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.

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

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

Epstein Could Not Have Hanged Himself

This is how we can know -- without possibility of error -- that Epstein did not, and could not have, killed himself:

They -- the government officials -- reported to us that he was found hanging by the neck from the railing of the upper bunk, with his heals on the floor before him and his buttocks suspended in the air.

Allow me to repeat the key point: "with his heals on the floor before him".

THAT IS: regardless of his hypothetical dedication to murdering himself by suffocation, when the suffocation-panic set in, his BODY would have overridden his WILL, and he would have stood up and loosened the noose around his neck.

It is physiologically impossible to hang yourself to the point of suffocation and death so long as you can get your feet under yourself and your hands are free to remove the constriction to your breathing. Why do you think that suicides have to jump off a chair?

Stop Telling Little Girls "You can be anything you want to be!"

Women should not be cops. No woman should be a cop, but especially short, fat women, who can't even kneel, should not be cops. Once a female cop enters the "situation", the likelihood that someone is going to get shot, and generally unnecessarily, dramatically increases.

For that matter, the male deputy in this situation doesn't appear to be all that fit, either.

The insanity on view in the body-cam footage -- the female deputy's unnecessary shooting of the criminal, and her endangerment of the male deputy's life -- lies ultimately at the feet of the high-level bureaucrats and politicians who care more about their damned DEI spreadsheets, and thus their raises and promotions, than they care about the lives of the citizenry, or of the cops, or of the criminals.

EDIT:

Apparently, the criminal died. While it's true that I have no sympathy for criminals, the fact remains that his death was utterly unnecessary ... and he's dead precisely because the raises and promotions of high-level bureaucrats follow from their DEI spreadsheets.

PS:

The criminal's relatives are going to file a wrongful death suit against Harris County (Texas), and they're going to win a massive pay-out. And who is on the hook for that? As always, the taxpayers, but never the politicians and bureaucrats who are causing the problem in the first place.

PPS (2025/05/30):

To be clear: it appears in the video that the fellow was initially cooperating with the deputies. It appears that he started resisting and fighting when she tried -- recall: short, fat, can't kneel -- and failed to cuff him. It appears that she twisted his arm into an unnatural and painful position, and that that is when he started fighting. It appears that the entire escalation, and his resulting death, is due to her inability to do a job for which no woman is really qualified.

Hodge Twins: Female Cop Just Stands There While Partner Fights Suspect Alone

Exploding the Myth of "Three Co-Equal Branches of Government", with Stephen Miller

Please understand what Stephen Miller is saying in the linked video.

Well, the Constitution is clear. And, that [i.e. the Constitution] is. of course, the supreme law of the land. ... Look, a lot of it [i.e. suspending habeas corpus with respect to illegal aliens] depends on whether the courts do the right thing, or not. At the end of the day, Congress passed a body of law, known as the Immigration and Nationality Act, which stripped Article III courts -- that's the Judicial branch -- of jurisdiction over immigration cases.  So, Congress actually passed -- it's called 'jurisdiction stripping legislation'.  They passed a number of laws that say that the Article III courts aren't even allowed to be involved in immigration cases.  Many of you probably don't know this.  I'll give you a good example: Are you familiar with the term 'temporary protected status', or TPS, right?  So, by statute, the courts are stripped of jurisdiction from over-ruling a presidential determination, or a secretarial determination, on TPS when the Secretary of Homeland Security makes that determination. So, when Secretary Noem terminated TPS for the illegals that Biden flew into the country, when courts stepped in, they were violating explicit language that Congress had enacted saying they [i.e. Article III courts] have no jurisdiction. So, it's not just that the courts are at war with the Executive branch, the courts are at war -- these radical rogue judges -- with the Legislative branch as well, too. ...

Understand -- Article III courts are the normal courts of the federal Judiciary branch: the single superior court [i.e. so-called "THE Supreme Court" (*) ] and the various inferior courts that Congress has, from time to time, established pursuant to Article III.

Understand, what Stephen Miller is discussing here is Congress' power, under Article III, Section 2, to limit, or even strip, the jurisdiction of the federal courts (**) over all but a few specific sorts of cases as explicitly enumerated in Article III, Section 2.

Understand -- the "Three Co-Equal Branches of Government" dogma that we all were taught in high school civics class is not only a myth, but a lie, and a pernicious lie at that. The lie was invented by lawyers/judges (***) to disguise their imperialistic power-grab over the other branches, and indeed, over our very lives.

So, since the three branches of the federal government are not "co-equal", where does that leave us? It leaves us where we always were: the three branches each have explicitly enumerated powers -- and no powers not explicitly enumerated -- and the Congress is the "supreme" branch.  That the congresscritters do not want to do their jobs is another matter ... and, in the end, the fault lies with the electorate for allowing them to shirk their duty.

(*) As I have pointed out repeatedly, Article III of the US Constitution does not create "THE Supreme Court". Rather, it establishes "one supreme Court" -- one highest-level or superior court -- and as many inferior courts as Congress may decide to create.

This is the text of Article III, Section 1 (emphasis added ):

"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

(**) This is the relevant text of Article III, Section 2"

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

(***) Understand -- No matter the legal system, the lawyers of that system *always* eventually seek to corrupt the law to make it serve their own interests. Also remember -- judges are just lawyers who dress funny.

Tim Pool: Stephen Miller Says Trump SERIOUSLY CONSIDERING Suspending Habeas Corpus

When is a "Refugee" not a Refugee?

Isn't this odd --

1) Illegal aliens from Central and South America (and from all across the world, actually) -- from countries which are poor, certainly, but in which people are not being murdered for political reasons -- who, were they actually "refugee", have traversed any number of "safe" countries, in which they were required by "International Law" (such as it is), flood into America ... and the leftists insist that they are "refugees" who *cannot* be sent home.

2) The Trump administration is attempting to allow Afrikaners -- white South Africans who *are* being murdered for racist political reasons, and with the connivance of the South African government -- to *legally* come to America as refugees ... and those same leftists mock their designation as "refugees".

Why, one might get the impression that leftists hate white people as much as they hate America. 

Even Infinite Buckeroos Will Not Feed Us

In the linked video, Dan Tubb of LotusEaters.com discusses "Modern Monetary Theory", the insane socialistic hyper-Keynesian "economic theory" by which our rulers are destroying us.

My comment/response --

The *point* of an economy is not to "add value", but rather to generate/create wealth. Certainly, "adding value" ... well, adds value. But, if there is not an underlying and robust generation of wealth to which to "add value", then everyone dies, no matter how much "value" is being added as we all die. In the "buckeroo" pseudo-economy, no wealth at all is being generated; that "economy" is nothing more than an accounting trick. Moreover, in its interface with the real economy, it almost certainly destroys wealth, rather than creating it. For, of a certainly, whatever tasks the students do at the hospital to earn the buckeroos will be either pointless waste-of-time make-work, or something that regular employees are already being paid to do. While the "work" the students perform to earn those buckeroos may potentially be "useful" (or not), that work's relationship to the real economy of wealth-creation is no different than if they were made to dig holes one day, and fill them in the next. Now, hospitals are certainly nice things to have, and a well-run hospital "adds value" to its community. BUT, hospitals do not generate wealth; rather, they consume wealth. In that regard, hospitals are luxuries: we cannot have hospitals unless and until we have an underlying economy producing enough excess wealth to support siphoning off enough wealth to fund the hospitals.

Dan Tubb, LotusEaters: The Nonsensical Economic Theory That Affects Your Life

It's an odd world

What an odd world we find yourselves in.

According to many judges (*), including those on the highest court, we mere US citizens do not "have standing" to petition the courts (i.e. said judges) to order that the laws be faithfully enforced by the persons whose sworn duty it is to faithfully enforce the laws. BUT, according to that some gaggle sort of judges, lawyers and NGOs (often, or even exclusively, funded by monies forcefully extracted from us citizens), DO "have standing" to petition the courts (i.e. other lawyers, the ones who dress funny) to FORBID the faithful enforcement of the law.

(*) And remember, judges are just lawyers (**) who dress funny.

(**) Further remember: No matter the legal system, the lawyers of that system will *always* attempt to corrupt it to serve their own interests.

The Absurdity of "Judicial Review"

The point, THE WHOLE POINT, of the US Constitution is to delineate the powers of the federal government and to limit its ability to interfere in our lives. But, of course, since governments are just men, and since all men are sinners, all governments seek continually to increase the monies they extract from their subjects and to increase their ability to interfere in the lives of their subjects. That is, all government is forever and always the enemy of the liberty of the people. Government is necessary, but it it nonetheless an evil; and that must never be forgotten.

This is why the very concept of "the federal courts interpret the Constitution" is absurd; doubly so: It's absurd because to "interpret" the Constitution JUST IS to change its meaning; and it's absurd because the courts are themselves agents of "the government."

The US Constitution is a compact, an agreement, between the States and The People; the US federal government is created by the Constitution and is the CREATURE of the States and of The People. Consider how absurd it would be if a number of persons agreed amongst themselves to create a corporation, and drew up its charter, its rules of operation ... and then the *agents* of that corporation asserted that *they* have the power to "interpret" that charter over and against the principals of the corporation.

This is the text of the linked item:

"The year was 1942, and an Ohio farmer named Roscoe Filburn was growing wheat on his own property and feeding it to his own animals. This wasn’t some big commercial operation—Roscoe was just trying to make a living, keep his farm running, and feed his livestock. But the federal government had other ideas.

See, back then, the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 set quotas on how much wheat farmers could grow, all in the name of stabilizing prices during the Great Depression and World War II. Roscoe, though, grew more than his allotted amount—not to sell, mind you, but just for his own use.

The feds caught wind of this and fined him. Roscoe fought back, arguing that what he did on his own land, for his own consumption, wasn’t their business.

The case climbed all the way up to the Supreme Court: Wickard v. Filburn. In a unanimous decision, the justices ruled against him. They said that even though Roscoe’s wheat never left his farm, it still affected interstate commerce. How? Because by growing his own, he wasn’t buying wheat on the market, which impacted supply and demand nationwide.

It was a stretch, but the Court bought it, expanding the Commerce Clause to give the government power over pretty much anything that might touch the economy, even indirectly.

Roscoe paid the fine, and life went on, but that ruling stuck. It’s been a cornerstone for federal overreach ever since—everything from regulating backyard gardens to mandating health insurance.

So when you’re mad about the Supreme Court, just remember: they’ve been finding ways to justify big government for over 80 years. Roscoe’s wheat didn’t stand a chance, and neither do most of us when they set their minds to it."

https://gab.com/americaneducationfm/posts/114206273415144633

What Is Your Citizenship Worth?

Will American citizens *ever* get it into their heads that the Democratic Party is the sworn enemy of the American People and of our Republic? Or are too many Americans content to vote against the interests of their children and grandchildren, so long as they are told that "the rich" are being made to suffer?

Will black American citizens *ever* get it into their heads that the Democratic Party *despises* them and is *using* them as a cats paw? Or are too many black Americans content to cut off their noses to spite their faces, so long as "the white man" is made to suffer?

EDIT (2025/06/06):

The Democrats are now openly/explicitly calling illegal aliens "undocumented citizens". No one who has been paying attention can be surprised at this, as making your citizenship worthless has been their over-riding goal for many decades now.

So, again: "What Is Your Citizenship Worth?"

"It's Un-American" - 19 Democratic State AGs Sue To Stop Trump Blocking Non-Citizen Voting

Doom, All the Way Down

This -- adults brow-beating 12/13 year-old girls to change clothes in front of a boy -- is the world that *women* demanded. And it will not be solved until *women* abandon feminism, root and branch.

By the way, the late Phyllis Schlafly -- remember her -- *warned* us that if the ERA were ratified, that *this*, and worse, would be among the inevitable results. Thanks in large part to Mrs Schlafly, the ERA wasn't ratified ... but the leftists figured out how to use the "Civil Rights Act of 1964", coupled with judicial imperial over-reach, and the craven acquiescence of elected officials, to achieve the same vile goals.

Things are only going to get worse unless *women* reject feminism, and that must include refusing to vote for *any* Democrat or *any* RINO. And, it most assuredly means abandoning the immoral claim that women have a right to murder their babies.

Matt Walsh: Mom Reveals HORRIFYING Details Of Woke Middle School Corruption

Where Are All the Democrats, So Quick to Stir the Pot At Any Other Time?

I wasn't able to speak for hours when my father died. I can't imagine how difficult it would be to speak after losing a child in such a horrible and senseless manner.

The answer to the question posed in the video's title is: No. And we all know it, and we all know why, and we all know how things would have gone were the races reversed. And we all know the why of that: Democratic Party racist hypocrisy.

Where is B Hussein "If I Had a Son" Obama? Where is Ben "Can I make It Worse?" Crump? Where is Elie "Q-Tip" Misstal? Where is Al "Oddly Slim of Late" Sharpton? Where is Joy "Less" Reid? Where is Don "Wanna Snif?" LeMon? Where is Cory "Spartacus" Booker? Where is Keith "Tanktop (if you know, you know)" Ellison? Where is Jasmine "Ratchet" Crockett? Where is Hakeem "Dimestore Obama" Jeffries? Where is Ayanna Pressley? Where is Kamala "Middle Class" Harris? Where is Maxine "Mad Max" Waters?

Where is Chuck "We Will Win! We Will Win!" Schumer? Where is Nancy "I Got Mine" Peolsi? Where is Adam "Lying Pencilneck" Schiff? Where is Tim "Timpon" Walz?

Surely, these notables (and so many others I haven't named) have some Words of Wisdom to share with us!

Quartering: Will Cities Burn For Him? White Track Star SNUFFED Out By Thug Over Sitting In The Wrong Seat

Fox: ‘HUG YOUR BABIES TIGHT’: Grieving mother, brother of murdered teen speak out

Further Doom

This is why America is doomed -- men don't have the balls to say "No" to the lies, intellectual dishonesty, and ever-escalating demands for special treatment -- disguised as "equality" -- of women.

This isn't about "rights for parents in Congress" -- whatever the Hell that is supposed to mean. These bitches and bastards were not elected to Congress to "be parents", they were elected to SHOW UP TO WORK, to represent the people of their district in Congress. And they don't want to do that; rather, they want to *expand* Nancy Pelosi's corrupt "proxy voting" scheme.

As one person said -- "$150,000 a year and you can't afford a babysitter? Figure it out or resign."

Speaker Johnson suffers defeat in his push to block new parents in U.S. House from proxy voting

Here is a Democratic Party congresscritter @16:00 mark whinging about her desire to subvert-and-evade her duties as a US Representative, but still get paid --

Serious people -- adults -- don't even *use* the words 'mom' and 'dad' in a serious public setting, much less apply those words to themselves. Those words are for the familial setting, and especially when speaking to children.

GOP Reps DEFECT, Joins Democrats To BLOCK TRUMP, Want SPECIAL Rules For Women, GO FULL WOKE

Congresscritters ... and Public Accusations, While Shielded From Liability

Back in February (of 2025), Congresscritter Nancy Mace (R-Feminism) used -- misused -- her congressional immunity from legal liability to accuse four men of some terrible crimes -- 

Nancy Mace Makes EXPLOSIVE Sexual Assault, Voyeurism Allegations On House Floor

Apparently, she has a habit of accusing people (which is to say, men) of various foul deeds. She accused a fifth man of assaulting her during an event at the Capitol last year. On Tuesday (2025/04/01), federal prosecutors moved to drop charges against this man: Charges dropped against Illinois man accused of assault by Rep. Nancy Mace

Note this quote from the linked article:

Several eyewitnesses disputed Mace’s characterization of the Dec. 10 incident, suggesting it looked like a “normal handshake.”

A few days ago, I had seen a YouTube video which purported to show the video of the encounter.  IF that video was indeed a record of the full encounter, then I have to agree with the above quote.

Apparently, this most recently accused man is a "trans-rights activist" -- which means that he is as despicable as she is. But, this intellectually dishonest game of "Won't You Strong Brave Men Protect Poor Little Me No Matter What Accusation I Make?" played by feminists, in general, and she, in particular, must be called out, and it must stop.

Why America Is Doomed

These sorts of abominations (as see the linked 'X' post) sprout from the anti-Constitutional Civil Rights Act of 1964, and they are rooted in the 17th (Popular Election of Senators) and 19th (Female Suffrage) Amendments. That the federal government is killing the nation via taxation and reckless deficit spending is rooted in the 16th (Income Tax / Direct Taxation of the People) Amendment.

And this is why America is doomed:

1) Almost no American man is willing to acknowledge that Female Suffrage was a civilization-ending mistake, lest women whine at him;

2) Almost no "conservatives" are willing to acknowledge that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is fatally flawed, and that it is the basis by which the commies are undermining our liberties (and very much including the liberties of black Americans), lest the communists call them racist.

=====

LAWFARE: An Obama-appointed judge has blocked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's mandate, which required all U.S. soldiers to meet uniform physical fitness standards, ruling that it discriminates against those who are not physically fit.

=====

Post on 'X'

Have I Changed, Really?

 Recently, I posted a semi-meme on FascistBook, which said this: 

"Democrats, please clam down. Musk can't become President. Unless ... he can find the guy who made Obama's birth certificate."

A few days later, a woman I had known in college (i.e. 45+ years ago), made this comment, attached to the above:

"Troy, what has happened to you? The guy I knew in college wasn't full of spite and meanness. Do you really think this is helping anything? I guess "love your neighbor as yourself" is just a nice little phrase reserved for Sunday school. It's crap like this that is driving young people away from the church, and vitriol never won a single soul."

Now, this is the same foolish and absurd woman who, in 2016 (*), I think, though it might have been in 2220 (**), said something on FascistBook to the effect that she couldn't fathom how people who call themselves Christian could even consider voting for the man who said the sort of things about women that he had said.  She was referring the the "leaked" "Access Hollywood" tape, in which Trump had crudely -- but accurately -- stated a basic truth about women in general, and certainly about the sort of women who gravitate to the circles in which he moves.

This foolish and absurd woman accuses me of being "full of spite and meanness", in apparent contrast to what she imagines I was like 45+ years ago.   I am, in fact, a very kind man, as I always have been ... but I no longer hold my tongue in the presence of lies and intellectual dishonesty, as I did when I was a conflict-avoidant youth.  You could say, I have grown into myself.

But, so too has this foolish and absurd woman grown into herself. You see, way back in 1979 or 1980, I noted to myself the trajectory she was on.  One spring day before I graduated (so, probably 1980) both Debra and I happened to be hanging out in her mother's office (oh, that poor woman!), and she opined about how it was the moral duty of mankind to protect and preserve every living species.  I said nothing to the contrary, because as a boy and young man I was extremely conflict-avoidant, but I thought to myself, "I can think of any number of species I'd eradicate in an instant, if I could."

"It's crap like this that is driving young people away from the church, and vitriol never won a single soul."

This foolish and absurd woman isn't concerned with saving souls -- she supports the Party of Baby-Murder, she supports the Party of Enforced Sexual Perversity, she supports the Party of Sexual Mutilation of Children, she supports the Party of Destroying the Working-Class (****), she supports the Hate America First Party.  I could go on, but you get the picture -- she supports the Party of The Lie; everything follows from The Lie.

In truth, it's only "crap like this" -- speaking the truth, no matter how loudly the leftists shriek -- which has any chance of drawing young people to Christ.

No, it's not me being "full of spite and meanness", to which this foolish and absurd woman objects, but rather that I mock the lies with which she chooses to swaddle her mind.

(*) when the presidential choice was between Trump (a '90s Democrat; a sort-of "pro-life" (***) lite adulterer) and Hillary Clinton (a Current Year Democrat, a rabid promoter of abortion, and an enthusiastic participant in the destroying of women who brought credible accusations of sexual assault/abuse against her husband).  As I've said a time or two, I voted for neither of them; I voted for the Constitution Party, a party whose platform was unashamedly Christian.  

What do you think are the odds that oh-so-Christianly-concerned Debra did likewise?  No, she voted for the Democratic Party, the same one she's trying to shame me for opposing.

(**) when the presidential choice was between Trump (a '90s Democrat; a sort-of "pro-life" (***) lite adulterer) and Joe Biden (a very pro-abortion adulterer, credibly accused of rape, who fondled women and children right out in public view, with the cameras running)

(***) As I've said before, I despise the label "pro-life": it's the sort of pablum served up by 5th Avenue to appeal to weak-minded women (and womanly men). I'm not "pro-life", I'm anti-murder.

(****) Her father was a university instructor, and I believe her husband is also; that is, she has lived most of her life in the sort of social and intellectual cocoon in which it doesn't affect you, personally, if your ideas and ideology are for shit.

===========
Edit:
By the way, I'm a bit mystified as to how she even saw that I'd posted the original semi-meme. I mean, it's not as though we are "friends" on FascistBook.

Also, have you ever noticed that these tone-police sorts are always such flaming hypocrites?

Exploding the Myth of "Three Co-Equal Branches of Government"

We all were taught in high school civic class that the US Constitution establishes "three co-equal branches of government".  This is a myth - it is both a lie and a pernicious lie.  It is a lie, because it is not true. It is a pernicious lie, because it is actually and intentionally a cover for the unconstitutional imperial over-reach of the judicial supremacists.

I have long argued that Article III (Section 2) of the US Constitution makes it clear that the Congress has the general power to limit the jurisdiction of all federal courts, including the highest-level court (you know, the one that judicial supremacists have trained us to think of as "THE Supreme Court")

I have long known that there are federal statues in which the Congress explicitly states that the courts have no jurisdiction to adjudicate certain maters.  But, as I knew no way that I could find an example of such a statute, I have not previously made reference to Congress exercising that power.  However, seeming by chance, in reference to a recent example of judicial imperial over-reach by a "activist judge", the YouTuber Tim Pool real aloud a section of such a statue (see the last link, to the YouTube video). And so, having an example of the Congress exercising this power, I bring it to Gentle Reader's attention.

Below, I have quoted actual existing federal law: Section 221 (sub-sections  h and i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

Notice that sub-section (h) explicitly establishes that no alien has a right to enter the US, even if a visa has been issued him.  

Notice that sub-section (i) gives the Executive branch discretionary authority to revoke and invalidate any alien's visa or other such documents and explicitly states that "There shall be no means of judicial review ... of a revocation under this subsection, except ..."

Understand this:

1) The "three co-equal branches of government" myth we were taught is a lie;

1a) In fact, the Legislative branch is supreme, notwithstanding that all three branches have powers into which the other two may not intrude;

2) The mere lower-court judge who has decreed that the Executive may not immediately deport a certain foreign agitator is violating the explicit language of this statute and is attempting, as "activist judges" always do, to set himself above both the Legislative and the Executive branches, and ultimately above the Constitution itself.

Section 221(H,I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act

(h) Nonadmission upon arrival

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to entitle any alien, to whom a visa or other documentation has been issued, to be admitted the United States, if, upon arrival at a port of entry in the United States, he is found to be inadmissible under this chapter, or any other provision of law. The substance of this subsection shall appear upon every visa application.

(i) Revocation of visas or documents

After the issuance of a visa or other documentation to any alien, the consular officer or the Secretary of State may at any time, in his discretion, revoke such visa or other documentation. Notice of such revocation shall be communicated to the Attorney General, and such revocation shall invalidate the visa or other documentation from the date of issuance: Provided, That carriers or transportation companies, and masters, commanding officers, agents, owners, charterers, or consignees, shall not be penalized under section 1323(b) of this title for action taken in reliance on such visas or other documentation, unless they received due notice of such revocation prior to the alien's embarkation. There shall be no means of judicial review (including review pursuant to section 2241 of title 28 or any other habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of such title) of a revocation under this subsection, except in the context of a removal proceeding if such revocation provides the sole ground for removal under section 1227(a)(1)(B) of this title.

Tim Pool, reading from Federal Statue -- Section 221(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act --  (@8:10 mark)

Putin's Nukes ... and Appeasement

Concerning the fear-mongering and spirit of appeasement toward Putin based on Russia's nuclear stockpile and Putin's continuing threats to use them --

Why do you imagine/assume that Russia is capable of nuking *anyone*? Considering the atrocious maintenance of their conventional arms, does it really make rational sense that they did any better with the more expensive and more technical maintenance required for the nukes?

Assume that the Russian military have somehow managed to maintain 3/4 of their nukes in operational order. That's still a lot of nukes ... and thus really scary, right?

Well, maybe. WHICH 3/4 are operational? Unless the decision to let 1/4 become dudes was intentional, the Russian generals have no idea which ones are not dudes.

But, which is more likely -- that the Russian government intentionally scaled down maintenance to a select minority of the USSR's nukes, or that the Russian government *assumed* that the resources allocated to maintaining the entire stockpile were thus spent without corrupt "diversions" into the bank accounts of high-level officials?  That is, how likely is it that the corruption rampant in their conventional military is not also rampant on the nuclear side?

Now, we shouldn't be caviler about Putin's threats to use nukes, but neither should we cower or appease.

Mossad ... and Equal Measures

You will see people asserting, with great pretense of knowledge, that Jeffery Epstein was a Mossad "asset", and that his criminal and immoral activities were done in furtherance of the interests of the State of Israel and in contradistinction to the interests of America.

Maybe this is so, I don't know either way. But, I *do* know, as a matter of reason, that Epstein could not have done what he did, nor for as long as he did, without the active protection of *American* "intelligence services".

So, here is my point -- when you see people blaming *Israel* for Epstein, and before any real evidence is in, but excusing America on the grounds that the CIA has "gone rogue", you can be assured that you are dealing with a Jew-hater, not a seeker of truth. And certainly not a Christian, for God requires us to judge with the same measure.

EDIT (2025/03/04):

Douglas Wilson: So Jeffrey Epstein Was a Jew . . .