Moms expose library’s shocking ‘Youth Pride’ event: homosexuality, transgenderism, drag queens
July 4, 2019 (Mass Resistance) – Have you ever wondered what REALLY goes on at “gay” high school and middle school clubs and other “youth pride” programs for schoolchildren? We’re constantly told that it’s all about tolerance, anti-bullying, “AIDS education,” and especially feeling “safe.” We’re told that we must trust the adults running these events – who are unsupervised and lacking background checks. Virtually all of these programs take place at schools or offsite locations where parents (and the public) are easily excluded.
The short answer is: It’s a nightmare – and it’s anything but “safe” for children!
'Teen Pride' event planned at a public library
But on Saturday, June 22, the local LGBT groups in Renton, Washington scheduled a “Teen Pride” event at the local public library.
In early June when some parents in Renton first noticed the library promotion for the “Teen Pride” event, they were very worried. Among other things, it advertised “safer sex presentations” and a “drag show,” as well as an introduction for kids to local LGBT organizations. They also were shocked that it was advertised for “teens and tweens.” This can include children as young as nine years old and as old as 19.
Of course, there's no way this was "designed by teens." It's all adult driven.

The parents contacted MassResistance for help, and our Washington MassResistance chapter got right to work. The parents first wanted to protest the event. But instead, we told them that the best thing would be to get inside and take photos and video of what happens. They agreed, and we worked with them on planning for that.
In the days leading up to June 22, as word of the event spread, there arose a big pro-family push to force the library to cancel it. In particular, The Activist Mommy Elizabeth Johnston asked her thousands of followers to call and email the library – resulting in a flood of phone calls. But the library refused to relent.
Instead, one of the library employees contacted the Antifa chapter in Seattle and urged them to take action against the local parents opposing it. We’ve already seen that Antifa makes it a point to attack parents who protest Drag Queen Story Hours. Maybe it reflects their own dysfunctional backgrounds, but individual Antifa activists seem very obsessed with protecting those who push homosexuality and other kinds of deviant behavior on children.
The event takes place – here’s what the mothers saw
On the day of the event, there was no pro-family protest outside the library. Instead, three local MassResistance mothers were able to walk inside the event with their cameras. Although the event was for “youth” ages 9-19 – and the room was almost filled with them – there were several other adults there, mostly involved with the presentation.
Our activists said most of the kids looked like they were around 12-15 years old. A few looked like they were about 10. Many looked sadly lost. The main presenters were two women in their 20s.

Surprisingly, the mothers were able to take videos and photos quite openly during the event, in full view of everyone. What they saw was ghastly. It’s difficult to come to terms with the fact that people do this with children.
The largest part of the presentation was about helping the kids be comfortable and “safe” while performing homosexual sex acts. This included instructions on using lubricant and condoms for anal sex, flavored condoms, and dental dams for lesbian oral sex or anal “rimming.”
Besides condoms, lubricant, and all the rest, they even gave the kids two types of penis-shaped bookmarks.
The presenters led the younger kids through various exercises to introduce and instruct them on the details of how to use their condoms properly. The reason for this was, "if you are performing oral sex, or anal sex, or vaginal sex." It was horrible to watch.
In one exercise, several children along with one adult were lined up with signs describing the steps of using a condom during sex (see photo below). From left to right the signs read:

Pintch tip of condom
Roll condom down erect penis
Intercourse with condom
Ejaculate with condom
Hold condom on penis while pulling out
Take condom off penis
These children (with one adult, second from right) were part of a "condom" exercise led by the "Teen Pride" presenter.
Another large part was devoted to transgenderism – making the children comfortable about “changing” to the opposite sex. Planned Parenthood representatives spoke about their “gender reformation services” that involve “giving testosterone and progesterone to young people.” They wanted to let the children know that this was available to them to make their “transitioning” easier. Make no mistake: This is recruitment.
At one point, the presenters gave away “breast binders” to several of the girls. Breast binders are large straps that tightly cram a girl’s breasts flat to her chest – so she can look more like a boy. In fact, it is now recognized that these can cause serious damage to girls’ bodies. But the LGBT movement heavily promotes these to girls who may be “questioning” their “gender.”
Eight girls got gift cards for chest/breast binders, as if this is something they should want to have and use.

There was also an effort to get the children to take an active role in the LGBT movement. There were “pride” buttons and various propaganda pamphlets.
Finally, there was a “drag queen” presentation. Four bizarre men dressed as women performed lewd, sexually provocative dances for the kids. One sang, "If you feel like a girl then you really are a girl ... sh*t, f*ck." Then they talked to the kids about how they can become drag queens themselves. One drag queen revealed that he mentored a current drag queen from the age of 12. All four of them shared their Twitter handles with the children, to follow their “careers.” (That, of course, will lead children right into a triple-X-rated world of depravity and link them up with predators in that “community.”)
Here's what kids will find when they look at the drag queens' social media posts. (CAUTION: Disturbing images.)
All of this was portrayed as a normal and positive experience for children by the presenters and the adults working with them, as well as library staff members who were in the area. It was only the three mothers who saw anything wrong at all.
"The big focus seemed to be sex, getting into drag, hating your body and being everything you're not," said one of the MassResistance mothers. 
At 5 p.m., the presenters suddenly announced that “all adults not accompanying a teen must leave.” This was clearly aimed at the MassResistance mothers who were filming the event. It was hard to tell if the other adults there were parents of any of the kids.
The presenters told the two mothers with cameras that they had to go now. (The third mother who was not filming apparently escaped their notice and was able to stay and watch.) The two mothers said they were refusing to leave because, they said, this is was a public building and this was a public event, and they were concerned about the children.
The police came and forcefully escorted the two mothers out, informing them that they were guilty of “criminal trespass.”
“We didn’t talk to any of the kids, we didn’t harass anybody. We were polite,” one of the mothers said. “I saw kids that looked like they were 10 years old. It was horrifying.” But the police were quite hostile and not interested in their explanation of what the kids were being exposed to. Sadly, this attitude by police has been our experience across the country.
There were four police officers on hand to make sure that these two mothers didn't go back into the library.
Note: Our advice to the activists prior to the event was to strongly insist on their right to record in a public place, but ultimately to obey the orders of police (and make sure to get their badge numbers, etc.). We certainly understand that in the heat of a situation that doesn’t always happen. Luckily, the library told the police they were not pressing charges and the police let the mothers free once they were outside the building.
The two mothers walked to the parking lot. They were quickly surrounded by four men – Antifa thugs – who began screaming at them and threatening them, calling them vile names. They said they were going to photograph them and their license plates and put it on social media. One began to blow a loud shrieking whistle at them. The mothers had to call 911 for police to come and escort them safely to their cars. Of course, none of the Antifa goons were arrested or charged with anything.
After the two mothers left the event ...
The mother who was able to stay until 7 p.m. told us that kids were referred to Lambert House, "community center for LGBT youth" in Seattle, where the kids were told they are "recruiting performers ages 13-22." The MassResistance mothers have found out that Lambert House has a legal team informing kids of their "rights" - and hosts drag shows and dances for ages 13-22. 
Getting the news out!
We train our people not to be intimidated by the Left’s disgusting tactics. Antifa hooligans and thugs will not stop our MassResistance activists! The mothers went right home and began getting the word out about this hideous event.
Within a day, it was covered in one way or another by several national conservative media outlets, from PJ Media to Fox News. Though those media focused on the drag queen part of it, the mothers’ effort was still a success!
Final thoughts
We all hear a lot about what the LGBT movement is doing to the schoolchildren it targets across the country. But it’s rare for parents – or the general public – to see it firsthand. It truly boggles the mind how revolting it actually is.
Sadly, this trend is not new. For many years, MassResistance has been exposing the content of “LGBT youth” events.
But let’s be painfully honest: The most evil people in all of this are the ones we all trust to protect children – the school officials, the elected school board members, the teachers, the library staff, etc. But they are doing just the opposite, actually helping these horrible special interest groups prey on the children. In addition, their efforts recruit vulnerable kids into the perverse LGBT “community.” Good people need to recognize this and act accordingly.
Reprinted with permission from Mass Resistance.

Americans who celebrated the Fourth of July in 1880 were celebrating a concept of freedom that is opposite to the concept of freedom that Americans today celebrate on the Fourth.

The freedom that 1880 Americans celebrated was a society in which there was which there was no income taxation, no mandatory charity, no government management or regulation of economic activity, no immigration controls, no systems of public (i.e., government) schooling, no Federal Reserve System, no paper money, no punishment for drug offenses, and no Pentagon, CIA, or NSA, no wars in faraway lands, no secret surveillance, no torture, no assassination, and no indefinite detention.
The “freedom” that Americans today celebrate is one in which there is Social Security, Medicare, education grants, farm subsidies, and other mandatory-charity programs, government management and regulation of economic activity, immigration controls, public (i.e., government) schooling, the Federal Reserve, paper money, punishment for possessing, distributing, or ingesting unapproved substances, a massive military establishment consisting of the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA, and forever wars, secret surveillance, torture,  assassination, and indefinite detention.
Thing about that: Two opposite systems and yet people under both systems celebrating their freedom. Something is clearly not right with this picture.
The Declaration of Independence set forth the ideal: All people have been endowed by nature and the Creator with certain unalienable rights — that is, rights that cannot be taken away or destroyed by anyone, including one’s own government. In fact, as the Declaration points out, the purpose of government is to protect the exercise of these rights, not infringe upon or destroy them.
The Constitution, which brought into existence the federal government, should be viewed in light of the principles enunciated in the Declaration of Independence. We are all aware, of course, that the Constitution permitted the continuation of slavery, which is the most massive violation of freedom imaginable. There were also other violations of liberty. Notwithstanding such exceptions, however, the Framers were striving to achieve a society that reflected the values in the Declaration — that is, one where people are free and where government’s purpose is to protect that freedom.
That was the idea of limited government. The Framers could have used the Constitution to call into existence a government whose powers were omnipotent, one in which federal officials would simply be trusted to do the right thing, with the aim of taking care of the citizenry and keeping them safe and secure. They didn’t do that. They said: Here is the federal government and here are its few and limited powers.
Why were the Framers so intent on emphasizing the limited nature of the federal government as outlined in the Constitution? Because they knew that the American people would never accept anything less. Remember: When the Constitutional Convention met, it was with the purpose of simply altering the Articles of Confederation, a type of governmental system under which the powers of the federal government were so few and weak that it didn’t even have the power to tax.
That’s the way the American people wanted it. A strong federal government was the last thing they desired. Why? Because they agreed with the principles enunciated of the Declaration and they knew that a strong federal government would end up destroying their lives, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness.
Instead of modifying the Articles, the Constitutional Convention proposed a different form of governmental structure, one in which the federal government would have the power to tax. Americans were extremely leery. Why? Because they were convinced that people’s own government, not foreign regimes, is the biggest threat to people’s freedom and well-being. The last thing they wanted, after successfully taking up arms against their own government in 1776 — the British government — was another government that would become just as tyrannical.
That’s why the Framers sold the Constitution as a charter that was bringing into existence a government with very limited powers. Americans went along with the deal but only on the condition that the Constitution be immediately amended to expressly prohibit federal officials from destroying their natural, God-given rights, including freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, and others.
Why did they feel the need to expressly restrict federal officials from doing such things? Because they were certain that federal officials would end up doing those sorts of things if they weren’t expressly restricted from doing them!
They also restricted the feds from killing anyone, including foreigners, without due process of law, which meant a trial and a right to be heard. They also restricted the power of the feds to search people’s persons, homes, or businesses. They expressly guaranteed such things as trial by jury, right to counsel, and right to confront witnesses.
Why did they feel the need to detail such protections? Because they were certain that the feds would do such things if they were not expressly restricted from doing them.
The society that Americans brought into existence (notwithstanding slavery and other violations) reflected their belief in the principles of the Declaration. Freedom for them was the right of a person to engage freely in any occupation or profession without governmental permission, to engage freely in trades with others, to accumulate the fruits of one’s earnings, and to decide for himself what to do with his own money. Freedom entailed the right to live one’s life any way he chose, so long as he didn’t murder, rape, steal, defraud, trespass, or otherwise violate the rights of others to live their lives the way they chose. Freedom also meant the absence of a vast, permanent military-intelligence establishment (i.e., the Pentagon, CIA, and NSA).
Those were revolutionary notions. Those Americans are the only ones in history to have subscribed to them and actually put them into practice.
Imagine if the Framers had said to Americans that the Constitution was going to bring into existence the type of governmental system we have today — one based on mandatory charity (that is, the power of the federal government to forcibly take money from one person and give it to another person, as with Social Security and Medicare), government management and control of economic activity, government-issued paper money, a central bank (i.e., Federal Reserve), immigration controls, drug laws, income taxation and the IRS, trade wars, and an enormous, permanent, ever-growing military-intelligence establishment that would have the powers to round up people, incarcerate them in military dungeons or concentration camps for indefinite periods, torture them, assassinate them, spy on them, and embroil them in foreign wars, coups, meddling, and interventions.
The American people would have died laughing. They would have thought it was a joke. They would have tarred and feathered the Framers and given them the boot. They would have simply continued operating under the Articles of Confederation, where the federal government didn’t even have the power to tax.
Why would our American ancestors have chosen to reject the type of governmental system Americans today celebrate as “freedom”?

Because unlike today’s Americans, our American ancestors understood that the type of system that Americans celebrate today as “freedom” isn’t freedom at all.


Jacob G. Hornberger

Quote:“These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.”—Thomas Paine, December 1776

Quote:There comes a time when a populace must stand united and say “enough is enough” to the government’s abuses, even if it means getting rid of the political parties in power.
Believing that “we the people” have a natural and divine right to direct our own lives, here are truths about the power of the people and how we arrived at the decision to sever our ties to the government:
All people are created equal.
All people possess certain innate rights that no government or agency or individual can take away from them. Among these are the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The government’s job is to protect the people’s innate rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The government’s power comes from the will of the people.
Whenever any government abuses its power, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish that government and replace it with a new government that will respect and protect the rights of the people.
It is not wise to get rid of a government for minor transgressions. In fact, as history has shown, people resist change and are inclined to suffer all manner of abuses to which they have become accustomed.
However, when the people have been subjected to repeated abuses and power grabs, carried out with the purpose of establishing a tyrannical government, people have a right and duty to do away with that tyrannical Government and to replace it with a new government that will protect and preserve their innate rights for their future wellbeing.
This is exactly the state of affairs we are under suffering under right now, which is why it is necessary that we change this imperial system of government.
The history of the present Imperial Government is a history of repeated abuses and power grabs, carried out with the intention of establishing absolute Tyranny over the country.
To prove this, consider the following:
The government has, through its own negligence and arrogance, refused to adopt urgent and necessary laws for the good of the people.
The government has threatened to hold up critical laws unless the people agree to relinquish their right to be fully represented in the Legislature.
In order to expand its power and bring about compliance with its dictates, the government has made it nearly impossible for the people to make their views and needs heard by their representatives.
The government has repeatedly suppressed protests arising in response to its actions.
The government has obstructed justice by refusing to appoint judges who respect the Constitution and has instead made the Courts march in lockstep with the government’s dictates.
The government has allowed its agents to harass the people, steal from them, jail them and even execute them.
The government has directed militarized government agents—a.k.a., a standing army—to police domestic affairs in peacetime.
The government has turned the country into a militarized police state.
The government has conspired to undermine the rule of law and the constitution in order to expand its own powers.
The government has allowed its militarized police to invade our homes and inflict violence on homeowners.
The government has failed to hold its agents accountable for wrongdoing and murder under the guise of “qualified immunity.”
The government has jeopardized our international trade agreements.
The government has overtaxed us without our permission.
The government has denied us due process and the right to a fair trial.
The government has engaged in extraordinary rendition.
The government has continued to expand its military empire in collusion with its corporate partners-in-crime and occupy foreign nations.
The government has eroded fundamental legal protections and destabilized the structure of government.
The government has not only declared its federal powers superior to those of the states but has also asserted its sovereign power over the rights of “we the people.”
The government has ceased to protect the people and instead waged domestic war against the people.
The government has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, and destroyed the lives of the people.
The government has employed private contractors and mercenaries to carry out acts of death, desolation and tyranny, totally unworthy of a civilized nation.
The government through its political propaganda has pitted its citizens against each other.
The government has stirred up civil unrest and laid the groundwork for martial law.
Repeatedly, we have asked the government to cease its abuses. Each time, the government has responded with more abuse.
An Imperial Ruler who acts like a tyrant is not fit to govern a free people.
We have repeatedly sounded the alarm to our fellow citizens about the government’s abuses. We have warned them about the government’s power grabs. We have appealed to their sense of justice. We have reminded them of our common bonds.
They have rejected our plea for justice and brotherhood. They are equally at fault for the injustices being carried out by the government.
Thus, for the reasons mentioned above, we the people of the united States of America declare ourselves free from the chains of an abusive government. Relying on God’s protection, we pledge to stand by this Declaration of Independence with our lives, our fortunes and our honor.

OMG! This is hilarious

Last Wednesday and Thursday night, the top twenty Democratic presidential candidates—yes, there are actually more than twenty—locked horns in Miami to bitch about corporations, racial injustice, brown children who are denied Facebook access in concentration camps, how guns are uncool, and all the other shit no one really cares about. Every last one of them was rich and powerful—at least compared to me—yet none of them could stop screaming about the “rich and powerful.”
After thinking that my vote for Trump would change something—anything—I’m back to where I was before 2016—despondent that voting changes anything at all. I am unfamiliar with nearly all of these clowns, and I doubt that I’d be persuaded even if they explained their policies.

My “analysis” of their performances is based not on their policies, because I doubt that even they understand their policies, if they in fact have them. Instead,I will focus on what actually decides elections—physiognomy and gut reactions.
Here are the 20 candidates, presented in alphabetical order.
MICHAEL BENNET
Right out of the box, I’m annoyed that he spells his surname with only one “T.” But not only is that unforgivable, as is the fact that he has all the personality of room-temperature milk, he had to go and blow everything by announcing, live and onstage, that he is a recent survivor of prostate cancer. This means that doctors have been fiddling around inside his anus. How will that look—and smell—on a world stage? It also means that he has been compromised as a male, and this is entirely unacceptable. A man without a functional and robust prostate gland is not fit to be the leader of the free world. Do we really want a president who won’t ever be able to achieve another erection? He has no chance to become president, and he really needs to shut up.
JOE BIDEN
This duplicitous, shape-shifting cactus is drying up in front of our eyes. If he survives the primaries and is the Democratic nominee, his body will contain all the moisture of a tumbleweed on Election Eve, and a dehydrated president is not what this nation needs right now. Even though he’s a white man, he wants everyone to know he’s not cool with it, and he went out of his way to call Trump a racist and a supporter of white supremacists. It didn’t help, though—the mulatto mud-puppy Kamala Harris ate him alive on some alleged “racism” in his past, but Joe knew it would be political suicide to get salty with an ex-Negress. And there’s no way his teeth are real.

CORY BOOKER
This bullet-headed, haunted-eyed faygelah surrounds himself with hostile-looking black women and claims that people on his block are getting shot all the time, and somehow he expects this to be his pathway to electoral victory? Apparently both of his parents were black, but not by much, as he’d have trouble passing the paper-bag test. During the debate he claimed, without a hint of irony, that “we” don’t talk nearly enough about black trannies. This, combined with his terrifying eyes and pronounced frown lines, suggests to me that he may be the first gay mulatto serial killer to run for president of a major American political party. His name should be Scary Booker. Keep him away from your children; he’s far too frightening.
PETE BUTTIGIEG
Should any president have a husband, much less a male president? Mayor Pete’s upper lip has a five o’clock shadow that is borderline Nixonian, and as he spoke in his disingenuously earnest way, I kept wondering: How many male buttholes has he sniffed? It may not seem relevant to you, but it’s intensely relevant to me: I’m not saying we should have a woman president, but if we did, we should assume that at one point or another during her various sexual escapades she’s caught a whiff of a male anus. But the fact that Pete Buttigieg has undoubtedly sniffed at least one male butthole is a deal-breaker. Sorry, but you can’t ever walk that back.
JULIAN CASTRO
Greasy and reptilian, this half-pint race-hustler eats beans and remembers the Alamo. He kept breaking into some weird language that I assume was Spanish but couldn’t be bothered to check. His entire campaign seems to be based on the fact that he’s Hispanic. But so was Richard “The Night Stalker” Ramirez. I can tell he hates gringos with every drop of grease that drips from his ample forehead. Plus, he refuses to pronounce the “J” in “Julian.”
“A measure of weight lighter than a milligram should be called a “beto.””
BILL DE BLASIO
The worst hook nose and teeth of any presidential candidate I’ve ever seen. Being very tall doesn’t compensate for these glaring physical deficiencies. He made a point of mentioning that his son is black and that, by proxy, he has experienced anti-black racism. His biggest accomplishment in life is dragging a black lesbian back onto Team Hetero—impressive, but hardly presidential.
JOHN DELANEY
Way too bald to be president. Blindingly bald. All I see is bald. His eyes are intensely terrifying, perhaps even scarier than Cory Booker’s. His eyes bear the anguished and mortified expression of a man who had seen himself bald in the mirror for the first time in his life only minutes before walking onstage. He sees himself as the most moderate candidate, but he is also the baldest. Extremely bald cancels out politically moderate every time.
TULSI GABBARD
The only sensible antiwar voice in the whole campaign on either side and quite possibly the only surfer, too. She is not only Samoan, but she isn’t fat. And if she’s going to be religious, she might as well be a Hindu, because at least they have the best food. Surrounded as she is by other female candidates who couldn’t get laid at a bar in Fairbanks in mid-January at 2AM surrounded by horny lumberjacks, she is possibly the most attractive female who has ever run for president. She is also the most “presidential” in mien. She is the only candidate toward whom I had a positive reaction. I’m finding it difficult to say anything negative about her, and it’s pissing me off.
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND
Blinking multiple times per second, Ms. Kirsten wants everyone to know that she’s a woman, but we knew that already because she can’t shut up. Everything is women women women women, and I’d like to stand before the world to announce it’s not an accomplishment to be born with a vagina, especially one I suspect is icy-cold and bears the faint aroma of clam juice and boiled cabbage. She kept interrupting everyone like the rude bitch she obviously is. If she actually meant half of what she said, she would have had a live abortion onstage during the debate.
KAMALA HARRIS
For someone who was obviously named after a famous pro wrestler—whose surname was also Harris—she grossly disrespects her heritage by insisting on mispronouncing her uniquely enchanting first name. Although she is half-black and half-Tamil Indian, I’ve never heard her say “I am a Tamil Indian and I am proud of it,” but just this year she said the same thing about being black, even though her cup of java has at least three scoops of Coffee Mate in it. She clearly hates white people and all they’ve accomplished and has made it her goal to turn the First World into the Third World while pretending it represents “progress.”
JOHN HICKENLOOPER
The Lincoln Chafee of this voting cycle, this goofy-assed fossil is polling less than 1% because he has a ridiculous name and an even more ridiculous toupee. Hairpieces should disqualify anyone from public office. He also slices his wrinkled throat by announcing that he opposes socialism in a party that fellates Karl Marx. Beyond that, I don’t know what he stands for and I don’t want to know. All I know is that I disapprove of this so-called “man.”
JAY INSLEE
A bit of a blockhead, he looks like a high school football coach who has spent most of his adult life immersed in a world of jockstraps and butt-slaps. He’s kind of the most “presidential-looking” of all the Democratic candidates in classical terms, but he’s not running in a classically oriented party. Being a normal-looking white male will be his death blow, and unless he transitions into a woman over the next 90 days, he needs to pack his duffel bag and get the heck out of here.
AMY KLOBUCHAR
Despite her unfortunate face and name, she smiles so much she seems drunk—and she may indeed be snockered simply to take the edge off what is a legendary temper. She has a self-satisfied smile that makes up for an appalling lack of beauty. She kept staring at Tulsi Gabbard as if she wanted to have sex with her. Still, I couldn’t find it within me to hate her, which is miraculous.
BETO O’ROURKE
Like some people are famous for being famous, he’s best known for being a candidate who thinks he should be a candidate. With a candy-corn nose on a Howdy Doody face, he redefines the term “lightweight.” A measure of weight lighter than a milligram should be called a “beto.” He appeared chastened by the fact that no one thinks he should be president more than he does. Like at least three other candidates—only one of whom was Hispanic—he made a point of speaking in Spanish. Why, it’s almost as if all the wetbacks in southern Texas don’t see him as a gringo no matter how hard he aims to please.
TIM RYAN
What a boring name. The only thing worse would be if his name was Kevin Ryan. This is the sort of guy who would choose to live in Ohio even if he didn’t have to. He came off like kind of a dumb douchebag—maybe the douchebaggiest of them all. Paranoid and charmless, he also suffers from noticeably dark circles under his eyes, and anus eyes do not a viable candidate make.
BERNIE SANDERS
The passage of four years has done nothing to make him happier; if anything, he’s more crotchety than ever, which I assumed was biologically impossible. Always shvitzing and kvetching and on the verge of popping a blood vessel, he is the angriest person in politics. Did you not hear him the first seven hundred times when he said, “We’re doomed”? I did, and I stopped listening after a while.
ERIC SWALWELL
Smirkingly overconfident in an asshole-jock kind of way, he looks the candidate most likely to be a date rapist. Remember, this is the power-hungry lunatic who arrogantly proclaimed that the US government has nukes and would easily squash any insurgency by gun owners. He kept reminding Joe Biden that he was younger than Joe Biden, apparently unaware that everyone in the theater was younger than Joe Biden. He also made some comment about the smell of diapers, which should have disqualified him from the debate right then and there. Plus, his last name is confusing.
ELIZABETH WARREN
What a tightly wound ball of twine this wannabe squaw is. She kept shaking her head so hard I feared it would fly off. She was so uncomfortably intense it seemed as if her ovaries were going to explode. She reminded me of grade-school nuns who’d beat you bloody with a yardstick if she so much as suspected you were even thinking of masturbating.
MARIANNE WILLIAMSON
It is quite evident that this woman’s vagina cries actual tears. She criticized the other candidates for having these dumb and superficial “plans” while insisting what is really needed is to come up with a slogan as empty as “Make America Great Again.” She said that the great struggle in this campaign season is between love and hate, and she represents love, and she’s actually stupid enough to think that Americans are dumb enough to vote for love, but if they are, she’s a genius.
ANDREW YANG
Despite being the only male without a tie, this anti-gun Russia conspiracy nutter was easily the most uptight candidate of both debates. Being Asian may be a blessing when it comes to math skills, but it is a crippling liability when it comes to the sort of charisma required to be a national leader. Yang once mentioned that whites were being affected by the opioid crisis, and as such he is the only presidential candidate in memory who has ever explicitly expressed sympathy for white people. But the moment it was brought to his attention that white nationalists supported him, he explicitly disavowed them. He won’t last past the first couple months of primaries, and every former Alt-Righter who hopped on the mega-cringey “Yang Gang” train will look like the directionless, idea-free, bandwagon-jumping meme-tards I’ve always said they are.

Oh, Look, Elliot Abrams is mentioned.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-2...opposition

and attempt to manipulate. Honesty is not their strong-suit.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-2...arking-lot

And it's a good one: Trade Bolton for Tulsi
https://www.wnd.com/2019/06/memo-to-trum...for-tulsi/

Didn't/Couldn't watch the socialist debate, but here are Drudge results of poll of participants
https://poll.fm/10351539/results

Obama's 'wholesale destruction' of tens of thousands of National Archive Records

https://canadafreepress.com/article/obam...hive-recor

Jimmy Dore reminds us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nICgdE_5Z84