The data continues to come in and is clear.

Not only are the hospitalization requirements from nursing home and other "skilled care" institutions for elderly people ridiculously over-represented (in every state where I have found detailed information by forty to fifty times or more their percentage of the population at-large) but they are also ridiculously over-represented when it comes to deaths, usually by the same percentages.

Without these deaths and hospitalizations and deaths, in fact this disease would be of no special concern at all.  Oh certainly, it would kill some people -- but by no means would it rate as a serious public health threat worthy of closing the entire economy and causing an economic depression.

It wasn't originally either, by the way -- this hasn't changed.  "Mitigations" will not change if you will get the virus; that has been admitted since this began.  They only change when you get the virus.  If it's going to kill you, it's going to kill you.

So the plan should have been, and we the people should accept nothing other, than the following on an immediate basis -- under pain of whatever we have to do to enforce it.

1. All skilled nursing home and other similar facilities are locked in.  This includes staff; if there is insufficient housing then rent some RVs or other trailers, stick them in the parking lot, and there you go.  Nobody comes in or leaves unless they have a positive antibody test and a negative PCR test, demonstrating they cannot transmit the virus.  Any staff member who refuses is summarily fired and, if they are a licensed individual, their license is revoked.  Deliveries are made to the curb of the facility with zero contact between such persons and the staff.  Period.

2. Any person who can demonstrate immunity may enter upon and leave said facility as they wish; this includes visitors, workmen and others.  No other person, except in the case of documented emergency (e.g. plumbing malfunction,  emergency transport of a resident to a hospital, etc) may do so and any person who must for emergency reasons must be screened on-site for the virus before being allowed in the building.  If this is impractical (e.g. EMS workers) then the entire path on which they travel and any location where they or any of their equipment goes must be immediately sanitized upon their departure by a person who is antibody-positive.

3. A person (e.g. resident) who leaves may not return until and unless there is a 14-day quarantine facility on site with completely separate airhandling and no physical interconnection or they test positive for antibodies, documenting that they do not have a latent infection that can become transmissible.

Everyone else goes back to work and all constraints otherwise are dropped.

If we had done this at the outset we would have saved roughly half the lives lost thus far and more than half the hospitalizations.  There would have been zero justification for locking down anything.  Likewise, there is no justification for doing so now.

People in this circumstance account for approximately 1/2% of the population of the nation.  We are being collectively punished to "protect" these people and not only are we failing to do so, as they're dying at ridiculously outsized rates, in addition collective punishment when one has committed no offense is both blatantly unconstitutional and a proper casus belli.

Again, there is no particular problem with hospital capacity absent these individuals and, in addition the mitigation measures not only cannot prevent you from getting the virus they were never claimed to be able to either; the entire justification for them was to avoid overloading the hospitals.

Well, that's how you accomplish that -- and any politician who is empowered to drop the constraints and doesn't must be immediately ejected from their office and our economy restarted now.

When someone runs a pack of lies intended to commit theft of trillions while allowing brigands to go free and steal, you should force them from office.

If they refuse to leave then the people should contemplate whether their government continues to enjoy consent of the governed.

And if that contemplation leads the people to the conclusion that it does not, then said government is dissolved.  It may leave in peace or may leave otherwise but the people have every right to compel it to leave.

This is the foundation of America.  You cannot believe that America is a valid nation, with a valid government, and not adhere to all of the above.  If you do then you're Hitler, Mao, or Pol Pot.  You have no more right to continue to be in said government than they did while they were murdering millions.

Thus, I give you Sanders:

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., on Tuesday compared the push to combat climate change to the response to the attack on Pearl Harbor as he unveiled legislation that would declare a “climate emergency" and demand a massive-scale mobilization to tackle it.

“In some ways...I’m reminded today in terms of the crisis that we face in climate change about where the United States was in 1941 when it was attacked at Pearl Harbor, and what happened at that point, having to fight a war on two fronts in the East and in Europe, the United States came together and within three years it had created the type of armaments program that was necessary to, in fact, win the war,” he said in a conference call with reporters.

This is a lie in all respects.

It is intended to steal trillions from United States citizens.

It is intended to enrich other nations at the expense of said citizens.

It is intended to enslave.

And under the 13th Amendment, it is unlawful, it is unconstitutional, and those who adhere to it must be forced to leave.  Here, now, today, and by any means necessary.

I submit the following facts, which cannot be disputed.

• Human activity is responsible for approximately 3% of CO2 in the atmosphere.
  
  
• Humans are not harmed, nor are any animals, by CO2 levels even more than double that in the atmosphere today.  In fact, the average CO2 level in an American home is twice that of the outside air.  This is simply due to the fact that we limit air exchange with the outside on purpose for energy efficiency reasons, and humans (along with pets) emit CO2.
  
  
• During The Medieval Warm Period, roughly 900-1300 AD, global temperatures were approximately 1-1.5 degrees Centigrade higher than they are now.  There were exactly ZERO SUVs, coal-fired power plants and similar on the planet at the time.  The Vikings explored Greenland at the time and gave that land mass it's name, cultivating both crops and domestic animal food sources including horses, cattle, pigs, sheep and goats.  More than six hundred farms have been found and excavated on Greenland, proving that this was the case.  Post-1300 or thereabouts when the Little Ice Age began these all became non-viable and were abandoned.  I note that the Medieval Warm Period not only did not end the planet from an ecological basis it was thriving, as demonstrated by said civilizations, during that time.
  
  
• During the Maunder Minimum, part of the Little Ice Age, the River Thames froze.  We know this happened because there are paintings, among other historical records, created at that time (~1660) which survive today.
  
  
• Temperatures today are well below the maximum set during The Medieval Warm Period; we have exited The Little Ice Age and the planet is naturally warming.  For exactly how long that will continue cannot be determined but it is important to note that the Earth is currently in an interglacial period, which will eventually (long after everyone currently alive is dead) end.  When it does the planet will cool dramatically, as it has many times through the millennia.
  
  
• This is not the only such anomaly during the time of recorded history.  The Romans enjoyed a similar warm period right around the time of Christ.  Perhaps not coincidentally, a cool period coincided with Roman collapse.  One does not have to wonder why that would have completely hosed the Romans.
  
  
• Climategate exposed an enormous amount of intentional fraud on the part of those promoting the "Global Warming" nonsense, along with their intentional destruction of their claimed original source data.  This is, today, long-documented truth.

There is a long history of scientific fraud associated with various "environmental causes", many of which brought political changes predicated on lies that were directly responsible for massive numbers of deaths.  Here are two of these, one resulting in deaths and one not:

• During the period from the early 1940s to roughly 1975 there was a great deal of concern that the planet was entering another Little Ice Age.  TIME Magazine wrote stories and ran covers about the planet almost-literally freezing over.  This is just one of many scaremongering games politicians and so-called "scientists" have run on the subject of climate and other ecological "disasters."  AOC is not old enough to have been alive when this occurred, but I was and remember it well.  Scientific "consensus" was that we were facing imminent disaster.  Of course the truth, now known. is that we never were, as it never happened.
  
  
• So-called "scientists" also claimed, with much fanfare and universal consensus, that DDT was responsible for the thinning of eggshells among various bird species and, if the substance was not immediately banned, would lead to the destruction of all aviary species and ultimately the planet.  This screamfest culminated in the book Silent Spring by Rachel Carson.  It was all a fraud.  This is not my assertion, it is that of multiple PhDs, including published articles by same.  The resulting ban on DDT, undertaken by our EPA who knew they were lying, had overstated human exposures from the environment by a factor of 1,000 and never corrected the record, along with other governments worldwide who also went along with the fraud, literally killed millions in the ensuing years by allowing malaria, which had been seriously curtailed by mosquito abatement using DDT, to rebound.  This single fraud, all based on alleged "scientific consensus", killed more people than the entire Holocaust; the people who ran that crap managed for many years to rack up between a million and two million deaths annually.  Not one politician or so-called "scientist" was ever held to account for what was one of the largest genocides ever perpetrated on the human race with nearly all of the victims being brown or black. 

Next up we have the inconvenient fact that with humans being responsible for approximately 3% of all CO2 in the atmosphere (the rest is natural) even if we wanted to we could not drive the climate sufficiently to do damage via CO2 emission.

It's simply impossible from a standpoint of physics.  Approximately 2% of all gases in the atmosphere have an absorption spectrum that renders them involved in the so-called "greenhouse effect."  Of that CO2 is only about 3.5% of the total.  In fact nearly all of the gas that is involved in absorption and radiation of solar energy is water vapor.

Never mind that CO2 isn't a "pollutant."  Find anything green in your home or outside and look at it.  About 50% of what you see was once CO2.

CO2 is in fact scarce on a historical planetary basis.  It has been this low only once before for any length of time in the planet's history -- about 300 million years ago.

Further, and very damning, the so-called "measurements" used to make the claim of increasing CO2 levels "in the modern area" are also a scam.  They were cherry-picked; a look at a scatter graph of actual measurements and applying a best-fit curve shows that levels were near 500ppm in the early 1800s, long before we drove SUVs and burned coal or natural gas for electrical power.  This fact is, of course, conveniently omitted and yet this data is public.

It is certainly true that CO2 levels are higher now than they were 50 years ago.  This is good, not bad, in that it feeds plant growth.

This is beneficial, not dangerous.

Now here's the other problem with the base claim: "Human CO2 rise is causing warming."

From early 1900 to roughly mid-century the Earth was warming and CO2 levels were going up modestly.  Since then CO2 levels have risen at roughly three times that rate but temperatures have not gone up faster than they were before.  The rate of increase has not changed even thought he alleged "driving" factor has roughly tripled in impact.

There is no correlation and therefore the claim is, on a scientific basis, false.

Remember: Correlation cannot prove causation -- it can only suggest that it might be true -- but a lack of correlation disproves causation.

Why is the correlation missing if CO2 in fact captures photons, which we know to be true, and thus can cause warming?

Physics tells us why.  CO2, like all gases, has an absorption spectrum.  That is, it only absorbs certain wavelengths of energy.  The problem is that there are only so many photons of energy at that spectra emitted from the Sun that strike the Earth's atmosphere; once you've absorbed them all more CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't do anything to make the planet warmer because there are no more photons of the appropriate spectrum to be absorbed.

This is physics and those are laws, called such because there is no way to violate them.

Finally, none of the so-called "climate models" of the last 20 years have verified.  The expected rise in temperatures did not happen.

An inconvenient truth: We don't have enough carbon-based fuels on the planet to drive planetary CO2 levels even to the level inside your house.  Long before we got there we'd run out of economically-extractable fuel sources and be forced to use something else.  But government doesn't have to do anything to accomplish this; basic economics will do it all on its own as the cost of extraction rises since we continue to burn up the easier to get at, and cheaper, sources first.

Now let's look at what does correlate -- Ecliptic and Elliptical orbital variation and sunspots.  In fact, if you overlay those three factors on the actual temperature record for the last thousand years you find near-perfect correlation.

Does CO2 "cause" warming?  There's no evidence for it and the lack of correlation in fact disproves it.  In addition physics and thermodynamics argue against it as well.  There is no evidence to support the claim and plenty of evidence to support, on a correlation basis, that natural orbital, cosmic ray and sunspot activity is responsible, none of which, obviously, has anything to do with the number of SUVs being driven or whether we use coal and oil for fuel.

Now let's tackle one final claim: In 12 years -- just over a decade -- we're all dead if we don't stop emitting CO2.

That's so laughable that it should result in an immediate hanging for anyone running that crap in a political context.  Why?  Because through most of the Earth's history CO2 levels were dramatically higher than they are now and far beyond the so-called "runaway" level being pontificated.

If such a "runaway" was going to occur it would have happened millions of years ago and killed everything on this rock -- we would not be here.

This is a fanciful lie at the level of open and outrageous fraud; nobody should be able to run that crap and evade prison or worse.

Oh by the way, before I leave this specific part of the topic, let me make a further observation: After the Soviet Union fell suddenly "measured" temperatures started to shoot up.  Want to know why?  A large number of on-Earth temperature stations were in the former Soviet Union.  The Soviet Government, being Communist, paid for fuel at outposts based on the reported temperature; thus, there was a strong incentive to lie and under-report temperatures, especially in the winter.  Most of those stations went offline when the USSR fell but those that did not suddenly and magically started reporting true temperatures which instantly were materially warmer -- a literal impossibility since no time had passed.  The so-called "climate scientists" know this but have not removed that data as knowingly invalid -- on purpose.  In addition surface observations are naturally concentrated where there are people -- which biases the numbers upward due to well-known "heat island" effects (e.g. masses of concrete, blacktop, a thermometer in proximity to an A/C condenser, etc.)  All of this means the error band is wider than the signal (~2 degrees C, typically) and is majority biased one way -- upward.

In other words surface observation data is worthless since there's no possible way to accurately correct the historical data. 

We do have, however, for the last 40 years or so, high-quality satellite data.  It shows the same slope as prior to the 20th century; in other words yes, it is getting warmer -- but increased human emissions of CO2 is not the cause as the rate of change has not increased.

So let's put this in perspective: Will the planet likely be about a degree Celsius warmer in 2100 than around 2000ish?

Probably.  Unless we're entering into a solar minimum -- which we might be -- and if we are, you're going be rather surprised at the temperature deviation starting in the next 10-20 years or so because it's not going to be upward!

Are we the cause of any of this, and if we were to cut CO2 emissions would we stop it?

NO.

Period.

There's one final point.  Let's assume all of the above is wrong; humans are the cause of global warming, it's going to get a lot hotter in the next 100 years, well over 2 degrees Celsius, and we all need to cut all greenhouse gas emissions dramatically to stop it.

Then you have a further problem because the very scientists who claim we have 12 years to stop this also state that even if the United States cut its CO2 output to zero tomorrow that we'd manage to prevent...... a few tenths of a degree of increase in temperature.

Doing so, of course, would mean:

• All coal, oil, and natural gas electrical generation is immediately shut down.  We cannot supply the nation's electrical needs without these sources at anything approaching commercially-reasonable costs.  Solar + wind + batteries would triple or more the cost of electrical power.  This would take the $200 electrical bill in the southern states and make it $600 a month, or close to $7,000 a year.  The median family could not pay that under any set of conditions.
  
  
• ALL air travel of any sort is immediately and permanently barred. There is no way to operate an aircraft without fossil fuels; it is simply a matter of energy density.  This means no Air Force, no Naval Aviators, no civilian air travel and no Air Force One.  Delta, American, United, Southwest, Fed-EX and UPS would all be instantly and permanently grounded.  Overseas travel and trade would effectively and permanently end.  Every person currently employed in any such job would be immediately and permanently unemployed.
  
  
• ALL current oil and natural gas heating in homes and business must be shut down and removed.  The retrofit costs to electrical system (e.g. Heat pumps) would be enormous and in areas where temperatures go below freezing heat pumps do not work during that time because the outside coil both cannot pick up enough heat and it freezes.  Since fossil fuels, including wood burning, would be prohibited the only option would be electric resistance heating which is three to five TIMES as expensive.  $500 monthly heating bills anyone?  Who can afford that in the Northern states?
  
  
• ALL current farm tractors and similar cannot be used and must be destroyed.  Farm output would instantly collapse.  We can easily feed the United States today; this would no longer be true.  Our agricultural output would fall by at least 80%.  But, it wouldn't matter because.....
  
  
• All trucks, currently operated by diesel fuel, and all internal-combustion cars would be permanently banned.  Even if you had food on a farm 300 miles from the city you couldn't get it to the city and everyone inside said city would starve.
  
  
• All ships and our Navy, along with our Air Force, would have to be be permanently scrapped.  The only remaining vessels allowed would be either nuclear powered in the case of naval vessels or sailboats.  Anything too small for nuclear plant couldn't exist at all.  No landing craft, destroyers, frigates, etc. There would be no point to a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier since there would be no aircraft.  We wouldn't have to worry about trade with China, India, Pakistan or Vietnam since there'd be no way to get anything here.  All recreational watercraft, from jetskis to the largest yachts, would have to be scrapped and all businesses making those and their components would have to be shut down.  Even a pleasure sailboat would be illegal as they all have auxiliary internal combustion engines which could not be sold, used or fueled, nor could a generator be used.
  
  
• Personal transportation beyond the range of single-charge return distance (about 300 miles) would become impossible.  Today you can drive north of 1,000 miles in a day, in your own car.  The best of battery technology, both today and on the horizon, limits you to about 300 miles with no reserve, and a multi-hour charge requirement before you can continue.  This makes your effective ability to personally travel less than one third of today's limit on a daily basis, and you can't decide to get on a plane or train to get around that either because, as noted above, all planes are banned.  Oh, and said "electric cars" would cost twice what fuel on a per-mile basis costs today.  You not only couldn't afford the Tesla you couldn't afford to plug it in to charge it.  Oh, and as for RVs?  Forget it.  Banned.
  
  
• Emergency personal generators are immediately and permanently banned.  Was there just a hurricane, tornado or ice storm and your power is out?  Too bad, so sad.  In the winter your pipes freeze since you can't use auxiliary heat.
  
  
• Re-configuring trains to be all-electric, since diesel fuel is now banned, would take a decade and outrageously increase the cost of rail transport.  There is no feasible way to do this, especially in areas where there is sparse or no electrical infrastructure today.
  
  
• Mass-transit?  Forget it.  Buses?  What are you going to run them on?  Can't use natural gas or diesel.  Now what?
  
  
• Re-configuring personal transportation, not including commercial transport (e.g. trucks, etc) to all-electric would require an approximate tripling of the electrical infrastructure in the United States.  We have no possible way to do so today even with an all-on, decade-long effort using fossil fuels.  It is flatly impossible to provide this level of electrical output using "renewable" energy sources such as wind and solar.
  
  
• Solar, in particular, requires an enormous amount of energy and CO2 release to make the cells; there is no free lunch. You must put the energy in that you wish to later extract.  Since we cannot release any CO2 we also can't make any solar cells.  Sorry, there are no more solar cells.
  
  
• You also can't make wind turbines.  Refining rare earth metals vital to their production requires energy.  The amount of energy returned by said windmill goes negative in this paradigm and thus it makes no sense to build windmills either as the energy to produce the windmill and operate exceeds that which is returned.
  
  
• Finally, renewables such as wind and solar are intermittent; you thus need storage of some sort.  This means batteries or some form or potential or kinetic physical storage.  All require energy to be expended to manufacture and maintain them.  The energy balance of such a scheme is ridiculously unfavorable and, in the case of batteries the environmental damage associated with manufacturing and, in the case of lithium-based cells which cannot be economically recycled, their disposal, is severe.

It just gets worse from here; the bottom line is that a 100% CO2 cessation in the US (or "net zero", which forces capture at additional cost for any CO2 emitted) would instantly collapse the economy and kill an enormous percentage of the population -- likely two thirds or more of those here in America today -- by starvation.  It would ruin our cities by making mass-transit impossible beyond the immediate vicinity of subway stations.  It would also effectively delete our military.

Such a threat to cut CO2 emissions by humans in America, other than by breathing, to zero is a declaration of intent to commit genocide against the American people.  If there's a crime worthy of summary execution, that's it.

Even worse, doing this would accomplish nothing.  Why?  Because the US is not even on the map when it comes to the nations with the largest increases in CO2 production -- both here and into the indefinite future.  If you actually want to reduce CO2 emissions into the atmosphere you must focus on, and enforce, cessation of emissions in those places where that growth is occurring.

In order to to that what you're actually saying is that we must destroy both India and China along with their entire population right now, and in addition we must also make clear that all other nations, from Vietnam to the Congo, may not develop middle-class lifestyles and advance the comfort and security of their people ever or we will destroy them as well as soon as they begin to do so.

Why?

Because India and China are by far adding the most CO2 to the atmosphere.  In fact the United States is roughly net-neutral at the moment (we were net negative a couple of years ago, and net positive last year.) Among other things while most people in the US and Europe already have air conditioners, which are a huge driver of electrical consumption almost none of the people there do.  The count of households and commercial enterprises there utterly dwarfs the United States and the rest of the Western World.  They will not stop advancing whether we like it or not unless we are willing to kill them all -- period.  Nor will Vietnam or, as time goes by the majority of the African continent.

As the global warming alarmist "scientists" admit, even if we cut our CO2 emissions to zero (not net zero, actual zero) it would make no difference in the outcome on a percentage basis.  Therefore the "cut America to zero" does nothing; the only path to achieve their "goal" is to commit genocide on a mass basis against the people of the world to the tune of billions murdered.

The climate screamers know this as well.

In short it's all a fraud just like DDT was and the people pushing it know it -- except that this time they intend to kill tens or even hundreds of times as many people as they did with the DDT scam.

This is another attempted genocide, just as the ban on DDT was, and must be stopped by whatever means are necessary.

The politicians pushing this crap must be ordered to abandon it by the people of the United States, as those who they represent.

If they refuse they must be removed from office.

If that fails then our only remaining choices are being slaughtered by financial ruin, murdered literally by starvation and inability to transport food and basic needs from the much-diminished production capacity to where they're needed, or we overthrow all governments involved in this scam by whatever means are necessary.

It showed up in your mailbox, on your TeeVee, in your political ads.

It was cute.  It looked a bit like a rodent, a viper or a dragon.

But it was cute and cuddly.  It had forlorn eyes that gazed at you oh-so-lovingly.

It snuggled with you at night.

It just wanted a bit of food, a bit of warmth, a bit of comfort.

You couldn't leave it outside to freeze to death and die in the wintertime, or to be eaten by a hawk in the summer.

So you took it in.

You nurtured it.

You fed it.

You kept it warm at night.

You even let it sleep with you.

It will be ok, you assured yourself.

But it was indeed a monster, and it did what all monsters do.

It grew.

It got bigger, and stronger.

At first the little bite off your plate was no big deal.  But a while later you realized it was consuming a decent amount of your food.  Your budget increased to support it.  After all, it was cute and cuddly, and you liked it.

It was hot when you were cold, and cold when you were hot.  More was spent on A/C or heat which you didn't want or need, but it did.  After all, it was cute and cuddly, and you liked it.

Eventually it got big enough that those formerly-forlorn eyes looked menacing.  You didn't dare kick it out of your bed, or your home.  Now you were afraid; if you did throw it out, it could get back in by force.  It might be able to kill you in your sleep.

More months and years went by.  Now it's consuming enough food and other resource that it's no longer cute at all.  You're foregoing your own nutrition.  You're only showering once a week because it's using so much water you can barely afford the bill.  Your power bill is crippling you.  Your homeowners insurance company, knowing you have a dangerous creature on your property, has made your insurance costs skyrocket.  It bites you one day, "it's an accident" you tell yourself, and the doctor hits you for $20 large to pay for stitches, rabies and other shots.  You don't have it, but you have to spend that or you might die.

It's no longer simply about the risk of killing you in your sleep.  Now it can kill you any time it wants.  It has razor-sharp teeth and demands more and more food.  When it's hungry and you have no money to buy it food, it eats your couch.  Oh, and it shits everywhere too -- all over your carpet, your nice wood floors and even in your bed.

Welcome to your own self-imposed hell.

What is this monster's genus and species?

It's debt.

Netflix is getting hammered on this.  They have an insane amount of debt that they took on which generates a forward and irrevocable obligation to pay in the form of interest for "original content."  But their subscriber growth rate, which made people think this was reasonable, was a chimera; it was a forward projection of exponential growth forever into the future, which is mathematically impossible: There are only so many humans on the planet.

Now it's caught up with them.  The monster is taking nips out of their feet while they sleep.  Soon it will consume their head.

How'd they get a $400 stock price, now just over $300?  On bullcrap you believed -- willingly, knowingly, while prodded by CNBS and others.  But let's not kid ourselves -- you hit the "buy" button, didn't you?

The same is true nationally.  It's true for the entire stock market.  Buybacks, funded with debt, are a noose around your neck you cannot get rid of.  The shares are repurchased, you bought them at a fixed price but when they're worth less on the open market you have a loss you cannot get rid of and, much worse, you have a forward obligation to pay that interest forever on your loss-making transaction!  There's only one thing worse than a loss-making transaction and that's one that never, ever stops costing you more and more money!

EPS goes up when you do this as long as earnings are increasing.  But when you have a loss the loss per share goes up by exactly the same amount.  This garbage may well double the stock market originally when the earnings are improving (and it did) but it inevitably will crash the market by twice as much when earnings turn bad since the negative number will be twice the size it would have been otherwise.  Instead of a 40% loss it'll be 80% -- or even 100% when the firms involved all go bankrupt because they simply can't pay.

The same is true for government deficit spending on things that are just flat-out gone; that is, anything that is consumed.  Like food stamps, health care and similar.  The interest expense is there forevermore unless you pay down the debt which you cannot do until and unless you stop deficit spending entirely.  That now amounts to a trillion dollars a year, or roughly one quarter of all government spending.  Do you think the government will stop feeding the monster even after it has chewed off an entire foot and half a leg?

Everyone knew this when that crap started -- both at the government and individual company level.

They knew it and did it anyway.

They lied to you.

On purpose.

They're still lying.

Kudlow, Cramer, President Trump, Nancy Pelosi, all of them.

That meets the classic definition of fraud and should be justification to hang them all except for one problem: You cheered it on, welcomed it, voted for it and in fact in the political sphere both parties were equal participants and there has not been one revolt, organized or not, by anyone in this nation demanding it stop "or else."  Quite to the contrary; everyone is demanding that the monster be fed even more and get ever larger -- forever!

So get up, stand in front of the mirror and then fuck yourself because you're looking at the responsible party.

Yeah, I read it.

Here's the quick summary.

On collusion: There was no "strong evidence" say much less anything that would rise to probable cause.  At all.

On obstruction: It's complicated.

One of the reasons its complicated is intent.  All criminal statutes require mens rea, with only a smattering of exceptions (oddly enough the statute Hillary violated with her "email server" does not require intent; negligence is sufficient.  Nonetheless remember, she was not prosecuted.)

Obstruction is a funny statute though, in that you can obstruct an investigation into something that didn't happen.  The reason for this is that the prosecution is presumed not to be corrupt!

But.... what if it is?

In this case we know it was.  Specifically, we know the originating event that led to Mueller's appointment was the Steele Dossier which was a piece of opposition research paid for by a political opponent's campaign during the election and that the origin of the alleged "evidence" that gave rise to the investigation was intentionally concealed from a FISA judge and worse, it wasn't just concealed -- the FBI affirmatively lied.

Had they not lied the FISA judge would have never approved anything and there would have been no Mueller; a mere assertion alone by Ohr or Strzok without alleged facts doesn't get there.  The FISA warrant on alleged verified information does.  But.... the FISA warrant was predicated on repeated lies.  Not mistakes -- perjury.  That's a felony standing alone.

Further Mueller had no business being appointed in the first place; he was charged with investigating his own former coworkers, which is a clear conflict of interest and in violation of federal procedure governing said conflicts.  In other words by the very standards of the appointing department his appointment was facially void.

To put it in simple terms the "prosecution" has been proved corrupt and worse, once that was discovered nobody stopped the investigation and indicted the corrupt individuals despite the predicate acts that gave rise to the appointment being facial felonies under long-standing Federal Law.

So this gives rise to the obvious question: Can you be convicted of obstruction if the investigation is corrupt at inception?  The courts have never ruled on that as far as I know.

But I'll give you my 2 bits on how that had better be decided if it ever goes before a judge or jury:

If a court ever rules you can commit Obstruction of Justice (as a matter of a criminal law) and thus be jailed for acting to stop a corrupt investigation when same is aimed at an elected official in the United States Government then we may as well just start The Second American Revolution right here and now.  A corrupt investigation or prosecution of such a person at the federal level has no check and balance; there is no further and higher law enforcement agency to appeal to. It is by definition an act of Sedition in that it seeks to overthrow a properly-elected government official through the use of force.  There is no law that should ever be respected by anyone, of any political stripe, that seeks or claims to criminalize same.  I give anyone using non-violent means to stop such a coup -- and that's exactly what it is -- credit for their restraint, as said restraint is by no means a part of any ethical or moral duty in such a circumstance.

We shall see if the criminally insane who knowingly cheered on and even suborned this lawless behavior by the FBI and the Left continue or fold their cards.  That determination remains to be seen, but it's my bet that this report and the Democrats's reaction to it, especially by people like Cummings who is already shooting off his mouth, will do nothing more or less than drive this nation further toward a very uncivil set of events.

After all neither political party will do a damn thing about in excess of $3 trillion stolen by the medical industry from the American people every single year -- $25 per day, per person in the United States!  Is it any surprise that these same people think it's perfectly fine to overthrow elections "at whim" and, by the way, what makes you think this behavior won't be repeated since there's no indication anyone has or will go to prison for any of it?

Read this article carefully.

We have unprecedented levels of low unemployment in America. It could even be said that we really have too many jobs and not enough people to fill them. While this currently isn’t a problem, it will soon have devastating impacts on our nation’s economic stability, and the only answer is to increase immigration to America.

In the past 60 years, the birthrate in the United States has decreased by over 50 percent and is only falling faster. This is not by design.

There are multiple factors contributing to this trend: people are getting married later and having kids later in life, women are focusing on their careers more than ever before, and contraception has become more effective.

All of these causes make one thing clear: the declining birthrate shows no sign of stopping.

Well gee, so you think this is just about women marrying later and having kids later in life?

Are women focusing on their careers or being forced to in order to eat?

Yes, contraception has become more effective -- that's good rather than bad.  I presume you don't think a high abortion rate is good, yes?  Oh wait -- we have that too.  How effective is that contraception you flaunt so daringly?

Why don't you take a big mug of STFU, quaff it and sit down, jackass.

America (and the rest of the western world) has spent the last fifty plus years doing all of the following:

• Punishing men for choosing to have children.  That's right -- punishing.  If you're a man there is literally no possible way for you to secure the right to raise your own kids.  Even if you have billions you can't get there from here.  You have better odds if you have money and your wife (or paramour) decides to cut you out of the picture but most of the time you get both severely restricted in your ability to raise said kids and you get the whole bill.  You don't think that situation, which the "feminists" cooked up and rammed down everyone's throats might make men who are intelligent, skilled and desirous of a family think twice about making children, do you?
  
  
• Punishing women for choosing to have children.  That's right -- punishing.  If you're a woman how often do you hear the bullshit about you can have it all, chick! -- career, motherhood, etc?  How many kids are in daycare instead of home and why does daycare exist if this is true?  Oh by the way, how do you pay for said daycare and how many hours out of the waking day do you spend raising said kids?  Well under half.  What the hell sort of message does that send -- that you're a walking uterus and once you crank out that baby it'll take a village!  Oh Hitlery, cry me a fucking river you evil five-alarm bitch. Not one woman in a thousand can pull the shit you and your spawn got away with.  If you think this is some grand voluntary set of choices for 99.99% of women in America go visit all those women who don't have much in the way of choice at all; that would be damned near all of them.  It's not like the "zero inflation, high productivity" world we live in and have for the last 50 years, according to the government, has made it trivial for a single-earner, two parent household to buy a house, put food in the fridge, keep the water and power on and pay for the trip to the doctor when the juniors get the sniffles has it?  Why do you think we have all those abortions taking place asshole?

You think people don't respond to incentives?  The hell they don't.

You think a woman chooses to have an abortion when she can reasonably choose to have and raise the child instead?  What sort of bullcrap is that?  You think the 16, 18, 20 or 25 year old woman created the societal circumstances we live in today -- the near-requirement for two good incomes among a couple to raise a kid in most metropolitan areas of the nation, $100,000 college tuition bills, $10,000+ property tax bills, $20,000 per year family "health insurance" policy costs and more?  Schools that are diverse but where half the fucking High School "graduates" can't write a basic business letter, balance a checkbook or make change for a $20 in their head?

Did said young woman -- or young man -- get a vote on that property tax bill?  Did they get to choose whether their teacher was minimally competent in basic mathematics?  Did they have a voice -- any voice whatsoever -- in the crap that was stuffed in their heads for the previous 20 years?

Who created, promoted and continues that pattern today?  The power structure in our government does and nearly all of it is felony-level fraud from top to bottom.

The article points out that Medicare and Medicaid currently spend $1.3 trillion a year.  Uh, gee, someone else has read the MTS -- the government's official general ledger!  Fancy that.

What that article doesn't point out is that the tax rate on Medicare covers less than a third of the Medicare spending and zero of Medicaid!

Oh by the way -- that omission isn't an accident.

Social Security isn't the problem -- it's running a small (about 15%) cash deficit and can be reasonably fixed by either raising the cap on FICA tax, modestly increasing the tax rate or some combination of the two, along with getting all the able-bodied fraudsters (there are a lot of them) off SSDI.  Likely half of those on SSDI can work -- they just choose not to because they're not highly-skilled and all-in they figure it's better to sit around on their ass and blow the government check on booze, drugs or both.

Medicare and Medicaid, when those programs were put in place, lived in a world when health care was 3-4% of GDP -- that is, 3-4% of the economy.  Despite the greatest improvement in technology the world has ever seen over the last 50 or so years, which is the definition of productivity and which should have dropped that percentage of the economy by half or thereabouts instead medical care has increased as a percentage of GDP by more than five hundred percent and every damn bit of it is directly a result of the government -- and it wasn't an accident, it was done intentionally.

If we lived in a nation where the Rule of Law meant anything every single member of said government and all of those involved in same would have long been indicted, tried, convicted and hung.  There would be a literal gallows on the National Mall.

This is all fraud and felony and it has utterly destroyed, along with the bullshit run by Marxists, some of whom claim to be "feminists", the incentives for people to have children.  As a direct result intelligent men and women are choosing not to.

Rather than solve those problems and re-create said incentives this jackass in the referenced article and many just like her of both sexes instead propose to import tens of millions of stupid, uneducated and illiterate people.

Why do they have to be stupid, uneducated and illiterate?

Because if you import educated and intelligent people they won't make any children either -- they can and will figure out that their kids, should they choose to have them, are overwhelmingly at odds of getting screwed and thus you've gained nothing.

So instead all the various thugs and felons who infest both think tanks and government propose to and actively do import a bunch of people who can't add 2 + 2 or, much worse, who intend to use a penis and vagina as a means of forcibly overthrowing our representative government over time, installing a religious caliphate in its place.

Medicaid, I remind you, in states that have "capitated" same spends about $700/month per person.  If you import a stupid and uneducated person and allow them to have legal status they will place over $8,400 a year on the government in the form of spending instantly and forever just on this one program alone.  If said person can make $10 or even $15/hour they'll never pay anywhere near that $8,400 in taxes annually and that ignores the rest of the tax expenditures (e.g. school costs for the kids they bring in with them or make once here, SNAP, WIC, Section 8 housing, EITC and more.) 

You cannot get out of this box via immigration and attempting it will simply speed up the collapse.

The short term answer is to break all the medical monopolies and start throwing people in prison for violating the law.  This, by the way, isn't a choice because those stupid, uneducated and illiterate people are incapable of earning enough income to pay a material amount of tax in excess of that which they consume in government services.  It's true that said people pay taxes (e.g. if you rent a place to live you pay property taxes in your rent just as certainly as you do if you buy a house) but in terms of their total tax contribution .vs. government outlays it is either neutral or negative, and in terms of Medicare and Medicaid it is deeply negative.

Breaking the medical monopolies will halt the collapse immediately and it is the only means of doing so.  This is not politics -- it's math and there is no escaping mathematics.

2024 is not far away folks and the nasty is that close.  Those aren't my numbers they're the government's numbers.

Longer term the solution is found in fixing the incentive structure in this nation so that:

• Both sexes (yes, there are only two) who desire families can pair off and be reasonably certain they will be able to raise their children even if something goes wrong in their adult relationship.  This means a complete upending of how divorce, custody and child support work in the United States.  There are answers to this problem that do not require a return to the 1950s paradigm; there were serious injustices then but what we have now is worse as intelligent members of both sexes are literally choosing to commit slow genocide by choice rather than create children that they know will have no reasonable hope of a decent future.  We either fix this on a legal level or we will never have educated, intelligent couples choosing to have more than a replacement level of children.  Period.
  
  
• The lie of "low inflation" and "great standards of living" has to be turned into a truth.  This means the destruction of monopolist and cost-of-living jacking practices across the board so that virtually any couple can have one person go earn a living and the second raise kids at home.  It has to work everywhere in the United States, not just if you're able to earn $200,000+ a year in a city or $100 large in the suburbs and rural areas.  Chief among the cost-push problems are those imposed by the medical scam but the issue does not solely lie there.  Teacher, police, fire and other public-sector unions must be destroyed outright; they are largely responsible for the insane cost-of-living ramp via embedded and hidden taxes and fees that drive up everyone's cost of living.  Even FDR, a staunch socialist, said that public-employee unions were unacceptable and needed to be banned.  The reason for this is clear: An adversarial negotiation, which wage and working conditions always is, cannot take place if one side of the table can vote the other side out of office and replace them!  Every one of these unions is by definition an instrument of financial rape and fraud and anyone maintaining or attempting to maintain them needs to go to prison -- or be tried and hung.

No, those changes aren't going to come in a day.  But then again neither will fixing demographics.  It requires at minimum 20 years to start to fix a demographic shift since that's how long it takes to choose to have a kid, make the kid and raise the kid!

Demographics is destiny and the fact of the matter is that unless we provide incentives for intelligent and educated people in this country to produce at least a replacement rate of children there is no long-term solution; said educated and intelligent people will disappear as a result of their own choices.  Unless you intend to imitate Genghis Khan and start raping women as he did you have only incentives to work with; there is no forcible way forward that government can elect.

Importing people who are unintelligent and uneducated only makes the problem worse and also invites into our nation those who would, under that guise, use their reproductive capabilities to destroy the very foundation of this nation by breeding a huge number of people who have no respect for representative government, no intention of assimilating and every intention of, when their numbers are numerous enough, overthrowing said government and our Representative Republic by force.