Hello: It's Called CRITICAL THINKING, Jesus!

Just go on the internet, TV or radio and listen to all those hypocrites and phoneys. Why anyone on planet Earth believes a word that any of them says is way, way, beyond me. You want to know why? Let me tell you, because most people are gullible fools who're ideologically fixated. You can't get any stupider than that.

I don't care if you're a Liberal, Conservative or a Social Democrat in Canada, or a Republican or Democrat in the states because baby, you're all exactly the same. From the get-go, you suspend your ability to critically think: your side is always right -- never wrong -- and the other side is always wrong, never right. You consider your side perfect and infallible, while the other side is evil and the devil incarnate. Talk about morons.

But there's so much more: you go out of your way to justify each and every thing that your side does, and then tear down each and every thing the other side does. Then you actually believe what all the lying politicians come up with but again, only on your side. The other side's politicians are, of course, always wrong while yours are always right. Think idiots, for those who actually fall for that.

And then there's protecting or justifying the actions of every POS that happens to be prominent in your party or whose ideology matches yours. Hello, Trump supporters are the most prominent example by far, but cults of personality also exist among Democrats, not to mention Liberals here in Canada.

What I say is, screw all of them! At least independents have the brains to self-adjust and move their vote from one party to the other after determining who is the best candidate for such and such a political office. Thank God for independents.

There should be no place in this world for political dumbasses who happen to be sheep. What an incredibly pathetic world this has become, politically speaking. Can people get any more gullible or stupid? You bet they can!... 

What's Behind "That Little B"?

What exactly is behind the feud dynamic between Marjorie Taylor Green and Lauren Boebert? Interesting. Green has been a staunch ally of the leadership, more particularly, Speaker McCarthy, and remains totally loyal to Trump as well. Is she really angling for the VEEP spot on the Republican ticket, as some reporting has already claimed, or is this more about moving up in the leadership? Probably both, with leadership in the House as a consolation prize. Either way, she seemingly can't lose.

So does she really give a shit about being ousted from The Freedom Caucus? Probably not. Boebert, on the other hand, has been doing a lot of campaigning with surrogates, most notably Don Jr. Does she also have VEEP ambitions? Maybe. So, it appears to be far more of a political fight than a cat fight, as so much of the press have already labelled it.

All of this is incredibly amusing, but I think Trump, who thus far appears likely to win the nomination, will more than likely want a woman on the ticket. But in my book, rival candidate Nikki Haley would likely have the inside track there. Normally, it would be smart to do a Reagan-Bush for the general, but the antipathy between Trump and DeSantis now makes that impossible. They quite literally appear to hate each other.

Once again, I think convention wisdom is complete bullshit: Republican strategist after Republican strategist has taken to the airways to say that if Trump wins Iowa, then it's all over. Nope. Mind you, if Trump wins both Iowa and New Hampshire, then yes, he'll probably become the nominee.

As for the general, if Biden and Trump are the nominees and Biden remains mired at 40% in the polls, then Biden more than likely loses to Trump, incredible as that seems. Registered independents will call the tune in 2024 and right now, at least a plurality of them quite literally hate Biden's guts because of inflation and the bad economy, you know, the economy they laughably pretend is a good economy.

So Trump has The Big Mo right now. Let's see how long it lasts. 

NATO: Article 5 Needs To Be Invoked Now.

I understood the argument previously made on multiple occasions as to why NATO could not and would not invoke Article 5 to defend Ukraine, a NATO strategic enhanced opportunities partner. NATO also refused to begin the membership process, as doing so would likely widen a regional war into a full-blown war affecting most of Europe.

That was then and this is now. I absolutely disagreed with both those arguments and felt Ukraine's membership should have been put on the fast track, even before the war broke out and definitely following the Russian invasion. 

Unfortunately, even today, NATO can't see the forest for the trees: remember the strongman called Putin? The guy who specializes in poisons and flying oligarchs? Well, I was of the view that Putin's grip on power was never as all-encompassing as most intelligence agencies believed. I suspected that the real politik mentality was far more WWI based than WWII, but that is pure speculation on my part. That's what the gut told me.

But now, circumstances have drastically changed post Wagner and Prigozhin. Seize the moment. By all accounts, both foreign and domestic, Putin is demonstrably weaker and his total grip on power is no longer almost assured. The other problem Putin has is the search for traitors: you know, high-ranking military leaders who were at least sympathetic to Prigozhin, if not low-key allies. Putin has to ask himself how many traitors are in his midst. My guess is far more than he, the GRU and the FSB can weed out. So, Putin could be on borrowed time politically, not to mention related to his current health status.

I wouldn't want to be in Putin's shoes going forward. The road ahead isn't clear and is fraught with both national security and personal landmines. It's been clear for quite some time that Putin is not sure who he can trust 100%. Given the Wagner rebellion, that interrogatory can only be far more substantial now. In short, personal peace of mind has now definitely gone by the wayside.

But back to Article 5: if Ukraine's membership was finally fast-tracked, Putin would suddenly find himself with only two choices: continue the war against all of NATO or begin demonstrable troop withdrawals to limit or preferably end the occupation of Ukrainian territory, actual or previously held. Given the weakened state of Russian forces in theatre, it would be highly advisable for Putin to choose option 2. But NATO sees none of that re: a forced retreat by Russian forces. Some argue that Putin, personally, simply can't go there because he fears an eventual or likely prosecution in The Hague. An interesting argument, but IMHO not sufficiently substantive to deter Putin from ending this war.

Putin knows very well that if it becomes an all-in NATO war, Russia has no chance of winning, period. So, once again, NATO is snatching potential defeat from the jaws of eventual victory. A case in point: just look at F-16s, the link below pretty much says it all.

Ukraine Shouldn’t Count On the F-16 Before 2025: Are There Any Alternatives | Defense Express (defence-ua.com)

SCOTUS: Christian Web Designer And Marriage Planner.

Now, this is an interesting case. I'm not going into specifics here but want to paint a general picture for analysis purposes: in short, the majority ruled that the Christian, faith-based web designer and marriage planner did not have to offer her services to same-sex couples, given her personal view in opposition to same-sex marriage.

In this case, the web planner's speech right, which takes the form of written speech, was upheld as opposed to the speech right of a same-sex couple. Her right of expression is personal in nature and cannot be regulated by compulsion or enforcement. That makes sense. But then there's the written expression right of a potential client, which would normally be reflected by the written output of the designer and marriage planner that was hired. So yes, the client's speech right is being infringed and not just at the margins. 

I'm not for forcing people to do X, if not doing X is not illegal or a crime. So I understand the majority reasoning, but also can resonate with the minority opinions. 

But in the final analysis, the elephant in the room is the state's position on same-sex marriage. Has that adequately been addressed in the majority opinion? I don't know. In Colorado, same-sex marriage has been legal since 2014. So, how much legal weight should be given to that -- the law in Colorado -- and should it in any way sway the justices' legal opinions?

This is a private sector dispute. If it was about someone who provides public sector services, either governmental or judicial in nature, I think the case would likely have gone the other way. But again, this is in the private sector and compulsion is hard to justify to enforce one party's constitutionally protected speech rights. Sure, the web designer serves the public. But it's far more of a business than a public service, so where to adequately draw the line?

And for you lawyers out there comes the debate over who precisely does or does not have legal standing in this case and the affirmative action case. But when the court attributes legal standing to a plaintiff or intervenor, how can that not be seen as legal, even if its appropriateness can be called into question?

So, what this case proves is that even in the area of free speech, courts are ready to rank that right and even create a hierarchy as regards expression, or lack thereof, of those same rights.

A Supreme Court Of Absolute Fools...

First, on abortion and now affirmative action...what a disgrace. The idea that any man could dictate to a woman about her own individual rights, not to mention trying to impose their way on a woman's body. And then having the unmitigated gall to bring these matters before state courts, in some cases, if a woman crosses a state line to get an abortion. 

And now, gutting affirmative action -- except for the military -- is to live in pretend America, you know, a country that is not overtly but subtly racist in so many instances. The big lie in the United States is about a so-called color-blind society, which has not and does not now exist in America. 

Ask any minority group about the level of racism, and no one will tell you that society is color-blind. Look at the way legislatures gerrymander districts to suppress the electoral impact of minority voting. No, no, that's not racism at work. Not at all. Right.

That country is very quickly going to hell in a handbasket. And so many Americans are cheering as decades of progress made in the area of individual rights is thoroughly flushed down the dumper.

America isn't back. It's slowly sinking into the open hands of prejudice and collective dismissal of fundamental human rights to equality and a level playing field. Enjoy the trip. It won't end well for any of you.

Powell, That Idiot.

Here's the straight goods, only that is,  if YOU can take it:

(1301) Fed Paused To Prevent Banking System Collapse | Michael Pento - YouTube

China.

 就像 1972 年的尼克松一样，我个人刚刚对中国敞开了大门。考虑到那里的互联网接入状况，这有点令人惊讶。希望我的贡献能够鼓励中国与西方，特别是美国之间加强对话和理解。持续的和平符合我们所有人的最佳利益。习主席和我们其他人一样清楚这一点。