Massive Influx Of Transgender Refugees Is Causing ‘Civil Emergency’ In Leftist City That Apparently Has Infinite Taxpayer Money And Zero Common Sense

Seattle, that rain-soaked progressive Disneyland where the tents have better real estate than the condos and the only thing growing faster than the crime rate is the virtue-signaling, now finds itself choking on its own rainbow-flavored utopia.The latest crisis? Too many refugees from those awful, backward red states: Texas, Florida, Tennessee, places that still harbor the primitive notion that you shouldn’t pump confused teenagers full of hormones and carve them up like Thanksgiving turkeys.

These desperate souls are flooding into Seattle looking for free housing, free validation, and the sacred right to have the government pay for their delusions. And the city’s own LGBTQ Commission is in full panic mode, pen in one hand and begging bowl in the other.In a May 2026 letter to Mayor Katie Wilson, they formally requested she declare a civil emergency, yes, a civil emergency because of the “rapid influx” of transgender and gender-nonconforming arrivals.

These poor “internally displaced persons” need cash, shelter, and an entire underground railroad of nonprofits to keep the dream alive.

The letter spells it out with the usual bureaucratic poetry: these folks are fleeing “anti-trans legislation, threats to personal safety, and barriers to healthcare.” Translation: states that passed laws protecting minors from irreversible medical experiments dared to say no, and now the true believers are stampeding toward the Pacific Northwest like it’s the new Promised Land.

One of the groups on the front lines is Traction, whose executive director, C. Michael Woodward, a man who transitioned decades ago and has been in the advocacy game nearly as long, told conservative outlet The Daily Wire they’ve had over 1,600 applicants since Trump’s election but could only help about 130.

Even the veterans of this movement sound stunned. “I never once imagined we’d be doing this kind of work,” Woodward said. Indeed. When the revolution starts eating its own cities, the script has officially gone off the rails.

At a city council meeting, social worker and commission co-chair Kody Allen painted the picture: his homeless shelter, the biggest in town, is turning away at least ten young adults a night, many of them “trans refugees.” The queer health clinics are running out of money. The whole glorious experiment is straining at the seams. Council members vowed to stand firm, build trans-specific shelters, and create interdepartmental teams for long-term “infrastructure.”

Because what Seattle really needs, amid its existing tent cities and open-air drug markets, is more of the exact same demographic bringing the exact same problems.

Meanwhile, Washington State has positioned itself as a gleaming sanctuary. SB 5599 lets shelters hide runaway minors seeking “gender-affirming care” without bothering to tell the parents.

The Supreme Court is now hearing the challenge, with red states warning that this could turn the country into a parental rights demolition derby. But in Seattle, the message is clear: come one, come all. Your confusion is our sacred mission. Your family’s heartbreak? Somebody else’s problem.

This is the progressive masterstroke in all its glory. A city already drowning in chaos looks at the red states that said “maybe don’t chemically castrate kids” and decides the solution is to import the chaos wholesale. More bodies, more trauma, more demands on a system already collapsing under the weight of its own ideology.What could possibly go wrong? Well, everything, of course. But in Seattle, that’s just another day in paradise.

Thank you for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to simply check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

Orthodox Jewish Man Told He Needs Government Permission to Pray in His Own Living Room as Supreme Court Steps In

Apparently, in modern America, inviting friends over for prayer now requires less faith in God and more faith in the local zoning board.

What began as a simple email from an Orthodox Jewish man to a few friends somehow escalated into a full blown government operation worthy of a narcotics investigation. The only contraband? Prayer. No, not Islamic prayer; Jewish prayer and evidently, that's a problem.

According to Amy Curtis at Townhall, an online magazine, in 2021 Daniel Grand invited several friends to gather for prayer in his home. Someone forwarded that email to the City of University Heights, which responded by issuing a cease-and-desist order declaring that Grand's home had become a "place of religious assembly."

Because nothing says "public safety" quite like a minyan of Jewish men quietly praying in a living room.

The city demanded that Grand obtain a government permit before hosting religious services in his own home. Officials also instructed police and neighbors to monitor his house and report visitors, giving the entire affair an unsettling "see something, say something" flavor, except the suspicious activity was apparently people arriving with prayer books instead of burglary tools.

The case has now reached the Supreme Court, where Alliance Defending Freedom will argue that Americans do not need bureaucratic approval to exercise one of the nation's oldest constitutional freedoms.

Gee, yah think?

"Every American has the right to host a prayer gathering in his home, and he certainly doesn’t need a city permit to do so. When government officials forbid that, courts must hold those individuals accountable, immediately," said ADF Senior Counsel and Vice President of Appellate Advocacy John Bursch. "The city’s actions underscore a troubling trend of weaponizing zoning laws against people of faith while allowing other gatherings of the same size, like book clubs or poker nights, to meet without issue. We’re pleased the Supreme Court will hear this case."

The comparison is impossible to ignore. 

Across America, public officials routinely accommodate large religious gatherings in parks, streets, and public spaces when they involve politically favored groups. Cities have approved amplified calls to prayer, street closures, and expansive mosque developments with little hesitation, often celebrating them as examples of diversity and inclusion.

Yet an Orthodox Jewish man hosting a few friends in his own home somehow becomes an alleged zoning menace requiring government surveillance. One has to wonder what would happen if the situation involved Muslims or even Christians. 

One has to wonder where the permit requirement begins and ends. Will families soon need city approval before reading the Bible around the dinner table? Will Bible studies require occupancy inspections? Perhaps neighborhood Hanukkah celebrations will need environmental impact statements.

The First Amendment was not written to protect only the fashionable religions of the moment. It was written precisely to prevent governments from deciding which faiths deserve freedom and which require paperwork.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court now has an opportunity to remind local officials that a private home is not government property, prayer is not a zoning violation, and constitutional rights do not come with an application fee.

And maybe, just maybe, the government officials who infringed on this man's First Amendment rights, can be held legally responsible.

Thank you for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to simply check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

Family of Would-Be Kavanaugh Assassin Pleads for Leniency Because He’s Now ‘Sophie’

Well here's another example of progressive logic. Nicholas Roske, the guy who rolled up to Justice Brett Kavanaugh's house in 2022 with a gun and some seriously bad intentions, is now begging for a lighter sentence because, well, he's transgender. 

Yes, the man who allegedly plotted to assassinate a Supreme Court justice is now "Sophie," and his family, for some crazy reason, thinks that's a get-out-of-jail-free card. Because nothing screams "leniency" like trying to murder a judge, right?

According to court documents, Roske’s mom found a hospital discharge paper in his suitcase labeled “Sophie Roske.” She told the judge, “This is when several of the pieces of the puzzle started coming together.” Puzzle? Lady, your son showed up armed outside a justice’s home. The only puzzle here is why anyone thinks a new name changes the crime.

The government is pushing for 30 years behind bars, but Roske's defense team, in a September 19 filing, made sure to note he's using female pronouns now. His family is out here writing character references, arguing his new-found "transgender identity" should score him a softer sentence. His mom told the judge, "Since her incarceration, we have been able to have open and honest conversations about her gender identity and how that evolved." Oh, great, so now it’s a therapy session instead of a felony. Aren't women who try to murder people sent to prison?

Roske himself chimed in with a letter to Judge Deborah Boardman, a Biden appointee who, by the way, once blocked parents from opting their kids out of LGBTQ storybook lessons (a ruling the Supreme Court slapped down in July). Roske's excuse is that he was "in the closet" when he planned the hit, so naturally, that makes it less bad. "I am also sorry for contributing to a trend of political violence in American politics," he wrote, adding he was "raised by conservative Christian parents who loved me and still love me." 

So he's implying that we should blame Mom and Dad’s Bible-thumping for my assassination attempt.

He claims he was suicidal, off his meds, and skipping therapy during COVID because virtual sessions weren't his vibe. Then the Dobbs leak happened, and apparently, his "self-esteem was at rock bottom," so he figured, why not take a shot at a Supreme Court justice? Solid logic there, Sophie.

Roske's dad told the judge his kid struggled during COVID, ditched a master's program, and bounced around like a pinball. "One day, she suddenly said she was moving out of the house and into a communal living space,” he wrote. Then it was off to Seattle with "no job or prospects," only to slink back home to substitute teach. His friends say he started dabbling in "nihilistic worldviews" and Googling gems like "Nietzsche quotes" and "nothing is true, everything is permitted." 

Deep stuff for a guy plotting murder.

A friend named John told the judge, "Both of us, on our individual quests for moral truth, have had to confront the ugly hypocrisy that is the American church." He added, "But what I think counts is what she did not do." 

Oh, so we're handing out medals for not killing someone now? Roske's sister, who is gay, of course, says their parents have evolved, attending PFLAG meetings and embracing the rainbow. "While transgenderism is not the same as a gay identity, I have actively see this growth mindset that my parents demonstrated in their relationship with me--transfer over to their acceptance of Sophie," she wrote. She's also worried "Sophie" might end up in a men's prison with “"limited access to gender-affirming care." Because that's the real tragedy here, not the whole assassination plot.

Roske has been on hormones in detention, thanks to a Bureau of Prisons memo green-lighting hormone therapy after a judge blocked a Trump executive order. He says his "whole perspective shifted" when he got to Kavanaugh's neighborhood and realized, oops, judges are "real people too." So he called 911 on himself, standing outside Kavanaugh’s house with a gun, ready to end it all. "I’m out to my entire family now and they have been very accepting," he wrote.

Heartwarming.

Roske pleaded guilty in April, and his sentencing is set for Friday.  

This is the state of our justice system, where a guy can try to kill a Supreme Court justice, then play the trans card and expect a pat on the back. If Judge Boardman buys this sob story, we're in deeper trouble than I thought. 

If you like my blog and want to Buy Me A Coffee, I would appreciate it, as it supports my work. Obviously, there is no pressure.

Tweet

SCOTUS Gives Trump a 'W' on Scrapping Parole for 500K Migrants, Sotomayor and Jackson Aren’t Thrilled

The Supreme Court just tossed President Donald Trump a huge win in his border crackdown saga. On Friday, the justices put a hold on a lower court’s attempt to stop the President from deporting roughly 500,000 migrants from Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. This is a short-term victory for Trump as he doubles down on his immigration hardline in round two of his presidency.

The White House was ready to rumble. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt didn’t mince words on Tuesday, saying, “The White House will ‘fight this in a court of law’” after a judge tried to block Trump’s move to end a parole program for folks from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. 

What’s at stake here? Glad you asked.

The court’s order temporarily halts a ruling that stopped Trump from yanking Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for these migrants. TPS is like a legal shield that lets people live and work in the U.S. if their home countries are a hot mess, such as  disasters, wars, or other “extraordinary and temporary conditions.” 

Trump’s team wants to rip that shield away, and for now, the Supreme Court’s got their back.

The decision, like most of the court’s emergency orders, came without a signature or explanation. Classic Supreme Court move to simply drop the ruling and let everyone else figure out why.

But leftist Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson had plenty to say, and it wasn’t pretty. In a fiery dissent, they tore into the court’s call. Jackson, who doesn't know what a woman is, didn’t hold back, saying the court “plainly botched” its assessment and ignored the “devastating consequences of allowing the government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens [aka illegal aliens] while their legal claims are pending.” 

She went on: “While it is apparent that the government seeks a stay to enable it to inflict maximum pre-decision damage, court-ordered stays exist to minimize, not maximize, harm to litigating parties.” 

The TPS program’s been a lifeline for migrants, especially illegal ones. It is to be renewed every 18 months like clockwork, most recently under former alleged President Joe Biden, before he wandered out of office. 

Illegal migrant flipping off police

But Trump’s crew, led by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, came in hot this February, trying to pull the plug on protections for a chunk of Venezuelan nationals. Their reasoning? It’s not in the “national interest.” Noem’s been out here signing executive orders alongside Trump, who’s clearly not slowing down, and this scares the crap out of Democrats.

U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer wasn’t playing with his toes either. He told the justices earlier this month to let the administration do its thing, accusing U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of overstepping. “The district court’s reasoning is untenable,” Sauer argued, saying the TPS program involves “particularly discretionary, sensitive, and foreign-policy-laden judgments of the Executive Branch regarding immigration policy.” 

In other words, back off, judge—Trump’s got this.

This isn’t the first time the Supreme Court’s given Trump a green light lately. Earlier this month, they okayed his plan to revoke protected status for 350,000 Venezuelan illegal alien migrants, clearing the path for deportations. 

So, what’s next? The White House is gearing up for a legal brawl, and with Sotomayor and Brown-Jackson, throwing punches in dissent, this fight’s far from over. 

If you enjoy my blog, feel free to toss a virtual coffee my way on Buy Me a Coffee – it’s like a high-five with caffeine, and coffee keeps me focused. No pressure, it's your call.

Tweet

RFK Jr. on confirmation hotseat questioned by questionable Sen. Ron Wyden

Screen shot

As this is being written, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is seated for his confirmation hearing for HHS Secretary. While the Republicans are asking him reasonable questions pertaining to the job, the Democrats, led by Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, has attacked him unmercifully in his opening statement and then in his questioning. Wyden has attacked RFK Jr's character and even yelled at the candidate at one point, cutting him off as he attempted to answer.

So who is Ron Wyden?

 
In 2024, Wyden introduced legislation to reform the Supreme Court, a politically motivated move to increase the number of justices who would therefore be appointed by then-President Biden. It's obvious that Wyden is Party-driven and if Kennedy was nominated by, say, Kamala Harris had she won [heaven forbid] the election, he would be all in for him.

There have also been instances in which Wyden's family members engaged in stock trading activities that coincided with legislative actions, as in insider trading. His wife, Nancy Bass Wyden, who owned the Strand Bookstore, bought shares in semiconductor companies [Nvidia, for example] at the time when Sen. Wyden was pushing for legislation to support the U.S. semiconductor industry--a conflict of interest, obviously.

Wyden was also involved with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which he co-authored. There followed debates about content moderation and responsibility of platforms such as social media companies. Wyden wanted more moderation rather than First Amendment rights, taking a position more like that of a dictatorship nation.

Tweet

Biden hears the invisible person calling as he gets up and leaves MSNBC interview while still going on

When softball interviews are too difficult for our alleged president to successfully pull off without looking and sounding like a patient on the Alzheimer floor of a nursing home, you know he's in trouble. But when you realize that the viewers who watched the clusterfrack take place in real time would still vote for this decrepit, brain addled man over any Republican for a second term, you know the country is in trouble.

Nicole Wallace, the MSNBC host of "Deadline" was finishing up her powderpuff, wiffle ball interview with Biden when he slowly stood up, got out of his seat, shook her hand, and wandered off stage.

Being the consummate professional that she tries to be, Wallace went for the save. "Mr. President, thank you," she said as he shook her hand.

In a clip, Biden can be seen walking off set behind Wallace as she then looks into the camera previewing her next segment. You can watch the clip here.

“Don’t go anywhere, it’s a very exciting day around here,” Wallace told the audience. “We’ll have reaction and analysis [without any annoying fact checking] to everything we just heard from the president.”

Biden ends his MSNBC interview and just gets up and walks off set while they're still live pic.twitter.com/0NHfeugavE

— Daily Wire (@realDailyWire)

Biden, an old 80, had several other clusterfrack moments in the interview, including when he thought he was brilliantly quoting the U.S. Constitution when it was the Declaration of Independence [you know, the thing] that he was quoting when discussing the Supreme Court’s ruling that race-based college admissions are illegal.

"I'm coming, Honey"

“Its value system is different, and its respect for our institutions is different,” Biden said of the Supreme Court. “And in that sense, it’s not as embracing of all, what I think the con—the Constitution says, ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men and women are created equal, endowed by their creator.’ It’s the uniqueness of America – we’ve never fully lived up to it, we never walked away from it. And this court seems to say, ‘No, that’s not always the case.’ The idea that there’s no right of privacy in the Constitution, giving states power that we fought a war over in 1960 [sic]. You know, I just think it’s — this is not your father’s Republican Party.”

The quote that Biden said was from the Constitution is from the second paragraph in the Declaration of Independence.

But so what? You can't fault the Big Guy for every little mistake or you'd be viewed as a racist or something.

Tweet

Trump says DeSantis' 6-week heartbeat bill 'too harsh'

"I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born" --Ronald Reagan

Former President Trump went after Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis over the latter's abortion stance on Monday. While all abortions are harsh on the baby, because murder is harsh in any timeframe, Trump said that Florida's so called heartbeat bill, or six-week ban, was "too harsh."

Gov. DeSantis has not yet announced his bid for the White House, but most people believe he's going to do that very soon. Trump has anticipated that likelihood and has been going after him more aggressively now and the abortion issue might be the thing that voters will use to decide on which candidate best represents their values.

Trump made the abortion-related statement in an interview with The Messenger, which was published on Monday. However, even though the interview covered a lot of ground, he didn't elaborate on his personal stance regarding abortion, but claimed he "heard" that pro-life advocates oppose the DeSantis bill.

If anything, pro-lifers would prefer that abortions performed during any period in a pregnancy would be banned, but at least the six-week ban is the best we can hope for at this time. Trump, on the other hand, in many ways is further to the left than DeSantis and seems willing to compromise values for votes.

"He has to do what he has to do," Trump said when asked about Florida's six-week ban. "If you look at what DeSantis did, a lot of people don't even know if he knew what he was doing. But he signed six weeks, and many people within the pro-life movement feel that that was too harsh."

If someone said that they didn't know if Biden knew what he was doing, that would be fair to say, but DeSantis knows what he's doing and is governing Florida like a true conservative.

When asked about whether he would support a six-week ban, Trump didn't want to commit and replied, "I'm looking at all options."

In other words, it appears that Trump is looking at the best political outcome for his opinion, rather than having values congruent with conservatives.

Trump also confirmed in the interview that he supported the same exceptions in abortion legislation that conservatives agree with, "the life of the mother, raping and incest." No conservatives oppose this so Trump knows he's on safe ground.

"Just as Ronald Reagan was a believer in the exceptions, but I'm a believer in the exceptions," he added. However let's be honest, Ron DeSantis is more like Reagan than Trump is. Even DeSantis' six-week abortion bill includes the same exceptions.

Trump went on to take credit for the three Supreme Court justices he got appointed who were essential in overturning Roe v. Wade, claiming that he was the only president who could have accomplished that feat. And he's 

"For 50 years, they've been trying to get rid of Roe v Wade. I was able to do it. Nobody else could have done that but me. And I was able to do it [by nominating] three excellent judges on the Justices of the Supreme Court. And I was able to do that," he said hyperbolically. 

"I'm looking at all alternatives. I'm looking at many alternatives," Trump replied when asked if six weeks was too harsh. "But I was able to get us to the table by terminating Roe v. Wade. That's the most important thing that's ever happened for the pro-life movement."

And yes, you have to give Trump the credit he's due with Roe v. Wade but you also have to understand that he isn't opposed to abortion the way Ron DeSantis is. 

The tough question is, who is best equipped to beat Joe Biden in 2024, if he's still running? It may very well be Trump because people want entertainment over substance. 

In either case, the Republican candidate must get our votes. We cannot allow the left to destroy the country as we have known it, and we must rebuild what we had if we get the nod from the people.

Tweet

Florida passes death penalty bill for pedophiles

The Florida legislature in a bipartisan vote, approved a bill backed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis that allows for the death penalty to be imposed for those convicted of sexually abusing children.

[H/T New York Post]

The vote passed by a wide margin of 34-5 on April 18th and will allow juries to hand down death sentences by votes of at least 8-4, after previously requiring unanimity. 

The bill passed the Florida House of Representatives 95-14 the week prior and applies to those scumbags convicted of abusing a child under the age of 12. Where that number came from is anybody's guess.

“My view is, you have some of these people that will be serial rapists of six, seven-year-old kids,” DeSantis told “Good Morning Orlando” on April 17. “I think the death penalty is the only appropriate punishment when you have situations like that.”

State Senate Minority Leader Lauren Book (D-Davie) and state Sen. Jonathan Martin (R-Fort Myers), the bill’s co-sponsors, argued that those who sexually harm kids are likely to repeat their crime and deserve the ultimate punishment.

“Once a predator has a child ensnared, they will harm that child over and over and over again,” Book said. “And then move on to another innocent child.”

Book argued that execution guards against the targeting of additional victims.

“Pedophile behavior has been deemed highly repetitive to the point of compulsion,” she said, in concurrence with the extremely high recidivism rate.

State Sen. Rosalind Osgood (D-Broward), one of the five who opposed the bill, said she agreed that sexual attacks on kids are severe crimes, but told fellow lawmakers that she struggled with imposing the death penalty in general due to her religious beliefs.

The bill also runs up against Supreme Court precedent. In 2008, the high court ruled 5-4 in Kennedy v. Louisiana that the death penalty could not be levied against child rapists or anyone who committed a crime in which the victim did not die. Just because the rape of a child will stay with them the rest of their lives and interfere with their functioning is no reason to kill the low-life human excrement who did that to them.

However, DeSantis suggested this week that the current Supreme Court, made up of six conservatives and three liberals, might be open to overturning that decision.

The death penalty controversy once again made headlines in Florida last year after a jury spared Parkland school shooter Nikolas Cruz from execution, instead handing down a life sentence because only one juror voted against his execution and that's all it took. On Monday DeSantis said that Cruz's execution was “really the only appropriate punishment.”

“If you don’t support capital punishment, I respect that,” the governor added, “but the way to deal with that is to try to get the laws changed in the state through the democratic process – not to be on a jury and to nullify capital punishment.”

Tweet

Insane climate activist sets himself on fire as DC Metro cop tries to put him out with a road cone

Wynn Bruce

A climate activist set himself on fire at the steps of the US Supreme Court because the United States is 24th in the world's carbon emissions and that just wasn't good enough for this obviously mentally ill person.

His name is Wynn Bruce and he died on Earth Day, a holiday co-founded by Ira Samual Einhorn,  [aka: "The Unicorn Killer" who killed Holly Maddux, his ex-girlfriend, in 1977 and used her body for compost]. Breaking up was obviously hard to do for Ira and he never let anything go to waste.

Anyway, Mr. Bruce, 50, apparently wanted to draw attention to what he viewed as the climate crisis. Setting himself on fire seemed like a good idea to do just that and yes, it worked.

Bruce was from Boulder, Colorado a far-left dominated city in the Rocky Mountains. He was airlifted to a hospital at around 6:30 pm, after the flames went out, but he died the following day, according to the Metropolitan Police Dept. of Washington, D.C. 

Sadly, as stupid as the act was, it must have been horribly painful.

“This act is not suicide,” Zen Buddhist priest, liar, and Environmental Defense Fund scientist Dr. Kritee Kanko, who described herself as Bruce’s friend, wrote on Twitter. “This is a deeply fearless act of compassion to bring attention to climate crisis.” 

No, it was a narcissistic act and it gave a bad name to climate activists.

Bruce's immolation, in part, leaves a large carbon footprint and is not the best way to keep carbon emissions down. A sign pointing out the climate crisis held over his head, and maybe scream at people walking by, might have been a better option.

Kanko said that Bruce had been planning the act for at least one year and she didn't try to stop him yet still calls herself his friend. 

"What is the sound of one hand burning?"

Bruce’s Facebook posts  depict his concern about climate change and his plans to self-immolate. Maybe it was a cry for help, but none of his so-called "friends" came to the rescue of this disturbed individual.

Metropolitan Police Department in Washington, DC spokeswoman Brianna Burch told The Denver Post that, as far as she knew, no suicide note or manifesto was found near Bruce’s body and that the police were still investigating his motive. 

* * *

Sex. Now that I have your attention: for more hard-hitting content, and a few soft-hitting ones too, subscribe to Brain Flushings and check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against John Kerry's global warming, the heebie-jeebies and the dreaded omicron.

* * *

Kanko also told The New York Times that she was not certain of Bruce’s intentions but added that “people are being driven to extreme amounts of climate grief and despair.” 

Thanks to rags like The New York Times.

“[W]hat I do not want to happen is that young people start thinking about self-immolation,” she added.

Why not? Using her logic, it was a fearless act of compassion.

But of course, it isn't. It's a form of mental unrest, or mental illness.

Tweet

Comrade De Blasio's last gasp as NYC Mayor to get rid of Trump name at $30M cost to taxpayers

One of the worst mayors New York City has ever had, Bill de Blasio [aka Warren de Blasio-Wilhelm; aka Warren Wilhelm Jr.] hates former President Donald J. Trump so much, that he is on a mission to get rid of the Trump name throughout the city. Of course getting rid of the Trump name will be at the taxpayers' expense and that would come to over $30 million. 

After the Jan. 6 protest at the Capitol, comrade de Blasio vowed to rid the city of one of its most successful real estate developers who went on to become President. Trump's success evidently angered de Blasio since he tried to do the same and failed miserably because most people don't want a Communist POTUS.

But the failed mayor didn't let that stop him from doing what he does best: tear down things and destroy them. So on January 13 de Blasio said he would pull all the Trump Organization's longtime concession contracts that operate the Central Park carousel, the Wollman and Lasker skating rinks [where this writer put on his first pair of ice skates as a kid and fell dozens of times], and the Trump Ferry Point Golf Course in The Bronx, proving de Blasio is an oversized, jealous idiot.

“This president has committed an unlawful act, he has disgraced himself, he will no longer profit from his relationship with New York City,” de Blasio whined to reporters. But while de Blasio is willing to strip away the Trump name at on the taxpayer's dime, if he had waited until spring, the contracts would have expired anyway and he could have just refused to renew them.

The campaign, like de Blasio's policies in general, went down the bowl right from the start. Getting rid of Trump's involvement would have closed the two skating rinks six weeks early in the skating season and would have angered skaters as a result. City Hall had to walk it back and allowed the contract to run its course, making de Blasio look like a big buffoon.

Now with the contracts going to new operators, Harris Blitzer Sports & Entertainment, Equinox and Related Companies in July, the rates shot up. Under Trump, a family of four paid $95 to enter; under the new operators they pay $109. Congratulations, New York. You deserve what you got good and hard.

There was nobody to operate the Central Park for all of the 2021 summer season. The de Blasio crew finally got Central Amusement International, the company that operates Luna Park in Coney Island, Brooklyn, to run it for five years in late July. It finally reopened October 16.

The Wollman rink is now under construction and will re-open in November under new management. 

But the bigger clusterfrack is the court battle over the effort to evict Trump from the Bronx golf course.

The Trump Organization claims in its lawsuit opposing the termination that it is entitled to over $30 million in reimbursements if they get the boot. De Blasio hates Trump so much that he might be willing to have the taxpayer foot the bill, despite Comptroller Scott Stringer requesting a time out in the rushed process.

“I’m just learning of this and have to look at that and find out exactly what this is about,” Eric Adams, the mayoral-race frontrunner and former cop, told The New York Post regarding the city possibly being on the hook for tens of millions. Adams is running against Republican Curtis Sliwa, the founder of the Guardian Angels.

The Bronx golf course known as Trump Ferry Point, was built on a garbage dump that closed in the 1960s. It took 14 years to develop--perhaps due to the wait for the odor to subside--and finally opened in 2015. It was New York's newest golf course and then-Mayor Mike "Short Round" Bloomberg asked Trump to take over the management and construction due to his company's experience with such projects. It reportedly cost $269 million to build. Trump added a 20,000-foot clubhouse in 2018 which he says cost $10 million.

The city’s termination notice issued in February, for Trump’s Ferry Point contract still had 13 years to run. The notice stated it was “because the Trump brand is now synonymous with an insurrection against the federal government” and can no longer attract tournaments. But no tournament was ever promised as per the contract, only a “tournament quality course.”

And what happened on Jan. 6 was not an insurrection when you consider what happened across the country during the Antifa/BLM "protests." If you're looking for an actual insurrection, look no further than Portland, Seattle, New York City, and Minneapolis, for starters.

* * *

Why not subscribe to Brain Flushings and check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against the tech giants.

* * *

In recent state Supreme Court filings, the city doubled down and told the judge that if it can’t terminate “for cause” based on the Capitol insurrection, it would use the boilerplate “at will” clause because Bill de Blasio is an oversized baby whose only concern is getting personal revenge and not for the 150 jobs that would be lost under a new operator.

The course is used by many people in the community and also Bronx organizations, some of whom spoke passionately at a city Franchise and Concession Review Committee hearing earlier this month.

In spite of the pleas, the panel plans to hand the course over to a Georgia-based operator under a 13-year contract beginning in November. The 4-2 vote to approve the changeover came despite the objections from residents and Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz, Jr.

This is de Blasio's parting shot at Trump, but it's also a parting shot at the city's residents who voted this weasel into office.

To date this year, the Trump course has hosted 25,220 rounds of golf and grossed far more than $8.2 million — double what was made during the pandemic shutdowns in 2020 and $1 million more than in 2018 — and the course expected to reach $10 million by the end of the year.

The course attracts players from across the globe because it boasts the legend Jack Nicklaus' "Signature Design." De Blasio and his cronies seemed to have ignored their agreement with Nicklaus' company that gives them a "veto" over who operates the course. And if they strip the Nicklaus name from it, there's going to be a serious financial hit taken by the city just to stroke de Blasio's ego.

Nicklaus Companies CEO John Reese said in an Oct. 12 letter to the committee, “We have no desire to become entangled in city politics; however, we are unhappy with the prospect of having The Trump Organization summarily removed,” adding that Park Commissioner Mitchell Silver never responded to a Feb. 16 letter.

Bill de Blasio does not have his head stuck in a sand trap--he has it stuck in his nether regions.

Tweet

Supremes back Trump on refugee ban for now

The U.S. Supreme Court has bigly backed President Trump's travel ban, saying he can stop thousands of unvetted refugees from entering the United States while the justices prepare to hear a broader challenge to the policy where liberals can hopefully allow the floodgates to open and all hell to break loose as illegal immigrants and so-called refugees to flood into the country.

The Supremes put on hold a federal appeals court ruling in which a judge, trying to make a name for himself in the progressive community, said that the President of the United States couldn't apply his travel ban to approximately 24,000 refugees once a resettlement agency promised they'd provide basic services for them.

The high court is scheduled to hear arguments October 10th on Trump's travel order, which imposes a 90-day ban on primarily unvetted Muslims entering the U.S. from six Islamic theocracies and a 120-day ban on refugees.

The whole purpose of the ban is simply to vet these people because vetting is smart and ISIS has promised us that some of their scum-crumpets will be among the innocent. Not vetting the refugees is stupidly suicidal, in spite of the lower courts with their leftist judges saying the President of the United States overstepped his authority and unconstitutionally target Muslims. 

The small-time judges are trying to grab power over the president and make themselves more powerful among their leftist peers.

The high court cleared part of the ban on June 26th. It is to take place for now and ruled that the U.S. had to admit people with a "bona fide relationship with a person or entity."

In July, the Supreme Court ruled that those with grandparents and cousins in the U.S. are among those who must be admitted. Of course we're never certain of familial ties and basically have to take their word for it, but the administration said Monday it wouldn't ask the court to revisit that issue.

The Trump administration asked, in the same filing, to reinstate a broad version of the refugee ban because the so-called assurance agreements don't meet the "bona fide" test as those accords are between the resettlement agency and the government.

"An assurance agreement does not create any relationship whatsoever with the refugee," acting U.S. Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall argued.

Hawaii, where former president Obama was allegedly born, challenged the Trump policy. They urged the justices to allow the appeals court ruling to stand, saying assurance agreements require resettlement agencies to make large investments in preparing for the arrival of refugees. They also believe the refugees don't pose any true security threat, but obviously they're trying to blow smoke where the sun doesn't shine.

"Refugees with formal assurances are the category of foreign nationals least likely to implicate the national security rationales the government has pointed to in the past," Hawaii argued. "By the government's own admission, these refugees have already been approved by the Department of Homeland Security."

If government agencies were so great at risk analysis, why are there so many lawsuits against drug companies when we have the FDA?



Tweet

Trump triumphs as travel ban is mostly reinstated

In a yoooge victory for the Trump administration, the Supreme Court lifted key components of an injunction against President Trump's proposed ban on travel from six nations that tend to be importers of terrorism. Not so coincidentally, these nations are Muslim-majority. 

The Supreme Court will revisit the ban in October when they go back in session.

This decision will have the justices delve into the biggest legal quagmire since Trump took office. His order temporarily restricts travel and the court made it clear that a limited version of the policy can immediately be enforced.

Much of the policy has been reinstated, but travelers who have family in the U.S. will be excluded from the ban.

"An American individual or entity that has a bona fide relationship with a particular person seeking to enter the country as a refugee can legitimately claim concrete hardship if that person is excluded," the court wrote. "As to these individuals and entities, we do not disturb the injunction. But when it comes to refugees who lack any such connections to the United States, for the reasons we have set out, the balance tips in favor of the Government's compelling need to provide for the Nation's security."

Trump has been openly pissed off after his original executive order of January 27th, was partially blocked by a federal court.

"What is our country coming to when a judge can halt a Homeland Security travel ban and anyone, even with bad intentions can come into U.S.?" Trump tweeted on February 4th.

Trump has been looking forward to the Supreme Court to take up the case and get it out of the hands of liberal (aka leftist) appellate judges.

Now that Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court and he has since been confirmed, the balance of the court goes to the right side of the aisle.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote: "The Government has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits--that is, that the judgments below will be reversed." This was also supported by justices Alito and Gorsuch. "The Government has also established that failure to stay the injunctions will cause irreparable harm by interfering with its 'compelling need to provide for the Nation's security.'"

The federal appeals courts in California and Virginia ruled against Trump in recent weeks. And when Trump was a presidential candidate, a majority of the 4th Circuit appeals court cited his statements at the time that he was proposing a ban "preventing Muslim immigration."

But the White House frames the ban as a temporary move involving national security, and any fair-minded person who sees what's happening in the world would agree that a greater security threat exists from people coming from Islamic majority countries than from other nations.

The most difficult aspect of the immigration question the court will deal with is deciding just how much discretion does a president have over immigration. Courts have been deferential in the past and would allow presidents to use their discretion to deny entry to certain groups of refugees and diplomats.

The Immigration and Nationality Act passed in 1952 gives the president broad authority. Section 212 (f) states that: "Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may, may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

Justice Thomas criticized the majority for the compromise made in Monday's ruling. He indicated that he would have allowed the order to be enforced in full and believes "the Court's remedy" would inspire a flood of new litigation.

"Today's compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding--on perils of contempt--whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country," Thomas wrote. "The compromise also will invite a flood of litigation until this case is finally resolved on the merits, as parties and courts struggle to determine what exactly constitutes a 'bona fide relationship,' who precisely has a 'credible claim' to that relationship, and whether the claimed relationship was formed 'simply to avoid §2(c)' of Executive Order No. 13780."

Hopefully, a more center-right Supreme Court will quash the attempts of the liberal appellate courts to obstruct Trump's reasonable executive orders.


Tweet

Hillary's blames everyone but herself for her loser status

Pointing a gnarly finger everywhere but at herself, Hillary Clinton blames Russia and Donald Trump for her second presidential election loss.

At the annual Code Conference in California on Wednesday, the 69-year-old said, "I take responsibility for every decision I made, but that's not why I lost," she lied. "Anti-American forces are going after our economy and they are going after our unity as a nation," she said, ending with the joke.

If anyone or any entity was going after our unity as a nation, it is clearly the left. But that's another story for another day.

Clinton accused the White House of colluding with Moscow in weaponizing technology to bring her campaign down. And she knows about technology--she keeps her server clean "with a cloth."

The former Worst Lady linked the campaign interference of last year's election to Trump and said she hopes investigators would be able to unmask a plot to interfere in the U.S. election. 

Somehow she believes that most Americans care why she lost yet again and she also sounds as if she's going to run again for the 2020 election. The Democratic Party is stupid, but not that stupid. Clinton is done; put her pitchfork in her.

She said a Russian-led misinformation campaign was launched against her and used Facebook and other social media networks that couldn't distinguish among the "fake news" being circulated on those sites.

"What we saw in this election particularly the first time we had the tech revolution really weaponized politically. It was aimed at me, but it's a much deeper, more persistent effort to literally turn the clock back on so much of what we have achieved as a country," she said, obviously misusing the word 'literally.'

When asked who she believed was responsible for involving the Russians, she sneered, "I'm leaning Trump."

She blames Trump, Russia and misogyny for her loss, but pretends to take responsibility for the stupid butthead decisions she made in her horrible campaign.

Clinton said she and her cronies often tried to bring up Russia's interest in the election but said her claims were ignored--possibly due to her "Reset Button" she gave to her Russian counterpart and Obama's open mic statement to the Russian president about how he would have more flexibility. In other words, it was obvious to authorities that if anyone had ties to Russia, and perhaps get them involved in the election, it was the Democratic Party.

"Putin wants to bring us down," Clinton said. "It's way beyond me . . . " she added, admitting how many things are way beyond her. "I believe that what was happening to me was unprecedented. Over the summer we went and told anyone we could find that the Russians were messing with the electin and we were basically shoo'd away . . . We couldn't get the press to cover it."

When the left can't get the press to cover something that helps the left, then you know it's balderdash. The press was in bed with the Clintons, but try not to get a mental picture lest you vomit on your computer and have to wipe it with a cloth.

Hillary also took issue with a 2010 Supreme Court decision that opened up campaign spending. She didn't want an even playing field to match the Clinton Foundation foreign and domestic donations.

"The first time you saw the tech revolution really weaponized politically . . . you had Citizen United come to its full fruition," she complained. "So unaccountable money flowing in against me, against other Democrats in a way we hadn't seen. You had effective suppression of votes."

Yes, she really said that. 

Does anyone recall the New Black Panthers suppressing the white voters of at least one Philadelphia polling place when Obama was running? 

Also, voter ID does not suppress votes--it legitimizes them. So Clinton is just being the lovable hypocrite she's always been.

Cryin' Hillary said she was treated unfairly for accepting millions of dollars in speaking fees from Wall Street firms during her primary race against the self-proclaimed "democratic socialist" Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT), followed by Trump.

Clinton tried to minimize her millions in speaking fees. "I have to say . . . I never thought someone would throw out my entire career because I made a couple of speeches. Men got paid for speeches they made . . . I got paid for the speeches I made."

Hillary is always trying to make it sound like the world is sexist because that's her only political position that resonates with her fellow misandrists.





Tweet

FCC will "investigate" Colbert and his homophobic potty mouth

The Federal Communications Commission said they will "investigate" the rantings of Stephen "Toilet-Mouth" Colbert, but said nothing about DNC head Tom Perez whose mouth spews forth words that usually go down toilets.

Both leftists use vile, disgusting language on national television, and are unapologetic about the disrespect they show toward their audience. Perhaps they don't see it that way because they aren't capable of empathizing with the common folk.

The main reason the FCC is doing anything at all about Colbert's garbage-mouth rant against President Trump on Monday is because they received "a number of complaints" over Colbert's 12-minute monologue on CBS' The Late Show. Some are calling the monologue homophobic, disrespectful and not funny.

FCC commissioner and Trump appointee, Ajit Pai, promised to take "appropriate action" once an investigation is completed. What exactly has to be investigated is unclear, unless it's the actual letter of the law since it's clear what was said. Colbert's show is pretaped and the word "cock" was bleeped out by CBS when it was used to describe President Trump performing oral sex on Vladimir Putin.

Personally, I don't believe that Colbert should be fired, as many are calling for on Twitter, nor do I believe in boycotting Colbert's sponsors because I don't think it would make a real difference and it isn't fair to put the onus on them. 

But I do believe in the free market. If people refuse to watch his show, and his numbers are down, the sponsors would leave on their own.

However, it's possible that Colbert has broken the law and the FCC will have to decide if it finds a violation. "A fine, of some sort, is typically what we do," Pai said.

Due to the fact that Colbert's garbage airs at 11:35 p.m., there is a lower standard of decency since the children are tucked away in bed.

FCC regulations, as per their website, says that all content on broadcast TV must meet a three-tier Supreme Court test to be considered "obscene."

The FCC says: "It must appeal to an average person's prurient interest; depict or describe sexual conduct in a 'patently offensive' way; and, taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value."

Anyone who believes that it passes all of those tests is a leftist fool.

In 2004, CBS was fined $550,000 by the FCC when Janet Jackson had her "wardrobe malfunction" during the Super Bowl Halftime Show, exposing her breast. Unfortunately, the fine was appealed and thrown out.

I believe that everyone should be entitled to freedom of speech and expression. Personally, I'm going to express my beliefs with my TV remote.

Tweet

Senate GOP goes nuclear

Well, it's going to be a done deal. The Grand Old Party has set the nuclear option' to finalize the appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.

Thanks to Harry Reid (who first used the 'nuclear option' to push through the Democrat's picks and thumb his nose at the Republicans) the GOP is now in the driver's seat. 

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says he now has the votes to end the Democrat's veto power and have Gorsuch confirmed Friday. The voting should take place at around 11:30 a.m. 

The rule change would change the 67 vote threshold needed to a mere majority of 51 votes. 

Gorsuch, 49, is a highly qualified justice with a decade of federal appeals court experience and Senate Republicans say he will be a strong addition to the court.

Democrats say putting him on the court will result in more decisions favoring corporations over working-class Americans. These hypocrites are whining over the refusal last year to consider Obama's liberal choice of Judge Merrick Garland in spite of Joe Biden's rule of not seating a Supreme Court judge in the final days of a presidency until after the next election.

There are four Democrats who voted with the GOP for Gorsuch: Michael Bennet (D-CO), Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Joe Donnelly (D-IN).

Thank you Hairy Weed.


Tweet

DoJ asks federal appeals court to restore ban on 7 countries

The Department of Justice got it in before the 6 p.m. deadline asking a federal appeals court to restore President Trump's ban on travelers from 7 terrorist-spawning countries. This is the latest barrage in a legal battle which could end up being decided by the Supreme Court.

The filing was with the liberal-leaning Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and it came three days after bow tie wearing liberal U.S. District Court Judge James Robart's order to basically ban he ban. The DoJ calling Robart's order "vastly overbroad," as if that were a real word, and said the president's executive order was "a lawful exercise of the President's authority over the entry of aliens into the United States and the admission of refugees."

The appeals court didn't immediately reinstate Trump's order and attorneys for Washington and Minnesota, both states who are challenging it, argued that any resumption of the order would "unleash chaos again," separating families and stranding university students [and eventually ending civilization as we know it].

Oral arguments were set for Tuesday afternoon [when Bill Clinton heard the first word, he wanted to be part of the action] and whatever the appeals court decides, either side can then ask the Supreme Court to step in.

With the death of Justice Scalia and the Supreme Court 4 to 4 regarding liberals to conservatives, it may prove difficult to overturn a lower court order because if they split, the lower court gets the call.

The truth of the matter is that Robart's ruling was a political one, not an impartial legal ruling. The guy stands behind Black Lives Matter over the police. Hopefully Trump's administration will win out because the security of the country really is tenuous considering that ISIS made it clear of their intentions to infiltrate the immigration/refugee population with their terrorists.






Tweet

POTUS' choice for SCOTUS short list ready

President Trump is ready to make his Supreme Court justice choice this week after the country has gone 11 months with an empty seat after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. The Democrats weren't happy with the wait, but since it was nearing the end of a socialist president's term, the GOP, under Mitch McConnell, thought it best to take the gamble and wait until after the election.

A brilliant move.

It was worth the wait as it is likely Trump will pick a conservative Constitutional originalist as Justice Scalia was, to fill the seat.

President Trump has assured us the decision is coming soon. "I'll be making my decision this week, we'll be announcing next week," he said after meeting with bipartisan Senate leaders Tuesday. "We'll pick a truly great Supreme Court justice."

It will be very, very great. So great we're going to say 'Hey Donald, your pick was too great. We're getting tired of all this greatness.'

According to sources who ask to remain anonymous in order to find out more secret stuff, the list is down to  three or four names, all of whom are federal appeals court judges.

You may recall that President Trump said at a presser last week before taking the oath of office that a decision on the pick for Supreme Court would come within two weeks after taking office.

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer backed up that timeline on Monday, and said the nomination remains a "priority."

Trump already met with Judge William Pryor from the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, in Birmingham, Ala. He is a close friend of the Attorney General nominee Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.).

Pryor was initially given a recess appointment to the appeals court but Senate Democrats tried to block his subsequent nominations, citing his strong criticism of the Roe v. Wade decision establishing a woman's right to kill her unborn baby. He called it the "worst abomination in the history of constitutional law."

As Ronald Reagan pointed out: "I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born."

Other possible judges on Trump's short list may be Judge Neil Gorsuch, on the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, with chambers in Denver. 

He was born in 1967 and went to Harvard Law School, clerked for Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy. He then went into private practice before joining the Bush Justice Department. His mother is Anne Burford, the first female EPA administrator. He also wrote: "The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia."

Judge Thomas Hardiman, 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, with chamber in Pittsburgh.

He was born in 1965 and his 2010 ruling that a jail policy of strip-searching all those arrested does not violate the Fourth Amendment was affirmed by the Supreme Court. He also sits on the same court as President Trump's sister, Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, but she is not being considered for any high court vacancy.

There are more possible considerations but we shall see what he does in the days to come.

So far, Trump has met with auto industry leaders and others, and will be meeting with the British and Canadian Prime Ministers, Theresa May and Justin Trudeau, respectively.

Just for the fun of it, I've put up a Steve Crowder video of the Women's March in Washington on Friday. It's only a bit over 8 minutes long but fun to watch. 

Tweet

Ahmadinejad asks Obama's forgiveness on a debt

"Little Squat Dog Pile"

Former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wrote a "Dear Barack" letter to President Obama Monday asking him to "quickly fix" a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allows families of those killed in Iranian-linked attacks that killed Americans to collect damages from the $2 billion we hold in frozen assets. 

The money, Ahmadinejad evidently believes, could be put to better use in Iran, not in America, a country where Satan watches baseball.

While the "Little Squat Dog Pile" wrote that his letter "is by no means of a political nature," the word in the street and the mosques is that he is running next year as a presidential candidate. I guess his falafel wagon business didn't work out.

The letter also comes at a time when most Iranians have seen nothing benefitting themselves from the Iranian nuclear deal. This could be a gold mine for the "Little Squat Dog Pile" and other hard-liners as they campaign against moderates who aren't as certain of the coming of the Twelfth Imam.

Ahmadinejad's letter was posted on a website linked to his former office when he was president. He focuses on the Supreme Court's decision in April where they ruled 6 - 2 to allow families of the victims in the 1983 Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, and in other terror attacks, to collect monetary damages from Iran.

Bank Markazi owes $1.75 billion in bonds as well as interest accumulated over the years; the bonds are held by Citibank in New York.

The letter went something like this:

Dear Barack:

It is the clear expectation of the Iranian nation that the particular case of property seizure . . . be quickly fixed by your excellency and that not only the Iranian nation's rights be restored and the seized property released and returned, but also the damage caused be fully compensated.

I passionately advise you not to let the historical defamation and bitter incident be recorded under your name. 

Your truly,

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, former President of the Islamic Republic of Iran and soon to be current President of Iran, Inshallah

P.S. Death to America

The letter was delivered to the Swiss Embassy in Tehran because after the Iranians killed 241 Americans in 1983's Marine barracks bombing, we decided not to be friends with them . . . until Obama changed all that.

It's interesting to know that the "Little Squat Dog Pile" thinks that Obama has the right to overrule the Supreme Court's decision. What was he thinking--that Obama is a dictator like him?

Obama has thus far said nothing about the letter but it's rumored that he wrote Ahmadinejad back and dabbed a bit of Old Spice on the envelope.

Although Ahmadinejad already served two four-year terms, Iranian law allows for him to be eligible to run again once he has a one-term cooling-off period. Wouldn't Obama love that here?

The "Little Squat Dog Pile" is a Holocaust denier who has also predicted the demise of Israel, which not only makes him an anti-Semitic Muslim, but one who follows the Koran. Two of his former VPs have been jailed for corruption.

Hillary Clinton, thus far, has not.




Tweet