The Future of the GOP


Let me first begin by saying that a lead of three million in the national popular vote is meaningless. Instead of running one big election, the US runs 52 different presidential elections and plenty of other senatorial, congressional, and gubernatorial ones. As long as you can win those that is all that matters. While it is true that a larger lead gives you claim to a mandate the national popular vote is not the metric to use for it. I will discuss the argument for mandate in another post. If the system changes then my analysis will change as well but until it does I standby my analysis in the rest of this article.

Where does the GOP go from here? The data says that in order to win future presidential elections the GOP does not need to reach out to new voting blocks. Empirical data says that the GOP absorbed a new voting block this election. Democrats argue that Trump has already hit his peak with working class votes and needs to reach out to other demographics but the data does not bear this out. The data shows the GOP only needs to unite the two factions inside its party and their electoral future is assured. Does that mean the GOP should stop all future outreach? Of course not. You want a bigger majority to get your things passed anyway and there are some groups the GOP can make inroads in.

To prove the points made in the last paragraph i will be studying the Presidential and Senatorial race in Pennsylvania. Trump of course represents the new nationalist wing of the GOP and Toomey represents the standard GOP. I encourage everyone to check the conclusions I draw and apply it to other states and I am confident the same results will come out. We have three general geographical divisions in Pennsylvania and other areas, Rural, Suburban, and Urban.

In Rural areas you have the Trumpian wing of the GOP ascendant. We routinely see Trump outperforming Toomey by anywhere from 5-20%. Lets take a look at some counties

In Clinton County Trump got 10022 votes while Toomey only got 8702 votes. That is around 15% more votes that Toomey could get if the two wings were unified.

In Elk County Trump got 10025 votes while Toomey got 8703 votes. That is around 10% more votes that Toomey could get.

In Clearfield County Trump got 24932 votes while Toomey got 22128. That is around a 10% differential.

The added benefit of these rural counties is more than just more votes. They are also spread out all over the place. This means they have a greater impact in more congressional districts. More often than not these counties represent individual small towns as well each with their own elective positions. This gives a unified GOP a bigger bench to draw from.

In the Suburbs the standard GOP wing fares better as some voters have been stayed by the GOP civil war. Throughout the election there was story after story about how Trump would end up costing the GOP the presidency, house, and senate and there was the very public resistance movements led by Mcmullin, Romney, and others.

In Montgomery County Trump got 162,731 votes while Toomey got 189,574. That is at least 10% more votes Trump could have gotten.

In Bucks County Trump got 164,361 votes while Toomey got 175,898.

In the cities Republicans usually do dismally but the trend stays the same

In Philadelphia County Trump got 108,748 votes while Toomey got 116,714. Still around an 8% increase.

The good news for Trump in the suburban and urban areas is the old adage “victory covers a multitude of sins”. Conservatives who have abandoned Trump during the election because may now be willing to fall in line since he has a proven track record of victory.

For this next part I have to rely on polling and some educated guesses as I lack some hard numbers. According to exit polls Trump won 35% of urban voters and 50% of suburban ones. If we look at these numbers we see that just by unifying the different GOP factions he can get an additional 3-7% of these votes. The GOP candidates running downticket would be able to get an additional 5-6% of the rural vote share. Quantifying this is a bit harder as I cannot see any breakdown of number of voters who voted in urban, suburban, and rural areas. To be able to come up with some sort of number however I will use the census data that says 75% of Americans live in suburban and ubran areas while 25% live in rural areas and assume that that was the breakdown in turnout as well. Using this I can come up with a rough estimate of an additional 1.5m-3m votes Trump could have gotten if the GOP were unified behind him and Toomey would have gotten 80k to 100k more votes. A unified GOP would be more than enough to secure the presidency and more seats with its current coalition.

Regarding outreach. The democrats are in a position where they have to expand their voting base. If they do that they must take up new causes which may not be popular with their current coalition. In any case what Trump showed by poaching the labor class from the democrats is that the longer a group stays in a coaliton and the more secure the party it is on it then the more its issues are taken for granted. Using this theory the GOP should go after the staunchest democrat constituencies. According to polling that would be the African Americans who vote democrat 90% of the time and the Jews which vote 70% of the time. As luck would have it Israel presents a perfect issue to woo these voters with and Trump is already trying to charm the African American voters non-stop. In fact I predict that the Flint Water Crisis will be solved or on the way to being solved within his first 100 days.

If the GOP follows these suggestions 2018 and 2020 should be won with no problems.


The Economy of Hope


Thanks Donald! Consumer confidence is at its highest in 15 years. In case you’re wondering or yes Thanks Donald is warranted. Everything Trump has done up to this point has been geared towards increasing consumer spending and consumer confidence. I will go into each deal later on but let me first explain the unifying theory behind everything.

In the view of President Trump and a lot of other economists consumer spending is one of the main drivers of the economy. More than any other factor consumer spending is the one which you can influence using psychological factors. When people feel hopeful about the future they are more likely to spend more. Note that they do not need to necessarily earn more to spend more. They can put more things on credit, save less, put less of their income into debt servicing, and a whole host of other things.

When people spend more on the economy the demand goes up so companies are either forced to produce more of the demanded product or hire more people to provide the demanded service. More available jobs means that labor has better bargaining power to negotiate for higher wages and more disposable income to spend on even more things. Which then leads to a great cycle of economic growth. All this happens just by instilling a more positive outlook in everyone. We haven’t even gone into the stimulus package, tax cuts, deregulation and other things President Trump has planned for the economy. This is the difference between someone telling you that yes you can get your jobs back as opposed to no your jobs are gone forever and you will have to live on scraps from now on while mortgaging your house to get a second degree.

The number of jobs in the various deals don’t even matter. All that matters is that the populace sees that Trump will fight for their jobs no matter how small and will act to bring in new ones.

Carrier -The left scoffs at the president-elect getting involved at such a small deal. 1000 or less jobs.The fact that its small actually helps build confidence too because it gives people hope that the President will act to save jobs no matter how few.

Softtel- Again no matter how few the jobs Trump is giving everyone the hope that he will be facilitating the creation of new ones. Nobody expected Trump to create jobs while still President elect. In fact no other President-elect has been as active as he is. This gives people hope that he will create more in the future.

Boeing and Lockheed Martin – At some level almost everyone is concerned about the debt. It is not the primary concern for most but they still would not like to see it balloon. All people really need to see is that there are steps taken to control it. Early targeting of out of control government programs shows this. The actual figures adding up at the end of the day doesn’t matter and wont be shown until the end of the presidency anyway. All that matters is that people see some visible action taken.

It is very refreshing to have a President who actually understands the psychological aspect of the economy. I cannot wait for the start of the actual Presidency.

Thanks Donald!

Demonization Works


Let me begin with my central thesis. Demonization is a valid and effective tool in changing the behavior of a given person or group. In this case speaking of Muslims. Whenever a terrorist attack happens leftist commentators inevitably point out that if it is a white person who is caught he would be declared a lone wolf, but if it were an Islamic person the blame would spread to the entire religion. They then proceed to point out how evil the right is for doing this and how counterproductive it is. Of course no mention as to how the terrorists are almost always Muslims but we will get to that later.

First off I want to show how collective punishment does work to change behavior. If you have ever been in the military or any similar institution you may remember the entire platoon being forced to run or do push-ups or given extra duties for the infractions of a few. The result is the members of the group try to get less infractions so that their unit gets punished less.

In the Philippines, India, and other third world countries there are community lending programs which lend to a group instead of an individual. Each member of the group would get their individual loans and each would be responsible for paying it back. If one member failed to repay their loan then the entire group would be punished by getting denied loans in the future. The result is that the group members themselves, often from the same community and in some cases the same family pressured the members to pay on behalf of the bank and there was a higher repayment rate. The funds ended up being used for business as well as there was an extra consequence of squandering it.

Consider North Carolina in America. The Governor did something the left did not agree with and businesses punished the state. This of course punished the workers for the actions of the state. As a result the state rescinded the laws and it sent a chilling effect to other states.

The liberal media attempts it all the time as well. You see headlines saying a certain survey shows all Trump voters are racist, all republicans are uneducated, and every other possible variation to imply that if you vote democrat then you are a great person but if you vote republican you are a terrible one. These are of course the very same people who tell us that demonization does not work.

Back to Islam. If you see a terrorist attack or mass murder on tv and think that a muslim did it you would be justified in thinking so. In 2015 99% of all terrorist attacks were done by Muslims. We only have 2 isolated incidents aside from that done by communist extremists. To make it worse there is no isolated sect of Islam responsible for the bombings. Both Sunni’s and Shia’s have groups which do it. Even joining Islam does not save you as half the targets of the suicide bombings are fellow muslims. As you can see there is something seriously wrong with Islamic ideology so much so that even when you give the entire world to them one half would still try to kill the other for religious reasons.

I always say that if I walk down elm street and get mugged every day I would be justified in having negative stereotypes of elm street and everyone living there. No one would complain if I reroute to another street particularly if I don’t get mugged there every day. The same analogy applies to terrorism and Islam.

What do we want to achieve by doing this? The first and best result would always be to wean its followers away from Islam. This hurts the terrorists the most as while they believe in Islam they also use its moderates as a shield to prevent the authorities from clamping down harder on them. The less adherents of Islam there is the weaker terrorists become as they have less places to hide. The next thing we want to achieve is to turn the moderates of Islam against the extremists. It has been reported that most radicalization occurs in mosques and other areas populated almost exclusively by Muslims. Showing the moderates that they are in a way tainted by association with the extremists would encourage them to turn them in more and to counsel against radicalization. Lastly we also hope that the extremists themselvess see that the reputation of Islam as a whole is suffering because of them.

Do not feel guilty for holding Islam accountable because of the actions of its followers. Remember the people who justify the suicide bombings are among those who have studied the Quran the longest. Pointing out the flaws of the religion may be the only thing that can save it, if indeed it can be saved.

Who Needs the UN?


When I was younger I belonged to this awesome gaming club. We tried out every new game we could get our hands on and I was happy to find a group willing to play Arkham Horror and Here I Stand. I didn’t even mind bringing more than my fair share of games as I got plenty of fun out of it. Of course life happens and I didn’t have time to play as many board games as I wanted anymore so it didn’t make sense to keep buying new games for this club.

This is similar to what we are going thru with the UN. Before we begin let us get the facts first. The US pays 22% of the UN general budget and 25% of the peacekeeping budget. While Russia and China both pay less than 3%. It doesn’t end here though, various UN agency ask for voluntary contributions from the US as well to supplement their projects. Nobody will really dispute the US pays more than its fair share of the UN.

Is it worth it? As a nationalist I was initially thrilled with the UN. Think about it. We had an international organization that we controlled. We were the only ones who really knew how to use it initially and it enabled us to claim the moral high ground in any activity we chose. We could use the UN to condemn our enemies and use that as propaganda. Did it matter that it was an international organization? Not really. All that mattered is that we could use it to further our national interest. I would have been perfectly happy paying 100% for that UN.

The problem is over time other countries have learned to use the UN to their own advantage. In fact if you look at the UN now most of its time is spent blocking the US and condemning Israel one of our principal allies despite numerous atrocities being done daily all across the world. The UN is being used to pressure countries into taking more and more muslim economic immigrants as well. It is fast becoming a negative rather than a positive.

Should we completely defund the UN? That is a solution, though it would most likely involve us leaving the UN entirely. At the very least we should be paying the same amount as China and Russia and not a penny more. One thing is clear. There is no advantage in funding an organization that is of no benefit to us.

The critique is that the US will be diminished if it pulls out of the UN and will no longer be relevant on the world stage. They have it backwards. The US is the US. It derives its power from being the US not from being part of any organization. In fact the organizations in question whether it be the UN , NATO, or anything else gets more power by having the US as a member. Even if it was not a member of any organization the US would still have 11 carrier battle groups, each with the capability of destroying the entire navy of any other power. Without the UN the US is still the most desirable market in the world, with a population possessing the highest amount of purchasing power. Without the UN the US would still be needed to enforce any ceasefires or humanitarian decrees.

The UN must make itself useful to the US to receive the same level of funding. Being a member is not enough as the UN derives greater value from having the US as a member than the US gets at being a member. If the UN fails at this then we have no reason to support it.

The Nationalist Case for Supporting Israel


The case is simple and can be summed up in one sentence. America should support Israel because they have a positive view of America and are longstanding Allies.

In the Israeli conflict we have two sides. The Palestinians who are at the very least affiliated with some jihadis who actively hate America and have no relations with us and Israel. In 2015 81% of Israelis viewed America positively and  Israel has been an American ally for the longest time.

The rationale is simple. We want to encourage more countries to be longstanding allies and to view America favorably and we want to punish countries who don’t so we can encourage the desired behavior from them. Does it mean that we should always blindly support our allies? Of course not. However the presumption of support must be given to our allies and that presumption must be stronger the longer the alliance lasts. For example if we had a new ally who was borderline in support towards us then a 60/40 case would be sufficient for us to consider the other side. For a longer ally like Britain or Israel a 70/30 or 80/20 case should be considered. In the case of Israel and Palestine, while both sides have valid arguments, they are close enough that our presumption should remain with Israel.

The counter argument is of course, would we not alienate more countries like Palestine in our quest to reward our allies? The answer is no. If we apply this consistently then nations will see there is a tangible benefit to becoming a long-term American ally and to popularize America with its population instead of demonizing it. For instance countries like the Philippines which love America should get much more foreign aid than Afghanistan or other Middle Eastern countries that hate it.

The reward MUST come after the change in behavior and not before. When you discipline a child do you reward him before he does the right thing? Or do you reward him after he gets good grades, does his homework, or a host of other things? The end result of this method of foreign policy should be an international community competing to who can be the best, most cooperative ally to be assured of US support. It is not a novel concept either. Supporting your allies and punishing your enemies have been around since ancient times. In fact the chinese have a saying “Do not trample over your old friends in your rush to make new”.

At the end of the day the issue itself is only tangential to how our decision is to be made. Unless the case is absurdly one-sided, which it is not in this case, then we must stand with our allies so we can create new allies in the future.

Transition: Foreign Policy


The left constantly says that Trump is a buffoon and unfit to be President. Lets take a look at what has been accomplished so far.

  1. Recognized Taiwan, a vibrant democracy with a liberal president, as a separate country from China and took their call. – Let me remind everyone that this is the first liberal President Taiwan has had and that the left celebrated when Obama normalized relationships with Cuba, a brutal dictatorship.
  2. Convinced Egypt to support Israel by dropping their resolution against Israel – The Obama administration was already ready to abandon Israel. Instead we are treated to a rare instance where Jews and Muslims cooperate on an international stage.
  3. Stood up to Putin when he declared they want more nukes – The left has declared that Trump is nothing more than a puppet for Putin. The puppet for Putin stood up to his declaration and challenged him to an arms race reminding Putin that the US could afford it and Russia could not. In his 8 years Obama has not stood up to Putin once.

Lets sum it up. Trump has recognized a liberal democracy, gotten a Jewish and a Muslim country to work together, and stood up to Putin on the world stage. And 2016 is not over yet.

At this rate Trump would have accomplished more before being sworn in than Obama has in his 8 years.

4D Chess: Sanctuary Cities


Today I’d like to discuss what I consider to be the most brilliant 4d chess move of President Trump to date. Sanctuary Cities. My personal moniker for it is “Operation turn Illinois and New York red.”

As everyone knows Trump ran on a platform that is against illegal immigration. Appointing Senator Sessions as Attorney General also shows that he is serious about this particular campaign pledge. It was then leaked that sanctuary cities may lose federal funding. This then prompted numerous cities in mainly democratic held areas like Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles to promise that they would stay as sanctuary cities no matter what happened.

So who is the target? This is aimed at the poor and middle class citizens living in the big cities. If you recall in the election Trump overwhelmingly won the rural areas, was competitive in the suburbs, and normally lost in the cities themselves. Making inroads into some of these places means that future elections will be easier to win.

Under normal situations the democrats would be able to choose how to react. However due to their over the top fear mongering during the election they cannot choose to capitulate to Trump and help with the deportations. Their base would revolt. The only option they have is doubling down on their protection for illegal immigrants which is the best result Trump could hope for.

Let us analyze what the most likely scenario is. You have a President saying that he will let ICE and other enforcement agencies fulfill their duties while you have liberal cities declaring they will protect illegals come what may. An illegal alien has two options. He can either stay where he is and risk deportation or move to a city that guarantees he will be protected. Naturally some if not most will decide to move.

What happens if they move? First off they vacate the jobs they currently have and make it available to the citizens in the area. Will it be a good job? Most likely not, but it will still be required to pay minimum wage and the person working now spends all his money in the local community instead of sending half of it abroad to their home country, leading to more jobs being created in their home community. This helps fulfill the promise of more jobs.

What happens to the cities that the illegals go too? Logically once the illegals go there they will need a place to stay and they will need a source of income. Cities generally have limited space, an influx of new arrivals would mean that rental prices go up. There is also a limited number of available jobs. When the illegals get there they have an competitive advantage over the residents as they are willing to work for wages below the minimum which means that they will push out some of the current residents. Of course not all illegals will be able to find jobs so some will inevitably end up turning to crime to survive.

You can make an argument that when new residents arrive in an area they can be a positive impact on the area. Yet when new residents arrive they usually bring with them money, have a job and a place to stay waiting as well. Illegals would not be likely to have any of this.

We now have a situation where the poor and middle classes in the sanctuary cities face increased competition from illegals and possible exposure to more crimes. Any jobs taken by the illegals will contribute less to the community as well as some of the money will have to be sent abroad. Can they take out their anger on Trump? Sure that it is a possibility, but they are starting of as democratic strongholds already so it would not matter. Their ire would eventually fall on their local leaders who inflicted this upon them by forcing their cities to be sanctuaries which gets them to turn on them and vote for the other team or not vote at all.

A more extreme version of this is already happening in Germany as Merkel effectively declared the EU one giant sanctuary city with predictable effects. Of course we don’t expect our crop of illegals to be as violent as the islamic refugees so the process may take longer but with this 4-d chess move I fully expect Trump and his successor to be competitive in the cities in 4 or 8 years.

A Guide to the Ctrl-Left


In the days after the election right-wing pundits like Sean Hannity began testing out a label for the SJW faction of the left. The “radical Alt-left” they would call it. Not only is this harmful to the alt-right by creating a false equivalence with the crybabies but it is also wildly inaccurate.

The alt-right is defined by nationalism. Our current system defines the right as the conservatives and the left as the progressives. The alt-right is the nationalistic right as opposed to the globalist left. A paradigm that  is spreading across the globe and is evident in Brexit and the election of President Trump. The members of the alt-right are those who believe in this definition of the right. Often times it is even at odds with conservative philosophy , such as in free trade and overly small government for instance. Of course both sides of the right do understand that coalition building is important to winning elections

The Alt-right is an alternative to the right while the ctrl-left is the natural evolution of the progressive ideology of the left. As the name implies the goal of the Ctrl-left is control. Control over your speech. Control over your beliefs. Control over your information. Control over every single aspect of your life that it can get its hands on.


The primary tactic of the ctrl-left is taboo. Just like control decks in Magic and other card games they seek to achieve a state where you must get their authorization before you discuss any topic. Ideas which run counter to their ideology are not met head on and debated according to its merits but rather shut down as false, offensive, or any other description that they can stretch to fit.

There are many different ways that the ctrl-left uses to achieve this. First is authority. They are the authority and you are not, therefore their word is supposed to be believed over yours with no proffer of proof needed. Examples of this would be declarations that entire websites offer nothing but fake news, without going through the trouble of telling you why each story is fake. The Russian Server hack is another great example. The Washington Post releases a story with unnamed sources declaring that there is a secret CIA report to this effect. Other news organizations accept this as gospel truth and any arguments as to the CIA refusing to testify before congress or wikileaks saying it was not a hack but a leak are ignored because the authorities have spoken.

Next we have mockery. This is particularly poignant because the Alt-right has co-opted this tactic masterfully which leads to it being less effective when used by the left. Any arguments are shut down because well you’re a white male, you have some sort of white privilege, and your thoughts are automatically invalid because you don’t hold the right ethnicity or gender.

Third we have silencing which can lead to outright violence. We see this most often employed against conservative speakers like Milo or Ben Shapiro. Instead of engaging in discourse to refute the speakers argument they instead classify it as hate speech and proceed to shout and chant whenever the speaker says something in order to silence it. This leads to violence when the speaker cannot be silenced as evidenced in the attempt of President Trump to hold a rally in Chicago. The Ctrl-Left classified everything he said as hate speech and proceeded to riot so that President Trump and his supporters could not feel safe holding their rally.

Lastly we have monopolization. The ctrl-left makes sure that only their ideas are heard. If they have to mention other ideas they do so in a derisive manner or in a time where no one can hear it. This is very prevalent in mainstream media where a narrative gets spun and any stories that do not agree to it are buried and college campuses where conservative voices are given less of a platform. In a recent study it showed 80-90% of educators had liberal leanings so it is very likely that the liberal view point is the only one that will be heard by the student.


At the forefront of the ctrl-left are the social media giants. Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit. There have been numerous examples of alt-right speakers getting banned in twitter while official accounts linked to terrorist organizations have been allowed to exist. In reddit The Donald subreddit has already faced persecution and other nationalist subreddits have either been banned or quarantined. All the while left approved subreddits are left alone and even encouraged to prosper. The market share of these entities make them very effective at silencing opposition.

Next we have mainstream media. For most people they have literal control over the overton window and which issues get discussed. As a collective they affirm the decisions made by the others of the group. This means that they can make credible sources appear out of thin air as unnamed sources as each media outlet is taken as an authority by the others and that they can block any unfavorable interpretations or discussion of issues. The CNN declaration that only media are allowed to look at wikileaks. The russian hacks are a great example as well. Only fox covered the counter narratives that the CIA itself refused to brief the Congressional Intelligence Committee or that Assange went on the record to say that it was a leak not a hack.

At the core we have the SJW’s. The footsoldiers of the ctrl-left and the most important part of the machine. Individually they use mockery and protest to silence other ideas, but they serve a much larger function. They generate the moral outrage necessary for the other parts of the ctrl-left to function. After all facebook  and twitter needs reasons to ban certain things and media needs people who will believe it.

Lastly we have the colleges. They serve two important functions. First they serve as a testing ground for new concepts from the ctrl-left. Colleges are always at the forefront of safe spaces, gender specific pronouns like xir, trigger warnings, and various other inanities. Once it gets normalized there the ideas get applied to society as a whole. Secondly they function as a training camp for future SJW’s. The more foot soldiers there are the more the other parts can get away with. By making sure the next generation are only exposed to ideas from the left they can change the entire country.

This list is by no means exhaustive list and I am sure other people will be adding to this as time goes on. The actors and methods I have listed here are the principal ones that I have been able to identify. In the future I will be writing more about how the alt-right can combat each portion of the control left. As always understanding is the first step to defeating.


How Do I Explain Trump To My Kids? : A Guide


Our friendly God- Emperor Trump is due to be confirmed by the electoral college today and liberals the world over are struggling to answer the question How do I explain Trump to my kids? It looks like it was first used by Van “Whitelash” Jones and then spun into a narrative by our main stream media.

Everyone should be concerned about how to explain Trump to their children so I compiled a list of talking points you can use. No need to thank me. I do this as a public service in the spirit of friendship.

  1. Obama failed so badly during his presidency that the people handed over control to a fascist and gave his party control over the presidency, congress, senate, supreme court, and even a majority of state governorships and legislatures. You can tell your child that Obama started off with a majority in the senate and house and won over 600 counties country-wide. After 8 years all of that was wiped out and 1/3 of the counties he won voted for Trump.
  2. Women are just not qualified for President. According to President Obama Secretary Clinton was the most qualified person to run for President ever. She lost to what the media describes as a “clown who likes to grab women by the pussy”. Not only did she lose. She lost while spending the most of any candidate in history and having the media collude with her. You should tell your children early on that women are just not qualified.
  3. RUSSIANS! Clearly invading Crimea and winning in Syria was not enough for Putin and he wanted a change from the Obama foreign policy. Scream Russians continuously to your kids to teach them hate early on.
  4. It’s a great victory! For years the left has been complaining about the corrupting influence of money in politics. Clinton raised 1.2 bn and massively outraised Trump in Wall Street and Silicon Valley. Trump raised 600m mostly from small donors and even had 7m left over at the end.
  5. People just didn’t understand how wonderful Clinton was. The voters are dumb and uneducated and they should have voted for her in droves. All the celebrities were for Clinton and how can they be wrong! Iron Man is pro Clinton!
  6. The biased main stream media just had it in for poor Hillary. CNN and MSNBC were openly rooting for Trump and Clinton just could not overcome that. They discussed her emails and foundation non stop! They even put out a fraudulent survey saying 77% of the US believed the media was biased in favor of Clinton and 6% in favor of Trump.
  7. Racism! The first Black president won and his successor lost because Americans were more racist towards Clinton than they were towards Obama. Teach your kids to abhor the white male early on!
  8. Fake News! Despite a stern warning from CNN online sites kept publishing Clinton’s emails. People have no authority to read this on their own and anyone who read the emails is a criminal. Tell your child Criminals caused Hillary to lose.
  9. People are unreasonable! They didn’t want to believe their jobs are not coming back period and that they need to get a different degree and sell their house and everything they own and move to a different state to try to get another job! It’s their fault Hillary lost.
  10. Bernie! He campaigned too long! He forced Clinton to collude with the DNC! He didn’t tell his supporters to vote for her enough. The lesson for your child is once the bosses decide who the candidate is you should just follow.

There you go! 10 easy to explain nuggets of wisdom for your toddlers when you explain to them why Hillary lost.


Where is the Outrage?


I normally like to keep my articles about my opinions on the topic of the day instead of reporting the facts themselves. I find I contribute more to the general pool of ideas this way since many other news outlets collate the actual data.

I take a break from that today because of some special circumstances. An event I find so disturbing that I have to report on it. The fact that no major news outlets but fox is covering it just increases its gravity.

In one short sentence the CIA has refused to give the permanent house select Committee on intelligence a briefing on the evidence they have concerning the Russians being behind the leak.

First off let me present the facts. As everyone knows over the weekend the Washington Post broke a story alleging that “unnamed sources” within the CIA have pinpointed that the Russians were behind a series of cyber attacks on the DNC and did so to benefit Trump. Further broken stories allege from “unnamed sources” once again that Putin had first hand knowledge of these attacks.

The House Committee on Intelligence requested a briefing on Monday December 12 so that it could have the same information the Post did. The briefing was supposed to have been scheduled on Friday to give time to the CIA to prepare its Representative The House Committee on Intelligence is the civilian institution meant to have oversight over the CIA and various other intelligence agencies. All of its members have the required clearances for the briefings and previous briefings were done on various subjects in the past.

Here is a link to the statement of Congressman Nunez the chairman of the Committee. link. The CIA has refused to give the House Committee on Intelligence a briefing. They did not postpone, reschedule, or anything else. They told the civilian entity charged with their oversight that they would in fact not be answering to it.

Like the title says. WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE? The left has been insinuating that Trump’s cabinet looks like a junta with all the generals and that the civilian oversight over the military is a paramount with its resistance to General Mattis. Yet here is a situation where the CIA has essentially gone rogue and is refusing to answer to the civilian government and the left cheers them on.

Everyone must be made aware of this so the CIA is pressured to give the Committee on intelligence the briefing it deserves. We cannot have an agency who decides that newspapers are more worthy of receiving information over the very people supposed to oversee it.