politics – John Mark Warren

Don’t Neglect The Republican Communists

To influence Americans not to vote for Donald Trump in 2024, liberals openly called him every frightening name in the book: tyrant, Hitler, Nazi. They accused Trump of treason, bribery, insurrection, rape, and even pedophilia. A person could not have been given uglier, more dissuasive labels. Yet 78 million people still voted for him.

Seventy-eight million is a helluva lot of people. A majority mass, in fact, which should make republican leadership very happy. A republican having the worst possible labels and accusations publicly applied to him before an election, and still garnering the support of such an astounding number of voters?

Why, GOP leadership should be thrilled, elated!

So elated, in fact, that leadership should be out there praising and encouraging this vast support system, particularly the republican base within. Savvy conservative voters who heard these distressing attacks and still said, “Yeah, no. We ain’t buyin’ it.” This leadership action seems a no-brainer. Yet here is GOP leadership, “The Architect” and RINO republican, Karl Rove, calling those 78 million American voters bigots, white nationalist racists, and Jew-hating misogynists.

Excuse me, no. Rove isn’t saying that about all 78 million voters, actually, some of whom are democrats and independents and what not. He is saying it strictly about his own party’s voters, registered republicans, if you can believe it. Republicans who not only selected Trump overwhelmingly in the republican primaries, but who voted for him overwhelmingly in the general election, too. Rove, the Wall Street Journal:

“Conservatism and the party it dominates [the Republican Party, Rove’s party], have an increasing number of bigoted advocates of a ‘heritage America’ composed of white descendants of the original European settlers. There are ‘just asking questions’ Jew-haters, misogynists who worship hypermasculinity, conspiracy nuts seeking clicks for profit, and religious bigots who won’t differentiate between Muslim terrorists and Muslim American patriots. These people are diminishing the Republican Party, not building it. I’ll have no part of it.”

Gee, does Rove not sound exactly like an establishment liberal? Hmm. Interesting. In fact, if I had offered the previous quote nameless, would the reader not bet-the-ranch that a liberal had said it? I mean, if you are going to be a political leader, Politics 101 teaches: what is the majority doing? We want to stand with the majority. Here is a 78-million voter majority, and Rove and RINO leadership are maligning and lecturing them.

Well, not all of them. Just their fellow party members.

This is the gift of Trump. Not that he forced the liberal establishment to show how criminal and corrupt it is, and has been, but that he flushed Rove and these GOP establishment loyalists, these republican RINO’s, out of the shadows and into the light. These RINO’s are the bigger rats because, at least liberals have the stones to be open liberals. Think Rove and these RINO’s aren’t establishment loyalists?

The fellow republican, Trump, has the gale force wind of 78-million majority Trump/republican voters in his sails, and who is Rove vilifying?

Not the democrats. Not the liberal establishment—both of whom broke literally any and every law to destroy a duly elected president, no less.

The loyalty clear enough?

Republican voters elected Trump because they had observed with their own eyes this egregious, communist lawlessness for, at the time, eight-years running. They saw what the liberal establishment had tried to do to Trump via Russian collusion, manufactured impeachments, and massive lawfare. And here is the crucial point:

Rove and his fellow RINO’s observed it all with their own eyes, too.

Rove well understood the communist criminality of a treasonous plot; the communist nature of manufactured impeachments and law fare and complicit media. And singing in perfect pitch with the liberal establishment, he is now calling his own voters, again: 78-million of them, bigots, white nationalist racists, and Jew-hating misogynists for voting for his own party’s candidate. After all the communist crime he witnessed over the last 10 years, Rove is voting democrat in the upcoming midterms, too, and he and his fellow RINO’s urge others to do the same.

Rove, George W. and Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, all these Republicans In Name Only republicans—I don’t care what these people try to tell you, they are not true conservative Republicans. And if only that were the worst of it. Seventy-eight million majority republican voters are banding together to fight a deeply and manifestly corrupt communist establishment in their country, and these RINO’s are serving the communist establishment.

Gee, whatever could that imply?

The Democrat party, the GOP establishment, the corporate media—this isn’t the “liberal establishment.” Given the last decade of observable authoritarian crime they have all participated in, these are communists. We need to stop with the velvety glove “liberal establishment” nonsense and start calling these people what they are: evil communists. All worked together to get rid of a candidate, and ultimately a duly elected official that 78 million majority voters elected, but that these politically diverse communists do not like. In that collusive effort, these seventy-eight million majority voters weren’t just left to smell and suspect communism. They could observe it with their own eyes. They saw what the establishment tried to do, and continues to do, to a democratically and duly elected leader it despises, whom these communists say represents bad policy and is bad for the country.

And what Rove and his fellow communists are doing isn’t bad policy and bad for the country?

Seventy-eight million strong, the American people are on to the communists. True to authoritarian form, Rove and his fellow communists are now calling voters every frightening name in the book and accusing them. The communists failed to stop Trump, now his voters are in their crosshairs. That’s the problem with a republic, dammit, Rove says to his fellow communists in the legislative lounge. Peasant voters have a say in their leadership.

Let’s just run the numbers: 78 million Trump voters, 15 to 20 republican RINO leaders, and yet 78 million people are the stupid ones, are the bigots, the racists, the misogynists—not a single brain or an ounce of savvy and wisdom among any of them, say RINO leaders.

The 78 million aren’t taking too kindly to the disrespect and hubris, either. Election by election, the party’s voters are throwing these RINO’s into the streets. Republican voters want somebody to lead their fight against the establishment communists. They want somebody that is not going to concede or betray them; somebody that is going to find the fraud, waste, and abuse of their hard-earned money; somebody that is going to close the borders and stop a caravanning invasion of illegals; somebody who isn’t going to allow a corrupt, communist establishment to destroy their nation and make slaves of them.

Led by Rove and his fellow RINO’s, the Republican Party has been complaining about all this stuff for decades. They could have investigated and stopped the fraud, waste, and abuse any time they wanted. They could have dealt with illegal immigration, could have gone to war with the liberal establishment and corrupt corporate media. For decades, the GOP-led party campaigned on all this stuff.

So, why didn’t they do anything?

Easy: because they were helping the communists.

Republican voters control the Republican Party now, which is how it was supposed to be all along. The fact Rove and his fellow RINO’s are calling their own voters bigots, racists, and Jew-hating misogynists tells you what they think about the arrangement. Think what they want, republican voters are cutting all these sidewindin’ RINO’s loose and sending them to pasture. Hitting the gate, the RINO’s huff and puff, telling everybody how they feel. And how they feel demonstrates to the entire world precisely what they were all along:

Communists pretending to be conservative republicans.

Because they sure as hell didn’t want this current MAGA fight. They sure didn’t want to do the things Trump has done with the corrupt media, with DOGE, with Iran, with Venezuela, with oil, with trade, with immigration, with the Democrat Party and liberal establishment. And they sure as hell didn’t want what Trump has done to them.

RINO’s like Rove, they aren’t objective, middle of the road moderates sitting on the fence telling everybody how to fight fairly and more statesman-like. They are communists, the enemy—and I couldn’t care less if they like that characterization or not. Voters in general need stop viewing these people as loyal, constitution-loving Americans who have the country’s best interests at heart. They don’t. They have not only watched liberal communists break every law trying to destroy a democratically and duly elected president for the last 10 years.

They have helped. They are still helping.

RINO’s understand the fight between Trump and the liberal establishment full-well, and maligning 78-million voters devoted to America’s and Trump’s cause, these RINO’s clearly choose communism. They were never on the republican team, folks. They were the Washington Generals all along—decided and perpetual losers who, to get their wages, were tasked with making it look good for the fans. These RINO’s didn’t want the waste, fraud, or abuse remedied. They didn’t want trade restructured and made more beneficial for US. They didn’t want the Iran fight and energy independence. The immigration and border fights. The Venezuela solution. None of it. As Trump did, they could have made those fights at any time over the last 30 years. They never made them.

If they had, Trump and 78 million voters wouldn’t be their enemies.

In the panoramic of all these politics, these RINO’s ultimately didn’t want the liberal establishment fight. And Trump making the fight with these establishment communists, and solving all these longstanding political issues, why is he the one fight these RINO’s did want?

It’s because (a) these republican RINO’s are communists, who (b) liked the way things were before Trump—the communist liberals in charge and them benefitting, earning their loser wages and enjoying their subordinate political notoriety. Sure, being abused by authoritative liberals is humiliating at times, but then the good life does have its sacrifices. These RINO’s aren’t just establishment friendlies. They are beneficiaries and loyalists, as their 10-year, ongoing communist fight against Trump and 78 million voters should conclusively prove. And if you still think they aren’t loyalists, well, are they fighting alongside 78 million MAGA members? Or are they calling them bigots, racists, and Jew-hating misogynists with whom they will “have no part?”

So again. The loyalty clear enough?

Calling him “The Maverick,” establishment liberals lauded RINO John McCain whenever he opposed his fellow republicans. When he ran for president against a democrat, however, against an establishment agent, the establishment mocked him, and his VP Sarah Palin, too, and torpedoed his campaign to help Obama win. So, McCain couldn’t figure out he was a useful idiot to the establishment communists?

Helping his team succeed, McCain would neither think nor feel that way at all.

In fact, he saw his exploitation as a privilege, a worthy sacrifice for the good life.

RINO Paul Ryan was speaker of the house when House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence chair, Devin Nunes, brought into Ryan’s office the evidence of spying and Russian collusion treason by Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration. Third in line to the presidency, Ryan saw all the evidence, saw the communist treachery of the entire liberal establishment, firsthand. Knowing the truth, he watched the phony Mueller investigation playout for 3 years and then end with Mueller finding zero collusion between Trump and Putin. No collusion meant a treasonous plot, of course, and the first to be read-in, Ryan, he knew precisely who had orchestrated it.

Yet in the ensuing 2020 presidential election, Ryan publicly opposed Trump, the treasonous conspirators’ victim, to give the presidency and control of the country to fellow communist, Joe Biden. Four years later, after the invasion of illegals and the treasonous lies of 51 former intelligence officials, and other distinctly communist sundries, Ryan vehemently opposed Trump again. He said the Republican Party couldn’t win with Trump—couldn’t win against a communist establishment who had tried desperately for eight years to utterly destroy Trump by every illegal means necessary, to include assassination, of course—all of which Ryan no less witnessed … with his own eyes.

And here’s something illuminating: seventy…eight…million republican voters disagreed with Ryan and all his fellow RINO republicans. Add to that this fact: citizen support for Trump has in fact been growing significantly election over election: 63 million in 2016, 74 million in 2020, and to 78 million in 2024, roughly. One would think that these republican RINO’s would figure this out,

would see the wind ribbon blowing favorably in their direction. Know why they can’t figure it out and can’t see?

Because they are communists, folks.

To dissuade voters, these communists openly called Trump every frightening name in the book and accused him of every despicable crime. It is foolishness to think anyone who continues Trump’s America First, anti-establishment, “fake news” agenda and mission won’t be treated the same way.

In other words, don’t for a second think Trump is the problem. Insert Marco Rubio into the presidency, or J.D. Vance, or any other anti-establishment, MAGA-minded loyalist. They will be the latest threat needing to be destroyed—first attacked by the communist RINO’s in the republican primary, then attacked by the full communist establishment in the general, the media in assistance, obviously, the entire way. Of course, don’t neglect all the communist disciples staffed in the judiciary, either, in the FBI and CIA, and in every state and federal agency who will answer the call to communist arms if all these preemptive measures fail. A duty-driven action we have all no less experienced already. Indeed, the communist offensive will continue, lawless and full throttle.

Because, simply, MAGA mission success not only means communist defeat, but the death of the RINO ruse.

*Screenshot: “Wind Change” 2000 Tm Hanks/JoBlo Movie Clips

Pink Shirts, Heart-hands, and The Ongoing Liberal Con

Dig deep enough and exhibit some patience, and you will eventually unearth the real reason behind the things liberals are doing. Like in this Lindsay Clancy ordeal, for example, and why women are flocking to the defense of a woman who strangled her three children to death with exercise bands. To me, the empathetic unity here didn’t make any sense. Murdering children and infants? I don’t care who commits that heinous act. The last humans one would think to see on the streets making heart-hands for the culprit would be women.

Yet, sending love wishes in pink shirts, there they are …

Even so, my well-oiled instincts kept telling me this odd unity had something to do with Liberalism, the religious death cult. Whenever death and destruction are involved, Liberalism is always loitering and associated. So it had to be involved here, too. But perhaps there was something else, something I was missing.

I was fair-minded enough to consider that, as a man, I know little about postpartum depression or postpartum psychosis, either one. Having witnessed its effects on women myself peripherally, I knew postpartum depression was pretty powerful, emotional stuff. Maybe that was indeed what was uniting these women, the gender specific experience of deep, hormonal, and confusing emotional suffering. I held that possibility out. In fact, I leaned on that conclusion as the probable reason for the solidarity with Clancy. Genuinely trying to understand, I had some public and private conversations about it, mostly with women. In terms of an explanation, the overwhelming consensus was that women were, indeed, relating to the postpartum depression and empathizing with Clancy’s emotional difficulties. Men could learn something from that—from the direct experience of women with a female issue, that is.

It is like men getting kicked in the groin. Women can’t know what that feels like, because they haven’t testicles. The only way they could know what it feels like is to have testicles and to get kicked in the groin. Then they would know. Likewise, men don’t understand what postpartum depression and psychosis feel like. As women watch men grimace and roll around on the ground after a shot to the beans, men can observe these effects of postpartum depression via women, too. They can’t know what the condition actually feels like, of course, because they aren’t women and can’t have babies, and can’t then physically experience the hormones, the feelings, and ultimately the whole postpartum phenomenon.

Clancy was experiencing this condition powerfully, doctors say, and women are the only ones who can intimately and truly understand and explain it. I imagine it feels like most other depressions, which are a lot like the weather, as Michael Crichton once put it, describing his own bouts with depression. One day it is cloudy, the next is sunny. Or this week has been sunny, and perhaps a whole month has been cloudy. You would like to say the depression is the result of this thing or that thing, but you can’t really put your finger on a singular thing. And although the condition can be mild, it is sometimes virulent, overwhelming, and incapacitating.

My question, as always, is where does God fit into all this? The creator of all things, what role is he playing? He said he was going to punish people for their disobedience, sin, evil, and whatnot. Could all this emotional suffering be his doing? And why was he doing it?

Anyway, it all makes sense; I just wasn’t satisfied with that as an answer for the female solidarity, that women were empathetically relating to Clancy’s postpartum depression. Frankly, I don’t think people care that much about people they don’t know, enough to organize, don pink shirts, and make heart-hands outside of a courthouse. Thus, the empathy reason seemed flimsy, seemed too shallow, too plastic. Besides, the little voice in my head was saying, “Ah, ah, ah, John. You know liberals are phonies, that they don’t do things for legit reasons, or at least the reasons they say they are doing things. There is always an agenda with these people, a motive beneath the faux-compassionate, hard plastic proclamations, signs, and slogans …”

Whenever you are messing with liberals, you have to pickaxe your way through the hard plastic crust, sometimes feet thick. And even when you get to the earth beneath, you sometimes find you are slinging shovel loads of dirt up and way over your head and out of the hole before you find what you are searching for: the real reason liberals are doing things, or aka, paydirt! This is precisely what occurred in this case. I finally unearthed the truth and figured out what these women were in it for. I thought they were a bunch of liberals, turns out that is true. I thought that part of this empathetic defense of Clancy was because, somehow, these women had associated Clancy’s murderous crimes with the abortion issue, Liberalism’s cause supreme.

In other words, if they didn’t defend this woman murdering her children outside the womb, then there is little difference between that and murdering them inside the womb. I’m unsure how they were connecting it, actually, but it seemed logical, and definitely liberal. Liberal women are serious about the right to kill fetuses in the womb, and if you concede this, that Clancy is a murderer of children outside the womb. Then you are a murderer when you do it inside the womb, too. What is the difference, really? It is a connection these liberal women wanted to avoid, I thought, and the best way to prevent it from being made was to champion Clancy and condemn people’s criticism of her. The trick was to do it without seeming that you were sanctioning the heinous murder of innocent, sacred infants and toddlers.

So, in service to that objective, and confirming my original theory, these women organized and said they identified with Clancy’s emotional struggles and wished her to know she was not alone—remarks otherwise known as the “hard plastic crust,” often feet thick. This is how liberals invariably do it, go heavy on the compassion angle, displaying to the world that they, the humanists, are the compassionates who really care about people, who are always there for other human beings. Because “love wins” with them, of course—everywhere except in this Clancy case, obviously, where strangulation and death won. Anyway, liberals like the public credit and plaudits for this compassionism: Look what fine people we liberals are! Always there for our fellow humans, they say, as they smile and wink coyly for the camera during somber court proceedings involving three murdered kids.

This is liberals and Liberalism in a nutshell. Despite what they say, they don’t really care about anything or anybody. To serve their goals and ambitions, they just pretend they care. And because they care [smile, wink, demure shoulder punch] more, they are better than you, too. Made evident by all the colored cause ribbons they wear.

So then, one is clearly obliged to presume that these liberal empaths were/are exploiting Clancy, too, which became evident via a recurring and verbalized theme among them: “Clancy was failed by the healthcare system.” So, despite repeatedly seeking help from the American healthcare system, the system not only failed Clancy. It, not Clancy, is responsible for the murder of her three children.

And, paydirt!

Like I said, dig deep enough and exhibit some patience, and you will eventually unearth the real reason behind the things liberals are doing.

This is all about victimhood, the very foundation of the entire Liberalism model. In this case, liberals said: Let’s turn Clancy into a victim so people can’t criticize her or what she has done. So people won’t connect abortion and murder inside and outside the womb and have a legit means to criticize abortion, our cause supreme. Because abortion, after all, is the result of women being victimized by men—rape, incest, a patriarchal society. And yes, the whole society. So the victimhood strategy works, is in fact the go-to tool in the liberal toolbox. Here, in the Clancy case, women are victimized by the healthcare system, which is surely meant to imply men, too.

In any case, the question is: what were these doctors supposed to do?

Doctors aren’t God or exorcist priests. They simply “practice” medicine. A woman, like so many others, comes in having emotional difficulty with postpartum depression. Doctors treat her, as best as they know how and can, listening to her, giving her generally and widely prescribed medicines and treatments, meds and treatments that work for scores of other women, incidentally. Doctors are trying to determine what is wrong, are trying to help. Researching and developing, the healthcare system is trying to help, too—but these people aren’t miracle workers. They don’t have miraculous drugs to fix these emotional problems. They don’t have exorcist priests on staff to exorcise the depression demons from people, either. The healthcare system and its doctors are simply doing the best they can, which is pretty damn good, actually, given the impressive success rate, and the fact 99.999% of postpartum depressed women don’t strangle their f-ing children to death with exercise bands, too.

Am I the only one noticing that the healthcare system is actually remarkable and laudable?

Yet, in typical and true liberal fashion, here are these liberal women organizing themselves around victimhood status so they can point their finger and condemn doctors and the American healthcare system. Miserable and incurable malcontents, this is what liberals do. Hating everything, to include themselves, all they like to do is destroy things; it is their life-affirming ambition. If it isn’t masculinity and a patriarchal society and whiteness. Then is the nuclear family. If it isn’t the family, then it is the healthcare system and doctors. And once all that is destroyed, it will be something else. And once they have destroyed the something else, it will be the next thing. Liberalism is just a massive path of carnage and debris. Destroying the healthcare system, liberals will make healthcare so expensive that nobody can afford it. In fact, because of them everybody is suffering that costliness now and angry at the healthcare system.

Enter: Lindsay Clancy, the new Liberalism poster mother for finishing the system off.

So that is the synopsis of this Clancy ordeal, the paydirt. Perpetual victims, these liberal women are taking the opportunity to, depraved as it is, align themselves with a child-murdering mother so they can malign and hopefully destroy the American healthcare system, Liberalism’s long-pursued target-o-destruction.

There are two reasons people do things: a good reason, and the real reason. The good reason provides an explanation for others. Pay attention and people will tell you the real reason, as these liberal women conveyed directly. Victimized all the time, they are mad at something, at someone, and they cannot help but tell the world at what and at whom they are angry. They aim for people to know, dammit, and in this case it is the American healthcare system! Despite having the best healthcare in the world, which these women have all experienced, no less, and from which they and their families and friends have all benefited time and time again. They think healthcare would be better if their liberal political leaders were running it, instead of all these incompetent amateurs with all the medical and healthcare training, expertise, and experience.

Communist, single-payer, government-run healthcare—that is the drive behind all this, make no mistake.

It is no secret that liberals have been trying to establish communist healthcare—Hillary Clinton in the 90’s, Barrack Obama and Obamacare in 2010—and these Clancy empaths, who are either co-conspirators or useful idiots, are the latest effort in that Liberalism cause. So then, do this math: in a healthcare system successfully treating millions of women, women with postpartum depression and psychosis, specifically, not to mention every other female health condition. One woman murderously strangling her children is enough to condemn and destroy the entire healthcare industry? Is enough to turn healthcare over to the, uh, political medical pros?

Sure. Great idea. Totally reasonable, too. Gee, perhaps this postpartum psychosis, and maybe just regular psychosis, is more widespread among women than we think.

It really is this unsophisticated. Liberals are only happy when they are railing and tearing things down. They do it to themselves, and they want to do it to everything around them, too. They couldn’t care less about healthcare, or Lindsay Clancy, or anything else they are screeching about: racism, white privilege, toxic masculinity, women’s rights, gay rights, trans rights, abortion, none of it. They are just using the issues and opportunity to purge all their misery and unhappiness, which they keep bottled up all the time because civilized society demands it. There is always something or someone to be angry at and to accuse, because liberals need the release. Meanwhile, they are destroying things that they and everyone else not only desperately need, but that are well proven and work laudably. Facts about which liberals couldn’t care less. In fact, when everything is left in ruins, they will be standing in the ruins screeching about the ruins. Nothing can be fixed, because liberals don’t want anything fixed. Fixing and construction aren’t their life-affirming mission.

So, when you hear people demand, “We want systemic change,” as these heart-handing liberal empaths proclaimed. Well, you should know that the liberal con is on—I say, as I lean on my shovel deep in the earth, the paydirt under my boots.

The Biggest Benefit of Republican Pushback

Rush Limbaugh flogged liberals five days a week for nearly forty years and republican voters relished it. What these voters really wanted, however, was a republican leader like Limbaugh. Somebody willing to fight back, somebody to stick it to smug democrats and their corrupt established order.

George W. Bush, for example, he thought that sort of aggressive behavior beneath the office of the president. He wasn’t going to fight back, or fight at all, even though he was being publicly lied about and savaged every day by democrats and their media, for eight long years.

2008 presidential candidate, John McCain, he chastised a fellow republican at one of his campaign events for merely mentioning his opponent’s middle name, Barrack Hussein Obama. “I condemn it,” McCain said. “I absolutely repudiate such comments. It will never happen again.” Democrats and their media called McCain “The Maverick” because, ever the naive statesman, he routinely betrayed his own party and helped democrats. Then, the second he ran for president, they savaged him, too.

So, here democrats and their media are bludgeoning candidate McCain every day, as they did George W. Bush, a should-have-been enlightening precedent McCain no less witnessed and experienced. Here they are nakedly telegraphing to McCain that all their “Maverick” worship is just a ploy to get him to keep helping democrats and betraying republicans.

And there is McCain, still trying to curry favor with his abusers: “I condemn it!”

Then there was Mitt Romney. Owned by Candy Crowley in a presidential debate, Romney was definitely no fighter. The good looks are a dead giveaway. One can’t be a fighter and maintain such a pretty face.

So, recognizing the “our liberal friends on the other side of the aisle” Reagan-era was over, republican voters longed for a warrior—and not just someone willing to punch democrats back defensively, either. But someone to put democrats on the ropes, to make them shield their ribs and solar plexus. Their candidates were getting abused, which meant republican voters were being abused, and they were tired of it. Tired of their naive, milquetoast candidates not fighting for them and advancing their issues, for which they elected the leaders, no less. Republican voters wanted a gladiator, and in 2016, they finally got one.

Day One, Donald Trump glided down the escalator to announce his candidacy and immediately began scalding the democrats’ asses. No Mr. Nice Guy. No “I’d be honored to have your vote” pleasantries. He just started laying the wood to democrats. Day after day it continued, too, relentless. It was intoxicating for republican voters, who were relishing every incident, specifically the 2016 Pulse Nightclub shooting a few months before the November election.

The massacre involved a radical Muslim terrorist, Omar Mateen. Swearing allegiance to the ISIS leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, in a 911 call during the actual shooting, Mateen killed 49 people and wounded 58 in the nightclub. Pulse was a gay bar, filled with a top-tier demographic that democrats profess to revere and defend. And yet, 107 presumed gay Americans either dead, dying, or wounded, and the democrats were defending, if you can believe it, Muslims. Trump was incensed. Delighting republican voters, he publicly gave it to President Obama and the democrat nominee for president, Hillary Clinton:

“We’re led by a man that either is not tough, not smart, or he’s got something else in mind. And the something else in mind, you know, people can’t believe it. People cannot, they cannot believe that President Obama is acting the way he acts and can’t even mention the words radical Islamic Terrorism. There’s something going on; it’s inconceivable.”

Trump was nakedly implying that President Obama was a Muslim traitor protecting Muslims, which many already suspected and believed, and which Hillary Clinton had essentially proposed herself in her 2008 democrat primary fight with Obama. Along with her and the rest of the democrats, Obama refused to use the term “radical Muslim terrorists”—in fact, democrats demanded that people not use the term for offending Muslim Americans—which only enhanced the suspicion and belief. Trump making the accusation and demanding answers was just what republican voters wanted from their candidate, and the action made both Obama and Clinton nervous. The pair immediately headed to the microphones, but not to clarify their support for their beloved gays or the American people, but to ask how calling killers by another name: “radical Muslim terrorists” was going to change anything.

Republican voters luxuriated in Trump’s attack, and the fact it forced Obama and Hillary to defend themselves. But while such attacks and results feel good to republican voters and serve a long-ignored craving, the benefit here or in any attack isn’t democrats being exposed, which isn’t valueless, incidentally. It is good that voters see how immoral and odious democrat politicians are, and how duplicitous. As delicious as the exposure is, though, the greater benefit is that the attacks flush out the media. Attacks on democrats force the media to reveal its political loyalties, biases, and ultimate corruption. We know democrat politicians are corrupt and evil frauds—

“If you like your healthcare, you can keep it.”
“Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election.”
“51 former intelligence officials say the laptop is a Russian plant.”
“Joe Biden is the best cognitive version of himself ever”

—but so is the media. They sell, defend, and conceal all the democrat lies, schemes, and fraud. The modern media isn’t merely complicit. It is a democrat co-conspirator, a fact Limbaugh daily proclaimed and one now clear and undeniable. In fact, it appears the media doesn’t really care if the public knows it is a co-conspirator. So while attacking and exposing democrats feels good, don’t neglect the massive benefit of the media’s exposure.

As for the political side of the conspiracy, democrats are easy targets because they aren’t used to being attacked and having to defend themselves. Forced to do it, they don’t handle it very well at all. Mainly because republicans never force them to practice. The point is democrat pols are Liberalism’s first line of political defense. And frankly, the first line of defense sucks—when it is attacked by republicans, that is. Hence, the media—who normally get to hide behind a veneer of fairness and objectivity. Able to hide because, well, naive, milquetoast republicans, and some might say complicit republicans, they allow it.

When a republican starts laying the wood to democrats, however, the media, in aid, must assume a more visibly active role, which is precisely what one observes when they sit down and watch the news. It isn’t “the news” anymore. It is the democrats’ accomplices making the case for democrats and Liberalism. It is the accomplices making sure democrats look good and supreme in every issue and get themselves elected. It is the accomplices illustrating to the world its loyalty to the Democrat Party, its bias, and its communist corruption.

People often wonder who leads the establishment, democrat pols or the media.

It doesn’t matter. On the same team and having the same objective, they are all enemies of the state.

Democrat politicians clearly lie. But it is more than lying currently, as a treasonous Russian collusion plot, rigged elections, and communist healthcare prove—a healthcare plan you can keep if you like, and you will like it, trust them. They aren’t lying just to win elections and be Masters of the Universe anymore. They are trying to destroy the United States as founded. It isn’t accurate to merely say they don’t like America. They hate it—it’s racist, and ill-founded, and white supremacist. Directly and indirectly, they say so, and their utterly lawless, anti-American treachery confirms they mean it.

Well, as bad as this is for a nation, political leaders despising their own country and trying to transform and enslave it. Worse is the nation’s media corporations helping them to do it. While democrats commit treasonous plots and rig elections, the media is right there helping them execute the plot, to cover up the plot, to avoid exposure and punishment for the plot, and helping them to rig the elections, to conceal the election fraud, and to avoid exposure and punishment for the election fraud.

Did I miss anything …?

I don’t know what kind of terms one puts that idea into, or what kind of words one uses so that people experience the intuitive flash: “Oh my God. The national media is helping a political party rig elections and destroy my country!” But this is what the media is doing, clear as day. In fact, the conspiratorial collusion has never been clearer. And why has it been made so abundantly clear and incontrovertible?

For fearless republican attacks on democrats.

Attacks that must continue.

Contrasting a vile and aggressive Trump to republican candidates of the past in a 2016 campaign speech, Hillary Clinton said that, accepting the 1996 republican nomination for president, Bob Dole pointed to the exits in the convention hall and told any [republican] racists in the hall to get out. She said that 2008 republican nominee, John McCain, told his own supporters they were wrong about Obama, that Obama was a decent person and an American citizen—which is funny because Clinton was the one who’d started the whole “birther” business about Obama.

Nevertheless, completing the contrast, Clinton then shrieked, “We need that kind of leadership again!”

First, Dole and McCain lost, which was exactly the result Clinton wanted repeated in the 2016 election. Second, nobody despises republicans more than democrats, and no single democrat more than Clinton. Thus, Clinton could not care less about the morality or goodness or effectiveness of republican leadership. She never wants to hear the term leadership applied to republicans again, in fact. Hence, she has absolutely zero desire to help republicans improve their standing with voters or to help them win more elections, either one.

In other words, Clinton’s speech was BS—pure, well-fermented fertilizer. And right there helping to deliver the load of road apples to the public? Right there doing puffy profile pieces on Bob Dole and McCain, and asking what Trump was doing in a Moscow hotel room with prostitutes?

The media.

Whatever democrats are saying, they are saying to help themselves politically. Whatever the media is saying, they are saying to help democrats politically. The problem with modern liberals and their establishment is that the objective is more than mere political strength and electoral triumph.

They want America’s righteous soul; and they are united in owning it.

All Thanks To The Societal Suckers

We know liberals can’t tell the truth, not that they can’t because they are inveterate liars, even though that is true, but can’t for the strategic exposure, the vulnerability of their communist intentions and plans. So again, we know liberals can’t tell the truth, because they would never get elected.

Here they are for years, for example, preaching routinely about the lawlessness of illegal immigration, telling voters that immigration needs to be more tightly controlled and that a wall needs to be built. A project they no less passed legislatively and funded. Then they get elected in 2020, open the nation’s borders wide, and allow literal caravans of illegals to enter the United States unvetted. Putting the “illegal” in the phrase “illegal aliens,” they even sent planes to other countries to pick illegals up and bring them to their new, forever home.

Transforming the racial make-up of the American electorate is what liberal leaders really wanted to do, and want still. But if they stood on the stump and declared that desire: “Yeah, we want to bring all the immigrants from around the world to America and change the nation’s racial dynamics, so we can win elections in perpetuity with a poor, dependent, foreign-born voting class. More and more Americans, specifically white people, are seeing us for the corrupt communists we are and are abandoning us, and we need to overcome that rejection. So, that’s what we want to do, America. This is our communist platform. Vote for us!”

If liberals actually voiced this. If they said that they were accepting of the collateral damage murder of American citizens by illegals; that they wanted the cartel takeovers of American apartment complexes and the illegal alien crime, the drugs, the human trafficking, the child trafficking; and wanted the taxpayer expense and the multi-layered suffering of the American people. If they actually professed all this publicly and proclaimed their goal with these ideas was to make winning elections and maintaining power easier for themselves. Then nobody would vote for them.

The “political wilderness” wouldn’t begin to describe the range of their banishment and ostracization.

Nobody ever votes for communism. Ever. Hence, liberals must lie and deceive people to get elected and to institute it. Then, once in office and wielding power, they do what they really wanted to do all along. Like, throwing open America’s borders and importing illegal voters en masse. Liberals can’t be honest about this, obviously, else they would never access the power to execute the plan. So, they sound like border and immigration hawks on the stump, demanding a border wall and stronger immigration policies, and then open the borders wide and tell the public the borders are secure.

The whole thing is a communist farce, obviously.

So then, in a 343-million-person society, as is America roughly, success comes down to selling that lie, that fraud, and deceiving that society’s weakest members, intellectually speaking. We know leadership liberals are lying. For they must lie; they don’t have a choice. Then there is what they say and actually do, which are manifestly polar opposites. So only society’s weakest members, its suckers, would fall for such an obvious con. And who are these suckers?

Enter: liberal voters.

I Imagine liberal voters are the same all over the world, but America’s liberal voters are particularly gullible and dupish. They fall for everything. No, not: they fall for everything, haha. They actually do fall for everything, headlong. Every word, every con, every time. For example, a president can’t remember what he is saying one second to the next and wanders aimlessly into the White House landscaping, and told he is the best cognitive version of himself ever, America’s liberal voters believe it. Frankly, it is stunning how willingly they accept and believe what they are told—and despite their own eyes and ears telling them otherwise, no less. Like robots, they actually repeat the line to you, which even sounds robotic coming out of their mouths: “Biden is the best cognitive version of himself ever.” All that is missing is little electronic beeping noises when their remarks are complete—beep, bloop, bleep.

Liberal voters are incapable of original thought, thoughts and words and opinions uniquely and individually their own. Given the way they get conned time and time again, the naivety is breathtaking. It appears immortal naivety at this point, considering how they still group up and chant and cheer their exploiters and abusers.

Observing it all at a democrat campaign rally, you stand there helpless: Dear Lord. Somebody do something.

How do you not recognize the border hawkishness, then the contrary, wide open border and migrant hordes? How are you unaware of the millions of illegal aliens being deported and the rampant illegal alien crime? Gee, where did all those illegals come from, anyway? Gee, what is all this anti-ICE sentiment about? How do you not recognize your leaders fighting harder for illegal criminals, yes, illegal criminals, than they are for you, the citizen who elects and pays them? In all this, where is the human savvy, the application of basic human logic?

The reader is no doubt beginning to understand the phrase “weakest members.”

Well, an elderly man has clearly and incontrovertibly lost his marbles, and the people we are talking about, liberal voters, they not only think it is acceptable that he carries the nuclear football, but that he makes critical policy and national security decisions for the country. They would go to their graves making sure that he did, too. If this isn’t next, absurd-level gullibility, then it is just blind, deeply religious cultism, neither of which can be repaired or reversed by human effort.

Plainly spoken, realizing that you must lie to people, the next step is going out and finding human suckers who will believe you and fall for your BS. In the final tally, a statistic derived from recent election results, liberals suckered 74 million voters.

That’s right: 74 million, folks.

In large numbers, liberal voters are incredibly easy marks. The same can’t be said for republican voters, though. Because they long ago sniffed out their party’s liberal RINO fraudsters—the Bushes, Romneys, Ryans and Flakes—and got rid of them all, mostly. Republican voters said no more: “You RINOs have been campaigning like conservatives and then governing like liberals. You say you support our ideas, then you become liberals in office. You’re establishment frauds, and you’re finished.”

Famous republican RINO John McCain, for example, campaigned almost exclusively on ending ObamaCare. Then, given the chance to destroy it, he chose to keep it alive, instead, merely because republican voters had nominated and elected President Trump. Not to mention, McCain and all the other republican RINOs spent the entire campaign season trying to prevent Trump’s candidacy, their party’s eventual nominee. The liberal allegiance and assistance didn’t go unnoticed by republican voters, who, with Trump’s help, summarily sent all the RINOs packing.

The point is republican voters aren’t suckers. Liberal voters, on the other hand, they have been witnessing their leaders’ endless failures with Trump alone for 10 years. Every single thing their leaders have said has been a con, and yet a word salading fraud like Kamala Harris still garners 74 million votes. Even if we say half of those votes are fraudulent, are duplicate votes, or whatever, that is still roughly 37 million people, or rather, 37 million suckers, voting for this cackling trainwreck.

They say a society is only as strong as its weakest members. Well, when you have this many societal suckers, I don’t think anyone can say that society is in good health.

I imagine this is what happened to every historical society that failed and fell into communist despair. Simply, the citizenry stopped caring and started becoming gullible. The numbers grew until, one day, there were more suckers than there were savvy citizens. The suckers were like, “Yeah, it’s fine; don’t worry about it. Politics. What are you gonna do …” Then when savvy citizens complained about nefarious government behavior, the whole thing became tribal. The suckers weren’t defending their leaders, per se. They were defending themselves: their intellect and choices. So, you weren’t attacking their liberal leaders.

You were attacking them, personally.

Meanwhile, their leaders were, say, stumping about tighter immigration control and border security, but then flinging the nation’s border wide-open to millions of dependent, murderous, and insane illegals—not to mention the world’s spies and terrorists. But the suckers didn’t care, because their intellect and credibility were on the line; their tribe was under assault. They didn’t care about the issues, that their own damn country was being overrun and stolen. They cared about protecting their tribe and their little section of tribal turf—which the leaders of their tribe think is theirs, incidentally, and aim to solely possess, eventually.

Of course, then the nation fell, and all tribes suffered.

And make no mistake, it was all thanks to the societal suckers every-single-time.

Credibility Matters, Except When It Isn’t Allowed

Speaking of his daily job of debate with liberal pundits on television, CNN’s Scott Jennings, invariably a lone conservative in a pack of constantly feinting liberal hyenas, said that, after a previous segment is over and a particular issue has been discussed, you simply must forget the feelings and drama of the past debate and move on to the next issue.

It is basic emotional discipline, having the maturity to control your feelings and forge ahead.

Always under collective mob attack everywhere they appear in the media, conservative pundits have had to develop this discipline and have matured in the control. Liberal pundits, on the other hand, not so much. Setting the premise for debate and controlling the dialogue every day and in nearly every media venue, liberals have never had to bother with such, to them, trivialities. Liberals running the game, it is house rules. Liberals get upset when their opponents don’t play by the rules, and minus the discipline and maturation, they tend to stay that way, too. This always occurs when, during debate, Jennings and conservative pundits like him publicly hand liberals their intellectual asses on television. Liberals don’t know how to deal with it and lose their, um, guano. Liberals can never win a debate because they subsist on lies and deceit, which is no less illustrated by these conservative pundits on all these news and opinion programs every day and night. It is easy to “destroy” liberals. All one needs to do is lay out the facts and tell the truth.

Imagine it: simple truth being an indomitable debate strategy.

Of course, to succeed in debate, liberals cannot allow this truth visibility or to stand, either one. Hence, they must talk about everything but the facts and truth, which they do by introducing another topic and redirecting the conversation to something else, something favorable. It’s the simple aphorism: “If you don’t like what is being said,” or in this case, if you don’t like the truth, “then change the conversation.” This is precisely what liberals do in every debate because the truth ends all debate and, worse, defeats them.

Again, imagine it: truth to liberals is kryptonite, garlic, the cross of Christ.

For instance, when you say you support a Nazi sympathizing, female abusing senate candidate. Then, when that candidate ends his campaign for being a Nazi sympathizer and for rape accusations, and you are suddenly and contrarily critical of that candidate for being a Nazi sympathizing female abuser.

Well, the truth in this matter is you are a hypocrite—you sanction; then you disapprove.

That hypocrisy then called out by a conservative pundit during televised debate, the charge is not only apparent, but lethal. So, rather than allow that truth its lethality, liberals simply change the subject. The trick is, liberals aren’t the ones defending themselves. Their opponents are.

You are.

To arrange this scenario, liberals will quite literally say anything. They will falsely accuse, make the most ridiculous assertions, and even lie, unashamedly and unremorsefully. Anything to (a) conceal the lethal truth, to change the subject (b), and (c) to have you on defense instead of them. This is much more preferable than them stammering and stuttering in search of a cogent thought, and it plays a lot better on tv, too.

But then you are asking: what about the truth in all this?

Precisely.

If we accept that, the truth, then the conversation and debate are over, and liberals are the hypocritical frauds they are and have conclusively been shown to be. Of course, that shall not be. Because liberals are better than you. Proven, of course, by how they outwit conservatives with this redirection tactic and their lies. And yes, liberals are proud of that. You can keep trying to redirect the conversation back to the truth, but for its lethality, liberals simply won’t allow it—can’t allow it!

You are on defense, not them.

Of course, liberals can’t be humiliated, either, which is another data point and obstacle. Take the Graham Platner situation, for example: “Hey you guys loved Platner. Now, suddenly, he is a despicable reprobate.” Utterly shameless—incapable of the emotion, in fact—liberals don’t care about hypocritical appearances. When this very remark was directed at them, liberals didn’t feel humiliation at all, which can be positively deduced by their visible seething. Liberals are not only impervious to feelings of humiliation, but contrition, too. Liberals don’t sit there feeling awful about the damage they cause to others or the human suffering they have inspired. Feelings of remorse are nowhere on their emotional radar. For proof, just observe the expressions of Senate Judiciary Committee liberals while Sen. Lindsey Graham was scalding their asses over what they were doing to supreme court justice nominee, Brett Kavanaugh. All were smug and indifferent. The disgusting event occurred nearly 8 years ago, too, and each of these very liberals is still behaving the same way. No guilt. No shame. No remorse. No behavioral change.

Clearly, liberals are impudent, evil human beings determined to remain that way.

One emotion liberals aren’t impervious to, however, is anger—a ready feeling of the weak and immature. Hypocrisy or otherwise, liberals don’t care about the charge. They care that someone makes it and forces them into defense. They don’t care about the exposure, necessarily. They care about the discreditation. Defeated enough in the arena of ideas and debate, credibility, the coin of the political realm, suffers. Credibility diminished for too many poor and failed political opinions and positions, and nobody listens to what you say anymore. You are an ineffective intellectual pariah—and to self-important liberals, nothing could be worse.

This is precisely why liberals do what they do: redirect and bury the truth. So then, actually, Jennings nor any other conservative pundit are the liberal’s enemy. Truth is their enemy, along with the facts that define it. And after lying about Donald Trump for 10 years and counting, from Russian collusion to faking assassination, for example, this is how liberals keep on going. Who survives so many humiliating debate defeats, day after day? Your opinions and positions proven to be pure, intellectual bunk for 10 years? Readers would not survive such a record at their jobs, for 10 minutes, much less 10 years.

Well, liberals survive. The whole liberal complex has kept going because everybody sits around on all these news shows of the liberal media discussing what liberals want to discuss. Purely because liberals don’t want to talk about all their humiliating analytical and debate failures: the intellectual shortcomings, all the accusations that fell flat; the thousands of positions they took that the evidence ultimately didn’t support; about how their credibility is shot to hell and nonexistent.

Liberals don’t want to talk about any of that because it is a direct condemnation. Because it allows someone like, say, Jennings to retort to every liberal pundit at the CNN roundtable:

“Excuse me but, who the f— are you, liberal, and why are you still talking?”

A legit remark because every position these liberals have taken, every accusation and argument they have made, has failed—in Trump’s case, for 10 years running. In the arena of ideas and debate, liberals aren’t merely failures. They are failures with zero credibility. Whatever they say should be perceived as intellectual foolishness and argumentative rubbish. Of course, saying “Who the f— are you …” to these people isn’t going to inspire contrition in their hearts, no more than it will motivate them to recognize or acknowledge the injurious things that they have been doing to people or the suffering they have caused. No, liberals are going to be filled with rage, instead. Seething rage. They knew the truth of the issues, and that their positions and arguments were not just wrong but patently false and fraudulent. They just didn’t like the truth. So they redirected the debate to something else. Wherein they then lied, knowingly. Wherein they falsely accused. Wherein they called people racist and bigoted, Nazi’s—and all at the expense and suffering of other human beings. And let me tell you how liberals felt about it …

It didn’t bother them one bit.
They did it all gleefully, in fact.

Rejecting the truth and changing the conversation is how liberals and their media have survived the last 10 years. What happens to conservative pundits like Jennings in these circumstances is he ends up debating the next liberal fraud, never discussing the failures and utter lack of credibility of the liberals he is opposing. In other words, Jennings and everybody else ends up talking about the next candidate, the next election, the next manufactured Trump scam because we don’t ever go back and review the dismal liberal debate record and their dearth of credibility on the issues.

Liberals don’t go back and review their record, and they make sure you don’t go back and review it, either.

The only reason liberals haven’t disappeared from the public square altogether is because, via corporate media, they own the public microphone. They are the media. They say who speaks; they control what is said. We talk about these anchors and journalists, those who present the news and inform the public. However, they aren’t the problem. If corporate wanted honesty and credibility restored in their respective media enterprises, the intellectual failures would be punished, and truthfulness would be revived and reinstituted. If corporate determined it, the daily liberal con would end tomorrow. The reason it persists is because corporate, just a bunch of liberals, too, wants it to continue.

I have a terrific doctor, Dr. Brian. I don’t ever have to get a second opinion from another physician. When Dr. Brian tells me something, we move forward. The reason for the confidence is that, for 30 years, he has been right about everything, and not just concerning my health, but the health of many of my family members. Every prescription, every piece of medical advice, we get better, feel better, and thrive. It is to say, Dr. Brian has tremendous credibility—trustworthy, abiding, and enduring credibility. I trust what he says because, well, he’s always right and earns it.

The point is that it is just the opposite with liberals and their media. The only reason people still think they have credibility is because they get to sit on television every night pretending that they have it.

So, before you believe a story, it needs to matter who is telling the story.

Locking Down The “Fair and Balanced” Border

Allowing liberal voices equal time in their content, Fox News wants to be “fair and balanced.” But don’t we have enough liberals deceiving and misleading people in the rest of the media already? The networks, CNN, MSNOW, the New York Times—if people want false and misleading liberal content, there is an ocean of it out there. Fox News needs to further imbalance the scale and supply more false and misleading liberal content?

Fox needs to enhance the deception?

“President” [wink-wink] Joe Biden wandering aimlessly into White House landscaping and the Amazon jungle, liberals and their media tell the nation that Biden is the “best version” of himself ever. While Fox News is broadcasting migrant hordes overrunning the border, and while the Biden administration is secretly shuttling illegals throughout the nation’s interior in the dead of night. The liberal media nonetheless declares the border closed and the nation secure. They tell the American people Donald Trump colluded with the Russians and stole an election; that he bribed Vladimir Zelenskyy; that he supported white supremacists at Charlottesville; that he raped E. Jean Carroll; that he broke campaign finance laws via Stormy Daniels; that he incited an insurrection; that he …; that he …; that he ….

Every single charge was proven false and deceitful, and Fox News’ cast of “fair and balancing” liberals vehemently validated and perpetuated each and every lie on Fox air. Rather, they used the platform to advance the liberal media’s lies about Trump, his administrative sphere, and MAGA—to say nothing of the lies about the Republican Party and Conservatism. A library of nightly news footage to prove this true, the question is:

How does that help the Fox brand?

If people want media deception—and at this point, they are definitely choosing it—they have a sea of it to turn to everyday. Why allow Fox News to become just another news agency by which to be deceived and misinformed? What, pray tell, is “fair” or “balanced” about allowing people to deceive your customers? Or let me put it this way: how many stories do “fair and balancing” liberals get to get incredibly wrong before job performance becomes a consideration at The Fox Corporation?

Perhaps I am breaking news of which Fox brass is unaware, but liberals despise Fox News. They say so routinely, everywhere in the media, and on Capitol Hill, too. They mock Fox, mock its massive viewership. So when liberals are employed and allowed into Fox’s hallowed halls, is it any surprise they wreak havoc? Besides the daily havoc of deceit and poor job performance, how about legal havoc, specifically? Like Cathy Areu legal havoc, for example.

Dubbed “The Liberal Sherpa,” Areu claimed she was sexually harassed by some of the news division’s male stars, Sean Hannity among them. Finding the case evidence lacking, however, a judge tossed her lawsuit. Still, Fox corporate had to pay attorneys to defend themselves and their employees in court, to say nothing of the expense of reputational damage. Gee, what does that cost the corporation? Anybody in accounting tracking that expense?

How many times must these “fair and balancing” liberals be allowed to do this sort of thing to Fox and their fellow employees? Areu didn’t care that she had no evidence. As a liberal, she isn’t there to care. She is there to destroy Fox’s credibility and brand, and the fact is there isn’t anything off limits to these shameless, morally rudderless, and committed liberal ideologues. To them, no charge is too reckless or absurd. And if they don’t have a charge, they will create one, obviously. The lack of evidence is meaningless to liberals because the goal isn’t litigious success, although that would be delish icing.

The goal is Fox’s destruction—its credibility, reputation, brand—by any means necessary. Absurd?

Well, in what way are liberals enhancing the Fox brand?
They aren’t, you say? Gee, whatever could that imply …

Destructionists. That’s what liberals are and is what they intend.

I think everyone has seen enough, especially over the last 10, 11 Trump years. Yes, the verdict is definitely in: the liberal media is politically corrupt, has been shilling for the Democrat Party and Liberalism, and deceiving the American public for decades. Lately, the liberal media isn’t covering historic crimes of treason, yes, historic crimes of treason, like Russian collusion. 51 former intelligence officials are allowed to boldface lie about intelligence to assist a liberal democrat in a debate and an election, and there is no liberal media effort to expose the conspirators there, either. A laptop detailing the voluminous crimes of a sitting president and his crime family, a congressional committee even unearthing the countless shell companies used to move their money around, and it is all totally ignored.

Clearly and incontrovertibly, the liberal media has shown the American people that they are dedicated to Democrat Party electoral victory and Liberalism dominance. In fact, the last 10 years have revealed that, not only are they not going to report any news injurious to the Democrat Party and Liberalism. Complementing the reporting negligence, they are going to actively defend and protect both, too, which they manifestly do every day and night on their broadcasts.

It is also clear that liberal voters are committed to ignoring all this glaring deceit and corruption, and to assisting the liberal establishment in its destruction of not just the nation’s many sacred institutions, but the country itself.

The point is that, collectively, liberals have clearly sold out to the religious cause. Meaning, there are no allies to be found among liberals, only enemies. Thus, when you invite them into your news agency, eh-hm, Fox News, you are inviting people determined to destroy you and, in the meantime, discredit you and make your life miserable. If you are conservative or right-wing or anything related, liberals do not have your good in mind. But then, Fox News is neither conservative nor right-wing.

Rush Limbaugh once asked, “In the daily packaging of the news, isn’t it interesting what the liberal media leaves out?” Well, what the liberal media was leaving out back then, and still leaves out, were any news stories or details that harmed democrats and the established liberal order. The liberal media was avoiding the stories and details because (a) their mission, their life-affirming religious goal, is to make sure liberals get elected to office, and that their established order remains intact and reigns supreme. But also because (b) the stories and details were/are a death knell to the Democrat Party and Liberalism, both of which liberals want desperately to endure.

To great success, Limbaugh and Fox took those omitted news stories and details, packaged them and, along with cutting-edge analysis, presented them to the public. For which, Limbaugh and Fox were labeled “right-wing” and “conservative news” outlets by liberals. When all they were/are really doing is reporting what the liberal media refused to report, i.e. Russian collusion, and holding liberals to account for their deceit, political bias, and corruption.

“Right wing news.” “Conservative news.” It’s all manufactured liberal nonsense.

If people want the details of the Russian collusion plot, for example, then they must turn to Fox News for them. It is the only place to get informed about the story, because the rest of the national media isn’t pursuing it—to reiterate: a historic, treasonous crime. The liberal media ignored this and all the historic, treasonous news stories of the Trump era, because the news was a death knell to the Democrat Party and Liberalism. Because if the liberal media had investigated those stories. If they presented those details and facts to their viewers.

Then the Democrat Party and Liberalism are dead. Belly-up. Rotting. Stinking.

In fact, imagine that for a moment: the nation’s entire news media apparatus, not just Fox News, intensely focused on the treasonous Russian collusion plot of Hillary Clinton and the Obama Administration. Imagine every single news agency during that period involved in Fox-News-level focus on Clinton’s fake dossier, FBI FISA court crimes and abuse, and criminal Obama White House unmasking and spying on Americans. Imagine every single citizen in the country, whether in a bar, at the airport, or at home, able to tune in to their preferred news channel—ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, et al—and being exposed 24/7 for months on end to that type of dedicated, comprehensive coverage of the crime. Imagine the reporters at all these agencies chasing the conspirators and shoving microphones in their faces demanding answers. Imagine the legal heat being brought to bear for a treasonous crime by a unified media, and the optics of all their investigative zeal being transmitted to the entirety of the American electorate.

Were that to have happened, the Democrat Party and Liberalism would be finished.

And the reason they aren’t finished is because that didn’t happen. In fact, quite the opposite.

Clearly, Liberalism intends to endure. As part of its strategy, it sends its disciples—who don’t need to be assigned this duty, incidentally, and in fact volunteer to wear the explosive vest—to Fox News for employment. Wanting to be “fair and balanced,” Fox News then puts these religious zealots to work. Except, the only work these militant fanatics want to do is destroy Fox’s credibility and brand. And why?

Listen up Fox brass: because liberals loathe Fox News, the media industry’s “great Satan.”

And it isn’t really loathing, but extreme fear.

This Fox News practice of presenting news stories and details that liberals avoid and leave out of their own newscasts must end. Liberals want the practice stopped because it crushes their credibility and destroys them. In other words, Americans getting the truth exposes and disadvantages the liberal media. Liberals not only mislead the American people via their own news agencies. They infiltrate Fox News so they can mislead Fox’s viewers, too.

And one more time, Fox brass: how does that benefit the Fox brand?

The sole purpose, the unrelenting religious mission of liberals and Liberalism—a mission every bit as ideologically intense and focused as the Iranian Mullah’s desire to crush America, the “great Satan”—is to ruin Fox News. No news agency does Liberalism and the established political order greater harm or poses a more serious threat. Liberals have destroyed their own media’s credibility and reputations, their news agencies distrusted and reviled to the tune of 83% of the American public. And to be “fair and balanced,” Fox News is allowing these zealots access to destroy its news agency, too?

Make it make sense.

So, perhaps it is time for Fox News to secure its own corporate borders and deport the enemy from within. Of course, when you have a liberal in republican clothing, like former Wisconsin congressman, Paul Ryan, on the board of directors. Sometimes those open borders and liberal saboteurs are useful. In wide-eyed rage, Ryan would no doubt lurch from his executive chair at the RINO charge and begin itemizing his conservative bonafides one-by-one on his fingers. Except, when a conservative like Trump is campaigning and in the White House, Ryan clearly likes having those borders open and those liberal saboteurs on staff to mislead Fox’s viewers and tear Trump down.

Gee, Ryan likes having liberals on staff for their usefulness against fellow conservatives.
What does that imply, anyway?
Seems significant, but I can’t quite put my finger on it.

Ryan useless, we must then appeal to Fox’s overlords, the Murdochs. As for them, they like to cater to conservatives, supposedly. But their newsrooms, just like liberal newsrooms, occasionally clash with movement conservatives, or rather, the genuine conservatives. Thereto, Murdoch’s media outlets sometimes promoted establishment or centrist republicans, aka RINO republicans, causing friction with these genuine conservatives.

Gee, isn’t board member Ryan one of these “RINO” republicans?

[Contemplation …]

So, what are we saying? That Fox News is yet more liberal media?

Well, it isn’t, of course. Fox News is “fair and balanced,” and thus only half like the liberal media. Meaning, Fox brass likes to cash in with its neglected conservative audience, but then keeps liberals on staff, too, to harangue republicans that republican voters like, but that GOP brass dislikes, all to maintain current establishment order and strength.

[More contemplation …]

Is it me? Or does this new closed border/deportation initiative seem too expensive and perilous?

James Comey: Crime Fighter

When former FBI Director James Comey posted a picture of the “cool” 86 47 seashell formation, everybody knew then and knows now that (a) Comey knew what the message meant, and (b) that he was advocating for the assassination of the 47^th President of the United States, Donald Trump.

Comey is not a naive or dumb person. Immature and childish, yes—at 65-years-old unfortunately. Naive and dumb, no. Quite the opposite. Comey is smart, just not very wise. Big difference, this intelligence and wisdom business. Now that he has been indicted, trial is a reality. If he doesn’t plead out, which he won’t. Comey is much too haughty and immature for that.

Plus, he still trusts the establishment system.

Over the past year, the FBI has charged dozens of cases regarding threats to the President of the United States. Comey’s case is but one. Nick Guadalupe Cruz-Lopez, Diego Villavicencio, Christopher Davies, Sheldon James Biddle—all were indicted for such threats. Davies, for example, wrote a letter to a state correctional institution official stating he had “orchestrated the most daring Presidential assassination that this country has ever seen.” He was indicted, stood trial, and was sentenced to 27 months in federal prison.

Who is this person, Davies, you ask?
Who are any of these indicted people, actually?

Exactly the point. These citizens threatened the life of the President of the United States and are being prosecuted and condemned for it. So, what makes Comey any different? He is a citizen, too, subject to the same laws. Is it that he is a former FBI Director? That his name is recognizable? Unlike these other citizen defendants and criminals, why does an air of distinction surround his indictment? If Comey’s name was Christopher Davies, would there be the same air? Why does it feel Comey is somehow above the rules and standards set for every other citizen?

It feels that way because that is the way it is.

Comey can’t be indicted and convicted because he is person of distinction and prominence, or rather, a celebrity elite, which is precisely how Comey and prominent liberals like him feel about themselves, too. And for this, their opinion of the law? Such important persons of affairs, celebrity elites feel they don’t have to answer to the law, that they aren’t obligated to the same legal standards. The law is for everyone else, not them. And when it is applied to them. Why, it’s an outrage, which is exactly how liberals behave. Davies says he has a “daring” plan to kill the president, for example, and he gets two years in prison. Comey uses seashells to say kill the president, and he thinks it is utterly absurd that he would be indicted. He and his fellow elitists say prosecution is a right-wing conspiracy, is political retribution, and even tyranny. Comey not only says the charge is absurd; he believes it. Why?

Because Comey is an elitist narcissist. A psychopath, actually. People think this psychopathic designation too aggressive and hyperbolic, but it is not. In fact, it might be an understatement.

Observing liberals, they all behave the same way, which is the exact opposite of how you would expect them to behave in situations like these. When the law is applied to them, they don’t slink back in fear and trepidation, don’t get nervous and hole-up somewhere. Self-assured, they march forward and boisterously say, What the hell is this BS? Who the hell do you think you are, anyway?! This isn’t how the Department of Justice is supposed to function? This is tyranny, goddamnit! And why do they behave this way?

Because liberals are psychopaths who feel they can do whatever the hell they want without consequence. They can even orchestrate and execute treasonous plots if they want.

No big deal. Needed to be done, they think. Such important persons of affairs, unbound by the standards and restrictions of society unlike ordinary people, they are just the people to do it, too.

People have made this elitism point about liberals for decades and it never seems to have any public efficacy. It isn’t an emotional characterization people make in frustration and anger: “Liberals are arrogant jerks!” No, it is literally true. Liberals think they are better, more important than you. They actually feel this way and, short of verbalizing it, give every indication that they do feel that way. They look down their noses, consider you—yes, you!—and all who disagree with them imbeciles, idiots, and vermin. Their view such, they are shocked that anyone would dare accuse them, much less charge them with a crime. This is how arrogant liberals are and how self-important they feel. They know full-well they used seashells to say kill the president. But screw you, pal. I’m a liberal; I can do whatever the hell I want, peasant. This is the attitude of elitist liberals like Comey, and liberal voters ride their coattails to what they believe is their own superiority—superiority by association.

Nevertheless, here’s the worst part …

The judicial system, with its activist liberal judges, along with the American people, mostly these servile liberal voters—they encourage this elitist, psychopathic behavior.

If you are of elite prominence, you get treated differently—as long as you are liberal, that is. You don’t get treated like Cruz-Lopez, Villavicencio, Davies, or Biddle. You know, ordinary unknown criminals. Liberal elites are special, just ask their voters. Thus, Comey is special, and the system must take care to reflect that importance. Unlike Comey, Cruz-Lopez doesn’t have a major media corporation making a defense case for him, for free, and before a single word has been spoken to a judge about the case. Never mind the fact that Comey, America’s lead crime fighter, is involved in FISA Court fraud, leaking classified information to professorial friends and the news media, and treasonous plots—all to destroy his target, and an innocent victim, no less: Donald Trump.

Jeez. Does it get any more heinous?

And when Comey—again, America’s lead crime fighter—failed to eliminate Trump in his initial mission. He sent signals with seashells to inspire someone else to finish the job, just to free his treasonous teat from the criminal ringer.

All alleged, of course. For now.

Comey is a disgraceful human being, and supremely arrogant. So arrogant, that he thinks people will buy his defense of ignorance, that he didn’t know “86” was synonymous with violence, which he “opposes.” He makes blithe videos about his innocence, too, and lectures everyone about how “this is not what the Department of Justice is supposed to be.” After solely turning the FBI into what it isn’t supposed to be, a treasonous criminal enterprise.

So, I’m not sure how much credibility Comey has regarding what the Department of Justice is supposed to be. It is all of little interest to Comey, though. Rest assured, he is so hubristic that he actually thinks he is above all this still, and that all this will yet end with a big Trump-humiliating thud. Because he, Comey, can’t be touched.

People think this cocksureness is just fear masked as confidence, but it isn’t. There is fear, sure, but Comey and elite liberals like him are used to preferential treatment within their established system. Thus, they not only think they are entitled to preferential treatment, but wholeheartedly believe they are going to get it, too. Comey believes he is going to receive it. The reason he does is, well, which of his fellow elites have proven touchable thus far? Eleven years of unprecedented and historic get Trump malfeasance by Comey and his liberal elite friends in politics and media, and which one has been held to account?

None but one: Kevin Clinesmith. A lowly attorney in the FBI’s Office of General Counsel who pled guilty to altering an email and lying, and was given probation. The established system didn’t save Clinesmith because he didn’t have faith in it. Because he didn’t exhibit the brazen cocksureness that the system provides. Loser.

Liberals understand what they have in their established order.
With confidence, they expect it to do its intended job, too.

This is what makes elite liberals so brazen: Who the hell do you think you are, anyway?! Only, it is not like it was in olden times. Meaning, the gifts of system security and preferential treatment aren’t assured for liberals as they used to be. Trump in charge and relentlessly dismantling their established order, liberals, namely Comey, are finding themselves not just accused and indicted, but litigiously vulnerable. Comey is being tried in North Carolina, where the seashell incident took place, and not in Washington DC, where nearly every judge and potential juror loathes Trump as much as Comey, the crime fighter. It was quite the error on Comey’s part, having his seashell fun in North Carolina instead of DC, where he is protected. And what caused the error?

Comey’s blind arrogance, of course.
Here’s to blind arrogance [clink!] …

The Narcotic of Cheap Celebrity

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.

Religion and The Minnesotan ICE Warrior

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.

The Modern Toll of A Decades Long Inferiority Complex

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.