Yesterday, I made a post giving my thoughts on the stupidity surrounding the latest Trump scandal, namely, children of illegal immigrants being separated from their parents by border patrol agents, and put in “Concentration camps”. Today I came across a quick comic that illustrates the stupidity of the prevailing narrative quite well.
Is the sheer stupidity of the manufactured outrage clear now?
It’s no secret that I’ve strongly supported Trump the past few years. I’ve lost friends in real life for doing that, but I haven’t let that deter me, because it’s more important to me to say what I believe is right, rather than what is popular. I truly believed that out of all the potential candidates in the 2016 election, that he was the best choice available, and I still stand by that belief. However, contrary to what readers of this blog, or those former real life friends, may or may not believe, I am not an ideologue, nor am I the kind of person who will attempt to defend the indefensible. When Trump does something that I believe is wrong, I will not make excuses for him, nor will I betray my own beliefs for him. Just as I found myself a little over a year ago, I once again find myself having to criticise Trump for an action that he has undertaken, namely, his actions towards the Iran nuclear deal.
In the years since the 9/11 attacks, the Western world has had to deal with Islamic terrorist attacks on a pretty frequent basis, and this has really gone into overdrive in the past five years or so. It is also quite well known that the vast majority of this terrorism can be linked back to Saudi Arabia, a country which has one of the worst records when it comes to “Human Rights”, and a country which is known for supporting groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, groups which have the blood of countless innocent people on their hands. Yet despite these obvious facts, Saudi Arabia is never a target of Western regime change. Saudi Arabia never suffers sanctions. Saudi Arabia barely even suffers so much as simple criticism, either from the American political establishment, or the tightly controlled mainstream media.
Just look at the video above. The US official is asked an uncomfortable question about the hypocritical double standards that the US has in regards to Saudi Arabia and Iran. He spends about 20 awkward seconds in silence trying to think of an answer, only to start rambling a non-answer instead. This is because there is absolutely zero justification for how the US treats Iran in comparison to how they treat Saudi Arabia, to the point were it’s impossible to even give a plausible bullshit response.
Meanwhile Iran, a Shiite Muslim country which wages war against the Sunni terrorist groups such as ISIS, and which has never been conclusively linked to any terrorist activity in the US or Europe (that I’m currently aware of at least), is without evidence, treated as one of the biggest sponsors of terrorism on the planet, is scrutinised by the international community (under US leadership) in everything that it does, and has sanctions imposed on it just for existing. This isn’t because a strong Iran is a treat to the wellbeing of the people of the US or Europe. No, this is done because Iran is perceived as a threat to one very specific country.
Thanks to the internet, and the new ways of spreading information, more and more people are waking up to the “other side of the story” in regards to Israel and its conflicts in the Middle East. It’s becoming more obvious that Israel isn’t just an “innocent victim” of Muslim aggression, and it’s becoming easier to understand that Muslim hatred towards Western civilisation is motivated by a lot more than George Bush’s idiotic explanation of “They hate us for our freedoms.”
No, they hate us because of our undying support for, and our aiding and abetting of, a country which has for the past 70 years, been committing acts of aggression against them. Murdering them. Stealing their land. Threatening them with annihilation. And using its influence in our countries, to get us to fight their battles for them. Obviously, an understanding of history will show that Muslim aggression would be happening regardless, but we’re certainly not helping with our own unnecessary aggression towards them.
It’s an open secret that Israel has an undeclared supply of nuclear weapons, an estimation of anywhere between 80 and 400 of them. Israel is one of the few countries that has never signed the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Nothing is done about this. Yet Iran, a country which has signed the treaty, and has agreed to a deal to develop a peaceful nuclear program, under the watch of inspectors from the world’s great powers, has been undermined and slandered ever since, by a country which has been crying wolf about the “”threat” of both Iran and Iraq before it, for decades.
“Sure he lied all those other times, but he might be telling the truth now. He’s one of God’s chosen people afterall. If we can’t trust God’s chosen people, who can we trust?”
And unfortunately, Trump has gone along with it. It’s not really surprising, because in fairness, he did outright say that he was planning on doing this, during the time that he was campaigning. To give credit where credit is due, he does seem to sincerely try and implement the policies that he ran on, both the good and the bad, but it’s still disheartening to see him go along with such a stupid decision.
Anytime something like this happens, whether it’s bombing Syria, or backing Iran into a corner, I’m concerned that it could set off a conflict, which with how precarious international relations are right now, could escalate to the level of a World War. This is why I must make it clear that I strongly oppose this action on Trump’s part, and I condemn him for it. I think the Iran deal was a good thing, and it’s something I have to give Obama credit for. I’m not pleased at all with Trump for backing out and if I was Kim Jong-un, this would make a very strong negative impression on me.
There is however one potential upside to this action. It once again draws attention to how much power and influence Israel has over American foreign policy, and it might help wake up more people to how much of a problem this is. If enough people realise that America’s policies are done, not for the benefit of Americans, but instead for the benefit of someone else, who gives back nothing in return, they may finally start demanding that changes be made. And if those changes are made, we might start seeing some improvements in the world.
We just can’t go a single day without some kind of Trump scandal causing massive levels of outrage in both the mainstream media and Social media. The latest thing to come out is that he apparently, in reference to countries such as Haiti, El Salvador, and various African countries, asked “Why are we (America) having all these people from shithole countries come here?” Needless to say, the media is absolutely appalled by this question. How dare he make such racist comments about these countries?
But here’s the thing though.
Where exactly is the lie?
To me, it seems as if all he did was make a simple statement of fact. These countries are shitholes. That’s why their populations are so desperate to flee from them in favour of coming to the United States. But they’re also shitholes for a very specific reason. They’re shitholes because of their demographics.
I’ve said it numerous times, and I’ll say it again. A country is a reflection of its people, not the other way around. The reason why America is such a prosperous country, is the same reason why Canada, New Zealand, and Australia are. It’s because it was founded by Europeans, who created a society based on European values. If it was simply down to geographical location, then why didn’t the Native Americans have the same success with building a great nation, as their European colonisers did?
Haiti on the other hand is primarily populated by people of Sub-Saharan African descent, and just like your average Sub-Saharan African country, is a corrupt, poverty stricken shithole, with pathetic living standards. Haiti has actually been occupied by America on three occasions in the 20th century. Between 1915 and 1934, between 1959 and 1963, and between 1994 and 1995. On all three occasions, America imposed order and stability on the country, even building much needed infrastructure such as roads, schools, hospitals, bridges, etc, during the first of these occupations. Yet as soon as they handed back control to the Haitians and departed, the country would soon after fall apart again every single time. It’s one thing to not be able to build a functioning country, but the fact that they’ve been handed a pre-built country on multiple occasions, and have failed to even maintain it, really says it all. This is much the same as what we saw happen when Rhodesia became Zimbabwe, or what we’re seeing happening in real time to South Africa post-Apartheid. Functioning civilisations are seeing a power transfer from one demographic to another, and that new demographic repeatedly fails to maintain what was handed to them.
So when you take all this into consideration, then is it not a fair question to ask? Why is America taking in people from these shithole countries? How exactly does America benefit from their presence? What do they contribute? What skills or abilities do they have that can’t either be found within America itself, or from non-Shithole countries (Trump cited Norway specifically as a country he would like to see immigration from instead)?
A country is a reflection of its people, not the other way around. And after seeing what the Haitians have done to Haiti on more than one occasion, then does it not stand to reason, that they’d only end up doing the same thing to America as well?
We’re a few days removed from what was apparently the worst mass shooting in American history, beating out the previous record holder from a little under a year and half ago, when Omar Mateen went on a shooting spree in a gay nightclub. The death toll currently stands at 59, with another 500+ injured. At this moment, there’s still very little information about what exactly has happened. We know that the shooter was a white man in his 60s by the name of Stephen Paddock, but we don’t know yet why he did it.
Of course the usual cohort of drooling retards on the internet are chomping at the bit to label him as a “white supremacist terrorist”, simply because he’s a white man who killed a lot of people, and are outraged that he hasn’t been officially declared one… at least not yet. These idiots think that this is an example of a double standard that favour white people, whereby a brown skinned person of the Muslim faith will instantly be labeled as a terrorist for committing an attack, whereas a white man won’t. Of course anyone who has followed this blog will know this is a blatant lie. When the Charlottesville incident happened for example, the media instantly denounced it as an act of white supremacist terrorism, before any facts were established, and demanded that Trump specifically condemn white supremacism, rather than just hatred and violence in general. Compare this to the aftermath of the average Muslim attack, and the instant go to narrative is usually that the attacker was suffering from a “mental illness” (just read any of my previous posts about Islamic attacks and see this for yourself).
No, anyone who actually pays attention to what is really going on, as opposed to making up narratives in their heads, will realise that the media and political establishment will bend over backwards to avoid using the word “terrorist” when a Muslim attacks, but will look for any excuse possible to apply it to “white supremacy” or “right wing extremism”, no matter how poor the supporting evidence is. Inevitably, these narratives always collapse when the facts start coming out, but it sure doesn’t stop them from trying their best.
So I don’t know where this ridiculous narrative that there is an attempt to avoid labeling white attackers as terrorists, came from. I personally think that it’s just a fantasy that idiotic left wing extremists invented in order to maintain their delusions that white people are privileged oppressors and everyone else is an oppressed victim, in the face of facts that debunk this idiocy.
The thing is, terrorism has a very specific definition and while two attacks can look identical of the surface, one might fit this definition perfectly, whereas the other will not. It has nothing to do with the attack itself, but rather the motivation behind it.
If a Muslim attacker is yelling “ALLAHU AKBAR” or “DEATH TO THE INFIDELS”, then it’s pretty obvious that his motivation for the attack is political, and therefore fits the definition of terrorism. It isn’t considered an act of terrorism just because a Muslim did it. In a situation like this however, we don’t yet know his motivation, so we cannot say for certain that it does fit the definition of terrorism. Maybe it will come out that he had a political motivation and in that case, he absolutely will fit the definition, but until that information is available, we don’t know yet, and cannot definitively say that this was a terrorist attack.
However, the fact that there hasn’t been much of an attempt at all from the media or the authorities, to label this particular attack an example of white terrorism, is indeed quite suspicious to me. Normally it happens immediately, yet here we are days later and there’s nothing. There’s still no explanation for what has happened. This leads me to believe that they might know a lot more than they’re letting on, and are worried about it getting out. ISIS have made the claim that he was a recent Muslim convert, and carried out the attack for them. I’m skeptical that this is true, because ISIS seems to claim responsibility for every attack that happens, but I’m not going to rule out the possibility of it being true, until we get an explanation.
Another theory I’ve heard doing the rounds is that he was a member of Antifa, and specifically chose his target (a country music concert), because based on demographics of the people who like that kind of music, it was mostly going to be attended by white, Republican, Trump supporters, the kind of people that Antifa believe it is perfectly justified to use violence against. Again, there’s no conclusive evidence yet to support this, but much like with the ISIS theory, I’m not going to rule it out as a possibility. Either one of these narratives would be a major setback to the media and political establishment, hence why it wouldn’t surprise me that they could try to cover them up by not releasing any information about the true motivation for the attack at all. I think if he genuinely was a “white supremacist” or a “right wing extremist” that they would have already said so by now. If he wasn’t, then better for them to say nothing and allow people to think for themselves that he was one, than release the truth and reveal that he wasn’t.
Not missing an opportunity to politicise tragedies, the anti-gun crowd have been coming out and demanding more “gun control” in light of what has happened. I’m always suspicious when I see politicians talking about their concern for human life and the wellbeing of their citizens. At the same time that they’re talking about gun control, they’re waging pointless and destructive wars all over the world, and importing millions of violent and incompatible people to live among their citizens, with no regard for the dangers. Their actions suggests that they don’t give a damn about human life at all, and any talk about gun control is due to an ulterior motive.
Now just to make things clear, I’m no gun fanatic myself, but I would like to address this situation fairly. The general idea being presented is that America’s high levels of gun proliferation is what is causing its high levels of gun violence, and that restricting gun ownership would reduce this significantly. However, I think this is an oversimplification of what’s going on. Switzerland is a country with very liberal gun laws, and they don’t see much gun crime at all. America itself has always had a high level of gun ownership and in decades past, it was so safe, that even schools were able to have gun clubs.
It’s really only in recent decades that gun violence has gotten out of control in America. Therefore I believe that when you take that into consideration, as well as the situation in countries like Switzerland, that gun violence is a symptom of a problem that has occurred due to changes that have taken place in America the past few decades, rather than the problem itself. Banning guns might in theory make it more difficult for violent, dangerous people, to have access to a means to commit their violent acts, but it won’t get to the root of the problem, which can only be solved by trying to understand what has changed in America between the time when it was perfectly safe for kids to bring guns to school, and now, were there are countless shootings every day, with major incidents such as this latest one in Las Vegas, happening on an all to regular basis. Why is there so much more violence in America these days? That’s the question that needs to be answered.
This story is definitely one that I’ll be keeping an eye on over the next few days. I have a feeling that there’s a lot more to this than we’re hearing about so far. It will definitely be interesting to see what new information will come out, especially when we finally learn what the motive for the attack was. Something tells me that whatever it is, it won’t sit well with the media and political establishment, and the narratives that they would prefer to propagate.
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.
Why is this unreasonable again?
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.
Anyway, lets see what Bush had to say.
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.
“I don’t like the racism and I don’t like the name-calling and I don’t like the people feeling alienated,” Bush told People magazine in a recent interview. “Nobody likes that.”
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.
In fact, I’d recommend checking out Mark Dice’s entire playlist on “Fake News” to see more examples of this sort of carry on from the media.
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 available prove 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?
I know what I think anyway.
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.