Liberals baffled to learn Islam is actually a religion and doesn't support "transgenderism"

Recent piece in the LA Times:

"For months, hundreds of religious parents have regularly rallied outside a Maryland school board building, aghast at books in the elementary-school library that portray homosexual acts.  Waving American flags, protesters have chanted against the indoctrination [grooming] of their children. They’ve sued to pull their kids out of mandatory lessons.

In battles against LGBTQ+ acceptance it's been white evangelicals pushing for book bans [no books are banned] or boycotts over beer brands or bathing suits.  [but] In this case, Muslims are leading the fight.

The controversy in an overwhelmingly blue Washington, D.C., suburb highlights a shift. Muslims are speaking out about what they see as intolerance of their faith."

Short answer:  Democrats can't believe the Muslims they've been loving on for three decades would be rude enough to disagree with any policy of the Democrat party!

When Hillary was bleating that "deplorable" Trump supporters were Islamophobic, Democrats parroted that with glee.  But now the Dems are discovering that Muslims and Trump supporters have found common ground: both groups are tired of being bullied by fanatic LGBT operatives who are actively pushing the gay and tranny agenda on elementary school kids (and every other public-school student)--and the Dems are freaking out!

In DC, Virginia and Maryland Islamic organizations are organizing protests against local pro-tranny schoolboards--and Dems are in shock!

The LA Times also noted--with barely-concealed horror--that after a 95% Democrat city near Detroit elected an all-Muslim city council, that council banned flying the LGBTQ/"pride" flag on all city buildings.  How dare they?!!

And that's just the first domino to fall: Muslim residents in nearby Dearborn, where close to half of residents are Muslim, are pushing for the same thing.  Last fall Muslims joined Christian parents in derailing a school board meeting that pushed an LGBTQ curriculum.  Democrats don't know how to stop Muslims and Christian parents from allying to oppose the tranny agenda, and they're worried.

One wonders whether Dem politicians just never knew that many Muslim nations execute gays, or whether they knew but just failed to connect the dots that Islam thought same-sex relations were forbidden.  

A liberal chair of Hamtramck's "human rights commission" [yeah, small cities really need to spend taxpayer dollars on crap like that] defied the ban on flying LGBTQ flags on city buildings, and the all-Muslim council fired his ass.  The clueless Democrat told the Times, “When they wanted to broadcast their call to prayer from mosques, we defended them. When Muslims were being accused of hate crimes [for attacking Christians and Jews] we stood by them, and we opened our arms when they were refugees."  He can't believe the folks his party eagerly supported actually oppose Dems on grooming in public schools!

Former Hamtramck mayor Karen Majewski echoed the sense of bafflement:  “There’s a sense of betrayal.  We supported you when you were threatened, and now our rights are threatened, and you’re the ones doing the threatening.”

Karen, how are your rights being threatened by parents who don't want their kids to be pushed to change "genders" by leftist public school teachers?  How do you come to think that's your "right"?

Karen also bleated that 18 years ago a white, majority-Christian city council in 2005 passed a law to allow Muslims to blare the call to prayer five times a day from high-power speakers on the city’s mosques.  White city residents objected, but the white council ignored their objections and passed the law.  And now the former mayor was baffled that the Muslims wouldn't support gays and trannies after her regime had supported them.

A gay former council member said “We welcomed you. We created nonprofits to help feed you and find housing. We did everything we could to help you, and this is how you repay us, by stabbing us in the back?”

Of course it makes perfect sense: the Democrats got to show their virtue--and by total coincidence, to sign up hundreds of thousands of new Democrat voters.  So naturally they expect that the beneficiaries of their taxpayer-funded gifts will show total loyalty.  And when they find the Muslims don't like gays, they're baffled.  Outraged.

It's fascinating:  The supreme court has ruled no government entity can display the Ten Commandments in a public building, but gay pride flags are perfectly legal.  Can you say "double standard"?

If an all-Christian city council had banned the Pride flag, liberals would have blamed Christians, denounced council members for "homophobia" and "transphobia," and sent mobs of protesters into the streets to intimidate the council into reversing the ban.  The local paper would have been filled with letter denouncing "hetero-normative, patriarchal white supremacy."

But when an all-Muslim city council bans the pride flag from city buildings, the Left and Democrats are paralyzed!  How do they decide which side they should support?

Either way they choose, the abandoned former ally can accuse them of the exact thing they've trafficked in for decades: calling them either Islamophobic or homophobic.  It's a baffling dilemma.

Of course the real fear is that Christians and Muslims have finally found a common cause. Both want to protect their children from LGBT indoctrination in public schools.

Not to worry, comrade:  In a month or so their strategists will have figured out how to thread this needle, and the Mainstream Media will get busy churning out "opinion pieces" showing Americans the solution to the former problem.
 

If you thought the economy was great under Trump, liberal rags will set you straight

When the latest ABC/WaPo poll results were released (showing Trump leading Porridgebrain by nine or ten points), all the "elite" "journalists" (i.e. Democrat shills) went into overdrive to explain that the result was NOT-- and could not possibly be--accurate.

At New York Magazine (not New Yorker, but certainly twins), the beta soy-boys used every rationalization and projection in the book--larded with outright lies--to reassure their liberal Democrat readers that the poll was wrong.  Even the WaPo quickly bleated that they thought their own poll was wrong.  (They called it "an outlier," i.e. wrong.)

So let's unpack just two 'grafs in the soy-boy propaganda piece, to show ya how they do it.

It seems that a significant share of voters are buying Trump’s argument that he built a sensational economy before COVID, and then the 2020 election interrupted his fine work.

Clear implication:  The economy was never "sensational" under Trump!  Okay, maybe the U.S. was "energy-independent" for the first time in 80 years, but dat jus' uh aksident, comrade!  No matter that Obama and Hilliary and the entire fellating parrot-class of the media elites sneered "You can't just drill your way to energy independence," and then under Trump we did just that.  Ignore that, peasants!  Obozo and Hilliary NEVAH said nuffin about the stupidity of drilling for independence!  Dat jus' a right-wing lie!

The soy-bois again:

The Trump “boom,” of course, was arguably just a situation he inherited from Barack Obama.

Oh you bet, sparky!  Everything good that happened under Trump was due to Obama policies, eh?  Cuz see, Obama was dis' magical wizard, an' his policies--eagerly, fawningly praised by fellating Democrats--were all rousing successes, right?  Like...the government taking over health insurance ("Obamacare") by lying that it would cut prices, then forcing taxpayers to "give" illegal invaders supposedly "free" health insurance!  Yeah, "FREE."  You bet, dummy.  Rousing success, eh?

But to Americans who have been disgruntled with the economy since the pandemic unhinged it, the early Trump years look good in retrospect...

In case you didn't get it the first time, here it is again:  You just thought the economy was good under Trump.  It actually wasn't, but you deplorables are too dumb to know a good economy from a bad one! 

This way of viewing the economy also robs Biden of credit for incremental improvements in economic conditions during his presidency.

Ah, so Porridgebrain has made "incremental improvements in economic conditions," eh?  Name one, sparky.  That's complete, utter horseshit--which the soy-bois are telling you is pure gold.  Been to a grocery store lately?  Filled your gas tank?  The soy-bois want you to ignore what you see, and what you pay.

It’s entirely possible there is simply a lag in public perceptions of the economy...

Didja get that?   See, duh economy is akshuly booming, citizen!  You just don't see it cuz of duh "lag in public perceptions of duh economy!"  Yeh, dat's duh ticket!

But...there are potential economic storms on the horizon that could intensify unhappy-voter perceptions. The odds of even higher energy costs (including gasoline prices) beyond the administration’s control is just one vote-killing peril.

Didja spot the offered excuse there?  Sure: "even higher energy costs [are] beyond the administration's control."  They want you to believe the Dems can kill U.S. oil and gas exploration with NO effect whatsoever on gasoline prices!  To believe that the Obozo and biden regimes can ban coal-fired powerplants without doubling the price of electricity, and so on.

See, to the moronic soy-bois who fellate the Democrat party there is no such thing as cause-and-effect, no such thing as "the law of supply and demand."  Economics is whatever they say it is on any given day.

And 40% of Americans--Democrat voters--eagerly believe every word of every column.

Source.

https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fnymag.com%2Fintelligencer%2F2023%2F09%2Fabc-nbc-polls-show-the-economy-hurts-biden-more-than-age.html

How many of the warning signs below have you witnessed?

 

Lies from the very top. Lies on top of lies. They banned low-cost drugs that worked

 

DOJ press release: child daycare worker sentenced to 25 years; carefully doesn't say perp is a tranny

Merrick Garland is a corrupt son of a bitch.  Joe biden is merely corrupt and incompetent.  Put the two together and you get...the "department of injustice."

Latest example: In the cesspool known as San Francisco, a "daycare worker" (someone who "takes care" of young children while parents work) was found to have taken pics and videos of naked kids dropped off at the daycare.

Garland's DO"J" arrested the perp, charged, but didn't go to trial.  Instead she took a plea deal.  And this one was a bit different from the sweetheart no-punishment-at-all deal garland offered Hunter biden.  This "deal" was a sentenced of 25 years.  

The DO"J" laid all the details out in a thousand-word press release.  Oh wait...did I say "all the details"?  The DO"J" left out just one:  The kiddie-porn maker is a tranny.  But for some reason the DO"J"'s long, detailed press release didn't bother to mention that little detail.  How...interesting.

The DO"J" never misses a chance to tell you that some deplorable white guy was a member of the Proud Boys or the OathKeepers or former military.  But for some reason garland apparently decided the unique affiliation of this kiddie-porn maker wasn't relevant.

If you don't think the fix is in, by the bidumb regime, to protect trannies from criticism, you're too dumb to breathe.

Trannies are mentally ill, period.  So it's interesting that the bidumb regime has made it a top priority to protect trannies, by not telling you a tranny committed a particular crime.

Democrat: "Nuffin' wrong wit dat.  Why do stupid deplorables need to know if a perp is transgender?  No one need to know dis!"

Let's stop and analyze that.  Why would any entity NOT want you to know information, eh?  Because without data you can't connect the dots, can't draw any conclusions.  Which is the whole point.

So the DO"J" wrote a thousand-word press release that carefully, deliberately didn't mention that the child-abusing perp was a tranny.  Hmmm...

But you can totally trust garland and lackeys to tell you duh troof, eh?  It jus' may not be the whole truth.  Cuz..."you don't need to know," citizen.  Aren't they considerate?

Source.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/san-francisco-daycare-worker-sentenced-25-years-prison-using-access-children-produce

How much oil does the U.S. use per day? How about the world? What does it mean?

Unless you're in the oil business or invest in energy stocks, you probably don't have an accurate idea of how much oil the world uses every day.  Fair enough.  

So take a guess.  Then after you do, highlight the next line to see the answer.
 101.5 million barrels per day.  That's around 4.3 BILLION gallons every DAY.

Now: in the last 3 months the price of oil has risen by ten bucks a barrel.  That increase adds a *billion dollars a day* to what the world's consumers pay for anything that uses oil.

The U.S. uses about 20 million barrels of oil per day, meaning that same $10 increase in oil prices will cost U.S. consumers an extra $200 MILLION dollars every day.  If we assume (just for the sake of easy analysis) that there are 100 million "families" in the U.S., that's an extra sixty bucks per family per month.

Democrat: "Dis not true!  Consumers don't pay higher price for oil!  It's paid by duh companies dat make and move stuff!  Dear Leader assures us that he's ordered companies to absorb any increase in oil prices!"

Congratulations, once again you've proven that most Democrat voters are so stupid that they shouldn't be allowed to vote or hold office.  Do I really need to explain the basics of economics to you stupid bastards?  Cuz clearly you never took Econ.

I don't have time to educate you.  You can either do your own research (oh yeah, that'll happen) or remain stupid.  I don't care either way.

SO...the point was that with the higher price of oil, keeping the same amount of consumption costs the average family an extra sixty bucks a month.  You didn't know because the Lying Mainstream Media will never tell you--partly because they don't understand it, and partly because the biden/garland regime's huge hostility to oil and natural gas is partly to blame for the higher prices.

Ooohhh, can't have that, eh citizen?

But don't worry, folks!  The regime tells you not to worry, cuz worry about the future tanks the stock market.

Ooohhh, can't have that, eh?

"Duh economy is BOOMING," right?  At least that's what Porridgebrain's faaabulous black lesbian press secretary keeps telling the shills in the press briefings, so dey believe it.  And of course every Mainstream Media outlet dutifully parrots what she tells 'em.  And Americans believe the Media cuz... well, they've nevah lied to ya before, right?

I wouldn't want to make anyone worry, but that's not a problem because only a handful of people read my blog.  I'm just doing this to make a record, to show that everything that's gonna happen was and is totally predictable.

Obviously I'm not the only person able to connect the dots.  Try James Howard Kunstler or Karl Denninger, among many others.  But most of the folks who do this for a living are liberals and government analysts, and they literally are not allowed to tell the truth.  If they did they'd be fired.

Finally: People claim that if I really believe what I write, I must be terribly unhappy.  Not at all.  My life has been (and continues to be) fabulous beyond anything I could have expected.  I do feel sorry for young Americans who will have to cope with what Democrat policies have done to them.

The real outrage is that none of the history written of this disaster will ever identify the utter, unremitting stupidity of the policies of the Democrat party that caused it.  Which means no one will have any idea how to fix it.

We're rapidly becoming Mexico-North.  And Democrats will say it's absolutely faaabulous.  Oh, you bet, sparky. 

Michigan's highest court ORDERS all judges to use "preferred pronouns" in legal proceedings

Two days ago the supreme court of Michigan ORDERED all state judges to use a person's "preferred pronouns" in all court proceedings.

Of course wokies and snowflakes will claim this is totally reasonable.  But it's utterly absurd.  First, the supreme court didn't mean what it ORDERED.  How do we know?  Cuz if, before appearing in court there, my attorney told the judge my preferred pronoun was "Excellency," do ya think the judge in that court would comply?

Of course not.  They'd find some bullshit law like "interfering with an official proceeding" or some such to avoid calling me "Excellency," despite the ORDER from the state's highest court.

But there's also another point: being ORDERED by the highest court in the state to use fake pronouns demanded by mentally-ill people constitutes *official ratification of the person's mental illness.*  Not "recognition," but ratification, meaning the highest court in Michigan agrees that "trans women are women."

Democrat: "Nooo, dis not 'ratification' at all!  We just want everyone to be polite."

Really?  No, you don't, because as explained above, if some wacko said he was Napoleon and demanded to be adddressed as "Emperor," lower judges would *know* the order from the state's highest court wouldn't require them to obey--because the "use the personal pronouns demanded by the person" order was only designed to apply to one special class: trannies.

Of course the supreme court couldn't say this in their order, since that would make it clear to everyone that trannies were a specially-favored class.  Of course that's precisely what an "executive order" from biden ("Porridgebrain") ORDERED.  But the Democrats would prefer you not know that, despite it being public record.

Democrat: "You're just a 'right-wing conspiracy theorist!  Duh supreme court of michigan nevah said dat!"

Really?  Odd, cuz NBC claimed it did.  Here's the link so you can see for yourself.

Here's another unexpected twist: in their eagerness to bow to tranny illness, courts in most Democrat-ruled states now allow trannies to change the sex listed on their birth certificate.  And of course every state allows people to officially change their name.  This leads to trannies being able to escape a prior arrest record, since the new name has no record, and the old name not only vanishes, but the change of sex makes identification much harder.

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/michigan-judges-ordered-honor-pronouns-parties-court-rcna117834

Tranny sneaks up behind biological girl at a middle school, punches her repeatedly; regime yawns

Watch this video.  At an Oregon middle school a tranny--a biological male--sneaks up behind an unsuspecting biological female student, yanks her hair, pulling her to the floor, then punches her in the head four times.

Only one thing will stop this:  kill this mentally ill bastard now.  Then do the same for the next two who try something similar.  That'll stop it--cuz even though they're mentally ill, they're not stupid: If they know they're gonna die, they won't attack.  But they can't be repaired or saved or whatever you want to call it.  They're crazy.  So unless you kill 'em, they'll keep attacking.  So...no appeal.  Kill.  As in, dead.

Hahahahahahahaha!  Just kidding, FBI and DOJ!  Bidumb's an' garland's vaunted DO"J" beez far too dumb to do the only thing that will stop this.  So your daughters will continue to be brutally attacked by mentally ill males claiming to be girls.  

Much like the tranny in Memphis who murdered three 9-year-old kids and three adults.  Say, didn't the Fibbies promise to release the killer's "manifesto" "soon."  You bet.  But of course they haven't.  And won't.  And you might well wonder why not.

Of course the regime won't tell you.  Not only won't they release the murderer's manifesto, they won't even give you a reason *why* they won't release it.

Starting to see that the fix is in yet?

Of course if you're a Democrat, you don't see anything amiss.

SO...The tranny who carried out this sneak-attack from behind on this girl won't get any punishment at all.  Count on it.  The regime will protect him...at all costs.  You may well wonder why, eh?

Much good should it do ya, citizen.  You don't matter.  Your children don't matter--unless they're black or tranny.

Source.

https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1707459302733316405

New Yorker magazine does a fawning piece on Sam Bankman-Fried and his parents

If you want to see a quick, accurate snapshot of what's destroyed our poor nation, the New Yorker has it, in a long piece slobbering over Sam Bankman-Fried.

If you follow anything outside your local area that name should be familiar:  SBF is the son of two Stanford law professors, who the New Yorker tells us were huge pushers for "social justice, altruism and ethics.  (The significance of this will soon be apparent.)

What could possibly go wrong, eh?

As everyone surely knows, SBF founded FTX, which eventually sucked up $32 BILLION in investor cash.  The New Yorker piece is long but worth a read, because it unintentionally shows how FTX was able to vacuum up BILLIONS from everyone from huge investment funds to professional athletes to ordinary working stiffs:  See, duh founder (Sam BF) wuz, like, *totally* altruistic--and by total coincidence also a HUGE donor to the Democrat party.

Wow, who could have guessed that, eh?   

So, too long to summarize, but one vignette captures how much corruption is involved, in a single 'graf: 

After a New York judge set their son’s bail at a quarter of a Billion dollars, his parents pledged their home [earlier described as a "bungalow" on the campus of Stanford, worth maybe a million dollars] as security for his release. Two friends also guaranteed part of the bail: Andreas Paepcke, a computer scientist at Stanford, pledged six figures, as did Larry Kramer.

I know this will be hard for most liberals but let's try to take this apart mathematically:  A quarter of a billion dollars is how many millions?

Sure.  Obvious.  And a pledge of "six figures" is *at most* how much?

Sure.  Obvious.  So we have two family friends pledging six figures toward Sam's bail, and the million-dollar bungalow where his parents live.  So how much are we short of making the stated bail, eh?

Sure.  Obvious.  And if you're a really smaht liberal--like a Hahvahd grad--you got that number right wifout using a calculator, right?  So what's your answer?

If you said "He's just $247 MILLION short of the bail amount the biden/garland regime SAID they DEMANDED," you win a margarita.

But despite that VAST shortfall from the bail the sons of whores SAID he had to post, the biden/garland regime allowed him to get out on bail ANYWAY.  Cuz...reasons, citizen. 

What does that tell you?  (Other than "It's an exclusive club, and you and I aren't in it.")

If you're a Democrat you probably say "Dat perfectly fair, cuz my party lets accused muggers and carjackers and pipo who shoot someone walk out of jail duh same day wifout havin' to post no cash bail, so this just beez fair."

Can you say "Duh fix beez in," comrade?  Think you'd get to walk if you were $247 MILLION short of making your bail amount?

What's telling is that not a single outlet of the Lying Mainstream Media did that simple analysis--cuz if they had, everyone would instantly know the fix was in.  And since LOTS of working-class Americans lost money when FTX went under, that might cost the Dems a few tens of thousands of votes in 2024, eh?

Oooohhh, can't have that, eh?

Now: How does it happen that after prosecutors stated--in writing, so they can't later claim they never said it--that they wanted bail set at a quarter of a BILLION, and the judge agreed, and yet SBF's supporters only pledged a max of $3 million--how does he walk free, eh?

If you were accused of massive fraud, and the judge set your bail at, say, a million bucks, could you walk free after pledging one percent of the required sum?

I'll let y'all ponder that one for a minute.

The entire New Yorker article is an effort to explain why SBF and his parents will get virtually no punishment for their huge fraud.  And you may well wonder why the New Yorker would do that, since he defrauded so many ordinary Americans.

The answer is simple: SBF gave $40 million to the Dem party before the 2020 election.  So the liberals at the New Yorker have to show that this po', unfortunate (!) young man was NOT corrupt, but like, totally altruistic (a repeated theme in the story).  "His heart was in the right place, he just was too naive and trusting!"  Yeh, dat's duh ticket!

Bottom line: If you support the right party, and claim to be totally altruistic, and your parents are liberal Democrats who "teach law" at an elite university, push social justice, ethics and altruism, you can get away with absolutely anything.

Source: New Yorker magazine
 
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newyorker.com%2Fmagazine%2F2023%2F10%2F02%2Finside-sam-bankman-frieds-family-bubble

Great WSJ piece on real estate collapse in San Francisco--never mentions rampant crime or open drug use

The thousand or so comments are priceless!  The same moronic Dem shill posts 20 times, bleating "You're all crazy Trump cultists!  Everything is fine here!"  But the truth is, we've just begun to see the ripples--what the Brits call the "knock-on effects" of the initial collapse--play out.

One of the un-spinnable data points in the WSJ piece is that ridership in BART is down over 60% from 2019.  Assuming that same figure applies to drivers too, roughly 40% of the former downtown workforce isn't coming to the city every weekday.  So what do you think that does to the city's tax revenue?
 
Of course restaurants and retail are only a fraction of the city's tax revenue, but have nevertheless cut the city's tax take by roughly 20% so far.  And if the city's budget was balanced before, now they're a billion dollars in the red.  (Many analysts have noted the same figure.)

A competent city would have already axed spending on fluff (like hiring die-versity "consultants") and other unnecessary crap to reduce the bleeding.  But of course the totally corrupt, always-Democrat-ruled city government has done no such thing.  They haven't cut outlays a bit, despite losing roughly 20% of their tax revenue.  In fact they've proposed such insane waste as paying trannies $2,000 per month because...reasons.  It's literally insane.

What do continuous deficits mean for the city?  C'mon, stupid Democrats, think hard!

But of course the Dems won't think it through.  They refuse to recognize reality, because if they did it would be harder to blame anyone or anything else for the disaster that has only just started.  They foolishly think that with covid a distant memory, happy days are here again.  They don't realize the worst is still to come.

Democrat:  "Dat not true!  Covid beez over!  Ev'ryt'ing FINE now!  All back to normal!  You go now!" 

Really?  See, as rational adults know, duh money to run the city (like any level of govt) has to come from somewhere, right?  If the city rulers are spending more than they take in, where will they get the difference between those two HARD numbers, eh?

Simple: Just like "your" fedrul gruberment:  rather than reducing spending, they'll borrow it.  And they'll always find a sharpie willing to lend to 'em--first at only a percent or two above normal rates, but later at ten or 12%.

Borrow a billion dollars a year at ten percent and the interest cost is...?  C'mon, Democrats, you say you're reel smaht, so you should be able to do that without a calculator.

Typical Dem:  "Uh...my calculator says that would be a million dollars a year.  Dat not much, so we kin afford to pay that!"

Nice try, sparky.  You're only off by a factor of 100.  The actual interest on a BILLION-dollar loan at ten percent is obviously one-hundred-MILLION dollars a year.  Just in interest.

But corrupt morons like the city's black female hypocrite mayor, London Breed, don't get it, and never will.  Same for the board of supervisors (like a city council but more corrupt).  So the city will never reduce spending.

So after it becomes obvious to anyone who can read a balance sheet that the city will never cut spending to balance its budget to match its reduced income, what do ya think the city will do, eh?

Sure:  They'll demand that the federal government bail them out.  And if the Dems own the White House, that's a sure bet since a corruptocrat like Porridgebrain will do it by executive order.  Even if the Dems aren't in control, corrupt RINOs (like the corrupt California rep Kevin McCarthy) will ensure the city will get whatever billions it demands from taxpayers in flyover states.

But even if, by some miracle, congress balks (since the fedrul gruberment debt is now $33 TRILLION), San Francisco's Dem rulers still have ways to continue to continue to spend as much as they like, by borrowing money from banks.  But since private lenders can easily see that the city will never be able to repay such huge loans, lenders will eventually start requiring the city to pledge city assets, like parks, as collateral for new loans.

Rational adults would think the city's citizens would scream bloody murder at that.  But the residents of San Francisco are virtually all Democrats, and the Democrats who've ruled the city for 70 years have long-since become very skilled at using their Media allies to spin anything they want to do--regardless of how corrupt or dumb--as totally faaaaabulous.  So they'll spin it as "We have to do this cuz if we don't, we'll have to cut the number of firefighters and cops."

In every city it's always the same:  "Vote yes on our tax increase or we'll HAVE TO cut firefighters and cops!"

So voters will allow the city to pledge city assets to keep from having to cut stupid outlays demanded by corrupt Democrats--like paying trannies for being tranny.

Of course liberals don't believe any of this--which doesn't bother me a bit.  They're like kids playing with lethal drugs, or a loaded gun:  Rational adults know the risk, and warn the kids, but of course it doesn't do any good, cuz kids almost never listen to adults.  Kid gets killed, and Democrats are like "Who could possibly have predicted that, eh?  

So totally, utterly, easily predictable--unless you're a Democrat or "progressive," in which case the bleat is that no one could possibly have predicted it.

You may hate math, but math doesn't care.  It's a measure of reality, and if you reject it--whether because you don't believe it, or don't like what it predicts--you just automatically signed up for the consequences.

It's a real tragedy that there are so many 40-year-old reality-deniers--so child-like in their ignorance and fantasy--in positions of power.  When any of their faaabulous ideas produces horrible results they blame Trump, or "global warming," or deplorable conservatives, or...anything but their policies.

Source.

https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/commercial/watching-the-real-estate-bust-from-the-streets-of-san-francisco-9708bb91?mod=djemalertNEWS

ABC and WaPo pay for a poll--and initially bury the "totally unexpected" result way down in it

Well well well...The leftist, pro-Democrat, Trump-hating rag The Washington Post joined hands with the leftist, Disney-owned, pro-Democrat, Trump-hating network ABC to do an opinion poll.

ABC wrote up the results a few days ago, with the headline "Biden expected to coast to victory in 2024 as economy is forecast to boom!"

Just kidding--it wasn't *quite* that fawning, but close.  But then a few people actually bothered to *read* the whole ABC piece.  And after 17 'grafs of "Race shows biden slightly ahead," way down in the 18th 'graf readers found that the poll actually showed something no one expected--least of all the WaPo and ABC:

Americans said they preferred Trump over biden by...wait, this can't be right!  I mean, we were prepared for 49-48 Trump, but the buried result says...wait for it...Trump by 51-42 ??

A NINE-point lead??

ABC and the Post couldn't believe it either, so ABC spent over half the article explaining why this result was absolutely meaningless.  Seriously.

The poll found that 44% percent of those surveyed said they were in worse shape financially than when Trump was in office.  That's the highest percentage for any president in these polls in 37 years. But ABC was convinced the people saying this didn't really understand their own finances, but were just complaining.

Just 37% of those polled approved of biden's job performance, while 56% disapproved.  And just 30% approved of Biden's performance on the economy.  But of course that's surely because people always complain that they're underpaid, eh?

From what you're allowed to see in the Mainstream Media, you'd think most Americans approve of biden/garland's handling of what ABC and the WaPo coyly call "immigration"--the massive invasion that's seen 5 million illegals from 100 different countries cross the U.S.-Mexico border since Joe was installed.  (Sounds so much better to call it "immigration" instead of what it is, eh?)  But only 23% approve of biden/garland's handling of that.

Despite all those negatives, 20% of those polled strongly approve of biden's overall job performance, while 45% strongly disapprove.

74% say he's too old for a second term--up 6 percentage points since May.  But ABC quickly reassures Democrats that half of poll respondents said that Trump is also too old to run.  Based on Trump's far greater energy and mental sharpness compared to Porridge, most people thought Trump was at least ten years younger than Joe, but he's not.  So see?  The age issue isn't really a problem!

ABC's propagandists hastened to tell readers that when Trump left office, only 38% of Americans said they approved of his performance--essentially tied with biden's 37% approval rating today.  So, see?  Trump still beez hugely unpopular wif' duh American pipo!

But amusingly, when the poll asked people now how they thought Trump had done as president, 48% said they approved of Trump's performance.  Gee, can't imagine what changed their minds!

ABC makes sure to tell readers that "most Americans continue to reject [Trump's] assertion that the 2020 election was stolen from him. Sixty percent of Americans instead say Biden legitimately won.

I'm pretty sure that's bullshit.  The polls I've seen found that over half of all Americans--and even a third of Democrats!--said the election was stolen.  No one can be sure.

ABC hastens to tell us that it's way too early to attach any significance to these results.  Just WAY too early, citizen!  So much can happen before election day, eh?  The economy could boom even more than it's booming today!  At least the Media claim it's booming.  And if you work in government or for BlackRock or JPMorgan Chase or Meta it's booming, eh?

Yeah.  Meanwhile, back in real-world ABC says "a remarkable 62% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say the party should nominate someone other than Biden" for 2024; just a third support Biden. Desire for a different candidate is at a numerical high, but also consistent with past results (56 to 58%) over the past year.

Wait..."consistent with past results over the past year"?  The phrase "consistent with" leads the casual reader to believe that only a third of Dems and leaning independents supporting the incumbent is totally normal.  But what they really mean is that this figure has stayed constant for biden for a year, suggesting it's pretty accurate.

But who do Dems like if not Biden?  ABC assures us that there's plenty of support for other Dems:  8% prefer Kamala Harris, 8% prefer Bernie Sanders and 7% prefer Robert F. Kennedy Jr.  20% said "Anyone but biden."  Hmmm....  But dis' *totally normal,* citizen.

Finally, after 17 paragraphs of head fakes, rationalizations and assurances that it's way too early to be concerned about what a silly poll says, we get to the news ABC originally carefully buried deep in the piece before being blasted by readers:  In a head-to-head matchup Americans preferred Trump 51-42.

ABC then quickly assures readers that compared to the same poll in February, even though Trump is up 3 points while biden is down 2 points, "these shifts are not statistically significant."  And of course in February they assured you that the 48-44 Trump lead was similarly "not statistically significant."

If Trump goes up another 3 points, and biden down another 2, they'll say the same thing: "These shifts are not statistically significant."  But at that point Trump would be leading 54-40, which has usually been considered a landslide.  But as long as you only focus on the *changes* from a few months ago, indeed the *changes* are less than the "margin of error."

If you think I'm being too harsh, consider this quote from the ABC piece:

There's even less change from the most recent ABC/Post poll in May, which had the race at 49-42%. 

Totally reassuring, eh--because they're telling you to just look at the *changes,* which are indeed small.  But the lead is now up to nine percentage points.

ABC then goes to work to convince readers that "A variety of factors" may be causing this totally unexpected result.  ABC claims "economic discontent, the immigration crisis and doubts about his age" "have been the subject of extensive recent news coverage, focusing public discourse on negatives for the president.

Really?  I follow economic news *very* closely, and the jobs reports for the past six months have been grim, sometimes less than half of what "experts" forecast.  But that news *never* makes it into the Mainstream Media.  One reason is that the initial report isn't too bad--but then a month later it's "revised," always sharply downward.

biden's age?  Every single story I've seen in the Mainstream Media immediately follows with "Trump is almost the same age."  Hard to see how that's hurting biden.  What's clobbering biden is that the when he freezes up mid-sentence, or praises the "black caucus" when speaking to the Hispanic Caucus, people post those vids on the internet.  You never see 'em on the Mainstream Media.

Oh, the Media are totally aware of those hundreds of clips, but just ignore 'em, since most people get their news from...ABC and friends, so never see the clips.

Here's another lie from ABC:

"Trump, meanwhile, enjoys positive coverage of his GOP front-runner status."

"Positive coverage"?  Cite one example.  There is NO positive coverage of Trump in the Mainstream Media AT ALL.  He's climbed to the 51-42 lead without ANY fawning or coverup from the Media.

Finally we get this "way down the page" admission from the pollster:

>>"Question order can be a factor.  As is customary at this still-early stage of an election cycle, this survey asked first about Biden's and Trump's performance, economic sentiment...and a handful of other issues ([like] abortion and a government shutdown) before candidate preferences.  That's because these questions are more germane than candidate support in an election so far off. Since many results are negative toward Biden, it follows that he's lagging in 2024 support.

That's seductive but misleading: It's been well proven that the *order in which questions are asked* has a huge impact on the choice of candidates.  For example, if a poll asked about the border situation, drug deaths, child sex trafficking and whether schools should be able to talk kids into changing sex while keeping that info from parents, who do ya think would get more support for president?

By contrast, if a polls asks whether Roe v. Wade should be a federal law again; whether global warming is a serious problem that will kill people if not halted; whether it's fair that the wealthy often pay a smaller percentage of their income in federal tax than secretaries; whether the U.S. should have tougher gun laws, and whether the U.S. should have free medical care for all, who do ya think would get more support for president?

SO...honest polls are supposed to ask all "prep questions" in totally random order, to prevent this type of bias.  I have no idea whether they did that, but because the polling outfit wants to keep their lucrative contract with the Post and ABC, it wouldn't be unusual for them to "accidentally" forget to randomize the prep questions, producing a better result for...um...who knows, eh?  Cuz the Post and ABC are SO honest and unbiased, eh?

Hey, we're just scratching the surface on the excuses for the nine point Trump lead!  Here's another:

Another possible factor is message-sending.  [Asking who the voter prefers] 14 months before an election *predicts nothing;* it's [merely] an opportunity for the public to express its like or dislike of the candidates.... [Regardless of who they end up voting for in 2024,] "a substantial number of Americans today are taking the opportunity to express their displeasure."

See, citizen?  Deez results predict NOTHING!  Duh pipo we polled are merely "taking the opportunity to express their displeasure."  Sure.  So when you ask one of the 1,006 people polled who they want for president, they really want biden, but to express their displeasure they cunningly say the other guy!

Yeh, dat's it!  Happens all duh time!  Want an example?  Here ya go:

In one example of message-sending, among people who say Trump should be prohibited by the U.S. Constitution from serving again as president, 18% also support him over Biden for 2024. Such people seem to be expressing their antipathy toward Biden, not their support for Trump.

Notice how deftly the pollster (who wrote the article for ABC) slipped in "people who say Trump should be prohibited *by the Constitution* from serving again as president." Nice work!  No propaganda there, eh?  And of course this bit of propaganda is in virtually every Mainstream Media article about Trump.

One honest correlation the pollster cites is that respondents who say they voted in 2020 voted 50-46 for biden, very close to the *official* result, claimed to be 51-47%.  But the poll included people who didn't vote, and even those who aren't currently registered to vote.

This is yet another explanation for why ABC is comfortable claiming the nine point lead found by the survey is meaningless, because people who didn't vote in the last presidential election are less likely to vote in 2024.

But when all *registered voters* are considered, Trump's lead increases by one more point, 52-42.  Hmmm...

The article does note that among Hispanics, Trump leads biden 50-44, though with a small sample so a larger margin of error.

But here's a hoot:

Among 18- to 35-year-olds Trump has a slight 53-38% advantage (marginally significant at this sample size).  Still, that essentially matches what it was in May, and Trump also was numerically ahead in this group (albeit not significantly) by 50-43% in February.

WHOA!  The author claims a lead of 53-38 for Trump among young people is only *"marginally significant"?*  And it matches the May result, and slightly better for Trump than the 50-43 result in February.  The consistency of Trump's lead suggests it's not a polling error.  But more significant, this suggests many in this age group may well vote GOP for decades.  Interesting!  And that's buried in the 38th 'graf.

biden's consistent policies denigrating White males (see how jarring the upper-case W is?  Yet the capitalization of Black is part of the New York Times and AP style books) and appointing totally unqualified people like Harris, energy secretary Jennifer Granholm, Interior secretary Deb Haaland, and Supreme Court "justice" Kattanji Brown-Jackson to powerful posts have produced the result one could have predicted:  Trump leads 61-34 among all white males.

Among non-college-educated white men Trump's support is even higher: 79-20.

Among people who voted for Trump in 2020, 96% still support him.  88% of those who voted for biden in 2020 still support him, but 7% of those who voted for the Big Guy say they now support Trump.  That's huge.
 
Among people who say they did not vote in 2020, Trump leads 57-32, which is up from 52-31 in May.

The poll found that 62% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents oppose Biden being the party's nominee, and 16% say they'd vote for Trump over Biden.

Of course we're over a year away from the election, and everything could turn in biden's favor:  Ukraine could defeat Russia.  Interest rates could fall!  The cost of gasoline, electricity and heating oil could go back to pre-biden levels!  Microsoft could release Windoze-12!  The price of oil could fall back from $90 to $70 per barrel!

One thing you can count on:  Even if none of those things happen (care to bet?), almost every poll will show the race getting tighter as next July approaches.  In the highly unlikely event the Dem party nominates Porridgebrain again, the week before the election many polls will show the race virtually tied.

That will be utter propaganda, of course, designed to motivate Democrat voters to do whatever it takes to win.  (You'd think conservatives would be similarly motivated, but our side doesn't do election fraud, cuz of those silly things called "laws," which were once considered pretty important.

By contrast, if my predicted scenario from a couple of weeks ago is correct, and the Dems kick out BOTH biden and Harris, to install Newsom and a young black female VP (AOC?  Ayana Presley?  Stacy Abrams?  Just kidding about the last two), OR if the Dems succeed in keeping Trump off the ballot, they have a better than even chance of winning.

Newsome has to promise to nominate a black female to avoid losing the black vote.

[If you click this link to read the ABC article, keep in mind it's a huge re-write after they got blasted for burying the result in the 18th 'graf!]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=103436611

Man released without bail after being caught with 450,000 doses of fentanyl. Then, astonishingly...

On August 31 in the Democrat shit-hole of Pittsburgh a latino thug named Yan Carlos Pichardo Cepeda was busted carrying enough fentanyl to kill hundreds of thousands of people.

We'll get back to his story in a second.  First I need to tell you about a so-called "magistrate judge" named Xander Orenstein.

"Magistrate judge" is an elected position, and there are no requirements at ALL to hold that office.  So Orenstein--who has no formal legal background AT ALL--ran on a promise of "reflective and compassionate justice."  And because 80% of Pittsburgh residents are Democrats, he was elected to a six-year term.

So back to drug-mule Cepeda:  The day after he was arrested, wokie liberal Orenstein ordered that he be released without requiring him to post any bail, merely having him promise to appear on Sept. 19 for a hearing.

Cuz if a drug-smuggler promises to show up in court, wokiez jus' KNOW he'll show up, eh?

So let's review:  no bail, despite being caught with enough fentanyl to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans, eh?  So can anyone predict what happened on Sept 19?

Well, rational people can.  Wokiez totally lack that ability.

Sure: the perp--a resident of New York City, but not from the U.S.--didn't appear in court.

Of course Democrats were totally unable to predict this, being terminally dumb.  Or as they call it, "woke."

But wait, it gets worse!

Reporter for a local station called Orenstein’s office to get his reaction.  His staff told her Orenstein would be out of the office all week.  (No surprise.)  But she tracked him down and asked what the hell he was thinking in ordering the smuggler's release with no bail.

He replied, “Court administration has either issued or will be issuing a statement soon regarding that, and I’m going to let that speak for itself.”  Typical liberal Democrat bullshit.

The "court administration" hasn't issued any statement yet--and likely won't, since there is NO way to sugar-coat this typical, dumb, "wokie" liberal action of releasing the drug mule without any bond at all.

Reporter asked Orenstein if he regretted ordering the drug mule to be released without bail.  To which the woke fuckhead replied, “I don’t make comments about judicial decisions.  Thank you.”

The DA--also a wokie--shrugged off the guy's failure to appear after being released without bail.

“I don’t think we’re going to ever find this guy, but the up-side is we got 10 kilos off the street. Nine kilos of fentanyl and another kilo of cocaine.
     After all, what's the harm in having one more drug mule on the loose, eh?  If we'd jailed him there'd be another dozen eager to replace him on this route, eh?  I mean, it's really the fault of citizens for buying drugs, right?  If no one bought 'em there wouldn't be a drug problem.
     It's just like if no one owned cars there wouldn't be any carjacking, eh?  It's so obvious!  It's like if we supported our dear leaders' push to take guns away from civilians, there wouldn't be any gun crime!  I can't believe I'm having to explain this to you!"

I suspect "AI" is now active on the internet and translated the wokie's word-salad into the last two 'grafs above.  What the DA probably literally said was "We beez really keepin' duh residents safe, and we believe everyone is equal under the law.  Well, except drug dealers and politicians' sons, who obviously are entitled to 'restorative justice'--whatever you think that is." 

Source. 

https://news.yahoo.com/man-charged-transporting-more-1-213901903.html

Democrat U.S. senator and his wife indicted on bribery charges

Today federal prosecutors indicted Democrat senator Robert Menendez (New Jersey), charging him with taking bribes, including solid gold bars and over half a million dollars in cash.  The bribers were also paying his wife $10,000 per month for a no-work job. (You DID hear about this indictment, right?) 

Until today Menendez was chairman of the powerful senate Foreign Relations Committee.  After the indictment was announced, he resigned that position, but not his senate seat.

Many conservatives viewed the Menendez indictment as an attempt to distract voters from...something.  No one could recall what that something was, because there had been almost no mention of the something in the Mainstream Media, but many Americans felt this whole situation sounded oddly familiar.

A few Democrats called on Mr. Menendez to resign, but Menendez dismissed the calls, saying “I’m not going anywhere.”  He said he was confident the matter would be “successfully resolved once all of the facts are presented.”

The feds also indicted the senator's wife, who was the go-between conveying the bribes.  See, Menendez was far too smart to personally take bribes.

In June of last year investigators searched Menendez's home and found $100,000 worth of gold bars and over half a million dollars in cash "stuffed into envelopes and hidden in clothing, closets and a safe."  Some of the cash-filled envelopes contained the fingerprints and DNA of the people bribing Menendez.

Investigators also found a brand new Mercedes convertible, which had been given to Menendez by a man who had two "associates" facing unspecified state charges.  The indictment says Menendez pressured a senior prosecutor to go easy in the case of the two associates.

(The New York Times article was totally vague about who the men were or what charges they faced, which is usually a sign of the fix being in, though the indictment says the senior prosecutor didn't "agree to intervene."  But how could that be verified without taking dozens of hours to comb thru the trial transcript?)

Now the sense of deja vu was becoming stronger:  Some Americans dimly recalled that some time ago a foreign agent give a brand-new $130,000 Porsche to a relative of a powerful politician, but since the Mainstream Media barely mentioned it, no one could remember who the politician was.

It was like the wealthy foreign agent was tryin' to bribe 'em.  SO odd that this Menendez thing sounds so familiar.  If only the Media had said more about the earlier case, maybe we could recall, eh?  Oh well, must not be very important or the media would say something like "The case is much like...."

The indictment says Menedez accepted over half a million dollars in cash, and another $100,000 in gold, in exchange for using his influence as a senator to benefit a foreign nation--in this case the Arab Republic of Egypt.  

Wow, powerful politician taking bribes to benefit a foreign nation--that is sounding SO oddly familiar somehow!

Unnamed Democrats defended the senator, saying lots of people keep hundreds of thousands of dollars of cash at home because they don't like to use credit cards.  And the gold bar could have been a birthday gift from the senator to his elegant wife.  They said that since none of the cash was found in envelopes saying "To senator Menendez, from your friends, for bribe," there was no proof of any wrongdoing.  

Others said it would have been perfectly legal for Egypt to have given gifts to the senator's wife.  However, a few haters like Jonathan Turley said the law doesn't permit that.  But Democrats say if Menendez didn't know that law, the government can't charge him for breaking it.

(We checked, and U.S. law on bribery of public officials explicitly states that the bribe does not have to be given directly to the politician for the crime to have occurred; being given to a family member is enough to trigger charges.)

Okay, seriously:  The charges against Menendez so closely parallel the case against biden as to defy coincidence.  But in the Menendez case we're looking at bribes totalling less than a million dollars, whereas the known wire transfers to Hunty biden's shell companies are closing in on $40 million, not including that new $130,000 Porsche.

If Menendez insists on his innocence and demands a trial, it's going to be virtually impossible to prevent Americans from seeing that biden has done exactly the same thing--which will presumably cost the Dems a few votes next year.

So here's what's going to happen:  biden's handlers have to keep this from going to trial at all costs.  So Merrick Garland's prosecutors will offer Menendez a plea deal that's so sweet he can't refuse.  That "deal" will be much like the incredibly generous one garland's lackeys offered Hunty biden: no fine, no prison time, just promise not to do it again, and maybe five years probation (to show how serious the feds regarded his crime).  They won't even demand that he resign from the senate.

But unlike the Hunty biden case, in this case voters will never learn the terms of the plea deal because the judge will "seal" them, claiming that Menendez's position as chairman of the powerful senate committee means he had access to Top Secret information, and they'll imply that this has something to do with not revealing the terms of the plea deal.

Of course that will be utter horseshit, but every Dem voter will believe it, and only a few thousand conservative voters will ever hear about it--and no one listens to them anyway, eh?  And they weren't voting for biden anyway.

Ace (of "Ace of Spades") thinks the Democrats (not the DOJ) will pressure him to resign his seat so that the Democrat governor of New Jersey can replace him--with another Democrat.  That's possible, but I don't think he'd agree.  After all, just eight years ago he was indicted for taking a million dollars in bribes.  That case went to trial in 2017, but despite solid evidence the trial ended in a hung jury.  Later a judge dismissed several charges, and the "DOJ" dismissed all the rest.  

A DO"J" spokeslackey gave no meaningful rationale for dismissing the remaining charges, merely word-salad.  Interesting.

Menendez has been re-elected since then, so he's confident that a quiet, no-penalty guilty plea in this case ("I only pled guilty to put the matter to rest without forcing the expense of a costly trial") will convince voters he was really innocent, and his senate career can continue for 20 more years.

But in any case, the Democrat Party will ensure that the case never goes to trial.  If they had to PAY Menendez to plead guilty and take the plea deal, it would be worth it to 'em.  They can't let this case go to trial--because it's virtually identical to the case against Porridgebrain.

Source.

For how a Leftist Dem-loving rag sees this case, click here.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/22/nyregion/robert-menendez-indicted.html

Virtue-signaling Dems bleated "You MUST let anyone in the world in." Now: "Uh...wait...

Wokie snowflakes are masters of "virtue signaling," where the snowflake says something he or she knows is approved by The Party, regardless of its absurdity or falsity, like..."Trans women ARE women."  Outrageously false on its face, but all the other snowflakes nod and applaud.

Well...As long as illegals were 2,000 miles from the northeastern cities, being a problem for Texas, Arizona and Florida, Democrat governors and mayors were eager to declare their states and cities "sanctuary states" or cities, welcoming any illegals.  

That lasted until the governors of Texas, Arizona and Florida got smart and starting busing thousands of illegals (but still far less than ten percent of the number being welcomed in by the biden/garland regime) to NYC, DC and Chitcongo.  And it turns out...the Democrat pols who were SO eager to signal their faaaaabulous virtue to everyone are finding out that a) the cost of housing and feeding the illegals--something that never even crossed their dim minds when the illegals were on the southern border--is WAY more than they thought.

The Dem pols are also finding that their own citizens (voters!) are not nearly as thrilled as the pols imagined.  See, the pols never asked even one of their voters what the voter thought about paying to house and feed thousands of illegals--cuz duh pols didn't care.  Hey, wudn't their money, eh?  All paid by duh taxpayers, eh?  An' when duh taxpayers saw cost quickly running into the tens of MILLIONS of dollars they began to growl--which caught duh Dem pols by surprise since...wait for it...the pols had never asked even ONE voter for his or her opinion.

Amazing how out of touch Dem pols are with the people they claim to support, eh?

And here's the hoot:  Now that the invaders are in your city and state, you can't get rid of 'em without demonstrating to everyone with a functioning brain that you're all hypocrites.  Poseurs.

Of course for Democrats, being revealed as a total hypocrite doesn't actually hurt a pols career, since Dem voters a) don't notice, and b) they expect that from ALL pols. 

Thanks, Democrats!  Thanks, Porridgebrain!

Governor of Texas declares border "in a state of invasion"; says he'll defend w/ Texas troops

Finally.

After putting up with Porridgebrain's insane, illegal "open-border" policy for over two years, on Wednesday evening Texas governor Greg Abbott announced on "X" (Twitter) that he was officially declaring a "state of invasion"--that his state was being invaded by millions of aliens illegally crossing the totally open southern border.

Last November Abbott wrote Porridge laying out the Constitutional authority for him taking border defense into Texas' hands if biden insisted on continuing to refuse to defend the nation's borders, as the Constitution demands. The letter cited Article 4, section 4 of the U.S. Constitution--which the rat-bastard Democrats have been working hard to claim is NO LONGER the "supreme law of the land.  

The letter claimed the biden/harris/garland regime's open-border policy violates the clear language of that document.  Abbott wrote: "The federal government's failure has forced me to invoke Article I, § 10, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, thereby enabling the State of Texas to protect its own territory against invasion by the Mexican drug cartels."

Porridgebrain has repeatedly ignored that demand, so Abbott now says that because of bidens complete, utter, total failure to defend his state from the invasion, Texas will now begin repelling the invasion with its own troops.

He says since Biden has repeatedly refused to do what the Constitution says he must do, the governor is sending Texas troops to the border, and that they'll be building a wall, deploying razor wire and floating river barriers to protect his state from the Mexican drug cartels

If you're under 25 or so you might not see the importance of this.  What this sets up is a Constitutional fight between--not Texas and the cartels, but between Texas and the fedrul [sic] gruberment.

Let me explain:  It's absolutely certain that biden and garland will never back down, because they're totally convinced that they have the power to make everyone and every state submit to them, no matter how outrageous and unlawful their commands.  And normally the supreme court would agree because of a thing called the "supremacy clause."

But in this case the Constitution clearly says what any citizen can read for himself--meaning that for the SC to support biden's and garland's inevitable order, the court will have to say the Constitution doesn't mean what it clearly says.  And the court may very well do that, since John Roberts ruled that Obamacare's ORDER forcing all Americans to buy health insurance or pay a penalty was a "tax," despite the fact the Obozo's own attorneys claimed it was NOT a tax!

(That, of course, was utterly absurd on its face.  The Constitution clearly says "all taxes shall be apportioned equally" on citizens.  But the penalty for failing to buy the newly-ORDERED insurance was clearly just that: a penalty, not a tax.  Roberts is corrupt.  We know why, too.  So he may well drive the court to agree that the Constitution allows the biden/garland regime to open the borders to everyone in the world, as long as they claim a) everyone is a "refugee," and b) that they'll eventually get a court hearing to decide the case of each illegal--even if 20 years from now.)

SO...here's what I predict:  since biden is probably the dumbest son of a bitch to ever be installed as "president," even before senility set in, he'll huddle with his corrupt lackey garland and ORDER Texas not to do any of the things Abbott announced, under penalty of a $10,000-per-day fine.  That order will also say that if Abbott does any of those things for longer than some arbitrary bullshit number of days--like ten or 15--after the regime issues its order, the fine will jump up to $100,000 per day.

biden's and garland's expectation is that after a few million dollars in fines pile up, the citizens of Texas will force Abbott to back down--which may well happen, since Abbott has shown himself to be a RINO several times before.  So his Wednesday night announcement could just be theater.

Thing is, unless Abbott caves, this will go to the Supreme Court.  And regardless of how the court rules, Democrats won't look good to all but the most rabidly partisan Democrat voters: Either the regime has to claim before the supreme court that the Constitution doesn't mean what it clearly and obviously says--which will open lots of eyes--or garland and Porridge will be seen as preventing a state from defending its borders after they regime refused to do so.

(Of course the wokie snowflakes--which is most Democrats--will absolutely swoon over Porridge "protecting doze po' refugees."  But those snowflakes would continue to vote Dem even if a search found gold bars wrapped up in ribbons with gift cards from the Chinese government hidden in biden's house.)

There's one other possibility, which I normally wouldn't mention because it would normally be so unlikely.  But to put it bluntly, biden and his handlers are so crazy that the calculus has changed radically, making the insane decision less remote:

Porridgebrain's Secretary of Defense (Lloyd Austin) is a servile lacky who would obey any order, regardless of whether unconstitutional or illegal.  And thanks to Obozo only promoting wokie generals, the top generals today will do whatever biden and the SecDef order, since otherwise you get fired.  So the insane scenario is that biden would order the U.S. military to the border with orders to arrest any members of the Texas National Guard that don't leave.

Seems totally implausible, eh?  Yeah, well... anyone remember when biden absolutely assured Americans that he wasn't even thinking about ordering every citizen to take the covid jab--and then a few weeks later he did just that?  Yeah.  So I don't rule anything out.

And of course the NY Times, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC and every Mainstream Media outlet would absolutely cream themselves over that "bold, brilliant move" by Porridgebrain to "protect doze po' 'refugees'."

Count on it.

Below is Abbott's letter to Porridgebrain last November.  Clicking should enlarge it:

Source. 

https://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=406262

Escaped mental patient found wandering around the U.S. Capitol building

Wait, that's not an escaped mental patient.  That's John Fetterman, a Democrat U.S. senator from Pennsylvania.

Okay, seriously:  a few days ago the corrupt Democrat who rules the senate, Chuckie Schumer, abolished the senate's long-honored "dress code" SPECIFICALLY to allow the clearly brain-damaged Fetterman to appear on the senate floor in shorts and a hoodie.  Now Schumer has gone one step deeper, allowing Fetterman to preside over the senate in the outfit shown above.

Now let me show you why this is significant: 

Democrats bleat that because lots of Americans are wackos, those people have every right to join in governing the rest of us, just like Hahvahd graduates.  Fair enough--and the dumb Democrat residents of Pennsylvania apparently did elect him.  But the problem is, the cunning Democrat rulers keep waiving rules to cater to wackos.

Example: the biden/harris/Garland regime has ORDERED public schools to allow wacko trannies to use whatever bathrooms and locker rooms they want--penalizing normal kids in order to cater to the mentally ill.  Similarly, Democrats have wailed that it's just TOTALLY UNFAIR to require people to prove their identity by showing a photo ID before voting.  The "unfair" comes from the Democrat *claim* that it's "just too hard" for some people to get a FREE photo ID.  So the Dems have thrown the door wide open to election fraud by DEMANDING that we all cater to people they claim are somehow unable to get a photo ID.

Similarly, U.S. immigration law says you can only enter the U.S. under certain conditions.  But all Democrat regimes--and in particular the biden/harris/Garland disaster--have said "We don't want to follow that law, cuz IT JUS' NOT FAIR to deez po' pipo!"  And the Dems get away with it.

Short answer: Democrats wail that we simply MUST change every rule to cater to every group the Democrats think will vote for 'em--including crazies and brain-damaged people.  It's a policy that's supported by the 40% of American voters who are Democrats.  So where does it end?

Doesn't.  If you've ever wondered how the Roman emperor Caligula was able to appoint his horse to the Roman senate, now you know.

13-year-old car thief fatally shoots 23-year-old woman who tracked him down

In the Peoples' Republic of New Mexico, a lawless chickenshit 13-year-old thief stole a young 23-year-old woman's car.

The car had an anti-theft GPS tracking system, so the woman was able to track the car from her phone.  She called Albuquerque cops a DOZEN damn times, reporting the car stolen and giving the person working the phone the exact damn location, including whether the engine was running each time.

The clue there is that if the engine was off for an extended time, that's where the chickenshit 13-year-old thief lived or was staying.

Despite having the exact location a DOZEN TIMES, the cops couldn't be bothered to go to the location she gave the phone handler to recover her car--and hopefully to also arrest the thief.  The woman never even was connected to a cop, but was blown off by the corrupt call handler (not a cop, but paid to get info to 'em).

Understandably frustrated by the TOTAL lack of response from the Albuquerque cops, the victim borrowed another car, drove to the location and quickly spotted her car and the chickenshit thief.  She approached the car saying, in effect, "Get out of my damn car you worthless piece of shit."

Whereupon the thief, 13-year-old Marcos Barela, shot her dead.

Now: because New Mexico is a liberal state, totally ruled by Democrats, the murderer won't be treated harshly for killing the unarmed 23-year-old.  Instead he'll be treated gently, coddled, hugged, as if HE is the real victim.  He'll get a year or two in "juvie"--basically a non-punishing camp for young thugs, with good food, color TV and video-game consoles.  And at age 18 he'll be released to resume his criminal career.

This is where we're at in all Dem-ruled states (and some Repub-governed ones) today.   Every single day, minority teens fatally shoot unarmed victims, because there's no effective punishment--and the teen thugs all know that.  Marcos Barela knew that if he shot the victim there was a chance he'd get away--but if he didn't, he'd be facing a penalty no worse than for stealing the woman's car, because he was protected by his age.

This is absolutely guaranteed to get worse.  When there's no significant punishment for murder, you get more of it, because teen thugs know killing results in insignificant punishment.

Worse yet, the corrupt courts won't allow a single picture of this killer to be released, so we won't be able to identify him in future crimes.  And his juvenile record will be sealed, so future prosecutions won't be able to tell the jury about him murdering an unarmed woman in 2023.  Protect doze po' li'l tykes, right?  It not dere fault!  Dey jus' doin' it to feed dere fambleys, eh?

At least that's the horse-shit story pushed by the Mainstream Media to protect Democrats.

Source.

https://www.koat.com/article/sydney-wilson-stolen-vehicle-killed-albuquerque-police/45110633#

18 FBI agents, 20 DHS agents and lots of paid informants were inciting pawns on Jan6

Former Capitol Hill Police Chief Steven Sund testified before a House committee *today,* saying that in addition to a vast number of paid informants, the FBI had at least 18 actual undercover FBI agents in the crowd, plus an estimated 20 from the Department of Homeland Security.

Significantly, the Democrats running the so-called J6 "investigation" in the senate declined to have Sund testify.  They've now destroyed all the records of their interviews, so no one can prove any lies told by their witnesses.  Would an honest, transparent government "investigating group" destroy their records?  Of course not.  Doing so proved that circus was a farce--a shit-show.

A former assistant director of the FBI has told congress that the agency had so many paid informants--run by different FBI field offices--at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, that they actually lost track of the number.  To try to determine exactly how many, the agency later "performed an audit."  Results haven't been released by the corrupt director of the agency or any of his lackeys.

Steven D’Antuono was in charge of the FBI's Washington field office.  (He's not the former assistant director noted above.  The DC field office is totally separate from FBI headquarters.)

D’Antuono has testified behind closed doors to the House Judiciary Committee that his office was aware before the riot that some of their informants would attend a rally on Jan 6, and  only later learned that informants run by other field offices also were present.

The Washington field office had to ask FBI headquarters “to do a poll or put out something to people saying w[ere] any CHSs involved,” he said, so they could get a handle on the scale of the FBI’s spying operations at the Capitol that day.

“We started getting responses back” from FBI headquarters, added D’Antuono, which helped identify which field offices had planted confidential informants in the crowd.
According to a former FBI official, the bureau had to conduct an audit to find out how many paid informants it had at the Capitol riot on January 6.

Paid informants came from as far away as Kansas City.  Asked how many informants the audit found were in the crowd that day, D’Antuono would only say “a handful.”

"Eees like secret police in good old Soviet Union, comrade!  Informants are everywhere!  Your neighbor, your husband, your kid?  Never know!  Only way to learn of counter-revolutionary activity is to infiltrate all citizen groups early, da?"

Source.

https://nypost.com/2023/09/19/fbi-lost-count-of-number-of-informants-at-capitol-on-jan-6-ex-official/amp/?amp

Facing possible IRS charges for failure to file, yesterday Hunter biden sued...wait for it...

If you don't pay close attention to what's going on in that cesspool of utter corruption called Washington D.C, you may not have heard of what I'm about to tell ya.

Short recap: Porridgebrain's crack-head, amoral, bribe-collecting son Hunty collected millions of dollars in bribes every year when daddy was Obozo's VP.  And *by his own admission, in an email to his daughter found on his abandoned laptop (which he never expected anyone outside the "family" to see), he had to give half of the bribe money to daddy, since daddy was the principal in this, and Hunty merely the bag-man.

Now, well-known tax law says legitimate business expenses can be deducted from your income.  BUT someone apparently advised Hunty that filing a tax return stating that you paid your daddy half of your income--for no discernible reason--would probably set off some alarms.

With that deduction blocked, Hunty realized he'd have to pay taxes on the entire bribe, instead of just half.  As you could guess, Hunty chafed at the obvious unfairness of this. Plus Hunty knew that because the bribes came from overseas, meaning no 1099s were filed, and were laundered through his web of 22 "shell companies," the chances of the bribes ever being found were so close to zero as to be neglible.

So Hunty...the most pampered princeling evah...simply chose not to file tax returns for at least four years, confident that even if the bribes were somehow discovered, the IRS would never come after him...because he was Porridgebrain's pampered prince.

Nice to be the "preznit's" son, eh?

WELL...there's a RULE that commands all U.S. banks to report "suspicious activities"--large amounts of money sent to or from accounts. Thanks to that RULE, the millions of dollars in "wire transfers" to Hunty's companies triggered over 200 "SARs" with U.S. banks.

So...the bank people had a good suspicious that Hunty was involved in something...odd.   The SARs are sent to both Treasury (corrupt) and the IRS (equally corrupt), so people in both agencies knew.  Someone (or several people) quietly informed GOP members of both the senate and congress, and those members obtained copies of the "wire transfers" from the overseas bribers to Hunty.

Those were displayed, in the well of the senate by Ron Johnson, well before the 2020 election.  But because the Media is totally in the tank for the Democrats, the Media totally ignored the senate revelation.  They couldn't refute it, so they just totally ignored it.

But when the GOP eked out a razor thin majority in the House, that won the ability to set a lot of the agenda.  Specifically, two IRS whistleblowers came forward, testifying that their supervisors prevented them from investigating Hunty for tax fraud.

Then the corrupt U.S. attorney for Delaware stalled his investigation until the statute of limitations ran out on two of Hunty's earlier refusals to file.  The DO"J" then offered Hunty a plea deal that refused to charge him for failure to file in two later years.  (He filed late, owing $2.3 MILLION in taxes, which amount was paid by a Hollywood "entertainment attorney/agent.")

Now, brace yourselves:

Yesterday Hunty sued the IRS, claiming agents "targeted and sought to embarrass" him, and that the IRS unlawfully disclosed Hunty's confidential tax information.

Now, it's extremely rare for a taxpayer to sue the IRS, cuz if you do you're painting a target on your back: the IRS will audit you again and again, as a warning to others.

But Hunty is speshul!  He kin doo dat, cuz he beez protektud by hiz daddy!

Those who follow corrupt biden politics will also recall that Hunty turned down a sweetheart plea deal last month that would have given him no punishment for lying on a federal gun-purchase form--something regular Americans are in prison for doing.

Hunty turned down the deal because at the last second a judge noticed a scam in the works, and asked the prosecution in open court--live, on the record--"Does this super deal cover other crimes you either know about or haven't discovered?"

The question caught the corrupt DOJ "prosecutor" off guard.  If he said it did cover "other crimes" or unknown prior crimes, it would expose the totally corrupt plea deal.  So after some mumble-stumble-bullshit, he was essentially forced to say it didn't cover everything Hunty did (the failure to file income taxes, and to pay $2.3 million in taxes--though it was belatedly paid by the 'friend') *or might have done.*  

But Hunty's understanding was that he'd been promised that he'd be given a *total* free pass on *everything.*  Since he wasn't getting the free pass on everything, he refused the deal.

So, since Hunty has sued the IRS, rather than go to trial, counsel for the IRS will recommend that the agency settle out of court, since the agency could be forced to pay tens of millions for its agents releasing private info to congress.  The director of agency will accept that recommendation "to save taxpayers money," of course!  And indeed, the terms of the settlement will involve Hunty agreeing to settle for a paltry million or so.

But buried in the settlement will be that in exchange for Hunty dropping his lawsuit--for a million in cash--the IRS will drop all charges pertaining to past failure to file and pay taxes.

Wheeee!  Think you could get a deal like that?

So that disposes of the charges for failure to file.  Now for the lying on fed firearms form charge, which Hunty is going to trial on:

When Hunty goes to trial on the firearms form case,
  1. His attorneys will claim a 2A right to own a gun.  Totally unobjectionable.
  2. Hunty's attorneys will then cite a ruling by the Supreme Court in June of last year, in a case shorthanded to "Bruen," in which the court ruled that states couldn't bar citizens from openly carrying firearms.  This *implies* (though does not explicitly state) that neither the states nor the federal gruberment can impose restrictions on buying and carrying firearms not imposed by the Constitution.
  3. The feds won't be able to cite any law or court decision from the Founders' era to support the charge against Hunty for lying on the federal form--because the Constitution doesn't give the government the power to force buyers to fill out a federal form. The idea that one has to fill out ANY government form to buy a gun did not exist in 1791.
  4. Hunty's attorneys will then move for "summary judgment"--meaning that even if every point of fact alleged by the prosecution is admitted, there's no crime.
  5. The judge will grant the motion.  Case dismissed.

Normally this would be a huge victory for gun-rights advocates.  But the hand-picked liberal/Democrat judge will specify that the ruling in this case is "ad hoc," meaning it ONLY applies to Hunty biden's case, meaning it can't be cited in any other suit claiming the fedrul gruberment lacks the Constitutional authority to regulate firearm sales in ANY way--including making you fill out a mother-may-I to buy a gun.

That is how the "JustUs" system works under the biden-harris, Merrick Garland and every Democrat congresswhore.

Thanks, Democrats.

Democrat writes opinion piece at WaPo saying *neither* biden NOR Kami should run again

David Ignatius is a Democrat who writes for the Washington Post.  Five days ago he wrote an "opinion piece" for that rag on why biden shouldn't run again.

This probably doesn't strike you as strange or unusual, so let me explain.

As noted above, Ignatius has always been a reliable Democrat, and also appears to be a long-time asset used by the CIA to get the agency's Narrative to the public.  And since the Post doesn't print "opinions" its editors don't like, the piece is the Narrative dictated by both the Party and the CIA.
 
The piece begins by slobbering over how totally wonderful biden and all Dem policies are:

What I admire most about President Biden is that in a polarized nation, he has governed from the center out, as he promised in his victory speech. With an unexpectedly steady hand, he passed some of the most important domestic legislation in recent decades. In foreign policy, he managed the delicate balance of helping Ukraine fight Russia without getting America itself into a war. In sum, he has been a successful and effective president.

"Governed from the center out," y'say?  Dat soun' SO gud, eh?  Uh...whut it mean?  

You're not supposed to ask.  It's meaningless word-salad designed to make readers feel warm and fuzzy about this ghastly piece of shit that the Dems foisted on us by fraud.

And "Successful and effective president."  Oh, you bet, chiquita.  "Best economy evah!" y'say?  Nah, record low percentage of Americans with full-time jobs.  "Saved your kids and parents from duh totally NON-chinese virus," y'say?  Well, he did order virtually all Americans to take the ineffective, dangerous jab, but that almost certainly didn't save anyone, and has killed tens of thousands.

Ignatius quotes biden's inaugural address: “Our children’s children will say of us, 'They gave their best, they healed a broken land.'”

"Healed a broken land," eh?

All the above praises are utter horse-shit.

In any case: With those obligatory bits of pro-Democrat propaganda said, Ignatius gets to the point, saying neither biden NOR Kami should run next year.

For a Party to push this is totally unprecedented--because while everyone agrees biden is far too senile to run again, his so-called black female VP doesn't have that problem.  Yet the Dems want to dump her.  Again, while individuals may want to sink the VP, for the Party to do this is unprecedented.  And make no mistake: this IS the Democrat party talking via the WaPo.  Here's Iggy again:

[With biden out,] voters would reasonably focus on Harris. [BUT] she is less popular than Biden.  Harris has many laudable qualities but the simple fact is that she has failed to gain traction in the country or even within her own party.

"Has many laudable qualities."  Note that Ignatius failed to mention any, which tells you this is a hit-piece, meaning the Dem rulers have already decided to dump her.

Democrat strategists know voters despise Kami as a totally unqualified incompetent who was carefully chosen by biden's handlers because a) she'd attract black and female votes; and b) she'd be insurance against biden being impeached.  But she's a disaster, as the Dems well know.

The ruling Democrats want to nominate the brilliant, younger, well-spoken Gavin Newsom.  But unless Kami is far more perceptive than she's shown thus far, she's gonna want to be the nominee, eh?  And the Party can't let voters see it as forcing Kami out, because that would lose lots of black and female votes.  

Oooohhh, what to do, eh?

Answer: have a respected WaPo columnist introduce the party's Narrative, so that when all this comes up next year, Dem voters will already see Kami not running as totally reasonable, because a few days ago--almost a year before the convention--the WaPo said it was the smaht thing to do.

All this may seem pretty obvious.  The question has been how the Democrat rulers would pull it off--and Ignatius's op-ed seems to have been the first shot fired to answer that.

Iggy bleats that biden "should have resisted the choice of Harris, who was a colleague of his beloved son Beau when they were both state attorneys general."  Ah, you want us to believe he picked Kami because she and his dead son were "colleagues," eh?  It is to laugh.  See all those pics with Beau and Kami at attorney-general conventions?  Yeah, I don't either.  Kami and Beau were only "colleagues" in the most technical sense of the word.  This is the Party's effort to blame the choice of Kami on the dead son rather than on their own lust to win in 2020.  It's horse-shit.

Having performed the obligatory kiss to blacks and women by noting that Kami "has many laudable qualities," Iggy first suggests that if biden does run next year, he should replace Ms. Laudable Qualities with someone like corrupt black L.A. mayor Karen Bass, or the corrupt former governor of Rhode Island, now "commerce secretary" Gina Raimondo.  Yeah.

Iggy's entire piece is a thinly-disguised hit on Kami.  But the Dems need to get enough of their base to start talking up dumping Kama to persuade her to voluntarily bow out, to keep the party from having to be seen as dumping her.

Iggy bleats that "If biden were convinced that Trump were truly vanquished, he would feel he had accomplished his political mission" and could retire.  [But] that if biden believes Trump will be the GOP nominee he'll run again because he believes he has the best chance to defeat Trump *and save the country from the nightmare of a revenge presidency.*

"Nightmare" of a "revenge presidency," eh?  Wow, that'll motivate Dem voters!  People who don't care about Chinese bribery or senile leadership will jump right on the biden machine, eh?

SO...as I posted almost a month ago, the Dems have to get Kami to voluntarily bow out, so it doesn't look like they're dumping her. This will require...finesse.  Hence the Ignatius op-ed.

So they'll offer her a "prestige position"--likely a university presidency--along with a LOT of cash, probably over ten million.  I suspect she'll take the deal, which will allow the Party to nominate Newsom and a black female who's not obviously corrupt.  So see, voters?  We're keeping the vice-presidential nominee black and female, so there's no reason to be upset.  Your vote needs to stay on the Democrat plantation.

Finally: If you want to understand the forces dragging this country to its doom, click on this link and read the first 100 comments on Iggy's piece.  Regular WaPo readers are Democrats, so you'd expect they'd all sneer at the idea of biden not running--totally ignoring Iggy's points about Kami.  But when you read the comments you see 90% of the commenters saying "Best preznit EVAH!"  And "We gots ta keep him cuz duh Republicans are all corrupt--totally ignoring the unequivocal evidence (emails, bank wire transfers, IRS whistleblowers and dozens of other bits) that biden was totally corrupt during his entire term as Obozo's VP, and still is.

You also find 70% of the commenters fawning over biden forcing virtually all Americans to take the experimental, ineffective jab.  "Dat saved duh country!" they bleat.

These people are beyond moronic.  They're like robots, mindlessly bleating praise for the corrupt biden.

I did notice that not one commenter said anything in defense of the moronic Kamala.

Source.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/09/12/biden-trump-election-step-aside/