Fake News: The deliberate lie that is unraveling the world… that’s more pervasive than you’d think

Author’s Note: The term ‘fake news’ has become a famous/infamous buzzword in the past 2 years as its been used by everyone from Donald Trump to Mainstream Media sources that still have their panties in a twist about the results of the 2016 election. So what do they mean when they call a source or a story ‘Fake News’? Is it consistently applied? How does one not fall victim to ‘Fake News’ stories?

This article will cover what ‘Fake News’ is and, unlike the half-baked bull$hit articles put out by mainstream media organizations on ‘How to spot fake news’ (which are laughably absurd), I’m going to cut through their crap and deliver a better set of guidelines in helping readers identify what’s Fact and Feces as far as News is concerned.

So, what is ‘Fake News’?

Well, that’s going to depend on who you ask. On one of the mainstream media sites that try to ‘help’ people identify ‘fake news’ they list mostly nonsensical ‘giveaways’ like ‘domain name’ and the ‘about section’, which is just completely phony.  None of the major media news organizations give a detailed rundown of their entire staff and where they donate politically. They only list the past reporting credentials of their editors that sound professional but fail to disclose the most relevant aspect of their news view: the degree of their partisan alignment.

Hell, even worse, is that they only list the editors of their online stories and fail to explain that network executives are the ones who drive the direction of editorial staff who then drive the direction and phrasing of news stories delivered by reporters. Wikileaks revealed that direct collusion between ‘respected news sources’ and political candidates was a major issue in the 2016 presidential campaign with CNN (especially) and Hillary Clinton.

Probably the most honest of the online sources on ‘fake news’ call articles that are “hyper-partisan in tone” and “designed to make you angry” ‘Fake News’. Which means that nearly every news organization out there that’s trying to take a dump in Trump’s morning coffee with the constant hyperbolic denunciations of what he’s doing in office that isn’t significantly different from the actions of previous presidents is….Fake News. So, by that definition, MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS (and let’s not forget Fox) are all Fake News.

If that is indeed the case, Donald Trump has been correct in calling them out for any number of stories that they’ve run in the past 2 years. (Full Disclosure: I don’t much care for the guy. I think he’s an arrogant, petulant, boisterous, self-worshipping boob who somehow bumbled, stumbled, and fell into the presidency. His only redeeming quality is he seems to correctly Call Things as They Are far more frequently than can be attributed to random chance.)

While I do agree with the general premise of the USA Today criteria on Fake News, I feel that it doesn’t quite tell the whole story on ‘Fake News’. Which is, ironically, probably the best definition of Fake News: that it doesn’t tell the Full Story or the Truth about an event (and that it attempts to selectively generate public outrage for some public figures that engage in certain behaviors while sweeping the same situations under the rug for others).

So, how does one spot ‘fake news’ in a world that has mainstream news organizations attempting to whip you into a frenzy and manipulate you at every turn of the page and click of the channel? Well, I’ve come up with some guidelines as far as that’s concerned….

Guideline #1: Believe nothing that you read and maybe only half of what you see.

This one is pretty straightforward. People lie. They lie to themselves, they lie to their loved ones, and they lie to strangers. They lie whenever it suits them. It’s what people do.

People also love drama. They can say that they don’t, but they’re probably lying (see above). Most people are gossiping high-schoolers (of any age) and they want to hear the juiciest rumor about people or positions that they don’t like. It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not and if it’s not true, all the more reason to just make something up.

News organizations know that you want to hear certain stories that reinforce your skewed view of the world. It’s why they only report certain stories or angles on NBC, MSNBC, CBS, etc., and why they only report certain stories or angles on Fox News. Media organizations are more in the business of manipulating people than actually reporting on the events of the day. It makes them buttloads of money and they know that you’ll segregate yourselves out to the ‘correct’ network to indoctrinate yourselves based on your preconceived notions on the world. In that (and in other ways) media organizations suck, but it’s what they do.

Know that your media source of choice is not telling you the full story or the full truth when they report on a topic because they gain more by twitching your puppet strings and manipulating you than letting you know what’s really going on in the world and you might be good. (Though, probably not. You’re probably still screwed.)

Guideline #2: If a story seems ‘shocking’ or ‘unbelievable’, it probably is.

Adolf Hitler once said, “The masses will more easily believe a great lie than a little one.” I think we all know how that turned out. History repeats itself because the masses never get smarter or better informed. Don’t be ‘the masses’. (Because sometimes, the ‘m’ is silent.)

If you hear a story that seems ridiculous, shocking or unbelievable, don’t be a lazy twit and just accept it. Do some research on the matter and look at multiple sources. Remember above where I mentioned that media machines are in the business of feeding you bull$hit because they know you want to swallow it? Same thing applies here. Stop biting on the ‘juicy’ stories and swallowing the crap that they’re feeding you until you’ve exhausted all the sources you can find.

Guideline 3: When you’re trying to research how truthful a story is, look for repetitious phrasing in the sources to identify those who copy others’ story and establish which media organizations are working together.

People in media are just as lazy as the people who aren’t in media. If they can get away with simply copying someone else’s news report and simply rewriting a few sections, they’ll do it. What’s most important to note in these situations are the words that are copied and pasted from one report to the next. Media narratives (and propaganda) only work by repeating the same stance or story over and over. Media psychologists have shown that if you can repeat a story or a lie often enough to people, they will eventually believe and accept it, regardless of how True the story is. They also know that if the lie (or story) deviates too much with each new telling, people have a harder time keeping track of it and start questioning the story.

This is why I say that you should look for the same phrasing showing up in different sources’ ‘news reports’. These are typically political agendas that media organizations are trying to force you to accept as being true. They aren’t that concerned with the generalities of the news stories that they feed you so much as they are with you internalizing and accepting their talking points as ‘true’.

Guideline 4: Skip the Snopes and Politifact websites out there.

With the rise of ‘fake news’ has come the rise of ‘fact-checking’ websites. To be fair, they used to be about checking the veracity of the claims of public figures. But as with all endeavors that initially have ‘good’ intentions, they gained the trust of the masses and then turned into worthless piles of garbage run by political hacks who aren’t interested in The Truth.

The majority of the fact checker sites I’ve perused lately don’t list any facts or cite any sources for their ‘fact checking’. Instead, they look to spin the particulars of the claims being made in such a way as to discredit them without really providing any hard evidence to the contrary. Which pretty much ensures that they aren’t going to ascertain the Truth of a claim.

(Want proof? Check out this article and this Snopes ‘fact-checked’ version of the same article. Notice the linguistic and interpretive gymnastics that are at work to ‘debunk’ the claim? Snopes and other ‘fact-checking’ sites don’t bother citing any sources for their de-bunkery. It’s almost like they’re entirely fabricated…)

These fact-checking sites have become more about helping to push a political narrative for ‘their’ party than cutting through the collective crap and Telling It Like It Is (and the feelings of their friends and political ‘bros’ be damned). The Truth doesn’t have an agenda and it is just as cutting to one group as it is to another. The Truth takes no sides.

And yes, I know that this makes it harder to verify what’s ‘True’ in news by ditching these phony ‘fact-checker’ sites. It sucks more than a Shop-Vac® on High that there aren’t sites out there that are truly dedicated to helping people make sense of what’s really going on in the world that are truly non-partisan, but that kind of crap gets expensive and I don’t have the time, money, or a trustworthy research staff available to set something like that up.

Guideline 5: Don’t start off mentally rigid on what you think you know about a topic or story before all the information is in.

What’s actually True is largely a matter of likelihoods or probabilities. Initial reports have a low probability of getting the story completely right because not all the information has been gathered. Getting set in the mental rut of ‘this breaking news story is 100% True and nothing anyone can say could possibly change how this story may play out’ is more than likely going to make you look like a stupid a$$ when all the information comes in.

This guideline might be the hardest to explain and the hardest to adopt so I think an example would be easiest. Remember the Trayvon Martin case? How it initially blew up in the media? The story started off with ‘poor little innocent black youth Trayvon Martin’ getting ‘viciously gunned down in cold blood’ in an ‘unprovoked attack’ by some ‘White guy’ named George Zimmerman.

Most of the dumba$$ public (as opposed to the ‘regular’ public) lost it when the initial story came out because, ‘well, damn…  a name like ‘George Zimmerman’ sounds like a White Guy Name and everyone ‘knows’ that ‘all’ white people are ‘inherently’ racists and other races can’t possibly be racist, so it was definitely another case of ‘systemic racism’ and white-on-black crime’.

Add in how the media ‘creatively edited’ Zimmerman’s 911 call to make Zimmerman look Super-Racist (with Tolerance and Understanding as his Kryptonite) and how the media refused to show the photographs of Zimmerman taken immediately after the attack in order to really push the whole ‘innocent black teen’ angle and you get a Perfect Storm of Ignorance. Social Justice Wormiers and Black Supremacist groups started ‘organizing’ and chomping at the bit for ‘justice’ (justice or ‘just us’? what do they really want?) to show ‘solidarity’ with poor, ‘oppressed’ Trayvon. These groups bit on the initial story and refused to wait for all the information. Idiots.

But then some previously ‘missing’ information was made available to the public. First, the neighborhood where the whole altercation went down had several armed break-ins and burglaries in the weeks leading up to the shooting. Then, it became known that the altercation took place at close to 3 am while Zimmerman was performing a neighborhood watch sweep. Then, it became known that Trayvon was behaving erratically and attacked Zimmerman first and that Zimmerman shot Martin last. Then, the audio and transcript for the full 911 call came out. Then, it was revealed that Zimmerman was Hispanic and not White and, once a broader picture of the event had been painted, it suddenly wasn’t a racially-motivated Hate Crime for an older Hispanic homeowner to address a young black male, who, was wandering around and acting strange in a neighborhood that had been recently beset by crime at 3 o’clock in the morning, who then proceeded to physically attack said Hispanic man before getting shot.

The same s#it happened with Michael Brown in Ferguson. Dumbasses went all-in on the initial reports of a white authority figure killing an ‘innocent, non-threatening, young, black male’, immediately leapt into outrage and started rioting and looting ‘peacefully protesting’. Then, once more information came in about the attacks that corroborated the officer’s story, these groups turned into spineless little chickens#its who started worming their way out of accepting that they were wrong in the first place with all manner of excuses: ‘Oh, it’s just a conspiracy by the cops….or white people…or the mayor….or ‘systemic racism’…or… or… or…’

Or, it’s just a ‘conspiracy’ (is it really a conspiracy if everyone knows about it?) by the media that has an angle to run, that knows that they can manipulate you because you always respond with the same dumbass knee-jerk reactionary nonsense to these kinds of stories. Maybe you could try getting all the facts before taking any action that would make yourselves look stupid on national television. Or you could just keep doubling down with increasingly convoluted conspiracy theories as to why you’re always on the wrong side of a story, I don’t care. It’s not my reputation, people, or cause that’s being destroyed.

Guideline 6: The more complex and convoluted a ‘news story’ has to become in order to arrive at a final position, the less likely it is to be true. An additional point of consideration: if the ‘story’ uses the terms ‘potentially’, ‘allegedly’, ‘probably’, ‘may have’ or other terms that waffle on the strength of an event being true, especially if they’re used multiple times in the same article, IT AIN’T NEWS. It’s known as ‘Conspiracy Theorizing’, ‘Propaganda’, ‘Fake News’ or ‘Horse Crap’.

The best way to explain this guideline is, once again, with an example. And the most compelling example of this happened late in 2016 when Hillary lost the election through her own incompetence.

Not two days after the election, Hillary claimed, and the media helping to corroborate, that ‘she lost because of James Comey’. When that didn’t stick, she/they made the claim that ‘the Russians sabotaged her and aided Trump’ because Wikileaks got their hands on countless emails from her campaign and the Democratic National Committee that showed just how corrupt she and the DNC were leading up to the election.

Prior to the election and as the emails started being released, Hillary and the DNC initially went into damage control, as the emails painted a very disgusting picture of what the DNC and Hillary were doing behind the scenes in her campaign. How did the Mainstream Media report on the matter? That the emails ‘may have been altered from the original text to give the ‘wrong impression’ about her/them’.

Notice the waffling language? It’s not an outright denial that the emails were original and unaltered but it helps to give the impression that the emails may not have been legitimate. Wikileaks (and other security specialists) confirmed that they were originals and unaltered. But that went largely unmentioned in the MSM, making the previous stories on the emails ‘maybe being altered’….Fake News. Didn’t stop the big media companies from reporting it as a possibility. (Strange, I thought they cared about the integrity of the news?)

After that, the story switched to how it was The Russians who influenced the election away from Hillary by releasing said emails. Except Wikileaks, Russia, and a number of security experts stated that Russia was not the source. THAT ‘story’ was Fake News because it wrongly attributed blame for Hillary’s loss towards something that was completely meaningless.

Claiming something is the cause for an event when it most assuredly isn’t is lying and/or inaccurate. Reporting lies or explanations for an event that are clearly incorrect IS Fake News.

It didn’t matter where the emails came from, what mattered was what was in them. The ‘story’ became needlessly over-complicated to explain why Hillary lost. Russia didn’t hack the voting booths to throw votes to Trump, as numerous voting security experts clearly confirmed that it didn’t occur, people simply voted against Hillary because of the things that she had said and done in person and in print. Voters looked at her track record of scoring huge sums of money by selling influence in the U.S. federal government. They looked at the gross missteps she made in Benghazi and in the email server fiasco. They looked at the fact that she had no solid plan or answers on how to address issues like the spread of the ‘Islamic State’, the fundamentalist Islam-inspired terrorist attacks around the world, illegal immigration, law enforcement, human and drug trafficking within the U.S., the trade deficit, how to bring jobs back to America, or the tax code. THAT was the ‘why’ of why she lost. THAT was why Trump won. THAT should have been The Story.

But no! We have to keep hearing about how, since Trump (as a businessman, prior to running for the presidency) did business with an international clientele list (which may have included Russian businessmen), he probably colluded with Russia to win the election. The MSM made the ‘story’ far more complicated than it needed to be to explain how an event occurred. Fake News. There is literally no logic or reason to that statement and no evidence was actually presented to justify such allegations, just shadowy ‘sources within the government’ that made the claim. Translation: an overly complicated explanation for why an event occurred that is only corroborated by ‘shadowy government sources’ that can’t or won’t provide solid evidence to substantiate the claim is reported by MSM. Fake News.

Guideline 7: If a political or public figure is involved in potentially morally ambiguous dealings (i.e., they’re corrupt scumbags), look for disproportionate levels of outrage or emotional manipulation efforts to find the perpetrators of Fake News.

People are prone to failure of all sorts. It’s what they do. Corruption is bound to show up in politics at some point. What’s important to understand is that it happens across all political parties and affiliations. There are also a series of political ‘understandings’ within Washington D.C. that allow those who have been caught in such acts, the ability to withdraw from consideration for political appointments and fade into retirement/obscurity. ‘Yes, you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar. Yes, you abused the public’s trust. Yes, you took money from the wrong people, now go on your way, we won’t put you in jail, but you’re a liability to us, so we don’t want to see you again.’ (To be clear, I’m not a fan of this kind of behavior. In the Pledge of Allegiance that I said growing up, it said ‘with Liberty and Justice for All.’ Somehow, that’s not this country anymore.)

Fake News always rides in on its White Horse to rescue these people from obscurity by alleging that they’re ‘proof of some heinous conspiracy’ between this administration and whichever new ‘archenemy of the United States’ exists in the current political climate. Fake news will always come from the same media organizations that are willing to ‘denounce’ such behavior now but had no qualms about the same behavior when their team was running the show. Some outrage is probably warranted in these stories. Excessive amounts for comparatively smaller offenses is a clear indicator that partisan hacks are pushing an agenda.

Case in point: Michael Flynn and Bill/Hillary Clinton

Michael Flynn is currently a hot topic in the news as he accepted money as payment for a speech he gave back on December 10, 2015 to Russia Today, a “Russian government-owned English-language media outlet on which he made semi-regular appearances as an analyst after he retired from U.S. government service”.

Sounds bad, right? All the media chatter says that he violated the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution which, according to 37 U.S. Code § 908, states that:

“Congress consents to the following persons accepting civil employment (and compensation for that employment) for which the consent of Congress is required by the last paragraph of section 9 of article I of the Constitution, related to acceptance of emoluments, offices, or titles from a foreign government:

(1) Retired members of the uniformed services.
(2) Members of a reserve component of the armed forces.
(3) Members of the Commissioned Reserve Corps of the Public Health Service.

(b) Approval Required.—A person described in subsection (a) may accept employment or compensation described in that subsection only if the Secretary concerned and the Secretary of State approve the employment.”

But what about those who are civil servants and not ex-military? Equal treatment under the law means that the same measures that are aimed at retired servicemen and women should apply to those who have served in the civil service side of our government. In other words, what about those who may have served as, oh, I don’t know, President of the United States? Or Secretary of State? Or Senator? Let’s stick with the President, as, technically, he IS the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. military structure, so it’ll make this whole argument simpler.

Why is Bill Clinton, a Democratic president, allowed to collect $500,000 for a speech he delivered in Russia, on behalf of a Russian state-owned corporation, that was seeking to obtain controlling interest in a company for their mining rights for uranium (a strategic military asset) in America and abroad (while his wife is Secretary of State) and is also on the record as giving hundreds of other speeches for millions of dollars, including some on issues that contradicted official U.S. policy in some regions (again, while his wife is Secretary of State), and he can be seen as a ‘good guy who did nothing wrong’. Yet, a retired member of the ‘uniformed forces’, and lifelong Democrat who happens to work for a Republican president, who gives a speech on the state of the world on behalf of the same country, gets paid significantly less for it, and he is suddenly a National Security Threat and a violator of the Emoluments Act but Clinton is not? How does that work out?

I’ll tell you how. Because this is Fake News. If you treat those who break the same law differently because of who they are or which ‘team’ they play for, you’re a Fake News pusher. If your outrage is at who did the law breaking or who they work for and not at the law breaking itself or the consequences of their questionable behavior,  you’re a fake news aficionado and a partisan hack who is part of The Problem.

The point is, I’m getting tired of hypocritical phony outrage and fake news stories coming from mainstream media Fake News sources who are actively trying to manipulate and control the public. And I’m tired of hearing them b!tch about how other ‘fake news sites are corrupting the outcome of events’ when people don’t just do what they want them to do. It all seems just a little too fake for me. (I like my News like I like my Women: Real, honest, direct, and insightful. And there better be some funnies that come with it.)


Media is run by people, people lie, and that’s not likely to change anytime soon. If you want to stay accurately informed and avoid the strings that media and politicians are trying to tie to you to turn you into their puppet, you’ll have to learn how to identify the tricks that they employ to get you to put their strings around your neck. Hopefully, the above set of guidelines will help you identify and avoid fake news sites going forward. Best of luck…


The End of Western Civilization and Globalism begins with Trump

Welcome to the Beginning of the End, folks.

For those of you who may have been reading my blog, you knew where this election would lead us. Hell, even if all you did was watched the vomitous mess known as the 2016 presidential campaign, you probably had an inkling that what’s on the horizon would be inevitable. Personally, I’m fairly excited. It’s not every day that a world that has been corrupted and perverted through countless generations crumbles back to anarchy and chaos to start over again. But let’s get to the ‘why’ it’s inevitable at this point and not get distracted by emo-babble.

The Trump administration will help usher in this glorious end and for many of you, it’ll seem unthinkable. You voted for him because you thought he could ‘save us’ from decades of corruption and outright political incompetence. He won’t be able to do it. For others of you, who are nodding your head with a smug ‘I told you so, Hillary was the ONLY answer’ smirk painted on your faces, you are even more ignorant and self-deluded than the Trump supporters who are shaking their heads in denial that Trump will be The End.

Let’s get something straight. Hillary was an absolutely unqualified nightmare-in-waiting and electing her would have been an unmitigated disaster for the ENTIRE human race. It didn’t matter who you voted for back in November, this election was more of a vote as to what KIND of End Western Civilization and Humanity would get to experience than who is ‘more qualified for the position’. With Hillary, you would’ve gotten global slavery to a New World Order where your rights weren’t protected by the Constitution and would’ve been of less concern than how best you can be used and tossed aside like a cheap diaper. Don’t take my word on it, go through the TPP agreement that she first touted as the ‘gold standard’ only to barely flipflop on it once everyone realized that it was a flaming trainwreck to find out how it would’ve started.

The End she was offering was enforceable slavery with her and her cronies holding the massa’ whip and the inevitable End of any form of Freedom. The End that Trump offers at least affords the opportunity for people to have a fighting chance at rebuilding a Free society once it falls apart. ‘But wait, Damien, in your blogs you said that Trump was the best choice for President! You even posted mock Public Service Announcement videos that nobody watched advocating voting for Trump! How can you switch sides now?’, you might say. But you’re wrong. I merely pointed out that Trump was the least objectionable candidate, NOT that he was worth voting for. That was me pointing out that if you’re slated for your Last Meal before your execution, the turd sandwich option might be slightly less revolting than the drunken-binge-projectile-vomit soup that’s been liberally seasoned with skunk spray and battery acid. And in the spirit of full disclosure, I didn’t vote. I’m merely a Witness who’s tasked with observing the fiasco, the outcome is your problem/fault.

So how is Trump doomed to fail this country and usher in the End of our Civilization? Because of how he ran his campaign, how many people there are in The System that can ensure that Effective Change is thwarted, how he may not understand the complexities of the problems he wishes to address, and because he’s getting advice from people who don’t know their asses from a hole in the ground, and, perhaps most importantly, because He made promises to the American people that he was serious in fulfilling; all of these will play a role in why Trump will fail.

First and foremost, he pissed off both political parties before he won the election. This was how his campaign gained so much steam: ‘We’re going to drain the swamp’, ‘Democrats/Republicans are to blame for the state of this country’, etc.

Everyone knows that the political system is corrupt and incompetent, but politicians (or those who typically run for political office) have always adhered to one unspoken rule: ‘We shall not call out the Whole Truth about the political process of which we will be soon be a major part. We shall only speak disparagingly about our fake political ‘rivals’, ignore how our party is just as much to blame as they are, and we will not make serious commitments to fixing the political system that allows us to reap ridiculous benefits. We are free to SAY that we will, but we will make no legitimate effort to actually address the issues that are affecting this country.’

Nothing unites people better than a common enemy and Trump gave both parties one once he started revealing that the corruption that’s endemic to Washington and the political system infects both parties. Translation: he won’t get nearly as much accomplished as he might think he can because EVERYONE wants him to fail. They’d rather burn the whole thing down than help Him fix the problems that they, in both parties, made.

Next up, the problems affecting this country are too large and numerous and there are WAYYY too many dip$#its that can get in the way of addressing those problems. The dingbats in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (and judging from the nonsensical content of his written opinions this year the truly ignorant, overly emotionally sensitive partisan-hack-in-sheep’s-clothing, Derrick Watson) can’t seem to pen a legal opinion that isn’t ENTIRELY supported by wishful dreams, drug-fueled imaginations, and unicorn toots.

Trump didn’t count on the fact that the judicial branch had become so heavily clogged with mentally deficient social justice warriors that they’re far more likely to issue dystopian parodies of Justice instead of the Real Deal. Once you can use Appeals to Emotion (a MAJOR logical fallacy) to justify why something isn’t ‘constitutional’ instead of consistent and impeccable Reasoning that correctly cites judicial precedents and Reality, you can say that anything is unconstitutional because anything can be rationalized as being ‘hurtful’ or ‘unfair’ to some group or another.

And the immigration issue only exposed the numerous halfwits and idiots that are intent on sabotaging Trump in the Judicial system. We haven’t even started talking about those in the federal bureaucracy, the intelligence community (whose job is spreading disinformation and whom Trump lambasted repeatedly for their inconsistency and lack of proof for the claims they made during the campaign and in the first four months of his presidency), the law enforcement community, or those in Congress who are actively working to sabotage any real change to the status quo.

The problems affecting the U.S. are also more complex than Trump seems to realize. He sees the bleeding body of America on the operating table and he wants to do something, but he only knows of two tools: the hammer and the sword. Call me crazy, but a good doctor should know the intricacies of the body on which he is operating, as well as the most effective treatment for what ails it and….sorry, but neither a hammer nor a sword is best suited for stopping massive hemorrhaging. It’s a good part of why many of his proposals come off as vague, contradictory, or excessively simplistic.

He’s also getting some pretty terrible advice from people who really shouldn’t be trusted with programming an alarm clock, let alone concocting National Policy. His tax philosophy is quite similar to that which was implemented by Kansas’ resident dumbass Governor Sam Brownback who, despite having an overwhelmingly far-right conservative-dominated legislature that enabled him to enact the ‘we’ll slash taxes on the top earners in the state because it’ll spur economic growth and balance the budget’ fiscal policy, Kansas fell off the fiscal cliff, so to speak. Brownback and Co. had to raid the Kansas Department of Transportation budget, raised taxes on all manner of ‘vices’ (booze, smokes, etc), and performed some very ‘creative accounting’ to delay payments to the Kansas Public Employee Retirement System just to keep the state out of bankruptcy. Growth didn’t ‘explode’ quite as explosively as expected (it was more of a fizzle and a dud) after 8 years and his constituents finally revolted against him. I’m sure that Trump and his advisors have taken that into mind as they suggest doing the exact same thing. ‘If at first you don’t succeed, don’t change what you’re doing, it’s probably because you didn’t screw up hard enough to make it work the first time.’

Trump has an EPA head who’s spent his life trying to tear down the EPA, you have a head of the Department of Education who’s never been publicly educated, never been a teacher, never had her children publicly educated, never had to take out student loans, doesn’t appear to know anything about the education system in general, and has been an outspoken advocate of dismantling the Department of Education altogether. They’re almost as poorly suited for their positions as Hillary Clinton was for the Secretary of State (or any of her previous) appointment(s). I’m sure Trump’s picks will be similarly inclined to ‘do what’s best for America’ and fix a failing system instead of gutting it to the point that the whole thing comes crashing down. (sarcasm alert!)

And finally, like I mentioned earlier, the last reason that Trump will fail is because he made all those promises to make America Great Again and, sadly, he *probably* genuinely meant them.

From what I can tell, Donald Trump has two settings: (1) snarky, foul-mouthed combative troll and (2) genuinely concerned man-of-the-people who desperately wants to address what ails this country. He could’ve (and maybe should’ve) quit (if Hillary weren’t running) during the presidential campaign when most bologna liberal polls showed him ‘greatly trailing’ the Democratic candidate but I think that second setting of his (and his ego) kept him from doing so.

And this is the biggest reason he’ll fail. Because he wants so desperately to turn the American ship around that he’ll reach for any and every tool in the cabinet to try to make that happen, even those that are better left alone for everyone’s sake. It’ll be ‘too little, too late’ once he starts reaching for those tools and, with everyone trying to sabotage him at every step of the way, he will fail on all of his initiatives and America will fall with him. And if you haven’t noticed, it has already begun.

So kick back, relax, and enjoy the End of Western Civilization as we know it.

How the Trump immigration bans are showing that Federal Judges are idiots

For the second time in so many months, another mentally deficient judge has issued a temporary restraining order on President Trump’s travel ban on several Muslim majority countries. And while it seems ‘mean’ or ‘unnecessarily harsh’ to call federal judges Derrick Watson, William Canby Jr., Richard Clifton, Michelle Friedland, and James Robart ‘stupid’, ‘asinine’ or ‘so full of shit that they should wipe after opening their mouths to avoid a public health incident’, allow me the opportunity to explain why I came to such a factually accurate conclusion.

I came to that conclusion for 2 reasons. A) I said so, and B) the fundamental underpinning of all 3 decisions are based on a concept that I like to call ‘Selective Remembrance’. Selective Remembrance is an oft used device utilized by all manner of political and politically ‘correct’ types who like to selectively remember events that support a particular position or assertion that they’re plugging while conveniently forgetting other events that might call those original positions or assertions into question.

In these 3 decisions, all 5 judges frequently cited Trump’s calling for a Muslim travel ban (while he was on the presidential campaign trail) as their justification for why they’re halting the Trump administration’s travel ban. That is all that they selectively remember: that he called for a Muslim travel ban. Had they remembered the why of ‘why he wanted a Muslim travel ban’ in the first place, there wouldn’t be a discussion on the merits of the case as Trump’s words were a direct response to the Muslim refugee attacks in Europe and the Islamic Fundamentalist inspired attacks in America.

‘What else was selectively forgotten in these rulings?’, you might ask so you will allow me to further expound on the matter. To which I would respond with ‘A whole lot of other Important Facts; that’s what, monkey butt.’

Important Fact #1: The Muslim majority world consists of 49 countries. Only 7 of those countries made the final cut to be placed under the initial Trump Travel ban. Talk about being a tough competition to make the cut! They even wittled it down to 6 in the final round, making those ‘special roses’ even more special!

Important Fact #2: As I’ve mentioned before, those 7 countries represent 18% of the global population of Muslims, making the arguments made by the 5 Jerkoff Judges who claimed that Trump’s Travel ban was ‘motivated by religious intolerance’ to be completely, irrefutably Stupid. (Yes, this level of willful ignorance has earned that Capital ‘S’. It’s not only Stupid, it’s Super Stupid.) You can’t let ~80% of a group into your country and then be called ‘motivated by hatred’ of said group when you deny the other ~20% into your country for national security reasons. That’s got to be the most ineffective attempt at being a religious ‘bigot’ in history. I can’t even come up with an appropriate analogy for this level of incompetence in the whole Xenophobia department, that’s how bad it is.

Important Fact #3: Did I say Trump Travel ban? Whoops! I ‘misspoke’. The list of 7 countries in the initial ban, which got trimmed to 6 in the revised ban, was compiled by the Obama administration for future immigration bans based on National Security concerns. So, really, this isn’t about Trump’s opinions on the matter, as the list was compiled by the Obama group and recommended to Trump’s administration, making this even less about Trump’s positions and more about National Security.

Important Fact #4: For the courts to claim that ‘there’s no solid national security justification for instituting a travel ban’, I, mostly using a number of other sources, have compiled a few lists of great interest on the ‘National Security’ front that demolishes the judges’ lame-ass logic. I counted and verified (it’s not hard to do, go to Google, type in date, location, and the word ‘attack’ and voila!) 43 major attacks performed by Islamic extremists in Europe or Russia since the Twin Tower attacks of 2001, resulting in over 1,500 killed and over 5,700 injured.

(These are only a small collection of the Fundamentalist Islam-justified attacks throughout Europe since 9/11. I only selected out the ones that either had a high body count or were particularly heinous in the targeting of the victims. The full list of victims is far too long for this post but can be found here.)

I (again, actually, others) counted 12 Islamic fundamentalist directed or inspired attacks in the U.S. since 2009 and 7 such attacks in 2015 and 2016 alone.

Add to this the 10 large scale attacks that occurred in Europe during the two years leading up to this year’s election and you have a fairly sound justification in refusing entry to a particular group of individuals.

At this point, this is no longer an issue of ‘show me the evidence that this is a national security issue’, it’s more of a ‘I’m a self-blinding, petulant dumbass who is pretending not to see the obvious because my political buddies and I are still butthurt by the results of the election, so we’re going to hop on our publicly appointed political soapboxes to push our opinions and lame-ass emotional justifications instead of doing our job’ kind of cop-out.

Being forced to provide proof that the Sun rises in the East, that the Backstreet Boys were wayyy better than N’Sync, or that the U.S. has been/is being threatened by Fundamentalist Islamic militancy that spreads from identifiable locations in the Muslim world is purposefully playing at ignorance. We all know the preceding to be true and anyone arguing to the contrary is either playing childish semantic games, deliberately being a troll, or they are just dangerously ignorant of the world. Which makes this whole situation twice as awesome since these boneheads are in a position of authority that can greatly affect the safety of the entire country, as well as pervert the legal system. (Maybe they’re operating under the age-old advice of my evil twin who said, “if you’re going to f&ck up, you might as well f&ck up big!”)

And I’m not alone in my mockery of these Social Justice Jokers, as there appear to be a few individuals out there who still view the Judiciary as a ‘solemn and necessary position needed to vouchsafe the integrity of the Constitution and Rule of Law’ who are slapping back at these teenaged-mentality judges. Who are these Negative Nancies who want the job done right? Is it some rogue judge in some backwoods district who’s taken The Law into his own hands and doesn’t play well with others? Nope, just a few justices on the same 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that tossed out Trump’s travel ban in the first place! Crazy, ain’t it?

At least 5 of the 9th Circuit Appeals court’s 29 judges have actually asked that the full 9th circuit court meet to discuss vacating the initial decision on grounds that it is, to put it in Common Parlance, ‘a boneheaded mistake that was solely founded on emotional appeals, was a gross overreach of court authority, and was a disgusting and deliberate misinterpretation of legal statute/precedent and Constitutional Law.’

Having a court vacate a decision is relatively rare. It’s the judicial system’s equivalent of saying to the world, ‘Hey, babe… We have to admit, last weekend was a blur. I think we got too drunk on Power or our own Egos and we just want to apologize for acting like a bunch of incompetent halfwits and making this court and country look bad in public. We’re SOO sorry about what we tried to do to the Constitution and the Rule of Law, what with the empty tequila bottle and the extra creamy peanut butter and all. Can you ever forgive us?’

Having 5 current Circuit Appeals court judges so scathingly and unequivocally destroy the original trio of judges’ rationale for their decision is even more unheard of. For those of you who enjoy solid arguments that take into account: Constitutional law, long-standing legal precedents, and a faint dash of Legitimate Reasoning (basically, everything that a judge is required to consider when making a Decision and none of that emotional cheese sauce that costs everyone extra), the link is here (the ‘good’ stuff starts on page 4).

At this point, it’s pretty obvious that the only thing we can take away from this legal debacle is that the court system is overwhelmingly populated with angsty teenage social crusaders who don’t have the mental or emotional capacity to be trusted with coming to a sound decision on the ‘tough’ question of ‘what’s for dinner?’, let alone tackling the only question that a Federal judge is required to address: ‘is this legal/constitutional?’. It’s probably time that this nation started removing these judges for gross incompetence and misbehavior in their court rulings (there is a path to make this happen that doesn’t include impeachment), because this has started getting ridiculous. Stupidity this blatant and in such a vital position of government functioning is neither appropriate nor a good idea in terms of what’s best for this nation.

9th Circuit Court: Where Constitutional Ignorance and Fantasy reign Supreme

Author’s Note: If you’ve been following the news regarding the political system recently, you might have heard about the unsurprising development of a court battle between the Trump administration and the members of Crybaby America (Minnesota and Washington, specifically) regarding his Executive Order pertaining to a temporary ban of immigrants coming from 7 Middle Eastern countries. In this most recent round, the idiot jerkoffs in the 9th circuit court issued their ruling from what appears to be random shit pulled out of their ass, instead of anything resembling legitimate Reasoning (of which, I’m a huge fan), anything directly related to legislative interpretation, or applicable judicial precedents. Since I decided to waste 30 minutes of my life by reading the entirety of the 29 page ruling by the court, I figured that I should pick this moose turd apart for being the fraudulent pile of crap that it is. (Author’s warning: if you don’t like reading voluminous posts that mock and destroy idiocy while using the occasional naughty word, here’s your chance to bail.)

To expedite this discussion, I figure that I’ll just quote their text (which is available here) and point out the serious flaws in the ‘logic’ of the court’s arguments.

First off, the court explains the arguments that Minnesota and Washington make regarding the ‘legality and unconstitutionality of the Executive Order’:

“Washington alleged that the Executive Order unconstitutionally and illegally stranded its residents abroad, split their families, restricted their travel, and damaged the State’s economy and public universities in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments, the INA, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Washington also alleged that the Executive Order was not truly meant to protect against terror attacks by foreign nationals but rather was intended to enact a “Muslim ban” as the President had stated during his presidential campaign that he would do.”

It goes on to say:

“The States argue that the Executive Order causes a concrete and particularized injury to their public universities, which the parties do not dispute are branches of the States under state law.”

The only problem with this, is that their case should be thrown out on the existence of the Immigration and Nationalization Act (INA) of 1952, which they claimed was ‘violated’. This is absolutely absurd, once you look at the text of the law in question. In the INA, it is directly stated:

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

This should have been enough to throw out the case. They didn’t prove that this was a ‘Muslim ban’ (because when 42 other Muslim majority countries weren’t banned, it kind of defeats the argument) and the President has the authority to suspend immigration on whatever grounds he deems necessary to protect the United States. But to list the violation of the First and Fifth Amendments seems even more blatantly ridiculous.

The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” while the Fifth Amendment states that “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”

For one, President Trump is not Congress. It should’ve been obvious in his title. He issued an Executive Order dealing with immigration, which is his responsibility, as President, under the INA. Second, contrary to popular and stupid belief, he’s not making a law that is directed at a religion. A) As president, he can’t make laws. Read the Constitution, assholes. (And no, there isn’t a stick figure drawing version available, so you will have to develop reading comprehension skills.) And 2) the bans are blanket in nature and they affect EVERYONE coming from those 7 countries, regardless of religion. The order also requires any exemptions to the Order be individually vetted by the Department of State.

There are 7 countries that were targeted by the Executive Order and they were targeted because of lapses in each countries’ government emigration procedures and security who were identified by Obama’s administration as ‘countries of concern’. There are 49 majority Muslim nations and if the ban is aimed exclusively at Muslims, Trump seems to have missed quite a few of the relevant countries and 82% of the Muslim population. So the First Amendment doesn’t apply.

Secondly, immigrants and refugees aren’t being punished by a court system or any other U.S. agent. They aren’t being imprisoned, fined, or tortured by the U.S. government. And it’s not even a total and eternal ban on entry! They are simply being denied entry to the United States until the vetting procedures for immigrants and refugees from those countries are reviewed to identify potential procedural security flaws that might allow dangerous individuals in. Which means the Fifth Amendment doesn’t apply.

And probably more concerning, for the rest of the world, is this notion that those idiots in Washington, Minnesota, and the 9th circuit court seem to believe that the U.S. Constitution has legal authority over the residents of EVERY nation and it takes precedence over that nation’s OWN laws and statutes as to what rights are granted to their citizens. And, even more bizarre, that all it takes is for anyone, anywhere in the world, to simply want to go to America for those Rights and Protections to be immediately granted! Talk about power-hungry imperialist dickweeds!

As for the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act (FARRA), the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) that the Washington and Minnesota Attorneys General claim were ‘violated’ by the Executive Order, this is where it becomes even easier to just toss the case since it’s clearly a waste of the Court’s time.

I mean, come on! Everyone knows that the FARRA “Bars the use of funds for the involuntary return by the United States of a person to a country in which the person has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, except on grounds recognized as precluding protection as a refugee”. This would require proof of said circumstance by each Immigrant/Refugee. Which means vetting those individuals, the very process that Trump wants to verify as being appropriate and conducive to National Security.

And since everyone has clearly been informed that the RFRA states that the Government shall not burden a person’s exercise of religion by Law (so we’re talking about Congress here because Congress makes Laws, not the Executive branch) unless that burden is necessary for the “furtherance of a compelling government interest” and so long as the rule is the “least restrictive way in which to further the government interest”. There is nothing in the Executive Order that mentions or restricts the practice of Islam within this country, so the RFRA, again, doesn’t apply.

The APA doesn’t apply to the Executive Order either, as the APA has to do with the way administrative agencies may propose and establish regulations. Immigration? That’s not really a regulation created by an administrative agency as  much as it is a responsibility of the executive branch as enumerated by Law. That was codified in the INA and passed by Congress, which grants the President the authority to cut off immigration by any group, for any reason, for any length of time that he deems to be in the Nation’s best interest, but I repeat myself.


So now that we’ve successfully destroyed the entire justification for the lawsuit, it’s probably time to switch from mocking the blatant ignorance displayed by the Attorneys General for the states of Minnesota and Washington in regards to immigration law and The Constitution and start mocking the 9th circuit court. Because, if you are a rational, reasonable, and sexy individual like myself what the court issued as their ‘rationale’ for their decision will similarly blow you away with just how full of bullshit these judicial activists can be.

After they list the hokey and blatantly erroneous links to laws and Constitutional Amendments that don’t really apply to the Executive Order, the court excessively defends the legitimacy of the states’ case, specifically how the states ‘suffer’. In typical idiot fashion, they start vaguely citing some portion of Some Important Document (in this case, the Constitution, specifically Article III where the court is granted jurisdiction to hear ‘cases and controversies’), pretend that the rest of the Document doesn’t exist, and then they start their little journey into Fantasyland. This is presumably because they believe that once they, as ‘Highly ‘Intelligent’ and Smug A-holes’, cite some small fragment of Some Important Document, it’s probably safe to bet that others will probably not read the rest of said Document when they start making up all manner of douchebaggery nonsense that is clearly not within the language or intention of said Document, and then they’re fully justified in ‘letting their creative impulses fly’. So, let’s see what else the ol’ Constitution might say on this matter, shall we?

Article 2, section 3: the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

Trump is obliged to faithfully execute the Laws of this country. The INA is such a Law.

Article 3, section 2: (what they referred to….partially) “to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party…. and those in which a State shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.”

This directly states that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction on this matter and it requires that States prove that they are directly impacted by a particular legal event. Revisionist interpretations aimed at expanding the Federal Court system or redefining the definition of ‘directly impacted’ aren’t really required as the text is quite explicit.

Article 4, section 4: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

As the justification for the Executive Order has a basis in National Security by protecting every State against domestic violence caused by Foreign Agents, this should be a slam dunk.

Article 6:2: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Which, judging from the way it’s phrased, means that the Articles of the Constitution are the Supreme Law of the Land, with the following Amendments and future Laws taking a role of lesser importance and can be struck down if they violate the initial Articles. Which makes perfect logical and legal sense. Passing a Law or an Amendment that negates or infringes on the initial Articles of the Constitution would be a disaster for this country. This also states that judges in every state are bound to this hierarchy of legal operations. This includes the East and West coasts. (Sorry, not sorry!) By this logic, courts are required to consider safety concerns to the nation and rely on the President’s execution of Laws that were passed by Congress that are aimed at providing that safety before any other legal concern. If a National system of governance run by a free populace is compromised by those seeking to supplant that form of governance with a form that seeks to enslave the populace, it’s probably in the nation’s best interest to ensure that doesn’t happen. (Whoops! Are we too late?)

See what I mean about selectively picking out special passages while conveniently ignoring others in Some Important Document? Quoting these little passages might make you look smart, initially, until someone who’s read the full text explains how you’re full of shit and are taking quotes out of context.

After the 9th circuit court bastardized and took the Constitution out of context (or just blatantly ignored large sections of it), they proceeded to argue that the states face ‘concrete damages’ due to Trump’s Executive Order. Except they don’t offer any legitimate Proof that the damages are actually concrete and that the damages can be directly attributed to the state’s ‘suffering’. They claim that individuals and families would be ‘hurt’ and that because some individuals might potentially be ‘hurt’, that it is incumbent upon the state to take up said grievance and are within their rights to assume the mantle of ‘suffering’.

Ignoring the fact that States can’t vicariously take on the perceived ‘suffering’ of people within their borders and internationally, the imagined ‘suffering’ consideration doesn’t supersede the requirement for the President to ensure that National Security isn’t compromised. His job is to execute the laws on the books.

They then claim that the academic and research rigor of academic institutions would be ‘hurt’, which is a load of crap for three reasons.

1) This will sound xenophobic (and I don’t really care), but it’s been proven in the literature that the academic progress of U.S. students and those taking courses in English as a second language, tends to lag when the instructor is not a native English speaker. (The same thing happens abroad, it’s not just an English language issue.) While I could blame it on thick accents (which is partially true due to different inflections and pronunciations coming from speakers of different nationalities), it has more to do with the cultural differences in how they prioritize educating their students versus personal achievement (research and career development) as well as the attitudes that some cultures have regarding Westerners and those of different cultures.

2) There are PLENTY of highly qualified instructors in EVERY academic discipline from around the world. Hell, some of them might even be American PhD holders! To claim that ‘professorial and research quality will ‘suffer’’ is being excessively melodramatic. A loss of Middle Eastern professors from those 7 countries can just as easily be countered with Middle Eastern professors from the other 42 predominantly Muslim countries that are not affected by the ban.

And C) academic institutions temporarily not having some students and professors from some Middle Eastern countries is neither a large enough nor concrete enough ‘damage’ to the states to offset National Security considerations. They simply do not equate.

So, at this point, from a Reasoned perspective (as opposed to their ‘Logical’ justification composed entirely of vague assertions, some nebulous definition of suffering, some pulling of heart strings, and extremely faulty lines of logic), Minnesota and Washington haven’t really proven the necessary ‘concrete and particularized injury’ that is required to establish Article III standing to necessitate a SUPREME COURT (not a district or a circuit court) decision. Which means the case should have been tossed. Again.

No worries, it gets worse.

“The States argue that the Executive Order violates the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses because it was intended to disfavor Muslims. In support of this argument, the States have offered evidence of numerous statements by the President about his intent to implement a “Muslim ban” as well as evidence they claim suggests that the Executive Order was intended to be that ban, including sections 5(b) and 5(e) of the Order. It is well established that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims.”

Which, again, is horseshit. Statements without concrete proof of attendant action are generally known as hearsay. Donald Trump toyed with all manner of ideas on the campaign trail. So many, in fact, that it was getting hard to tell when he was being serious and when he was just Trolling the World. And technically, it wasn’t President Trump who said those things, that was Republican Candidate Trump. This seems like splitting hairs, but from most legal definitions, they are two separate entities.

In other words, the fact that Trump mentioned putting a full Muslim ban into effect on the campaign trail has nothing to do with the substance of the Executive Order he signed as President, as the ban, again, only affected 7 of the 49 Muslim majority countries of the world. Making his pre-elected comments a major point of consideration in this legal proceeding should have been objected to on the grounds of being both Inflammatory and Immaterial to the underlying purpose and rationale of the Executive Order. This should have been appropriately addressed and dismissed as the initial 7 country list was originally compiled, researched, and approved by the Obama Administration for an Immigration ban. Trump was merely following through on the recommendations of the previous administration.

The 9th circuit goes on to cite some more unrelated cases that they’re ‘confident’ apply to the current situation, when, in reality, the rulings they cite are only tangentially related to some bogus point that would help further distance themselves from the INA. They’re trying to offer such an overly broad interpretation of Rights and Privileges afforded to those who aren’t even in the country that don’t pass the muster even from a judicial precedent perspective, that the entirety of the 9th circuit court should be fired for incompetence and dereliction of duty.

So, to sum it all up, the 9th circuit court showed the world just how phony, obscure, and unconcerned they were with the Separation of Powers as enumerated in the Constitution. They allowed nebulous notions of imagined ‘injury’ and phony claims of ‘religious persecution’ to trump (see what I did there?) the security of the ENTIRE United States of America. They argued, unconvincingly, that the U.S. Bill of Rights and Law applies to everyone in the world, regardless of their location or nationality, even when doing so violates the sovereignty of foreign governments, the powers and responsibilities of the Executive branch of this country, and National Security considerations.

Instead of addressing the claims being made by Minnesota and Washington’s publicity-hungry attention whores known as ‘Attorneys General’ and making them prove their case, the 9th circuit went off the rails and made up their own boneheaded case that, A) didn’t apply to the arguments made by Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber, B) didn’t apply to the underlying justification for the executive order, C) had no Constitutional support or backing, and 4) completely ignores current immigration law and legal precedents. Their decision was derived from one overarching theme, and you might’ve heard it from the peeps in the streets who didn’t like the outcome of the Presidential election:

“Trump is an arrogant asshole who probably hates immigrants and minorities and we’re still butthurt about the election, so fuck that guy and fuck the United States of America. We’d rather watch it all burn than do our god-damned jobs with any sort of intelligence, competence, or integrity.”

Voila! Liberal activist judges at ‘work’!


Psst! Hey, Justice Department! How the hell do you dumbasses not win against the diaper-stains that are the Attorneys General from Washington and Minnesota? They literally had nothing to go on. You aren’t exactly showing the world that you’re competent enough to win a slam-dunk case. If I can crush their arguments in about 2 hours worth of online research (with plenty of Candy Crush action mixed in) when I’m not a lawyer (I’ve got way too much spine and integrity for that), then maybe you should think about making me your boss….or quitting your current job so you can obtain employment better suited to your intellectual faculties….like maybe snow cone creator? Cotton candy manufacturer? I’m running out of ideas here since it’s clear that you shouldn’t be allowed to work anywhere that may come into contact with machinery, public health, or anything requiring independent thought. Maybe think about becoming one of those sign holders who stand on street corners? You probably can’t hurt yourself or others with that kind of a career and you’ll be doing what you’re best at…. taking up space. Idiots.

Correction to the Human ‘Rights’ are Women’s ‘Rights’ movement

Author’s note: I don’t know about you, but I’ve heard a great deal of talk about ‘Rights’ lately. Too much, in fact. I sort of ignored this issue as it was childish, ignorant, and petulant and I figured it would play itself out without too much trouble. Or, at least, I hoped it would. Since it didn’t and my hopes are always hideously misplaced delusions, here we are.

There is a rampant bastardization of the meaning of the term ‘Rights’ floating around; so I figured that we all needed a refresher course on the subject as there are some very ignorant people spewing all manner of nonsense out there and it’d be mighty rude to not offer a much needed education to the less fortunate. I’m charitable like that. (Feel free to share this with your friends, enemies, frenemies, local village idiot, don’t discriminate on my account. Or theirs. ;-))

So… ‘Rights’: What are they?

Well, that’ll all depend on who you question on the subject. The Grand Poobah of the United Nations a.k.a.“The Office of the High Commissioner” states that:

“Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible.”

He/she/it/they continue to state:

“All human rights are indivisible, whether they are civil and political rights, such as the right to life, equality before the law and freedom of expression…”

All-in-all, not too shabby. I like this definition for two reasons. The first, is that it sounds like it comes from a ‘powerful’ and ‘prestigious’ liberal source, which liberals tend to love and worship. It’s hard to argue with the United Freaking Nations, amirite? (Spoiler Alert: it’s not that hard, idiocy exists at the top of society at least as much as it occurs at the bottom. Sometimes more. We’ll get to those issues later.) The second reason is that it states some very specific concepts that Liberals/Progressives have been ignoring as they prattle about ‘the ‘rights’ that they’re being ‘denied’.’ So, let’s tackle this, shall we?

“Rights inherent to all  human beings… All human rights are indivisible….such as the right to life, equality before the law and freedom of expression…

This should be abundantly clear where I’m going with these three delectable selections from the text. I’ve kept them in context (relatively speaking) and they speak directly to the rights of those who are literally without a voice in so many matters. Naturally, I’m talking about the Unborn. And this pisses off the biggest segment of ignorant mouthbreathers who dressed up in vagina costumes and marched in Washington D.C. for ‘Women’s Rights’. And….I don’t care. Here’s why.

When you have rights inherent to all human beings with the Right to Life, you have the cornerstone upon which ALL Rights are built. If a human being doesn’t have a Right to Life, then the Rights to a Religion, Free Speech, or Security became meaningless. The dead don’t require the choice of a religious system, they don’t have opinions to voice, and it seems unlikely that they require arms to protect themselves. (Unless we’re talking Army of Darkness. But that’s a different story.)

The fact that this Right to Life applies to all Human beings is disgustingly straightforward. (I say disgusting because, typically, I like a little challenge to untangling moral positions.) The bottom line is unequivocal: the unborn have just as much a Right to Life as the mother does. This is a direct line from The Office of the High Muckety-Muck of the United Nations’ description of Human Rights. If you want to argue semantics, science, or moral relativity, that’s fine. Because I can argue through semantics, science, and moral relativity, quite convincingly, that just about any number of horrific acts and depravities are actually Great under the guise of ‘well, you see, one can argue that…’. (For what it’s worth, semantics/moral relativity are the first and third-to-last resort of those who don’t know Jack or Shit about the world (the last two resorts being hate-fueled name-calling, followed by violence, two tactics currently being employed by the Progressive movement.))

So what else does the United Nations say about ‘Human Rights’? Well, I’ll just take us to the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights so we can have some fun. Because this is where it gets pretty screwed up.

“Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,”

Whoopsi-daisies! Now, the unborn have inherent dignity and equal and inalienable rights or there is no justification for freedom, justice or peace in the world. Man! That sucks! And here I thought that we could just go to the local Planned Parenthood and get some chopped up baby parts to justify ‘medical research’ that does zero good! (Arguments to the contrary have already been addressed here. Stop wasting my time with your bitching and phony ‘but I care about others’ line. You don’t. Don’t kid yourself.) Now, we have to treat The Dead with dignity and respect? I know, I know! Some of you are saying, “Bump that noise, bro! I like me a little grave-robbing, baby cutting, and corpse desecration to show how much I respect the Power of Life!” but, unfortunately, the Respect for the Dignity of Life is the only thing that’s stopping society from devolving into anarchy and chaos. And you being beat to death with a masonry hammer for killing babies while spouting how much you ‘respect Life’, but I digress.

“Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind…”

Hmm, “barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind”. Now, personally, I can’t think of anything more ‘barbarous’ than killing a helpless fetus that has no idea or say in whether an outside agent scrambles it’s brains and kills it, before being pulled from the womb and dissected to be studied ‘in the name of medical science’. I’m not sure if others feel the same, but I’m pretty sure there is nothing that comes close. Rape? Disgusting. Murder? Meh, depends on the circumstances. Torture? Bleah! But Abortion? Abortion is far worse than any of those acts, once you know what it is, how it’s performed, and what happens to the fetus once its life has been taken.

At this point, we’ve talked about the ‘Right to Life’ that the U.N. alludes to, so let’s talk about the other ‘Rights’ that Progressives seem to be either unaware of, or are actively trying to suppress in America. I’ll be going in numerical order to make it simple.

Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

Bwahahahaha! ‘Reason and conscience’? Pbbbbbbt! So far, I’ve yet to hear a ‘reasoned’ argument coming from anyone who has been recently complaining about their ‘lack of rights’ in this country. And a ‘conscience’? What kind of mythical creature is that? I haven’t seen one of those in the public realm in 30+ years of life! And this ‘spirit of brotherhood’? Does assaulting those who disagree with you, destroying property, and screaming hateful language count as ‘brotherhood’? Maybe family dynamics are different from what I’m used to, but that doesn’t sound right…

Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”

*Except for those who wish to own a firearm for personal protection, those who disagree with the Progressive ‘cause’, and The Unborn. ‘You can be a disgusting serial child rapist and murderer and we’ll protest your imminent execution, but still reside within the womb, having done nothing wrong, and you’re Fair Game. If only you’d had the opportunity to be born and grow up to be a disgusting menace and detriment to society! THEN, we’d care about your treatment, but now, we’ll never know!’

Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

*Unless, you don’t agree with the policies of the Progressive movement. Then you’re a racist, misogynistic, sexist, bigoted, patriarchal, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, phobo-phobic pig who deserves to have their possessions and businesses destroyed, your person and your family threatened/assaulted/tortured/murdered, and your faith denied so you can ‘learn’ to embrace ‘love and tolerance of others who aren’t like you’ like Progressives ‘do’.

 “Article 12: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”

HELLLLOOOOOOOOOOO, NSA wiretaps! Hellllllooooo, hacktivist campaigns aimed at ‘outing’ those who don’t agree with the Progressive propaganda cocktail! ‘You better agree with us now, despite having no compelling reason to do so other than ‘we’ll tell the world where you live, where your kids go to school, and where you work where people will bully, threaten, and destroy your lives’!’ Don’t forget the incoming flood of hate speech from Progressive bigots! Your employer will fire you because they can’t afford negative publicity from the planned ‘tolerant boycotting’ of them by progressive mobs and bullies!

Article 16: (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.”

Uh oh! Looks like the United Nations has given the right to form families to heterosexuals and left the LGBT community out in the cold! I mean, from a semantics-only position, they didn’t directly state, “Men and women, men and men, women and women, or plucky brunette news reporters and those who identify as closeted mutated members of the Testudines order with a teenage ‘orientation’ have the right to marry. Those damn homophobes in the United Nations! How dare they let Shredder and Krang take over the world!

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.”

Whoops! You mean that giving benefits and protections to families is beneficial to society’s purposes? That tax codes should reflect this? But that defeats the whole purpose of complaining about the unequal treatment that heterosexual couples receive! ‘So unfair! Hipster, Self-Indulgent, Solipsistic, Ignorant Individual Lives Matter (more than Family Lives)!’

Article 18: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion;”

*Except every variety of conservative, including those of the Christian faith. Because…..‘ew!’ ‘And we don’t really need thought or conscience, we’ve got emotions and propaganda, so we don’t need those obsolete methods of self-regulation, self-respect, or introspection into the justness or intellectual soundness of our beliefs or ideas.’

Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

*Again. Except for those who don’t agree wholeheartedly with the Progressive Inquisition. And except for those bakers in Oregon or other liberal-leaning states that are compelled, by the Court System, to violate this very right in the operation of their own PRIVATE BUSINESSES.

Article 21: (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.”

*Except…holy hell, I seem to be repeating myself. Just copy and paste the ‘unless you’re not jiving with the whole ‘Progressive-fascist’ movement’ response and move on!

Article 25: (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.”

* ‘Mothers? Cool, we love ‘em! Fathers, meh….who cares?’ Looks like we aren’t equal in the eyes of the humanity or most societies around the world… Tell me, what other special treatments would you women like to have that men don’t receive, yet don’t complain about?

Article 26: (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.”

‘Nope! We demand to choose educational and human health positions that violate the basic premise of human existence and True Science, label them ‘healthy’ or ‘scientifically accurate’ (when they’re anything but), call them ‘irrefutable’, and will force them on your child under the guise of ‘public education’ and ‘doing what’s best for your children’. Don’t agree? Then, you’re an ignorant bigot who’s looking to indoctrinate your child with ridiculous propaganda. There’s your ‘choice’: either let us indoctrinate your kid with Liberal-Progressive propaganda and bullshit Pseudo-Science or we’ll call you a recidivistic monster and hound you relentlessly. And believe me, we will stoop that low.’

Article 29: (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.”

‘‘Duties’? Are you saying that society and the community isn’t just required to give us all the free stuff that we want, whenever we want it? That we’re supposed to exercise some kind of restraint, as an individual, in order to ensure that the community continues? That the individual isn’t owed anything from the community but rather, the individual has a responsibility to give back? But that’s NOT FAIR!!!!!! Mommy said I was far more important and special than other people, so I shouldn’t have to operate under the same restrictions that they do!’

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.”

‘Wait, you mean to tell me that OTHER PEOPLE have Rights that I’m not allowed to infringe on and that all these ‘Rights’ are invariably tied to Morality? But how am I supposed to force my moral relativism and worldview down other people’s throats when I’m supposed to respect their Rights? You’re saying that I have to develop and respect a common moral code with my enemies? Bump that noise! I’m not willing to listen to some power-hungry patriarchal religious zealots who have used some holy book as the basis for both morality and Law for the past 8,000 years because, HULLLOOO! I’M the one who should get to make that decision WITHOUT their input! I’ve got a Liberal Arts degree that took me a whole 6 years to earn, I know shit and I’m important! Amirite?’

No. You don’t. And you aren’t. Therein lies the problem. You don’t know what you’re doing, you don’t understand the consequences of what you propose, and you’re not some ‘heroic member of a glorious resistance that’s making the world a better place’ by forcing your dumbass beliefs on other people. You’re an ignorant fascist twit who wants to trample on other people’s Rights under the guise of ‘tolerance’ and some arbitrary definition of ‘equality’ that Just. Doesn’t. Exist. A large portion of the people in this country and around the world have had enough of it. They’ve extended you patience and tolerance and they see how you’ve ‘repaid’ that courtesy.

My suggestion is that you quit your bitching about all these imaginary ‘Rights’ that you ‘think’ you ‘have’ before you provoke a response wherein all your Rights are taken away, starting with the most fundamental.

Best of Luck!

A warning to Liberals regarding Trump

Donald Trump has been inaugurated as President of the United States. Now what can/should be done? At this point, all the protests against Trump, all the violence against and the public shaming of his supporters have failed, all the relevant recounts have been run and tabulated, and all the shrill celebrity speeches and low-class mocking of Trump and his family have changed nothing. He still became President. Now, you liberals are at a precipice and you’re the ones who’ve put yourselves there.

In the world of debate/arguing, there are 3 types of people. The first type are those who have done the work of gathering The Facts, setting up arguments and positions based on The Facts, and are capable of countering any and all arguments to the contrary.

The second is the smart idiot who understands that they don’t have all the answers and leaves themselves a concession position to fall back on in a discussion or an argument, in case it doesn’t go their way. Concession positions are points that can be agreed upon by all parties about the state of the world that will allow them to save face when they concede the argument.

The third type is the Full-Blown Idiot who makes wildly inaccurate claims that can’t be proven or substantiated, then doubles down by calling people names, refusing to admit that they’re wrong when all of their arguments have been destroyed, and/or resorting to violence. They have nothing to fall back on because they’ve burned all of those bridges with their angry, ignorant rhetoric and none of their positions represent the conditions of the Real World.

Progressive Liberals, in case you’re wondering, you fall into the last group.

It’s time you faced it; you lost this election. And I’m talking in a bigly way. I mean, it’s just yuuuge! You lost the electoral college and presidency, you lost the Senate, and you lost the House of Representatives. You lost most House and Goober-natorial races across the nation. You lost this election resoundingly. But the outcome of a contest isn’t the only issue of interest in this discussion. ‘It’s not whether you win or lose, it’s how you played the game’, might seem like empty grandfatherly words when you hear it in a conversation, but it most assuredly applies in this situation.

You Progressives/Democrats have so heavily relied on Demanding, Bribing, Shaming, and Coercing voters in recent times that the concepts of Listening, Discussing, and Reaching Agreement have been dropped from your political playbook entirely. I mean, look at the complete role reversal leading up to and after the election, if you don’t believe me.

I, and many others, saw your phony ‘stirring’ social media posts about ‘healing the divisions within this country’ that you spewed non-stop leading up to this election. Apparently, you were fully convinced that victory was ‘unavoidable’ and ‘certain’. The unthinkable occurred when Trump won and those calls for ‘healing’ fell off the radar entirely, didn’t they? You could have practiced what you preached and said, “You know what? We lost. The rest of this country doesn’t agree with our vision of where this country should be going, so we need to listen to them and find some common ground to heal these divisions that we helped make.” That’s what the smart idiot would have done to save face.

But this was never going to be your course of action. You’re a bunch of egotistical twits with a staggering lack of humility or self-awareness, after all. Which is tragic, because operating with humility and class was your only way ‘out’ of the discussion that you have been losing for quite some time.

I mean, come on… When your argumentative ace-in-the-hole is calling an opponent a) ‘a racist’, b) ‘a sexist’, c) ‘a Nazi’, 4) ‘transphobic’, e) ‘homophobic’, f) ‘a member of the chauvinistic patriarchy’, 7) a ‘gaslighting bigot’ or h) all of the above, you aren’t really discussing anything, anymore. You’re doubling down and just throwing a tantrum to try to get your way. That’s not how mature adults handle differences of opinion or argue their position. And that’s why the ‘progressive’ movement has been losing steam lately. You’ve resorted to hate-shaming anyone who disagrees with you, instead of trying to find common ground or delivering overwhelmingly convincing arguments to sway others to your side.

Yes, yes, I know you’re about to ‘educate me’ on the ‘necessity of fighting The Man’ and how ‘protesting is what makes this country great’ and how it’s ‘necessary to have a voice…’ blah blah. That’s basically your go-to evasion tactic when people call you on your nonsense and you’ve got nowhere else to go (Quick! They aren’t buying our nonsense, we need to explain how we’re all about spreading propaganda ‘educating’ others before we’re forced to admit we’re dumbasses who can’t support our positions with anything resembling Fact or Sound Reasoning! Everyone loves ‘knowledge’ and ‘education’, right?).

I’ve heard all of it before and, while I could take the time out to completely level those arguments, I’ve decided to, instead, deliver unto you a Public Service Announcement to the effect of: If YOU continue on THIS path, you and your cause will be destroyed.

You guys and gals (and however many other genders you want to make-pretend ‘exist’) have been saying for some time that ‘this country is waking up from a long slumber’. You are, surprisingly, correct. Unfortunately, it’s not the ‘sleeping giant of love and harmony’ that you think has been woken up. This is a different breed of monster that YOU created when you never bothered matching your actions to your words that will sweep you and your pathetic fascist efforts and safe spaces from the face of this planet forever (or at least for the next 30 years or so before people become soft-minded, self-righteous, and self-entitled again).

It all started with the bullshit stigma you’ve been trying to plaster on anything and anyone who might agree with Donald Trump in any way, shape, or form. You’re backing yourself into a corner on this subject, you’ve removed any potential concession positions and escapes, and I don’t really think you ignorant dirt-suckers understand what the consequences of your actions are going to be, so let me spell it out for you.

Once you start stigmatizing Trump and shouting down anyone who might agree or be willing to work with him on the issues affecting this nation, here’s what you can expect to happen:

Individuals of a liberal leaning will refuse to work with him regardless of what he proposes, as far as policies are concerned. They’ll be afraid of facing recriminations from you for being a ‘sell-out to The Cause’. You’ve already attacked prominent actors, entertainers, and lawmakers for doing just that. While you might think this is a ‘clever way’ of protesting his presidency and forwarding the ‘liberal-progressive cause’, you’re absolutely wrong on the matter.

What it’ll do is force Trump to work with people who are willing to work with him because they don’t care about your opinions, feelings, or safe spaces and strongly agree with the populist trolling he was utilizing during his presidential campaign. I’m talking the full-on ‘fire all the illegals back across the border from a cannon and build a 5 mile high impenetrable wall complete with moats filled with AIDS-infected alligators to keep illegals out’ kind of people. The True Believers of the Arch-Conservative world. Trump is going to find the best people for the job who are willing to help him find solutions to this country’s major issues, regardless of their political affiliation.

A lot of conservatives will applaud your decision and say ‘good riddance to all those god-damned liberals out there who refuse to work with Him on anything’. But do you really think liberal causes or America is going to be better off by refusing to be part of any kind of solution? The ‘Affordable’ Care Act is an example of what happens when you don’t get the best and brightest of ALL political leanings to work on a solution to a problem (that nobody really wanted to solve in the first place). That legislative dumpster fire has had far more downside than up to it. That’s just a Fact, at this point. It’s no longer an opinion or up for debate amongst people who are serious or well-informed on the issue. If you think otherwise, you’re Wrong. Moving on…

And this leads to the second reason: once you decide to not work with him on anything, the rest of the country won’t view you as ‘valiant crusaders who are stalwart and brave; the True Defenders of America’. Let’s cut the shit on that kind of thinking. You’ll be viewed as obstructionist assholes who’d rather burn the whole thing down because you can’t have it all than become part of the solution to bail out and patch a sinking boat. Republicans did that in 2009 and how did that work out again? You are literally repeating the same mistakes that Republicans of the past made 8 years ago with this obstructionist stance.

The Bad Thing for you is, Trump looks like he wants to actually tackle things like Poverty, Jobs, Health Care, and Immigration. He doesn’t look like he’s going to be one to wait around for people to get on-board with what he’s looking to do. And the odds that he’s going to keep his mouth shut about the political deadlock that’s been a consistent theme in Washington are about the same odds for a space invasion from unicorn-riding leprechauns.

He’s going to call you and your spineless representatives out on their political brinkmanship, posturing, and backstabbery on social media. And the more he talks to the American people about possible solutions that he’s kicking around, many of the undecided voters who voted Democratic are going to start wavering when they realize that he’s serious about the job and is legitimately trying to find solutions to better Americans’ lives. They’ll bail on the obstructionist Democratic ticket in 2018, causing even more congressional seats to go Republican. Once he starts getting more legislators in who are willing to work on what he’s proposing, he’ll start cramming all manner of legislation through that you won’t be able to have a say in or stop.

And once he can make the portrayal of Democrats and liberals being obstructionist crybabies opposed to Real Solutions complete, the Liberal-Progressive movement will be dead. As in week-old-upside-down-floating-smelly-goldfish kind of dead. Nobody in America will believe or listen to a single thing you have to say because they’ll know that you’re a bunch of spineless, self-indulgent, deluded little peckers who can’t handle the responsibility of political power or doing what’s best for this country.

*** In case you hadn’t noticed, this ‘new’ understanding of the Progressive movement has been evolving and expanding across the country for the past couple of years and should have been blatantly apparent to you when America voted Trump into the White House. It’s not like he’s a George Washington/Jesus hybrid with decades of political experience, after all. The fact that he won, against you, the media, nearly all the ‘celebrities’ from Hollywood, a wide variety of special interest groups, and Hillary should tell you that YOU are losing the moderates, centrists and undecideds of this country.

They’re starting to actually see what Progressives and their ideals are really about: hate-shaming those who disagree with them, using hate-speech to belittle and shame dissenters, practicing intolerance and ignorance, resorting to violence instead of honest discussion to resolve differences of opinion, and refusing to compromise on any and everything, including their ‘moral crusades’ that are composed and supported by fairy dust and donkey toots.***

This leads directly to the 3rd reason why avoiding Trump will destroy the liberal-progressive crusade. Up to this point, I’ve only casually mentioned the consequences of treating Trump like Gonosyphiherpechlamydiaids. The above was just to show you what’s going to happen to the variety of advisors that Trump will surround himself with and how the composition of Congress will change. That was all about how your refusal to interact with him will affect the policies of his administration and how his ideas will become Law without your input in the long run. The third reason alludes to the effect your little temper tantrums will have on his supporters and the general public. And this one is more dangerous to you, personally.

His supporters are looking to him to ‘save the day/country’ but if they see that you aren’t bothering to give him the benefit of the doubt and hear him out on what he proposes, they’ll start to take matters into their own hands. So let’s break down why this will happen.

When you have ignorant little shit-bags who go out of their way to torment and torture a white handicapped boy to get him to denounce Trump and ‘white privilege’ on a Facebook live feed and you refuse to denounce or call this behavior for what it is, you start pushing on The Gate.

When you start shutting down traffic and destroying/looting businesses to ‘protest’ Trump’s election in your liberal strongholds, despite the fact that you’re preaching to the same choir who voted against Trump (you idiots!) and start infringing on people’s abilities to conduct their own business and go about their day, you keep pushing on The Gate.

When you start beating the hell out of Trump supporters simply because they happen to agree with his economic positions, his views on immigration, or simply because they agree that Washington D.C. is a festering pus pocket of the worst ilk of humanity that needs to be drained, you start pushing harder on The Gate.

You aren’t convincing anyone to join your cause with these tactics. Sooner or later, people will have enough of your shit. And judging from ALL of the news stories from legitimate news sources and eyewitness accounts over the past 2 years, the consistent theme HASN’T been violence being initially perpetrated BY Trump supporters but by Anti-Trumpers. It hasn’t been Trump supporters who hijack Bernie Sanders or Trump rallies. It hasn’t been Trump supporters who attack undecided voters because of their skin color and perceived political affiliation. It hasn’t been Trump supporters out there destroying other people’s property during their protests. It’s been you. And the more you keep trying to shut down, berate, and attack people, the more you keep pushing open The Gate to The True Nastiness of the Human Condition that’s lurking behind Trump supporters and the general public. You’ve displayed your Nasty side. That’s been on full display from the very beginning. What you haven’t seen is Theirs.

Trump supporters and the regular public have tried to play nice with you and obeyed the Law. You have not. They’ve tried to use non-violence and conversation as a means of discussing the issues that are affecting them. You have not. You’ve turned a deaf ear to them and consistently responded with truly mindless violence, destruction, and hatred. The time is coming where, if you refuse to work with Trump or his supporters and the general public and continue to resort to violence to try and get your ignorant way, their violent side will come bursting out to meet yours. They’ve got too much at stake to back down now and they’ll figure out that there’s no point to choosing the ‘higher road’ when all it leads to is their continued victimization at your hands. Bad news is, they own 97% of this country’s legally purchased firearms and a sizeable portion have military or hunting experience.

So, do the math and figure it out. Your little tantrums regarding Trump aren’t going to be tolerated for much longer. You’ll start facing the same (or worse) shit that you’ve been gratuitously shoving down conservatives’ throats for the past 10 years.

This is the moment that determines your fate. Are you going to continue being ignorant, immature asshats who will continue backing yourselves into a corner (and over a cliff) or will you take the only escape route that’s available by growing up and working with those who are intent on fixing the messes of this country?

It’s really up to you and I don’t really care how it turns out. Personally, I voted for a Massive Meteor Strike and Yellowstone Super Eruption for President, so I’ve got zero bones in This Game. (It’s SOOO much easier to start over than to patch a thoroughly broken system, is my thought on the matter.) Just thought I’d give you a little heads-up as to your limited options in the months and years to come.

You’re welcome.


An Open Letter to Barack Obama regarding the ‘Russian Influence’ in this election.

Author’s Note: This has gotten out-of-hand. And by ‘This’, I mean the response that has been generated by a group of people who should really learn how to lose a presidential election with some dignity and class.

To Barack Obama:

I, along with the rest of the American public, would like to thank you for your sincere efforts in getting Donald Trump elected in this most recent election. While it may seem ‘shocking’ that I would thank you for such a peculiar and seemingly impossible feat, allow me the chance to explain. And to do so, we have to go back to your actions in 2008.

Look, Barry, I get it. You struggled to win the Democratic Party’s nomination back in 2008 and that forced you to step off the Left’s beaten path of ‘never insult or call out the blatant corruption within our own ranks, we’ve got fiscal conservatives and Christians to silence and babies to kill’, but you screwed the pooch BIG TIME when you called out Hillary for what she does and says with your now infamous, She will say and do anything to get elected’ line.

You were absolutely right, for once… (The Law of Averages catches up to us all, sooner or later.) But, thanks to the enduring nature of digital media, your comments in THAT election could be used on numerous occasions during THIS one. And what’s even more remarkable is that, while your remarks were completely accurate on her lack of anything resembling ‘ethical behavior’, you doubly screwed up by doing the absolute dumbest thing imaginable once you became president!

You made her your Secretary of State! I mean, that was just full-blown idiocy! You effectively slit her political throat in 2008 by exposing the Entire World to the fact that she’s a compulsive liar and career crook who’s in bed with Wall Street and foreign money, and then you handed her the knife, asked her to keep her Clinton money laundering operation ‘Foundation’ work separate from her work in the State Department, and then you turned your back on Her?!?

For a man who is purportedly ‘one of the most brilliant minds of this generation’, you are, most assuredly, one of the dumbest people in existence. You don’t do something like that to someone who has personally and professionally crucified everyone who has made them look bad in the past 30 years (including those who were on ‘her team’ and had proven their loyalty to her) and expect that they’ll just roll over and play nice with you once you’ve won. (And this is without even counting all those mysterious fatal ‘accidents’, lengthy prison sentences, and sketchy ‘suicides’ that have occurred to her ex-employees and business associates who might’ve been looking to testify against her and Bill.)

You triply screwed up by not forcing her to operate by an ethical standard that would help make sure she wouldn’t or couldn’t crucify you on the World Stage. Which she proceeded to do…at every possible turn. And she didn’t care about the repercussions to your global image, legacy, or her own political future. She thought she was above any kind of fall-out.

I mean, judging from the Wikileaks releases from Hillary’s email correspondence, she sabotaged your public image from the very beginning by stalling and rejecting a military response to the attack on Benghazi even when she had intelligence for several months that an attack was likely…. Then, she lied to the families and the American public on the root causes of the attack just to make you look weak and ineffective as a world leader. A Free Life Lesson: Loyalty to those who are actively seeking your destruction is asinine.

You quadruply screwed up by giving her a free leash to act in your name and then deciding to never call her to account. That only emboldened her to take actions that were clearly designed to benefit herself and her family, even when it conflicted with National Security and Her ‘Promise’ to you.

She accepted millions of dollars through her foundation from the Russian-owned Uranium One group which directly benefited from her actions as Secretary of State, as SHE was the one who approved the sale of Uranium mineral mining rights on U.S. soil to the same Russians you’re currently blaming for ‘rigging’ or ‘influencing’ this election.

She dallied and danced with every known 3rd world dictator and despotic regime in the Middle East for ‘donations’ to her ‘charitable foundation’ whose goal is to eliminate poverty and fight for Human Rights around the world. You’re telling me that this didn’t set off any alarms? Like….at all?

That’d be like me starting a ‘foundation’ to ‘promote and grow organic, all-natural food’ and then getting a massive donation…… from Monsanto. At that point, it should be blatantly obvious to the entire world that I don’t really give a rat’s ass about the cause I’m ‘crusading for’ since I’m willing to gobble up money like a stingy casino.

She was either actively engaged in directly supporting ISIS, or ISIL, or whatever the f-ck they want to call themselves these days (you can wrap a turd in wrapping paper, it’s still a turd), or, at the very least, actively bungled the operations to eradicate ISIS/ISIL/WTF to ensure that they’d be allowed to grow into a dangerous blight in the area with worldwide implications. Which shouldn’t have been surprising since her Foundation’s ‘donors’ in the Middle East have been funding ISIS/ISIL/WTF from the very beginning. And still, you did nothing?

Then, there was the whole ‘private email server’ debacle. You had the opportunity to keep Hillary from cutting your throat and her own, politically, by putting your foot down and demanding that everything be run through transparent and secure channels. But you didn’t. And what’d she do? She hammered her government-issued devices to pieces, Bleachbit her servers, and lied….REPEATEDLY to  Congressional investigations on it and Benghazi. Even that spineless pecker Jim Comey, who must have discovered his ‘own’ handwritten suicide note during the investigation, was forced to come clean and admit that nearly every word out of her mouth was an utter lie. Some lies are believable. Hers weren’t even close. If that wasn’t truly damning guilty behavior, conspiracy to commit a crime, or criminal negligence, I’m really not sure what is…

You quintuply screwed up by ignoring Bill Clinton’s illegal electioneering in the Democratic primaries earlier this year. Pennsylvania ring a bell? That just shows you were playing favorites from the very beginning and when Billy-boy stopped in to chat with Loretta Lynch and you were mum about the whole thing, people started talking about a double standard. And when there’s a double standard involved, you’re going to alienate a lot of people that you can’t afford to lose.

Sextuply, you compounded your situation by not hammering the DNC on running a clean Primary that was free from bias. Had that happened, Bernie would be the next commander-in-chief, not Donald Tiddleywinks. Hillary is the only person on the planet who could’ve lost to Trump (you know… besides the entire out-of-touch Republican establishment who got obliterated by him in their Primary).

You septuply screwed up by pushing a racist narrative through that propaganda hydra known as MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC and the other mainstream media outlets. Had you portrayed yourself as an individual of steadfast leadership and integrity who was concerned about The Rule of Law and The Truth, half the nation wouldn’t have grown to view you as a corrupt, incompetent, racist political hack who CLEARLY wasn’t interested in doing His job to uphold Law and Order.

All you proved was that you were willing to pander to loud-mouthed law-breaking scumbags (of any and all races) in order to incite a race war to try and secure the minority vote for this election after you spent 8 years completely ignoring them. You needed more than that. You can’t win a majority of voters by pandering to the minority of minority voters who are attacking that majority. It’s basic math and simple logic.

You octuply screwed up by not enforcing Immigration laws. That’s basically Your Job. To enforce the Laws on The Books. If you don’t agree with some of the Laws or wish to enforce new ones, that’s where you go through Congress or the American people to do such a thing. Not just take it upon yourself to determine which Laws should be enforced, which should be not enforced, and to arbitrarily decide to craft ‘new ones’ (without Congress’ input) that you’ll gladly ‘enforce’ through Executive Order. That’d be like a doctor picking and choosing who gets to receive life-saving treatment and who ‘gets’ to be forcibly euthanized or have their organs harvested for the ‘greater good’. We aren’t China and the President was never meant to be a dick-tator. Seriously. Look it up, Mr. ‘Constitutional Scholar’.

Once you started in on the ‘well, I really don’t like this Law because not enforcing it will make my team look great in the election with a key demographic’, you lost any hope of being viewed as credible, effective, trustworthy, or as remotely concerned about the integrity of this election, making any statement you deliver in front of the media on the subject to come across as nothing more than a pompous, vacuous, partisan shill. Great job!

What your own actions created was a political firestorm that helped ensure that Donald Trump would be elected. So, just cut the shit with this whole ‘Russians were responsible for the hacking of this election’. The fault was all yours, Hillary’s and the Democratic party’s and blaming Russia or anyone other than yourself just makes you look even more weak, half-witted, and pathetic than you already are. Which, frankly, didn’t seem possible.

You… and I… and America all know that Russia’s role in this election was minor, at best. Trump called you out for what you and Hillary were doing and people saw the Exact. Same. Thing. You never cleaned up your act, you didn’t deviate from the script you were delivered, and you adamantly refused to do The Right Thing by Doing Your Job. You could have stopped yourselves from being seen as monstrously corrupt and exploitative at any point. But you chose not to make the effort.

The fact that Wikileaks proved that Trump’s ‘wild’ accusations of the corruption and hijacking of democracy that was actually going on behind the scenes in the Democratic party were Accurate, merely sealed your fate. It’s why you couldn’t rig the election for Hillary. Trump called your party’s play before you could make it. Jill Stein uncovered part of its presence in Detroit, Michigan. Good for her. At least the recount served some function besides blowing millions of frantic, sore-loser liberal dollars on fruitless endeavors and wasting the general public’s time.

And yes, Barry, I know that the real reason you’re making such a fuss over the matter now is because Comey probably found your ‘impending heart attack, despite being in great health’ obituary in his investigation into Hillary’s illegal private server. Your tragic end* will cause much….idk… faint consternation? Mild regret amongst the masses? 12 minutes of media coverage on a slow news day?

I’d like to be nice and say ‘heartfelt anguish and international mourning’ but let’s face it, that’s reserved for Men (or Women) with an Unquestionable and Uncompromising Character, Unrivaled Vision, and an Impressive Legacy of Monumental Accomplishments that Bettered the World that they’re leaving behind. None of which you have. You pawned all that off to try to ‘make peace’ with The Devil instead of Standing for Something Important.

History will forget you and your presidency or, at best, regard it (and you) with the harshest derision and scorn imaginable.

What were you thinking?


Now, if you don’t mind, I’d like to continue to voice some support for my preferred presidential candidate in this election since it’s not too late for them to make a surprise electoral college comeback to take this country where it needs to go:

Yellowstone Super Eruption
Catastrophic Meteor Strike


Mass Extinction You Can Believe In!


*This is purely speculation at this point. My guess is that the only reasons that Barack Obama is parroting this ‘Russian hackers’ nonsense, despite all the evidence stating that it was a non-issue as far as this election was concerned, is:

a) to smoke out the true informant within the Democratic Party by offering insults to their egos by giving credit where credit isn’t due,

b) to trip up Julian Assange into giving up his source out of pure frustration with the amount of stupidity coming out of Obama’s administration and the C.I.A.,

c) because he knows that the informant is already dead and can’t come forward to refute his and her claims that ‘the Russians did it’ *ahem* Seth Rich *ahem*, which might have allowed him to potentially ‘rally the troops’ for a false flag event like Bush did with Iraq.

I mean, it won’t work this time since those who are most willing to enlist and go to war against foreign actors are the ones who didn’t want Hillary as their President in the first place. And those who did are such pathetic pussies that they’ll yammer on for a few months about ‘war being the sensible option and necessary to preserve our independence from foreign influence’ but they’ll eventually settle into crying in a near catatonic state followed by resorting to passive-aggressive verbal sniping at the new President because they’re spineless cowards who would never actually step out of their ‘safe spaces’.)

4) because he knows that he’d better take the political self-preservation route on the subject and levy knowingly false accusations against a foreign power in a show of solidarity with Hillary instead of Speaking Truth, like he did in 2008 which would result in future grievous injury at her insistence, or

e) because he really is dumber and more out-of-touch with Real Americans than I’ve given him credit for. What can I say, I like to give people the benefit of the doubt? I’m just one hopelessly optimistic fellow who thinks the best of people, after all. *sarcasm alert*