Pinned Tweet
The sworn enemy of collectivism is property rights, which the Commies, Socialists, Leftists of all stripes wish to divest from the citizens and invest into government. What better way than a “wealth tax?”
If the mob confiscated (stole) all the wealth from U.S. billionaires at its present value, that would only finance Federal Government spending for ~8 months. Of course forcing sales of assets would not yield “present value” and would crash both stock price and viability of those assets.
Canada’s New Anti-hate Law Is in effect.
thelibertydaily.com/canadas-…
If you can’t hate publicly what is inimical to you, you are not free.
What is the first dish you ever learned to make for yourself and do you still make it occasionally?
For me, it was a can of Campbell’s Chicken Gumbo soup after school before either parent came home from work. I still heat one up every once in awhile.
Deguello retweeted
Karl Marx gave humanity its most murderous idea: that human suffering stems not from scarcity and the human condition, but from private property itself. This bearded parasite—who never worked a day in his life and lived off Engels' textile fortune—convinced generations that voluntary exchange was exploitation while violent redistribution was justice.
The body count speaks for itself. Stalin's forced collectivization murdered 6 million Ukrainians through engineered famine. Mao's Great Leap Forward killed 45 million through sheer economic illiteracy. Pol Pot slaughtered a quarter of Cambodia's population. And every single time, the intellectuals proclaimed it "wasn't real socialism." The pattern is identical across continents and centuries: seize private property, centrally plan production, watch millions starve.
But the intellectual foundation was always rotten. Marx's labor theory of value—the notion that labor alone creates value—was already debunked by Austrian economists like Böhm-Bawerk before the ink was dry on Das Kapital. Value is subjective, determined by individual preferences in voluntary exchange. Marx simply couldn't grasp that the capitalist performs the crucial function of time preference—sacrificing present consumption for uncertain future returns.
Even "democratic socialism" in Western Europe required massive wealth transfers from productive individuals to bureaucratic parasites, creating permanent dependency classes and stagnating growth. Venezuela had the world's largest oil reserves and still managed to create toilet paper shortages. Cuba turned a Caribbean paradise into a floating prison where doctors flee on rafts.
Every socialist experiment ends the same way: empty shelves, secret police, and intellectuals explaining why the next attempt will be different.
Deguello retweeted
To all of you morons saying “I’m not dying for (insert country),” or “I didn’t vote for us to go to war for (insert country),” let me explain to you why you are stupid.
Isolationism sounds appealing if one has never stepped outside the comfort of their own homes (or if you have the IQ of a cockroach).
I have spent a decade and a half operating in the shadows of the world’s fault lines, where the reality is brutally clear: power vacuums do not remain empty.
They are always filled—and rarely by benevolent actors.
If the United States withdraws from the global stage, China, Russia, and every opportunistic authoritarian regime in existence will rush to occupy the ground we abandon.
They will shape trade routes, control supply chains, dictate technological standards, and dominate the security architecture of entire regions.
That is not speculation. It is how geopolitics has always worked.
The global order that allows Americans to live in relative prosperity and security is not an accident; it exists because the United States underwrites it.
Remove that foundation and the structure collapses.
The fantasy of isolation ignores the fact that our economy, our security, and our alliances are interwoven across the planet.
If we retreat, we do not become safer or freer. We become strategically blind while hostile powers consolidate influence over the very systems that sustain our way of life.
In other words, isolationism would not protect the United States.
It would guarantee that the future world order is written by nations that do not share our interests or values, and once that order solidifies, reclaiming it would cost far more than maintaining it ever did.
So, if you get your geopolitical knowledge from a former Vogue intern, a former pizza delivery guy, a closeted gay Nazi, or any other grifter with a live stream that is being paid to post their nonsense, please wake up and embrace reality with the rest of us.
Deguello retweeted
Oh please. This reads like someone discovered the French Revolution on Wikipedia at 2am and decided democracy is basically a Marvel villain origin story.
Let’s break this down.
“If you say people are politically equal, you inevitably get mass democracy.”
That’s like saying:
“If you build a gym, eventually someone’s going to lift weights.”
Yes. That’s… the point. Political equality → people vote. That’s not a design flaw. That’s the design.
And calling “consent of the governed” a myth because it’s never been perfect is like saying love isn’t real because no marriage is flawless. An ideal doesn’t have to be perfectly achieved to be foundational. Gravity isn’t perfectly measured either. Still works.
Now the big scary claim:
“Mass democracy ALWAYS leads to forced redistribution and endless bureaucracy.”
ALWAYS? Really?
Then explain why countries like Switzerland, Norway, Canada, and Australia aren’t dystopian gulags run by bread-rationing commissars.
Democracy doesn’t automatically equal redistribution. It equals voters deciding policy. Sometimes that means social programs. Sometimes it means tax cuts. That’s called politics. The horror.
The “infinite expansion of made-up rights” line is my favorite.
You mean like:
•Abolishing slavery?
•Women voting?
•Civil rights?
•Religious freedom?
Yeah, those were once considered dangerous expansions too. Every generation’s “made-up right” is just the previous generation’s “obviously insane radical demand.”
If you went back to 1850 and said women should vote, people would say it would destroy civilization. It didn’t. Civilization somehow survived the horror of women marking ballots.
Now let’s talk about the Jacobins.
Yes, Jacobins during the Reign of Terror were brutal. But comparing that to constitutional democracies today is like saying because a plane crashed once, airplanes inevitably become missiles.
The Reign of Terror lasted about a year during revolutionary chaos.
Meanwhile, Louis XIV ruled for 72 years with:
•No elections
•No civil rights
•Censorship
•Religious persecution
•Arbitrary imprisonment
But sure — the guy who said “I am the state” was basically a chill libertarian compared to voters electing city council members.
The argument also sneaks in something funny:
It says democracy becomes more coercive than monarchies.
Under monarchies:
•You didn’t vote.
•You didn’t choose your rulers.
•You could be imprisoned without due process.
•Power was literally inherited by bloodline.
Under democracies:
•You vote.
•You sue the government.
•You protest publicly.
•You replace leaders peacefully.
If this is “more coercive,” then by that logic a homeowners’ association is more tyrannical than feudalism because you can vote on lawn regulations.
The real move here is rhetorical sleight of hand:
Step 1: Equate democracy with mob rule.
Step 2: Equate mob rule with the French Revolution.
Step 3: Pretend modern liberal democracies are just Robespierre waiting to happen.
That’s like saying because surgery involves cutting people, all doctors are basically serial killers with better lighting.
Mass democracy doesn’t automatically create tyranny. Concentrated unchecked power does. And historically, that’s been monarchs, dictators, and one-party regimes — not societies where power changes hands every few years because voters are annoyed about gas prices.
The irony is thick:
The argument claims equality leads to tyranny… while defending systems where one guy literally rules by divine right.
That’s not an argument against democracy.
That’s nostalgia for crowns.
Who has noticed compliance with the call for boycott on 1/30/26. State how much —
1 - complete shutdown
2 - a lot
3 - not much
4 - not an iota
Please state the area in which you live.
Deguello retweeted
Capitalism doesn’t keep people poor. It exposes who’s producing value and who isn’t.
Under capitalism, you don’t get paid for needing things. You get paid for earning by offering value others choose to trade for.
People who want to live off others without producing call that “oppression” because the system refuses to reward entitlement.
Cheap labor isn’t created by markets. It’s created by policies that trap people in dependency: regulation, inflation, credential barriers, welfare cliffs, and state-protected monopolies. Those are anti-capitalist interventions that suppress opportunity and bargaining power.
If capitalism wanted people poor, it wouldn’t constantly be lifting the bottom, increasing productivity, and turning yesterday’s luxuries into today’s basics.
The only systems that reliably keep people poor on purpose are collectivist ones, because poverty makes people easier to control.
Capitalism rewards effort and value creation.
Communism rewards grievance and excuses.
That’s why one builds prosperity and the other manufactures resentment.
Deguello retweeted
Who Will Build NYC if Builders Are the Enemy?
As a New Yorker Jew, I'm surrounded by people who have been in real estate their entire lives. I am not trying to feed a stereotype, but that's my reality. They aren't activists or online commentators. They are people who bought their first buildings with all their savings, carried debt through rate hikes, fixed things themselves when there was no money to hire, and stayed in New York through high crime, recessions, 2008, COVID, rising taxes, insurance increases, and an ever-expanding book of laws and codes. None of them were promised fairness before they started, and none of them were protected from risk. They succeeded very slowly, and painfully, but with responsibly.
That experience is exactly what is missing from the worldview of Zohran Mamdani, and it shows in every part of his housing agenda. Mamdani has never built anything. He never signed a personal guarantee, never met payroll, never carried a mortgage through a rough month, never had to choose between fixing a boiler now or hoping it survives another winter because there is no cash. He has only operated in a political world where consequences are abstract and other people absorb the risk. When you have never operated in the real economy, it becomes easy to believe that shortcuts are solutions.
It is also why his message resonates with a certain type of voter. The people demanding “housing reforms” are not bad people. They are frustrated renters who feel like the system is rigged against them. I understand the frustration. But frustration doesn't change math. Housing is hard. Ownership is a very slow process. Building anything meaningful in this city takes years of stress, and debt. The people calling for "landlord policies" often want the outcome without the grind, the stability without the risk, and the reward without the years of sweating that every responsible adult who succeeded here had to endure. But it does not work like that.
NYC is in housing crisis. Citywide vacancy sits around 1.4 percent, a level economists consider an emergency. Median rents keep rising anyway, with Manhattan near $4,800 and Brooklyn around $3,800, even under an already thick layer of regulation. The reason is obvious. Supply has not kept up. In a good year, New York adds roughly 30,000 units. The city needs hundreds of thousands more over the next decade just to stabilize prices. At the same time, construction costs here are among the highest in the country, financing is extremely difficult, and insurance is wildly expensive
Mamdani’s proposals take that fragile situation and make it worse. When you cap upside while leaving downside unlimited, rational people stop participating. Developers do not argue on X. Lenders do not protest. They simply reallocate. Projects stop coming up. Renovations are postponed. New construction dies before a shovel hits the ground. The people I know in real estate are not angry. They are disengaging. Some are buying elsewhere. Some are sitting on cash. Some are done entirely. And when that happens, tenants do not win. Buildings deteriorate, supply tightens further, and rents rise anyway.
What Mamdani offers is emotional satisfaction, not solutions. He tells voters that prices are high because someone else is greedy, not because the city has spent decades making housing harder and almost impossible to build. He frames landlords as villains instead of participants in an ecosystem that only works when incentives align. That framing feels good, but it does not produce housing. It produces resentment, fear, and withdrawal.
Everyone I know who made it in this city did it the same way. Slowly, without shortcuts. Policies written by people who never did that do not create fairness or affordability. They create shortages. NYC doesn't have a landlord problem. It has a confidence problem. And a city that teaches people to hate the builders while demanding more building is a city sabotaging its own future.
Deguello retweeted
The Left's Permanent Alliance With Tyranny
The Western Left is trapped in a pattern that no failure ever corrects.
It is not ignorance. It is not naivety. It is a habit of mind – a reflex so ingrained it now operates without thought. Wherever power sets itself against the West, the Left leans toward it. Wherever a regime defines itself in opposition to America, Britain, or Israel, the Left suspends its moral faculties and rebrands that abdication "principle".
Venezuela is only the latest proof. The collapse of Nicolás Maduro's regime should have been uncontroversial. A bankrupt state. A stolen election. A population driven into exile by hunger, fear, and repression. A dictatorship propped up by force and foreign patrons. Yet the British Left responded not with relief, but with rage – not at the tyrant, but at the country that removed him. The moment the United States acted, the verdict was fixed. Whatever followed was irrelevant.
This is not a lapse. It is a pattern. For half a century, the British Left has attached itself to strongmen and movements whose only consistent trait is hostility to the West. Castro, Mao, Chavez, Saddam, Hamas, Iran – the names change, the instinct does not. Each was excused, romanticised, or rebranded as "resistance" while their victims were written off as collateral or lies.
The logic is brutally simple. The Left no longer judges regimes by how they treat their people. It judges them by whom they oppose. If a government crushes dissent, rigs elections, jails opponents, or starves its population, that is unfortunate but negotiable. If it also defines itself against America, that brutality becomes contextual, even admirable. Tyranny is forgiven so long as it points in the right direction.
That is why Jeremy Corbyn can call on Britain to "stand with Venezuela" while Venezuelans flee by the million. Why Diane Abbott can thunder about international law when Washington acts, yet fall silent when regimes gun down protesters. Why Ken Livingstone could fawn over Hugo Chávez even as Venezuela slid toward ruin. The people on the receiving end never matter. The alignment does.
This is why the Left's supposed anti-imperialism is a sham. American power is condemned as predatory, but Chinese expansion is waved through as development. Washington's influence is treated as neocolonialism, while Beijing's ports, mines, and debt traps are ignored. Xi Jinping builds a global empire and escapes scrutiny because his project weakens the West. That alone is enough.
Donald Trump's role in Venezuela only sharpens the reflex. Because Donald Trump acted, the act itself must be illegitimate. Trump is incidental. Had another American president done the same thing, the language would soften. When Trump does it, legality is rediscovered, sovereignty invoked, and dictators recast as victims. The rule is absolute: America must always be wrong.
This is not moral seriousness. It is inversion. Good and evil are not weighed; they are assigned. Freedom movements backed by the West are dismissed as puppets. Authoritarian regimes opposed to the West are treated as misunderstood. The Left does not fail to see oppression. It sees it and looks away, because acknowledging it would disrupt the story it tells itself about history, power, and blame.
The tragedy is not that the Left keeps backing lost causes. It is that it keeps backing the wrong side of human suffering. Again and again, it chooses ideology over people, posture over truth, and grievance over liberty. Venezuela strips away the last excuse. What remains is a political culture that would rather see a country burn than concede that the West might sometimes be right – and it will not stop.
"That is why Jeremy Corbyn can call on Britain to "stand with Venezuela" while Venezuelans flee by the million."
Deguello retweeted
WHAT ARE DEMOCRATS FOR? NOTHING. HERE'S WHAT THEY'RE AGAINST.
I have spent considerable time trying to figure out what the Democrat Party actually stands FOR. Turns out, that's the wrong question. The Democrats are not FOR anything. They are AGAINST everything, including their own stated principles whenever inconvenient. Let me walk you through the mental gymnastics required to be a modern Democrat.
THEY ARE "FOR" WOMEN... UNLESS
Democrats claim to support women. Except when those women are men who identify as women. Then biological men are the BEST women. Lia Thomas, a biological male, can obliterate female swimming records and that's "empowerment." The Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act passed the House 218-206 to protect actual biological girls from unfair competition, and ONLY TWO DEMOCRATS voted for it. Everyone else voted AGAINST protecting women's sports.
But wait, there's more. If a woman is conservative, she's WORSE than a conservative white male. Just look at how they treated Sarah Palin, Amy Coney Barrett, Kristi Noem, or any woman who dares leave the plantation. Susie Wiles became the first female White House Chief of Staff in HISTORY under Trump. Did feminists celebrate? Crickets.
THEY ARE "FOR" BLACK PEOPLE... UNLESS
Democrats claim to be the party of Black Americans. But the moment a Black person votes Republican or thinks for themselves, suddenly they're an "Uncle Tom," a "race traitor," or "not really Black." Remember Biden literally saying "if you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't Black"?
As Representative Katrina Pearson exposed Jasmine Crockett in that Texas hearing, Democrats claim racism in redistricting while the DEMOCRAT district elected a WHITE MAN (Lloyd Doggett) and the REPUBLICAN district elected a BLACK MAN (Wesley Hunt, a West Point graduate and veteran). The party screaming about racism elected the white guy. The party they call racist elected the Black veteran.
Trump won the MAJORITY of Hispanic voters in Texas and flipped 10 counties. The communities Democrats claim are being "suppressed" are voting Republican. Democrats aren't mad about suppression. They're mad that minorities aren't voting the way Democrats WANT them to vote.
Here's the Democrat formula: All Black people must think alike. All Hispanics must think alike. All women must think alike. Because to Democrats, your skin color determines your thoughts. They've reduced human beings to demographic checkboxes. That's actual racism. That's treating people as a monolith based on immutable characteristics instead of as individuals with free will.
THEY ARE "FOR" FREE SPEECH... UNLESS
Democrats believe in freedom of speech as long as it supports socialism or their leaders. Otherwise, it's "undemocratic speech"... whatever that means. Hate speech is whatever a liberal disagrees with. They will literally call you "Hitler" and "Nazi" for supporting ISRAEL after their enemies attempted another Holocaust-style massacre on October 7th. Let that sink in. They call the people who support JEWS the followers of HITLER. The guy who KILLED Jews. Meanwhile, they side with ACTUAL socialist dictators like Maduro and chant "From the River to the Sea" which explicitly calls for the elimination of the Jewish state. The mental gymnastics required to call Zionists "Nazis" while supporting people who want to finish what Hitler started is Olympic-level cognitive dissonance.
As Quinn's Law #21 states: "Hate speech is any speech a liberal doesn't agree with."
THEY ARE "AGAINST" DICTATORS... EXCEPT
Democrats claim people should never live under a dictator. They call Trump "Hitler" and "dictator" constantly. But let me check the receipts on actual dictator behavior.
First, let's talk about what Democrats are doing RIGHT NOW. They are literally protesting in the streets demanding we RELEASE MADURO and send him back to Venezuela. Let me make sure you understand who Maduro is: He LOST his election and REFUSED TO LEAVE POWER. Sound familiar? That's EXACTLY what Democrats accused Trump of planning to do in 2020. Except Trump DIDN'T do it. Trump had a peaceful transfer of power to Biden despite substantial evidence of election irregularities. Trump left. Maduro DIDN'T.
Maduro took Venezuela from one of the wealthiest countries in South America, sitting on massive oil reserves, to a country where inflation hit 130,000% and thousands of his own people STARVED TO DEATH. Families couldn't feed their children. People ate from garbage. The Venezuelan people have been fleeing by the millions. Thirteen years of brutality, starvation, and oppression.
And Democrats want to PUT HIM BACK IN POWER.
Real Venezuelans are celebrating in the streets worldwide. Madrid, Argentina, Times Square, Miami. People who haven't been able to return home for 13 years are crying tears of joy. But American Democrats? They're holding "Free Maduro" signs and demanding we reinstate the dictator who starved his own people.
So Democrats will call Trump a "dictator" for... what exactly? Mean tweets? While they actively protest to reinstall an ACTUAL dictator who refused to leave power after losing an election and starved families to death. The projection is so thick you could cut it with a knife.
Now let me check the receipts on who actually behaves like dictators:
Who tried to lock up their political opponents? That would be BIDEN'S party. Trump didn't prosecute Hillary despite "Lock her up" chants. But Biden's DOJ indicted Trump four times, raided Mar-a-Lago, and tried to bankrupt him with unprecedented legal theories.
Who sent an armed raid against their political opponent? That would be BIDEN'S party with the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago.
Who spied on their political opponent's campaign? That would be OBAMA'S party. The Russia hoax started with the Obama administration spying on the Trump campaign. We now have declassified evidence that Obama's people were involved in an operation to subvert Trump's 2016 victory.
Who used the courts to bankrupt their political opponent using laws never before applied? BIDEN'S party. They charged Trump with a misdemeanor past the statute of limitations, bootstrapped it to a felony that should have been federal, and prosecuted it as a state crime in Manhattan where they knew the jury pool was 90% Democrat.
Meanwhile in NYC, illegal immigrants who assaulted police officers were released without bail and given prepaid debit cards.
THEY ARE "FOR" DEMOCRACY... EXCEPT
Here's the kicker. Democrats scream about "saving democracy" while their own party operates like a Soviet politburo.
Look at their last THREE presidential nominees:
2016: Hillary Clinton - Won through superdelegates overriding the will of Bernie Sanders voters. Not elected by actual primary democracy.
2020: Joe Biden - Installed after Obama's kingmakers coordinated to have everyone drop out before Super Tuesday. Jim Clyburn's endorsement was contingent on Biden promising to pick a "Black female" VP. That's not democracy, that's backroom dealing.
2024: Kamala Harris - NEVER WON A SINGLE PRIMARY DELEGATE. She dropped out before Iowa in 2020 because she was so unpopular. Got ZERO votes in the 2024 primary. Was installed when Biden was forced out. Literally the OPPOSITE of democracy.
Democrats keep harping about democracy while using superdelegates to override actual voters. They use superdelegates SPECIFICALLY to prevent grassroots candidates from winning. That's not democracy. That's oligarchy with democratic window dressing.
THEY "BELIEVE" ELECTIONS SHOULD BE SECURE... EXCEPT
Democrats fight against voter ID, claiming Black people and women are too incompetent to obtain a state ID. Think about how racist and sexist that argument actually is. You need ID to buy alcohol, cigarettes, get on a plane, open a bank account, get a job, rent an apartment, buy a car, get a library card, or pick up a prescription. But Democrats think minorities are too dumb to do what literally everyone else does daily.
Meanwhile, what's happening with actual election security?
In Maricopa County, forensic document analysts found approximately 25,000 ballots that were NOT printed from the official Dominion PDF ballot. The printing process showed these were NOT first-generation PDF prints. These ballots showed breaks in all the same places, meaning they came from a copy of a copy rather than the original. That's MORE THAN DOUBLE Biden's 10,457 vote margin.
In Georgia, 315,000 votes were added that had signature verification issues. That's the state Biden won by about 11,000 votes.
The Smartmatic CEO is being held in the Philippines for election interference there. Sydney Powell identified Venezuelan operatives who designed programs to rig election machines. Colorado's Secretary of State had voting machine PASSWORDS posted on a PUBLIC WEBSITE and called it "a mistake."
Democrats sue to PREVENT courts from examining ballots. They sue to PREVENT audits. They fight against chain of custody requirements. They oppose zeroing out voting machines. If elections are so secure, why fight so hard against transparency?
The 2020 Census was plagued with problems affecting accuracy. It overcounted eight states and undercounted six, including Florida and Texas by hundreds of thousands. These errors distorted congressional representation. And this happened under Biden's watch.
THEY ARE "PRO-SCIENCE"... EXCEPT
Democrats claim to follow "the science" unless that science contradicts their policies.
COVID Science: Remember when suggesting COVID came from a lab was "dangerous misinformation"? Now it's the leading theory. Remember when natural immunity didn't count? Now studies confirm it's often superior to vaccine-induced immunity. Remember when masking children was "essential"? Now even the CDC admits cloth masks did virtually nothing.
Transgender Science: The Swedish 30-year follow-up study found that 10-15 years after surgical reassignment, the suicide rate rose to 20 TIMES that of comparable peers. Not a typo. TWENTY TIMES HIGHER. The mortality didn't become apparent until after 10 years post-surgery.
The Branstrom & Pachankis study originally claimed surgery benefits, but was OFFICIALLY CORRECTED by the American Journal of Psychiatry to show "no advantage of surgery" when proper control groups were used. The surgery group had nearly TWICE as many suicide attempts.
Over 90% of post-operative patients are LOST to follow-up in some studies. That's not science. That's willful blindness.
So Democrats believe children can choose life-altering surgery that increases their suicide rate by 20X, but those same children are not mature enough to understand that student LOANS need to be PAID BACK. Make it make sense.
THEY ARE "FOR" THE PEOPLE... EXCEPT CRIMINALS COME FIRST
Democrats are the party of crime. They literally fundraised for BLM rioters during the "Summer of Love" where cities burned, police were attacked, businesses were looted, and people died.
George Floyd died of excited delirium, and while the right called for a fair trial, the left responded by assaulting police officers, burning buildings, and looting Black-owned businesses.
When a CEO was murdered, the left treated the killer like a folk hero. When Trump was shot, they expressed disappointment he survived. When Charlie Kirk was assassinated, Democrats INTERRUPTED the moment of silence in Congress to YELL while Republicans prayed. They're celebrating on TikTok that two young children lost their father.
DC's violent crime rate is 1.5 times higher than NYC's, with a homicide rate 6.5 TIMES higher. If DC were a state, it would have the highest violent and property crime rates in the nation.
Biden granted more acts of clemency than any prior president in history, using an AUTOPEN, including pardoning violent criminals the DOJ marked as "problematic."
Democrats protect illegal alien criminals who've committed child sexual abuse, rape, and murder. They release them. They give them sanctuary. Then they're shocked when those same people reoffend.
THE REAL AGENDA: MODERN SLAVERY
The Democrat Party has ALWAYS needed an underclass to maintain power. In the antebellum South, it was slaves. During Jim Crow, it was segregated Black populations. During the Great Society, they destroyed Black families through welfare programs with marriage penalties.
Look at the numbers: In the 1950s, 80-85% of Black children were in two-parent households, the STRONGEST of any racial group despite discrimination. After Democrat welfare programs? Today fewer than 30% of Black children are in two-parent homes. 77% out-of-wedlock birth rate. The most catastrophic social transformation in American demographic history.
This isn't accidental. Democrats need dependents. They need people who will vote for whoever promises to take more from others and give it to them. Modern welfare is just slavery with extra steps.
When the domestic underclass isn't enough, they import more through open borders, then fight for those illegal immigrants to vote. Same playbook as Jim Crow ballot stuffing, just with different victims.
VENEZUELAN HYPOCRISY: THE FINAL PROOF
Watch Democrats defend MADURO, a socialist murdering dictator, just because Trump captured him. Chris Murphy in 2019 wrote that Maduro had no "democratic legitimacy" and Trump was "right" to push for Venezuelan democracy. Now? He's upset Trump actually DID something about it.
Meanwhile, real Venezuelans are CELEBRATING in the streets worldwide. Madrid, Argentina, Times Square, Miami. People who escaped Maduro's oppression are dancing. And American Democrats are holding "Free Maduro" signs.
Democrats want you to ignore what happened with the 2020 election because they need you ignorant to do it again. They coordinate messaging across platforms with military precision. Quinn's Law #2: "If you want to know what liberals are up to, pay attention to what they accuse conservatives of doing." They accuse Trump of rigging elections while coordinating a "well-funded cabal" (TIME Magazine's words) to "fortify" the 2020 election.
In 1963, Congressman Herlong read 45 Communist Goals into the Congressional Record. Look at how many have been achieved:
Goal #17: "Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism." ACHIEVED.
Goal #24: "Eliminate all laws governing obscenity." ACHIEVED.
Goal #25: "Promote pornography and obscenity." ACHIEVED.
Goal #26: "Present homosexuality, promiscuity as normal." ACHIEVED.
Goal #28: "Eliminate prayer in schools." ACHIEVED.
Goal #40: "Discredit the family as an institution." ACHIEVED.
The long march through the institutions is nearly complete.
Quinn's Law #1: "Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent."
They claim to help minorities while creating permanent dependency. They claim to protect women while erasing them. They claim to support free speech while censoring dissent. They claim to defend democracy while installing candidates nobody voted for. They claim to follow science while ignoring inconvenient data.
Democrats aren't FOR anything except power. Everything else is negotiable, disposable, and subject to change the moment it becomes politically inconvenient.
But what do I know? I'm just someone who actually reads the research, studies the history, and refuses to accept that 2+2=5 because the Party says so.
Deguello retweeted
This is pure moral fraud.
“Under capitalism, it’s normal to let children go hungry… let sick people die…”
No. Under capitalism, no one is entitled to live off another person by force. That’s the distinction they refuse to face.
Hunger, illness, and hardship aren’t created by markets. They’re conditions of human existence that markets are uniquely good at reducing. Every major drop in poverty, child mortality, famine, and disease came from production, trade, innovation, and wealth creation. Not from redistribution.
What she’s really saying is this: If someone has more than I think they should, then someone else’s suffering becomes their moral fault.
That’s not compassion. That’s collectivized guilt.
Banks don’t “force” people out of homes. Contracts do. Loans aren’t gifts. You don’t get to keep property you didn’t pay for just because the consequences feel bad.
And the billionaire line gives the game away.
“They could just be less rich.”
Meaning: they should be punished for succeeding, even if it makes everyone else poorer, as long as it satisfies envy and the urge to control.
Capitalism doesn’t say suffering is good. It says suffering doesn’t give you a claim on someone else’s life, labor, or property.
Socialism can’t answer suffering without theft. Capitalism answers it with production.
That’s why they hate billionaires. Not because people are suffering. But because someone succeeded without asking permission.
Deguello retweeted
Repost if you see this!
Socialists need the wealth CAPITALISTS create. Rugged individualism built America by rewarding effort, risk, and personal responsibility.
Collectivism is sold as compassion, but it does NOT create wealth. It takes what others produce and redistributes it through government power.
Forced collectivism leads to dependency and control. It seems democrats like dependency and control..
Deguello retweeted
say what you will about mamdani, but the man knows his audience:
"we will replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism."
this bald statement, shocking in its un-americanism, is the exact sort of invitation to adult romper room where others take care of you and you never really need to grow up or do hard things or envy the people who are doing better than you are that the midwit and sub midwit youth raised on DEI and "everyone gets a trophy" and over-educated in the false promises of cargo cult college are clamoring for.
they are the 50th and 60th percentiles led to expect 90th percentile lives and careers that were never in the cards for them, hungry in their overwrought expectations and entitled by the grievance cultures in which they were weaned. they are sure that they are somehow put out, put upon, and that someone has cheated them. it turns out that the equity, inclusion, and participation prizes and gold stars that they were told to expect were never real.
but they want them just the same.
so they reach out for "collectivism" that warm and fuzzy sounding set of ideals that has killed more millions than world wars could ever dream of. they clamor to invite the vampire in because they think it will be snuggly instead of cold.
and he knows exactly what he's selling: the trade of liberty for comfort that inevitably leaves you with neither.
but these kids do not know that. they just hear "safe and collective" and line up to get some.
it's always the young, overeducated midwits who do this. that is always the marxist vanguard. they always do this for exactly these reasons. this may well be why marxists are always so keen to over-educate the midwit cohort.
and by the time they realize how empty this promise is and always was, well, it's generally much too late.
new york has a lot of competing power bases and i'm not sure just how much of his own way mamdani will be able to get, but to the extent he does, it will not go well for gotham. i do not envy them the lesson they have coming.
if they think rugged individualism is frigid, wait until they try what passes for blankets under communism.
