December 24, 2025
The Water Fence
Timothy Birdnow
The Trump Administration wants to put up a buoy barrier in the Rio Grande to stop illegal aliens from swimming across the the U.S.
The plan is to cover 980 miles of river with the water-based barrier to keep the world from backstroking it's way into the country. Such defensive systems have often been used in warfare to stop invading armadas from getting too close. One prime example of this was the chain barriers around Constantinople which thwarted multiple Turkish attempts in the latter days of the Byzantine empire. It works.
And it must be remembered the Texas government built one of it's own during the Biden era, only to be overruled by President Autopen who forced the Texans to remove it.
The project is being funded by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act which authorized such defenses.
These buoys will have sensors to alert authorities to unauthorized crossings.
The problem with this and any other actions taken to secure the border by the Trump Administration is that it is all being done by executive order; there are no real permanent solutions passing through Congress. Without laws forcing border enforcement any future Democrat or a Republican Administration like the George W. Bush Fiestathon can simply tear this down and reopen the border. We need to make it harder to do that and politically embarrassing. Now it's just the stroke of the autopen and voila! The North American Union returns in all it's tragedy.
But we can't make this permanent with the current makeup of Congress; that has to change. And apparently, if polls are to be believed, the GOP looks to take a bath in the upcoming elections as the media has convinced the public inflation is TRUMP'S fault and that it is rising when in fact it is dropping precipitously. The media has convinced the public that deflation is the only solution to inflation, not economic growth and rising wages.
At any rate this is a good idea but it is vulnerable and will be for some time. If the GOP loses Congress no doubt the Democrats will defund this and demand it be ended. Time is not on our side.
The Examiner article concludes:
Yeah; that's the important thing, to waste this money on the rathole known as Obamacare. The money used here will be a pittance compared to what we are spending on the (Un)Affordable Care Act, but this sounds good to Democrats and the entitled and the bribed.
BTW I think we should have drones associated with this and use pepper spray and other such non-lethal weapons on anyone trying to cross the Rio Grande. If the sensors go off we should dispatch a drone and mace them and maybe they will get the message. But of course the media would go ballistic. They never cared when Conservatives were getting pepper sprayed on J6 - in fact they loved that. But try spraying groups of invaders and watch them scream about due process and moral decency! Hypocrites.
The Trump Administration wants to put up a buoy barrier in the Rio Grande to stop illegal aliens from swimming across the the U.S.
The plan is to cover 980 miles of river with the water-based barrier to keep the world from backstroking it's way into the country. Such defensive systems have often been used in warfare to stop invading armadas from getting too close. One prime example of this was the chain barriers around Constantinople which thwarted multiple Turkish attempts in the latter days of the Byzantine empire. It works.
And it must be remembered the Texas government built one of it's own during the Biden era, only to be overruled by President Autopen who forced the Texans to remove it.
The project is being funded by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act which authorized such defenses.
These buoys will have sensors to alert authorities to unauthorized crossings.
The problem with this and any other actions taken to secure the border by the Trump Administration is that it is all being done by executive order; there are no real permanent solutions passing through Congress. Without laws forcing border enforcement any future Democrat or a Republican Administration like the George W. Bush Fiestathon can simply tear this down and reopen the border. We need to make it harder to do that and politically embarrassing. Now it's just the stroke of the autopen and voila! The North American Union returns in all it's tragedy.
But we can't make this permanent with the current makeup of Congress; that has to change. And apparently, if polls are to be believed, the GOP looks to take a bath in the upcoming elections as the media has convinced the public inflation is TRUMP'S fault and that it is rising when in fact it is dropping precipitously. The media has convinced the public that deflation is the only solution to inflation, not economic growth and rising wages.
At any rate this is a good idea but it is vulnerable and will be for some time. If the GOP loses Congress no doubt the Democrats will defund this and demand it be ended. Time is not on our side.
The Examiner article concludes:
"Leftists disapproved of the security plan, with Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., claiming it was a "vanity project.”
He said the money should have instead been spent subsidizing health-care premiums."
He said the money should have instead been spent subsidizing health-care premiums."
Yeah; that's the important thing, to waste this money on the rathole known as Obamacare. The money used here will be a pittance compared to what we are spending on the (Un)Affordable Care Act, but this sounds good to Democrats and the entitled and the bribed.
BTW I think we should have drones associated with this and use pepper spray and other such non-lethal weapons on anyone trying to cross the Rio Grande. If the sensors go off we should dispatch a drone and mace them and maybe they will get the message. But of course the media would go ballistic. They never cared when Conservatives were getting pepper sprayed on J6 - in fact they loved that. But try spraying groups of invaders and watch them scream about due process and moral decency! Hypocrites.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:13 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 535 words, total size 3 kb.
Chicago Blues
Timothy Birdnow
Here is how you kill a city.
Chicago Mayor Brandon wants an anaconda-like coiling of taxation around the city's business community, with surcharges on ride shares, on employees of all large corporations, etc. And, not getting the entire budget he wanted, he refused to sign it or veto it, making it open for "renegotiation" as he will simply add what he didn't get piecemeal over the next few years.
So typically liberal; he fights making the city safe (he isn't allowing overtime for cops or firefighters without city council approval, for instance) and at the same time raises taxes again. It never occurs to him that this chases businesses away; they will resettle in friendlier environments like Texas or Florida.
Liberals never get it; people choose where they live, and where they do business, and if you make it too expensive or unsafe they will choose a safer, less expsnsive area. There is a reason why cities like Nashville are growing by leaps and bounds; they offer what the big cities used to, without all the progressive b.s. and high taxes.
St. Louis went through this in the 1970's, after a quarter century of Democrat control the city was dwindling away and what had once been one of the greatest cities in America was becoming a shell, crime riddled and too expensive. There was a renaissance in the eighties just as there was in New York but that was short lived and now we are reaching the point where the city itself is not the largest city in Missouri, let alone in the midwest. (At t 279,695 people St. Louis is just a bit over HALF the size of her nearest competitor Kansas City, which sports 516,032 souls, although the metropolitan area is substantially larger.) That was caused by decades of Democrat dominance; you can't get elected dog catcher in St. Louis. The last Republican Mayor left office in 1948.
Which is why the city is rather desperate to merge with St. Louis County and become one massive metropolis; it's the only way to keep going with a disappeaing tax base. (St. Louis is it's own county, having seceded from St. Louis county in the late 19th century). It is crime riddled and increasingly impoverished. The north side is now so decimated there are whole blocks that are nothing but grasslands, all the buildings have been removed. And there are whole blocks where there are nothing but ruins, like Chichen Itza or some Mayan ruins in the jungles of Yucatan.
That's what happens; you run out of other people's money eventually.
St. Louis is still a large television market yet you never see it mentioned hardly at all on television because it's an embarassment to liberalism. (We are the tenth largest t.v. market). The only t.v. show I remember based in St. Louis was the John Larroquette show, which highlighted the degenerate and decaying nature of the place. Oh, we did appear in National Lampoon's Vacation as the city where the Griswolds got lost and had their hubcaps stolen by the locals. Maybe it's better we aren't mentioned much in media.
We lost the Football Cardinals, then the Rams. We've had multiple pro soccer teams that have moved away. We almost lost the Blues hockey team to Sasskatoon, for crying out loud! And the Redbirds are always talking about moving over to Illinois, or to St. Charles, because their home in downtown is unsafe and logistics are terrible there. Nobody wants to go downtown anymore, and rightly so.
This is what decades of people like Gov. Brandon running the show look like.
Chicago is in better shape than St. Louis because it is a major port city while St. Louis has nothing but rail lines and river traffic. But it will hollow out as surely as St. Louis did and for the very same reasons; you can't keep taking and not giving. It's like the story of the man who taught his horse to work without eating and then he beat the dead animal for being so ungrateful "I taught you to work without food and this is how you repay me!" I remember a number of yhears ago one of our mayors telling the media "it's not about what we can do for businesses but about what they can do for us". That kind of thinking leads to the death of a vibrant community.
Frankly, Chicago deserves to die as a leading city. It is nothing but an abomination now, and when all the businesses leave and all the good people leave and the city can't pay it's bills they will cry to the state and to the Federal government for help, but it will be all their own doing and they will be getting what they deserve. Of course, the people who voted the Democrats into office year after year will just move on to some new city and ruin it as thoroughly; they never learn.
At any rate I suspect Chicago will start slipping in population and eventually wind up a mediocre city in a poor state. The only hope Illinois has is to kick Chicago out. Maybe it can join Wisconsin, or even leave the U.S. entirely and become a Canadian city? Any way you slice it they have long dominated Illinois and the Land of Lincoln will go down with it.
If Southern Illinois wants to leave the state and join Missouri I would welcome them with open arms. While not exactly Texas it is more like Indiana than the north part of Illinois, and THAT would be a fine addition to the Show Me state. I'd love to get the Illinois Ozarks and Little Egypt (Southernmost Illinois where the Mississippi and Ohio rivers converge) into our fair state. Cathy and I used to go to the Illinois Ozarks regulary for vacation; they were beautiful and the best kept secret in the Midwest! But I hated giving money to the socialists in Springfield and Chicago.
My prediction is in twenty years Chicago will be just another bombed out Democrat city and nobody will have any interest in moving there. It is a well deserved ending for the corrupt and criminal enterprise on Lake Michigan.
BTW St. Louis invented thin crust pizza, not Chicago, who tries to usurp our very unique style of the popular Italian dish. They should stick to their ridiculous stretch-your-mouth deep dish pizza and stop trying to lay claim to our stuff here!
Here is how you kill a city.
Chicago Mayor Brandon wants an anaconda-like coiling of taxation around the city's business community, with surcharges on ride shares, on employees of all large corporations, etc. And, not getting the entire budget he wanted, he refused to sign it or veto it, making it open for "renegotiation" as he will simply add what he didn't get piecemeal over the next few years.
So typically liberal; he fights making the city safe (he isn't allowing overtime for cops or firefighters without city council approval, for instance) and at the same time raises taxes again. It never occurs to him that this chases businesses away; they will resettle in friendlier environments like Texas or Florida.
Liberals never get it; people choose where they live, and where they do business, and if you make it too expensive or unsafe they will choose a safer, less expsnsive area. There is a reason why cities like Nashville are growing by leaps and bounds; they offer what the big cities used to, without all the progressive b.s. and high taxes.
St. Louis went through this in the 1970's, after a quarter century of Democrat control the city was dwindling away and what had once been one of the greatest cities in America was becoming a shell, crime riddled and too expensive. There was a renaissance in the eighties just as there was in New York but that was short lived and now we are reaching the point where the city itself is not the largest city in Missouri, let alone in the midwest. (At t 279,695 people St. Louis is just a bit over HALF the size of her nearest competitor Kansas City, which sports 516,032 souls, although the metropolitan area is substantially larger.) That was caused by decades of Democrat dominance; you can't get elected dog catcher in St. Louis. The last Republican Mayor left office in 1948.
Which is why the city is rather desperate to merge with St. Louis County and become one massive metropolis; it's the only way to keep going with a disappeaing tax base. (St. Louis is it's own county, having seceded from St. Louis county in the late 19th century). It is crime riddled and increasingly impoverished. The north side is now so decimated there are whole blocks that are nothing but grasslands, all the buildings have been removed. And there are whole blocks where there are nothing but ruins, like Chichen Itza or some Mayan ruins in the jungles of Yucatan.
That's what happens; you run out of other people's money eventually.
St. Louis is still a large television market yet you never see it mentioned hardly at all on television because it's an embarassment to liberalism. (We are the tenth largest t.v. market). The only t.v. show I remember based in St. Louis was the John Larroquette show, which highlighted the degenerate and decaying nature of the place. Oh, we did appear in National Lampoon's Vacation as the city where the Griswolds got lost and had their hubcaps stolen by the locals. Maybe it's better we aren't mentioned much in media.
We lost the Football Cardinals, then the Rams. We've had multiple pro soccer teams that have moved away. We almost lost the Blues hockey team to Sasskatoon, for crying out loud! And the Redbirds are always talking about moving over to Illinois, or to St. Charles, because their home in downtown is unsafe and logistics are terrible there. Nobody wants to go downtown anymore, and rightly so.
This is what decades of people like Gov. Brandon running the show look like.
Chicago is in better shape than St. Louis because it is a major port city while St. Louis has nothing but rail lines and river traffic. But it will hollow out as surely as St. Louis did and for the very same reasons; you can't keep taking and not giving. It's like the story of the man who taught his horse to work without eating and then he beat the dead animal for being so ungrateful "I taught you to work without food and this is how you repay me!" I remember a number of yhears ago one of our mayors telling the media "it's not about what we can do for businesses but about what they can do for us". That kind of thinking leads to the death of a vibrant community.
Frankly, Chicago deserves to die as a leading city. It is nothing but an abomination now, and when all the businesses leave and all the good people leave and the city can't pay it's bills they will cry to the state and to the Federal government for help, but it will be all their own doing and they will be getting what they deserve. Of course, the people who voted the Democrats into office year after year will just move on to some new city and ruin it as thoroughly; they never learn.
At any rate I suspect Chicago will start slipping in population and eventually wind up a mediocre city in a poor state. The only hope Illinois has is to kick Chicago out. Maybe it can join Wisconsin, or even leave the U.S. entirely and become a Canadian city? Any way you slice it they have long dominated Illinois and the Land of Lincoln will go down with it.
If Southern Illinois wants to leave the state and join Missouri I would welcome them with open arms. While not exactly Texas it is more like Indiana than the north part of Illinois, and THAT would be a fine addition to the Show Me state. I'd love to get the Illinois Ozarks and Little Egypt (Southernmost Illinois where the Mississippi and Ohio rivers converge) into our fair state. Cathy and I used to go to the Illinois Ozarks regulary for vacation; they were beautiful and the best kept secret in the Midwest! But I hated giving money to the socialists in Springfield and Chicago.
My prediction is in twenty years Chicago will be just another bombed out Democrat city and nobody will have any interest in moving there. It is a well deserved ending for the corrupt and criminal enterprise on Lake Michigan.
BTW St. Louis invented thin crust pizza, not Chicago, who tries to usurp our very unique style of the popular Italian dish. They should stick to their ridiculous stretch-your-mouth deep dish pizza and stop trying to lay claim to our stuff here!
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:39 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1085 words, total size 6 kb.
December 23, 2025
Brennan Terrified of an Honest Judge
Timothy Birdnow
Lookie here; John "Muzzie Commie" Brennan is terrified Judge Aileen Cannon is going to wind up presiding over his case.
Ex-CIA director John Brennan wants 'favored' Trump judge kept away from Justice Department inquiry
Cannon is the judge who dismissed the classified documents case against the President.
Yes, the man who tried to frame The Donald is now terrified that the Trump-appointed Cannon may sit in judgment over his treasonous behavior and wants her removed.
Brennan and his cronies have petitioned the head judge to not allow the DOJ to put anything involving the former CIA director and communist party usa voter into judge cannon's hands. They are arguing Trump is "judge shopping" and that he has no right. Well, did Brennan stand with Trump when HE complained about judge shopping against him? No?
Brennan's lawyers sent a letter begging U.S. District Judge Cecilia Altonaga to steer any investigation or trial away from judge Cannon's court. Altonaga is the presiding judge over Cannon's South Florida district.
So basically he's demanding special privileges because he fears a judge who has shown she will rule on the laws and not work the good-old-boys network.
While it is unclear what Brennan's lawyers are alleging, it seems likely it is over the intelligence assessment that Mr. Obama demanded be overturned. The original assessment argued there was no evidence of Russian involvement over and above what is normal for any election. Obama didn't like that and he demanded a new assessment. He got one, and it appears Mr. Brennan was part of the reason for that.
Brennan belongs in prison, along with James Comey, Merrick Garland, Hillary Clinton, and yes, Barack Hussein Obama (peece be upon him).
Brennan complains about "forum shopping" but why wouldn't Trump want it out of D.C.? The courts there are entirely Democrat-appointed and the ruling class always gets a pass. The only chance to get justice served is by moving the venue outside of Washington. Florida is as good a choice as any, as much of the activity of Brennan and his minions occurred in the home state of the President. And the grand jury investigating the matter is seated in South Florida. (Grand Juries can investigate anything they wish in any place they wish.)
Frankly, Brennan has no reason to fear this going to judge Cannon if he is innocent. He shows his guilt by trying to keep an honest judge out of the matter.
And if she IS just a partisan hack, as Brennan accuses (he assumes so since all the judges on HIS side certainly are)?
He'll win on any appeal IF that is the case. But he knows Cannon will allow the truth to come out, and that can never be permitted.
Lookie here; John "Muzzie Commie" Brennan is terrified Judge Aileen Cannon is going to wind up presiding over his case.
Ex-CIA director John Brennan wants 'favored' Trump judge kept away from Justice Department inquiry
Cannon is the judge who dismissed the classified documents case against the President.
Yes, the man who tried to frame The Donald is now terrified that the Trump-appointed Cannon may sit in judgment over his treasonous behavior and wants her removed.
Brennan and his cronies have petitioned the head judge to not allow the DOJ to put anything involving the former CIA director and communist party usa voter into judge cannon's hands. They are arguing Trump is "judge shopping" and that he has no right. Well, did Brennan stand with Trump when HE complained about judge shopping against him? No?
Brennan's lawyers sent a letter begging U.S. District Judge Cecilia Altonaga to steer any investigation or trial away from judge Cannon's court. Altonaga is the presiding judge over Cannon's South Florida district.
So basically he's demanding special privileges because he fears a judge who has shown she will rule on the laws and not work the good-old-boys network.
While it is unclear what Brennan's lawyers are alleging, it seems likely it is over the intelligence assessment that Mr. Obama demanded be overturned. The original assessment argued there was no evidence of Russian involvement over and above what is normal for any election. Obama didn't like that and he demanded a new assessment. He got one, and it appears Mr. Brennan was part of the reason for that.
Brennan belongs in prison, along with James Comey, Merrick Garland, Hillary Clinton, and yes, Barack Hussein Obama (peece be upon him).
Brennan complains about "forum shopping" but why wouldn't Trump want it out of D.C.? The courts there are entirely Democrat-appointed and the ruling class always gets a pass. The only chance to get justice served is by moving the venue outside of Washington. Florida is as good a choice as any, as much of the activity of Brennan and his minions occurred in the home state of the President. And the grand jury investigating the matter is seated in South Florida. (Grand Juries can investigate anything they wish in any place they wish.)
Frankly, Brennan has no reason to fear this going to judge Cannon if he is innocent. He shows his guilt by trying to keep an honest judge out of the matter.
And if she IS just a partisan hack, as Brennan accuses (he assumes so since all the judges on HIS side certainly are)?
He'll win on any appeal IF that is the case. But he knows Cannon will allow the truth to come out, and that can never be permitted.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
12:14 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 464 words, total size 3 kb.
How the CIA Made Epstein Rich
Timothy Birdnow
Interesting idea. And remember Obama let Bear Sterns collapse during the 2008 crisis, even though he did give some bailout money to them. Is there a link between the two?
Read all about it here.
Interesting idea. And remember Obama let Bear Sterns collapse during the 2008 crisis, even though he did give some bailout money to them. Is there a link between the two?
Epstein was later at BCCI, another disgraced out fit that failed. See a pattern here?This is it. The key to Epstein: Bear Stearns put him on BCCI trades in 1979, as it made millions helping the CIA, Brits, Saudis & Israelis disguise covert cash by clearing $13 billion with BCCI, a CIA money laundering bank. Epstein simply developed that clientele & career niche. pic.twitter.com/HcXZJYr0LG
— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) December 20, 2025
Read all about it here.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:13 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.
Colombian President CAlls for Return of "Stolen" Texas
Timothy Birdnow
Uh, the U.S. paid Mexico for Texas. We also did not "steal" it as it was a popular uprising of citizens of the state of Tejas against the changing of the Constitution unilaterally by then President Bustamante' and enforced by Gen. Antonio Santa Ana in a ruthless fashion. The American settlers had immigrated under the theory they were immigrating to a place with a democratically elected government and a constitution guaranteeing civil rights and had a dictator come along and suspend the constitution. Also they were made promises of land they never received; the Mexican government pulled a bait and switch on them.
I would add that it was not just Texas that rebelled but several other northern states did likewise. Sadly they were easier to reach and attack for Santa Ana and he did so ruthlessly, crushing the rebellion in the rest of those states. Only Texas was positioned (and had the help of their American cousins) to succeed in this, and even then nobody believed it was possible they could win. Santa Ana really screwed the pooch on that one! A competent general would not have been lured so far north away from his supply lines, nor into a swamp where his men had only one line of retreat. Oh, and Santa Ana gave them all the afternoon off while he despoiled a local girl (a slave girl, hence known as the Yellow Rose of Texas). It was his incompetence that cost Mexico Texas.
The fact is the Texans had every right to revolt, and Mexico only had a claim on that land because it fell in the old Spanish claim. Mexico couldn't settle it or develop it, which is why they invited Americans and Europeans to come. And that is why the revolt was successful in the first place; Mexico had almost no infrastructure there, and little in the way of a military presence.
When the U.S. annexed Mexico ten years after its independence it did so because the Mexican government was threatening to invade the financially ruined independent state, and then the Mexican government amassed troops to invade Texas and take it from the U.S. At every juncture Mexico was the aggressor and their claim to the land was minimal. The Texans came from elsewhere and built a state where a frontier had been.
Even so the Polk government paid Mexico for the southwestern territories in took from them including Texas as part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. (The U.S. paid $15 million, then a lordly sum.) They don't have squat for a claim to the land, except that they once claimed it. If anyone has a claim to Texas it's the Indians who lived there and were pushed out.
If Mexico intended to continue to dispute the claim the should not have accepted the money.
For that matter, later on the Mexicans sold a large chunk of land (29,640 square miles) in Arizona and New Mexico to the U.S. for ten million bucks in 1854 so America could run a rail line. This was called the Gadsden Purchase. So if Mexico felt so ill-used by our annexation of Texas and the Southwest why did they sell us a huge chunk of it of their own volition?
We don't owe Mexico anything and they have no claim on the land. I suppose the Russians will want Alaska back next? California and Oregon and New Mexico too?
Texas is ours by any and all rights.
Uh, the U.S. paid Mexico for Texas. We also did not "steal" it as it was a popular uprising of citizens of the state of Tejas against the changing of the Constitution unilaterally by then President Bustamante' and enforced by Gen. Antonio Santa Ana in a ruthless fashion. The American settlers had immigrated under the theory they were immigrating to a place with a democratically elected government and a constitution guaranteeing civil rights and had a dictator come along and suspend the constitution. Also they were made promises of land they never received; the Mexican government pulled a bait and switch on them.
I would add that it was not just Texas that rebelled but several other northern states did likewise. Sadly they were easier to reach and attack for Santa Ana and he did so ruthlessly, crushing the rebellion in the rest of those states. Only Texas was positioned (and had the help of their American cousins) to succeed in this, and even then nobody believed it was possible they could win. Santa Ana really screwed the pooch on that one! A competent general would not have been lured so far north away from his supply lines, nor into a swamp where his men had only one line of retreat. Oh, and Santa Ana gave them all the afternoon off while he despoiled a local girl (a slave girl, hence known as the Yellow Rose of Texas). It was his incompetence that cost Mexico Texas.
The fact is the Texans had every right to revolt, and Mexico only had a claim on that land because it fell in the old Spanish claim. Mexico couldn't settle it or develop it, which is why they invited Americans and Europeans to come. And that is why the revolt was successful in the first place; Mexico had almost no infrastructure there, and little in the way of a military presence.
When the U.S. annexed Mexico ten years after its independence it did so because the Mexican government was threatening to invade the financially ruined independent state, and then the Mexican government amassed troops to invade Texas and take it from the U.S. At every juncture Mexico was the aggressor and their claim to the land was minimal. The Texans came from elsewhere and built a state where a frontier had been.
Even so the Polk government paid Mexico for the southwestern territories in took from them including Texas as part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. (The U.S. paid $15 million, then a lordly sum.) They don't have squat for a claim to the land, except that they once claimed it. If anyone has a claim to Texas it's the Indians who lived there and were pushed out.
If Mexico intended to continue to dispute the claim the should not have accepted the money.
For that matter, later on the Mexicans sold a large chunk of land (29,640 square miles) in Arizona and New Mexico to the U.S. for ten million bucks in 1854 so America could run a rail line. This was called the Gadsden Purchase. So if Mexico felt so ill-used by our annexation of Texas and the Southwest why did they sell us a huge chunk of it of their own volition?
We don't owe Mexico anything and they have no claim on the land. I suppose the Russians will want Alaska back next? California and Oregon and New Mexico too?
Texas is ours by any and all rights.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:05 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 589 words, total size 3 kb.
Climate Lies from the New York Times
This from Tony Heller at
The New York Times has a website claiming to show an increase in 90 degree days in US cities. In this short video I fact check their claims using app.visitech.ai
How Much Hotter Is Your Hometown Than When You Were Born? – The New York Times
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:15 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.
December 22, 2025
Taxation with Liberal Representation is Tyranny
Timothy Birdnow
This is well past due; people across the country have had it with rising property taxes and are about to rebel against them.
Property Tax Revolt Exploding Across the U.S.
I own two houses and am paying about double what I paid twenty years ago despite depreceation (which is considerable). This is something really hurting the American taxpayer. Often they can't afford the taxes now being imposed.
If Trump wants to win Congress this next election a push to reform property taxes would certainly help. Of course property taxes are generally local taxes.
The beauty of any restructuring which forces the lowering of tax rates is it hurts Democrats by defunding them in the big cities where they dominate. They have long since already spent the projected revenue they will receive by reassessing property values.
This also will help reduce costs to farmers who can then lower their prices on what they produce.
It's a win/win for everyone but the cities and the teacher's unions.
Trump may not be able to use his pen to help in this crisis but he can use the bully pulpit and stress the local nature of this particular swindle, thus encouraging people to get out and vote Republican in state and local elections. And it may be possible Trump can threaten to, say, withhold highway funding to states that are pushing taxes way up.
He can at least try; all they can do is file in court against him. Sometimes trying to do the right thing is itself a victory, especially if the public sees what you tried to do - and who tried to stop you.
At any rate it's a morally righteous thing, to not gouge people to support whatever spendthrift ideas their states and local governments hatch up. And it's a popular cause; any property owner pays these taxes.
Biden let in millions upon millions of aliens into the U.S. and this drove up the price of housing, so the average American has to pay the cost of Mr. Biden's folly and his sins. THAT is a form of thievery even if legal. It's shameful and the time has come to end this grift which steal so much of America's lifeblood.
This is well past due; people across the country have had it with rising property taxes and are about to rebel against them.
Property Tax Revolt Exploding Across the U.S.
I own two houses and am paying about double what I paid twenty years ago despite depreceation (which is considerable). This is something really hurting the American taxpayer. Often they can't afford the taxes now being imposed.
If Trump wants to win Congress this next election a push to reform property taxes would certainly help. Of course property taxes are generally local taxes.
The beauty of any restructuring which forces the lowering of tax rates is it hurts Democrats by defunding them in the big cities where they dominate. They have long since already spent the projected revenue they will receive by reassessing property values.
This also will help reduce costs to farmers who can then lower their prices on what they produce.
It's a win/win for everyone but the cities and the teacher's unions.
Trump may not be able to use his pen to help in this crisis but he can use the bully pulpit and stress the local nature of this particular swindle, thus encouraging people to get out and vote Republican in state and local elections. And it may be possible Trump can threaten to, say, withhold highway funding to states that are pushing taxes way up.
He can at least try; all they can do is file in court against him. Sometimes trying to do the right thing is itself a victory, especially if the public sees what you tried to do - and who tried to stop you.
At any rate it's a morally righteous thing, to not gouge people to support whatever spendthrift ideas their states and local governments hatch up. And it's a popular cause; any property owner pays these taxes.
Biden let in millions upon millions of aliens into the U.S. and this drove up the price of housing, so the average American has to pay the cost of Mr. Biden's folly and his sins. THAT is a form of thievery even if legal. It's shameful and the time has come to end this grift which steal so much of America's lifeblood.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
01:45 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 378 words, total size 2 kb.
Liberals Have Short Eyes
Timothy Birdnow
The Demo-Left truly is a bunch of perverts and sexual deviants.
Former Virginia Democrat Finance Chair Busted in FBI Child Porn Case
I believe that to be a leftist one first must be a deviant of some sort. Sex is ultimately at the root of the rebellion against normalcy and decency we see from Leftists, a desire to be unconstrained in their carnal activity, no matter how evil or perverted. To not just become a liberal but to stay one requires some overriding desire that informs all actions and beliefs.
Leftist rid themselves of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and so now worship their penises (or vaginas in many cases).
The Demo-Left truly is a bunch of perverts and sexual deviants.
Former Virginia Democrat Finance Chair Busted in FBI Child Porn Case
I believe that to be a leftist one first must be a deviant of some sort. Sex is ultimately at the root of the rebellion against normalcy and decency we see from Leftists, a desire to be unconstrained in their carnal activity, no matter how evil or perverted. To not just become a liberal but to stay one requires some overriding desire that informs all actions and beliefs.
Leftist rid themselves of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and so now worship their penises (or vaginas in many cases).
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
01:29 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 118 words, total size 1 kb.
Todd Gets it Backwards
Timothy Birdnow
Uh, Chuckie, it was the bald-faced lies you told the public that America lost trust in. And the self-styled "experts" trotted out by the lying media, not the loss of trust in experts leading to the collapse in trust in the media. YOU GUYS chose only one side to promote in any given circumstance and called those who disagreed kooks or liars.
Chuck Todd Says People Lost Trust in Media Because they Lost Trust in the Experts
Climate Change is a great example of that. I can give you dozens of names of top guys who would provide balance for the climate crusaders, yet you never,ever interview them. Then you blame a "loss of trust in experts" for the public losing trust in YOU for not providing both sides.
Roy Spencer, William Happer, Judith Curry, Roger Pielke Sr. and Jr., Freeman Dyson, etc. were all absolutely top people in their fields and disagreed with the doomsday cult, but you never bothered to interview them honestly. You smeared them and then said no credible people disputed the alarmist views of guys like Michael Mann or Phil Jones or the like.
What hypocrites you are!
But the Pandmeic really illustrated to Americans how dishonest you in the media can be. We never, ever got a dissenting voice from the CDC and you called anyone, no matter how well informed, liars and fools and called for their deplatforming and even firing for daring to question what has now been proven to be a lie (like the idea the vax stopped the spread of Covid).
From the article:
Again, the media could just have provided balance on most issues but chose to promote only one side - the side the government championed, the side the Left championed. They always had a choice.
And people lost trust in "experts" because they were being used to gaslight and everyone knew it. The loss in faith in institutions once held sacred was a coefficient of their politicization under Obama/Biden and even before, and the media's complicity in this politicization.
Sorry Chuck but your argument has it backwards. It's YOU we have rejected, the lying media who sees themselves as some sort of oracle of Delphi. Delphi no longer exists as a place of prophecy, chief.
Uh, Chuckie, it was the bald-faced lies you told the public that America lost trust in. And the self-styled "experts" trotted out by the lying media, not the loss of trust in experts leading to the collapse in trust in the media. YOU GUYS chose only one side to promote in any given circumstance and called those who disagreed kooks or liars.
Chuck Todd Says People Lost Trust in Media Because they Lost Trust in the Experts
Climate Change is a great example of that. I can give you dozens of names of top guys who would provide balance for the climate crusaders, yet you never,ever interview them. Then you blame a "loss of trust in experts" for the public losing trust in YOU for not providing both sides.
Roy Spencer, William Happer, Judith Curry, Roger Pielke Sr. and Jr., Freeman Dyson, etc. were all absolutely top people in their fields and disagreed with the doomsday cult, but you never bothered to interview them honestly. You smeared them and then said no credible people disputed the alarmist views of guys like Michael Mann or Phil Jones or the like.
What hypocrites you are!
But the Pandmeic really illustrated to Americans how dishonest you in the media can be. We never, ever got a dissenting voice from the CDC and you called anyone, no matter how well informed, liars and fools and called for their deplatforming and even firing for daring to question what has now been proven to be a lie (like the idea the vax stopped the spread of Covid).
From the article:
In the interview, Todd said the erosion of confidence in journalism reflects a larger breakdown in trust across major institutions, not just the press.
"Well, I think the short answer is yes, and I think, look, we haven’t had reliable political leadership,” Todd said when asked about declining trust in the media.
Todd said journalists are often dependent on the credibility of their sources, which can directly affect how the public perceives reporting. He said that reliance becomes a problem when the sources themselves are no longer trusted.
"And I think one of the things I like to remind people is one of the reasons I think trust in media has fallen to so low is remember what the media is,” Todd said.
"It’s a reflection of — I say I’m as good as the sources I have, not necessarily the sources I want at times, to borrow a phrase from the late Donald Rumsfeld, meaning, if you’re getting untrustworthy sources, you may be reporting untrustworthy information right? You get my drift here.”
Todd said that dynamic has contributed to a broader collapse in confidence not just in journalism but in institutions more generally.
"Well, I think the short answer is yes, and I think, look, we haven’t had reliable political leadership,” Todd said when asked about declining trust in the media.
Todd said journalists are often dependent on the credibility of their sources, which can directly affect how the public perceives reporting. He said that reliance becomes a problem when the sources themselves are no longer trusted.
"And I think one of the things I like to remind people is one of the reasons I think trust in media has fallen to so low is remember what the media is,” Todd said.
"It’s a reflection of — I say I’m as good as the sources I have, not necessarily the sources I want at times, to borrow a phrase from the late Donald Rumsfeld, meaning, if you’re getting untrustworthy sources, you may be reporting untrustworthy information right? You get my drift here.”
Todd said that dynamic has contributed to a broader collapse in confidence not just in journalism but in institutions more generally.
Again, the media could just have provided balance on most issues but chose to promote only one side - the side the government championed, the side the Left championed. They always had a choice.
And people lost trust in "experts" because they were being used to gaslight and everyone knew it. The loss in faith in institutions once held sacred was a coefficient of their politicization under Obama/Biden and even before, and the media's complicity in this politicization.
Sorry Chuck but your argument has it backwards. It's YOU we have rejected, the lying media who sees themselves as some sort of oracle of Delphi. Delphi no longer exists as a place of prophecy, chief.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
01:23 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 578 words, total size 4 kb.
Trump Sacks Diplomats
Timothy Birdnow
This is what he should have done six months ago.
Trump Removes Nearly 30 Career Diplomats From Ambassadorial Positions as Part of State Dept Realignment
Personnell is policy and until you change the people you won't change the policy.
This is what he should have done six months ago.
Trump Removes Nearly 30 Career Diplomats From Ambassadorial Positions as Part of State Dept Realignment
Personnell is policy and until you change the people you won't change the policy.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
01:05 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.
It Was a More Wonderful Life Than We Know
Timothy Birdnow
John M. Grondelski pens an interesting piece about why the movie It's a Wonderful Life is so popular and why the death of the values of George Bailey represent such a tragic loss for our culture.
Grondelski argues it's not the sappy feel-goodism of the movie that captures America's imagination but the representation of the old America, the small town values, the local presence, the call of duty and service to our fellow man and our community, etc. that makes this movie so beloved. It is an America we did not so much lose as purposely threw away, and it was a better America. Even the worst of the characters had their good points, points forced on them by the social atmosphere at large.
For example, Potter, the villain, is still forced to argue his case from the standpoint of what is best fo rthe community. At one point Potter argues that easy credit turns a thrifty working class into a rabble and that the need for financial discipline among the public is the key to everyone having a good life. Interestingly enough George Bailey disagrees "why should they wait? Why can't they have good things now" WEll, if we look at our modern world, has that philosophy worked out so well? Americans are now exactly what Potter predicted, a rabble, spoiled and entitled and caring about nothing but their own pleasure and ease and comfort. Easy cred played no small part in that. People no longer have to wait until they save up the money to buy things; they just borrow endlessly and hope to die before they pay the loans off. That is at odds with Christian thinking, which always involved a moral component to borrowing; it was thought to be largely immoral to borrow or to lend in a usurious fashion. The Bible rightly observed that debt made one a slave. But it's equally true the lender is a kind of slave too, being forced to keep lending and find new ways to entrap poor souls lest he be ruined when others take advantage (like Potter did to the Building and Loan and even the bank). It's a treadmill for everyone; the real winner is money itself. And government, which profits from every single transaction, since money is a creation of government in the first place (not wealth but MONEY). Paper money is no longer backed by anything and thus is only worth what government can convince people it is worth. Then government pays all of it's own debt with money it simply creates out of thin air, money worth less than when government spent it. In the end the consumer or smal financial institution gets soaked.
So Potter was not wrong in what he said, even though it was clear in the movie that money was his god more than the public welfare. In our modern cities a guy like Potter would not have even bothered to craft such arguments; he would simply say "greed is good" like in the movie Wall Street. Moral behavior was forced on Potter by the society in place, and he was only free to create a Pottersville because of the Depression, which was itself a creation of government and the changing of America from small town communities to the massive power blocks of the large cities.
As the author points out George Bailey is constrained by his small-town virtues even though he wants to be famous and a success. Well, who is a success in the movie (other than Potter)? His friend Sam Wainwright, that's who. This friend who left Bedford Falls behind and moved to New York. This friend (who Mary's mother was eager to have her marry rather than "mossback George") made a fortune as a war pofiteer selling plastics. He even suggests buying a factory in another town because it would be cheaper, but George talks him into reopening a factory in town and restoring jobs to his neighbors. Sam epitomized the changing nature of America; he was a thoroughly modern man. George was defending an America that was dying but should not have been. Sam was midwifing an America that never should have been.
In the final analysis who is bappier? Yes, small towns can be boring, especially to the young. Yes, everyone is in everyone's business. Yes, there is limited opportunity. But the allure of the cities did nobody any favors. The America we now suffer with is the direct descendant of the one George Bailey resisted, and deep down most people understand that, which is why the movie is so popular.
It's an archetype, just as Leave it to Beaver or Andy Griffith is an archetype of an America now gone, murdered by the drives of modernity and the rise of Leftism and anger and class hatred. In the old days there wasn't much class hatred; most people wanted to BE in the upper class and hoped their children would be there. Now many hope their children will be the ones to destroy the wealthy and those who play by the rules, to destroy the rules, for that matter.
The author of this piece blames the automobile for much of this and while he has a point he misses it too; the automobile certainly made wanderlust easier to satiate but in the end a car is a tool, like so many other things, and the allure of the cities came not, as Shakespeare would have put it, as a fault in our cars but in ourselves. Americans were restive under the morality of Christianity and wanted the excitement and pleasures of the big cities, cities which absorbed so many immigrants with European ideas and loosey-goosey morality. The cities were FUN and this was very attractive, especially in the pre-television days when there was little to do with your time. Once in the cities there were structures forming and are now in place to make the new urbanites dissatisfied and angry and to roil their lives in ways great and small. The beauty of this is that the more unhappy these immigrants to the cities became the more they loathed their small town upbringing and the values htat went with that. It was a moral perpetual motion machine.
And such alienated and disaffected people were ripe for the rising Lefitism that has poisoned our cities. How many cities are predominantly conservative? How many big cities are NOT controlled by Democrats?
As for George and his sacrificing ways, yes he was a man for others. But much of it was driven by his hatred of Potter, who may well have mellowed had George actually taken that job with his organization. Potter would have seen that George's ways made him money and perhaps the old grump would have been less contentious if he had someone to rein him in? But George would never do that because he blamed Potter for his father's death. (His father probably died from eating too much cholesterol, but that's another topic entirely.) But all good stories need a protagonist and an antagonist, a hero and a villain, and Potter served as villain in that story. Bailey had to have someone to fight and Americans understand that; it's the crusader mentality that has always existed in the American psyche, from the first days of our settlement where Pilgrims and other religious folk sought to settle and tame the land for Christ and had to fight - Native Americans and outlaws and encroaching foreign powers - to do so. Without a Potter there could be no George Bailey. But Bailey's motives are another matter.
At any rae I think the number one reason the movie got so huge is that it was never played until Ted Turner got the rights and began running it day and night around Christmas. Oh, and it fell into the public domain, meaning it was free to run anytime.
But there are plenty of other old movies that are free and the public is not so enamoured of them as It's a Wonderful Life.
BTW George Bailey's life never does improve; just his attitude changes. Oh, and the ending is ridiculous; no matter if George paid the money back or not he was STILL going to trial for malfeasance and embezzlement. Restitution does not make one immune from prosecution and eventually some prosecutor would bring charges against him. The big party at George's house wouldn't be the end of the matter.
Also, I always was bothered by the notion that George's brother's death would have happened at all; the fact is he was only on the ice as a kid because his brother George was there. Otherwise the older boys wouldn't have wanted him there at all, so he would have lived - and saved the men on that transport.
At any rate do read the entire essay at American Thinker!
John M. Grondelski pens an interesting piece about why the movie It's a Wonderful Life is so popular and why the death of the values of George Bailey represent such a tragic loss for our culture.
Grondelski argues it's not the sappy feel-goodism of the movie that captures America's imagination but the representation of the old America, the small town values, the local presence, the call of duty and service to our fellow man and our community, etc. that makes this movie so beloved. It is an America we did not so much lose as purposely threw away, and it was a better America. Even the worst of the characters had their good points, points forced on them by the social atmosphere at large.
For example, Potter, the villain, is still forced to argue his case from the standpoint of what is best fo rthe community. At one point Potter argues that easy credit turns a thrifty working class into a rabble and that the need for financial discipline among the public is the key to everyone having a good life. Interestingly enough George Bailey disagrees "why should they wait? Why can't they have good things now" WEll, if we look at our modern world, has that philosophy worked out so well? Americans are now exactly what Potter predicted, a rabble, spoiled and entitled and caring about nothing but their own pleasure and ease and comfort. Easy cred played no small part in that. People no longer have to wait until they save up the money to buy things; they just borrow endlessly and hope to die before they pay the loans off. That is at odds with Christian thinking, which always involved a moral component to borrowing; it was thought to be largely immoral to borrow or to lend in a usurious fashion. The Bible rightly observed that debt made one a slave. But it's equally true the lender is a kind of slave too, being forced to keep lending and find new ways to entrap poor souls lest he be ruined when others take advantage (like Potter did to the Building and Loan and even the bank). It's a treadmill for everyone; the real winner is money itself. And government, which profits from every single transaction, since money is a creation of government in the first place (not wealth but MONEY). Paper money is no longer backed by anything and thus is only worth what government can convince people it is worth. Then government pays all of it's own debt with money it simply creates out of thin air, money worth less than when government spent it. In the end the consumer or smal financial institution gets soaked.
So Potter was not wrong in what he said, even though it was clear in the movie that money was his god more than the public welfare. In our modern cities a guy like Potter would not have even bothered to craft such arguments; he would simply say "greed is good" like in the movie Wall Street. Moral behavior was forced on Potter by the society in place, and he was only free to create a Pottersville because of the Depression, which was itself a creation of government and the changing of America from small town communities to the massive power blocks of the large cities.
As the author points out George Bailey is constrained by his small-town virtues even though he wants to be famous and a success. Well, who is a success in the movie (other than Potter)? His friend Sam Wainwright, that's who. This friend who left Bedford Falls behind and moved to New York. This friend (who Mary's mother was eager to have her marry rather than "mossback George") made a fortune as a war pofiteer selling plastics. He even suggests buying a factory in another town because it would be cheaper, but George talks him into reopening a factory in town and restoring jobs to his neighbors. Sam epitomized the changing nature of America; he was a thoroughly modern man. George was defending an America that was dying but should not have been. Sam was midwifing an America that never should have been.
In the final analysis who is bappier? Yes, small towns can be boring, especially to the young. Yes, everyone is in everyone's business. Yes, there is limited opportunity. But the allure of the cities did nobody any favors. The America we now suffer with is the direct descendant of the one George Bailey resisted, and deep down most people understand that, which is why the movie is so popular.
It's an archetype, just as Leave it to Beaver or Andy Griffith is an archetype of an America now gone, murdered by the drives of modernity and the rise of Leftism and anger and class hatred. In the old days there wasn't much class hatred; most people wanted to BE in the upper class and hoped their children would be there. Now many hope their children will be the ones to destroy the wealthy and those who play by the rules, to destroy the rules, for that matter.
The author of this piece blames the automobile for much of this and while he has a point he misses it too; the automobile certainly made wanderlust easier to satiate but in the end a car is a tool, like so many other things, and the allure of the cities came not, as Shakespeare would have put it, as a fault in our cars but in ourselves. Americans were restive under the morality of Christianity and wanted the excitement and pleasures of the big cities, cities which absorbed so many immigrants with European ideas and loosey-goosey morality. The cities were FUN and this was very attractive, especially in the pre-television days when there was little to do with your time. Once in the cities there were structures forming and are now in place to make the new urbanites dissatisfied and angry and to roil their lives in ways great and small. The beauty of this is that the more unhappy these immigrants to the cities became the more they loathed their small town upbringing and the values htat went with that. It was a moral perpetual motion machine.
And such alienated and disaffected people were ripe for the rising Lefitism that has poisoned our cities. How many cities are predominantly conservative? How many big cities are NOT controlled by Democrats?
As for George and his sacrificing ways, yes he was a man for others. But much of it was driven by his hatred of Potter, who may well have mellowed had George actually taken that job with his organization. Potter would have seen that George's ways made him money and perhaps the old grump would have been less contentious if he had someone to rein him in? But George would never do that because he blamed Potter for his father's death. (His father probably died from eating too much cholesterol, but that's another topic entirely.) But all good stories need a protagonist and an antagonist, a hero and a villain, and Potter served as villain in that story. Bailey had to have someone to fight and Americans understand that; it's the crusader mentality that has always existed in the American psyche, from the first days of our settlement where Pilgrims and other religious folk sought to settle and tame the land for Christ and had to fight - Native Americans and outlaws and encroaching foreign powers - to do so. Without a Potter there could be no George Bailey. But Bailey's motives are another matter.
At any rae I think the number one reason the movie got so huge is that it was never played until Ted Turner got the rights and began running it day and night around Christmas. Oh, and it fell into the public domain, meaning it was free to run anytime.
But there are plenty of other old movies that are free and the public is not so enamoured of them as It's a Wonderful Life.
BTW George Bailey's life never does improve; just his attitude changes. Oh, and the ending is ridiculous; no matter if George paid the money back or not he was STILL going to trial for malfeasance and embezzlement. Restitution does not make one immune from prosecution and eventually some prosecutor would bring charges against him. The big party at George's house wouldn't be the end of the matter.
Also, I always was bothered by the notion that George's brother's death would have happened at all; the fact is he was only on the ice as a kid because his brother George was there. Otherwise the older boys wouldn't have wanted him there at all, so he would have lived - and saved the men on that transport.
At any rate do read the entire essay at American Thinker!
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
12:48 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1493 words, total size 9 kb.
Should We Be Defending Left-wing Europe From Right-wing Russia?
Selwyn Duke
While it was contrary to our Founders’ warning to avoid entangling alliances and European wars, we certainly can understand why NATO was created in 1949.
The USSR, which President Ronald Reagan would later rightly call an evil empire, appeared a burgeoning force. Ensuring his post-WWII domination of Eastern Europe, Soviet despot Joseph Stalin saw to it that communist governments rose to power, by hook or by crook, in seven nations west of his own between 1945 and 1948. And Stalin’s armies became this domination’s guarantor.
The USSR was also attempting to spread its dark creed worldwide. In fact, Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov estimated that 85 percent of the KGB’s resources were devoted not to espionage, but subversion. So stopping this aggressive leftism was a priority.
In contrast, Western Europe still shared much with the U.S. back then. Though its faith was waning, it was still Christendom, as opposed to the "atheistic communist” persecutors of the Church. It was, to use our provisional political terminology, a classic right-left dichotomy.
(Note: The right-left model is a poor way of defining reality; it reflects the relativism pervading our time. Yet if I speak of being orthodox vs. heterodox, few will know what I’m talking about. So our common political lexicon must suffice for the moment.)
But that time is long past. Approximately a generation and a half ago now, the Berlin Wall fell. The USSR is Russia again and, whatever its faults, the Bear is not spreading communism or any brand of leftism. In fact, the "union” now thus guilty is the EU. This brings us to certain questions:
With NATO’s raison d'être, the Soviets, gone, why does it still exist?
And given that our treaty obligations could draw into a (ultimately nuclear) war with the Kremlin, should we really be risking American blood defending left-wing Europe from right-wing Russia?
It’s not as if others haven’t noted Western Europe’s left-wing (read: tyrannical) shift.
In February at the Munich Security Conference, Vice President J.D. Vance castigated the woke Europeans for trampling free speech. He said the greatest threat to the continent wasn’t China or Russia, but "from within.”
Then, just this Friday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned the Europeans that mass migration was threatening their culture’s "erasure” — and the NATO alliance.
"You go to these NATO meetings, what they will tell you is — ‘our shared history, our shared legacy, our shared values, our shared priorities.’ That's what they talk about as the reason for this alliance,” Rubio told the Washington Examiner. Erase what’s shared, however, "then you just have a straight-up defense agreement,” Rubio explained. "That’s all you have.”
Really, though, how much is still shared? Is a defense agreement already all we have? Let’s examine our East-West ideological pole shift:
- European pseudo-elites have flooded their continent with millions of unassimilable foreigners, many Muslim, to the point that "no-go zones” now exist in their cities. When this is criticized, too, authorities may arrest people for anti-immigration/immigrant "hate speech.” Epitomizing this mentality, Swedish multiculturalist Mona Sahlin, commenting on her land’s Islamization in 2001, actually saidthat "the Swedes must be integrated into the new Sweden; the old Sweden is never coming back.” Russia, however, explicitly denounced this agenda in a 2014 document titled "Foundations of the State Cultural Policy.” It rejects "such principles as multiculturalism and tolerance,” the Kremlin stated, and those "imposing alien values on society.”
- Along with many other Europeans, Finnish politician Päivi Räsänen and Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola have been charged with "hate speech” for espousing the biblical/authentically Christian view of homosexuality. Meanwhile, Russia has outlawed homosexual propaganda in media, films, books, advertising, online content, and public spaces.
- In this vein, the EU has decreed that faux ("same-sex”) "marriages” performed in any member state must be recognized by every member state. In contrast, a recent-years Russian constitutional amendment explicitly defines marriage as a man-woman union.
- While the West is now thoroughly permeated by moral relativism/nihilism — and derivatives such as cultural and religious relativism — the Kremlin has rejected it. For example, while criticizing the West in a 2013 keynote speech, Russian president Vladimir Putin said, "Policies are being pursued that place on the same level a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership, a faith in God and a belief in Satan. This is the path to degradation.”
- In Europe, Christian street preachers have been arrested, and deference is shown to Islam. In Russia, though, a law acknowledges Orthodoxy’s (Christianity’s) "special role” in the country’s history and culture. And Putin himself has warned about dispensing with "Christian values.” The 180-degree turn is so profound that The Washington Times asked on this matter in a 2014 headline, "Who’s ‘godless’ now?”
- France became in 2024 the world’s first country to make prenatal infanticide a constitutional right (New York State followed suit, too). Russia, though far from perfect on this issue, has moved to tighten abortion restrictions. Moreover, the Kremlin also encourages fecundity by paying women who have babies.
- It once made news when Russia imprisoned54 people in 2015 for "hate speech.” In the EU today, perhaps tens of thousands are persecuted for hate speech every year. Britain leads the pack, with 12,000 arrests annually under its "Communications Act.”
So just as the Soviets did during the Cold War, today’s Russian patriots might call the West "decadent” — only, now they have a point.
Of course, some (paging Bill O’Reilly) will scoff here, saying Putin is a thuggish demagogue who takes positions of convenience, not conviction. He’s a bad man, fair enough. But I also consider U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer a bad man. In fact, few leaders have morals rising above those of a disbarred lawyer-turned used car salesman.
It’s also true that Putin’s lofty words may be mere convenient posturing. Yet how many European leaders believe all the woke drivel they disgorge? And, frankly, I’d rather have a politician supporting the right things for the wrong reasons than the wrong things for the wrong reasons.
All this said, however, the bottom line is that today’s Russia is far more traditional than post-Christian Western Europe. So while Western officials will sometimes warn, most fancifully (ginning up support for Ukraine), that the Kremlin may soon invade the West, a question should be asked:
So what?
What would be lost if, by some miracle, Russia ended up realizing Napoleon’s dream and ruled Europe?
Europeans wouldn’t be able to have their "Pride” parades (illegal in Russia) with men marching mostly naked?
The Sexual Devolution would be deep-sixed?
The Russian flag would replace the rainbow one?
Third World migration would be ended?
Borders would matter again?
Fecundity would be favored?
Christianity would be elevated?
Abortion would increasingly be anathema?
Children wouldn’t be told they could switch sexes at will?
There’s a reason the U.K. paper The Telegraph boldly wroteWednesday that "
atriots should not fight for the British state.” And given this, should Americans even think about fighting for the British state— and the rest of Europe? Should we shed American blood for a fallen continent, let alone risk nuclear war?
The prophetic G.K. Chesterton wrote in 1926 that the "madness of tomorrow is not in Moscow, but much more in Manhattan” — and now, we can add, in Brussels. Chesterton also noted that the "true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.” But this raises a final question:
Can we even hate what is in front of us now — forget loving what is behind us — without, possibly, turning around?
If the illegal migrants, sexual devolutionaries and Christophobic ne’er-do-wells want to fight to save decadent Europe, they can knock themselves out. As for yours truly, call me up when there’s a proper Crusade intent on doing what Crusades do.
Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on X (formerly Twitter), Truth Social, MeWe, Gettr, Tumblr, Instagram or Substack or log on to SelwynDuke.com.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:41 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1404 words, total size 14 kb.
Time Will Tell
Timothy Birdnow
I buried my wife on Saturday.
It was a beautiful day, cool but not cold and clear, just the sort of day Cathy would have loved.
We had a visitation in the church lobby with photographs and a slideshow and a good-sized crowd came to pay their respects. In fact, people Cathy used to work with DECADES before showed up! Cathy touched so many lives and always for the better and was much beloved by many. She had no enemies at all, which is a testament to her gentle and sweet nature. Everyone loved her. Even people from the nursing home she was in showed up to pay their respects.
After the visitation we held the funeral, and it was a beautiful service indeed. How could it not be? Cathy and her sister basically planned the same service for their mother years ago and we largely recycled the readings. I was in no shape to make decisions and so let her sister plan it all. Naturally I accepted the credit when people told me how lovely it was!
The priest's sermon was spot on too; he captured the true nature of my little Catbird (I used to call her that and when I discovered there was a GRAY Catbird would often call her the old gray catbird, which often was followed by a flying shoe in my direction...) He was most impressed with the Thanksgiving where she invited homeless people to her place for a dinner (to the horror of her parents of course); Cathy had a huge heart! (You know she did; she married me, after all.)
She had suffered greatly for the last few years, with her pain rising asymptotically as the end neared, but she hardly ever complained and she prayed to God not for relief but for strength to endure it. She accepted the suffering as a badge of honor, as a way to please God and mitigate sins - her own and others. I was humbled by her presence; she truly was a saintly woman.
At any rate after her funeral we went to the cemetary and while everyone else left Cathy's sister and her husband (my old friend) and I watched as they lowered her urn into the Earth. It was heartbreaking but it gave a kind of closure to the matter which you don't get these days in traditional funerals. Too bad everyone had already left.
We went to a nice Italian restaurant that Cathy had always liked and had a find luncheon. I talked to old friends I hadn''t seen in a long time, and friends I still see, and relatives long overdue for my attention. It was comforting, even if I did just want to be quiet and shrink into the shadows. I'm glad everyone had a good time but I was in no mood for social intercourse. But it had to be done.
At any rate yesterday consisted mostly of me watching television and trying to pass the long hours, although I did sneak over to my house to post a few things. I'm going to start reversing the process I just undertook and move things back home. Granted I'll do it much more slowly so as not to put myself back in the hospital.
Oh, did I mention I was in the hospital for five days? I feared leaving, feared Cathy would pass away, but she held on until I got back and then went quietly, like a candle being blown out by a gentle breeze. She died comfortable and I believe was happy, at least to go with me by her side. It was with the gentlest sighs that she left this mortal world. Almost like blowing a candle out.
She waited for me; that is the greatest love I can imagine.
Anyway I am now at loose ends and wondering where to go from here. I didn't realize how much of my life was rooted in our marriage and how now that she's gone I have to build a new life. I don't expect it to be any great shakes; I'm getting old now and my health is poor and I won't be getting a new job or doing volunteer work or whatnot. I suppose I'll get back to writing and whatnot. I still have my father to worry about, after all. But I may just take off one of these days and drive until I am hungry for home.
What is tough is the little things. For instance, since she was cremated we saved her socks. She had a pair she bought for herself off Amazon, featuring Grumpy Cat from the internet. She passed away in Grinch socks (She hated the commercialization of Christmas and everyone called her the Grinch for not loving the crass commercial holiday). I was looking at those this morning and it punched me right in the heart. So did her Tweety Bird shirt, and the Jack-0-Lantern shirt she used to wear around Halloweeen. I suppose I'm going to have to get used to the little gut knifings like that.
And then there are the endless inquiries into my emotional state. I know everyone means well, and in fact it probably does actually help, but my 'druthers are to just be left alone and work through this myself. The problem is it's all stock phrases "I'm o.k." "don't worry about me", I know it'll get easier" etc. I would prefer a much more honest "this sucks and you got a raw deal" even if Cathy wouldn't necessarily agree. I could then say "damned right" which is much more how I feel about the matter, but the kind words are actually heartfelt and people don't know what to say - and they actually probably do help. It gets you out of the cycle of anger and sadness by making you say "I'm o.k." "don't worry about me", I know it'll get easier"; it gets you thinking this way in time. All of these cultural traditions have a good and noble purpose, I am certain, but they are a pain in the poste5rior. Nobody knows what to say to a bereaved person anyway so we all fall back on the cliche's. They are cliche's precisely because they are the best thing to say. But they often ring hollow on the ears of the person who lost someone.
At the funeral I had two attractive young widows come up to me to tell me how it's going to be and offer comfort. They had informed opinions and when they said it I could trust it was true. And of course my father had lost his wife five years ago (my mother) and when he told me it would get easier I believed him.
At any rate I need to think of this as a new beginning, not the end, but that's hard to do. It's going to take some time before I can really think about such things.
I am reminded of the movie Castaway starring Tom Hanks where, at the end, he realizes he will never resume his old life and is at a four way juncture in the flat plains of Texas. One way seems as good as another. And he narrates, saying he just has to wait to see what the wind will blow ashore, as he did on the island. My life is definitely like that now.
Cathy is now gone but she will always be a part of me, the better part. Time will tell what God has in store for me, but it surely will be unlike anything my old life gave me. Time will tell.
I buried my wife on Saturday.
It was a beautiful day, cool but not cold and clear, just the sort of day Cathy would have loved.
We had a visitation in the church lobby with photographs and a slideshow and a good-sized crowd came to pay their respects. In fact, people Cathy used to work with DECADES before showed up! Cathy touched so many lives and always for the better and was much beloved by many. She had no enemies at all, which is a testament to her gentle and sweet nature. Everyone loved her. Even people from the nursing home she was in showed up to pay their respects.
After the visitation we held the funeral, and it was a beautiful service indeed. How could it not be? Cathy and her sister basically planned the same service for their mother years ago and we largely recycled the readings. I was in no shape to make decisions and so let her sister plan it all. Naturally I accepted the credit when people told me how lovely it was!
The priest's sermon was spot on too; he captured the true nature of my little Catbird (I used to call her that and when I discovered there was a GRAY Catbird would often call her the old gray catbird, which often was followed by a flying shoe in my direction...) He was most impressed with the Thanksgiving where she invited homeless people to her place for a dinner (to the horror of her parents of course); Cathy had a huge heart! (You know she did; she married me, after all.)
She had suffered greatly for the last few years, with her pain rising asymptotically as the end neared, but she hardly ever complained and she prayed to God not for relief but for strength to endure it. She accepted the suffering as a badge of honor, as a way to please God and mitigate sins - her own and others. I was humbled by her presence; she truly was a saintly woman.
At any rate after her funeral we went to the cemetary and while everyone else left Cathy's sister and her husband (my old friend) and I watched as they lowered her urn into the Earth. It was heartbreaking but it gave a kind of closure to the matter which you don't get these days in traditional funerals. Too bad everyone had already left.
We went to a nice Italian restaurant that Cathy had always liked and had a find luncheon. I talked to old friends I hadn''t seen in a long time, and friends I still see, and relatives long overdue for my attention. It was comforting, even if I did just want to be quiet and shrink into the shadows. I'm glad everyone had a good time but I was in no mood for social intercourse. But it had to be done.
At any rate yesterday consisted mostly of me watching television and trying to pass the long hours, although I did sneak over to my house to post a few things. I'm going to start reversing the process I just undertook and move things back home. Granted I'll do it much more slowly so as not to put myself back in the hospital.
Oh, did I mention I was in the hospital for five days? I feared leaving, feared Cathy would pass away, but she held on until I got back and then went quietly, like a candle being blown out by a gentle breeze. She died comfortable and I believe was happy, at least to go with me by her side. It was with the gentlest sighs that she left this mortal world. Almost like blowing a candle out.
She waited for me; that is the greatest love I can imagine.
Anyway I am now at loose ends and wondering where to go from here. I didn't realize how much of my life was rooted in our marriage and how now that she's gone I have to build a new life. I don't expect it to be any great shakes; I'm getting old now and my health is poor and I won't be getting a new job or doing volunteer work or whatnot. I suppose I'll get back to writing and whatnot. I still have my father to worry about, after all. But I may just take off one of these days and drive until I am hungry for home.
What is tough is the little things. For instance, since she was cremated we saved her socks. She had a pair she bought for herself off Amazon, featuring Grumpy Cat from the internet. She passed away in Grinch socks (She hated the commercialization of Christmas and everyone called her the Grinch for not loving the crass commercial holiday). I was looking at those this morning and it punched me right in the heart. So did her Tweety Bird shirt, and the Jack-0-Lantern shirt she used to wear around Halloweeen. I suppose I'm going to have to get used to the little gut knifings like that.
And then there are the endless inquiries into my emotional state. I know everyone means well, and in fact it probably does actually help, but my 'druthers are to just be left alone and work through this myself. The problem is it's all stock phrases "I'm o.k." "don't worry about me", I know it'll get easier" etc. I would prefer a much more honest "this sucks and you got a raw deal" even if Cathy wouldn't necessarily agree. I could then say "damned right" which is much more how I feel about the matter, but the kind words are actually heartfelt and people don't know what to say - and they actually probably do help. It gets you out of the cycle of anger and sadness by making you say "I'm o.k." "don't worry about me", I know it'll get easier"; it gets you thinking this way in time. All of these cultural traditions have a good and noble purpose, I am certain, but they are a pain in the poste5rior. Nobody knows what to say to a bereaved person anyway so we all fall back on the cliche's. They are cliche's precisely because they are the best thing to say. But they often ring hollow on the ears of the person who lost someone.
At the funeral I had two attractive young widows come up to me to tell me how it's going to be and offer comfort. They had informed opinions and when they said it I could trust it was true. And of course my father had lost his wife five years ago (my mother) and when he told me it would get easier I believed him.
At any rate I need to think of this as a new beginning, not the end, but that's hard to do. It's going to take some time before I can really think about such things.
I am reminded of the movie Castaway starring Tom Hanks where, at the end, he realizes he will never resume his old life and is at a four way juncture in the flat plains of Texas. One way seems as good as another. And he narrates, saying he just has to wait to see what the wind will blow ashore, as he did on the island. My life is definitely like that now.
Cathy is now gone but she will always be a part of me, the better part. Time will tell what God has in store for me, but it surely will be unlike anything my old life gave me. Time will tell.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:33 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1282 words, total size 7 kb.
December 21, 2025
Clinton "Ain't Got no Poof"
Timothy Birdnow
Anyone remember "ain't got no poof"?
Clinton Camp Responds After Damaging Epsein Files Photos Go Viral
That is apparently their arguement yet again.
These photos are poof, er, proof; they show Clinton in rather disturbing situations, such as being in a hot tub with a young woman. But ain't got no poof!
Look, a man as infamously randy and philanderous as Bill Clinton would probably not be overly concerned about where his next blow job was coming from, nor is he likely to be worried about the welfare of a bimbo except insofar as she erupts to damage him. We know Clinton had a "bimbo eruption squad" to deal with ladies Mr. Clinton despoiled, and they had no problem destroying such women. I rather doubt Bill knew nor cared that these young ladies were working under duress and in what amounted to slavery; he was getting what HE wanted, which was a happy ending. He wasn't one to see young sex partners as human beings so much as bimbos to be used.
So it wouldn't surprise me at all that Bill Clinton was deep in the brothel with a white slaver like that. While we may need proof in court we are free to make assumptions in the court of public opinion and Mr. Clinton was one huge sleezeball and always has been.
BTW "ain't got no poof" was the mantra of Sydney Bloomenthal during the Monica Lewinsky Scandal (which led to the poor girl's name being used as a verb, a very bad thing.)
Just remember when Clinton wagged his bony finger at America "I never had sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky". Yeah; lots of credibility there.
Anyone remember "ain't got no poof"?
Clinton Camp Responds After Damaging Epsein Files Photos Go Viral
That is apparently their arguement yet again.
These photos are poof, er, proof; they show Clinton in rather disturbing situations, such as being in a hot tub with a young woman. But ain't got no poof!
Look, a man as infamously randy and philanderous as Bill Clinton would probably not be overly concerned about where his next blow job was coming from, nor is he likely to be worried about the welfare of a bimbo except insofar as she erupts to damage him. We know Clinton had a "bimbo eruption squad" to deal with ladies Mr. Clinton despoiled, and they had no problem destroying such women. I rather doubt Bill knew nor cared that these young ladies were working under duress and in what amounted to slavery; he was getting what HE wanted, which was a happy ending. He wasn't one to see young sex partners as human beings so much as bimbos to be used.
So it wouldn't surprise me at all that Bill Clinton was deep in the brothel with a white slaver like that. While we may need proof in court we are free to make assumptions in the court of public opinion and Mr. Clinton was one huge sleezeball and always has been.
BTW "ain't got no poof" was the mantra of Sydney Bloomenthal during the Monica Lewinsky Scandal (which led to the poor girl's name being used as a verb, a very bad thing.)
Just remember when Clinton wagged his bony finger at America "I never had sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky". Yeah; lots of credibility there.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
01:56 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 287 words, total size 2 kb.
Why the Covid Vax Causes Myocarditis
Timothy Birdnow
Turns out even STANFORD admits the mRNA Covid shot can cause myocarditis.
Stanford Medicine study shows why mRNA COVID-19 vaccine can cause myocarditis
FTA:
The researcher went on to bow knee to the medical establishment by saying "covid is worse though" as though the vaccine ever prevented any outbreak of covid in the first place (it didn't and it doesn't.)
So what causes myocarditis in vaccinated individuals (or from the disease itself)?
So basically while they didn't give people Covid they instead recreaed the immune responses that help make Covid a deatly disease in the first place. Brilliant!
And it was rushed to market to appease the media and the Democrats who decided this was their pathway to political power.
Yet there are STILL people, especially at the CDC, who want the Covid vax to be forcibly imposed on children and young people.
This is why it takes decades, sometimes, to approve medications; you don't know until you test it. Anyone remember thalidamide?
Turns out even STANFORD admits the mRNA Covid shot can cause myocarditis.
Stanford Medicine study shows why mRNA COVID-19 vaccine can cause myocarditis
FTA:
Vaccine-associated myocarditis occurs in about one in every 140,000 vaccinees after a first dose and rises to one in 32,000 after a second dose. For reasons that aren’t clear, incidence peaks among male vaccinees age 30 or below, at one in 16,750 vaccinees.
Fortunately, most of these cases end well, Wu said, with full heart function retained or restored. Recovery is typically swift.
"It’s not a heart attack in the traditional sense,” he said. "There’s no blockage of blood vessels as found in most common heart attacks. When symptoms are mild and the inflammation hasn’t caused structural damage to the heart, we just observe these patients to make sure they recover.
Fortunately, most of these cases end well, Wu said, with full heart function retained or restored. Recovery is typically swift.
"It’s not a heart attack in the traditional sense,” he said. "There’s no blockage of blood vessels as found in most common heart attacks. When symptoms are mild and the inflammation hasn’t caused structural damage to the heart, we just observe these patients to make sure they recover.
The researcher went on to bow knee to the medical establishment by saying "covid is worse though" as though the vaccine ever prevented any outbreak of covid in the first place (it didn't and it doesn't.)
So what causes myocarditis in vaccinated individuals (or from the disease itself)?
"Two proteins, named CXCL10 and IFN-gamma, popped up. We think these two are the major drivers of myocarditis,” Wu said. They operate like a tag team.
CXCL10 and IFN-gamma both belong to a class of proteins called cytokines: signaling substances that immune cells secrete to carry on chemical conversations with one another.
Hoping to listen in on these communications, the scientists generated human immune cells called macrophages — fierce first-responder cells of the immune system — in a dish and incubated them with mRNA vaccines.
The macrophages responded by pumping out various cytokines but, most notably, pronounced amounts of CXCL10. They also otherwise generally mimicked the vaccine responses of macrophages reported in humans, as shown by comparison with published data from vaccinated individuals.
When the scientists further supplied the dish with an additional kind of immune cell — T cells, roving sentinels that can recognize and mount immune attacks on specific pathogens but can also incite general arousal of the immune system — or even when they merely steeped T cells in the solution in which vaccine-administered macrophages had bathed, they saw a marked uptick in the T cells’ output of IFN-gamma. But T cells incubated with mRNA vaccine in the absence of macrophages or their bathwater produced only standard amounts of IFN-gamma. These results showed that macrophages are the chief source of CXCL10 and that T cells are the chief source of IFN-gamma in response to mRNA vaccination.
CXCL10 and IFN-gamma both belong to a class of proteins called cytokines: signaling substances that immune cells secrete to carry on chemical conversations with one another.
Hoping to listen in on these communications, the scientists generated human immune cells called macrophages — fierce first-responder cells of the immune system — in a dish and incubated them with mRNA vaccines.
The macrophages responded by pumping out various cytokines but, most notably, pronounced amounts of CXCL10. They also otherwise generally mimicked the vaccine responses of macrophages reported in humans, as shown by comparison with published data from vaccinated individuals.
When the scientists further supplied the dish with an additional kind of immune cell — T cells, roving sentinels that can recognize and mount immune attacks on specific pathogens but can also incite general arousal of the immune system — or even when they merely steeped T cells in the solution in which vaccine-administered macrophages had bathed, they saw a marked uptick in the T cells’ output of IFN-gamma. But T cells incubated with mRNA vaccine in the absence of macrophages or their bathwater produced only standard amounts of IFN-gamma. These results showed that macrophages are the chief source of CXCL10 and that T cells are the chief source of IFN-gamma in response to mRNA vaccination.
So basically while they didn't give people Covid they instead recreaed the immune responses that help make Covid a deatly disease in the first place. Brilliant!
And it was rushed to market to appease the media and the Democrats who decided this was their pathway to political power.
Yet there are STILL people, especially at the CDC, who want the Covid vax to be forcibly imposed on children and young people.
This is why it takes decades, sometimes, to approve medications; you don't know until you test it. Anyone remember thalidamide?
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
01:33 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 521 words, total size 4 kb.
December 19, 2025
The Vortex Blows
Timothy Birdnow
I believe colder air is dryer than warmer and a weak polar vortex means wetter arctic air.
Alaska's Arctic is Burning Like Never Before in 3000 Years
Fire prefers dry air to moist. Antarctica is the dryest desert on Earth because it's so cold, not warm. No doubt colder air in the Arctic has that impact as well.
This is just a silly argument even if it's true, and it probably isn't.
It also never occurred to these geniuses that there are a LOT more people up there now, and human beings are a prime source of fire. Oh, and with oil and gas drilling it stands to reason we'd have more fires now than in bygone days. Eskimos didn't use kerosene to start big bonfires...
And they tested this out by studying PEAT BOGS. Bogs is the operative word here; that is a wet region by it's very nature.
The article states:
So how did it rise then fall back a thousand years ago? I thought we were in the hottest time in geological history. But we aren't; the Medieval Climate Period was warmer and honest scientists will admit that. The MWP ended around 1500.
Could it not be a simple change in precipitation patterns? After all, we should have seen a considerable DECLINE in fires during the Little Ice Age yet no mention of THAT is made here.
I believe colder air is dryer than warmer and a weak polar vortex means wetter arctic air.
Alaska's Arctic is Burning Like Never Before in 3000 Years
Fire prefers dry air to moist. Antarctica is the dryest desert on Earth because it's so cold, not warm. No doubt colder air in the Arctic has that impact as well.
This is just a silly argument even if it's true, and it probably isn't.
It also never occurred to these geniuses that there are a LOT more people up there now, and human beings are a prime source of fire. Oh, and with oil and gas drilling it stands to reason we'd have more fires now than in bygone days. Eskimos didn't use kerosene to start big bonfires...
And they tested this out by studying PEAT BOGS. Bogs is the operative word here; that is a wet region by it's very nature.
The article states:
Each layer of peat contained traces of past environmental conditions, including charcoal, pollen, and fragments of dead plants and microbes. The team analyzed the concentration of these materials and used radiocarbon and lead dating to establish their ages. By combining these data, the researchers were able to reconstruct patterns of wildfire activity, vegetation changes, and soil moisture over thousands of years.
Material from the peat cores dated back 3,000 years to around 1000 B.C. Charcoal records indicated fire activity was low for the first 2,000 years. Activity rose slightly between roughly A.D. 1000 and 1200 when tundra soils started to dry. But it dropped back to lower levels for the next seven centuries
Material from the peat cores dated back 3,000 years to around 1000 B.C. Charcoal records indicated fire activity was low for the first 2,000 years. Activity rose slightly between roughly A.D. 1000 and 1200 when tundra soils started to dry. But it dropped back to lower levels for the next seven centuries
So how did it rise then fall back a thousand years ago? I thought we were in the hottest time in geological history. But we aren't; the Medieval Climate Period was warmer and honest scientists will admit that. The MWP ended around 1500.
Could it not be a simple change in precipitation patterns? After all, we should have seen a considerable DECLINE in fires during the Little Ice Age yet no mention of THAT is made here.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
03:02 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 348 words, total size 2 kb.
Just Another Hysterical Climate Prediction
Timothy Birdnow
Yawn; it's always just far enough out that nobody can test their predictions, but close enough to make little children panic. Oh, and it always is based on computer modeling that does not comport with the reality on the ground.
Scientists Reveal When the World’s Glaciers Could Disappear
We've been told repeatedly that we would have no glaciers by the year 2000, then 2020, and yet that didn't happen, now did it! So it's now "the end of the century". But it's all based on flawed modeling and a desire to promote an ideological worldview that would foster international socialism and world government and empower and enrich the science establishment. Real science be damned.
Here are numerous examples of failed climate predictions in bygone days. And this with altered and fudged data to support the claims of catastrophic climate warming.
Yawn; it's always just far enough out that nobody can test their predictions, but close enough to make little children panic. Oh, and it always is based on computer modeling that does not comport with the reality on the ground.
Scientists Reveal When the World’s Glaciers Could Disappear
We've been told repeatedly that we would have no glaciers by the year 2000, then 2020, and yet that didn't happen, now did it! So it's now "the end of the century". But it's all based on flawed modeling and a desire to promote an ideological worldview that would foster international socialism and world government and empower and enrich the science establishment. Real science be damned.
Here are numerous examples of failed climate predictions in bygone days. And this with altered and fudged data to support the claims of catastrophic climate warming.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
02:51 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 147 words, total size 1 kb.
Captain Obvious Research
Timothy Birdnow
Well duh!
Kids’ Anxiety and Depression Dropped Fast After COVID School Reopenings
We scared the poor kids half to death with that panic. OlF COURSe they were anxious and depressed and reopening schools calmed them.
Well duh!
Kids’ Anxiety and Depression Dropped Fast After COVID School Reopenings
We scared the poor kids half to death with that panic. OlF COURSe they were anxious and depressed and reopening schools calmed them.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
02:40 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.
Blame it on the Gals
Timothy Birdnow
God punished Eve with bearing children and being stuck with an overbearing husband. I find this interesting as it suggests aging and sickness come through Eve, not Adam...
Mitochondria comes from the mother alone.
Scientists Found a New Way to Slow Aging Inside Cells
So the mitochondria is what makes us sickly and old. The article explains:
Balou the Bear told Mowgli in The Jungle Book (or at least the Disney version) "stay away from them, they're nothing but trouble". Seems the old bear knew more than we credited him..
God punished Eve with bearing children and being stuck with an overbearing husband. I find this interesting as it suggests aging and sickness come through Eve, not Adam...
Mitochondria comes from the mother alone.
Scientists Found a New Way to Slow Aging Inside Cells
Dec. 19, 2025 A small tweak to mitochondrial energy production led to big gains in health and longevity. Mice engineered to boost a protein that helps mitochondria work more efficiently lived longer and showed better metabolism, stronger muscles, and healthier ...
So the mitochondria is what makes us sickly and old. The article explains:
Inside mitochondria, energy production depends on respiratory chain complexes. These molecules move protons and electrons in ways that ultimately allow cells to make ATP. Researchers have known for years that these complexes can assemble into larger, flexible groupings called supercomplexes. These supercomplexes are thought to improve the efficiency of mitochondrial respiration.
Even so, solid evidence that directly connects supercomplexes to clear health benefits has been limited, especially from studies in animals. That gap has left an important question unresolved: do these structures actually make a measurable difference for aging and overall health?
The COX7RP protein under the microscope
To explore this, a team led by Team Leader Satoshi Inouefrom the Tokyo Metropolitan Institute for Geriatrics and Gerontology in Japan examined COX7RP, a mitochondrial protein that helps supercomplexes form. Their new study, co-authored by Dr. Kazuhiro Ikeda from Saitama Medical University in Japan, appeared in the journal Aging Cell.
"We previously identified COX7RP, a mitochondrial protein, as a key factor that promotes the formation of mitochondrial respiratory supercomplexes, thereby enhancing energy production and reducing reactive oxygen species (ROS) that cause oxidative stress in cells," explains Dr. Inoue. "Based on this, we investigated the role of COX7RP and mitochondrial respiratory supercomplexes in regulating aging and anti-aging processes."
Engineered mice lived longer and stayed healthier
The researchers created COX7RP-transgenic (COX7RP-Tg) mice that were designed to produce higher levels of COX7RP throughout their lives. With this model, the team could closely track how the protein affected lifespan, aging-related changes, and metabolism.
The results were striking. On average, the COX7RP-Tg mice lived 6.6% longer than wild-type mice. The benefits were not limited to lifespan alone, since the engineered mice also showed signs of better healthspan. They had improved glucose homeostasis due to greater insulin sensitivity, as well as improved lipid measures with lower blood triglycerides and total cholesterol. The team also found better muscle endurance and less fat buildup in the liver.
Stronger mitochondria and fewer aging signals
At the cellular level, the data pointed to a clear improvement in mitochondrial performance. In tissues from COX7RP-Tg mice, the formation of mitochondrial respiratory supercomplexes increased, and ATP production rose as well.
A closer look at white adipose tissue revealed shifts in multiple aging-related biomarkers. The mice showed higher levels of coenzyme NAD+, lower levels of ROS, and reduced levels of the cellular aging marker β-galactosidase. Using single-nucleus RNA sequencing on white adipose tissue from older mice, the researchers also found reduced activity in genes associated with age-related inflammation. This included genes tied to the senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP), a prototypic characteristic of senescent cells.
Even so, solid evidence that directly connects supercomplexes to clear health benefits has been limited, especially from studies in animals. That gap has left an important question unresolved: do these structures actually make a measurable difference for aging and overall health?
The COX7RP protein under the microscope
To explore this, a team led by Team Leader Satoshi Inouefrom the Tokyo Metropolitan Institute for Geriatrics and Gerontology in Japan examined COX7RP, a mitochondrial protein that helps supercomplexes form. Their new study, co-authored by Dr. Kazuhiro Ikeda from Saitama Medical University in Japan, appeared in the journal Aging Cell.
"We previously identified COX7RP, a mitochondrial protein, as a key factor that promotes the formation of mitochondrial respiratory supercomplexes, thereby enhancing energy production and reducing reactive oxygen species (ROS) that cause oxidative stress in cells," explains Dr. Inoue. "Based on this, we investigated the role of COX7RP and mitochondrial respiratory supercomplexes in regulating aging and anti-aging processes."
Engineered mice lived longer and stayed healthier
The researchers created COX7RP-transgenic (COX7RP-Tg) mice that were designed to produce higher levels of COX7RP throughout their lives. With this model, the team could closely track how the protein affected lifespan, aging-related changes, and metabolism.
The results were striking. On average, the COX7RP-Tg mice lived 6.6% longer than wild-type mice. The benefits were not limited to lifespan alone, since the engineered mice also showed signs of better healthspan. They had improved glucose homeostasis due to greater insulin sensitivity, as well as improved lipid measures with lower blood triglycerides and total cholesterol. The team also found better muscle endurance and less fat buildup in the liver.
Stronger mitochondria and fewer aging signals
At the cellular level, the data pointed to a clear improvement in mitochondrial performance. In tissues from COX7RP-Tg mice, the formation of mitochondrial respiratory supercomplexes increased, and ATP production rose as well.
A closer look at white adipose tissue revealed shifts in multiple aging-related biomarkers. The mice showed higher levels of coenzyme NAD+, lower levels of ROS, and reduced levels of the cellular aging marker β-galactosidase. Using single-nucleus RNA sequencing on white adipose tissue from older mice, the researchers also found reduced activity in genes associated with age-related inflammation. This included genes tied to the senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP), a prototypic characteristic of senescent cells.
Balou the Bear told Mowgli in The Jungle Book (or at least the Disney version) "stay away from them, they're nothing but trouble". Seems the old bear knew more than we credited him..
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
02:35 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 567 words, total size 4 kb.
Timothy Birdnow
You know I thought this was going to be about climate and the alleged 98% "concesus" which is itself a kind of climatological Alzheimers...
The 98% Mystery: Scientists Just Cracked the Code on "Junk DNA” Linked to Alzheimer’s
Turns out all the "junk DNA" is actually busily controlling the machinery that causes or prevents Alzheimers.
From the article:
This stands to reason; there is no such thing as junk in the human genome because any such thing would long ago have been deleted as irrelevant, just as we have deleted genes for beaks or gills (or, more accurately, have suppressed them epigenetically). It seems entirely likely "junk DNA" has an important role to play but we just haven't understood it until now.
I would also point out that memory MUST be edited or the brain would quickly become saturated. So there are editing mechanisms in place and they no doubt tie in with our DNA. Alzheimers appears to be a systemic failure of such as, well:
So basically if the enhancers are switched off memory starts to degrade.
So does cognitive ability and thus my reference to climate change alarmism.
This is a most welcome development; if we come to understand which genes influence the enhancers, and can work up ways to switch them off, we could reverse or at least help prevent memory loss in Alzheimers patients.
I watched my grandmother lose her memory (and mind) from this disease; it's a terrible thing.
At any rate the more we learn the more we realize we don't know.
You know I thought this was going to be about climate and the alleged 98% "concesus" which is itself a kind of climatological Alzheimers...
The 98% Mystery: Scientists Just Cracked the Code on "Junk DNA” Linked to Alzheimer’s
Turns out all the "junk DNA" is actually busily controlling the machinery that causes or prevents Alzheimers.
From the article:
December 19, 2025
Source:
University of New South Wales
Summary:
Researchers have revealed that so-called "junk DNA” contains powerful switches that help control brain cells linked to Alzheimer’s disease. By experimentally testing nearly 1,000 DNA switches in human astrocytes, scientists identified around 150 that truly influence gene activity—many tied to known Alzheimer’s risk genes. The findings help explain why many disease-linked genetic changes sit outside genes themselves. The resulting dataset is now being used to train AI systems to predict gene control more accurately.
Source:
University of New South Wales
Summary:
Researchers have revealed that so-called "junk DNA” contains powerful switches that help control brain cells linked to Alzheimer’s disease. By experimentally testing nearly 1,000 DNA switches in human astrocytes, scientists identified around 150 that truly influence gene activity—many tied to known Alzheimer’s risk genes. The findings help explain why many disease-linked genetic changes sit outside genes themselves. The resulting dataset is now being used to train AI systems to predict gene control more accurately.
This stands to reason; there is no such thing as junk in the human genome because any such thing would long ago have been deleted as irrelevant, just as we have deleted genes for beaks or gills (or, more accurately, have suppressed them epigenetically). It seems entirely likely "junk DNA" has an important role to play but we just haven't understood it until now.
I would also point out that memory MUST be edited or the brain would quickly become saturated. So there are editing mechanisms in place and they no doubt tie in with our DNA. Alzheimers appears to be a systemic failure of such as, well:
Researchers from UNSW Sydney have now pinpointed DNA switches that help regulate astrocytes. Astrocytes are brain cells that support neurons, and they are known to be involved in Alzheimer's disease.
In research published on December 18 in Nature Neuroscience, a team from UNSW's School of Biotechnology & Biomolecular Sciences reported that they tested nearly 1000 possible switches in lab-grown human astrocytes. These switches are strings of DNA called enhancers. Enhancers can sit far from the genes they influence, sometimes separated by hundreds of thousands of DNA letters, which makes them difficult to investigate.
To tackle that problem, the researchers combined CRISPRi with single-cell RNA sequencing. CRISPRi is a method that can switch off small stretches of DNA without cutting it. Single-cell RNA sequencing measures gene activity in individual cells. Together, the tools let the team examine the effects of nearly 1000 enhancers in a single large-scale test.
"We used CRISPRi to turn off potential enhancers in the astrocytes to see whether it changed gene expression," says lead author Dr. Nicole Green.
"And if it did, then we knew we'd found a functional enhancer and could then figure out which gene -- or genes -- it controls. That's what happened for about 150 of the potential enhancers we tested. And strikingly, a large fraction of these functional enhancers controlled genes implicated in Alzheimer's disease."
Cutting the list from 1000 candidates to about 150 confirmed switches greatly reduces the search area in the non-coding genome for genetic clues linked to Alzheimer's disease.
In research published on December 18 in Nature Neuroscience, a team from UNSW's School of Biotechnology & Biomolecular Sciences reported that they tested nearly 1000 possible switches in lab-grown human astrocytes. These switches are strings of DNA called enhancers. Enhancers can sit far from the genes they influence, sometimes separated by hundreds of thousands of DNA letters, which makes them difficult to investigate.
To tackle that problem, the researchers combined CRISPRi with single-cell RNA sequencing. CRISPRi is a method that can switch off small stretches of DNA without cutting it. Single-cell RNA sequencing measures gene activity in individual cells. Together, the tools let the team examine the effects of nearly 1000 enhancers in a single large-scale test.
"We used CRISPRi to turn off potential enhancers in the astrocytes to see whether it changed gene expression," says lead author Dr. Nicole Green.
"And if it did, then we knew we'd found a functional enhancer and could then figure out which gene -- or genes -- it controls. That's what happened for about 150 of the potential enhancers we tested. And strikingly, a large fraction of these functional enhancers controlled genes implicated in Alzheimer's disease."
Cutting the list from 1000 candidates to about 150 confirmed switches greatly reduces the search area in the non-coding genome for genetic clues linked to Alzheimer's disease.
So basically if the enhancers are switched off memory starts to degrade.
So does cognitive ability and thus my reference to climate change alarmism.
This is a most welcome development; if we come to understand which genes influence the enhancers, and can work up ways to switch them off, we could reverse or at least help prevent memory loss in Alzheimers patients.
I watched my grandmother lose her memory (and mind) from this disease; it's a terrible thing.
At any rate the more we learn the more we realize we don't know.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
02:24 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 594 words, total size 4 kb.
120kb generated in CPU 0.2473, elapsed 0.4774 seconds.
42 queries taking 0.4522 seconds, 242 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
42 queries taking 0.4522 seconds, 242 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
