Month: February 2019

Reparations: The Latest Policy Democrats Admit They Supported All Along

Last month I wrote:

This is how it goes. First, the right accuses the left of wanting some policy goal (say, gun confiscation and repealing the Second Amendment) which the left pretty obvious wants. The left, however, knowing that said policy goal is wildly unpopular with the American people, vehemently denies they want the policy.

However, before long, the left will inevitably come out in favor of the policy goal they previously spent a good deal of energy denying they wanted.

Leftists in 2012: “Nobody wants to take your guns.”

Leftists in 2018: “Repeal the Second Amendment, and we’re coming for your guns”

The left will deny supporting some policy because the policy is not popular among the public at the time. But once the left feels it is politically safe to come out in support of said policy, they will “evolve” on it and pretend they just started supporting it now, even though in reality they’ve secretly supported it all along.

Gun confiscation, open borders, socialism, late-term abortion, letting illegals vote: you name it: Democrats have been for these things all along. The only difference today is that they feel they won’t be punished at the polls for it.

They now feel the American electorate is “ready” for their extreme positions.

And so today we have Elizabeth Warren and Kamala “The Whore” Harris coming out in favor of reparations. We’ve known all along that Democrats wanted reparations, but they’ve been careful about not letting the public know it:

“From the very first day of the 2020 presidential race, when Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts blamed “generations of discrimination” for black families earning far less than white households, Democratic hopefuls have broadly emphasized racial justice and closing the wealth gap in their policy platforms.

But in recent weeks, some candidates have started embracing specific goals and overtly race-conscious legislation that even the most left-wing elected officials stayed away from in recent years.”

See what I’m talking about?

“Last week, Senator Kamala Harris of California agreed with a radio host’s recent suggestion that government reparations for black Americans were necessary to address the legacies of slavery and discrimination. Ms. Harris later affirmed that support in a statement to The Times.

“We have to be honest that people in this country do not start from the same place or have access to the same opportunities,” she said. “I’m serious about taking an approach that would change policies and structures and make real investments in black communities.”

Ms. Warren also said she supported reparations for black Americans impacted by slavery — a policy that experts say could cost several trillion dollars, and one that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and many top Democrats have not supported.”

No, they all support it: they just won’t admit it. Until now.

Watch more and more Democrats come out of the woodwork and pretend they “evolved” on reparations overnight.

Cough up the dough, whitey!

$15 trillion dollars over 55 years of the War on Poverty is not enough. Medicaid isn’t enough. Food stamps aren’t enough. The Community Reinvestment Act wasn’t enough.

We need to throw even more money at the black community.

Of course, the Democrats never tell us who gets to decide how the reparations payments are divided up and distributed. I’m sure it’s “community leaders” (read: Democratic politicians) in the big cities like Chicago, Atlanta, New York and LA. Because they’ve done such a tremendous job thus far!

In reality, reparations would be the largest Democratic scam in history, with most of the money (and we’re talking hundreds of billions of dollars, if not trillions) ending up in the pockets of corrupt Democrat politicians and political machines.

But let’s just for a bit consider the arguments for reparations at face value–in other words, let’s assume the money is somehow miraculously doled out fairly evenly to regular black Americans and isn’t just a huge scam.

The case for reparations boils down to one phrase which I’m sure you’ve heard on many occasions: the “legacy of slavery.”

We need to address it. In 2019.

Even though slavery ended in 1863, and Jim Crow ended in 1964.

My question: how long can we reasonably blame the “legacy of slavery”?

Consider that Japan and Germany experienced total and complete destruction in the wake of World War II. Their economies and currencies were not only devastated, but virtually their entire infrastructures. Germany suffered 4.3 million casualties in the war, and Japan lost 2.3 million–and those were primarily young, able-bodied working-aged men as well. It was estimated that by 1945, Japan had lost 42% of its national wealth.

Yet within four decades, Japan had become the second-largest economy in the world and the leading exporter of high-tech electronics. Japan was able to bounce back remarkably quickly from the massive devastation it suffered in the war.

Half of Germany was behind the Iron Curtain of Soviet Rule and the country was not fully reunified under democratic capitalism until the early 1990s. And yet today Germany is the powerhouse of Europe–its biggest economy and most influential player.

I have visited both countries within the past few years. Both are technologically about on-par with America–you really don’t feel any culture shock visiting either place. Outside of the heavily-migrant areas in Germany, you feel very safe in both countries.

In terms of GDP per capita, America’s today is $59,500. Germany’s is $50,000 and Japan’s is $42,800.

I’d say both nations were able to recover quite well from the total devastation they suffered by the end of World War II in 1945. They went from being completely destroyed by war to rich, advanced, first-world nations in half a century.

And on top of all this, both countries were forced to pay billions in war reparations–plus Germany was still paying off its massive reparations from World War I. Germany didn’t pay its debts off fully until 2010!

I actually brought up this point about Japan and Germany in a debate the other week about this very topic, and the other person said, “Well Japan and Germany didn’t have racism when they were rebuilding.”

Really? The whole world wasn’t against those two countries in the wake of the war?

In terms of US aid dollars, the Marshall plan to rebuild Western Europe as well as the postwar occupation of Japan, only cost about $100 million in today’s dollars. Meaning the US gave Japan and Germany barely a fraction of what it has spent on the War on Poverty and welfare over the past few decades.

And the implication is that being nuked and firebombed and shelled repeatedly for years is no big deal, whatever.

But racism, that’s the real killer.

Sure, you can recover from being NUKED pretty easily. No biggie.

But racism is insurmountable.

Yep. Makes sense.

So, again: when do we cut the BS over the “legacy of slavery”?

The Great Thomas Sowell has explained countless times that the “legacy of slavery” excuse is nonsense, and that the real “root cause” of the turmoil in the black community today is the legacy of liberalism:

“[New York Times’ Nick] Kristof’s “overwhelming” evidence of the current effects of past slavery is that blacks do not have as much income as whites. But Puerto Ricans do not have as much income as Japanese Americans. Mexican Americans do not have as much income as Cuban Americans. All sorts of people do not have as much income as all sorts of other people, not only in the United States, but in countries around the world. And most of these people were never enslaved.

Liberals will always find a way to blame White People for inequality all around the world, though. It’s central to their political movement.

“If we wanted to be serious about evidence, we might compare where blacks stood a hundred years after the end of slavery with where they stood after 30 years of the liberal welfare state. In other words, we could compare hard evidence on “the legacy of slavery” with hard evidence on the legacy of liberals.

Despite the grand myth that black economic progress began or accelerated with the passage of the civil rights laws and “war on poverty” programs of the 1960s, the cold fact is that the poverty rate among blacks fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent by 1960. This was before any of those programs began.”

Wait, black poverty was 87% after the New Deal? Interesting.

“Ending the Jim Crow laws was a landmark achievement. But, despite the great proliferation of black political and other “leaders” that resulted from the laws and policies of the 1960s, nothing comparable happened economically. And there were serious retrogressions socially.

Nearly a hundred years of the supposed “legacy of slavery” found most black children being raised in two-parent families in 1960. But thirty years after the liberal welfare state found the great majority of black children being raised by a single parent.”

Specifically, over 72% of black children today are born out of wedlock. That’s the Legacy of Liberalism, not the Legacy of Slavery.

“The murder rate among blacks in 1960 was one-half of what it became 20 years later, after a legacy of liberals’ law enforcement policies. Public housing projects in the first half of the 20th century were clean, safe places, where people slept outside on hot summer nights, when they were too poor to afford air conditioning. That was before admissions standards for public housing projects were lowered or abandoned, in the euphoria of liberal non-judgmental notions. And it was before the toxic message of victimhood was spread by liberals. We all know what hell holes public housing has become in our times. The same toxic message produced similar social results among lower-income people in England, despite an absence of a “legacy of slavery” there.

If we are to go by evidence of social retrogression, liberals have wreaked more havoc on blacks than the supposed “legacy of slavery” they talk about. Liberals should heed the title of Jason Riley’s insightful new book, “Please Stop Helping Us.”

If anyone should be paying reparations to black people, it’s the Democratic Party.


A part of me almost supports reparations just to get it over with: “That’s it. No more complaining. We don’t owe you shit anymore. No more excuses.”

If the reparations payments go out and don’t make things better, then white people no longer have to feel any guilt whatsoever. The “sins of their fathers” have been atoned for.

Because reparations is the logical endgame of white guilt, no? That’s what it’s all building up to, right?

There is really nothing greater white Americans can do for black Americans to say, “We’re sorry for slavery and we’re sorry for holding you back,” than to give black Americans vast sums of money, is there?

And so if/when the reparations happen, and if/when those reparations payments don’t change anything–because the real problems in the black community stem from absent fathers and toxic inner city rap/drug/gang/materialistic culture, not Whitey–then we’re not on the hook for anything anymore.

It’s not our fault–we paid up.

That’s why a part of me could, in theory, see a rationale for supporting reparations.

But, of course, we all know that even if reparations do happen, the left will never let us off the hook.

White guilt is just too important to their political fortunes. So it’s forever.

I figured the left would quit guilting white people after Obama was elected in 2008. I figured, “Okay, that’s it, America has finally redeemed itself. We’ve proven we’re not a ‘racist country’ anymore by electing a black president. A nation nearly 70% white elected a president who represents 13% of the country. No more “RACIST!!!!” cries.”

No more excuses.

But instead of the white-guilting subsiding, it got worse. Way worse. Race relations in America have gotten significantly worse since 2008.

If you went back in time to election night 2008 and told someone that in 10 years, race relations would be significantly worse than they are today, they would not have believed you. Yet here we are.

Somehow, the left has convinced people that despite Obama being elected and reelected, America is still Extremely Racist. The left has convinced people that Obama’s eight years in office don’t mean shit.

So this is why I won’t support reparations: because even if we agree to reparations, the left will still never shut up and stop guilting white people.

If and when the reparations fail to fix anything, the left will just say it wasn’t enough and that they need even bigger reparations payments the second time around.


Chappelle’s Show had a hilarious skit on reparations back in 2003:

Rush: America is in a “Life and Death Struggle” Due to Mass Immigration

Based Rush. From his show yesterday beginning around the 14-minute mark:

“For the last 25 years, I see the United States in a sort of life and death struggle for its existence as we knew it.

I thought after the 1980s, after two terms of Ronaldus Maxiumus (Reagan), that we’d won. How could we have not? We had just had two terms of the most conservative administration ever. We had an economic boon. We had wages up, interest rates plummeting, virtually every economic mistake Jimmy Carter made was fixed, there were more people working than ever before, the Berlin Wall came down shortly after Reagan left office, the Soviet Union was no more, we rebuilt our military–I figured people lived through this, they’re going to finally see it, they’re going to finally believe it, they’re going to trust it [“it” meaning conservatism].

So why didn’t that last? I mean you had eight years where everybody alive knew that tax cuts led to massive prosperity for everyone–why didn’t that last?

I’ll tell you why: that is when the left began to import millions of foreign nationals via illegal immigration.

Not just illegal immigration but legal immigration, too. Rush hasn’t yet gotten to the point where he’s comfortable calling out the negative effects of legal immigration, but give it some time. He will.

Before we go further, I want to point out: simply acknowledging that legal immigration has had some very bad consequences for the GOP and the country does not mean you’re totally against legal immigration. You can still be fine with legal immigration while wanting less–even considerably less–of it.

We don’t have to end immigration altogether. We just need to dramatically cut it down to prevent massive, permanent demographic transformation. We need to get our demographics under control or else we won’t have a country anymore.

There is nothing immoral about wanting to reduce legal immigration. The idea that the only moral and virtuous position is to want as many immigrants as possible from all corners of the globe year in and year out indefinitely is a globalist lie. There is nothing immoral about restricting immigration. We Americans don’t owe foreigners anything. The idea that we do is a Globalist Uniparty lie to trick Americans into giving big corporations an endless supply of cheap labor.

Back to Rush:

“[The] Simpson-Mazzoli [Act], 1986, granted Amnesty for 3.6 million of them and that’s what opened the floodgates. The [memory of Reagan’s success in the 1980s] are overwhelmed and outnumbered by people who were not alive here, who were living somewhere else; they’ve been imported by the left by illegal immigration. Did you know one out of four people in California was not born in the United States?”

Actually, it’s closer to one in three. And if you count the real number of illegals in this country–30 million, as opposed to the laughably inaccurate 11 million number that has been used since 2005, as if not a single illegal has entered this country in 14 years–the foreign-born share of California’s population is probably even higher than 1/3.

“You wonder what happened to the Republican Party in California? There you go.

The electorate has been changed.

The makeup of our culture has been changed, by way of illegal immigration brought to us by the Democrats and a bunch of clueless Republicans who thought that because Latin Americans were Catholic they were gonna end up voting conservative! So they [Republicans] were on the bandwagon for keeping borders open for their own reasons. Gigantic miscalculation.”


First Tucker, now Rush.

While our Republican politicians continue to sell us–and the country–out in favor of big business, at least we can take small solace in the fact that our leading luminaries on the airwaves get it.

This is important because Rush gets through to Trump. Rush and Trump are longtime friends and golf buddies. I’m not sure how much they talk these days but Rush has a decent amount of influence with the President. Trump values Rush’s opinion.

Now, with regards to Democrats resuscitating their national political fortunes by way of mass immigration despite the success of the Reagan administration in the 1980s, the unspoken point is that in a “diverse”, post-mass migration society, economics don’t matter to voters. Not really.

What I mean by that is, their votes are not swayed by a good economy under a president of the opposite party.

If not for mass immigration, Reagan would have been the Republican FDR: an enormously popular and successful president whose lasting impact was reshaping the political landscape to favor his party for a generation. Under FDR and his successor Truman, Democrats won every Presidential election from 1932-1948. Not only that, they shifted the center of American politics toward the left in a major way so that by the time 1952 rolled around, the only way the Republicans could win was to nominate the hero of World War II, Dwight Eisenhower, and promise to leave the New Deal in place.

Republicans had first tried running against FDR’s New Deal in the 1930s but were clobbered every time. By the 1950s the GOP realized it would never win unless it accepted the New Deal as permanent and basically shifted left. FDR had permanently tiled the playing field of American politics to the left. He made it so that the GOP had to become the Democrat Lite Party because FDR’s policies were so widely popular. FDR’s policies were initially seen as liberal, but because of their widespread popularity, they became the de facto center of American politics. This is how you push the entire political spectrum to one side. What were previously moderate, centrist views became right-wing after FDR’s New Deal.

That’s what Rush is talking about with Reagan: Reagan should have been the Republican FDR–the one who pushed the entire American political spectrum to the right and made conservatism the new moderate centrism. What were previously right-wing conservative policies should have become mainstream consensus positions.

But instead, Bush 41 was a one-term President, and since 1992, it is the Democrats have won four of the seven Presidential elections and six of seven popular votes.

Instead of tilting the playing field permanently to the right through Reagan’s success, Democrats tilted it permanently to the left by way of mass immigration.

Whereas in the past Americans would vote based on which party was better for their personal finances, in a post-mass immigration America, political affiliation is not determined by this. Political affiliation is determined by tribe: Blacks vote Democrat. Hispanics vote Democrat. Jews vote Democrat. Whites vote Republican.

That’s just the way it is.

It’s about way more than economics. It’s about tribal identity. Democrats have succeeded in making voting Democrat an inextricable part of being black or Hispanic in America.

Why do you think black Republicans are routinely scorned as “Uncle Toms” by other black people? Because there’s a widespread belief that voting Democrat is an integral part of being black in America.

Hollywood and the Uniparty Media have succeed in convincing much of the country that white people still massively oppress minorities, and voting Republican is seen as a way to propagate “systemic racism” against minorities. Many minorities believe minority Republicans are voting to continue their own oppression.

It makes a lot more sense if you think of the Republican Party as the “White Party” and the Democratic Party as the “nonwhite party.” Why on earth would a nonwhite person vote for the White Party?

And if you’re wondering why many white people vote for the Nonwhite Party, you’ve stumbled upon the real problem in 2019, given that ~60% of the country is still white: the cultural left has indoctrinated and guilted a good deal of white people to believe they are morally obligated to vote Democrat, i.e. against their own interests. Self-loathing whites still remain integral to the Democratic coalition because there simply aren’t enough minority voters to carry the Democrats to victory on their own. Yet.

Dismantling and Replacing “Old” America

As our country grows more “diverse” and less American, this is the inevitable result:

“Over the past several years, we have seen a rising tide of assaults on statues and other works of art representing our nation’s history by those who are eager to squeeze that complex story into a box defined by the evolving rules of political correctness. We might call this the “monument controversy,” and what happened at Notre Dame [where 134-year-old paintings of Christopher Columbus were covered-up] is a case in point: a vocal minority, claiming victim status, demands the destruction, removal, or concealment of some object of which they disapprove. Usually, the official response is instant capitulation.

As the French writer Charles Péguy once observed, “It will never be known what acts of cowardice have been motivated by the fear of not looking sufficiently progressive.” Consider the frequent demands to remove statues of Confederate war heroes from public spaces because their presence is said to be racist. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, for example, has recently had statues of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson removed from a public gallery. In New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio has set up a committee to review “all symbols of hate on city property.”

“Symbols of hate” of course means “symbols of whiteness.”

Roger Kimball goes on:

“But it is worth noting that the monument controversy signifies something much larger than the attacks on the Old South or Italian explorers.

In the first place, the monument controversy involves not just art works or commemorative objects. Rather, it encompasses the resources of the past writ large. It is an attack on the past for failing to live up to our contemporary notions of virtue.”

While this is the left’s usual stated reason for erasing American history, the true reason behind it is far more troubling than simply political correctness run amok.

It’s about erasing traces of American history to make the country more reflective of its new owners (nonwhite immigrants), rather than the old ones (white people).

Since 1965, the Uniparty Establishment has been working tirelessly to demographically transform America into a “diverse” international homeless shelter in order to make it more receptive to leftwing socialist policies.

Demographic transformation of a country necessarily entails wholesale cultural, linguistic, religious, political and yes, even historical, transformation.

Historical transformation–which comes after erasure–is necessary to ensure a place is completely transformed beyond all recognition, permanently.

A nation is defined by its history, in other words “who it was.” In order to know what someone or some place is, you must know what it was.

Erasing a nation’s history means it is simply a blank slate, a plot of land on a map, which can thus be remade into anything.

And that’s the point.

If you thought the historical erasure would stop with Confederates and Old Southerners, you were wrong. That’s just the first step. That’s the low-hanging fruit the Globalist Uniparty Usurpers can take with little pushback from the token opposition on the right at places like National Review, whose Editor was all to happy to capitulate on the matter of Confederate Statues:

Screen Shot 2019-02-20 at 1.01.14 PM.png

Yes, this is certainly standing athwart history and yelling ‘Stop!’

The so-called “Conservative Movement” has no interest in conserving American history because its member are more interested in being accepted by the Cool Kids.

But it’s not going to stop with the Confederate monuments. Already they’re coming for Christopher Columbus.

In 2017, “protesters” in NYC defaced a statue of Theodore Roosevelt and demanded the statue be taken down because it was a symbol of “patriarchy, white supremacy and settler-colonialism.”

And if you think they’re not coming for the Founding Fathers, you’re clueless.

The more immigrants that pour into this country, the less relevant American history becomes. Our history is not their history. Why should they have to drive down roads named after our Presidents, and send their children to schools named after our historical figures? Eventually, everything will be renamed.

Here in Chicago, there was talk a few years ago about renaming O’Hare International Airport after Obama. It didn’t happen, but is there any doubt this will happen in the future eventually? “Who was Butch O’Hare? *google search* Oh, some OLD ASS RACIST ASS DEAD ASS WHITE GUY?! FUCK HIM!”

Obama is the messiah of the New America, while a guy like Butch O’Hare represents the old America.

In Minnesota, Lake Calhoun, located in downtown Minneapolis, had its name changed to “Bde Maka Ska” last year. “Bde Maka Ska” is its “original Dakota” Indian name.

It’s not about honoring the Indians who were “here first,” but about dismantling all traces of white American history. John Calhoun, whom the lake had been named after for nearly 200 years, was an advocate of slavery, so of course that was the justification for stripping his name from the lake.

Because White Men = slavery, while Indians = morally flawless noble savages.

But removing the name of a Dead White Guy from a lake in Minneapolis was part of the wider, deliberate chipping-away at American history taking place across this country.

And it’s not just statues, lakes and buildings named after Dead White Guys. It’s Western literature that is being tossed in the dustbin of history, too:

“The English department at the University of Pennsylvania contributed to the monument controversy when it cheered on students who were upset that a portrait of a dead white male named William Shakespeare was hanging in the department’s hallway. The department removed the picture and replaced it with a photograph of Audre Lorde, a black feminist writer.

“Students removed the Shakespeare portrait,” crowed department chairman Jed Esty, “and delivered it to my office as a way of affirming their commitment to a more inclusive mission for the English department.” Right.

High schools across the country contribute to the monument controversy when they remove masterpieces like Huckleberry Finn from their libraries because they contain ideas or even just words of which they disapprove.”

The New Americans are dismantling our country before our very eyes. They are pulling the rug out from under us.

They are making the country more reflective of who they are, rather than who we are.

This applies to architecture as well. For ten years Muslim preachers in England have been demanding the Queen wear a full burka and that Buckingham Palace be affixed with minarets:

“The Queen forced to wear a burkha and Buckingham Palace turned into a mosque – that was the vision of Britain under Sharia law proposed by a Muslim firebrand yesterday.

Preacher of hate Anjem Choudary even showed mocked-up photographs of the palace sporting a golden dome and Nelson’s Column as a minaret.

He was speaking ahead of a central London demonstration that was planned for today.”

Here’s Choudray’s ideal version of Buckingham Palace:


Could they be any clearer about their intent to conquer Britain?

And American architecture is next. The neoclassical style of the Capitol, the White House and most of our famous landmarks around D.C. will one day inevitably be renounced as “white people” architecture.

Will the New Americans one day blow up Mount Rushmore? It sounds unthinkable but logically, it follows when you’re already defacing statues of Teddy Roosevelt and itching to do the same to statues of Jefferson and Washington.

The most important thing is: the faces on Mount Rushmore will come to reflect the old America, and the New America will not like that.

This type of thing has happened consistently all throughout history: when places change hands, they change names.

All traces of the old occupants and rulers are discarded and replaced with monuments recognizing the idols and icons of the new occupants and rulers.

Under Roman rule, the land today known as “France” was called “Gaul.”

When the red communists took over Russia, the city of St. Petersburg was renamed “Leningrad” after the patriarch of the Soviet Communist Party.

In Vietnam, Saigon became Ho Chi Minh City, named after the leader of the Vietnamese Communists.

Constantinople became Istanbul in 1453 when it was conquered by the Ottomans.

New York City was originally called New Amsterdam, reflecting its Dutch rulers. But the British renamed it after the Duke of York upon conquering it in 1664.

In 2003, what was the first thing the Iraqis did after being “liberated” by America? They famously pulled down the giant statue of Saddam Hussein.

The Uniparty Propaganda Media celebrated the toppling of the Saddam statue as a symbolic moment marking the official end of Saddam’s regime–and, of course, the optimistic dawn of a New Era of American-Imposed Democracy in Iraq.

The toppling of old statues, no matter where, marks the fall of an old regime and the its replacement by a new one. America is no exception.

There are countless more, and smaller, examples of names being changed and statues being toppled all around the world, all throughout history.

It is symbolic of conquest.

We may not have foreign armies marching on us and conquering us in the traditional understanding of the term, but we are being conquered nonetheless.

What we’re experiencing is conquest by way of mass immigration. The modern West may be experiencing the first-ever peacetime conquest in that our homelands are being conquered despite not being besieged by foreign armies and enemies at the gate

The end-result will be the same, however.

Covington Catholic’s Nick Sandmann Sues Washington Post for $250 million (!)

Two-hundred and fifty million dollars. Whoa:

And the best part is the lawsuit is being filed in the Eastern District of Kentucky, which I’m sure is favorable turf for the Good Guys.

You can go ahead and read the lawsuit here. The specifics articles and false claims Sandmann is suing WaPo over (“negligence and actual malice”) begin on Page 18.

While I am of course sympathetic to Sandmann and it obviously goes without saying that I want to see the Washington Post brought to its knees, I’m having trouble seeing how the plaintiffs can justify $250 million?

Don’t get me wrong, Sandmann is definitely owed a lot of money, but $250 million? That’s a hell of a lot.

Sandmann’s lawyer can obviously argue that the Post has defaced Sandmann’s good name for life: any Google search of him will instantly turn up countless smear pieces and false claims about him.

The Post may well have contributed to a. depriving Sandmann of a college education, b. depriving him of a good career, and c. exposing him to countless death threats, vitriol and unmerited negative treatment from other people.

Sandmann’s life will never be the same.

So I guess we’ll find out (hopefully): how much does it cost to ruin a 16-year-old’s life?

I doubt Sandmann will get the full $250 million, or anywhere close to it. I looked at some other huge defamation cases and it seems like the formula is to seek an outrageous sum (like $250 million) and settle for something like $1-3 million. But I don’t know. I’m not a lawyer. I know Hulk Hogan got $140 million from Gawker, but I wonder if it’s different for rich celebrities who can plausibly claim to be deprived of tens of millions of dollars in future income.

The reason I doubt Sandmann will get anywhere near $250m is because the Post’s lawyers will say it’s implausible to say he was deprived of that much money.

But then again, how can they say with any certainty that Sandmann wouldn’t have gone on to make hundreds of millions of dollars in his career if he had not been a victim of WaPo’s (and others’) smears? They can’t.

Maybe this will prove to be a fruitful strategy for dismantling the Uniparty Propaganda Complex: suing them into oblivion.

We’ve already seen it with Hulk Hogan putting Gawker out of business.

Consider that Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post for $250 million back in 2013. $250 million would put the paper out of business if it weren’t owned by Bezos. I’m sure it’s nothing to him to bail the paper out and sink another $250 mil. He doesn’t want to go down as the guy who oversaw the demise of the Washington Post. But then again, Bezos is no longer worth $140 billion–that’ll be cut in half when he finalizes his divorce. Maybe only having $70 billion in net worth will make Bezos stingier.

Still, let’s hope for a considerable settlement–enough to do some serious damage to the Post’s finances.

And then, of course, Ace of Spades says there are 53 other Fake News Propaganda Outlets Sandman is primed to sue in addition to the Post.

Sue ’em all.

Bernie Sanders Announces Presidential Run, Begs Left to Not Hold His Straight, White Maleness Against Him

So it’s official: Bernie Sanders is running for President again. In an interview, he was asked whether he thinks he–as a straight, white male–has any place in the modern Democratic Party:

When asked by VPR’s Bob Kinzel about concerns that he no longer best represents “the face of the new Democratic Party,” Sanders, 77, said: We have got to look at candidates, you know, not by the color of their skin, not by their sexual orientation or their gender and not by their age,” Sanders said.

LOL: the Democratic Party revolves around nothing but evaluating people by their skin color, sexual orientation, gender and age. Good luck disabusing the party of that, Bernie.

“I mean, I think we have got to try to move us toward a non-discriminatory society which looks at people based on their abilities, based on what they stand for.”

Again: discrimination based on immutable characteristics like skin color and gender is the modern Democratic Party’s reason for being.

So the question is: will Bernie be able to overcome his toxic straight, white maleness and win the Democratic nomination for 2020?

Who is Bernie Sanders to claim he is more deserving of the Presidency than minority women like Kamala Harris, or even Kirsten Gillibrand?

Bernie is a man and men’s time is UP! Men have had their shot at power already! It’s time to give the women their day.

How DARE a male like Bernie stand in their way?

And how dare Bernie stand in the way of minorities like Cory Booker? White Oppressors have been in power for 400 years! Their time is up.

I wrote an article on the old site wondering if John Kerry in 2004 will go down as the last straight, white male to ever win the Democratic Presidential nomination. I wrote that while Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden might win the party’s nomination in 2020, the odds going forward of a straight white male winning the party’s nomination in 2024, 2028 and further down the line become lower and lower.

The Democratic Party base is now openly hostile to straight white males, and it will get worse with each passing year.

The Democratic Party is finally in line with Bernie Sanders’ views as far as socialism goes, but unfortunately for Bernie the Dem Party has also decided that straight white males are the Great Satan.

It’s hard to see him–or any straight white male–winning the Democratic presidential nomination. And not just in 2020, but ever again.

Based Rush Limbaugh

This man has always kept it real. He’s been around for almost 30 years and has never shilled for the Establishment or virtue signaled for the approval of the left.

Rush Limbaugh simply gets it. Always has, always will. This is because he actually values the input of his listeners. He never allowed himself to get too big to the point where he stopped caring about what the Regular Americans who listen to him think.

Rush is the biggest name in Republican politics outside of Donald J. Trump and the reason Rush is still deeply in-tune with the Party Base. Because Rush actually respects them and cares about what they care about.

Look at what Rush said this weekend:

“On this weekend’s broadcast of “Fox News Sunday,” nationally syndicated conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh said President Donald Trump was right to declare a national emergency on the U.S.-Mexico border to build a wall.

Limbaugh, “We have an emergency. This is an invasion. The very existence and definition of American culture, American society, the rule of law. Why does nobody talk about the fact that millions and millions and millions of people are breaking the law coming here illegally and that the Democrat Party wants that to happen?”

He added, “It is undeniable that we have a major immigration problem and a political party that needs a permanent underclass of voters that wants that parade of illegal people who are uneducated, don’t even speak the language, they want them here. It is a crisis.”

Importantly, Rush sees the “big picture” on immigration: it’s not just about crime and drugs. It’s about preserving American culture. It’s about keeping America American.

He knows that the real national emergency is the demographic transformation of America into a third-world, Elysium-style hellhole.

Who is Really Under Siege in America? Trump Supporters.

It’s become apparent in 2019 that whatever the “media”/ mainstream cultural consensus claims to be true of America, in reality the exact opposite is true. Specifically, its prevailing assumptions on which races, genders, sexual groups and religions face the most oppression represent the polar opposite of how things truly are.

For example, while the Uniparty Propaganda “media” says that black men like Jussie Smollett are endangered and under threat by white racists in Trump’s America, the real truth is just the opposite: it’s white Trump supporters who are more likely to be assaulted and harassed in public. See: Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Rand Paul, the teenaged Texas Trump supporter, etc. Breitbart’s John Nolte has compiled a list of 639 (and counting) incidents where Trump supporters were attacked or harassed in public–with the full approval and often encouragement of Democratic politicians like Maxine Waters and the “media.”

Meanwhile, the list of fake hate crimes against minorities numbers in the hundreds–and the site that kept track of them,, appears to have been taken offline:

Screen Shot 2019-02-18 at 2.08.37 PM.png

Fortunately, American Renaissance has a list of its own here.

The popular consensus is that Women Are #Oppressed in America but the reality is that there has never been a better time to be a woman in this country. If anything, there is a War On Men underway–and men are losing badly.

The bottom line is that whatever narrative the media is trying to sell you is almost certainly going to be the exact opposite of the truth.

As the Jussie Smollett fake attack unraveled over the weekend, this true story from Kentucky–which of course the “media” ignored–showed who’s truly in danger:

“BOWLING GREEN, Ky. (WBKO) — A Tennessee man is in jail after being accused of pulling a gun on a Sam’s Club customer Saturday.

According to the police report, officers were called to Sam’s Club due to a person with a gun.

According to the alleged victim Terry Pierce, a man pulled a gun on him because he was wearing a Make America Great Again (MAGA) hat.

“I have as much right to wear that hat and support my country and my president as he has not to,” said Pierce.

The police report confirms that the suspect, identified as James Phillips, admitted to flipping off Pierce and Pierce’s wife because of their hats.

Pierce tells 13 News that he was shopping with his wife when Phillips “Pulled a .40 caliber out and stuck it in my face, backed up and said, ‘It’s a good day for you to die.'”

How would you like to be a Trump supporter minding your own business doing a little weekend shopping at Sam’s Club when a rabid, deranged Democrat sticks a gun in your face and threatens to kill you because you’re wearing a MAGA hat?

There is real oppression and intolerance in this country: against Trump supporters.

The Jussie Smollett “Hate Crime” Was Completely Staged

As I predicted on this site the day the story originally broke, the Jussie Smollett “hate crime” was in fact a hoax orchestrated by Smollett himself:

On Saturday night, Chicago Police confirmed to PJ Media that the testimonies of two black men arrested in the case of Empire star Jussie Smollett have flipped the story. Rather than considering Smollett the victim of an attack, it appears that police may now see him as the perpetrator of a hoax.

“We can confirm that the information received from the individuals questioned by police earlier in the Empire case has in fact shifted the trajectory of the investigation,” Chicago Police chief communications officer Anthony Guglielmi told PJ Media. “We’ve reached out to the Empire cast member’s [sic] attorney to request a follow-up interview.”

Two law enforcement sources confirmed to CNN that police are considering the Jussie Smollett case a hoax. Police now think the two men they arrested last week — Olabinjo “Ola” Osundairo and his brother Abimbola “Abel” Osundairo — were paid by Smollett to attack him. Chicago Police believe the Empire star orchestrated the assault.

In America 2019, black people are so oppressed that they have to pay Nigerian guys $3500 to pose as Trump supporters and stage a hate crime.

That’s #SystemicRacism for ya.

The “media” was, of course, complicit, running with Smollett’s obviously bogus story and taking his claims at face value from the start.

Smollett’s fabrication allowed the “media” to further peddle the bogus narrative that America is experiencing a surge of racist hate crimes in the Era Of Trump. Look at them all “reporting” Smollett’s lies as if they were true:

Enemy of the people.

Trump’s Waterloo

I want to preface this post by saying that yes, this is certainly a pro-Trump blog, and that purely based on the alternatives, there’s just about nothing Trump could do that would turn me against him.

But this budget bill he’s about to sign into law is cancerous. It’s a monstrosity. It represents everything he claims to be against and perhaps the single-greatest betrayal of his supporters he could ever commit.

In all likelihood, it is Trump’s “Read my lips: No new taxes” moment–an instance where a President reneges on his central campaign promise, thereby demoralizing and alienating his base, probably for good.

But unlike taxes, which can be raised and lowered at any time, amnesty is forever. And that’s exactly what this budget bill is: amnesty.

A major the criticism of the bill is that “no one has read it,” and you often hear this phrase thrown around a lot. But it’s not accurate to say “no one has read it”–not with this bill, not with prior bills, not with Obamacare, etc.

Someone has read it. Hell, someone even wrote it. Probably quite a few people.

What “no one has read it” actually means is that a select few Uniparty Establishment Members of Congress wrote the bill and are hoping to hurry it through Congress and get it signed into law before its full, ugly details become widely known.

While we don’t know all of those details, what we do know so far is that this budget bill is the last thing this country needs right now.

In fact, it’s the complete opposite of what Trump’s supporters voted for, and which Trump has been fighting for these past few months.

Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) says the bill would actually weaken ICE and make the border less safe:

Here are some more specifics about the bill:

This is from Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL):

And it contains an amnesty provision that would cover over 1 million illegals:

It expands the chain migration program that has allowed millions to come into this country for no good reason:

The bill has far more money for “global health programs” than border security:

It’s a complete disaster.

Daniel Horowitz summarizes the five worst provisions of this horrendous bill:

“1) Less of a wall than even what Democrats already agreed to: Trump originally demanded $25 billion for the wall. Then he negotiated himself down to $5.6 billion. Democrats balked and only agreed to $1.6 billion. This bill calls it a day at $1.375 billion, enough to construct 55 miles. But it’s worse than that. This bill limits the president’s ability to construct “barriers” to just the Rio Grande Valley sector and only bollard fencing, not concrete walls of any kind. There’s no ability to adapt. Furthermore, section 231 prohibits construction even within the RGV in five locations that are either federal or state lands. Remember, the challenge with building a wall in Texas is that, unlike in other states, the feds need to navigate issues with private lands. The first place you’d construct fencing is on public lands, which are now prohibited. The national parks along the border have gotten so bad that park rangers are scared to travel alone in them.

2) Liberal local officials have veto power over wall: Actually, on second thought, it’s likely that not a single mile of fence will be built. Section 232(a) of this bill states that “prior to use of any funds made available by this Act for the construction of physical barriers” the Department of Homeland Security “shall confer and seek to reach mutual agreement regarding the design and alignment of physical barriers within that city.” With whom must the feds consult? “The local elected officials.” Now you can understand the brilliance of limiting the wall to the Rio Grande Valley. These are the most liberal counties on the border (thanks to demographics of open borders itself!), and there is practically no local official who supports the wall in these counties.

What are the consequences? This bill stipulates that “Such consultations shall continue until September 30, 2019 (or until agreement is reached, if earlier) and may be extended beyond that date by agreement of the parties, and no funds made available in this Act shall be used for such construction while consultations are continuing.” Thus, all the Beto O’Rourke type of politicians in that region have de facto veto power. There’s a reason why they didn’t authorize fencing in conservative counties like Cochise and Yuma in Arizona.

There will be no border wall.

“3) This bill contains a blatant amnesty for the worst cartel smugglers: Section 224(a) prohibits the deportation of anyone who is sponsoring an “unaccompanied” minor illegal alien – or who says they might sponsor a UAC, or lives in a household with a UAC, or a household that potentially might sponsor a UAC. It’s truly difficult to understate the betrayal behind this provision. One of the driving factors of the invasion is the misinterpretation of the UAC law. Under current law, Central American teenagers are only treated as refugees if they are A) a victim of “A severe form of trafficking” and B) have no relatives in the country. Yet almost all of them are self-trafficked by these very illegal relatives who are indeed present in the country. Rather than clamping down on this fleecing of the American people, the bill gives amnesty to the very people paying the cartels to invade us!”

You’re starting to notice a pattern here, right? Not only does this bill give us none of what we want, it gives us more of what we don’t want.

“We can call this the MS-13 Household Protection Act of 2019,” said Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies. “We know that 80 percent of the UAC sponsors are in the country illegally. The number of people this would protect would reach into the hundreds of thousands, if all of the household or potential household members are counted. ICE has estimated that 30-40 percent of the MS-13 members it has arrested in the last two years arrived as UACs. There is no reason to shield any of these individuals from deportation. After all, if the minor is living with family, they should no longer be considered unaccompanied anyway. If there are illegal aliens here who do not yet have a child here to serve as a deportation shield, this certainly is an incentive for them to make the arrangements to bring one.”

4) More funding to manage and induce the invasion rather than to deter it: While offering no new funding for ICE deportation agents or immigration judges to speed up asylum claims, as the president requested, this bill adds another $40 million for the Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program, which moves asylum seekers to facilities in the interior of the country, where they are usually released. Vaughan, who has studied interior immigration enforcement for decades, warned that “this bill will further expand and institutionalize the catch-and-release policies for those arriving illegally at the border from all over the world.”

This bill makes everything worse, flat-out.

What are the effects of the ATD program? “Most of these people have no intention of asking for asylum and know they don’t qualify for it, but are simply joining the illegal population, knowing it’s unlikely that they will be deported. The bill funds ‘case management’ staff to keep tabs on those who don’t abscond immediately, but no money for ICE officers to find and remove them. This is going to saddle the communities that have been forced to absorb these new arrivals with billions of dollars of future costs for schooling, health care, and other welfare services.”

At the same time, this bill reduces border detention beds from 49,060 to 40,520 rather than expanding them as Trump demanded. It contains no funding for more border agents. It offers $3.4 billion for refugee resettlement, more than last year’s record levels. Remember, much of the refugee program has been used not just for bringing in traditional refugees from overseas but to resettle the aforementioned Central American teenagers being self-trafficked through the border, empowering cartels, and taking advantage of us.

5) Doubling low-skilled workers: This bill (p. 1,161) doubles the number of H-2B non-agricultural, unskilled seasonal workers who will continue to be a public charge on America. This gives you a glimpse of what is driving this amnesty bill on the Republican side.

This is just a cursory glance through the bill. Taken together, these provisions will aggravate the criminal conspiracy of the cartels and continue the invasion. Just this week, 1,800 family units came in during one 24-hour period, a new record. The message of this bill is to come here and seek bogus asylum or to grab a kid and you and others will get amnesty. Plus, there are no wall or policy changes to mitigate these effects.

Moreover, this bill will likely override Trump’s executive powers because of the sneaky limitations on wall construction. This is the sort of omnibus bill that ensnared Reagan in Iran-Contra. Signing this bill will undermine his case for an emergency at the border both legally and politically.”

The one ostensible saving grace is said to be that Trump will declare a national emergency and start building the wall on his own after signing this bill, but get this: the budget bill actually contains language that would specifically restrict Trump from declaring a national emergency to build the wall:

“According to one of the country’s leading experts on national emergencies, it appears that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) can trigger a process that could require the GOP-controlled Senate to hold a vote on such a declaration by Trump — which would put Senate Republicans in a horrible political position.”

Do you have any faith whatsoever that the Senate GOP will vote to uphold Trump’s national emergency? The GOP-controlled Senate just passed this radioactive spending bill–it will not rubber-stamp Trump’s national emergency. Zero chance.

Ace of Spades further explains why this bill will prevent Trump from declaring a state of emergency:

“Furthermore, this scotches Trump’s (claimed) plan to do this by Emergency order, because legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by the President would supersede the vague general powers the President would claim under the various statutes concerning national emergencies.

The specific trumps the general. The general powers conferred by statute for emergency authorization would be limited by the quite-specific limitations in the very spending bill Trump is signing.

Trump would sign a piece of paper forbidding him to do that which he claims he will next do on his own authority.”

There will be no wall built under a state of emergency.

After he signed the last horrendous omnibus bill several months back, he promised he would never do it again.

And yet here he is preparing to do the same thing again.

I’m starting to wonder if maybe Trump should have left the immigration subject alone.

Not only does this budget bill not fund his wall, it actually contains a massive amnesty provision that will further screw Americans out of jobs, suppress wages, and continue the demographic transformation of this country that exclusively benefits Democrats.

In other words, Trump went into this budget battle demanding full funding for the wall, and he’s going to come out of the battle with no money for the wall and having signed a massive amnesty into law.

That’s how the Uniparty Establishment rolls: not only will they deny Trump what he wants, they will totally humiliate Trump and make him their bitch by also having him give them what they want against the wishes of Trump’s voters. The Uniparty’s message is this, “Your offer was border security and no amnesty. We’re going to give you amnesty and no border security, and there’s nothing you can do about it, you little bitch.”

It’s a complete humiliation. It seems personal. It seems like the Uniparty specifically tried to make this budget bill as bad as possible for Trump purely out of spite. They wanted to make an example out of him: this is what happens when you dare challenge Uniparty Consensus on immigration.

Consider the sheer audacity of the Uniparty in saying they’re not only going to deny Trump the wall and maintain the status quo on immigration, but they’re going to actually take this opportunity to push for amnesty and accelerate the demographic transformation of this country. It’s mind-boggling.

Not only is this a no-win for Trump and his supporters on immigration, it’s a major setback. This bill has us end up in a far worse place than we were before this shutdown battle even began.

Which is why I say I wonder if Trump would have been better off not even mentioning immigration at all: by making immigration his hill to die on with the shutdown, as well as the main issue during the campaign, Trump actually revealed immigration to be his biggest weakness. The Uniparty knows immigration is the one issue that will completely demoralize Trump’s supporters if Trump doesn’t deliver on it.

Simply agreeing to leave the immigration status quo alone might have given the Uniparty less incentive to seek out Trump’s total humiliation here. Because I feel like a major reason the Uniparty sought the ICE-weakening and amnesty provisions was purely to demoralize Trump’s supporters.

Just look at the despair among Trump supporters on social media: many feel like this is a complete betrayal by Trump, and they’re right. They’re ready to abandon ship, at least that’s what they’re saying.

The Uniparty not only wants to defeat Trump on immigration, it wants to force him to betray his supporters on immigration. “You’re not only going to fail to deliver on your promise to build the wall, you’re going to sign a massive amnesty into law.”

Maybe we should have never spoken up about immigration. The moment we dared say we wanted less immigration, our Uniparty Rulers responded, “You know what? Just because you said you want less immigration, we’re actually going to give you more. Because fuck you, that’s why.”

I’m starting to think the previous status quo would have been better. Why did we have to go and open our big mouths?

These are truly evil people we’re dealing with here.

It’s now becoming apparent that turning America into a third-world nation is the most sacred dogma of all for the Uniparty Establishment.

This spending bill is so bad it’s hard to process it all. I’m still trying to figure out how we got here. It all just happened so fast.

One minute we thought we might be getting the wall, now we learn Congress has put together a bill that basically codifies OPEN BORDERS FOREVER into law and Trump is going to sign it.

President Trump, veto this monstrosity of a bill and at least go on record as having done all you could to oppose it. Even if your veto gets overridden (which it will), at least you tried. I guess we can take solace in that.

They say Congress can’t agree on anything and that bipartisanship is dead, but it sure seems like Congress can agree on one thing: flooding America with third-worlders.

As I said above, there’s just about nothing Trump could do to make me abandon him. Where am I going to turn? What’s the alternative? John Kasich?

The Democrats?

There is no alternative to Trump. He’s still far and away the best we have.

That said, two years in, it’s become abundantly clear: the Swamp will never be drained. It cannot be drained. Trump is one measly President against all of Washington.

He has no allies in Congress. His White House is filled with Establishment careerists who constantly steer him toward their ends and away from those of his base.

Look at this: “Trump’s aides fret he won’t sign the bill”

Trump is surrounded by people who are actively trying to undermine his agenda. That headline tells you everything you need to know about Trump’s “aides.”

Election Night 2016 was the high point. It proved one thing: an outsider can win the presidency. The people can still vote.

But since election night 2016, only one thing has been proven: even if you elect an outsider, the Swamp is just too powerful. Voting doesn’t mean shit. The only thing Trump’s presidency has proven is how small and powerless a President can be in the face of the full might of the Uniparty.

This is Trump’s Waterloo moment. In getting him to agree to not only no border wall but to actually accelerate the demographic transformation of this country, the Uniparty Swamp has in all likelihood just dealt Trump a mortal blow.

Failure, his supporters can understand and forgive. But not betrayal.

Last month’s shutdown was for Trump analogous to Napoleon escaping exile on Elba and returning to France. Just when you thought Napoleon was gone and finished, he returns,  rallies an army and retakes power. Just when you thought Trump was finished, he shuts down the government for over a month and says he won’t budge until he gets a wall.

For a moment it almost seemed like we were going to win. It almost seemed like Trump was actually going to get the wall.

But of course, in the back of our minds, we all knew this was coming.

Just as Napoleon’s return to power was short-lived, so too was Trump’s defiance of the Swamp with the shutdown.

Because the iron law of American politics is this: the Swamp Always Wins.

The Deep State Is Real: McCabe Says DoJ Plotted to Overthrow Trump After Comey Firing

There is no omnipotent Deep State pulling the strings behind the scenes. Wherever would you get that ridiculous idea?

“Meetings were held at the Department of Justice on whether President Donald Trump should be removed from office with the 25th Amendment after the firing of former FBI Director James Comey, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe writes in a new book.

“There were meetings at the Justice Department at which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet could be brought together to remove the president of the United States under the 25th Amendment,” CBS News’ Scott Pelley said Thursday in a preview of his forthcoming interview with McCabe.

Pelley noted that these meetings were part of an extraordinary 8-day period after Comey’s firing in which Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein also suggested to senior FBI officials that he should wear a secret recording device in his meetings with Trump.

The 25th Amendment allows for the removal of the president of the United States if a majority of his Senate-confirmed cabinet believe he is no longer capable of discharging his duties while in office. Rosenstein reportedly speculated that he could convince at least two cabinet officials to sign on to a plan to oust Trump from office.”

Oh, and that story that broke a while back about Rod Rosenstein supposedly offering to wear a wire and then go talk to Trump? Which Rosenstein played off as a joke?

McCabe says that not only happened, but that Rosenstein was dead serious about it.

This is like something out of a movie. We now have the Deputy FBI Director (who became Acting FBI Director upon Comey’s firing) on record in his own book saying the Department of (In)justice held a meeting in which they not only discussed but actively planned to remove a sitting President.

Keep in mind that Andrew McCabe is not saying this to clear his conscience or to confess. Quite the opposite: he’s bragging.

Make no mistake about it: McCabe’s admissions here will be received among #Resistance and Uniparty Establishment circles as heroic. McCabe will be painted as a martyr who valiantly tried, but ultimately failed, to Save The Nation From Trump.

Despite McCabe’s noble efforts, Fuhrer Trump ultimately clung to power.

That’s how the #Resistance and Uniparty Establishment views this admission.

They don’t fear a rogue, unelected Deep State attempting to overthrow the duly elected President because they are all part of the rogue, unelected Deep State.