democratic party

The Democratic Primary Summed Up in One Image

Bernie Sanders as Julius Caesar.

Sometimes a picture is truly worth 1,000 words.

With both Buttplug and Klobuchar surprising the country by abruptly dropping out and endorsing Biden just in time for Super Tuesday, and with Warren staying in the race presumably to siphon off votes from Bernie, the Democrats have made it clear that Bernie Sanders will not be their nominee. Not now, not ever.

Instead of Super Tuesday, people are calling it Super Coupsday.

What a fortuitous (and surely coincidental) turn of events for Joe Biden and the Democratic Party Establishment!

You know, Republicans made a lot of noise about stopping Trump back in 2016, but ultimately they didn’t really do much to deprive him of the nomination.

In 2020, Democrats haven’t really said much about making sure Bernie does not win their party’s nomination, but they certainly are taking action, closing ranks quickly around Joe Biden.

The polls for Super Tuesday don’t close until tonight, but it seems like Biden is poised to roar back into contention with Sanders. Here are the latest opinion polls for the race:

It’s suddenly a two-man race, and the Democratic Establishment has clearly thrown its weight behind Biden. Bernie clearly has the popular support, but will it be enough to overcome the party bosses?

It wasn’t in 2016.

The Democratic Presidential Nomination Race is Being Rigged Before Our Eyes

Democracy is dying in darkness, but since there’s no way to blame Donald Trump for it, the media is uninterested.

As you probably know, Monday night’s Iowa Caucus (which kicked off the presidential primary season) was anything but ordinary. Usually on election night, early returns start coming in as early as 7-8pm CST. But not Monday night. On Iowa Caucus night, the nation waited and waited for the results to begin trickling out, but there was nothing. By 9pm and 0% of the vote reported, it was clear something was amiss in Iowa.

Then came the announcement at around 9:05pm:

Screen Shot 2020-02-07 at 12.22.51 AM.png

“Out of an abundance of caution,” the Iowa State Democratic Party was undertaking “quality control” measures and would not be releasing the caucus results anytime soon. No time frame was given for when the results would be released to the public.

Immediately people began pointing out the obvious: they’re rigging it against Bernie, again.

The comments began pouring in in response to the MSNBC tweet:

Screen Shot 2020-02-07 at 12.49.51 AM.png

Screen Shot 2020-02-07 at 12.50.01 AM.png

Screen Shot 2020-02-07 at 12.50.11 AM.png

Screen Shot 2020-02-07 at 12.50.27 AM.png

By Tuesday morning, the #2 trending hashtag on Twitter was “#PeteTheCheat,” in reference to Pete Buttigieg, who bizarrely delivered a victory speech late Monday night despite 0% of the results having been reported:

Screen Shot 2020-02-07 at 12.57.57 AM.png

Things had taken a turn: it wasn’t Biden for whom the Iowa Caucus was being rigged–it was Pete Buttigieg. How would he know to deliver a victory speech on Monday night despite 0% of the vote having been reported?

Well, that’s because there’s a strong possibility “Mayor Pete” was part of the reason the voting results weren’t available on Monday night. What made the 2020 Iowa Caucus different from all previous Iowa Caucuses was that this year, the Iowa State Democratic Party decided to use an app called “Shadow” to coordinate and calculate all the vote totals. It was this app “Shadow” that “failed” (many would say it succeeded, depending on your perspective) and threw everything into chaos.

It turns out that Buttigieg’s campaign gave thousands of dollars to Shadow:

Screen Shot 2020-02-07 at 1.04.56 AM.png

I just want to add: why did they give the app such an obviously sinister name like “Shadow”? A movie villain wouldn’t even be this blatant about it.

At around 4pm on Tuesday afternoon, the Democratic Party announced that it had 62% of the votes counted and finally released the partial results. They showed Bernie and Buttigieg neck and neck for the lead, with Joe Biden a distant fourth behind those two and Elizabeth Warren.

Finally, on Thursday night, the full results of the 2020 Iowa Democratic Caucus were released:

Screen Shot 2020-02-07 at 1.32.15 AM.png

The final results showed Buttigieg with a 0.1% margin of victory over Bernie Sanders. Keep in mind this result shows the percentage of delegates won. As far as the final popular vote went, Bernie was ahead of Buttigieg by several thousand. But it’s the delegates that actually matter.

This was quite a remarkable turn of events for Mayor Pete given that the final polls from Iowa in the run up to Caucus Day showed him far behind Bernie. The RCP average had him at around 16, with Bernie in the lead at 23%:

Screen Shot 2020-02-07 at 12.13.11 AM.png

Only one polling outlet had Buttigieg in the lead prior to the vote, while the rest showed either big Bernie leads or decent Biden leads:

Screen Shot 2020-02-07 at 12.14.10 AM.png

The fact that Buttigieg managed to make up so much ground over the course of a couple days is a testament to the scrappiness of his campaign and its exceptional get-out-the-vote efforts. And absolutely nothing else, okay?

Not only did Mayor Pete overcome what was by most accounts a sizable polling deficit just days before the Caucus vote took place, but last night he just so happened to be on-air at CNN when the news broke that he won on Thursday evening:


That Pete Buttigieg is one lucky fella, huh? It’s almost as if. . .

Screen Shot 2020-02-07 at 1.22.18 AM.png

Buttigieg’s surprising victory in Iowa has unsurprisingly boosted his polling numbers in New Hampshire, where he’s now in a virtual tie with Bernie for the lead according to freshly-released polling data:

Screen Shot 2020-02-07 at 2.24.18 AM.png

The damage has been done. Bernie supporters are furious, and now Buttigieg is surging in the polls due to the momentum from winning Iowa. People like a winner, and so it should be no surprise that more and more people are climbing aboard the bandwagon.

Monday’s Iowa Caucus is now ancient history, despite some serious red flags being raised about its results–beyond just the Buttigieg-Shadow connection:

Screen Shot 2020-02-07 at 1.29.47 AM.png

Even the New York Times admits that there are enough “errors” in the numbers that, given the slim margin of victory for Buttigieg, the results of the Iowa Caucus probably aren’t even accurate. There were dirty tricks aplenty:

Screen Shot 2020-02-07 at 1.30.09 AM.png

But these cries will fall on deaf ears, because though the voting tallies may have been wrong (meaning fraudulent), the Right Candidate won. So it’s on to New Hampshire.

Keep in mind, however, that winning the Iowa Caucus does not automatically make you the favorite to win the party nomination:

  • In 2016, Ted Cruz won Iowa on the Republican side. Hillary won Iowa on the Democratic side, but we all know the 2016 Dem primary was rigged (more on this in a bit).
  • In 2012, Rick Santorum beat out Mitt Romney by a mere 34 votes to win Iowa.
  • In 2008, Barack Obama famously won Iowa and gained a ton of momentum in the primary fight against Hillary. But on the Republican side, Mike Huckabee won Iowa with 34% of the vote while John McCain finished a distant fourth with just 13% of the vote.
  • In 2004, John Kerry won Iowa.
  • In 2000, George W. Bush won Iowa, as did Al Gore.

So in the five elections since and including 2000, between both parties, five times has the candidate that won Iowa gone on to win their party’s nomination: Hillary 2016, Obama 2008, Kerry 2004, and both Bush and Gore in 2000. Three times we’ve seen a party nominee fail to win Iowa: Trump 2016, Romney 2012 and McCain in 2008.

Actually, now that I look at it, it’s clear that winning Iowa is far more important on the Democratic side than it is on the Republican side. Every Democratic nominee since 2000 first won in Iowa, while only one Republican nominee since 2000 won Iowa (George W. Bush in 2000).

Why is this? I have no idea. Maybe it’s because the Democrats rig their primaries. Maybe it’s simply because the best candidate tends to win the most states, Iowa included. It could be any number of reasons.

But clearly the Democratic Party feels Iowa is important, as evidenced by the fact that they blatantly rigged the election against Bernie and in favor of Buttigieg.

My question is this: why has the Democratic Party Establishment kicked Joe Biden to the curb in favor of the 38-year-old homosexual mayor of the fourth-largest city in Indiana? Is he really their best hope of defeating Trump?

The obvious answer would be that Biden is unfit to run for President given his obviously deteriorated mental facilities. The guy is falling apart; half the time he doesn’t even know what day of the week it is. It’s not a stretch to say this is the reason the Democratic Party Establishment–which he himself is a part of, or perhaps was a part of–is bailing on him.

Speaking of Biden, his media hype has officially collided reality. For a while I’ve suspected his candidacy was not nearly as popular with the voters as the polling suggested. I think his polling success was based mainly on a combination of his name recognition relative to the other candidates, as well as outright rigging of the polls by the media outlets conducting them because Biden is the Establishment’s Choice.

I’ve never felt like Biden was the true front-runner in the Democratic race, either he was a placeholder or the pre-determined nominee. But he’s no longer the front-runner. Polling in New Hampshire–the next primary on the calendar–shows Biden projected for another fourth-place finish. He’ll probably win in South Carolina, but even that could be in doubt now. It would appear Biden is cooked.

The only reason I want to talk about Biden is in relation to Buttigieg, specifically how Buttigieg replaced Biden as the apparent Chosen One in the eyes of the Party Establishment.

There are rumors that Buttigieg is CIA: somehow, this small-town mayor from Indiana received the endorsement of over 200 “foreign policy and national security professionals,” including former CIA Deputy Director David Cohen among many other CIA, State Department, Pentagon and NSC officials from the Obama-era That’s odd.

And how did Buttigieg become so popular in the first place? Why is no one talking about how unprecedented it is that the mayor of a town in Indiana has suddenly built a national profile for himself and has become one of the front-runners to win the Democratic nomination for President? You don’t just do that all on your own; it can only be done by having friends in high places.

There’s something up with Buttigieg. I don’t know exactly what it is, but for some reason his candidacy has the blessing of people high up the chain. He would not be where he is today without the permission of high-ranking officials and their mouthpieces in the media. Buttigieg is backed by powerful forces.  He’s like an iceberg in that 90% of him is shrouded in mystery.

Something’s up.


Keep in mind that it is an indisputable fact that the DNC rigged the 2016 primary for Hillary Clinton and cheated Bernie Sanders out of the nomination. Yes, it is a fact. A federal judge reviewing the case even admitted so in 2017:

“In June 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz for violating the DNC Charter by rigging the Democratic presidential primaries for Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders. Even former Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid admitted in July 2016, “I knew—everybody knew—that this was not a fair deal.” He added that Debbie Wasserman Schultz should have resigned much sooner than she did. The lawsuit was filed to push the DNC to admit their wrongdoing and provide Bernie Sanders supporters, who supported him financially with millions of dollars in campaign contributions, with restitution for being cheated.

On August 25, 2017, Federal Judge William Zloch, dismissed the lawsuit after several months of litigation during which DNC attorneys argued that the DNC would be well within their rights to select their own candidate. “In evaluating Plaintiffs’ claims at this stage, the Court assumes their allegations are true—that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz held a palpable bias in favor Clinton and sought to propel her ahead of her Democratic opponent,” the court order dismissing the lawsuit stated. This assumption of a plaintiff’s allegation is the general legal standard in the motion to dismiss stage of any lawsuit. The allegations contained in the complaint must be taken as true unless they are merely conclusory allegations or are invalid on their face.

The order then explained why the lawsuit would be dismissed. “The Court must now decide whether Plaintiffs have suffered a concrete injury particularized to them, or one certainly impending, that is traceable to the DNC and its former chair’s conduct—the keys to entering federal court. The Court holds that they have not.” The Court added that it did not consider this within its jurisdiction. “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing ‘only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.’”

The Court continued, “For their part, the DNC and Wasserman Schultz have characterized the DNC charter’s promise of ‘impartiality and evenhandedness’ as a mere political promise—political rhetoric that is not enforceable in federal courts. The Court does not accept this trivialization of the DNC’s governing principles. While it may be true in the abstract that the DNC has the right to have its delegates ‘go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way,’ the DNC, through its charter, has committed itself to a higher principle.”

But ultimately, it is only the DNC itself that can choose (or choose not) to hold itself to those “higher principles.” The Court cannot make the DNC be “impartial and evenhanded.” Thus you have the Court conceding that the DNC is entirely within its rights to rig its party primary for its favored candidate.

Basically you had the DNC’s lawyers arguing that the voting and the primary process itself is just for show. They’ll only let the voters’ votes count if they vote for the candidate the DNC wants to get the nomination. If the voters go off-script, well, tough: the DNC is under no obligation to honor their wishes. The DNC can simply pick its own nominee.

It’s an extraordinary admission for the DNC to make, but their backs were against the wall: the primary was rigged against Sanders and everybody knew it, and so the DNC was facing the prospect of having to repay millions and millions of dollars of objectively wasted campaign donations that went to Bernie. Their only option was to admit that yes, they had rigged the campaign, but hey: it’s our Party, we can rig our primary if we want. 

Of course, this incredible admission by the DNC was hardly reported in the mainstream media–the media was far too obsessed with propagating the Trump Russia Collusion Hoax. But the Federal Court ruling gave the DNC the green-light to rig every future election henceforth.

On Monday night, when the “quality control” news broke, it became clear that the Democratic Party was never again going to allow its elections to be decided by the voters. Every Democratic Party election from 2016 on will be rigged, and this is why Monday night unfolded as it did.

Reparations: The Latest Policy Democrats Admit They Supported All Along

Last month I wrote:

This is how it goes. First, the right accuses the left of wanting some policy goal (say, gun confiscation and repealing the Second Amendment) which the left pretty obvious wants. The left, however, knowing that said policy goal is wildly unpopular with the American people, vehemently denies they want the policy.

However, before long, the left will inevitably come out in favor of the policy goal they previously spent a good deal of energy denying they wanted.

Leftists in 2012: “Nobody wants to take your guns.”

Leftists in 2018: “Repeal the Second Amendment, and we’re coming for your guns”

The left will deny supporting some policy because the policy is not popular among the public at the time. But once the left feels it is politically safe to come out in support of said policy, they will “evolve” on it and pretend they just started supporting it now, even though in reality they’ve secretly supported it all along.

Gun confiscation, open borders, socialism, late-term abortion, letting illegals vote: you name it: Democrats have been for these things all along. The only difference today is that they feel they won’t be punished at the polls for it.

They now feel the American electorate is “ready” for their extreme positions.

And so today we have Elizabeth Warren and Kamala “The Whore” Harris coming out in favor of reparations. We’ve known all along that Democrats wanted reparations, but they’ve been careful about not letting the public know it:

“From the very first day of the 2020 presidential race, when Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts blamed “generations of discrimination” for black families earning far less than white households, Democratic hopefuls have broadly emphasized racial justice and closing the wealth gap in their policy platforms.

But in recent weeks, some candidates have started embracing specific goals and overtly race-conscious legislation that even the most left-wing elected officials stayed away from in recent years.”

See what I’m talking about?

“Last week, Senator Kamala Harris of California agreed with a radio host’s recent suggestion that government reparations for black Americans were necessary to address the legacies of slavery and discrimination. Ms. Harris later affirmed that support in a statement to The Times.

“We have to be honest that people in this country do not start from the same place or have access to the same opportunities,” she said. “I’m serious about taking an approach that would change policies and structures and make real investments in black communities.”

Ms. Warren also said she supported reparations for black Americans impacted by slavery — a policy that experts say could cost several trillion dollars, and one that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and many top Democrats have not supported.”

No, they all support it: they just won’t admit it. Until now.

Watch more and more Democrats come out of the woodwork and pretend they “evolved” on reparations overnight.

Cough up the dough, whitey!

$15 trillion dollars over 55 years of the War on Poverty is not enough. Medicaid isn’t enough. Food stamps aren’t enough. The Community Reinvestment Act wasn’t enough.

We need to throw even more money at the black community.

Of course, the Democrats never tell us who gets to decide how the reparations payments are divided up and distributed. I’m sure it’s “community leaders” (read: Democratic politicians) in the big cities like Chicago, Atlanta, New York and LA. Because they’ve done such a tremendous job thus far!

In reality, reparations would be the largest Democratic scam in history, with most of the money (and we’re talking hundreds of billions of dollars, if not trillions) ending up in the pockets of corrupt Democrat politicians and political machines.

But let’s just for a bit consider the arguments for reparations at face value–in other words, let’s assume the money is somehow miraculously doled out fairly evenly to regular black Americans and isn’t just a huge scam.

The case for reparations boils down to one phrase which I’m sure you’ve heard on many occasions: the “legacy of slavery.”

We need to address it. In 2019.

Even though slavery ended in 1863, and Jim Crow ended in 1964.

My question: how long can we reasonably blame the “legacy of slavery”?

Consider that Japan and Germany experienced total and complete destruction in the wake of World War II. Their economies and currencies were not only devastated, but virtually their entire infrastructures. Germany suffered 4.3 million casualties in the war, and Japan lost 2.3 million–and those were primarily young, able-bodied working-aged men as well. It was estimated that by 1945, Japan had lost 42% of its national wealth.

Yet within four decades, Japan had become the second-largest economy in the world and the leading exporter of high-tech electronics. Japan was able to bounce back remarkably quickly from the massive devastation it suffered in the war.

Half of Germany was behind the Iron Curtain of Soviet Rule and the country was not fully reunified under democratic capitalism until the early 1990s. And yet today Germany is the powerhouse of Europe–its biggest economy and most influential player.

I have visited both countries within the past few years. Both are technologically about on-par with America–you really don’t feel any culture shock visiting either place. Outside of the heavily-migrant areas in Germany, you feel very safe in both countries.

In terms of GDP per capita, America’s today is $59,500. Germany’s is $50,000 and Japan’s is $42,800.

I’d say both nations were able to recover quite well from the total devastation they suffered by the end of World War II in 1945. They went from being completely destroyed by war to rich, advanced, first-world nations in half a century.

And on top of all this, both countries were forced to pay billions in war reparations–plus Germany was still paying off its massive reparations from World War I. Germany didn’t pay its debts off fully until 2010!

I actually brought up this point about Japan and Germany in a debate the other week about this very topic, and the other person said, “Well Japan and Germany didn’t have racism when they were rebuilding.”

Really? The whole world wasn’t against those two countries in the wake of the war?

In terms of US aid dollars, the Marshall plan to rebuild Western Europe as well as the postwar occupation of Japan, only cost about $100 million in today’s dollars. Meaning the US gave Japan and Germany barely a fraction of what it has spent on the War on Poverty and welfare over the past few decades.

And the implication is that being nuked and firebombed and shelled repeatedly for years is no big deal, whatever.

But racism, that’s the real killer.

Sure, you can recover from being NUKED pretty easily. No biggie.

But racism is insurmountable.

Yep. Makes sense.

So, again: when do we cut the BS over the “legacy of slavery”?

The Great Thomas Sowell has explained countless times that the “legacy of slavery” excuse is nonsense, and that the real “root cause” of the turmoil in the black community today is the legacy of liberalism:

“[New York Times’ Nick] Kristof’s “overwhelming” evidence of the current effects of past slavery is that blacks do not have as much income as whites. But Puerto Ricans do not have as much income as Japanese Americans. Mexican Americans do not have as much income as Cuban Americans. All sorts of people do not have as much income as all sorts of other people, not only in the United States, but in countries around the world. And most of these people were never enslaved.

Liberals will always find a way to blame White People for inequality all around the world, though. It’s central to their political movement.

“If we wanted to be serious about evidence, we might compare where blacks stood a hundred years after the end of slavery with where they stood after 30 years of the liberal welfare state. In other words, we could compare hard evidence on “the legacy of slavery” with hard evidence on the legacy of liberals.

Despite the grand myth that black economic progress began or accelerated with the passage of the civil rights laws and “war on poverty” programs of the 1960s, the cold fact is that the poverty rate among blacks fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent by 1960. This was before any of those programs began.”

Wait, black poverty was 87% after the New Deal? Interesting.

“Ending the Jim Crow laws was a landmark achievement. But, despite the great proliferation of black political and other “leaders” that resulted from the laws and policies of the 1960s, nothing comparable happened economically. And there were serious retrogressions socially.

Nearly a hundred years of the supposed “legacy of slavery” found most black children being raised in two-parent families in 1960. But thirty years after the liberal welfare state found the great majority of black children being raised by a single parent.”

Specifically, over 72% of black children today are born out of wedlock. That’s the Legacy of Liberalism, not the Legacy of Slavery.

“The murder rate among blacks in 1960 was one-half of what it became 20 years later, after a legacy of liberals’ law enforcement policies. Public housing projects in the first half of the 20th century were clean, safe places, where people slept outside on hot summer nights, when they were too poor to afford air conditioning. That was before admissions standards for public housing projects were lowered or abandoned, in the euphoria of liberal non-judgmental notions. And it was before the toxic message of victimhood was spread by liberals. We all know what hell holes public housing has become in our times. The same toxic message produced similar social results among lower-income people in England, despite an absence of a “legacy of slavery” there.

If we are to go by evidence of social retrogression, liberals have wreaked more havoc on blacks than the supposed “legacy of slavery” they talk about. Liberals should heed the title of Jason Riley’s insightful new book, “Please Stop Helping Us.”

If anyone should be paying reparations to black people, it’s the Democratic Party.


A part of me almost supports reparations just to get it over with: “That’s it. No more complaining. We don’t owe you shit anymore. No more excuses.”

If the reparations payments go out and don’t make things better, then white people no longer have to feel any guilt whatsoever. The “sins of their fathers” have been atoned for.

Because reparations is the logical endgame of white guilt, no? That’s what it’s all building up to, right?

There is really nothing greater white Americans can do for black Americans to say, “We’re sorry for slavery and we’re sorry for holding you back,” than to give black Americans vast sums of money, is there?

And so if/when the reparations happen, and if/when those reparations payments don’t change anything–because the real problems in the black community stem from absent fathers and toxic inner city rap/drug/gang/materialistic culture, not Whitey–then we’re not on the hook for anything anymore.

It’s not our fault–we paid up.

That’s why a part of me could, in theory, see a rationale for supporting reparations.

But, of course, we all know that even if reparations do happen, the left will never let us off the hook.

White guilt is just too important to their political fortunes. So it’s forever.

I figured the left would quit guilting white people after Obama was elected in 2008. I figured, “Okay, that’s it, America has finally redeemed itself. We’ve proven we’re not a ‘racist country’ anymore by electing a black president. A nation nearly 70% white elected a president who represents 13% of the country. No more “RACIST!!!!” cries.”

No more excuses.

But instead of the white-guilting subsiding, it got worse. Way worse. Race relations in America have gotten significantly worse since 2008.

If you went back in time to election night 2008 and told someone that in 10 years, race relations would be significantly worse than they are today, they would not have believed you. Yet here we are.

Somehow, the left has convinced people that despite Obama being elected and reelected, America is still Extremely Racist. The left has convinced people that Obama’s eight years in office don’t mean shit.

So this is why I won’t support reparations: because even if we agree to reparations, the left will still never shut up and stop guilting white people.

If and when the reparations fail to fix anything, the left will just say it wasn’t enough and that they need even bigger reparations payments the second time around.


Chappelle’s Show had a hilarious skit on reparations back in 2003:

Rush: America is in a “Life and Death Struggle” Due to Mass Immigration

Based Rush. From his show yesterday beginning around the 14-minute mark:

“For the last 25 years, I see the United States in a sort of life and death struggle for its existence as we knew it.

I thought after the 1980s, after two terms of Ronaldus Maxiumus (Reagan), that we’d won. How could we have not? We had just had two terms of the most conservative administration ever. We had an economic boon. We had wages up, interest rates plummeting, virtually every economic mistake Jimmy Carter made was fixed, there were more people working than ever before, the Berlin Wall came down shortly after Reagan left office, the Soviet Union was no more, we rebuilt our military–I figured people lived through this, they’re going to finally see it, they’re going to finally believe it, they’re going to trust it [“it” meaning conservatism].

So why didn’t that last? I mean you had eight years where everybody alive knew that tax cuts led to massive prosperity for everyone–why didn’t that last?

I’ll tell you why: that is when the left began to import millions of foreign nationals via illegal immigration.

Not just illegal immigration but legal immigration, too. Rush hasn’t yet gotten to the point where he’s comfortable calling out the negative effects of legal immigration, but give it some time. He will.

Before we go further, I want to point out: simply acknowledging that legal immigration has had some very bad consequences for the GOP and the country does not mean you’re totally against legal immigration. You can still be fine with legal immigration while wanting less–even considerably less–of it.

We don’t have to end immigration altogether. We just need to dramatically cut it down to prevent massive, permanent demographic transformation. We need to get our demographics under control or else we won’t have a country anymore.

There is nothing immoral about wanting to reduce legal immigration. The idea that the only moral and virtuous position is to want as many immigrants as possible from all corners of the globe year in and year out indefinitely is a globalist lie. There is nothing immoral about restricting immigration. We Americans don’t owe foreigners anything. The idea that we do is a Globalist Uniparty lie to trick Americans into giving big corporations an endless supply of cheap labor.

Back to Rush:

“[The] Simpson-Mazzoli [Act], 1986, granted Amnesty for 3.6 million of them and that’s what opened the floodgates. The [memory of Reagan’s success in the 1980s] are overwhelmed and outnumbered by people who were not alive here, who were living somewhere else; they’ve been imported by the left by illegal immigration. Did you know one out of four people in California was not born in the United States?”

Actually, it’s closer to one in three. And if you count the real number of illegals in this country–30 million, as opposed to the laughably inaccurate 11 million number that has been used since 2005, as if not a single illegal has entered this country in 14 years–the foreign-born share of California’s population is probably even higher than 1/3.

“You wonder what happened to the Republican Party in California? There you go.

The electorate has been changed.

The makeup of our culture has been changed, by way of illegal immigration brought to us by the Democrats and a bunch of clueless Republicans who thought that because Latin Americans were Catholic they were gonna end up voting conservative! So they [Republicans] were on the bandwagon for keeping borders open for their own reasons. Gigantic miscalculation.”


First Tucker, now Rush.

While our Republican politicians continue to sell us–and the country–out in favor of big business, at least we can take small solace in the fact that our leading luminaries on the airwaves get it.

This is important because Rush gets through to Trump. Rush and Trump are longtime friends and golf buddies. I’m not sure how much they talk these days but Rush has a decent amount of influence with the President. Trump values Rush’s opinion.

Now, with regards to Democrats resuscitating their national political fortunes by way of mass immigration despite the success of the Reagan administration in the 1980s, the unspoken point is that in a “diverse”, post-mass migration society, economics don’t matter to voters. Not really.

What I mean by that is, their votes are not swayed by a good economy under a president of the opposite party.

If not for mass immigration, Reagan would have been the Republican FDR: an enormously popular and successful president whose lasting impact was reshaping the political landscape to favor his party for a generation. Under FDR and his successor Truman, Democrats won every Presidential election from 1932-1948. Not only that, they shifted the center of American politics toward the left in a major way so that by the time 1952 rolled around, the only way the Republicans could win was to nominate the hero of World War II, Dwight Eisenhower, and promise to leave the New Deal in place.

Republicans had first tried running against FDR’s New Deal in the 1930s but were clobbered every time. By the 1950s the GOP realized it would never win unless it accepted the New Deal as permanent and basically shifted left. FDR had permanently tiled the playing field of American politics to the left. He made it so that the GOP had to become the Democrat Lite Party because FDR’s policies were so widely popular. FDR’s policies were initially seen as liberal, but because of their widespread popularity, they became the de facto center of American politics. This is how you push the entire political spectrum to one side. What were previously moderate, centrist views became right-wing after FDR’s New Deal.

That’s what Rush is talking about with Reagan: Reagan should have been the Republican FDR–the one who pushed the entire American political spectrum to the right and made conservatism the new moderate centrism. What were previously right-wing conservative policies should have become mainstream consensus positions.

But instead, Bush 41 was a one-term President, and since 1992, it is the Democrats have won four of the seven Presidential elections and six of seven popular votes.

Instead of tilting the playing field permanently to the right through Reagan’s success, Democrats tilted it permanently to the left by way of mass immigration.

Whereas in the past Americans would vote based on which party was better for their personal finances, in a post-mass immigration America, political affiliation is not determined by this. Political affiliation is determined by tribe: Blacks vote Democrat. Hispanics vote Democrat. Jews vote Democrat. Whites vote Republican.

That’s just the way it is.

It’s about way more than economics. It’s about tribal identity. Democrats have succeeded in making voting Democrat an inextricable part of being black or Hispanic in America.

Why do you think black Republicans are routinely scorned as “Uncle Toms” by other black people? Because there’s a widespread belief that voting Democrat is an integral part of being black in America.

Hollywood and the Uniparty Media have succeed in convincing much of the country that white people still massively oppress minorities, and voting Republican is seen as a way to propagate “systemic racism” against minorities. Many minorities believe minority Republicans are voting to continue their own oppression.

It makes a lot more sense if you think of the Republican Party as the “White Party” and the Democratic Party as the “nonwhite party.” Why on earth would a nonwhite person vote for the White Party?

And if you’re wondering why many white people vote for the Nonwhite Party, you’ve stumbled upon the real problem in 2019, given that ~60% of the country is still white: the cultural left has indoctrinated and guilted a good deal of white people to believe they are morally obligated to vote Democrat, i.e. against their own interests. Self-loathing whites still remain integral to the Democratic coalition because there simply aren’t enough minority voters to carry the Democrats to victory on their own. Yet.

Bernie Sanders Announces Presidential Run, Begs Left to Not Hold His Straight, White Maleness Against Him

So it’s official: Bernie Sanders is running for President again. In an interview, he was asked whether he thinks he–as a straight, white male–has any place in the modern Democratic Party:

When asked by VPR’s Bob Kinzel about concerns that he no longer best represents “the face of the new Democratic Party,” Sanders, 77, said: We have got to look at candidates, you know, not by the color of their skin, not by their sexual orientation or their gender and not by their age,” Sanders said.

LOL: the Democratic Party revolves around nothing but evaluating people by their skin color, sexual orientation, gender and age. Good luck disabusing the party of that, Bernie.

“I mean, I think we have got to try to move us toward a non-discriminatory society which looks at people based on their abilities, based on what they stand for.”

Again: discrimination based on immutable characteristics like skin color and gender is the modern Democratic Party’s reason for being.

So the question is: will Bernie be able to overcome his toxic straight, white maleness and win the Democratic nomination for 2020?

Who is Bernie Sanders to claim he is more deserving of the Presidency than minority women like Kamala Harris, or even Kirsten Gillibrand?

Bernie is a man and men’s time is UP! Men have had their shot at power already! It’s time to give the women their day.

How DARE a male like Bernie stand in their way?

And how dare Bernie stand in the way of minorities like Cory Booker? White Oppressors have been in power for 400 years! Their time is up.

I wrote an article on the old site wondering if John Kerry in 2004 will go down as the last straight, white male to ever win the Democratic Presidential nomination. I wrote that while Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden might win the party’s nomination in 2020, the odds going forward of a straight white male winning the party’s nomination in 2024, 2028 and further down the line become lower and lower.

The Democratic Party base is now openly hostile to straight white males, and it will get worse with each passing year.

The Democratic Party is finally in line with Bernie Sanders’ views as far as socialism goes, but unfortunately for Bernie the Dem Party has also decided that straight white males are the Great Satan.

It’s hard to see him–or any straight white male–winning the Democratic presidential nomination. And not just in 2020, but ever again.

David Hogg Shows Us that with the Right Politics, Anything is Possible

David Hogg, who couldn’t even get into Cal State Long Beach, will be attending Harvard University this fall solely because he’s a vicious, angry leftwing fascist.

I’m serious. There’s no other reason.

Because it certainly wasn’t his academic merit that got him into Harvard:

If he was David Evans from Fargo, ND, Harvard would crumple up his application and throw it in the garbage.

This move totally cheapens Harvard as an institution. This kid objectively has no business attending Harvard, but because he spent he past year shrieking incoherently about politics (about a week after the Parkland shooting, he moved beyond guns, which was supposed to be his “called into action” issue, and on to full-fledged Democratic Party activism) he gets a special spot.

The “media” got this kid into Harvard.

Harvard is not an elite academic institution; it’s a partisan Democrat popularity club. If you have the right politics and you’re a “media” darling, you can get into Harvard. It’s no longer an ultra exclusive, elite academic college.

This is what it takes to get into Harvard:

“Hey, can I go to Harvard?”

“No, unfortunately your grades aren’t anywhere near what we require.”

“What if I said, ‘Ban the Second Amendment’?”

“Congratulations, you’re admitted to Harvard!”

It’ll be interesting to see if this kid’s politics get him through Harvard, or whether he drops out after a semester because the classes are way too difficult.

After all, universities have admissions standards for a reason: if you can’t meet the requirements, you will not be able to succeed.

Thomas Sowell often talks about this when it pertains to affirmative action and colleges lowering admissions standards in order to promote “diversity”: the minority students who get into top universities simply because they’re not white, and not because they qualify academically, often have a miserable time and eventually drop out of school—because they shouldn’t have been there in the first place.

I don’t want to root for David Hogg to fail out of Harvard, but then again, fuck him. If he knew about this site, he’d probably try to destroy my livelihood because of my politics like he did Laura Ingraham and basically everyone else at Fox News.

We’re playing by their rules: we treat them as they treat us.

David Hogg is a nasty little shit and it’s entirely appropriate to hope he fails out of Harvard.

Ballot Harvesting: Democrats’ Newest Dirty Trick to Steal Elections

In the wake of the 2018 midterm elections, there was a good deal of focused outrage on the Democrats’ attempt to steal statewide elections in Florida, specifically in the close Senate race between Republican Rick Scott and Democrat Bill Nelson. With the infamous Broward County as ground-zero, the county’s elections “supervisor” (read: fixer) Brenda Snipes attempted to round up enough fraudulent votes after election day to drag Nelson over the finish line.

But while Broward County Democrats’ schemes were exposed and ultimately halted before they could steal Scott’s rightfully-won Senate seat, the real outrage few are talking about is the so-called “ballot harvesting” that took place in California to flip several House seats from red to blue and further expand Democrats’ newly-won House majority.

Scott Morefield explains this new “innovation”:

“In 2016, California took yet another significant step in its decades-long quest to become the world’s largest banana republic when then-Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 1921, a then-barely-noticed revision to the state’s vote-by-mail procedures. 

The change was a small but significant one. California, in its infinite wisdom, decided to make the practice of “ballot harvesting” legal. Thus, instead of only relatives or those living in the same household being allowed to legally collect and turn in absentee ballots for voters – as was previously the law – any “third party” can do it, including activist groups, Democratic operatives, or street-corner panhandlers.”

You can probably already see where this is going.

“Figuring out new and creative ways to steal elections being their specialty and all, Democrats knew what they were doing, and even a few conservatives saw this bill’s consequences coming from a mile away. 

“AB 1921 would allow anybody to walk into an elections office and hand over truckloads of vote by mail envelopes with ballots inside, no questions asked, no verified records kept,” a group opposed to the bill wrote before its passage. “It amounts to an open invitation to large-scale vote buying, voter coercion, ‘granny farming,’ and automated forgery. AB 1921 solves no problem that a simple stamp can’t solve.”

The results were predictable:

“And so, as the polls closed on election day, no less than six California Republican House candidates – including Representatives Dana Rohrabacher, Steve Knight, and Mimi Walters – were ahead in their respective races, some comfortably enough to declare victory and move on with plans for the next Congressional term. However, as absentee and provisional ballot results rolled in over the next few days and weeks, the vast majority of which predictably favored Democrats, their Democratic opponents managed to ‘find’ enough votes to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

In Orange County alone, 250,000 such ballots were collected, resulting in a total Democratic sweepaccording to the San Francisco Chronicle.”

Even the San Francisco Chronicle basically admits ballot harvesting is nothing more than a way for Democrats to steal elections:

“We beat Republicans on the ground, fair and square,” said Katie Merrill, a Democratic consultant deeply involved in November campaigns. “Many of the field plans included (ballot harvesting) as an option to deliver voters or their ballots” to the polls.

Those efforts involved identifying voters who might support Democratic candidates and ignoring those who wouldn’t.

In one Orange County household, for example, both the husband and wife were longtime Republicans, said Dale Neugebauer, a veteran Republican consultant. Democratic volunteers came by the house four times, each time asking to speak only with their 18-year-old daughter, a no-party-preference voter, and asking if she wanted them to pick up her signed and completed ballot.

That’s a perfect example of the “thorough and disciplined” ground game the Democrats used, said Merrill.

“We were not wasting time talking to people who weren’t going to vote for Democrats,” she said.

So Democrats identify likely Democrat voters, hand them absentee voting ballots, and then return the completed ballot to be counted.

It’s a way for Democrats to basically vote on your behalf for you–all you have to do is fill out the ballot and they’ll do the rest.

Even Paul Ryan knows ballot harvesting is corrupt as hell:

“California just defies logic to me,” Ryan told attendees at a Washington Post live event. “We were only down 26 seats the night of the election, and three weeks later, we lost basically every California contested race. This election system they have — I can’t begin to understand what ‘ballot harvesting’ is.”

Of course, it’s not like he’d ever do anything about it.

The potential for vote fraud and manipulation is incredible:

“Imagine the ramifications, or the ‘possibilities’ if you’re a Dem. What happens if, for example, Lulu’s next house visit has a “Make America Great Again” flag planted in the front yard? Could Lulu go there, pretend to be a Republican, then toss the completed ballot in the trash on the way to Ben & Jerry’s? Of course she could, and the likelihood of getting caught would be next to zero. Could she then go to someone’s home who had no intention of voting, then ‘convince’ them to vote Democrat and give their ballot to her or else their next social security check won’t be coming? Again, yes she could.

Or maybe a union boss asks the folks under his charge to become permanent “vote-by-mail” voters so, you know, he can keep them ‘informed’ on the issues. Or maybe a partisan nursing home administrator ‘helpfully’ collects the ballots of her residents only to shred those from all the guys wearing the Vietnam Veteran hats.”

As if immigration (both legal and illegal) hasn’t already turned California into a one-party state, Democrats have found yet another unscrupulous (to put it lightly) way to make the state even bluer.

If you’re wondering how they live with themselves, me too. I ask myself this on an almost daily basis.

That’s Democrats for ‘ya, I guess.

The Great Unbiased CNN: “Nancy Pelsoi is the Original Badass Woman of Washington”

Look at how unbiased CNN is:

Note the slow-motion shots as if she’s some sort of action hero.

My goodness.

This is so bad.

It’s almost as bad as contrived “Notorious RBG” nonsense, where the left tries to pretend an 85-year-old woman who can barely keep her head up and can hardly string together coherent sentences is some sort of feared gangsta Bad Bitch.

Now do you see what I was saying about the “mainstream” media being completely beyond hope?

Stop holding out hope that these propagandists will ever do anything beneficial for our side, or even give us a fair shake.

They are pure Democratic Party propaganda organs, and should be treated as nothing else. The only thing we can do is work to hasten their demise.