A dozen Democrat-ruled states SUE to force taxpayers to continue funding sex changes for MINORS

If you've been paying attention (spoiler: ) you may know that Trump issued an Executive Order that no federal funds be used to perform any aspect of sex-change operations on children under 18.

Let's repeat that for Democrats:  If someone is over 18 and can find a way to make taxpayers pay for your sex-change (which is legal under both Medicare and Medicaid), that's still legal.  And if you're under 18 and can find someone other than federal taxpayers who's willing to pay for your sex-change, that's also still legal.

The EO just says no taxpayer money will be used to pay for sex changes for minors. That's all.

But that outrages Democrat rulers, so last Friday over a dozen Democrat-ruled states sued the Trump administration in an attempt to block that order and force taxpayers to continue to fund transgender "medical interventions" for minors.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court in the liberal shithole of Boston, where it's impossible to empanel a jury not ruled by Democrat supporters.

The lawsuit is larded with hysterical horseshit like this:

“Since taking office...Trump and his administration have relentlessly, cruelly, and unlawfully targeted transgender individuals.  [He] has sought to deny their very existence, banish transgender residents from the public square, and refuse them medically necessary healthcare.”

Every word of that is utterly false--and the lying sacks of shit who wrote it know it.  The only restriction in the EO is that doctors are barred from using federal money to pay for their sex-change procedures for minors.  Got it?

Trump’s EO bans federal funds from being used to "transition" minors, period.  And Dems hate that.

Every state joining in the lawsuit--and the shithole of Washington, D.C.--is Democrat-ruled.

The lawsuit accuses Trump of “creating an atmosphere of fear and intimidation" among transgender individuals.  "Fear and intimidation," y'say?  Because it bars you from using taxpayer dollars to fund sex-change procedures for MINORS?   Again, the EO only applies to federal funding of sex-change procedures on MINORS.

From 2019 to 2023, U.S. hospitals and doctors billed taxpayers nearly $120 million for transgender-related procedures on roughly 14,000 minors.

The lawsuit is just the latest clash between Democrat-ruled states and the Trump administration over transgender policy. In July the Trump administration sued California for allowing males to compete against women in sports.

Now here's the hoot: congress never found it necessary to pass a federal law ordering that "Males cannot compete in women's sports or use girls' locker rooms," because before the Dems ordered both, those ideas were so absurd that no one ever even considered one political party would order both,   So no one thought we needed a federal law prohibiting it.

For the slow-witted: It's like saying "Dere iz no LAW saying elephants can't be linemen in college football, so we iz gon' do dat!"

You still don't realize how you're being conned.  Cunning Democrat leaders will always find vulnerabilities in the law that they can exploit.  And in demanding that males be allowed to compete in girls' sports, they've found one of those vulnerabilities.  And dey bleat an' whine dat "It jus' not FAIR dat yew awful conservatives don't allow deez authentic, real girlz to "play highschool and college sports!!!  Cuz 'Trans women ARE women, right"?  We haz sed it. so shall it be!

And Democrat voters smile and nod and believe it.

Democrats are cunning and relentless, and have elevated "lawfare" to an art form.  And their base loves it.  

Source.

https://dailycallernewsfoundation.org/2025/08/01/blue-states-suing-to-block-trump-admin-from-cracking-down-on-child-mutilation/

Dem-fellating site Politico gives Cackles a big tongue-bath

Yesterday the Dem-fellating shitsite Politico ran a swooning story on Cackles--her thoughful, forward-looking appearance on Stephen Colbert's equally disastrous show (which was a thinly-disguised chance to plug her faaaabulous new book) and her plans for the next two years.

Of course Colbert's liberal/Democrat audience positively swooned over her.  To them she's the epitome of brilliant, imaginative leadership--tirelessly forging the way to our fabulous socialist future!

Yeesh.  And to think Americans came within 180,000 votes of having her and the equally disastrous Tampon Tim running the country!  The mind boggles.

Now the big question for Democrats is, should she run in 2028?  Surprisingly (after the tongue-bath from Politico), many Dem consultants and congress-creeps--all speaking on condition of anonymity, of course--are having second thoughts.

And that brings me to the point: Ever since 2004 Dem presidential candidates have chosen running-mates so the candidate who selected him or her couldn't be impeached.  Think about it: Obozo picked Bribem, Hilliary chose the awful Tim Kaine, Bribem chose the even dumber Cackles, who in turn chose the moronic China simp Tampon Timmy.

Bribem's handlers knew for the last 3 years of his term that he was totally senile and could never finish a second term.  But they also knew that Dem voters are so dumb that if the handlers could all just agree to lie--brazenly, outrageously--and convince voters not to believe their own eyes and ears, they could drag the Vegetable to victory.

Then bribem could resign and the Dems would get a faaaabulous two-fer: the first "black" female president.  Yay!

But then Divine Intervention intervened: bribem froze up so often in the one debate the Dems were forced to accept (to show how totally competent their candidate was, eh?) that his polling numbers plummeted.  And that, in turn, brought all the chickens home to roost:

The story is that Dem partei [sic] rulers were roughly equally divided between those who wanted to tough it out with a clearly senile bribem--continuing to assure voters that he was "sharp as a tack"--and the other half saying that even though all the primaries were over, the partei [sic] had to dump bribem and pick another candidate.

At that point there were two shining stars: Pennsylvania gov Josh Shapiro, and Gavin Newsom.  Word is that Nancy Pelosi--who at one time was related to Newsom--believed he could win, so made the "command decision" to pressure bribem to renounce the nomination.

With that done, the Dems held their convention, which would presumably do whatever Pelosi wanted.  But then once again, Divine Intervention...you know, the thing:

SO...when the congressional black caucus heard Pelosi and her allies were about to dump Cackles in favor of Newsom, the head of that grievance group supposedly said "If you don't choose Harris we will burn this party to the ground!  You won't get a single black vote."

Suddenly the true cost of what the Democrats had seen as the brilliance of choosing a VP so bad that the prezzy would never be impeached was made horrifyingly clear--because while Cackles filled bribem's promise to select a black female VP, she was totally unqualified to be president--and most voters knew it.  Which, of course, is why bribem chose her: it ensured he wouldn't be impeached.

It's certainly possible that if Pelosi had known the black caucus would force the Partei [sic] to choose Cackles as nominee, Nancy might not have made the decision to force bribem to resign the nomination.

What's really laugh-out-loud funny is that anyone could have predicted the CBC demand, eh?  One imagines the look of total confusion and bewilderment on Pelosi's face when she realized that for all her vaunted political brilliance (at least that's how the Mainstream Media always described her), she'd failed to predict the obvious!  Fabulous!  

And in fairness, even with the ghastly, moronic, untalented, charmless Cackles, the Dems only lost by about 1.5% of the total vote, so despite some pundits on the Right saying the Dems "lost big," it was actually a close call, even with Cackles.  So to Nancy, it was worth a try.

So...one more amusing scene remains: Affluent white female liberals and their husbands (if any) and their daughters--and Stephen Colbert's entire audience-- still think Cackles is absolutely faaabulous, and will gush and fawn and talk her into running in '28.  Even Politico says a nationwide poll last month found Cackles leading potential Democrat contenders with 26 percent, 15 points ahead of second-place Pete Buttigieg.  (Wait...where's Newsom?)

This is amusing, as a poll by Newsweek on August 1 shows Pete Buttigieg leading with 17%, followed by Kamala Harris at 12%, and Gavin Newsom at 10%.  But that poll wouldn't have helped Politico push their favorite candidate.

So yeah, she'll run again.  With all famous entertainers and faaabulously successful women begging her to run, how could she possibly resist?  And the Mainstream Media will swoon and declare she won every primary debate.  The CBC will scream that if blacks don't vote for her, "you ain't black," which should lock in about 12% of the popular vote right there.
 
Maybe she'll even win some delegates in a primary this time.  Question is, will the people who rule the Dem party allow her to win, or will they "pull a Pelosi" and torpedo her?

Oh, y'think that's crazy-talk?  That it's not possible in ouah precious "democracy"?  

Ask bribem if he ever thought it was possible.

Source: Politico

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/02/some-dems-want-kamala-harris-to-sit-midterms-out-00490186

Media screams that 3 big volcanoes have erupted in the last ten days, blames Trump

MSNBC breathlessly bleats that in the last few days three big volcanoes have erupted: Kamchatka, Indonesia and Hawaii.   And the know the cause:  Trump cut funding for studying volcanoes. 

ACLU has sued to restore funding, saying without it, millions will die.  A few skeptics wondered how studying volcanoes would keep 'em from erupting, but a group of PhDs had a ready answer: "Unless you have a PhD in seismic science, you can't understand the explanation, so shut up."

Okay, obv. kidding but sounds like the Media's and Dems' playbook.

Top Dem in the senate lies brazenly, shamelessly, on video, about...well, everything

 

As everyone knows, Chuck Schumer is the top Dem in the senate.  And he constantly lies, brazenly, shamelessly--on video, so there's no question about it..  Latest example: 

The White House wasn't designed to host big state dinners, so when they had one it had to be outside, under a tent.  If it rained before the event, things got swampy.  So Trump had the architects draw up a proposed big room where state dinners could be held.  Estimated cost: $200 million. The media immediately attacked, calling it a "ballroom" and a waste of tax dollars.

Schumer quickly uploaded a video saying how totally AWFUL this was, that Trump would DARE waste your precious tax dollars on a damn ballroom!  And to make it sound even worse, he claimed the DOGE cuts were paying for this.

Just one problem: Trump says the cost will NOT come from the budget but will be paid by private donors.

Now, one of two things must be true: either Schumer KNEW this was true when he posted his video condemning the idea; or else he didn't bother to have a staffer ask the White House if the cost would be from taxpayer funds.  Either way, what does this tell ya about the TOP leadership of the Democrat partei [sic], eh?

Never trust the sons of bitches.  They are beyond treasonous.  They'll utter any lie if they think it'll win 'em more power.

More on the release of the classified "annex" withheld by the FBI that shows the plot

The post below is edited from law professor Jonathan Turley's column on the release of the previously-classified "annex" to the Durham report:

Yesterday the FBI released a previously classified "annex" to the Durham report on the investigation into charges that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election from Hilliary.

After the release, former CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper wrote in the New York Times denying allegations and insisting they never relied on a work of fiction called the "Steele dossier."

That's a proven lie, but the Times still printed their false claim despite being demonstrably untrue.  The pair's column reaffirmed the level of dishonesty and duplicity that marked their tenures in office.

The newly-released documents quote Brennan overruling career analysts and insisting that the dossier be included in the intelligence assessment.  Even after leaving office, Brennan continued to push the false collusion claim.  The fake dossier was used to feed the brazen claim that Trump was a Russian asset.

The declassified annex shows further evidence of a secret plan by the Clinton campaign to use the FBI and media to spread a false claim that Donald Trump was a Russian asset. With this material, the public is finally seeing how officials and reporters set into motion what may be the greatest hoax ever perpetrated in American politics.

Trump never colluded with Russia.  Instead the Clinton campaign, the FBI, Brennan and Clapper created a Narrative of collusion--which the Media eagerly parroted.  This cunning hoax crippled much of Trump's first term.

What is emerging in these documents is the story of a fake Narrative--an illusion, carefully constructed by corrupt intel officials (Brennan, Clapper, Comey and a handful of minor players like Bruce and Nellie Orr) and a willing media.  The brilliance of the conspirators was getting reporters to believe the lie--which they eagerly did.

The first act was when the Clinton campaign secretly funded the Steele dossier, via two "cutouts:" using a DC law firm (Perkins Coie) to pay a group called "Fusion GPS," which paid a former British spy named Christopher Steele to create a salacious account of Trump cavorting with Russian prostitutes in a Moscow hotel.  The implication was that the KGB had video of the romp, so could now blackmail Trump into doing Putin's bidding.

Emails in the just-released annex state that Hillary Clinton personally approved the operation.  Could they be fake?  Of course--but the FBI never tried to authenticate them, merely dismissing 'em as "Russian disinformation."

During the campaign a few reporters asked about the possible connection between the Clinton campaign and the fabricated "Steele dossier," but Clinton campaign officials denied any involvement. After the election, journalists discovered that the campaign had hidden payment to Steele for the dossier as “legal fees” among the $5.6 million paid to Perkins Coie under Democrat fixer Marc Elias.

When New York Times reporter Ken Vogel tried to report the story, he said, Elias “pushed back vigorously, saying ‘You (or your sources) are wrong.’” Times reporter Maggie Haberman declared, “Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year.”

Later the chairman of Clinton’s campaign,  John Podesta, appeared before Congress and was asked whether the campaign had anything to do with the Steele dossier. Podesta emphatically denied any contractual agreement with Fusion GPS. Sitting beside him was Elias, who reportedly said nothing to correct that lie to Congress.

The FEC ultimately sanctioned the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee for funding the creation of the dossier.

After paying to create the fake "dossier," the Clinton team worked quietly to feed the dossier to the FBI. 

The newly released evidence shows that in July of 2016 Brennan briefed then- president Obama on Hillary’s plan to tie then-candidate Trump to Russia as a way to distract voters from her use of a private, unsecured email server in her home in New York.  

Months later, in January of 2021, after Trump unexpectedly won the election, Obama asked Brennan, Clapper and Comey to find evidence that Trump had colluded with Russia.  CIA analysts said they found no evidence of collusion, but Brennan overruled his own analysts and used the dossier to support the Narrative that Trump "colluded with Russia."

Career analysts objected that relying on the unverified, sole-source Steele dossier was a huge error and undermined the new "official" conclusion.  One CIA analyst told investigators that Brennan "refused to remove it, and when confronted with the dossier’s main flaws, responded, ‘Yes, but doesn’t it ring true?’”

That's a huge key to the success of the hoax:  It only had to be plausible enough to get the Media to sign on, and to fool the public.  The first was easy, since the Media hated Trump and loved Hilliary.  And once the Media signed on, convincing Democrats was easy.

The plot was designed to cripple the incoming Trump administration and prevent any reforms during what the Dems were sure would be just 4 years--and it worked.  In the end, both Special Counsel Mueller and the DOJ Inspector General found no evidence of Russian collusion, but by then the damage was done, and bribem won in 2020.

Reports indicate that the CIA is about to declassify material showing that foreign sources were aware of the move to create a Russia-collusion scandal, and expected that the FBI would play a role in the plan.  One source said the foreign intelligence predicted the move “with alarming specificity.”

For example, emails from Leonard Bernardo, a VP of Soros's Open Society Foundation explained that “during the first stage of the campaign, due to lack of direct evidence, it was decided to disseminate the necessary information through the FBI…from where the information would then be disseminated through leading U.S. publications.”

Bernardo added, “Julie (Clinton Campaign Advisor) says it will be a long-term affair to demonize Putin and Trump. Now it is good for a post-convention bounce.  Later, the FBI will put more oil into the fire.”

The Washington Post and New York Times both won Pulitzer prizes for reporting on the claims that Trump both colluded with Putin AND was "a Russian asset," so both are trying hard to wave away these latest releases of previously secret material.  They don't want to report that they helped sell a political hoax as truth. That is why they cannot honestly cover the story. To do so would not be coverage, it would be a confession.

It appears that everyone was in on the trick: the U.S. government, the media, even foreign governments. The only chumps were the American people. Now we're slowly beginning to see how it was done.

Source: Jonathan Turley (edited by me)

https://jonathanturley.org/2025/08/01/the-reveal-the-public-is-finally-learning-how-democrats-pulled-off-the-greatest-political-trick-in-history/

Kaboom! Classified annex to Durham report FINALLY turned over to congress!

If you pay attention to the acts of the utterly corrupt Democrats who formerly ran this damn government (and still run most of it, even with Trump as prez), you may have heard of an investigation ordered by congress into how the "Russia collusion" hoax was created.

Durham took something like 18 months and *reportedly* found nothing seriously corrupt.

That was because all the damning evidence was hidden in a 29 or 30-page "annex" that was classified Top Secret and never released by the fucking FBI/DOJ empire, under the POS Merrick Garland and FBI director Chris Wray.

The FBI even defied congressional subpoenas demanding the classified annex.  And when the FBI did defy congress, no one was fired.  Let that sink in for a minute.  

WELL finally... with a new FBI director and an honest attorney-general instead of that piece of corrupt shit Merrick Garland, the FBI turned over the classified "annex" to congress.  And it's a bombshell.
 
It was released yesterday (July 31), and shows that Hillary Clinton personally approved a plan brought to her a few months before the 2016 election by her "foreign policy advisor" Julianne Smith, to distract voters from Hilliary's use of an unencrypted email server in her home to store beyond-Top-Secret cables.

The plan was to claim then-candidate Donald Trump was "colluding with Russia" to steal the 2016 election from duh faaabulous Hilliary.

According to the declassified files, Clinton personally approved Smith's plan.  (Smith would later be appointed by bribem as ambassador to NATO.)

One stunning email in the Annex was dated July 27, 2016 from a guy named Leonard Bernardo [some sites spell it "Benardo"], a "senior vice-president" of George Soros's Open Society Foundation.  The text:
>>“HRC approved Julia’s idea about [i.e. claiming that] Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections. That should distract people from her own missing emails.... In absence of direct evidence, Crowdstrike and ThreatConnect will supply the media, and GRU will hopefully carry on to give more facts.”>>

"GRU" is Russia’s foreign intelligence arm.

Another email from Bernardo/Benardo says

During the first stage of the campaign, due to lack of direct evidence, it was decided to disseminate the necessary information through the FBI-affiliated…technical structures… in particular, the Crowdstrike and ThreatConnect companies, from where the information would then be disseminated through leading U.S. publications. The media analysis on the DNC hacking appears solid…. Julie [Campaign Advisor] says it will be a long-term affair to demonize Putin and Trump.  Now it is good for a post-convention bounce. Later the FBI will put more oil into the fire.

By a margin of 125,000 votes in seven states, the Dems' cunning lie that Trump "colluded with Russia" didn't succeed in winning the 2016 election for Hilliary.  BUT it dominated the headlines for all four years of Trump's first term.  It was totally accepted as true by every Media outlet and all Dems, so much that the Dem-controlled congress appointed a Special Counsel (Robert Mueller) to find evidence to support the claim.

Mueller (a former FBI director) spent two years and $22 million investigating, and ultimately found no evidence *at all* to support the claim.  But no matter: the damaged was done.  The hoax had exactly the effect intended by the Democrats, crippling Trump's public support.

The then-corrupt FBI dismissed the damning emails from Bernardo/Benardo as "probably Russian disinformation"--but did not attempt to authenticate them.  (For non-techies, emails can be authenticated or shown to be fake.)

Even before the 2016 election, the hoax was so successful that on May 16, 2016--six months before the election--the utterly corrupt former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said “Donald Trump is not going to be President of the United States. Take it to the bank, I guarantee it.”

Think about that for a minute:  Pelosi sneering at Trump is totally normal, but why would the insane, corrupt bitch go out on a limb by making such an unequivocal statement like that--unless she knew something was afoot that would totally destroy Trump's candidacy--by pushing the hoax of "collusion" with Putin?

Okay, I get it: none of you believe a word of this.  There's no "classified annex" to the Durham report.  Merrick Garland didn't order Chris Wray not to give it to congress when it was subpoenaed.  There is no one named "Leonard Bernardo" who is or was a "senior VP of Soros's 'Open Society Foundation.'"  Hilliary never had a secret, unencrypted (i.e. unsecure) email server in a closet of her home in Chappaqua, NY.  There is no Julianne Smith, who was Hilliary's "foreign-policy advisor" and later appointed ambassador to NATO.

And the story of Hunty's abandoned laptop was "Russian disinformation.  And all the pics on it of him smoking crack with "working girls" were "cheap fakes."  And all the bank-wire transfers from China and Burisma to hunty's shell companies--wire transfers congress showed copies of years ago--are fake.  And the Ukrainian energy company Burisma never paid hunty $83,333.33 per month to be on their board of directors.  (Strange amount, eh?  We have the bank-wire transfers; multiply that by 12 and let me know what you get.)

You have no idea at all how utterly corrupt the Democrat rulers are--which means they will fight like demons in the corrupt courts to avoid being charged.  Some of this you never knew.  Some you knew but have conveniently forgotten, cuz there's so damn much of it, eh?  But go back up the list above: how much of this do you have to claim isn't true to make you feel better about Democrat rule, eh?

Have a great day.

CDC confirms U.S. birthrate now at lowest in history. Why? And why it's worse than they think

Over two decades ago (2002) conservative Pat Buchanan wrote a book titled "The Death of the West," in which he warned "First world nations are dying.”

Buchanan was referring to fertility rates, which have been on the decline for decades.

Last Thursday that was reinforced when the CDC released data showing U.S. birth rates are at historic lows: women in the U.S. are having an average of 1.6 children over their lifetime.  That number is called the "Total fertility rate."

For those new to the topic, to keep a population level each woman needs to have, on average, 2.08 children (usually rounded to 2.1).  So 1.6 is civilizational suicide. 

Don't confuse the TFR with the "general fertility rate, which is the number of births per 1,000 females ages 15-44 and is utterly useless except for showing trends.  And sure enough, in the U.S. that trend rate has dropped a staggering 22% between 2007 and 2024.

Also, don't be misled by the statement by communist sons of whores who assure you that a TFR far below replacement level is NOT a cause for concern, by telling you that the number of U.S. births increased by roughly 1 percent between 2023 and 2024.  "SEE, deplorable?  Dere's no reason to be concerned!"  But total births rose because over 11 millions illegal immigrants entered the U.S. during bribem's ghastly open-borders reign, plus another few million legal immigrants...and their children count toward total births.  Does that surprise ya?

For the same reason, the "official" TFR of 1.6 children per woman *includes all children of immigrants, both legal an illegal.  So the TFR for native-born women is WAY lower than 1.6.

How low is it?  You can't find that number. Obviously the government has that statistic, but they're not saying.  Try to find it and let me know if you do.
 
Many factors together account for why births to women of European origin are so low.  First, more women are delaying marriage, or staying single for life, because the Media have been sneering at motherhood since the 1970s.  The Media and Hollywood have implied that marriage and motherhood are a form of slavery, and instead have glamorized the drama of corporate life--"far more exciting than being a stay-at-home mom!"

And many women who do marry are often choosing to have just one child, since that means far more disposable income for vacations, second homes, luxury cars and so on.

In any case the result is that the percentage of Americans of European origin is steadily dropping.

As Buchanan warned over two decades ago, if a population group doesn't have an average of 2.08 children per woman, it will eventually vanish.

Obviously the U.S. can always import labor.  But importing labor obviously doesn't import a culture or a heritage, a set of values that will help the republic endure.  Any country that replaces its population with people from somewhere else eventually becomes something else entirely.  If you're curious to know what that something else is, look at the recent riots in Los Angeles.

In any case, whatever replaces American will be...vastly different.from what we've known.

Of course in the 19th and 20th centuries millions of immigrants—Germans, Italians, Poles, Irish and others—successfully assimilated, often within a single generation.  That's because they shared a foundation of cultural and social values, and religion.

But since the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 that assimilation process has broken down.  And the one thing that would be expected to make assimilation desirable has been undermined by the left: wanting to be American.  

The left hates the idea that America is exceptional, instead claiming America is evil.  And that's had exactly the effect you could have predicted.

Birth rates to American of European roots are now far below the replacement level--it's civilizational suicide.  And while our civilization chooses not to have enough children to sustain itself, members of other civilizations will take over.

They just won’t be American.

Source: The Federalist

https://thefederalist.com/2025/07/25/american-birth-rates-rates-drop-to-levels-of-civilizational-suicide/

Time to get serious again: the real cost of "renewable ("green") energy"

As everyone with an IQ over 80 should know by know, Wikipedia lies shamelessly to advance DemocratCommunist policies.

One example of tens of thousands: Here's a deeply buried 'graf in a Wiki piece on "wind energy policy of the U.S."  (I've edited it for readability):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_energy_policy_of_the_United_States

>>In 1978 congress passed a LAW called the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act.  It was intended to increase electricity production from renewable energy.
   Wiki says it did that by forcing electric utilities to "interconnect with renewable power production facilities."
   That's a cunning mislead: it's NOT the incentive, but it makes readers ignore the real incentive: money.
>>They then would have to buy that power at a price mandated by their state equal to avoided cost, which is the cost a utility escapes by purchasing this power, as opposed to building a new plant, consisting of capital and operating costs of the forgone plant.>>

This is outrageous horseshit.  A total lie, designed to hide the real effect.

The actual law says "highest avoided cost," which is the cost per kilowatt-hour of electricity produced by a utility's least-efficient powerplant--one they'd only use when every other plant was maxxed out.

Typically the cost of electricity produced by the *least-efficient powerplant* is *easily* twice as much as electricity from a company's most-efficient one.

But now that you've read that, what does it mean to consumers, eh?  Wiki carefully avoids explaining, since that would wake people up to the truth of "green energy."

And that truth is that "green energy"--wind and solar--costs way more than conventional energy.  The only way to make it attractive is that congress *forced* all utilities to buy higher-cost "renewable energy" at each utility's "highest avoided cost"--which again is roughly twice the average cost.

Beginning to get it yet?  Nah, you aren't--not because you're stupid but because it's an insane policy.  Reason is that it raises electric bills for consumers *for no damn good reason.*  It enriches wind-energy promoters by paying 'em way more than market price--because of PURPA.

Energy grifters saw this as a guaranteed source of easy money, and in 1990 they got the corrupt (or merely moronic) congress to pass a law whose main purpose was to remove size limits on installations demanding PURPA payments.

Then during Obozo's reign congress passed yet another law DEMANDING that certain percentages of electricity used by the federal gruberment be "renewable."  This was yet another total invitation to needlessly higher costs--which seems to be one of the main "accomplishments" of gruberment.

There followed an almost endless series of pork-laden laws every year handing billions to "green" grifters.  The total number of grifters and their annual "take" is now so huge that they can get any law passed that they want--with exactly the results you'd expect.  For example, one law gave developers CASH for 30% of the cost of building any "renewable" powerplant.

That was in addition to "tax credits" to grifters equal to another 30% of the cost.  

And none of you ever heard about any of this.  That was by design.

Try reading the Wiki piece.  If you understand it, it'll make you sick:  all the billions of higher costs squeezed from ratepayers and taxpayers, given to "renewable" grifters.

Typical Democrat: "But we gots t'do dis to stop burning 'fossil fuels', cuz if we keep burning doze, duh Erf will burn up an' kill all duh cute doggies an' kittycats!"

Of course that's horseshit, but you can't teach "womens studies majors" thermodynamics or atmospheric physics, so they'll *always* believe whatever duh Media tells 'em.

If you consider the cost of the hundreds of "tax credits" the gruberment has given (and continues to give) to "renewable" grifters it's likely that renewable electricity costs taxpayers easily three or four times more than "normal" energy.  But Dems love paying way more than they should have to for electricity, right?  Cuz "global worming."

They call it "your government," but that's reassuring horseshit.  "Your" government is controlled by big donors who pay to get laws passed that give 'em money.  Everyone else is just taxpaying sheep.

You don't ever hear about the hidden billions in graft buried in almost every law they pass.  And the Media sure isn't gonna tell ya--like you, they don't bother reading the bills.

Are there ways the system *could* be fixed?  Sure.  But congress will never allow any "fix" to become law, because that would reduce their income.

What makes all this even more sad is that the Founders crafted a faabulous blueprint for a great government, only to see that great plan sabotaged by greedy politicians, both those paid by by wealthy grifters, and those who realized they could be re-elected for life by giving "free shit" to their voters. 

Source: corrupt Wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_energy_policy_of_the_United_States

Anybody remember this CONSTANT Democrat bleat about gun control? But now...

 

One of the Democrats' heart-rending, emotional arguments for confiscating all civilian-owned guns was "If it saves just one innocent life, it's worth it!"  Surely a lot of you still recall hearing that one, right?

You don't hear that anymore, because conservatives trotted out that same reasoning for deporting illegal alien criminals.

Suddenly the Democrats didn't find that argument a BIT convincing, eh?  Hmmm....  Always amazing how reality has a way of shutting Dems up (at least momentarily) when it bites 'em in the ass. 

Now the Dems have neatly pivoted to "No kings!"  So conservatives have noted a few things:

• Did voters get to vote on being forced by bribem to take the jab or be fired?  No?  Hmmm...
• Did you get to vote on your kids having to take the jab in order to go back to school?  No?
• Did you get to vote on being forced to pay off student loans for former students who never paid their own damn college loans?  No?
• Did you get to vote on the bribem regime allowing 11 MILLION unvetted illegals into the U.S.?  No?

Ruling by decree is the Dems stock in trade.  But when Trump decrees "No more men in girls' sports," the Democrats scream "We don't have kings!"  Conveniently short memories?

Every Mainstream Media outlet knew bribem was a vegetable, but they lied to protect the Dems

 

 

Every single member of the White House press pool knew he was senile.  Not one of 'em uttered a word to YOU.  Not only that, they all gleefully quoted his corrupt handlers who said he was totally competent.

Let that sink in for a minute.

No matter how much you may hate the Lying Mainstream Media, it's not enough.

"You must trust the Mainstream Media. We've never lied to you before, right?"

 

Young moronic college students: "No kings!"

20 Dem-ruled states sue DEMANDING that Trump be barred from cutting off fed dollars for illegals

Because Democrats have appointed most lower- and appelate judges, the Dems have mastered the art of suing the Trump regime to block literally anything he and his administration tries to do.

In the latest example, 20 Democrat-ruled states have sued the Trump administration
demanding an end to its ban on federal benefits going to illegal aliens.

States have always been free to use the tax dollars of *their* payers any way they want.  But cunning Dem pols in Dem-ruled states have been using federal dollars--medicare, medicaid, food stamps, SNAP and on and on--for illegal aliens.  Finally the Trump administration said "Not legal."

The Democrat lawsuit argues that clinics and providers who offer various services funded by tax dollars--including health care and education--can't know who's an illegal alien. The Dems argue that identifying who is an illegal alien is a “complex determination that cannot be made by an untrained individual.”

Seriously, that's from the court filing.

The lawsuit is being led by the Dem shithole of New York, and the state's corrupt attorney-general, Letitia James, claims that the new guidelines would cause the collapse of free health and education.

For example, her press release contends that her state's 850 community health centers "provide primary and preventive care to 2.4 million low-income residents, regardless of immigration status," and that if they don't continue to get federal money, many centers could be forced to close.”

If you're a resident of a "flyover state" you may not recognize this "reasoning."  It's called "extortion," and it's how gruberments and corrupt companies do business in Dem shitholes. "If you don't pay X we'll cut off your health care and your kids will DIE!"

And as should be obvious, states that give freebies to illegals attract thousands more illegals, who then become a big constituency.

New York and the other Dem-ruled plaintiff states claim ending federal tax dollars for illegal aliens would wreck Head Start.  While the plaintiffs wield this as an accusation, it’s actually an unintentional admission: How many millions in Head Start funding is actually going to illegal aliens?

"Sorry, we don't gots t'tell ya."

Best admission you can find is that an ACLU lawsuit claims significant numbers of illegals benefit from these taxpayer-funded programs.  But hey, you voted fo' dat, right?

The Democrat states that filed the lawsuits repeatedly admit they use federal dollars to provide services to illegal aliens, and that they're suing for the right to keep getting those federal dollars.

For example, in her court filing the attorney-general of Massachusetts argued “All families, *regardless of citizenship,* deserve access to a high-quality education, adequate healthcare, and community support.”

Dems thing dat sound SO totally reasonable.  But what you don't realize is that if you accept that premise you just signed a blank check that you kids will be paying to honor for their whole lives, for the entire world.  

If you didn't grasp that, let me explain: The Democrats have opened a door to letting anyone in the world enter the U.S. and remain, getting unlimited taxpayer-funded benefits.  All they have to do is claim "asylum."

When that law was passed, congress assumed only a tiny number of pipo would *honestly* be seeking asylum.  But cunning NGOs--that have gotten paid up to $25,000 taxpayer dollars for every illegal they "resettle"--realized that if they taught illegals to say the right "magic words," they'd be admitted *every time.*

The lawsuit by the 20 Dem-ruled states claims cutting federal funds to their health and education programs illegal aliens will hurt U.S. citizens who are legal beneficiaries of those programs.  But the truth is that Americans have been cut off from those programs because they’ve been overrun by illegal aliens.

It’s not the Trump administration that's killing Head Start or community health clinics, it’s Dems who insist on giving services meant for Americans to illegal aliens.

The bribem regime opened the border to millions of illegal alien invaders who now fill Dem-ruled cities and states and eat up federal dollars.

Democrat pols (and their voters) oppose welfare reform because they wanna curry favor with legal immigrants.

Democrat attorney generals are now arguing that all Americans must continue to pay for benefits to illegal aliens.  But because many Americans don't like that, the Dems have decided a far better attack is to claim that *unless* the feds keep giving 'em money for illegals, U.S. citizens will lose crucial benefits.  It's brilliant!

In the 90s, Republicans complained about new immigrants going on welfare and staying on it for decades.  Then, the number of "immigrants" was relatively small, but now, after bribem and his band of thieves opened the floodgates to millions of illegal immigrants, the cost has gone exponential.  *This was their intent all along.*

The final argument being used by Dem pols in sanctuary states is that unless they continue to get federal tax dollars to fund services for illegals, the results will be worse: they’ll just go to ERs, or spread diseases.  Stop welfare and they’ll become violent criminals.

The obvious solution is to stop funding illegal aliens and instead start deporting them.  But liberal Dem judges have ruled that the government can't deport 'em AND it can't cut off federal funds to states that insist on giving 'em tax dollars.

Hell of a system, eh?   When the federal government defaults on its debt, you know who to blame.  Unfortunately that won't fix things.

Source.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/90-of-dem-states-sue-to-fund-welfare-for-illegal-aliens/

U.S. birthrate drops to new low of 1.6--yet population is still growing. How, and what does it mean?

If you're a typical American you know almost nothing about a thing called the "total fertility rate."  That's the average number of children a woman has in her lifetime.

The CDC says that rate is at an all-time low of 1.6--far below the 2.1 rate needed to keep a population level.  But CBS news quickly reassures readers that dis jus' peachy, citizen.  They lard their written piece with bland reassurances from female academics dat dis don' mean nuffin'.  "The population is steadily increasing," says one.

Wait, how can that be?  They don't tell you, but the ENTIRE increase in U.S. population is due to immigration, both legal and illegal.  And not til the last paragraph do they bother to mention that the 1.6 rate is based on ALL women in the U.S., including illegal immigrants.

And since illegal immigrants typically have two or more children (sometimes lots more), what do ya think the birthrate is for white Americans, eh?

I've tried--without success--to find that number.  Surely the CDC has the data, but no search engine finds it.  My guess is they don't want you to know, because given the larger number of children in immigrant families, for the overall U.S. birthrate to be 1.6, the white rate must be down to about 1.3 or less.  The last official figure I could find was from 2010--15 years ago--at 1.7,

CBS doesn't mention the white birthrate, because they don't care.  But after reassuring readers that an overall 1.6 rate is no cause for any concern, what does CBS attribute the low rate to, eh?   Of course you already guessed: "high costs," "uncertainty about the future,"

Asked about birth-promoting measures by the Trump administration, [expert] said those don't tackle larger needs like parental leave and affordable child care.  "The things they're doing are really symbolic and not likely to budge things for real Americans," she said.

Ahh, so...Trump's fault, eh?  You knew it was coming.

Again, not til the last paragraph does CBS bother to mention that the 1.6 rate is based on ALL women in the U.S.--including illegal immigrants...which leads people who can do math to realize that the white birthrate is far lower.  Again, that's not a concern to CBS.

Source: CBS "newz"

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-birth-rate-all-time-low-cdc-data/

Iran: three groups are fighting for power. All are problematical

Power struggle in Iran: Mullahs have a plan

Many reports claim Iran's economy is on the verge of bankruptcy, and that resistance to the insane mullahs is spreading.  

Millions of Iranians have had enough abuse by the medieval theocratic regime, and as resentment grows we're starting to see a struggle for who will run things IF the mullahs are overthrown.

One group vying to rule is the old Mujahedin-e Khalq--communists.  They post signs saying: “Down with the oppressor, be it the shah or the mullahs.”

Which brings us to the son of the Shah, who ruled from about 1953 and was deposed around 1970.  The son--Rezi Pahlavi--has been living the life of luxury in the West, paid for by the billions looted by his corrupt father.

And here's where it gets interesting:

The mullahs claim that removing them will allow the son of the deposed and hated Shah to restore corrupt rule.  And sure enough, after years of silence the self-proclaimed ‘crown prince’ has suddenly re-emerged from his life of luxury to announce that he is the answer to the Iranian crisis.

Some Middle East experts believe the canny mullahs are using Pahlavi to divide the people trying to overthrow 'em.  The idea is that if the most popular choices are either the communist MEK or the son of the hated Shah, maybe it's better not to try to overthrow the mullahs, eh?

Incredibly, just a month ago Pahlavi held a press conference in Paris to say he was in direct contact with the Iranian Revolutionary Guards–-the regime’s Gestapo – which he wants to keep intact, to "maintain order" after the overthrow of the mullahs.

He claimed IRGC officers and members of the thuggish "Basij" are "reaching out to me.  These brave officers are reaching out to me, telling me they want to be part of our national salvation."

On one hand that seems clever, because the IRGC is like the Praetorian Guard of ancient Rome: a new shah would need them for protection.

Sucking up to the IRGC and Basij would outrage the tens of thousands of families of those who have been arrested, tortured, and murdered by the mullahs’ thugs, but on the other hand was a canny move by Rezi.

MEK Resistance Units claim they want a democratic, secular republic. Sounds great, but then that's what communists always do: As the old joke goes, "One man, one vote, one time."

The mullahs are hanging an average of one "dissident" a week, including women, and juveniles.  Many see that as a sign of profound weakness.

But the Resistance seems undeterred: government compounds are firebombed and regime TV broadcasts are regularly hacked with opposition messages.

Now Iran’s new president Masoud Pezeshkian has announced that he's suspended further cooperation with inspectors from the UN nuclear watchdog agency–-the IAEA.  Last Monday Iran's foreign minister announced on Bret Baier's program that Iran would not stop enriching uranium, and would only negotiate "with conditions."

Western appeasers who believe the mullahs got the message from the bombing that destroyed their facilities need to wake up.  The mullahs have announced--thru their foreign minister-- that they're determined to resurrect their nuclear program.  Of course this may be simply be a negotiating chip.  

I suggest there are no good options for the U.S. to back any side.  You can already see where backing any of the three groups vying for power will lead.  Best for the U.S. to stay out of that fight.

Source.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/iran-the-widening-cracks/

As inner-city grocery stores close due to theft, Dems have a great idea: *City-owned stores!*

If you get all your information from duh "Mainstream Media," you don't know shit about what's really happening.

Ahh, I see my Democrat friends are indignant about that statement!  "Dat's an insult!  We iz, like, totally well informed, cuz we watch PBS an' duh Media, an' dey tells us duh troof!  Cuz dey nevah lie to us, always tell duh troof!"

Hahahahahaha!  I see you've just arrived on this planet!  Enjoy your stay!

So let's review: We all agree that no one should starve.  So Democrats began by giving po' pipo money to buy food an' pay rent.  But much to their surprise, some of duh po' pipo used dat cash to buy iPhones an' hair extensions an' 3-inch fake nails, an'...drugs.  An' den when duh cash wuz gone, dey wailed dat dey wuz hungry.  Hmmm...  But don't yew dare aks 'em t'give up dere hair extensions or fake nails or drugs, eh?

To fix dat, duh Democrats started givin' duh pipo "food stamps," which cud only be used ta buy...food. Great fix, eh?  Except in about two days, valedictorians realized dey cud buy food stamps for 30% of face value--in cash--an' sell 'em to hungry pipo for 60%, making a faaabulous profit.   And there was no way to prevent this.  Nice.

So duh Dems moved to Plan C:  giving surplus cheese an' dairy to duh po' from gummint warehouses.  Win-win, eh?  But duh affluent white attorneys who make money for filing lawsuits fo' duh po', and store owners who wanted to sell more groceries to food-stamp recipients, said that was demeaning.  

So that went poof, and now the attorneys found a new boogeyman: "food deserts."  And the cause?  Of course, you guessed it:  rapacious, greedy capitalism!  And as you already guessed, that charge was eagerly picked up by one of our nation's two political parties.

Turns out inner-city valedictorians constantly shoplifted from local grocery stores, causing the owners to lose money year after year.  And finally--to the total surprise of Democrats and their leaders--the owners of those stores said "We're done."  

Dems: "SEE??  It's all the fault of doze greedy capitalists, who insist on making a profit!  What effrontery!  If we could just get rid of capitalists, ebryt'ing wud be perfect!"

So the Dems had a great idea:  Why don't we have ouah faaabulous, totally competent city council members and mayors set up city-owned grocery stores, eh?  Dat wud solve everything!

If you get all your "newz" from duh Mainstream Media you think this is an insane proposal.  The only thing government is good at is wasting money and enriching politicians.  It hasn't done anything efficiently or well in forever.  But turns out this isn't just a wasteful pipe-dream:  several Dem-ruled shithole cities already have these.

And if you're a Dem you say "Great idea."  Yeah, I get it.  So consider this story from the Dem shitsite the Washington Post (edited to remove the Post's fawning over the Dem party):

Kansas City's city-owned grocery store was wildly celebrated when it opened seven years ago. Area residents had long lived without a decent supermarket on Kansas City’s east side, and the store was an effort by the city’s Democrat rulers to give area residents access to healthy food.

But now the store--in a city-owned strip mall--is on the verge of closure.  Customers say they are increasingly afraid to shop there — even with visible police patrols — because of drug dealing, theft and vagrancy both inside and outside the store and the public library across the street.

The store lost almost a million dollars last year and now has barely a quarter of the shoppers it had a few years ago, according to the nonprofit that leases the site from the city.

Despite a recent $750,000 cash infusion from the city, the shelves are almost bare.

As grocery prices continue to climb and millions of Americans "face losing federal food assistance" [thinly disguised bitching about Trump] more cities and states across the country — in Illinois, Georgia and Wisconsin — are experimenting with the concept of taxpayer-funded grocery stores to get food to low-income neighborhoods.

Now here's the real purpose behind the WaPo sob story:

Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic candidate for mayor of New York City, has attracted attention for his campaign pledge to combat “out-of-control” prices by establishing FIVE city-owned supermarkets that he claims will pass savings onto customers because they don't have a "profit motive.”

Yet these experiments often don’t account for social issues that can make success even more challenging.  Critics say the efforts are unrealistic regardless because grocery stores have such slim profit margins and struggle to compete with the prices offered by big-box chains like Walmart. High-profile projects have failed in recent months in Florida and Massachusetts.

Marquita Taylor, who's shopped at the city-owned store just blocks from her home since it opened, says  “This is pathetic.  Every neighborhood deserves a good grocery store.*

Ahh yes!  And a 3,000-square-foot home with free internet and utilities, too.

Nearly a decade ago the Democrat-ruled gruberment of Kansas City spent $17 million to buy and fix up a decaying strip mall.  The city opened its grocery in 2018 with a salad bar, fresh shrimp on ice and flower bouquets.  Not surprisingly, locals were thrilled.

At first the store was run by a private grocer, but in 2022 a "nonprofit" took over.  Sales were okay at first, but after the pandemic crime rose and sales began to plummet.

See, duh Post implies pipo stopped buying food when duh Chyna virus hit, right?  Nah.

Police data show assaults, robberies and shoplifting in that area have risen since 2020.  Shoplifting cases have nearly tripled.

Wait..."shoplifting," y'say?  Wasn't that what caused the privately-owned stores to close in the first place?  Why yes, it was.  So how did spending over $17 MILLION on the city-owned store fix that, eh?  Of course it didn't fix jack-shit. 

At a community meeting last year the store manager showed videos of "security incidents," like a naked woman parading through the store throwing bags of chips to the ground, another person urinating in the vestibule and a couple fornicating on the lawn of the library in broad daylight.

Wait...duh Supreme Court haz ruled dat fucking in public in daylight iz jus' "freedom of speech," jus' like burning duh 'Merican flag!"

Advocates accuse the city of neglecting the property.

 "If duh city wud jus' spend another ten million or so, everyt'ing wud be fine!"  Ohh, certainly.

In May of this year, after the city was slow to give $750,000 in promised "assistance" [i.e. cash] to the store, residents from the racially mixed neighborhood stormed a council meeting waving signs that read, “I need access to fresh food!”

Democrat mayor Quinton Lucas says he sees two challenges: first is saving the current store. “Changing consumer behavior will be another.”

You don't say.

In a rare burst of not-quite-candor the Post writer says "The issues defy quick solutions."  She finds a police major who "links the rise in crime to fallout from the pandemic and rising inflation."  Hmmm...
  Then, buried after the above horseshit, is the real cause: The Dem-ruled (i.e. leftist) city council closed the city's only jail in 2009 to save money.  So people arrested for minor crimes are quickly released instead of being held in surrounding counties "miles away."

Say, how's that workin' out for ya, ya dumb bastards?

“The same group of offenders are here every week, just hanging out,” says the major. “A few people are ruining it for the rest of the community that deserves to go to their grocery store and their library.”

Wow, who could have predicted that if you don't jail people for "minor" crimes, they'll do more of the same, eh?

In one cryptic 'graf writer Annie Gowen says Illinois alone has spent $16 million for new grocery stores since 2023, but apparently none are owned by the city.  That sounds like giving money to connected grifters.

In Boston, Rauch founded a chain of five "low-cost" grocery stores that allegedly sold only healthy food, avoiding sugary snacks.  Gowen says sales revenue only covered 75 percent of their costs, and the rest came from with private and public grants.  But you can bet the customers all had iPhones, fancy hair extensions and glamorous nails.

The founder says they were anticipating a banner 2025, but then "the Trump administration slashed federal programs that aided nutrition assistance."  No specifics, no programs, no numbers.

“We ran out of money,” he says. “The freezing of funds at the USDA had a very chilling effect.”  

Exploring “public options” for groceries remains a popular idea with Democrats because of high prices...says Margaret Mullins, *director of public options and governance* at the Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator.

“Making sure people have access to fresh food is really, really important,” Mullins said. “So even though it’s tough, people keep turning to this public support idea because what else can they do?”

What else can they do, eh?  Well for starters, how about not stealing from grocery stores, eh?

Nooo, dat too harsh.  Far bettah to replace carefully-run private businesses with city-owned ones where cash vanishes every week.

A critic of the city-owned grocery says the store looks “great on paper” but doesn't have enough demand to support it.  And the neighborhood has other stores nearby.

That extremely vital piece of info is buried near the end of the piece.

So far the city appears to have spent about $29 million on the shopping center project.

The store’s insurance company has now dropped it, and the premiums with a new insurer are 45 percent higher.

After the city bought the property and opened the city-owned store, the local neighborhood association launched a campaign asking people to sign pledges to shop there.  The association also handed out $10 gift cards.

Now residents say "There’s nothing there.” Hardly any fruit or chips. No bread except hamburger buns.

 Government grocery in Venezuela.  Just kidding: this is the city-owned store in Kansas City.

Democrats: "We need more great projects like this!  An' to reduce costs duh city shud be the insurer for the store too!  See, duh premiums will drop cuz ain't none a' dat baaaad profit motive!  Yeh, dat's duh ticket!"

Source: shitsite Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2025/07/18/city-owned-grocery-stores-crime-funding/

Hilliary's "Trump-Russia collusion" hoax killed people and destroyed lives

You've probably never heard of Mike Caputo.  He was an assistant secretary for public affairs with HHS during the Covid plandemic, and a senior advisor to the Trump campaigns.

Because of the "Russia conspiracy" hoax, totally fabricated by Hilliary and the FBI/DOJ during Obozo's ghastly reign, lots of Trump supporters and their family members were attacked by crazed Democrats.  This is his story (edited): 

We "remnants" of the Russia-collusion hoax have similar stories.

When we all chose politics as a profession, we knew it was bloodsport.  But none of us expected the personal toll that our families—especially our children--would suffer.

When the Media and Democrats hatched the Russiagate and subsequent hoaxes, I went on television several times a week to try to tell the truth.  My wife and daughters paid the price.

Most Trump supporters stayed silent. They were the smart ones.  Some, seeing their kids bullied by students and teachers alike, pulled their kids from public schools.  In at least one family both parents were fired, so with no money for tuition their son was forced to drop out of college.  But of course you never heard about that, because the Media didn't want you to know.

Stories like this are commonplace. Many families lost their life savings to legal fees.  Some lost their homes.  You never heard about any of it.

Some committed suicide.

It's said that constant stress can cause cancer.

The mentally ill, weaponized by brazen Democrat lies, harassed nearly all of us. My frequent media appearances made me recognizable, which made my family a target of a local who was finally arrested and prosecuted for harassment.

My youngest daughters, just five and seven years old at the time, were often harassed while playing in our front yard. A local elderly woman, posted photos of our home on social media, showing our address. She screamed at my daughters as they played.

Constant harassment by unhinged activists finally forced us to leave our beloved hometown.

Last year Roger Stone and I had a late lunch near his home. Out of nowhere an Antifa activist showed up to threaten him in the mostly-empty restaurant.  

The Russiagate hoax was created by Hillary Clinton aide Jake Sullivan, who would later be appointed Biden’s national security advisor. Christopher Steele, the British spy hired by Clinton to create the dodgy dossier, and his Fusion GPS co-conspirator Glenn Simpson are still doing the same work for similar clients. Andrew Weissmann, Peter Strzok, John Brennan, and more still peddle their lies. Elements of the original conspiracy were woven into Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 American election, then bogus Trump impeachments, January 6th prosecutions, anti-Trump lawfare, and Special Counsel Jack Smith’s Mar-a-lago raid.

That 2016 hoax continues today.  Justice demands that we investigate those who created this hoax, and prosecute them fully and legally.  Americans should know who did it and how.

Source. 

https://www.racket.news/p/russiagate-remnants

They committed treason

 

 

We've known about the January 2017 meeting in which Obozo, Sally Yates (deputy A-G) and then-FBI director James Comey planned the "Russia collusion" hoax to cripple Trump's presidency.  And because the corrupt, Democrat-fellating Mainstream Media endlessly repeated it, it worked.

What was missing was written proof.  Now, with the head of the FBI appointed by Trump, he's released the FBI notes of that meeting, proving what had been leaked in 2017.  Of course you probably didn't hear about that or read about it, cuz the Mainstream Media barely said a word about it.

Now the question is, will the DOJ charge any of the participants with a crime?  Cuz I don't recall hearing that any of 'em got one of those faaaaabulous "unconditional, blanket pardons" like bribem gave hunty and his other family members.

Nah, no Democrat will evah be prosecuted, for anything.  Never are.  Some Deep State apparatchik would mis-file a crucial court paper and OOPS!  The statute of limitations just expired!

Video compilation of Adam Schiff claiming--falsely--that he had *evidence* Trump colluded with Russia

Here's a video compilation of Adam Schiff saying on 14 appearances on TV that he had evidence that Russia had colluded to help Trump win in 2016. 

He goes into detail to make his claim sound more convincing: "We know Russia offered to help Trump, and the campaign accepted that offer."   Except...just-released FBI documents show the "Trump colluding with Russia" was all a hoax by Obozo, the FBI and the Deep State to cripple Trump's first term.

Now, our shitty courts have held that you can't be prosecuted for making false statements about public figures unless you know the statements are false AND you made them maliciously.  Schiff's numerous repetitions of his lies would seem to qualify.  Moreover, the "malice" seems to be an effort to hamstring a duly elected president, which would seem pretty serious.

Frankly I think he should be imprisoned for life.  Seriously.

The curious case of Alan Dershowitz' WSJ opinion piece on Epstein

As most of you know, the attorney-general (Pam Bondi) and the director of the FBI have said a) Epstein killed himself; and b) despite rumors that he had a list of men who'd had sex with under-aged girls at his parties, there was no such list.

So if no list, supporters said "If that's true, why not release ALL material related to Epstein?"  The Dem-ruled Media smelled blood, and the current Narrative is that Trump participated.

In another article, WSJ reporters said they saw a bawdy birthday card from Trump to JE with a hand-drawn nude figure and lots of salacious typed dialog.  Trump denies writing any such card, but the Media is having orgasms.

Alan Dershowitz was Jeffrey Epstein’s lawyer.  On July 15 the Wall Street Journal printed an Opinion piece from him about sealed evidence in the Epstein case.  Highlights:

AD wrote that he couldn't reveal some of what he knew due to attorney-client privilege, and because some testimony had been sealed by judges.  But he says Epstein never created a “client list.”
 
The quotes around "client list" are in the WSJ article, and they're revealing:  AD is saying Epstein didn't create something *specifically called a "client list."*

That suggests there could be *some* sort of list, just not *called* a "client list."

AD says the FBI interviewed girls who claimed to have been at Epstein's parties--girls AD carefully calls "alleged victims--and says they named several recognizable men who were present.  He says the courts have ordered all the names sealed, but says he knows who they are, and that "They don’t include any current officeholders."

This last seems unusual: AD is a total liberal, and would seem to have every reason to stoke the fires of anger in Democrat voters.  If that's true, why would he include the phrase above that can be taken to mean Trump isn't mentioned?

I think it's to fire up Trump *supporters* to demand the release of all material on JE.  And AD says the media should petition the courts to release (unseal) all the names and information.  

He admits "There are videotapes, but they are of public areas of" Epstein's Palm Beach home.  He says Epstein reported the theft of money and a gun from a drawer in his living room, so the police installed a video camera.  Ever heard of cops installing a videocam in a private home?  Me neither.

AD doesn't mention whether Epstein had cameras in his NYC townhouse--and since this was where most of his parties were held, that's a big omission.

He also wrote "I am not aware of video cameras in guest bedrooms."  "I am not aware..." eh?

He writes that "Open records show an acquaintance between Epstein and Mr. Trump many years ago. That relationship ended when Mr. Trump reportedly banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago, long before becoming president. I have seen nothing that would suggest anything improper or even questionable by Mr. Trump."

Again, you wouldn't expect AD would have any desire to exonerate Trump, and yet he does just that.  It's...curious.

If your bullshit-detector hasn't gone off yet, here ya go:  He writes "It's clear from the evidence that Epstein committed suicide. What isn’t clear is whether he was assisted by jail personnel."

The first statement is utter horseshit:  While it's certainly possible he killed himself, a huge amount of "circumstantial evidence" suggests that he was murdered: cameras on his cell failing just before he died, his cellmate being moved out for no reason, guards sleeping when they were supposed to be making rounds, and most telling: He had huge assets to appeal any conviction for decades, and could have argued that by surrendering his passport he wouldn't be a flight risk if he remained free until his appeal was heard.

So...while he *could* have killed himself, to claim that "It's clear from the evidence that Epstein committed suicide," as AD does, is clearly horseshit.  And it shows that AD is on-board with the Narrative.

One of the mysteries of the Epstein case is that after he was charged in 2009 or so with sex trafficking underage girls in Florida, a U.S. attorney named Alex Acosta gave him an astonishingly sweet deal, allowing him to xxx

Acosta claims he was told--by never-named sources--that JE was working for a U.S. intel agency, so he was to get a light sentence.  This doesn't pass the smell test: If it had been true, charges would have been quietly dropped on some bullshit excuse like "no corroborating evidence."  Because any real intel agency that allowed its agents to do jail time would soon find itself short of agents, eh?

Interestingly, there's no evidence that the government ever cross-examined Acosta to find the details about his allegation that "I was told...."  Of course that could have been because it's true, but as just noted that seems unlikely.  But another possibility is that Acosta may have simply been paid off.  

Dersh claims Epstein never worked for any intelligence agency, because if he had, Dersh believes he would have told AD and his other lawyers, who might have been able to use that to get him a better deal.  
AD notes that the claim that Epstein was working for the Israeli intel agency Mossad probably arose from credible allegations that the father of Epstein’s girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell worked with Mossad.

SO...my guess is that Trump probably attended Epstein parties with underage girls, in which case it's understandable that he wouldn't want that revealed.  Dersh probably wrote the WSJ piece to assure Trump that he was on-board with keeping any secrets.  Guess we'll see. 

Source: the Wall Street Journal

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-inside-scoop-on-jeffrey-epstein-b0da1cbe