Timothy Birdnow

I am not MAHA. I do not think we are less healthy now than we were in olden days; our life expectancy is WAY higher now than even when I was a child. I'm about at the life expectancy back then; now I've got a good twenty years left. We DO have more health problems from things like obesity, but why wouldn't we? Life is so much easier now than it was even when I was a boy. People who worked in mines or factories or did other forms of manual labor now code or do paper work, and entertainment now cconsists of using computers in some way rather than going out and playing bush-league softball or whatnot.

No, we are in a golden age. Even cancer is a coefficient of this golden age; there are so few stresses on the body that some of the cells are getting bored. In fact autoimmune diseases have been rising and that is a function of our success; the immune system has nothing better to do so it attacks anything that might be a threat - even if it is just another part of the body doing it's job.

No, we live in a medical golden age. Sickness and death are inevitable, but we don't want even that so we complain that it is caused by our own hand. It's not; it's usually a case of "shit happens".

So I do not agree with MAHA on most issues.

That said we come to the reason for this rather long soliloquy; the MAHA folks are furious at Trump's EPA over Roundup.

The Daily Signal dishes on the issue:

Roundup has been around for decades and has been studied repeatedly and found not wanting. It complied with EPA rules forcing it to disclose that if used improperly it could be hazardous to health. There is no reason to believe Monsanto did anything wrong and thus holds liability for anyone's problem.

A Missouri farmer set this whole thing in motion by suing Baer and Monsanto (Baer is the parent company) over his cancer. Wh9le I sympathize with him it's still a matter of "shit happens" and correlation is not causality. The guy got cancer. He used Roundup. It does not follow that therefore Roundup caused his cancer. There are thousands of other factors that might have contributed to his getting cancer. That is a non-sequitur. It is like saying "John drinks water. John has cancer. Water caused John's cancer".

Who knows; water MIGHT WELL have caused John's cancer; it could be the fluoride put in it or something. But you cannot say definitively that is the case. Frankly I'm more worried about fluoride in water than glyphosate, but I'm not a farmer, of course.

At any rate correlation is not causality.

The problem is the WHO declared glyphosate a carcinogenic in a report they issued and all the sharks smelled blood - and are now systematically picking the carcass of Monsanto.

I wrote about this a while back. The original draft of the report concluded there was no evidence Roundup caused cancer. Environmental activists got their grubby paws on the report and altered it to say it was wildly carcinogenic, pure evil in a spray can.

I don't believe it; we've had decades of review of this product and only now have figured out that it is dangerous.

And there is no good replacement for glyphosates. Eliminating them will raise the price of our food substantially.

Anyway the EPA under Lee Zelden isn't taking the WHO's word for it. They are conducting their own review:

That review is likely to find what previous EPA reviews found; there is no great danger from glyphosates if used properly. That is what all former EPA studies have concluded.

MAHA people are yelling about how they rely on "industry studies" and use the same complaints and tactics the Gang Green uses in Global Warming arguments (I'm still waiting for my check from Big Oil). It's always a deep, dark conspiracy but big corporations to kill their customers with dangerous products. And the remedy is always to sue and take money from a corporation which will just pass that cost along to everyone else - a stealth tax on the public for the benefit of a very small few.

In the end these sorts of campaigns wind up simply making food (or whatever product) less affordable and often of lower quality. Do people really want bugs on their food, eating holes in it? That's what happens when you restrict pesticides (glyphosates are a herbicide but the same holds true for pesticides). I used to work in produce and we bought "organic" vegetables; mealy and full of bugs. The fact is our food quality and quantity is in no small part dependent on our chemicals, and Roundup helped to give us this golden age we live in.

Anyway the MAHA people are popping their corks and I suppose that was inevitable; they were only in the MAGA movement because they were against the status quo, not because they had reasoned, well-thought-out positions on other issues. There was no way they could be satisfied since they are essentially environmentalist wacko's sans the Bolshevism. Not all, surely; there were a lot of folks who hated the Covid vaccine who are MAHA, for instance, and they are right insofar as the Covid vaccine was a sop to big pharma all along and it has proven dangerous. Of course it's dangerous; it was entirely experimental. Nobody had ever used an mRNA vaccine before and we could have taken the time to make a regular vaccine using dead Covid like we do with other diseases. Covid vaccine mandates were a massive clinical experiment using the public as a huge test group.

That said, I get the MAHA folks where some things are concerned (like the Covid stuff, or the over-reliance on vaccinations in general) but they are wrong to go after RoTheundup. There are other, better hills to die on. Roundup isn't a hill on a battlefield at all; it's a parking lot in an Aldis store.

The Bible speaks much about discernment, the ability to see good and evil in everyday things. What is lacking in this is discernment. There are greater evils to fight than Roundup.

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Timothy Birdnow

The author is right until he says both sides engage in this absolutist moral judgment.

He is complaining about ARBITRARY moral judgments, such as the woke oppression of speech and the like, but then says the Right does the same thing. No, we do not. Rather we impose a political judgment based on logic over stupidity. We DO impose moral judgments on occasion, but they are rooted in solid Christian moral thinking. It's a world of difference over what he claims. I notice he provides no examples.

This author just wants to be seen as "fair and balanced" and thus accuses both sides of what is clearly the work of one side. When Conservatives castigate people it's because they have started playing footsie with those on the Left, when they betray us. But the Left attacks and destroys anyone who does not follow their strict orthodoxy. World of difference.

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Timothy Birdnow

American Thinker has a terrific article about microplastics in the human body and why the latest media panic is probably wrong. The same flawed techniques have been used to repeat research that finds evidence we are all swimming in plastics (fatty acids give the same signature). Once again it's the Michael Crichton theory of the use of mass hysteria to promote societal change "state of fear".

This is a good read.

BTW I remember researchers found that much of the plastics seen in the slides of these alarmists was actually residual plastic from their latex gloves.

My question; will we develop super powers like the comic book Plasticman and learn to stretch way the heck out? I sure would like to be able to do that when I'm watching t.v. and need to grab something.

Posted by: Dana Mathewson at June 30, 2026 12:14 AM (CSo3x)

Posted by: Greater Kailash Escort at June 30, 2026 04:45 AM (Ej4cO)

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at June 30, 2026 07:58 AM (oflqW)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Timothy Birdnow

Am I living in some sort of alternate universe? I seem to remember not so long ago the United States Supreme Court rules that district judges could not impose nation-wide edicts on the President. Also, the Supreme Court just ruled yet again that judges have very limited power over immigration law enforcement.

This judge has simply ignored the Court and is making her own law.

Her argument is that Trump has no authority over election laws. She simply ignores the fact this isn't so much about election law as it is about illegal immigration and Trump has supreme authority over that. She knows it too.

Naturally she is an Obama appointee.

From X:

Bill Melugin

@BillMelugin_

BREAKING: Boston-based federal judge Denise Casper (Obama appointee) has just issued a sweeping order that bans the Trump administration from implementing most of its federal voter ID executive orders, including a proof of citizenship requirement. Judge Casper concluded the Constitution "does not grant the President any specific powers over elections.”

DOJ expected to quickly appeal.

Bear in mind Trump is not tampering with how elections are run in any states; he is merely requiring states to implement proof of citizenship rules when registering someone to vote. NOT when they vote, when they register. This is an immigration matter, even if it is upending the vote fraud scheme of the Demo-left.

That is, of course, the real reason this puta has issued this order. She wants vote fraud as do most Democrats. Personally, I believe this country would have a solid Republican majority if we haven't been treated to massive cheating over the years. I think the Democrats know it too.

This is another case that could wind up at the Supreme Court. Hopefully the Court will spank her bottom raw (given the proclivity of many Democrats she might like that, but I digress.)

Remember, Trump is not making any sort of new rule for the states so much as simply demanding they enforce rules that are already part of federal law. It is illegal by law for non-citizens to vote in elections. Trump is just asking that voters prove they are citizens, or at least have some form of I.D. when voting. Trumps EO is not making laws but rather enforcing them.

There are all sorts of laws on the books that the Federal government enforces. We all know about the Fair Housing Act, or the Civil Rights Act.Every parking lot has a reserved spot or two for handicapped people. All states have an intoxication level set at 1.0 or less (I remember when Missouri had a 1.5 level but the Feds made them drop it). The 55 mph speed limit was stupid but it was forced by the Feds, as is the 70 mph speed limit now. The Feds enforce Federal laws and impose changes in how states do things (and often what they do) all the time.

So why can the federal government make states set speed limits but not make states enforce the law where voting is concerned?

If the central government has no right to make people prove their qualifications to vote why, pray tell, does the IRS do that to us every year? This judge's ruling should invalidate the right of the IRS to collect information on taxpayers.

I suspect Trump will win on appeal. This is just another monkey wrench thrown into the machinery to gum up the works.

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Timothy Birdnow

A century of Mel Brooks.

He's given so much joy to so many over the years. Who can forget Young Frankenstein, or Blazing Saddles, or Spaceballs, or the musical version of The Producers? Brooks is an American institution.

Happy birthday Mel! Wish we had another hundred years with you!

Posted by: Dana Mathewson at June 28, 2026 11:21 PM (W165o)

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at June 29, 2026 07:06 AM (oflqW)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Timothy Birdnow

Know how you make a small fortune in the wine business? Start with a large one.

Know how you go completely bankrupt in the wine business? Start a winery in California.

California is going to squeeze the wine industry worse than those wineries squeeze grapes in a press.

Hair gel Newsom has a scheme that will bankrupt many of the smaller wineries, which are always marginally profitable at best.

FTA:

These are farmers, not playboy wine makers. Grapes are a very labor-intensive and demanding crop to grow, and to grow grapes that will make great as opposed to bad wine requires a huge amount of attention and effort. I know; I used to grow grapes in my backyard and make wine. Grapes are notoriously fussy. To do it right requires a lot of costs and if the price of irrigation goes up these farmers will find it more profitable to grow olives or some other crop that needs less effort - and perhaps less water (not sure if olives do either but certainly there are other crops that need less of both).

And while California has been America's vineyard that may well change as new techniques have made it possible to grow the Vitis Vinifera grape (wine grapes from Europe) in other states, where the deadly Phylloxera Vastatrix bug lies in wait to feast on the roots of the defenseless plants. Actually Phylloxera was vanquished long ago by the grafting of Vinifera plants onto native American rootstocks - mainly from my home state of Missouri, but often by way of France which imported Missouri rootstocks - but there are other things that make Vinifera suffer in the middle of the country - fungi, swings in temperature, etc. Most of these have been addressed and now it's possible to grow Vinifera in most states. Constantine Frank, a guy from Russia, has grown great Pinot Noir and other Vinifera in upstate New York despite the bitter cold that hits the state. We grow some in Missouri although we prefer the French-American hybrids here. (They don't get a fair shake because of pure snobbery, but what can you do? I'd stack Chardonel or Traminette or Seyval up against Chardonnay or Gewurztraminer or Sauvignon Blanc any day, and as for reds Chambourcin gives many Pinots a run for their money. Oh, and Stark Starr or Cynthiana makes port style wines that can compete with the very best Portuguese.)

At any rate other places can and will work when California pushes a lot of winemakers out. In The Heartbreak Grape the owner of Calera, the winery that pioneered great Pinot Noir in the Central Coast, said he strongly considered opening his winery in Texas. Texas might be too warm for Pinot but I rather doubt Iowa would be. He might well wind up moving to Texas in the end or some other state. (Pinot likes hot days and cool nights.)

At any rate the cheaper wines will go up, making wine drinking less affordable for all Americans. So will the price of better wines, but the well-to-do can absorb the price spike. We've been in a golden age for wine; you can buy some very good cheap stuff. Heck, Charles Shaw's "two buck Chuck" wine is couch-cushion change price and gives a decent, palatable wine. Those days are going to be over. Shaw's cost for wine grapes will rise.

So perhaps Kentucky Bourbon will be the next big thing; there's plenty of it and it's prices aren't going up any time soon. And while microbreweries are struggling now as the younger folk drink cocktails they may see a resurgence as people buy good beer rather than good wine. And heck, some of 'em might even decide to try Missouri wine, or Texas wine, or Ohio wine. We all make some pretty good stuff here.

I assure you it ain't no Thunderbird.

Posted by: Bill H at June 29, 2026 09:32 AM (FRG6e)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Please pray for the People of Venezuela, especially those suffering fromm the recent earthquakes. Many are trapped under rubble. Many families have loved ones who are just disappeared and are desperately worried as they may well be dead. 

Our Father, who art in Heaven, hallowed be Thy name

Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on Earth as it is i Heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses

as we forgive those who trespass against us

and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.

Amen

Hail Mary full of grace the Lord is with thee

blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus

Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death, amen.

Glory be to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, Amen.

Posted by: Dana Mathewson at June 28, 2026 11:32 PM (W165o)

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at June 29, 2026 07:08 AM (oflqW)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Timothy Birdnow

O.K. so what happens when a rent-stabilized apartment needs major repairs?

A landlord cannot absorb the costs of major repairs if he can't raise rents, nor any other rising costs. Remember, the cost of living rises for the landlord as well as the tenant, and the landlord has the increased burden of having to take care of his property, pay taxes, etc. He has to be able to build those costs into his rent or he is losing money, and losing money is not why he bought property to begin with. Property ownership is a business. If it is unprofitable the landlord will cut his loses and dump it.

What that means is a lot of properties will start declining as maintenance is deferred and the landlord will prefer an empty building to tenants who don't pay. He'll try to sell if he can, and who is going to buy? You get into a downward spiral, with properties decaying and sub-par tenants coming in under government funded programs which guarantee the rent is paid but do not guarantee the quality of the tenants. Or the building empties out and sits vacant - a playground for criminals and scumbags.

I've seen it happen many times when I worked in real estate.

Raising rents is one of the prime tools used to control the quality of your tenants. Without that you have to accept people who may tear the place up or ruin the neighborhood since you can't discriminate based on anything other than what is on paper; if someone has the money they can get the property. High rents is how you keep out the riff-raff.

Now it's impossible and New York is going to go into decline. Mark my words.

If you put your thumb on the scale the other side moves. It's how it works in real estate. Freeze rent by law and you wind up with a declining market. It's as simple as that.

By the time Momdani is done New York is going to look like it did in the Kurt Russell movie Escape from New York. They'll have to put a wall around it to keep people in.

Posted by: Dana Mathewson at June 28, 2026 11:36 PM (W165o)

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at June 29, 2026 07:10 AM (oflqW)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Timothy Birdnow

Yes, but I had a belly fat problem since I was a kid...

In honor of this great breakthrough I give you the Jethro Tull classic Fat Man.

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Timothy Birdnow

We who opposed the legalization of marijuana always knew this was true.

I've known some potheads very well and most of them have mental health issues, from moderate to severe. They did NOT have those issues prior to inhaling the Devil's lettuce.

Source:

Public Health Institute

Summary:

Teens who use cannabis may face a substantially greater risk of developing serious mental health conditions, including psychotic and bipolar disorders, according to a study of more than 463,000 adolescents. Researchers found cannabis use often preceded these diagnoses by nearly two years, strengthening concerns about its long-term effects on developing brains.

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Timothy Birdnow

By Selwyn Duke

"Republicans are conservatives,” said author and CEO Kenin Spivak recently. "Conservatives are conservative.” This tautology was uttered to answer a question: Why do Republicans lose social and cultural wars despite winning elections?

The topic was raised on the Wednesday edition of Bill Martinez Live. (Note: Bill, on whose show I’ve appeared numerous times, is one of the really good guys in media.) Spivak, who’s also a financier, attorney, and consultant, addressed a line he penned in a June 15 RealClear Politics article. He’d written that

despite an edge in winning elections and appointing 60% of Supreme Court justices confirmed over the last 65 years, since the 1960s conservatives have been on the losing end of nearly every social and cultural battle and most policy disputes.

Explaining how this happened (and is happening) on Martinez’s program, he stated:

The Democrats, and progressives in particular, have spent 75 years advancing themselves…throughout all of our major institutions: education, federal government, state government, the media. And they’ve really gotten a hammerlock on those institutions. And they’ve used their control to pass regulations, not laws, where someone else in another institution has to comply with a rule they issue for a benefit to accrue. And then in the other institution they pass that rule, and it goes back and forth. …And that’s what’s given them their victory on all of these cultural and other policies.

How does this work? Grok artificial intelligence provided the following example and explanation (which I evaluated for accuracy):

Government Pressure on Social Media Platforms (Media/Tech/Information Flow)

Mechanism: White House officials, the Surgeon General, CDC, and FBI engaged in repeated communications, meetings, and demands with platforms (Twitter, Facebook/Meta, YouTube, etc.) to censor or suppress content on topics like COVID-19 origins/treatments/vaccines, the Hunter Biden laptop story, election integrity, and certain conservative viewpoints. This was often framed as combating "misinformation” or "disinformation,” backed by implicit or explicit threats of regulatory consequences (e.g., changes to Section 230 liability protections or antitrust scrutiny).

Cross-institution cycle: Platforms modified content moderation policies, algorithms (visibility filtering/shadowbanning), and enforcement to align with government priorities to maintain access to officials, avoid penalties, or preserve "partnerships.” This affected what millions saw, influencing public opinion, elections, and trust in institutions. Documented extensively in the Twitter Files and related congressional investigations/court cases (e.g., Missouri v. Biden).

Outcome: Reduced visibility or outright removal of dissenting views on major cultural/political issues, effectively shaping the information environment in ways aligned with progressive priorities — without new laws from Congress.

The above is especially egregious because, since it inhibited people’s ability to discuss cultural issues, it could affect the culture. Speaking of which…

Win the Culture, Own the Future

Spivak is singing my tune, and his point about regulatory institutional cross-infection is a good one. Yet there’s still more to it.

Spivak’s line "Conservatives are conservative” is a legitimate warning. It’s why I long ago ceased identifying as conservative. And no one explained the issue better than philosopher G.K. Chesterton.

"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives,” he wrote in 1924. "The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.”

Yes, I’ve often quoted the above (and will continue doing so until everyone gets it!) It relates, too, to conservatism’s and liberalism’s true natures.

These two isms are not ideologies so much, but processes. This is why the actual positions each term represents vary with time and place. (For example, conservatives in Sweden largely accept the "LGBTQ+” agenda; American conservatives largely reject it.) Liberalism is the process of ever trying to change the status quo. Conservatism is the process of ever trying to maintain it. The upshot:

As the status quo changes, so will the positions the conservatives are trying to conserve. Of course, the liberals are the change agents, the catalysts for status-quo alteration. Conclusion?

Conservatives are simply defending yesterday’s liberals’ social and cultural victories insofar as today’s status quo reflects them.

"The Best Defense is a Good Offense”

Imagine this as a lib-con war for cultural territory — except, only one side ever takes the offense. The libs come and attack the cons’ land. The latter resist, of course, but there’s pressure to be "reasonable,” to "compromise.” Oh, the cons may not relinquish their entire territory immediately, perhaps not even half. But whether ceding 10 percent, three percent, or one, the ultimate outcome is identical.

The libs capture 95 acres today, 505 the next year, 387 later, etc. As the process continues, the libs will have eventually conned the cons out of Traditionland entirely. It will still be called Traditionland, though, and the cons will still defend it, oblivious to how it’s not their ancestors’ realm anymore except in name.

A real-world example: Leftists demanded same-sex "marriage’s” official recognition. Conservatives eventually softened (in the head) on the issue and capitulated. True warriors for tradition would’ve proceeded differently. They wouldn’t have merely rejected the marriage attack.

They would’ve also demanded we remove government from marriage entirely and restore it as a solely religious institution. They’d have been, too as passionate about their restoration as the Left was about their degradation. And that’s what you call taking the offense.

Another factor I’ll mention, briefly, was addressed by ancient Chinese sage Confucius. "I have never seen one [person],” he said in The Analects, "who loves virtue as much as he loves sex.” (Ergo, China’s 1.4 billion population.) The left is marketing vice — a much easier sell than virtue.

And that’s why conservatives always lose cultural and social battles. Remember here that if the Founding Fathers had been conservatives they wouldn’t have been founders or fathers (of a nation). They would’ve been Loyalists, faithful to the crown.

So when pondering whether you’re conservative, always ask a question:

What, exactly, would I be conserving?

This article was originally published at The New American.

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Timothy Birdnow

This is exactly what happened in Ferguson Mo. with Mike Brown.

This is in Peoria, Ilinois.

I've spoken with cops who tell me this was what was happening when Officer Darren Wilson shot Mike Brown in Ferguson; people flooded out of the apartments there and began scuffling with the police, who were forced to withdraw. They had to send the coroner's wagon away because the couldn't guarantee it's safety and had to leave Mike Brown's body in the street. The media made a huge deal of that but it was a scene much like this one. If they had tried to take the body they likely would have had to shoot someone else.

We have created our own barbarians in America, and we are allowing them to run wild. In times past the cops would have shown up with billyclubs and that would have been that. But now the police are terrified to use force. That way leads to things like this.

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Timothy Birdnow

Here is an article in the somewhat unreliable Natural News about a small town in Delaware (the state that gave us Joe Biden) granting voting rights to, drumroll please! Corporations.

The town is named Fenwick, which I find rather suspicious in that that is the name of the tiny principality in the classic Peter sellers movie The Mouse that Roared.

So I did a Duckduckgo search and found that, yes indeed, there is a beach town named Fenwick and it did indeed pass an ordinance allowing corporations to vote - and a judge upheld this in court.

Corporations are legal entities that are treated as individuals under law, but only for tax and regulatory purposes. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled they have free speech rights. This is a next logical step I fear, but it is way over the line.

The Constitution limits voting to citizens and it cannot be argued that corporations are citizens. (Neither are robots, which the article worries is the next step.) This law gets around it by only being applicable to local elections but it's the nose of the camel in the tent; in time it will be applied more and more.

Corporate voting simply dilutes the votes of the People and is thus something neither desirable nor practical.

The Natural News article frets about the implications:

One could, I suppose, argue AI's are persons and as such entitled to vote. What would happen if this were to be implemented? There would be AI's everywhere voting as their human masters program them to and the vote would hence become meaningless.

I would add Spain has also granted "personhood" to apes, so in time our planet might be ruled by "damned dirty apes".

The NN article is right; this is the coming thing. And it will, in time, make elections a mere show.

BTW I suspect with Fenwick being a beach town there are more businesses there than residents and they were complaining about being cut out of the policy-making process. But it sets a bad precedent and if it can be done here it can be done anywhere.

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Timothy Birdnow

Was former German Chancellor Angela Merkel a Stasi? There is considerable evidence that she was.

It would explain why she took so many steps to screw over her own country, including opening the floodgates to massive immigration from Islamic countries.

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Timothy Birdnow

More foreign daycare fraud this time in New York and run by Pakistanis.

No wonder the Democrats don't want to end illegal immigration; the fraud is massive and I have no doubt a lot of the money finds it's way into Democratic coffers.

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Timothy Birdnow

Well, I'm embarrassed to have them as Americans with us!

BTW I'd hate to see her barr assed.

If you think America is so bad why not leave? Canada is right there after all. And since you love illegal aliens so much why not ask yourself why they all want to come here? If this country sucks so much why are millions upon millions seeking to find a way in?

When did loving your country and being proud of her become an embarrassment to people with great jobs and happy lives? How ungrateful do you have to be to think this way.

Larry David, the co-creator of Seinfeld - has really suffered in Trump's America too. I mean, he's rich, famous, and well loved. Gee, it must really stink! And he made all his money with a show about nothing. 

The Canadians would probably welcome him with open arms. I hear Montreal is beautiful this time of year!

If America is embarrassing to your elite dispositions why would you stay? Either shut up or leave.

Hide Comments | Add Comment

imothy BIrdnow

Don't kid yourself; this move to the extreme Left began long ago, as far back as Eugene McCarthy and probably before that.

But Reagan's success began the slow process of radicalizing the Democrats, and the election of 2000 galvanized some in the party. I remember Nancy Pelosi arguing the party needed to make a sharp left turn before she was elevated to House Minority Leader (and later Speaker) and she pitched her leadership based on "being proudly Progressive" at a time when conservative values were ascendant.

This has been coming a long time.

But why now? I suspect if we look at it we'll find the funding was there for a radical takeover. Now who do you suppose was funing the radicals? Why don't we know? We know George Soros does it with his many shell operations but who else?

Money is the lifeblood of politics and the radicals seem to have plenty of it, enough to grease the skids if nothing else. Democrats who think it political suicide are much more amenable when they see a big pile of cash.

I also suspect U.S. taxpayers have been funding them through things like USAID and other such schemes, laundering that tax money back to the radicals in the Democratic Party.

At any rate this article purports to show how the extreme left has taken over the Democratic Party.

It states:

Perhaps but that is just a symptom and not the cause. It's rather like saying the patient is ill because he has boubons on his skin and we need to treat it with a topical cream; the guy's about to die.

The reality is the Democrats are consumed with their lust for power and they have no original ideas or enthusiasm, and the radical leftists - mostly young people taught socialism in their schools - have the enthusiasm and unoriginal ideas that they think are uniquely their own and the exhausted Democrat Party embraced them as the only way to stay alive. I agree the party leadership was stale and predictable; the only weapon they had in their arsenal was "Orange Man Bad" and it did nothing for anyone. But the party had long since been moving leftward and the radicals just moved into a power vacuum. It would have happened had Schumer and Jeffries been pushing actual solid ideas or not. The Party was dying and, like an old rundown house an urban pioneer picked up for peanuts to rehab, the radicals are at work remaking the Democrats from a left/center coalition into America's preeminent socialist party.

At the moment they are rather like the Mensheviks in revolutionary Russia. In time the Bolsheviks - the violent socialists who thought the Mensheviks too squishy - will take over. That's how revolutionary parties work.

Democrats have been leftists certainly since Woodrow Wilson but they metastasized with Eugene McCarthy then George McGovern. The young kids who worked for McGovern were disillusioned and vowed to change the Democrats, who had offered rather luke warm support for McGovern. That was the beginning of the radicalization of the Democrats. People like Hillary Clinton got in the game after that, all part of an ideological crusade. Their revolution has been ongoing ever since and this is the final stage, where they display their true colors.

As Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle put it think of it as evolution in action.

We have to learn to stop thinking in terms of months and years and look at the longer picture. As Mitch McConnell liked to say (he's an ass but he was right here) we must play the long game. Or at least think in terms of long term strategy and context.

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Timothy Birdnow

This is exactly how the Morlocks separated from the Eloi:

In H.G. Wells' famous novel The Time Machine the time traveler found that humanity had split into two separate species - the passive, beautiful, and completely stupid Eloi who lived on the surface of the Earth in a veritable Garden of Eden and the Morlocks, underground dwellers who had vast machines and industry. Turns out the Morlocks bred the Eloi as cattle for their dinner tables.

Wells believed that the wealthy elites would find life increasingly easy and would no longer have to think, eventually atrophying their mental capacity while the Morlocks, the laboring class who had to think to survive, would become the dominant species, living underground as they had been forced to do and laboring on the machines which made the surface a paradise.

Wells hinted at this in other works as well. He believed this was humanity's fate.

At any rate if Chappelle is correct and thinking is going to be just for poor people Wells' dystopic vision may yet come to pass.

What separates us from the animals? Our ability to think. Animals think in their own way but not even remotely as do we. And the wealthy elites are increasingly stupid thanks to a life of ease and the increasing stupidity of what passes for education these days. Their parents were smart, people who were bright enough to make a lot of money, but as time goes by and the universities teach inane nonsense the intelligence of the progeny will keep dropping. Now with AI there is no longer any need to actually think and the wealthy may well wind up with ever-dropping I.Q.'s while the working class is forced to solve problems. In the end MAGA will win just as it did in Wells' dystopian future. In his future the Morlocks ate the Eloi (a cautionary tale since Wells was a socialist) but the reality is more mundane; they will simply supplant them. Like the Bourgouis in Europe supplanted the old aristocracy so too the modern Morlocks will eventually supplant the Ruling Class in this world. It might take a long time but it will eventually happen. The Eloi are slowly but surely losing the very thing that gave them the hubris to think they could fundamentally transform the world in the first place.

No dining on them - they probably would taste bad anyway. But certainly they can meet the fate of the House of Lords in Britain - obscurity and irrelevance.

AI may well accelerate that process. I sure do hope so.

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Timothy Birdnow

Clarence Thomas cuts to the quick:

And that, boys and girls, is why illegal aliens can't petition to stay in America and force President Trump to extend protected status to them.

This is crystal clarity of thought. We are going to sorely miss Justice Thomas when he retires (or passes away in office).

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Timothy Birdnow

Senator Bernie Moreno (R-OH) and Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) join forces to push the biggest tax increase in history.

What is the point of electing Republicans if they are going to play footsie with fake Indians and socialists? If Big Smelly Sqaw is on board you know you are on the wrong side.

Just another Republican who needs to be primaried, it seems to me.

Hide Comments | Add Comment