Seven top officers of Democrat fund-raising giant ActBlue suddenly leave, cuz...

As every American surely knows by now, the New York Times is totally in the tank for the Democrat partei.  The leftist libs at the Times carefully ignore any illegal acts by any Democrat, or by the Partei itself.

Thus after seven senior officers with the massive Dem fundraising operation "ActBlue" recently departed, the Times spun the thing as "Republicans pounce" and that ActBlue "faces internal chaos."

For years ActBlue has raised billions for the Democrat partei.  The Times says this is because it created "a universal and trusted platform for donating."

Ohhh, yes!  Dat's it!  "Universal and trusted."  Yep yep yep.

ActBlue says that since its founding in 2004 it's raised over $16 billion for Democratic candidates.  That's a LOT of money--about $800 MILLION per year!-- and has likely given Dems thousands of election wins.

But there's a *tiny problem*:  By law, foreigners aren't allowed to contribute to candidates.  But ActBlue's "trusted, universal" fundraising seems to have been designed--intentionally--to allow foreign sources to donate billions--without revealing that the donations were from foreign sources.

Democrats and Media: "Dis no big deal, citizen!  Ebrywun know campaign finance laws are too complex to be understandable by ordinary peons, right?  So shut up!"

Ah, yes.  Of course.  Excuse us for being curious.

I first heard about ActBlue's cunning way of hiding illegal foreign donations a decade ago.  The source was whistleblower employees at the two credit-card giants, Visa and MasterCard.

When you get $50 bucks of gas, using a credit or debit card, you have to enter your zip code.  When you buy something on the Internet, you have to enter the 3-digit "CVV code" printed on the back of the card.  These two things provide at least a bare minumum of safety against fraud.

Both the big credit card companies have both these fraud-protection "fields" enabled by default.  Organizations that receive payments or donations can disable those, but that must be done deliberately.

Whistleblowers noted that ActBlue disabled both fields at least a decade ago--meaning there were no safeguards against donations from foreign cardholders.

Not surprisingly, the story got almost no mention in the Mainstream Media.  Republicans asked the Federal Election Commission to investigate, but for some mysterious reason that Dem-run commission took no action.

But now, with a new head of the FEC, congressional Republicans have demanded answers from ActBlue about why the standard, default security and fraud-prevention measures were disabled, and about how the group could recognize illegal foreign donations.

Of course the only thing the public will ever hear about this is that seven top officers of ActBlue have left "to pursue other opportunities," eh?  

The Times spins the story as "Dems fear Republicans will try to shut down..."
>>Some Democrats fear that Republicans will seek to shut down ActBlue.  Democrats worry that this is just an opening salvo in a campaign to dismantle and destabilize the broader Democratic infrastructure.>>

Now, if everything ActBlue has been doing is perfectly legal, the Dems wouldn't have anything to be worried about, eh?

But of course it's NOT legal.  But this will be totally buried by the Media.  "Too arcane to try to explain to the public," they'll say.

Yeah, just like the Vegetable giving hunty a "pre-emptive pardon" for any crimes he might have committed over a DECADE, even if not yet known.  Wow.

Source: New York Times

https://archive.is/4gXfh#selection-1135.3-1135.227

How the Dems changed the rules on Medicare and Medicaid to give trannies "free" sex-changes

Back in 2010 Obama and the Democrats passed the cunningly misnamed "Affordable Care Act"--quickly dubbed Obamacare--without a single Republican vote.  It passed by a single vote, and to get every Dem in congress to vote yes on that ghastly POS, Obozo had to make two "promises."  First, the bill was so astronomically expensive (taxpayer-funded "free" medical care for everyone) that Obozo had to promise that illegal aliens wouldn't be eligible.  And second, that taxpayer dollars would NOT be used to pay for abortions.

Of course neither of those provisions was actually written into the bill--a fact quickly noted before the final vote.  But Obama *solemnly promised* the worried Dem congresscreeps that even though his promises were NOT in the actual, y'know, LAW, he was promising he'd interpret the law that way.

 Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

Those promises were instantly broken, just as Obama's *promise* that "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." 

The main author of the bill--a lying sack of shit MIT economist named Jon Gruber--later bragged that the only way the Dems were able to pass the thing was "due to the stupidity of the American public."

SO that was passed in 2010.  Just four years later--with Obozo still in power--the Democrats repealed a rule that Medicare wouldn't pay for sex-change operations for seniors.  You have to be 65 to qualify for Medicare, and since only a handful of people over 65 wanted to change sex, the new rule only increased Medicare spending by a few million dollars a year.  And because the Media knew most voters wouldn't approve of spending money so stupidly, the Media said nothing about the change, so few voters outside the tranny mafia ever knew the Democrats had changed the rule

Then two years later the Obama regime completed their sweep by decreeing that MedicAID funds--which pay for medical care for people under 65 if they make less than about 1.4 times the federal poverty income)--could now be used to pay for sex-change operations for every poor person, regardless of age.

But now, because school counselors and Hollywood had conned tens of thousands of young Americans into believing they were "born in the wrong body," a lot more Medicaid dollars were being spent on sex-change operations than when the regime ordered  MediCARE to cover those procedures.  But once again, the Media allies of the Dem regime barely mentioned this huge change, so most Americans never knew about it.

But all young people who wanted to change "genders" knew right away, and from January 2018 to September 2023, 16 states funneled over $165 million toward what was euphemistically called “gender-affirming care," or "gender-transition services.”

Sounds so innocuous, eh?  That was the point of the cunning re-name.

But wait...it gets even better!  MedicAID is administered by the states, using federal (taxpayer) money, and each state gets to choose (within broad limits) what medical conditions it will use its federal MedicAID funds to pay for.  So California--home to the largest population of mentally ill--ruled that MedicAID funds would now pay for sex-change operations for prisoners, illegal aliens, and even illegal aliens in prison.

Of course you knew that, right?  Wait...y'say you never heard about that?  Wow, I'm...not surprised.

Before last year's election the Trump campaign ran an ad noting that the Democrat Partei's nominee for president of the whole United States--Cackles Harris--had supported this use of taxpayer funds.  Harris's handlers didn't bother trying to craft an ad countering this, probably because consultants felt that trying to counter the Trump ad would make more voters aware of it.

What's really astonishing is that this moronic, corrupt, racist creature came within 1.5% of being president.

So..,your tax dollars at work: $165 million of 'em over five years for sex-change operations.  Is that a good use of your tax dollars?  Probably not, but no matter, cuz you didn't get a say in the matter.  The Democrats rammed it down your throat, just like all the other pro-tranny bullshit.

We're not quite done: On June 15, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act--which prohibits discrimination in employment based on sex--was actually intended by congress to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

The court's written decision didn't actually use the phrase "intended by congress" because congress clearly did NOT have "gender identity" in mind when it amended the Civil Rights Act, since trannies hadn't yet become a major cause of the Democrat party.  I added "intended by congress" because it's a well-known principle of law that laws not be interpreted to have an effect NOT intended by those who passed a particular law.  And clearly, in 1964 congress had no idea about trannies.  None.

Title VII specifically addresses discrimination in hiring, promotion, discharge, pay, and other aspects of employment.  But the warped pieces of sh*t who infest the Deep State used the court's ruling in an employment case (Bostock v. Clayton County) to support its earlier decree that trannies had the absolute right to demand that their sex-change operations be paid with taxpayer dollars!

An unbelievable stretch of illogic.  But they saw their opening and took it, and you didn't get to say jack-shit about it, eh?  That's "democracy," Democrat-style.

Fairness in employment is pretty reasonable.  But demanding that taxpayers pay for your sex change is much less so.  But the Deep State ORDER--a few paragraphs published in the tens of thousands of pages of the Federal Register--never got the attention of voters.  The Mainstream Media either didn't notice it, or more likely didn't want YOU to know it. 

In Bostock the court actually combined three cases, and one offers a particularly telling insight into how utterly fucked up the supreme court is:  A funeral home had a six-foot, 230-pound employee as a funeral director for years.  One day that employee showed up in a dress, demanding to be called "Aimee," and saying he would henceforth be a woman.  

Funerals are usually solemn, serious affairs, and because "Aimee" was so obviously male, the owners of the funeral home believed their reputation as a serious business would be toast if they kept "Aimee" as a funeral director.  So they fired him.  Naturally "Aimee" turned to the ghastly EEOC, which used taxpayer funds to sue the former employer on his behalf.  

Tellingly, the f'n Supreme Court, in its written ruling, always refers to "Aimee"  as "she"--which makes it obvious that the Court has bought the tranny bullshit line, all the way.  The court has tipped its hand that it favors trannies, by using "she" to refer to an obvious male.  So much for science, eh?

Twenty years from now people will look back on this utter insanity and regard it the same way we do with the court's infamous ruling in the Dred Scott case.  (If you're not familiar with that case, blame your highschool teachers.)

So the Deep State used the court's Bostock ruling--in an employment case--to support the Deep State's ORDER that from now on taxpayers must pay for sex-change operations for anyone who can't afford it.

Starting to understand how you're being played yet?  And this is one of the most fiercely-defended planks of the Democrat party!  Amazing.

Source.

Democrat party reassures party members that Newsom's position on trans is a brilliant fake

From: Director of Strategy, DNC
    To: All Party members

Subject: Positioning on men in girls' sports

You may have been shocked yesterday when our likely candidate for 2028--the charismatic, wildly popular governor of California--appeared on his own podcast and agreed with a sexist right-wing leader that it was unfair to allow transgender girls to compete in girls' sports.

Don't worry:  This is all part of our Plan to win in both 2026 and 2028.

As all Democrats know, our Party is the party of Fairness, Equality, Compassion and Inclusion.  Since all Democrats agree that "Trans women ARE women!" it would obviously be UNfair to ban them from playing highschool and college sports, right?  We are all about Fairness.

So this is also an Equality issue: Since transgender women ARE women, Equality demands that they be allowed to do anything women do...since they're women.

We all know our precious transgender Democrats (and future Democrats) have a terrible burden when it comes to which bathroom to use, so Compassion demands that we make it a federal law that they may use whichever bathroom they like.

Finally, Inclusion:  Many of the strongest supporters of our Party--the ones who can always be counted on to be on the front lines of demonstrations--have had the tragic, life-altering experience of NOT being invited to join groups of snotty, entitled highschool kids whose parents were rich exploiters of the oppressed.  So we must continue to demand Inclusion for everyone.  We must demand that those with bold, artistic hair color, lots of piercings or tattoos, or body shapes that don't match most magazine covers be Included in all groups.  

All the above points are non-negotiable.  Which brings us back to Gavin:  

His agreeing with the conservative that it's unfair to allow XY persons to play in women's sports was a brilliant head-fake, designed to woo three percent of undecided voters to vote Democrat in both 2026 and 2028.   

We have planned all this out in detail, just as we planned for ouah beloved former president to step aside at the last minute so we could nominate a much younger, charismatic candidate.  We only lost because Trump stole the election by getting swing states to outlaw perfectly legal "drop boxes."

So don't worry, supporters!  Your Party's policies haven't changed!  Now,here are some talking-points you can use to educate undecided friends: 

Conservatives often criticize the idea of "gender-affirming care" by bleating "God doesn't make mistakes."  You should boldly tell 'em that the idea of an all-powerful, all-seeing Sky Friend is a social construct used to intimidate children.

Conservatives also bleat that allowing stronger trans-women to compete can injure smaller opponents.  You should point out that far more injuries are inflicted by XY players on other XYs, "But you people never complain about THAT!  You only get upset when one of our beloved tran-women injures another girl!"

This argument has been tested in focus groups and is extremely effective.  It's the same approach we've used when conservatives argue that "undocumented Americans" rape or kill American girls: "More attacks are committed by American citizens!"  It works beautifully.

Finally, one of the strongest supports for "gender-affirming care" is that if pyrsyns under 18 aren't allowed to transition, they're more likely to commit suicide.  This always silenced conservative opponents.  But now they're starting to cite new studies that claim that's not true.  To defeat that argument, counter "Those studies were all done by conservative groups."  If you're challenged on this, simply say "Do your own research.  I'm not going to do your research for you!"  Works every time.

Sincerely,

(name redacted)

Director of Strategy

Why are the two women on the right smiling? They'd just been given $20 million

Why are the two women on the right having their pic taken with Cackles?  Because they'd just been given a cool $20 MILLION of taxpayer dollars by the bribem regime.

The person in the middle is Sanja Whittington, and the gal on the right is her daughter La'Meshia.

Why are these women smiling?  They just got $20 million

Sanja founded an outfit cleverly called "Democracy Green," and is its executive director.  Her daughter, La'Meshia, is president of the board of directors and a "social justice professor" and self-described "Afro-Indigenous equity transformation agent." 

One of the four people on the organization's board is executive director Sonja Whittington's son Robert, an "environmental justice associate" for the North Carolina Black Alliance. 

Sonja's outfit got the $20 million to "replace lead pipes in homes, and restore wetlands."  It has no experience in either area.  But as you could guess, the organization wasn't selected for its track record or environmental or scientific expertise.  But they had all the right qualifications.

DOGE is discovering more and more examples of corrupt grants to insiders.  And there will be hundreds more--liberal judges prohibit further investigation.  They've already ORDERED that all funds cut off must be reinstated, so they're really close to shutting down the entire effort.