May 30, 2025
Timothy Birdnow
I find this puzzling.
Supreme Court limits scope of environmental review - SCOTUSblog
Ruling on environmentalist lawsuits is beyond the competency and scope of the judiciary. Judges go to law school; they don't study science. BUT it's even more outside of the scope of bureaucrats.
From SCOTUSblog:
I don't know about kavanaugh's reasoning here. He is empowering regulatory agencies it seems. The Court overturned the Chevron Deference, whereby they had granted the authority to regulatory agencies (like the EPA)based on the theory such agencies were "experts". This ruling seems to fly in the face of their last ruling.
So Kavanaugh is asking for deference to the regulatory agencies, which is exactly what the Court overturned in their ruling.
If the liberals on the court are on board something is seriously wrong. Make no mistake.
I find this puzzling.
Supreme Court limits scope of environmental review - SCOTUSblog
Ruling on environmentalist lawsuits is beyond the competency and scope of the judiciary. Judges go to law school; they don't study science. BUT it's even more outside of the scope of bureaucrats.
From SCOTUSblog:
In ruling for the railroad, the justices sketched out a relatively narrow role for courts reviewing future decisions under the National Environmental Policy Act, the landmark environmental law at the center of the case. Emphasizing that the "goal of the law is to inform agency decisionmaking, not to paralyze it,” Justice Brett Kavanagh explained that courts should give "substantial deference” to the agency’s determination as to what should be included in the environmental impact statement prepared for a project. "In deciding cases involving the American economy,” Kavanaugh concluded, "courts should strive, where possible, for clarity and predictability.”
The court’s three Democratic appointees agreed more narrowly with the result that their colleagues reached, even if they did not agree with the reasoning that they used to arrive at that conclusion. Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated that the majority "unnecessarily ground[ed] its analysis largely in matters of policy,” but the board, based on the statute itself, did not have the power to reject the application to build the railroad based on any negative effects that might flow from products carried on the railway.
The dispute before the court began after the U.S. Surface Transportation Board approved a proposal by a group of Utah counties to build a railroad line that would connect with the broader interstate freight rail network to "facilitate the transportation of crude oil” from the state’s oil-rich Uinta Basin to refineries in states like Louisiana and Texas. The proposed train would quadruple production at Utah’s largest oil and gas fields. In August 2021, the board released an environmental impact statement that was more than 3,600 pages long and addressed the environmental consequences of the project. In approving the project in December of that year, the board explained that the project’s "substantial transportation and economic benefits” outweighed those environmental effects.
The court’s three Democratic appointees agreed more narrowly with the result that their colleagues reached, even if they did not agree with the reasoning that they used to arrive at that conclusion. Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated that the majority "unnecessarily ground[ed] its analysis largely in matters of policy,” but the board, based on the statute itself, did not have the power to reject the application to build the railroad based on any negative effects that might flow from products carried on the railway.
The dispute before the court began after the U.S. Surface Transportation Board approved a proposal by a group of Utah counties to build a railroad line that would connect with the broader interstate freight rail network to "facilitate the transportation of crude oil” from the state’s oil-rich Uinta Basin to refineries in states like Louisiana and Texas. The proposed train would quadruple production at Utah’s largest oil and gas fields. In August 2021, the board released an environmental impact statement that was more than 3,600 pages long and addressed the environmental consequences of the project. In approving the project in December of that year, the board explained that the project’s "substantial transportation and economic benefits” outweighed those environmental effects.
I don't know about kavanaugh's reasoning here. He is empowering regulatory agencies it seems. The Court overturned the Chevron Deference, whereby they had granted the authority to regulatory agencies (like the EPA)based on the theory such agencies were "experts". This ruling seems to fly in the face of their last ruling.
So Kavanaugh is asking for deference to the regulatory agencies, which is exactly what the Court overturned in their ruling.
If the liberals on the court are on board something is seriously wrong. Make no mistake.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:24 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 435 words, total size 3 kb.
Declining Nuclear Capabilities
Timothy Birdnow
I've been warning about the degradation of the U.S. nuclear capability for years now.
Experts Share Chilling Warning About America’s Nuclear Capabilities
We don't even have a plant that can produce plutonium anymore. Many of our weapons go back to the Reagan buildup in the '80's, but some even before. In fact, some still use vaccuum tubes, for crying out loud!
The Russians and Chinee and other potential threats have to be aware of this. And deterence comes from having the capabilities. We no longer have that.
I've been warning about the degradation of the U.S. nuclear capability for years now.
Experts Share Chilling Warning About America’s Nuclear Capabilities
We don't even have a plant that can produce plutonium anymore. Many of our weapons go back to the Reagan buildup in the '80's, but some even before. In fact, some still use vaccuum tubes, for crying out loud!
The Russians and Chinee and other potential threats have to be aware of this. And deterence comes from having the capabilities. We no longer have that.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:16 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 92 words, total size 1 kb.
Slush Fund for James
Timothy Birdnow
New York State quietly slipped a provision in a massive spending bill to pay Letitia James' legal fees.
Yes, the woman who ran on a promise of "getting Trump" and who is now being investigated for the crimes she accused the President of is being let off the hook for her private defense lawyers in a breathtaking example of corruption and just plain embezzlement by the NY legislature.
This is how it works with the Left; they pay the legal fees for their own and make sure they are taken care of when they get out of prison. And they usually do it on taxpayer money.
One of the legislatures justified it because of lawfare. But who started that? James is the one who waged lawfare first. She deserves to have to pay out what Mr. Trump got stuck paying.
This is a slush fund and New Yorkers should remember that at the next election.
New York State quietly slipped a provision in a massive spending bill to pay Letitia James' legal fees.
Yes, the woman who ran on a promise of "getting Trump" and who is now being investigated for the crimes she accused the President of is being let off the hook for her private defense lawyers in a breathtaking example of corruption and just plain embezzlement by the NY legislature.
This is how it works with the Left; they pay the legal fees for their own and make sure they are taken care of when they get out of prison. And they usually do it on taxpayer money.
One of the legislatures justified it because of lawfare. But who started that? James is the one who waged lawfare first. She deserves to have to pay out what Mr. Trump got stuck paying.
This is a slush fund and New Yorkers should remember that at the next election.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:20 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.
Muddled Michelle
Timothy Birdnow
The woman is a pinhead.
Michelle Obama Says Creating Life Is the Least of What a Woman's Reproductive System Does
Why does she think it's called a REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM? And what else does she think are it's purposes? Sex? Sex is for reproduction. Yes, it's pleasureable, but that is only so everyone does it and reproduces.
The woman needs to go away.
The woman is a pinhead.
Michelle Obama Says Creating Life Is the Least of What a Woman's Reproductive System Does
Why does she think it's called a REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM? And what else does she think are it's purposes? Sex? Sex is for reproduction. Yes, it's pleasureable, but that is only so everyone does it and reproduces.
The woman needs to go away.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:12 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 66 words, total size 1 kb.
Court Reinstates Trump Tariffs
Timothy Birdnow
The D.c. Court of Appeals has reversed the International Trade Court ruling that issued a permanent injunction against Trump's tariffs just one day after the lower court ruled them unconstitutional.
That was quick - and surprising.
Not surprising because the lower court had any legal leg to stand on but surprising that a D.C. court was willing to admit this was a completely ridiculous and unjustifiable ruling.
The lower court's order has been stayed pending further review.
Congress did indeed grant the President the authority to impose tariffs, and tariffs have been imposed by Presidents since Jimmy Carter without any suggestion it was illegal.
This international trade court (why do we need a "trade court" by the way?) should be punished in some fashion. Congress should simply dissolve it and put the judges on the street.
The D.c. Court of Appeals has reversed the International Trade Court ruling that issued a permanent injunction against Trump's tariffs just one day after the lower court ruled them unconstitutional.
That was quick - and surprising.
Not surprising because the lower court had any legal leg to stand on but surprising that a D.C. court was willing to admit this was a completely ridiculous and unjustifiable ruling.
The lower court's order has been stayed pending further review.
Congress did indeed grant the President the authority to impose tariffs, and tariffs have been imposed by Presidents since Jimmy Carter without any suggestion it was illegal.
This international trade court (why do we need a "trade court" by the way?) should be punished in some fashion. Congress should simply dissolve it and put the judges on the street.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:27 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 142 words, total size 1 kb.
The Wisdom of Babies
Timothy Birdnow
The philosopher Plato argued that all learning was remembering. He believed we came from a place where all knowledge was available and by being incarnated we forgot most of it.
Not sure if THAT is correct, but this article certainly buttresses the case for Plato's theory.
Babies as young as 15 months can understand the meaning of words, even when they are unfamiliar with the things being discussed and have not seen them, according to new research.
This is actually fairly obvious; language would be impossible if babies couldn't do this; they would never build up a sufficient base of knowledge to communicate effectively.
From the article:
This suggests to me that the babies aren't learning from the ground up. Of course no scientist would dare say that because it flies in the face of the materialism of modern science and suggests there might be more to reality than what can be seen, touched, and measured.
One of the problems in many sciences these days, and particularly evolutionary biology, is that it is all inductive; they start with a group of facts and work their way up. In bygone days deduction was equally important; start with a fundamental rule and work your way down. Deductive reasoning tells us that, say, a fetus is a human being because we know what a human being is and we know where it comes from - a fetus in the beginning. But modern man is crazy, having eschewed such deductive reasoning so you have scientists claiming it's NOT a human being because we haven't seen it develop yet.
That's one example. There are plenty of others. The whole transgender business is another such example.
We used to believe in Natural Law, which said there were some principles that were built into the universe, self-evident, and you could deduce a great deal from those laws. But our modern world is entirely pragmatic - challenges every self-evident thing because Copernicus challenged geocentrism and was correct. Modern science is completely bound up in this iconoclasm, the idea that everything can and should be challenged all the time. Frederich Nietzche argued that Science would fail precisely because of this iconoclasty; it would eventually stop believing in the core assumptions that lead to seeking Truth. He was right; the modernists have systematically undermined the basic principles of science. That's why they find themselves unable to actually define male and female, for instance. They have come to disbelieve in ANY concrete reality.
Relativism is all now.
So they won't admit this may, just may, be proof of life beyond this universe. It's just not possible if you can't expand your mind beyond the mud.
I think this suggests immortality and the existence of God, if you ask me.
BTW there are many other clues to suggest babies and small children have access to knowledge outside of our frame of reference. All small children believe in beings that are not physically present, for example. "Imaginary friends" are ubiquitous. Why? Seems to me an unformed brain would be the exact opposite, lacking the creativity to imagine people who do not exist. But children do, and they lose that as they grow up.
There is also the outrage and unfairness that all children possess. Where does that come from? The universe is grossly unfair, and there is no evolutionary benefit to being outraged at unfairness. But there you have it. As children get older they lose that too.
I could go on but the point is made. I think this is just another proof that God exists, that there is an unseen world beyond birth and the grave.
Of course Darwinists will sneer and mock me because "there is no proof" when in fact this IS the proof, or one piece of evidence, anyway.
The philosopher Plato argued that all learning was remembering. He believed we came from a place where all knowledge was available and by being incarnated we forgot most of it.
Not sure if THAT is correct, but this article certainly buttresses the case for Plato's theory.
Babies as young as 15 months can understand the meaning of words, even when they are unfamiliar with the things being discussed and have not seen them, according to new research.
This is actually fairly obvious; language would be impossible if babies couldn't do this; they would never build up a sufficient base of knowledge to communicate effectively.
From the article:
Human language enables us to learn the meanings of words for things we’ve never directly experienced. We do this effortlessly in everyday conversation, often using context to infer the meaning of unfamiliar words.
But how early in life does this ability emerge? And how do we form mental representations of objects or events we cannot see?
A new study by developmental scientists at Northwestern University and Harvard University provides the first evidence that infants as young as 15 months can recognize an object they’ve learned about through language, even if the object remains hidden.
Imagine an infant playing with blocks on the floor while listening to parents talk about kumquats in a conversation about more familiar fruits like apples and bananas. Might the infant form an initial representation, or gist, about what kumquat means — something edible, likely a fruit? Can they then use this initial gist later when the infant first sees a novel fruit? These are the questions the researchers sought to answer.
Word Learning Without Visual Reference
"Many people believe that success in word learning requires that the infant ‘map’ a new word to an object that is physically present (e.g., "Look at the kumquat!”). But in the natural course of a day, it is very common for us — and for infants — to hear words when the objects to which they refer to are not available to our immediate perception,” said senior author Sandra Waxman. "We’re asking whether infants, too, can use the conversational contexts in which a word occurs to begin to learn their meaning.”
Waxman is the Louis W. Menk Professor of Psychology, director of the Infant and Child Development Center and an Institute for Policy Research Fellow at Northwestern. The study’s co-author is Elena Luchkina, formerly a postdoctoral fellow at Northwestern, and now a research scientist at Harvard.
The researchers engaged 134 infants, 67 each at 12 months and 15 months in a three-part task. First, the researchers presented infants with words they understand, paired with an image of the object to which it referred (e.g., apple, banana, grapes). Next, infants heard a new word while the image of a novel object (e.g., a kumquat) was hidden from their view. Finally, two novel objects appeared (e.g., a kumquat and a whisk), and infants were asked, e.g., "where is the kumquat?”
Fifteen-month-olds, but not 12-month-olds, looked longer at the novel fruit (e.g. kumquat) than the novel artifact (e.g., whisk). Although they had never seen any object paired with that novel word, 15-month-olds nevertheless used the context clues to identify which object was most likely the one to which the novel word referred.
"The study shows that even babies who are just beginning to say their first words learn from the language they hear, even if the objects or events being discussed are not present,” Waxman said. "Babies take in what they hear, and even if no object is present, they form a mental representation, or ‘gist’ of the new word’s meaning, one that is strong enough for them to use later when its referent object does appear.”
But how early in life does this ability emerge? And how do we form mental representations of objects or events we cannot see?
A new study by developmental scientists at Northwestern University and Harvard University provides the first evidence that infants as young as 15 months can recognize an object they’ve learned about through language, even if the object remains hidden.
Imagine an infant playing with blocks on the floor while listening to parents talk about kumquats in a conversation about more familiar fruits like apples and bananas. Might the infant form an initial representation, or gist, about what kumquat means — something edible, likely a fruit? Can they then use this initial gist later when the infant first sees a novel fruit? These are the questions the researchers sought to answer.
Word Learning Without Visual Reference
"Many people believe that success in word learning requires that the infant ‘map’ a new word to an object that is physically present (e.g., "Look at the kumquat!”). But in the natural course of a day, it is very common for us — and for infants — to hear words when the objects to which they refer to are not available to our immediate perception,” said senior author Sandra Waxman. "We’re asking whether infants, too, can use the conversational contexts in which a word occurs to begin to learn their meaning.”
Waxman is the Louis W. Menk Professor of Psychology, director of the Infant and Child Development Center and an Institute for Policy Research Fellow at Northwestern. The study’s co-author is Elena Luchkina, formerly a postdoctoral fellow at Northwestern, and now a research scientist at Harvard.
The researchers engaged 134 infants, 67 each at 12 months and 15 months in a three-part task. First, the researchers presented infants with words they understand, paired with an image of the object to which it referred (e.g., apple, banana, grapes). Next, infants heard a new word while the image of a novel object (e.g., a kumquat) was hidden from their view. Finally, two novel objects appeared (e.g., a kumquat and a whisk), and infants were asked, e.g., "where is the kumquat?”
Fifteen-month-olds, but not 12-month-olds, looked longer at the novel fruit (e.g. kumquat) than the novel artifact (e.g., whisk). Although they had never seen any object paired with that novel word, 15-month-olds nevertheless used the context clues to identify which object was most likely the one to which the novel word referred.
"The study shows that even babies who are just beginning to say their first words learn from the language they hear, even if the objects or events being discussed are not present,” Waxman said. "Babies take in what they hear, and even if no object is present, they form a mental representation, or ‘gist’ of the new word’s meaning, one that is strong enough for them to use later when its referent object does appear.”
This suggests to me that the babies aren't learning from the ground up. Of course no scientist would dare say that because it flies in the face of the materialism of modern science and suggests there might be more to reality than what can be seen, touched, and measured.
One of the problems in many sciences these days, and particularly evolutionary biology, is that it is all inductive; they start with a group of facts and work their way up. In bygone days deduction was equally important; start with a fundamental rule and work your way down. Deductive reasoning tells us that, say, a fetus is a human being because we know what a human being is and we know where it comes from - a fetus in the beginning. But modern man is crazy, having eschewed such deductive reasoning so you have scientists claiming it's NOT a human being because we haven't seen it develop yet.
That's one example. There are plenty of others. The whole transgender business is another such example.
We used to believe in Natural Law, which said there were some principles that were built into the universe, self-evident, and you could deduce a great deal from those laws. But our modern world is entirely pragmatic - challenges every self-evident thing because Copernicus challenged geocentrism and was correct. Modern science is completely bound up in this iconoclasm, the idea that everything can and should be challenged all the time. Frederich Nietzche argued that Science would fail precisely because of this iconoclasty; it would eventually stop believing in the core assumptions that lead to seeking Truth. He was right; the modernists have systematically undermined the basic principles of science. That's why they find themselves unable to actually define male and female, for instance. They have come to disbelieve in ANY concrete reality.
Relativism is all now.
So they won't admit this may, just may, be proof of life beyond this universe. It's just not possible if you can't expand your mind beyond the mud.
I think this suggests immortality and the existence of God, if you ask me.
BTW there are many other clues to suggest babies and small children have access to knowledge outside of our frame of reference. All small children believe in beings that are not physically present, for example. "Imaginary friends" are ubiquitous. Why? Seems to me an unformed brain would be the exact opposite, lacking the creativity to imagine people who do not exist. But children do, and they lose that as they grow up.
There is also the outrage and unfairness that all children possess. Where does that come from? The universe is grossly unfair, and there is no evolutionary benefit to being outraged at unfairness. But there you have it. As children get older they lose that too.
I could go on but the point is made. I think this is just another proof that God exists, that there is an unseen world beyond birth and the grave.
Of course Darwinists will sneer and mock me because "there is no proof" when in fact this IS the proof, or one piece of evidence, anyway.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:27 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1151 words, total size 7 kb.
May 29, 2025
Swiss Avalanch
Timothy Birdnow
This is the benefit of a cool climate.
Yes, a glacier in Switzerland collapsed and buried a village. And of course it's all because of Global Warming, they tell us.
Doesn't this illustrate the dangers of all that ice hanging above your head in Switzerland instead?
We have been told over and over that landslides are being caused by climate change, by a whopping 1* f. of warming. But if that is so why did we have so many historical accounts of similar events in bygone days? In fact landslides usually happen when there is a LOT OF SNOW, not a dearth of it.
National Geographic says this about avalanches:
Yet we are repeatedly told tthe glaciers are melting away, particularly in Switzerland. How is it there is a landslide from a collapsing glacier when there is Less of the glacier to begin with?
Anyone who has ever shoveled wet snow knows it is stickier than new, dry snow. Yes, water under ice can sometimes cause the ice to slide off a roof and melting glaciers can and do collapse in this fashion, but not when we are talking about a lilliputian rise in temperature. a single degree of warming would not lead to such a collapse.
Temperatures in Switzerland have risen by just 1.5* C since 1864.
This is the benefit of a cool climate.
Yes, a glacier in Switzerland collapsed and buried a village. And of course it's all because of Global Warming, they tell us.
Doesn't this illustrate the dangers of all that ice hanging above your head in Switzerland instead?
We have been told over and over that landslides are being caused by climate change, by a whopping 1* f. of warming. But if that is so why did we have so many historical accounts of similar events in bygone days? In fact landslides usually happen when there is a LOT OF SNOW, not a dearth of it.
National Geographic says this about avalanches:
"Snow avalanches are most likely to occur after a fresh snowfall adds a new layer to a snowpack . If new snow piles up during a storm, the snowpack may become overloaded, setting off a slide.
Yet we are repeatedly told tthe glaciers are melting away, particularly in Switzerland. How is it there is a landslide from a collapsing glacier when there is Less of the glacier to begin with?
Anyone who has ever shoveled wet snow knows it is stickier than new, dry snow. Yes, water under ice can sometimes cause the ice to slide off a roof and melting glaciers can and do collapse in this fashion, but not when we are talking about a lilliputian rise in temperature. a single degree of warming would not lead to such a collapse.
Temperatures in Switzerland have risen by just 1.5* C since 1864.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:24 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 258 words, total size 2 kb.
Cat Fight
Timothy Birdnow
This is what happens when you send a girl to do a man's job!
/]Secret Service Agents Suspended for Brawling after Leaked Video
The two babes in tweed got into a catfight over who got to take the cool car.
This is what DEI has done to what was once America's finest and most competent agency.
This is what happens when you send a girl to do a man's job!
/]Secret Service Agents Suspended for Brawling after Leaked Video
The two babes in tweed got into a catfight over who got to take the cool car.
This is what DEI has done to what was once America's finest and most competent agency.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:13 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 60 words, total size 1 kb.
Greenland Gains ice
Timothy Birdnow
The Greenland Ice Sheet gained 622 billion tons of ice in direct refutation of the climate alarmists' claim it is shrinking away.
Not sure how you gain ice when it's melting.
The Greenland Ice Sheet gained 622 billion tons of ice in direct refutation of the climate alarmists' claim it is shrinking away.
Not sure how you gain ice when it's melting.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:01 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.
Worst Tornadoes were in the 1920's
Timothy Birdnow
Gee; I thought tornadoes and big storms were getting worse with Climate Change!
Gee; I thought tornadoes and big storms were getting worse with Climate Change!
Tornado deaths peaked in the US 100 years ago, in 1925
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:57 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.
Trade Court Bans Tariffs
Timothy Birdnow
Congress granted the power to issue tariffs to the President in Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. That act has not been repealed.
This court is accusing Trump of "exceeding his authority". Yet it is ignoring the law and replacing it with his personal opinion. Who is exceeding their authority?
Court Intervenes in Trump's Economic Agenda, Tariffs in Major Trouble
From the article:
Not a national emergency? I would call it a shitpot mother of an emergency. America is teetering on insolvency. Just because it has been ongoing does not mean it does not constitute an emergency. A guy bleeding from a cut on his leg isn't an emergency - until he bleeds out two quarts of blood. Then he's on life support with a transfusion.
Dufuses.
And exactly WHO determines if it is an emergency or not? The President of the United States is invested with that power, not some damned three judge panel based in Manhattan.
Yes, the Constitution does indeed directly grant the power to impose a tariff to Congress. Congress didn't want it and gave it to the President. To remedy the abuse of the tariff by the President it is CONGRESS that needs to take action - not the courts. The court has no legal jurisdiction here.
Why, pray tell, didn't this court or some other court issue an identical ruling over tariffs in the last fifty years? Every single President since has imposed them. In America we have a thing called precedent. It's part of English Common law. If something is done long enough it becomes enshrined into law whether there is a formal statute or not. For example, there is no law, not one single law, granting the power of judicial review to the courts. That power was usurped by John Marshall in his SCOTUS opinion in Marbury v. Madison. He simply stated he thought it a good idea, and nobody objected. It is defacto law now. But where in the Constitution does it say anything about judicial review?
For that matter, where is this court in the Constitution. The President's office is there, but not a court of international trade.
This is a ruling Trump needs to simply ignore. He can appeal if he likes, but win or lose I think Trump needs to tell this court to go and,well, this is a family blog,after all.
Basically these judges are imposing a new and novel interpretation of the law,one based on their personal opinion and not on legal precedent.Itis THEY who are overstepping their authority.
Congress should dissolve this court. They have the power to do that.
This court did not issue an injunction, they granted summary judgment against the Administration. If this edict is obeyed it means ALL tariffs are stopped.
What does that mean? Does it mean even the tariffs that had been in place during the Biden Adminstration will be gone?
The Administration will have to appeal to the D.c. Court of Appeals (where they will probably lose) or directly to SCOTUS, and with Roberts and conehead Barrett it's a crapshoot there.
Now is the time to draw a line in the sand. Yes, the Democrats will try to impeach Trump, but at this point that is a foregone conclusion. Something has to be done now.
The whole point of course has been to use the courts to block everything Trump is trying to do to buy time until the midterms. The party in power almost always loses seats in the midterm elections and if the Democrats can take the House then all of the investiggations and harrassment come back. And all the money dries up for Trump's policies. That is ultimately all that is happening here; this is a prevent defense by the Democrats.
And it illustrates how effective they have been in putting partisans in key judicial positions over the years. This would never have happened had the Republicans not employed the principle of "he won, he gets what he wants" every time a Democrat becomes President. The Democrats never extended the same courtesy to Republican presidents, fighting tooth-and-nail to stop every good appointee by any POTUS with an R behind their name. It's now clear the donkeys have a majority in the judiciary and that majority is now being called on to run interference. Like the Godfather, they got their judgeships with the caveat "some day, and that day may never come, we'll call upon you for a service". Well, that day has come and now the judges are being forced to act in openly partisan ways.
We have to work out ways to stop this judicial power-grab. Congress can dissolve their coursts. Congress can pass laws limiting the scope of their power. After all there is not one single court actually created by the Constitution save the Supreme Court.
This shows quite clearly that these courts are way, way out of control and must be reined in.
And if the Supreme Court stands in the way of dissolving these lesser courts? Their new home can be placed in East St. Louis with the other thugs.
Time to stop pussy-footing around.
Congress granted the power to issue tariffs to the President in Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. That act has not been repealed.
This court is accusing Trump of "exceeding his authority". Yet it is ignoring the law and replacing it with his personal opinion. Who is exceeding their authority?
Court Intervenes in Trump's Economic Agenda, Tariffs in Major Trouble
From the article:
The decision came from a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade, based in New York City, according to the Associated Press.
On what he billed as Liberation Day on April 2, Trump announced a universal 10 percent tariff and higher reciprocal tariffs for those countries his administration identified as being particularly egregious in blocking U.S. products from their markets.
The AP noted there were at least seven plaintiffs who challenged the levies in court.
"Tariffs must typically be approved by Congress. Trump has said he has the power to act to address the trade deficits he calls a national emergency,” the outlet said.
The plaintiffs argued that the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not authorize the president to impose tariffs.
Further, even if it did, they contended that the record trade deficit of $1.2 trillion in 2024 did not constitute an emergency, saying the U.S. has had a trade imbalance for the last 49 years.
On what he billed as Liberation Day on April 2, Trump announced a universal 10 percent tariff and higher reciprocal tariffs for those countries his administration identified as being particularly egregious in blocking U.S. products from their markets.
The AP noted there were at least seven plaintiffs who challenged the levies in court.
"Tariffs must typically be approved by Congress. Trump has said he has the power to act to address the trade deficits he calls a national emergency,” the outlet said.
The plaintiffs argued that the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not authorize the president to impose tariffs.
Further, even if it did, they contended that the record trade deficit of $1.2 trillion in 2024 did not constitute an emergency, saying the U.S. has had a trade imbalance for the last 49 years.
Not a national emergency? I would call it a shitpot mother of an emergency. America is teetering on insolvency. Just because it has been ongoing does not mean it does not constitute an emergency. A guy bleeding from a cut on his leg isn't an emergency - until he bleeds out two quarts of blood. Then he's on life support with a transfusion.
Dufuses.
And exactly WHO determines if it is an emergency or not? The President of the United States is invested with that power, not some damned three judge panel based in Manhattan.
Yes, the Constitution does indeed directly grant the power to impose a tariff to Congress. Congress didn't want it and gave it to the President. To remedy the abuse of the tariff by the President it is CONGRESS that needs to take action - not the courts. The court has no legal jurisdiction here.
Why, pray tell, didn't this court or some other court issue an identical ruling over tariffs in the last fifty years? Every single President since has imposed them. In America we have a thing called precedent. It's part of English Common law. If something is done long enough it becomes enshrined into law whether there is a formal statute or not. For example, there is no law, not one single law, granting the power of judicial review to the courts. That power was usurped by John Marshall in his SCOTUS opinion in Marbury v. Madison. He simply stated he thought it a good idea, and nobody objected. It is defacto law now. But where in the Constitution does it say anything about judicial review?
For that matter, where is this court in the Constitution. The President's office is there, but not a court of international trade.
This is a ruling Trump needs to simply ignore. He can appeal if he likes, but win or lose I think Trump needs to tell this court to go and,well, this is a family blog,after all.
Basically these judges are imposing a new and novel interpretation of the law,one based on their personal opinion and not on legal precedent.Itis THEY who are overstepping their authority.
Congress should dissolve this court. They have the power to do that.
This court did not issue an injunction, they granted summary judgment against the Administration. If this edict is obeyed it means ALL tariffs are stopped.
What does that mean? Does it mean even the tariffs that had been in place during the Biden Adminstration will be gone?
The Administration will have to appeal to the D.c. Court of Appeals (where they will probably lose) or directly to SCOTUS, and with Roberts and conehead Barrett it's a crapshoot there.
Now is the time to draw a line in the sand. Yes, the Democrats will try to impeach Trump, but at this point that is a foregone conclusion. Something has to be done now.
The whole point of course has been to use the courts to block everything Trump is trying to do to buy time until the midterms. The party in power almost always loses seats in the midterm elections and if the Democrats can take the House then all of the investiggations and harrassment come back. And all the money dries up for Trump's policies. That is ultimately all that is happening here; this is a prevent defense by the Democrats.
And it illustrates how effective they have been in putting partisans in key judicial positions over the years. This would never have happened had the Republicans not employed the principle of "he won, he gets what he wants" every time a Democrat becomes President. The Democrats never extended the same courtesy to Republican presidents, fighting tooth-and-nail to stop every good appointee by any POTUS with an R behind their name. It's now clear the donkeys have a majority in the judiciary and that majority is now being called on to run interference. Like the Godfather, they got their judgeships with the caveat "some day, and that day may never come, we'll call upon you for a service". Well, that day has come and now the judges are being forced to act in openly partisan ways.
We have to work out ways to stop this judicial power-grab. Congress can dissolve their coursts. Congress can pass laws limiting the scope of their power. After all there is not one single court actually created by the Constitution save the Supreme Court.
This shows quite clearly that these courts are way, way out of control and must be reined in.
And if the Supreme Court stands in the way of dissolving these lesser courts? Their new home can be placed in East St. Louis with the other thugs.
Time to stop pussy-footing around.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:43 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1023 words, total size 6 kb.
Was Jill's Chief of Staff Running the Country?
Timothy Birdnow
So who was pulling the strings in the Biden Administration? David Hogg says it was DOCTOR Jill Biden's Chief of Staff Anthony Bernal in an undercover sting interview by Project Vertitas.
FTA:
And Jill controlled both Biden and this Warlock of Oz character.
More and more Jill seems to be at the center of much of the criminality of this gangland enterprise. BTW I don't believe Jill ever received a pardon via the autopen, did she?
Of course Hogg is hardly an official source for this; he was not personally involved in any of it, and he's not liked by the Democrats for challenging the Establishment. But he IS on the inside and has access to many people who were. I wouldn't discount what he says although there is nothing actionable by the Trump Administration. On the other hand this could be used to open an investigation.
The DOJ and FBI and Congress all need to get moving on these things.
So who was pulling the strings in the Biden Administration? David Hogg says it was DOCTOR Jill Biden's Chief of Staff Anthony Bernal in an undercover sting interview by Project Vertitas.
FTA:
"Like, Jill Biden’s chief of staff had an enormous amount of power,” Hogg continued.
"Jill Biden?” a perplexed reporter asked in follow-up. Hogg reiterated that he was talking about Jill Biden’s chief of staff.
Deterrian Jones, a former Biden White House staffer who was also in attendance, chimed in, "That was an open secret. I would avoid him. He was scary.”
Identified as Anthony Bernal, the reporter noted that he had never seen him before.
"Exactly,” Jones answered.
"What do you mean?” the reporter asked.
"He’s just a shadowy, ‘Wizard of Oz’-type figure,” Jones said. "That’s what made him like so …
"… I knew how he looked, but the general public wouldn’t know how this man looked.
"But he wielded an enormous amount of power. And I can’t stress to you how much power he had at the White House.
"Jill Biden?” a perplexed reporter asked in follow-up. Hogg reiterated that he was talking about Jill Biden’s chief of staff.
Deterrian Jones, a former Biden White House staffer who was also in attendance, chimed in, "That was an open secret. I would avoid him. He was scary.”
Identified as Anthony Bernal, the reporter noted that he had never seen him before.
"Exactly,” Jones answered.
"What do you mean?” the reporter asked.
"He’s just a shadowy, ‘Wizard of Oz’-type figure,” Jones said. "That’s what made him like so …
"… I knew how he looked, but the general public wouldn’t know how this man looked.
"But he wielded an enormous amount of power. And I can’t stress to you how much power he had at the White House.
And Jill controlled both Biden and this Warlock of Oz character.
More and more Jill seems to be at the center of much of the criminality of this gangland enterprise. BTW I don't believe Jill ever received a pardon via the autopen, did she?
Of course Hogg is hardly an official source for this; he was not personally involved in any of it, and he's not liked by the Democrats for challenging the Establishment. But he IS on the inside and has access to many people who were. I wouldn't discount what he says although there is nothing actionable by the Trump Administration. On the other hand this could be used to open an investigation.
The DOJ and FBI and Congress all need to get moving on these things.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
07:43 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 312 words, total size 2 kb.
Toe Fungus at Defense
Timothy Birdnow
Deep State games at the Pentagon.
Mystery Deepens Over Claims a Trump Ally was Illegally Wiretapped Inside the Pentagon
This story is fluid and unclear and so it's best for you to go and read the article and decide for yourself. There is much toe fungus - something is foul a-foot!
Deep State games at the Pentagon.
Mystery Deepens Over Claims a Trump Ally was Illegally Wiretapped Inside the Pentagon
This story is fluid and unclear and so it's best for you to go and read the article and decide for yourself. There is much toe fungus - something is foul a-foot!
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
07:28 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 57 words, total size 1 kb.
Civil Service Mafia
Timothy Birdnow
Revolver has a story this morning discussion the assassination attempt on Trump in Butler P.A. and how Patel and Bongino seem to be covering it up.
As the author asks, if there is "nothing there" as the FBI is asserting why are there two cases in Federal court. while the details of those cases aren't given it seems likely they are about security breeches and who was involved.
Let us not forget; Crooks was walking around earlier with his rifle over his shoulder and in fact was photographed by law enforcement. The building he shot from was just outside of the perimeter the fBI drew, and well within rifle range. There were law-enforcement in that building (a building owned by a corporation wit deep ties to the Democratic Party) but not one single person on the roof, the logical spot to shoot from. Crooks had to be the absolutely luckiest human being alive to make it that far.
Then there is the matter of how it was handled. A policeman came on the roof, saw Crooks with a gun, and promptly left instead of doing his job. Then the Secret Service shot and killed Crooks. Within days the Secret Service had completely scrubbed the crime scene, and in fact they ordered the body of Crooks to be cremated before the medical examiner had given it a proper examination.
Then the FBI hemmed and hawed and the head was forced to resign, but apparently nobody else was sacked - not in the Secret Service,not anywhere. The story was quickly brushed under the rug.
And now Paatel and Bongino are saying "nothing to see here" and closing the case.
If there is nothing to see here why don't they release all the records? I'm sorry but they are lying to us.
So why would they lie? I see several possible reasons:
1. They've been Wrayasized, gone native. Christopher Wray did this, turned into a company man after being appointed. There is great peer pressure to be "one of the guys" and it's easier to protect them than to prosecute their own.
2. They fear damaging the reputation of the agency.
3. They are trying to dig all the way to the roots and hope not to frighten off anyone, not to tip their hand.
We all know Patel and Bongino's bonafides; that is not in question. But We've seen good men turn bad once in positions like this in the past. Just look at Jeff sessions after he became Attorney General.
I don't believe it. I also don't believe it when the administration said Biden was telling the truth about the drones flying all over the place; those were NOT hobbyist drones. Too many eye-witnesses, even people who know such things, disagreed.
I don't like secrets, especially from an Administration that promised transparency. This is just another secret.
If it was not, why aren't heads rolling in the Secret Service and FBI for the gross incompetence of that day? It's one thing to say "there was no conspiracy" but it's another to let dereliction of duty go unpunished. We need an accounting of exactly who was involved and how they screwed it up. Why aren't the heads of the FBI providing that.
If you believe they have told us the truth I have a very lovely bridge that spans the river from Manhattan to Brooklyn...
I've argued this is exactly what a hit by the CIA would look like. Because of it's high profile they would HAVE to make it look like an amateur production. So they find some idiot do to the job for them. It's even in their manual, if you care to look it up (I once posted it; it says plainly that assassinations should generally be carried out in a manner that avoids direct involvement by the Company when possible.) What the CIA would do (or another agency) is facilitate - clear the path for the assassin. Somebody sure did seem to clear a path for this pinhead.
Remember too Patel and Bongino have hostages to fate - wives, parents, children, sisters and brothers, nieces and nephews. Be a shame if anything happened to them.
Who can stand up to pressure like that? I couldn't. I'd probably let it go too to save the lives of my loved ones. This is how the mafia works and how the CIA works overseas.
I imagine we'll never know the Truth. But of course if they are allowed to get away with this they will do it again. You can't come to an arrangement with people like that.
Our government is like the Mafia only it's making laws to make what they do all legal and cover what they do that isn't. Don Corleone could only dream of such power.
Revolver has a story this morning discussion the assassination attempt on Trump in Butler P.A. and how Patel and Bongino seem to be covering it up.
As the author asks, if there is "nothing there" as the FBI is asserting why are there two cases in Federal court. while the details of those cases aren't given it seems likely they are about security breeches and who was involved.
Let us not forget; Crooks was walking around earlier with his rifle over his shoulder and in fact was photographed by law enforcement. The building he shot from was just outside of the perimeter the fBI drew, and well within rifle range. There were law-enforcement in that building (a building owned by a corporation wit deep ties to the Democratic Party) but not one single person on the roof, the logical spot to shoot from. Crooks had to be the absolutely luckiest human being alive to make it that far.
Then there is the matter of how it was handled. A policeman came on the roof, saw Crooks with a gun, and promptly left instead of doing his job. Then the Secret Service shot and killed Crooks. Within days the Secret Service had completely scrubbed the crime scene, and in fact they ordered the body of Crooks to be cremated before the medical examiner had given it a proper examination.
Then the FBI hemmed and hawed and the head was forced to resign, but apparently nobody else was sacked - not in the Secret Service,not anywhere. The story was quickly brushed under the rug.
And now Paatel and Bongino are saying "nothing to see here" and closing the case.
If there is nothing to see here why don't they release all the records? I'm sorry but they are lying to us.
So why would they lie? I see several possible reasons:
1. They've been Wrayasized, gone native. Christopher Wray did this, turned into a company man after being appointed. There is great peer pressure to be "one of the guys" and it's easier to protect them than to prosecute their own.
2. They fear damaging the reputation of the agency.
3. They are trying to dig all the way to the roots and hope not to frighten off anyone, not to tip their hand.
We all know Patel and Bongino's bonafides; that is not in question. But We've seen good men turn bad once in positions like this in the past. Just look at Jeff sessions after he became Attorney General.
I don't believe it. I also don't believe it when the administration said Biden was telling the truth about the drones flying all over the place; those were NOT hobbyist drones. Too many eye-witnesses, even people who know such things, disagreed.
I don't like secrets, especially from an Administration that promised transparency. This is just another secret.
If it was not, why aren't heads rolling in the Secret Service and FBI for the gross incompetence of that day? It's one thing to say "there was no conspiracy" but it's another to let dereliction of duty go unpunished. We need an accounting of exactly who was involved and how they screwed it up. Why aren't the heads of the FBI providing that.
If you believe they have told us the truth I have a very lovely bridge that spans the river from Manhattan to Brooklyn...
I've argued this is exactly what a hit by the CIA would look like. Because of it's high profile they would HAVE to make it look like an amateur production. So they find some idiot do to the job for them. It's even in their manual, if you care to look it up (I once posted it; it says plainly that assassinations should generally be carried out in a manner that avoids direct involvement by the Company when possible.) What the CIA would do (or another agency) is facilitate - clear the path for the assassin. Somebody sure did seem to clear a path for this pinhead.
Remember too Patel and Bongino have hostages to fate - wives, parents, children, sisters and brothers, nieces and nephews. Be a shame if anything happened to them.
Who can stand up to pressure like that? I couldn't. I'd probably let it go too to save the lives of my loved ones. This is how the mafia works and how the CIA works overseas.
I imagine we'll never know the Truth. But of course if they are allowed to get away with this they will do it again. You can't come to an arrangement with people like that.
Our government is like the Mafia only it's making laws to make what they do all legal and cover what they do that isn't. Don Corleone could only dream of such power.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
07:13 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 804 words, total size 5 kb.
Patel and Bongino are Lying
Timothy Birdnow
Revolver has a story this morning discussion the assassination attempt on Trump in Butler P.A. and how Patel and Bongino seem to be covering it up.
As the author asks, if there is "nothing there" as the FBI is asserting why are there two cases in Federal court. while the details of those cases aren't given it seems likely they are about security breeches and who was involved.
Let us not forget; Crooks was walking around earlier with his rifle over his shoulder and in fact was photographed by law enforcement. The building he shot from was just outside of the perimeter the fBI drew, and well within rifle range. There were law-enforcement in that building (a building owned by a corporation wit deep ties to the Democratic Party) but not one single person on the roof, the logical spot to shoot from. Crooks had to be the absolutely luckiest human being alive to make it that far.
Then there is the matter of how it was handled. A policeman came on the roof, saw Crooks with a gun, and promptly left instead of doing his job. Then the Secret Service shot and killed Crooks. Within days the Secret Service had completely scrubbed the crime scene, and in fact they ordered the body of Crooks to be cremated before the medical examiner had given it a proper examination.
Then the FBI hemmed and hawed and the head was forced to resign, but apparently nobody else was sacked - not in the Secret Service,not anywhere. The story was quickly brushed under the rug.
And now Paatel and Bongino are saying "nothing to see here" and closing the case.
If there is nothing to see here why don't they release all the records? I'm sorry but they are lying to us.
So why would they lie? I see several possible reasons:
1. They've been Wrayasized, gone native. Christopher Wray did this, turned into a company man after being appointed. There is great peer pressure to be "one of the guys" and it's easier to protect them than to prosecute their own.
2. They fear damaging the reputation of the agency.
3. They are trying to dig all the way to the roots and hope not to frighten off anyone, not to tip their hand.
We all know Patel and Bongino's bonafides; that is not in question. But We've seen good men turn bad once in positions like this in the past. Just look at Jeff sessions after he became Attorney General.
I don't believe it. I also don't believe it when the administration said Biden was telling the truth about the drones flying all over the place; those were NOT hobbyist drones. Too many eye-witnesses, even people who know such things, disagreed.
I don't like secrets, especially from an Administration that promised transparency. This is just another secret.
If it was not, why aren't heads rolling in the Secret Service and FBI for the gross incompetence of that day? It's one thing to say "there was no conspiracy" but it's another to let dereliction of duty go unpunished. We need an accounting of exactly who was involved and how they screwed it up. Why aren't the heads of the FBI providing that.
If you believe they have told us the truth I have a very lovely bridge that spans the river from Manhattan to Brooklyn...
Revolver has a story this morning discussion the assassination attempt on Trump in Butler P.A. and how Patel and Bongino seem to be covering it up.
As the author asks, if there is "nothing there" as the FBI is asserting why are there two cases in Federal court. while the details of those cases aren't given it seems likely they are about security breeches and who was involved.
Let us not forget; Crooks was walking around earlier with his rifle over his shoulder and in fact was photographed by law enforcement. The building he shot from was just outside of the perimeter the fBI drew, and well within rifle range. There were law-enforcement in that building (a building owned by a corporation wit deep ties to the Democratic Party) but not one single person on the roof, the logical spot to shoot from. Crooks had to be the absolutely luckiest human being alive to make it that far.
Then there is the matter of how it was handled. A policeman came on the roof, saw Crooks with a gun, and promptly left instead of doing his job. Then the Secret Service shot and killed Crooks. Within days the Secret Service had completely scrubbed the crime scene, and in fact they ordered the body of Crooks to be cremated before the medical examiner had given it a proper examination.
Then the FBI hemmed and hawed and the head was forced to resign, but apparently nobody else was sacked - not in the Secret Service,not anywhere. The story was quickly brushed under the rug.
And now Paatel and Bongino are saying "nothing to see here" and closing the case.
If there is nothing to see here why don't they release all the records? I'm sorry but they are lying to us.
So why would they lie? I see several possible reasons:
1. They've been Wrayasized, gone native. Christopher Wray did this, turned into a company man after being appointed. There is great peer pressure to be "one of the guys" and it's easier to protect them than to prosecute their own.
2. They fear damaging the reputation of the agency.
3. They are trying to dig all the way to the roots and hope not to frighten off anyone, not to tip their hand.
We all know Patel and Bongino's bonafides; that is not in question. But We've seen good men turn bad once in positions like this in the past. Just look at Jeff sessions after he became Attorney General.
I don't believe it. I also don't believe it when the administration said Biden was telling the truth about the drones flying all over the place; those were NOT hobbyist drones. Too many eye-witnesses, even people who know such things, disagreed.
I don't like secrets, especially from an Administration that promised transparency. This is just another secret.
If it was not, why aren't heads rolling in the Secret Service and FBI for the gross incompetence of that day? It's one thing to say "there was no conspiracy" but it's another to let dereliction of duty go unpunished. We need an accounting of exactly who was involved and how they screwed it up. Why aren't the heads of the FBI providing that.
If you believe they have told us the truth I have a very lovely bridge that spans the river from Manhattan to Brooklyn...
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
07:03 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 570 words, total size 3 kb.
May 27, 2025
Charles Meddling
Timothy Birdnow
Chuckie Cheese, the ridiculous British monarch and former husband to Lady Diana Spencer, has gone to Canada to lead the glorious resistance to Donald Trump in the 51st state.
FTA:
So Charlie Bucket hopes to galvanize the Canucks into resisting Trump so his benighted little rock in the Atlantic can continue to suckle at the prominent bosom of Auntie Samantha.
As Sundance argues, this is ultimately all about the money and the GOP will resist Trump as ferociously as the Democrats or the Canadians. It certainly is a losing battle for the Canadians, and the Brits too. But they have to do their part to restore the old order where the American citizens get soaked.
King Charles is a buffoon, but a dangerous buffoon.
Chuckie Cheese, the ridiculous British monarch and former husband to Lady Diana Spencer, has gone to Canada to lead the glorious resistance to Donald Trump in the 51st state.
FTA:
In advance of the U.K positioning itself as the skirt behind which Canada can hide from the horrible Trump, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer extended an invitation for President Trump to attend a state visit in his honor later this year. The effusive praise from Starmer during the White House meeting was keenly strategic, so too was their urgency in creating the first new-era free trade agreement with the USA.
Perhaps President Trump’s embrace of Qatar, the UAE and Saudi Arabia should be viewed through this financial prism where the EU, U.K and Canada will ultimately go to war (together) against the efforts of President Trump. Within the partnership of the UK, EU and Canada, the Snow Mexicans are the weakest link, the most vulnerable to collapse from Trump’s economic policy.
Canada no longer has any substantive ability to create heavy machinery industrial goods. Most of the Canadian manufacturing equipment is imported from China and the EU.
Perhaps President Trump’s embrace of Qatar, the UAE and Saudi Arabia should be viewed through this financial prism where the EU, U.K and Canada will ultimately go to war (together) against the efforts of President Trump. Within the partnership of the UK, EU and Canada, the Snow Mexicans are the weakest link, the most vulnerable to collapse from Trump’s economic policy.
Canada no longer has any substantive ability to create heavy machinery industrial goods. Most of the Canadian manufacturing equipment is imported from China and the EU.
So Charlie Bucket hopes to galvanize the Canucks into resisting Trump so his benighted little rock in the Atlantic can continue to suckle at the prominent bosom of Auntie Samantha.
As Sundance argues, this is ultimately all about the money and the GOP will resist Trump as ferociously as the Democrats or the Canadians. It certainly is a losing battle for the Canadians, and the Brits too. But they have to do their part to restore the old order where the American citizens get soaked.
King Charles is a buffoon, but a dangerous buffoon.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:56 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 285 words, total size 2 kb.
From Russia with Love
Timothy Birdnow
The Euroweenies and leftist German Rotenfuehrer er, Chanceller Froederich (that's Frederich) Mertz have given Ukraine permission to lob long range missiles into Russia in what can only be described as an act of provocation and an escalation of the war.
Yes, Putin has not respected the cease fires, but this pretty much gums up all the efforts by Trump to settle this thing as amicably as is possible. Every effort at attaining a peaceful resolution of the war has been stymied by the Europeans, who want this war for reasons that are unclear. I suspect they want to force Russia into their orb as a vassal, but that doesn't explain their obstinacy in the face of so much death and destruction.
The article states:
Got that? The CIA is STILL the driving force behind this! Where the hell is John Ratcliffe? He was appointted to reform the agency, not continue it's manipulation of foreign policy.
And if this IS policy coming from Trump? The media lie about Trump being bought and paid for by the Russians certainly falls apart here.
I doubt it's from Trump though; he's been the guy who has been trying to make peace in the region. Remember, his word is on the line; he said the war would end on day one of his Administration and it's dragged on for months now.
The article continues:
So this remains a proxy war being run by the CIA and the Europeans. This is not freedom fighters trying to save their country from alien invaders. The Russians know this as well as the Ukrainians; if they pull out of Ukraine they hand over all of Eastern Europe to a cabal of the CIA and they know it.
I suspect Trump is trusting Rubio and Gabbard and Ratface, er, cliff. That will be his undoing. You would think he would have learned not to trust anyone who has been embedded in D.C. all these years.
At any rate this is a very, very dangerous war and escalation could lead to disaster for everyone. Putin is taking the blame for violating any truce, but one wonders if in his mind at least he's not justified. This war was never between Russia and Ukraine.
The Euroweenies and leftist German Rotenfuehrer er, Chanceller Froederich (that's Frederich) Mertz have given Ukraine permission to lob long range missiles into Russia in what can only be described as an act of provocation and an escalation of the war.
Yes, Putin has not respected the cease fires, but this pretty much gums up all the efforts by Trump to settle this thing as amicably as is possible. Every effort at attaining a peaceful resolution of the war has been stymied by the Europeans, who want this war for reasons that are unclear. I suspect they want to force Russia into their orb as a vassal, but that doesn't explain their obstinacy in the face of so much death and destruction.
The article states:
"Factually, as previously admitted and outlined by reporting from the New York Times, it is U.S. military and intelligence assets in the region who are leading the attacks from bases in Germany and the front lines within Ukraine.
The New York Times published two articles {HERE and HERE} revealing: 1) that U.S. military boots are on the ground in Ukraine. (2) The U.S. military is actively involved in the ongoing targeting of strikes into Russia. (3) The CIA is operating in Ukraine and conducting targeted strikes into the Russian Federation mainland.
The New York Times published two articles {HERE and HERE} revealing: 1) that U.S. military boots are on the ground in Ukraine. (2) The U.S. military is actively involved in the ongoing targeting of strikes into Russia. (3) The CIA is operating in Ukraine and conducting targeted strikes into the Russian Federation mainland.
Got that? The CIA is STILL the driving force behind this! Where the hell is John Ratcliffe? He was appointted to reform the agency, not continue it's manipulation of foreign policy.
And if this IS policy coming from Trump? The media lie about Trump being bought and paid for by the Russians certainly falls apart here.
I doubt it's from Trump though; he's been the guy who has been trying to make peace in the region. Remember, his word is on the line; he said the war would end on day one of his Administration and it's dragged on for months now.
The article continues:
"As we have outlined for several years, including our own research by driving through Ukraine, the CIA has been operating on the ground in Ukraine from the outset of the conflict. Over time the CIA took over most of the strategic operations, and as it currently stands the United States CIA is organizing the majority of the Ukraine war against Russia.
So this remains a proxy war being run by the CIA and the Europeans. This is not freedom fighters trying to save their country from alien invaders. The Russians know this as well as the Ukrainians; if they pull out of Ukraine they hand over all of Eastern Europe to a cabal of the CIA and they know it.
"The operatives who leak to the NYT want distance between Trump and Putin. This admission of CIA involvement puts Trump in an awkward place.
The awkwardness expands, when you understand how the CIA is authorized to conduct these operations. The President, Biden, signed a "finding memo,” authorizing the CIA to conduct missile strikes into the Russian Federation.
Senator Marco Rubio as SSCI vice-chair and a Gang of Eight member, was ‘read in’ to that CIA authorization.
Senator Rubio is now Secretary of State facing Sergey Lavrov, and the Russians know exactly how these things are done.
The awkwardness expands, when you understand how the CIA is authorized to conduct these operations. The President, Biden, signed a "finding memo,” authorizing the CIA to conduct missile strikes into the Russian Federation.
Senator Marco Rubio as SSCI vice-chair and a Gang of Eight member, was ‘read in’ to that CIA authorization.
Senator Rubio is now Secretary of State facing Sergey Lavrov, and the Russians know exactly how these things are done.
I suspect Trump is trusting Rubio and Gabbard and Ratface, er, cliff. That will be his undoing. You would think he would have learned not to trust anyone who has been embedded in D.C. all these years.
At any rate this is a very, very dangerous war and escalation could lead to disaster for everyone. Putin is taking the blame for violating any truce, but one wonders if in his mind at least he's not justified. This war was never between Russia and Ukraine.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:44 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 626 words, total size 4 kb.
The Weeping Man
Timothy Birdnow
The increased feminization of men.
This is a very womanly type of thing, calling friends to wish them a good night. Men don't do this sort of thing.
That's why the Left wants them doing it; it's just another thread pulled out of masculinity. I suppose next they'll have us all saying "I love you" to drinking buddies, and not when they are at the bar.
The article speaks of emotional connections. THAT is our problem in modern America; we have too many emotional connections. People don't have any real problems these days; they chase after their emotions. Americans have become narcissistic and weepy and pathetic. The male virtues, which we need now more than ever, have been eclipsed by the therapeutic cultture which values weakness and emotionalism.
Frankly, if a friend of mine called to wish me a good night I'd ask him what closet he came out of. But if he called to call me an SOB I'd be content.
No wonder the American testosterone levels are dropping precipitously; we are all acting like teenage girls now.
The increased feminization of men.
This is a very womanly type of thing, calling friends to wish them a good night. Men don't do this sort of thing.
That's why the Left wants them doing it; it's just another thread pulled out of masculinity. I suppose next they'll have us all saying "I love you" to drinking buddies, and not when they are at the bar.
The article speaks of emotional connections. THAT is our problem in modern America; we have too many emotional connections. People don't have any real problems these days; they chase after their emotions. Americans have become narcissistic and weepy and pathetic. The male virtues, which we need now more than ever, have been eclipsed by the therapeutic cultture which values weakness and emotionalism.
Frankly, if a friend of mine called to wish me a good night I'd ask him what closet he came out of. But if he called to call me an SOB I'd be content.
No wonder the American testosterone levels are dropping precipitously; we are all acting like teenage girls now.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:09 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 184 words, total size 1 kb.
Elephants All the Way
Timothy Birdnow
Increasingly animal rights is becoming a legal matter.
How?
Recently the Colorado Supreme Court had to rule elephants are not people. My question is, how was this case ever in court? Elephants cannot file the peitition themselves, and nobody else had standing.
This is PRECISELY what standing is intended for; to keep third parties from intervening in legal matters that do not concern them.
FTA:
And this while every attempt to deny personhood has been made in the case of fetuses. The hypocrisy and inconsistency off the Left is breathtaking.
And yet a fetus is a human being. It will turn into that remarkable entity if given time and the right environment and proper care. An elephant or a gorilla will never be anything but an elephant or gorilla. (BTW Gorillas are the smartes of animal, smarter than elephants, and yet they eat their own waste and wander around naked, humping a female whenever it suits their fancy. I would speak to Orcas but they are pretty much the same.)
What makes someone human? DNA first off. (It's amazing how the Left hates that inconvenient little molecule.) There are many other aspects of humanity though; our intellect, even of the stupidest of us, is WAY above the smartest animal. It's high enough to where we have free will, and can and must make all sorts of choices. (It's not so high we lose free will beause we always know the right answer.) Animals don't do that; they live by their instincts. Intelligence may help them solve basic problems but that's the extent of it. Animals do not progress. There is no culture of animals that changes and grows. There is no improvement of animal technology.The life of an elephant is pretty much the same as the life of it's parents and this goes back all the way. Only environmental changes matter to the beasts. They do not have cultural or political or technological changes because they do not think, not the way humans do. It seems doubtful there is any introspection among them. They lack hopes and dreams - they just are. Their existence is entirely bound by their circumstances and the NOW. They do not live in past, present, and future as do humans.
They may have some sort of love but you won't find it being as complex a thing as human love. The Greeks had 7 different words for love and all of them meant something different. I rather doubt elephants have agape love, or any of the more distinct forms. Yes, they have eros, and probably Philia, but it's doubtful they had any of the rest.
And while they can communicate with one another in some fashion they lack formal language and thus cannot communicate complex ideas as do we. Humans have a specific speech centers in the brain known as the Wernicke's and Broca's areas, among a few others. No animal has that. Animals CAN communicate and Gorillas have been taught to use basic sign language, but it's always pretty simple stuff. Research on Chipmonks showed they have a kind of language and can communicate things like color. But they can't possibly communicate things like Relativity theory or Shakespearean sonnets.
Animals do not create or enjoy music.
Animals do not laugh. Whether they have a sense of humor or not is questionable too. I believe my cats did,but I can't prove it. At any rate there are no Jewish comedians in the animal kingdom.
Animals do not write. Animals do not make fire. Animals do not worship. I don't know if animals have a sense of the existence of God or not, but they clearly don't do anything about it. Only Man seems to be cognizant of God and practices religion.
Some animals do have crude funeral rituals, but they don't seem to be much. Elephants do have graveyards, but they don't bury their dead; they are content to just let the flesh of their fathers and mothers and children rot in a big pile of bones.
I could go on but the point is made; there is a distinct differnce between "personhood" which is a way to get around the non-human nature of critters, and being human. (Personhood,by the way, has long been the philosophical argument used by leftists to justify abortion and euthenasia both. They claim sound minds are necessary for "personhood" which frees them from the moral obligations of human beings - thus putting them into the class of animals, which also do not seem to be too constrained by any moral code.)
And there is absolutely no reson for any court of law to hear such cases. Until an elephant can actually sign it'sname to a legal complaint the point is moot.
Of course the elephant can't take the witness stand and raise it's right hand when so instructed either.
This is all part of the desacrilizing of Mankind. We used to rightly understand we were not animals except in the basics of our flesh. But there are those who rejected Christianity, indeed, all religions and thus they must drag us down to the mud. The only way we can operate a society run by "the best and brightest" without restraint is to make Man no differnt than the animals. Man is not a glorious spirit, a little less than the angels, inside a physical body but rather the body and the corporeal universe is all there is and they intend to prove this by giving "personhood" to animals. If their view becomes the majority view then they can do anything to anybody at any time. The only restrictions are those a majority of people agree with, or which the oligarchical rulers of society allow. If you are a guy who wants to be a girl so be it! Natural law and the sacredness of humanity doesn't enter into the decision, nor does accepting any role put forward by nature. We can kill human beings if we deem them non persons (remember the Holocaust) which makes ruling the public a lot easier. In fact you can be a god unto yourself if you follow this route; just will it so! But to get to that point one first must reject anything beyond this immediate existence. Raising up animals to equality with Man is simply another tool of the Devil.
Well, if we are to give elephants rights then I insist they take the same responsibilities as we all must bear. They should pay taxes. They should be forced to go to jury duty. They should have to register for the draft (I suppose Hannibal drafted elephants in his army, but I rather doubt the animals registerd for it first.) They should have to wear clothing, defecate in private, and obey all pedestrin traffic laws.
Somehow I suspect they won't be able to do that.
The reality is our society has become batcrap crazy and the very fact we are pushing animal rights is proof of that. Animals do not have rights. Humans have responsibilities for treating animals ethically. There is a huge difference.
Increasingly animal rights is becoming a legal matter.
How?
Recently the Colorado Supreme Court had to rule elephants are not people. My question is, how was this case ever in court? Elephants cannot file the peitition themselves, and nobody else had standing.
This is PRECISELY what standing is intended for; to keep third parties from intervening in legal matters that do not concern them.
FTA:
The Colorado Supreme Court did not hear from the elephants directly. They heard from the Nonhuman Rights Project, which filed a habeas corpus petition on behalf of the pachyderms, arguing that their confinement in a Colorado Springs zoo violated their right to bodily liberty.
Over the past decade, the Nonhuman Rights Project and several other animal rights groups have waged a novel campaign to extend legal "personhood" to animals, which would allow them to be plaintiffs in civil lawsuits. Many of these cases have attempted to free large, charismatic animals such as elephants and chimpanzees from zoos under the great writ of habeas corpus, which allows individuals to challenge unlawful imprisonment.
Other courts around the world have recognized fundamental rights for animals. In Pakistan, the Islamabad High Court declared in 2020, in the case of a shackled and mistreated elephant, that it "is a right of each animal, a living being, to live in an environment that meets the latter's behavioral, social and physiological needs." In 2022, Ecuador's Constitutional Court ruled that animals were subject to "rights of nature" enshrined in the country's constitution. And last year, indigenous leaders of New Zealand, Tahiti, and the Cook Islands signed a treaty recognizing whales as legal persons.
Critics scoff that this amounts to little more than absurdist lawfare and that legal recognition of animal personhood would almost certainly empower busybody environmentalists—and might not even improve conditions for the animals. There are also public pressure campaigns and existing legal avenues that could improve animal welfare without attempting to shift one of the bedrock principles of Western law.
But the question at the heart of these cases—whether a nonhuman entity can have a cognizable liberty interest—has surprisingly deep implications, not just for animals but for human freedom and flourishing. Research into artificial intelligence (AI) may eventually run into similar ethical considerations.
Over the past decade, the Nonhuman Rights Project and several other animal rights groups have waged a novel campaign to extend legal "personhood" to animals, which would allow them to be plaintiffs in civil lawsuits. Many of these cases have attempted to free large, charismatic animals such as elephants and chimpanzees from zoos under the great writ of habeas corpus, which allows individuals to challenge unlawful imprisonment.
Other courts around the world have recognized fundamental rights for animals. In Pakistan, the Islamabad High Court declared in 2020, in the case of a shackled and mistreated elephant, that it "is a right of each animal, a living being, to live in an environment that meets the latter's behavioral, social and physiological needs." In 2022, Ecuador's Constitutional Court ruled that animals were subject to "rights of nature" enshrined in the country's constitution. And last year, indigenous leaders of New Zealand, Tahiti, and the Cook Islands signed a treaty recognizing whales as legal persons.
Critics scoff that this amounts to little more than absurdist lawfare and that legal recognition of animal personhood would almost certainly empower busybody environmentalists—and might not even improve conditions for the animals. There are also public pressure campaigns and existing legal avenues that could improve animal welfare without attempting to shift one of the bedrock principles of Western law.
But the question at the heart of these cases—whether a nonhuman entity can have a cognizable liberty interest—has surprisingly deep implications, not just for animals but for human freedom and flourishing. Research into artificial intelligence (AI) may eventually run into similar ethical considerations.
And this while every attempt to deny personhood has been made in the case of fetuses. The hypocrisy and inconsistency off the Left is breathtaking.
And yet a fetus is a human being. It will turn into that remarkable entity if given time and the right environment and proper care. An elephant or a gorilla will never be anything but an elephant or gorilla. (BTW Gorillas are the smartes of animal, smarter than elephants, and yet they eat their own waste and wander around naked, humping a female whenever it suits their fancy. I would speak to Orcas but they are pretty much the same.)
What makes someone human? DNA first off. (It's amazing how the Left hates that inconvenient little molecule.) There are many other aspects of humanity though; our intellect, even of the stupidest of us, is WAY above the smartest animal. It's high enough to where we have free will, and can and must make all sorts of choices. (It's not so high we lose free will beause we always know the right answer.) Animals don't do that; they live by their instincts. Intelligence may help them solve basic problems but that's the extent of it. Animals do not progress. There is no culture of animals that changes and grows. There is no improvement of animal technology.The life of an elephant is pretty much the same as the life of it's parents and this goes back all the way. Only environmental changes matter to the beasts. They do not have cultural or political or technological changes because they do not think, not the way humans do. It seems doubtful there is any introspection among them. They lack hopes and dreams - they just are. Their existence is entirely bound by their circumstances and the NOW. They do not live in past, present, and future as do humans.
They may have some sort of love but you won't find it being as complex a thing as human love. The Greeks had 7 different words for love and all of them meant something different. I rather doubt elephants have agape love, or any of the more distinct forms. Yes, they have eros, and probably Philia, but it's doubtful they had any of the rest.
And while they can communicate with one another in some fashion they lack formal language and thus cannot communicate complex ideas as do we. Humans have a specific speech centers in the brain known as the Wernicke's and Broca's areas, among a few others. No animal has that. Animals CAN communicate and Gorillas have been taught to use basic sign language, but it's always pretty simple stuff. Research on Chipmonks showed they have a kind of language and can communicate things like color. But they can't possibly communicate things like Relativity theory or Shakespearean sonnets.
Animals do not create or enjoy music.
Animals do not laugh. Whether they have a sense of humor or not is questionable too. I believe my cats did,but I can't prove it. At any rate there are no Jewish comedians in the animal kingdom.
Animals do not write. Animals do not make fire. Animals do not worship. I don't know if animals have a sense of the existence of God or not, but they clearly don't do anything about it. Only Man seems to be cognizant of God and practices religion.
Some animals do have crude funeral rituals, but they don't seem to be much. Elephants do have graveyards, but they don't bury their dead; they are content to just let the flesh of their fathers and mothers and children rot in a big pile of bones.
I could go on but the point is made; there is a distinct differnce between "personhood" which is a way to get around the non-human nature of critters, and being human. (Personhood,by the way, has long been the philosophical argument used by leftists to justify abortion and euthenasia both. They claim sound minds are necessary for "personhood" which frees them from the moral obligations of human beings - thus putting them into the class of animals, which also do not seem to be too constrained by any moral code.)
And there is absolutely no reson for any court of law to hear such cases. Until an elephant can actually sign it'sname to a legal complaint the point is moot.
Of course the elephant can't take the witness stand and raise it's right hand when so instructed either.
This is all part of the desacrilizing of Mankind. We used to rightly understand we were not animals except in the basics of our flesh. But there are those who rejected Christianity, indeed, all religions and thus they must drag us down to the mud. The only way we can operate a society run by "the best and brightest" without restraint is to make Man no differnt than the animals. Man is not a glorious spirit, a little less than the angels, inside a physical body but rather the body and the corporeal universe is all there is and they intend to prove this by giving "personhood" to animals. If their view becomes the majority view then they can do anything to anybody at any time. The only restrictions are those a majority of people agree with, or which the oligarchical rulers of society allow. If you are a guy who wants to be a girl so be it! Natural law and the sacredness of humanity doesn't enter into the decision, nor does accepting any role put forward by nature. We can kill human beings if we deem them non persons (remember the Holocaust) which makes ruling the public a lot easier. In fact you can be a god unto yourself if you follow this route; just will it so! But to get to that point one first must reject anything beyond this immediate existence. Raising up animals to equality with Man is simply another tool of the Devil.
Well, if we are to give elephants rights then I insist they take the same responsibilities as we all must bear. They should pay taxes. They should be forced to go to jury duty. They should have to register for the draft (I suppose Hannibal drafted elephants in his army, but I rather doubt the animals registerd for it first.) They should have to wear clothing, defecate in private, and obey all pedestrin traffic laws.
Somehow I suspect they won't be able to do that.
The reality is our society has become batcrap crazy and the very fact we are pushing animal rights is proof of that. Animals do not have rights. Humans have responsibilities for treating animals ethically. There is a huge difference.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:58 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1495 words, total size 9 kb.
NPR Suing Trump
Timothy Birdnow
I thought the Federal Government cannot be sued unless it allows itself to be sued.
NPR Sues Trump Over Federal Funding
Sovereign Immunity grants blanket immunity from civil lawsuits.
And Article II of the Constitution grants abosolute immunity to the President from lawsuits while he is in office.
So by what right does NPR sue over ending funding? For that matter how have most of these lawsuits continued?
I'm no lawyer so maybe one can explain it to us? Anybody?
I suspect the judge they went to to file this with is the one who authorized the go-ahead. But by what authority does a minor judge allow this?
Our legal system is totally out-of-control.
I thought the Federal Government cannot be sued unless it allows itself to be sued.
NPR Sues Trump Over Federal Funding
Sovereign Immunity grants blanket immunity from civil lawsuits.
And Article II of the Constitution grants abosolute immunity to the President from lawsuits while he is in office.
So by what right does NPR sue over ending funding? For that matter how have most of these lawsuits continued?
I'm no lawyer so maybe one can explain it to us? Anybody?
I suspect the judge they went to to file this with is the one who authorized the go-ahead. But by what authority does a minor judge allow this?
Our legal system is totally out-of-control.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:16 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 119 words, total size 1 kb.
<< Page 1 of 918 >>
89kb generated in CPU 0.0673, elapsed 0.4199 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.4054 seconds, 215 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
37 queries taking 0.4054 seconds, 215 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
