The Impeachment Show Trial by a Kangaroo Court
To an objective observer, the second impeachment trial of former President Donald J. Trump has been nothing but a show trial presided over by a kangaroo court. No, seriously. Just like the Senate recently engaged in a "vote-o-rama" over "COVID-19 relief", we here at The Objective Observer dub this debacle a "Bananarama". Banana referring to just the bat shit craziness of this entire impeachment proceeding. The sorry spectacle of this show trial is incredibly sad for America and does real harm to the country going forward both in terms the repercussions for American politics and America's image abroad. Lest you feel otherwise, we will demonstrate, point-by-point the irrefutable veracity of our view.
First, a show trial, by definition is:
"A show trial is a public trial in which the judicial authorities have already determined the guilt, and/or innocence, of the defendant. The actual trial has as its only goal the presentation of both the accusation and the verdict to the public so they will serve as both an impressive example and a warning to other would-be dissidents or transgressors. Show trials tend to be retributive rather than corrective and they are also conducted for propagandistic purposes." – Wikipedia
So here we have a public trial where the Senators already predetermined the guilt and/or innocence of the defendant, innocent. Everyone has known since the beginning that Trump would not be convicted. Thus the only goal of the trial is to serve as an impressive example and warning to Trump and his followers. It is a retributive action conducted purely for Democrat propagandistic purposes.
The propaganda element is overtly obvious in the very way in which the House managers presented their case, the core of which being to repeatedly and disgustingly show video footage of the Capitol riot again and again. Quite simply, there was nothing fact based to be learned from viewing footage of the Capitol riot, repeatedly. No one is refuting that the Capitol riot took place. No one is refuting that it was a horrific event. The sole purpose of continuing to show footage of the riot is propaganda, an intent to drive an emotional response of hate and vitriol for the defendant.
This is the type of propaganda the show trials of Mao Zedong's Communist China or Joseph Stalin's Moscow Trials of the Great Purge would be proud of. Dare we say that the House managers' presentation is one we might expect to see during a Nazi era Sondergericht or "special court" in Hitler's Germany? Why on earth have Americans caused this same kind of shameful sham trial to be written into the history books of the United States? It simply diminishes America in the eyes of the world. We are now in the same league as Mao's China, Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany.
But the propaganda is required because of the sheer absurdity the House managers' case. As we explained in The Fatal Flaw, Trump bears some responsibility for the Capitol riot because he was negligent in his duties as President to consider the greater good of the country rather than his own personal opinions regarding the fairness and validity of the election. House managers have inexplicably flipped this tale of gross negligence to be one of carefully calculated preplanning of violent insurrection. The notion on its face is absurd. In order to cover the absurdity, we are overloaded with slick, movie quality propaganda films.
Along with their propaganda the House managers have turned the Senate into a kangaroo court, which is, by definition:
"A kangaroo court is a court that ignores recognized standards of law or justice and often carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides. A kangaroo court may ignore due process and come to a predetermined conclusion. The term may also apply to a court held by a legitimate judicial authority which intentionally disregards the court's legal or ethical obligations." – Wikipedia
Ignoring recognized standards of law or justice? Like ignoring the recognized legal meaning of incitement? The legal definition of "incitement" is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" as defined in Brandenburg vs. Ohio? Not being content to simply ignore the legal definition of "incitement", House managers actually went so far as to make up their own standard. In no possible universe can anything that former President Trump said be classified as intended to produce imminent lawless action. Ignoring due process? Where to start? Disregarding the court's legal or ethical obligations? You mean like having a full accounting of the facts prior to starting the trial? You mean like calling witnesses? You mean like presenting outright lies as evidence? Lies Trump's defense team adroitly pointed out.
The term "kangaroo court" actually comes from the notion of justice proceeding "by leaps", like a kangaroo "jumping over" (intentionally ignoring) evidence in favor of the defendant. Like the House managers "jumping over" the fact that former President Trump asked his supports to "patriotically and peacefully make your voices heard". Former President Trump may have only said it once during his speech but there can be no "leaping over" the fact that former President Trump actually uttered those words. The examples of this intentional "jumping over" the facts are too many to print in a mere blog article.
The repercussions of the this shameful, disastrous, sham of an impeachment trial will be felt in American politics for decades to come, perhaps forever. Impeachment of a President has now been, and will forever remain, corrupted. No longer a weighty, solemn affair undertaken exceedingly rarely and with great thought and consideration, impeachment is now simply another common political tool for the legislature to weaken and bully the separate and coequal branch of the Executive. As if Democrats are in some bizarre, high stakes poker game saying, "Donald Trump, we call your dismissiveness of what's good for the country and raise you everlasting harm to the pillars of democracy". The harm to the crucial separation of powers within the federal government is real and it should be alarming to every American.
There is little question that allies of the United States have watched the trial proceedings in abject horror while enemies celebrate and will, no doubt, use the proceedings as propaganda to demonstrate how weak, unjust, stupid and hypocritical the United States really is. Perhaps the only saving grace is that in contrast to the House managers' emotional propaganda, Trump's defense team presented a largely logical, reasonable, judicial and short case based upon facts. Unfortunately, the damage had already been done.
Just as there can be no denying that former President Trump bears some responsibility for the Capitol riot on January 6th, 2021 due to his negligent words and actions, there is no denying that King Biden failed a critical leadership test by not speaking out against this sham of an impeachment trial. So too can there be no denying that Nancy Pelosi bears the sole responsibility of turning the United States, in the eyes of the world, into nothing more than a banana republic. "Mean, bitter, frog mouthed old hag vainly obsessed with a youthful appearance."…we forgot thoughtless, brainless and a complete and utter disgrace.
Author theobjectiveobserverblogPosted on February 13, 2021 February 13, 2021 4 Comments on Bananarama
Don't Upset the Apple Cart
Former President Trump is perhaps the second most vilified American in history. He is right up there with Benedict Arnold at this point and is likely first on the list as far as half of the country is concerned. But, as we pointed out in The Dangers of Hyperbole, much of the rhetoric is unwarranted. It's just extreme hyperbole that doesn't match up with the facts…at all. Well, at least not to anyone being objective about the matter. And when you feel it necessary to place the word extreme in front of hyperbole, which literally means extravagant exaggerations, well then you know the rhetoric is really, really over the top. But we are left to ponder, why? Why is there such hatred for this individual when his words and deeds do not reasonably approach the level of vitriol and hate heaped upon him? Surely, there must be a reason. Well, luckily, we have the two most probable answers to this question. So if you really want to know, just keep reading. And don't call us Shirley.
The first most likely answer is rather simple. A left-leaning media stung over the humiliating defeat of Hillary Clinton and attacked by then President Trump as "fake news" threw away every ounce of journalistic integrity and objectivity and fought back by intentionally "trumping up", mischaracterizing and outright lying to the American public about the words and actions of President Trump. There is solid evidence for this at CNN in particular. MSNBC on the other hand was already devoid of any credible claim to journalistic integrity and objectivity to begin with.
The second most likely answer is more complicated. Former President Trump ran on a right-leaning, populous platform that sought to "drain the swamp" in the District of Columbia (D.C.). The phrase "drain the swamp" really meant that former President Trump ran on a platform that sought to replace current institutions and trappings of power with those that better served the needs of "the people", ordinary citizens. That's sort of how populism works. Populism arises when a significant portion of the populous feel that the current bureaucracy, institutions and power structures no longer serve their needs but rather only benefit those in power.
Now, one may debate the overall efficacy of former President Trump in achieving populous aims, but there are many examples of where this populous ideology was put into effect via Trump's executive orders. For example, requiring federal agencies to remove two regulations for every new regulation. Rolling back the size of federally protected lands and returning control to the states. Rolling back Obamacare, in the Trump administration's view an overreach of the federal government. Limiting federal control of education. Reducing tax regulatory burdens. Promoting religious freedoms. There are also numerous other executive orders promoting an "America first" policy with respect to goods and services. In effect, former President Trump sought to decrease the overall power, authority and size of the federal government and replace, or perhaps return, that power and authority to state and local institutions.
It is this populous agenda that really earned former President Trump the blind hatred of some of the most powerful figures in D.C. and these powerful figures sought to utterly destroy him for it. Again, as we have covered in The Dangers of Hyperbole, the levels of vitriol directed at Trump are out of step with his actual rhetoric and actions. This is no accident. Powerful individuals and institutions were intent on destroying what they saw as a direct threat to their power, influence and wealth.
Consider this, D.C. exists for the sole purpose of being the seat of power for the federal government of the United States. Furthermore, the population of D.C. actually exceeds that of two entire states. Every single person living in D.C. essentially depends on the size and power of the federal government for their very livelihoods. Furthermore, the only way to increase their power, influence and wealth is for the power and influence of the federal government to continually expand. This is why the federal government has steadily expanded and grown, regardless of the political party in power for decades and decades.
U.S. Federal Government Size as Measured by Spending
In short, former President Trump sought to decrease the size, power and influence of the federal government. Former President Trump felt that the people were better served when state and local governments made their own decisions versus being dominated by federal mandates. This is absolute blasphemy for big government Democrats and antithetical to just about every single person living in D.C. Most Republicans in D.C. may pay lip service to "smaller government" but they don't really mean it. Trump did.
Now, it actually gets even worse. Former President Trump is also a nationalist, believing in the superiority of the American system. This put him at direct odds with those in D.C. that see the inevitable end state as a quasi "world government". Don't laugh or think this is some kind of conspiracy theory. There is a tremendous amount of serious discussion on this topic and as far as direct evidence, simply look no further than the European Union. Basically, a bunch of nations that have abdicated control over certain functions of government like monetary policy (the Euro), trade and border control to a "super" governing body. For many elites, this is the end state for America as well.
One can see harbingers of this in the agenda and policies of the Obama administration. In short, diminish American exceptionalism in the eyes of the world, be the world's police and slowly inch America towards inclusion within a larger governing body that would work to ensure "equity" with other nations. You see, in many people's eyes, America consumes too much of the world's resources, has far too much power and influence and makes too much money. This is not "equitable" to the rest of the people of the world and thus, America needs to be knocked down a few pegs, pay more than it's fair share and distribute its wealth among other countries. Now, we won't debate the pros and cons of this agenda, but we will point out that former President Trump's agenda was the exact polar opposite. This earned him even more power enemies.
Quite simply, Trump's populist, nationalist agenda was the absolute enemy of the established federal institutions and power structures. This is why former President Trump had to be utterly destroyed and why these same institutions and this same bureaucracy seeks to destroy former President Trump even to this day when he is out of office. Certain establishment elements and factions can never again run the risk of someone like former President Trump ascending to power. The very existence of Trump and his populous, nationalist leanings are a direct and imminent threat to their power, influence and wealth. Essentially, the destruction of Trump must be a lesson to any other populist that would dare to encroach upon the corrupt system in D.C., which solely benefits those in power.
So, how does one go about destroying someone? Well, weaponize the intelligence community and F.B.I, ramp up the hyperbole, prey upon utterly disappointed Hillary voters and let the media lap up every drop. Form a "resistance" that spins every Trump action into a negative, racist, bigoted, Islamophobic, misogynistic and anti-Semitic activity and just relentlessly hammer the narrative. The politics of ultimate personal destruction. And Trump, being Trump, didn't help matters, but rather made things worse.
It is beyond the capacity of any objective observer to say for certain which of these two answers, or even a combination of these two answers, is the correct one. And, sure, there are many other reasons for different groups to hate Trump. Trump's stance on climate change earned him the enmity of environmentalists. Trump's stance on the border earned him the enmity of those who support open borders. Even Trump's stance on China likely earned him the enmity of those with significant investments in that country. It is possibly a combination of all these things. Trump consistently chose policies that favored the American economy, American jobs and the American people; in short, America first. This put Trump at odds with many factions in the federal government and perhaps that maybe says something about his enemies. All that an objective observer can say is that after extensive research and thought, the two scenarios posted here are the most likely reasons why Trump was so consistently vilified with such outrageous vitriol and hyperbole.
So there you have it, that is why Trump is so hated and despised by so many. That is why the hyperbole doesn't jive in any way with reality. Sure, some of it is self-inflicted, but most of it stems from a true, visceral hatred for Trump's desire to curtail the power and influence of the federal government in favor of state and local control, to walk back decades of work inching America closer to abdicating control to a larger governing body. To end American exceptionalism and promote wealth equity between nations. It's simply a war of ideologies, one that the corrupt, ever larger government crowd has been winning for decades upon decades. Its a system that steadily increases the power, influence and wealth of those that hold the trappings of power. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. How dare some outsider come in and attempt to upset the apple cart?
Author theobjectiveobserverblogPosted on February 13, 2021 February 19, 2021 1 Comment on Why Trump is Hated
Are Democrats Suddenly Now Calling Trump a Genius?
First, we here at The Objective Observer would like to point out that former President Trump's impeachment defense team should have used our argument as to why the impeachment trial was unconstitutional. If nine year old's cannot be Senators then you cannot only disqualify someone from holding office as an outcome of an impeachment conviction. Easy reasoning and logic that is simple to understand versus whatever that mess was that the defense team was pitching. Not that it would have mattered. The impeachment trial moving forward was inevitable, just like it's eventual outcome.
So, not that it matters since the outcome is a forgone conclusion, but after watching two days of the House impeachment managers present their case against former President Trump, there is one glaring, fatal flaw in their argument. Sure, there are many problems with their case, but one flaw in particular stands out to any objective observer. This single flaw alone would ensure Trump's acquittal if it were actually in doubt. You see, the House managers have spun the narrative that former President Trump incited the Capitol riot on January 6th, 2021. Not only this but to hear the House managers tell the tale, former President Trump actually began intentionally planning the Capitol riot six months prior to the event in the summer of 2020.
The House managers' case rests upon the idea that six months ago, former President Trump knew that he was going to lose the election, knew that he would lose scores of legal motions to challenge the election's validity and further understood that his last chance at succeeding in overturning the election would be an armed rebellion at the Capitol starting at around 1PM in the afternoon during which the electoral votes would be certified by Congress; an armed rebellion he intended to succeed. This is the careful, premeditated master plan that the House managers have laid out as proof positive that former President Trump intended to commit insurrection against the United States of America.
"All of it, the nine Democratic managers said, was the foreseeable and intended outcome of Mr. Trump's desperate attempts to cling to the presidency. Reaching back as far as last summer, they traced how he spent months cultivating not only the "big lie" that the election was "rigged" against him, but stoking the rage of a throng of supporters who made it clear that they would do anything — including resorting to violence — to help him." – The New York Times | House Lays Out Case Against Trump, Branding Him the 'Inciter in Chief'
Now, is it possible that former President Trump began planning the insurrection at the Capital six months ago? Sure, anything is possible. But for such a thing to be possible, former President Trump would have to be the most genius intellect on the planet and a strategist so immeasurably clairvoyant that he could easily defeat Deep Blue in any chess match. Thus, after four years of calling former President Trump an idiot and a moron, why are Democrats now saying that Trump is the greatest genius of all time? The short answer is because it is the only way in which their case is even possible.
But is the House manager's version of events plausible? Absolutely not, at least not to any objective observer. The omniscience to be able to start planning the insurrection at the Capitol six months prior to the event would require God level planning and foresight. Former President Trump may be many things but he is by no means God or even a god. Not even close. Yet this is what the House managers' case would have us believe, that former President Trump began carefully planning the insurrection six months before it occurred.
The House managers' case certainly creates a compelling narrative of an evil mastermind exquisitely planning a presumed successful insurrection six months prior to it occurring and of Trump, and Trump alone, carefully, expertly guiding and willing the event to occur. Without a doubt, it is quite riveting political theatre but it is also pure fiction worthy of a James Bond film.
In point of fact, the House managers' narrative is a classic, text book case of apophenia, the tendency of humans to find patterns where they don't exist. Suddenly, every tweet by Trump objecting to what he believed were unconstitutional actions being taken by state elections officials and state courts is now somehow purposeful preplanning of the Capitol riot. It is just simply, patently absurd. The reality is that there actually were questionable things that occurred regarding the 2020 elections and some of those cases are still pending. A more rational explanation is that Trump was tweeting about events occurring at the time of the tweets, not as part of some master plan to overthrow the federal government six months later. Besides, it's not like his concerns were ill founded considering that there was an actual secret cabal actively plotting to prevent him from ever being re-elected.
The stark truth of the matter is that former President Trump did not think enough about his words and actions and how people might interpret those words and actions, not that he thought extensively about his words and actions in a preplanned way to intentionally provoke insurrection. There is no denying that former President Trump was negligent with regard to considering the potential reactions, consequences and outcomes of his words and therefore bears some some amount of responsibility for what occurred. But, to paint this in the light of an evil genius mastermind intentionally inciting insurrection against the United States is simply intellectually dishonest and an utter fabrication. This is the the fatal flaw within the House managers' case for conviction, yet another example of the extreme hyperbolic lengths to which Democrats will go in order to portray former President Trump as an evil, loathsome individual. But, at least in this case, apparently they do consider him a complete and utter genius.
Author theobjectiveobserverblogPosted on February 12, 2021 February 12, 2021 1 Comment on The Fatal Flaw
Rounding Out the Monarchy
Since King Biden ascended to the throne last month, something has been bothering us here at The Objective Observer. King's are great and all but something was missing. Finally, we figured out what was wrong, a true and proper king needs a true and proper queen! What we needed was more royalty in our pantheon of American monarchy. Thus, we decided to anoint a queen.
Our first decision was to determine the characteristics of our ideal queen. Well, we debated this for quite some time and finally decided that our queen archetype was stylish, radiant and ambitious with a royal air of haughtiness that is dismissive of the plebian concerns of commoners. With this matter settled, it is now time to review our our options.
Of course, the most logical choice is Dr. Jill Jacobs-Biden. After all, King Biden is married to her. That would seem to make her a shoe in. But dull, mousy Dr. Jill Jacobs-Biden who's doctoral thesis makes the Constitution look like a grammatical work of art? No, our queen needs to at least be able to do basic math, like understanding that there cannot be five quarters of something or "eight week study weeks". Is that like recursion? How exactly does one fit eight weeks into a week? If this is what passes for getting a doctoral degree then, collectively, we here at The Objective Observer ought to have a cool dozen by now. Seriously, we have blog articles like The Case for Colonizing Mars that are more cited. Besides, while queens need to be haughty and pretentious, calling the needs of students "undeserved"? Come on man, that's just down right cold hearted and mean. Ambitious? A teacher at a community college that didn't get her PhD until her mid-50's? Nothing against teachers, but that's not really striking us as "ambitious". Sorry, we're going to have to go with dumb, heartless mistress on this one.
The next most logical choice is Kamala Harris. Stylish and radiant? Sure we guess, we rate that as plausible. Ambitious? Certainly, first "black" Vice President (there's some South Asian in there), first female Vice President. Check. Royal air of haughtiness? Oh yes, there's definitely some of that going on. Plus Queen Kamala has a nice ring to it. It's just…it's just…landmines. Really? Landmines? Every time she opens her mouth she just sounds foolish. And everyone knows that VP's don't really do anything, they are just around for entertainment. Hmm…foolish…entertainment. There we go. Our final verdict, court jester.
Next up is Nancy Pelosi. Hmm…mean, bitter, frog mouthed old hag vainly obsessed with a youthful appearance. Umm, that's a solid no. More like an evil Morgan le Fay.
We now move on to John Kerry. Hey, we're just following King Biden's edict that bans discrimination against biological sex. Queens can be male, female or, well, queens. We certainly do not care. It's a brave new world. Kerry is definitely ambitious. Willing to throw the entire United States military under the bus purely for political gain? There's ambition for you! Plus, Kerry definitely has that royal air of haughtiness. "Let them make solar panels." That's straight up channeling Marie Antionette! "Private planes are the only choice for someone like me." Whoa, slow your roll there Kerry, we're going for "royal air of haughtiness", not pompous ass. And, again, Queen Kerry, that's alliterative and kind of funny. But stylish and radiant? Decidedly not. The dude perpetually looks clinically depressed. After all, we can't have a queen with resting bitch face. Thus, we christen John Kerry a knight. A knight battling the great evil dragon of climate change. Like brave Sir Robin from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Brave, brave Sir Kerry! Until threatened and then brave Sir Kerry bravely runs away. Runs, runs away in his little Swift boat.
Thus we finally come to Jen Psaki. Stylish and radiant? OK, let's be honest, that's clearly a stretch. We won't wait to circle back to you on this, she's a bit drab. OK, fine, just straight-up drab. Decidedly more sparrow than peacock if you will. But, eh, F' it…close enough. White House Deputy Press Secretary by age 31, Spokesperson for the United States Department of State at 35, White House Communications Director at 37 and White House Press Secretary at 43. Yeah, we're definitely feeling the ambition vibe here. And an air of royal haughtiness that is dismissive of the plebian concerns of commoners? Oh man does she have that in spades! In spades!!
First we have her snarky dismissiveness of Space Force. Classic. Then she mocks the thousands (and yes it's thousands) of dumb peasants who lost their current jobs and job opportunities when King Biden summarily dismissed the Keystone pipeline. Let them make solar panels, or remove landmines or something, who cares? It's not my job! Menial concerns over simple assault and DUI of illegal immigrants? Pshaw! And as a coup de grâce, mocking the deplorable serfs worried about King Biden's reinstituted catch and release program releasing illegal immigrants infected with COVID-19 into their communities. Ah, concerns over the health of the common folk. How droll. Bingo! We have a winner!
So, Queen Psaki it is. Does she give us nightmares of waking up out of a dead sleep to a soulless ginger standing over us with a knife? Yes…yes, she does. Truly, truly terrifying. But queen nonetheless.
Author theobjectiveobserverblogPosted on February 11, 2021 February 12, 2021 Tags John Kerry, Kamala Harris, King Biden, monarchy, Nancy Pelosi, Queen Psaki4 Comments on Queen Psaki
If You Hate It, You Erase It
When we wrote The Dangers of Hyperbole, we, in effect, called former President Trump a misogynist. Now, that's a pretty strong word. After all, misogyny literally means "to hate woman" since it is formed from the Greek roots misein ("to hate") and gynē ("woman"). Do we really believe that Trump hates women? No, not really. Sexist? Sure, there's some clear evidence of sexism, but hate? Hate is a really, really strong word. So why didn't we point this out as being yet another example of hyperbole? Well, four reasons really:
First, explaining the nuance between sexism and misogyny is tedious and boring
Second, the article was already really long
Third, we're lazy
Fourth and most importantly, it was funny
Always go with funny. So, no we don't really think that Trump is an actual misogynist, a person that literally hates women, that's just hyperbole. King Biden on the other hand? That dude is clearly 100%, straight up, a stone cold misogynist. Obviously, no question about it. Wait…what? You don't believe us? Come on man. You have to be kidding. Well, keep reading and we will prove that King Biden is a complete and utter misogynist beyond any shadow of a doubt.
As evidence, we reference King Biden's kingly proclamation, Executive By Order on of the King, Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation | The White House Monarchy
"Section 1. Policy. Every person should be treated with respect and dignity and should be able to live without fear, no matter who they are or whom they love. Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports."
That's just a small portion of the divine proclamation but gets the point across. Essentially, in an odd denial of "consensus" scientific opinion regarding biological sex, this divine decree, in its infinite wisdom, essentially means that biology does not matter and the only thing that matters is one's chosen gender identity. In effect, biological males can compete in women's sports so long as they "identify" as female. Yes, there is a funny South Park episode about this but this crazy shit is happening IRL.
With the stroke of a pen, King Biden essentially erased "women's" sports. If biological males can compete in women's sports, there are no women's sports any longer. The science says that males on average have larger hearts, larger and longer bones, more ligament and tendon strength and a better muscle to mass ratio than females. This is why there are "male" and "female" sports to begin with. This is also why you did not have any female NFL linebackers playing in the Super Bowl. Or, hell, any female NFL players…period. It's not sexism, it's science.
Now, with that settled, we would like to switch gears and have you consider what you do with that bad selfie or picture someone takes where your face looks weird. You hate that photo. And you definitely do not want that embarrassing, ugly photo leaking out onto the internet. What do you do with that photo? That's right, you delete or erase it. If you hate a piece of furniture in your house? You throw it out or erase it. That asshole ex-boyfriend? You erase that son-of-bitch from your life. If you hate it, you erase it.
Thus, an objective observer can only conclude that King Biden hates women so much that he erased them on the same day he took office. Literally, the same freaking day. That's how much King Biden hates and despises women. King Biden couldn't wait even a single day to sign the paper erasing women. Couldn't erase women fast enough. Now that boys and girls is true hatred! That is true, and the very definition of, misogyny.
Author theobjectiveobserverblogPosted on February 10, 2021 4 Comments on Misogyny
Commas, Cannibalism and Child Senators
We here at The Objective Observer are big fans of punctuation. Not so much from an Oxford English Dictionary, "according to Hoyle", proper use of punctuation perspective, but big fans nonetheless. You see, we use punctuation quite frequently in our articles more in an attempt to convey a sense of "speaking" naturally to the reader, an attempt to convey a conversational atmosphere that emulates the natural pauses in a spoken conversation versus a flat, dull, boring dictation of words on a page. It's why we give purposeful thought to our use of commas, semi-colons, periods and ellipses and often painstakingly consider which of these punctuations provides the best effect for the "voice" we are trying to convey.
Pretentious self affirmation aside, punctuations and; in particular, commas, are actually important. Consider the title to this article, "Let's Eat Grandma!" versus "Let's Eat, Grandma!". Pretty important. Just saying, commas save lives. Thus it is with some mild amusement that we have watched the last few months of fervent legal and grammatical attention being levied against one particular comma buried within the United States Constitution. The comma in question appears in Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution:
"Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law." – Article I, Section 3
It's this comma between "removal from office" and "disqualification to hold" that has stirred up a tremendous amount of heated debate regarding the constitutionality of holding a second impeachment trial for former President Trump. On the one side, legal scholars have concluded that the trial is unconstitutional because the purpose of impeachment is only to remove a sitting official from office and then subsequently disqualify that person from ever holding office again. The other side reads the passage to mean that the two clauses are independent of one another, that the Senate can remove an individual from office or disqualify a person from holding a future office.
We know, commas, right? Sheesh, whoever thought we'd be talking about commas? Well, let's just be clear, the Constitution is a complete travesty when it comes to the proper use of grammar and punctuation. In fact, the Constitution can't even go two words without immediately having a punctuation error involving a comma. "We The People"? That should be "We, The People" you grammarless imbeciles! The founding fathers may have been civic geniuses but when it came to grammar, well, they just down right sucked at it.
And yet, here we are having this debate over the constitutionality of something because of a comma in a document that is literally a trash heap of poor grammar and questionable punctuation. So be it.
Now, setting aside that there exists in this world an ideology where "and' actually means "or", the "its constitutional" crowd seems to pin its argument on the modern Oxford English Dictionary's guidance that a comma before the word "and" is necessary when two clauses are independent of one another, as in:
On Monday we'll impeach the President, and on Tuesday we'll laugh our asses off.
It's cold in Washington D.C., and I can't find my mittens.
These sentences each contain two independent clauses and thus, according to Oxford comma rules, require a comma before the word "and".
Now, considering the Constitution's overall tragic grammar and punctuation, is it likely that we can use the modern, rigorous Oxford English Dictionary's rules regarding commas to properly interpret the Constitution's meaning? Unlikely. More likely, we would need to understand the common use of commas coupled with the word "and" at the time the Constitution was written or even more specifically understand the personal, deeply held philosophical ruminations regarding commas of the scribe that penned the Constitutional passage in question. How in the hell are we going to manage that? Well, perhaps we can use the Constitution itself for guidance. You see, three paragraphs above the passage in question is this paragraph:
"No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen."
This passage is structured identically to the passage in question. We have two clauses, "age of thirty years" and "been nine years a citizen" joined by our nefarious comma directly before the word "and". Thus, if we are to use the "its constitutional" crowd's argument in this case then are we saying that nine year old's can be Senators? Clearly not. Clearly, the intended meaning is that an individual must be at least 30 years old and have been a citizen of the United States for at least 9 years, not that an individual must be 30 years old or have been a citizen for 9 years, meaning a 9 year old born in the United States could be a Senator.
So…why are we having this discussion and debate about that comma again? Clearly, to any objective observer, those two clauses "removal from office" and "disqualification to hold" are not independent and thus the second impeachment trial of former President Trump is technically unconstitutional because the current trial extends further than removal from office. Because you can't. Former President Trump is not in office and hence he cannot be removed from it. Case closed. Imagine that, "and" means "and".
Not that any of this matters. Attempting to analyze a single comma in the dumpster fire of grammar that is the United States Constitution is beyond pointless. Besides, small things like logic and commonsense don't really matter these days. But still, pretty obvious and simple if one looks at things objectively. Regardless, former President Trump's second impeachment trial starts today because, just like science, people are just going to cherry pick facts and opinion that support their predetermined positions.
So, this second impeachment trial being obviously unconstitutional and all must explain why Chief Justice Roberts is not presiding over this second impeachment trial, right? The Constitution clearly states:
"The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present."
Actually, no. Since former President Trump is no longer the sitting President, then the Chief Justice is not required to preside over the trial. Nifty. But the real question is, what is up with that colon? WTF is that?!? Just use a God damn period for Christ's sake. Man, whoever wrote this Constitution was a grammatical retard, sorry, sorry, we meant "punctuationally challenged"…
Author theobjectiveobserverblogPosted on February 9, 2021 February 9, 2021 2 Comments on Let's Eat Grandma!
Yes Virginia, The Illuminati Does Exist
Given The Objective Observer's logo, one might fully expect that we here at The Objective Observer are big fans of conspiracy theories and secret cabals like The Illuminati. We aren't. It's actually a bit of sarcasm on our part, an inside joke if you will. We actually try incredibly hard to avoid conspiracy theories or anything that could even be construed as a conspiracy theory. We much prefer facts and objectivity to conspiracy theories that warn of "secret cabals operating in the shadows to control public thought and influence politics". Nonsense.
Or…that's what we would have said prior to an actual secret cabal operating in the shadows to control public thought and influence politics announcing itself to the world. Jesus people, you are doing the whole secret cabal thing wrong for Christ's sake. First rule of secret cabal, don't talk about secret cabal. This is like "Secret Cabal 101" here folks. Time Magazine attempts to paint this secret cabal's members as some kind of heroes or freedom fighters. But, as the saying goes, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. Simply stated, nothing good ever comes out of secret cabals. And did you have to go and call yourselves a "secret cabal" for crying out loud? Now you just make everyone sound nuts and conspiratorial just for referring to you using your own description of yourselves.
But surely there really was no secret cabal operating in the shadows during the 2020 Presidential election to control public thought and influence politics, right?
"That's why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it. And they believe the public needs to understand the system's fragility in order to ensure that democracy in America endures." – Molly Ball, Time Magazine
Fortifying it? That's a really odd take on that. "System's fragility"? Hell yes, you guys just sort of proved that a secret cabal can steal an election. That sort of sounds to us like the system is pretty God damn freaking fragile. The system must be Italian. Look, if you read that article, The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election, you can't help but come away with the feeling that it could just as easily have been titled "The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Rigged the 2020 Election" and, in fact, it would have been a more accurate title. The mental gymnastics of the author to paint the activities that were engaged in as anything other than purposeful election rigging are extraordinarily contortive. We sincerely hope Ms. Ball did not do permanent damage to herself in twisting her brain and words to such a degree.
Pretty certain an objective observer would absolutely go so far as to call that rigging an election. Ah yes, that Hunter Biden's laptop story that, oddly, nobody in the main stream media covered or they all, in an extremely coordinated way, said was "Russian disinformation" and then, in an extremely coordinated way, Twitter suspended the New York Post's Twitter account over publishing information about the Hunter Biden laptop story. Which, just so we are clear, turned out to be an entirely true story, not Russian disinformation and Hunter Biden is currently under investigation by the FBI, a fact that conveniently came out after the election.
You're telling us that this secret cabal is going to look the American public in the eye and tell them that its "steering media coverage and controlling the flow of information" didn't deprive the vast majority of Americans of legitimately true information that might have influenced their vote? How is this not rigging an election again? Besides, if an actual, IRL secret cabal is willing to admit that it intentionally, purposefully misled and lied to the public it naturally begs the question, "What activities is this secret cabal not willing to admit that it engaged in?".
Do you realize that you idiots have now given credence and new life to every "the election was stolen" narrative by Trump and his cronies? Jesus people, there is now zero percent chance that King Biden will ever be considered a legitimately elected monarch. No chance. Consider that there are tens of millions of Americans that still believe that Trump was not legitimately elected even after four years of widespread debunking of the "Russian collusion" narrative. Here…here it's like the supposed secret Russian/Trump cabal behind the supposed rigging of the 2016 election just stood up and was all like "Oh yeah, we rigged the election, it was all us". Are you people complete and utter morons? If you rig an election, you do not then come out and tell people that you rigged an election. That's idiotic.
So, if anyone thinks that tens of millions of Americans will believe King Biden was legitimately elected after accepting the most "dark money" in history, by far, coupled with an actual secret cabal standing up and saying "Oh yeah, we rigged the election, it was all us", you're nuts. As in, just plain out there. Tens of millions of Americans will never accept that the 2020 election was legitimate and as an objective observer, we won't really be able to blame them.
Great…just great. Perfect, now we have actual secret cabals to deal with. Assholes.
Author theobjectiveobserverblogPosted on February 8, 2021 February 8, 2021 2 Comments on American Illuminati
A Modern Day Frankenstein's Monster?
Like everyone else in the world, we here at The Objective Observer have been interested in this topic for quite some time. It's only natural. After all, it's not every day that a novel virus threatens to wipe out humanity in a global pandemic. However, we have specifically avoided this topic because it is a veritable minefield of conspiracy theory.
Side note, if Kamala is reading this article, a minefield is where landmines are located. Landmines are anti-personnel devices designed to blow things up, not land where you mine things like coal. Just here to be helpful.
In any case, the conspiracy theories are all over the place with this whole COVID-19 origin. So, it was with some small interest and a healthy dose of skepticism that a number of us watched a recent Steve Hilton video that seemed to pin the origins of COVID-19 squarely on the shoulders of research funded in part by the United States government and even more specifically by the National Institute of Health (NIH) and Dr. Fauci.
OK Steve, you big, loveable, bald-headed conspiracy nut job you, some interesting facts and evidence for sure but most of that has been out there already as far back as April 2020 and May 2020. And besides, MSN followed up Steve Hilton's broadcast with it's own story about what a ridiculous conspiracy theory that is. In it MSN unequivocally states:
"The idea that the virus was somehow man-made has been repeatedly debunked."
OK, so over hyphenation aside, if the virus is not manmade then the United States and Fauci couldn't have funded its creation, case closed. And since MSN is the pinnacle of journalistic integrity and the gold standard in unbiased, fact-based reporting… Ahem. Yeah, we'd better click that link for "repeatedly debunked" just to be sure. Huh, imagine that, it would appear that MSN and The Objective Observer have different definitions for the word "debunked". Turns out that the fact check on claims that COVID-19 virus are manmade is "Partly False" stating:
"We rate the claim that COVID-19 may have originated in a Chinese lab as PARTLY FALSE. Suggestions that the novel coronavirus was manmade or has been engineered for use in bioweapons in a high-security biomedical laboratory in Wuhan, China, are untrue, based on scientific research since the virus began its global spread. Beyond that, however, investigations continue into where COVID-19 began, and no conclusions can be drawn, nor has evidence been presented, that definitively explains the pathogen's origin. Circumstantial evidence suggests the virus could have escaped from the Wuhan lab due to a lapse in safety measures."
In short, the manmade claim is discredited based on the assumption that if engineered for military use it would be based on a much more deadly version of the coronavirus. But what if military application was not the origin of the engineered virus?
Shit, here we go.
Turns out that Steve Hilton subsequently released another video with even more interesting facts and information. Crap, we had better go fact check this dude. We start with the research paper on COVID-19, A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) released on January 20th, 2020. This paper says that COVID-19 most closely resembles a sample in their labs, RaTG13:
"—for all sequences—RaTG13 is the closest relative of 2019-nCoV and they form a distinct lineage from other SARSr-CoVs"
OK, so COVID-19 seems to come from bats. But what about this RaTG13, what do we know about it? Well, we can look it up on GenBank. The paper cited above seems to be the first mention of it. However, there is an odd note:
/note="former lab designation: Bat coronavirus Ra4991″
What about this Ra4991? What do we know about it? Well, it seems to first appear in another WIV paper, Coexistence of multiple coronaviruses in several bat colonies in an abandoned mineshaft from 2016. Apparently, in 2012 six miners from Mojiang County, Yunnan Province, China, were cleaning out a mineshaft of bat droppings and contracted some weird illness. Three of the six died. The illness was not transferred to any of their relatives or acquaintances or to hospital staff that treated them. Meaning that this virus variant was apparently not transmissible between humans. This led to a WIV study of the bats in the mineshaft conducted in 2012-2013 resulting in the research paper, which states:
"From the 138 positive samples, 152 RdRp partial coronavirus sequences (approximately 400 bp) were obtained, indicating co-infections of two viruses. Two sequences (HiBtCoV/3740-2 and RaBtCoV/4991) were homologous to betacoronaviruses, all other 150 sequences were homologous to alphacoronaviruses"
OK, so this RaTG13 virus in the WIV seems to have originally been this RaBtCoV/4991 variant that came from the Yunnan Province of China. For those of you who are a little light on Chinese geography, the distance between Yunnan and Wuhan is about 1,000 miles. Thus, we can conclude that the WIV had this RaTG13 virus in their possession around the 2013/2014 time frame.
OK, that's all terribly interesting about historical information regarding the closest phylogenic matches to COVID-19 and perhaps lends some credence to the idea that COVID-19 is an escapee of the WIV, but how does the National Institute of Health (NIH) and Dr. Fauci come into the picture?
Well, perhaps coincidently, it turns out that in 2014 the NIH was funding "gain of function" research into bat coronavirus. The project was 1R01AI110964-01. The project's abstract states the following:
"The three specific aims of this project are to:
1. Assess CoV spillover potential at high risk human-wildlife interfaces in China. This will include quantifying he nature and frequency of contact people have with bats and other wildlife; serological and molecular screening of people working in wet markets and highly exposed to wildlife; screening wild-caught and market sampled bats from 30+ species for CoVs using molecular assays; and genomic characterization and isolation of novel CoVs.
2. Develop predictive models of bat CoV emergence risk and host range. A combined modeling approach will include phylogenetic analyses of host receptors and novel CoV genes (including functional receptor binding domains); a fused ecological and evolutionary model to predict host-range and viral sharing; and mathematical matrix models to examine evolutionary and transmission dynamics.
3. Test predictions of CoV inter-species transmission. Predictive models of host range (i.e. emergence potential) will be tested experimentally using reverse genetics, pseudovirus and receptor binding assays, and virus infection experiments across a range of cell cultures from different species and humanized mice."
Wait, WTF is gain of function research? Gain of function research is a field of medical research focused on viruses "accelerating mutation processes to adapt their transmissibility, virulence and antigenicity, to better predict emerging infectious diseases and develop vaccines.".
Essentially, you bioengineer a super bug using genetic engineering or the splicing of two or more viruses together to create a new, novel "chimera" virus, release it in a lab full of mice or human cells and study how things get infected and die in order to learn something about how to combat a global pandemic.
Holy shit, was the WIV really doing that kind of crazy dangerous shit on bat corona viruses? Apparently they were according to the WIV research paper published on November 30th, 2017, Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses provides new insights into the origin of SARS coronavirus. The funding for the paper specifically cites NIH project 1R01AI110964-01 and specifically speaks about its successes in using gain of function techniques to adapt bat coronaviruses to be transmissible to and "work" in humans…in the lab.
"Our previous studies demonstrated the capacity of both WIV1 and WIV16 to use ACE2 orthologs for cell entry and to efficiently replicate in human cells [17,18]. In this study, we confirmed the use of human ACE2 as receptor of two novel SARSr-CoVs by using chimeric viruses with the WIV1 backbone replaced with the S gene of the newly identified SARSr-CoVs. Rs7327's S protein varied from that of WIV1 and WIV16 at three aa residues in the receptor-binding motif, including one contact residue (aa 484) with human ACE2."
Just so we are clear, a "chimeric virus" is a manmade virus created by combining two or more other viruses together. And the "S protein" is what is called the "spike" protein, and this protein controls what types of cells the virus can invade (only bat cells, only human cells or both human and bat cells for example). But, no way, the NIH didn't actually fund that shit. Oops, apparently so:
usaspending.gov, Advanced Search, Sub-Awards, Award ID: 1R01AI110964-01
OK, fine, but surely that does not implicate Dr. Fauci. Shit, apparently so:
"In 1968, Fauci joined the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as a clinical associate in the Laboratory of Clinical Investigation (LCI) at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.[12] In 1974, he became head of the Clinical Physiology Section, LCI, and in 1980 was appointed Chief of the Laboratory of Immunoregulation. In 1984, he became director of NIAID, a position he still holds as of 2021." – Wikipedia, Anthony Fauci
Oh, hmm, apparently Dr. Fauci is a big believer in gain of function research, considering it "worth the risk".
Alright, we need to cut this out, we are clearly falling down a rabbit hole filled with conspiratorial landmines, let's put together a timeline of everything so that we can disprove this whole conspiracy notion once and for all.
1984 – Dr. Fauci becomes director of NIAID at the NIH
December 30th, 2011 – Dr. Fauci writes a Washington Post op-ed promoting gain of function research
2012 – Chinese miners get sick in bat infested mineshaft
2012-2013 – WIV field research at mineshaft collects 152 variants of bat coronavirus including Ra4991
May 27th, 2014 – NIH awards funding for gain of function research into bat coronaviruses, project 1R01AI110964-01
October 2014 – Obama administration ends gain of function research and asks that all current projects end
May 2015 – $133,000 payment from NIH to Wuhan for project 1R01AI110964-01
February 2016 – Research paper released from WIV identifying Ra4991 as likely culprit in miners' illness
November 2017 – Progress report from WIV regarding successes in using gain of function techniques to adapt bat coronaviruses to be transmissible and work in humans
December 2017 -Gain of function research reinstated in United States. That's $399,000 paid to WIV for a gain of function research project while it was "banned" by the Obama administration.
May 2019 – $66,500 payment from NIH to Wuhan for project 1R01AI110964-01
December 12th, 2019 – Start of COVID-19 outbreak as officially reported by China
January 20th, 2020 – Paper released tying COVID-19 to WIV lab virus RaTG13, which is really Ra4991
May 28th, 2020 – GM Watch, "Lab Escape Theory of SARS-CoV-2 Origin Gaining Scientific Support"
June 4th, 2020 – Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, "Did the SARS-CoV-2 Virus Arise from a Bat Coronavirus Research Program in a Chinese Laboratory? Very Possibly"
July 4th, 2020 – The Times (UK), "Revealed: Seven-Year Coronavirus Trail from Mine Deaths to a Wuhan Lab"
May 17th, 2020 – Newsweek, "Scientists Shouldn't Rule Out Lab As Source of Coronavirus, New Study Says"
June 2nd, 2020 – Independent Science News, "The Case Is Building That COVID-19 Had a Lab Origin"
June 10th, 2020 – Taiwan News, "Norwegian virologist claims coronavirus is 'chimera' Made in Chinese Lab"
July 13th, 2020 – Scientific paper The Evidence which Suggests that This Is No Naturally Evolved Virus published
January 15th, 2021 – Fact Sheet: Activity at the Wuhan Institute of Virology – "The U.S. government has reason to believe that several researchers inside the WIV became sick in autumn 2019, before the first identified case of the outbreak, with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illnesses. This raises questions about the credibility of WIV senior researcher Shi Zhengli's public claim that there was "zero infection" among the WIV's staff and students of SARS-CoV-2 or SARS-related viruses."
God damnit.
OK, so if we are looking at this objectively, we can't really rule out that the virus was manmade after all. We certainly wouldn't call the virus being manmade "debunked". That said, we also can't definitively say that it is manmade either. And, the only way to tie COVID-19's creation to funding from the NIH and Dr. Fauci would be if Ra4991/RaTG13 really is the progenitor of COVID-19 and underwent gain of function research at WIV as part of the 1R01AI110964-01 project and this ended up creating COVID-19 and subsequently escaping the lab. Let's be absolutely crystal clear, that's a lot of hoops to jump through in order to arrive at that conclusion. See, this is the minefield of conjecture that is the origins of COVID-19.
Perhaps one day we will learn the truth about the origins of COVID-19. The World Health Organization (WHO) is in Wuhan right now and one of the WHO investigators, Peter Daszak, clearly states that there is no evidence of the virus coming from the WIV. Wait a minute, Peter Daszak? Where have we seen that name before? Oh yeah, Peter Daszak was the project leader for project 1R01AI110964-01. Jesus H. Christ, this rabbit hole runs deep! Can you say "conflict of interest"?!? OK, well the odds of us ever learning the true origins of COVID-19 pretty much just flew right out the window.
Well, we here at The Objective Observer have had enough of rabbit holes filled with conspiratorial landmines for one day. We will close with pondering the lesson of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, a novel that warns of the dangers of science pushing the limits in order to achieve fantastic results without fully thinking through the consequences. Perhaps one day Dr. Frankenstein's monster will finally be given a name, COVID-19.
Author theobjectiveobserverblogPosted on February 7, 2021 February 15, 2021 Tags COVID-19, health, science, virus3 Comments on The Origins of COVID-19
The Political Weaponization of Science Itself
OK, so we here at The Objective Observer are still on this King Biden divine proclamation to "follow the science". If you haven't been paying attention, King Biden's proclamation states the following:
"science, facts, and evidence are vital to addressing policy and programmatic issues across the Federal Government monarchy."
But we have some problems with the ordained king's proclamation here at The Objective Observer. It's not that we do not believe in science, but rather that we don't believe in blindly following the science. But before we get to that, perhaps more importantly, the proclamation as stated is a complete and utter fraud. A more accurate proclamation would read:
"science, facts, and evidence that we agree with and support our pre-determined views are vital to addressing policy and programmatic issues across the Federal Government monarchy."
As we pointed out in Following the Science, King Biden is cherry picking science that supports his pre-determined views while ignoring other legitimate science that does not. But that's not how science is supposed to work. Of course, King Biden will justify his approach by pointing to "consensus" science. The problem with this approach, as we have repeatedly pointed out in The Climate Change Heresies, Higgs Bozos, There Are No Climate Change Deniers and even Flying Spaghetti Monster Theory, is that "consensus" science, and in particular "consensus" science in young fields of study, tends to get things wrong. And not just wrong, but spectacularly wrong. Consider that the following have all been "consensus" science until relatively recently:
Until the 1890's consensus science was that atoms were indivisible. The atomic bomb tells us otherwise.
Until 1911, consensus science was that atoms adhered to a "plum pudding model" versus a nuclear model. Incorrect, it's the nuclear model.
Prior to Einstein's general theory of relativity in 1915, a magical "luminiferous aether" was considered by scientific consensus as the medium for the propagation of light. Einstein was actually still trying to work the aether into the theory of relativity as late as 1924.
Prior to the 1970's, the scientific consensus for macro geologic processes was not plate tectonics. Guess what? It's plate tectonics.
Prior to the 1980's, scientific consensus would tell you that sauropods lived in lakes and that dinosaurs were cold blooded and extinct. We now understand these things to be entirely false.
Up until 1982 consensus science was that crystalline solids could only be composed of repeating blocks. This was disproved by the discovery of Quasicrystals.
Until May 17th, 1990 the consensus science from the American Psychiatric Association and the World Health Organization (WHO) classified homosexuality as a "mental illness". Clearly, that is not the case.
So had King Biden ascended to the throne the first time he tried in 1988, would King Biden have institutionalized homosexuals because he was "following the science"? Aren't homosexuals lucky that unscientific "buffoons" like Reagan and Bush were ruling instead.
But surely, these are all "old" examples from at least 30 years ago. Surely "modern" science never gets things wrong. Well, actually, it is well understood that science gets things wrong all the time. In fact, a statistician has recently demonstrated that most published research findings are false. And, even more recently we have the following:
Dark matter may not actually exist – and our alternative theory can be put to the test (phys.org)
Space news: 'Dark matter' may not exist after all, new research suggests | 7NEWS.com.au
Maybe 'dark matter' doesn't exist after all, new research suggests (nbcnews.com)
That's right, those last two articles are from January 6th and January 7th, 2021. And yet for at least the last 30 years "consensus" science was that 85% of the universe was made up of "dark matter". So, if King Biden was planning on basing any policy decisions on dark matter "consensus" science, he would be basing policy on something that likely doesn't even exist.
The point of all of this is that proclaiming that one's administration will be based on science, facts and evidence runs the real risk of basing policy on things that are 100% incorrect and wrong. But declaring the monarchy to be "science based" was really never the purpose of that proclamation. The real purpose of that proclamation was to silence critics of King Biden's already pre-determined policies which were never really based upon all of the science to begin with. The proclamation is really intended to be used as a cudgel to beat critics of the current monarchy's policies over the head and brand them "science deniers" the same way climate change proponents denounce critics as "climate change deniers". And no, the phrasing to evoke the idea of a "Holocaust denier" is no accident. The move is so chilling and diabolical that every scientist in the country should be outraged and crying out at the top of their lungs to denounce that proclamation, denounce the political weaponization of science itself.
Author theobjectiveobserverblogPosted on February 6, 2021 February 8, 2021 Tags dark matter, politics, science1 Comment on When Science is Wrong
Why Are We Trying to Stop Global Warming Again?
For years climate change proponents have been decrying those questioning climate change and its impacts as "science deniers". King Biden has taken both climate change and science seriously by declaring climate change as central to the United States' new National Defense Strategy as well as endorsing science via a proclamation that states:
In effect, King Biden has made the divine decree that everyone must "follow the science". We're big on science here at The Objective Observer so, let's follow the science on climate change. We start with the oft cited premise that climate change in the form of global warming caused by increased CO2 (carbon dioxide) levels resulting from the activities of human beings will have a catastrophic impact on the Earth and the ability for humans to survive.
So, what exactly does science say on this topic? Well, for starters, the science says that during the time that dinosaurs lived in the Jurassic Period there was 5 times the level of CO2 than the present day. Five times. First, let that sink in. This means that the air was 0.2% CO2 versus today's 0.04%. Furthermore, as climate change proponents will be sure to cheer, the average global temperature during the Jurassic Period was up to 8 degrees Celsius warmer than it is today.
Now consider that the current goals of the Paris Climate Accord and climate change proponents is to prevent a mere 1.5 degree Celsius increase in global temperatures and to essentially keep the level of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere roughly the same. Surely, if going above a 2 degrees Celsius increase in global temperatures and a corresponding increase in CO2 in the atmosphere will have such a cataclysmic impact as to threaten life on Earth for humans, then surely 5 times today's CO2 levels and 8 degrees Celsius warmer would mean certain annihilation for not only humans but all life on Earth. Right?
But what does science tell us about the Jurassic Period? Well, science tells us that the Jurassic Period was teeming with life both on land and in the oceans and featured lush, green jungles and forests. In point of fact, there is no scientific journal or book or writing that describes the Jurassic Period as "devoid of life" or "inhospitable to life" or any such description at all. Actually, it is well known in scientific circles that during the Jurassic Period some of the largest land and sea animals that ever lived dominated life on Earth.
So exactly where is the scientific evidence that a 1.5 degree increase in temperatures and a commensurate increase in CO2 levels would spell doom for humans? Because the science doesn't seem to indicate that at all. In fact, if you refer to the image attached to this post, life has thrived on Earth for hundreds of millions of years at temperature levels of 8 degrees Celsius warmer than the present and at CO2 levels up to 17 times those of today. One might also notice from the image that we are living in one of the coldest and least CO2 rich environments in the entire history of the planet. And, every time temperatures and CO2 have dropped to the level of today, temperatures and CO2 levels have subsequently increased exponentially. In fact, science tells us that CO2 levels would need to be 150 times greater than they are today for the air to even be toxic to humans. That's the science.
So why are we so worried about a 1.5 degree Celsius increase in global temperatures again? Actually, the consensus scientific opinion is that for the next 70 years, increasing temperatures actually benefits humans. Warmer temperatures means fewer winter deaths (mortality from cold is much higher than mortality from heat), more rain, longer growing seasons, better agricultural yield, more plants in general (CO2, it's what plants crave) and lower energy costs (less winter heating). Against these benefits there are downsides. But, if you read the downsides closely, it's really about higher ocean levels leading to the loss of current coastal areas and then a tremendous amount of conjecture. Anyone that tells you that they have scientific "proof" of the impacts of global warming on humanity and the Earth is lying. Straight up lying. Why? Because nobody has lived through such an event, collected the data on it and analyzed it scientifically. What they have are models and conjecture only, supported by scientific principles which may or may not pan out. In fact, regarding speculative claims of "extreme weather" brought about by climate change, even a recent report from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPPC), the "gold standard" of climate science, states:
'no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency offloads on a global scale … low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms'.
The only, true objective conclusion about climate change is that nobody has any real freaking clue about any of it in terms of its true impacts. And since science almost always gets things wrong; many, many times, before getting it right, most of the "science" out there is likely quite wrong.
So, to any objective observer, one has to seriously question why we are not actually promoting global warming versus discouraging global warming. So what if people on the coasts need to move? There's plenty of land. In fact, land currently deemed "inhospitable" because of cold will become "hospitable". They can move there. Requiring people to rent a U-Haul can hardly be deemed "catastrophic".
To an objective observer, it sure seems like King Biden is only listening to some of the science, not all of the science. And that's a no no in science. True scientists aren't allowed to pick and choose their evidence. That is not being "science based". That is not "following the science". That is called cherry picking facts and conjecture to support a predetermined theory or position. In other words, the very antithesis of science.
Finally, we have to seriously question King Biden's decision to place climate change at the center of United States national defense and security policy. Seriously, how in the hell is a solar panel going to prevent another terrorist attack on New York City? Do wind turbines have some secret military application that could be used to thwart Chinese aggression that nobody is telling us about? Does hydropower somehow shield us from Russian hackers?
To any objective observer, the only thing security or military related to King Biden's climate proclamations is that these climate proclamations really just amount to some kind of strange war against plants. Like a weird, absurd attempt to deprive plants of the basic requirements for life. And why would you want to do that? Even children know how useful plants are at staving off a zombie apocalypse, and what greater threat to national security is there than that?
Author theobjectiveobserverblogPosted on February 5, 2021 February 10, 2021 Tags climate, climate change, environment, global warming, military, science5 Comments on Following the Science