Thursday, June 8, 2017

Headlines after Comey Hearing, How about New York Times lied


How funny, what is it that the Democrats have been pushing? Trump obstructed justice? Isn't that what this hearing was supposed to prove?
Comey was supposed to go out there and tell us all about how Trump had specifically told him to stop the Russia investigation, but instead, the headline on all the major news sources is "Trump Defamed Comey". How interesting that no one is talking about the narrative that has been pushed for weeks. CNN, MSNBC, CBS, they gave us smoke, but it turned out all that smoke wasn't indicative of a fire, it was indicative of the weight of their words, completely meaningless, weightless, and utterly false. The Mainstream media wants to talk about how Comey was defamed, or Trump "lied", They certainly don't want to talk about the complete lack of evidence for everything they have been peddling. And how interesting that the headline today isn't, New York Times put out fake news. It turns out that Trump Russia Collusion isn't factual, its theory and speculation, what is factual is the fact that the New York Times, as reliable as they are, has purposefully mislead the American people by putting out news that Comey stated "was not true".
In reference to the New York Times, Comey said "The challenge is that people talking about it often don't really know what's going on and those of us who actually know what's going on aren't talking about it".  Fake News confirmed? But of course, CNN doesn't want to focus on that, it doesn't go with the narrative. These overly bloated, elitist, propaganda machines, are to embarrassed to admit the fact that everything they predicted about the Comey hearing was wrong, and now all they can do now is focus solely on the negative towards Trump, which was the supposed defamation. The thing about that is that Defamation is not Trump-Russia Collusion, In fact what we did hear from the Comey hearing, and something the Mainstream media knows, and many americans don't, is the fact that Trump was never personally under investigation, but know, let's all talk about impeachment.
Accurate Headlines for Comey Hearing
"New York Times Fake News"
"Trump never under personal investigation"
"No New Evidence of Obstruction"
"Comey Says Trump Defamed him"
All of those are somewhat accurate, you can bet which one the mainstream media went for. They all leapt aboard the last and perhaps least important one. The fact is, nothing incriminating came out about Trump, and the Mainstream media was hoping they could get something, so now all they are doing is putting out more smoke when there has never been even a sighting of a fire.
It turns out that the only Media Source which I would consider a major media source, that even mentioned the fact that the New York Times lied, is Breitbart. Rest assured, the New York Times, which is doing coverage of this, definitely did not mention that.

Wednesday, June 7, 2017

Cannibalistic Left


Give them an inch and they will take a mile.
Nowhere is this more true than on the campus of Evergreen college where currently there is a movement to have a white liberal professor fired for refusing to leave the campus on "day of absence," a day where all white people were asked to leave the Campus. Professor Bret Weinstein is on the verge of being forced to leave Evergreen college on the mere fact that he refused to go along with the new age segregation that the young radical left pushes.
Whenever you give fascistic leftists a chance to continue their openly racist policies, they will take that chance. How long ago was it that campuses like Evergreen were submitting to the falsity of the claim "only white people can be racist". After each victory, the Campus extreme left pushes on to the next campaign. From Safe spaces to banning speakers, there is a clear agenda that states, any ideas that do not align perfectly with the far left Will be shut down. The insane fact of this monstrous continuously moving machine is that no one is safe from its wrath, This college professor was presumably one of them. Bret Weinstein was a liberal, a left leaning professor, yet in the moronic fight to censor everything, he was tossed out for refusing to go along with their new struggle for segregation.
This sort of radical and plainly wrong thinking is not only disturbing as it shows a new brand of totalitarian leftists, but it also should worry liberals. Obviously most millennials are liberal, most people start as liberals and switch to conservative as they start families or become more critical of overarching government. But in my personal experience, this sort of radical thinking is putting of a lot of young people, many of my friends, perhaps even a majority, have started to move more right. Almost everyone in the high school age range has probably seen an sjw compilation at least once, It turns the far left into a laughable movement, and people think, that side is insane, i'll just go to the seemingly more rational side. I myself started watching Milo Yiannopoulos who's one job is exposing radical leftists, before going on to more substantial speakers like Ben shapiro, and then finally starting to transition to Milton friedman, Ronald Reagan, and Ron Paul.
Not only is the far left attacking other left wingers, but they are destroying any chance at the left wing having a chance at real growth. The Right wing should celebrate and mock this movement at any chance because it is a winning point, The radical left is a laughable movement that has the chance at bringing about a resurgence in the libertarian right, as people laugh at authoritarianism, and laugh at leftism.

Monday, June 5, 2017

Libertarianism Resonates with Youth and the Constitution


The Republican Party has made a name for itself as the Party of patriotism, conservatism, and constitutionalism. The evidence is clear cut on this matter, even going to a 4th of july event makes people more likely to vote republican according to this study, and even more incredible, just seeing the American flag can push people slightly more right for quite awhile! It's obvious Republicans have made a name for themselves as being patriots, so why not act it?
Sure that's a very incendiary comment right there, implying republicans don't act Patriotic, in saying this, I don't question the love for their country that is so prevalent in the Republican party, I myself plan to register as a Republican voter when I turn 18. Rather, I question the actual adherence to the beliefs that founded this country. Fighting for the first and second amendment is good and all, but what about the other bits, what about the idea of "don't tread on me". The Tea Party, a clearly far right movement adopted this sign, almost all Tea Partiers are now Republicans, yet for some reason, the Republican party resonates far more with pushing Traditionalist ideology in policy, than in pushing libertarian ideology in policy.
What I am advocating here is not abandoning the Traditionalist viewpoints that form the Conservative Ideology, but rather, I am advocating that just as we would wish for the government to stay away from our guns, that we should keep the government out of other's beds. You don't need to abandon your ideology just to believe that you shouldn't force your beliefs on others. According to a Pew Research poll, only 1/3 of Republicans support legalizing gay marriage, this is compared to over 60% of the general population who do support legalizing gay marriage. Why? Why should Republicans be against what someone else does in their own bed, the only reasoning for this would of course be religious, yet even in christianity, the main religion of the Republican Party, we don't see an order to force others to comply with our beliefs, but rather a willingness to give people the free will to decide how they would spend their own lives. Not only is this sort of Ideology hypocritical as the Republican Party wants a smaller government and as a whole, supports the Don't tread on me Ideology, but it is also off putting. If the Republican Party wants to truly represent the Constitution, it can't continue to push its morals in policy, by this I don't mean stop the fight against abortion or anything of the sort, but instead, stop the implementation of policies that don't actually prevent damage to people.
What I mean by this is that in fighting Abortion, Republicans are fighting what they/I perceive as the killings of innocent unborn babies, however, in fighting gay marriage, Republicans are not fighting for anything other than the repression of others to do what they want in their own life, it doesnt protect anyone from anything, it just makes people not vote republican.
How many millennials would vote Republican if it were not for traditionalist views that Republicans force on others through policy. Millions of people resonate with Republican economic policy, but when it comes down to whether people want a lower business tax, or whether they can marry the person they want to, it can be very deterring to have to take a bundle in which if you vote for a good fiscal policy, you also have to vote for someone else's moral beliefs.
What I would advocate for is a Libertarian Republican Party that truly adheres to the "don't tread on me" Ideology, and says, Keep the government out of my bank, bed, business, and bullets. I would advocate for a Republican party that doesn't put off millennials by saying we don't want gays to be able to marry, but rather a Republican party that taps into the powerfully libertarian beliefs of the younger generations that say "don't tell me what I can do with my own life". This form of the Republican Party is the type that picks up upwards of half the Millennial vote, a Party that only puts off socialists, rather than putting off all the people who simply think people should do as they please in their private lives, is a much more popular party.

Media mischaracterization of Antifa and the Alt-Right


Literal battles have broken out between these two rather insane groups, one calling themselves Anti-fascists and then promptly beating anyone who doesn't espouse their beliefs, the other called the Alt-right which can consistently be found waving flags that are meant to represent Kekistan, a fake country named after the ancient egyptian god Kek who has been transformed into our modern day meme, Pepe. Oh did I forget to mention that the Kekistan flag follows the exact same design as the WW2 german flag?
Clearly with so much oddity between the two groups, and so much violence at play, the media wants to hop aboard this crazy saga of Frog nations versus Anti-fascists who are actually fascist. Except, one thing is wrong with the media coverage, If we look at every battle between these two groups, Antifa always starts them, and Antifa is the one who literally prepares weapons and throws bricks into crowds of people, yet for some strange reason, and I honestly can't tell why, the media treats the two as if they are equally at fault.
The Guardian, which certainly leans left, but I never thought it leaned farther left than Stalin, has put out an article, and it is important to note that this article is not under opinion, it is under US, in which it actually paints the Alt-Right as worse than Antifa!
In this article, The Guardian talks about how the Alt Right held a rally and the most militant of counter-protests had to be pushed out by police, These militants of course were Antifa, the Article never makes the direct connection. Even more disturbing, twice in the first three paragraphs, The guardian talks about the Police confiscating dangerous "makeshift weapons" including "bricks, mortar, and other projectiles", This is clearly mentioned in the article, except it never mentions that all of this came from Antifa. The article clearly steers away from mentioning that Antifa is the cause of the violence.
To make it worse, the Article hops into talking about the stabbing that took place last week, when a man who apparently espoused "far right views" stabbed two men that were protecting a muslim women. The Alt-Right was quick to disavow this action, and so would any group. No matter what you think of the Alt-Right, and I think of it as often annoying, silly, and often wrong, no one in their right mind would ever suspect the Alt-Right, or at least the mainstream Alt-Right of planning an attack on someone due to their religious belief. Yet Antifa won't believe this, and of course this stabbing only adds flame to the fire, Here is a video of an antifa leader talking about how who they call fascists, basically anyone they disagree with, are planning a genocide of other races. Clearly, in this Article from the Guardian, it is making a connection between the alt-Right and the horrific stabbing of the two men who attempted to protect a muslim women. How incredibly interesting it is that leftist articles like The Guardian will immediately jump to assure everyone that Radical islamic terrorists are not defining of islam, which I find to be true, but then tell us that one insane "Far Right" criminal defines the entire Alt-Right. This isn't fair journalism in the slightest, The Guardian is purposefully making the Alt-Right look evil, while doing everything in their power to make Antifa look like either the victims or the good guys in this case.
The Article even equates the Free-speech rallies held by the Alt-Right with the stabbing in portland, Its insane! Free-Speech Rallies held by the Alt-Right are somehow dangerous, while Antifa who would willingly shut down free speech across the country if they could, they already try on a regular basis in college campuses like UC Berkeley. In fact, when the Article mentions Kyle Chapman/ Based Stickman, it states that he became a "movement hero after physically attacking antifascists in Berkeley, California". Odd that The Guardians fails to mention that Kyle Chapman was defending people from Antifa who was attacking people, and even pepper sprayed and old man while that day, Clearly, this article is a hit job on the Alt-Right, but to make it worse, this article is in full support of Antifa, every time anything violent that came from antifa is mentioned, The article tactfully stays away from actually mentioning who the violence is from, but when it comes from the Alt-Right, which is rare, The article leaps into how terrible the Alt-right is by giving examples of fringe alt-Righters who do not represent the main body in any manner whatsoever.
So in essence, you have one side that goes out of their way to call for Free-Speech, although often I would rather not hear what the Alt-Right has to say, it's good that they fight for their right to say it, and then you have a side that will violently shut down anything they don't agree with. Despite this clear and obvious choice as to which group is the culprit in the violence, leftist articles like the guardian will make Antifa appear as clean as possible. Unlike The Guardian, I would rather not stray away from the obvious truth, a group that supports the violent shut down of anything they disagree with is nothing other than a political terrorist group. Antifa is a political terrorist group.

Saturday, June 3, 2017

Macron's Moronic Mockery


French president Emmanuel Macron decided it would be a great idea to mock President Trump over his decision to leave the Paris Accord. Aside from clearly failing to recognize the obvious and unfair burdens the agreement placed upon the USA, Macron thought that somehow mocking a president of a nation that is vital to France's security and economic well being was somehow a good Idea. In a video parodying the video put out by Trump that reasoned why the US should leave the Paris Accord, Macron tries to counter unarguable points.

The first thing Macron does is to turn around the phrase "The Paris Accord is a bad deal for America" into, "Leaving the Paris Accord is a bad deal for America and the World", This still angers me because Trump isn't abandoning the Climate Change fight, he is merely stating that he wants to negotiate a Deal that Treats America fairly, and has nations like China, who almost doubles America's emissions, actually contribute and cut down on emissions. For some reason or another, Macron can't accept the simple premise that perhaps the Paris Accord is not perfect, Whether it is because he is to Stubborn or prideful to let go of a bad deal, or if he actually has malicious intent in which he would like to see America's role as the world leader diminish, I cannot tell.

To continue his assault on common sense, Macron tries to counter the concrete fact that the Paris Accord would lose America "6.5 million industrial sector jobs" including 3.1 million manufacturing jobs, by stating that companies like Exxon Mobil, and Microsoft disagree. I honestly don't see one logical reason as to why big international companies that have jobs all over the world and would be benefited by less spread out competitors taking hits from damaging regulations are somehow credible sources. It makes not the slightest difference what Exxon Mobil says, studies show America will lose 6.5 million jobs from the Paris Accord, Perhaps Macron doesn't care about that, perhaps he is so elitist that the thought of common people losing their jobs doesn't matter to him, but Trump for whatever reason, whether it be genuine concern, or just concern about his Approval ratings, would rather not see 6.5 million Americans lose their jobs. These two things should be held as truths, A president should represent his people, and a President should not trust Exxon Mobil over actual studies from reliable sources, Macron has apparently shed both those obligations. Furthermore, as I lay out in this linked article(what if, Paris Agreement), The concern is not only damaging America's Economy, but also allowing China's economy to eclipse America's, I lay this concern out very clearly in the aforementioned article.

The Trump administration lays out a very good point in the next segment of the video where he states, "the Obama Administration pledged 3 billion to the green climate fund without authorization from congress". Yes, this is good reasoning, of course Congress should have to authorize 3 billion being spent before we give it to some random fund. Furthermore, is it not ironic that under the Paris Accord, China doesn't have to pay anything but America does. If we are fighting Climate Change, why does this Accord do everything in its ability to let China do as much damage to the environment as possible until 2030. So of course Trump's reasoning is correct, Congress has a say in American spending, as Congress is made up of elected officials, and some foreign elitist has no right to tell us what we should do with our money, And after this reasoning, Macron somehow thinks that saying 3 billion is less per capita than nations like Germany and Sweden are paying is a logical reason. Us paying less per capita than another nation is not a reason for the US to buy into a deal without authorization from Congress. From reading this, either Macron has no idea how the USA works, or he just has strongly dictatorial tendencies, but whatever it may be, Macron should not be mocking Trump for saying the Government should be ran as it is laid out in the constitution.

Trump's next point is the point that pushed me to agree with him as well, he states that the deal is badly negotiated and gives China free pass. It's completely true, China does not have to donate to some green fund, nor do they have to cut down on emissions until 2030; The paris Accord gives an unbelievably huge economical advantage to China, which is not a nation to which we should be handing over Economic leadership in the world. Macron counters this by saying, the Paris accord makes all nations "contribute to it equitably". I'm sorry Macron, that's just not true.

As a final point, Trump points to MIT research that states the Paris Accord would have a negligible effect on the climate, it might just be me thinking this, but could it be do to the fact that China doesnt have to do anything differently and they double the closest nation in emissions. Macron says, at least it's something, yes, something that unfairly targets the US while allowing China to build up, its a terrible deal. Macron does not manage to counter one single point from the Trump administrations video, it's pathetic. And even still, the most important thing we should remember is that Trump clearly stated that he wants to negotiate a different climate change deal, I don't know why Macron is targeting this video at Trump as if Trump said he doesn't want to fight Climate change, it appears that he does.

And aside from all of this Paris Accord asininity, European leaders has been showing a disturbing pattern of Anti-American sentiment, Macron is not the only one to have insulted Trump, Merkel has as well. Perhaps Europe is finally starting to flex its muscles, tragically, America is not their enemy. Merkel, and Macron, seem to have forgotten that it is the USA, not Europe, who polices the world, It is the USA, not Europe, that can afford to defend herself and her allies, It is the USA, not Europe, who can stand up to Russia and China(the actual dangers), it is the USA, not Europe, that leads the world economy. Trump is not Obama, and Macron and Merkel should think twice before insulting Trump as the only way they will continue to benefit from their Beneficiary, America, is by keeping good relations with the American President.

Link to video used here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4568984/France-mocks-White-House-video-Paris-agreement.html

Friday, June 2, 2017

What If? Paris Agreement


After Trump announced he was dropping out of the Paris Agreement, many were quick to come out with outrage against the insane claim as Trump was pushing. Many have claimed that Trump is handing over America's leadership in the supposed climate change fight to China, an interesting and perhaps moronic idea, others have called it an "immoral assault" American health, The ACLU even called it "An assault on Communities of color across the U.S."
Except, through all this backlash, it seems that very few of these would be protesters seem to have pondered this little bit of information. What if the Paris Agreement was an unfair agreement? What if it demanded billions from the U.S., as well as requiring the U.S. to cut down on vital industries that keep us at the number 1 slot for economies, while allowing China to lead the way in creating pollution until 2030"? What if Trump is right? Trump himself said he wanted to "Negotiate a better deal", not discard the idea of fighting climate change altogether.
The fact is that Trump is correct, The idea that the Paris Agreement in any way is fair, or even sensical, is a joke. An agreement that tells America to cut down on pollution, while allowing China, who is joining this agreement that supposedly will cut down on pollution, to continue on being the leading cause of emissions in the world for the next fifteen years, is not an agreement any president should sign, ever. Trump was entirely right, he was elected to represent Pittsburgh, not Paris, and throwing away millions of American jobs, and throwing away 2.5 Trillion over the next 20 years, is not a presidential feat of representing those who elected him.
However, This goes much further than just climate change. China, a leader in many things, steel, automobiles, tobacco, and human rights abuses, does not deserve to have control of the world. Any agreement that benefits China, while throwing the USA in the gutter, has no place being enacted on American soil. By enacting an agreement that will allow China to eclipse the gap between the two economies of America and China, any supporter of such agreement would be asking for trouble, no matter how ill suited many on the left appear to believe the USA is in leading the free world, China is no better, if anyone thinks for one second that the Government leading China right now is any different than the one that held sway when the tragedy of tiananmen square occurred, they have been well fooled. If China were to be handed leadership in the world economy, there is no end to the dangers it could eventually enact, Here is but a short list of the harrowing human's rights abuses that occur in China today.
-China leads the way in number of executions.
-Freedom of Speech does not exist, President Xi went to three major media broadcasts in China and ordered all of them to swear loyalty to his party. A prominent Chinese blogger criticized this, his blog was promptly shut down.
-An anonymous letter called for president Xi's resignation, A man not even proven to be connected to this letter was then accused of "corruption", he will now spend the rest of his life behind bars.
-Two Tencent editors were sacked when their website accidentally ran a headline that Xi found insulting.
-Christians continue to be imprisoned whenever the Government finds a teaching to not comply with its own will, none of these Teachings have been shown to call for uprising, they merely don't align with what the government wants people to believe.
This list excludes thousands of other human rights abuses, including the firewall that blocks anything on the internet that the government doesn't want its citizens to see, Oh did I forget to mention A Christian was buried alive? If China doesn't mind abusing it's own people, why on earth would China be a good world leader, and of course that's what the paris Agreement would do. While the west would clamp down on it's coal, its oil, and many other industries, China would continue to boom, perhaps even more so than now as they would have a complete monopoly on the industries that used to be held in the west.
It is completely mysterious why anyone would be opposed to Trump stating that he wants to negotiate a better deal. Are people seriously against America getting a fair shake? If we really want to stop Climate change, why are we not looking at the real culprit and demanding actual responsibility from them.


China nearly doubles America in emissions, yet they would be able to continue their course until 2030, and America would have to halt right away. That's complete and utter nonsense and thank God that President Trump was able to recognize that. American industry deserves a leg up, not a new weight added to the already elephant sized burden that it has to endure. Trump has many things to do in revitalizing American business, from reducing our the Corporate tax rate which indeed is one of the highest Corporate tax rates in the world, to removing ourselves from deals like the Paris Agreement which not only call on us to weaken our industries, but then demand us to give billions in aid to other countries which just means more taxes!
No Trump isn't handing over leadership to China, he is retaining American leadership and giving us a chance to come up with a better plan.
Furthermore, Renegotiating a bad deal does not mean Trump denies climate change, it just means Trump is more concerned about American's and them keeping their jobs, than the world elite's opinion, who don't get damaged when things such as the Paris agreement are enacted.