In cases where governors or mayors have essentially created edicts from their positions that put fairly large restrictions on cities and on States  without any sort of legislative process. So typically if a new law needs to happen  the legislature will have somebody sponsoring a bill that is written.

 And then that bill is debated and then voted on. And if it's voted on successfully by a majority, then that has to the the governor for signature. And then it becomes implemented now in a city, it's a similar process, but without a legislature, you might have.  You might have a city council or some other method, but rarely do you have a sort of an unguarded process that that is in place to allow the executive to simply create new rules?

And again, I'm not calling them laws because they haven't followed the process of becoming laws. They're just. They're just edicts coming from a an executive branch that has such a wide degree of impact on people's lives and on their freedoms. And so these types of that, or there will be lawsuits against these types of actions and more and more as time goes on, we've already seen a few of them.

Like the Pennsylvania case that was ruled on I guess a month ago or so, but we're going to see a lot more of them coming in different, different areas. And I believe that the current Skoda's is not going to be favorable to the side. That is challenging the power of the executive. And we'll see if I'm right when they, more of them come out.

But. Both the way the SCOTUS has acted with the president and the makeup and the voting records of the current members, which there was a magazine article back two, three months ago. That was really good. I don't remember the link to it, but it, it showed the, the sort of ideological stance of the judges over time and all the judges, regardless of who they were appointed by or what their political stance was when they first.

Came to the Supreme court, all of them shift to the left. All of them become more liberal over time.  Ruth Bader Ginsburg was by far the most liberal judge on the bench.  Judge Thomas' is the most conservative judge, but all the judges start skewing to the left immediately after coming to the Supreme court.

 And so. When it comes to suing cities and States for actions that they did during the quote unquote emergency, which has now lasted for about a year.  I think we're going to see pretty bad results coming out of Scotto on these they're. They're not going to  rule in favor of the plaintiffs of the lawsuits.

They're going to ruin PR predominantly in favor. Of the municipalities as defendants  or they're just going to send these cases back down without a ruling, which happens quite frequently as well. And whatever the rulings were from the previous level of the court system is what'll end up staying.

So  not feeling. Particularly in confidence in the judicial system in general and in SCOTUS in particular. But again, it is what it is. This is what happens when you allow rhinos to take charge of who ends up in court. Trump was very proud of appointing a lot of federal judges and of getting to to judges on Skoda's.

The problem is. People that were giving him advice on who to bring into these positions. We're the wrong people, the wrong people, giving suggestions and the wrong people being appointed. And unfortunately, I don't, I think there would have been a whole lot of difference on whether Trump appointed these folks or whether they were appointed by the next administration.

 Now certainly with the last two SCOTUS nominees, they would have never been.  Put on the, the the list of contenders by the Democrats to be sure, but they're nonetheless going to vote very centrist and usually leaning to the left and not the right. So as far as I'm concerned, we still have very much a liberal SCOTUS.

At this point, we do not have a five, four majority for conservatives. We have a six, three minority that is going to vote conservative.

All right. Well, I'm, I'm to just talk about one last story here, which has been coming out of out of world health organization, where they have now concluded that the coronavirus. Originated in bats, in animals, in China and did not count out of the, the research facility that deals with infectious diseases.

That was literally 400 yards away from the market where coronavirus allegedly originated. It's an interesting report. A lot of people are making fun of it. For good reason.  The world health organization essentially had a Chinese team do a self-assessment and then Ms. Magically came up with the conclusion that this had to have come out of nature because it clearly could not have come out of the the Institute.

No, I don't think it's a huge surprise. The world health organization concluded this. I think that this is the reason that Trump had a United States leave the world health organization  because they were effectively a mouthpiece for China and not just China, but they, they certainly are not an independent organization  dealing with health.

They are very much on the They're very much an organization that is controlled by special interest groups and those special interest groups.  Don't have to be in the United States as in this case. I think there is a lot of control coming from other large countries like China. And I don't think it's unique to China. I think if, if COVID had come out of a lab in Russia, Russia would have been pushing on the world health organization, just as strongly as China.

And we would have had the exact same results saying that, well, our research concluded that this did not come out of an Institute. It was just some, a Russian animal like carried or something. Now they don't eat bats in Russia. So that transfer path is a lot less likely, but nonetheless world health organization is definitely a joke.

I think And it's very evident from this particular news that they've released this report that they've concluded, that COVID is a naturally occurring thing. When there's literally hundreds, if not thousands of virologists and other doctors, people with advanced degrees doing research that have signed down to the idea that this really looks like.

A crafted virus, something that is done for research purposes, not something they've seen in nature. .

Oh, here's an interesting one. The Capitol police union in DC, because a vote of no confidence for leadership. And I guess that would be a chief Uganda Pittman. Is that her name Uganda. So unusual name  which is great, but apparently this is the result of the mishandling  of the January 6th.

Protests that ended up crossing over barricades and into the Capitol which looking at most videos had very little police on the ground and the police that were on the ground, very few of them were actually trying to prevent this from happening. So I think certainly a good argument can be made from the rank and file that had the police levels been raised to.

 Much higher levels in anticipation of a potential riot  which I still don't think you're right. It happened. I think there was a protest with some, some folks that clearly went too far, broke some laws, mostly trespassing  in going into federal property. A few people also broke windows. And so that's a little higher offense level and transplanting, but they were all self-documenting.

There was everybody who was essentially recording their own crimes.  Which is sort of ironic, but it is what it is. So I, I think I would agree with the the rank and file a police there that is using the union mechanism  to have a no-confidence vote the, the chief and probably on other leadership.

There's more and more coming out on about just how much. Precautions should have been taken, who knew about it, or essentially who was  who was capable of making  decisions to increase the level of both local and

And other police protection, bringing in national guard, all of these things were considered. They certainly should have been considered because there was a known large contingent of people coming on the sixth to the Capitol. So even if nobody had any plans to break laws, Just having a large contingent of people all in one place could just simply lead to, you know, street fights, things happening that, that aren't necessarily directed at the government, but nonetheless would require police intervention.

 And that didn't happen. So I think eventually we're going to get through a little more to the bottom of this  who knew what and when and who made decisions. They did. To prevent an escalation and security because it sure seems like the entire response with bringing in 25,000  national guard to the Capitol happened at a point where there was already, like, we were already past the date that everybody planned on protesting and nothing more was going to be happening.

So it was a knee jerk reaction. Rather than a planned preventative measure. And certainly the, the, as, as was pointed out earlier, having 25,000 troops in DC means that DC had a higher us military concentration than any of the war zones that we're currently sitting in, which is pretty amazing.  And I'm sure there, there may well be more troops.

Spread out. Obviously there are, but in any one location, 25,000 troops was definitely the record at the time, or at least that's what I've I've read.

Okay. It looks like on February 19th, a Skoda Supreme court. We'll be deciding on whether or not to hear legal case filed by Laura Loomer against Google, Apple, and Facebook and Twitter.  She is the person that ran for office down in Florida. And I think all of these big tech companies that I mentioned  had removed her from their platforms  while she was a candidate.

And I think someone may actually have removed her before that. But I guess the case she's bringing up is relating to their ability to deep platform and not just the platform, but to then use section two 30 as a catchall to prevent that anybody from suing them for breach of contract or anything. So I'm glad that this is on DECA for SCOTUS.

Let's see if. If they actually take the case up, if they do anything with it, or if they just push it back to the lower level courts.  But that is certainly one of the cases that'll be interesting to watch. The other one happening in February will be the, a number of lawsuits relating to the election.

That will be the ones that haven't been thrown out yet for various reasons. It looks like they're going to look at a whole batch of them together and make a determination on which ones can move forward and which ones they're going to throw out at that point. I'm not horribly convinced that SCOTUS is going to do anything big.

 I think they've demonstrated up to this point that they preferred to just ignore the election, not be involved in anything relating to the election.  Not to have to make any judgments about the election. The, the, the court feels like even though it's it's more, well, I don't even want to say it's more Republican, cause I don't think it is more Republican.

It has more judges that have been appointed by Republicans on it. But I think it's a grave mistake to simply translate that into meaning that the court itself is more conservative at clearly. It's not. I, I think there's only really three somewhat conservative people on the court.  One of which is actually conservative  which would be judge Thomas, but everybody else like the other six members, I think frankly, would vote Democrat including the two that, that came on during Trump's presidency.

 In both those cases, I I'm told people that these are bad candidates they're are going to be mistakes. The Republicans are spending a lot of energy trying to put people in onto SCOTUS that are clearly Centrus they're there. I'll tell you what they are. They're basically Democrats with religion.

They're Democrats who happened to have a strong. Christian lean to them. And somehow that to the Republican party makes them conservatives. It does not. Somebody's religious beliefs are frankly it should not be considered at all in my opinion, that that is a, not even the secondary, that's like a 10th order question.

The first and foremost is what has been historically  there. Their rulings, like have they been constitutional originalists? Have they been ruling from a  from a, a standpoint of libertarian type convictions where they're, they're looking at minimizing the amount of intrusion into other peoples.

Privacy through laws or through action or are they simply okay. With big governments having big 

trying to impose laws that are really. Against constitutional direction laws that are, I don't want to say unconstitutional, but laws that effectually infringe on people's rights in a way that they don't necessarily need to. And an example of that would be cases relating to the coronavirus. Cases in a lot of municipalities where a lot of the  and again, I don't, I don't want to call these laws because they're not really laws.

A lot of the rules that have been created and are being enforced are effectively they're, they're really just  orders by the governors or even mayors in some cases  of these places, they have not come out of the legislator legislative process. They are essentially just  quick knee-jerk responses that governors and mayors have put in place in a way that was not meant to, to be longterm governance.

In a way that was not meant to be long-term governance. Certainly leaders that are well. I,

okay. Where are you going to stop here?

 Well, we've got a whole bunch of stories to pick from today as usual, but I'm going to see if I can cover as many as I can get to because there are a lot of things happening right now.  Let's start off with the Robert Kennedy Jr story. So I think most people are aware that Robert Kennedy Jr is a very strong, probably one of the most well-known anti-vaxxers out there.

And not an anti-vaxxer in the doesn't like science stand, but rather as somebody who understands the science behind it and understands and likes to explain the rationale for why these vaccines are actually dangerous. And a lot of it has to do with the practices of the companies that manufacture them, not the concept or the theoretical idea of these vaccines.

Well  much as we're going through a deep plan forming and, and incidentally he's by no means a conservative figure. He is I think been purely solidly on the Democrat side of the aisle as his whole family for many years. I think certainly in the last few years he's been somewhat adopted by the right as a spokesman for people that want to make their own choices about whether or not to use vaccines on their children.

 But. Anyway, they're definitely not a conservative figure. So apparently today he has been the platformed from Instagram  and Instagram is a Facebook property. So that would make sense because Facebook is going through and cleaning people out. Apparently he had 800,000 subscribers or followers, whatever they're called on Instagram.

I'm not on there. I've gotten rid of all my social media. As I've mentioned previously. So I may make mistakes on my descriptions of things relating to the social media platforms, which I'm not on. And can't look at and tell you specifically, but anyway, it's pretty significant move because I got imagined that it took a while to build up 800,000 followers.

And this guy is  he's not like a Alex Jones political commentator. He's really. Somebody that has found a particular cause and is spending his time working on it. He's sort of a, I don't mean this in a negative way, but he's kind of a one trick pony relating to vaccines. But since right now it's, it's essentially illegal as far as the, the corporate leaks are concerned to talk about certain topics.

 And clearly the question of vaccines. And any potential problems with those vaccines has been deemed a illegal type of conversation. So he's been kicked off of there.  I guess the, the official word is they removed his account for repeatedly sharing debunked claims about coronavirus vaccines, debunked claims.

And I mentioned this on a social a few days ago, maybe a week ago.  Because I actually tracked some of this stuff down. So, so when something is debunked or it's been check to be incorrect, who is the fact checker making that determination? So I took one story. They had that, that was allegedly a debunked.

And then I just tracked down where that happen. What happened, who the fact checker was did this. And I, I looking at that person's. LinkedIn profile and looking at the graduation photos  it was pretty easy to determine that a story that deals with fairly complex  really organic chemistry issues with, with deep dives into particular ways that vaccines operate was fact check to be false.

By somebody that graduated college in a fairly nondescript  not popular, meaning easy to get into university two years earlier. And her experience mainly consisted of  being a an intern in a magazine and then an intern at Facebook and then becoming. Like a senior fact checker at 22 years of age.

So I just want to make sure people keep in mind that when you see something that has been fact checked or debunked or any of these types of I guess warnings that are put on people these days, as well as articles that they realized that this is done by children. For the most part, this is done by the little blue haired girl.

Who has more holes in her head voluntarily than she had at birth. These are people that have more interest in following Hollywood stars and seeing what they have to say. They, they, than they do in following medical information that is published on on medical websites and in journals. So the fact checking I think is, is fairly simple.

There's an initial first pass done with bots that scan for buzzwords illegal vocabulary that can't be mentioned, they're repeated. And if they find the sufficient amount of that, of the words they're looking for, they'll hand that off to a human whose job is simply to verify that yep. That article does contain these words and therefore is deemed to be.

 Illegal by the corporate  terms of service, which is essentially the new laws that we're dealing with. Right? We're, we're shifted away from a, a system of governance based on laws created by elected politicians, to a system of governance where the laws are predominantly created and enforced by the exact same  corporate powers that.

Are never elected.  And again, I guess if you want to take the devil's advocate side of that argument, you could say that everybody is electing them per se, by using their services for free or even not for free, but anytime you typically use services and this is something inherited from the software industry, you are agreeing to the terms of service, either implicitly or explicitly.

Implicitly. It used to be just by buying a piece of software and opening the box. And it still is quite often implicitly these days by by typing in your email address and creating a new account. And there's a little checkbox asterisks that says you agree to terms of service and no one forces you to actually look at the terms of service.

 And then there's the more explicit way, which I think Apple employees, when they change their terms of service, at least significant changes, they will actually pop them up on the screen and force you to scroll all the way to the bottom. Not obviously any way for them to tell whether you've read them them or not, but they do make sure that you at least saw that they exist and you scrolled all the way to the bottom of the 22 pages of terms.

And then hit the OK button and essentially agreed to the terms of service, whereas Apple owns your firstborn child. I'm just kidding. But that is, that is the world we live in. And so, again, it's not really a big surprise for me, but I guess it is for some people like Robert Kennedy, that he can get kicked off of a platform with his 800,000 followers  simply for.

For saying something that's wrong, speak something that is illegal speech, as far as this corporation is concerned. Anyway, so  sad, but not at all, unpredictable this, I think this is fairly, fairly common stuff. For those of you that are on a nudge in the social. I, I posted some videos of a pretty cool plane that T U one 60.

Which is a supersonic bomber, also known as the white Swan. And the cool thing about this plane is it's, it's the largest supersonic plane in the world right now. And it has moveable wings that sweep back when it goes into supersonic flight.  So there's some pretty cool videos. It's I'm, I'm kind of a military hardware guy to begin with.

So whenever something new comes out and I find out about it, I'll tend to get excited and then. Post that to other people.  All right, let's see what else we got going on.  Well obviously we have the, the continuation of Trump's second impeachment and I don't want to spend a whole lot of time on that because that is it's covered by pretty much everybody else.

So I don't know that I could add a whole lot more to the debate on that.  Other than to say that the highlight, I guess for me today was  seeing a video  well actually, you know, come to think of it. This is not in the Senate. So I think this actually came from the  from the house. There was a video of a a politician that was coming online through zoom meeting.

And his image appeared upside down. And of course these guys, like most of them, I think a huge majority of politicians in uh, in Washington and probably even on the state level, but certainly in Washington are Luddites. They are the opposite of technophiles. These are people that have AIDS to push a button that says start  But what's funny is when something isn't set up properly, they immediately demonstrate their complete lack of knowledge.

So his, his image was upside down and they basically had to stop everything. Stop the session, do a timeout until somebody could figure out or help him figure out how exactly you can flip the image. Right side up to be able to continue speaking. And I think what made it even more funny of course, is the video that also came out earlier, maybe yesterday of the of the I guess it was a court case, but it wasn't, maybe it was a hearing, but it wasn't actually a, an then court thing where there was a judge and a few lawyers on, and then one of the lawyers managed to log on to the meeting on his zoom with a  with a filter on.

That made his head look like the head of a puppy or no, a rabbit was a rabbit or a puppy. It was some cute animal. So it's like it had a big round head. I think it was a puppy. And so the guy is struggling, trying to figure out how to turn the damn filter off. But the whole time he's moving his head around and looking at a screen, the rabbit or the puppy rather is doing the exact same stuff on the screen.

And so he eventually has to say  you know, I can, I can get started here. I'm, you know, I'm ready and I'm, I'm not really a puppy. So that was a funny moment. So I think having that happen first and then having this guy. In Congress, then not be able to figure out how to flip his picture around it. Just underlines the fact that we have people in charge that are making decisions that will affect all of us.

That just simply do not understand the way modern technology works. And this goes to go, it goes to my arguments from a few episodes ago that we have too many old people. In power right now. And I don't say that as a millennial. I don't say it as a Zoomer. I said, as a gen, X-er like, we're not that young either, but man, when you have people, the age of our parents that are in office, this is ridiculous.

This is, this is clearly part of the reason we are where we are is that The, the understanding has to be there in order to make laws that affect technology. And I think part of the reason that so many laws are out of sync with the technologies that are available is because people making laws don't understand those laws.

I mean, say what you will about Barack Obama. And I had plenty of negative things to say about him, but at least he understood technology a little better. Now the majority of the people in Congress didn't so that didn't really help too much, but having somebody that just doesn't understand the basics of using a meeting technology, and quite often, the questions that you see that politicians are asking when they have a Zuckerberg and they, they have Tim what's his face from Apple, you know, when they get these guys.

Up to testify in front of Congress is when you start. Yeah. Realizing how out of sync and clueless our politicians are relating to how technology works. And you can tell that when, when they ask questions that are either extremely obvious where everybody should know the answer or they are taking assumptions about things that are completely opposite of the way they actually work.

 You know, not, not really knowing the difference between the database and then the actual gooey that is on the screen that lets you enter or look up information from a database. And then just sort of combining all that into some, you know, system that just sits somewhere in the cloud. Not really understanding how it works.

 So I, I can't wait. For the day where we have politicians that are technologically more adapt. And then I think we'll start seeing laws that are a little better reflected on on both the advances in technology that are positive as well as ones that are negative.  I would say more, more garbage coming out of mainstream media or legacy media or old media as I like to call it.

 I guess Terry moron, I don't watch this stuff. So I can't, I don't even know their names. Terry Moran compared former president Trump  and his control over the product and party to be equivalent to that of fewer.  So more, more Nazi language being thrown out. It's just ridiculous what they've done.

So let me, let me take the opportunity to say this since I just mentioned fewer  One of the really sad things that has happened over the last four years of the Trump administration has been the normalization and the complete de emphasis or D I don't know how to even explain it, but let's just say the normalization of the word Nazi, like Nazi used to mean something.

It used to mean like the ultimate bad guy, not just somebody you don't like, not just somebody who was a Dick, not just somebody who's a bully, like Nazi was reserved for people that are truly evil and horrible or people that are doing things that are truly evil and horrible simply because they're following orders.

But neither one of those is good. And so the term Nazi for literally since world war II. So for about 60, 70 years had a very specific meaning, but over the last four years with Trump's administration, the left has taken the word Nazi and simply changed the definition of it to mean somebody I don't like.

And I think that's a very bad thing because Nazis actually existed. And if there's somebody that is a young person, a student right now, and they've been hearing this Nazi Nazi Nazi about conservatives, about the president, about people simply that have a disagreement with liberalism.  And then they are actually learning about world war two and they see Nazis were in world war two.

They're their image of how bad Nazis actually were, has now been corrupted to not be nearly as bad as what they actually were. And as with everybody understood that word to mean. So if you try reading history books, that detailed world war two, and every time you see the word Nazi simply trans you know, translate that or change it out.

To the word bad. And all of a sudden Germany in world war II doesn't seem nearly as evil and frightening as it did with the word Nazi that those of us that are a little older grew up with. So we've, we've sort of taken the power out of that word by repeating it so many times with the wrong connotation talking about the wrong kind of people.

And by wrong, I mean, people, you simply don't like rather than people that are true evil, same thing with Hitler like that wasn't actual person that led world war two and was responsible for millions, millions, literally of deaths during world war II and plenty of deaths before world war II as well.

 Not to mention  Getting the world into world war two in the first place. So how many forget about even people that necessarily died from battle? Think of all the people that died from starvation, people had died from not having medical services be available in, in a lot of countries and especially in Western Eastern Europe  where a lot of them services like medicine, like food production, We're barely able to keep up prior to Germany is attack a and now all of a sudden, all these, all these countries and you know, all the way, pretty much take Eastern Europe going all the way up to Russia itself.

We're not prepared for dealing with an advancing army. And that's why I think the German military was able to take so much territory moving East. Compared to the speed with which they could take territory moving West. And certainly more Western countries like France as an example, or Spain  were better adapt at handling occupation simply because they were more advanced to begin with.

Like they already had an infrastructure that could be utilized even during an occupation, but even in those places, there was a lot of people that as a result of the occupation, Ended up losing their lives. So all of that was a direct result of the actions of this man named Hitler. And what do children that have been growing up and going to school over the last four years now?

Well, Hitler is that guy with red hair. He is the president of the United States. That's Hitler. That is literally their definition of Hitler. Right now. That's all they've been exposed to if you're eight, nine, 10, 12 years old. That's what you've seen for half your life referred to as Hitler is Trump. And so again, how by diminishing what Hitler was from the absolute evil that he was in running this running in, in creating world war II and starting world war II and creating an organizing the structure of Germany that allowed him to start world war II.

And comparing that to simply a precedent you don't like who hasn't killed a single person. In fact is the first president in years and decades that hasn't gotten the United States into a new war. And that's what you're calling a Hitler. It's insane. It is. It is beyond Reprehensible. It is literally insane. And yet that's where our country is today is that Nazis are anyone that you don't like, anyone that you think voted for Trump, anyone that says something that you disagree with and Hitler was the guy that was the president of the country. I take a very strong personal offense to that.

Both of my grandfathers died in world war II, fighting actual Nazis, not the bullshit theoretical kind. And they died as a result of the actions of the actual Hitler, not the bullshit. Ridiculous. We're going to call them Hitler. That is happening right now. So it is diminishing. The sacrifices of millions of men and women that died fighting fascism, fighting Nazis and opposing Hitler.

And it's just sad. I mean, I don't know it it's, it's, it's personally offensive and it's sad and I don't know what else to do beyond that because I'm clearly, this is the new normal, this is where we are. Those two words have been taken by the left and. Whitewashed. They'd been white wash to the point where they're meaningless.

They don't present the same level of negativity and violence and fear they used to. And I don't know that there's any way going back, because we now have a whole generation of people that have a misunderstanding of what Nazi these are and what Hitler was. So, all right. Anyway, that's my rant for today.

We can move on from that.