Gender Care: Use of Estrogen by Men Shrinks Their Brains – Men are powered by testosterone, unless you are a fat ass like my BIL Flounder who produced estrogen and got prostate cancer. You can cut off your dick and take hormones, but every cell in your body says you’re still male
War
Why Is Europe Feverishly Preparing For World War III? – Why is it always Europe? Didn’t they learn their lesson in the last century? Trumps going to make them pay for it themselves this time. They have been pissing away their money on socialized programs and not defense, while sucking off the hind teat of the US for protection. Don’t start something you can’t finish.
My wife’s European relatives are all worried about Putin and blame Trump. They need to look in the mirror for why they are in this situation.
The Decline and Fall of the Movie Industry – Start with woke, Star Wars, Marvel and the endless stream of anti-white/male/christian hero’s. Then you have mega-wealthy celebtards spewing hate on the non-liberal half of America. Combine that with the lack of good story telling and people don’t have anything worth seeing. No wonder it’s dying. We’re sick of their
He could say don’t jump off a cliff and there would be hordes of Democrats lining up to leap
Now Tylenol
Nicole Sirotek, founder of American Frontline Nurses, claimed that she received a frantic 4 a.m. call from a distraught husband whose pregnant wife is now on a ventilator after overdosing on Tylenol.
According to Sirotek, the woman, who was between 23 and 25 weeks pregnant, attempted to ingest massive amounts of Tylenol in an effort to “prove Donald Trump wrong” after his recent remarks linking acetaminophen use during pregnancy to autism.
As The Gateway Pundit reported, President Trump on Monday announced that the use of acetaminophen, the active ingredient in Tylenol, can increase the risk of autism when used by pregnant women.
HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said Tylenol is tied to autism, ADHD, and liver toxicity in children.
“Got a frantic call at 4am from a husband who was given my phone number via someone who had it. His pregnant wife is now on a ventilator dying of liver failure trying to “prove” that Tylenol doesn’t cause autism since this is trending in TikTok.
He know has to make to make the tough decision to try and save an unborn baby that may not survive outside the womb at an approx gestation of 23-25wks. At the same time his wife won’t survive through the week and will never get to meet her baby
This behavior is ridiculous. This woman hated Trump so much because of the HARVARD STUDY on Tylenol and Autism she ultimately killed herself by overdosing on Tylenol to try and “prove Trump wrong.”
Her baby may not even survive either Her husband now may lose his entire family because of the craziness of liberal women chasing TikTok clout with TDS.””
For about a decade, big tech firms, the government, and corporate media outlets pushed endless streams of propaganda at young people to “learn to code,” luring them with promises of six-figure salaries and job security.
That hype fueled a boom in computer science majors, with the number of undergraduates more than doubling since 2014. But the coding-boom narrative has since collapsed, and a growing number of computer science graduates are finding few opportunities – some even ending up in fast-food jobs at chains like Chipotle.
“Learn to code” actually turned out to be very terrible advice.
Take the corporate media news matrix: According to Bloomberg data, the story count of “learn to code” exploded between 2015 and early 2021. Post 2021, those stories have dramatically subsided as reality sets in, and layoffs at major tech companies like Amazon and Microsoft, combined with the rapid adoption of AI coding tools, have left many graduates unable to land jobs, according to The New York Times.
Data via Bloomberg…
“The rhetoric was, if you just learned to code, work hard, and get a computer science degree, you can get six figures for your starting salary,” Manasi Mishra, now 21, who was quoted by the NYT.
Mishra said in a viral TikTok video this summer that “I just graduated with a computer science degree, and the only company that has called me for an interview is Chipotle.”
The NYT pointed out that unemployment among computer science and engineering grads has risen as high as 7.5%, which is more than double that of art history or biology majors.
CNN ADMITS America Thinks Democrat Party Is ‘Total & Complete Garbage’
Democrats may have just realized that having “orange man bad” as their sole political message for the past 10 years was a really bad idea. In a surprisingly blunt segment on CNN News Central, the show’s hosts acknowledged what many Americans have long suspected: the Democratic Party was “a complete and utter mess” as they looked toward the 2028 presidential election. With no frontrunner, deep internal disarray, and record-low favorability ratings; you knew things were bad when even CNN sounded the alarm.
The analysis was sparked by former Vice President Kamala Harris’s return to the national stage to promote her book on her campaign for president in 2024. While co-anchor Kate Bolduan made sure to note that Harris had not ruled out a future presidential run, CNN’s senior data reporter Harry Enten wasted no time in downplaying her chances. “The chance that Kamala Harris is going to be the 2028 Democratic nominee. They don’t look too good right now, to be perfectly honest with you,” he asserted.
Well, Denny would have some special language for this group of dickheads
🚨 JUST IN: Texas House Speaker announces INCREASED punishments for Democrats who fled
➡️ Paychecks MUST be picked up in person (no more direct deposit) ➡️ 30% of Democrats' office budgets cut ➡️ $500 fine per day ➡️ Must appear in person for any reimbursements ➡️ Banned from… pic.twitter.com/9vBMvhBYcB
The whole Democratic Congress in Texas left the state and went to stay with Pritzker in Illinois instead of voting on the redistricting, which they will lose. I heard they are sending the FBI to arrest them and bring them back. Seeing is believing.
On July 18, 1925, Adolph Hitler’s book Mein Kampf (My Struggle) was published. Written while he was in Landsberg prison, where he was serving a relatively relaxing sentence for the failed 1923 Beer Hall Putsch coup, Hitler made very clear what he would do if the German people put him and the leftist National Socialist Party in power.
Mein Kampf is in two volumes. Part 1 has stories about Hitler’s life, including serving as a soldier in World War I. The book sold a paltry 9,473 copies in its first year. At the time, few people cared what a short man with a funny moustache thought.
Part 2 was published in 1927. Unlike many politicians who hide their true goals, Hitler put it all in his book for the entire world to read. He was very clear about his antisemitic views and what he would do to make Germany Judenfrei if he gained power and could implement his Third Reich agenda.
Image created using public domain images.
Sales of the two volumes continued to be slow as many Germans viewed Hitler as more of a comic (funny moustache, short, feminine speaking mannerisms, etc.). At first, they didn’t take him or his left-wing National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP) seriously. In “Hitler Was Incompetent and Lazy—and His Nazi Government Was an Absolute Clown Show,” Tom Phillips writes about how many viewed Hitler as a fool:
In fact, this may even have helped his rise to power, as he was consistently underestimated by the German elite. Before he became Chancellor, many of his opponents had dismissed him as a joke for his crude speeches and tacky rallies. Even after elections had made the Nazis the largest party in the Reichstag, people still kept thinking that Hitler was an easy mark, a blustering idiot who could easily be controlled by smart people.
In Hitlerland, Andrew Nagorski discusses the American media’s early impressions of Hitler and the Third Reich:
Yet you had Americans meeting Hitler and saying, ‘This guy is a clown. He’s like a caricature of himself.’ And a lot of them went through this whole litany about how even if Hitler got into a position of power, other German politicians would somehow be able to control him. A lot of German politicians believed this themselves.
Surprisingly, German Jews also did not take Hitler seriously during his early years. In 1925, only a few German Jewish newspapers even bothered to review Mein Kampf. As Raphael Ahren wrote in The Times of Israel article “Why Jews Didn’t Blink an Eye When Mein Kampf First Came Out”:
When Mein Kampf came out for the first time, German Jews hardly noticed it. They certainly did not view it as a threat to their existence, or even as a harbinger of a changing political climate in the Fatherland.
Rahel Straus, a physician who grew up in Karlsruhe, Germany, and emigrated to Palestine in 1933, wrote in her memoirs:
We passed by the boxes of the Volkisher Beobachter (the official organ of the Nazi Party), read the incendiary articles and indignantly continued working. We didn’t realize that this Volkisher Beobachter was one of the most read newspapers in Germany at the time. We saw Hitler’s Mein Kampf on display in every bookstore; none of us bought it, none of us read it.
Slowly, that short man with the funny moustache and his leftist Nazi Party chiseled away at the Weimar Republic. The worldwide depression that started in October 1929 gave them a growing audience of supporters. By 1932, the Nazi Party had become the largest political party in the Reichstag (the German parliament).
One year later, on January 30, 1933, Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany by the aging President Paul von Hindenburg. When the 86-year-old Hindenburg died on August 2, 1934, Hitler announced that the office of president and chancellor would merge under the title of Führer und Reichskanzler (leader and chancellor). Those who disagreed were free to discuss the matter at the end of a gun barrel or while laboring in Dachau.
Suddenly, sales of Mein Kampf rose to more than 1 million copies. In 1935, the Franz, Eher, Nacht publishing house suggested to Hitler that a special Mein Kampf version should be given to every newlywed couple on the day of their wedding.
The western world, still reeling from the horrors of World War I, watched what was happening in Germany and worried that another massive worldwide conflict was on the horizon. Meanwhile, Germany was ignoring the Treaty of Versailles while the Allies embraced appeasement.
After signing the Munich Agreement on September 30, 1938, between Great Britain and Germany, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain flew back to London believing he had prevented a second European war. When Chamberlain, whose name would become synonymous with appeasement, reached the prime minister’s residence at 10 Downing Street, he read a prepared statement:
My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honor. I believe it is peace for our time….
British Prime Minister Chamberlain and, to a lesser degree, President Franklin Roosevelt bent like pretzels to avoid a second colossal world war. In the meantime, Winston Churchill, who in 1935 had read the unedited English version of Mein Kampf, was repeatedly telling anyone who would listen that it would be better to stop Hitler now before he rebuilt Germany’s army and arsenal.
Few were listening to Churchill.
By May 10, 1940, when Churchill succeeded Chamberlain as prime minister, Mein Kampf had been in the public square for nearly 15 years and was a best seller in Germany and the occupied Nazi nations. Chamberlain’s years of appeasement had resulted in:
March 7, 1936: Germany invaded and remilitarized the Rhineland.
March 12-13, 1938: Germany annexed Austria (Anschluss).
March 15, 1939: Germany invaded the Czechoslovakia via the provinces of Bohemia and Moravia.
September 1, 1939: Germany invaded Poland.
September 3, 1939: Great Britain declared war on Germany.
Keep all this in mind when laughing at memes mocking intelligence-challenged politicians such as New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Texas Representative Jasmine Crockett, or New York’s Communist-Democrat mayoral candidate Zohan Mamdani.
What about this plan that they told Americans wasn’t a lie? Bet they told Congress and the Insurance companies to start the kickbacks because the money floodgates are open for good.
Medical care costs are surging already. A big leap is coming.
If you buy your own health insurance, you are probably going to pay more next year—a lot more.
Insurers are seeking hefty 2026 rate increases for Affordable Care Act marketplace plans, the coverage known as Obamacare. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Illinois wants a 27% hike, while its sister Blue Cross plan in Texas is asking for 21%. The largest ACA plans in Washington state, Georgia and Rhode Island are all looking for premiums to surge more than 20%.
The companies say the big increases are needed because of higher healthcare costs and changing federal policy, including cuts to subsidies that help consumers pay for plans. The higher premiums would come after years of enrollment growth and mostly single-digit rate increases in the Obamacare market, where individuals and families buy insurance for themselves. About 24 million people have ACA plans.
At the request of The Wall Street Journal, the health-research nonprofit KFF analyzed the rate requests for the largest ACA plans by enrollment in 17 states where the insurers’ filings have already become public, as well as the District of Columbia. They showed that some of the biggest national ACA players, including Centene and Elevance Health, are seeking double-digit increases in several states. The Blue Cross & Blue Shield plans of Texas and Illinois are both owned by Health Care Service, a giant nonprofit.
Most Obamacare enrollees’ monthly insurance bills will go up substantially next year because of reductions in federal subsidies that help pay for their coverage. Enhanced payments passed by Congress in 2021 will lapse at the end of December. The drop-off in subsidies is both helping to drive higher premiums and making it harder for many consumers to pay them.
Some people “are going to be hit with this double whammy” of bigger monthly insurance bills and losing the subsidy that blunts their cost, said Cynthia Cox, a vice president at KFF.
In rate filings, some insurers said tariffs could add to the cost of drugs and medical supplies.
Let’s see, Abortion, crime, overspending the budget, all the gay shit and pervert stuff, trannies, the global warming lies, cheating to win elections, I can’t imagine that they’d be less proud. They are for more crime and are being stopped. Plus, we stopped slavery in 1865. You can’t blame that anymore. They think they want socialism, but don’t understand the history or ramifications
As we prepare to note the 249th anniversary of our country, getting ready for the great celebration next year of America’s 250th, Gallup serves up sobering data.
Per polling just released by Gallup, only 58% of Americans now say they are “extremely proud” or “very proud” to be an American.
When Gallup first asked this question in 2001, 87% said they were “extremely proud” or “very proud” to be American.
The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now
Digging deeper, we see that most of this precipitous drop in pride in our country is attributable to those identifying as Democrats.
In 2001, 90% of Republicans said they were “extremely proud” or “very proud” to be an American. In 2025, 92% of Republicans say they are “extremely proud” or very “proud.”
In 2001, 87% of Democrats said they were either “extremely” or “very” proud. But in 2025, only 36% of Democrats say they are “extremely” or “very” proud of their country.
story
If you hate the country, leave. Just try to find a better place. Africa, ha. Europe, soon to be the muslim capital of world.
Globalizing the intifada apparently begins in New York City.
In one of the most stunning upsets for the progressive wing of the Democratic Party since Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s unseating of Joseph Crowley in a 2018 primary battle, state Rep. Zohran Mamdani cruised to an apparent victory in the New York City mayoral primary, handily beating former governor and the presumptive favorite in the race, Andrew Cuomo.
While New York City uses ranked-choice voting and the results won’t be official until next week, Cuomo has already conceded the race with Mamdani ahead by a 43.5 percent to 36.4 percent margin. Given that most polls that had Mamdani winning still had Cuomo ahead in the first round, this means the former governor has no reasonable path forward in the primary, although the ranked-choice balloting will still go forward until a candidate has 50 percent.
It’s like the girl trying to change marketing for Bud Light. It’s doomed. Men like what they are used to unless the attraction of adventure is too great. Sticking your dick in another dude’s ass isn’t going to wake up a lot of men.
The Democrat Party is grappling with a significant loss of male voter support that likely cost them the 2024 election. In a moment of clarity, Democrat strategist Joe Caiazzo lamented, “Everything we’ve done up to this point has resulted in reelecting Donald Trump.”
Bingo.
According to data from the progressive firm Catalist, Trump won 54% of male voters overall and 52% of men under 45, a significant gain from previous elections. Specifically, Democrat support among white college-educated men dropped from 2020, with Democrats securing only 51% of this group compared to 54% for Joe Biden. Among white non-college-educated men, Kamala Harris lost three points compared to Biden’s 2020 performance, while female support in this demographic remained steady. These figures highlight a gendered divergence: while women’s support for Democrats remained steady, men, particularly young and working-class men, shifted toward the Republican Party.
Next, the Democrats who flew to El Salvador to meet with him, but not a one of them went to see those in North Carolina who had storm damage from Hurricane Helene and lost their houses.
🚨Chris Van Hollen is pathetically begging people not to visit El Salvador; says he’ll be announcing 'sanctions legislation’ over deported MS13 alien Abrego-Garcia —
“Targeting @nayibbukele and all those who are part of his government conspiring with Donald Trump."
U.S. District Court Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. is the first judge to rule that the Alien Enemies Act cannot be used against people who the Republican administration claims are gang members invading the United States.
The democrats are protecting the criminals and so is the judicial system. That means MS-13, gang bangers, coyotes, drug pushers and murderers are protected, yet American citizens are now in danger.
So Judge Rodriguez, you are the asshole of the week
Safe and effective, just like if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, lying democrat Presidents.
A UCSF study found vaccinated, COVID-naïve individuals were 5.8 to 7.2 times more likely to be hospitalized than unvaccinated people with prior infection. The data challenges previous claims that vaccines reduce severe outcomes, suggesting instead a higher risk for the vaccinated group.
The findings are highly statistically significant (p-value 4e-15), making chance an unlikely explanation. Critics question why such risks weren’t detected in clinical trials, calling the oversight a “broken” system.
Though indirect, modeled estimates suggest vaccinated individuals may be 3 to 6 times more likely to die than their unvaccinated peers. Concerns about cardiovascular and neurological complications linked to vaccines add weight to the findings.
Public health messaging previously framed vaccines as low-risk and essential, while the study suggests the opposite for certain groups. Delayed publication (two years post-rollout) has fueled accusations of data suppression and eroded institutional trust.
Critics demand reexamination of vaccine policies, citing ethics, informed consent and natural immunity. The study underscores the need for independent research, transparency and candid dialogue to rebuild public trust in health institutions.
A groundbreaking study from the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), published April 18, 2025, has upended conventional wisdom about the risks associated with the COVID-19 vaccine versus the risks of the virus itself. The preprint research, led by Dr. Bhargava, found that vaccinated individuals who were previously uninfected (COVID-naïve) faced a 6-fold higher risk of hospitalization compared to unvaccinated people who recovered from the virus. The study’s startling findings — validated by highly statistically significant data — challenge longstanding recommendations for vaccines and raise urgent questions about public health messaging, transparency and vaccine safety.
“The cure is worse than the disease”: Study details and implications
“This didn’t happen by chance,” emphasized Steve Kirsch, an early pandemic advocate and critic of vaccine policies, who reviewed the study. “The odds [p-value of 4e-15] are astronomical, and the effect size is monstrous. The medical community needs to explain why a signal this huge didn’t surface in clinical trials.”
The findings also suggest potential mortality consequences. Although the study’s mortality data is imputed through modeled estimates, the report cites an analysis by ChatGPT, a language model, which inferred vaccinated individuals may have been 3 to 6 times more likely to die than unvaccinated peers with similar exposures. This conclusion, while indirect, underscores concerns about adverse events linked to the vaccine, such as cardiovascular and neurological complications, which have raised alarms in prior research.
A turn in the tide: Shifting risk perceptions
The paradigm shift revealed by the UCSF study contradicts earlier messaging that emphasized vaccines as the primary defense against severe outcomes. Public health authorities and media outlets repeatedly promoted vaccines as reducing hospitalization and mortality risks. However, the new data suggests precisely the opposite for a significant segment of the population:
Vaccinated individuals (naïve to infection): 6.24% hospitalization rate.
“This is a train wreck,” Kirsch added, noting that the “cure” (vaccination) has now proven far more dangerous than the disease. The analysis further highlights that while uninfected people might avoid infection altogether, vaccinated individuals “locked in” a guaranteed risk of 6.24%.
Historically, vaccine policies in 2020–2022 framed the shot as virtually risk-free and vital to ending the pandemic. By contrast, studies like this — one of the first large-scale efforts to compare vaccinated vs. unvaccinated post-infection outcomes — suggest a severe blind spot in risk assessment.
Criticism loosens: Calls for accountability and transparency
The UCSF study’s revelations have already drawn scrutiny from medical professionals and health advocates. Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, questioned the ethics of current vaccination campaigns in a statement to The Epoch Times:
“I do not understand how a physician dedicated to patient care would interpret this data as grounds for endorsing additional shots.”
Critics argue the findings are particularly damning because the initial clinical trials, which guided early vaccine rollouts, failed to detect the now-evident risks. “How could a trial estimate this?” asked Kirsch. “The signal is too loud to ignore. The system is broken.”
And no one says a thing about it. What do you want to bet it’s China
A $100 million scheme funneled through progressive groups like the Sixteen Thirty Fund has swayed ballot initiatives in 25 states, including Ohio, targeting abortion, election law changes and drug decriminalization.
A 2021 Federal Election Commission ruling allowed foreign nationals to fund ballot measures — bypassing traditional oversight — sparking bipartisan criticism over foreign interference.
Over $14 million in foreign-linked funds supported abortion expansion and drug decriminalization in Ohio, despite 85% of voters opposing foreign influence. The state later banned foreign contributions, but not before potential gerrymandering impacts.
Watchdogs warn that without federal action to close the FEC loophole, foreign meddling will persist — turning ballot initiatives into ideological battlegrounds. Bipartisan momentum is growing, but the future of election integrity remains uncertain.
A $100 million foreign dark money scheme, uncovered by the America First Policy Institute, reveals how anonymous donations from abroad have swayed ballot initiatives in 25 states, including Ohio’s controversial 2024 abortion and drug decriminalization measures. The findings revive debates over election integrity, congressional inaction and the growing power of progressive groups like the Sixteen Thirty Fund to bypass state legislatures. The investigations also highlight a 2021 Federal Election Commission ruling that opened the door to foreign funding, despite widespread bipartisan public opposition.
Read the post just below on the release of the Crossfire Hurricane documents and this will make even more sense.
The “Russian Reset”
After Russia’s two invasions of Ukraine, first in 2014 and again in 2022, senior Democratic leaders roundly called out Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin’s aggressive behavior, primarily targeted at the country’s smaller neighbor, Ukraine.
President Barack Obama, after taking office in early 2009, set in motion the merging of U.S. business interests with the Russian economy through the famous “reset” in relations between the two powers. Obama’s reset began in 2009 as an effort to cool tensions that had ballooned after Russia’s invasion of its small neighbor Georgia in 2008.
The reset set the stage for several prominent Democrats and their benefactors to profit from the burgeoning business opportunities in Russia being facilitated by the Obama administration.
Hillary Clinton, Skolkovo, and a half-million dollar speaking fee
In one case, the policy of Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to support and develop Russia’s “Silicon Valley,” known as Skolkovo, may have undermined U.S. national security while the family’s Clinton Foundation pocketed donations from Russian donors. After Russia’s first invasion of Ukraine, she would later make an about-face, instigating a narrative wherein Russia allegedly interfered and deprived her of victory in the 2016 election in which she was a candidate. She called her opponent, Donald Trump, a “Trojan Horse for Putin.”
After Clinton was appointed to represent the United States at the newly formed U.S.-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission, she helped direct investments from U.S. partners to the venture, which had already received $5 million in funding from Moscow, investigative reporter Peter Schweizer found in his 2015 book “Clinton Cash.”
The Skolkovo project received backing and support from Clinton Foundation donors, like Google, Intel and Cisco. Additionally, donations from Russian businessmen tied to the Skolkovo project flowed to the Clinton Foundation. Andrey Vavilov, Chairman of SuperOx, which is part of Skolkovo’s nuclear research group, donated between $10,000 and $25,000 to the foundation, Schweizer reported. The Skolkovo Foundation head and billionaire Viktor Vekselberg also donated to the charity through his company, Renova Group.
Clinton’s spouse, former president Bill Clinton, also reaped rewards from the Russian reset, collecting a $500,000 speaking fee from a Russian investment bank, Renaissance Capital. The speech came at the same time that Secretary Clinton was opposing sanctions measures on Russian officials that later became the Magnitsky Act, Fox News reported.
I’d argue that the Covid jab is close, as was the Covid cover story, but nevertheless
I had to work in sustainability at IBM. I knew it was a load of shit from premise to people. It was a money laundering scheme from the getgo as well as a religion for those who don’t want to believe in God.
Elon Musk masterfully called out a likely paid leftist operative on Sunday night while speaking at a Supreme Court election rally in Wisconsin, saying, “It was inevitable that at least a few Soros operatives would be in the audience.”
Musk appeared at a get-out-the-vote rally in Green Bay before Tuesday’s crucial Supreme Court race that could change the direction of the country if the Democrats get their way and redistrict the state.
As The Gateway Pundit reported, Democrat House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) discussed the importance of Wisconsin’s Supreme Court election with DNC Chair Ken Martin, highlighting their ambition to gerrymander and give the Democrats additional House Seats.
If a liberal Supreme Court majority is maintained, Democrats will also have the opportunity to eliminate all abortion restrictions and block any conservative legislation passed by a future Republican-controlled state legislature.
While Musk was speaking, an infiltrator began shouting from the crowd, and he was met with loud boos from Republican rally-goers.
Musk hilariously called out the “Soros operative” and told him to “give my regards to George.”
“Say hi to George for me,” Musk continued.
The crowd then broke out, chanting, “USA, USA, USA!” Musk laughed and added, “Yep, I mean, it was inevitable.”
The Democrats’ astroturfed demonstrations against Elon Musk are becoming increasingly apparent, as nationwide protests against Elon Musk and Tesla spontaneously popped up at over 200 Tesla showrooms on Saturday. As recently revealed by cell phone GPS data, most of these protesters and people who attend rallies for Democrats coincidentally all frequent Kamala Harris rallies and violent BLM or Antifa riots. It’s almost like they don’t have a job besides showing up for protests, which is likely the case.
It’s their job to show up and act like democrats. With loyalty like that in the party, they are going to have a hard time doing anything but trashing Tesla’s
Foreign assistance done right can advance our national interests, protect our borders, and strengthen our partnerships with key allies. Unfortunately, USAID strayed from its original mission long ago. As a result, the gains were too few and the costs were too high.
Thanks to President Trump, this misguided and fiscally irresponsible era is now over. We are reorienting our foreign assistance programs to align directly with what is best for the United States and our citizens. We are continuing essential lifesaving programs and making strategic investments that strengthen our partners and our own country. This is yet another promise made and delivered to the American people.
The move came after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit decided that President Donald Trump would likely “prove that the DOGE’s effort to dismantle USAID did not violate the Constitution.”
Congress did not establish the USAID. President John F. Kennedy formed the agency by executive order in 1961.
That is the difference between the USAID and other departments. For example, President Donald Trump cannot dissolve the Department of Education because its formation went through Congress.
According to an internal memo obtained by Fox News, the State Department will take over the USAID’s remaining operations and programs:
Now, the State Department is poised to officially take on USAID programs as part of a merger that aims to streamline operations to deliver foreign assistance, the memo said. It also will result in cuts for thousands of USAID employees.
“By bringing USAID’s core life-saving and strategic aid programs under the umbrella of the State Department, this Administration will significantly enhance the efficiency, accountability, uniformity, and strategic impact of foreign assistance programs — and ensure that our nation and President to speaks with one voice in foreign affairs,” Jeremy Lewin, who is performing the duties of USAID Deputy Administrator for Policy and Programming & Chief Operating Officer, said in a Friday statement to Fox News Digital.
The administration will cut a total of 4,650 personnel from USAID.
Between now and July, the State Department “will assess staffing requirements to proceed with an independent hiring process.”
The department will allow eligible USAID employees to “apply for those positions as remaining USAID personnel move to shut down or transfer USAID operations to the State Department.”
DOGE targeted USAID in late January. Elon Musk and others discovered massive fraud and waste within the agency that had a budget of over $50 billion.
It’s only a matter of time before AOC and the left’s ‘new hotness’ Jasmine Crockett have a showdown and whoa Nellie, there are going to be some fireworks when that happens.
By the way, when we call the writers at Jacobin ‘communists,’ that’s not us trying to insult them. That’s what they say about themselves. They use the word ‘socialists,’ but they celebrate communism on their website pretty much every day, including regular paeans to Vladimir Lenin. Even MSNBC’s Chris Hayes (or is that Rachel Maddow?) called them far-left extremists. He meant it as a compliment.
These communist tendencies are on full display in the 2021 article that Jacobin pushed on Twitter yesterday. They blast Obama for having a lavish party during Covid, but they blast the lavishness, not the hypocrisy. They HATE that he has luxury estates in Martha’s Vinyard AND Hawaii, of course, which they call ‘tumors.’ And they rip him for tanking Bernie Sanders’ presidential aspirations. But here is the crux of their criticism in calling Obama ‘one of the worst ex-presidents ever’:
They don’t really stand for anything firm, just what they think is right at the moment. They always shoot themselves. After all, when in history has communism ever worked?
I read a lot of documentation about Obama being a Marxist. They are having a hard time keeping the lid on it
Better yet, have you seen the South Park episode about the Museum of Tolerance? When I watch these videos or read anything hive mind-like, I hear the many people in the audience repeat in the same voice, “The museum tells us!”
Prominent Democrats lack at least five essential qualities: intelligence, wisdom, basic decency, a filter, and recognition of their own interests.
No one personifies those gargantuan deficiencies more than Democratic Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas.
In an interview Sunday with MSNBC’s Alex Witt, host of “Alex Witt Reports,” Crockett put all of those deficiencies on display when she labeled President Donald Trump “an enemy to the United States.”
“Unfortunately, we have someone that is occupying the White House,” Crockett said in a clip posted to the social media platform X.
Note her use of the word “occupying” to denote a duly elected president.
Then came Crockett’s most reckless, reprehensible, and unhinged comment to-date.
“And as far as I’m concerned he is an enemy to the United States,” she said.
To remove the possibility of a metaphorical interpretation, the congresswoman continued in that same vein.
“He swore an oath just like the rest of us,” she said. “But right now, when you are literally putting us at risk all ’cause of what — because you want to convince your followers that you should be a dictator, too, that you should never leave the White House, because you don’t believe that elections should take place. I don’t really understand what is going on, and I don’t know what it’s gonna take to get people to wake up.”
Americans are loving Elon Musk’s rampage across federal government agencies in Washington D.C., including the IRS, EPA, USAID and more, with his DOGE team.
“Every Arizona swing voter in our latest Engagious/Sago focus groups said they approve of President Trump’s actions since taking office — and most also support Elon Musk’s efforts to slash government,” Axios reports. “Public opinion can constrain presidents when Congress does not. But these 11 voters — all of whom backed Joe Biden in 2020 but switched to Trump last November — said they’re good with Trump aggressively testing disruptive, expansionist expressions of presidential power that are piling up in court challenges.”
“It’s not optional for us to reduce the federal expenses. It’s essential. It’s essential for America to remain solvent as a country,” Musk said from the Oval Office this week. “The people voted for major government reform, and that’s what people are going to get.”
Clay Travis says it like it is. Men want to be bigger, faster, and stronger. That’s why super heroes are popular. It’s why we don’t believe women are really superheroes either.
Name a masculine Democrat now? It’s a short video. Listen to him sum it up in a few short articulate words
It’s why people didn’t get Trump. He proved it when he took aa bullet and stood up and said fight. He was an alpha male when he came down the escalator in 2015. The pussies in the liberal party had a theme of toxic masculinity which was selling with the liberal women.
Deep down, even liberal women want a masculine man. That part about grabbing them by the pussy? Women let alpha men do that and don’t let the others do that. They have control and won’t let anyone they don’t want to get near their coochie.
In other words, if he grabbed them, they let it happen because they want to be around masculine men, but really it’s they want to be around rich and powerful men.
It just hurt the narrative for anyone to admit it, like the pussies in my family. I saw the alpha male in Trump and loved it from the start.
But to sum it up, name a masculine democrat leader right now. They are a bunch of pussies.
We grew up beating their asses for that. The smart ones learned to protect themselves and grew up to be men and leaders. The pussies became democrats.
Imagine, if you will, a political party so wildly detached from reality that they’re trying to convince Americans to rally around a bloated, corrupt government bureaucracy—as if it’s some sacred, treasured gift from the heavens.
Sounds ridiculous, right? Well, welcome to the modern-day Democrat Party. Their latest absurdity? Melting down over the takedown of USAID—a glorified CIA slush fund that, until five minutes ago, most Americans had never even heard of. Now, suddenly, this shady, regime-change ATM masquerading as a “humanitarian” organization is being paraded around like it’s the beating heart of American democracy.
Liz Warren and Maxine Waters—never ones to let reality stand in their way—actually stood in front of cameras and claimed Elon Musk was “seizing power” that belongs to the American people. Oh really, Liz? Don’t you mean power that belongs to the CIA?
Are we living in the Twilight Zone, or what?
After all, this isn’t just your run-of-the-mill gaslighting. This is the Dems jumping the shark, hitting the warp speed button, and crash-landing straight into lunacy land.
Actually, this narrative is so unhinged, even CNN can’t push it with a straight face. That’s right—CNN. When even they can’t find a way to prop up the latest Dem plot, you know it’s gotta be bad.
For once, the network accidentally stumbled onto the right side of an issue, calling this absurd war against Elon, Doge, and—of all things—USAID, a piñata in search of a stick In other words, Dems got nothing. And it’s embarrassing.
A group of seven who allegedly sought to steal hundreds of millions of dollars in the country’s “largest COVID-19 tax credit scheme” by falsely claiming pandemic-era benefits were charged on Jan. 22, according to the Department of Justice (DOJ).
An indictment unsealed in New York state charged the seven people with “operating a multi-state conspiracy in which they attempted to defraud the United States of more than $600 million by filing more than 8,000 false tax returns claiming COVID-19-related employment tax credits,” the agency said in a statement. The fraud targeted programs like the employee retention credit (ERC) and the paid sick and family leave credit (SFLC), which were passed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The ERC gave tax credits to businesses, incentivizing them to keep employees on their payroll, while SFLC was a reimbursement made to businesses to support employees who were “on sick or family leave and could not work because of COVID-19.”
The charges were made against Keith Williams, Jamari Lewis, Morais Dicks, Janine Davis, Tiffany Williams, James Hames Jr., and Ewendra Mathurin; all of whom are either current or former residents of New York.
Between November 2021 and June 2023, the defendants “repeatedly exploited” ERC and SFLC programs, the DOJ said.
“The scheme was allegedly headquartered at Credit Reset, a purported credit repair business Keith Williams owned and operated.”
Just goes to show you that the democrats can’t run a one car funeral without screwing it up. Everything about Covid was a lie except that it was man made and escaped from Wuhan
Talked to a friend who has connections within the Democratic Party and he said the level of panic over Trump and Elon shutting down USAID is unlike anything he’s ever seen.
By following the money DOGE has struck a killing blow to the heart of the Democrat deep state machine.
Direct quote: “This is worse than 9/11 for Democrats. USAID is the primary vessel they use to achieve their political agenda. USAID is and always has been the primary source of funding for their influence peddling schemes and for their indirect sources of income”
Another text “Based on the reactions from within the party it seems to me that dismantling USAID is Trump’s biggest political victory to date, it was his enemy’s golden goose”
Same source who told me during the campaign (well before it was made public) that Kamala’s internal polling had her behind Trump so his information is good.
Another important addition. He said initial plans by the Democrats is to have their people at USAID hide the partisan funding under “unimpeachable initiatives”. “They will push back really hard on certain line items that on their face look like reasonable USAID expenditures and hide their political spending under these programs”
They are panicking because they are getting caught with their hands in the cookie jar and nefarious projects, DEI, ritzy dinners, junkets and the other waste they bathe in.
This isn’t just an exercise in finding out where the USAID money is going today – it was also an audit to find out where the money has gone in the past and it found waste and corruption everywhere. Reportedly USAID represents just 0.07% of federal spending. If this was a mafia investigation what’s being reported would be called “skimming” and calls would be being made for RICO charges. What’s different here?
It’s also being speculated that DOGE is going after USAID spending both because it was low-hanging fruit of corruption and because it’s relative small size.
Going after the youth of the DOGE employees is a complete smokescreen to trying to protect their money stream. The average age of the Manhattan Project was 25, the average age of NASA’s mission control during the Apollo launches was 27, and don’t get me started on how young our founding fathers were (outside of Benjamin Franklin). All the DOGE team is doing is finding out where the money is going – not building the world first atomic bomb, putting man on the moon, or founding our nation. Also remember that Linus Torvolds wrote Linux at just 21, Palmer Luckey created Oculus at 20, Vitalik Buterin did Etherium at 19, and Mark Zuckerberg created Facebook at 19.
The USAID scandal is the biggest thing that has revealed government corruption since the Twitter files. So far…”–Hypnotized Fish
Here’s the key line: Hanson went on to say that Democrats define masculine men as those who “cede authority” to women, before ripping into both Emhoff and Walz’s problematic pasts. “So if you want to impregnate your nanny and arrange for her to have a child and then buy her a house and then cover it up for years, that’s what a sensitive man does. Or if you want to lie about your military record serially, that’s OK too because you’re a sensitive male. So one of the elements of sensitive masculinity is that while you may sin and those are traits of the toxic masculinity and you’re trying to overcome them,”
Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Victor Davis Hanson on his podcast Thursday broke down what he said was Democrats’ “idea” of how “real masculine men” are expected to behave, and that includes what he said was their destruction of traditional masculinity.
Prior to President-elect Donald Trump’s victory in November, The New York Times released an article profiling the faces of Democrats’ “new masculinity.” The first was Doug Emhoff , who is husband to Vice President Kamala Harris. The second was Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, who, last year, was Harris’ running mate.
On “The Victor Davis Hanson Show,” the senior fellow discussed how Democrats have rejected “traditional key men,” saying Emhoff and Walz have become key role models for women on the left.
“As I understand the subtext is on the left, that they are rejecting traditional key man masculinity on the right. So they don’t like the Dana White, the Joe Rogan, the Mixed Martial Arts, all of that group,” Hanson said. “But apparently they have an idea of a more sensitive, caring masculinity that when you look at these real men, they look endomorphic. Endomorphic is not a slur, Jack. It just means a body type where they’re invertebrate.”
“My point is Emhoff and Waltz, then they must have pushed these buttons, and I guess the buttons are partly they are helpers to powerful women like Kamala Harris or his, remember Waltz’s wife, kind of nutty? I think they took her off the trail,” Hanson said. “She’d get out and scream and yell. You got the impression that his leftward tilt, he ran as a congressional person, as a rural Clinton Democrat. And then he, this spouse kind of pushed him.”
In September, Emhoff sat down with former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki for an interview, where she was seen asking the second gentleman about reshaping the “perception of masculinity.” Emhoff told the MSNBC host that he had always aimed to “do the right thing” and “support women” when asked about his role in the cultural movement.
Hanson went on to say that Democrats define masculine men as those who “cede authority” to women, before ripping into both Emhoff and Walz’s problematic pasts.
“I guess one of the subtext is that real masculine men cede authority or decision making to the female spouses because they’re confident in their masculinity, and they don’t have to have props like guns and cars. That’s part of it. The other thing must be that you have to, real masculine men are entitled to certain sins because they’re not in your face,” Hanson said.
“So if you want to impregnate your nanny and arrange for her to have a child and then buy her a house and then cover it up for years, that’s what a sensitive man does. Or if you want to lie about your military record serially, that’s OK too because you’re a sensitive male. So one of the elements of sensitive masculinity is that while you may sin and those are traits of the toxic masculinity and you’re trying to overcome them,” Hanson added. “I guess what I’m saying is that they don’t sin.”
During their time on the campaign trail, both Emhoff and Walz came under fire over allegations involving their pasts.
Be a man. Even liberal women like masculine men, regardless of what is said. They broke for Trump as Walz and the rest of the dems were a bunch of pussies.
With each election cycle, the same old questions resurface: Who should lead the party? How can Democrats reconnect with voters in the heartland? And why does the party keep bleeding support among working-class Americans?
Last week, David Axelrod tossed a name into the ring for the next DNC chair: Rahm Emanuel. Predictably, this suggestion set off a firestorm—none louder than from Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whose critique of the Democratic establishment feels more at home in a Tea Party playbook than in traditional Democratic discourse.
Ocasio-Cortez, better known as AOC, wasted no time attacking the idea of another Obama-era leader taking the reins of the Democratic National Committee.
Her argument? These establishment figures oversaw some of the party’s most devastating electoral losses. In fact, she called Emanuel and his ilk a “disease.”
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) launched a blistering critique of former Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel‘s potential bid for Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair, slamming the Democratic establishment’s donor-focused approach.
“There is a disease in Washington of Democrats who spend more time listening to the donor class than working people,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote on X, formerly Twitter. “If you want to know the seed of the party’s political crisis, that’s it.”
The sharp rebuke from the progressive congresswoman came after veteran Democratic strategist David Axelrod publicly pitched Emanuel, the current U.S. Ambassador to Japan, to lead the DNC when current chairman Jaime Harrison‘s term concludes in March.
And, honestly, she has a point. Under Barack Obama’s leadership, Democrats experienced some of their worst down-ballot performances in modern history. But is the party’s problem really the so-called Obama coalition, or is it AOC and her loud progressive faction that’s driving voters away?
The Ghosts of Obama’s Leadership
Let’s not sugarcoat it—Barack Obama was a political phenomenon. His 2008 and 2012 campaigns were masterclasses in coalition-building, bringing together young voters, minorities, and educated urbanites. But the success of Obama’s personal brand didn’t translate into lasting gains for the Democratic Party.
In fact, during his presidency, Democrats lost more than 900 state legislative seats, 13 governorships, 69 House seats, and 13 Senate seats. The working-class voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin who helped Obama win twice? Many of them jumped ship in 2016, frustrated by policies they felt prioritized elite academic interests over their needs.
Yet Democrats seem intent on avoiding this painful truth. Rather than reckoning with Obama’s shortcomings as a party leader, they continue to idolize his approach. The problem, though, is that the coalition he built wasn’t designed for longevity—it was built for Obama himself. His successors, from Hillary Clinton to Joe Biden, have struggled to revive that same magic, leaving the party floundering in its search for a winning strategy.
The Biggest Loser? After Tuesday, it’s not just the title of the long-running reality TV weight-loss show anymore.
The biggest loser of the Nov. 5 elections, undeniably, was Vice President Kamala Harris. Despite raising and spending a staggering $1 billion in campaign cash and having the sycophantic support of the Hollywood glitterati, the now-lame-duck vice president was decisively defeated in her bid for promotion to the presidency.
Voters ensured she wouldn’t become the latest example of 1970s bestselling author Lawrence Peter’s “Peter Principle” theorem that people get promoted in a hierarchy until they reach a level at which they are no longer competent. Voters on Tuesday apparently concluded Harris had reached that point four years ago and resoundingly voted not to make that mistake again.
Harris demonstrated “Peter Principle”-level incompetence with her very first independent executive decision; namely, the choice of loopy leftist Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her vice presidential running mate.
Walz, a self-described “knucklehead,” brought to the Democratic ticket the frumpiness of George Costanza combined with the charisma of Elmer Fudd.
But while Harris and Walz were the biggest losers, they were far from the only big losers Tuesday night.
In no particular order, here are some of the many others who lost bigly:
Sen. Chuck Schumer: Voters demoted the New York Democrat from Senate majority leader to minority leader by kicking (at least) three longtime liberal Democratic senators—in Montana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania—to the curb. (Republicans also picked up an open Senate seat in West Virginia.)
Once and future President Donald Trump makes a joke about Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., (right) at the annual Alfred E. Smith Foundation charity fundraising dinner on Oct. 17 in New York City. Schumer was not amused. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)
Suddenly, but not surprisingly, abolishing the Senate filibuster is no longer a Democratic talking point. Talk of also abolishing the Electoral College has likewise gone away postelection, after the once and future President Donald Trump also won the popular vote in a nearly 5 million-vote landslide.
Liz Cheney: The Trump-hating former Republican congresswoman—resoundingly repudiated by Wyoming voters in 2022 after she cast her lot with Democrats on the kangaroo court Jan. 6 committee—campaigned extensively for Harris. Cheney’s dream of being tapped as defense secretary in a Harris administration is now kaput.
The “Blue Wall”: Even Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin couldn’t save Harris’ train wreck of a candidacy.
Political lawfare: Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith; New York state Attorney General Letitia James; Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis; and Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg will now have to find someone not named Trump to prosecute.
Hollywood: Cher and Barbra Streisand, Alec Baldwin and Robert De Niro, Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar, et al., your flight to Canada is now boarding at Gate 3. Make them one-way tickets, please.
How long can you talk shit about half the country before they get fed up? How long can you brag about the stock market while many Americans struggle at the grocery store and gas pump? How about hurricane victims getting ignored while illegals are put up in luxury hotels? I guess we found out.
Former NBC journo Brian Williams appeared on the Seth Meyers show this week and suggested that Democrats have completely lost the working class, which is true, and that it happened because Democrats kept gaslighting the public which was insulting.
He points to the way Democrats kept insisting that the economy was great while prices kept rising to ridiculous levels. He mentions the fact that the border was completely overrun while Democrats insisted that it was under control.
He cites other examples, but it’s all the same theme.
Seth Meyers Goes Quiet as Ex-NBC Anchor Torches Democrats for ‘Insulting’ the Working Class
“It is tough love time for the Democratic Party. I think it needs to be stripped down and rebuilt.”
Here’s how they alienated working-class voters, according to Brian Williams:
1. Ignoring Rising Costs: “A 12-pack of Bounty [paper towels] is $40. Rich folks don’t feel that. Poor folks already switched to Sparkle during the COVID lockdown.”
2. Touting Stock Market Success While Ignoring Economic Hardship for Regular People: “I think telling them that the Nasdaq is gangbusters is further insulting. It’s insulting.”
3. Downplaying Border Issues: “I think the biggest unforced error of the Biden administration by far was the border…. To tell people it’s not a problem is insulting.”
4. Providing Benefits to Migrants While Ignoring Citizens: “For the working class to see incoming migrants getting welcome bags, debit cards, and motel rooms is probably insulting as well.”
5. Failing to Address Biden’s Cognitive Decline: “I want to know who thought it was a good idea that Joe Biden stand for another four years at 80 years of age and 37% popularity.”
Liberals who are in the throes of capitulation and despair after Donald Trump’s crushing electoral and popular vote win can lay blame for their disastrous loss at the feet of one man: Barack Hussein Obama.
Obama built the Trump wave. His failure to live up to the promises of his populist 2008 run has cursed the Democratic Party, probably for a generation. The Washington DC establishment in just two short months is going to get “scholonged” by an angry and vengeful Trump, ready to rain executive hellfire on the bureaucrats and institutions that have spent the last nine years fighting him tooth and nail.
All of this could have been prevented. In 2008, Obama swept into power with a crushing electoral college and popular vote majority. He won Iowa, Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina. He even won Indiana. Democrats swept into power in Congress with a 74-seat lead in the House, nearly 59% of seats, and were gifted with a magical 60-seat filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate.
This was a generational victory, a sign that voters were fed up with politics as usual and the failures of the GOP and the Washington and Wall Street establishment as such. This victory wasn’t just about electing the first Black president, though that was important: The policies and platform at stake appealed deeply to voters.
It is worth remembering what exactly those policies were.
Obama promised to end the war in Iraq, end the Afghanistan war with honor, help the economy by reducing health care costs (prioritizing “Main Street” over Wall Street), and bring about a new era of racial harmony. Moreover, Obama explicitly eschewed radical leftist politics. He explicitly defended traditional marriage. In his DNC nomination speech, he condemned employers who “undercut American wages by hiring illegal workers.”
Obama ran a campaign on bringing “change” to DC. He made much of his status as a newcomer who lacked the “typical pedigree” of a candidate for the nation’s highest office.
Put another way, Obama won a decisive victory in 2008 by campaigning as a Washington outsider bent on ending foreign wars, boosting the economy by helping ordinary people, and being a moderate on social issues like abortion and gay marriage. Does this message sound familiar? It should.
With Republicans sweeping to a red trifecta in last week’s elections, stunningly capturing the White House and majorities in the House and Senate, Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is cutting a different tone, compared to his pre-election hype where he posited a Democrat win in the Senate and then potentially getting rid of the filibuster, among other radical proposals.
Ending the filibuster rule – which requires 60 votes to pass bills – would have made it easier for Democrats to supercharge their agenda and essentially railroad any Republican opposition.
Schumer and the Democrats tried to kill the filibuster in 2022 when they had 50 votes – the vice president could have broken the tie – but Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema refused to toe the Democratic party line. They eventually became Independents.
With Manchin and Sinema leaving the Senate, Schumer was confident of having at least 50 Senate seats after this year’s election with a then-potential Vice President Walz breaking the tie on a filibuster vote.
“We got it up to 48, but, of course, Sinema and Manchin voted no; that’s why we couldn’t change the rules. Well, they’re both gone,” Schumer told reporters on Tuesday during the week of the Democratic convention, according to NBC News.
The women’s vote in America is undergoing a profound transformation, marking a shift in how women view their place in politics.
Over the past four years, the establishment media and leftist agendas have pushed divisive narratives regarding gender, family and women’s issues. While they have put tampons in boys’ bathrooms, labeled conservatives as “garbage,” and called masculinity toxic, the America First movement has stayed grounded in values that genuinely matter to women, mothers and families. With President-elect Donald J. Trump recently naming Susie Wiles as the first female White House chief of staff in American history, the left’s hollow claims of supporting women are more exposed than ever.
When will they get the message? Women stand with the America First movement.
The left has not only alienated women by pushing radical policies, but they have even gone so far as to demean and ridicule conservative women. Their divisive rhetoric reveals an intolerance that many women are fed up with. Media giants like Disney, Bud Light and Target have adopted and promoted these ideologies, leading to a backlash from consumers, especially women, who are tired of having their values trampled. Financial repercussions followed as stock values dropped, signaling that Americans — especially women — have had enough. The message is clear: The America First movement is here to protect, not undermine, women’s interests.
Brian Leija, a 31-year-old small-business owner from Belton, Texas, was not surprised that a growing number of Latino men of his generation voted for Donald Trump for president this year. Leija voted for the Republican in 2016 and 2020.
Leija’s rationale was simple: He said he has benefited from Trump’s economic policies, especially tax cuts.
“I am a blue-collar worker,” Leija said. “So, tax breaks for small businesses are ideal for what I do.”
For DaSean Gallisaw, a consultant in Fairfax, Virginia, a vote for Trump was rooted in what he saw as Democrats’ rhetoric not matching their actions. “It’s been a very long time since the Democrats ever really kept their promises to what they’re going to do for the minority communities,” he said.
The Kamala Harris campaign raised an eye-popping billion dollars over the summer and into the fall, but it still wasn’t enough to beat Trump. It’s a good thing Americans didn’t trust her with the economy and the budget. Oh wait, they did the last 4 years and now we are $35 Trillion in debt
The more astounding part of the story however, is that despite having such a huge war chest of cash, the Harris campaign is ending with $20 million in debt.
Is there a more perfect metaphor for Democratic governance than this?
Harris’s Billion Dollar Campaign is Soliciting Donations and Selling Email List To Cover $20 Million Debt: Report
Vice President Kamala Harris’s billion-dollar campaign is reportedly soliciting donations from supporters and selling its email list to cover its $20 million debt.
Harris, who conceded the presidential race to Donald Trump Wednesday afternoon, ended her campaign with a debt of at least $20 million, sources told Politico’s California bureau chief Christopher Cadelago. The campaign is “selling their email list to make up for the losses,” according to Puck’s senior political correspondent Tara Palmeri.
The Harris campaign in an email Wednesday, well after voting ended, asked supporters to “donate to the Harris Fight Fund today to ensure we have the resources to elect Democrats down the ticket to hold the Trump administration accountable.”
A lot of this money went to concerts in swing states that did nothing to help Kamala’s campaign in the end.
In the end, the Kamala Harris campaign staged seven swing-state concerts on election eve, including performances by Jon Bon Jovi in Detroit, Christina Aguilera in Las Vegas, Katy Perry in Pittsburgh, and Lady Gaga in Philadelphia.
All of those swing states ended up in President-elect Donald Trump’s win column on Election Day.
While the pop stars reportedly waived their fees for Kamala, the campaign still had to pay for the staging, sound, security, and other costs associate with putting on a big rock concert.
Former senior Obama advisor-turned-senior Kamala Harris advisor David Plouffe hasdeleted his X account after suggesting on Wednesday that Harris’ landslide defeat was Joe Biden’s fault for not dropping out soon enough, and right as a massive campaign debt scandal erupts.
“We dug out of a deep hole but not enough. A devastating loss,” Plouffe posted to X – in what many interpreted as a dig at Biden.
Boyle’s post in its entirety:
Ok so this just got very explosive. A Kamala campaign staffer who saw these posts called me just now and said there is a massive scandal here worthy of an audit.
The $20 million debt thing is real.Rob Flaherty, this staffer said, is currently shopping around the Kamala fundraising email list to anyone who wants it to try to raise the money back. This includes other campaigns and outside groups.
Flaherty is the deputy campaign manager and reports to Jen O’Malley Dillon.
“Jen blew through a billion dollars in a few months and it was all Jen’s idea to do all the concerts.” — Kamala campaign adviser told me
This source added that O’Malley Dillon did these “concerts,” like Katy Perry, Lizzo, Eminem, Bruce Springsteen et cetera at the expense of “prioritizing and spending money on social media and other campaign priorities.”
Apparently a group in Georgia had to lay off 100 people because they couldn’t pay them.
It’s unclear at this time if the campaign PAID the talent to perform but the cost of production for the events was “immense.”
What’s more, this Kamala campaign staffer said several people who were working for the Kamala Harris for President campaign are still awaiting several overdue payments they were promised for their work. IE, they didn’t pay the staff.
This Kamala campaign staffer said to me of @jomalleydillon
“People didn’t like working with her. Many people on the campaign felt like we lost because Kamala wasn’t allowed to run her campaign. They were running Joe Biden’s campaign instead of a Kamala campaign. Obnoxious and very much a gate keeper and interfering with the vice president’s people who were trying to do their job.”
Good riddance. They were the poison on both social media and at their schools.
Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter, or X as it’s now called, has brought an abrupt shift in the dynamics of the platform. For years, X functioned as an echo chamber where progressive academics freely exchanged ideas, often without much opposition. It was an exclusive club, and Musk’s open-door policy shattered it. With censorship dialed back and banned accounts reinstated, Musk’s version of free speech drove many academics away, leading to a marked decrease in engagement among their ranks.
This article addresses a narrower empirical question: What did Elon Musk’s takeover of the platform mean for this academic ecosystem? Using a snowball sample of more than 15,700 academic accounts from the fields of economics, political science, sociology, and psychology, we show that academics in these fields reduced their “engagement” with the platform, measured by either the number of active accounts (i.e., those registering any behavior on a given day) or the number of tweets written (including original tweets, replies, retweets, and quote tweets). We further tested whether this decrease in engagement differed by account type; we found that verified users were significantly more likely to reduce their production of content (i.e., writing new tweets and quoting others’ tweets) but not their engagement with the platform writ large (i.e., retweeting and replying to others’ content).
The data points to a familiar pattern: when left-leaning narratives lose control of the conversation, proponents either cry foul or flee. Now, if you combine this exodus with the insights from Mitchell Langbert’s 2018 study on the political affiliations of elite liberal arts college faculty, the story becomes even clearer.
Langbert’s study from 2018, Homogenous: The Political Affiliations of Elite Liberal Arts College Faculty, reveals a staggering imbalance: liberal arts faculties are overwhelmingly Democratic, with many departments having zero registered Republicans. Across 51 colleges, the average Democratic-to-Republican ratio was 10.4:1. Excluding the two military colleges in the sample (West Point and Annapolis), the ratio jumped to 12.7:1. In the most ideologically driven fields, like gender and peace studies, there were no Republicans to be found.
Why Political Homogeneity Is Troubling
Political homogeneity is problematic because it biases research and teaching and reduces academic credibility. In a recent book on social psychology, The Politics of Social Psychology edited by Jarret T. Crawford and Lee Jussim, Mark J. Brandt and Anna Katarina Spälti, show that because of left-wing bias, psychologists are far more likely to study the character and evolution of individuals on the Right than individuals on the Left.2 Inevitably affecting the quality of this research, though, George Yancey found that sociologists prefer not to work with fundamentalists, evangelicals, National Rifle Association members, and Republicans.3 Even though more Americans are conservative than liberal, academic psychologists’ biases cause them to believe that conservatism is deviant. In the study of gender, Charlotta Stern finds that the ideological presumptions in sociology prevent any but the no-differences-between-genders assumptions of left-leaning sociologists from making serious research inroads. So pervasive is the lack of balance in academia that more than 1,000 professors and graduate students have started Heterodox Academy, an organization committed to increasing “viewpoint diversity” in higher education.4 The end result is that objective science becomes problematic, and where research is problematic, teaching is more so.
3
Delusions of Adequacy 
