This has to be one of the most ridiculous pieces I've read in a while.

Americans who followed the four-day confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson last week were treated to a rare display of brilliance, principle and unflappability that demonstrate her fitness, to say the very least, to sit on the nation’s high court. The next step should be obvious and simple. Jackson should be confirmed without delay.

The nominee was forbearing and masterful in responding to the series of non sequiturs hurled at her during long days of questioning by a handful of strutting, preening Republican senators more concerned with the coming midterm elections and their social media mentions than with determining whether Jackson has the integrity and the intellect needed in a Supreme Court justice. Her testimony showed that she does, and her straightforward responses to questions about irrelevant political and policy matters showed the remarkable measure of both knowledge and patience that enabled her to be such a capable trial judge.

No current justice besides Sonia Sotomayor has served as a trial judge, leaving the court nearly bereft of an essential perspective on the judicial system's keystone element.

In many other ways, Jackson's experience is much like the justices she will be joining. She earned her law degree from Harvard, as did four of the current justices (four others got theirs from Yale). She clerked for a prior Supreme Court justice, as did five of the sitting justices. She worked for elite law firms and served as an appellate court judge.

This piece doesn't "read" like an editorial, it reads like someone did a copy and paste job from a "free resume" website.

It contains zero substance, and is designed to make the reader believe that when Ketanji Brown Jackson was questioned that she answered brilliantly. Not only that, but that she was asked irrelevant questions, because Republicans are worried about the midterms. Democrats are not concerned about the midterms, while their approval ratings continue to drop? That's what the article would suggest.

That's all you see, what I quoted above, unless you click a link to continue reading. How many people are going to click to continue reading? I'll give you a hint, not many. There's no substance in the first few paragraphs, why would anyone assume that there would be any additional substance in the rest of the article?

This "editorial" was specifically designed to put the idea in people's heads that Ketanji Brown Jackson is brilliant, and no further investigation is needed.

Ketanji Brown Jackson would be a horrible pick for the SCOTUS. The most obvious reason she should not sit on the SCOTUS is simple; the people who appointed KBJ wanted to use the federal government to force private businesses to comply with illegal mandates. Specifically mandates that required employees (belonging to companies with more than 100 employees) to take an experimental vaccine.

We know that the Biden regime wants to force vaccinations, and they went to court to fight for the right to use the federal government to force people to take experimental vaccines. Why would the Biden regime appoint a SCOTUS judge, who wouldn't support their agenda?

Nobody bets against themselves...

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it, I'm looking for conversation... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

This is a MUST SEE video for anyone who wants to know just how deep the rabbit hole goes.

After watching this, you will see that this goes much deeper than what most people previously thought. THIS IS A WORLD-WIDE OPERATION.

If you want to download this video, or pretty much any other video, I suggest using this site: https://savethevideo.net You can paste links to this site, and have an option to download the video. Very useful to keep important videos from being "memory holed."

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it, I'm looking for conversation... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

The media have been parroting that the biolabs in Ukraine were "misinformation," but now we know that they are real. Not only that, officials within the US government are "...quite concerned that the 'reasearch materials' might fall into the hands of Russian forces."

Here is Victoria Nuland (Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs) to tell you about the secret biolabs in Ukraine.

If you listen ahead to Rubio's next question he asks, "If there's a biological or chemical weapons incident or attack inside Ukraine, is there any doubt in your mind that it would be 100% the Russians that would be behind it?" to which Nuland replies, "There is no doubt in my mind senator. It's classic Russian technique..."

Really, so the Russians are so good that they can get the US to fund biolabs in Ukraine, so that they can then go in and release bioweapons -- right on their own border?

The whole thing is absurd. But what's more absurd, is trying to explain it away in this manner.

Now there's this from the (World Health Organization) the W.H.O.

WHO health emergencies director Dr. Mike Ryan: "The conditions we see in Ukraine are the worst possible ingredients for the amplification and the spread of infectious disease.”

An outbreak is "one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse,” he added.

Who talks like this? Who claims that they are more worried about the spread of disease in Ukraine than bombs and bullets -- when there's a war going on? This is an odd thing to say.

But that's what makes me ask the question. Maybe WHO health emergencies director Dr. Mike Ryan knows something that we don't, and I have to put it out there. Considering that the US knew far ahead of time that Russia was going to invade Ukraine, why didn't they move the biological materials -- that they are so worried about? Why would you leave them there -- unless you want something to "happen" to them?

Now that we know that COVID came from a lab in Wuhan China, why then wouldn't we assume that the next pandemic will come from Ukraine, where the US government is funding more "secret" biolabs? And, why then wouldn't we assume this is the desired outcome? After all, they failed to secure the materials before a predicted invasion.

To attempt to game this to the next level, is it possible that the one of the labs in the Ukraine already released something? Pay very close attention to the timeline of events.

Russia invaded Ukraine on the 24th February, about 5 am. As of this writing, it's been (14) days since Russia invaded Ukraine. It could take a month or so before enough people would become infected with a virus and show symptoms -- before anyone could catch on. We need to keep our eyes peeled because when you have people at the W.H.O. talking about, "one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse," you might want to keep your eyes peeled.

Regardless of what happens, the US has already set the stage to blame any possible "outbreak" on the Russians.

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it, I'm looking for conversation... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

I was looking at election results the other day when I noticed something. I noticed that there was an interesting difference in the number of votes, when compared to the percentage of votes that had been counted. Let's take a look at the numbers.

The number of Republican votes vs. Democrat votes is pretty significant. If you ask me the Democrat candidates are not generating a lot of buzz. Not good turnout.

Let's see what the totals are for Republican vs. Democrat, including all of the candidates.

That's a pretty big difference. The voter turnout for the primaries is almost 2:1. I can't see that being a good sign for democrats in Texas. Comparing this to the 2020 election, and it's looking pretty bad for Democrats.

The race for governor of Texas shouldn't even be close. We'll just have to watch and see.

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it, I'm looking for conversation... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

Shirley Ann Jackson has a very distinguished past.

For the entirety of my adult life, I have been intricately involved in researching the basis of new technologies. At AT&T Bell Laboratories, I conducted research that contributed to the understanding of electronic and optoelectronic materials used in semiconductor lasers that are now part of many devices. As a professor of physics at Rutgers University, I was fortunate to be able to teach undergraduate and graduate students, conduct groundbreaking research, and supervise Ph.D. candidates who would go on to find solutions to the world’s most pressing challenges.

I served as chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a role to which I was appointed by President Bill Clinton, where I initiated a strategic assessment that put the agency on a more businesslike footing. As a member of President Barack Obama’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), I advised the White House on policies in many areas of science, technology, and innovation. From 2014 to 2017, I was cochair of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board.

These leadership roles across the technology industry, academia, and government have given me unique perspective and insight. What I have learned is that it is only through the mobilization of all three, acting in concert in an innovation ecosystem, that we can meet the biggest challenges of today and tomorrow.

"All three" being Big Tech, Academia, and Government.

While there is some truth to this, the question is why? Why does innovation "require" the help of government? Wouldn't companies chase after innovation for market based reason?

The 1960s space program is the best example of this. You had The Space Race, under the direction of US President John F. Kenned, people from all different arenas of science were working towards a common goal. To land on the moon. This is one of the few times that government paired with private industry to achieve something great. Here's what Kennedy said to congress.

These are extraordinary times. And we face an extraordinary challenge. Our strength, as well as our convictions, have imposed upon this nation the role of leader in freedom's cause.

... if we are to win the battle that is now going on around the world between freedom and tyranny, the dramatic achievements in space which occurred in recent weeks should have made clear to us all, as did the Sputnik in 1957, the impact of this adventure on the minds of men everywhere, who are attempting to make a determination of which road they should take. ... Now it is time to take longer strides – time for a great new American enterprise – time for this nation to take a clearly leading role in space achievement, which in many ways may hold the key to our future on Earth.

... Recognizing the head start obtained by the Soviets with their large rocket engines, which gives them many months of lead-time, and recognizing the likelihood that they will exploit this lead for some time to come in still more impressive successes, we nevertheless are required to make new efforts on our own.

... I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space, and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish.

... Let it be clear that I am asking the Congress and the country to accept a firm commitment to a new course of action—a course which will last for many years and carry very heavy costs: 531 million dollars in fiscal '62—an estimated seven to nine billion dollars additional over the next five years. If we are to go only half way, or reduce our sights in the face of difficulty, in my judgment it would be better not to go at all.

John F. Kennedy,
Special Message to Congress on Urgent National Needs, May 25, 1961

But there's a stark difference in mindsets from then to now. The main difference being that nothing the government is proposing at this time actually benefits the American People. Instead it benefits a leftist ideological goal, of fewer workers, and Universal Basic Income.

The Biden regime shutdown the Keystone XL Pipeline, because they were "worried about the environment." But there are two problems there. The fuel will still move, at much greater cost, and by truck, which increases the chances of a spill.

While being so worried about the environment, the Biden regime supported waiving sanctions on Russian Nord Stream 2 pipeline because, "it’s almost completely finished." So, pipelines are bad (for the environment) when they're in the US, but they're great when they're in Russia?

This is why having the government involved in "innovation" is a bad idea. The people who wish to drive innovation in the arena of A.I. (Artificial Intelligence) are not doing it for the betterment of society. All of the people involved in the race for AI have an agenda that's far removed from what most people might invision.

Look at it this way. When computers were first introduced into the business environment, they were supposed to make work easier for employees. Most remember thinking that they will be able to get more work done, making their workload lighter. But the exact opposite happened. Instead business realized that they could get the work of 10 people from one person using a computer. So they reduced their workforce(s) and hired people who were good at operating computers.

The race for AI is no different. It's posed as an "us vs. them" type of situation, the first country to moderately perfect AI will rule the world! Similar to the space race, only there's little connection there. The people behind the AI push are those who wish to replace humans, and replace the human labor force with machines. This can be found easily through their conferences. That's why Elon Musk supports a basic living wage, because he envisions machines replacing most of the labor jobs over the coming years.

Now you know why they are trying to teach kids to "code" so badly. Because they don't expect there to be many skilled labor jobs in the future, because machines will be doing those jobs.

At this point in time, would you trust government (think Biden regime) teaming up with private industry in an effort to advance AI -- for the good of everyone? Do you really think that AI will help the American People, or is it more likely that it will help to progress a leftist ideological goal?

Considering the government's ridiculous track record with the COVID pandemic, would you trust them with AI?

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it, I'm looking for conversation... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"