"They're not after me, they're after YOU"

Four leading senate Democrats voted FOR a secure fence in 2006? Naw, not possible!

I know many of you will be shocked to learn this, but...a few cynical analysts have claimed that current leaders of the Democrat party who are loudly claiming they're totally, completely, unequivocally against building a wall on our southern border...actually voted to build the wall back in 2006.

Of course you can't possibly believe that, because that would imply that the Dems had cynically reversed their position, for one of two reasons:  Either they never did actually want to build a wall but simply SAID they did because it would help them get re-elected; or that the damn well know a wall is effective, but are now opposing it because Trump is for it.

Ah.  So now we turn to one of those miraculous tools that we didn't have until recently:  The Internet.  And with it we go here.--to a government website called "senate.gov"--where we find a law called the "Secure Fence Act of 2006."

And what do we find there, citizen?

That Hilliary, Biden, Obama and Chuck Schumer voted FOR building 700 miles of substantial border wall.

Of course the Lying Mainstream Media won't ever tell you this.  Which is why I'm here.

"But...but...but 2006 was EONS ago, citizen, so you can't possibly think that then and now are similar in any way!"

Okay, whatever you say, cupcake.

Starting tomorrow state gas taxes will rise in several states

Ever notice that gasoline prices are way higher in some states than in others?  Some of that is due to state regulations on the exact types of blends a state allows to be sold at different times of the year, but some of it due to...state taxes.

For example, California has the highest gas prices in the nation.  What few Americans know is that greedy lawmakers in Cali grab almost 42 cents in tax on every gallon sold. 

But as you could have guessed, this isn't enough for the greedy Democrats who have huge majorities in the state legislature:  Starting tomorrow they'll raise the fuel tax to 47 cents per gallon.  Yay!

Starting Monday lawmakers in Illinois will double that state's gas tax, from 19 to 38 cents per gallon.

By comparison, Ohio residents weren't punished as harshly:  Starting Monday Ohio's gas tax will rise by 10.5 cents per gallon.

In all cases, politicians have decided they need more of your money to spend on...whatever they want.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/states-gas-taxes-to-rise-july

All ten Dem presidential candidates on Thursday's debate support "free" health care for illegal immigrants

During last Thursday’s Democratic debate one of the moderators asked all the candidates "Raise your hand if your [health care] plan would provide coverage for undocumented immigrants."

If you didn't see this moment in the "debate" you'll probably be shocked to learn that all ten of the Dem candidates in the Thursday debate raised their hand.

Wait...I hear my liberal PhD friend saying "That can't possibly be true!  You made that up!  It's fake news from some dumb blogger!  Even if the Dem candidates were to support such a thing, they're all far too smart to admit that in public!  And if you believe they'd admit this, you're as gullible as every other conservative!"

Really?  Take a look at the first ten seconds of long clip below and then try to claim the video is fake.

Convinced yet, cupcake?

Now enter the astonishingly mendacious chair of the Democrat National Committee, Tom Perez.  In a live interview after the debate, the interviewer played the clip and asked Perez whether this was the policy of the Democrat party.

Perez realized he couldn't plausibly claim the clip was fake, so he knew his only option was to find a way to get voters to ignore this outrageous proposal.  Cuz voters realize that forcing taxpayers to give "free" medical care to all illegal immigrants isn't just unfair to American taxpayers, but also an utter disaster as policy, since it will motivate even more foreigners to enter the U.S. illegally.

Forced to defend this insane proposal, Perez did what you'd expect:  He lied--by claiming that illegal immigrants would be paying for their health benefits with their own taxes.

First he confused the issue by saying "immigrants pay Billions in taxes each year."  Okay, but "immigrants" aren't what the Dems are talking about, which is "undocumented immigrants."  As everyone with a functioning brain knows, Dems coined that cunning phrase to avoid using the term "illegal immigrants."  But of course illegal immigrants usually work in cash jobs, to avoid paying taxes.  How would their taxes help pay for their "free" health care? 

But hey, the leaders of the Democrat party have long known that they can lie brazenly and get away with it, cuz the Lying Mainstream Media never calls 'em on it.  Neat, huh.

But this particular interviewer wasn't having it:  He played a video of Obama addressing a joint session of congress, saying flatly "Those who claim our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants:  This too is false!"  (Go to minute 1:20 in the video to see this.)

How...interesting: Like so many things Obama said, this was a flat lie.

Not to worry:  Perez neatly countered "But we're in a different ERA now."

Well played.  'Previous statements don't count, cuz that was a different time.'  Got it.

Perez then outdid his previous statements by claiming "This is NOT a handout"--based on his bullshit claim that the illegals would "buy into a health insurance program"...because they pay taxes.  Uh-huh.  Sure.

The Dem proposal is free health care for all illegals.  It most certainly IS a freebie...a handout.  But by claiming it's not, the insanity of the proposal ceases to be a negative issue for Democrats.  Indeed, they can get votes by claiming they're just being compassionate.  Yay!

The interviewer went on to note that Democrat candidate Julian Castro and others have proposed to "decriminalize" illegally entering the U.S. (scroll to 2:40 in the video to see this).  Wait, so they want to open our borders so that anyone in the world can enter?

NO, NO citizen!  We Democrats are NOT for open borders!  We keep telling you that but you don't seem to understand English!  All we compassionate Democrats are proposing to do is remove all penalties for entering the U.S. without permission.  See, that's what "decriminalizing" something means.  We just eliminate all penalties for breaking U.S. law.  You must be stupid if you don't see the difference!

Perez parries by lying again:  "This president's policies were designed to LOOK tough.  His zero-tolerance policy was cataclysmic, and resulted in children being put in cages..."  Perez knows that almost no Americans know that this actually occurred under Obama, after a judge decreed that the government couldn't hold children in the same facility as adults.  The judge was worried that kids might not be safe.  Trump had nothing to do with this, since he wasn't president then, and has never been a member of congress.

But again, Perez knows that virtually no voters know this.  And in any case liberals will believe any lie that makes Trump look like a villain.

Well played, Mr. Perez.  Democrat voters believe you, despite what they saw with their own eyes.
===

(H/T to streamable.com for their excellent way to edit and embed videos.)

How Trump can get the Norks to give up nuclear weapons

North Korea has wanted nukes for a long time now.  Why?  Who are they wanting to defend against?

Trump's offered to end sanctions if the leader of North Korea verifiably gives up its nuclear weapons program.  So to help accomplish that, he should go on TV to promise--in the tongue-in-cheek way that drives Dems nuts--that the U.S. will absolutely defend North Korea from any invasion from...south Korea.

He could make this offer even funnier by adding--again, tongue-in-cheek--"Now if China were to decide, against all logic, to invade you, we couldn't defend you against that, cuz Chinese president Xi is a good friend of mine.  But I'll absolutely promise that the U.S. will defend you against attack by the South!

All the Dem presidential candidates have signed on to the party's "platform." And what is that?

Every Democrat candidate for president has signed onto a "platform."  Unless you're a political junkie you probably don't know what it is.  But since the future of our country depends on who wins the election, you should know what their platform is.

So here ya go:

• "Medicare for all"--and what you don't realize is that "Medicare for all" is actually government running all health care.  How'd Obamacare work out?  Obama absolutely promised that the average family would SAVE $2500 a year.  Yet the average family ended up paying far MORE, and with deductibles of $10,000 per year.  And of course you know that even trying to pay for Medicare for people over 65 isn't working, so how can the gruberment afford to pay for health care for everyone, eh?  But don't question it, cuz, reasons.
• Open borders.  Except the Dems don't call it that, cuz rational Americans realize that would be a disaster.  So the Dems call it "decriminalizing unauthorized border crossing."  Because that sounds so...harmless.  Oh, and the leftist cesspool rag Huffington Post put this under the headline "Repeal the law that criminalizes migrants."  Really?  No.  The open-borders crowd at Huffpo wants you to think that all migrants are being "criminalized," but the law only applies to ILLEGAL immigrants--something the communists at HuffPo well know.  But don't want to admit.
• "Free health care" for all the illegal aliens the Dems allow to enter courtesy of open borders.  Cuz it's only fair, citizen.  And if you disagree, you're a racist!  And you don't wanna be raaaacist, do ya?
• "Free" college for everyone.  But wait...would it really be "free"?   Uh, no--not unless the Dems have figured out how to get professors and administrators to word for nothing.  Oh, you say the profs and adminishits surprisingly refused that kind offer?  Wow, I'm shocked.  Are you?  But if the profs won't work for nothing, how can college be "free" for everyone?  Dems don't want voters to ask.  And not a single reporter for the Lying Mainstream Media will dare ask.  The truth is that the Dems want taxpayers to pay.
• "Erasing student loans."  "Erasing."  Isn't that a wonderful turn of phrase?  Got a problem?  Simply "erase" it!  That is SO cool, eh?  Except..."erasing" isn't exactly what the Dems are proposing here.  What they're actually proposing is for the loans to be repaid by...wait for it...taxpayers.  Like your parents.  And once you enter the job market, people like you.  But they don't want you to know that.  So they use the far more attractive term "erase."  Hey, words should be used creatively, so people aren't scared by new things, eh?
• "Reparations" for descendants of slaves.  Every single Dem candidate has sworn his or her support for this.  But wait...my ancestors didn't arrive in the U.S. until 1885--over 20 years after slavery was outlawed here.  They never owned slaves...and yet the Dems demand that the entire taxpaying population pay reparations?  In fact, no one alive today was EVER a slave, nor owned slaves, so how is it reasonable to force whites to pay money to people who were never slaves?  But no matter, citizen:  If the Dems are elected, that's what you'll be forced to do.
• Reparations for homosexuals.  Wait...WHAT?  Oh yeah!  Because according to Elizabeth Warren, before "gay marriage" was legalized by the supreme court, the tax laws treated homosexuals unfairly.  How?  By not letting them file joint tax returns, which hetero married couples could do.  But wait...for decades, tax analysts wrote about a thing called the "marriage penalty," in which married couple filing joint returns actually paid MORE tax than if they hadn't been married.  WHOA, doesn't that torpedo Warren's entire argument?   Why yes, it does.  But no reporter will point that out, cuz doing so would make that reporter an enemy of the gay mafia.  Which will get you fired.  So now the question is, when a gay leftist reporter asks the OTHER Dem candidates if they agree with Warren about reparations for gays, what do you think they'll say?  "No, I think that's nuts"?  Hahahahahaha!  No.  They don't wanna lose the gay vote, so they'll agree.
• "Climate change" is the greatest threat to the planet.  And the Dems claim "climate change" (formerly "global warming") is caused by CO2--emitted by burning fossil fuels like oil and gas. And what's the solution the Dems propose?  The "green new deal."  So what does that mean?  Why, eliminating the use of all fossil fuels.  Well, not ALL fossil fuels, but just in the U.S.  So we give up 40 percent of our electricity.  And your car.  And flying.  The rest of the world doesn't.  Yeah, that'll work.  Oh, and you'll end up paying two or three times more per month for electricity, cuz of a little thing called "supply and demand."  But don't worry, citizen:  The so-called "laws" of supply and demand are actually nonsense--"tools of the patriarchy, used to oppress workers and people of color!"  (Do I really need to add that that's sarcasm?)
• "Gun control."  Year after year, 98% of shootings is with handguns.  But gun-grabbers realize that trying to pass a law banning private ownership of handguns violates the Constitution's second amendment.  So anti-gun zealots have zeroed in on scary "long guns" that look like military weapons (but aren't cuz they're limited to one shot per pull of the trigger).  So Dem candidate Eric Swalwell has proposed a "mandatory buyback" of long guns that look scary.  Of course a "mandatory buyback" is confiscation, but he doesn't want to call it that, cuz he knows lots of voters would be...uneasy about that.  But hey, at least he's generously letting you still own a handgun.  Well, at least for now.  So is this idea limited to just one Dem candidate?  Well, until a leftist moderator at a future Dem debate asks each candidate "We all know guns kill millions of innocent people--including thousands of children--every year.  [Not even close but...]  Do you support a mandatory buyback of dangerous 'assault weapons' that have no use outside the military?"  And what do you think each candidate will say?  "Nah, Rachel, I think the second amendment means what it says"?   Uh...no way.  They'll all agree.

The Dems are actually pushing even more goofy socialist proposals but this will do for now.  So if you like the ideas above, vote for the Democrat nominee.  Oh, and be sure to vote for Dems for congress too, cuz we wanna ensure that the Dem president gets an endless stream of bills to sign into law implementing all the above. Yay!!

More on the NYTimes hit-piece on Joe Biden

NY Times opinion hit job on Biden: "Old, privileged white male."

Bernie: "Dynamic!  Cutting edge thinking!  Just the guy to lead the New New Democrat party!"

Biden: 76 years old.  Privileged, politician for 5 decades.  No question about that.

Bernie: 77.  Owns 3 homes.  Has never held a job in the private sector.  Not a single Lying Liberal Media outlet accused HIM of being either OLD or "privileged."

Now why is that?  Is there a double-standard ?

Dude:  If not for double-standards, the Media wouldn't have any standards at all.

Dem-loving, Trump-hating NYTimes prints gratuitously damaging story on leading Dem candidate. Why?

Four days ago the New York Times threw Biden under the bus:  Headline:

Joe Biden doesn’t look so electable in person

The Democrat front runner was savaged by "opinion columnist" Michelle Goldberg.  A couple of typical lines:

“He may be a likable white man, but his performance on the trail doesn’t inspire confidence.”

“Seeing Biden on the stump often feels like watching an actor who can’t quite remember his lines.  Even if you don’t support him, it’s hard not to feel anxious on his behalf,”

Now:  Barring incompetent error, every major story that makes it into the Times has to be approved by one of their scores of editors.  This hit-piece on Biden would never have made it into the Times if the top management of the NY Times didn't approve it.

But Biden is leading the pack of 25 or so Dem candidates for president.  The Times absolutely loathes Trump and wants the Dems to win.  So why in the world would the Times trash the leading Dem candidate?

Assuming they want the Dems to win the presidency, it makes no sense.  And yet they did it.  So it would be instructive to consider possible reasons for this bizarre, self-damaging act.

One possible explanation is that although Biden is a socialist--pushing "Medicare for all" (i.e. the federal gruberment to run every aspect of health care), free college, taxpayers to repay student loans, free health care even for illegal alien invaders and the like--he's not as far left as Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Fauxcahontas and Bernie.  My guess is that the people who own the Times think they can get greedy, gullible voters to elect one of those four, who are decidedly MORE-socialist than Biden.

Sound far-fetched?  Sure.  But the fact remains that the solidly-left NYTimes printed a story gratuituously damaging to the leading Dem candidate.  And they did it on purpose.

If anyone has a more plausible explanation I'd love to hear it.

Dem candidate says "I'd welcome all illegals to my state." Trump should call his bluff

One of the telltales of crappy "reasoning" is that if you follow it, eventually you find an internal contradiction.

Simple example: Democrats claim there is one set of laws for everyone.  But astonishingly, when their candidate is found to have sent beyond-Top-Secret material to her unsecured private server--a blatant violation of the rules for safeguarding classified material--the very Director of the FBI (James Comey, in case you were too young to have followed this) declines to charge her.

He doesn't say "This was not a violation of federal law"--a statement that would easily be proven to be a lie--but fastballs his corrupt decision by you voters by saying "No prosecutor would indict her."

Voila:  Two different sets of laws.  Contradiction.

And that ALWAYS, INEVITABLY happens when someone uses obviously flawed thinking.

Now:  Leading Democrats have claimed that unlimited illegal immigration has NO deleterious effects WHATSOEVER. They have to claim this is true in order to con their dumb supporters into supporting their decrees of "sanctuary states" or cities. 

So the Dem leaders simply CANNOT admit that unlimited illegal immigration has any disadvantages or down-sides whatsoever.  Cuz if they did, the citizens of those states might suddenly wake up and think "Wait...if they're admitting there's a down-side, then by continuing to push for open borders they're implicitly willing to inflict the damage on us, their citizens.  While they live in guarded mansions and are protected around the clock by armed men paid for by us!  Somethin' wrong there!

Okay, with that as background:  At 9:45 Eastern time last night, Dem governor and presidential candidate Jay Inslee said sending "refugees"--i.e. illegal immigrant invaders--to his home state of Washington isn't a problem AT ALL, and that he would welcome them.

Well OF COURSE you would, moron--because you live in a guarded mansion and are surrounded by a security detail--again, armed, of course.  So you have NO skin in the game.

So here's the point of this whole post:  The czars of the 9th circuit court have decreed that the administration must release anyone who invades this country with a kid into the interior, without any identifiers or locators.  But the court didn't say which cities the administration had to send the invaders TO.  So Trump should direct federal agents to send every damn one of 'em to Washington state--preferably Seattle.

See, Jay Inslee can't complain.  Can NOT.  Cuz he just mendaciously went on the record in front of the whole country as saying he'd welcome the illegals.  Then we can watch as Seattle--already drowning in a shit-flood of druggies--tries to cope with 80,000 unskilled, uneducated illegal aliens every MONTH.

See, one of the tactics Obama used to hide the number of people he demanded be let in was to spread them out over every state.  If you instead send every one of 'em to Seattle, how long before everyone in the country realizes the consequences, eh?

Of course the consequences COULD BE that all the folks in Seattle who can afford to hire others to mow their lawns save money, and the city looks better.

Yep yep yep.  I do think that's a definite possibility.

But hey, why not try it and SEE, eh?  Give that lying sack of Gruber (Inslee) what he's said he wants, and let him try to wiggle out of his own words.

Hey, I'd pay good money to see that.

Dems: "We can't drill our way to energy independence! What you dumb voters need is...*ethanol*"

There was a time — and not so long ago — when America’s leading Democrats (including Obozo) complained that we were “addicted to oil,” and warn that "we can't just drill our way out of this.”

This turned out to be a) simpleminded, b) patronizing, and c) wrong.  In other words, par for the course.

Of course the Democrats had what they called "solutions" for this dire crisis: Stop using oil and the products made from it.  One proposed "solution" that the Democrats promised would help cut our huge dependence on imported oil was to burn… ethanol instead of gasoline.

Democrats claimed ethanol was the magic fix because you could make it from corn or grain--products that were "renewable."  "Renewable energy!" became a Democrat goal, and a Dem-controlled congress passed a law forcing companies that made gasoline to buy ethanol and add it to the gas they sold.  The law had a target that for every nine gallons of gasoline, refiners "blend in" one gallon of ethanol.

Just one small problem:  It cost more to make a gallon of ethanol from corn than to make a gallon of pure gasoline from crude oil.  This inconvenient truth threatened to make the newly-mandated ethanol-blend gas more expensive than pure gasoline. 

Members of congress had nightmares of angry voters kicking them out of office.  Can't have that!

But never fear, citizen:  Dem members of congress--in a classic response--devised a "solution:"  They added a provision to the law giving extra tax dollars to the EPA to give to ethanol producers to make ethanol cost less to refiners.  So every taxpayer--even those who didn't own a car--ended up paying for this boondoggle!  Yay, congress is SO brilliant!

(There was also a second small problem: ethanol gave fewer miles per gallon than gasoline.  But hey, who worries about stuff like that, right?  Hell, how many consumers even know that?  Of course the Lying Mainstream Media knew, and could have told you.  But of course, they didn't want to, cuz the media was all-in supporting this boondoggle for their Democrat allies.)

Not surprisingly, with refiners suddenly forced by law to buy ethanol and add it to the gasoline they made and sold, American farmers began planting vast amounts corn.  In fact for several years now over half of all corn grow in the U.S. has not been used to feed people, but instead to make ethanol and feed animals.

But then a totally unexpected thing happened:  During the last six years of Obama's reign, American ingenuity and capital perfected several techniques for finding and producing oil that vastly increased U.S. oil production.  In fact a few months ago the U.S. became the world’s largest oil producer.  Where the U.S. had once imported millions of barrels of foreign oil every day, we're now "energy independent"--something Obama and his Dems in congress repeatedly sneered was absolutely impossible.

"We can't just drill our way out of this,” he and they sneered.  Simply un-possible, citizen. 

So...no more dependence on imported oil!  Should be good news, right?  Free markets doing the magic that they do--no government mandates needed.  And with oil prices (adjusted for inflation) at 30-year lows, pure gasoline, from oil, was now a LOT less expensive than ethanol.

But there was a problem: as you could have guessed, all those farmers who had gone all-in planting corn for ethanol — and the companies that turned corn into ethanol— were now addicted to that sweet cash extracted from consumers by law.  They weren't about to give up that market, and instead of allowing the gruberment to reduce the mandated percent of ethanol, they wanted to increase it from 10 to 15%..

The swamp creatures in D.C. don't grow corn or pump oil, yet they claim to know exactly how the two should be blended for the betterment of us all.

Result?  The requirement to add vast amounts of costly ethanol into gasoline--and the billions of dollars paid to ethanol producers to prevent the use of this inferior fuel from increasing the cost at the pump--will almost certainly be with us forever.

Government!  Is there anything it can't do?

H/T American Spectator. 

How Dems plan to steal the 2020 election

Text messages from top FBI agent Peter Strzok to his mistress Lisa Page bragged about having an "insurance policy" to cripple Trump on the million-to-one chance he actually won the election.

By an astonishing miracle the ten-thousand text messages between the two were recovered (after the corrupt FBI claimed for MONTHS that their hugely-expensive computer system for saving such texts had mysteriously failed to save any during the time period in question), and the "insurance policy" failed.

But Democrats have learned from that failure--and now have a new insurance policy for the 2020 Presidential election.  It’s a plan to “win” the election by any means necessary. 

One of the certain schemes we'll see is a sealed indictment of Donald Trump for...fill in the blank.  Rape?  (New York has no statute of limitations for first-degree rape.)  Campaign finance violations with respect to the Stormy Daniel payments?  Doesn't matter: one is almost certainly being prepared at this moment, to be leaked just two or three months before the election.

The sealed indictment will be leaked by the Office of the U. S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, or by New York's Attorney-General, the notoriously left-wing Letitia James.

In any case, expect a leak of a “sealed indictment” for something--exact topic being immaterial. 

Adam Mill wrote a great article about how after Trump won in 2016, the Mainstream Media and leading Democrats made huge efforts to persuade "Electors" from states won by Trump to treasonously cast their electoral vote to Hilliary.  And in fact they persuaded two electors to do that.

But it's crucial to note that in the 2016 election this treasonous tactic was done on the spur of the moment, with no time to plan. In 2020 the Dems will have had four years to plan for this.

(Actually the Dems are trying to scrap the Electoral College altogether, replacing it with election of the president by the winner of the national popular vote--but I've covered that elsewhere.)

Another tactic is importing voters who will vote Democrat forever.  This is a significant reason for the Dems' open-borders policy.

Yet another tactic by the Democrats is to facilitate illegal voting, by getting the courts to overturn state voter-ID laws. 

Still another is to challenge laws that require state commissions to purge voter rolls of deceased people, noncitizens, and people who have moved. 

Still another tactic is so-called "motor-voter registration," in which everyone who applies for a driver's license is automatically registered to vote unless the applicant overtly states he or she doesn't want to be registered.  California already does this, as do other Democrat-ruled states. 

And what percentage of illegals opt out?  No one knows.

Still another tactic is Dems helping elderly and non-citizens apply for absentee ballots.  Originally devised to let people vote by mail if they couldn’t get to the polls, absentee voting has now become a way to vote early and often.  There have been hundreds of verified cases in which a Democrat operative simply took the actual applicant's ballot and filled it out for Dem candidates.

How often does it happen?  No one knows, but it's almost impossible to detect unless the actual applicant gets mad and blows the whistle.

Still another tactic is for Democrat postal workers to fail to mail absentee ballots to military personnel stationed overseas early enough to allow those ballots to be returned by the deadline.  Again, this has been documented.  How often?  "We won't tell you, cuz, reasons."

Still another tactic is getting Dem governors to decree that felons and prisoners be allowed to vote.  The thinking is that a huge majority of felons and prisoners will vote Democrat.

Leftists have a slogan: "By any means necessary."  That means nothing is off the table when it comes to winning--no matter if it's illegal or merely unethical.  It's perfectly fine with them because only with absolute power can they save America from Americans.

H/T William L. Gensert at American Thinker.

NY Times: America MUST allow unlimited illegal immigration...as punishment for past sins! Uh, no.

The New York Times recently published an op-ed advancing a rather peculiar argument--even for them:  Author Suketu Mehta argues that the West should open its borders to everyone from the Third World--as a punishment for having had colonies.

Mehta demands that the West accept 12 million African laborers--a number he calculates is one for every African "enslaved by the colonialists of the past."

This sophistry-passing-for-reason expresses what many on the Left believe, but are often careful to avoid stating outright.

Most pro-illegal-immigration activists are clever enough to disguise their malice toward western nations as sympathy for “refugees”--many of whom are in fact economic migrants seeking a better life.  But occasionally the mask will slip, showing that the pro-illegals are motivated at least as much by resentment towards the destination countries as they are by compassion for migrants.

Dem Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi claims that all restrictions on migration are motivated by xenophobia; that borders and walls are immoral, and Western countries are morally obligated to accept an unlimited number of migrants because of past sins.

And yet the lying mainstream media allow Pelosi to claim "But we don’t really want open borders.”

It's crap, of course.  But not a single Mainstream Media outlet points this out.

 

All Westerners are assumed guilty for the wrongs of all Western history.

America’s so-called "elites" are pushing this narrative:  Journalists, academics, entertainers are all popularizing anti-American histories to justify their demands.
 
No one denies that legal immigrants have been beneficial to American history and society. But until recently, immigration has been understood as something that should occur within legal and reasonable limits.  The privilege of being able to immigrate to this nation always has been regarded as just that: a privilege.  Immigrants would be vetted and accepted as American citizens, with certain expectations. They would assimilate into our society and pledge loyalty to their new home. They would learn English and be good neighbors and citizens.

But for the last few decades of illegals, this is no longer true.  Leftists are pushing lawlessness and replacing gratitude and respect with the notion of entitlement, and punishing America for imagined past sins.

Leftists now claim immigration is a universal human right and that it's immoral to restrict it in any way.  You see this in their catch-phrases, like “No human is illegal.”

This academic narrative dismisses the Founders as racists, discrediting their astonishing wisdom, and efforts to build a lasting constitutional republic.  Today’s students don't learn about what made America great and unique, but about what Leftists claim is wrong with America.

In this narrative, immigration comes with no obligation whatsoever for the immigrant. 

It’s not hard to imagine why millions of Americans recognize this as crap.  And when that happens, the "elites" fall back on lying, to deceive Americans into believing that unlimited mass illegal immigration is actually in their interest.

If soothing lies don't convince Americans, the next tactic is threats: "Nobody wants open borders, but even if that were true, you deserve it, you bigot."

H/T "American Greatness."

Vid of over 100 illegal invaders sauntering down streets of a U.S. border town in broad daylight

For years now the Lying Mainstream Media have been playing the tug-at-your-heartstrings tale of poor immigrants trekking through the hot, dry desert southwest, then swimming across the deep, dangerous, shark-infested Rio Grande to get to the Promised Land of "free" shit.

Ohhhh-kay.  Except now that Pelosi has signalled that she and her Dem rulers will block deportation of any illegal who "reaches the interior" of the U.S, the route has...changed.  No longer do the illegals need to stick to the hot, dangerous desert route, cuz Pelosi has given 'em the unambiguous word that they won't be deported.  So now...

If you're not a liberal communist the vid at this link will make your blood boil, as over a hundred illegal invaders casually waltz down the street of a tiny town in Hidalgo County, Texas, on their way to the "interior" of the U.S.--from which they know they will NOT be deported, thanks to Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders, Beto, Kamala, Cory Booker, Eliz Warren and all the other Dem candidates.

It's broad daylight, in a residential area (see the street signs and stop signs?), yet over 100 illegals are clearly just sauntering along, seemingly not worried in the least about being seen.  Cuz, no adverse consequences.  And note how many are pulling kids with 'em--cuz liberal judges, giving favorable rulings to pro-illegal plaintiffs, have forced our government to instantly release anyone who's dragging a child along.

They get flown--at your expense--to any U.S. city they select.

Cool, eh citizen?  Cuz we need more "die-versity."

Oh, and be sure to vote Dem in 2020.  Cuz we need more of this.

President: "Do not send your children to the borders." Media go insane! Oh wait...nevermind

The president was speaking about illegal immigrant invaders.  He said

"Do not send your children to the borders. If they do make it, they will get sent back, more importantly, they may not make it,"

As you could have predicted, Democrat congressional leaders Pelosi and Schumer, and the Mainstream Media, went ballistic over this cruel, brutal statement, which was the subject of editorials for the next two weeks.

Oh wait...no one said a critical word.

Hard to believe, eh?  But true...cuz the speaker was Barack Obama, in a 2014 interview with ABC News.  Does anyone recall Nancy Pelosi firing off angry tweets in demanding a change in Obama policy or criticizing these allegedly inhumane conditions?"  No, cuz neither she nor Schumer nor anyone in the Lying Mainstream Media said a single critical word about Obama's "cruel, brutal" statement.

Double-standard much?

Dem leader Pelosi calls deportations cruel, brutal, claims Trump "tearing families apart." Wait...

Because the Lying Mainstream Media in this country is solidly anti-Trump and pro-Democrat, the media never exposes statements by Democrats that would show average Americans what traitorous scum the Dem leaders are.

But if you know where to look, you can see them hang themselves with their own damn words.

For example, Dem speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi issued a statement (below) on her own damn government website, calling the planned deportation of illegals--who had been legitimately ordered deported by federal judges "cruel" and "brutal."

That is, Pelosi was calling for the president to ignore legitimate U.S. laws and court orders.

Whoa, did you expect to hear that from the top-ranking Democrat leader?  I'm betting you didn't.

Here's this law-flouting bitch's own words, so she can't disavow 'em:

Tomorrow is Sunday, and as many people of faith attend religious services, the President has ordered heartless raids.

Yeah, like Trump was just feeling mean, eh?  No, bitch:  He was doing what our (but clearly not YOUR) Constitution demands:  Trying to "ensure that the law be faithfully enforced."  But clearly, you're urging he NOT do that, because it will help your party.  Hmmmm.....

And notice how she's invoked "Sunday," and "people of faith attending religious services" to cloak her unConstitutional demand as a religious duty.  Cunning.

It is my hope that before Sunday, leaders of the faith-based community and other organizations that respect the dignity and worth of people will call upon the President to stop this brutal action which will tear families apart and inject terror into our communities.

"Tear families apart"?   Really?  That is SO tragic!  How can Trump possibly be that cruel to... Hey, wait:  There's nothing stopping the whole damn family from being together in Meh-hee-co.  If your argument is that we're "tearing families apart," let 'em all go home.  You're welcome.

“Families belong together. 

Why, you're absolutely right, Nancy.  And they're welcome to be together in Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua and the rest.

These families are hard-working members of our communities and our country.  The President’s action makes no distinction between a status violation and committing a serious crime.

You lying, anti-American bitch!  As you very well know, federal judges do NOT order illegal alien invaders deported merely for being in the U.S. illegally.  Not a single illegal invader has been ordered deported unless they've been *convicted* of a separate crime.  You know this.  So why do you falsely claim "the president's action makes no distinction between a 'status violation' and committing a serious crime"? 

Oh, yeah, right...

You lie, and you know you're lying.  But Democrat voters don't know.

“It is important that the President and our immigrant communities know that they have rights in America.

Sure, like the right to ask for "asylum" here.  But to do that they have to appear before an immigration judge for a hearing.  But thanks to policies demanded by open-borders Democrats like you, Nancy, the immigration courts are so flooded that they have to issue notices to appear months later.  And you know how many appear for those hearings, Nancy?

Less than 5 percent.  Wait, so the rest just self-deport?

Hahahahahahahaha!  Good one!

“Yesterday, the President spoke about the importance of avoiding the collateral damage of 150 lives in Iran.  I would hope he would apply that same value to avoiding the collateral damage to tens of thousands of children who are frightened by his actions.

Oh, so now you want U.S. policies to be driven by the requirement that they avoid frightening children?   Okay, Nancy, I'll play:  My kids are "frightened" by the prospect of illegals killing them.  So by your "logic"...get it?

As President Reagan said, ‘Thanks to each wave of new arrivals to this land of opportunity, we’re a nation forever young, forever bursting with energy and new ideas, and always on the cutting edge, always leading the world to the next frontier… If we ever closed the door to new Americans, our leadership in the world would soon be lost.’”

Very moving.  But are you claiming Reagan was referring to illegal aliens, or to those who had entered legally?

You know the real answer, Nancy.  But by concealing this distinction you hope to get a few thousand Trump supporters to reconsider, since we all think Reagan was one of the best presidents ever.  So if you can convince some of us that Reagan was really talking about illegal aliens, then....

Nancy, you're one of the most unprincipled, lying, scheming people ever to lead a party.  FOAD.

To read Nancy's mendacious rant in her own words, on her own gruberment website, click here.

Do illegal alien invaders have every right that American citizens have?

One of the big questions facing the U.S. today is, Do illegal alien invaders have every right that American citizens have?

Democrats, liberals, the ACLU and other leftists say they do.

Think about that for a moment:  They want illegals to be able to vote.  To get Social Security even if they've just arrived.  To get "free" (i.e. taxpayer-paid) medical care.

Is that something you want?  Hey, don't worry your head about it, cuz the Dems are gonna make those decisions for ya.

Is this a great system or what?  You don't have to do anything, and your betters will decide what your governments--both federal and state--will do with your tax dollars.

Of course current U.S. law doesn't give illegal alien invaders all the rights of U.S. citizens: they're not allowed to vote in federal elections, or draw Social Security.  But the Dems--with their usual cunning--have pushed the sharp edge of the wedge into us by allowing illegals to vote in state and local elections--something the feds can't control.

Clever, eh?  And both New York and Cali give illegals drivers' licenses, making it that much easier for them to register to vote.  (It's called "Motor Voter."  Google it.  In California, everyone who gets a driver's license is automatically registered to vote UNLESS THE APPLICANT DECLINES.

How many illegals do you suppose decline to be registered?  How many even know they've just BEEN registered to vote if they didn't opt out?  Clever, eh?

This question of whether illegal aliens are entitled to the same rights as American citizens is crucial to a case that was just decided last Friday:  the ACLU had filed suit against the Trump administration DEMANDING that illegal alien minors have the right to an abortion.


Of course most adults know that in this great country anyone can sue anyone else for anything.  So the mere fact that the ACLU sued the administration doesn't worry most people.

Yeah.  Except last Friday the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Washington, D.C. circuit ruled in favor of the ACLU, claiming that the Trump administration violated the "right" of illegal minors to an abortion.

Now:  One can make an excellent case for allowing under-age illegal immigrants to have an abortion.  My objection to the D.C. circuit's ruling for the ACLU in its lawsuit is that this is just one more step toward giving illegals exactly the same rights as American citizens.

If that's what you want, continue to vote Democrat.

Of course if that's NOT what you want, you can't do jack about it--because unelected federal judges have made that decision for you--as they will with every other decision on key questions about the future of this once-great nation.

Oh, and for those who aren't aware:  Federal judges have already ruled that an underage American citizen has the absolute right to an abortion without parental consent, and even without notifying her parents.  Again, one can make a case for this, but the point is...did you know that?  Did you even IMAGINE such a ruling would be possible?

Minneapolis passes a LAW forcing landlords to accept any Section-8 applicant, regardless

Decades ago, the leaders of the Democrat party realized that "public housing"--i.e. free housing for low-income people--was a costly disaster.  So some brilliant Dem had a great idea for "fixing" that: Instead of building millions more units of "public housing," why not simply give poor people tax dollars, and let them use the money to rent privately-owned houses?

Hey, great idea!  It became known as "Section 8 housing."  Slum-lords loved it, since it guaranteed them an income.  But owners of nicer homes quickly learned that if they rented to Section-8 tenants, the result was overwhelmingly likely to be a wrecked property.

So, many landlords stopped accepting so-called Section-8 vouchers.

Well.  Pols of both parties don't like it when uppity private citizens don't do as they're told, so the Democrat-ruled city of Minneapolis passed a LAW making it a crime for any landlord to refuse to rent to a Section-8 applicant.  Cuz, fairness, eh?

Dozens of apartment owners complained that their refusal to rent to Section-8 applicants was due to finding information on the applicant that would indicate a likely loss, like wrecking other rental homes.  They sued the city to have the new law overturned, and a lower-court judge agreed.

The Democrats ruling Minneapolis promptly appealed that verdict, and now they've managed to get the appeals court to support the law, and defeat the landlord group.  Yay!

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey cheered the ruling by the appeals court:  "Housing is a human right—and no one should ever be unjustly denied a place to live,” he said. "Today’s court decision is a victory for Minneapolis families who need homes."

Ah yes:  "Housing is a human right," just like free medical care, free college for all, free six-figure jobs for everyone and forcing taxpayers to repay student loans.  It's a "human right" because Democrats say so.  And if that gets them elected "that's just a happy coincidence."

Years ago I owned two rental homes.  No longer.  I would never own rental property again, for exactly the reason displayed in the Minnesota case.  When Dems rule, the risk VASTLY outweighs any benefit.

Dems in California pass law forcing all new electrical power to come from "green energy;" Oooh, wait...

California has been ruled by Democrats for 50 years.  The rat-bastards have such a huge majority in both the House and senate that they can and do pass any law they want.  And with a Democrat governor, anything they pass is signed into law.

Cool, eh comrade?  A recipe for paradise.  Because Democrats/liberals/"progressives" have such great ideas that when you give 'em absolute power, paradise results, eh?

Well, paradise for some, at least:  For lobbyists, and for Dem legislators who retire as millionaires thanks to bribes from...lobbyists.

Let me explain.

Every single Dem politician buys into the notion that a) the planet is warming, dangerously; b) this warming is caused by CO2; c) this "extra," life-threatening CO2 is due entirely to human activity.

The Mainstream Media have shortened the above catechism to "global warming."

Now:  So-called environmentalists have convinced half of the American public--and the entire mainstream media--that CO2 is killing us.  So they've been screaming for decades that what we need is to ban fossil fuels, since they produce CO2 when burned.

By now many of you can probably see where this is going: The environmentalists have convinced every Dem pol that to save the Earth they need to ban anything that produces CO2.  And to the surprise of no one, the pols have discovered that the public buys this, so supporting this gets you re-elected for your entire life.

One of the biggest uses of fossil fuels is to produce electricity.  So is there any way to make electricity without burning coal or natural gas?  Oh, absolutely:  Both hydroelectric (dams) and nuclear power do this.  But amazingly, the people who scream about the planet-killing power of CO2 don't want you to use either of these sources either!

Wait...what?

Yes, really.  Thanks to lobbyists bribing Cali legislators, the newly-passed law mandating "green energy" doesn't allow nuclear or new hydro.  Instead it allows just two sources for electricity: wind and solar.  Which will double the cost of electricity to residents of that shit-hole state.

So to summarize how this wonderful (for the pols) scam works:

1.  Global-warming believers get legislature to pass “renewable energy mandates” decreeing that a certain percentage of electricity production be generated by approved “green" sources.
2.  Ensure that the new law defines “green” as only wind and solar.
3.  Ensure the new law forces utility companies to buy wind and solar, despite the huge cost to consumers.
4.  Pushers of wind and solar make huge profits, hire more lobbyists.
5.  Repeat steps one through four.

And of course there's a consequence of getting a huge percentage of electricity from wind and solar: skyrocketing electric bills for consumers, to pay for the higher cost of the “green” energy.  Some experts say the mandates could double electricity bills on families.

But hey, citizen: It's worth it to save the planet, right?  And of course it’s no one's fault that green energy costs more, right?  Certainly it would be wrong to blame Dem pols for any of this...cuz they jus' wanna save life on Earth!  Yay!!!

Harvard adminishits:"Not enough diversity in historic scientific achievement!" But we can fix that!

Facts are pesky things--because they often contradict the claims of snowflakes who wish they weren't true.  This hurts the feewings of the snowflakes, which makes them lash out in bizarre ways.  Case in point:

For decades the entrance to Harvard's Borstein auditorium was lined with portraits of scientists who had made some of the most fabulous, lifesaving discoveries in medicine.  But the pencil-neck geeks at Harvard were devastated, because this collection of portraits of the most outstanding scientists was entirely...white.  And almost entirely male.

"OMG!  This is, like, SO unfair!  And...and...raaaacist!  And sexist!  Whatever can we do to right this horrible wrong!?"

The august members of the Diversity and Equality Committee first considered simply ruling that every fourth of the honored scientists would be declared black or hispanic, and that person's portrait would be re-painted to match the declaration.  Unfortunately nearly all the honorees had descendants--and amazingly, a few of these descendants objected to having their grandfather arbitrarily declared black or hispanic.

Other descendants--clearly not appreciating the utmost seriousness of the matter--objected to their grandfather being declared female.  So reluctantly, the august members of the Diversity and Equality Committee abandoned this perfectly reasonable solution.

But the great minds of Hahvahd's Diversity and Equality committee were not to be so easily thwarted, and after another couple of months of high-IQ thought, they found a solution to the problem of not enough diversity in scientific achievements: they simply made all the white male scientists disappear.

Yep, the Diversity and Equality Committee simply junked all 31 portraits of the great scientific discoverers..

You see, comrade, the past was bad, because historical facts don't agree with current liberal dogma. History is bad because it does not support the progressive narrative.

Solution?  Erase the past.  Tear down statues progs don't like.  Junk portraits of white males.  Replace portraits of past presidents on our currency with pics demanded by progressives.

Down the memory hole, comrade.  And if you object, you're either raaaacist or sexist.  Or both.


H/T Moonbattery. 

Dogs and cats react differently to being scolded

How to bathe a cat

pic.twitter.com/hhhSDAGcxk

— Josh (@CraxyD) June 21, 2019

Some info relevant to your vote in 2018

As most of you know, the world is a complex place.  Lotsa things going on all the time, and if you're trying to hold down a job and raise kids there's just not enough time left to keep up with everything that's going on.

So I'd like to call your attention to one such thing--one that most Americans don't think much about:  how far the leaders of the Democrat party, their candidates and their supporters have gone toward flat-out communism.

Ah, I hear my liberal PhD friend saying "That's nonsense!  Tinfoil-hat stuff!  Fake news!  Democrats totally support freedom and the right of people to make their own choices!"

Really?  Maybe 50 years ago, but today they've totally sold out to the idea of "giving" voters "free" stuff.  Of course, as should be obvious to any rational being, there's no such thing as "free" stuff.  Everything costs, and Dems are deliberately lying when they say any of their dozens of promised "free" things are free.  Sooner or later the entire cost of all these wonderful "free" bennies is paid by taxpayers.

Problem is, for decades the federal gruberment has spent more than it takes in in taxes and other revenue.  The shortfall between what we've been spending and total revenue is covered by borrowing the money--lots of it from China.  The average is something around half a trillion bucks every year.

That's bad.  Really, really bad.  So you'd think it wouldn't be a good idea to push proposals that would vastly RAISE federal spending.  But take a look at the proposals being pushed by virtually EVERY Dem presidential candidate:

1. "Medicare for all" (i.e. "free" health care)
2. "Free child care"
3. "Free" college for everyone
4. "Forgiveness of student loans" (i.e. taxpayers would repay student loans for borrowers)
5. Opening our borders to everyone (i.e. provding total support to tens of millions of aliens)
6. "Reparations" (taxpayers write a check to every black person in the U.S., cuz slavery was once legal in the U.S.

In addition, Dems also support policies designed to ensure they'll win every presidential election, and every case that goes to the Supreme Court:

      7.  Changing the way we elect presidents to the winner of the national popular vote;
      8.  Increasing the number of judges on the Supreme Court from 9 to 15 or more; 

Surely you knew about all these Dem proposals, right?

What?  You'd only heard of one or two?  Why, how could that be?  They'd be so astonishingly costly--not to mention anti-American--that you'd think all the "media" would be shouting the obvious warnings every day on their front pages, or top of their broadcasts.

You'd think competent reporters would be asking these dumb-ass, pandering, vote-buying pols to provide a detailed explanation of how they'd pay for any and all of these things.  But of course the media is totally Dem-loving, so they'll never ask the obvious questions.

But it's okay, citizen:  Money isn't real, simply a tool used by the eeebil capitalist patriarchy to oppress da masses.  Besides, if a gruberment needs more money it just prints as much as it needs, without any consequences, right?

Uh...no.  When government print money simply at their whim, you get inflation.  In Venezuela inflation has been running close to 100 percent every year.  Meaning prices double every year!

Wait...did I say inflation was running 100 percent?  Oh, my bad:  That should be one MILLION percent per year.  Seriously.  Which instantly destroys the value of any savings--cuz a thousand bolivars today will be worth two centavos next week.

But hey, don't worry about any of this complicated "finance" stuff, citizen!  Leave it to the experts, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the 29-year-old Democrat prodigy who's the main theoretician behind the "Green New Deal."  After all, only experts can understand things like finances.  All us little people have to do is pay taxes and be sure to use the "right" pronouns when addressing important snowflakes.

So vote Democrat, so people like AOC can keep us on the right path.

Illegal-alien invader rapes wheelchair-bound woman *twice;* gets just 9 months; on release, attacks her again

This is one of those thousands of stories that unless you're a Democrat, should make your blood boil.

There is NO excuse for what happened here.  This is an outrage, and is entirely the fault of the liberal/Democrat judge and "sanctuary city" policies.  Read on to see what Dem policies have done to us:

Francisco Carranza-Ramirez, 35, is a citizen of Mexico, in the U.S. illegally.  Last September 26th, in the shit-hole sanctuary of King Country, Washington, this illegal raped a 32-year-old wheelchair-bound woman.

The next day he came back to her house and raped her again.

Because it was King County, liberal idiot judge Nicole Gaines-Phelps sentenced the rapist to just nine months.

Last Thursday (June 13th) this monster was released from prison, no supervision or parole.  His attorneys told the judge that because their illegal-alien rapist client was in the U.S. illegally, the proper action now was to allow him go back to Meh-hee-co, and they told the judge he'd do that as soon as he was released.  Swearsies.  No need to have cops escort him to the plane or anything embarrassing like that.  Cuz you can, like, totally trust illegals and their attorneys, right?

And of course, because it was King County--as in ALL "sanctuary states"--neither the cops nor the court notified ICE that they were about to release an illegal invader.  And, lest we forget, a man who'd twice raped a wheelchair-bound women.

So on his release, did Francisco Carranza-Ramirez board the plane for Meh-hee-co, as his attorneys promised the judge he would?

Hahahahahahahahaha!  I see you're new to this planet.  Enjoy your stay!

Of course he didn't.  Instead he went straight to the victim’s home, dumped her out of her wheelchair, and assaulted her in front of her three-year-old son.  More specifically, he tried to strangle her.  Deputies found her on the ground with cuts and bruises and her wheelchair overturned. She was treated for a seizure and concussion.

This is the inevitable, unavoidable, fully predictable result of so-called "sanctuary cities," in which local idiot liberals and governors have unilaterally decided that they aren't going to cooperate with valid federal immigration law.  Imagine how much worse it will be if the Dems are able to ram through "open borders," allowing everyone on the planet to enter the U.S.

Jay Inslee is the governor of the shit-hole state of Washington.  He's also one of the 23 Democrats running for president.  Last May, Governor Inslee signed a law barring localities from even inquiring about a criminal's immigration status.

The double-rape and subsequent strangulation of this wheelchair-bound woman is entirely on Inslee's head.  But he's just going along with what EVERY Democrat presidential candidate has endorsed: sanctuary cities and open borders.

But hey...you didn't know the victim of this double rape and strangulation.  She's not related to you, so really, it's nothing to you, right?  So vote Democrat in 2020.  Cuz open borders and sanctuary city policies probably won't affect you much at all, eh?

For the full story click here.

Top Dem Nancy Pelosi demands that Trump violate the Constitution. Yeah, really.

When the highest-ranking member of the Democrat party in the U.S. issues a written statement that attempting to enforce valid U.S. law is "an act of utter malice and bigotry, designed solely to inject fear in our communities," what does this tell you about the Democrat party?

Ah, I hear my liberal PhD friend saying this never happened--simply "conspiracy theory" from "right-wing nutters pushing fake news!"

Hey, good point.  Except thanks to the internet, for the first time in history ordinary citizens can go to the source herself--the America-hating Nanny Pelosi.  Click here to see the above statement on her own website.  If you don't have time to click the link, here's the statement:

“The President’s new threat of a mass deportation dragnet is an act of utter malice and bigotry, designed solely to inject fear in our communities.  This plan revives the horror of the President’s family separation policy, inflicting its inhumanity on countless hard-working families across America.

“Since Day One, the Administration’s failed policies – from family separation, to child incarceration, to gutting asylum protections – have created senseless tragedy and heartbreak both at the border and throughout our country, and have turned America’s back on a decades-long, bipartisan understanding of the value of immigrants to our nation.

“The President must walk away from these cruel, ineffective and discriminatory policies, and work with Democrats to support smart, effective immigration reform that honors our values and keeps families together and safe.  The President must also stop sabotaging good-faith, constructive and bipartisan efforts in Congress to address the root causes of the situation by blocking funding for humanitarian efforts in Central America.”

Okay, so now that we've established that she really said this, what does it tell rational voters?

That she's demanding that the president ignore the Constitution's command (in Article II section 3) that the president "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

Wait...I hear my liberal friend claiming "That's not in the Constitution!  You're just putting out fake news to try to sway your gullible, knuckle-dragging, sister-marrying followers!"

Ah, good point again.  But also again, we have a link to go right to the source.  Click here to read the Constitution's actual, y'know, actual words yourself.

Convinced yet, cupcake?  Nah, didn't think so.  Nothing will convince liberals determined to ram open borders down your throat.  Oh well.

So let's break down what Nanny Pelosi is saying.  Tell us, Nancy:  Is it against U.S. law for anyone to simply waltz across the border into the U.S., and then stay here, without permission?  Yes.

So when you condemn the president for attempting to enforce U.S. law on this matter, by removing people who have entered the country illegally, you're demanding that the president NOT enforce valid U.S. law.  This violates the clear, unequivocal words of the Constitution, since that document--which the Founders considered "the supreme law of this land"--clearly states that the president "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

Are we clear now?  And it's good to know, clearly, that the top Democrat--and all her henchmen--openly push for violating the Constitution.

Liberal son of millionaire family steals "terabytes" of data from office of Democrate senator; case suddenly sealed

Most people intuitively think that unprincipled thugs look like...well, thugs. But consider the pencil-neck geek below:

This son of a bitch is Jackson Cosko, ultra-liberal son of a San Francisco millionaire.  Jackson has the same disease that afflicts far too many kids of wealthy parents: he thinks he's above the law.

That's because by all indications, he is, as I'll explain below.

He was hired by a female Democratic senator, Maggie Hassan, to manage her office computers.  He ended up using address and phone lists on those computers to "dox" Republican senators during the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.  That is, he published their home addresses and phone numbers on the internet, knowing other radicals would use the information to try to intimidate the senators into voting against the nominee.  But that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Cosko carried out what prosecutors said was the largest known data theft in Senate history.  He used the threat of revealing this information to blackmail a witness, to extort a senator and threaten others.

Cosko has admitted he copied data from the New Hampshire Democrat’s office out of revenge for being fired, then used it to doxx Republicans during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings.

After he was fired a second Hassan staffer who was friends with Cosko gave him her key to the senator's office in exchange for rent money, knowing that he intended to copy emails and other sensitive files.  Hassan's office confirmed that the second staffer is Samantha DeForest-Davis, who was subsequently fired.

Prosecutors say Cosko also installed "keyloggers"--devices to capture, store and transmit keystrokes on command--on the computers in Hassan's office.  After Cosko's arrest he didn't reveal the existence of the devices and no one discovered them.  The devices continued to beam every keystroke — including passwords— over a WiFi signal that could be received in the public hallway outside the office.

Hassan hired Cosko as an IT administrator even though he had a prior criminal record, prosecutors said. In May 2018 he was “terminated for performance-related reasons” that Hassan has declined to explain.

Cosko admitted one of his motives for copying the data was to extort Hassan’s office into giving him a positive job reference, prosecutors said.

Among the many strange aspects of this case, after Cosko was essentially fired ("asked to resign") by the Dem senator's office, he was immediately hired by female Democrat congress-creep Sheila Jackson Lee, again despite a prior criminal record and being fired from Hassan’s office. The job gave him access to the entire House computer network--access he used to continue his data theft and extortion.

According to official filings by prosecutors, Cosko “broke into Senator Hassan’s Office on at least four occasions, including on or about July 26, 2018, August 6, 2018, and October 2, 2018,” prosecutors said.  He gained access to Hassan’s office by unlawfully obtaining keys from a friend who was a staffer in that office.”

Prosecutors say he also installed ‘keylogger’ devices on at least six computers in Senator Hassan’s office.  The devices were “designed to record the keystrokes that Senate staffers typed on their Senate-owned computers – including user names and passwords for Senate computers and computer networks, as well as personal e-mail accounts,” prosecutors said.

On Oct. 2, Cosko went back to Hassan’s office for more after asking Deforest-Davis for her key. According to prosectors another staffer caught him in the act.  Cosko fled, and later emailed the witness: “I own EVERYTHING.  If you tell anyone I will leak it all--e-mails, conversations, gmails, Senators children’s health information and socials.”

U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan on Jan. 24 said Cosko allegedly possessed terabytes of information, including Senate data so sensitive that it could not be discussed in open court.  Earlier Hogan had said “He downloaded more information than was originally understood. There is no combination of conditions that could ensure the safety of the community.”

"Safety of the community"?  What community?

In January the judge added that “There’s been some complex discovery with terabytes of information. The defendant is cooperating but the government isn’t convinced that he is fully cooperative. Some of what was provided under discovery is Senate information. The Senate is subject to a privilege called speech and debate.” 

The judge then closed the proceedings to the public.

The speech and debate clause allows members of congress to avoid prosecution for statements they make, including written statements such as emails.  Members have been known to invoke this "privilege"to try to prevent their statements and written evidence from being used in court cases.

At both the December and January court proceedings judge Hogan barred The Daily Caller News Foundation from the courtroom, even though Cosko’s mother was allowed to stay.

What kind of case justifies barring either ordinary citizens or members of the press from observing trial proceedings?  An obvious answer would be if a case involved national security, and information discussed in court would reveal clasified sources or methods.  Based on the lack of sensitive committee assignments of Dem senator Maggie Hassan, this seems unlikely here.

Far more likely is that Cosko had copies of incriminating emails to or from Hassan, which he threatened to release unless the judge gave him a total sweetheart deal--a slap on the wrist, like probation.  But what kinds of information could possibly be that damaging to a Democrat senator?

Asked if a plea deal meant the evidence of major crimes discussed behind closed doors would remain sealed forever, prosecutor Tejpal S. Chawla said “we’ll see.”

Hassan asked Cosko to resign, though she has refused to say on what grounds.  Why?  It's almost as though she's trying to protect this slimy, pencil-neck rat-bastard.  Now why in the world would she want to do that?

My guess is that it's because he's quietly threatened to release information that would be hugely embarrassing to the Democrat party.

Somali immigrant Muslim female congress-creep demands U.S. surrender to Iranian terrorism

Ilhan Omar is a female Somali Muslim, and a U.S. representative from Minnesota.  Her district has the highest concentration of Somali "refugees" in the U.S.

Now: A few days ago 4 oil tankers were attacked by explosive "mines" attached to their hulls with magnets--a creature called a "limpet mine."  We have photo proof that the mines were attached by men on boats from Iran's "Revolutionary Guard Corps," for a very unusual and unequivocal reason: pics of one tanker clearly showed a black triangular object--an unexploded limpet mine--still attached to the hull of one of the tankers just above the waterline.

The Iranians tried to take both tankers into custody, but a U.S. Navy destroyer got there first and the Iranians decided not to die for their country that day.  But of course the mullahs knew that since the USS Bainbridge had foiled their plan to take the tanker into an Iranian port, international experts would find the mine and unequivocally identify it as Iranian.  Ooops.

So later that night an IRGC "fast boat" came out to the disabled, dead-in-the-water tanker, went right to the known location of the mine and removed it.  Yay!

But what the mullahs didn't count on was that that our surveillance pics had spotted the unexploded mine, and predicted the IRGC mission to recover it.  So our Navy had drones always on-station over the tanker.  And sure enough, one got high-resolution video of the IRGC boat pulling up to the mine, and IRGC sailors removing the unexploded mine.

That's just the background to the story here, which is that after Trump pulled out of Obozo's totally illusory Iran "nuclear deal," Iran has said they're now gonna start enriching uranium to levels closer to bomb grade.  So Ilhan Omar tweeted that "none of this [the attacks on the tankers and the mullahs' decision to enrich to higher levels] would have happened if Trump hadn't scrapped the toothless "deal."  She said the only proper response for the U.S. was to "return to the table and reinstate the Iran nuclear deal."  See her tweet below:

None of this would be happening if Trump didn't back out of the Iran nuclear deal.

America’s response should be to return to the table and reinstate the Iran nuclear deal.

Increasing tensions and threats of war serve nobody's interests. https://t.co/KGSKGXATPE

— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) June 17, 2019

Let's review:  A foreign enemy state a) blows holes in tankers; and b) starts enriching uranium toward bomb levels; and the Anti-American Muslim Ilhan Omar demands that the U.S. surrender to these terrorist acts?  Yep.

Omar is an America-hating, Trump-hating POS.  Sorry, scum: ESAD.  GFY.  Scum.  And yet the Dems agree totally.

Guy asks college students who was the source of several quotes, Trump or Joe Biden. Hilarity ensues.

"Campus Reform" is an outfit that asks college students questions about politics and politicians to see what college students believe.  And the results are nothing short of hysterical.

For example, every student at liberal colleges simply "knows" that Trump is a racist, homophobe and xenophobe, while the leading Dem presidential candidate (Joe Biden), like all Democrats, is a model of tolerance, equality and so on.  Cuz that's what they've seen on the Lying Media.

So a camera crew from Campus Reform went to Marymount College, read a few quotes to students, telling the students the quotes were spoken either by Trump or Biden.  They they asked each student which pol they thought spoke the quote.

Most of the quotes have a mildly racist tinge, so naturally all students (except one on one quote) guessed the source was Trump.  But in fact...well, watch:



Congratulations to the Mainstream Media and all the professors at these colleges.  Great job, people!  You're doing such a great job for the Democrat party that you should be getting paid more.

Dems: "There is NO border crisis! It's a total fabrication by the xenophobic OrangeManBad!"

Breaking news from Chris Matthews, MSNBC, and CNN's Jim Acosta!!

Chris Mattews, MSNBC:  "Breaking news just in from Trump's so-called 'rally' in Orlando, Florida.  For details we go now live to CNN's White House reporter, Jim Acosta.  Jim?"

Jim Acosta, CNN:  "Chris, the scene you see on your screen tells the real story of this lawless, colluding so-called 'president's' endless lies.  We're here in the Amway Center, the forum for this so-called "rally" by the lawless, racist, homophobic, misogynistic megalomaniac monster who occupies the Oval Office after stealing the election from everyone's favorite candidate, Hilliary Clinton.  And as you can see, Chris, there is not a single person in this arena!  Not one!



Matthews: "Yes, we can see that, Jim.  That's totally amazing.  And as they say, pictures don't lie.  And this is the so-called rally that the president said had, what, 100,000 requests for tickets?  And yet the venue is totally empty! 

Acosta:  "Yes Chris, this proves what we in the media have been telling the American people all along:  Their president is a liar.  He's claimed to have eliminated any nuclear threat from North Korea, but we know that's not true because Kim Jong Un is still leading that nation.  And he's claimed the economy is booming, but we know that's not true because as Senator Bernie Sanders said, wealth inequality in this country is greater than at any time since, what, 1902 I think. Which is why Sanders is likely to be the next president."

Matthews:  "This is astonishing, Jim.  It's an embarrassment to our country, really, to have a president who is so mentally unbalanced, so detached from reality, that he lies about things that can so easily be proven as lies, like the attendance he touted for this so-called "rally."  Frankly I don't know anyone who supports Trump or plans to vote for him next year."

Acosta:  "I don't either, Chris.  Which agrees with all the polls, that this president is the most unpopular in American history.  But that's the scene on the ground here on this Monday, the 17th day of June.  Not a single person in any of the 20,000 seats in the Amway Center."

END of transcript.

The pic above is NOT a photoshop.  It was completely real--not a single seat was occupied on Monday, June 17th--since the rally started Tuesday.

Biden: "My first act as president will be to abolish Trump's tax cuts"

You need to pay more taxes to all levels of government, right?  Moreover, Democrats insist that regardless of what you might think you want, you actually want to pay more in taxes.

With that in mind, leading Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden is instantly ready to help you get what you really, really want:  He just said--in a live talk captured on video--that his first act as president will be...wait for it...to  repeal the package of tax cuts passed by congress and signed into law by president Trump.

Cuz remember, citizen:  You need to pay more taxes.  You want to pay more taxes. 

And of course the Lying Mainstream Media have spent months trying to convince you that neither you nor any other middle-income American actually GOT a tax cut.  No sir!  Instead the Lying Media claim that the only people who actually got a tax cut were the rich.

So even though stats from the IRS (a cesspool of Deep State operatives who hate Trump) show that 85 percent of all Americans got to keep more of their hard-earned cash because of the tax cut package, less than 40 percent of Americans think they personally benefitted.

So the Lying Media have convinced Americans they didn't benefit, even though the real number show they did.  Isn't that fabulous?  That's what a determined press can accomplish.



(Thanks to Streamable.com for their great free video clipping and editing service!)

Fox News is NOT conservative. Example:

One of the most repeated claims by the Left is that Fox News is oh-so-conservative.

But while Fox started fairly conservative, they're not really.  The Murdoch media empire started Fox as a conservative voice because they recognized the obvious: that every member of the American Lying Mainstream Media was hard-liberal/left/Dem-supporting. 

Didn't take a rocket scientist to see that the U.S. was wide open for a new network that seemed to be unbiased.  "Fair and balanced," as it were.

Unfortunately, they're going farther left with time.  For example, take this headline from today:

Orlando Sentinel issues scathing op-ed announcing it won't endorse Donald Trump in 2020 election

Most readers would assume the Sentinel had endorsed Trump in 2016 but after seeing the last 2.5 years of horrible disasters! caused by Trump-- a horrible economy, high unemployment, the U.S. caving in to threats from terrorist nations, dependent on imports of foreign oil from terror-sponsoring states that we can't oppose without losing the oil on which we desperately depend; abandoning nations that formerly supporte us--the list is almost endless!

And of course all the above "reasons" are lies:  In truth the economy is booming, unemployment is at 50-year lows, even for unskilled and low-skilled workers, we're finally standing up to terrorist-supporting nations like Iran instead of giving them billions and signalling that we won't try to stop them from getting the atom bomb. 

Thanks to private enterprise we're energy-independent--something Obama and the Dems claimed was absolutely impossible.

But ignore all that, citizen.  The Sentinel has determined that Trump's actions since taking office show that he's no longer worth their support and endorsement.  So they're flipping, changing the party they support from Repubs to Dems.  And they run a newspaper, so you should trust them!  Cuz they're smarter than you are, citizen.

Wait, that's...odd:  I don't recall the Sentinel endorsing Trump in 2016.  Did they really endorse Trump then, and they're now switching?

No.  They endorsed Hilliary.

But...doesn't that make this story a total nothing-burger?  It's like Fox headlining a story that the NY Slimes or WaPo just announced they're supporting any Democrat candidate against Trump:  If a media outlet supported the Democrats in 2016, why would their continuing to support the Dems now be even remotely considered worthy of print?

And especially with that headline: they Dem rag didn't just reluctantly switch, they ran a "scathing op-ed."  And of course they didn't switch, but made you think they did.

Fox hasn't supported Trump for two years now.  And they're not conservatives.

Click here to see the original article.

3 Dem congresscreeps write a long article demanding the U.S. save Venezuela, never once mention cause of misery: socialism

Like all big-city papers in Democrat-ruled, cesspool cities, the Miami Herald is reliably Democrat-loving, Dem-supporting.  Thus I was stunned to read a piece in that rag by three female Democrat congress-creeps-- Donna Shalala, Debbie Wasserman-Shultz and a new one-- telling Americans what we MUST do about...Venezuela.

Wait..."what we MUST do about Venezuela"?   Why do "we" (i.e. U.S. taxpayers, not the 3 Democrats who wrote the piece) have to do anything about Venezuela?

For those who haven't been paying attention:  Before 1980 Venezuela had the highest per-capita income in all of Latin America.  Their problems have been caused entirely by socialist policies (socialism) pushed by former prez Hugo Chavez, and then more of same by his hand-picked successor--a former bus driver named Nicholas Maduro.

The socialist policies utterly devastated Venezuela, to the point that most Venezuelans are literally starving.  Things are so bad that people have killed and eaten the zoo animals!  Inflation has been running about 80,000 percent per year for several years, which wipes out the value of all savings.  Two eggs costs a week's salary.  People have long-since sold their jewelry and possessions to buy enough food for another week. 

It's insane, impossible!  And yet it's real.  And yet when every Dem presidential candidate but one says the U.S. NEEDS to adopt socialism, the Lying Mainstream Media applauds like trained seals.

The U.S. had no role in Venezuela's tragic demise.  We didn't break it, so why would anyone with a brain demand that U.S. taxpayers pay billions to FIX the disaster brought on by socialist policies--which is what the three Democrat congress-creeps suggested.

And the answer is...The Dems--speaking for their party--want to sweep the CAUSE of Venezuela's disaster--socialism--down the memory hole, because if more Americans learn the true cause of that country's disaster (socialism), they'll be much less likely to vote for Democrat candidates.

Ooooh!  Can't have that, eh citizen?

So here's what the cunning, lying three Dems had to say about Venezuela, and I'll show you how brilliant and cunning their lies are:

Venezuela is experiencing one of the worst humanitarian and economic crises in the western hemisphere in recent history.  [Cause by...?  Hmm, no cause cited.  Maybe they'll tell you later in the article.]

Food is scarce, malnutrition is widespread, and the nation’s medical system has collapsed. Ten percent of Venezuela’s population, more than four million people, have fled the country, with thousands following in the footsteps of so many others who have come to the United States and South Florida.

Despite harsh sanctions imposed by the Trump administration, Nicolás Maduro’s cronies continue to thrive, while nine out of 10 Venezuelans live in heartbreaking poverty. We support the administration’s efforts to unite the international community in support of the decision by the National Assembly —the only democratic institution still standing in Venezuela — to recognize Juan Guaidó as the country’s interim president until free, fair, and transparent elections can be held. 

They specify two things in the 'graf above that you need to remember:  First they claim that the eeeebil Trump admin has imposed "harsh sanctions."  The obvious implication is that the misery of Venezuela's suffering people--listed above that as scarce food, widespread malnutrition (i.e. starvation) and the total collapse of the medical system--is due to the "harsh sanctions" imposed by OrangeManBad.  That's a total lie:  The sanctions were against two-dozen top members of the socialist regime, in an effort to prevent them from using the international banking system to send their looted billions out of the country and into secret bank accounts in Switzerland or the Cayman Islands.

The second thing is that the Dems have picked the guy they now want to back:  Guaido.  But later they'll bitch that it's utterly wrong and immoral for the U.S. to pick the leaders of other nations.  Hmmm...  Consistency?  Not a chance.

Yet Maduro still reigns, and millions of Venezuelans still do not have food, medicine, or electricity.

So, we ask: what’s next, Mr. President? We need a more strategic plan.

These are the same Dems who would scream like stuck pigs if Trump had actually pushed a "more strategic plan" to bring about regime change in Venezuela.  "How DARE he try to tell those noble, dignified people that they can't choose socialism?!"

To break the deadlock, the United States and the international community can put more pressure on the regime [the socialst regime?  Hmmm...they don't say.  They'll probably tell you the cause of this disaster later, eh?] to facilitate a peaceful change in leadership, expose the corrupt networks that prop up the regime in Caracas, and meet the urgent, basic needs of the poor and hungry. These efforts will help push the parties to achieve a peaceful transition that precludes none, even key Chavistas players, in promoting stability in the country.

Two key items in the above:  First, the Dem authors introduce a new force into the mix: "corrupt networks that prop up the regime."  Most readers don't particularly notice this phrase, cuz hey, socialism and corruption?  Who could be surprised?  But there's a cunning purpose here:  "The problems in Venezuela are NOT caused by socialism, but by sinister non-socialist actors who have undermined glorious, totally wonderful, competent socialism."

You don't see that phrase, but that is exactly what they're laying the groundwork for--because the Dems CANNOT blame socialism for any bad outcomes since all their presidential candidates except one have endorsed socialist policies for the United States.

Alongside the people of Venezuela...we must assert a bold approach that exposes the criminal and corrupt actions sustaining this regime so that loyalists break from Maduro and force him to leave office.

Told ya.

First, all countries supporting Guaidó must tighten the financial pressure on the corrupt members who continue to support the Maduro regime, including freezing assets, banning travel, and canceling visas of military leaders and their families. We know...that when the regime loyalists and their family members — those who escape the daily consequences of government mismanagement — feel their extravagant lifestyles are threatened, the leaders will break.

Ah yes...much like the Pelosis and Schumers somehow escape the daily consequences of their shitty, anti-American policies like "sanctuary cities," open borders and free everything for illegal invaders.  But of course OUR Dems never feel that their own "extravagant lifestyles" are threatened, cuz half the voters support 'em.

Part of that pressure must include further exposure of the criminality that enables the Maduro regime to survive crippling sanctions and keep the military leadership loyal. A new...study reveals that...a vast criminal network spanning over 26 countries has siphoned tens of billions of dollars from the Venezuelan government through illicit trading in drugs, gold and oil.

See?  Problems aren't due to...some unmentioned cause [they'll surely tell you what it is later, eh?] but to a "vast criminal network" that has "siphoned tens of billions of dollars from the government."  Sure is amazing how that "vast criminal network" has managed to thrive right under the noses of the competent socialist rulers of VZ, eh?  I mean, Maduro and company are utterly ruthless, killing opponents, yet the "vast criminal network" is somehow unafraid.  Amazing, eh?

Maduro’s network has murdered local dissenters, engaged in human trafficking, and wreaked havoc on the environment.

We need a U.S.-led international investigation to trace this criminal web and to name, shame, and prosecute those still involved. Such action can also help expose the true role of Hezbollah, Cuba, Russia, Iran, and Colombian former guerrillas in the networks.

Now this is just hysterically funny:  Democrats LOVE Hezbollah, Cuba, Russia and Iran, and will defend all of those parties in any conflict or issue.  [Example: Claiming the recent attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman were actually "obvious false flag operations" planned by the U.S. to make Iran look like the bad guy.]  But suddenly the three Dem congress-creep authors of this piece are (implicitly at least) raising the possibility that their usual proteges just might possibly be bad actors?

What, did hell freeze over last week?  What in the world could account for this seismic shift?

Answer: The Dems know that the American voter has a memory span of about 3 days, so they can claim to blame either Hezbollah, Cuba, Russia or Iran for Venezuela's problems, and few of their supporters will even realize that the authors have accused the parties they supported last week.

Of course if we had an unbiased media, they'd instantly point out this bizarre switch.  But of course the media will never point out Dem lies, eh?

Second, the nations that support Guaidó must join our regional allies to galvanize immediate and generous support to the four million Venezuelans who have fled the repressive regime, and the 2.3 million more expected by the end of this year. That means immediately meeting the UN’s call for nearly $1 billion in refugee resettlement and humanitarian aid.

We have demanded that the administration grant Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to the approximately 72,000 Venezuelans in the United States, many of them in South Florida, but our requests have been met with silence. In the face of unconscionable inaction by President Trump, the House Judiciary Committee last month passed a bill to grant TPS to Venezuelans in the United States, bringing it one step closer to becoming law.

Astute readers may recall that in the 3rd 'graf of this utter dung-heap of a propaganda piece, the authors blasted Trump for having imposed "harsh sanctions" on the regime.  Yet here, barely a dozen 'grafs later, it's "unconscionable inaction by President Trump." 

"Consistency?  Nah, we don't do that."

Third, we must prepare for the hard work of rebuilding Venezuela in a post-Maduro era. While Venezuela’s vast oil wealth can help, significant amounts of humanitarian and financial assistance will be critical to assist the desperate population struggling to find food and medicine.

Note the use here of a writing technique called "passive voice," which hides the identity of who the authors propose as the actor--in this case the group they want to BE the source of the "significant amounts of financial assistance."  Writers use this when they're trying to do one of two things: either conceal who is to blame for something, or, as in this case, to avoid telling you who they're gonna try to force to PAY FOR what they want.

Also note again the reference to the "desperate population struggling to find food and medicine."  Two months ago the Dems were totally ignoring the humanitarian disaster in Venezuela, but suddenly they're using it to tug on the heartstrings of their dumb-ass base!  "Some mysterious force caused these once-wealthy people to run out of food, caused their medicine to vanish!  No one on earth knows what caused that [surely they'll tell you later, eh?] but regardless, it's your responsibility to fix it."

We must use our influence...to devise a substantial post-Maduro assistance plan to help the rebuilding process; meet the people’s health, food, and education needs; and prepare for new, internationally-monitored elections.

We welcome the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passage of the bipartisan Venezuela Emergency Relief, Democracy Assistance, and Development (VERDAD) Act. The Senate bill — incorporating bills that we introduced in the House — authorizes $400 million in aid to the Venezuelan people, restrictions on arms sales, as well as targeted sanctions.

Wait...In the 3rd 'graf in this piece of propaganda, the authors wailed that Trump had imposed "harsh sanctions," yet they just now called for "targeted sanctions."  Ah.  Cuz Trump, by definition, is "harsh" while the Dems would impose "loving sanctions."  Uh-huh.  Sure.

We need to pass the VERDAD Act to help the Venezuelan people survive this devastating crisis and galvanize other countries to help.

As we work to convert this pressure into progress, an approach to Venezuela that respects our regional allies and takes tougher diplomatic actions against Maduro’s criminal networks will pave the way for democratic transition. These tactics, with real commitments of resources to help the country get back on its feet, offer the proper balance to achieve peaceful, democratic, and lasting change in Venezuela.

This is SO precious!  First there's yet another red herring of "criminal networks" that the Dem authors imply are the REAL cause of all this ghastly misery.  Then there's yet another passive-voice call for "real commitments of resources" to fix it.  But again, we didn't cause it, we shouldn't even TRY to pull their dumb asses out of the fire.  The real cause--which the authors never mentioned even ONCE--was and is the socialist policies that every Dem presidential candidate except one has proudly claimed to support.

Interesting:  Nowhere in the entire article do the authors mention "socialism" as having anything whatsoever to do with the problems in that country.  Cuz they CAN'T mention the true cause-- socialism--without undermining every one of their candidates (except one).

Of course if we had an unbiased media, debate moderators would put Dem candidates on the spot by asking them what they think the cause of Venezuela's misery was/is, and if it had anything whatsoever to do with socialism.  But...unbiased media?   Hahahahahahahahaha!

Read more here: https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article231607558.html#storylink=cpy

Click here for the original article.