A dozen Democrat-ruled states SUE to force taxpayers to continue funding sex changes for MINORS

If you've been paying attention (spoiler: ) you may know that Trump issued an Executive Order that no federal funds be used to perform any aspect of sex-change operations on children under 18.

Let's repeat that for Democrats:  If someone is over 18 and can find a way to make taxpayers pay for your sex-change (which is legal under both Medicare and Medicaid), that's still legal.  And if you're under 18 and can find someone other than federal taxpayers who's willing to pay for your sex-change, that's also still legal.

The EO just says no taxpayer money will be used to pay for sex changes for minors. That's all.

But that outrages Democrat rulers, so last Friday over a dozen Democrat-ruled states sued the Trump administration in an attempt to block that order and force taxpayers to continue to fund transgender "medical interventions" for minors.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court in the liberal shithole of Boston, where it's impossible to empanel a jury not ruled by Democrat supporters.

The lawsuit is larded with hysterical horseshit like this:

“Since taking office...Trump and his administration have relentlessly, cruelly, and unlawfully targeted transgender individuals.  [He] has sought to deny their very existence, banish transgender residents from the public square, and refuse them medically necessary healthcare.”

Every word of that is utterly false--and the lying sacks of shit who wrote it know it.  The only restriction in the EO is that doctors are barred from using federal money to pay for their sex-change procedures for minors.  Got it?

Trump’s EO bans federal funds from being used to "transition" minors, period.  And Dems hate that.

Every state joining in the lawsuit--and the shithole of Washington, D.C.--is Democrat-ruled.

The lawsuit accuses Trump of “creating an atmosphere of fear and intimidation" among transgender individuals.  "Fear and intimidation," y'say?  Because it bars you from using taxpayer dollars to fund sex-change procedures for MINORS?   Again, the EO only applies to federal funding of sex-change procedures on MINORS.

From 2019 to 2023, U.S. hospitals and doctors billed taxpayers nearly $120 million for transgender-related procedures on roughly 14,000 minors.

The lawsuit is just the latest clash between Democrat-ruled states and the Trump administration over transgender policy. In July the Trump administration sued California for allowing males to compete against women in sports.

Now here's the hoot: congress never found it necessary to pass a federal law ordering that "Males cannot compete in women's sports or use girls' locker rooms," because before the Dems ordered both, those ideas were so absurd that no one ever even considered one political party would order both,   So no one thought we needed a federal law prohibiting it.

For the slow-witted: It's like saying "Dere iz no LAW saying elephants can't be linemen in college football, so we iz gon' do dat!"

You still don't realize how you're being conned.  Cunning Democrat leaders will always find vulnerabilities in the law that they can exploit.  And in demanding that males be allowed to compete in girls' sports, they've found one of those vulnerabilities.  And dey bleat an' whine dat "It jus' not FAIR dat yew awful conservatives don't allow deez authentic, real girlz to "play highschool and college sports!!!  Cuz 'Trans women ARE women, right"?  We haz sed it. so shall it be!

And Democrat voters smile and nod and believe it.

Democrats are cunning and relentless, and have elevated "lawfare" to an art form.  And their base loves it.  

Source.

https://dailycallernewsfoundation.org/2025/08/01/blue-states-suing-to-block-trump-admin-from-cracking-down-on-child-mutilation/

Dem-fellating site Politico gives Cackles a big tongue-bath

Yesterday the Dem-fellating shitsite Politico ran a swooning story on Cackles--her thoughful, forward-looking appearance on Stephen Colbert's equally disastrous show (which was a thinly-disguised chance to plug her faaaabulous new book) and her plans for the next two years.

Of course Colbert's liberal/Democrat audience positively swooned over her.  To them she's the epitome of brilliant, imaginative leadership--tirelessly forging the way to our fabulous socialist future!

Yeesh.  And to think Americans came within 180,000 votes of having her and the equally disastrous Tampon Tim running the country!  The mind boggles.

Now the big question for Democrats is, should she run in 2028?  Surprisingly (after the tongue-bath from Politico), many Dem consultants and congress-creeps--all speaking on condition of anonymity, of course--are having second thoughts.

And that brings me to the point: Ever since 2004 Dem presidential candidates have chosen running-mates so the candidate who selected him or her couldn't be impeached.  Think about it: Obozo picked Bribem, Hilliary chose the awful Tim Kaine, Bribem chose the even dumber Cackles, who in turn chose the moronic China simp Tampon Timmy.

Bribem's handlers knew for the last 3 years of his term that he was totally senile and could never finish a second term.  But they also knew that Dem voters are so dumb that if the handlers could all just agree to lie--brazenly, outrageously--and convince voters not to believe their own eyes and ears, they could drag the Vegetable to victory.

Then bribem could resign and the Dems would get a faaaabulous two-fer: the first "black" female president.  Yay!

But then Divine Intervention intervened: bribem froze up so often in the one debate the Dems were forced to accept (to show how totally competent their candidate was, eh?) that his polling numbers plummeted.  And that, in turn, brought all the chickens home to roost:

The story is that Dem partei [sic] rulers were roughly equally divided between those who wanted to tough it out with a clearly senile bribem--continuing to assure voters that he was "sharp as a tack"--and the other half saying that even though all the primaries were over, the partei [sic] had to dump bribem and pick another candidate.

At that point there were two shining stars: Pennsylvania gov Josh Shapiro, and Gavin Newsom.  Word is that Nancy Pelosi--who at one time was related to Newsom--believed he could win, so made the "command decision" to pressure bribem to renounce the nomination.

With that done, the Dems held their convention, which would presumably do whatever Pelosi wanted.  But then once again, Divine Intervention...you know, the thing:

SO...when the congressional black caucus heard Pelosi and her allies were about to dump Cackles in favor of Newsom, the head of that grievance group supposedly said "If you don't choose Harris we will burn this party to the ground!  You won't get a single black vote."

Suddenly the true cost of what the Democrats had seen as the brilliance of choosing a VP so bad that the prezzy would never be impeached was made horrifyingly clear--because while Cackles filled bribem's promise to select a black female VP, she was totally unqualified to be president--and most voters knew it.  Which, of course, is why bribem chose her: it ensured he wouldn't be impeached.

It's certainly possible that if Pelosi had known the black caucus would force the Partei [sic] to choose Cackles as nominee, Nancy might not have made the decision to force bribem to resign the nomination.

What's really laugh-out-loud funny is that anyone could have predicted the CBC demand, eh?  One imagines the look of total confusion and bewilderment on Pelosi's face when she realized that for all her vaunted political brilliance (at least that's how the Mainstream Media always described her), she'd failed to predict the obvious!  Fabulous!  

And in fairness, even with the ghastly, moronic, untalented, charmless Cackles, the Dems only lost by about 1.5% of the total vote, so despite some pundits on the Right saying the Dems "lost big," it was actually a close call, even with Cackles.  So to Nancy, it was worth a try.

So...one more amusing scene remains: Affluent white female liberals and their husbands (if any) and their daughters--and Stephen Colbert's entire audience-- still think Cackles is absolutely faaabulous, and will gush and fawn and talk her into running in '28.  Even Politico says a nationwide poll last month found Cackles leading potential Democrat contenders with 26 percent, 15 points ahead of second-place Pete Buttigieg.  (Wait...where's Newsom?)

This is amusing, as a poll by Newsweek on August 1 shows Pete Buttigieg leading with 17%, followed by Kamala Harris at 12%, and Gavin Newsom at 10%.  But that poll wouldn't have helped Politico push their favorite candidate.

So yeah, she'll run again.  With all famous entertainers and faaabulously successful women begging her to run, how could she possibly resist?  And the Mainstream Media will swoon and declare she won every primary debate.  The CBC will scream that if blacks don't vote for her, "you ain't black," which should lock in about 12% of the popular vote right there.
 
Maybe she'll even win some delegates in a primary this time.  Question is, will the people who rule the Dem party allow her to win, or will they "pull a Pelosi" and torpedo her?

Oh, y'think that's crazy-talk?  That it's not possible in ouah precious "democracy"?  

Ask bribem if he ever thought it was possible.

Source: Politico

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/02/some-dems-want-kamala-harris-to-sit-midterms-out-00490186

Media screams that 3 big volcanoes have erupted in the last ten days, blames Trump

MSNBC breathlessly bleats that in the last few days three big volcanoes have erupted: Kamchatka, Indonesia and Hawaii.   And the know the cause:  Trump cut funding for studying volcanoes. 

ACLU has sued to restore funding, saying without it, millions will die.  A few skeptics wondered how studying volcanoes would keep 'em from erupting, but a group of PhDs had a ready answer: "Unless you have a PhD in seismic science, you can't understand the explanation, so shut up."

Okay, obv. kidding but sounds like the Media's and Dems' playbook.

Top Dem in the senate lies brazenly, shamelessly, on video, about...well, everything

 

As everyone knows, Chuck Schumer is the top Dem in the senate.  And he constantly lies, brazenly, shamelessly--on video, so there's no question about it..  Latest example: 

The White House wasn't designed to host big state dinners, so when they had one it had to be outside, under a tent.  If it rained before the event, things got swampy.  So Trump had the architects draw up a proposed big room where state dinners could be held.  Estimated cost: $200 million. The media immediately attacked, calling it a "ballroom" and a waste of tax dollars.

Schumer quickly uploaded a video saying how totally AWFUL this was, that Trump would DARE waste your precious tax dollars on a damn ballroom!  And to make it sound even worse, he claimed the DOGE cuts were paying for this.

Just one problem: Trump says the cost will NOT come from the budget but will be paid by private donors.

Now, one of two things must be true: either Schumer KNEW this was true when he posted his video condemning the idea; or else he didn't bother to have a staffer ask the White House if the cost would be from taxpayer funds.  Either way, what does this tell ya about the TOP leadership of the Democrat partei [sic], eh?

Never trust the sons of bitches.  They are beyond treasonous.  They'll utter any lie if they think it'll win 'em more power.

More on the release of the classified "annex" withheld by the FBI that shows the plot

The post below is edited from law professor Jonathan Turley's column on the release of the previously-classified "annex" to the Durham report:

Yesterday the FBI released a previously classified "annex" to the Durham report on the investigation into charges that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election from Hilliary.

After the release, former CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper wrote in the New York Times denying allegations and insisting they never relied on a work of fiction called the "Steele dossier."

That's a proven lie, but the Times still printed their false claim despite being demonstrably untrue.  The pair's column reaffirmed the level of dishonesty and duplicity that marked their tenures in office.

The newly-released documents quote Brennan overruling career analysts and insisting that the dossier be included in the intelligence assessment.  Even after leaving office, Brennan continued to push the false collusion claim.  The fake dossier was used to feed the brazen claim that Trump was a Russian asset.

The declassified annex shows further evidence of a secret plan by the Clinton campaign to use the FBI and media to spread a false claim that Donald Trump was a Russian asset. With this material, the public is finally seeing how officials and reporters set into motion what may be the greatest hoax ever perpetrated in American politics.

Trump never colluded with Russia.  Instead the Clinton campaign, the FBI, Brennan and Clapper created a Narrative of collusion--which the Media eagerly parroted.  This cunning hoax crippled much of Trump's first term.

What is emerging in these documents is the story of a fake Narrative--an illusion, carefully constructed by corrupt intel officials (Brennan, Clapper, Comey and a handful of minor players like Bruce and Nellie Orr) and a willing media.  The brilliance of the conspirators was getting reporters to believe the lie--which they eagerly did.

The first act was when the Clinton campaign secretly funded the Steele dossier, via two "cutouts:" using a DC law firm (Perkins Coie) to pay a group called "Fusion GPS," which paid a former British spy named Christopher Steele to create a salacious account of Trump cavorting with Russian prostitutes in a Moscow hotel.  The implication was that the KGB had video of the romp, so could now blackmail Trump into doing Putin's bidding.

Emails in the just-released annex state that Hillary Clinton personally approved the operation.  Could they be fake?  Of course--but the FBI never tried to authenticate them, merely dismissing 'em as "Russian disinformation."

During the campaign a few reporters asked about the possible connection between the Clinton campaign and the fabricated "Steele dossier," but Clinton campaign officials denied any involvement. After the election, journalists discovered that the campaign had hidden payment to Steele for the dossier as “legal fees” among the $5.6 million paid to Perkins Coie under Democrat fixer Marc Elias.

When New York Times reporter Ken Vogel tried to report the story, he said, Elias “pushed back vigorously, saying ‘You (or your sources) are wrong.’” Times reporter Maggie Haberman declared, “Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year.”

Later the chairman of Clinton’s campaign,  John Podesta, appeared before Congress and was asked whether the campaign had anything to do with the Steele dossier. Podesta emphatically denied any contractual agreement with Fusion GPS. Sitting beside him was Elias, who reportedly said nothing to correct that lie to Congress.

The FEC ultimately sanctioned the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee for funding the creation of the dossier.

After paying to create the fake "dossier," the Clinton team worked quietly to feed the dossier to the FBI. 

The newly released evidence shows that in July of 2016 Brennan briefed then- president Obama on Hillary’s plan to tie then-candidate Trump to Russia as a way to distract voters from her use of a private, unsecured email server in her home in New York.  

Months later, in January of 2021, after Trump unexpectedly won the election, Obama asked Brennan, Clapper and Comey to find evidence that Trump had colluded with Russia.  CIA analysts said they found no evidence of collusion, but Brennan overruled his own analysts and used the dossier to support the Narrative that Trump "colluded with Russia."

Career analysts objected that relying on the unverified, sole-source Steele dossier was a huge error and undermined the new "official" conclusion.  One CIA analyst told investigators that Brennan "refused to remove it, and when confronted with the dossier’s main flaws, responded, ‘Yes, but doesn’t it ring true?’”

That's a huge key to the success of the hoax:  It only had to be plausible enough to get the Media to sign on, and to fool the public.  The first was easy, since the Media hated Trump and loved Hilliary.  And once the Media signed on, convincing Democrats was easy.

The plot was designed to cripple the incoming Trump administration and prevent any reforms during what the Dems were sure would be just 4 years--and it worked.  In the end, both Special Counsel Mueller and the DOJ Inspector General found no evidence of Russian collusion, but by then the damage was done, and bribem won in 2020.

Reports indicate that the CIA is about to declassify material showing that foreign sources were aware of the move to create a Russia-collusion scandal, and expected that the FBI would play a role in the plan.  One source said the foreign intelligence predicted the move “with alarming specificity.”

For example, emails from Leonard Bernardo, a VP of Soros's Open Society Foundation explained that “during the first stage of the campaign, due to lack of direct evidence, it was decided to disseminate the necessary information through the FBI…from where the information would then be disseminated through leading U.S. publications.”

Bernardo added, “Julie (Clinton Campaign Advisor) says it will be a long-term affair to demonize Putin and Trump. Now it is good for a post-convention bounce.  Later, the FBI will put more oil into the fire.”

The Washington Post and New York Times both won Pulitzer prizes for reporting on the claims that Trump both colluded with Putin AND was "a Russian asset," so both are trying hard to wave away these latest releases of previously secret material.  They don't want to report that they helped sell a political hoax as truth. That is why they cannot honestly cover the story. To do so would not be coverage, it would be a confession.

It appears that everyone was in on the trick: the U.S. government, the media, even foreign governments. The only chumps were the American people. Now we're slowly beginning to see how it was done.

Source: Jonathan Turley (edited by me)

https://jonathanturley.org/2025/08/01/the-reveal-the-public-is-finally-learning-how-democrats-pulled-off-the-greatest-political-trick-in-history/

Kaboom! Classified annex to Durham report FINALLY turned over to congress!

If you pay attention to the acts of the utterly corrupt Democrats who formerly ran this damn government (and still run most of it, even with Trump as prez), you may have heard of an investigation ordered by congress into how the "Russia collusion" hoax was created.

Durham took something like 18 months and *reportedly* found nothing seriously corrupt.

That was because all the damning evidence was hidden in a 29 or 30-page "annex" that was classified Top Secret and never released by the fucking FBI/DOJ empire, under the POS Merrick Garland and FBI director Chris Wray.

The FBI even defied congressional subpoenas demanding the classified annex.  And when the FBI did defy congress, no one was fired.  Let that sink in for a minute.  

WELL finally... with a new FBI director and an honest attorney-general instead of that piece of corrupt shit Merrick Garland, the FBI turned over the classified "annex" to congress.  And it's a bombshell.
 
It was released yesterday (July 31), and shows that Hillary Clinton personally approved a plan brought to her a few months before the 2016 election by her "foreign policy advisor" Julianne Smith, to distract voters from Hilliary's use of an unencrypted email server in her home to store beyond-Top-Secret cables.

The plan was to claim then-candidate Donald Trump was "colluding with Russia" to steal the 2016 election from duh faaabulous Hilliary.

According to the declassified files, Clinton personally approved Smith's plan.  (Smith would later be appointed by bribem as ambassador to NATO.)

One stunning email in the Annex was dated July 27, 2016 from a guy named Leonard Bernardo [some sites spell it "Benardo"], a "senior vice-president" of George Soros's Open Society Foundation.  The text:
>>“HRC approved Julia’s idea about [i.e. claiming that] Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections. That should distract people from her own missing emails.... In absence of direct evidence, Crowdstrike and ThreatConnect will supply the media, and GRU will hopefully carry on to give more facts.”>>

"GRU" is Russia’s foreign intelligence arm.

Another email from Bernardo/Benardo says

During the first stage of the campaign, due to lack of direct evidence, it was decided to disseminate the necessary information through the FBI-affiliated…technical structures… in particular, the Crowdstrike and ThreatConnect companies, from where the information would then be disseminated through leading U.S. publications. The media analysis on the DNC hacking appears solid…. Julie [Campaign Advisor] says it will be a long-term affair to demonize Putin and Trump.  Now it is good for a post-convention bounce. Later the FBI will put more oil into the fire.

By a margin of 125,000 votes in seven states, the Dems' cunning lie that Trump "colluded with Russia" didn't succeed in winning the 2016 election for Hilliary.  BUT it dominated the headlines for all four years of Trump's first term.  It was totally accepted as true by every Media outlet and all Dems, so much that the Dem-controlled congress appointed a Special Counsel (Robert Mueller) to find evidence to support the claim.

Mueller (a former FBI director) spent two years and $22 million investigating, and ultimately found no evidence *at all* to support the claim.  But no matter: the damaged was done.  The hoax had exactly the effect intended by the Democrats, crippling Trump's public support.

The then-corrupt FBI dismissed the damning emails from Bernardo/Benardo as "probably Russian disinformation"--but did not attempt to authenticate them.  (For non-techies, emails can be authenticated or shown to be fake.)

Even before the 2016 election, the hoax was so successful that on May 16, 2016--six months before the election--the utterly corrupt former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said “Donald Trump is not going to be President of the United States. Take it to the bank, I guarantee it.”

Think about that for a minute:  Pelosi sneering at Trump is totally normal, but why would the insane, corrupt bitch go out on a limb by making such an unequivocal statement like that--unless she knew something was afoot that would totally destroy Trump's candidacy--by pushing the hoax of "collusion" with Putin?

Okay, I get it: none of you believe a word of this.  There's no "classified annex" to the Durham report.  Merrick Garland didn't order Chris Wray not to give it to congress when it was subpoenaed.  There is no one named "Leonard Bernardo" who is or was a "senior VP of Soros's 'Open Society Foundation.'"  Hilliary never had a secret, unencrypted (i.e. unsecure) email server in a closet of her home in Chappaqua, NY.  There is no Julianne Smith, who was Hilliary's "foreign-policy advisor" and later appointed ambassador to NATO.

And the story of Hunty's abandoned laptop was "Russian disinformation.  And all the pics on it of him smoking crack with "working girls" were "cheap fakes."  And all the bank-wire transfers from China and Burisma to hunty's shell companies--wire transfers congress showed copies of years ago--are fake.  And the Ukrainian energy company Burisma never paid hunty $83,333.33 per month to be on their board of directors.  (Strange amount, eh?  We have the bank-wire transfers; multiply that by 12 and let me know what you get.)

You have no idea at all how utterly corrupt the Democrat rulers are--which means they will fight like demons in the corrupt courts to avoid being charged.  Some of this you never knew.  Some you knew but have conveniently forgotten, cuz there's so damn much of it, eh?  But go back up the list above: how much of this do you have to claim isn't true to make you feel better about Democrat rule, eh?

Have a great day.