Give 'Em Hell Coach!

BREAKING: Sen. Tommy Tuberville just told leftists to SCREW OFF after they got triggered he called Muslims "the enemy inside the gates" Q: "Do you have any regrets?" TUBERVILLE: "NO, I don't have ANY regrets whatsoever! I meant every word I said!" THAT'S how you do it, senator! "The enemy is inside our gates. We got them here. Joe Biden and Barack Obama brought them here by the thousands. It's a disgrace!" "You know, if you preach or teach Sharia law, you need to go home!" "You don't fit in the United States of America. We're a Christian country. If you pray to the Quran, the Quran speaks 'kill all infidels.' And infidels are people that are not Muslims. And that means all Americans and all Christians that are not Muslims. So I have no regrets!" Tuberville represents a red state and he acts like it. This is what every GOP senator should do.

From an article on X (Twitter) by Dinesh D'Souza

We Just Don't Get it: It’s a Deliberate Attempt to Destroy America for Good.

Dinesh D'Souza@DineshDSouza

I was watching Fox News the other day—I’m not a regular, but I happened to be watching—and they were talking about how Mamdani is ruining New York. A predictable story!

But then one of the hosts said something interesting. She said, “Doesn’t he understand that what he’s doing is not good for the city? Doesn’t he understand that it’s going to make people want to leave?”

“Doesn’t he understand?” I call this the “they just don’t get it” approach. It is the standard approach that we Republicans—we on the Right—use with the Left and the Democrats.

I hear it all the time, on social media, on podcasts, on right-wing talk radio. Don’t the Democrats realize that voter ID is essential to election integrity? Doesn’t the Left realize that illegals take away jobs from American citizens?

We heard the same refrain through the Biden years. Doesn’t Joe Biden know—or maybe I should say, Don’t the people running the autopen know that they are letting in criminals and terrorists through their porous border policies?

But I even heard the same rhetoric from conservatives during the Obama years. Obama doesn’t understand that giving Iran pallets of money and a green light on nuclear weapons is dangerous for our security. Obama doesn’t realize that Obamacare will make our health care system more expensive and more bureaucratic. Obama doesn’t seem to get it that he is making race relations worse, not better.

“They just don’t get it.” That’s our underlying framework. Let’s spell it out some more. Our basic assumption is that the Left and the Democrats do bad things, not because they are bad people, or because they are after self-serving and destructive ends. They do bad things because they don’t know better. They are ignorant, and it’s our job to educate them.

Hey, Obama, let me explain to you how there are bad actors in the world and the mullahs are in that group. Hey, Biden gang, we need to educate you about why you shouldn’t use the weaponry of the government to go after your political opponents. Hey, Democrats, let us help you figure out that the SAVE Act—mandatory voter ID—is good for democracy and good for our country.

I want to argue that this is a completely wrong-headed way to think about Democrats and the Left. But before I do, let’s trace the history of this “you just don’t get it” philosophy. It actually goes back to the ancient Greeks.

The ancient Greeks believed—Socrates is a typical example—that vice is folly. Vice is the result of ignorance, and virtue arises out of knowledge. People do wrong things because they don’t know better. If they knew better, they wouldn’t do these things. Our job, and the job of philosophy, is to educate them.

contrast the Socratic approach with the apostle Paul. Paul writes, “The good that I would, I do not. The evil that I would not, that I do.” Paul is saying that even though I know better, I do bad and evil things. For Paul, the problem is not ignorance. The problem is with the will. The will is guided by lust, hatred, ambition. The will refuses to be bound by reason; instead, the will uses reason to achieve its self-serving and wicked ends.

So who describes the Left and the Democrats better, Socrates or Paul? To me the answer is obvious. It’s Paul.

Where, then, do we get this naïve idea that the Left does what it does because of ignorance, because it doesn’t know better? I believe we get it from the naivete of the Reagan years. In the Reagan years, we generally believed that the differences between the parties—the difference between us and them—were differences not of ends but only of means.

In that Reaganite framework, the Right and the Left both want a strong, safe, prosperous America. We all want to go to the same place. We have some disagreements, such as how our prosperity should be shared—how to carve up the pie—but these are disagreements within a shared vision.

Therefore, the two sides are really on the same side. Politically speaking, we are friends and not enemies. If they go in a different direction than us, our job is to show them that they are misguided. Today’s Republicans—today’s Right—have inherited that same framework from the Reagan era. “They just don’t get it, and it’s our job to educate them, to show them where their interests truly lie.

There’s a huge fallacy here, and it can be illustrated with the example of a gang of bank robbers who go around holding up banks. Imagine saying to the robbers, “This is not a good idea. Banks rely on public trust in order to stay in business. If people regularly robbed banks, then banks would go out of business, and people would no longer deposit money in them. So this bank robbery thing is counter-productive, because it ends up destroying the banking system itself.”

Obviously the robbers wouldn’t care. Why? Because they want money for themselves, and they don’t care what the effect is on the banking system. And I think the same logic applies to the Democrats. Obama didn’t care that he was making Iran stronger and America weaker—in fact that was his goal

This was the point of my book “The Roots of Obama’s Rage” and my first film, “2016: Obama’s America.” My theme was that Obama was driven by a Third World anti-colonial vision in which America is the bad guy and the people fighting America are the good guys. Obama wanted to take America down a notch, and he did. He wanted to diminish America’s power in the world, and he did.

All our attempts to educate Obama, to instruct him, to make him see the light, failed miserably, not because we are poor educators, but because Obama knew exactly what he was doing. He understood his objectives much better than we did. He moved purposefully to achieve them. We misunderstood Obama, because we falsely presumed he shared our objectives. We offered him a lot of helpful instruction that he considered to be completely useless.

The other day, through some idle scrolling on social media, I happened upon a meeting of the Oakland City Council. What a menagerie! I saw a bunch of complete dirtballs and losers, people who seemed utterly indifferent to what makes a city run well, in effect running the city. And of course the city is in shambles. It looks like a Third World country which, to some extent it is. San Franciso and New York are headed the same way.

Now imagine saying to these city council people: “Hey guys! You simply don’t know how to run a city. You don’t get it. Let us show you how to attract entrepreneurs. Let us show you how to reduce tax rates and regulation. Let us offer you some practical tips on making the city safer. There are many good ways to improve education and make public services more efficient.” Blah, blah, blah.

You can try this approach, but I predict it will be a total failure. They have no interest in doing any of this. Why would they want to make public services more efficient, when their friends all run programs that are looting public services? Why would they want to streamline the homeless industry, when it provides huge funding to nonprofits that are their political allies and help them win elections?

The Oakland City Council doesn’t care if Oakland becomes a wasteland, as long as they can stay in power and feast on its carcass. And the same can be said about the Democrats who run San Francisco, Chicago, Minneapolis and every other blue city. They are termites who can be counted on to protect termite interests.

Here’s the big picture. A fearful, dependent population is one that relies on the Democratic Party to keep it fearful and dependent. These are the Left’s most reliable voters. The last thing they want is an educated, upwardly-mobile population in Oakland or anyplace else. As soon as

We need to stop with the “They just don’t get it.” It doesn’t work. It doesn’t work because they know exactly what they are doing. They are building their political networks and extending their political power. They wouldn’t have such a grip on our culture and politics if they were as ignorant and incompetent as we imagine them to be. In reality, we are the ones who are ignorant and incompetent. We have not taken the measure of our opponents. We don’t get it.

Politics is a contest of power. The Left understands this better than we do. If we want to stop the Left and the Democrats, we have to outvote them, out-organize them, out-fund them, out-maneuver them, in short, we have to defeat them politically. Let’s stop with the useless tutorials, the endless educational jibber-jabber. The Democrats operate just like termites, just like the bank robbers, and we can’t talk them out of doing what they do.

And that’s the way I see it.people can make do for themselves, they no longer need the Democratic Party to make it happen for them. In a way, the dirtballs on the Oakland City Council understand perfectly well what keeps them in power.

We need to stop with the “They just don’t get it.” It doesn’t work. It doesn’t work because they know exactly what they are doing. They are building their political networks and extending their political power. They wouldn’t have such a grip on our culture and politics if they were as ignorant and incompetent as we imagine them to be. In reality, we are the ones who are ignorant and incompetent. We have not taken the measure of our opponents. We don’t get it.

Politics is a contest of power. The Left understands this better than we do. If we want to stop the Left and the Democrats, we have to outvote them, out-organize them, out-fund them, out-maneuver them, in short, we have to defeat them politically. Let’s stop with the useless tutorials, the endless educational jibber-jabber. The Democrats operate just like termites, just like the bank robbers, and we can’t talk them out of doing what they do.

And that’s the way I see it.

Article...X

 Saw this video on my phone   today and  thought, "everyone   should see this" again and   again!! And...call your   congressman ! 

 !

Jun 30, 2022 #jessewattersprimetime #FoxNews

How the greatest generation handled ELECTION FRAUD! Making & taking a stand!

The Historian's Den

In August 1946, the small town of Athens, Tennessee, was controlled by a corrupt political machine that had ruled for years through intimidation, rigged elections, and a network of deputies who abused their power.

 
When Election Day arrived, these deputies arrested poll watchers, beat citizens, and seized ballot boxes, hauling them into the county jail to count in secret. What the officials didn’t expect was that dozens of World War II veterans, men who had just fought fascism overseas had returned home determined not to let tyranny take root in their own backyard. They had already formed a reform ticket, but when the deputies began arresting voters, the veterans realized the election was being stolen in broad daylight.

Fed up and unwilling to back down, the veterans armed themselves with rifles and surrounded the jail where the ballots were held. A tense standoff followed, with gunfire exchanged through the night as the veterans demanded the ballots be released.

 
By dawn, the corrupt officials surrendered, and the ballot boxes were opened and counted publicly, revealing the veterans’ candidates had won. The event became a rare moment in American history when ordinary citizens, many fresh from the battlefields of Europe and the Pacific, took up arms not against a foreign enemy but to defend the integrity of their own democracy.

#Defiance    Ron Schwartz

Judicial Tyranny vs. the Rule of Law

 The Framers rejected the idea that the courts should be the final arbiters of the law or the Constitution. Judicial review, as we now know it, was not granted in the Constitution. The concept was discussed, and rejected on the floor of debate.

However, it was later asserted by Chief Justice John Marshall in his judicial opinion regarding Marbury v. Madison (1803). Over time, political elites and the legal class accepted that assertion, and the judiciary gradually elevated itself above the other branches.

As a result, we have drifted into the same trap the colonists faced under the British Empire: believing that a black robe confers superior wisdom and that judges exist to define the law rather than apply it.

The Rule of Law is not merely a collection of statutes or the text of the Constitution. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, it is grounded in “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” The Rule of Law is a moral and legal order that pre-exists government and stands above the will of rulers, judges, or shifting public opinion.

It is a framework rooted in objective moral reality, binding on both the governed and those who govern. It is the law not invented by man but discovered by him. It is a moral order observable in human nature and the natural order of things. It is Divine Law, which is a transcendent moral authority acknowledged by the Founding Fathers as the ultimate source of rights and duties. The Rule of Law is not whatever a legislature enacts or a judge declares. It is the alignment of human law and the pre-existing moral architecture of the universe and of the Cre Himself.ator

canadafreepress.com
Judicial Tyranny vs. the Rule of Law
Ron Schwartz

SCOTUS

“You seem...to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchyOur judges are as honest as other men, and not more so...and their power [is] the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control…The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”

Thomas Jefferson (Stated in a letter to William Jarvis, Sept. 28, 1820)
Unfortunately, Jefferson’s warning proved to be all too accurate.
Sixty-plus years ago, the progressive, liberal left in America decided the best way, possibly the only way, to impose their will on the American people was not at the ballot box or through the Legislative Branch of our government; it was through the Supreme Court.
To do so, they would only need five of the nine members.

The inappropriate belief that the Supreme Court had supreme power over all government decisions would allow only five unelected people to impose and enforce their will over 300,000,000 Americans! ...
No entity or group has allowed more evil into America than the Supreme Court.
As Phillip Jauregui points out (The Parable of the Prodigal Court) so clearly in this critical book, only five individuals were needed to remove God and His principles from American schools, our government, and the public square. They trampled on constitutional rights, made the right to murder babies the law of the land, and overruled the will of the people in thirty states, who agreed with God that marriage was between one man and one woman.

On June 26, 2015, five Justices decided they had the right to redefine a 6,000-year-old definition of marriage–a definition clearly given by God, mind you–and redefine this covenant He instituted!

Just let that sink in: five people (two of whom had participated in gay wedding ceremonies, yet refused to recuse themselves), arrogantly granted themselves the “authority” to overrule God…and the American people.
The deception and arrogance of this was mind-numbing.

The late Justice Scalia stated, regarding this:
“I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy...
Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court...

“This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied [as it is today] by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776–the freedom to govern themselves…

To allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.”
Regarding this usurpation, Justice Alito said:

“Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage...

“All Americans, whatever they’re thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority’s claim of power portends.”
It is time to break this un-constitutional and inappropriate belief that the Supreme Court has supreme power over all government decisions.
The inappropriate belief that the Supreme Court has supreme power over all government decisions allows only five unelected people to impose and enforce their will over 300,000,000 Americans!

R*n S******z

Going to get your voter ID......

PresidentialReviews    By Hugh Janus, TDS News

CLEVELAND, OH — In a groundbreaking feat that has left feminists everywhere scratching their heads, local Ohio resident Annie Rection has shattered glass ceilings by becoming the first woman in recorded history to legally acquire a photo ID. “It was a grueling process,” Rection admitted, wiping sweat from her brow. “I had to walk all the way to the DMV, fill out a form, and wait in line for what felt like 15 whole minutes. But hey, I did it—proving once and for all that women aren’t delicate flowers who crumble at the sight of bureaucracy.”

Experts are already sounding the alarm: If the SAVE Act passes, requiring voters to show ID at the polls, Rection could very well be the only woman casting a ballot in the upcoming midterms. “This is a catastrophe for democracy,” warned Democratic strategist and professional pearl-clutcher, Wilma Dikfit. “Women simply can’t be expected to handle something as insurmountable as getting an ID. What next? Asking them to tie their own shoelaces? It’s voter suppression on steroids!”

Critics of the SAVE Act, mostly blue-haired activists and cable news pundits, insist that mandating photo ID is akin to building an invisible force field around polling places that only repels the fairer sex. “Women have jobs, families, and Netflix queues—how on earth are they supposed to squeeze in a trip to get an ID?” lamented one anonymous source, who apparently forgot that millions of women already have driver’s licenses, passports, and even those fancy Costco cards that require a photo.

But Rection, now a national hero (or villain, depending on your Twitter feed), begs to differ. “If I can do it, any woman can,” she said, flexing her newly minted ID like a trophy. “Heck, I even renewed my library card on the same day. Ladies, rise up—against the nonsense that we’re too helpless to function in the real world!”

As the midterms approach, TDS News will continue monitoring this developing story. Will more women defy the odds and obtain IDs? Or will polling places become ghost towns echoing with the faint sobs of disenfranchised damsels? Stay tuned—and remember, folks, satire is the best disinfectant for political absurdity.

Trump wants White men to sue for race discrimination. This man did
Story by Jessica Guynn, USA TODAY

David Duvall had been a senior vice president at Novant Health for five years in July 2018 when the multibillion-dollar health system told him it was “going in a different direction.”

After his firing, Novant Health promoted two of Duvall’s deputies, a White woman and a Black woman, to take over his duties while it conducted a search for his successor. A Black woman was appointed to permanently replace him.

Duvall sued in federal court in November 2019, alleging he was let go because of a push to diversify the leadership ranks.

At trial two years later, Duvall presented evidence he received strong performance reviews and gained national recognition for the marketing program he developed for Novant Health. His manager testified he had seven White men as direct reports at the start of 2018 but none by the time of the trial.

His former employer said Duvall was terminated for performance issues, including walking off stage while giving a public presentation. Novant Health said he was given a job coach and more public speaking opportunities but Duvall delegated those. 

The jury sided with Duvall. A federal appeals court later upheld the $4.8 million award in 2024. 

Duvall’s was a bellwether case that put the spotlight on high-profile lawsuits in which White men accuse their employers of racial bias, claiming they were dismissed or denied opportunities so companies could make room for more women and people of color through diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

Legal experts say the ruling was an early shot across the bow for diversity initiatives that are exclusive rather than inclusive.

Even though men – and White men in particular – dominate corporate America, these cases have ramped up as anti-DEI activists and the Trump administration target corporate diversity efforts.

While statistically rare, research shows that White men still file discrimination claims, just at a lower rate than other groups. 

White workers make up about two-thirds of the U.S. workforce but only account for about 10% of all race discrimination claims, according to data USA TODAY obtained in 2023 from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. A study from the Center for Employment Equity at the University of Massachusetts found that White men filed about 9% of race discrimination claims from 2012 to 2016.Trump targets White discrimination

The view that “unlawful” and “woke” DEI policis have harmed White Americans – and White men in eparticular – was central to President Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and now his second term in office. 

The Trump administration has urged White men to come forward with bias complaints, upending decades of civil rights policy that once prioritized the rights of women and people of color. 

The EEOC had made this DEI enforcement a top priority. The agency charged with fighting workplace discrimination is investigating Nike’s diversity policies for allegedly discriminating against White employees and it sued a Coca-Cola Co. distributor for allegedly discriminating against male employees by organizing a women-only retreat.

Signaling that the commission is poised to pursue more enforcement actions, EEOC chair Andrea Lucas warned Fortune 500 leaders that the Trump administration will not tolerate "discrimination against certain races or groups."

"All citizens are entitled to equal treatment under law and therefore should have equality of opportunity in every sector of our society, including the workplace," she wrote in a letter in February.

Reverse discrimination’ claims increase

Even before Trump took office, “reverse discrimination” lawsuits were on the upswing. Now lawyers predict the Trump administration’s enforcement efforts will spur even more bias complaints from White men. 

In June, the Supreme Court made those lawsuits easier to bring, unanimously ruling that antidiscrimination laws apply equally to everyone regardless of race or gender.

"Discrimination is unlawful whether the victim is Black, White, male or female," Nick Barry, senior counsel at the advocacy group America First Legal, told USA TODAY. "Many have hesitated to come forward because they feared retaliation or backlash. But the tide is finally turning and momentum is building around the simple principle that merit, not race or sex, must govern workplace decisions."

A white man sued for discrimination. 50 years later, the nation is still divided.

Steven Miller, a senior portfolio manager, recently sued Bausch + Lomb and his billionaire employer Carl Icahn, alleging he was denied a board seat because he is White.

According to the complaint filed in December in a Miami federal court, Bausch + Lomb required one of the two board directors nominated by Icahn Capital to be “diverse,” meaning non-White.

Bausch + Lomb and Icahn Enterprises did not respond to a request for comment.

“Undoubtedly, employers will soon experience the impact of this messaging,” Charles Plumb, a lawyer with the McAfee & Taft law firm in Oklahoma, said. “We should anticipate an uptick in reverse employment discrimination investigations by federal agencies and lawsuits brought against employers.”

Bias claims face tough hurdles, long odds

Like those brought by women and people of color, these discrimination lawsuits face tough hurdles and long odds, but some White workers have had success in court.

A New Jersey jury awarded $1.3 million to two White educators who alleged they were passed over for vice principal posts at Newark high schools for younger and less experienced candidates of color. Starbucks was ordered to pay $25 million to Shannon Phillips, a regional director who claimed she was fired for being White. 

“Sadly, it is with the slimmest of odds that employees get their day in court, let alone prevail,” Duvall told USA TODAY in an email in 2024.  

Trump wants to end affirmative action. Here’s how he plans to do it.

“I hope my nearly six-year journey is helpful to others who lose their livelihood unfairly,” he wrote. 

His lawyer, Luke Largess, said Duvall didn’t set out to become the face of the anti-DEI movement. He supported Novant Health’s diversity efforts during his tenure there, Largess said.

Novant Health told USA TODAY in a statement that ensuring equal employment opportunities "is a foundational aspect of Novant Health’s culture and we continue to vehemently disagree with the finding of liability."

For Duvall, standing up for himself in court came at a steep price. He told USA TODAY the litigation caused “immeasurable damage to my employment, my professional reputation and my career.”

After Novant, Duvall landed a job that paid more and included a signing bonus. He was fired not long after he filed his discrimination lawsuit in November 2019. 

Even so, headhunters contacted him with interest from four employers. His phone stopped ringing when Duvall informed them about the lawsuit.

Today, the high-powered marketing executive works as a consultant.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump wants White men to sue for race discrimination. This man did

mm

Rep. Tim Burchett just called out the Democrats’ sudden concern over presidential military action.

Danny Sullivan ·Conservative Twins
Rep. Tim Burchett just called out the Democrats’ sudden concern over presidential military action.

“Obama bombed 8 countries without Congressional approval. It’s disingenuous for them to say this is ‘unprecedented’…they killed Americans in recent memory. 

"You poke the bull, you get the horns!”

The left loved it when Obama did it, but now act shocked when Trump responds to Iran. Classic double standard.

 PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP

Khamenei, one of the most evil people in History, is dead. This is not only Justice for the people of Iran, but for all Great Americans, and those people from many Countries throughout the World, that have been killed or mutilated by Khamenei and his gang of bloodthirsty THUGS. He was unable to avoid our Intelligence and Highly Sophisticated Tracking Systems and, working closely with Israel, there was not a thing he, or the other leaders that have been killed along with him, could do. This is the single greatest chance for the Iranian people to take back their Country. We are hearing that many of their IRGC, Military, and other Security and Police Forces, no longer want to fight, and are looking for Immunity from us. As I said last night, “Now they can have Immunity, later they only get Death!” Hopefully, the IRGC and Police will peacefully merge with the Iranian Patriots, and work together as a unit to bring back the Country to the Greatness it deserves. That process should soon be starting in that, not only the death of Khamenei but the Country has been, in only one day, very much destroyed and, even, obliterated. The heavy and pinpoint bombing, however, will continue, uninterrupted throughout the week or, as long as necessary to achieve our objective of PEACE THROUGHOUT THE MIDDLE EAST AND, INDEED, THE WORLD!

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP   2/28/2026

 

Jack Smith subpoenaed Kash Patel and Susie Wiles' phone records

click "video" below....couldn't download video

VIDEO

Law professor Jonathan Turley weighs in on newly revealed secret subpoenas for FBI director, WH chief of staff while private citizens.

Lunacy: You Won’t Believe What Eric Swalwell Wants To Do To Trump’s Ballroom

Jonathan DavisOctober 27, 2025Updated:December 23, 2025POLITICS

The meltdown over President Donald Trump’s new White House ballroom has been nothing short of spectacular. From Hillary Clinton to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, the usual suspects are losing their minds in a full-blown case of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

They couldn’t care less about the practical need for the new space or the fact that past presidents have carried out plenty of renovations to the White House complex. None of that matters to them. What matters is finding yet another excuse to attack Trump — no matter how trivial or hypocritical it makes them look.

I figured Hillary Clinton’s reaction would take the cake, considering how much damage her family’s legacy did to the White House. But apparently, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) is determined to outdo her. He’s now suggesting that every 2028 Democratic presidential hopeful should make it a campaign pledge to tear down Trump’s ballroom — as if that’s some grand act of resistance:

So let’s get this straight — Eric Swalwell wants Democrats to run on demolishing something the country got for free. A ballroom, no less, that even the Washington Post editorial board admitted was necessary — and that Biden and Obama officials quietly agreed was long overdue. Please, by all means, make that your campaign platform. It’ll be just like 2020 all over again, when every Democrat on stage — including Joe Biden and Kamala Harris — proudly raised their hands to promise taxpayer-funded health care for illegal immigrants.

Go ahead, make that the hill to die on, you lunatics. Make it just like that infamous 2020 debate moment. You know, the one where every Democrat on stage raised their hand to support free health care for illegal immigrants:

Let them all line up again and pledge to tear down Trump’s ballroom. It’ll haunt them the same way that clip still does. And let’s not forget who was standing all the way on the right that night, nodding along to the nonsense.

So what’s the plan this time? Waste taxpayer money to rebuild a smaller office space that doesn’t even meet the White House’s needs — just so they can virtue-signal about “undoing Trump”? And here’s the kicker: wouldn’t tearing down a part of the White House itself be considered “destroying history,” which they claim is some unforgivable sin?

This is where the Democratic Party is now — obsessed with symbolism, detached from reality, and laser-focused on petty vendettas instead of actual governance. While the country faces a looming Schumer Shutdown, this is what they’re prioritizing: tantrums over a ballroom.

After getting hammered with well-deserved backlash, Swalwell quickly backpedaled on his grand “tear it down” crusade. In classic Democrat fashion, he didn’t admit it was a dumb idea — he just tried to rebrand it. Now, he’s calling for the ballroom to be renamed after Barack Obama, following a suggestion from Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.).

Wait a second — wasn’t the ballroom supposed to be an unspeakable abomination that had to be torn down brick by brick? Now suddenly, it’s fine as long as it’s named after Barack Obama? So slapping his name on it magically transforms it from a symbol of corruption into a national treasure? Give me a break.

Only in Democrat logic does accepting private donations for a public project equal “corruption,” while bleeding taxpayers dry or sending billions overseas to Ukraine is somehow “responsible governance.”

They’ve officially lost the plot — and maybe their minds along with it.

SCOTUS   

“You seem...to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy…

Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so...and their power [is] the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control…The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”

Thomas Jefferson

(Stated in a letter to William Jarvis, Sept. 28, 1820)

Unfortunately, Jefferson’s warning proved to be all too accurate.

Sixty-plus years ago, the progressive, liberal left in America decided the best way, possibly the only way, to impose their will on the American people was not at the ballot box or through the Legislative Branch of our government; it was through the Supreme Court.

To do so, they would only need five of the nine members.
The inappropriate belief that the Supreme Court had supreme power over all government decisions would allow only five unelected people to impose and enforce their will over 300,000,000 Americans! ...

No entity or group has allowed more evil into America than the Supreme Court.

As Phillip Jauregui points out (The Parable of the Prodigal Court) so clearly in this critical book, only five individuals were needed to remove God and His principles from American schools, our government, and the public square. They trampled on constitutional rights, made the right to murder babies the law of the land, and overruled the will of the people in thirty states, who agreed with God that marriage was between one man and one woman.

On June 26, 2015, five Justices decided they had the right to redefine a 6,000-year-old definition of marriage–a definition clearly given by God, mind you–and redefine this covenant He instituted!

Just let that sink in: five people (two of whom had participated in gay wedding ceremonies, yet refused to recuse themselves), arrogantly granted themselves the “authority” to overrule God…and the American people.

The deception and arrogance of this was mind-numbing.
Dutch Sheets

The late Justice Scalia stated, regarding this:

“I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy...

Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court...

“This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied [as it is today] by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776–the freedom to govern themselves…

To allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.”

Regarding this usurpation, Justice Alito said:

“Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage...

“All Americans, whatever they’re thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority’s claim of power portends.”
It is time to break this un-constitutional and inappropriate belief that the Supreme Court has supreme power over all government decisions.

The inappropriate belief that the Supreme Court has supreme power over all government decisions allows only five unelected people to impose and enforce their will over 300,000,000 Americans!

R*n S******z     Yesterday