CDC confirms U.S. birthrate now at lowest in history. Why? And why it's worse than they think

Over two decades ago (2002) conservative Pat Buchanan wrote a book titled "The Death of the West," in which he warned "First world nations are dying.”

Buchanan was referring to fertility rates, which have been on the decline for decades.

Last Thursday that was reinforced when the CDC released data showing U.S. birth rates are at historic lows: women in the U.S. are having an average of 1.6 children over their lifetime.  That number is called the "Total fertility rate."

For those new to the topic, to keep a population level each woman needs to have, on average, 2.08 children (usually rounded to 2.1).  So 1.6 is civilizational suicide. 

Don't confuse the TFR with the "general fertility rate, which is the number of births per 1,000 females ages 15-44 and is utterly useless except for showing trends.  And sure enough, in the U.S. that trend rate has dropped a staggering 22% between 2007 and 2024.

Also, don't be misled by the statement by communist sons of whores who assure you that a TFR far below replacement level is NOT a cause for concern, by telling you that the number of U.S. births increased by roughly 1 percent between 2023 and 2024.  "SEE, deplorable?  Dere's no reason to be concerned!"  But total births rose because over 11 millions illegal immigrants entered the U.S. during bribem's ghastly open-borders reign, plus another few million legal immigrants...and their children count toward total births.  Does that surprise ya?

For the same reason, the "official" TFR of 1.6 children per woman *includes all children of immigrants, both legal an illegal.  So the TFR for native-born women is WAY lower than 1.6.

How low is it?  You can't find that number. Obviously the government has that statistic, but they're not saying.  Try to find it and let me know if you do.
 
Many factors together account for why births to women of European origin are so low.  First, more women are delaying marriage, or staying single for life, because the Media have been sneering at motherhood since the 1970s.  The Media and Hollywood have implied that marriage and motherhood are a form of slavery, and instead have glamorized the drama of corporate life--"far more exciting than being a stay-at-home mom!"

And many women who do marry are often choosing to have just one child, since that means far more disposable income for vacations, second homes, luxury cars and so on.

In any case the result is that the percentage of Americans of European origin is steadily dropping.

As Buchanan warned over two decades ago, if a population group doesn't have an average of 2.08 children per woman, it will eventually vanish.

Obviously the U.S. can always import labor.  But importing labor obviously doesn't import a culture or a heritage, a set of values that will help the republic endure.  Any country that replaces its population with people from somewhere else eventually becomes something else entirely.  If you're curious to know what that something else is, look at the recent riots in Los Angeles.

In any case, whatever replaces American will be...vastly different.from what we've known.

Of course in the 19th and 20th centuries millions of immigrants—Germans, Italians, Poles, Irish and others—successfully assimilated, often within a single generation.  That's because they shared a foundation of cultural and social values, and religion.

But since the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 that assimilation process has broken down.  And the one thing that would be expected to make assimilation desirable has been undermined by the left: wanting to be American.  

The left hates the idea that America is exceptional, instead claiming America is evil.  And that's had exactly the effect you could have predicted.

Birth rates to American of European roots are now far below the replacement level--it's civilizational suicide.  And while our civilization chooses not to have enough children to sustain itself, members of other civilizations will take over.

They just won’t be American.

Source: The Federalist

https://thefederalist.com/2025/07/25/american-birth-rates-rates-drop-to-levels-of-civilizational-suicide/

Time to get serious again: the real cost of "renewable ("green") energy"

As everyone with an IQ over 80 should know by know, Wikipedia lies shamelessly to advance DemocratCommunist policies.

One example of tens of thousands: Here's a deeply buried 'graf in a Wiki piece on "wind energy policy of the U.S."  (I've edited it for readability):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_energy_policy_of_the_United_States

>>In 1978 congress passed a LAW called the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act.  It was intended to increase electricity production from renewable energy.
   Wiki says it did that by forcing electric utilities to "interconnect with renewable power production facilities."
   That's a cunning mislead: it's NOT the incentive, but it makes readers ignore the real incentive: money.
>>They then would have to buy that power at a price mandated by their state equal to avoided cost, which is the cost a utility escapes by purchasing this power, as opposed to building a new plant, consisting of capital and operating costs of the forgone plant.>>

This is outrageous horseshit.  A total lie, designed to hide the real effect.

The actual law says "highest avoided cost," which is the cost per kilowatt-hour of electricity produced by a utility's least-efficient powerplant--one they'd only use when every other plant was maxxed out.

Typically the cost of electricity produced by the *least-efficient powerplant* is *easily* twice as much as electricity from a company's most-efficient one.

But now that you've read that, what does it mean to consumers, eh?  Wiki carefully avoids explaining, since that would wake people up to the truth of "green energy."

And that truth is that "green energy"--wind and solar--costs way more than conventional energy.  The only way to make it attractive is that congress *forced* all utilities to buy higher-cost "renewable energy" at each utility's "highest avoided cost"--which again is roughly twice the average cost.

Beginning to get it yet?  Nah, you aren't--not because you're stupid but because it's an insane policy.  Reason is that it raises electric bills for consumers *for no damn good reason.*  It enriches wind-energy promoters by paying 'em way more than market price--because of PURPA.

Energy grifters saw this as a guaranteed source of easy money, and in 1990 they got the corrupt (or merely moronic) congress to pass a law whose main purpose was to remove size limits on installations demanding PURPA payments.

Then during Obozo's reign congress passed yet another law DEMANDING that certain percentages of electricity used by the federal gruberment be "renewable."  This was yet another total invitation to needlessly higher costs--which seems to be one of the main "accomplishments" of gruberment.

There followed an almost endless series of pork-laden laws every year handing billions to "green" grifters.  The total number of grifters and their annual "take" is now so huge that they can get any law passed that they want--with exactly the results you'd expect.  For example, one law gave developers CASH for 30% of the cost of building any "renewable" powerplant.

That was in addition to "tax credits" to grifters equal to another 30% of the cost.  

And none of you ever heard about any of this.  That was by design.

Try reading the Wiki piece.  If you understand it, it'll make you sick:  all the billions of higher costs squeezed from ratepayers and taxpayers, given to "renewable" grifters.

Typical Democrat: "But we gots t'do dis to stop burning 'fossil fuels', cuz if we keep burning doze, duh Erf will burn up an' kill all duh cute doggies an' kittycats!"

Of course that's horseshit, but you can't teach "womens studies majors" thermodynamics or atmospheric physics, so they'll *always* believe whatever duh Media tells 'em.

If you consider the cost of the hundreds of "tax credits" the gruberment has given (and continues to give) to "renewable" grifters it's likely that renewable electricity costs taxpayers easily three or four times more than "normal" energy.  But Dems love paying way more than they should have to for electricity, right?  Cuz "global worming."

They call it "your government," but that's reassuring horseshit.  "Your" government is controlled by big donors who pay to get laws passed that give 'em money.  Everyone else is just taxpaying sheep.

You don't ever hear about the hidden billions in graft buried in almost every law they pass.  And the Media sure isn't gonna tell ya--like you, they don't bother reading the bills.

Are there ways the system *could* be fixed?  Sure.  But congress will never allow any "fix" to become law, because that would reduce their income.

What makes all this even more sad is that the Founders crafted a faabulous blueprint for a great government, only to see that great plan sabotaged by greedy politicians, both those paid by by wealthy grifters, and those who realized they could be re-elected for life by giving "free shit" to their voters. 

Source: corrupt Wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_energy_policy_of_the_United_States

Anybody remember this CONSTANT Democrat bleat about gun control? But now...

 

One of the Democrats' heart-rending, emotional arguments for confiscating all civilian-owned guns was "If it saves just one innocent life, it's worth it!"  Surely a lot of you still recall hearing that one, right?

You don't hear that anymore, because conservatives trotted out that same reasoning for deporting illegal alien criminals.

Suddenly the Democrats didn't find that argument a BIT convincing, eh?  Hmmm....  Always amazing how reality has a way of shutting Dems up (at least momentarily) when it bites 'em in the ass. 

Now the Dems have neatly pivoted to "No kings!"  So conservatives have noted a few things:

• Did voters get to vote on being forced by bribem to take the jab or be fired?  No?  Hmmm...
• Did you get to vote on your kids having to take the jab in order to go back to school?  No?
• Did you get to vote on being forced to pay off student loans for former students who never paid their own damn college loans?  No?
• Did you get to vote on the bribem regime allowing 11 MILLION unvetted illegals into the U.S.?  No?

Ruling by decree is the Dems stock in trade.  But when Trump decrees "No more men in girls' sports," the Democrats scream "We don't have kings!"  Conveniently short memories?

Every Mainstream Media outlet knew bribem was a vegetable, but they lied to protect the Dems

 

 

Every single member of the White House press pool knew he was senile.  Not one of 'em uttered a word to YOU.  Not only that, they all gleefully quoted his corrupt handlers who said he was totally competent.

Let that sink in for a minute.

No matter how much you may hate the Lying Mainstream Media, it's not enough.

"You must trust the Mainstream Media. We've never lied to you before, right?"

 

Young moronic college students: "No kings!"

20 Dem-ruled states sue DEMANDING that Trump be barred from cutting off fed dollars for illegals

Because Democrats have appointed most lower- and appelate judges, the Dems have mastered the art of suing the Trump regime to block literally anything he and his administration tries to do.

In the latest example, 20 Democrat-ruled states have sued the Trump administration
demanding an end to its ban on federal benefits going to illegal aliens.

States have always been free to use the tax dollars of *their* payers any way they want.  But cunning Dem pols in Dem-ruled states have been using federal dollars--medicare, medicaid, food stamps, SNAP and on and on--for illegal aliens.  Finally the Trump administration said "Not legal."

The Democrat lawsuit argues that clinics and providers who offer various services funded by tax dollars--including health care and education--can't know who's an illegal alien. The Dems argue that identifying who is an illegal alien is a “complex determination that cannot be made by an untrained individual.”

Seriously, that's from the court filing.

The lawsuit is being led by the Dem shithole of New York, and the state's corrupt attorney-general, Letitia James, claims that the new guidelines would cause the collapse of free health and education.

For example, her press release contends that her state's 850 community health centers "provide primary and preventive care to 2.4 million low-income residents, regardless of immigration status," and that if they don't continue to get federal money, many centers could be forced to close.”

If you're a resident of a "flyover state" you may not recognize this "reasoning."  It's called "extortion," and it's how gruberments and corrupt companies do business in Dem shitholes. "If you don't pay X we'll cut off your health care and your kids will DIE!"

And as should be obvious, states that give freebies to illegals attract thousands more illegals, who then become a big constituency.

New York and the other Dem-ruled plaintiff states claim ending federal tax dollars for illegal aliens would wreck Head Start.  While the plaintiffs wield this as an accusation, it’s actually an unintentional admission: How many millions in Head Start funding is actually going to illegal aliens?

"Sorry, we don't gots t'tell ya."

Best admission you can find is that an ACLU lawsuit claims significant numbers of illegals benefit from these taxpayer-funded programs.  But hey, you voted fo' dat, right?

The Democrat states that filed the lawsuits repeatedly admit they use federal dollars to provide services to illegal aliens, and that they're suing for the right to keep getting those federal dollars.

For example, in her court filing the attorney-general of Massachusetts argued “All families, *regardless of citizenship,* deserve access to a high-quality education, adequate healthcare, and community support.”

Dems thing dat sound SO totally reasonable.  But what you don't realize is that if you accept that premise you just signed a blank check that you kids will be paying to honor for their whole lives, for the entire world.  

If you didn't grasp that, let me explain: The Democrats have opened a door to letting anyone in the world enter the U.S. and remain, getting unlimited taxpayer-funded benefits.  All they have to do is claim "asylum."

When that law was passed, congress assumed only a tiny number of pipo would *honestly* be seeking asylum.  But cunning NGOs--that have gotten paid up to $25,000 taxpayer dollars for every illegal they "resettle"--realized that if they taught illegals to say the right "magic words," they'd be admitted *every time.*

The lawsuit by the 20 Dem-ruled states claims cutting federal funds to their health and education programs illegal aliens will hurt U.S. citizens who are legal beneficiaries of those programs.  But the truth is that Americans have been cut off from those programs because they’ve been overrun by illegal aliens.

It’s not the Trump administration that's killing Head Start or community health clinics, it’s Dems who insist on giving services meant for Americans to illegal aliens.

The bribem regime opened the border to millions of illegal alien invaders who now fill Dem-ruled cities and states and eat up federal dollars.

Democrat pols (and their voters) oppose welfare reform because they wanna curry favor with legal immigrants.

Democrat attorney generals are now arguing that all Americans must continue to pay for benefits to illegal aliens.  But because many Americans don't like that, the Dems have decided a far better attack is to claim that *unless* the feds keep giving 'em money for illegals, U.S. citizens will lose crucial benefits.  It's brilliant!

In the 90s, Republicans complained about new immigrants going on welfare and staying on it for decades.  Then, the number of "immigrants" was relatively small, but now, after bribem and his band of thieves opened the floodgates to millions of illegal immigrants, the cost has gone exponential.  *This was their intent all along.*

The final argument being used by Dem pols in sanctuary states is that unless they continue to get federal tax dollars to fund services for illegals, the results will be worse: they’ll just go to ERs, or spread diseases.  Stop welfare and they’ll become violent criminals.

The obvious solution is to stop funding illegal aliens and instead start deporting them.  But liberal Dem judges have ruled that the government can't deport 'em AND it can't cut off federal funds to states that insist on giving 'em tax dollars.

Hell of a system, eh?   When the federal government defaults on its debt, you know who to blame.  Unfortunately that won't fix things.

Source.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/90-of-dem-states-sue-to-fund-welfare-for-illegal-aliens/

U.S. birthrate drops to new low of 1.6--yet population is still growing. How, and what does it mean?

If you're a typical American you know almost nothing about a thing called the "total fertility rate."  That's the average number of children a woman has in her lifetime.

The CDC says that rate is at an all-time low of 1.6--far below the 2.1 rate needed to keep a population level.  But CBS news quickly reassures readers that dis jus' peachy, citizen.  They lard their written piece with bland reassurances from female academics dat dis don' mean nuffin'.  "The population is steadily increasing," says one.

Wait, how can that be?  They don't tell you, but the ENTIRE increase in U.S. population is due to immigration, both legal and illegal.  And not til the last paragraph do they bother to mention that the 1.6 rate is based on ALL women in the U.S., including illegal immigrants.

And since illegal immigrants typically have two or more children (sometimes lots more), what do ya think the birthrate is for white Americans, eh?

I've tried--without success--to find that number.  Surely the CDC has the data, but no search engine finds it.  My guess is they don't want you to know, because given the larger number of children in immigrant families, for the overall U.S. birthrate to be 1.6, the white rate must be down to about 1.3 or less.  The last official figure I could find was from 2010--15 years ago--at 1.7,

CBS doesn't mention the white birthrate, because they don't care.  But after reassuring readers that an overall 1.6 rate is no cause for any concern, what does CBS attribute the low rate to, eh?   Of course you already guessed: "high costs," "uncertainty about the future,"

Asked about birth-promoting measures by the Trump administration, [expert] said those don't tackle larger needs like parental leave and affordable child care.  "The things they're doing are really symbolic and not likely to budge things for real Americans," she said.

Ahh, so...Trump's fault, eh?  You knew it was coming.

Again, not til the last paragraph does CBS bother to mention that the 1.6 rate is based on ALL women in the U.S.--including illegal immigrants...which leads people who can do math to realize that the white birthrate is far lower.  Again, that's not a concern to CBS.

Source: CBS "newz"

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-birth-rate-all-time-low-cdc-data/

Iran: three groups are fighting for power. All are problematical

Power struggle in Iran: Mullahs have a plan

Many reports claim Iran's economy is on the verge of bankruptcy, and that resistance to the insane mullahs is spreading.  

Millions of Iranians have had enough abuse by the medieval theocratic regime, and as resentment grows we're starting to see a struggle for who will run things IF the mullahs are overthrown.

One group vying to rule is the old Mujahedin-e Khalq--communists.  They post signs saying: “Down with the oppressor, be it the shah or the mullahs.”

Which brings us to the son of the Shah, who ruled from about 1953 and was deposed around 1970.  The son--Rezi Pahlavi--has been living the life of luxury in the West, paid for by the billions looted by his corrupt father.

And here's where it gets interesting:

The mullahs claim that removing them will allow the son of the deposed and hated Shah to restore corrupt rule.  And sure enough, after years of silence the self-proclaimed ‘crown prince’ has suddenly re-emerged from his life of luxury to announce that he is the answer to the Iranian crisis.

Some Middle East experts believe the canny mullahs are using Pahlavi to divide the people trying to overthrow 'em.  The idea is that if the most popular choices are either the communist MEK or the son of the hated Shah, maybe it's better not to try to overthrow the mullahs, eh?

Incredibly, just a month ago Pahlavi held a press conference in Paris to say he was in direct contact with the Iranian Revolutionary Guards–-the regime’s Gestapo – which he wants to keep intact, to "maintain order" after the overthrow of the mullahs.

He claimed IRGC officers and members of the thuggish "Basij" are "reaching out to me.  These brave officers are reaching out to me, telling me they want to be part of our national salvation."

On one hand that seems clever, because the IRGC is like the Praetorian Guard of ancient Rome: a new shah would need them for protection.

Sucking up to the IRGC and Basij would outrage the tens of thousands of families of those who have been arrested, tortured, and murdered by the mullahs’ thugs, but on the other hand was a canny move by Rezi.

MEK Resistance Units claim they want a democratic, secular republic. Sounds great, but then that's what communists always do: As the old joke goes, "One man, one vote, one time."

The mullahs are hanging an average of one "dissident" a week, including women, and juveniles.  Many see that as a sign of profound weakness.

But the Resistance seems undeterred: government compounds are firebombed and regime TV broadcasts are regularly hacked with opposition messages.

Now Iran’s new president Masoud Pezeshkian has announced that he's suspended further cooperation with inspectors from the UN nuclear watchdog agency–-the IAEA.  Last Monday Iran's foreign minister announced on Bret Baier's program that Iran would not stop enriching uranium, and would only negotiate "with conditions."

Western appeasers who believe the mullahs got the message from the bombing that destroyed their facilities need to wake up.  The mullahs have announced--thru their foreign minister-- that they're determined to resurrect their nuclear program.  Of course this may be simply be a negotiating chip.  

I suggest there are no good options for the U.S. to back any side.  You can already see where backing any of the three groups vying for power will lead.  Best for the U.S. to stay out of that fight.

Source.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/iran-the-widening-cracks/

As inner-city grocery stores close due to theft, Dems have a great idea: *City-owned stores!*

If you get all your information from duh "Mainstream Media," you don't know shit about what's really happening.

Ahh, I see my Democrat friends are indignant about that statement!  "Dat's an insult!  We iz, like, totally well informed, cuz we watch PBS an' duh Media, an' dey tells us duh troof!  Cuz dey nevah lie to us, always tell duh troof!"

Hahahahahaha!  I see you've just arrived on this planet!  Enjoy your stay!

So let's review: We all agree that no one should starve.  So Democrats began by giving po' pipo money to buy food an' pay rent.  But much to their surprise, some of duh po' pipo used dat cash to buy iPhones an' hair extensions an' 3-inch fake nails, an'...drugs.  An' den when duh cash wuz gone, dey wailed dat dey wuz hungry.  Hmmm...  But don't yew dare aks 'em t'give up dere hair extensions or fake nails or drugs, eh?

To fix dat, duh Democrats started givin' duh pipo "food stamps," which cud only be used ta buy...food. Great fix, eh?  Except in about two days, valedictorians realized dey cud buy food stamps for 30% of face value--in cash--an' sell 'em to hungry pipo for 60%, making a faaabulous profit.   And there was no way to prevent this.  Nice.

So duh Dems moved to Plan C:  giving surplus cheese an' dairy to duh po' from gummint warehouses.  Win-win, eh?  But duh affluent white attorneys who make money for filing lawsuits fo' duh po', and store owners who wanted to sell more groceries to food-stamp recipients, said that was demeaning.  

So that went poof, and now the attorneys found a new boogeyman: "food deserts."  And the cause?  Of course, you guessed it:  rapacious, greedy capitalism!  And as you already guessed, that charge was eagerly picked up by one of our nation's two political parties.

Turns out inner-city valedictorians constantly shoplifted from local grocery stores, causing the owners to lose money year after year.  And finally--to the total surprise of Democrats and their leaders--the owners of those stores said "We're done."  

Dems: "SEE??  It's all the fault of doze greedy capitalists, who insist on making a profit!  What effrontery!  If we could just get rid of capitalists, ebryt'ing wud be perfect!"

So the Dems had a great idea:  Why don't we have ouah faaabulous, totally competent city council members and mayors set up city-owned grocery stores, eh?  Dat wud solve everything!

If you get all your "newz" from duh Mainstream Media you think this is an insane proposal.  The only thing government is good at is wasting money and enriching politicians.  It hasn't done anything efficiently or well in forever.  But turns out this isn't just a wasteful pipe-dream:  several Dem-ruled shithole cities already have these.

And if you're a Dem you say "Great idea."  Yeah, I get it.  So consider this story from the Dem shitsite the Washington Post (edited to remove the Post's fawning over the Dem party):

Kansas City's city-owned grocery store was wildly celebrated when it opened seven years ago. Area residents had long lived without a decent supermarket on Kansas City’s east side, and the store was an effort by the city’s Democrat rulers to give area residents access to healthy food.

But now the store--in a city-owned strip mall--is on the verge of closure.  Customers say they are increasingly afraid to shop there — even with visible police patrols — because of drug dealing, theft and vagrancy both inside and outside the store and the public library across the street.

The store lost almost a million dollars last year and now has barely a quarter of the shoppers it had a few years ago, according to the nonprofit that leases the site from the city.

Despite a recent $750,000 cash infusion from the city, the shelves are almost bare.

As grocery prices continue to climb and millions of Americans "face losing federal food assistance" [thinly disguised bitching about Trump] more cities and states across the country — in Illinois, Georgia and Wisconsin — are experimenting with the concept of taxpayer-funded grocery stores to get food to low-income neighborhoods.

Now here's the real purpose behind the WaPo sob story:

Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic candidate for mayor of New York City, has attracted attention for his campaign pledge to combat “out-of-control” prices by establishing FIVE city-owned supermarkets that he claims will pass savings onto customers because they don't have a "profit motive.”

Yet these experiments often don’t account for social issues that can make success even more challenging.  Critics say the efforts are unrealistic regardless because grocery stores have such slim profit margins and struggle to compete with the prices offered by big-box chains like Walmart. High-profile projects have failed in recent months in Florida and Massachusetts.

Marquita Taylor, who's shopped at the city-owned store just blocks from her home since it opened, says  “This is pathetic.  Every neighborhood deserves a good grocery store.*

Ahh yes!  And a 3,000-square-foot home with free internet and utilities, too.

Nearly a decade ago the Democrat-ruled gruberment of Kansas City spent $17 million to buy and fix up a decaying strip mall.  The city opened its grocery in 2018 with a salad bar, fresh shrimp on ice and flower bouquets.  Not surprisingly, locals were thrilled.

At first the store was run by a private grocer, but in 2022 a "nonprofit" took over.  Sales were okay at first, but after the pandemic crime rose and sales began to plummet.

See, duh Post implies pipo stopped buying food when duh Chyna virus hit, right?  Nah.

Police data show assaults, robberies and shoplifting in that area have risen since 2020.  Shoplifting cases have nearly tripled.

Wait..."shoplifting," y'say?  Wasn't that what caused the privately-owned stores to close in the first place?  Why yes, it was.  So how did spending over $17 MILLION on the city-owned store fix that, eh?  Of course it didn't fix jack-shit. 

At a community meeting last year the store manager showed videos of "security incidents," like a naked woman parading through the store throwing bags of chips to the ground, another person urinating in the vestibule and a couple fornicating on the lawn of the library in broad daylight.

Wait...duh Supreme Court haz ruled dat fucking in public in daylight iz jus' "freedom of speech," jus' like burning duh 'Merican flag!"

Advocates accuse the city of neglecting the property.

 "If duh city wud jus' spend another ten million or so, everyt'ing wud be fine!"  Ohh, certainly.

In May of this year, after the city was slow to give $750,000 in promised "assistance" [i.e. cash] to the store, residents from the racially mixed neighborhood stormed a council meeting waving signs that read, “I need access to fresh food!”

Democrat mayor Quinton Lucas says he sees two challenges: first is saving the current store. “Changing consumer behavior will be another.”

You don't say.

In a rare burst of not-quite-candor the Post writer says "The issues defy quick solutions."  She finds a police major who "links the rise in crime to fallout from the pandemic and rising inflation."  Hmmm...
  Then, buried after the above horseshit, is the real cause: The Dem-ruled (i.e. leftist) city council closed the city's only jail in 2009 to save money.  So people arrested for minor crimes are quickly released instead of being held in surrounding counties "miles away."

Say, how's that workin' out for ya, ya dumb bastards?

“The same group of offenders are here every week, just hanging out,” says the major. “A few people are ruining it for the rest of the community that deserves to go to their grocery store and their library.”

Wow, who could have predicted that if you don't jail people for "minor" crimes, they'll do more of the same, eh?

In one cryptic 'graf writer Annie Gowen says Illinois alone has spent $16 million for new grocery stores since 2023, but apparently none are owned by the city.  That sounds like giving money to connected grifters.

In Boston, Rauch founded a chain of five "low-cost" grocery stores that allegedly sold only healthy food, avoiding sugary snacks.  Gowen says sales revenue only covered 75 percent of their costs, and the rest came from with private and public grants.  But you can bet the customers all had iPhones, fancy hair extensions and glamorous nails.

The founder says they were anticipating a banner 2025, but then "the Trump administration slashed federal programs that aided nutrition assistance."  No specifics, no programs, no numbers.

“We ran out of money,” he says. “The freezing of funds at the USDA had a very chilling effect.”  

Exploring “public options” for groceries remains a popular idea with Democrats because of high prices...says Margaret Mullins, *director of public options and governance* at the Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator.

“Making sure people have access to fresh food is really, really important,” Mullins said. “So even though it’s tough, people keep turning to this public support idea because what else can they do?”

What else can they do, eh?  Well for starters, how about not stealing from grocery stores, eh?

Nooo, dat too harsh.  Far bettah to replace carefully-run private businesses with city-owned ones where cash vanishes every week.

A critic of the city-owned grocery says the store looks “great on paper” but doesn't have enough demand to support it.  And the neighborhood has other stores nearby.

That extremely vital piece of info is buried near the end of the piece.

So far the city appears to have spent about $29 million on the shopping center project.

The store’s insurance company has now dropped it, and the premiums with a new insurer are 45 percent higher.

After the city bought the property and opened the city-owned store, the local neighborhood association launched a campaign asking people to sign pledges to shop there.  The association also handed out $10 gift cards.

Now residents say "There’s nothing there.” Hardly any fruit or chips. No bread except hamburger buns.

 Government grocery in Venezuela.  Just kidding: this is the city-owned store in Kansas City.

Democrats: "We need more great projects like this!  An' to reduce costs duh city shud be the insurer for the store too!  See, duh premiums will drop cuz ain't none a' dat baaaad profit motive!  Yeh, dat's duh ticket!"

Source: shitsite Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2025/07/18/city-owned-grocery-stores-crime-funding/

Hilliary's "Trump-Russia collusion" hoax killed people and destroyed lives

You've probably never heard of Mike Caputo.  He was an assistant secretary for public affairs with HHS during the Covid plandemic, and a senior advisor to the Trump campaigns.

Because of the "Russia conspiracy" hoax, totally fabricated by Hilliary and the FBI/DOJ during Obozo's ghastly reign, lots of Trump supporters and their family members were attacked by crazed Democrats.  This is his story (edited): 

We "remnants" of the Russia-collusion hoax have similar stories.

When we all chose politics as a profession, we knew it was bloodsport.  But none of us expected the personal toll that our families—especially our children--would suffer.

When the Media and Democrats hatched the Russiagate and subsequent hoaxes, I went on television several times a week to try to tell the truth.  My wife and daughters paid the price.

Most Trump supporters stayed silent. They were the smart ones.  Some, seeing their kids bullied by students and teachers alike, pulled their kids from public schools.  In at least one family both parents were fired, so with no money for tuition their son was forced to drop out of college.  But of course you never heard about that, because the Media didn't want you to know.

Stories like this are commonplace. Many families lost their life savings to legal fees.  Some lost their homes.  You never heard about any of it.

Some committed suicide.

It's said that constant stress can cause cancer.

The mentally ill, weaponized by brazen Democrat lies, harassed nearly all of us. My frequent media appearances made me recognizable, which made my family a target of a local who was finally arrested and prosecuted for harassment.

My youngest daughters, just five and seven years old at the time, were often harassed while playing in our front yard. A local elderly woman, posted photos of our home on social media, showing our address. She screamed at my daughters as they played.

Constant harassment by unhinged activists finally forced us to leave our beloved hometown.

Last year Roger Stone and I had a late lunch near his home. Out of nowhere an Antifa activist showed up to threaten him in the mostly-empty restaurant.  

The Russiagate hoax was created by Hillary Clinton aide Jake Sullivan, who would later be appointed Biden’s national security advisor. Christopher Steele, the British spy hired by Clinton to create the dodgy dossier, and his Fusion GPS co-conspirator Glenn Simpson are still doing the same work for similar clients. Andrew Weissmann, Peter Strzok, John Brennan, and more still peddle their lies. Elements of the original conspiracy were woven into Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 American election, then bogus Trump impeachments, January 6th prosecutions, anti-Trump lawfare, and Special Counsel Jack Smith’s Mar-a-lago raid.

That 2016 hoax continues today.  Justice demands that we investigate those who created this hoax, and prosecute them fully and legally.  Americans should know who did it and how.

Source. 

https://www.racket.news/p/russiagate-remnants

They committed treason

 

 

We've known about the January 2017 meeting in which Obozo, Sally Yates (deputy A-G) and then-FBI director James Comey planned the "Russia collusion" hoax to cripple Trump's presidency.  And because the corrupt, Democrat-fellating Mainstream Media endlessly repeated it, it worked.

What was missing was written proof.  Now, with the head of the FBI appointed by Trump, he's released the FBI notes of that meeting, proving what had been leaked in 2017.  Of course you probably didn't hear about that or read about it, cuz the Mainstream Media barely said a word about it.

Now the question is, will the DOJ charge any of the participants with a crime?  Cuz I don't recall hearing that any of 'em got one of those faaaaabulous "unconditional, blanket pardons" like bribem gave hunty and his other family members.

Nah, no Democrat will evah be prosecuted, for anything.  Never are.  Some Deep State apparatchik would mis-file a crucial court paper and OOPS!  The statute of limitations just expired!

Video compilation of Adam Schiff claiming--falsely--that he had *evidence* Trump colluded with Russia

Here's a video compilation of Adam Schiff saying on 14 appearances on TV that he had evidence that Russia had colluded to help Trump win in 2016. 

He goes into detail to make his claim sound more convincing: "We know Russia offered to help Trump, and the campaign accepted that offer."   Except...just-released FBI documents show the "Trump colluding with Russia" was all a hoax by Obozo, the FBI and the Deep State to cripple Trump's first term.

Now, our shitty courts have held that you can't be prosecuted for making false statements about public figures unless you know the statements are false AND you made them maliciously.  Schiff's numerous repetitions of his lies would seem to qualify.  Moreover, the "malice" seems to be an effort to hamstring a duly elected president, which would seem pretty serious.

Frankly I think he should be imprisoned for life.  Seriously.

The curious case of Alan Dershowitz' WSJ opinion piece on Epstein

As most of you know, the attorney-general (Pam Bondi) and the director of the FBI have said a) Epstein killed himself; and b) despite rumors that he had a list of men who'd had sex with under-aged girls at his parties, there was no such list.

So if no list, supporters said "If that's true, why not release ALL material related to Epstein?"  The Dem-ruled Media smelled blood, and the current Narrative is that Trump participated.

In another article, WSJ reporters said they saw a bawdy birthday card from Trump to JE with a hand-drawn nude figure and lots of salacious typed dialog.  Trump denies writing any such card, but the Media is having orgasms.

Alan Dershowitz was Jeffrey Epstein’s lawyer.  On July 15 the Wall Street Journal printed an Opinion piece from him about sealed evidence in the Epstein case.  Highlights:

AD wrote that he couldn't reveal some of what he knew due to attorney-client privilege, and because some testimony had been sealed by judges.  But he says Epstein never created a “client list.”
 
The quotes around "client list" are in the WSJ article, and they're revealing:  AD is saying Epstein didn't create something *specifically called a "client list."*

That suggests there could be *some* sort of list, just not *called* a "client list."

AD says the FBI interviewed girls who claimed to have been at Epstein's parties--girls AD carefully calls "alleged victims--and says they named several recognizable men who were present.  He says the courts have ordered all the names sealed, but says he knows who they are, and that "They don’t include any current officeholders."

This last seems unusual: AD is a total liberal, and would seem to have every reason to stoke the fires of anger in Democrat voters.  If that's true, why would he include the phrase above that can be taken to mean Trump isn't mentioned?

I think it's to fire up Trump *supporters* to demand the release of all material on JE.  And AD says the media should petition the courts to release (unseal) all the names and information.  

He admits "There are videotapes, but they are of public areas of" Epstein's Palm Beach home.  He says Epstein reported the theft of money and a gun from a drawer in his living room, so the police installed a video camera.  Ever heard of cops installing a videocam in a private home?  Me neither.

AD doesn't mention whether Epstein had cameras in his NYC townhouse--and since this was where most of his parties were held, that's a big omission.

He also wrote "I am not aware of video cameras in guest bedrooms."  "I am not aware..." eh?

He writes that "Open records show an acquaintance between Epstein and Mr. Trump many years ago. That relationship ended when Mr. Trump reportedly banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago, long before becoming president. I have seen nothing that would suggest anything improper or even questionable by Mr. Trump."

Again, you wouldn't expect AD would have any desire to exonerate Trump, and yet he does just that.  It's...curious.

If your bullshit-detector hasn't gone off yet, here ya go:  He writes "It's clear from the evidence that Epstein committed suicide. What isn’t clear is whether he was assisted by jail personnel."

The first statement is utter horseshit:  While it's certainly possible he killed himself, a huge amount of "circumstantial evidence" suggests that he was murdered: cameras on his cell failing just before he died, his cellmate being moved out for no reason, guards sleeping when they were supposed to be making rounds, and most telling: He had huge assets to appeal any conviction for decades, and could have argued that by surrendering his passport he wouldn't be a flight risk if he remained free until his appeal was heard.

So...while he *could* have killed himself, to claim that "It's clear from the evidence that Epstein committed suicide," as AD does, is clearly horseshit.  And it shows that AD is on-board with the Narrative.

One of the mysteries of the Epstein case is that after he was charged in 2009 or so with sex trafficking underage girls in Florida, a U.S. attorney named Alex Acosta gave him an astonishingly sweet deal, allowing him to xxx

Acosta claims he was told--by never-named sources--that JE was working for a U.S. intel agency, so he was to get a light sentence.  This doesn't pass the smell test: If it had been true, charges would have been quietly dropped on some bullshit excuse like "no corroborating evidence."  Because any real intel agency that allowed its agents to do jail time would soon find itself short of agents, eh?

Interestingly, there's no evidence that the government ever cross-examined Acosta to find the details about his allegation that "I was told...."  Of course that could have been because it's true, but as just noted that seems unlikely.  But another possibility is that Acosta may have simply been paid off.  

Dersh claims Epstein never worked for any intelligence agency, because if he had, Dersh believes he would have told AD and his other lawyers, who might have been able to use that to get him a better deal.  
AD notes that the claim that Epstein was working for the Israeli intel agency Mossad probably arose from credible allegations that the father of Epstein’s girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell worked with Mossad.

SO...my guess is that Trump probably attended Epstein parties with underage girls, in which case it's understandable that he wouldn't want that revealed.  Dersh probably wrote the WSJ piece to assure Trump that he was on-board with keeping any secrets.  Guess we'll see. 

Source: the Wall Street Journal

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-inside-scoop-on-jeffrey-epstein-b0da1cbe

How the Supreme Court decreed that burning the American flag is just "free speech"

A day after our delightful, fun-filled 4th I saw a video on the Net of a few hate-filled blacks in the socialist shithole of NYC burning the American flag and screaming "F*ck the 4th!"  (Literally.)

Commenters on that site were stunned: all thought burning the American flag was illegal.  But on June 21, 1989 the Supreme Court--which at the time was majority-liberal--DECREED that burning the American flag was a protected form of free speech.  That liberal ruling has survived to this day. You can burn the American flag or do anything you want to it, and Democrats are fine with it.  

So if you're a young American, and if liberals have DECREED that burning the American flag is fine, then logically burning ANY flag would also be protected speech, eh?

Hahahahaha!  You'll soon learn that "logic" means something different to Democrats than to the rest of us:  Turns out burning certain flags in Dem-ruled cities will get you jailed and fined.  In fact, Dems are so insane that they'll jail you even for leaving tire marks on streets painted with certain combinations of colors.  Of course those are so-called "pride" or "trans flags," or even paintings of those flags on street intersections.

Democrats don't see the utter hypocrisy.  "Burning duh U.S. flag beez free speech, but don' yew DARE disrespek ouah pride or trans flags!"

I'll show ya those cases at the end, but I wanna start by explaining the 1989 case that led the Supreme Court to decree that burning the American flag was "free speech."

In August of 1984 the Republicans were having their presidential convention in Dallas.  GOP conventions have always attracted nasty demonstrations by U.S. leftists, socialists, communists and Democrats, and 1984 was no exception.  

On August 22 a member of the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade, Gregory Lee Johnson, joined a protest, with rioters spray-painting buildings and knocking over everything they could. (Potted plants were the main hapless victims.)

When the protestors reached Dallas City Hall, Johnson poured kerosene on a stolen American flag and set it on fire.

Like 48 states, Texas had a law against "desecrating the American flag," and Johnson was charged with violating that law.  Months later a jury found him guilty and he was sentenced to a year in jail and fined $2,000.

Johnson--now represented by a legendary communist defense attorney named William Kunstler--appealed his conviction to the state's Court of Appeals, which affirmed the conviction. He then appealed to the state's court of criminal appeals, which reversed his conviction, claiming burning the flag was protected by the First Amendment.

The state government appealed to the Supreme Court, and on June 21, 1989 that court issued a 5–4 opinion agreeing that burning the American flag was "protected free speech."

Writing for the majority, liberal William Brennan noted that the court had long declared that even though the First Amendment clearly states "speech," what the Founders really intended was to protect ALL forms of expression.

(For curious young Americans: there is no record that the Founders actually contemplated that.  Liberal judges just made it up.)

But as you'll see below, only certain non-speech acts are protected.
   
To support the majority, Brennan noted that the court had previously overturned the conviction of a person who'd displayed a red flag at a youth camp, at a time when red flags were symbols of communism.  No destruction or damage, so it seemed reasonable to overturn.

Brennan also noted a case in which the Court recognized that a public-school student wearing a black arm-band to protest the Vietnam war was protected speech.  Same deal: no damage or destruction.  Of course neither case involved burning the American flag, but the precedent was set.  So for liberals it was a small step to legalize burning the U.S. flag.

So waving a flag or wearing an anti-war armband was protected under "free speech."  But as they are with all legal rulings, the Left is infinitely flexible when it has a goal in mind, so the court refused to honor this sacred "free speech" precedent when leftist school adminishits wanted to slap down a highschool student who wore a shirt with a picture of the American flag on it to school.

You might be curious as to how the then-liberal-majority court could so brazenly ignore its earlier precedent about displaying flags being free speech, eh?  

Easy: the "justices" ruled that wearing a shirt with a pic of the American flag on it wuz "hate speech."

Seriously...and shut up, deplorable.

You may well wonder how anyone--even moronic liberal judges--could consider wearing a picture of the American flag "hateful."  Read the opinion.

Ignoring the left's hypocrisy in that case, with highest court in duh land having DECREED that burning the American flag was now "free speech," logically that should apply to ALL flags, eh?

While you're thinking about that, let's take a brief look at "logic:"  As everyone over 30 should know, there's a thing called "ad hoc reasoning," which means "We make up the rules as we go."  The problem with this is that "ad hoc" reasoning often produces contradictory results, cuz the rulers are just making it up as they go, eh?  So a "rule" they invent to get 'em the result they want in Case A, but would block the result they want in Case B, is simply ignored.  See?

So back to our history: Sure enough, when Dem-ruled "progressive" states passed laws against burning "pride flags," and later made up laws against leaving tire marks on "pride flags" painted on street intersections, precedent should quickly, easily have the Supreme Court overturning those laws, eh?  Cuz if burning the American flag is legal, that should be true for all flags, eh?  Let alone mere paintings of flags on roadways.

Surprise!  The court has refused to hear appeals from those convictions.  Hmmm...

SO...the vast majority of Americans were so outraged by the court ruling that burning the American flag was free speech that they pushed congress passed the "Flag Protection Act," saying that just as yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater isn't protected by the First Amendment, it would now be against federal law to burn the American flag.

Should clear that up, eh?

Hahahahahaha!  I see you just arrived on the planet!  Enjoy your stay.

Nah, the ACLU immediately sued, and the Supreme Court immediately overturned that law, using the same "expansive" definition of "speech" that they used in the 1989 case.  So they reinforced the notion that burning flags is merely "protected free speech."

Now, follow me here, cuz you're gonna have to think--and for Democrats that might be a novel and disorienting experience.  Did the First Amendment say "...except you're not allowed to yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater when there isn't one"?

Obviously not.  So how did the court conclude that Free Speech does NOT cover that, eh?

Democrats: "Ahh, see...dat jus' beez logical, citizen!  Duh drafters of duh Constitution expected that later Americans would have to apply rules that...the Founders couldn't...have...foreseen...an' so...uh..."

Ahh, you mean like a federal law saying certain drugs are only legal if you get a prescription?  Where's that in your Constitution, eh?

Take all the time you like.

Point is, the court has decreed that there are exceptions to "absolutist free speech."  If congress agreed that burning the American flag was NOT protected Free Speech, the court should have agreed because it long ago accepted the idea that free speech is NOT absolute.

And yes, you'd need to be vigilant against totalitarians trying to stretch that to suppress speech one party didn't like--as when the Dems used the FBI to lean on Fakebook and pre-Musk Twatter to delete posts the Deep State didn't like.

In conclusion: It matters little to me whether the court wants to rule that burning the American flag is legal.  But IF they so decree, reason would demand that the court be consistent, so burning or defacing ALL flags should be equally legal.  And yet defacing some flags--even mere symbols painted on the street!--has been punished, and the vaunted Supreme Court has been silent.  

Political goals, politically achieved.

Predictably, the communist rat-bastards at Time magazine described the 1989 flag decision as "one of the best Supreme Court decisions since 1960."  And yet many states have made it a crime to deface pride and tranny flags painted on the street.  "Some symbols deserve special protection," sayeth the court.  But they go on to decree that the American flag isn't one of 'em.

Political goals, politically achieved.

Democrats: "Yew mus' believe the Science! Well, except the science we don't like"

 

EU: "You have freedom of speech--unless we declare that what you say is 'illegal' "

This is a poster the French gruberment is putting out.  See if your kids can spot the horseshit:

"Wise, enlightened, benevolent leaders know free speech is a cherished right of free people.  So we hereby proclaim that yew have dat right.  But of course we won't allow anyone to spread 'illegal content,'  That should be obvious.  We will decide what's illegal, and you'll be notified when violators are sentenced."

It's Orwellian:  "Free speech is a cherished right of enlightened nations.  We iz enlightened, therefore we declare that you have free speech--as long as you don't try to say anything we don't like.  We will make this look entirely reasonable by claiming anything we don't like is 'illegal.'  Simple."

They claim that's "free speech."  And U.S. Democrats agree.

Immigration and "chain migration"

As I understand it, from early in our history to about 1930 foreigners wanted to come to the U.S. to be Americans.  And indeed, they eagerly did just that.

But it seems that somewhere along the line most immigrants stopped wanting to "become Americans" and instead were just sneering third-worlders who came here looking for free shit.  And a better life, definitely, but many actively subverted the principles that made America great.

I don't doubt that many "immigrants" are good people, but entering the U.S. illegally isn't a good sign.  While I'm open to new information, I suspect a huge percentage of illegal immigrants today are just here for free shit.

Even legal immigrants are suspect: Every 9/11 hijacker was a legal immigrant.  Think about that.

The "elites" constantly bleat that the U.S. needs more migrants.  The standard Narrative is that without migrants we'd all starve, since immigrants do the work Americans refuse to do.

Actually, due to the free cash the federal gruberment gives every month to people who refuse to work, that strikes me as probably true.  And if it is, giving green cards to foreign workers who've been here for years and have never been accused of a crime (other than illegally entering the U.S.) seems like a no-brainer .

But it strikes me as insane that the federal gruberment automatically gives U.S. citizenship to children of illegal immigrants born here.  We already know hundreds of thousands of pregnant Chinese nationals come here every year just so their kids are U.S. citizens.  A much better system would be to allow 'em to *apply* for citizenship at, say, 14, having to pass an exhaustive test of English proficiency and U.S. history, which would separate the poseurs from the dedicated.

Democrats: "Uhh...sure!  if you let us design the test."

Ahh, you rat-bastards continue to think we're stupid.  Fuck you.

You'd think most Americans would agree that importing hostile aliens and communist activists into the country is NOT a good idea, eh?  A huge cause of the problem is the "Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965," a.k.a. "Hart-Celler," which legalized a Democrat goal called “chain migration” that allows a single immigrant to import dozens of their family members.

The goal of Hart-Celler was not the good of our nation, but rather the Dem goal of bringing more migrants into the U.S.  Today 90% of our immigrants are from the ghastly third world.  80 million people wouldn't be here not for "chain migration," made legal by Hart-Cellar. 

Source.

https://amgreatness.com/2025/07/18/repeal-hart-celler/ 

Cali state senator introduces bill to have state buy burned-out lots and build...

Meet California state senator Ben Allen, who recently introduced a bill (SB 549) to allow the state to buy properties burned by the January fires in L.A. *and* use those lots to build low-income apartments for the homeless--and "justice-involved individuals," which is Dem-gobblespeak for criminals.

Meanwhile in NYC the Democrat candidate for New York City mayor (Zohran Mamdani) was caught on video pushing for “the abolition of private property.”

Seriously.

Momdani also supports abolishing prisons and defunding the police.  He's a Uganda-born Muslim, though his ideas would be equally crappy no matter what group he belonged to.
 
What do these two seemingly unrelated things--N.Y. and L.A.--portend?

You probably already know, but for naive young Americans I'll explain: Under communism the government provides for everyone.  Sounds fabulous, eh?  And if you're "connected"--a loyal supporter of the Democrat Partei--it is.  Cuz dat mean you can get an ocean-view apartment in Pacific Palisades rent-free.  Great, eh?

You bet.  Problem is, the money to buy the land your faaaabulous "free" apartment sits on had to come from somewhere, right?  Same for the money needed to *build* your faaabulous apartment, right?

So where d'ya think that money came from, eh?

"Connected" Dem voter: "Why should I care about that?  That doesn't matter, as long as I get my ocean-view apartment for $100 a month!"

Ah, of course.  Totally predictable.  Of course the money came from taxes paid by some poor working shmuck.

(Tapping my fingers while waiting for the penny to drop.)

(If it didn't...) What happens when most Americans are takers and only a handful pay any income tax, eh?

Democrats: "Dat not possible, citizen!  Look at all dem privately-owned homes!  Dey haz t'pay 'property taxes' to run duh skools an' duh po-leece an' fire departments, an' fill duh potholes!  An' duh salaries of ouah faaaabulous city and county workerz!  

So we'll jus' get ouah faaabulous property assessors tuh raise dere taxes a li'l bit!  Dey got t'pay or we put a "tax lien" on dere home!  If dey don' pay up in two years we foreclose an' sell dere home at a "tax sale."  Dey knows dat, so dey pay...an' pay an' pay!  It's great!

"So say a home-owner iz payin' $5,000 a year in property tax.  We guud Dems increase dis to $6,000.  It all done thru "escrow accounts" by duh mortgage companies, so if homeowner sees his or her monthly mortgage payment go up by $833 a month, dey complain to...duh mortgage company!  

"Multiply a thousand bucks a year by a million homes in L.A. county an' dat give us a BILLION dollahs a year!  Yaaaay!"

"So we kin build all duh low-income apartments we wants, wherever we want!  An' have enough left over to give all city and county workers a huge pay raise!  Yay!"

Source.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/07/in_fire_ravaged_los_angeles_an_idea_so_bad_even_its_sponsor_has_now_disowned_it.html

Somalia is hot in the summer. Wait...whut?

 Wow, Somalia looks really hot and dusty in the summer, eh?

Wait...what?  Y'say dis not Mogadishu but actually Minnesotistan?  Nah, dat not possible!

Video here.

University of Oregon DEI hires punish prof for quoting the Declaration of Independence

Three years ago (June of 2022) a DEI hire at the that University of Oregon's "Division of Equity and Inclusion" posted an anti-white post on X.

Seeing that post, a professor at Portland State U quoted it on the same UO site and added the comment "all men are created equal.”

UO's DEI enforcers--apparently unaware that the prof was quoting the Declaration of Independence-- were furious, but couldn't block the post from X, so a university DEI official instead blocked the prof from posting on the UO "Equity account."

So with the help of the Institute for Free Speech, the prof sued to challenge that obvious public-forum viewpoint discrimination.  

At this point UO adminishits had the chance to settle at no cost by recognizing that the prof's quoting the Declaration could not remotely be considered "hate speech," and then ordering the DEI hires to stop punishing free speech.  Of course sitting atop a massive pyramid of highly-paid adminishits, UO rulers did no such thing.

Instead, since the state-run university would be using taxpayer money for its legal fees, the admins knew they'd lose nothing if they lost the case.  So they chose to defend the indefensible.

A district-court judge ruled against the prof, but the Ninth Circuit vacated that ruling and sent the case back to the lower court—a signal that the university’s position was constitutionally suspect.

If the university had been a private entity you'd think some lawyer would have advised 'em to settle.  But again, all gruberment entities sue with your money, so it don't mean shit to them, eh?  So UO stubbornly reloaded and continued to defend punishing a prof for quoting the Declaration of Independence.  Seriously.

The university ignored another signal when a lower court granted a preliminary injunction preventing the university from censoring the prof’s posts even if a UO DEI official thought they were “hateful,” “racist,” “offensive,” or “off-topic”--which were rules by UO for blocking social-media posts.

Finally, in March of this year UO settled the case.  The settlement required UO’s legal counsel to agree that the prof’s speech was and is constitutionally protected and should not have been blocked.  

Then last month another judge awarded $191,000 in attorney fees to the prof’s legal team. This figure brought the university’s total legal expenses to at least $724,000 (some of which was paid by the university's insurer).

Nearly three years of litigation over DEI enforcers blocking someone for quoting the Declaration of Independence--all because the state-run university could use taxpayer funds to defend university officials’ ability to punish a prof for posting “all men are created equal.”  Wow.

And note that this kind of pig-headed stubbornness by university adminishits who can use taxpayer funds to defend when they're sued is *very common,* like the government fining a farmer for levelling a seasonal drainage, claiming it was part of the "navigable waters of the United States."  Actual case.

Source.

https://www.thecollegefix.com/censoring-all-men-are-created-equal-cost-u-oregon-724k-will-other-universities-learn/

Where Democracy--and the "great American experiment"--went off the cliff

The notion that people should govern themselves intuitively seems better than being forced to obey a king or dictator or the Communist Central Committee.

But even democracies have some sort of governing body, whose members presumably discern what their constituents want.  But then comes the hard part, because sometimes the "I wants" aren't affordable--or are but are stupid and will lead to disaster.

And here's where it starts to go south, because low-IQ voters--or just low-info voters--consistently elect glib, usually attractive but astonishingly dumb morons to represent 'em--like AOC, Jazzy Crockett, Cori Bush, Hank Johnson, Jamal Bowman, Maxine Waters, Cackles Harris and so on.

This was bad enough before women got the vote, and now is way worse.  I love women, but emotionalism in government is a blueprint for disaster--which brings us to the Problem:

Roman emperors spent the equivalent of billions building ports to import grain to feed the masses.  Understandable.  But if you can spend to build ports, it was only a small step to subsidize grain--government selling it to users for less than the actual cost.

No one batted an eye, cuz it seemed so reasonable!

Fast-forward to the U.S. in 1789.  (Parents: ask your kids what happened in that year.)  The Founders knew Roman history better than we do today.  No one has discovered anything more about ancient Rome, but the Founders studied it.  We stopped teaching students Roman history decades ago.  

The Founders knew beyond doubt from Roman history that politicians would eventually begin to vote to give "free shit" to voters to be popular and get re-elected.  To try to prevent this, the men who drafted the Constitution limited the federal government to specific "enumerated powers," like "Provide for the common defense" and "Establish a postal system."  (If you haven't read that document recently, try reading it.)

But since it wasn't possible to anticipate all future "crises" that might arise, the Founders added a clause called "provide for the general welfare"--which they didn't try to define.

And of course you know what happened: Stupid, short-sighted but totally cunning members of congress used the "general welfare" clause to pass a shit-ton of laws giving money--collected by the federal government--to po' folk.  And after congress passed the law taxing all "earned" income, that corruption went exponential.

That was the beginning of the end of the great American experiment--because once that door was breached there was no limit to what could be considered "the general welfare."  So first congress voted to use federal taxes to give pensions to widows of esteemed members.  Next was free food.  And today congress borrows trillions of dollars every year to give some voters "free" housing, food, free health care and thousands of dollars per month in cash.  Even free college, via student "loans" that bribem ordered taxpayers to pay off for deadbeat students--cunningly called "forgiving the loan."

We're just getting started: your corrupt congresswhores give hundreds of billions of dollars per year to certain favored "NGOs," some of which are paid as much as $25,000 for every illegal alien invader they "re-settle."  Cuz yew voted fo' dat, right?  Oh wait...you didn't.

You're forced to pay a billion or so every year to all the various "public broadcasting" entities--carefully divided among dozens of recipients so they can bleat that PBS per se only gets $800 million, ignoring all the other cunning pockets with different names but part of the same octopus.

Congress gives both your tax dollars and a trillion a year in borrowed money to damn near everything.  Democrats demand, and the spineless GOP always go along because that's how they get the Dems to throw 'em a few crumbs.

SO...today the national debt stands at $37 trillion.  Of course some of that was caused by wars: $6 billion (in 1917 dollars) for WW1, $323 billion (in 1945 dollars) for WW2, $2 billion (in 1860 dollars) for the Civil War.  And NONE of that has been paid off.  All the rest of the $37 TRILLION (that's $37,000 billions) has been giving voters "free" shit, and paying interest.

Had members of congress been responsible (don't die laughing) they would have avoided giving away free shit until the debt had been paid off, eh?  But of course they wanted to buy votes, so...you get it.

Now for the topper: There is NO realistic prospect that the corrupt congress will EVER cut spending at all, let alone by the amount necessary to avoid increasing the debt every year.

Hell, Democrats in congress have spent the past month blocking every GOP effort to cut a lousy $9 billion from the budget--less than two-tenths of one percent.

What does that tell ya?

The average voter literally has no idea where this all leads.  Your average 25-year-old believes the problem can easily be solved by simply printing mo' money--and most Dem congresswhores seem to agree.

The Leftist shitheads who run Wiki have already started hiding the true budget and the annual deficit: I just searched for "Federal spending for 2025."  Long article--and it does NOT give the federal budget anywhere.  That should tell you something.    

There's a psychological term called "incrementalism," which is a fancy word for "if change happens slowly, people consider it normal...so they stop worrying about it."  Keep that in mind as we go on.

Today the interest payments on U.S. debt is costing just over a TRILLION dollars a year.  Soon it'll be two trillion--and no one will bat an eye, because it's happened slowly enough that people consider it normal.  And as the national debt continues to increase, the people who buy government bonds will start demanding higher interest rates--which will increase the debt faster than ever.

Surely you see where this ends, right?

Don't worry: in five minutes you'll have forgotten all about this.  You want to forget, because the result is too scary to contemplate.

"Wait...what result?  I don't see any bad result!  Everything will continue just as it always has!"

No.  All rational, educated American adults know where this leads, if only unconsciously.  You just don't want to admit it.  

I don't blame ya.
 

18 states are defying Trump--and Title IX--still letting males compete in girls’ sports

Eighteen states are still defying Trump’s totally logical executive order that only biological girls can compete in girls’ sports.

Those same 18 states were still ordering that males pretending to be female be allowed to use girls' locker rooms and showers, based on public statements made by state officials or state policies.

The Trump administration has sued two of those 18 states, California and Maine, for their policies, but 16 other states have thus far avoided any legal action or loss of federal funds.

Trump signed an executive order in January recognizing that there were only two sexes, determined by biology, and barring men from playing in women’s sports.  But 18 Dem-ruled states simply gave the finger to that order.  Those states are all Democrat-ruled:
  California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington state.

On June 3 the head of California’s Department of Education published a statement ordering school administrators to keep allowing students to "play on sports teams that mirror their 'gender identity'”--a carefully camouflaged way of saying males would continue to be allowed to use girls' locker rooms and play on girls' teams.

In Maine, after the Department of Justice sued the state for continuing to insisting that males pretending to be female be allowed to play girls' sports, the states Attorney General didn't cite a legal reason for the policy but deflected by bleating that "there are no concerns of safety” when it comes to females competing against males, even though some girls have been  seriously injured by stronger, heavier boys.  The A-G had nothing to say about the logic of making girls undress in front of boys.

In Minnesotistan--which has officially declared itself a “trans refuge state"--the House of Representatives declared “Female sports team participation in Minnesota is not restricted to the female sex, nor will it be.”   Boys pretending to be girls continue to be allowed to play on girls' teams.

Maryland bleats that it has “always been a state that values fairness," so it will continue the totally fair policy of allowing stronger, heavier boys to compete in girls' sports.  That's Democrat logic.
   The state says it supports "transgender, nonbinary and intersex youth.  Just not biological girls.

In New Jersey the state's interscholastic athletic association said it hadn’t had any complaints about boys playing on girls’ teams, and absent complaints it will refuse to abide by Title IX and Trump’s order.  Cuz see, if no one complains about a law, the state doesn't need to enforce it.  It's right there in the (Democrat) Constitution.

In Washington state, the Superintendent of education published a statement in February saying Trump’s order to protect women is “disregarding the rule of law.”  That's odd because Title IX doesn't recognize trannies as girls.  The bribem regime simply declared that they would unilaterally interpret the word "sex" in Title IX to include "gender identification."
  See, the Constitution says if congress passes a law that's silent on some point, Democrat presidents can simply decree a re-wording.  Simple.  That's how democracy works, right? 

Source.

https://thefederalist.com/2025/07/15/exclusive-18-states-are-still-letting-dudes-dominate-girls-sports-compliance-tracker-shows/

"Queers for Palestine"

If you want a CLASSIC example of liberal cluelessness, take a look at the video at this link:

 

The morons in the video are "queers for Palestine."  They are convinced that Islam does NOT throw gays off rooftops, cuz...uh...reasons.  Dey don' know what duh Israeli policy is on queers, but dey iz convinced dat Hamas iz FAR mo' accepting!  Yep yep yep!  Cuz...reasons.

"Whut??  Yew say doze faaaabulous Muslims throw gay pipo off rooftops?  Nah, dat can't be true, cuz if it wuz, ouah faaaabulous Mainstream Media would have tol' us.  An' since dey dint, mus' not be true!  So we supports Hamas, cuz once dey meet us, dey'll love us just like all guud Americans do!  Yep yep yep!

And the pipo in duh video vote.  Democrat.  Cuz duh Dems iz woke.