Thursday, July 23, 2026
Grifting race-baiters at it again
Continue reading ...
Monday, July 20, 2026
Before it's memory-holed
As of July 20, it has been about two weeks since the WalMart parking-lot shooting in Florida, in which black woman and a white man were squabbling over a parking spot ... and which ended with the black woman shooting and killing the white man. She hasn't been charged with any crime, and she probably never will be charged, because, while they *both* were assholes and *both* aggravated the situation, there appears to be enough reasonable doubt about his death indeed being a crime. That is, she almost certainly has a strong self-defense defense against any potential charges at any degree.
So, what's my point here? It is precisely this -- the race-baiting grifters will *never* allow this case to be a data-point undermining their "America is inherently RAYCISSS!!!!" narrative. To this day, they lie about the Trayvon Martin case, and the Saint George of Fentanyl case. and the Karmelo Anthony case, and on and on. But *this* case goes down the memory-hole.
Continue reading ...
Wednesday, July 15, 2026
Saying the Quiet Part Out Loud
In the linked Michael Knowles video, he plays a clip of Elissa Slotkin (D-Commiesville) saying this about the SAVE Act: "[It will] literally allow this administration to rig Our Democracy [TM} so that it would be hard for any Democrat in any State to win any election."
Of course, this assertion is both absurd and a lie. The goal of the SAVE Act is to reduce, with an ultimate goal of eliminating, the casting of illegal ballots/votes in federal elections. But, consider the "fear" she is voicing: if illegal votes are eliminated from federal elections, then all Democrats in all States will be hard-pressed to win any elections. Really? Democrats in California, Washington, Oregon, New York, New Jersey, all the New England States, Illinois, Minnesota, and down the line will be hard-pressed to win any elections if the SAVE Act is enacted. Look, one doesn't need to be a rocket surgeon to understand what she's really saying, what her fear really is: Democrats "winning margin" may well come from illegally cast and/or illegally counted ballots.
She goes on the repeat the Dem talking-point (i.e. lie) that the SAVE Act would "disenfranchise all married women in the meantime, by the way."
Here is how you can tell that the Dems themselves don't believe that particular "talking-point" -- According to Pew Research, linked below, 50% of married women vote or "lean" Republican, but only 45% of married women vote or "lean" Democrat. According to the internet, there are approximately 68.45 million married women living in the US. Here's the math:50% of 68.45 million is 34.225 married woman who "lean:" Republican, and 45% of 68.45 million is 30.8025 million married women who "lean" Democrat. So, that's 3.4225 million more married women who "lean" Republican than "lean" Democrat.
So, if the Democrats *really* believed that the SAVE Act will disenfranchise all married women, they would be supporting it. After all, from their point of view, what's not to love about the delicious irony of a Republican initiative which results a net loss of 3.4225 million Republican votes?
Michael Knowles: Democrat ADMITS Election Fraud Is How They Win
Pew Research: Partisanship by gender, sexual orientation, marital and parental status
Continue reading ...
Wednesday, July 8, 2026
Some Questionable Family History for my Cousin
Continue reading ...
Monday, July 6, 2026
"Hamilton won in the end."
"Hamilton won in the end."
Much of that is due to Jefferson's own flawed character. Examples:
-- Hamilton and Jefferson almost always offered Washington opposing viewpoints/advice, but Hamilton backed up his recommendations with data and argument; Jefferson did not.
-- Jefferson, pissed that Washington almost always took Hamilton's recommendations over his own, began a "whisper campaign" against Washington, accusing him of being senile.
UNDERSTAND, this was while he was still Washington's Sec. of State -- rather than doing the honorable thing and resigning the office when he found himself in constant opposition to the President's policies, he started the State Department's venerable tradition of undermining the sitting President's policies.
The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters: 250 Years of America
Continue reading ...
Saturday, June 27, 2026
That Was Then (and Them), This Is Now (and Us)
Two hundred years ago, there was money to be made "harvesting" the teeth of the battlefield dead to be used to make dentures for the wealthy. We today think that barbaric and ghoulish.
Today, there is even more money to be made "harvesting" the vital organs of the roadway not-quite-dead to be transplanted into the bodies of the wealthy-by-world-standards, and then more money to be made by keeping those people on immune-suppressant drugs for the rest of their lives. And we think this civilized and humane.
Isn't that odd?
Continue reading ...
Saturday, June 13, 2026
'Melo' vs Chow
As far as I'm concerned, 14 years old is old enough to face the death penalty for this sort of thing.
Concerning the recent SC case over which the black racists and their leftist puppet-master were freaking-out, wherein 'Rick' Chow was found not guilty of murder in killing the 14-year old black kid whom he said had pointed the gun he was carrying at Chow's son --
We *all* know that the illegally armed 14-year old black kid was trying to screw up his courage to commit armed robbery. in the end, he couldn't (yet) bring himself to do it, so he ran.
Now, certainly, if the Chow men had not pursued the felon-in-waiting, he wouldn't have died in 2023. Though, it is an open question whether he'd still be alive today; whether the realization of what he had attempted to do would have, on its own, "scared him straight", or whether he'd have doubled-down on criminality and gone on to murder some innocent.
Now, also consider this: Karmelo Anthony -- who, from the very start, was *obviously* guilty of murder -- was allowed his freedom, at a vastly reduced bail, in the year between the murder and the trial. On the other hand, 'Rick' Chow -- who had a credible claim of self-defense, and who eventually prevailed at trial -- was forced to rot in jail during the three years between the killing of the junior thug and the "not guilty" verdict.
Why is that? We *all* know why that is.
Gateway Pundit: 14 Year Old Arrested for Armed Robbery on Kids’ Lemonade Stand in Boston
Continue reading ...
They're calling him 'Melo', but 'mellow' he was not
I wonder -- If some national news organization were to actively treat black-on-black murder not with a yawn, not as a mere local event of no wider significance, but were to report every single one, anywhere in the country, with the same intensity that "the media" treats even the most minor of the actually rare white-on-black crime, would the black racists who refuse to admit the truth about [any number of cases, not limited to the Karmelo Anthony murder case] *finally* shut the hell up about Muh Oppression?
There is currently so much black-on-black *murder* in this country, to say nothing of lesser crimes, that I expect one could run a 24-hour news channel devoted strictly to reporting on the murders and not lack for material to report.
Continue reading ...
Thursday, April 30, 2026
On a recent misrepresentation of a century-old "miscegenation" case
When asked about Italians and Spaniards, Pipoly claimed they were not considered white over a century ago which caused Alito to quip, “You have a really broad definition of who’s white and who’s not white.”
Pipoly's intellectually dishonest response is rooted in a leftist misrepresentation of [and also grievance-mongering by some persons of Italian descent about] the 1922 Rollins v. Alabama "miscegenation" case from a century ago, which overturned a trial court's conviction of an interracial couple of violating Alabama's then-law against interracial marriages on the grounds that while the State had established that the woman of the couple had been born in Sicily, it had not established that she was "white". The practical effect of this decision was to make Alabama's "miscegenation" law moot, without explicitly over-turning it.
Gateway Pundit: Justice Samuel Alito Humiliates Leftist Lawyer With One Brilliant Question After He Asserts That Trump Ended TPS For Migrants For Racial Reasons
Continue reading ...
Monday, March 16, 2026
A Real-Time Example of Unhinged/Irrational Jew-Hatred
First, here is a comment someone made to the YouTube video linked below --
These 2 are mouthpieces of Israel, they will tell lies like pushing democracy and will counter signal nationalism whilst promoting nationalism in Israel.
Next, here is my transcription of what Haviv Rettig Gur said at @10:44 mark --
I want 'International Law', I wish we had 'International Law'. Do you know what 'International Law' would mean? ... Palestinians? What the Hell has 'International Law' ever done for them? Has it protected them against Israel? Has it protected them from Lebanon, which for decades had laws on the books [... which] treated the Palestinian refugees, for four generations, in Lebanon, the way the Czarist regime treated the Jews ... Where was 'International Law' to protect Palestinians, either from us [Israel] or from anybody? ... Well, why didn't the Arab world take in any refugees from Syria? Why [do] Germany, Britain, and France have to take in more than all the Arab world combined; each one of them, on any given month, more than the Arab world ever has?
As you can see, what the man actually said is the direct opposite of what the Jew-hater asserts that he (habitually) does. If you pay attention, you'll see that this is a recurring theme amongst Jew-haters.
By the way, there is no such thing as 'International Law'. And, unlike the speaker, I don't want there to be such a thing, because I distrust the people who rule foreign countries even more than I distrust the ones who rule ours. As he rightly says, a "law" which cannot be enforced -- you know, with force -- is not a law.
To the very limited extent that there ever will be such a thing as 'International Law' in the foreseeable future, 'International Law' is whatever international agreements or obligations the United States is willing to expend treasure, and possibly lives, to enforce.
Winston Marshall: “International Law” Doesn’t Actually Exist and The World ABUSES It | Haviv Rettig Gur
Continue reading ...
