Texas Board of Ed votes to remove Revolutionary War from HS, replacing it with...

Even in states with a thin conservative majority, the communists have their wholly-ruled enclaves.  In Texas, as in most states, it's the State Board of Education.

The American Revolution is arguably one of the most consequential events in human history, since winning it gained our independence.  For 240 years American students have learned about the battles of Lexington and Concord, the opening shots of the war that led to our freedom.

Thus some of you may be surprised to learn that last week the collection of mentally-challenged whores who rule the Texas State Board of Ed voted to remove the American Revolution from 11th-grade U.S. history.  

Three "wokie" RINO members of that board--Will Hickman, Kevin Ellis, and Pam Little--voted with the Democrats to pass this and dozens of other ill-conceived amendments.

Now follow the...interesting..."reasoning:"  "We only gots room fo' so many test questions, an' we thought it was mo' impo'tant dat ouah kidz learned somepin' else."

So what did the Board believe was more important for students to learn about than the American Revolution, eh?  Turns out the battles of Lexington and Concord were removed to make room for--brace yourself: Oprah.

See, to wokies it way mo' impo'tant to know 'bout Oprah Winfrey den 'bout dat silly war dat happen so long ago.  After all, ain't nuffin' special 'bout dis country.  Jus' aks Joy Reid.

Let that sink in.

This is called "progressive social studies," and it's what schools are teaching your kids in place of real history.

Update: After a Dallas paper revealed this utter, ghastly, wokie horseshit, the state board voted to "postpone rewrites to U.S. history, world history, geography and government."

Now if you know anything about politics, you know one of the absolutely routine tactics of leftists/Democrats/sons of whores is "Postpone the final vote until the uproar dies down, and then we'll pass it when no one is watching."  I predict that's what will happen here.

If this is happening in Texas, imagine what state school boards are doing in Democrat-ruled shitholes like New York, California, Virginia, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Washington state, Oregon, Illinois, Minnesomalia, Michigan, Wisconsin, New Mexico and the like.

Source: The Dallas Express

https://dallasexpress.com/opinion/opinion-texas-just-voted-to-erase-the-american-revolution-that-is-not-a-typo/

These people are demented. Power-mad. Insane. So question is...

 

Democrats: "Of course, because all four are great analysts of complex issues!  'Perceptive!'  Rational.  Even better, ouah great leaders (the four above are among ouah best) do NOT have huge egos--unlike Orange Hitler."

I'd ask conservatives for their answer but there's no point, cuz after all Democrats start voting for Democrat Socialists of America, conservatives won't win any more national elections.  That'll begin around 2032, so...enjoy the next six years.

Ah, I hear y'all saying that's crazytalk.  Just un-possible!  So let me explain:

For decades white Americans have been split roughly equally between R and D.  The flood of 11 MILLION illegal immigrants during bribem's ghastly 4 years didn't change that much because virtually none of those illegals became citizens.  Most apparently elected to wait until a Democrat prezzy and congress simply gifted all of them citizenship, with no effort. 

But they have far higher birthrates than whites, and all their children will be U.S. citizens.  So as soon as six years from now the first of their citizen-kids will be voting.  That and the black vote should decisively tip the balance to the Dems. 

But wait, it gets worse--cuz for the past 20 years the "total fertility rate" (TFR)--the average number of children born to each woman over her life--for white women has been steadily dropping.  You need an average of 2.15 or so children per female needed to keep any population level.  (The fraction over 2.0 is needed because a small percentage of females don't survive to childbearing age.) 

For white women that rate is now about 1.4--FAR below the level needed to keep the number of whites from decreasing. 

But illegals and Muslims have a far higher TFR--roughly 3.5 for Hispanics and 4.4 for Muslims.  So the percentage of whites will fall even faster in the future.  

The much higher TFR for Muslims and Hispanics is partly offset by the fact that on average, conservatives seem to be having more children than liberals.  I've never been able to find published numbers, and I suspect that's because no large study has been done--or even proposed, since it would almost certainly confirm the point here.  My guess is that the TFR for liberals is about 1.2, compared to about 1.6 for conservatives.  That certainly helps, but not nearly enough to keep the percentage of whites from continuing to fall.

One other note on that:  The Media, Dems, communists and pro-illegal groups will try to fool you by pointing to census numbers showing that the actual number of whites is NOT dropping.  Yes but what matters in elections is what percentage of the population is on each side.  When your percentage falls, you lose almost every election.   

People who study demographics for a living have long had a saying: "Demography is destiny."  What that means is, if you invite foreigners into your country who want to take over, they can do that simply by waiting, because having more kids than the native population means eventually the faster-breeding foreigners end up in the majority.

In the past, when almost all immigrants to America wanted to assimilate instead of rule, this wasn't a problem.  But in the last 40 years the Dem-ruled school establishment has lied to students SO thoroughly and deviously that most American students now say they believe socialism is better than capitalism--despite never having lived under communism!  It's obviously irrational: the rational answer would be "I can't answer that since I've never lived under communism."  But as happened when the transgender craze hit, only a tiny fraction of kids can resist the social pressure to be one of the "cool kids." 

The communists call the belief that communism is superior to free markets "demoralization," and by that they don't mean mass drug use and perversion.  Rather,  young people become demoralized in the same sense as troops who believe their situation is hopeless.

People in that mental state are far less likely to vote, since they believe it won't (can't) help.  And who would ever fight for a country they've been taught was evil from its very founding?  We saw hints of this last part around 1970, with huge protests against continued U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

So there are ample historic examples for every point that's coming. 

Now for the hundredth time, I don't have kids, and my six nieces and nephews were raised by liberal Democrats, so while I'll be sorry for them being forced to suffer, I can't save 'em.  So as the old saying goes, I've got no dog in this hunt.  

The loss of freedom of speech or the right to bear arms won't bother 'em a bit.  Yes, Democrat-ordered taxes will be higher, but good party members will know how to sign up for more "free stuff" to offset the higher taxes.  Yes, steak will cost $40 a pound, so will be a once-a-year treat for working families, but Bill Gates will be selling a delicious meat-substitute, and "reporters" at the NY Times will gush that it tastes every bit as good as the best steak they ever had!  And everyone will nod and agree.

Yes, it too will cost $40 a pound, BUT it'll reduce Global Wa Climate Change. 

Because everyone they know will be in the same boat, my nieces and nephews won't realize their lives are less free.  And in any case, it's because their liberal Democrat parents supported whatever happens.  

 

 

Fraud in Los Angeles

If you don't pay attention to things outside your immediate reach, you may not have heard that intrepid citizen journalist Nick Shirley went to Los Angeles and chased down the addresses of hundreds of phantom "hospices" bilking Medicare for billions.

He found 42 of 'em were supposedly operating in one strip mall.  No patients, but 42 small offices with mailing addresses.  Even the most superficial investigation by the state--or by local Media (all leftist Democrat-fellators) would have discovered this.  But of course no one did until Nick.

 

(For young Americans: "hospice" is where nursing staff care for the terminally ill, meaning recovery was highly unlikely.) 

Nick knocked on every door claiming to be a "hospice."  Most were empty, locked.  Of the ones that were occupied, the occupants claimed not to know anything about a hospice.  Others simply refused to say anything.  Nick got it all on video.

Brazen, in-you-face, fuck-you fraud.  So did the state instantly shut 'em down?

Hahahahahahaha!  I see you just arrived on Earth, so enjoy your stay!

Of course they weren't shut down, cuz some state employees were either negligent (not doing their job of verifying that payees were legit) or on the take.  Your choice.

But don't let anyone claim the Democrat-ruled state assembly (legislature) didn't take action!  No no no, citizen!  Duh Democrats passed a LAW to prevent citizens from investigating corruption.  The local Democrat-fellating Media--without a trace of irony--quickly nicknamed it the "Stop Nick Shirley Act."

How the scam worked: Grifters would get the names and SS numbers of older people who'd recently been hospitalized, and would pay a corrupt doctor to sign a form recommending the patient be sent to hospice.  The places can be expensive, and the fraudsters weren't shy about billing Medicare for top-notch care.

But there wasn't any.  No patients in these places.  In fact some of the fake hospices billed taxpayers for patients who'd died months earlier.

Now rational people would think that before sending ANY check for, say, $3 million a month to an alleged hospice, the state would verify that the company was indeed on file with the Secretary of State and licensed by whatever passes for medical licensing in that shit-hole.  But of course no one did, either because no agency head or manager had enough sense to, or because state lackeys were on the take.  Your choice.

After Nick uncovered the obvious massive fraud, state computer experts cross-checked their data and found one doctor who claimed to have personally examined something like 300 elderly patients in a single day and recommended hospice care for all.  (For young Americans: Assuming an 8-hour workday that would mean examining each alleged patient for about 90 seconds.) 

Now the question is, how many of the fraudsters have fled to Mehico or Somalia or China, thus effectively putting 'em beyond reach of U.S. law.  

And in the midst of the billions of dollars in fraud, the unasked question is: is the hastily-passed law barring citizens from investigating fraud still on the books?

Say, citizen, that Gavin Newsom has done such a fine job of running California, so he'd make a perfect Dem nominee for president in 2028, eh? 

(hat tip to "basicoptimism") 

America-hating leftist Joy Reid: "Nobody I know is excited about the 4th of July"

Joy Reid is a no-talent racist hack.  MSDNC gave her an hour-long TV show every day to spew venom and anti-white, anti-America hate. 

Her father is a migrant from Congo.

Her mother is a migrant from Guyana. 

Average salary in Congo is $449.  Average salary in Guyana is $5,200.

If not for the U.S. Reid would be starving in a mud hut. 

So you'd think that having had her own hour-long TV show every weekday, making ten million a year or so, she'd be totally grateful for what the U.S. has given her, eh?

Guess again.  Reid bleats "Nobody I know is excited about the 4th of July."

 

Like almost all leftists, Joy Reid is a monster.  Truly an evil being.  Instead of being grateful to the nation that gave her a fortune--for NO talent--she embraced her true mission, which was and is to help destroy this nation--and white civilization.  She and Momdani and Darializa Avila Chevalier are all on the same team.

https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/2069082190042767429 

Democrats think they're using Muslims to drag the U.S. to socialism. But...

 

x 

Leftist shit-heads at the NY Times turn pregnancy into a political plot.

In a sneering article in the "style" section and disguised as a piece on style (or the absence thereof), Times chief fashion critic Vanessa Friedman sneers that three women connected to the White House were recently pregnant...at the same time!

Must be a cunning plot, eh?  Absolutely:  three conservative women having children at almost the same time--and this in an age where declining birthrates for Americans are SO much more fashionable, eh?  And of course American kids just add to the ravages of Climate Change!

Fashion critic Friedman implies that because almost all immigrants are leftists, the only way Republicans can get more votes is to have kids, who'll obviously be raised to vote conservative.  The horror!  Echoes of "The Handmaid's Tale."  

To the leftists at the NY Times, babies born to Republicans are simply propaganda tools.  Count on the leftist shit-heads at the NY Times to turn pregnancy into a political plot.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/24/style/usha-vance-maga-pregnancy-style.html 

Minnesota law allows any registered voter to "vouch" for up to 8 unregistered people (who don't show proof of citizenship) to allow em to vote the same day

After a certain number of laws or rules in a state all lead to fraud, at some point you have to start thinking it may be intentional:  

A controversial Minnesota election law allows any registered voter to enable up to eight other people to register on election day, and without showing any proof of citizenship and vote the same day. 

Under this incredibly stupid law--passed by Democrats and confirmed by the Secretary of State--the registered voter simply signs an oath saying he or she verifies the address of the person being registered.  This is called "vouching."  

To keep the scam from being too obvious, those being vouched for still must provide one form of identity verification, which can be a driver's license from any state, a utility bill or a high school or college ID.

Of course utility bills don't have photos of the addressee, so if that was the only item used to satisfy identity, obviously anyone could claim to be the person whose name was on the bill.

The SecState website says this info is then used to verify that the person being registered--and voting the same day--lives in that precinct.  And again, no proof of citizenship needed.

Minnesomalia is one of 23 states that allow same-day voter registration, meaning the newly-registered person casts his or her vote before anyone tries to confirm that the voter lives in that precinct.  So in most of those states, ballots cast by late-registering voters are "provisional," meaning not counted until eligibility is confirmed.  And if a thousand people in a precinct registered on election day, it could easily take a week to verify everyone's residence.

Problem is, in Minnesomalia there are NO "provisional ballots," meaning all ballots are counted immediately instead of being held back until the voter's residence can be confirmed.  And since ballots have no way of being tied to a specific voter, once a ballot is counted it can't be later identified and removed even if the same-day voter is found to have lied about residing in that precinct. 

In other words, once the ballot is cast, it's impossible to remove it from the count.

Realizing the lucrative opportunity for fraud, last March a GOP state rep introduced a bill that would make ballots cast on the same day a voter registered "provisional," meaning they wouldn't be counted until residency was confirmed.

And of course you can guess what happened:  Since the Dems control the state legislature, the bill didn't get out of committee.

Critics have also noted that three years ago Gov. Tim Walz pushed a bill called "Driver's Licenses for All," giving applicants licenses without checking immigration status.  And since state licenses don't show citizenship, anyone can use those to register to vote.  

Gosh, you don't think anyone would actually DO that, do ya?

Elon Musk summed up the state's system: "It was made for fraud." 

Which brings us to another Minnesomalia fraud: the billions stolen by fake Learing Centers, autism "treatment centers," transport services billing for 50 trips a day of 100 miles or more, and the like.  Every service paid for by Medicaid or Medicare, the Somalis looted.

SO...you can't afford another kid because childcare is so expensive, but Somali fraudsters effortlessly stole millions of your taxpayer dollars for child care centers that only existed on paper. 

You can’t afford a home--but 100 Somalis spent $100 million of your taxpayer dollars on luxury villas overseas. 

You’re paying $30K a year for high-deductible health insurance--while they got millions of your taxpayer dollars for health care centers that never treated a single patient." 

They robbed us blind for years, screwing over hardworking Americans--and having the GALL to smear anyone who complained as racist. 

So much good could have been done for Americans with all the billions stolen by the Somali fraudsters--as whistleblowers in the Minnesomalia government  were threatened if they said anything.  Thank a Democrat.

Democrats: "Pipo in third-world countries iz jus' like us. Reeeally"

For the past 60 years western "elites" have operated under the naive delusion that the Third World is full of faaabulous freedom-loving people with vast untapped potential, and that the only reason they're not as fabulous as the west is because of...past oppression.

The truth is that Third World nations are shit because those nations are full of shitty, lawless thugs.  Not all, of course.  Just the powerful, wealthy ones.  Warlords.  Cartel kingpins.

(edited from a post by @crushmarxismnow) 

A mom posts about her new baby--an' duh Left iz screamin'

 

I added "liberal" to Katie Miller's post because conservatives think having kids is a good thing.  By huge contrast, leftists and Democrat sneer that having kids is NOT good--at least not for Americans.  Totally fine for other nationalities, of course, just not for "us."

Now why do ya suppose that is, eh? 

For years, so-called "elites" in the U.S. have sneered that being a mom hurts your career.  And it's oppressive.  And more American kids hurts duh Erf, cuz Americans use more energy per person than other nations.  Plus, white couples having more kids just keeps the problem of "white privilege" boiling.  Other races having lots of kids is fine.  The "elites" just bitch about whites having kids.

Now here's the hoot: a pencil-dick "influencer" named Bryan Tyler Cohen quoted Katie's post (above) to try to discredit it, claiming U.S. "elites" have NEVAH sneered at white motherhood!  Nope nope nope!  "You dumb conservatives just imagined it!" 

Seriously, this pencil-dick, Cohen, bleated that the notion that motherhood is "oppressive" was totally made up by conservatives.  So all those stories you think you saw and read about women claiming corporate careers were FAR more rewarding than motherhood, or that congress needed to give "free" (taxpayer-funded) child-care to all (reason, never ever stated: so women could work outside the home, leaving raising kids to strangers or the government)...you totally imagined it!  Duh Mainstream Media (like the NYT and WaPo) never even hinted at such things, citizen!

To help the pencil-dick get his point across better, another commenter helpfully added this cute pic:

 

But hey, if you're one of duh Kool Kidz you gots t' listen to Bryan Tyler Cohen, cuz he gots 618,000 followers, deplorable!  Dat mean errybuddy believe whut he bleat.  He kool.  Hey, y'know what else is popular wif' duh Kool Kidz in the U.S.?  

Communism.

Hey citizen, remember when bribem and the Dems hired 87,000 armed IRS agents?

 

Except it did.

"No kings," eh?

Democrat shitheads keep bleating that Trump wants to be king, an' "We don' haz no kangs!"  Really, dumbshits? 

 

When a Dem president DEMANDS that you obey or get fined or fired, Dems don't bat an eye.  "Dis perfekly fine!"  By contrast, Trump tried to enforce valid U.S. immigration law, by deporting people who had entered the U.S. illegally--and Democrat pols screamed that he was tryin' t' be a KANG! 

It was a brilliant strategy: Americans don't like being ruled by a king, so claiming Trump was tryin' t' be a KANG was a sure-fire winning strategy for the Dems.

By contrast, Obozocare and bribem's order that all employees of firms with 100 or more employees MUST take the jab, even if young and healthy and with no "co-morbidities" (i.e TOTALLY overriding you health preferences), Dems just smiled and smirked.

It's how Democrats roll, comrade.  Another example: Your local library hosts "Drag queen story hour" for children.  You don't get to vote on it.  Democrat excuse: "If yew don' like it, yew don' hafta go!"  But when a Christian group wants to use the same library to discuss political issues, library communists won't allow it.  Ohh, double standards?  Tough shit: dey iz kangs.  Yew don' get to vote on it.

Oh, y'say dat not true?  Dat too brazen, too much of an obvious double-standard?

Try it.  The American Library Association is totally run by communists.  And don't be fooled by a response that says "fine."  A week before the planned meeting they'll renege.  "We checked with the city attorney and 'they' told us this would be unconstitutional, violating the First Amendment."  It doesn't, and no real attorney would claim otherwise.  But your objections will get nowhere.

Consider this: government builds roads with tax funds.  If your library refuses to allow a Christian group to use the library--a facility build with taxpayer money--what's the rationale for denying Christians use of library meeting rooms?  It's like barring Christians from using roads.  And yet "drag queens" are welcome to use the library to host "drag queen story hour," eh?  

Double standards, always.

 

The alleged total U.S. presidential popular vote by party is...interesting

Study the numbers below for a minute.  (Don't worry about the details because *official sources* have number differing by Millions from the numbers below.) 

 Democrat                   Republican

65,788,564     2016    62,984,828  (Trump-Hilly)
81,283,501     2020    74,223,975  (Trump-bribem)
75,019,682     2024    77,303,568  (Trump-Cackles)

To say there are "anomalies" in the above claimed numbers is a vast understatement: Hilliary was far more popular than the moronic serial liar Joe bribem, and Joe's VP, Cackles, was a total nutter compared to Hilliary's not-quite-as-moronic Tim Kaine.  So you'd think just considering candidate attractiveness, the Dems should have gotten fewer votes in 2020 than in 2016, eh? 

Instead the official tally shows the Dems got 23.6% MORE votes with the moronic duo of bribem/Cackles than with Hilliary/Kaine.  So a good question is, How likely is it that bribem/Cackles got 23.6% MORE legitimate votes in 2020 than Hilly/Kaine got four years earlier?

Yeah, I know, the fucking Media began lying about Trump on Day 1 of his first term: first it was the total fiction that "Trump colluded with Putin to steal the election frum ouah beloved Hilliary!"

The whole notion of "Trump-Russia collusion" was utterly absurd: Trump was pro-military and pro-capitalism.  Seemingly a big supporter of free markets, thus anti-communist.  By sharp contrast, Hilliary was thoroughly, astonishingly corrupt and hated the military (as did her pussy-obsessed husband).  If you were Putin, would you rather have Hilly or Trump as commander-in-chief of your only rival power?

Obviously you'd want the corrupt, military-hating Hill-beast. 

So now let's look at some numbers that show something about the official number is WAY off.

Note the total votes for R and D combined for 2020: 155,500,000.  Compare this to the National Conference of State Legislatures, which reported (estimated) 159 million total votes.  Wiki [yeah, I know] reports 159,738,337 votes cast.  How can there be a difference of 4,238,000 between the two reported total votes cast--numbers that should be specific, verifiable, unequivocal?

No one has ever tried to explain.  No member of the Lying Mainstream Media has ever even asked that question!  That alone should tell you something.

Now consider Statista, which claims that in 2020 (bribem v. Trump) there were 168.31 million registered voters in the U.S.  If we accept that 155,500,000 total votes were cast in 2020, out of 168.31 million registered voters, that would mean that in 2020, 92.39 percent of registered voters voted.  That seems to be unbelievably high.

(But then you have websites like the "U.S. Election Assistance Commission"--which has a dot-gov URL--claiming "In 2016 states reported 214,109,360 million citizens as registered to vote."  This is SO far off the consensus number from other sources that it's hard to take 'em seriously.  But these sorts of discrepancies are everywhere in voting data.  I note this because this is supposedly a government agency, and yet this supposed "federal agency" has a figure for registered U.S. voters that disagrees with other sites by roughly 46 MILLION people!  This is outrageous--but typical.) 

To compare:  Wiki [yeah, I know] says that in 2020 (bribem v. Trump), about 161 million people were registered to vote and 158,427,986 ballots were counted.  Wiki says that was 96.3% of registered voters--much higher that the 92.39% shown above by Statista's numbers.  But even more unbelievably, if we take Wiki's claim of "about" 161 million registered voters in 2020, and 158,427,986 total votes counted, that would mean 98.4% of those registered supposedly voted.

Horseshit.  You couldn't get 98.4% of any big group of Americans to get off their asses to collect a free Lexus (or other luxury car of their choice).  It's not just horseshit, it's brazen, screaming, obvious horseshit.  And yet no one in the Democrat-fellating Mainstream Media batted an eye--because they wanted bribem to win.

Wiki and Statista differ by 2.9 MILLION in the number of votes actually counted, and by about 7 million in the number of registered voters:Wiki says "about" 161 million while Statista says 168.31 million.  Obviously both those are huge differences, in a figure that should be a matter of unequivocal public record.  

In 2016--the VERY hotly contested race between Hilliary and Trump--136,669,237 ballots were officially totaled, out of 157,596,000 registered voters (86.72% of registered voters).  By comparison, in 2020 a total of 155,500,000 votes were counted, out of 168,308,000 registered voters--92.39%.  So the percentage of votes counted compared to registered voters rose 5.67%.  This can be seen as an indication of voter enthusiasm--though there are other possible explanations.

Now consider that in 2016 (Trump-Hilly) the total, official Dem vote was 65,788,564.  But just four years later (2020, Trump-bribem) the Dems were officially credited with a staggering 81,283,501 votes--23.6% MORE votes than just four years earlier.  

Given how high Democrat enthusiasm was for Hilliary in 2016, how reasonable is it for the Dems to have actually gotten 23.5% MORE votes in 2020 than just four years earlier--especially since the faaabulous Hilliary was cruising to be the first female prezzy and was far more popular than the totally undistinguished bribem?

Now consider that in 2024 (Trump v. Harris/Walz), despite a record number of anti-Trump, pro-Harris articles in the Mainstream Media, and 3% more Americans of voting age, and record Dem spending, the official total Dem vote dropped by 6.2 MILLION votes from just 4 years earlier. 

That huge drop from the claimed 2020 Democrat vote is extremely curious.  Many Democrats have bleated that the reason was that in 2024 minorities who voted in 2020 were prevented from voting in 2024 due to "voter suppression," caused by GOP states purging their voter rolls close to election day, preventing would-be Dem voters from voting.  That claim is total horseshit.  

A far more plausible explanation is that even Democrats realized Cackles was a horrible person--and that her insurance policy, Tampon Timmy Walz, was equally bad.  But even so, after four years of non-stop anti-Trump stories in the Media ("Trump colluded with Putin to steal the 2020 election!" "Trump and Epstein were close friends!" "Trump hates immigrants!" etc) you'd think everyone who'd voted Dem in 2020 would have done the same four years later, eh?  

After four years of a non-stop barrage of anti-Trump stories, and a chance to vote for the party's hand-picked, historic "first black female" presidential nominee, you'd think everyone who voted Democrat in 2020 would have done the same in 2024, eh?

And with 3% more registered voters, you'd think the total Dem vote would be *roughly* 3% higher than four years earlier, eh?  Yet in 2024 the total Dem vote *dropped* 7.7% from 2020.

The only way such a huge drop makes sense is if bribem didn't get nearly the 81,283,501 votes officially reported in 2020.  A far more plausible number of Dem votes in 2020 would be 75,000,000, which would be 14% higher than 2016 (due to the huge wave of anti-Trump Media stories for four years).  Then the fact that in 2024 Cackles got virtually the same number--75,020,000--also makes more sense, because the 3% increase in registered Dem voters would be offset by the slight drop in voter enthusiasm, NOT because Dem voters didn't love Cackles and Timmy but because some were angered by the fact that Cackles was handed the nomination by Pelosi, without winning (or even entering) a single primary.

So apparently in 2024 the Democrat party didn't attempt the massive vote fraud that gave the utterly corrupt bribem the presidency in 2020.

Given the foregoing the logical question is, Since the past obviously can't be changed, why bother to cite evidence suggesting the Democrats engaged in truly  massive, brazen vote fraud in 2020, eh?  After all, after six years it's obvious no one will be charged, any more than Obozo will be charged for the infamous Oval Office meeting in which he directed his FBI to spend the next four years of undermining Trump. 

The reason is to prevent this from happening again.

Turns out there are *at least*  a dozen easy ways to rig an election in the U.S. 
  1. Scanning the same stack of known 99% Dem ballots multiple times.
  2. Mail carriers (99% Democrat) trashing mail-in ballots addressed to high-income neighborhoods (likely to vote GOP).  This was proven;
  3. Dem operatives paying up to $50 apiece for blank mail-in ballots.  Proven;
  4. Dem operatives "harvesting" ballots from nursing-home residents, filling 'em out for Democrat candidates and submitting em without a matching sig, or witness sigs.  Proven;
  5. Democrat poll workers telling voters their scanners were broken, so "to help workers," GOP voters were instructed to put their ballots in bag #1, while Democrats are told to put their ballots in bag #2.  One of those bags doesn't make it to the counting center.  Since polling places don't publish the number of votes cast (even though that number is known) no one ever compares it to the number of votes totaled by the counting center, so the discrepancy is never detected.
  6. Printing thousands more ballots than the number of registered voters, for the stated purpose of having extras in the central warehous in case unusually high turnout occurs at a few precincts, causing poll workers to ask the central authority for more ballots.  Ballots sent to a precinct are logged, but tens of thousands of the "reserve ballots" aren't logged in at the central warehouse since they haven't been sent to a precinct yet.  Thousands can be stolen by election workers.
  7.  Fake mail-in ballots:  For the elections office to mail ballots to voters, those ballots must be folded to fit in the envelope.  But surveillance cameras in counting centers show stacks of supposed mail-in ballots with no creases.  If they were mailed to voters, then back to the state, how can they not show any creases (folds)?
  8. Democrat-owned and -staffed commercial printing companies are paid by Dem state govts to print millions of mail-in ballots--legitimate contracts.  But after the "state run," they print an extra 50,000 or so that are never given to the state and never show up on any inventory.  
   Some election workers claim that these extra ballots are sometimes printed on thinner, lighter-weight paper that lacks the authenticating "watermark" on the official ballots.  Experienced paper experts claim they can tell the weight difference at a touch, but poll workers aren't told to check this, or look for watermarks.
  9. Voter impersonation: this was always the easy/obvious way: Someone shows up to vote claiming to be [name].  If there's no record that the  person they claim to be has voted, they're waved right thru.  But if the precinct received a mail-in ballot from person X, the fake who shows up in person is allowed to cast a "provisional ballot" which is only counted after an investigation to verify that the person who showed up in person was who they claimed to be.
   And in some Dem-ruled shithole states like Minnesomalia, provisional ballots are scanned and counted right away, so can never be removed from the total count even if the person is found to have lied about being eligible to vote.
   But in practice, few such investigations are made.  *At worst* for the fraudsters, both legal and fraudulent ballots are accepted, meaning either 2 Dem votes, or 1 of each, in which case the imposter has offset a GOP vote.  Win-win.

  10. Drop boxes:  If you show up to vote in person, workers can't (and don't) ask for photo ID, since duh Dems haz sed dat wud be raaaaacis'!  But in most states you still have to sign in on some type of log book.
   In theory the precinct has the signature of the real voter on file, and in theory the two can be compared to determine if the person showing up to vote was who he or she claimed to be.  Problem is, by the time that can be done, that person's ballot has already been anonymized and scanned, so it's been counted. 
   Further, the Democrats DEMANDED hundreds of unattended, unguarded "drop boxes," so obviously there's no sign-in sig that can be compared.
   Of course ballots in drop-boxes are identical to mail-in ballots, and in theory workers at the counting center are supposed to check that signatures on mail-in ballots match the sig voters gave when registering.  But surveillance videos of the computer screens of the workers supposedly comparing sigs show that thousands of sigs were okayed even if they didn't remotely match the one on file.  
   This is how you wind up with ten or 20% more votes counted in a precinct than registered voters.
The Dem-fellating Media never ask Dems how that happened.

  11:  In Fulton County, Georgia, officials said they were halting vote counting, and everyone was to go home.  The alleged reason was a "water main" broke in a bathroom of the counting center.  
  Three problems with this: first, the alleged "water main" was actually a leaking 3/8ths-inch line feeding a single urinal, so wouldn't have been a threat in any case.  Second, maintenance logs show the leak was reported at around 8 a.m. and fixed by 9 a.m, so wouldn't have been causing any problem at 8 p.m. that night.
  The third problem is that after Democrat election officials supposedly stopped counting and told everyone to leave, surveillance video shows at least three workers kept scanning ballots for several more hours.  Two of these workers were Ruby Freeman and her adult daughter.  The latter was a supervisor at the counting center, and the two were seen feeding stack after stack of ballots into scanners for another hour or so after everyone else had been ordered to leave.  One of the two was seen feeding the same stack into a scanner at least three times, without making any new control inputs.

All of the above points are why simply re-adding counted votes is useless to detect fraud:  The problem is that if ballots themselves are fraudulent, simply counting 'em won't reveal the fraud.  Only a "forensic examination" of counted ballots will have any hope of identifying fraud--which is why Democrats have fought any attempt to do such examinations.

The Dems bleat that examining ballots will "violate voter privacy," and that they're heroically fighting to "protect the secret ballot!"  Horseshit.  The identifying info used to authenticate mail-in ballots is separate from the ballot itself, and once the voter info is supposedly authenticated it's separated from the ballot, in which case there's NO way to identify who cast that ballot.

So by lying, Democrats are able to pose as heroically defending ouah sacred right to a secret ballot, when in fact they're using the claim to defeat efforts to discover vote fraud!  

Wokie "influencer" on a NY Times-owned podcast urges pipo to steal from companies

Last April a leftist "influencer" named Hasan Piker appeared on a podcast owned by The New York Times, called "The Opinions."

Piker explicitly, literally urged people to steal from corporations.  He and the two smirking females with him used the cutesy hipster neologism "microlooting" to describe stealing from big companies taking small items, rationalizing it as merely a form of social protest--"a response to perceived structural injustice."

(Clever readers may notice Piker's cunning use of "perceived" there: so the issue isn't whether there actually IS any injustice, just that the thief feels there is.
    Fortunately looters only "perceive" "structural injustice" on days ending in "y."
 
In the too-cutesy hipster-bleat of all leftists, Piker also said he was "pro-piracy," saying he would even "pirate" (i.e. steal) a car "if it were technologically possible."  Of course that's done hundreds of times every day: car theft or even carjacking.  And this communist motherfucker is urging it.

But lest you think this piece of shit is "unethical" or some such for urging people to steal from high-end grocery stores like Whole Foods, Piker piously bleated that he would NOT steal from Mamdani's proposed city-owned grocery stores because those stores will use union labor and public funds.

For those who might have wondered: the communist-loving NY Times did NOT publish a critical word about what its wholly-owned podcast shat out.  Because they're stupid communists who actually support every bit of leftist/Cemocrat horseshit like Piker and his two female suckups spewed.

This is the doomed future under "woke" hipster Democrats who totally rule shitholes like NYC, Chitcongo, L.A., Portland, Seattle, Denver, Philly, Baltimore, Albany, Trenton, Oakland and a dozen other disasters.

Of course wokie hipster Dems like Piker won't be hurt by the famine and destruction, cuz they'll be safely burrowed into government, university and Media positions.  And "influencers" like Piker will still be stealing from the few remaining non-government-owned stores. 

They "influencers" and government employees and university profs and Media "experts" will eat steak.  Unfortunately most of us won't be similarly insulated, so you and your kids will be eating dried mealworms--because after you pay your taxes to support the government hipsters, that's all you'll be able to afford.
  
But don't worry, cuz every single day the Media will run a new story saying how totally healthy mealworms are.  And MSDNC will publish a tasty new recipe for mealworms every week. 

The "tranny mafia"

For years the trannia mafia told us we shouldn't worry about kids under 18 being given puberty blockers, then cross-sex hormones, then what was cunningly called "gender-affirming surgery," because they assured us all these things were vanishingly rare.

Puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, they assured us, were reserved for a tiny number of children carefully assessed by experts to be afflicted with "severe and persistent gender dysphoria."  And that if treatment wasn't started immediately, this would almost certainly lead to suicide.

But when new data start showing that such "treatments" were actually far more common than we'd been told, the tranny mafia suddenly changed their argument:  the new, larger numbers were actually even more reassuring--because now they were large!

Seriously, deplorable!  Cuz having more children asking to get "gender-affirming surgery" means children who were previously suffering but were too scared to ask for "help" finally felt safe enough to ask for the "gender-affirming care" they'd always needed!

Yep yep yep!  Flawless logic, eh?

The latest example comes from Oregon:  A new study analyzed insurance claims for about 869,000 Oregon adolescents ages 8 to 17 over a seven-year period.  They found that by age 17, roughly one in 240 insured Oregon girls was taking testosterone, and about one in 630 boys was taking estrogen. 

Across all ages in the study, about 1.5 percent of insured Oregon girls had been officially diagnosed with some level of "gender dysphoria."

Now, Oregon is FAR from a typical state: it's a total "progressive" Democrat-ruled shit-hole that forces insurance companies to cover all types of claimed gender dysphoria.  So as you could guess, the pro-tranny mafia have turned the state into a cash cow.  

Oregon shows us what happens when supporters of sex-change for children under 18 get virtually no pushback.  It becomes an industry, complete with lobbyists.

The study’s authors don’t view the numbers as alarming in any way.  They still describe "transitioning" as rare, and claim "access remains limited.”  They even suggest that “structural and systemic barriers” may still be holding "treatment rates" down.

So they support "transitioning" your kids, regardless of the data.  As the number of kids being "treated" for "gender dysphoria" rises, they see this as proof that "stigma is declining." 

In other words, they see more kids being "transitioned" as an unequivocal good.  

The tranny mafia claim puberty blockers are harmless and the effects are fully reversible.  That's a lie, and they know it. 

Studies show that if kids who complain that they were "born in the wrong body" are left alone, most outgrow that by age 21 or so.  But giving a kid puberty blockers increases the probability that the child will "fully transition" to more than 97 percent.

These numbers suggest that giving a child puberty blocking hormones makes permanent what would otherwise have been an ephemeral complaint.

We see the same effect when a judge or school demands that parents address their kid by a cross-sex name and agree to buy the child cross-sex clothes.  Both vastly increase the probability of "full transition."

All these are initial steps on a path ending with full "gender-affirming surgery"--as the pushers well know.  But they claim not to see any causal connection.  

The tranny mafia cite studies of patients an average of 2.4 years after "gender-affirming surgery" showing most had no regrets.  The tranny mafia claim this proves that concerns about regret are overblown.  But you'd expect that at just 2.4 years post-op, eh? 

At some point, defenders of "transitioning" kids should be forced to answer several simple questions:  What evidence, if any, would make you reconsider your demands?  What rate of patients "de-transitioning" would you think is too high?

Do you still claim "transitioning" reduces suicidal ideation and mental health?  How many honest studies showing that the evidence of benefit is extremely weak while the risk of serious harm is significant would it take for you to reconsider your demands?

We should have demanded answers long ago, before governments ever started allowing the tranny mafia to perform these medical experiments on children.  But of course no one insisted—because the mafia claimed such treatments were so rare.

Falsifiability is a basic principle of science.  When pushers of a theory claim that no possible outcome can refute their position, they're fraudsters.

Source: City Journal

https://www.city-journal.org/article/oregon-study-pediatric-gender-medicine-transition 

VP of school board in NY arrested on child sex charges

 In New York, the vice-president of a school board--  who bragged that he was the first drag queen elected to a public school board--was arrested on charges of receiving and possessing child pornography.

Travis Barr Longo, 46, faces four counts.

In most places school board members are elected.  Wow, if only there'd been some tiny hint that maybe something wasn't quite right about Travis, eh?

Just kidding.  It's New York, so the guy could have gotten elected even if he'd bragged about being a big distributor of child porn or drugs or being a militant tranny or...well, almost anything.  Except being a Republican.  That wouldn't have worked well in NY.  

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/drag-queen-school-board-vice-153122020.html

One of Momdani's 3 communist DSA candidates who's headed to congress

Meet Darializa Avila Chevalier, a communist who reportedly co-founded a "coalition" at Columbia U called "CUAD"--Columbia University Apartheid Divest.  It summarizes its goals below, and note the first one: "the total eradication of western civilization."

 

She's pro-Paleswinian, converted to Islam three years ago.  As evidence of how woke they are, the "coalition" uses the tag phrase "biplob cholbe," which the "coalition" helpfully tells you is Bengali for "the revolution must continue"--a rallying cry among leftists and revolutionary student groups in Bangladesh and West Bengal, India.

See, the apex of revolutionary chic is to have a slogan that outside of Bangladesh and West Bengal, India, is only known to the Comrades, eh?  The ultimate insider password. 

But really, you had us at "We're fighting for the total eradication of western civilization."  Cuz while "biplob cholbe" may make the comrades' hearts beat faster, it won't win you the votes of ordinary working-class Democrat voters like "...fighting for the total eradication of western civilization," eh?

I'm thinking of union workers who have 200-horsepower bass boats, big new pickup trucks and 65-inch flat-screen TVs.  Yeah, there's a group that'll surely vote for your platform, cuz they're obviously oppressed and suffering under the tyrannical rule of Orange Hitler! 

BTW, if you think the card above, with CUAD's logo and stated goals, is fake--that no communists Muslims in the U.S. could possibly be so dumb as to openly, brazenly admit that they're "fighting for the total eradication of western civilization," check CUAD's X account here.

The thing to note is that these communist Muzz are so totally convinced that they can't be touched (being protected by friendly Democrat judges), even by the DOJ, that they're willing to admit--in writing--exactly what their goal is.  And as the old saying goes, when someone tells you who they are (if it's an "admission against interest") you're prudent to believe 'em.  Post below is from her former X account, which she deleted.

 

Europe coping with heat wave--but no a/c allowed!

As happens almost every summer, Europe is experiencing a major heat wave.  And as always, the pols are blaming "climate change" for this thing that happens every summer. 

I was raised in the southwest U.S, and summer temperatures of 105 or more were common, way back before Global Worming was a thing.  So when a couple of European cities have highs in that range I don't regard that as unusual.  But Europeans can't deal with it.

According to the corrupt, leftist, Chinese-ruled "World Health Organization, summer heat has killed 200,000 Europeans just in the past four years.  That's an average of 50,000 per year.  I'm skeptical, but it's what the WHO claims.  By comparison the United States--where many parts are much hotter than Europe--has had 20,000 heat-related deaths in the past 25 years--an average of 800 per year. 

Why would Europe have 62 times more heat-related deaths than the U.S, eh?

Euro Media recommend dozens of obvious things to survive.  But what they DON'T recommend is turning on the air conditioner--because almost no European houses or apartments have one. 

Euro weenies sneer at the U.S. for the fact that most homes south of D.C. have a/c.

But Europe couldn't support wider use of a/c even if people were willing to pay for it--because they simply don't have enough electrical power to handle the load.  So the governments sneer at Americans for having it, in the hope that their citizens won't demand it for fear of being compared to "wasteful, climate-denying Americans."

Europe can't produce more electricity because the eco warriors refuse to permit it.  So rather than anger the leftists/greens, European pols do as the left demands, which is...nothing.

As with all problems in Europe, the answer is to accept your position as a controlled subject and merely hope your parents and grandparents don't die because they can't cool off. 

Even the average Chinese family has air conditioning--powered by coal-fired powerplants. But European pols refuse to add capacity to allow a/c, due to "decarbonization" and "climate change" and "progressive government." 

The pols claim there's just nothing that can be done to produce enough electricity to prevent heat deaths.  "We just can't do that. That would be acting American, and we won't allow that."

Source: CBD at Ace of Spades

https://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=420274 

Socialists' sweep in New York puts the leaders of the Dem party in a bind. Just kidding.

As you probably heard, all 3 hard-left socialist candidates backed by the communist Muslim mayor of NYC won their Democratic primaries for U.S. House.

Of course you don't live in NYC so why should you care, eh?  Well consider their positions:

Darializa Avila Chevalier demands that the U.S. abolish prisons, abolish ICE, abolish borders, defund the police, and end deportations even for violent criminals. She has called the U.S. an "effing disgrace", and said in a prior social media post "I forgot to get napkins so I just wiped my hand on the American flag behind me."

This creature is so stupid: She claims if someone is convicted of murder in the US they can't be deported--because that would be "double jeopardy," which is prohibited by the Constitution.  And most people have heard about that.  But of course the Constitution's ban on "double jeopardy" means the government can't try someone twice for the same crime.  So she's either stupid or lying, take your pick.

But because 90% of NYC voters are Democrats, she's sure to win in November.

Claire Valdez demands citizenship (thus voting rights) for ALL illegal aliens, demands governments use taxpayer funds to pay for all sex-change procedures, and wants "free" (i.e. taxpayer-funded) health care for all.

Brad Lander demands ICE be abolished, that all student loans (almost $2 trillion worth) be paid off by taxpayers, and that Dems pack the Supreme Court (to erase the current slight conservative majority).

The DSA sweep puts the leaders of the Democrat partei [sic] in a dilemma: Do they support the DSA and risk losing thousands of Dem voters, or do they keep quiet and risk losing a primary to the radical left?  So now all attention turns to Chuckie Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries:  

The betting is that Jeffries will embrace the radical demands of the hard-left Dem Socialists, because he knows if he doesn't, he's likely to draw a DSA challenger in 2028.  And based on Tuesday's sweep, he'd likely lose to the DSA candidate.  So he won't oppose any DSA demand.  Instead he'll tell New York voters he supports the DSA, and will count on the Mainstream Media NOT to broadcast those speeches to the public since that would lose votes outside New York.

Of course his speeches will be videoed, but because you get all your info from the Mainstream Media you'll never see those speeches.  Nice for the Dems, eh?

By contrast, because Schumer is much older and far richer than Jeffries, he's far less concerned about losing a primary, so will almost certainly avoid supporting the DSA, to avoid losing Dem votes across the country.  He'll avoid answering any questions about whether the Democrat party supports the radical positions of the DSA candidates, but privately he'll promise the DSA not to block any of their demands.  Cunning.

The Media would never let a Republican get away with that, but of course the Democrat-fellating Mainstream Media will play along, refusing to ask Schumer any questions about his party's position on the totally radical DSA demands--because the Media want Dems to continue to win nationwide.

Almost no Americans will notice that no "reporter" ever asks Schumer about whether he supports the DSA demands--because most Americans get all their info from what you believe is the totally unbiased Mainstream Media.

It's a hoot.  Like taking candy from a baby. 

New Illinois/Democrat LAW says it will tax websites per USER

Last week the ghastly Democrat who rules Illinois, JB Pritzker, signed a $56-billion budget that includes a new tax.  (For young Americans, a govt budget is a law, and usually very long, so cunning dictators can bury LOTS of bad demands in its 1,600 pages.)

While all levels of government constantly devise new ways to tax their long-abused citizens, this one may be overturned, because it's on publishers.  And the Supreme Court has been striking down such taxes for ninety years.

The new law--buried in a seemingly innocent "budget" would impose a state tax on companies that publish on the Internet, according to the size of their audience.  They call it a “social media platform fee,” paid every month based on “the number of Illinois users from whom the social media platform collects data within a month.”

The bigger the audience, the bigger the tax.

Pritzker expects the new tax to bring in $200 million a year.  

Defending the tax, Pritzker said it “requires companies to pay for the mental health and educational degradation they’ve caused.”  So by his own admission the state is charging internet platforms for the effects of the posts and comments they publish.

But speculating on the exact effects of every post and comment is impossibly complex.  So how it would end up working would be a government committee (majority Democrat, of course) that would score every large publisher and social media website by some subjective guess of "harm."

Short answer: totally subjective.  And if that's accepted, it's the end of any speech the government doesn't like.  

Taxing publishers because they are publishers is one of the oldest tools a state has used against the press, going back to the 1765 Stamp Act on pamphlets and newspapers that helped light the fuse for the Revolution.

Taxes on profits are supposedly uniform.  Taxing inventory is a far goofier concept.  Taxing news-print and ink?  The Supreme Court has said that's a tax explicitly on publishing, and has overturned that and similar laws again and again, including a law that taxed some publications while exempting others, which the new Dem law would do.

The Supreme Court says states can tax income, but that taxes that target speakers for their speech aren't allowed.

The cunning Democrats did find a way to avoid having to define "reader" or "user" of social media platforms, by wording the law to cover the number of users on which the platform "gathers data."  That's brilliant, because every click on a website is recorded and the data sold in some way.  It's a determinable number.  See, Democrat rulers iz reelly clever when they smell money.

But they can't avoid the core issue, which is: If any level of government can charge you for the effects of what you publish, it has implicity seized the power to *evaluate the effects of what you publish.*

Ahhhh.

From there the certain next step is for "the committee" to RULE that posts and comments on liberal websites like BlueSky do no harm at all, so they wouldn't owe any tax, while ruling the opposite for conservative publishers.  

"See, it's totally FAIR, citizen: all based on the harm each publisher causes.  And of course that's determined by totally unbiased Democrat rulers."

Source.

https://reclaimthenet.org/pritzkers-social-media-tax-a-200-million-bet-against-the-first-amendment
 

It's all starting to make sense