Michael Stuart Kelly

I didn't see the Dem primary debate earlier so I can't say anything yet, but from skimming my usual haunts, the best comment I saw was the following: I'm not even going to try. I can't top that one. Michael

TG, I just got it. It's on sale on Kindle for 99 cents. It's now officially on my reading list. Thanks. Michael

Peter, I don't know if the following will be useful to you, but there are a couple of ideas I want to throw at you. (Sorry I took so long to get to this. I'm working on a Wordpress project with a shot deadline and the technical stuff is kicking my ass. ) My mind took me in a different direction on epistemology and the nature of knowledge than finding origins. First off, when I started talking about Rand online, I was soon in contact with Chris Sciabarra on the forums and I had a hell of a time understanding what dialectic meant. Saying Rand was a dialectical thinker did not make Chris many friends on the ortho side. All they could see was Hegel and Marx and red. But that story is for another context. Slowly emerging from that time, I discovered that dialectical process only meant teasing out knowledge through interaction, often Q&A and even more often, between at least two different people. In fact, much of forum life is dialectical interaction. But back then, this didn't make any sense to me. And off I went on a journey to try to understand the human mind. How is, in essence, discussing a topic epistemology? As I read and read and read, I finally came across something very interesting. It's a book by Iian McGilchrist. I want to go deep into this, but for the sake of brevity, let me just quote a couple of things I wrote about it and I am sure you will see the relevance. and this: Like I said, I believe there is a world of topic to dig into here. I, for one, will be doing so when I get the time. Here is the second idea and it is related, although it deals with induction and deduction. And with artificial machine learning. I was reading about AI writing. There is a wicked little thing called Grover developed by the Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence and the University of Washington that, after you point it in the direction you want it to imitate and give it a topic, generates deepfake-like articles all by its lonesome. As I was reading around about this, I came across the following article by John Seabrook in The New Yorker: Can a Machine Learn to Write for The New Yorker? The passage that jumped out at me was the following: Rand's idea of concept formation was based on algebra. Even though AI is more word manipulation than developing concepts, it's getting there--also through math. This is a link I am interested in following up on when I get the time. Anywho, there she is. My two cents. My intent is not to impart knowledge, but dialectic if you find either of these ideas interesting or worth pursuing. Apropos, Roger Bissell is one smart dude. And good luck with your own investigations. Michael

Back to the Deep State, if anyone is interested in a great understanding of who Schiff's whistleblower is and what he has done, the following video from October 23 by someone called IPOT (In Pursuit of Truth) is about the best report I have been able to find. You can't find this video almost anywhere anymore. It has been scrubbed from the web except for BitChute (at least in terms of what I have been able to find). Click on the image and it will open the video in a new tab. It's less than 15 minutes, but man does it anchor this whistleblower guy squarely within the top of the Obama administration. And the video goes a bit into his ties with General McMaster, whose hiring was one of President Trump's worst ideas to date (at least Trump corrected this mistake). This video gives facts, not fiction. And the ruling class elitists and anti-Trumpers don't want you to know any of this. The proof is they have tried to pull a Stalin on the video. Their mistake (and tell) is that they used way too much firepower against it. EDIT: You can read some of the stuff in the video here. Thus we have one more failed attempt by the Deep State to screw everyday Americans. Michael

Ellen, Hear hear! Michael

Brant, Confusing? I was born confused. But so long as the dude puts food in his mouth and swallows it, call it anything you want. Wikipedia, that authority of all authorities, calls it a taster. Food Taster btw - To add to your bank of useless knowledge, this is different for beverages and the Wikipedia article continues: So swallow that if you can choke it down. Or better, put that in your pipe and smoke it, although I don't know what a smoke tester is called. Michael

Peter, I don't like to play the game of "what Rand really meant," but in this case, I have a suspicion. I think Rand saw whiffs of politicians like Herbert Hoover and Wendell Wilkie in Ronald Reagan and it creeped her out. These were not true free market folks, but instead Chamber of Commerce crony corporatists. Rather than argue that, though, she tacked on that line about abortion, claimed Reagan was anti-freedom because he wanted to enslave pregnant women, and defined an embryo as not a human being, but instead a piece of human protoplasm. I think she believed the crony charge against Reagan would not have made a difference to her followers, but labeling him as a slave-master might. When we look at O-Land fundies, if that was her idea, she had a point. At least she got them to think that way. To me, this was not her finest hour. I don't mind her trashing Reagan (he had his defects), but that particular abortion reason was a stretch. Talk about argument by non-essentials (which she framed as argument by essentials). The essential is not protecting the freedom of the mother while destroying the life of the unborn, but instead the definition of a human being. And her definition does not include the embryonic stage, which is debatable. I never have been able to square that circle with her. To me, living beings have stages of life that are determined by biology, not by ideology. Michael

Swalwell's Shot Heard Round The World This is actually a thing, not just a parody. In Swalwell's defense (from Breitbart): He Who Denied It: Eric Swalwell Denies Emitting Massive Fart on MSNBC There's some gossip going around that Chris Matthews was actually the one who farted while he was offscreen, leaving Swalwell to take the rap. We need some in-depth investigative reporting on this. Maybe discussion panels. Keep up to date with the Twitter hashtag: #fartgate This is hilarious. LOL... Michael

A little more information can be gained here (Gateway Pundit): BREAKING: WHITE HOUSE RELEASES STATEMENT … Trump Made Unannounced Stop at Walter Reed Hospital — “Worrisome and Unusual” Incident I didn't either. But here is a press report from 2017: Secret revealed: White House chef is the 'presidential taster' I think this story is going to spread. Let's see if it's true that elements in the CIA (or other part of the Deep State) are trying to poison President Trump. Michael

Here is one guy who is signing on. John McAfee is colorful and unconventional (my kind of guy ), but he did invent the McAfee antivirus and has more money than he will ever need from constantly investing in cutting edge technology, currently a variation of blockchain technology for cryptocurrency and contracts. He's very libertarian (even more than most libertarians), likes him some party drugs, and married a prostitute he once hired. He's well married, too. From what I've seen, she would kill for him. Michael

Brant, Slow-acting poison. The idea is to make it look like a legitimate disease. btw - I'm giving plausibility credence to this story because I read Poisoner in Chief: Sidney Gottlieb and the CIA Search for Mind Control by Stephen Kinzer. Gottleib himself cataloged a huge number of poisons for the CIA that could be used against targets and his staff invented many forms of delivery, some quite clever. That was back in the 50's and 60's. Imagine now. Michael

There's a story going around that the food taster for President Trump suddenly got sick enough to land in Walter Reed Hospital. As gravy, Trump made an impromptu stop at Walter Reed Hospital, maybe to visit him. I don't have verification on this. When I do, I will go deeper. For now, it looks like there is a possibility that someone tried to poison the president. Michael

I want to expand on this point. It's important because this is the bedrock on which the Deep State's existence is tolerated in public discourse, seeing that lefties and ruling class crony corporatism elitists own most of the fake news mainstream media. Here is what the progressives really think of their political opponents in unvarnished terms, specifically Donna Brazile on Roger Stone. The Breitbart article: Donna Brazile Launches Expletive-Ridden Rant Against Roger Stone: ‘Go to F*cking Jail — Hope he Roasts in Hell’ You have to see it to feel it. Brazile means what she says and has no shame in her own wrongdoing. To bring my point home, look here on SNL. Go to 1:39. Michael Che is trying to be funny, but there's too much truth in what he is saying about the way the Dems think for it to be funny. I think he let down his guard a little too much for the comfort of his audience. Humor aside (since the humor was not there to negate Che's proposition), this is what Trump supporters are up against. This is what people who support the Constitution as written are up against. This is what anyone who is not a ruling class elitist is up against. So when it's time for the elitist libtards who shat all over the country with their treasonous coup and abuse of power start going to jail from the law enforcement reports and investigations that will soon be released, I will feel no pity for them. Like Bill Maher above, they only get civil when they are the ones going down. Then it's all peace and love. When they are calling the shots and you go down, they are without mercy. What's more, they spit on you when you fall. Hell, they spit on you when you just go about living your life. Their hatred of people like you and me is real. And they will act on it if and when they can. Michael

President Trump couldn't push Rispone over the finish line in Louisiana. However, Trump did pull Rispone out of obscurity and put him within a point or two of winning. The anti-Trumpers are trying to make fun of this fact, but they are looking at it and sweating. If President Trump can do all that for a nobody within a short amount of time under very hostile conditions, imagine what he will be doing for underdog Republicans running during the 2020 election when he has the full machine pumping behind him. President Trump wants a majority Congress, both houses. I have no doubt he will get that message across to his base and get them fired up about it enough to do some real damage to the Dems. (btw - I don't rule out voting fraud in Louisiana.) Michael

Here is Bill Maher telling people, "Let's all get along this Thanksgiving." However, here's the rub. Maher emphasized that at Trump rallies, Trump supporters talk about locking up their political opponents. That's misleading. MAGA people don't want to lock up political opponents in general. They do want to lock criminals up, especially criminals (like Hillary Clinton) who abused their power when in office by using top law enforcement as a secret police against their political enemies. And these criminals have manipulated the justice system to literally lock up political opponents they don't like on "process crimes" during investigations of crimes that never existed or crimes they themselves also did. The most recent is Roger Stone. To see Maher all brotherly and shit right now tells me something. He's afraid. He knows what's coming. And he knows it ain't going to be pretty this time around for his side. To me, this is a good sign. When Maher's on the winning side, he's never brotherly. In fact, he likes it when his political opponents go to jail. The term phony baloney keeps coming to mind... Michael

I just saw a video by Scott Adams where he discussed Roger Stone's conviction. He said (and I agree) that the reason Roger was investigated in the first place was because he was trying to stop a government coup against a legally elected president. His conviction is a leftover from a failed coup attempt. Roger has been convicted for trying to stop treason. So, barring cases where physical evidence has proven the innocence of the convicted, Roger's case should be the biggest no-brainer presidential pardon in the history of presidential pardons. Scott even thinks the best time to issue the pardon is today, right now. There is no downside for President Trump to do this. The people who hate Roger already hate President Trump for liking Roger. Nobody who doesn't hate President Trump is going to hate him for pardoning Roger. The MAGA people are all really really pissed about Roger's railroad conviction. So every minute that passes without a pardon is making Trump supporters more pissed. That sounds about right. I suspect it will take a little time for the pardon to happen, though. President Trump's team will want to buttress the act in a way there will be unintended consequences. But I don't expect this to be rocket science or take too long. Michael

The left and crony ruling class elitists are serving up John Brennan as the fall guy for what's coming, but I believe it's too late. Still, it's interesting to see how they work. Look at this recent article (Nov. 15) from Real Clear Investigations: The Brennan Dossier: All About a Prime Mover of Russiagate Now, Real Clear Investigations is known as a more-or-less objective place. But the article's author, Aaron Maté, is about as left and as insider as they come. He cut his teeth at places like Democracy Now, Vice, Al Jazeera (he's Jewish, but a big supporter of Palestine and hater of Israel), The Nation, etc. The gist of the article, which is fairly well sourced, is that, yeah yeah yeah, some of Obama's folk, maybe even he himself, got a little overzealous about Trump, but when you dig, all roads lead back to Brennan. John Brennan did it. Crucify him! I said the article was well-sourced. Actually, it rehashes a lot of material straight-no-chaser out of The Plot Against the President: The True Story of How Congressman Devin Nunes Uncovered the Biggest Political Scandal in U.S. History by Lee Smith. I know this because I just read that book (which, incidentally, is the best one out there on the Deep State/President Trump affair). Granted, Maté mentioned this book in his article, but he did that in passing. He actually cribbed a crapload from it--except he slanted it to say Brennan and Brennan only was the bad guy (which is probably why he didn't reference it well). This tells me the powers that be are going to turn John Brennan into a boi de piranha. That means a "piranha cow" in Brazil. Whenever cow rustlers drive cattle to a river up north (in Brazil) that is infested with piranhas, they take an old or sick steer, make it bleed (sometimes killing it, sometimes not) and get it into the river upstream. The piranhas have a feeding frenzy. All that blood and meat! Then the cow rustlers drive the herd across the river downstream. That way the scent of the herd does not reach the piranhas, who are all as busy as can be, as the cattle cross. I think John Brennan knows what's coming to him, too. He's been getting real nasty these days. With President Trump's law enforcement team, the boi de piranha ploy will not work at protecting the rest of the Deep State (they are all going down), but watching Brennan be devoured by his own wicked elitist crony machine will be entertaining. Michael

Barr and The Constitution I listened to this lecture, all of it. What a comfort in these times. One of the marks of greatness that President Trump will carry down into history will be his many appointments of judicial people of Barr's caliber, character and approach to the Constitution. One thing that especially comforts me is that the understanding Barr presented in public here on the different roles of the different branches of government as given in the Constitution, and on the exercise of checks and balances, is the same understanding he provides in private within the center of the US government as it slowly turns away from socialism. Things may not look like it these days, but the US government is, under President Trump's leadership, congealing around strong capable hands like AG Barr's in a manner that will protect the American form of freedom and will last for decades. For those of you who participated in changing the course of history in the last presidential election, especially those of you who read and/or use OL, those of you who traveled with me, look at this video and see what you have done. Then feel proud. You deserve to. Our place up there on the stage of righting history is small and among giants, but it's there. We did that. Michael

I even retweeted that one, with a couple of comments. Michael

Take that, Trump! LOL... Michael

For some reason, the Democrats have called former Ambassador to the Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, as a witness in their coup/impeachment hearing. Oddly enough, she did not witness anything relevant to what the Dems say President Trump did. Why? Because she had been fired and well gone by the time it happened. She did witness being fired, though. She has been quite vocal about condemning that in the hearing. And that's about all. For fun, here's a line many people are tweeting at this moment. In my own feed alone, I must have seen about 30 and it's not even 10:30 AM yet. Also, I make these words my own here on OL: I hired Donald Trump to fire people like Yovanovitch. Michael

I just had a thought. Why are the coup insider Dems and fake news media so worried about protecting the so-called whistleblower's life? If the whistleblower appears before Congress, will his life be in any more danger than anyone else who appears before Congress for the impeachment hearings? Maybe a little, but where would the threat come from? President Trump has no history of violence and no string of dead bodies following him. Granted, some people on the right are dangerous, but normal protection for high-profile people seems to work at keeping them under control. But what happens if we flip this thing? What if the Dems (or ruling class elitist cronies in general) want to kill the whistleblower and blame it on Trump? Woah... Now I can see the poor sucker's life in danger for real. In fact, after Epstein's murder (that some are calling a suicide), if kill him is what they want, kill him is what they will do--with likely success. Added to that, I can think of at least one Dem with presidential aspirations who has quite a long dead body list following her... Hmmmmm... Michael

Has anybody seen the news today? Today--with no hearing--is supposed to be the spin day for the anti-Trump press to amplify yesterday's bombshells in the impeachment hearing. Then we get another hearing day tomorrow. But today, it seems like the press is awfully interested in other stuff. Not too much about the hearing yesterday. What happened? Oh well... Maybe they'll get him dang gammit next time... bleep bleep... whoooooshhh... Michael

Well, there's this, too. Adam Schiff said, in the hearing, he did not know who the whistleblower was. This is the same name he keeps trying to punish others for saying. This is such an in-your-face lie, Carpe Donktum made a meme out of it (the audio is accurate, though). CD is damn good at what he does, but this meme is just not that funny. It's like trying to make fun of a cowpile for being a cowpile. At least it doesn't make Schiff look dignified while he's letting loose a big dripping sloppy one... Michael

The following video is the essence of the impeachment hearing today in a nutshell. I mean, go ahead and watch reruns online if you do not get suicidal from acute boredom and like pissing away the precision minutes and hours of your life over trivialities. At least the video below is short and entertaining and shows exactly how little the Dems have. The following quote by Jordan from this video will probably be my favorite quote from the entire impeachment hearings. What's worse, this is an accurate statement of fact. LOL... Michael