Dem-ruled states introducing bills to charge you for miles driven

Democrats have been fighting to outlaw gasoline-powered cars for years, passing laws ORDERING that no more gas-powered cars could be sold in their dictatorial states after a specified date.

But banning gas-powered cars was only the "nose of the camel:"  The eventual goal was to replace all private cars with dat faaabulous public transit!  Cuz ebrybuddy luuvvves dat public transit, right? 

Of course the kingly pols would still have their state cars (and state-paid drivers), cuz dey iz way too impo'tant to have to travel by dat faaaabulous public transit, right?  You, on the other hand...

But an unexpected thing happened: even after the Democrats rammed thru a LAW paying car makers $7,500 per EV (thus lowering the price buyers would have to pay), most car buyers told the gummint to shove EVs up their ass.  Now billions of dollars worth of EVs sit un-sold on dealers' lots.  Plus, the batteries rarely last over five years, and replacing 'em costs a fortune.

Something else happened: we elected a Republican president and congress, and they stopped forcing taxpayers to pay car makers the $7,500 subsidy.  So now EVs got less attractive.

Democrats (i.e. leftists, socialists, communists) hated all the above, so Democrat-ruled states immediately started plotting to make ownership of gas-powered vehicles way more expensive...by taxing residents on how many miles they drive each year.

Rational adults quickly ask "How the hell would they know?"  Easy: the electronics in modern cars report damn near *everything* to the makers, so it would be easy for the Dems to order the car makers to give the gummint those numbers.

For example, a bill in Massachusetts--introduced by Democratic state senator Cynthia Stone Creem--would require state bureaucrats to set "goals" to reduce the total number of miles driven statewide.

And how, you may ask?  Simple: ORDER a limit to miles each person drives, and tax every mile over that.  And how much?  Whatever dictatorial Democrat rat-bastards ORDER, eh?

Because this is such an unpopular idea, Democrat politicians in Massachusetts are trying to fool voters by naming this bill the “Freedom to Move Act.” 

"SEE, citizen? Dis faaaabulous bill would GIBS yew 'freedom' to drive anywhere yew want!  Dere izn't a single mention of "tax" or "penalty" in dis bill at ALL, deplorable!  Nope nope nope!  Dis bill beez all about FWEEDOM!"

"Of course as you'd expect, there are a few minor...details.  Obviously.  For example, low-income groups wouldn't have to pay the penalty, cuz dat wud be unfair!" 

Voter: "What's the cutoff for 'low income'?

Democrats:  "Well that will depend on if you're a member of a 'historically disadvantaged group.'  Cuz dat wud only be FAIR, comr...citizen." 

Meanwhile in Democrat-ruled California--where EVERY state-wide officer is a Democrat (literally)--the state Assembly (legislature) has now approved a bill to “study the implementation of a mileage tax." 

The bill--introduced by a Democrat Assemblymember--creates a study of "pricing programs" [taxing schemes], *and whether certain groups should be given exemptions.

Starting to see the pattern yet?

The NBC propaganda outlet in San Diego found a “transportation expert” who suggested the mileage tax might even be progressive, providing an opportunity for redistribution of wealth: “Maybe, based on people’s income, there would be ways for the state to give them some money to compensate them partly for the extra driving they have to do. So we just need to be more creative and to address equity problems as they arise.”

Of course good liberals in Cali are totally giddy about dis great plan!  ORDER a tax of say, 50 cents per mile for every mile you drive over 8,000 per year.  Since the average now is 15,000 miles per year, most people would cut way down.  But if you drove just 12,000 per year and weren't a member of a "favored group, you'd have to pay an extra $2,000 in "use tax."

And yet the dumb voters in Cal keep voting for these rat-bastard Democrats.

Source.

https://spectator.org/blue-states-are-moving-legislation-forward-to-restrict-how-much-you-can-drive/ 

Did the Dems steal the 2020 election? New evidence

In 2020, bribem was officially deemed to have won Georgia by 11,779 votes.

Georgia was one of the many states where election officials mailed absentee ballots to EVERY registered voter.  Problem is, many of the addressees had moved, so some ballots likely ended up in other hands.

More damning is that many "absentee ballots" that were scanned lacked any creases from folds.  For the terminally stupid, mail-in ballots are sent in envelopes smaller than the ballot, so must be folded to fit in the envelopes.  Same for when they're mailed back--unless they were put in illegal "drop boxes." (Georgia law didn't provide for those, but they somehow appeared all over Democrat cities.)  But even then, the ballots would have been creased to fit in the envelopes when mailed TO registered voters, eh?

Now a court case in Fulton County, GA, claims 150,000 mail-in ballots in that county were likely "fake" because they had no creases.  Also, they didn't appear to have been marked by hand.

By the official count, bribem got over 70 percent of the votes in Fulton county--the first Dem since the hugely more popular Franklin Roosevelt did it in 1944. 

Meanwhile Democrats are blocking all efforts to investigate.  New York congresswhore Dan Goldman has filed an amendment to block the Trump administration from investigating election records, ballot boxes and voting machines in any state in the country. 

In most states, elections are run by the Secretary of State.  In Georgia that's Brad Raffensburger. Cleta Mitchell, who advised President Trump when he contested the Georgia election results, noted that on the morning of election day, 2020, Raffensperger announced that Trump was ahead by 103,000 votes with only 94,000 ballots left to count.  And since his job was to run the election, you'd think he'd know.  

Yet somehow, four days after declaring that only 94,000 ballots remained to be counted, Raffensberger NOW claimed there were over 300,000 more ballots to count--including 148,000 absentee ballots from Fulton County alone. Hmm...

Investigators found that over 133,000 ballot images--which by law had to be saved--had been deleted.  NONE of 148 Fulton County tabulators had the required verification tapes.  Nearly 7,000 fake ballots were accepted as genuine, and Fulton County election officials just smiled.

Finally: According to Grand Jury testimony just unsealed, Kemp told the chief of Georgia Bureau of Investigation not to investigate allegations of fraud in the 2020 election.  Saying he was a "team player," the chief of the GBI stopped investigating.

Now: bribem officially won the 2020 election by 306 to 232 electoral votes--a margin of 74, so a swing of 37 would have tied the election, and 38 would have reversed the result.  Georgia has 16 electoral votes, so putting just that state into the Trump column obviously wouldn't be enough to change the result.  

But in four other states--Arizona, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, with elections run by Democrats, bribem's alleged margin of victory was so close that it could easily have been due to fraud.  Here's the official margin for bribem in each:
                       margin         EVs
   Arizona         10,500         11 
   Georgia        11,779         16 
   Wisconsin     20,682         10
   Nevada         33,000          6
   Pennsylvania 81,660        20 

As the investigation into Georgia's results shows, all these margins are well within the likely number of fraudulent votes in Fulton County, Georgia alone. 

Recall that moving 37 electoral votes into Trump's column would have produced a tie (sending the decision to the House), while 38 would have reversed the outome.  The top three states above, alone, would change 37 EVs.  So the question is, is it *plausible* for the Dems to have created enough fake votes to match the totals for the first 3 states above. 

The Lying Mainstream Media has constantly bleated that in every case where the GOP sued for election fraud in the 2020 election, judges heard all the evidence and ruled against the GOP.  That's horseshit--a flat, blatant, brazen lie.  The truth is that 99% of the lawsuits filed were dismissed by leftist judges on the grounds that the judges RULED that the plaintiffs lacked "standing"--a recognizable legal interest--to sue for election fraud.

This is absurd: If a candidate can't sue for obvious vote fraud, *no one could.*  Yet the Democrat-fellating Mainstream Media always bleated that judges had examined all these facts and allegations and found them meritless. 

That's a brazen lie.  Leftist judges dismissed all the lawsuits without ever examining the allegations, on the grounds of alleged "lack of legal standing to sue" or similar bullshit.

Then three weeks ago a funny thing happened: the Supreme Court ruled (7-2) that candidates in elections DO have legal standing to sue for fraud--
like absentee ballots either not having required signatures, or those signatures not being checked to see if they matched the sig on file; or signatures clearly NOT matching the one on file--indicating fraud.

(If you're curious, the two dissenting votes were from bribem-appointed moron Katanji Brown-Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor (who proclaimed herself a "wise Latina.")

So at least the next time the Democrats try to steal a presidential election, the SC has ruled that the conservative candidate can sue. 

Politicized science

* Politicized Scientists told us global warming was man-made and would result in no ice in the Arctic by 2015, and Martha's Vineyard being underwater by 2025.

* Politicized Scientists tell us that winters with record cold mean nothing, that the planet is really warming.

* Politicized Scientists told us the Chyna virus came from people eating infected bats, or maybe pangolins, ignoring the four inserted genes in the spike protein.

* Politicized Scientists told us the "vaccine" would keep us from getting Covid, and were totally safe.

* Politicized Scientists told us if our kids went thru an anxiety of wanting to be the other sex, caring parents would agree to have them sexually mutilated and sterilized.

* Politicized Scientists told us men had no more physical strength than women.

* Politicized Scientists told us our diet should be based on starch and sugary fruit, with minimal protein.

To hell with Politicized science.

There is value in science. There is no value at all in Politicized science, which will tell you all manner of lies if those lies advance the agenda of the politicians.  

Obama gave four "presidential medals of freedom" to four sex predators; total planning

 

Negotiating handbook: Rule #1

 

Yep #2

 

Yes

 

Democrats suddenly reverse themselves on ICE wearing bodycams, cuz....

This is a total hoot:  Anyone recall Dems in congress demanding that ICE agents wear body cameras?  Anyone?  Sure.  They were all irate, furious, demanding, as they always do.

But wait!  What's this??  Suddenly the rat-bastards have TOTALLY reversed position, because they realized cameras could help identify protesters!

Seriously!  The shit-leftist, Democrat fellating propaganda rag Politico explains it.

So they reversed course--reversed DEMANDS--in what...a week?

So utterly typical.  "We DEMAND that Orange Hitler order his Gestapo to wear body-cams!!  Wait!  We DEMAND they NOT wear body-cams! 

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/07/democrats-fear-body-cameras-could-be-ices-new-mass-surveillance-tool-00769363 

Will Democrats ever be held accountable for ANYTHING?

 

Gavin Newsom and the "train to nowhere"

If you're a Democrat, you probably think Gavin Newsom is faaaabulous!  You're probably already pushing your partei [sic] to make him your nominee for prezzy in 2028.  Yay!

Oh sure, you may have heard a couple of derogatory stories about him, like him having a birthday party at a faaabulously expensive restaurant during the covid lockdown; his cops would arrest or fine you for breaking the lockdown rules, but he broke 'em with total nonchalance--cuz he's special, eh?  Two sets of laws, citizen.  Wuzn't dat one of the main principles of the Founders? 

But dat story about a dinner wuz prolly jus' a right-wing conspiracy tale, eh?  He wudn't do dat, cuz he a guuuud Democrat, eh?  And as for dat picture of him dining with 20 of his supporters?  You know people can do anything with AI now.

See, if dat had reeelly happened, duh Media would'a tol' us, right?  Duh Media is honest!  So since dey din' say nuffin,' mus' be a lie. 

Of course the awful lies by doze awful right-wingers could be cleared up if some reporter asked him if that happened.  But there's no need for a "reporter" to ask him, cuz we Dems KNOW it's a lie.  Cuz duh faaaabulous Newsom wouldn't break his own commands to the peons deplorables ordinary people  hardworking, taxpaying citizens of his state, right?

And if you search the Internet (which everyone knows totally lies, unless it's something that hurts conservatives, in which case it's always true!), you may see some crazy story about him banging the wife of one of his top aides when he was mayor of San Francisco.  

But that's prolly a lie too, cuz such a dreamy, totally upstanding guy wud nevah do such a thing.  I mean sure, sex is a commonplace--no sophisticated adult so much as bats an eye.  But banging the wife of one of your aides seems like an abuse of power.  But that's gotta' be another right-wing conspiracy story--cuz duh Mainstream Media nevah sed nuffin' about it.

So now that we (the Dems and Mainstream Media) have easily disposed of those two right-wing lies, Newsom can run for prezzy without any worries about his record.

And now that he's running for president, he wants to show you his excellent management skills and character!  To do that, he just made a video of him bragging to viewers about laying the first foot of rail of California's "high-speed train."

If you haven't heard about this piece of shit project, you won't believe it.  It's the most expensive boondoggle in the history of the world. 

Way back in 2007 some clever hucksters promised California's Dem politicians lotsa cash if they'd support a faaaabulous high-speed rail line from Los Angeles to San Francisco.

The pitch was, European countries have high-speed rail, which automatically makes it cool.  An' California is the capital of cool in the U.S, right?  So the hucksters said "We can be like Europe, with a high-speed rail line:  San Francisco to Los Angeles, 520 miles in 3 hours!  All for a paltry $33.6 billion."  

But to get statewide support, the hucksters quickly proposed extending this faaabulous line to San Diego.  And north to Sacramento (the state capital).  Nice.

Powerful politicians and companies stood to make a fortune, so the key was to get voters to approve a modest few billion to get started, so that when it became obvious the project was gonna cost three times more than the original pitch, the hucksters would wail "We've already spent X billion, so you don't wanna that money to be WASTED, right?"

So for months the airwaves were FULL of ads with glittering animations of sleek silver trains going reeeel fast.  Republicans were skeptical, but Dems were totally giddy.  And because gullible Democrats outnumber Republicans 60/40, the flood of faaaabulous animated ads worked, and in November of 2008 voters approved a $10 billion bond issue to get things rolling.

And once that money was spent, it would be hard to pull the plug, eh?

By November of 2011--just THREE years after the $10 BILLION bond was approved, and before a single mile of rail had been laid--the projected cost had ballooned to between $65 and $75 BILLION.  That should have been a fatal warning sign, eh?  But the hucksters were SO adept at hyping, always touting duh faaaabulous benefits.  One of which was reducing car miles, cuz...you know, Climate Change! 

By the start of 2018--ten years after voters were conned into approving the $10 BILLION expense, they still hadn't laid a single piece of rail, but the hucksters proudly said the cost had now DROPPED to $64.2 BILLION.

Wait...wasn't the original cost estimate $33.6 billion?  Yes, but the hucksters said--and published--that the cost had *"dropped again"* to $64 BILLION.  Cuz that was down from $65 to $75 B in 2018, eh?  And the hucksters knew no Mainstream Media outlet would ever tell voters that the original cost was touted to be $33.6 Billion.

Brazen, lying sons of bitches, eh?  "Dropped again," huh?
 
So how did the cost "drop" from to $64 billion, eh? The hucksters simply cut the length of the route from 520 miles.  Then cut it again.  Forget San Diego and Sacramento.  Then forget San Francisco.

What they ended up with was a goal of--not 520 miles, but just 171 miles, linking the towns of Bakersfield and Merced.  And in 2016 the "official" plan said service would start in...2025.

The combined population of Bakersfield and Merced is roughly 500,000.  And there's a great divided highway between the two.  So how many people do ya think will ride the train per day, eh?  But what does that matter, citizen?  Cuz we'll have high-speed rail, just like Europe!

Newsom took office in January of 2019, so he didn't come up with this scheme, but he's totally supported it, even after it became obvious that the cost was gonna be three times the original bullshit pitch--unless they cut the route, which they did. 

So here we are, ten years after the 2016 prediction that service on the much shorter 171-mile route would start in 2025.  So did we miss the grand opening?  Ohh no.  Instead that's been "pushed back" just a bit.  The new estimated date is...wait for it...2033. 

Here's the update:  After spending $30 billion or so, they're finally getting ready to lay the first mile of track.  And Gavin Newsom instantly made a video to announce this faaabulous victory.  To show it, he stood beside a line of freight cars (which won't run on the high-speed line) on a conventional track, cuz..."SEE, citizen?  It's a train!"

If you listen to Newsom you'd think they've already started laying rail.  But if you ask AI/google/Grok "Has any rail actually been installed on the California high-speed rail line?" here's the reply: 

As of early February 2026, major progress has been made, with the Southern Railhead Facility in Kern County completed, marking the beginning of the track-installation phase for the California high-speed rail. While construction focuses on 119 miles of infrastructure, actual track installation is now commencing. 

Wait...I don't think "commencing" means "has started," eh?  And next we have this:

Track Installation Starts: The California High-Speed Rail Authority announced that the Southern Railhead Facility in Kern County is complete, enabling the start of track-laying operations.

"Enabling the start of" is not "has started."  AI continues:

• Infrastructure Status: Over 119 miles of construction are underway in the Central Valley, with nearly 60 structures completed.

Again, "construction underway," but construction of WHAT?  Structures.  That's not rail.

• Key Structures: Significant progress includes the nearly completed Hanford Viaduct and the finished Poso Creek Viaduct.

The question "Has any rail been laid?" should be easy to answer: Either they've started laying rail or they haven't.  But for some strange reason AI is spouting lawyerly bullshit like a politician: It's clearly implying to the unwary that they've started laying rail--but carefully avoids saying that. 

The explanation is simple:  Notwithstanding the hype, "AI" is not "intelligent" at all.  It gets its info by parsing every word in newspapers and books and...press releases by corruptocrats.  And that language above is essentially cut-and-pasted from bullshit press releases by the "California High-Speed Rail Commission," who are being paid extravagant salaries for spending billions. 

But if you "dive deeper" into the AI explanation you finally see this:

As of February 2026, no actual high-speed rail tracks have been installed on the main line yet. However, the project has just reached a major turning point to begin that process.

So since they're almost prepared to think about laying the first length of track, when can we expect dis faaaabulous high-speed train to begin service between two small-ish cities?  Uhh...2033.  And now the completed cost is projected to be $128 billion.  And there are still uncompleted environmental assessments and challenging tunnels through the mountains.

A competent chief executive would have pulled the plug on this crap a month after taking office.  Yes, leftists and contractors and the highly-paid members of the Commission would have been mad, but in the long run state taxpayers would have saved $100 billion or so.  And that's even before including the annual operating losses.

But don't worry, Democrats: Vogue magazine's Maya Singer knows just how to spin this to make Gavin look great, since he's been the front-runner for the Dem nomination.  Here's Maya:

He is embarrassingly handsome, his hair seasoned with silver, at ease with his own eminence…

Whoa!  Would you like a napkin to wipe your lips, Maya?  Newsom is counting on this type of fawning, swooning coverage from the media--and he's never been disappointed.  Who needs to be a competent manager when you're "embarrassingly handsome," with fabulous hair and “eminence,” eh?

In his dark novel "1984" George Orwell wrote, “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears.  It was their final, most essential command.”  Americans have heard an endless series of lies by the hucksters about this project, and a good manager would have pulled the plug in 2019, instead of stringing it out until 2033 and spending another $100 billion--to connect two small cities 171 miles apart.

 

How the Lying Mainstream Media spins leftist lawbreaking

When a local TV station naively broadcasts a story that shows Leftists/Dems/communists doing something that would make normal Americans furious, here's how the Mainstream Media spins it:

1. "It's not happening.  It's just another right-wing scare story!"
2. "It might be happening, but it's nothing to be worried about.  Chill, citizen!"
3. "It's happening, and it's really guuuud!"
4. "Congress should pass a law making it mandatory!"
5. Mainstream Media write editorials implying that "Smaht pipo realize      the real problem is conservatives who object to this obvious good!"

Happens every time. 

California Attorney General sues childrens' hospital for ending sex-change procedures on children

You won't see or read about this story in the national Mainstream Media, because every MM outlet supports this. 

California Attorney-General Rob Bonta--a total leftist piece of shit--has sued Rady Children’s Hospital, claiming the hospital violated conditions his office placed on that hospital's 2024 merger with Children’s Hospital of Orange County.

Now if you're familiar with the law, you may wonder what law gave the A-G the power to put conditions on mergers.  Usually that's part of an anti-trust concern imposed by the Federal Trade Commission or a related agency, but Bonta decided "If the feds can do this, so can we."

One of the conditions Bonta demanded was that both hospitals continue to provide a list of 36 medical services for the next 10 years.

You may think, "If he could demand that, what would prevent him from demanding they do it for, say, a century?  Why not demand they provide the list of services for free?  This corrupt asshole is just throwing his weight around--and no judge in the state (all leftists) wants to stop him.  Classic.

So...one of the "services" on the piece of shit's list of demands is...wait for it...“gender-affirming care”—which is the Democrats’ Orwellian name for sex change procedures.  Bonta has ORDERED the merged hospitals to perform sex-change operations on their patients--who are minor children.

If you doubt that, consider the astonishing detail Bonta's "conditions" demanded:  that the long list of "services" be maintained “at no less than their current capacities, types, acuity levels, licenses and certifications.”

The hospital says it stopped so-called "gender-affirming procedures and prescriptions,” while continuing to offer supportive services such as counseling and offering mental health care resources.

Bonta promptly sued--because he and the leaders of the Democrat party *demand* that minor children who want to be the opposite sex be permanently sterilized.  The Democrat party's leaders and Democrat members of congress have supported child gender mutilation for years, and continue to do so.

Dem leader: "Dat's a LIE!  We don' support sterilizing children!  How DARE you suggest we do!"

Ahh.  So can boys who've had their genitals removed father a child?  Can girls who've had part of their vagina turned into a penis have children?  The obvious answer to both is no.  So you're sterilizing children, and lying by claiming you don't support it.  Merely a trivial side-effect, eh?

The Democrat party will do anything the LGBT agenda demands.  And they'll accuse you of "hate speech" if you utter a single word against their policies.

And here's the hoot: a girl who was "transitioned" by a hospital, at the urging of a deluded, corrupt shrink who told her mother that her daughter would likely kill herself if mom didn't agree to have her mutilated.  And a jury just awarded her $2 million.  

Whoa!  This is the first hint of an avalanche, which heralds thousands of similar lawsuits.  When hospitals in California are sued, will they claim they're not liable because that piece of shit Bonta ORDERED the hospital to do the op?

And if the plaintiff wins, who pays the award, eh?

Of course: taxpayers.

You dumb bastards voted for this.

What happens to stupid, slow animals in nature, eh?  Think about it. 

Source.

https://moonbattery.com/california-attorney-general-sues-hospital-to-inflict-sex-change-procedures-on-children/#disqus_thread

Leftist female judge in DC blocks Trump's order ending Temporary Protected Status for Haiti

Anyone know what "TPS" means?

Temporary Protected Status.  And what does that mean?

It gives presidents the authority to ignore U.S. immigration laws, by ORDERING that a country has TPS, which allows anyone from that country to come to the U.S.--supposedly temporarily, eh?  Unlimited number.  No vetting needed!  How cool is that, eh?

Sixteen damn YEARS ago, after a big earthquake in Haiti, Barack Hussein Obama DECREED "temporary" protected status" for Haitians.  But instead of being temporary, the TPS status for Haiti was extended, over and over, under various excuses.  "Too much violence."  "Shortage of housing."  And thanks to Obozo's DECREE, as of March of last year about 350,000 Haitians were living in the U.S, with most on welfare.  

During Trump's first term, after 8 years of "temporary" protected status, Trump ordered it to end.  But as you already guessed, the ACLU sued, and a shithead left-wing judge overturned the president's order, instead ordering the program to continue as before while the case worked its way through the courts.  

So apparently a Democrat president can order "temporary" protected status for any nation at any time, but a subsequent Republican president can't end that "temporary" status!

WTF?  If the president can't end it, who the hell CAN, eh?  It's insane.

In any event, before the case reached the Supreme Court the Democrats stole the 2020 election, and the corrupt, senile, Chinese puppet bribem ordered "temporary" protected status to continue without limit. 

While the corrupt bribem was in the White House there was so much fraud by TPS-protected Haitians that even the Deep-State-run DHS quietly paused the program.  But then in August of 2024--with bribem still prezzy--the program was re-started.

So last year (Trump's first year in office for his second term)--16 damn YEARS after the initial Obozo DECREE creating "Temporary" protected status for Haiti--Trump ordered that to end last year.  But predictably, attorneys (paid by??) sued to force the government to keep the status going on for more decades.  So Trump ordered it to end today (2 Feb).

Then equally predictably, one DAY before the new date TPS status for Haiti was to end, a goofy leftist female federal judge in the lowest fed court in DC ordered the status continued indefinitely.  The leftist judge, Ana C. Reyes, cunningly phrased her ORDER that the status be continued indefinitely as "pending judicial review."

Lawyers for the Haitians bleated that it jus' wudn't FAIR fo' duh prez to end "temporary" status for dere clients, cuz Haiti was a dangerous place, with rampant disease, lack of access to clean drinking water and the absence of a functioning government.  Yeah, well, go back to your shithole and fix it.

In her order Monday, the leftist judge said the government hadn't provided a reason TPS for Haitians should end.  So the idea that it was supposedly "temporary," and that the president should have the authority to end it at any time, wasn't enough?

Source: Dem-fellating NBC

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/federal-judge-postpones-trump-admins-termination-tps-haitians-rcna257105 

Corrupt California DA *gloats* about the state allowing people to vote without ID

Federal LAW says you have to be a U.S. citizen to vote in federal elections.  But Democrat-ruled states have blocked EVERY effort to ensure that non-citizens don't vote in federal elections, by passing LAWS making it illegal to require would-be voters to show either photo-ID or proof of citizenship. 

The Dems are so bad that when the politicians who run Huntington Beach passed a law saying you had to show proof of citizenship to vote, the city was IMMEDIATELY sued by the fucking, corrupt attorney-general of the state, on the ground that the state law (no proof needed to vote) overruled local laws.

Of course federal law also takes precedence over state laws too, but every Democrat pol in California just give the feds the finger: "We'll do whatever we damn well please, so fuck off."

Hmmm...so the state can overrule local laws, and ALSO federal law?  Don't think so, cupcake.  It's right there in the Constitution, called the "supremacy clause."  

Note how the attorney-general of California--a corrupt leftist named Rob Bonta--gloats about overturning the voter-ID law passed by Huntington Beach--but will ignore his state's refusal to honor federal law!  Fuck you, communist traitor.

 

So let's be VERY clear here: California's corrupt Democrat government--like those of New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Michigan, Colorado, Oregon, Washington state and other Dem-ruled states--doesn't care if non-citizens vote.  We know that because they've passed LAWS that allow anyone to vote without presenting a photo-ID.   

Think about that. 

Leftist "protesters" in shithole Minnesomalia break every window in 70 parked cars

In the lawless Democrat-ruled, fraud-addled shithole of Minneapolis yesterday, some thugs broke EVERY driver's side window in a line of 70 civilian cars parked on the street.

(different video): Liberal commenters from the shithole claimed it never happened--FAKE NEWZ, eh?  But the local CBS station aired footage that seemed to show the line of cars, and several individuals posted their own vids of the line of cars.  So yes, this really happened.

 

So the obvious question is, how can the Mainstream Media blame this on Trump?

Just kidding: the question is, who did it?

A couple of leftist commenters inadvertently offered a clue when they claimed this never happened, because you'd only deny it happened if you knew your side was gonna get blamed, eh?  

Another couple of clues:  There's a huge downside for ICE agents to be the perps, cuz if they'd been caught, ICE agents would be fired and prosecuted.  By contrast, pAntifa thugs wouldn't have any risk of either being prosecuted or fired, since many don't have jobs.  Also, ICE agents couldn't be sure they weren't being videoed by a civilian, while leftist thugs would be confident that if anyone was filming they wouldn't turn the video over to authorities, since Frey and Walz support the protests and hate ICE. 

SO...the average cost of replacing a power window is $200 to $350.  Using 70 cars and $300 gives $21,000 in damages, not to mention the time and inconvenience to the owner.  Of course these are the same leftist assholes who burned 40 square blocks of Minneapolis during the 2020 BLM riots, so they clearly don't mind doing hundreds of millions of dollars of damage.  

Leftist, socialists, antifa and Democrats CANNOT be reasoned with.  They do whatever they damn well please, regardless of illegality, and in Democrat-run shitholes like Minneapolis they're never prosecuted anyway.  So looks like there's only one way to stop them.

CDC makes it official: most births in the U.S. now are not non-white

Under the bribem regime CDC wouldn't tell the truth for any price.  (Example: "Duh vaccine is 'safe and effective,' when it was neither--and they knew it.  We have the emails.)

But now for some reason the CDC seems to be a LOT more forthcoming.  (Gee, what could possibly have cause THAT to change, eh?)

SO...the CDC just released a study tracking 33 million births in the U.S., and found...wait for it...a majority of the births were to minorities.

Typical voter: "So what?  Whites are a minority in the U.S. and have been for years, so it's no surprise that most births are to non-white mothers.  So chill, deplorable!"

Except that's horseshit.  Official census estimates are that in 2024 non-Hispanic whites were likely between 56% and 58% of the population.  That's a drop from a measured 61.6% in the 2020 census--so in just four years.

And in 2010, 72.4% identified as "white only."  So it's dropped from 72.4% to 56% in just 14 years.

(Interestingly, bribem's damn Census Bureau says that between 2010 and 2020 the percentage of whites dropped 8.6% .  But AI said the drop was from 72.4% to 56%, which is NOT 8.6% or even close, but is 16.4%.  And even the Census Bureau report itself said 72.4% in 2010 and 61.6% in 2020, which is 10.8%, NOT 8.6%.  
  It's not possible to get a straight answer out of these people.  And you can guess why.)

So even though whites remain the largest racial group (56%), the percentage is dropping like a rock, for two reasons:  First is the number of immigrants, both legal and a much larger number of illegals.

But second is that minorities are having lots more kids than whites.  Shockingly, the "total fertility rate" for white women--the average number of children a woman has in her lifetime--is now down to about 1.4, far below the 2.02 needed to keep the number of whites constant.

There are a number of reasons for this:  First, for the last 30 years feminists have been saying that an exciting career in corporate America is far more exciting and rewarding than having kids, so naturally many American girls--especially those with liberal parents--absolutely ate it up.
  Second, for at least 40 years the communist-run schools (yes, they are) have been teaching kids that America has always been evil and raaaaacist, built on stolen land, etc.  That message--endlessly repeated by university professors and the "elite" Mainstream Media--sinks in: who would want to perpetuate an allegedly evil race, eh?

Third:  For 40 years feminists have been bleating that "Men are oppressors!"  Anyone see "The Handmaid's Tale"?  Who in their right mind would marry an "oppressor," eh?

Fourth: Liberals/Democrats/socialists have rammed thru hundreds of laws at the federal level alone that give women everything husbands once did: mainly money and some degree of protection.  Men once led families, but as government has taken on that role, women think "Why should I have to negotiate with a husband who may try to keep me from do whatever I want, when if I'm single I can do whatever I want without having to negotiate about it?" 
   Ohhh absolutely, comrade!  Why put up with the hassle of negotiating with a dim-wit man when duh gummint will give you whatever you need?  AND you can have an exciting, high-paying job as a corporate exec, eh?

The dim-wit husband with the so-clever wife has been a staple of TV ads for decades.  It's become a cliche, just as mixed couples and gays started becoming a cliche a couple of years ago.  This may have been designed to hook women customers, but it has the inevitable effect of denigrating men and (heterosexual) marriage.

Fifth: for decades liberal judges in the leftist-dominated court system (calling it "our justice system" seems laughable on so many levels) have delighted in making lavish alimony and property awards to ex-wives in divorces.  Say, d'ya think men with at least an average IQ, seeing this happen over and over, might think "I don't ever wanna be forced by some pencil-neck liberal judge to give 80% of my income to my ex-wife."
  Just kidding: the only men who ever think about such possibilities are lawyers for the rich, and they settle that with a pre-nup.  Your average working stiff never thinks to do that, and most couldn't afford it anyway.

Finally, for the past 30 years the communists and the Mainstream Media have been screaming that duh Erf is warming--at a dangerous and totally unprecedented level!  And they claim the cause is a deadly poison gas called "carbon dioxide."  Just kidding: CO2 isn't poisonous at all--you exhale it with every breath.  But they say it's gon' kill all life on Erf reel soon.  Or maybe later, but still dead!

Okay, what's the relevance?  It's that Americans produce lots more CO2 per person than the rest of the world, because we drive cars and burn natural gas to produce electricity and heat our homes.  So communists and "wokiez" scream that Americans are causing most of this added, allegedly deadly warming.  

The wokiez say the only way to slow down the deadly (?) warming is for the people who use more energy per person to have fewer kids.  And that, deplorable white American, would be you.

Now, if a girl hears--from age 5 to menopause-- that her country bears most of the blame for the claimed end of life on duh Erf, do you stupidly think this will have NO EFFECT AT ALL on her willingness to have children?

If you're a Democrat, your answer is "None at all."

If you're a so-called "independent" you hedge by saying "Well it might have a slight effect, but too small to measure."

Ohhh, that's good.  Nuance, comrade.

Liberals and Democrats will argue that none of the things above are true.  [Really?] 

"Okay, maybe they might be true, but they can't possibly have caused such a huge drop in the white 'fertility rate' or whatever you claim it was!

Okay, liberal shitheads, YOU try to explain it.

Knock yourselves out.  You and your fellow Dems and communists endlessly, relentlessly pushed ALL this shit, and white women ate it up.

Here's the fun part for me, because I've been predicting the future on this blog since 2003 and I'm damn good at it:  The U.S.--at least as those around my age have known it--is doomed.  Not by Climate Change, but by Democrat policies.  And by the fact that Democrat voters will always vote for the party that promises to give them more money.

The pols vote to give 'em more money to keep their supporters turning out to vote for 'em/

As a result, at some point the interest on our vast national debt will be adding not just a trillion a year, but five trillion a year to our debt.  (As all of you undoubtedly knew, interest payments just this year will be over a TRILLION dollars.)
  When lenders stop lending, pols will keep things going for another year by simply faking the money.  The joke used to be printing stacks of $100-dollar bills, but now it's just touching a key on a computer to re-fill every EBT card with fictitious numbers--including billions for illegals.
  That will last for a few months, and then it's war.  The hordes will pour out of the cities, stripping farms clean.  Lack of fertilizer, seeds and diesel for tractors will cause food production to plummet.  Invaluable dairy cows will be slaughtered for meat instead of being protected for their ability to turn cellulose (which humans can't digest) into milk.

If you've got highschool-age kids, ask 'em if humans can digest cellulose.

I don't have kids, so when the shooting starts I won't care.  You morons brought this on yourselves.  Some of us knew what would happen--what HAD to happen if you got your way.  But either you were too dense to understand simple English, or like the communists and Democrats, you wanted to destroy the U.S. or capitalism or Trump or all three. 

Now let's return to that "new" CDC report that the majority of births in the U.S. are now minorities. If you wanna see the future, click on this link.  It's to an ABC TV station in LA, which is 30% illegals now.  If they haven't taken down the comments, the number of comments from invaders laughing, sneering "We won" will amaze you.  Should scare you, but if you're a Democrat you'll welcome your new rulers.  You'll toast their victory.  It's exactly what you want, what you've worked tirelessly for.

Well maybe you didn't exactly want it, but you always voted for the Democrat candidate, who sure as hell wanted it, was absolutely working to get it.

And maybe it's not exactly what you wanted, but for a few years it'll be fine.

Your children will be good leftists, just like you, but they'll be white.  And just before your children are executed for some made-up "crime" against the New Non-white State, they just might realize who really caused their deaths. 

https://www.instagram.com/abc7la/p/DUMAzjFEwZB/

Liberal woman who was gang-raped refused to report the crime, because...uh...

For the last year we've been seeing liberal women demanding that illegal aliens not be deported.  Conservatives ask "Even if they're rapists and killers?"  The response--always-- is "Most undocumented immigrants are fine." 

But many aren't, and since most of the victims are women and girls, screaming to keep ALL of them here--including the rapists and murderers--seems highly irrational, eh?

Then you realize: a huge percentage of liberal women are totally irrational.

Ah, you think that's an absurd claim?  Keep reading:

In 2021 a female PhD candidate--Anna Krauthamer--was gang-raped--but didn't report the attack because (wait for it)...she doesn't believe the rapists should go to prison.  Seriously.

She even published an essay explaining her decision, saying she didn't report it because she wished it had never happened [how is that a rational reason?], and believed imprisoning her rapists would do nothing for her.

Obviously prosecuting her attackers and sending 'em to prison for a decade wouldn't change the fact that she'd been gang-raped, but putting the thug rapists in prison for a decade would obviously prevent them from attacking some other unfortunate female for that period, eh?

But Krauthamer either refuses to see the logic of that, or doesn't see any benefit.  'Why should I care if these same thugs gang-rape some other girl?  After all, that doesn't affect ME.'

She wrote, "How silly and strange it would be to have a group of people incarcerated when that would do nothing to fix the damage they've already done."

Obviously can't change the past, but putting her rapists in prison would obviously prevent 'em from raping other girls while they were locked up.  But Krauthamer refuses to do that.  Reminds me of DA's who refuse to prosecute, or judges who release known thugs instantly, without bail.  "He a guuud boy, surely won't hurt anyone while he's free on the streets!"

Moronic liberals.  Thugs don't change overnight.  It takes years for 'em to see the error of their ways.  And some clearly never do.

Krauthamer--who's been a "prison abolitionist" for years--said friends urged her to report the assault, arguing that sending her rapists to prison would protect other women, but she refused.

She wrote "I don’t want to ruin the lives of my rapists, and I don’t know if they have children."  Very noble, eh?  So you're perfectly willing to give your rapists the freedom to do the same to some other woman.  

This woman is a perfect Democrat:  If she had her way, and prisons were abolished, rapists, murderers and muggers would be able to attack as they wished, with no fear.  Krauthamer makes no exceptions, even for murder or child rape?  Is there any outrage this wacko believes would warrant prison?

Apparently not.  So does Krauthamer believe her "enlightened," "progressive" policy will have any effect on crime?   The journalist who reported this story carefully didn't ask.

Here's an idea: Sociologists should send teams to prisons and ask the prisoners two questions:

1. "If you had known *before doing whatever you did to be sent here* would cause you to be sent to prison, would you still have done it?"

(Men who killed for revenge or attacked a cheating partner or similar are likely to say the possibility of prison wouldn't have deterred 'em.)

2. "After you're released, would you be more likely to consider committing a crime if you knew there was no penalty for doing so?"

The answer to the second question should be clear proof that abolishing prisons will result in an exponential increase in crime.  But of course nothing will deter the insanity of irrational liberal women like Krauthamer--or liberal DAs or judges or politicians.

Source:

https://www.thenation.com/article/society/why-i-didnt-report-my-rape/
 

Virginia Democrats--who now control all the state govt--immediately propose 50 new taxes!

Last fall Virginia voters handed total control of that  state over to Democrats, cuz most voters are Democrats and love big government and high taxes.  Note they keep bleating about prices being too high, but still wanna raise taxes.  Hmmm...

Democrats in the legislature have now introduced DOZENS of bills to impose new taxes on citizens--because Dems are all about...affordability, eh? 

Summary of bills introduced by Virginia Democrats:
  New personal property tax on electric leaf blowers and electric landscaping equipment;
  New tax on "large employers"--paid per employee, every year;
  New tax on guns
  New tax on ammunition
  New tax on people who deliver food or Amazon, UPS or FedEx. (May be a county tax in the shithole of northern Virginia, which is 80% Democrat.)
  Considering a new tax on concerts ("events");
  Adding a special tax on investment income;
  New tax on storage facilities
  New tax on gym memberships
  New tax on dog walkers (people paid to walk dogs);
  New tax on dog grooming
  New tax on "counseling"
  New tax on "digital personal property" (no idea how "digital personal property" is defined.)
  Raising tax on new cars;
  New "fees" (taxes) on "highway use;"
  Raising the hotel tax in Arlington
  New tax on dry cleaning
  New tax on home repair contractors
  New tax on car repair services

Wait...don't Democrat pols constantly scream that all prices are too high for working families?  Always bleating about "affordability" for working families?  And blaming Trump's economy, of course.  But imposing all these new taxes (and raising existing taxes) shows that all the Dems' talk about "affordability" was just bullshit designed to win votes.  Their 50 new taxes show their real agenda.
 

Liberal female judge in NYC dismisses the murder charge against Luigi Mangione

If you want an inkling of how utterly, totally fucked up liberals are, consider the following:  Last year in the Dem-ruled shithole of NYC, Luigi Mangione walked up behind a man and shot him in the back several times, killing him.  The murder was caught on video.

He was charged with murder.  But now a liberal female judge in New York--Margaret M. Garnett, appointed by the senile vegetable bribem--has dismissed the charge of "murder by use of a firearm," which carried a possible death penalty.  

So the killer will not face the possibility of a death sentence--for carrying out a planned assassination, with a gun.

Let's review here:  Was there a murder?  Yes.  Was the murder weapon a gun?  Yes.  And yet the liberal female judge dismissed the ONLY charge that carried a possible death penalty.

Garnett ruled that the murder charge was technically flawed, saying it could be used only "in tandem with a crime of violence.” 

Wait...are you saying that BY LAW, a murderer can't get the death penalty unless he commits ANOTHER violent crime "in tandem"?  What kind of insanity is this? 

The prosecution claimed Mangione’s alleged stalking of his victim met the requirement of "another violent crime in tandem."  Garnett ruled that it didn't.

The female judge admitted (in writing) that her legal analysis might seem "tortured and strange, and the result may seem contrary to our intuitions about the criminal law,” and then proceeded to dismiss the murder charge altogether, saying she was "just trying to faithfully apply Supreme Court rulings to the case.” 

Now, apparently this is--somehow--federal law.

How incredible was her ruling?  Well after the liberal female judge put her RULING on the record, one of Mangione’s attorneys--female--speaking on the courthouse steps to a crowd of the killer's adoring fans, smilingly praised what she called an “incredible decision.” 

Incredible indeed.

Source: NBC, laughing all the way

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/luigi-mangione-will-not-face-death-penalty-judge-nixes-two-federal-cou-rcna256715 

The end of western nations?

If you're an American who pays attention to things other than the absurd crap on television and Hollywood crap, and the breathless avalanche of PR releases of the "elites"--the "bread and circuses" that keep people distracted and occupied--you know what this graph shows without being told.  Take a guess, and you might impress yourself:

 

It's the "total fertility rate" in the U.S.--the average number of children born to all women.  And as you may have guessed, to keep the population level, on average each woman would need to have 2.02 children.  That's called the "replacement rate."

Warning:  Not one politician or "elite" member of the Media wants to talk about what I'm about to explain--because it predicts the inevitable death of...something.  Seriously. 

You note that the last number shown (2020) is less than 2.0.  And the average Democrat thinks "Dat guud, cuz pipo drive cars and heat their homes and hot water, an' fly in jet airplanes!  An' all doze things emit duh dread poison gas CO2, which beez killin' duh climate by Global Warming!  (S'cuse me: "Climate Change")  So havin' fewer kids than the replacement rate is guuuud! cuz it means fewer CO2 emitters killin' duh Erf."

Ooohhh YES, geniuses!  That's SO totally woke!

Just a couple of tiny, tiny concerns:  First, the most recent number (2025) is WAY less than the replacement rate.  Second: the number you see is an AVERAGE, and the people who publish this stuff NEVER break it out by race.  And the truth is that the TFR for whites is WAY less than the average.  In fact it's about 1.4.

Democrat moron: "Dat jus' cuz dey don't have doze numbers!  Hospitals don't record the race of newborns, so how cud anyone know, eh?"

And of course Democrat voters believe that.  But that's horseshit: the data on birth by race is known.  The "elites" who run the Mainstream Media, and the politicians, just don't want YOU to know--because the TFR for whites is WAY below the average, at about 1.4.  The only thing that keeps the overall TFR at about 1.7 today is that most other races are way over 2.0, which pulls the national average up to 1.7. 

Now: if you know just a bit of math, there's an easy equation called "exponential growth" that also works for exponential decay.  (If you don't know it, google it.)  If you plug in the numbers you'll see that in 40 years or so, whites will comprise roughly ten percent of the U.S. population.  So let's look at that society--which is inevitable.

Democrats: "Dat faaaabulous!  See, lotsa' whites like dat AWFUL capitalism, an' 'duh Patriarchy' (male dominance), which is oppression!  So duh sooner we gets rid of whites, duh sooner society will be fair an' equitable, SEE?  It'll be 'from each according to his, her or their ability, TO each according to his, her or their NEED!"  It'll be SOoo faaabulous!" 

(Bonus points if you know who popularized essentially that slogan--updated to reflect tranny demands.) 

Ahh.  Tell us, brilliant Democrats: If you have a system that offers every resident (not just every citizen, but anyone) $3,000 a month for doing nothing, how many will choose that instead of working for a living, eh?

Think hard before you answer.

Soon 90% of the population will be getting stoned all day and playing video games or watching TV, cuz dat SOoo much mo' fun den' workin' fo' duh Man to earn money, eh?

For young Americans: Margaret Thatcher was the first female Prime Minister of the UK, and a brilliant opponent of socialism (communism).  She coined a famous phrase: "The only problem with socialism is, sooner or later you run out of other peoples' money."

So to summarize: We started by noting a number "set in concrete" (i.e. has so much inertia due to 340 million people that barring war, it's not likely to change much in the next 20 years) that predicts essentially the end of the white race.  Then we note that Democrats push every other race, and hate capitalism (yes, they actually say that).  And that inevitably leads...where?

The U.S. ceases to be the leading economy, but simply continues to borrow increasing amounts of money to support the "Universal Basic Income" schemes of the Democrats.  Collapse is inevitable.

(If you're not familiar with "Universal Basic Income," look it up.  It's a Democrat policy.  They just go quiet about it when they're not in power.)

Now: I don't have kids, so as the saying goes, I don't have a dog in this hunt.  If the Democrat morons wanna install socialism it won't have any direct impact on me.  I'll drink a toast to the loss of that last beacon of freedom--that "shining city on a hill," as Reagan said--but I'll be fine.

By contrast, if you have children, and understand economics, there's a slight chance you may realize the current future won't be happy for them under socialism.  

If you don't realize that, may your kids realize what you've condemned them to. 

Meanwhile, consider this:  Why is the white birthrate so low?  What's caused white women to have fewer children?  There are several factors, but the common thread is that they're all pushed relentlessly by the anti-American Mainstream Media: "Men are pigs!"  "Women are powerful so dey don' need a husband!"  ("don't need a husband" is true if gummint gives women everything they need, which it now does).  "Whites are oppressors!"  "Other races are cool, whites are clumsy and to be ridiculed."

How many of those things sound familiar from the Mainstream Media?

This is not an accident.