The Fatal Flaw

Are Democrats Suddenly Now Calling Trump a Genius?

First, we here at The Objective Observer would like to point out that former President Trump’s impeachment defense team should have used our argument as to why the impeachment trial was unconstitutional. If nine year old’s cannot be Senators then you cannot only disqualify someone from holding office as an outcome of an impeachment conviction. Easy reasoning and logic that is simple to understand versus whatever that mess was that the defense team was pitching. Not that it would have mattered. The impeachment trial moving forward was inevitable, just like it’s eventual outcome.

So, not that it matters since the outcome is a forgone conclusion, but after watching two days of the House impeachment managers present their case against former President Trump, there is one glaring, fatal flaw in their argument. Sure, there are many problems with their case, but one flaw in particular stands out to any objective observer. This single flaw alone would ensure Trump’s acquittal if it were actually in doubt. You see, the House managers have spun the narrative that former President Trump incited the Capitol riot on January 6th, 2021. Not only this but to hear the House managers tell the tale, former President Trump actually began intentionally planning the Capitol riot six months prior to the event in the summer of 2020.

The House managers’ case rests upon the idea that six months ago, former President Trump knew that he was going to lose the election, knew that he would lose scores of legal motions to challenge the election’s validity and further understood that his last chance at succeeding in overturning the election would be an armed rebellion at the Capitol starting at around 1PM in the afternoon during which the electoral votes would be certified by Congress; an armed rebellion he intended to succeed. This is the careful, premeditated master plan that the House managers have laid out as proof positive that former President Trump intended to commit insurrection against the United States of America.

“All of it, the nine Democratic managers said, was the foreseeable and intended outcome of Mr. Trump’s desperate attempts to cling to the presidency. Reaching back as far as last summer, they traced how he spent months cultivating not only the “big lie” that the election was “rigged” against him, but stoking the rage of a throng of supporters who made it clear that they would do anything — including resorting to violence — to help him.” – The New York Times | House Lays Out Case Against Trump, Branding Him the ‘Inciter in Chief’

Now, is it possible that former President Trump began planning the insurrection at the Capital six months ago? Sure, anything is possible. But for such a thing to be possible, former President Trump would have to be the most genius intellect on the planet and a strategist so immeasurably clairvoyant that he could easily defeat Deep Blue in any chess match. Thus, after four years of calling former President Trump an idiot and a moron, why are Democrats now saying that Trump is the greatest genius of all time? The short answer is because it is the only way in which their case is even possible.

But is the House manager’s version of events plausible? Absolutely not, at least not to any objective observer. The omniscience to be able to start planning the insurrection at the Capitol six months prior to the event would require God level planning and foresight. Former President Trump may be many things but he is by no means God or even a god. Not even close. Yet this is what the House managers’ case would have us believe, that former President Trump began carefully planning the insurrection six months before it occurred.

The House managers’ case certainly creates a compelling narrative of an evil mastermind exquisitely planning a presumed successful insurrection six months prior to it occurring and of Trump, and Trump alone, carefully, expertly guiding and willing the event to occur. Without a doubt, it is quite riveting political theatre but it is also pure fiction worthy of a James Bond film.

In point of fact, the House managers’ narrative is a classic, text book case of apophenia, the tendency of humans to find patterns where they don’t exist. Suddenly, every tweet by Trump objecting to what he believed were unconstitutional actions being taken by state elections officials and state courts is now somehow purposeful preplanning of the Capitol riot. It is just simply, patently absurd. The reality is that there actually were questionable things that occurred regarding the 2020 elections and some of those cases are still pending. A more rational explanation is that Trump was tweeting about events occurring at the time of the tweets, not as part of some master plan to overthrow the federal government six months later. Besides, it’s not like his concerns were ill founded considering that there was an actual secret cabal actively plotting to prevent him from ever being re-elected.

The stark truth of the matter is that former President Trump did not think enough about his words and actions and how people might interpret those words and actions, not that he thought extensively about his words and actions in a preplanned way to intentionally provoke insurrection. There is no denying that former President Trump was negligent with regard to considering the potential reactions, consequences and outcomes of his words and therefore bears some some amount of responsibility for what occurred. But, to paint this in the light of an evil genius mastermind intentionally inciting insurrection against the United States is simply intellectually dishonest and an utter fabrication. This is the the fatal flaw within the House managers’ case for conviction, yet another example of the extreme hyperbolic lengths to which Democrats will go in order to portray former President Trump as an evil, loathsome individual. But, at least in this case, apparently they do consider him a complete and utter genius.

Queen Psaki

Rounding Out the Monarchy

Since King Biden ascended to the throne last month, something has been bothering us here at The Objective Observer. King’s are great and all but something was missing. Finally, we figured out what was wrong, a true and proper king needs a true and proper queen! What we needed was more royalty in our pantheon of American monarchy. Thus, we decided to anoint a queen.

Our first decision was to determine the characteristics of our ideal queen. Well, we debated this for quite some time and finally decided that our queen archetype was stylish, radiant and ambitious with a royal air of haughtiness that is dismissive of the plebian concerns of commoners. With this matter settled, it is now time to review our our options.

Of course, the most logical choice is Dr. Jill Jacobs-Biden. After all, King Biden is married to her. That would seem to make her a shoe in. But dull, mousy Dr. Jill Jacobs-Biden who’s doctoral thesis makes the Constitution look like a grammatical work of art? No, our queen needs to at least be able to do basic math, like understanding that there cannot be five quarters of something or “eight week study weeks”. Is that like recursion? How exactly does one fit eight weeks into a week? If this is what passes for getting a doctoral degree then, collectively, we here at The Objective Observer ought to have a cool dozen by now. Seriously, we have blog articles like The Case for Colonizing Mars that are more cited. Besides, while queens need to be haughty and pretentious, calling the needs of students “undeserved”? Come on man, that’s just down right cold hearted and mean. Ambitious? A teacher at a community college that didn’t get her PhD until her mid-50’s? Nothing against teachers, but that’s not really striking us as “ambitious”. Sorry, we’re going to have to go with dumb, heartless mistress on this one.

The next most logical choice is Kamala Harris. Stylish and radiant? Sure we guess, we rate that as plausible. Ambitious? Certainly, first “black” Vice President (there’s some South Asian in there), first female Vice President. Check. Royal air of haughtiness? Oh yes, there’s definitely some of that going on. Plus Queen Kamala has a nice ring to it. It’s just…it’s just…landmines. Really? Landmines? Every time she opens her mouth she just sounds foolish. And everyone knows that VP’s don’t really do anything, they are just around for entertainment. Hmm…foolish…entertainment. There we go. Our final verdict, court jester.

Next up is Nancy Pelosi. Hmm…mean, bitter, frog mouthed old hag vainly obsessed with a youthful appearance. Umm, that’s a solid no. More like an evil Morgan le Fay.

We now move on to John Kerry. Hey, we’re just following King Biden‘s edict that bans discrimination against biological sex. Queens can be male, female or, well, queens. We certainly do not care. It’s a brave new world. Kerry is definitely ambitious. Willing to throw the entire United States military under the bus purely for political gain? There’s ambition for you! Plus, Kerry definitely has that royal air of haughtiness. “Let them make solar panels.” That’s straight up channeling Marie Antionette! “Private planes are the only choice for someone like me.” Whoa, slow your roll there Kerry, we’re going for “royal air of haughtiness”, not pompous ass. And, again, Queen Kerry, that’s alliterative and kind of funny. But stylish and radiant? Decidedly not. The dude perpetually looks clinically depressed. After all, we can’t have a queen with resting bitch face. Thus, we christen John Kerry a knight. A knight battling the great evil dragon of climate change. Like brave Sir Robin from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Brave, brave Sir Kerry! Until threatened and then brave Sir Kerry bravely runs away. Runs, runs away in his little Swift boat.

Thus we finally come to Jen Psaki. Stylish and radiant? OK, let’s be honest, that’s clearly a stretch. We won’t wait to circle back to you on this, she’s a bit drab. OK, fine, just straight-up drab. Decidedly more sparrow than peacock if you will. But, eh, F’ it…close enough. White House Deputy Press Secretary by age 31, Spokesperson for the United States Department of State at 35, White House Communications Director at 37 and White House Press Secretary at 43. Yeah, we’re definitely feeling the ambition vibe here. And an air of royal haughtiness that is dismissive of the plebian concerns of commoners? Oh man does she have that in spades! In spades!!

First we have her snarky dismissiveness of Space Force. Classic. Then she mocks the thousands (and yes it’s thousands) of dumb peasants who lost their current jobs and job opportunities when King Biden summarily dismissed the Keystone pipeline. Let them make solar panels, or remove landmines or something, who cares? It’s not my job! Menial concerns over simple assault and DUI of illegal immigrants? Pshaw! And as a coup de grâce, mocking the deplorable serfs worried about King Biden’s reinstituted catch and release program releasing illegal immigrants infected with COVID-19 into their communities. Ah, concerns over the health of the common folk. How droll. Bingo! We have a winner!

So, Queen Psaki it is. Does she give us nightmares of waking up out of a dead sleep to a soulless ginger standing over us with a knife? Yes…yes, she does. Truly, truly terrifying. But queen nonetheless.

Misogyny

If You Hate It, You Erase It

When we wrote The Dangers of Hyperbole, we, in effect, called former President Trump a misogynist. Now, that’s a pretty strong word. After all, misogyny literally means “to hate woman” since it is formed from the Greek roots misein (“to hate”) and gynē (“woman”). Do we really believe that Trump hates women? No, not really. Sexist? Sure, there’s some clear evidence of sexism, but hate? Hate is a really, really strong word. So why didn’t we point this out as being yet another example of hyperbole? Well, four reasons really:

  • First, explaining the nuance between sexism and misogyny is tedious and boring
  • Second, the article was already really long
  • Third, we’re lazy
  • Fourth and most importantly, it was funny

Always go with funny. So, no we don’t really think that Trump is an actual misogynist, a person that literally hates women, that’s just hyperbole. King Biden on the other hand? That dude is clearly 100%, straight up, a stone cold misogynist. Obviously, no question about it. Wait…what? You don’t believe us? Come on man. You have to be kidding. Well, keep reading and we will prove that King Biden is a complete and utter misogynist beyond any shadow of a doubt.

As evidence, we reference King Biden‘s kingly proclamation, Executive By Order on of the King, Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation | The White House Monarchy

Section 1.  Policy.  Every person should be treated with respect and dignity and should be able to live without fear, no matter who they are or whom they love.  Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports.

That’s just a small portion of the divine proclamation but gets the point across. Essentially, in an odd denial of “consensus” scientific opinion regarding biological sex, this divine decree, in its infinite wisdom, essentially means that biology does not matter and the only thing that matters is one’s chosen gender identity. In effect, biological males can compete in women’s sports so long as they “identify” as female. Yes, there is a funny South Park episode about this but this crazy shit is happening IRL.

With the stroke of a pen, King Biden essentially erased “women’s” sports. If biological males can compete in women’s sports, there are no women’s sports any longer. The science says that males on average have larger hearts, larger and longer bones, more ligament and tendon strength and a better muscle to mass ratio than females. This is why there are “male” and “female” sports to begin with. This is also why you did not have any female NFL linebackers playing in the Super Bowl. Or, hell, any female NFL players…period. It’s not sexism, it’s science.

Now, with that settled, we would like to switch gears and have you consider what you do with that bad selfie or picture someone takes where your face looks weird. You hate that photo. And you definitely do not want that embarrassing, ugly photo leaking out onto the internet. What do you do with that photo? That’s right, you delete or erase it. If you hate a piece of furniture in your house? You throw it out or erase it. That asshole ex-boyfriend? You erase that son-of-bitch from your life. If you hate it, you erase it.

Thus, an objective observer can only conclude that King Biden hates women so much that he erased them on the same day he took office. Literally, the same freaking day. That’s how much King Biden hates and despises women. King Biden couldn’t wait even a single day to sign the paper erasing women. Couldn’t erase women fast enough. Now that boys and girls is true hatred! That is true, and the very definition of, misogyny.

Let’s Eat Grandma!

Commas, Cannibalism and Child Senators

We here at The Objective Observer are big fans of punctuation. Not so much from an Oxford English Dictionary, “according to Hoyle”, proper use of punctuation perspective, but big fans nonetheless. You see, we use punctuation quite frequently in our articles more in an attempt to convey a sense of “speaking” naturally to the reader, an attempt to convey a conversational atmosphere that emulates the natural pauses in a spoken conversation versus a flat, dull, boring dictation of words on a page. It’s why we give purposeful thought to our use of commas, semi-colons, periods and ellipses and often painstakingly consider which of these punctuations provides the best effect for the “voice” we are trying to convey.

Pretentious self affirmation aside, punctuations and; in particular, commas, are actually important. Consider the title to this article, “Let’s Eat Grandma!” versus “Let’s Eat, Grandma!”. Pretty important. Just saying, commas save lives. Thus it is with some mild amusement that we have watched the last few months of fervent legal and grammatical attention being levied against one particular comma buried within the United States Constitution. The comma in question appears in Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution:

“Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.” – Article I, Section 3

It’s this comma between “removal from office” and “disqualification to hold” that has stirred up a tremendous amount of heated debate regarding the constitutionality of holding a second impeachment trial for former President Trump. On the one side, legal scholars have concluded that the trial is unconstitutional because the purpose of impeachment is only to remove a sitting official from office and then subsequently disqualify that person from ever holding office again. The other side reads the passage to mean that the two clauses are independent of one another, that the Senate can remove an individual from office or disqualify a person from holding a future office.

We know, commas, right? Sheesh, whoever thought we’d be talking about commas? Well, let’s just be clear, the Constitution is a complete travesty when it comes to the proper use of grammar and punctuation. In fact, the Constitution can’t even go two words without immediately having a punctuation error involving a comma. “We The People”? That should be “We, The People” you grammarless imbeciles! The founding fathers may have been civic geniuses but when it came to grammar, well, they just down right sucked at it.

And yet, here we are having this debate over the constitutionality of something because of a comma in a document that is literally a trash heap of poor grammar and questionable punctuation. So be it.

Now, setting aside that there exists in this world an ideology where “and’ actually means “or”, the “its constitutional” crowd seems to pin its argument on the modern Oxford English Dictionary’s guidance that a comma before the word “and” is necessary when two clauses are independent of one another, as in:

On Monday we’ll impeach the President, and on Tuesday we’ll laugh our asses off.

or

It’s cold in Washington D.C., and I can’t find my mittens.

These sentences each contain two independent clauses and thus, according to Oxford comma rules, require a comma before the word “and”.

Now, considering the Constitution’s overall tragic grammar and punctuation, is it likely that we can use the modern, rigorous Oxford English Dictionary’s rules regarding commas to properly interpret the Constitution’s meaning? Unlikely. More likely, we would need to understand the common use of commas coupled with the word “and” at the time the Constitution was written or even more specifically understand the personal, deeply held philosophical ruminations regarding commas of the scribe that penned the Constitutional passage in question. How in the hell are we going to manage that? Well, perhaps we can use the Constitution itself for guidance. You see, three paragraphs above the passage in question is this paragraph:

“No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.”

This passage is structured identically to the passage in question. We have two clauses, “age of thirty years” and “been nine years a citizen” joined by our nefarious comma directly before the word “and”. Thus, if we are to use the “its constitutional” crowd’s argument in this case then are we saying that nine year old’s can be Senators? Clearly not. Clearly, the intended meaning is that an individual must be at least 30 years old and have been a citizen of the United States for at least 9 years, not that an individual must be 30 years old or have been a citizen for 9 years, meaning a 9 year old born in the United States could be a Senator.

So…why are we having this discussion and debate about that comma again? Clearly, to any objective observer, those two clauses “removal from office” and “disqualification to hold” are not independent and thus the second impeachment trial of former President Trump is technically unconstitutional because the current trial extends further than removal from office. Because you can’t. Former President Trump is not in office and hence he cannot be removed from it. Case closed. Imagine that, “and” means “and”.

Not that any of this matters. Attempting to analyze a single comma in the dumpster fire of grammar that is the United States Constitution is beyond pointless. Besides, small things like logic and commonsense don’t really matter these days. But still, pretty obvious and simple if one looks at things objectively. Regardless, former President Trump’s second impeachment trial starts today because, just like science, people are just going to cherry pick facts and opinion that support their predetermined positions.

So, this second impeachment trial being obviously unconstitutional and all must explain why Chief Justice Roberts is not presiding over this second impeachment trial, right? The Constitution clearly states:

“The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.”

Actually, no. Since former President Trump is no longer the sitting President, then the Chief Justice is not required to preside over the trial. Nifty. But the real question is, what is up with that colon? WTF is that?!? Just use a God damn period for Christ’s sake. Man, whoever wrote this Constitution was a grammatical retard, sorry, sorry, we meant “punctuationally challenged”…

American Illuminati

Yes Virginia, The Illuminati Does Exist

Given The Objective Observer‘s logo, one might fully expect that we here at The Objective Observer are big fans of conspiracy theories and secret cabals like The Illuminati. We aren’t. It’s actually a bit of sarcasm on our part, an inside joke if you will. We actually try incredibly hard to avoid conspiracy theories or anything that could even be construed as a conspiracy theory. We much prefer facts and objectivity to conspiracy theories that warn of “secret cabals operating in the shadows to control public thought and influence politics”. Nonsense.

Or…that’s what we would have said prior to an actual secret cabal operating in the shadows to control public thought and influence politics announcing itself to the world. Jesus people, you are doing the whole secret cabal thing wrong for Christ’s sake. First rule of secret cabal, don’t talk about secret cabal. This is like “Secret Cabal 101” here folks. Time Magazine attempts to paint this secret cabal’s members as some kind of heroes or freedom fighters. But, as the saying goes, one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist. Simply stated, nothing good ever comes out of secret cabals. And did you have to go and call yourselves a “secret cabal” for crying out loud? Now you just make everyone sound nuts and conspiratorial just for referring to you using your own description of yourselves.

But surely there really was no secret cabal operating in the shadows during the 2020 Presidential election to control public thought and influence politics, right?

That’s why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it. And they believe the public needs to understand the system’s fragility in order to ensure that democracy in America endures.” – Molly Ball, Time Magazine

Fortifying it? That’s a really odd take on that. “System’s fragility”? Hell yes, you guys just sort of proved that a secret cabal can steal an election. That sort of sounds to us like the system is pretty God damn freaking fragile. The system must be Italian. Look, if you read that article, The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election, you can’t help but come away with the feeling that it could just as easily have been titled “The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Rigged the 2020 Election” and, in fact, it would have been a more accurate title. The mental gymnastics of the author to paint the activities that were engaged in as anything other than purposeful election rigging are extraordinarily contortive. We sincerely hope Ms. Ball did not do permanent damage to herself in twisting her brain and words to such a degree.

Pretty certain an objective observer would absolutely go so far as to call that rigging an election. Ah yes, that Hunter Biden’s laptop story that, oddly, nobody in the main stream media covered or they all, in an extremely coordinated way, said was “Russian disinformation” and then, in an extremely coordinated way, Twitter suspended the New York Post’s Twitter account over publishing information about the Hunter Biden laptop story. Which, just so we are clear, turned out to be an entirely true story, not Russian disinformation and Hunter Biden is currently under investigation by the FBI, a fact that conveniently came out after the election.

You’re telling us that this secret cabal is going to look the American public in the eye and tell them that its “steering media coverage and controlling the flow of information” didn’t deprive the vast majority of Americans of legitimately true information that might have influenced their vote? How is this not rigging an election again? Besides, if an actual, IRL secret cabal is willing to admit that it intentionally, purposefully misled and lied to the public it naturally begs the question, “What activities is this secret cabal not willing to admit that it engaged in?”.

Do you realize that you idiots have now given credence and new life to every “the election was stolen” narrative by Trump and his cronies? Jesus people, there is now zero percent chance that King Biden will ever be considered a legitimately elected monarch. No chance. Consider that there are tens of millions of Americans that still believe that Trump was not legitimately elected even after four years of widespread debunking of the “Russian collusion” narrative. Here…here it’s like the supposed secret Russian/Trump cabal behind the supposed rigging of the 2016 election just stood up and was all like “Oh yeah, we rigged the election, it was all us”. Are you people complete and utter morons? If you rig an election, you do not then come out and tell people that you rigged an election. That’s idiotic.

So, if anyone thinks that tens of millions of Americans will believe King Biden was legitimately elected after accepting the most “dark money” in history, by far, coupled with an actual secret cabal standing up and saying “Oh yeah, we rigged the election, it was all us”, you’re nuts. As in, just plain out there. Tens of millions of Americans will never accept that the 2020 election was legitimate and as an objective observer, we won’t really be able to blame them.

Great…just great. Perfect, now we have actual secret cabals to deal with. Assholes.

The Origins of COVID-19

A Modern Day Frankenstein’s Monster?

Like everyone else in the world, we here at The Objective Observer have been interested in this topic for quite some time. It’s only natural. After all, it’s not every day that a novel virus threatens to wipe out humanity in a global pandemic. However, we have specifically avoided this topic because it is a veritable minefield of conspiracy theory.

Side note, if Kamala is reading this article, a minefield is where landmines are located. Landmines are anti-personnel devices designed to blow things up, not land where you mine things like coal. Just here to be helpful.

In any case, the conspiracy theories are all over the place with this whole COVID-19 origin. So, it was with some small interest and a healthy dose of skepticism that a number of us watched a recent Steve Hilton video that seemed to pin the origins of COVID-19 squarely on the shoulders of research funded in part by the United States government and even more specifically by the National Institute of Health (NIH) and Dr. Fauci.

OK Steve, you big, loveable, bald-headed conspiracy nut job you, some interesting facts and evidence for sure but most of that has been out there already as far back as April 2020 and May 2020. And besides, MSN followed up Steve Hilton’s broadcast with it’s own story about what a ridiculous conspiracy theory that is. In it MSN unequivocally states:

“The idea that the virus was somehow man-made has been repeatedly debunked.”

OK, so over hyphenation aside, if the virus is not manmade then the United States and Fauci couldn’t have funded its creation, case closed. And since MSN is the pinnacle of journalistic integrity and the gold standard in unbiased, fact-based reporting… Ahem. Yeah, we’d better click that link for “repeatedly debunked” just to be sure. Huh, imagine that, it would appear that MSN and The Objective Observer have different definitions for the word “debunked”. Turns out that the fact check on claims that COVID-19 virus are manmade is “Partly False” stating:

“We rate the claim that COVID-19 may have originated in a Chinese lab as PARTLY FALSE. Suggestions that the novel coronavirus was manmade or has been engineered for use in bioweapons in a high-security biomedical laboratory in Wuhan, China, are untrue, based on scientific research since the virus began its global spread. Beyond that, however, investigations continue into where COVID-19 began, and no conclusions can be drawn, nor has evidence been presented, that definitively explains the pathogen’s origin. Circumstantial evidence suggests the virus could have escaped from the Wuhan lab due to a lapse in safety measures.”

In short, the manmade claim is discredited based on the assumption that if engineered for military use it would be based on a much more deadly version of the coronavirus. But what if military application was not the origin of the engineered virus?

Shit, here we go.

Turns out that Steve Hilton subsequently released another video with even more interesting facts and information. Crap, we had better go fact check this dude. We start with the research paper on COVID-19, A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) released on January 20th, 2020. This paper says that COVID-19 most closely resembles a sample in their labs, RaTG13:

“—for all sequences—RaTG13 is the closest relative of 2019-nCoV and they form a distinct lineage from other SARSr-CoVs”

OK, so COVID-19 seems to come from bats. But what about this RaTG13, what do we know about it? Well, we can look it up on GenBank. The paper cited above seems to be the first mention of it. However, there is an odd note:

/note=”former lab designation: Bat coronavirus Ra4991″

What about this Ra4991? What do we know about it? Well, it seems to first appear in another WIV paper, Coexistence of multiple coronaviruses in several bat colonies in an abandoned mineshaft from 2016. Apparently, in 2012 six miners from Mojiang County, Yunnan Province, China, were cleaning out a mineshaft of bat droppings and contracted some weird illness. Three of the six died. The illness was not transferred to any of their relatives or acquaintances or to hospital staff that treated them. Meaning that this virus variant was apparently not transmissible between humans. This led to a WIV study of the bats in the mineshaft conducted in 2012-2013 resulting in the research paper, which states:

“From the 138 positive samples, 152 RdRp partial coronavirus sequences (approximately 400 bp) were obtained, indicating co-infections of two viruses. Two sequences (HiBtCoV/3740-2 and RaBtCoV/4991) were homologous to betacoronaviruses, all other 150 sequences were homologous to alphacoronaviruses”

OK, so this RaTG13 virus in the WIV seems to have originally been this RaBtCoV/4991 variant that came from the Yunnan Province of China. For those of you who are a little light on Chinese geography, the distance between Yunnan and Wuhan is about 1,000 miles. Thus, we can conclude that the WIV had this RaTG13 virus in their possession around the 2013/2014 time frame.

OK, that’s all terribly interesting about historical information regarding the closest phylogenic matches to COVID-19 and perhaps lends some credence to the idea that COVID-19 is an escapee of the WIV, but how does the National Institute of Health (NIH) and Dr. Fauci come into the picture?

Well, perhaps coincidently, it turns out that in 2014 the NIH was funding “gain of function” research into bat coronavirus. The project was 1R01AI110964-01. The project’s abstract states the following:

“The three specific aims of this project are to:

  • 1. Assess CoV spillover potential at high risk human-wildlife interfaces in China. This will include quantifying he nature and frequency of contact people have with bats and other wildlife; serological and molecular screening of people working in wet markets and highly exposed to wildlife; screening wild-caught and market sampled bats from 30+ species for CoVs using molecular assays; and genomic characterization and isolation of novel CoVs.
  • 2. Develop predictive models of bat CoV emergence risk and host range. A combined modeling approach will include phylogenetic analyses of host receptors and novel CoV genes (including functional receptor binding domains); a fused ecological and evolutionary model to predict host-range and viral sharing; and mathematical matrix models to examine evolutionary and transmission dynamics.
  • 3. Test predictions of CoV inter-species transmission. Predictive models of host range (i.e. emergence potential) will be tested experimentally using reverse genetics, pseudovirus and receptor binding assays, and virus infection experiments across a range of cell cultures from different species and humanized mice.

Wait, WTF is gain of function research? Gain of function research is a field of medical research focused on viruses “accelerating mutation processes to adapt their transmissibility, virulence and antigenicity, to better predict emerging infectious diseases and develop vaccines.”.

Essentially, you bioengineer a super bug using genetic engineering or the splicing of two or more viruses together to create a new, novel “chimera” virus, release it in a lab full of mice or human cells and study how things get infected and die in order to learn something about how to combat a global pandemic.

Holy shit, was the WIV really doing that kind of crazy dangerous shit on bat corona viruses? Apparently they were according to the WIV research paper published on November 30th, 2017, Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses provides new insights into the origin of SARS coronavirus. The funding for the paper specifically cites NIH project 1R01AI110964-01 and specifically speaks about its successes in using gain of function techniques to adapt bat coronaviruses to be transmissible to and “work” in humans…in the lab.

“Our previous studies demonstrated the capacity of both WIV1 and WIV16 to use ACE2 orthologs for cell entry and to efficiently replicate in human cells [17,18]. In this study, we confirmed the use of human ACE2 as receptor of two novel SARSr-CoVs by using chimeric viruses with the WIV1 backbone replaced with the S gene of the newly identified SARSr-CoVs. Rs7327’s S protein varied from that of WIV1 and WIV16 at three aa residues in the receptor-binding motif, including one contact residue (aa 484) with human ACE2.”

Just so we are clear, a “chimeric virus” is a manmade virus created by combining two or more other viruses together. And the “S protein” is what is called the “spike” protein, and this protein controls what types of cells the virus can invade (only bat cells, only human cells or both human and bat cells for example). But, no way, the NIH didn’t actually fund that shit. Oops, apparently so:

usaspending.gov, Advanced Search, Sub-Awards, Award ID: 1R01AI110964-01

OK, fine, but surely that does not implicate Dr. Fauci. Shit, apparently so:

“In 1968, Fauci joined the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as a clinical associate in the Laboratory of Clinical Investigation (LCI) at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.[12] In 1974, he became head of the Clinical Physiology Section, LCI, and in 1980 was appointed Chief of the Laboratory of Immunoregulation. In 1984, he became director of NIAID, a position he still holds as of 2021.” – Wikipedia, Anthony Fauci

Oh, hmm, apparently Dr. Fauci is a big believer in gain of function research, considering it “worth the risk“.

Alright, we need to cut this out, we are clearly falling down a rabbit hole filled with conspiratorial landmines, let’s put together a timeline of everything so that we can disprove this whole conspiracy notion once and for all.

God damnit.

OK, so if we are looking at this objectively, we can’t really rule out that the virus was manmade after all. We certainly wouldn’t call the virus being manmade “debunked”. That said, we also can’t definitively say that it is manmade either. And, the only way to tie COVID-19’s creation to funding from the NIH and Dr. Fauci would be if Ra4991/RaTG13 really is the progenitor of COVID-19 and underwent gain of function research at WIV as part of the 1R01AI110964-01 project and this ended up creating COVID-19 and subsequently escaping the lab. Let’s be absolutely crystal clear, that’s a lot of hoops to jump through in order to arrive at that conclusion. See, this is the minefield of conjecture that is the origins of COVID-19.

Perhaps one day we will learn the truth about the origins of COVID-19. The World Health Organization (WHO) is in Wuhan right now and one of the WHO investigators, Peter Daszak, clearly states that there is no evidence of the virus coming from the WIV. Wait a minute, Peter Daszak? Where have we seen that name before? Oh yeah, Peter Daszak was the project leader for project 1R01AI110964-01. Jesus H. Christ, this rabbit hole runs deep! Can you say “conflict of interest”?!? OK, well the odds of us ever learning the true origins of COVID-19 pretty much just flew right out the window.

Well, we here at The Objective Observer have had enough of rabbit holes filled with conspiratorial landmines for one day. We will close with pondering the lesson of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, a novel that warns of the dangers of science pushing the limits in order to achieve fantastic results without fully thinking through the consequences. Perhaps one day Dr. Frankenstein’s monster will finally be given a name, COVID-19.

When Science is Wrong

The Political Weaponization of Science Itself

OK, so we here at The Objective Observer are still on this King Biden divine proclamation to “follow the science”. If you haven’t been paying attention, King Biden‘s proclamation states the following:

“science, facts, and evidence are vital to addressing policy and programmatic issues across the Federal Government monarchy.”

But we have some problems with the ordained king’s proclamation here at The Objective Observer. It’s not that we do not believe in science, but rather that we don’t believe in blindly following the science. But before we get to that, perhaps more importantly, the proclamation as stated is a complete and utter fraud. A more accurate proclamation would read:

“science, facts, and evidence that we agree with and support our pre-determined views are vital to addressing policy and programmatic issues across the Federal Government monarchy.”

As we pointed out in Following the Science, King Biden is cherry picking science that supports his pre-determined views while ignoring other legitimate science that does not. But that’s not how science is supposed to work. Of course, King Biden will justify his approach by pointing to “consensus” science. The problem with this approach, as we have repeatedly pointed out in The Climate Change Heresies, Higgs Bozos, There Are No Climate Change Deniers and even Flying Spaghetti Monster Theory, is that “consensus” science, and in particular “consensus” science in young fields of study, tends to get things wrong. And not just wrong, but spectacularly wrong. Consider that the following have all been “consensus” science until relatively recently:

  • Until the 1890’s consensus science was that atoms were indivisible. The atomic bomb tells us otherwise.
  • Until 1911, consensus science was that atoms adhered to a “plum pudding model” versus a nuclear model. Incorrect, it’s the nuclear model.
  • Prior to Einstein’s general theory of relativity in 1915, a magical “luminiferous aether” was considered by scientific consensus as the medium for the propagation of light. Einstein was actually still trying to work the aether into the theory of relativity as late as 1924.
  • Prior to the 1970’s, the scientific consensus for macro geologic processes was not plate tectonics. Guess what? It’s plate tectonics.
  • Prior to the 1980’s, scientific consensus would tell you that sauropods lived in lakes and that dinosaurs were cold blooded and extinct. We now understand these things to be entirely false.
  • Up until 1982 consensus science was that crystalline solids could only be composed of repeating blocks. This was disproved by the discovery of Quasicrystals.
  • Until May 17th, 1990 the consensus science from the American Psychiatric Association and the World Health Organization (WHO) classified homosexuality as a “mental illness”. Clearly, that is not the case.

So had King Biden ascended to the throne the first time he tried in 1988, would King Biden have institutionalized homosexuals because he was “following the science”? Aren’t homosexuals lucky that unscientific “buffoons” like Reagan and Bush were ruling instead.

But surely, these are all “old” examples from at least 30 years ago. Surely “modern” science never gets things wrong. Well, actually, it is well understood that science gets things wrong all the time. In fact, a statistician has recently demonstrated that most published research findings are false. And, even more recently we have the following:

That’s right, those last two articles are from January 6th and January 7th, 2021. And yet for at least the last 30 years “consensus” science was that 85% of the universe was made up of “dark matter”. So, if King Biden was planning on basing any policy decisions on dark matter “consensus” science, he would be basing policy on something that likely doesn’t even exist.

The point of all of this is that proclaiming that one’s administration will be based on science, facts and evidence runs the real risk of basing policy on things that are 100% incorrect and wrong. But declaring the monarchy to be “science based” was really never the purpose of that proclamation. The real purpose of that proclamation was to silence critics of King Biden‘s already pre-determined policies which were never really based upon all of the science to begin with. The proclamation is really intended to be used as a cudgel to beat critics of the current monarchy’s policies over the head and brand them “science deniers” the same way climate change proponents denounce critics as “climate change deniers”. And no, the phrasing to evoke the idea of a “Holocaust denier” is no accident. The move is so chilling and diabolical that every scientist in the country should be outraged and crying out at the top of their lungs to denounce that proclamation, denounce the political weaponization of science itself.

Following the Science

Why Are We Trying to Stop Global Warming Again?

For years climate change proponents have been decrying those questioning climate change and its impacts as “science deniers”. King Biden has taken both climate change and science seriously by declaring climate change as central to the United States’ new National Defense Strategy as well as endorsing science via a proclamation that states:

“science, facts, and evidence are vital to addressing policy and programmatic issues across the Federal Government monarchy.”

In effect, King Biden has made the divine decree that everyone must “follow the science”. We’re big on science here at The Objective Observer so, let’s follow the science on climate change. We start with the oft cited premise that climate change in the form of global warming caused by increased CO2 (carbon dioxide) levels resulting from the activities of human beings will have a catastrophic impact on the Earth and the ability for humans to survive.

So, what exactly does science say on this topic? Well, for starters, the science says that during the time that dinosaurs lived in the Jurassic Period there was 5 times the level of CO2 than the present day. Five times. First, let that sink in. This means that the air was 0.2% CO2 versus today’s 0.04%. Furthermore, as climate change proponents will be sure to cheer, the average global temperature during the Jurassic Period was up to 8 degrees Celsius warmer than it is today.

Now consider that the current goals of the Paris Climate Accord and climate change proponents is to prevent a mere 1.5 degree Celsius increase in global temperatures and to essentially keep the level of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere roughly the same. Surely, if going above a 2 degrees Celsius increase in global temperatures and a corresponding increase in CO2 in the atmosphere will have such a cataclysmic impact as to threaten life on Earth for humans, then surely 5 times today’s CO2 levels and 8 degrees Celsius warmer would mean certain annihilation for not only humans but all life on Earth. Right?

But what does science tell us about the Jurassic Period? Well, science tells us that the Jurassic Period was teeming with life both on land and in the oceans and featured lush, green jungles and forests. In point of fact, there is no scientific journal or book or writing that describes the Jurassic Period as “devoid of life” or “inhospitable to life” or any such description at all. Actually, it is well known in scientific circles that during the Jurassic Period some of the largest land and sea animals that ever lived dominated life on Earth.

So exactly where is the scientific evidence that a 1.5 degree increase in temperatures and a commensurate increase in CO2 levels would spell doom for humans? Because the science doesn’t seem to indicate that at all. In fact, if you refer to the image attached to this post, life has thrived on Earth for hundreds of millions of years at temperature levels of 8 degrees Celsius warmer than the present and at CO2 levels up to 17 times those of today. One might also notice from the image that we are living in one of the coldest and least CO2 rich environments in the entire history of the planet. And, every time temperatures and CO2 have dropped to the level of today, temperatures and CO2 levels have subsequently increased exponentially. In fact, science tells us that CO2 levels would need to be 150 times greater than they are today for the air to even be toxic to humans. That’s the science.

So why are we so worried about a 1.5 degree Celsius increase in global temperatures again? Actually, the consensus scientific opinion is that for the next 70 years, increasing temperatures actually benefits humans. Warmer temperatures means fewer winter deaths (mortality from cold is much higher than mortality from heat), more rain, longer growing seasons, better agricultural yield, more plants in general (CO2, it’s what plants crave) and lower energy costs (less winter heating). Against these benefits there are downsides. But, if you read the downsides closely, it’s really about higher ocean levels leading to the loss of current coastal areas and then a tremendous amount of conjecture. Anyone that tells you that they have scientific “proof” of the impacts of global warming on humanity and the Earth is lying. Straight up lying. Why? Because nobody has lived through such an event, collected the data on it and analyzed it scientifically. What they have are models and conjecture only, supported by scientific principles which may or may not pan out. In fact, regarding speculative claims of “extreme weather” brought about by climate change, even a recent report from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPPC), the “gold standard” of climate science, states:

‘no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency offloads on a global scale … low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms’.

The only, true objective conclusion about climate change is that nobody has any real freaking clue about any of it in terms of its true impacts. And since science almost always gets things wrong; many, many times, before getting it right, most of the “science” out there is likely quite wrong.

So, to any objective observer, one has to seriously question why we are not actually promoting global warming versus discouraging global warming. So what if people on the coasts need to move? There’s plenty of land. In fact, land currently deemed “inhospitable” because of cold will become “hospitable”. They can move there. Requiring people to rent a U-Haul can hardly be deemed “catastrophic”.

To an objective observer, it sure seems like King Biden is only listening to some of the science, not all of the science. And that’s a no no in science. True scientists aren’t allowed to pick and choose their evidence. That is not being “science based”. That is not “following the science”. That is called cherry picking facts and conjecture to support a predetermined theory or position. In other words, the very antithesis of science.

Finally, we have to seriously question King Biden‘s decision to place climate change at the center of United States national defense and security policy. Seriously, how in the hell is a solar panel going to prevent another terrorist attack on New York City? Do wind turbines have some secret military application that could be used to thwart Chinese aggression that nobody is telling us about? Does hydropower somehow shield us from Russian hackers?

To any objective observer, the only thing security or military related to King Biden‘s climate proclamations is that these climate proclamations really just amount to some kind of strange war against plants. Like a weird, absurd attempt to deprive plants of the basic requirements for life. And why would you want to do that? Even children know how useful plants are at staving off a zombie apocalypse, and what greater threat to national security is there than that?

The Dangers of Hyperbole

An Objective Take on Trump

Former President Trump has been called many things in the last four years. Many, many things. As we pointed out in Trump Eats Baby for Breakfast, the hyperbole regarding President Trump reached and continues to be a deafening crescendo. With all of the negativity regarding Trump, some may find it surprising then that a Politico reporter recently opined that Trump’s base is “getting stronger”. We here at The Objective Observer however do not find this surprising at all. To understand why, keep reading.

The short answer, of course, is the hyperbole. As pointed out in Trump Eats Baby for Breakfast, much of the American populous got the impression over the last four years that it didn’t matter what President Trump said or did, the media and pundits were going to blast him for it regardless. If Trump had helped an elderly nun to cross the street, the media would have claimed he was trying to intentionally throw her under a bus. At every turn, the worst possible motivations were assigned to President Trump’s actions and presented as the unequivocal truth when, in fact, little or no evidence was provided as proof of those motivations. This amounted to, in effect, putting words into President Trump’s mouth.

There are very real dangers to the levels of hyperbole surrounding Trump. But, before we get to those dangers, let’s take a look at all of the mean, nasty things that President Trump has been accused of being and contrast that with what an objective individual might conclude. To this end, we will analyze the following claims:

  • Trump is a Russian sympathizer
  • Trump is mentally ill
  • Trump is anti-Semitic
  • Trump is a racist
  • Trump is a white supremacist
  • Trump is evil
  • Trump is stupid
  • Trump hates Muslims
  • Trump is a misogynist
  • Trump is a seditionist

First, before we get started, let’s make one thing perfectly clear. We here at The Objective Observer are no Trump apologists. Fact is, we generally think that Trump is, well, he…he kind of comes across as a complete asshole. That being said, none of us here have ever met the man in person. So, while there is the possibility that Trump is not a complete and utter arrogant ass, he most definitely comes across that way. But, just because an individual comes across as a self-absorbed narcissistic asshole does not immediately mean that person is necessarily a horrible person or entirely incorrect on every single issue. One has to be objective about these sort of things after all.

Trump is a Russian sympathizer

OK, the hyperbole on this one is well documented and we won’t spend much time belaboring the obvious. Democrats claimed that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to steal the election from perennial loser, Hillary Clinton. Democrats and the media were 100% certain of this fact and told anyone and everyone they could for years. Hell, it seemed like you couldn’t even get off a bus in New York City without being beaten, stripped naked and berated with evidence of Trump’s collusion with Russia.

Juxtapose the hyperbole with reality. Reality is that after multiple investigations, millions of dollars, entire herds of Democratic lawyers there just wasn’t any evidence to support this false narrative. And, turns out, the Trump administration was actually tough on Russia. Even NP freaking R admits this.

Trump is mentally ill

This one crops up quite a bit in the media as well as Washington D.C. Nancy Pelosi and others have, on multiple occasions, suggested that the 25th amendment to the Constitution should be used to remove Trump from office because he is “mentally unfit”, “mentally ill”, or just plain “crazy”.

But, if we take one small step back from the precipice of blind hatred, an objective observer finds no real evidence of true mental illness or a mental unfitness to perform the duties of President. Sure, his behavior may not fit neatly into our Presidential stereotypes but it’s not like the guy is a cannibal or dropping nukes on people or indiscriminately starting wars for no reason or showing obvious signs of schizophrenia or bulimic or overtly OCD or abuses alcohol or has some irrational fear of spiders or something. There’s just no factual evidence for any real mental illness or disorder, it is all just hyperbole and people’s opinions.

Trump is anti-Semitic

The hyperbole is that Trump is “Hitler”. We aren’t making this up. This comparison has been made over and over and over again. This has been coupled with less strongly worded accusations of anti-Semitism. Basically what the hyperbole is saying is that Trump is so anti-Semitic that he would be willing to exterminate 6 million Jews if given the opportunity.

OK, of all the things that Trump gets called, we here at The Objective Observer have never been able to quite grasp this one. It’s so far outside the bounds of credulity that it is simply beyond us. Has Trump demonstrated an insensitivity to Jewish stereotypes? Absolutely and without question. Does that make him Hitler or just old? Probably just old. But somehow an insensitivity to Jewish tropes gets blown out of proportion to where the guy is Hitler? That’s just ridiculous.

First, let’s just be clear, comparing Trump to Hitler minimalizes the Holocaust. People who do that are called Holocaust minimizers, like King Biden. King Biden compared Trump to Joseph Goebbels for example and frequently made reference to Trump and “Nazis” and even comparisons with Hitler. Do we really think King Biden is a Holocaust minimizer and denier? Not really. We are just using unfair hyperbole to prove the point here. Shit like that works both ways.

To any objective observer Trump is clearly not anti-Semitic. Trump was a friend to Benjamin Netanyahu and all of Israel. Trump moved the United States embassy to Jerusalem, recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, recognized Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights, got tough on Iran, brokered middle east peace deals and, well, the list is long. To any objective observer, these are not the actions of an anti-Semite. They just aren’t. And we are not the only ones that see it, more Jewish people voted for Trump than any Republican in over 30 years.

Trump is a racist

OK, this one primarily seems to stem from Trump’s border wall. The hyperbole here is that Trump is a complete racist bigot that hates Hispanics. We are not making this up, there is an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to this subject of Trump and racism. That article alone is too long to detail all the ways in which Trump has been branded a racist, we do not need to, or have the space to, belabor all the times this hyperbole has been repeated in the media and among law makers in Washington D.C.

So what about reality? Reality is that presidents have been building walls for decades, including Obama! Turns out, there are legitimate reasons for countries to protect their borders. Also, more Hispanics voted for Trump in 2020 than in 2016. Trump actually reversed a decade of declining Hispanic support for Republicans. So, here again, reality does not match hyperbole. Without question, Trump said some stupid, insensitive shit about Hispanics. But, again, the hyperbole takes this and makes it ridiculous. If Trump was truly as much of a racist bigot as the hyperbole suggests, then Hispanics should have fled in droves. They didn’t.

Trump is a white supremacist

This one is similar to Trump being an anti-Semite and racist but we particularly want to explore this one in terms of black Americans. The hyperbole labels Trump as a card carrying member of the KKK. Fascist, Nazi, Hitler, white supremacist, it has been repeated so often in the media it is now commonplace.

Here again we see that Trump has said some dumbass, insensitive shit when it comes to black Americans. Some of it may even rise to the level of demonstrating some prejudice towards blacks. We here at The Objective Observer find his familiar way of addressing groups like the Proud Boys and his courting of far right groups for votes particularly distasteful. But does that make him a “white supremacist” or just a politician? Probably just a politician. Politicians suck, what are you going to do? Trump is clearly not a white supremacist, as in hang black Americans from trees and burn crosses in their yards. That’s just going too far for anyone being objective about the matter. Fact is, Trump did quite a bit to help blacks in America from criminal justice reform to funding historically black colleges, to opportunity zones, etc. We are not saying that Trump is any Abraham Lincoln but the actions he took are not those of a “white supremacist”. Apparently, blacks agree as they voted for Trump in record numbers.

Trump is evil

This is another hyperbolic claim that is levied against Trump again and again.

Again, demonstrate the factual evidence for this. Trump is being lumped in with truly evil people like Pol Pot, Nero, Hitler, Stalin, the Kim dynasty, Mao Zedong, Genghis Kahn, Ivan the Terrible, Idi Amin and Himmler? Truly evil people that brutally murdered tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands and millions of people? Be reasonable.

Trump is stupid

Yet more hyperbole that is repeated over and over. Even Snopes has had to debunk this claim.

Again, evidence people. Show us an IQ test or something. To any reasonably objective individual, Trump’s success in business and the very fact that he could actually get elected President seem to fly in the face of any legitimacy being given to the hype that Trump is a complete moron.

Trump hates Muslims

This one mainly stems from Trump’s travel bans and gets repeated ad nauseam.

Reality is that there exist in this world terrorists who hold radical Islamic ideologies, like the ones that attacked on 9/11. Americans would be prudent to take measures to prevent further attacks. One could objectively view the travel bans from this perspective without jumping to the conclusion that Trump is an Islamophobic bigot. Maybe he is, maybe he isn’t, but apparently a good number of Muslims don’t think so as Trump got more Muslim support, not less, in 2020.

Trump is a misogynist

Yeah, OK, this one is a given. Next.

Trump is a seditionist

The hyperbole here is that Trump planned the January 6th, 2021 riot at the Capitol in a bid to usurp the Presidency of the United States.

OK, an alternative, objective, rational perspective might be that Trump bitched a lot about an election he lost, took things a little too far and shit happened. Look, any objective individual understands there were “issues” with the most recent Presidential election. And bitching about these issues is nothing new. Gore still claims the election was “stolen”. Hillary still claims the election was “stolen”. So, big freaking deal that Trump thinks that the election was “stolen”. Sure, he was more vocal about being pissed off but somehow this gets turned into intentionally trying to destroy America’s institutions of democracy? Sorry, we don’t buy it. If Trump is a seditionist then every single person that participated in the whole Russia hoax thing is a seditionist. And every single person that worked on Gore’s attempt to overturn the election is also a seditionist. Again, the hyperbole here goes far beyond any rational or objective thought process.

Conclusion

OK, this has been one hell of a long article so there had better be a pay off to all of this, right? What has been the point of all of this analysis regarding the hyperbole versus looking at things objectively and dispassionately? Well, the point of all of this is that hyperbole is dangerous and it is dangerous in two very specific ways.

First, extreme hyperbole radicalizes people. There is no question that if you feel that the new “Hitler” is coming to take you away to a concentration camp, it can radicalize you to violently object. There can be little question of this radicalization on the left. The extreme hyperbole may have been intended to produce voter turnout, just like how Trump courted the far right, but given the last year of riots and violence there is a solid argument to be made that the extreme hyperbole regarding Trump was a major factor in radicalizing Americans and incenting those Americans to violence. There is also no question that the extreme hyperbole helped or was the major reason for the divisive state of America today. That’s not a good thing.

Second, extreme hyperbole creates distrust. When fair minded Americans hear extreme hyperbole and it doesn’t match up with what they are seeing with their own eyes, they start to question things, get suspicious and begin to distrust the sources of that hyperbole. So, when that hyperbole is coming from the media and government leaders in Washington D.C., well, now that extreme hyperbole is, in effect, destroying trust in the free press and faith in our institutions of government. These same individuals then also start to feel empathy for the target of that hyperbole and begin to view that person as something of a martyr. This is why why Trump’s base is digging in and getting stronger. None of this is rocket science people. So if Trump comes back even stronger in 2024, Democrats only have their own outrageous hyperbole to blame.

So, bottom line, what we are saying is that all of you liberal, Stalinist commies that do nothing but rape small children, drink their blood, murder old people and promote white genocide all day, just knock it off with all of the extreme hyperbole already…

Wasn’t Me

With Apologies to Shaggy

We here at The Objective Observer sometimes like to put our thinking caps on and attempt to puzzle out the really hard questions. The latest question we have been pondering is exactly why conservatives and liberals constantly seem to be each other’s throats and find it nigh impossible to have a productive conversation on just about any important policy issue. Well, the good news is that we believe we have cracked the code on this one and it is all thanks to a Shaggy song, It Wasn’t Me.

Now, of course everyone knows this but It Wasn’t Me is a reggae song by Jamaican-American artist Shaggy from the multi Platinum album Hot Shot. The song reached number one in the United States as well as the UK Singles Chart in 2000. In short, the lyrics tell the tale of a man being caught “red-handed” by his girlfriend while he is having sex with another woman. The man asks his friend for advice and that advice is to simply deny everything, regardless of any and all clear evidence to the contrary, with the phrase “It wasn’t me”. The most memorable bit of the song is perhaps it’s chorus, which goes like this:

But she caught me on the counter
(Wasn’t me)
Saw me banging on the sofa
(Wasn’t me)
I even had her in the shower
(Wasn’t me)
She even caught me on camera
(Wasn’t me)

She saw the marks on my shoulder
(Wasn’t me)
Heard the words that I told her
(Wasn’t me)
Heard the screams getting louder
(Wasn’t me)
She stayed until it was over

OK, clearly this dude is screwed in more ways than one. But how pray tell can a two decades old song by Shaggy help enlighten us as to why conservatives and liberals can’t have a simple, civil conversation you might ask? Well perhaps we watch too much Juan Williams on The Five, but the answer seems rather obvious to us. You see, we can almost always predict Juan’s answers when another one of the hosts lays out something blatantly obvious that the left has done wrong. Invariably, the template of Juan’s response goes something like the following:

“Well, you can talk about xyz if you want to, but the real issue here is…”

or

“I’m not sure I understand your point, but the real issue here is…”

And then Juan invariably goes into some liberal talking point that may or may not be related to the issue at hand or the original point being made. Seriously, you can bank on this format of a response at least once or twice per show.

Now look, we’re not here to pick on poor ol’ Juan. We love Juan. Well, there is one person here who doesn’t but that guy is kind of a jackass anyway. The rest of us feel that Juan has the absolute most gigantic balls of any Democrat by far because he will actually go on a show dominated by four other conservatives, at least two of whom pull absolutely zero punches, and hold his own. So, mad respect Juan.

Watching this tactic by Juan got us thinking though and we started watching more closely to news and opinion delivered by MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, you name it. And everywhere we turned and watched we couldn’t find a single instance of any Democrat ever admitting fault for anything, or even admitting that one single member said or did anything wrong. It was incredible. Like some kind of herd or pack mentality or perhaps even a genetically bred inability to admit anything even resembling a mistake. And before you go flying off the handle about The Objective Observer beating up on poor liberals, we absolutely understand that conservatives also deflect and all that. But it’s the frequency and consistency with which Democrats engage in this behavior that is the difference. It’s staggering. Democrats and liberals literally will not concede a single point no matter how much anyone stares at them “buck naked…on the bathroom floor”.

So, what is the point of all this, what can we learn? Well, what we have learned is that dumbass conservatives need to stop thinking that they are going to win an argument or make a point by mentioning something wrong that liberals have done or think that highlighting some kind of hypocrisy on the left is going to score them points or something. Because, frankly, it’s not going to do them a damn bit of good or help make the two sides see eye-to-eye. You simply can’t shame the shameless.

Perhaps Shaggy said it best:

They caught us lying to FISA
(Wasn’t me)
Saw us spying on Trump y’all
(Wasn’t me)
Stolen election by Russia
(Wasn’t me)
Impeached over a phone call
(Wasn’t me)

Killing nursing home patients
(Wasn’t me)
Loot and riot in the street
(Wasn’t me)
No cabinet posts for Asians
(Wasn’t me)
Erasing women complete