Fascist Fascination

20840534_1946333158973455_248823246_nDavid Hogg, one of the brats who liberals tell us has moral superiority and is beyond criticism on every issue because he survived a shooting (meanwhile, the Left tells us veterans and victims like with Benghazi have no moral authority and in fact are liars, even going so far as to downplay the terrorist attack or hide it) has started a boycott of Laura Ingraham because she rightly pointed out he is a whiny little baby. Not because of his anti-gun activism, not because he refuses to accept the idea of reinforcing schools rather than violating people’s 2nd Amendment rights (Hogg even came out against teachers being armed, noting that because law enforcement in his area consisted of democrat cowards that teachers would be no different, forgetting, of course, the uncountable times armed police and civilians have stopped shooters, but remember: this is an impudent child) , not because he’s a typical liberal activist (meaning that when he was born, he screamed and waved his fists like everyone else, but unlike everyone else he never stopped), but rather because he is complaining that colleges were rejecting him. Yup, over a small but true insult irrelevant to gun activism, Laura Ingraham lost a double-digit number of sponsors because David Hogg is a spoiled brat that can’t take the least little criticism, which probably explains why he and his fellow babies refuse to debate on gun control and indeed refuse to acknowledge that another side to the issue exists. A side which acknowledges little things like how gun-free London has a higher murder rate than gun-ridden NYC (London has about 3% more people than NYC, but if the Left’s lies about gun control are to be believed then London shouldn’t even have half the murder rate of NYC).

I find it ironic that with the left’s unconditional support for abortion, attempts to dehumanize babies in the womb, and the NY State Attorney General saying that babies in the womb are aggressors and abortion is self-defense, we have the Left parading a bunch of babies in front of us. I’m also gratified to be able to reasonably predict that once the current firestorm over shootings ceases, kids like Hogg will suddenly find their platform yanked out from under them (just ask the DREAMers about being abandoned). Or maybe even find themselves labeled as racists. Given their elementary us vs. them “I’m always right” attitude, maybe they can get a job with Antifa, but don’t expect to get paid on time. At least they have some leftwing activism on their resumes already, pre-shooting, which kind of explains what’s happening now.

gun-control-david-hogg

Look carefully and you’ll see puppet strings. Look too closely and you’ll see a child whose mommy and daddy clearly didn’t believe in spankings.

By the way- you may have noticed that while the Left is parading the anti-gun students around because it matches their agenda, they’re ignoring or even attacking students or families of victims who are not towing the gun control line. And of David Hogg in particular, let me ask you: how many of you when you were 17 years old regularly used phrases like “living wage“, “white privilege“, and “wrong side of history“? Are you going to argue he’s mature for his age? Intelligent? Remember: he was rejected from a bunch of colleges; that reflects poorly on any argument that he’s mature and intelligent for his age, as does his predilection for profanity. Either the Leftwing activists he’s sided with are handing him scripts, or he’s plagiarizing from Obama speeches.

Before we move on I’ll add a sidebar here- remember how the Left mocked 2nd Amendment advocates (including this NYMag piece that did not date very well) for saying that once they ban guns they’ll go after our knives? How the Left defended knife usage, even noting in defense of knives that people won’t use them in lieu of guns? The mayor of London and other sophisticated Lefties obviously didn’t get the Left’s memo that this was ludicrous and that the slippery-slope argument was an unconvincing fallacy. Or the Left was lying. And remember- America should be more like Europe according to liberals. The same liberals who are caught with loaded handguns which are missing the serial numbers.

To The Matter At Hand – What’s With This Corporate Love Fest?

I have a simple question. Liberals claim to be the anticorporate (to the point that they object when corporations pay bonuses), antimillionaire, anti-Wall Street team, right? Then why is it that every time some spoiled brat SJW takes issue with a conservative outlet or group, corporations (who advertise on equivalent or worse liberal programming) bolt from them like cockroaches when the lights are turned on, but then whenever a liberal is exposed the corporations stand in solidarity like cornered wounded animals? Remember how last year’s great Maddow and Cooper boycott ended their careers like the left’s attack on Bill O’Reilly? Of course not, and there’s a reason that didn’t happen. Hell, why is it that when a conservative host lightly insults a liberal activist who himself has been calling everyone who disagrees with him a murderer, the person smearing his opponents as killers is the one that corporations side with? (Then again, if the corporate heads only paid attention to the liberal media as it fawned over its new heroes, they might not know how insulting the Parkland brats have been.)

It makes no sense to me. Why would corporations flee from or attack the very people who supposedly support them, but then rally around their alleged enemies? It can’t be because public opinion is against conservatives, everything from polls to elections shows quite the opposite and also show that some of the causes that liberal groups circle the wagons around are very unpopular with the public. It can’t be because corporations are diverse environments loaded with traditionally liberal voters who are just following their consciences, otherwise A: corporations would not exist because the anti-capitalist (unless it’s the Crony variety) Left would have disbanded them lest they be accused of hypocrisy, B: the leadership wouldn’t be a bunch of old white men, and C: the Left’s narrative about corporations being soulless non-entities would be disproved.

I am at a loss here for an explanation, unless it were to somehow turn out that big billionaires benefited from the Left. But that would be strange, given how liberals never lie and always tell us that they’re against such billionaires because they’re jealous of their wealth and because they’re mostly white. Or, as was the case with the liberal love fest/media cause du jour Occupy Wall Street protesters, they are against the corporate overlords because they’re Jews.

We all can acknowledge that you don’t get to be a corporate overlord without some intelligence, yes? Is it smart to encourage your predators in this manner? If the Left were as genuinely anti-corporate as they claimed, why would intelligent businessmen support them? Why would companies surrender to liberal boycotts, whether it’s in dropping anything from a Fox News host to an entire state, yet when there is controversy around a liberal the companies seem immune to all boycott efforts? Bill O’Reilly was fired while Indiana and Georgia backed down as a result of boycotts, whereas liberal hosts still have their jobs and liberal companies still remain liberal.

You Still Haven’t Explained The Love Fest

The answer is simple: while the Left claims to be socialist or even communist, they’re really fascist. Liberal Wikipedia defines fascism as “a form of radical authoritarian nationalism… characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce”. Obama’s pen and phone, Antifa, boycotts to advance political agendas and control corporate sponsorships. Sure sounds a lot like the Left is fascist to me. “But what about nationalism,” you ask? One nation- across the globe. The modern fascist Left, while very similar to its 20th-century forebears, only differs in that it switched out the Jews for Whites (but Israel is still hated) and switched nationalism for globalism.

“Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties” as liberal Wikipedia tells us, and if you’d bother to look at their reactions to Trump, and his victory in particular, you would notice that they can best be summed up as “the only voters who matter are Democrat voters”. How tolerant, from the party that claims to value tolerance, from the party who once told Republicans “you don’t like a particular policy or a particular president, then argue for your position… Go out there and win an election.”

From their reaction to Trump, you get a general idea that they believe democracy is obsolete, and with everything they demand the government have the power to do, you get a distinct impression that they want totalitarianism. Certainly, that part about preparing for economic difficulties comes into play, specifically wealth inequality through the partly-Democrat-caused 2008 crash (as I said before, the Democrats walked into a powder keg and deliberately lit a match because they wanted a big boom) is another crisis that society should be mobilized towards. As for armed conflict? They actually dropped that, at least until they started demanding we start a war with Russia.

obama_stern-face

His crony capitalism was intentional, though I’m pretty sure his policies benefiting gun sellers were accidental. Barack Obama Image from evil.news

“The Fascist regime created a corporatist economic system in 1925 with the creation of the Palazzo Vidioni Pact, in which the Italian employers’ association Confindustria and Fascist trade unions agreed to recognize each other as the sole representatives of Italy’s employers and employees, excluding non-Fascist trade unions”. Name one union in the U.S. that isn’t a Democrat donor. And, a corporatist system sure explains why corporations are so eager to suck up to the Left. They want to be the winners. You see, while the Right is generally good for corporations (or so goes the stereotype for you doubters), it’s good for ALL corporations and small businesses. The Left, on the other hand, has a tendency to pick the winners and losers, with policies that all around crush small businesses.

Fascism’s theory of economic corporatism involved management of sectors of the economy by government or privately controlled organizations (corporations)… Each trade union or employer corporation would theoretically represent its professional concerns, especially by negotiation of labor contracts and the like. It was theorized that this method could result in harmony amongst social classes… However, authors have noted that historically de facto economic corporatism was also used to reduce opposition and reward political loyalty”. Gee,  I wonder which political party has done that?

So as the venerable founder of this blog has pointed out before, whenever a liberal yells “fascist” it’s probably because they’re looking in a mirror.

And that in effect answers my question above. Why do corporations always kowtow to liberals, no matter how immature and spoiled they are? It’s because the Left will grant them favors in the future. Sacrificing dignity for profit, and liberals are encouraging this practice which they otherwise denounce. Hypocrisy.

journalists-wiki-tw

Let’s not forget the corporate media that liberals swear by.

 

Advertisements

President Tim Kaine

1200px-Tim_Kaine,_official_113th_Congress_photo_portrait-wikimedia

My approximate reaction when I learned he would not be Vice President is linked here. Image from wikimedia.org

Hillary Clinton, the mainstream media, #NeverTrumpers, Democrats in general (except for some bitter Bernie blokes), foreign leaders with ties to the Clinton Foundation, celebrities, most of our medical and psychological professionals, and the white people in charge of our tech industry were all DESPERATE to get Hillary Clinton into office. Just how desperate? They attacked Trump with what felt like an unprecedented degree of savagery, maybe because of the internet and the Left giving more voice to nutcases or because the Left had to make up for crying wolf so many times already. But that’s not the only measure of desperation. The Left was so dedicated to getting into the White House that they were willing to kill their own candidate.

 

For those who still can’t accept that she lost, it may have been a case of the God you don’t believe in saving your messiah. Remember how she fainted in September 2016? Remember that incessant coughing that plagued her for nearly a year? Remember that book from 2015 in which from alleged anonymous sources (the same unimpeachable ones the Left is enamored with when it comes to their anti-Trump narrative) we learn that Hillary herself may have been worried about her health? Remember how as far back as 2012 she fainted and landed in a way that gave her a concussion? Nope, of course, you don’t. Your candidate was fit and virile. Why, when she collapsed and was tossed into her car “like she was a side of beef”, that was immediately followed by her doing a rolling flip out the other side like she was Willy Wonka! Or so the media and Democrats tell us in their hard-hitting interviews and insightful commentary (and you’re also sexist according to Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D) -and presumably MSNBC- if you question Hillary’s health).

However, we have seen several instances post-election of failing health, most recently in India when she fractured her wrist by slipping in the bath tub and at another point had to be carried down stairs after slipping twice (you might recall this as the trip where she again said half the country were backwards racists, and those white women would have voted for her if the men in their lives had not violated a bunch of laws by forcing them to vote for Trump (but I guess if the Democrats in government won’t enforce the law and handle all the sexual abuse that Planned Parenthood covers for then women can’t expect much help from their Leftist heroes when it comes to voting either). How Presidential. If this is how her health is after a hundred day vacation followed by light duty, what would have happened if she were President? Would she be the first handicapped woman President? I doubt it; I can’t picture her with one of those cigarette holders unless she also started squawking, master of fowl play that she is.

hijab-american-getreligion

Freedom Is Slavery. image of the new face of feminism is from getreligion.com

To the feminists out there, look at the silver lining, we might have the first woman CIA Director thanks to Trump, and we have the first woman to successfully run a Presidential campaign thanks to Trump. Oh wait, they’re Republicans. That means everything they do hurts women somehow, no matter how many glass ceilings they shatter. That’s why Democrats are destroying Trump’s nominee for first female CIA Director when previously they told us just to vote for their candidate because the candidate had a uterus. That’s why it was not sexist for Democrats to vote against both the first female President (Hillary) and first female Vice-President (Sarah Palin) in 2008, instead electing Obama and his eventual boys club that did not pay women equally. Obama and his male chums were Democrats though so that trumped any Republican history-making, and Obama is black which puts him higher in the victim hierarchy so that trumped Hillary and led to a victory for progressives. Just like how accepting Islam and encouraging women to wear hijab as a show of support for Islam’s oppressive treatment of women is also progress. In fact, a current feminist is just such a person.

 

So what would have happened had President Hillary answered the phone at 3am by saying “I’ve fallen and I can’t get up”? Because everyone knows that Bubba would be too busy with the interns to be around when his wife was in trouble. Well, we’d end up with President Tim Kaine.

Who Is Tim Kaine?

wcw-oz

This WCW character is Tim Kaine’s wrestling equivalent. A (at the time) middle of the road player who was given a stunning debut and a strong push for unfathomable reasons, because I can’t believe anyone seriously thought the public would accept it (with Oz because you’re watching a character from a children’s movie wrestle, with the Dems it’s because they thought Hillary and Kaine would appeal to the Bernie children. It’s all about the kids). Image from WWE.com

A back-bencher. Those of you in the know are aware that Tim Kaine’s nomination was controversial, at least to the progressives who now seem to dominate the party. But how did this guy get the job?

It’s A Process

Obama asked Tim Kaine to step down as DNC chair and run for Senate in Virginia after he picked Kaine to become DNC chair in the first place just two years prior, while Obama appointed the much more shady and corrupt Debbie Wasserman-Schultz as DNC chair. Schultz was one of Clinton’s national campaign co-chairs in 2008. Two peas in a pod. Obama allegedly made a deal to support Hillary Clinton in the 2016 race, which he ended up doing before she had won the nomination, in fact, he pretty much endorsed her the moment she said she was running. And we all know how Obama-appointed-Clinton-crony Wasserman-Schultz rigged the DNC primary (tangential, but three months after the court ruling that the DNC rigged the primary and was well within its rights to, the Washington Post said the primary was not rigged).

Y’know, this really makes Obama sound like a political mastermind, rewarding his buddy Tim Kaine for supporting him (Kaine was on Obama’s list of VP possibilities, so maybe the DNC chairmanship was also to make up for not following through on that), while also setting the DNC up for Clinton. Well, it was his campaign that introduced the Democrats to Fusion GPS, who would go on to conjure a bogus dossier that was used to illegally get warrants for spying on Hillary’s (and Obama’s) political opponents, so maybe there’s something to that notion.

Hearsay

Anyway, this background is all well and good, but how does it lead to Tim Kaine being VP,

obama_stern-face

Under Obama’s leadership, the Democrat Republican Party flourished, though at least he managed to “fix” the DNC. Image from evil.news

you ask? Supposedly, Obama made the deal to endorse Hillary for 2016 in exchange for her not trying to run against Obama in 2012 (a possibility that was apparently a source of buzz in DC in 2010), so Obama wanted Hillary crony Schultz as DNC chair, thus he told Kaine to accept a temporary grade reduction to Senator, in exchange for the promise of being Vice President five years later (for those questioning the veracity of the Ed Klein book cited, keep in mind that he was absolutely correct about the Clintons’ intention to takeover the DNC, and as seen in the above health section Klein seems to have been on-point about the fainting spells). That does explain why minority candidates and female candidates and female minority candidates were passed over by the most diverse political party in favor of a low-ranking rich old white man.. Explains why the Democrats trotted out tired old warhorse Hillary Clinton for one last roundup when she couldn’t even beat an amateur first-term Senator in 2008 (and later an amateur first-time politician in 2016). Explains why a moderate was picked as VP in a time when the party was trying to bring in the Bernie crowd. Explains why Hillary, with an enemies list rivaling Nixon’s, picked a guy that in 2008 endorsed her opponent.

Either that or Hillary just wanted someone who’d be absolutely useless and do only as he was told. Or the party elders, as with Obama, thought that they needed to attach a rich white dude to their candidate to reassure the other racists and sexists in the party that everything was under control. Who knows. But all of this makes way more sense than the official idea that somehow Hillary forgot her animosity, an idea which she just disproved in March 2018 with her idea that half of America is still a basket of deplorables because they did not vote for her.

Snopes tried to debunk this rumor about Kaine, but A: they only went after a story alleging that Hillary arranged it all rather than Obama and B: their tenet that other candidates than Wasserman-Schultz were being considered is debatable given that Democrats have lied about candidate considerations before- the press, the Left (Snopes is totally on the Left), and Hillary herself kept saying she was debating a wide variety of VP’s well into 2016, when in fact she already settled on Kaine by July of 2015. And before the official announcement, Obama said he’d want Kaine to have the job. Certainly, I have more circumstantial evidence here for this than what Mueller’s dug up.

And yes, liberals are more than capable of these levels of cronyism. If rigging the primary so that a big lie of competition is perpetrated upon the public, just like with Hillary’s big lie that there was competition in the VP process, doesn’t convince you then look at this example I wanted to shoehorn in here because I saw it while typing this: in California, liberals are mad that Trump’s tax plan makes their rich elite pay more in taxes, so they’re setting up a loophole. You know, the same liberals who say we need to raise taxes on the rich, doing this in the most liberal, progressive, leftist state. Just how trustworthy are these people?

Alternate Facts

In keeping with every other thought piece I suppose it is expected that I speculate as to what a Tim Kaine Presidency would look like. That would be quite impossible. You see, the standards I have available to compare this to are absolutely not the standards of the Left today. Even before Trump was elected, the Left was radically different than it was when Kaine was Governor of Virginia. Case in point: the issue of mass shootings. After the Virginia Tech shooting, Governor Kaine created a commission to investigate the incident. Their findings were quite reasonable. It was not mainstream to say “ban all guns” or “ban all guns of a type not related to the attack”. The mainstream media did not call the NRA murderers. Instead, experts found that there were mental health reforms needed, and Kaine signed an executive order making it difficult for people involuntarily put in an asylum to get guns. Compare this to the legislation the Democrats wanted in 2016 in the wake of a shooting- ban people for no reason and without warning from buying guns, in a way that would be next to impossible to overturn. Legislation which Kaine supported. (Then again, Democrats are now supporting the 2nd Amendment thanks to Trump, in an “overthrow the government because we’re spoiled brats that lost” kind of way. Republicans complained all the time about lawless Democrat administrations, like what Tim Kaine would preside over, but once the Secret Service was done investigating them they’d have been thrown into a coffin of snakes if they said anything that could even be remotely interpreted as calling for the assassination of a Democrat.)

I don’t mean to pick on Kaine alone, the ENTIRE Left shifted once Obama won. Even Obama himself. When Hillary presented the idea for what became Obamacare’s individual mandate in 2008, Obama himself came out against it and said that it would never work. Yet this is exactly what he and the Democrats did when they had both houses of Congress and the Presidency, to the exclusion of other issues which only became important to them after they were out of power.

So What Hellscape Did We Dodge?

terminator-2-nuclear-nightmare

Honestly, I’m not sure if this is a picture of an American city five months into a Hillary Presidency or a picture of an American city five minutes after liberals learned that Trump won. Image from Terminator 2 (TriStar Pictures, 1991)

I imagine that Hillary would have lasted long enough to make good on her threats to shoot down Russian jets in a no-fly zone illegally established over Syria by the U.S. because Hillary likes stabbing her friends in the back or felt slighted because she thinks Putin tried to help Trump or whatever reason floated into her head, which in turn would’ve started World War III. Come to think of it, maybe THIS explains why the Left went with its “Russia committed an act of war during the elections” narrative. Hillary was already trying to push the button anyway. The Left’s dire need to start World War III was there before the collusion narrative, which became their way of both perpetuating their lust for nuclear devastation while soothing the wounds from their 2016 loss. And if Hillary went ahead with her private little war and then collapsed for the last time or coughed herself into unconsciousness because the stresses of Presidency that turn healthy young men gray overwhelmed her already failing septuagenarian health, then we’d be left with Tim Kaine trying to either fight a nuclear war or rebuild after it. The same Tim Kaine who may have merely been handed the DNC Chairmanship and Vice Presidency as a payoff, rather than a merit-based achievement. And I don’t know if his statements were made because of the Left’s post-election descent into unmedicated madness, but maybe a Kaine rebuilding/war effort would reflect his recent statements that Democrats have to fight Republicans in the streets and that whites “have to put [themselves] in a place where we are the minority” (to be fair- Democrat policies don’t really aim for the extermination of a group, but rather its subjugation, hence Jim Crow rather than open genocide, and hence their current activities against white men at the behest of feminism, however, Kaine might court whites in the wake of Armageddon since they’d be weak enough for the totalitarians to take charge). Unless he thought “ooooo, pretty” at the sight of a mushroom cloud and wandered too close to it, in which case either Nancy Pelosi (best known for probably violating some House rule of conduct by crossing the floor and interrupting a speaker because her elitist and vindictive ego was slighted) or Paul Ryan (best known for somehow reminding me of David Hedison) would’ve been left in charge of rebuilding the country.

 

Well… as I’ve said before, at least this would mean those “They Were 11” twits would never exist! Please at least grant me that much consolation!

Better-Than-Worst-Case Scenario

Assuming World War III was somehow avoided and Kaine still became President after Hillary did her show-stopping William Henry Harrison impression, what would Kaine in office be like? Imagine Obama, but inept at being willfully incompetent (I’m pretty sure he had an agenda behind the stuff he did to damage the country- in the words of vindicated Sen. McCarthy: “If liberals were merely stupid, the laws of probability would dictate that at least some of their decisions would serve America’s interest.”). He’d just be a lukewarm filler, using his pen and paper to get liberal policies enacted while being totally unable to handle Congress, if it remained dominated by Republicans. If Democrats took over then Kaine would just sign off on whatever crossed his desk. You would not have much in the way of inspiration. He’d sort of be like Gerald Ford, not in policy (as said he’d be like Obama in that area) but in the sense that you’d forget he was there or ever President. To Hillary’s credit, at least her scandals and her spoiledbratentitled attitude (which Snopes couldn’t debunk, so it cast shade on the claims instead) would serve to remind people she existed, while Kaine has none of that. Personally, I didn’t even know he was governor of Virginia until he was Hillary’s VP nominee, and I don’t think it ever registered that he was a Senator until sometime during the 2016 election cycle, although when I look back I can recall voting against him, but not much else. I’ve been a resident of Virginia all my life, by the way.

The moral here: we can forget about Kaine, and would forget about him even if he were President  (sans WWIII).

star-trek-robert-desoto-ma

Long after Hillary’s failed Presidency started World War III, Tim Kaine emerged from centuries of hiding to join Starfleet. Image from Memory Alpha

Midterm Machinations

800px-Joe_Kennedy_III,_115th_official_photo

“You have people putting forth the narratives and seeing whether they resonate, testing them out and seeing what we can do to build the constituencies.” – Congressman Joe Kennedy III (D-MA). discussing the 2018 midterms.

With the midterms coming up, both parties are honing their strategies for winning. The only real Republican strategy for 8 years, even after winning elections, has been “we’re not Obama” and subsets thereof (“we’re against Obamacare”, for example) so it’s safe to brush them aside and focus on Democrats. Their strategy in 2016 was “you’re sexist if you vote against us” (don’t bother disputing, the evidence is right there, and this is a charge lefties in 2008 levied against the very man who the Left would now describe as noted feminist Barack Obama) and “you’re racist if you vote against us” (a charge lefties in 2008 levied against who they are now saying is noted unracist Hillary Clinton), which led to a bizarre circumstance in 2016 where people who did not vote for

ap_525971738662.jpg

Probably the only time that you’ll be told not voting for a rich white person is a racist act. – Image from the Associated Press

old, rich, white, and racist (even according to the Left) Hillary Clinton were said to be racist against blacks. Falling from that height of absurdity, Democrats appear to be rolling out new election strategies.

What I don’t understand is why Democrats are so upset. A: this confirms their narrative that the whole country is racist. B: why would they want a candidate who appealed to all of these racist people? It’s obvious- Democrats lost because they’re more decent than the rest of the country. Run with it guys! Whatever lets you sleep at night. It’s not like this is the first issue you folks claimed to be superior to the masses on.

You Will Kill People

That’s right, if you support Republicans you will kill people. This started softly with gun control where it could be argued there was a more literal truth present (except right now they’re championing gun control in the wake of the Florida school shooting, which we’ve learned was caused by gross negligence both on the part of the school because of Obama regulations, on the part of law enforcement for not listening to tips about the guy (maybe the FBI just doesn’t like Florida?), then law enforcement again for literally standing around while the shooter killed people. The same law enforcement the Left say we should rely on instead of our own firearms. If the current system wasn’t rife with incompetence typical of liberal big government systems, then the Left wouldn’t have yet another shooting caused by government incompetence to exploit.), then expanded to healthcare reform (even though at the end of the day Democrats’ Obamacare was

cuban-firing-squad-the-real-cuba

Pictured on the left are two typical Republicans. Oh wait, this is from liberal paradise Cuba under what the Left claims was the benevolent guidance of hero Fidel Castro. Image from TheRealCuba.com

designed to kick people off their insurance plans, still gave insurance companies loopholes for discriminating against pre-existing conditions, isn’t really giving much of an increase in coverage and definitely not giving much of an increase in quality coverage, all while giving Congress a sweet savings on healthcare and giving insurance companies a big payday) where maybe it was but maybe it wasn’t true, and finally when midterm-clinching tax reform was on the table Democrats insisted that this too would kill people. Granted, thanks to the liberal love of Big Government the IRS does have a death squad, but they weren’t an aspect of the GOP’s tax plan. Besides, tax reform ended up putting money into people’s paychecks. How can giving the average person $1000 worth of crumbs as millionaire Pelosi phrased it, which the average person can’t do anything with because $1000 is worthless to struggling families according to former DNC (friend of the working class) Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (granted, she was $972,000 in debt in 2014 and in 2015 was worth $106,507 so $1,000 really is a crumb to her), possibly kill them anyway? How is it any worse than the tax breaks the aforementioned friends of the working class gave the average American when they were in power, which amounted to at least -$695 last year.

 

You Are Supporting Russia

obama_stern-face

He didn’t want to put the cart before the horse, he didn’t have a strategy yet on dealing with Russian interference. Image from evil.news

This came up briefly in 2016, but really took off later on (I wonder how Democrats reconcile who they are on record calling one of the greatest Presidents ever, Obama, saying that no one seriously believes the elections can be rigged with the current Democrat party line where every liberal must seriously believe that the elections were rigged). Ever since the Left seized onto that excuse, which repeatedly has been shown to bear no weight (even assuming the Russian government was involved), the Russians have been EVERYWHERE.

They interfered in the Virginia gubernatorial elections, are preparing to interfere in the 2018 races, and are even accusing noted SJW George Takei of sexual assault. They’ve spread fear at the University of Missouri, according to Mother Jones in their item “Donald Trump Joins With Russian Bots To Trash Mark Warner On Twitter” Russian bots spread

Skull-Man-Russian-Bot

Pictured above is an example of a Russian ‘bot, constructed by one Dr. M.S. Cossack. Image from megaman.wikia.com

accusations that Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) colluded with… Russia (kind of shooting themselves in the foot there), were the major force behind the Democrat-damaging Nunes memo being released, blamed Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) for shutting down the government in January, helped back Sean Hannity in a feud with Keurig, and after the Florida shooting the Russian bots leapt to the defense of the 2nd Amendment. Russia’s been BUSY! As has been pointed out elsewhere, Russia suddenly being the enemy after 100 years of liberals supporting them is a heel-turn only rivaled by Hulk Hogan’s. I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention all of the times before and even AFTER the 2016 election that liberals and their anti-Trump friends who scream Trump is a traitor for colluding with Russia had themselves colluded with Russia. I bet the media will blame Russian bots for that too, just like the Washington Post will blame Russian bots for why the Post reports both that Russian bots did and didn’t impact the 2016 election.

Uh… if putting the interests of foreigners over the interests of the American people is treasonous according to Democrats, why are Democrats the ones refusing to enforce our laws and shutting down the government in an effort to help foreigners?

You Are Dividing The Country

Technically it’s true, but their consistent invocation of this tactic is an immediate and

2016-electoral-map-medium

Based on this map alone of the 2016 election’s outcome, I’d say that the blue guys were the ones dividing the country since there’s so few of them. Image from an article on medium.com (“The Most Disruptive Transformation in History”) in which they argue that only the blue areas should count in elections because liberals are smarter.

obvious undermining of any credibility they have when they declare themselves to be tolerant, compassionate, and open-minded. Just listen to the quotes in the links connected to “is” and “an” above: if you didn’t vote for the Democrat, you voted to divide people against each other. They characterized nearly half the voting population as being divisive, much akin to Hillary Clinton’s “deplorables” comment. Essentially, ANY form of dissension from the Leftwing narrative of the day, whatever that might be since it changes so damn often to the point of contradiction, is a malicious act aimed to divide the country. Nevermind that the same people accusing the GOP of being evil for dividing the country are the ones that say whites need to be silenced and should be hated and ostracized and are all racists anyway (it’s not just here, by the way), everyone who disagrees with the Left is deplorable, and everyone who isn’t a liberal is such a bad person that it’s ok to physically attack them. And they hope we die.

Like I said- technically it is true that thinking differently from the Left constitutes dividing the country, in an “if you oppose Stalin you are dividing the USSR” sort of way. In

gun-contol-joseph-stalin

Didn’t I just write about one of his video games?

a “not surrendering to the Nazis is dividing the world” kind of way. I had to put that second one in there because as it turns out Stalin isn’t really that bad of a guy according to the Left so they would actually agree that opposing Stalin was an evil act of division. Just ask, ironically, one of the people who was involved in accusing Trump of colluding with Russia if Stalin was such a bad dude. If you believe individuality is fine, as long as we all do it together (by law or force if needed) then you’re on the same page as the Left.

I suppose I could let my logic about liberals being the intolerant stand alone, but here’s some other reading on it. (I love this one’s opening line,  “groupthink can be harmful, regardless of how right you usually are”, a nice reassurance to the liberals reading it.)

Familiar Faces

You Are Sexist

Despite the DNC being run by men, passing over women and women of color when choosing their two leaders, despite Obama having a boys club and various liberals being caught paying women an unequal wage, and the repeated allegations of sexually-based offenses committed against women by Democrats and liberals in general, Republicans are the sexists. Despite the Left’s dedication to forcing women to wear hijab, either through pressure of political correctness or through the celebration of oppressive religious practices that they have not tolerated from other religions, we are told that Republicans are the sexists. Figure that one out.

You Are Racist

That’s still a thing, because Trump. They assure us that Trump is a racist, the GOP is racist, and thus all Republicans are racists.

You Are A Fascist

That’s still a thing, because Trump. They assure us that Trump is a fascist, the GOP is fascist, and thus all Republicans are fascists.

You Are <insert group here>phobic

That’s still a thing, because Trump. They assure us that Trump is an <insert group here>phobe, the GOP is an <insert group here>phobe, and thus all Republicans are <insert group here>phobes. (In 2014, I recall Attorney General Eric Holder saying that the GOP’s Voter ID efforts were designed to impact the young, old, and minorities, saying that these groups don’t vote for Republicans. Who the heck is left for the GOP to win elections with? In that same interview, Eric Holder also criticizes the GOP for deciding from the beginning that they’d oppose Obama… a game Holder is helping Dems play now. Just another point on the “Democrats would be praising it if they did it” graph).

Wasn’t That Fun?

There you have it. While the Left might find some real policy issues to disagree on and may even have a real solution that’s better than the Right, we’ll never know because their playbook is designed to avoid policy discussions altogether and instead supplant debate with ignorance and ad hominem attacks. Almost like they don’t really HAVE any policy ideas, just a strong visceral hatred of anyone that isn’t like them. Again, these are the leaders of tolerance. The same tolerant ones where 39% of their number say political opposition will strain a friendship, compared to the intolerant Right’s 13% rate (interestingly, the higher the liberal’s education, the more likely they feel it will be a strain, and also liberals are less likely to have close friends that are Trump supporters than Trump supporters are to have close liberal friends). What a happy indicator for this discussion to end on.

Even Happier

It seems sensible to predict what happens if Democrats win the House and Senate. They’ll never get enough votes to boot Trump out of the White House unless 12 Republican Senators defect (granted, it is likely since most of the Republican Senators were elected as warriors but turned out to be wimps once they actually took control of the Presidency, now using the filibuster as their flimsy excuse for inaction, and as we saw with Obamacare there are Republican senators more than willing to betray their base). So lacking that, what measures can we expect?

Well, in 2006 when they wanted to paint a clear path to victory in 2008, Democrats decided to set banks up to fail by forcing banks to accept subprime mortgages. They then blamed the (partly, because the Dems only took advantage of bad banking practices anyway) Democrat-created tragedy on Republicans (despite Republicans having warned about it) and swept the 2008 elections. Either that or instead of a conspiracy (conspiracy would explain why your anti-corporate saviors on the Left basically paid-off the banking industry for its cooperation. Hey look, if Trump colluded with Russia, if DC is still not a state because of racism, then the Left colluded with the banks! Don’t judge me!) the Left merely took advantage of the crisis they accidentally made. And of course, the other possibility is that Democrats will do what Republicans did under Obama- claim they can’t do anything at all until they get either all of the Senate or the Presidency, and make a bunch of token gestures that they would never follow-through on once they had power.

Pearls-Before-Swine-Stephen-Pastis-Banks-Fairy-Tale

Image from gocomics.com

Fattening The Absurdity

trigglypuff-urban-dictionary

A liberal. Image from UrbanDictionary

Liberals indisputably have claimed they are the rational ones. They’re the factbased, settled science ones. They don’t let emotion and instinct interfere. They’re the ones whose policies will make us healthier. So why are these so-called rational, scientifically-minded, health-conscious people abandoning that?

 

Elephant In The Room

Let’s start with fat people. Establishing my ethos (you allow it to impact your reasoning when liberals do it, so here I am too): I was obese for 9 years, then dropped to the “optimal weight”, then gained until I was “overweight”, then sort of straddled the line between “optimal” and “over” for the past 4 years. Except recently- I was a few pounds shy of obese for the last month, maybe a week or two longer. Certain issues kept me exiled at my parents’ house, and as is a well-known stereotype parents love to fatten their kids up. Just ask Jon Arbuckle. Oh yeah, exercise is a foreign concept to me and I love eating.

Now that I’ve established myself as a member of the fat group, thus depriving the reader of their own credibility should they accuse me of skinny-splaining, let’s get to the meat of the discussion. Princeton, one of those allegedly esteemed Ivy-league schools, held a dinner aimed at empowering “fat identified” students. This is exactly why an Ivy-league degree isn’t even worth being used as a napkin at that dinner. We have an obesity epidemic in this country, and the Left instead decides that sickness is health. Why?

Princeton’s Lewis Center for the arts also has a course designed to reveal how fat might “be a liberating counterperformance”. I mean, liberating in the sense of liberating the soul from the body after a heart attack, sure. Again, why are these kings of health, who by their own arrogant statements of superiority must acknowledge that obese lifestyles are harmful, knowingly and deliberately promoting said lifestyles?

Ivy Leagues aren’t the only place, of course, we can drop down to Bradley University and

Omar-Bradley-history

No relation to Gen. Omar Bradley, Image from history.com

their “The Body Project” which tells us it’s a-ok to be fat. This is using the same crude justification that leads people to think that half the population, including themselves, is gluten intolerant when really it’s half of half of half of half of half of half of the population (about 1% of the country). In fact, Bradley does worse than tell us “if you think you are, then you are and should get a doctor’s note”. Bradley tells us that you’ll die if you DO try to lose weight.

 

My weight dropped by 30 pounds in two months. My weight jumped by 20 pounds in two months. I’m still here! Wild weight fluctuations haven’t bothered my heart, however reading all this crap about SJW’s perverting science to justify their narcissism (“I’m perfect and you’re offensive and evil for saying otherwise”) is doing a number on my cardiovascular system!

Now we go from me to the general public. Obese award-winning comedian Sofie Hagen proves why the awards council made her a winner with her virtue-signaling attack on Cancer Research UK. CRUK has researched data showing that obesity is the second-most common source of cancer, under smoking. Sofie’s Choice was to cuss out CRUK for daring to present facts that demonstrated she led an unhealthy lifestyle and then proceeded to back up her attack with points that must have come from the aforementioned Bradley University. CRUK started this campaign because only 15% of people (in the U.K.? It doesn’t say) are aware that being fat can cause cancer. If tolerant, educated, open-minded liberals only interested in spreading truth and knowledge like Sofie had their way then this bit of knowledge would be buried and forgotten right next to the 100,000,000 people that liberal ideas like Communism killed in the 20th century.

I started with fat because (at least until the last 10 years when we started getting groups

Jabba-The-Hutt-star-wars

You are so beautiful as you are! Image from starwars.com

like NAAFA (yes, it is real) and being fat became a civil rights movement and forcing people to find fat attractive became a new form of brainwashing) it can commonly be agreed, even among liberals, that being fat is bad. Well liberals, this is where your ideology has brought us. Now you’re ironically not even allowed to force people to be healthy. Now Michelle and Barack Obama’s efforts to fight childhood obesity make them look like bigoted mass murderers to the Left. I just disagreed with the program because it had a one-size-fits-all solution that left kids who needed extra food starving, impacting student-athletes (this was either an effort to keep male students from exhibiting toxic masculinity through athleticism, or it was a failure by liberal scientists who think reality conforms to their models and throw out data contradicting it, at the expense of the public, much like Stalin’s agriculture program) and led to schools policing what parents gave their kids to eat thus interfering with parental decisions.

 

It’s More Than Fat

rei-ayanami-disarmed-neon-genesis-evangelion-aminoapps

Pictured left is Rei Ayanami: Pioneer of the transabled movement, or dedicated Chambraigne customer? You decide. Image from aminoapps.

If you have investment advice for how to milk these civil rights movements (their term, not mine) for all they’re worth, I’d appreciate it. Because I know a new one on the rise that’s sure to take flight. First was transsexual, then transracial, now we have “transabled”. These are people who have perfectly functioning body parts and want to cut them off. That’s different from transsexual in that transsexual’s exchange one for the other, transabled folks just lop their parts off altogether. Period. No replacement. And it’s not just changing from one version of a healthy human to another. They want to be WITHOUT feet, hands, arms, legs, things like that. We are being told to accept this and give them what they want. We are being told that, like obesity, these are conditions that should not be treated.

I thought evolution was settled science. “Transabled” as a normal thing that humans should accept flies in the face of everything that “settled science” tells us on evolution (survival of the fittest, anyone?). Unless there is an advantage to having a mental disorder (BIID) that makes you want to be part of one of the left’s victim classes. Maybe transablism is just an adaptation for humans to survive in the Left’s system of allocating privilege based on how victimized one can claim to be. Let’s be clear– my intent is not to be condescending and demeaning to people who have the disorder; I’m attacking people who say it should be encouraged rather than treated. What’s next, saying that if someone identifies as having cancer they should not undergo chemotherapy? Haven’t liberals attacked people who do that?

Will the Left not be satisfied until the entire population consists of fat people who are missing a limb and aren’t of the same race or gender they were born as? Let’s add icing on the soy cake and say they’re all gluten-intolerant too!

What’s Next?

Let me take a stab at the next group- ones with known, communicable medical conditions. In California, it used to be a felony to deliberately give someone HIV without their consent. Not anymore, because of political correctness or social justice or something. Maybe this will come full circle and hurt another leftwing agenda, by making it a civil right to put a bullet inside someone else right next to that HIV. Both are just as lethal.

The scientifically-minded Left that wants to keep us safe and claims that any policy is justified if it saves just one life is trying to make self-harm and ill-health acceptable and encouraged. And they’re winning.

The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other — until one day when they are suddenly declared to be the country’s official ideology. – Ayn Rand

Why?

That’s a good question. If the Left is as smart as they tell us, surely they know what the consequences of encouraging all of this will be. Are these failed social experiments? Are these efforts to weaken the Western world? Notice that we don’t see them imposing this kind of thing elsewhere in the globe, not even with behaviors that are just plain taboo and don’t involve physically hurting yourself. Look at gay rights- Indiana wanted to pass a bill that’s the same thing Connecticut has, but Indiana is called “homophobic” and other states and even corporations boycott them. Meanwhile, the very same liberals denouncing and boycotting Indiana are promoting havens of gay rights like… Saudi Arabia and Iran. You remember Iran right, where they are so woke that they force women to wear hijab as a sign of solidarity against Islamophobia? Them and their woke buddies in Saudi Arabia who legally execute people for being homosexuals in a culturally tolerant manner that we are not allowed to judge (how come only Americans aren’t allowed to be intolerant anyway? Leftwing news source Daily Beast in that article tells us that we must tolerate Iran executing gays and tolerate Iran’s different ideas on sexuality, yet the Left, if it had its way, would hang Republicans for being different!). It’s almost like the Left hates Western civilization and look for any way to hurt it, while in turn empowering oppressive regimes across the globe (even empowering regimes the Left itself acknowledges to be oppressive).

Or maybe the Left figures that if they take up every cause like this, and encourages everyone to treat whatever little quirk or disease they have as a civil rights issue, they will never lose an election again since everyone will be reliant upon The Party for their personal civil rights matter.

severed head

If President Trump were just a severed head, would that be enough victim points that liberals could no longer criticize him at the risk of being called “corpore-ists”?

 

Total Idiocy: Democrats and the obsession with Gun Control

I am going to start this off with a harsh truth, a very nasty but nonetheless true. Liberals like to claim groups like the NRA and legal Gun Owners are the problem with gun violence in this country. That is an egregious lie and a deflection of responsibility. And so here we go ahead with this bold statement of truth, if you support gun control it is YOU who have blood on your hands. You are responsible not just for the deaths of children in school shootings, you are responsible for the deaths of countless mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters who were killed by someone who illegally obtained a firearm because they were unable to exercise their legal right to bear arms and defend themselves.

Those of you for gun control will make your emotional arguments as to how I am wrong that just do not add up, and in the end, you will make character attacks and attempts to vilify me. And even some in the pro-second amendment crowd will say I am sinking to the level of the liberals who make these pleas to emotion. I frankly do not care, after so much death at the hands of total fucking retards who watch the same thing happen and push for more of the same policy causing it, I feel it is time to take the kiddy gloves off. You gun control supporters are remorseless murderers with your hands drenched in the blood of so many Americans who you shed crocodile tears for. And that isn’t like one of your pathetic pleas to emotion that have proven themselves to be deadlier than bullets, that is a statement of the reality of the situation backed by facts.

Gun Control Kills

Holocaust_Victims_gun-control

These are the original victims of Gun Control, the nearly 6 million people killed in the holocaust, and hardly any of them were killed by a bullet.

Gun Control is not about making people safer at all. Just look at Chicago and Baltimore, jurisdictions that have had some of the strictest gun control laws in the country and still do. I will, of course, explain later why this is, but the question now is why they still double down on these policies every time despite the fact they are clearly not working? To formulate one answer, all you have to do is look back at history and see who else touted gun control as such a glorious solution and why they did so. Look at the actual consequences of gun control and what atrocities it was used to commit and which heinous extremist groups committed them and you will begin to see reason #1 why gun control is dangerous and why we were given a right to bear arms.

 

gun-contol-joseph-stalin

Joseph Stalin and other dictators relied on new or existing Gun Control Laws to consolidate their power

In 1929 when Stalin declared all of the privately owned farms in the USSR state property he relied heavily on gun laws passed shortly after the 1917 communist revolution, laws that made it hard for anybody but party members to own firearms. And in Italy before Mussolini and his Blackshirts rise to power, the Italian government had banned Firearms and Canes to restore order, a move which left no resistance from those opposing the squads of Blackshirts and their formation of a fascist government. Most chilling of all, however, was the series of gun control laws passed by Adolf Hitler and the SS during the 1930’s. These laws placed heavy restrictions on gun ownership especially for jews and used a gun registry to identify and confiscate guns from Jews and other political opponents of the SS leaving them with no means to resist, the ultimate goal being the nearly effortless slaughter and terrorizing of Jews during the Kristallnacht incident. The moral of the story kids is that gun control is the go-to method which dictators and murders use to take control. Still feel safe calling for more restrictions? If you do then you are pretty retarded.

Just Like Weed

gun-control-pot-leaf

Even though marijuana is deemed illegal by the federal government, it is still easily obtainable and widely used across the US.

There is no coincidence that over the past 20 years as private gun ownership has risen, gun violence has been on the decline. Well there is one exception, while gun violence has been universally on the decline, there has been a sharp increase of shootings in so-called “Gun Free Zones”. This has a lot to do with the fact that only 6 percent of gun crimes are committed with guns obtained legally by the offender, an overwhelming 94 percent of the time guns used to commit mass shootings and other crimes were stolen and/or obtained through illegal channels. To put it in terms many of the jackass anti-gun hipsters can understand, it is a lot like how even though pot is illegal you dope fiends somehow get it. The law and threat of consequences did not stop you from obtaining the pot you freaks desire, it only stops the citizens who abide by the law. In the same way, gun control laws do not stop shooters like the Columbine shooters from illegally obtaining firearms and killing a ton of innocent people, it only ensures law-abiding citizens who are afraid of the consequences are easy targets for criminal psychopaths.

gun-control-NRA

The NRA promotes and protects the 2nd Amendment and encourages responsible gun ownership.

Oddly while groups that promote the legalization of pot never face criticism for drug addiction and violent drug lords (and rightly so because the connection is so loose you would have to be mentally retarded to make that connection), whenever there is a mass shooting in the US in one of those gun free zones where citizens cannot legally carry their firearms, the blame is stuck on the NRA. (Unsurprisingly that connection is always made by hysterical retards.) Much in the same way mature adults should be able to consume marijuana as long as they accept the consequences, the 2nd Amendment guarantees us the right to bear arms as long as we accept the consequences that accompany it. Unlike pot, of course, the consequences of not being allowed to carry guns is a lot graver. Our 2nd Amendment exists to allow us to protect ourselves from criminals and also from the possibility of individuals like Hitler or Mussolini coming to power and committing atrocities. Thus banning guns only makes us easy victims, not only to those who do not follow the law but potentially in a worst case scenario to our own government as well.

When facts don’t work, just cry a lot

gun-control-david-hogg

Looking like a badly tanned meth addict, David Hogg has been the lefts newest “useful idiot” to throw on-air tantrums for them since the tragic Parkland Shootings.

Facts are never on the leftists side especially not with the gun control debate, so rather than having a mature discussion they routinely pick an extremely stupid and easily manipulated poster child to throw a tantrum and cry so that other equally stupid people will get whipped into a frenzy while other easily manipulated people will get pulled into their meritless arguments or back down. After the tragic Parkland school shooting in which a cowardly sheriff’s deputy even refused to enter the school and stop the massacre, The left got its newest useful idiot in the form of the cowardly, childish, and incredibly deranged David Hogg. He represents another cute face and warped personality the left uses to make the argument an emotional one, using sickeningly fact devoid lines such as “2nd Amendment advocates are going to die out” (too bad there are going to be more of them than ever though since Gen Z is set to be more conservative than even the Baby Boomers.), and “The NRA controls Washington.” As usual, there is nothing of substance, not facts and only tantrums, but this is nothing new. The left always plays stupid games like this that blow up in their face.

wguns1

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., holds a gun magazine as she calls for a debate on gun control measures during a press conference on Capitol Hill, on May 6, 1999. (AP Photo/Khue Bui)

Remeber those warm New England summers? Remeber ice cold glasses of Lemonade on the porch? Remeber when Democrats passed an “Assault Weapons Ban” in 1994 that classified weapons as assault rifles based on cosmetic features that did not really enhance the performance of the gun and in fact made some harder to use according to experts? Well Peppridge Farms remembers, and Pepperidge farms isn’t gonna keep it to Pepperidge Farms self. But then again Peppridge farms ain’t no idiot, Pepperidge farms knows the term Assult Weapon is a made up term meant to scare idiots like the boogeyman scares children. Pepperidge Farms knows liberals lie about the “AR” in AR-15 standing for Assault Rifle so they can scare idiots. Pepperidge Farms knows it stands for ArmaLite, the name of the manufacturers. Now I better stop while I am ahead before I kill this Pepperidge Farms joke, but I think I made my point here, liberals cannot actually find a legal or factual basis for attacking the 2nd amendment so they always resort to misinformation and emotional arguments made to play upon fear or outrage in place of anything of substance.

It’s a Racial thing tho….

gun-control-nat-turner

During the Nat Turner Slave Rebellion of 1831, rebel slaves in the Democrat-Held State of Virginia massacred plantation owners.

Now honestly, I really feel that it is appropriate to submit the possibility that there is a racial component to the Democrats opposition to gun ownership as we have proven it is in no way about safety. As I have covered in the past, the Democrats have a long history of racism dating back to the decades before they founded the CSA. This made me remember the famous Nat Turner Rebellion, an 1831 rebellion where Nat Turner and a group of slaves killed 55-65 people, mainly Plantation owners. In the aftermath the Democrats went into a total frenzy, they made it illegal to teach black people to read and making it illegal for them to hold religious congregations without the supervision of a white preacher. Similar laws with widespread restrictions on the Civil Rights of black people were passed across the South and held their legacy for nearly a century in the form of Jim Crow Laws and other discriminatory policies. So it is entirely possible, in fact highly probable that Democrats still have some fear of black people or other parties of oppressed Americans exercising their 2nd Amendment rights in a way similar to Nat Turner. Gun Control isn’t just about taking Guns away since these laws are most prevalent in the cities I would say Democrats are especially passionate about keeping guns out of the hands of black people more than any other Americans.

Lots of reasons, None of them safety

Whatever the reason, secret ambitions to resurrect the fascist socialist order or fear that black people will rise up and kill them for their racist past, we know for sure that Gun Control has never been about safety. Gun Control only creates a set of easy targets for psychopaths with no regard for the law. The tragedies at Parkland, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Columbine, Charleston, Orlando, they all could have been avoided if just one teacher or churchgoer or movie usher or bartender were legally allowed to carry a firearm and could have stopped these insane shooters in their tracks. The blood of all these victims from the innocent school children to the club goers who were just there to dance, their blood is on the hands of the Democrats and their puppets who push the Gun Control policies that make easy targets for criminals and other despicable individuals. That is not what makes me angry though, what makes me angry is that these morally bankrupt monsters like David Hogg or Dianne Feinstein have no remorse for all the blood that is on their hands. They would rather blame the people looking for real solutions who promote responsibility and solutions that do not violate our civil rights. We can only hope though that they do not get their way and create a larger pile of bodies in their ignorant wakes.

Getting Control

guns-goldeneye-n64

Guns. From Nintendo’s Goldeneye (N64)

Guns make me nervous. I’ve fired real ones and was scared to death doing so. I hate loud noises too, so that does not help. Unlike the bedwetters on the Left, even though I’m not a huge fan of the devices I acknowledge the people’s right to own firearms and their utility in matters from defense to hunting (for food). I don’t want things that I don’t understand or can’t tolerate being banned (though the Left sure makes it tempting to flip-flop on that).

Our story today is motivated by the mass shooting in Florida. We express our deepest sympathies for the victims and their families.

Before the bodies were cold the media was demanding more gun control. ANY gun control.

As for these partisan hacks like Jimmy Kimmel who claim it’s never too soon after a shooting to go into a gun control debate, bear in mind that rash action seldom solves problems. Democrats themselves on this issue have been the poster boys for that. Hardly any of the legislation they propose reflexively after a shooting would stop said shooting from having taken place. We’ve even had shootings where the Left demands more gun control despite the fact that there were sufficient measures in place; the problem was that the people enforcing them acted badly. Democrats will be out calling for random action before they even know vital details of what happened.

jimmy-kimmel-abc

I’ve come to learn that I don’t much like Jimmy Kimmel. Image from ABC

Speaking of reflex responses, liberals (Jimmy Kimmel of course, as well as CBS) have adopted a new response to shootings: saying that Trump is a hypocrite because he is quick to attack illegals and call for deportation but then calls for a measured response to gun violence. That’s because the problem with illegals is self-evident: THEY SHOULDN’T BE HERE… that’s why people on the Right call them “illegals”. That’s like saying someone is a hypocrite for immediately knowing they should get a glass of water when they are thirsty but taking hours to complete a test at school. Now there may be complex issues motivating the illegals to run people over while drunk or shoot people or whatever, but the solution is already a LAW: get rid of them. If it saves just one life, right? (WRONG, because even stats that anti-gun folks use show that at least one life is saved by having a gun, yet that argument only works AGAINST guns, not in favor of them, according to our intellectual superiors).

 

I suppose it’s a false comparison with illegal immigrants. Democrat Congressmen and Senators were booing when Trump mentioned illegal immigrants killing American citizens, right in front of relatives of such victims. Anyone remember when they said Trump was a terrible human for an allegedly insensitive phone call when that one nitwit Congresswoman said she wanted to cuss at the President? I’ll bet that same… creature… was booing in front of the victims’ families too. It’s clear where the line of compassion starts- Democrats repeatedly have shown they only care about saving one life when it involves restricting the rights of citizens, mostly Republicans.

The Left, and CBS in particular as seen in the above CBS link, also are now saying that Trump is a hypocrite because he says mental health issues are the problem, yet rolled back an Obama-era regulation so that people with mental health issues can now buy guns. They also claim that Medicaid cutbacks are an attack on therapy for mental health issues. The latter is of course just stupid to say, Medicaid is so full of waste spending that we could probably cut most if it and still get the same lousy level of service. As for rolling back that Obama-era regulation, the ACLU opposed that regulation because it was a violation of people’s rights. You remember the ACLU right, the ones typically favored by liberals? One of their board members said he would kill Trump voters? Those guys? I guess noted attorney Harvey Dent was right.

A Tangent

Coming off of the CBS screed, I’ll point out the usual about how the mainstream media tends to ignore blacks shooting each other. I see it on the local news every evening it seems, but only 3 or more dead at a school or at an office appears to get the Left’s attention. It’s almost like they’re trying to bury black-on-black crime reports if I were to wax conspiratorial. If the Left cared about black shootings, the national news programs and papers would be dominated by crime reports from liberal haven Chicago.

Also in regards to the Left/shootings/African American community- they tell the citizens they don’t need guns, that law enforcement will be enough to handle any criminals or shooters that trouble us, except they also say that you can’t trust the racistpigs”. So if you’re an African American, what are you supposed to think? Why does your trusted Democrat want you to give up your gun and trust the police while at the same time telling you that you can’t trust the police? Why does your trusted liberal tout the support of the evil police? Why do your trusted liberals suggest banning guns to PROTECT the police?

Anyway…

The typical Leftist response in the wake of a mass shooting is to call for more gun control legislation, as mentioned above. Great, but how come that wasn’t always the case? Remember when Major Hassan shot up Ft. Hood and the Obama Administration said it was workplace violence? Why wasn’t there a strong drive for gun control then? For that matter, in the wake of the Binghamton shootings, where was the call for gun control?

Remember: in addition to having the most governors at the time, Democrats had the House of Representatives starting in 2007, they also had the Senate starting in 2007, and they had the Presidency starting in 2009. It wasn’t until January 2011 that a Republican majority was present in the House to disrupt the Democrats’ agenda. In the time Democrats controlled all of this, there were four mass shootings where 10 or more people were killed. Why wasn’t gun control rammed through if it’s so important an issue?

Nancy Pelosi (from Jan 2007-Jan 2011 she was Speaker of the House of Representatives,

111th-congress-wikimedia

Map of the 111th Congress, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) as House Speaker. Image from Wikimedia Commons

second in line for the Presidency if the real one were killed) said in February of 2018 that when Democrats owned the government no one was clamoring for gun control. Four mass shootings (Virginia Tech, Binghamton, Ft. Hood, Geneva), 68 people dead (71 if we count the shooters), and Democrats didn’t really care about gun control according to the recollection of THEIR LEADERSHIP!

 

I’ll cut you apologists off right now who say Democrats couldn’t have done anything. They could’ve passed the bill in the House, ratified it in the Senate, and in 2009 and 2010 Obama could’ve signed the bill into law. Though they didn’t have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate they could’ve invoked the nuclear option if the issue was important enough. Or are you going to tell me that getting Obama’s political appointees approved in 2013 was so vital that it demanded the filibuster be overturned, but saving lives wasn’t? Even in 2007 and 2008 when Democrats did not have the Presidency they could’ve either pressured George W. Bush to sign the bill into law or pressured a couple of Republicans to overturn a Presidential veto. We’ve seen how easily Republican senators surrender plenty of times. There was a motive and opportunity to pass gun control legislation, yet Democrats refused.

But then January 2011 came around, and Republicans had the House again. And looky here, CBS reports that over 100 measures were introduced by Democrats between January 2011 and 2016. Clearly Democrats aren’t short on ideas for how to stop gun violence, and obviously mass shootings didn’t stop just because Democrats ran the country, so where was this legislation when Democrats could’ve rammed it through like they did with Obamacare? Why did they wait until AFTER Republicans had the House?

On the subject of waiting- why is it only now that high school kids are organizing nationwide marches against gun violence? It certainly isn’t the first time a high school was the site of a mass shooting. Where was this kind of mass dissatisfaction before? It’s like with Antifa- why did that suddenly spring up to stop Trump? Where was it when all the other fascist Republicans were running? Why do we only see organized efforts to #resist when a Republican is in office, yet when Democrats are in control and the same tragedies happen we see no comparable efforts (just like with Democrats in government)? More importantly- how exactly are a bunch of high school kids organizing nationwide, to begin with? Maybe as with Antifa, they’re getting help, like the Left alleges with the Tea Party.

 

What Are These Fixes That Democrats Suddenly Realized After January 1, 2011?

Usually, they go for banning “assault weapons”- civilian rifles that just happen to look like military hardware but can only achieve such a performance if illegally modified. Of course, banning any weapon that can be used in an attack means banning all of them. Right? Besides, even the Washington Post wonders if such a ban would do anything. Perhaps it would prevent people from being killed with “assault weapons”, but as mass stabbings and killings via truck or pressure cooker show, interfering with our choices for a hunting rifle hardly will do anything to deter killers.

They claim law-abiding citizens need more background checks and less access to assault weapons even if the guns used in a shooting were stolen. They claim we need more background checks even if the ones in place are entirely sufficient, but either were not executed properly by the bureaucrats or the information that legally was required to be there was left out due to some bureaucrat’s negligence. As always, the Left’s solution to negligent bureaucrats is to give them more money and grow the government rather than to reform what’s already there into something effective. That’s why the IRS has major conferences near Disneyland and pays bonuses to bad employees while their computers still run Windows XP well past when Microsoft stopped supporting it.

It’s a consistent pattern with the Left that when current laws aren’t used properly, their

solution is more laws and more government rather than reforming the present system. Like with the alleged wage gap- it’s been illegal to pay women less than men for the same work for 40-50 years now, yet in the past 8 years we’ve been hearing all about how women earn less and we need legislation to solve that problem.

 

Here’s another winner the Democrats proposed, now that we’re on the subject of bureaucrats and laws. Democrats wanted a secret list to be created of people who aren’t allowed to buy guns. You wouldn’t know that you were on the list until you went to buy a gun, and it would be near-impossible to get your name off the list. Any bureaucrat or politician could put your name on that list for any reason. You would’ve heard this in the media last year after various shootings- it is the idea that people on the “no-fly” list should not be allowed to buy guns either. Basically, if anyone claims you are a terrorist or whatever, you can be denied your 2nd Amendment rights without a trial or notification, which is as complete a violation of the Constitution as you can get. Basically, the Left wants to be able to tell you which rights you are allowed to have.

This ties-in to another gun control measure the Left wants. Recall how liberals, even Democrats in Congress, are saying that Trump supporters are terrorists and dangerousTHESE are the people that would be deciding who goes on the secret no-gun list. What this ties-in to is the idea of meeting a certain standard of mental health before being allowed to buy a gun. It would be these same people, the ones who say gun owners are scared and ignorant, that judge whether you are mentally fit to own a gun.

Would you trust a Republican who said they wanted to redraw a district just to make voting fairer?

It’s a good segue from above- we might agree that one should be sane when purchasing a firearm, but the Right and Left have different definitions of sane, thus we automatically must assume that such measures would be executed in bad faith. So it is with any gun control measure- the Left has made it plain that they want to repeal the 2nd Amendment, therefore when it comes time to talk gun control we naturally will be reticent to surrender ANY rights, whether or not the reforms proposed make sense. Of course, the Left either can’t or won’t acknowledge this, they just say the NRA boogeyman (gun control’s equivalent to what the Russians are for elections according to the Left) is preventing legislation from passing and is also brainwashing people. This certainly makes any attempts at debate by the Left appear to be in bad faith, much as they probably assume the NRA corrupts all Rightwing positions, so in the end, we’re not going to resolve this issue.

the-manchurian-candidate-roger-ebert

I guess the Right really did collude with the Russians. The NRA worked with the Russians to brainwash everyone! Their spokesman could not be reached for comment at the time of publishing. Image from The Manchurian Candidate (United Artists, 1962)

 

The Case for the Deep State

(*Update: Even as I wrote this article, Andrew McCabe resigned from his position at the FBI.)

 

A year ago, if you told me there was some kind of Deep State within our government I would have probably laughed at you. Even with the DNC and Media trying to influence the election, the thought that there was an internal force influencing things was just too much for me to believe. A year later however, it has become clear to me that the external forces I just mentioned act in concert with an internal force within our government that is dedicated to advancing a certain agenda. The idea that a cabal of unelected officials is making decisions with no respect to the will of the American people is a scary thought, but the evidence is there. And the scariest thing is that they are seeing an unthinkable amount of success working against our president.

How Did it Start and to Whom do They Answer?

obama_stern-face

Barack Obama Image from evil.news

Make no mistake, there is no mystery as to who the Deep State works for. The Deep State really started to form in 2009, during the first term of President Barack Obama. The very nature of the Deep State itself is that it is composed of officials appointed by Barack Obama and the people they hired within multiple government agencies. As such, there is no question that the Deep State serves the political agenda of the Democratic Party, and they are willing to go as far as undermining our Republic and committing criminal acts to make sure the ill-gotten gains of the past 8 years are not undone. This includes the dismantling of their own power structure within the government agencies. The Deep State has operated with very little opposition for the past 8 years, and so like roaches that can survive a nuclear apocalypse, they are very hard to uproot.

georgewbush

George W. Bush, 43rd president of the United States

So how can I pinpoint when the Deep State was formed with such certainty? That is quite simple, looking at the 2 previous administrations as well as the current administration, one can observe the differences in resistance to the executive office’s agenda. During the Administration of George Bush, he faced average resistance, however he was able to operate a functional government and at no time were whole agencies working against him. This is typical of a presidential administration, Bush had individuals within those agencies go rouge but never an entire agency. During Barack Obamas Presidency however he did not have any agencies work against him, however they were too cooperative and acted as his cronies to attack political opposition. This is not normal at all for a Presidential Administration and it constitutes a severe breach of ethics that borders on criminal behavior. Finally, during the Trump Administration, we see whole agencies leaking partial information designed to damage the president, engaging in wasteful and clearly partisan investigations against the president, colluding against the president, dereliction of duty, all things that are so totally abnormal.

State of Unintelligence

Deep-State-Insincere-Promises

Intelligence Agencies have done a huge amount of dirty work for the Deep State.

As I mentioned before the culprits are political appointees and those hired by them, and nowhere is the behavior more brazen and more dangerous than in the intelligence communities. This first became apparent in February when reports came out that along with agents leaking information to damage the president, Intelligence agencies like the CIA were actually withholding intelligence information from President Trump. The next scandal to arise involved the fact that intelligence agencies under the Obama Administration illegally acquired FISA warrants to wiretap the phones of Trump’s Associates, using a widely discredited dossier which was paid for by the DNC and the Clinton Campaign. What is really scandalous to me is that figures like FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe who knew about this and lied under oath about it are still allowed to hold onto their positions*. Even chronically dishonest Chuck Schumer Puppet James Comey was fired for his corruption.

Deep-State-Peter-Strzok-Lisa-Page

Peter Strzok and Lisa Page had exchanged a huge volume of text messages expressing their hatred of Trump before and during their involvement in the farcical Russian Collusion investigation. -Image from breitbart.com

Another big scandal involving the Deep State ridden FBI also involves the fraudulent Russia Investigation and the inadequate Clinton Email Investigation. FBI Agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page who had both worked on Robert Mullers Russia Probe were found to have expressed a clear bias against Donald Trump in messages found on their FBI Mobile Devices. This beautiful scandal has blossomed like a Bloomin Onion at Outback Steakhouse, with missing texts which were mysteriously recovered when the heat was put on the FBI. Some choice material within those texts were not just plain anti-Trump talk but also talk of a secret society to take Trump down after the election and efforts to hamper the Clinton Email investigation. Of course, predictably the Alt-Left Media continues to poo-poo the investigations and the accusations even as it blows up in their face.

Ministry of Love

Deep-State-Derrick-Watson

Derrick Watson was appointed to the Federal Bench by Barack Obama.

In George Orwell’s masterpiece about fascism “1984”, there was a so-called “Ministry of Love” that was supposed to deal out justice but instead furthered the corrupt machinations of “Big Brother”. During his 8 years in office, Obama through a series of judicial and departmental appointments managed to turn our judicial system, including the DOJ, into the Democrats own private Ministry of Love. Even now that rot exists, especially in the corrupt 9th Circut of the federal courts which have routinely tried to prevent the Trump Administration’s agenda with a series of rulings that ignored the laws of this country and served only the politics of this countries political left. Take for example the case of judge Derrick Watson, a political appointee from the Obama Regime who ruled against the Trump Travel ban 3 times based off of cases with a flimsy pretext, and has been overruled by the Supreme Court every time an appeal made it to their desk. Even after having his ruling overturned by the Supreme Court the first time, Judge Watson tried to effectively invalidate the Supreme Courts decision by presenting an opportunistic interpretation of the language of their ruling, an interpretation which also got overturned.

Deep-State-Robert-Mueller

Robert Muller was appointed to be the supposedly impartial Special Counsel into allegations of Collusion between the Trump Campaign and Russia, however, his probe has only lead to a scandal surrounding his own actions.

Next, of course, we have the phony Russian Collusion probe headed by Robert Muller, a hardcore leftist and longtime friend of James Comey. From the start of this farce, he has shown that he never intended to perform an impartial probe, opting to appoint a cavalcade of far left anti-trump judges and lawyers to his investigation team. He has also violated normal courtesies afforded to a cooperative suspect when he ordered an early morning armed raid on Paul Manaforts home where agents manhandled him and his wife, a clear attempt at intimidation. And of course, it doesn’t help that the only indictments he has filed so far are against Trump aids and their associates for alleged crimes that have no connection to the 2016 election, prompting one of them to file a lawsuit against Mueller and the DOJ. Luckily this corrupt behavior will hopefully result not just in Mueller’s Probe being ended as well as his own prosecution, we may even see other officials who have lied or contributed to the corruption going down with Mueller.

Goebbels Wet Dream

Deep-State-Mainstream-Media-Propaganda

The Mainstream media has managed to become a running joke.

“Propaganda works best when those who are being manipulated are confident they are acting on their own will.” When Hitler’s Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels said this I am sure he never dreamed it would apply so well to the American Mainstream Media. Then again, due to how ridiculous they are he may have been a bit dismayed that they have undertaken the task of being the propaganda mouthpiece of the Democratic Party in such a crude manner. After all, there is no way to effectively push propaganda when your headlines revolve around how many scoops of ice cream somebody gets. When you peddle stuff like that as well as easily debunked lies, well you just aren’t peddling effective propaganda to the masses.

journalists-wiki-tw

Most “Mainstream Media” Outlets colluded with Hillary Clinton during the 2016 Election

Of course, thanks to the WikiLeaks dump of the DNC and podesta emails, only the most willfully ignorant can pretend that they are impartial agents of truth. Thanks to the WikiLeaks dumps of the DNC and Podesta emails, we know for a fact that the DNC and Hillary colluded with the Media in an inappropriate manner. Thanks to Julian Assange, we now know who colluded with the Clintons and what networks they were a part of, but sadly we also have reason never to trust the mainstream media again. Notable outlets and publications, ABC, CBS, NBC, The Hill, The New York Times, Bloomberg, The Washington Post, CNN, these supposed trustworthy scoursed were in direct contact with the Clinton Campaign to ensure coverage of her was positive and even to coordinate stories. In addition to them were biased Alt-Left outlets like The Huffington Post, The Guardian, Vox, Buzzfeed, Vice, Now This, outlets only popular with the most radical leftists and which we never expected honesty from. The additional issue though is how unprecedented it is for a political campaign to direct the media during an election year about what to report and how to report it. Then again though, Democrats resorted to Fascism for the past 8 years, it was only a matter of time before they took a page from Goebbels playbook.

Not so Private Enterprise

Deep-State-Social-Media-Hydra

Social Media and Tech Companies have shown an extreme left-wing bias for a long time now.

A new social trend has been to get news from social media as these sites have convenient features that show you “trending” stories from sites tailored to your preferences. At least that is what they say, in reality, though they have demonstrated a long-term and established bias against conservative ideas and voices. Websites like Facebook routinely ban and block conservative-leaning accounts that post offensive memes.  while turning a blind eye to left-leaning accounts that promote criminal activity. Instagram banned a conservative comedy group without giving any explanation of what rules they violated if they violated any at all. And along with banning Milo Yiannopolous on a flimsy pretext, Twitter also was caught suppressing a hashtag critical of Hillary Clinton.

Deep-State-Tech-Bias

The thought that information or things like your phone can be used to try and manipulate your opinion is terrifying.

Other tech giants have been demonstrably biased, and this should really scare us as these tech giants I mention produce the software for that phone you are likely reading this on. One example is apple, in 2016 they rejected a game poking fun at Hillary Clinton despite having an overwhelming number of Anti-Trump games. Amazon’s Alexa digital assistant has been making rounds in the news lately as it was discovered the AI is programmed with a pro-leftist political agenda. What alarms me most is the behavior of Google, the worlds largest search engine was caught burying search suggestions critical of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election. Google is also currently facing a lawsuit from 2 former employees for wrongful termination, in which details highlighting googles systematic discrimination against heterosexuals, whites, men, and conservatives have come to light.

Pervers de Noblesse Oblige

George-Soros-1

Billionaire and Former Nazi George Soros

Among the outlying Deep State actors are a group of extremely rich people telling poor people what is best for them cause they are their allies and other rich people are the enemies. Shady and possibly Faustian Power Broker George Soros is a prime example. Known for his funding of the criminal “Community Activism” group A.C.O.R.N. which engaged in numerous criminal acts, he has an extensive resume of trying to influence politics worldwide. Of recent interest, he has also been caught giving funding to an ANTIFA domestic terrorist group. The DOJ is now investigating this as well and hopefully, this will lead to an indictment against Soros. He was also one of the largest campaign contributors to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Presidential run.

Deep-State-Moby

Artist Moby Lectured the Electoral College on decency. He is one to talk right?

Soros is not the only Billionaire putting his pen in the Deep State ink, a prominent sufferer of TDS Tom Steyer has dumped millions of dollars into an ad campaign calling for Trumps Impeachment. The impeachable offense he invokes is Treason, the Treasonous act of pulling out of the Paris Climate accord which asked our country to take a hit to our economy while leaving the worlds highest polluters to go on with business as usual. Speaking of TDS, remember how a bunch of celebrities who donated millions to Clinton pleaded for Republican members of the Electoral College to ignore the choice of the people they are supposed to represent? Luckily America is sick of their hypocrisy though, especially considering their seedy underworld of rapists and perverts they shelter. The damage they have done though is innumerable as for decades they have been putting their money behind corrupt politicians and acting as mouthpieces for the agenda of the American left wing. If there were ideological diversity in Hollywood this would be a different matter entirely. Sadly this is not the case, Hollywood Conservatives often face rejection and blacklisting from the “open” and “tolerant” Hollywood Left.

How do These Dots Connect?

Deep-State-Swamp-Monster

The Deep State Runs Deep within the DC Beltway

Believe it or not, while some of these are seemingly unrelated they are connected in one way or another. From top to bottom, The rich fund the politicians who appoint the officials who work against the opposition while the media ignores the scandals and the famous instruct the masses what to think and the tech companies control the flow of information. I know it sounds convoluted. To simplify it, all of these things are connected to the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is the root of the Deep State, because as you will notice all of the actions of the Deep State benefit them from the Uranium One Deal to the bogus Russian Collusion Probe.

wp-1473130401396.png

Thanks to their hypocritical bullshit along with greater awareness, younger people have begun to reject the Democratic Party which created the deep state more and more.

How do we fix the Problem? Well first would be to purge the Government agencies of Obama Era Appointees, the elements within the government are the only part of the deep state that poses an actual threat and ties it all together. But as Mr. F.L.A.G. covered in his piece about political appointee’s, this is very hard to do. Since the Democratic Party is the real problem and since they have engaged in criminal behavior with criminal elements, a Federal RICO case resulting in arrests and their dismantlement would work. This would also take care of Deep State elements in other area’s I mentioned if they are found to have knowingly contributed to criminal behavior. The best part of this is that it does not really harm our Democracy, another party like the Green Party or Libertarians can fill in that political void. But this is all a moot point as we are a long way off before any solution is possible, but the good news is that it looks like we are winning the battle.