July 28, 2025
Beware of the Blob
Timothy Birdnow
Jo Nova pens a terrific piece about the world's ruling class and why they hide in shadows.
Why the Anonymous Blog Needs to be Invisible
She's right; they work best in the shadows, where the public can then be led more easily by their media outlets.
Jo Nova pens a terrific piece about the world's ruling class and why they hide in shadows.
Why the Anonymous Blog Needs to be Invisible
She's right; they work best in the shadows, where the public can then be led more easily by their media outlets.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
06:38 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.
Sorry for Technical Difficulties
Dear Readers
Sorry for the week-long outage; technical difficulties at the Mee.nu site. I posted the articles I had waiting for the return of the site if they were not just old news, and will post new ones if possible today (busy day).
Sprry for the inconvenience.
Tim
Sorry for the week-long outage; technical difficulties at the Mee.nu site. I posted the articles I had waiting for the return of the site if they were not just old news, and will post new ones if possible today (busy day).
Sprry for the inconvenience.
Tim
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
06:35 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.
The Incredible Shrinking Climate Change
Timothy Birdnow
This is yuuugggee! Pretty much annihilates the claims made by the Gang Green about the Earth's recent climate history.
Ancient Mud Just Shattered a 750,000-Year-Old Ice Myth
From the Sci Tech Daily article:
We've been told ad-nauseum that the Arctic was ice-covered until just now and that is' all Man's fault because of the release of carbon dioxide through industrial and automotive technology. But now we know ice-free years are as common as the cold and cannot now be used as justification for draconian schemes to "fight climate change".
Basically the researchers found species of algae in mud that corresponds to open-water-only species, species that could not have been there if the Arctic was covered by a heavy ice cap.
But, but, but...there is evidence of heavy ice shelves in the Arctic, is there not?
Well, only to a limited degree:
Apparently freezing and thawing in the Arctic is a normal thing.
This fits with anecdotal evidence from prior eras. Sea Captains have recorded open water in the Arctic in bygone eras, particularly in the eighteenth century (prior to the Little Ice Age) and in the early part of the 20th.
In 1903-05 Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen crossed the Northwest Passage, meaning the whole thing was open at that time. But he was upstaged years before by Adolf Erik Nordenskiold, a Swedish-Finnish explorer and scientist who did the longer Northeast Passage in 1878-79. This was WELL before any rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide. This was before Svante Arrhenius devised his theory of Greenhouse Gas warming (which he theorized in 1896).
And it ignores the fact that the Vikings did quite a bit of sailing through the Arctic during the Middle Ages. Vikings settled along the Arctic Ocean throughout Russia, meaning they had to be able to sail the long coastline.
So this is a discovery that puts yet another nail in the coffin of catastophic climate change theory.
At this point the argument has become rather like the old Midieval "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" debate. It is no longer a serious discussion.
Another story in Sci Tech Daily suggests that much of the observed planetary warming (under 1* F.) is caused by a reduction in ozone in the atmosphere. If that explains half of the 20th century warming (which was the most pronounced) and land use changes explain much of it too, as does decreasing planetary alebedo (cloudiness) what percentage of heating is driven by carbon dioxide, and if little why are we demanding dcraconian cuts in emissions and establishing world organizations to enforce them?
Also, you may want to ponder this.
Apparently low Arctic sea ice has no impact on severe cold weather as has been postulated by the warmiacs.
This is yuuugggee! Pretty much annihilates the claims made by the Gang Green about the Earth's recent climate history.
Ancient Mud Just Shattered a 750,000-Year-Old Ice Myth
From the Sci Tech Daily article:
Evidence of algae growth and climate simulations reveal the Arctic had seasonal ice, not a permanent ice shelf, for much of the past 750,000 years. These insights challenge long-standing theories.
For a long time, researchers have debated whether a thick, continuous ice shelf once blanketed the entire Arctic Ocean during the most extreme ice ages. However, a new study published in Science Advances challenges this theory, finding no supporting evidence for a vast ice shelf approximately 1 kilometer thick.
Instead, the findings suggest that the Arctic Ocean was covered by seasonal sea ice, which would have allowed for patches of open water and conditions capable of sustaining life, even during the coldest periods of the last 750,000 years.
For a long time, researchers have debated whether a thick, continuous ice shelf once blanketed the entire Arctic Ocean during the most extreme ice ages. However, a new study published in Science Advances challenges this theory, finding no supporting evidence for a vast ice shelf approximately 1 kilometer thick.
Instead, the findings suggest that the Arctic Ocean was covered by seasonal sea ice, which would have allowed for patches of open water and conditions capable of sustaining life, even during the coldest periods of the last 750,000 years.
We've been told ad-nauseum that the Arctic was ice-covered until just now and that is' all Man's fault because of the release of carbon dioxide through industrial and automotive technology. But now we know ice-free years are as common as the cold and cannot now be used as justification for draconian schemes to "fight climate change".
Basically the researchers found species of algae in mud that corresponds to open-water-only species, species that could not have been there if the Arctic was covered by a heavy ice cap.
"Our sediment cores show that marine life was active even during the coldest times,” explained Jochen Knies, the study’s lead author from UiT The Arctic University of Norway and co-leader of the Into the Blue – i2B project. "That tells us there must have been light and open water at the surface. You wouldn’t see that if the entire Arctic was locked under a kilometre-thick slab of ice.”
A crucial piece of evidence was the presence of a molecule called IP25, which is produced by algae that live in seasonal sea ice. Its consistent detection in the sediment layers suggests that the Arctic experienced recurring sea ice cycles, rather than being permanently sealed by a solid ice cover.
A crucial piece of evidence was the presence of a molecule called IP25, which is produced by algae that live in seasonal sea ice. Its consistent detection in the sediment layers suggests that the Arctic experienced recurring sea ice cycles, rather than being permanently sealed by a solid ice cover.
But, but, but...there is evidence of heavy ice shelves in the Arctic, is there not?
Well, only to a limited degree:
Some scientists have argued that features on the Arctic seafloor suggest that a huge, grounded ice shelf once covered the entire ocean. But this new study offers another explanation.
"There may have been short-lived ice shelves in some parts of the Arctic during especially severe cold phases,” said Knies. "But we don’t see any sign of a single, massive ice shelf that covered everything for thousands of years.”
One possible exception could have occurred about 650,000 years ago, when biological activity in the sediment record dropped sharply. But even then, the evidence points to a temporary event, not a long-lasting frozen lid over the Arctic.
"There may have been short-lived ice shelves in some parts of the Arctic during especially severe cold phases,” said Knies. "But we don’t see any sign of a single, massive ice shelf that covered everything for thousands of years.”
One possible exception could have occurred about 650,000 years ago, when biological activity in the sediment record dropped sharply. But even then, the evidence points to a temporary event, not a long-lasting frozen lid over the Arctic.
Apparently freezing and thawing in the Arctic is a normal thing.
This fits with anecdotal evidence from prior eras. Sea Captains have recorded open water in the Arctic in bygone eras, particularly in the eighteenth century (prior to the Little Ice Age) and in the early part of the 20th.
In 1903-05 Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen crossed the Northwest Passage, meaning the whole thing was open at that time. But he was upstaged years before by Adolf Erik Nordenskiold, a Swedish-Finnish explorer and scientist who did the longer Northeast Passage in 1878-79. This was WELL before any rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide. This was before Svante Arrhenius devised his theory of Greenhouse Gas warming (which he theorized in 1896).
And it ignores the fact that the Vikings did quite a bit of sailing through the Arctic during the Middle Ages. Vikings settled along the Arctic Ocean throughout Russia, meaning they had to be able to sail the long coastline.
So this is a discovery that puts yet another nail in the coffin of catastophic climate change theory.
At this point the argument has become rather like the old Midieval "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" debate. It is no longer a serious discussion.
Another story in Sci Tech Daily suggests that much of the observed planetary warming (under 1* F.) is caused by a reduction in ozone in the atmosphere. If that explains half of the 20th century warming (which was the most pronounced) and land use changes explain much of it too, as does decreasing planetary alebedo (cloudiness) what percentage of heating is driven by carbon dioxide, and if little why are we demanding dcraconian cuts in emissions and establishing world organizations to enforce them?
Also, you may want to ponder this.
Apparently low Arctic sea ice has no impact on severe cold weather as has been postulated by the warmiacs.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
06:30 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 806 words, total size 6 kb.
Menshevik Momdani
Timothy Birdnow
Don't tell me this guy isn't a Communist!
Zohran Mamdani Supports the Abolition of Property in Resurfaced Video
I once heard a perfect description of the difference between Communism and socialism. Socialism is where you own the cow but the government owns the milk, while under communism the government owns both the milk and the cow. Under that definition Momdani clearly is a communist, not a socialist.
Zerohan made his commie comments while discussing housing and his idea that it is a right granted by God, er, government.
I am mindful of the Apostle Paul "when I was a child I thought like a child, reasoned like a child, but when I grew up I put away childish things". Momdani still reasons like a child (as do all those on the :eft).
Don't tell me this guy isn't a Communist!
Zohran Mamdani Supports the Abolition of Property in Resurfaced Video
I once heard a perfect description of the difference between Communism and socialism. Socialism is where you own the cow but the government owns the milk, while under communism the government owns both the milk and the cow. Under that definition Momdani clearly is a communist, not a socialist.
Zerohan made his commie comments while discussing housing and his idea that it is a right granted by God, er, government.
I am mindful of the Apostle Paul "when I was a child I thought like a child, reasoned like a child, but when I grew up I put away childish things". Momdani still reasons like a child (as do all those on the :eft).
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
06:25 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 136 words, total size 1 kb.
Life on Venus?
Timothy Birdnow
Ammonia,Phosphene, and other such compounds have been found in trace amounts on Venus. This is an excitting development as it could mean there is some sort of microbial life floating in the upper atmosphere of the molten planet.
There ARE abiotic ways to generate these, but they are all hydrogen-based chemicals, which is a huge surprise as Venus appears to be completely without any hydrogen or water.
A geo-chemist I knew explained it to me once, how a "reducing atmosphere" worked. Sadly I don't remember what he told me about it but he assured me it is possible for this sort of thing to happen. I assume hydrogen can be obtained via the solar wind. And if oxygen is mixed with ammonia you get water and nitrogen monoxide.
Venus is a most unlikely place for life. The planet is just about as big as the Earth and gravity is comparable,but unlike the Earth it's atmosphere is incredibly dense - a hundred times as dense as the Earth (making it every bit as dense as AOC and possible worse than Bernie Sanders) and it's surface is tremendously volcanic - the most volcanic place in the solar system. Temperatures are 900* F. at ground level. There is no water, and the clouds are full of acid which rains down on th planet. But it is within the liquid water band in terms of distance from the sun and is believed to have had oceans early on, oceans which evaporated away as the sun warmed and the planet's rotation got wonky (Venus' day is longer than her year and is retrograde, with the sun, if you could see it, rising in the West and setting in the East). Venus has no magnetic field, so it is seared by solar radiation in it's upper levels. Still, the air up around 20 miles high is a comfortable 14 lbs per square inch (1 bar) and temperatures are a lovely 50* or so. If it weren't for the fact it's almost all carbon dioxide - a poisonous gas in such concentrations - and you had acid in the clouds it would be a comfortable place to live. (Between fifty and seventy km up the clouds are almost entirely sulfuric acid). Sulfuric acid is generally a compound of sulfur and water and a base can disassociate the molecules, so apparently airborn life could find the water it would need in this way, much as the Earth's early atmosphere did. Don't quote me; chemistry isn't my bag.
Ammonia, which has been found in the Venusian atmosphere, is a molecule composed of Nitrogen and Hydrogen (NH3) and represents three of the four known essentials for life (the fourth being carbon, which the Venusian atmosphere is lousy with.) So if there is ammonia in the upper atmosphere there could well be some living organisms there. Maybe.
BTW the productin of ammonia is exothermic, meaning it gives off heat. One wonders if this chemical process isn't at least partly responsible for the intense heat of the Venusian atmosphere. Now it's all blamed on the Greenhosue Effect, but is it?
At any rate there is a plan to send a probe to study this better. It would be intersting to find life on Venus, a most unlikely spot for living organisms. But at one time Venus had a lot of water and a surface temperature just under 200* F. and life could have started there and hung in. Certainly we see life forms on Earth, primarily in volcanic vents, that lives in high sodium concentrations and high temperatures. It's possible.
I wouldn't bet money on it though.
Ammonia,Phosphene, and other such compounds have been found in trace amounts on Venus. This is an excitting development as it could mean there is some sort of microbial life floating in the upper atmosphere of the molten planet.
There ARE abiotic ways to generate these, but they are all hydrogen-based chemicals, which is a huge surprise as Venus appears to be completely without any hydrogen or water.
A geo-chemist I knew explained it to me once, how a "reducing atmosphere" worked. Sadly I don't remember what he told me about it but he assured me it is possible for this sort of thing to happen. I assume hydrogen can be obtained via the solar wind. And if oxygen is mixed with ammonia you get water and nitrogen monoxide.
Venus is a most unlikely place for life. The planet is just about as big as the Earth and gravity is comparable,but unlike the Earth it's atmosphere is incredibly dense - a hundred times as dense as the Earth (making it every bit as dense as AOC and possible worse than Bernie Sanders) and it's surface is tremendously volcanic - the most volcanic place in the solar system. Temperatures are 900* F. at ground level. There is no water, and the clouds are full of acid which rains down on th planet. But it is within the liquid water band in terms of distance from the sun and is believed to have had oceans early on, oceans which evaporated away as the sun warmed and the planet's rotation got wonky (Venus' day is longer than her year and is retrograde, with the sun, if you could see it, rising in the West and setting in the East). Venus has no magnetic field, so it is seared by solar radiation in it's upper levels. Still, the air up around 20 miles high is a comfortable 14 lbs per square inch (1 bar) and temperatures are a lovely 50* or so. If it weren't for the fact it's almost all carbon dioxide - a poisonous gas in such concentrations - and you had acid in the clouds it would be a comfortable place to live. (Between fifty and seventy km up the clouds are almost entirely sulfuric acid). Sulfuric acid is generally a compound of sulfur and water and a base can disassociate the molecules, so apparently airborn life could find the water it would need in this way, much as the Earth's early atmosphere did. Don't quote me; chemistry isn't my bag.
Ammonia, which has been found in the Venusian atmosphere, is a molecule composed of Nitrogen and Hydrogen (NH3) and represents three of the four known essentials for life (the fourth being carbon, which the Venusian atmosphere is lousy with.) So if there is ammonia in the upper atmosphere there could well be some living organisms there. Maybe.
BTW the productin of ammonia is exothermic, meaning it gives off heat. One wonders if this chemical process isn't at least partly responsible for the intense heat of the Venusian atmosphere. Now it's all blamed on the Greenhosue Effect, but is it?
At any rate there is a plan to send a probe to study this better. It would be intersting to find life on Venus, a most unlikely spot for living organisms. But at one time Venus had a lot of water and a surface temperature just under 200* F. and life could have started there and hung in. Certainly we see life forms on Earth, primarily in volcanic vents, that lives in high sodium concentrations and high temperatures. It's possible.
I wouldn't bet money on it though.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
06:23 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 610 words, total size 4 kb.
Vanuata's Doing Fine
Timothy Birdnow
Vanuata led a cabal of climate clowns in a in a case at the World Court to get them to rule that "climate change" is an urgent and existential threat to all mankind and say international law requires nations to adopt draconian schemes and redistionist policies.
Only thing is, climate change seems to have made Vanuata no smaller.
See where I'm going with this? The island nation isn't shrinking at all.
It MAY be losing some beach as is natural to small islands - beaches come and beaches go. But the island isn't shrinking. ('m surprised it isn't growing; many Pacific islands - especially atolls - have been growing in recent years despite alleged sea level rise. )
The Marshall Islands, Kiribati, and the Saychelles (in the Indian Ocean) have all seen land growth despite the alleged sea level rise.See also this.
I would add Vanuata has suffered from a pretty bad problem with deforestation, something guaranteed to lead to beach loss as water is not being asborbed by the forest but is rushing down to the sea and taking sand with it.
So Vanuata had no standing because there were no damages from this. It's just another cheap con by people who have learned the way to grift money out of guilt-ridden liberal Westerners.
Vanuata led a cabal of climate clowns in a in a case at the World Court to get them to rule that "climate change" is an urgent and existential threat to all mankind and say international law requires nations to adopt draconian schemes and redistionist policies.
Only thing is, climate change seems to have made Vanuata no smaller.
"Vanuatu surface area for 2022 was 12,190, a 0% increase from 2021 . Vanuatu surface area for 2021 was. Vanuatu surface area for 2020 was 12,190, a 0% increase from 2019. Vanuatu surface area for 2019 was 12,190, a 0% increase from 2018."
See where I'm going with this? The island nation isn't shrinking at all.
It MAY be losing some beach as is natural to small islands - beaches come and beaches go. But the island isn't shrinking. ('m surprised it isn't growing; many Pacific islands - especially atolls - have been growing in recent years despite alleged sea level rise. )
The Marshall Islands, Kiribati, and the Saychelles (in the Indian Ocean) have all seen land growth despite the alleged sea level rise.See also this.
I would add Vanuata has suffered from a pretty bad problem with deforestation, something guaranteed to lead to beach loss as water is not being asborbed by the forest but is rushing down to the sea and taking sand with it.
"In 2020, Vanuatu had 1.12 Mha of natural forest, extending over 91% of its land area. In 2024, it lost 290 ha of natural forest"
So Vanuata had no standing because there were no damages from this. It's just another cheap con by people who have learned the way to grift money out of guilt-ridden liberal Westerners.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
06:16 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 288 words, total size 2 kb.
Big Bird Bias
Timothy Birdnow
We all knew NPR/PBS was biased and here is the proof.
NPR CEO ASked for Proof of polittical Bias and Oh Boy did Senator Kennedy Deliver
I can proudly say one of my biggest articles I've ever written was a blogpost at American Thinker which I wrote after I noticed the "transcript" of an Obama State of the Union speech was subtly altered to hide a gaffe.
PBS alters transcript to hide Obama gaffe
That one wound up all over the place, including being addfressed by PBS's ombudsman and by Bill Moyer, as well as Jonah Goldberg, David Limbaugh, and a host of others.
But beyond the news one must look at the leftism in it's programming in general, but prticularly in it's children's programming. Sesame Street and the Electric Company were both radical leftism with puppets. And they have such radical shows as Independent Lens and America Reframed. The network is full of transsexuals, homosexuals, and every other "rainbow" entity.
It's well past time for the plug to be pulled.
We all knew NPR/PBS was biased and here is the proof.
NPR CEO ASked for Proof of polittical Bias and Oh Boy did Senator Kennedy Deliver
I can proudly say one of my biggest articles I've ever written was a blogpost at American Thinker which I wrote after I noticed the "transcript" of an Obama State of the Union speech was subtly altered to hide a gaffe.
PBS alters transcript to hide Obama gaffe
That one wound up all over the place, including being addfressed by PBS's ombudsman and by Bill Moyer, as well as Jonah Goldberg, David Limbaugh, and a host of others.
But beyond the news one must look at the leftism in it's programming in general, but prticularly in it's children's programming. Sesame Street and the Electric Company were both radical leftism with puppets. And they have such radical shows as Independent Lens and America Reframed. The network is full of transsexuals, homosexuals, and every other "rainbow" entity.
It's well past time for the plug to be pulled.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
06:11 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 176 words, total size 1 kb.
The Children are Ours
Timothy Birdnow
We all knew they were doing this. Children belong to the government, not the parents, in liberal-looney land.
Biden Justice Department Sought Federal Hook to Go After Parents as Domestic Terrorists
"It takes a village to raise a (brainwashed) child."
We all knew they were doing this. Children belong to the government, not the parents, in liberal-looney land.
Biden Justice Department Sought Federal Hook to Go After Parents as Domestic Terrorists
"It takes a village to raise a (brainwashed) child."
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
06:10 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.
Don Joseph
Timothy Birdnow
Hearings on Biden's health are resembling the fifties Mafia hearings more and more.
Jill Biden’s team is latest to plead the fifth…
But then Biden's whole administration resemnbled La Cosa Nostra anyway.
Hearings on Biden's health are resembling the fifties Mafia hearings more and more.
Jill Biden’s team is latest to plead the fifth…
But then Biden's whole administration resemnbled La Cosa Nostra anyway.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
06:09 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.
The Vaccine Grift
Timothy Birdnow
Contrary to their claims doctors actually DO make money - lots of it - from vaccinating people.
AAP claims doctors don’t profit from vaxing kids. Receipts says otherwise…
It's a big money racket and this article has the receipts to prove it.
FTA:
That's why every single doctor you saw pushed the vaccine on patients; there was no dispute among them. It was a way to make money.Lots of it:
If I had vaccinated the 6000 patients I treated for Covid, I would have made $1.5 million under BlueCross’ incentive program. https://t.co/M200hnu0Ch
— Mary Talley Bowden MD (@MdBreathe) July 16, 2025
Contrary to their claims doctors actually DO make money - lots of it - from vaccinating people.
AAP claims doctors don’t profit from vaxing kids. Receipts says otherwise…
It's a big money racket and this article has the receipts to prove it.
FTA:
While the media and medical establishment scramble to cover for each other, the truth keeps leaking out, and as you can imagine, it’s not pretty. This week, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) took to X to slam RFK Jr. for saying what a lot of us already knew: pediatricians made money, real, big money, off the COVID vaccine push, especially on kids.
The AAP tried to shut the conversation down fast:
Pediatricians do not profit off vaccines. In fact, most pediatricians either break even or even lose money when they offer vaccines. Misleading parents about doctors’ motivations puts children’s health at risk and sows distrust in lifesaving vaccinations.https://t.co/BmRlh6wx1G
— American Academy of Pediatrics (@AmerAcadPeds) July 16, 2025
But here’s the thing: they’re lying. And the internet brought the receipts.
However, before we get to that, we’d be remiss not to point out how the New York Times jumped at the chance to once again run cover for Big Pharma and the crooked medical community.
READ MORE: Major plot twist in the ‘Is Brigitte Macron a man?’ saga…
To help their buddies at the AAP, they ran a sympathetic sob story from a small-town doctor who claimed she couldn’t afford to offer vaccines. Here’s the exact excerpt they used to push the narrative that vaccinating kids was a financial burden, not a profit center.
The New York Times:
Dr. Stacey Bartell wanted to offer vaccines to her patients. But at her small family medicine practice in a Detroit suburb, she could not find a way to make the finances work.
Stocking enough vaccines for her patients would cost thousands of dollars upfront, with no guarantee the sum would be recouped. She employed just one nurse practitioner, and would have to hire additional staff to manage the inventory and stay on top of insurance billing. And the special refrigerators required to store vaccines would cost another $1,000.
She knew how much vaccines mattered to her patients’ health. But it was money her practice, which was already operating on thin margins, couldn’t afford to spend.
"We just haven’t been able to shore it up here,” Dr. Bartell said. Instead she has to send her patients to pharmacies and the county health department for their shots — a concession that "hurts my heart,” she said.
So a few weeks ago, when Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the health and human services secretary, claimed in an interview with Tucker Carlson that vaccine profits created "perverse incentives” for pediatricians to push immunizations, Dr. Bartell was confused.
They also double down by citing a 2017 study and quoting another doctor claiming that pediatricians don’t make money from shots; they just "overcome obstacles” to provide them. It’s all very emotional and neatly packaged for absolute damage control. The NYT piece goes on:
Doctors widely consider vaccines to be a money pit. Research shows that most pediatricians either break even or lose money on shots. One 2017 study found that nearly a quarter of family medicine providers and 12 percent of pediatricians stopped purchasing vaccines because of prohibitive costs.
To many experts, suggesting otherwise not only ignored that data, but also sent a dangerous message: that patients should doubt their doctor’s motives in recommending vaccines.
"This idea that we vaccinate kids to make money honestly is misleading and dangerous,” said Dr. David Higgins, a pediatrician and preventive medicine expert at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus.
"We actually overcome obstacles to be able to provide them,” he added.
But now, let’s bring in actual evidence, not emotional manipulation, into the mix.
The AAP tried to shut the conversation down fast:
Pediatricians do not profit off vaccines. In fact, most pediatricians either break even or even lose money when they offer vaccines. Misleading parents about doctors’ motivations puts children’s health at risk and sows distrust in lifesaving vaccinations.https://t.co/BmRlh6wx1G
— American Academy of Pediatrics (@AmerAcadPeds) July 16, 2025
But here’s the thing: they’re lying. And the internet brought the receipts.
However, before we get to that, we’d be remiss not to point out how the New York Times jumped at the chance to once again run cover for Big Pharma and the crooked medical community.
READ MORE: Major plot twist in the ‘Is Brigitte Macron a man?’ saga…
To help their buddies at the AAP, they ran a sympathetic sob story from a small-town doctor who claimed she couldn’t afford to offer vaccines. Here’s the exact excerpt they used to push the narrative that vaccinating kids was a financial burden, not a profit center.
The New York Times:
Dr. Stacey Bartell wanted to offer vaccines to her patients. But at her small family medicine practice in a Detroit suburb, she could not find a way to make the finances work.
Stocking enough vaccines for her patients would cost thousands of dollars upfront, with no guarantee the sum would be recouped. She employed just one nurse practitioner, and would have to hire additional staff to manage the inventory and stay on top of insurance billing. And the special refrigerators required to store vaccines would cost another $1,000.
She knew how much vaccines mattered to her patients’ health. But it was money her practice, which was already operating on thin margins, couldn’t afford to spend.
"We just haven’t been able to shore it up here,” Dr. Bartell said. Instead she has to send her patients to pharmacies and the county health department for their shots — a concession that "hurts my heart,” she said.
So a few weeks ago, when Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the health and human services secretary, claimed in an interview with Tucker Carlson that vaccine profits created "perverse incentives” for pediatricians to push immunizations, Dr. Bartell was confused.
They also double down by citing a 2017 study and quoting another doctor claiming that pediatricians don’t make money from shots; they just "overcome obstacles” to provide them. It’s all very emotional and neatly packaged for absolute damage control. The NYT piece goes on:
Doctors widely consider vaccines to be a money pit. Research shows that most pediatricians either break even or lose money on shots. One 2017 study found that nearly a quarter of family medicine providers and 12 percent of pediatricians stopped purchasing vaccines because of prohibitive costs.
To many experts, suggesting otherwise not only ignored that data, but also sent a dangerous message: that patients should doubt their doctor’s motives in recommending vaccines.
"This idea that we vaccinate kids to make money honestly is misleading and dangerous,” said Dr. David Higgins, a pediatrician and preventive medicine expert at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus.
"We actually overcome obstacles to be able to provide them,” he added.
But now, let’s bring in actual evidence, not emotional manipulation, into the mix.
The image you see below is a flyer from Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield Medicaid. This image lays out the exact dollar amounts medical experts could earn for pushing COVID vaccines on patients. The more patients vaccinated, the higher the payout, actually up to $250 per "newly vaccinated” member.
We’re talking:
$70 per patient at 50% vax rate
$175 per patient at 50% vax rate (final incentive tier)
And up to $250 per newly vaccinated patient at 75% compliance
This wasn’t about breaking even. This was a performance-based bonus system tied directly to how many jabs a doctor could inflict—and yes, that included kids
We’re talking:
$70 per patient at 50% vax rate
$175 per patient at 50% vax rate (final incentive tier)
And up to $250 per newly vaccinated patient at 75% compliance
This wasn’t about breaking even. This was a performance-based bonus system tied directly to how many jabs a doctor could inflict—and yes, that included kids
That's why every single doctor you saw pushed the vaccine on patients; there was no dispute among them. It was a way to make money.Lots of it:
If I had vaccinated the 6000 patients I treated for Covid, I would have made $1.5 million under BlueCross’ incentive program. https://t.co/M200hnu0Ch
— Mary Talley Bowden MD (@MdBreathe) July 16, 2025
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
06:07 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 804 words, total size 6 kb.
Great Reset in Cali
Timothy Birdnow
California Governor Gavin "Burn Bany Burn" Newsom is letting the Leftists seize the remains of the Pacific Pallisades to build "low income housing" on one of L.A.'s premier parcels of real estate.
After promising he wouldn't seize this land he's allowing Karen "kiss my" Bass to do just that.
Pray tell, how is Malibu and the Pallisades going to have enough tax money to operate when property values take a precipitous dive? Housing projects always ruin property values.
And of course they have simply not granted rebuilding permits, so the place remains a burned out shell. Why not move the homelss there? What a brilliant idea!
California Governor Gavin "Burn Bany Burn" Newsom is letting the Leftists seize the remains of the Pacific Pallisades to build "low income housing" on one of L.A.'s premier parcels of real estate.
After promising he wouldn't seize this land he's allowing Karen "kiss my" Bass to do just that.
Pray tell, how is Malibu and the Pallisades going to have enough tax money to operate when property values take a precipitous dive? Housing projects always ruin property values.
And of course they have simply not granted rebuilding permits, so the place remains a burned out shell. Why not move the homelss there? What a brilliant idea!
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
06:01 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 112 words, total size 1 kb.
Jersey Fraud
Timothy Birdnow
This is how political machines work after all. No vote fraud my eye!
Report Finds New Jersey Voter Rolls Have More Than 32,000 "Questionable” Voter Records Oh, and this too.
This is how political machines work after all. No vote fraud my eye!
Report Finds New Jersey Voter Rolls Have More Than 32,000 "Questionable” Voter Records Oh, and this too.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
05:59 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.
Russia Threatens NATO
Timothy Birdnow
This is probably just bluster but it's bluster by a cabal of obvious psychopaths who have nuclear weapons....
Russia Threatens Pre-Emptive Strikes If NATO Continues to Provide Support for Ukraine
Former Russian President Medvedev made these threats, not Putin, I might add. Medvedev is and always has been Puttin's puppet, so it is coming from Putin (who wisely is avoiding making these statements himself.)
Author Ward Clark argues that any attack by Moscow on any NATO member would lead to war is a bit disingenuous; it's NATO making the act of war here, not Russia, and while he is entitled to his own viewpoint at least he should be honest enough to admit that. NATO has openly crossed the line on several occasions in this war and is preparing to cross a rubicon.
Trump is playing this about as well as he could given the cards he was dealt by the previous Administration. I know many of the "no war, ever" crowd will be fuming over this the fact remains that Trump needs to influence events so as to settle this war, which is killing vast numbers of people and threatening the security of all Europe. Trump wants to settle this, not let it grind to it's horrible conclusion, which will mean Moscow in Kiev and an eternal guerilla war in the region. THAT would be a greater threat to NATO and the U.S. than settling this thing now. But Putin refuses to negotiate in good faith at this point and he must be made to understand he can't have it all,that a half a loaf is better than no loaf.
Had this war not dragged on for so long a negotiated settlement would have been much easier. Now Trump is forced into aggressive diplomacy. His hope is that the Russian People, or at least the billionaires who own the kleptocratic nation, will tire of spending their money on a largely lost cause and demand a negotiated settlement.
This is your typical Trump high-stakes poker game. But it is a very dangerous one to play.
As regular readers know, I have long opposed this war and our meddling except as mediator. I think the Russians have their own viewpoint, a viewpoint completely ignored in this because the internationalists want to bleed Russia dry and then absorb the husk. That's why they neither tried to settle it nor win it; they wanted this thing to simmer adn thus drain Russian coffers and arms supplies and manpower.
And Trump has tried to negotiate a peace without much luck as both sides have their dander up. It's hard to sit down with the people you think are monsters and make concessions (especially for the Ukrainians). I also think Zelensky is a huge part of the problem; he's basically made himself dictator of the Ukraine as part of his emergency war powers (suspended elections indefinitely, suspended freedom of religion, made parliament (the Verkhovna Rada) his bitch, arrested journalists, etc.) Most of this was accomplished with the aid of NATO and the Western aid flowing into his government coffers. Without NATO backing the Ukrainians forces would have collapsed inside of six months.
In fact his government was put in power by the CIA in the first place, or at least the government prior to his administration. Russia has never forgotten that little fact. Nor the fact Ukraine cut off water from the Dneiper river to the Crimea. Nor the fact that during the leadup to the invasion Ukraine was shelling Russians in Crimea. Nor the fact they suppressed the use of Russian as a language in the east, or that they suppressed the Orthodox Church. Also, Russia has long seen Ukraine as a renegade province, not a nation.
But certainly the Ukrainians have big scores to settle - like the invasion of Crimea, or the attempt to strangle her economy by cutting off gas and oil. And they remember the Holodomor, the murder of millions of Ukrainian farmers by slow starvation as a policy of the old Soviet Union. That's not something easily forgotten and forgiven, especially when the people who did that to you are now at your door asking for a big chunk of your country.
And of course Russia invaded them; kind of hard to make nice after that.
So now both sides are stalemated and intractable and something or someone has to break the stalemate. Putin keeps violating cease-fires, and he isn't negotiating in good faith, so Trump is upping the ante in hopes that Putin will come back to the negotiating table and be serious about it. It might work. It might lead to doomsday.
Trump's only other option is to simply let the situation burn itself out, meaning allow Russia to annex the Ukraine and thus be in a position to threaten the former Warsaw Pact countries. No doubt Putin wants them back as well.
And remember we DID promise the Ukrainians that we would defend them if Russia attacked when asking them to give up their old Soviet nukes. The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances made this promise back in 1994, so we are under some obligation.
Of course one must ask how long does our obligation last, especially since it was not a formal treaty? That was over thirty years ago and times have most definitely changed. Is the U.S. still obligated to protect, say, Cuba, which we did in the Spanish American war? Are we obligated to protect Panama? It may be in our interests but certainly such agreements expire over time, even if there is no formal expiration date.
This is no small question and the Russians certainly need to have some minor victory so they can save face and end the war on a (fake) high note. But the Europeans want nothing exxcept Russia's face in the dirt, and they have always been the ones fanning the flames in this.
The question is, will this sabre-rattling just be big talk or will it turn to action at some point? That's the real danger.
This is probably just bluster but it's bluster by a cabal of obvious psychopaths who have nuclear weapons....
Russia Threatens Pre-Emptive Strikes If NATO Continues to Provide Support for Ukraine
Former Russian President Medvedev made these threats, not Putin, I might add. Medvedev is and always has been Puttin's puppet, so it is coming from Putin (who wisely is avoiding making these statements himself.)
Author Ward Clark argues that any attack by Moscow on any NATO member would lead to war is a bit disingenuous; it's NATO making the act of war here, not Russia, and while he is entitled to his own viewpoint at least he should be honest enough to admit that. NATO has openly crossed the line on several occasions in this war and is preparing to cross a rubicon.
Trump is playing this about as well as he could given the cards he was dealt by the previous Administration. I know many of the "no war, ever" crowd will be fuming over this the fact remains that Trump needs to influence events so as to settle this war, which is killing vast numbers of people and threatening the security of all Europe. Trump wants to settle this, not let it grind to it's horrible conclusion, which will mean Moscow in Kiev and an eternal guerilla war in the region. THAT would be a greater threat to NATO and the U.S. than settling this thing now. But Putin refuses to negotiate in good faith at this point and he must be made to understand he can't have it all,that a half a loaf is better than no loaf.
Had this war not dragged on for so long a negotiated settlement would have been much easier. Now Trump is forced into aggressive diplomacy. His hope is that the Russian People, or at least the billionaires who own the kleptocratic nation, will tire of spending their money on a largely lost cause and demand a negotiated settlement.
This is your typical Trump high-stakes poker game. But it is a very dangerous one to play.
As regular readers know, I have long opposed this war and our meddling except as mediator. I think the Russians have their own viewpoint, a viewpoint completely ignored in this because the internationalists want to bleed Russia dry and then absorb the husk. That's why they neither tried to settle it nor win it; they wanted this thing to simmer adn thus drain Russian coffers and arms supplies and manpower.
And Trump has tried to negotiate a peace without much luck as both sides have their dander up. It's hard to sit down with the people you think are monsters and make concessions (especially for the Ukrainians). I also think Zelensky is a huge part of the problem; he's basically made himself dictator of the Ukraine as part of his emergency war powers (suspended elections indefinitely, suspended freedom of religion, made parliament (the Verkhovna Rada) his bitch, arrested journalists, etc.) Most of this was accomplished with the aid of NATO and the Western aid flowing into his government coffers. Without NATO backing the Ukrainians forces would have collapsed inside of six months.
In fact his government was put in power by the CIA in the first place, or at least the government prior to his administration. Russia has never forgotten that little fact. Nor the fact Ukraine cut off water from the Dneiper river to the Crimea. Nor the fact that during the leadup to the invasion Ukraine was shelling Russians in Crimea. Nor the fact they suppressed the use of Russian as a language in the east, or that they suppressed the Orthodox Church. Also, Russia has long seen Ukraine as a renegade province, not a nation.
But certainly the Ukrainians have big scores to settle - like the invasion of Crimea, or the attempt to strangle her economy by cutting off gas and oil. And they remember the Holodomor, the murder of millions of Ukrainian farmers by slow starvation as a policy of the old Soviet Union. That's not something easily forgotten and forgiven, especially when the people who did that to you are now at your door asking for a big chunk of your country.
And of course Russia invaded them; kind of hard to make nice after that.
So now both sides are stalemated and intractable and something or someone has to break the stalemate. Putin keeps violating cease-fires, and he isn't negotiating in good faith, so Trump is upping the ante in hopes that Putin will come back to the negotiating table and be serious about it. It might work. It might lead to doomsday.
Trump's only other option is to simply let the situation burn itself out, meaning allow Russia to annex the Ukraine and thus be in a position to threaten the former Warsaw Pact countries. No doubt Putin wants them back as well.
And remember we DID promise the Ukrainians that we would defend them if Russia attacked when asking them to give up their old Soviet nukes. The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances made this promise back in 1994, so we are under some obligation.
Of course one must ask how long does our obligation last, especially since it was not a formal treaty? That was over thirty years ago and times have most definitely changed. Is the U.S. still obligated to protect, say, Cuba, which we did in the Spanish American war? Are we obligated to protect Panama? It may be in our interests but certainly such agreements expire over time, even if there is no formal expiration date.
This is no small question and the Russians certainly need to have some minor victory so they can save face and end the war on a (fake) high note. But the Europeans want nothing exxcept Russia's face in the dirt, and they have always been the ones fanning the flames in this.
The question is, will this sabre-rattling just be big talk or will it turn to action at some point? That's the real danger.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
05:54 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1014 words, total size 6 kb.
July 17, 2025
Israel Attacks Syria
Timothy Birdnow
Israel has attacked Syria, hitting Damascus, in a little-mentioned story with huge implications.
Read all about it here.
The IDF launched the strikes to protect the Druze, who are being abused by tthe revolutionary government there. And this is angering the Turks, who put a great deal of efffort into getting this government in place.
All out war could erupt in the Middle East at any moment as a result of this.
Read the article for a good analysis.
Israel has attacked Syria, hitting Damascus, in a little-mentioned story with huge implications.
Read all about it here.
The IDF launched the strikes to protect the Druze, who are being abused by tthe revolutionary government there. And this is angering the Turks, who put a great deal of efffort into getting this government in place.
All out war could erupt in the Middle East at any moment as a result of this.
Read the article for a good analysis.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:00 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 84 words, total size 1 kb.
Republican Bill for Amnesty
Timothy Birdnow
How many Quislings are in the GOP?
GOP Rep Teams Up with Democrat to Offer Legal Status to Illegal Aliens
Florida Rep.Maria Salazar is throwing her hat in with the Democrats on a new amnesty. And that is the word to use; making illegals legal is amnesty and nothing else.
Don't say I didn't warn you. I posted a week or two ago about how Republicans are now saying they could do an amnesty, now that the border is secure. That securing of the border was only the Establishment Republican way of quelling the internal rebellion by the rank-and-file so they could do this.
She said as much on Fox News:
Uh,we have HAD that conversation and spoke loudly and clearly last election - nobody here illegally can stay. How much plainer can we make it?
If they are here illegally they need to leave and apply to immigrate from their own country. You can't just skip the line.
Getting away with something does not excuse your actions in cheating.
Time to deport this woman, if nothing more than from the Republican Party. Surely there is someone who can mount a credible primary challenge to her.
Sadly both parties wanted amnesty for different reasons, and there was nobody representing Americans until now. Still there are people like this Salazar who are going to try to quietly push an amnesty forward.
It's bad for everyone. When Reagan did his amnesty he amnestized 3 million people and the GOP lost seats in Congress every election thereafter (until Gingrich and the Contract with America during the Clinton years) so it's terrible politics. And it's terrible for the country; how did America move so far left since Clinton? In no small part it was because of the vast numbers of aliens coming into the country.
Unless we want the U.S. to be part of Latin America and to be a People's Republic in everything but name we have to reverse all of this. We won't do that with people like this in our party. Big tents are fine as long as all the elephants are marching in a line; they aren't so good when people are climbing under the tent to get in and ruin the show.
How many Quislings are in the GOP?
GOP Rep Teams Up with Democrat to Offer Legal Status to Illegal Aliens
Florida Rep.Maria Salazar is throwing her hat in with the Democrats on a new amnesty. And that is the word to use; making illegals legal is amnesty and nothing else.
Don't say I didn't warn you. I posted a week or two ago about how Republicans are now saying they could do an amnesty, now that the border is secure. That securing of the border was only the Establishment Republican way of quelling the internal rebellion by the rank-and-file so they could do this.
She said as much on Fox News:
"I believe that after the border has been sealed… the moment now is to have that national conversation and determine who are we going to be targeting.
Uh,we have HAD that conversation and spoke loudly and clearly last election - nobody here illegally can stay. How much plainer can we make it?
If they are here illegally they need to leave and apply to immigrate from their own country. You can't just skip the line.
Getting away with something does not excuse your actions in cheating.
"Now there is another mass of people—who most of them are Hispanics—who have been here for more than five years. They have been contributing to the economy, who do not have a criminal record… and for that reason, I’m introducing today… immigration reform.
Time to deport this woman, if nothing more than from the Republican Party. Surely there is someone who can mount a credible primary challenge to her.
Sadly both parties wanted amnesty for different reasons, and there was nobody representing Americans until now. Still there are people like this Salazar who are going to try to quietly push an amnesty forward.
It's bad for everyone. When Reagan did his amnesty he amnestized 3 million people and the GOP lost seats in Congress every election thereafter (until Gingrich and the Contract with America during the Clinton years) so it's terrible politics. And it's terrible for the country; how did America move so far left since Clinton? In no small part it was because of the vast numbers of aliens coming into the country.
Unless we want the U.S. to be part of Latin America and to be a People's Republic in everything but name we have to reverse all of this. We won't do that with people like this in our party. Big tents are fine as long as all the elephants are marching in a line; they aren't so good when people are climbing under the tent to get in and ruin the show.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
07:39 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 449 words, total size 3 kb.
Deep State
Timothy Birdnow
Oh my. if this is true...
Report: Trump’s Secret Service Director Sean Curran Implicated in His Assassination Attempt?
This goes to the very bighest levels of our national security apparatus - as I've long argued.
Oh my. if this is true...
Report: Trump’s Secret Service Director Sean Curran Implicated in His Assassination Attempt?
This goes to the very bighest levels of our national security apparatus - as I've long argued.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
07:02 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.
The Anti-Hero King
Timothy Birdnow
Martin Luther King is now sainted by popular culture and the media and historians, but he was a force driving America into socialism. Oh, and his most famous speech was plagiarized (with the help of a guy who financed the Communist Party USA) from a Confederate newspaperback in the latter 19th century.
How MLK radicalized victim mentality — and stole famous speech
FTA:
Now the legend is greater than the man, and Mr. King ( I won't call him doctor - his was a theology degree and it's not customary to use the honorific for liberal arts Ph.D's)has transcended mortal status. He is now being tauted as a founder of the nation, no less than WAshington or Jefferson or Lincoln. And in some ways he IS a founder, or rather a refounder, moving America into a very different place and not for the better.
We need to look at King in the same way we look at our Founders these days - with a critical eye. If Jefferson and Washington can be cancelled why shouldn't King? He actually did stuff worth cancelling him over. Sauce for the goose...
Martin Luther King is now sainted by popular culture and the media and historians, but he was a force driving America into socialism. Oh, and his most famous speech was plagiarized (with the help of a guy who financed the Communist Party USA) from a Confederate newspaperback in the latter 19th century.
How MLK radicalized victim mentality — and stole famous speech
FTA:
"King,
he wasn’t interested in this kind of 'build up your communities and
pull up your own bootstraps.' In fact, he besmirched the
pull-up-your-bootstraps philosophy. ‘How can a bootless man lift up
himself by his own bootstraps?’ said MLK,” Jackson explains.
Jackson notes that Stanley Levison, "the number one financier for the communist party,” was MLK’s "handler.”
"The relationship between Levison and King had the kind of making of a giant in real time, and it worked,” he explains. "The historians picked up on it after he was martyred — Washington, D.C., erected a 40-foot monument paying homage to him.”
Levison was also the true author behind the famous line, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
Jackson explains that Levison "must have read an article from an 1872 newspaper” printed in South Carolina, where a Confederate journalist wrote, "surely a day will come in South Carolina where the men of South Carolina are judged not by the color of their skin but the content of their character.”
"So they lifted that from a Confederate newspaper, and Martin Luther King quoted it in this ‘I have a dream’ speech,” Jackson says. "Frankly, it doesn’t matter who coined it, and what matters is that it’s true. But we’re attaching a lot of stuff to MLK that didn’t originate with him.
Jackson notes that Stanley Levison, "the number one financier for the communist party,” was MLK’s "handler.”
"The relationship between Levison and King had the kind of making of a giant in real time, and it worked,” he explains. "The historians picked up on it after he was martyred — Washington, D.C., erected a 40-foot monument paying homage to him.”
Levison was also the true author behind the famous line, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
Jackson explains that Levison "must have read an article from an 1872 newspaper” printed in South Carolina, where a Confederate journalist wrote, "surely a day will come in South Carolina where the men of South Carolina are judged not by the color of their skin but the content of their character.”
"So they lifted that from a Confederate newspaper, and Martin Luther King quoted it in this ‘I have a dream’ speech,” Jackson says. "Frankly, it doesn’t matter who coined it, and what matters is that it’s true. But we’re attaching a lot of stuff to MLK that didn’t originate with him.
Now the legend is greater than the man, and Mr. King ( I won't call him doctor - his was a theology degree and it's not customary to use the honorific for liberal arts Ph.D's)has transcended mortal status. He is now being tauted as a founder of the nation, no less than WAshington or Jefferson or Lincoln. And in some ways he IS a founder, or rather a refounder, moving America into a very different place and not for the better.
We need to look at King in the same way we look at our Founders these days - with a critical eye. If Jefferson and Washington can be cancelled why shouldn't King? He actually did stuff worth cancelling him over. Sauce for the goose...
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
07:01 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 440 words, total size 3 kb.
Was the Autopen to "Hide the Decline"?
Timothy Birdnow
I just caught an interesting idea on a talk radio show yesterday; Biden may have used the autopen to hide his deteriorating mental state.
It is a known fact that dementia leads to changes in handwriting and a handwriting expert can tell it right away. So Biden signed everything with the autopen which had a signature on it from years, decades ago.
Cute trick.
Speaking of the autopen pardons, Mr. Biden's Chief of Staff apparentloy gave the go-ahead to pardon Anthony Fauci. So there is real question about the legality of that pardon - and many others.
This will wind up going to the Supreme Court, methinks. The Trump Administration should move forward with prosecutions of guys like Fauci and force this into Federal court to get SCOTUS to weigh in on it. We need this matter resolved. The PRESIDENT issues pardons, not his Chief of Staff, not some political aid. If he doesn't do it personally it should not be considered valid.
I just caught an interesting idea on a talk radio show yesterday; Biden may have used the autopen to hide his deteriorating mental state.
It is a known fact that dementia leads to changes in handwriting and a handwriting expert can tell it right away. So Biden signed everything with the autopen which had a signature on it from years, decades ago.
Cute trick.
Speaking of the autopen pardons, Mr. Biden's Chief of Staff apparentloy gave the go-ahead to pardon Anthony Fauci. So there is real question about the legality of that pardon - and many others.
This will wind up going to the Supreme Court, methinks. The Trump Administration should move forward with prosecutions of guys like Fauci and force this into Federal court to get SCOTUS to weigh in on it. We need this matter resolved. The PRESIDENT issues pardons, not his Chief of Staff, not some political aid. If he doesn't do it personally it should not be considered valid.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
06:59 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 172 words, total size 1 kb.
Killing Dept. of Ed.
Timothy Birdnow
Good bye Dept. of Ed.
Supreme Court Blocks Lower Court Ruling, Permitting Trump Administration to Fire Dept of Ed Workforce
From the Conservative Treehouse:
As Ronald Reagan used to say, there is nothing closer on this Earth to eternal life than a government program. In this case it's a whole department, a terrible thing that has destroyed education in America because it cares more about teacher's union s and woke beliefs than actually educating kids.
Test scores have dropped year after year since the inception of the DOE. I should rather call it the dum.
Trump can't eliminate the agency entirely without Congressional approval but he can defang it. That iss exactly what he is doing. it's perfectly legal.
Now if he can get rid of the Department of Energy and the EPA and HHS...
Good bye Dept. of Ed.
Supreme Court Blocks Lower Court Ruling, Permitting Trump Administration to Fire Dept of Ed Workforce
From the Conservative Treehouse:
The justices apparently voted 6-3 to stay the lower court ruling with the DEI justices (gay, latino, black) filing a 19-page dissent. [SEE RULING HERE] The high court lifted an injunction a federal judge in Boston granted in May against the firing of Dept of Education bureaucrats.
The lower court judge ruled the staff cuts were so drastic they would prevent the department from carrying out duties mandated by Congress. He also said the mass firings appeared to be part of Trump’s plan to eliminate the Education Department entirely, despite a lack of congressional authorization to do so.
Today, the Supreme Court again affirmed the President is within his power to control the size and scope of the executive branch.
The lower court judge ruled the staff cuts were so drastic they would prevent the department from carrying out duties mandated by Congress. He also said the mass firings appeared to be part of Trump’s plan to eliminate the Education Department entirely, despite a lack of congressional authorization to do so.
Today, the Supreme Court again affirmed the President is within his power to control the size and scope of the executive branch.
As Ronald Reagan used to say, there is nothing closer on this Earth to eternal life than a government program. In this case it's a whole department, a terrible thing that has destroyed education in America because it cares more about teacher's union s and woke beliefs than actually educating kids.
Test scores have dropped year after year since the inception of the DOE. I should rather call it the dum.
Trump can't eliminate the agency entirely without Congressional approval but he can defang it. That iss exactly what he is doing. it's perfectly legal.
Now if he can get rid of the Department of Energy and the EPA and HHS...
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
06:57 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 258 words, total size 2 kb.
July 15, 2025
The Autopen is Mightier than the Sword
Timothy Birdnow
I just caught an interesting idea on a talk radio show yesterday; Biden may have used the autopen to hide his deteriorating mental state.
It is a known fact that dementia leads to changes in handwriting and a handwriting expert can tell it right away. So Biden signed everything with the autopen which had a signature on it from years, decades ago.
Cute trick.
Speaking of the autopen pardons, Mr. Biden's Chief of Staff apparentloy gave the go-ahead to pardon Anthony Fauci. So there is real question about the legality of that pardon - and many others.
This will wind up going to the Supreme Court, methinks. The Trump Administration should move forward with prosecutions of guys like Fauci and force this into Federal court to get SCOTUS to weigh in on it. We need this matter resolved. The PRESIDENT issues pardons, not his Chief of Staff, not some political aid. If he doesn't do it personally it should not be considered valid.
I just caught an interesting idea on a talk radio show yesterday; Biden may have used the autopen to hide his deteriorating mental state.
It is a known fact that dementia leads to changes in handwriting and a handwriting expert can tell it right away. So Biden signed everything with the autopen which had a signature on it from years, decades ago.
Cute trick.
Speaking of the autopen pardons, Mr. Biden's Chief of Staff apparentloy gave the go-ahead to pardon Anthony Fauci. So there is real question about the legality of that pardon - and many others.
This will wind up going to the Supreme Court, methinks. The Trump Administration should move forward with prosecutions of guys like Fauci and force this into Federal court to get SCOTUS to weigh in on it. We need this matter resolved. The PRESIDENT issues pardons, not his Chief of Staff, not some political aid. If he doesn't do it personally it should not be considered valid.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:16 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 172 words, total size 1 kb.
92kb generated in CPU 0.0668, elapsed 0.7345 seconds.
45 queries taking 0.7189 seconds, 250 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
45 queries taking 0.7189 seconds, 250 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
