Investigative Journalism

 In the real world there used to be something called "investigative journalism". In today's world, that no longer exists. Here's a perfect example:

Oroville residents wondering why Feather River is flooding local beach, while Lake Oroville is dry

This story is the stuff of conspiracy theories, In a drought, why are the reservoirs which hold water enough to sustain years of drought being drawn down so rapidly? That's the underlying question. But did this reporter even think to ask somebody who might actually know the answer? Did he dig to get answers?

The Stink

The one thing I can say about how the Democrat-controlled United States government is reacting to the events on January 6, 2021 in Washington DC is that we the people of this nation can finally get a clear realization of just how much Democrats stink.

When news of January 6 first reached me my thoughts were about how foolish it would have been of me had I been there to have entered the building but there were people who did and some of them were patriots, real heroes.

This is what the Democrats are doing to patriotic heroes:

Trump Supporting Parent Who Walked In To Capitol For 10 Minutes Is Facing 20 YEARS… And Wife Says He’s Being TORTURED

While we idly sit and hope we can wait this one out the stink just keeps getting stronger.

The main reason, by the way, for Democrats doing this to American citizens is to make you, yes you, too afraid to do anything to stop them. The lesson we all need to learn is that authoritarian government stinks. Real patriots believe that the US Constitution opposes authoritarian rule.

Covid - Gain of Function Research

 I happened upon a YouTube video today - Thank you YouTube for the link! - concerning a debate that had just taken place in Congress between Senator Rand Paul and the great Wizard of Oz, Doctor Fauci concerning Gain of Function research at the Wuhan virus lab suspected of engineering the Covid-19 virus.

Here's some of that debate:

‘You Do Not Know What You Are Talking About!’: Fauci Lashes Out At Sen. Rand Paul For Suggesting He Lied To Congress

If Fauci the Great wasn't lying to Congress, then I have a couple of questions:

1. What is the correct term for the kind of research Senator Paul was referring to? If it isn't "gain of function research" then please do share with us the proper technical name so we can refer to it without being accused of being clueless.

and...

2. What does the term "gain of function research" actually refer to.

Please, gentlemen, spare us the needless confusion. Why is Doctor Who even testifying if not to give clarity?

The Progression of Cybertime

Cybertime - Time since the beginning of the Internet

Way back in the beginning of cybertime there were chatrooms that people liked to hang out in. I used to dally in some of them but being the keyboard dyslexic that I am most chatrooms were way over my head. I couldn't keep up. I do remember, though, that chatrooms all seemed to have moderators who by virtue of something or other had the authority to kick people out if they misbehaved.

Things have progressed since then. These days public forums online are under the direction of the White House.

You don't believe me?

Biden regime now in on big tech censorship of indy media, colluding with Facebook to ban “misinformation” in blatant First Amendment attack

So you see, nothing about this is new except that now it would appear that the moderators might be in violation of the United States Constitution.

Did you vote for this? I'm guessing but I think most Americans could care less, sad to say.

Covid - The Fauci Flu

 Maybe it's just a brain fart but I don't recall ever seeing the term "Fauci Flu" before. I've been an advocate for treatments, especially low-cost treatments, for fighting Covid-19. The first promising treatment was using hydroxychloroquine and zing as a one-two punch to kill the Covid-19 virus. That treatment was in use internationally early on in the pandemic but was opposed both in the media and in government in free speech America as well as internationally for bizarre reasons.

More recently it was ivermectin, another low-cost, safe, proven medicine reportedly even more powerful and effective than hydroxychloroquine. It is virtually impossible to synchronize the claims for ivermectin with the official (in the USA at least) position. Just now I was scanning this FDA website about using ivermectin to fight Covid and right away, as of today at least although I suspect the FDA will have to 1984 this version of the "truth" eventually, I came across the term "serious harm". Gee, that sounds serious, harm more serious than Covid-19? Well... ummm..., maybe? Sounds it? Taking a horse's or a cow's worth of ivermectin could harm you, they say, not to mention the harm that inactive ingredients in animal products not yet studied and approved by the government for human use could cause. I mean, people aren't animals ya know.

FDA fudge, free for the taking. Anyone interested?

Anyway, back to the "Fauci flu" that I found here:

Pioneer of hydroxychloroquine-zinc protocol for covid calls plandemic a “war against God”

It is Sunday today after all. Claims about God might still be allowed on the Internet in America if they are made on Sunday, right?

I've written about this doctor and his claims here in the journal before. He's been put through the wringer for his claims of success in fighting Covid-19.

Disclaimer: Big Tech, mainstream media, and the Biden government don't want you reading about this kind of thing so don't go believing it just because I made comments about it, OK? After all, "freedom of speech" doesn't mean I can say things not approved by the United States government, does it? Heck no!

Note: My spell checker, the product of years and years of high tech research and development, is flagging my spelling of "Fauci" with Faucet, Faucal, and Face being the only known correct possibilities. I should pick "Face" because what is Fauci without that know-it-all-but-still-meek looking face, right? What is faucal anyway?

LSD

 This is a test to see if using the keyword "LSD" in my virtually invisible blog draws attention to it.

Complacency

I came across the word "complacency" for the July 15 topic in my copy of the Al-Anon book One Day at a Time and it tripped me. It triggered me. Al-Anon information isn't supposed to trigger people this way but that topic is dealt with on the July 18 page which is another topic entirely.

"Complacency" isn't a word that comes to mind for me when I speak or write or even when I think verbally. It's not in my typical personal lexicon. But this Al-Anon book seems to define the word using a definition that I might use for the term "self-righteousness" and that just didn't seem to click for me. My understanding of the word "complacency" - in itself based on my own complacency - is more like the phrase, "Hey if it ain't broke don't fix it." In other words if the way something is isn't worth it to you to fix, if the flaws are acceptable, then why bother fixing it? Just be satisfied with the way it is. Holding perfectionists in disdain could and I would assume often does lead to complacency but I'm inclined to think that in my understanding of the use of the word, people who either fear change or are just too lazy to bother making the effort would tend to behave complacently towards it, towards changing things.

Dictionary definitions don't tend to step on toes but the dictionary definitions - to me at least - seem to support that meaning. You don't deliberately overlook danger because you have a problem with self-righteousness. The results might be the same, but the motivations you use to achieve the results are quite different. I might justify my laziness by acting self-righteously but self-righteousness doesn't necessarily equate to laziness nor does avoiding self-righteousness cure complacency.

So with that in mind, I'll have to re-read the July 15 page, won't I? Maybe when it's not the middle of the night, though...

Democracy

 The word "democracy" is being thrown around a lot these days by people who support Democrat politicians. I seem to be having a bit of a problem wrapping my head around what the definition of that word must have somehow evolved to mean. It isn't used in such a way that it includes Republicans. Democrats and mainstream media outlets, especially since this past January (2021) have branded Republicans as enemies of "democracy" and, to me at least and I imagine to many other non-Democrats, that leaves Republicans and Republican definitions of "democracy" out in the cold.

It's not that Republicans don't believe in democracy. Most do. Yes there's always this claim that the United States by virtue of the Constitution is not a democracy but rather a "republic". I've been hearing that argument from the right for years. But the average everyday Republican voter still believes in the integrity of voting because it is the right and ability of citizens of the United States to elect the people who control our government.

That view, the Republican view, the traditional definition of "democracy", has become obsolete and has been replaced by another view, by another definition of the word "democracy".

The problem is, I don't understand what the new definition is.

Under the new definition the very act of questioning the integrity of elections somehow violates and threatens "democracy". Am I right? Am I just imagining it? I hear it all the time now from the Left and from mainstream media. The very act of suspecting election fraud is now somehow a threat to democracy, am I right?

Not just that but any legislation aimed at opposing voter fraud threatens democracy. Any news coverage, any legal action, any talk of voter fraud, under the new definition of "democracy" is threatening and undermines the principles of democracy.

It didn't used to be this way or if it was, it wasn't mainstream thinking for the American people. Am I right? Is there anybody out there that hears me?

How can anybody imagine that democracy is best served if we don't diligently watch for fraud but rather fearfully bury our heads in the sand at the very mention of it.

The vice-president of the United States of America reportedly recently claimed that people living in rural areas of America don't have access to photocopying equipment - itself a ridiculous claim - but that somehow that fact is good reason not to have voter ID laws where in order for a person to vote they have to prove that they are the person they claim to be when they show up to vote.

Granted that argument distracts from the other more common argument, itself ridiculous, that voter ID laws discriminate against "people of color" - Blacks especially - who presumably don't have the where-with-all to get an ID, which to my feeble mind seems to be as racist a claim as anything out there other than that cops like to kill Blacks or that it only matters if the people cops kill are Black.

I'm left wondering if maybe the new definition of "democracy" is that only the Left, only Democrats, are worthy of governing and anything that leads to that result, even election fraud that leads to Democrat victories, is good because democracy itself is a fraudulent concept and what really matters above all else is Socialism, a system of government not dependent on, fearful of, and in opposition to fair elections.