Interesting bit about comrade Karen Bass

 

What would we deplorables do without the New York Times, eh?

Ahh, the classics never get old! 

 

Actually I think Trump has done lots of goofy things, but for just sparing us from four years of the ghastly Hill-beast, we thank you! 

Who IS this, and why does he look like a 17th-century French king?

 Wha...who dis?  He look kinda familiar...

 

Yes, dis beez duh faaaabulous Gavin Newsom.  But whut he doin' lookin' like a 17th-century French aristocrat?  Turns out he's in an ad for the conservative who's running for mayor of the ghastly Dem-ruled shithole of Los Angeles. 

Click the link and watch the ad.  I thought it was brilliant--but I'm definitely biased. 

Obviously it's not really the brilliant socialist con-man Newsom, but a great AI spoof.  And of course Newsom--in classic Democrat-authoritarian fashion--proposed a "rule" to make it illegal to make and show things like this, claiming...wait for it...that voters would be confused because they wouldn't be able to tell satire from reality!

Yes, yes, I see the problem, Gav!  This DOES look a lot like reality in pre-revolutionary France.  You definitely need to stamp out this upstart behavior!  Show these peons they can't poke fun at their betters, eh?

Go get 'em, Gav!  You and Karen and Cackles and Pelosi and Schiff.  Make 'em respect you...or maybe fear you?  Whichever works, eh? 

Supreme court again refuses to hear a lawsuit between states--unsigned order, no legal reasoning

For those who were over 25 at the time, we all saw that the 2020 presidential election was a total shit-show: despite hundreds of sworn affidavits from eyewitnesses alleging massive election fraud, and Texas suing two other states for election fraud, the Supreme Court refused to hear any of the cases.

Now: to the extent that Democrats still admit our Constitution exists, it explicitly states that when one state sues another, the Supreme Court is "the court of original jurisdiction."  What that means is that a case doesn't have to work it's insufferably slow way up thru lower courts to be heard:  The case is to go right to the Supreme Court to be resolved.  There's no other plausible, rational way to interpret that clause--which I've included below for your convenience, since almost no one would have bothered to look it up:

Article III, Section II:

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and... to controversies between two or more states; 
   In all Cases...in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.

But in the lawsuits filed by Texas after the 2020 election, the Court simply defied the Constitution's explicit order and refused to hear any of those lawsuits that claimed major illegalities in that election by the defendants.

The Court simply ignored the problem, explicitly refusing to do as the Constitution explicitly directs--refusing to hear the allegations of massive, brazen election fraud.  Whether the justices did that due to cowardice or pressure from Democrats seems irrelevant.

Put simply: the Court was derelict.  And since it's the court of last resort, there is no other avenue of appeal.   

That was in the end of 2020, and now you're about to see that the court has done it again, once more refusing to hear a lawsuit between two state--despite the Constitution's statement that it is the "court of original jurisdiction."

For years corrupt Democrat-ruled shitholes like California and Washington have been giving commercial driver's licenses to illegal aliens who neither speak English nor read English road signs.  Last year one of those illegals, driving a semi on the Florida Turnpike, made a totally illegal (let alone utterly stupid) U-turn.  A car behind it, travelling at 70 mph, was unable to stop and the crash killed three people in it. 

Investigation quickly revealed that the illegal didn't understand English and couldn't read road signs, both of which are required to get a CDL.  Yet due to corruption or mere incompetence of state employees, the illegal had managed to get a license to drive a big rig from both California and Washington.

Last year Florida sued both Dem-ruled states in the Supreme Court.  But just as the court did in 2020, it again defied the Constitution and simply refused to hear the case.  

Again, the court didn't give any legal reasoning for its refusal to obey the Constitution. The majority opinion was unsigned.  Just "nah, we're not gonna do it."

Justices Thomas and Alito dissented from the majority's refusal to hear the case.  Here's what they wrote:

This Court has exclusive original jurisdiction over Florida's suit because it involves one State suing other States.
    Article III establishes that "[i]n all Cases . . . in which a State shall be [a] Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction."  No other court can hear this case.
    I doubt this Court has discretion to refuse to hear cases within its exclusive original jurisdiction. 

It can't be repeated often enough that the Constitution commands that the Supreme Court shall handle all lawsuits between states.  And if the Court refuses to hear such lawsuits there is no other way for such lawsuits to be resolved.  And yet in both 2021 and 2025 the court has refused to hear two lawsuits between states.

The Court is packed with "political justices" who never fail to claim they have jurisdiction in a case they want to take, but refuse to obey the Constitution when they don't want to hear a case.

If you don't see the problem with this, you're too damn stupid to breathe.  So let me try to clear it up for ya: Suppose there was clear, unquivocal video evidence of election officials in a critical swing state committing massive election fraud, which tips that state's decisive electoral votes to one party and decides a presidential election.

Other states sue the corrupt election officials in the fraud state--but the Supreme Court does what it's now done twice recently, and without giving any legal reasoning, refuses to hear the lawsuit.

Democrats: "Dat wud be perfekly fine, deplorable, cuz 'duh pipo haz spoken,' see?  Duh official, fully certified, totally honest count sez ouah partei won, an' duh SC sez dey not even gon' hear your frivolous lawsuit!  So we win again!  Neener neener neener!"

Now turn it around:  Would you Democrats be perfectly happy to accept everything you just read if the results helped us instead of you?

You can easily bleat that you would, but you wouldn't.  You'd have your rioters and city-burners in the streets the same day, and everyone knows it.

Source: Ace of Spades 

https://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=419880 

Communist mayor of NYC now declares his intent to seize apartments and give 'em to "non-profits"

Well well well...Zohran Mamdani, communist Muslim mayor of NYC has taken off the "nice" mask, and has now said his city will begin seizing low-income rental property and turning 'em over to "non-profits."  This dude looks seriously satanic.

 

Let me say right up front that I hate scummy, rapacious slum-lords as much as the next person.  And the city already has the authority to fine these scum for code violations.  But turning seized property over to alleged socialist "non-profits" is a hugely bad idea.

One Republican city councilwoman (Vicki Paladino) has taken Momdani's socialist scheme apart.  I've edited her analysis below.  BTW, the Momdani's communist bitch "housing czar" Cea Weaver (shown above) actually said her goal was to "Impoverish the white middle-class."  Seriously.

Here's what will happen here if Zohran gets his way:  First his housing czar, socialist white female Cea Weaver, and DSA 'organizers,' will be unleashed with the full legal support of the city government to ramp up tenant complaints in targeted buildings.  Everything will be treated as catastrophic.  Next come organized protests, rent strikes, video for leftist newz media.

   City building inspectors will begin writing up as many violations as possible to justify the city seizing the property.  The combination of a weaponized buildings department writing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, rent strikes and constant threats to landlords by militant activists will make the situation untenable for any property owner to realistically fight back, and the city will seize the property.

   Owners will be lucky to walk away without prison or being beaten to death in the street by an angry mob.  But that's only the first half of the plan, and everyone needs to pay very close attention to the big picture here, because it's hugely important and has national implications.       Having seized the properties, the Momdani regime will then turn them over to nonprofits. This is the main goal, to give Zohran's DSA-connected nonprofits a million-dollar monthly income stream from rent.  At present, these socialist nonprofits depend on grants and donations.  Those would be dwarfed by being handed a million-dollar-month income stream by Mamdani.

   The more money they have, the more the DSA can organize in other cities.  That's the real game plan here. 

   Note that Momdani has already said his plan is NOT to let the city own and manage seized properties, which the city already does in ghastly "public housing" fo' oppressed minorities. Instead he's said he'll give 'em to "non-profits (i.e. the DSA).  That's not an accident.

 

By the way: for all the commenters who say "Dis obviously unconstitutional and will be overturned by the courts:"  Clearly y'all haven't dealt with city dictators before.  I have: Mamdani's "I'm gonna seize 'em" is just to look macho for his communist fanbois.  The real plan is to use existing city inspectors and the city's existing, fully constitutional power to levy huge fines on landlords for "code violations."  With enough fines, selected properties will be unprofitable--and owners will know this will continue.  So the city will offer to "buy" the now-useless properties for one dollar.  All totally legal.  

 

Naturally you don't believe any of that.  But how many of you would have believed NYC voters would elect a communist Muslim as mayor, eh?  Or that top Democrat members of congress would be demanding that ICE release illegals who'd been convicted of murder or child rape, eh?  Not one of you ever believed that.  So how's that "hopium" workin' out, eh?

 

Read the comments here.  Totally delusional, because communists know how to work the System.  They already have all the legal authority they need to seize NYC properties.

 

I don't care.  But I can tell you this shit won't end without civil war. 

 

The only thing socialists and communists actually want to "fix" is elections.

New York Times, 1995: "At the most likely rate of global warming, most beaches will be...

I never get tired of re-posting the article below, from the always-honest, never biased, utterly full of shit New York Times.   

Note the phrase above: "At the most likely rate of rise...MOST of the beaches on the East Coast of the U.S. would be gone in 25 years." !!! 

And as I'm sure everyone already noticed, the hair-on-fire propaganda piece above was published in...wait for it...1995.

Let's see here...if my rusty math serves, 25 years from 1995 would be 2020 or so.  And last time I looked it was 2026.  And not only are "most of the beaches on the east coast" still here, unless the Mainstream Media failed to tell us, not ONE has been submerged!

Whu...it's almost like a miracle, eh?  And you just know they lying sons of whores are gonna claim dey akshully SAVED duh Erf, by forcing making it possible for lotsa Americans and Chinese to switch to doze faaaabulous electric vehicles.  So the infinitesimal reduction in the global output of human-produced CO2 saved "most" of the beaches on the east coast from disappearing!

IT'S A FUCKING MIRACLE!!  And all due to the wunnerful wokies, eh?

Horseshit, but dat's egzackly whut de're gonna say.  Just watch. 

An oddity in a video interview

Last week Fox aired an interview with a retire vice-admiral on the Iran situation.un-edited full interview on Fox with retired vice-admiral Robert Harward.

Here's the entire Fox interview, unedited. 

The real Harward is on the right. 

Notice the curious dark rectangle just above the vee of his shirt of the man on the left.  Democrat commenters quickly assured viewers that this was "simply a shadow," but were unable to say what was blocking the light to make such a sharply-defined and...interesting... shadow.  For example, when "Harward's" mouth moves, both the upper and lower edges of the "shadow" move in sync, as if the "shadow" was an inverted image of his mouth--less teeth.  But no one explained how that could happen.

Nevertheless, Democrats absolutely assured everyone that such "shadows" were, like, totally normal, happened all the time!  "Just an artifact of the compression software used to make digital TV use less bandwidth," eh?  Sure.  Except no one has shown any evidence of such an "artifact" appearing before.

The most common claim was that the person on the left was NOT retired vice-admiral Harward, but someone else wearing a mask, and that the "shadow" was the bottom edge of the mask.  As to why the alleged impersonation crew would be so totally sloppy, the conspiracy-minded explained it as "they *want us to know,* as a means of intimidation."

Now, I have no idea if this is the real guy or an impersonator, or why anyone would want to impersonate Harward.  But I did notice one thing in the enlarged pics: the eye color.  The real Harward has blue-gray eyes, while the guy on Fox clearly has brown eyes.

Beats me what's going on.  But from the clear difference in eye color, seems we're back to "Why would a skilled agency be that sloppy," eh?  What's the motive?

Source:

The only official admission that Obozo paid the Islamic regime $1.7 BILLION in cash 5 months before he left office

For Americans who don't believe this ever happened, here's CBS Newz, August 24, 2016--just five months before the end of Hussein Obozo's godforsaken 8 years in power: 

U.S. paid $1.3 billion to Iran two days after cash delivery

August 24, 2016 

The Obama administration said Wednesday it paid $1.3 billion in interest to Iran in January to resolve a decades-old dispute over an undelivered military sale, two days after ordering $400 million in cash flown to Tehran.  [CBS said "allowing" instead of "ordering" because it makes Hussein look less responsible and corrupt.]

State Department spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau wouldn't say more about the Jan. 19 payments "because of diplomatic sensitivities."  The Obama administration made 13 separate payments to the mullahs, each of $99,999,999.99, and a final payment of about $10 million.  The president's Treasury Department refused to explain why each of the individual payments [CBS said "transactions" to blur the issue] was just one penny under $100 million.

The money settles a dispute over a $400 million payment made in the 1970s by the U.S.-backed shah’s government for military equipment. The equipment was never delivered because of the 1979 Islamic Revolution that overthrew the Shah and ended diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Iran.

Two days before the Jan 19th payments, on Jan. 17 the Obama administration paid Iran the $400 million principal--in pallets of actual banknotes: euros, Swiss francs and other foreign currency, raising questions about the unusual payment.  Then two days later the Obama administration paid an additional $1.3 billion as interest on the $400 million over the decades.

The deal has faced increased scrutiny since the administration’s acknowledgment this month that it used the money as leverage to ensure the release of four American prisoners.

Republican critics accuse the administration of paying a “ransom​,” but president Obama denies that claim, though no one has been able to explain why the U.S. paid the $400 million in cash.  President Obama said it was because the U.S. and Iran didn’t have a banking relationship after years of nuclear-related sanctions, but that wouldn’t have prevented using intermediary banks that do business with both countries.

Briefing reporters last week, a senior U.S. official involved in the negotiations said the interest payments were made to Iran in a “fairly above-board way,” using a foreign central bank. But the official, who demanded anonymity, wouldn’t say if the interest was delivered to Iran in cash, as with the $400 million principal.>>

CBS sucks Democrat cock, always, so for the corrupt network to admit the above is an "admission against interest."  If you're a reasonably well educated adult you know this means the admission is the barest admission of the truth that the network felt they could get away with.

Some of us heard about this when it happened.  You almost certainly did NOT hear about it, because the Mainstream Media almost completely ignored it.  This one brief mention was all I could find.

In Germany, 13-year-old school-kids told to design "diverse brothel

You don't live in Germany, so nothing that happens there has any relevance for you, right?

And of course the U.S. Lying Mainstream Media won't ever show you the story below cuz..."Dis not newsworthy!  No relevance to Americans!  NopeNopeNope!"

So you'll never realize what's going on...which is the goal of the leftist/communists who have even taken over Catholic schools.  

At Kardinal von Galen school in Kevelaer, Germany, 13–year-old students were given a "wokie" assignment: to design a "diverse brothel."

See, there's no need to design a regular brothel, cuz it doesn't take any wokie imagination to do dat, eh?  But a "diverse brothel" is FAR more interesting: gotta take into account all of the 128 "genders" the Left insists exist!  So now we're talkin' innovation, eh? 

SO...how to design an "inclusive" brothel--including floor plans!  The worksheet was titled ‘The New Brothel For All!’ and asked students to consider key areas of a "modern house of sexual pleasure.”  Topics to be addressed included

• “What sexual preferences need to be addressed and catered to?”
• “How should a brothel be designed so it can be visited and desired by all kinds of people?” and
• “What should an advertisement for such a brothel look like?”

When the headmistress of the school was called out on this insanity, she bleated the usual justification when moonbats are called out:  Cunningly getting children accustomed to depravity and degeneracy was simply “deliberately designed to be provocative in order to stimulate discussion.”

Of course the headmistress would never even imagine ordering students to suggest how Germany might defend its borders from mass "migration," cuz the Catholic church is totally in favor of that.

Now: You don't live in Germany, and you're not Catholic, so why should you care about this, eh?

Mainstream U.S. Media: "Absolutely!  No reason at all for any concern!  See, duh Catholic church in Germany has NOTHING in common with the Roman Catholic church in duh U.S, right?  It's a totally different thing, citizen!  Oh sure, stupid deplorables squeal that they're the same thing, but that's just nonsense, comrade!"

In nature, animals that refuse to learn, or are slow, are killed and eaten by stronger, smarter animals.  Where does that leave you? 

Yes.  And sadly for you, you deserve your fate--not because you're technically stupid, you're just uninformed.  "Pig-ignorant."  You trusted the Mainstream Media to tell you what you needed to know to survive, not realizing they lied to you about everything.   

Now, societies (like everything else) have "trend lines," and a kind of momentum.  And by all indications I see, the chances of the U.S. surviving in anything like the form you've always known are on the order of one percent.

EVERY country in western Europe is lost: France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands.  Purists will bleat that the U.K isn't part of western Europe, and I won't quibble, but it's lost too.  Eastern Europe is hanging on by a thread, but even stalwart defenders of western freedoms like Hungary and Czechia are under pressure from their subversive leftists.

See, the Left works just like Muslims: when they're trying to look cute and harmless they're like "We're just asking for equal rights!  We wud NEVAH dream of trying to impose ouah values on you, cuz we're all about "freedom of religion!"  In ouah religion women kin wear whutevah dey want!  Reeeally!  An' we iz all about 'free speech,' cuz we're 'duh Religion of Peace,' eh?  Your own Media tells you that all the time, so it must be true, right?  Cuz why wud dey lie to ya?"

"So when your Media sez Iran haz defeated duh U.S. military, yew should definitely believe 'em--cuz dey nevah lied to you before, right?  An' when "your" Media accepts the mullahs' claim dat Iran was NEVAH working on an atomic bomb--despite Iranian negotiators admitting to having 447 kg of 60%-enriched uranium--and "your" media never bothering to tell ya that the ONLY known reason for enriching uranium past ten percent is for a bomb...yew should believe duh Media, cuz...reasons.

You're not stupid, you're just uninformed.  You expected the U.S. media to tell you the truth, but they're Democrat-fellating shills, so that was naive.  So we're back to what happens in nature to slow animals, eh?

And for the hundredth time: I don't have kids, and my six nieces and nephews are all Democrats, so I don't care.  Don't have a dog in this hunt.  If the Democrat partei [sic] and their corrupt Media allies have decided what they want the U.S. and the world to be, more power to ya.  By a near-infinite number of carefully calculated lies, they've almost certainly made the future inevitable.

There was a time when everything was still up for grabs--when informed Americans might have been able to change the outcome.  Perhaps that's still possible, but everything I see says the chances of recovering are slim and dropping by the day.

The tipping point was when Bribem and the Dems allowed about 11 MILLION illegal aliens to waltz into the U.S.--and then flew 'em at taxpayer expense to U.S. cities far from the Mexican border.  Trump tried to deport 'em but was quickly blocked by leftist (Democrat-appointed) judges. supported by a million leftist demonstrators.  They refuse to allow even those who've raped and murdered here in the U.S. to be deported.  What message to ya think that sends to other foreigners wanting to come here, eh?

And the hoot is, Democrats claim what we REALLY need is what they cunningly call "immigration reform," meaning changing our laws to allow the Democrats to admit millions a year legally.  And the Mainstream Media totally supports that.

Half of Americans buy the Dems' bullshit.  They're on display every night on what's passed off as "Newz"--and almost no one pushes back.  Hence my prediction.

Oh well... 

 

As Memorial Day draws to a close...

...I remember classmates who died in training, flying single-pilot jets at 400 mph down narrow valleys on moonless nights--in training.  Young men I teamed with to train incoming freshmen at the Academy who died in plane crashes in Vietnam.  

Those men were the best men I've ever known--the best on the planet.  And those who fought in our other wars knew that feeling.  My father commanded a B-17 for 35 missions...at age 24.

Too many memories of good men lost.  Sadly, it's beginning to look as if it may all have been for nothing: the thugs and morons and druggies and grifters and corrupt pols are throwing it all away, as fast as they can.  As long as they get theirs, they don't care.

Ah well...it was a great, wild ride.  I wish you luck.

 

Did Obozo say this?

I don't know if Saint Obozo actually uttered the quote below but am trying to find out. 

 

Surely this must be a hoax, just like the claim that bribem allowed 330,000 illegals into the U.S. every MONTH.  Too outrageous to be true, right?

Just like the cunning Dem op that 51 former U.S. intel agents said Hunter Bribem's abandoned laptop was a fake--a Russian intelligence op to help Trump defeat the much more pro-defense Bribem.  Just too outrageous to be true, eh?  Cuz duh FBI had seized the thing and knew it was authentic, but carefully said nothing.

Oh wait, y'say you've forgotten all about those? 

A sad reality--and you all know it's true

 

"We're the media now"

Saw an interesting discussion of where we can get at least fairly reliable, unbiased news today.  And one commenter noted that because of the Internet, "the people have replaced the the Media now.  And those long established former monopolists don’t like that one bit." 

Before the Internet, if something wasn’t reported, as far as most people knew, it didn’t happen. That gave the media a staggering amount of power, which was probably the goal.  

Your local radio and TV stations covered local outrages, and put the big ones on the AP wire or the network feeds.  But the editors and producers who controlled what made it to national news were all liberal Democrats, if not outright leftists.  So anything that make socialism or communism look good, or made capitalism look bad, made it, while any news that went the opposite way didn't. 

Today, if something happens anywhere in the country--even if it's ignored by the local stations and papers--we find out in an hour or so.

And that allows us to compare notes--and names. And we start seeing the same names popping up again and again.

Iranian shills claim "Trump is backing away from the peace deal we agreed to"

Sunday, May 24, 2026, 8pm eastern time: The rats are hitting the newswires with their latest propaganda bullshit: "Trump is backing away from the Iran peace deal!!!"

It's cunning, because there never was a deal.  The mullahs demanded to keep all their enriched uranium, demanded reparations, demanded to control the Strait (implicitly the "right" to demand tolls for allowing costly tankers to transit), and demanded that the U.S. un-freeze billions of dollars in frozen Iranian assets.  

Just so there's absolutely no misunderstanding: No one in the U.S. government agreed to ANY of those things.  Ever.  Not even close.  

What happened was that the mullahs had their proxies in Pakistan say nice things, which Trump believed, and thus told Americans that progress was being made toward a deal.  This had been repeated many times over three weeks.  But now the mullahs sprang the trap: "SEE, both sides had a deal that was totally agreed to, but at the last second that warmonger Trump refused to sign it!  And the reason Trump balked was because we'd included a ceasefire in Lebanon (home of Hezbollah), and Netanyahu vetoed that!  So because Trump supports Israel, he's refusing to sign the peace deal the U.S. agreed to!"

It's all lies.  Every word of it.  There's never been any agreement on any of the points noted above, so Trump was ready to unleash the next round of "persuasion" last Monday.  But Muslim countries who claim to be our friends (but secretly support Iran) said "We're really close to a deal, so would you hold off for a few more days?"

Taking them at their word, Trump postponed renewed strikes--which was the entire point of the "We're SO close to a deal" charade.

Problem now is how Trump and company can convince voters that it's all lies, that there was never a deal because the mullahs refused every demand.

It's long been a principle of war that defeated nations don't get to "demand" jack-shit.  Surrender unconditionally and live.  Otherwise you'll be killed.  Simple.  Easy to understand.  

At least it used to be well understood and supported, back when Democrats were pro-America.  Today the Democrats are happy to say and do anything to defeat Trump and re-take all power instead of just most. 

So now that the rats have utterly lied and claimed a deal was reached, and that Trump is backing out because Israel objects to one provision, the rats have Trump trapped regardless of which way he goes: If he blasts the mullahs back into the stone age--a place they richly belong--he'll be called a warmonger, while if he signs the deal actually proposed by the mullahs, the Republican party will be dead for 20 years or more.  

Of course part of this is indeed Trumps fault: He believed the smooth talkers who assured him that "progress was being made" on a peace deal.  Either no one in his inner circle said "Don't believe a word any of 'em say," or else the warnings by people who had experience with the obvious weren't passed along to the boss. 

Anyone with a lick of sense could have seen this ploy coming.  Anyone who studied the political events around the war in Vietnam could have predicted the same game plan: all the North had to do was hold on until the Democrats were able to mount enough pressure to force Nixon to withdraw.  Same thing now.

But there's one significant difference: Back in 1973 the internet didn't exist, so the communists didn't have a good platform to gloat to Americans about defeating the so-called superpower.  But in the last hour I've seen 200 comments from Muslim sympathizers and Trump-hating Democrats gloating that "America lost the war to Iran."  

Wow.  Total delusion.  Trump agreed to a ceasefire to give the Islamic regime time to consider whether they wanted to continue having their launchers and infrastructure obliterated.  They used that ceasefire to claim they won.  And commenters around the world believe them. 

One source, of hundreds: 

Source 2: a moron named Brett Erickson 

The Mainstream Media is carefully covering for the Democrat leader in the race for governor of Cali

Xavier Becerra has been a star of the Dem party for decades, but you'd never know it from the Media articles, most of which only note that Bribem named him to head his HHS.

Becerra got his start in the 1980s as an administrative assistant for a state senator, then as a deputy attorney general of California.  Then in 1990 he was elected to the state Assembly.  

In 1992--after just two years in the state Assembly--he was elected to the U.S. congress, where he stayed for almost a quarter-century: 24 years.  He chaired the congressional Hispanic caucus from 1997 to 1999 and then chaired the House democratic caucus from 2013 to 2017.  Prestigious, powerful posts.

Now, it's been well documented that as long as an incumbent member of congress--particularly a Democrat--chooses to stand for re-election, the success rate is well over 99%.  Even if dogged by serious scandal, they almost never lose.  So it's not unreasonable to wonder why incumbent Becerra resigned from congress in November of 2016--just two weeks after Trump was elected to his first term.

The usual reasons a member of congress resigns is either poor health or "to spend more time with my family."  But in Becerra's case there were no reasons cited.  No offer of a better-paid post as a CEO of a health-insurance company. 

Instead, barely two weeks after Trump was elected in 2016, Becerra resigned and the Democrat governor of Cali appointed him attorney-general of that state, replacing the moronic Cackles after the latter was DEI-lected to the fucking U.S. senate.  And of course after just four years as a senator, Bribem would name Cackles as his VP.  Between that and the steal, the win was ensured.

Certainly an attorney-general has lots of power, but I suspect rational adults would agree that being a state A-G doesn't have remotely as much power as a 24-year congress-creep--particularly one who spent his last four years as chair of the House Dem caucus.  

In other words, we're asked to believe Becerra voluntarily gave up what was almost certainly a lifetime position as a congressman--to be the A-G of California?  That doesn't make sense.

CNN promptly bleated a smokescreen, claiming that "While the move will take Becerra out of congressional leadership, it also sets him up to be a major voice against the Trump administration."

Horseshit.  As the #4 Dem in congress, and a son of Mexican parents, Becerra would have been *far more influential* in opposing Trump had he stayed congress--as the CNN propagandist surely knew.  The bullshit line almost certainly came from Becerra's staff, and the CNN propagandist included it even though everyone knew it was horseshit.

Becerra served as California's A-G for four years.  In 2021 Bribem appointed him to head HHS. 

Now let's look at the race for governor of Cali: As every rational adult American surely knows, a huge majority of Cali voters are Democrats.  So if the election pits a Democrat against a Republican, the result is a sure win for the Dems.  Repubs haven't won a statewide office in years.

But because Cali has been so totally fucked up by decades of Dem rule, this year the two men at the top of the polls for governor were both Republicans.  This is important because a few years ago the greedy Dems cunningly rammed thru a change to election laws to benefit their party:

From the founding of the state, the winners of each party's primaries would face off in the general election.  But the clever, cunning Dems rammed a law thru the Dem-ruled legislature abolishing that!  The new Dem-imposed rule was that the two top finishers in the primaries--regardless of party--would go on to the general election.

This ensured even if the Dem who won the primary was later found to have been involved in a fatal scandal before the general election, a Democrat would still win!  It was brilliant--exactly the type of thing communist leaders do to win elections with a reported 99% of the vote.

With two Republicans at the top of the polls, Democrat rulers were worried that by their own rules, only the two Repubs would advance to the general election.

Oooohh, can't have THAT, eh?  So they pulled out all the stops to get a Dem to displace at least one of the Republicans.

The top-polling Democrat at the time was billionaire Tom Steyer.  Smart guy, articulate.  But Dems worried that their base might not turn out to vote for a billionaire.  So they started boosting Becerra, who had the immigrant vote in the bag--both parents of Mexican origin, one born in Mehico.

And sure enough, Becerra is now either #1 or 2 in the polls.  And #2 is fine, cuz in the general all low-info and "migrant" voters will vote for the Dem regardless.

"This is what democracy looks like," eh? 

"Woke" training replaces merit at our service academies, thanks to Democrats

Very few civilians know that every candidate nominated for general or admiral must be personally approved by the president.  The relevance will be clear in a bit.

Since Obozo was elected in 2008, he and bribem and congress-creeps have been pushing DEI.  In fact if you recall, Obozo campaigned on a promise to "fundamentally transform this country," and during his 8 years in the White House he and his lackeys only promoted generals who totally supported woke DEI policies. 

This was brilliant, because once installed as commanders, the "woke" generals understandably promoted only officers who were equally "woke," and so on right on down the line.

Cuz what better way to "totally transform this country" than to cripple our military by forcing all service members to support DEI principles to win promotion, eh?

The Air Force Academy has an Association of Graduates, and asked 'em about this. Here's how Academy grads responded:
>>
"So-called 'critical race theory,' woke policies, and DEI have no place in the military, let alone at our nation's service academies.  And since no generals are willing to do the right thing, the last remaining defense of meritocracy falls to organizations like the [Association of Graduates]." 

“Supporting meritocracy and fidelity to the US Constitution are a large part of what's made America uniquely great.  But now it seems our entire military--including the Academy--has replaced those great ideals with political correctness--DEI and similar.  This is why I no longer recommend young people join the armed services.
   If a company wants to embrace DEI, fine, because failure of that company won't hurt the nation.  But if the military continues to promote based on woke ideology instead of merit, the nation will eventually pay a ghastly price.” 

“3 sons, but I can't recommend the Academy to them. When this institution gets back to high standards, removes woke ideology and political correctness, great.” 

“When I first heard about the woke agenda permeating all the service academies, my first reaction was “This is going to get a lot of young people killed.” Why?  Because eventually our military will have to fight against warriors who aren't crippled by political correctness.  Once Obama started promoting only generals who supported DEI, it was all over.” >>

<<DEI was imposed at all the service academies because corrupt Dem presidents Obozo and bribem only promoted officers to general if they embraced DEI.  Those who didn't, didn't make general.  Didn't take long for the word to spread.
   In turn the "woke" generals promoted officers under their command who enthusiastically supported the same woke policies.  Keep this up for years, and today almost the entire officer corps is totally woke.  Those who disagree with DEI have learned to keep quiet and simply parrot the "politically correct" line.)<<

>>“Agree that political correctness and DEI have replaced combat readiness as the sole objective of the Academy and the Air Force. And like the entire government, the service academies followed the orders of Democrat presidents.  We need to return to our original and intended purpose.  We fought long and hard against Marxism but it seems the top brass is supporting the dark side.”

“Woke ideology must be eliminated from our entire culture, but ESPECIALLY from the service academies! Anyone who thinks DEI is a good idea should be FIRED.”

“Mandating 'politically correctness' is contra to the ideals and purpose of the Air Force Academy. The institution exists to create the next generation of leaders, warriors, and defenders of the Constitution and its rights. You can either do the job, or you can't.”

"Meritocracy is paramount to an effective force.  This DEI stuff has eroded the warrior mentality and needs to stop.”

“Eliminate the DEI Marxist political ideologies, propaganda and policies that are fundamentally anti-American. Stop the social engineering policies that have nothing to do with making the Air Force more lethal and effective at defending America.  Educate cadets on why America has been great and unique in history, and why it's worth fighting to defend the U.S.”

“I've been disappointed by the decision of the commanders at the Academy to advance their careers by promoting political correctness and social engineering, force "woke" training on cadets and young officers.  Our military needs to be based on merit and excellence, not political correctness.”

“I was outraged to learn that during orientation cadets were urged to avoid using terms like “mom” and “dad.”” 

“Pushing DEI is killing the AFA as it has so many other organizations.” >>

<<We'll see what happens.  Problem is, colonels are submitted for promotion by higher-ranking officers, not by the president.  So even with Trump as president, they can nominate just "woke" candidates for promotion to general, so Trump may not be able to reverse the rot. 

EU rules that a Hungarian law barring the media from pushing LGBT crap to minors is illegal

The dictators ruling the EU--headed by the ghastly Ursula von der Leyen--are hell-bent on imposing homosexuality and transsexualism on European kids, pushing even harder then Democrat politicians here in the U.S.  The question is why?

Of course you think that's just a "right-wing scare story."  Too outrageous to be true, eh?  Then consider a recent example;  The government of Hungary passed a law barring the media from pushing LGBTQ-related content to minors.  Last month the laughably mis-named EU "Court of Justice" (as opposed to the usual courts of "Injustice," eh?) decreed that the Hungarian law "violated EU law and the bloc’s core values."

So it's clear not only that the top court in the EU supports letting the media push pro-LGBT propaganda to kids, but also that the rulers of the EU have written laws pushing pro-LGBTQ crap.  

So why would the rulers of the EU be pushing LGBT crap so stridently?

A bit of research finds that the EU's rulers drafted the union's "LGBTIQ Equality Strategy 2026–2030," which has the brazen goal of pushing "gender identity recognition" (rules to avoid offending trannies) and bans "conversion therapy" which helps young people shake off their delusion that boys can become girls.  

Several Democrat-ruled U.S. states have already banned "conversion therapy."  So schools and the Media are free to convince captive students about the faaabulous wonders of tranny life, but it's illegal for anyone to try helping 'em shake off the delusion, eh?

So the question remains: why have the rulers of the EU been pushing LGBTQ so hard?

There are two answers, and they're so obvious even a Democrat could figure 'em out.  But if you're a citizen of an EU country and try to talk about either one, you'll be charged with a "hate crime."

Source.

https://moonbattery.com/eu-throws-lgbtification-into-overdrive/ 

There's a difference between an "opponent" and an "enemy." Dems don't agree

As all American teens should know, Hakeem Jeffries is the "minority leader" in the U.S. House of Representatives.  He's also a thug.  Watch the short video below, in which he tells a friendly leftist audience that the Democrat plan re MAGA supporters is to "break their spirit." 

 

x 

The murderous face of mental illness, or is it something worse?

Are we in the End Times, when evil and insanity run roughshod over the world, or are we just seeing more examples thanks to cell phones and body-cams?  Hard to know, but here's an example (from April) of a demon seemingly about to murder a 3-year-old child.  Happened outside a Wal-Mart in Omaha.

The demon had stolen the knife in the store, scared off the child's caretaker and left the store with the child in the cart.  When cops arrived she'd already slashed the child in the face and seemed determined to do worse.  By incredible luck she/it was stopped by simultaneous shots from two police officers.

 

Is this caused by drugs?  Mental illness?  Possession?  Could anyone tell the difference? 

The demon had a history of violent behavior, including slashing a neighbor with a knife and setting her father's house on fire.  Last year her public defender had her plead not guilty by reason of insanity, and a leftist judge allowed her to remain free to haunt the streets, which is the only "treatment" liberals will accept.  She was "under a supervised treatment plan."

Those work SO well, eh?  Liberal judges keep letting demons roam free, and eventually they kill some innocent.  At least in this case the demon was unalived and sent back to hell instead of being released again, as happened with Iryna's killer in Charlotte.

Okay, some state mental hospitals were grim, but at least the demons couldn't get hold of knives or kidnap kids.  But liberals forced states to close 'em all, cuz..."unfair," eh?

 

Certainly unfair to their victims.  

City council in Massachusetts orders "shot spotter" system removed, cuz.."unfair!!"

City councils are goofy--magnets for crazy leftists who wanna run things.  In Dem-ruled states most city councils seem to be dominated by crazy leftist Democrats who are experts at wasting tax dollars and opposing anything that would reduce crime.

Latest example:  For the past 12 years the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts has had a "shot spotter" system--microphones on top of poles that detect gunshots.  If 3 mikes detect the sound of a gunshot, the location can be calculated within seconds.

Rational adults might think this would help cops find victims of gunshots and get an ambulance to 'em faster, or maybe even arrest shooters, eh?  But Cambridge is a "we love illegal aliens" shithole.  And illegals and blacks complained that the system "could lead to over-policing of minority communities."

Seriously, leftist residents wailed exactly those words on video at a city council meeting.

Wait, let's review:  Where are most violent crimes committed, eh?  Sure: low-income neighborhoods, because thugs don't wanna have to travel to a wealthy 'hood to rob or kill, cuz...too much work.

But the logic of trying to make high-crime neighborhoods safer doesn't faze leftists, who wail that they're being spied on--because even though the system is only activated by loud sounds (gunshots, eh?), leftists wailed that the system could potentially record conversations.

Of course this could easily be tested and proven to be false, but that wouldn't accomplish the goal of the Left--which wanted the system gone.  No tests needed, eh? 

So last Monday the city council ordered the entire "shot spotter" system removed.

Here's an example of what passes for intelligence among members of city councils, from member Ayah Al-Zubi, chairman of the public safety committee:

“We shouldn’t frame safety only through surveillance or policing. We have to be expansive."

"Expansive," y'say?  This is "word salad."  A.k.a. Kamala-level horseshit, a smokescreen designed to sound thoughtful while removing one more tool used to reduce crime.  And it worked.

Next up in Cambridge:  "De-funding the police."  Cuz "duh po-leece beez arrestin' too many 'undocumented Americans' an' shee-it."  And the proof is right there in the stats: Six percent of the population account for 60% of arrests!  Gotta be cuz of raaaacism, eh?  No other possible explanation. 

Source