2021·09·04 Joe Biden Didn’t Win Daily Thread


SPECIAL SECTION: Message For Our “Friends” In The Middle Kingdom

I normally save this for near the end, but…basically…up your shit-kicking barbarian asses. Yes, barbarian! It took a bunch of sailors in Western Asia to invent a real alphabet instead of badly drawn cartoons to write with. So much for your “civilization.”

Yeah, the WORLD noticed you had to borrow the Latin alphabet to make Pinyin. Like with every other idea you had to steal from us “Foreign Devils” since you rammed your heads up your asses five centuries ago, you sure managed to bastardize it badly in the process.

Have you stopped eating bats yet? Are you shit-kickers still sleeping with farm animals?

Or maybe even just had the slightest inkling of treating lives as something you don’t just casually dispose of?

中国是个混蛋 !!!
Zhōngguò shì gè hùndàn !!!
China is asshoe !!!

And here’s my response to barbarian “asshoes” like you:

OK, with that rant out of my system…

False Flag?

I think in some cases people on our side misuse False Flag. Unless, of course “FF” stands for something else.

This became apparent to me when I had a very valuable conversation with DePat and FG&C about the notion that the Arizona Audit people were waiting for a “FF” before dropping their results. Once FG&C explained what he meant by FF, it made a LOT more sense than it did with my reading of the term.

I first heard the term False Flag many, many years ago in an intelligence context. It’s a method of recruiting spies. The signature example is the KGB “handler” who finds someone in his host country who has access to classified information and is sympathetic to Israel, then arranges to meet the Israel sympathizer “by chance.” Once he does so he lets slip that he is an agent…but not for the USSR, rather for the Mossad. He’ll even explain that he knows government employees aren’t supposed to leak sensitive stuff but if the sympathizer could just alert him to harmless stuff, it’d help Israel out.

Before the Israel sympathizer knows it, he’s “helping Israel” a lot more than that, but in fact he’s really passing stuff on to the Soviet Union.

The thing that makes it “false flag” is that the Soviet agent, whose flag SHOULD be red with a yellow hammer and sickle in the upper left, is (figuratively) displaying a false flag–that of Israel.

In the more modern United States Cold Civil War context, a false flag is when some leftist does something while pretending to be on the Right, in the hopes that it will damage the Right politically. This is everything from posting a bunch of stereotypical “right wing hate” on the internet then going off and shooting up a black church (to prove “right wingers are racists”) to…well, January 6 with Antifa pretending to be “right wing militia” types–which was very damaging to us.

Just like the Soviet agent was pretending to be an Israeli agent, the leftist douchebag(s) is (are) pretending to be on the Right politically.

I can’t be certain but I suspect some conflate this with something different: A big spectacular event staged to distract from something they don’t want you to notice. False flags can certainly do this (have some “right wing nut” shoot up a school and that will indeed saturate the media for a few days) but not all such things are “false flags” because many of these events don’t try to discredit the Right.

Now the Opposition does pull that trick too, and quite often, but when they do so, it’s not a “false flag,” it’s something else with a name that may just be best described as “distraction” or “misdirection” (the magician’s term for such a tactic). Basically the staged event sucks all of the oxygen out of the media room and nothing else gets looked at for some short period of time (a day to a week). It doesn’t matter if it ends up making the Right look bad (though if it does, bonus!!!), if it keeps people from noticing something else that happened, the operation was a success.

In this particular instance, the suggestion was that the Audit Results We Have All Been Waiting For are being timed to drop when disgust with Biden reaches a (new) all time high. This is certainly plausible though I would have a multitude of detail questions about it before I’d go beyond that. But what this scenario does NOT describe is a “false flag.”

OK, that off my chest…lets hope that Arizona Audit drops soon. If that implies something else must happen first, then let THAT happen, already! Too much death and destruction is being meted out by the Biden Facade Administration and the people behind it.

Justice Must Be Done.

The prior election must be acknowledged as fraudulent, and steps must be taken to prosecute the fraudsters and restore integrity to the system.

Nothing else matters at this point. Talking about trying again in 2022 or 2024 is hopeless otherwise. Which is not to say one must never talk about this, but rather that one must account for this in ones planning; if fixing the fraud is not part of the plan, you have no plan.

Kamala Harris has a new nickname since she finally went west from DC to El Paso Texas: Westward Hoe.

Lawyer Appeasement Section

OK now for the fine print.

This is the WQTH Daily Thread. You know the drill. There’s no Poltical correctness, but civility is a requirement. There are Important Guidelines,  here, with an addendum on 20191110.

We have a new board – called The U Tree – where people can take each other to the woodshed without fear of censorship or moderation.

And remember Wheatie’s Rules:

1. No food fights
2. No running with scissors.
3. If you bring snacks, bring enough for everyone.
4. Zeroth rule of gun safety: Don’t let the government get your guns.
5. Rule one of gun safety: The gun is always loaded.
5a. If you actually want the gun to be loaded, like because you’re checking out a bump in the night, then it’s empty.
6. Rule two of gun safety: Never point the gun at anything you’re not willing to destroy.
7. Rule three: Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire.
8. Rule the fourth: Be sure of your target and what is behind it.

(Hmm a few extras seem to have crept in.)

Spot Prices

All prices are Kitco Ask, 3PM MT Friday (at that time the markets close for the weekend).

Last week:

Gold $1817.80
Silver $24.08
Platinum $1016.00
Palladium $2498.00
Rhodium $18,400.00

This week, markets closed for the weekend at 3:00 PM Mountain Time

Gold $1828.60
Silver $24.77
Platinum $1032.00
Palladium $2506.00
Rhodium $17,750.00

Gold broke out and up into the 1830s this week but much of that gain was lost by close on Friday. Silver is up a bit too, the PGMs however are down (or steady).

I attended a talk about the silver market last week; the speaker actually alluded to the folks who pushed the price of the gaming company in order to try to bankrupt a bunch of institutional traders, and then went on to try the same with silver. He described their effort as a failure (and from what I’ve seen so far, their effect on silver prices was, in fact, minimal). However one effect that they did have was they got me to post articles on the nine precious metals AND give these updates every week.

Part XVII: Nuclear Physics Finds A Hammer

Introduction

Today, there is a subdiscipline of physics called “nuclear physics.” It deals with the nucleus of the atom, but does not typically dive any deeper than that (and there is most assuredly a “deeper than that” today known as “particle physics,” though there was no hint of its existence in the 1920s).

The sorts of investigations Rutherford and Co. performed in the first two decades of the 20th century were the very beginning of nuclear physics, though it’s often not considered to have been founded until 1932.

Why 1932? That’s the subject of today’s story.

There’s a modern trope among nuclear physicists. Someone asks “how do you find out what’s inside an atom” and the response is: “Just like a toddler trying to figure out what’s inside an alarm clock. He gets a hammer, smacks it, and sees what flies out of it.”

When we left off the physicist’s best subatomic hammer was the alpha particle, known to be a bare helium nucleus, mass number A = 4, electric charge +2. This would come flying out of certain atoms (like those of uranium and thorium) when they underwent what is called “alpha decay.” This process would reduce the atomic number (i.e., the element number, Z) of the parent nucleus by 2, and reduce its mass number, A, by 4. So uranium-238 (the isotope of uranium, Z=92, A=238) would become thorium-234; the mass number has decreased by four, and thorium is element #90, so the atomic number has dropped by 2.

Physicists used these alpha particles with some limited success as hammers to hurl at nuclei. In fact, that was how the nucleus had actually been discovered; Rutherford used alpha particles as a hammer on gold atoms and found there was a lot of empty space in an atom, but a very small hard kernel in the middle that would cause the alpha particles to ricochet. Physicists had even figured out how to give alpha particles more energy, by using electrically charged plates and so forth to get them to speed up.

But here’s the problem. The nucleus has a positive electrical charge, a substantial one. And an alpha particle, also a nucleus, has its positive electrical charge, too. And like charges repel each other.

Imagine if your hammer, and the nail you were trying to hit with it, strongly repelled each other. That’s a recipe for deciding a hammer is for hitting your thumb with, isn’t it? (Or perhaps your wrist, or even your face if the hammer bounces back at a sharp angle.)

Alpha particles were, to put it mildly, suboptimal as nuclear hammers.

There was also another glaring mystery in the early 1920s. What actually held a nucleus together?

As far as they knew back then, the nucleus of (say) oxygen-16 (Z=8, A=16) held a mixture of protons and electrons, 16 relatively heavy protons to give it the 16 mass number, and eight very light electrons (1/1836th the mass of a proton) to cancel out the charge of eight of the protons, leaving a net charge of 8, which was recently understood to be the very definition of an oxygen nucleus–a charge of eight.

It certainly looked as if there were electrons in a nucleus; consider beta decay. This is when the nucleus spits out an electron and goes up one in charge. For instance, the thorium-234 I referenced will spit out an electron (in this context, it’s known as a “beta particle”), uncovering another proton, raising the atomic number, therefore. from thorium’s Z=90 to Z=91, which means it’s now a protactinium-234 nucleus. So it certainly seemed as if nuclei had electrons in them; otherwise how on earth do electrons end up coming out of the nucleus during beta decay?

So let’s consider a helium-4 nucleus; under this model it contains four protons and two electrons. Those four protons can actually all touch each other (you can convince yourself of this with marbles, ping pong balls, or billiard balls). What keeps them from flying apart? The protons are all positively charged; and there are only two electrons to cancel that repulsion out.

Well, let’s list what we know about protons:

mass = 1.672×10−27 kg
electric charge, e = 1.602×10−19 C
radius = 0.8414 fm

[e is the symbol used for the electrical charge of a proton in particular; an electron has charge –e.]

[“fm” is “femtometer,” a femtometer is 10-15 meters, or a quadrillionth of a meter. Most people have heard the “nano” prefix, meaning one billionth; fewer have heard of pico (one trillionth), femto (one quadrillionth) or atto (one quintillionth).]

We can get an appreciation of the size of the problem by simply computing the electrical repulsive force between two protons that are touching each other. Their center-to-center distance is double the radius, or 1.6828×10-15 m, so we can plug everything into Coulomb’s Law to see how big the force is:

{\displaystyle |F|=K{\frac {|q_{1}q_{2}|}{r^{2}}}}

The vertical bars stand for “magnitude” (in other words, drop the vector stuff and just deal with the scalar values, because we want a size, not a direction.)

both Q values are the charge of the proton, e, and K = 8.988×109 Nm2/C2. You can do the math.

The answer I got is 81.456 newtons.

NOT 81.456 billionths of a newton, or trillionths of a newton, but 81.456 newtons. That’s the weight of 8.3 kilograms (81.456 N/(g=9.8 m/s2)) under Earth gravity.

This much force, between two itty, bitty, teensy, tiny particles!!! It’s an actual macroscopic amount of force. It’d be as if a proton could hit you so hard it’d be like taking a 60 mph pitch on the chin.

(Actually, now that you mention it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oh-My-God_particle.)

The force is enormous compared to the size of the particles.

Since all four of the protons in the alpha particle touch each other, each proton is being repelled by three times this much force (244+ newtons). The two electrons that are attached to two of the protons attract with 167 newtons, but that still leaves 81 1/2 newtons of repulsion unbalanced, and that’s simply yuge.

Well, that’s the electromagnetic force. There’s one other force that could come into play: Gravity.

Now a physicist would know, instantly, that gravity doesn’t matter more than a mouse fart in a hurricane here, but many of you don’t, so let’s just check that.

{\displaystyle F=G{\frac {m_{1}m_{2}}{r^{2}}},}

The radius is the same, but the numbers of the masses are much lower than the numbers of the charges, roughly 1/100,000,000 as much. And G is only 6.67×10-11, much much less than K was, very roughly 1/100,000,000,000,000,000,000 as much.

I get 6.59 x 10-35 newtons.

“Drop in the bucket” doesn’t begin to describe that number in comparison to 81.456 newtons. Basically a quintillionth of a quintillionth the amount.

Nuclear physicists generally ignore gravity as a force between the objects they study. There’s no way its effect could even be measured as a fraction of the electromagnetic effect.

So, by everything known in the 1920s, nuclei should simply fly apart, in a nanojiffy. Or perhaps an attojiffy. The two fundamental forces act in opposite directions, but gravity shows up like Biden’s rally crowds showed up last year (and gravity can’t cheat to make up for that).

So by rights any nucleus bigger than hydrogen’s one-proton nucleus should simply fly apart. It should never have formed to begin with.

Since we’re still here, and not simply big Swalwellian clouds of hydrogen gas, clearly something else, something new, is at work.

And that is today’s story.

Can Nuclear Electrons Actually Exist?

Leaving aside the fact that the nuclear electrons can’t, all by themselves, keep a nucleus together, there was plenty of reason to question whether nuclear electrons even existed at all. There are, essentially, three reasons that I could explain to you. Number Three had to do with Dirac’s Equation which came along in 1928 and I want to save for another column. So going back to the other two reasons…

Issue #1: Binding Energy

In the introduction I described the prevailing model of the atomic nucleus as of the 1920s. Ernest Rutherford made the suggestion around 1919, but he decided shortly afterwards that it didn’t make sense; and this is one reason why.

One of the still-standing 1895 puzzles has to do with atomic weights. The atomic weight of, say, carbon is not quite twelve times that of hydrogen. Even after accounting for the presence of atoms with different mass numbers (uncommon isotopes of the same element), it still doesn’t quite work out; even accounting for all those nuclear electrons…it doesn’t work out.

In fact, heavier atoms (i.e., heavier than hydrogen) are always lighter than they would be if they were simple multiples of the proton’s mass, much less including some nuclear electrons as well. Even hydrogen-2 (deuterium) is less than twice the mass of hydrogen-1 (protium).

This, it turns out is due to something called binding energy. It’s the energy required to pull the protons apart.

This is directly analogous to the binding energy between, say, you and the earth. How much energy would it take to separate you from earth? At least as much as it would take to accelerate you to escape velocity. This is gravitational binding energy, because it’s the force of gravity that creates the potential difference between you standing on the surface of the earth, and you out in interstellar space.

It takes, very roughly, 7 million electron volts (MeV) to pull a proton out of a nucleus. Alternatively, if a proton is shoved into a nucleus, 7 MeV is released (just like, as you fall from a great height, you release a lot of kinetic energy).

That energy actually shows up on the books as missing mass. E = mc2, after all. So the particles in a large nucleus are all just a bit lighter in weight than they would be if they were separated; to separate them you have to add enough energy to make up the mass deficit.

If you were able to convert an entire proton to energy, it’d yield 938 MeV. The binding energy is therefore about seven tenths of one percent of the total mass/energy of the nucleus. We can actually measure that shortage…and, it turns out, had been measuring it for decades. This is the reason for the discrepant atomic masses.

Another sort of binding energy is the electromagnetic binding energy, keeping electrons in atoms. This ranges from a fraction of a single electron volt, to a bit over a dozen electron volts, for hydrogen. Is some fraction of the mass of an atom disappearing during chemical reactions, when chemical energy is released? The theory says yes. But it’s a small enough change (roughly one millionth the size of the nuclear binding energy) we haven’t actually measured it…yet.

I tried to discover exactly when this was first explained. It was sometime before the 1920s. Wikipedia says Einstein did it in 1905, but it simply points to the fact that he derived E=mc2 that year; I can’t quite nail down that he said, in that paper, that this is why nuclei heavier than protium are all lighter than they “should” be. If he did say that then, then I should have crossed off yet another mystery the week I talked about the incredible year Einstein had in 1905. If someone else (or Einstein himself) put two and two together after the fact…well, it certainly happened by the 1920s.

The reason I bring this up right now, is that it ties to the first issue with nuclear electrons. Ny Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, an electron bouncing around in something as tiny as a nucleus must have a kinetic energy of at least 40 MeV (its position is very well defined, its momentum therefore isn’t going to be anywhere close to zero). Not only is this a lot more than the energy of beta radiation (presumed to be one of these electrons escaping the nucleus), it’s more than the binding energy of the protons; one bound electron bouncing around in there contains enough energy to kick five or six protons out of a nucleus! And what would keep it from flying out as super-energetic beta radiation?

Issue #2: Spin

Probing into quantum mechanics eventually established that protons and electrons have a spin of 1/2. Or, alternatively, -1/2.

But the term “spin” is misleading. The particles don’t actually spin like a top. They do something else that’s pretty whacky and has no sensible referent in day to day life. Nuclear and particle physicists will hijack an everyday term to describe these phenomena, however, so they speak of “spin.” They picked this word because it is measured in the same units as angular momentum. The actual value is 1/2 of ℏ, so the physicists simply label it “1/2.” It can point in two opposite directions, so the “other” direction is labeled -1/2.

If you have some even number of electrons or protons, they could be any combination of 1/2 and -1/2 spins, but since there is an even number of them, you can pair particles with 1/2 spin with particles of -1/2 spin, cancelling each other out, and some even number of particles will be an excess of 1/2 spin (or -1/2) spin particles. The excess will always be an integer, if there is no excess the total spin is zero–which is also an integer. (In practice, the + and – 1/2 spins will cancel each other as much as possible, in this case leaving a total spin of zero.)

An odd number, n of electrons or protons will always have 1/2 or -1/2 spin left over, on top of the integer spin that the even number n-1 of the particles will give.

So let us consider the nitrogen-14 nucleus (Z=7, A=14). It should have 14 protons and 7 electrons in it, which total to 21. Thus if the spin is measured, the net spin should have a 1/2 (or -1/2) fraction in it.

They did measure the spin of nitrogen-14 nuclei, and it always came out to integer spins. So there have to be an even number of protons plus electrons in that nucleus.

Therein lies an apparent contradiction, and there are no actual contradictions in reality; there must be some unknown fact or bad assumption that when identified, will resolve the apparent contradiction.

The Nuclear Force

I’ve described two issues with the concept of nuclear electrons. But I kind of skated past something in my discussion of binding energy. As I said, you are bound to the earth by gravity. Electrons are bound to atoms by the electromagnetic force. Protons are bound to a nucleus by…anyone? Anyone?

Clearly there’s some other force out there. A force strong enough to overpower the eighty newtons of force between adjacent protons. But weak enough that we’d otherwise never have noticed it–because we hadn’t noticed it. It should have been about as conspicuous as AOC in front of a TV camera, yet we never noticed it.

It seems odd to postulate a force that’s very strong at close quarters, yet unnoticeable at a distance. If were anything like electromagnetism or gravity, it should drop off as the square of the distance…twice as far away, you feel 1/4th the force, three times as far away, you feel 1/9th of the force. So if this hypothetical force is an attractive force stronger than the electromagnetic repulsion at some distance, it ought to still be stronger than the electromagnetic force twice as far away–both forces are a quarter as strong at that location as they were before, so the one that was larger before, should still be larger here.

But we all know of something that doesn’t behave that way, and that is magnets. Sure, one pole of a magnet has a force that drops off as the square of the distance, but there’s always a nearby opposite pole. If you’re right up against a north pole, the south pole of that magnet is, say ten times further away, and only cancels out 1/100th of the force. But double your distance from the north pole, and now the south pole is about five times further away and cancels out 1/25th of the force, as you move further and further away the two poles are (propotionally) closer to being the same distance away from you and cancel each other out quickly.

So magnetic forces appear to drop off as the cube of the distance from the magnet.

In order to match what we see, this hypothetical force should be almost nothing at 2.5 femtometers’ distance, strongly attractive at about 1 femtometer, and actually be repulsive at distances less than 0.7 femtometers. In other words, two protons would have to be almost touching for this force to become a factor.

The repulsion at very close distances actually puts a lower bound on the size of nuclei, since the protons can’t get closer than that without being pushed apart. That’s the effective size of a proton. And indeed these distances are roughly the size of a proton.

This force turns out to be very, very complex computationally, but it was consistent with everything they saw at the time, so, just like gravitational and electromagnetic forces, it was accepted as being true even if a lot of details needed to be ironed out. (And even though we know a lot more about it today (1920s physicists had no idea), there are still issues.)

Enter: the Neutron

I mentioned that even though Rutherford had originally suggested the nuclear electron, he grew dissatisfied with it for many of the reasons already mentioned, and a year later, in 1920, had come up with another idea. Perhaps, instead of proton/electron pairs, the extra, dead-weight mass of a nucleus that doesn’t contribute to its electrical charge was due to a neutral single particle about the mass of a proton. He even gave it a name, the neutron. This rather neatly solved the spin issue: If a nitrogen-14 nucleus contained 7 protons and 7 neutrons, the spins would add to zero. Repulsive forces would still be about the same, though: too much without positing a “nuclear force.”

But most physicists didn’t accept this conjecture. Though it solved a lot of the issues that the nuclear electron hypothesis introduced, physicists weren’t going to accept that this “neutron” thingie existed until someone actually detected one. Throughout the entire decade of the 1920s, most physicists continued to accept the nuclear electron hypothesis as being likeliest to be true, despite all the problems it seemed to raise.

If it seemed like this attitude was inconsistent with their fairly ready acceptance of the nuclear force, well…no. A force is intangible, but you can see its effects. You write some equations to build a model of how the force works, and if all of the effects match, you’ve probably got a good description of a real force, at least until you learn more. But if you posit a particle, you’ve posited something tangible that you should be able to detect in a much more direct way. And so far, the neutron had not been.

So we need to detect a neutron. But how? Protons and electrons are easy to detect, and relatively easy to manipulate, because they had electrical charges. One could see the effect of the electrostatic force, both caused by the particles, and also the effect of the force on the particles…in particular being able to deflect them to measure their mass, but also to accelerate them, like happened to electrons in a Crookes tube.

A totally neutral particle would be invisible based on these methods of detection…and impervious to being manipulated by electromagnetism.

But the first crack in this problem appeared in 1930. Walter Bothe and Herbert Becker, in Giessen, Germany, were using alpha particles from polonium (Z=94) in an experiment. They picked polonium because it spits out particularly energetic alpha particles (in other words, the alpha particles are moving faster than usual), and they wanted those energetic particles to use as a hammer on light elements, like beryllium (Z=4), boron (Z=5), and lithium (Z=3). When the alpha particles hit these light nuclei, an unusually penetrating radiation was produced. It couldn’t be deflected, so they tentatively concluded that these were very strong gamma rays. But it was hard to interpret the results definitively.Two years later, in Paris, Irene Joliot-Curie (the daughter of Marie and Pierre Curie) and her husband Frederic Joliot sicced this radiation on paraffin, a compound of carbon and hydrogen. It resulted in protons being ejected from the sample; the protons had kinetic energy of 5 MeV. This radiation, if it were gamma rays, would have to be 50MeV gamma rays, much stronger than anything seen to date.

Ettore Majorana, a young physicist in Rome, analyzed all this data and announced his conclusion: This radiation had to consist of neutral particles.

When Rutherford, and his Cavendish laboratories colleague James Chadwick had heard about the Paris experiments and they, too didn’t believe this radiation was any kind of gamma ray. Chadwick devised a bunch of experiments to prove it wasn’t gamma radiation, then went on to subject more materials to the mystery rays, and eventually demonstrated that whatever it was, it consisted of neutral particles about the mass of a proton.

In other words, Chadwick had found Rutherford’s neutron.

Now that the neutron had been found…whoosh!!! the nuclear electron hypothesis was discarded; the notion that a nucleus contained protons and (except for hydrogen-1) neutrons now made a lot of sense and we could be sure that neutrons actually existed rather than being a convenient shorthand.

Back to Binding Energy and the Nuclear Force

With the correct understanding of a nucleus consisting of protons and neutrons, things become a bit clearer. In many ways these particles are a lot alike, and collectively, they’re called nucleons. They are of almost identical mass, and both are subject to the nuclear force.

The mass number (A) of an isotope is now understood to be how many nucleons it contains. Atomic number (Z) is now strictly equal to the number of protons in the nucleus, since we no longer have additional protons masked by nuclear electrons. We now have a new number N, the number of neutrons, and N + Z = A.

Nucleons are bound together by the nuclear force, which is very short range, its maximum strength basically covers the distance from one nucleon to the next.

So picture a nucleus with (say) about sixty nucleons in it. A nucleon near the center of the nucleus is completely surrouned by other nucleons and they each exert a strong attractive force on it; the forces balance, that nucleon is pretty happy where it is. But note, this nucleon does not feel any attraction from a nucleon that is two nucleons away, rather than adjacent.

Nucleons near the surface of the nucleus only experience about half as much nuclear force, because they’re not surrounded by nucleons, they just see a few to one side of them…and again, no effect from the nucleons further away.

A very small nucleus, say carbon-12, has a large percentage of its nucleons at the surface of the nucleus, maybe a handful in the center are surrounded by other nucleons. This means that the average nuclear force on a nucleon is less than it is in larger nuclei, where most of the nucleons are surrounded by other nucleons.

Now, going to a very large nucleus, like that of uranium-238, the vast majority of nucleons are surrounded and thus tightly bound. But those near the surface, just like those on the surface of carbon-12, feel half of the nuclear force attraction. But the protons there actually feel more electrical repulsion, because that force is long range and there are a lot of other protons in that nucleus, all pushing them away. So that particular nucleus is teetering on the edge of falling apart. Indeed, given a few billion years, it will fall apart.

This is sort of a hand-wavy argument that the most stable nuclei are the medium size ones; ones where a large number of nucleons are completely surrounded (maximizing the attractive force they feel) but also where ones near the surface don’t get repelled by so many distant nucleons. Either side of that happy middle ground, the average nucleon either just feels less attractive force (smaller nuclei, fewer near neighbors on average to attract), or feels more repulsive electromagnetic force (larger nuclei, lots of protons repelling the nucleon).

The total nuclear binding energy of a nucleus can be plotted versus the number of nucleons; when you do this you get a diagonal line, down to the lower left, up to the upper right. It’s almost a straight line, but if you look closely, there’s a slight bend to it. (I’d show you but I can’t find that plot on line…and it’s not nearly as illuminating as the one I’m about to describe.)

If you then go through and plot the average binding energy per nucleon, you now get a very striking curve, like this:

Nuclear binding energy per nucleon, versus number of nucleons. The line jumps up from zero to 7 going from hydrogen-1 to helium-4 (7 MeV each); it then drops going through lithium, beryllium and boron, then climbs through carbon and oxygen, eventually reaching almost 9 MeV at iron-56. From there it’s a slow decline to uranium-238 at about 7 1/2 MeV.

Now you can see that at about 56 nucleons, the binding energy per nucleon is highest; it takes more to pull one of those nuclei apart than any other nucleus. There’s a huge jump from hydrogen-1 (zero binding energy) to helium-4 (alpha particle).

Conversely, if you can build up to iron-56, you can release about 8 1/2 MeV per nucleon, which is a huge amount of energy. You can get most of that just going from hydrogen to helium-4.

Alternatively, if you can pull nucleons away from uranium-238, you can release about 1 MeV for each nucleon by the time you bring it down to iron-56. Uranium will actually help you get started on this by undergoing five alpha decays spontaneously as it decays to lead.

This was to have explosive implications. Quite literally.

But in the meantime, in 1920 Arthur Eddington–the same astronomer/physicist/mathematician who had measured the sun’s bending of the light from distant stars to prove general relativity correct just the year before–put forward the suggestion that perhaps this is what powered the stars…specifically the fusion of hydrogen into helium-4. In 1928 George Gamow did a lot of the math to figure out just what it would take to get this to happen. But hydrogen wasn’t thought to be any more common on stars than it is on earth. (The earth as a whole has little hydrogen in it; we think it’s common because there’s a lot of water up here on the surface). Cecilia Payne-Gaposhkin had, in her doctoral thesis in 1925, proposed that the sun was mostly hydrogen, but this was largely ignored because the prevailing theory was that the sun’s composition was similar to that of the earth. Eventually she was proved right, and Eddington, too was proved right. Most of the energy of stars does indeed come from hydrogen fusion; the rest comes from fusion of helium and heavier nuclei, releasing 7 MeV per nucleon. Further fusion happens in heavier stars to get that last 1 1/2 MeV / nucleon out of the “stuff” stars are made of. I discuss this in my older articles on stars, and we’ll be coming back to this in a future installation of this series.

[Semi-personal note: Gamow spent the last part of his career, 1956-1968, at the University of Colorado in Boulder (a/k/a “Berkeley by the Mountains”). This tower (physics faculty offices, one of the two or three tallest structures on the main campus with eight floors)…

…is named after him. (The physics lecture halls and labs are in the building at the bottom, and it looks like the picture was taken from a similar looking tower within which a lot of work is done for NASA–perhaps including the New Horizons probe that visited Pluto. I would cut through these buildings often going from one end of the campus to the other, particularly in bad weather. Football stadium in the background.)

The Neutron Hammer

Imagine that you are a lone proton, a/k/a an H+ ion, and you are headed directly towards, say, a carbon-12 nucleus. As you approach, you are slowed down by the repulsion of the six positively charged protons in that nucleus. If you aren’t moving very fast, you will eventually stop and be pushed away. If you are moving quite fast, you will get very close to that nucleus before stopping. If you are moving fast enough, you’ll manage to get close enough that suddenly, you’ll feel the nuclear force and now you’re caught–you just became part of a nitrogen-13 nucleus (which, by the way, is unstable and will want to decay–but not by either of the radioactive decay modes known so far).

Imagine a proton coming in from the side, towards the nucleus (not shown) at center. It has to have enough velocity to travel over the “coulomb barrier” (repulsion from electrostatic forces), after which it can drop into the well because it is attracted by the nuclear force. This is actually a very good analogy because gravitational potential barriers are actual hills you’d have to be able to coast over. This one is a combination of the electrostatic and nuclear forces as they act on protons. In red is shown the situation for neutrons, which only respond to the nuclear force.

Now imagine you are a neutron. You don’t feel any force at all, either repulsive or attractive, until just before impact, you feel the nuclear force, and now you’re caught like a fly on flypaper…you are now part of a carbon-13 nucleus (which is stable).

If you are a scientist looking to hit atomic nuclei with things, do you see that it might be fairly easy to hit nuclei with neutrons? Both protons and neutrons need to hit almost head on, but at least the neutron doesn’t need to be given a good hard shove just to get past the electrostatic repulsion.

Suddenly, it became very easy to take some perfectly ordinary, stable nucleus, like, for instance, calcium-42 (Z=20, A=42) and hit it with neutrons to make Ca-43, Ca-44 and so on. Eventually, you’ll get to a nucleus that’s unstable, Ca-45, which will beta decay to scandium-45 (Z=21, A=44).

There’s no calcium-45 found in nature on earth. It has to be made in a laboratory. But by irradiating various things with neutrons, isotopes like this, and literally thousands of others, were discovered, and their radioactivity studied. It turns out that every isotope that beta-decays releases a characteristic amount of energy when it beta decays, and usually the half lives are fairly short (days or years at most).

(Occasionally it turns out the half life is ridiculously long–quintillions of years, trillions of times the age of the universe, and it’s very hard to even tell that that isotope is radioactive. Only fairly recently, in fact, has it been proved that bismuth 209 (Z-83) is actually radioactive with a half life of 20 quintillion years; it had been considered a stable element, the heaviest one in fact, before then.)

In fact, you can turn this around. If you have a sample of unknown composition that has a lot of beta decay going on in it, you can measure the beta decay energy (or energies) and get a good idea what’s in the sample.

Which is well and good, but in most cases, your unknown sample will not consist of a bunch of these short-lived beta-decaying isotopes. They don’t exist in nature, unless they’re part of a uranium or thorium decay chain.

There’s a way around this. You can expose your sample to a strong beam of neutrons. Some of the atoms in it will capture the neutrons, become unstable isotopes, and reveal what they are. For instance, if you irradiate a sample with neutrons, and then detect Ca-45 decays, you know the sample must have a lot of Ca-44 in it (some of which captured neutrons and became Ca-45). Only a vanishingly tiny fraction of the atoms are altered by this treatment, but you do have the issue of your sample being radioactive for a while after the analysis is performed. This technique is effectively non-destructive since only a small fraction of the nuclei end up moving to the right one on the periodic table, and does see use, it’s called “Neutron Activation Analysis” (the neutrons are deemed to “activate” the nuclei by making them radioactive).

Neutron activation analysis will not tell you about what molecules a sample is made of, only what elements. So, for instance, if it detects some small amount of lead in a rock, you can’t know which ore of lead it is (though you might be able to infer it from what else is in the sample). An atom’s being in or out of a molecule has no effect on its radioactivity, which is what this analysis looks at.

Conclusion

The nuclear force is, today, considered the force that governs alpha decay, as well as nuclear fusion. As well as nuclear fission, but that had not been discovered yet. The neutron was going to be a very useful tool for nuclear physicists, and only thirteen years after it was discovered, the world would be slapped across the face with the realization that it had very practical applications as well.

We can cross a few 1894 mysteries off our list. But we have a new one to take their places.

If there are no electrons in the nucleus, what the heck is up with beta decay? Where does that zippy little beta particle, i.e., electron, come from?

Plus the mystery of the current age: Who the hell actually intentionally voted for Biden?

Obligatory PSAs and Reminders

China is Lower than Whale Shit

Remember Hong Kong!!!

Whoever ends up in the cell next to his, tell him I said “Hi.”

中国是个混蛋 !!!
Zhōngguò shì gè hùndàn !!!
China is asshoe !!!

China is in the White House

Since Wednesday, January 20 at Noon EST, the bought-and-paid for His Fraudulency Joseph Biden has been in the White House. It’s as good as having China in the Oval Office.

Joe Biden is Asshoe

China is in the White House, because Joe Biden is in the White House, and Joe Biden is identically equal to China. China is Asshoe. Therefore, Joe Biden is Asshoe.

But of course the much more important thing to realize:

Joe Biden Didn’t Win

乔*拜登没赢 !!!
Qiáo Bài dēng méi yíng !!!
Joe Biden didn’t win !!!

5 3 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
505 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
para59r

She’s from California. Went to Afghanistan to marry her husband and is now left behind. Full Vid in the story, this is a short.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/american-woman-stranded-in-afghanistan-says-shes-losing-hope-am-i-going-to-end-up-dying-here_3981681.html

Would add, it takes many weeks if not months to secure a new husbands travel docs. Then there’s the matter of Biden’s phone call to Ghanni telling him to tell people in Afghanistan that all is well. Then Jack P. claims Gen Millie made similar call also threatening Afghan Prez.

Next Biden offers up cash to get these people out. Better solution would be to send Biden Administration people and State Department people offering them up as hostages in exchange. I could live with that. Heck send them all. 😎 

Last edited 15 days ago by para59r
para59r

Right then. Where’s Cooper?
COOPER!!!! Get in here!
Pack a bag boy, your going to Afghanistan!

kalbokalbs

Can’t get past the pay wall.

She went to Afghanistan to get married. Is the husband American or Afghannie (is that what they are called)?

Like everything else with the Afghanistan debacle, this smells. As if there is a whole lot more to the story.

Usually don’t read these things anyway.

para59r

Ackkk.. they must of left my membership alone, thought it was a free site. I got it to red pill mom. No luck. He’d have to be Afghani.

She explains the embassy kept telling them to shelter in place. Eventually they said enough and went to the airport after contacting people inside who said come to the gate and they’d get them in. They went to the gate and stood out side for a full day. Twice tried to cross the 15ft, waving he blue passport, but had rifles pointed in their faces by the Taliban and shots fired at their feet. Anyway no one came out to get them and they are stuck. Husband told her to go by herself but she wouldn’t leave him.

kalbokalbs

Thanks.

She is not the sharpest tool in the shed. She should have left. If for no other reason, her unborn child.

para59r

Maybe. I still like the idea of sending Cooper over there to take her place  🙃 

mollypitcher5

I guess she never watched the movie Not Without My Daughter.
Should be a prerequisite for an American and any islamic guy that isn’t at least a couple of generations away from their homeland..imo

TheseTruths

This has probably been posted before, but it seems timely given the attacks on ivermectin now. It was published in May.

Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19
https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/06000/review_of_the_emerging_evidence_demonstrating_the.4.aspx

Conclusions: 

Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.

ForGodandCountry

Excellent!

Wolf Moon

This makes CDC the equivalent of MEDICAL TALIBAN.

para59r

Hey, I thought Australia was under strict lockdown? What’s this?comment image

Oh.. okay, just the cops celebrating LGBT! Move along, nothing to see, sorry to have disturbed anyone.

While Australians were told they shouldn’t even talk to each other under COVID lockdown rules, police officials in Sydney held an office party to celebrate the LGBT community.

Full story inside.
https://summit.news/2021/09/01/australian-police-violate-lockdown-rules-to-host-lgbt-office-party/

scott467

From OT:

Breitbart, Steve Bannon and John Fredericks Reporting on Leaked Ballot Mule InvestigationSeptember 3, 2021

“CTH anticipates a massive amount of push-back from the U.S. Department of Justice based solely on the findings of cell phone data that has tracked “vote mules” via geolocation and mapping. These are ground-level activists that appear to have been part of a coordinated effort to collect ballots, walk them through a process where they were filled out in a single location, and then drop them off at collection and tabulation sites.

The bottom line is this…. AG Merrick Garland knows a powder keg is very likely to explode as soon as the majority of American people discover just how manipulated the election of 2020 was. His announcement to double the staff of the DOJ Civil Rights Division voter unit is not to protect election integrity, but rather to position his resources for a war against a looming storm of election review outcomes…. and the White House is so far exposed, they are positioning to use the military to protect their position.

The deep and irrefutable research has been taking place, mostly very quietly, in the background. I would expect the government response to this will be a combination of the DOJ/FBI “domestic extremist” narratives, combined with racism accusations and claims of election disinformation.”

______________

So SD is saying that “a powder keg is very likely to explode as soon as the majority of American people discover just how manipulated the election of 2020 was“, that after “deep and irrefutable” evidence is made public, the military is going to protect the criminal and illegitimate WH?

If they do, nothing will ever erase their humiliation. They can build monuments and war colleges and have their little intra-service football games and the only thing anybody will ever remember is how the biggest, baddest military on the planet gave up without a fight and then joined the enemy, to protect and defend the enemy.

France is praying for the U.S. military to defend and protect the criminal [JB] regime, so the cheese eating surrender monkey jokes about their own military will finally stop after 8 decades, and be replaced by jokes about the United States military siding with the enemy against their own People.

If the military is that pathetic, then I hope they align themselves so completely with the criminal government that they cannot be separated from it, and go down with it.

It’s disgusting.

It’s the equivalent of a country being kidnapped for ransom, and the police siding with the kidnappers for a share of the loot.

Go ahead.

It’s your funeral and reputation… forever.

gil00

And itll be a bloodbath for everyone.

scott467

“And itll be a bloodbath for everyone.”

___________

Why?

Who is going to do anything?

ForGodandCountry

So you’re saying no one is doing anything? I just want to be clear.

scott467

“So you’re saying no one is doing anything? I just want to be clear.”

____________

You’re transparent for sure, but you’re not trying to be ‘clear’ 😂🤣😂

In the context of giloo’s reply to my post, which suggested a potential ‘bloodbath’, I asked “Why? Who is going to do anything”, i.e., who would do anything to provoke a bloodbath?

Are you saying somebody would do something to provoke a bloodbath?

I just want to be ‘clear’ 😁

ForGodandCountry

I was asking because I didn’t want to infer anything.

As usual, you prove yourself (to me) to be a complete waste of time.

I’ll just go back to ignoring you, as most do.

(note: In my responses below this post, I began replying from the bottom of this page [#2] upwards. So my posts below were made prior to this one. Thanks.)

Last edited 15 days ago by ForGodandCountry
Gingersmom2009

Uh, most don’t.

ForGodandCountry

Uh, I disagree.

scott467

“Uh, I disagree.”

___________

Well of course you do, you’re biased 😂 🤣 😂

scott467

“I’ll just go back to ignoring you, as most do.”

_____________

And yet you didn’t, you felt compelled to reply, to make another post, because you enjoy the contest, the same as I do… there’s nothing wrong in that 👍😁

gil00

If they decide to go against the people in that way, that usually involves enforcement. When people see the military in their own country beating or assault ing their citizens at the behest of whats considered a fraudulent govt, I would expect violence.

Last edited 15 days ago by gil00
ForGodandCountry

No one in the US military is required to obey unlawful orders.

In fact, they have a duty and obligation…as written into the USMCoJ…. to ignore and disobey unlawful orders. Moreover, in the face of same, they have the duty and right to place a superior giving such orders under armed arrest.

THIS….right here….is why the left is so desperate to provoke and enrage the US citizenry…

…to foment violent riot and outburst….

…to give them the excuse to give what would otherwise be UNLAWFUL orders to the US military.

We cannot give them the excuse they so desperately want and need.

Last edited 15 days ago by ForGodandCountry
Wolf Moon

SMART.

In the big picture, China is trying to cleave our military in half through the China Joe administration.

Wolf Moon

The more our military is fighting with itself, the less it can deal with China.

kalbokalbs

Got two minutes over at Gab chat – Wolfm00n?

Wolf Moon

Sorry – just saw this. I was watching that video about the Chinese position document. Will go look now.

kalbokalbs

Thanks. I’m checking every couple minutes. Gab Chats @Wolfm00n. Or that is where I think it is.

Wolf Moon

Are you looking at the older chat, or the newer one where you said “passing by”?

kalbokalbs

Passing by. Older, I assume.

Wolf Moon

You may have to refresh the page AND scroll down on the newer chat. I’ve identified both of them.

kalbokalbs

OK

kalbokalbs

Solved. Thank you!

gil00

Yes. Exactly the same with the police depts, as paramilitary forces themselves.
I dont want them to di anything to us, but there are always putzes….the vibdmans and milleys and austins who create problems for everyone. This kind of problem could cascade violently quickly.
At least atm, we are hypothetically speaking.

scott467

“No one in the US military is required to obey unlawful orders.”

_________________

Now you’re making my argument.

Not only is no one in the US military not required to obey unlawful orders, do they not have an affirmative duty NOT to obey unlawful orders?

.

“In fact, they have a duty and obligation…as written into the USMCoJ…. to ignore and disobey unlawful orders.”

_____________

Excellent, I always suspected.

Is the CIC the duly and lawfully and Constitutionally and legitimately elected leader of the US military?

If the answer is “No”, then how can an illegitimate CIC give even a single lawful order?

(asking for the military)

.

“Moreover, in the face of same, they have the duty and right to place a superior giving such orders under armed arrest.”

_____________

Which explains exactly why the CIC has been detained and charged… wait… that hasn’t actually happened, has it…

And yet you’re saying they have a “duty and right” (not to mention an obligation) “to place a superior giving such orders under armed arrest.”

So you agree that the CIC is illegitimate, that he was not lawfully elected, which by definition precludes him from giving a single lawful order under the Constitution of the United States of America.

And presumably you agree that the CIC is a ‘superior’ giving orders to the military, orders which by definition are unlawful.

And you agree that the military has a duty to place such a ‘superior’ issuing unlawful orders under armed arrest.

Which is the same argument I have been making for 7+ months now… including in this very thread.

Practically WORD for WORD…

ForGodandCountry

No one has “proven” Biden is illegitimate, Scott.

The issue has not been adjudicated.

So no, I am not making the same argument as you.

Not even remotely.

Last edited 15 days ago by ForGodandCountry
scott467

“No one has “proven” Biden is illegitimate, Scott.”

____________

It has certainly been proven, it’s on videotape, it’s on computer, it was recorded and witnessed in real time via a SCIF on election night, but presumably you mean it hasn’t been proven in a court of law?

That’s part of the problem isn’t it? If you can steal the presidency and get away with it, then doesn’t it go without saying that the Judicial Branch and the Congressional Branch are derelict or complicit?

Isn’t the purpose of three branches of government to ensure that if any branch usurps unlawful power, the other two branches, out of self interest and desire to preserve their own power, will act as a ‘check’ against the abuse of power by the other branch?

If that did not happen, then by definition, is the whole point and purpose of the separation of powers not broken?

If someone kidnaps Bill Gates at an annual shareholders meeting, in front of everybody, and then installs himself as CEO of Microsoft, does everybody at Microsoft just do whatever the kidnapper (and new CEO) says, and pretend like he really is the CEO of Microsoft, until or unless the cops locate and free Mr. Gates and get a sworn statement that he was indeed kidnapped?

Does everybody just play along, like a Cult of Mamet Principle, pretending they don’t know what just happened, and meanwhile the kidnapper gets to run Microsoft for the next 7+ months… or in perpetuity?

scott467

“The issue has not been adjudicated.”

___________

How can the issue ever be adjudicated, if the judiciary is corrupt, if the judiciary is under the power and control of the same entity which stole the presidency — which it has already proven itself to be?

scott467

“So no, I am not making the same argument as you.”

____________

It appears that you are.

1) the military has an obligation to not follow (disobey) unlawful orders

2) the military has a duty to arrest any superior who issues an unlawful order

3) the military is obligated by duty, honor, oath, law and Constitution to protect and defend the Constitution and the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic

4) [JB] clearly, obviously, provably and without credible deniability, stole the election in broad daylight, with assistance from domestic traitors and foreign adversaries

5) any order given by an unlawful leader is an unlawful order, by definition

6) the military has not done their duty to arrest the unlawful person issuing unlawful orders to the military

7) they didn’t do their duty on January 20th, or any day since

It is not credible to argue that if someone steals the presidency, with the aid of a hostile foreign adversary no less — an Act of War no less — that the military is somehow obligated to follow orders given by a puppet of a hostile foreign adversary — during a time of war, no less.

It’s ludicrous.

I’ll demonstrate.

Suppose Hitler kidnapped Roosevelt and installed Heinrich Himmler as POTUS, and controlled the judiciary so that there could be no lawful recourse, and everyone just stood around watched.

Would you argue that the military should follow Heinrich Himmler, and allow the duly elected President (Roosevelt, or Trump, take your pick), their COMMANDER in CHIEF, to be unlawfully removed from office, and replaced with an imposter, a fraud, a criminal, at the behest of Adolf Hitler (or Xi Jinping)?

And would you argume further, that the military should follow the orders of Mr. Heinrich Himmler — even if he needs a German translator to give those orders — until or unless Mr. Himmler can be brought before some court of law and his crime proven?

And until then, Mr. Himmler is free to do harm to the United States, in any number of ways which might be technically ‘lawful’ for a legitimate president to do, but not lawful in any way for an illegitimate president to do?

Things which will easily hand further power and control to the enemy (imagine more control than having your puppet installed as POTUS…)?

What credible argument can be made, that the military should follow the orders of a lawless CIC who was installed by a foreign hostile enemy, an Act of War, and the result of so many obvious crimes that they couldn’t all fit on this page?

If the overthrowing of the lawful government of the United States by a hostile foreign adversary is not an Act of War, then what is?

A) If we are in a de facto state of War,

B) and the hostile foreign adversary who committed the Act of War against us,

C) installs their puppet to rule over the now de facto occupied territory

D) and the only lawful recourse for the occupied nation is to appeal to courts

E) which are now owned and operated by the hostile foreign adversary

F) who overthrew the lawful government by an Act of War…

Do you not see the problem?

Or the circular nature of the reasoning?

Is it not beyond ludicrous?

ForGodandCountry

In defense of our great military, it’s history, and the innumerable honors it has earned with it’s very blood….

….I’d like to take just a moment to highlight a stunningly obnoxious, ignorant, and deeply insulting post that has no basis in fact and is entirely undeserved….

.
comment image

.

  1. This post is either ignorant of, or intentionally overlooks, the INCREDIBLE efforts made….AT EXTREME RISK TO LIFE AND LIMB….by members of the US military/SoC to rescue hundreds trapped inside Afghanistan during Operation Pineapple (and others like it). In fact, we don’t have even 1/2 of the details of all that was done…but we DO know much was done.
  2. It blatantly ignores the FACT that the vast majority of the US military are unquestionably loyal, patriotic citizens who revere and honor the Constitution of the United States of America.
  3. It blatantly ignores the FACT that the vast majority of the US military serves all of us honorably, faithfully, and well.
  4. It also blatantly ignores the FACT that the vast majority of the US military can be reasonably assumed to be just as shocked and alarmed by what has happened re: Afghanistan…and here in the USA…as the rest of us.
  5. It is INCREDIBLY unfair…to the point of GROSSLY INSULTING….to paint the entire US military with the same brush as someone like a Gen. Miley or Lt. Col. Alex Vindman. Every barrel has it’s bad apples and the US military is no exception. Only abjectly retarded drooling IDIOTS call the whole barrel rotten.
  6. Members of the US military are NOT free to do as they wish and are obligated, by oath and duty, to obey orders, and abide by the US Military Code of Justice as well as the laws of the US Constitution. And we, the citizens of the USA, both expect and demand that they do!
  7. NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND INSULTS THE ENTIRE US MILITARY BECAUSE THEY ARE ANGRY THAT THE US MILITARY HASN’T UNILATERALLY TAKEN MATTERS INTO IT’S OWN HANDS!!
  8. What people like Scott467 want and advocate is for the US military to mutiny and take matters into their own hands, which is utterly INSANE and should be vocally ridiculed, shamed, and denounced by every member of this forum. Why??
  9. Such a thing could just as easily work against America as it would for America.
  10. Moreover, to advocate for #7 above would put the US Constitution at EXTREME RISK, if not destroy it altogether.
  11. To advocate for #7 above demonstrates a PROFOUND lack of understanding and knowledge about the history, tradition, role, regulations, and workings of the US military.
  12. I’d LOVE to hear someone say something like this in front of me or the vets I know, in a private setting. The trouble is, no one who WOULD say something like this has the guts and courage enough to do it, because they know what would happen to them. Translation: sure…they’ll mouth off like this, just as long as they know they can get away with it….like the ignorant, mouthy cowards they really are.
Last edited 15 days ago by ForGodandCountry
para59r

While your sediments are not incorrect this however is an attempt at instigating peer pressure that deservedly needs to be elevated to the highest ranks. The soldiers know where the blame lies.

It’s also divide and conquer. We have no idea what our future is going to look like but if things keep going in the same direction we might need to get serious early rather than late.

History is not going to remember this moment fondly.
It’s a feather in no ones cap. It can not be celebrated as one. This needs fixing.

Last edited 15 days ago by para59r
ForGodandCountry

It’s not up to the US military to take matters into it’s own hands. And it never will be.

Rather…

It is up to us…..We, the People…..to re-take control of our gov’t.

That begins at the local level. The school boards, the city councils, the elected judiciary, etc.

It then extends to the state level…and then to the federal level.

America was and is intended to be a “run from the bottom up” gov’t…

…not a leftist “from the top down” form of collectivist gov’t.

.

Our REAL problem has been that for the last 20 years the conservative movement has been trying to fight this at the federal level…..

….when all along we should have been focusing our efforts at taking control of the local and state levels.

This has become a Federal gov’t vs. states rights fight.

Guess what?

He who controls all the states will control the federal gov’t.

para59r

Well and fine and it is still our current course of action but all that is going to take some time and if they think your getting close to accomplishing it they will think of something to snatch your victories away. Out of the countless thousands of tyrants that have ever come to power you won’t need more than your fingers and toes to count up all those who voluntarily gave up that power because they realized they did something illegitimately You know to play by the rules and they know you know to play by the rules but for them rules are just obstacles to be surmounted and are made to be broken.

Besides that, all these politicos are just the surrogates for the powers behind the scene who are not even being addressed and currently have free reign to pull as many cards as they wish without any one getting close enough to them to say boo.

Last edited 15 days ago by para59r
Gingersmom2009

We aren’t town-counciling our way out of this. And unless 2020 is made right, we aren’t voting our way out of it either.

ForGodandCountry

Really?

Then how are we going to get out of this?

I’m all ears.

Gingersmom2009

I don’t presume to know what is to come. Only the creator knows that. But I do know that sitting in a twice-monthly meeting in the little borough hall across the street, or leaving a phone message that the recycling will be collected on Friday rather than Wednesday, is not how this gets done.

Stop bullying people, or take another hiatus.

ROBERT BAKER

Whether or not I am a coward I cannot say with certainty because I have never, in my view, been put to a test that would reveal one way or the other. As to your histrionics, I have never imagined pleasing you to be the goal of my comments so I will leave you to say whatever is on your mind. However, just as an observation, you do seem to have an uncanny ability to know what other people are thinking. A rare gift indeed.

ForGodandCountry

Spoken like a leftist.

Instead of addressing the gross ignorance of what you said, and to whom it was addressed, you want to talk about my reaction to it.

This is my shocked face.

para59r

There was nothing ignorant about what he said. His comments were clearly directed to the command structure of the military in that they did not do what they had in their power to do and as such their actions are clearly out of sync with what is expected of them. Our general officers have brought this shame to themselves and those that they serve which includes us and the solders under them because they lack the morale courage to do the right thing or God forbid they think they were correct. Were they hood winked along the way, put in a pickle and had no choice but to salute the flag pole? Okay, but now that everything is back where it was there needs to be some accountability and that needs to start with rectifying with themselves how they are going to proceed in conducting business with these communists here on out. Not to have an answer back to this is to condone the entire fiasco.

Last edited 15 days ago by para59r
ForGodandCountry

His comments were clearly directed to the command structure of the military

No. They weren’t. You infer that.

Moreover, if that was who he was speaking of he could have made himself more clear in his reply to me, but he chose not to and allowed his comment to stand.

If you want to make inferences such as your’s and accept generalized comments about “the military” like that, then that is your prerogative (of course).

Me? I call ‘em like I see ‘em. And I don’t tolerate horseshit like that.

Not now, not ever. Regardless of origin… left, right, or center.

Last edited 15 days ago by ForGodandCountry
scott467

“No. They weren’t. You infer that.”

_____________

You make inferences all the time.

Pot, meet Kettle… 😂🤣😂

ForGodandCountry

You conveniently left out what was said in support of that, which directly followed it.

Typical.

😂 🤣 😂

scott467

“You conveniently left out what was said in support of that,”

It wasn’t relevant, you make inferences all the time, just like everybody else does, it’s an unavoidable consequence of interpersonal communication.

.

“…which directly followed it.”

__________

Here is what directly followed it: “Moreover, if that was who he was speaking of he could have made himself more clear in his reply to me, but he chose not to and allowed his comment to stand.”

He could have, but he didn’t, and so you inferred, which is what we all do, which is what I said, which is why I said “Pot, meet Kettle” 👍 😁

.

“Typical. 😂🤣😂”

__________

I don’t get it, what’s the joke, what’s funny about the word ‘typical’?

Oh, I see…

You weren’t using the laughing symbols to signify anything actually funny, you were just copying me.

Even using the exact same series of symbols I generally use, the standard laughing symbol, followed by the rolling symbol, followed by the standard one again.

Imitation being the sincerest form of flattery 👍

I’m sure it was unconscious, but that just makes it all the more undeniably sweet, your subconscious desire to emulate, like a little brother trying to copy his older brother kind of way.

I shouldn’t be surprised, and I don’t mean to suggest that I am so please don’t take that the wrong way, I don’t want you to think I don’t appreciate it, I do.

I’m just glad I didn’t miss that little unconscious nuance in your reply.

This is like a special moment for us… 😁

para59r

Nonsense. He said “they are better at planning air shows than (planning the) evacuating of civilians from a war zone”

That’s ( ) what I inferred. Speaks straight to the command structure and not the individual soldiers.

Anyway, at some point you will come to understand that they are already engaged in warring against us, taking our freedoms, taking our wealth, incarcerating us, and already killing us.

Last edited 15 days ago by para59r
ForGodandCountry

Like I said…

If you want to make inferences such as your’s and accept generalized comments about “the military” like that, then that is your prerogative (of course).

But then, I repeat myself.

scott467
  1. “This post is either ignorant of, or intentionally overlooks, the INCREDIBLE efforts made….AT EXTREME RISK TO LIFE AND LIMB….by members of the US military/SoC to rescue hundreds trapped inside Afghanistan during Operation Pineapple (and others like it). In fact, we don’t have even 1/2 of the details of all that was done…but we DO know much was done.

____________

How do we know that?

Apart from Internet reports (easily faked), MSM reports (easily propaganda / fake), or the illegitimate JB regime?

What legitimate, independent, verifiable information do we have, about what has or has not ‘been done’?

Where are you getting this information?

.

  1. It blatantly ignores the FACT that the vast majority of the US military are unquestionably loyal, patriotic citizens who revere and honor the Constitution of the United States of America.

____________

I know, just like the vast majority of the FIB, the DoJ are unquestionably loyal, patriotic citizens, and all the local police around the country who stand down when cities are being burned and when patriots are being attacked by panti-fa and BLM, and then go full Nazi on American patriots, right?

Wait… is that right, or isn’t it right? It’s so hard to tell these days.

When in doubt, know them by their fruits.

.

  1. It blatantly ignores the FACT that the vast majority of the US military serves all of us honorably, faithfully, and well.

____________

If that is true — and not just some emotional wish based on nostalgia — then why have the vast majority followed unlawful orders, from lawless officers, following orders from a clearly and undeniably illegitimate CIC?

Remember, “just following orders” is not a defense.

.

  1. It also blatantly ignore that the vast majority of the US military can be reasonably assumed to be just as shocked and alarmed by what has happened re: Afghanistan…and here in the USA…as the rest of us.

_____________

And yet there have been no mass resignations, or even any attempt to take on the system using the tools and legal mechanisms within the system itself.

So how do you know you are not just projecting your view of what the military should be, onto a military that isn’t?

I’m not suggesting you are either right or wrong, I’m just asking basic logical questions, for which there should be good, rational and logical answers.

If there are not good, rational answers for these questions, shouldn’t that be a red flag?

.

  1. It is INCREDIBLY unfair…to the point of GROSSLY INSULTING….to paint the entire US military with the same brush as someone like a Gen. Miley or Lt. Col. Alex Vindman. Every barrel has it’s bad apples and the US military is no exception. Only abjectly retarded drooling IDIOTS call the whole barrel rotten.

_____________

I don’t think anyone called the whole barrel rotten, did they?

.

  1. Members of the US military are NOT free to do as they wish and are obligated, by oath and duty, to follow orders and the US Military Code of Justice. And we, the citizens of the USA, both expect and demand that they do!

______________

They are specifically obligated NOT to follow unlawful orders, aren’t they?

Is Joe Biden the duly and lawfully elected CIC, or isn’t he?

If he isn’t, then how is it that every single member of the military is not following unlawful orders from an illegitimate CIC, every waking moment, since January 20th?

It’s a simple, reasonable and fair question, isn’t it?

.

  1. NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND INSULTS THE ENTIRE US MILITARY BECAUSE THEY ARE ANGRY THAT THE US MILITARY HASN’T UNILATERALLY TAKEN MATTERS INTO IT’S OWN HANDS!!

______________

You’re clearly very emotional right now. That’s okay, I don’t mind, but you’re attacking the messenger instead of where the real focus of your anger should be.

I’m trying very purposely not to be emotional, because it tends to cloud one’s judgment and capacity to think rationally.

I don’t think anyone is angry that the US military hasn’t unilaterally taken matters into its own hands. I think what people are absolutely correct to be upset about, is that the military has stood by and allowed both domestic traitors (and criminals!) and foreign enemies to steal the Executive Branch and install an obvious Puppet, and after standing around and watching it all happen and doing nothing to stop it, the military immediately began following the orders of the obviously, completely, totally and 100% illegitimate and unlawful CIC.

And they’re still doing it, they are still following the lawless orders of a lawless and illegitimate CIC.

And that’s plenty of reason for the American People, who pay the military’s salary to protect and defend the Republic and the Constitution from all enemies (foreign and domestic) to be angry about.

Righteously so.

If the military has a lawful defense for their actions (or lack thereof), what is it?

.

  1. What people like Scott467 want and advocate is for the US military to mutiny and take matters into their own hands, which is utterly INSANE and should be vocally ridiculed, shamed, and denounced by every member of this forum. Why??

_____________

Where did I say that?

You’re always accusing others of things without providing evidence, which is just silly, considering this is a written forum, which makes it so easy to do, if your accusations are actually true.

I have suggested that Myanmar is a viable model, and historically speaking that is factually true, it is far more viable than any operation (real or imagined) that goes on for 7+ months and includes the installation of a false CIC — which, to my knowledge, is unprecedented in the recorded history of mankind.

I have also suggested a national strike, which could include members of the military, if they believe that refusing to follow unlawful orders and an illegitimate CIC is in keeping with their oath, their duty, their obligation and their conscience.

I have also suggested that (like the FIB, and the DoJ), members of the military (who are able to do so) resign, rather than follow unlawful orders given by an unlawful and illegitimate CIC.

There have been no mass resignations from the FIB or the DoJ.

There have been no mass resignations from the military.

.

  1. Such a thing could just as easily work against America as it would for America.

_____________

Pretty sure the horse is already out of the barn on that one, FG&C…

I mean, when the CCP has aided and abetted domestic traitors, as part of a multinational organized crime syndicate, to literally steal the election for the presidency in broad daylight, and installed a lawless and illegitimate CIC, who has proceeded to get the plans to destroy America back on track double-quick time (to make up for the 4 years lost during the Trump presidency), how would restoring Constitutional order by removing the Criminal in Chief work against America, any worse than America is doing right now?

.

  1. Moreover, to advocate for #7 above would put the US Constitution at EXTREME RISK, if not destroy it altogether.

To what Constitution do you refer?

How can the Constitution be in effect, who is there to enforce it, if a lawless Coup has taken over the government, and a lawless and illegitimate person has been installed as the head of government, and the agencies of law enforcement, the courts and the military have all chosen to follow the lawless and illegitimate CIC, instead of protecting and defending the Constitution?

To say that restoring lawful Constitutional order would put the Constitution at EXTREME RISK after the crime of stealing the country has already been committed…

…how is that different from saying to capture bank robbers and restore the money taken from the bank would put the Law at EXTREME RISK — so we should just let the robbers get away with the loot, because restoring Lawful order and making restitution would put the Law at at EXTREME RISK, if not destroy the Law altogether?

It’s like insisting that smoking inside a fireworks warehouse could put the whole building at extreme risk, if not destroy it altogether — after an arsonist already burnt it down to the ground. It’s a valid point, but you’re a little late

How can the Constitution be in effect, if it is flagrantly and wantonly ignored and violated, and there is no one who will defend or protect or enforce it?

And when all three branches of government openly violate the Constitution, by the very act of continuing to operate as if the election was not stolen, as accomplices after the fact (if not before the fact), and following a lawless and illegitimate puppet installed as the CIC?

It’s a fair and reasonable question, isn’t it?

.

  1. To advocate for #7 above demonstrates a PROFOUND lack of understanding and knowledge about the history, tradition, role, regulations, and workings of the US military.

If the Pope puts on a mask of Moloch, or Baphomet, and seats himself in the holiest place of the Vatican, and starts committing sex crimes against children and human sacrifices to Satan, are you going to defend him on the basis of history, tradition, role, regulations and workings of the RCC?

Or does none of that matter, if the leader of your church is diddling children on the alter and then sacrificing them to Satan while wearing a Baphomet mask at worship services?

I know that traditions and history and regulations are important in the RCC, but there has to be a line beyond which even the faithful say “That’s not for me… even I’m not going there”, doesn’t there?

.

  1. I’d LOVE to hear someone say something like this in front of any of the vets I know, in a private setting. The trouble is, no one who WOULD say something like this has the guts and courage enough to do it, because they know what would happen to them. Translation: sure…they’ll mouth off like this, just as long as they know they can get away with it….like the ignorant, mouthy cowards they really are.”

Wrong as usual, grasshopper.

I would ask the same questions I ask here, all the time. I would ask whether following unlawful orders is a lawful defense for any member of the United States military.

Assuming the answer is “No”, I would then ask “Is the current CIC the duly and lawfully and Constitutionally elected leader, or does he occupy the seat of power as the result of a crime, as the result of the most obvious, egregious election theft in the history of the world?

Now this is where it gets tricky.

If he says “Yes”, that the current CIC is the duly and lawfully and Constitutionally elected leader, then he’s delusional (or lying).

If he says “No”, then the logical follow up is “Then why are you following the unlawful orders of an unlawful CIC?”

If there is a good answer to that question, what is it?

.

And now I’ll address the intent of your question, because I know what it was. Do you really think I haven’t thought about that exact situation before?

Or do you think I’ve never been beat up before, so I’m afraid of being punched?

What if I’m not afraid?

Or even if I was afraid, what if I believe in the TRUTH more than I believe in the spirit of fear?

If I went to one of your pow-wows with Vets, in a private setting, and made the same arguments to them that I make here just about every day of the week, what would they do, FG&C?

Would they physically assault me for speaking the truth?

Would they physically assault an American civilian for asking questions?

How many of them would there be?

And who would the real coward(s) be?

The civilian speaking the truth and asking legitimate questions?

Or the Vets who beat up a civilian for speaking the truth and asking legitimate questions?

The TRUTH is always an absolute defense.

I have a few plain, simple, direct questions — about duty, law, honor, oaths, chain of command, Authority and the Constitution — and the answers to those questions do not reconcile with what the military is doing, right now, today, and every day since January 20th.

If you think I won’t ask those questions to any Vet or current member of the military, then you just don’t know me at all.

Do you suppose I became the way I am after the Internet was invented?

Or do you suppose my replies are spontaneous and immediate, no different than I would say in person, because that’s how I am?

Do you really imagine that I’m much different in person than I am here, every day?

Are you?

ForGodandCountry

All of that boils down to this….

Is the current CIC is the duly and lawfully and Constitutionally elected leader?

A: Yes. Sadly so. Until and unless proven otherwise…

…which has not yet happened.

Knowing something is true not the same as proving it is true. The ultimate example is the existence of God (who desires us to believe in him and base our actions upon our beliefs in him, in his case).

Your problem is you expect the military to act upon a temporal matter no one has proven yet.

Our Constitutional laws don’t work that way.

But you know that. Yet you claim you are being unemotional.

😂 😂

Last edited 15 days ago by ForGodandCountry
para59r

Just to clear something up, since this seems to be something of red herring as you attempt to put every thing in one basket concerning the Kabul fiasco , Operation Pineapple was a paramilitary operation conducted without sanction from the US Military. It was vets that composed of and carried out the operation acting without permissions from our govt.

Aubergine

That is correct. They were NOT U.S. active military.

Somehow, we have to accept that no, 99% of the “rank and file” FIB, military, police, etc. are not the “good guys.”

If they were, there would have been MANY whistleblowers by now.

Last edited 15 days ago by Aubergine
ForGodandCountry

Somehow, we have to accept that no, 99% of the “rank and file” FIB, military, police, etc. are not the “good guys.”

.
WHAT???

This is insane. But it IS exactly what the CCP and their allies would want us to believe.

Btw….James O’Keefe says PV has hundreds of whistleblowers, and that’s just one outfit.

Of course, protecting whistleblowers identities is vital, so one doesn’t go about blasting that information out there.

Last edited 15 days ago by ForGodandCountry
scott467

“WHAT???This is insane.”

____________

Isn’t that SD’s regretful conclusion about the FIB and DoJ?

How about the police?

When ALL of the police ‘stand down’, when not a single one of them breaks rank to help, even when women are being assaulted, and they ALL watch innocent American civilians and patriots being physically attacked by masked Soros pajama boys with weapons, which of those police are the ‘good’ ones, and how do you know?

If you think SD’s conclusion is insane, why do you think that?

ForGodandCountry

Just to clear something up, since this seems to be something you really can’t seem to accept, here is what he said….

.
comment image

.
If he was talking about senior military command, he could have said so. He also could have further clarified in his reply to me, which he did not choose to do.

That’s not what he said. He said “the military”. It’s right there in black and white.

Last edited 15 days ago by ForGodandCountry
Deplorable Patriot

Not that I really want to get in the middle of this hours later, but I read sarcasm into that.

What is the military doing? What they always do. Stay in the background, and put out fires that don’t get press coverage.

Aubergine

But the problem is, the judiciary that would have to adjudicate this mess is so corrupt that it WON’T do it.

What the heck do we do with that?

The Supreme Court turned down Texas and other states as not having STANDING to sue for relief from a stolen election. That was the END of the law fixing this. If a STATE doesn’t have standing in that case, then elections are federalized, and the union of the United States means nothing.

So if the judiciary will never accept the case, and the military is waiting for the case to be adjudicated, how does this ever end?

ForGodandCountry

Ah. I see.

You think that is the only way for the matter to be adjudicated.

It isn’t.

how does this ever end?

.
First, we prove that election fraud took place beyond a reasonable doubt in each individual state.

Then those states rescind their electoral votes in the 2020 election.

The dominos fall from there.

In the meantime, we take over at the Tier 1 levels…and control the local election boards.

There is much that can be done, is being done, and will be done prior to the ‘22 elections.

Last edited 15 days ago by ForGodandCountry
Aubergine

But I thought you had said it had yet to be adjudicated, and that was why the military would not act?

I admit, I am confused by the disagreements here lately.

At the rate the states are going, they will prove the election was fraudulent and rescind their electoral votes AFTER the election of 2024. It has taken eight months for AZ to complete their audit and it hasn’t even seen the light of day yet, much less gone to the legislature to have them rescind the electoral college vote.

Aubergine

I am referring to this part:

“No one has “proven” Biden is illegitimate, Scott.

The issue has not been adjudicated.”

But it CAN’T be adjudicated if the courts are corrupt.

scott467

“All of that boils down to this….

Is the current CIC is the duly and lawfully and Constitutionally elected leader?

A: Yes. Sadly so. Until and unless proven otherwise…”

_____________

So every time Wheatie, or Steve or Grandma or DP or Wolf Moon or everyone else on this forum says “Joe Biden didn’t win!“, you disagree?

You believe he did win?

Because he was allowed to be sworn in, so either he won, or he cheated, those are the only two possibilities.

And if he cheated, then by definition, he cannot be the duly, lawfully and Constitutionally elected leader.

Because it is not possible to cheat lawfully.

And if it wasn’t lawful, then by definition it wasn’t Constitutional either.

These are inescapable conclusions.

“…which has not yet happened.”

____________

How can it ever happen, if the judicial system is controlled by the same hostile foreign adversary, who committed an Act of War against us (two actually, China Virus and election theft)?

.

“Knowing something is true not the same as proving it is true.”

___________

When an Act of War has been committed (or two Acts of War, in this case, just in case the first Act of War didn’t stick), where does it say you have to prove in court that an Act of War took place before you defend yourself?

If a robber holds you up and pulls a gun on you, do you have to apprehend him and take him to court and prove he was robbing you first, before you can defend yourself?

The standard you are attempting to impose on our nation (or the military) is no less insane.

.

“The ultimate example is the existence of God (who desires us to believe in and act upon faith, in his case.”

____________

But not faith without cause, not faith without reason, not blind faith, not unthinking, unquestioning faith.

.

“Your problem is you expect the military to act upon a temporal matter no one has proven yet.”

____________

Thank you, I’ve been wondering for some time now what my problem was, and if I had known you had the answer to my problem, I would have consulted you much sooner 👍 😂 🤣 😂

I expect the military to defend and protect the Constitution and the Republic for which it stands, against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

We was robbed, in broad daylight, shot and left for dead, right under the military’s nose.

Military Intelligence has the entire crime recorded, so the military can’t play the three monkeys routine, they saw the crime committed in real time.

The fact that they did nothing to stop that crime, against their OWN truly and lawfully elected Commander in Chief, Donald J. Trump, how does that not make them accessories to the crime — at the very least?

They allowed their President, their Commander in Chief, to be lawlessly deposed by a hostile foreign adversary and domestic traitors.

What greater act of disloyalty and wickedness could they do?

And now you want US to prove it, in a court of law controlled by the same hostile foreign adversary that enabled the Puppet to overthrow Donald J. Trump, the President of the United States?

You want US to prove it to the satisfaction of the same military who watched it happen in real time, and did absolutely nothing to stop their Commander in Chief from having a COUP executed against him?!?

.

“Our Constitutional laws don’t work that way.”

____________

If a hostile foreign adversary subverts the national election such that a Coup has taken place, such that the duly elected and lawful leader of the United States (Donald J. Trump) is overthrown and deposed, is that not the definition of an Act of War?

Where does the Constitution say or imply that in the event of a Coup effected by a hostile foreign enemy, an Act of War, the military shall take no action to protect and defend the Commander in Chief, but stand down and obey whatever puppet regime is installed, and be loyal to the hostile foreign puppet regime, until or unless the People can prove that the Act of War took place, in a court controlled by the same foreign adversary who overthrew the President, the military’s Commander in Chief, right under the military’s knowing noses?

And the United States military shall not defend or protect the United States, or the Constitution, or the People, the military shall do nothing except obey and follow the orders of the lawless installed Puppet regime, until a case is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, in a court controlled by the same hostile foreign enemy?

How do you not see that this is effectively the argument you are making?

Or if you do see it, if you understand that this is what you are arguing, then how can you possibly defend it?

.

“But you know that. Yet you claim you are being unemotional.”

____________

I’m not the one who made a whole big long spleen-venting post, with entire sections screaming in giant BOLDFACE CAPITAL LETTERS…

But you now who did…? 👍 😁

Last edited 15 days ago by scott467
marymorse

Hokie smokes!

REMINDER: The people mad about this aren’t worried about coronavirus. They’re mad that so many people are out there living their lives and having a good time. pic.twitter.com/w0RzgfbyxC

— Jesse Kelly (@JesseKellyDC) September 4, 2021

wheatietoo

Those same people are also mad about that crowd chanting “F*k Joe Biden”:

marymorse

Used to be that about 60% of VPI’s (I’m old school) students were from NOVA.

TheseTruths

Those with Trump Derangement Syndrome never even went that far. That’s unprecedented.

ForGodandCountry

Sounded like a mere handful of kids to me.

We need a F BIDEN chant like this….

Deplorable Patriot

Ann Arbor, the Rose Bowl, Soldier Field, any other big stadium out there.

gil00

Arrested and thrown in prison for listening to the radio with mike lindell talking.
The kjudge is a traitor and scum like far far too many. Its unfortunate this was a Trump nominee also. Worthy of a facing a tribunal.

“A judge ordered the rearrest of Doug Jensen, one of the protesters charged with entering the Capitol on January 6, after “pretrial services officers” made an unannounced visit to his home in Des Moines, Iowa, and found him watching an online discussion featuring MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell.”

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/09/04/january-6-rioter-returned-jail-listening-mike-lindell-online/

GA/FL

We are not allowed to think or say the 2020 election was stolen – despite the preponderance of evidence.

gil00

He couldnt “think wrongthink” or listen to the radio. And the judge said he “didnt have the wake up call ge shouldve.” There is no honor in that court.

mollypitcher5

US justice system is like a Star Chamber except they no longer need to do things in private.

TheseTruths
Last edited 15 days ago by TheseTruths
ForGodandCountry

😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂

PERFECT!!!

marymorse

Wonder if this guy’s thinking about blowing the whistle?

ICYMI, some eyeopening statements from Peter Daszak's former associate VP. Strangely little interest from corporate media.

h/t @BillyBostickson pic.twitter.com/fzlBezsCOU

— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) September 4, 2021

Tell us more Andrew Huff.

barkerjim

Slowly But Surely, The Stupid Is Failing in forum [Market-Ticker-Nad]

Slowly But Surely, The Stupid Is Failing in [Market-Ticker-Nad]

kalbokalbs

A worthy read.. Sobering.

We have the weakest federal government of my 66 years. The US has incredibly diminished prestige on the world stage. This applies to likely adversaries, AND allies. It was true before the Afghanistan debacle. MORE SO since Afghanistan cluster f@ck.

^^^ IMO.

—-

Chiefio

I Hope He’s Wrong – China Banging War Drum

  • Article fairly short. E.M. Smith provides his “take” AND suggestions for readers. PREPARE.
  • Video ~25 minutes. Perhaps start it at two minutes. Starts off with summary. Then one piece of the article at a time. IT IS the official CCP position.

https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2021/09/04/i-hope-hes-wrong-china-banging-war-drum/#comments

Thoughts?

Last edited 15 days ago by kalbokalbs
mollypitcher5

Probably no surprise to anyone here, I think we’re teetering on a cliff.
China is backing the taliban and that was nothing less than a surrender on our part.
We look very weak. I read a lot of British tweets and they’re shocked at the Afghanistan debacle.
There’s Tehran that also benefited. Pakistan has benefited….what Biden and his cohorts, advisers, military and propaganda ministry has done is horrific.

I know the globalists love wars but with Biden in the WH we might not manage to escape warheads or battles on our own soil.

Wolf Moon

One of the things that struck me was that, apart from “we’re free and they’re not”, the positions that Xi is putting forward are COPIED from Trump and MAGA, BUT they’re couched in language that does not make it obvious they’re copying Trump.

  • rein in big corrupt billionaires
  • rein in entertainment debauchery
  • stop it with the soy boys
  • health care affordable
  • housing affordable
  • grow the middle class
  • more patriotism in the arts
  • less “foreign is better” thinking
  • more domestic production
  • “revolution”! (but NOT another C.R., IMO)

The stuff about America attacking is – in some ways – TRUE – if you define “attacks” as actually telling the truth to China’s face. CCP’s “game” is to forbid speaking the truth about China. Well, that’s OVER. So China is doing what a CHICK who gets told off with the truth does – she’s gonna SULK and SCREAM and say “ABUSE!” and all that crap – but the reality is that she’s just gonna try to DEAL with “the games are over – you’re on your own, baby!”

Even the biological stuff is half-true – China worked with all these globalist assholes – most of them AMERICAN – and took the heat for releasing the virus – and we may never know EXACTLY who did that, given that MK by anybody (including CCP and pencilneck) works great to force lab accidents.

So I don’t see war – I see Xi trying to get China “dismeshed” from all their plots and scams with America and foreigners, and claiming “IT WAS THEM” and not admitting “WE GOT CAUGHT”. So he’s “wolf warrioring” in the diplomatic and cultural space – turning off all the cultural blowback on China from THEIR cultural assault on the West.

ForGodandCountry

Yes.

Moreover, everything that is happening is asymmetrical warfare, which by and large is not kinetic.

If nothing else, modern weaponry has all but made modern warfare…as it has been historically understood since ancient times….obsolete.

China’s economy is 100% dependent upon exports. If China starts a war, they would be committing economic suicide.

China is also incredibly dependent upon importing food, as it cannot produce enough for it’s own population. If China starts a war, same thing. No one will sell food to the Chinese, it’s people will begin to starve, and the ruling regime risks a revolt.

No, China is not going to start a war. It will rattle it’s saber, but it won’t draw it.

gil00

I agree. Its why they have hollywierd scratching their heads. No feminine boy singers? No millionaire actresses? Only 3 hrs of video games allowed? Bbbut media money…you were our new cash cow….we turned on the US for you.
Wait til all the assets hollywood owns in media within ccp gets repatriated.

Wolf Moon

Hollywood. LOL! CHUMPS.

gil00

If theres one thing i dont have a prob with ccp taking out behind the woodshed its hollywierd.

Wolf Moon

LOL!!!

Deplorable Patriot

When do they chuck the Korean boy bands?

Deplorable Patriot

Did China just declare war? They declared war 20-30 years ago just not out loud.

RF121

As a reminder, and because no politician in America can generate this type of enthusiasm.

mollypitcher5

STHU. Flight out of a hellhole. iphone . Been here a few days. I’m sure they’ll be getting their checks soon and can move somewhere that’s fitting for his sense of entitlement.
Bet there’s quite a few scraping for food in Louisiana right now and let’s not ever forget 13 young men and women that lost their lives at the airfield that he flew out of…sheesh

Aubergine

Just don’t give them the bacon. They are not worthy.

mollypitcher5

Also I think that they can come and go as they please…go buy something

Grandmaintexas
Last edited 15 days ago by grandmaintexas
TheseTruths

I found it on his Twitter account. 😃

mollypitcher5

We not only willingly gave up all of the stuff (which they’re now using, uniforms and all, slaughtering the hold out Afghans still fighting the taliban and pakis up in some valley) but we also simply looked the other way while our troops were blown up dead.

Pentagon spokesman John Kirby on Monday slammed an “unlawful” leak to Politico revealing that the deaths of US troops in last week’s Kabul airport bombing could have been averted, as the Pentagon was aware hours in advance of an imminent “mass casualty” attack.
Kirby was asked at a press briefing about the report, which says the US knew the approximate time and location of the bombing that on Thursday struck the airport’s Abbey Gate — but that a plan to close the gate to protect US troops was abandoned.

gil00

A view inside the concentration camps in Australia.
This is just beginning.
LADY AMINA (@Alpha_Mind7) Tweeted:
C0VID QUARANTINE PRISON CAMPS IN AUSTRALIA 🔐 https://t.co/shWolls4q3

Gudthots

Praying for miracles.
In government.
In the camps.
In hearts.
comment image

bflyjesusgrl

The distractions are more like ‘look squirrel(s)’ than false flags.
Il Donaldo had a post about Afghanistan that I brougt over, ‘Look, ARAB Squirrel’ that I thought was most appropriate.

bflyjesusgrl

😊😋😊
comment image