Daily Pics, My Comic, and The Times
the Daily
the Comic
the Blog
Why do sheep get really anxious and nervous at night?

Because so many people are counting on them.


Little kid #1: "What does your mother do for a headache?"

Little kid #2: "She sends me out to play."


Finland is looking to join NATO for no money down, and its first month free, by referring Sweden through the alliance’s refer-a-friend program.

Speaking at a joint news conference at NATO Headquarters, Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin begged Swedish counterpart Magdalena Andersson to sign up so Finland could get a free month of membership.

“Hey, Maggie, this is a great deal. One month free and they waive the membership fee. That’s a lot of money,” Marin said. “Please. Just join for a month and then quit. You don’t even have to do one training exercise or any Article 5 stuff. C’mon.”
Marin told Andersson she had asked Serbia first, but the Balkan nation told her to “go eat a great big bag of dicks.”

The alliance introduced its popular “NATO Rewards Program” with the fall of the Iron Curtain in the early 1990s, which saw membership double from 16 to 30. Poland’s referral of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Bulgaria won it six months free, a complimentary body mass analysis, a $50 gift card to GNC, and a one-on-one personal training session with the United States.

Not to be outdone, the Russian Federation created its short-lived Comrades Club program to woo former Soviet republics and Warsaw Pact members, but its offer of a free T-54 tank failed to get any takers.


The cop asked, "Whose car is this? Where are you headed? What do you do?"

The miner replied, "Mine."


On the Internet, you can be anything you want.

It's amazing how many people choose to be stupid.

Quote of the Times;
“A nation can unite. A multicultural economic zone cannot.” - Daniel Concannon

Link of the Times;

Issue of the Times;
FDR’s policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate by Meg Sullivan

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt’s record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

“Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump,” said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA’s Department of Economics. “We found that a relapse isn’t likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies.”

In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.

“President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services,” said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. “So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies.”

Using data collected in 1929 by the Conference Board and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Cole and Ohanian were able to establish average wages and prices across a range of industries just prior to the Depression. By adjusting for annual increases in productivity, they were able to use the 1929 benchmark to figure out what prices and wages would have been during every year of the Depression had Roosevelt’s policies not gone into effect. They then compared those figures with actual prices and wages as reflected in the Conference Board data.

In the three years following the implementation of Roosevelt’s policies, wages in 11 key industries averaged 25 percent higher than they otherwise would have done, the economists calculate. But unemployment was also 25 percent higher than it should have been, given gains in productivity.

Meanwhile, prices across 19 industries averaged 23 percent above where they should have been, given the state of the economy. With goods and services that much harder for consumers to afford, demand stalled and the gross national product floundered at 27 percent below where it otherwise might have been.

“High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns,” Ohanian said. “As we’ve seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market’s self-correcting forces.”

The policies were contained in the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which exempted industries from antitrust prosecution if they agreed to enter into collective bargaining agreements that significantly raised wages. Because protection from antitrust prosecution all but ensured higher prices for goods and services, a wide range of industries took the bait, Cole and Ohanian found. By 1934 more than 500 industries, which accounted for nearly 80 percent of private, non-agricultural employment, had entered into the collective bargaining agreements called for under NIRA.

Cole and Ohanian calculate that NIRA and its aftermath account for 60 percent of the weak recovery. Without the policies, they contend that the Depression would have ended in 1936 instead of the year when they believe the slump actually ended: 1943.

Roosevelt’s role in lifting the nation out of the Great Depression has been so revered that Time magazine readers cited it in 1999 when naming him the 20th century’s second-most influential figure.

“This is exciting and valuable research,” said Robert E. Lucas Jr., the 1995 Nobel Laureate in economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. “The prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of macroeconomics, and if we can’t understand what happened in the 1930s, how can we be sure it won’t happen again?”

NIRA’s role in prolonging the Depression has not been more closely scrutinized because the Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional within two years of its passage.

“Historians have assumed that the policies didn’t have an impact because they were too short-lived, but the proof is in the pudding,” Ohanian said. “We show that they really did artificially inflate wages and prices.”

Even after being deemed unconstitutional, Roosevelt’s anti-competition policies persisted - albeit under a different guise, the scholars found. Ohanian and Cole painstakingly documented the extent to which the Roosevelt administration looked the other way as industries once protected by NIRA continued to engage in price-fixing practices for four more years.

The number of antitrust cases brought by the Department of Justice fell from an average of 12.5 cases per year during the 1920s to an average of 6.5 cases per year from 1935 to 1938, the scholars found. Collusion had become so widespread that one Department of Interior official complained of receiving identical bids from a protected industry (steel) on 257 different occasions between mid-1935 and mid-1936. The bids were not only identical but also 50 percent higher than foreign steel prices. Without competition, wholesale prices remained inflated, averaging 14 percent higher than they would have been without the troublesome practices, the UCLA economists calculate.

NIRA’s labor provisions, meanwhile, were strengthened in the National Relations Act, signed into law in 1935. As union membership doubled, so did labor’s bargaining power, rising from 14 million strike days in 1936 to about 28 million in 1937. By 1939 wages in protected industries remained 24 percent to 33 percent above where they should have been, based on 1929 figures, Cole and Ohanian calculate. Unemployment persisted. By 1939 the U.S. unemployment rate was 17.2 percent, down somewhat from its 1933 peak of 24.9 percent but still remarkably high. By comparison, in May 2003, the unemployment rate of 6.1 percent was the highest in nine years.

Recovery came only after the Department of Justice dramatically stepped up enforcement of antitrust cases nearly four-fold and organized labor suffered a string of setbacks, the economists found.

“The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes,” Cole said. “Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened.”

News of the Times;
My wife asked if she could have a little peace and quiet while she cooked dinner.

So I took the battery out of the smoke detector.


I was just on the phone with a company that said I won my choice of either $500 or tickets to see an Elvis Presley tribute band...

I had to press 1 for the money or 2 for the show!


"Did you give the prisoner the third degree?" the police captain asked the detective.

"Yeah, we browbeat him pretty good," nodded the other. "Asked him every question and made every threat we could think of."

"And did you get a confession?" asked the sergeant.

"Not exactly," explained the officer. "All he'd say was, 'Yes dear' and he'd doze off."


Where did Noah keep the bees on the ark?

In the Ark Hives.


You know what has become a serious problem?

Beehive thefts.

I'd suggest some kind of sting operation.

Quote of the Times;
Isn’t that amazing that we have laws to protect the unborn birds and at the same time we are demanding the right to kill our unborn children. - David Hinsen

Link of the Times;

Issue of the Times;
In Praise of Broken Windows Policing by Christopher DeGroot

For many of us who live in American cities, certain things each year signal the arrival of warm weather: the joyful sounds of children playing in the street, the pleasant sight of pretty women in their dresses and skirts, and more young black men shooting each other.

It stands to reason, of course, that there would be greater incidences of violence and murder among criminal types (of all races) during warm weather. More people on the streets means more trouble to get into, and so it is common in some of our cities for a half-dozen people or more to be shot, or shot and killed, in the span of a weekend’s mischief.

So, what is to be done about this problem? Here, no innovation is necessary, because we already know what works, although, as with so many reasonable things these days, there is formidable moralistic liberal opposition. The solution is prevention, and that means broken windows policing.

Developed by two outstanding social scientists, James Q. Wilson and George Kelling, broken windows policing is a distinctly conservative approach to crime. It eschews the standard liberal fantasy—namely, obfuscating moral abstractions and technocratic social engineering—in favor of the empirical, the concrete, and the commonsensical. For the theory is based on observation of good police work itself. As Heather Mac Donald puts it in her recent essay in City Journal on Kelling,

He had accompanied cops walking foot beats in Newark, N.J., and had documented how they enforced local norms of order, whether keeping panhandlers away from bus shelters, quieting noisy youth, or rousting unknown loiterers. The law-abiding residents of the community backed the officers wholeheartedly, ridiculing norm violators and providing information on who was a “regular” and who a “stranger.”

The effectiveness of broken windows policing has been borne out by science. Mac Donald again:

Academic critics and the press…challenged the idea that allowing disorder to fester invites more lawbreaking. In 2007, sociologists in the Netherlands constructed an elegant series of experiments to test the hypothesis. The social scientists defaced discrete urban locations with graffiti and litter and created other signs of public-norm violation. In every case, passersby were far more likely themselves to litter, trespass, and disregard other social rules in the disorderly environment than in the orderly one. They were twice as likely to steal a stamped envelope visibly containing cash from a mailbox that was covered with graffiti than from a mailbox that was pristine.

Other research also has demonstrated the considerable value of the method. Broken windows policing is the reason for the well-known reductions in crime in New York City in the 1990s and the 2000s. I myself have witnessed its effectiveness in the Philadelphia area. Some years ago, while working as a reporter for a small newspaper in Delaware County, PA, I saw a group of black male high school students fighting on the streets of Upper Darby shortly after school had let out. Such violence is rare in Center City Philadelphia, at least, because every afternoon during the school year, the streets are packed with cops who keep the youngsters in line. Out of curiosity, I have sometimes struck up conversations with these men. “These kids are so bad that they need all of you guys out here?” I half-joked to one a few weeks ago. “Pretty much,” he replied, and I thanked him for his thankless work.

There is ample evidence that, insofar as police do not do or stop doing broken windows policing, crime is high or increases. The most famous example of this phenomenon is the Ferguson effect. According to Wikipedia, “the term was coined by Doyle Sam Dotson III, the chief of the St. Louis police, to account for an increased murder rate in some U.S. cities following the Ferguson unrest.”

Why, then, isn’t broken windows policing the norm in the U.S.? Why is it so controversial for police to clear the streets in neighborhoods where it’s reasonable to believe that not doing so may allow for violent crime, or rather, more of it?

There are many reasons. There are more than a few blacks who, resenting their group’s lesser overall social status, do not want to accept group disparities in crime rates, who do not want to face the consequences of human action. To some extent, that is understandable. Influenced by awareness of the past injustices blacks suffered—slavery, Jim Crow, police brutality—blacks and others think that group disparities in crime rates must be owing to discrimination, to police “targeting” blacks. But though discrimination, and unjust police violence, against blacks still occur, there has been tremendous progress in this area. While it may seem counterintuitive to some, today police are far more likely to be murdered by blacks than vice versa. The politically incorrect reality is that, at only about 4 percent of the population, black men under 40 commit more than half of all homicides, and are disproportionately represented in violent crime generally.

Nor can poverty, the common liberal explanation (motivated by blind pity), account for this. There are places around the world where, though people are poorer than anyone in our poorest cities, violent crime rates are still a lot lower than those in Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis, and other American ghettos. Though poverty is correlated to crime, poverty does not cause crime, because people do have free will and choose to do what they do.

Nevertheless, we are not born as responsible moral agents. We must be socialized and learn to live by virtuous habits. And here many parents, especially among whites, blacks, and Hispanics, are failing. Not that poor parenting alone is to blame—there are plenty of people who repeatedly make bad choices despite having received good parenting. Although much of morality, in all places and times, is just a mask for power and utter hypocrisy, no culture can do without morality, and my friend Amy Wax is right that we require what she calls “the courage to moralize.” Yet such moralizing has to be unflinchingly truthful and sincere, willing to go against the grain. That is what she means by courage.

The problem, though, is that this virtue is hindered by the delusions and class interests of genteel liberals. For rather than realizing that some people just need to change their lives, and to be told to change their lives, these wrongheaded moralists constantly read discrimination into contexts where it does not exist, and condescendingly treat others as nothing but passive victims of poverty, as if to be poor were an intrinsically criminal or degenerate condition. In some cases, this deplorable habit is attributable to ignorance. In others, to fear of appearing racist. In still others, to careerism.

All of these defects are common among social scientists and intellectuals, who have, after all, much to gain by being or appearing to be on the right side of error, so to speak. In a penetrating essay in the summer 2017 issue of City Journal, “What Criminologists Don’t Say, and Why,” criminologists John Paul Wright and Matt DeLisi wrote:

[C]riminologists’ lack of direct contact with subjects, situations, and neighborhoods—their propensity to abstraction—invites misunderstandings about the reality of crime. Most academics have never met with women who have been raped or children who have been molested, or seen the carnage wrought by a bullet that passed through a human skull, or spent a lot of time with police on the street. The gulf between numbers on a spreadsheet and the harsh realities of the world sometimes fosters a romanticized view of criminals as victims, making it easier for criminologists to overlook the damage that lawbreakers cause—and to advocate for more lenient policies and treatment.

Compare these sobering words to what George Orwell said in a letter of October 1938: “What sickens me about left-wing people, especially the intellectuals, is their utter ignorance of the way things actually happen. I was always struck by this when I was in Burma and used to read anti-imperialist stuff.”

To be sure, some of these leftists mean well, but their moral biases, which blind them to the crucial uncomfortable facts, are nonetheless harmful. Perceiving a nonexistent morality play in situations where it is necessary to face “the harsh realities of the world,” including a great many failures of personal responsibility, does not help others—though it does allow you to maintain your weak-willed failure to recognize the truth. Simply throwing money at bad habits—the common “solution” of what John Derbyshire calls “Good Whites” - does nothing to alter them. On the contrary, it merely enables them and effectively justifies the faults and excuses of those who need to change - which only they can do for themselves.

As with incompetent criminologists and other social scientists, so with journalists. Today, much of what passes for journalism is about as intellectually responsible as a game of Whisper Down the Lane. The propaganda of ignorant journalists serves to obscure understanding and to inspire resentment and divisiveness throughout the country. This is particularly true when it comes to reporting on police work. Thus, where people should be trying to live better, they are presented with a cloud of cheap moral confusion in which they can easily take refuge, an option that is certainly preferable to the hard work of self-examination and self-correction.

By giving cops so much discretion, broken windows policing entails huge potential for discrimination and misconduct. So, it must be conducted with the utmost internal scrutiny. Independent of that necessity, however, the complexity of certain situations, and the limitations of human knowledge and judgment, are such that sometimes mistakes are inevitable. Anyway, broken windows policing works and should be the norm everywhere. Whether the U.S. will have the will to implement it as such is another question.

News of the Times;
I whispered to the librarian, "Do you have any books on paranoia?"

She whispered back, "They're behind you."


My neighbor boasts constantly about being able to take naps whenever and wherever he feels like it.

Fuvking braggart.

I don’t know how he sleeps at night.



Someone ripped the 5th month out of my calendar, I'm dis-Mayed.

I'm pretty sure the person who put the first ‘r' in February was also in charge of spelling Wednesday.

Hydration tip; Drink one gallon of water every day helps you avoid other people's drama because you're always in the bathroom peeing.

Be decisive; The road of life is paved with flat squirrels who couldn't make a decision.

Behind every great man is the drawer I need to get into, why are you even in the kitchen right now?

Pubs: The official sunblock of Ireland.

Smashmouth was right; The years start coming and they really don't stop coming.

About time to hit up the boss for a Cost-of-Driving raise.

Prince Harry made a surprise visit to a rodeo in Texas this week and for those wondering, it WAS his first rodeo.

Survivor returned to TV Wednesday night, with everything going on in the world, it seems redundant.


The favorite vegetables in Washington, D.C.? In Congress, it's celery.

At the White House, carrots.

And of course, at the Supreme Court, leeks.


Elon Musk went to bed thinking he owns Twitter.

Then the mail-in ballots arrived at 2am.

Quote of the Times;
When pregnant, the cells of the baby migrate into the mothers bloodstream and then circle back into the baby, it’s called “fetal-maternal microchimerism”.? For 41 weeks, the cells circulate and merge backwards and forwards, and after the baby is born, many of these cells stay in the mother’s body, leaving a permanent imprint in the mothers tissues, bones, brain, and skin, and often stay there for decades. Even if a pregnancy doesn't go to full term or if you have an abortion, these cells still migrate into your bloodstream. Research has shown that if a mother's heart is injured, fetal cells will rush to the site of the injury and change into different types of cells that specialize in mending the heart. The baby helps repair the mother, while the mother builds the baby. How cool is that? - Amy Torba

Link of the Times;

Issue of the Times;
Saving the Birthing People From Having to Birth by Daniel Greenfield

Are women powerful or powerless?

The Left erased women. The “W” word, a concept so fundamental that every human culture and even animals understand it (proving that a donkey is smarter than a Democrat), vanished within a matter of years to be replaced by “birthing people”.

Now the Democrats vow to save the “birthing people” from having to “birth”.

Leftists used to accuse conservatives of reducing women to “baby-making machines” until they decided to go ahead and redefine women as “birthing machines” (which is completely different). That triumph of social justice, akin to spending a decade stamping out the use of “colored people”, only to resurrect it as “people of color”, was just another case of leftist projection.

Democrats spent generations reducing women to abortion or birthing people who don’t birth. Redefining womanhood as a state of mind that anyone, no matter how hairy, can identify with and become, eliminated all the other planks of the feminist agenda leaving only abortion.

And with Roe v. Wade on the ropes, the Left has women exactly where it wants them.

“Birthing people” emphasizes vulnerability. Even as it denies biological reality, it focuses on a very specific biological function, paring away everything else to play pregnancy gatekeepers.

The familiar game plan of identity politics is to reduce individuals to a group, and then to define that group in such a way that it appears perpetually vulnerable. “Birthing people”, like inventing the notion that every black person is just a police encounter away from sudden racist death, is the Marxist reductionism of everything that makes us human to power relationships.

To use “birthing people” is to define womanhood as a state of biological oppression in which there are only two states of being, pregnant or not, and making that into a partisan choice. To be pregnant is the fiendish plot of Republicans, while being saved from pregnancy is the noble work of Democrats. Gratitude means that birthing people” are expected not to quibble at the liberation of Bob wanting to be let into the bathroom or Mike wanting to join the swim team.

Collective liberation requires intersectional sacrifices from everyone. Especially women.

Permanent victimhood is perpetual oppression. Like the arsonist firefighter, leftists enslave the people they claim to be saving. After all, without a fresh supply of victims what would they do?

Manufacturing victimhood requires the destruction of the victim’s sense of control over their life.

Victims lose their dignity and their empathy, coming to see life as a vicious struggle that they are ill-equipped to survive on their own. The victim learns to hate everyone else because they have been taught that everyone is out to get them. They learn to take no responsibility for their own behavior because they believe that they are incapable of making meaningful choices.

This is the state of the diverse rainbow of victims rallying under the banner of social justice. It’s also the state to which the Left aspires to reduce every single human being it can brainwash.

This was the sorry state of much of the human race for most of human history. It’s still the state of the average person living in a third world dictatorship. And that’s no coincidence at all.

Every time America tries to introduce democracy to people who think like this, it fails miserably, just as it fails miserably in the slums ruled by Democrats, who have the same relationship to democracy as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, because freedom is not a system.

It’s a state of mind.

Convince people that they aren’t free and they’ll act that way no matter how many constitutional rights they might possess. And persuade people that they are free, and then no matter how oppressed they may be, they will not be subjugated without a long struggle and rivers of blood.

Americans were not free because they had a Constitution, they made a Constitution because they freed themselves. The failure to understand this important distinction led to this crisis.

The Left spent much of American history systemically convincing people that they were not free. The radical movement used every Constitutional right and every social freedom to seize control of the means of communication and indoctrination to force that core message through the system. To the extent that much of the country believes that it is not free, it has succeeded.

Abortion is one of its wedge issues. It’s a powerful wedge issue because it can be used to convince women that they’re powerless. The pro-choice movement, like every leftist slogan, is an inversion. Its actual message is that women don’t have a choice. That the “choice” is in the hands of two factions, only of which intends to allow women to choose as long as it’s in power.

What the Left wants from women is to replace actual choice with the illusion of a binary choice. Its message is the familiar one of Big Brother, that power comes from surrendering individualism, and that security can only be found in the ranks of angry mobs. That is what we were seeing outside the Supreme Court. And it is what we see throughout identity politics.

The Left gaslights its professional victims into nullifying everything about themselves except their greatest vulnerability which it promises that it can help them control. Power, the abortion movement tells the “birthing people” who used to be women, comes from not giving birth. The only way to maintain control over your life is to kill your children before they can be born.

Victims are notoriously easy to convince that preemptive aggression is self-defense, that the only way to be safe is absolute selfishness, and that their feelings are all that should matter.

Wokeness is the social manifestation of this state of mind in workplaces and universities.

The Left claims that it teaches pride and strength, but what it actually inculcates are the insecurities of shame and weakness. It reduces its victims to their worst and urges them to be proud of that and to lash out at anyone who might expect anything better from them.

Having erased women, the Left tells “birthing people” to take pride in dead children.

News of the Times;
I wanted to really splurge for Mom this Mother's Day.

How do you wrap up a gallon of gas?


What's the difference between a rock guitarist and a jazz guitarist?

A rock guitarist plays 4 notes in front of 1000 people, while a jazz guitarist plays 1000 notes in front of 4 people.


My neighbor. She’s single. She’s shapely & beautiful and she lives right across the street...

I watched her as she got home from work this evening. I was surprised when she walked across the street, up my driveway and knocked on my door.

I opened the door, she looked at me and said, ”I just got home, and I have this strong urge to have a good time, get drunk, and have fun tonight. Are you doing anything?”

I quickly replied, “Nope, I’m free!”

“Great” she said. ”Can you watch my dog?”


One of the ways Queen Elizabeth celebrated her 96th birthday last week was doing one of her favorite things; going for a drive.

The official royal rule: If you don't like how the Queen drives, stay off the sidewalks.


FYI: George Jetson was a 40-year-old in 2062, which means he was born this year.

Quote of the Times;
“I think we are in a proxy war with Russia. We are using the Ukrainians as our proxy forces.” - Philip Breedlove, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO

Link of the Times;

Issue of the Times;
What Do We Know About COVID So Far? by Ted Noel, M.D.

With all the thousands of studies bombarding the medical community, it’s helpful to set our microscope aside and look at the bigger picture. It’s virtually certain that the virus was engineered in Wuhan with financial and technical assistance directed by that highly competent bureaucrat, Anthony Fauci. But that doesn’t tell us what we should expect as the virus moves through society. For that, we must look at the science. And I don’t mean “I am science” Fauci. I mean real scientific data, something with which Fauci has little acquaintance.

Perhaps we should start with that great scientist, Oprah Winfrey, who recently opined that ending the mask mandate on airliners was “premature.” As John Adams noted at the Boston Massacre Trial, “Facts are stubborn things.” They aren’t “my truth” or “your truth.” Facts don’t care who you are or what you think. When we state facts, we are presenting a verbal picture of reality. And the fact is that public mask-wearing has never been demonstrated to have any public health benefit. The only time that mask-wearing does any good is when health care workers in high exposure environments wear properly fitted, donned, and disposed of N-95 or better respirators. Anything else is virtue signaling that denies the fact that public masking (a) doesn’t work and (b) has serious downsides.

The next great scientist is Bill Gates, who recently opined that we are in for another COVID wave that is likely to be more transmissible (true) and more deadly (false). Every variant of COVID has followed Muller’s Ratchet, becoming more contagious and less deadly. Even Delta was a bit less virulent than Alpha, but Omicron showed that more mutations encourage virus survival by infecting more people without killing them. This is the natural course of viruses, but anyone with a vested interest in vaccine profits or lockdown power simply cannot allow this fact to be known. And that brings us to Saint Fauci.

The Supreme Lord of NIAID popped up recently announcing that we might need more lockdowns to prevent the spread of some new variant. The experience of the last two years should have proved to everyone that lockdowns are bad. They kill people with other medical problems due to foregone care. As then-Governor Cuomo of New York learned, sixty percent of NYC cases were directly caused by lockdowns. When people are stuck in recirculated air with infected victims, they get sick, as the Kirkland, Washington, nursing home tragedy proved. But tyrants can’t learn, and Cuomo multiplied New York’s headstone count by sending COVID patients to assisted-living facilities to kill others. All that could have been avoided if our public “health” authorities had taken a few minutes to read the epidemiology literature. We knew that lockdowns were bad long before COVID was invented.

The occupant of the White House and the Chief Cackler are our next scientists. They both live in a protective bubble and are multiply vaccinated and boosted. They periodically opine that we may all need another “booster.” But Kamala’s re-infections prove that the booster will not work. In fact, we now know that Canada, Israel, Gibraltar, and others have increased infection rates in vaccinated individuals. This appears to be true in the US as well, but the CDC is reluctant to release the data.

This vaccine failure is due in part to direct immune suppression by the shot. The military has made it clear to Senator Johnson’s committee that not only does it not prevent infection, but it also triples the rate of breast cancer, with even higher multiples for other cancers. Yet that great scientist, SecDef Lord Austin, mandated that all military personnel get the Fauci Ouchy. He is oblivious to the fact that many highly trained (translation: expensive) warfighters such as Special Forces and pilots have been rendered unable to serve due to the mental and physical effects of the spike protein presented by the shots.

Another reason for vaccine failure is that the virus has mutated to forms that have spike proteins markedly different from the alpha variant in the vaccine. In short, they’re different diseases, just like flu is actually a host of different diseases. The vaccine and boosters don’t have any meaningful benefit against the current ailment.

I could list a host of other “scientific” authorities who are making false claims, but all that would do is bore you. In particular, we should regard anything from the CDC or Big Pharma with great suspicion, since it is contradicted by most evidence. I’ll simply leave you with a set of bullet points, all supported by large volumes of scientific data.

• COVID-19 is a mild disease with almost zero mortality for people under age 55.
• Serious co-existing disease is the best predictor of mortality in all age groups.
• Public masking has zero effect on transmission of airborne diseases, including COVID.
• The “vaccines” do not protect you from getting COVID or transmitting COVID. They do not lessen the severity of COVID when you get it. That is a result of the newer variants being less severe to start with. The vaccines and boosters are directed at a disease that doesn’t exist anymore.
• The “vaccines” reduce your immunity, making you more likely to catch symptomatic disease. This also makes it much easier for numerous cancers to grow.
• Natural immunity from disease recovery is far better than any supposed benefit of shots. If you got the vaccine and then got sick, your immunity afterward is less than if you didn’t get the shot at all.
• Remdesivir (Fauci gets $$$ when it’s used) does not improve survival and probably causes other problems.
• Molnuvirapir, the new oral agent, isn’t as effective as Ivermectin, which the CDC steadfastly refuses to support. If you do get sick, get immediate treatment with Ivermectin. If your illness is from a different virus, it will probably help against that as well.
• Locales that opened up early generally have disease and death rates better than others.
• The safest place is outdoors, where the sun destroys viruses and they are dispersed into infinity.

I’m sure I left something out, but I’ll leave you with a couple of key items. First, don’t get the shot. It has no benefits and a host of bad effects I don’t have space to talk about. Second, take vitamin D3 and zinc. They have been shown to reduce viral infections a lot. Third, get a stock of Ivermectin. If you do get sick, start it immediately on your way to your urgent care. And don’t stop taking it even if they say to. They can lose their licenses if they agree with you taking it.

Government-based authorities are lying to us. I know that’s strong, but it’s the truth. The version of COVID that’s around now is a minor illness that is largely preventable and easily treated. That is a far better choice than getting a potentially deadly shot that a bunch of power brokers love. There will be many more variants, but the final variant is communism.

Ted Noel MD is a retired Anesthesiologist/Intensivist who podcasts and posts on social media as DoctorTed and @vidzette. His DoctorTed podcasts are available on many podcast channels.

News of the Times;
My niece, Sue, plans to open a discount grocery store where everything expires in a week.

She's going to call it Best By...


I went in a public bathroom today.

There was a sign up saying they were giving out complimentary pronouns.

I took a she/it.




"I am John with the C.I.A."

"I know."

"And how do you know that?"

"You called a phone that has no SIM card, no battery, and is broken."


Reminder: If you're being chased by a bunch of taxidermists, DO NOT play dead.


I was at the airport today and I saw a man pass out and fall on the luggage carousel.

He eventually came around.

Quote of the Times;
Every major war since 1913 can be directly attributed to the United States Federal Reserve Bank, which is controlled by globalists. - Ron Paul

Link of the Times;

Issue of the Times;
The Ukraine War Is A Racket by Ron Paul

"War is a racket," wrote US Maj. General Smedley Butler in 1935. He explained: "A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. “It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

Gen. Butler’s observation describes the US/NATO response to the Ukraine war perfectly.

The propaganda continues to portray the war in Ukraine as that of an unprovoked Goliath out to decimate an innocent David unless we in the US and NATO contribute massive amounts of military equipment to Ukraine to defeat Russia. As is always the case with propaganda, this version of events is manipulated to bring an emotional response to the benefit of special interests.

One group of special interests profiting massively on the war is the US military-industrial complex. Raytheon CEO Greg Hayes recently told a meeting of shareholders that, "Everything that’s being shipped into Ukraine today, of course, is coming out of stockpiles, either at DOD or from our NATO allies, and that’s all great news. Eventually we’ll have to replenish it and we will see a benefit to the business."

He wasn’t lying. Raytheon, along with Lockheed Martin and countless other weapons manufacturers are enjoying a windfall they have not seen in years. The US has committed more than three billion dollars in military aid to Ukraine. They call it aid, but it is actually corporate welfare: Washington sending billions to arms manufacturers for weapons sent overseas.

By many accounts these shipments of weapons like the Javelin anti-tank missile (jointly manufactured by Raytheon and Lockheed Martin) are getting blown up as soon as they arrive in Ukraine. This doesn’t bother Raytheon at all. The more weapons blown up by Russia in Ukraine, the more new orders come from the Pentagon.

Former Warsaw Pact countries now members of NATO are in on the scam as well. They’ve discovered how to dispose of their 30-year-old Soviet-made weapons and receive modern replacements from the US and other western NATO countries.

While many who sympathize with Ukraine are cheering, this multi-billion dollar weapons package will make little difference. As former US Marine intelligence officer Scott Ritter said on the Ron Paul Liberty Report last week:

"I can say with absolute certainty that even if this aid makes it to the battlefield, it will have zero impact on the battle. And Joe Biden knows it."

What we do see is that Russians are capturing modern US and NATO weapons by the ton and even using them to kill more Ukrainians. What irony. Also, what kinds of opportunities will be provided to terrorists, with thousands of tons of deadly high-tech weapons floating around Europe? Washington has admitted that it has no way of tracking the weapons it is sending to Ukraine and no way to keep them out of the hands of the bad guys.

War is a racket, to be sure. The US has been meddling in Ukraine since the end of the Cold War, going so far as overthrowing the government in 2014 and planting the seeds of the war we are witnessing today. The only way out of a hole is to stop digging. Don’t expect that any time soon. War is too profitable.

News of the Times;
Older Newer
Several animals were savagely beaten in the making of this page, including but not limited to; kittens, rabbits, zebu, skunks, puppies, and platypus. Also several monkeys where force fed crack to improve their typing skills.

And someone shot a duck.

An Images & Ideas, Inc. Service.

No Vegans were harmed in the making of this site. We're looking for a new provider.