The "progressive Left's" descent into murderous barbarism

[Martin Gurri wrote an excellent analysis in City Journal of the Democrat/Left's embrace of assassination.  I've used Martin's piece as a springboard below.  Obviously any new meaning is my fault.  I encourage y'all to read the whole thing at this link.]

When people who style themselves as idealists hit a snag--a bit of resistance--they often slide smoothly into embracing violence--in the name of their "noble," higher purpose, of course.

So instead of being viewed with horror, things like assassination become just another tool in their arsenal.
 
They still claim to be idealists, of course, and if you disagree they claim it's because you're not idealistic enough.

The so-called "progressive Left" has clearly reached that point with the assassination of Charlie Kirk.  The self-styled champions of compassion have become purveyors of hate--and bizarrely feel proud of their hate.  And they don't seem to feel even a twinge of guilt over it.

The Left’s "belief system" made this descent inevitable.  Progressives long ago rejected God and westernized religion (although they seem to be fine with Islamic murders--high purpose, eh?), along with conventional notions of morality and social rules.  The only remaining guides are hedonism and power. 

The result is the literal assassination, by leftists, of those who oppose the Left's goals.  

Most Americans think that's hyperbole.  But read the thousands of comments by leftists/Dems on websites, cheering Kirk's assassination, praising the murderer...and bleating for more!

Mike Solana has compiled a partial list of these loathsome comments about Kirk's murder. It makes for astonishing reading. Teachers, nurses, engineers, civil servants—many apparently posting under their real names and affiliations, certain that readers would applaud—exulted in saying Kirk got what he deserved. 

On X and the Democrat echo-chamber Bluesky, commenters eagerly named more conservatives they urged to be killed: J. K. Rowling, Ben Shapiro, Elon Musk, Joe Rogan--and of course, Donald Trump.

Over-rated bore Jimmy Kimmel claimed the murderer was a MAGA supporter.  Horror novelist Stephen King bizarrely (falsely) claimed Kirk had advocated stoning gays.  MSNBC’s Matthew Dowd virtually accused the victim of "inciting hateful actions”--giving no examples, because for the Left, no examples are needed.  The Left claimed Kirk was a Christian fanatic, so they believed murdering him was a good thing.

Most "leaders" of the Democrat Party shifted the topic away from Kirk's assassination to condemning “violence,” as if both sides were equally responsible.  Others--J. B. Pritzker and Elizabeth Warren--implied Donald Trump or the January 6 protests—were somehow responsible. And as noted earlier, Jimmy Kimmel claimed--without a shred of evidence--that the assassin was a MAGA supporter.

On X, Bluesky and Instagram, Democrats and leftists applauded Kirk's murder.  Think back to 2020:  Did any conservative applaud George Floyd’s killing or urge further violence?  If anyone had, social media platforms would have flagged and deleted such comments in a second and deleted the accounts of the authors.  By contrast, when Democrats and leftists cheered Kirk’s murder and called for other conservatives to be killed--often under their own names--clearly felt they wouldn't be deleted--and they were right.

The Mainstream Media was equally nasty.  Kirk was a Trump supporter, so the Media was determined to make him a villain, even after he was murdered.  The original NY Times headline called Kirk a “rightwing provocateur,” implying he deserved death.  

The emotional pathologies unleashed by Kirk’s assassination should not have surprised us. The signs were already evident. Polls show that 55 percent of those who identify as “left of center” say that killing not just Charlie Kirk, but President Trump would be justified.  Two real attempts to kill the president have failed, and many on the Left are openly disappointed. 

Thousands of progressive women swooned over Luigi Mangioni for murdering a health-insurance executive, shooting him in the back.  And stories in the Mainstream Media could be found trying to excuse the murder.

There were other signs.  In Dem-ruled Charlotte NC a mentally ill black man with 17 priors stood up on a light-rail car and slashed the throat of a 23-year-old white girl, who died in minutes.  Every agonizing second was caught on surveillance video.

The video was leaked to the press, and the city’s female Democrat mayor--totally woke--asked "our local media partners to NOT air it.  She then issued a statement full of understanding for the attacker and his mental condition, while never once mentioning the victim. 

The lesson from Democrats and the Media was clear: some groups in our society can prey on others dozens of times, yet still be free to walk the streets and murder.  And if they kill innocent victims--like Iryna and Charlie and Laken Riley and thousands of others...it's just "collateral damage."  No policies need to be changed, eh?

The assassination of Charlie Kirk finally pushed many conservatives to a tipping point.  They finally began to realize that Democrats and the Media will protect leftist killers, even when they kill innocent people. Kooks and cranks thrive under every dispensation—granted.  It's certainly true that most old-fashioned liberals and Democrats don’t cheer murders, but as we've just seen, many leftists and so-called "progressives" do.  This massive derangement started with the progressive Left and now has spread to Dems with national TV shows--people like Jimmy Kimmel.

Want some actual numbers?  In June the U.S. House of Representatives voted to honor a Democratic state senator from Minnesota who had been murdered.  The vote was unanimous. 
  When a resolution was introduced in the same House a month ago to honor Kirk, 58 Democrats voted against it.

Those numbers show the split in American society between those who can express sympathy for murder victims, and leftists who believe it's perfectly fine to murder political opponents. 

On the House floor the astonishingly moronic, warped communist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez sneered that the murdered conservative was “ignorant” and “uneducated.” 

Can beings who have eagerly chosen barbarism ever renounce it?  Can we ever trust them again?

I don't think it's possible.

Gurri believes it would be a mistake for conservatives to mimic the Left and retaliate in kind, urging members to kill or beat political opponents.  I agree that's what Jesus taught: forgive your enemies.  But if the Left never pays any price for encouraging and cheering murder of conservatives, where's the incentive for them to ever stop?

Television is absolutely filled with leftist talking heads who compare Trump to Hitler.  That's the sort of bullshit that gets unbalanced leftists to take a shot at the president.  It's against the law to threaten to kill the president, but they get away with encouraging *others* to do it, by simply demonizing the president.  Clever.

The same goes for leftist talking heads claiming Trump is "tearing down the peoples' house" by demolishing the East Wing to build a ballroom, claiming no presidents have ever changed the sacred White House before!  That's how dumb they are.  

(Eric Swalwell and others have even demanded that all Democrat presidential candidates in 2028 pledge that if elected they'll demolish the ballroom.  Seriously, that's how demented these assholes are.)

[At this point I think Gurri goes off the rails, proposing several ideas that I don't think are gonna help because they're too easy for the Dems to evade.]

The Democrat party consists of a large but passive liberal majority and a very active progressive minority.  When Democrats control everything, as in the first two years of the bribem regime, the moderates are overwhelmed by an avalanche of progressive demands, each an assault on existing social and political norms.  Gurri says "That must change.  Traditional liberals need to mount a counteroffensive."

Well rational people would do that.  But leftists simply refuse to admit that any of their policies are crap.

"At the very least," Gurri writes, " the moderates must persuade hard-left progressives that venom and hatred are poor persuaders."

But no moderate Democrat dares say that.  The average Democrat is too deeply consumed by hate for Trump: 87 percent of the party faithful are convinced Trump is a fascist. 

Democrats will continue to conduct progressive experiments in states like California and Illinois—building windmills rather than houses, and outlawing plastic straws instead of street crime. So long as the Left is in control, with unconstrained rage as its chief motivation, the party should be kept as far as possible from the coercive machinery of national government.

In a remarkable gesture, Charlie Kirks widow Erika publicly forgave her husband’s assassin.  Such generosity is rare, but reflects the finest impulses of the American spirit and shows us the way to higher ground. 

Leftists would rather continue to kill than change policies or admit error.

Source.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/progressive-left-barbarism-charlie-kirk-murder 

Atmospheric physicist explains the cause of all bad weather

 

If you're confused by the totally contradictory Time covers above, let Greta explain.  You must believe Greta, cuz she's an atmospheric physicist! 

"This too shall pass..."

 

Johannesburg: a case study in what happens to a formerly great city when...

Johannesburg is the largest city in South Africa, population 6.4 million.  Back in 1994 Jo-burg was a world-class city.  Then Something happened.  Pushed by Leftists, liberals and communists, South Africa's white ruling party resigned and handed the keys to the communist, all-black "African National Congress," which ruled without interruption for the next 30 years.

For the first ten years after the hand-over the Mainstream Media wrote one fawning story after another about how faaabulous the new communist/black-run country was.  To people who read South Africa's newspapers this seemed...odd...since the entire country was seeing a tidal wave of ghastly torture-murders of white farmers and their families by organized gangs of well-armed blacks.

The gangs always cut the phone line first, so there was no way for rural farm families being invaded to call for help.  Cops were never able to arrest anyone for the murders--much like cops in Los Angeles can't stop smash-and-grab robberies there.  

The torture-murders of entire white families were so horrific that the few remaining white-owned South African newspapers couldn't avoid reporting 'em.  But no western newspapers ever reported even one of 'em... cuz the leftist Mainstream Media here always sniffs that awful murders iz "local interest only, citizen."  "Ouah readerz don' wanna read awful stories like dis, citizen, cuz it would upset 'em fo' no reason.  Cuz it happened 10,000 miles away, eh?"  

No lessons fo' duh U.S. at all.

But for a place 10,000 miles away, for some reason the glowing, fawning stories in western papers about how *totally faabulous* things were in South Africa kept appearing, almost like the Media were pushing a Narrative.  Then in late 2007 South Africa began experiencing constant, widespread "rolling blackouts" due to lack of maintenance by the nationally-owned power company, and their failure to build more powerplants.  U.S. Media ignored those stories, since they happened ten-thousand miles away. 

And then around that same time a curious thing happened:  the endless stream of fawning stories about the wonders of black-communist-run South Africa slowed, then...stopped.

It's just a total coincidence that Barack Hussein Obama was campaigning for the presidency from 2007 thru all of 2008, before being elected in November of that year.

Of course foreign papers--having no reason to kiss Obozo's ass--kept printing stories on what a total shithole South Africa had turned into.  Nothing worked: things as seemingly simple as traffic lights would be fail and remain unfixed for two years.  Rolling blackouts of electrical service in the nation's biggest city happened every day.  Murders of farm families continued.  Yet you never saw a critical word about South Africa in the U.S. press from 2007 to this year.  Curious.

Much like you never read a word about serious problems in Cuba or Venezuela outside of the Miami Herald.  The communist-fellating Associated Press "wire service" never picked up these stories.

"Local interest only," comrade.

But for some reason, a few days ago the WSJ broke that seeming embargo and ran a piece on life in Johannesburg today.  And it turns out nothing has improved a bit.  Giant potholes on the main streets have been unfilled for years.  Traffic lights inop for years.  Still plagued by rolling blackouts.

So read the piece below (edited to remove fluff) and see how Global Warming has made things worse in SA.  

No, wait...it's because of the U.S. naval blockade on spare parts for South Africa's German-made generators, which is the same reason Cuba uses to explain failed sugarcane harvests.

No, wait:  it's because militant white supremacists in the nation's parliament are blocking the government from re-opening.  (No, wait...that's here in DC!)

No, wait!  It's the harsh economic sanctions levied on duh totally honest black gummint by MAGA Rethuglicans!  Dat's gotta be it! 

Eh, we'll go with Global Warming--s'cuse me: "Climate Change."  Yeh, dat's it.   
===

Johannesburg. What a city looks like when it gives up

--WSJ, Oct. 28, 2025 
  What does it look like when a city stops trying? Visit Johannesburg, where instead of providing basic public services, the government just warns residents not to expect them.

Signs warn drivers what types of crime are most prevalent at highway exits and intersections: “Hi-Jacking Hotspot” or “Smash and Grab Hotspot.” 

At intersections where traffic lights haven’t worked for months, homeless people routinely direct traffic for tips.  Minibus taxis that ferry workers around the city often drive on the wrong side of the road to avoid rush hour traffic.

Johannesburg is South Africa’s biggest city, and bills itself as a “world class African city”--which is ironically true.  It’s home to some of the continent’s biggest companies and its largest stock exchange.  But (again ironically for a communist government) with the city unwilling or unable to provide basic services, private firms have gradually taken over public services, from security to healthcare to mail delivery. Insurance companies fix potholes and support fire brigades to reduce claims.

With all that doesn't work, you might think the G20 nations would hold their next summit (next month) somewhere more...advanced.  Nope, cuz far too many heads of G20 nations are "woke," and would be horrified at the idea of moving the November gathering somewhere else.

One six-foot deep pothole had been filling with water for years.  Another nearby was dug by city workers searching for a leak. Drainage pipes, fiber cables and piles of sand were left blocking a lane of traffic for more than a year, while the 26-foot deep hole filled with water. In July, South Africa’s biggest opposition party held a birthday party with cake for the pothole's one-year anniversary.

To avoid water and electricity outages caused by failing infrastructure, residents who can afford it often drill their own wells and add solar power and battery backup.
====

SO, readers: Is there anything to be learned from the descent of Jo-burg from a world-class city to... something less?

Media and Democrats: "Of course not, citizen!  Socialism/communism makes cities work bettah, not worse!  Really!  Much mo' efficient!  Ev'ryone shares the wealth equally!  It's why we're so excited to elect a communist Muslim as mayor of the largest U.S. city!  He gon' make things faaabulous!"

Source: Wall Street Journal

https://archive.is/M9jQv#selection-2145.11-2485.194
 

You don't wanna know

Watch as ALL the "insiders" in the bribem White House--subpoenaed by the House Oversight committee--shamelessly lie or deflect: "We din' see nuffin'!  He wuz, like, TOTALLY in charge of, like, everything!"

 

So where are the orders from bribem approving ALL of the 1,500 pardons issued under his name just before he left office, eh? 

"Well...uh...well...uh...we're like TOTALLY sure he approved ALL doze, cuz...well, duh Autopen signed 'em, an' we wouldn't have done dat wifout seeing or hearing direct orders from duh preznit ordering doze pardons!  Okay, y'say dere aren't any emails from bribem or his aides ordering doze pardons?  No problem, deplorables!  In dat case we'll say it was ALL verbal, wif no written records!  Yep yep yep!  Dat's it!  See, dat's how ouah efficient, modern White House operated!  No need fo' silly, time-consuming emails or written orders when a verbal order from duh totally sharp-as-a-tack bribem is just as gud, right?  See, we iz all about efficiency!"

Fuck you, you lying (and now much richer) sons of whores.  Someone ordered that all the pardons be signed by Autopen, and it wasn't bribem.  Who benefited from ordering the signing of those pardons, eh?  The staffers who ordered Autopen to sign 'em.

Now: Nothing will be done to punish those who did this.  They corruptocrats will laugh all the way to the bank with their bribes--carefully concealed via offshore bank accounts in fictitious names.  In the U.S. you can't get a bank account without providing a Social Security number, but in other countries that's not a problem.

Of course you knew that, right?  

Eh, no mattah, citizen!  Duh U.S. haz entered duh "late Roman-empire" phase.  Trump's fighting the good fight, but is losing to corrupt Leftist judges and the Democrat-fellating Mainstream Media.  But who cares, eh?  Enjoy whatever years remain to you, deplorable!  Take comfort in knowing that you've been part of a Grand Experiment.  But all good things must come to an end, eh?

We could delay that end by a century or so, if the Dems wouldn't block every move to make things better.  Oh well... 

I'm old, and don't have kids, so I don't really care that our Grand Experiment has been doomed by the Democrats.  I don't lose a thing by that.  But you might, if you have kids. 

Communist Cuba produced just 27% of the regime's planned sugar output this year

This news is from July 6, 2025 but I just ran across it a couple of days ago.  You never heard about this either--because the Mainstream Media doesn't think you need to know.  This is one of the many reasons why Democrats--and almost ALL young Americans--think socialism and communism are so damn great: because "your" sole source of "newz" never tells you about their utter, ghastly failures.  So... 

Reuters reports that recent estimates based on official reports and sources from the sector predict that for the first time since the 19th century, sugar production in Cuba will drop below 200,000 metric tons.

In a free country this would have been the first paragraph of the story.  But because communists don't want to make communism look incompetent, what should have been the lede was buried in the 26th 'graf.

Obstacles began to pile up from the outset: delays in repairs, "issues with electrical supply" and difficulties in the production of industrial gases. The official communist newspaper Granma reports that the result was just 35% of the plan, around 253,000 tons.

Even that figure is higher than it actually turned out.

The Bartolomé Masó mill processed just 6% of the planned sugarcane, Arquímedes Colina 7%, and Grito de Yara 18%, figures that reflect a system that is barely functioning.  Although efforts are being made to repair equipment and train personnel, tangible results are few.

The whole country has the same issues: fewer operational mills and a chronic lack of resources. The goal of reducing the high price of sugar to the Cuban people seems increasingly distant.

The huge drop in sugar output has been due to severe non-compliance [??], disorganization, idle fields...and debts to workers.

Note that last phrase, cunningly placed at the end.  The commie government isn't paying the workers, who have finally gotten smart enough to not work on the communist regime's solemn promise that they'd be paid later.  Cuz somehow the money would never come.  Cynics believe it's siphoned into the pockets of party elites, just like kickbacks to Dem pols in the U.S. from millions they give to their favorite NGOs.

Other factors were 150 million pesos lost to fires in unharvested fields, fields invaded by woody plants, and delays in payments to harvest workers and mills.

Provincial governor Yanetsy Gutiérrez claimed the huge drop in sugar output is “affected by material restrictions and the effects of the U.S. blockade.”

There hasn't been a U.S. economic blockade for 50 years, sparky.

Although production has been dropping for decades, this year's production marks a historic low in an industry that had historically been the biggest  economic earner for the country. 

In recent weeks, several official media outlets have briefly presented alarming statistics: several key mills have produced less than 15% of their sugar plan, while others barely manage to survive amidst blackouts, obsolete machinery, and a shortage of cane.

Guantánamo province planned to produce 7,600 tons, but ended up producing about 2,900 tons of sugar, just 38% of "the plan."  That's a drop of 26% from last year.  The shortfall takes huge a toll on the Cuban people, both due to higher consumer prices and a loss of income in the provinces.

To tackle the crisis the government has announced that municipal bureaus will analyze indicators to adjust the course of the harvest, as well as bolster monitoring ahead of the hurricane season.

Wow, the causes are totally known, but the government refuses to admit the reality. 

Communist solution: "We'll increase the official production targets for next year!  Yeah, that'll do it!"

Source.

https://en.cibercuba.com/noticias/2025-07-07-u1-e209363-s27061-nid306510-granma-cierra-zafra-amarga-apenas-27-azucar-previsto 

For decades the Left has used the insane theory of "Disparate impact" to cripple the U.S.

One of the Democrats' most successful tools for taking over all government power has been to claim any policy that has a "disparate racial impact" violates the Civil Rights Act, thus is illegal and must end.

For young Americans (and older who get their "newz" from the Lying Mainstream Media) who are seeing the term "disparate impact" for the first time, it means any policy that results in fewer racial minorities being hired, or more being convicted of crimes.

Let's say blacks are 13% of the U.S. population, but 30% of prison inmates.  Democrats scream that this absolutely PROVES the legal system is unfair to blacks, cuz in a fair system the percentage of inmates of each race would closely match that race's percentage of the total population, eh?

Even a moment's thought will show the utter illogic of this reasoning: that judge's RULING--never overturned by the Supreme Court--tacitly assumes all people study equally hard, make equally good decisions and commit crimes at the same rate.

All those assumptions are utter horseshit.  Many blacks openly sneer at studying in school, calling it "trynabee white."  Many black supremacists believe blacks have the right to steal, as long as it's from whites.  It jus' beez "reparashuns," eh?  

This is the same group that wailed "Maff beez raaaacis'!"  (Seriously: members of the Seattle school board claimed that as a reason why minority students shouldn't be required to be proficient in math.  You can't believe so-called "educators" would bleat that...but they did.)    

This insane illogic is also to blame for the tens of thousands of lawsuits brought by women claiming "sex discrimination" by companies for not hiring exactly equal numbers of female executives.  This kind of "reasoning" has spawned an entire industry of law firms specializing in "employment law," using the gruberment's EEOC [young Americans: look it up.  It's a thing, and you and your parents are paying for it] to sue companies for any claimed shortfall in the numbers of women or blacks or hispanics or "Pacific islanders" hired as vice-presidents or CEO.  

Any difference in outcomes hasl been ruled illegal by the leftist-dominated courts.  Of course the leftist judges have larded their opinions (DECREES) with putative loopholes: "Unless defendants can show a non-sex-based reason for requiring X."  But the same leftist judges never allow the reason to stand.

Example: 20 years ago attorneys for a female employee working on the production line of a tire maker asked the EEOC to sue her employer for not promoting her to a higher-paid position doing something special with tires.  The company defended its decision by citing a medical paper saying one of the chemicals used in that process was suspected of causing birth defects.

It was the perfect no-win situation for the company: If they'd given her the promotion to the higher-paid-but-dangerous-to-pregnancy job, and she'd gotten pregnant, the company would have been liable for tens of millions of dollars in damages to her child.  No way the company could win. 

So back to race: The overwhelming majority of illegal drug sellers in big Democrat-ruled cities are black.  So no one should be surprised that far more blacks than whites are charged with selling illegal drugs, eh?  Dem judges: "Dat beez 'disparate racial impact!' Yew cain't arrest mo' blacks den whites fo' sellin' illegal drugs!"

Ahh.  Despite the fact that illegal drug sales are 99% black, eh?

Result: Democrrat mayors and their totally Democrat-ruled city councils order the cops to stop arresting sellers of illegal drugs.  The dumbshits in Minneapolis ordered exactly this about a decade ago.  Seriously.  Other cities have adopted the same policy, *but quietly,* so as not to trigger any pushback by outraged whites--not that it would have deterred 'em in any case, eh? 

Now: under what *possible* theory does decriminalizing selling illegal, addictive and often deadly drugs make things better for ordinary citizens, eh?

Obviously it doesn't make things better for ordinary people.  It leads to more theft (as addicts steal to feed their habit) and kills more people thru overdose (adding 2 milligrams of fentanyl to any street drug will kill half the people who take it).

*The only people who benefit from decriminalizing sale of illegal drugs are: 1) people who sell illegal drugs; and 2) politicians who get re-elected by the votes of the first group.*  

So the policy of simply ignoring illegal drug sales is utterly stupid--moronic.  And yet Democrat-ruled cities have adopted that policy, cuz..."disparate impact."

And we're just getting started.

Police departments, fire departments, companies, the military...all want skilled, high-quality members, eh?  Would anyone like to stand up and argue that they *don't* want the best-qualified people to staff those positions?  Anyone?  Hakeem Jeffries?  Chuckie Schumer?  Katanji Brown-Jackson?  (Oh wait...)

And yet *hundreds of times* when a Democrat is president, the DOJ has sued all of the above employers *specifically on the grounds of "disparate impact."  And in virtually every case the defendant--companies, police and fire departments, even the military--realizing they can't beat the Democrat courts--agree to settle the case by...wait for it...eliminating all tests and minimum standards for hiring!

Wokie generals in the U.S. armed forces ORDERED that recruits didn't have to pass even minimal fitness standards.  Grossly overweight?  No problem, sweetheart.  

So what do ya think that accomplishes, eh?

Sure: Democrats get re-elected, the nation goes to shit.

Example (out of millions): Under the totally insane "disparate impact" policy, the Democrat-ruled EEOC pressured companies that flew big jets to hire obviously unqualified applicants as pilots.  One such applicant, who had received repeated unqualified evaluations during checkflights, flew a brand-new 767 into the ocean off New Orleans.  Fortunately it was a cargo company so it only killed the pilots.

We've got the video and the cockpit voice recorder.  I flew heavy jets and know exactly what every bit of both show. Total incompetent fuckup, killed two and trashed a perfectly-working new 767.  Democrats: "Accidents happen to anyone!  Yew cain't blame ouah policies fo' dat!"  Really?

Example of a NON-racial "disparate impact:" Kara Hultgren.  Google that name.  An admiral's daughter who wanted to be a Navy pilot.  But not just the pilot of a gentle, forgiving plane, but of what at the time was the Navy's hottest fighter: the F-14.  

Because the Navy didn't have any women flying the F-14, the woke Navy brass felt pressure to change dat.  See, "disparate impact" again! 

During her training there were *lots* of red flags that would have caused a male to be ruled out as an F-14 pilot.  But because the Navy brass was *totally* woke (thanks, Obozo!), the admiral's daughter somehow managed to get one of the coveted F-14 slots.

Because I don't wanna ruin your day let's just say it didn't work out well.

Now, did some city tests for hiring have questions unrelated to required skills?  Yes, and the lawsuits resulted in those being removed.  Fine.  But as could have easily been predicted, the Dem-ruled DOJ and the courts went way overboard, and demanded that *even if no questions on hiring tests were found to be objectionable,* the mere fact of "disparate results" ALONE would cause the DOJ to demand that ALL tests for hiring be thrown out--*even if the DOJ found no questions unrelated to job requirements.*  

So the racial makeup of all companies, police, fire and the military--HAD to exactly match the racial makeup of the entire country--even in states where blacks were rare!

Can anyone predict the result?  Sure ya can.

Now: as should be totally, screamingly obvious, it's virtually impossible to fire unqualified people once they've been hired--IF they're members of a Democrat-protected group.  

The result?  Bribem choosing Cackles Harris as VP.  Bribem appointing (and the corrupt dem-ruled senate confirming) a Supreme Court "justice" who can't define "woman."  The military saddled with men pretending to be female and wearing dresses as their uniform.  

It's insane, and most normal Americans instantly know it.  But left/liberal Dem judges keep demanding it, and those sons of bitches have LIFETIME jobs.

But finally, some sanity is slowly returning: Trump has said "That's enough."  Just two problems: 1) the Deep State refuses to go along with Trump policies; and 2) lawless leftist judges block EVERY Trump policy with bullshit reasoning. 

I'm old so I no longer have a dog in this hunt.  You stupid bastards have allowed the Left to take over the U.S, and I doubt you'll ever recover.

If you doubt that, consider that the shithead leftis Jimmy Kimmel claimed--on his nationally-televised shitshow--that the man who assassinated Charlie Kirk was a MAGA supporter--and he still has a nightly show.  Wow.  Insane country.

Source: City Journal

https://www.city-journal.org/article/doj-police-lawsuits-race-disparate-impact-trump 

Schumer and senate Dems shut down the government to hide their incompetence on Obozocare

Amusing fact that Democrats will scream is fake:
    In 2011 the average price of gasoline was $3.53 per gallon.
    Right now (Oct 25, 2025) the average price is $3.06.
    For the math-challenged, that's a DEcrease of 13% in 14 years.

Now consider the laughably-misnamed "Affordable Care Act" (a.k.a. Obozocare)--which the Democrats passed in 2010 without a single GOP vote, and without including a single Republican amendment.  

In the 14 years since then, the premiums for health insurance under Obozocare have DOUBLED.  That's a 100% increase for those premiums, vs. a 13% DEcrease for gasoline over the same time period.

Obozo himself said many times--on video-- that if congress passed what the Media called "his signature achievement" it would "bend the curve," flattening the cost of health care.  So tell us, Democrats:  DID IT DO THAT?

Democrats: "Sure!  Duh premiums haz only gone up by about (mumble), an' dat is ALL jus' due to inflation, caused by duh Trump tariffs!  Cuz, see, we import so many of ouah medical devices and supplies, right?  Sure!"
   "An' if ouah great prezzy Barack (pbuh) an' duh Dems hadn't rammed the 'Affordable Care Act' into law, 30 million po' Americans wouldn't be able to afford health care!  Cost wudda gone up WAY mo' den 100%, see?  So we Dems wuz right!  His wunnerful law haz caused the cost of health care to just match the rate of inflation of duh rest of the economy!"

Really, sparky?  Gasoline is DOWN 13% in the same time period that Obozocare premiums have doubled (i.e. increased 100%).  Or would you like to dispute those numbers?

If you ask google "how much inflation since 2011 you get the answer "44.03%"  Yet Obozocare premiums have doubled.

Democrats: "Well, see...sure, duh gov'ment is spending more on healthcare, but dat's entirely because way mo' pipo depend on Obamacare now den when it first began!  Yep yep yep!"

Really, sparky?  Cuz premiums represent the total estimated cost divided by the number of people covered in each "plan."  So that should be a wash.  Try again.

Democrats: "Well sure, but now dere are 20 million MORE illegal...wait, poor "undocumented Americans" dat mus' be given free health care, and since dey cain't pay, yew workin' folks gotta pay duh entire cost of dere premiums.  See?"

Wait, Democrats have been bleating for months that NO illegals were getting taxpayer-funded health care.

Democrats: "Absolutely true!  Ain't NO illegals gettin' free health care, cuz as we Dems always say,  'No one is illegal!'  Dey is correctly called "temporarily undocumented Americans!"  So SEE, deplorable?  No illegals are gettin' free healthcare!
   Chuck Schumer an' Hakeem Jeffries an' AOC an' Speaker Pelosi haz tol' ya over an' over, no illegals gettin' free healthcare!  An' yew gotta believe 'em, cuz dey've nevah lied to ya befo,' right?"

Okay, sarc off:  Point is that Obozo and the Dems promised Americans that passing Obozocare would "bend the curve" of medical costs downward, but in reality the cost just of premiums for Obozocare has doubled in 14 years--while overall inflation is "only" up 44% over that period.  And the cost of gasoline (which Democrats routinely scream is breaking family budgets!) is actually DOWN 13% over the same period.

Democrats will fight to ensure you don't know that.  Like all their policies, Obozocare was and is a costly boondoggle.  And expert economists--like the notorious Jonathan Gruber (whose name gives us "gruberment"--knew their premium projections were lies.  Gruber even joked--on video--that the only way they got this abomination passed was because the American people were too stupid to understand what it really did.  Seriously.

Democrats: "But we MUST give po' pipo free health care!  Like free housing and free food, it's a basic human right!"

Try this:  Health experts say sweet drinks are poison, so stop allowing food stamps to be used to buy ANY drinks other than plain water and milk.  
   Health experts say junk food hurts health and increases obesity, so stop letting people use food stamps to buy junk food, candy, potato chips, chocolate, chewing gum and so on.  Just hamburger, veggies, noodles and milk.  Those changes alone will not only save billions a year but will also make Americans healthier--cutting the cost of health care.
   Increase penalties for food-stamp fraud. on both beneficiaries and stores: Fine stores $1,000 per offense.  For recipients, first offense and your food stamps are cut in half for a year.  Second offense in a year and they're cut in half again.  Another billion saved.  
   Make all that federal law.  If a state doesn't comply, cut the money it gets from taxpayers for Medicaid and food stamps.
   And stop both Medicare and Medicaid from paying for sex-change ops and cosmetic surgeries.  Another billion saved.  

Of course Chuckie Schumer and his faaaabulous senate Democrats will block all the above measures, using the filibuster.

That brings us to the current gruberment shutdown: Back during duh Chyna virus in 2020, when state gruberments ordered most businesses closed cuz of "Doctor Science," Democrats pushed thru a pork measure to give people extra money ("subsidies") to pay dere Obozocare premiums.  Dems said these special, extra "subsidies" would end in 2025 or so.  
   And here we are.  But now, because of cynical, lying "experts" like Jon Gruber, Obozocare premiums are gonna double--rising at twice the rate of overall inflation.  So to avoid being exposed as liars and con-artists, Dems are DEMANDING that their extra, special, Chyna-virus subsidies be *extended!*   
   Yep yep yep!  They're wailing that for some never-explained reason, millions of Americans aren't gonna be able to afford their health insurance!  Of course they never explain that but for their fraud or incompetence, health insurance would have only gone up at the same rate as everything else, and no one would be losing *anything* (except totally lousy insurance). 

SO...the Dems want taxpayers to pay the extra, special Chyna-virus subsidies that they said were only temporary and would expire now.  But do ya think if the GOP caves, Democrats will *ever STOP those "subsidies"?*  Not at all.  The Dems can *never* stop the subsidies without triggering the painful reckoning that their dumb policies *absolutely guaranteed.*  Because if the subsidies are *ever* stopped, we're back to square one.

So Schumer and the Dems demanded that the GOP cover for the Dems' incompetent underestimate of premiums.  When the GOP refused, Schumer and the Dems shut down the gruberment,  using the Dem minority to filibuster to prevent a "continuing resolution" from being passed to re-open the government.

For young Americans: senate rules provide that the minority party in the senate can block all bills with just 41 votes.  So with 46 Democrats in the senate, they can let 3 or 4 vote with the GOP to avoid looking like they support the shutdown.

If your parents are federal employees, and they start missing paychecks, the Dems and the Lying, Democrat-fellating Mainstream Media will scream that it's because of the GOP.  But it's the Dems who did it, and have now used their MINORITY in the senate to vote TEN times to keep it shut down.   

AI lies--again. Do NOT trust AI

If you think the vaunted "AI" tells the truth, you're an idiot.

After seeing video of Paleswinian mobs fighting London cops outside the prime minister's home, and then seeing commenters saying "Dis did NOT happen!  Dis beez OLD video!" I asked google "Were palestinian mobs outside keir starmer's home this week?"

The AI-bot replied,

"While no reports confirm that pro-Palestinian protesters were outside Prime Minister Keir Starmer's home this week, there has been significant, widespread, and ongoing pro-Palestinian protest activity in the UK."

So I checked the U.K. press, and even a few leftist rags reported on the mobs, complete with either video or pics.

Yet AI cunningly lies: "Whlie no reports confirm..."

Either AI doesn't keep up with foreign press, or (far more likely) it's been programmed to ignore anything the Left doesn't want you to know.

Here's the U.K Telegraph: "Violent clashes broke out between pro-Palestinian protesters and police outside the gates of Downing Street last night..."

For young Americans, "10 Downing Street" is the residence of the prime minister of the U.K.  

Teachers' unions gave $43 million to leftist organizations in the U.S.

A couple of months ago the two largest teachers' unions in the U.S. gave $43 MILLION to left-wing organizations.

They can do that because they claim to have 4.7 million members, each of whom pays dues to the unions--which are automatically taken out of their paychecks and sent directly to the unions every month.

Damn convenient, eh?

But wait:  "AI" says that according to the NEA there are approximately 3.24 million public school teachers in the U.S. for the 2023-24 school year.  Not just union members but both traditional and public charter school teachers.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=how+many+public-school+teachers+in+the+u.s.

And yet Wiki (I know, bunch of lyin' rat-bastards) says the NEA has 3 million members, and the AFT has 1.7 million.

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

Now I don't have a calculator handy, but because I'm an old guy who was educated before the teachers' unions took over, I can add 3 mill and 1.7 mill *without a calculator,* which gives...um...4.7 million union teachers.

But wait...AI just *assured us* dere were only 3.24 million total public-school teachers in the whole country.

Now, I'm an old guy, but seems to me the difference between 3.24 million total teachers and 4.7 million claimed members of the teachers' unions is *huge.*  So other than sheer incompetence and lies, what could account for the 1.46 million discrepancy?

One factor is that 27% of the 402,217 *university professors* are union members.  So now the discrepancy is down to just over a mere million.  Still a huge difference.

I don't know who's right, but I don't trust either AI or Wiki to tell the truth. 

Adam Smith and "The Wealth of Nations"

Adam Smith and the "Invisible Hand"

In 1776 a Scottish economist, Adam Smith, wrote a book titled "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations"--now referred to as "The Wealth of Nations."

It would eventually be seen as a "paradigm shift" for the world.

Unfortunately only a small part of the world realized the importance.  Even today one of our two political parties apparently doesn't believe most of what Smith wrote.

Smith was the first to try to deduce what helps nations build wealth.  It was the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and Smith introduced key concepts such as specialization (he calls it "division of labour), the huge importance of free markets, how supply and demand set prices, and the role prices play in how people allocate resources.

Smith believed the robust trading of goods would encourage specialization, which make things less costly for both nations:  If one country efficiently produces X and another produces Y, and each wants some of what the other produces, free trade makes that profitable.  And note that this doesn't mean nations can't impose tariffs, which are useful to persuade another nation to reduce its trade barriers. 

But Smith's biggest breakthrough was in proposing that the "selfish choices" of millions of people were far better than the decisions of bureaucrats in determining how economies should work.  He called this "the invisible hand of the marketplace."  He asserted that these millions of free choices every day by citizens, operating under the natural results of the laws of supply and demand, produced far better results than government rules.

To say this was revolutionary barely describes it.

"The Wealth of Nations" seems to be a clear paradigm shift in economics.  But bureaucrats and politicians want power above all, and can't resist the temptation to *control as much as possible*--an arrogance they ALWAYS wrap in two lies: 
    1) "It's for your own good" (ahh, of course); and 
    2) "We're smartah den you, so what we decree is good for you shall not be questioned."

Any guesses which of our two main political parties pushes those two claims? 

CNN: "Person" who admitted to trying to kill SC justice is sentenced. "Person"?

See if you notice anything odd about this CNN headline:

"Person who admitted to trying to kill Justice Brett Kavanaugh is sentenced"

Normal journalistic practice would be "Man who admitted..." or "Woman who admitted..."  But here, "Person."  And of course you already know why: the "pyrsyn" was a tranny.

As ALL shit-lib outlets do, this story by shit-lib CNN uses female pronouns throughout--and not once do the shit-lib "reporters" (propagandists) EVER mention the 26-year-old's actual name, cuz dat would underline the tranny aspect.  No pic, of course, for the same reason.  Dems: "NOooo, citizen, CNN din' include a pic because dis po' pyrsyn wuz a minor child, an' we NEVAH include pics of..."

Tranny was 26, so try again, assholes.

"Well, we nevah put pics of people charged wif crimes, cuz dey could be innocent!  Or at least acquitted!  An' so we totally don' wanna besmirch dere reputation!  Well, unless it's that awful 'Covington kid' who smiled at that Native American boldly banging a drum  You know, the kid who sued us and was awarded...wait, nevermind."

Nice try again, liars: The tranny pled guilty, so is no longer merely a "suspect."  Try again.

"Well, we don't want pipo to focus on dis aspect, cuz duh real story here is dat dis pyrsyn's mom din' support her...uh...daughter's choice to be a real girl.  Dat's duh reeel story here!

Curiously, although the article spends hundreds of words describing the tranny's self-admitted mental illness, they didn't spend a single word on how the tranny made the decision to change genders.  And again, we have a good idea why: social and school pressure.

>>The Californian, who identifies as a woman by the name Sophie Roske, called the police on herself on a street nearby the Justice’s house in the summer of 2022. She told the 911 operator she needed psychiatric help, saying she had a bag full of guns and other weapons.>>
 
<<Roske's defense attorneys argued for a sentence of 96 months, far shorter than the 30 years the prosecution proposed.  The ultra-liberal judge sentenced Roske to one month more than what the defense wanted.

Source: CNN

https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/03/politics/kavanaugh-roske-sentenced 

Japan selects its first female prime minister--and the Leftist feminists at NBC *hate it*

One of the well-known, long used tactics of feminists is...never be happy when a female gets an unprecedented win.  Instead, find a way to complain that whatever it was, it's not enough.*

It's never enough.

Many of you will think that's hyperbole.  Really?  Japan just elected its first female prime minister.  So take a look at how the utterly fucked-up leftist assholes at NBC "Newz" reported it: 

Japan has its first female prime minister, but not all women are celebrating

Sub-headline: "Though her election is a milestone in a country that struggles with gender equality, critics say the hard-line conservative won’t necessarily help women advance."

Believin' me yet?  Nah, you're not.  You think there's some innocuous explanation for NBC's headline.  Okay, read on:

Lawmakers in Japan elected hard-line conservative Sanae Takaichi as prime minister, making her the first woman in modern times to lead Japan.

Though her election is a milestone in a country where women are severely underrepresented in government, Takaichi enters office with a fragile coalition and facing a number of pressing challenges, including a visit next week by President Donald Trump.

Note the jab at Trump: NBC describes his visit as "a challenge."  Why?  Not explained. 

But Takaichi’s victory is not necessarily a victory for women in general, critics say, especially after she secured it by forming an alliance with a party that will pull her coalition even further to the right.

"SEE, citizen?  Dis iz NOT a victory for wimmin in general BECAUSE she formed a coalition with a conservative party!"  Think the leftists at NBC would have criticized her if she'd made a coalition with a leftist party?  Of course not: they would have praised that move as "bipartisan," "centrist," "cooperative."

“One would *like to say* this is a historic moment in Japan,” said an American professor.  “BUT it’s really hard to make that case, given her rather poor track record on empowering women.”

Never admit to being satisfied, eh?  And here's what really pushed NBC over the edge:  

Takaichi opposes same-sex marriage and favors keeping succession to men only in Japan’s shrinking imperial family.

To leftists, opposing same-sex marriage is almost the worst offense imaginable.  The leftist venom positively drips from every line.

Progress toward gender equality has been slow in Japan, where women are far outnumbered at the highest levels of business and government and bear a disproportionate responsibility for child care and household chores.

Women "bear a disproportionate responsibility for childcare"?  Wow, how terrible!  Women should be astronauts, warfighters, prime ministers.  Wait, except conservative women like the new PM of Japan, eh assholes?

Japan has the world’s fourth-largest economy but ranks 118th out of 148 countries in the World Economic Forum’s 2025 Global Gender Gap Report, which noted that women make up less than 16% of Japanese lawmakers in the lower house of parliament and 10% of government ministers.

First, fuck the World Economic Forum.  Bunch of communist rat-bastards whose mission is to destroy successful westernized nations.  They're the people who say "You will own nothing, and you will love it."  (That's an actual quote.)  And "You need to eat bugs" while they eat steak.  
  And I have no problem at all with women being just ten percent of government ministers, given that Japan has an extremely low crime rate, and a far smaller percentage of people who refuse to work or are drug addicts.  Hmmm....  Most female pols are liberal Democrats, who normally push policies that coddle loafers, criminals and druggies.  How's that working in the U.S., eh?

After Takaichi was elected leader of the LDP earlier this month, one Japanese feminist author said the prospect of Japan getting its first female prime minister “doesn’t make me happy.”

Never.  Satisfied.

Her campaign was focused mainly on the economy and national defense.

See, dat beez reeeally baaaad, citizen!  Guuud leftists focus their campaigns on making mo' trannies, an' demanding that males be allowed to competing in girls' sports and showers, and passing laws ordering mo' deficit spending on freebies for loafers.  See, dat's "progressive"!

Takaichi advocates tougher immigration policies, the revision of Japan’s pacifist constitution and higher defense spending.

Ahhh, "tougher immigration policies and higher defense spending," y'say.  No wonder the leftists at NBC wrote this venomous hit-piece on the first female PM of Japan!

Japan’s stock exchange closed at an all-time high for the second day in a row Tuesday, on hopes that Takaichi’s policies might help jumpstart the economy.

Looks like the people of Japan like her policies so far, eh?

Her ascension to prime minister was thrown into doubt, however, after a crucial partner, a centrist party, left the LDP coalition.  To ensure her victory, the LDP signed a deal Monday with the Japan Innovation Party, or Ishin, a far-right party. 

That's a mortal sin to leftists, who believe governments should form coalitions that give the Left effective veto-power, not the right.

Even with the alliance, Takaichi faces an uphill battle in parliament, where she falls short of a majority in both houses after the LDP suffered major losses in recent elections amid voter anger over party corruption scandals and the rising cost of living. Her premiership could thus end up being short-lived.

“She emerges from this a diminished leader from the get-go,” said an American professor.

Total hit-piece.  The shithead leftists at NB would never criticize the first leftist female PM of a nation like this.

Source: the leftist shits at NBC

https://www.nbcnews.com/world/asia/sanae-takaichi-becomes-japans-first-female-prime-minister-rcna238601 

Letitia James THEN, against Trump, vs. NOW, when *she's* been indicted for fraud

Democrats are total hypocrites.  

For example, here's the Democrat attorney-general of a Dem-ruled state:
>> Everyday Americans can't lie to a bank to get a mortgage.  And if they did, our government would throw the book at them.
   When powerful people cheat to get better loans [a lower interest rate], it comes at the expense of hardworking people!
   There simply CANNOT BE different rules for different people!>>

Absolutely, citizen!  Totally right, citizen!  

Oh wait: Maybe not!  Cuz that was the fat black NY attorney-general, Letitia James, on February 16, 2024.  Now, 20 months later, James is charged with mortage fraud, specifically, falsely claiming homes she was buying would be her "primary residence" or personal residence, specifically to get a lower interest rate on the mortgages.

SO, bitch: looks like all your lofty statements of 20 months ago were horseshit, eh?  Cuz now you're claiming "Trump beez persecutin' me fo' a mere 'clerical error'!  See, pipo like me can't be prosecuted fo' mere 'clerical errors'!  Nope nope nope!  Cuz I iz way too impo'tant to hafta comply wif trivial things like not making false statements on mortgage applications!"
   What bitch has NOT said--ever--is "The docs wif' my signature are fakes!  I never stated those things on my mortgage applications."  Instead it's a word salad of "Not proven," and "Yew cain't prosecute me cuz...reasons!"

Amazing.  Total hypocrites.  Double-standards.  Two sets of laws.  She ran for this office vowing to prosecute Trump for claiming too high a value on the properties he put up as collateral for a big bank loan, but now she screaming that when *she* committed fraud, she shouldn't be prosecuted.

Wow.

 

Bribem regime used tax dollars to fly illegal aliens from the southern border to other U.S. cities

The pic below is absolutely true: the bribem regime not only opened our southern border to any alien who wanted to enter, the Dems used taxpayer money to fly the illegals from the border to dozens of U.S. cities far from the border.

Those flights were often into less-crowded airports like Westchester County, NY, just north of NYC.  They usually arrived at 2 a.m. when almost no U.S. citizens would be around.  But there are dozens of videos taken by ground personnel of unmarked 737's deplaning over a hundred illegals, guarded by government thugs who refused to answer any questions.

The illegals were then put on chartered buses and taken to NYC and other nearby cities.  The regime gave 'em Social Security numbers and EBT cards loaded with $2,500 per month.  Sweet, eh?  The Dems put 'em on Medicaid (free health care for anyone making less than twice what the government decrees is the "poverty level") and even allowed 'em to get a check every April for the "child tax credit" if their income was low.

Of course unless you saw video on both ends of these flights, with the illegals boarding in Arizona, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas, and arriving in northern cities, you wouldn't believe your own government would ever do this.  But the Dem-ruled bribem regime did.

And of course the Lying, Democrat-fellating Mainstream Media never aired a second of any of this. 

 

Even today no Democrat or young American believes this happened, and five years from now almost no conservatives will remember, and lying AI will bleat that it din' happen.  Such is the power of the Left. 

Two sets of laws, citizen: If you check two Privilege Boxes, rules mean nuffin'

A month or so ago the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (Bill Pulte) made a *second* criminal referral against a female governor of the Federal Reserve Bank, Lisa Cook, based on evidence that she got a 15-year mortgage on yet a *third* property which she listed as her personal residence (a "second home"). 

But on an ethics form signed with the government Cook listed it as an "investment/rental property."

If true, why is this criminal and not simply a 'clerical error'?  Because saying the property will be the borrower's personal home allows a borrower to get a lower interest rate on the loan. 

This new criminal referral follows an initial referral Pulte made after Cook listed two properties as her 'primary residence' in 2021--same benefit on tax treatment and interest rate.

Trump fired her, saying it's bad when a governor of the agency that controls money cheats on loans.  And predictably, a federal judge blocked her firing. 

Interestingly, Cook has made angry statements saying the claims "lacked proof," "was possibly a clerical error," and that Trump fired her "because of my race" (Cook is black), and everything *except* deny that she made any false statements. 
 
Cook then sued Trump.  Among the excuses contained in the court filing for listing two properties as her primary residence was "a possible clerical error."

Yet during her 2023 senate confirmation hearing Cook described herself as having "significant experience in banking and finance, as is evidenced by my service on the board of directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago and of a Community Development Financial Institution in Michigan, in addition to my employment at an investment bank and a large commercial bank." 

So she claimed to be a banking expert, meaning she surely knew lying on mortgage applications is a crime. 

"I dindoo nuffin'!  No no no!  I jus' din' remember dat I'd declared two properties as my "primary residence, even after I rented out one of 'em.  It wuz jus' a 'clerical error.'  Yep yep yep!  An' dat fascist Orange Hitler cain't fire me fo' no 'clerical error'!  Cuz in dis country we don't have no Kings!" 

Leftist judge RULES that if Cali refuses to enforce fed law, NO ONE has the authority to do so

You have no idea how totally the Left is winning in the battle to re-take the U.S. from conservatives.
 
On Sep 2 a federal judge DECREED that when a state governor not only refuses to enforce federal law but actively aids lawbreakers, no president can deploy National Guard troops to that state to enforce valid federal law--including searching for criminal illegal aliens or crowd control.

Oh wait...the liberal didn't exactly say "no president" could deploy the Guard:  What the liberal shithead said was that the Trump administration couldn't do it.  Big damn difference, eh?  Cuz you can be sure that if some conservative state were to start refusing to allow, say, same-sex marriage, a future Dem preznit would send in the troops to "enforce fed law," eh?

The huge difference, of course, is that conservative states help the feds enforce federal law.  Dems are the ones who defy laws they don't like.  But I digress.

The state of California sued the Trump admin over Trump’s deployment of the Guard to L.A. to enforce valid federal immigration law--which that state had continually refused to do.

When a state refuses to enforce valid federal law, Democrats smirk and taunt "Neener neener neener, yew deplorables cain't do jack-shit about it!  Cuz my daddy (the leftist judge) sed so!"

And just so we're clear, for the Dems who say "Well Trump should have done what we smaht Democrats do: get a judge to ORDER California to enforce federal law!"  Except...leftist judges long ago ruled that states don't have to enforce federal law.

If you've heard of the Constitution's "supremacy clause," the above statement above seems so insane that you might not believe it.  The insane hairsplitting by the courts is that even though federal law overrides state law, states aren't required to enforce federal law.  It's insane, but that's how the courts have ruled.

Only one court--the Supreme Court--occasionally rules in favor of Trump--and the Democrats want to pack that court with liberal Democrat judges like the notoriously leftist Katanji Brown-Jackson, to ensure all rulings favor their side.  Cunning.

SO...the Constitution says federal law is supreme, but lib judges have ruled that states can't be ordered to enforce federal laws.  So if a Dem state refuses to enforce the law, how is federal law to be enforced in those states, eh?  

In the past, the president has sent in the National Guard.  But in LA, shithead leftist judge Charles Breyer RULED that Trump’s deployment of Guard troops violated a federal law called the "Posse Comitatus Act," which bars the "U.S. military" from enforcing the law in the U.S.

If the Guard is defined as "U.S. military" that would would mean NO ONE would be able to enforce valid federal law in a rebellious state.  I'm pretty sure the men who drafted and ratified the Constitution never envisioned that, let alone intended it.

So in the past the idea has been that the National Guard is distinct from "active duty military"--even if called out by the president.  So when president Eisenhower called in the Guard to force a southern state to admit blacks to an all-white school, the Left didn't scream that Ike was violating Posse Comitatus.  But now Breyer says if a state refuses to enforce federal law, NO ONE has the legal authority to enforce it.  Same in Chitcongo (different judge). 

Predictably, shithead Democrat Gavin Newsom gloated about Breyer's ruling, writing on X (in all caps) "DONALD TRUMP LOSES AGAIN!” 

At least Breyer graciously allowed Trump to use National Guard troops to guard federal buildings.  Okay, but if a rioter sets fire to a federal building or throws a bomb thru a window, the Guard wouldn't be allowed to make an arrest--cuz dat wud be "enforcing duh law in the U.S!" 

Two weeks ago Trump placed Washington D.C.’s police under federal control, and deployed National Guard troops in that city.  CNBC claims Trump did that to address "what he claims is a rampant crime problem."

That cutesy bullshit phrase "what he claims is..." was written by the Democrat shitheads at CNBC.  See, Dems assure you DC did NOT have a crime problem before.  Nope nope nope!  "Oh sure, a couple of carjackings a day, a murder every udder day, a gazillion robberies--but nunna' dat iz a "crime problem," citizen!  We DC residents nevah see nuffin' bad!"  

So to fellate the Democrats who rule DC, the shitheads at CNBC use the phrase "what [Trump] claims is a crime problem."

Same with Chitcongo, where 20 or 30 people are shot in Chicago over a typical weekend, three or four fatally.  "Dis not a crime problem," the Dems bleat in unison.

In his RULING Breyer wrote, “Congress spoke clearly in 1878 when it passed the Posse Comitatus Act, prohibiting the use of the U.S. military to execute domestic law.  Defendant Trump deployed the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles ostensibly to quell a rebellion and ensure that federal immigration law was enforced."

"Ostensibly," shithead?  Ain't no "ostensibly" about the fact that California's Dem government has ordered his state law officers to refuse to enforce federal immigration law.  Same with city cops in LA, on the orders of the communist mayor Karen Bass.

Breyer wrote “...there was no rebellion, nor was civilian law enforcement unable to respond to the protests and enforce the law.”  The cunning key word there is "unable:"  Civilian cops weren't unable to arrest the rioters, instead the city's communist mayor, Karen Bass, and Dem governor Gavin Newsom ordered the cops to stand down.  Breyer is playing word games to get the ruling he wants.

To summarize: shithead Dem judges have RULED that if states refuse to enforce federal law, NO ONE is allowed to.  Think on that for a minute.  It's insane--but that's where the U.S. is today, thanks entirely to leftist judges.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/02/trump-national-guard-california-newsom.html 

Are Christians obligated to forgive demons?

On Friday, Oct 10, a demon-possessed creature entered St. Peter's basilica in Rome and walked up to the altar.  In full view of the usual large crowed he undressed, climbed onto the altar and urinated.

You *did* hear about that, right?

No?  Ahh of course not.  For a moment I forgot: the Media sneers that stories like this are "Local interest only."

SO...did the Christians in St. Peter's call for the demon to be beheaded?  Stoned to death?  Hanged?  Did they beat him to death?  Of course not: they just escorted him out and "issued an expulsion order"--which demons routinely ignore.

Just as they do here when we try to deport 'em.  They keep re-entering the U.S. illegally, four, five, six, seven times.  Demons just laugh at laws.

So...I wanted to compare how this demon was treated for desecrating the most iconic church in Christendom to how Muslims treat anyone who dares to desecrate their holiest sites.

Oddly, that doesn't seem to happen.  Closest I found was some guy who draped a slice of bacon over the door handle to a mosque.  He was promptly arrested by civil cops and charged with a hate crime.  No word on how many years he was sentenced to.

I'd always hoped Christianity's tolerant response to demon attacks--as Christ taught--would *eventually* enable Christianity to prevail over Islam.  For decades I believed it might.  No longer.

The reason is that in the past, the non-Muslim world could see the difference in results between Islamic countries and *nominally* Christian ones.  But in the last 20 or 30 years Western nations have been taken over by the Left, which sneers at Christianity.  As a result, western nations no longer offer a clear counter-example that opposes Islam.

The result is that dumb people (by far the majority of humans) support the side that's most forceful.  And more to the point, technically smart pipo like university presidents and professors slobberingly, fawningly support ALL Leftist causes.  So they scream that Israel fighting to take down the Hamas thugs--who brutally raped and butchered and otherwise killed 1,200 Israelis two years ago, and kidnapped 25O more is AWFUL because "innocent pipo are suffering."  When all Hamas had to do was to release all their hostages--which they could have done at any time, but refused to do.  But the "elites" and university profs refuse to condemn Hamas for the attack and kidnapping that caused Israel to enter Gaza.  Interesting.

SO...Despite what we think are Christ's teachings, I'm no longer optimistic that Christian tolerance and forgiveness will eventually bring the people of the world to our side.  But if you believe in God, and that He sent Christ, then you can't believe Christ would teach a set of behaviors that would result in suicide, eh?

Sure.  Very logical.  Which leaves us with a mystery:  It's perfectly possible that Christ meant what the Bible says: Christians are taught to "turn the other cheek" (i.e. forgive) "seven times seventy" (which I interpret as infinitely instead of the math-accurate 490 times).  And in that case Christians would continue to do nothing to forcefully fight Islam.

But I think we might be missing something.

When liberals/Democrats started using the Constitution to claim every type of perversion--yes, EVERY type--is permitted, almost all under the guise of "freedom of speech"--a conservative Supreme Court judge said--in dissent from the majority-- "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." (1949) 

I realize what I'm about to suggest will trigger a firestorm, but...I think the same logic applies to Christ's teaching: Yes, forgiveness is a really optimal behavior: When some drunk driver blowing thru a red light kills your wife and kids, the emotional response is to want him (or her) to get the death penalty.  But obviously that doesn't bring back the dead, so that would seem to be a good case for forgiveness.

Same with wars between nations: WW2 saw countless ghastly, horrible atrocities.  But within a year or two--virtually instantly--Americans and most of our allies put it behind us.  No lingering desire for retribution.  And the result has been encouraging: Germany and Japan have been model nations and allies ever since.  

So I propose that Christ's teaching of forgiveness--NOT tolerance--was only intended for rational humans, not for demons.  You can't reason with demons: they're not moved by either logic or normal human emotions.  *They're totally alien to the human species.*

So what should we do when confronted by demons?  If they're impervious to emotion or logic, and determined to kill good people, what do we do?  Just as "The Constitution is not a suicide pact," I don't think Christianity demands that we simply let demons kill humans.  Instead, just as Christ drove the money-changers out of the temple, I don't think He meant for us to tolerate demons.

I think what He proposed was an efficient way of dealing with rational people--like the overwhelming majority of Germans and Japanese after WW2. 

Now: does this mean we should execute demons?  No idea.  Life in prison with no possibility of parole would probably keep humans safe from them--except if leftist judges release 'em from a "life without parole" sentence, as leftist judges often do, overruling the "no parole" ruling.  So there's a big problem.  Cuz as I understand it, once a demon has taken over a body, they never relinquish it (absent divine intervention).

There's a fascinating story in which Christ dealt with a man possessed by multiple demons.  He ordered the demons to switch hosts, into a herd of pigs, which promptly ran over a cliff into the ocean and drowned.  Obviously we don't have the power to do that.  So did Christ order that we must do nothing, simply tolerating the demon?

So the obvious question is, "How do you distinguish between a demon and a merely very bad person who--unlike demons--might repent if given the gift of forgiveness?

I don't know the answer--or even if there IS a way rational humans could tell.  What I do believe is that demons exist, often disguised as mentally ill people (and at other times as politicians).  In a *rational society* they could be locked away for life.  But leftist judges routinely release killers who were sentenced to life in prison without parole, so that's not a guaranteed fix..

Instead, in an absolutely classic tactic, Leftist judges and "elites" demand that demons deemed mentally ill NOT be put in prison, but in mental institutions.  Then a few years later Democrat polticians demanded that all "mental institutions" be closed.  "What do you want us to do wif duh inmates?"  "Release 'em onto the streets," of course.  

Conservatives warned of the consequences of releasing thousands of mentally ill humanoids (and making it impossible to lock up others in the future), claiming that would result in thousands of innocent Americans being murdered.  Leftists sneered at that warning, and *absolutely assured* Americans that everything would be *totally fine, you stupid deplorables.*

Of course that was horsehit, as the brutal murder of 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska showed (for the thousandth time).

And in the rare cases where a few mentally-ill murderers (demons) ARE sent to prison, an army of Leftist attorneys work tirelessly to get them released.  And as every prisoner is understandably eager to be released, theyll make any claim that could increase their chance of being released, like "I was only convicted because duh jury was biased against my race."

Often the families of the demons' murder victims aren't even notified of parole hearings.  That's not an accident.

So again, I don't know the answer.  But I'm starting to believe that while Christ's "forgiveness" teaching doesn't  mean we should allow demons back on the streets.

Just as the Constitution isn't a suicide pact, the law shouldn't be construed as forcing us to release killers or schizophrenics back to the streets in a month or two.  Instead, demons should be locked up until they're too old to hurt people. 
 

Supreme Court to decide whether states must gerrymander districts to elect more minorities to congress

In a few weeks the Supreme Court is expected to rule on a case involving "congressional redistricting."  The case involves whether states can be forced by law to draw bizarrely-shaped congressional districts solely to ensure some districts will have a majority of black voters.  

The case has huge implications so unless you're a moron you should probably understand what's at stake.  Let me explain:

Starting around 1960 Democrats started bleating dat it "just wuzn't FAIR" that in a handful of states where blacks were a third of the population, less than a third of that state's congress-critters were black.

Of course if the boundaries of congressional districts were drawn "blindly," without trying to favor or disfavor any race, it wouldn't be surprising that with just one-third of the population being black, most of the time the person elected to congress wouldn't be black.

Y'know, that "democracy" the Dems constantly bleat about.  "Majority rules," eh?

And of course the then-majority-liberal Supreme Court and the "woke" Media hated that "democratic" result!  Somehow this just wudn't FAIR!  But how could it be unfair in a democracy, eh?  Here's why:

Everyone knew blacks voted Democrat by huge margins--like 90% or so (though it's less one-sided now).  So congressional Democrats knew if they could force states to re-draw district boundaries in weird patterns to create majority-black districts, they'd win more seats in the House.  So a Dem-controlled congress passed the "Voting Rights Act," which had the stated goal of eliminating what the Democrats claimed were "barriers to voting."

Hey, who could object to that, eh?

But the unstated purpose of the act was to force states to re-draw congressional district boundaries to create majority-black districts, which obviously helps elect blacks to congress.  And as of today there are 120 such majority-minority congressional districts.

So the Voting Rights Act ordered--in effect--"If a state doesn't have the same percentage of black congress-critters as the percentage of blacks in that state, the courts (Democrat controlled) will assume that's because the state legislature deliberately drew the boundaries of congressional districts to "dilute the voting power of minorities!"

And if state legislatures had deliberately done that, I agree. 

But other than the long-since-repealed "poll tax," no such evidence has ever been found.  Ever.  Instead, a moment's thought will show that in a state in which blacks were a third of the population, randomly-drawn district boundaries--like big squares--would almost always have more whites than blacks, reflecting the percentage of the population in the entire state.  Not a plot.   

Of course Democrats claim "maff beez raaacis'," and since no one could find any evidence that district boundaries had been drawn with malice (see previous paragraph), Democrats in congress invented a new legal theory: "disparate results" (a variation of "disparate impact")  As the name implies, this theory claims that if one racial group has a different result in anything, the gruberment and the courts would automatically assume that result was due to raaaaacism--even if there was absolutely no evidence of discriminatory intent!

That's so Orwellian--so crazy--that you probably didn't get it.

For the slow-witted, it's like the courts adopting the policy that all men are rapists.  "We don't need no stinkin' evidence!  Ouah policy sez yew iz guilty!"  Wow.

Seriously.  If you don't believe me, Google it.  Here's the bribem DOJ's policy:

The essence of a "discriminatory results" claim alleging "vote dilution" is that a certain state law, practice, or structure interacts with social and historical conditions to [produce] an inequality in the opportunities enjoyed by minority voters to elect their preferred representatives."

This is carefully disguised horseshit, Orwellian in cloaking the real meaning, which is: "If any state has a lower percentage of black congress-critters than the percentage of blacks in that state's population, the courts will automatically assume their rights were violated."

Oh, I hear some of my Dem friends saying this is a lie, that no prezzy would evah sign such a piece of shit bill into law.  Really? Here's AI's summary:

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits voting practices and procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in a language minority group,
  The core of Section 2 is the "results test," established by Congress in 1982, which prohibits any voting practice that results in a discriminatory effect, regardless of whether a discriminatory intent can be proven.

If you didn't grasp that last phrase, read it again.  Believing me yet? 

This is literally how the communists wrote laws, so they could control everything.  Literally, anyone who criticized the regime was declared insane.  You wouldn't think a law could possibly be passed--and upheld by the Supreme Court (in 1980)--with that sort of illogic.  And yet it happened here.

More AI propaganda:

Key provisions and legal standards of Section 2:
    A violation is established [boom!] if, based on the "totality of the circumstances," a voting practice is shown to provide minority voters with less opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice.

That last line is utter horseshit: they have an equal opportunity to "participate in the political process and elect reps of their choice."  But being in the minority, it should come as no surprise that with randomly-drawn districts they'd have fewer reps than their percentage of the population. 

"Vote dilution" is a key focus of Section 2.  That's when any "electoral practice" minimizes the voting strength of minority groups.  Common forms of vote dilution include:

•  "Cracking"-- splitting a minority community among multiple districts to prevent them from forming a voting majority in any single district.
•  "Packing"-- concentrating minority voters into a small number of districts to minimize their influence in other areas.

Wait, you cunning sons of whores...those two things are opposites: the first one DECREES that splitting minority voters into different districts is illegal, while the second bitches that drawing district boundaries to "concentrate minority voters into a small number of districts" is illegal.  But of course that's exactly what the then-Dem-majority Supreme Court ORDERED! 

Wait...I thought Democrats constantly screamed about "ouah precious democracy," which means majority rules.  But when the Court ORDERED states to draw gerrymandered district boundaries to produce "majority-minority" districts to ensure more black congress-critters would be elected, that was just peachy, eh?  I understand the desire and theory, but that totally, utterly conflicts with "democracy"!

So which is it, lying, cunning Democrats?  Pick one.  Either you believe in majority rule, or you don't.  But of course they want it both ways: "We luuuvs majority-rule...but yew mus' draw new districts to create majority-black districts."  Of course doing that deliberately disfavors the white majority, but that's just fine with Democrats, cuz it increases their power in congress.  Got it.

And sure enough, back when the Supreme Court had a liberal majority it ordered states to re-draw congressional districts to create districts with a majority of black voters.  This was so well known that it got a name: "majority-minority districts."  Here's what AI says about that:

"AI Overview:
    A majority-minority district is a [congressional] district...where a racial minority group is a majority of the population.  This is intended to prevent the dilution of minority voting power and to give minority groups an equal opportunity to elect their preferred candidates.  The creation of these districts is governed by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

That next-to-last sentence is a cunning, deliberate lie: Minorities had (and have) an equal opportunity to elect their preferred candidates.  But with randomly-drawn districts, black candidates don't win as often because...wait for it..."ouah precious democracy," eh?

Believin' me yet?  No, you're probably not, for two reasons:  First, you literally can't believe Democrat congress-whores would be so hypocritical as to bleat dat dey luuuvs democracy, but then junk that to win more power for themselves.  (Actually that's not at all hard to believe.)  Second--and harder to believe: you can't believe the fucking Supreme Court would actually rule that this piece of shit LAW--rammed thru by Democrats--was constitutional.  And yet it did.

Anti-democratic as hell, but because Dems wanted this result, and controlled everything back then, they got their way.  They screamed that drawing districts blindly was "vote dilution."  The case was Thornburg v. Gingles (1986), and the majority-liberal Supreme Court RULED that minority plaintiffs would win if they could show:

•  The minority group is sufficiently large and geographically concentrated to constitute a majority in a single-member district.
•  The minority group tends to vote similarly.
•  The majority group votes as a bloc to consistently defeat the minority group's preferred candidates.

The hypocrisy and internal contradiction couldn't possibly be more clear: First, ALL congressional districts are "single-member," so that's just camouflage; horseshit.  Then the court continues: When the "minority group" "tends to vote similarly" that's peachy, but when the "majority group votes as a bloc" that's awful, terrible, anti-democratic!

Starting to see the Orwellian, communist horseshit here yet?

And we're just getting started, cupcake.  The court also cited Section 2 as addressing "practices that directly make it harder for minorities to vote," like having to prove your identity with a photo ID, or "restrictions on absentee voting that disproportionately affect minority voters."  That shit is so vague that any attorney could make the case--even with such absurd arguments as "Some of my clients might possibly not read well enough to understand written instructions for submitting absentee ballots, like having witness signatures.  So states mus' not reject their ballots jus' cuz dey may not understand duh requirements!"

See how infinitely flexible "disparate results" arguments are?  

And again, we're just getting started:  the amended VRA established a test called "Totality of circumstances," which allowed the courts to consider factors never shown in the instant case, such as "a history of official voting discrimination, racially polarized voting, and "the lingering effects of past discrimination that hinder political participation." 

First, "racially polarized voting" was absolutely fine--as long as the race doing the "polarized voting" was a minority.  "Racially polarized voting" was only bad if white voters tended to vote for white candidates. 

Next: For those unfamiliar with U.S. law: If a defendant on trial for, say, rape has been convicted of that same crime a dozen times before, prosecutors aren't allowed to mention that in court because it might bias jurors to assume he's guilty regardless of the evidence in the current case.  It's a well-known principle.  But the Voting Rights Act, rammed thru by Dems in congress--allowed plaintiffs to use a history of past discrimination to imply current discrimination even if no evidence exists.  Hmmm...  Double-standard much?

The contradictions in the VRA are so glaring and numerous that some legal experts predict the Supreme Court will overturn Section 2.  I doubt the court will do that, but what do I know, eh?

Here's what the current DOJ website says about Section 2:

"In 1980 the Supreme Court held that Section 2, as originally enacted by Congress in 1964, [required] a plaintiff to prove that the standard, practice, or procedure was enacted or maintained, at least in part, by an invidious purpose.
  But in 1982 Congress amended Section 2 so a plaintiff could claim a violation of the [law] if the evidence established that, in the context of the "totality of the circumstance of the local electoral process," the practice being challenged had the result of denying a racial minority an equal opportunity to participate in the political process.

What that says--though cunningly, deliberately disguised to avoid outraging normal Americans--is that groups suing states, claiming racial discrimination (but only against the minority) didn't need to prove any intent.  Instead the test was now "if it had the *result* of denying..."  In other words, showing a disparate result was all that was needed for the courts to order a state to gerrymander a district to favor blacks.

To summarize:  Back in the 1980s the Media and courts and congress was seized by "white guilt"--the beginnings of the wokie mania--and junked longstanding pillars of U.S. law in their eagerness to atone.  And after congress amended the original VRA, the Supreme Court back then held that states would be deemed to violate the Act if there was a "disparate result."  At that point the "professional victim industry" saw their opportunity and ran with it. 

And recall that many of the cases were settled, with big paydays for  the plaintiffs' attorneys.  Wow, who could have predicted that, eh?
 

Pelosi now claims she DIDN'T decline the offer of the Guard on J6, despite admitting on vid...

A reporter asked Nancy Pelosi if she regretted not accepting the National Guard before J6.  Nancy blew up: "SHUT UP," she screamed.  "That's just a Trump lie!"

Really, you lying bitch?  You were caught on video more than once admitting you declined the Guard.  Now when a reporter points out your act, you're angry.  Why?   

 

When voters elect corrupt leaders, those voters become accomplices

 

Intercepted: Democrat talking points for the coming week

From: Democrat Leadership
To: Our media friends
Subject: Talking points for the coming week

Thanks to the discipline of our members, our strategy to regain majority control of both chambers next year is working.  We need to keep up the momentum.
  Continue to work with TV stations and papers in your districts to get our message out to voters, and we'll work with the networks. 

1. The government shutdown: We're winning!  Our polls show that the longer the government is closed, the more voters blame the Republicans.  This is particularly apparent when flights are cancelled or delayed due to control towers being understaffed.  It'll get worse as more federal workers are fired.
  Also, several courts have blocked Trump from firing more workers, which gives us a great talking point, that Trump is acting like a king--which Americans readily understand and hate.

2.  ICE and deportations: We're winning this too, as larger crowds turn out to "peacefully protest" against "Trump's thugs."  Also, keep talking about how "Trump's brownshirts" hide their faces because they're scared to reveal their identity.  Our focus groups show this phrase strongly resonates with voters.  And our media allies know not to point out that all the protesters cover their faces too.  If you get that question, change the subject.
  A good topic to dodge questions is to claim Antifa doesn't exist.  All our leaders have been stressing this, and our focus groups show more voters now believe that's true.

3. Note that in almost every case where good Americans have sued Trump, judges have ruled against Trump, both in deportation lawsuits and those about firing government workers.  

4. The Gaza ceasefire: Trump is claiming credit for brokering a ceasefire.  So our talking point is to suggest that the ceasefire has allowed Hamas to re-group on the surface where they're executing scores of men they claim opposed them.  So in reality the ceasefire has directly led to the deaths of scores of Gazans, due entirely to Trump.
   Another point is that "hundreds of details have yet to be resolved, any one of which could send everything back to square one."

5. On Trump's orders the U.S. military has now blown up five boats in international waters.  Trump claims they were were transporting drugs, but there's no proof of that.  So it's quite possible Trump has killed innocent recreational boaters.  "It's just one more proof that Trump is a dictator." 

6. New York City mayoral race:  We're about to win this one by a huge margin, because Dem voters struggling with the high cost of housing, transportation and utilities love his promise to "make the city affordable."  
   Republicans are saying Zohran is a socialist.  The way to counter this is to say "He's said he'll pay for his generous programs by increasing taxes on just the rich, by just two percent.  The rich need to pay their fair share of taxes, and such a small increase won't cause them any hardship."
   Americans LOVE fairness, and our focus groups show this phrase polls *very* well.
   If Zohran wins by more than ten percent we've already sent stories to our Media allies to claim this is "the wave of the future," and that we plan to roll out similar candidates in every Democrat-run city.  "Democrats are the party of fairness!" polls *very* well.