Free Republic

Nobody went to jail so expect their cheating to be even more bold this time around

Absolutely! They won. Not only no one went to jail (a penalty), but no one effectively challenged their fraud so they gained power (a reward). Why not do it again?

He [Biden] will lose the election despite the democrats cheating.

I appreciate your optimism. I wish I could share it. I'm not sure there is a limit to the 'margin of cheating.' Trump could win the actual, legal vote by 20% and the Dhimms would just manufacture 25% more fraudulent ballots.

Republicans are worried about votes. Dhimms only care about ballots. We know which one wins, and I can't see that the Republicans have done anything to counter that.

But I believe laws in Ohio and Georgia mandate that the ballots for the November election be printed on about Aug 9.

So what? They were changing election rules in 2020 - without benefit of legal authorization from the legislatures - right up until they had enough ballots (actual votes don't matter) to claim the Residency.

If it is logistically possible (and it would be) to print new ballots after the Dhimm convention, then 'rules' don't matter.

For me, the primary benefit of open carry being allowed in my state is that I can carry concealed and not get into problems if my gun is accidentally exposed.

Exactly! There is another similar advantage. I live in Texas and sometimes it gets hot enough that I slip off my jacket or covering shirt and my pistol shows. I never do that in 'open' areas (meaning, with a lot of general public), but if I'm working on our RV in the storage lot, or taking things in and out of my car at home, then I'm not paranoid about hiding my pistol, nor taking it off and storing it somewhere for that short time.

But open carry is like wearing gaudy, apparently expensive watches or jewelry. It gives someone an incentive to try to rob you, and I don't think anyone is invulnerable to an ambush-attack planned in advance to steal the weapon. On the other hand, if you *might* have a weapon, then the bad guys *might* choose an easier target. To that end, even if I'm not carrying because I'm going somewhere I can't, I often wear a jacket just so they don't know.

Election Day needs to be made a national holiday.

Yes, and no options on voting. The key thing here is that conservatives work for a living and will find it much easier to get to the polls if it's a holiday. Dhimms and Dhimm voters are one of three (non-exclusive) types: Tyrant Wannabes, Freeloaders, or Stupid. Most of them don't work for a living and it won't matter to them if voting day is a day off.

So, having voting day be a holiday is no advantage to the Dhimms and might increase turnout among conservatives.

More importantly, it might reduce fraud. The 'get out the vote' and what voters want has become irrelevant. All that matters is ballots, and in particular who counts them. The main sources of ballots for the Dhimms are nursing homes (or the freeloader equivalent in subsidized housing) or cemeteries. Voting itself is no longer important, no matter how it is controlled.

. . . it’s meant to be a proof-of-concept.

Yes. I'm sure all they want to do is get high and fast enough to show that they can make the aerospike work, and get some data on performance.

Getting to orbit is all about speed. You can get high with low speeds (which, for orbiting spacecraft, can be something around Mach 2). Orbit requires about Mach 20. So the real issue is getting high enough to reduce drag, then go fast. Back when we had the Space Shuttle, if you watch the films you see that they got to Mach 1 at less than one minute into the (almost) nine minute main burn.

Most of that main burn was spent high enough that the bells on the engines were very efficient. Picking up a little efficience (with the aerospike) at Mach 3-4, and losing it from Mach 4 to Mach 20 doesn't sound like a very good optimization.

But I'm all for letting them try, particularly since NASA is not involved. The NASA of nowadays (all DEI and government bureaucrats) has ruined anything manned for the last 30 years.

If you are a government employee and fail to fully and completely cooperative with an audit, internal investigation, legal case. Automatic termination, loss of all benefits, can never be rehired.

Absolutely! None of what you listed is criminal prosecution - which should be illegal based only on failure to testify against yourself. The same could probably apply to civil cases where there is a potential judgment against you. But non-criminal penalties like getting fired are absolutely allowed if your employer is the one doing the questioning - and supposedly all government employees work for us, who assess things through the court system.

He stated that had she pled the 5th from the start, she would have been fine. But she answered some questions and then clammed up. Apparently not allowed . . .

You're right, as another poster showed in a link, but I disagree. That should be absolute. If at any time you think you might be testifying against yourself, you should be able to stop.

Of course, that doesn't mean you can't be fired from your job. It should mean that you can't be held criminally liable for whatever might be implied by your silence.

Leftist totalitarians hate them for these reasons.

Exactly, and on multiple levels.

People who actually shoot them find they like shooting. It's not scary (when done safely, and with the safety 'built in' by the way they are taught) because the recoil is light and it's very ergonomic which 'feels' comfortable from the start. This is why I start teaching someone to shoot with a heavy barrel .22LR target pistol, not a lightweight .357Mag revolver before moving on even to an AR-15.

On the other hand, it's empowering because you realize that you truly *can* control real firepower instead of just cowering in your cave and hoping the bad guys go away. It gives you both confidence and a sense of responsibility because you can no longer just say, "Defending myself is too hard (and dangerous) so I must leave it to someone else."

From a totalitarian perspective, what's not to hate?

Had Trump declared for a national end to abortion,

Brought about how? The Supreme Court was right. The Federal Government has no authority on abortion (or any other topic not covered by the specified powers).

If Trump declared he'd like to use his influence to convince people not to have abortions, then fine.

If Trump declared he'd push for a Constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion, then legal and Constitutional, but bad politics. Also impossible, because the Dhimms would never let it out of Congress, and there isn't enough support among enough States to start it that way. For all that I agree abortion is murder, this is not the only windmill to take on and it's less likely to be productive than a host of others.

The parallel with slavery is appropriate, but we need to remember that the so-called Civil War (actually a War Between the States) did not 'officially' start because of slavery. It was because of an act of war (firing on Fort Sumter). Slavery was only ended with the 13th Amendment after the war was concluded. The President cannot (Constitutionally) legally declare an end to a practice not specifically prohibited to the States by the Constitution.

Employees don’t see the money like folks that pay quarterly.

Absolutely! There are a lot of 'hidden' takings that people don't think about - and that's the way the Federal government wants it. Basic income tax withholding is the worst, by far, but arbitrarily labelling half of the Social Security money sent in the by the employer as 'employee cost' and the other half that came out of the same potential compensation pot as the 'employer cost' is one of them.

I had to pay all of the Social Security, twice as much as a company employee.

This is one of the big lies of the Federal Government. The employee always pays *all* of Social Security.

Consider the situation where the employer puts on a table all the money he has to compensate the employee for the value the employee has added to the company. He pulls back one dollar out of every eight and puts that in a separate pile.

One half of that pile is sent it to the Federal Government labeled "Employee contribution to Social Security" and the other half of that pile is sent in to the Federal Government labeled "Employer contribution to employee's Social Security." But it was all potentially available for compensation to the employee and none of it ever went to the employee.

a link to a medical research paper

I read it as a paper copy. The 'cytokine storm' is another disease mechanism, usually late in the cycle. But the paper said nothing about it. As I said, this is an early paper. As best I can find out, it appears that the cytokine storm is analogous to an allergic reaction where the some bodies over-react to something in the byproducts of the virus. That's not a good explanation, but it may explain why the paper said nothing about it - no hyper-allergic reactions by the time it was written.

One of the really, really ugly things about the way this whole disease was handled is that the death rate was in fact so low except among a very narrow subset of the population (primarily old, with complications from obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc.). As a result, when an unusual response (hyper-allergic reaction) showed up, it drove the perception of the overall disease.

But for most of the deaths, the progression was to lose ability to carry oxygen in the blood, which made old, obese, heart disease, etc. die before the body could counter the virus. The best treatment - which again, didn't always work on the old, etc.) was to administer supplemental oxygen to make it easier for the remaining healthy blood cells to carry enough oxygen to keep the patient alive. The worst possible treatment was to put the patient on a ventilator - which, by forcing higher pressure air in and out of the lungs toughened up the alveoli cell membranes making it *harder* to transfer oxygen to the blood.

But, your underlying point is still important. Whether it is the breakdown of hemoglobin as the paper I saw said, or some sort of cytokine storm reaction (possibly only in hyper-allergic patients) we still did not see the disease mechanism presented, with statistical breakdowns on relation to specific additional factors (e.g. heart disease).

And then there is the whole mRNA disease-mimic approach, which is flawed on so many levels that even telling people to do it should be grounds for prison time. But my postings are too long anyway.

Sorry, Phyler, that is wildly wrong.

I beg to differ, in part. In the other places where there is a significant Muslim population, the Muslims do not control the political/official "government." They benefit from the economy of the non-Muslims without the guilt of not succeeding when in control. The Muslims living in Israeli-controlled portions of Israel likewise benefit from that successful economy (and are, as you said, mostly middle class).

But in Muslim controlled areas, which includes Gaza as well as Syria, etc., the economy is terrible and they have no one to blame but themselves unless there is a great and terrible conspiracy by the 'oppressors' to hold them down. Since the only side-by-side comparisons of Muslim and Western-style control are in and around Israel, that becomes the focus for their guilt and hatred.

Nonetheless, this has been going on for generations and it is certainly true that 90% of the Muslims hate the Jewish people and desire the total detruction of Israel after all that time failing in comparison. It is a bit of a chicken-and-egg thing. Back when all of this area was under Ottoman control, the Jews and Muslims were equally poor and lived alongside each other in reasonable peace. Once the Jews (Western-culture, largely Russian immigrants) gained political/government control and their economy started to do well, the contrast with all the years of Ottoman/Muslim control was too obvious to deny. It needed an explanation, and rather than accept their own failing, they transferred that guilt to hatred for the successful.

My point was that the hatred of Muslim failures for other-group success is not limited to hatred of Jews alone. It would quickly encompass any other groups of 'infidels' if they happened to have that sort of continuing proof (in side-by-side government systems) of the absolute failure of Muslim society.

This is similar to Hitler hatting the Jews. He also hated all 'lesser races' but he hated the Jews in particular because Jews in Germany were generally more successful than Aryan ethnic groups, despite living in the same economy. The comparison made Hitler/Aryans feel guilty for their own lack of success, so they transformed that guilt into hatred for Jews. (It was also financially rewarding when he confiscated all that ill-gotten - somehow or another - wealth.)

My basic point is that the hatred of Muslims for Jews is based less on actual racial distinction and more on hatred of failures for the successful. That has (chicken and egg) resulted in a focused hatred of Jews due to proximity, but the underlying hatred could and will bubble up anywhere their failure becomes undeniable.

. . . should be ashamed and embarrassed for their antisemitism.

Actually, it's not just anti-semitism. The underlying element is the oppressor/oppressed 'score' of the participants, and since Israel is successful, they are on that basis alone 'oppressors.'

But so are Christians, Americans (in general), anyone who is melanin-limited (even if living under a bridge in a cardboard box).

The main problem with the Jews in Israel is that they are successful in the same region of the world where all the Muslim controlled areas are in abject poverty (except for a few ultra-rich oil sheikhs). There are no geographic or resource reasons why Israel is economically successful while Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are not. So there are two possible explanations: Either the Muslims are lazy/stupid/criminal/etc. or the Israelis (mostly Jewish) are oppressing them.

But if the Muslims were living next to Americans, or, say, Norwegians, then it would be those who are the terrible oppressors, not the Jews. So, as I said, it's not really anti-semitism.

Indeed, it was politics not science or medicine that drove the anti HCQ/IVM narrative.

Exactly. I read a paper not long after the whole COVID panic started (in fact, a very short time, like in March of 2020 which makes you wonder how they could get the data so quickly . . . unless they knew it was coming). It was the only place - even today - where I have seen the disease mechanism described.

The main disease progress was for COVID to break down hemoglobin in red blood cells, then break down the heme that is the actual iron-carrying element and occupy the porphorin in it with a COVID protein. The COVID protein has a greater affinity for HCQ (to use the article's abbreviation) than for the hemoglobin porphorin, which helps keep the patient alive (because his blood can still carry oxygen) and interrupts the COVID disease progression.

This is treating the symptom rather than stopping the virus before it ever gets started, but it keeps the patient alive (until he is so late stage that there isn't enough hemoglobin left to keep him alive) until natural defenses can overcome the virus.

I have no explanation for why the actual disease mechanism had *never* been discussed in general sources except one: It was never about the science/medicine. It was always about power.

If Hamas isn’t proud of what they’ve done, then why did they do it?

Exactly. If what they did was just a 'reasonable and limited' response to some sort of Israeli oppression, then why not celebrate it? If the point was to establish that Hamas was so powerful that Israeli women were not safe in their homes in Israel, then why not celebrate it? If what they did was proof of their 'manhood' then why not celebrate it?

The answer to all of those questions is two-fold. First, to other Muslims they show that those 'under the hand' of Islam who are not believers can be raped and killed with impunity - but that message is only for other Muslims (and their sycophants). The second aspect is that they are pushing the lie that the October 7th attack was not as bad as the Israelis say, so proof that the Israelis - and not the Muslims - are telling the truth is unwanted.

Nabeel Quareshi, who wrote, "Seeking Allah and Finding Jesus" said that in Islam, the only thing that causes shame is getting caught. This applies to any act we would consider criminal from murder and rape to stealing something from a convenience store. If they don't get caught, then they are heroes and can (not in public) brag about it. If they do get caught, then they are shamed - and of course, nothing in the news media is allowed to shame Muslims. After all, they are 'the oppressed', not 'the oppressor.'

After the last big hail storm in the DFW area, all car dealers put in these fabric (kevlar?) covers over their lots . . .

That's the thing! Let's build solar farms and put covers over all of them. And we could build wind farms inside big hangars so that birds won't run into them. And . . . I mean, this green energy stuff just needs some creative thinking and it will be economical any day now.

Maybe you could have read my entire post...

Maybe you should not assume that I didn't. Just because I excerpted a portion so that everyone didn't have to reread the entire post doesn't mean I didn't read it.

If you think there is something else in you post that negates the point I was making, the please, explain it.

The real problem is not the Foreign Dredge act, or the Jones act. Those are symptoms of non-competitive US practices.

What makes them non-competitive? Minimum wage laws or their equivalent in the form of requiring companies to use only union labor or at least pay union-level wages. If pay were tied to value added rather than being set arbitrarily by people who never needed to make a payroll in their lives, then US workers - who truly are very competitive in productivity - would not need artificial boundaries to foreign competition.

However, it would take more than just reducing/eliminating minimum wage laws. Shipping is so efficient that it's cheaper to pay slave wages in China and ship the resulting products half way around the world than to pay a 'reasonable' wage in this country. So what do we do? Allow slave wage "sweatshops" in this country, or prop up wages so that, by-and-large, US citizens could expect to find a job that can support their families? It's a tough question because the governments of the world have intruded into so many aspects of the global economy that it's essentially impossible to tell what the "true" price is (as expressed, for example, in loaves of bread earned per hour or some other measure that has true intrinsic value).

Friedrich Hayek pointed out (in "The Road to Serfdom") that you can't control part of an economy. It may be impossible to return to a true value-based wage system. In the meantime, we have minimum wage laws and their children (like the Jones act).