“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert.” –J. Robert Oppenheimer
Joe Biden never won. This is our Real President – 45, 46, 47.
AND our beautiful REALFLOTUS.
This Stormwatch Monday Open Thread remains open – VERY OPEN – a place for everybody to post whatever they feel they would like to tell the White Hats, and the rest of the MAGA/KAG/KMAG world (with KMAG being a bit of both).
Our various sister sites, listed in the Blogroll in the sidebar
Our beloved country is under Occupation by hostile forces.
Daily outrage and epic phuckery abound.
We can give in to despair…or we can be defiant and fight back in any way that we can.
Joe Biden didn’t win.
And we will keep saying Joe Biden didn’t win until we get His Fraudulency out of our White House.
Wolfie’s Wheatie’s Word of the Week:
vituperation
noun
abuse
rejection
sustained, harshly critical language
invective
severe censure
blame
vehemently expressed condemnation or disapproval
formal language that is full of hate
angry criticism
Used in a sentence by the Fake News (two examples)
(One will notice that most examples of this word in use on Merriam-Webster are against Trump and conservatives.)
Flash forward 92-plus years to Donald Trump’s rally Sunday at New York’s Madison Square Garden, a bleak, lurid festival of racist hate and profane vituperation so vile that even fellow Republicans, who have turned a blind eye to Trump’s character for years, are distancing themselves from the event. —Michael Hiltzik, Los Angeles Times, 29 Oct. 2024
The politicization of the COVID response has only worsened this trend, likely resulting in part from Trump’s vituperation. —Matt Motta, Scientific American, 29 Oct. 2024
Yeah, well, stuff it, you commies. Your pre-election biased writings FAILED. Trump is still your President.
Shown in a picture in a dictionary
Used in a “black metal” song title, shown in an artistic music video
Melancholic metal; interesting use of dance and B/W film, but these people need Jesus badly.
Well, Netflix, that CIA cultural corruption project, seems to finally be good for something. Enjoy this weird music, which is either a corruption of classical music, or a correction of pop music – take your pick. (PS – I know nothing about this series.)
THE STUFF
“What is best in life? Conan! Tell us!”
“Yes, but what is life?”
“To crush protons, to see higher nuclei driven before you, and to hear the calculations of their women!”
I mentioned in last Wednesday’s article that I fell down an interesting rabbit hole, more like a rabbit warren, when looking in my notes for info on the John Maynard Keynes link to the Fabian Society.
This is the comment in my notes that started my latest journey.
Nicely done, Gail, very neat. The nail rapped smartly on the head 3 times. 🙂 I’ll raise you 137 years. 🙂
1st May, 1776, Rothschild commissioned a report on how to secure world domination: Go to youtube & put in their search box : Whistleblower Head of FBI tells all from NWO 1 hr 4 mins.
Or try the ref, it might work : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=do_swOstGaI [It still does work surprisingly. – GC] Ted L. Gunderson, ex head of FBI in LA, would not shut up about what he’d learned. He wound up poisoned with arsenic.
Is the plan coming apart? http://www.usawatchdog.com & scroll down to the article: US Currency Weak and About to Crash. 02/12/2014 371 comments. ( which I haven’t had time to read. Karen is ex Chief Legal Counsel for the World Bank.
Is this lady the real deal, or is she full of it? Anyone?
In the comments on that article is this link from 2014,Philosophy of Metricswhich looks interesting.
ABOUT
Philosophy of Metrics is the methodology of understanding the world through patterns and processes. From the ancient philosophy of primitive man to the stock market today, there is a pattern in everything and anything. We but need to observe and recognize the macro and micro of it all.
One of the biggest patterns is the one of ignorance. We are subjected daily to methods of misdirection and direct obfuscation which serve to keep us blind to the realities that surround us.
Our modest intent is to lift the fog on the mysteries and allow some of these patterns to become visible, whereby we may better understand the world and our place within it.
I bring that comment up because it is the patterns and threads I am trying to follow since we now know our history as taught is bull schiff.
I would say she is a Limited Hangout (1) given the blurb from this Utube:
In 2007 Karen warned the US Treasury Department and US Congress that the US would lose its right to appoint the President of the World Bank if the current American President of the World Bank did not play by the rules. The 66 year old Gentlemen’s Agreement that Europe would appoint the Managing Director of the IMF and US would appoint the World Bank President ended in 2010 http://www.imf.org/external/np/cm/201… Karen Hudesstudied law at Yale Law Schoolandeconomics at the University of Amsterdam .
She worked in theUS Export Import Bankof the US from 1980-1985 and in theLegal Department of the World Bankfrom 1986-2007. SheestablishedtheNon Governmental Organization Committee of the International Law Section of the American Bar Associationandthe Committee on Multilateralism and the Accountability of International Organizations of the American Branch of the International Law Association.
State governments and their political subdivisions can’t use bankruptcy. NOTE: A popular argument in movement circles contends that this whole nation was placed into bankruptcy in 1930 and Roosevelt devised a plan to get judicial approval of the “bankruptcy” via the decision in the 1938 Erie Railroad case. But how can such a legal theory fly in view of the decision in this case? — LIMITS OF CONGRESSIONAL POWERS – Constitution Org
“…at a town hall meeting I said since John F Kennedy was assassinated by the Jesuits, and we know this because Gambino when he got out of jail said that the mafia were told by the Jesuits to fire the kill shot. There was a a mafioso hidden in a sewer so as the limousine drove by that’s that’s the shot that killed John F Kennedy.
Did you know for example that we had a second constitution in 1871 after the debts for the Revolutionary War came due and we couldn’t meet those obligations?That’s when we got a second Constitution. So that the United States is incorporated as a company. The president of the United States is the chief executive officer and the Congress acts like managers of the company rather than representing the constituency. Rather than respecting our first Constitution. This is understood by a number of people. There’s a lot of documentation on this. Now people are starting to spread the world word. You’re not going to get this in your universities. You’re not going to be taught this in the schools…”
She is spouting chaff meant to divert attention away from the CIA in my opinion. Why? I think it is because of these two whistle-blowers getting traction and because of the rise of the Tea Party Movement.
“Today I resigned from the staff of the International Monetary Fund after over 12 years, and after 1000 days of official fund work in the field, hawking your medicine and your bag of tricks to governments and to peoples in Latin America and the Caribbean and Africa. To me, resignation is a priceless liberation, for with it I have taken the first big step to that place where I may hope to wash my hands of what in my mind’s eye is the blood of millions of poor and starving peoples. Mr. Camdessus, the blood is so much, you know, it runs in rivers. It dries up too; it cakes all over me; sometimes I feel that there is not enough soap in the whole world to cleanse me from the things that I did do in your name and in the name of your predecessors, and under your official seal. “
With those words, Davison Budhoo, a senior economist with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for more than 12 years, publicly resigned in May, 1988. A native Grenadian, Budhoo received his degree from the London School of Economics. He joined the staff of the World Bank in 1966 and later shifted to the IMF, where he was responsible for designing and implementing Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) for African, Latin American and Caribbean nations. His 100-plus page open letter to Michel Camdessus, managing director of the IMF, titled “Enough is Enough,” sent shock waves around the world, making front page headlines in many countries (but not in the US).
Budhoo was the first person to break the IMF’s code of silence regarding internal affairs by exposing extensive statistical fraud carried out by the fund in Trinidad and Tobago during 1985-1987….
The other was Confessions of an Economic Hitman – describing how as a highly paid professional, John Perkins helped the World Bank. cheat poor countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars by lending them more money than they could possibly repay and then take over their economies. Also note that the finger is pointed at the USA (to generate hatred of the USA) and not the REAL culprit, the globalists.
“….He was an amazing man, Torrijos. And so, he died in a fiery airplane crash, which was connected to a tape recorder with explosives in it, which—I was there. I had been working with him. I knew that we economic hit men had failed. I knew the jackals were closing in on him, and the next thing, his plane exploded with a tape recorder with a bomb in it. There’s no question in my mind that it was C.I.A. sanctioned, and most—many Latin American investigators have come to the same conclusion. Of course, we never heard about that in our country.…” Democracy Now Org 2004
The IMF/World Bank uses Structural Adjustment Policies, SAPs, to open up countries to exploitation by corporations. Instead of a British Empire overtly colonizing the world — heavily criticized by a voting public — we have Corporate and Banking interests united in the covert control of whole nations in the name of profit….
(There have been 249 captures of this article by the Wayback!)
Structural Adjustment Policies are economic policies which countries must follow in order to qualify for new World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) loans and help them make debt repayments on the older debts owed to commercial banks, governments and the World Bank. Although SAPs are designed for individual countries but have common guiding principles and features which include export-led growth; privatisation and liberalisation; and the efficiency of the free market.
SAPs often result in deep cuts in programmes like education, health and social care…
By devaluing the currency and simultaneously removing price controls, the immediate effect of a SAP is.. that riots are a frequent result….
“…privatisation and liberalisation; and the efficiency of the free market...” Those are just the feel good words the Global Cabal uses to hide what they are actually doing. I will get into that in the next article.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The second rabbit hole warren from this comment, — Ted L. Gunderson, Whistleblower Head of FBI — deserves its own separate article so I will address it next week.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Rabbit hole #3
The Lord moves in mysterious ways. He even drags an agnostic such as myself, to the truth, on Sunday no less.
I remembered an article talking of the Supreme Court case that allows the bureaucracy to MAKE law. The federal Register and 30 day comment period was the fig leaf for “consent of the governed” blessed by that Supreme Court case. A few days ago I went looking for that info and all I could find was the happy horse schiff from the Federal Reserve, March 14, 1936 — March 14, 2006
On December 10, 1934, at the Supreme Court, the Assistant Attorney General of the United States had been grilled during oral arguments in the first case to reach the Court challenging the constitutionality of the centerpiece of President Roosevelt’s “New Deal” — the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA). The critical constitutional issues at stake were mostly ignored that day while the Justices focused on the fact that the defendants, two Texas oil companies, had been charged with violating a provision of regulations that technically did not exist at the time the companies were charged. The defects in the case highlighted a fundamental problem facing a democratic government that was exploding with new agencies and new regulations. Amidst the ferment of orders and codes issuing from agencies, even individuals working at the highest levels of government found it difficult or impossible to keep track of all of them. And for the regulated public, this new body of “executive legislation” was inaccessible and virtually hidden. The next day, at the White House, where the great men of the New Deal [You mean Commie TRAITORS don’t you?…] had been arguing over the value of publishing a gazette containing the orders issued by Executive Branch officers, President Roosevelt laid aside his misgivings about possible misuse of the publication for propagandistic purposes and appointed a committee of the National Emergency Council to make a special study of the idea. Meanwhile, behind-the-scenes maneuvering by lawmakers and influential legal minds, including Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, culminated in the publication on December 11, 1934 of a Harvard Law Review article by, Ervin Griswold entitled “Government in Ignorance of the Law – A Plea for Better Publication of 👉Executive Legislation.👈” The arguments Griswold made for orderly publication of the official actions of the Executive Branch were underlined when the Supreme Court issued its opinion in the Panama Oil case and forced the hand of the committee studying the issue for President Roosevelt. Congress passed legislation to create the Federal Register, and the President signed it into law (Pub. L. 74-220, July 26, 1935). The Act created a lasting partnership between the National Archives and the Government Printing Office. The Archivist of the United States, acting through a Division in the National Archives, was charged with custody of and, with the Public Printer, prompt and uniform printing and distribution of public documents in a publication designated the Federal Register…
In those notes on the Fabians, I had this but not the Utube I got it from:
Min 1:00 — 3:38
On the interpretation of two main clauses of the constitution, the first is the commerce clause which delegates to congress the authority to regulate commerce among the states. The second is the necessary and proper clause which provided for the congress to have the powers that are necessary and proper for carrying into execution the other powers, the explicit powers and unfortunately those words have been given a broader interpretation than was intended by the framers.
On my website constitution.org and on my blog constitutionalism.blogspot.com
I have a number of articles that examine the problems arising from this misinterpretation and the arguments and evidence for why the clauses should not be interpreted in that way. But this evening I’m going to focus on the line of supreme court presidents that led to where we are today. There are 44 main supreme court presidents. There are many more cases than that, but most of those others cite one or more of these 44 cases. So if one were to overturn these 44 cases, and in fact you wouldn’t need to overturn all of them, if you overturned the first few the rest would fall because the later ones are based on the earlier ones. But for the sake of completeness if one were to propose amendments to the constitution to overturn these bad precedents, which are about the only way they are going to get overturned, then it would be necessary to unravel them fairly specifically. And the way to word such an amendment is not at all obvious, it requires a good deal of analysis and thought and i hope to assemble teams of experts to work out the wording. For how to do that in the meantime i have proposed my own wording if on constitution.org you will find a link to constitutional amendments…
So I tried to find the video but could not and instead I fell down a very interesting rabbit hole leading to
His videos: https://www.youtube.com/user/JonRoland1787
Gee! I think those are the Droids I was looking for! 🤗 And WOW what a treasure trove of information on the Constitution. Linked below are just two of the goodies at that website.
Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.— Frederick Douglass, civil rights activist, Aug. 4, 1857
Any power that can be abused will be abused. — Tyranny Law #1
Abuse always expands to fill the limits of resistance to it. — Tyranny Law #2
If people don’t resist the abuses of others, they will have no one to resist the abuses of themselves, and tyranny will prevail. — Tyranny Law #3
Usurpations
Usurpation is the exercise of powers by an agent which have not been delegated to him by the principal. In a constitutional republic like the United States of America, acts by officials are legitimate only if they are consistent with and based on a constitution, a body of laws which are superior to all subsequent statutes and other acts of officials, which embodies all delegations of power, and which may recognize certain rights to further define the limits on the powers delegated. It is a fundamental principle that all acts of officials not derived from the delegated powers of the constitution are null and void from inception, not just from the point at which a court may find them unconstitutional. Every person who has an encounter with the acts of officials has the duty not only to obey legitimate official acts, but to help enforce them, but, when there is a conflict among acts of officials, to enforce the superior one, which, when an act of an official is in conflict with the constitution, means enforcing the constitution and not the act in conflict with it. Judges and other citizens do not decide constitutionality, but discover it, and every person who is involved with any act by an official has a nondelegatable duty to make a determination of the constitutionality of that act. This determination is called constitutional review, and, when exercised by a judge in a case, judicial review.
Since the ratification of the Constitution for the United States and each of its properly ratified amendments, there have been numerous acts by officials, including statutes, regulations, executive orders, court rulings, and ordinary decisions and actions taken while on duty and under color of law, which have been unconstitutional, and in many cases, in violation of civil rights of persons and of constitutional laws. We will try to identify some of the worst of such violations of the Constitution, and discuss how compliance with the Constitution can be restored.
Then follows over 50 links to other articles and documents.
…. His Constitution.org site also had this with 25 articles referenced:
The doctrine of nondelegation is explicit or implicit in all written constitutions that impose a structural separation of powers. It is usually applied in questions of constitutionally improper delegations of legislative powers to executive branch officials, but may be more broadly applied to questions of improper delegations of legislative powers to judicial officials, improper delegations of judicial powers to legislative or executive officials, improper delegations of executive powers to legislative or judicial officials, improper delegations of legislative or judicial powers to clerical subordinates within their branches, or improper delegations of legislative, judicial, or executive powers to private parties, or improper delegations of private powers to public officials. Although it is usually constitutional for executive officials to delegate executive powers to executive branch subordinates, there can also be improper delegations of powers within an executive branch.
Finally, there is the broadest application of all, the nondelegation from the people of a power to any officials in a constitution, the principle of which is set forth in the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
An example of one of the documents referenced in this article:
Congress sometimes has a habit of passing laws with very broad mandates, then leaving it up to administrative agencies to fill in all of the policy details later.
In the 1930s, the Supreme Court blew the whistle on this practice,finding several times that Congress could not give away lawmaking powers vested in it by Article I of the Constitution. In 1935 in Schechter Poultry Company v. U.S., for example, the court struck down parts of the National Industrial Recovery Act, which essentially delegated legislative powers to administrative agencies and private parties to write rules to govern the American economy. Congress had given only the vaguest guidance as to how to do it–ensuring “fair competition.”
The principle that Congress could not delegate away its Article I lawmaking powers to administrative agencies came to be known as the “nondelegation doctrine.”
Six Decades of Dormancy
For six decades the nondelegation doctrine has pretty much been asleep. In 1980, in Industrial Union Dept AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute, then-Associate Justice William H. Rehnquist summarized the three main functions of the nondelegation doctrine: it guarantees that key social policy decisions will be made by Congress, it ensures that administrative agencies get an “intelligible principle” by which to exercise their discretion, and it guarantees that courts reviewing administrative actions will have ascertainable and meaningful standards against which to judge them.
But no court has dared question a legislative enactment as a violation of the doctrine for a long time –that is, until the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rendered its decision last year in American Trucking Association v. Environmental Protection Agency. There, the court found that the EPA’s “construction of the Clean Air Act. . . in promulgating the NAAQS (National Air Ambient Quality Standards) effects an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.” The court said that, in delegating so much power to the EPA to decide clean air rules, “it is as though Congress commanded EPA to select ‘big guys,’ and EPA announced that it would evaluate candidates based on height and weight, but revealed no cut-off point. The announcement. . .is fatally incomplete. The reasonable person responds, ‘How tall? How heavy?'” With this vivid analogy, the nondelegation doctrine sprung back to life.
Revived or Put Into Deeper Sleep?
Or did it? The problem with the D.C. Circuit’s so-called “revival” of the nondelegation doctrine is that it looks a lot more like a burial. The court’s tortured formulation of the problem makes no sense. It is not the EPA’s construction of the statute that effects an unconstitutional delegation; it is Congress’ statute itself. EPA’s construction of the statute cannot determine, much less cure, its constitutionality. Yet, having made this fundamental error, the court follows through on it by remanding the case to the EPA to come up with an “intelligible principle” that will, amazingly, somehow magically cure the statute of its unconstitutionality. But how can an agency rewrite a congressional statute to make it constitutional?….
Between 1877 and 1937 (between the formal end of Reconstruction and the formal constitutional ratification of the New Deal), the American system of governance was transformed with momentous implications for twentieth-century social and economic life. Nineteenth-century traditions of self-government and local citizenship were replacedby a modern approach to positive statecraft, individual rights, and social welfare very much with us today…. By “The Creation of the American Liberal State” I mean to suggest that the period from 1877 to 1937 was not just an “age of reform” or a “response to industrialism” or a “search for order” (Hofstadter 1955; Hays 1957; Wiebe 1967). Rather, it was an era marked by the specific and unambiguous emergence of a new regime of American governance — the modern liberal state…. the very origins of modern social-scientific inquiry in the United States were wholly coincident with and participatory in the construction of the new state-centered socio-economic policies of the progressive era…
The Progressive Discovery that Law Obstructs Politics
It is easy amid the rapid shifts in contemporary intellectual fashion to forget the long and pervasive hold of “progressive historiography” on American thought during the first half of the twentieth century (Hofstadter 1968; Benson 1960; Horwitz 1984). From the turn-of-the-century through the late New Deal, American political and economic development was interpreted primarily through the filter of intellectual categories developed in contests over progressive reform in the early twentieth century….
The confrontation between FDR’s New Deal legislation and Supreme Court constitutional review breathed new life into the progressive critique of law. In 1938… Benjamin Twiss began his Lawyers and the Constitution: How Laissez Faire Came to the Supreme Court (1942) as a direct response to the “revolution of 1937″ and as a direct attack on the “Four Horsemen” of anti-New Deal judicial apocalypse: Justices Van Devanter, McReynolds, Sutherland, and Butler. Twiss’s story about law and the New Deal re-deployed the stock figures and simple morals of a mature progressive historiography…
Behind the progressive mythology of negative laissez-faire constitutionalism lies an alternative story of law’s positive force in producing a modern state in America. And contrary to oddly influential European proclamations of the weakness and incompleteness of that state, the obvious empirical reality is that the story of the twentieth-century American state is about the creation of a most powerful geo-political entity. That entity, which has wielded staggering global influence in the twentieth century, was patently not the simple outgrowth of possessive individualism or the protection of private rights of property and contract or a governmental willingness to “leave alone.” It was the product of a continuous and energetic process of statebuilding…
“..the obvious empirical reality is that the story of the twentieth-century American state is about the creation of a most powerful geo-political entity… It was the product of a continuous and energetic process of statebuilding….”He leave out the tiny little fact that the USA was transformed into the British Empire’s Front Man and Cannon Fodder after the passage of the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. We have been fighting Banker Wars ever since.
“All Wars Are Bankers Wars” (45 minutes)
One of the references cited in the above article is this 1938 book:
Court over Constitution: A study of judicial review as an instrument of popular government by Edward S. Corwin 1938.
I am not about to buy the book but I did find this thanks to Yandex. Brave only had one pointer. It was to “Good Reads’ with no info. Not even a review. 🤔
In trying to find more about that book I was led to:
It is noteworthy that whenever Marbury v. Madison is discussed in works on constitutional law, text books or case books, reference is invariably made to Alexander Hamilton’s discussion of judicial review in Federalist No. 78 as an early indication that the principle was regarded as a fundamental part of the system of government set up under the Constitution. Surprisingly, these works, almost without exception, fail to refer to the Antifederalist Letters of Brutus to which this number of the Federalist Papers constitutes a response. This is a regrettable omission since No. 78 cannot be properly understood except in the context of Brutus’ charge that the Constitution provided, not only for judicial review, but for judicial supremacy….
What concerned Brutus, in the first instance, was the use to which the court would apply judicial review in the service of national consolidation and how this would threaten the independence and survival of the states.👉The judicial power, Brutus warned, would operate to affirm and legitimate all the invasions of state power committed by the national legislature.👈 “The real effect of this system of government, will … be brought home to the feelings of the people, through the medium of the judicial power.”
….Brutus went on to point out another crucial distinction between the British and American systems of government – the ability of Parliament to severely restrict the broader impact of an unwarranted and inappropriate judicial interpretation of the constitution – a power entirely lacking to the U.S. Congress.
The supreme court then have a right, independent of the legislature, to give a construction to the constitution and every part of it, and there is no power provided in this system to correct their construction or do it away. If, therefore, the legislature pass any laws, inconsistent with the sense the judges put upon the constitution, they will declare it void; and therefore in this respect their power is superior to that of the legislature. In England the judges are not only subject to have their decisions set aside by the house of lords, for error, but in cases where they give an explanation to the laws or constitution of the country, contrary to the sense of the parliament, though the parliament will not set aside the judgment of the court, yet, they have authority, by a new law, to explain a former one, and by this means to prevent a reception of such decisions. But no such power is in the [U.S.] legislature. The judges are supreme-and no law, explanatory of the constitution, will be binding on them.
The end result was that,
(t]here is no power above them to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.
Thus one can understand why George Soros targets judges and state attorneys general. People who fly under the radar of most people but who wield tremendous power.
On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed. — Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), letter to Judge William Johnson, (from Monticello, June 12, 1823)
If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. — George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.
I am going to again post the URL of another Constitutionalist, “Publius Huldah” the nom de guerre of Joanna Martin, J.D.
(1) Footnote: LINK to article about Victor Marchetti, former senior CIA official, who wrote a book exposing CIA deceptions. The CIA remove 399 passages, nearly a fifth of the book. That article defines ‘Limited Hangout’ thus:
Joe Biden never won. This is our Real President – 45, 46, 47.
AND our beautiful REALFLOTUS.
This Stormwatch Monday Open Thread remains open – VERY OPEN – a place for everybody to post whatever they feel they would like to tell the White Hats, and the rest of the MAGA/KAG/KMAG world (with KMAG being a bit of both).
Our various sister sites, listed in the Blogroll in the sidebar
Our beloved country is under Occupation by hostile forces.
Daily outrage and epic phuckery abound.
We can give in to despair…or we can be defiant and fight back in any way that we can.
Joe Biden didn’t win.
And we will keep saying Joe Biden didn’t win until we get His Fraudulency out of our White House.
Wolfie’s Wheatie’s Word of the Week:
ingluvies
noun
a crop or craw of birds
a dilation or pouch in the esophagus of certain animals that receives food prior to the main stomach, esp a bird’s craw, or the first stomach of a cow or other ruminating animal
the widened portion of the esophagus of birds and lower animals
a crop or pouch in the esophagus of many birds, in which food is stored or partially digested before passing to the stomach
Used in a sentence with bad American English and Russian accent
“Moose ingluvies, but squirrel not having!”
Ridiculous misleading example of usage generated by bad AI
You don’t have to understand the math, to follow along and understand why light and atoms end up being a lot like vibrating musical strings.
Basically, Erwin Schrödinger plugged a simple but weird equation by Louis de Broglie, which said that matter has a frequency just like light, into the existing wave equation, and he got a matter wave equation.
And all of THAT is revealed on the way to answering, what in the heck is an imaginary number doing in there?
Joe Biden never won. This is our Real President – 45, 46, 47.
AND our beautiful REALFLOTUS.
This Stormwatch Monday Open Thread remains open – VERY OPEN – a place for everybody to post whatever they feel they would like to tell the White Hats, and the rest of the MAGA/KAG/KMAG world (with KMAG being a bit of both).
Joe Biden never won. This is our Real President – 45, 46, 47.
AND our beautiful REALFLOTUS.
This Stormwatch Monday Open Thread remains open – VERY OPEN – a place for everybody to post whatever they feel they would like to tell the White Hats, and the rest of the MAGA/KAG/KMAG world (with KMAG being a bit of both).
Our various sister sites, listed in the Blogroll in the sidebar
Our beloved country is under Occupation by hostile forces.
Daily outrage and epic phuckery abound.
We can give in to despair…or we can be defiant and fight back in any way that we can.
Joe Biden didn’t win.
And we will keep saying Joe Biden didn’t win until we get His Fraudulency out of our White House.
Wolfie’s Wheatie’s Word of the Week:
vicegerent
noun
acting in place of another
having delegated authority
not the same as a viceregent, although similar
Used in a sentence
A viceregent is a ruler acting in place of a monarch, while a vicegerent is an appointed representative of a higher authority, often with broader administrative duties.
Now I seem to recall Rand Paul’s name associated with Festivus, and I never quite got it, until this news report. Stay with it for at least a minute. LMAO!!!
Well, DOGE-GONE, it’s BARBIE!
I’m sorry, but Festivus has me in the mood to play my favorite song!
In case you’re wondering what a “ferrocell” is, there’s a fascinating paper describing how one works.
The beauty of this song – other than simply being well-done, is that in some pleasing ways, the actual science of sunlight shining on the orbiting moon, blocked by its own orbiting mass, corresponds with, and maybe even transforms through the “crackpot matrix” to, the dithering of Mr. (at)witsit about ferrocells and whatnot.
Between “real” science and “pseudo” science, I’m falling in love with the crazy beauty of this universe!
Good night, good morning, good day, and MERRY CHRISTMAS!
Joe Biden never won. This is our Real President – 45, 46, 47.
AND our beautiful REALFLOTUS.
This Stormwatch Monday Open Thread remains open – VERY OPEN – a place for everybody to post whatever they feel they would like to tell the White Hats, and the rest of the MAGA/KAG/KMAG world (with KMAG being a bit of both).
Our various sister sites, listed in the Blogroll in the sidebar
Our beloved country is under Occupation by hostile forces.
Daily outrage and epic phuckery abound.
We can give in to despair…or we can be defiant and fight back in any way that we can.
Joe Biden didn’t win.
And we will keep saying Joe Biden didn’t win until we get His Fraudulency out of our White House.
Wolfie’s Wheatie’s Word of the Week:
coprophagous
Yes, this word randomly came up in my word source, and I decided to tough it out and keep it. I have never wimped out on a word, and I’m not starting now. So YES. And YUCK.
adjective
eating feces
Used in a sentence
To the AWFULs who destroy innocent patriotic families – Don’t just “be offended”, as Matt Gaetz would say. Be coprophagous!
Shown in a picture (in as “purty” a fashion as possible)
Shown in a video
MUSIC!
DePat said something about she and others all yelling “the cranberries” at the same time.
Well – SOMEBODY was listening!
AND – just for the heck of it – I have to add my new favorite song!
Yes, I may be a hillbilly, and I may have voted for the outlaw and the hillbilly, but I can take a joke, and this song, like Elon Musk, has…..
Gail Combs is still having intermittent trouble both editing and posting on WordPress. This is her draft, fixed up and key-worded as best as I could, on short notice.
W
Gail Combs:
At first I was going to do a round-up of all of POTUS Trump’s picks via screen shots and then realized it would be WAY too long. Also the images would eat up too much time loading and possibly overwhelm Steve’s internet service. Therefore I am going to delve into some of the concerns raised. (If people are interested I can do the Trump picks as a separate article or possibly series of article to chronicle this Historic Post Election period.)
Given the skuttlebutt about Biden pardons, this maybe of interest:
Protect Democracy Org —Checking the Pardon Power:Constitutional Limitations & Options for Preventing Abuse
The author, Paul Ingrassia, is a Constitutional Scholar so it is worth reading in it’s entirety.
…The second branch of the government – aptly outlined under Article II, is the executive. The executive branch, under the Constitution’s very explicit original formulation (which, contrary to the overwhelming sentiment in today’s Washington, is an article that has not undergone emendation…) is vested entirely (in noticeable contradistinction to “mostly” or “largely”) in a (again, singular, one) President of the United States (“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America” …the executive branch is the only one under our Constitution – which, again, is the law of the land – that is vested in a single individual….
In official duties, the President – or Chief Magistrate – is tasked with law enforcement. He is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, ensuring civilian control over the military — not, as our latter-day betters would have us believe, something to be outsourced to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or the Pentagon, or lobbyists and consultants working for Raytheon.
Being singular or unitary, the President appoints cabinet secretaries and federal judges. The latter [Should be former -GC] answer to him alone. And while Congressional approval, in some cases, is needed to fulfill the President’s constitutional obligation for nominations, the President – as the Unitary Executive – has full discretion over the tenures of each and every one of his underlings within the executive department…
As for the agencies (and the larger bureaucracy), the acute observer will find – well, problematic – that no such fourth branch of government exists within the text of the Constitution…
Ingrassia makes the case that the federal bureaucracy is UNDER the executive branch, that is the PRESIDENT and therefore should be answerable to him. “…the President – as the Unitary Executive – has full discretion over the tenures of each and every one of his underlings within the executive department….” The following article from The Congressional Research Service (.gov) shows how Congress has gradually taken control of the executive from the President and turned it into an unelected, unfireable autocratic government aka The Deep State or Shadow Government.
…A little history: up until the end of the Civil War, the President exercised virtually unconstrained power to dismiss military officers. However, in 1865 Congress passed legislation which purports to limit that power. That legislation was essentially the same as that found today codified in 10 USC § 1161(a).
The legitimacy of Congress imposing statutory restrictions on the authority of the President to remove military officers was initially “subject of doubt and discussion.” It remains controversial even today, particularly since there doesn’t seem to be a case precisely on point as to the constitutionality.
👉Nevertheless, the better view does seem to suggest that Congress has the power to set some limits on the President’s dismissal authority – at least in times of peace….
To continue our analogy from above, the President is roughly akin to a British King – a comparison made both favorably and unfavorably throughout the Federalist Papers, that handbook to aid constitutional interpretation and explanation, devised by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay.
Thus we can go to The Federalist Papers, IF you can find them, to see what our founders actually meant… If you have any doubts. I had to use Yandex to actually find the papers.
[Listing of papers: https://www.federalistpapers.org/2012/12/federalist-papers.html]
…THE President of the United States is to be “commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States.” The propriety of this provision is so evident in itself, and it is, at the same time, so consonant to the precedents of the State constitutions in general, that little need be said to explain or enforce it. 👉Even those of them which have, in other respects, coupled the chief magistrate with a council, have for the most part concentrated the military authority 👉in him alone. Of all the cares or concerns of government, the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish 👉the exercise of power by a single hand…
….PANIC IN DC? WHY? WHAT WAS LOST? POWER OF THE PURSE. COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE UNITED STATES MILITARY. POWER TO REPLACE SENIOR OFFICIALS WITHIN CRUCIAL GOV POSITIONS (DEPT’S) WHO CAN THEN REPLACE SR+MID+LOW POSITIONS (TRICKLE_DOWN REPLACEMENT). POWER TO APPOINT SC JUSTICES. (What if HRC won and appointed 2+ crooked SCJs?) (The Last Resort) POWER TO DIRECTLY UNDO HUSSEIN/PREV EO’S WHICH HARMED-GREATLY LIMITED THE US IN MANY VITAL/NEC WAYS. POWER TO REBUILD THE UNITED STATES MILITARY (BACK) TO A GLOBAL SUPER POWER. (CHINA PAYOFFS (BRIBE $) FAILURE) POWER TO ENACT LAWS BY EO TO COMBAT AND PROTECT OUR PEOPLE. POWER TO SHIFT FOREIGN POLICY THEREBY REDUCING OUR ENEMIES ABILITY TO PROSPER AND SOMEDAY REIGN. (IRAN DEAL – PARIS ACCORD – CHINA TRADE – SYRIA – ………………….) POWER TO DECLAS CRUCIAL DOCS TO PROVIDE THE PUBLIC W/ THE TRUTH (TRANSPARENCY). POWER TO GIVE BACK POWER TO THE PEOPLE (AS INTENDED BY OUR FOUNDERS). LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD.…
….
Ingrassia also cites Article III dealing with the establishment of the federal courts: the Supreme Court and the other federal courts. So let’s take a look at this branch of government since it is responsible for enforcing US law and the Constitution…. But IT HAS NOT! We pay attention to the DC government but most often over look the long term damage done by the corrupted judiciary.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office….
Section 2
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed…. [We now have trial by JUDGES or BUREAUCRATS and not juries BTW. – GC]
Section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason…
So can Trump fire federal judges? NO, not according to Publius Huldah. I am a BIG FAN of this lady and I hope POTUS Trump finds a use for her, perhaps in JAG.
From her ABOUT page. “…Publius Huldah” is the nom de guerre of Joanna Martin, J.D., who is a thoroughly nice person, in addition to all the above. And if you hear otherwise, consider this from Socrates, who reportedly said, “When the debate is lost, slander is the weapon of the loser” [Boy, haven’t we seen the truth of that ancient wisdom! Also, if some one is slandered by the MSM, that means they are a threat to the Deep State in IMHO, – GC]
right out of law school & newly commissioned US Army JAGC
To the Department of Homeland Security:
I am delighted to learn of your intense & increasing interest in learning the original intent of Our Constitution! Please feel free to browse around to your hearts’ content.
😂 The comments are worth reading BTW
A search for the word “Judge” on her site turns up some real goodies — LINK. She has a similar opinion of the Supreme Court and judges to mine. 😡
Someone asked me why I write on the US Constitution when the US Supreme Court won’t enforce it.
This is why: Our Declaration of Independence recognizes the self-evident Truth that Rights come from God, and that they are unalienable. Accordingly, there are certain areas of your life which are off-limits to government regulation – you have an “immunity” from governmental regulation of these areas.
But since the federal and state governments are refusing to recognize our Rights, it falls on us to boldly step up to the plate and insist that our Rights be respected. You have no lawful, moral, or religious duty to submit to a government when it violates our Constitution and seeks to take from you the rights God gave you.
Governments do not have constitutional authority to force you to take the COVID JAB.
And in this paper I show that the “privileges and immunities” and “due process” clauses of the US Constitution prohibit the federal, state, and local governments from requiring you to be “jabbed” or putting you into a concentration camp if they assert that you are at “high risk” of getting infected [i.e., those who are 65 years of age or older]….
PLEASE READ!!! Huldah is a Constitutional scholar and lawyer. Her evisceration of the judiciary and Congress is Epic. [COSP =Convention of States Project, Mark Levin is an advocate BTW and thus a viper. I noticed after I pointed that out years ago at OT, the web page disappeared. 🤔]
4I trust you see why Hamilton is viciously smeared. The relentless attacks on our Framers have a purpose: Take them down – and our Foundation is destroyed. Hamilton wrote most of The Federalist Papers, which Madison and Jefferson recognized as the best evidence of the genuine meaning of our Constitution. What effect do these constant attacks on Hamilton have on peoples’ respect for The Federalist Papers? Beware of false friends who undermine our Foundation; and of jealous men whose claim to fame is that they attack Hamilton. [In looking up various Federalist Papers on Brave, I have come across some doozys but could not find the actual papers, just commentary. — GC]
This is her conclusion in her article on Transgenders in the Military.
Conclusion
Let us put the federal courts in their proper place! Congress and the President have the recognized power to refuse to go along with unconstitutional or ultra vires acts of the Judicial Branch; and their Oaths of office require them to do so. Congress also has the power to rid us of usurping federal judges via the impeachment process.
Let’s analyze COSP’s silly argument. We begin by looking at First Principles:
♦The Judicial Branch was created by Art. III, §1, US Constitution. Accordingly, it is a “creature” of the Constitution. 1
♦The federal government came into existence when the States, acting through special ratifying conventions held in each of the States, ratified the Constitution.2
Since the Judicial Branch is merely a “creature” of the Constitution, it follows that it is subordinate to the Constitution, and is completely subject to its terms. It may not annul the superior authority of the States which created the Judicial Branch when they ratified the Constitution; 3 and as a mere “creature” of the Constitution, it may NOT change the Constitution under which it holds its existence! 4
….we elect to Congress people who don’t know our Constitution or The Federalist Papers; and they are unaware of their Duty – imposed by their Oath of office – to function as a “check” on the Judicial Branch by impeaching federal judges who violate our Constitution.
… we delegated only a very few powers to the federal government.
Accordingly, Congress has strictly limited legislative powers over the Country at large. These powers are listed primarily at Art. I, §8, clauses 3-16, and are restricted to war, international commerce & relations; and domestically, the creation of an uniform commercial system: weights & measures, patents & copyrights, a monetary system based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, mail delivery & roads. Several Amendments delegate to Congress some power over civil rights.
These enumerated powers are the only areas where the federal government has lawful authority over The States and The People in The States. In all other matters [except those listed at Art. I, §10]the States and The People retain supremacy, independence, and sovereignty. Go here for a complete list of all of Congress’ Enumerated Powers.
Obamacare is altogether unconstitutional because it is outside the scope of the legislative powers We granted to Congress. 👉Nothing in Our Constitution authorizes the federal government to control our medical care 👈 (or to exercise the other fearsome powers in the Act)...
… it is a President’s sworn duty to refuse to enforce any unconstitutional “law” made by Congress. And contrary to the misinformation with which we are constantly bombarded, judges are not vested with exclusive authority to declare Acts of Congress unconstitutional.
The Truth is that a President, the States, local governments, 👉and individual citizens👈, together with the courts, all have the Right &Duty to overrule – to spurn & cast out – unconstitutional laws made by Congress.For it is a fundamental [though long suppressed] Principle of our Founding that an unconstitutional “law” is no “law” at all – it is a “mere usurpation, and deserves to be treated as such”…
I am going to detour to what I consider an important topic in my old notes, JURY NULLIFICATION. It is the American citizens FINAL SAY on the laws passed by our representatives. From 2015:
A pamphlet told the juror what his Constitutional rights and obligations were. This is information the JUDGE should be clearly stating to EVERY JURY. INSTEAD He was arrested for handing out literature. LINK
In fact this is becoming a LAW in some states thanks to the groups handing out the pamphlets.
This is perhaps THE MOST IMPORTANT move any American can make to protect our freedom. WE as Jurorists have the RIGHT and duty to judge not only the case by the LAW itself. We as Jurorists CAN set aside laws passed by Congress! This is the ultimate power of the people over the government and the Elite want to keep it hidden!
…On appeal, however, the jurors’ action was upheld and the right of juries to judge both the law and the facts — to nullify the law if it chose— became part of British constitutional law.
It ultimately became part of American constitutional law as well, With only a few exceptions, juries are explicitly or implicitly told to worry only about the facts and let the judge decide the law.
The right of jury nullification has become one of the legal system’s best kept secrets.
Now a remarkable coalition has sprung up to challenge this secrecy as undemocratic, unconstitutional and dangerous…
FIJA seeks to require that juries be informed of their nullification rights. Informed jury amendments have been filed as an initiative in seven states and legislation has been introduced in the Alaska state legislature.
Merely raising the issue of nullification can make prosecutors nervous, for it takes only one person aware of the right in order to hang a jury. In Washington, DC, where the concept was discussed in connection with the Marion Barry trial, a local television station reported that the US Attorney was worried that a jury might nullify the law in that case……
Far from being an unintended side-effect, jury nullification is explicitly authorized in the constitutions of 24 states.State Language on Jury Nullification
“…Merely raising the issue of nullification can make prosecutors nervous…”
Publius Huldah gets into WHY prosecutors become nervous and what has been done to our legal system.
…The Federalist Papers were written during 1787-88 by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, to explain the proposed Constitution to The People and to induce them to ratify it. Thus, The Federalist is the most authoritative commentary on the genuine meaning of Our Constitution. And at a meeting of the Board of Visitors of the University of Virginia on March 4, 1825 at which Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were present, the following resolution selecting the texts for the Law school, was passed:
…on the distinctive principles of the government of our own state, and of that of the US. the best guides are to be found in 1. the Declaration of Independance, as the fundamental act of union of these states. 2. the book known by the title of `The Federalist’, being an authority to which appeal is habitually made by all, and rarely declined or denied by any as evidence of the general opinion of those who framed, and of those who accepted the Constitution of the US. on questions as to it’s genuine meaning…. (page 83) [emphasis added]
So! Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of Independence, and James Madison, Father of The Constitution, acknowledged the high authoritative status of The Federalist Papers. They saw The Constitution as having a fixed meaning which one could learn by consulting The Federalist!
2. But supreme Court judges soon refused to submit to The Constitution as explained by The Federalist Papers. In 1907, former Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes said, “…the Constitution is what the judges say it is…”. Judges thus rejected the objective standard provided by The Federalist, and substituted their own subjective interpretations. Law schools embraced this subversion: Instead of teaching The Constitution as a set of fixed principles explained by The Federalist, they taught supreme Court opinions which say Congress may do whatever it pleases. They also taught that supreme Court judges have unbridled authority to say what the Constitution means. Law schools thus produced generations of constitutionally illiterate lawyers & judges who have been indoctrinated with the monstrous Lie that Our Constitution means whatever judges on the supreme Court say! And because these lawyers failed in their sacred duty to think, and uncritically accepted what they were told, Our Country is on the brink of destruction….
Of course our John Dewey Progressive School System made DARN SURE Americans are completely ignorant of our Constitution, rights and remedies, the better to turn us into good little Marxist slaves.
On last, Publius Huldah’s article on calling forth the militia.
Because of its excellence and relevance to the insurrections being fomented in our cities by the Marxist organization “Black Lives Matter”, Antifa, and other revolutionary organizations; I sent the recent paper by Edwin Vieira, JD., Ph.D., titled, “The President’s Authority To Suppress Insurrections” [link], to my lists.
In response, some objected that the riots in the cities are local issues to be handled (or not) by the State and local governments – that they are not “federal” issues over which the federal government has jurisdiction. Some also asserted that Article IV, §4, US Constitution prohibits the President from sending the National Guard into a State to quell such disturbances, unless & until the Legislature or the Governor of the State requests it.
Those objections are not well-founded.
First: What’s going on in our cities is not something which can be prudently brushed aside. It is a classic manifestation of a Marxist revolution – see, e.g., this article from “Workers’ World”. Furthermore, as shown below, the President of the United States has constitutional and statutory authority to exercise his own judgment as to whether he should send in the “Militia” to suppress the uprisings.
Second: Our Constitution provides two separate and independent methods for the federal government to suppress such uprisings.
Dr. Vieira’s paper sets forth the other method of “calling forth the Militia” – the method provided for at Article I, §8, clauses 15 & 16, US Constitution. That provides for the intervention of the Militia within a State at the initiative of the federal government, regardless of whether the State requests it.. 1
I hope you enjoyed my tour through some of Publius Huldah’s articles and will continue reading her excellent commentary. I am now going to look at a few other articles of interest by others.
….a recent Congressional Research Service report explains. “The criteria for election or appointment to these positions are specified in the U.S. Constitution, and except by constitutional amendment, no additional criteria (e.g., holding a security clearance) may be required.”
In fact, the security clearance system itself is an expression of presidential authority. Its scope and operation are defined in an executive order (EO 12968), and its terms can be modified by the President at will.
And if the President wished to grant access to classified information to a family member, for example, there would be no legal barrier to doing so…..
So that kills THAT objection by RINOs and Demonrats when it comes to ratifying POTUS Trump’s picks.
…Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson wrote in a letter to the senators earlier this month that he could not begin a review of the security clearance process without direction from Trump or one of his “designees” because “the authority over access to classified information ultimately rests with the President of the United States.”…
Of course the Senate has ZERO jurisdiction over Security Clearances so this is just more encroachment on the executive.
Matt Gaetz
So You CAN appoint a private citizen as a Special Counsel, and they can begin their important work WITHOUT a Senate confirmation hearing or vote?
Now Adam Schiff is going to be come a senator. I wonder if POTUS Trump will deny him a security clearance…. OR WORSE?
Added by Wolf…..
Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) on Tuesday assailed President-elect Donald Trump’s suggestion that he and other former members of the defunct House Jan. 6 committee be imprisoned.
Trump advocated that those on the former panel who investigated the 2021 U.S. Capitol riot and his role in overturning the 2020 election should “go to jail.”
“I don’t think the incoming president should be threatening his political opponents with jail time,” Schiff told reporters on his first full day as a senator. “That’s not the kind of talk we should hear from the president in a democracy, nor do I think that a pardon is necessary for the members of the Jan. 6 committee.”
President Joe Biden is weighing preemptive pardons over fears Trump may seek retribution against Schiff and other high-profile members of the bipartisan panel, including former Chairman Bennie Thomson (D-MS), Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), and former Rep. Liz Cheney. Biden is also considering pardons for other political foes who could come under Trump’s microscope.
“We are proud of the work we did in that committee,” Schiff continued. “It was a fundamental oversight obligation to investigate the first attempt to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power in our history.”
Trump said in an NBC Meet the Press interview that aired over the weekend that he would not direct Justice Department officials to bring charges against the committee members but accused them of engaging in unspecified criminal activity.
“For what they did, honestly, they should go to jail,” Trump said.
In a separate portion, Trump said that “retribution will be through success.” He’s also vowed to pardon those charged with and convicted of crimes related to the Capitol riot.
Let’s see what happens to Pencil-Neck Shifty Schiff!
Joe Biden never won. This is our Real President – 45, 46, 47.
AND our beautiful REALFLOTUS.
This Stormwatch Monday Open Thread remains open – VERY OPEN – a place for everybody to post whatever they feel they would like to tell the White Hats, and the rest of the MAGA/KAG/KMAG world (with KMAG being a bit of both).
Our various sister sites, listed in the Blogroll in the sidebar
Our beloved country is under Occupation by hostile forces.
Daily outrage and epic phuckery abound.
We can give in to despair…or we can be defiant and fight back in any way that we can.
Joe Biden didn’t win.
And we will keep saying Joe Biden didn’t win until we get His Fraudulency out of our White House.
Wolfie’s Wheatie’s Word of the Week:
urbiculture
noun
cultivation or development of urban life
the practices and problems peculiar to cities or to urban life
the way of life characteristic of cities
urban culture
Used in a sentence
Is wokeism a natural part of modern urbiculture, or is it a special pathology thereof?
Shown in a picture by Gab’s “wokester” AI, “Woke Gemini”
Apparently shown in a video (by searching on the word)
MUSIC!
SO – the DDG search “urbiculture music” weirdly brings back mostly videos of Ethiopian music, but it also brought back this ambient Greek and Mediterranean music with accompanying scenic photography. Enjoy!
This Stormwatch Monday Open Thread remains open – VERY OPEN – a place for everybody to post whatever they feel they would like to tell the White Hats, and the rest of the MAGA/KAG/KMAG world (with KMAG being a bit of both).
Our various sister sites, listed in the Blogroll in the sidebar
Our beloved country is under Occupation by hostile forces.
Daily outrage and epic phuckery abound.
We can give in to despair…or we can be defiant and fight back in any way that we can.
Joe Biden didn’t win.
And we will keep saying Joe Biden didn’t win until we get His Fraudulency out of our White House.
Wolfie’s Wheatie’s Word of the Week:
zymotechnics
noun
the art of fermentation
fermentation technology
Used in a sentence
If one considers Pasteur and zymotechnics to be ancestral to modern biotechnology, then surely Liebig and early organic chemistry are foundational to modern pharmaceutical, agrochemical, and medicinal chemistry. (Derived from THIS LINK.)
Shown in a picture, sorta, kinda, hey, look! A squirrel!
Shown in a Soviet Uzbek film – no, wait – that’s not….. whatever!
MUSIC!
Well, now that we’re committed to the theme…..
UGH. Think I’ll have a sparkling water!
THE STUFF
If you want to see how much bad science is out there, just watch this lady review a scientific paper that was getting some “wowee” buzz.
You don’t have to understand the equations – just assume for the moment that she knows what she’s talking about (this is her area of science).
But notice that the opposite should also be true (and she says it). Some valuable gems get lost in the trash as well. Good science is increasingly not noticed, until it is rediscovered a second or third time and somehow gets more attention.
This Stormwatch Monday Open Thread remains open – VERY OPEN – a place for everybody to post whatever they feel they would like to tell the White Hats, and the rest of the MAGA/KAG/KMAG world (with KMAG being a bit of both).
