Darrell Angleton

Small business owner, avid baseball player, ancient coin collector and retired military.

[Darrell Angleton @LTC_Angle]

@SGTWipper1Each You and me, both!

[Darrell Angleton @LTC_Angle]

@JohnCleese Because it is an invasion, John. You and I both know it.

[Darrell Angleton @LTC_Angle]

@SteaknShake Here here! They have been a staple here in Alton, IL since, well, I can remember in the late 60s/early 70s. And I love where you are taking the venerable burger joint!

[Darrell Angleton @LTC_Angle]

@catturd2 And how many of them are going on junkets paid by lobbyists? Can't miss that boondoggle trip to the Caribbean or Europe.

[Michael Faries @michaelfaries]

If you're reading this, then a simple retweet or post of #SaveStargate is appreciated.

We want Martin Gero's #Stargate *continuation* series to be re-greenlighted. Now. Not later. NOW.

Please and thank you, @Amazon @AmazonMGMStudio @mgmplus @PrimeVideo

[Chris Martz @ChrisMartzWX]

Left-wing propaganda rag, NPR, reports that climate change is threatening summer break in the U.S.

They reported yesterday,

🗨️ “[𝘙]𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘴, 𝘥𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴, 𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘦𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘧𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘥𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘵.”

🔗https://t.co/t5YUExYp7T

They have opinions. But I have data.

🌡️ In the U.S., the average number of heatwaves per year per station (area-weighted) were 27.9% lower during the most recent 30-year period (1994–2025) compared to 1901–30. There has been a slight increase since the 1970s, but that trend only emerges if you exclude inconvenient pre-1950 data. These findings are confirmed in a new paper published in the Journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Christy (2026).

🔗https://t.co/DSJXxVWiOI

🏜️ Droughts have not increased either nationwide. While the U.S. is currently in its most severe drought since the 1950s, both the 1930s and 1950s droughts eclipse it we have naturally oscillated between dry and wet periods for millennia.

🔗https://t.co/NEp0TaQHdP

In the Lower 48, I was able to show that by extending the U.S. Drought Monitor back to 1901 using the self-calibrated Palmer Drought Severity Index (scPDSI), no statistically significant change has occurred in drought area or intensity:

🟢 D1 / Moderate Drought area: −10.8% over 1995−2024 minus 1901−30; p-value = 0.41
🟡 D2 / Severe: +0.05%; p = 1.00 (slight increase, but not statistically significant)
🔴 D3 / Extreme: −8.9%; p = 0.75
🟤 D4 / Exceptional: −27.8%; p = 0.43

🔗https://t.co/9dNRQEJ10f

🌧️ There has been no increase in river flooding in the U.S. since at least 1960.

The map I attached below shows the change in the magnitude of U.S. river flooding since 1960. The triangle-shaped markers indicate the annual trend in peak river flows (cubic ft / sec) from 1960 to 2025 for all 425 USGS river and stream gauges that have 95% completeness over that time period. 5.2% of stations show a statistically significant increase in flooding and 5.9% show a significant decrease. The rest of the stations show no statistically significant change in either direction.

Flash flooding has increased in many urban areas, but that is largely due to poor city planning. When absorbent grassland and soil are paved over with asphalt and concrete, the land surface becomes impermeable, so any heavy downpour will inevitably cause more flooding than would have occurred in the past, despite any climatic trends.

While climate alarmists will argue that heavy rainfall events have increased (citing Clausius-Clapeyron as the physical basis), we are finding that a lot of rainfall data is missing from digitized weather records. When the original handwritten paper COOP or 1001 forms from the early 20th century are digitized into the ACIS sites, extreme values are often considered suspicious and eliminated, so they get marked as “Missing.” But if you read the notes, they will often note an afternoon thunderstorm that produced a heavy downpour. In Texas, for instance, it has been found that complete data turns an increase in Rx1day (i.e., heaviest annual 1-day rainfall per station) to a non-trend over the last 100 years.

Clausius-Clapeyron also says nothing about rainfall rates, much less total rainfall out of a given cloud, it only calculates equilibrium vapor pressure. Using it is not an appropriate extrapolation, especially over large land masses like the U.S.

🌀 U.S. hurricane and major hurricane (Category 3+) landfalls have not increased since reliable recordkeeping began in 1851. In fact, there is a slight, albeit not statistically significant decrease. I even extended records back to 1800, and there is no long-term trend. And of the top 15 strongest hurricanes to make landfall since 1851, ten of them occurred before 1975. And of those, seven were either in or before the year 1935.

🔗https://t.co/G6exgqvYsO

[Chris Martz @ChrisMartzWX]

Hi there, @volcaholic1.

This is what stupidity looks like.

Unlike you and your emotional, fact-free rant, I have data.

Globally, annual total wildfire burn area, as measured by MODIS instrumentation on NASA satellites, has decreased at a rate of ~1.39% per year since 2002. Now, some (maybe most?) of that has to do with decreased burning of Savannahs in Africa as well as agricultural expansion.

But for forest fires specifically, there has been little change globally over the past two decades, with the linear rate being a slight decrease of 0.46% in burned area per year.

Some areas have seen increases in forest fire burn area, yes, but such anomalies are largely an artifact of forest mismanagement.

[Darrell Angleton @LTC_Angle]

@JamesOKeefeIII As many as you can!

[Darrell Angleton @LTC_Angle]

@BaronDestructo Starbuck!

[Nick shirley @nickshirleyy]

This is how the durable medical equipment (DME) fraud scam works:
- Operate around adult daycares
- Provide “equipment” for ghost clients (wheelchairs, knee braces, etc)
- Easier to open than a bank account
- Bill Medicare for millions

EXPOSE IT ALL.

[Chris Martz @ChrisMartzWX]

lol This is a crock of crap.

Climate “scientists” cannot get their climate models to produce accurate hindcasts of 20th century global mean surface temperature (GMST) observations without having precursory knowledge of 20th century observations to calibrate them to. That's curve fitting, not science.

These models also run on circular reasoning.

When global climate models (GCMs) are input with the supposedly “established physics” you mentioned, the energy fluxes in and out of the Earth’s atmosphere are not balanced, which causes the models to drift into unrealistic climate states (either too hot or too cold, but usually running too hot).

Rather than doing real science to try figuring out why the best physics we have don't yield correct values, scientists simply assume that fluxes were balanced before the Industrial Revolution. They then adjust any uncertain parameters (e.g., clouds and aerosol) to force energy fluxes to balance. It is then assumed that there are no natural pathways that can cause energy imbalance, so modelers input CO₂ forcing, the climate system warms, and they say, “See!? CO₂ caused the warming.”

While it may prove that there is at least some effects from CO₂, all else being equal, it in no way, shape or form proves that all of the observed warming is due to CO₂. They assumed it was at the outset, then forced their GCMs to produce that result. That's circular logic, not science.

We also know model outputs are just statistical curve fitting because while the GMST response to a forcing has one value, the range of uncertainty in the aerosol contribution to GMST change since 1850 is 1°C. If you take the median of the CMIP6 models shown in Figure 3.8 from IPCC AR6 WG1, the uncertainty is a whopping 125%. If you don’t know that vital piece of information about aerosol forcing, you cannot have any confidence whatsoever in anything else.

Arguing with me about this is not going to go well for you, I'm afraid.

If you need an explainer that isn't so jargon-filled, Dr. Roy Spencer has a good one in the video below from a presentation he gave on March 3, 2021.

[Chris Martz @ChrisMartzWX]

The smoking gun of junk science.

Climate “scientists” assume that there are no natural long-term fluctuations in cloud cover or atmospheric water vapor concentration. This is because these academics assume that cloud cover and water vapor concentrations can only change in response to a change in global mean surface temperature (GMST) from input CO₂ as opposed to the other way around (i.e., cloud cover changes affect temperature).

And because our scientific knowledge about natural variability is limited, these “scientists” simply assume that natural variability isn’t a component to any of the modern warming because their “state-of-the-art” climate models that run on “fundamental physics” cannot reproduce GMST observations with natural forcings and variability alone. It is also assumed that the radiation fluxes into and out of the atmosphere were in balance before the Industrial Revolution. This, of course, is another ridiculous belief.

Modelers arbitrarily turn knobs on the anthropogenic parameter schemes (e.g., greenhouse gas and aerosol) until the modeled GMST “results” come into agreement with GMST observations.

That’s a curve fitting exercise, not real science.

We know that this is a curve fitting exercise because while the Earth has a very specific (albeit unknown) response value to radiative forcing, the uncertainty on the aerosol contribution to global warming since 1850 has a 125% error and the greenhouse gases (GHG) have a 37.5% error. By the way, these estimates are from climate models in the CMIP6 suite. If there is that much spread between models, that means that their ability to reproduce observed temperature trends is not necessarily because the physics are correct. And in many cases, the known physics of GHG forcing yield values too high that have to be brought down by adjusting either the cloud or aerosol schemes.

How can people say “The science is settled” when the “physics” yield such large uncertainties?

[Darrell Angleton @LTC_Angle]

@BaronDestructo This hurts more than getting hit by a 95 mph fastball on the elbow.

[Rob Schneider 🇺🇸 @RobSchneider]

The Founding Document, the Declaration of Independence is perhaps the greatest proposal ever written outside the Bible. It expresses man’s desire and God given rights for Freedom. For ALL men.
Every American should be very proud that we inherited this.🇺🇸🇺🇸 https://t.co/j0UX4jyxqq

[marina @mp_marinamarket]

#SaveStargate
#GiveGeroHisGateBack

[Mila Joy @Milajoy]

This senior citizen lives in a trailer and barely gets by.

But ActBlue has her making 15,000 separate donations for over $150,000.

She seems shocked when questioned about it.

Obvious SCAM.

Why isn't the DOJ doing anything about it?

[Chris Martz @ChrisMartzWX]

Hi Senator Hickenlooper.

You have opinions. But I have evidence. All science is numbers; let's look at them.

The link between climate change (in an anthropogenic sense) and droughts is actually not so crystal clear.

Globally, there has been no statistically significant change in the amount of land area experiencing meteorological drought since the early 1980s, when reliable monitoring began (p-value = 0.195). Trends in exceptional drought are even less significant (p = 0.263)

🔗https://t.co/9dNRQEItaH

Chapter 11 of IPCC AR6 WG1 affirms this, stating in Section 6.4.5,

💬 “𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝒍𝒐𝒘 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒇𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 ℎ𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝒎𝒆𝒕𝒆𝒐𝒓𝒐𝒍𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝒅𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒔 𝑖𝑛 𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑟𝑒𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠. . . 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝒎𝒆𝒅𝒊𝒖𝒎 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒇𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 ℎ𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑛-𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝒊𝒏𝒄𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒔𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒕𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒅𝒔 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑟 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝒂𝒈𝒓𝒊𝒄𝒖𝒍𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝒆𝒄𝒐𝒍𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝒅𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒔, 𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡��� 𝑎𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎. 𝐻𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑛-𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑢𝑒𝑑 𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙-𝑠𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑒 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤, 𝑏𝑢𝑡 𝒉𝒖𝒎𝒂𝒏 𝒘𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒂𝒈𝒆𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒍𝒂𝒏𝒅-𝒖𝒔𝒆 𝒄𝒉𝒂𝒏𝒈𝒆𝒔 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒂𝒍𝒔𝒐 𝒊𝒎𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒕 𝒅𝒓𝒊𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒔.”

🔗https://t.co/eBo6M72r2l

Vicente-Serrano et al. (2022) investigated changes in various drought types, concluding similarly that,

💬 “𝑨 𝒈𝒍𝒐𝒃𝒂𝒍 𝒊𝒏𝒄𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒔𝒆 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒔𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝒐𝒇 𝒎𝒆𝒕𝒆𝒐𝒓𝒐𝒍𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝒅𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒈𝒉𝒕 𝒊𝒔 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒔𝒖𝒑𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝑏𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑦𝑠𝑖𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑠, 𝑎𝑠 𝑜𝑛𝑙𝑦 𝑎 𝑓𝑒𝑤 𝑟𝑒𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑙𝑑 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑤 𝑎𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑠.”

What's more, the authors found that the observed regional increases in hydrological droughts were largely related to other man-made influences such as land use change, not a from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

💬 “𝑰𝒏𝒄𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒔𝒆𝒔 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑠𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝒉𝒚𝒅𝒓𝒐𝒍𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝒅𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒔 𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑏𝑒 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡 𝑡𝑜 ℎ𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑛 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑠𝑢𝑐ℎ 𝑎𝑠 𝒍𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒖𝒔𝒆 𝒄𝒉𝒂𝒏𝒈𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒂𝒈𝒓𝒊𝒄𝒖𝒍𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒏𝒔𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 (𝑒.𝑔., 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑀𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎, 𝑁𝑜𝑟𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑡 𝐵𝑟𝑎𝑧𝑖𝑙).”

🔗https://t.co/v3KzYc1tp4

In the U.S., there has been no increase in either the amount of abnormally dry land area or magnitude of droughts since at least 1895. The worst droughts on record occurred during the 1930s and 1950s.

🔗https://t.co/NEp0TaQ9oh

As for the western U.S., while much of the region has indeed been in drought for the last 25 years, it is not at all unprecedented in geological scope, though it is in terms of its socioeconomic impacts simply because of the tens of millions of people who live there and rely on the water. That said, meteorologically speaking, the region has experienced many droughts eclipsing the current, the most recent of which lasted ~400 years from 900–1300 AD during the Medieval Warm Period (Cook et al., 2004).

🔗https://t.co/cDYishn7Rh

Morgan & Pomerleau (2012) further support the idea of a Medieval Megadrought with a study on Cliff Lake in the Sierra Nevada. They concluded that waters in Cliff Lake were ~5 meters lower than present levels for a period of ~50 years more than 600 years ago. They were able to determine this by radiocarbon dating the wood and noting where the stump is submerged.

🔗https://t.co/YpRV5e2JOu

While drought increasing in certain regions (e.g., the Western U.S.) would potentially be consistent with anthropogenic global warming, it's also consistent with natural global warming or some combination of both. The fact is that GHGs had nothing to do with the Medieval Megadrought, so it becomes quite challenging attributing the ongoing [and less severe drought] to GHG forcing.

[Mitchell Rosenbloom @m_rosenbloom28]

Stargate fans know disappointment. Revolution (third SG-1 movie) never happened. Extinction (SGA movie) never happened. SGU never continued. Brad Wright's 2020 series died after COVID delays & the Amazon/MGM deal. Then Gero's series was canceled. But we won't quit! #SaveStargate

[James O'Keefe @JamesOKeefeIII]

Meet Brandon Newsom, a senior official in the Office of the Secretary of the Navy for 16 years. He oversees corporate operations supporting Secretary Hegseth, including HR, IT, security, facilities, records management, and implementation of executive orders.

This is our latest installment of exposing dissent within the deep state. Our hidden-camera investigations pull back the curtain on how the government operates behind closed doors.

In this undercover investigation Brandon discusses exact policies he would like to see changed under a future administration, including the federal government's faith service program and schedule policy/career workforce reforms.

The first program policies he would seek to reverse is the Pentagon's monthly voluntary faith service policy. This is a Christian monthly prayer worship service, readings from the Bible, and sermons from pastors. Brandon would like to provide a prayer service for all religions instead of just Christian faith services.

The second policy Brandon says he would seek to reverse is the schedule policy/career reform, a federal workforce change that moves certain senior career employees in policy-related roles into a new personnel category. Supporters argue it gives elected leaders more accountability over officials who help shape policy, while critics argue it could weaken protections traditionally afforded to career civil servants.

When I ask whether he has the authority to reverse said policies, the official responds: "I don't have the authority to do that, but I have the influence."

He argues that the real power of long-serving career bureaucrats lies in the positions they hold, saying, "It's not about me, it's about the position."

Explaining why he has remained in government for 16 years despite disagreeing with the administration's direction, Brandon says, "The way I look at it is... when the election changes... I want to stay and stick it out so that when the time comes, I can undo whatever's been done."

Brandon also shares his personal views on President Trump, telling me, "I think Trump is a narcissist." He further criticizes the administration's decision-making on Iran, stating, "Yeah. I think it's [War in Iran] completely stupid, but it's driven on one man's ego to me in my own personal opinion."

Brandon hints that he knows more about what goes on behind the scenes in Washington, telling me, "I've seen some things. In true D.C. nature, you don't always reveal everything in D.C."

Brandon also claims many of the Pentagon contracts cut under DOGE were data-related before major data contracts were later awarded to Palantir. When asked why, he suggests the company's relationships with senior Pentagon officials may have played a role, stating, "That's what it appears." Palantir was later awarded up to $10 billion in U.S. Army data contracts.

Ironically, Brandon even acknowledges that I could be a reporter. "I mean, you could be a news reporter," he says before continuing the conversation.

This begs the question: If a government director says he can slow or reverse a sitting President's agenda, who really governs the country? Is it the individual Americans elect or the career officials who outlast every administration?

And maybe the biggest mystery of all: Why do government officials in D.C. keep spilling secrets to me when I'm just wearing a mustache.

For the record, Brandon Newsom is not related to California Governor Gavin Newsom.

We reached out to the Pentagon and Brandon for comment.

[Mitchell Rosenbloom @m_rosenbloom28]

Amazon MGM: "We own James Bond and Stargate."

Fans: "Great! What's next?"

Amazon MGM: "Legally Blonde. RoboCop."

Fans: stare into the abyss 😭

#SaveStargate