National avg gas price below $3/gallon--and both Denver and OKC had under $2/gallon before TG!

On Tuesday (12/2/2025) the average price of gasoline in the US fell below $3 for the first time since May 2021, according to the AAA. 

For Democrats and young Americans: Anyone remember when duh faaaaabulous, corrupt vegetable bribem was installed?

Jan 20th, 2021.  And when that happened, gasoline was below $3 a gallon.  But with bribem and his band of leftist/socialists ruling the country, the price of gasoline kept rising and rising.

Finally in November of last year voters said “We’ve had enough of this Democrat horseshit,” and they elected “duh dread Orange Hitler.”  And miraculously the price of gasoline started to fall--along with the price of most other things.

But despite this good news, last week a thing called the “Conference Board” bleated that consumer confidence dropped from 95.5 in October to 88.7 in November--the lowest since April.

And here’s the REAL hoot: While the average price of gasoline nationwide is just under $3 a gallon, most states are around $2.50...and in some places gasoline just before Thanksgiving--when the price of gas usually goes UP--it was selling for less than two dollars a gallon!

Ahh, I hear my Dem friends claiming “Dis FAKE NEWS!  Dis not real!”  Do ya think a Denver TV station was in on what you Dem morons claim is the fake news?  Cuz Denver stations KDVR and KWGN broadcast live video from a Shell station (Shell!), giving its exact location, and the price: $1.94.

 

If this had happened when bribem was in office, the Mainstream Media would have put this on their national news broadcasts, with the intro “Here’s some great news for holiday drivers!”  But with Trump as president, do ya think this stunning good news made it onto even ONE of the Lying Mainstream network broadcasts?  Even ONE?

Hahahahahahaha!  Of course not.  That’s why you low-info, we-only-gets-newz-frum-duh-alphabet-networks never heard a word about it.  

Are ya starting to see how the Democrat-fellating Mainstream Media control what you think is true?  If you get all your “newz” from the Lying, Democrat-fellating Mainstream Media you only see what they want you to see: pro-Democrat, pro-socialism, pro-tranny, pro-illegal, anti-Trump stories.  Not a single story is allowed on their broadcasts that doesn’t support The Narrative they’re hell-bent on feeding ya.

WAIT...let's see what duh faaaaabulous, owns-the-future AI says!  Cuz AI always tells us duh troof, right?  Hahahahahaha!  Are you people always this gullible?  

Notice the "weasel words"--loopholes--that enable AI to give the Democrat-fellating, Trump-denigrating response: "highly unlikely" and "consistently at $1.94."  So SEE, deplorables!  It wuzn't true!  Din' happen!  Cuz AI said...well, implied...dat it din't.

"If AI sez sumpin,' it mus' be true, cuz...it's a reeel smaht computah, an' computahs nevah lie!" 

I don’t have kids, and have enough resources to live well for the rest of my life, so when the utterly predictable results of Democrat/socialist policies destroy the nation I've loved, it won’t affect me.  I’ll feel sorry for your kids, since they didn’t deliberately do anything wrong--just what you taught ‘em.  Lambs led to the slaughter, eh?  By people like Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, Eric Swalwell, Chris Van Hollen, Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, AOC, Jazzy Crockett, Elizabeth Warren, Cackles, Tim Kaine, Tim Walz et al, eh?  (Another 200 could go here.)

Electing Trump offered a slim chance to avoid disaster: abolish half a dozen corrupt, wasteful federal agencies, offer tens of thousands of federal employees a generous severance package to quit, stop wasting money on DEI crap, deport illegals who are living off taxpayer funds and so on.  But in almost every case a leftist federal judge ORDERED every agency restored, every employee re-hired.

A couple of these Trump initiatives could still be upheld by the Supreme Court, but I’m not gonna hold my breath.  

Dear Don: Dems are lining you up for a 3rd impeachment. Here's how to sink THEM

Dear Don: 

It’s been almost a year since I last wrote you, as I wanted to see if the advisors you selected were any good.  It’s now clear that a lot of 'em aren’t, and that by chance you're now badly in need of a couple of fast solutions to avoid being impeached a third time.

While there are half a dozen potentially fatal problems, the most pressing at the moment seems to be the claim by Democrats that sinking fast boats smuggling drugs into the U.S. is a "war crime."  

Yes, the Democrats and the Washington Post are calling it a war crime, and are firing up their base to support a third impeachment.  And predictably, cowardly RINOs are starting to sign on as they see the political winds shifting. 

My guess is you’ve got less than two weeks to de-fuse this before it costs Republicans control of the entire government.  So here’s how to fix it:

At every press conference and cabinet meeting and impromtu Q&A with the press as you walk to the chopper for the next three months, announce that since congressional Democrats have been bleating that blowing up drug-smuggling boats is a war crime, you’re inviting ‘em to introduce a bill declaring that if passed, in the future, unless congress has declared war, sinking a drug-smuggling boat will be an impeachable offense, regardless of the president’s political party.

Keep repeating that invitation, and ask Mike Johnson and John Thune to publicly promise--often!--to bring it up for a floor vote.  You know Dem leftists won’t be able to resist taking the bait, and after the members of the Squad and the other hard leftists--Swalwell, Ted Lieu, Hakeem, and a dozen senators--sign on as co-sponsors, lots of semi-Left Democrats, feeling pressure from the Left, will join ‘em. 

This is a win-win, because if the Dems' bill passes, you and other GOP will be able to say that the Democrats voted for opioids and related drugs killing 100,000 Americans a year over the U.S. killing a hundred or so drug smugglers enriching the cartels.

If the Dems can't get their bill passed, you still get a hundred videos of Democrat members pushing to protect drug smugglers, proving exactly the same point as if it passed--that Dems would rather 100,000 Americans die from drug overdose than let our military sink a few dozen drug boats.  

If you run with the solution I just described, next I’ll tell you how to get Putin to agree to your proposal for an end to the war.

Sincerely, 

Now that Trump is prez, Democrat-fellating Axios admits there's a problem with Social Security

“Axios” is a leftist, Democrat-fellating website, so it totally ignores all serious problems when the Democrats control things, only mentioning ‘em when the Republicans are in control (no matter how weak, due to the senate filibuster).

So with Trump as prezzy and the GOP having a majority in congress, Axios is delighted to publish an article with the scary headline “Social Security’s day of reckoning is nearly here.”

Of course people who know anything about math have been warning about this for decades.  But of course Democrats in congress have blocked every effort to pass any rule changes that might have made the eventual fix less dire--because just admitting the problem would cause a few million voters to realize that SS was always a Ponzi scheme from the start: it could only work by taking money from the paychecks of an ever-growing number of working people to pay promised benefits.

Young Americans and stupid Democrats don’t realize that Social Security is funded by seizing 6.2% of every citizen’s paycheck--and employers are forced to pay ANOTHER 6.2% to the gruberment.  There’s also a cunning loophole that the if someone earns more than $176,000, there’s no SS tax on any earnings above that.  Cunning, eh?  Benefits the high earners, but why?

Another piece of stupidity:  You get SS benefits even if you have investment income of a million dollars a year.  There’s no limit.  Stupid.  Of course that’s not the big problem, but still...

Axios trivializes the long-known problems by writing that people have “fretted about” it.  How about “Warned, with copious figures, of the coming danger”?  “Fretted” is designed to soothe.  “Don’t fret little lady!”  You bet, sparky.

The problem--*as has been known for decades*--is that the total monthly “take” out of everyone’s paycheck AND the employer’s forced tax isn’t enough to cover the monthly “benefits.”  

It’s so simple a child could understand it.

Making things worse is that for decades congress has stolen hundreds of billions from the  retirement fund to pay for more porkbarrel spending by grandstanding congresswhores.

Wait, my bad: they didn’t “steal” those hundreds of billions, merely  “borrowed” ‘em.  Left IOU notes, just like borrowing from China, eh?

Congress was cunning enough not to steal ALL the money, but at current rates the last dollar will be gone barely 8 years from now--2033.  And then, unless magic happens, Axios says “recipients would see a steep cut to their monthly checks.”

Really?

Axios goes on to say “there are deep divides over how to address the imbalance.”  Wait...what “imbalance”?  This is the first time the article uses that word.  Are they talking about SS paying out more in “benefits” than the system takes out of your paychecks?  Yes, but they don’t say that--and you can guess why.

And the classic: 
>>Fiscal watchdogs—and the program's own trustees—have warned of its unsustainability for decades, *but what is different now is* that it is no longer a far-off problem.>>

You need to read that again to really appreciate the masterful way these shitheads excuse the failure by your dear “leaders”--corrupt rat-bastards for the most part--to fix the damn thing decades ago.  See, what’s different now is that the meltdown date is only 8 years in the future!

It’s like “Wow, who woulda’ thought time keeps on tickin’, eh?  You can’t blame US though, cuz we din’ know dat!”

Today the taxes taken from every American’s paycheck only cover 77% of monthly SS benefits, meaning that in 2033 the program could only pay that percentage of current benefits--*unless* congress borrows the rest from China (or similar). 

The average SS beneficiary gets about $2,000 a month, which would drop to $1,546.  

Of course congress won’t let that happen, because they wanna be re-elected, eh?  So they’ll just kick the can down the road, as they always do, eh?  They’ll do it by borrowing the extra billions needed every month, just like they do now with the rest of the money they DEMAND be spent.  Trump can’t cut a single program--not a single dollar--without some Democrat group suing--and the leftist judges always RULE that all the funds be restored.

Axios again:
>>The great question is how to solve this mismatch between the tax revenue that comes in and the benefits promised.>>

Ahh, this must be the “imbalance” mentioned many ‘grafs earlier. 

Axios laments that after the big “baby boom” when U.S. troops returning from overseas after WW2--grateful to be alive and eager to start families--Americans have been having fewer babies, thus fewer people entering the workforce and paying SS taxes.  But the number of people receiving monthly SS checks has steadily increased: 

In 2000 there were 3.4 workers per SS beneficiary.  Today that's down to about 2.7, and is predicted to reach 2.3 in ten years.

Eight years from now the shortfall between SS tax take and promised benefits is likely to be $350 billion per year.  Since the government is already projected to have to borrow a staggering $2.9 TRILLION in that year to cover spending already ordered by your stupid congress, adding $35O billion more may not seem like much, but it’s actually a 12% increase, which will move the date at which everything implodes closer. 

Today the government is forced to pay one TRILLION dollars a year just in *interest* on our national debt.  And by 2033 that’s likely to be almost two TRILLION a year. 
 
Finally, 40 paragraphs into its propaganda piece, Axios admits the real problem:
>>“Every dollar of benefits paid to a recipient translates into a tax increase for someone else.”>>

There it is, *finally--* the carefully-hidden secret of socialism, that politicians can’t give money to one person/group without taking it from someone else who worked for it...*unless* they either borrow *or just print* the money.  And corrupt or stupid or greedy politicians do both.

That explains why a majority in congress [spit] have ignored the well-known problems over the last 40 years.  Democrats didn’t want voters to realize the truth that Social Security was a ponzi scheme.  And most Republicans went along because they’re as addicted to being able to order massive spending as Democrats.

Axios now has an expert explain the obvious: "If *we* [i.e. congress] had done this decades ago, these changes would have been so much smaller. Instead we've [??] waited until the last minute.”

Conservatives have been warning congress about this for 40 damn years.  Congress refused to listen.  So what’s this “we” shit? 

There are 3 variables: raise taxes, cut benefits, or change the structure of Social Security so as to kick the can down the road.

Raising taxes:  As noted, half of SS is funded by the gruberment taking 6.2% of every paycheck you get (but only up to $176,000, at which point no more is taken).  The other half is paid by your employer--another 6.2%.  And if you’re self-employed you pay the entire 12.4%.  That’s a HUGE hit.

Democrats will demand that no benefits be cut by even a dollar--and Republicans will go along to avoid losing the next election.

Axios sees that if congress refuses to raise SS taxes or cut benefits, the only remaining option is to borrow the money--which would mean higher interest rates on U.S. borrowing. 

But after dumping this critical problem into Trump’s lap (so he can be blamed for not solving it), Axios wants to keep voters from realizing that the entire SS concept was a ponzi scheme doomed to failure--as are all socialist policies.  So they finish with:
>>The good news for current or soon-to-be retirees is that...Social Security will almost certainly be there for you.>>

Of course borrowing even more billions brings the inevitable implosion of the U.S. debt bomb years closer, but what difference does it really make whether it hits in 2050 or 2060, eh comrade?  You’ve lived a great life, voted Democrat every election, hate Trump and conservatives, probably have a trans kid or two, so not your problem, eh?

You don’t believe in life after death, so you’re confident there will never be any reckoning for your choices.  You can die at peace with the choices you made.  Hey, nations come and they go, right?  Besides, as AOC and the Dems constantly tell us, “America was never great,” so no real loss, eh?

What matter is that you supported open borders, unlimited immigration, public schools pushing sex-changes on kids, “undocumented Americans” and prison inmates, libraries hosting “drag queen story hours,” releasing crazy druggies so they could kill innocent girls.  Oh wait, you din’ think that could possibly happen.

Source: Axios

https://archive.is/VKaD0

https://www.axios.com/2025/11/29/social-security-trust-fund-2033 

A well-known Brit predicts the UK will soon become "essentially unlivable." Brits are furious

In 1969 psychiatrist Elisabeth Kübler-Ross speculated that people confronted with imminent, unexpected death went through five mental stages: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and finally, acceptance.

With that background, consider the reaction by leftists as dozens of high-profile Brits have warned that the UK is (or soon will be) “impossible to live in.” 

That claim is supported by several undisputed facts:

• the number of Muslims in the UK has soared in the past two decades;
• most of these are illegal, crossing the Channel in boats, but the government policy continues to be ordering the UK equivalent of our Coast Guard to pick up the illegals and bring them ashore, where they get all the usual benefits;
• even though UK law bans polygamy, the Labour government has consistently allowed illegal-alien Muslim males to not just have several wives, but to claim all of them for welfare purposes;
• Muslims typically have 6 children per female, compared to about 1.7 for native Brits;
• As a result, Muslims now have significant political power in the UK;
• In the past ten years greater London has seen a huge increase in the amount of knife violence.  In almost every case the attackers/killers are muslim.
• UK judges have been imprisoning Brits who dare to defend themselves or others against knife attackers;
• Judges are also charging Brits with “hate speech” for making social media posts critical of Muslims.  Defendants are always convicted, and have received jail terms of as much as 3 years;

The prime minister of the UK--Keir Starmer--is a self-declared socialist and member of the Labour Party, which pushes many of the same policies as our Democrat party.  But unlike the U.S, where voters are split almost evenly between the two parties--giving us a chance of electing a Republican president--in the UK decades of generous welfare and unlimited immigration have produced far more votes for the Labour party, so the chances of any other party winning are very low.

The House of Commons has 650 seats, and at the moment Labour holds 405, compared to just 119 for conservatives.  As a result, no substantive conservative bills ever pass. 

And this huge power imbalance is unlikely to ever end, because the Labour party, like the Democrats here, has a VERY effective strategy of bribing people to vote Labour for life, by promising voters unlimited free shit.  So once the Labour/Democrat machine gets established, it’s self-sustaining.  

With this background, we return to the five stages of emotional response to death:  The post at this link at top is about a comment made by a British citizen (Peter Hitchens) who warned that the U.K. will soon become unlivable, and that anyone who can should leave now.  

The idea that a nation as old and accomplished as the UK could become "essentially unlivable" can easily be seen as a kind of death, and the instant response from so many commenters was exactly the same as the first response to death by humans: heated denial, followed quickly by anger.  Commenters were furious: “how DARE he say people should leave!!  We must stay and fight!”

Then the leftist commenters showed their true colors: "Of course I did NOT mean that literally!  We must NEVAH fight literally!  Just strongly-worded letters!"  And then you realize that if anyone suggested staying and actually fighting to save the country, the leftist commenters would have called him a “domestic violent extremist” or some similar horseshit.

The angry commenters don’t really wanna fight for their country--perish the thought!  They’re just angry about Hitchens' assertion that the UK is in danger of becoming "unlivable."  Denial.

They don’t dispute any of the facts listed above that show the inevitable result, but just deny that those facts predict the loss of the essence of the nation that’s been a fountain of enlightenment and knowledge for 500 years or so.  The denial is totally understandable.

Next comes bargaining, as the ruling pols--the sons and appointees of the ones who corruptly, stupidly, deliberately allowed unlimited illegal invasion--make deals with the Muzz leaders to be allowed to stay in office--fawned over by the Media and Labour voters--for another few years.

Next is depression.  Not among the politicians, of course, since they’ll have enough money to leave, but among those who can’t afford to leave.  "Little people"--what Hilliary called "deplorables"--will settle into the kind of head-down existence familiar to residents of the former East Germany, the USSR, communist Poland and Hungary and dozens of other totalitarian governments:  Keep your mouth shut, pay the jizya (if you’re a low-info Democrat, look it up) and hope your daughters aren’t too attractive.

Depression gradually turns into acceptance: In WW2 America could help defend the UK from the Nazis because we could stage troops, aircraft and ships on the island nation.  But after the Muzz takeover none of that will be possible.  We won’t be able to help.  The Brits will be on their own.

As far as AI knows, no Muslim-ruled nation has ever overthrown Islamic rule without outside help.  (Closest seems to have been Tunisia, which claims to be a democratic republic, but with Islam as its official religion.) 

Past wars between Islam and Christian nations in Europe have been fought mainly on land, so besieged nations could be reinforced from behind defensive lines.  But since the UK is an island it would take an amphibious invasion for the U.S. to help.

Obviously that’s hugely unlikely.

So...all that’s left is acceptance.

One more item to consider: the UK has 225 nuclear warheads.  Three months ago, socialist leftist Starmer appointed a muslim female, Shabana Mahmood, as Home Secretary, an office responsible for “domestic security,” including law enforcement, immigration, national security, and counter-terrorism. Oversees the police in England and Wales, Border Force, and the Security Service (MI5), and handles policies on crime, immigration, drugs, and cyber security.  This is obviously a critical post to the security of the UK, and it would seem to be only a matter of time before Starmer appoints a Muslim Defence Minister--whose troops would be in charge of the nukes.

Bet not one of ya knew that--because the U.S. Mainstream Media does NOT want Americans to pay any attention to unsettling events overseas.  Besides, who would ever imagine the UK could be taken over from the inside?  It’s as unlikely as thinking a socialist Muslim could be elected mayor of the largest U.S. city!  

The Democrat strategy that's been working since 1900

And in light of my previous post noting that a majority of voters under 40 say they want the next president to be a socialist), try this:

Democrats have mastered a political strategy that’s so classic it’s been named: the Curley effect.

Works like this: Democrat leaders adopt policies that increase taxes on “the rich” (anyone making more than their neighbor) and give it to the poor.  Not surprisingly, this gets the poor to vote Democrat permanently, since they know that’s how to keep the free shit coming. 

So far, no surprise at all, eh?  But read on:

But over time, a growing number of the well-to-do and hard-working entrepreneurs get tired of the high taxes needed to pay corrupt pols and people who refuse to work, so they move to a city or state not ruled by Dems--further solidifying the power of the Democrat party in the first city or state.

The exodus of a small number of the wealthy is barely perceptible, but gradually reduces the amount of tax revenue to the ruling party.  In addition, there are always more poor to feed and house, so more welfare costs every year.  But the loudest leftists of the Dem party demand ever-more-generous welfare policies.  So inevitably, ruling pols are forced to choose between more welfare and cutting city services.  Since their loudest leftists demand more welfare, city services deteriorate.
 
As the quality of life in the first city slowly deteriorates, due to reduced tax revenue forcing cutbacks in city services (police, street maintenance, trash pickup, etc), a few residents begin to suspect that the Dem policies may not be the key to success that the Democrats promised.  So to silence these critics the Curleyists fire up voter support by fanning the flames of class warfare, demonizing “the rich” as “oppressors” and “exploiters of the poor.”  This always works: the few who see the real problem (Democrat policies) are said to be “acting white” or called “Uncle Toms” or  “counter-revolutionaries” (the communist term). 

Ultimately the most successful Dem pols are the ones who are the most skilled at firing up the voter base by claiming they’re being oppressed.  We see this in all top Dem pols: AOC, Chuckie Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, Ilhan Omar, Al Green, Jasmine Crockett...the list is endless.

The combination of high taxes, crumbling city services and demonizing rhetoric encourages smart conservatives to flee.  This is called “shaping the electorate.”

The strategy is named after former Boston mayor James Michael Curley, who served four terms as mayor, three as a member of congress, one as governor, and dozens of other taxpayer-paid positions from 1900 until his death in 1958.  He became THE iconic model for Democrat pols to this day.  They’re the people rational folks should NOT want in government--and the Democrat party loves ‘em because they win...again and again.

And to show how effective this strategy is: only about 8% of voters in Massachusetts are registered Republican, and the state has ZERO Republican congresscritters.

As Democrat senator Harry Reid once smirked after getting away with a cunning lie about a Republican presidential candidate: “It worked, didn’t it?”

Astonishing poll results: 51% of voters under 40 say they prefer a socialist as the next president

A national phone and online poll ten days ago shows a majority of voters under 40 want the next U.S. president to be...wait for it...a democratic socialist.

Predictably, a stunning 82% of Democrats under 40 said they wanted a democratic socialist as the next president.

You might think Republicans wouldn’t want a socialist as president.  But surprisingly, 24% of Republicans under 40 said they wanted a socialist president, and 11 percent were unsure.    

Among independents, 37% said they wanted a socialist to win in 2028, while just 31% opposed.  Another 32% said they weren’t sure, which means they’ll easily support the socialist, since the Media will say socialism is faaaabulous.

Overall, 51% of likely voters ages 18 to 39 say they wanted a democratic socialist president, compared to 32% who didn’t, with 17% unsure. 

A majority (54%) said their parents supported socialism. 

Naive conservatives believe churches support conservative values, yet among respondents who said they attend church, 33% said their church portrays socialism favorably, compared to 28% who said their church portrays it unfavorably.

Not surprisingly, more women than men said they wanted a socialist president, because for at least 40 years feminists have been telling women that men are useless.  So more young women believe duh gruberment can do anything women once needed a man for.  (And of course in many cultures this is accurate.)

Again unsurprisingly, 75% of blacks want a socialist as president, along with 69% of Hispanics and 66% of other minority voters, compared to 42% of whites.  This is understandable because one of the pillars of socialism is taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor.
   Wait...isn’t that what the gruberment does now?  Why yes, yes it is.  But most of the beneficiaries of tax-funded free shit want more. 

So what’s likely to happen is this:  With the socialist Muzz Mamdani as mayor, crime in NYC will increase, but official reports will say the opposite.  Precinct chiefs will be pressured to show that result.  And no one will ever find any written evidence that the stats are fake.

Every quality-of-life metric will get worse, but no one will ever see the real numbers.  Even rumors that the official figures are fake will be hidden until after the 2028 election.

So by all official metrics, in 2027 and 2028 NYC will appear to be a well-run city under their socialist mayor.  By contrast, the Media will constantly broadcast videos of po’ pipo in other states who are surviving on food stamps and other welfare--and the Media will blame Trump and the GOP for a terrible economy, just as they blamed the Republicans for the recent government shutdown.

As a result, all the Democrat candidates will try to out-do each other in pushing far-left policies.  Then the real fun will begin when stupid voters elect one of 'em as president.

Source.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025/11/26/poll-majority-of-likely-voters-under-40-say-they-want-to-see-democratic-socialist-win-next-presidential-election/ 

I'm done: if the only solution is Civil War, so be it

I'm done.  

The thing that finally convinced me there's no other viable way to save what's left of this poor, besieged nation was a 3,000-word propaganda piece by the Democrat-fellating shitheads at Time Magazine just after an antifa moron assassinated Charlie Kirk.  But this story has nothing to do with that.

How many homes burn down every day in the U.S.?  Beats me, but it has to be at least 20-30.  But when a *second home* owned by a low-level Democrat judge burns, the leftists at Time scream it was "triggered by Trump!"  

Not a shred of evidence, of course, but morons believe it, so...

Oh, I hear my dumb liberal friends are saying that's just right-wing hyperbole.  Well take a look at Time's fucking headline:

House of South Carolina Judge Criticized by Trump Administration Burns Down

In case you didn't get it, Time "helpfully" tags this under "extremism"  
   --by propagandist: Miranda Jeyaretnam

Police are investigating the cause of a fire that burned down the home of South Carolina circuit court judge Diane Goodstein, who had reportedly received death threats for weeks related to her work.

The 69-year-old judge had received death threats in the weeks leading up to the fire.... Last month Goodstein blocked the state’s election commission from releasing any of its voter files to Trump's DOJ-- a decision criticized by Trump's Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dillon--and later reversed by the state Supreme Court.

For those unfamiliar with the law, when a state's Supreme Court reverses a lower judge's ruling, that's usually a big sign that the lower judge violated the law.  But most Dems have no idea what being reversed implies.

Trump's DOJ had sought the information as part of his March executive order restricting non-citizens from registering to vote.

Wait...Trump didn't restrict ANYTHING: non-citizens are already barred--by federal law--from voting in federal elections!  But the Media couch this as "Trump is restricting rights!" because that enrages Dem voters and attracts viewers.  Fans the flames of their outrage so more will vote in the mid-terms.
   In case you didn't get the message Time intended, read on:

The Trump Administration has sought to drastically reshape the election system *in the name of election integrity* by requesting--and in some cases suing!--states for voter registration data to compile a comprehensive centralized database.

Note the cunning phrasing by the liberals: "...in the name of election integrity.  That very carefully-worded phrasing implies that Trump is just using "election integrity" as an excuse to do...something.  The communist Dems at Time then explain that his real goal is restricting voting rights.  

The administration has sought data from more than 30 states and has considered pursuing criminal investigations into state election officials. Critics have argued that the Administration’s efforts are an attempt at disenfranchising voters from marginalized communities and overstepping states’ constitutional authority to control election procedures.
     If the fire at the judge’s house turns out to be targeted...

"If your mother was your father," eh?   Hypothetical horseshit.

...it may mark the latest incident of a startling rise in political violence in the U.S.

”Political violence in the U.S.” y’say?  Ya mean like assassinating Charlie Kirk?  "Why YES, deplorables!  Jimmy Kimmel told Americans on national TV that the killer was a MAGA supporter.

And while the Trump administration has blamed the left’s rhetoric for inspiring violence such as the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, an attack on a judge would come as the Administration has increasingly vilified the judiciary, blasting judges that rule against it as “U.S.A-hating insurrectionists.”

"...would come," eh?  Loaded with hypotheticals.  Fiction.  But it inflames stupid readers who do NOT realize there hasn't been ANY violence against the judges.  Endless "Suppose X happened" melodramas by the breathless leftist whores of Time.

Sub-head: Political violence on the rise

In addition to Kirk’s murder last month, the murder of Democratic Speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives Melissa Hortman and her husband in June, and an arson attack at Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s residence in April...

By a leftist jew-hater!

...a number of judges who have ruled against Trump have also received attacks and threats from his supporters.

AHHhh, "attacks and threats," eh?  Let's hear the breakdown, assholes.  You put "attacks" first, suggesting more of the former.  Cite?" 

 “I’m hearing everywhere that judges are worried about their own safety,"

...said one Dem operative.  OOOhhh, so the propagandist spins this to "I'm hearing everywher...."  This is a variation of the classic Leftist dodge "Some say..."

"There are people who are inflamed by the incendiary comments by the president and members of Congress about judges. Public officials have legitimized attacks on judges with whom they disagree,” Nancy Gertner, a former judge and current professor of practice at Harvard, told the Guardian in May.

When someone shoots or assassinates a liberal judge, then I'll listen.  But right now the Left has assassinated a charismatic conservative, while leftist judges are...um...being sent pizzas?  Yep, here’s Democrat shithead Dickie Durbin:

Richard Durbin, top Democrat on the Senate judiciary committee, penned a letter to Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel requesting an investigation into “pizza doxxing” incidents against at least a dozen judges.

SEE, deplorable?  Both sides assassinate pipo dey don' like!  Reeeally!  Okay, maybe "pizza doxxing" is a tiny bit different than assassination, but it’s reeeeally close!!

“Threats against judges are threats against constitutional government,” said one New York judge.  “This is a basic authoritarian instinct,” said a professor at Harvard. “You cannot have a democracy where the elected government can do whatever it wants.”

Sub-head: Trump Administration’s targeting of judges

Wow, that's a direct accusation.  But Trump can't sue because "public figure."

Less than a year into his second presidential term, Trump has asserted an expansive view of his executive powers.  As of October, Trump has issued over 300 orders, proclamations, and memoranda, many of which have resulted in thorny and protracted legal battles. Between May 1 and June 23, federal district courts blocked 94% of Trump’s actions with temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions...
    Critics have said the sheer amount of litigation, some of which has been brought or appealed by the Trump Administration, could overwhelm the judiciary.

Wow, you asshole sons of whores are blaming Trump for bringing the actions or appealing, when lawsuits were filed by your party??   When a lower-court judge blocks a Trump order and your party sues, that doesn’t "overwhelm the judiciary," eh?  But if Trump appeals, suddenly it's swamping the courts, eh?  Your hypocrisy is boundless.

And of course stupid voters believe you.

The Time article goes on for another 2,000 words, but you get the gist.

Source: Time Magazine propagandists  

https://time.com/7323442/south-carolina-judge-diane-goodstein-house-fire-trump-political-violence/ 

The Democrats dumped bribem for an abrasive, cackling DEI hire. Did not work out well

The Democrats ran an abysmally dumb, abrasive, cackling DEI hire for president.  Their dysfunctional addiction to DEI led them--inescapably--into a trap of their own making.

As we all know, after bribem's awful performance in the only presidential debate, Pelosi and other Dem leaders decided he couldn't win, and to replace him with a nominee who might be more appealing.

This alone is amazing, because Democrat voters had voted overwhelmingly for bribem--he’d won every primary by huge margins.   For a party that's always bleating about "ouah precious democracy"--that whoever gets the most votes wins--forcing out the winner of their primaries is a huge contradiction.  If the Republicans had tried that the NY Times would have screamed to high heaven.
 
But Democrat leaders sneer at the foolish, naive desire of voters that their party be consistent!  So the only decisions Pelosi and other Dem leaders had to make were

  1) Who will we choose to replace bribem?  and 

  2)  How do we replace the voters’ choice with our choice in a way that maintains the fictitious Narrative that "voters choose ouah nominee"?

Right after bribem’s disastrous debate, Democrats considered replacing him with Josh Shapiro, governor of big-EV state Pennsylvania.  But after word leaked that Pelosi was gonna force bribem to give up the nomination, one loud female member of the Congressional Black Caucus threatened that unless the Party gave Harris the nomination, blacks would "burn the party down:"  She said black voters would stay home on election day, meaning the Dems would lose millions of votes. 

That threat put party leaders in a bind:  Without the black vote Pelosi and the Dems knew they couldn't win.  And no Dem "leader" could dare suggest that Kamala wasn't totally qualified to be president of the United States, even though her only so-called "qualifications" were being female and arguably partly black--because today's Democrat party believes those are the only qualifications needed to hold any high-level position. 

(An astonishing 66% of Biden's judicial appointees have been nonwhite.  Even Obama only managed to appoint 37%.  And of course all the nominees were selected NOT by bribem but by his handlers. Bribem had nothing at all to do with the process, just like his Executive Orders: "Just sign here.")

Harris' race and gender were why Biden chose her as his running mate in the first place: during the primaries he promised that if he won the nomination he'd name a black female as his running mate.  He also promised to appoint a black female to the Supreme Court--and did--though ironically the pyrsyn he appointed said she couldn't define "woman," since doing so would either expose her as a fraud or would alienate the Democrats' beloved pro-trans voters.

Only 2% of the nation's lawyers are black women.  So in promising during the primaries--solely to pander to black and female voters--to exclude 98% of all lawyers from being considered for the highest court in the land, what are the chances of finding the most qualified candidate from the 2% who are black females, eh?  But this is the inevitable result of Democrat wokism.

A handful of Democrat leaders suggested the party NOT simply give the nomination to Cackles, claiming some small percentage of Dem voters might suspect "the fix was in" and might resent having the clearly moronic Cackles rammed down their throats.  They urged Pelosi NOT to simply select Cackles as the nominee, but to give delegates to the upcoming Democrat Party convention the chance to “freely” choose her.

But Pelosi refused, because the black CBC female had already told her that if the party didn't give the nomination to Cackles, the CBC would tell blacks to stay home.  And Pelosi was worried that if the Party went into its convention without ensuring Cackles would win the nomination, there might be a push by some delegates to choose a more competent candidate.  Pelosi knew that would cause blacks to stay home, handing the win to Trump.

Of course Pelosi knew the party had enough "super-delegates" to block any other choice, but was concerned that simply giving the nomination to Harris could alienate a million Dem voters--who knew Cackles was a terrible candidate.  Either option seemed likely to alienate a million voters.

So mere days after Pelosi persuaded bribem to decline the nomination, she endorsed Cackles, handing the nomination to a creature who'd cheered the BLM riots that burned Minneapolis, who enthusiastically released violent criminals from prison, insisted on taxpayer-funded sex change operations for prison inmates and illegal aliens; who compared ICE agents to Nazis; who totally believed Jussie Smollett’s hoax hate crime, supported defunding the police and said she wanted to decriminalize illegal immigration.

The breadth of this stupidity is mind-boggling.  And of course Kamala perfectly represents today's Democratic Party.  Her entire career has been one affirmative action promotion after another. She even got into law school on the basis of her race-- as the law school has bragged.  And a year ago Cackles came within a hair's breadth of being elected president--based on her race and gender.

Harris is the ultimate achievement of DEI.

Hundreds of videos show Cackles turning words into meaningless noise.  If you were over 30 during Obozo's first campaign you saw many examples of when his teleprompter failed, and he was reduced to uhhhhs and ummms--frozen until it came back on.  Harris was worse, and yet the Mainstream Media portrayed her as brilliant, her every utterance profound. 

If Cackles had been smarter she would have realized she wasn't remotely qualified to be president, and for the good of the party she’d gracefully ask the Party to select a more-qualified nominee.  But this doesn't seem to have occurred to Cackles, who seems to believe she’s brilliant--which is no surprise because everyone around her always told her she was.  

The man who gave Cackles every government post to launch her career was Willie Brown--for decades the most powerful politician in California.  Brown appointed her to one highly-paid government office after another.  And of course everyone pretended not to know that Harris had been Brown's mistress for years.

So instead of declining, Harris accepted her selection (coronation?), supported by a party absolutely filled with other angry liberal/Dem women.

The Democrat party supports allowing biological males to compete in girls' sports.  Supports open borders.  Opposes deporting illegal aliens.  Opposes drilling for oil and gas, favoring costly, unreliable "green" scams.  Favors having taxpayers pay for sex changes for inmates and illegals.

All those were and are Democrat policies. 

But one group of Dem voters didn’t like those policies, and saw Cackles for what she was:  That group was Black males.  They realized her only competence was sleeping her way from appointed posts to a senate seat in California, and now to the nomination--and they weren’t impressed.

Democrat leaders quickly realized this, and asked Obozo to whip skeptical black men into line.  His argument to them was that because she was partly black, they had to vote for her.

Black males weren't dazzled by Obozo's alleged charisma, nor by his reasoning, and were openly unpersuaded.

The case can be made that the loss of just one percent of votes in crucial battleground states cost the Dems--and Cackles--the presidency. 
 

Democrat-fellating NY Times profiles illegal who stole a U.S. citizen's identity--taking him 20 years to resolve; NYT says "they're both victims"

NYT: "Two Men. One Identity. Both Paid the Price."

Is stealing an American citizen's identity and making the life of his family hell a bad thing?
    Apparently not, if the thief is also an illegal alien, racking up debts in the name of the citizen without repaying them and committing other crimes.  In fact the Times says the illegal identity thief is as much of a victim as the man whose identity he stole. 

Dan Kluver had never missed a loan payment, had never been arrested, but over the years had gotten letters about wages earned in unfamiliar towns, and collection notices for debt that wasn't his.

Someone had stolen his identity, using his Social Security number to illegally work. The thief kept the money from his illegal jobs, but that income was reported as Kluver's, increasing the amount of income tax the government insisted he owed.

So the man whose identity was stolen was forced to pay the taxes on the thief's earnings while the thief kept the wages.  Wow. 

Yet according to the shitheads at the Times, BOTH were victims here.

Twice, the American citizen had contacted law enforcement and filed an identity theft report with the federal government--where it landed in a pile along with tens of thousands of similar reports filed each year.  As he waited for relief, the IRS kept taking thousands of dollars out of his paychecks. 
  Finally, months before their wedding in 2012, his fiance decided to pay off the balance, emptying her savings to send the IRS a check for $6,000. 
  Their relief lasted until the next year, when a new IRS bill arrived--for $22,000.

The couple spent the next decade living with yearly tax audits, budgets that never added up, whispered arguments after the kids went to bed.  Kluver kept calling government numbers and being put on hold, until he eventually resigned himself to a payment plan. He agreed to send the IRS $150 each month, which he'd done more than 35 times--over $50,000.

Now the leftists at the Times turn their attention to the thief--portrayed by the times as The Other Equal Victim.

>>Romeo Pérez-Bravo, 42, a Guatemalan immigrant...>>

<<The Times liars cunningly omit the crucial word "illegal."<<

>>...had lived under enough names and numbers in the United States that they started to blur together.  For more than a decade he'd posed as Daniel Kluver--a name he'd used so long he could barely remember what it felt like to exist as himself.>>

<<See, citizen?  Dis po' "immigrant" beez as much a victim as the people whose identities he stole!  Could barely remember what it felt like to be himself!<<
 
>>Pérez-Bravo had spent most of his adult life working under borrowed identities.>>

<<Note the cunning use of the word "borrowed."  The shitheads at the Times refuse to say "stolen."   Cuz reeeally, citizen, he wuz gonna give duh borrowed identity back!<<

>>Perez-Bravo had come to the U.S. for the first time at 16 to help earn money for his family, traveling alone to join his father in Minnesota.  He hiked out of the Guatemalan highlands, rode atop a freight train for three weeks across Mexico, nearly drowned in the Rio Grande and took a bus to Middle America, where life somehow felt harder. He slept on a couch in his father's apartment, then he began to look for a job.  But no one would hire an underage worker without papers.>>

<<See, citizen?  Dis po' boy was a total victim!  Duh cartels forced him to sneak into the U.S!  An' didja see dat he nearly drowned in the Rio Grande?  Dis beez SO sad--total victim!
   He was forced to steal Dan Kluver's identity!  An' of course dat's only FAIR, citizen!  Cuz...Americans owe everything to illegal aliens.
    This is exactly the kind of logic that lets criminals walk the streets after dozens of arrests.  See, criminals have the same rights as U.S. citizens, right?  So as the Times tells it, both men are equal victims.
    Plus, Kluver is white, so is the privileged one and should be happy to help out the undocumented American, who suffers from oppression almost as bad as Michelle Obama's. 

The Times continues:

>>The first years were lonely and exhausting.  Perez-Bravo started to drink, leading to a string of DUI's and other minor offenses.  He was deported back to Guatemala in 2005, 2008 and 2009, but each time he returned to the United States and purchased a new ID for work.
   But some of the ["borrowed"] Social Security numbers had been issued to citizens who owed child support or other debts, which meant some of Perez-Bravo's paychecks were garnished.>>
 
>>SEE, citizen?  Dat po' boy beez a victim, just like the Americans whose identity he "borrowed!"  Duh eeebil courts confiscated part of his paychecks, when dis po' boy didn't owe no money fo' doze pipo whose SS numbers he borrowed!>>

>>When Perez-Bravo was finally caught, his lawyer told the judge his client was "connected to the city in deep ways.">> 

<<Oh yes, the illegal--the "other victim"--has "deep connections" to the city he's currently living illegally in.

<<The story gets even more unbelievable from there.  Pérez-Bravo was involved in a fatal accident that killed a 68-year-old grandfather and injured his 9-year-old granddaughter.  He was cleared of wrongdoing but the family filed a wrongful death suit, NOT against the identity thief but against the man whose identity he stole, whose name was on the fake license Pérez-Bravo gave cops at the scene: Kluver.
    The police eventually found Pérez-Bravo and he's finally been charged for his crimes.  But the Times piece paints him as just as much a victim as Kluver, describing him as a family man and hard worker who was *forced to steal an identity* so he could make money for his family. 

I'm so sick of it.

Liberals have imposed their policies on America.  They have knowingly, intentionally allowed schizophrenic maniacs be free to cut the throat of unarmed 23-year-old girls on trams.  To throw grandmothers in front of subway trains.  To set innocent 26-year-old girls on fire on subways in Chitcongo.  And liberals just shrug.

But as you've just read, liberals at the Times claim illegal-alien criminal identity thieves are victims.

Seriously.

The Democrats' attitude is: You deserve it, white oppressors!

Deport them.  All of them. 

Watch as the lead Democrat of the seditious six does on a friendly interview Sunday

Elissa Slotkin is one of the six Democrat seditionists who made the stunning video, all gravely repeating the same phrase to our troops: "You MUST not obey illegal orders."

This set off a firestorm among Trump supporters, but Dems just smirked.  "We din' SAY Orange Hitler gave any illegal orders!  Sure, maybe ouah dear former leader Nancy Pelosi and other leaders of ouah Partei have repeatedly said Trump is both a fascist and the worst person on the planet, but we din' SAY he'd given any illegal orders...YET."

While the six clearly said "illegal" orders, the inference was obvious to anyone with an IQ above room temperature:  the six Democrats were warning U.S. troops to carefully weigh the possibility that they could expect to be given an illegal order by the chain of command. 

Of course the Mainstream Media immediately moved to give air-cover to the Democrats, emphasizing that the six had NEVAH told our troops to disobey lawful orders, just illegal ones.  But to anyone but morons, the inference was obvious, and the Mainstream Media detected a stirring of unrest among the deplorables.

So on one of its Sunday morning "newz" (propaganda) shows, ABC gave the lead horse, Elissa Slotkin, the chance to quell the unease among the proles, by asking "Do you believe President Trump has issued any illegal orders?" 

Slotkin replied, "To my knowledge, I am not aware of things that are illegal BUT certainly there are some legal gymnastics going on with these Caribbean strikes, and everything related to Venezuela."

Bitch didn't even pause to draw breath before the "BUT."  "Some legal gymnastics going on with these Caribbean strikes," eh?  She doesn't wanna flatly say those are illegal, because emperor Hussein Obozo used drone strikes without a declared war to kill hundreds of people the U.S. regarded as a threat.  Democrats didn't utter a peep of complaint, and neither did the GOP.  So by muddying the issue as "legal gymnastics" Slotkin and the Democrats (because you can be damn sure she huddled with party bigwigs to hammer out the ideal answer to a question she received in advance) hoped to de-fuse the issue by NOT flatly declaring it illegal (thus opening the door to conservatives raising Obozo's identical acts) but leaving enough suspicion in the minds of voters to hand the House to the Dems next year. 

Same with "...and everything related to Venezuela."  Trump has done nothing remotely illegal in moving ships off the coast of that country.  Even if Trump ordered U.S. troops to bomb cartel operations, using the precedent used by Hilliary and Obozo when they bombed Libya for three months--without a declaration of war or permission from congress, Trump would have 60 days before being required by LAW to either withdraw the troops (and stop offensive operations) or get permission from congress (which wouldn't agree).

 

Now: ABC is owned by Disney, and both hate conservatives and Trump.  So ABC set up the interview with Slotkin to quell unrest by asking Slotkin one question: "Do you believe president Trump has issued ANY illegal orders?"  This was the whole point of the interview: to assure gullible voters that duh six Democrats NEVAH accused duh prezzy of issuing illegal orders!  Perish the thought!  

But watch Slotkin's eyes as the interviewer finishes the question: the interviewer is way over on the left of the screen, but as Slotkin gets ready with her carefully scripted answer, her eyes are WAY off in the other direction.  That eye aversion is a "tell:"  Slotkin knows that the entire purpose of the six Dems making their propaganda piece warning U.S. troops to be very careful when given an order, explicitly saying "You must not obey illegal orders," was to get troops to hesitate when given orders.  Since "you're not required to obey illegal orders" is drummed into all recruits and officers, the cautionary clip by the six has no more effect than cautioning them "Don't point loaded guns at your fellow troops!"  It's a "nullity."

So if all U.S. troops already know this, what was the Dems' reason for making the video?  Who was the intended audience?  Not the troops, but...voters. 

The Democrats' game plan continues to be painting Trump as a fascist dictator, a king, Hitler, and the video reinforced that, by implying he's on the verge of giving illegal orders.  Nice. 

Price of (something) has increased a staggering 53% in one year. Why? It's not good

The chart below shows the price of gold over the past year.  If you divide last Friday's close by the $2,630 at the beginning of this year, you'll find it's increased 53% in the past year.  But if you're like most Americans you have no idea what this means.  Let me help.

 

Lots of investors consider gold a "safe haven" in uncertain times:  If something bad happens, causing stocks and bonds to crash, the conventional wisdom is that gold will retain its value.  So the huge increase in the price over just the last year tells us that a LOT of people are worried about the future.  In other words, they expect some sort of upheaval ahead.

It would be fabulous if a company that purports to poll public opinion would ask folks who'd bought gold recently why they did.  Of course that won't happen...because the Democrat party and the Mainstream Media haven't yet realized they can use to win congress next year--and the presidency in 2028.  When they figure it out, they'll do endless stories about it.  So for what it's worth here's my take: 

Like EVERY "leading indicator" of the future for the U.S. except one, the 53% increase in the price of gold in a year shows LOTS of people anticipate bad times ahead.  And obviously gold is a world-traded commodity, the price of which is the result of all investors world-wide, so we can't immediately conclude that the rise is being mainly driven by Americans.  But there are far more Americans in the "investing class"--people who can effortlessly move a million dollars from, say, stocks or bonds into a new investment--than in any other nation.  So I suspect (speculate) that Americans are the main force behind the huge increase.

So why would Americans be concerned enough about the future of stocks and bonds to buy gold?  The list of reasons is damn near endless. 

A good start is the debt bomb--the fact that the $39 TRILLION debt owed by the federal government is now forcing the govt to pay one trillion dollars a YEAR in interest, every year.  And that this can only get worse, since congress refuses to cut spending.  Also, as older T-bills at 2% mature they're replaced by higher-rate paper at an interest rate around 4.5%.  So the amount of interest the gruberment will have to pay is gonna rise far faster than before.

The staggering amount of interest alone--almost 14% of all federal expenses--would cause smart Americans to be looking for life-jackets.  And we're just getting started. 

Socialists (and specifically the Democrat Socialists of America) are becoming more popular, as indicated by not only the two mayoral races but also by the numbers at their street rallies.  The GOP has just lost two members of congress (MTG and Cory Mills) and others are shaky.  This means the GOP will almost certainly lose their razor-thin majority in the House--and losing the House will allow the Democrats to block any rational laws from being passed for the last two years of Trump's term.

There is no indication at all that congress wants to reduce the "debt bomb" that's now costing the government a TRILLION dollars every year just in interest payments.  Quite the opposite: the dumb bastards are continuing to spend more than the gruberment takes in, every year.  Trump's tariffs were an effort to increase government income by giving companies a strong incentive to move manufacturing back to the U.S., and foreign companies to set up U.S. operations.  But as you surely know (??), leftist/Dem judges have ruled Trump didn't have the authority to impose tariffs!  It's utterly insane, but that's how they RULED.  The case is before the Supreme Court.  We'll see.

Monthly job creation:  Despite the number last month being TWICE the "expert forecast," job creation is less than needed to keep unemployment level.  Layoffs are up, labor force participation is down.  All welfare spending is at record highs as millions of clever rat-bastard loafers realize they can live nicely without having to work.  And once they realized that--due to both welfare fraud and generous Dem programs--it's no surprise that millions have decided getting stoned all day is way more fun than having to work for a living. 

Trump ordering the government to junk DEI hiring was a positive step, but Democrats who rule universities and corporations have counteracted that by simply changing the name of the department, but keeping the same DEI policies.  Hiring on merit?  "Nah, bro, we gets betta results when we hire less-qualified pipo frum groups who vote Democrat.  Cuz 'die-versity is ouah strength,' right?"

The indicators above are short-term.  Long-term indicators are no better:  For the past 20 years or so, year after year, so-called "achievement test" scores of U.S. highschool students--the tests that measure whether a highschool grad is competent--have fallen--and yet the communist pieces of shit who head the two main teachers' unions somehow dodge any blame.  Union members don't vote 'em out, because teachers have been conditioned to claim "not ouah fault!"  So nothing ever gets better.  Corrupt school boards continue to rule in every Democrat-ruled city, refusing to fire teachers who praise communism and tranny-ism.  They bleat that "sex assigned at birth" is a type of oppression and must be rejected.

Is there ANYONE who thinks this bodes well for the long-term future of the U.S? 

Lethal illegal drugs continue to kill 100,000 Americans every year.  If al-Qaeda were killing that many each year, everyone would realize this was a war.  But when Trump orders the military to take out obvious drug-smuggling boats, Democrats scream that it's the worst thing evah!  When Obozo used drones to kill LOTS of people in other countries--with whom we were NOT at war--the Dems didn't utter a peep of complaint.  But with Trump as president, suddenly it's totally illegal, eh?  Of course!  Dems ignore the double-standard (one for them, a far different one for conservatives).

(As an aside:  Any of ya have any idea how many lethal doses of fentanyl a single drug boat can carry?  To do that you need to know how much fentanyl it takes to kill the average person.  That's a thing called "LD50"--the dose experiments show will kill half the animals who ingest it.  That dose is converted to humans by ratioing body weight.  Go ahead and say your guess out loud--preferably in front of witnesses so you're forced to face your lack of knowledge.  

Not one percent of you know--nor do you care.  And I get it, really: You don't take the stuff, and you don't think your kids do, so why would you care, eh?  

It's two milligrams.  Average Dem voter: "How much iz a milligram?"  Well one ounce is 28,000 milligrams, meaning if just one damn ounce was evenly distributed, you could make 14,000 pills having enough fentanyl to kill half of those taking one.  So unless given the antidote in minutes, about 7,000 would likely die.  From ONE OUNCE. 

For another reference point: those yellow packets of Splenda contain one gram, which is 1,000 milligrams.  Evenly divided that would be enough to give LD50 to 500 people, on average killing 250. 

But don't yew dare support cutting off that supply, eh?  Cuz Democrats claim it beez "uh act of war" to blow up drug boats!  Yep yep yep!  See, dey would rather the drug reach cartel members in the U.S. heartland than blow up the drug-smuggling boats 200 miles offshore.  Perfectly logical.

From the aerial photos you can easily count the big white bundles each boat carries.  Care to guess how much each one weighs?  But don't worry, citizen: the Democrats had the perfect counter!  They claimed the bundles did NOT contain fentanyl, but...wait for it:  cocaine.

Ahh, well in that case nevermind!  Cocaine is totally fine!  Question: how do you lying rat-bastards claim to KNOW THAT, eh?

Congressional Democrats also claim the crews on the drug boats are merely "Columbian fishermen."  Seriously.  

But the crowning triumph of the rat-bastard Democrat leaders is actively encouraging mobs of their supporters to throw rocks at agents trying to deport illegal alien invaders.  And of course ramming agents with cars.  I challenge anyone to find a video of even ONE Democrat in congress telling their mobs "The law says it's illegal to be in the U.S. without permission, so do NOT impede federal agents in enforcing valid U.S. law."  They refuse to say that because the more violent the mobs become, the more Democrats get fired up to vote in the crucial midterm elections, and again in 2028.  It's working, and it costs them NOTHING.

In fact, both AOC and that moron Jasmine Crockett have said entering the U.S. illegally is NOT a crime.  Try to resolve that paradox, eh?  But hey, dey iz smaht congress-shits, so we gots t'believe 'em, eh?  At least that's what the Media implies by quoting both without a scintilla of pushback. 

The mobs are the best method the Democrats have ever found to turn out Dem votes--far better than ad campaigns, because it doesn't cost them a cent!  And of course the Lying Media elites refuse to condemn the actions of the Democrat mobs.

Since nothing can make Democrats in congress order their mobs to stop, the only way to stop the mobs would be for Trump to stop deporting illegals--to concede that the executive branch will NOT enforce valid U.S. immigration law.  Unless you're a brain-dead liberal, that's a really bad precedent.  

The Constitution says presidents can't make or change laws.  Yet when Obozo was prezzy he unilaterally DECREED that kids brought to the U.S. by their illegal-alien parents could stay in the U.S. forever.  He couldn't find a way to stretch existing legal loopholes like "Temporary Protected Status" enough to fit, so he simply had one of his lackey agencies DECREE the creation of a program cunningly named DACA: "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals."  That title was carefully chosen so the average voter would have no idea what it actually meant. 

That illegal decree--a unilateral change in U.S. immigration law, not allowed under the Constitution--allowed 800,000 kids of illegals to stay in the U.S. indefinitely--Dems hoped it would be forever.  And thanks to leftist, pro-illegal, anti-American judges, that's exactly what happened--as Obozo and the Democrats intended.  Cunning, eh?  

So did the children of illegals become U.S. citizens, and able to vote Democrat?  Good luck finding out.  The Deep State will never allow you to know, deplorable, cuz that would get a few million of ya to stop voting Democrat.

This is a war, folks.  You just don't realize it, because the Media isn't showing you the bodies-- and won't.  Instead they blame Trump for deporting illegals and blowing up drug-smuggling boats.  

The ONLY positive note has been that the stock market is at near-record highs.  But if you pay attention to market analysts (not just the three stock indices the Media report every day) you know that the ONLY sector propping up the market today is AI.  And AI is a classic "bubble:" the New Hot Thing, eh?  

SO given all the telltale signs, it's no wonder lots of Americans are buying gold, in record amounts, pushing up the price 53% in just one year.  Americans realize that the Democrats' slurs on Trump, fully supported by the Dem-fellating Mainstream Media, make it highly likely the Dems will win control of the House next year--which ends all chances of any laws being passed to improve the U.S. situation: spending will get worse,  record amounts of welfare fraud, and murders and drunk driving by illegals, will be ignored.

And when the economy goes south in 2027--as seems inevitable--the Dems will blame Trump.  Just watch.

Of course if any of you have a benign explanation for all these things, I'd love to hear it.  

Lest we forget

If you've got a soul, the pic below makes you cringe--in which case you can hardly bear to see it again.  But most of you have forgotten--in which case next year you'll vote for the same Democrat corruptocrats who allowed this demon to walk free time after time, ultimately to murder this defenseless 23-year-old girl. 

The demon has already stabbed Iryna full-force in the throat, so hard it knocked off her hat.  That wound alone is fatal.  All she can do is look up in terror, hand to her mouth.

The demon is watching to see how she reacts before stabbing her again.  He's relaxed, the knife at his side, ready to stab the defenseless girl two more times.

 

Remember this photo the next time you vote for a Democrat for ANYTHING.  Corrupt, woke Demcrats let this demon out again and again after crimes that should have kept him behind bars for decades, but they were "woke" so they kept releasing him.  The result was predictable.

Admittedly there are undiagnosed crazies in every city, and even if we get rid of the wokie politicians some crazies will still kill--but far fewer than when the wokies are in power.

Remember this photo next November. 

MORE massive Medicare and welfare fraud by Somalis in Minnesota

Somalis in Minnesota have swindled hundreds of millions of dollars in state Medicaid funds earmarked for "autism-care programs."

This is separate from the $250 MILLION in fraud by Somalis in the state that was connected to non-existent meals billed to taxpayers but never provided.

Hundreds of "autism clinics" were created--by Somalis--to bilk the state out of money, and never saw a patient.  The organizers offered payments of $300 to $1,500 per MONTH to parents if they'd falsely claim their kid was autistic.

All of this massive fraud occurred under the eye of the state's Democrat governor and former Democrat Party vice-presidential nominee, Tim Walz.

The amount of money paid out to fraudsters by Minnesota’s scandal-plagued welfare schemes is staggering.  Example: the state’s "Medicaid Housing Stabilization Services program began in 2021, expecting to pay out $2.6 million the first year.  Instead the program paid out $21 million in its first year.  In the second year the program paid $42 million, then $74 million, then $104 million.  During the first half of this year costs had already reached $61 million, according to City Journal.  And not a single state employee batted an eye.  'Ouah job iz t'pay duh claims, not to investigate.'

Fraud is endemic in virtually every one of Minnesota’s MANY welfare programs.  City Journal noted that a Somali woman named Asha Farhan Hassan has been charged with defrauding the state’s Early Intensive Developmental and Behavioral Intervention program of $14 million over fake diagnoses of autism in children of Somali migrants.

Prosecutors say that Hassan and her cohorts approached Somali families and promised them kickbacks of between $300 to $1500 a month per child if they enrolled in the state’s autism treatment programs.

The fraud in payments for fake autism treatment has skyrocketed:  City Journal notes that autism claims to Medicaid in Minnesota jumped from $3 million in 2018 to $54 million just in one year, then to $77 million in 2020, $183 million 2021, $279 million in 2022, and $399 million in 2023, as fraudsters discovered the state would pay any claim without verifying anything.

If a government offers free money to dishonest people, with virtually no oversight, what do you think will happen?

The number of declared "autism treatment clinics" in Minnesota soared from 41 in 2020 to 328 by 2025 — all of them getting millions from state Medicaid funds.  The fraud was so widespread that one in every 16 Somali four-year-olds in Minnesota had been “officially” diagnosed with autism—more than triple the rate for other ethnic groups in the state.

And this is all in addition to the Feeding Our Future scam that has resulted in 70 Minnesotan Somalis being indicted for $250 million in fraudulent food aide.  Nearly all the fraudsters escaped prosecution by fleeing to Somalia when investigators began looking for 'em.

U.S. Attorney Joe Thompson said most of these cases aren’t just overbilling but are totally fictitious companies created to defraud the system, and that Minnesota has more of this than other states.  Thompson said “I've spent my career as a fraud prosecutor, and the amount of fraud in Minnesota takes my breath away.”

To make matters worse, millions of dollars of the billions stolen by fraudulent welfare payments to Somalis in Minnesota ended up funding a terrorist group in Africa called Al-Shabaab.

City Journal’s Ryan Thorpe and Christopher F. Rufo have traced millions in fraudulent payments to Somalis to the al-Qaida-linked Islamic terror group Al-Shabaab.  Former Seattle Police Department detective Glenn Kerns claims to have traced $20 million sent to Africa by Somalis in Seattle in just a single year. 

But the Democrat governors of Minnesota and Washington state (and all others) just shrug and smile:  'Not my problem, deplorable!  All deez dozens of welfare programs beez funded by duh federal government, an' if Biden's pipo don't care, why should I, eh?  Oh sure, my employees are paid to administer these programs here and cut the checks, but nothing in federal rules or laws requires us to verify that the recipients are delivering what they claim, so why should we go to the effort of investigating?'

Starting to see why Minnesota has paid out well over two BILLION dollars to fraudsters over the past five years, in federal programs for food, "housing stabilization," fraudulent medical care and a dozen other programs?

Are you starting to see why Democrat governors don't wanna investigate and prosecute?  Because by ignoring the massive fraud by Somalis they're guaranteed to get the votes of that group.

But why be concerned, eh?  It's only money.  Which the federal government has to borrow.  But don't worry, cuz Dems imply (but cleverly don't explicitly say) dat don't cost nuffin'.

I hope when it all crashes, years from now, your grown kids look at how it happened and ask you why you just closed your eyes and let it. 

But don't worry, sparky: The people who write the history books (the Mainstream Media) won't put a bit of blame on you.  Instead they'll blame Trump.

Count on it.

Source. 

https://www.breitbart.com/crime/2025/11/20/report-mn-somali-medicaid-fraud-investigation-reveals-terrorist-link-largest-funder-of-al-shabaab-is-the-minnesota-taxpayer/ 

In 1982 a federal law (and leftist judges) not only made gerrymandering legal, but *required* it

In a few weeks the Supreme Court is expected to rule on a case involving congressional redistricting.  The question is whether states can be forced by leftist judges--interpreting a 1982 law--to draw bizarrely-shaped congressional districts solely to ensure some districts will have a  majority of black voters.  Alternatively, can states be sued for re-drawing those bizarre, narrow, wandering borders to undo the effect just described?

The case has huge implications, and if you care about those, you need to understand what's at stake.  Let me explain:

Starting around 1960 Democrats started bleating dat it "just wuzn't FAIR" that in a handful of states where blacks were a third of the population, less than a third of the state's congress-creeps were black.  (I use "congress-creeps" for all members of that useless body.)

Of course if the boundaries of congressional districts were drawn "blindly," simply ensuring that each district had the same population, without trying to favor or disfavor any race, it wouldn't be surprising that with just a third of the population being black, most of the time the person elected to congress wouldn't be black.

Y'know, that "democracy" the Dems constantly bleat about:  "Majority rules," right?

Democrats and the "woke" Media absolutely hate that totally democratic result!  And in the past, the Supreme Court sided with them.  It just wudn't FAIR that minorities didn't have "their own districts"!  

It was well known that blacks voted Democrat by huge margins--like 90% or so (though closer to 70-30 now).  So Dems in congress realized that if they could force states to re-draw district boundaries in weird patterns to create majority-black districts, they'd win more seats in the House.  So a Democrat-controlled congress passed the "Voting Rights Act," which had the stated goal of "eliminating barriers to voting."

Hey, no one could object to that, eh?

But as the Democrats planned, leftist judges used that law to force states to re-draw congressional district boundaries in amazingly tortured shapes, specifically to create majority-black congressional districts.

So given the cover of the Narrative of "eliminating barriers to voting" in the Voting Rights Act, leftist judges said--in effect--that if a state didn't have the same percentage of black congress-critters as the percentage of blacks in the population, the courts would consider that "diluting the voting power of minorities" even if no evidence of intent was shown.

And indeed, no such evidence was ever found.  Ever.  Randomly-drawn district boundaries--like big squares--would almost always have more whites than blacks, reflecting the percentage of the population in the entire state, eh?   

So since no one could find any evidence that district boundaries had been drawn with malice (see previous paragraph), Democrats invented a new legal theory: "disparate results" (a variation of "disparate impact")  As the name implies, this theory claims that if one racial group has a different result in anything, the gruberment and the courts would automatically assume the "disparate results" were due to raaaaacism--even if there was no evidence of discriminatory intent!

That's so Orwellian--so crazy--that you may have missed it.

Imagine the courts adopting the legal theory that all men are rapists, who must then prove their innocence.  Wow.

Seriously.  If you don't believe me, Google it.  Here's the bribem DOJ's policy:

The essence of a "discriminatory results" claim alleging vote dilution is that a certain state law, practice, or structure interacts with social and historical conditions to [produce] an inequality in the opportunities enjoyed by minority voters to elect their preferred representatives.

This is baffle-gab, designed to hide the real meaning, which is: "If your state doesn't have the same percentage of black congress-critters as their percentage of the population, the DOJ and courts will automatically assume it's due to "vote dilution" and thus violates the Voting Rights Act.

Oh, I hear some of my Dem friends saying this is a lie, that no prezzy would evah sign such a piece of shit bill into law.  Really? Here's AI's summary:

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits voting practices and procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in a language minority group,
   The core of Section 2 is the "results test," established by Congress in 1982, which prohibits any voting practice that results in a discriminatory effect,  regardless of whether a discriminatory intent can be proven.

If you didn't grasp that last phrase, read it again.  Believing me yet?   And the courts have been exploiting that actual LAW since 1982!

This is literally how the communists wrote laws, so they could control all the results.  You wouldn't think it could possibly happen here, eh?  Yet not only DID it happen here, this has been the LAW--aggressively enforced by leftist judges--for 43 years!

More AI summary--not mine:

Key provisions and legal standards of Section 2
     A violation is established [!] if, based on the "totality of the circumstances," a voting practice is shown to provide minority voters with less opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice.
    "Vote dilution" is a key focus of Section 2.  It involves any electoral practice that minimizes the voting strength of racial or language minority groups. Common forms of vote dilution include:

• Cracking: Splitting a minority community among multiple districts to prevent them from forming a voting majority in any single district.  

• Packing: Concentrating minority voters into a small number of districts to minimize their influence in other areas.

Wait, you cunning rat-bastards...those two things are opposites: first one DECREES that splitting minority voters into different districts is illegal, while the second bitches that drawing district boundaries to "concentrate minority voters into a small number of districts" is illegal.  But of course that's exactly what the then-Dem-majority Supreme Court ORDERED! 

Note also that despite the law sternly claiming "packing" was a violation, that's exactly what Democrat legislatures did, using Section 2 to allow them to draw bizarre, wandering boundaries explicitly to produce "majority-minority" districts to ensure more black congress-critters (voting Democrat) would be elected.  This was the entire reason for the weirdly-drawn boundaries.

So which is it, lying, cunning Democrats?  Pick one.  You claim to believe in majority rule, but forced state legislatures to draw weird district boundaries to create majority-black districts."  Of course doing that deliberately disfavored the white majority in the entire state, but that's just fine with you cuz it gives the Democrat party more power.  Wow! 

Here's what AI says about that:

AI Overview:
    A majority-minority district is a [congressional] district...where a racial minority group is a majority of the population.
    This is intended to prevent the dilution of minority voting power and to give minority groups an equal opportunity to elect their preferred candidates.  The creation of these districts is governed by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  [The 1982 amendments.]

Believin' me yet?  No, you're probably not, for two reasons:  First, you literally can't believe the Democrats would be so hypocritical as to bleat that dey luuuvs democracy, but then junk that theory to win more power for themselves.  (Actually that's not at all hard to believe.)
    Second--and harder to believe: you can't believe the Supreme Court would actually rule that this piece of shit LAW--rammed thru by Democrats--was constitutional.

Anti-democratic as hell, but because Dems wanted this result, and controlled everything, they got their way.  They screamed that drawing districts blindly was "vote dilution."  The case was Thornburg v. Gingles (1986), and the majority-liberal Supreme Court RULED that minority plaintiffs would win if they could show:

• The minority group is sufficiently large and geographically concentrated to constitute a majority in a single-member district.
• The minority group tends to vote similarly.
• The majority group votes as a bloc to consistently defeat the minority group's preferred candidates.

It couldn't possibly be more clear: First, ALL congressional districts are "single-member," so that's just camouflage; horseshit; misdirection.  Then the court continues: When the minority group "tends to vote similarly" that's peachy, but when the "majority group votes as a bloc" that's awful, terrible, anti-democratic!

Starting to see the Orwellian, communist horseshit here yet?

And we're just getting started, cupcake.  The Supreme Court also cites Section 2 as addressing "practices that directly make it harder for minorities to vote," like having to prove your identity with a photo  ID, or "restrictions on absentee voting that disproportionately affect minority voters."  That shit is so vague that any attorney could make the case--even with such absurd arguments as "Some of my clients might possibly not read well enough to understand written instructions for submitting absentee ballots, like having witness signatures.  So states mus' not reject their ballots jus' cuz some voters might not understand duh requirements!"

See how infinitely flexible "disparate results" arguments are?  

And again, we're just getting started:  the amended law established a test called "Totality of circumstances," which allowed the courts to consider factors even if not shown in a given case, such as "a history of official voting discrimination, racially polarized voting, and "the lingering effects of past discrimination that hinder political participation." 

And note again that "racially polarized voting" was totally fine when done by minorities, just objectionable if done by the white majority.  Hmmm...

For those unfamiliar with U.S. law: If a defendant on trial for selling illegal drugs has been convicted of that same crime a dozen times before, prosecutors aren't allowed to mention that in court because it might bias jurors to assume he's guilty regardless of the evidence in the current case.  Well-known principle.  But Section 2 of the amended Voting Rights Act, rammed thru by Dems in congress--allowed plaintiffs to use a history of past discrimination to be used to show a violation of the law.  Hmmm...

The contradictions in the VRA are so glaring and numerous that some legal experts predict the Supreme Court will overturn Section 2.  I doubt the court will do that, because it would trigger a firestorm of outrage by blacks and Democrat--pouring yet more fuel on the fires of current Dem outrage--but what do I know, eh?

Here's what the DOJ website--which hasn't changed after the Dem loss--says about Section 2:

In 1980 the Supreme Court held that Section 2, as originally enacted by Congress in 1964, [required] a plaintiff to prove that the standard, practice, or procedure was enacted or maintained, at least in part, by an invidious purpose.
   But in 1982 Congress amended Section 2 so a plaintiff could claim a violation of the [Voting Rights Act] if the evidence established that, in the context of the "totality of the circumstance of the local electoral process," the practice being challenged had the result of denying a racial minority an equal opportunity to participate in the political process.

What that says--though cunningly, deliberately disguised to avoid outraging normal Americans--is that groups suing states, claiming racial discrimination (but only against the minority) didn't need to prove any intent.  Instead the test was now "if it had the result of denying..."  In other words, showing a disparate result was all that was needed for leftist judges to order a state to gerrymander a district to favor blacks..

To summarize:  Back in the 1980s the Media and courts and congress were seized by "white guilt"--the beginnings of the wokie mania--and in their eagerness to atone, they junked longstanding pillars of U.S. law.  The then-majority-Democrat Supreme Court held that states would be deemed to violate the Act if there was a "disparate result."  And the Democrats saw their opportunity and ran with it. 

Even more faaaabulous for Democrat plaintiffs, many of these cases were settled with states being forced to pay Democrat attorneys millions in "legal fees."  Wow, who could have predicted that, eh?

Leftist judge in Maine orders a mother NOT to let her daughter attend any church unless...

Leftist judges have been out of control for over two decades.  Latest example:

A year ago a state judge in the cesspool of Democrat-ruled Portland, Maine, ORDERED a mother to stop taking her 12-year-old daughter to church--any church.

Seriously.  Leftist judge Jennifer Nofsinger so ORDERED because the girl's father--who never married the mother and left her before her daughter was born--claimed the church was causing the girl "psychological harm."  The judge's ORDER gave the father (Matthew Bradeen) the sole power to decide which religious activities his 12-year-old daughter, Ava, would be allowed to participate in.

SO...is this a church that practices voodoo or satanism or child sacrifice or pedophilia?  Nope, it's a normal evangelical church.  Unless you're a liberal Democrat or a member of the ACLU, there's nothing scary at all about it.

Bradeen’s relationship with Ava’s mother, Emily Bickford, ended before Ava was born.  The mother has primary custody.  After the daughter told her father she was planning to be baptized, he went to court to stop it.

Apparently the father hired “a Marxist former sociology professor from California,” Janja Lalich--who claims to be an expert on cults and coercion--as an expert witness, to testify that the church was a cult.

The father claimed that after Ava began attending the church, she started having panic attacks and showing alarming behavior—like leaving notes around the house saying "the rapture is coming.” 

The Marxist former sociology prof said she believed the church was a “cultic organization" and posed a potential for psychological harm to the daughter.

The judge court RULED that teachings and depictions used in the church’s services and youth materials — including images of “fallen angels” and messages about “eternal suffering” — had caused psychological distress to the child.

No claim was made that Emily was an unfit parent--except for the fact that she was a Christian.  In her opinion leftist judge Jennifer Nofsinger mocked Ava and Emily’s faith by refusing to capitalize the word “God.”  The judge even rebuked the mother for allowing the pastor of the church to pray for Ava, and then ORDERED that the mother was barred from taking her daughter to ANY church unless the father approved--which he has steadfastly refused to do. 

Under what even leftist Newsweek called an “unusually sweeping custody order” the judge ORDERED that the daughter not associate with any of her church friends or any member of Calvary Chapel Church.  Further, if the daughter were to meet a new friend outside of Calvary and that person began attending Calvary, the judge ORDERED the daughter not to associate with that friend.

The order goes on: The daughter is barred from attending ANY Christmas, Easter, or any other Christian event or celebration at ANY church, including any wedding, funeral, or even hospital visits with anyone associated with Calvary Chapel.

The judge ordered her not to have any contact or participation with ANY religious organization, and is forbidden to read the Bible or be exposed to any “religious philosophy.” 

Last week Maine's supreme court heard the mother's appeal of the lower-court judges obscene ruling.  The father's attorney brazenly claimed to the judges of the supreme court Thursday that the  lower-court judge had “narrowly tailored" her order barring the girl from all religious contacts unless the absent father agreed.

The details of this case seem so outrageous as to be hard to believe, but the leftists who run Newsweek posted most of it, for what that's worth.  I've tried to find the judge Jennifer Nofsinger's order but no luck so far. 

Another big company announces layoffs. Is a recession locked in, hitting next June?

Another big U.S. company has announced it's laying off some employees.  13,000.  

If that was the only layoff most Americans would just shrug.  But it's not.  It's part of a pattern that's been happening for about 18 months now, in which company execs realize they're over-staffed," and can increase profits by firing employees.  And it's part of wave of similar layoffs by big companies.

Now, I don't blame companies for wanting to be more efficient--assuming that means providing the same service at a lower cost.  Problem is, multiply this by 500 or so and you begin to see hints of a coming recession.  My guess is that it's inevitable, and was "set in concrete" over two years ago.  The Democrat-fellating Mainstream Media said nothing when bribem was prezzy, but will start screaming "recession!" around June of next year--just five months before the crucial mid-term elections that decide which party will control the two chambers of the utterly corrupt--but very useful to the Dems--congress.

See, all the Dems have to do is win control of ONE of the two chambers to block any "reform" laws from passing.  In fact in the senate, thanks to the filibuster rule, the Democrat party was able to keep the entire government shut down for over 40 days with just a minority of 41 votes!  They'll keep that power in 2026, and are almost certain to win control of the House too.

If the Dems are smart (hahahahaha!) they won't try to impeach Trump a third time.  But because they'll be eager to flex their power, they may well try again.  As before, they won't have enough senate votes to remove him, but even knowing that, they'll win LOTS of support with their moronic voters by impeaching him the third time, just to show their power.

With all Trump policies blocked, and all forms of welfare increasing by huge percentages, the national debt will skyrocket even faster than predicted, with interest payments similarly exploding.  Since neither party wants to cut back on federal spending, the only option will be to borrow ever more money each year.  With no reforms possible under Dem rule, the economy will implode.  And of course the Democrats and Media will blame Trump.

Sadly, the ONLY way the corrupt, stupid Democrats will ever see the folly of stupid policies like open borders and huge welfare for people who refuse to work is if the economy goes south.  Even then the current generation of Dems won't believe their policies had any negative effect at all.  But their children's lives will be far worse as a result of the parents' choices. 

By happenstance I don't have any kids, and have enough resources so my lifestyle won't change a bit.  I'll have sympathy for kids graduating from highschool or college today, since they had no choice: the decisions that doomed the U.S. were made by their parents.  But of course by then it'll be too late.

We had a good run--fought the good fight.  But we've been sold out--sabotaged, destroyed--by Democrat politicians who deliberately, cunning chose to open our borders to anyone who wanted to waltz in and stay forever.  And to make things worse, the stupid "anchor baby" ruling automatically made every child of illegals born in the U.S. a citizen--meaning they get to vote.  That sealed our fate, because a huge majority of 'em will vote for the socialist Democrat who offers 'em the most "free shit."

If you doubt that, look at the new mayors of NYC and Seattle and the corrupt governors of Virginia and New Jersey.

Oh wait...y'say yew din' know about 'em?  No surprise at all.  Think that was an accident?  The Democrat-fellating Mainstream Media didn't want Americans to be alarmed, so they've couched the DSA wins as a great victory for...uh..."duh pipo."  "Tolerance."  "Justified resistance against 'kings'."

And don't worry, Democrats (of course you weren't worried): Your children will NOT blame you for the utterly predictable results.  The Democrat-fellating Mainstream Media will constantly reassure you that you're 'on the side of the angels.'  Yep yep yep!  And because you want to believe it, you'll never question it.

See, the Left (which now controls the Democrat Party) has embraced two ideas:  First, that anyone in the world who shows up at the border DEMANDING to enter must be admitted; and second, that the proper function of duh gruberment is to give all illegals everything they need--even if duh gruberment has to borrow the money from Chyna to do that.     

This is what the Democrat Party demands, and what your vote for that party approves.  And since borrowed money is free, who could object to voting for such a wunnerful policy, eh?

Wait...did I hear one poor, lone, sane voice saying "Uh, borrowed money is NOT free.  You have to pay a thing called 'interest' on borrowed money!"

Democrats: "We're not gonna admit you're right--cuz since you oppose our policies you probably made that up!--but even if dat's true, duh government only pays a couple of percent or so, so how much could the interest BE, eh?"

Try a TRILLION dollars every year.  With a "T."  That's one-thousand Billions, every year.  And increasing, every year.

Democrats refuse to believe that number, but check it out for yourself.  

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/11/20/verizon-cutting-more-than-13000-jobs-as-it-restructures-.html