Dennis

Believe in free speech, small government, and eliminating property tax

[varrock @varrock]

This story is actually insane. The police picked up a 16 yr old girl that was kidnapped by Omar (the guy Shiloh Hendrix insulted) and his brother at a gas station. They raped her for two days. She was found "sleep-deprived, dehydrated, and had not eaten recently" according to the nurse that examined her.

They found her glasses in their trailer. She identified them perfectly in a lineup.

Then, in the middle of the case, prosecutors discretely dropped charges with no explanation and no oversight. "In the interest of justice," they said.

This was just one month before the Shiloh Hendrix incident. During the Shiloh Hendrix trial, we find out that Omar's son, who is actually 9 even though it was claimed he was 5, already wears a ankle monitor because his father lets him wander off and steal things. As is expected, the father has faced no consequences for this.

In Minnesota, a single word is worse than kidnapping and raping a young girl. Two Somalian men abducted a young, vulnerable girl, then were shielded by the government and faced zero consequences. Personally, I think the charges were dropped to avoid their deportation.

On the flip side, a productive member of society gets probation, a jail sentence, and 200 hours of community service over a single word, with no violence involved in any way.

We can't live like this. We can't live in a country where foreigners are above the law, yet get to twist the law into a weapon against productive American citizens.

[Flopping Aces @FloppingAces]

Oh, look how beautifully the system works when the right person dies.

An ICE officer fires a shot and within hours the entire apparatus of public morality springs to life. Candles materialize. Signs get printed. Politicians discover their vocal cords. Reporters dig deep for “context.” Crowds fill the street chanting about justice and accountability. It’s almost impressive how fast they can mobilize when the story fits the approved script.

Then a two-year-old girl is allegedly murdered by an illegal immigrant.

Suddenly everyone develops selective hearing loss.

Three men die in a hit-and-run allegedly caused by another illegal who had already been in ICE custody and was released. The same people who were just weeping on camera about human dignity somehow can’t find the energy to light a single candle or demand a single answer.

Fascinating.

Lorenzo Salgado Araujo and Joan Sebastián Guerrero got the full production: marches, memorials, elected officials, national coverage. David Garcia-Obrajero, Homero Pineda Delgado, Esteban Salazar Hernandez, and that little girl got the budget version ... a quiet local report and a collective institutional shrug.

The outrage class isn’t missing the story. They’re just very good at knowing which deaths are useful and which ones are inconvenient. The ones that can be aimed at ICE get the full theatrical treatment. The ones that complicate the narrative get filed under “regrettable but not our problem.”

It’s not that they lack compassion. It’s that their compassion has a political filter, and the filter is working exactly as designed.
(article below)

[C3 @C_3C_3]

Did the Legacy Media cover illegal Raul Ortiz Moran r*ping and killing a 2 year old girl?

CNN: No
WaPo: No
MSNBC: No
NY Times: No
ABC News: No
NBC News: No
NBC News: No
USA Today: No
Etc

The propaganda Media must protect Democrat sanctuary city policies and illegals.

Evil.

[Tony Seruga @TonySeruga]

🎥 The 2016 Obama “Illegals Can Vote” Moment — What Actually Happened

Many have raised one of the most damning pieces of video evidence in the election integrity debate. Let’s break down exactly what happened, what Obama said, and why this moment matters.

📋 The Interview: November 4, 2016

Four days before the election, Obama sat down with actress Gina Rodriguez for the Latino-focused digital outlet mitú. The interview was ostensibly about dispelling “voting myths.”

The critical exchange, verbatim:

Rodriguez: “Many of the millennials, DREAMers, undocumented citizens — and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country — are fearful of voting. So if I vote, will immigration know where I live? Will they come for my family and deport us?”

Obama: “Not true. And the reason is, first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself. And there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over, and people start investigating, et cetera. The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential in terms of who you voted for. If you have a family member who maybe is undocumented, then you have an even greater reason to vote.”

🔍 Why This Is So Incriminating

The apologists — Reuters, Snopes, the usual fact-check cartel — all rush to say “he was talking to citizens, not illegals!” But that’s a deliberately surface-level reading that ignores everything structurally wrong with this exchange.

Here’s what the defenders conveniently skip over:

1. The interviewer explicitly lumped “undocumented” people into the voting pool.

Rodriguez said “undocumented citizens” and “DREAMers” in the same breath as people who are “fearful of voting.” Obama did not correct her. He did not say “hold on, only citizens can vote.” He rolled with her framing — “I call them citizens because they contribute” — and built his entire answer on that foundation.

2. The message to anyone watching was unmistakable.

If you’re an illegal immigrant watching this, the President of the United States just told you: the voting rolls aren’t cross-checked with immigration enforcement, the sanctity of your ballot is confidential, nobody’s coming for you. Whether he technically said “you personally should vote” or not is irrelevant — the signal was broadcast loud and clear.

3. The follow-up made it worse.

Obama went on: “What is important for Latino citizens is to make your voice heard, because you’re not just speaking for yourself. You’re speaking for family members, friends, classmates of yours in school who may not have a voice, who can’t legally vote.”

The framing is clear — citizens should vote on behalf of illegals. The illegals’ interests should be represented at the ballot box through citizen proxies. That’s the soft-sell version. The hard-sell version is what people reasonably inferred: the system won’t catch you, so go ahead.

🧠 The Institutional Gaslighting Machine

What happened next was textbook. Every fact-check outlet — Snopes, Reuters, Politifact — rushed to label the criticism “false” or “misleading.” Their argument? Obama technically said “when you vote, you are a citizen yourself,” so he was only addressing citizens.

This is the same playbook they run every time:

- Take the most literal, narrow, autistic reading possible of what was said

- Ignore context, tone, audience, and signaling

- Declare critics “took it out of context” while themselves stripping all context

- Cite themselves as authoritative — Snopes citing Snopes, Reuters citing Reuters

It’s particularly rich when the fact-checkers claim the video was “edited” or “clipped.” The full interview is available. The full transcript exists. The full context makes it worse, not better — because you see Rodriguez’s question was explicitly about undocumented people voting, and Obama never once said: “that would be illegal, don’t do it.”

🗳️ The Broader Pattern

This 2016 moment doesn’t exist in isolation. It’s part of a larger architecture:

- Same-day registration in blue states with no meaningful ID requirements

- Motor voter laws that automatically register people at the DMV — including non-citizens in some states, “by accident”

- Jurisdictions allowing non-citizen voting in local elections (Maryland municipalities, DC’s attempted law, San Francisco school board elections) — creating confusion about who can vote where

- Democrats fighting voter ID laws tooth and nail — if illegals aren’t voting, why oppose the most basic verification?

The pattern is consistent: make it as easy as possible for non-citizens to end up on the rolls, make it as hard as possible to verify eligibility, and create a cultural permission structure where voting while illegal isn’t treated as a real crime.

🎯 The Takeaway

The Obama-mitú interview is a Rorschach test.

If you trust institutions, you’ll accept the “he was only talking to citizens” gloss and move on.

If you’ve been paying attention, you’ll recognize it for what it was: the President of the United States, four days before an election, signaling to a Latino audience that voting won’t trigger immigration consequences — with the very first words out of his mouth being a correction of the premise that he conspicuously never made.

He never said, “if you’re not a citizen, you cannot vote.” He never said, “voting illegally is a crime.” He never said, “don’t do it.”

In a properly functioning republic, that would have been the first thing out of his mouth. The fact that it wasn’t tells you everything you need to know.

[The Vigilant Fox 🦊 @VigilantFox]

REPORTER: “You support not just the populist right, but the far right — in fact, very fringe parties in some countries.”

ELON: “No, I support the NORMAL people.”

REPORTER: “Okay.”

MUSK: “What you call the far right FALSELY."

REPORTER: “You think is the normal person?”

ELON: “Yes! Literally, you could go back 10 or 15 years, and these policies were completely normal. One thing that’s quite funny is to take a speech from Obama and Hillary and then go to someone who’s on the — sort of, what I call — the lunatic left, and say, ‘What do you think of the speech by Trump?’ ‘Oh, wow, he’s the worst person ever.’ Actually, that was a speech by Obama. Or actually, that was a speech by Hillary.”

[Reporter stunned, left stammering]

MUSK: “Literally!”

REPORTER: “No, I agree that the center of gravity in this country has shifted. Certainly the Democratic Party shifted to the left, but that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about people like Rupert Lowe.”

ELON: “Not fringe right. Please! It’s actually just NORMAL people.”

[Eric Daugherty @EricLDaugh]

🔥 AWESOME! Elon Musk MIC DROPS this reporter accusing him of being "far right"

"It's actually just NORMAL PEOPLE...here are the principles. Which sound terrible? We should have secure borders, safe cities, and sensible spending."

"Which of those 3 are 'far right?'"

"I'd like to admonish YOU and the MEDIA for the ABSURD characterization of the far right. It is FALSE, MISLEADING, and NONSENSE! KEEP THIS PART IN!"

LFG @ElonMusk!

"Literally, you could go back 10 or 15 years, and these policies were completely normal. In fact, one of the tricks that I think is funny is to take a speech from Obama and Hillary, and then go to someone who's on the lunatic left, and say, 'what do you think of the speech by Trump?'"

"They're like, oh, wow, he's the worst person ever. Actually, that was the speech by Obama! Or Hillary!"

Nailed it.

[Lara Logan @laralogan]

Elon is right about that. Never forget.

[Matt Van Swol @mattvanswol]

I've seen enough man.

These people hate America, they want to destroy our country.

This was obviously a terrorist attack and this man should have a speedy trial and then immediately be executed.

[SaltyGoat @SaltyGoat17]

A dude in Maine running as a Democrat for the US Senate just said he menstruates out of his ass and nobody on the left batted an eye...

That's where their party's at now

[The Rational Animal 🤔 @theobjectivist]

Elon Musk gave the world Tesla, SpaceX, and Starlink, and now he's working to cure paralysis, letting the immobilized move again through thought alone, while Bernie Sanders works to seize the wealth that funds it, producing nothing but envy and hatred.

Jeff Bezos built a machine that puts nearly anything you need at your door in a day, and then built AWS, the invisible computing backbone that half the internet runs on, while AOC shouts "eat the rich" and produces nothing but envy and hatred.

Blake Scholl is building supersonic jets that cross the country in half the time, and turning their engines into a new source of clean, reliable power for the grid, while Ro Khanna campaigns to tax away the fortunes that build them, producing nothing but envy and hatred.

Notice the pattern. On one side, the men who make: who look at reality and add to it, who turn the impossible into the ordinary and lift every life they touch. On the other, the men who take: who add nothing, build nothing, cure nothing, and offer you a share of the loot in exchange for your resentment.

[Dennis @nwibears]

@BryanInNC The fact the media never gave Obama any negative press or any investigation what so ever might have had something to do with that

[SaltyGoat @SaltyGoat17]

5 American citizens have been k*lled by ICE (self-defense)

1,400+ American citizens have been killed by Illegal aliens

Take a guess which one liberals are protesting in the streets over?

[Rock Chartrand @RockChartrand]

Lord of the Flies seems a far more accurate description of modern politics than 1984.

1984 assumed the state would be frighteningly competent, disciplined, and capable of carefully controlling society.

Lord of the Flies depicts tribes abandoning reason, surrendering principles for group loyalty, inventing enemies, indulging resentment and hysteria, and gradually destroying the norms that sustain civilization.

More importantly, it wasn't presented as inevitable human nature. The boys repeatedly chose the path of evasion. They chose expediency over principle, emotion over reason, and belonging over truth.

That seems much closer to what we see today: not an all-powerful ruling class brilliantly orchestrating society, but increasingly tribal populations willingly abandoning principles and reason in favor of resentment, slogans, and political identity.

Orwell overestimated the competence of those seeking power.

Golding better understood what happens when enough people choose not to think.

[DocumentingLibs @HistorianUSA1]

This woman is crying on camera claiming Trump’s “new law” that nursing isn’t a “professional degree” got her kicked out of Arizona College of Nursing for missing one payment.

Let’s fact-check the emotional train wreck:

• She’s a third-year student in a BSN program (undergraduate).
• The loan caps in the One Big Beautiful Bill only apply to graduate programs. Undergrad nursing was never affected.
• Arizona College of Nursing is a for-profit school. They run strict institutional payment plans and drop students for non-payment of the balance all the time — this is school policy, not federal law.
• She’s two semesters from finishing after almost four years, has three kids (including nonverbal special-needs boys), and the school still cut her for a late payment on what is almost certainly a private/institutional plan.

The Trump administration didn’t “kick her out.” A for-profit nursing school enforcing its own payment rules did. Blaming “Trump hates nurses” is just the easy narrative.

Emotional videos like this rack up views by skipping the actual facts.

[Kyle Becker @kylenabecker]

HOW ABOUT THAT.

Dozens of Democrats have complained about voting machines.

- Hillary Clinton
- Kamala Harris
- Nancy Pelosi
- Bernie Sanders
- Amy Klobuchar
- Mark Warner
- Gary Peters
- Stacey Abrams

You ever "fact check" them?

[Andrew Kolvet @AndrewKolvet]

NBC, ABC, and CNN refused to air President Trump’s speech on foreign election interference because they say it erodes trust in our elections.

Here’s 4 minutes of Dems eroding trust in the 2016 election.

It’s not principled. It’s propaganda.

[MAZE @mazemoore]

Must watch clip right here.

2019. Ted Lieu and former Democrat Congresswoman Jane Harman participate in a panel during the annual DEF CON conference.

DEF CON is the world's largest hacker convention. Hackers, computer security experts, intelligence community members, and many others get together to discuss ideas, threats, and to hold hacking contests.

Jane Harman served nine terms in Congress, sat on all the major security committees, and was the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee. She also is President of the Woodrow Wilson think tank and sits on numerous security advisory boards.

Harman: The 2020 election is not secure. At least a third of all voting machines are totally vulnerable.

Lieu and Harman were there because DEF CON had recently held a "voting village" where hackers attempted (and succeeded) in hacking into our voting machines. Teenagers were even able to hack into some machines.

Ted Lieu urged the hackers to meet with media and to speak out about how vulnerable our voting machines are. Lieu said the public needed to know how vulnerable our elections are.

Lieu also criticized McConnell for not passing election security legislation that would require paper trails for all votes. 😂

Democrats and the media regularly spoke about the vulnerabilities of our elections, all the way up until the 2020 election. Immediately after the 2020 election it became forbidden to question the security of our elections. They all just began reciting the talking point "It was the most secure election ever."

[Joshua Reid | Redpills.tv @realjoshuareid]

The mainstream media’s defense today is creating a contradiction that deserves scrutiny.

Their argument is essentially this:

“China having access to over 200 million U.S. voter records isn’t a big deal because much of that information is already available from state voter databases.”

Fine. Let’s assume that’s true.

Then explain this…

For months, the federal government has requested voter roll data from states, and many states have argued that turning over those records would create unacceptable privacy and security risks.

So which is it?

If it’s too dangerous for the federal government to possess a centralized copy because of the security risks…

…why isn’t it a national security crisis if a foreign adversary can compile that same information into a massive database?

The contradiction gets even bigger.

The media says the data isn’t sensitive because it’s publicly obtainable.

The states argue it’s too sensitive to share with the federal government.

Yet if reports that China obtained and compiled this data are accurate, we’re expected to believe that’s somehow not concerning.

Regardless of politics, a foreign intelligence service with access to large-scale voter registration data could potentially use it for influence operations, targeting, profiling, or other intelligence purposes.

You can’t simultaneously argue that voter data is too sensitive to share with your own government, while dismissing concerns about a foreign adversary possessing a massive compiled database of American voter information.

Those two positions don’t fit together.

[MAZE @mazemoore]

Right now CNN has person after person claiming that China doesn't interfere in our elections.

Apparently they don't watch CNN.

2024. CNN does a segment on Chinese election interference with Tony Blinken.

This is CNN.

[Big Fish @BigFish3000]

In 2019 NBC revealed how vulnerable our election systems are and suggested the need for change.
Now they are acting like this stuff is impossible.