Peperidge Farm Remembers

download (4).jpg

Remember when the Steele document came out and democrats cheered? Pepe-ridge farms remembers. Remember when it came out that never trumpers funded the opposition research and the funding was taken over by the clinton campaign? Pepe-ridge farms remembers. Remember when it was revealed that some of the sources Steele used for his supposed research came from within the Russian government? Pepe-ridge farms remembers. Remember when the biased press accused the Clinton camp of colluding with the Russians? Pepe-ridge farms doesn’t.

The media may have conveniently forgotten. The politicians may have forgotten. The normies may have forgotten but Pepe-ridge farms always remembers.

When we remember this Democrats scream whataboutism. They say that Trump is the president and anything Hillary, Obama, and any other candidate has done should not be discussed. Pepe-ridge farms remembers because everyone running for office gets information about their opponents.

Pepe-ridge farms also remembers the Democrats colluding with Ukraine. The Pope screaming that Trump was not a christian to prevent the religious right from voting for him. Foreign leaders the world over trying to tip the scales towards the Democrats. Pepe-ridge farms remembers everything.

If Democrats want to bring down Trump let it be for something he did do but the others did not.


Pandoras Box


Democrats have opened Pandoras box with their Russia narrative. Earlier republicans would have already fallen all over themselves in apology. They would have prostrated themselves at the altar of biased fake media in the hopes that they would be spared the wrath of CNN and MSNBC. We are not the previous generation of Republicans are we? If they hit us we hit back twice as hard. If CNN and MSNBC throw their hat in the ring for the Democrats then we marginalize them and diminish their power. The Democrats want to investigate Russia collusion so we should oblige them and investigate Russian collusion. The Trump administration has already started on this by requesting investigations on who funds certain environmentalist groups. That is not enough. We have to expand this to others. As Hillary Clinton would say after the last week in Haiti “Let the bodies hit the floor”


As mentioned the Trump administration is looking into this already. The Russian economy is based on oil and natural gas. The higher the price for these goods the better the Russian economy does. Certain environmental groups are exerting effort to prevent the US from using fracking and other efforts to produce natural gas. If they are successful this means that there would be a lower available supply of natural gas and the US would not be able to compete with Russia in the Visegrad markets. Pushing the price of gas higher makes the Russian economy stronger and allows them to bully the Eastern European countries.

We have to look at environmentalists who push for this and see if they are funded by Russia.


The Iran deal gave billions of dollars to Iran and eased sanctions on Iran in exchange they agreed to some inspections they may or may not comply with in the future. This deal has been very beneficial for Iran while it has not been for the US. The primary ally of Russia in the middle east is Iran. Anything that benefits Iran benefits them as well.

We must take a look at the people who supported the Iran deal and check for funding from Russia.


As everyone knows the US and its NATO allies bordering Russia rely on the US military remaining strong in order to combat the Russian threat. Democrats are mainly against any increase in military spending. We have to check and see if any of them are funded by Russia and are working for a weaker US military.

These 3 scenarios are just the start. Illegal immigration advocates could be setting up a situation like the refugee crisis in Europe to weaken America using Russian funds. The Paris treaty gets funds from developed countries like the US and hands it to “developing” countries like Russia. This is an instance where Russia could directly be receiving funds from the US. We have to investigate the people who support that deal for Russian funding.

The Democrats want Russian hysteria. We should give them Russian hysteria.


In Defense of Joffrey Baratheon


In honor of the new Game of Thrones series starting I am taking a break from writing about politics today to write about my favorite character in the series. Joffrey Baratheon first of his name. Monster, Tyrant, Deranged child of incest Joffrey suffers from the worst reputation in the series. The tragedy of Joffrey is this prejudice against him prevents the reader from seeing his brilliance. If you have not read the books yet please note there will be some spoilers here.


Whether the knife was given to him by Tyrion, Littlefinger, or the Night King Joffrey was the one who ordered the hit on Bran instigating the events which led the North to rebel. This is usually viewed as a sign of incompetence from Joffrey.

Take a look at events from the point view of a future king. The Starks control half the kingdom directly. In addition to this they have a marriage alliance with the Riverlands who in turn had a marriage alliance with the Vale. That puts more than half of your Kingdom under the control of someone else. To make matters worse the 3 regions are right next to each other which means they can easily support each other. Robert is blind to this because of his personal loyalty to Eddard but the king will not always have that relationship with the lord paramount. In Joffrey’s reign you would have the ruler of the North, the ruler of the Riverlands, and the ruler of the Vale all belonging to one extended family. The same region that led the assault against the mad king. It was obvious that the situation could not stand so Joffrey had to act. Waiting until he was the king would have been too late.


Executing Eddard may have been the most brilliant move in the entire campaign. Think about the information available at the time of the execution. At this point in time all Tywin Lannister, the supposed great lion, had proved is that the Lannisters were hilariously incompetent in combat. All the Starks had to do was go south with a commander who had never experienced combat yet and Tywin promptly proceeded to lose half his army and get his heir and a whole slew of nobles captured.

If Eddard were released and proceeded to lead the Stark army against the Lannisters nothing would have been able to stop him. The vale already mutinous at being kept out of the war would have ignored Lysa altogether. The Freys who only had the courage to make outrageous demands because of Robb being a neophyte would have been kept in line. Robb would not have made his errors with Jeyne as well. In short releasing Eddard would have resulted in the loss of the throne.


Out of all the kings seated on the throne Joffrey is the only one who has shown he has the vision to create a stable Kingdom. When Joffrey was asked by Cersei what he wanted to do in his reign he mentioned that he would tax the northerners and take some of them to serve in a central kings landing army. Then if they revolted he would be down violently.

Joffrey understood that the kingdom such as it is not stable. He does not have the luxury of having pet dragons like the Targaryens nor can he count on the personal loyalty of the Starks like Robert could. In any case relying on the loyalty of one man is a shaky proposition at best. It may have led to a brief period of instability but Joffreys plan was best for the realm in the long term.

The saddest moment in the whole series is undoubtedly the death of noble Joffrey first of his name.

Has Warren Been Bought By Big Banks?

th (4).jpg

The Republicans have started work on undoing the damage done to the banking industry by Dodd-Frank. Predictably Democrats like Elizabeth Warren have gone all out in defending this bill. It is one thing to support a bill in its inception without seeing its real world consequences. It is quite another to keep supporting it when the bill is put in practice. At this point we have to ask ourselves. Have Elizabeth Warren and the Democrats been bought by lobbyists from Giant banks?

Dodd- Frank

Dodd Frank has been disastrous for the financial industry. Elizabeth Warren and the Democrats say they support the bill because they feel that banks should be reined in from becoming too big to fail. Four banks went from controlling 11% of the banking industry to controlling nearly half after Dodd-Frank. Giant banks went from controlling 23% of the banking industry to controlling more than 60%.

Dodd-Frank has decimated the small banks that Elizabeth Warren and the Democrats say they want to protect. Since Dodd-Frank 25% of small banks have closed. Bank of America controls more of the banking industry than all small banks COMBINED. Before Dodd-Frank hundreds of new banks were opening up. After Dodd-Frank only 3 new banks opened up. There used to be 14000 banks in America now there just a little more than 6000 and dwindling.

Dodd-Frank has been hugely beneficial for the big banks. It has helped them clear away the competition and grab more of the market. They went from being too big to fail to too giant to fail. If Elizabeth Warren and Democrats were serious about the threat of banks that are too big to fail then they would join President Trump in the Republicans in finding a solution for it. The fact that they insist on supporting a bill that has had the empirical effects Dodd-Frank has had should raise suspicion on their motives. After all what better way to help big banks than by creating a loyal opposition.

Follow The Money

In order to find out who the banking industry has purchased we just have to follow the money. In recent elections Democrats have been raising a lot more money than Republicans. Obama and Clinton both outraised and outspent Romney and Trump in their elections. The difference was glaring in the last election as Clinton spent more than twice President Trump did 1.4 billion to 600 million.

The raw numbers are not enough to go on of course. After all what if all 600 million of President Trumps warchest came from big banks but none of the 1.4 billion of Clinton did? In the last election wall street donated 48.5 million to Clinton and donated 19000 to President Trump. According to Chase, Citibank, and Bank of America are among the top 10 donors of Clinton. These companies appear nowhere in the top donors of the Trump  campaign.

Given all the money that the big banks are giving to Warren and the Democrats is it any wonder that they are protecting a law that allow giant banks to eliminate their competition?


The Truth About the Dodd-Frank Repeal

images (2).jpg

Republicans in the house have voted to repeal Dodd Frank and replace it with the choice act. As usual they have declined to explain why this is done and have let the Democrats control the airwaves with their message of the Republicans who have been bought by the banks and are going to crash the economy with their greed. One of the most frustrating things about supporting Trump and the Republicans is that they generally do the right thing but cannot seem to explain why they are doing it. This is especially important in a complex issue like this one. By all means the article I am writing should come from the Wall Street Journal, National Review, or even the Trump administration itself. Yet they decline to do so placing the burden of explaining why this must happen on the shoulders of independent bloggers like myself with our vastly more limited reach.

It is very easy to have a knee jerk reaction to this issue but for something this critical it is very important to understand why it is being done.

State of the Banking Industry

In order to understand why this must be done we have to take a look at how the banking industry is doing. After all maybe there is no problem and this is just being done for the sake of corporate greed.

If I were to ask you why you support Dodd-Frank your answer would most likely be to rein in big banks, to break up big banks, or something along the vein of placing less power in the hands of big banks. After all it is because of the irresponsibility of the banks that are deemed too big to fail which caused the financial crash to happen.

How has Dodd-Frank affected these banks? The best data I could get is that in 1995 giant banks controlled 22% of the assets of the banking industry. 13% of which are controlled by 4 companies Citigroup, Chase, Wells Fargo, and  Bank of America. As of 2015 giant banks controlled 63% of the assets of the banking industry and the top 4 banks mentioned control 42%. The giant banks nearly tripled their market share. What about the smaller banks? Since Dodd-Frank started a quarter of local banks have closed. Can you guess how many new banks of any size have opened since Dodd-Frank started? How many new banks we have had in the 7 years since Dodd Frank was signed into law? Take a moment to take a guess before going on. There have been a total of 3 new banks. 3. Before Dodd-Frank you had hundreds opening every year. Now we have 3. In seven years.

If Dodd-Frank was supposed to curb big banks it has failed spectacularly. In fact it has even helped concentrate even more assets into these banks. If you thought they were too big to fail before then they are even more so now. This is a dangerous trend that we have to break and instead of having it slow down it is accelerating. As of right now we have 4 companies who own almost half the banking industry. Repealing and replacing Dodd-Frank into something that helps smaller banks must be done.

The Solution

Republicans have put forth the Financial Choice Act as a solution to the problem. The bill is very long and a copy of it is available in the government website so I will give the barebones summary. In a nutshell the bill says that if a bank of any size were to meet a reserve requirement of 10% then they would be exempt from most of the regulations of Dodd-Frank. Under Dodd-Frank the reserve requirement is 3%. The crucial section here is that it is voluntary. A bank would have to choose to meet the requirements to get out from the regulations of Dodd-Frank but is not forced to. At this point it is important to understand what the reserve requirement is otherwise it will seem like the banking industry is getting something for nothing.

Most countries have something called a reserve requirement. This is the percentage of the total assets the bank has lent out that it must have on hand. This is usually in the form of physical cash in a bank vault or deposits to the central bank. For instance if a bank has lent out 100$ then it must have 3$ in its  reserves under Dodd-Frank or 10$ if it wants to get the benefits of the Choice act.

This is important because banks earn money by lending out money. Whether it be thru fees, interest or any other method money has to be lent out before it can earn money. This is also the reason why Giant banks cannot benefit from the Choice Act. All the giant banks have shareholders who expect the same level or more of profits every year. You just cannot make the same level of profit by loaning out that much less money.

Giant banks also make most of their money on fees. Whether the accounts are paid back or not what is most important is there is a lot of them generating various fees. If they go into collections then the big banks just sell it to an agency and make some of the money back anyway. Smaller banks make most of their money on interest. It is important to them to have the loan active and current. They have to pick and choose who to lend to carefully so the 10% reserve requirement fits their portfolios perfectly.

This creates a two tiered system. When you ask for a loan or a credit limit increase with a giant bank they do not generally want to have a live person make a decision for you. They don’t really have the manpower or inclination to decide whether Bob gets a 200$ increase or whether you get your 10000$ loan to start a pizza shop with a basement. They want to run everything thru an algorithm based on current regulations and base the decision on that.

Smaller banks are different. Since they normally service local communities they rely more on face to face interactions as well as judgement calls based on the persons history with the community. Instituting a system with far less regulations makes sense for them. This also creates a unique market for them of customers who literally cannot do business with giant banks due to regulations but can do business with them increasing their market share.

Why Small Banks?

Smaller banks need to be encouraged and protected instead of systematically eliminated under Dodd-Frank. Smaller banks have a significantly lower default rate on loans and they make significantly more loans to start-up businesses. 33% of business loans come from small banks while only 23% come from giant banks. Having the assets of the banking industry spread out over more sources reduces the risk of any single one of them causing a crash and needing to be bailed out.

We finally have legislation that will help fix the banking industry and Republicans are to shy to explain it to the public.



The Truth about FAA Privatization

images (1).jpg

President Trump has lent his support to efforts to privatize the air traffic control functions of the FAA and predictably the Democrats are setting their hair on fire. Every possible reason has been brought up from worse services to increased costs on consumers due to fees being passed on. Senator Schumer even stated that the airline companies could raise taxes on their consumers which normally only the government can do.


The truth is this bill shifts the burden of paying for air traffic control from the taxpayers to the airlines and may even lower costs as well for consumers. The function would fall onto a non-profit company who would then be funded by fees from the airlines themselves as opposed to funds from the budget which of course comes from taxes. The same exact employees who are handling the job now would be handling the job in the non profit organization, which is why some unions who work with air traffic control are ok with this when they are normally against privatization. The same exact equipment used now would still be used then. We get the same service but we get the program of the government books.

There is also an argument being made that it would be easier as a non-profit to upgrade your equipment than it is as a government entity and anyone who has dealt with the government before on a business capacity would agree with this.


When a consumer hears about fees they assume that the company that the fee targets will automatically pass it on to them. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Let me show you examples from two industries. First lets take a look at telcos. All the companies you love to hate. ATT, Comcast, Verizon, etc. The moment you charge any of them fees they will automatically pass it on to consumers without question. Do you notice the similarities between these companies? They are all effective monopolies with no incentive to try to retain customer loyalty. After all if you do not like your Comcast you have nowhere else to go. Now let us take a look at another industry: credit cards. Most major credit cards are available in all major cities so they effectively compete with each other all the time. In this environment a company like Capital One offers no foreign transaction fees. Does that mean that the underlying legislation somehow exempts one company from paying fees while requiring the rest of the industry to? After all they are not passing it on to the consumer. Or is it more likely that Capital One is absorbing the costs to offer an advantage to customers that its competitors don’t?

At this point even the most ardent liberals have to admit that companies do not automatically pass fees onto consumers. The determining factor is competition. If the companies have competitors then they sometimes absorb the fees to be more attractive to consumers and if they don’t have competitors then they pass everything on.

We finally get to the airline industry. We have to determine which one of these models best fits it. When you fly along a major route do you have the choice of one airline or multiple ones? Do you see budget airlines pop up like mushrooms who then to proceed to cut everything they can cut in an effort to undercut their competition? Do you see apps get designed for the sole purpose of making sure you get airline tickets at the lowest price possible? Airlines are already doing everything they can to undercut each other. Any fees charged will be just another thing they use in this battle.

This issue is admittedly a small one if we look at the size of the budget and economy. It does go a long way in showing the blind partisanship of democrats that they would be against something that would both lower the cost to the government and to the consumer just because it came from President Trump.

The New Middle East


With new developments in the Middle East the strategy of President Trump is becoming clearer. The Sunni states are to be given a free hand in dealing with the Shia states with no holds barred and the full support of the United States. In return the Sunni states curb terrorism on their own and extend greater recognition towards Israel.

The first steps seem to be bringing Sunni states that are friendly towards Shia Iran inline. As everyone knows Qatar and Iran have a joint project in the South Pars gas fields which is the biggest natural gas field in the world and a tremendous boom to the economy of both nations. Blockading Qatar for funding terrorists is just an excuse. They are now being asked to choose  which relationships are more important to them. The Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Sunni states or Iran. Qatar will be deciding soon as there are some reports that there are only 72 hours left of water in the country.

After the Qatar situation is resolved and any other Shia sympathizing Sunni states are brought in line expect Egypt and Saudi Arabia to make significant concessions towards Israel. We may even see a normalization of relations between those countries and a united front against Iran. We may also see more Sunni funded terrorist groups target Shia targets as well.

Trump and Obama

There are quite a few differences between both leaders that make this strategy possible. First off President Trump believes that each country is sovereign inside its borders. If a country wants to commit human rights abuses within its borders then that’s between its government and the people inside it. As long as they don’t threaten the United States of course. Saudi Arabia is hardly alone in this regard. With President Duterte Trump has also shown he has little regard for local human rights issues. In practical terms this means that Saudi Arabia can do things that would cause problems under Obama. This allows them greater flexibility in keeping their allies in line and order in the region.

Second and this may seem strange to think about is that Trump respects Middle Eastern culture in a way that Obama did not. At the end of the day Obama tried to impose western values on his middle eastern allies. The countries involved may not have been ready for it or may not have wanted it at all. The middle east is a different place from America and may have different norms. A terrorist using a civilian as a human shield may be rare in America but fairly common in the Middle East. By forcing his allies to adhere to western morals Obama put them in a difficult position whereas President Trump has released them from it.

Last and most important we have competing philosophies. Obama believed in reaching out to his enemies at the expense of his allies whereas President Trump believes in strengthening his allies at the expense of his enemies. There is an old chinese saying ” do not trample over old friends in your rush to make new”. You are never going to please all the various factions in the middle east and its foolish to try. Doing what Obama did just gets everyone mad at you.



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.

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.

Did Sanders Back Hillary to Protect Jane?

images (3).jpg

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.

Time Frame

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.