Michael Stuart Kelly

I just watched Alan Dershowitz give a class in the Constitution to the Senate. And, by extension, obliterate all the legal grounds for the impeachment to begin with. His part was at the end of yesterday's day of trial. I have copied the video here to start at the right point, including Sekulow's short introduction, but for those where this doesn't work, please start at 6:47:49. I learned two things, both of which Dershowitz backed up with proper documentation: 1. "High crimes and misdemeanors" meant crimes at time time the Constitution was written. 2. Impeachable crimes must have a political element. (Which is the reason Clinton's felony in lying to Congress about Lewinski was not proper grounds--the political element was missing.) Michael

Even President Trump noticed this one. Michael

This is how the Deep State's media think they are going to take down President Trump and beat him in the election in November. Dumbass doesn't even scratch the surface of describing the brainlessness of their political messaging. They don't perceive they are reelecting Trump while congratulating themselves on their superiority to Trump supporters. Michael

I've mentioned this possibility several times. Well.. From the New York Post today: Hillary Clinton admits she feels an ‘urge’ to run against Trump again Michael

Samson, To make the argument you made, you need to read more of the literature. This question has been debated to death, even by Rand. Hell, even go in the other direction. Rather than accept NIOF at face value as a be-all and end-all, why not ask the following? (After all, brains are made for thinking...) Is boxing initiation of force? Demolition derbies? How about American football? Dig around. You will find all this discussed over and over. btw - Happy Superbowl tomorrow everyone. Michael

Man, do I love this guy. I guess I'm a rebel who never grew up. Michael

Peter, LOL... Stop it. You're killing me. Michael

Peter, Why not finish you off right with indigestion from a groaner? There is a new nickname for the coronavirus. They're calling it the Kung Flu. Michael

Classic. LOL... Michael

For the clueless (which excludes most OL readers), President Trump is still the President of the United States of America. From over a week ago: To be redundant, ditto once again as I reiterate the same. Michael

Peter, Actually, the bat thing was not a quip. Lookee here from The Daily Star: Coronavirus blamed on bat soup as pics emerge of people eating the Chinese delicacy Or here from The Gateway Pundit: GROSS: Scientists Blame Coronavirus on Bats — In Chinese Province Where Bat Soup Is Served in Restaurants Or here from the Mirror: Coronavirus could have been spread by bat soup after disturbing footage emerges Or how about this little sucker? And for a little credibility, here from National Geographic (there's a lot about bats): New coronavirus can spread between humans—but it started in a wildlife market And here from the National Center for Biotechnology Information, of the U.S. National Library of Medicine, of the National Institutes of Health. Bats and Coronaviruses This is real, it's dangerous as all hell, it threatens a large number of people, and it's gross as all get out. Finally the fake news media has an issue perfectly formatted for its new standards in reporting without having to make it up. Michael

To add to that: Michael

If you are in the Deep State, you do not want to piss off Rudy. But they pissed off Rudy anyway. So get ready. Michael

I've read the virus came from eating bats. Michael

Chris, Here is the thread I made that prompted the guy to show up. A Different Kind of Objectivist Romance I looked this up because the name Socrates rang a bell from videos I had seen, then I remembered the name Anthony Johnson. The thread dealt with one weird case to me. Johnson was proposing to breed certain kinds of women out of the human race and claimed that blow jobs were not sex. He really did and I'm funning in the way I framed it, but I felt for the guy. He didn't post on OL, though. Instead, a person from San Diego named "Mike Olberding" got in touch with me offline soon after this thread went up. He wanted to talk personally with me about some issue involving coauthorship for a book on golfing or something like that. But the personal message thread was called "Relationship," so it was pretty obvious that this was Johnson. Anyway, we talked on the phone and his real issue was about writing an autobiography, but I don't remember it well. The questions he had involved storytelling. I know something I said clicked and seemed to have solved a problem for him in framing the story. He soon signed off and we have not communicated since. That's about all I've got on Anthony Johnson. I tried to watch the videos you posted, but I couldn't get through more than about 10 minutes of each. I saw that these people got wound up--that the matter and personal spats were important to them. I just don't resonate with this niche. In fact, during the Rand Branden split, I imagine people outside of O-Land who looked in felt the same as I do about this manosphere feud. The main theme from the outside appears like squabbles over money and fame and power within a small space, but from within the space, people treat it as massive betrayals that threaten the future of mankind. I don't mean to make light of this for insiders. After all, within the Rand-Branden thing, I played a small part when that awful book by Valliant came out. Right now, I'm merely reporting what I see when I look at it from different perspectives. Michael

LOL... This is just a warm-up. Watch the outcome of the impeachment. I wonder if Schiff will go to jail at the end of it all and investigations into him get underway. (Just think of President Trump with majority House and Senate.) I give jail time Schiff for pretty good odds. I keep hearing about an Epstein connection, so I bet that gets cleared up, too. Michael

Breitbart headline on the progress of the Senate's impeachment trial. (The image is clickable if you are interested in the article.) Michael

Chris, I don't mean this to be critical of you. It's just the way I try to see things at first. Enough preface and here goes. Why take any side in a breakup? From what I've seen, people on both sides offer great advice and information--and some mediocre to bad, for that matter. I doubt any of them could pass any ideological purity test. So what is the standard for choosing a side? The tribe? One particular issue or event? Whim? (At least I could see it if you were paid good money to take a side... ) My unsolicited advice is for you to take Chris's side. Always. And if anybody doesn't like that, fuck 'em. Michael

Part 3--without comment so far. I haven't even seen it yet. But I know it's good. I've seen Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham comment on it this morning. That means it is going to get a bigger splash audience than normal. Michael

Chris, Long time. Good to see you again. I don't know that much about these people except for Stefan Molyneux, who I like in general. I don't agree with him on a few things, though, and I don't find much interest when he plays Dear Abby. I seriously dislike his form of presentation where he makes a sarcastic remark every two or three sentences in a frantic tone--he doesn't do this with interviews, only when he's by himself. But, overall, he is clear in his meanings, is mostly reasonable and rational, and has one hell of a work ethic. I admire all of those qualities. I bopped around for a couple of moments looking into these other people and, from the impression I got and the persuasion techniques I saw being discussed, this movement is an outgrowth of the PUA (pick-up-artist) movement from around the time of The Game by Neil Strauss. Some of that shit is powerful, too. There's a guy name Oren Klaff who took their principles and techniques and, instead of using them on women, applied them to making pitches to venture capitalist companies with great success. I have a feeling these conventions are staged to take advantage of the current backlash to the MeToo movement and super-radical feminism. In my view, all this shall pass. Is this part of the MGTOW (men-going-their-own-way) movement? Also, a guy showed up a couple of years ago here on OL who runs a male empowerment thing out in California. I can't remember his name, though. It's probably because I come from a different generation, which has other forms of indoctrination that did not involve gender, but I don't resonate with these things. I'm not against them. I just don't feel anything inside when I try to analyze the issues they fight over. Probably, at root, they are mostly about political power and the issues are merely hooks to justify their noise. Kinda like with the female-oriented folks they oppose. And, on all sides, it's about getting laid, of course. Michael

President Trump just locked down the youth vote for his legacy in the next generation. Trump Admin Announces Rollback of Michelle Obama’s School Lunch Program — on Her Birthday Michael

Jon, No he isn't. Who has he convinced so far? Or who has he silenced? People who already agree with him? That's being inept at propaganda. I like the pretty pictures, though. Michael

MIGA! Make Iran Great Again! Michael

Peter, I know Marc well. He was not being snide. He loves President Trump and he's actually like the way he posted. Here in O-Land, people aren't used to his kind of dogs-with-muddy-paws enthusiasm, but I love it. Long live hyperbole if that is the standard. By the way, he was serious about the Dagny thing. He has two daughters, one named Kira and the other named Dominique. We became friends in the beginning because I have two sons, one named Roark and the other Ragnar. And we both loved Barbara Branden. Michael

Now for the important Congressional news or the day. The Senate just passed the USMCA bill. All that's left is President Trump's signature and Canada's approval. This is the event that will reverberate down the decades. Michael