All_Pro_Bills

Move diverse and dumber. Look at falling SAT test scores and "racist" standardized testing over time and tell me that focusing on diversity is working. Its cultivating an increasing larger number of idiots and mental incompetents that can't even do basic math or speak or write a simple sentence with correct syntax. More and more people have no tangible skills. The average kid in Baltimore high school "graduate" for example can't even read at a 6th grade level. That is sad. This country is going down fast. Soon there will be nothing to fight over. But by all means keep on believing your BS. Hurray for diversity! The battle cry of social decay and failure.

Market research showed that none of the Democratic primary candidates would beat Trump in the key swing states as they were all seen as "too liberal". So the party trotted out poor old Joe Biden and positioned him just far right enough to score enough of the moderate votes in swing states to gain the required electoral votes. But hiding his failing mental and physical health was necessary and conveniently the COVID pandemic situation provided a perfect excuse to limit his public exposure. Only the mentally challenged or the most devoted followers of the party can claim they see no issue with his mental condition. Its obvious. For all purposes VP Harris is assuming and carrying out many duties assigned to the President and by all accounts seems to be doing a good job. At some point Biden will step down or be removed via the 25 Amendment.

Math isn't racist. Mathematical principles have been a foundation of civilizations for 1,000 of years. Babylonians, Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, Mayans, Chinese, Asian Indians, and so on. All these civilizations developed and used math. Math has no race. I suspect if alien civilizations exist somewhere out in our Galaxy they use math and the fundamental principles of it. The people denouncing math as racist are failures. They are responsible for developing and educating children in various basic concepts. Like math. They are academics, education administrators, and intellectuals. They and their programs and curriculum have failed in providing children the necessary training and education to succeed in life. To blame themselves or point a finger at each other is to admit failure, to admit they are not somehow intellectually superior. So they find another target. The inert and non-sentient discipline of math is the target. And they develop some crackpot idea that somehow children of color are different and that they are incapable of comprehending the concepts of math. Not only is this insulting but the very foundation of the idea is racist. So really why are we even listening to these people?

So what happens when rates go up? The 10Yr US Treasury is at 1.635%. All this additional supply (1.9T) will put stress on rates to go higher. Who is going to step up and buy all this supply? What astute investor or fund wants to "loan" the US government money for 10 years at about 1.6% when they can put their funds into the equity markets and pull down 10, 20, 30%? That move is a guaranteed loser. Plus inflation is on the rise and pretty quickly. Most likely the Fed will step in through additional QE purchases to hold rates down by increasing the size of their balance sheet. A likely consequence will be a weaker US dollar. So pick your poison. Higher rates or a loss of purchasing power in your paycheck denominated in a currency that is losing value. This will all happen rather quickly. I hope people are preparing for this likelihood and not ignoring the obvious risks. Because there won't be anybody left to bail anyone else out when the SHTF.

While a strategy of some economic or cultural isolation is an interesting perspective I think it necessary to look at things from the perspective of each of China's trading partners. What would compel them to get on board with such an approach? The 5 oil exporters for starters. Russia - 100% certainty they would have no interest in any actions taken against China in the oil market or for that matter anything that would support US strategic interests. What would the US offer in return? Cease to add NATO members in Eastern Europe? Removing sanctions? Withdraw objections to NordSteam2 gas pipeline to Germany? Saudi Arabia - A major US arms purchaser although the new US administration has indicated a desire to dial back those sales. With US fracking all but eliminating the US market they sought markets elsewhere. China was an obvious buyer. The Saudi's are strategic masters playing a balancing game with the US., Russia, and China and other factions and interests in the region. What would the US offer in return for cutting back on China bound exports? I don't know and would they want to upset or introduce another variable into their balancing act? Iraq - This to me is a big kick in the face of the US. US blood and treasure eliminated Saddam and China appears to be a top beneficiary with Iran taking the lead spot there. Maybe the US offers to a firm schedule of force draw down to leave the country in return for more cooperation? Angola - Although its given little exposure China has made significant economic and cultural inroads in Africa. Its almost a secret it seems. With major migration of population into Africa which some might characterize as "economic colonization". The thrust of which is to secure access to nature resources. But with a lot of direct investment in places like Angola it seems doubtful they'd be willing or perhaps able to align with US interests. Brazil - As part of the BRICS "alliance" its hard to see them pulling the plug on a source of trade. Along with this their government is a rolling dumpster fire. My perspective is none of this happened by accident or overnight. China's been playing the "long game" for decades. And kind of boxed the US into a corner. One step at a time in a methodical manner. All that's happened recently is the realization of it all. To get out of that corner requires thinking and planning on that same strategic level. But is it too late for that regarding the sovereignty and independence of Taiwan?

Of course China will not stop at objectives aimed at Taiwan and Hong Kong. They have greater ambitions. But what does it mean to protect Taiwan alt all costs? All costs? Such as committing to military action? Engaging is an armed confrontation with China? Perhaps starting World War 3? And what consequences, risks, and threats will such a policy of "all costs" present? Beyond some vague China containment policy it might make sense to have some clear and credible articulation of US strategic interests from the administration before committing to some "at all costs" program.

I'm not sure why the US would object to anything China is doing as their government seems to be the operating model our government aspires to. Creating a surveillance and thought control state through the melding of government force and coercion with technology oligarchs and the corporations they control. But aside from that China is simply not afraid of the US anymore. What are "we" going to do? Impose sanctions? I'm sure Pres Xi isn't spending many sleepless nights worried about that prospect. Diplomatically our state department's approach to international affairs is consistent with the "gun boat" policies of past eras. Look at the number of places where force is either being directly applied or threatened. The problem is the world has changed and while I question China's motives as less than transparent and genuine their more "cooperative" economic development approach to affairs is leading to a lot of arrangements around the world that are slowly squeezing the US out of a lot of places.

I'm sure all the street gangs and drug cartels will be lining up early to turn in all their weapons. And given how safe the streets and cities will become as a result all politicians will be obligated to eliminate their private and public security details because they will no longer be necessary. Because more gun control legislation has passed. People getting robbed or assaulted by an armed assailant can soon inform them they are breaking the new gun control law. I expect they'll apologize and move on! Truth be told here the pols and their government agents want to ban weapons held by people they expect to be hassling sometime in the future for doing or not doing something they will make "illegal". Things like thinking for yourself, and doubting all the BS they feed you. So they want to disarm them now so they don't end up getting their asses shot off later. Got nothing to do with public safety. They don't care about you or me getting killed by an armed gunman. As long as their back sides are safe. Street criminals will still be killing people in the streets. Homicide, armed robbery, and other crime stats will not be impacted. Just more BS posturing for their followers. Nothing will change and then cries for more... wait for it... gun control.. And the cycle of failure to address the core problem will continue..

The similarity is in both cases the federal government didn't have the money to fund either and both added/will add to the federal debt.

I understand the theme will be to recognize the signing of the COVID Relief bill and communicate some other "priorities" for the remainder of the year. I think the big question in the minds of most is are we all going to get another check?

Its not just government wages. Its generous pension and retirement benefits. Here in NJ nepotism in government is a tradition and generally accepted practice. Towns and cities hire relatives and friends (not so much the most qualified people) that take somewhat less challenging jobs then those offered in the private sector, work them for the required period of time and begin drawing pensions. Some I'm told retire drawing three pension pay outs. Its a sweet racket while taxpayers foot big tax bills and the government borrows money on their backs to fund payments to all their buddies for perpetuity. I suspect its the same in a lot of states, many of which have severely under-funded pension plans. These state plans are the beneficiaries of COVID Relief funding which doesn't seem to have much to do with COVID. People working in Washington for the Federal government get an even sweeter deal. Many draw close to $100K or more annually while also receiving fully paid health care benefits. Those of us in the private sector with the exception of old line companies that still have some sort of pension fund must fund their retirements through smart 401K and IRA investments and social security rather than some guaranteed income courtesy of the suckers called taxpayers. What I detest about government more than any of these social issues we banter back and forth about taking one view or another is that its a big blood sucking leach sucking the life out of me and every other taxpayer. And funneling that money to themselves and their favored constituents. Frankly, I feel like I am getting absolutely little to no benefit from the tax money I send to the State and the Federal government and I am far from affluent. If you want to limit government power the only thing that will have any effect is to cut off their funding.

Jury tampering is a serious offense so anyone reckless enough to attempt to coerce and intimidate jurors to render a verdict not established from the evidence presented and their assessment of that evidence is eligible to do some hard time if changed and convicted. Given the high profile of this case i expect the legal system will have no patience with anything that could throw off due process. The other concern is these idiots could give defense counsel a justification to express the position that a "fair" trial in Minneapolis is impossible and push for a change of venue. Its doubtful a judge would rule in favor but wait for that...

In politics I don't think there are any coincidences..

We could go on forever like this. So I could claim Biden & family took millions in payoffs from China and other foreign entries. But where does that get us? Defending one slime ball vs. another slim ball. Can we agree that both political parties have ethically and morally challenged people? And end this well when your guy did it you didn't say anything so you can't say anything now theme.

This spending bill doesn't have much to do with "COVID Relief" and the names are somewhat disingenuous. A more appropriate name might be "The Hand Out A Lot of Free Money To Our Supporters And Constituents Pet Projects" bill. Who would support the Patriot Act if it was called "The Domestic Spying on All American Citizens" bill or the Affordable Care Act if it was called "The Big Health Care Spending Bill Written By The Insurance Industry To Charge You More And Make Them More Money" bill. Since we're talking COVID - "A safe and effective vaccine or "an experimental messenger RNA Gene Therapy Biologic Agent with unknown mid and long term effects or complications.". Hard to see a lot of people lining up to wait a couple hours to get injected with something presented that way. But that's what 2 of the approved "vaccines" are.

Biden brings me back to SNL spoofs of Gov. Patterson wandering aimlessly around the set. And yes, things are better now as the new administration FUBAR's everything it touches.

its sad the Democrats had to pull Joe out of retirement in order to re-capture the White House. Obviously, like it does with many old age has taken much of his mental and physical abilities. As market research showed none of the roster of primary candidates polled well against Trump so they needed somebody that appealed to the center left or right swing voters that reluctantly cast ballots for Trump in 2016. Somebody that could move the ticket far enough to the right to grab enough moderate votes to win the key swing states. Mission accomplished. As it becomes more and more obvious and harder to hide its only a matter of time before the handlers behind the scenes decide Joe is a liability that must be removed. So invoking the 25th Amendment comes into play. Section 1, 2, 3, or 4 is the question. At that point VP Harris, who is already performing many duties traditionally carried out by the President, will take over. A politician that polled something like 3% of the primary vote that would have surely lost to Trump dispute all his flaws in the 2020 general election. All that won't matter as the obligatory celebration of the first women and first women of color to become President will drown out any concerns. But for how long?

You're just yanking my chain at this point, right? So you're abandoning your argument comparing Trump to the most hated man in history that was directly and indirectly responsible for the killings and death of 10's of millions over to an unfortunate situation where certain minorities are the targets of hate? Truth be told I haven't heard too much about suspects but given the current environment if it was a verified the perpetrators were a bunch of Trump supporting "white supremacist right wing extremist militia members" we'd be hearing it 24x7. Since we don't hear much of that my suspicions turn to other possibles.

Quite a few. Through the actions of Brown Shirts and other street thugs battling opponents in the streets along with attacks on targeted groups. It was only after 1932 and gaining power that the Nazi party was able to "institutionalize" their terror and brutality. To suggest it didn't exist prior is to ignore facts. And to suggest a former President or any so called "followers" are going to engage in some reign of terror is completely preposterous unless we want to engage in conspiracy theories.

The short story is the Nazi's came to power through means of violence and brutality but also through the ballot box. The party held a minority position but managed through "legislative" process to set up the circumstances where Hitler became chancellor. Through changes to the rules of how the government operates Hitler and the Nazi's were able to gain complete control over every aspect of German society and unleashed its brutality on the rest of the world. I fail to see any corollary to Hitler, his motives, actions, and impact to Trump. While I find he to be a somewhat despicable character I think continuing to parrot that comparisons simply shows ignorance of the facts. But please enlighten me and tell me how many millions of people did Trump exterminate, brutalize, or imprison? And please answer the question and don't change the topic or avoid it which is typical.

Why can't the government give us all $50,000 a month? We should vote on that. I'll bet it passes and democracy will prevail. That way nobody has to work and we can all live an affluent and comfortable life and end poverty and income inequality all together. Please don't ask about trivial details like where are all the goods and services we need coming from if nobody has to work.

DHS has been told to refer questions to the White House on the border crisis (but don't call it a crisis) situation. So the "cone of silence" has been invoked.

Deek & Bill you're onto an important insight. I put my "2 cents" in on the Dr. Suess books here but truth is when it comes down to it I could care less about it one way or the other. I expect that's the general view of most. I doubt anybody is ready to take to the streets in acts of civil disobedience or protest in front of the "Dr. Suess foundation" (if such a thing exists). In the scheme of things its completely unimportant. But being unimportant is why the social justice crowd is successful. Their strategy is to follow the foot in the door approach. Ask for something small in the pursuing the objective of something big. They only pick the small fights they know they can win at the start. They're smart and cunning bullies. They're not going to pick a fight with the biggest, strongest, and meanest guy in the room because once somebody kicks the crap out of them their game is over. At that point nobody will listen or comply. But as they proceed and their power grows the fights get bigger and bigger and the stakes get higher and higher. And by the time their "boil the frog slowly" approach gets to the tipping point its too late to mount any resistance or descent to what they want. At this point even the biggest, strongest, and meanest guy in the room is no match for them. At this point they'll have achieved the objective which is not to censor and erase "racist" images or words but rather to acquire power. Pure and simple. Power to dictate what people do, what people say, ultimately what people think. Power to reward themselves with the spoils of conquest and the property and wealth of others. Power to reward their followers and punish their opponents. Power to control everyone's lives. Power to control the government and all aspects of live through one party rule and the so called "democratic" process. Somebody posed the question "sure you say they need to be stopped but what do you propose to do to stop them"? As it is this isn't some brutal form of some political or social ideology where people are physical forced to follow some edicts or rules. This is a "soft" tyranny. Coercion, social pressure, shaming, threats against people's livelihoods. Most of it done through social media where its not necessary to take the risks associated with physically getting in somebody's face. But in general nobody is "forcing" anyone to do or not to do anything, at least to this point. To this point everyone seems quite agreeable to comply without much of a fight.

I've read elsewhere, a NYT op-ed, that Pepe Le Pew appears to be the next target of the cancel mob as the cartoon character symbolizes that rape and sexual assault are okay. But rather than argue the pro's and con's of Pepe I thought it would be more fun to generate ideas on what might be targeted by the cancel cult. But first a just a word of warning to all Wokesters and SJW's. I realize that none of you have any sense of humor nor do you find any joy in life or the burden of sniffing out social injustice everywhere so be warned that I am attempting something lighthearted and nothing that is intended to be serious. Sticking to entertainment I ran across some while surfing through the channels for classic TV. The Honeymooners - the lead character verbal abuses his wife and on occasion threatens her with violence. Hogan's Heroes - Nazi's and comedy just don't go together. Married With Children - the lead male character is a symbol of extreme misogyny. Three's Company - the male lead pretends to be gay in order to share an apartment with 2 women which leads to lots of homophobic comedy. The Three Stooges - gratuitous use of violence (at the time called slap stick comedy) while occasionally negatively stereo-typically portraying racial and ethnic characters Any show that depicts male/female roles where the man goes to work and the women stays home to tend to the household. Clearly sexist. Bugs Bunny & Daffy Duck - I'm not sure what's wrong here but there's something about a story about a Rabbit and a Duck that just doesn't seem right. Same thing goes for that Roadrunner and Coyote. Scobby Do - that dog better watch his back because I'll be watching and if he so much as blinks an eye inappropriately at anyone his ass is cancelled.

I've always loved the comedy of George Carlin. His humor combined with the ability to break down a topic and expose the essence of an argument was second to none. Many of his conclusions and insights have stuck with me. A specific thing he said (to paraphrase) which I find applicable today is "the last thing any government wants is a population of critical thinking citizens. They want obedient workers that are just smart enough to get things done that won't ask too many questions". This can also be applied to the MSM because for all intents the MSM is now a instrument of government. That's kind of where we are now. Critical thinking, logical deduction, skeptical approaches to understanding events, are unwelcome and discouraged. Looking at most of the prevailing narratives of today anyone applying any or all of those concepts will likely generate a lot of tough questions that officials will prefer to avoid. To understand how all this works we need to examine how people think. I've concluded most people believe things that reinforce their pre-existing conclusions that come from sources they "trust". No matter how ridiculous or absurd these narratives or conclusions might seem to people applying mental tools like critical thinking. And why do they trust these sources? Simply because the message they communicate is something they agree with already. In other words its a closed loop feedback system. Anything that conflicts with the message being sent through the system is rejected. Until the trusted source in the system alters the message to include anything previously prohibited.