Category: Blog

Accepting a Grammy Award for Song of the Year, “Wildflower,” songstress Billie Eilish declared, “No one is illegal on stolen land.” British colonists started settling the North American continent and ultimately stole the entire American land mass from its rightful owners: the Indian natives. This is Eilish’s complaint and charge. Even if it were true, human beings have been conquering and occupying lands all over planet earth since the beginning of time. According to Eilish, white, Christian colonists, those privileged religious bastards, are the only group to steal their land … roughly 425 years ago, no less.   

Four-and-a-quarter centuries later, perhaps we can consider the matter resolved. Pretty sure the courts would.  

A little perspective: post-continental “theft,” America became the most powerful nation on earth, all the inventions and industrialization and incredible progress for humanity. Pre-theft, and after all the centuries of Native American ownership, what did the Indians do with their talents and this great continental resource? Teepees? Peace pipes?  

Per Dances With Wolves, Indians were fascinated by simple sugar and a coffee grinder. 

So then, the Indians should thank us for showing them how it is done and for giving them a better future than they would have ever otherwise known. Given her professional success and subsequent bank account, and certainly her deluxe accommodations, Eilish should be thankful, too.  

From all those who toiled, trailblazed, fought, and died to make her homeland experience so prosperous, luxurious, and salubrious: you’re welcome. 

I know, I know. Who cares about Billie Eilish. Agreed. However, her remarks are useful. She lives in a $3-million-dollar mansion in Los Angeles, California. After her Grammy remarks, the Native American Tongva Tribe, members of a Los Angeles Basin crowd of indigenous inhabitants known as the “First Angelenos,” confirmed that Eilish’s $3-million-dollar home does indeed sit on the tribe’s “ancestral land,” long known as Gabrieleno Tongva territory. 

Okay. So the right thing to do, if one genuinely feels the land on which they live is stolen, is to return the land to its rightful owners. Hey, you confessed publicly that the land doesn’t belong to you. So then, give it back. Of course, we know Eilish has no intention of returning the land, and never did. How do we know? Well, just pay attention. For all the self-serving wheedling about living on stolen native land, watch the tribe never-ever get their land and territory back.  

Watch everything remain exactly as it is. 

So obviously, this whole “stolen land” bit from Eilish was a load of meaningless BS. It goes nowhere, affects nothing, changes nothing. So then, why would she say it?  

Here is where her remarks are useful … 

As with all liberals, Eilish couldn’t care less about Native Americans or their stolen land, either one. She probably doesn’t even know a single Native American, other than Pocahontas, maybe, Senator Elizabeth Warren—and Warren is only between 1/64^th and 1/1,024^th Native American. It is annoying that liberals so easily get away with pretending that they do care. They don’t care about Indians or stolen native land, any more than they care about African Americans, or women, or gay and trans people, or children, or anything or anyone else they claim to care about and champion. They care about the advancement of Liberalism, their religion. If you don’t believe that, then talk to conservative/republican blacks, women, gay and trans people, and children who survive the womb—those obnoxious little overachievers!  

Challenge liberal orthodoxy, protections end and all bets are off.  

Nevertheless, liberals only champion all these causes because it provides them something they desperately crave, and in fact intensely need. More on that in a second. In this case, Eilish has zero intentions of giving her stolen land back to the natives. And if she isn’t prepared to return her little slice of stolen real estate heaven, then what the hell is she talking about here: “No one is illegal on stolen land?” Every American but her needs to give their slice of real estate heaven back to the victims? Is that what Eilish is saying?  

No, it isn’t what she is saying at all. Because she doesn’t care a wit about any of it—about the land, who rightfully owns it, who got cheated, the people who were cheated, the oppressive cheaters, if the land was actually stolen, if it is returned, if it isn’t returned, if justice is served or disserved. Eilish hasn’t thought about any of it for a single, solitary second. Hence, her remarks are thoughtless, careless, empty rhetoric that must be serving another purpose.   

To that, ask yourself: why would someone step up to a microphone in a room full of people, and in front of an international audience watching via television, and champion something (a) so obviously settled and irrevocable, and (b) that they don’t give a fiddler’s f— about in the first place?  

Stolen land?  
Giving it all back to the natives?  
Kicking 342 million American thieves into the streets and off the continent?  

The whole thing is obviously absurd, is never-ever going to happen.  

So again, why say it? Why make such an idle statement?  

There can be only one reason, and it’s rather evident: Eilish is a gladhander trolling for shallow praise and adulation, for which she has a powerful addiction, too. 

Some will say Eilish is ignorant of American history, a product of the modern American education system that doesn’t teach it properly, or at all. Perhaps this is true, but she certainly knows that America has been an established nation for 250 years, and that ceding the entire continent back to Native Americans is never going to happen. Hence, all this is being said and done for shallow praise, adulation, and admiration, which is the reason celebrity liberals like Eilish do anything.  

No group of human beings is more insecure and dependent on praise from other human beings than celebrities, specifically celebrity liberals. These people would do anything to get others to like them. Given their prominence and fans, saying celebrities are insecure and praise reliant sounds counterintuitive. But just look at them: the addictions and repeated rehab stints, the psychotherapy, the self-loathing, the self-destruction, the inexplicable suicide attempts and successes. This isn’t a demographic brimming with self-confidence and self-assurance, obviously. Eilish herself confessed to a pornography addiction, which she began watching at 11-years-old. She said the addiction “destroyed her brain,” too.  

Oh, sure. Let’s all take property rights guidance from a porn addict with a destroyed brain. Makes total sense. I’m in. Who’s with me? Doesn’t the fact she thinks she is qualified to provide the guidance indicate her brain is truly broken? 

The point is these celebrity liberals aren’t what they seem to be, and their lives prove it. Their multiple relationships and marriages don’t last; their families fall apart. Their children become psychotic, develop addictions, too, like porn for example. They require life-long therapy, as well, which seems a waste given they still murder their parents [Rob and Michele Reiner] in the family home anyway. Celebrity liberals are on the wagon, then off the wagon, then on the wagon, again—all the while they are on late night television telling the public how wonderful their lives have become post-treatment, and how desperately they needed it to regain focus and purpose, and all that other public relations bullshit.  

BS because, shortly thereafter they are found wasted again in a Belair Hotel bungalow and hospitalized for “acute appendicitis” or a “panic attack,” or some other such public relations nonsense. Because, next, we see them in court in orange jumpsuits or street clothes, answering for illegal narcotics and hookers—not a single surgical scar or Xanax prescription anywhere in sight. 

These so-called “celebrity elite,” why, they are more f’ed up than Hogan’s goat. Human disasters, there isn’t anything “elite” about them at all. And the only thing that sustains their senses of self-worth and -confidence is ordinary people applauding them and reminding them how awesome they are, and how valuable they are to society and the world. Given the merry-go-round rehab stints, and the suicide attempts and successes, the booze and drugs certainly aren’t providing the self-worth and self-confidence. It is the opposite of what people think about these celebrated individuals, who are truly insecure and pathetic human beings by and large, but who are propped up as otherwise by an industry that benefits from the appearance and subsequent fraud. 

In other words, this “celebrity elite” business is yet another liberal establishment con. 

I have a friend; he is a musician in a rock band. Like most “rocker” dudes, he isn’t much to look at. His childhood t-shirts are all stained with pork chop grease at the neck; I think the reader knows why. His parents literally tried everything to get other kids to play with their son, who is no Chris Helmsworth, and dorky. Anyway, I went to one of my friend’s shows in a local club and was amazed at how many young women were pawing at him, and at how many dudes wanted to have a beer and hangout with him after the set. If my friend was just Eric, pre-rocker Eric, and not in a band, girls would throw rocks at his ugly ass and dudes would harass him. Because, well, he is a skinny, dorky looking dude, and because that is exactly what they all did prior—before his rocker status, that is.    

Pick up a guitar, however, and it’s obviously a whole new life.  

This is precisely what happens to these liberal celebrity sorts. Normally, in their pre-fame state, people ignore them; they are members of the vast ignored, neglected, and underappreciated. They star in a film role or write a hit song, or whatever, and suddenly they are the cat’s pajamas, the Belles of the Celebrity Ball—when just yesterday chicks were throwing rocks at them and dudes were giving them wedgies. Getting the attention they have always desired and craved but never had, well, they like that very much. Very much. The praise and adulation not only become a drug, but an addiction. Everyone now fawning over them, they begin to see themselves as experts on every issue, their insights and opinions more astute and valuable than all others. All validated and encouraged, of course, by this new host of faithful human sycophants.  

And this, folks, is precisely why these liberal celebrities can stride haughtily to the public microphone with their idle bullshit: “No one is illegal on stolen land.” 

[Sycophants cheering] 

It’s like a shot of heroine, only better. And so much cheaper. 

Of course, then the people not so inspired by these liberal celebrities, they say: “Oh really genius. If we’re all on stolen land, so are you. So why don’t you give your $3-million-dollar mansion back to the Tongva Tribe?” Suddenly, these liberal celebrities look again like that ordinary rock and harassment target that they were pre-fame—which they always were, incidentally, but that the fame and their new drug and addiction have helped them unremember. 

I wondered for a long time why celebrities had to become liberals, why the liberal mindset was the predominant mindset among the celebrity class. Then I realized it is because fame makes people arrogant, haughty, self-important assholes, which, not so coincidentally, are the defining characteristics of liberals. So, it all made sense, finally. Birds of a feather preferring to flock together, and all.  

These familiar birds say stupid stuff, too, like: “I’m fighting for people who don’t have a voice!” Gee, how noble and selfless of them. Notice how these nameless and faceless “voiceless” never asked for their protection or help, but how these brave celebrity liberals compassionately and self-sacrificially, and don’t forget cheaply and self-servingly, step into the breach anyway. They want everyone to think they are virtuous humanitarians, when in reality they are just chasing a cheap, selfish, affirming fix of praise and adulation: “Nobody is illegal on stolen land.” The remark is the needle entering the nearly destroyed vein among the numerous track marks. The brainless crowd’s roar is the syringe plunger being depressed. Then, eyes rolling back in narcotic bliss … 

Ahhh. Feels sooo good.  

Celebrity liberals aren’t thinking about the numbskullery of what they are saying, either. These people are dope sick. Bangin’ some straight P&A to stop the withdrawal itching and voices, they are reinforcing their Master of the Universe status, too. What is coming out of their mouths? The public statements they are making? They couldn’t care less. In their arrogance, they think ordinary people are so stupid, so overwhelmed with their celebrity supremacy and greatness, that they can say anything they want. Because that is how it is in the club, after the show—the pawing, the hanging out. 

Indeed, it’s all narcotic bliss, until the smart people show up. Those insubordinate bastards. 

People used to admire celebrities. They had no problem pedestalizing celebrities, because celebrities used to earn it. Old school celebrities understood their fame, seemed to understand they were just another spoke in the humankind wheel like everyone else. Sure, they had privileges. They had problems, too. Yet they didn’t go around pretending to be people they were not and saying mindless things for cheap praise and adulation. Dean Martin was a drunk. He brought his cocktail and cigarette on stage and was who he was, no apologies or pretense. People respected the authenticity, that Martin was Martin, real, no disguises, no smarter- and better-than-you airs. 

Not like today, when a 24-year-old, broken-brained, porn–addicted singer/songwriter with chartreuse hair wants to lecture everyone wrongly on American history and property rights law, and then indicts herself in the process.   

The truth is all this celebrity business shouldn’t be a thing in the first place. Every human being is getting up in the morning, taking a big country dump, and putting their pants on one leg at a time. The ideas that some are doing it less odiferously and with more aplomb is utter nonsense. Certainly, no society of people should allow television/media to sell them insecure junkies and loser people as celebrities. Because, well, propping these liberal losers, these P&A bangers, up as society’s very best is an indictment of society itself.  

It used to be hard to become a celebrity, requiring some sort of significant accomplishment to be recognized and celebrated. Now everyone with a cellphone and social media page believes they are one. Thus, as a society, we should be ever more careful and discriminating about who we allow to define us.  

Else, the world will think we’re all land thieves and self-absorbed liberal space cadets. 

©JMW 2026/2 
All Rights Reserved 

How uncomplicated is this unfortunate shooting in Minneapolis? This uncomplicated: 

“Out of the car … Out of the car … Get out of the f-ing car!”  

Mere steps from the victim’s vehicle, law enforcement gave this command three incredibly clear and audible times. In terms of responsibility and justification, this fact alone prompts the call: ballgame! Ignoring the order, the victim Renee Good is responsible for the circumstances. Attempting to flee the scene and running over a police officer, she justifies law enforcement’s response, too.  

Ballgame. 

When an officer of the law gives you a command, you follow it. That’s it. No matter the circumstances, it is exactly what I do. It is likely what the reader would do, too, and what we all would advise others to do. Because that is the lawful and subsequently required response. Wherever they are, wherever they show up, law enforcement is the authority on every scene. Otherwise, why have law enforcement? Of what use is it? 

So, though it has been said a thousand times already, Good died because she didn’t follow authoritative commands. Then used her vehicle as a weapon to runover a law-enforcement officer, who, incidentally, ended up in the hospital—again!—with internal bleeding from the incident. As video of the altercation clearly demonstrates, we know Good and her wife both heard the officer’s commands, who was no less standing next to Good’s rolled down car window yelling exit-the-vehicle orders at her. On the other side of the car, we know Good’s wife heard the commands, too, urging Good to, “Drive, baby. Drive!” when she heard them. And drive Good did, directly at the assisting officer in front of her car, who was enforcing the lead officer’s exit commands and blocking Good’s escape.  

That is the entirety of this case. All nonetheless captured on video and apodictic.  

Well then, you ask, where is all this complexity and confusion coming from?  

Well, from the people, liberals, who want to make the incident complex and confuse everything and everybody. Because, see, (a) this is what evil people do, and (b) the video-captured truth doesn’t help them, isn’t on their side. Clearly, the victim didn’t follow commands, one, and then targeted a cop with her car, two. Whether the targeting was intended or not is meaningless. Authority is to be obeyed; its commands followed. Thus, law enforcement is justified in the incident and liberals are screwed. Hence, there needs to be yelling, screaming, accusations, and confusing complexity added to this ordeal. There needs to be people banging drums, bellowing in bullhorns, and throwing outrage tantrums. And no fact is to be left to stand by this group, either:  

The victim was in the middle of the road blocking traffic … 
“She was turning around.” 

She was blaring her car horn for 3 minutes and dancing to the sounds she was making … 
“She was getting people out of her way.” 

The cop told her to get out of the car three separate times … 
“We don’t know what she heard.” 

He was standing at her open car window, fer chrissake … 
“So! The scene was chaotic.” 

Well, her wife heard it on the other side of the car, and urged, “Drive, baby. Drive!” … 
“We don’t know that, either!” 

The victim targeted the officer standing directly in front of her car … 
“We can’t know what’s in someone’s mind!” 

Doesn’t the video evidence and internal bleeding speak directly to that …?
“Fascist!” 

No fact left to stand, this is how a conversation goes with those determined to complexify and confuse the incident. The bottom line is it can’t be the victim’s fault, because liberals don’t want it to be her fault. This is doctrine and subsequent religion that these deniers want rejected. They want to blame law enforcement, ICE, and ultimately Trump, and by God that’s who is going to get the blame, whether that condemnation is accurate, true, and fair, or not, and no matter what any stupid video undeniably proves. 

This isn’t lunacy, folks. This is religion. Liberals want to believe this version of events, and by God they are going to believe it, no matter what. And if you think this religious zealotry just applies to lowly, Minnesotan anti-ICE street warriors. Think again. 

Geraldo Rivera is a smart guy—not very wise, but smart. He saw the video, too, and said Trump and ICE are lying about the shooting. “No one could’ve perceived [Good] to be violent. The government narrative,” he said, to mean: Trump’s narrative, “is bogus and belied by the video.” 

The government’s story is contradicted by the video, Geraldo?  

Good was three times given a command by law enforcement, clear as day. She refused it, then tried to flee the scene and ran over an assisting officer standing directly in front of her car. You say you watched the video, too. Who is the authority on the scene? What is the protocol for citizens in these situations, Geraldo?  

Make no mistake, Geraldo knows who the authority is on the scene and the protocol for citizens, both. The flagrant video disobedience and victim recklessness are impossible to miss, too, but not impossible to misinterpret, obviously. Because that is precisely what Geraldo did: interpreted what actually happened into something more ideologically palatable and profitable, into doctrine and a belief and a subsequent religion that supports what he, as a matter of zealous religious faith, wants to believe. Why the clearly intentional misinterpretation? Or rather, the lie? 

Because Geraldo is a liberal who doesn’t like Trump, and who wants ICE to get the blame for this incident, instead, so that Trump and MAGA voters ultimately get the blame. It means Geraldo thinks it is okay to sacrifice law enforcement officers in his psychotic and unhinged get-Trump and dismantle-MAGA religious pursuits. He doesn’t care if he smears and condemns the officers, or if they are injured or killed as a result. It doesn’t matter to him that they are merely following the commands of their elected superiors and performing their assigned task, duties, and function. Sticking it to Trump and MAGA is all that matters, and sacrificing law enforcement is the way to do it—for shooting an innocent, non-violent woman who was merely lost after dropping off her kids at school and trying to comply, of course.  

But, that’s not at all what happened, you say. 
No. It isn’t.   
So then, Geraldo is lying, you say. 
Well, isn’t he? You saw the video, too.  

Actually, Geraldo isn’t lying. No, it isn’t true that officers shot an innocent, non-violent woman who was trying to comply. But this is what Geraldo wants to believe, is the much desired and necessary religious doctrine to which he wants to subscribe. To hell with the truth, the law, justice, and morality. 

Gee, is this a religion for good or evil. I can’t tell.

Fox News’ former lead man, Brit Hume, was asked about the incident, too. He said he had watched all the videos repeatedly, but, “I gotta say, I am really struck by the certainty with which people on both sides of this issue state their diametrically opposed views of what the videos say.”  

“Struck” by the certainty and confidence, Brit? When law enforcement instructs someone to get out of the car, is law enforcement not the authority on the scene, and aren’t people supposed to immediately obey their commands, Brit? When an assisting officer stands in front of someone’s car enforcing the lead officer’s commands, are citizens to comply? Or to try and flee and run the officer over?  

Isn’t it all just this simple, Brit? Are you not “struck” by the simplicity?  
And does the simplicity not “belie” your conclusion, Geraldo? 

The rest of us must obediently and dutifully comply with authoritative commands from law enforcement. Because, well, that is the lawful and subsequently required response. Hume and Geraldo would assuredly obey and comply, too. So what makes Renee Good any different, Brit? These are the rules for every single person in America, is the “rule of law,” in fact. And everyone is subject to the rules except … Renee Good? You are surprised at how “certain” and confident people can be after simply applying these rules to an incident in Minnesota? 

Gee, could you not apply them, too, Brit? Geraldo? 

The fact is this incident isn’t confounding to Hume or Rivera, either one, or to any other liberal for that matter. They all know the protocol and, like the rest of us, can all see what happened. And if this had happened to a MAGA affiliated person, I don’t know, say like, two MAGA-hat wearing, bleach-wielding Nigerians in Chicago, liberals all would be screeching about the authoritative sanctity of law enforcement and laying out the protocols for dutiful citizenry compliance with lawful authority. So why can’t liberals do that with this incident? 

Well, I could say liberals know the truth of this incident, but simply refuse it, because they hate Trump. That part is true; they loathe Trump. But as for the truth of the incident, liberals actually can’t see it. I used to think they could see the truth and just didn’t want to acknowledge or admit it. But I don’t believe that anymore. Because I think their hate and subsequent desire for another outcome, for doctrinal beliefs and consequent religion that support that outcome, blinds them to it. Not blindness in a way that they can’t visually see the evidence and truth with their eyes and register it in mind, but more that they deny and reject it emotionally and spiritually. Or rather, in their hearts, which are petrified toward anything they religiously despise and oppose, like Trump success, and like MAGA validation and ideological supremacy, for examples. 

Simply put, liberals don’t allow themselves to see anything, to acknowledge any evidence, that indicts or condemns their hate or that challenges the held religious beliefs that maintain it. Their eyes see the evidence, but their hearts, like hardened titanium, deny and reject it. Anytime the truth contradicts what they want to believe, or contravenes the hate they want to continue, and especially when it condemns their own beliefs and religion and, worse, justifies and empowers their ideological enemies—the truth is literally reviled by liberals, is vehemently despised and abhorred.  

So much so that it doesn’t matter if what their eyes are seeing is true; they reject it, won’t see it, can’t see it. An opposing, condemning truth cannot exist because their own doctrine and hate must prevail and endure. Their manufactured version of events is all they can see, is all they will see, and nothing else. No matter how obvious the truth, liberals are blinded to it, to reality. The religious zealots they are, they then convince themselves that their perspective and opinion are justified and moral, too. Because the perspective and opinion must be justified and moral, else their desired beliefs are contradicted; else their hate is contravened; else their religion is condemned, and Trump and MAGA are righteous, exalted, supreme, and empowered.  

And this is important: it is the same religious zealotry for famous, big time media personalities as it is lowly, Minnesotan anti-ICE warriors.  

It is all to say liberals convince themselves of the lie they want to live, and of their righteousness. As far as they are concerned, the lie is the truth, is their doctrine and religion. And they cannot and will not be talked out of their religion, either. They are willfully blind to anything contrary and contravening. 

In their relaxed, I’m-more-accomplished-than-you tone, Hume and Rivera, and liberals all, would no doubt say they are simply being objective in their analysis, and that MAGA people just don’t like what they are saying because MAGA people are Trump doormats, er, loyalists. 

Well, is law enforcement the legal authority on every scene or not? When they give a command, is everyone obliged to follow it or face the myriad consequences?  

Ballgame, folks. Accomplishments and religion notwithstanding. 

©JMW 1/2026 
All Rights Reserved 

As an ideology, Liberalism is populated by groups of people—Black Lives Matter, LGBTQ+, environmentalists, feminists, Palestinian freedom fighters, Atheists, et al—with different political interests and goals, all striving for various and unique outcomes within the larger Liberalism religion, and it most certainly is a religion.  

So, given all this competing, self-interested diversity within a singular faith, what is it that unites liberals? What is it that would unify such a diverse sectarian spectrum to, say, collectively celebrate the public assassination of a powerless conservative activist?  

Well, evil is the obvious unifying force here, the religion’s nourishing roots. Every branch on the Liberalism tree represents some form of evil ambition. Liberals serve evil, sure, but there is something that really offends and triggers them like nothing else. Something so intolerable that it makes them violently, and in some cases, murderously, incensed. The trigger?  

Having their intellectual and ideological inferiority publicly demonstrated, confirmed, and perceived. 

Liberals hate that—hate the rank insubordination, actually. 

Simply because they have decided it so, liberals fancy themselves superior humans. The problem is, they lie. They lie strategically and intentionally, by omission and knowingly, and do it all without a single atom of shame or remorse. Caught lying, they tell another lie. Lying is a tactical and welcome way of life for liberals, who even lie to themselves, which, of course, is what makes all this peripheral lying and dishonesty possible. Incidentally, if liberals will lie to themselves, do you really think honesty with you is any more important to them?  

Let’s say it’s not. 

So, how can liberals ever be superior when they lie? You ask. 

Well, they can’t be, obviously. If you lie, say, in a debate, and someone exposes your lie. Then your opponent wins the debate, and you, the debate’s loser, are clearly and incontrovertibly inferior, intellectually and ideologically and competitively speaking, at least. And this—people putting devastating truth to the lies liberals tell and thereby demonstrating their inferiority to the world at large—is precisely what triggers liberals … like nothing else. 

Liberals are filled with all this arrogance about themselves and their ideas, which is precisely how they present those ideas publicly. They boldly make what they think is a devastating argument. Then, in front of everyone, both they and their argument are savagely destroyed by conservatives with data, facts, and cold, hard, uncompromising truth. Conservatives like, say, Rush Limbaugh and Charlie Kirk. One would think the result utterly humiliating, and it is.  

But then, imagine the feeling when you genuinely believe yourself and your ideas to be thoroughly superior and invincible.  

Humiliating doesn’t begin to describe the experience. 

Triggered! 

Liberals want the lies they tell to continue, to be the publicly perceived truth, i.e. climate change; that President Biden is cognitively sharp and able, “the best version of himself ever;” that the border is secure; that vaccination prevents the covid virus. The religion’s leadership lies because the lies are useful to them, useful towards the religion’s political goals and ambitions, and in helping accomplish those objectives, namely political power and cultural control. The religion’s ever-devoted members on the other hand, aka liberal voters, these liberals want desperately to believe the lies of their leaders. So they do believe. Then, with utter abandon and confidence, they subsequently repeat the lies, in public. Where they rudely discover that both they and their ideas are neither superior nor invincible [mocking audience laughter]. 

Ouch.  

Liberals not only love lies. They need them to endure—more for their inflated sense of superiority than their political objectives. But when those lies are exposed, especially in public settings, liberals get triggered. Triggered because, well, they and their ideology are clearly and unmistakably inferior. And given their high opinion of themselves and their ideas, liberals become incensed, and even vengeful. The truth laid bare, their arguments are garbage, and they look foolish. But worst of all? 

The whole world is bearing witness.  

This is what you see anywhere—Fox News, CNN, network news, The View, a Turning Point USA “Prove Me Wrong” college campus event—liberals and conservatives are debating the current political issues. Liberals come armed with their flimsy religious lies, and then have their arguments publicly decimated by data, facts, logic, and cold-hard truth. And rather than acknowledge the truth and their obvious fraud and inferiority, and thus improve themselves, liberals seethe. Of course, this rage is seldomly visible or apparent. Simply because liberals refuse to let anyone perceive they were ideologically defeated and are intellectually inferior.  

The rage is boiling internally, though! You can be certain of that.  

And ultimately, that fury is unleashed, which takes many forms. Some liberals type ugly messages on social media pages. Some talk belligerently over their opponent. Some yell and scream. Some curse. Some wag their finger, slap, and throw things. Some throw punches. Some even grab their rifle and assassinate people from 200-yards distance. And why are liberals so unhinged and aggressive? 

Mainly because their inferiority is public and glaring. Secondarily, it’s because their beliefs and religion are second-rate rubbish—and second-rate is being generous. 

Weirdly, liberals believe their lies make them indomitable and perpetually superior. For example, despite border crossings being at historic levels during the Biden administration, and despite murderous and insane illegals being shipped all over the country’s interior unvetted. Liberals proclaim, “The border is secure!” Despite the contrary evidence, they arrogantly think this lie is enduring and insurmountable. Then it gets destroyed by congressional testimony, by incidents of illegal migrant crime around the country, and by video footage of border chaos from conservative news agencies, independent journalists, and activists. Their lie blown to smithereens, how do liberals respond? Are they contrite? Apologetic? 

No. They’re incensed!  

Are they furious about the congressional testimony or the illegal migrant crime data? About the damning video footage from the border? 

No. They’re livid at the truth, and moreover how it makes them look: foolish, inferior.  

That’s the real villain in all this: the truth.  
And that, folks, has been the problem from the beginning.  

First it was Rush Limbaugh using liberals own words to put the truth to their lies on the radio every day. “Why, folks. Here’s William Jefferson Blythe Clinton a few months ago telling you he ‘didn’t have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky’ http://playback. And here’s ol’ Slick Willie now explaining why his, uh, DNA is on Ms. Lewinsky’s blue dress http://playback.”  

You can’t lie your way out of your own hypocritical words and DNA, Slick. 

And rather than being angry at Slick for lying to them, liberals are mad at the DNA! Aka, the truth.  

The first of his kind, someone willing to publicly demonstrate the religion’s deceit and inferiority, liberals called Limbaugh an “entertainer.” They tried to dismiss him, but the daily exposure stung, and fiercely. 

A few short years after Limbaugh’s national radio debut in ’88, Fox News began reinforcing liberal inferiority daily, too. When Roger Ailes founded the network in 1996, it was begun in answer to the mainstream liberal media that was using their platforms and news divisions every day to help the Democrat Party and Liberalism win elections. Via the media, it was election rigging 24/7-365 for democrats. Mail-in ballot fraud, vote harvesting, and internet control of voting machines were mere enhancement. Ailes and Fox News were equally reviled by liberals, too, and still are today. Why?  

Because Fox daily demonstrates and confirms liberal inferiority, too—24/7-365.   

Alternative media illustrating the religion’s second-rateness to the world every day, liberals had nowhere to hide. In ensuing years, the alternative media only grew and expanded, and liberals became increasingly more agitated and vexed. If their inferiority wasn’t already established, Donald Trump arrived on the scene and began calling the media “fake news” and putting their incompetence, corruption, and inferiority on daily blast. Then, worse, he beat the religion’s treasonous plot, beat its mountainous and manufactured law fare, beat its election rigging, beat its impeachments, beat its insurrection scheme, and thereby cements liberals’ inferior, second-rate status for all of humanity.  

Meanwhile, conservatism’s next generation and youngest disciples, namely Turning Point USA’s Charlie Kirk, were taking to college campuses around the nation and humiliating liberals and their religion in front of, gasp!, America’s youth. The religion’s future was being successfully proselytized! Their ideas and arguments being publicly obliterated and mocked, the 40-year conservative offensive was in full blossom and clearly triumphing, inspiring the whole world to laugh at liberals and their second-rate religion. 

And the scorn, louder and more deafening than ever, is proving more than liberals can stand. 

The fact is liberals can never be right because truth is their enemy. Thus, it becomes incredibly frustrating to be humiliated in debate all the time, public and private, and to be persistently wrong no matter how passionately and confidently you argue. It’s just, too much. Too humiliating. Making your argument and having it destroyed is embarrassing enough. But being mocked and laughed to scorn, particularly in front of an audience, is just, unbearable. This is what conservatives have been publicly doing to liberals for decades now, and the frustration of that sustained humiliation has been building and building, like the stress in pressure cooker. Their inferiority more visible and apparent than ever, liberals are lashing out in various ways angry and aggressive. They not only can’t win an argument. They look ridiculous when it’s over, which, I might remind, is 180-degrees opposed to how liberals perceive themselves. 

Que the rage and violence. 

Liberals had never been in this position, having to defend their second-rate ideas and beliefs. The religion’s leadership, aka the liberal establishment, invariably guaranteed cultural superiority for the religion and subsequent primacy of ideas in debate. Their arguments being publicly ripped to shreds by conservatives for the last 40 years, however, brought an end to that dominance and has taken its toll.  

Liberalism is not only being rejected and replaced; it’s being widely mocked for the obvious inferior lie it has always been. Their ideology unable to survive reality and common sense, liberals are terrified and panicked. The religion’s rank and file are frightened because they see their once confident leadership is scared. The entirety sees their ideology being exposed as fraudulent and weak. They see themselves losing the power and control they once enjoyed over debate and the culture. They see popular opinion turning against them and feel increasingly more isolated. And worst of all?  

They know they can’t beat the truth and win on the issues, nor then stop the humiliation and escape their eternal inferiority. 

It’s a perpetual nightmare, obviously.  

Liberalism was never going to win or endure because it is a massive fraud. A giant scam the entire world was going to see straight through once courageous people started providing contrast. And forty years of deft and public contradiction have made the reality abundantly clear and incontrovertible:  

Liberals and their religion are irreparably inferior.  

Despite all their Hollywood celebrity and media prominence, their Ivy League academic degrees, journalism awards, and high mindedness and gay manner. Liberals are eternally inferior to the conservative rubes they constantly lecture and condescend, and they hate the rubes for it.  

Former Clinton advisor, George “Little Man” Stephanopoulos [he’s a diminutive 5’5” tall, and exceedingly grateful television cameras add 6 to 8 inches of stature], is now masquerading as an objective ABC News agent on behalf of Liberalism, his religion. Little Man wanted desperately to establish that people were dying around the world because Donald Trump had shuttered USAID (United States Agency for International Development). The agency lives on, however, but is now run by the Department of State and its Trump appointed Secretary, Marco Rubio, who repeatedly humiliated Little Man on the point in a recent interview.  

Trump and republicans are killing people, dammit! Returning to it repeatedly, Little Man really wanted this lie established, really wanted it to be the publicly perceived truth. Why? Because the fraud politically benefitted his religion, Liberalism, er, communism. The problem, as usual, is he’s lying. A strategy with which one can neither win nor endure. 

Basically, Rubio said USAID was shut down because it was a corrupt agency, used and abused by liberal democrats and their established order for religious profit, a fact exposed via DOGE audits. He asked Little Man why he didn’t blame England or Canada for not giving enough aid money. Or even China—the world’s second largest economy, who doesn’t give any aid money to these charitable projects at all.  

In other words, why are you so eager to blame America, Little Man? The countries in which all these aid dependent people reside, how come they aren’t to blame? Where is their responsibility in all this, for all the death? Where are your accusations and ridicule for those nations and leaders, Little Man?  

Finally, Rubio: “Anybody that tells you that somehow it’s the United States, if we cut a dollar, somehow we’re responsible for some horrific thing that’s going on in the world, is just not true.” 

It was a crushing experience for Stephanopoulos, not that he realized or accepted it, evidenced clearly by his frustrated and contemptuous expression. As the whole world looked on, the conservative rube Rubio made him look ridiculous, humiliated him. And this is how it has gone for liberals the last 40 years, becoming increasingly more frustrating, degrading, and intolerable every year. Their religion a joke and their inferiority more apparent than ever, liberals are simply done taking the abuse and are turning to violence—  

the last refuge of the incompetent and inferior. 

It’s not just about the frustration of 40 years of public humiliation, however. Moreover, it’s about power. The religion’s leadership isn’t going to give up their control so easily, but it isn’t going to get its hands bloody in the war to save it, either. They have the religion’s membership for that, who leadership is now inciting with ceaseless “fascism” and “tyranny” and “end of democracy” rhetoric.  

Let the useful idiots make public spectacles of themselves, says leadership.  
Let them be exposed to criminal charges and prison time for *our* cause. Leadership’s job is to lead!  

Indeed. Although, with religious soldiers this gullible and servile, not to mention gender confused, is it really leading? Or just basic exploitation?  

Whatever the case, the collective motivation is clear: liberals are going to war over a forty-year inferiority complex. For their dependence on lies and pretentiousness, unfortunately, it is a feeling of inadequacy they can never relieve and a war they are destined to lose.  

©JMW 9/2025 
All Rights Reserved