Finally a bit of good news from America. After endless attempts from lower courts to derail this policy, that I would regard as both “common sense” and “not extensive enough”, the US Supreme Court has finally ruled that Trump’s so called “Muslim ban” (ie, a temporary ban on immigration from 6 countries that just happen to be Muslim majority, and which are considered to be potential terrorist hotspots), is in fact constitutional.
THE US SUPREME Court is letting the Trump administration enforce most of its 90-day ban on travellers from six Muslim-majority countries, overturning lower court orders that blocked it.
Just for the record, I think it’s absolute insanity that it even had to go this far. I think it’s absurd that the elected President can have his orders overruled by any random judge in the country, even in the lowest of courts. I do understand that there needs to be some way to keep in line and to make sure that he doesn’t violate the constitution with his orders, but the Supreme Court alone should be the one court with the power to do so.
The action today is a victory for President Donald Trump in the biggest legal controversy of his presidency to date.
Controversial… even though a small majority of US citizens actually support the ban. In fact, a higher percentage of US citizens support the ban, than support Trump himself. The only reason this became such a controversy, was because of a vocal minority of lunatics complaining about it, and getting a platform to do so, from the treacherous mainstream media. The majority of people have seen the consequences that mass immigration from the Muslim world has had on Europe, and don’t want to see a similar epidemic of rapes, child grooming, acid attacks, terrorism, etc., to happen in America as well.
The court did leave one category of foreigners protected, those “with a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States”, the court said in an unsigned opinion. The justices will hear arguments in the case in October.
And here’s hoping they’ll decide in October that the original ban wasn’t extensive enough, and start including other countries, particularly Saudi Arabia.
A number of groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), have sharply criticised the ban, saying it unfairly targets Muslims.
No, because there are plenty of Muslim majority countries in the world, including some of the most populous ones, such as Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria etc, which aren’t included in the ban, and non-Muslim minorities living in the targeted countries, are also subject to the ban. Doesn’t seem unfair to me and even if was, does anybody honestly care? The American people have their own needs, and those of their loved ones to worry about, and can hardly be expected to put the needs of of citizens in countries which have adversarial relationships with America, ahead of their own.
Trump said last week that the ban would take effect 72 hours after being cleared by courts.
The anticipation is killing me.
The ban would apply to citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
Please add more.
The Trump administration said the ban was needed to allow an internal review of the screening procedures for visa applicants from those countries. That review should be complete before 2 October, the first day the justices could hear arguments in their new term.
This is not going to be a happy post. The truth is, I’m very worried right now. Remember about a week ago, I wrote a post about how America was no longer calling for Assad to be removed from power in Syria? I felt very good at the time, because I believed that doing this would eliminate any possibility of a conflict developing in the region between America and Russia. Such a conflict, I feel, could have potentially escalated to the point of war between the two. If that was to happen, it would in fact be the beginning of World War 3. That is not an exaggeration. That’s why I was so relieved to see Trump agree to allow Assad to keep power.
Then this had to happen:
So as soon as Trump agrees to back off on Assad, a chemical weapon attack happens, and innocent civilians, including children are effected. From a logical stand point, it makes absolutely no sense for Assad to do this. With the help of his Russian allies, he’s already winning the civil war, and is rapidly approaching a total victory. There’s no logical reason for him to start committing war crimes all of a sudden, and provoking a response from the United States, after they have agreed to leave him alone. Such an action could only be undertaken by an idiot or a madman, and anyone who has actually taken the time to listen to Assad speak, will know that he is neither. Nevertheless, the media and Western shill politicians instantly jumped to the conclusion that Assad and his regime were to blame, without even waiting for an investigation to be conducted first.
Some informative comments from the video above.
A British journalist in Syria offers this suggestion as to what actually happened:
According to him, what actually happened was that the terrorists (who America had been backing against Assad, before Trump came to power) had a factory that they were using to develop chemical weapons. The Syrian air force destroyed this factory, possibly without any knowledge of what was really being developed there, and this caused chemicals to leak out and harm civilians. In contrast to what the Western media is saying, it wasn’t a deliberate chemical attack from the Assad regime on his own people.
Unfortunately, Trump seems to be buying into the lies:
Some informative comments from the video above.
I just want to make it quite clear that this war is a red line issue for me with Trump. One of the main reasons I supported him at all, was because of his insistence on ending the wars in the Middle East, and his desire to forge a better relationship with Russia, unlike Hillary who was literally campaigning on shooting down Russian planes, operating in Syria. If Trump goes back on those promises, and ends up starting a war over this, I’m done with him. I will renounce my support for him, that’s how serious this issue is to me. Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail here, and he’ll do the right thing. I really really hope that he does.
I knew it was going to be true. This is how Trump always works. He deliberately makes an outrageous sounding statement that on the surface, makes him sound like a liar, or an idiot. The media goes into a frenzy, tripping over themselves to mock him for it. Then a few days or weeks later, he’s proven correct, and in the process, he causes the media to expose themselves as the liars that they are. And they keep falling into the trap every single time. They don’t call him the master of 4D chess for no reason, you know.
The latest in the fast-moving story about Susan Rice’s alleged unmasking of several aides to President Donald Trump’s campaign is that the data request was for “detailed spreadsheets” of intercepted telephone calls.
Funny how in this situation, it’s only “alleged”, but in the case of Russia supposedly hacking the election, and Trump cooperating with them when they did it, it’s always reported as a confirmed fact, even though there is no actual evidence to support it.
Unlike the Russia hacking story, there actually is evidence to support this wiretapping story, yet this is only “alleged” to be true apparently. That’s the mainstream media for you. They don’t exist to keep people informed about what’s going on. They exist to manipulate the masses to think a certain way.
A former U.S. attorney named Joseph diiGenova told the Daily Caller: “What was produced by the intelligence community at the request of Ms. Rice were detailed spreadsheets of intercepted phone calls with unmasked Trump associates in perfectly legal conversations with individuals.”
That’s quite a bit different than data on Trump being mistakenly swept into a intelligence operation.
They were obviously just looking for dirt to use against him in the election.
“The overheard conversations involved no illegal activity by anybody of the Trump associates, or anyone they were speaking with,” diGenova said, to the news outlet. “In short, the only apparent illegal activity was the unmasking of the people in the calls.”
The question is, will anyone face prison time for doing this?
The Daily Caller and Breitbart reported confirmation of diGenova’s comments from “other official sources with direct knowledge.”
And one more tidbit: These spreadsheets were allegedly requested by Rice a year before the 2016 presidential election.
Like I said, just looking for dirt on him. There was no way they could have possibly been investigating a suspected Russian hacking of the election, a year before the election even happened, and before Trump was even the Republican nominee. As I’ve said before, the political establishment were out to destroy Trump right from the beginning. They were probably hoping to find some dirt they could use against him early on, to stop him from even getting the nomination in the first place, that’s how threatened they were by him.
Meanwhile, Fox News has been reporting the unmasked names of Trump’s aides were turned over to officials within the National Security Council and the Department of Defense, as well as to James Clapper, then-President Barack Obama’s director of national intelligence, and to John Brennan, CIA director under Obama.
Ben Rhodes, deputy national security adviser under Obama — just a slot behind Rice — was also named by Fox News as participating in the alleged White House-fueled data collection operation.
But somehow we’re supposed to believe that Obama himself was unaware of what his underlings were up to. They’re going to be the ones thrown under the bus for this, in his place.
No wonder Obama’s been largely silent on the whole Trump Tower wiretapping matter.
Doesn’t want to be on record denying his involvement, and then being caught out later and exposed as a liar as well. If he doesn’t deny it, he isn’t technically a liar.
Anyway, from looking at this story, here’s my theory on how this relates to the Russian hacker narrative. The Democrats committed a blatant abuse of power by collecting information on Trump and his people illegally, with the intention of using any information they found, against him. They did this with the full understanding that they’d get away with it, because Hillary was going to win the election and would cover it all up anyway. Unfortunately for them, they found nothing substantial that they could use against him. When Hillary lost, they panicked, because they knew Trump would now have access to all the files and intel related to the spying against him.
To protect themselves, they then made up an idiotic conspiracy theory that Russia hacked the election (with no supporting evidence whatsoever), and that Trump cooperated with them. This served two purposes. The first purpose, was to distract people from the real corruption that was going on, on their side. The second, was to give them a plausible justification for their spying, once it was inevitably exposed to the public. They could claim that Trump was suspected of engaging in illegal activities with the Russians to hack the election, and that they were really spying on the Russians, in order to protect the integrity of their democracy. Then they claim that any information found on Trump was “incidental” from when they were spying on Russia.
I hope people can see through this nonsense by now. My only worry is that people are so blinded by their hatred of Trump, that they won’t give a damn about this corrupt and illegal act, just because he was the victim. The psychological phenomenon that led to witch hunts 400 years ago, still exists in people today. I think a lot of people today, would rather see Trump go down for this Russian hacker thing, even though it’s clearly false, rather than see true justice served, and for those involved in spying on him, and inventing the Russian story, from getting their just desserts.
I remember there was a time not too long ago (before Trump announced his presidential candidacy really), when George W. Bush was widely reviled as possibly the worst president in American history, and was pretty much regarded as a laughing stock the world over, for his perceived idiocy. However, times have changed, and now Trump is public enemy number one. He’s the kind of figure who is so hated that even a complete cretin like Bush is able to score brownie points off of criticising him. Seeing this happen kind of reminds me of this scene from a Batman/Captain America comic crossover. The Joker (one of the most ruthless and sadistic villains in the genre) is so disgusted when he realises that the Red Skull is a Nazi, that he suddenly starts acting virtuous in comparison.
Former president George W. Bush described the current atmosphere in the country in dark terms, though he insisted that the current climate is not unprecedented in America’s history.
Yeah I would say things were probably a whole lot worse in late 2008 or so, after he crashed the economy and caused the worst recession in 80 years, or when he had the country gripped in a state of perpetual and unnecessary war.
Yes, think of all the hurt feelings that might have been felt. What kind of a monster would say mean, hurtful things about others? Of course, it’s not as if the other side has taken the moral highground here, what with the speculation in the media that Trump’s youngest son Barron is autistic, or the mockery directed towards his wife, our beautiful Empress, for her English language skills.
Recently, the former president has been speaking out about the political climate in Washington, carefully lodging his objections to some of President Trump’s key policy objectives and rhetoric. The latest installment comes in People this week, as Bush is on a media tour to promote his book of portraits highlighting wounded veterans.
There we go. He’s probably just speaking out against Trump in order to drum up attention for his book. I doubt a psychopathic piece of shit like Bush honestly gives a damn about the hurt feelings of any minority that Trump might have said things about.
He made a clear distinction between his objection to meddling in the affairs of his successors and speaking out on subjects that affect his post-presidential Bush Center.
“When President Obama got elected, friends would call: ‘You must speak out! You must do this, you must do that.’ Turns out, other people are doing the same thing this time,” Bush said. “I didn’t feel like speaking out before because I didn’t want to complicate the job and I’m not going to this time. However, at the Bush Center we are speaking up.”
The reason he didn’t speak out against Obama, wasn’t because of some sense of decency on his part. He didn’t speak out, because the Republican and Democratic establishment are just two sides of the same coin. They’ll pretend to be different in order to give the ordinary American people the illusion of choice, but when it really comes down to it on the important issues, they’re basically identical. Trump on the other hand, for better or worse, is not a member of that political establishment, and is pursuing policies that are counter to their interests. That’s the real reason why Bush will speak out against Trump, but not against Obama, who was supposedly the leader of the enemy party.
That’s because the Bush Center does work — naturalization ceremonies and Texas-based leadership training for Muslim women — that brushes up against some of Trump’s most controversial proposals.
On Monday, in an interview with NBC’s “Today” show, Bush was asked specifically about Trump’s policies and offered a muted critique of the current president’s approach to talking about terrorism, his plans to ban immigration from predominantly Muslim countries, and his denunciation of the press.
Countries which the Obama administration singled out as being potential terrorist hotspots by the way. The ban is also only temporary (with Syria being the one exception and having an “indefinite” length of time for its ban). Meanwhile, the countries with the largest Muslim populations on the planet such as India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Indonesia, etc., aren’t banned at all.
“I consider the media to be indispensable to democracy,” Bush said, when asked about Trump calling the media the “enemy of the people.” “We need an independent media to hold people like me to account.”
There’s still plenty of independent media out there, and even the ones that Trump has called out such as CNN, CBS, the New York Times, the Huffington Post etc., are still free to operate just fine. All he’s doing is calling them out on their lies, or their manipulation of narratives to suit an agenda. It’s not as if he’s rounding journalists up and putting them in prison, for saying things he doesn’t like.
Calling for peace you say? Well it might look that way when you cut the footage off just before she tells them to go riot in the suburbs instead, where all white people live.
Or how about this video that Mark Dice made about the time those four black thugs, kidnapped a mentally disabled white guy and tortured him? CBS Radio reported it in such a way to make it sound like it was actually four white Donald Trump supporters who kidnapped and tortured a black guy instead.
According to People, Bush called the current political climate “pretty nasty” but maintained that he is optimistic about the country’s future.
“I’m optimistic about where we’ll end up,” Bush said. “We’ve been through these periods before and we’ve always had a way to come out of it. I’m more optimistic than some.”
Now I want to make something quite clear. I don’t believe for a second that Trump should be above criticism or scrutiny. In a democratic and free society, it’s important that people have the freedom to speak out and keep their elected representatives under pressure to implement the will of the people they are supposed to serve. While I do agree with Trump on quite a lot of issues, I don’t believe he deserves blind adoration.
However I do have to take exception to George W. Bush of all people, having the audacity to speak out against any alleged “racism” on Trump’s part. This is a man who launched not one, but two, highly destructive and unnecessary wars that resulted in the deaths of who knows how many, innocent Muslims. All deaths that could and should have been avoided. If Muslims weren’t radicalised already to hate America, they were sure given proper justification to do so, as a result of Bush’s evil foreign policies. Trump on the other hand has simply recognised the fact that a large number of Muslims hold views that are incompatible with America’s way of life (and the statistics availableprove this), and wants to put a stop to Muslim immigration to the US (which he is perfectly entitled to do under US law).
So who exactly is worse? The man who started unnecessary (and illegal) wars that resulted in the deaths of huge numbers of people of a certain demographic? Or, the man who wants to stop immigration from people of this demographic, which is perfectly in line with the laws of his country, and is only being done to protect his own citizens, arguably, from the backlash caused by those aforementioned wars?
The morbidly obese slob Michael Moore, famous for his series of propaganda documentaries about how terrible the institutions of Western civilisation are, has taken a break from using the capitalist model to become a multi-millionaire, all while trying to shill to us the alleged benefits of embracing full on Communism, to instead tell us about how all the women who voted for Trump only did so because of their own “internalised misogyny”. In other words, women don’t have any agency of their own and can’t be held responsible for their own decisions, in the eyes of this bloated buffoon if they vote for someone he disapproves of. Only women who voted against Trump do, and any who voted for him, only did so because they were brainwashed by the oppression they suffer from the “patriarchy”… or something like that. They’re all just “victims” of misogyny, rather than normal adults who have a different political view than him. Lets take a look at the clip.
We’ve ignored the misogyny and the sexism that is still so prevalent and ingrained, and ingrained in many of the victims, the 46% of women that voted for Trump, and the 53% of white women that voted for Trump.
It’s just incredible really how this gargantuan swine can act as if he speaks for the experiences of the millions of women who voted for Trump, and assumes they didn’t do so in their own best interests. It doesn’t seem to occur to him that maybe these women are self-confident and strong enough, not to take offence to Trump’s low-brow choices of words.
Maybe these women just support his policy on Muslim immigration, because they don’t want America to go down the same path Sweden has. Maybe they were won over by his condemnation of Mexican rapists crossing the border illegally, (something even the anti-Trump, Huffington Post admits really is happening). Maybe these female Trump voters believe that Hillary is worse for women, considering the fact that her campaign was partially financed by Saudi Arabia, arguably the country with the worst record for women’s rights on the planet. Perhaps these things matter more to these women than Trump saying “sexist things”.
I don’t know, because unlike Michael Moore, I know that I cannot speak on behalf of these women, and say for certain why they voted the way they did. But I will say that they did so, I believe, because they felt that Trump was the candidate who best represented their interests. It wasn’t because they hate themselves and all other women, no matter what Michael Moore would have us believe.
I am so happy right now. The Glorious Leader has done it. This is incredible. We have just seen history unfold before us in real time. I truly believe that what we have just seen will be talked about for generations, because this really is a game changer.
I wish I could say that my faith never faltered, but I must admit, that even though I knew the polls from the lying media were bullshit, that there were times when I worried, times when I really thought that it just wouldn’t happen. I tried to keep my faith, put on the brave face, and tell people that I discussed this topic with, that I was confident that he would do it, but the truth is I very often thought that having the entire media, political, and financial establishment against him, would be too much for one man to overcome. I often worried that the election could very well be rigged, or that the ridiculous electoral college system which isn’t based on the popular vote might screw him over completely. I also worried that the relentless smear campaign and propaganda against him might be too damaging to deal with.
Even watching the election unfold live, seeing states on the map switching back and forward between red and blue, then checking the corresponding electoral college map, to see how much each state was worth, was a completely nerve-racking experience. There were times when it really looked as if a key state worth a lot of votes might slip from his grasp completely. Even Texas turned blue a few times, as crazy as that might sound. It was very stressful and at times it seemed like he might have no hope.
I don’t normally like being wrong, but on this occasion, I can make an exception. I am delighted to be wrong.
I’m very overwhelmed with emotion right now. The past year has been a difficult one for me on a personal level. While this great news doesn’t necessarily ease the pain regarding any problems in my personal life, it at least gives me back a sense of optimism that there is still a possibility for good to happen in the world, for life to be worth living, and for Western Civilisation to stop going down the same dark path that was destroying us. With the alternative being a possibility of a nuclear war with Russia, as well as the continuation and normalisation of the migrant invasion of Europe (and that’s not including all the other lesser problems that could also have happened), I honestly think I would have become completely disillusioned with life in general if Hillary had won. I don’t have much else to say right now, as I’m feeling mentally drained from the emotional roller-coaster I just experienced from watching it all unfold live. I also really need to just sit back and process the whole thing.
I just know this much, tomorrow is a new day, and it’s going to be a very good day indeed.
Especially when I get to see all the meltdowns on Facebook. 😉
I remember about a year and half ago when Donald Trump first announced that he was throwing his hat into the US presidential race, that I really didn’t think too much about it. I figured it was just a dumb publicity stunt and although I found myself agreeing with a lot of the points he was making, and thought he was pretty damn funny with how blunt and unapologetic he was in regards to the outrage he was causing, I didn’t take him all that seriously at first. However, after seeing the types of political hacks he was competing against, as well as the passionate hatred he was inspiring in the controlled media and political establishment, I started paying more and more attention, and soon realised that there was a lot more to him than I saw at first. However, it wasn’t until roughly one year ago when I first became aware of the escalating tensions between America and Russia (something a Hillary presidency will only make much worse), that I came to this conclusion.
Donald Trump, that pompous, arrogant, obnoxious, reality TV buffoon, may very well be the world’s only hope for survival.
Once again, I am faced with a story that fills me with dread. We’re just one day away from seeing the big decision being made, and yet we’re still seeing an escalation in tension between Russia and NATO, as if a conflict between the two is inevitable. But it isn’t inevitable. There is still time to resolve these problems, if the right decision is made tomorrow.
Up to 300,000 Nato troops have been put on alert amid rising tensions between Russia and the Baltic states.
Jens Stoltenberg, the secretary-general of Nato, said the alliance hoped to speed up the response time of thousands of its troops to allow it to react to a combat situation more effectively.
And yet I still haven’t seen any evidence that Russia are the aggressors, so I don’t know what they would need to respond to. To me, it looks more like they’re getting these troops prepared, not as a response to possible Russian aggression, but rather to attack Russia themselves.
“We have seen Russia being much more active in many different ways,” Mr Stoltenberg told The Times.
“We have seen a more assertive Russia implementing a substantial military build-up over many years – tripling defence spending since 2000 in real terms; developing new military capabilities; exercising their forces and using military force against neighbours.
Can you really blame them though? With how much NATO has expanded since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and with the aggressive rhetoric being spouted against them from America, I honestly can’t blame them for building up their own military forces. It’s either that, or leave themselves defenceless against this aggression.
“We have also seen Russia using propaganda in Europe among Nato allies and that is exactly the reason why Nato is responding. We are responding with the biggest reinforcement of our collective defence since the end of the Cold War.”
What propaganda? This sounds like projection to me. I’ve heard plenty of propaganda against Russia in regards to Ukraine, their actions in Syria, and their alleged (but still no evidence for) hackings in America. What propaganda is Russia spreading?
Mr Stoltenberg refused to be drawn on the specific number of troops being put on alert, but Britain’s outgoing Nato representative Sir Adam Thomson said it was likely to be around 300,000.
Sir Adam said the aim was to find a way to mobilise the troops within two months, instead of the typical time of around six months.
To me that makes it sound as if they are trying to speed up the schedule of getting this war underway. I think it’s interesting to note that even if Trump does win tomorrow, he won’t actually be inaugurated until January 20th, plenty of time for Obama to start this war that the American establishment so clearly wants, before Trump has a chance to prevent it himself.
The proposition was discussed by Nato defence ministers at a conference in October. “There are a large number of people in the armed forces of Nato allies, we are looking into how more of them can be ready at shorter notice,” Mr Stoltenberg added.
Nato is also responding to an increase in espionage, hybrid warfare and cyberattacks by Russia and other non-Nato states, according to Sir Adam.
Alleged cyberattacks which they still haven’t provided any evidence that Russia is guilty of. This is just one of the many examples of the big lie in action yet again. Keep saying something over and over, and people will eventually believe that it’s true, no matter how little proof is provided.
The alliance’s response is in part a result of Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, as well as a bid to reassure ex-Soviet states, like Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, all Nato members, who fear Moscow could try a similar tactic again.
Not a fair comparison. Crimea was historically part of Russia even before the existence of the Soviet Union. It became a part of Ukraine for administration purposes during Soviet times, when it was assumed that the Soviet Union would always be one anyway. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, it remained a part of Ukraine, though its population has always been an ethnic Russian majority, who favour close ties with Russia. When the Billionaire George Soros paid a group of thugs to topple the democratically elected pro-Russian, Ukrainian government, and replace it with a pro-EU/America, puppet government, Russia annexed Crimea to protect its own interests, and the Crimean people voted in a landslide to rejoin Russia (though I will admit, it is debateable if such a referendum can be considered fully transparent when Russia was in control of the region). The point is, I don’t think it’s fair to compare Crimea to those other ex-Soviet states, and I don’t think Russia has any interest in annexing any of them.
Yeah, that really wouldn’t surprise me at all. In fact, I reckon if it were not for America’s protection, Russia could probably overrun all of Europe pretty quickly, even the great powers like Germany, France, and the UK.
Nearly half of Russians fear Moscow’s intervention in the Syrian conflict could lead to World War III, a recent poll found.
And I think so too, though I don’t blame Russia (whose actions in Syria I believe are justified overall), I blame America.
I really have this weird fear that even if Trump does win, the establishment might just trigger the war anyway just before he takes power, making it that much harder for him to resolve things that it would, if he was to get in beforehand. Nevertheless, I still think from the point of view of peace, he’s the better choice. If the war does kick off between now and the time of inauguration, I would rather have him be the one to come to power in the hopes that he can make peace with Putin later. Hillary, will be only too happy to continue the war if she comes to power.
The choice is in your hands America. Please make the right one.
Here’s a brief, but very interesting video. A man with a camera goes up to some young white liberal women on a college campus to ask them if voter ID laws are racist. They agree that they are. Their reason for thinking this? Well check it out.
Guy asks Girl 1 if it’s harder for black people to go online and get an ID. She responds:
“I feel like they don’t have the knowledge of how it works.”
“For most of the communities they don’t really know what is out there just because they’re not aware or they’re not informed”.
Just think about that for a second. She’s generalising an entire race of people as being somehow too dumb to know the procedure on how to get an ID. I can’t understand the logic behind that kind of thinking. What evidence is she even basing it on? In a country where internet connected devices are omnipresent, and a simple Google search can provide answers to virtually any question that you ask, why does she think that black people are in general somehow too stupid to know how to go online and figure out how to get an ID so they can vote? And more importantly, how can she not see the racism in what she herself is saying? While her intentions are not malicious, she is still looking down upon an entire race of people as being less capable of performing a simple task than her own race. It’s insane that people can think this way and not see the problem.
Then we get on to Girl 2.
“I also think there is a repression of black voting with how if you’re a convicted felon, you’re not allowed to vote.”
“repression of black voting”
“convicted felon not allowed to vote”
Just as Girl 1 was making a racist generalisation of black people being too dumb to know how to get an ID, Girl 2 is making a racist generalisation by associating being a felon with being black. Where have I heard that before?
While it is true that in America, convicted felons are disproportionately black, the fact that this girl instantly thinks of “black voter suppression” when she talks about convicted felons not being able to vote, is clearly a racist attitude on her part, because it shows that she associates “black people” and “felons” in her own mind. I just think this is all very interesting. These girls obviously have good intentions behind what they are saying, but the fact that they see black people in general as being less capable and more criminal, really says a lot about their own biases.
So Donald Trump made a big speech recently, in which he pointed out the completely obvious reality that there are powerful forces in the world who use their control of various important institutions in our societies, to try and influence political decisions in ways that favour them. Even for someone who isn’t a big follower of current affairs, this statement should just simply be common sense, just from looking at the way the world works. Whether it’s starting wars, allowing mass immigration from incompatible cultures, bank bailouts, the implementation of unfair taxes and laws etc., we constantly see establishment politicians making decisions which are the exact opposite of what the majority of their voters want from them. It would make absolutely no sense to make such universally unpopular decisions, unless there were powerful people in control of these politicians, who somehow benefited from these decisions. We’ve heard many terms used to describe these figures: Globalists, Illuminati, the One Percent, etc., but there’s one specific group of people, who were greatly offended by Trump’s speech.
Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblattwarned on Twitter Thursday that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump‘s rhetoric was bordering on tropes historically used to ferment hatred of Jews.
In a Thursday speech, Trump argued that Hillary Clinton “meets in secret with international banks to plot the destruction of U.S. sovereignty,” in order to enrich “global international powers,” an apparent reference to her paid Wall Street speeches. He added that “media enablers [wield] control over this nation through means that are very well known.”
Greenblatt argued in a tweet that the notion that “international bankers” and the media were secretly planning the destruction of America is dangerously close to common anti-Semitic claims.
The speech itself.
Strange really isn’t it. I haven’t watched the full speech myself yet, because of how long it is, but from everything I’ve read up on it, apparently Trump never actually mentioned the word “Jew” at all. He just made vague references to a powerful group of elites who control international finance, establishment politics, and the media, and that they use their power and influence to push forward with agendas which benefit themselves and their inner circles, at the expense of the general population. Agendas such as mass third world immigration to the first world, globalisation, pointless wars, and relentless propaganda campaigns against anything which could be a threat to their goals (such as Brexit and the possibility of a Trump presidency). Yet even though he never once mentioned Jews apparently, the Jewish run ADL is accusing him of anti-Semitism, simply for pointing out the very obvious reality, that there are powerful people conspiring to push unpopular and destructive agendas which benefit themselves only.
If that’s the case, then by saying that these comments about a group of unnamed powerful people is “anti-Semitic” is that not essentially an admission on their part, that these unnamed powerful people are in fact Jews?
Holy shit, what an eventful few days it has been. I’m not a superstitious man myself, but from looking at everything that has happened recently, I can only come to one conclusion. Some force more powerful than ourselves (the universe itself perhaps), seems to be causing certain events to unfold right now, for the sole purpose of reinforcing everything that Trump has said, has been right, and that people should vote for him in November and change course, while it is still possible to do so. I mean, lets take a look at some things that have happened recently.
Remember when Trump “Generalised all Mexican people as rapists”?
No, me neither, because he never did that. Although that didn’t stop the biased media claiming falsely that he did.
What he did say (in reference to Mexicans crossing the border illegally) was that many of these people who were making this illegal crossing were not Mexico’s best people, and that among them were rapists. Don’t believe me, listen to his own words.
Notice how he said that Mexico wasn’t sending its best people? And notice how he said that some who were coming are probably good people? In other words, he didn’t refer to all Mexicans as rapists. He just said that many of those who were coming illegally are, while the majority of good Mexican people (who he didn’t refer to as rapists) stay in Mexico.
And keep in mind as well, that he wasn’t just calling these illegal Mexican immigrants, rapists, for no reason whatsoever. He was simply stating something which the media already knew to be true. About 9 months before he even made this speech, The Huffington Post (one of the most blatantly anti-Trump newspapers out there) posted an article which stated that 80% of women who crossed the Mexican border, were raped along the way.
So 80% of women making the journey were raped along the way, and the men who raped them were making the same journey. Therefore it’s simply a fact to say that there are rapists who are crossing the border from Mexico into the US. Unfortunately, we live in a world were the truth doesn’t matter. Stating the simple fact that there are rapists from Mexico coming to America illegally, can cause offence to other Mexican people, just because they happen to be the same race as these rapists. Therefore, in our insane, politically correct world, the feelings of these people is more important than the safety and wellbeing of American women. We should sooner allow American women to be raped than say mean but truthful things about Mexican rapists, because it might hurt the feelings of non-rapist Mexicans if this is said.
In fact, it isn’t even just Mexicans specifically that might find these truthful things that Trump said to be offensive. Latino people in general are likely to be offended because in their minds, “Mexican” is just a codeword for “Latinos” in general. Such was the case with a Latino activist by the name of Tony Yapias, who despite being from Peru himself, felt that Trump’s comments about illegal Mexican’s being rapists, was offensive to all Latino people.
But in a hilarious twist of incredible irony, Yapias himself is now being charged with rape. Can you really imagine how that must make Trump’s detractors look? Here’s a prominent Latino man protesting against Trump for generalising all Latinos as rapists (something Trump never even did to begin with), and then he himself gets charged with rape. This is something that is simply beyond satire and it really plays into Trump’s hands. Despite the fact that Trump never even made such a generalisation, to the ordinary uninformed American voter who sees something like this happening, it’s just going to look as if it proves his point about them, even though it was a media lie, rather than a point he ever actually made.
But this isn’t all that has happened. There have been other incidents as well. Remember how Trump managed to offend a lot of people with his proposal to ban Muslim immigration to America if he was elected? One of the points he made was that Muslims don’t tend to integrate and assimilate into their host societies well. Well now we have the Muslim mayor of London, Sadiq Khan outright telling immigrants NOT TO INTEGRATE.
London Mayor Sadiq Khan, while on a trip to the northern U.S. city of Chicago Thursday, argued that new immigrants in America should not have to assimilate into American culture, but the government should instead do more to help them build “cohesive communities.”
“It’s not the immigrant’s job to integrate into their host society. The host society needs to do more to accommodate them instead.”
“One of the lessons from around the world is that a laissez faire or hands-off approach to social integration doesn’t work. We need rules, institutions and support to enable people to integrate into cohesive communities and for the avoidance of doubt, I don’t mean assimilation, I mean integration, and there’s a difference,” Khan said. “People shouldn’t have to drop their cultures and traditions when they arrive in our cities and countries.”
And why shouldn’t they give them up? Many cultural practices and traditions from Islamic countries such as the way they treat women and gay people, Sharia Law, polygny, female genital mutialtion, halal slaughter of animals, sexual exploitation of little boys, etc., are completely incompatible with our own Western values. Why should we allow you to keep up cultures and traditions, which are incompatible with our own in the countries that we built? If you want to maintain your primitive and barbaric practices then do so in your home countries rather than inflicting it upon us. You want to live in our superior countries, you play by our rules. Otherwise, fuck off back to the failed country that you crawled out of.
In the past, Trump called for a total ban on Muslim immigration into the U.S., but has since softened his position and said he would only ban immigration from countries with a “proven history of terrorism.”
Which pretty much disqualifies every Muslim majority country anyway so it doesn’t make much of a difference.
“We play straight into the hands of those who seek to divide us, of extremists and terrorists around the world, when we imply that it’s not possible to hold Western values dear and to be a Muslim,” Khan said.
And yet there’s not a single Muslim majority country on the planet with a value system that is in line with western ones. Maybe individuals who consider themselves Muslim can appreciate Western values, but as the information from Muslim Statistics shows, many do not. And I would have to ask in all honesty, is it really worth importing these alleged good Muslims, when in doing so, we run the risk of also importing the bad ones? Has anyone done a cost/benefits analysis of this policy? Do the good Muslims really bring enough benefits to outweigh the negatives of the bad ones? Because honestly, I don’t think they do.
Anyway, beyond the issue of assimilation and integration, Trump also favoured a ban on Muslim immigration due to the associated risk of an increase in terrorist attacks. And, would you just look at what’s after happening yesterday.
An explosion in a crowded Manhattan neighborhood on Saturday night left 29 people injured, and authorities said a second nearby site was also being investigated. At a news conference on Sunday, Mayor Bill de Blasio said the incident was caused by a bomb and that all 29 injured people have now been released from the hospital.
“We know there was a bombing. That much we do know. We know it was a very serious incident, but we have a lot more work to do to be able to say what kind of motivation was behind this. Was it a political motivation? A personal motivation? We do not now that yet,” said de Blasio.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said at a news conference Sunday, “a bomb exploding in New York is obviously an act of terrorism, but it’s not linked to international terrorism. In other words, we find no ISIS connection etc. A bomb going off is generically a terrorist activity. That’s how we’re going to consider it and that’s how we’re going to prosecute it also.”
But how exactly can they be sure already that ISIS isn’t connected? I’m not necessarily saying that they’re definitely wrong. They may very well be right, but there’s no way they can be sure yet before they’ve had a chance to properly investigate what happened. They don’t have any suspects in custody, nor do they know what the motive was, so how can they automatically dismiss ISIS, when they don’t actually know anything yet? To me, it seems as if they just made a point of downplaying a possible ISIS connection because with the election coming up, they don’t want it to look as if Trump was right about his proposal to ban Muslim immigration, and possibly seeing more voters defect to his side.
The FBI is investigating the Crossroads Center knife attacks on Saturday as “a potential act of terrorism.”
Nine people were injured by an attacker who was killed inside the Macy’s store by an off-duty Avon police officer.
St. Cloud Mayor Dave Kleis identified that officer as Jason Falconer during a press conference Sunday.
A short time earlier, St. Cloud Somali-American community members identified the deceased suspect as Dahir Adan.
Leaders of the Somali-American community in St. Cloud gathered Sunday with his family and issued a statement of sympathy for the family and the nine victims of the attack.
Community leader Abdul Kulane said as far as the family and community know, the suspect did not have any history of violence. He was known as a smart, accomplished student at Apollo High School. He was a junior at St. Cloud State University, Kulane said. Adan was also working part-time as a private security officer, leaders said.
The last time he was seen by family was about 6 or 6:30 p.m. Saturday when he said he was going to the mall to buy an iPhone 7. They don’t know what happened after that.
So a Somali man (99.8% chance he was Muslim) went on a stabbing spree in a shopping mall for seemingly no reason. Perhaps he was just yet another victim of the great mental health crisis of 2016, which seems to only effect Muslims, and causes them to murder non-Muslim people at random for no reason whatsoever.
The man who stabbed nine people at a Minnesota mall Saturday before being shot dead by an off-duty police officer was a “soldier of the Islamic state,” according to an ISIS-linked news agency.
Now obviously, ISIS claims responsibility for every single act of terrorism committed by Muslims in the Western world, so this might not be true. However this does again play into Trump’s hands perfectly. In just one day we have two terrorist attacks which may very well have been committed by Muslims, and a third which definitely was, and suddenly less than two months before the election, his proposal to ban Muslims from immigrating to the US is looking like simple common sense, rather than the hate filled racism and bigotry, that the media tries to claim it to be.
So we have Trump proposing a wall to keep out Mexican rapists, and a ban on Muslim immigration because of their inability to assimilate, and the risk of an increase in terrorist attacks because of their immigration. The media crucifies Trump for saying these things as apparently being “false” and “racist”. Then after being constantly told that Trump was lying, we suddenly have a Latino activist who protested Trump’s comments about Mexican rapists getting arrested for rape himself, a Muslim leader outright telling Muslims not to integrate into their host nations, three terrorists attacks in one day (one of which we’re sure was done by a Muslim, and the other two likely were as well), backing up the points Trump has made, and this all happens within the space of a few days, less than two months before the election. It really is as if the universe itself is outright telling us that Trump is the right choice. And yet despite all this, rather than accepting the fact that Trump was right, the media still acts as if Trump is the real threat to America, simply because he says mean words, and he and his son have re-tweeted images of a “Nazi frog”.
How can anybody take any of this insanity seriously? We’re literally seeing Trump’s statements being backed up by objective reality, but the media would rather be outraged over his son posting images of a “Nazi frog” on twitter, than on people getting murdered or raped, because of a flawed immigration system, something which Trump simply pointed out was happening and wants to fix. Keep in mind, that he never proposed stopping immigration entirely. He just wants an immigration policy that works to the benefit, rather than the detriment of the American people, and yet the media acts as if his proposals are a greater evil than the consequences we’re seeing unfold because of this flawed system. I literally cannot comprehend what is happening, it’s so completely nonsensical to me. And I hope that at this point, it should seem just as nonsensical to the American voters. If they can’t see at this point, I don’t think they ever will.