Warmongering Hillary

Of course this isn’t a Trump add.  It’s something put together by Infowars.  A site normally dismissed by all “respectable” people in the world.  I doubt it will be seen by many people who are actually considering voting for Killary.

Still, I’m reminded of some history lesson I taught myself (my public school education didn’t discuss such matters) regarding the 1964 election.  Here’s an official LBJ campaign add that aired on NBC at a time when that network commanded at least 1/3 of the US television audience.

So it’s nice to see the Democrats getting a small taste of their own medicine.  This ad was the start of their successful attempt to brand themselves as the party of peace despite getting this country embroiled in war after war after war after war.

The Democrats have been a party of war for over a century.  LBJ himself, after releasing this ad and defeating Barry Goldwater in a landslide, escalated Vietnam to a point where close to 60,000 Americans and millions of Indochinese were slaughtered for no reason. With the exception of a brief interlude in the 1970s McGovern and Jimmy Carter era, they never met a war they didn’t like.  The Republicans have usually been terrible on the issue of war and peace, at least since Nixon.  But the Democrats have managed to brainwash the last few generations of Americans into believing they are somehow less bellicose, less likely to engage in needless overseas violence, and less likely to start World War III. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It’s nice to see Republicans, with the advent of Trump, at least paying some lip service to the notion that avoiding war is actually good.  We need it now more than ever as Hillary Clinton is the most unhinged warmonger outside John McCain to win a major party’s nomination in my lifetime.  Even with a Democrat presidential victory, perhaps some members of the GOP can learn from Trump’s dominant Primary campaign and actually oppose further aggression against Syria, Russia, China, Iran, or whoever the latest bogeyman turns out to be.

The USA needs an actual opposition party to the War Party.  We haven’t had one in a very long time.

A Real American Hero

The guy screaming at these worthless dirtbags blocking the George Washington Bridge in New York and tearing down their banner.

I wouldn’t have blamed him for punching each one of them in the face.  Listen to the horseshit coming out of their mouths as the local media there treats them like respectable citizens instead of the disgusting criminals they are:

“Just basically to tell the system we’re not going to be in the shadows anymore,” protester Mahoma Lopez said. “We are here and we contribute to the community, we pay taxes, and we consume… The majority of immigrant people, we don’t have the right to vote.”

How the fuck are you in the shadows?  You’re blocking traffic on one of the busiest bridges in the world and you’re sure as hell not worried about getting deported for it.  What the hell are you talking about?

Any contribution to the community any of you may have made in your entire life was negated 10 times over by delaying thousands and thousands of people who were trying to get to work.  What if there was an ambulance stuck there? What if someone had an emergency they were trying to get to?

I’m sure you consume from “society” (i.e. the taxpayers) about ten times more than you pay in taxes judging by the fact that you spent your Wednesday morning blocking a major river crossing rather than going to work.

Why should the majority of immigrants have the right to vote?  In what country anywhere in the world does a foreigner show up and immediately have the right to vote in that country’s elections?

Yeah we need more of these people in the good ‘ol USA.

Vote Hillary.

Image result for hillary la raza

The (relatively) good and bad of a potential Trump presidency

I pretty much disagree with Hillary Clinton on just about every single thing.  I also think she’s literally evil and is perfectly content with killing people if it furthers her political agenda or consolidates her power.  I obviously can’t know for sure whether any of the mysterious and convenient deaths surrounding the Clintons were due to foul play on their part.  But there’s no denying the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children she and her husband starved to death.  Not to mention the Serbians they bombed in the nineties or the Lybians and Syrians that have been killed as a result of the wars she escalated as Secretary of State.

So yeah, she’s a very bad person with blood on her hands.  Trump’s never had the power to start a war.  And as far as I know, he’s never been accused of killing anyone.  So I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt that he’s not as bloodthirsty as a Clinton, Bush, or even Obama.  But is there any hope that his presidency would be anything less than disastrous?  Or would it just end up being just as bad as any other?  I’ll attempt to answer that question.

Image result for good trump bad trump

The (relatively) good:

1. He wants to deescalate tensions with Russia.  He’s been pretty consistent on that front. That’s an absolute positive in my book.

Hillary has compared Putin to Hitler.  That’s really insulting considering all the Russians that Hitler killed.  It’s also ridiculous as Putin has never made any serious attempt at conquering other countries to unite ethnic Russians as Hillary suggested.  He merely annexed an island that was majority Russian after they voted to be annexed.  It was completely peaceful.  There was no invasion.  The Russian military was already on Crimea as they’ve had a base there for hundreds of years.  The idea that Russia wants to or even has the means to reestablish the Soviet Empire is delusional.  They’re still a relatively impoverished country with a GDP about the size of Italy’s.

Hillary’s also been running around blaming Russia for hacking her emails without any proof and the Obama administration’s been threatening them over Syria.  Four, or god forbid, eight years of a Killery administration can only get us closer to all out war with a nuclear armed state.  It’s madness.

I don’t believe that Trump’s going to actually withdraw from NATO like he’s threatened to if other countries don’t “pay up.”  But it’s nice that he’s at least saying it.  Although I’d prefer the US withdraw from NATO regardless.  It also makes me think he’d have no interest in expanding NATO into Ukraine or Georgia which would be a distinct possibility under Hillary. This would risk US involvement anytime some Russian separatist region in either of these countries causes trouble.  How is that in the interest of average Americans?

2. He doesn’t seem to want to overthrow Assad in Syria.  Hillary of course wants to simultaneously fight ISIS and the enemies of ISIS which are Syria, Russia, and Iran. Trump just wants to fight ISIS.  I say the US should stay out completely.  But if Trump simply stops supporting the rebels who are on the side of ISIS, Assad will almost certainly end the war relatively quickly with the backing of Russia.  So hopefully that happens before Trump manages to escalate the Syria/Iraq wars going on now.  With Hillary this war will likely drag on, and the likelihood and level of American involvement will continue to escalate.

3. He wants less immigration.  The current level of immigration serves to allow those who favor big government to further consolidate their power.  It dilutes the culture and political influence of the native born population.  It also allows large businesses to lower wages and pass the costs of providing healthcare, education, transportation, etc. for the new arrivals onto the rest of us via taxation.  I’m skeptical about the Wall, and I don’t favor rounding up millions of illegals and deporting them by force.  But I certainly advocate for less immigration.  Hillary wants a borderless world.  That’s madness under the present circumstances.

4. He’s criticized the Fed for maintaining low interest rates (inflating the money supply) and seems to recognize the economy is in a bubble.  He’s definitely no Ron Paul, but acknowledging these things is a step in the right direction.

5. Lowering taxes.

6. Getting out of the Trans Pacific Partnership.  These trade deals are always about enriching certain companies or industries.  They always empower governments whether it’s the US government or the governments of the other countries involved.  They’re never truly about “free” trade.

Image result for trump crazy hair

The Bad.  I’ll go through these quickly.  In my mind most are pretty obvious

1. Favors the use of torture.

2. Wants to wage war against ISIS.

3. Pledged allegiance to Israel.

4. Wants to build the Keystone Pipeline.  My understanding is this is not favored by many of the localities that it would run through.  The GOP wants to force it on them through eminent domain or the use of nearby Federally owned land.

5. Wants to cancel Obama’s Iran deal.  The deal itself is not really necessary as Iran is no threat to the United States.  But canceling it and imposing more sanctions is an act of war against a country that is only our enemy because the Israeli government says so.

6. He’s anti-free trade.  I’m glad he’s criticizing NAFTA, TPP, and all the various acronyms that have been negotiated by US oligarchs in recent years.  They’re bad deals that strengthen the power of the States involved and are unnecessary for free trade.  But he fails to recognize the true reasons for the loss of manufacturing jobs in recent decades and thinks tariffs will solve the problem.  Well tariffs might create some new jobs for certain people, but they’ll result in higher prices for consumer goods for everyone.

I may update these lists at a later date.  I’m sure there are plenty more bad things, and maybe even some good ones I’ll think of before election day.

Hillary’s I have a dream speech to some banksters

“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders

She also wants “universal” healthcare.  So in this dream of hers, anyone, from anywhere in the entire Western Hemisphere can show up in the United States and get free healthcare? Or are the entire continents of North and South America going to be one giant tax jurisdiction under a single payer bureaucracy run from Washington, DC?

Either way sounds like a great idea.

Obama to declare people from Middle-East non-white

The Obama regime wants to hasten the end of the white majority of the United States by declaring 10 million people previously considered white to be “Middle Eastern.”  If he gets his way it will take effect in four years.

It also means they can enjoy preferential treatment from the government such as:

• Enforcing the Voting Rights Act and drawing congressional and state legislative district boundaries;

• Establishing federal affirmative action plans and evaluating claims of employment discrimination in employment in the private sector;

• Monitoring discrimination in housing, mortgage lending and credit;

• Enforcing school desegregation policies; and

• Helping minority-owned small businesses get federal grants and loans.

All of these policies are basically designed at this point to discriminate against whites so naturally everybody who can claim some portion of their ancestry outside of Northern Europe wants to be considered non-white.

Regardless of which race or ethnicity benefits, the Federal Government has no right to be doing any of these things other than drawing congressional legislative districts.

Here’s a quote from some Egyptian professor in Texas who has been agitating for Arabs to be officially minoritized:

“I think with him being the first African-American president and being an obvious example of making the American fabric more diverse, that this could be great sign of inclusion about what it means to be an American,”

Please explain to me what exactly it does mean to be an American.  As far as I can tell it means being in the tax jurisdiction known as the United States and saying you’re American. That’s about it.  Melting pot indeed.

Sorry if I don’t get all weepy when I see the flag or hear the War National Anthem.