https://uncoverdc.com/2021/01/25/have-400000-americans-died-of-covid-19/

The Natural Enemy of the PSYOP is the True Scientist


Unbeknownst (of course) to the architects of the two Covid PSYOPS of 2020 and 2021, an atmospheric scientist in Greensprings, Oregon, himself unafraid of controversy, was putting the finishing touches on a Covid-19 paper he’d begun to write three months earlier.

The bombshell paper is titled: “A Critical Review of CDC USA Data on Covid-19: PCR/Antigen Tests & Cases Reveal Herd Immunity Only, & Do Not Warrant Public Hysteria or Lockdown.” It was posted on two of his academic webpages on 16 Jan 2021. The links are here and here.

In it, Dr. James DeMeo, Ph.D., demolishes the central premise of global lockdown policies. That people are dying in massive and alarming numbers from a novel disease. He’d been waiting for the final statistics to come in for 2020. When they did, he noticed two spectacularly odd things:  Firstly, if one subtracted the numbers of Covid deaths (around 315,000) from the total number of people who died from all causes in 2020 (around 2.9 million), one obtained a dramatically low number of total deaths, lower than in any year since 2014. It appeared to him that the reported number of “Covid” deaths were being re-defined and subtracted from other causes of deaths; the people who died of “co-morbidities” were being shifted over into the Covid category. Secondly, on January 3rd, the CDC released its year-end count of all-cause deaths in one dramatically high number—268,259 to be exact.

I don't know of anything else.

Obviously voters can decide not to endorse someone again, but that would require us to put faith in the election process.

But we just had the cleanest, and most historic election ever conducted, so why would we need to put faith into the process?

Y’all so funny, arguing over what the Constitution allows, as if we still have a constitutional republic.

 The constitution is only applicable to the standards set forth by the DCP.   Any conservative opinion shall be questioned, and disavowed.

A young blonde woman was driving through the Florida Everglades while on vacation. She wanted to take home a pair of genuine alligator shoes in the worst way, but was very reluctant to pay the high prices the local vendors were asking.

After becoming very frustrated with the attitude of one of the shopkeepers, the young Blonde declared, "Well then, maybe I'll just go out and catch my own alligator and get a pair of shoes for free!"

The shopkeeper said with a sly smile, "Well, little lady, why don't you go on and give it a try?"

The blonde headed off to the swamp, determined to catch an alligator.

Later in the day, as the shopkeeper was driving home, he spotted the same young woman standing waist deep in the murky water, with a gun in her hand. As he brought his car to a stop, he saw a huge 9-foot gator swimming rapidly toward her. With lightning reflexes, the blonde took aim, shot the creature and hauled it up onto the slippery bank.

Nearby were 7 more dead gators, all lying belly up.

The shopkeeper stood on the bank, watching in silent amazement. The blonde struggled mightily and managed to flip the gator onto its back. Rolling her eyes heavenward, she screamed in frustration :

"HECK! THIS ONE'S BAREFOOT, TOO!"

https://dailycaller.com/2021/01/25/barr-a-motion-to-dismiss-for-lack-of-jurisdiction-should-swiftly-end-the-senate-impeachment-farce/

If there was perhaps one mistake our Founders made in drafting the Constitution, it was presuming that future members of the Legislative Branch would be sufficiently competent to actually read the document to which they all had sworn an oath. It is, however, increasingly clear that many – perhaps most — sitting United States senators cannot read the plain text of the Constitution.

The relevant wording in the Constitution is at the very end of Article II, establishing that a constitutionally errant “President,  .  .  .  shall be removed from Office” if he first has been impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate for “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Unlike other sections of the Constitution where clarity may be obscured by arcane wording, this particular provision is clear and concise, and it applies to “the President.” The language pointedly does not provide in any way, shape, or form that a “Former President” or an “Ex-President” may be similarly punished, only the President.

The 100-member Senate at this moment is split right down the middle between those who identify as Republicans and those who identify as Democrats.  Democrat leader Chuck Schumer has declared openly and without hesitancy that as the self-styled “Majority Leader,” he will move forward within days to try Donald Trump. The goal of such a trial would be to find Mr. Trump guilty of the single Article of Impeachment passed on Jan. 13 by a majority of representatives on the other side of the Capitol Dome.

While many GOP senators remain openly opposed to Schumer’s plan, it appears that a number of Republican senators, notably including the most recent “Majority Leader” – Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell – have signed on to the notion that there will be a trial as demanded by Schumer.

The basis on which Schumer and his Democrat colleagues are proceeding against Trump can best be understood by their all-consuming hatred for the former president, a sentiment they share with their House colleagues. Their zeal to punish Mr. Trump appears to have blinded them even to common sense and to the plain meaning of words – factors that otherwise and in less toxic times would lead them to realize that no matter how powerful and exalted they might view themselves as “senators,” a person cannot be “removed” by them from an office that he or she does not in fact occupy.

It is black-letter law that a court cannot punish someone for a crime if it does not have jurisdiction over that person. Just as courts of law have no power over individuals outside their defined jurisdiction, the United States Senate has no power over a former President of the United States.

No matter the degree to which Sen. Schumer despises Mr. Trump and hopes to prevent him from being able to run again for office at some future date (as unlikely as that may be), the body of which Schumer is a long-serving member does not have power under the Constitution to thus punish the ex-president.


It is less clear what accounts for Sen. McConnell’s decision to buy into the legally baseless presumption that the Senate magically has acquired jurisdiction to conduct a trial of and to then punish a former president. Perhaps it is the fact that Trump’s behavior leading to the twin loss of Georgia’s Senate seats in the Jan. 5 runoff cost McConnell his job as Majority Leader. Maybe it is four years of pent-up dislike for Trump’s personal behavior contrary to establishment norms. Regardless of why McConnell is behaving so foolishly as to read into the Constitution’s impeachment trial power of the Senate something that clearly and legally is not there, it is making the Senate appear unmoored from history, the law, and common sense.

Mitch McConnell is a lawyer. He seems, however, to have forgotten that a prosecutor who oversteps his authority and tries to convict someone over whom the court has no jurisdiction, will be hit with a swift – and ultimately successful – motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. This is precisely what Trump’s lawyers need to file, and by so doing let the American people know that at least they can read the Constitution.

Yeah.  The Chief Justice presides over the trial if it's against a sitting president.  Not in other cases, so by the constitution, he can't.  Expect that this is going to be a kangaroo court with democrats in charge.  They can approve / decline whatever evidence they want.  This will be a made for media shit show.

They'll just make it up as they go.

If we only had some conservative leadership in the senate........................