MORE massive Medicare and welfare fraud by Somalis in Minnesota

Somalis in Minnesota have swindled hundreds of millions of dollars in state Medicaid funds earmarked for "autism-care programs."

This is separate from the $250 MILLION in fraud by Somalis in the state that was connected to non-existent meals billed to taxpayers but never provided.

Hundreds of "autism clinics" were created--by Somalis--to bilk the state out of money, and never saw a patient.  The organizers offered payments of $300 to $1,500 per MONTH to parents if they'd falsely claim their kid was autistic.

All of this massive fraud occurred under the eye of the state's Democrat governor and former Democrat Party vice-presidential nominee, Tim Walz.

The amount of money paid out to fraudsters by Minnesota’s scandal-plagued welfare schemes is staggering.  Example: the state’s "Medicaid Housing Stabilization Services program began in 2021, expecting to pay out $2.6 million the first year.  Instead the program paid out $21 million in its first year.  In the second year the program paid $42 million, then $74 million, then $104 million.  During the first half of this year costs had already reached $61 million, according to City Journal.  And not a single state employee batted an eye.  'Ouah job iz t'pay duh claims, not to investigate.'

Fraud is endemic in virtually every one of Minnesota’s MANY welfare programs.  City Journal noted that a Somali woman named Asha Farhan Hassan has been charged with defrauding the state’s Early Intensive Developmental and Behavioral Intervention program of $14 million over fake diagnoses of autism in children of Somali migrants.

Prosecutors say that Hassan and her cohorts approached Somali families and promised them kickbacks of between $300 to $1500 a month per child if they enrolled in the state’s autism treatment programs.

The fraud in payments for fake autism treatment has skyrocketed:  City Journal notes that autism claims to Medicaid in Minnesota jumped from $3 million in 2018 to $54 million just in one year, then to $77 million in 2020, $183 million 2021, $279 million in 2022, and $399 million in 2023, as fraudsters discovered the state would pay any claim without verifying anything.

If a government offers free money to dishonest people, with virtually no oversight, what do you think will happen?

The number of declared "autism treatment clinics" in Minnesota soared from 41 in 2020 to 328 by 2025 — all of them getting millions from state Medicaid funds.  The fraud was so widespread that one in every 16 Somali four-year-olds in Minnesota had been “officially” diagnosed with autism—more than triple the rate for other ethnic groups in the state.

And this is all in addition to the Feeding Our Future scam that has resulted in 70 Minnesotan Somalis being indicted for $250 million in fraudulent food aide.  Nearly all the fraudsters escaped prosecution by fleeing to Somalia when investigators began looking for 'em.

U.S. Attorney Joe Thompson said most of these cases aren’t just overbilling but are totally fictitious companies created to defraud the system, and that Minnesota has more of this than other states.  Thompson said “I've spent my career as a fraud prosecutor, and the amount of fraud in Minnesota takes my breath away.”

To make matters worse, millions of dollars of the billions stolen by fraudulent welfare payments to Somalis in Minnesota ended up funding a terrorist group in Africa called Al-Shabaab.

City Journal’s Ryan Thorpe and Christopher F. Rufo have traced millions in fraudulent payments to Somalis to the al-Qaida-linked Islamic terror group Al-Shabaab.  Former Seattle Police Department detective Glenn Kerns claims to have traced $20 million sent to Africa by Somalis in Seattle in just a single year. 

But the Democrat governors of Minnesota and Washington state (and all others) just shrug and smile:  'Not my problem, deplorable!  All deez dozens of welfare programs beez funded by duh federal government, an' if Biden's pipo don't care, why should I, eh?  Oh sure, my employees are paid to administer these programs here and cut the checks, but nothing in federal rules or laws requires us to verify that the recipients are delivering what they claim, so why should we go to the effort of investigating?'

Starting to see why Minnesota has paid out well over two BILLION dollars to fraudsters over the past five years, in federal programs for food, "housing stabilization," fraudulent medical care and a dozen other programs?

Are you starting to see why Democrat governors don't wanna investigate and prosecute?  Because by ignoring the massive fraud by Somalis they're guaranteed to get the votes of that group.

But why be concerned, eh?  It's only money.  Which the federal government has to borrow.  But don't worry, cuz Dems imply (but cleverly don't explicitly say) dat don't cost nuffin'.

I hope when it all crashes, years from now, your grown kids look at how it happened and ask you why you just closed your eyes and let it. 

But don't worry, sparky: The people who write the history books (the Mainstream Media) won't put a bit of blame on you.  Instead they'll blame Trump.

Count on it.

Source. 

https://www.breitbart.com/crime/2025/11/20/report-mn-somali-medicaid-fraud-investigation-reveals-terrorist-link-largest-funder-of-al-shabaab-is-the-minnesota-taxpayer/ 

In 1982 a federal law (and leftist judges) not only made gerrymandering legal, but *required* it

In a few weeks the Supreme Court is expected to rule on a case involving congressional redistricting.  The question is whether states can be forced by leftist judges--interpreting a 1982 law--to draw bizarrely-shaped congressional districts solely to ensure some districts will have a  majority of black voters.  Alternatively, can states be sued for re-drawing those bizarre, narrow, wandering borders to undo the effect just described?

The case has huge implications, and if you care about those, you need to 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 the state's congress-creeps were black.  (I use "congress-creeps" for all members of that useless body.)

Of course if the boundaries of congressional districts were drawn "blindly," simply ensuring that each district had the same population, without trying to favor or disfavor any race, it wouldn't be surprising that with just a 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," right?

Democrats and the "woke" Media absolutely hate that totally democratic result!  And in the past, the Supreme Court sided with them.  It just wudn't FAIR that minorities didn't have "their own districts"!  

It was well known that blacks voted Democrat by huge margins--like 90% or so (though closer to 70-30 now).  So Dems in congress realized that 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 Democrat-controlled congress passed the "Voting Rights Act," which had the stated goal of "eliminating barriers to voting."

Hey, no one could object to that, eh?

But as the Democrats planned, leftist judges used that law to force states to re-draw congressional district boundaries in amazingly tortured shapes, specifically to create majority-black congressional districts.

So given the cover of the Narrative of "eliminating barriers to voting" in the Voting Rights Act, leftist judges said--in effect--that if a state didn't have the same percentage of black congress-critters as the percentage of blacks in the population, the courts would consider that "diluting the voting power of minorities" even if no evidence of intent was shown.

And indeed, no such evidence was ever found.  Ever.  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, eh?   

So since no one could find any evidence that district boundaries had been drawn with malice (see previous paragraph), Democrats 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 the "disparate results" were due to raaaaacism--even if there was no evidence of discriminatory intent!

That's so Orwellian--so crazy--that you may have missed it.

Imagine the courts adopting the legal theory that all men are rapists, who must then prove their innocence.  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 baffle-gab, designed to hide the real meaning, which is: "If your state doesn't have the same percentage of black congress-critters as their percentage of the population, the DOJ and courts will automatically assume it's due to "vote dilution" and thus violates the Voting Rights Act.

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?   And the courts have been exploiting that actual LAW since 1982!

This is literally how the communists wrote laws, so they could control all the results.  You wouldn't think it could possibly happen here, eh?  Yet not only DID it happen here, this has been the LAW--aggressively enforced by leftist judges--for 43 years!

More AI summary--not mine:

Key provisions and legal standards of Section 2
     A violation is established [!] 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.
    "Vote dilution" is a key focus of Section 2.  It involves any electoral practice that minimizes the voting strength of racial or language 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 rat-bastards...those two things are opposites: 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! 

Note also that despite the law sternly claiming "packing" was a violation, that's exactly what Democrat legislatures did, using Section 2 to allow them to draw bizarre, wandering boundaries explicitly to produce "majority-minority" districts to ensure more black congress-critters (voting Democrat) would be elected.  This was the entire reason for the weirdly-drawn boundaries.

So which is it, lying, cunning Democrats?  Pick one.  You claim to believe in majority rule, but forced state legislatures to draw weird district boundaries to create majority-black districts."  Of course doing that deliberately disfavored the white majority in the entire state, but that's just fine with you cuz it gives the Democrat party more power.  Wow! 

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.  [The 1982 amendments.]

Believin' me yet?  No, you're probably not, for two reasons:  First, you literally can't believe the Democrats would be so hypocritical as to bleat that dey luuuvs democracy, but then junk that theory 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 Supreme Court would actually rule that this piece of shit LAW--rammed thru by Democrats--was constitutional.

Anti-democratic as hell, but because Dems wanted this result, and controlled everything, 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.

It couldn't possibly be more clear: First, ALL congressional districts are "single-member," so that's just camouflage; horseshit; misdirection.  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 Supreme Court also cites 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 some voters might not understand duh requirements!"

See how infinitely flexible "disparate results" arguments are?  

And again, we're just getting started:  the amended law established a test called "Totality of circumstances," which allowed the courts to consider factors even if not shown in a given case, such as "a history of official voting discrimination, racially polarized voting, and "the lingering effects of past discrimination that hinder political participation." 

And note again that "racially polarized voting" was totally fine when done by minorities, just objectionable if done by the white majority.  Hmmm...

For those unfamiliar with U.S. law: If a defendant on trial for selling illegal drugs 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.  Well-known principle.  But Section 2 of the amended Voting Rights Act, rammed thru by Dems in congress--allowed plaintiffs to use a history of past discrimination to be used to show a violation of the law.  Hmmm...

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, because it would trigger a firestorm of outrage by blacks and Democrat--pouring yet more fuel on the fires of current Dem outrage--but what do I know, eh?

Here's what the DOJ website--which hasn't changed after the Dem loss--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 [Voting Rights Act] 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 leftist judges to order a state to gerrymander a district to favor blacks..

To summarize:  Back in the 1980s the Media and courts and congress were seized by "white guilt"--the beginnings of the wokie mania--and in their eagerness to atone, they junked longstanding pillars of U.S. law.  The then-majority-Democrat Supreme Court held that states would be deemed to violate the Act if there was a "disparate result."  And the Democrats saw their opportunity and ran with it. 

Even more faaaabulous for Democrat plaintiffs, many of these cases were settled with states being forced to pay Democrat attorneys millions in "legal fees."  Wow, who could have predicted that, eh?

Leftist judge in Maine orders a mother NOT to let her daughter attend any church unless...

Leftist judges have been out of control for over two decades.  Latest example:

A year ago a state judge in the cesspool of Democrat-ruled Portland, Maine, ORDERED a mother to stop taking her 12-year-old daughter to church--any church.

Seriously.  Leftist judge Jennifer Nofsinger so ORDERED because the girl's father--who never married the mother and left her before her daughter was born--claimed the church was causing the girl "psychological harm."  The judge's ORDER gave the father (Matthew Bradeen) the sole power to decide which religious activities his 12-year-old daughter, Ava, would be allowed to participate in.

SO...is this a church that practices voodoo or satanism or child sacrifice or pedophilia?  Nope, it's a normal evangelical church.  Unless you're a liberal Democrat or a member of the ACLU, there's nothing scary at all about it.

Bradeen’s relationship with Ava’s mother, Emily Bickford, ended before Ava was born.  The mother has primary custody.  After the daughter told her father she was planning to be baptized, he went to court to stop it.

Apparently the father hired “a Marxist former sociology professor from California,” Janja Lalich--who claims to be an expert on cults and coercion--as an expert witness, to testify that the church was a cult.

The father claimed that after Ava began attending the church, she started having panic attacks and showing alarming behavior—like leaving notes around the house saying "the rapture is coming.” 

The Marxist former sociology prof said she believed the church was a “cultic organization" and posed a potential for psychological harm to the daughter.

The judge court RULED that teachings and depictions used in the church’s services and youth materials — including images of “fallen angels” and messages about “eternal suffering” — had caused psychological distress to the child.

No claim was made that Emily was an unfit parent--except for the fact that she was a Christian.  In her opinion leftist judge Jennifer Nofsinger mocked Ava and Emily’s faith by refusing to capitalize the word “God.”  The judge even rebuked the mother for allowing the pastor of the church to pray for Ava, and then ORDERED that the mother was barred from taking her daughter to ANY church unless the father approved--which he has steadfastly refused to do. 

Under what even leftist Newsweek called an “unusually sweeping custody order” the judge ORDERED that the daughter not associate with any of her church friends or any member of Calvary Chapel Church.  Further, if the daughter were to meet a new friend outside of Calvary and that person began attending Calvary, the judge ORDERED the daughter not to associate with that friend.

The order goes on: The daughter is barred from attending ANY Christmas, Easter, or any other Christian event or celebration at ANY church, including any wedding, funeral, or even hospital visits with anyone associated with Calvary Chapel.

The judge ordered her not to have any contact or participation with ANY religious organization, and is forbidden to read the Bible or be exposed to any “religious philosophy.” 

Last week Maine's supreme court heard the mother's appeal of the lower-court judges obscene ruling.  The father's attorney brazenly claimed to the judges of the supreme court Thursday that the  lower-court judge had “narrowly tailored" her order barring the girl from all religious contacts unless the absent father agreed.

The details of this case seem so outrageous as to be hard to believe, but the leftists who run Newsweek posted most of it, for what that's worth.  I've tried to find the judge Jennifer Nofsinger's order but no luck so far. 

Another big company announces layoffs. Is a recession locked in, hitting next June?

Another big U.S. company has announced it's laying off some employees.  13,000.  

If that was the only layoff most Americans would just shrug.  But it's not.  It's part of a pattern that's been happening for about 18 months now, in which company execs realize they're over-staffed," and can increase profits by firing employees.  And it's part of wave of similar layoffs by big companies.

Now, I don't blame companies for wanting to be more efficient--assuming that means providing the same service at a lower cost.  Problem is, multiply this by 500 or so and you begin to see hints of a coming recession.  My guess is that it's inevitable, and was "set in concrete" over two years ago.  The Democrat-fellating Mainstream Media said nothing when bribem was prezzy, but will start screaming "recession!" around June of next year--just five months before the crucial mid-term elections that decide which party will control the two chambers of the utterly corrupt--but very useful to the Dems--congress.

See, all the Dems have to do is win control of ONE of the two chambers to block any "reform" laws from passing.  In fact in the senate, thanks to the filibuster rule, the Democrat party was able to keep the entire government shut down for over 40 days with just a minority of 41 votes!  They'll keep that power in 2026, and are almost certain to win control of the House too.

If the Dems are smart (hahahahaha!) they won't try to impeach Trump a third time.  But because they'll be eager to flex their power, they may well try again.  As before, they won't have enough senate votes to remove him, but even knowing that, they'll win LOTS of support with their moronic voters by impeaching him the third time, just to show their power.

With all Trump policies blocked, and all forms of welfare increasing by huge percentages, the national debt will skyrocket even faster than predicted, with interest payments similarly exploding.  Since neither party wants to cut back on federal spending, the only option will be to borrow ever more money each year.  With no reforms possible under Dem rule, the economy will implode.  And of course the Democrats and Media will blame Trump.

Sadly, the ONLY way the corrupt, stupid Democrats will ever see the folly of stupid policies like open borders and huge welfare for people who refuse to work is if the economy goes south.  Even then the current generation of Dems won't believe their policies had any negative effect at all.  But their children's lives will be far worse as a result of the parents' choices. 

By happenstance I don't have any kids, and have enough resources so my lifestyle won't change a bit.  I'll have sympathy for kids graduating from highschool or college today, since they had no choice: the decisions that doomed the U.S. were made by their parents.  But of course by then it'll be too late.

We had a good run--fought the good fight.  But we've been sold out--sabotaged, destroyed--by Democrat politicians who deliberately, cunning chose to open our borders to anyone who wanted to waltz in and stay forever.  And to make things worse, the stupid "anchor baby" ruling automatically made every child of illegals born in the U.S. a citizen--meaning they get to vote.  That sealed our fate, because a huge majority of 'em will vote for the socialist Democrat who offers 'em the most "free shit."

If you doubt that, look at the new mayors of NYC and Seattle and the corrupt governors of Virginia and New Jersey.

Oh wait...y'say yew din' know about 'em?  No surprise at all.  Think that was an accident?  The Democrat-fellating Mainstream Media didn't want Americans to be alarmed, so they've couched the DSA wins as a great victory for...uh..."duh pipo."  "Tolerance."  "Justified resistance against 'kings'."

And don't worry, Democrats (of course you weren't worried): Your children will NOT blame you for the utterly predictable results.  The Democrat-fellating Mainstream Media will constantly reassure you that you're 'on the side of the angels.'  Yep yep yep!  And because you want to believe it, you'll never question it.

See, the Left (which now controls the Democrat Party) has embraced two ideas:  First, that anyone in the world who shows up at the border DEMANDING to enter must be admitted; and second, that the proper function of duh gruberment is to give all illegals everything they need--even if duh gruberment has to borrow the money from Chyna to do that.     

This is what the Democrat Party demands, and what your vote for that party approves.  And since borrowed money is free, who could object to voting for such a wunnerful policy, eh?

Wait...did I hear one poor, lone, sane voice saying "Uh, borrowed money is NOT free.  You have to pay a thing called 'interest' on borrowed money!"

Democrats: "We're not gonna admit you're right--cuz since you oppose our policies you probably made that up!--but even if dat's true, duh government only pays a couple of percent or so, so how much could the interest BE, eh?"

Try a TRILLION dollars every year.  With a "T."  That's one-thousand Billions, every year.  And increasing, every year.

Democrats refuse to believe that number, but check it out for yourself.  

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/11/20/verizon-cutting-more-than-13000-jobs-as-it-restructures-.html 

Muslims and Democrat Socialists of America join forces

The guy in the video below made and posted it himself, so he's proud of what he's saying.  Which is: Islam will take over every nation on Earth.

 

Now obviously this guy is just one lone dipshit, not identified as an Islamic strategist.  He sounds like he's probably got an IQ of 80 (though that could be due to the fact that English is clearly not his native language.)  But because of those things, you're all dismissing this guy as being just a lone nutter, nothing to take seriously.  So you automatically dismiss what he says, because you're confident that a few thousand or even a few million Muzz aren't gonna defeat the U.S military.

But what you don't realize is that they don't have to defeat the U.S. militarily--because they've discovered they can win by winning elections, as they did in NYC and Seattle--because our open system means anyone can run for office.  Look at Dearbornistan, Michigan.

You may have noticed that the mayoral race in two cities--including the biggest in the nation--were won by members of the Democrat Socialists of America.  But you quickly think "DSA and Muslims are totally different groups, so why are you lumping 'em together?" 

Because Mamdani is both a Muslim and a DSA member.  And the two groups have a common cause: power.   

What you don't see is the huge number of commenters--on conservative sites--who are cheering the DSA victories, and socialism.  Even knocking the numbers down by 25% for paid shills, that's still impressive.  DSA members, like all socialists, aren't very bright, so when a cunning, canny, charismatic socialist says "I'm gonna give you tons of free shit, by taxing the rich," that's all they need to hear.  They know the socialist government can ram thru any tax increase they want, not limited by state or federal law.  (Yes, the courts long ago said that was legal.)  So doubling the city tax on, say, electricity, but then giving low-income (Democrat) voters a "voucher" each month to pay that tax, will do it.  Same with putting a city surcharge on water.

Think you can scare socialists away from voting for the DSA by claiming "If the city raises taxes, big businesses will leave, taking jobs with 'em"?  Nope, cuz socialists don't believe it--the cost of moving would be higher than several years of city tax.  Socialists don't care about actual numbers, cuz they don't believe 'em.  Zohran said he'd pay for all the free shit by taking money from the rich, and it's an article of faith with socialists and communists.

Also, DSA leaders know lenders will keep underwriting bonds for DSA-ruled cities, even if the cities can't pay the interest, since lenders know governors and legislatures in Democrat-ruled states will bail out stupid socialist-ruled cities when they end up defaulting on the bonds. 

Eventually the two groups may split with each other, but only after they've won all power. 

But don't worry, citizen: You won't be around to see that.  Your kids will.  But don't worry: the Democrat party will save 'em.  You bet, sparky.

https://x.com/i/status/1990271259394166872 

Yew kin trust AI, citizen, cuz it beez run by kompewters! An' it's got "electrolytes!"

"AI beez GREAT!"  "All duh kool companies iz gettin' into duh AI, cuz...it's cool, citizen!"  An' did we mention we have some AI stock for sale?  Cuz yew don' wanna miss out, eh?

SO...Porsche just announced a new electric vehicle, with a staggering 1,100 hp, able to do zero-to-60 in 2.4 seconds.  Wow!  And if that isn't zoomy enough, Porsche's engineers have some faaaabulous new battery tech that allows it to be re-charged from 10% to 80% in just...wait...16 seconds?

Well that's whut faaabulous AI says, at least at this moment.  No doubt some tecchie will kick AI in the ass and fix it.  Question is, how did AI--which knows everything, eh?--manage to change "minutes" (from the Porsche webpage) into seconds--which obviously isn't a typo?  

 

"Hey dad, what's a 'pyramid scheme'?"

 

But because the Mainstream Media (all leftists and Democrat fellators) LOVE socialism, they totally support these policies--and "Democrat Socialists of America," and the Dem party.

And I totally get it:  Wealthy, connected members of corporate boards are perfectly fine with voting to give the CEO a salary of $30 million a year, plus stock options.  After all, all the other trendy companies are paying that, eh?  And since the boards aren't giving away their own money, they don't care.  But do they really believe someone just as talented and qualified wouldn't take the job for a third of that-- $10 mill a year?  

I don't think that ever enters their mind.  Instead they truly believe that their choice for the new CEO is the absolute best person available--because the board members are great and only choose the best, eh?  So whatever salary it takes is absolutely, totally fine, eh?

Sixth-grader: "If you people would just limit your compensation packages to, say, $5 mill a year, none of the candidates would tell you to go pound sand, right?  But because the outrageously high salary isn't coming out of your pockets, you don't care.  So we end up enriching the handful of lucky beneficiaries. 

Ahhh, "Not my problem," y'say.  Well except...in case you didn't notice, voters in NYC just elected a Muslim member of the Democratic Socialists of America as mayor.  Seattle elected a DSA member.  Yeah, obviously just two cities, but if you look at the number of DSA demonstrators all across the country, you'll realize which way the trend line points.

Of course there's no point in pointing this out, because the fat cats who sit on corporate boards will continue to offer CEOs $30 million a year or so.  They'll never change, even if the DSA was running half the cities in the country.

 

 

After 90 years of slowly rising, IQ in the U.S. has dropped for 30 years. Why?

In the 1930s, in both U.S. and across much of the developed world, IQ scores started creeping upward — and kept on going, rising by roughly three points per decade.  The phenomenon was eventually named the Flynn effect, after the social scientist who first noticed it in the 1980s.

Because those steady gains happened over barely a hundred years, Flynn doubted they were caused by genetics.  Evolutionary change takes hundreds of thousands of years, and the humans of 1900 had the same basic mental hardware as those born since 2000.  Instead Flynn thought the increase might have been a kind of software update, uploaded to nearly all minds by modern life itself:  

Could better education have taught students to reason with hypotheticals instead of just memorizing facts? [nah]  Were office jobs requiring workers to deal with ideas instead of physical objects?  Was Mass media exposing audiences to unfamiliar places and perspectives? Perhaps people were getting better at classifying, generalizing, thinking beyond their own daily experience, which are some of the basic skills IQ tests are designed to measure. 

In any case, because t his "Flynn effect" seems to have steadily raised IQs--for whatever reason-- psychologists believed there was no reason that increase wouldn't continue. 

Surprise:  Not only has the Flynn effect seemingly ended, IQ scores in the U.S have been slowly falling for the past 30 years.

ACT scores are the lowest in more than 30 years, despite the test not being any harder.  Average math scores of high-school seniors’ in a national exam were the lowest since 2005.  Over a quarter of U.S. adults now read at the lowest proficiency level. 

Beyond those dismal results, you may have noted that the loudest and least-informed voices now shape the conversation. In nearly all aspects of life, including entertainment, the Mainstream Media and politics, people ask less and less of their brains. The stigma that was once attached to ignorance has disappeared.

IQ drops were evident across gender and education level, but were largest among 18-22-year-olds.  Is there a cause there?

And one result is that polls show as much as a quarter of the electorate is now composed of so-called low-information voters—people who can’t name their representatives and get most of their news from memes, and tend to be more persuadable than their better-informed neighbors. That makes them all-powerful in swing elections, provided campaigns can reach them with a message simple and arousing enough to resonate with what little else they know.

Teachers and Democrats blame falling IQ scores on the school closures during the Chyna virus. But while the long lockdowns--especially of schools--likely damaged your kids, the falling IQs were evident well before 2020.

Some experts blame the IQ drop on smart phones and goofy websites like TikTok, saying they're flooding our reward centers with dopamine—a natural neurotransmitter released by many drugs (and released by sex).  But other experts note there aren't any studies specifically linking dopamine to the use of smart phones.

In June the Reuters Institute reported that more Americans now say they get their news from social media than from Mainstream Media.  Scary example: 17 percent of people worldwide say they believe TikTok is a trusted news source.

But again, these possible explanations don't account for the claim that IQ seems to have been falling since 2020 or so.  This has prompted others to look to the environment, like "micro-plastics."  And I wouldn't be surprised if the Democrats try to blame it on "Globull Worming"...wait, "Climate Change."

Here's my (only slightly tongue-in-cheek) theory:  I blame liberals.  And before you sneer, hear me out:  Liberal Democrats have elevated ignorance and stupidity to an art-form.  When the last Dem president says "We choose truth over facts," and not a *single* Mainstream Media outlet says "That's a moronic word salad," we've crossed a threshold.
   When the contents of Hunty bribem's abandoned laptop were revealed, and *without having examined the contents,* 51 "former" U.S. intel agents signed a letter *absolutely assuring Americans that this was a fake--a case of "Russian disinformation" to sink Joe bribem (as if the Russians wouldn't have *vastly* preferred bribem to Trump)--and the Mainstream Media fawningly supported that horseshit *without a single dissenting voice,* we crossed a threshold.
   When bribem and his handlers opened our southern border and allowed 11 million illegals to enter the U.S. *and be flown at taxpayer expense to northern cities in the middle of the night*--and the Mainstream Media *never said a word about it,* we crossed a threshold.
   When the fucking *leaders* of the Democrat party *finally* forced the senile bribem to renounce the party's nomination, *and then selected the moronic, incompetent Cackles as their nominee...and the Media totally cheered...we crossed a threshold.

Starting to see it yet?  I could keep giving you examples all day.  Americans have trusted the Mainstream Media for ever.  And the Mainstream Media have *always* supported the Democrat party and leftist politics.  But since 2000 or so, they've gone full-propagandists for the Dems.  They gleefully lie and ignore any facts damaging to the Democrat party.

You don't see how this could have a deleterious effect on IQ, and I get it.  But what they've done is to reward young Americans for giving up critical thinking...for unthinkingly agreeing with absurdities like "trans women *are* women."  Once someone accepts such obvious horseshit, no absurd assertion is out of reach.  Like "Diversity is our strength."  Diversity of *thought and ideas," sure.  But cultural diversity is an invitation to the kind of riots we saw in L.A. this past summer.

Oh wait--you didn't.  You saw footage carefully sanitized by the Mainstream Democrat-fellating Media.  To see what really happened you needed to access the cell-phone videos of a hundred non-Media observers.  But you didn't, so you accepted the Media/Democrat/communist/pro-illegal Narrative--which was the goal.  

The Media and leftists have been *rewarding young Americans for not thinking* for 30 years or more.  Did any rational person really think that would have no effect at all?

Okay, all the above was just having fun, but... there does seem to be a drop in IQ.  Is it just in the U.S, or worldwide?  And if "they" claimed it was worldwide, how would you know if they were lying?

I understand that you don't have time to do your own research.  It's not your fault, cuz you're understandably too busy raising your kids and trying to keep food on the family table.  I totally get it, really.  Problem is, if you don't do any, you can't know when the Media is lying to ya.  (Spoiler: if the day ends in "y," they are.)

SO...today is Nov 18, 2025.  The midterms are in about a year.  And given all the foregoing, here are a few predictions:

The off-year elections two weeks ago show the Democrats have huge momentum, and the Media's  continuing demonization of ALL efforts to deport illegals is gonna keep increasing the determination of Democrats to get rid of the GOP.  So the Dems will win both chambers of congress next year.

Second: The stock market has been setting records, but...a recession is "baked in" due to a combination of corporate layoffs and an "AI bubble," much like the tech bubble 20 or so years ago.  There are hundreds of both established companies and startups competing for customers, and there are unlikely to be enough revenue to keep most of 'em solvent.  So, starting in ten months or so they're gonna start shaking out, which is gonna cause the stock market to drop.
   The Dems and their Media fellators will understandably seize on that to claim the economy is a disaster--just as they did to sneer at the Trump economy from February of 2020 thru the election that November that saddled us with the totally corrupt bribem. 
   The Media is already accusing J.D. Vance of wearing eyeliner and other makeup, and this will ramp up as the 2028 election nears.  The Media know those accusations will turn conservative voters off.  Result: Dems (the ghastly, oily, corrupt Gavin Newsom) will win the White House in 2028.
   When NYC and Chitcongo go third-world due to insolvency, Newsom and the Dems in congress won't hesitate to send each city hundreds of billions of tax dollars--all borrowed, of course.  That in turn will trigger an avalanche of identical bailout pleas from L.A, Portland, Seattle, Denver, Atlanta and other Dem-ruled cities.
   The national debt will increase by $8 trillion during Newsom's four years.  (For those not paying attention, that will be an increase of over 20%--in just four years.  If you don't know what that means, stop reading and watch some "entertainment" on your TeeVee.
   The price of gasoline will stay steady, but electricity bills will continue to skyrocket, goosed in part by the fact that "AI centers" will be competing with consumers for electricity--and with only miniscule increases in generating capacity, the only way for utilities to cope is to force residential consumers to reduce consumption, by jacking up the price per kwh.  Dems will blame Trump for "failing to anticipate the need."  Seriously.  And the Media will lap it up and get that message to a public too dumb to know it's a lie. 

Source:  

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/a-theory-of-dumb/ar-AA1QAv7E 

Ukraine investigators say a Zelensky partner took $100 million in graft, has now fled to Israel

Today "The Times of Israel" reported that Ukrainian anti-corruption investigators found that a Ukrainian Jew--Timus Mindich, described as an "entertainment tycoon"--has been running a group off grifters in Ukraine that's pocketed about $100 million in bribes, and that Mindich has now fled to Israel.  

Headline:  "Zelensky associate at crux of Ukrainian corruption case said to have fled to Israel"

>>Ukraine’s anti-corruption watchdogs just released the findings of a 15-month investigation, accusing Mindich of being the mastermind behind a $100 million embezzlement scheme involving top officials and Ukraine’s state nuclear power company.

Ukrainian officials claim Mindich’s rise to power is closely tied to his privileged relationship with Zelensky.

The BBC reported Mindich got married in Israel in 2010, in a four-day event near the Western Wall in Jerusalem with some 500 guests.

He is also a relative of Leonid Mindich, who was arrested by Ukraine’s anti-corruption watchdogs in June as he tried to flee the country.  He was charged with embezzling $16 million from an electric power company.

The case against Timur Mindich is based on 1,000 hours of wiretaps revealing his significant influence over a man who was Ukraine’s energy minister from 2021 until July of this year, when he was named justice minister.  That man resigned the post after the investigation into Mindich became public this week.

Investigators say the thousand hours of wire-taps show Mindich loyalists pressured contractors for Ukraine's nuclear power company for kickbacks of up to 15% to "bypass bureaucratic obstacles and do business smoothly.">>

"Politico Europe" (yes, owned by U.S. shill site Politico) says Mindich fled to Israel just one day before a raid on his office. 

What does that perfect timing suggest, eh?  Sure: corrupt Ukrainian government officials--like the just-resigned "justice minister"--almost certainly alerted Mindich to the coming raid--exactly like corrupt bribem Deep-Staters in the IRS tipped off Hunty bribem to the planned raid on his home--giving him time to have daddy's lackeys in the White House order that raid scrubbed.  Some patterns are the same in every country, eh?

(If you're a hardworking American you literally can't believe that.  That testimony is from the IRS agents who were sitting in cars near Hunty's home, ready to go in with a warrant.  They testified to congress that they were literally blocks away, ready to go, when the order came down from "higher up" not to go in.  That was open testimony to congress--and yet you never heard a word about it, eh?  Yes, the Mainstream Media in the U.S. really is that determined to protect bribem and family--and yes, that corrupt.

SO, citizen, why is this significant, eh?  Obviously it shows Zelensky and at least some of his buddies are utterly corrupt.  Is anyone surprised by this?  So what are the global "geo-political ramifications" of dis?

Everyone with an IQ over room temperature suspected Zelensky was knocking down millions in graft and kickbacks, but because no proof had emerged, both parties ignored it, because corruption--a nothing, even in the U.S., apparently--was trivial compared to the emotional response in every American who was watched with outrage as powerful Russia invaded tiny Ukraine, destroying most of their major cities and killing thousands of civilians, let alone 100,000 Uke troops.

It was a grossly lopsided fight, with Russia having eight times the population and warfighting power of Ukraine.  And the Dems jumped right on: Look at the tens of thousands of Democrats on social media who added Ukrainian flags to their (long) line of emoji's eh?

Almost every day Dem leaders--and Democrat-fellating talking head in the Media--were blasting Trump as "Putin's puppet," or "Putin's butt buddy," claiming he secretly supported Russia.  (Ahhh!  "Trump-Russia collusion" again, eh?)  But simultaneously, other Democrat "leaders" were screaming that if Trump continued to funnel more weapons to Ukraine--something the Democrats had demanded the U.S. do when bribem was Vegetable-in-Chief--if Trump continued to do as the Dems had demanded, it was gonna "trigger nuclear war with Russia!!!!!!"  

The intended result was that whether Trump continued the bribem policy of funneling weapons to Ukraine or not, the Dems would win either way, eh? 

So the revelation by the Times of Israel that the main corruptocrat in Ukraine was a Jew who's fled to Israel--isn't a real shock, just proof of what everyone suspected all along.  Now the question is, can that proof be ignored?

From everything we've heard, Zelensky has been ready to accept the settlement Trump proposed months ago, in which Ukraine would formally give Russia the lands Russia has already seized--about 15% of the country.  If Trump has good help (always an open question) that settlement will allow ethnic Russians living west of the front line to move east, and non-Russians living east to move west, without penalty or encumbrance.

Yeah, it sucks to have to move when you didn't do anything wrong, eh?  Go read some European history sometime.  That shit happens all the time.  If you've got a better idea to stop the senseless killing, bring it.

The problem was, Putin believes the longer he holds out--even at the cost of a thousand dead every week--the better deal he can get--sort of like Chuck Schumer's senate Democrats refusing to sign the "continuing resolution" that would have prevented the government from shutting down: they were confident the public would blame Trump, so they could force Trump to cave.

So my question is, since the Russians almost certainly have agents all through the Uke government (the Russian equivalent of our Deep State), what do ya think the chances are that Putin knew all about the bribe scheme, and had Russian agents tip off the chief grifter, with the goal of getting American conservatives to end any further support for Zelensky? 

Source: The Times of Israell 

https://www.timesofisrael.com/zelensky-associate-at-crux-of-ukrainian-corruption-case-said-to-have-fled-to-israel/ 

Meet the president of one of the two largest teachers' unions, Randi Weingarten

Vid below is Randi at a NYC Starbucks, bouncing up and down and screaming in support of paying the employees $31 per hour.

 

Wait...isn't Randi president of the "American Federation of Teachers," being paid over half a million dollars a year?  Why yes, yes she is.  So what the hell is she doing screaming at Starbucks?

Easy: she's a card-carrying communist who hates capitalism and is supporting a strike at NYC Starbucks for $31 per hour.  (And of course Starbucks execs will agree.)  But of course she's delighted to take union dues (automatically deducted from member pay, from your tax dollars) to support her and her lesbian wife, cuz "Dat jus' FAIR, comrade!"

Listen to this bitch.  This is the face of the Democrat party: total communism.  They don't know it yet, but we do: they slobberingly, fawningly elected Mamdani and a communist mayor of Seattle, and slobber over Randi.  Is it any wonder your kids have no idea who we fought in the Revolutionary War?  Or who Karl Marx is?  And can't multiply six times three?

https://x.com/i/status/1989509874351575353 

Meet Ricardo Mejia

Meet Ricardo Leonel Mejia, 35.  Ricardo made the news recently.  See if you can guess why.

• He was nominated for the Nobel Prize in physics
• He was named "artist of the year" in Los Angeles
• He was given a commendation for his work with police to bust a drug ring
• He was named Democrat of the Year for "doing the jobs Americans don't want to do"
• He's an illegal alien from El Salvador who was sentenced to 30 years in prison after pleading guilty to having sex with an 11-year-old in Virginia

 

Yeah, the last one.  A judge sentenced Mejia to 75 years in prison, but immediately suspended 45 years, saying it wasn't Mejia's fault that he was separated from his family and girlfriend in El Salvador.  The Soros-backed District Attorney agreed. 

The ACLU immediately appealed, claiming their client was suffering from "great mental distress because he missed his family and girlfriend back home" and that the separation wasn't his fault.  Also that in his home country having sex with 11-year-olds was "a gray area of the law."

Maryland Democrat senator Chris Van Hollen immediately asked the judge to consider probation, saying Mejia was a "Virginia man" who had "strong ties to the community and had never broken any law before now."  When the mother of the 11-year-old girl pointed out that Mejia was in the U.S. illegally, the judge threatened her with contempt of court for hate speech, quoting congresswoman and noted legal scholar AOC that entering the U.S. illegally is not a crime.

Democrat senator Elizabeth Warren asked the judge to suspend the sentence entirely, saying Mejia "identifies as a Native American female," which made "her" an oppressed minority who should be protected by Title IX of the Education Amendments of the Civil Rights Act. 

Jay Jones, who was just elected Attorney-General of Virginia despite urging that the former GOP Speaker of the House be killed, said it was unreasonable to charge any "undocumented American" with crimes, since they can't possibly be know all the laws in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), which fills 65 feet of shelf space.  The newly elected Democrat female governor of Virginia agreed.

Finally, Democrat presidential candidate Kamala Harris said "Unlike sexist Rethuglicans, the Democrat Party is a champion of female rights.  This young woman chose to have physical relations with a much older man.  Our laws against men having sex with younger women are outdated and motivated by cultural oppression, and must be changed.  It would be tragic to ruin this poor undocumented American's life for fulfilling this young woman's dream of an affair with an exciting older man of color.  Perhaps her affair with a much older man will even lead her to public office someday."

Now: How much of the above is sarc, and how much is true? 

Huge "climate change" pusher Bill Gates changes his tactics

Bill Gates may be the second-most overrated person on the planet (the first being Obozo)

For years Gates has been wailing that Global Worming--excuse me: "climate change"--was gonna wipe out life on Erf.  Gates even funded a proposal to use jumbo jets at max altitude to spew a million tons of calcium carbonate dust (limestone dust) into the stratosphere to reflect a percent or two of sunlight back into space instead of allowing it to reach duh Erf's surface.  Seriously, he funded these studies.

But that was yesterday, eh?  Now Bill seems to have decided that climate change is NOT gonna kill life on Erf after all!

Wow, such a TOTAL change!  Say, Bill, what new info led ya to dis new conclusion that's totally opposite to what you used to spout?

Be specific: what new info have you suddenly learned?

I'd love to know, but no so-called "reporter" will ever ask--because there isn't any new info.  Gates just decided "the rubes" (that's us)--or as the leftists call us: "climate deniers" (clever Demo-babble)--had about had enough of the Leftist horseshit that a) the Erf was warming at a scary rate; b) that this was being caused by CO2; and c) that the people to blamed were NOT Chinese or Indian, but Americans.

Yep yep yep.  Other nations can do whatever dey want, but you Americans--"climate deniers"--have to buy electric cars and stop heating your homes with less-costly natural gas. 

So Billy deftly switches his horseshit tune.  And every mainstream reporter knows not to ask the reason ("What new information have you gotten..."), since they know if they do, they won't get invited to the next Dem shindig in Aspen or Davos! 

In fairness, the Associated (Communist) Press explains that Gates is just changing where he wants to spend his money, from spreading dust in the atomosphere and bitching about CO2 emissions (which don't do anything unusual) to "preventing suffering for those in the toughest conditions in the world's poorest countries."

Deep in the Associated Press article is this: "The Gates foundation provides financial support for Associated Press coverage of health and development in Africa."  Say, ya think it's a coincidence that the AP's coverage of "health and development in Africa" is always fawning?

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/28/climate/bill-gates-climate-change-humanity.html  

Illegal alien driver kills 8-year-old girl in a crosswalk; AI gets the names backward

In Boise, Idaho yesterday an 8-year-old girl was in a crosswalk walking home from school when an illegal alien driver struck and killed her.  Here's how the vaunted piece of shit AII reported it ten minutes ago:

 

Really, sparky?  No.  The 8-year old victim--who AI carefully didn't name--was actually Mora Gerety.  Elvin Ramos-Caballero was the illegal alien driver.  So how could AI think the illegal driver was the victim, eh?  Take a look at how the local CBS station reported it:

 

Interestingly, the TV station refused to name the girl, referring merely to "the victim" or "a pedestrian" instead of "an 8-year-old girl" to avoid angering voters against the Democrat sons of whores who threw open the U.S. border to the world.  Even the principal of the girl's school refused to call her a girl, instead using the deliberately confusing, trendy "they" demanded by leftist/Democrats.

For those not familiar: Most of the people of Idaho are conservative, but Boise is a leftist cesspool, so naturally the principal would automatically use the useless "they" to speak of the young girl.  

AI may be good at telling you the capital of Slobovia, but doesn't cross-check anything.  If you still rely on AI you're gonna pay a price, probably sooner than you think.  In another year AI will be telling you Republicans threw open the borders, and the brave, fearless Democrats tried to stop 'em but were out-voted!

Face features: can you guess the common link between all of the faces below?

 

Study the 32 faces above.  They all have something in common.  Based on nothing but their faces and expressions, can you guess what that common thread is? Are they...

• MENSA members?
• Democrat voters?
• Conservatives? 
• Antifa rock-throwers? (wait...Democrat pols assured us Antifa doesn't exist!)
• TPUSA members?
• the city council of San Francisco?
• PhD students in Sociology at Columbia?
• members of "By Any Means Necessary"?  (yes, that's an actual Democrat organization)
• trannies? 
• meth addicts?
• members of "Keep all drugs legal in Oregon!"

Okay, seven of those guesses are extremely likely.  And l let me quickly add that not everyone in the montage above looks crazy: at least two look relatively sane.

What Tuesday's election tells us

First: Both Virginia and NJ are heavily majority-Democrat states, so Democrat wins there aren't surprising.  But the shocker is how large the margins of the Dem win were:

• In heavily Democrat New Jersey, Democrats won by 14% for governor;
• In heavily Democrat Virginia, Dems won by 13% for governor;
• Moronic, amoral Virginia Democrats even managed to elect as their state's attorney-general a man who posted on social media that he wanted to "put two bullets in the head" of the Republican who was then speaker of the Virginia legislature--and added that he wanted to see the man's children die in their mother's arms.  This should give you an idea of the depth of the moral abyss Democrats inhabit today.
• In Arizona, Democrats voters (likely with the help of tens of thousands of illegal votes from non-citizens) won a special election for an Arizona House seat--by 40%.
• In heavily-Democrat Virginia Dems won a special election for a Virginia House seat--by 48%.
• New York City is hugely majority Democrat, so electing a Dem mayor is no surprise.  What IS stunning is that the dumb bastards elected an openly communist Muslim--who's never held a real job--as mayor.  That's a HUGE telltale for the future.  

Democrat pols and the Dem-fellating Mainstream Media were understandably gloating, gleeful.

So what do those results tell us?

The obvious one is that Democrat voters are so dumb that even rocks are laughing at 'em.  But by huge contrast, Dem politicians are cunning and brilliant--in the same way a serial rapist who manages to have eluded capture is brilliant:  They've managed to make their voters willing to riot to block efforts to enforce U.S. immigration law.

Let that sink in for a minute.

Democrat politicians have succeeded in getting their street thugs to block efforts to enforce U.S. laws.  Think about the Rubicon Democrat "leaders" (i.e. scum-sucking communist rat-bastard child rapists) just urged 'em to cross.

(For young Americans: Ask your parents if they know the significance of "crossing the Rubicon."  If they're liberal Democrats, chances are they won't know.)

The Democrat plan was (is) to to demonize the men whose job is to try to enforce U.S. law--and Dem pols have turned that into a cause, with lots of screaming Latino women and rock-throwing males, which makes GREAT video for the alphabet nets, eh?

There's an old saying in the Media: "If it bleeds, it leads."  Stories that feature rock-throwing mobs lead every "newzcast," and the message is always exactly the same: "Trump is acting like a dictator!  Orange Hitler!  Acting like a king!  Tryin' t' deport deez wunnerful pipo who haz nevah broken no laws at ALL, citizen!  Nope nope nope!"

"Enforcing valid U.S. law" is never mentioned.  Instead it's "Trump is a dictator!!!"

If you wanna see Democrat "logic" at work, watch the vid of that true bird-brain Jasmine Crockett bleating "Breaking the law doesn't make someone a criminal!"  Yes, she actually said that.  On video.

And amazingly (and predictably) Jazzy, like AOC and Hakeem Jeffries, is the true face of the New Democrat Party.

Now: It's hard to blame people with an IQ of 80 and under for voting for the candidate that promises to "gibs 'em mo' free sheeit," eh?  If socialist/communist/Democrat pols--not just Momdani but ALL Democrat politicians--promise to give voters "free shit" (question: is it really "free"?), it should be obvious that dumb voters will vote for 'em.  Long-term disaster is never considered. 

Now: Unless you've spent lots of time walking around a big Dem-ruled city (you probably haven't) you can't really appreciate how many truly stupid people (or perhaps merely uneducated people) live there.  These are people who have no idea what the three branches of government are, or how many U.S. senators, or how many judges are on the Supreme Court, or who fought in the Revolutionary War.

They're people who read at a 4th-grade level, meaning they try to avoid reading.  They get their "newz" from TV, and believe everything MS-WTF bleats.

And because of the vastly higher birthrate of illegal immigrants, low-info Dem voters will keep breeding low-info, Democrat-voting kids--almost three times more than educated women of European descent have.  Because of this, the Democrat-voting percentage of the population will continually increase.  They already control virtually every big city and have a huge  majority in shithole blue states like Virginia, New Jersey, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Colorado, Oregon, Washington and California.

A hallmark of smarter people is that they're able to predict the likely consequences of current actions--specifically consequences of dumb Democrat policies.

By contrast, dumb people--the Democrats' voting base--can't do that.  Try this thought experiment: Suppose a Democrat pol promises that if elected he'll give every Democrat a free Cadillac.  How many dumbshits will think "Whoa!  The cost will be staggering!  That's likely to vastly increase the national debt, meaning the gummint will have to pay more interest to service that debt, meaning..."

Of course not.  The typical low-info voter never thinks past "I'll take it!" 

"Wait...whut dis sheeit 'bout 'insurance'?  Y'say I gots t'get insurance t' register duh free Caddy?  An' dat in NYC or Jersey dat'll cost me $4,000 a YEAR?  Nah, bro, yew gots t'gimmeedat free too!"

So here we are:  The communist Muzz mayor of NYC promised free shit to everyone if they voted for him.  And they did.  And he'll be able to impose a special city tax on NYC corporations and "the rich," without having to get permission from Kathy's Democrat state government.  And with that much extra money he'll be able to keep things going for his 4-year term.  

He'll easily win re-election, and then reality will start to kick in.  But by that time the Democrats will control both chambers of congress, and the Dems will give Mamdani all the cash he needs to keep his socialist regime working.
 
====
Lessons from the election, part 2:
   One of the ways to see what Americans are thinking is reading comments on popular websites.  And after Charlie Kirk was assassinated, leftists and Democrats swamped comment sections even on conservative websites, cheering, sneering that Kirk deserved it.
  If anyone doubted that the Democrat party was insane, that should have confirmed it.  Imagine how warped, how demonic someone has to be to cheer an assassination.  This is the stuff of Mexican politics, where candidates who don't support the cartels are routinely assassinated. 

===
Lessons from the election, part 3:
   In every election there are tens of thousands of fraudulent votes.  Some of these are due to fraudsters voting in person in two different precincts, while others are due to fraud in mail-in ballots.

In Maine, 173,000 citizens were concerned enough about vote fraud to put a measure on the ballot to do two things: require photo ID to vote in person, and to reduce fraud in mail-in ballots.

That measure was defeated 64% to 36%.  What that tells us is that either stupid Dem voters in Maine simply don't believe there's vote fraud, or that they don't care.  And I'll go either way on that.  

Who would either want, or want to tolerate, vote fraud?  Democrats and illegal immigrants, because it helps 'em win elections.  And since Maine is a Dem-ruled state, there was virtually no chance of the measure passing.  The surprise is the margin by which the measure was defeated:

In Maine, 33% of voters are registered Democrats, 29% are Republicans and 34% are "unaffiliated."  So you'd think the measure would have failed by about 50 to 46 or so, instead of 64-36.  So what happened?

Democrats long ago discovered that the surest way to win votes to pass a new government freebie (Dem-run boondoggle) was to describe it as "your right."  Before about 1970 anyone who claimed "you have a right to demand that taxpayers give you housing or food or medical care or internet service would have been laughed out of town.
   But somewhere between 1965 (Lyndon Johnson's great giveaway) and 1968, a newspaper in California got a welfare recipient to sue the state demanding that people on welfare had the absolute right to get a "free" newspaper every day--at taxpayer expense, of course.
   The argument used by the Democrat grifters was that "well informed" citizens would vote more rationally.   And since it was automatically assumed that newspapers told the truth, nothing else needed to be said.

The real goal, of course, was to get the court to order the Democrat government of the state to use taxpayer funds to give 100,000 more copies of the state's leading newspaper to welfare recipients.  So more income for the newspaper, eh? And you won't be surprised to learn that the leftist judge agreed.

Conversely, Dems discovered that the way to defeat a measure they didn't like was to use the papers and TV stations to bleat "Republicans are trying to take away your rights!"

Obvious, and brilliant.  See, it didn't matter if either claim ("It's your RIGHT to have..." or "They're trying to take away your rights") was true.  All that mattered to low-info voters was that they'd heard it, so they believed it.

So in Maine the rat-bastard Democrats used the newspapers and TV stations to bleat that the two ballot measures to reduce vote fraud were "taking away your right to VOTE," and "an attempt at voter suppression."  They wailed that requiring photo-ID would "disenfranchise voters who are less likely to have a driver's license, such as the elderly, minorities and disabled.

Of course people who don't drive can get a "state-issued non-driver photo ID" for free.  But Maine's "public-radio website" cunningly omitted that detail, eh?  Cuz including it would have shown that the claim of "voter suppression" was a lie.

On the provisions that would have reduced fraud in absentee voting, supporters of the ballot measure wanted the state to end its Dem-ruled policy of automatically mailing absentee ballots to "some" voters, since if the voter moved, those ballots always ended up in someone else's hands.  Supporters also wanted to end the state policy of allowing people to request an absentee ballot by phone, since there was no way to verify that the caller was who he or she claimed to be.

(For morons: the precinct doesn't know your Social Security number, so that's out.  There's no way to verify.)

Thirty groups joined to defeat the measure: national as well as state labor unions provided most of the money [why would national unions care about Maine, eh?  Oh yeah: more Democrats in congress], along with the Democrat-fellating ACLU, the Democrat-fellating League of Women Voters, and--strangely--a group called "Maine Conservation Voters."  These well-funded groups out-spent those supporting anti-fraud measures by more than two to one.  All Democrat pols were against the fraud-reduction measure.

SO...what have we learned today, kids?

Democrats: "Nuffin', cuz dis wuz all FAKE NEWZ!  Nunna dis evah happen!  We Dems iz jus' try'na prevent 'voter suppression' by Orange Hitler!  Yep yep yep!"

NYC liberal college girls are overjoyed about electing Momdani!

 

Re: "The Great Feminization"

I like women.  Honestly.  

Well, at least most women.  But just as about ten percent of men are so obnoxious that I wouldn't be shed a tear if they got turned to clouds of glowing gas, from my observations at least ten percent of women are in that same category.

I've been lucky to only run into a few such women in my life, and they are absolutely ghastly.  They're almost always angry, never satisfied and seemingly never happy.  And as far as I've been able to determine, they blame men.  

They may have good reasons.  And if these nasty women were nicer I'd love to listen to their stories for an hour or so.

Helen Andrews wrote an excellent article on this, titled "The Great Feminization," and I've used it as a starting point for the post below.
===

In 2005 Larry Summers was president of Harvard University, and gave a talk at a conference on “Diversifying the science and engineering workforce.”

The "diversity" addressed at this conference was "We need more women in science and engineering."  Really?  Most women I've met hate that discipline, and sneer at engineers.  Most women think engineering is boring, definitely not cool or exciting, eh?  But I digress:  

Summers didn't argue with the goal of the Hahvahd conference, but noted that part of the explanation for why there were fewer females than males in hard sciences--a topic cleverly couched as "under-representation," thus predetermining the conclusion--could be “different availability of aptitude at the high end, as well as taste differences between men and women.”

As you surely guessed, some female professors in the audience were outraged, and demanded he resign as president of Hahvahd.  That led to a vote by the "woke" faculty condemning Summers, who eventually resigned.  Angry women and woke beta males on Hahvahd's faculty forced Summers out. 

Summers is apparently the first victim of the "cancel culture," in which screaming snowflakes--some of 'em male--realized they could force people to resign, or their employers to fire 'em.

It was a turning point in American culture. 

Cancel culture is what women do whenever there are enough of them in any organization or field.  Everything you think of as “wokeness” is feminization in action.

"Woke" is not a new ideology, but simply the application of feminine behavior applied to institutions that have lots of women.  For example, in 1974 only 10 percent of New York Times reporters were female.  By 2018 the staff at the Times was majority female.

In 2016 law schools became majority female.  In 2023 women comprised a majority of "associates" at law firms. 

When Sandra Day O’Connor was appointed to the high court only 5 percent of U.S. judges were female.  Today 33 percent of the judges in America are.  And staggeringly, tellingly: 63 percent of the judges appointed by Biden. 

Medical schools became majority female in 2019--the same year women became a majority of the college-educated workforce nationwide.  Two years ago women became a majority of college professors (though the Ivies were majority female years earlier). 

46 percent of managers in the U.S. are female--rising every day.

What happens when institutions tip from majority-male to majority-female?  Several vital things change.  Feminists claim the changes are good--but IF the goal is a thriving country and economy we're beginning to see that most of the changes are actually bad.

Not surprisingly, most female managers prioritize female traits, methods and goals over competence and efficiency.  Empathy is prized over rationality.

Female judges are far more inclined to release young carjackers and muggers with only a warning: empathy over rationality.

Consider something as seemingly crucial to science as freedom of speech:  Researchers examining the effects of feminization on academia found that 71 percent of men said protecting free speech was more important than preserving a cohesive society, while 59 percent of women said the opposite.  (Admittedly the "cohesive society" choice was far too vague.)  But new discoveries in science are made by people who aren't afraid to reject the consensus.

Of course most males are similarly reluctant to buck the consensus, but female group dynamics penalize disagreement much more strongly.  "Group discussions" are used to reinforce consensus.  The communists recognized this as a powerful tool, and "struggle sessions" were usually led by women.  

Of course LOTS of men use feminine tactics, particularly in academia and medicine, as when doctors like Fauci said public gatherings were forbidden, but wokie doctors said mass protests by Black Lives Matter could continue--obviously violating "Doctor Science's" orders--because "racism is a public health emergency."

Turns out Fauci was a lying POS, but the other docs didn't know that.  They just let emotion override what Fauci ordered (ostensibly to keep people safe) because they were afraid to buck the perceived consensus.  Hmmm...

Andrews writes "The insanity of 2020 was just a taste of what the future holds.  Imagine what will happen as the remaining men age out of society-shaping professions and younger, more feminized generations take full control." 

Of course depending on the particular field, the threat to functioning society posed by wokeness can be almost unnoticeable.  For example, university English departments are almost totally feminized now, but that only affects very few people.  But in other fields the effect can be huge:  We live in a country where what's printed in The New York Times determines what most Americans think is truth.  If the female majority at the Times doesn't like certain facts, and hides them, that affects political outcomes.

The field that frightens Andrews most is the law.  Most Americans don't realize how much our society depend on a legal system that enforces laws and locks up bad people.  But most women tend to want NOT to punish truly bad criminals--most of whom have sympathetic excuses to explain why society forced them to commit violent crimes.  

And sure enough, as more females have been appointed to lifetime positions as judges in the last 30 years, crime has increased (though in many Democrat-ruled cities and states the statistics are rigged by making more crimes misdemeanors instead of felonies).

The rule of law means following the rules even when they produce a result that tugs at your heartstrings.

Liberal judges already bend the rules for groups favored by liberals, while enforcing them rigorously on disfavored groups.  Andrews believes that as more female judges are appointed (by Democrat or socialist presidents), this will become more widespread.  She concludes, "The changes will be massive."

Oddly, both sides of the political spectrum agree on what those changes will be. The disagreement is over whether those changes will be good or bad. 

Feminists and liberal women praise female judges for their irreverent attitude to the law’s formalities, which, they quickly note, originated in an era of oppression and white supremacy.  Rather than debate whether a given law is flawed by the makeup of society when it was passed, they automatically reject enforcing it.  Much easier.  Consensus, citizen.  At least the feminist consensus.

Those who view the law as a tool of "the white patriarchy" can be expected to treat it with hostility.  

Other civilizations have given women the vote, granted them property rights, or let them inherit the thrones of empires.  But the wave of total feminization the U.S. is experiencing is unprecedented.  No civilization in human history has ever experimented with letting women control so many vital institutions of the society--political parties, universities, the courts, our largest companies.  Even where women don't hold the top spots, they set the tone in these organizations, such that a male CEO must operate within the limits set by his human resources VP.

Everyone just assumes all these institutions will continue to function under the new rules.  But is that assumption correct?

The problem isn't that women are less talented than men.  Instead it's that female modes of interaction don't seem well suited to accomplishing the goals of many major institutions.  Andrews speculates that if this unprecedented experiment fatally weakens one of our vital institutions, it will probably be too late to recover. 

Most feminists think the Great Feminization is a totally natural process, but it's not.  Instead,  "woke" politicians pandering for female votes passed laws that forced companies to hire women for at least half of all management positions or be fined billions of dollars.  Feminists claim this gave women a chance to compete with men (which they've had for decades)--and that women turned out to be better at running things.

Leftists (including some "wokie" males) mock MAGA males about failing to adequately compete.  My take (not Andrews's) is different:  The reason males outnumber females as CEOs and top managers has been that historically, most women have preferred raising a family to the "corporate rat-race."  But after Dem politicians passed laws forcing companies to have at least half of top positions filled by women, or be sued by the government (which has infinite taxpayer funds) and fined tens of millions of dollars, CEOs and boards quickly realized it was "obey or die."  They couldn't prevail against the Democrat-rammed LAW, and that was the end of it.

Andrews seems to agree:

Feminization is not an organic result of women out-competing men. [Instead] it's an artificial result of social engineering, and if we take our thumb off the scale it will collapse within a generation.

The most obvious thumb on the scale is anti-discrimination law. It is illegal to employ too few women at your company. If women are underrepresented, especially in your higher management, that is a lawsuit waiting to happen. As a result, employers give women jobs and promotions they would not otherwise have gotten simply to keep from being sued. 

It's totally rational for them to do this, because the consequences for failing to do so can be dire. Texaco, Goldman Sachs, Novartis, and Coca-Cola are among the companies that have paid nine-figure settlements in response to lawsuits alleging bias against women in hiring and promotions. No manager wants to be the person who cost his company $200 million in a gender-discrimination lawsuit. 

Once institutions reach a 50–50 split, they tend to become increasingly female.  Since 2016, law schools have gotten a little bit more female every year; in 2024, they were 56 percent female. Psychology was once a predominantly male field.  Today 75 percent of psychology doctorates go to women.  

Leftists claim this is just women out-competing men, but what man wants to work in a field where his traits are not welcome? What self-respecting male grad-student would pursue a career in academia when his peers will cancel him for stating his disagreements too bluntly or espousing a controversial opinion? 

Helen Andrews's article might be a tough read for some women.  But this isn't about all women, just women with the mindset of woke feminism and Girlpower Marxism.  And predictably, these are the women being hired as CEOs of corporations, university presidents, movie studios and academic department heads.  They put feminist methods and activism above all.

Feminism was and is based on the idea that men are (and always will be) wrong, and thus that all companies and institutions not already run by women must be forced to hire female CEOs, who will then rebuild their institutions according to feminist Marxist principles.

When you reject all practices that have a proven track record of success, you'd better have a better replacement extremely well thought out or else you're likely to end with disaster.  It's like young blacks rejecting studying and reading because they claim it's "acting white."  

So what practices do the "wokie" marxist feminists propose to replace current practices, eh?

Slogans.  "Cancel culture."  Demonstrations.  Ironically, for a group that professes to hate male strength with a white-hot passion, they LOVE to use the tools of force--as long as they're the ones using it.  

And of course they don't think it's force to "cancel" someone.  It's just "concensus."  Ahhh of course, comrade.

Most feminist protesters seem to hate capitalism itself, apparently viewing it as the creation of the eeevil Patriarchy.  Advancing a capitalist company, or teaching the benefits of capitalism, is regarded as Acting Male, and of course we can't have that.  (Although feminists do seem to love Apple, Fakebook and Google.) 

So feminists keep taking functioning institutions and...changing them.  And when you change every foundational aspect of a functioning institution--or a multi-billion-dollar movie franchise--the odds of that institution continuing to function well get longer.

Fortunately for feminists, it's almost impossible to blame failures on wokie Marxist policies, because some companies will fail for reasons having nothing to do with management.  Technology can make a company's product obsolete.  Consumer tastes can change.  So it's really hard to know...except in one field:  The military.

Obozo fired top generals and promoted "woke" replacements.  They allowed trannies in the military, allowed 'em to dress as women and ordered the armed forces to pay for sex-change surgeries.  The woke Navy even ran a recruiting ad featuring a guy in drag.  And as a result, recruiting dropped like a rock, even after the armed forces removed all fitness requirements for recruits. 

The utterly predictable result was that large numbers of fit, strong, patriotic males decided not to join.  None of the services made their recruiting quotas under obozo or bribem.  Trump reversed most of those policies (though leftist judges blocked him from removing trannies from the military), and the result was that all the forces met their recruiting numbers nine months into the fiscal year.  Nice.

The Democrat-fellating Mainstream Media mostly ignored that story, for obvious reasons.

The old saying is "There's safety in numbers."  It  was another way of saying the side with more supporters almost always wins.  So once women (and beta males, who are a essentially female) reach 51% of the staff and management, women will run the thing, and eventually destroy it.

Reason: No dissent can ever be openly expressed, because in female societies that's considered confrontational and rude.

Like Democrats, women will vote to support the feminist goal, regardless of the chances of disaster.

And that's what we see everywhere today:  The hot buzzword is concensus.  "Buy-in."

We keep seeing this in corporate decisions.  To show how *totally* woke they are, members of corporate boards hire female executives, who hire female managers, who hire female-run ad agencies.  This is certainly good if you're selling female hygiene products.  But if you're selling a beer mainly consumed by men?  Not so much.

This is how the disastrous decision by one female exec at Anheuser-Busch led to creating a marketing campaign for the company's top-selling beer, using an obvious tranny as the representative.  The move cost Bud Light a billion or so in sales, and the loss of about five times that in market cap.

And that's trivial compared to decisions made to allow tranny males in the armed forces, or ordering Medicaid to pay for sex-change operations for minors.

The military chiefs of staff are appointed by the president.  When a president appoints a female to head a branch of the armed forces, the effect isn't good: fitness standards are lowered or waived so the branch can enlist more women.  Tranny officers--in female uniforms and full makeup--are promoted over warfighters.  Ad campaigns are approved featuring service members in full drag.

What's the utterly predictable result?  Male recruitment falls dramatically.  Of course if our military could win wars based on which side wins the beauty pageant, fine.  Unfortunately...

The problem is, feminism demands that women despise everything considered male or masculine.  They see men as the enemy, so every institution must be torn down and rebuilt on feminist and frankly Marxist principles.

Finally Andrews turns to the feminist claim that women have just naturally out-competed men to take over all institutions, fair and square.  That's nonsense: "Woke" Democrat politicians, whose only goal was endless re-election, rammed through laws to ensure women were appointed to top positions in every field, or else the men running those institutions would be either sued or canceled.  Once those laws were rammed through, leftist judges gleefully made any dissent ruinously expensive, either through fines of hundreds of millions of dollars, or men being fired as CEOs.

Male CEOs and board members got the message fast: If you wanna keep your job, promote women.  So while it's easy to blame bitchy feminists, it's more accurate to blame liberal Democrat pols who voted to pass these laws forcing companies and the military to install women in top positions.

Read Andrews' excellent article.

Source.

https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-great-feminization/ 

Cartels assassinate another mayor in Mehico--this is becoming SO common.

You have no idea what's happening, even in the U.S., let alone in Mehico, which is about 20 years farther down the road.

In Mehico Halloween is celebrated as "the day of the dead."  And in the western state of Michoacan an anti-cartel mayor was shot dead in the middle of the day in front of hundreds of people who had gathered for Day of the Dead festivities.

The killer shot the mayor seven times before being killed by bodyguards--of course too late.  No surprise, cuz as everyone with an IQ over room temperature knows, attackers have the critical advantage of surprise.

Now, for the slow-witted (mainly Democrats): the cartels have an essentially infinite supply of young wannabee killers eager to prove they're studs, so they can do this any time they want.

Stupid Democrats: "But dat beez Mehico! Whut dis have to do wif' duh U.S, deplorable?"

Yeah, knew you were gonna say that, you dumb son of a bitch.

Here's why it matters: Good people--hard-working family men who might have been good leaders--see this assassination and think "If I get elected mayor (or appointed police chief) and get killed, my family will suffer."  And to prevent their loved family from suffering, they decide not to run for office.

Stupid Democrat voter: "Whut dat mattah?  Dere's no shortage of pipo who wanna be mayor, eh?  So whut dif'rence do it make if a few decide not to run, eh?"

Now try to follow me here, dumbshit.  (Spoiler: this is probably too subtle for ya.)  If the brutal daylight murder of the last mayor--in front of hundreds of witnesses--makes honest people decide NOT to run for office, who does that leave?

Think reeeally hard now.  C'mon, you can do it!

It leaves corruptocrats who will do whatever the cartels want--obviously including ending any investigations into cartel crimes.

Democrat voter: "NOoo!  Dat crazy!  Dere will always be honest pipo who decide to run fo' office!"

Exactly what we expected you to say, sparky.  

Democrat voter: "Besides, dat's Mehico, haz nuffin' to do wif' duh U.S. at ALL!  Neener neener neener!"

Really, sparky?  Do you honestly believe the assassination of Charlie Kirk had no impact on the number of good people willing to take on socialist and communist college students in debates?

Kirk's assassination killed one of the most effective voices for conservatism and American values.  So it immeasurably helped your side--just like the cartels benefited from assassinating a mayor who opposed them.  And if you think these two murders are the end of it, think again:

Just as the cartels have a virtually endless supply of young wannabee members eager to kill opponents, the same thing is true here with leftist killers.  The Democrat Partei [sic] encourages murder with every turn: The man running for fucking attorney-general of Virginia  openly proclaimed he wanted to put "two bullets in the head" of the Republican speaker of the state's House of Delegates.  Said he wanted to see the man's children die in their mother's arms.

Oh, y'say you don't believe that?  Yeah, just like you believe the fuckhead Jimmy Kimmel when he claimed Charlie Kirk's assassin was "MAGA."  Yes, he said that, on national television.

It's all good, eh?  You people believe you can *assassinate opponents at will*--just like the cartels.  And even if the killers are killed or charged, *your leaders (who urged murder) know they'll never be charged or prosecuted.*  And in the astronomically unlikely chance your leaders *are* charged, they'll never be convicted, cuz Democrats control the courts.  

Both Kirk's assassin and Luigi Mangione will claim they're not guilty by reason of insanity.  And that plea will get 'em off with a couple of years in a mental hospital where dey kin watch TV and play chess.  Some punishment, eh?  Think that will deter *anyone?*

You believe a) you're in the majority; and b) that the few remaining good people will never fight to defend our freedom from your demands--that instead we'll always surrender. 

And of course you never think beyond that--cuz you don't believe there aren't any other choices. 

Democrat voters: "True.  We can always out-think you deplorables, cuz history shows we beez way smahtah!"

We knew you'd say that.  Very well: bring it on.  I'm totally eager to see how it turns out.

Just remember: by inflaming your young zealots to murder people you hated, you brought this on yourselves.