A tragic death in a distant country--"allegory"

If you keep up with overseas happenings (spoiler: you almost certainly don't, because you're too busy working to feed your family, and raising your kids) you may have heard about the ghastly death of a 21-year-old girl in Brazil.

Some men were selling "bungee jumps," and she paid 'em to help her bungee-jump off a 130-foot bridge.  Part of the thrill was that instead of just stepping off the bridge, the men would lift her above their heads and walk her out on a plank before throwing her off.

Have you already guessed what happened?

Yep, they raised her above their heads, walked out to the edge and threw her off--without the elastic cord clipped to her harness.
 
See, no one was assigned to hook the elastic cord to her harness.  And no one was tasked to double-check that that was done.  Cuz..."Not my job," eh?  

Photos and videos show the elastic cord coiled on the bridge behind the girl, clearly not attached.  A bystander shouted “Guys, the rope!” as a handful of witnesses—including the girl's fiancé —watched in horror.

But too late:  Video shows the girl being thrown off the bridge to her death as watchers screamed.

For several seconds the three men who threw her to her death don't realize what's happened, and stand around, nonchalant, ready for the next customer.

When they realized they hadn't attached the spring line, two of the men ran off the bridge and fled into the woods.  A nurse who was waiting to jump next rushed to the ground, hoping to save the girl’s life.  

The men who had charged her for the deadly jump were found in a nearby wooded area.  Two claimed they had a “blackout” and didn’t remember attaching the rope.  The third claimed his only job was to hold her legs for the throw.

Now...almost all of you think I posted this to describe one of a hundred cases of negligent homicide that happen every day around the world.  Not even close.  

This is allegory.  If you're over 50 and went to a decent school you learned the meaning of that word by the 8th grade, if not sooner.  If you're under 30 only one percent of Americans know what that word means.  If you know, explain it to your kids.

I posted this because it's the future under Democrat/liberal/socialist "wokie" rule:  Most Democrat pols and their voters have no idea about the consequences of any of their clearly destructive policies.  Yet they continue to use their power in Dem-ruled states-- and in congress--to push those policies--hard.   

Then when the disastrous (and totally predictable) consequences hit, they claim "Dis wuz totally NOT due to ouah excellent policies!  Nope nope nope!  It wuz due to...uh...duh price of oil!  Or Global Worming!  Or gunz!  Or Trump 'colluding wif Russia' to steal duh election frum ouah savior Hilliary!  Yep yep yep!"

You don't believe any of this.  That's because you haven't had the spare time to study world trends, because all your time is understandably used to raise your kids and keep your family fed.  I get it, really.  Not blaming you a bit.  You have the right priorities.

But a tiny, microscopic fraction of Americans who didn't have to worry about money and didn't have kids, have had the time to study the utterly predictable consequences of stupid liberal policies.

Obviously you're free to disbelieve the results of any study--including thousands of hours of study of the inevitable results of stupid policies.  And indeed, half the nation does totally ignore those results--because the Democrat-fellating Mainstream Media deliberately never tells you about the disasters.

Example: Democrats open our borders to 11 million illegal aliens just during bribem's four years.  Add ALL the illegal aliens welcomed into the U.S. by Dems and you're looking at upwards of 30 million.  And while a small percentage become good Americans, most don't--and end up being supported by taxpayers.

Dem pols realize most illegal aliens would vote Dem, since Dems are the party that demands taxpayers give free shit to Dem voters.  So the Dems passed a LAW that everyone who applies for a driver's license would automatically be registered to vote.  Then--utterly predictably--they pushed to give driver's licenses to illegals.

Wow, who could have predicted THAT, eh?

Again utterly predictably, the cost of housing and feeding illegals, and sending 'em to school and giving 'em free medical, goes exponential.  Democrat pols smile smugly and add even more free shit to the pile: free college tuition, free sex-change operations, even for prisoners.  The list is literally endless.

Of course the money to do this--on both the federal and state level--is all borrowed, and now the interest alone on the federal debt is over a trillion dollars every year.  Politicians ignore it, and hope you will too.  Cuz if you never hear about it, you won't worry about it, eh?

And with the help of the cunning, Democrat-fellating Mainstream Media, you never hear about it.  Cuz if you knew, you might vote for politicians who want duh gummint to spend a lot less money, eh?  Democrats and the Media don't want you to know that the federal government has to borrow billions of dollars every year.

Want another example?  (Spoiler: you don't, cuz you don't want to wake up.)  

The Covid "vaccine."  In "old" definitions vaccines prevented people from getting a disease.  Initially the corrupt CDC and FDA claimed that's what the "clot shot" did, so Americans believed them.  But as more evidence emerged that the "clot shot" did NOT keep you from getting Covid, the lying bastards literally changed the definition of "vaccine," so now a "vaccine" is defined as anything that just "reduces your chances of getting a disease."  Ahh.

Next: bribem announced his regime would NOT order Americans to take the jab.  Two weeks later, an agency of his regime ordered every American working for a company with over 100 employees to take the shot.  (You may recall that bribem himself didn't announce this.  It was his Department of Labor.)

Did you even notice the reversal?  Did you care?  Were you angry?  No to all.  You lined up to do what the ruling Democrat regime ORDERED--cuz otherwise they said you'd be fired, meaning your family would starve.

Any of that sound familiar?  No?  Eh, probably just a "right-wing conspiracy story."

Around the same time all Dem-controlled school systems (so almost all school systems) ORDERED your kids to take the jab in order to attend school.  You obeyed, cuz..."the vaccine is both SAFE and EFFECTIVE, citizen!"  It was neither, but you understandably believed both claims, cuz the Mainstream Media didn't disagree.  And you rationalized that "The Democrats and the media nevah lied to us before, right?  So dey wudn' lie about dis either, right?  Why would they claim the 'vaccine' was both safe and effective if neither thing was true?"

Why indeed?

But hey, why try to investigate things that might have happened in the past, right?  As everyone sagely says, "Yew cain't change the past, eh?"  Wow, so enlightened to hear that!

Liberal, Democrat policies--and their utterly predictable results.  Predictably ignored by most voters, with the help of the Mainstream Media.

Don't worry, citizen: If you're over 50 you'll be dead before the most of the really painful consequences hit.  But unless you're one of the elites, may God help your children.

Allegory.  Can't change the past.  But we might be able to relieve a little bit of suffering in the future if only voters would wake up.  Nah, dat jus' crazy talk. 

Source:

https://nypost.com/2026/06/15/us-news/horror-video-shows-bungee-jumpers-cord-was-clearly-not-attached-to-her-and-nobody-spoke-up/

Dems scream that new rules in some states bar food stamps from being used to buy...

PBS--the Public Broadcasting System, long funded by taxpayer dollars--constantly bleats that it totally supports good government policies, eh?  And since it's LONG been known that sugary drinks and foods fuel obesity, diabetes and poor nutrition, you'd think the Leftist/libs who run PBS would support any effort to reduce sugar consumption by young Americans, eh?

So last year, when the head of Trump's department of Health--RFK jr, a former darling of the Left--proposed a new rule allowing states that wanted to STOP allowing food stamps to be used to buy sugary soft-drinks or junk food to do so, you'd think PBS would applaud that, right?  

But because PBS is run by Trump-obsessed Dems, not only did PBS object to the proposal, they uploaded a LONG whiny propaganda piece on the Associated Press wire.  And the AP spewed that out to all newspapers and TV stations in the country.  Here's the core of it: 

The efforts are aimed at reducing chronic diseases such as obesity and diabetes associated with sweetened drinks and other treats, a key goal of Kennedy's Make America Healthy Again effort. 

But retail industry and health policy experts said state SNAP programs, already under pressure from steep budget cuts, are unprepared for the complex changes, with no complete lists of the foods affected and technical point-of-sale challenges that vary by state and store.

Wait, what do the alleged "steep budget cuts" have to do with removing sugary drinks from the list of things consumers can buy with food stamps, eh?  Nothing, as PBS well knows.  So why would PBS mention it as the first objection?  Because they had to come up with something other than "Trump backed it, so we oppose it," since as PBS also well knows, the science is clearly on RFK's side.

Similarly, PBS bleats that states are "unprepared for the complex changes."  Really?  How complex can it be?  There's already a list of things people aren't allowed to buy with food stamps, and what PBS bleats are "complex changes" just involves adding two hundred or so UPC product codes to that list.
   Finally: "challenges that vary by state and store"?   By state, yes, but each state only has to worry about its own rules, not those of other states.  And all stores in each state have the same rules.  No complexity at all.  But PBS wants viewers/readers to believe there are daunting, insurmountable reasons why dis iz impossibly difficult!  Or in the unlikely event it can be done, the alleged complexity will surely destroy most grocery stores!

Now for the topper from the "believe all Science" liars at PBS:

And research remains mixed about whether restricting SNAP purchases improves diet quality and health.

REAL research unequivocally shows sugar consumption is linked to obesity and diabetes.  I don't doubt PBS has an expert from the "Learing Center of Minneapolis" who'll claim his "research shows no benefit from cutting back on sugar consumption, but real experts agree that sugar is bad, especially for kids.
   Wait, it gets better!  Here's PBS again:

The National Retail Federation predicted longer checkout lines and more customer complaints as SNAP recipients learn which foods are affected by the new waivers.

OMG, stop the presses!  "Complaints," y'say?  Stores in states that enacted the new rules have clearly posted 'em, well in advance of 1 Jan, but most stores only posted the new rules in English and Spanish.  What if you're from Mongolia?  A leftist/socialist "expert" wailed,

"It's a disaster waiting to happen of people trying to buy food and being rejected," said Kate Bauer, a nutrition science expert at the University of Michigan.  A report by the National Grocers Association and other industry groups estimates implementing the new SNAP rules will cost U.S. retailers $1.6 billion initially and $759 million each year going forward.

Wow, looks like hell has indeed frozen over, cuz have you ever heard PBS worried about predictions of losses by retailers?  I haven't.  PBS couldn't care less about companies losing money, cuz dey wants the government to run everything, including all grocery stores.  Cuz profits beez eeeebil!  Dat why dey support Momdani's faaabulous idea of New York City building and running city-owned grocery stores!  It'll only cost a paltry $30 million for a single store.  Such a deal!  
  But it gets even bettah!  Duh leftists are screaming that if duh horrible Trump regime "punishes" food stamp recipients by not lettin' 'em buy sugary soft drinks and snack cakes with food stamps, the rest of us will have to pay more for our groceries.  Seriously!

"Punishing SNAP recipients means we'll all have to pay more at the grocery store," said Gina Plata-Nino, SNAP director for an anti-hunger advocacy group.

Let's take a look at that claim: The total value of food stamps issued each year is reportedly $100 billion or so, and every dollar is spent by recipients.  If they can't spend it on junk food, do ya think they'll just not spend it at all?  Of course not.  And if they DO spend it all--presumably on healthier food--how would retailers be losing income?

I'd love for a PBS propagandist to ask Gina Plata-Nino to explain her bullshit claim in detail--but of course that will never happen.  The shithead socialists who run PBS love claiming that the new rules will force YOU to pay more for groceries, and they're gonna run wif dat.

The first food-stamp law was passed in 1964 and later updated by the "Food and Nutrition Act of 2008," which said food stamps could be used for "any food product intended for human consumption," except alcohol and ready-to-eat hot foods.

On several occasions conservative lawmakers proposed stopping recipients from using food stamps to buy luxury foods like steak and lobster, or so-called junk food like potato chips and ice cream.  But Dems always rejected proposals to remove junk food because Leftists claimed any new rules "would be costly and complicated to implement, and might not change recipients' buying habits or reduce health problems."

Now, the research is unequivocal that eating less sugar is good for health.  And while the rules might not change "buying habits," at least recipients would now have to pay for junk food with cash instead of free food stamps, which would almost certainly reduce junk consumption.  But the Dems always easily defeat such simple logic for better health by wailing "Yew Rethuglicans cain't tell ouah voters whut to eat!!!"  

Of course the pro-health people were NOT telling food-stamp recipients they couldn't eat junk food, just that they could no longer use food stamps (taxpayer money) to buy sugary drinks, candy and junk food. 
 
But at last states are allowed to remove junk food from being paid with food stamps-– and they've responded.

The new rules took effect in five states on the first of this year.  Amazingly, despite Democrat predictions that the new rules would cause total chaos because of their alleged "complexity," that didn't happen.

PBS then wails about one food stamp user who says the new rules "will make it more difficult to determine how to use the $298 in SNAP benefits he receives each month, while also increasing the stigma he feels at the cash register."  Horseshit.  You just cant buy junk food with food stamps.  It's not complicated, despite what PBS claims.

But even if the states report significant health benefits, it won't matter the next time the Democrats win the presidency since the Dems will erase the new food stamp rules and put it back the way it was before Trump.

The PBS hit-piece closes with a quote from Anand Parekh, a doctor who's the "chief of health policy" at an enormous state U in a Dem shithole state.  He bleats that "This doesn't solve the two fundamental problems: that healthy food in this country is unaffordable, while unhealthy food is cheap and ubiquitous."

No, you leftist asshole, there's LOTS of healthy food in the U.S, and food stamp users can have it, paid for with food stamps (taxpayer dollars).  But from the beginning of the food stamp program, stupid rules have allowed users to buy junk and sugar with food stamps, even after it was known that the stuff caused obesity and diabetes.  But Leftist pols--Democrats all--have always blocked healthy changes, to curry favor (and votes) from food-stamp users.

The Dems wanna go back to that, and if that causes obesity and diabetes--as it does--they just smile and shrug.  "It's a free country, so we won't let yew make any rulez on whut ouah voters kin buy wif food stamps!  We haz spoken!"  And Republicans understandably won't wanna spend political capital on the issue.

Democrat logic.  "Sugar causes obesity and diabetes.  But we'll wail to high heaven that any policy that might reduce that is AWFUL--well at least if it's a Republican policy."

Source: PBS

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/bans-on-using-snap-funds-for-soda-candy-and-other-foods-take-effect-in-some-states-jan-1
 

How Iran is playing the U.S.--with the crucial help of the Dems and Media

I've been a Trump supporter, but in the dust-up with Iran it's obvious the mullahs are playing him for a sucker.  What's amazing is that it's SO obvious that it's hard to believe neither he nor the people around him realize it yet.

Let me explain: When a president commits to military action, it's no surprise that the party not controlling the presidency objects.  But because enemies eagerly exploit our political division, you'd think rational people (yeah, I know) would keep their objections hidden, because making those objections public obviously undermines the nation.

To repeat: I'm not saying the Democrats shouldn't make their objections known, just that those objections should be kept hidden from the public.  It should be obvious to anyone that going public with those objections only helps our opponents (in this case the mullahs of Iran).

SO...whoever is running Iran knows that the Dems are positively salivating about forcing Trump to surrender, and to be forced to pay billions to Iran and leave Iran in control of the Strait.  Democrats don't give a shit about Iran or the world situation, their only goal is to humiliate and defeat Trump.

As should be obvious, the U.S. has utterly destroyed Iran militarily.  (Of course the thug Hakeem Jeffries and other Dem leaders bleat that the U.S. has been defeated!)  But the mullahs know that with the help of U.S. Democrats they can force Trump to surrender NOT thru military action, but by helping the Democrats regain control of one or both chambers of congress in November.

So the totally obvious game plan for both the mullahs and the Democrats is a) to stall until the mid-terms in November; and  b) to make Trump look gullible, stupid.  The mullahs do this in two ways: One is to say they're willing to sign a peace deal "in a few days."  Predictably, Trump announces this--but then it doesn't happen.  Again and again and again.  And each time, thousands more voters decide to vote Democrat.

The second method is for the Iranian rulers to consistently publish versions of the draft agreement that are totally different from what Trump has said.  Utterly predictably, Democrat leaders and the entire U.S. Media quote the Iranian points as if they ARE what the U.S. has agreed to--like releasing billions of dollars of frozen funds to Iran in exchange for merely starting talks.

Or promising to pay $300 BILLION in "reparations" to the fucking mullahs.  The U.S. mainstream media AND Dem leaders have repeatedly made both of the above claims. 

Maybe Trump and Rubio really are that stupid.  Beats me.  But regardless, the point is that every time Democrat "leaders" or the Media slobberingly parrot Iranian claims as truth, another 100,000 undecided voters decide to vote Democrat...which is why the Iranians are doing this.

Now the counter-measure:  The next time this happens (and it absolutely will), we should respond by dropping leaflets over major Iranian cities saying the following:

1. We understand that the Iranian people don't have any control over their rulers, so we don't wish to make you suffer for their demands.
2. We understand that a few eager IRGC officers may attack U.S. forces or oil tankers without orders.  If that happens, we won't hold this against you; we totally understand testosterone!  So although we will totally destroy those forces, we won't use that as a reason to destroy more of your infrastructure, like powerplants, water supplies and sewage treatment plants, even though we know where all of them are and could easily do it. 
3. However, if your rulers publish a single lie about the terms of our draft agreement, we will quickly (and effortlessly) destroy one of your powerplants.  If they lie about 14 points, 14 powerplants go poof.  We realize this will cause innocent Iranian citizens great hardship, and we apologize because we know you didn't vote to publish the lies.  Sorry about that, really.  We just have no other way to pressure your corrupt, insane leaders.
4. We realize that no amount of damage to your infrastructure will inconvenience your rulers: they have their own generators and food supplies.  They've gone to their caves so we can't kill them.  Besides, it's possible a majority of Iranian citizens may actually support these murderous sons of whores.  We have no idea, and we realize that's entirely your choice.  We also realize that if you wanted to overthrow them, you don't have guns, so you can't overthrow 'em in direct military battles.  But if you don't want them to continue to rule you, if you study history you'll find there are ways.  To name one: gasoline burns very well. 
5. We realize your rulers don't believe we'll follow through on any of the above, so we know they'll test us--perhaps once, perhaps more often.  And we are SO sorry that when they do--as they will--it will make your lives harder.  Really.
6. To end on a positive note: You have the ability to effortlessly produce and sell 3 million barrels of oil per DAY.  That's a huge gift, and you're truly blessed.  And at $75 a barrel, that's $225 million in revenue per DAY, or about $3.7 Billion per month.  That much money can build a LOT of powerplants.  But it's up to you.  

Got it?  No, you almost certainly don't.  Not one American out of 100,000 understands the psychological and economic principles that went into the above.

Oh well.

Just understand this: We will continue to see shit like Iran's mullahs over and over and over again.  Moronic dictators--whether Muslim or communists or socialists or whatever--will ALWAYS try to conquer freedom-loving people.  Politicians will try to exploit the conflict by demanding we surrender to the dictators.

Be it ever thus. 

If you don't understand that, go in peace.  I think "Dancing with the Stars" is on. 

I often joke that because I don't have kids, I don't care how this all turns out.  That's not literally true:  When every nation is under dictatorial rule I imagine the departed spirits will mourn for what was lost.  And it's possible that in a few hundred years freedom will once again see a resurgence.  Beats me.

I've shown you how to confront the dictators.  If you prefer to go Democrat--to ignore the way to win--then enjoy the result you've chosen. 

Typical Democrat: "NOOooo, I din't choose nuffin'!"  Yeah, you did, cupcake--by choosing to believe the utter bullshit pushed by the "leaders" of the Democrat Partei and their lackeys in the Mainstream Media.  

• "Men can be women!"  
• "It's perfectly logical for boys to compete against girls in sports!"  
• "It's perfectly reasonable for taxpayer to give illegal aliens and prison inmates 'free' sex-change surgery!"  
• "It's perfectly reasonable to allow everyone who wants to vote to do so, even if they're not U.S. citizens!" 
• "It's perfectly normal for a precinct to count ten percent more ballots than it has registered voters!"
• "CO2 is causing duh Erf to get too hot to support life!"
• "...well, except in some places, where it's causing record low temps.  Dis beez "Climate Change," deplorables!
• "So if your region is warmer OR cooler than last year, it's caused by CO2!"
• "CO2 produced by Americans is bad; CO2 produced by other nations is NOT a problem!"
• "Yew know the real problem?  Nitrogen fertilizer!  An' duh EU is moving to stop farmers from using dis' awful 'greenhouse gas'!  It beez way worse den CO2!"
• "The obvious solution to ouah problems is...'High-speed Rail," like California!"
• "Those awful Rethuglicans iz upset about a few billion dollahs in fraud in a few states.  An' dey iz blamin' Democrats like duh faaabulous Tim Walz!  Dat jus' AWFUL!"

Dems have their panties in a twist about the UFC thing, but LOVED trannies on the lawn

Just for the record, I'm not a UFC fan, so wasn't a fan of the show on the White House lawn.  But before all you fucking brain-dead, Trump-hating, America-hating, wokie Democrats start whining about "desecrating ouah sacred White House," don't forget that you totally, utterly, completely, slobberingly, fawningly loved THIS shit when the Vegetable was prezzy.  So go fuck yourselves.

And by the way: Not a single Mainstream Media outlet said one critical word about bare tranny boobs on the White House lawn when bribem and the tranny mafia were running things.  But NOW the Media is in full outrage mode.

Shows ya yet again that the Media is a totally Democrat-fellating crew.  As if we hadn't known that for decades. 

More evidence Fauci directed the lie that Covid could NOT have been modified in a lab

June 13, 2026

For three years I've been showing you emails--released by the House Oversight Committee--to and from the corrupt piece of shit Anthony Fauci proving that in the first week after the Chyna virus reached the U.S, all the "independent expert virologists" who depended on Fauci's NIAID for grant money, and studied the genetic code of the virus said it did NOT appear to have "evolved naturally." 

For those unfamilar with virology:  All known coronaviruses have long ago been gene-sequenced--and this was quickly done for the Covid-19 virus.  Turns out it's almost an exact copy of a bat coronavirus that was known to be harmless to humans.  But Covid-19 differed from the harmless bat virus in a VERY curious way: it contained four genes not found in the closest matching bat virus.  Moreover, instead of random letters in the genetic code of the closest bat virus being hit by high-energy particles and turned into different letters, the genetic code had clearly been cut, and the new, fully functioning genes inserted into the "spike protein" of the virus.  

The reason that's obvious is that all the letters of the code on both sides of the inserted genes are identical between Covid-19 and the closest bat virus.  The new genes were clearly inserted.

Finally: all four of the inserted genes made Covid-19 able to "bind" to cells in the human airway far more efficiently than the harmless bat virus.  This ability--alone--is what made Covid-19 lethal to humans.

Without getting too technical, genes are specific combinations of "base pairs" that perform certain functions.  But the odds of getting the code for a functioning gene by random mutations are like the odds of getting a straight-flush in two consecutive poker hands at Vegas.

The odds of getting viable code sequences in four places, just in the spike protein, and with each of the functioning genes making the virus better at killing humans, by random mutations, are virtually zero.

None of Fauci's experts speculated on who did it, and I don't know if any of 'em knew the Chinese army was operating a bio-lab in Wuhan--the known origin of the outbreak.  They simply concluded the obvious: The virus had NOT "evolved naturally."

Unless you're a dumb sumbitch, if it hadn't "evolved naturally" that only left one option.

Fauci knew he'd sent U.S. taxpayer funds to the CCP's Wuhan Institute of Virology, via a cunning "cutout"--Peter Daszak's "Eco-Health Alliance."  And Fauci knew that if this became known, he'd likely be torn limb from limb by enraged crowds of Americans whose beloved family members were soon gonna be killed by the damn thing.

Obviously Fauci would have done anything to avoid that fate.  So something like two days after his lead grant-recipient (Kristian Andersen) emailed Fauci that the virus did NOT appear to have "evolved naturally," Fauci emailed him back, saying he wanted Andersen and his peers to write a paper saying exactly the opposite of what Andersen and colleagues had concluded, and had just told Fauci two days earlier.

This isn't speculation: The House Government Oversight Committee released the fucking email from Fauci directing Andersen to write the paper.

Of course Fauci couldn't literally order Andersen to write the paper Fauci wanted--a paper that would directly contradict what Andersen had told Fauci that Andersen and his peers had concluded.  But since Andersen and his group depended on Fauci for millions of dollars in grant money, the implied threat of losing that funding was obvious.

So the new news is from senator Rand Paul, announced June 11: that then-director of the National Institutes of Health--a truly goofy sumbitch named Dr. Francis Collins, admits that around the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, he knew about and secretly assisted with the drafting of a paper for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, claiming the virus that caused COVID-19 "is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus"--even though Fauci's expert virologists, led by Andersen, had told him the opposite. 

The first email from Andersen to Fauci was in the first week of February, 2020, just days after the first case was confirmed in the U.S.  Fauci replied to Andersen days later, and the team immediately began drafting the paper.  In an email to NIH officials dated March 6, 2020, Collins takes credit for "helping" with the paper:

"This is work that Tony, Jeremy, Larry, and I helped with, but are appropriately not mentioned explicitly in the paper."

"Tony" is Anthony Fauci. 

The first cases of COVID-19 appeared in Wuhan, China, in the fall of 2019, near a laboratory that was conducting enhanced experiments on coronaviruses--experiments funded by Fauci's NIAID (one of five divisions of the NIH).

The paper from Kristian Andersen et al was titled "The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2."  It was published on March 17, 2020, in Nature Medicine, and concluded--quite carefully--that "there is no evidence that the virus was modified in a lab."  

The avoided claiming the only alternative: that the virus evolved its ability to kill humans by totally random mutations, because every virologist would have instantly recognized the obvious absurdity of that claim. 

But claiming "Dere's no evidence it was modified in a lab" was no problem.

The problem is, if Covid-19 had "evolved naturally" from a bat virus, there should be an animal "reservoir" containing the "evolved/lethal" version found in human samples.  You won't be surprised to learn that no animal reservoir has been found.

In 2024 Collins told congress he is not a virology expert.

Significantly, early drafts of the paper had the authors saying it was possible that the virus had been modified in a lab. And in private messages--found and released a year later--the authors said "characteristics of the virus" indicated it was man-made.  Both statements were removed before the paper was submitted, and the authors have defended those removals as being "driven by evidence."

No one has thought to ask them what the alleged evidence was--because Fauci et al want this buried.

Andersen has said his team's paper was "prompted by" Collins, Fauci, and Farrar.  That's designed to muddy the waters, because again, the House released an email from Fauci to Andersen in the first week of Feb 2020 unambiguously asking him to get a team together to write a paper claiming the virus could not have been modified in a lab--exactly the opposite of the team's actual conclusion.  There's no indication that Collins or Farrar had any role in asking Andersen to write the paper. 

In an email previously released, from Collins to Fauci in April of 2020, Collins asked whether the NIH could to more to "help put down this very destructive conspiracy" that the virus had been modified to make it lethal to humans.

"I hoped the Nature Medicine article on the genomic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 would settle this," Collins wrote. "But probably didn't get much visibility. Anything more we can do?" 

Four years later, when the congressional committee asked Collins about the email, he said "I meant we should do what we can to get the truth out there, as opposed to statements that were reckless and speculative that were not based on evidence."  This is ironic since Fauci directed Andersen to write a paper--for publication--that not only totally ignored the astronomical improbability that the virus had "evolved naturally," but concluded just the opposite of what Andersen and company had actually concluded.

Fauci has angrily denied charges that he directed Andersen to write the "Proximal Origin" paper to totally discredit the clear evidence that the virus had been modified by humans.  

But on multiple occasions in 2020 and 2021 he met with U.S. intelligence officials.  This past May James Erdman III, a CIA operations officer, told Rand Paul and other senators that Fauci gave the CIA a list of experts to the intelligence community (IC) should interview, and that the list included the authors of the "Proximal Origins" paper.

Fauci briefed the National Security Council on the virus.  One of the emails just released shows Fauci writing to a National Security Council official the day after he took part in that briefing.

Fauci cites the "Proximal Origin" paper, saying it had just come out in "pre-print," "written by a group of highly qualified virologists," and that it would confirm what Fauci had said in his briefing--that the virus was NOT modified by humans.  He asks the official to "Please show it to your team."

The new emails simply confirm what should already be widely known: that Fauci lied about everything, to hide the fact that he gave money to the Wuhan lab to fund the research that modified a harmless bat virus to make it lethal to humans, ultimately killing over seven million people world-wide.  (Other sources say 15- to 20-million.)

Source:

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/former-nih-head-secretly-helped-paper-dismissing-theory-covid-19-came-lab 

A novel approach

If you had a decent education, even if you didn't take "statistics" you know the name of the curve below: 

 

If you know what this curve means, that's a good start.  If not, you can either keep reading to learn, or go watch "Dancing With the Stars" or some similar shit.

It's called a Gaussian distribution, a.k.a. a "standard normal distribution," or less formally, the "bell curve."  From it we can calculate the percentage of the population that's within a certain number of "standard deviations from the mean," either above or below.

What this curve tells us is that one percent or so of the population is far smarter than the mean.  But the same percentage is far less smart than the average.  So what does that mean?

Well, "smarter" isn't necessarily good, since people can obviously use their intelligence for purposes most Americans would deem as harmful or bad.  (Somalis and other natives of shithole nations don't make that distinction: to them, being able to successfully steal is a sign of superior intelligence.)

For now I'd like to direct your attention to the Left side of the curve.  Specifically, in nature what happens to animals who are either stupid or refuse to learn, eh?

Democrats and socialists: "Wha?  Why wud yew espek anything unusual to happen to such animals, racist?  Dey no different den all duh uddah animals, so why yew tink dey fare any diff'rent den duh uddah animals, eh?"

And there you have it--because in nature animals who can't learn from patterns are often easy prey for predators.

But in advanced countries, governments devote entire sectors of the economy to helping people survive despite low IQ.  So Democrat-ruled cities give free syringes to I-V drug users, cuz if taxpayers don't give free needles to druggies, dey wud share needles wif infected pipo, an' den taxpayers would haf'ta spend FAR more to treat more infected pipo.  See?

The logic is flawless:  Democrats believe society must protect people from the consequences of their own choices, eh?

I wonder: in China and Russia, does the government give free syringes to I-V drug users?  Bet you've never asked that, nor heard anyone else ask it.  What's the rate of HIV or Hep-C infection in those nations?  I have no idea.  You'd think someone would have some idea, but you've never heard a word about it.  Now ask yourself: why haven't you ever heard that asked?

All "woke" Western governments are committed to protecting people from the consequences of their own choices, even when those choices are abysmally stupid.  I totally understand: it's a choice.  But everyone should realize there's a price for that choice: you get LOTS of addicts surviving and having kids.  That drags down the average IQ of the nation AND costs billions.  Wokiez believe that trade-off is totally worth it.  I understand, but everyone should be aware of the price paid--and not just economically.

I suggest there's a middle ground: why not execute all drug dealers? 

Of course Democrats would never allow that, cuz...uh...reasons. 

How much can smart people learn from just one graph?

Here's the graph.  How much can we learn from it?

Note that the numbers plotted above have always been freely, publicly available to anyone.  Smart people instantly see what it means.  But people who want to see the U.S. (as we've known it) destroyed--i.e. most Democrats--either refuse to grasp the lessons, or are too dumb to understand it.  Take your pick.

Oh wait, there's a third option: They don't believe the numbers are real.  Like Dems refusing to believe bribem and Obozo allowed 16 million foreigners into the U.S. (11 million for bribem, 5 million net for Obozo).  "We refuse to believe numbers we don't like," eh?  Yes, always.

SO...what can smart people learn from this one graph alone?

1. Whatever this "oil" stuff is, does the steady increase in demand suggest humans find it VERY useful?

2. Since it's so useful, then with world demand increasing at a near-constant rate, unless world-wide production increases at the same rate, what do ya think that will do to the price of oil?

3. If world supply and demand are perfectly matched, and a few nations produce far more oil than they use, and grow rich by exporting billions of barrels per year to the rest of the world, how long before one of those nations tries to control, say, 30% of the world market for oil, demanding "fees" of a million dollars per tanker to use "their" waterway?

4. If the woke, moronic leftist politicians who rule most countries refuse to slap the shit out of the nation that demands those "fees" to carry oil to the world, what will happen to the world price of oil?

5. If oil is indeed necessary to the world economy, what will a huge price hike do to the world economy?

6. The U.S. has roughly five percent of the world's people but is the world's largest economy.  We also use more oil per person than other nations.  Do you think those two things are related? 

7. If an opponent/rival/enemy of the U.S. wanted to destroy the U.S. economy, would they try to get American voters to hate oil and natural gas?

8. If a very few U.S. politicians (two, to be exact) supported increasing domestic oil and gas production ("Drill, baby, drill), how do you think members of the Democrat party would react?  Would they support increasing U.S. oil production, or would they sneer "Dat not possible!  We CANNOT drill ouah way to energy independence!"?

9. Because using oil and natural gas produces carbon dioxide, could you predict that leftist scientists would begin claiming CO2 was gonna wipe out all life on Erf by making duh Erf too hot to support life (i.e. global warming)?

10. Would it be easily predictable that "international organizations" (the U.N.), totally controlled by rivals of the U.S, would totally support the theory of Global Warming? 

I could do this all day.  All of this was (and is) entirely predictable.  The twist is that China  consumes far more oil than it produces, so has to import a few million barrels per day.  So you'd think the Chinese communist party would support efforts to keep Iran from raising the price of oil, eh?  But they don't.  Instead they support the Islamic Republic of Iran, selling 'em drones and all manner of weapons. 

You'd think that would be counterproductive, eh?  But the CCP hates the U.S. way more than they care about paying a a bit more for oil, so if China can force Trump to withdraw from the Straits, they win a HUGE PR victory.

That's the game plan.  And with the help of Trump-hating Dem shitheads, and the Trump-hating Mainstream Media, they're on the verge of winning.

Here's a prediction: No matter how many concessions the mullahs make, the U.S. Media and the Democrats will spin it as a win for Iran.

Absolutely guaranteed.  Anti-Trump outlets like Reuters and top Dem congresswhores have already bleated that Trump's "deal" gives the mullahs and IRGC everything they want, while getting nothing in return.  After all, that's what the mullahs are claiming--and we know they nevah lie, right?

Guess we'll see.  Except you won't, because the Democrat-fellating Mainstream Media will lie as they always do.

Another prediction: IF an agreement is actually signed, the mullahs and IRGC will claim its terms are totally different from what was actually agreed to.  They can get away with that because they'll post their version of the "agreement" and claim the U.S. agreed.  And the Mainstream Media won't say a critical word.  So Americans will be left to believe...whatever the Media bleats, eh? 

Need a break from the constant barrage of bad news from Dems?

Need a break from the constant barrage of bad news from leftists and Democrats?  Here ya go. 

 

Predictably, shithead leftists/Democrats/destroyers are already bleating that this is AI.  "Cud not be possible!"  Yeah, well, go fuck yourselves you miserable bastards.  

Ethanol--or, how the Dems and Greenies spent billions to do nothing

As almost everyone knows, ethanol is drinking alcohol, and it burns.  A gallon of ethanol produces about 30% percent less heat energy per than a gallon of gasoline.

But because it does burn--and because dumb greenies hate oil and gas with a passion--Democrats and Greenies joined forces to ORDER oil companies to buy billions of gallons of ethanol and "blend" it into the gas you buy.  That's why every gas pump you see carries the sticker "Contains up to ten percent ethanol."

So like magic, they passed LAWS ordering this--and patted themselves on the back, positively glowing with virtue.

Problem is, before the shitheads passed the law it was well known that the cost of a gallon of ethanol (made by letting yeast turn corn syrup into alcohol, then using huge amounts of heat to distill the mash into ethanol) was WAY more than the cost of a gallon of plain gasoline. 

Of course the Greenies and Dems knew this, and knew that voters would revolt if they had to pay more at the pump than they'd been paying before the LAW that gasoline be adulterated with ethanol passed, eh?  But nevah fear, citizen: duh Dems knew how to hide that price increase from dumb voters!  

Yes, citizen, the Democrats knew that through the magic of undecipherable 2,000-page laws that no one ever reads, they could order oil companies to buy billions of gallons of far more expensive ethanol without making the price of gasoline go up! 

See, when you run congress you can hide shit like this.  The answer?  They quietly wrote into their shitty LAW that the EPA would use your tax dollars to pay refining companies to offset the higher cost of the ethanol the Dems ORDERED the companies to buy.  For those unfamiliar with the term, that's called a "subsidy," and in the 1980s and 1990s the gummint paid billions of dollars in these subsidies.

So by the gummint quietly using tax dollars to pay the difference, drivers/voters didn't see any increase!  Is that cunning or WHAT?  But today, with higher oil prices, blended gas is actually bit less expensive than pure gasoline.  So at least there's that, eh?

WAIT...it gets better!  Obviously corn can be used to feed people or livestock--or used to make ethanol, by law.  Turns out 35 to 40% of all U.S. corn production is used for ethanol--which obviously means it's not available for food.  And following the well-known (but not by Democrats) laws of supply and demand, that makes the world price of corn go up a bit. 

Dem/Greenie: "Dat okay, citizen!  World price only go up a tiny bit, an' since we gibs ouah corn to po' third-world nations anyway, it don' mattah much."

Okay Greenies, you got us there.  Then consider that water is getting more scarce in the southwest U.S.  So how much water does it take to make a gallon of ethanol compared to gasoline?

Of course the average Green/Dem hasn't a clue, cuz dey don' doo no research, an' dere masters don' tell 'em...cuz it turns out making a gallon of corn ethanol requires about 990 gallons of water, compared to 5.6 gallons for a gallon of gasoline.

Dem/Greenie: "Uh...wuh...I...uh...Okay, we'll only make dat faaabulous ethanol in the midwest, not in the dry southwest!  Yeh, dat's it!"

See how neatly they pivot, citizen?

Finally: the amount of energy in ethanol is far less than the energy needed to produce it: To produce a thousand liters of ethanol requires about 9.9 million kcal, nearly double ethanol's energy yield of 5.1 million kcal.  [Pimentel et al., 1996] 

In other words, ethanol is a net loss, in both energy and food.  But you can't do shit about it now, cuz BOTH the Democrats and the conservative corn-growing states love the stuff.

Ain't congress great?  And when the Dems win back total control of duh gummint, they're gonna tax oil and gas like crazy, "to save duh Erf!"  Yay!
 

Democrats: "DIE-versity is ouah strength, so we needs mo' foreigners here"

Someone noticed a recurring problem. 

But to be more accurate: It's not "the society" that submissively welcomes the invaders.  It's the politicians who rule that society--whether due to corruption or stupid virtue-signaling.  The pols make the laws (or merely "rules"), then use those laws/rules and their cops to fine or imprison any citizens who dare to balk at accepting the fate decreed by the pols.

For the last 23 years I've been saying "Wake up, ya dumb bastards," but now it's probably too late, because the Left has become thoroughly entrenched as the rulers of almost every western nation.  Here in the U.S. it's Democrats.  Even with Trump as president, leftist RINOs in both chambers of congress vote with the Dems, so the Dems continue to rule.  Amazing, eh? 

Leftist judges block every attempt to deport illegal alien invaders even after they commit violent criminal acts in the U.S.  Fraud by illegals steals billions of dollars every year from Americans and sends the money overseas, where it can't be recovered.

Interesting.

If I had kids I'd be really angry about this.  You probably have kids, but the Dems and the Lying Mainstream Media have convinced you there's no problem.  Nice work. 

Every picture tells a story, eh?  Click to enlarge.

 

Democrats:  "None of the above pics are real!  All were created by AI!" 

Politicians in the UK and Europe have killed their nations

 

"Cultural enrichment," EU-style

 

Democrats refuse to learn any lessons from WW2, demand U.S. accept Iran's terms

In Iran "Mehr News," which is closely aligned with the goofy IRGC, has published what it claims are details of a draft understanding between Iran and the U.S.  Here are those claims:

1. Immediate and permanent halt to fighting on all fronts, including Lebanon.

2. U.S. agrees not to interfere in Iran's internal affairs and to respect the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

3. The full lifting of the naval blockade within 30 days.

4. U.S. will withdraw forces from "areas surrounding Iran."

5. The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz within 30 days *under arrangements set by Iran.*

6. U.S. agrees to end "sanctions" on the sale of Iranian oil and derivative products, and to give Iran full access to all resulting revenue.

7. U.S. agrees to present plans for giving Iran at least $300 billion for reconstruction.

8. U.S. agrees to a 60-day negotiating period aimed at reaching a final agreement covering nuclear issues and the complete removal of US sanctions.

9. Iran agrees not to produce nuclear weapons (which they say they've already done under the old Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty).

10. During the new 60-day negotiation period, the U.S. agrees to not deploy additional forces to the region or impose new sanctions.

11. Before the 60-day negotiation period starts, the U.S. agrees to release $12 billion in frozen Iranian funds, with the remaining $12 billion to be released during the negotiations.

12. [filler]

13. United Nations Security Council shall approve the final agreement.

14. Final negotiations would only begin after the release of the $12 Billion of Iran's blocked funds, the suspension of Iran's oil sanctions and the lifting of the U.S. naval blockade. The final agreement would focus exclusively on the fate of enriched material and enrichment activities, sanctions relief and plans to rebuild Iran's economy.  There will be no discussion regarding Iran's missile program or its support for "resistance groups."
===

Now: Imagine it's April of 1944.  Hitler's air force and navy have been wiped out.  His army has been forced to retreat to defend the German capital, Berlin.  Now imagine Hitler's lackeys broadcasting their *demands* for ending the war--along the lines of the 14 points above, substituting Germany for Iran.

How do you think the U.S. would have responded?

Now imagine it's a few months later, say August 1, 1944.  Japan's air force and navy have been wiped out and all their conquered territories have been re-taken by the Allies, who are now planning to invade Japan.  But with no allied troops having yet set foot on Japanese soil, Japanese hard-liners issue a list of "conditions" for ending the war--along the same lines as the 14 points above.

How do you think the U.S. would have responded?

Young Americans--your highschool-age kids--have *no idea at all,* because the shitty, Democrats-run skool system has refused to tell 'em.  It could have, but refused.  The leftists thought it was WAY mo' important to teach 'em the joys of transgenderism, eh?

*ASK YOUR KIDS* how they think the U.S. and its allies would have responded to the 14 demands above, if Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan had issued those demands in 1944.

Democrat teachers:  "Wuh...wuh...both Germany and Japan DID demand conditions--just like the 14 demands by Iran--to end the war.  And the U.S. agreed to all those conditions, cuz all gud pipo luvs peace, right?  An' it wuz duh U.S. agreeing to those demands that has paved the way for Germany and Japan to become model nations today!  Yep yep yep!"

Hahahahahaha!

Now tell your kids what REALLY happened between April and September of 1944:  In April the Allies forced Germany to surrender unconditionally.  You'll need to explain that this means "without trying to negotiate ANY conditions.

In Japan, on August 6 and 9th, 1944 the U.S. Air Force (yeah, I know) dropped two atomic bombs on two Japanese cities.  A single bomb obliterated square miles of each.  The Japanese surrendered unconditionally.

Now: Iran's navy and air forces have been utterly destroyed.  The U.S. controls the Strait.  Yet the mullahs and hard-liners have the gall to issue 14 DEMANDS to end the fighting.

So why the total difference between the Iranian situation today and that of Germany and Japan in 1944?

The Iranians refuse to surrender unconditionally entirely because of the Democrat partei in the U.S.

The Iranians are confident that the Dems will win the mid-terms, in which case the Dems will DEMAND that Trump surrender and agree to all of Iran's demands.  

We are at a fork in the road of history, folks.

In 1944 everyone knew Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were aggressors bent on taking over as much of the world as possible.  They were advanced nations and *formidable* foes.

The Allies were forced to choose between allowing both nations to continue to take over their regions (i.e. to surrender) or war.  They chose war, led by the U.S.  It was long and hugely costly in both lives and money, but fortunately someone had the balls to make the decision to fight instead of surrender.  And the result is what you see today: both German and Japan are model nations.

But today something's different:  The U.S. is still "the arsenal of the free world," but now the Democrat Partei, fueled not by what's best for the world but by their hatred of Trump, want to force Trump to accept Iran's terms--to surrender to the militarily-devastated mullahs.

If you don't believe that (spoiler: if you're a Democrat, you don't), watch the top Democrat thug in the House, Hakeem Jeffries, claim Iran is winning, and stronger today than before the start of fighting.

You can't believe this shit-head can possibly believe what he's spouting, but the Mainstream Media broadcasts his horseshit without a word of pushback, so the average viewer has no idea what the truth is.

SO...there are two choices: either accept the demands of the Democrat partei and surrender to the demands of the IRGC, or...wipe them out--totally, completely, utterly.  Make the dumb, cunning sons of whores stop this horseshit of playing Trump for a fool.  Bomb one powerplant at a week, forcing Tehran to endure rolling blackouts (like Los Angeles will experience again this summer) to show them reality.

The alternative is the one demanded by Democrats: surrender.

Which option worked to make Germany and Japan into model nations, eh?

Your highschool kids don't know.  Americans under 30 don't know.  Democrats of all ages have no idea.

Let's review: in nature, what happens to animals that refuse to learn, eh? 

African "migrant" to UK pins Irishman to ground, stabs out his eye and tries to behead him. UK gov't response?

They "instruct" "journalists" on how NOT to report what really happened, lest the truth upset people.

For those who didn't see it (i.e. most Americans), a Sudanese "immigrant" to the UK, living in Belfast, Northern Ireland (part of the UK) attacked a local resident, pinned him to the ground with his knees on the victim's arms and proceeded to stab out one eye.  The victim screamed and struggled as the Sudanese attacker stabbed him again and again, and finally started trying to behead him.

The entire attack was caught on video.  The victim is alive but with gruesome injuries.

The noteworthy thing here isn't the brutal, ghastly attack by a man armed with a knife against an unarmed victim; that's just "a day ending in Y."  Happens every day in the UK or Europe, and always the same story: the attackers--armed with knives--are immigrants from Africa or the Mid-east.  Corrupt Labour pols allow 'em to remain in the UK cuz...reasons.  

The noteworthy thing here isn't the attack, but the response of the government of Northern Ireland, which has instructed all media outlets that they should NOT report what really happened, because that could cause residents to be upset at the staggering number of murderous "immigrants" the government has allowed to stay in the UK. 

As we see here in the U.S, the Real Crime isn't that a member of a Favored Minority gouges out a victim's eye and tries to cut off his head.  Nay, to Democrats the Real Crime is noticing the actual, brutal knife attack.  Such a deft inversion of the truth, eh?

"Yew pipo needs t' show some understanding and empathy!  Above all, yew must "Remain Calm" and not make a fuss.  An' to ensure yew don't, we have ordered X and other social media sites NOT to post the actual video of the eye-stabbing and attempted be-...uhh...the 'resolution of the dispute.'  Yeh, dat's it!"

Of course the Labour government carefully avoids saying it will censor stories of attacks.  Heaven forbid!  The Left is FAR to savvy to try that.  Instead they propose to only censor reporting--both by Media outlets AND by citizens on social media--"in times of crisis."

And instantly, half the public is now backing the government, cuz after all, duh guv'mint needs t' be able to change the rules "in times of crisis," right?

"Technology secretary" Liz Kendall has unveiled plans to amend "online safety laws" to allow regulators to "crack down at times of heightened social and political tension."  This would force both Media and social media to "take tougher action on material that could 'incite violence or disorder'."

Sounds so utterly reasonable, eh?  See, govt doesn't want pipo to get upset by reading or seeing details about some "dispute" between a Favored Minority and a local that results in...um..."injuries," eh?

And now the heart of the new move: "It follows growing anger among ministers about Elon Musk's ability to 'amplify' public concern over incidents like this one, or the stabbing murder of student Henry Nowak by another immigrant.

In a statement posted on X site, Ms Kendall identifies the REAL problem:  Not the attempted beheading, but 'Those who use social media to incite violence and disorder."

So not a critical word about the knife attack by the immigrant, but threatening to arrest Elon Musk for not blocking the video that shows the actual attack.

Another shitty leftist Karen--the Minister for Northern Ireland--tips the real problem, saying "I wish people hadn't seen that video."

Of course.

Government sources said the new order would apply to "any material which [the government] considers might incite violence or disorder." 

So what do ya think defines "a time of crisis," eh?

Sure: anytime the consequences of the Labour government's importing millions of barbarians from third-world shitholes results in an attack on citizens.

One prominent Reform UK politician urged ministers to focus on dealing with the causes of public anger rather than trying to police social media.

But Labour Party chair Anna Turley said Musk should stay out of "sensitive political events" like the brutal Belfast attack.  "Everyone in public and civil life has a responsibility to call for calm and not to stoke grievance or hatred or division or tension that puts vulnerable people and our communities at risk."

Staggering: "Let's not worry about the attack, but on demanding that people stay calm and "not stoke grievance or hatred or division...that puts *vulnerable communities* at risk."

Other leftist, open-borders governments accused Musk of being the problem:  Australia's state-owned ABC News accused Musk of ''inciting racial tension'' in Belfast because he didn't censor footage showing the Sudanese attacker gouging out the Irish resident's eye and attempting to behead him.

Amazingly (but predictably) leftist government shitheads are more angry at Musk than at the stabber.

And while the non-elected members of the left seethe and howl about it, leftist Brit politicians just refuse to answer the question of whether they believe beheading is normal:  Labour MP and Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Hilary Benn was asked FOUR TIMES if beheading people is an alien culture.  He refused to answer.

Source: Ace of Spades

https://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=420095 

School adminishits send student home for wearing T-shirt saying...

Can a corrupt, leftist, Democrat-ruled school system ban a student from wearing a T-shirt bearing an undisputed truth?

The U.S. Supreme Court gave its implied approval to that ban.  

In the Peoples' Republic of Massachusetts, leftist comrades in a public school banned a student from wearing a T-shirt saying "There are only two genders."  The school wailed that such a horrible statement on the shirt could "be distracting" to other students, even if true.

The same student later wore a version of the shirt with the word “censored” taped over “two genders.”  The pro-tranny mafia running the school ordered him to change that shirt too or go home.  See, the tranny mafia wouldn't even allow the student to wear a shirt saying just "There are only..."--because of the implication, eh?  This is how paranoid and dictatorial leftist skool shitheads are.

The student's parents sued, but the Boston-based 1st Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the school, noting federal courts have ruled schools can restrict messages that can be reasonably interpreted to "demean a person’s identity" and are reasonably expected to be "disruptive." 

So..."free speech"?  Only speech the Democrats who rule the First Circuit like, eh? 

The parents appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.  The stunner is that effin' Supreme Court refused to hear the case.  Which means schools across the U.S. now have the power to ban students from wearing any shirt that states a fundamental truth.

Democrats:  "NOOooo, dere iz 12 or 37 or maybe 45 'genders,' depending on which Democrat group you ask!  So we skool adminishit can't let a student wear a T-shirt that says dere are only two genders, cuz dat would be 'hate speech'!  An we Dems cain't allow dat, cuz we Dems always believes duh Science!  An' duh Science sez dere are 19 or 42, or maybe 57!  Depends, eh?  Yep yep yep!" 

So the school can flood its halls with rainbow flags and signs declaring it is a “Proud friend/ally of LGBTQ+,” but the school adminishits will ban any student from wearing a T-shirt with a rational counter to the pro-57-gender message.  Got it.  But "free speech," eh comrade?

Jesus.  This is totally insane--and now this stupidity been implicitly supported by the Supreme Court of the United States, by its refusal to take the case. 

If you think the notion of skool admini-shits being in the tank for the tranny mafia is a right-wing conspiracy story, consider this: the article in the shit-left USA-Today rag doesn't mention Boston until the 34th 'graf.  Cuz USA-Today doesn't want the shit-Left dictators to be criticized for being...well,  shit-Left dictators, eh?    

Source: USA Today 

Despite record high spending on skoolz, reading proficiency continues to drop

No one should be surprised that the huge, powerful teachers' unions totally support the Democrat Partei [sic].  And since the Mainstream Media also supports that Partei, it's no surprise that the Mainstream Media is never critical of teachers.  It's like lawyers don't sue other lawyers, eh?  

But amazingly, somehow conservatives were able to create a thing called the National Assessment of Educational Progress.  You never heard about it, cuz...Media.

And in this case "educational progress" is a joke.

Last year the 2024 reading assessment results were released.  And you'll NEVAH guess what they showed!  They showed that 12th grade reading scores were at the lowest level since the yearly assessment began 34 years ago. 

Democrats:

"Dis' mus' be a typo!  Ouah skoolz iz faaabulous!  New York spends $23,000 per student each year, so dat must mean ouah skoolz iz doin' great work, right?

That depends on how you define "great."  Turns out nearly a third of 12th-graders scored "below basic level" in reading, meaning they "likely cannot draw conclusions based on concepts presented explicitly in a text.”  

And it's even worse for lower grades: a recent report from the Annie E. Casey Foundation found that 70 percent of 4th-graders can’t read at a level considered "proficient."

Democrats:

Dis FAKE NEWZ!  Ouah skoolz iz doin' jus' FINE, deplorable!  Dey gotta be great cuz almos' ebry skool an' skool board iz run by Democrats!  We be turnin' out egzackly duh kind of students (and voters) duh nation needs!  Well, at least duh pipo WE need.  So SHUT UP!

Now: Most readers believe the story here is crappy Democrat-run schools and a ghastly waste of tax dollars.  No:  The real story is that you never heard a word about this in the Lying, Democrat-fellating Mainstream Media--and never will.

That should anger you.  But not a single Democrat will be angry or dismayed--because they don't believe it's true.  Cuz as they reason it, IF it were true, duh Mainstream Media wudda sed so, eh?  An' Mainstream Media din' say nuffin'.  And a core belief of stupid people is that "If duh Mainstream Media din' say it, it mus' not be true--cuz duh media's job is to tell us whut's happening, right?"

No, dumbshit, duh Media's job is to support the Democrat partei, period.

Source:

https://futurism.com/future-society/college-students-losing-ability-read 

Every picture tells a story

 

Democrat wailer: "Dis mus' be fake!  Too perfect to be real!  Mus' be AI!  Yeh, dat's it." 

After the job was done, Trump invited ALL the workers to the White House, gave 'em all MAGA hats, and autographed every one of 'em.  From his extensive building experience Trump knows these guys are what make the economy thrive, and he was delighted to show his personal appreciation! 

 

But surely bribem and Obozo invited construction crews to the White House to show their appreciation for... Oh wait...

Nation shocked as jury rules...

 

Every picture tells a story, eh?

 

Cuz it IS ouah strength, right?  I mean, dat's whut duh  Democrats an' Media tell us, every day, 24/7, right?  So MUST be true!  Cuz why wud dey lie about dat? 

The future is determined by actions today. Wait...

 

Of course if you're a Democrat you sneer at that notion: You believe all the illegal invaders ("undocumented Americans") make the U.S. better.  But how, specifically, do you claim the nation better off for bribem allowing 11 million illegals to enter the U.S. during his four years in the White House?  

Typical Democrat: 

>>"Well, ouah government needed to spend money on something other than duh military an' police!  An' woke, enlightened wimmen know dere are too many white children.  An' dey know frum movies an' TeeVee dat raisin' chirren iz not only hard, but slows their rise to bein' CEOs, an' dat wud be AWFUL!  So woke wimmens don' wanna have any, or maybe one at most.  

So SEE?  We NEED all doze immigrants to keep wages down an' rents high!  Dat jus' basic economics, citizen!  Duh "Laws of Supply and Demand," eh?

Besides, today, thanks to ouah Partei's faaabulous policies, wimmen don' need to put up wif' men!  See, gummint gibs wimmens ebrything dey needs, so why would any woman put up wif' a man?  It's so obvious, deplorables!>>

<<Thanks, Democrats!  Now that you explained it to us, it makes perfect sense.