CORRUPT, LIAR, LEAKER ADAM SCHIFF'S MONEY GRAB

Every few days, I receive a money-pitch to “chip in” to corrupt, liar, leaker Adam Schiff’s burgeoning treasure chest.

Sometimes it is a pitch based on a phony, self-generated “reporting deadline.” Other times, it is a pitch from the “13-year-old bar mitzvah boy” Schiff, or even Schiff’s dog.

Today’s pitch…

Asfs

Stephen, this grassroots team continues to answer the call.

We reached out with an important update about our upcoming fundraising goal a few days ago. At the time, we were 77% of the way toward our goal.

Three days later? We’re 93% of the way there:

Right now, Adam has two main priorities:

He’s fighting every day in the Senate to deliver, defend Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security, protect our environment, shine a spotlight on Donald Trump’s lawlessness and corruption, and a whole lot more. Your support helps make this work possible.

But that’s not all, Stephen. As Vice-Chair of the DSCC (the Senate Democrats’ campaign arm), he’s also laser-focused on helping Democrats win in Georgia, Michigan, and everywhere else to flip the Senate blue.

While we’re more than a year away from the 2026 midterm elections, Republicans are going to spend big to defend and expand their Senate majority — so we need to be prepared to fight back.

Fundraising goals like the one we’re trying to reach tonight help ensure that Adam can keep up his fight to hold the Trump administration accountable and elect Democrats who will fight for us. So what do you say? Can you help us out by pitching in before midnight tonight?

If you’ve saved your payment information with ActBlue Express, your donation will go through immediately:

As-dThank you!

— Team Schiff

Donate-monthly

And then...

Asfs

Hi Stephen — I wanted to reach out to you one last time before tonight’s fundraising deadline to ask if you could pitch in to our campaign.

I’ve always believed that people should be held accountable for their actions — even if they’re the President of the United States.

That’s why, from my time as lead impeachment manager to my work as a U.S. Senator, I’ve made it a point to fight Donald Trump’s corruption and hold his administration accountable.

He doesn’t like that very much, and neither do his MAGA allies or Fox News. They’ve launched threats and insults against me for years, and who knows what else may come my way.

But even in the face of their attacks, it’s people like you who strengthen my resolve to keep up this work. Your support for me shows the MAGA movement that I’m not alone in this fight. There are people in California and all across the country who are willing to stand with me and fight for truth, decency, and our Constitution.

We’re facing a big fundraising deadline tonight, and I would really appreciate your help. If you can, please use this link to pitch in and fuel my work to fight back against Trump’s lawlessness: secure.actblue.com/donate/[email protected]

Thank you so much,

Adam

Thank you!

— Team Schiff

AS-TRA

Donate-monthly

Perhaps, I would be more interested if he offered some collectible MERCH?

Shiff3

Bottom line...

No! That won’t do it. Nothing will excuse Schiff’s traitorous behavior in trying to stage a soft coup d'état against the President of the United States or supporting Joe Biden without comment, a President who could not reliably function on a day-to-day basis and serve as the nation’s protector as Commander-in-Chief. 

We are so screwed.

-- Steve

TREASONOUS-TRIPLETS


“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS


AMERICANS UNDER SURVEILLANCE: THE REAL COST OF "SMART GOVERNMENT"

Surveillance-1

In the name of efficiency, national security, and cost savings, Americans are being surveilled more aggressively than ever before.

In March, President Trump signed an executive order to “eliminate information silos” and enhance “government efficiency.” While the language was bland, the implications were staggering. Behind the scenes, this order authorized the construction of a digital infrastructure capable of fusing data across federal agencies, effectively creating a master database of the American people.

Trump’s Executive Order: A Digital Dragnet?

Wh-header

Stopping Waste, Fraud, and Abuse by Eliminating Information Silos

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1.  Purpose.  Removing unnecessary barriers to Federal employees accessing Government data and promoting inter‑agency data sharing are important steps toward eliminating bureaucratic duplication and inefficiency while enhancing the Government’s ability to detect overpayments and fraud.

Sec. 3.  Eliminating Information Silos. 

(a)  Agency Heads shall take all necessary steps, to the maximum extent consistent with law, to ensure Federal officials designated by the President or Agency Heads (or their designees) have full and prompt access to all unclassified agency records, data, software systems, and information technology systems — or their equivalents if providing access to an equivalent dataset does not delay access — for purposes of pursuing Administration priorities related to the identification and elimination of waste, fraud, and abuse.  This includes authorizing and facilitating both the intra- and inter-agency sharing and consolidation of unclassified agency records.

(b)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, Agency Heads shall, to the maximum extent consistent with law, rescind or modify all agency guidance that serves as a barrier to the inter- or intra-agency sharing of unclassified information specified in subsection (a) of this section.  Agency Heads shall also review agency regulations governing unclassified data access, including system of records notices, and, within 30 days of the date of this order, submit a report to the Office of Management and Budget cataloging those regulations and recommending whether any should be eliminated or modified to achieve the goals set forth in this order.  Regulatory modifications pursuant to this order are exempt from Executive Order 14192. <Source>

[OCS: Information offered by commercial data brokers, including information from grocery stores, pharmacies, and scraped from social media and comment sites, IS NOT classified.]

Beneath a dense web of government contracts, data-sharing initiatives, and the softening of legal safeguards, a shadowy force is helping build the backbone of what civil liberties groups are calling a “surveillance state.”

That force is Denver, Colorado-based Palantir Technologies, a software company specializing in big data analytics and artificial intelligence, co-founded by openly gay billionaire investor and Trump mega-donor, Peter Thiel. Thiel has played an influential role behind the scenes in helping place allies in key administration positions, particularly in national security and technology.

The Privatization of Government Surveillance

Palantir has long operated as a key contractor for military and intelligence agencies, but its reach has grown exponentially in recent years. Under the guise of modernization, Palantir’s data analytics tools are now embedded in the IRS, DHS, Social Security Administration, and ICE. Its flagship software, Foundry, makes it frighteningly easy to merge once-disparate data silos — tax records, medical histories, bank accounts, disability claims, student loan data — into unified, real-time profiles of U.S. citizens.

Efficiency, Not Justice

What once required judicial oversight, court-issued warrants, and stringent privacy protocols now resembles a basic commercial transaction, with federal agencies purchasing your most sensitive information from commercial data brokers instead of getting a judge’s approval.

These changes aren’t accidental. They are intentional, systemic, and ideological.

Palantir’s systems don’t just gather and display data; they interpret it. Foundry and Gotham allow for pattern detection, intent modeling, and behavioral prediction, redefining how law enforcement and prosecutors understand mens rea, the crucial legal element of criminal intent.

Imagine being investigated not for what you did, but for what an algorithm predicts you might do, based on past data, social media activity, or even associations. That’s no longer science fiction; it is quietly becoming standard operating procedure.

And YOU Consented

Remember those embedded terms of service and privacy agreements you were forced to sign as a condition of gaining access to a website, service, or application – the one’s that allowed an offeror to exempt themselves from the consequences of any action, intentional or unintentional, and one that precluded class action lawsuits in favor of arbitration. Congratulations, those very agreements allow those entities to share or sell your data to commercial data brokers, and by extension, the government, which is precluded from collecting data on its own.

Palantir defends itself by claiming it is only a data processor, not a controller of information. However, this legal distinction means little when their tools make it easier for the government to act without public scrutiny or constitutional restraint.

Normalizing a Surveillance Nation

What’s most chilling isn’t that the surveillance is happening, it’s that it’s being normalized. Every new contract and data integration is framed as progress, cost-cutting, and “smart government.” But underneath it all lies a dismantling of privacy rights once foundational to American democracy.

Bottom Line

The fight over data privacy and surveillance isn’t just about technology but power. As long as companies like Palantir can operate as unaccountable agents and privatized extensions of the federal government, Americans must remain vigilant.

Efficiency and savings must never cost us our liberty. Government contracts must carry full legal and financial accountability, especially for the executives and employees behind them.

If we can’t trust the government to protect our personal, non-public private data, we are so screwed.

-- Steve


“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS


THE BORDER IS BROKEN, AMERICA IS UNDER SIEGE -- BUT DOES THIS 4-YEAR-OLD DESERVE TO DIE FOR IT?

COMPASSIONATE-CARE

Let’s not sugarcoat it. The United States is undeniably being crushed under the weight of an uncontrolled, Democrat-planned border invasion.

Tens of millions of illegal aliens—many unvetted, unskilled, and either unwilling or unable to assimilate—have poured into our cities and towns, overwhelming the very systems meant to serve American citizens. Many lack formal education, English proficiency, or job-ready skills. Some come with criminal records, while others game the system, placing unprecedented strain on emergency rooms, public schools, housing, and law enforcement.

These aren’t abstract concerns—they’re daily realities for communities drowning under the weight of a border crisis that Washington Democrats created. Among this mass influx are gang members, drug traffickers, and individuals who have zero respect for our laws. Let’s stop pretending otherwise: this is an invasion. The frustration is justified. The costs are crushing. And national security demands more than speeches; it requires real enforcement, now.

But amid the chaos, there are real, human, heartbreaking exceptions. And when those exceptions involve innocent children with life-threatening conditions, our national response can’t be robotic, cold, or blind. Strength doesn’t mean cruelty. A secure border doesn’t require shutting our eyes to suffering.

This country has the right, and the obligation, to protect its sovereignty. But if we can’t distinguish between a threat and a four-year-old girl fighting to stay alive, we’ve lost something more than control of our border—we’ve lost our soul.

Compassion at the Crossroads: The Life of a 4-Year-Old Hangs in the Balance

Times header

4-year-old Bakersfield girl facing deportation could die within days of losing medical care

Deysi Vargas’ daughter was nearly 2½ when she took her first steps.

The girl was a year delayed because she had spent most of her short life in a hospital in Playa del Carmen, Mexico, tethered to feeding tubes 24 hours a day. She has short bowel syndrome, a rare condition that prevents her body from completely absorbing the nutrients of regular food.

Vargas and her husband were desperate to get their daughter, whom The Times is identifying by her initials, S.G.V., better medical care. In 2023, they received temporary humanitarian permission to enter the U.S. legally through Tijuana.

Now in Bakersfield, the family received notice last month that their legal status had been terminated. The letter warned them: “It is in your best interest to avoid deportation and leave the United States of your own accord.”

But doing so would put S.G.V., now a bubbly 4-year-old, at immediate risk of death.

But in a letter requested by the family, Dr. John Arsenault of CHLA [Children’s Hospital Los Angeles] wrote that he sees the girl every six weeks.

If there is an interruption in her daily nutrition system, called Total Parenteral Nutrition (TPN), the doctor wrote, “This could be fatal within a matter of days.”

“As such, patients on home TPN are not allowed to leave the country because the infrastructure to provide TPN or provide immediate intervention if there is a problem with IV access depends on our program’s utilization of U.S.-based healthcare resources and does not transfer across borders,” Arsenault wrote.

Read More

This isn’t just a legal issue. It’s a moral one.

Immigration policies should reflect the values a nation claims to uphold, core values like compassion, justice, and protecting the vulnerable. This case is a heartbreaking illustration of what happens when policy loses sight of people. Talking about quotas, enforcement actions, or visa categories is easy. It’s much harder to look into the eyes of a child—one who has already endured more than many adults—and still justify a decision that could take away her last chance at survival.

Even during times of tremendous political pressure or public debate over immigration, we must remember that compassion is not a loophole but a guiding principle. The strength of a country is measured not only by how it protects its borders, but by how it treats its most vulnerable within them.

As legal advocates fight for this young girl’s right to stay, we must ask what kind of nation we want to be. One that turns away a child who can only live here? Or one that bends toward mercy, even when it’s hard?

Make Mexico Part of the Solution

If the U.S. is footing the bill for humanitarian crises created or neglected by other nations, it’s time those nations step up. Take Mexico, a country rich in oil, minerals, and tourism, yet consistently failing to provide adequate care for its most vulnerable citizens. When families are forced to flee to keep their children alive, that’s not just a U.S. problem. That’s a Mexican failure.

One practical solution? Tax outgoing remittances to Mexico—the billions of dollars sent annually from workers in the U.S.—and require the Mexican government to match those funds. That money can be channeled into a binational humanitarian medical fund, explicitly used for the care of critically ill Mexican nationals like the 4-year-old girl at the heart of this crisis.

If Mexico wants the benefit of its diaspora’s economic contributions, it must share in the responsibility of caring for its people, especially when they’re suffering from conditions it has neither the infrastructure nor the will to treat.

This isn’t punishment. It’s accountability. And it’s time the U.S. stops absorbing the full weight of broken systems south of the border. A remittance-based fund is one way to make compassion sustainable—and force cooperation where it’s long overdue.

Bottom Line

Even amid the chaotic and unsustainable influx of illegal aliens, we must not lose sight of our humanity. Compassion does not mean open borders; it means discerning leadership. It means the courage to make distinctions, especially when the stakes are life and death. And nowhere is that more urgent than for innocent children whose very survival depends on being here.

We have been well and truly screwed by the Democrats. We cannot afford to let these loathsome, power-hungry miscreants return to office in 2026.

-- Steve


“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS


THIS "WONDER DRUG" COULD KILL YOU -- AND BIG PHARMA HOPES YOU NEVER NOTICE

Pharma
As a senior citizen, I was greatly annoyed by an email video advertisement featuring a joyful, good-looking, older couple biking through a scenic park, smiling grandchildren in tow. At the same time, a soothingly mellow voice speedily drones a list of side effects like “internal bleeding,” “hallucinations,” or “death.”

If this sounds absurd, it should.

However, only two countries worldwide, the United States and New Zealand, allow direct-to-consumer (DTC) pharmaceutical advertising. Everywhere else, drug companies are required to promote medications only to healthcare professionals, not the public. Yet in the U.S. alone, drug companies spend tens of billions of dollars each year on advertising, not just to consumers, but across every major media channel, from television and online platforms to magazines and even news outlets.

Why? Because the real product isn’t the drug. It’s the narrative.

Most people believe the short answer is: because drug advertising works, and when ailing people see a drug ad, they are more likely to ask their doctor about it.

However, under pressure to satisfy patient demand, physicians may prescribe medications that aren’t necessarily the best treatment. Advertising doesn’t just inform—it shapes expectations and defines “normal” health experiences as problems that require pharmaceutical interventions.

But there’s a deeper, more insidious motive; drug companies aren’t just selling pills—they’re selling a narrative.

The story you’re being told is that your chronic illness, discomfort, or mental unease is a permanent condition, but there is good news! Your debilitating condition can be “managed” indefinitely with a daily pill, injection, or wearable device. The implication is that you’re broken, but Big Pharma has a fix.

What this narrative avoids, of course, is that many chronic illnesses have root causes linked to diet, lifestyle, trauma, environment, or inequality, factors that pharmaceutical treatments rarely address, as the convenience of a quick fix is preferable to the hard work of a lifestyle commitment. Nor does this story leave room for the possibility that drugs themselves might lead to serious complications or dependency.

Instead, the ad ends with a montage of smiling faces, golden-hour lighting, and reassuring music, while a legal disclaimer rushes through a litany of terrifying side effects.

Media Silence Bought with Ad Dollars

Here’s where the narrative gets ethically challenged; as much of the media you trust to inform and protect you is financially dependent on pharmaceutical advertising.

When Big Pharma is one of your largest advertisers, criticism becomes bad business. Entire news organizations have reason to downplay investigative reporting on drug harms or bury studies that challenge blockbuster medications. The incentive to stay quiet is built into the media business model.

What’s worse is that this uncritical repetition of the pharmaceutical narrative shapes public discourse. It narrows the range of acceptable questions. It vilifies skepticism. It reframes health as something purchased and managed, rather than something understood and healed.

Blame the Democrats

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) prescription drug advertising in the United States wasn’t always the norm. In fact, until the mid-1990s, such advertising was limited and tightly controlled. That all changed under Bill Clinton’s administration.

In 1997, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), itself the beneficiary of regulatory capture by Big Pharma, relaxed its guidelines, allowing pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers without listing all the risks and side effects, as long as the ad directed viewers to another source for the complete prescribing information—such as a website or toll-free number.

This regulatory shift was quietly monumental. It didn’t require an act of Congress. Instead, it was a re-interpretation of existing FDA rules, which effectively opened the floodgates for a new era of pharmaceutical marketing. Drug commercials, once rare, quickly became a staple of American television.

“The FDA’s 1997 decision marked a seismic shift in the pharmaceutical industry, enabling a multi-billion-dollar advertising boom.”
— Donohue, J.M., Cevasco, M., & Rosenthal, M.B. (2007). A Decade of Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs. New England Journal of Medicine, 357, 673-681.

Within just a few years, ad spending soared. By the early 2000s, Big Pharma had spent more on marketing than research and development. The Clinton-era policy change, while perhaps seen as a modernization of communication standards, helped cement the U.S. as one of only two countries where this kind of marketing is even legal.

Big Pharma Doesn’t Want to Know the Root Causes—It Might Kill the Billion—Dollar Business Model

  • Keytruda – $25 billion (2023) -- cancers 
  • Humira – $14.4 billion (2023) -- inflammation
  • Ozempic – $13 billion (2023) -- diabetes and obesity
  • Dupixent – $11.8 billion (2023)  -- inflammation
  • Comirnaty – $11.2 billion (2023)  -- Covid-19
  • Biktarvy – $11 billion (2023) -- HIV-1
  • Eliquis – $11.6 billion (2023) -- blood thinner/heart protection
  • Stelara – $10.9 billion (2023) -- autoimmune conditions
  • Gardasil – $7.2 billion (2023) -- human papillomavirus
  • Enbrel – $7 billion (2023) -- autoimmune conditions
  • Entresto – $6 billion (2023) -- heart failure

In a rational world, the goal of medicine would be to understand and eliminate the root causes of chronic illness. But in the pharmaceutical world, that kind of thinking is not just inconvenient—it’s threatening.

Chronic illnesses like diabetes, heart disease, depression, autoimmune disorders, and obesity account for the majority of healthcare spending in developed nations. They are complex, often preventable, and deeply connected to diet, environment, stress, inequality, trauma, and lifestyle. Addressing those root causes takes time, education, structural reform, and accountability—things that don’t fit easily into a pill bottle.

From a pharmaceutical standpoint, a chronic illness is far more profitable when managed than when cured. A daily pill or injection that must be taken indefinitely is the ideal product: recurring revenue for life. A patient who heals or no longer needs medication? That’s a lost customer.

So instead of asking “Why is this person sick?” the industry asks, “How can we keep this person stable enough to function—and keep paying?”

This isn’t conspiracy—it’s incentive structure. When a company’s profits are tied to disease management, not disease resolution, there’s no financial upside to prevention. Research into root causes—especially those pointing to food systems, pollutants, socioeconomic stress, or medical overreach—is often underfunded, ignored, or drowned out by marketing budgets promoting pharmaceutical “solutions.”

Meanwhile, symptoms are pathologized, conditions are medicalized, and new “disorders” are routinely created to expand drug markets. In this system, the sicker the population stays (but not too sick), the better the balance sheets look.

“Chronic disease is the goose that lays the golden egg for Big Pharma. No one wants to kill the goose.”
— Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of The New England Journal of Medicine

Bottom Line

Is Big Pharma Selling Drugs or Selling Belief?

We are not living in a world where medications are merely prescribed—they are marketed. And they are marketed not as tools, but as lifelines, solutions, and symbols of modern hope. The actual drug is incidental. What’s truly being sold is belief in the system, in the pill, in the idea that health is just a prescription away.

But when media outlets, doctors, and consumers all buy into the same narrative, we risk suppressing the conversations we most need to have: about root causes, systemic health failures, and the actual cost of depending on drugs whose side effects may be worse than the condition itself.

Next time you see a drug ad promising a better life, ask yourself: Is this health, or is this a story crafted to sell you something more profitable than wellness?

Until we rewire the incentives and start valuing actual health outcomes over pharmaceutical sales, the system has no reason or desire to look upstream for solutions.

We are so screwed.

-- Steve

Disclaimer: Many miracle drugs are exceptionally beneficial, but we only refer to those with marginal utility, replace older, effective generic drugs, or are tweaks of existing products for marketing purposes. 


“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS


CLOUDY WITH A CHANCE OF POLITICAL FRAUD? WHAT CLIMATE MODELS ARE MISSING

Climate-reality

For decades, the conversation around climate change has revolved around alarming projections, sweeping policy proposals, and increasingly urgent calls to action--higher taxes, more stringent regulations, reduced personal freedom, and a lower standard of living.

At the heart of this discussion are powerful government organizations like NASA, NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), and GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies), whose data and models drive scientific consensus and public policy.

However, many critical questions remain—especially from independent researchers and skeptical observers—about the reliability of historical temperature records, the accuracy of climate models, and the health of open scientific debate.

Have Government Agencies Adjusted Historical Temperature Records?

Yes, historical temperature data has undergone adjustments over time. NOAA, NASA, and GISS all maintain temperature datasets subject to revision. These adjustments are not secret and are often explained as “necessary” corrections for known issues, such as changes in instrumentation, station relocations, urban heat island effects, and observation times.

However, critics argue that these “homogenization” adjustments often result in past temperatures being revised downward and recent temperatures upward, amplifying the apparent warming trend. This has led to transparency and potential bias concerns, even if the stated methodological goals are scientifically suspect. Adjustments can indeed introduce uncertainties, and these should be openly scrutinized.

What Happened to the Original Raw Data?

Much of the early raw observational temperature data, stored on reels of computer tape, was erased and reused as a cost-saving measure.  Data that was not destroyed is often inaccessible in its original format. NOAA and NASA typically archive raw and adjusted datasets, but they are not always prominently featured or easy to compare. The process of adjustment lacks independent oversight or external audit.

One infamous controversy surrounded the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, where email leaks (dubbed “Climategate”) led to accusations of data manipulation, and these incidents have left lingering doubts among some members of the public and scientific community.

Why Do Older Climate Projections Often Miss the Mark?

Many climate models from the 1980s and 1990s projected higher global temperatures than have actually been observed. For example, James Hansen’s 1988 projections, often cited as an early alarm, overshot actual warming trends, especially under scenarios that assumed high emissions.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and modeling institutions acknowledge these discrepancies and continually refine models with better physics, inputs, and observational data. Nevertheless, the failure of some early models has fueled skepticism about the reliability of projections, particularly when they are used to justify significant economic and social policies.

The Role of Clouds: A Missing Piece in Climate Models?

Clouds are one of the most complex climate feedback mechanisms and uncertainty factors in climate modeling. They influence both warming (by trapping heat) and cooling (by reflecting sunlight), and the net effect depends on altitude, type, and regional patterns.

Despite decades of research, models still struggle to simulate cloud behavior accurately. This introduces a significant source of uncertainty into projections of future warming. This uncertainty is underemphasized when models are used to support strict environmental regulations and energy policy shifts.

Why Are Climate Models Still Used for Policy Despite Flaws?

We are told that climate models are the best tools for simulating long-term climate behavior, and most scientists argue that their general trends, especially hypothesized warming due to greenhouse gas emissions, remain robust. However, even within the climate science community, relying on worst-case scenarios (such as the often-criticized RCP8.5) for policy justification has come under fire.

Politicians and policymakers tend to emphasize extreme outcomes to motivate action, even if the probability of those scenarios is low. While it’s reasonable to prepare for risk, there’s also a need for honest communication about uncertainties and confidence intervals.

What Is The Value of a Global Mean Temperature?

When people talk about climate change, one number dominates the conversation: the global mean temperature. We’re told that a rise of 1.5°C or 2°C spells catastrophe. But how meaningful is a global average in a system as wildly variable and regionally diverse as Earth’s climate?

From the equator to the poles, temperature differences can exceed 100°C. The Sahara can scorch at over 50°C while Antarctica remains locked at −50°C. So, what does it really tell us to say the average is 14.9°C or 15.2°C?

It’s like averaging the phone numbers in your contacts list — you get a number, but it doesn’t mean much.

More critically, regional changes matter far more than global averages. A slight average increase could mean significant warming in the Arctic while leaving the tropics virtually unchanged.

Policy is often driven by this single number, despite it smoothing over local realities like rainfall shifts, drought zones, or ocean current changes. , all apparently connected with long-term cycles. The global average is sensitive to data coverage and processing methods. If Arctic stations are sparse or if sea surface temperatures are estimated differently, the “average” can shift.

So why is it used? Because it’s simple, communicable, and politically powerful. But that simplicity is deceptive. The climate system isn’t a uniform blanket warming evenly. It’s a chaotic, regionally driven, multi-variable system with feedbacks, cycles, and surprises.

Focusing solely on the global mean temperature risks missing the real picture, what’s happening where, how it affects people and ecosystems locally, and whether models accurately capture those dynamics.

In short, global mean temperature is a crude metric for a complex system, and decisions based solely on its fluctuations may be scientifically shallow and strategically flawed.

Suppressing Scientific Dissent: A Real Concern?

A recurring criticism is that scientists who question prevailing narratives often face professional repercussions. This includes difficulty publishing in major journals, exclusion from funding opportunities, and even personal attacks. Prominent, well-credentialed, and well-experienced researchers such as Judith Curry, Roger Pielke Jr., and John Christy have spoken about the challenges they’ve faced for expressing skepticism, not of climate change itself, but of its projected severity and the policy responses to it.

Scientific progress depends on open debate and the testing of ideas. When dissenting voices are silenced rather than debated, science risks becoming dogma. Upholding rigorous standards and peer review is crucial—but so is ensuring that alternate hypotheses and critical analyses are allowed a fair hearing.

No Consensus in Science: One Finding Can Invalidate Everything

Despite what headlines or political soundbites may claim, science is not a democracy and is undoubtedly not about consensus. It’s not the number of people who agree that determines truth — it’s the strength of the evidence. A single well-substantiated paper or discovery has the power to overturn decades of established thinking.

This is not just theoretical. History is full of examples:

  • Ulcers were once blamed on stress, until two scientists discovered Helicobacter pylori, radically changing gastrointestinal medicine. Initially mocked, they won the Nobel Prize.
  • Einstein upended Newtonian physics with just a few pages of equations.
  • Plate tectonics, now fundamental to geology, was once considered a fringe theory.

In climate science, however, dissenting voices and disruptive findings are often met not with curiosity but with condemnation. Instead of being welcomed, challenges to prevailing models are too frequently labeled as “denialism” or “anti-science.”

But this mindset is dangerous. When science begins defending a consensus instead of testing it, it stops being science and becomes ideology.

Real science requires that models be falsifiable, data be transparent, and disagreement be encouraged, not silenced. If climate models consistently fail to match observed temperatures, key assumptions (like cloud feedbacks) remain poorly understood, or new findings challenge core predictions. Those issues should spark debate, not suppression.

After all, the hallmark of actual science isn’t certainty — it’s the willingness to be wrong.

The Climate Industry is Built on Incentives, Not Integrity

It’s no secret that science follows funding. In the climate research industry, billions of dollars in government grants, institutional budgets, and international aid flow into projects that align with prevailing climate narratives. But what happens when the funding system rewards alarmism, not accuracy?

The modern climate industry—yes, industry—is primarily driven by government funding, funneled into universities, agencies, NGOs, and private consultants. Much of this money goes to studies, models, and “solutions” that assume worst-case scenarios and promise catastrophic futures unless immediate policy action is taken.

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: 

  • Researchers who produce findings that amplify concern over climate impacts often find themselves with easier access to grants, media exposure, and institutional support.
  • Those who question dominant assumptions—whether about CO₂ sensitivity, model reliability, or natural variability risk being blacklisted, denied funding, or professionally marginalized.
  • The peer-review process, supposedly a firewall for integrity, can become a gatekeeping mechanism to filter out dissenting views, especially when like-minded insiders staff review panels and editorial boards.
  • Worse, there have been documented cases of data being selectively presented, models being tuned to desired outcomes, and results being exaggerated for political or media effect. While not every researcher engages in deception, the system often rewards sensationalism over sober analysis.
  • When careers, reputations, and billion-dollar climate contracts are on the line, the incentive to conform can override the duty to be objective. As with any industry, money shapes the message.

This doesn’t mean all climate science is fraudulent—but it does mean we must be skeptical of a system where the conclusions often seem preordained, and where challenging the orthodoxy can be professionally fatal.

Bottom line…

If science is to serve the public good, it must be free from political coercion, financial distortion, and ideological gatekeeping. Anything less is not science, it’s marketing.

Climate science is enormously complex and critically important. While the core observation, that Earth is apparently warming and human activity may contribute to the phenomenon, is broadly accepted, many details remain uncertain and hotly debated. The credibility of climate science will only be strengthened by greater transparency in data handling, humility in modeling projections, and openness to diverse scientific perspectives.

When public trust in science erodes, so does the effectiveness of policies that depend on it. Ensuring that dissent is engaged rather than suppressed is not only a matter of fairness, it’s essential for the integrity of science itself.

We are so screwed.

-- Steve


“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS


DEMOCRAT'S BIGGEST MOVE FOR 2026: A REPEAT OF "ORANGE MAN BAD"

DEMOCRAT-FREAKSRepresentative Rosa Luisa DeLauro (D-CT)

Memorial Day 2025 marks the start of preparations for one of the fiercest battles to be fought in 2026, who will control the House, and by extension, who will be held responsible for the growing list of alleged past abuses, corruption, and constitutional violations.

This type of progressive communist democrat rhetoric is not new for the left, which has long portrayed Trump as a catspaw of the Russians and the embodiment of corruption.

Their messaging is clear: the former president, already facing numerous legal challenges, has allegedly violated multiple constitutional provisions, including the Emoluments Clause. Whether it’s the $400 million plane deal from Qatar, shady business interests abroad, or shady financial arrangements with international players, Trump’s progressive communist democrat opponents are eager to use the promise of starting or restarting investigations to uncover what they deem as unconstitutional, and potentially illegal, activity to divert the American public’s attention from their abysmal performance.

Like the corrupt New York Attorney General Letitia James, who successfully campaigned on not only investigating Trump’s business dealings but to push for criminal charges that could ultimately lead to his jail time, we find Representative Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) attempting to stoke political flames, promising that if the Democrats take back the House in 2026, they would take a hard look at the former president’s vast business empire, his family’s wealth, and his foreign relationships.

A Color Revolution in the Making?

Speaking with host Alex “witless” Witt on MSNBC’s “Alex Witt Reports…

Witt: “I’m curious if the Democrats take over after the midterms next year, the House and or Senate, do you think they’re going to push for investigations into Trump’s family and the whole crypto acquisitions that he has getting?”

Crockett: “Well, Alex, I’m glad you asked. Listen, so long as we end up taking the House, which I fully anticipate that we will do, and we are going to work hard to obviously help our senate colleagues as well, then as someone who serves on the Oversight Committee and hopes to lead the Oversight Committee, I can guarantee you that we will do what we are supposed to do as constitutionally sworn members of the House, which means that we will conduct oversight.”

“That means that we will investigate. We will look at whether or not this president himself has violated the Emoluments Clause as it relates to say such things as getting a $400 million plane from the Qataris. We also will make sure that we’re looking into all these business deals that they have going on. I mean, think about it this way, Alex. they were going after Hunter because he sat on a board. Think about how much money they are raking, raking in, whether we’re talking about the next golf resort that they’re setting up in Qatar or whether we’re talking about them leveling Gaza, as they’ve talked about and talked about how it would be great beachfront property, whether we’re talking about this crypto scam, the scam that people didn’t even want to walk into and show their faces.”

[OCS: Funny, these same Representatives were totally oblivious and incurious as to the documentary evidence and sworn testimony of Hunter Biden's crimes.]

There is little doubt that the progressive communist democrats and their Islamist allies are sharpening their rhetorical knives, vowing to investigate and behead the Trump Presidency. But there’s a larger narrative at play here.

The progressive wing of the Democratic Party, led by figures like Representative Crockett, seems intent on continuing the playbook that dominated the political discourse during the Trump presidency: “Orange Man Bad.” It’s an easy slogan, one that encapsulates an entire ideology that sees Trump’s every action through the lens of corruption, racism, and authoritarianism. The Democratic base is energized by the belief that Trump’s dealings, both domestic and international, are emblematic of a corrupt system that must be dismantled, piece by piece.

However, it’s more of the same tired rhetoric, a recycled narrative from the past, with Democrats constantly trying to hold Trump accountable for unspecified crimes, without necessarily presenting the full scope of evidence to the public. This focus on Trump’s alleged wrongdoing is just another distraction — a political maneuver designed to deflect from the many failures of the Democratic Party itself.

After all, let’s not forget how the left’s own policies — on everything from handling the economy to foreign interventions — have come under scrutiny. Under President Joe Biden, Democrats have often found themselves facing criticism for their handling of domestic issues like inflation, rising crime rates, and foreign policy disasters, like the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan. The Democrat Party has destroyed its credibility with its fiscal irresponsibility, overreach in domestic policy, and inability to rein in its far-left factions.

In the meantime, billions of taxpayer dollars have been funneled to special interests, non-governmental organizations, and political allies in exchange for campaign contributions and promises of support.

All is not well with the Republicans

Republicans have historically been able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory with their “go along to get along” attitude. Will the House Republicans, up for reelection in moderate Democrat districts, stay strong and do what’s best for the nation, or will they pander to the leftists and cave to personal ambition?

Will accountability and oversight truly take center stage? Or will district-level political theater once again overshadow the serious national issues that need attention?

THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTIONS: WHO WAS THE PRESIDENT FOR FOUR YEARS, WHO SIGNED LEGISLATION AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS, AND WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF THE NUCLEAR CODES!

Bottom line…

The question on the minds of many voters is this: Can the Democratic Party truly present itself as the Party of accountability when it has failed to hold its own members to the same standards it demands of the opposition?

Are these investigations really about justice, or are they about politics?

For Democrats, it’s all about winning the 2026 midterms and gaining or maintaining power — and as the saying goes, power is the ultimate prize. But for many citizens, the real concern isn’t whether Trump is guilty of some financial crime — it’s whether the Democratic Party can ever come to terms with its own history of overreach and failed policies.

If the Democrats are serious about restoring faith in the institutions of government, they’ll need to answer some hard questions about their own role in shaping the current political landscape. And if they succeed in reclaiming the House in 2026, their promises of investigations must not just be about scoring political points — they must be about upholding the rule of law and ensuring that justice is applied equally, regardless of political affiliation—something they have proven to be unable to accomplish.

As the 2026 election approaches, one thing is certain: the battle for the House is far from over, and it will be a fight that continues to shape the future of American democracy. Whether it’s Trump’s alleged corruption or the Democrats’ failure to keep their own House in order, voters must decide what kind of future they want for the country — and whether it’s time for a new direction altogether.

Since January 20, Trump has provided solid progress to match campaign promises, even though his seemingly chaotic negotiating style and pragmatic course corrections leave some citizens confused and bewildered.

If the Republicans do not increase their electoral margins in the House and Senate, we are well and truly screwed.

-- Steve

Progressive Communist Democrat Positions

  • Government Overreach:  Democrats support expansive government programs that reduce individual freedoms and increase dependency on the state.
  • High Taxation and Spending: Democratic policies favor higher taxes and increased government spending, which they believe promote economic growth and do not increase the national debt.
  • Immigration Policies:  Democratic support open borders, and more lenient immigration laws, ignoring that they strain public services or impact job markets.
  • Regulation of Businesses:  Democratic-backed regulations burden small businesses and hinder entrepreneurship.
  • Second Amendment Rights:  Democratic efforts to regulate firearms ignore them as infringements on the constitutional right to bear arms and create larger victim pools by inhibiting self-defense.
  • Cultural and Social Issues:  Democrats are all about identity classes such as race, gender identity, wealth, abortion, and education, which they conflated with oppression and victimhood.
  • Energy and Environmental Policies:  Democrats emphasize climate regulations, ignore higher energy costs, and claim that green energy leads to job gains in the energy sectors.
  • Foreign Policy Approach:  Democrats often favor diplomacy over strength, which leads to perceived weakness on the world stage and further aggression.
  • Judicial Appointments:  Democratic nominees to federal courts are often activist judges who interpret the Constitution in non-originalist ways.
  • Elitism or Urban Bias:  The Democratic Party caters more to urban and coastal elites and is out of touch with rural or working-class Americans.

Democrats: Prioritized democracy, abortion, healthcare, and education.

Republicans: Focused on the economy, immigration, crime, and the federal budget deficit.

Portrait of treason
Portrait of treason


“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS


MEMORIAL DAY 2025

Memorial=hdr

On this Memorial Day, 2025 …

Cartoonist Michael Ramirez says it all...

MR

Today, we commemorate our brave soldiers who died or were grievously wounded to safeguard our precious freedom. As we reflect on these sacrifices, let us honor their lives and consider and condemn those who would waste their magnificent contribution to America by knowingly collaborating with our enemies or restricting our God-given inalienable rights enshrined in our Constitution.

Those politicians, jurists, and others who overtly or covertly undermine or subvert our Constitution are every bit the foe of every American as if they were standing on the battlefield under arms.

Freedom is being squandered by self-serving traitors selling out our nation and its citizens for temporary political power.

While our troops fought to protect each other and our nation, today's political leadership, from the corrupt, incompetent, uncaring politicians, the bureaucratic cadre of progressive communist democrats, the activist judiciary which creates laws out of whole cloth, and those big technology multinationals that surreptitiously provide aid and comfort to our enemies, you are all little more than traitors in the battle to preserve America and American freedom.

Be grateful for your freedom; remember it should never be taken for granted. In just a few cycles of progressive communist democrat intervention, we have seen our national resolve, military strength, and stature within the international community eroded by corrupt, incompetent, and uncaring progressive communist democrats. Our enemy appears to own the Democrat Party, which should rightly brand itself as the U.S. Communist Party.

Remember who we are and what we stand for -- and kick the bastards that do not agree to the curb.

The Patriotic Kid wishes you and yours a worshipful Memorial Day…

amerikid glitterribbon7

and reminds you that it is not the government, nor the media, nor the community organizers, but our VETERANS: past, present, and future, who ensure your safety, security, and your Constitutional liberties.

And while the Democrats decide that their political agenda is more important than leading our great nation …

Cow

Our men and women in uniform, their civilian support services, and their families are sacrificing to keep this nation strong and free.

  usa

n1124934262_4411

 

Capture11-10-2010-8.06.22 PM

Be safe, be well, and care for yourself and your family first.

My father (ARMY) on December 6, 1941, just before the attack on Pearl Harbor, and his best friend Freddie (USAF - Korea)...

Memorial-2022

ARMY 1941 - 1945 Pacific Theatre Service with 24th Infantry "the first to fight" Division, 63rd Field Artillery Battalion, Battery "C" (Scholfield Barracks -- Taromen) - Pearl Harbor Survivor

Veterans Day (November 11) is for those who have served and lived to tell their story of serving. 

Armed Forces Day (3rd Sat in May) is for those on active military duty.

Memorial Day (last Monday of May) is to honor & mourn those who served and died in service to our country.

-- Steve


“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS


DEMOCRAT POLITICS KILLS: TROOPER ALLEGEDLY MURDERED BY DRUNK, DRUGGED ILLEGAL ALIEN, COURT ASKED TO IGNORE CRIME FOR IMMIGRATION TECHNICALITY

Gadd

Trooper Gadd had served with the Washington State Patrol for two and a half years. He is survived by his wife, 2-year-old daughter, parents, and sister. His father also served with the Washington State Patrol, and his sister serves with the Texas Highway Patrol.

This is beyond infuriating. It’s an insult to every law-abiding citizen and a slap in the face to the family of fallen Washington State Trooper Christopher Gadd.

The facts: Raul Benitez-Santana, 33, an alleged illegal alien from Mexico, stands accused of driving at speeds over 100 miles per hour while under the influence of drugs and alcohol and crashing into the back of a Washington State patrol cruiser on Interstate 5 near Marysville in March 2024. Trooper Christopher Gadd, 27, was sitting in the driver’s seat of his patrol car while parked on the shoulder during a traffic stop and was killed instantly in the collision. Prosecutors charged Benitez-Santana with vehicular homicide and vehicular assault in connection with the deadly crash.

However, the Public Defender assigned to Benitez-Santana, is requesting that the entire case be dismissed based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct arising from the State contacting ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) in violation of the Keep Washington Working Act which restricts local law enforcement agencies’ involvement in federal immigration enforcement to protect the rights and dignity of all residents by limiting collaboration with agencies like ICE and CBP.

This wasn’t just a crime — it was an act of reckless, deadly violence that took the life of a modern-day hero.

But instead of justice being served swiftly and absolutely, what do we get?

A public prosecutor defending this illegal alien, asking the court to dismiss the case, not because the man is innocent, but because of some bureaucratic nonsense about sharing information with ICE. Apparently, the prosecutor “colluded” with federal immigration officers, violating Washington’s absurd sanctuary laws, which prohibit local authorities from cooperating with ICE.

The State’s deliberate actions have resulted in irresponsible media and public comment that has likely tainted the prospective jury pool and witnesses, many of who have seen the media coverage.

It has prevented Mr. Benitez-Santana’s family from posting bail.

Moreover, it has resulted in Mr. Benitez-Santana’s family not being able to attend court for fear of deportation, regardless of whether such action would be lawful.

The State’s correspondence and sharing of pleadings and orders with ICE constitutes Outrageous Government Misconduct, is a violation of multiple RPCs [Washington State Court Rules of Professional Conduct., CrR 8.3 (Washington State Superior Court Criminal Rules), and the KWW (Keep Washington Working Act) .

The case must be dismissed.

Superior Court In and For Snohomish County, Case Number 24-1-00426-31

Let that sink in: The very laws that are supposed to protect citizens’ civil rights are being twisted to serve as a shield to let a criminal off the hook, one who killed a police officer while drunk and high. The defense claims that the prosecutor’s office illegally handed over Benitez-Santana’s criminal info to ICE, so now the whole case should be tossed out.

Seriously?

Bottom line…

Driving drunk and high at triple-digit speeds, killing a state trooper, and the response. “Oops, sorry, can’t prosecute because of sanctuary law technicalities, is lunacy.

Officer Gadd deserved better. Washington’s citizens deserve better. Our laws must protect those who protect us, not let criminals exploit legal loopholes to avoid accountability.

Progressive communist democrats with their sanctuary laws have created a legal safe haven for criminals and are putting innocent people, including our law enforcement officers, in the grave. It’s a political nightmare where protecting illegal immigrants takes precedence over protecting American lives.

This isn’t justice. It’s a travesty.

We are so screwed except for Judges like Superior Court Judge Karen Moore who denied the motion to dismiss, saying that while there was misconduct, the prosecutor’s office did not collude with ICE or create prejudice. “Where is the prejudice that materially affects Mr. Benitez-Santana’s right to a fair trial right now? Other than the fact that bail was set and he was detained.”

-- Steve


“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS


AMERICA IN DANGER: WHEN JUDGES SIDE WITH MURDERERS, RAPISTS, AND DRUG LORDS

ACTIVIST-JUDGE
In theory, judges are assumed to be the guardians of the U.S. Constitution, charged with interpreting the law impartially, honoring precedent, and ensuring justice is served without bias.

Yet, increasingly, rulings from the bench seem to depart not only from established legal norms but also from the constitutional principles judges are sworn to uphold.

Why does this happen? And why do so many judicial decisions today appear more driven by ideology than legal merit?

The Rise of Judicial Activism

At the heart of the issue lies a troubling transformation of the judiciary: from neutral arbiter to political instrument. Courts are increasingly seen not as interpreters of law but as agents of social change. The result? Rulings that prioritize perceived outcomes over legal integrity.

This shift reflects a broader philosophical change: the growing belief that any disparity between groups—whether racial, economic, gender-based, or otherwise—is, by default, the result of discrimination. This assumption, often unexamined, compels courts to intervene, even when the law offers no clear justification and the remedy imposes broader harm on society.

The Unwritten Rule of "Disparity Equals Discrimination"

Modern legal culture has embraced an unwritten but powerful rule: group disparities are inherently unjust and require judicial correction. Under this lens, power dynamics and historical grievances become the basis for legal action, even when the Constitution or statute law offers no such guidance. This reasoning often leads judges to bypass precedent, distort legislative intent, or even reinterpret the Constitution in ways that serve current ideological goals.

If a law is neutral on its face and equally applied but produces unequal outcomes across demographic lines, some courts now presume the law itself to be discriminatory. This presumption—rarely supported by robust evidence of intent or effect—encourages rulings that disregard the complex realities behind group outcomes and the trade-offs of judicial remedies.

If, for example, illegal alien gang members are disproportionately disadvantaged than well-situated citizens, this has to be because of some actual class-based conspiracy, systemic racism, white privilege, or unstated and unproven policy of discrimination. Therefore, they are owed the same constitutional rights as American citizens, including a presumption of innocence even if they are here illegally and have committed heinous crimes.

Precedent Becomes a Casualty

The principle of stare decisis—the idea that courts should follow prior rulings—anchors legal stability. But in the current climate, precedent is often sacrificed when it conflicts with the desired social or political outcome. Legal doctrines painstakingly developed over decades can be overturned or ignored in a single opinion, not because they were legally flawed but because they no longer align with a new moral vision embraced by the court.

This erosion has real consequences. It undermines public trust in the judiciary, fosters legal uncertainty, and damages the credibility of the courts as impartial institutions.

The Constitution as an Activist Tool, Not a Guardrail

Judges who once saw the Constitution as a boundary to be respected now often treat it as a tool to be molded. Instead of asking what the Constitution permits, they ask what it should permit—or demand—according to modern values. This results in constitutional interpretations that resemble policy platforms rather than legal rulings.

By prioritizing social theories over constitutional fidelity, courts risk doing actual harm to the very communities they claim to protect. Judicial intervention that forces outcomes can inflame divisions, undermine democratic processes, and encourage dependency on courts rather than community engagement or legislative solutions.

Real-World Examples of Judicial Overreach

Judicial overreach in immigration law, particularly concerning the deportation of criminal illegal aliens, has become a focal point of contention in recent legal and political debates. Critics argue that certain judicial decisions impede the executive branch's authority to enforce immigration laws effectively.

1. Deportation of Criminal Aliens to South Sudan

In May 2025, U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy issued a ruling halting the deportation of eight individuals, predominantly non-South Sudanese, to South Sudan. The judge determined that the Trump administration violated a court order by denying these individuals sufficient time to challenge their deportation and failed to assess whether they faced harm upon return. This decision was met with criticism from the administration, which labeled the ruling as an example of judicial overreach interfering with national security and foreign policy. The Washington Post+1New York Post+1

2. Use of the Alien Enemies Act for Deportations

The Trump administration invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport individuals, including alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, to El Salvador. However, U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order, stating that the administration's use of this act lacked historical precedent during peacetime and bypassed necessary legal procedures. The administration's defense emphasized the need to address threats posed by these individuals, while critics viewed the judicial intervention as an overstep into executive authority.

3. Nationwide Injunction Against Student Visa Revocations

In May 2025, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White issued a nationwide injunction blocking the Trump administration's attempt to revoke visas for approximately 6,400 international students under the Student Criminal Alien Initiative. The administration argued that these students had law enforcement contacts, but Judge White found that the government failed to provide evidence of criminal activity and that the revocations caused undue instability. This ruling was seen by some as an example of judicial overreach affecting immigration enforcement policies.

4. Judicial Intervention in Deportation of Terrorist Threats

In March 2025, Chief Judge James E. Boasberg issued an order enjoining the deportation of Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act. The administration argued that these individuals posed significant threats to national security, but the judge's decision to halt the deportations was criticized by some as an overreach into matters of foreign policy and national security.

5. Wisconsin Judge Arrested for Obstructing ICE

In April 2025, Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan was arrested by the FBI on charges of obstructing an immigration arrest. The arrest followed allegations that she helped an individual evade ICE agents within her courthouse. The incident raised questions about the balance between judicial independence and cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

The Consequences of Judicial Overreach

When judges take on the role of policymakers, they weaken the principle of separation of powers. Worse, they create a legal environment where outcomes matter more than process, where political alignment supersedes legal reasoning. This fosters polarization, encourages litigation as a tool of social engineering, and places critical questions in the hands of unelected officials rather than accountable representatives.

Communities suffer when the rule of law is replaced by rule by ideology. Legal clarity gives way to legal confusion, and respect for courts erodes. Most dangerously, the Constitution becomes a flexible instrument of power rather than a foundational charter of liberty and order.

Bottom line…

What’s needed is not a judiciary that retreats from tough questions or is rooted in the politics of the moment, but one that approaches them with judicial probity and humility. Judges must remember that their role is to interpret, not invent. They must resist the pressure to act as saviors in robes and return to being stewards of the law.

Only by restoring judicial restraint can we preserve the Constitution—and the communities it was designed to protect.

Until then, we are so screwed.

-- Steve


“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS


THE LAZY BASTARDS IN CONGRESS: HOW LAWMAKERS ABDICATE POWER AND FUEL PRESIDENTIAL OVERREACH

Congress-lazy-3
I remember a time when Congress was the hub of American democracy, drafting laws, debating policy, and jealously guarding its constitutional powers of the pen and purse.

Today? Too many Members of Congress are little more than highly-paid political actors, content to sketch vague outlines of legislation, set some budget limits, and toss the real work over the “separation of powers wall” to the executive branch like a hot potato.

Let’s call it what it is: legislative laziness. The hard work of governing, holding hearings, hashing out the details, and writing the rules has been replaced with a shrug and a signature. Congress punts. The executive branch catches. Agencies write the regulations. Presidents issue executive orders. And voilà — the constitutional balance of power tilts even further toward the White House.

Even Congressional hearings are a joke, with each member given five to seven minutes to create snapshots and sound-bites for their fundraising and campaign commercials. There is no way you can discuss a complex issue in five-minute slices.

Recent Examples of Congressional Abdication

1. Student Loan Forgiveness – Executive Order After Legislative Stalemate

President Biden’s multiple attempts to forgive student loan debt — first through a sweeping executive order in 2022, and again through a restructured workaround after the Supreme Court struck down the original order — are a textbook example. Congress could have legislated clear parameters on student loan forgiveness. Instead, it did nothing. That vacuum of responsibility gave the executive branch the political space to act unilaterally, even while legal questions bounced around an activist judiciary.

2. Border and Immigration Policy – Crisis by Executive Decree

Congress hasn’t passed major immigration reform in decades. In that void, presidents of both parties have issued sweeping executive actions. Biden used executive orders to reverse Trump-era immigration restrictions. For his part, Trump used executive action to fund portions of the border wall after Congress refused to appropriate funds, redirecting military spending without legislative approval. Congress refused to act in both cases, and presidents filled the gap with a pen and a phone.

3. War Powers and Foreign Policy – Yemen, Ukraine, and Beyond

Congress hasn’t formally declared war since World War II, yet U.S. troops have been deployed across the globe. Last year, lawmakers again ducked responsibility by failing to repeal or replace outdated Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs) from 2001 to 2002. Meanwhile, Presidents continue to commit military resources abroad — including billions in aid to Ukraine — without fully transparent debate or votes. Congress funds it through omnibus packages and “emergency appropriations” while avoiding the accountability that comes with formal war powers.

4. Pandemic Spending and Public Health Mandates

During COVID-19, Congress authorized massive emergency relief bills, but often left the details to the executive branch and federal agencies. Who got PPP loans, how eviction moratoriums were implemented, and how vaccine mandates were applied? Much of that was dictated not by Congress but by the White House and CDC guidance. Instead of legislatively revisiting and revising these policies, Congress let the agencies take the reins and the political heat.

5. TikTok Ban – More Delegation, Less Legislation

In 2024, Congress passed a law that outsourced the decision to ban TikTok to the President by tying it to divestment requirements. Instead of banning it directly, lawmakers left the implementation to executive discretion, which gave the illusion of decisive action while offloading responsibility for the consequences.

Presidency by Default

Presidents — Democrat or Republican — aren’t exactly stealing power. They’re just picking up what Congress drops. And each time lawmakers duck the hard decisions, they send a clear signal: “Let the President do it.”

We weren’t supposed to live in a country where major policy decisions on debt relief, war, immigration, digital privacy, or public health are made through temporary executive orders and agency guidelines instead of real, binding legislation.

The Founders did not intend for unelected bureaucrats or a lone executive to write the rules we live under. Article I of the Constitution vests all legislative power in Congress. Not some. Not most. All of it.

Even Congressional Hearings Are a Joke

And don’t be fooled by the spectacle of congressional hearings. These, too, have become performative farces — less about oversight or serious inquiry, and more about creating content for the next fundraising email or campaign ad. Each member gets five minutes. Five. That’s barely enough time to clear your throat, let alone unpack a complicated issue like national security, AI regulation, or monetary policy.

But that’s not the point anymore. Hearings aren’t designed to produce clarity, solutions, or legislative insight. They’re chopped into bite-sized segments where lawmakers perform for the cameras, interrupt witnesses for gotcha moments, and deliver prewritten monologues aimed at the political base. The substance? An afterthought. The structure itself ensures that no genuine deliberation or sustained interrogation can happen.

Imagine trying to cross-examine a witness, parse constitutional implications, or understand a billion-dollar policy’s downstream effects — all in five-minute slices, with no back-and-forth continuity, and half the room empty. It’s legislative theater, not governance.

This isn’t oversight. It’s performance art. And it’s one more way Congress pretends to do its job while avoiding the heavy lifting of actual lawmaking.

How Congress Can Grow a Spine Again

If Congress truly wants to reclaim its role, it must:

  • Write real laws with clear definitions and limits.
  • Assert oversight over federal agencies.
  • Reclaim war powers and funding authority.
  • Push back, with legislation, not press releases, when executive orders overreach.

Until that happens, we’re not a government of laws, we’re a government of outlines, excuses, and executive improvisation. And the people we elect to legislate? They’re getting paid to watch from the bleachers while the President runs the entire game.

Bottom line…

The people we elect to write laws don’t write them. They don’t read them. They don’t enforce them. They don’t debate them seriously. Instead, they outsource the details, pass the buck, and cash their checks.

While Congress bickers, postures, and campaigns, real power slides into the hands of unelected bureaucrats and an ever-expanding executive branch.

The Constitution gave us a system of checks and balances. What we’ve got now is a system of shrugs and sidesteps.

And unless Congress wakes up and reclaims its spine — reasserting its power to legislate, oversee, and appropriate, we’re not headed for a constitutional crisis; we’re already in one.

We are so screwed.

-- Steve


“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS