July 02, 2026
CIA Investigated Employees for Espionage if they didn't Take the Covid Vaccine
Timothy Birdnow
The CIA investigated their employees FOR ESPIONAGE if they refused to take the Covid 19 clot shot!
Espionage.
From the Epoch Times:
In 2021, then-President Joe Biden imposed COVID-19 vaccine mandates for federal employees and contractors. Shortly after, the CIA’s chief operating officer directed the CIA’s Counter Espionage Department to investigate all unvaccinated contractors and workers within the agency, plaintiffs said in the suit, which was filed on June 30 in federal court in Virginia."Any employee or contractor who refused the vaccine was treated by the Agency as a threat to the United States government and ordered to be investigated as the same,” the suit reads.
A cross-agency group established by former Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard learned in 2025 from a whistleblower of the order and asked for confirmation from the CIA. The CIA responded by confirming the investigation of thousands of employees and contractors, according to the legal complaint. The CIA declined to cite an authority for the investigation order.
The term hell-bent, or damned and determined come to mind. Why were they so absolutely determined to force everyone to get that shot?
Why were they willing to violate basic civil rights to enforce an edict (not a law) compelling people to take an experimental vaccine that had not been given adequate time in trials before being forced on people?
There is more to the whole Covid story than is yet visible. I suspect something very ugly is hidden in all this (and I'm not talking about Kamala Harris.)
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:38 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.
Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof
Timothy Birdnow
I hope this is readable.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:07 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.
June 30, 2026
SCOTUS Ducks Vax Mandate Case
Timothy Birdnow
‘I hope, too, that one day soon this Court will choose to settle the question so that other Americans seeking to vindicate their civil rights do not suffer the same fate as those now before us.’
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch on the refusal of the Supreme Court to rule on vaccine mandates.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
12:39 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 60 words, total size 1 kb.
SCOTUS Refuses to Hear E. Jean Carroll Case
Timothy Birdnow
Another SCOTUS dropped ball. This time the Supreme Court refused to hear the E. Jean Carroll case which Mr. Trump had tried to appeal. YOu may remember Carroll was the woman who, decades after the fact, accused Trump of raping her and won five million bucks from him (but of course no criminal conviction).
Trump doesn't care about five million clams. He DOES care about his good name, which this woman sullied. He wants to be exhonerated. The judge in this case "confirmed" Trump "sexually assaulted" her even though there was no evidence but the word of the accuser.
SCOTUS refused to hear this case, thus leaving the accusation hanging over Mr. Trump like a dark cloud.
The U.S. Supreme Court is a joke. Sadly the joke is on America.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
12:36 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 140 words, total size 1 kb.
Pray for the People of the Congo
Timothy Birdnow
Let us pray for the People of the Democratic Republic of the Congo as they suffer from a nasty Ebola outbreak.
Our Father, who art in Heaven, hallowed be Thy name
Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven.
Give us this ay our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses
as we forgive those who trespass against us
and lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
12:29 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 86 words, total size 1 kb.
Mr. Bumble was Right; the Law is an Ass
Timothy Birdnow
Clarence Thomas ain't happy about this ridiculous court ruling about birthright citizenship.
According to the article:
In his dissent, Justice Thomas argues that Dred Scott-era critics rejected the idea that citizenship hinged solely on birthplace, emphasizing instead domicile, permanent residence, as the key standard. Under that framework, he suggests, citizenship would not extend to children of illegal aliens or temporary visa holders who give birth in the United States.
He also pointed to the 14th Amendment’s original understanding, asserting it applied only to those "not subject to any foreign power,” and lamented the fact that today’s ruling expands birthright citizenship well beyond what the 14th Amendment’s framers intended.
"I am not sure that today’s opinion will stand the test of time. The Citizenship Clause 'added greatly to the dignity and glory of American citizenship. Today’s opinion devalues that citizenship."
Damned right it does. It means my having been born here and lived here, paid taxes, contributed to the great tapestry that is America, is worth no more than some kid spit out by a scofflaw who wants to milk America for what she can get out of it. I'm sorry but my citizenship should be valued more highly. Many institutions require you start as an apprentice. A lot of the same Justices who signed the majority opinion served as court clerks when they first started their careers. This decision is like letting a young lawyer skip this step and go to a job as a Justice on the Court immediately.
It's like eliminating the pledging phase of joining a fraternity.
I can't join MENSA without proving my I.Q. is high enough (Richard Feynman was offered a spot in MENSA but turned it down because his I.Q. only tested at 126 - the tests were incapable of giving a proper answer because of his genius - and so he did not meet the standards of that institution.) By the logic of the majority MENSA should have to let anyone in if they can prove they have a measurable I.Q..
Almost any organization of peoples has membership requirements and usually an initiation phase. But America, apparently does not. Heck; we are the only country on Earth that allows this.
While this opinion relied on lower court precedent (precedent usually motivated by limited, specific details in cases or by politics) it was still stupid and did not comport with the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment. Coney Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Roberts are shameful dimwits. Of course the Democrat appointees are shameful dimwits too but I don't think hat needs to be spelled out. This court had an historic opportunity to correct a terrible legal precedent and failed miserably. It's going to go down in history with Dredd Scott as one of the worst decisions ever made by a Supreme Court.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
12:18 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 481 words, total size 4 kb.
The Lie of "Declining Neighborhoods"
Timothy Birdnow
Here is a decent article about white flight, how it was mischaracterized by the media and portrayed as white racism when in fact it was a logical response to a deteriorating situation.
I agree; the neighborhood I grew up in is now basically the ghetto and the place where I bought my first house is now a war zone, wholly uninhabitable. This didn't happen because white folks moved out; the neighborhood went to pot THEN the white people left.
And in fact many of the kids I went to grade school with had grown up deeper in the city and had moved out to my near-suburb largely to escape crime. For instance, my best friend's family moved only after one of his sisters got beaten up by some black girls.
And nothing has changed as of yet. I worked in real estate and a lot of black folks would call me and ask me to help them find a place "with white people". They would tell me they feared living in black neighborhoods.
Of course this would mean ruining a white neighborhood. These were decent black people but they were also the primary prey of the bad ones, and where they moved the bad ones followed. Prides of lions follow gazelles, and packs of wolves follow deer or caribou Criminals follow black people.
Growing up we lived a few blocks away from a shopping mall. My grandparents, who lived across the street (having fled from their own declining neighborhood in the city) were followed home from the mall twice and robbed right in front of their home - after the public busses started using that mall as a hub. It was right about that time that good black people moved into the neighborhood. They were good neighbors and until my father died many of them watched out for him. But of course their children had friends and a lot of times bad friends. And even if they didn't they still made the criminals comfortable in what had been hostile territory before; thuggish looking black men riding around with loud music blaring would have been noticed when the neighborhood was predominantly white.
It wasn't that the white people moved then the neighborhood declined, it was because the neighborhood was declining the white people moved. Most everyone I knew loved my neighborhood and would be there still if it was safe. For years the local bars there had a lot of patrons from the exurbs drive in - they wanted to hang with their old friends at the old haunts even though they had abandoned the neighborhood because it was unsafe. Of course that lack of safety eventually killed even the bars.
At any rate the lies about white flight go way back. I remember an episode of the old T.V. show The Equalizer (the Edward Woodward one, not the modern version with Queen Latifa) where a character complained "so much has happened. The plant closed, throwing a lot of us out of work, then the blacks started moving in". That's not how it usually went; it was the blacks moving in that often led to the plant closures and definitely led to the white folks moving out. And it had nothing to do with racism and everything to do with security. The good black people in those neighborhoods moved out as soon as they could too.
Yes, there are bad white people but the bad white people were not so well protected by the law as were the bad blacks. Cops wouldn't tolerate from the bad whites what they tolerated from bad blacks out of fear of being accused of racism and disciplined. Ferguson Missouri is a prime example of how that happens. Ferguson was once a lilly-white community (I grew up not far from there) and actually well-to-do in many places. Beautiful Victorian homes! It had been a country town when St. Louis County was just a rural area. But the City of St. Louis, which owns Lambert International Airport, decided to expand and add runways - right across the historic black community of Kinloch. (Kinloch had always been black.) The people there moved into Ferguson, which was next door. Soon the problems that beset declining neighborhoods showed up in Ferguson, with gang activity and violence becoming common. So Mike Brown robbed a convenience store by beating up the clerk and stealing cigars he intended to use to make "blunts" and he confidently strolled down the middle of the street, fearing nothing because he knew the law would protect him from law enforcement. Officer Daron Wilson saw him and asked him to move to the sidewalk, which he did but then he moved right back to the middle of the street. Wilson came back and Brown assaulted him in is car. Wilson got out and Brown's friend was looping around to get him from behind and Wilson had no choice but shoot Brown. And then the shit hit the fan.
That would never have happened had the neighborhood not been declining thanks to a major influx of black folks - good and bad.
So what do you do? We can't implement a kind of apartheid. The good black folks deserve to live in safe, secure neighborhoods. What we need is for the government to get out of the way and stop the enforcement of laws. Let cops enforce the laws on blacks as they do on whites. And the Federal government has long had programs to integrate neighborhoods. I know; when I was in real estate I dealt with a lot of such, and heard stories. A lot of black folks moved way out into rural areas because the government paid for them to do so, to bust the rural areas open for integration. That kind of thing has to end. Government needs to get out of the business of subsidizing block busting.
For decades we have encouraged criminality and bad behavior in the black community, especially among the young. And we have systematically DISCOURAGED stable families with welfare programs and other things that destroyed the black family. That too must end.
But to do anything of any value we must first admit what the problem is, and we seem unwilling to do so. It is not poverty that causes crime but rather often crime that causes poverty. How do you find a job when all the businesses are gone? And who wants to hire you if you come from an area with a lot of criminals?
Until we honestly admit the truth of this we won't make any headway. Liberal social theories are crackpot and have caused a disaster in America, and indeed throughout the Western World. It's pure racism, only a different sort, one that puts minorities on a pedestal. We've turned racism upside down, but it's still racism. We now discriminate FOR minorities (and aliens) instead of against them, but discriminate we do.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:52 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1163 words, total size 7 kb.
America Loses Bigly in SCOTUS Birthright Citizenship Decision
Timothy Birdnow
In my best Lurch voice (from the Adams Family) Ugggghhhh....
I figured this would happen. While birthright citizenship is entirely extra-constitutional and not what the 14th amendment ever intended it was how courts have interpreted the law and I knew, especially after oral arguments, the Court would take the path of least resistance here.
Naturally it was John Roberts who wrote the majority decision.
Sam Alito, writing the dissent, called this ruling a disaster and stated:
"Careful analysis of the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the process that led to its adoption shows that it does not degrade the concept of United States citizenship in this way. Instead the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country.”
I recently posted a piece by Selwyn Duke which explains Robett's approach to jurisprudence; he's small c conservative, unwilling to go against most legal precedents (except where things like gay marriage and socialized medicine are concerned) and so he went with the conventional wisdom here. But the text speaks otherwise with it's mention of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Illegal aliens were not subject to the jurisdiction thereof and so have no claim on citizenship for children spit out of women at the goal-line.)
This ruling could be fixed by Congress in a number of ways but Congress lacks the appetite to do so. What is really needed is a constitutional amendment to fix it but there isn't a snowman's chance in the nether regions that will happen.
So now we are going to have to make our borders tighter than Jack Benny and that can only happen when we have a President and administration serious about border security. Put a Democrat in office and we will have millions of new Americans, Americans who know nothing about America and won't learn about her either.
We will also have to pass laws restricting pregnant women from visiting the U.S. lest they give birth here.
Roberts, that POS, knows all this and knows furthermore the intent of the 14th had nothing to do with illegal immigrants. This proves he is not an originalist; he is interpreting the Constitution based not on the intent of the people who wrote the Amendment but on how later jurists interpreted it.
The vote was 6 to 3 with Amy Conehead Barrett and Brett Kavanagh joining John Roberts and ever single Democrat appointed Justice to continue the ridiculous and stupid policy of birthright citizenship. A pox upon them and their house!
President Trump ought to buy property next door or near every one of these Justice's homes and open shelters for illegal aliens. Make them live with the consequences of their votes.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:49 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 471 words, total size 4 kb.
SCOTUS "Just Keep on Counting!"
Timothy Birdnow
The U.S. Supreme Court Jesters, in a 5-4 split, said states can continue counting ballots long after election day so Democrats may count and count until they win.
What I find interesting about this is that it flies in the face of what the Supreme Court said in the election of 2000, namely that you can't just count and count until you get the results you want. They pulled the plug on Al Gore then. Why are they supporting this now?
Well, because unfortunately we have Amy Coney Barrett, who authored the majority opinion.
American Thinker looks at this in a piece this morning.
John Rober, er, Roberts joined Barrett and the liberals on the Court naturally.
The opinion decided five business days are good. But why five days AFTER the election? Why not say all mail in ballots must be there by election day? If we are going to pick arbitrary deadlines why have any at all?
The article states:
In his dissent, Justice Samuel Alito stated that Justice Amy Comey Barrett's opinion was clearly inconsistent with the plain text of the laws and of historical practice and precedents, adding that it "risks further undermining Americans' confidence in election integrity."
Yawp. Deadlines are DEADLINES, cutoffs. If the text of the Constitution says election DAY it does not mean election week. We have a filing day for taxes and if I should mail mine in several days late I get a penalty. Should I not then be able to use this same argument and send in my taxes late and insist the IRS accept it without penalty? I dare Amy Coney Barrett to try THAT experiment.
Ad deadline exists for a reason. It is a cutoff to prevent the sort of thing that the Democrats are trying to do in places like California, manufacture votes to overturn election results they don't like.
The article continues:
But SCOTUS rulings are no longer about interpreting the Constitution, legal precedent — or right or wrong — but about advancing a political agenda.
This ruling is doubly damaging, as it calls into question the legitimacy of the Supreme Court itself, a disaster for the republic, but also further degrades any possible confidence in election integrity and results, the death knell for a "democracy.” Given the existing political climate and pervasive doubt about the validity of our elections, this ruling is an existential threat to the United States as it approaches its 250th birthday celebration.
He's right; it strikes at the very heart of our electoral system and by extension to the Republic itself. When there are no rules to counting votes the votes themselves no longer matter, and when the votes don't matter we no longer have a constitutional republic. We have an arbitrary system of government and the votes are a a charade.
I'm not sure who told Trump to nominate Conehead Barrett but whoever it was really effed up. She's terrible. So is Roberts and I said so at the time but nobody listened.
Barrett was solidly pro-life and that went in her favor. But that' s about the only good thing about her.
I don't know why it's so hard to pick good people who won't turn left once on the Court. We've seen it time and time again with people including Roberts and Stephen Bryer and Sandra Day O'Conner and a hst of others.
At any rate I'm not sure what is so confusing about the words in the Constitution. Barrett doesn't seem to know what the meaning of is is (to quote Bill Clinton).
So which is it; is there a cutoff to vote counting as was ruled by SCOTUS in 2000, or is there not? Seems to me this case was already settled before Barrett stuck her nose in it.
I submit this for your consideration:
While the counties began to comply with this request, they became concerned that they could not meet the state deadline for certifying election returns to the Florida Secretary of State within seven days of the election. The Florida court upheld the deadline but allowed the counties to amend their returns and found that the Secretary of State could use the amended returns. Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade Counties missed the seven-day deadline. Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris required counties seeking to make a late filing to submit a written explanation for why it was necessary. She found that none of the explanations met the criteria that she had imposed on herself for determining whether late filings would be admitted. Harris thus certified Bush the winner of the election in Florida after receiving overseas absentee ballots.
A few weeks later, Gore's campaign obtained an order from the Florida Supreme Court for a statewide manual recount. On the next day, December 9, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered a stay of the recount. Writing for the five-Justice majority, Antonin Scalia argued that the votes that were ordered to be counted were not legally cast, and thus a recount could cause irreparable harm to Bush and the legitimacy of the democratic process. The dissenters felt that not ordering a recount would undermine the legitimacy of the democratic process and that the Court should be careful about taking actions that could determine the result of an election, which lay outside the judicial power.
Get that? The late votes were not legally cast and thus another manual recount was not justifiable.
Well, counting votes coming in late meet this same criteria now - many are not legally cast.
The very same logic that was applied in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 is applicable here. What is different? Nothing except there are different people on the Court now and Roberts and Barrett couldn't be bothered to read Bush v. Gore.
I wonder if these two aren't worried they have been making too many pro-Trump rulings in recent days and wanted a "makeup call" as is often seen in sports. That's to maintain the illusion of even-handedness in sports, and it may well be an attempt by these two to try to make themselves appear "unbiased" to the media. That's a game you can't win.
This was a terrible ruling and it needs to be reviewed down the road. Congress, of course, could fix this by passing a law requiring certification of the vote in, say, three days of the election or doing some other such thing but then the lower courts would undoubtedly rule against Congress and it would be back to SCOTUS and the same idiots who made this terrible ruling.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:27 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1102 words, total size 8 kb.
The Socialist Party and Inevitable Hangover
Timothy Birdnow
This is interesting (though not surprising); most of the support for these socialists who won recent Democrat primaries come from the young and college educated in dense urban areas.
Now this borders on the cliche' and it's probably quite uninteresting to many readers, so why am I bothering with it? Because it once again illustrates the point that socialism is hopelessly unappealing to the actual workers, the very people it purportedly has the greatest appeal to while it is beloved by the rich and privileged - the very people who supposedly are targeted by the ideology.
Socialism is a toy of the rich.
FTA:
In recent months, several self-described democratic socialists and candidates backed by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) won their primary races against centrist-leaning Democrats in cities on both coasts. Frequent patterns among precinct data showed that young voters in densely-populated and higher-income areas tended to support the more left-wing candidates, while lower-income and non-college educated voters typically supported their opponents.
All three candidates endorsed by Democratic New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, a DSA member, won their races in New York’s Seventh, Tenth and 13th Congressional Districts on June 23. Patterns showed the DSA candidates won among young, college-educated and higher-income demographics, while lower-income and non-college educated voters were more likely to vote for the non-DSA candidate.
In other words it's a rich man's world.
I rather suspect most working people (at least those not in labor unions which are all leftist and tell their members to vote socialist) understand the basics of economics enough to know that these people are making pie-in-the-sky promises and that their tempting apples are full of poison. Socialism sounds great because it promises free stuff and even delivers free stuff at first. But in the end it winds down and pours out like milk from a carton because it produces nothing but rather limits and takes from the producer. The average American seems to know that these days, which is why so many in the working class are now MAGA.
MAGA is where blue collar conservatives go. The problem the Conservative movement always had, and especially the Republican Party, was it was full of rich people who saw conservatism as being a tool to keep their taxes down and little else. It was inherently upper-crust, aristocratic. William F. Buckley did a lot of good for the country but he epitomized this branch of Conservatism, the "House of Lords Conservative" types. They held sway in the GOP and in the Conservative movement for decades, and that is why the GOP was the minority party for so long. It had no appeal to the common man, who wished for conservative Democrats to represent their interests but who could not find such. The Democrats walked away from their more conservative base. Social inertia made it hard for such folks to pull the lever for a Republican, the guys who disdained them for so long.
Even now that inertia has many labor types pulling that lever for the D. But the times they are a changin' and Donald Trump found the Rosetta Stone to speak to them. The working class is now the base of Republicanism whether the elite types like it or not (and they don't; look at National Review and how it has nbecome a Never Trump operation more concerned with TDS than with fighting Lefism).
This rejection of socialism by the working class and the rural areas reinforces our understanding of this. The country rejects socialism - the rich urbanits are the only ones who want it.
Of course many of them have no idea what socialism is and think social security is believed to be socialist by conservatives, which is ridiculous. SS isn't socialism but it is a rather radical, ridiculous pyramid scheme and the current generation of codgers are at the bottom of the pyramid. The thing is going belly up because it has run out of money. Of course, if one should say SS is socialist then it is a prime example of why socialism doesn't work, but then you won't hear that from the likes of James Carville (who, on Fox News this Sunday, used it as an example of how there is no definition of socialism). Carville argued most of the current new "socialists" don't know what it means and are defining it as the welfare state. He's probably right on that score, but it is the very ignorance of what socialism is that makes it so dangerous. Many people supported Naziism too because they didn't understand what it meant and thought it was about pride in one's country too. Evil always succeeds by masquerading as a good thing.
Notice too how the advocates of socialism never offer their own money. Bernie Sanders owns three homes and has a worth of several million bucks and yet he pushes for other people to have their wealth confiscated and redistributed. Maybe he should hand over two of his homes to the homeless? There is a reason why Jesus told His disciples to give what you have to the poor and follow me; He did not say for Caesar to do it but for the individual. Caesar would just squander it.
I believe working folks understand this. I think they know that the rich will always find a way to stay on top. Anyone remember Dr. Zhivago? In it the rich guy - Komorowski - winds up an important man under the Bolsheviks as he had been under the Tsar. Some rise, some fall, but in the end the wealthy are better positioned than the laboring class to make good no matter what sort of social structure gets put in place.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
So the best one can hope for is a government that stays off your back and lets you make a living. Governments that offer all sorts of dandy "services" don't do that. There is a price to pay.
So don't fear this apparent rise of socialism. It's not the People who are doing it - it's the rich and the stupid. Don't take it too lightly but don't think for a minute that we are losing this country; it is alive and well in the heartland and in rural areas and in the suburbs and even in the poorer parts of the cities to a degree. Socialism is a kind of liquor and some have just partied hearty; the hangover will come soon enough.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:36 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1093 words, total size 7 kb.
Greater Evils to Fight Than Roundup
Timothy Birdnow
I am not MAHA. I do not think we are less healthy now than we were in olden days; our life expectancy is WAY higher now than even when I was a child. I'm about at the life expectancy back then; now I've got a good twenty years left. We DO have more health problems from things like obesity, but why wouldn't we? Life is so much easier now than it was even when I was a boy. People who worked in mines or factories or did other forms of manual labor now code or do paper work, and entertainment now cconsists of using computers in some way rather than going out and playing bush-league softball or whatnot.
No, we are in a golden age. Even cancer is a coefficient of this golden age; there are so few stresses on the body that some of the cells are getting bored. In fact autoimmune diseases have been rising and that is a function of our success; the immune system has nothing better to do so it attacks anything that might be a threat - even if it is just another part of the body doing it's job.
No, we live in a medical golden age. Sickness and death are inevitable, but we don't want even that so we complain that it is caused by our own hand. It's not; it's usually a case of "shit happens".
So I do not agree with MAHA on most issues.
That said we come to the reason for this rather long soliloquy; the MAHA folks are furious at Trump's EPA over Roundup.
The Daily Signal dishes on the issue:
Despite the backlash since Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling shielding Monsanto from liability, the Environmental Protection Agency is pushing ahead on glyphosate, telling the Daily Signal how it plans to navigate the Make America Healthy Again movement’s growing outrage.
In a 7-2 decision on Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Monsanto, now owned by Bayer, will be shielded from liability over Roundup, its widely used brand of weed and grass killer. In response, MAHA activists are firing back at the Trump administration and Zeldin’s leadership at the EPA.
Roundup has been around for decades and has been studied repeatedly and found not wanting. It complied with EPA rules forcing it to disclose that if used improperly it could be hazardous to health. There is no reason to believe Monsanto did anything wrong and thus holds liability for anyone's problem.
A Missouri farmer set this whole thing in motion by suing Baer and Monsanto (Baer is the parent company) over his cancer. Wh9le I sympathize with him it's still a matter of "shit happens" and correlation is not causality. The guy got cancer. He used Roundup. It does not follow that therefore Roundup caused his cancer. There are thousands of other factors that might have contributed to his getting cancer. That is a non-sequitur. It is like saying "John drinks water. John has cancer. Water caused John's cancer".
Who knows; water MIGHT WELL have caused John's cancer; it could be the fluoride put in it or something. But you cannot say definitively that is the case. Frankly I'm more worried about fluoride in water than glyphosate, but I'm not a farmer, of course.
At any rate correlation is not causality.
The problem is the WHO declared glyphosate a carcinogenic in a report they issued and all the sharks smelled blood - and are now systematically picking the carcass of Monsanto.
I wrote about this a while back. The original draft of the report concluded there was no evidence Roundup caused cancer. Environmental activists got their grubby paws on the report and altered it to say it was wildly carcinogenic, pure evil in a spray can.
I don't believe it; we've had decades of review of this product and only now have figured out that it is dangerous.
And there is no good replacement for glyphosates. Eliminating them will raise the price of our food substantially.
Anyway the EPA under Lee Zelden isn't taking the WHO's word for it. They are conducting their own review:
"The EPA is committed to advancing science-based innovation and stewardship in pesticide use. Working closely with federal partners, the agency is promoting more sustainable practices, including steps to minimize reliance on preharvest desiccation applications of glyphosate,” a spokesperson at the EPA told the Daily Signal.
"This year, EPA is undertaking a comprehensive, transparent, and rigorous scientific review of glyphosate to evaluate its use and ensure decisions are fully aligned with the best available evidence and public health and environmental protections.”
That review is likely to find what previous EPA reviews found; there is no great danger from glyphosates if used properly. That is what all former EPA studies have concluded.
MAHA people are yelling about how they rely on "industry studies" and use the same complaints and tactics the Gang Green uses in Global Warming arguments (I'm still waiting for my check from Big Oil). It's always a deep, dark conspiracy but big corporations to kill their customers with dangerous products. And the remedy is always to sue and take money from a corporation which will just pass that cost along to everyone else - a stealth tax on the public for the benefit of a very small few.
In the end these sorts of campaigns wind up simply making food (or whatever product) less affordable and often of lower quality. Do people really want bugs on their food, eating holes in it? That's what happens when you restrict pesticides (glyphosates are a herbicide but the same holds true for pesticides). I used to work in produce and we bought "organic" vegetables; mealy and full of bugs. The fact is our food quality and quantity is in no small part dependent on our chemicals, and Roundup helped to give us this golden age we live in.
Anyway the MAHA people are popping their corks and I suppose that was inevitable; they were only in the MAGA movement because they were against the status quo, not because they had reasoned, well-thought-out positions on other issues. There was no way they could be satisfied since they are essentially environmentalist wacko's sans the Bolshevism. Not all, surely; there were a lot of folks who hated the Covid vaccine who are MAHA, for instance, and they are right insofar as the Covid vaccine was a sop to big pharma all along and it has proven dangerous. Of course it's dangerous; it was entirely experimental. Nobody had ever used an mRNA vaccine before and we could have taken the time to make a regular vaccine using dead Covid like we do with other diseases. Covid vaccine mandates were a massive clinical experiment using the public as a huge test group.
That said, I get the MAHA folks where some things are concerned (like the Covid stuff, or the over-reliance on vaccinations in general) but they are wrong to go after RoTheundup. There are other, better hills to die on. Roundup isn't a hill on a battlefield at all; it's a parking lot in an Aldis store.
The Bible speaks much about discernment, the ability to see good and evil in everyday things. What is lacking in this is discernment. There are greater evils to fight than Roundup.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:00 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1227 words, total size 8 kb.
June 29, 2026
It is NOT a Two Sided Moral Judgment
Timothy Birdnow
The author is right until he says both sides engage in this absolutist moral judgment.
He is complaining about ARBITRARY moral judgments, such as the woke oppression of speech and the like, but then says the Right does the same thing. No, we do not. Rather we impose a political judgment based on logic over stupidity. We DO impose moral judgments on occasion, but they are rooted in solid Christian moral thinking. It's a world of difference over what he claims. I notice he provides no examples.
This author just wants to be seen as "fair and balanced" and thus accuses both sides of what is clearly the work of one side. When Conservatives castigate people it's because they have started playing footsie with those on the Left, when they betray us. But the Left attacks and destroys anyone who does not follow their strict orthodoxy. World of difference.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:31 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.
Plastic Man
Timothy Birdnow
American Thinker has a terrific article about microplastics in the human body and why the latest media panic is probably wrong. The same flawed techniques have been used to repeat research that finds evidence we are all swimming in plastics (fatty acids give the same signature). Once again it's the Michael Crichton theory of the use of mass hysteria to promote societal change "state of fear".
This is a good read.
BTW I remember researchers found that much of the plastics seen in the slides of these alarmists was actually residual plastic from their latex gloves.
My question; will we develop super powers like the comic book Plasticman and learn to stretch way the heck out? I sure would like to be able to do that when I'm watching t.v. and need to grab something.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:12 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 139 words, total size 1 kb.
Judge Says Trump May Not Enforce Law
Timothy Birdnow
Am I living in some sort of alternate universe? I seem to remember not so long ago the United States Supreme Court rules that district judges could not impose nation-wide edicts on the President. Also, the Supreme Court just ruled yet again that judges have very limited power over immigration law enforcement.
This judge has simply ignored the Court and is making her own law.
Her argument is that Trump has no authority over election laws. She simply ignores the fact this isn't so much about election law as it is about illegal immigration and Trump has supreme authority over that. She knows it too.
Naturally she is an Obama appointee.
From X:
Bill Melugin@BillMelugin_
BREAKING: Boston-based federal judge Denise Casper (Obama appointee) has just issued a sweeping order that bans the Trump administration from implementing most of its federal voter ID executive orders, including a proof of citizenship requirement. Judge Casper concluded the Constitution "does not grant the President any specific powers over elections.”
DOJ expected to quickly appeal.
Bear in mind Trump is not tampering with how elections are run in any states; he is merely requiring states to implement proof of citizenship rules when registering someone to vote. NOT when they vote, when they register. This is an immigration matter, even if it is upending the vote fraud scheme of the Demo-left.
That is, of course, the real reason this puta has issued this order. She wants vote fraud as do most Democrats. Personally, I believe this country would have a solid Republican majority if we haven't been treated to massive cheating over the years. I think the Democrats know it too.
This is another case that could wind up at the Supreme Court. Hopefully the Court will spank her bottom raw (given the proclivity of many Democrats she might like that, but I digress.)
Remember, Trump is not making any sort of new rule for the states so much as simply demanding they enforce rules that are already part of federal law. It is illegal by law for non-citizens to vote in elections. Trump is just asking that voters prove they are citizens, or at least have some form of I.D. when voting. Trumps EO is not making laws but rather enforcing them.
There are all sorts of laws on the books that the Federal government enforces. We all know about the Fair Housing Act, or the Civil Rights Act.Every parking lot has a reserved spot or two for handicapped people. All states have an intoxication level set at 1.0 or less (I remember when Missouri had a 1.5 level but the Feds made them drop it). The 55 mph speed limit was stupid but it was forced by the Feds, as is the 70 mph speed limit now. The Feds enforce Federal laws and impose changes in how states do things (and often what they do) all the time.
So why can the federal government make states set speed limits but not make states enforce the law where voting is concerned?
If the central government has no right to make people prove their qualifications to vote why, pray tell, does the IRS do that to us every year? This judge's ruling should invalidate the right of the IRS to collect information on taxpayers.
I suspect Trump will win on appeal. This is just another monkey wrench thrown into the machinery to gum up the works.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
07:57 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 592 words, total size 4 kb.
June 28, 2026
Mel Brooks at 100
Timothy Birdnow
A century of Mel Brooks.
He's given so much joy to so many over the years. Who can forget Young Frankenstein, or Blazing Saddles, or Spaceballs, or the musical version of The Producers? Brooks is an American institution.
Happy birthday Mel! Wish we had another hundred years with you!
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
01:15 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 62 words, total size 1 kb.
The Winepress of the Wrath of Newsom
Timothy Birdnow
Know how you make a small fortune in the wine business? Start with a large one.
Know how you go completely bankrupt in the wine business? Start a winery in California.
California is going to squeeze the wine industry worse than those wineries squeeze grapes in a press.
Hair gel Newsom has a scheme that will bankrupt many of the smaller wineries, which are always marginally profitable at best.
FTA:
Under a new law coming into effect later this summer, wineries will have to pay just under $99 per acre per year on land they irrigate as part of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s sustainable water initiative.
[...]
Beckstoffer Vineyards, one of Napa Valley’s largest and most respected grape growers, estimates the new fee will cost the company about $25,000 a year for its 12,000 acres in the Napa region.
"Right now we’re looking at these extra costs at a time where all of our clients are asking for price reductions and less fruit due to the downturn in the market,” General Manager Jim Lincoln told The California Post.
His company supplies grapes to about 120 wineries producing Cabernet Sauvignon, Chardonnay, Pinot Noir and Sauvignon Blanc.
These are farmers, not playboy wine makers. Grapes are a very labor-intensive and demanding crop to grow, and to grow grapes that will make great as opposed to bad wine requires a huge amount of attention and effort. I know; I used to grow grapes in my backyard and make wine. Grapes are notoriously fussy. To do it right requires a lot of costs and if the price of irrigation goes up these farmers will find it more profitable to grow olives or some other crop that needs less effort - and perhaps less water (not sure if olives do either but certainly there are other crops that need less of both).
And while California has been America's vineyard that may well change as new techniques have made it possible to grow the Vitis Vinifera grape (wine grapes from Europe) in other states, where the deadly Phylloxera Vastatrix bug lies in wait to feast on the roots of the defenseless plants. Actually Phylloxera was vanquished long ago by the grafting of Vinifera plants onto native American rootstocks - mainly from my home state of Missouri, but often by way of France which imported Missouri rootstocks - but there are other things that make Vinifera suffer in the middle of the country - fungi, swings in temperature, etc. Most of these have been addressed and now it's possible to grow Vinifera in most states. Constantine Frank, a guy from Russia, has grown great Pinot Noir and other Vinifera in upstate New York despite the bitter cold that hits the state. We grow some in Missouri although we prefer the French-American hybrids here. (They don't get a fair shake because of pure snobbery, but what can you do? I'd stack Chardonel or Traminette or Seyval up against Chardonnay or Gewurztraminer or Sauvignon Blanc any day, and as for reds Chambourcin gives many Pinots a run for their money. Oh, and Stark Starr or Cynthiana makes port style wines that can compete with the very best Portuguese.)
At any rate other places can and will work when California pushes a lot of winemakers out. In The Heartbreak Grape the owner of Calera, the winery that pioneered great Pinot Noir in the Central Coast, said he strongly considered opening his winery in Texas. Texas might be too warm for Pinot but I rather doubt Iowa would be. He might well wind up moving to Texas in the end or some other state. (Pinot likes hot days and cool nights.)
At any rate the cheaper wines will go up, making wine drinking less affordable for all Americans. So will the price of better wines, but the well-to-do can absorb the price spike. We've been in a golden age for wine; you can buy some very good cheap stuff. Heck, Charles Shaw's "two buck Chuck" wine is couch-cushion change price and gives a decent, palatable wine. Those days are going to be over. Shaw's cost for wine grapes will rise.
So perhaps Kentucky Bourbon will be the next big thing; there's plenty of it and it's prices aren't going up any time soon. And while microbreweries are struggling now as the younger folk drink cocktails they may see a resurgence as people buy good beer rather than good wine. And heck, some of 'em might even decide to try Missouri wine, or Texas wine, or Ohio wine. We all make some pretty good stuff here.
I assure you it ain't no Thunderbird.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
12:50 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 789 words, total size 5 kb.
Let Us Pray
Timothy Birdnow
Please pray for the People of Venezuela, especially those suffering fromm the recent earthquakes. Many are trapped under rubble. Many families have loved ones who are just disappeared and are desperately worried as they may well be dead.
Our Father, who art in Heaven, hallowed be Thy name
Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on Earth as it is i Heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses
as we forgive those who trespass against us
and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.
Amen
Hail Mary full of grace the Lord is with thee
blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus
Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death, amen.
Glory be to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, Amen.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
12:18 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.
NYC Rent Freeze to Hollow Out Big Apple
Timothy Birdnow
O.K. so what happens when a rent-stabilized apartment needs major repairs?
A landlord cannot absorb the costs of major repairs if he can't raise rents, nor any other rising costs. Remember, the cost of living rises for the landlord as well as the tenant, and the landlord has the increased burden of having to take care of his property, pay taxes, etc. He has to be able to build those costs into his rent or he is losing money, and losing money is not why he bought property to begin with. Property ownership is a business. If it is unprofitable the landlord will cut his loses and dump it.
What that means is a lot of properties will start declining as maintenance is deferred and the landlord will prefer an empty building to tenants who don't pay. He'll try to sell if he can, and who is going to buy? You get into a downward spiral, with properties decaying and sub-par tenants coming in under government funded programs which guarantee the rent is paid but do not guarantee the quality of the tenants. Or the building empties out and sits vacant - a playground for criminals and scumbags.
I've seen it happen many times when I worked in real estate.
Raising rents is one of the prime tools used to control the quality of your tenants. Without that you have to accept people who may tear the place up or ruin the neighborhood since you can't discriminate based on anything other than what is on paper; if someone has the money they can get the property. High rents is how you keep out the riff-raff.
Now it's impossible and New York is going to go into decline. Mark my words.
If you put your thumb on the scale the other side moves. It's how it works in real estate. Freeze rent by law and you wind up with a declining market. It's as simple as that.
By the time Momdani is done New York is going to look like it did in the Kurt Russell movie Escape from New York. They'll have to put a wall around it to keep people in.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:48 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 385 words, total size 2 kb.
Don't Want to be a Fat Man
Timothy Birdnow
Yes, but I had a belly fat problem since I was a kid...
Scientists Discover What Triggers Belly Fat as We Age
In honor of this great breakthrough I give you the Jethro Tull classic Fat Man.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:11 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.
"Reefer Madness" wasn't Wrong After All
Timothy Birdnow
We who opposed the legalization of marijuana always knew this was true.
Massive Study Links Teen Marijuana Use to Double the Risk of Serious Mental Illness
I've known some potheads very well and most of them have mental health issues, from moderate to severe. They did NOT have those issues prior to inhaling the Devil's lettuce.
Source:
Public Health Institute
Summary:
Teens who use cannabis may face a substantially greater risk of developing serious mental health conditions, including psychotic and bipolar disorders, according to a study of more than 463,000 adolescents. Researchers found cannabis use often preceded these diagnoses by nearly two years, strengthening concerns about its long-term effects on developing brains.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:27 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 120 words, total size 1 kb.
99kb generated in CPU 0.0809, elapsed 0.377 seconds.
38 queries taking 0.3561 seconds, 229 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
38 queries taking 0.3561 seconds, 229 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
