Tim Kaine Offered VP Job in Exchange for Rigging Election?

The word is out. The latest Wikileaks emails reveal that Hillary selected Tim Kaine as her Vice President long before the primaries even began. Proof here.

With this, a picture begins to unfold. Did Hillary Clinton’s disgraced 2008 campaign co-chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz take over for Tim Kaine in exchange for a VP slot? Tim Kaine stepped down as the chair of the DNC and Obama named Wasserman as his replacement in 2011. The facts are starting to add up. What better way for Hillary to ensure a primary victory then by having her campaign co-chair as the new chairwoman of the DNC, especially after losing a nail-biter to Barack Obama? Big surprise (not), we’ve now learned that Debbie Wasserman Schultz rigged the election in favor of Hillary – forcing her to resign in shame. Bigger surprise (not), Wasserman’s replacement, Donna Brazile, was also just caught rigging the election in Hillary’s favor.

Considering Obama has since promoted Hillary as the best person for the job, it would be no surprise to hear he supported such a measure – making him a part of the scandal too. What kind of people are we putting into power these days?

Corruption on top of corruption. Donald Trump was right after all, this one reeks of ‘rigged.’

Advertisements
Standard

Keep Your Eye on the Prize

I love this county, and honestly I want Trump to be great. If he wins, he will be great.

I’m voting for Trump in November because a vote for anyone else is a vote for Hillary, and she is a corrupt, scandal ridden, big government corporatist. I take gross language over dangerous policy any day of the week.

I’m voting for you. Become presidential, be proper and be respectful. Be like Reagan, or JFK, and you’ve got this in the bag.

Standard

Huffington Post Columnist to Podesta: ‘Humiliatingly Inadequate and Inept Response to ISIS’

In the new WikiLeaks emails released today, a chummy relationship between liberal media operatives and Hillary campaign officials / the Obama administration continues to raise questions. Brent Budowsky, liberal columnist from the uber liberal Huffington Post, apparently attempts to direct foreign policy decisions through a direct line of communication with Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta.

Brent seems oddly chummy with Podesta, and even contacts him from what appears to be his personal email address, and directly from his iPad. In the email, Budowsky calls the U.S. effort against ISIS, “humiliatingly inadequate and inept.” Budowsky also mentions that he has contacted a number of other high ranking U.S. government officials on the matter. For someone so liberal, it’s surprising to see such frustration boil over regarding Hillary Clinton’s failed strategy against ISIS. But perhaps more shocking is the fact that a member of the liberal news media is attempting to direct foreign policy by contacting a number of high level officials, including Mr. Podesta.

Other documents show the campaign was working with “friendly reporters” at The New York Times and Politico who were willing to publish planted stories essentially worded entirely by the campaign. Sick stuff.

Republicans were looking for an October surprise, and they got one. We will have more on this and future releases as they become available. Today’s email trove is said to be the first of many in the coming weeks.

 

Standard

If You Tell Me You Supported Hillary, I Already Know Seven Things About You

UPDATE: THIS ARTICLE IS IMPORTANT TO READ ESPECIALLY AFTER TRUMP’S VICTORY, PLEASE SHARE

This article is being posted in response to a similar Daily Kos piece I read prior to the election attacking Donald Trump’s supporters. Considering the author thinks Donald Trump’s supporters are all racist, classless, misogynist, unethical, un-American and un-Christian, I’ll reserve the childish bigotry and pure hatred for those lesser publications. Since Trump’s election, we’ve heard the masses of liberals call Trump supporters these terms time and time again, and the mainstream media has gone on a non-stop “Fake-News” frenzy while accusing everyone else of being “Fake News.” Instead of participating in their crap, I’ll stick to the traits which I can pinpoint with some degree of accuracy, and avoid branding all of her supporters with such a broad brush.

For your enjoyment, here are the seven things I (probably) know about you based on your (now previous) support for Hillary Clinton (if you supported Hillary, go ahead and close your browser now – you definitely can’t handle reading this whole thing because you’re an ostrich and because she lost):

1. You don’t understand basic economics.

This one is perhaps the biggest giveaway, and I would venture to say a vast majority of Hillary’s supporters don’t have even a rudimentary knowledge of economics. For example, a higher minimum wage hurts the poor and raises unemployment, and higher taxes on corporations and on the rich (or anyone) hurts the economy and hurts the poor the most. Additionally, regulations stifle economic growth, and our debt is reaching unsustainable levels. We are also already in a depression which is being masked by low interest rates. We are one bad bank decision away from a global Great Depression that everyone will suffer from. Your excuse is to simply say “trickle-down economics doesn’t work,” but the sad truth is, you have no idea what you’re talking about. Trickle-down isn’t even a real policy, it’s a word Democrats made up. Oh, and by the way, if you’re an economist and you somehow don’t agree – you’re a Keynesian, and you’re about to lose your job. If you still don’t believe me, you’re probably a Hillary supporter, and you need to look these things up (use Google, or read any basic book on economics that wasn’t written by Karl Marx, try Thomas Sowell instead) – I won’t do your homework for you. Oh yeah, and despite all the media’s fear-mongering, the market is soaring after Donald Trump’s election – legitimate or not – you have to pay attention. If Hillary’s supporters knew anything about basic economics, they wouldn’t be Hillary supporters – period.

2. You are an insider, a statist, a corporatist, a fascist, a socialist, a corrupt financier, a communist, or just creepy.

At least to some degree, you have to be one of the above to support Hillary Clinton. It’s highly unlikely you could be anything else. Considering Hillary herself fits the bill on most of these titles, I would say it’s hard to imagine someone supporting her who doesn’t as well. Even her rival in the primary was a self-proclaimed, devout socialist. WikiLeaks has proven Hillary to be a massively corrupt liar who apparently associates with child molesters (at least we know of one for sure, Anthony Weiner) and people who perform disgusting rituals that I can’t even print here. Don’t believe me? That’s because CNN didn’t report it. Search Google for “spirit cooking” right now, and then ask yourself if this is normal. If you’re not creepy (and I don’t mean just sui generis), then you’re one of the other things in this list – I don’t know which is worse honestly.

3. You have trouble seeing the forest for the trees.

You see the words “higher minimum wage,” and you get excited without doing the research into the ramifications. Same goes for “free universal healthcare,” “free tuition,” and “higher taxes on the rich and big business.” You are unable to objectively analyze consequences of actions, and instead prefer to support what “looks good,” or “feels right” with no real thought process behind it. This makes you an ignorant do-gooder who contributes to the decline of our society. You also cannot see how biased the media is, because you are unable to discern truth from fiction. You can only absorb small bits of information at any one time, and your solution to the complexity of the world is to bury your head in the proverbial sand. You don’t see the corruption in the DOJ. You don’t see the corruption in the intelligence community. You don’t see the corruption in the White House. You don’t see the corruption with Hillary, Bill, and the Clinton Foundation.

4. You are a bigot, you just don’t know it yet.

Now that Trump has won, you’re calling everyone associated with him a racist. You know it – don’t hide it. You’ve slandered people on the right, and you’ve oppressed people who did not agree with you. You’ve dehumanized friends, family members and even colleagues by calling them racists, misogynists, homophobes, idiots, nazis and xenophobes. You did this, you know you did this, and you know it’s bigotry, you just won’t admit it yet. In fact, you will comment on this article by calling me an idiot, or a moron, or something similar – but you’ll provide exactly zero evidence to contradict anything contained herein. Meanwhile, you’re totally clueless about the bigoted, racist emails from Hillary’s camp in the WikiLeaks releases. Apparently they hate Latinos, blacks, Catholics, evangelicals, southerners, young people, and of course, Trump supporters. You think Donald Trump and his supporters are all these terrible things, but you’re a hypocrite, and so is Hillary. You call Donald a misogynist even though Hillary attacked, silenced and ridiculed her husband’s rape-victims, and even though she takes millions of dollars from men who abuse and murder women in the middle east, and even though Hillary defended a child rapist and laughed about it when she was an attorney. You call him a racist even though Hillary says we need to “bring blacks to heel.” You call him a xenophobe and a nazi even though more Americans in Israel voted for Trump than Hillary. You call him a homophobe even though Trump wants to stop Islamic extremists from murdering members of the LGBTQ community, and even though he supports gay marriage, unlike Hillary. You call him corrupt when Hillary is easily the most corrupt person to ever run for President of the United States. You call him a liar while Trump represents the first bastion of truth we’ve had in American politics in decades. You say his university is a fraud, while tens of thousands of students claim they “loved it” and only a couple who disliked it were touted by a partisan law firm with ties to Hillary. You say he’s had bankruptcies, meanwhile he has run numerous successful businesses, and bankruptcies do happen in business – Trump’s failures are spectacularly rare. You don’t know this, because you are an employee, not a business owner. Meanwhile, Hillary ran only one business, Whitewater Development Corporation. It was a complete fraud and a huge scandal, went bankrupt and brought down a bank with it. Hillary and Bill were investigated and many people were convicted of a deluge of crimes. Oh yeah, and she got away with insider trading, and possibly even murder – yup, the m-word, and she’s running for president. Being a bigot should be the least of your concerns.

5. You think blacks and Hispanics are inferior, and you support mass genocide.

Essentially, you’re the real racists, and you’re only one small step away from overtly supporting mass oppression and mass genocide. You dehumanize blacks and Hispanics, and assume they would be helpless without you. You call them things like “super-predators” behind closed doors (Hillary actually did this before she said we need to “bring them to heel”), but pretend to champion their causes at all other times. Meanwhile, you only care about your own image, and care little if anything for the minorities you indirectly denigrate. Democrats of old passed laws to designate blacks as “not-human,” while democrats of today pass laws to designate the unborn as “not-human.” By supporting Hillary you directly or indirectly support partial-birth late-term abortion (aka forcefully removing a viable baby and then murdering it out of the womb). You already support mass genocide and mass oppression, you just don’t know it yet. If you’re black, then you don’t know that blacks are significantly worse off under Barack Obama – and that Hillary’s campaign staff “joked” about smoking crack cocaine in order to research a speech for black people at the NAACP. If you’re Hispanic, you obviously don’t know Hillary’s campaign considers you to be “mindlessly loyal consumers” and “needy latinos.”

6. You are woefully ignorant of how business and taxes work.

It’s easy to get you riled up about Trump’s taxes, because you don’t know anything about taxes. You think when the government sends you a refund check it’s a gift from the Feds. You’re also completely ignorant about business, how it works, why it exists, and what it has done for our society. You are business illiterate, and you probably have a degree in communications, anthropology, sociology, or some other obscure liberal art (and you never branched out). You’re not upset about the fraud at Hillary’s foundation because CNN didn’t report it. Regardless, you don’t even know the difference between a charity and a for-profit business. You have no idea what “profit” even means.

7. You think the media is unbiased (except Fox News), and you think academics know everything.

Your ignorance of the bias which exists in the media and within academia is stunning. You think journalists and academics are inviolable, and you practically salivate when you read/watch a piece or read a study which you already agree with. You are very susceptible to the halo effect, and you value credentials over results. You have very little ability to think critically or rationally, and your success in life and in your career have suffered as a result of your poor judgement. You are voting for Hillary or you voted for her already without reading a single release from WikiLeaks. You don’t know that CNN is a fraudulent news organization, working hand-in-hand with the DNC and Hillary (the proof is in the WikiLeaks you didn’t read). You are brilliantly ignorant, and supremely egotistical with nothing to show for it. You are what I like to call, an intellectual with no judgement, or a thinker with no mind. You are sad and angry about this, because your lack of understanding of the world and how it works leaves you feeling frustrated and depressed. As a result, you attack and demoralize others who do not agree with your simplistic, naive ideals.

If you tell me you supported Hillary Clinton, I probably already know everything about you.

Oh, and Donald Trump won the election… get over it.

And good day, sir.

 

Help us create more content:

Or set up a monthly $10 donation:

Standard

Should Bigotry Be Illegal?

With Donald Trump rallying the racists of the country from their slumber, maybe its time we started having some real talk. Thanks to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it’s already illegal for businesses to discriminate against customers based on race, color, religion, and national origin. But what about sexual orientation?

In fact, why stop there? Why should it be legal for any citizen to spew bigotry towards their fellow citizens, or even non-citizens for that matter? Perhaps its time we consider expanding upon the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – perhaps as the “Civil Rights and Enforcement Act of 2016.” Donald Trump’s supporters might think twice about spewing hatred for illegal immigrants if the penalty for insulting illegal immigrants or any other minority group was a few years jail time.

Ideally, if we could implement federal corporal punishment laws for such crimes, anyone caught slandering illegal immigrants or demanding they “go back home” would be subject to public lashings. Only a child would be so ignorant to refer to an entire group of people as “illegals,”- these bigots should be treated just like disobedient children. The same goes for anyone who says anything harmful about blacks, Muslims, homosexuals, women, or any minority group we can keep protected. We are stronger together. I’m not advocating corporal punishment for youth, of course, but anyone over the age of eighteen who supports Donald Trump, and who therefore supports racism, should be labeled a “bigot,” and treated accordingly – perhaps even harshly. On a side note, we cannot allow people to vote for Donald Trump. They should be ridiculed and attacked, even intimidated at the polls if that’s what it takes. Needless to say, I agree with Christian Gabriel from the Huffington Post – he tells it like it is.

It’s sad it’s come to this, but desperate times call for desperate measures. Our country is on the verge of electing a racist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, sexist white rich entitled man by the name of Donald Trump, and anyone who could support such a monster should be stopped in their tracks, by federal force if necessary. The laws on the books exist to protect us from monsters like this.

Despite all the controversy, Hillary Clinton didn’t go far enough when she said 50% of Donald Trump’s supporters are “deplorable”. The truth is, 100% of his supporters are clearly deplorable. They are all racist, homophobic, Islamophobic, sexist and xenophobic – without question. The only way we can stop this scourge of hate from existing in our society is to pass laws on the books which slowly and methodically eliminate them from our ranks. Because it’s such a huge endeavor, this task would likely require the creation of a Federal Department of Public Decency. This agency would be tasked with monitoring, labeling, and controlling bigotry in all of its forms. Imagine living in a country where bigotry and hate are all but eliminated – unlike Trump, this really would make America great again.

It’s time to fight fire with fire folks. Let’s end the hate.

For those of you who read this far – this article is 100% sarcasm. It pains me that I have to spell this out. Speaks volumes about the deluge of garbage we’re reading today if folks can’t tell this is in jest.

Standard

What If Only Taxpayers (or White People) Could Vote?

This might be the most disturbing electoral map ever created – even though it’s been skewed from a map of white voters. To envision so few people might vote Democrat if only taxpayers could vote is enlightening to say the least. This map originates from a liberal CNN-data fueled BuzzFeed article some time ago covering a multitude of antiquated and restrictive voting scenarios. In this scenario, both men and women can vote, but an effective poll tax is added back to exclude non tax paying voters. The poll tax, of course, disproportionately and significantly affects poor ethnic minorities as an unintended consequence. When they weren’t attacking black communities and destroying black lives and families – the Democrats aimed to eliminate blacks from voting and Republicans from office (that is, until they managed to manipulate the black community into voting Democrat in later years). To estimate the effect of a modern poll tax, and due to a lack of data, BuzzFeed smartly chose to show only white men and women voters.

If you like this content, please take a brief moment to donate and help us do more. Even a tiny bit helps a lot:

And yes, we are aware of this, we just disagree with the “falseness” of the “doctored” label as BuzzFeed was specifically trying to simulate the effects of a poll tax. Since we know the majority of poor, non-taxpayers are non-white (nearly 60%), and white people make up close to 90% of all taxpayers, we see good reason to agree with BuzzFeed’s assumption. Also, nearly 50% of nonvoters are minorities, and they make up only 20% of likely voters. You only need a small percentage change in demographics to flip most states from blue to red. Additionally, as everyone in this map would be considered a “taxpayer” due to the poll tax, the label sticks. Is it perfect? No, as we are obviously counting white non-taxpayers disproportionately. Is the map still probably correct? Yes. Remember folks, estimates are estimates, It’s impossible to determine exactly how many income taxpayers voted, and which candidate they voted for in the last election. Considering old voting laws like the poll tax also sought to provide greater representation to tax payers and land owners (aka, the real stakeholders), it’s safe to say an electoral map of solely taxpayers would look very similar to this. Simply put, since a state goes blue or red on very minor swings in the electorate makeup – we can make an educated guess. This is why we make assumptions.

If you don’t like this particular map (Snopes anyone?) – which is admittedly a postulate – and you instead seek biased media confirmation with rock-solid boring geek data, a slanted 2012 New York Times story inadvertently determined seventy five percent of voters near the poverty level voted Democrat in recent presidential elections. Considering this voting block is massive – despite what the New York Times would have you believe – it’s highly likely a map just like this would pan out. Last time I checked, there are nearly 50 million people in poverty in the United States. If we assume just 25% of them vote, and if 75% of those voters voted Democrat, that’s a voter swing of nearly 10 million in favor of Republicans. This would have resulted in a landslide victory for Romney, with 60 million votes for Romney to Obama’s 55 million. Guess what? The map above shows such a landslide victory. To put this into perspective, such a victory would approach the margin won by Ronald Reagan in 1980, and this was that map:

349px-electoralcollege1980-svg

And for all you picky people, Romney’s win would have looked like this:

2012romney

Look familiar? If you need more evidence than this, you’re thinking too hard – or perhaps too little. Looking at a map of white voters is clearly upsetting to some folks, but it’s probably shockingly accurate, and can be backed-up with basic data from other sources. Additionally, this data backs up our assumption even further. If anything, based on the available information, the original “doctored” map might be generously blue.

The bigger question is how can we decrease the overwhelming poverty rates among blacks and Hispanics (along with everyone else, of course)? However, racial issues aside, perhaps we should be asking why non-meaningful taxpayers are even allowed to vote in the first place? Since tax-dodging corporations can’t vote, we won’t worry about them for now – we’ll just focus on individuals. We’re not recommending a poll tax or any other specific approach necessarily – we’re just asking the question. Specifically, we’re looking at those of working age (not retired) who don’t pay income tax or capital gains tax and are clearly not contributing to the federal government in any meaningful way. To be clear, married couples with only one working spouse file jointly, so they both pay taxes. Of course, there should be some exemptions, the disabled, the retired, spouses, all veterans and those currently serving for example. We’re solely talking about people who are truly on the self-imposed federal dole – and for the record, property tax and sales tax go to state and local government, not the federal government. If you pay next to nothing towards the federal government, why should you have any say in how it operates? In fact, our founding fathers, and particularly the godfather himself, James Madison, absolutely supported a measure like this.

James Madison wrote extensively on oppression, and he feared the greatest risk of oppression in the United States would come from those citizens who did not own property. Madison believed that those who did not own property would likely outnumber those who did, thus providing them with a stronger voting block. As such, he feared an oppression of the minority rich, not unlike what the Nazis did to the wealthy minority Jewish class in Germany in the early 20th century. Madison also feared oppression by the rich, but decided their minority status would put them at much greater risk in a true democracy – this despite their greater individual wealth and influence. His solution was to provide two thirds of the voting power to the wealthy.

Perhaps it’s time we reconsider Madison’s ideas. If an overwhelming number of tax paying citizens votes Republican, maybe we should take note. The core of our society has illuminated the “check engine” light – a cry for help. While those of us who do not pay taxes continue to vote for more taxes, and more spending, it’s safe to say that eventually the chickens will come home to roost. While non-taxpayers continue to vote for the likes of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, taxpayers will overwhelmingly continue voting for lower taxes, less regulation, more freedom, less spending, and a stronger economy.

As Margaret Thatcher once said, “The trouble with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money,” and as James Madison said, “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” Notice he specifically says many and elective, while also pointing out the obvious. Perhaps Madison knew we would be destined for tyranny without voter checks and balances like these?


If you enjoyed this article, please take a brief moment to donate and help us do more. Even a tiny bit helps a lot:

Standard

Me if Hillary Gets Elected and 10 Reasons Why She’s Bad for America

10 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton is Bad for America:

1. She’s definitely a serial liar.

Let’s face it – Hillary lies about basically everything. Her emails, Benghazi, her affairs, possibly her sexuality, Bill’s affairs, Bill’s alleged history of sexual assault (see: rape), her accomplishments, basic facts about her life, her foundation, her intentions, her personality, her positions, her accents, her smiles, her favorite food, and of course, her involvement in multiple possible murders. Which bring us to number 2:

2. She’s probably a serial killer.

They don’t call her Killery for nothing. The body count possibly attributed to Hillary and Bill is massive, and we’re not talking about war, we’re talking straight up premeditated murder – with big motives. If there was only one name or two we could give her the benefit of the doubt, but there are literally dozens and dozens.

3. She created ISIS.

Enough said.

4. She ruins everything she touches.

Libya, Syria, Egypt, Qatar, Turkey, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Ukraine, Russia. The list goes on and on, and now she wants to ruin our country too.

5. She is Keynesian.

Enough said.

6. She is a regressive, oppressive, statist, authoritarian, fascist, war mongering leftist.

Enough said.

7. She’s in bed with and funded by Wall Street and big business.

And she actively encourages corporatism while simultaneously criticizing capitalism (just like Hitler). Not cool.

8. She’s in bed with and funded by oppressive foreign governments.

Meanwhile she pretends to champion women’s causes while taking big checks from dictators and regimes who oppress women.

9. She’s a fake.

She represents nothing. She says she is for women, but she ignores and then attacks and buries her husband’s rape victims to further her own interests. She says she will crack down on Wall Street, but Wall Street pays her a fortune and funds her campaign. She wants to raise the minimum wage to get elected, but she knows it will hurt the economy. She pretends to know everything about foreign affairs, but she is leaving her post and the world in shambles.

10. She will ruin the economy.

Our fragile bubble economy is already on the verge of collapse. Hillary will continue the reckless monetary and fiscal policies of Obama, Yellen and their predecessors and throw our country into a deep, almost insurmountable depression. She will destroy millions of jobs and probably our currency, and she will bankrupt a huge swath of our citizens while enriching those very few at the top. Of course, she will blame capitalism for all this, and not her failed policies, shifting us further towards Socialism.

 

Standard