Democrats bleat "All cultures are equally valid." Absolutely, sparky

 

Democrat definitions

 

Comments on Kirk's assassination are absolutely unhinged, calling for more murder

There have been several press conferences on the arrest of the Utah assassin, Tyler Robinson.  And in every news story on the assassination there are HUNDREDS of comments that give you an idea of how utterly fucked up millions of leftist/Dem Americans are.  Here's a sample from the Dem shithole site BlueSky:

 

On other sites lots of comments screaming "Free palestine!", lots of wailing about Israel, blaming Mossad for killing Kirk, blaming Trump, lots of screaming "Release the Epstein files!"  LOTS of commenters blaming Charlie for saying trannies are mentally ill.  And as in the BlueSky/Dem screenshot above, TONS of commenters praising the assassin.  Those are the folks who really need killing. 

Ken Kaniff: ​​"WE LOVE YOU TYLER" (killer) [Ken repeats this several times]

"Valhalla awaits"

"The MSM triggered this!"

"​​Notice that after the assassination of the leader of the conservative movement, there was no rioting or looting.  No cities burned.  Interesting difference."

"​This is what TRUMP has sown; DIVISION!"
    [Ahh, you stupid leftist Democrat:  So bribem screaming that Trump supporters were fascists and "duh greatest threat to our nation" was NOT "divisive"?]

"This is the nail in the coffin for Democrats."
   [No, it's not:  Some Democrat pols instantly started claiming they're totally opposed to violence!  Well they are NOW, eh, cuz the smart ones are scared that conservatives will wanna settle the score.  Of course OUR side doesn't do that, but a few Dems are scared someone might.]

"You don’t even know if the Dems did it. Remember the guy who shot at Trump was a Republican!"
  [Really?  What you're using for evidence is a voter registration form.  How do you know it wasn't altered?] 

"When he jumps down from the building, where is the rifle?  Did you see it?"  ​​
    [Look closer: He's clearly carrying something wrapped in a black towel.] 

"​​Give [the killer] a medal."  [A comment repeated hundreds of times]

"​​Karma is a bitch"  [Another Dem shithead blaming the victim.]

There are hundreds more comments, but you get the idea. And based on the hundreds of comments from Dems and trannies cheering Kirk's assassination, seems to we have...a fork in the proverbial road.  It's this:

All Dems, the Dem-ruled Mainstream Media and most conservatives want our side to just shrug and move on.   Dems are bleating "Ouah side din' have NUFFIN' to do wif dis 'incident'! [assassination? murder? Nah...'incident' is so much more soothing!]  Dis wuz jus' one po' lone wolf, an' we haz NO IDEA how he got so radicalized!  Nope nope nope!  

"Again, we had NUFFIN' t'do wif dis!  So if any of yew stupid deplorables kills one of OUR fine, upstanding Democrat leaders, den YOU are the bad guys!  We iz, like, totally innocent!See, when AOC and ouah dear V.P. Kamala and Pelosi called for violence in the streets after Saint George Floyd [and they explicitly did], dey wuz actually callin' fo' peaceful protests, but duh Media jus' left dat out!  So it's not dere fault that leftists burned three square miles of Minneapolis!  Or looted hundreds of stores in NYC."

With this sort of screaming from the Dems (calling for violence against conservatives), seems to me the chances of civil war are about 95%, and it's just a matter of when. Reason: Dem "leaders" and the Mainstream Media don't seem inclined to stop inciting leftist dumbshits to kill conservative leaders, because the Dems tell their followers they're fighting for some great principle like "trans rights," or "free palestine," or "stopping Global Worming," or "we need to assassinate health-care executives" (Saint Luigi), or "we need to defeat fascism."  The list of "causes" that can be used to incite Leftists is endless.

So let me clearly say that war is terrible and shouldn't be started lightly.  And one can make the case that even if unhinged leftist assassins were to murder four or five conservative leaders every year, our side should simply tolerate it.  I get it.

But with that said, if just two or three leftist talk-show hosts were murdered in a year, I'm absolutely certain that leftist Media and pols would stop inciting their unhinged base--because the Media and Dem pols are actually cowards who rationally, understandably don't want someone to shoot them.  Totally rational response.

This Dem self-interest (survival) explains why so many Dem politicians are NOW saying "We need to tone down the rhetoric."  You've probably heard that dozens of times.  That's not because they care about Charlie's assassination or any other conservative being murdered, but due to pure self-interest: they don't want a furious conservative to do kill them.  Again, totally rational. 

I suspect that if even two or three leftists were killed, the Left would wail "We had NO IDEA yew deplorables were so upset!  Ouah Media allies nevah told us yew wuz upset by 'lone wolves' killin' deplorables, so we never guessed!  An' when Saint Barack sed "If they bring a knife to a fight, you bring a gun!" he wuz NOT bein' divisive or inflammatory!  Nope nope nope!   [And yes, young Americans, Obama actually said that.]
   See, every Democrat knew he wuz jus' bein' metaphorical y'know?  An' if a few unhinged guys like Tyler or Crooks or Routh decided to take President Obama literally, it's NOT ouah fault if yew don't understand 'nuance' an' metaphors!  So yew deplorables should jus' 'move on!'"

Care to bet whether we'll hear that wail?  It's absolutely guaranteed.  Not a single Leftist/Democrat believes our side will ever start retaliating, cuz if they did, they'd tell their fellow inciters--AOC, Hakeem Jeffries, Nanzi Pelosi, Chuckie Schumer, Tlaib, Omar, Ayana Presley and a hundred others--to shut the hell up.  But no Dem does, because they don't believe they're at risk of ending up dead.

So Democrat pols will keep fanning the flames of hate.  They don't need to tell their base to kill conservatives, because if they demonize conservatives and convince their followers they're fighting for a faaabulous cause (like trans "rights") that's the logical end-point.  Dem pols and media "elites" don't believe Karma will ever find them.

If Karma does come calling, I'm gonna have a drink and laugh my ass off at how stupid you were/are to think you could incite your unhinged supporters to kill without pushback, and how richly you deserve the result of your stupidity.  As the ancient saying goes, "You sowed the wind, and you shall reap the whirlwind.

For young Americans that means "If you encourage violence, it often comes back with a vengeance."  But again, the Media--and evil morons like Jimmy Kimmel--stupidly don't believe they're inciting violence.

But of course the Dems and Media morons don't believe there's ANY risk that our side will EVAH retaliate, no matter who their followers assassinate or how public that assassination is--like Butler, PA, or Utah.  

Does anyone believe it would EVER occur to a Tyler Robinson or Thomas Crooks or Ryan Routh to stop and think "Wait, is assassinating either Charlie Kirk or Trump really a good idea?  Could killing this conservative trigger some deplorable to retaliate?"

Of course not.  They don't stop even for a moment to consider that possibility.  And absent the kind of crushing defeat that ended WW2, incited, unhinged leftists will keep killing conservatives tell hell freezes over. 

Rational American 40 years from now: "That's crazy--how could Democrat pols and the leftist Media seriously believe they could keep encouraging their followers to hate conservatives (though not explicitly saying they should kill) and rationally expect those who supported their victims wouldn't finally say "That's enough" and start retaliating?"

That flawed reasoning is so common that it's got a name: "normalcy bias," the belief that if something has never happened (or essentially never), it won't.  Very common reasoning, obviously invalid. 

Democrat pols and Media "elites" reason "Deplorables won't retaliate *no matter whut we do,* cuz dey haz such short memory spans dat dey cain't remember who's been killed, so dey don' see duh pattern!" 

Maybe they're right: Maybe conservatives don't see a repeated pattern, or are willing to tolerate one or two murders of our leaders per year (in the last year just one, and the year before a leftist shooter came with half an inch of killing the president in Butler, PA).  Beats me.  But I do know that if our side doesn't retaliate, unhinged leftists will continue to do as they did on Sept 10th--and then gloat about it.  It's who they are.  Read their damn comments.
 

Next on the Democrat demand-list: drug-dispensing machines that *give free opioid pills to government-approved addicts*

One Canadian province has been doing this for two years. 

Wait...I hear my Dem friends say "Dis not true!  Dis FAKE NEWZ!  No rational nation would give free addictive drugs to people on welfare!  Dat's nuts!"

 Of course you'd say that, sparky.  So google "MySafe biometric machines."  Here ya go:

The MySafe program uses ATM-like machines that dispense doctor-prescribed opioids to registered users. The machines are in locations *such as* "supportive housing buildings and overdose prevention sites" in Vancouver and Victoria, British Columbia.

"Participants" [note: NOT "addicts," cuz the Canadian gruberment has banned that word cuz it's "stigmatizing"] use a palm scan to confirm the user is authorized, before giving that user their daily dose of hydromorphone tablets.  This system allows users to get their drugs at any time of day without staff supervision, making it a less stigmatizing way to get medication.

Ahh yes: In "enlightened, progressive" nations addictive drugs are no longer called that, but are called "medication."  See?  Cuz who could possibly object to giving someone "medication"?
     All communists and socialists know that if you control the language you control all outcomes.

"The program aims to reduce overdose deaths by providing a clean, safe supply of opioids as an alternative to the increasingly toxic illicit drug market."

Tell us, Democrats:  If a policy "reduces stigma" of, say, child rape, do ya think you'll get more of whatever you just "destigmatized"?  Think really hard about that.

For example: If a state passes a LAW to stop charging thieves with crimes as long as they don't steal more than a thousand dollars worth of goods per person per day--"destigmatizing crime"--do ya think the result of that policy will reduce crime, or increase it?

Democrats: "Dat silly!  Letting po' pipo "re-distribute wealth" of a thousand bucks a day per person is a brilliant policy!  It's "reparations" wifout havin' to pass a law!  Besides, duh law sayin' yew cud steal up to $950 wifout no big charge was passed by a vote of duh pipo of California, by "referendum," an' we Dems totally honor duh will of duh voters in referenda!
   Yep yep yep!  Well, except for duh Prop-8 vote dat sed marriage is between a man and a woman.  Yeh, it passed by a wide margin, but us Dems quickly had to override dat, cuz...we din' like duh vote.

SO...just as U.S. Democrats who rule so-called "progressive" cities adopted socialist policies of establishing taxpayer-funded "shooting galleries" to give junkies a safe, soothing place to inject drugs under medical supervision, the Dems who rule almost every big U.S. city are sure as hell gonna adopt this Canadian policy of having machines give FREE drugs to addicts.

Notice how utterly smoothly, seamlessly, almost unnoticed, the Dem demand went from "We MUST allow pipo to use any drug they want, without penalty" to "We MUST use taxpayer dollars to create nice places fo' doze po' pipo (who just happen to vote Dem) to shoot up."  And the utterly predictable next step is: "We MUST use taxpayer funds to place machines to GIVE addictive drugs to addicts--cuz dey iz extremely productive pipo, doin' cancer research an' sheeit.  Well maybe not, but we don' want 'em to overdose!
   Note that one goal of duh machines is to remove any "stigma."  Plus it reduces drug overdose deaths!  Keeps 'em alive so dey kin' keep workin' on curing cancer an' stuff.  Oh wait...they're all on welfare.  What, yew gon' be mad at pipo fo' bein' on welfare?
  And if we sign 'em up fo' free drugs at 20, an' can keep 'em alive, they'll be voting Democrat for another 40 years!"  
  Win-win, eh?"

The Chinese and Russians must be laughing their asses off. 

Source.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=does+british+columbia+have+drug-vending+machines 

Body of murdered 13-year-old girl found in trunk of 20-year-old music idol's car

 
NBC Sept. 17, 2025, 6:53 PM EDT

There's a black "singer" calling himself "D4vd" (real name David Anthony Burke), lives in LA.  Burke is 20, and early in its story the NY Times tells readers he has "millions of followers on social media."  Cuz dat's important.  

Several weeks ago a car registered to Burke was reported to have been abandoned in the Hollywood Hills.  NBC says it hadn't been moved for over a month.  NY Times says "for over 72 hours."  Huge difference.  Hmmm....

(It's doubtful that neighbors would call the cops about a car that hadn't moved in just 3 days.)

Cops impounded the car.  Notably, it had not been reported stolen.

On Sept 8th workers at the impound lot noticed a foul smell coming from the car.  They called cops, who found a decomposed body in the trunk.

The body in Burke’s car was identified as that of a teenage girl, later identified as Celeste Rivas, who had been reported missing from Lake Elsinore, California, on April 5th of 2024, at the age of 13.

The LA Times says the girl was 15, because she *would have been* 15 if she hadn't been killed.  Plus, a 15-year-old murder victim doesn't trigger as much outrage as a 13-year-old.

The medical examiner said it appeared the girl had been dead for an extended period of time.  Duh.  What was your first clue, doc?  Yeah, decomposition will do that.

So let's do a bit of investigating: Elsinore is about 70 road miles from LA.  The dead girl--then 13 years old--was reported missing on April 5th of last year.  

As noted above, Burke's car was found abandoned in the Hollywood Hills.  One outlet says it hadn't been moved in over a month--and the state of the girl's body suggests it had been in the car for several months.  *Yet Burke never reported the car stolen.*  

So you'd think the first question the cops would have asked him would have been "Was your car stolen?  If so, when did you notice it was missing?  Did you report the car theft to police?  If so, when?"  (If he's clever he'll say he sold it to a drug dealer--name unknown, of course--for a pound of...something.) 

Surely the cops asked him if his car had been stolen, right?  Cuz that's so obvious.  

The medical examiner said the girl's body had a tattoo on her right index finger that read “Shhh...”  Recent photos of Burke appear to show an identical tattoo on his right index finger.

Democrats: "Dat jus' coincidence."

For the girl's body to be so badly decomposed, she had to have died months earlier, so the first fact suggesting Burke killed her is that he never reported the car stolen, even though residents of the Hollywood Hills said it had been abandoned for over a month.  

And second are the matching tattoos on the right index finger of both Burke and the dead girl.

So the obvious question is for the family of the dead girl: When did she get the tattoo, and did she tell you what it meant?
 
Finally: Burke doesn't have a registered address in L.A. but had been staying at a home in the Hollywood Hills.  Police got a warrant and searched the home.

SO...the "elites" have been *gushing* over what a great musical talent this dude is, which suggests the Media will circle the wagons and try to derail any charges.  It'll be interesting to watch.

Source (one of several): nbc

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/decomposed-body-found-singer-d4vds-impounded-tesla-identified-teenage-rcna231868 

David Burke ("D4vd")

 

Leftists outraged! over ABC's decision to pull Kimmel over his claim that Kirk's assassin was MAGA

You have no idea.

Really.  You think the Mainstream Media is at least roughly honest and fair, and tells you at least some rough approximation of the truth.  But it's not even close:  Almost without exception all TV networks, big-city newspapers and the "entertainment industry" (movies, shows) feed you a carefully-crafted leftist Narrative--i.e. lies (which just happen to help the Democrat Partei [sic]).
 
But since most Americans never see or read any contradictory information, you have no way of knowing what you're seeing and hearing is horseshit--which is what allows the Left to effectively run the country even when a Republican is president.  They can portray a cold-blooded assassin as a love-struck kid--a touching Romeo defending his Juliet--knowing that most Americans will believe their Narrative.

After Charlie Kirk's assassination the Left/Democrats rejoiced.  Go to any "political" website and read the thousands of ghastly, ghoulish comments.  They were absolutely overcome with joy.

But then when ABC dropped Kimmel (at least until the outrage diminishes), ALL the leftist Mainstream Media outlets were HORRIFIED!  The fat potato Stelter on CNN was typical, saying dropping Kimmel "makes America a less free place."  Other Mainstream voices jumped in: "Jimmy didn't even say anything that bad--but even if he had, that's freedom of speech."

Average stupid 20-year-old Democrat: "YEAH!!!  Cuz duh First Amendment sez pipo kin say anything we want wifout consequence!  Yep yep yep!"

No, you dumb son of a bitch, it doesn't--which you would have known if you'd ever actually READ the thing.  But of course you haven't, since most public schools deliberately stopped teaching students about the Constitution around 1970.  

The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."

On his nationally-televised show Monday, Kimmel said this:
>>[T]he MAGA gang [is] desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of their own...>>

Didja catch that?  Kimmel was clearly implying (though prudently not explicitly stating) that the assassin was a MAGA supporter.  And then he explicitly states that "the MAGA gang [is] desperately trying" to portray the assassin "as anything other than one of their own," again leading viewers to believe the assassin was a conservative and that "the MAGA gang" knows it!

All brazen lies.  But stupid Democrats believe Kimmel has the absolute right to say anything he wants on "the public airwaves" without consequence.

To re-state:  The First Amendment does NOT prevent companies from firing any pig-headed shithead employee who spews inflammatory lies on their programs (or on social media).  Doesn't violate the First Amendment at all.  Not even close.

Yet we see stupid left-wing actors like Ben Stiller tweeting "This isn't right."  He doesn't mean the assassination, but ABC pulling Kimmel's shitshow.

MSNBC host Chris Hayes:  "This is the most straightforward attack on free speech from state actors I've ever seen in my life."  Not calling the assassination an "attack on free speech."  Ohhh no.

The next Dem nominee for president, Gavin Newsom, claimed "They are censoring you."  No, ya corrupt bastard, Americans are free to say anything, they're just not immune from being fired for doing so.  Newsom knows the difference but implies it's government censorship because that inflames his supporters.

He added "Firing commentators. Canceling shows. These aren't coincidences. It's coordinated. And it's dangerous."

Actually, Gavin, the dangerous thing is that thanks to lies like yours, virtually EVERY Democrat believes a company is barred by the Constitution from firing an employee for uttering or writing brazen lies.

Source.

https://archive.is/4swXA 

In NYC a 16-year-old girl rejects previously-deported illegal--who runs her down with his car

In Europe teen girls and women are raped and killed by illegal aliens every single day.  We're luckier: Here it only happens every 3 or 4 days, and the Media ensure you almost never hear about it, cuz if they told ya it would make at least SOME rational people stop voting for the murderous bastards who rule the Dem party that allowed 'em to waltz in in the first place.

But events in NYC sometimes get published because dat beez duh "communication center of duh world," eh?  That's what happened here.

The illegal had previously been deported, and had had his license suspended for a prior DUI conviction.  So of course he was driving without a license because illegals have demonstrated--endlessly, repeatedly--that they don't give a shit about our laws.

Witnesses say he was obviously drunk, again.  But still driving.

Third world driving standards -- catch the fever.

The illegal is Edwin Cruz-Gomez, 38.  At 4 a.m. Saturday morning, after a heated argument with the girl, her boyfriend and her mother, the illegal alien got in his Suburban and slammed into both the girl and her mother.

Democrats: "NOOOooo, dis fake newz!  Jus' like duh text messages duh Fibbies made up about doze darling star-crossed lovers in Utah!"

In January of this year the illegal was charged with DWI, but because of the Demcrat party's insistence that crooks be released without having to post bail, he was free on the streets before his scheduled trial.  Ain't that great?

His license was suspended following that "incident."

If you're wondering how this illegal alien criminal had a license at all, it's because Democrat-ruled New York has that policy to make life easier for illegals.  Thanks, Democrats!

Court records show that in June this piece of shit was caught speeding--and driving without a license!--in Nassau County.  But once again he was released pending trial--again without having to post bail.

He was scheduled to appear in Nassau County District Court next month for both cases.  So from January DUI to October--ten months of freedom because the shitlibs refuse to deport or imprison before trial.

So at 4 a.m, after the illegal allegedly made sexual remarks to the teen and was rebuffed, he got in his car and drove up on the sidewalk, pinning the helpless girl and her mother against a wall, according to sources.

Fortunately the mother survived.  The 16-year-old girl was killed--by a drunk illegal, driving without a license after two DUIs.  

Democrats: "Hey, racist, accidents happen!  See, dis wuz jus' a unfortunate aksident!  Prolly a stuck accelerator."

Ohh you bet, ya stupid assholes.  A 16-year-old girl is dead because of your party's policies, and you're making excuses, AS ALWAYS. 

Source: Ace of Spades

https://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=416511

Leftists and feminists (redundant?) screech that masculinity is "toxic." Really?

 

Democrats on Dem-created social media site BlueSky call for other conservatives to be killed

In case you didn't know, the Democrats created a social-media website called BlueSky, so their supporters could chat with each other.  And since the Democrat party is claiming they're really reeeally against violence, you might be surprised to learn that hundreds of Dem users there said they wanted someone kill other conservatives, including the president.  Take a look at this sample: 

 

I always thought calling for the president to be killed wasn't "protected speech."  Guess you can really do that without any consequences.  Kinda surprising.

What's NOT surprising is that so many Democrats were calling for other conservatives to be killed. 

Democrat-fellating Media get their talking points about Kirk's assassination

After huddling for two days, the Lying, Dem-fellating Mainstream Media has settled on the talking points about Charlie Kirk's assassination.

It's "You Republicans need to calm down!"  

 

"See, you Rethuglicans always get SO upset over every little thing!  First it was all that whining claiming our Democrat friends stole the 2020 election, then about Dems replacing Joe as their nominee with someone who never entered a single primary--as if that matters!  And now it's some right-wing extremist dying.  You just need to calm down!"

Really? 

Here's the demented Left doing their thing

Example #1,574,067 of the crazed, demented Left.  This is in Seattle--a city FULL of leftist crazies.

Here's another: a mural honoring Kirk after his death.  Within a day leftists had completely painted over it with hateful messages.

 

Did Jesus teach that we should keep turning the other cheek to millions, or to nations?

Hours after the murder of Charlie Kirk.

Watching the "briefing" hours after the political assassination.

Dipshit briefer says "We believe this was a targeted event."  Gee, ya think?

Dipshit #2: "We are saddened by the *passing*.  Not "murder."  Not "We are outraged by this murder."  Not a word of condemnation.  Just "Violence has no place here."  But it did.

Finally near the end the governor (Republican) says "Let me make clear: this was a political assassination."  Gee, ya think?  

Charlie Kirk was an inspirational speaker, and brought millions of young Americans to the conservative side.

Here's what I predict:
 *Democrat politicians will wring their hands and demand that "all the violence end."  Because even though conservatives are far less violent than communists, the pols are scared that they'll be shot like Charlie.

 *By contrast, Democrat "activists," trannies, socialists and communists will get on the internet and *gloat* about Kirk's murder.  Rational people would think that's stupid, but that's how Dems, trannies, socialists and communists roll.

 *Democrat/socialist "elites" will wring their hands and pretend to be sad.  But secretly they'll be pleased, because the murderer erased the top inspirational speaker for young people, on the side of conservatism.
   The best tactic for evil is to take out the effective leaders for the good.

 *Conservative leaders are urging that no one retaliate for this political assassination, saying "This has to stop."  And Democrat *elites* will agree--because they're *always* against violence *against them,* but don't care if conservatives are attacked by mobs or shot dead.  Interesting.  The usual Dem double-standard: *"Your side* needs to refrain from violent reprisals."

So for Obama-style Democrats: watch this compilation--less than two-and-a-half minutes of your miserable lives--and you'll see who the violent ones are, Dems threatening to kill Trump, washed-up lefty "comedians" holding up a severed head looking like the president's.  Fucking STAGE plays showing him stabbed to death.  On and on, endlessly.  You bastards OWN this.  Your elites encouraged it.  May you burn in hell for the rest of time. 

So NOW Democrats cunningly pretend to be against violence.  Hmm...interesting timing.

I realize Christ taught that we should bear any injustice without retaliation.  AND I'm old enough to have been taught in highschool about "Greek tragedies," in which families would continue strings of tit-for-tat murders of members of the other family, continuing for ten generations, each avenging the previous murder.

I get it.  Forgiveness is wonderful, and I'll be delighted when a future generation gets that privilege.  But Kirk's murder outrages me just as the murder of the pretty 23-year-old in Charlotte that the left is trying to keep secret.  It's becoming more obvious every week that a low-intensity civil war has been going on in the U.S. for years, perhaps decades...but only one side has been doing the killing.  Perhaps it's finally time for our side to join the war.  

War is terrible, but I wouldn't shed a tear if every leftist who's ever resorted to violence against conservatives is killed.  Let a future generation finally say "enough."

I have no intention of conspiring with anyone to pick up a scoped rifle and start killing socialists and communists, and I wouldn't urge anyone to do that.  But with that said: I think Christ's teaching of forgiveness was intended for person-to-person slights and offenses.  When millions on one side believe the other side is an "existential threat"--something we've seen literally scores of Democrat *leaders* and media *elites* bleat again and again--it can't be solved by forgiveness, because pretty soon all the good people are either dead or in prison.

I can't believe Christ would have advocated that outcome.  I think there are times when you have to--if only sadly--pick up your weapons and fight.

Most Christians--and cunning leftists--will claim this is a recipe for endless war, like the endless Greek tragedies.  Really?  How are our relations with Germany and Japan today, eh?  Each side killed lots of people on the other side--often in barbaric ways--and yet somehow we've lived in peace since 1945.  Why hasn't there been another ten generations of murders between the former adversaries, eh?

The reason should be clear: our former enemies were so utterly crushed, paid such a terrible price, that they lost the ability to make war, and finally realized that continuing the war was suicidal.  Faced with that choice, they surrendered--unconditionally--and the war ended, and friendship began.  

That's what we need here: the left needs to be so crushed that continuing to fight becomes unthinkable.  They need to be so soundly defeated that they beg for mercy.  And after it's over we'll all be Americans again.  But we'll no longer release rapists and muggers and killers:  No TV or weights in prison.

I think after it's over everyone will realize that the only reason we had so much crime today is that Democrat destroyers demanded that crime not be punished.  I suspect that killing just a hundred gang members in any city would cut the number of young men wanting to join gangs to nearly zero.  No more catch-and-release.

Forgiveness is wonderful, and I'm happy to let a future generation have that privilege.   

Mainstream Media, Dem politicians and "academics" all scream "Trump's a fascist." Young Americans believe 'em.

If you wanna see why some 22-year-old dipshit tranny assassinated Charlie Kirk, and why the Left is screaming about both Trump and Kirk being "fascists," take a look at this headline from "New Yorker Magazine" just two damn DAYS after last November's election:

 

THIS is one of the reasons why our nation is so fucked up:  even before the election the sons of whores who run Democrat-fellating propaganda outlets like The New Yorker Mag, NY Times, WaPo, LA Times and many others have been SCREAMING that Trump is a fascist.

TWO damn DAYS after the election, the communist shits at New Yorker were SCREAMING Trump would "try to cling to power until death."  Of course he didn't do that after bribem and the corrupt Democrats stole the 2020 election, but these sons of whores think he'd do it--when?  Apparently in 2028.

Won't happen, of course, because he did NOT try to prevent the known-corrupt bribem (who provably took bribes from China, Russia, Burisma and others) from being installed as prez in 2020.  But of course the corrupt communists at the Mainstream Media outlets refuse to admit that.

Want another bit of evidence?  You don't, cuz if you're a Democrat your head is firmly up your ass, but here ya go: 

 

Want another piece of evidence?  Again, if you're a Democrat, you don't, cuz you simply CANNOT believe that the Mainstream Media and the Dems are stoking ALL of the screaming unrest in this nation--the ghastly mental illness that led directly to the assassination of Charlie Kirk.  But here ya go:

 

See, in Dem-speak, a "fascist" is anyone who believes it's wrong to surgically mutilate children under 18, 

• or doesn't agree that "Trans women ARE women."
• or objects to males being allowed to compete against real girls in sports;  
• or believes only citizens should be allowed to vote in national elections;  
• or believes the federal gruberment shouldn't be giving hundreds of millions of dollars to left-wing NGOs (which then donate millions of dollars to Democrat politicians who gave 'em the taxpayer funds);
• or believes thugs shouldn't be immediately released back to the streets without having to post bail;
• or does NOT believe "Global Warming" is caused by carbon dioxide;
• or objects to bribem's and the Dem's "open borders" policy; 
• or objects to Democrats ordering that taxpayer funds be used to pay for sex-change operations for prisoners, illegal aliens and Medicare and Medicaid recipients; 
• or objects to Democrats ordering us to give $20 million to teach "journalists" in Swaziland to use preferred pronouns;
• or believes "regular" American kids shouldn't be forced to take an experimental, ineffective vaccine if members of congress and postal workers are exempt;
• or believes burning cities or lighting citizens on fire is NOT "peaceful protest;"
• or believes people should have to show photo-ID to vote in federal elections;
• or believe "ordinary citizens" shouldn't be allowed to have guns; 

This list could go on for 20 more lines.  Starting to get it yet?

If you're a Democrat you probably don't, and probably never will.  That's why the screaming headlines by NPR and Rolling Stone and all the alphabet networks that "Trump is Hitler" or "Trump is a fascist" fuel so much anger: you and your fellow partei members believe 'em.  All of 'em.

Charlie Kirk would tell his college audiences "If you're a liberal Democrat, come to the front of the line."  Those who responded always (always) accused him of being a fascist.  Kirk responded "Do fascists suppress freedom of speech?"  Student would say yes...cuz dat whut fascists do, eh?

Kirk would respond, "And yet I've invited you to the front of the line, and given you a microphone to say whatever you like.  Does that square with your definition of a fascist?"

Not a single student I've ever watched in those hundreds of videos ever had an answer.  They were all totally flummoxed, because they were overcome by "cognitive dissonance:" what their professors and pols and "elite" media had always told 'em had been revealed as a lie.  

The Left, and their Media parrots, had told left-leaning students that Kirk and Trump were fascists.  No proof was demanded, or offered.  Students just assumed it was true, cuz...well if the Media and all Dem pols and their professors said it was true, surely they couldn't all be lying, eh?

Yes, they could.  And are.  Most are lying to win power, a handful because they're trannies, and a few more who are trying to destroy the country.

Twenty years from now that will be obvious.  

How many more will be murdered or maimed by the left before good people say "You're done. Ended."

 

One day before the assassination, a tranny at Utah Valley University seemingly posted "Something big will happen tomorrow"

In trying to discover who assassinated Charlie Kirk there are thousands of fake leads  Here's one that's unequivocally real:

The assassination happened on September 10th.  ONE DAY earlier, at 10:37 a.m., the post below appeared on X, in which an obvious tranny posting as "Omar" but also calling itself "@NajraGalvz" posted both the text and pic you see below:

"Charlie Kirk is coming to my college tomorrow.  I rlly hope someone evaporates him, literally.  Let's just say something big will happen tomorrow." 

 

Now: the FBI can easily determine 1) if this is an authentic post on X instead of a created graphic; 2) if it's a real post, whether it was sent from the same device "Najra" always used; and if so, 3) the identity of @Najra. 

If yes to all three, interrogate the tranny.  Obviously the "something big" could have referred to something other than assassination, but since (if authentic) it's time-stamped a day before the assassination it's a hellofa good place to start. 

It took locals about five minutes to identify the tranny as Omar Najera Jr. and that he is indeed a student at Utah Valley U. 

One more thing: If you read faces, the creature in the pic is mad as hell.  Obviously that doesn't prove anything, but it's...worth noting.   Here's another post by the tranny:

 

Notice the time-stamp: 33 minutes before the 10:37 threat above.  Obviously a different username (MKaylaUltra) but clearly the same pic.   

For young Americans, "MK-Ultra" was allegedly a 1960s CIA experiment to see if people could be drugged and "programmed" (~hypnotized?) to assassinate on command.  I have no idea if it was real or just clickbait.  Obviously it sounds implausible--but then JFK being assassinated by a "lone gunman" was vastly implausible, so...

After the assassination, "NajraGalvz" posted this--and then locked his X account and changed his username (evidence of guilt?):

 

So my observation from the creature's earlier pic that it was "mad as hell" seems to be accurate.  Again, could just be an angry tranny with no connection to the murder, but sure as hell worth pursuing.

For Democrats with short memories...

Democrats looking for votes from independents: "Wait...WE NEVAH sed we wanted to defund the police!  Dat jus' right-wing conspiracy talk!"  

Really?  Seriously? 

 

In Canada a "transgender man" sexually assaults toddler--after being released early for similar crime

Sep 4, 2025

In Canada a “transgender man" previously convicted of sexually assaulting a young boy but given early release after serving just six months in jail has just been arrested for the violent sexual assault of a female toddler.

Of course given the Media's f'ing DEMAND that everyone use the perp's preferred pronouns rather than the accurate ones, at this point you can't tell if the perp is male or female.  Thanks, Media.  

But we soon learn that the perp is a male, Daniel Sénécal, 25, who identifies as “Dani” and uses “she/her” pronouns, and allegedly broke into a Canadian family’s home on August 31 and sexually assaulted their little girl, who is under the age of 5. 

Sénécal is scheduled for a bail hearing September 10.

Even though the perp was previously convicted of anally raping a young boy, the pedo-loving Canadian governments' online record system isn't viewable by the public.

Sénécal has made social media posts joking about knocking kids unconscious with ether.

As noted above, this was not Sénécal’s first child sex assault.  A mother of a young boy said Sénécal had attacked her child four years ago.  After being free on the streets for over two years of endless court hearings, Sénécal was sentenced to 18 months in jail, but reportedly released after only six months, in early March.

The Dallas Express could not determine if Sénécal is on the government list of registered sex offenders, since the government refuses to allow ordinary citizens to see its list of convicted sex offenders!  So fat lot of good it does, eh? 

See, duh Canadian gruberment--which doesn't give a damn about ordinary citizens--don' wanna stigmatize doze po' unfortunate sex offenders, eh?  Cuz if yew deplorable "citizens" were to learn dat a convicted sex offender lived a couple of houses away, yew might not let your kiddies play at his house, eh?  An' duh socialist gruberment of Canada sez dat beez "discrimination!"  An' your liberal socialist rulers will NOT allow dat!

See, socialists insist dat sex offenders are entitled to equal access to your kidz.  Dat's only fair, eh?

Okay, sarc off.  I posted this ghastly story because if you think this isn't coming here you're too naive to breathe.  May even happen in a Dem-ruled state while Trump is still president, since sex-offender registries are kept by each state.  No federal law forces those lists to be made public, so states can do anything their pols want, jus' like "sanctuary states" can release illegal alien criminals before ICE agents can nab 'em, eh?  

Yes, if you ask AI if there's a "federal list" of sex offenders, duh leftist-programmed robot sez there is.  But it's actually just a list of links to state lists.  So if a Dem-ruled state wanted to make its list of convicted sex offenders unavailable to the public, there's no federal law prohibiting that.

Dem pols in some "enlightened" Dem-ruled shithole like Cali or NY or Illinois or Colorado (where the governor is married to a man) will WAIL dat making the list of registered sex offenders public "stigamatizes" po' sex offenders--like child rapists--so they'll introduce a bill to "end the stigma" by making the list non-public.

Signal dat virtue, sparky!  See, future victims don't matter to Democrats, cuz "It jus' not FAIR dat MAPs beez 'stigmatized' fo' merely bein' MAPs, eh?"

Wait...y'say yew nevah heard duh term "MAP" as an acronym?  It's short for "minor-attracted person"--which is SO much more soothing than "pedophile," eh?  Dems deliberately use acronyms to camouflage the true effect of their bills.  

Example: back in 2001 senate Dems introduced the "DREAM Act"--an acronym for "Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors."  Cuz who could oppose something called "the Dream Act," eh?  I suspect the staffer who came up with that acronym got an award for it. 

So in that vein the Dem bill to make a state's sex-offender registry non-public will be named the "Fairness to MAPs Act," which makes it sound faaabulous, and also makes it impossible for most citizens to know its real purpose.  I mean, who could be against "fairness," eh?

So start the clock.  I know what Dems will do even before they know--because I watch what liberals and communists do in other countries.  If some law or policy advances the liberal agenda in another country, U.S. Dems will try it here, sure as the sunrise.

Source. 

New Jersey Democrats introduce a bill that would force homeschooling parents to teach pro-LGBTQ lessons

According to the great, totally-accurate (sarc) AI, around 6 to 7 percent of U.S. students are now home-schooled.  That's about 3.7 million kids--about double what it was before the Chyna virus lockdowns.

This is a HUGE vexation to the public-school regime because public schools get state and federal dollars based in part on how many students they have.  For example, the state of New York averages about $33,000 per K-12 student per year, while NYC is even more outrageous, at $44,000 per student. (The U.S. average is a bit over $17,000 per year.)

So if the public-school machine can force, say, two MILLION students to abandon home-schooling for the public machine, that's an average of $34 BILLION more per year for public indoctrination centers.  Wow!  So it should be obvious that the "public ed" machine is doing everything it can to make home-schooling harder for parents to do.

And now corrupt "lawmakers" in New Jersey have introduced a bill to do just that.  The proposal, which is still under review, would force homeschooling parents to submit a curriculum that matches state learning standards.  And by "learning" they mean being taught such bullshit as "gender identity," sexual orientation, DEI and global warming.  Ohh, sorry: "climate change."

The bill would require parents wanting to home-school to submit a portfolio of student work every year to be evaluated by either a teacher or a licensed psychologist.

This is "thought police" territory.  Most people would consider it reasonable to make kids pass the same state proficiency test (if any) that public-school students take.  But dictating indoctrination on "gender identity," sexual orientation, DEI and climate change?  No way.

New Jersey Dem lawmakers say they're "studying the proposal," but other sources say "It's a bill."  My guess is that "studying" is the soothing Narrative for "We need a few months to get our media allies to pump out a hundred stories about how bigoted and uninformed homeschooled kids are, to pump up support for this POS."

Pro-tranny, pro-gay Democrat lawmakers are accustomed to doing whatever the hell they want when it comes to religious parents (who are far more likely to homeschool their kids, for obvious reasons).  So the moment they have enough votes to pass the thing, they'll happily do so.  

What they may not realize is that barely three months ago (June) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that parents have the right to withdraw their children from pro-LGBTQ indoctrination in schools if that indoctrination conflicts with the parents' religious beliefs.  Let's take a look:

In November of 2022 the Montgomery County Board of Education--in super-blue Maryland--approved several pro-LGBTQ books starting in pre-K and adding a new book each year thru 5th grade.  To camouflage the pro-LGBTQ thrust the books were described as "supplemental curriculum for the language arts program."   How could anyone be upset about "language arts," eh?

The school board cunningly didn't require teachers to use any of the books, knowing that no teacher would dare to NOT use them.  Clever, eh?

Now watch the as the predictable script unfolded: At first the schools notified parents before the books would be used, and allowed children to "opt out" of the indoctrination if their parents asked.  But as more parents learned about the pro-LGBTQ lessons and began to opt-out, the school board started to bristle.  And less than five months after introducing the policy (March 2023) the school board announced that no student would be able to decline the indoctrination ("opt out") "for any reason." 

The plaintiffs then petitioned a federal District Court in Maryland, claiming the school board’s new no-opt-out policy infringed their right to the free exercise of their religion.  In August 2023, judge Deborah Boardman denied the parents' request for a preliminary injunction that would restore the opt-out policy.  

Her "reasoning" is classic horseshit: "[Even] without an opt-out right, the parents remain free to...instruct their children in their faiths," Boardman wrote.  Wow, how totally kind of ya to give 'em that permission, your worship.

She continued: 

 "Even if their children’s exposure to religiously offensive ideas makes the parents’ efforts less likely to succeed, that does not amount to a government-imposed burden on their religious exercise."

Translation: Forced indoctrination, by government schools, is NOT a "government- imposed burden."

The plaintiffs appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and in May of last year two judges of a 3-judge panel voted to uphold the lower court's amazingly flawed ruling.  The appelate court found no evidence that the schools compelled families to either change or violate their religious beliefs (which of course was neither the claim nor the point of the lawsuit).  Judge G. Steven Agee wrote, "simply hearing about other views does not necessarily exert pressure to believe or act differently than one’s religious faith requires."

So two judges ruled that schools can force your kids to listen to pro-LGBTQ indoctrination because that's "merely hearing about other views," which does NOT "necessarily exert pressure to believe or act differently than" the parents' faith requires.  Wow.

After two losses most parents would give up rather than continue to pay the legal costs of continuing.  But these parents continued to the Supreme Court.

But now, instead of quoting the totally worthless reasoning of the two lower courts (especially the lie that "merely" being forced to "hearing about" radical anti-religious views that the appeals court claimed didn't "necessarily exert pressure," lawyers for the school board changed tactics, this time claiming the "growing number of opt-out requests caused three problems: high student absenteeism, the infeasibility of administering opt-outs "across classrooms and schools," and the risk of exposing "students who believe the storybooks represent them and their families"--i.e. gay and trans students--"to social stigma and isolation." 

Those seem like weak arguments for forced indoctrination, but the school board went one better, saying board members decided to stop letting students opt out because schools were getting "too many requests *not* based on religion."

If I'd been a Supreme Court justice I would have said "Let's see some evidence that you had LOTS of parents objecting for non-religious reasons."  I suspect the board never asked the parents their reasons.  Would have been amusing to watch. 

I think the lawyers for the school board expected an easy win, because courts have given so-called "educators" almost unlimited power over students and parents.  But this time something was different: the case was Mahmoud v. Taylor, and the named plaintiff represented a LOT of local Muslims.

Had the case been brought solely by Christian parents, chances are good that the Supreme Court would have upheld the two lower courts and ruled for the school board.  But with Muslims as plaintiffs, the Court seems to have looked more closely, to avoid charges that it was anti-Muslim.  And it voted 6-3 that the school couldn't make children listen to pro-LGBT lessons if their parents objected.

Sotomayor's dissent is a classic strawman.  She wrote,

"This Court has made clear that mere exposure to objectionable ideas does not give rise to a free exercise claim.  Simply being exposed to beliefs contrary to your own does not “prohibit” the “free exercise” of your religion.  Countless interactions that occur every day in public schools might expose children to messages that conflict with a parent’s religious beliefs."

Of course what plaintiffs are objecting to isn't casual "mere exposure to objectionable ideas."  Nor did the plaintiffs ever claim that exposure (forced or otherwise) prohibited students from the free exercise of their religion.  But unlike the "countless interactions that occur every day in public schools," this is forced, and then there will be tests with only certain answers being "right."  Those were the issues, which Sotomayor's dissent totally avoided.  Instead it knocked down claims the plaintiffs didn't make.

The decision in Mahmoud seems squarely on point with the proposed New Jersey law that would force parents of homeschooled kids to teach the same pro-LGBTQ lessons to their kids that the schools were teaching--which would seem to violate the parents free-speech rights just as the court ruled in Mahmoud v. Taylor.  (Hint: compelled speech isn't free speech.)  

You might think that at least a few New Jersey lawmakers would examine the court's 6-3  decision and avoid passing a law compelling speech just after the court ruled against that in Mahmoud.  But leftist governments have a huge advantage of not having to pay the legal costs of defending a bad law in court.  Instead the taxpayers are forced to cover the costs.  So my guess is that the liberal moonbats who run New Jersey will pass this law even if it's likely to be overturned on appeal.

Democrats want to force all children to submit to LGBTQ indoctrination by schools.  And if parents don't like it, school boards don't care.  And if New Jersey passes a law to force indoctrination--as seems likely--and that law is overturned by the SC, I suspect Dem-ruled school boards will keep trying--forcing taxpayers to pay the legal bills--since the school boards aren't penalized in any way.

Source for SC decision: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_v._Taylor 

"Experts" have said only you can save duh Erf, by eating bugs and not heating your homes. Wait...

 

 

More precisely: eat bugs, stop driving, stop heating and cooling your home...and most important, stop having children!  If you don't do ALL these things, the end of all life on Erf will be on your conscience!

And whatever you do, do NOT mention to ANYONE that the same experts and moronic "elites" who just told ya to do or not do deez things previously predicted that all coastal cities would be underwater by 2020.  Or that Al Gore predicted the Arctic would be totally ice-free by 2015!  Or that in 1970 those "experts" were predicting the world was about to enter a new Ice Age!

See, dat Ice Age WOULD have happened except for all you selfish, spoiled Americans burning so damn much "fossil fuel."  Otherwise we'd all be freezing by now!

In beautiful, "enlightened" Vancouver, Canada, a naked man knocks a woman down and...ewww!

Vancouver, Canada, is a beautiful city.  Unfortunately it's ruled by leftist/socialist moonbats.

Three days ago, at 6 a.m. in the morning in Vancouver a woman was walking on a downtown street when she noticed a naked man standing on top of a parked car.   

The man began yelling at her, ran toward her, knocked her to the ground and urinated on her.

See, that's how naked men behave in sophisticated socialist cities.  By contrast, in New York they just knife women or shove 'em in front of subway trains.

Witnesses quickly restrained the suspect and held "them"--cuz despite the man being naked, Canadian papers are barred by law from assuming a person's "gender"-- until officers arrived. 

Police said they'll recommend charges against "them."  However, Crown counsel Jihaxia Dipshit said the only charges her office was considering were against the witnesses who detained the naked man.  She noted that under Canadian law it's illegal to restrain a mentally ill person, and that even if the person were found to have been under the influence of drugs, that isn't illegal in enlightened Canada.

Finally, Jihaxia noted that "Urinating on a flag or a person is merely another form of free expression, which is fully supported by your government--unless, of course, you're expressing criticism of one of our protected groups, like pedophiles or such, in which case we'll have you in jail before lunch."

Source

https://thepostmillennial.com/naked-man-arrested-for-assaulting-urinating-on-woman-in-vancouver