.@TinaKotek says she has reduced homelessness. FACT CHECK: Tina Kotek has increase homelessness by 35% across our state and by 61% in the Portland area since she became governor. Watch today’s candidate forum live here: avstream.me/pbj

The NGOs end up increasing the number of homeless people they manage, because that’s the only way to increase their revenue! Incentives drive outcomes. “Homeless” is a propaganda word used to describe people on the street who are mentally ill or severely addicted to drugs. The word implies that this is someone who fell a little behind on their mortgage payment and they’re one job offer away from getting back on their feet, which is obviously false if you’ve ever tried talking to a “homeless” person in SF, LA, NY, Austin or anywhere else. The honest reality is that we need to bring back asylums for extreme mental illness or drug addiction for those who are a serious danger to themselves or others.

Why are so many other states doing better than Oregon? Our leaders are making bad decisions. So, let’s fix it. TheDrazanPlan.com

Why we KNOW fossil fuels played a completely negligible role in the rise of atmospheric CO₂ in plain English 1. Carbon has a fingerprint. Carbon atoms come in two stable kinds. One is a little heavier than the other. Every source of carbon on Earth has its own mix of heavy and light atoms, and scientists measure that mix as a single number. Think of it as a fingerprint. Coal, oil, and gas have a fingerprint of minus 28. Carbon dioxide bubbling out of the ocean has a fingerprint of minus 8. Volcanoes are minus 5. Dissolving limestone is 0. A lower number means lighter carbon. These fingerprints are measured facts, and the IPCC uses the same numbers. 2. You can read the fingerprint of whatever is being added to the air. When carbon is added to the atmosphere, the atmosphere's fingerprint drifts toward the fingerprint of what was added. In 1958 Charles Keeling showed a simple way to read off the fingerprint of the added carbon directly from the air measurements. It is a graph. Plot the air's fingerprint against the amount of CO₂ in the air in a certain way and you get a straight line. Where that line meets the edge of the graph is the fingerprint of the net addition. This is not a computer model. It is bookkeeping. You count the heavy atoms, you count the light atoms, and the answer follows. Nothing about oceans, forests, or weather goes into it. 3. The fingerprint of the added carbon is minus 13. Koutsoyiannis (2024) did this with the four Scripps monitoring stations in Alaska, California, Hawaii, and the South Pole, using records from about 1978 to today. Every station gives the same answer: minus 13.2, give or take 0.2. These are the same records the IPCC relies on. Two completely separate measurements say the same thing. A Caribbean sponge that grows in yearly layers, like tree rings, records ocean carbon back to about the year 1500. Its fingerprint is about minus 13 for all five centuries, with no drift. Air trapped in Antarctic ice at Law Dome, analyzed by Köhler et al. (2006), also gives minus 13. Three different materials, three different laboratories, five hundred years, one number. 4. Simple mixing math sets the range from the modern data alone. Every carbon atom added to the air came either from fossil-fuel combustion or from some non-fossil-fuel source: the ocean, volcanoes, rock weathering, plants and soil. The fingerprint of the mix tells you how much came from each. It works like mixing paint. If you mix black and white and get a very light gray, you know there was very little black. Fossil-fuel carbon is the black, at minus 28. The ocean is the white, at minus 8. The measured mix is minus 13, much closer to the ocean than to fossil fuel. The modern record from 1978 to today does not by itself pin down the exact fingerprint of the non-fossil-fuel carbon. It could be anywhere from minus 8 (pure ocean) down to minus 13 (matching the mix exactly). Run the mixing math across that whole range and the fossil-fuel share comes out somewhere between zero and 26 percent. That is what we know from the modern data alone: not more than 26 percent, possibly zero. The exact answer comes in step 6. 5. The official claim is impossible under any assumption. The IPCC, NASA, NOAA, EPA, and Engelbeen, Hannon, and Burton (2024) say fossil-fuel combustion caused essentially all of the rise. That is close to 100 percent. "Dominant" by any normal meaning is at least 80 percent. Run the mixing math backwards and ask what the non-fossil-fuel carbon would have to look like for each of those claims to be true: - For fossil fuel to be even a bare 50 percent, the non-fossil-fuel carbon would need a fingerprint of plus 1.6. No carbon source on Earth is that heavy. - For 80 percent, it would need a fingerprint of plus 46. That is more than 20 times heavier than the heaviest source that exists. - For 90 percent, it would need plus 120, about 60 times heavier than anything on Earth. - For 100 percent, it would need to be infinitely heavy. The official claims do not fall a little short. They require carbon sources that do not exist. 6. Five hundred years of no change gives the exact answer: essentially ZERO (0% fossil-fuel sources). The modern data left one unknown: the fingerprint of the non-fossil-fuel carbon. The sponge and ice-core records supply it. In the year 1500 there was essentially no fossil-fuel burning, so the fingerprint of the added carbon then, minus 13, came entirely from non-fossil-fuel sources. That fixes the unknown at minus 13. Since 1500, fossil-fuel burning has grown about ten thousand times over. If fossil-fuel carbon were any real part of the added carbon, the fingerprint would have slid toward minus 28 as burning grew. It did not move. It is still minus 13 today. Put minus 13 for the non-fossil-fuel carbon and minus 13.2 for the modern mix into the mixing math and fossil fuel's share of the added carbon comes out at about 1 percent, which is zero within the measurement error. The range of zero to 26 percent from step 4 collapses to a single answer: essentially zero. 7. Why this is knowledge, not opinion. The conclusion rests on three things only: - counting atoms, - the standard measured fingerprints of fossil-fuel carbon and the other sources, and - the Scripps, sponge, and ice-core records. The IPCC uses all three. Anyone who accepts all three and rejects the conclusion is refusing to do arithmetic. The only way out is to throw away one of the three, and each one is a foundation of the IPCC's own work, and nobody has done so anywhere in the peer-reviewed literature. 8. What is actually happening. Burning fossil fuel does put CO₂ into the air. That is measured at the smokestack. But a CO₂ molecule stays in the air only about four years on average before the ocean or plants take it back. So fossil-fuel CO₂ never piles up. Add up all fossil-fuel emissions since 1850 with that four-year turnover and only about 4 percent of the carbon in today's air came from fossil fuel. The growth in atmospheric CO₂ since the industrial revolution came from non-fossil-fuel sources. Fossil fuel's share of that growth is essentially zero.

Democrats claim to support “our democracy,” yet by a massive margin they support a military coup.

CNN: Trump banned us from the White House because he claims we're FAKE NEWS! Also CNN: Called the two NYC Islamic terrorists "Pennsylvania teenagers" and worded it as if they were anti-Muslim protesters. This is why no one trusts the fake news media.

Every glib, arrogant, virtue-signalling celebrity who’s broadcast the lie that kids will kill themselves if not allowed to transition deserves to have this read aloud to them non-stop through a megaphone for a year.

A landmark Finnish study has found a sharp rise in psychiatric illness among adolescents following sex-alteration procedures. The peer-reviewed study, published in Acta Paediatrica, tracked every young person under 23 who contacted Finland's gender clinics between 1996 and 2019. A total 2,083 individuals were studied, with 16,643 matched controls. They were followed for up to 25 years. Finland's health registers are mandatory, which means no one opts out — this is the complete national picture. The numbers: psychiatric morbidity rose from 9.8% to 60.7% in adolescents who underwent feminising reassignment, and from 21.6% to 54.5% in masculinising reassignment. Even after adjusting for prior psychiatric history, gender-referred adolescents faced five times the risk of male population controls, and three times the risk of female controls. "Psychiatric needs do not subside after medical gender reassignment," the authors concluded. Referrals after 2010 arrived sicker. 47.9% had already needed psychiatric treatment before their first clinic visit, against 15.3% among controls. The authors' read: for some adolescents, gender distress may be secondary to other mental health challenges. The evidence keeps mounting. The silencing continues anyway. How many more adolescents will be told this is "care"?

Governor Kotek wants Oregonians to blame President Trump for a proposed $250 million Bonneville Power Administration rate increase. But here’s the part she leaves out: After the federal agreement ended, Kotek publicly backed Oregon’s return to court. The State of Oregon then asked for increased water spill over eight Columbia and Snake River dams, the very action that reduced hydropower generation and increased costs. Now BPA wants ratepayers to cover the bill. Kotek supported the policy. Oregon pursued the court order. But when the consequences arrived, she blamed Trump. Oregonians deserve affordable, reliable electricity and leaders who take responsibility for the costs of their own policies. Governor Kotek, you can’t demand the policy and then blame someone else when the bill comes due. oregonlive.com/environment/2…

Caveman Issues Dire Warning That The Wheel Is Going To Eliminate Countless Jobs buff.ly/u9nCQoL

In case there's ANY confusion, CS Lewis literally intended Aslan to be the incarnation of Christ inside the world of Narnia. When Lucy and Edmund learn they cannot return to Narnia again, Aslan comforts them by saying they'll know him again in their own world: "There I have another name. You must learn to know me by that name". Aslan is more than an allegory for Christ, he *is* how the creatures of Narnia experience Christ in their world just as we experience Jesus Christ as an incarnate MAN in ours. To cast Meryl Streep as Aslan in Greta Gerwig's Narnia is a slap in the face to the genius of Lewis, but also a deliberate mockery of Christianity that is 100% intentional. So deeply disappointing. Makes me wonder what else they'll mock about this Christian story...

“Important progress?!” Since you took office, Portland area homelessness shot up 61%, Oregon now has the highest unemployment rate out of any state in the nation, most families say they can’t cover a $400 emergency and less than half of 3rd graders can read and do math at grade level. That is failure by definition.

We asked AI to show that Sydney Sweeney would be just as attractive if she dressed more modestly.

Time magazine's doomer covers: 1954 nuclear war 1960 population explosion 1970 ecological collapse 1982 nuclear war 1989 endangered Earth 1992 ozone 1999 Y2K 2001/2006/2007 climate 2005 pandemic 2009 extinction 2013 bees 2019 climate 2020 pandemic 2023 AI extinction 2026 AI tipping point

JENSEN HUANG: “If you build a product or a service and you're not confident in its functionality, capability, or safety, then don't release it … The market forces are already there. We don't need any new laws. We don't need new regulations.”

The best AI safety we can do is stop the Anthropic IPO. It’s blatant that the EA people are going to cash in their billions and then spend it all taking over the world in the pursuit of a twisted ideology. It could dwarf the Soros and Singham monetary ecosystems. Heed this warning.

Auto emissions have plunged nearly 90%, fuel economy has doubled, and 2025 highway fatalities were 30% lower than in 1970 — all while Americans drive three times as many miles. The real progress came from better cars and cleaner technology, not from forcing people to drive less.

So, all the closed-source AI bros are now promoting the idea that AI could absolutely kill all of us. Meanwhile, Jacob Coxon, supposed Anthropic and OpenAI whistleblower – supported by Dario Amodei! – is joining up with Bernie Sanders and Steve Bannon to talk about restricting AI. Is this all altruism? Or just an op? I think we know the answer. piped.video/watch?v=sml4caUm…

People assume "moderates" are the kinder, nicer breed of politicians. No. Moderate is institutionalist. They've learned to speak bland, Dignity Index-approved slop in order to win over institutions for money and prestige. Their niceness is nothing more than a protocol to get accolades. Take their ladder away and you see their true faces.

If you vote for democrats, this is what you are voting for. These vandals are supported and enabled by Democrats.