Our Long National Nightmare

…is over:

Impeachment must be viewed in the context of the Democrats’ effort to destroy Donald Trump that began prior to his inauguration. For more than three years, their get-Trump campaign has dominated the news. Mostly, it was the Russia hoax. The Democrats originally intended to use that as the basis for impeachment. When the Mueller report negated that plan, they switched–literally overnight–to the much weaker Ukraine theory. No matter. It was impeachment or bust, if only to continue filling up the nightly news with purported Trump “scandals.”

Now the smoke will begin to clear, and I don’t think the Democrats will like the landscape that comes into focus. Their Iowa caucuses were a laughingstock. They made fools of themselves (Nancy Pelosi, especially) during Trump’s State of the Union speech. And, most seriously, they don’t have a presidential candidate. Joe Biden is in freefall, and the party’s elders, such as they are, concede that Bernie Sanders would be a disaster. Will they turn to “Mayor Pete” Buttigieg? Will Michael Bloomberg be their savior? Or will Hillary Clinton or John Kerry come out of retirement? I think they are grasping at straws.

For a long time now, the Democrats have used their hysterical attacks on President Trump to deflect attention from the real scandal–the misuse of the Obama administration’s Department of Justice, FBI and CIA to spy on, and plot against, the Trump presidential campaign and, subsequently, his administration. This is the biggest political scandal in American history, and the Democrats, with the Russia hoax, Ukraine and impeachment now a spent force, are naked, so to speak. One can only imagine with what anxiety they are awaiting the findings of John Durham’s investigation and any criminal indictments that may accompany them.

I have no sympathy.

13 thoughts on “Our Long National Nightmare”

  1. Rand on a different subject I submit this entry for you r “faster, please”

    Rejuvant shows positive early results in humans

    Anecdotal results for dietary supplement show significant improvements in biological age and major reductions in key blood biomarkers.

    In our recent interview with leading Longevity scientist, Dr Brian Kennedy, he mentioned his work with Ponce De Leon Health (PDL), where he holds the title of Chief Scientific Officer. The Florida-based firm is focused on the core principle of using a polytherapy approach to increase healthspan by leveraging synergies between existing compounds that impact on aging.

    We caught up with PDL founder and CEO, Thomas Weldon, a well-known entrepreneur and venture capitalist, who has founded more than a dozen companies in the medical sector.

    PDL Health primarily targets three key factors of aging: chronic inflammation, including cardiovascular and neurological disease; the mTOR pathway, which regulates the aging pathway, and; damage to DNA, such as cellular senescence and cancer.

    PDL Health favours using generally recognised as safe (GRAS), non-pharmaceutical compounds over drug compounds to simplify regulatory approval and ensure patient safety.

    The company’s inaugural product, Rejuvant, is a dietary supplement coupled with a non-invasive DNA methylation test to give consumers an indicator of the product’s effect on their biological age.

    “We believe that aging is a software problem, not a hardware problem,” says Weldon. “The genome is the hardware. The epigenome is the software. Aging is caused by changes to the epigenome, due to damage and the passage of time. Rejuvant appears to rebalance your epigenetic DNA methylation pattern to that of a younger you, resetting gene expression, thus reversing epigenetic aging.”

    Animal data

    PDL Health’s relationship with Professor Kennedy came through the company’s scientific partnership with his lab at the renowned Buck Institute for Research on Aging, which has developed a deep institutional knowledge on physiologic processes associated with aging. The Buck’s expertise in animal models led to a research agreement that saw the Buck conduct experiments on mice that showed Rejuvant had a profound and statistically significant effect on both lifespan and healthspan.
    “This is undoubtedly the first example of repeatable results that may demonstrate that the human aging process can possibly be reversed simply by taking a pill.”

    Early human data

    Weldon and some of his family members have now been using Rejuvant for at least a year, and all have shown clear improvements in biological vs chronological age when measured using DNA methylation (DNAm) data. Results range from a difference of 13 years younger to an incredible 34 years in the oldest family member. The biological age measurement is performed by TruMe Labs, an independent DNAm testing lab.

    “DNAm is the scientific gold standard for determining biologic age as opposed to chronologic age,” says Weldon.

    Sharing his own blood biomarker data over seven months of using Rejuvant, Weldon shows his total cholesterol has reduced by more than 50%, while LDL (bad) cholesterol has dropped by an incredible 70%.

    “This is undoubtedly the first example of repeatable results that may demonstrate that the human aging process can possibly be reversed simply by taking a pill,” he says.

    The results in mice and humans have led PDL Health to begin a placebo-controlled, randomised human clinical trial, at the Indiana University Medical Center in Indianapolis. The study is intended to support specific marketing claims for the Rejuvant products and will include 80 volunteers, with measurements at inception, three months, six months and nine months.

    “Yes, there is academic oversight, it is an independent trial,” says Weldon. “The primary endpoints are safety and a reduction in CRP. Secondary endpoints are a reduction in biologic age, as measured by DNAm testing and changes in typical blood phenotypes.”

    The company has raised about $10 million to date, and Weldon is now in the process of actively raising around $10M more for a Series B round of funding.

    “This will get us through the clinical trial, and well into next year,” he says.


  2. No it isn’t. Expect this year to be our summer of discontent. With both houses of Congress investigating each other and the executive. And then there is the Durham investigation. Schiff’s committee is only getting started. Maybe that’s a good thing. When they’re busy investigating each other they aren’t legislating against us.

  3. It’s like the Electoral College all over again. Anti-democratic archaic constitutional oddities that prevent majorities from accomplishing the progress necessary to a modern system of governance.

    If you simply count the votes — combined House AND Senate — you see that 270 members of Congress voted to impeach (and remove) Trump while only 251 voted to allow him to keep his office. A clear voting majority of 52% (of all elected officials in the legislative branch) wanted the executive gone.

    It’s a hold over from the 18th century that has prevented this rational outcome.

    1. “It’s a hold over from the 18th century that has prevented this rational outcome.”

      We are not now nor were we ever intended to be a democracy; we are a democratic republic. The framers didn’t aim for democracy and miss; they never intended for us to be such. Mindful of their history they knew that democracies are rare and usually don’t last long; the checks and balances are intended to blunt the idea of direct democracy. They right or wrong feared the “rabble” gaining too much direct authority. The Senate has always been called the placed where good (or bad) bills go to die. The bar for Impeachment was deliberately set high; they didn’t want a parliamentary system like GB where the PM serves at the pleasure of parliament.

    2. There are some things in the Constitution that require a super majority vote. Ratifying a treaty requires more than 50 votes in the Senate. A constitutional amendment requires super majority votes in both houses of Congress and ratification by 3/4ths of the states. Removing a president requires a 2/3rds majority in the Senate. Each of those were the result of long, deliberate thought and debate, as was the Electoral College. Before someone wants to tear down a fence, they should know why it was built in the first place.

      We are not a democracy – never have been (by design) and I pray we never will be. Democracy is the mob.

    3. Looks like someone failed western civ 100.

      It is always astounding to see people clamor for tyranny and dictatorship while shouting about democracy.

    4. Assuming you are being serious:
      We are and should continue to be a representative republic made up of mostly independent states. The Electoral College keeps the minority of high population states from crushing the will of the majority of low population states.

  4. I have learned something new today.

    I’ve learned the text editor for comments on this site removes anything that looks like an HTML tag. So if one prefaces and ends a comment with a pseudo-tag within “less than” and “greater than” characters,

    [sarcasm] comic argument [/sarcasm]

    the editor renders it as

    “serious argument”

    What a useful piece of information …

    1. Oops. Yes that happens. You should also be aware however there is a preview window you can look at below your text entry widow that shows what your post will look like before you post. It’s not perfect but better than nothing.

      1. Like when you misspell window as widow.
        Also note the preview window won’t show up on an iPhone if there is only one line of text in the post. I’m not on my PC right now so I can’t say what that does.

  5. Obama, Hillary, the Democrats, and the CIA/DOJ/NSA could not have done this without a knowing and willing media helping them. I suspect we will continue to see Twitter, FB, and Google censoring people who spread the truth about what took place, just like they censor people who play clips of Democrats bragging about sending people to gulags if they win.

  6. Celebrity mayor of a Midwestern college town demotes/fires his chief of police over surreptitious taping of police officers carrying out their duties. Said mayor claims a US attorney pressured him into this action by saying the alternative was prosecuting said chief of police for violation of Federal anti-wiretapping laws, and the mayor was offered the opportunity to fire the chief without enduring such a scandal early in the mayor’s term.

    Former mayor is white and former police chief is black. Former mayor has tapes but won’t release them because of aforementioned concerns against recording phone calls without consent of parties to the call. Political activists want mayor to release tapes because they contain racial remarks by white officers; same activists claim that consent to recording is implied in phone conversations with the police and presumably between the police. Activists assert firing of police chief conducted with the phone taping as a pretext and to protect racist white officers.

    Do I have this right? Did I leave anything out? The New Hampshire Primary where this matters is tomorrow.

Comments are closed.