Unfortunately there's a dilemma between Organization and Secrecy: the more organization you need, the less secrecy you have. Coordinating a 1000+ truck convoy from one coast to the other requires a lot of information to be shared. Especially when you're calling for general action, and you don't have a chain of command to coordinate through, so you don't know who specifically needs to be told the information.
Governments and Militaries can keep both only through the threat of force. If you're a soldier and you blab secret plans, you get shot. Truckers don't have that option. So it's best to assume that secrecy is off the table and go all in on organization.
As for the timing, don't forget that an action of this magnitude requires a lot of logistical support; it's not just jumping in a vehicle and driving to DC.
In the information age, do we even need a national capital anymore? Departments should be moved out of DC and scattered to the places where they're relevant. Likewise, Representatives could be living in the districts they represent.
Remember that this is the church of England, which was founded, not on any theological or moral argument, but because the king wanted a divorce. Unlike most other denominations, there was no moral foundation, but only a secular and even sinful one.
I can believe this. Another factor to consider is that she's used to spreading her legs to get what she wants, but now she's trying to play in the same league as people who will murder you for being an inconvenience. She can't possibly be sleeping well.
Heels Up vs Killary? No one's in doubt about how that ends.
The main counter to this interpretation is that Adam Schiff has argued to shut down Guantanamo Bay. For both of these to be true, either:
- Adam Schiff is out of the loop and doesn't know the purpose of the gitmo expansion
or
- Schiff is trying a double bluff and is arguing for a policy he does not intend to implement
You're certainly right on the general principle, and whistle-blowers have confirmed that hospitals are avoiding reporting serious effects. But reported events are going to skew toward the more serious anyway. A strange rash is less likely to get reported than heart failure.
Like I said, I don't doubt that the technology and capability exist. But you select the tool based on the mission profile, not the coolness factor. So if a boring, practical satellite does the job better, you use a boring practical satellite. Manned spacecraft only become necessary if the enemy sends up assets to interfere with the mission, in which case you would then need a human presence to react accordingly.
The need for boots on the ground, boots in the air, or boots in space all fall under the same principle: the need to maintain control over the domain. Once you've secured that domain and there are no threats to that control, you can remove those boots. That's why, for example, once you achieve air superiority, you can let your pilots rest and send in the drones.
That's why, even with the capability, we don't yet have the need for a manned military presence. Unless, of course, you have reason to believe the Chinese are getting frisky and sending up forces to interfere with our satellites. That would be a different strategic situation, one that would call for a direct human presence.
In development or hangared, I'm sure we have many. But I see nothing in the current strategic situation that requires a manned presence, except for testing. Currently the mission is intelligence and information warfare, with a secondary possibility of anti-ballistic defense. Both of these can be done, and are better done, remotely. Perhaps later, if interdiction becomes a necessity, we will be using human pilots, but I see no need for that at the moment.
One of the benefits of studying history is that when the same events begin to happen, you can predict the ultimate outcome.
Germany's hyperinflation crisis was the result of the Weimar republic massively overprinting the papier-mark to pay off the government's debts. The same is happening here, at first slowly over the past few decades, but now rapidly accelerating. Consider just the $3 Trillion+ bill with no additional revenue. The result will likewise be the same: out of control hyperinflation and the destruction of the dollar.
For now, however, the American Dollar is the world's reserve currency, so there is a collective game of make-believe supporting it and making it artificially stable. Even with that support, however, notice the out of control inflation we're already experiencing. And the other Great Power nations are quickly making plans to replace the dollar as their reserve currency.
How long we can continue this game of make-believe is hard to say. The dollar may crash next month, or we might continue kicking the can for another decade. The only certainty is that it will happen. There's no question of if, but only when.
Because we still need the boomer vote. These are people who don't do any independent research on candidates, they just mindlessly vote R or D depending on how they were taught.