Communism is force, murder and enslavement. These things are against the law, in a free country. “Democratic socialists”–i.e., Communists–are acting illegally. They should all be removed from office and treated as criminals, because they are criminals. They are voting to confiscate private property and destroy freedom of trade and freedom of association. It’s not a free speech issue. You can write books or articles sanctioning murder and enslavement all you want; but you may not practice these things. Start with the arrest of Mamdani–he’s the most high profile and toxic, since he’s in open alignment with terrorists. If we don’t do this, America is finished. We are watching the country founded on a Bill of Rights evaporate before our eyes. Generations of blood, triumph and tragedy–gone. President Trump, are you hearing us?
There is no such thing as a “non-violent” approach to socialism. All socialism is violence. In the case of a military conquest as with Russia in 1917, it’s obvious. But it’s no different with “democratic socialists.” If a majority seizes your private property by vote, demands you to surrender your gun by vote, restricts your speech by vote — then you’re subject to imprisonment if you disobey them. Being put in prison is a form of violence. It’s coercion. If you try to escape the prison you’re put in for refusing to hand over 90 percent of your income or savings to the government, then you’ll be shot at, and potentially killed. It’s force no matter how you look at it. Socialism kills — and it aims to kill you unless you surrender everything that’s yours: mind, body and property. Socialism and the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution are entirely incompatible. They’re polar opposites. No election — whether with dishonest or honest counting — can change this fact. The moment we’re a socialist country, it’s a war on your rights.
“There are so many elements of progressivism, wokeness and Cultural Marxism that are despicable that it’s hard to explain sometimes why it is so vile. There are simply too many options available for answering that question.
The hypocrisy is of course overwhelming.
The self blindness is terrifying.
The political violence and thuggery is despicable.
The psychological projection is rampant.
The distortion of language and its meanings is revoltingly cynical.
The nihilism and the fanaticism are both bound to create cruelty and sadism.
And the corruption and theft enacted is beyond measure.
But for me the thing I hate most is the combination of this entire worldview being enormously ignorant, stupid and founded on the elimination of knowledge, the desecration of wisdom, and the barbarian contempt for thought….while utterly convinced that they are smarter, wiser and more knowledgeable than anyone else, that really sits at the heart of what makes progressivism so disgusting.
It is that these people know nothing, and are nothing, and cannot create or think or produce anything of worth themselves, while sneering at, mocking and detesting anything of worth created before they existed.
They are orcs who think themselves scholars. People who have learned to be stupid and call it genius. People who come from comfort and leisure and are trained to be barbarians.
Their art is what an orc would produce. Scratches and defecations on statues they have smashed. They are repelled by beauty and enchanted by filth. If a work diminishes Man, they adore it. If a work elevates the soul, they truly detest it. Old Masters bore them, and soaring cathedrals evoke their sneers.
But give them an empty canvas, or a fraudulent con, or a puffed and inflated piece of nothing that expresses only the same few paltry shreds of embittered slogans that constitute their withered conscience…..and they grin and caper in delight like monkeys excited by a rape.
It’s the orcishness of it that earns my loathing most of all.
That these filth smeared ignorant know nothings consider themselves the Wise.”
11h I woke up and as I had my morning coffee, I realized that everything is about to change. No matter how I vote, no matter what I say, something evil has invaded our nation, and our lives are never going to be the same.
I have been confused by the hostility of family and friends. I look at people I have known all my life–so hate-filled that they agree with opinions they would never express as their own. I think that I may well have entered the Twilight Zone.
You can’t justify this insanity. We have become a nation that has lost its collective mind!
• If a man pretends to be a woman, you are required to pretend with him.
• Somehow it’s un-American for the census to count how many Americans are in America.
• Russians influencing our elections are bad, but illegals voting in our elections are good.
• It was cool for Joe Biden to “blackmail” the President of Ukraine, but it’s an impeachable offense if Donald Trump inquires about it.
• People who have never owned slaves should pay slavery reparations to people who have never been slaves.
• People who have never been to college should pay the debts of college students who took out huge loans for their degrees.
• Immigrants with tuberculosis and polio are welcome, but you’d better be able to prove your dog is vaccinated.
• Irish doctors and German engineers who want to immigrate to the US must go through a rigorous vetting process, but any illiterate gang-bangers who jump the southern fence are welcome.
• $5 billion for border security is too expensive, but $1.5 trillion for “free” health care is not.
• If you cheat to get into college you go to prison, but if you cheat to get into the country you go to college for free.
• People who say there is no such thing as gender are demanding a female President.
• We see other countries going Socialist and collapsing, but it seems like a great plan to us.
• Some people are held responsible for things that happened before they were born, and other people are not held responsible for what they are doing right now.
• Criminals are caught-and-released to hurt more people, but stopping them is bad because it’s a violation of THEIR rights.
• And pointing out all this hypocrisy somehow makes us “racists”?!
Nothing makes sense anymore, no values, no morals, no civility and people are dying of a Chinese virus, but it racist to refer to it as Chinese even though it began in China.
We are clearly living in an upside down world where right is wrong and wrong is right, where moral is immoral and immoral is moral, where good is evil and evil is good, where killing murderers is wrong, but killing innocent babies is right.
Wake up America, the great unsinkable ship Titanic America has hit an iceberg, is taking on water, and is sinking fast. The choice is yours to make. What will it be? Time is short, make your choice wisely!
Feel free to copy and paste. I did.
Time for our government to wake up you either work with and for America or get the hell out .. we’re tired of paying taxes and you incredibly selfish people don’t give a damn for the people you work for… you should all be ashamed of yourself !!!!
Millions of Americans spend decades preparing for retirement, only to discover one of the biggest expenses isn’t housing, travel, or taxes. It’s healthcare.
A new estimate from Fidelity suggests that a 65-year-old retiring today should expect to spend $185,500 on healthcare throughout retirement. That’s a 7.5% increase from last year and the steepest annual jump in more than a decade.
Even more concerning, more than half of Americans approaching retirement don’t realize Medicare leaves them responsible for thousands of dollars in costs.
Retirement Healthcare Costs Just Hit a New High
According to Fidelity’s 25th Annual Retiree Health Care Cost Estimate, a typical 65-year-old retiring in 2026 will need approximately $185,500 to cover medical expenses during retirement.
That’s up from $172,500 just one year ago.
The 7.5% increase marks the largest annual jump since 2015 and reflects several powerful trends working against retirees:
Rising healthcare prices
Increased use of medical services
Growing costs associated with chronic health conditions
Continued medical inflation outpacing general inflation
For many retirees, these expenses become one of the largest line items in their retirement budget.
The Medicare Misconception
One of the report’s most striking findings wasn’t the dollar figure.
It was that 54% of pre-retirees incorrectly believe Medicare will pay all of their healthcare costs.
The reality is far different.
While Medicare provides valuable coverage, retirees are still responsible for numerous expenses including:
Monthly Part B premiums
Part D prescription drug premiums
Deductibles
Copayments
Coinsurance
Prescription drug costs not fully covered
Many retirees don’t realize these expenses continue year after year.
Where the $185,500 Actually Goes
Fidelity broke down the projected lifetime healthcare costs into several major categories.
Approximately 45% comes from Medicare Part B and Part D premiums.
Another 48% comes from deductibles, copays, coinsurance, and other out-of-pocket medical expenses.
The remaining 7% represents prescription drug costs paid directly by retirees.
For 2026, the standard Medicare Part B premium alone is $202.90 per month, before considering drug coverage or supplemental insurance.
Traditional Medicare vs. Medicare Advantage
The report also highlights important differences between Medicare’s two primary coverage options.
Traditional Medicare offers broad access to healthcare providers but has no annual limit on out-of-pocket spending unless retirees purchase supplemental Medigap coverage.
Medicare Advantage plans often include prescription drug coverage and cap annual out-of-pocket costs. However, they generally require beneficiaries to stay within provider networks or pay significantly more.
For 2026, Medicare Advantage plans may cap annual out-of-pocket costs at:
$9,250 for in-network care
$13,900 when both in-network and out-of-network care are included
Many plans choose lower limits, but costs can still be substantial depending on medical needs.
The Biggest Expense Isn’t Even Included
Perhaps the most important detail in Fidelity’s estimate is what it doesn’t include.
The $185,500 projection excludes long-term care.
Medicare generally does not pay for ongoing assistance with activities such as:
Bathing
Dressing
Eating
Long-term nursing home care
Extended in-home custodial care
Those expenses can easily reach hundreds of thousands of dollars over a retirement, depending on health needs and where someone lives.
One Tax-Advantaged Way to Prepare
For workers who haven’t yet enrolled in Medicare, a Health Savings Account (HSA) remains one of the most powerful retirement planning tools available.
HSAs offer three significant tax advantages:
Contributions are tax deductible.
Investments grow tax free.
Qualified healthcare withdrawals are tax free.
Unlike Flexible Spending Accounts, HSA balances never expire and can continue growing for decades if invested.
Once someone enrolls in Medicare, they can no longer make new HSA contributions, but existing balances can still be used to pay many qualified medical expenses, including Medicare Part B and Part D premiums.
Why Investing May Matter
Healthcare inflation has historically risen faster than overall inflation, making cash savings alone increasingly difficult to keep pace.
While many HSA holders leave their balances sitting in cash, long-term investors often choose to invest at least part of their accounts in diversified portfolios that have greater potential to outpace rising medical costs.
New investment products are even beginning to target healthcare inflation specifically, reflecting growing concern that medical expenses could become one of retirement’s largest financial risks.
The Bottom Line
Healthcare has become one of the most overlooked expenses in retirement planning.
Fidelity’s latest estimate suggests today’s retirees should prepare for $185,500 in lifetime healthcare costs—even before factoring in the potentially enormous expense of long-term care.
For Americans who assume Medicare will cover everything, that misunderstanding could become one of the costliest retirement surprises they’ll ever face.
The principal weakness of Western policy has been not an excess of diplomacy or pressure, but a misunderstanding of what keeps the Islamic Republic in power.
For decades, Western policy toward Iran has been shaped primarily by concerns over nuclear proliferation, missile capabilities, sanctions, and regional deterrence. These issues have dominated diplomatic engagement with Tehran.
Human-rights abuses—including executions, political imprisonment, internet shutdowns, and the systematic suppression of dissent—were repeatedly condemned, particularly through United Nations resolutions. Yet they rarely became a determining factor in shaping Western strategy toward Tehran.
That was not simply a moral failure. It became a strategic miscalculation, because it overlooked the central role that domestic repression plays in sustaining the Islamic Republic’s regional behaviour.
By treating domestic repression as peripheral rather than central, Western governments underestimated one of the principal foundations of the Islamic Republic’s regional behaviour.
The Islamic Republic has never treated domestic control and foreign policy as separate spheres. Executions, censorship, and the suppression of organised opposition are not merely internal practices. They are among the principal instruments through which the regime preserves the political stability necessary to sustain its regional ambitions.
By underestimating this relationship, Western governments also underestimated one of the political foundations of Iran’s regional behaviour. The consequences have extended well beyond Iran, contributing to repeated cycles of regional instability, growing geopolitical risk, threats to maritime security, and persistent uncertainty in global energy markets.
Military pressure has sought to alter Tehran’s external behaviour, while diplomatic engagement has attempted to moderate it through negotiation and economic incentives. Yet neither approach has fundamentally challenged the mechanisms that enable the regime to preserve power, because its greatest strategic asset is not simply its missile arsenal, proxy networks, or nuclear programme—it is its ability to maintain political control over its own society.
The Islamic Republic does not separate domestic control from foreign policy. Its regional posture and internal repression reinforce one another. Executions intimidate potential dissent. Internet shutdowns prevent citizens from organizing. Regional confrontation helps justify both. This relationship is neither accidental nor temporary; it lies at the heart of the regime’s strategy of survival.
Authoritarian governments often invoke external threats to consolidate power at home. The Islamic Republic has elevated this logic into a governing strategy in which domestic repression and regional confrontation reinforce one another. Periods of heightened regional tension have repeatedly coincided with intensified domestic repression, creating a political climate in which broader repression can be justified as a matter of national necessity. That is why Iran’s human-rights record cannot be understood separately from its regional behaviour.
Executions are not simply judicial punishments. They are political signals. Internet blackouts are not merely technical restrictions. They are instruments designed to prevent collective action. Together, they reduce society’s capacity to organize against the state.
That internal architecture matters well beyond Iran’s borders. A government that governs through fear at home enjoys greater freedom to pursue confrontational policies abroad. Conversely, a government that finds it increasingly difficult to repress its own society also faces growing constraints on its regional ambitions.
Seen in this light, domestic repression is not simply a human-rights concern. It is a strategic variable—and one of the missing links in Western policy toward Iran.
By treating regional security and domestic repression as separate issues, Western governments have underestimated the extent to which each reinforces the other. A strategy that addresses one while neglecting the other is unlikely to achieve lasting results.
Executions as an Instrument of Governance
If domestic repression is central to the Islamic Republic’s strategy of survival, then one instrument deserves particular attention: the death penalty.
Iran does not merely execute more people than most countries. According to Amnesty International, it accounted for roughly 80 percent of all recorded executions worldwide in 2025. That is not only a disturbing human-right statistic. It also offers an important clue to how the regime maintains political control.
Executions in the Islamic Republic serve a broader political function than criminal punishment alone. They reinforce fear, discourage collective action, and signal that organized resistance carries the highest possible cost. For that reason, the gallows are not only an Iranian human-rights issue; they are also a strategic issue.
A government’s heavy reliance on executions reveals a fundamental vulnerability: coercion remains indispensable to maintaining political control.
The same logic applies to information. During major nationwide protests, the authorities have repeatedly slowed or shut down internet access—not simply to censor information, but to disrupt collective action. Like executions, internet shutdowns have become one of the regime’s principal instruments of domestic control.
Understanding this relationship leads to a different policy conclusion. Western governments have generally treated executions as a humanitarian issue to be condemned after they occur.
But if executions are also one of the regime’s principal instruments of governance, then limiting its ability to rely on them should become not only a moral objective but a strategic one.
That does not require abandoning diplomacy. It requires integrating domestic repression into diplomacy, rather than treating it as a separate issue.
A government that pays a tangible diplomatic, political, and economic price for every politically motivated execution will find it increasingly difficult to rely on executions as a low-cost instrument of political control.
That is where a more effective Western strategy toward Iran begins.
Why the West Misread Iran
If this analysis is correct, then one conclusion follows: The principal weakness of Western policy has been not an excess of diplomacy or pressure, but a misunderstanding of what keeps the Islamic Republic in power.
For decades, engagement with Tehran has largely separated diplomatic relations from the regime’s domestic repression. Executions, political prisoners, and internet shutdowns were frequently condemned through resolutions, public statements, and targeted sanctions, yet they rarely became decisive factors in shaping the broader relationship with the Islamic Republic. As a result, a government that pays little international price for governing through fear has little incentive to abandon one of its most effective instruments of control.
This is the real meaning of appeasement.
Appeasement is not diplomacy. Diplomacy remains an indispensable instrument of statecraft. Appeasement begins when engagement treats domestic repression as peripheral rather than central to the relationship.
The result is a strategic contradiction: governments seek greater regional stability while leaving largely untouched one of the principal mechanisms that enables the regime to pursue confrontation abroad.
The question, therefore, is not whether governments should negotiate with Tehran, but what those negotiations are intended to change.
If domestic repression remains disconnected from diplomacy, the central mechanisms sustaining the regime will remain intact. A durable strategy cannot separate the regime’s internal methods of survival from its external behaviour. They are parts of the same political system.
Now more than ever, the ability to speak our minds is crucial to the republic we cherish. If what you see on American Thinker resonates with you, please consider supporting our work with a donation of as much or as little as you can give. Every dollar contributed helps us pay our staff and keep our ideas heard and our voices strong. Thank you.https://givebutter.com/embed/c/WhA2EO?goalBar=false&gba_gb.element.id=gkx27p
Judge them not by the color of their skin, but the contents of their crack pipes.”
The Atlantic, the last liberal magazine, which still occasionally runs good articles questioning leftist insanity, has an article that touches on the consequences of leftist pro-crime policies and features insane moments like this one.
Nelson also asked pointed questions about what had become the received wisdom in Seattle, such as why the county government paid millions of dollars to supply kits to addicts with tinfoil, pipes, and instructions on how to smoke fentanyl. (Incongruously, these kits came emblazoned with an image of Martin Luther King Jr., the namesake of King County.) What harm was reduced, Nelson asked at a 2023 council hearing, by helping addicts get high? Amber Tejada, an employee of a health nonprofit that had partnered with the city, raised her hand to answer. “I know it can be a little controversial,” she told the councilwoman, “but one of the key tenets of harm reduction that I see is that we want to be able to facilitate and champion autonomy of people who use drugs.” Tejada added, “There are folks for whom abstinence is not something by which they measure their success in life.”
Nothing says progress like crack pipes with King’s picture on them. Somehow I don’t think he would have been thrilled.
Republicans and Democrats used to have a grand tradition of presidential candidates heading up to New Hampshire, putting on LL Bean jackets and trying to talk down to small groups of skeptical senior citizens in diners. It was a stupid way to choose leaders, but, like democracy itself, it was also the least bad option because it forced national candidates to get out of their comfort zones and talk to random people in a state that they would have otherwise ignored.
Then the Democrats decided to run a senile presidential candidate in 2024 and to make sure that he had no possible competition, the DNC conspired to rig the primary calendar by starting the season off with South Carolina: a state whose political virtue was that political boss Rep. James Clyburn could deliver the black vote to anyone dead or alive, or, like Joe Biden, somewhere in between.
The DNC claimed that it was urgent to replace New Hampshire with South Carolina for the sake of diversity, because nothing epitomizes diversity like rigging an election for an old white man.
New Hampshire was ordered to move its primary back. New Hampshire Dems explained that the primary dates were set by state law and that they had to proceed with the primary on the usual schedule. The DNC told Democrats not to vote in the primary and then launched a write-in campaign that Biden somehow won, despite barely being able to remember his name on a good day, testifying to either the complete mindlessness or fraudulence of the party.
Once Biden had been ousted, the DNC could have put back the old primary calendar, instead it decided to host a showdown between South Carolina and Nevada to replace New Hampshire.
Nevada and South Carolina were at the top because unlike New Hampshire they had fewer white people, at least who voted Democrat, because most of those had decamped from a party that made a special point of hating them . The best argument for Nevada was that it was full of Latinos and the best argument for South Carolina was that it was full of black people.
And not picking South Carolina would be racist. The only question was whether not picking Nevada would be just as racist, more racist or slightly less racist.
“If South Carolina gets quietly bumped after one cycle of convenient praise, that sends a message louder than any speech at a Democratic dinner: the gratitude was performance, not policy,” Al Sharpton warned.
The DNC juggled two races until it decided that black people were the most important and so South Carolina will host the first state primary, Latinos were the second most important and so Nevada will go second, and white people were the least important, so New Hampshire would go third. Latinos however get a consolation prize with a fourth place spot for New Mexico, while fifth place goes to the all-important demographic of Hamas supporters in Michigan.
(New Hampshire Democrats still can’t move their primary, which means that if 2024 repeats itself, they’ll just conduct the primary on schedule and Biden will again win the write-in vote.)
Apart from potentially setting up an AOC presidency (as the most high-profile Latina and leftist candidate, she could potentially win 4 out of the first 5 primary states, and seal the deal), the primary calendar is a useful metric for bringing the racial ugliness of the Dems out into the open.
A statement by DNC leaders bragged that this was “the most diverse calendar Democrats have ever had for an open nominating contest” and the official site ranked the calendar based on the number of the 4.6 million black people, 4.2 million Latinos and 1.4 Asian Americans who live in the early window states. Sorry Asian Americans, you’ll need more votes if you want to rank.
Only 4 out of 49 of the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee members backed New Hampshire for the top spot, while South Carolina scored 26 votes and Nevada took home 19 votes. Iowa, also once an early state, but deemed excessively white, wasn’t even on the table.
Democrats in New Hampshire and Iowa are discovering that diversity means no white people.
Under the new primary calendar, the racial makeup of the first 4 early window states drops from a distinct white majority to 57% or so, ensuring that minority voters play a much larger role in picking the party’s nominee. In reality, this really means that political bosses like Rep. Clyburn and the network of minority ‘voter outreach’ groups, often leftist non-profits, and powerful unions will be doing the actual picking. Much like 2024, ‘diversity’ is just a human shield for rigging the primaries by putting political machines and organizers in charge of manufacturing a bloc vote.
57% is well below the 64% of white Kamala voters. Despite all the hype and racial pandering, black voters only made up 16% of her voters and Latinos represented only 11%. But rather than try to win over white voters, the Dems are doubling down on erasing white voters and elevating black and Latino voters as being somehow superior to them purely on account of their race.
The last time Dems did this in New Hampshire, Kamala’s vote totals in New Hampshire were down by 6,000 from Biden’s totals in 2020, while Trump’s shot up 30,000. At this rate, Republicans will go back to winning New Hampshire.
This isn’t the sort of stuff that wins elections, but winning elections isn’t really the point.
The DNC carved out a primary calendar geared to promoting some candidates and suppressing others. The calendar likely kills the Buttgieg campaign dead, even before it would have died on its own, while making Kamala and AOC into viable contenders, and puts the Hamas supporters in Michigan in a powerful position to force concessions to their agenda from the candidates.
All of this is being done under the guise of promoting racial diversity, but what it does all too well is convey to voters that the Democratic Party only cares about them based on their race. The 2028 primary calendar is a document that shows exactly how the party ranks races. It’s as racist as anything that came out of Jim Crow and it’s how Dems want to pick their next president.
Delay, delay, delay, then dismiss the scandal as old news. Clinton 101.
Democrats always lie the same way, so pattern recognition becomes a kind of vaccine, except that it actually creates immunity. Once you know how they do it, they can never fool you again. Unless you’re also a Democrat, in which case you were born to be fooled, and you can just go back to sucking your thumb in a basement.
Back in the political Pleistocene, a slippery American president who was known as “Slick Willie” slogged through scandal after scandal, often in the company of his amoral and tone-deaf grifter wife. Perpetually embroiled in controversy because of their own behavior, this shameless couple developed a set of reliable techniques for the management of uncomfortable questions.
The Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberly Strassel famously described this set of techniques as “The Clinton Scandal Manual,” and the steps were predictable. First you muddy the paper trail by delaying the release of documents or misplacing the records of the scandal. This slows down the arrival of accountability, and forces your critics to engage in a long effort to untangle the threads of your poor choices.
Then, after you’ve forced your critics to prolong their attack by hiding records and muddying the waters, you count on the news media to get tired of the story. The Clintons knew that the press has attention deficit disorder, Strassel wrote, and its members will eventually want to give up on a topic and move to something fresh.
So then comes the big finish: When critics have been talking about the same scandal for a long time, because of your delaying tactics and the hidden paper trail, transition to the frustrated sigh: Why are we still talking about this old news? Isn’t it time to move on?
Delay, delay, delay / dismiss the scandal as old news.
Now, watch Slick Willie’s old manual at work, coming from the mouth of a different sleazy grifter: [X post at article link]
A set of detailed records just became available for the first time, showing us from inside Saint Anthony Fauci’s sleazy political operation what the man was thinking and saying privately as he lied to the country that he was abusing. There’s new evidence, in 2026, about the real meaning of events in 2020 and 2021. The paper trail was buried for a long time. There’s step one.
Then comes step two: Why are we still talking about this old news? My goodness, we’re in the middle of a DEVASTATING CYCLOSPORA OUTBREAK, there’s a huge crisis, we don’t have time to relitigate these ancient matters. Here’s the most important information on the CDC’s surveillance page for that current outbreak, by the way:
Don’t you see, we don’t have time to discuss this old thing; we’re in the middle of a huge crisis that’s killing zeroes of Americans. Meanwhile, here’s the current count from the CDC’s measles page:
Manufacturing fake crisis as a pathetic distraction, the halfwit Hassan just straight-up invents a bunch of scary nonsense: “RFK is dismantling our public health system & scientific research.” The CDC will spend billions of dollars in 2026. The NIH will spend tens of billions of dollars. Here’s how the NIH describes its own spending this year:
The NIH invests most of its nearly $48 billion budget in medical research for the American people.
Nearly 82 percent of NIH’s funding is awarded for extramural research, largely through almost 50,000 competitive grants to more than 300,000 researchers at more than 2,500 universities, medical schools, and other research institutions in every state.
In addition, approximately 11 percent of the NIH’s budget supports projects conducted by nearly 6,000 scientists in its own laboratories, most of which are on the NIH campus in Bethesda, Maryland.
Merely 50,000 grants to just 300,000 researchers at only 2,500 universities: See, scientific research and our public health system are being absolutely dismantled! We don’t even have any science or health anymore! She’s making scary but empty noises to change the topic, which is her profession. Maggie Hassan gets a paycheck to prevent discussion about reality. She’s a living truth barrier, and dumber than an old sock.
Hide the records for a long time. Then, when the records are finally found, denounce the fake fact that we’re having a pointless discussion about an old topic. Clinton 101.
Here’s the other old go-to: [X post at article link]
Actually discussing the things that Fauci wrote himself, expressing his own thoughts, in a document he created in his own government office, is engaging in conspiracy theories. That phrase has become one of our clearest signals that you’re in the presence of truth, with 100 percent accuracy when it comes from the mouth of an old prostitute like Dick Durbin. Discuss anything at all but the evidence.
We’ve erected a whole cultural complex of fakery and distraction, and we’re drowning in the lies. It’s not at all hard to see how they do it, if you’re willing to see.
See also, regarding a related category of professional liar: [X post at article link]
They’re not going to stop. In the most basic sense, it’s who they are and what they do. The only answer for it is to understand them, and then to learn to hate them as much as they deserve to be hated. And then ignore their noisemaking, and keep hunting for the dark truth about Anthony Fauci.
Egyptian officials have officially confirmed that an Iranian drone strike was responsible for damaging two US energy tankers at the port of Damietta. Following the strike, the United States carried out limited conventional air raids, opting against a broader military escalation despite warnings of a much harsher response.
Egyptian authorities officially confirmed Thursday that an explosion damaging two American energy tankers at Damietta Port was caused by an Iranian drone strike. Egyptian officials emphasized that an investigation into the incident remains underway, noting that no group has formally claimed responsibility for the operation.
The official confirmation from Cairo follows statements made by Iranian sources to The New York Times acknowledging that the attack was executed using a drone. According to those sources, the strike was intended as a signal to demonstrate Tehran’s capacity to disrupt international shipping lanes and global energy supplies if the US escalates military tension in the region. The sources did not specify whether the drone was launched directly from Iran or by a regional proxy, nor did they disclose the launch site.
Following the attack, US military forces carried out targeted air strikes against select proxy positions in the region to counter threats to maritime traffic. However, the military actions were restricted to standard conventional raids. This limited response diverged from public statements by President Donald Trump, who had promised a far stronger reaction after warning that the US would hit back hard.
Democratic Wisconsin gubernatorial front-runner Francesca Hong is facing fresh scrutiny after a years-old social media post calling to “Abolish the Senate” resurfaced, even as her campaign now insists she never took that position.
“Abolish the Senate,” Hong, a self-described socialist, wrote in February 2021 while replying to a post from human rights lawyer Qasim Rashid. The post remained live on X as of Wednesday afternoon.
Despite the public post, a spokesperson for Hong’s campaign pushed back on the claim in comments to Fox News, arguing that Hong has never advocated eliminating the U.S. Senate.
The dispute erupted after Republican Rep. Tom Tiffany, the leading GOP candidate for Wisconsin governor, blasted Hong following Tuesday night’s Democratic primary debate.
Tiffany said Hong “has called to abolish the police, prisons, and the U.S. Senate.”
Hong’s campaign told the Daily Caller News Foundation that the Democratic state lawmaker did not remember making the 2021 post and has since clarified her position during recent media interviews.
According to the spokesperson, Hong wrote “Abolish the Senate” one day after the Senate failed to convict President Donald Trump in his second impeachment trial over the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol breach. Although 57 senators voted to convict, the total fell 10 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed for conviction.
The campaign said the post reflected Hong’s frustration with Trump’s acquittal rather than a lasting policy position.
“It is not her current position, and it is not something a governor has any role in. She’s running to lower costs, fund public schools, and make childcare affordable,” the spokesperson said.
The campaign also flatly denied Tiffany’s accusation.
“Rep. Hong has never called for abolishing the U.S. Senate. Tiffany cannot produce a single statement where she did, because it doesn’t exist,” the spokesperson told Fox originally.
The exchange comes as Hong, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, leads the Democratic primary field ahead of the Aug. 11 election.
A July Marquette Law School poll found Hong with 38% support among Democratic primary voters, followed by former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes at 16% and Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley at 7%. A large share of voters remained undecided.
The race to replace outgoing Democratic Gov. Tony Evers, who is not seeking another term, is expected to be one of the nation’s most competitive gubernatorial contests. Evers has endorsed Crowley, while the nonpartisan Cook Political Report rates the general election as a “toss-up.”
THE ARTFUL DILETTANTE 