Hi folks, nerb here, previously nerbot on ATS and nerb on D.I.

Thought I'd break from looming in the dark and finally join you if that's alright.

Still getting the hang of navigation but I do enjoy the pace of the place.

Looking forward to sensible posting. I don't do politics or religion, I do "belief" which covers just about everything and needs no labels.

See you all in the forums soon, thanks for having me.

A Little Folklore-ish Tale.

A long-long time ago, my cousin and I built our own conveyance... sort of. As many of us are aware, the lives we lead
invariably demands that a trail is left, a wake that is often strewn with consumables that litter our passing and discarded
through loss of interest or the natural development within a society. In our case, it was because my sisters had grown up.

In 20th century Britain, we called it a 'perambulator' or pram and I believe the US, it was known as a stroller.
But back in the monochrome years of my youth, a pram was far more than just a wheeled-chair to transport small children
in, it was a huge thing that could reach the chest of an adult when its hood was unfurled. To enhance one's standing in a
community, such a baby carriage had to be a 'Silver Cross'... the vertex of post natal portage.

A Silver Cross Perambulator.



Anyway, a long time ago, my cousin noticed such a vehicle parked in my parents' backyard between a never-used dog
kennel and the two squat structures of convenience. One was a 'coal-house', a single-brick building where coal was
dumped in via a small door in its rear and the other was what many houses of those years accepted as normal, an
outside toilet.

There's creepy tale to tell about my younger years sitting on such a darkened and chilly alfresco lavatory, but that one
we'll keep for another time.

This pram had seen better years. Rust was dominant around its chassis and rainwater had corrupted the cot where a baby
would be placed. Bird defecation had worked hard to change the hue of the charcoal-toned collapsible hood into a dappled
off-white rendering that only a neighbour's pigeons could appreciate. But regardless, the crazy kinsman from my father's
side of the family, suggested we remove the cradle part and utilise the frame and the wheels as a mode of travel.

So with eager hands and a wide tied-down wooden board for a place to sit, we destroyed and created at the same time.
It wasn't long before my cousin was loudly suggesting destinations we could travel to and yours-truly was pushing the
rope-bound contraption with musings of how some can avail the dynamics of a social-order better than others.

That half-pram went everywhere. One snowy winter, we tied my dog to the damned-thing and we emulated Jack London's
yarn of the foray into the Yukon. It was only due to the grace of God that we didn't plough into a wall when my eternally
-randy mutt spied a fellow canine and chose not to partake in our daring odyssey down the slush-rutted main road of our
little place in the world and instead, opted to frolic with a striking female rough Collie.
Thankfully, Mister Ferguson never did find out who left that dent in his car's front wing.

With a summer sun drawing sweat from my young limbs, we fled from the German Afrika Korps and headed for a town
called Alex. All the time, watching imaginary sand dunes for coal-scuttle helmets barking words like achtung. The days
were longer back then and for my cousin and I, we knew that mortality had taken a holiday and today would be perpetual.

However, on one of these jaunts, we decided to forego the fame of literature and cinema and visit a location that we'd
heard about from those held higher in regard than renowned authors and movie stars, folk we always believed when told
with serious expressions.
A commonality called older kids.
......................................

It had been after my safari to capture newts, an account I mentioned in another thread and had involved a tale of a
subterranean monster that lurked in a forgotten pool beside a huge now-defunct factory that had once built Nissen huts,
armour-piercing shells, tanks and Bailey bridges during the Second World War. It later became part of British Steel and
enjoyed a busy time in the years after that conflict.

The beast was a Pike, a fiendish fish of enormous size that -so it had been said by youths of loftier years than mine,
would snatch wayward children from the banks of its watery den and crush their thrashing bodies with terrible teeth that
would equal the metal-guillotines in the steel-rolling business beside its lair. Forlorn head-scarfed mothers would call out
across the lonely location and wonder what lay beneath that dark wind-rippled surface of the brute some fishermen called
'Caesar'.

When such scary stories are told, it is always prudent for belief-purposes to add a dollop of reality to the recipe.
Too much prolix of visionary elucidation can make the reader grow bored with the waltz-of-words that one invites them
to and with this tale, we must adhere to the rules of the canny... the ordinance of the older kids.

Due to development of a growing town, the powers-that-be concluded that the field where a dirty pond and its alleged
occupant resided was to be eradicated for housing purposes. The children of Sixties were becoming adults and they
would need homes to live in. Some folk might suggest children-eating fish also require a settled residence and as the
yarn goes, there was a covert group who took it upon themselves to find such a haunt for the Pike known as Caesar.
And like all good narratives, this took place at night.

They came in the dark without their uniforms and carrying a net -it was said. Policemen who'd quietly purchased a
secluded fish-stocked lake near a swampy abandoned truckers park and with rescue of a killer on their minds. Some
reckoned this act was a repeat of earlier times, when a group of men had acquired an exclusive pool to enjoy their
hobby, a site beside a steel factory where unknown giggling actors had deposited a predatory Pike to upset such a
pastime and claim the souls of those who dawdle near its edge.

Whatever the background, these unnamed Policemen had sought and succeeded to bring Caesar to their domain
for reasons not delineated to any eager audience and now pushing the squeaking remains of a once-fancy pram
over a steep railway bridge, two knee-scuffed boys were unknowingly ambling towards this menacing maw of water.
......................................

Well, it wasn't a lake. The large pool of oily water sat amongs the remains of broken wodden pallets, tipped-over
paint-peeling oil drums and the skeletons of machinery consigned to oblivion. Near to where a gate once enjoyed
the views of passing motorists and now took delight in being a manner to traverse the muddy entrance, my cousin
and I observed an old leather couch slumped not too-far from the pond and sitting in it was a seemingly tall stranger.

Following the code that all kids should adhere to when approaching adults, we slipped and slid our homemade vehicle
closer to the wadding-weeping piece of furniture, our eyes never leaving the figure peering out at the black water with
a fishing-rod clutched in his hands. We believed all grown-ups don't like the young, they pretend to, but they're merely
envious of the magic that adolescence still holds.

Raiding an orchard is wrong, making mazes in a farmer's cornfield is wrong and inserting lit fireworks into still-soft
cow-pats is seen as immature to those who grow hair in places besides their heads. Adults are from Mars and can
only watch with covetous eyes at the wonderland where the young cavort and caper without regard. But don't be
fooled by the usual rhetoric of small poets, just like the small fish that swim near Caesar's dark den of rest in the
pond before us, kids and Death will always abide without acknowledgement of each others closeness.

Parking our mud-splattered mode of mobility next to a clump of dying hawthorn bushes and a crumpled container
stinking of diesel, we warily awaited the questions that would undoubtedly be asked by the adult. It always came,
rationality of the situation had to be established and hierarchical control must be stated, it was and will always be
the way of the adult.

But with only a light glimpse over to the black-haired lad sitting on the bottom-half of a pram and the panting boy
standing behind him, the stoic-faced man went back to concentrating on catching something in the liquid I seriously
doubted could retain anything living in it. But in that moment, I recognised him. He was a strange character of our
small community on the edge of town, a tall man who would occasionally tarry on his way to wherever adults go
and be frowned upon by his peers for wasting his time with talking to children.

In these times of cynicism, I can appreciate if the reader feels the urge to believe that this lanky male may've held
schemes of the perverted variety, but I can state throughout my years of maturing in that community, never such
evidence was ever presented. In my teenage years, I walked miles with him and talked of many things. There were
never sunken secrets brought to the surface and he acquired an okay in my ledger.

I heard he'd died a couple of years ago in a nearby seaside town, he'd fallen far from his time working at the steel
mill and it was suggested that drink had been his final companion. His name was Richard to the young, something
he insisted on, but out of earshot this towering piscator was branded 'Big Dick'.

Without proclaiming he'd recognised my cousin or myself, Dick growled from the side of his mouth as he inspected
the empty hook on his line, "Yer' see over there...?" Adjusting a grease-stained flat-cap on his head and plucking a
wriggling worm from a margarine container near his boot, he added "...yer'll be a pair of smart buggers te' keep
away from there".

Two sets of eyes followed the direction of the long finger pointing out behind the pond and past the carcase of a
dinosaur that a long-dead farmer may've once called a tractor. A nicotine-stained digit specifying Dick's direction
and away from this malodorous plot of hopeful angling and beyond the line of giant elm trees that edged the
purported home of Caesar and a repository of pollution.

But it was just a field, a poorly drained meadow covered in what I discovered later is called 'soft rush'. Just some
knee-high green reeds (unless you're as tall as Big Dick) that congregates where flooding is a regular problem,
hardly a place of note. "Aye..." the brobdingnagian casting his lure back out into the gloom of the lagoon continued,
"...be smart and divna' drive yer' weird cart into Myers Flat."

However, there was another line cast that day, a beguiling tale that only someone with the talent to bridge the gap
between the young and the old could relate. Not merely a story apprised by an pontifical adult who sees no slurping
ogres in the dark or fails to glimpse scaly hand at the bottom of one's bed, but someone who knows the waters kids
swim in daily and can detect the hidden spurs that lie beneath. Something that only the Peter Pan known as Richard
could tell.
......................................

The Tale:

'It's been said that George Stephenson is famous fur' two things, creating a safety-lamp fur' coal miners up here in
the north and buildin' the first steam locomotive to carry passengers on a public rail line. They always speak of the
latter as the Stockton and Darlington Railway, though not many folk know, that stretch of track came reet' past here.

The two towns always get a mention, but the railway line was originally fur' haulin' coal in waggons from the pits
further north and just over there in Myers Flat, Mister Stephenson came across a problem. Ah' tell yer', it was a real
quagmire over there back in 1822 and Georgie-boy found an old fella' that was watchin' the goings-on with carts of
soil and lengths of wooden sleepers brought to the remote sodden meadow.

Bidding him a good day, it wuz' said that the grizzled gadgie watched as the the bog was filled with soil  and then
offered some advice fur' George te' chew on. "Thee knows Sir, there be Fairies in this mire..." the old man had said,
"...and Ah' would say that the Wee-Folk divna' take kindly te' havin' their homes buggered with".

Being a champion of industry, yer' can figure that George would've smiled politely at the unschooled yokel and then
went on his merry way. But when the night came down on Myers Flat, that warning gained flesh and bones.

Local history speaks of Will o’Wisp and Jenny o’t’Lantern bein' residents of old Myers Flat, but somethin' wus'
movin' about out there in the dark and the fella who wuz' left te' keep an eye out on the gear reckoned he heard
whisperin' and saw strange glowins' out there.

The next day, Mister Stephenson stood with hands on hips as he viewed all of his railway equipment dumped in
a pile in a neighbouring field and the heaps of earth had gone. Ah' saw it said in the papers a few years ago that
George had persevered with the interuption and Myers Flat eventually became part of the railway line.'

After listening to the yarn and feeling relief from be not so close to Caesar's aqueous haunt, my cousin and I set
off for home. The spindly pram wheels held up well as we negotiated the muddy ruts and humped tussocks of grass
on our way out, I recall the knees of my jeans didn't fare so well.

But crossing back over the railway bridge, I noticed the track below bent to the right... right of Myers Flat.
Struggling to keep the pace down due the overpass' downward gradient, I relinquished my position as an engine
and leapt upon our trundling carriage racing towards home. But at the same time, I realised George must have
changed his route after all and somewhere out there above the breeze-blown reed beds tonight, things unseen
will be dancing.

Attached Files

Thumbnail(s)
   

This guy used to be the face of The Democratic Party Strategy wing. This is funny as hell. 



The above is just a small taste... The whole interview is so much better.

Quote:Supreme Court strikes down Chevron, curtailing power of federal agencies
By Amy Howe
on Jun 28, 2024 at 12:37 pm
[/url]
FacebookLinkedInTwitterEmail
[url=https://www.scotusblog.com/#printfriendly]PrintFriendlyShare
The court ruled in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce on Friday. (Thomas Hawk via Flickr)
This article was updated on June 28 at 3:46 p.m.
In a major ruling, the Supreme Court on Friday cut back sharply on the power of federal agencies to interpret the laws they administer and ruled that courts should rely on their own interpretion of ambiguous laws. The decision will likely have far-reaching effects across the country, from environmental regulation to healthcare costs.
By a vote of 6-3, the justices overruled their landmark 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which gave rise to the doctrine known as the Chevron doctrine. Under that doctrine, if Congress has not directly addressed the question at the center of a dispute, a court was required to uphold the agency’s interpretation of the statute as long as it was reasonable. But in a 35-page ruling by Chief Justice John Roberts, the justices rejected that doctrine, calling it “fundamentally misguided.”
Justice Elena Kagan dissented, in an opinion joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Kagan predicted that Friday’s ruling “will cause a massive shock to the legal system.”
When the Supreme Court first issued its decision in the Chevron case more than 40 years ago, the decision was not necessarily regarded as a particularly consequential one. But in the years since then, it became one of the most important rulings on federal administrative law, cited by federal courts more than 18,000 times.
Although the Chevron decision – which upheld the Reagan-era Environmental Protection Agency’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act that eased regulation of emissions – was generally hailed by conservatives at the time, the ruling eventually became a target for those seeking to curtail the administrative state, who argued that courts, rather than federal agencies, should say what the law means. The justices had rebuffed earlier requests (including by one of the same lawyers who argued one of the cases here) to consider overruling Chevron before they agreed last year to take up a pair of challenges to a rule issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service. The agency had required the herring industry to pay for the costs, estimated at $710 per day, associated with carrying observers on board their vessels to collect data about their catches and monitor for overfishing.
The agency stopped the monitoring in 2023 because of a lack of funding. While the program was in effect, the agency reimbursed fishermen for the costs of the observers.
After two federal courts of appeals rebuffed challenges to the rules, two sets of commercial fishing companies came to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to weigh in.
The justices took up their appeals, agreeing to address only the Chevron question in Relentless v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. (Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented in the Relentless case but was recused from the Loper-Bright case, presumably because she had heard oral argument in the case while she was still a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.)
Chevron deference, Roberts explained in his opinion for the court on Friday, is inconsistent with the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law that sets out the procedures that federal agencies must follow as well as instructions for courts to review actions by those agencies. The APA, Roberts noted, directs courts to “decide legal questions by applying their own judgment” and therefore “makes clear that agency interpretations of statutes — like agency interpretations of the Constitution — are not entitled to deference. Under the APA,” Roberts concluded, “it thus remains the responsibility of the court to decide whether the law means what the agency says.”
Roberts rejected any suggestion that agencies, rather than courts, are better suited to determine what ambiguities in a federal law might mean. Even when those ambiguities involve technical or scientific questions that fall within an agency’s area of expertise, Roberts emphasized, “Congress expects courts to handle technical statutory questions” – and courts also have the benefit of briefing from the parties and “friends of the court.”
Moreover, Roberts observed, even if courts should not defer to an agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute that it administers, it can consider that interpretation when it falls within the agency’s purview, a doctrine known as Skidmore deference.
Stare decisis – the principle that courts should generally adhere to their past cases – does not provide a reason to uphold the Chevron doctrine, Roberts continued. Roberts characterized the doctrine as “unworkable,” one of the criteria for overruling prior precedent, because it is so difficult to determine whether a statute is indeed ambiguous.
And because of the Supreme Court’s “constant tinkering with” the doctrine, along with its failure to rely on the doctrine in eight years, there is no reason for anyone to rely on Chevron. To the contrary, Roberts suggested, the Chevron doctrine “allows agencies to change course even when Congress has given them no power to do so.”
Roberts indicated that the court’s decision on Friday would not require earlier cases that relied on Chevron to be overturned. “Mere reliance on Chevron cannot constitute a ‘special justification’ for overruling” a decision upholding agency action, “because to say a precedent relied on Chevron is, at best, just an argument that the precedent was wrongly decided” – which is not enough, standing along, to overrule the case.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule on Monday on when the statute of limitations to challenge agency action begins to run. The federal government has argued in that case, Corner Post v. Federal Reserve, that if the challenger prevails, it would open the door for a wide range of “belated challenges to agency regulation.”
Justice Clarence Thomas penned a brief concurring opinion in which he emphasized that the Chevron doctrine was inconsistent not only with the Administrative Procedure Act but also with the Constitution’s division of power among the three branches of government. The Chevron doctrine, he argued, requires judges to give up their constitutional power to exercise their independent judgment, and it allows the executive branch to “exercise powers not given to it.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a longer (33-page) concurring opinion in which he emphasized that “[t]oday, the Court places a tombstone on Chevron no one can miss. In doing so, the Court returns judges to interpretative rules that have guided federal courts since the Nation’s founding.” He sought to downplay the impact of Friday’s ruling, contending that “all today’s decision means is that, going forward, federal courts will do exactly as this Court has since 2016, exactly as it did before the mid-1980s, and exactly as it had done since the founding: resolve cases and controversies without any systemic bias in the government’s favor.”
Kagan, who read a summary of her dissent from the bench, was sharply critical of the decision to overrule the Chevron doctrine. Congress often enacts regulatory laws that contain ambiguities and gaps, she observed, which agencies must then interpet. The question, as she framed it, is “[w]ho decides which of the possible readings” of those laws should prevail?
For 40 years, she stressed, the answer to that question has generally been “the agency’s,” with good reason: Agencies are more likely to have the technical and scientific expertise to make such decisions. She emphasized the deep roots that Chevron has had in the U.S. legal system for decades. “It has been applied in thousands of judicial decisions. It has become part of the warp and woof of modern government, supporting regulatory efforts of all kinds — to name a few, keeping air and water clean, food and drugs safe, and financial markets honest.”
By overruling the Chevron doctrine, Kagan concluded, the court has created a “jolt to the legal system.”
Kagan also pushed back against the majority’s suggestion that overruling the Chevron doctrine would introduce clarity into judicial review of agency interpretations. Noting the majority’s assurances that agency interpretations may be entitled to “respect” going forward, she observed that “f the majority thinks that the same judges who argue today about where ‘ambiguity’ resides are not going to argue tomorrow about what ‘respect’ requires, I fear it will be gravely disappointed.”
Similarly, she questioned the majority’s assertion that Friday’s decision would not call into question decisions that relied on the [i]Chevron doctrine to uphold agency action. “Courts motivated to overrule an old Chevron-based decision can always come up with something to label a ‘special justification,’” she posited. “All a court need do is look to today’s opinion to see how it is done.”
But more broadly, Kagan rebuked her colleagues in the majority for what she characterized as a judicial power grab. She lamented that, by overruling Chevron, the court had, in “one fell swoop,” given “itself exclusive power over every open issue — no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden — involving the meaning of regulatory law.”
Roman Martinez, who argued the case on behalf of one of the fishing companies, applauded the decision. “By ending Chevron deference,” he said in a statement, “the Court has taken a major step to preserve the separation of powers and shut down unlawful agency overreach. Going forward, judges will be charged with interpreting the law faithfully, impartially, and independently, without deference to the government. This is a win for individual liberty and the Constitution,”
But Kym Meyer, the litigation director for the Southern Environmental Law Center, decried the ruling in a statement. “[T]he Supreme Court today says individual judges around the country should decide the best reading of a statute. That is a recipe for chaos, as hundreds of federal judges — who lack the expertise of agency personnel — are certain to reach inconsistent results on the meaning of federal laws as applied to complex, technical issues.”
Friday’s ruling came in one of three cases during the 2023-24 term seeking to curtail the power of federal agencies – a conservative effort sometimes dubbed the “war on the administrative state.” In October, the court heard arguments in a challenge to the constitutionality of the mechanism used to fund the consumer watchdog Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Last month the court upheld the CFPB’s funding by a 7-2 vote. And on Thursday, the justices pared back the power of the Securities and Exchange Commission and other administrative agencies, holding that the SEC cannot continue to use in-house proceedings to impose fines in securities fraud cases.  
The fishermen in both cases were represented at no cost by conservative legal groups, the Cause of Action Institute and the New Civil Liberties Alliance, linked to funding from billionaire and longtime anti-regulation advocate Charles Koch.  
[/i]https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-chevron-curtailing-power-of-federal-agencies/

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna155902

Quote:By Lawrence Hurley and Ryan J. Reilly
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday ruled in favor of a former police officer who is seeking to throw out an obstruction charge for joining the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.
The justices in a 6-3 vote on nonideological lines handed a win to defendant Joseph Fischer, who is among hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants — including former President Donald Trump — who have been charged with obstructing an official proceeding over the effort to prevent Congress' certification of President Joe Biden’s election victory.

The court concluded that the law, enacted in 2002 as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act after the Enron accounting scandal, was only intended to apply to more limited circumstances involving forms of evidence tampering, not the much broader array of situations that prosecutors had claimed it covered.
The provision targets anyone who "obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so," but the court determined that its scope is limited by a preceding sentence in the statute referring to altering or destroying records.

The court sent the case back to lower courts for further proceedings on whether the Justice Department could still prosecute Fischer under the new interpretation of the law.
Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement that he was disappointed by the decision because of the impact it would have on the Justice Department's Jan. 6 cases, although he stressed it would not affect the bulk of them.
The ruling "limits an important federal statute that the department has sought to use to ensure that those most responsible for that attack face appropriate consequences," he added.
But the decision was celebrated by Trump, who said the Supreme Court "did the right thing" in Fischer's case.
"They've been waiting for this decision for a long time. They've been waiting for a long time, and that was a great answer. That was a great thing for people who have been so horribly treated," Trump told supporters Friday at a rally in Chesapeake, Virginia.
On Jan. 6, 2021, prosecutors said, Fischer joined the crowd breaching the Capitol from the east side. “Charge!” he yelled again and again before he pushed forward toward a police line while yelling, “Motherf-----s!” the government says.
He and other rioters then fell to the ground. After other rioters lifted him up, video disclosed as evidence in other Jan. 6 trials shows, he tried to appeal to officers protecting the Capitol, telling them that he was an officer, too.

Fischer previously served as a police officer in North Cornwall Township, Pennsylvania. (Another man named Joseph Fisher, who was also a police officer, was recently sentenced to 20 months in prison for his own role on Jan. 6.)
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that the government's view of the law's reach "defies the most plausible understanding" of the statute in question, 18 U.S. Code 1512. The provision carries a prison sentence of up to 20 years.
The Justice Department's interpretation would "criminalize a broad swath of prosaic conduct, exposing activists and lobbyists alike to decades in prison," he added.
To prove a violation, prosecutors now have to show that the defendant "impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or ... other things used in the proceeding," Roberts wrote.

An Email from an American friend who lives in Florida:

Quote:Some fascinating facts that lots of anti-Trumpers don't get.

Originally at the beginning of this cycle I was all in for Ron DeSantis because I live in Florida and personally experienced the impact of DeSantis policies making this state probably the freest state in the union and from what was possible a purplish swing state into a solid red state. Over 1 million increase in republican voter registration since the 2022 mid-term election.

So DeSantis drops out leaving only the scummy neo-con Nikki Haley and Trump.  Trump could have folded his tent and retired to one of his fabulous golf courses. But he didn't quit even against the stiffest odds possible and knowing the commie democrats were coming at him with the full intent to destroy him criminally, financially and emotionally. Trump stood in the breech as they indicted him criminally, sued him civilly and attacked him personally in the most vile way possible all at the prompting of Biden and his weaponized Dept of Justice.

I don't believe there are a handful of men in history with the strength and fortitude who would gladly take on those odds but Trump did. Don't gotta like him but in all respects we should respect him.  And stupid, demented, pedophille Joe Biden actually thought he was going to debase Trump on the debate stage last night.

Trump's got a lot of worts, no doubt but I never knew a fighter that didn't. To watch that ugly husk of a subhuman slither off the stage last night with his piece of shit wife was glorious. And further to watch the total freakout on all of the main stream media is as satisfying as any one should be able to enjoy. In 3 and a half short years the democrat party has completely destroyed themselves by incompetence, hubris and their hatred for Trump.

Democrats struggle now with what to do, how to proceed and how they salvage themselves. But unless they can convince Biden to drop out and release his delegates they are FUCKED. It's far to late in the game and they know it. All the democrat down ballot candidates also know they are now screwed because of Pedo Joe.  But democrats are not done. I expect the next 4 months to be nothing but volatility and chaos. Violence, riots, false flag events and assassinations are on the commie democrat docket. Scary times ahead. 

I'm sure it will. Cold War 2.0.

Quote:The Russian and Chinese position is buttressed by the principle that peace is the result of compromise between the major centers of power, and that without their mutual agreement – without equality, mutual respect, a willingness to recognize each other’s interests, and adherence to the principle of non-interference in internal affairs – a stable order is impossible. The US believes, however, that peace is a deterministic given, and that no special effort is needed to maintain it. This leads to paradoxical solutions: the more weapons, the more peace. The West is not yet ready to become just one of the Atlanteans holding up the sky. It still believes it should be in charge.

Are changes in relations between Moscow and Washington possible with a change of administration in the United States? I expect that this will not have a significant impact on the American line towards Russia. It is useful to look at American politics as an independent factor in our planning – we need to assume we cannot rely on the US elites. Washington will in most cases act with hostility towards Russia, in some cases opportunistically, engaging Moscow at time when it suits its own interests.

There is still a paradigm gap between Russians and Americans in their understanding of the world in the 21st century. US experts believe that Russia is part of the West and will inevitably end up in the Western camp at the end of this crisis, with China as its opponent. This set of paradoxical ideas has been present in the American narrative since the early 1990s.

The Americans believe that ultimately Russia has no alternative, and will therefore accept any offer from Washington. With the dollar sure to remain as the dominant currency for the medium term, the US will be an important country. And much depends on its turbulent domestic political life.

When it comes to Ukraine, the Americans think in investment banking terms and say straight out that Ukraine is a fairly cheap instrument that serves two purposes: to weaken Russia and to stifle any voices in Europe calling for strategic autonomy from the US.

Over the past two years, Washington has found this method of mobilisation quite cheap. Indeed, Russia-EU relations have been disrupted, the main gas pipeline linking the Russian and Western European energy systems has been destroyed, Eastern Europe has been militarised, the US military-industrial complex has been strengthened, and economic activity has flowed from Europe to the US. The American economy has gained from this crisis, while the Western European economy has suffered badly.

What are the US objectives in the Ukraine crisis? It wants a weakened Russia, which has lost control of key advantages in the Eurasian space, such as in transport, economics, production and energy. The US wants to knock Russia out of the top five world powers and make it strategically secondary.

However, the US is beginning to realize that Ukraine as an instrument of deterrence against Moscow is no longer a cheap resource. Kiev’s own military, material and human resources are close to exhaustion, and maintaining the viability of the Ukrainian state is becoming increasingly expensive for the US and the EU.

The US has been looking at Russia as a declining strategic player for some time. They were waiting for the moment when the country would leave the top-five leading countries in order to deal with China. Why did the US abandon negotiations with Moscow at the end of 2021, push Ukraine towards a military solution to the crisis, and then forbid it to negotiate with Russia? They believed that a quick victory over Russia was achievable, that the 52 countries the US had gathered in a coalition around Ukraine – their economies, resources, military arsenals, intelligence, satellite constellations, arms supplies, political intelligence and other support – would be enough to defeat our country. The West had not properly assessed Russia’s potential and that of their own coalition, and the short-term goals they set themselves have proved unattainable. They believe that a country whose economy apparently accounts for 3% of the world’s nominal GDP cannot fight the entire grand coalition on its own. But when Western countries have 65-80% of their GDP in the service sector, rather than in heavy industry and weapons-related areas, a situation arises in which Russia alone produces more artillery shells than all the Western states. This is a paradox that the US has not taken into account.

The US-Russian standoff should be seen as a long-term confrontation. It will continue even after Washington realizes that Ukraine has lost its importance as a tool. As a result, the US will shift the center of anti-Russian activity to another country that, like Ukraine, is willing to sacrifice itself and be at the forefront of the fight against Moscow. The US will not cease to be a strategic rival, and therefore we cannot afford to ignore it in our planning. We must regard the Americans as a constant threat, and prepare for a long confrontation.

This article was first published by Valdai Discussion Club, translated and edited by the RT team.

"Mash-up" of funny, amusing, weird, obscure, satire music Vids without going too raw. Hopefully, nobody will be offended. Hopefully, Ninurta will let my Mash-up  choices slide.


Hard A$$ Boomers Country Club Beat Down (19$8)




Mashup exhibit A:

"I always feel like somebody's watching me" // "My eyes are blind but I can see"!
Blackwell - "Somebody's Snowblind"



Rockwell feat. Michael Jackson - Somebody's Watching Me
Black Sabbath - Snowblind
Black Sabbath - Sabbath Bloody Sabbath
Movie clips are from Goodfellas and Scarface


Get your motors runnin’...



Let the good times roll!