Mike Benz (@mikebenzcyber) blows the lid off the entire Jeffrey Epstein mystery in real time simply by going through the NYT coverup and using his deep knowledge, ChatGPT, and Grokipedia. This is a Pulitzer, Nobel, and Oscar worthy performance by one of the heroes of independent media. This answers so many questions!
(In case YouTube scrubs the embedded version below, here is the X link:Saturday, December 20, 2025
Saturday, November 8, 2025
Tucker and Ben, an Allegory
An Allegory:
Tucker and Ben have been neighbors for decades. They have always been friendly. They often lend and borrow each others tools and help each other out. Their families have been known to get together for backyard barbecues, holidays, and birthdays. They don't agree on everything, though. One disagreement is how they worship. Another is how they recreate. Tucker likes hunting and killing animals for food and displaying on his wall. Ben plays tennis and violin. But none of those things have ever gotten in the way of their neighborly relationship.
One day in October, as Tucker is tying fishing lures on his back deck, a horrific scene unfolds. He witnesses a person he knows named Mohammed, who lives on the other side of town, murder Ben's wife and two of his three children.
First he watches as Mohammed ties Ben to a tree, rapes his wife, pours gasoline on her, and sets her ablaze while Ben struggles helplessly. Next he watches as Mohammed executes Ben's two oldest children, shooting them in the head. Finally he watches as Mohammed grabs the youngest child, ties her up, throws her in the back of his truck and speeds off.
Eventually, Tucker sees that somehow Ben has freed himself by chewing through his ropes, and watches as he runs towards him.
"Help! Help! Help!" cries Ben as he reaches Tucker, who remains on his deck tying fishing lures.
"Mohammed killed my wife and two oldest children, and now he has kidnapped my youngest! Please help!"
Tucker greets him offering his condolences and expressing dismay at what he just witnessed. "Of course, Ben, what can I do?" he says.
"Mohammed slashed my tires! Can I borrow your truck?" asks Ben.
"Ben, that pick-up means a lot to me. I can't just lend it out. I'd be heartbroken if something happened to it." Tucker explains.
"Seriously? After all you just witnessed, you won't help me?" pleads Ben.
"Look Ben, I've got a lot on my plate, I can't just get involved in every neighborhood dispute. It's "Tucker First" around here."
"Well, what about that bike?' asks Ben. "Can I borrow that?" pointing to an old BMX bike rusting in the yard.
"Sure, go ahead. Have at it, and good luck." says Tucker.
"One last thing." says Ben. "Can you do me a favor and call the police and report all this?"
"Sure, absolutely, no problem buddy." says Tucker.
As Ben awkwardly pedals down the driveway, Tucker reaches for his phone.
"Hello, police? I'd like to report...a stolen bike."
Wednesday, November 5, 2025
Fact Check: Socialism is The Darwin Award for Economic Stupidity
(Originally published Feb 12th, 2019 with a different picture at the top.)
Pop quiz:
The United States is:
A) a capitalist country
B) a socialist country
No doubt, you were raised to call our economic system, "capitalism". But did you know that the term "capitalism" is actually a derogatory one? Do you know who made that term popular? Did you know that that term didn't exist when the founders designed our economic system? And is it even true that we are a "capitalist" country today?
The original design of our economic system could best be described as "free-markets and limited-government", not capitalist. But by the numbers, we have spent the last 100 years moving, or "progressing", away from our original design. Arguably, we can no longer be considered a free-market / limited-government country. Here's a graph that chronicles this "progress": (click on the graph to view it in higher resolution)
In 1900, total government spending (federal, state, and local) consumed less than 10% of the private sector (private sector = GDP minus federal, state, and local government spending). Then, in 1919, exactly 100 years ago, the Communist Party of the USA was founded on an agenda of labor unions and totalitarian socialism. By the 1930s labor unions were in full bloom, and some of CPUSA's socialist wish-list was already law. Under Barack Obama, the last President to have a complete record, peace-time government spending consumed about 70% of the private sector. That is the highest peace-time level in our history. Only WWII exceeded it. When 70% of a nation's wealth is consumed by government during peace-time, that may not be textbook socialism, but it certainly isn't the free-market / limited-government we had prior to 1929.
In nominal terms, the largest socialist programs on Earth are all U.S. programs. They make-up about 50% of our total federal, state, and local government spending. Social Security is the largest government retirement program in the world. Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, Obamacare, etc., make up the largest government medical programs in the world. Our government welfare programs, federal, state, and local, are the biggest on the planet. Our food stamp program is the biggest on the planet. And our accumulated government debt is the largest in the world. Among the most populist countries, none, including countries like China, India, Indonesia, and Russia spend anything near what we do on social programs. Many European countries do spend more per capita, but they are small compared to the U.S., and the spending differences are, for the most part, minimal.
But spending is not the only measure of a government's size. Regulation plays an equally important role, and the U.S. economy is highly regulated at the federal, state, and local levels. In short, one can make the case that between government spending and our high levels of regulation, we have already turned the corner. For socialists though, there are no limiting principles, and thus there is always more to do.
Our latest socialist push, which began with Barack Obama, is gathering steam and is represented today by Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and over half the Democrat party which supports Medicare for All, The Green New Deal, Guaranteed Income, Guaranteed Jobs, 70% - 90% marginal tax rates, and the like. Today, socialism polls higher than capitalism among Democrats and the young. It is an inexorable political force that is clearly visible on the graph above. And it will undoubtedly continue to overtake our once free-market / limited-government system.
Unlike free-markets and limited-government, socialism in its fully realized form requires unlimited, or "totalitarian" government. That's because coercion is at the heart of it. Totalitarian government is required to force citizens to do something that is entirely unnatural - work hard without the ability to realize the fruits of one's labor. (Gee, that sounds familiar. Didn't we fight a civil war over that?). Dissociating work from reward is the "fatal conceit" of socialism, to borrow a phrase from F.A. Hayek.
But none of that is taught in America today. Which is why we are where we are, and are careening rapidly towards totalitarian socialism. Why is this accelerating now?
Pop quiz:
Conversely, if you are asked who the father of modern capitalism is, odds are you'd either draw a blank, or be mostly wrong.
If you attended a public school in the U.S., chances are most of your teachers were union members. Unions were prohibited for most government workers prior to the 1960s because organized labor in the U.S. began as a communist/socialist movement. Public sector unions were seen as a huge conflict of interest. But that changed in the 1960's under Democrat John F. Kennedy, and since then government workers, including school teachers, have flooded into organized labor. That's not to say all teachers and organized laborers are socialists. Most probably don't even think in those terms, but the politics of organized labor leans undeniably in that direction. You may or may not have been taught Marxism in school, but you probably weren't taught anything positive about "capitalism"!
If you attended a college in the U.S., particularly in recent years, you are very likely to have been taught Marxism. Karl Marx's "Communist Manifesto" is the third most assigned book at U.S. colleges today. That's out of all the books ever published! The next most assigned book in economics, capitalist or otherwise, is not even close.
So how did you answer the second question above? In one sense the answer to that one is again... Karl Marx. Yes, Karl Marx is both the father of modern communism/socialism AND the father of modern capitalism. Karl Marx was the person who defined that term for the masses in his risible critique of 1860s capitalism, "Das Kapital".
Many scholars credit a Scotsman named Adam Smith as the person whose ideas most influenced our economic system. Adam Smith’s book, “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” was actually published in 1776. (That date rings a bell, no?) But the word capitalism wasn't in common use in Adam Smith’s day. He never used it. We mistakenly call our economic system capitalism because that's what Marx and the critics called it. The name unfortunately stuck.
The United States is:
A) a capitalist country
B) a socialist country
No doubt, you were raised to call our economic system, "capitalism". But did you know that the term "capitalism" is actually a derogatory one? Do you know who made that term popular? Did you know that that term didn't exist when the founders designed our economic system? And is it even true that we are a "capitalist" country today?
The original design of our economic system could best be described as "free-markets and limited-government", not capitalist. But by the numbers, we have spent the last 100 years moving, or "progressing", away from our original design. Arguably, we can no longer be considered a free-market / limited-government country. Here's a graph that chronicles this "progress": (click on the graph to view it in higher resolution)
In 1900, total government spending (federal, state, and local) consumed less than 10% of the private sector (private sector = GDP minus federal, state, and local government spending). Then, in 1919, exactly 100 years ago, the Communist Party of the USA was founded on an agenda of labor unions and totalitarian socialism. By the 1930s labor unions were in full bloom, and some of CPUSA's socialist wish-list was already law. Under Barack Obama, the last President to have a complete record, peace-time government spending consumed about 70% of the private sector. That is the highest peace-time level in our history. Only WWII exceeded it. When 70% of a nation's wealth is consumed by government during peace-time, that may not be textbook socialism, but it certainly isn't the free-market / limited-government we had prior to 1929.
In nominal terms, the largest socialist programs on Earth are all U.S. programs. They make-up about 50% of our total federal, state, and local government spending. Social Security is the largest government retirement program in the world. Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, Obamacare, etc., make up the largest government medical programs in the world. Our government welfare programs, federal, state, and local, are the biggest on the planet. Our food stamp program is the biggest on the planet. And our accumulated government debt is the largest in the world. Among the most populist countries, none, including countries like China, India, Indonesia, and Russia spend anything near what we do on social programs. Many European countries do spend more per capita, but they are small compared to the U.S., and the spending differences are, for the most part, minimal.
But spending is not the only measure of a government's size. Regulation plays an equally important role, and the U.S. economy is highly regulated at the federal, state, and local levels. In short, one can make the case that between government spending and our high levels of regulation, we have already turned the corner. For socialists though, there are no limiting principles, and thus there is always more to do.
Our latest socialist push, which began with Barack Obama, is gathering steam and is represented today by Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and over half the Democrat party which supports Medicare for All, The Green New Deal, Guaranteed Income, Guaranteed Jobs, 70% - 90% marginal tax rates, and the like. Today, socialism polls higher than capitalism among Democrats and the young. It is an inexorable political force that is clearly visible on the graph above. And it will undoubtedly continue to overtake our once free-market / limited-government system.
Unlike free-markets and limited-government, socialism in its fully realized form requires unlimited, or "totalitarian" government. That's because coercion is at the heart of it. Totalitarian government is required to force citizens to do something that is entirely unnatural - work hard without the ability to realize the fruits of one's labor. (Gee, that sounds familiar. Didn't we fight a civil war over that?). Dissociating work from reward is the "fatal conceit" of socialism, to borrow a phrase from F.A. Hayek.
But none of that is taught in America today. Which is why we are where we are, and are careening rapidly towards totalitarian socialism. Why is this accelerating now?
Pop quiz:
- Who is the father of modern socialism/communism?
- Who is the father of modern capitalism?
Conversely, if you are asked who the father of modern capitalism is, odds are you'd either draw a blank, or be mostly wrong.
If you attended a public school in the U.S., chances are most of your teachers were union members. Unions were prohibited for most government workers prior to the 1960s because organized labor in the U.S. began as a communist/socialist movement. Public sector unions were seen as a huge conflict of interest. But that changed in the 1960's under Democrat John F. Kennedy, and since then government workers, including school teachers, have flooded into organized labor. That's not to say all teachers and organized laborers are socialists. Most probably don't even think in those terms, but the politics of organized labor leans undeniably in that direction. You may or may not have been taught Marxism in school, but you probably weren't taught anything positive about "capitalism"!
If you attended a college in the U.S., particularly in recent years, you are very likely to have been taught Marxism. Karl Marx's "Communist Manifesto" is the third most assigned book at U.S. colleges today. That's out of all the books ever published! The next most assigned book in economics, capitalist or otherwise, is not even close.
So how did you answer the second question above? In one sense the answer to that one is again... Karl Marx. Yes, Karl Marx is both the father of modern communism/socialism AND the father of modern capitalism. Karl Marx was the person who defined that term for the masses in his risible critique of 1860s capitalism, "Das Kapital".
Many scholars credit a Scotsman named Adam Smith as the person whose ideas most influenced our economic system. Adam Smith’s book, “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” was actually published in 1776. (That date rings a bell, no?) But the word capitalism wasn't in common use in Adam Smith’s day. He never used it. We mistakenly call our economic system capitalism because that's what Marx and the critics called it. The name unfortunately stuck.
If everyone knows what "Marxism" is, why doesn't everyone know what "Smithism" is? Because it’s not taught, except to select economics majors. According to the Open Syllabus Project, Adam Smith is assigned at a rate about 25% compared to Karl Marx. "Smithism" never became a word the way "Marxism" did. You can go through K-12 and well beyond in schools in the U.S. and never hear the name Adam Smith, never learn about his ideas, and never understand the influence those ideas had on the founding and success of our country.
Pop quiz:
- What is Supply Side Economics?
- What is Demand Side Economics?
· Supply side economics is the theory that people will SUPPLY (create) more value if they are allowed to function in a free market.
· Demand side economics is the theory that people will DEMAND (consume) more value if wealth is redistributed to them.
These are opposite approaches for achieving different economic goals. Supply Side seeks to optimize overall economic vitality (Smithism). Demand Side seeks to stimulate consumption (Keynesianism), or at times to redistribute wealth (Marxism).
If you look up supply side economics on Wikipedia, you’ll find a thorough entry along with plenty of criticisms. If you look up demand side economics, you’ll get... crickets. The language in this case does not favor the Marxist/socialist demand side ideology. Hence, it is not even defined. [UPDATE: There is now a short and inaccurate entry on Wikipedia for Demand Side Economics. When the first version of this piece was written in 2016, there was only a re-direct to "Keynesianism".]
Pop quiz:
The financial crisis of 2008 was caused by:
A) Greedy bankers, deregulation, George W Bush, and capitalism
B) Socialism
No event had a more profound impact on this country's recent tilt towards socialism than the financial crisis of 2008. It is said that history is written by the victors. That has never been more true than in the wake of the financial crisis. Democrats controlled the government commission that wrote the post-mortem. Barack Obama won the presidency. Democrats had both houses of congress. And liberals made the movies and wrote the books explaining the crisis to the masses. Unfortunately, everything they told you was a deliberate deception designed to exonerate socialism, and scapegoat capitalism.
The fact is, the financial crisis of 2008 was a perfect demonstration of the failures of socialism. Redistribution of wealth, in this case redistribution of mortgage credit, was at the heart of the financial crisis. At times, the support for this redistribution was bi-partisan, but the ideology behind it was socialist/demand side regardless of who was advocating.
It all began with the affordable housing goals promoted by Democrats in the early 1990s, which lowered mortgage requirements. It accelerated in the mid 1990s under Democrat Bill Clinton with further loosening of mortgage standards, pressure on banks to write loose loans, and mandates for government backed companies FNMA (Fannie Mae) and FHLMC (Freddie Mac) to buy all the new mortgages. It finally reached its apex in 2007 under Republican George W. Bush, while Democrats including Senator Barack Obama, ran both houses of congress.
All of the risk from this socialist redistribution was supposed to be assumed by the federal government, mostly in the form of the afore mentioned government backed companies. Fannie and Freddie were ground zero for the financial crisis. No government official took more money from these two companies, and at a faster rate, than the junior Senator from Illinois named Barack Obama. His closest competitors in that money grab included Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Hillary Clinton. If this is news to you, it's because they wrote the history.
What they told you was that it was a perfect storm involving greedy bankers, deregulation, and the natural flaws of capitalism. It was a plausible argument designed to deceive. Bankers today are no greedier than their banking forebears. So why did they suddenly engage in such risky lending? Because they were coerced to do so.
Deregulation also had nothing to do with it. Canadian banks are lightly regulated compared to their U.S. counterparts and none of them failed. Why the difference? Only in the U.S. was mortgage credit redistributed. To make matters worse, government regulations encouraged financial institutions to load up on mortgage backed securities. Unfortunately, when the scheme went bad the damage quickly spread to the private financial sector bringing the entire global financial system to its knees.
In summary: You were indoctrinated to be a socialist. You were indoctrinated to call our system capitalism. You've been deceived about the benefits of socialism. You've been deceived about the evils of free markets. And you've been deceived about the perils of national socialism. If you still think socialism is great after all that, congratulations, you've earned a Darwin Award in Economics!Pop quiz:
A) Greedy bankers, deregulation, George W Bush, and capitalism
B) Socialism
Most likely, you are 100% certain the correct answer is A.
No event had a more profound impact on this country's recent tilt towards socialism than the financial crisis of 2008. It is said that history is written by the victors. That has never been more true than in the wake of the financial crisis. Democrats controlled the government commission that wrote the post-mortem. Barack Obama won the presidency. Democrats had both houses of congress. And liberals made the movies and wrote the books explaining the crisis to the masses. Unfortunately, everything they told you was a deliberate deception designed to exonerate socialism, and scapegoat capitalism.
The fact is, the financial crisis of 2008 was a perfect demonstration of the failures of socialism. Redistribution of wealth, in this case redistribution of mortgage credit, was at the heart of the financial crisis. At times, the support for this redistribution was bi-partisan, but the ideology behind it was socialist/demand side regardless of who was advocating.
It all began with the affordable housing goals promoted by Democrats in the early 1990s, which lowered mortgage requirements. It accelerated in the mid 1990s under Democrat Bill Clinton with further loosening of mortgage standards, pressure on banks to write loose loans, and mandates for government backed companies FNMA (Fannie Mae) and FHLMC (Freddie Mac) to buy all the new mortgages. It finally reached its apex in 2007 under Republican George W. Bush, while Democrats including Senator Barack Obama, ran both houses of congress.
All of the risk from this socialist redistribution was supposed to be assumed by the federal government, mostly in the form of the afore mentioned government backed companies. Fannie and Freddie were ground zero for the financial crisis. No government official took more money from these two companies, and at a faster rate, than the junior Senator from Illinois named Barack Obama. His closest competitors in that money grab included Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Hillary Clinton. If this is news to you, it's because they wrote the history.
What they told you was that it was a perfect storm involving greedy bankers, deregulation, and the natural flaws of capitalism. It was a plausible argument designed to deceive. Bankers today are no greedier than their banking forebears. So why did they suddenly engage in such risky lending? Because they were coerced to do so.
Deregulation also had nothing to do with it. Canadian banks are lightly regulated compared to their U.S. counterparts and none of them failed. Why the difference? Only in the U.S. was mortgage credit redistributed. To make matters worse, government regulations encouraged financial institutions to load up on mortgage backed securities. Unfortunately, when the scheme went bad the damage quickly spread to the private financial sector bringing the entire global financial system to its knees.
The deceptions about this animated the Occupy Wall Street movement, got Barack Obama elected twice, and are responsible for the acceptance of openly socialist candidates like Bernie Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez today. They are also part of the continuing campaign that has mischaracterized the mortgage market as an example of free-market failure.
The frightening thing about this is, if history is written by the victors and they engage in deception, aren't we doomed to repeat it? Fannie and Freddie own just about every new mortgage written since 2008, and the socialist policies promoting home ownership and borrowing accelerated under Barack Obama. We are currently in the process of building a second real estate bubble. Adding to that are new socialist bubbles in national debt, student loans, auto loans, and equity prices.
Pop quiz:
People love Scandinavian socialism because:
A) Scandinavian countries are happy, healthy, productive, prosperous, AND socialist
B) They misunderstand Scandinavian economics and history
Scandinavian success came long before their experiment with socialism. They were happy, healthy, productive, and prosperous prior to the 1960s when they first began their turn towards socialism. Socialism had nothing to do with their success. But sixty years of high taxes and socialism has slowed their growth and momentum. Until recently, Sweden and Denmark spent more than 100% of their private sectors on government - an obviously unsustainable level. In response, socialist Europe has been freeing their economies and sharply turning away from socialism. Switzerland, Ireland, and the U.K. are economically freer than the U.S., and Sweden, yes "socialist" Sweden, is essentially tied with the U.S. in economic freedom today. (According to the Heritage Foundation rankings.)
Here's the thing: National socialism has never produced anything long term other than misery, poverty, totalitarianism, and death. Think Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea. The NAZIS, who brought about the holocaust, WWII, and directly or indirectly caused the death of 70 million people, were known by the German acronym for "National Socialists".
So, that's at the national level. And long term. At the local level, socialism can survive a bit longer. Local socialism does not eliminate the incentive killing aspects of socialism, but it does avoid the inevitable monetary collapse. That's because local governments cannot create money and therefore tend to be more fiscally responsible. National governments can hide their insolvency, plunder future generations, devalue currencies, manipulate interest rates, and cause much bigger problems down the road.
This is an important point that deserves repeating; socialism cannot work long term at the national level. The national level is where money is created and controlled. Our system was never designed to be a socialist system. The Constitution implied that the states were the proper place for redistributive experimentation. The conflict of interest at the national level is just too great. National politicians will eventually destroy the currency, borrow too heavily, undermine the work ethic, and undermine national defense in an attempt to gain and maintain power. The founders knew that. It is happening today. We doubled our national debt during just Obama's eight years. Interest rates were artificially held near zero for that entire time. If and when rates normalize to historical levels, the debt service alone will cause the kind of pain socialist nations have felt throughout history. We are not immune.
The frightening thing about this is, if history is written by the victors and they engage in deception, aren't we doomed to repeat it? Fannie and Freddie own just about every new mortgage written since 2008, and the socialist policies promoting home ownership and borrowing accelerated under Barack Obama. We are currently in the process of building a second real estate bubble. Adding to that are new socialist bubbles in national debt, student loans, auto loans, and equity prices.
Pop quiz:
People love Scandinavian socialism because:
A) Scandinavian countries are happy, healthy, productive, prosperous, AND socialist
B) They misunderstand Scandinavian economics and history
Scandinavian success came long before their experiment with socialism. They were happy, healthy, productive, and prosperous prior to the 1960s when they first began their turn towards socialism. Socialism had nothing to do with their success. But sixty years of high taxes and socialism has slowed their growth and momentum. Until recently, Sweden and Denmark spent more than 100% of their private sectors on government - an obviously unsustainable level. In response, socialist Europe has been freeing their economies and sharply turning away from socialism. Switzerland, Ireland, and the U.K. are economically freer than the U.S., and Sweden, yes "socialist" Sweden, is essentially tied with the U.S. in economic freedom today. (According to the Heritage Foundation rankings.)
Here's the thing: National socialism has never produced anything long term other than misery, poverty, totalitarianism, and death. Think Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea. The NAZIS, who brought about the holocaust, WWII, and directly or indirectly caused the death of 70 million people, were known by the German acronym for "National Socialists".
So, that's at the national level. And long term. At the local level, socialism can survive a bit longer. Local socialism does not eliminate the incentive killing aspects of socialism, but it does avoid the inevitable monetary collapse. That's because local governments cannot create money and therefore tend to be more fiscally responsible. National governments can hide their insolvency, plunder future generations, devalue currencies, manipulate interest rates, and cause much bigger problems down the road.
This is an important point that deserves repeating; socialism cannot work long term at the national level. The national level is where money is created and controlled. Our system was never designed to be a socialist system. The Constitution implied that the states were the proper place for redistributive experimentation. The conflict of interest at the national level is just too great. National politicians will eventually destroy the currency, borrow too heavily, undermine the work ethic, and undermine national defense in an attempt to gain and maintain power. The founders knew that. It is happening today. We doubled our national debt during just Obama's eight years. Interest rates were artificially held near zero for that entire time. If and when rates normalize to historical levels, the debt service alone will cause the kind of pain socialist nations have felt throughout history. We are not immune.
(originally posted in 2019 with a different picture at the top)
Wednesday, October 8, 2025
Fact Check: Is Political Violence a "Both Sides" Problem?
Have you heard Democrats say things like, "Both sides need to turn down the rhetoric!" and, "The violence is on both sides!" Well, that's not even remotely true. And if you think I'm cherry picking just the last 10 years, I researched every Presidential assassination and the results are HERE.
Monday, October 6, 2025
Fact Check: What Does Free Palestine Really Mean?
This is too good not to share. From Prager U and Larry Elder today (10/6/25):
Here's the link in case it doesn't play or gets censored. https://www.prageru.com/videos/what-free-palestine-really-means
Friday, September 12, 2025
Fact Check: Why was Charlie Kirk Killed? [UPDATED]
This Headline ran BEFORE the election of Donald Trump in 2016.
Can you name this politician?
- He is: a tyrant, a despot, a racist, a bigot, a dictator, a liar, a demagogue, grossly unqualified, lacking in character, ugly, an idiot, a braggart, a buffoon, a monster, foul tongued, indecent, disrespectful to women, vulgar, intellectually lazy, a white supremacist, deranged from syphilis, disrespectful of freedom of the press.
- If he is elected we will: leave the country, secede, refuse to follow federal laws.
- He should: be assassinated, be impeached, be removed, go to hell.
- His way of speaking and writing is: silly, slip-shod, loose-jointed, lacking in the simplest rules of syntax, coarse, devoid of grace, filled with glittering generalities.
- He and his entire cabinet are not equal to the occasion and are full of incapacity and rottenness.
All those were direct quotes about Abraham Lincoln! *
That's right; the Republican who freed the slaves and defeated the confederacy, whose memorial sits on the mall in D.C., and who is on the penny and the five dollar bill, was, prior to being assassinated, the most hated president in American history. Until Donald Trump, that is.
I'm not implying some equivalence between Donald Trump and the now revered Honest Abe. I am however asserting some striking similarities between what's happening with Trump and what happened with Lincoln. In many significant and ominous ways we are reliving the disastrous 1860s. That should concern everyone.
Democrats hated Lincoln for the same reason they hate Trump - both threatened "entitlements". (By entitlement, I'm referring to anything that benefits one group at the expense of another.)
Slavery was such an entitlement. It benefitted slave owners at the expense of the slaves. Lincoln was the first president to be seriously unsympathetic to that entitlement. You may not have learned this in school, but Republicans didn't own slaves. Slavery was a Democrat institution.
Today’s Democrats have several entitlements perceived to be under threat by Donald Trump: the teacher's union monopoly entitlement, the government bureaucrat power entitlement, the various Obamacare and medical entitlements, the government permanent union job entitlement, the cheap labor illegal immigrant entitlement, the Muslim refugee entitlement, the illegal voting entitlement, the congressional unlimited tax and spend entitlement, the subsidized mortgage entitlement, the media power entitlement, the lopsided trade agreement entitlement, the EPA unlimited power entitlement, the radical LGBTQ federal rights entitlement, the federally funded late term abortion entitlement, and many more.
And that list doesn’t include the traditional transfer payment entitlements like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Food Stamps, etc. Even Donald Trump’s just released budget doesn’t dare touch those entrenched goodies. But it matters little whether or not a politician explicitly threatens to take the candy away. The only requirement for drawing Democrat vitriol is the perception that an entitlement is under threat.
Thus, pretty much every Republican since the Progressive Era has been Hitler or equivalent. Most recently, Reagan was Hitler, Bush was Hitler, McCain was Hitler. Even Mitt Romney, a decent man by politician standards and a bishop in his church, was Hitler. Romney also wanted to bring back slavery, keep women in binders, and was a notorious abuser of puppies.
There is a big difference between dissent and hate. Dissenters will assert that the other side is wrong. Haters will assert that the other side is evil. When Democrats employ the vitriolic rhetoric they used against Lincoln, they are labeling Trump and his supporters evil. This is a deliberate tactic to dehumanize an opponent and open the door to violence. All tactics, including violence, are appropriate when dealing with evil. It must be stopped at all costs.
In both Lincoln's and Trump's cases, Democrat civil disobedience began immediately after the election. Southern Democrat states began seceding in 1860 right after Lincoln won the election. Similarly, Democrats were in the streets protesting and being violent immediately following Trump's 2016 victory.
Most recently, several Democrat state and local governments have announced plans to "secede" by refusing to enforce certain federal laws. In response, Donald Trump has promised to withhold federal funds. This type of standoff is exactly what led to the battle of Fort Sumter, the first battle of the Civil War. Fort Sumter took place six weeks after Lincoln took office. Donald Trump has been in office six weeks as of today.
If you think I'm exaggerating the danger posed by hateful rhetoric and demonization, consider that Betsy DeVos, the new Secretary of Education, vilified and threatened by Democrats and the teacher's union, has been placed under the protection of federal marshals. The only other cabinet member ever needing federal marshals was a drug czar in danger of being murdered by violent drug cartels!
Entertainers have also expressed a particularly virulent strain of hatred towards Donald Trump. Thus, the Golden Globes and Oscars spent an inordinate amount of time hating the new President. Saturday Night Live is pretty much full time Trump hatred, and you can’t attend a play or concert without the actors and musicians lecturing on the evils of Trump.
Abraham Lincoln faced a similar situation from Democrat entertainers in his day. An actor named John Wilkes Booth, whom Lincoln had seen perform only a week before, was the man who infamously shot him in the head while attending another play. As Booth jumped onto the stage immediately after shooting Lincoln he shouted, “Sic Semper Tyrannis!”, thus always to tyrants! Donald Trump has already survived at least one bumbling assassination attempt during his campaign.
Dissent is a necessary part of democracy, but hatred is a necessary part of dissolution and civil war. Once Democrats convince themselves that half the country is made-up of deplorable fascist Hitler supporters, don’t they have an obligation to eliminate them? If you are convinced that any Trump supporter you know is evil, where does that logically lead? Hateful rhetoric disguised as dissent can unintentionally paint impressionable minds into a dangerous corner with no peaceful way out. We know what that led to in the 1860s.
Come on America, we’ve seen this play before. Let’s not give it a sequel.
* Here are the the sources for the Lincoln quotes:
_________________________________________________________
I wrote the above in early 2017 in response to the constant barrage of, "Hitler!", "Dictator!", "Fascist!", "NAZI!" aimed at Donald Trump and his supporters. Now Charlie Kirk, the leader of the Trump youth movement and a key player in Trump's re-election, has been assassinated.
After 10 years of indoctrination and brainwashing the left is completely deranged and convinced they are fighting a fascist Hitlerian dictator. It is delusional and deadly.
Hitler was a socialist (NAZI is an abbreviation for "national socialist") who killed millions, started wars, invaded neighbors, took guns away from minorities, grew government, increased regulation, throttled individual rights, throttled freedom of religion, was hyper-focused on race, and turned the police state on law abiding citizens forcing them into labor camps before sending them to gas chambers.
In other words, irrefutably the exact opposite of Donald Trump.
[UPDATE]
Here's the end result after 10 years of brainwashing and derangement. See if you can see a pattern:
Please let me know in the comments if I missed any.
Unless Democrats can be de-programmed, like, yesterday, expect way more of this.
Tuesday, July 22, 2025
Fact Check: Did Obama Lead A Coup d'Etat Against Trump?
Today, July 22nd, 2025, President Donald Trump stated publicly that he has documentary proof that Barack Hussein Obama led a multi-year coup d'etat against him and the elected government of the United States. This is historic and serious. And it's about fucking time.
The President used the word "treason", an interesting word choice since it is the only crime defined in the U.S. Constitution and is punishable by death. According to the definition, treason involves the use of force. I seem to recall heavily armed FBI agents raiding Trump's Florida home for strictly political reasons. This looks bad for all the perps.
But we don't have to speculate any more. There are de-classified documents that prove the Russia collusion hoax was concocted by Barack Hussein Obama and a cabal of treasonous Democrats.
DNI Tulsi Gabbard (recently a Democrat) has released some of those documents and there are more to come. Donald Trump has seen them and that's what led to his statement.
But we all knew this 8 years ago without those documents. Here's what I wrote in 2017 about Obama's coup d'etat:
_______________________________________________________
Almost everything that has happened in the last two years to damage Donald Trump stemmed from the infamous "dossier". You remember, the one that triggered the whole Trump/Russia/Collusion meme? Now we know it was a Hillary Clinton / DNC concoction. According to The Washington Post, Marc Elias, counsel to the Clinton's and the DNC, paid for the "dossier". It was then used as the basis for the investigations of the Trump campaign and transition by Barack Obama and his entire intelligence apparatus. Barack Obama, John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Susan Rice, Samantha Power, et al all used a phony concocted dossier as their basis for wiretapping, unmasking, investigating, and sabotaging the Trump campaign and administration.
It was a conspiracy and a full-blown coup d'etat led by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Here's a partial list of the events that have stemmed from the dirty "dossier":
The whole Russia/Collusion/Trump meme
FISA warrants for Trump associates
Massive (illegal) unmasking of private citizens
Firing of Mike Flynn, Paul Manafort, and others
Recusal of Jeff Sessions
The firing of James Comey
Appointment of Independent Counsel Robert Mueller by Rod Rosenstein
Buy-in from Obama's entire Intelligence Community, CIA, NSA, FBI, etc.
Ongoing Senate and House investigations
Stalling of the Trump agenda in Congress
Calls for Trump's impeachment
Calls for war on Russia
Expelling of Russian diplomats
U.S. Troops deployed near Russia by Obama
The other part of all this, of course, was the assessment that the DNC and John Podesta email hacks were the work of the Russians and Vladimir Putin himself. This assessment came from none other than the Obama FBI under James Comey. But the FBI famously didn't do their own assessment because the DNC refused them access to their servers. The assessment came instead from a private company called Crowdstrike. Crowdstrike is a Google funded company, and Google parent chairman Eric Schmidt was a key player on the Hillary Clinton campaign
Andrew McCarthy at National Review notes that the same law firm that funded the dossier also retained Crowdstrike. And all of it was conveniently done behind a wall of attorney client privilege. What are the odds this same firm is involved in Uranium One?
This all looks like corruption and abuse of power unprecedented in our lifetimes. Not funny.
[UPDATE] As suspected, Perkins Coie, the law firm involved in the dossier and Crowdstrike, is also involved in Uranium One. At a minimum, Uranium One's trademark was handled by Perkins Coie.
This is who is listed as "Correspondent" for the trademark:
PATCHEN M. HAGGERTY
PERKINS COIE LLP
1201 3RD AVE STE 4900
SEATTLE WA 98101-3099
Indeed, all roads lead to Perkins Coie when it comes to Clinton/Obama/Democrat/Russia collusion.
It was a conspiracy and a full-blown coup d'etat led by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Here's a partial list of the events that have stemmed from the dirty "dossier":
The whole Russia/Collusion/Trump meme
FISA warrants for Trump associates
Massive (illegal) unmasking of private citizens
Firing of Mike Flynn, Paul Manafort, and others
Recusal of Jeff Sessions
The firing of James Comey
Appointment of Independent Counsel Robert Mueller by Rod Rosenstein
Buy-in from Obama's entire Intelligence Community, CIA, NSA, FBI, etc.
Ongoing Senate and House investigations
Stalling of the Trump agenda in Congress
Calls for Trump's impeachment
Calls for war on Russia
Expelling of Russian diplomats
U.S. Troops deployed near Russia by Obama
The other part of all this, of course, was the assessment that the DNC and John Podesta email hacks were the work of the Russians and Vladimir Putin himself. This assessment came from none other than the Obama FBI under James Comey. But the FBI famously didn't do their own assessment because the DNC refused them access to their servers. The assessment came instead from a private company called Crowdstrike. Crowdstrike is a Google funded company, and Google parent chairman Eric Schmidt was a key player on the Hillary Clinton campaign
Andrew McCarthy at National Review notes that the same law firm that funded the dossier also retained Crowdstrike. And all of it was conveniently done behind a wall of attorney client privilege. What are the odds this same firm is involved in Uranium One?
This all looks like corruption and abuse of power unprecedented in our lifetimes. Not funny.
[UPDATE] As suspected, Perkins Coie, the law firm involved in the dossier and Crowdstrike, is also involved in Uranium One. At a minimum, Uranium One's trademark was handled by Perkins Coie.
This is who is listed as "Correspondent" for the trademark:
PATCHEN M. HAGGERTY
PERKINS COIE LLP
1201 3RD AVE STE 4900
SEATTLE WA 98101-3099
Indeed, all roads lead to Perkins Coie when it comes to Clinton/Obama/Democrat/Russia collusion.
Sunday, June 22, 2025
Trump Bombs Iran, Obama Hit Hardest!
(I wrote the following in 2015 on this blog:)
Barack Obama, Magician
"Great liars are also great magicians."Barack Obama wants you to believe he is negotiating with Iran about nukes. Pick up a paper, watch a news show, listen to the radio, wherever you are in the world, you will be told about an historic negotiation going on with the P5+1 talks, and it's all about Iran's nuclear program.
Truth is, these talks are nothing more than cover for lifting sanctions on Iran, many of which were preemptively lifted before the talks started. The talks are Kabuki theatre, a magic trick, to distract you from seeing what's really going on. This is a trade deal with the world's number one state sponsor of terrorism - a rogue nation bent on bringing about nuclear armageddon, wiping Israel off the map, and achieving regional Shiite hegemony.
If you have any doubts about whether or not this is about nukes, I advise you to read Dan Henninger's piece in The Wall Street Journal, "Why the Iran Deal is Irrelevant" from 4/2. Mr Henninger chronicles the parallels between North Korea and Iran and the pursuit of nukes. Iran cannot be stopped by talking. Everyone knows this. Talking had zero effect on North Korea over three presidencies. Sanctions, and the perception that force is an option, are the only way to prevent a rogue nation from acquiring nukes.
Not only has Obama lifted sanctions and taken the threat of force off the table, he is guaranteeing Iran the right to spin centrifuges, enrich uranium, and follow through on their promise to nuke Israel off the map. This trade deal does nothing but make Iran richer and accelerate their ability to achieve these goals.
Barack Hussein Obama, peace be upon him, apparently shares these goals.
Incidentally, the quote at the top is often credited to Adolf Hitler.
Monday, March 31, 2025
BUMPED: The Truth about Non-Citizen Voting and the Open Border
Now that DOGE has looked into the scale of non-citizens with Social Security numbers (in the millions!) and non-citizen registered voters (in the millions!), it's time to once again post this piece I wrote before the election in 2024. This is eye opening stuff that has now been confirmed by Elon Musk and his DOGE team:
A Socratic Guide to The Open Border
Intro I
As you may have heard, America's borders are wide open. How wide open, you ask? Well, current estimates are that one in five hotels in New York City are involved in housing migrants.* That's NYC, not Houston, Phoenix, or LA. Most Americans would have trouble affording a single night in a Manhattan hotel, yet illegals are living there for free.
Along with rising crime, lowered wages, overcrowded hospitals, and stressed social services, the visible flood of illegals has become an embarrassing liability for Democrats on the eve of an election. In response, Joe Biden recently issued an executive order to persuade voters he means business at the border.
That's quite a reversal for an administration that literally instructed migrants to "surge to the border"**, and then spent the next four years denying the problem.
And surge they did.
It is estimated that roughly 15 million# people have entered the U.S. illegally in the last three and a half years. Add that to the roughly 20 million# who were already here and that makes about 35 million# illegals currently in the U.S. That is roughly the population of California.
But, that's not all of the noncitizens here. There are also permanent residents who hold Green Cards, Visa holders, and visitors. The U.S. government issues about one million Green Cards per year so there could be roughly 20 million# additional noncitizens in the U.S. today.
That makes a total of roughly 55 million# noncitizens, or 16% of the population. That's far more people than any state. (See footnote #)
The question is, why are Democrats doing this? Why risk the political fallout? What do they have to gain?
Could it be a simple case of wanting more workers, more diversity, & more ethnic food?
Or could it be that they want them here because they overwhelmingly vote Democrat?
________________________________________________________________________
Intro II
"It's even a bigger influx now in terms of Hispanic voters, or these Hispanic citizens, wanna become citizens..."
President Joe Biden referring to illegals as voters, citizens, & wannabe citizens during a recent interview on Spanish radio##
________________________________________________________________________
Well, we can safely rule out the idea that Democrats brought all those people here to vote! As everyone knows, it is strictly illegal for noncitizens to vote!
Pop Quiz #1
1. It is strictly illegal for noncitizens to vote.
2. It is incredibly easy for noncitizens to vote.
You are probably certain the answer is #1. You've been told this a million times, "Only citizens are allowed to vote. It's the law!"
Except, you'd be wrong.
Noncitizens are able to vote in the U.S. with very little threat of negative consequences. And this includes those here illegally.
The relevant law is called "18 U.S. Code § 611 - Voting by Aliens". The law states that aliens (noncitizens) are technically not supposed to vote in national elections and could be subject to punishment, but there is a glaring exception. Here's one line of it:
(3) the alien reasonably believed at the time of voting in violation of such subsection that he or she was a citizen of the United States.
Huh? In other words, if you identify as a citizen, you are not subject to punishment!
This exception renders meaningless the prohibition against noncitizen voting for a large subset of the group. All that is required is a reasonable belief of citizenship.
Now, what could possibly give a noncitizen the reasonable belief that they are a citizen? Oh, I don't know, maybe if a sitting president told them explicitly that they were?
Listen carefully as Barack Obama singlehandedly renders meaningless the prohibition against noncitizen voting pursuant to 18 U.S. Code § 611. His exact words; "When you vote, you are a citizen yourself." In other words, Obama told noncitizens and those here illegally that through the act of voting they could reasonably identify as citizens. He also told the audience, "If you show up to vote, they can't stop you." This was from the highest authority in the land, a sitting President.
But that's just one example. Democrats and their supporters have been telling illegals for decades that they should identify as citizens simply for being here and working. The interviewer echoes this idea in the clip above. Notice that Obama does not correct her.
Now, Let's apply the "identify as a citizen" logic to other situations. Could you legally withdraw money from a bank if you identify as a depositor? Could you legally collect Social Security at age 25 if you identify as old? Could you practice medicine just by identifying as a doctor?
There's a bedrock principle in law that says ignorance of the law is no excuse. Lawyers are taught the latin, "ignorantia juris non excusat". Yet any noncitizen can claim ignorance of their legal status and vote. You'd think with all the lawyers in congress they could write better laws, but when it benefits Democrat power, there's no bedrock principle they can't ignore.
Curiously, the "identify as a citizen" exception does not work for Trump voters. The only person I could find currently serving time for 18 U.S. Code § 611 is an Arizona illegal who voted for Trump and was sentenced to eight years in prison. Apparently, Republican noncitizens are not afforded the "Obama alibi" defense.
The truth is, laws are meaningless unless enforced. Lawyers and legal scholars can debate the language and intent of written statutes all they want, but unless a DOJ enforces it, it might as well not exist. That's called prosecutorial discretion. As Obama makes clear in the above clip, no Democrat DOJ will enforce 18 U.S. Code § 611.
So, could up to 55 million noncitizens, including the Biden/Harris 15 million illegals vote in 2024, decide our next President, and be legally untouchable? Yes, absolutely.
________________________________________________________________________
"Hold on a minute!", you say. Noncitizens can't just vote, they first have to register. That's where we check for citizenship!
Pop Quiz #2
How many states require proof of citizenship in order to register for national elections?
1. 37
2. 3
3. None
4. All
Surely there must be some states that require proof of citizenship to vote nationally, right? After all, there are a bunch of "red" states that lean conservative, like Texas, Florida, Utah, Idaho, etc!
Sorry, nope. Not a single state, city, town, or district requires proof of citizenship to register for national elections, let alone vote.
So why haven't states passed laws that would require that proof? Well, a few have tried but, surprise, surprise, it's illegal!
According to a 1993 law, pushed and signed by Bill Clinton (Democrat), popularly called the "Motor Voter Bill", it is illegal to require proof of citizenship for national voter registration. (Motor Voter was also the first step in our currently un-auditable mail-in voting system. It normalized registration by mail.)
The registration form does require a signature, and citizenship is one of several things that voters are attesting to, but it is strictly on the honor system. There can be no checks, verifications, or follow-up according to the law. Just sign the form and you are registered whether eligible or not. That's an obvious intentional loophole for noncitizens, many of whom broke our laws when they came here.
Moreover, Motor Voter makes providing voter registration forms automatic for any interaction with government. Get a drivers license? You get registered. Apply for benefits? You get registered. And noncitizens do all those things by the millions.
Once you are registered, you get a ballot in the mail automatically in nine states plus D.C.. And once you have a ballot, you can vote anonymously through the mail or at a drop-box. In the other states you can easily request a mail-in ballot with a simple mail-in form.
Long story short, no state is allowed to check for citizenship to vote in a national election. Noncitizens, including those here illegally, are registered by the tens of millions, and since 2020 they can easily get mail-in ballots just like citizens. Potentially, that is close to 55 million noncitizen registered voters.
ABOVE: President Bill Clinton (D) signing the "Motor Voter Bill" in 1993. Directly behind him are Francis Fox Piven and Richard Cloward, two Columbia University professors who lobbied for the bill. The Cloward and Piven Strategy was to democratically institute a form of communism by flooding the country with dependents, getting them to demand services, and allowing them to vote.
________________________________________________________________________
OK, so maybe millions are registered and could potentially vote, but before states mail out ballots they check their voter rolls and get rid of all the noncitizens, deceased voters, and relocated voters!
Pop quiz #3
1. States clean their voter rolls regularly making it impossible for noncitizens to obtain ballots.
2. States DO NOT clean their voter rolls regularly making it incredibly easy for noncitizens to obtain ballots.
You'd think the answer is #1. After all, how can a representative republic call itself legitimate if it does not ensure that only citizens get ballots?
Except, that's not what happens. In fact, any state that tries to clean their voter rolls is in for a barrage of lawsuits by well-funded Democrats. In many instances, judges have ruled that states are not even allowed to clean their voter rolls.
By law, it is up to the states to run their own elections. Maintaining a list of eligible voters is part of that obligation. Some states do a diligent job, but many states do not. Many Democrat states prefer having extra ballots mailed-out because they have legalized a practice called "ballot harvesting". Ballot harvesting is the practice of having activists scoop-up all the potentially ineligible and unclaimed ballots. Then the activists take the ballots to a landfill and burn them. Nah, just kidding!
Without ID requirements or real signature matching, it is incredibly easy for activists to harvest ballots, fill them out, and return them. The Democrat party has been doing this for years. The Republican party has shunned this activity correctly considering it fraudulent. But it is now legal (with a wink and a nod) in a majority of states, so Republicans are having to play catch-up in this crooked game. Only one state in the U.S., Alabama, requires that ballots be returned by the actual voter. Of course, even in Alabama, there is no way to check with mailed ballots.
There is an organization called ERIC (Electronic Registration Information Center) whose ostensible mission is to help states clean their voter rolls of noncitizens, dead people, and relocated voters. ERIC currently has half the states as members.
In 2020 ERIC had a majority of the states as members, but after looking into the debacle of how those elections were mis-managed, several Republican led states dropped out. While digging around, they learned that ERIC was founded by leftists, run by leftists, and funded by leftists including George Soros. Republicans now believe that ERIC is a front for increasing noncitizen, deceased, and relocated voters, while simultaneously purging conservative ones!
Arizona is one ERIC state that just had a lawsuit filed against it:
From the lawsuit, pages 2 and 3:
Arizona has at least 500,000 registered voters on the voter rolls who should have otherwise been removed. In other words, at least 500,000 registered voters currently listed on the Secretary’s voter rolls for Arizona are deceased or no longer reside in Arizona.
And a review of other reliable data sources shows that Arizona has between 1,060,000 and 1,270,000 unaccounted-for voters on the state voter rolls.
ERIC currently lists six of the seven so-called "swing states" as members. U.S. national elections are decided in the swing states. In short, leftist activists are in charge of the voter rolls, including noncitizens, that will determine the next President.
________________________________________________________________________
Ok, so maybe the voter rolls are run by leftists, ballots get sent out willy-nilly, anyone who identifies as a citizen can register and vote, etc., but there's no evidence noncitizens actually vote! None!
Pop Quiz #4
1. Noncitizens voted in past elections in large numbers.
2. Noncitizens HAVE NOT voted in past elections in large numbers.
You are probably certain the correct answer is #2. After all, you would know if noncitizens were voting en masse. You'd hear about it on the news. Someone would have the proof. Republicans would be screaming about it every day!
Except, you'd be wrong.
It is virtually impossible, and illegal, for a citizen to know when a ballot has been filled out by a noncitizen.
Therefore, looking for "proof" is a fool's errand. It's impossible by design, and by law.
So what's the solution? It's the same remedy anytime a dispute arises between a citizen and the state: The "burden of proof" is on the state.
It's up to the state to prove they ran an election that was fully auditable, clean, with only eligible voters, and observed by both parties at ever stage. And citizens suspecting election fraud are innocent until proven guilty.
In the case of the 2020 election, citizens who asked questions have been accused of being "election deniers", "threats to democracy", or if they protested, "insurrectionists". Thousands are currently in prison or under indictment for these types of accusations. Citizens accused of those things must be considered innocent until the state can prove they ran an election that was observed by both parties and auditable end-to-end.
Polls show over half the citizenry believe the states cannot prove their case. That is the real "threat to Democracy".
Florida is one state today that has a strong record of running auditable, trustworthy, and clean elections. It can be done.
Despite proof being impossible, there is statistical and circumstantial evidence that noncitizens vote in large numbers. I made the case in 2016, before Democrats made anonymous mail-in voting ubiquitous. You can read that piece HERE.
And this piece ran last month in The Washington Times: "Noncitizens Do Vote... Here's How..." (If you clear your computer's cookies you can read it without paying.)
Recently, Rasmussen pollsters asked voters about fraud. 3 in 10 voters said they would absolutely commit voter fraud in 2024 just to keep the other side from winning. Three in ten say they would commit election fraud!
If you do a web or AI search for whether or not noncitizens vote, you'll come across the supposed "definitive" study by "The Brennan Center for Justice" which found no evidence noncitizens vote. Sounds pretty official, right? So who is the biggest donor to The Brennan Center? Yeah, that would be George Soros, the same guy funding all the DAs targeting Donald Trump, and the same guy funding ERIC.
The assumption has to be that noncitizen voting is huge. Unlimited wealth and power are at stake. It's the kind of wealth and power that corrupts everything.
Believing noncitizens do not vote is like believing Fort Knox would remain filled with gold if the doors were flung open, anyone could take whatever they want, and no one could be prosecuted.
This is important: direct voting in elections is only part of the problem. There's also indirect voting. Noncitizens would be the largest state in the U.S. if they were all in one place. Often overlooked is the fact that noncitizens are counted in the census. The census is how we determine Congressional and Presidential Electoral votes. So even if noncitizens were prevented from directly voting, they would still have more votes in Congress and Presidential elections than California or Texas!
________________________________________________________________________
Ok, maybe everything above is true, but we have polls! How bad could it be if polls currently show a Republican could win in 2024? The polls would sound the alarm if 55 million noncitizens were about to vote Democrat!
Pop Quiz #5
1. The polls accurately reflect noncitizens.
2. The polls DO NOT accurately reflect noncitizens.
You would think polls would automatically pick-up noncitizens. After all, it's not like pollsters ask about legal status when they poll!
Except, you'd be wrong.
While it's true that pollsters do not screen out noncitizens, there are built-in reasons why noncitizens get missed. For one, noncitizens are less likely to speak english, and second, they are less likely to agree to being polled.
That means any poll you see today that shows Donald Trump doing well is probably inaccurate.
How inaccurate? No one knows, but it could be off by 55 million!
________________________________________________________________________
But hold on! The original question was, "why is the border open?" So far the only thing mentioned is voting! It could be as simple as Democrats wanting more workers, diversity, and Halal!
Pop Quiz # 6
1. Democrats do not have a nefarious reason for opening the border. It's just workers, diversity, and ethnic food.
2. This sure looks like a nefarious plan for a permanent Democrat majority.
You probably think the answer is #1. You may even be a Republican and think Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are just semi-conscious politicians who accidentally stumbled their way into some bad policies. You may be a believer in "Hanlon's razor", which states, "never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity". Or you may be a Democrat who buys into the slogan, "Diversity is our strength!"
Except the answer cannot be #1, and here's why: Democrats have been lying about the border for decades. Yes, decades. You don't lie about something that consistently unless you have something to hide.
We'll get to the Biden/Harris lies in a second, but first let's review some Obama lies.
Obama got the media to give him the nickname, "Deporter in Chief". He wanted to be portrayed as tough on immigration. It was good politics. It went against stereotype and made him look centrist. But it was a ruse. The way he got his deportation numbers high was by "cooking the books". For a full accounting of how he snookered his way into becoming "Deporter in Chief", read: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/obama-as-deporter-in-chief-hardly/
When Donald Trump became President he sincerely tried to secure the border. It didn't work at first because Democrats blocked him at every turn through the courts, through legislation, and by lying about his motives. But by the end of his term, the border was under control.
Then Biden/Harris took office and all that changed. From the top on down, Democrats have lied about the open border policy since day one.
First they denied the border was open and insisted it wasn't. This continued despite thousands of hours of video showing illegals pouring across the border. Then they denied it was a crisis despite border states, cities, and towns declaring emergencies.
It wasn't until the illegals started taking over Northern Democrat cities like Chicago, Boston, and New York that they even acknowledged the problem. But then they blamed it all on Republicans claiming they are responsible for a "broken immigration system". Finally, they blamed conservatives for not going along with their plan to codify the open border in their new border bill.
Alejandro Myorkas, the Biden/Harris official in charge of the border was impeached for lying to Congress and maintaining the open border policy. He's only the second cabinet secretary in history to be impeached.
Vice President Kamala Harris was publicly named "Border Czar" by Joe Biden early in the term. She was tasked with getting a handle on the flood of illegals coming into our country. Under her watch it got worse. Now that the flood has become an embarrassing problem, they are all denying she was ever given that responsibility!
No, if the border was open for some innocent reason they wouldn't be lying about it 24/7/365 for decades.
________________________________________________________________________
Conclusion - It's an Electoral "Death Star"
As recently as five years ago a huge majority of voting was done in-person and on election day. You had to show up at a local precinct, show your face to bi-partisan poll workers (who were also your neighbors), often present ID, sign a register with a witness, and complete the ballot yourself.
Noncitizen voting was rare.
Those days are over. Now almost half of all voting is done anonymously, in secret, by mail or dropbox, over a period of months, with no bi-partisan observers.
Under current law up to 55 million unpolled noncitizen voters could show up for the 2024 election and vote. The vast majority of those noncitizens are loyal to the Democrat party that used taxpayer money to get them here, and gave them transportation, housing, food, healthcare, work permits, and jobs.
To put 55 million potential voters in perspective, the last election was decided by a total of .008 of that number. A tiny percentage of that 55 million will determine the next President.
Noncitizen voting is only one part of the electoral Death Star. As in the "Star Wars" original, there are several smaller death-rays that make up the whole:
Here are some we saw in 2020:
- Gigantic irregularities that all went one way in Democrat run cities
- Democrats used government agencies to strong arm private media companies into supporting their preferred narratives
- Democrat lawyers used lawfare and the pandemic to remove 250 years of election integrity measures
- Democrats used 51 government intel officers along with government intelligence agencies to lie about the crimes committed by Democrats as revealed on the Biden laptop
But rather than listing everything from 2020, why not just listen to Joe Biden brag about the Democrat "voter fraud" operation he and Barack Obama built:
Today, in addition to all that, Democrats have used lawfare in an attempt to imprison Donald Trump, along with hundreds of GOP lawyers, dozens of pro-Trump media voices, several of Trump's key advisors, and thousands of Trump supporters who questioned the last election. Several of those accused and imprisoned (at least five as of today) have committed suicide due to unimaginably harsh treatment in what amounts to a concentration camp for opponents of the Biden/Harris regime.
And if you're thinking there might be a Luke Skywalker or Han Solo in this story, I've got bad news for you. Behold the two most powerful Republicans in office today. One is a minority leader, and one has a single vote majority. They couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag, let alone defeat a Death Star.
Believing Democrats didn't use their Death Star in 2020, and wouldn't dare use it again in 2024, is beyond naive.
Adjust your expectations for 2024 accordingly.
______________________________________________________________
Footnotes:
Gigantic hat tip to Catherine Englebrecht and Tucker Carlson for making me aware of the "identify as a citizen" exception in 18 U.S. Code § 611. It was only then that I fully understood Obama's words, "when you vote, you are a citizen yourself...". Below is the promo for Catherine's interview with Tucker. The full interview is behind a paywall:
*The Federalist - "1 in 5 hotels in NYC are housing illegal migrants."
Here's a map of NYC hotels housing migrants in 2023:
**Video of Biden telling illegals to "surge to the border":
# It is impossible to know the actual number of noncitizens in the U.S. In fact, it is illegal to even ask during a census. President Trump tried to get a citizenship question on the census, but Democrats sued and tied it up in courts long enough to render it illegal for 2020.
Every number you've ever seen is a guess, as is my 55 million number. But we do have a decent handle on one number: 15% of K-12 children in the U.S. are native Spanish speakers. 55 million is about 16% of the U.S. population. Of course all noncitizens do not speak Spanish, and many former noncitizens have become naturalized citizens. Taking all that into account, 55 million looks about right.
## Biden referring to illegals as voters, citizens, wanna become citizens on Spanish radio:
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)