June 04, 2025
Sharia Takes Britain
Timothy Birdnow
Sharia takes Britain!
Blasphemy Law: Man Convicted for Burning Qur’an During London Protest
Under British law it is not a crime to burn a Koran or a Bible, but if you burn a Koran you will be charged with crimes like inciting violence or disorderly conduct. Nothing happens to you if you burn a Bible.
THAT is Sharia; law favoring the Muslims. Britain is fast becoming a caliphate, and King Charles may well be her last monarch. He's presiding over the fall of Britain.
Sharia takes Britain!
Blasphemy Law: Man Convicted for Burning Qur’an During London Protest
Under British law it is not a crime to burn a Koran or a Bible, but if you burn a Koran you will be charged with crimes like inciting violence or disorderly conduct. Nothing happens to you if you burn a Bible.
THAT is Sharia; law favoring the Muslims. Britain is fast becoming a caliphate, and King Charles may well be her last monarch. He's presiding over the fall of Britain.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:39 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 89 words, total size 1 kb.
"Pride Month" to Become "Family Month"
Timothy Birdnow
Now they're getting it!
GOP Resolution Declares June "Family Month" Instead Of Pride Month
Now they're getting it!
GOP Resolution Declares June "Family Month" Instead Of Pride Month
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:34 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.
Woke American Birthday Party
Timothy Birdnow
A woke Biden appointee and former Obamaite who said "Mexico is my country" is running the planning for America's 250th birthday celebration.
Heavy sigh!
Rosie Rios is currently chairing the U.S. Semiquincentennial Commission.
Rios said Mexico is her country. She is the daughter of a Mexican immigrant. I could't ascertain if her mother was legal or not.
when asked which Founding Father she most admired she praised Harriett Tubman and Susan B. Anthony! Neither of them were Founding Fathers. Tubman was an abolitionist born in 1822 while Anthony was a suffragette born in 1820. You would think she at least could have said "Betsy Ross" or some other woman from the Revolution.
In other words she's a dimwit. I doubt she knows these two women were not contemporaries of the Founding Fathers.
This will be the most woke celebration ever.
A woke Biden appointee and former Obamaite who said "Mexico is my country" is running the planning for America's 250th birthday celebration.
Heavy sigh!
Rosie Rios is currently chairing the U.S. Semiquincentennial Commission.
"She’s trashed President Trump, downplayed the Founding Fathers, and pushed woke identity politics,” Hild wrote, calling Rios out for her apparently loyalty to Mexico over the U.S. and for pushing to "elevate ‘Founding Mothers’ over the Founding Fathers and flood the commemoration with DEI messaging.”
"Let’s be clear: Rosie Rios has no interest in making President Trump’s vision a reality,” the nonprofit director stated. "She was appointed by Biden, and thanks to the recent Trump v. Wilcox decision, President Trump has full authority to remove her. He should — immediately.”
Will Held
"The person in charge of our 250th anniversary shouldn’t struggle to choose between America and another country,”
"America is a unique, distinctive, sovereign nation and people. Our 250th anniversary should be a celebration of our unique, distinctive history and heritage.”
"Let’s be clear: Rosie Rios has no interest in making President Trump’s vision a reality,” the nonprofit director stated. "She was appointed by Biden, and thanks to the recent Trump v. Wilcox decision, President Trump has full authority to remove her. He should — immediately.”
Will Held
"The person in charge of our 250th anniversary shouldn’t struggle to choose between America and another country,”
"America is a unique, distinctive, sovereign nation and people. Our 250th anniversary should be a celebration of our unique, distinctive history and heritage.”
Senator Eric Schmidt
Rios said Mexico is her country. She is the daughter of a Mexican immigrant. I could't ascertain if her mother was legal or not.
when asked which Founding Father she most admired she praised Harriett Tubman and Susan B. Anthony! Neither of them were Founding Fathers. Tubman was an abolitionist born in 1822 while Anthony was a suffragette born in 1820. You would think she at least could have said "Betsy Ross" or some other woman from the Revolution.
In other words she's a dimwit. I doubt she knows these two women were not contemporaries of the Founding Fathers.
This will be the most woke celebration ever.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:34 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 281 words, total size 2 kb.
Irrationality at Reason
Timothy Birdnow
More proof libertarians just don't get it. Neither do some of the so-called "constitutionalists" who have conveniently forgotten that the Constitution has been used as toiletry for decades now and is now being employed as a weapon to preserve the power of those who befouled it.
The president treats legal constraints as inconveniences that can be overridden by executive fiat
Most of these "legal constraints" of which he bemoans were put in place not that long ago and are tools to stymie any effort to truly reform Washington.
FTA:
I Suppose author Jacob Sullum can be forgiven for not knowing that the very next day an appalate court overturned this ruling. So if it was a case of Trump treating "legal constraints as inconveniences that can be overridden by executive fiat" then apparently an independent court is doing the same.
The fact is Congress granted this authority to the President and it's been used by almost every President since Carter. There are no constraints written into the law. IF Congress doesn't like it they can pass a law overturning it, but they won't.
Trump HAS to move with great dispatch. He has two years of guaranteed momentum. If the GOP loses the midterms there will be no legal remedies for anything and Trump knows that. He has to act decisively and now. And this is exactly what the public voted for when they elected a man convicted of a felony to be President.
The article continues:
Now we have as many as 30 MILLION illegal aliens scattered all around the country and this dimwit thinks we should deport under the Immigration and Nationality Act, which would reqauire a lenthy hearing and appeal from each and every one of these thirty million. Even if the number is half that (and I don't believe it for a second) we're talking about fifteen MILLION trials. This guy is writing for a magazine called Reason; he should be capable of doing basic math.
And the longer these people stay the more damage they do. They are suckling off the government and stealing taxpayer dollars at a time when we can't afford it. They are stealing jobs from Americans who want to work. They have already inflated the housing prices. And we know there are terrorists here too; we just saw one terrorist attack in Colorado by an illegal alien.
You are going to find it extremely hard to deport these people the longer they stay; look at the "Dreamers" who were only supposed to be here temporarily.
And Trump was elected to a large extent by promising to kick these people out of the country. The public wants this.
Again, time is of the essence, and the longer it takes to get going the more the opposition will organize to resist. Just look at that judge who helped a criminal illegal alien escape ICE! That will metastasize if we dilly-dalley.
To continue:
So this fellow would rather follow form, ignoring the fact that most of the illegal aliens here are precisely that and the Biden Administration broke the law letting them in. He reminds me of the quartermaster in the movie Zulu Dawn; yelling at desperate soldiers trying to get bullets and carefully, slowing meting them out while British soldiers were falling to the onslaught of Zulu warriors.
I tire of these Ashley Wilkes types who are happy to lose as long as they can tell themselves they are the bigger person, and haven't sullied their pointless honor by getting down and dirty in the political mud. We've been cursed by those types for generations now. There are many on the Right who were happy being losers and having their own little fiefdoms. Trump came along and showed how to win - and they don't want to win. Better to lose with good form!
There are times for being slow and deliberate; this isn't one of them. We need to move. We have for decades been trapped like flies in amber, with the rising tide of radicalism pushing ever forward and people who do not understand that this is in fact a war for our very survival, that our nation is at stake, argue for slavish obeisance to the law and a slow, phegmatic approach which doesn't catch up to where we once were before the Left ran roughshod. It's a loser's game.
Uh, Trump and DHS were not trying to deport criminals alone. He wants to kick out so many of the radicals who are here, and especially in the universities. This author has to know he isn't going to get anyone out using the byzantine procedures in place. Everything in America is aimed at making it easy to get in, hard to get out. It's like a prison - there's a one-way door. It's been under construction since Ted Kennedy reformed our immigration laws back in the sixties.
Here the author's heart is revealed and his Nevertrump pathology is on display:
But who is disregarding the law? Trump has faced more judicial challenges than any President in history; it's a planned play by the Democrats. They are calling in all their favors from judges who have had it easy until now. The LAW isn't being followed; it's being used as a weapon to stop Trump from enacting the agenda he was elected to enact. Trump has won most of these challenges on appeal, but that sucks up time and costs American taxpayers money. The Democrats are afraid to oppose him too vigorously; it only makes him more popular. So they are using their pet judges.
I would add Joe Biden appointed most of them. Biden appointed 252 judges to the Federal Bench. Obama appointed the largest share of currently active federal judges at 38%, or 334 judges, while George W. Bush named 20%. Clinton appointed 11%. The fact is enemies of MAGA infest most of our courts.
And this author thinks using the system is going to work. Fat chance. Especially since Trump is trying to restore the old system and break the new, and all of these judges are there because they came out of Babylon.
Mr. Sullum concludes with a quote from John Marshall (the guy who granted himself the power of judicial review despite it not being anywehre in the Constitution) saying it is the province of judges to say what the law is. That's fine but they aren't doing that; they are rewriting the law to say what THEY want it to say. We have Trump precisely because of judicial activism.
Trump DOES care, contrary to what Sullum says. He cares enough to fight against the creeping usurpation of power by courts. Trump is doing nothing that previous Presidents hadn't already done. The difference is that his enemies will use any and all means, fair and foul, to stop the restoration of the Republic.
I would think a publicatin named Reason would feature more than cartoonish logic and mischaracterizations.
More proof libertarians just don't get it. Neither do some of the so-called "constitutionalists" who have conveniently forgotten that the Constitution has been used as toiletry for decades now and is now being employed as a weapon to preserve the power of those who befouled it.
The president treats legal constraints as inconveniences that can be overridden by executive fiat
Most of these "legal constraints" of which he bemoans were put in place not that long ago and are tools to stymie any effort to truly reform Washington.
FTA:
"Last week, a federal court ruled that President Donald Trump had exceeded his statutory authority by imposing a raft of tariffs based on the "national emergency" supposedly caused by the longstanding U.S. trade deficit. Those tariffs are part of an alarming pattern: In his rush to enact his agenda, Trump frequently treats legal constraints as inconveniences that can be overridden by executive fiat.
The U.S. Court of International Trade rejected Trump's reliance on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify sweeping import taxes he announced in February and April. The three-judge panel said that 48-year-old law, which does not even mention tariffs and had never been used this way before, does not authorize the president to "impose unlimited tariffs on goods from nearly every country in the world."
The U.S. Court of International Trade rejected Trump's reliance on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify sweeping import taxes he announced in February and April. The three-judge panel said that 48-year-old law, which does not even mention tariffs and had never been used this way before, does not authorize the president to "impose unlimited tariffs on goods from nearly every country in the world."
I Suppose author Jacob Sullum can be forgiven for not knowing that the very next day an appalate court overturned this ruling. So if it was a case of Trump treating "legal constraints as inconveniences that can be overridden by executive fiat" then apparently an independent court is doing the same.
The fact is Congress granted this authority to the President and it's been used by almost every President since Carter. There are no constraints written into the law. IF Congress doesn't like it they can pass a law overturning it, but they won't.
Trump HAS to move with great dispatch. He has two years of guaranteed momentum. If the GOP loses the midterms there will be no legal remedies for anything and Trump knows that. He has to act decisively and now. And this is exactly what the public voted for when they elected a man convicted of a felony to be President.
The article continues:
"Trump's immigration crackdown features similar legal shortcuts. After he asserted the power to summarily deport alleged members of a Venezuelan gang as "alien enemies," for example, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that they had a due process right to contest that designation.
That decision did not address Trump's dubious interpretation of the 227-year-old Alien Enemies Act. But several federal judges, including a Trump appointee, subsequently concluded that it made no sense to portray gang members as "natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects" of a "hostile nation or government" that had launched an "invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States."
As with tariffs, Trump had a more legally defensible option: deportation of unauthorized residents under the Immigration and Nationality Act. But in both cases, he chose the course he thought would avoid pesky procedural requirements.
That decision did not address Trump's dubious interpretation of the 227-year-old Alien Enemies Act. But several federal judges, including a Trump appointee, subsequently concluded that it made no sense to portray gang members as "natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects" of a "hostile nation or government" that had launched an "invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States."
As with tariffs, Trump had a more legally defensible option: deportation of unauthorized residents under the Immigration and Nationality Act. But in both cases, he chose the course he thought would avoid pesky procedural requirements.
Now we have as many as 30 MILLION illegal aliens scattered all around the country and this dimwit thinks we should deport under the Immigration and Nationality Act, which would reqauire a lenthy hearing and appeal from each and every one of these thirty million. Even if the number is half that (and I don't believe it for a second) we're talking about fifteen MILLION trials. This guy is writing for a magazine called Reason; he should be capable of doing basic math.
And the longer these people stay the more damage they do. They are suckling off the government and stealing taxpayer dollars at a time when we can't afford it. They are stealing jobs from Americans who want to work. They have already inflated the housing prices. And we know there are terrorists here too; we just saw one terrorist attack in Colorado by an illegal alien.
You are going to find it extremely hard to deport these people the longer they stay; look at the "Dreamers" who were only supposed to be here temporarily.
And Trump was elected to a large extent by promising to kick these people out of the country. The public wants this.
Again, time is of the essence, and the longer it takes to get going the more the opposition will organize to resist. Just look at that judge who helped a criminal illegal alien escape ICE! That will metastasize if we dilly-dalley.
To continue:
"Trump's immigration crackdown features similar legal shortcuts. After he asserted the power to summarily deport alleged members of a Venezuelan gang as "alien enemies," for example, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that they had a due process right to contest that designation.
That decision did not address Trump's dubious interpretation of the 227-year-old Alien Enemies Act. But several federal judges, including a Trump appointee, subsequently concluded that it made no sense to portray gang members as "natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects" of a "hostile nation or government" that had launched an "invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States."
As with tariffs, Trump had a more legally defensible option: deportation of unauthorized residents under the Immigration and Nationality Act. But in both cases, he chose the course he thought would avoid pesky procedural requirements.
Something similar happened when Immigration and Customs Enforcement suddenly terminated thousands of records in the database of foreign students with visas authorizing them to attend American universities. Although that move was described as part of a "Student Criminal Alien Initiative," it affected many people without disqualifying criminal records—in some cases, without any criminal records at all.
Those terminations "reflect an instinct that has become prevalent in our society to effectuate change: move fast and break things," U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White wrote when he issued a preliminary injunction against the initiative on May 22. "That instinct must be checked when it conflicts with established principles of law."
The same instinct is apparent in Trump's conflict with Harvard University. The administration froze more than $2 billion in federal research grants to Harvard, ostensibly because the university, by tolerating antisemitism on campus, had failed to meet its "responsibility to uphold civil rights laws."
That decision ignored the legal process for rescinding federal funding based on such alleged violations. The process includes "a lot of steps, but they're important," the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression notes. "They protect students by making sure colleges live up to their obligations. And they protect colleges by making sure they have an opportunity to contest the allegations as well as a chance to make things right.
That decision did not address Trump's dubious interpretation of the 227-year-old Alien Enemies Act. But several federal judges, including a Trump appointee, subsequently concluded that it made no sense to portray gang members as "natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects" of a "hostile nation or government" that had launched an "invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States."
As with tariffs, Trump had a more legally defensible option: deportation of unauthorized residents under the Immigration and Nationality Act. But in both cases, he chose the course he thought would avoid pesky procedural requirements.
Something similar happened when Immigration and Customs Enforcement suddenly terminated thousands of records in the database of foreign students with visas authorizing them to attend American universities. Although that move was described as part of a "Student Criminal Alien Initiative," it affected many people without disqualifying criminal records—in some cases, without any criminal records at all.
Those terminations "reflect an instinct that has become prevalent in our society to effectuate change: move fast and break things," U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White wrote when he issued a preliminary injunction against the initiative on May 22. "That instinct must be checked when it conflicts with established principles of law."
The same instinct is apparent in Trump's conflict with Harvard University. The administration froze more than $2 billion in federal research grants to Harvard, ostensibly because the university, by tolerating antisemitism on campus, had failed to meet its "responsibility to uphold civil rights laws."
That decision ignored the legal process for rescinding federal funding based on such alleged violations. The process includes "a lot of steps, but they're important," the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression notes. "They protect students by making sure colleges live up to their obligations. And they protect colleges by making sure they have an opportunity to contest the allegations as well as a chance to make things right.
So this fellow would rather follow form, ignoring the fact that most of the illegal aliens here are precisely that and the Biden Administration broke the law letting them in. He reminds me of the quartermaster in the movie Zulu Dawn; yelling at desperate soldiers trying to get bullets and carefully, slowing meting them out while British soldiers were falling to the onslaught of Zulu warriors.
I tire of these Ashley Wilkes types who are happy to lose as long as they can tell themselves they are the bigger person, and haven't sullied their pointless honor by getting down and dirty in the political mud. We've been cursed by those types for generations now. There are many on the Right who were happy being losers and having their own little fiefdoms. Trump came along and showed how to win - and they don't want to win. Better to lose with good form!
There are times for being slow and deliberate; this isn't one of them. We need to move. We have for decades been trapped like flies in amber, with the rising tide of radicalism pushing ever forward and people who do not understand that this is in fact a war for our very survival, that our nation is at stake, argue for slavish obeisance to the law and a slow, phegmatic approach which doesn't catch up to where we once were before the Left ran roughshod. It's a loser's game.
Uh, Trump and DHS were not trying to deport criminals alone. He wants to kick out so many of the radicals who are here, and especially in the universities. This author has to know he isn't going to get anyone out using the byzantine procedures in place. Everything in America is aimed at making it easy to get in, hard to get out. It's like a prison - there's a one-way door. It's been under construction since Ted Kennedy reformed our immigration laws back in the sixties.
Here the author's heart is revealed and his Nevertrump pathology is on display:
Trump's disregard for the law is coupled with angry dismay at judicial review. As he sees it, any judge who dares to impede his will is a "Radical Left Lunatic," a "troublemaker" and "agitator" who "should be IMPEACHED!!!
But who is disregarding the law? Trump has faced more judicial challenges than any President in history; it's a planned play by the Democrats. They are calling in all their favors from judges who have had it easy until now. The LAW isn't being followed; it's being used as a weapon to stop Trump from enacting the agenda he was elected to enact. Trump has won most of these challenges on appeal, but that sucks up time and costs American taxpayers money. The Democrats are afraid to oppose him too vigorously; it only makes him more popular. So they are using their pet judges.
I would add Joe Biden appointed most of them. Biden appointed 252 judges to the Federal Bench. Obama appointed the largest share of currently active federal judges at 38%, or 334 judges, while George W. Bush named 20%. Clinton appointed 11%. The fact is enemies of MAGA infest most of our courts.
And this author thinks using the system is going to work. Fat chance. Especially since Trump is trying to restore the old system and break the new, and all of these judges are there because they came out of Babylon.
Mr. Sullum concludes with a quote from John Marshall (the guy who granted himself the power of judicial review despite it not being anywehre in the Constitution) saying it is the province of judges to say what the law is. That's fine but they aren't doing that; they are rewriting the law to say what THEY want it to say. We have Trump precisely because of judicial activism.
Trump DOES care, contrary to what Sullum says. He cares enough to fight against the creeping usurpation of power by courts. Trump is doing nothing that previous Presidents hadn't already done. The difference is that his enemies will use any and all means, fair and foul, to stop the restoration of the Republic.
I would think a publicatin named Reason would feature more than cartoonish logic and mischaracterizations.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:04 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1828 words, total size 12 kb.
A Fungus Amongus: Chinese Bioterrorists in Michigan
Timothy Birdnow
Two Chinese nationals have been charged with smuggling a weapon of bioterrorism into the country in a scheme to damage America's food supply.
From ABC Go:
Once again we have blue state universities hiring people with divided loyalty at a minimum. Why are so many Chinese here at our major research centers? Doesn't anyone think that is a bad idea?
Meanwhile in John McCain country the Democrat governor (who stole her position) Katie Hobbs has just vetoed a bill to stop the Chicoms from buying up land around military facilities (or anywhere else in the state.)
These Chinese bioterrorists would have done better to set up in Arizona, it seems.
Two Chinese nationals have been charged with smuggling a weapon of bioterrorism into the country in a scheme to damage America's food supply.
From ABC Go:
Yunqing Jian, 33, and Zunyong Liu, 34, citizens of the People’s Republic of China, were allegedly receiving Chinese government funding for their research, some of it at the University of Michigan, officials said.
"The complaint also alleges that Jian’s electronics contain information describing her membership in and loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party," a DOJ press release said.
"It is further alleged that Jian’s boyfriend, Liu, works at a Chinese university where he conducts research on the same pathogen and that he first lied but then admitted to smuggling Fusarium graminearum into America -- through the Detroit Metropolitan Airport -- so that he could conduct research on it at the laboratory at the University of Michigan where his girlfriend, Jian, worked," according to the press release.
[///]
The FBI says it causes "head blight,” a disease of wheat, barley, maize, and rice, and is responsible for billions of dollars in economic losses worldwide each year.
"The alleged actions of these Chinese nationals -- including a loyal member of the Chinese Communist Party -- are of the gravest national security concerns. These two aliens have been charged with smuggling a fungus that has been described as a ‘potential agroterrorism weapon’ into in the heartland of America, where they apparently intended to use a University of Michigan laboratory to further their scheme,” U.S. Attorney Jerome Gorgan said."
"The complaint also alleges that Jian’s electronics contain information describing her membership in and loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party," a DOJ press release said.
"It is further alleged that Jian’s boyfriend, Liu, works at a Chinese university where he conducts research on the same pathogen and that he first lied but then admitted to smuggling Fusarium graminearum into America -- through the Detroit Metropolitan Airport -- so that he could conduct research on it at the laboratory at the University of Michigan where his girlfriend, Jian, worked," according to the press release.
[///]
The FBI says it causes "head blight,” a disease of wheat, barley, maize, and rice, and is responsible for billions of dollars in economic losses worldwide each year.
"The alleged actions of these Chinese nationals -- including a loyal member of the Chinese Communist Party -- are of the gravest national security concerns. These two aliens have been charged with smuggling a fungus that has been described as a ‘potential agroterrorism weapon’ into in the heartland of America, where they apparently intended to use a University of Michigan laboratory to further their scheme,” U.S. Attorney Jerome Gorgan said."
Once again we have blue state universities hiring people with divided loyalty at a minimum. Why are so many Chinese here at our major research centers? Doesn't anyone think that is a bad idea?
Meanwhile in John McCain country the Democrat governor (who stole her position) Katie Hobbs has just vetoed a bill to stop the Chicoms from buying up land around military facilities (or anywhere else in the state.)
These Chinese bioterrorists would have done better to set up in Arizona, it seems.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:13 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 343 words, total size 3 kb.
Sekulo Wrong on the Pardon
Timothy Birdnow
I caught the Sekulo show on Salem News yesterday and one of Jay's kis was hosting (Jordan, I think, but I may be wrong). Anyway he was arguing against pursuing the Biden pardons. I was astonished because, while he may well be right, he fails to grasp the most basic fundamentals of why we should pursue this.
Sekulo argued entirely from a legal perspective and based it entirely on the lack of qualifiers in the Conwstitution. He said "the constitution doesn't limit the powers of the President to pardon" and that may well be true, but EVERY power in the Constitution has been limited after the courts got involved to clarify them.
I would have liked to ask Mr. Sekulo about many other things that are quite plain on the face of them in the Constition that are routinely ignored. For example, the Tenth Amendment states quite plainly that all powers NOT EXPRESSLY GRANTEED to the Federal government devolve to the "states and the People". In other words there has to be a law restricting the states or the People and that must comport with the enumerated powers. Yet the Feds overstep this all the time and nobody ever complains. In fact the right of Judicial review itself is not expressly granted in the Constitution yet we allowed the Supreme Court to usurp this power in Marbury V. Madison. There are multiople other examples; the Department of Education completely usurps the state's right to control education within their boundaries. Another example was the deal made by Thomas Jefferson to purchase the Louisiana territory. At the time many accused Jefferson of usurping power as that was not in the Constitution. Subsequent Presidents did likewise, from James "Mr. Constitution" Madison annexing the Republic of West Florida (against their will), the annexation of Texas and California, the Gadsden Purchase, and the purchase of Alaska, just to name a few. Nowhere does the Constituion authorize such expansion and by Presidential order.
Many states were cobbled up by Congrss without any sort of legal basis; they just did it. Virginia, once the larges and most populous state, was cut down to where it is today. It once stretched to the Mississippi and by their own reckoning even beyond.
And of course Lincoln had no legal right to force the South to stay in the Union. Nowhere is that power enumerated in the Constitution. Lincoln got around that by calling it an insurrection (sound familiar) but it was state governments that were seceding, not pocketts of civilians who grabbed conttrol of certain areas. Those states would never have joined the Union if it had no means of escape - like joining the Mafia, I suppose.
These days nobody makes a Tenth Amendment argument because if we actually started applying that amendment the whole system we've build would collapse.
So Sekulo called for following the Constitution when we haven't followed it for years.
I get it; I want it followed too. But we are in an asymmetric war and we will lose if we do not play by the rules they have set. They use the Constitution as a weapon.
And as I said there are restrictions placed on almostt everything by Congress and the Courts. Free speech? Congress set rules making some speech illegal. Right to bear arms? We have multiple restrictions on THAT one despite the clause being crystal clear. You can't own a bazooka, or a tank, or a mortar, for instance. You can't even own a machine gun. How is that 'shall not be enfringed'? Freedom of assembly is very often disregarded. The government says people can assemble, but only in certain places, many times. You can't assemble outside of a Supreme Court Justice's home. (You can't make anything remottely like a threat to one either, abrogating free speech. While that is reasonable it is not what the Constitution says.)
There has been no restrictions placed on the power of pardon because there was never a need for one before Biden. Even Obama, who made some terrible pardons, didn't pardon himself or Eric Holder or Hillary Clinton. Biden took it to a whole new level of corruption. Maybe it's time to take another look at the inviolate power.
Furthermore, what constitutes a pardon? Can a President pardon a person for a crime for which they have not yet been charged? That has been traditionally accepted, but should it be?
Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitutionsays:
"The president has the power to pardon any person who has committed a federal crime, except in cases of impeachment"
Note the word "committed"; to me that suggests the President cannot pardon someone pre-emptively because they have not been shown to have committed a crime. What, pray tell, can stop a President from pardoning someone in perpetuity? That would essentially be creating an Oprichnina, like Ivan the Terrible had, a nation within a nation that could not be held legally accountable. And there is no reason why a President couldn't pardon all of someone's offspring and kin, giving them an inherited pardon and thus allowing the family to do as they pleased.
At some point the Supreme Court will intervene in the pardon process; and I suspect they would do so if Trump were to pardon his own family or himself.
Many argue the President cannot pardon himself, but why not? If we make the power absolute, as current interpretation does, that means he has every right to do so.
English common law, from which our pardon powers are derived, has always limited the practice. It must not be pleadable in court. So pardoning, say, Hunter Biden, would be an illegal pardon based on English law as Hunter had not exhausted his legal remedy yet.
Of course we do thing differently than did the British but our law was based on British and the Founders certainly understood this when they wrote it into the Constituion. They just figured they didn't have to spell it out.
They made that mistake frequently.
At any rate I think there is probably a pretty good legal case to be made for overturning Biden's pardons, although saying it was done by autopen won't fly.
But Sekulo's argument completely falls apart when he stars admonishing us to "move on". Karl Rover was always preaching that to us and it was why we kept failing. The Left never moves on, they always keep it on a back burner when they don't get what they want and eventually they get it. Rove's theory was that people get bored easily. True enough. So he would simply concede an argument, which was astoundingly stupid; it made it appear our side was ashamed of itself and lying.
I would point out to Mr. Sekulo, too, that we can walk and chew gum at the same time. He admonishes us to drop it "because we have bigger fish to fry" but what bigger fish? Seems to me the abuse of power by many of the people Biden pardoned is as big a fish as you are likely to see. We need to stir the public, and keep this in their minds, even if we fail to overturn these pardons. The public will forget and the media knows this, which is why they won't discuss it. We need to make the media discuss it against their will. The only way to do that is by going after this.
Among other things Trump promised was transparency and justice. IF we fail to at least make a good-faith attempt at this we will show ourselvesas liars to the average citizen. They will conclude it's "business as usual" with new management, nothing more.
The Left has advanced so very far because, with control of the schools and with control of the media, they can attack at times and places of their own choosing. Trump has flipped the script on them, forcing them for the first time in my life to actually fight a defensive war. They are struggling to succeed because they have no experience doing this. But give them time, let them have breathing room, and they will lay a devil's snare for Trump and MAGA.
So we need to come at them from all fronts. Sekulo doesn't seem to get that; he'sstill in defensive mode. I suppose that was inevitable; the American Center for Law and Justice has a mission to respond to attacks by the Left. It is purely defensive in nature. That is good work and necessary,but now we need to be on the offensive. As Sun Tzu said, seize that which your enemy holds dear. It makes them make mistakes in anger and despair.
So if Trump can depardon these people the Left will go bonkers; it's as if he's erasing the last fouryears, years where they thought they were about to win and to win completely.
And it shows that nobody is above the law. This will stop others from the skullduggery these people committed, and it shows the American People that the Trump Administration is working for justice. As Pope Paul VI famously stated "if you want peace work for justice". We have not had justice for along time in America. There are two sets of rules, two sets of laws, and if you are in the Ruling Class you can get things like pardons when you break the law. This will show that in Trump's America, at least, that is not the case. That will win a lot of votes - and voters.
I love Sekulo but he's just wrong here; we need to have this fight.
I get it; the Left will use this against us some day. But they don't care about our moderation; remember how they just eliminated the filibuster when it suited them? We had discussed doing that when the GOP had control but didn't so they wouldn't do itwhen they were in power. But they took power and launched the nukes anyway. You cannot expect reasonableness from the Democrats.
This is a war Mr. Sekulo. There are going to be casualties. And the aggressor sets the rules of engagement.For the last 100 years the Left has been the aggessor.
I caught the Sekulo show on Salem News yesterday and one of Jay's kis was hosting (Jordan, I think, but I may be wrong). Anyway he was arguing against pursuing the Biden pardons. I was astonished because, while he may well be right, he fails to grasp the most basic fundamentals of why we should pursue this.
Sekulo argued entirely from a legal perspective and based it entirely on the lack of qualifiers in the Conwstitution. He said "the constitution doesn't limit the powers of the President to pardon" and that may well be true, but EVERY power in the Constitution has been limited after the courts got involved to clarify them.
I would have liked to ask Mr. Sekulo about many other things that are quite plain on the face of them in the Constition that are routinely ignored. For example, the Tenth Amendment states quite plainly that all powers NOT EXPRESSLY GRANTEED to the Federal government devolve to the "states and the People". In other words there has to be a law restricting the states or the People and that must comport with the enumerated powers. Yet the Feds overstep this all the time and nobody ever complains. In fact the right of Judicial review itself is not expressly granted in the Constitution yet we allowed the Supreme Court to usurp this power in Marbury V. Madison. There are multiople other examples; the Department of Education completely usurps the state's right to control education within their boundaries. Another example was the deal made by Thomas Jefferson to purchase the Louisiana territory. At the time many accused Jefferson of usurping power as that was not in the Constitution. Subsequent Presidents did likewise, from James "Mr. Constitution" Madison annexing the Republic of West Florida (against their will), the annexation of Texas and California, the Gadsden Purchase, and the purchase of Alaska, just to name a few. Nowhere does the Constituion authorize such expansion and by Presidential order.
Many states were cobbled up by Congrss without any sort of legal basis; they just did it. Virginia, once the larges and most populous state, was cut down to where it is today. It once stretched to the Mississippi and by their own reckoning even beyond.
And of course Lincoln had no legal right to force the South to stay in the Union. Nowhere is that power enumerated in the Constitution. Lincoln got around that by calling it an insurrection (sound familiar) but it was state governments that were seceding, not pocketts of civilians who grabbed conttrol of certain areas. Those states would never have joined the Union if it had no means of escape - like joining the Mafia, I suppose.
These days nobody makes a Tenth Amendment argument because if we actually started applying that amendment the whole system we've build would collapse.
So Sekulo called for following the Constitution when we haven't followed it for years.
I get it; I want it followed too. But we are in an asymmetric war and we will lose if we do not play by the rules they have set. They use the Constitution as a weapon.
And as I said there are restrictions placed on almostt everything by Congress and the Courts. Free speech? Congress set rules making some speech illegal. Right to bear arms? We have multiple restrictions on THAT one despite the clause being crystal clear. You can't own a bazooka, or a tank, or a mortar, for instance. You can't even own a machine gun. How is that 'shall not be enfringed'? Freedom of assembly is very often disregarded. The government says people can assemble, but only in certain places, many times. You can't assemble outside of a Supreme Court Justice's home. (You can't make anything remottely like a threat to one either, abrogating free speech. While that is reasonable it is not what the Constitution says.)
There has been no restrictions placed on the power of pardon because there was never a need for one before Biden. Even Obama, who made some terrible pardons, didn't pardon himself or Eric Holder or Hillary Clinton. Biden took it to a whole new level of corruption. Maybe it's time to take another look at the inviolate power.
Furthermore, what constitutes a pardon? Can a President pardon a person for a crime for which they have not yet been charged? That has been traditionally accepted, but should it be?
Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitutionsays:
"The president has the power to pardon any person who has committed a federal crime, except in cases of impeachment"
Note the word "committed"; to me that suggests the President cannot pardon someone pre-emptively because they have not been shown to have committed a crime. What, pray tell, can stop a President from pardoning someone in perpetuity? That would essentially be creating an Oprichnina, like Ivan the Terrible had, a nation within a nation that could not be held legally accountable. And there is no reason why a President couldn't pardon all of someone's offspring and kin, giving them an inherited pardon and thus allowing the family to do as they pleased.
At some point the Supreme Court will intervene in the pardon process; and I suspect they would do so if Trump were to pardon his own family or himself.
Many argue the President cannot pardon himself, but why not? If we make the power absolute, as current interpretation does, that means he has every right to do so.
English common law, from which our pardon powers are derived, has always limited the practice. It must not be pleadable in court. So pardoning, say, Hunter Biden, would be an illegal pardon based on English law as Hunter had not exhausted his legal remedy yet.
Of course we do thing differently than did the British but our law was based on British and the Founders certainly understood this when they wrote it into the Constituion. They just figured they didn't have to spell it out.
They made that mistake frequently.
At any rate I think there is probably a pretty good legal case to be made for overturning Biden's pardons, although saying it was done by autopen won't fly.
But Sekulo's argument completely falls apart when he stars admonishing us to "move on". Karl Rover was always preaching that to us and it was why we kept failing. The Left never moves on, they always keep it on a back burner when they don't get what they want and eventually they get it. Rove's theory was that people get bored easily. True enough. So he would simply concede an argument, which was astoundingly stupid; it made it appear our side was ashamed of itself and lying.
I would point out to Mr. Sekulo, too, that we can walk and chew gum at the same time. He admonishes us to drop it "because we have bigger fish to fry" but what bigger fish? Seems to me the abuse of power by many of the people Biden pardoned is as big a fish as you are likely to see. We need to stir the public, and keep this in their minds, even if we fail to overturn these pardons. The public will forget and the media knows this, which is why they won't discuss it. We need to make the media discuss it against their will. The only way to do that is by going after this.
Among other things Trump promised was transparency and justice. IF we fail to at least make a good-faith attempt at this we will show ourselvesas liars to the average citizen. They will conclude it's "business as usual" with new management, nothing more.
The Left has advanced so very far because, with control of the schools and with control of the media, they can attack at times and places of their own choosing. Trump has flipped the script on them, forcing them for the first time in my life to actually fight a defensive war. They are struggling to succeed because they have no experience doing this. But give them time, let them have breathing room, and they will lay a devil's snare for Trump and MAGA.
So we need to come at them from all fronts. Sekulo doesn't seem to get that; he'sstill in defensive mode. I suppose that was inevitable; the American Center for Law and Justice has a mission to respond to attacks by the Left. It is purely defensive in nature. That is good work and necessary,but now we need to be on the offensive. As Sun Tzu said, seize that which your enemy holds dear. It makes them make mistakes in anger and despair.
So if Trump can depardon these people the Left will go bonkers; it's as if he's erasing the last fouryears, years where they thought they were about to win and to win completely.
And it shows that nobody is above the law. This will stop others from the skullduggery these people committed, and it shows the American People that the Trump Administration is working for justice. As Pope Paul VI famously stated "if you want peace work for justice". We have not had justice for along time in America. There are two sets of rules, two sets of laws, and if you are in the Ruling Class you can get things like pardons when you break the law. This will show that in Trump's America, at least, that is not the case. That will win a lot of votes - and voters.
I love Sekulo but he's just wrong here; we need to have this fight.
I get it; the Left will use this against us some day. But they don't care about our moderation; remember how they just eliminated the filibuster when it suited them? We had discussed doing that when the GOP had control but didn't so they wouldn't do itwhen they were in power. But they took power and launched the nukes anyway. You cannot expect reasonableness from the Democrats.
This is a war Mr. Sekulo. There are going to be casualties. And the aggressor sets the rules of engagement.For the last 100 years the Left has been the aggessor.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:36 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1709 words, total size 10 kb.
U.S.S. Milk
Timothy Birdnow
Yikes! Maybe Hegseth wasn't the man for the job after all.
Hegseth orders Navy to rename ship honoring gay rights activist Harvey Milk…
Navy mulls new names for other ships named for civil rights leaders…
Oh, that really inspires soldiers and strikes fear in the hearts of the enemy! I suppose with a name like Milk and gay acttivism involved our enemies won't want to get too close after all....
Seriously, no navy ships should be named for civilians, especially civilian activists. I would equally oppose a ship named after, say, Andrew Breitbart, or Phyllis Schlafley. Great people but they don't deserve a ship and putting their names on one would be a dishonor to the Americans who have fought and died for this country.
UPDATE
Apparently Mr. Hegseth had a change of heart and subsequently stripped the ship of it's sodomistic moniker.
Yikes! Maybe Hegseth wasn't the man for the job after all.
Hegseth orders Navy to rename ship honoring gay rights activist Harvey Milk…
Navy mulls new names for other ships named for civil rights leaders…
Oh, that really inspires soldiers and strikes fear in the hearts of the enemy! I suppose with a name like Milk and gay acttivism involved our enemies won't want to get too close after all....
Seriously, no navy ships should be named for civilians, especially civilian activists. I would equally oppose a ship named after, say, Andrew Breitbart, or Phyllis Schlafley. Great people but they don't deserve a ship and putting their names on one would be a dishonor to the Americans who have fought and died for this country.
UPDATE
Apparently Mr. Hegseth had a change of heart and subsequently stripped the ship of it's sodomistic moniker.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
07:33 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 147 words, total size 1 kb.
Jake the Fake
Jake the Fake
Timothy Birdnow
6/4/2025
He taps on the door, and then wraps a bit more
but the cheeky fake jake is becoming a bore
he told us a fib all while being too glib
someone should show him the door!
A lying buffoon with a jaunty balloon
his party lapped up with a fork and a spoon
Now the party is over,he's a day old leftover
his time in the sun over soon!
Where will he go now that bookings are slow? To
Harvard or to Timuktu?
Will he keep up the blather or just quit like Dan
Rather?
I suspect he has nary a clue.
Hasta lavista Jake you old snake. We knew all along
you were just a big fake.
Timothy Birdnow
6/4/2025
He taps on the door, and then wraps a bit more
but the cheeky fake jake is becoming a bore
he told us a fib all while being too glib
someone should show him the door!
A lying buffoon with a jaunty balloon
his party lapped up with a fork and a spoon
Now the party is over,he's a day old leftover
his time in the sun over soon!
Where will he go now that bookings are slow? To
Harvard or to Timuktu?
Will he keep up the blather or just quit like Dan
Rather?
I suspect he has nary a clue.
Hasta lavista Jake you old snake. We knew all along
you were just a big fake.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
07:25 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.
Original Sin
Original Sin
by Timothy Birdnow
Written in honor of Jake Tapper
Being a lib who wished to sound glib
he told all the world a tiny gray fib
he didn't think it would hurt to get down in the dirt
But it curled and he had to ad-lib.
Before long it had gone round the world though twas wrong
And he knew but continued the song
the lie grew leap and bound from his muttered soft sound
but he knew it a lie all along
He staked his reputation and showed great irritation
when someone would challenge his bold invocation
but a lie cannot last and will soon be in the past
he would not get a standing ovation
how he wriggles like a fish on a hook, taking heat for his book
and he burbles retorts like the babbling brook
he had slaughtered the calf while he tried not to laugh
now the world gives him barely a look
What a shnook!
by Timothy Birdnow
Written in honor of Jake Tapper
Being a lib who wished to sound glib
he told all the world a tiny gray fib
he didn't think it would hurt to get down in the dirt
But it curled and he had to ad-lib.
Before long it had gone round the world though twas wrong
And he knew but continued the song
the lie grew leap and bound from his muttered soft sound
but he knew it a lie all along
He staked his reputation and showed great irritation
when someone would challenge his bold invocation
but a lie cannot last and will soon be in the past
he would not get a standing ovation
how he wriggles like a fish on a hook, taking heat for his book
and he burbles retorts like the babbling brook
he had slaughtered the calf while he tried not to laugh
now the world gives him barely a look
What a shnook!
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
07:05 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 165 words, total size 1 kb.
Rand Paul, Libertarianism, and the Foolishness of Shooting One's own Foot
Timothy Birdnow
Americans are FINALLY waking up!
CNN ChiefData Analyust AStonished to See Democrats Historic Key Advantage Completely Disappear in New Poll
Democrats have always been the "party of the Middle Class" in polls, enjoy leads of over 20% for a long time. Now it's neck-and-neck.
If the GOP handles this properly they can flip this entirely. They need to pass the Big Beautiful Bill, for instance.
I caught Rand Paul, one of the B cubed's detractors, on Sean Hannity yesterday. I like Paul, I really do, but he's more liberttarian than Conservative and he makes idiotic libertarian arguments. His argument against BBB was that it spent too much. I agree. But right now the political calculus is such that you can't just say "I'm voting on principle" becuase then you will lose, get nothing, and that means a major tax increase for the Middle Class. There will be no tax releif. And then every few months we'll have to go back and fight this battle over and over with the Democrats and the RINO wing and come next election the GOP will likely lose the House. Then the real fun begins; investigations, stunts, impeachments...
To accomplish any good you first have to win elections. While I think the best way to accomplish that is to be bold and lead, not follow along behind polls, I do think there is no reason to saw off your proboscis to spite your anterior head. There is a principled stance and just plain stupidity. Paul is teetering on the latter.
This is not the hill to die on. The B cubed does a lot of good, keeping the old tax cuts and adding a few more, much needed cuts. It spends too much, no question. But we need to get this through; so much is at stake here. Drilling. Border security, etc. If Congress doesn't pass this the public will rightly see them as useless.
But that is vintage libertarian. Libertarians have a number of beliefs I find quite odd. They reject border security, for instance, because they say it's not government's business who comes or goes or gets hired or whatnot. In a world governed by angels that may be true and we could avoid having a border at all, but this is not a world governed by Angels; it's a world where a lot of bad people mean us great harm.
You cannot have a country or maintain a culture if you have no control of who shows up.
History is replete with examples of cultures dying solely because a more numerous society decided to simply settle and take over. Our own nation was built that way, I might add. (Granted, the Native Americans were a fierce lot who practiced ritual torture and raped innocent women they stole and who were constantly at war, which is why they fell so easily to the white settlers. Oh, and they didn't really develop the land or build much.) The Japanese took Japan away from it's aboriginal inhabitants, the caucasian Ainu, who now number just a few hundred. India was conquered and reconquered. The Arabs exploded out of the Arabian Peninusla and now dominate most of North Africa and the Middle East, erasing the traditional cultures of the conquered lands in the process. The Spanish conquered multiple civilizations in the Americas and we call that area "Latin America" to this day. The German tribes conquered Britain - the Angles, Saxons, Normans, and Danes drove the aboriginal Britains (a Celtic People) out of their homeland and into the highlands of Wales. Border defense is a kind of law enforcement designed to keep out people who would simply squat here and drive us out.
Libertarians also tend to support legalization of narcotics. While that sounds "fair" it leads to broken lives. Just ask China how that turned out after the Chinese were forced to accept the opium trade.
And they support "Free Trade" but what is free trade? What does that even mean? Trade passes borders and there is nothing in this life that is truly free. The fact is what we call "free trade" isn't free at all; almost all countries have barriers and restrictions. The U.S. became enamoured of this idea during the Reagan era and Clinton pushed forward with a series of trade agreements (whose purpose was to knit the world together economically to ultimately promote world government, much like the European Common Market led to the unification of Europe). Of course, we lost most of our manufacturing industry (and mining, and other good-paying blue collar jobs) because Third World countries can pay much less and offer no benefits or have health and safety standards. And with tariffs imposed by these countries as well as Value Added Taxes (VAT) American goods were kept out of many nations while they flooded our markets. Good for consumers since these products were cheap (and made by slave labor, or at least serf labor) but they KILLED American's ability to make a living. The vaunted "service jobs" so highly touted by the champions of this turned out to be losers, and there weren't many of them. A guy making forty bucks an hour isn't going to be asking people "want fries with that" for minimum wage.
And of course with open borders even these service jobs didn't materialize as companies could hire immigrant labor for cheaper.
Much of the hoopla surrounding free trade comes from Milton Friedman. While I admire Freeman immensely he was wrong about some things. From Adam Smith onward, almost every free market guy advocated using tariffs when other nations did so to us. But Friedman argued tariffswere never a good idea, that we were better off taking it in the shorts than in reciprocating. He's been proven spectacularly wrong. (BTW Adam Smith was fine with recioprocal tariffs, and said so on numerous occasions.)
Free trade and "libertarian" style open borders have become a suicide pact between fifty former states turned provinces under the imperial government.
And all of this could be seen in Rand Paul's commentary while speaking with Hannity. Sad but true.
Paul doesn't seem to understand that right now we need economic growth to grow our way out of the mountain of debt. He is holding out for fiscal discipline in a place without any, and he doesn't seem to understand that we can cut spending when the receipts start coming in during a huge economic boom. That boom is coming; Trump has all the ingrediants he needs except Paul and friends are going to torpedo the whole things to save a few dollars.
The phrase "penny wise and pound foolish" was coined for just such an occasion.
All Paul can be is a spoiler, handing victory to the Democrats. He's not going to win anything. There will be no major budget cuts because he stood his ground. Right now all he's doing is greasing the rails for the people who hate what he's selling.
Quite foolish.
Americans are FINALLY waking up!
CNN ChiefData Analyust AStonished to See Democrats Historic Key Advantage Completely Disappear in New Poll
Democrats have always been the "party of the Middle Class" in polls, enjoy leads of over 20% for a long time. Now it's neck-and-neck.
If the GOP handles this properly they can flip this entirely. They need to pass the Big Beautiful Bill, for instance.
I caught Rand Paul, one of the B cubed's detractors, on Sean Hannity yesterday. I like Paul, I really do, but he's more liberttarian than Conservative and he makes idiotic libertarian arguments. His argument against BBB was that it spent too much. I agree. But right now the political calculus is such that you can't just say "I'm voting on principle" becuase then you will lose, get nothing, and that means a major tax increase for the Middle Class. There will be no tax releif. And then every few months we'll have to go back and fight this battle over and over with the Democrats and the RINO wing and come next election the GOP will likely lose the House. Then the real fun begins; investigations, stunts, impeachments...
To accomplish any good you first have to win elections. While I think the best way to accomplish that is to be bold and lead, not follow along behind polls, I do think there is no reason to saw off your proboscis to spite your anterior head. There is a principled stance and just plain stupidity. Paul is teetering on the latter.
This is not the hill to die on. The B cubed does a lot of good, keeping the old tax cuts and adding a few more, much needed cuts. It spends too much, no question. But we need to get this through; so much is at stake here. Drilling. Border security, etc. If Congress doesn't pass this the public will rightly see them as useless.
But that is vintage libertarian. Libertarians have a number of beliefs I find quite odd. They reject border security, for instance, because they say it's not government's business who comes or goes or gets hired or whatnot. In a world governed by angels that may be true and we could avoid having a border at all, but this is not a world governed by Angels; it's a world where a lot of bad people mean us great harm.
You cannot have a country or maintain a culture if you have no control of who shows up.
History is replete with examples of cultures dying solely because a more numerous society decided to simply settle and take over. Our own nation was built that way, I might add. (Granted, the Native Americans were a fierce lot who practiced ritual torture and raped innocent women they stole and who were constantly at war, which is why they fell so easily to the white settlers. Oh, and they didn't really develop the land or build much.) The Japanese took Japan away from it's aboriginal inhabitants, the caucasian Ainu, who now number just a few hundred. India was conquered and reconquered. The Arabs exploded out of the Arabian Peninusla and now dominate most of North Africa and the Middle East, erasing the traditional cultures of the conquered lands in the process. The Spanish conquered multiple civilizations in the Americas and we call that area "Latin America" to this day. The German tribes conquered Britain - the Angles, Saxons, Normans, and Danes drove the aboriginal Britains (a Celtic People) out of their homeland and into the highlands of Wales. Border defense is a kind of law enforcement designed to keep out people who would simply squat here and drive us out.
Libertarians also tend to support legalization of narcotics. While that sounds "fair" it leads to broken lives. Just ask China how that turned out after the Chinese were forced to accept the opium trade.
And they support "Free Trade" but what is free trade? What does that even mean? Trade passes borders and there is nothing in this life that is truly free. The fact is what we call "free trade" isn't free at all; almost all countries have barriers and restrictions. The U.S. became enamoured of this idea during the Reagan era and Clinton pushed forward with a series of trade agreements (whose purpose was to knit the world together economically to ultimately promote world government, much like the European Common Market led to the unification of Europe). Of course, we lost most of our manufacturing industry (and mining, and other good-paying blue collar jobs) because Third World countries can pay much less and offer no benefits or have health and safety standards. And with tariffs imposed by these countries as well as Value Added Taxes (VAT) American goods were kept out of many nations while they flooded our markets. Good for consumers since these products were cheap (and made by slave labor, or at least serf labor) but they KILLED American's ability to make a living. The vaunted "service jobs" so highly touted by the champions of this turned out to be losers, and there weren't many of them. A guy making forty bucks an hour isn't going to be asking people "want fries with that" for minimum wage.
And of course with open borders even these service jobs didn't materialize as companies could hire immigrant labor for cheaper.
Much of the hoopla surrounding free trade comes from Milton Friedman. While I admire Freeman immensely he was wrong about some things. From Adam Smith onward, almost every free market guy advocated using tariffs when other nations did so to us. But Friedman argued tariffswere never a good idea, that we were better off taking it in the shorts than in reciprocating. He's been proven spectacularly wrong. (BTW Adam Smith was fine with recioprocal tariffs, and said so on numerous occasions.)
Free trade and "libertarian" style open borders have become a suicide pact between fifty former states turned provinces under the imperial government.
And all of this could be seen in Rand Paul's commentary while speaking with Hannity. Sad but true.
Paul doesn't seem to understand that right now we need economic growth to grow our way out of the mountain of debt. He is holding out for fiscal discipline in a place without any, and he doesn't seem to understand that we can cut spending when the receipts start coming in during a huge economic boom. That boom is coming; Trump has all the ingrediants he needs except Paul and friends are going to torpedo the whole things to save a few dollars.
The phrase "penny wise and pound foolish" was coined for just such an occasion.
All Paul can be is a spoiler, handing victory to the Democrats. He's not going to win anything. There will be no major budget cuts because he stood his ground. Right now all he's doing is greasing the rails for the people who hate what he's selling.
Quite foolish.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
06:55 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1177 words, total size 7 kb.
June 03, 2025
Brinkmanship
Timothy Birdnow
Something to take very seriously.
Zelensky’s Gauntlet – Did Ukraine Just Draw the U.S. and NATO Closer to War with Russia by Targeting Russian Strategic Long-Range Bombers Covered by SALT and START Treaties?
FTA:
Something to take very seriously.
Zelensky’s Gauntlet – Did Ukraine Just Draw the U.S. and NATO Closer to War with Russia by Targeting Russian Strategic Long-Range Bombers Covered by SALT and START Treaties?
FTA:
First the cliff notes version: There’s an important detail to remember. People are laughing at the long-range Russian bombers being left out in the open, vulnerable to attack. However, the bomber visibility is required as part of several nuclear agreements between the USA and Russia (SALT and START). Our U.S. long range nuclear capable bombers, covered under the same agreements, are also visible.
Ukraine President Zelenskyy is playing with fire by targeting them, which also explains why Zelenskyy never told President Trump in advance.
The U.S and NATO have provided the means. However, #1) did Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy just exploit a vulnerability by targeting Russian long-range nuclear capable bombers? and #2) was the CIA and NATO intelligence community a willfully blind participant knowing they would benefit?
Both the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT) and the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), call for U.S. and Russian long range nuclear capable bombers to remain "visible and observable by national technical means of verification.” That open visibility creates a mutual vulnerability as well as a method of surveillance and verification for both the USA and Russian Federation.
[Article III, Paragraph 7, START Treaty Overview]
Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and by extension his NATO enablers, just exploited that SALT/START vulnerability and used drones to attack Russian bombers covered by USA-Russia treaties. There are reports (and videos) now surfacing from inside Russia showing the Russian Federation moving strategic long-range mobile missile launchers into position for a counterattack against Ukraine.
Ukraine President Zelenskyy is playing with fire by targeting them, which also explains why Zelenskyy never told President Trump in advance.
The U.S and NATO have provided the means. However, #1) did Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy just exploit a vulnerability by targeting Russian long-range nuclear capable bombers? and #2) was the CIA and NATO intelligence community a willfully blind participant knowing they would benefit?
Both the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT) and the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), call for U.S. and Russian long range nuclear capable bombers to remain "visible and observable by national technical means of verification.” That open visibility creates a mutual vulnerability as well as a method of surveillance and verification for both the USA and Russian Federation.
[Article III, Paragraph 7, START Treaty Overview]
Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and by extension his NATO enablers, just exploited that SALT/START vulnerability and used drones to attack Russian bombers covered by USA-Russia treaties. There are reports (and videos) now surfacing from inside Russia showing the Russian Federation moving strategic long-range mobile missile launchers into position for a counterattack against Ukraine.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:06 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 273 words, total size 2 kb.
I'm Rubber You're Glue
Timothy Birdnow
Since when has any Democrat been concerned about transfering wealth?
Of course it's not and he knows it. The rich aren't getting richer off this. EVERYONE is getting richer off this.
Notice how these clowns never can give concrete examples?
Since when has any Democrat been concerned about transfering wealth?
"Republican budget is the biggest transfer of wealth from the middle class and poor to the super wealthy in the history of the country.”
U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D–CT)
U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D–CT)
Of course it's not and he knows it. The rich aren't getting richer off this. EVERYONE is getting richer off this.
Notice how these clowns never can give concrete examples?
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:49 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 75 words, total size 1 kb.
Tampon Tim's Call to Violence
Timothy Birdnow
So, Tim Walz says Democrats have been too nice to Trump and need to get meaner and bully him and his supporters.
Wasn't that the reason Trump won in the first place? The public saw the Demcrats as unhinged and just plain nasty. Every time they tried this they lost ground against him. Americans love an underdog.
And I would LOVE to see Walz go toe-to-toe with Trump. The Donald would chew him up and spit him out.
But I must ask, what does Walz think the Democrats have been doing since 2016? I really don't know how they can BE any meaner. Shoot; they impeached him twice and investigated him repeatedly, they tried to send him to prison with multiple bogus investigations, and they actually shot him. I don't think they can get much meaner than that.
This call to bullying and meanness only plays to the extreme radicals in the Democratic party. It will only alienate Middle America.
Actually this can be seen as a veiled threat of violence against Trump. It certainly is a dog-whistle to the lunatic fringe Left. There could be blood on Governor Tampon's hands, and not from the monthly visitor.
So, Tim Walz says Democrats have been too nice to Trump and need to get meaner and bully him and his supporters.
Wasn't that the reason Trump won in the first place? The public saw the Demcrats as unhinged and just plain nasty. Every time they tried this they lost ground against him. Americans love an underdog.
And I would LOVE to see Walz go toe-to-toe with Trump. The Donald would chew him up and spit him out.
But I must ask, what does Walz think the Democrats have been doing since 2016? I really don't know how they can BE any meaner. Shoot; they impeached him twice and investigated him repeatedly, they tried to send him to prison with multiple bogus investigations, and they actually shot him. I don't think they can get much meaner than that.
This call to bullying and meanness only plays to the extreme radicals in the Democratic party. It will only alienate Middle America.
Actually this can be seen as a veiled threat of violence against Trump. It certainly is a dog-whistle to the lunatic fringe Left. There could be blood on Governor Tampon's hands, and not from the monthly visitor.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:41 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 204 words, total size 1 kb.
Tappper Spills the Beans
Timothy Birdnow
Jake Tapper must be getting desperate.
After being proven profoundly wrong and then beaten up over his attempt to prosper from his lies to America, the faux journalist is now spilling the beans.
Jake Tapper Admits media Took Order from Democrats for Decades
FTA:
This is Tapper's way of getting back in good with the public. He knows he's probably destroyed his career over the long haul - a journalist who has admitted to lying about a major story. His only hope now is to switch sides and hope the Right embraces him, at least enough to keep him in the game.
Otherwwise he wouldn't even have been on Goldberg's podcast. (Naturally, Goldberg has been a Nevertrumper and he probably hoped for easier treatment.)
Don't fall for it. He'll be back at the news desk pimping for Democrats if they will have him.
Jake Tapper must be getting desperate.
After being proven profoundly wrong and then beaten up over his attempt to prosper from his lies to America, the faux journalist is now spilling the beans.
Jake Tapper Admits media Took Order from Democrats for Decades
FTA:
CNN anchor Jake Tapper acknowledged during recent interviews that the national press has, for years, functioned in service of the Democratic Party and failed to properly report on Joe Biden’s cognitive decline while in office.
Tapper’s remarks came during a conversation on "The Remnant” podcast with Jonah Goldberg on Thursday, where the two discussed perceived double standards in the media’s treatment of political figures based on party affiliation.
Goldberg argued that the press would have aggressively covered Biden’s mental decline if he had been a Republican or if President Donald Trump had represented a more establishment brand of conservatism.
"The one group of people who believe Biden’s ‘existential threat to democracy’ stuff about Trump was a big chunk of the D.C. press corps,” Goldberg said.
Tapper responded, "I don’t disagree with your general premise. And I think it’s unfortunate that a lot of the press criticism and journalism — and most known journalism professors out there — have been saying since the Bush years that it is the responsibility of journalists to basically take up the Democratic cause — capital D, not small-d — the Democratic Party cause. And I think that’s unfortunate. I don’t doubt that there were a lot of people who viewed the world that way.”
Tapper noted that while he agreed with Goldberg’s premise, he believed that the issue went beyond partisanship, pointing to a culture of "groupthink” and professional "intimidation” that shaped newsroom behavior during Biden’s presidency.
"I think it’s probably more complicated than partisanship,” Tapper said.
"We’re people too, journalists — and I think there’s probably a lot of groupthink. I think there’s probably a lot of intimidation.”
Tapper’s remarks came during a conversation on "The Remnant” podcast with Jonah Goldberg on Thursday, where the two discussed perceived double standards in the media’s treatment of political figures based on party affiliation.
Goldberg argued that the press would have aggressively covered Biden’s mental decline if he had been a Republican or if President Donald Trump had represented a more establishment brand of conservatism.
"The one group of people who believe Biden’s ‘existential threat to democracy’ stuff about Trump was a big chunk of the D.C. press corps,” Goldberg said.
Tapper responded, "I don’t disagree with your general premise. And I think it’s unfortunate that a lot of the press criticism and journalism — and most known journalism professors out there — have been saying since the Bush years that it is the responsibility of journalists to basically take up the Democratic cause — capital D, not small-d — the Democratic Party cause. And I think that’s unfortunate. I don’t doubt that there were a lot of people who viewed the world that way.”
Tapper noted that while he agreed with Goldberg’s premise, he believed that the issue went beyond partisanship, pointing to a culture of "groupthink” and professional "intimidation” that shaped newsroom behavior during Biden’s presidency.
"I think it’s probably more complicated than partisanship,” Tapper said.
"We’re people too, journalists — and I think there’s probably a lot of groupthink. I think there’s probably a lot of intimidation.”
This is Tapper's way of getting back in good with the public. He knows he's probably destroyed his career over the long haul - a journalist who has admitted to lying about a major story. His only hope now is to switch sides and hope the Right embraces him, at least enough to keep him in the game.
Otherwwise he wouldn't even have been on Goldberg's podcast. (Naturally, Goldberg has been a Nevertrumper and he probably hoped for easier treatment.)
Don't fall for it. He'll be back at the news desk pimping for Democrats if they will have him.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:27 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 423 words, total size 3 kb.
School Decision Not What You Think
Timothy Birdnow
The recent 4-4 split over whetther a Christian school could also be a charter school was, in the end, a victory for the conservatives, even though the Left is taking it as a win for their side.
The issue involves a case where St. Isidore of Seville Virtual School attempted to become a charter school receiving Oklahama state funds. The Oklahoma supreme court ruled this school may NOT receive sate funds because of it's religious nature, and the U.S. Supreme Court, in a partisan vote, deadlocked, affirming lower court rulings. Amy Conehead Barrett recused herself.
BUt here is where it gets interesting. From the Blaze:
SCOTUS didn't make any ruling on this and so all of these precedents will be taken into account by lower courts. The Left won this battle but may well lose the war. All that is needed is for another such case to come before the Court and Coney Barrett to stay in play (she recused herself because of ties to Notre Dame and her relationship with the head of the school.)
This is but a reprieve,not a pardon.
The recent 4-4 split over whetther a Christian school could also be a charter school was, in the end, a victory for the conservatives, even though the Left is taking it as a win for their side.
The issue involves a case where St. Isidore of Seville Virtual School attempted to become a charter school receiving Oklahama state funds. The Oklahoma supreme court ruled this school may NOT receive sate funds because of it's religious nature, and the U.S. Supreme Court, in a partisan vote, deadlocked, affirming lower court rulings. Amy Conehead Barrett recused herself.
BUt here is where it gets interesting. From the Blaze:
As Notre Dame Law Professor and Supreme Court scholar Richard Garnett observed, "The do-nothing denouement in this particular round of litigation does not preclude other courts, in other cases, from vindicating the no-discrimination rule and permitting religious schools to participate in charter-school programs.”
Garnett is right. The twin religion clauses of the First Amendment — the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause — permit certification of religious schools like St. Isidore’s as charter schools.
Take, for example, the court’s recent decisions involving the Free Exercise guarantee and school choice initiatives. When the court struck down the "No-Aid” provision in Montana’s state constitution that excluded religious schools and families from a publicly funded scholarship program for students attending private schools, Chief Justice John Roberts reaffirmed the Free Exercise Clause’s demand for fairness.
"A state need not subsidize private education,” he observed. "But once a State decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.”
Similarly, in Carson v. Makin, the court found that Maine violated the Constitution when it excluded religious schools from participating in a voucher program for rural students. Roberts, again writing for the court, explained that "the State pays tuition for certain students at private schools — so long as the schools are not religious. That is discrimination against religion.”
No clause against faith
Allowing religious schools such as St. Isidore’s to participate in a state’s charter school program is merely a natural application of this principle of fairness. But what about the Establishment Clause?
Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond argued that certifying St. Isidore’s as a charter school would violate the Establishment Clause.
His argument has some appeal, particularly for secularists who want public schools to have a virtual monopoly over America’s educational system. Granted, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Establishment Clause prohibits public schools from providing religious instruction. Private schools, by contrast, are free to do so. Charter schools receive public funding, but they are privately established and controlled schools with minimal regulatory oversight by the government.
Consequently, charter schools are not state actors. And because they are not state actors, a charter school’s endorsement of any particular religion does not constitute a violation of the Establishment Clause.
Garnett is right. The twin religion clauses of the First Amendment — the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause — permit certification of religious schools like St. Isidore’s as charter schools.
Take, for example, the court’s recent decisions involving the Free Exercise guarantee and school choice initiatives. When the court struck down the "No-Aid” provision in Montana’s state constitution that excluded religious schools and families from a publicly funded scholarship program for students attending private schools, Chief Justice John Roberts reaffirmed the Free Exercise Clause’s demand for fairness.
"A state need not subsidize private education,” he observed. "But once a State decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.”
Similarly, in Carson v. Makin, the court found that Maine violated the Constitution when it excluded religious schools from participating in a voucher program for rural students. Roberts, again writing for the court, explained that "the State pays tuition for certain students at private schools — so long as the schools are not religious. That is discrimination against religion.”
No clause against faith
Allowing religious schools such as St. Isidore’s to participate in a state’s charter school program is merely a natural application of this principle of fairness. But what about the Establishment Clause?
Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond argued that certifying St. Isidore’s as a charter school would violate the Establishment Clause.
His argument has some appeal, particularly for secularists who want public schools to have a virtual monopoly over America’s educational system. Granted, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Establishment Clause prohibits public schools from providing religious instruction. Private schools, by contrast, are free to do so. Charter schools receive public funding, but they are privately established and controlled schools with minimal regulatory oversight by the government.
Consequently, charter schools are not state actors. And because they are not state actors, a charter school’s endorsement of any particular religion does not constitute a violation of the Establishment Clause.
SCOTUS didn't make any ruling on this and so all of these precedents will be taken into account by lower courts. The Left won this battle but may well lose the war. All that is needed is for another such case to come before the Court and Coney Barrett to stay in play (she recused herself because of ties to Notre Dame and her relationship with the head of the school.)
This is but a reprieve,not a pardon.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:10 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 563 words, total size 4 kb.
How do You Get to Grooming Street?
Timothy Birdnow
Big Bird the kiddie Groomer.
'Sesame Street' targets children for Pride Month ... again: 'This should not be promoted to kids'
Ever wonder what Burt and Ernie do when the camera isn't on them? And what of that pedophile Oscar the Grouch, who lurks in trash cans waiting to pounce on innocent children?
Big Bird the kiddie Groomer.
'Sesame Street' targets children for Pride Month ... again: 'This should not be promoted to kids'
Ever wonder what Burt and Ernie do when the camera isn't on them? And what of that pedophile Oscar the Grouch, who lurks in trash cans waiting to pounce on innocent children?
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:51 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 62 words, total size 1 kb.
Woke Joke
Timothy Birdnow
The newest scam, the woke right.
The Left is doing with wokism what it did with Naziism; it's trying to flip it's own source of shame and tar it's enemies with their own sin.
"Woke" means accepting the new Leftist shibboleths - DEI, LGBTQ, BLM, etc. Woke has no other meaning. Applying it to the Right is like calling the Pope a Muslim.
The newest scam, the woke right.
The Left is doing with wokism what it did with Naziism; it's trying to flip it's own source of shame and tar it's enemies with their own sin.
"Woke" means accepting the new Leftist shibboleths - DEI, LGBTQ, BLM, etc. Woke has no other meaning. Applying it to the Right is like calling the Pope a Muslim.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:47 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 67 words, total size 1 kb.
Illegal Alien Attacks - Left Blames Trump
Timothy Birdnow
Flipped on Salem News and Mike Gallagher was on. He posted a video of the insane Keith Olbermann actually blaming Donald Trump for the terrorist attack in Colorado, saying he is entirely at fault because he diverted law enforcement efforts away from catching terrorists! He was confident, bold, his arms crossed and he looked defiantly into the camera as he said this too!
This proves the Democrats have absolutely no business being anywhere near the levers of power.
Apparently this moron missed the fact that the Trump DOJ and Homeland Security has prioritized catching illegals wanted for crimes.
Apparently this idiot has forgotten the many people tarred as terrorists by the Obama Homeland Security, people like the Pink Sisters, or Oathkeepers. He apparently fails to grasp that Biden weaponized the law against his political opposition.
And finally this utter fool fails to recognize this guy was not just an immigrant from Egypt but had come here illegally and overstayed the visa he did get - he was an illegal alien.
If Biden had kicked him out we would not have had this terrorist attack in the first place.
I cannot believe even the Democrats believe this nonsense. They are lying through their teeth and they know it.
Gallagher played another clip with a woman (whose name I didn't catch) saying it was caused by Trump's overheated rhetoric! And Bill Kristol, once a sensible guy, sat next to her and nodded.
By the way, I've long predicted this as a terrorist tactic. After every school shooting we've heard cries from the Left demanding gun contro, and I've long warned that if we ban guns terroristts will turn to incendiaries, which are easy to make at home and not just lethal but agonizingly so. True instruements of terror. And now they have deployed this.
I made this argument in an article in American Thinker a few years ago.
Gun Control: a Failed American Experiment
Poison gas will come next. It's not that difficult to make poison gas, including mustard gas. Release it in a confied area and you will have LOTS of casualties.
Human bodies are fragile and life is easily taken. Guns are just handy tools but there are plenty of others that can be used. Of course the Left wants gun control not to protect the public but to protect themselves and the coming glorious socialist state they have planned. You can't fight armies with these other weapons, at least not effectively. For that you need guns, and for that reason the Left wants guns banned.
Flipped on Salem News and Mike Gallagher was on. He posted a video of the insane Keith Olbermann actually blaming Donald Trump for the terrorist attack in Colorado, saying he is entirely at fault because he diverted law enforcement efforts away from catching terrorists! He was confident, bold, his arms crossed and he looked defiantly into the camera as he said this too!
This proves the Democrats have absolutely no business being anywhere near the levers of power.
Apparently this moron missed the fact that the Trump DOJ and Homeland Security has prioritized catching illegals wanted for crimes.
Apparently this idiot has forgotten the many people tarred as terrorists by the Obama Homeland Security, people like the Pink Sisters, or Oathkeepers. He apparently fails to grasp that Biden weaponized the law against his political opposition.
And finally this utter fool fails to recognize this guy was not just an immigrant from Egypt but had come here illegally and overstayed the visa he did get - he was an illegal alien.
If Biden had kicked him out we would not have had this terrorist attack in the first place.
I cannot believe even the Democrats believe this nonsense. They are lying through their teeth and they know it.
Gallagher played another clip with a woman (whose name I didn't catch) saying it was caused by Trump's overheated rhetoric! And Bill Kristol, once a sensible guy, sat next to her and nodded.
By the way, I've long predicted this as a terrorist tactic. After every school shooting we've heard cries from the Left demanding gun contro, and I've long warned that if we ban guns terroristts will turn to incendiaries, which are easy to make at home and not just lethal but agonizingly so. True instruements of terror. And now they have deployed this.
I made this argument in an article in American Thinker a few years ago.
Gun Control: a Failed American Experiment
Poison gas will come next. It's not that difficult to make poison gas, including mustard gas. Release it in a confied area and you will have LOTS of casualties.
Human bodies are fragile and life is easily taken. Guns are just handy tools but there are plenty of others that can be used. Of course the Left wants gun control not to protect the public but to protect themselves and the coming glorious socialist state they have planned. You can't fight armies with these other weapons, at least not effectively. For that you need guns, and for that reason the Left wants guns banned.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:23 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 435 words, total size 3 kb.
June 02, 2025
Boastings and Sweet Lies
Timothy Birdnow
Here is an essay that is bouncing off a column in Salon which calls for "pride" for dudes in dresses. The Salon article spoke much of the positive health benefits of being proud without differentiating pride for something well done and arrogance. Author Elizabeth Hlavinka appears not to understand the difference.
In point of fact there is too much pride these days; hubris is one of modernity's chief flaws. Pride, as the old saying points out, goeth before a fall. Pride was the very first sin, the one that consumed Lucifer and later our own great, great, great, great ....grandparents.
And the Left has been puffing people up with pride for decades now. I remember back in the '80's when the self-esteem movement got rolling; the left told us kids didn't do well in school because they weren't sufficiently proud of themselves and so the push was on to bloat up their self-esteem. This was done in many ways - participation trophys instead of giving them only to the winners, grade inflation in schools, etc. Children were told they were BETTER than adults and that THEY were smarter and wiser. The outcome? You had pepole like David Hogg, a monster of arrogance and vanity. Hogg once said, "it's like a phone; you have to just take the damned thing out of their hands and fix it for them." Of course Hogg had no idea of how much he didn't know then (or now) and how much more his parents knew. He mistook competency with a gadget, one that didn't exist when his parents were growing up. But I'll bet Hogg would be stymied with a rotary dial phone, or a manual typewriter. Bet he can't even drive a stick shift.
But he is the ideal the Left has long sought to achieve. Greta Thurnberg too. Empty headed arrogant little snots who have been told all their lives they are demigods and who believe they are brilliant when in fact they are pretty dull.
But getting back to this "pride" business. Why is a boy who is play-acting at being a girl more deserving of pride than an actual girl who actually accomplished something? One of the big problems these days is boys competing in girl's sports, shattering records as they are in a whole other class than the girls with whom they are competing. Most of these boys were mediocre athletes as boys but they are dominant in women's sports. Why, pray tell, are their feelings more important than all the girls who either won a silver or bronze, or worse no medal at all? There are a lot more bruised egos from pushing these dudes in dresses than just that one person who might not be as proud if he had to compete fairly against his own.
And it is a false pride, one unearned. Imagine a Heavyweight boxer being allowed to fight in the Welterweight class. He'd be unstoppable. But nobody would respect him because he had an obvious, unfair advantage. So if he knocks out the champ and gets the belt he has no reason to be proud; it was a form of chating. Imagine too a 25 year old man playing in a league for 13 year olds. That is ALMOST as creepy as dudes in dresses! And it is about as fair.
Our dunderheaded champion of faux science has this to say:
I'm sorry but prancing about in women's clothing is the source of their shame, not how society feels about it. These "women" know full well in their hearts they are men pretending to be women. If there is shame it is because they are ashamed of themselves.
There is such a thing as Natural Law and it is written on our hearts and in our minds. Nobody has to tell you about it; you instinctively know it. A boy knows he's a boy. He may have some trauma, something that twisted his mind, but deep down this boy knows what he is and by pretending to be otherwise he's violating Natural Law, and in the process he feels shame. It's true in many other aspects of life. Take any kinky fetish and you will find the person who practices it is ashamed of himself, tries to keep it quiet. There are very few people who have sex with animals, or with their sisters, or who get off on consuming the contents of the toilet, who boast about it. The few that do do so to shock people, nothing more, and they desire to do that as a way of convincing themselves it's acceptable. But it's not and they know it. I believe trans people know it too.
So how can you have "positive health outcomes" when you are flying in the face of Nature, of the natural order? You can't. This is only taking a sickness and metastasizing it.
The LGBTQEIEIO crowd is big on "who you are" and claims they are being authentic. How so? There is nothing authentic in taping your penis to your leg, or getting breast implants, or anything else associated with trans. It is by it's very nature deception - deceiving others and deceiving yourself. it is wholly inauthentic. "Who you are" is what Nature and Nature's God made you, not what you believe you can become through an act of will and a defiance of reality. If a trans person wants to be authentic they need to stop being trans.
I would add the homosexual community came up with that "this is who we are" business to thwart efforts by the medical community to cure homosexuality. Back in the 19th century homosexuals largely remained in the closet, but writings from that time showed they saw their gayness not as an identity but as a choice. They saw themselves as rebels. But when new psychological techniques were devised and the possibility of curing, or at least treating, homosexuality arose they switched it up and began claiming "this is who we are" because they knew that Americans wouldn't condemn them if they didn't havea choice. If there was a choice then they actually wanted to be homosexual, and the moral implications of that were obvious. But if it wasn't a choice nobody could blame them! It was wildly successful and now is applied to almost every minority group. They all say it's just who they are, they are hard-wired that way. But that is not true.
We know the human brain can rewire itself based on training and effort. for example, Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz did seminal research on OCD patients and was successful in treating them using mindful meditation - they rewired their brains JUST BY THINKING. Being gay might seem natural to gay people but it's largely because they rewired their brains to be gay. It no doubt can be rewired back.
As the Bible says, "as a man thinketh so shall he be".
BUT that doesn't mean he can alter fundamental aspects of his existence, like his sex. All he can do is fake it.
That is the core of our problem in this modern age; we are arrogant, believing ourselves to be gods and thinking we can have and do anything we like as long as we will it.
I would call this witchcraft; an atttempt to alter reality via an act of will and manipulation of circumstances. We live in an age of witches.
In the old stories the witch can transform herself into a beautiful girl via enchantment, but in the end she's always revealed as an old crone. Her beauty is not real. Just like the femininity of transsexuals.
No matter how much social validation the emperor's new wardrobe may get in the final analysis he's still naked.
Here is an essay that is bouncing off a column in Salon which calls for "pride" for dudes in dresses. The Salon article spoke much of the positive health benefits of being proud without differentiating pride for something well done and arrogance. Author Elizabeth Hlavinka appears not to understand the difference.
In point of fact there is too much pride these days; hubris is one of modernity's chief flaws. Pride, as the old saying points out, goeth before a fall. Pride was the very first sin, the one that consumed Lucifer and later our own great, great, great, great ....grandparents.
And the Left has been puffing people up with pride for decades now. I remember back in the '80's when the self-esteem movement got rolling; the left told us kids didn't do well in school because they weren't sufficiently proud of themselves and so the push was on to bloat up their self-esteem. This was done in many ways - participation trophys instead of giving them only to the winners, grade inflation in schools, etc. Children were told they were BETTER than adults and that THEY were smarter and wiser. The outcome? You had pepole like David Hogg, a monster of arrogance and vanity. Hogg once said, "it's like a phone; you have to just take the damned thing out of their hands and fix it for them." Of course Hogg had no idea of how much he didn't know then (or now) and how much more his parents knew. He mistook competency with a gadget, one that didn't exist when his parents were growing up. But I'll bet Hogg would be stymied with a rotary dial phone, or a manual typewriter. Bet he can't even drive a stick shift.
But he is the ideal the Left has long sought to achieve. Greta Thurnberg too. Empty headed arrogant little snots who have been told all their lives they are demigods and who believe they are brilliant when in fact they are pretty dull.
But getting back to this "pride" business. Why is a boy who is play-acting at being a girl more deserving of pride than an actual girl who actually accomplished something? One of the big problems these days is boys competing in girl's sports, shattering records as they are in a whole other class than the girls with whom they are competing. Most of these boys were mediocre athletes as boys but they are dominant in women's sports. Why, pray tell, are their feelings more important than all the girls who either won a silver or bronze, or worse no medal at all? There are a lot more bruised egos from pushing these dudes in dresses than just that one person who might not be as proud if he had to compete fairly against his own.
And it is a false pride, one unearned. Imagine a Heavyweight boxer being allowed to fight in the Welterweight class. He'd be unstoppable. But nobody would respect him because he had an obvious, unfair advantage. So if he knocks out the champ and gets the belt he has no reason to be proud; it was a form of chating. Imagine too a 25 year old man playing in a league for 13 year olds. That is ALMOST as creepy as dudes in dresses! And it is about as fair.
Our dunderheaded champion of faux science has this to say:
Many studies have linked negative health outcomes to shame, which is closely related to the stigma and discrimination LGBTQ and other marginalized communities face. Yet studies have also shown that positive health outcomes are associated with shame’s opposite: pride.”
Elizabeth Hlavinka, Salon
Elizabeth Hlavinka, Salon
I'm sorry but prancing about in women's clothing is the source of their shame, not how society feels about it. These "women" know full well in their hearts they are men pretending to be women. If there is shame it is because they are ashamed of themselves.
There is such a thing as Natural Law and it is written on our hearts and in our minds. Nobody has to tell you about it; you instinctively know it. A boy knows he's a boy. He may have some trauma, something that twisted his mind, but deep down this boy knows what he is and by pretending to be otherwise he's violating Natural Law, and in the process he feels shame. It's true in many other aspects of life. Take any kinky fetish and you will find the person who practices it is ashamed of himself, tries to keep it quiet. There are very few people who have sex with animals, or with their sisters, or who get off on consuming the contents of the toilet, who boast about it. The few that do do so to shock people, nothing more, and they desire to do that as a way of convincing themselves it's acceptable. But it's not and they know it. I believe trans people know it too.
So how can you have "positive health outcomes" when you are flying in the face of Nature, of the natural order? You can't. This is only taking a sickness and metastasizing it.
The LGBTQEIEIO crowd is big on "who you are" and claims they are being authentic. How so? There is nothing authentic in taping your penis to your leg, or getting breast implants, or anything else associated with trans. It is by it's very nature deception - deceiving others and deceiving yourself. it is wholly inauthentic. "Who you are" is what Nature and Nature's God made you, not what you believe you can become through an act of will and a defiance of reality. If a trans person wants to be authentic they need to stop being trans.
I would add the homosexual community came up with that "this is who we are" business to thwart efforts by the medical community to cure homosexuality. Back in the 19th century homosexuals largely remained in the closet, but writings from that time showed they saw their gayness not as an identity but as a choice. They saw themselves as rebels. But when new psychological techniques were devised and the possibility of curing, or at least treating, homosexuality arose they switched it up and began claiming "this is who we are" because they knew that Americans wouldn't condemn them if they didn't havea choice. If there was a choice then they actually wanted to be homosexual, and the moral implications of that were obvious. But if it wasn't a choice nobody could blame them! It was wildly successful and now is applied to almost every minority group. They all say it's just who they are, they are hard-wired that way. But that is not true.
We know the human brain can rewire itself based on training and effort. for example, Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz did seminal research on OCD patients and was successful in treating them using mindful meditation - they rewired their brains JUST BY THINKING. Being gay might seem natural to gay people but it's largely because they rewired their brains to be gay. It no doubt can be rewired back.
As the Bible says, "as a man thinketh so shall he be".
BUT that doesn't mean he can alter fundamental aspects of his existence, like his sex. All he can do is fake it.
That is the core of our problem in this modern age; we are arrogant, believing ourselves to be gods and thinking we can have and do anything we like as long as we will it.
I would call this witchcraft; an atttempt to alter reality via an act of will and manipulation of circumstances. We live in an age of witches.
In the old stories the witch can transform herself into a beautiful girl via enchantment, but in the end she's always revealed as an old crone. Her beauty is not real. Just like the femininity of transsexuals.
No matter how much social validation the emperor's new wardrobe may get in the final analysis he's still naked.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:18 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1343 words, total size 8 kb.
Ukrainian Drone Attack
Timothy Birdnow
The drone attacks on Russia were largely suicide attacks, with most of the covert agents who carried them out captured as was expected.
Conservative Treehouse has the story.
The drone attacks on Russia were largely suicide attacks, with most of the covert agents who carried them out captured as was expected.
Conservative Treehouse has the story.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:46 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.
<< Page 1 of 920 >>
99kb generated in CPU 0.0241, elapsed 0.3495 seconds.
39 queries taking 0.3326 seconds, 217 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
39 queries taking 0.3326 seconds, 217 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
