"If the justice system actually worked..."

 

Credit to George Vassey. 

The Lying Mainstream Media don't want you to know

In Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, 65-year-old Rita Loncharich was Christmas shopping in a bookstore when, with no interaction or provocation, she was stabbed in the back by a mentally ill man.  She died in minutes. 

If a mentally-ill white male had fatally stabbed a black female, it would have made national news.  But in this case...not a word from the Associated Press.  Not a peep from the NY Times.  Or PBS, or NPR, or CNN, or the WSJ, or whatever MS-GTFO now calls itself.  See if you can figure out why:

 

It is a telling sign of our times, and the state of our cringing, spineless, cowering society that today this atrocity is so damn common that the Lying Media just ignores it.  "Dat jus' local interest only," they bleat. 

Judges should lock up mentally ill people.  But leftist judges don't.  And innocent women are murdered. 

There are two patterns in the photo below

One is obvious.  The second is the stupid rat-bastard judges in shithole cities who let people with numerous felony convictions out again and again, until they finally kill an innocent person for no reason--or merely set them on fire. 

 

How the Mainstream Media and their university lackeys define "fairness"

Decades ago a leftist named Walter Cronkite anchored the CBS evening news.  He was revered by our "elites" as an icon of truth, even though he wasn't.  But it didn't matter--because the people who had (and have) the power to declare what's true and what you're allowed to see and hear declared him to be an icon.  See how neatly that works?

So now, 16 years after his death, every year the University of Southern California gives “Cronkite Awards” for “demonstrating fairness” in the Media.

Read that again: "Fairness," eh?

Recently the leftists who run USC gave these awards to Rachel Maddow, Jon Stewart and Scott Pelley. 

Those three have one thing in common: they loathe Donald Trump, Republicans and conservatives.  And today prestigious universities and media "elites" call that “fairness.” 

Starting to see how things work yet?

Nah, probably not.  But I hear "Dancing With The Stars" has a great season on tap!  And Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel are still on, so your late nights will still be loaded with what the Media claims is comedy, eh?  

"Bread and circuses" as America slouches toward its end.  But don't worry, it won't happen for another 15 years or so.  You'll barely notice.  If you have kids who know history, they might notice.  It's why schools don't teach history anymore.  And in any case, "You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs," eh? 

Remember this pic? If you're a Democrat, you don't

 

Members of the Texas National Guard laid razor wire on our side of the river to TRY to keep the illegals from waltzing into the U.S.  In response, joe bribem ordered a forklift to raise the wire to let them waltz in, along with 11 MILLION others during his reign of madness.  

The Mainstream Media ignored this event.  The Internet showed it.  The Democrats don't want you to see it.

A decade from now Democrats will claim this never happened, that's it's a fake by AI.  

19 Dem-ruled states SUE after HHS says they could lose fed money if they perform sex-change surgery

A group of 19 Democrat-led states and D.C. has sued the Trump administration over a warning it issued to doctors that they could be excluded from getting federal tax money if they continued to perform "gender transition treatment"--which the Media and Dems call "gender-affirming surgery"-- on minors.

This is who the Democrats are.  It's what they demand.  They will sue to demand NOT just that we allow them to perform sex-change surgery on minors, but that taxpayers pay for those operations!  And dis iz NOT sexual mutilation, citizen!  Nope nope nope!  Instead it beez jus' "gender-affirming surgery."  Yep yep yep!

Deplorable:  "Doesn't that surgery make them unable to have children?"

Democrat:  "Uhhh...maybe.  But that's not a problem, citizen, since they din' want kids anyway, so actually we're helping 'em with that too.  Besides, American kids contribute SO much more to Climate Change because they use so much more energy!"

Deplorable: "Do you really think that at 13 kids understand what they're getting into when getting these so-called "treatments"?

Democrat:  "Ohh, totally, citizen!  We counsel 'em for at least an hour to ensure dat dey totally unnerstand every aspect of their decision--which dey make totally on dere own, of course!  

Deplorable:  "If cutting healthy body parts off kids is such a great idea, seems like some rich NGO like a Democrat PAC or a foundation would be eager to donate a couple million bucks or so to pay you for this, and then you wouldn't need public money.  Why not do that instead of suing?"

Democrat: "Well, uh...sure, we could do that, but it's just not FAIR!  After all, when Obama and bribem were in office, patients had the right to get gender procedures paid by Medicare and Medicaid.  So why should we have to use private funding now?  As we say in the biz, once something's a 'right.' it's a right forever, eh?"

Deplorable: "So do you think your doctors should be liable when minor who have had these surgeries 'de-transition,' claiming they weren't told about the effects, like having to take hormones for life?"

Democrat: "Of course we categorically deny that any patients who have 'transitioned' have ever sued.  But speaking purely hypothetically, we would claim the proper defendant is the government, since it approved every procedure."

Deplorable: "Of course since 'government' gets its revenue from taxpayers, wouldn't that mean taxpayers would pay any awards?"

Democrat: "Again, we don't admit that anyone has regretted transitioning, let alone has sued.  But speaking hypothetically, we're confident that any informed, enlightened DC jury would agree with us that all patients gave informed consent.  And that the government must pay any award since it approved the procedures when Obama and bribem were in office."
    
Deplorable: "That's really slick: You people make millions performing sex-change surgeries, but if any of your patients sues, you claim you're not liable.  That's really clever!"

Democrat: "That's why we're running things and you're not, even though you have a majority in both chambers, and a GOP prezzy.  It's why we'll get the premium subsidies for Obamacare extended for another three years after we Dems passed a law saying they'd expire at the end of 2025.  We're just that much smarter than you pipo."  

2-year-old murdered in Denmark. Mainstream Media: "Dat is NOT worth reporting!"

Does the Lying Mainstream Media carefully, cunningly lie to ya about...well, everything?  Take a look:

Here's the Copenhagen Post:

A 32-year-old man has been arrested and charged with the murder of a two-year-old boy who died after falling from a high-rise building near Copenhagen.

"Died after falling," eh?

Only ONE U.S. media outlet reported this, and here's what they said:

Emergency services were called after reports that a small child had fallen from a great height.   Officers confirmed that a two-year-old boy had fallen from the seventh floor.

"Fallen," y'say?

The facts:  A Somali man threw the 2-year-old off the 7th-floor welfare apartment.  But the kicker is that the same man stabbed his own mother to death in 2014--but was released by moronic leftist judges.  Cuz that's how leftists rock, eh?  Your public defender pleads insanity and you're sent to a "treatment center" without bars or supervision.  You walk out and no one cares.

The Lying Media didn't breathe a word that the killer was Somali--let alone that he'd stabbed his own mother to death--"cuz we don' wanna 'stigmatize the community.'"  That's an actual quote from Danish "law non-enforcement."

Any reprimand for the moronic leftist judges who let this demon loose after he killed his own mother?  Of course not.  And you're not allowed to say anything about that.

So...an outrage.  And how many U.S. lying mainstream media outlets told you about this, eh?

NY Times?  Nope.  WaPo?  Nope.  LA Times?  You're kidding, right.  Only one U.S. media cesspool said a word about it--and it doesn't publish a paper or have more than a dozen readers on its cable channel.  It's mainly on-line.

Media editors: "We shouldn' tell ouah readers about dis, cuz it'll jus' arouse opposition to bringing in more Somalis, and to leftist judges who keep releasing killers back onto the streets!  We can't tell 'em any of that!"

And so it goes, deplorables.  

If some new mosquito or flying worm is getting close to our border, the Media is all over it, screaming about the danger.  Clickbait, citizen!  More eyes, more ad revenue!  And of course a story about this murder would get even more clicks--but for some reason the U.S. Media almost never tells Americans about outrages like THIS.

Now why do ya suppose that is, eh?  Oh, dat right: "We don' wanna stigmatize duh community."  It's why the Media is fighting so hard to make the story of billions of dollars of welfare fraud by Somalis in Minnesota vanish.

Source:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/outrage-in-denmark-as-man-throws-two-year-old-boy-from-7th-floor-to-his-death/ar-AA1SVdRV 

Muslim man ties up and drowns his teen daughter in swamp for refusing to wear headscarf; yet another "honor killing"

U.S. liberals and Democrats shrug.

In the Netherlands (which 30 years ago was a very civil nation) a Muslim father and his two sons tied the hands of his 18-year-old daughter, gagged her so she couldn't scream for help, and threw her into a swamp to drown.

If you're a normal human your mind intuitively rejected what you just read because it's so ghastly to western minds, so you need to read it again to believe it.

Liberals and Democrats: "NOOooo, dis fake newz!  Dis not true!  No one haz been convicted yet, so we'll claim it nevah happen!  All lies!"

In May of 2024 the body of 18-year-old Ryan Al Najjar was found in a swamp, her hands tied behind her back, ankles taped together, a gag in her mouth.  Her father--accused of ordering the murder--has fled back to Syria, from which he can't be extradited.  Hmmm..."fled," y'say.  Wonder why.

The girl's brothers--Mohamed, 23, and Muhanad Al Najjar, 25--are finally on trial for drowning her.  With classic propaganda spin, Islamists and liberal politicians and the U.S. media all call it an "honor killing."

Prosecutors told the court the killing appears to have been triggered by a TikTok video showing the girl...brace yourself...without a headscarf and wearing makeup.

Investigators found her father's DNA under Ryan's fingernails, which is consistent with her trying to defend herself against her father.  But prosecutors don't know whether he or her brothers actually killed her.

And there you have the defense strategy: the brothers will claim dad killed her, and prosecutors have no witnesses to prove otherwise.  Dad's DNA under her fingernails?  Eh, dat don' prove nuttin'.  Plus, dad is happily beyond the reach of Dutch law, safe in his homeland of Syria.  Neat how that worked out, eh?  Well, unless you're the murdered daughter.

Of course Americans learn nothing from dis.  First, it happened in the Netherlands--a place few Americans have been to.  Second, the jury will acquit, since no witnesses.  "Oh, we iz sorry duh girl iz dead but we cain't know whedder duh brudders or duh dad murdered her, so we haz t' let duh brudders off.

So, just another day ending in Y, eh?

Americans: "Why dis newz?  It not happen here, right?  So why dis newz?"

Ohhh, absolutely, sparky.  Yew cain't learn anything frum dis.  Nope nope nope!  Democrats absolutely assure you no lessons at all can be gleaned from this.  And yew mus' believe 'em cuz dey way smahtah den yew!  Dey went to Hahvahd or Yale or Stanford or Columbia or NYU or Berkeley!  So yew mus' believe 'em.  

See, dey iz smaht!  Yew iz deplorable!  Hilliary sed dat, in exactly doze words!  So mus' be true, eh?  Cuz Hilliary smaht!

G*ddamn...you people are too stupid to breathe without assistance.  You believe Muslims are like Methodists or Lutherans or Catholics, just another religion, when in reality their own damn book orders good Muzz to lop off your head.  Seriously.

Because I don't have kids, Islam conquering the U.S. a few years after my death is only of academic interest to me.  If you have kids it's probably of interest to you--except you don't believe it's possible.  Unfortunately the demons who want to conquer you are out-breeding you--and that's not gonna change.  

For the past 75 years no American has been concerned about being conquered because we've been protected by our nuclear defense: other nations knew if they started a world war they'd be destroyed.  So the people who want to conquer you found another strategy: take over one of the two political parties, and replace all the top generals with toadies--men who would do as the party ordered.

Obozo completely revamped the military, promoting only generals and admirals who would do as the Dems ordered.  And many are still in command.  Bribem continued that policy.

The significance is that no matter how well trained and motivated your captains and majors, no counter-force can be launched unless the president so orders.  If you think a Cackles or AOC or Newsom would order our nuclear forces launched in the event of nuclear attack, you're dreaming.

Wishing you luck, cupcakes.

Source:  Daily Mail (U.K)--you'll never hear about it in U.S. papers

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15341253/Teenage-girl-tied-drowned-swamp-honour-killing-upset-father-refusing-wear-Islamic-headscarf-using-social-media.html 

South Africa: 1992 vs. today--and the newest, most profitable grift

One of the great advantages of a world in which information is freely exchange is that different theories of governing, tried by different nations, can be compared for their effectiveness--or utter failure.

So if a particular experiment fawned and slobbered over by leftists and communists implodes, in theory the people of other nations could learn from that mistake and avoid repeating it, eh?  

Of course that's only possible if the Media of other nations show their people the results of the disastrous failure.  But in all western nations the Mainstream Media--which controls what people in those nations are allowed to see--all support the liberals, so voters ever hear about ghastly, destructive failures in other nations.  Hmmm...

Think for a bit about the three innocuous paragraphs above.  Just four sentences!  There's a stunning truth there for those who have the ability to comprehend it.

Just four simple, declarative sentences.  No flowery bullshit word-salad, as from Cackles and AOC and Hakeem and Chuckie Schumer and their merry band of leftist destroyers.  Just four simple sentences.  So with that background, let me present...South Africa:

If you're a young American--or most older ones--you don't know jack-shit about South Africa.  But 40 years ago American liberals had their panties in a twist about that nation.  At the time it was as advanced as any in Europe: Huge, well-functioning cities, good schools and universities, a safe, slick national airline, even nuclear weapons.  

And then it all went *poof.*

Back in the 1980s the problem--according to western liberals--was that SA had been colonized and developed by whites.  As a result, whites ran things.  This was called "apartheid"--like segregation in the U.S. before WW2.  And liberals demanded that whites turn the country over to the black majority.

Western liberals had huge help from a totally predictable source: communists, who saw the entire African continent as a battleground they could almost certainly win--which turned out to be correct. 

The purpose of this post is not to defend apartheid, but to show how neatly western liberals--with the crucial help of the communists--forced the whites to give total control of that country to blacks, and what predictably happened after that.

The main problem was that because SA had a booming economy with lots of jobs, blacks from surrounding nations migrated there to get jobs (and welfare).  And the government welcomed 'em in.  Sound familiar?

After decades of all-black immigration, blacks ended up being 90% of the population--but still things ran smoothly: repairs to streets and water lines and powerplants were made just as in the U.K. or the Netherlands--because that's who still ran the country.

Of course western liberals were outraged that whites ran things in SA, and demanded that the whites turn control of that nation over to blacks.  And the same western liberals organized boycotts demanding that South African teams not be allowed to compete in the Olympics, and similar pressure tactics.

And it worked: On March 17, 1992, white South Africans voted on the question of ending Apartheid, meaning giving control to blacks.  And 68% of the whites voted to turn control of the country over to blacks.  Blacks were given the vote, and two years later Nelson Mandela was elected as that country's first black president. 

After that election the Washington Post's Mary McGrory wrote “Nelson Mandela has won what the Post calls ‘one of history’s sweetest victories over racial subjugation’ and he is going to keep it clean and beautiful so that newspaper readers will think they are reading scripture when they read dispatches from South Africa."

So how'd that work out for ya, Mary?

I don't have time to list all the ways SA has turned to shit: streets have potholes that are never repaired, water doesn't work, power blackouts every day, massive theft--but want to acquaint you with just the newest theft:  Because the black government doesn't prosecute black crime, more than 5,000 buildings across the Johannesburg, Pretoria, Durban and parts of Cape Town have been “hijacked” by black gangs, which lock out the owners and collect all rent in cash.

Of course the gangs don't pay tax on the income, reducing government revenue.  You'd think the government would bitch about taxes not being paid, but the corrupt black government just smirks.  The gangs string electricity cables from nearby buildings, and threaten the owners of those buildings if they're disconnected.  Water is siphoned from neighboring buildings or municipal pipes. 

The grift is generating billions of rand a year for the gangs--by far the most profitable scam around.

Across South Africa’s major metros such as Johannesburg, Pretoria, Durban and Cape Town, criminal syndicates have seized control of thousands of residential and commercial properties.  Estimates from property owners and urban researchers put the number at around 5,000 buildings nationwide, with roughly 1,100 in Johannesburg’s central business district alone. Anyone who resists is threatened into silence.

A group moves in, often posing initially as security guards or caretakers.  Soon the real owner is locked out.  Just as in the U.S. with squatters, the hijackers often turn the tables on the owners, saying they own the building.  The courts never rule against the hijackers.

Doors are welded shut. Armed “bouncers” are stationed at entrances. Tenants are told they must now pay rent to a new authority.  Ironically, anyone who refuses is thrown out or threatened. Owners who attempt to enter are warned they will be killed. 

Hundreds of people are crammed into buildings never designed for such density. Rooms are subdivided with plywood; fire escapes are blocked; water and sanitation systems collapse under the strain. Maintenance stops entirely.

And yet the criminals continue to collect the rent--all of it untaxed and largely invisible.  As another owner involved in a multi-year legal battle to reclaim a property put it, “No maintenance, no taxes, no compliance. Pure profit.”

Under South African law, evicting unlawful occupants is governed by the Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act.  In addition to requiring evictions to be approved by judges, that law crucially DECREES that the landlord must find other accommodation for evicted residents.  Owners say this makes it almost impossible to reclaim hijacked buildings.

Court cases drag on for years. Sheriffs refuse to act without police protection. Meanwhile, owners remain liable for taxes, even when they have no access to their properties and no income from them.

Several owners described being driven into hiding after receiving repeated death threats. Others have abandoned properties altogether, not because they are negligent “slumlords”, they say, but because the personal risk is intolerable. And that's what the syndicates want – to put so much fear into the owners so that they never return, leaving the hijackers to run the buildings with impunity and raking in the millions.

The next domino to fall is totally predictable:  Unlike legitimate landlords, the gangs spend nothing on maintenance, so buildings deteriorate, city governments rule them unsafe and the neighborhood declines, all while criminal groups keep collecting millions.

Owners argue that the state has the tools to prosecute the hijackers, but refuses to do so.

For the syndicates running this criminal empire, business has never been better.

More than 31 years after McGrory absolutely assured us that SA under black rule would be a paradise, one marvels at the total failure--of both the liberal prediction and the reality of South Africa. 

It took a century for whites to build the sophisticated urban infrastructure that was South Africa by 1992.  The decay began in 1994, and it's taken barely over 30 years most of SA's cities to become barely habitable--under the total, unhindered rule of blacks in South Africa.

The black-run national government chose to stop protecting private property rights--the right of building owners to keep black crime syndicates from taking over their buildings--because in today's SA the government refuses to take on the crime syndicates.  Think a few dozen palms are being greased?

Papers like the Washington Post--people like Mary McGrory and her leftist bosses--assured Americans that if blacks were given control of South Africa, things would be fabulous.  How'd that work out, Mary?

Say, how's Oakland doing today?  How about Atlanta?  Detroit?  Cleveland?  Chitcongo?  

In Italy: a Muzz from Morocco brutally assaults ten women--ruled mentally incompetent to stand trial

Psychiatrists are masters of rationalizing brutality.  "It wudn't hiz fault!" they bleat.  "Duh po' migrant wuz rejected by an Italian girl, so he wuz forced to take out his hurt feelings by beating and slashing other Italian girls, SEE?  Perfectly understandable!"  

Do I need to add that all psychiatrists are leftists?  

There is NO brutality they can't rationalize. Unprovoked murders of strangers?  Setting innocent women on fire in subways?  "Chill, citizen!  Yew jus' need to be mo' tolerant!"  And the classic: "Dey don' know beating women is against our law, cuz in dere country it  beez perfekly normal!" 

The suspect reportedly told his psychiatrist that he had been rejected by an Italian woman.  Shrink: "SEE?  How kin yew possibly blame him!"

The piece of shit demon--a 20-year-old Moroccan demon, Mohamed Amine Elouardaoui--violently attacked ten women in two months--yet the suspect was repeatedly neither expelled nor formally arrested because he had previously been declared mentally unfit.

Let's pause for a second: There have always been demons on Earth.  You can leave 'em free to continue brutalizing innocents, or you can jail 'em for LIFE, or kill 'em.  Personally, when guilt is beyond doubt I think the best choice--beyond doubt--is the last one.

In the first attack the demon punched a young woman in the face without warning as she shopped.  Fractured her jaw, cheekbone and eye socket.  He fled, only to resurface later at another supermarket, where he allegedly struck a woman in the back of the head.  Later he was accused of punching another woman in the ribs and crushing her hands against a checkout counter.

Lefty psychiatrist: "But it not hiz fault!  He not competent to stand trial, nor be deported!  Oh sure, he ran away after the attacks, an' yew deplorables claim that show he understands that what he did wuz wrong, but we professionals say he still 'mentally incompetent,' SEE?  We professionals calls dis "selective incompetence," an' dat beez somethin' way too nuanced fo' yew stupid deplorables to unnerstan."

On Dec. 4 the demon attacked a 64-year-old woman, breaking her arm. The next day he slashed a woman with a broken bottle.  A female police officer arrested the demon, and reported that the demon said “You can’t do that, you’re a woman."

Despite the number and severity of the attacks, a leftist judge RULED that the suspect wasn't  capable of understanding his actions and was unfit to stand trial.  But instead of ordering the demon jailed until trial, the dipshit leftist judge ordered him into "psychiatric care."  He was placed in a hospital ward, from which he promptly escaped. 

Now, class:  In nature, what happens to prey animals that are too dumb to recognize danger?

Sure: they're killed by predators.  That's exactly what's happening now.  Only difference is that in nature you don't have members of the prey group ORDERING that group to submit to their own injury or death, eh?  But human leftists iz mo' "enlightened," eh?  Every time a demon kills or merely injures, they release the predator with soothing, loving words.

So: Demons have always been here, and will always BE here.  Rational judges could imprison 'em for life, or order their execution, but instead do neither.  So how can that be fixed?

Leftists and Democrats neither know nor care.  And never will, unless a demon grievously injures or kills one of their family members.  The demons can murder innocents on public transit in the U.S.  Or their parents, as Nick Reiner did.  And morons just shrug.

Leftists: "We must not put deez pipo in prison cuz it not dere fault!  Reeeally!" 

Finally: the Lying Mainstream Media doesn't tell you about even one percent of the brutal attacks in the U.S., and none of those in Europe.  If you wanna see how bad it is there, go to "rmx.news"  Demonic attacks every day.  And if you think that's not coming here, you're too stupid to breathe.

https://rmx.news/article/moroccan-misogynist-who-beat-10-women-in-separate-attacks-in-italy-ruled-mentally-incompetent-to-stand-trial-and-sent-for-hospital-treatment/ 

California's Democrat rulers refuse to repay $20 BILLION federal loan, instead force employers to repay it

Ahh, Democrat-ruled California!

Back when Dem rulers shut down most businesses in their states during the Chyna virus, the federal government loaned dozens of states money to cover the huge increase in unemployment claims.

All the states but one have now repaid those loans.  But not California, where the Democrat legislature decided to spend the money on other things.  And the Dem-ruled assembly still hasn't paid off a dollar of a massive $20 billion federal loan.

And for some bizarre reason, under federal rules the state doesn't have to pay.  Instead employers are forced to repay the huge amount--which is rising every year due to interest.

Most other states paid their Covid debts using federal stimulus money, but California officials used the haul for infrastructure, homelessness and "other priorities."  It’s now the only state that hasn’t paid back the money.

This is such a classic Democrat move: get a loan from the feds, spend it on anything *other* than the stated purpose, then stick employers with the bill.  You and I couldn't get away with that, but Democrat legislators can and will.

And really, what better lesson could Dems teach their kids about how to "succeed" in the modern world, eh?  "Borrow lots of money, spend it any way you like and then don't repay!  It's how California Democrats rock!"

https://nypost.com/2025/12/22/us-news/california-hasnt-paid-20b-loan-for-covid-unemployment/ 

3rd quarter GDP grew a whopping 4.3%, much more than predicted. Bet you didn't hear that

From CNBC, Dec 23, 2025:

The U.S. economy grew at a much greater-than-expected pace in the third quarter.

The gross domestic product rose 4.3% in the July-September period, per the Commerce Department.

Economists polled by Dow Jones had expected a gain of 3.2%.

Now: readers who aren't fans of math think "Eh, 3.2 to 4.3 is barely over one percent difference, so dis no big deal."  Except it's a miss of about 26%, like predicting your income this month will be $4,000 and it turns out to be $3,000, except this time the "experts" missed by guessing 26% LOW.  

GDP growth of 3.2% is a great number, and under bribem or Obozo 4.3% would have been breathless headline news, with the Media swooning.  So two questions:  First, did you hear about this?  And second: how did the "experts" miss by 26%--in a way that make voters believe the economy wasn't doing as well as it is?

If you think this was just an accident, you're naive.  Going into the 2024 election Americans strongly favored Trump on the economy, something like 80-20.  And sure enough, today inflation is way down, the average national price of gasoline is under $3 (yesterday I paid $2.25), tax cuts have already passed, foreign investment is pouring into the U.S.  

But with the help of the Lying Mainstream Media and Democrat economists the Dems have managed to get Americans to believe exactly the opposite:  CNN recently reported a poll showing voters viewing the Trump economy UNfavorably by 80-20. 

Now pollsters say the "generic ballot" for the midterms show the Dems ahead by about seven points.

If GDP had grown 4.3% under bribem or Obozo it would have been headline news.  And no economist would have lowballed the estimates of THAT performance.  But with Trump as president all economic news is either spun as awful, or if it can't be twisted to fit "awful" it's ignored.  

See if you hear this today or tomorrow in the Media. 
 

Say hello to the next president of the U.S. Happy? This is the best the Dems can do

 

The next president of the United States--because of his great governance, eh?

 

Typical California voter has had enough of govt fraud, waste and incompetence! Wait...

 

Totally true

 

If you still think Wikipedia is unbiased, you're stupid

 

How the Democrat party managed to get taxpayers to pay for sex-change operations

When Democrat "leaders" have a law they want passed, or a policy adopted that benefits 'em, nothing deters 'em.  If they're warned that the law or policy they want will have an obvious bad effect, they just smirk:  Their reasoning is simply, entirely "If it helps our party, we want it, regardless.  We simply don't believe there will be any bad results."

It's as if they don't believe in the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Then the next domino falls, then the next. 

Example: Most Democrats totally support what they've cunningly called "gender-affirming surgery" for kids under 18--in which doctors cut off healthy body parts of kids to give 'em the illusion of becoming the opposite of the sex they were born with.  Wow!

And since not all families could afford these hugely expensive procedures, Democrat pols 
rammed thru a policy change that forced insurance companies to pay for those costly procedures.  And of course this caused the price of health insurance to rise.

But because some families didn't have insurance, the Dems rammed thru another policy change:  they forced taxpayers to pay for sex-change surgery, thru Medicaid--the program designed to give free medical care to low-income families.  

You knew that, right?  No?  Ah, of course not.

And because voters didn't push back on the Democrats for doing that, the Dems made another demand: they sued to force states to pay for sex change operations for people over 65, under Medicare.  And once again the Dems got their way.  

You knew that too, right?  No?  Ahh, of course not.

And since voters STILL didn't vote the sons of bitches out of office, the Democrats made yet another pro-tranny demand: they sued to force states to provide sex-change operations to prison inmates.  See, it jus' wudn't FAIR dat prisoners lacked the money to pay fo' dere own "gender-affirming surgery," eh?  And leftist judges in Cali and other Democrat-ruled states agreed.

Of course once the inmate looked female, it jus' wudn't FAIR to keep 'em in a male prison cuz they'd be assaulted, eh?  So leftist judges in California and other Dem states forced their prison systems to transfer trannies to female prisons.  Wow, faaaabulous, eh?

The next demand was that after Obozo ordered the military to allow openly-trans people to join, the military was now forced to pay for sex-change surgery for hundreds of trannies--who then could not be deployed to forward bases because those locations didn't have the hormones the trannies had to have to keep the charade going.

And STILL voters didn't push back, cuz duh Media constantly tells Americans dat it's only FAIR that you should pay fo' deez wunnerful operations!  So California Dems made one more demand: they forced the state to use tax dollars (Medicaid) to give "free" sex-change surgery to...can you guess?  Sure: to illegal aliens.

So...Democrat policies, pushed one after another, thanks to leftist presidents and judges, forced on a population that never hears the truth from the Mainstream Media and wouldn't be able to block the Dems in any case.  The Democrat party wanted it, and rammed it through.  And surely the total cost is now in the billions.

And we're about to see another Dem demand: "universal basic income"--a "hot" new policy in Democrat circles that would pay half the people in the country $2,000 a month, forever.  No need to take their precious time to go to a gruberment office and apply.  Instead, like those faaabulous mail-in ballots sent to every voter even if not requested, the state would just send a monthly check to every resident below a certain income level.  

Say, no chance for massive fraud there, eh?  And what party do ya think pipo who get those checks would vote for, eh?

Rational people might wonder why government would take even more tax dollars from workers to pay slackers, eh?  Uhh...reasons, citizen!  Actually the reason is to get more people to vote for Democrats, but no one will admit that.  And of course once the Dems start winning more elections due to the monthly checks, the GOP will start voting for the same thing, cuz dey don' wanna lose their high office, eh? 

Falling birthrates, poorer education for kids--Democrat policies in action

The leaders of the Democrat party believe Americans should have fewer children.  The stated reason is "global warming."  Excuse me: "Climate Change."  

See, Dems are convinced that Climate Change is caused by CO2, from burning carbon fuels.  And since Americans use more carbon-based fuel per person than residents of other nations, they quietly urge Americans to have fewer children.

(By contrast, Democrat pols are totally fine with Africans (Somalians, etc) having as many kids as they want, cuz dey use way less energy--at least until they emigrate to the U.S. or Europe, where liberal politicians spend thousands of dollars per month giving 'em welfare and free housing.)

Since at least the 1970s Democrat "elites" have denigrated traditional wives, pushing "smaht" women to enter the "far more exciting world" of corporate America.  "Why would you want to waste your skills on raising kids, eh?"  Or if a female wanted kids, CBS pushed chosing to have children without being married.  Show those stupid deplorables how strong and independent you are!"  And now all those years of indoctrination are bearing fruit for the Dems:  Democrat/liberal women are now pushing avoiding marriage.  

See, for at least two decades Democrat elites and politicians have pushed the idea that men are useless, because Democrat rulers offered to give women everything they needed.  Why have to put up with an icky man when those faaaabulous Democrat politicians would give you whatever you needed, eh?

Naturally you don't believe any of that.  "Dat jus' right-wing lies," eh?  

Really?  The Institute for Family Studies analyzed birth rates against voting in 2024, and reports that in the 20% of counties that voted for Harris by the highest margin, the "total fertility rate" was 1.37 children per adult female.

Democrat: "Whut dat mean?  And if it's not guud fo' my party I won't believe it."

Of course, cupcake.  I wouldn't expect that to mean anything to ya.  To keep the population level, on average each female needs to have 2.1 children (slightly over 2.0 because some children die before reaching adulthood).  But in 2024 the national average TFR was 1.63, and that includes ALL births, not just to native-born Americans.  Since illegals have a TFR well above 2.2, that means Americans aren't having enough kids to keep the population from falling.  

In the 20% of counties where Trump had the highest margin, the TFR was 1.76--still below the replacement rate but WAY above the 1.37 noted above for the counties with the highest Democrat vote.  So what does this show?

The most logical conclusion is that Democrat policies have a huge downward effect on birthrates, as any unbiased analysis of those policies would predict. 

And that brings us to education.  Rational people would think Americans would want to support education policies that would produce the best-educated children in the world, eh?  In theory that was the rationale for the creation of the laughably-misnamed federal "Department of Education"--which was immediately captured by Democrats.

So how has that worked out?  Turns out every policy pushed by the Democrats who ruled the DoEd has not only NOT resulted in better-educated kids, but the reverse:  every year, year after year, schools produce kids who are less well educated.  Turns out the DoEd is really about indoctrinating your children to be good socialists and Democrats.

Think that's hyperbole?  Wake the fuck up, sheep.  Back in the 1960s researchers developed a test of basic proficiency in both math and reading, called the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).  Over the HUGE objections of the teachers' unions, conservatives got more and more states to have their students take that test every four years, in the 4th, 8th and 12th grades.

In 2024, only 31 percent of fourth graders and 30 percent of eighth graders met or exceeded proficiency in reading.

In that same year only 39 percent of fourth graders and 28 percent of eighth graders were proficient in math.  NAEP test scores have fallen almost every year.  So naturally the unions bleated that testing should be abolished. 

In 2024, the average ACT score was 19.4 on a scale of 1–36.  It was the lowest average since the test’s redesign in 1990.  More than 40 percent of middle school teachers say they work in schools where there are no penalties for late work, no grades of zero are allowed for work not submitted, and there are unlimited test retakes.

The unions claim the problem is teachers aren't paid enough.  But between 1999 and 2021 the average state increased spending per student by 37 percent more than the rate of inflation.

The federal government has thrown over $189 billion to state educational agencies since 2020 through its “Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief” (ESSER) program to combat learning deficiencies.

The two biggest teachers unions in the U.S. are the NEA and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT).  Each has a political action committee.  In 2024 the NEA gave $27 million to its PAC--nearly all of which went to Democrat candidates and causes.  The AFT’s PAC spent around $13 million--again mostly given to Democrats.

There are lots of good, dedicated teachers.  Problem is that Democrat-ruled school boards tend to hire liberal Democrats, who quickly join one of the unions--both of which exclusively support Democrat politicians because they agree with Dem policies.  How's that working for ya?

Doesn't matter, because the unions run the system and will always block any reform because it reduces Democrat power.  Union leaders have one goal, and it's not improving education, but winning more members and higher salaries for themselves. 

Chicago rams thru $1.5 BILLION in new taxes, and will borrow another Billion to cover spending

When a system passes a certain level of corruption, there's no peaceful way back.  And the city of Chitcongo--Democrat-ruled for 50 years or so--passed that point some years ago.

City employees--Dem voters, hired by Dem department heads--are lavishly paid, can't be fired, get generous pensions and pay little for their health insurance.  They keep getting pay raises, even though the city is deep in debt and facing a budget deficit of over a BILLION dollars this year.  

So how do ya think the socialists who rule that miserable shithole respond, eh?  Did they lay off city workers?  Stop automatic raises?  Trim benefits?  Close poorly-performing schools?  

Hahahahaha!  Not a chance!  Instead they just passed a budget that increased taxes on city businesses and residents by $535 million.  And an additional new tax of one BILLION dollars, cunningly disguised as "TIF" (explained later).  And  there's not a thing you can do about it except leave--which few can do.

So what taxes did the brilliant Democrat who rule Chitcongo raise?   

They slapped a 15 cent tax on every shopping bag.  Raised the tax on video games (presumably in businesses).  Raised taxes on "sports betting."  Added a new city fee if owners of a vacant building apply for a new mortgage.  Where's the extra cost for the city that justifies that?  What's the logic?

They don't need logic or reasons.  They do it because they want more money, and because they can impose any tax they want.  The courts never block any tax increase by Dems.  Anything the Dems can think of to tax, they tax.  They increased the tax on liquor, and "ground transport," which probably means taxis, Uber, Lyft and limos.

$416 million of the new tax revenue Chitcongo is counting on is titled "Increase in cloud computing taxes."  If I were a business owner I'd set up an office in an adjacent state, let it do all the comms with "the cloud," and have my office in Chitcongo only communicate with my out-of-state office.  It'd be amusing to watch the thieves who run Chitcongo sue to tax intra-corporate communication--as they surely would.

But the bulk of the new taxes--a whopping one BILLION dollars--is slated to come from "TIF."  Specifically a "one-time TIF sweep."  Since you never heard about it, it can't apply to you, right?

TIF is "Tax  Increment Financing"--another in the endless list of cunningly disguised tax cities use to take more money from developers.  It's the hot new money-grabbing measure for city rulers because it doesn't raise ALL property taxes, just on certain areas.  And because it's only on certain areas it doesn't have to be approved by voters.  Nice, eh?

But even $1.535 Billion in new taxes won't cover all the money the Democrat rulers of Chitcongo DEMAND to spend, so they plan to borrow even more money: $450 million.  This is the time-honored way all Democrat politicians (and many RINOs) operate, since they never worry about repaying the borrowed money.

Because bond underwriters know the city will eventually default on all debt, the city's bond ratings are almost at junk levels, and the new plan to borrow yet another $450 million will see those ratings drop even lower since the problem of overspending is chronic, just as it is with federal spending.

One thing the rulers didn't do (yet) is adopt the proposal by the city's black socialist mayor Brandon Johnson to tax every company with 500 or more employees $400 per employee every year.  But you can see that one coming, because back in 1973 the city imposed a head tax of $48 per employee per year.  They repealed it 11 years ago under a Dem mayor who thought it was a "job killer."  
  But no one saw businesses leaving, so the communist Johnson thought "Why not bring it back--with a tiny bit more bite, small enough that large businesses won't leave?"  And he proposed $250 per employee per year on companies with over 100 employees.  Now that's been changed to $400 per employee per year, but only on companies with 500 employees.

Democrat policy: tax everything.  If some things become uneconomical, screw 'em.  Let 'em go on welfare, cuz the state covers that, eh?  Masterful policy, cupcake.  Keep taxing productive people so you can keep giving pay raises to city employees.  Makes perfect sense.

Source:
 
https://www.illinoispolicy.org/chicago-adopts-16-6b-budget-adds-535m-in-taxes/