Send the Paris Deal to the Senate


As a nationalist I fully support the decision of President Trump to pull out of the Paris deal. My objection is not based on the environment but rather on the fact that the restrictions on the US are much harsher than the restrictions on China, India, and our other competitors despite these countries producing just as much if not more pollution than the US. If democrats and other environmentalists wanted nationalist support for something like this they would simply have to make sure that our competitors are hit harder than we are and we would gladly take the comparative advantage.

President Trump has the opportunity to exit the agreement the proper way and I fear he will miss it. The worst way President Trump can exit the treaty is the same way Obama entered it: By executive action. When this treaty was offered to the countries of the world it was ratified by their respective legislatures. It was only the US, with the dictatorships of the world, who entered to it soley on the will of one man, Barrack Obama. Instead of saying that the US will pull out of the agreement President Trump should do what should have been done in the past and send it to the senate. This creates precedent for things like this to be ratified by the senate in the future.

Article 28

There is also a hidden provision in the Paris agreement that we need to pay attention to. Article 28 section 1 says that a nation can only withdraw from the agreement three years after the agreement was entered into. With this provision we are stuck in the agreement for 3 years. If the decision gets sent to the senate and they fail to ratify then we would never have entered into the treaty in the first place and can leave it as soon as possible.


How to Make a Fake News Article

download (1).jpg

I want you to pay attention to all the anti-trump articles out there and you will notice that they all follow the same pattern. At the end of this piece I will also be making an article that you could say is “fake news” but you can never tell as I will not reveal my unnamed sources. You just have to trust what I am saying is true.

There are two parts to any fake news article. The first paragraph will be the unnamed source. This is when the “journalist” claims that he has a special anonymous source that will only reveal these details to him and that he will protect unto death. The journalist then attributes a quote or two to the source and gives some sort of vague role to establish the credibility of the source.

And that’s it. That paragraph was actually the entire article. Everything that follows is just a rehash of everything else in the issue. Journalists then link to other journalists with unnamed sources in an orgy of cross posting meant to give credibility to each other post. The actual contribution of the journalist himself to the entire article is one paragraph sometimes even less. Speaking as someone who writes everyday nothing is harder than coming up with fresh new material on a daily basis. There are only so many topics you can explore. Fake news makes the job of the journalist much easier.

Up next is the article. Notice how I offer very little new content for the reader and rely on click bait headline.

Intelligence Community Uses Russia to Target Wikileaks!

An anonymous source very highly placed within the intelligence community has confirmed that the primary goal of the CIA and FBI in the Russian probe is to discredit Wikileaks. This has been verified by two other independent sources. Speaking on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the issue our source said “Wikileaks has exposed our greatest secrets to the American public. Of course we want to take them down. It is hard enough doing our jobs with the public getting involved.”

Wikileaks was established in 2006 in Iceland by the Sunshine Press. Ever since they were founded they have been a thorn in the side of various intelligence communities worldwide. In 2008 they initially released files regarding the treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. These files including some very graphic photos sparked outrage among citizens worldwide and prompted several congressional investigations as to the treatment of the prisoners.

In 2010 Wikileaks published documents by leaker Chelsea Manning regarding the conduct of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars which caused intelligence agencies to go under public scrutiny. In the same year Wikileaks also released US diplomatic documents regarding political maneuverings on climate change and other issues. The government of Tunisia itself was overthrown because of these leaks. In 2016 released emails from the Democratic party showing the corruption in the primary process which is being credited by the Clinton campaign as the primary reason for their loss. Most recently Wikileaks released Vault 7 which alleges among other things that the CIA has the technology to operate cars by remote control , which has been described by many as the perfect assassination tool.

Multiple high ranking officials including past and present heads of the CIA have publicly called for the extradition and trial of Julian Assange. Some more extreme ones have called for his execution. This animosity is by no means limited to Assange. Similar statements have been made against Edward Snowden. With all this animosity towards leakers is it any question that the intelligence agencies would be willing to lie to the public to destroy Wikileaks?

The Truth About the Trump Budget


The Democrats are up in arms about the Trump budget. Cruel, Barbaric, Mean are some of the nicest words they have used to describe it and it just goes downhill from there. As usual the spokespeople of the Trump administration have not been able to defend the budget effectively so it falls upon independent bloggers like me to get the truth out the best I can. On a side note I am convinced Trump would be better served if he outsourced his messaging to independents , 4chan, and reddit. We would do a better job than his current team.

The primary line of attack the democrats are using is that President Trump is cutting 800 billion dollars from Medicaid therefore he is throwing grandma off a cliff. This is not true. The budget actually adds more money to medicaid and other entitlements every year. This is what is actually happening. There is a projection of how many people would be enrolled for Medicaid in the future and that medicaid would need a certain amount of money in the future. If you allocate less than that then the democrats deem it as a cut. If you are on medicaid this year and next this will not affect you.


The philosophy behind the budget plays a major part in the conflict here. When democrats and republicans make a budget they expect that the amount of people seeking entitlements will increase or stay at the same pace that they are now. When Trump and sane republicans make a budget they expect that this budget will help people earn more money and therefore this will reduce the number of people who rely on entitlements or at the very least slows the growth of the enrollees.

The budget is the blueprint of your plan for the economy. It is what you would like the economy to achieve. With the plans they present if the democrats are successful then you would have more people enrolled via welfare than ever. If the Trump plan is succesful then you would have fewer people enrolled for entitlements. Remember the budget is only supposed to be for one year. If it turns out the projections are not working then you can always add more money in the future. In essence the democrats want people mired in poverty and living of entitlements while Trump and sane republicans are taking a risk to lift them out of it.


At this point in the conversation it is usually the Republicans that cry out. What about the debt? If the plans to remove more people from entitlements fail then the deficit will be higher than ever. This is true, but then so what?

One thing that republicans don’t like to admit is that if Romney had won the debt would still have gone up. It may not have doubled like it did under Obama but it would still have gone up. If you put the most committed deficit hawk in power during the time of Obama the debt would have still gone up. At the end of the day any meaningful attempts to tackle the debt and deficits will have to go through entitlement reform. That is only possible if people are earning enough that they get out of it and are able to look at it objectively. Presiding over 8 years of supposedly massive growth while ordinary people have the same income they did when your massive growth started will not help it. If we have budgets that promote the status quo where we add more and more people to welfare then nothing will change and the problem will get worse. At some point we have to take the risk and try to lift people off poverty so they no longer need entitlements. Only then will they agree to change it.

Stimulus vs Tax Cut

Everyone democrat who was wildly applauding the stimulus by Obama is now staunchly opposed to the tax cuts by President Trump. The tax cuts and stimulus achieve the same thing. They stimulate the economy by making more money available to people. In the stimulus companies were able to stay open and keep paying their employees while others were able to expand and with tax cuts the same results are achieved.

There is one major difference that has to be pointed out. With the stimulus you gave all the benefits up front. Each company was handed a sack of money from the Obama administration. If the companies did not live up to their end of the deal then there was nothing Obama could do. Incidentally this is also the problem a lot of people have with the Iran deal. Tax cuts are different. They are not sacks of money to be handed out but rather promises that we will not take as much of their income in the future. It is implied that we are doing this so they can employ more Americans and offer higher wages. If this does not materialize then we can always remove the tax cuts.

In the past tax cuts were given but America was not a competitive place to invest in. Companies instead invested in India, China, and other countries. In effect our tax cuts funded their growth. To be completely fair with the corporations it is very hard to invest in a place that says on paper it will take 39.1% of your profits when other places say they will only take 15-20% sometimes less. It is time we used tax cuts to fund our growth.

The Trump budget is good enough. Something needs to be done to attempt to lift people up from poverty. If we keep doing what we have done before we will only achieve the same results.

Liberals Defeat Terrorism


Breaking News- First reported on Tsuke’s Thoughts. Radical Islamic Terrorism is officially over! The west has finally won! The events leading up to this are as stunning as they are historic. Everyone knows where they were when Leader Obama gave his “The West is at Fault” speech and outlined how to finally to eliminate terrorism. The media hailed it as a masterful work of rhetoric and nations all around the world immediately began adopting it. Those who did not adopt the plan were deemed to be conspiring with Russia and were overthrown. We take a look at the lives of some former terrorists and how they were impacted by this.

Markeed Al Abar

Markeed used to be a freedom fighter in Iraq. When climate change finally ended he abandoned the fight and began living as a dog meat vendor in Baghdad. “It used to be so hot” says Markeed ” I was always mad and started to join the mujahedeen. I even beat the slave they assigned to me. Ever since Obama fixed climate change it has become cooler! I don’t feel so angry anymore. Infidels they are not so bad you know? Allahu Akbar!”

Kartul “John” Asisi

Kartul or John to his friends was a sleeper agent in the busy metropolis of New York. He was recruited by online agents during the 2000’s. He was upset at the loose morals of the west and was ready to explode in central park. After the “Live like a Muslim” act he finally gave up on terror. ” I used to hate western women” says John “they are so shameless with how they dress and act. Ever since the L.L.A.M. they wore veils and walk behind men. It is so much better now. I was even able to trade one for my old x-box last week. Allahu Akbar and Praise Obama!

Barshad al Karkuk

Barshad was a street urchin from Syria. He rose to become a mullah after studying near a local mosque. He has spent the past few years recruiting local youths into various terrorist organizations. Since the Middle East Islamic Reparations tax was passed recruits have dried up. 80% of the income of Americans and citizens of other western nations are taxed and sent directly to the Middle East. “Everyone is happy now” says Barshad “We don’t even have to work and America and Europe send all their money to us. We love our friends in the west!”

Three different terrorists and three different people who now love America. Radical Islamic Terrorism is indeed over! On a related note this station has now terminated all of its female employees in accordance to the Quran Compliance Act.

Britain Then and Now


There has been a lot of comparisons done recently about the reaction of Britain to attacks during World War 2 and attacks by terrorists recently. During the Battle of Britain you had famous quotations from Winston Churchill promising defiance and eventual victory. My personal favorite is “Let the Hun do their worst and we shall do our best and with God’s help it will be enough”. Fast forward to today. We have the mayor of London openly saying that terrorist attacks are something that people living in big cities will have to get used to and leftist journalists saying there is nothing we can do. Various personalities on the right have declared that this shows the cowardice and defeatism of the left. They are wrong and this shows a fundamental misunderstanding on how the left thinks.

Right and Wrong

In the past few days I have talked about the concept of the original sin and this illustrates that perfectly. In the past both left and right agreed that Nazi Germany was wrong and Britain was right therefore the British people had the duty to resist German advances. The party that had to change for peace to be achieved was the Germans.

It is different with Islam and terrorism. The right has not changed. They believe that Islam has no right to do what its adherents are doing and they have a duty to resist. The entity that has to change for peace to be achieved is Islam. Liberals do not believe this. Listen to their solutions and the way they define the problem. According to liberals the problem is income inequality. The terrorists are not getting their share of the pie. The problem is climate change destroying their homes. The problem is the US and other European countries interfering in the Middle East. The problem is they are just not educated enough so we need to send more money. Islam does not have to do anything. The onus is on the west to step up and pay their ransom and the terrorist attacks will stop. In fact the proposed solution of Cenk from the Young Turks is a Marshall Plan for the Middle East. Essentially sending up to 10% of the GDP of the United States to build the Middle East.

Original Sin

This is where the original sin comes in. The liberals have already accepted that their country and by extension they are guilty. The country is guilty of being rich. The country is guilty of being successful. The country is guilty of being a much nicer place to live in than the hellholes in the Middle East. In the guilty mind the fact that your civilization is a much nicer place to live in is not due to any special virtue of your civilization but rather due to its vices for exploiting others therefore you must spend your time atoning for your sins.

The liberals are wrong here. It has been consistently proven that the Islamics that launch terrorist attacks on the west are among the most highly educated. The fact that they speak English passably shows this. In 9/11 and the Belgium attacks for example the attackers were all from well off families and were mostly university educated. In the case of terrorist attacks originating from Islamics in the west they were people who were already benefiting from government assistance and other form of hand outs.

Islamic people are not the only ones who are poor. They are not the only ones who are uneducated. They are not the only ones who feel they have gotten a raw deal in life. Yet they are the only ones that consistently blow themselves up to hurt civilians in the west. The issue is not climate change all countries are affected by that if it exists. The issue is not poverty, there are plenty of countries in Asia full of slums. The issue is not education, there are plenty of countries in Africa where no one has seen a book. The issue is Islam, or at least the version practiced by the people in the Middle East.

As Ayn Rand once said it is not practical to support a protection racket. If the only reason you are paying someone is so they will not break your leg then they will just threaten you again in the future. We are right and the terrorists are wrong. If there is to be peace then it is on them to surrender and not us. We have nothing to be ashamed of with the success of the west. In the immortal words of Churchill ” You have enemies? Good. That means you have stood up for something sometime in your life”

The Liberal Primer: Economics


Greetings fellow liberals! Welcome to another installment of the Liberal Primer. Today we will be discussing the economy. Do not zone out just yet. This is really important to the liberal agenda. To the naked eye it would seem that we know nothing about the economy after all we are the party that asks for higher minimum wages while at the same time demanding more slave labor be brought in from Latin America. This is only partly true. We don’t really care about the economy. We just make contradictory demands so that they cannot be met. After all they both sound good until you think about them. While the economy is not our priority there are still some very useful concepts in the economy that we do use and liberals should be aware of.

The Law of Supply and Demand

The law in our case is very simple. We demand more racism but society is unwilling or unable to supply it. Since the demand is more than the supply we have to produce more racism for the demand to be met. We do this in two ways. First we have our own liberal operatives commit the racist acts. Our arm in the media does an excellent job of covering it up but most of the publicized attacks done since President Trump got elected were done by people of the same race or were outright hoaxes. They do get caught afterwards but that hardly matters. We can get them off on something relatively minor and our arm in the media will make sure to bury the reports. Second we expand the meaning the racism to include more things. We already have studies declaring the word “American” as problematic and full of privilege. It is only a matter of time when we can ban the word itself. The goal is to make sure that everyone goes through life doing at least one thing we consider racist or privileged. This makes them feel guilty and malleable to our will.


Salesmen have something the ABC’s of selling. Always be Selling. Regular people may not always recognize racism when they see it and they may not label it properly. It is up to we liberals to make sure that racism is properly identified. Of course by properly identified we mean that everything should be labeled as racist. It may seem difficult at first but all it requires is the proper mindset. Remember you can find racism in everything. If someone orders vanilla ice cream that should be takes as white supremacy. If someone has ice cream a la mode then that is code for white people over black people. Let us not forget that milk is racist as well. Remember Always Be Selling Racism.

Buy Low, Sell High!

In a nation of 100’s of millions of people there will always be racism somewhere. Your job as liberals is to take those isolated incidents, or buy low, and make it seem like they are happening everywhere and that slavery days are just around the corner again, or sell high. Every single event of racism whether real or instigated by fellow liberals must be given prominence and reported nationally. This keeps our pet minorities on edge and ready to defend the Democrat Plantation. Just don’t tell them we already keep illegal immigrant slaves or they might riot.

Location, Location, Location!

Do you ever notice how groups like the KKK only appear every four years and only seem to do so in swing states we think we can win? In 2016 they were holding marches in North Carolina. This is not a coincidence. The blacks need to be on edge on election time so they return to the vote plantation. They know we jail them, label them as super predators, and make sure that any jobs they may be able to get go to illegals, but as long as they believe that the other side wants to return them to slavery they will vote for Democrats.

Remember these principles of economics and our stock of racism should rise to all time highs!

Monuments and the Ctrl-Left


There has been some debate about certain statues of confederate heroes getting removed. As a general rule whenever the monuments have been removed liberals from all across the country have been in favor of it while the local residents have not. In fact there was a bill in Louisiana where the legislators required a vote by the local residents before any statues were removed and the democrats walked out when it was passed. They knew that if they consulted the public they would never be able to remove another monument again. There really should be no opposition in to a public vote. Unlike issues like minimum wage where one state may affect another the existence of a statue on a courthouse lawn in Alabama would have no impact on the life of someone in New York or Los Angeles. In fact odds are until the media informed them about it they would have no idea these monuments existed. My opposition to this is much deeper though. It shows the desire for control of the aptly named ctrl-left.


Whenever the left argues this issue they would always point out that Robert Lee and the rest were traitors and the losing side in a civil war deserves no honor from the victors. History would say otherwise.

In Japan Yukimura Sanada fought on the side of the Toyotomi against the Tokugawa and even while defeated was still hailed as the bravest man in Japan by his opponents.

In China Liu Bei and Zhuge Liang fought on the losing side of a civil war with the Kingdom of Shu. Statues of Zhuge Liang are still in Cheng Du today and their reign is widely regarded as the perfect example of a reign by a confucian scholar.

In Korea Yi Sun Shin was convicted as a traitor by King Senjong and tortured yet today he is one of the most popular heroes of Korea. Even the Japanese admired him as Admiral Tojo would not allow himself to be compared to him when he was compared to both Nelson and Yi Sun Shin.

In Mongolia Prince Jochi turned traitor to Genghis Khan and set off to start his own Khanate yet the populace still loved him. Genghis enlisted Tsubodai to hunt him down and kill him and Tsubodai nearly resigned when the deed was done.

Of course in the US we have Robert E Lee who was venerated by both sides. Mainly because of how cleanly he fought the war. Both northern and southern soldiers admired him and both Lincoln and Davis wanted him to lead their armies.

This admiration even exists for the worst regimes. In World War 2 Rommel was admired by British soldiers for his skill in battle and his lenient treatment of prisoners. After Hitler he was the most mentioned German figure in British newspapers during the early part of the war.

It is usually the most brutal of regimes that are so insecure in their reigns that they must crush any form of dissent and make sure that no good attributes are identified with losing sides in the civil war. Regimes like communist Russia or China or North Korea who have a ruling class interested in maintaining power vilify the losing side to solidify their hold. In more civilized areas the positive attributes of the losing are amplified to promote unity between the various factions. The winners see that there is good in the losers too and are more inclined to be lenient.


Of course this has never been about traitors. That is the only the excuse the liberals use. The goal is to destroy the unique culture of the southern states. This is ironic because whenever a minority has his culture threatened it is usually the liberals who first speak out and claim cultural appropriation and destruction of their native culture. Somehow the Islamic culture, African culture, and others are worth protecting but American culture is not. The hypocrisy of the situation does not really matter to liberals as destroying culture is only a means to an end. They want people in the South to be ashamed of their heritage.

This ties into the concept of the original sin I mentioned in the article about cultural privilege. Whether we like it or not the south was able to produce some fine people like Robert E Lee that fought nobly for their cause and the people in the south should be proud of that. Once you remove anything positive that people can associate with regarding their heritage then you have effectively saddled them with the original sin. They now have this stain that they must atone for purely for being born in the location where they are. Once they have accepted this fact then the ctrl-left can now insist that they follow its agenda in order to atone for the sins of their fathers. This issue is much bigger than statues.

Debunking the Myths on the Trump Tax Plan


There have been plenty of attacks against the tax plan proposed by President Trump. I personally love the tax plan as it is everything you could want. Realistic taxes for the rich and corporations. Lower taxes on the poor and middle class. Best of all the new tax code is simple and easy to use as it pushes everyone to use standardized deductions. It’s no wonder tax attorneys and accountants are against it. They would lose a lot of business as people begin using standardized deductions.

There are two main arguments people use when they claim they are against the tax reform proposed by Trump. First that it would blow up the deficit. Second only the very wealthy would benefit from the tax cut.

The Tax Cut Will Increase the Deficit

When discussing how the tax cut will affect the deficit we have to take a look at how the taxes collected are calculated. Whenever any analysis is done on this point people assume that the figures presented are gospel truth and base everything on that. There are two main problems with how the figures are calculated.

The first major problem is it assumes there are no deductions and other loopholes and that everyone paid the statutory tax rates. Whenever business leaders on the left discuss the tax cuts they always say that the tax rate is not as high as you would think like Warren Buffet for example in his recent interview. The document detailing the differences in tax collection are almost always prepared by tax attorneys and accountants as well. People who make a living finding and maximizing these deductions. According to the Wall Street Journal the actual tax rate is 24%. The GAO says around 12-16%. The amount should be in the middle of that. Calculating your collection based on 35% is dishonest and does not present a clear picture. If companies actually paid that there would be none left registered in the US.

The second major problem with their numbers is that it takes income tax by itself. Economists have a phrase called “ceteris paribus” to hand wave away all variables they do not want to deal with. In the report by the Tax Policy Center they specifically mention that they do not take any other macroeconomic effects into consideration. The concept may have some uses but it distorts what is actually happening with this tax cut. When you are given a tax cut you do not use it to swim around in a pool of Trump bucks like Scrooge Mcduck. You would use the money. It would most likely be used to buy other things which would generate sales or other local taxes. You could invest it if you have nothing to buy which would then generate capital gains tax. You could deposit it into a bank allowing them to lend out more money. Almost everything you can do with the money that is not taken from you would be taxed after you use it in some shape, way, or form. This would make up for any shortfall in collection from income taxes. After all nothing states that all the funds of the government must come from income taxes. If you have ever heard anyone argue for giving a stimulus to boost the economy the exact same arguments would apply.

The Tax Cut is For the Rich

There are two things people refer to when they state this. First the tax brackets for the rich when it comes to personal income taxes and next the corporate income taxes dropping down from 35 to 15%.

I will go with the corporate tax argument first as it is easier to explain. As I explained earlier numerous sources respected by the left from Warren Buffet to various publications have stated that the actual tax rate is not 35%. Moving the tax bracket from 12% to 15% or 20% to 15% does not sound as controversial does it? That is not the entire picture though. When companies pay taxes the companies that can scale to afford excellent tax lawyers invariably end up paying lower taxes while those who can only afford turbotax or do their own pay higher taxes. Aside from the tax rates not being what is advertised it ends up being higher for smaller companies than it is for larger ones. Reducing the rate and then removing deductions means that all companies pay the same rate. This actually hurts the rich companies and helps the poor ones.

On to personal income taxes. The defining characteristic of the tax plan is that it pushes almost everyone to take standardized deductions. If you wanted a tax plan to benefit the poor and middle class this would be how you do it. As a general rule the poorer someone is the better standardized deductions are for him. Those with lower incomes would not have the disposable income necessary to have plenty of deductions nor would they be able to avail of services of an accountant to find all the deductions that they could benefit from.

In 2016 75% of people filing income taxes decided to use the standardized deduction because it is more than what they would by itemizing. President Trump would more than double this deduction in his tax plan which means everyone gets more than double the deductions. In contrast the highest earners rely almost exclusively on deductions to get their taxes down. Most of the deductions are going away under the Trump tax plan. Just removing the SALT (state and local tax) deduction alone would remove a lot of the deductions high income earners use. Add the fact that President Trump is also proposing a limit on the amount of deductions of 100000 on single and 200000 on jointly filed taxes and the case that the tax cut is favorable to the rich is harder to make. Of course this will never get discussed as the media will only discuss the changes to the raw tax rates. My personal fear is the reverse might be true. Removing the deductions and placing a hard limit on the amount that can be claimed may cause the wealthy to flee the country like that French actor who took Belgian citizenship to avoid a tax hike.

Once you take a look at the entire plan it is both very fair and remarkably simple. I encourage everyone to take a look at the tax code themselves instead of relying on media or “the experts”. Remember they need the tax code to be complex or they would not be able to charge a high amount for their services.

Kekistanis Need President Trump to Support Net Neutrality


The FCC under President Trumps appointee has begun efforts to remove rules that ensure net neutrality. As a Trumplican and Kekistani I ask President Trump to stop this. Not only that I call on other Kekistanis  in reddit, 4 chan, and the blogosphere to lend their voice and ask President Trump to stop this as well. I do this fully aware of the counterarguments saying that we have never really been under any rules for net neutrality and there have been no major incidents in the past.

I ask for this not only because it is in my best interest but because it is in the best interests of the Trump administration and Republicans in general. I will not go into detail with the arguments but at its heart removing net neutrality benefits established companies. Companies with established audiences or platforms can afford to pay for express lanes while start ups and single bloggers can’t.

Take a step back and look around at which sites support Republicans and which sites support Democrats. Lets consider social media first. Anyone who frequents Reddit knows that we are already having problems with the site admins enforcing the rules against conservative subreddits but not against liberal ones. In Twitter you have right leaning personalities banned for the slightest reasons while left leaning ones can call for those in the right to be killed in terrible ways and still be safe. In Facebook you have allegations in the past of the site fixing their news so that only liberal sources showed sidelining conservative ones. Removing net neutrality means we support these companies at the expense of new start-ups. Why would we support a policy that helps companies that do everything they can to hinder us?

In YouTube you already have conservative commentators like Steven Crowder complaining that left leaning outlets are promoted by the site while right leaning ones are not. Take a look at the websites supporting the administration and those who do not. The major newspapers and their online outlets are all left leaning. A lot of the bigger sites like the Huffington Post are as well. On the other side the team supporting the administration and conservatives in general are small independent bloggers like me and some sites like Red State, National Review, and American Thinker that while established are usually fewer and poorly funded compared to their liberal counterparts. Supporting the removal of net neutrality means that only liberal viewpoints will be heard.

The single greatest con that the Democrats have been able to pull is to convince Americans that the GOP is the party of big money. Clinton raised 1.4 billion while Trump raised 600 million. Obama outraised Romney by a couple of 100 million as well. In 2016 on average Democrat senatorial and congressional candidates spent more than their Republican counterparts. The difference is even more pronounced in the federal level. If you make this contest about money we will lose.

At the end of the day we are in an information war with the liberals. Since I mentioned info wars I am also compelled to state that Bill Clinton is a rapist. We are doing everything we can to support the Trump administration. We ask that President Trump support us as well.

The Hidden Russiagate Target: Wikileaks


As events develop and more things are exposed things become clearer. The target for the intelligence community for Russiagate is not Trump. It is Wikileaks. The aim is to discredit the organization as nothing more than an agent of Russia in the eyes of the public. After all it does not matter how accurate the information they present is if the public thinks that Wikileaks is doing it to further Russian interests. With Wikileaks effectively eliminated the intelligence agencies lose the only effective check they have on their activities.

Note that I am not saying this is the goal of Democrats. They are sincere in their efforts to unseat Trump. Just like they would be in their efforts to unseat any republican elected. Manufacturing a crisis is the easiest way back to power for Democrats. The intelligence community is a separate from the Democrats and they have their own goals. The Democrats are just being used as useful idiots.


Under normal circumstances the intelligence community would not only be supportive of Trump they would be fiercely loyal to him. In many ways Trump is the perfect president for the deep state.

First off Trump is very results oriented. He does not particularly care about the methods used just as long as the objective is achieved. If the CIA were to torture 50 terrorists to save 5 american lives Trump would not have a problem with it and would even congratulate the agents while other presidents may have moral issues.

Second by this time Trump is already immune to the media and public pressure. He knows that a certain segment of the public will never support him and the media will always paint his administration in the worst light possible. If Homeland Security were to have a scandal under his term then he would not care very much and just call the media fake news.

Third because Trump is a larger than life character most of the attention is centered around him. Russiagate was always going to happen. If Cruz, Rubio, or any other Republican won the Democrats would still accuse them of being a puppet for Putin. The email issue started during the primaries which mean any Republican who made it to the general would have benefited from it. Russiagate is not a delusional response but a logical one. If you are working in the leadership of the Clinton campaign and managed to lose despite every conceivable advantage, double the war chest, a friendly media, establishment figures on both sides supporting you, and a third party candidate whose primary purpose was to draw votes away from Trump in Mcmullin you would have a very hard time finding a job afterwards. Russiagate is a defense mechanism for the leadership of the Clinton campaign after all they decided on it hours after the election ended. The difference is that the other Republicans would have reacted differently to it. Trump shines a spotlight on it. If the CIA were to effect a hostile takeover of Ukraine tomorrow and the plans leaked all over the media the American public would still be talking about Russiagate the next day.

Trump represents a perfect storm for the deep state of a president who does not care what methods they use and who focuses the publics attention on him making them care less about the deep state in the process. It is like having a blank check from to do what you will.


While Trump can be a boon for the intelligence community Wikileaks represents a bigger threat. At the end of the day the deep state knows that whoever the president is they will still be around at the end of their 8 years. Trump, Rubio, Cruz, Clinton, Obama, or anyone else is not going to abolish any of the intelligence agencies so they can ultimately work with any of them.

Guantanamo Bay, Chelsea Manning, The Iraq war, The Afghanistan war, The detainee policies, Vault 7, and more. Wikileaks has proven to be the only entity who can effectively check the power of the various intelligence communities. It could very well be that Wikileaks has done more to limit the deep state than the GRU, Mossad, and every other foreign intelligence agency. Not only would the CIA, FBI, and other agencies lie in order to remove Wikileaks from the picture they would most likely kill to do so.

The Truth

The stakes are much higher than anyone realizes. We are not just discussing Trump or partisan politics anymore. What we are seeing is nothing less than the intelligence community or “deep state” eliminating any checks to their power.

Think of a future without Wikileaks. There is no organization which is currently capable of succeeding them in their function. It does not even seem like there is any with even just the potential to take over. Leakers would have nowhere to go. Traditional media would not dare do what Wikileaks does. If a organization does rise up to replace them all the intelligence communities would have to do is raise up some links to Russia or any other nation and they would be discredited by association to Wikileaks.

Without any organizations to check them the intelligence community can do whatever they want. We already have the Vault 7 releases which state that they can use tv sets to spy on people and are working on technology to obtain remote control of cars, which has been described as the perfect assassination tool. By supporting their drive to eliminate Wikileaks the intelligence community is essentially asking you to hand over complete control over to them with no oversight. There is very few things that are more terrifying than what the deep state is asking us to do.