3…2…1…

History 2 Minutes

It’s no secret that one of the most popular destinations in the world for the most highly anticipated night out of the year – New Year’s Eve – is New York City. It’s all about the sights, sounds, and unique entertainment that this city has to offer—centered, of course, on the Times Square Ball. When you gather in Midtown to watch the Ball Drop, you’re part of a long, rich history of partying!

In 1903, The New York Times newspaper was about to open their new headquarters, the city’s second tallest building, in what was then known as Longacre Square. The paper’s owner, Adolph Ochs, decided to commemorate their opening with a midnight fireworks show on the roof of the building on December 31, 1903. After four years of New Year’s Eve fireworks celebrations, Ochs wanted a bigger spectacle at the building to draw more attention to the newly-renamed Times Square. An electrician was hired to construct a lighted Ball to be lowered from the flagpole on the roof of One Times Square. The iron Ball was only 5 feet in diameter! The very first drop was on New Year’s Eve 1907, one second after midnight. Though the Times would later move its headquarters, the New Year’s Eve celebration at One Times Square remains a focal celebration for the world.

The Ball has gone through some major transformations in its 100-plus years of partying. The original Ball was replaced in 1920 with a 5-foot, 400-pound iron Ball. This Ball lasted to 1995, when a third Ball debuted, adding rhinestones and a computerized lighting system featuring strobe lights. For the arrival of the new millennium, an entirely new Ball was constructed. Weighing 1,070 pounds and measuring 6 feet in diameter, the fourth ball was covered with 504 Waterford Crystal triangles illuminated with 168 halogen bulbs outside. Internally, 432 bulbs of clear, red, blue, green and yellow colors along with strobe lights and spinning mirrors lit up the night. It was retired on December 31, 2006 newly rigged with light-emitting diodes.

In honor of the Ball Drop’s 100th anniversary, a fifth design debuted New Year’s Eve 2008. Manufactured again by Waterford Crystal with a diameter of 6 feet, weighing 1,212 pounds, it used LEDs, computerized lighting pattern, and can produce over 16.7 million colors, but only consumes the electricity of 10 toasters! The 2008 Ball was only used once— a sixth new Ball debuted on New Year’s Eve 2009 and is still in use.

Today’s Ball is 12 feet in diameter, weighing 11,875 pounds. While retaining the 2008 design, this Ball was rebuilt double its previous size. To accommodate this new Ball, the flagpole was also enlarged, now rising 475 feet above the street. It remains atop One Times Square year-round, reminding the people below of the most exciting night of the year, and building the anticipation. Where will you be this New Year’s Eve? How will you become a part of the Ball’s history?

Source: https://www.balldrop.com/article/history-of-times-square-ball-drop

Here at our house, we do things differently.  We celebrate New Year’s promptly at 9:00 pm…if we’re still awake, because it’s usually a contest to see what drops first…the ball or our eyelids and our eyelids are undefeated at this point! 

ROCK ON…LOL

Unknown's avatar

Published by pat frederick

Published

137 thoughts on “3…2…1…”

    1. Morning, Pat! It’s been many a year since I saw the New Year in at midnight. My fondest memory is from not long after I was adopted. My parents were going out so I went to Grandma’s for the night. She still owned the cabin court then – she did like her beer (she was German, after all!) so she and I toasted the New Year with beer – she let me have a juice glass of beer! LOL

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Liked by 2 people

    2. Liked by 2 people

    4. Liked by 2 people

  7. from tcth

    DanDan
    DanDan
    December 31, 2022 12:30 am

    ICYMI – FYI – WTF – Trust No One – ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest…

    Swine flu vaccine (1976), 1 serious event per 100,000 vaccinees, Vaccine withdrawn

    Rotavirus vaccine Rotashield, (1999),1 to 2 serious events per 10,000 vaccinees, Vaccine withdrawn

    Covid mRNA vaccines, 1 serious event per 800 vaccinees, Vaccine officially promoted

    Like

  11. the case against Santos may not be a slam dunk. I had no idea SCOTUS ruled the Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional in part…
    entire article
    he push to investigate and punish Rep.-elect George Santos (R-N.Y.) for the falsehoods he spread during his 2022 election campaign is on a collision course with a legal precedent set a decade ago when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled lying is constitutionally protected even when it involves officeholders.

    Santos admitted this week that he lied on the campaign trail about a number of details of his biography, including where he attended college and his alleged employment history with high-profile Wall Street firms.

    “My sins here are embellishing my resume. I’m sorry,” Santos said Monday, confessing he never graduated from any college and “never worked directly” for Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. Santos chalked up his misleading claims to a “poor choice of words.”

    Santos, the first openly gay non-incumbent Republican elected to the House, has also been accused of lying about his religion, family history, and sexual orientation, although he’s defended some of those assertions from criticism.

    The latest story being questioned concerns Santos’ claims that his mother was at the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, and that the dust cloud caused by the terrorist attacks played a role in her death years later.

    Santos has received widespread backlash for his fibs. A fellow incoming congressman from New York is calling for a full investigation by the House Ethics Committee, as is Santos’ Democrat opponent in the general election.

    While House Republican leaders have largely remained silent on the issue, some Democrats in Congress — including Reps. Joaquin Castro of Texas and Ted Lieu of California — have called not only for an investigation by authorities but also for Santos to resign and, if he refuses, for the House to expel him.

    Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) added that Santos should be “banned from taking the oath for Congress,” and Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.) introduced the Stop Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker (SANTOS) Act, which would require candidates “to disclose under oath their employment, educational, and military history so we can punish candidates who lie to voters about their qualifications.”

    Meanwhile, a Long Island prosecutor on Wednesday announced an investigation into Santos’ fabrications.

    “The residents of Nassau County and other parts of the third district must have an honest and accountable representative in Congress,” said Anne Donnelly, district attorney for Nassau County. “No one is above the law, and if a crime was committed in this county, we will prosecute it.”

    However, efforts to investigate Santos and potentially prosecute him for a crime face a major roadblock that’s received little attention since the scandal came to light: United States v. Alvarez, a decade-old decision by the nation’s highest court.

    The Supreme Court in 2012 ruled that the Stolen Valor Act of 2005, which criminalized false statements about earning a military medal, was unconstitutional for violating the free speech protections under the First Amendment.

    The case concerned Xavier Alvarez, who won a seat on the public Three Valley Water District Board of Directors in California. At his first public meeting as a new board director in July 2007, Alvarez introduced himself by saying, “I’m a retired Marine of 25 years. I retired in the year 2001. Back in 1987, I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor [the nation’s highest military award]. I got wounded many times by the same guy.”

    All of Alvarez’s claims were false. He never served in any branch of the armed forces, was never wounded in combat, and never received any military medal.

    As a result, federal prosecutors charged Alvarez with violating the Stolen Valor Act. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled 6-3 that the law violated the First Amendment.

    Oyez, a project of Cornell’s Legal Information Institute, explained the key arguments of then-Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion.

    “Content-based restrictions on speech are subject to strict scrutiny and are almost always invalid, except in rare and extreme circumstances,” the summary stated. “While categories of speech, such as defamation and true threats, present a grave and imminent threat, false statements alone do not present such a threat. Congress drafted the Stolen Valor Act too broadly, attempting to limit speech that could cause no harm. Criminal punishment for such speech is improper.”

    In the dissenting opinion, however, Justice Samuel Alito wrote, “Only the bravest of the brave are awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, but the court today holds that every American has a constitutional right to claim to have received this singular award.”

    Alito was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

    Lawmakers responded to the ruling by revising the Stolen Valor Act to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision. The resultant Stolen Valor Act of 2013, which was signed into law and still effective, criminalizes false claims about having a military medal if the claims are made with the intention of gaining a tangible benefit or something of value by fraud.

    Questions remain over what exactly constitutes fraud for material gain, however.

    “The standard understanding of Alvarez is that it prohibits sanctions for factual falsity, as in Alvarez’s own case, that are not about particular people,” Frederick Schauer, a law professor at the University of Virginia, told Just the News, noting lies about particular people would be libel (if written) or slander (if spoken). “The Supreme Court in Alvarez made clear that its prohibition on sanctions for factual falsity were subject to exceptions only for a few ‘historic and traditional categories.'”

    One of these categories, according to Schauer, is libel. The Supreme Court also mentioned others such as perjury, lying to a government investigator, and ordinary fraud for material gain.

    “It is this last one that raises the question here whether this kind of lying is ordinary common law fraud,” said Schauer. “Possibly yes, but the court in Alvarez also stressed that the protection of Alvarez was partly a function of the fact that his speech was public and not the kind of fraud present when a used car dealer lies about the mileage on a car he is trying to sell.”

    What’s broadly accepted is that the Alvarez ruling still applies broadly to false claims with few exceptions.

    “Lies are still protected by the First Amendment unless they fall into some other narrow exception,” said Andy Craig, director of election policy at the Rainey Center and adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. “Falsity alone isn’t enough. That’s why [the Supreme Court] struck down the Stolen Valor Act, and the Sixth Circuit applied that to strike down an Ohio law banning lies by political candidates.”

    Craig was referring to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in 2016 striking down Ohio laws banning false political speech as unconstitutional for violating the First Amendment.

    The provisions under question prohibited people from disseminating false information about a political candidate in campaign materials during the election cycle “knowing the same to be false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not, if the statement is designed to promote the election, nomination, or defeat of the candidate.”

    In sum, according to Schauer, high court rulings suggest “falsity in the course of a political campaign would run into very heavy First Amendment opposition, even though the circumstances in some sanction would be permitted remains slightly an open question.”

    https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/not-so-fast-supreme-court-ruling-could-be-what-protects-george

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Rep-elect from Florida, Luna, is on team freedom caucus it seems–she wants to get rid of piglosi’s rules and keep dark $$ out of races…
    FTA
    Luna called for a return of the crucial motion to vacate the chair, which was stripped away in Nancy Pelosi’s House rules packages. Without it, members of Congress are powerless to hold the Speaker accountable, and Kevin McCarthy has refused to commit to bringing the motion back.

    The motion to vacate, “stood the test of time for 200 years, starting with Thomas Jefferson,” Luna’s statement reads, before explaining that without it, Pelosi has been able to “exercise total control,” as members of Congress are powerless to stop her.

    Luna also called for the “fair treatment” of all members of Congress, and an end to the Pelosi-era practice of icing the American people and their elected Representatives out of the legislative process, by concentrating power among party leadership, and a “clear policy agenda” to reign in government spending.

    She also called out Kevin McCarthy’s meddling in GOP primaries, like that of Laura Loomer in Luna’s home state of Florida, a race in which Kevin McCarthy and his political machine spent dark money from the corrupt FTX crypto exchange to sabotage the conservative challenger to an establishment incumbent.

    A suitable Speaker candidate must make “a commitment to staying neutral in Republican primaries, including financially, through 3rd parties and allied groups,” Luna’s statement reads, before also calling for conservative representation on the all-important Rules Committee.

    “I will only vote for a Speaker candidate who embraces these changes,” the statement goes on, effectively ruling McCarthy out altogether.

    https://nationalfile.com/rep-elect-luna-opposes-mccarthy-demands-scrapping-of-pelosi-rules-return-of-motion-to-vacate/

    Liked by 2 people

  14. Prayer for New Year’s Eve….

    Dear Heavenly Father,

    As we enter the new calendar year, 2023,
    Help us – Give us courage to be truly free,
    For only those that You make free
    are free indeed.

    May we resolve
    to stand with You
    Aligned with Your Will
    and Your Way of Love, Truth and Life
    Against all evil, oppression, lies and propaganda.
    Against all that contradicts and conflicts with
    Your Holy Word.

    In the Name above all names,
    Jesus Christ of Nazareth, Savior, King of Kings, Lord of Lords,
    The only Name by which we may be saved.

    Amen.

    Liked by 2 people

    2. these are from powerline…they have changed something on this thread and the memes are no longer copy-able…I have to load them into imgur and even then many say invalid file…sigh…such a shame…

      Liked by 1 person

      1. That happened while you were gone visiting family for Xmas – I pulled some for you then after uploading to Imgur and commented at the time about the fact that a lot of places are restricting that now. But you wouldn’t know that since you don’t read back.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. i never have the time! lol
          last week too, I had to load them into imgur–and some are invalid–don’t know the rhyme or reason…
          and some are ones I’ve seen before–like in tweets and such, so it’s not that they’re “his” originals…

          Like

          1. There are 3 ways I know of – sometimes one works and the other doesn’t. You can either “copy image location,” “open image in new tab” and copy that link, or “copy image.” The copy image seems to work best for Tweets, IIRC. Some of the substack links are doing that now, too.

            Liked by 1 person

  17. odd question to ask…was anyone else arrested?
    was there an accomplice? or is he messing with police?
    FTA
    “I am told when Idaho quadruple homicide suspect Bryan Christopher Kohberger was in custody — he ‘asked if anyone else was arrested,’” reported News Nation reporter Brian Entin on Twitter. “I’m told he had a ‘quiet, blank stare.’”

    https://amgreatness.com/2022/12/30/criminology-student-arrested-in-pennsylvania-for-university-of-idaho-student-slayings/

    Like

  18. EXCERPTS: “This column isn’t going to earn anyone money—to the contrary—many of you will likely hate us for writing it. But the truth is the truth. The purpose is not to “create division” or call out other conservative “influencers” simply because we have differing opinions. We have all spent years watching blatant government corruption, constitutional rights being trampled, and elections stolen—all with no one being held accountable.
    ——————–
    Sadly, there are people out there who will exploit, profit from, or simply “grift” off that desperation by filling the need with false hope—or “hopium.” It appears, unfortunately, that Brunson v. Alma S. Adams; et al. (No. 22-380)—also known as “The Brunson Case”—pending before the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS), is just such an example.

    Where the Case Really Stands — First, we need to dispel some misunderstandings about the status of the case. It is not “scheduled for a hearing” before SCOTUS. So far, it is simply a petition for a writ of certiorari that’s been scheduled for conference. All that requires is filling out an online application and paying a filing fee.

    Constitutional attorney Robert Barnes—a member of the Supreme Court Bar who has filed countless petitions for cert and made oral arguments in front of SCOTUS a number of times—explained the process for filing a petition for a writ of certiorari and how the petition is considered by the SCOTUS justices and their clerks on a recent Livestream with Viva Frei.
    ——————–
    A “conference” is where the SCOTUS justices meet and vote on cases they will “grant cert”—with four needing to vote “Yes” to accept the case and schedule for oral arguments. Here’s the Order List that came out of a recent conference. The justices considered 158 petitions for cert. They denied 157 and took 1. And for a couple of the denials, they told the Clerk of the Court (effectively), “Tell this idiot to stop bothering us with this nonsense. Don’t accept any more petitions from this guy.”
    ———————
    As Barnes noted above, every justice claims they read every single petition for cert filed with the court, but that claim is very much in doubt. SCOTUS justices employ clerks who read and vet all the petitions ahead of time. The clerks are very familiar with the judicial philosophy of the justice they work for and what legal arguments they would be interested in discussing. It is believed—based on what court insiders have described about the inner workings of the court—only the ones with merit are ever passed along and briefed by the clerks to the justices themselves. Justices simply don’t have time to read each and every one of the thousands of petitions that get filed with the SCOTUS every year.

    Further, as independent journalist and podcaster Just Human noted on Truth Social, “only 20-25% of the petitions distributed for a given conference are actually discussed”.

    The other 75-80% of petitions are denied and discarded—likely without the justices ever reading them or even being aware they exist. A lot has been made out of the Brunson brothers’ interaction with the Clerk of the SCOTUS after they initially filed their petition for cert. As detailed on the Brunson’s website:

    “The Clerk of the SCOTUS calls Raland again. She asks, “how are you doing on your revision of the Writ with the additional information that we need?” Raland said, “We’re working on it as we speak!” She said, “how soon can we get it?” Raland said, “Right away!”

    Some have interpreted this to mean the justices are eager to hear this case and proactively reaching out through the clerk to get it in front of them as quickly as possible. In our opinion—given how we know how the court operates—that interpretation makes little sense.

    First, as anyone who has watched a senate confirmation—since the Robert Bork nomination hearings—understands, justices and SCOTUS nominees go out of their way not to appear to “prejudge” cases. Justices do not—at least publicly—proactively reach out to potential litigants seeking cases be brought they wish to consider. And they certainly aren’t going to make a public record of it by reaching out through the Clerk of the Court.
    ———————
    Second, as Barnes talked about in the same recent Livestream (and coincidentally cites our own Tracy Beanz), the people behind the Brunson petition have misinterpreted the actions of the clerk. Barnes explains SCOTUS is “the best court in America” when it comes to assisting pro se litigants—i.e., individuals who represent themselves in court rather than through an attorney, translated from Latin as “advocating on one’s own behalf”—in filing petitions. So the proactive actions by the clerk, in this case, are simply in keeping with the court’s usual interactions with nearly all pro se litigants. SCOTUS has not done anything out of the norm with this case. It’s just being marketed better.
    ———————-
    Barnes dispels another myth about the Brunson petition in the same clip above. As noted on both the SCOTUS docket and Brunson website, the Dept. of Justice (DOJ) waived its right to respond to the petition at all.
    ———————-
    Somehow, this is being spun by proponents as a good sign for the petition. The lawsuit is so solid that DOJ is simply unable to mount any kind of defense against it. Does that actually make sense to anyone? The highly-politicized Merrick Garland DOJ is just going to throw up its hands and allow SCOTUS to unilaterally remove the entire Democratic party power base from elected federal office without so much as making an argument? And do so in a case that has been dismissed with ease at every level below SCOTUS? Does that really make sense to anyone?!? It’s absurd, almost beyond the point of comprehension. It’s nonsense.

    As also noted by Barnes, the only reason that would happen is because the DOJ does not even feel the need to respond because the lawsuit has no merit whatsoever. If the court thought there was any chance—any chance at all—that the justices would vote to hear the case, they would reach out and request a response from the DOJ. The fact that neither the DOJ nor the court thought a response was necessary is the clearest sign that this case is going nowhere.

    Merits Of The Case

    We have read the lawsuit filed by the Brunson brothers. In our honest opinion, it does not seem to have any basis in constitutional law. Frankly speaking—as found by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in their dismissal—it’s “frivolous.”

    The truth is, the only reason this case got to the stage of a petition for a writ of cert with SCOTUS this quickly is because it completely lacks merit. You only need to think back to your 4th-grade civics class to understand why it lacks merit.

    Now we will be the first to admit our constitutional processes are not functioning as our founders intended. We are only speaking to how the system was designed to function.

    Under our system of separation of powers and “checks and balances,” the Legislative Branch (Congress) is the only one with the power to remove sitting members of the other two branches—or sitting members of Congress itself. The Founders entrusted this power solely to Congress because it is the political branch and most accountable to the people. In theory, if Congress were to abuse its authority—and remove a member of the other two branches against the will of the people—those members could be voted out of office in short order. Hence, the people would have the remedy to correct the imbalance and hold the ultimate check on power.”

    Videos/more: https://www.uncoverdc.com/2022/12/30/the-truth-about-the-brunson-case/

    Liked by 1 person

    2. “For that reason alone, this case is dead on arrival at SCOTUS. Even if the case had merit on all the other issues presented in the lawsuit, SCOTUS does not have the power to grant the remedy being sought. Therefore there is nothing for the justices to rule on; they can’t do anything about it. And if you really think it through, there’s a very good reason for that.

      Tracy Beanz explained—in a recent voice memo thread on Telegram—what the ramifications would be if SCOTUS actually did have this power. In a hypothetical scenario she gives (at the 7:30 min mark)—if President Trump were to be re-elected in 2024—what would there be to stop the Left from filing a sternly worded brief with SCOTUS and having him removed from office soon after the 2025 inauguration? After witnessing how Article III and state courts have ruled—nearly across the board in election cases involving President Trump or America First Republicans—would you really trust them not to do so? What would be the constitutional remedy to stop it?”

      Liked by 1 person

      1. As I read more, there is a lot of clarification here – in fact, this is being added to my Constitution bookmarks – excellent explanation thru-out and I highly recommend reading the entire article:

        “One thing that needs to be understood, under our constitutional system, Congress always has the final say in who is or is not the President. Whether that means certification of the presidential election, removal by impeachment, or removal via the 25th Amendment—Congress always has the last word; by design.

        The case often cited to refute this point is the landmark SCOTUS decision Bush v. Gore that resolved the disputed 2000 presidential election. While it is true the decision cleared the way for Governor George W. Bush (R-TX) to be declared the eventual winner, Congress still had to effectively sign off on the SCOTUS decision by its certification of the presidential electoral count. Had they chosen to do so—as the Democrats attempted—Congress still had the constitutional authority to set aside the electors from the state of Florida and vote to certify the 2000 election for Vice President Al Gore (D-TN) instead, putting him in the White House. And SCOTUS couldn’t have done anything to overrule them.

        In the aftermath of the 2020 election—despite “losing” 60+ election contest cases brought by President Trump or on his behalf—Congress again had the constitutional authority to ignore court rulings and certify Trump as the winner.

        The reason the Jan 6th, 2021 Fedsurrection was necessary is simple. The American public was never presented with the actual evidence of the 2020 Election “Fortification.” The “cabal” could not risk members of Congress changing their minds at the last minute—due to political pressure from constituents outraged after hearing all the evidence—and refusing to certify electors from at least three of the contested states. Had that happened, the election would have been declared contested, and the House of Representatives voted by state delegation (50 votes total) to determine the winner. Republicans—holding the majority of state delegations—presumably would have declared President Trump the winner.

        It was a risk they couldn’t take. Thanks to the Jan 6th Capitol Hill Riot, all presentations of the evidence ceased, and the leadership was able to rush the congressional certification through. The person most harmed politically by the events of Jan 6th was President Trump himself, and it’s the clearest indication that he had nothing to do with it.”

        Liked by 1 person

      2. i think she’s over simplifying there.
        I get the merit of the case…there were AMPLE cases brought before lower judges to examine evidence of fraud–they never even LOOKED at it.
        if looked at dismissed–that would be one thing…but this total disregard for even investigating is dereliction of the sworn oath. and it’s not like there a case or two—there were LOTS of cases that just got dismissed…
        and the oath they take HAS to be taken seriously–not just the congress BUT EVERY part of government.
        if you don’t do your job, then your oath is a joke

        Like

          1. i read it yesterday.
            i didn’t bring it because i don’t agree with her at all.
            it may not go anywhere but to suggest it doesn’t have any merit is ignorant imo
            either an oath has meaning or it doesn’t

            Like

        2. Past Examples & Cases

          Both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson—in their capacities as Vice presidents—presided over highly controversial congressional certifications that resulted in themselves being named President. The legality of their actions is still being debated to this day by constitutional scholars. Yet despite this, there was never any possibility the Supreme Courts of the time had the power to retroactively review their actions and remove them from the presidency once sworn into office. SCOTUS simply does not have the power to do it.

          But let’s imagine for a second that SCOTUS did. Do you see the problem that would create? The SCOTUS would have had extraordinary leverage over Adams & Jefferson, knowing they could simply take up the case and remove them at any point. Both Founding Fathers would have been completely neutered and unable to challenge SCOTUS on any hot-button issue of the day—an untenable circumstance between two co-equal branches of government meant to be in conflict by design.

          Trump election attorney Jenna Ellis concisely explained the process during an interview with Sebastian Gorka (starting at about 4:05 min). The interview took place during the last uproar over a supposed upcoming “hail mary” case. This was back when the likes of—disgraced Pulitzer Prize-winning Pee Tape Truther—Maggie Haberman pushed the fake news story that Trump believed SCOTUS intended to reinstate him as President in August 2021.
          (Video)
          One of the popular theories batted around is that SCOTUS “took the case” (which, again, is false … SCOTUS has not “taken” the case) to hold over the heads of members of Congress during the current lame-duck session. That is precisely why SCOTUS does not have the power to remove members of Congress or any other sitting elected official. It would mean they were beholden to SCOTUS on any decision they make or risk losing their elected office by stepping out of line.

          If SCOTUS did have that power, then we don’t live in a constitutional, representative republic. We are governed by an all-powerful ruling counsel of five unelected government officials—with lifetime appointments—who are accountable to no one.”

          Like

          1. you’re missing the point and so is she…
            it is not about declaring trump president
            it is about over 300 congresspeople neglecting their sworn oath. by refusing to investigate anything to do with the elections. there were allegations of FOREIGN interference in our elections–and they never even looked at it. that’s dereliction of duty.
            it’s not about scotus choosing the president. it’s about holding another branch accountable for failure to do their duties.

            Like

    3. There is No Magic Bullet
      As we stated in the beginning, our purpose for writing this column isn’t to dampen your spirits, rob you of hope, or “black pill” you. And it’s certainly not to enrich ourselves or to add to a following. As Beanz commented in her Telegram voice memo thread:

      “I know there’s a lot of people going bonkers crazy over this thing. And they get very mad at you when you point out these deficiencies, but they exist… Don’t kill the messenger just because I’m pointing this stuff out. I’m blown away about how angry people get. It’s going to be disappointing. And I don’t know whether people are willfully misinforming you, or misinforming you because they’re just as hopeful as everyone else and don’t understand the background.”
      ~ Tracy Beanz on Telegram

      If that were our goal, trust us, we would run with this story as many other—normally reliable—news sources have. The volume of emails, texts, messages, and posts asking us to cover this case in detail has been unreal. And the reaction to everything that isn’t utter praise for the lawsuit has been nothing less than vicious. But UncoverDC’s motto is “Actual Journalism,” and the truth is the truth.

      This story is “clickbait” gold and has caught fire on social media and among the America First base like few other stories we’ve seen, but it seems to be falling into a pattern we’ve kept seeing over the last few years. There’s always a “plan” or a “miracle case” for which we all keep waiting. Some magic bullet or savior that will come in and save us all without us having to do much ourselves.

      There is no magic bullet. Nobody is coming to save us. We got into the position as a country we’re in today, frankly, out of complacency—and it happened over a long period of time. We were given warnings from history, and we ignored them or assumed “somebody else is keeping an eye on that.”

      We’ve talked a lot about the Constitution in this column. The Founders warned us what would happen if we allowed the government to get too powerful and our liberties to erode. If the separation of powers began to fade, or control to be concentrated in the hands of just a few—tyranny.

      There’s only one road back, and that’s for each America First patriot to work as hard and relentlessly to build back the Republic as those who have worked to try to tear it down. They didn’t do it overnight. It’s going to take time—a long time—with setbacks along the way. And once we’re back—and make no mistake, we will get back—we will have to struggle relentlessly to ensure it never happens again. Because the forces who hate this country and want to see her destroyed aren’t going anywhere.

      And always remember, we are still that Shining City Upon A Hill. The greatest nation on Earth and the hope of all mankind.

      It’s time to go fight for her… peacefully and patriotically.”

      Like

  26. sliding down…we’re back.
    gees louise! hubby backed the jeep out of the garage and turned the wheel to go down the driveway and we slid across the top of the driveway and came to rest on the snow bank there. not rattled at all, hubby shifted into neutral and turned the wheel to go down and we slid a little more till the wheel found purchase on a bare spot. once we cleared the top, the rest of the driveway was fine. the dirt road however was solid ice…sigh
    they were JUST cindering as we were coming to the end of the road…rest of the trip was clear.
    coming home, the top had melted more and was freezing over again.
    we checked the temperature difference from the bottom of the driveway and the top…14* difference!!!

    Liked by 1 person

  27. I don’t know the movie reference “Nope” …but this cloud is bizarre!

    But fear not, the formation was not an alien spacecraft with the intent to abduct — it’s a common type of cloud that apparently appears often over the zoo’s nature preserve. The phenomenon is a lenticular cloud, which has been described as looking like “stacked pancakes.”

    “That day was exceptional as we had one that was stacked three levels high — a rarity!” Danoff-Burg exclaimed. “They are really quite spectacular.”

    https://nypost.com/2022/12/31/huge-ufo-shaped-cloud-spotted-in-california-draws-nope-movie-comparisons/

    Liked by 1 person

  31. Meadows won’t face charges for voter fraud
    FTA
    Mark Meadows, once White House chief of staff to former President Trump, will not face voter fraud charges related to his 2020 registration and absentee vote in North Carolina, according to the state’s attorney general.

    “The State Bureau of Investigation conducted an extensive investigation into the fraud allegations against Mr. and Mrs. Meadows concerning their registration and voting in the 2020 elections,” Attorney General Josh Stein said in a Friday news release. “After a thorough review, my office has concluded that there is not sufficient evidence to bring charges against either of them in this matter.”

    “Our conclusion was … they had arguments that would help them if a case was brought such that we didn’t believe we could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they had engaged in intentional voter fraud,” Stein, a Democrat, told The Associated Press on the same day.

    The conclusions were reportedly based largely on the findings of a voter fraud investigation completed by the State Bureau of Investigation.

    https://wfin.com/fox-political-news/north-carolina-ag-wont-bring-charges-against-mark-meadows-over-voter-registration/

    Like

  32. “Closing Time — Looking backward and forward before the clock strikes midnight.”
    Pedro L. Gonzalez
    12 min ago

    EXCERPT: “I am sitting in my room, getting over the flu, listening to the raindrops patter against the window. The smell of sulfur wafts in every time fireworks shriek into the night sky, the fiery coruscations illuminating this German village as people celebrate the end of the year and the beginning of a new one.

    There is a German proverb that goes, Alles zu seiner Zeit. The English equivalent would be, “Everything in its season.” There is much to be thankful for this year, or rather this season. My daughter had her first birthday, and my son is starting to really develop his own little personality. I love them so much. Looking at them puts flesh on those lapidary words by Cormac McCarthy: “Each the others world entire.”

    I am proud to have been one of the first people to publicly oppose the mainstream U.S. narrative around the Russo-Ukrainian War. It started with a Tucker Carlson hit, and then Contra published a series of essays by me and others taking a stand against the liberal interventionist consensus.

    Here is a brief roundup:
    —————–
    I also got to work on a serious report for the American Principles Project, a big milestone for me. The reception blew me away. I wanted to show that I can do intensive research and that transgenderism is an existential threat, not something to be dismissed, downplayed, or normalized.

    https://contra.substack.com/p/the-patient-zero-of-transgender-kids
    —————–
    I traveled a lot more and got to see how my work is changing the way people look at certain issues, which is fulfilling when it feels like you’re screaming into the void. And I made a few new good friends along the way, a hard thing to find nowadays.”

    https://contra.substack.com/p/closing-time

    Liked by 1 person


  34. (Bornean Orangutan, Gold Prize, Animals in their habitat category. Mature male orangutans have large, flappy cheek-pads and a throat sac for making loud calls. Once they reach maturity, they spend most of their time alone. PHOTO: THOMAS VIJAYAN, CANADA – WNPA)


    (Facing reality, Leopard Seal & Penguin, Gold winner, Behavior Mammals category and overall winner.PHOTO: AMOS NACHOUM, U.S.A – WNPA)

    “For hours, I waited for the low tide to arrive along a shallow lagoon on a remote island off the Antarctic Peninsula,” said Nachoum. “Like clockwork, the leopard seal arrived just before low tide. When a young Gentoo penguin came close, the seal turned its head at lightning speed, catching it by its feet and taking it to deep water. “To my surprise, it let go of the penguin twice. Each time, the seal chased after the penguin as if it was enjoying the game. The terrified penguin tried to escape as the game continued. But soon, the end came.”


    (Family Moment, Gold prize, Animal Portraits category.PHOTO: TOM VIERUS, FIJI – WNPA)

    “Long-tailed macaques enjoy the warmth of each other during a hot day in Bali, Indonesia. These animals show very similar behavior to humans, including enjoying each other’s company. These macaques are accustomed to humans and are commonly found around temples where they tend to feed on food brought by the locals.”


    (Determination, Gold prize, Black and White category PHOTO: VINCE BURTON, U.K – WNPA)

    The weather conditions were extreme for the rare ‘blue morph’ Arctic fox. But that didn’t seem to stop it from hiking through a snowstorm.


    “The sun rose on the Heath Pond lake in Hampshire, Great Britain, its powerful light burning through the morning mist as a Cormorant swam to a nearby boat and climbed aboard, then another and then another and so on. It was a busy morning on the lake.”


    (Ice cave, Gold prize, People and Nature category. PHOTO: SABRINA INDERBITZI, SWITZERLAND – WNPA)

    “The view from an ice cave in the totally frozen Lake Baikal in Russia can hold vehicular surprises. “First I didn’t like the car and the people in the middle of my picture, but on a second view I found it just perfect.”

    Liked by 2 people

Comments are closed.