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.
There have been a lot of theories as to why Bernie Sanders would back Hillary Clinton after the primaries. After seeing all the available evidence I would like to offer a new one. Bernie Sanders backed Hillary Clinton to protect Jane Sanders from an FBI investigation. As everyone would now know it seems like Ms. Sanders was under investigation from her activities with Burlington College. The allegations surfaced all the way from 2015 and 2016 but never really gained prominence until recently. My theory is this. Despite being cheated by the DNC Bernie was forced to swallow his pride and endorse his opponent because they would escalate the investigation against Jane if he did not.
New evidence has come out that the leak was from Seth Rich. According to the police he was murdered in a botched robbery. He was killed in a supposed robbery that left all his valuables alone a couple of days after he contacted wikileaks. Others still cling to the Russia theory. Whichever one is correct everyone involved has admitted to the veracity of the emails. There was no way that Bernie could not have known how savagely the DNC cheated him.
Leaks and Wiretapping
As you can tell by the number and frequency of the leaks in the Trump administration there is a faction of the administrative state that is personally loyal to Obama and the Democrat party over and above their loyalty to the country. We can see with the multiple FISA requests and unmasking of American citizens that this loyalty extended to the FBI. If Obama and the Democrats did threaten to escalate the case as punishment for a disloyal Bernie they could definitely have done so. If the Clinton run was successful they would have been in position to permanently suppress the investigation as well.
As most of you would know the issue came to light in 2016 when Burlington College was forced to close its doors due to big loans it could not pay off. At that time it was already brought up that the loans happened during the term of Jane Sanders. Of course since then Jane Sanders had already resigned. Nothing more was brought up despite the Burlington board recently admitting that the FBI and Department of Justice were looking into the loan for more than a year. The only time that this started surfacing was when Hillary Clinton lost and new people were brought into positions of power. The timing itself is very suspicious.
Motive and Capability
We can see from the wikileaks emails that the Clintons were more than capable of setting up deals for vice president in exchange for support and making sure the proper cronies were in the right place for her run. Throughout their careers they have also been hounded with links to multiple crimes and smear campaigns against women who have accused Bill Clinton of raping them. An offer to suppress an investigation or a threat to escalate it is something that they could definitely have done. This would not even be particularly heinous for Clinton and the Democrats.
Let us also not forget that multiple Obama and Clinton surrogates place the blame of the Clinton loss on Bernie not being supportive enough. Something smells fishy in the FBI.
I am Tsuke and I am Kekistani. I wanted to write about what being a Kekistani meant to me. I write this in tribute to my fellow brothers and sisters in the Free Kekistani Legion who fought in the liberation of America and Britain and struggled in the Battle of France. May the retreat to Dunkirk be as epic as when our predecessors. The fascists of Germany may win the battle but we will win the war.
I am Kekistani because I believe that all nations first obligation should be to its own citizens.
I am Kekistani because I believe the culture of all nations deserves to be respected and each nation has a right to preserve its own culture.
I am Kekistani because I believe that integration is a vital part of immigration.
I am Kekistani because I believe that you should not engage in needless war, but if you do decide to engage you should pull out all stops to win.
I am Kekistani because I believe in freedom of speech.
I am Kekistani because I believe that if you declare everything as racist then nothing is racist.
I am Kekistani because I believe illegal immigration depresses wages for everyone and creates a new slave class.
I am Kekistani because I believe all laws should be followed until changed.
I am Kekistani because I believe that humor is a better tool than arguments to get my point across.
I am Kekistani because I believe in the power of memes.
I am Kekistani because I believe there is something seriously flawed with Islam and that the best choice for people would be to convert away from it.
I am Kekistani because I believe we can make a difference and challenge the global elite. All from the comfort of our own homes.
Most of all I am Kekistani as it is fun. More fun than being a liberal.
We have the next piece of major legislation coming out of the administration and that is centered around tax reform. I did not fully support the healthcare bill as it did not contain any provisions to control the price of drugs but I fully support this tax bill. From what I can see it does everything you can ever ask for in tax reform. One of the difficulties with bills like this is that very few people know what is exactly in it but everyone discusses it. As best I can I will go over what is in the bill and then I will go over the complaints people have against it.
- Lower tax rates overall. The top rate is lowered to 33% from almost 40% and most deductions are removed. Standard deduction of 30000 for joint and 15000 for single. Incomes up to 15000 pay 0. New childcare related deductions. Maximum deduction is 100000 for single and 200000 for joint. Carried interest is taxed as labor and not capital gains.
- Estate tax is gone. Capital gains held at death are taxed.
- Corporate taxes get cut from 35% to 15%. Owners of S corps, single props, and partnerships can have their income taxed at 15% instead of income tax. Limiting the number of things that can be claimed as expenses.
- Tax on unrepatriated earnings. 4% for most 10% for cash.
The 4 bullet points summarize the entire tax plan. I left of the commentary until now so you could see and judge the plan for yourself. If there are any points I missed feel free to reach out.
- Estate Tax – I could write volumes on this alone. Instead I ask you to do one thing. Google how much Steve Jobs paid in estate taxes when he died. The number rhymes with hero. The truly wealthy do not pay estate taxes. You have an entire industry of people who are wealthy and well-connected in their own right who make sure that they do not pay this tax.
- Tax for Repatriation – If there is any part of the tax reform bill that has universal support this is it. Everyone knows we have unreported income for our corporations abroad. There is literally no other way to get this money.
- Corporate Taxes– The democrats are going after this hard and spinning this as a tax cut for the rich. On paper it would be true. 35 percent to 15 percent halves their tax bill. The democrats don’t want to tell you that no one actually pays 35%. If corporations actually had to pay this amount we would lost businesses to inversions at a faster rate that we are losing now. Studies differ on what businesses are actually paying. Some say that it is 12% others go as high as 16%. None of them are anywhere in the neighborhood of 35%. Even with our current real tax rate we are already losing businesses to inversion. Apple being the most famous one. If the corporate tax code is not fixed we will continue losing them. The most frustrating part of this whole ordeal is the people who are against fixing the corporate tax code are also against any nationalist or protectionist policies to keep businesses in America which leaves us with exactly zero options to deal with the problem.
- Income Taxes– This is where the whole tax cut for the rich angle falls apart and it is understandable that democrats do not mention this. First off the floor for income taxes has been raised to 15000. That means a lot more people will not be paying taxes at all. Remember we have a progressive tax system. Keeping 15000 means a whole lot more to someone earning 50000 a year than it does to someone earning 300000 a year. More importantly a lot of the deductions are going away and there is a major push to get everyone to use standardized deductions by raising them. Who do you think benefits when you push standardized deductions? The people with lower-income who can barely make ends meet or the people with more money to spend? Higher standardized deductions are a massive benefit to the poor and middle class and may actually cause the highest earners to pay more. Lastly the carried interest loophole. For the longest time investment managers, among the wealthiest in the population, have gotten away with paying capital gains instead of income tax. The tax plan ends this and classifies it as income tax instead. Has anyone ever brought this up when they say it is a massive tax cut to the rich?
There is a lot of talk about whether the tax plan is supply side or demand side. The descriptions do not fit the plan best. It is a realist plan. It takes the portion of the tax code which is the most often and aggressively exploited and removes them pushing for standardized deductions instead. There are two main benefits of this plan. First the standardized deductions and the higher floor let the middle and lower-income families keep more of their income and it levels the playing field between the huge corporations and the small businesses. Rich corporations like GE can afford to hire the best tax attorneys and accountants to make sure they pay no taxes while smaller business cannot do this and have to muddle along the best way they can. Simplifying everything means that both of them will pay an equal percentage.
There are two major complaints with the tax plan and they both stem from the same idiocy. First that the tax plan will lower revenues and increase the debt and second that it is a massive tax cut for the rich. The “experts” who claim this do present a lot of figures to back them up. The only problem with these figures is that they assume that people actually pay the tax rate on paper. After all if studies show the tax rate that people corporations actually pay is 12-15% and you lower the rate to 15% how is it a tax cut? If the government is only collecting this much now how will collections go lower if you collect the same amount?
The most insidious thing about these “analysis” is that almost to a man the people doing them are tax lawyers and accountants. The people who make their living making sure that companies and wealthy individuals pay next to no taxes are claiming that this tax plan is bad because they do. It is hard to blame them. If you simplify the tax code then their industry will be in danger.
Whenever France is in trouble there is a tradition of a figure appearing out of the blue to save the country from collapse. The maid of Orleans is of course the most famous example. Today we have the maid of Calais. When people compare Marine Le Pen to Jean D’ arc the conversation eventually drifts to the Muslim refugee invasion instigated by Merkel. This is a valid concern with all the terrorist attacks happening in France but it is mainly a secondary threat. The primary threat facing France today is economic.
France stands on the edge of a cliff. They can continue the failed economic policies of Macron and Hollande or they can forge a new path with Le Pen. France cannot survive another term of Macron and Hollande. Notice that whenever they are asked to defend their record on the economy all they can do is call Le Pen a racist.
Macron and Hollande have created a service economy. That is not sustainable. French citizens are given temporary jobs in cafes, construction, and other work and they exist to cater to the whims of the elite in society and those that come over from Brussels and Berlin. There is nothing inherently wrong with these jobs and they form part of every economy. After all if a factory gets built then a service economy grows around its workers who now have money to spend. The main problem comes in how Macron and Hollande have implemented this. Instead of creating new industries and then building a service economy around them they have created an economy almost exclusively around temporary jobs. More than 80% of the jobs generated during the term of Macron and Hollande were temporary and service sector jobs.
By ignoring the normal procedure of building an economy of stable jobs and only building an economy of service sector and temporary jobs Hollande and Macron have made France totally dependent on the good graces of Germany and Belgium. After all the elites of the EU must visit France in order for the French people to serve anyone. If the elites in the EU ever choose to stop visiting France and instead opt for another country there would be no way for the service sector to earn money. This leads to a downward spiral. The more reliant you are on other countries for income the weaker your currency has to be attract tourism and investment. For the same reasons your relative income has to be lower as well. Macron and Hollande have set up a system where the citizens of other countries are more important than the French citizens as they are dependent on them for their economy.
It is not hard to see where this ends. Given a continuation of their policies Macron and Hollande would center the economy around more and more temporary and service sector jobs while ignoring French industries. It is not difficult to imagine a day where the French become second class citizens in their own countries as it becomes more and more important to please the elites in Brussels and Berlin.
Le Pen realizes that France needs to rebuild its vital industries so that France can be self sufficient again instead of purely relying on temporary jobs. There is a limited time frame available for this. At a certain point your infrastructure falls behind so much that you have no other choice but to rely on temporary jobs and service industries. It may be too late already but Le Pen is the only one with a shot at making France great again.
Le Pen and Liberty. Choose France.
When people defend illegal immigration they do so by saying it is beneficial to the economy. They point out that the illegal immigrants contribute more to the society than they take out. First because they pay sales taxes on the things they buy and second because the products they buy with their salary create demand for products and services which then creates more jobs. They also argue if the jobs were given to the citizens it would raise the prices of goods as they get paid more. If you don’t think about it too hard it does sound plausible. As always when the left makes an argument it only looks good on the surface.
The first flaw in the argument comes with the jobs the illegals take. These jobs exist independent of the illegals. In fact the reason why the illegals come here is that these jobs exist in the first place. Whether the illegals are here or not these jobs still need to be done. Fruit still need to be picked, tables need to be waited on, and buildings still need to be constructed. All that would happen is you have American citizens employed in these jobs instead most likely earning higher wages. At the end of the day the defining characteristic of the illegal is that he is willing to work less than the citizen. In most cases there is no special skill set that he alone possesses.
Now that we have established that the jobs would be there whether illegals are here or not we move on to the next point. The money will get spend on the economy whether a citizen or an illegal earns it. In fact the results are worse when an illegal spends the money. The illegal alien would have family in Guatemala, Malaysia, or whatever his home country is which he would have to send money to. This usually results in around 50% of his salary getting sent abroad. The citizen would most likely spend most of his money in the country. True they would not spend their entire salary in the economy as they may buy products from other countries from time to time but that is true for both illegal and citizen. The citizen would also earn more than the illegal which means he has more money to spend than the illegal. Giving the money to the citizen means that there is more of it to spend and that a greater percentage makes it into the economy.
More money spent in the economy means more jobs created as demand rises. The citizen getting the job boosts the economy by a greater amount.
When confronted by this argument the first thing you should do is take a deep breath and smell the hypocrisy. The very people who argue for minimum wage increases and say that it will somehow all work out are saying that raising the wages of some workers will cause economic Armageddon. Let us think about this first. The common argument is that businesses can pass on whatever costs they want to the consumers. Is that assumption true? If Pepsi were to suddenly charge you 100$ per bottle would you still drink Pepsi? Or would drink Coke instead? What if both Pepsi and Coke raised their price would you still buy? Or would you buy Juice instead?
The reality is there are numerous reasons why a company cannot just raise prices. Competition, similar products, marketing strategies for market share, and more. Sometimes companies do have to eat the cost. For example some credit cards don’t charge foreign transaction fees. That is not because the bank does not have to pay those fees it is because they choose to eat those fees to be able to offer something that other credit cards don’t. This all means that it is not true that prices are going to skyrocket if you pay people more. The increased demand caused by the higher wages may even allow some companies to lower prices and make up the profit in volume sold.
Once you begin to look at things objectively you find there is no rational economic justification for illegal immigrants.
As the title states Justice Ruth Ginsberg has proven herself to be legally incapable of fulfilling her duties and must resign or be impeached and be replaced by someone who is capable.
In Hawaii v Trump the judge ruled that the statements made by President Trump during the campaign trail gave the intent of a muslim ban to any executive order that his administration would make regarding an Islamic country. The judge explicitly said that the executive order was legal and valid and the only thing that implies bias onto it is the campaign statements. This implied bias is so strong that it survives subsequent attempts to change your position on the issue as Trump did moderate the muslim ban to a selective travel ban later on in the campaign. Similar lines of argument are also used in Washington v Trump and other cases related to the travel ban. This is not limited to Hawaii as well as the federal court decision in this case was applied to the entire country.
During the campaign Justice Ginsburg said some very harsh things about Trump as well. At one point she even said that she would leave the country if Trump got elected. She of course apologized for these public statements later on but according to the precedent set by Hawaii v Trump the damage had already been done. It would not matter how well-reasoned legal decisions she makes are, that would be irrelevant. The precedent as set by some of the most liberal courts in the country would mean that the motive for them would be bias against Trump. This would mean that legally Ginsberg would be incapable of providing a fair ruling against Trump, his associates, or even his supporters. The left should join us in asking for the resignation of Ginsberg as the law must apply equally to everyone.
The constitution does provide methods for removing Justices. It would be preferable if Ginsberg resigns but if she does not we can impeach her. The constitution states that justices hold their offices only during good behavior. This would include making decisions on cases based on their merit and not on the personalities involved. This should be enough to begin impeachment proceedings and get her removed. The bar for impeachment is of course a 2/3 vote in the senate. This would be daunting under normal circumstances but there are enough democratic senators who have publicly stated their support for the Hawaii v Trump ruling so should logically support this move or have to renounce their support for the original decision.