‘Dumb’ Democrat Sen. Durbin Defends Deep State Ally — Claims Trump ‘Can’t Fire FBI Director Wray’ Before 2027

Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), the Senate Majority Whip and Chair of the Judiciary Committee, has defended FBI Director Christopher Wray, asserting that President Trump lacks the authority to replace Wray before his term expires in 2027.

Durbin, echoing the talking points of the Democratic establishment, lambasted Trump’s decision to nominate Kash Patel to lead the FBI. Patel, a staunch advocate for accountability and one of the key figures in exposing the Russia collusion hoax, has become a target of left-wing attacks precisely because of his track record of confronting corruption.

On Saturday, Trump announced his intention to replace current FBI Director Christopher Wray. Trump praised Patel as a “brilliant lawyer” and a staunch defender of justice, poised to tackle America’s crime and corruption.

Trump wrote on Truth Social:

“I am proud to announce that Kashyap “Kash” Patel will serve as the next Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Kash is a brilliant lawyer, investigator, and “America First” fighter who has spent his career exposing corruption, defending Justice, and protecting the American People. He played a pivotal role in uncovering the Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax, standing as an advocate for truth, accountability, and the Constitution.

Kash did an incredible job during my First Term, where he served as Chief of Staff at the Department of Defense, Deputy Director of National Intelligence, and Senior Director for Counterterrorism at the National Security Council.

Kash has also tried over 60 jury trials. This FBI will end the growing crime epidemic in America, dismantle the migrant criminal gangs, and stop the evil scourge of human and drug trafficking across the Border. Kash will work under our great Attorney General, Pam Bondi, to bring back Fidelity, Bravery, and Integrity to the FBI.”

However, Durbin insists that Wray should remain in his position until the end of his designated term, despite clear precedents and the President’s constitutional authority to make changes within the executive branch.

“We already have a FBI Director, and his term doesn’t expire until 2027. Donald Trump can’t be allowed to hire and fire FBI Directors just because they failed his loyalty test,” said Durbin in a statement.

Keep reading

New Chair Of Connecticut Dems Was “Hesitant” To Talk About Past As Illegal Immigrant When He Ran For Danbury Mayor In 2021

Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont has tapped Danbury Mayor Roberto Alves to be the next chairman of the Democrat State Central Committee.

“As the mayor of a major city, he speaks with the residents of our state on a daily basis and is intimately familiar with their concerns and needs – working to keep our focus on making Connecticut more affordable,” said Lamont who believes Alves “represents the kind of leader needed” for the CT Dems.

“Roberto Alves exemplifies the very best of our state’s values, immigrating to Connecticut as a child, graduating from Danbury High School, and going on to work as a technical sales engineer at Cartus,” said Lt. Gov. Susan Bysiewicz.

According to the CTMirror, Alves came to the U.S. in 1989 as a 5-year-old from Brazil with his parents who overstayed their tourist visa.

When Trump took office in 2016, Alves reportedly “sped up his plan to earn” citizenship, and officially became a citizen on May 18, 2017.

“I wanted to fight locally for people who had the same struggles that my parents did and I did,” Alves told the NewsTimes in 2019.

Alves subsequently ran for Danbury Mayor in 2021, and didn’t hide his previous illegal status, but he didn’t highlight it, either.

“I’m hesitant to use it politically, and I don’t talk about it politically, because people are conservative, and it [rubs] on some people the wrong way,” said Alves in 2021.

It should rub people the wrong way, considering illegal immigration has been estimated to cost Connecticut residents around $1.28 billion.

And let’s not forget that folks like CT AG William Tong have been appearing all around the state, promising to protect illegals from the incoming Trump Administration’s “mass deportation” plans.

Keep reading

Democrats Say Thanksgiving is About Being Grateful For Illegal Aliens: ‘For Picking and Packing the Food’ and ‘Cleaning the Hotel Rooms’

While most Americans are simply grateful for the freedom and prosperity they enjoy, some Democrats are insisting that Thanksgiving is also about being grateful to illegal aliens.

As the country celebrated Thanksgiving on Thursday, various Democratic lawmakers posted messages urging people to be grateful for the “undocumented immigrants” who helped put their meal on the table.

Among them was Barack Obama’s former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Julian Castro, who specifically called on Trump supporters to show their gratitude to migrant workers.

“Everyone at the dinner table today, especially MAGA, please give thanks to the undocumented immigrants that picked and packed the food you’re enjoying,” he wrote on the X platform. “They deserve our grace. Happy Thanksgiving!”

Keep reading

Why do we only support mob-rule when our mob wins?

The internet and the streets are awash with US Democrat voters moaning about the tyranny they fear will be imposed upon them by Republican voters. As recently highlighted by Larken Rose, their hypocrisy has reached the level of absurdity. If they don’t like mob-rule, why do they keep voting for it?

“Representative democracy” is not democracy. Demokratia is power exercised directly by the people, not a tiny gaggle of oligarch serving toadies who claim to represent the people. “Representative democracy” is just another term for oligarchy.

In a real democracy the legislature, the executive and the judiciary are exclusively formed from or controlled by a random, rotating sortition of the people. The people design legislation, the people enact legislation and, most importantly, the people judge the practical application of statute and precedent law in courts formed and led by randomly selected juries.

In a democracy, the jury is sovereign with the united and annexed power to annul any and all legislation or ruling wherever statute or precedent law is found wanting in a jury-led trials. The legislature, the executive and the judiciary are wholly subservient to the people through trial by jury.

The jury’s only concern is justice. It makes no difference to a democratic jury what the legislature seeks, what the executive deems necessary or what instructions the judiciary tries to assert. Wherever and whenever a human being breaks the written law, but the jury finds them not guilty of any injustice, then the failure lies with the law, as it is written, not with the innocent accused. In such circumstances, any democratic jury can overrule extant statute and precedent in the interest of justice—annulment.

Despite the existence of Common Law jurisdictions, which technically allow juries to annul, on neither side of the Atlantic does anyone live in a democracy. Democracy is not the model of government we allow to persist. Whether we call it a constitutional monarchy, a supranational political union or constitutional federal republic, democracy is exercised nowhere.

Democracy is governance by trial by jury and we don’t need any form of government to establish a democracy. Any other political system, no matter how vociferously its proponents demand we call it a democracy, is not democracy.

Instead of democracy, which demands that we each take full responsibility for every aspect of our society and serve justice, we prefer representative democracy—oligarchy. We take responsibility for nothing and are the willing slaves of oligarchs who we passively allow to rule us unjustly under the guise of government.

Every four of five years we participate in anointment ceremonies we call national elections. We reaffirm our slavery to the will of the oligarchs because we wrongly imagine, by choosing a different oligarch aligned mob, we are exercising some sort of sociopolitical choice. Assuming the election isn’t rigged—and they clearly are from time to time—the full scope of our so-called political choice is to determine which oligarch faction will rule us unjustly for the next few years.

While oligarch gangs vie for supremacy, they all agree on the policy trajectory they want to force us down. In our “representative democracies” we will all submit to Sustainable Development-based global governance—Technocracy; programmable digital currency, in one form or another, is inevitable; digital ID will be enforced somehow, whether we want it or not; the bio-security state and polycrisis state of exception are permanently fixed; construction of the digital gulag will be completed, either by deception or force; the new monetary system, that will be foisted upon us, will accelerate the transfer of wealth—of all kinds—from us to the oligarchs and terrorism, genocide, democide, war, propaganda and deception will remain the oligarch’s favoured tools to instill fear in us as they continue to rule us using the strategy of tension.

We can’t vote harder with any rational expectation of changing any of this. We have been comprehensively deceived and it is about time we recognised it.

None of us have the right to force anyone else to do anything. The only exception is our duty to ensure justice prevails when one among us causes harm or loss to others. While others live in peace and practice justice, our right to control others simply does not exist.

The oligarchs have convinced us we can elect their representative puppets to exercise authority, not just over ourselves, but over everyone else. The resultant governments claim they rule by consent, but it isn’t informed consent and therefore no consent at all. If it were, we would all realise that we cannot devolve to government authoritarian rule that none of us can exert in the first place. We cannot bestow upon government that which we do not possess.

The consent of the governed and the social contract are propagandist’s myths. We have never given our informed consent to be ruled and no one has even seen, let alone signed, any contract whereby they agreed to be ruled. The oligarchs deem that we have consented to their mythical authority and have agreed to their invisible social contract simply by virtue of the fact we were born or live in the jurisdictions they illegitimately claim for themselves.

The oligarch owned legacy media hammers home the illusion of the requisite choice in the run up to every anointment ceremony. They promote the fiction that it is our duty to impose the rule of our preferred mob on the people we don’t agree with.

Our only duty is to live in peace by safeguarding justice. The notion that we can do this by absolving ourselves of all responsibility and handing over all decision making power to a handful of corrupt, self-serving robber-baron sycophants is ludicrous. That, in any event, none of us has any right to do so only emphasises the insanity.

Having realised they have just lost the representative democracy game, what is most remarkable about the Democrat’s angst is their envisaged solution. They are determined to regain representative political power, despite recognising that losing power means they have to accept the diktats of what they consider a tyranny.

Keep reading

Dem Rep Goes On Crazed Rant Against “The White Man” In Congress

Democratic Rep. Jasmine Crockett burst into a loud rant during a House Oversight Committee markup session Wednesday in regards to the Dismantle DEI Act and similar legislation, asserting that “there has been no oppression for the white man in this country.”

Crockett screeched “You can then misuse words like oppression. There has been no oppression for the white man in this country. You tell me which white man was dragged out of their homes. You tell me which white man got dragged all the way across an ocean and told that you are gonna go and work, we are gonna steal your wives, we are gonna rape your wives. That didn’t happen. That is oppression!”

“We didn’t ask to be here,” Crockett continued to yell, adding “We aren’t the same migrants that y’all constantly come up against. We didn’t run away from home. We were stolen.”

She further proclaimed, “So yeah, we are going to sit here and be offended when you are gonna sit here and act like, and don’t let it escape you that it is white men on this side of the aisle telling us, people of color on this side of the aisle, that y’all are the ones being oppressed, that y’all are the ones being harmed.”

Keep reading

Pennsylvania Democrats openly admit to counting illegal ballots in McCormick-Casey race

As the contested Pennsylvania Senate race barrels towards a $1 million recount, Democratic officials in a few blue counties are openly admitting to counting disqualified ballots in defiance of state law and court orders. 

The Associated Press has called the race for Republican Sen.-elect Dave McCormick, who currently holds a 26,000 vote lead over incumbent Democratic Sen. Bob Casey. But Casey has refused to concede and insisted that every vote be counted. The close margin – within one percentage point – triggered an automatic recount under Pennsylvania law. 

Yet the critical question is which votes should be counted? The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled before the election that mail ballots lacking formally required signatures or dates should not be included in official results. However, Democratic officials in Philadelphia and surrounding Bucks, Centre and Montgomery counties are ignoring that court order. 

“I think we all know that precedent by a court doesn’t matter anymore in this country,” Bucks County Commissioner Diane Ellis-Marseglia, a Democrat, said Thursday as she and other Democrats voted to reject a GOP-led challenge to ballots that should be disqualified. 

Keep reading

Staggering graph shows how eight million Democrat voters ‘vanished’

Of all the embarrassing failures Kamala Harris suffered at the ballot box – including the exodus of Hispanic, black, Asian and young voters – there is perhaps one that torments her the most.

The popular vote, represented in the staggering graphic below, reveals that more than 8 million Americans who voted for Biden in 2020 simply vanished as they refused to back the Democratic candidate in 2024.

Biden secured 81 million votes compared to Harris’ 73 million.

Harris supporters may try to dismiss this decline as the result of voter turnout being lower in 2024. But turnout is only projected to be two points lower – 65 percent against 67 percent in 2020.

Harris is ten points down on Biden’s numbers (with 97 percent of the total vote counted at the time of writing).

Donald Trump, on the other hand, bumped his numbers by more than a million votes this time around, trouncing Harris by a margin of 3 million.

He became the first Republican presidential candidate to win the popular vote for two decades.

Even Hillary Clinton, one of the most unpopular presidential candidates of the last 50 years, managed to defeat Trump on raw votes in 2016.

Keep reading

Democrat Civil War Escalates As Party Turns on Pelosi

I said before that an intraparty civil war may be brewing in the Democratic Party in the wake of the Republican Party’s tremendous victory in the 2024 elections. And evidence continues to build. 

Everyone is looking to blame someone for the loss. Fingers have been pointed at Joe Biden for not dropping out earlier, Kamala Harris for running a terrible campaign, and Tim Walz for being Tim Walz. The party’s problems appear to be getting worse, as Pelosi is now being told to “take a seat” and get out of the way.

Among other issues, Pelosi faces mounting criticism from her Democrat colleagues for publicly undermining her successor, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. Pelosi’s recent remarks, particularly in an interview with the New York Times, have ignited a firestorm within the party, with several Democrats privately expressing their frustration.

The tension stems from Pelosi’s comments suggesting that President Joe Biden should have exited the 2024 race earlier. “Had that happened, there may have been other candidates in the race,” she said, fueling yet another round of finger-pointing between Biden and Harris factions. 

While the Times article included more complimentary and caveated language than originally indicated, the damage was done. Pelosi, once the undisputed power in the House, has once again sparked divisions within her own party.

Keep reading

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz Calls Trump DNI Nominee Tulsi Gabbard A ‘Russian Asset’

Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) joined MSNBC this week where she claimed Donald Trump’s Director of National Intelligence nominee Tulsi Gabbard is “a Russian asset.”

“Tulsi Gabbard is someone who has met with war criminals, violated the Department of State’s guidance and secretly, clandestinely went to Syria and met with Assad who gassed and attacked his own people with chemical weapons. She’s considered to be essentially by most assessments a Russian asset and would be the most dangerous…” Schultz said before being asked by an MSNBC anchor if she considers Gabbard a Russian agent.

She answered, “Oh yes, there’s no question I consider her someone who is likely a Russian asset who would be, as the DNI responsible for managing our entire intelligence community, hold all of our most significant intelligence information and secrets, and essentially would be a direct line to our enemies.”

Keep reading

Starlink Election Fraud Claims Show Dems Are Not Immune to Conspiracy Theories

After the 2020 election, then-President Donald Trump and his allies floated numerous hypotheses to explain his loss. One theory, which came to be known as “Italygate,” posited that Italian military satellites had interfered with American voting machines and switched votes from Trump to Joe Biden. Though far-fetched, multiple government agents looked into it: Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller called U.S. officials in Rome to ask about the theory, and then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows emailed Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, asking him to investigate.

Like all of Trump’s other allegations about voter fraud in 2020, Italygate had no basis in reality. But just one election cycle later, on the opposite side of the aisle, a very similar conspiracy is taking shape.

“Swing states were able to use Starlink in order to tally up and to count ballot votes, or voting ballots, in their state,” claimed TikTok user Etheria77 in a video that was also cross-posted to X last week, where as of this writing it has more than 4.5 million views. (TikTok removed the original video.) Over the course of the nine-minute video, Etheria77 posits that Elon Musk sent Starlink satellite internet terminals to swing states for use with vote tabulation, a task the terminals are not equipped to perform.

“There [are] absolutely zero reasons as to why those systems were connected to the internet,” Etheria77 says. “[Voting] machines have absolutely no problem tallying up votes like they have done since the beginning of time.”

To be sure, one TikTok video filmed in the front seat of a car is hardly the same as a concerted effort encompassing the sitting president. But the allegation has spread so far and wide that multiple mainstream news outlets felt the need to address it.

As with Italygate, this theory is not based in fact. While Starlink terminals “were used by election officials in some states to improve internet connectivity at rural polling locations,” Alex Demas wrote at The Bulwark, “Starlink is not a tabulation system and was not used to count or transmit votes in the swing states.” Terminals were largely used at polling places that rely on steady internet connections to perform tasks like checking voters’ signatures and registration.

The Associated Press wrote in October that “with a few exceptions,” voting machines are not connected to the internet: “There are some jurisdictions in a few states that allow for ballot scanners in polling locations to transmit unofficial results, using a mobile private network, after voting has ended on Election Day and the memory cards containing the vote tallies have been removed.”

“It is not possible that Starlink was used to hack or change the outcome of the US presidential election,” David Becker of The Center for Election Innovation & Research told the AP.

“Our elections produce huge quantities of physical evidence. A satellite system like Starlink cannot steal that,” Pamela Smith of the nonprofit Verified Voting Foundation told Demas.

Keep reading