, the person heading the inquiry. Do you think she should provide some explanation? This seems like an important non-decision and it begs an answer. The problem is this is not a question the speaker would like to answer. Rather it appears to be a question the speaker does not want to answer. What are the implication of an honest answer? Now we get into molding these facts to define a theory. So one logical conclusion and theory might be there was a desire to let the violence happen. For one reason or another. We need the above question answered factually to disprove or confirm this theory. But we don't have that answer, yet. We can speculate but we do not know. So the theory is a valid theory that meets the criteria for being a theory. It produces a conclusion supported by facts that needs more facts to prove it true or false. It might be unpopular to many here but again, its also a fact nobody here can disprove it. They can ridicule and reject it or choose not to believe it for some reason. They can do the same to me personally. But none of that will prove it false. As the way to prove or disprove theories is to ask questions, gather facts, and apply those facts to see if they support or don't support the theory. That's why I also conclude 1/6 is equivalent to the Reichstag fire in Germany staged by the Nazi's. it aligns with the type of event, an attack on the seat of government power, the need for pretense followed by similar objectives. 1/6 was allowed to happen to create an excuse. Like the Nazi's used the fire as an excuse to neutralize their biggest political opponent which was the communists in Germany. In the case of 1/6 the Democrats are looking to neutralize their biggest threat which is 75 million Trump voters. So they followed the script created by the Nazi's. And why reinvent the wheel when it works?

How do you know what expertise or experience or knowledge I might have on the subject? You don't. Maybe you prefer to let "experts" do the thinking for you but I know what I see and I know the topic from dealing with it firsthand. You don't need to be a professional neurologist to identify mental confusion any more than you need to be a hematologist to stop a finger cut from bleeding. Biden losses his train of thought on a consistent basis. And losses awareness of his physical surroundings, wandering, walking off. Like losing his focus at press unrehearsed press conferences. This isn't stuttering. This is obvious. And its likely to get worse to the point of him being unable to continue.

Its not stuttering. Its mental confusion. Its a loss of mental capacity. There's a big difference.

False Flags. A CIA overseas specialty also used by FBI and other domestic agencies. Not out of the question it was employed on 1/6. Considering about a dozen operatives that are known to the government but charged or arrested had roles at the Capitol event. And likely the objective of the 1/6 False Flag at the Capitol was devised to be the equivalent of the Reichstag fire in Nazi Germany that provided the justification for consolidating power under the party. Only this time consolidation under the Democrats.

All kidding and jokes aside this is a serious situation that calls for some compassion. Its obvious Joe Biden is suffering from some cognitive and mental impairment issues. Given the age factor I can only assume its of a degenerative nature. If you've had the misfortune of having a family member go through an ailment of this nature you will clearly see the "signs" of the condition in his behavior and actions. The biggest thing I can't understand is how Jill Biden could allow her husband, somebody I assume she loves and cares for, to be subjected to and used by forces inside the party to play front man for their agenda. Because this is not his agenda. These are not his words. They belong to somebody else. A simple cursory review of his political record will provide all the evidence necessary to support that conclusion. Shame on her and shame on them for putting the guy through what I can only expect will conclude with embarrassment and humiliation. And shame on the party leadership for using Biden and subjecting him to the public spotlight when he should be retired enjoying whatever is left of life.

House Democrats on Tuesday blocked a bill which would require the Director of National Intelligence to declassify information related to the US government's investigations into the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic - and in particular, what role the Wuhan Institute of Virology may have played in the outbreak. The bill failed in the House by a vote of 216 - 207. Said House Rep Wenstrup one of the members introducing the bill on the House floor, "The best disinfectant is sunlight and that's what we can provide today." "The bill first establishes that we must identify the precise origins of COVID-19 because it is critical for preventing a similar pandemic in the future." "I cannot stress enough that this bill is not controversial by any means," he continued. "In fact, it passed the Senate in May with unanimous consent — not one senator objected. Not Senators Ted Cruz or Rand Paul, not Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. If those four members can get on board with this bill, should not we be able to do the same?" I guess not. So what's the objection of House leadership? Chinese masters and Dr. Fauci don't like it? Any of the usual Deep State apologists want to whip up some excuse here?

You're just speculating on what might or might not be sealed. So it might be prudent to not call it something that the available facts don't support and take a wait and see approach. That said, if somebody was actually charged with insurrection or treason that would be broadcast 24/7? Or leaked? Sealed or no sealed when it benefits to reveal something or if it might be damaging to the defense's case there's no hesitation. What baffles me is how anyone can perceive the government at this point as some bastion of ethics and virtue. You guys must be on some heavy hallucinogenics to buy into that view. Or have a vested interest in big government like being on the payroll. Or getting lots of free government support or grants or funding for something or another. And per the insurrection narrative. My conclusion to this point based on the available evidence is there was violence committed on that day but the characterization of it as insurrection is an exaggeration of the risks posed by the threat and circumstances of the event. And I'm willing to adjust that conclusion when and if more and better information becomes available. I think that's a reasonable approach. But in any event you still cannot name any insurrectionist charges regardless of what excuse you might want to use. So your assessment that its insurrection is just not supported by the facts you have available so why do you continue to insist that is what it was here? Presumption of innocence here rather than guilt by accusation. So let's come back to this when we get a read out all the charges, trial, and convictions or acquittals.

Consider Nancy's goal has nothing to do with getting down to the truth. Consider the goal is simply to confirm their already pronounced views. This was biggest threat to democracy since the civil war. And as a result the committee's findings will require the submission of some draconian legislation to prevent it from occurring again. To identify extremism and criminalize certain activities now protected under law. In some way characterizing political descent as extremism. Criminalizing political descent. That's the goal. For the love of God isn't that obvious to everyone already? How much clear can it be made? Entertaining any counter-arguments or contention to that narrative and the eventual conclusion might just be a headache to be avoided. Why bother as they're not going to listen to or consider any of it so what's the point other than for theater?

Now you're changing the subject again. But okay. But we need to establish some facts first. How many of the suspects have been charged with insurrection? Give me a number. And then we can discuss the validity of calling the events of 1/6 that term. So if you please, post the names of those defendents here.

Your responses only reinforce my argument and confirm my conclusions. You just can't help yourself from making continuous comments about the event to deflect from the argument that regardless of the event the process here is a farce. And listening to and reading the comments from the committee members you are in alignment with their statements to date too. So what's the point of this charade? What's the point? So they can say we checked of the official line item on the scoresheet? Do you really believe after assembling and reviewing all the "evidence" they're going to determine it wasn't "the biggest threat to democracy since the civil war" after all? And that their initial conclusions were wrong? Do you really think they're going to allow any counter-arguments or questioning outside the pre-determined outcome and narrative of the event? Or consider anything thinking or logic "outside the box" they've already built? You really think that? If you really think that I would either question your judgment or conclude you cannot be objective and honest about what this is all about. Its all BS. Like the late-great George Carlin used to say. And absent BS the entire political process would disintegrate. He was spot on..

Now I think you're attempting to use satire or humor here. "Participating in an honest investigation into what happened that day." Really? You're kidding me, right? That's what you believe the objective is here? You should know by now that honesty and politics are mutually exclusive concepts. Members selected for the committee are required to answer "yes" to the following questions. Are you a Democrat or a Republican? Do you believe the actions of 1/6 constitute the greatest threat to our democracy since the Civil War? Will you let your political views prejudice your ability to objectively view and judge the actions and events that lead up to and occurred on 1/6? The outcome is already determined. The report is already drafted. And regardless of anyone's preconceived notions or conclusions or political and social views I find it impossible that anyone with a shred a common sense can't see that too. You know that just as much as I do. Anyone that's paying attention here and says they believe this is going to be fair and impartial is a liar. Plain and simple. I'm calling them out. Posters can question or criticize my specific views on the topic or other topics. Go ahead if that flimsy rebuttal is all anyone's got. But my views are inconsequential to the actions and motivations of the committee and you cannot possibly deny the certainty of a "guilty" outcome. And what I hate more than almost anything is dishonesty. And this committee process is fundamentally dishonest. There's a 100% probability they'll find everything they've already stated previously to be correct. If there was a absolute certain bet I could make that I have 100% certainty of winning I'd put my life savings on this outcome. No way they conclude anything else. The deck is stacked, the dice are fixed. This is purely a show trial to give the pre-determined outcome and suggested changes to policy and law the stamp of legitimacy it lacks without going through the motions. Is the term Kangaroo Court?

With the stipulation that only members and supporters of the Titans are allowed to serve on the committee.

If you need a ventilator you have serious breathing issues and likely cannot speak. Unfortunately, I've been a recent visitor to ICU a couple times and have observed this firsthand with a lot of conversations and interaction with doctors and nurses. These patients generally don't do a lot of talking. Or much of anything else for that matter. The problem is you can trot out any spokesperson you want and throw out all these fear and alarm messages targeting the unvaccinated. But there is just no credibility with a lot of people no matter who speaks it. See my 1,000 word "straight talk to the government" speech on page 1445 for more on credibility..

Is this medical satire?

its not really anti-vaxers that's the problem. The problem is the government itself. If the government was a single person it would be easier to explain and resolve. And if the government was a person I might say something like the following to explain the hesitancy some have: "Listen, the fact is you have no credibility with a lot of people. Your story is riddled with a lot of inconsistencies and contradictions. And you change it using the excuse of following some science but when people look at your pronouncements and changes to your story a lot of them don't appear to follow that science. You worry about mis-information and you attempt to stop it. But a lot of people you say are spreading mis-information are experts that just disagree with your conclusions and policies. Like the researcher that identified and developed the mRNA processes some of the vaccines are based on. And his posts and comments get blocked. Or laughing at and blocking talk about the Lab origin story for over a year and then all of a sudden it becomes credible. That looks bad. That looks like you are hiding something or trying to avoid some conversations about your program and goals. And lets face it, you're the biggest source of mis-information in the entire world. You might not agree with or like that assessment but that's how people see you. Somebody that's full of crap trying to stop others from calling you out. Your minions say the vaccines are "safe" but what does that really mean? If I look at the numbers more people that have died or had serious and reported adverse side effects from these COVID vaccines its way more than what has been reported for all other vaccines combined over the past 35 years. That doesn't sound safe. And we have absolutely no idea what negative long term consequences might arise from the vaccines. So just say that. There's likely some subgroup of the population that its dangerous to but you still push this one size fits all lets gets everyone the shot. This makes it look like you are ignoring facts, ignoring science when you claim to follow it. This makes you look like somebody that can't be trusted. You continue to ignore a big part of the population that got sick, recovered, and generated antibody resistance to COVID naturally. But you keep insisting they get vaccinated too. Which violates a lot of medical concepts and logic like the concept of "medical necessity". Avoid or reject the risks of unnecessary procedures. Also, children shouldn't be vaccinated if they have zero risk of adverse impacts. And suggesting they should get a shot simply to protect other people is ridiculous. The idea of vaccination is to protect yourself. At least it used to be before COVID. The rules here should be consistent with what the rules are for all other viruses and if they aren't you need to explain rationally why they are not consistent. Which you won't do. In summary, you think you are above being questioned or challenged, you think your authority is absolute. But it is not. You need to stop lying about everything and tell the truth. Then people might get on board with the goals here and they might see you again as somebody with credibility. Somebody that's a leader. somebody they can trust"

I'll admit it. I'm cynical when it comes to people that are always trying to "help" other people. In general I think everyone acts out of their own self-interest. So if somebody I don't know wants to help me I usually start thinking about what's in it for them? I think that's how all this activism stuff works. What it comes down to is "its all about the money!" I've concluded all these professional activists are a subset of liberal arts graduates that clearly understand they can't make a comfortable living wage doing anything productive in the private sector. So rather than live a subsistence level lifestyle they turn to professional activism as a career that will pay a decent wage through government grants and programs, and funds voluntarily or involuntarily "donated" from private sources. This could just as easily apply to the political class too. They're always on the look out for people to "help" or a cause to take on. Causes are the lifeblood of the activist industry. But the key is well-funded causes. Moving from cause to cause as the funds to support one cause or another dry up and become available elsewhere. Now the top career move is fighting systemic racism. These are people media stooges interview on TV at protests to tell the stories of oppression. Disguising it as if they're interviewing some average person in the target community when in reality they're talking to some professional out-of-town activist that flies in for the event. And the flies out after the protest to go elsewhere to another protest or back home. All expenses paid. Its the same couple hundred activists everywhere. Watch and learn. When the money runs out for the cause of the day they'll be on their merry way to another fully funded problem. The fact the target audience may not want help or doesn't buy their narrative is not important.

I suggest you might want to define the means which this policy would be enforced as the government could be faced with an enforcement issue. What if 50 or 60 million people refuse to comply? What if 30 or 40 percent of the population tells you to go pound it? Are you going to go door to door with Federal agents, hold people down, and inject them with two doses of the vaccine? What if these agents are greeted at the door with a hail of bullets? Pretty soon you run our of living and breathing agents that want to stay that way. And if the vaccines prove to be ineffective against this variant while vaccinated people get sick you're going to have a bigger issue. These people running the show and calling the shots here hold no absolute power and can be removed through the voting booth or other means given the proper circumstances.

There's a couple concepts here: If the vaccine works then an infected person should not be able to infect you. if anyone is worried the vaccine won't protect them from the Delta variant that's a different problem. I don't remember anyone ever worrying about somebody having the flu infecting them when they got the flu shot. Or that even being mentioned. So what's so different about COVID? People with the same conditions that died of COVID also die from the flu every year. Everyone does not need to be vaccinated to reach some level of herd immunity. if you were previously infected and recover you have antibodies that grant immunity. This is what the vaccine does without the illness part. So count people with immunity not just vaccinated only. For some reason this large slice of the population is treated as if it doesn't exist. And vaccinating people that are already immune just to check off the box on somebody's clip board is a waste of resources and violates the concept of "medical necessity". If you are low risk of getting seriously sick or dying you do not need to be vaccinated. And this decision should be made by the person, family, and their doctor. Not the government's one size fits all approach to managing risk. Everyone's risk is not the same yet policy treats everyone the same. This is not sensible. This also violates the concept of "medical necessity". Almost all children under 12 fall into this category. The long term safety and side effect risks of the mRNA vaccines is unknown. This is part of the area of Gene Therapy. Its pretty much at the Wright Brothers level of development if you compare it to the aviation industry. Even the scientist that identified and perfected the mRNA technology suggested caution (although he was blocked from social media for spreading "misinformation". The guy who invented the stuff! Makes sense). I got the vaccine but I certainly don't believe all the "information" disseminated" by the various government bureaucrats. Keep your head up and don't limit your sources of information on the topic to the "official" story tellers. Most importantly if you think the government has the right to force people to get vaccinated do you think there are any limits on what the government can force you to do? What about other vaccines? What about other medical procedures? If the government can force you to do anything from a medical perspective perhaps they can decide to kill terminally ill patients upon diagnosis. No treatment or hospice. Just a trip to the back of the building for a brief ceremony and then a blindfold and firing squad. You might say that's absurd and it would never happen and its likely it won't but give them an inch and they take a mile is a fitting concept when dealing with a government that might see no limits to its power and nobody with the ability to stop them.

Watching the network news is now consistent with watching the Simpsons new segments. The networks must be partaking in the comedic art of satire because their interpretation of events and their opinions are so ridiculous and absurd that anyone viewing the broadcast with a connection to reality has to come to a conclusion they are either making up crap or making fun of everything.