September 17, 2017

More from the Pitts

Timothy Birdnow

Brian seems to have struck a nerve with the good Leonard Pitts Jr. Here is more back and forth between them:

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Leonard Pitts <> wrote:

My columns contain absolutely no "anti-white sentiment." Never have. They do frequently contain painful historical fact and anti bigot sentiment that some white people find uncomfortable, probably because it strikes too close to home To avoid their own discomfort, they usually process what I've said as "anti-white sentiment" and project it on to me.

The problem with that, however, is that it doesn't account for the literally millions of white readers who seem to think I'm an okay guy. So are they too dumb to recognize this terrible "anti-white sentiment" of mine that you see so clearly? Or are you just using that as a lame cover to escape truths you find too hard to deal with in any other way?

Take your time...


> Mr.. Pitts,
> Since you are now delving into the world of psychology, I would have to say that self-knowledge is certainly not one of your virtues. I don't know the millions of white readers who think you are an okay guy, and wonder whether you've actually counted them, but I suppose that my incredulousness on this score is "...just a lame cover to escape truths you find hard to deal with in any other way." Yes sir, when all else fails, like a certified liberal, you engage in spiteful, churlish personal attacks. You still have not addressed my central point. Do you deny that America has been a good country for you? How, then do you account for your success?
> Regards,
> B. Birdnow
> St. Louis, Mo.

Your "incredulousness" notwithstanding: I've been writing this column for 23 years. It appears in somewhere north of 225 newspapers. The vast majority of newspaper readers in this country are older and white. Do the math. Or, just come out to any of my speaking engagements and see for yourself.

What you will find – and I hate to say this, because I know how much you dislike being psychologically diagnosed – is that you have been projecting your own small mindedness and fear on to a whole bunch of other people who do not share it.

As for America: yes, the country has been good in some ways, but bitterly oppressive in too many others. That is yet another example of the effects of the white racism that I've been talking about. I'm still waiting for you to tell me how my supposed "racism" has impacted you.


Notice how Pitts fails to see that there are millions of Americans who think he is a jackass; he bases his conclusions about being loved on turnouts by liberals at his speeches. Newspaper readers are older and white? Perhaps - my father is - but that hardly means they love HIM. My dad reads the leftist Post-Dispatch primarily for the sports scores.

And Pitts is back to his "projection theory, which is his OWN progection, quite frankly. He's the one who sees racism behind every tree and around every corner. I hate to break it to him, but the average white person doesn't think much one way or another about black people; they are just there, like everybody else. White people may be perturbed on occasion by black people but largely for cause; they are worreid about crime, or about noise, or about property values dropping. It is not because these are funny looking people (to them) or any of the other ridiculous theories Pitts puts forward. I would like to point out that whites aren't alone in this; in my job as property manager I encountered many black people who made it quite plain they didn't want to live in black communities and for the exact same reason that whites would give. It is not about the color of skin but the content of character. Remember when Jesse Jackson said he was always releived to see a white person walking up behind him in a dark street? Pitts pretends that isn't the case.

See the complete exchange here.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:39 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 703 words, total size 4 kb.

Now Some Commonsense Western Fire Policies

Jack Kemp

Paul Dreissen at has written a detailed article about the Trump Administration's changes to woodland management and its pending effects on the raging forest fires we have experienced in Western States these past years.

Now Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue are doing exactly that in a critically important area: forest management and conflagration prevention. Their actions are informed, courageous and long overdue.


These are not "natural” fires of environmentalist lore, or "ordinary” fires like those that occur in state and privately owned and managed forests. Endless layers of laws, regulations, judicial decrees and guidelines for Interior and Forest Service lands have meant that most western forests have been managed like our 109 million acres of designated wilderness: they are hardly managed at all.

Environmentalists abhor timber cutting on federal lands, especially if trees might feed profit-making sawmills. They would rather see trees burn, than let someone cut them. They constantly file lawsuits to block any cutting, and too many judges are all too happy to support their radical ideas and policies.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:37 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 187 words, total size 2 kb.

September 16, 2017

Report: Standing Up to Pee Gives Boys an Unfair Advantage in Physics

Dana Mathewson

We often, on this site, report on the idiocy which has gripped the Left. This is why I have included this post. If any of you think it has gone beyond the bounds of good taste, well, I got it from the PJ Media site. NOT The Onion, and NOT from a porn site. I grant you, much of what comes from the Left these days is indistinguishable from porn. (And I think it must be terribly difficult to write for The Onion these days!)

We hear a lot -- too much, perhaps -- these days about how girls are under-represented as students of the sciences. This article (from our friends down under) attempts to analyze that. I think they may have missed the target, but not for lack of trying to hit it with an interesting weapon.

Yes, you read the headline correctly. In the latest example of identity politics taken to its absurd end, three Australian college professors believe that "Playful urination practices – from seeing how high you can pee to games such as Peeball (where men compete using their urine to destroy a ball placed in a urinal) – may give boys an advantage over girls when it comes to physics."

The three professors didn't publish their thoughts on a satirical website like The Onion. Instead, they published on Tes, a website that provides "Educational materials, jobs, news, and courses from the world's best community of teachers and school leaders."In the article, Anna Wilson, Kate Wilson, and David Low argue with a straight face that peeing standing up provides an advantage for boys over girls in learning physics.

Explaining what prompted their musings that led to their conclusion about the advantages peeing standing up gives boys, the professors write, "The gender gap in physics, and other related subjects including engineering, has long been a cause for concern.... Therefore we have to ask: why don’t young women perform as well in physics?"

That seems like a semi-reasonable question, I think. Except Professors Wilson, Wilson, and Low live and ask questions in the land of identity politics.

After casually going through a list of possible explanations for why young women might not perform as well in physics as do young men — things like lack of female physics teachers, cultural pressure and expectations, and gender bias in the teaching materials — they conclude: "there may be another reason, too."

After noting that girls lag in areas of physics that deal with projectile motion, the article reveals that "Like many parents of small (and not-so-small) boys, two of us (KW and DL) have observed the great delight young males take in urination, a process by which they produce and direct a visible projectile arc."

It gets really funny. Please read the article. But don't be drinking anything at the same time. Don't say I didn't warn you!

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 05:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 493 words, total size 3 kb.

Riots in St. Louis after Stockley Verdict

Timothy Birdnow

Riots break out in St. Louis over the acquittal of a police officer involved in shooting a suspect in 2011.

This was inevitable. The rioters planned this well in advance of the verdict, and George Soros has been spending like a sailor to bring professional rioters into town. The media covered the march of a few paltry dozen marchers, who were allowed to block traffic in downtown in violation of the law. Cameras and hours of coverage swelled the crowds to high levels and rioting ensued. Is anyone surprised?

Lyda Krewson, St. Louis' limousine liberal mayor, is largely to blame for allowing the people to block the streets. They said they would shut st. Louis down and they tried to close the interstates but were simply pushed back by law enforcement rather than arrested. You have to start arrests early and strictly enforce the law to stop this sort of thing. They knew it was coming.

A pox upon the Democrats who run the city!

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:59 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 174 words, total size 1 kb.

The Reality is Black Privilege

Timothy Birdnow

This dovetails with Brian's arguement with Leord Pitts Jr. Daren M. Williams penned a great piece about the fallacy of "white privilege" and points out that blacks actually are the ones who profit from it.

From American Thinker:

"Unbeknownst to many, blacks in America are the major beneficiaries of the uniquely American phenomenon commonly known as "White Privilege". And they have enjoyed those privileges for decades, nay (dare I say it?), for over a century now. "


I conclude with two points. First, there is no such thing as "White Privilege." If there is any privilege, it is the privilege of being born in or immigrating to an advanced, free, and open capitalist society. At most, there might be the appearance of a "majority privilege"; that is, any majority ethic group existing in an ethnically diverse country or society will appear to have greater privilege than its minority counterparts simply because of its sheer populousness, because of its longevity in the community, and so on. To wit, blacks enjoy a large degree of "Black Privilege" in all African countries under the Sub-Sahara. And Asians enjoy a disproportionately large degree of "Asian Privilege" in their countries of origin. And even Muslims enjoy an overriding degree of "Muslim Privilege" in comparison to other religious groups in predominantly Muslim countries.

And second, in an advanced, free, and open capitalist society, everyone, whether through birthright, citizenship, or legal immigrant status, has the ability to enjoy the "privileges" of that society’s accomplishments if they so choose -- be it in the field of sports, entertainment, science, business, medicine, etc., or one of their own creation."

End excerpt. h

And indeed there are a great many privileges associated with being black in modern America. Blacks get preferences in hiring for government jobs and generally in private sector ones, too. Affirmative action and "race norming" of civil servant tests give blacks a disproportionate number of civil service jobs. Colleg admissions are skewed to give lesser qualified black candidates a spot at major universities, many of whom have not developed competitive scholastic skills and wind up failing or being passed through to maintain a quota. The nation's social safety net was designed primarily with black people in mind (although others can take advantage as well) and such things as Section housing and other social programs help the black community where many whites are denied similar aid. Blacks are over6represented in sports, as the author points out, but also in music and entertainment. Some would argue that is because the people want, say, rap music or whatnot. True, but it was promoted heavily by record companies and entertainment moguls and this frnkly proves my point; there is a postive pressure, a sense of good will that promotes African Americans and their culture. If America were so racist and whites have so much privilege why are they flocking to black culture? In point of fact, nobody in their right minds would seek out anything associated with the black community if it was so detrimental to your life. That young white kids are forever acting out as gangsta rappers or whatnot speaks volumes.

White males are declining in colleges. White males are seeing their life expectancy decline - the only class in America to do so. Unemployment rates for white males are unusually high. That bespeaks a culture of black and female privilege, not the other way around.

And Antifa or Black Lives Matter can show up wearing ski masks and toting baseball bats and bash in the heads of white nationalist protesters who were lawfully assembled and the white guys get the blame for everything from the media. Black crimes go unreported on the news regularly (and some of them have been horrendous) because there is a black privilege that says they are allowed leeway because of their historical oppression. See White Girls Bleed Alot. If the situation were reversed a black people were treated in a similar way there would be 24/7 coverage on the news and a DOJ and Congresional investigation launched. When it's black on white crime, nothing.


Black people can cut lines, disturb the peace, and annoy people around them and get away with it because "that's their culture" while whites are held to a higher standard. Go into any black neighborhood on a Saturday night and see for yourself; there is shouting and gunfire and tires screeching and blaring music and trash strewn about. That is not tolerated in a white community. In many places building standards are different for whites and blacks, with black areas being largely exempt from condemnations because they are inhabited by black folks while whites are held to a stricter account. Privilege.

By so many metrics it can be shown that there is a black privilege that is not extended to whites. The business of "white privilege' may have been true a hundred years ago, but it is long past and the pendulum has swung the other way. Now whites are the ones treated as second class.

I dare anyone who disagrees to make a solid argument against that assertion. At best we'll hear platitudes and microaggressions and that is about it.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 871 words, total size 6 kb.

Brian Birdnow takes on Leonard Pitts Jr.

Timothy Birdnow

My brother Brian is in an argument with Leonard Pitts Jr., Miami Herald writer and Pulitzer Prize winner. Pitts, whose primary occupation is bemoaning his mistreatment by white people in America, has cried his way to the bank, and yet continues to demand reparations for wrongs he has never himself endured. Brian took umbrage with a recent column by Pitts, and here is an e-mail exchange (with perhaps a bit of commentary from me.)

Dear Mr. Pitts,
Regular readers of your column are, by now, used to a diatribe of anti-white racism in place of reasoned debate, but you may have hit bottom with your column last week entitled, "America, a Land of Liberty and Justice for Some". You defend NFL players for demonstrating against the flag, and their own country, which comes as no surprise. You excoriate the Cleveland Police Department for taking exception to the demonstrations, which also comes as no surprise. What does come as a surprise, if not a logical fallacy, is your line, which reads, ""But America steals from us, then tells us we're thieves."

What sir, has America stolen from you? You are given a well-paid sinecure at a major metropolitan newspaper, thus, you have a privileged position from which to bash the country that has given you so much. Can you back up your assertion that America has "stolen" from you? From here it seems that this country has been very good to you, but your anti-white racism combined with an unbalanced rage has blinded you to that fact.

Best regards,
Brian E. Birdnow
St. Louis, Mo.

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Pitts, Leonard <> wrote:

The very fact that you need to ask the question argues strongly that you’ll never understand the answer. But here it is anyway.

First of all, I said that America has stolen from "us.”

As to what it has stolen:

It stole our bodies.

It stole our labor.

It stole our names and family histories.

It stole our children.

It stole our land.

It stole our ballots.

It stole our money.

It stole our peace of mind.

It stole our health.

It stole our lives.

To a greater or lesser degree, much of that theft is still ongoing.

That said, I have a question for you. You seem so overwrought about this chimera you call "anti-white racism.” I’m just curious: what, if anything, did that ever steal from you?

Yours Truly,

(FRom Tim: None of that happened to Pitts personally but to his ancestors, and that by ancestors of SOME white Americans. In point of fact every ethnic group in the world can make the same claim against some other. Certainly the Irish have plenty to lament, from their treatment by the British "to hell or Barbados" or the discrimination in America where they were denied jobs and housing and whatnot. Ditto the Italians. Most especially ditto the Jews, who have been mistreated by virtually everyone and yet don't use it as a crutch to excuse any failure or demand special privileges.)

From Brian:

Dear Mr. Pitts,
Are you saying that "anti-white racism" does not exist? If that is correct, then would it be proper to label your anti-white diatribes as racial hatred? Just wondering!

Brian Birdnow
St. Louis, Mo

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Leonard Pitts <> wrote:

What I am saying, sir, is that I answered your question and would now appreciate the same courtesy.


Dear Mr. Pitts,
I never claimed that anti-white racism has stolen anything from me, therefore I cannot answer a question based on your presumption. I stand by my contention that anti-white racism, or racial hatred, if you prefer, animates your work, and blinds you to the fact that this country has been very good to you.

Brian Birdnow
St. Louis, Mo.

(From Tim: Brian told me he didn't want to get into a genital measuring contest so did not make a laundry list, but there is certainly things that discrimination FOR black people has stolen from Brian and myself and many others. How many jobs have Brian or I been turned down for because it was reserved for minorities? How many white kids have been denied college admission for lesser qualified blacks? How much have we all paid in extra taxes to fund the welfare state, a backdoor reparations plan for slavery? How much crime have we endured because of black racism and the willingness to excuse criminality and violence by the black community and their white liberal partners? How about the "knockout game" where black kids punch white or Asiam people as hard as they can? Is that not an act of black racism? What of the refusal by black kids to get an education because that would be "acting white"? We wind up supporting these people, through welfare or SSI, or the prison system, And we wind up supporting their copuous children, who then go on to do the same thing.

Pitts is using a sneaky trick; claiming blacks don't have power so can't be racist. That is a lie and has been for some time as blacks have had disproportionate power since they vote as a block for the Democrats and have had all manner of laws giving them special status. If I am denied an apartment and I suspect it's based on race I can do little, but a black applicant can file a complaint and woe unto the landlord! For that matter, Brian was denied a position in a predominantly black college and that was because of his race - nothing else. He's used to that, being in academia.)

This supposed anti-white racism apparently has no impact on you. If a thing has no impact what, then, is your proof of its existence? And if it has no impact on you, why are you whining about it?


Mr.. Pitts,
We can play this game by your rules. Your columns usually contain a significant amount of anti-white sentiment which I labelled "anti-white racism". You deny that such a thing exists. Therefore, I suppose that we must label your diatribes of racial hatred, as exactly that, "racial hatred". You seem to be a very bitter and spiteful man...and, to return to my original point, you are ungrateful to a nation that has given you much to be thankful for.

Best Regards,
B. Birdnow

(Please note it has no impact on Mr. Pitts personally either. This is a sneaky answer.)

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Leonard Pitts <> wrote:

My columns contain absolutely no "anti-white sentiment." Never have. They do frequently contain painful historical fact and anti bigot sentiment that some white people find uncomfortable, probably because it strikes too close to home To avoid their own discomfort, they usually process what I've said as "anti-white sentiment" and project it on to me.

The problem with that, however, is that it doesn't account for the literally millions of white readers who seem to think I'm an okay guy. So are they too dumb to recognize this terrible "anti-white sentiment" of mine that you see so clearly? Or are you just using that as a lame cover to escape truths you find too hard to deal with in any other way?

Take your time...

Mr.. Pitts,
Since you are now delving into the world of psychology, I would have to say that self-knowledge is certainly not one of your virtues. I don't know the millions of white readers who think you are an okay guy, and wonder whether you've actually counted them, but I suppose that my incredulousness on this score is "...just a lame cover to escape truths you find hard to deal with in any other way." Yes sir, when all else fails, like a certified liberal, you engage in spiteful, churlish personal attacks. You still have not addressed my central point. Do you deny that America has been a good country for you? How, then do you account for your success?

B. Birdnow
St. Louis, Mo.

That is all for now in this exchange. I'll post any more if it comes. One thing is clear; Leonard Pitts has made a good living off of the cries of racism and the resentment he can gin up from it. Why, pray tell, is America so bad when black people come from Africa regularly to be a part of it? They are often thankful to be here (excpt maybe the Somalis) and can't understand the sullen resentment of people like Pitts, who was given great privilege by being born here in America and who urges many to throw it awayin a quixotic search for some mythical social justice.

How does Pitts think his brand of racial resentment will benefit anyone? Neither white nor black, Asian nor Hispanic nor Native American has any hope of any profit from this - except a few race hustlers who will make a fine living off of the despair and anger and division they sew. Leonard Pitts Jr. is truly one of those.

When he stands before his Maker he will have to give an account. I doubt those white people who love him will influence the Great Judge when the day comes.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:12 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1551 words, total size 10 kb.

September 15, 2017

William Howard Taft: Big President, Big Ideas

Dana Mathewson

I've recently become a fan of WorldNetDaily's Bill Federer. Quite a historian, he is. Here's an article on our 27th president, which I commend to your attention.

He was the only U.S. president to be appointed Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. His name was William Howard Taft, born Sept. 15, 1857. After the Spanish-American War, Taft was appointed by President McKinley as the first governor of the Philippines, 1901-04. President Theodore Roosevelt appointed Taft as Secretary of War in 1904, then in 1906 appointed him provisional governor of Cuba.

After defeating Democrat candidate William Jennings Bryan, Taft was elected the 27th president. The largest president, Taft weighed over 300 lbs. A bathtub was installed in the White House for him large enough to hold four men.

In his inaugural address, President William H. Taft stated, March 4, 1909: "I invoke the considerate sympathy and support of my fellow citizens and the aid of the Almighty God in the discharge of my responsible duties.”

President Taft stated in a national day of thanksgiving proclamation, Nov. 15, 1909: "The people of the United States are wont to meet in their usual places of worship on a day of thanksgiving appointed by the Civil Magistrate to return thanks to God for the great mercies and benefits which they have enjoyed. During the past year we have been highly blessed. … It is altogether fitting that we should humbly and gratefully acknowledge the Divine Source of these blessings. … I hereby appoint … a day of general thanksgiving, and I call upon the people on that day, laying aside their usual vocations, to repair to their churches and unite in appropriate services of praise and thanks to Almighty God.”

President William H. Taft proclaimed, Nov. 5, 1910: "These blessings have not descended upon us in restricted measure, but overflow and abound. They are the blessings and bounty of God. … In accordance with the wise custom of the civil magistrate since the first settlements in this land and with the rule established from the foundation of this government … do appoint … a day of National Thanksgiving and Prayer, enjoining the people upon that day to meet in their churches for the praise of Almighty God and to return heartfelt thanks to Him for all His goodness and loving-kindness.”

Taft stated, as recorded in Donald F. Anderson’s "William Howard Taft: A Conservative’s Conception of the Presidency” (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1973): "The President can exercise NO power which cannot fairly be traced to some specific grant of power in the Constitution or act of Congress.”

In 1912, Taft created the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to counterbalance the labor movement. President Taft met with Booker T. Washington and encouraged his program for uplifting Black Americans through education and entrepreneurship. Ten years before the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was formed, Booker T. Washington had founded the National Negro Business League in 1900, growing it to 600 chapters.

Harvard President Charles W. Eliot spoke at Tuskegee’s 25th anniversary in 1906, stating: "By 1905, Tuskegee produced more self-made millionaires than Harvard, Yale and Princeton combined.” [emphasis added]

Booker T. Washington’s views distinguished him from W.E.B. Du Bois, who promoted reparations and dependence on government entitlements.


Back when he was campaigning for President, William H. Taft spoke at a missionary conference, Aug. 5, 1908: "Until I went to the Orient, until there was thrust upon me the responsibilities with reference to the extension of civilization in those far distant lands, I did not realize the immense importance of foreign mission. The truth is we have got to wake up in this country. We are not all there is in the world. … No man can study the movement of modern civilization from an impartial standpoint and not realize that Christianity, and the spread of Christianity, are the only basis for hope of modern civilization in the growth of popular self-government. The spirit of Christianity is pure democracy; it is the equality of man before God. The equality of man before the law, which is, as I understand it, the most Godlike manifestation that man has been able to make. …”

Taft continued: "I am here to speak of … the advancement of modern civilization, and … how dependent we are on the spread of Christianity for any hope we may have of uplifting the people whom Providence has thrust upon us for our guidance. I suppose I ought not to go into a discussion here of our business in the Philippines, but I never can take up that subject without pointing the moral … conviction that our nation is … charged with the obligation to help the unfortunate peoples of other countries that are thrust upon us by faith onto their feet to become a self governing people. … What there is in the Constitution of the United States is a breathing spirit that we are a nation with all the responsibilities that any nation ever had and … it becomes the Christian duty of a nation to assist another nation.”

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 853 words, total size 6 kb.

Why Trump is Right and the Experts are Still Wrong about the Iran Deal

Dana Mathewson

Maybe it's just me, but since National Review took its Never Trump stance last year during the campaign, I've found less to interest me on its site. Less... but certainly not nothing. The estimable Jonathan S. Tobin contributes this article, with which I am in full agreement. If you are not, please, please comment!

Among the many factors that led to Trump’s unexpected victory last November was a deep and abiding skepticism among many voters about the wisdom of experts. To his supporters, Trump, the ultimate non-expert on most policy issues, had the savvy to do the right thing even on topics to which neither he nor they had ever previously given much serious thought. While that cynicism is not always wise, the groupthink in the foreign-policy establishment and among nonproliferation professionals is proof that Trump’s instincts are not always wrong.


Trump should ignore their arguments and those inside the administration who are echoing them. It’s wise to have some skepticism about experts’ opinions; their consensus can have little to do with achieving the goals they’re tasked with accomplishing. But the problem is not only that the deal was a bad one. It’s also that plenty of experts place more value on diplomacy per se — getting a piece of paper signed and then defending its value — than on the conviction that diplomacy will stop Iran from getting a bomb. The agencies that monitor the deal all agree that Iran has kept to its terms. But their certification of Iran’s compliance vindicates Obama’ critics, who warned that once in the deal was in place, the signatories’ desire to preserve it would lead them to ignore a host of small violations. Over the past three years, the IAEA and Washington have routinely ignored reports about a variety of problems, including obstruction of inspections, illegal attempts to purchase nuclear and missile technology, and exceeding the limits on uranium enrichment and production of heavy water. Viewed in isolation, each violation is insufficient to justify threatening Iran with new sanctions or an end to the deal. So the signatories ignore or rationalize the infractions. In the negotiations that led to the deal, Obama and the secretary of state jettisoned their demand that Iran end its nuclear program and stop advanced nuclear research, and that it concede it had no right to enrich uranium, They always saw getting an agreement on any terms as more important than the details. The same applies to keeping it in place despite multiple violations. That’s why the arms-control community wound up endorsing a deal that did not put an end to the Iranian threat; at best, it kicked the can down the road for a few years on proliferation. But the point of isolating the Islamist republic via sanctions wasn’t to "reduce the risk” of a nuclear Iran; it was to end the risk altogether. Even if Iran is complying with the terms of the JCPOA, it allows them to go on working toward a bomb. Moreover, the JCPOA expires within a decade, so the deal can’t be said to be doing much to make the world safer.

There's much more. Remember, if you will, what the late President Harry S Truman said about experts: "You can't tell an expert anything, because then he's not an expert."

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 03:49 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 566 words, total size 4 kb.

Yes, Hillary, the Media Did Help Trump Win. So Did You

Dana Mathewson

With all the noise about Hillary's book, and how she's blaming everyone but herself for her loss last November (I haven't seen the book but wouldn't be surprised to see MY name in it -- well, not really), there have been a number of good articles written about her loss.

This is one of the best, in my estimation. By David Harsanyi, writing on Townhall.

. . . When supporting Trump seemed advantageous, the media -- not only left-leaning outlets like CNN or the Washington Post but also rating chasers like NBC's Joe Scarborough -- did much to help lift the fortunes of the soon-to-be president. This was obvious to anyone observing coverage of the primaries. But for those who need confirmation, a study by the Harvard Kennedy School Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy found that during the year 2015, major news outlets covered Trump "in a way that was unusual given his low initial polling numbers -- a high volume of media coverage preceded Trump's rise in the polls."


Although Bush was a concern, most Democrats seemed to fear Sen. Marco Rubio. Not that their takes would have swayed many conservative voters, but it's worth remembering that left-wing pundits played the same cynical game, which makes their histrionics today unconvincing. "Why I'm More Worried About Marco Rubio Than Donald Trump," read a Vox headline. "Donald Trump Is Actually a Moderate Republican," wrote Slate. "Why Cruz Is Worse Than Trump" read one headline by The New York Times' Paul Krugman. "Why Liberals Should Support a Trump Republican Nomination" was New York Magazine's contribution to this genre.

The major media outlets, the Clinton campaign and the liberal punditry all got what they wanted: Trump. The problem was they also got Clinton. The media did cover the FBI investigation into Clinton's emails and server. "It was a dumb mistake," Clinton now says. "I think it was a dumber scandal, but it hurt." This kind of attitude speaks to the entitlement she carried around with her.

Attempting to bolster the chances of an opposing candidate who is perceived to be the weakest isn't a unique strategy. The problem is -- and I understand that many people disagree with me -- Clinton probably would have lost to virtually any Republican candidate, and probably by even larger margins. But the bigger question now is: Why did Clinton's campaign prop up Trump, "the most dangerous White House candidate in modern history"? It seems irresponsible and selfish to put Americans in such a precarious position for personal gain. Maybe someone with access will take a break from sitting shiva and ask her.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 452 words, total size 3 kb.

A New Chappaquiddick Movie

Dana Mathewson

One can always find good reading at the Conservative Columnists section of the Townhall website. One reason for that is the presence of writers such as L. Brent Bozell III. Here, he writes about the new movie about the event that -- lucky for the country -- kept Ted Kennedy from the White House.

Consider it a minor miracle. Some brave souls in Hollywood have made a movie about then-Sen. Ted Kennedy's actions in the car accident that left Mary Jo Kopechne dead and abandoned on Massachusetts' Chappaquiddick Island in the summer of 1969. It even stars well-known actors like Bruce Dern, Ed Helms, Kate Mara and Jim Gaffigan. It just debuted at the Toronto International Film Festival.

At this moment, one could imagine it as a counter-reaction to taking down Confederate statues. If there's anything in our modern history that needs a reassessment -- or just a reality check -- it's the hidebound mythology around Kennedy, that noble "Lion of the Senate."

Some predictable protests broke out from the mythmakers. Former Washington Post reporter Sharon Waxman complained on The Wrap News Inc. website: "I'm not entirely sure why anyone chose to make this movie right now. We hardly lack in narratives that debunk the Kennedy mystique. Indeed, the Kennedys' moral failings are hardly what ails our democracy at this time. Many of us wish there was a Kennedy-esque figure to offer leadership in place of the moral chasm that faces the nation right now."

It is always so when it's a Democrat. Throughout 2016, we were told that Hillary Clinton's past scandals were irrelevant. Then-President Obama's scandals? A thing of the past. Former President Bill Clinton's imbroglios? We needed to move on. Indeed, that's why the MoveOn group was born.

In this case, it's even worse. The liberal-media establishment -- comprised of the ones who proclaimed from the rooftops that it was mandatory for Donald Trump to abandon his presidential campaign for having boasted to "Access Hollywood" host Billy Bush off camera that he could grab women in the crotch because he was a "star" -- has always believed that leaving a woman behind in an overturned car to drown wasn't at all immoral or disqualifying for the presidency ... when you're "Kennedy-esque."


For more than half a century, the media elite has presented the Kennedys in oozy, honorific terms as a gallant band of devout Irish Catholic public servants. And they wonder why people denounce them for spreading "fake news."
I'd like to see this movie! I sent an e-mail about it, from another writer, to site proprietor Timothy -- I'll check to see if it got posted. At any rate, it's good to see that this matter is finally getting the proper attention, even though it's too late to do much good. The left will continue to believe that the Kennedys can do no wrong.

The article is here:

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:10 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 489 words, total size 3 kb.

Did Susan Rice Spy on Trump Officials for Muslim Brotherhood?

Dana Mathewson

This is from FrontPageMag, by Daniel Greenfield. I found it in It's a shocker. As is my practice, I will quote parts of it and hope that entices you to read the entire article, which is found here:

After months of denials, the pretext for Susan Rice’s eavesdropping on Trump officials has finally been made public. It had been widely known that Obama’s former National Security Adviser had contrived to unmask the names of top Trump officials who had been spied on by the administration. And the same media that still treats Watergate as the Great American Scandal had claimed that there was nothing "improper” in an Obama loyalist eavesdropping on members of the opposition party.

Every time Obama Inc. was caught eavesdropping on opposition politicians, it presented its spin in a carefully packaged "scoop” to a major media outlet. This time was no different.

When Obama Inc. spied on members of Congress to protect its Iran nuke sellout, it packaged the story to the Wall Street Journal under the headline, "U.S. Spy Net on Israel Snares Congress”. The idea was that Obama Inc. was "legitimately” spying on Israel, that it just happened to intercept the conversations of some members of Congress and American Jews, and that the eavesdropping somehow meant that its victims, Jewish and non-Jewish, rather than its White House perpetrators, should be ashamed.

The White House had demanded the conversations between Prime Minister Netanyahu, members of Congress and American Jews because it "believed the intercepted information could be valuable to counter Mr. Netanyahu's campaign." This was domestic surveillance carried out under the same pretext as in the Soviet Union which had also accused its dissident targets of secretly serving foreign interests.

Obama and his minions had used the NSA to spy on Americans opposed to its policies. Including members of Congress. They did this by conflating their own political agenda with national security.

Since Obama’s spin was that the Iran Deal was good for national security, opponents of it were a "national security” threat.

And its fig leaf for domestic surveillance was that a "foreign leader” was involved.

Now get ready for a flashback.

Susan Rice’s excuse for unmasking the names of top Trump officials in the Obama eavesdropping effort was that they were meeting with the crown prince of the United Arab Emirates. The carefully packaged CNN story, which reeks of the Goebbelsian media manipulations of "Obama whisperer” Ben Rhodes, tries to clumsily tie the whole thing to the Russians. But for once it’s not about Russia. It’s about Islam.


It is as unlikely that Susan Rice will be held accountable for pulling off a crime that makes Watergate into the gold standard of governmental ethics as it is that Hillary will ever go to jail for abusing classified information. The network, which some dub the swamp, has excelled at defending its own. That’s why current National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster protected Susan Rice’s access to classified information and nurtured all the Obama holdovers behind the leaks while purging those who tried to expose them.

It is also why Susan Rice’s testimony did not leak until CNN was able to roll out its carefully packaged spin.

Conservatives excel at zeroing in on abuses like Hillary’s email account, the Rice unmasking and the Benghazi cover-up, but falter when it comes to exposing the motives behind them. And so the investigation of the abuses quickly vanishes into a thorny thicket of alibis, technical legalities, cover-ups and licenses. And a baffled public reads about hearings that delve into acts rather than motives.

It is vital that we understand not only what Rice did, but why she did it. It is important that we expose the pattern of misconduct, not just the individual act.

Susan Rice’s eavesdropping would have remained hidden if Flynn and his appointees hadn’t temporarily obtained the keys to the kingdom. And the network quickly worked to have Flynn forced out and replaced with McMaster. And McMaster has steadily forced out Flynn’s appointees so that there are no more leaks like the one that exposed the Rice eavesdropping. The swamp looks after its own.

Unless there are fundamental changes at the NSC and beyond, we will never know the full scope of the Obama eavesdropping operation. But we still do know a great deal about what motivated it.

Susan Rice and the White House didn’t just eavesdrop on the political opposition. There was an agenda so urgent that they were willing to pull out all the stops to protect it.

Even right down to committing what has become the ultimate crime in the White House.

It was the same agenda that dragged us into a war in Libya. The same agenda that was at the heart of the diplomatic efforts of the administration over eight years. That agenda was empowering Islamists.

The Obama edition of Watergate wasn’t committed merely for domestic political gain. It was carried out for a reason that was encompassed in his address to the United Nations after the Benghazi massacre.

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

This foul slogan led to the first arrest of a filmmaker for political speech in almost a century. It led to the sordid betrayal of our national security and our allies. And to domestic espionage against Americans.

The future must not belong on those who spy on Americans to protect Islamism.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:50 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 915 words, total size 7 kb.

Police Officer Not Guilty; Black Lives Babies Threaten Tantrum

Timothy Birdnow

a judge has found a St. Louis police officer accused of murder innocent.Black Lies Muttered are threatening riots, street closures, and general thuggery and rude behavior in a planned temper tantrum.

Officer Jason Stockley fatally shot a criminal fleeing from police after consummating a drug deal. The officer's dash cam caught him on tape exclaiming in frustration that he would "kill that guy" when he caught him. Investigations led to no charges for several years, but Obama Truth Squad member, Prosecutor Jennifer Joyce, filed charges as her last offical act before leaving office.

Stockley was charged with murder and planting evidence.

The officer waived his right to a jury trial (a wise decision since he was likely to wind up with BLM sympathizers on the jury) and the judge hearing the case took considerable time making his decision, largley because of threats by BLM to riot and loot.

St. Louis is on edge.

But we are not in the position we were during the "Gentle Giant" Mike Brown riots; Barack Obama and Eric Holder are no longer in office. They pushed hard to prevent the necessary crackdown on protesters/rioters that would have stopped the ensuing violence. And the Governor in Missouri is ERic Greitens, a former Marine and Republican, who has already called out the National Guard. During the Brown riots Governor Jay Nixon went into seclusion and issued orders to stand down. Things are different now.

We shall see how this plays out.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 255 words, total size 2 kb.

Harvard Hires Bradley/Chelsea Manning

Jack Kemp

Traitor "Chelsea" Manning never went to college. I understand why Berkeley hired "The True Believer" author Eric Hoffer as a mature man in his late middle age after authoring a classic book, but this punk at Harvard? Next thing you know, Harvard will hire a phony Indian as a law school prof...err...wait.

Harvard makes convicted spy Chelsea
Manning a ´fellow,´ igniting firestorm

Former CIA Acting Director Michael Morell on Thursday announced his resignation as a senior fellow at Harvard after the university named U.S. Army soldier-turned-convicted felon Chelsea Manning a visiting fellow. Manning will take on the role at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, the school said on its website. "She speaks on the social, technological and economic ramifications of Artificial Intelligence,” the Harvard announcement said. "As a trans woman, she advocates for queer and transgender rights as @xychelsea on Twitter.” Morell, a former CIA deputy director who twice served as acting director, announced his resignation from Harvard´s Belfer Center was a

Read it all!

UPDATE: Under an intense backlash, Harvard has withdrawn its offer of a Fellowship to "Chelsea" Manning.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:18 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 189 words, total size 1 kb.

September 14, 2017

More Hillary e-mail Doings

Timothy Birdnow

Judicial Watch has released a new batch of Hillary Clinton e-mails showing even worse mishandling of classified documents as well as more pay-for-play and other illegalities. When is Jeff Sessions going to act?

Here is the entire article at Judicial Watch, including a lengthy laundry list of violations by her Highness. Below is a small taste:

Contact: 202-646-5188
September 14, 2017
Judicial Watch: New Clinton Emails Uncovered, Reveal Additional Mishandling of Classified Information

Documents also show more instances of pay to play with Clinton Foundation donors

Abedin’s controversial mother advised Clinton speechwriter to exclude references to ‘democracy/elections/freedom’ and ‘empowerment of women’ for Clinton speech in Saudi Arabia
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released 1,617 new pages of documents from the U.S. Department of State revealing numerous additional examples of classified information being transmitted through the unsecure, account of Huma Abedin, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, as well as many instances of Hillary Clinton donors receiving special favors from the State Department.

The documents included 97 email exchanges with Clinton not previously turned over to the State Department, bringing the known total to date to at least 627 emails that were not part of the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over, and further contradicting a statement by Clinton that, "as far as she knew,” all of her government emails had been turned over to department.

The emails are the 20th production of documents obtained in response to a court order in a May 5, 2015, lawsuit Judicial Watch filed against the State Department (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00684)). Judicial Watch sued after State failed to respond to a March 18, 2015, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking: "All emails of official State Department business received or sent by former Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin from January 1, 2009 through February 1, 2013 using a non-‘’ email address.” On September 11, 2009, the highly sensitive name and email address of the person giving the classified Presidential Daily Brief was included in an email forwarded to Abedin’s unsecure email account by State Department official Dan Fogerty. The State Department produced many more Clinton and Abedin unsecured emails that were classified:

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 382 words, total size 3 kb.

Quick Climate Cash

Helen Dyer forwards this. It shows the big money behind the Global Warming hysteria.

U.N.'s Global Warming Fraudsters Are More Interested In Climate Cash Than Climate Change


Climate Deceit: Just when you think the climate change lunacy couldn't get any worse, the U.N.'s climate-crats up the ante. Meeting in Bonn, Germany, for yet another unneeded climate conference, attendees are now demanding $300 billion a year more to help less-developed nations cope with anticipated climatic warming. Are they kidding?

By the way, that $300 billion is in addition to the $100 billion that the world's governments have already promised to deliver under the Paris Climate Agreement. So now they're asking for a total of $400 billion a year in climate welfare for the developing world. No sane government would sign on to such a scam. Which of course means that most of them probably will.

There's really no end to this insanity. To make it worse, the proposal before the Bonn climate talks calls for the added taxpayer-funded cash to be doled out not by the governments themselves, or even the U.N. No, the money will be channeled through existing nongovernmental organizations, or NGOs.

In other words, left-wing green groups around the world will become the conduits for billions of dollars in money handed out to ethically challenged, nondemocratic governments. Think there might be a tiny temptation for corruption there?

Read the rest!

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:16 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 236 words, total size 2 kb.

What Happened to the Good Ship McCain

Dana Mathewson

You may not be totally surprised, especially when you read a certain president's name in the article.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:32 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

September 13, 2017

Reasons to Fly Delta

Jack Kemp

Delta is trying to salvage the bad reputation airlines have been building recently – like when United dragged a bloodied doctor down the aisle, or when JetBlue was accused of scalding a woman with tea. And they’re doing it by shelling out huge sums of money to their passengers.



Delta's been a pretty decent airline to fly, over the years. I remember a Delta flight out of MSP maybe 18 or so years ago, (before the "merger") back when they actually served food on flights, and I got a really decent meal -- as in, the food tasted good. I remember complimenting the flight attendant.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 01:47 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 119 words, total size 1 kb.

Did this mope... er, Pope, even go to high school?

Dana Mathewson forwards this:


The old Yankee Stadium was the site of a few Masses held by previious Popes as well as the site of many NY Giants football games before the Meadowlands stadium was built in New Jersey.

If Pope Francis came to perform a Mass at the new Yankee Stadium, I think he would take a knee during the playing of the U.S. National Anthem.

Frankly, while reading the Pope's words about American politics and not religion, I thought they were something written by NY Mayor de Blasio (who got 74.6 percent of the vote in the Democratic primary yesterday).

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 01:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 118 words, total size 1 kb.

Homeless Veterans vs. "Dreamers"

Jack Kemp

The supposedly liberal Washington Post had an article that insulted many Americans of all ethnic backgrounds and pointedly blacks and Hispanics. Here is literally "the money quote" and its relationship to unemployed and homeless veterans direct, often (but not always) a direct cause:


But the Moody’s analysis says Americans’ wages would rise when the labor supply drops, and the AAF study says that the departure of all 11 million illegals would free up to 2.8 million jobs for young Americans:
Fully enforcing current law towards all undocumented immigrants would cause private sector employment to decline by 4 million to 6.8 million workers … The negative consequences of removing all undocumented workers from the private sector would be particularly harmful to the industries that employ these workers, such as agriculture, construction, and leisure and hospitality.

I can't recall ever seeing such a self-serving elitist statement in an article at ANY major newspaper, from the right, the left or the center. It could have been written by a member fo the French aristocracy just before the French Revolution.

Here is an excerpt:

WashPo: DACA Illegals Needed Because Blacks, Latinos Can’t Do the Jobs
by Neil Munro11 Sep 20174,809
There is no evidence that unemployed Africa-American and Hispanic-Americans youths can do the jobs done by "DACA” illegal immigrants, the liberal Washington Post told its readers September 6.
Reporter Tracy Jan headlined her article "The Truth” as she argued that lower-skilled Americans cannot do the jobs filled by DACA illegals.
Here’s the problem: immigrant and native-born workers are imperfect substitutes. There is no evidence that the unemployed Americans, be they black, white or Hispanic, have the skills necessary to hold the same jobs occupied by the young beneficiaries of the five-year-old Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

Read the entire article.


This is a long article which I am rather disinclined to spend time to read all the way through. If it IS true that there is a shortage of Americans who can perform the jobs, it's a real slap in the face to our educational system, and we'd better do something about it -- quickly. Betsy DeVos, are you listening? I suspect that the liberals who run the system are responsible and this is exactly what they want.

Again, we have to look at the idiots who are insisting that the minimum wage continues to push entry-level jobs out of reach.

But with the level of unemployment still as high as it is, something is still very wrong with this picture.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 01:36 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 436 words, total size 3 kb.

Chappaquiddick Reckoning?

Dana Mathewson

Yesterday, 5:03 PMYou;Jack Kemp (;
Really? A bit late, but liberals will still get their noses WAY out of joint.

A Chappaquiddick Reckoning At Last? [With Comment by John]

I paid no attention to the fact that Hollywood was producing a biopic of Ted Kennedy's famous 'accident' at Chappaquiddick in 1969, and would have assumed that it was a typical gauzy pro-Kennedy puff piece if I had known. But Variety magazine, the main trade journal of Hollywood, offers a review that not only says that the forthcoming movie Chappaquiddick is suitably harsh on Teddy, but that he

Read the rest.


There are stories that speculated Mary Jo was pregnant with Ted Kennedy's child and she wanted to expose that fact to the press (as a good Catholic, she didn't want an abortion). That's why Kennedy felt compelled to remove this "problem" which, in the late 1960s, would have ended his Presidential quest, if not his Senatorial careerr as well. Of course, it did end his Presidential quest - and many Democrats, including Jimmy Carter, mentioned it in their campaigns against "The Swimmer."


I've always believed that was the case -- that Mary Jo was pregnant. None of the Kennedy men were ever able to "keep their pants buttoned." Ted's actions on that fatal night certainly were those of a "conflicted" person. On the one hand, he didn't want his sweetheart to drown. On the other hand, he didn't want his career and his reputation to drown. For probably the first and last time in his life, he acted as if he had a conscience, truncated though it was.

A shame it didn't end his entire political career. He caused this country a lot of problems in the Senate.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 01:32 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 299 words, total size 2 kb.

<< Page 2 of 82 >>
91kb generated in CPU 0.04, elapsed 0.0346 seconds.
20 queries taking 0.0074 seconds, 71 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.