The Overpopulation Myth

This topic will be familiar to readers of my blog. Use the search bar for Malthus, eugenics, depopulation, ecoscience, etc. Population growth rate has been declining for decades. Report here by  American Institute for Economic Research 3 September 2025 and introduce Rhoda Wilson at The Expose

Overpopulation myth: Propaganda is the reason for the sharp population declines facing most developed nations

By Rhoda Wilson at The Expose News on  and AIER (American Institute for Economic Research)

The Earth is expected to reach “peak population” before the end of this century, with most developed nations facing sharp population declines and ageing populations.

The reason for this decline is attributed to the fear of overpopulation, which was perpetuated by thinkers like Paul Ehrlich and led to the implementation of draconian family planning measures, including coercive sterilisations and abortions.

Many countries, including Japan, South Korea and Italy, are already experiencing population decline, and the world population is expected to peak between 2060 and 2080, followed by a decline, with significant consequences for the global economy and society.

The world is not overpopulated, AEIR explains.  If the entire world’s population moved to Texas, the population density would be a little more than New York, much less than Paris and dramatically less than Manila.


Peak Population: Prepare for a Shrinking World

By American Institute for Economic Research (“AEIR”), 3 September 2025

Earth is going to hit “peak population” before the end of this century. Within 25 years, most of the world’s developed nations will be facing sharp population declines, with shrinking pools of young people working to support an ever-ageing population.

The reason is not famine, war or pestilence. We did this to ourselves by creating a set of draconian solutions to a problem that didn’t even exist. Fear has always been the best tool for social control, and the fear of humanity was deployed by generations of “thinkers” on the control-obsessed left. 

Most starkly, Paul Ehrlich made a remarkably frightening, and entirely false, prediction in 1968, in his book ‘Population Bomb’ (PDF):

The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines –  hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate …

We may be able to keep famine from sweeping across India for a few more years. But India can’t possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980. Nothing can prevent the death of tens of millions of people in India in the 1970s[1] …

And England? If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.[2]

[Note from The Exposé:  There have been many versions of ‘The Population Bomb’ published over the decades.  We browsed through ‘The Population (Revised)’ (Rivercity Press, 1975), which is the version hyperlinked at the beginning of the quote, and we were unable to find the last two statements noted as [1] and [2].  This does not mean they are incorrect.  For example, [2] is included by Wikiquote as a quote from Paul R. Ehrlich.]

PJ O’Rourke explained what was going on in his 1994 book ‘All the Trouble in the World’:

The bullying of citizens by means of dreads and fights has been going on since paleolithic times. Greenpeace fundraisers on the subject of global warming are not much different than the tribal Wizards on the subject of lunar eclipses. “Oh no, Night Wolf is eating the Moon Virgin. Give me silver and I will make him spit her out.”All the Trouble in the World: The Lighter Side of Famine, Pestilence, Destruction and Death, PJ O’Rourke, 1994, pg. 12

Family Planning and State Intervention

But there is more going on here than just gulling the gullible; the overpopulation hysteria of the 1960s and 1970s had world-changing consequences, effects that are just now becoming clear. It’s not fair (though it is fun) to blame Ehrlich; the truth is that the full-blown family-size freakout emerged from a pseudo-science that held growth was a threat to prosperity. Influential organisations were founded by very worried people. The Population Council and the International Planned Parenthood Federation were both created early on, in 1952. Developing nations began promoting aggressive family planning initiatives, often with substantial support, and sometimes with coercive pressures, from Western governments and international agencies.

The United Nations, the World Bank and bilateral donors, particularly the United States through USAID, increasingly integrated population control into foreign aid programmes. High fertility rates, particularly in Asia, Africa and Latin America, were viewed not merely as demographic trends but as Malthusian obstacles to modernisation, poverty alleviation and global security. China implemented its infamous “One-Child Policy” in 1979 with coercive measures, including forced sterilisations and abortions. India conducted mass sterilisation campaigns, particularly during the Emergency period (1975–1977), often using force or extreme social pressure, including withholding ration cards. A number of countries in East Asia saw aggressive state-controlled programmes, often funded by the World Bank, that sought to use questionable and coercive methods to reduce population growth quickly and permanently.

In more than a few cases, of course, the availability of contraception was actually a means of freeing women to make a choice to have fewer children. But combining this choice with state-sponsored coercion meant that even those who wanted more children, or would have wanted more children if the social pressures had been more sensibly used, were diverted from their private dream of several children.

That would be bad enough, if that were the end of the story. But it is only the beginning, because the sanctimony of scientism has created an actual population crisis, one that will affect the world for decades. Some nations may never recover, at least not in their present form. That crisis is the population bust.

Shrinking Planet: Which Nations Will Peak When?

I did some back-of-the-envelope calculations, using available data. What I was trying to calculate was the year of projected peak population for the 26 countries where the data are reliable enough to make an educated guess. That projection is based on Total Fertility Rates, and accounting for immigration, and mortality (life expectancy) trends. These estimates are, at best, approximations, because in some cases the data are not strictly comparable. But the data I do have are drawn from the United Nations World Population Prospects, OECD statistical reports, and national demographic data.

Expose News: Fertility rates and population peaks reveal the overpopulation myth: propaganda and sharp declines in developed nations exposed!

Peak population years are based on UN World Population Prospects (PDF) mid‑variant projections, supported by regional reports noting that most European and North American nations will peak in the late 2030s. Japan already peaked around 2008, South Korea around 2025, and Israel – with a total fertility rate (“TFR”) near 3.0 – may not peak this century.

As is noted in the final row of the table, the replacement rate for total fertility is about 2.10, given trends in life expectancy and assuming no net migration.

This raises a question: if all these countries have TFRs below replacement, what is actually happening to the world’s population? The answer is simple, though it has not been talked about much. The world population is going to peak and then start to decline. The total number of people on Earth will begin to fall sometime in the near future. The actual date of the peak is a matter of conjecture, since it depends on specific assumptions, but the estimates appear mostly to fall between 2060 (assuming current TFRs are constant) and 2080 (if TFRs increase slightly, and life span increases):

Expose News: World population projections reveal overpopulation myth, with propaganda linked to sharp declines in developed nations. What's the real story here?
Sources United Nations Medium Fertility Projection orange line and Simplified Lancet Projection Population Scenario yellow line

None of this needed to happen, folks. There is plenty of room on Earth, as you know if you have ever flown across Australia, Canada or, for that matter, the US at night – there is a lot of empty space.

Let’s do a thought experiment: there are 8.1 billion people on Earth now. Suppose all of them lived in the US state of Texas (for those Texans reading this, I know it seems like we are moving in that direction; the traffic in Dallas is remarkable!). Texas has an area of 676,600 square kilometres. So, supposing present trends continue and literally the whole world did move to Texas, what would that look like?

Well, 8.1 billion in 676,600 km² is about 12,000 people per square kilometre. That’s slightly more dense than the five boroughs of New York (about 11,300 per square kilometre), but much less than Paris (20,000) and dramatically less than Manila (nearly 44,000). Now, New York and Paris are pretty crowded, but people do live there, and even go there voluntarily to visit sometimes. Even if the entire current global population had to move into Texas, it’d be only marginally more annoying than Manhattan at rush hour. 

So, here’s the takeaway: there was no good reason for the population hysteria of past decades. As I tried to argue in an earlier piece, those predictions were ridiculous even at the time. And we need not be concerned about reviving the “population bomb,” because there is plenty of room, even if the human population does start to grow again, and even if we all had to move to Texas.

The effects of population decline are already starting to be felt in countries such as South Korea and Japan. As the average age climbs, the absolute number of people under 40 starts to decline. Unless something changes, the world population in general, and many specific countries, will face circumstances that, until now, have only ever been observed during catastrophic plagues or savage wars: blocks of empty houses, abandoned cities and hordes of elderly people who lack the ability to provide for themselves. The difference in the present case, however, is that we are not suffering from famine or war. As Antony Davis pointed out, the current collapse of world civilisation is a consequence of a striking failure to recognise that human beings are the most valuable resource we have.

 Some Notes on Sources

You might also want to read these previous articles published by The Exposé:

Expose News: Crowded city scene challenging the overpopulation myth and exploring propaganda's role in declining populations in developed nations.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Three items regarding CO2 and the climate hoax

  1. Letter from Dr. Thorpe Watson to the Prime Minister of Canada re: CO2 (published by permission)
  2. Review of Ronald Grabyan’s 2025 study: Global Atmospheric CO2 Lags Temperature by 150 yr between 1 and 1850 AD
  3. Review of physicist Darwin Throne’s new book Hoax! Why Burning Fossil Fuels Doesn’t Cause Climate Change 

Regards,

Bud Bromley

Dear Prime Minister,

QUESTION: Do carbon emissions (aka “carbon dioxide”, “CO2”) increase the CO2 content of the atmosphere?

ANSWER: NO!

Intuitively, and without any knowledge of physical chemistry, it would have been reasonable to answer this question in the affirmative. In fact, a comparison of annual increases to annual emissions suggests that our emissions are responsible for at least 50% of the atmospheric increase.

Then why is the answer “NO”? The following solves this mystery, hopefully in terms that can be understood by people outside the scientific community, especially by our politicians.

THE MISGUIDED NARRATIVE ON CARBON EMISSIONS

The sale of carbon credits and carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies are often promoted as solutions to the climate crisis (an imaginary, political hobgoblin) but are, in reality, ineffective and misleading. These virtue-signaling practices are wasting resources by duplicating the natural carbon-absorbing role of the oceans.

Far from being a pollutant, carbon dioxide (CO2) is essential to life, as critical as water, oxygen, and sunlight. It supports plant growth and sustains ecosystems. Alarmingly, atmospheric CO2 levels are already near the threshold where plant growth will falter.

Western society’s fear that carbon emissions (i.e. CO2) will destabilize the climate stems from fatally-flawed climate models and the flawed assumption that human emissions significantly increase atmospheric CO2 levels. The latter assumption overlooks fundamental principles of physical chemistry, particularly Henry’s Law and phase equilibrium, which govern CO2 distribution between the atmosphere and oceans.

Consider a hypothetical lifeless planet with the Earth’s atmosphere. Emitting 100 tonnes of CO2 would move all of the atmosphere’s CO2 molecules closer together, thereby increasing the partial pressure of CO2 throughout the atmosphere. However, if oceans are subsequently introduced, they act as a natural sink, absorbing both new and old CO2 molecules indiscriminately until equilibrium is restored.

The new CO2 molecules need not be absorbed for this equilibrium to take effect, rendering it impossible to attribute specific atmospheric CO2 increases to human emissions.

One might assume that, given the oceans hold roughly 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere, only 2 tonnes of a 100-tonne emission would remain in the air. This oversimplification ignores Henry’s Law, which dictates that atmospheric CO2 levels depend on the non-ionic CO2 content in the ocean’s surface layer, itself influenced by sea-surface temperature (SST). Warmer oceans release more CO2, while cooler oceans absorb it. Thus, observed rises in atmospheric CO2 are closely tied to increasing SST rather than to fossil fuel emissions.

In other words, the level of atmospheric CO2 is controlled by the concentration of non-ionic CO2 in the surface layer of the oceans, all in accordance with Henry’s Law. And the concentration of non-ionic CO2 in the surface layer of the oceans is controlled by the SST. Any excess atmospheric CO2 reacts with salt water to form carbonate ions (ionic CO2 – see Figure 2 below).

In conclusion, the observed increases in atmospheric CO2 may be attributed to increases in the SST and NOT to fossil fuel emissions. The fear of such emissions as a climate destabilizer is unfounded, confirming the claim that there is no climate crisis. CCS and carbon credits misdirect resources from addressing real environmental challenges.

Respectfully submitted,

Dr. Thorpe Watson

190 Cambridge Rd.

Trail, BC V1R 2J1

250-368-3527

thorpe77@telus.net

Note the green curve adjacent to the x-axis – non-ionic CO2.

New Study: Higher CO2 Levels Do Not Precede Or Control Temperature Increases

‘Hoax!’ A Physicist’s Case Against The CO2-Driven Climate Narrative: Professor Throne’s new book: Hoax! exposes flaws in the CO2 climate narrative and shows why fossil fuels don’t drive climate change.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

On Mamdani and other regressive creatures

At least 10 more years of lawfare ahead…then constant cherry nitpicking ‘told you so’ complaints, while ignoring positives, by so-called experts and academics, not to mention mainstream media.

The people (researchers, NGO’s, govt bureaucrats at all levels, contractors) addicted to money from public dole will not give up their golden goose without a fight.  And the oligarchs who designed this mess want total control of the people and natural resources; it is not enough for them to already be able to buy anything they want, it is a compulsion to control.  It is like asking a king, count or duke in feudal England to give up his power and fiefdom from which he taxes and controls his people; he cannot accept that his people are sovereign.  King John I of England murdered most of his 20+ barons who had forced him to sign the Magna Carta which gave some sovereignty to the people.  John had those barons murdered even though most of them were his cousins and uncles.

Zohran Mamdani, Keir Starmer, Ursula von der Leyen, Hillary Clinton, and similar in all countries push universal childcare, government run grocery stores, open borders, limits to freedom and property, etc. What could possibly go wrong with programs like these? They have failed where they have been tried. They call themselves progressives or coastal progressives in their upside down Orwellian Newspeak.

Newspeak refers to a fictional language created by George Orwell for his 1949 dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. It is designed to limit freedom of thought and control the population of the fictional country Oceania by drastically reducing the vocabulary and simplifying the grammar of the English language, making it impossible to express ideas that contradict the ideology of the ruling Party. Read the book. Watch the multiple versions of the movie. Then read almost any document of United Nations, World Economic Forum, World Health Organization document, or ICLEI, “a global network of more than 2500 local and regional governments” probably being implemented in your town https://iclei.org/our_vision/ . Václav Klaus understands. The former President of the Czech Republic, authored the book Blue Planet in Green Shackles: What Is Endangered: Climate or Freedom? and another book: Free Society Fatally Endangered. https://www.klaus.cz/english-pages/

Trump and his successors will continue to shut down corrupt globalist programs, but every shutdown and defunding will be challenged in courts.  It will take time. The U.S. Congress just sits on their asses and does nothing substantive, though a law could fix it immediately, as does the European Parliament and similar in most countries.  The situation in the climate change industry after all these years of brainwashing is almost identical to the transition of the Soviet Union into Russia; the people shut it down. Today there are still many Russians who want a return to Stalin-like rule, but not enough.  Re-educating indoctrinated true believers, especially those academics who truly believe they are the experts, is much more difficult than was their indoctrination into the religion of government tyranny.

You may recall the old proverb (maybe Reagan? Or Churchill?) :  “If the government is put in charge of the desert, then soon there will be no more sand.”  If the government is in charge of the environment, then soon the environment will be destroyed.  If the government is in charge of childcare or groceries, or private property, or freedom of expression, then soon there will be no more children, groceries, private property, or free speech. These same ‘progressives’ are the same people who believe the planet is overpopulated and eugenics is the solution. They believe vaccines and geoengineering must be used to reduce human population. Apparently this lesson will surprise many people.

They never learned the lesson of the tragedy of the commons from the colonial period and the Pilgrim colony in Boston.  Academics and more recently courts fight for more government control and resist the lesson of the ‘tragedy of the commons’, which summarizes the overall problem with socialism, communism and excessive government bureaucracy in general. Government bureaucracy is a shared common resource supposedly working for the benefit of the people, but, like the overgrazed Boston pasture, the accountability and responsibility of private ownership are missing and the bureaucracy eventually grows to the point that its leaders work primarily to protect and grow the bureaucracy, their headcount and budget rather than to serve the people as originally intended.  This is how the U.S. and most other countries got our deep state swamps.

The late Jerry Pournelle (1933-2017), an American science fiction writer, journalist, and scientist described a derivative of the overall problem we face as “The Iron Law of Bureaucracy”. Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy states: “In any bureaucratic organization, there are two types of people: those devoted to the organization’s actual goals, such as dedicated teachers, engineers, and scientists, and those dedicated to the organization itself, including administrators, union officials, and headquarters staff.  In every case, the second group—the individuals focused on the bureaucracy’s survival and expansion—will ultimately gain and maintain control, writing the rules and controlling promotions within the organization. This dynamic leads to a situation where the mission of the organization is increasingly subordinated to the interests of its internal structure, often resulting in inefficiency and a focus on self-preservation rather than achieving stated objectives.” “The law has been used to explain phenomena like the persistence of government departments, the failure of reforms, and the prevalence of inaction and ritualistic behavior in large institutions.”

The tragedy of the commons is an economic and environmental theory describing a situation where individuals, acting in their own self-interest, deplete or spoil a shared resource, even though it is in everyone’s long-term interest to preserve it. This occurs because the resource is rivalrous in consumption, non-excludable, and scarce, meaning one person’s use diminishes the amount available for others, and no one can be effectively prevented from using it. The concept was popularized by ecologist Garrett Hardin in a 1968 essay published in the journal Science, although the underlying idea dates back to classical antiquity, with Aristotle observing that “That which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it”. Hardin used the example of herders sharing a common pasture; each herder benefits individually from adding more livestock, but the cost of overgrazing is shared by all, leading to the eventual ruin of the pasture.  The conservative Pilgrims in the Boston colony shared a common pasture, the Boston Common, which became dilapidated and useless because no individual owned it and took responsibility for maintaining it, and thus it was destroyed by overgrazing.

Millennials, Gen-Z’ers and younger generations who vote for Mamdani for mayor of New York City and his ilk elsewhere should study the Soviet Union. A commune sounds great, but in reality people waited in long lines in freezing weather in front of giant grocery and other stores on Red Square in Moscow. The shelves were mostly empty, the manikins mostly bare. Centrally controlled government bureaucracy was responsible for growing and distributing food and making everything according to plans produced by experts. But the plans failed time and again. But around the corner was a fully stocked grocery where ex-pats and politically connected could buy anything. Now imagine Mr. Mamdani’s latest proposals, universal child care, and government run grocery stores for example. In short order, that would become universal indoctrination, limits on numbers of children, and food shortages.

Hardin argued that this dynamic is inevitable without intervention, as individuals prioritize immediate personal gain over the collective good, leading to overconsumption and depletion of resources like water, land, and fish stocks. He cited the collapse of the Grand Banks cod fishery as a real-world example, where advances in fishing technology led to massive overfishing, ultimately destroying the fishery. The theory has been applied to modern issues such as pollution, where the atmosphere and oceans are treated as common dumps for waste, leading to problems like acid rain and climate change. Hardin concluded that the solution lies in “mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon,” suggesting that regulations, private property rights, or collective action are necessary to manage shared resources sustainably. Why is it so difficult to see that in all of history Adam Smith’s capitalism has delivered the most success to humanity?

Of course, the theory of the tragedy of the commons has been widely debated and criticized in academia.  No one should be surprised that most academics, intellectuals, globalists etc continue to argue for forms of socialism and communism or worse; most would say like Hillary Clinton ‘it takes a village’ to raise a child or to do most anything. A communal village sounds virtuous until you try it. Mao required that his people give up their metal, cookware, plows, etc for the good of the commune and tens of millions of his own people starved to death.

Some scholars argue that over-exploitation is not inevitable, as communities can manage common resources effectively through self-imposed rules and cooperation.  The work of economist Elinor Ostrom, who won the Nobel Prize, demonstrated that many common-pool resources are successfully managed by local communities without privatization or top-down government control.  Evidence please. Critics also point out that Hardin’s historical example of common land in England may be inaccurate, as the open-field system persisted for centuries without the predicted collapse. But those fields were owned with feudal responsibilities to the royal. Furthermore, Hardin’s views on overpopulation have been criticized as simplistic and racist. Despite these critiques, the concept remains a foundational idea in discussions about sustainability, resource management, and the challenges of collective action.

The founders and framers of the United States of America, as well as Adam Smith and others of the Scottish Enlightenment wrote a Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution and books of genius like The Wealth of Nations which implemented limited government, individual sovereignty, private property and personal rights, capitalism, and control of government by and for the people. But the so-called ‘coastal progressives’ like Mr. Mamdani and most Democrats in America as well as globalists around the world argue for the opposite of individual sovereignty and rights; they want to return to government control of the people, 15 minute cities and the like. If you look around the world today, governments are advocating and rapidly taking away rights of free speech, freedom of movement, property rights, religious rights, even the right to control what is injected into your own body and the information you are allowed to know. This is a war for your mind and body.

So far, it appears that most of America is standing for sovereignty, freedom and individual rights.

Meanwhile U.S. Democrats and globalists in the European Union, United Kingdom, Australia, United Nations, NGOs, etc are regressing rapidly, doubling and tripling down, like a cult, or Iran, Russia, North Korea, Venezuela or tyrant retreating to their ideological bunkers, protected by bought-and-paid for mainstream media and globalists.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Hawai’i’s mistaken net zero carbon law

Bud’s comment published under “EXCLUSIVE: Top House Committee Opens Probe Into Climate Activist Group Attempting To ‘Influence’ Judges” at https://dailycaller.com/2025/09/01/exclusive-house-judiciary-committee-probe-climate-activist-group/

Hawaii’s green net zero law should be repealed immediately.  The only effects of this law will be to increase energy costs and thus costs of everything in Hawaii.  No reduction in CO2 or warming will ever result from Hawaii’s ill-advised, misfeasant or malfeasant law. 

Hawaii’s legislature and governor did not do their due diligence.  Human-produced CO2 from for example fossil fuels does not increase temperature.  Many research papers show there is no correlation between the trend of estimated CO2 emissions from fossil fuels compared to the trend of NOAA Mauna Loa-measured CO2 in air.  This means that human-produced CO2 from fossil fuels cannot be causing climate change or global warming, therefore efforts to reduce human-produced CO2 are futile and wasted money and resources.

A cause cannot follow its effect. Correlation is insufficient evidence of cause, however, if human CO2 emissions are causing the slowly increasing slope in measured CO2 (~2.5 ppm/yr) as claimed by UN IPCC et al, then among the evidence must be a positive correlation between the slope of estimated fossil fuels CO2 emissions (the largest source of human CO2 emissions) and the measured slope of net CO2, e.g., NOAA Global Monitoring Lab Mauna Loa.  But there no such evidence exists. The slope (or time derivative) of measured CO2 trend with FOLLOWS (not leads) the time derivative of the ocean surface temperature (SST); this was reported by Kuo, Linberg and Thomson who published their finding in Nature in 1990; see https://www.nature.com/articles/343709a0

Several other studies have confirmed this using a variety of data analysis methods: The most recent of these studies is by Koutsoyiannis et al.  see https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155/5/3/35?fbclid=IwAR2U7ahMzdW0U79yGhgc-iJJoDavJ6xEhyQKG1AuoEvxcH4T_wk4s-HzkmM  

Professor Emeritus of business statistics puts it as follows: “The finding is consistent with prior studies that found no evidence to relate the rate of warming to emissions and they imply that the IPCC carbon budget is flawed possibly because of insufficient attention to uncertainty, excessive reliance on net flows, and the use of circular reasoning that subsumes a role for fossil fuel emissions in the observed increase in atmospheric CO2.https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2997420 and “...The results do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.” https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2642639 and “…“The results [at the following link] validate the robustness of the previous finding and imply that there is no evidence that atmospheric CO2 is responsive to fossil fuel emissions at an annual time scale net of long term trends. This result is robust. It holds for all possible combination of years in the study period 1958-2015.” https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2862438. 

    In other words, the addition of human-produced CO2 to the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels is not detectable in the trend of measured CO2 in the atmosphere, thus human-produced CO2 cannot be causing climate change, global warming, greening, or the other problems misattributed to human-produced CO2.

    Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

    Radicals, revolutionaries and their radicalized judges

    Democrats and their radicalized judges are actively working to keep illegals and criminal free and voting and inflating census counts in the USA. Inflating the census count increases the number of representatives in a Congressional district relative to other states or voting, pulling representives from another district. The illegal alien or criminal need not vote.

    https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/doj-charges-dozens-alleged-tren-de-aragua-gang-members-drug-trafficking?utm_source=breaking&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter

    Why are they trying to destroy America? This is not only happening in America. Radical lawfare is happening around the world.

    Please feel free to comment.

    Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

    Congress must fix the judiciary

    Soft on crime prosecutors and corrupt judges must be impeached by Congress and defunded. The judiciary does almost nothing to control itself. It has become a political body. MAGA is hamstrung until the judiciary is limited to the Constitution and Bill of Rights as the founders and framers intended.

    This lawfare crisis is prevalent in many countries, not only the U.S.A. For example, the rogue judges at the highest level in Brasil interfering in elections and prosecuting former President Bolsonaro, and the judges in Germany illicitly holding in jail world class lawyer Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, or in U.S.A. the atrocious behavior of the courts (e.g. many cases in DC federal district court, appellate court, FIA court and some of the justices on the Supreme Court), not to mention a list of corrupt prosecutors.

    Short video:

    Has anyone else had enough of the rogue judiciary, unable to discipline itself, expecting citizens to file multi-million dollar legal cases through multiple courts taking years to maybe, perhaps get justice or even find a fair judge and court?

    Cases in point:

    Federal Judges Keep Defying Supreme Court Orders Against Trump Admin

    https://dailycaller.com/2025/08/03/judges-keep-deifying-supreme-court-orders/

    Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

    Democrats vs Republicans on race in America

    Short video

    Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

    Henry Kissinger on open borders multiculturalism

    Very short video excerpt

    Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

    EV Update by Francis Menton: Will The Market Survive The Expiration Of The Federal Tax Credit?

    Francis Menton

    Read the original at this link and feel free to comment below on this blog or Mr. Menton’s.

    https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2025-7-26-ev-update-will-the-market-survive-the-expiration-of-the-federal-tax-credit

    How quickly things change.

    It was barely more than a year ago that climate activists and federal bureaucrats thought they had maneuvered the internal combustion engine (ICE) automobile to the brink of extinction. ICE vehicles had become like dinosaurs, inferior to their new competitors the EVs, and therefore headed for the scrap heap of history. Customers were flocking to the trendy new EVs, which were seeing rapidly rising sales.

    And the all-powerful federal bureaucracy was going to give the final push to put ICE vehicles out of their misery. On June 7, 2024 President Biden’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration had issued a final rule (“Corporate Average Fuel Economy [CAFE] Standards for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks for Model Years 2027 and Beyond and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans for Model Years 2030 and Beyond”) jacking up mandatory average vehicle mileage to 50+ [mpg] as of 2031, with further increases to follow from there. Since no ICE vehicles bigger than a baby carriage could achieve that mileage, the only path forward for vehicle manufacturers would be rapid conversion to making only EVs. NHTSA’s mileage rule had also quickly followed an equally draconian mandate from EPA, finalized on April 18, 2024 (“Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles”) setting strict and declining limits for CO2 emissions that no ICE vehicles would be able to meet by the early 2030s. And meanwhile, 2022’s Inflation Reduction Act had extended a $7500 tax credit to buyers of new EVs through December 31, 2032.

    So all the pieces were in place. By some time in the early 2030s, it would be effectively illegal to sell new ICE cars, and they would be rapidly disappearing from the roads.

    Well, not so fast. Suddenly, the rapid advance of the EV may have stalled out completely. The federal regulators have reversed their direction. And customer preferences seemingly favorable to EVs may turn out to evaporate as soon as federal tax benefits end, an event now just a couple of months away.

    NHTSA’s CAFE standards just got eviscerated by the “One Big Beautiful Bill” Act. Although the standards themselves have not yet been rescinded, the OBBB re-set the enforcement mechanism to have a maximum penalty of zero. This is from a July 8, 2025 memo from the law firm Sidley & Austin:

    In one of its many changes, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, enacted on July 4, 2025, eliminated civil penalties for noncompliance with federal fuel economy standards.  Specifically, Section 40006 of the Act amends the language of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) statute to reset the maximum civil penalty to $0.00.  Although the statute and its implementing regulations otherwise remain in place, this amendment removes any civil penalties for producing passenger cars and light trucks that do not meet fuel economy requirements.

    As to the EPA-mandated CO2 emissions limits for vehicles, EPA announced on March 12, 2025 that it was beginning a process of reconsidering the vehicle greenhouse gas emissions rule that had just been adopted less than a year before. Excerpt:

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the agency will reconsider the Model Year 2027 and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles regulation and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles. In addition to imposing over $700 billion in regulatory and compliance costs, these rules provided the foundation for the Biden-Harris electric vehicle mandate that takes away Americans’ ability to choose a safe and affordable car for their family and increases the cost of living on all products that trucks deliver. 

    That one may be in the regulatory grinder for many months, but with little doubt as to what the final result will be, namely full rescission.

    And the $7500 per new vehicle tax credit? After just having been extended to 2032 by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, the credit has now been modified by the OBBBA to end as of September 30, 2025. From Kiplinger, July 12:

    With the passage of President Donald Trump’s 2025 tax reform, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) the federal EV tax credit will expire for vehicles purchased or leased after September 30, 2025. As a result, buyers have only a short window left to take advantage of these federal savings.

    All of a sudden, EVs and ICE vehicles are set to compete on a completely level playing field, with no mandates or tax credits propping up the EV side of the competition. How will that turn out? It remains to be seen, but data from the first half of the year indicate that the previous rapid increase in EV sales may already be stalling out. In a reversal for a previously rapidly-growing market segment, sales of EVs in the second quarter of 2025 declined significantly from the same period the prior year. From Cox Automotive, July 14, 2025:

    [S]ales of new electric vehicles (EVs) in the second quarter of 2025 were lower year over year by 6.3%, in line with the Cox Automotive forecast. A total of 310,839 new EVs were sold in the U.S, down from 331,853 in the same period a year earlier. Sales in Q2 were higher than in Q1 by 4.9%, and total EV sales through the first half of 2025 set a record at 607,089, representing a 1.5% year-over-year increase.

    Cox continues to predict a spike in EV sales in the third quarter of 2025, in the run-up to the expiration of the tax credit on September 30. However, after that, it is entirely likely that there will be a significant decline. Without the government mandates and subsidies, it’s hard to see EVs expanding much beyond being a niche product used as a second (or third) vehicle by affluent buyers.

    Bud’s comment:

    I will be interested in an EV when the battery technology improves and EV charging does not harm the electric grid in communities, including not increasing the cost of electricity for everyone and everything else produced with electricity. EV batteries today and EV’s do not produce electricity, but only store it. The electricity charging the EV battery comes from the community grid unless you generate your own electricity. We all pay for the community grid by our electric bill, fees and taxes. Community electric grids cannot be supported by solar panel or wind farms or biofuels; this is shown elsewhere to be totally impractical, dangerous, and environmentally destructive. Nor should grids be supported by so-called renewable ‘green’ or ‘blue’ hydrogen power, which require more energy to produce than is yielded, not to mention that hydrogen gas is extremely dangerous. Hydrogen, a very small molecule, leaks through all know materials and is extremely explosive. This list of EV problems is not exhaustive, there are more. Until these are fixed, then an EV is merely virtue signaling, false virtue signaling: there is no problem adding more CO2 to the environment, and contrary to the pervasive climate narrative and what most have been taught, human addition of CO2 to air does not increase net total CO2 concentration in air.

    Multiple studies by competent scientists using different methods report that there is no correlation between the trend of CO2 emissions from so-called “fossil fuels” and the trend of net global CO2 measured by the NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory such as the one on Mauna Loa on Hawaii Island. Adding a trace gas to the atmosphere is a minor perturbation to the physical phase-state equilibrium of that trace gas with all of the liquids in the environment with which the gas is in contact, dominantly ocean surface (~71% of Earth’s surface), forests, soil, rain, etc. After a short period of time, 100% of the added trace gas (e.g. CO2) will be absorbed by the environment.

    Here is one reference on this blog: https://budbromley.blog/2025/04/18/henrys-law-proof-experiment-for-judge-and-jury-and-scientist-with-grok-3-beta/

    Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

    Vaccinating children ?????

    This vaccine testimony may move you to tears. “We saw so much death, so much death following baby vaccines.”

    @ChildrensHD’s Polly Tommey has been traveling the country, listening to parents share their horrific stories. “These parents would vaccinate their perfectly healthy child—and then their child would die.” She described case after case of devastating injuries: a premature baby vaccinated against whooping cough, then found lifeless in his crib. Toddlers who could no longer lift their heads after a single Hepatitis B shot. Teenage girls whose ovaries shut down after the HPV vaccine, etc. Story after story from families who trusted the system only to pay the ultimate price with their children’s health. “Over 12,000 signatures on those two buses of death, death, death,” Tommey said. This one is worth listening to in full. 3 minute video of her testimony.

    Above is quoted from https://x.com/VigilantFox The Vigilant Fox on X

    Here is the video:

    Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment