February 06, 2026
Thune to Invoke Standing Filibuster over SAVE
Timothy Birdnow
A standing filibuster? How old school...
A standing filibuster would require the Democrats to actually stand and debate until either they or the GOP surrenders. Now filibusters are procedureal maneuvers and settled based on the threat of them, not on the actual tying up of the Senate's time. The beauty of this is the act would then only have to pass by one vote, not requiring a supermajority as it would otherwise.Rep. Anna Paulina Luna
@RepLunaJust left the White House. POTUS wants the SAVE America Act passed! Voter ID is number one. Today, Schumer said he wants mass amnesty for all illegals and to immediately stop all ICE efforts.
After speaking with many senators, as well as directly with POTUS, the pathway forward is through the standing filibuster. This would effectively keep the government open while allowing Republican senators to break through the "zombie” filibuster and put the SAVE America Act up for a vote on the Senate floor.
The standing filibuster is not common parliamentary procedure, but it is one of the only mechanisms available to go around senators who want to block voter ID.
@LeaderJohnThunewe are very pleased that you are discussing the standing filibuster, and we believe you will go down in history if this is pulled off as one of the best leaders the Senate has ever had. Voter ID is a must, and the ball is now in your court.
The SAVE Act would require voter I.D. when going to the polls. Democrats oppose it desperately for obvious reasons.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
01:40 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 266 words, total size 2 kb.
It's a Somali-world After All
Timothy Birdnow
Who has the time, what with all the daycares they are running?
The media will do anything to get out of reporting the real news.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
01:28 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.
Bass Ackwards
Timothy Birdnow
She's covering her bass, but that's par for the course with Democrats:
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
01:21 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.
Trump's Big Schedule FU for Government Workers
Timothy Birdnow
I disagree with the author here; this will simply be another policy that will be overturned as soon as Trump is gone.
Schedule F is just a rule change and even if it survives the court challenges to come the next Democrat President will simply reverse it - or the next Democratic Congress. Until the law itself is changed this will be of limited use.
Scheule F would allow the President to reclassify bureaucrats who make policy (as opposed to career workers who simply do their jobs) as "at will" workers who can be terminated at any time. This is the way it used to be done before the reforms that made government employees unfireable. (The thinking behind that was to avoid the spoils system and keep continuity in the bureaucracies. It was actually an anti-corruption measure. Instead it lead to even more corruption.) Prior to 1881 the patronage system or spoils system was the established method; a new administration came in and new people came with them. But the expansion of the U.S. after the Civil War led to a lot of new government positions and then in 1881 Charles Guiteau, a disgruntled office seeker, shot and killed James Garfield. The response was the Pendleton Act, which ended the patronage system and imposed a permanent bureaucratic class on America. It's only gotten worse over time, especially with the unionization of bureaucrats and their having permanent lifetime tenure.
So now Trump wants to eliminate some of the dead weight with Schedule F. But when a Democrat gets in office he will simply rehire the fired people and fire the people hired under Trump. Without a legal mechanism that cannot be altered on a whim this will be far more limited in scope. I doubt it will make it through the court system before Trump leaves office.
Maybe my skepticism is misplaced. At least Trump is trying.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
12:41 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 339 words, total size 2 kb.
February 05, 2026
Democrats Own the Country, Republicans Only Rent it
MICHAEL SMITH
Republicans have lost several special elections, further narrowing their House margins. The conventional wisdom is the Republican base just doesn’t get energized for mid-terms. I have another theory: Republicans are afraid to lead, so they don’t give voters a reason to keep rewarding them. People get tired of the "this is the most important election of our lives” BS, especially when the GOP turns back to its lovable loser persona.
For the first 35 years of my life, Democrats controlled the House of Representatives. Those were the bad old days before Newt Gingrich executed the Contract With America and ended the Democrats’ 40 years of control after the 1994 midterm elections. Gingrich campaigned nationally on the Contract With America and flipped 54 seats, giving the GOP its first House majority since 1954.
Maybe that’s where Democrats learned something the GOP struggles with to this day: power is not merely held, it is performed.
This is one of the quieter truths of political life: authority emerges as much from posture as from position. Titles matter, votes matter, institutional control matters—but beneath all of it lies something older and more primitive. People follow those who behave like leaders. Presence precedes permission.
Psychologists have long observed that humans read confidence as competence. Research by Amy Cuddy, social psychologist and former Harvard Business School professor, showed how physical stance, vocal certainty, and self-confidence shape how others perceive authority. Sociologist Max Weber described charismatic authority as something granted by followers, not conferred by law. Gustave Le Bon explored similar dynamics in The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind. In all cases, the same pattern appears: leadership is partly a social agreement. Someone steps forward, projects certainty, and the group responds.
Democrats, almost without exception, behave as though they are in charge—even when they are not. Whether in the majority or minority, they speak with moral certainty. They frame narratives. They act as if institutional control is merely a temporary technicality. They legislate culturally even when they cannot legislate formally. Universities, corporations, media, and bureaucracies become extensions of this posture. Power is treated as an ambient condition rather than a contingent one.
Republicans, by contrast, often do the opposite.
Even when holding majorities, they tend to speak cautiously, govern defensively, and seem to apologize reflexively. They act as though authority is something they have borrowed and might soon be asked to return. They govern like tenants rather than owners. It is almost as if they are more comfortable out of power—as the "loyal” opposition, more at ease criticizing than commanding.
In my opinion, this is not primarily a strategic failure—it is philosophically driven.
The left operates from a worldview in which history has a direction and they are its agents. That produces confidence bordering on inevitability, even when their past policies indicate disasters they have wrought. The right, particularly its classical liberal strain, operates from a worldview that emphasizes restraint, process, and limits. That produces hesitation. One side believes it embodies progress. The other believes it merely administers a system.
The asymmetry persists. Democrats push harder because they believe they are moving toward something, even if they don’t really know what that something is. They act as though authority is theirs by moral right. Republicans behave as though authority must be constantly justified, minimized, or apologized for. One side treats power as expressive. The other treats it as provisional.
President Trump and his cabinet is one of the most muscular and aggressive of my lifetime. The contrast to the Biden administration, the absolute weakest of my lifetime, is stark—and yet, the GOP seems poised to waste an opportunity to make powerful and lasting change.
Trump’s confidence and drive scares some of the Republican caucus. You can almost see it on their faces: "This is not the way things are done around here! We must be more polite and less demanding!” They seem to prefer a more "modest” approach—but the problem is that power does not reward or respond to modesty.
Leadership requires more than policy positions. It requires presence, a cogent and powerful narrative, and ownership of it. You must sell your plans—and it requires the willingness to occupy territory unapologetically. When one side projects certainty and the other projects doubt, the outcome is preordained regardless of vote counts. This is why Republicans can win elections and still lose culture. It explains why they can control legislatures yet fail to set terms, and why they so often govern as caretakers while their opponents govern as architects. It explains why they lose House districts in Texas by 14 points that Trump won a year ago by 17.
Acting in charge is not arrogance—it is responsibility made visible. As an old mentor of mine taught me, if you don’t lead, someone else will step up to fill the vacuum. True leadership lives at the intersection of boldness and restraint—of confidence anchored in competence. Without the first, the second becomes irrelevant.
Power is never merely taken but is continuously asserted. The hard lesson learned is that those who hesitate to inhabit it will always be governed by those who do not.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
02:46 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 863 words, total size 6 kb.
Magnanimity - You First!
Timothy Birdnow
Here is an essay calling for more civility, more "magnanimity in public discourse.
I'm sorry but this essay is myopic and just plain wrong; it fails to understand the differences between Left and Right and paints us all with one broad brush, while ignoring basic human nature.
The author - Stephen M. Klugewicz - finds parity between both sides, arguing it is the internet which has given a voice to the public and it is that public driving the harsh political rhetoric. Horsefeathers! Apparently Mr. Klugewicz didn't live through the Reagan era where so many liberals called Reagan "Hitler" and a madman and said he wanted to blow up the world. He has apparently forgotten the viciousness with which the Left went after the Nixon Administration.
Actually politics has always been a blood sport. Thomas Jefferson was accused of taking liberties with slaves (a huge no-no back then) without any evidence at the time. Alexander Hamilton was so vicious in his criticisms of Aaron Burr, and would not let it go even when Burr turned the other cheek, that eventually Burr had little recourse but to challenge him to a duel. You had all manner of such things in bygone days; Licoln was a mulatto, some said. Chester Arthur was accused of being a child molester. I could go on and on.
But there has always been a rotten core to our political acrimony, and that poisonous core has revolved around Liberalism.
Liberalism in the modern sense was born out of the Enlightenment and their view that God is less important than human beings think. The rise of Humanism saw the deification of Man in the minds of the Liberals, and if Man is inherently good than anyone who resists that deification is therefore evil. It's been the driving force in Western Civilization for a coupe of centuries now.
We always saw this kind of acrimony in a number of places, notably Latin America. It did not touch the United States because of the strong Judeo-Christian ethos that was at the center of American life. The Left has been waging war on that cebter for decades, using such weapons as the Sexual Revolution, Feminism, LGBTQ, racial strife, and a host of other such things to divide us. It has worked and we've now fallen into two distinct camps (with the smaller third camp of Libertarians straddling the fence) but the warring sides are not equal in power or in aggressiveness.. The Left is still the engine - ever on the attack, always pushing, and with control of the media and education they have been wildly successful, marching through and despoiling all of our institutions.
It is axiomatic that in war the aggressor sets the rules of engagement. The Left has always been the aggressor and the right always failed to fight in kid because we did not want to sully ourselves, get our hads dirty. For decades people on our side said "we're better than that" as if that would somehow magically fix everything. It didn't; we kept losing and our society kept moving ever leftward, becoming crazier and breaking down. It has only been since Reagan that we have actually fought back in any but a feckless way; before Reagan the assumption was we shouldn't fight but rather steer into the skid as it were, ride the wave and hope to make it go a little more smoothly. That is the way to be annihilated.
so along comes new technology and suddenly our side can get our message out and what happens? The Left is outed. One of the keys to their power is the hidden nature of their beliefs; they know they are a minority and have to trick the bulk of the populace. But Conservatives were on talk radio, online, and on podcasts and cable t.v. spilling the beans. This enraged them because they had always had it their own way, controlling most television and other media, as well as the Universities and the schools. (BTW my brother has struggled all his career in academia because he has basically been blackballed by the Left and so never was able to get a tenure track position despite having several books published and getting rave reviews from students.) Liberalism cannot stand up in comparison to Conservatism, which is basically an acknowledgement of human nature. Liberalism is wholly unnatural and people know it when it's pointed out.
So it was the Left that started the war. What were we supposed to do about that? We tried turning the other cheek for a hundred years only to have the other side of our faces bitten off by the feral Liberals.
To argue that we need more "magnanimity" is a lovely sentiment worthy of a Miss America contestant, but about as deep. You cannot be magnanimous with a vicious dog; you have to restrain it or put it down.
We are where we are because, for the first time in their memory, the Left sees themselves losing ground as we go after the thigs they have imposed on us. This has always worked for them by their gaining ground one way or another; when they hold power they gain ground politically and when out of power they gain ground socially. But now WE are gaining ground and they are desperately trying to seduce us with just this sort of thinking, that we need to tone it down, we need more "comity", that we shouldn't fight back. They've used THAT trick many times before to shut us up; it's a way of playing on our own decencies.
Do people go overboard? Sure, and it is easier now with instant communications and unrestrained access to spout off in a stupid or mean-spirited way, and frankly with everyone engaged in the struggle we tend to get cranky and boorish, even with those on our own side. I've met with such abusive and critical language from our side too. But that's human nature. And no amount of lecturing about our need to be nicer will change that. Maners and civility are the first thing to go in a time of war, and we've been in a war for a long time now.
This article states:
"Yes, it’s we who can accomplish this, not 500 years of great religious texts authored by theologians of every stripe, not the work of eminent historians and political philosophers, not the accumulated research of renowned scientists. No, it is I, the equal of such men and women, who is fit to pronounce authoritatively on any and all topics… as long as I have a few minutes to do some Google research."
While I agree that many argue from a position of ignorance (A basic Google search will make you a complete ignoramous) but this is elitist in the extreme; only the celebrated may dare speak because they are wise and we are stupid. I would point to the words of Steve Jobs:
"Everything around you that you call life was made up by people that were no smarter than you. You can change it, you can influence it, you can build your own things that other people can use." This quote encapsulates Jobs' belief in the power of individual creativity and the potential to shape the world around us. It encourages us to embrace our potential and take action to create a better life and a better world."
If Jobs is correct in his populist sentiment - and it is in many ways quite similar to the Christian ethos of the power of the individual who is speaking through the Holy Spirit - then he is equally correct in the value of the individual to create and shape the world around us. Certainly most of what we are told are the thoughts of people no smarter than us who simply have a bigger megaphone, and the media is decidedly dimmer than are we. Why should we keep silent, or tiptoe around the enemies of Mankind and civilization?
On the contrary it is our duty to resist evil. This idea of restraining ourselves is as unchristian and anti-loving as it comes. We are trying to warn people there is immanent peril ahead. You don't simply let yourself be shouted down.
Which is what the Left always does, then when we shout back they cry about the loss of civility in the hopes we will shut up. It works too, which this essay seems to prove.
"And even if I am well-versed on a certain issue or subject or area of history, my interpretation, which differs from others similarly well-versed, may shed more light on my soul than it does on the heart of the matter in question. "
Perhaps, but this assumes that the people we are fighting are in fact honest and just differ in opinion. In most cases when dealing with the Left that is not true at all; they are purposefully twisting facts, distorting evidence, hiding the truth. We cannot sit idly by and let a lie stand.
As to the point about too much "he said, she said" news, that is the fault of the NEWS MEDIA and the 24 hour news cycle; too much time, too little to report. But the media also does not want to really discuss issues; they could find news if they wished. One of the ways the Left slants the news is by what they choose not to report. To not report stories like, say, the Chinese biolab in Las Vegas (which has not been mentioned by most media outlets as of this writing) they have to have something else, and that something else is usually a "gotcha!" story designed to embarrass Republicans and influence people based not on factual stories but on personalities. Everywhere it is about personalities. But what can we do nut respond in kind? THEY set the rules of engagement.
"We need to imitate Socrates, who knew that the beginning of wisdom was to acknowledge that he knew nothing."
I don't know about what Socrates knew or didn't know but I do know they KILLED him in the end. That should be our takea-away from this.
The author calls for magnanimity. Fine quality that, but one first must win the war to be gracious and magnanimous. Magnanimity in the heat of battle is retreat.
Another problem with this essay is it assumes all knowledge is learned and that others may know more than do we. That is not so. Plato certainly thought knowledge was remembered and not learned, and in fact the Founding Fathers believed in Natural Law, that some truths are self-evident. We can say "slaery is wrong" yet it is equally possible to make an argument from the premise slavery is a good thing. I mean, you can argue it benefits society, provides the needs for those who cannot provide them for themselves, restrains the more destructive appetites of the ignorant, provides dignity in work, etc. But it's all an exercise in dishonesty because we KNOW slavery is a bad institution because it dehumanizes the people who are enslaved. The same holds true for these opponents we face online; they can marshal arguments which may even seem to them logical but in the end we know socialism is a terrible idea; we don't need a Ph.D. in economics to tell. We can see it brings poverty. We can see it leads to sloth and ennui. It is a self-evident truth. The Declaration of Independence appealed to self-evident truths.
That said we don't need to be supercilious or mean spirited at all times, but we need to be firm and we need to be authoritative and we need to rage against the dying of the light. I fear the whole point of this essay is to let us go gently into that good night, even if the author isn't aware that is what he is advocating.
"Magnanimity: The Balm for Our Brutalized Public Discourse
By Stephen M. Klugewicz|February 3rd, 2026|Categories: Civil Society, Love, Stephen M. Klugewicz, Timeless Essays
Every man is his own pope and philosopher-king on the Internet, where our semi-formed and semi-informed opinions are cast as absolutes. Convinced of our perfect knowledge and infallible righteousness, we denounce and demean in harsh, uncharitable terms the arguments of others, and even their very persons.
"Minds are conquered not by arms, but by love and magnanimity.” —Baruch Spinoza, Ethics
The advent of the Internet brought with it high hopes for the creation of a great "online community,” where everyone would be given an equal voice, and where informed political, religious, and cultural discourse would take place in a spirit of patient civility, careful consideration, and shared learning. Here at last the democratic dream would be realized, as elites—magazine editors, television presidents, newspaper reporters—who had heretofore filtered and controlled public conversation would be circumvented, and the opinions of Everyman would rule.
What we have gotten instead of a people’s paradise is largely a plague of online trollishness, a nightmare of cacophonous incivility, and a mobocracy beyond the worst fears of the highest Federalists among our Founding Fathers.
One needs only to read the comments section on nearly any web journal, or on social media, to lose hope—at least in democracy, and perhaps even in one’s fellow man altogether. Suddenly on the Internet, every man is his own pope, his own political savant, his own environmental scientist, his own philosopher-king. Our, at best, semi-formed and semi-informed opinions are cast as absolutes, and we feel uninhibited in declaring to all mankind from our technological perch that global warming is an unassailable truth, that the Shroud of Turin was really the burial cloth of Christ, that Russia obviously colluded to help Donald Trump win the presidency, that the South was right… or whatever our view of the moment on the topic at hand may be. Convinced of our perfect knowledge and infallible righteousness, we feel entitled to deem others not only "wrong,” but "insane” or "evil.” We have convinced ourselves that in addition to being experts on every issue, we are perfect judges of the souls of people whom we have never met but whom we have merely seen on TV or read about on the web. The truth is that it is difficult to know in a real way even our own family members, friends, and co-workers… perhaps ourselves. And yet we don’t hesitate to pass judgments, negative and positive, on a politician, sports figure, or Hollywood celebrity: as a "liar,” a "real jerk,” a "good guy,” or "a brother in Christ.”
It’s not just that opinions are expressed unreservedly. They are very often expressed in harsh, uncharitable terms. Though I am blessed to be the editor of a journal that has a predominantly thoughtful, intelligent, and civil readership, even here we receive the occasional mean-spirited comment, denigrating not only the argument made by an author by sometimes attacking the author himself. (Among the nastiest, most condescending comments we have received have mocked us for the occasional and inevitable typographical or grammatical error!) It’s likely that such boorish character traits always existed in the soul of those we now call "trolls,” and thus in public discourse from time immemorial, but the mobocracy of the Internet has brought out the worst angels of our natures.
Indeed, social media has become a place where one tends to voice any random, transient thought… to express an unconsidered, categorical opinion instantly to a faceless mass of Facebook "friends” or Twitter "followers,” unfiltered by those things that tend to cool our passing passions: the time it takes to write a letter, the editorial scalpel of a good editor, the staring eyes of the audience we are addressing. We are sure that we can convince that adherent of a different Christian denomination, that member of another political party, that intransigent boob who doesn’t believe in global warming, with just this one more piece of evidence—which we ourselves perhaps just found on the Internet—to see the light. Yes, it’s we who can accomplish this, not 500 years of great religious texts authored by theologians of every stripe, not the work of eminent historians and political philosophers, not the accumulated research of renowned scientists. No, it is I, the equal of such men and women, who is fit to pronounce authoritatively on any and all topics… as long as I have a few minutes to do some Google research.
The truth is that our opinions on people, events, and ideas generally tell our readers/listeners more about ourselves than they do the subject at hand. And the less we know about the subject, the truer this observation is. So, unless I am an economist, accountant, or tax expert, my opinion on the current tax bill before Congress means little; unless I am a presidential historian, or a biographer of John F. Kennedy, my view about what really happened during the Kennedy assassination holds very little weight. And even if I am well-versed on a certain issue or subject or area of history, my interpretation, which differs from others similarly well-versed, may shed more light on my soul than it does on the heart of the matter in question. Thus, my hatred of "big government” may well reveal more about my ingrained authority issues (perhaps my mother ruled our home like a tyrant) than it does about the current state of the American political system.
Worse, our own fairly worthless opinions become themselves the subject of news stories—at least if we have a certain level of Internet celebrity. Consider how many "news” stories today are simply accounts of what one political, sports, or entertainment figure has said about another public figure on his or her Twitter account. The news cycle is dominated by these he-said, she-said, he-retorted stories. People, and the president, rightly complain about "fake news”; but we also have far too much "fluff news.” We have too much information and too many opinions from people whose opinions, frankly, simply don’t matter.
The result of this deterioration of our public discourse is that manners have broken down, and with them, one of the pillars of civilization itself.
What is the solution? We need to embrace Saint Paul’s admonition to the Corinthians that "we now we see through a glass, darkly.” We need to imitate Socrates, who knew that the beginning of wisdom was to acknowledge that he knew nothing. It would behoove us all, when expressing an opinion, to preface statements with "it seems that,” "from what I can glean,” or "perhaps it is the case that.” We need to be humble enough to recognize that we don’t know everything and that others may know more than we do on a given subject—indeed to possess the self-awareness that on the vast majority of topics, you or I are likely among the most unqualified people to make a judgment.
But what is ultimately called for in modern public discourse is not mere humility, but magnanimity, which literally means having a "large spirit,” or a "great soul.” The fortunate among us have known at least one such person with a great soul—that person who never gossips, who appears not to see faults in others, overlooking, or at least silently tolerating such failings, and seeming to notice only the good qualities of his fellow man. "All we can do is to make the best of our friends,” Thomas Jefferson wrote to his daughter. "Love and cherish what is good in them, and keep out of the way of what is bad: but no more think of rejecting them for it than of throwing away a piece of music for a flat passage or two.” We should apply this broadmindedness not only to our family and friends, but also to strangers, and to their arguments as well. Rather than mimicking the troll’s craven need to denounce and demean, we ought to seek to commend and to compliment. Instead of pointing to what is supposedly mistaken in someone’s argument, we should focus on what is meet and right. "What can this text or person teach me?” should be our guiding question in all types of conversations.
All this is not to say we should not express qualified opinions and cannot reasonably disagree with the views of others, despite our imperfect intellects and limited knowledge. However, we ought to strive in our public discourse to be, not haughty trolls, bent on tearing others down so as to build ourselves up, but humble pilgrims dedicated to seeking the true, good, and beautiful wherever we may find it, and in whatever measure, as we journey in this world.
A return to magnanimity… from what I can glean… is indeed the only balm for our brutalized public discourse."
That would be fine. They can go first.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
02:35 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 3473 words, total size 22 kb.
Pedo Hut?
Timothy Birdnow
Hmmm...Pizza Hut is closing 250 locations in what can onlu be described as a bloodbath.
Meanwhile, the recently released Epstein files has resurrected Pizzagate . the conspiracy theory that stated child sex trafficking was happening in D.C. via pizza parlors.
Nearly everything you can find about pizzagate comes from leftists trying to sneer at it, calling it completely debunked. I've not seen any proof of it being debunked, but rather just a lack of proof it was happening. Personally I rather doubt it but then we've been told repeatedly that so many things were conspiracy theories, nothing to see here, and yet they turned out to be true.
Soooo...
Is Pizza Hut closing those stores because they were part of a sex-trafficking ring? Are they facing the unpleasant reality they are about to get outed?
Inquiring minds want to know!
(This is just tongue-in-cheek; don't take this as a serious opinion. I like Pizza Hut and wish them well - and pray for their employees who are losing their jobs.)
BTW There WAS a pizza parlor where young girls were being raped but not in D.C.; rather, it was in St. Louis Missouri, at a place called Dojo Pizza. That story really bothered me because when I worked in property management I used to go to an apartment building frequently that was right across the street from Dojo Pizza and the thought that helpless girls were being raped only twenty or thirty yards from me really hit me hard. I would also add that St. Louis is one of the capitals of sex trafficking thanks in no small part to the Albanian Mafia, which has a strong hold on the neighborhood served by the pizza parlor. The Albanian Mafia is big in sex trafficking, something the old Italian Mafia thought was immoral, by and large. (They had no problem with prostitution but snatching innocents was against their code.)
So the idea that people from Washington, notably John Podesta (who used to be a playmate of Bill Clinton's) ran a child sex-trafficking ring out of a pizza parlor is not that far-fetched. Again, I don't believe it but you never know. I will not dismiss it out of hand.
But don't blame Pizza Hut even if I linked their closure to the Epstein files; they had nothing to do with it - or probably not.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
12:21 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 398 words, total size 3 kb.
Fire Captain Calls for Murdering ICE
Timothy Birdnow
A Minneapolis fire captain threatened ICE saying
: "My biggest fear is not ICE, it is my reaction to them. They deserve a thousand deaths, I’ll be satisfied if I can give them one.”
Captain Kenn Glenn of the Minneapolis FD posted this on Crime Watch Minneapolis, apparently being wholly unaware of the irony of making threats against Federal Agents on a crime-prevention site.
By law it is illegal to threaten law enforcement, especially Federal agents. Mr. Glenn should get a visit from the FBI for this.
The Left has gone mad and we now see just how much they have infiltrated our institutions. This guy, who is black, is no doubt an affirmative action beneficiary, someone who is where he is because of his race and not his capabilities.
This guy sooooo needs to be fired. How can he be trusted to do his job properly when he wants to murder law enforcement?
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
12:06 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 162 words, total size 1 kb.
Iran Seizes Two Oil Freighters
Timothy Birdnow
Iran says it seized two tankers carrying "smuggled" fuel a]t the strait of Hormuz, signaling their plan to close the strait in the event of war.
The article does not mention which nation those tankers belong to, but it's a safe bet they had every right to be there. What constitutes "smuggled" fuel to the Iranians? It's nt Russian, that's for sure.
Iran is cruising for a bruisn.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:29 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 90 words, total size 1 kb.
MAHA Makes Food Cheaper
Timothy Birdnow
How MAHA is driving the price of food down.
Seems that the demand by government to reduce the sale of sugary and salty and dye-riddled foods has led to a decrease in demand that is forcing companies to cut prices.
That is good but I don't like government having any say in what we choose to eat or drink. I would point out that "health" and healthy foods was a big priority with the Nazi party and we know how THEY behaved. People should have the right to make the decisions, not Washington.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:46 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 100 words, total size 1 kb.
The Insane Democrat Demands for ICE Reform
Timothy Birdnow
What reforms are Democrats insisting on to fund the Department of Homeland Security? They are insane.
1. Requiring bench warrants signed by judges rather than administrative warrants signed by administrative judges. The courts have ruled repeatedly that administrative judges have the authority to sign warrants and those warrants are legally valid, but why let that get in the way of a good time?
If criminal judges have to sign off on this nobody will get deported; they don't have time to do it.
I would add that this would probably be unconstitutional as the President has sole discretion on matters involving immigration and this takes the issue out of the Executive and puts it in the Judiciary, a place it was never intended to be.
2.They demand ICE agents not wear masks, thus opening them and their families to retaliation.
3. They demand ICE agents wear name tags. Same comment as the last except I find it ironic in the extreme that the Democrats resist Voter I.D. so illegals can vote but demand I.D. on those enforcing immigration law. If we are going to treat illegals with such loving kindness why don't we apply the same standard to these law enforcers?
4. They seek to restrict officers from conducting operations at "sensitive locations” which include medical facilities, schools, child-care facilities, and churches, polling places, and courts.
This is creating sanctuary spaces for the illegals, and anyone who knows ICE is after them need but go to one of these places. Of course courts are THE place to pick up illegals; they are already in trouble with the law if they are there and picking them up at courthouses is far safer for everyone than making raids on the street.
What do I have to say about polling places? It should be woefully apparent that the sole reason to stop raids at polling places is so they can vote illegally.
Oh, and it is the height of hypocrisy that they demand no arrests at churches when their buddies have invaded churches to protest ICE operations. But that's o.k. because it's their side doing it, right?
5. They demand an end to racial profiling of illegals. They want to enshrine in the law what we saw after 911 where little old ladies and obvious non-terrorists were being pulled out of line and given random full body cavity searches at airports. They want ICE to do this too, and no doubt there will be a review of how many clearly American folks are stopped and questioned or taken into custody.
Newsflash idiots; illegal aliens are distinguishable from native born Ameriricans precisely because they look, act, and sound different. If you can't use physical cues to find them you won't find them.
6. They demand an end to ICE operations in locations that employ large numbers of illegals or where large numbers congregate. "Thumpers" will n longer be targeted. (A thumper is a day laborer who hangs out in front of a place, often produce companies, waiting for an offer of a day's work for cash.)
So what is ICE supposed to do to catch them? The Democrats would scream bloody murder if they went into a house without a warrant. And then there is the castle doctrine which many Democrats have already said justifies shooting ICE agents.
7.They are demanding extended training for officers and a probationary period for anyone who is involved in a shootout. Anyone who understands law enforcement knows the book is of limited value when your life is in peril. All this does is create busy work for the officers. And the probationary period just takes good officers off the streets. Of course that is their goal.
8. They demand all evidence be shared with state and local jurisdictions so said jurisdictions would be able to prosecute ICE agents whom they deem used "excessive force".
9. They are demanding ICE get permission from state and local authorities before conducting any raids.
That would mean there would be NO raids in sanctuary cities and states, which is exactly what has caused the current crisis.
10. They are demanding changes in the law to make it easier for state and local authorities to bring lawsuits against ICE.
11. They are demanding the right of any representative to visit any ICE detention facility at any time without any restrictions.
12. They want it to be illegal to create a database of people involved in "mostly peaceful protests". So the professional revolutionaries can't be watched.
13. They want to take ICE agents out of the uniforms they wear to protect them and take away their weapons and shields, making them simple constables. This would put them at the mercy of any criminal illegal with a gun or other dangerous weapon.
14. They demand Trump fire Kristi Noem, no questions asked.
This would destroy any and all immigration enforcement and they know it, which is why they make these demands. The public needs to know what they are doing; this shows they care nary a wit about the American People and their safety but rather solely about their own power.
If the GOP entertains any of this they are truly insane and the nation is lost.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:32 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 881 words, total size 6 kb.
Rents at Four Year Low
Timothy Birdnow
Don't tell me TRUMP has an "affordability problem"!
According to new data, rents posted their sixth straight monthly decline in January, with the largest annual drop in more than two years — down 6.2% from their Biden-era peak.
"2026 is shaping up to be one of the more renter-friendly periods we’ve seen in a decade,” says one real estate expert..
BTW the U.S. saw 4.1% economic growth in the last quarter, a staggeringly wonderful amount. Europe, playing by the old rules, had just 0.3%. What is the difference? Europe is following the plan for "sustainability" which essentially means just enough growth to balance off any rise in population. Sustainability is a sanitized word for no growth. That has been the plan of the elites at Davos and the World Economic Forum for a long time - create an economy that doesn't grow but doesn't shrink, just sits there balanced. Of course that means nobody can look forward to a better life, this is the best they will ever have. This leads to despair and a slowly declining standard of living that the geniuses in the moderate leftist international lobby do not take into account.
Trump rejected the no-growth order and look at how things are going! The only problem we have is the media is lying to the American People about the economy, because if they told the truth there wouldn't be a Democrat elected in November (well, not many anyway).
This growth shows America First works, that tariffs do not cause inflation and poverty, and that roiling the international order in no way costs the U.S. in terms of imports and exports. On the contrary it only enhances our ability to trade fairly.
One more thing; we had this growth despite the longest government shutdown in history, and after a big housecleaning inside the government after DOGE recommended big cuts in spending. What does that tell us class? It suggests to me government isn't the solution, government is the problems. Not only did we not suffer at all from the shutdown we may well have actually benefitted from it.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:44 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 367 words, total size 3 kb.
Media Ignores Chinese Lab Story
Timothy Birdnow
NBC, CBS, and other corporate media outlets are simply refusing to cover anything about the Chinese bioweapons lab in Las vegas.
Isn't this "newsworthy?
If anyone needs proof the mainstream media is a gaggle of traitors it's this. This news would frighten voters into supporting Trump over the Quisling Democrats and so they will simply pretend it didn't happen.
To their credit ABC News did cover this story. Here is what was said about it:
DAVID MUIR: Tonight, the new and disturbing allegations here about the discovery inside a home in Las Vegas. Was it an illegal biolab inside? Now comes news tonight multiple people who had been in the home claiming they have been sickened. The vials recovered from that home and what we learned tonight. Here is Melissa Adan now.
MELISSA ADAN: Tonight as the FBI pours over mysterious vials and other evidence seized from an alleged biolab inside a garage in this Las Vegas neighborhood, new court documents claim multiple employees of the home's property manager became, quote, "deathly ill” after entering the home's garage or spending time in the home, which was also an AirBnb. One employee who they call Kelly, because she didn't want to give her name, told investigators five days after entering the garage they got so sick they could not get out of bed. A law enforcement source has told ABC News they took 1,000 items from the home, including vials of unknown substances, some labeled in Mandarin Chinese. The property manager, Ori Solomon, now under arrest facing both federal and state charges, including disposing of hazardous waste consistent with biological agents. The homeowner is a Chinese national arrested in 2023 after authorities in Reedley, California said he operated an illegal biological lab that was funded by Chinese banks. He’s pleaded not guilty. David, records show that homeowner has two dozen properties that ABC News sources say are now being searched. David.
MUIR: Melissa Adan here in Los Angeles tonight. Melissa, thank you.
Remember when people were saying Covid came from a lab in Wuhan China? The media completely melted down, calling that a conspiracy theory and sneering as only they can sneer. But it turned out to be correct and running an illegal biolab inside a private residence in the U.S. is clearly about weapons and not about a new cough medicine.
The news media is the father of all lies and they will get us all killed in their quest to empower Democrats and create the New World Order.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:36 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 437 words, total size 3 kb.
Epstein and the View
Timothy Birdnow
Well, well, well...
Nicholas Fondacaro@NickFondacaro·FollowBREAKING: Multiple cast members of The View are mentioned in the Epstein Files.-Whoopi Goldberg is mentioned nearly 2 dozen times (21).-Alyssa Farah Griffin 20 times-Joy Behar 3 times.-Ana Navarro twice-Sunny Hostin 0-Sara Haines 0
The old harpies made such a stink about getting access to those files - wonder if they are still happy about it?
What does Whoopie Goldberg and Alyssa Sarah Griffin know and when did they know it?
Among other things she asked him to use his private jet to fly to Monaco. Now why wouldln't she want to fly commercial like the rest of us?
Nicholas Fondacaro@NickFondacaroA NewsBusters investigation discovered e-mails showing someone reaching out to Epstein on Whoopi Goldberg's behalf requesting use of his Gulfstream G2 jet to fly her to a White Feather Foundation charity event in Monaco in 2013.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:25 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 158 words, total size 2 kb.
Just Like ICE
Timothy Birdnow
Here is a jaw-droppingly stupid comment from a woman manning the "free zone" in Minneapolis:
"We are literally creating a place that we know who’s coming and going in and out of our neighborhoods.”
Isn't that just what ICE is doing?
Also, do that to, say, black folks and you will be in big trouble for violating their civil rights. But it's fine when Leftists do it.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:24 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 72 words, total size 1 kb.
Behar: Don Lemon Like Eisenhower, Arrest like Dachau
Timothy Birdnow
And the dumb shall speak (and boy is she dumb):
"I was reading something the other day about World War II. When the Americans liberated Dachau, after World War II during the Holocaust – after the Holocaust, Dwight D. Eisenhower said take pictures of these concentration camps because years will go by and people will not believe this happened. So, this administration does not really like somebody like Don Lemon who has a camera, who [has] a position - like we do in a way - to speak to the people and tell them what really is going on. So, you know, God bless Dwight D. Eisenhower and Don Lemon.”— Co-host Joy Behar on ABC’s The View, February 3.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:22 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 129 words, total size 1 kb.
February 04, 2026
ICEing on the Cake
Timothy Birdnow
Oh, this should be jolly fun!
The lawsuits will fly fast and furious over this one. I can't wait to hear all about 'voter suppression' and other such hysterics.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
05:53 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.
Judge Suppresses DOE ADvisory Report on CO2
This was one of the most biased and brazenly stupid articles I've read Carlos.
I love this paragraph:
"What do the emails reveal? The Climate Working Group was organized by a political appointee at the DOE (one who was previously at the libertarian Cato Institute) and done with the intention of producing material that would aid the EPA with overturning the greenhouse gas endangerment finding. The group recognized that its members’ opinions were outside of the mainstream, but they viewed most mainstream scientists as hopelessly biased and generally ascribed that to their political views."
As if the original endangerment finding wasn't done in the exact same way for the exact opposite purpose.
The purpose of this group was to counterbalance the original report calling carbon dioxide a dangerous pollution that needs to be regulated. Why would you stick a counter-balance group with the same people who produced the original report?
Then there is this:
"There was some talk of having the group’s report peer-reviewed, motivated by an executive order naming that a necessary component of "gold standard science.” That discussion largely focused on thinking about scientists who shared their views and would give it a favorable review."
As if peer review is anything but a biased exercise these days. We know from the Climategate e-mails https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/climate-change/climategates-10th-anniversary-the-stain-continues/ that peer review has been subverted purposefully by the "hockey team" at a minimum (that is the name given the group of e-mailers in the chain which included guys like Phil Jones from the Climate Research Unit at the Hadley Center in Britain, guys like Michael Mann, etc.) We know from their e-mails that they were strong-arming journal editors to keep "denier" papers out, were making it so they could do the peer review and thus give thumbs up to alarmist papers and rejecting papers that questioned the orthodoxy, etc. We know they have been blackballing young scientists who dared question the orthodoxy. We know they subverted peer review in the case of Roy Spencer and his paper in Remote sensing which led to the editor pulling Dr. Spencer's paper and then resigning.https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2011/09/the_warmists_strike_back.html
I would also like to point out the SCOTUS ruling was made because the Bush Administration refused to challenge the claim that CO2 is a pollutant and that it isn't causing SCOTUS said the Clean Air Act was applicable. This is akin to a bank robber not challenging the fact he robbed the bank but said the security guard didn't have the authority to arrest him. There was no way to win with this argument and the EPA lawyers knew it.
As to the Ars Technica article, it says a whopping 85 "scientists" tore into the report - no mention of scientists who agreed with it. I'm sure if they looked they could have found an equal number. Shoot; the Oregon Petition had over 40,000 signators disputing man-made climate change and AT didn't mention THAT!
Do notice the author did not give out the names of anybody; that's because he feared a lawsuit, no doubt.
Also notice that every complaint made about this is predicated on what is essentially technicalities. There is no there here.
This big ARS article is what is the thinly-veiled politics masquerading as scientific reporting, not the report put out by this advisory group.
As to the advisory group, it does sound like they didn't follow protocols, which is a shame. But I would ask, were they actually a formal advisory group or an informal one? At any rate this is hardly the slapdown that Ars Technica claims it to be. And of course we haven't heard the argument made by the DEO - we were just given a few sketchy details.
This can probably be done better in the near future.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
01:43 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 632 words, total size 5 kb.
<< Page 1 of 980 >>
101kb generated in CPU 0.0344, elapsed 0.5311 seconds.
46 queries taking 0.5104 seconds, 229 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
46 queries taking 0.5104 seconds, 229 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
