YALE Study: White Libs Talk Down to Black People Because they Think Black People Are Inferior

#Science, bitchez:

“A new study suggests that white Americans who hold liberal socio-political views use language that makes them appear less competent in an effort to get along with racial minorities.”

In other words, they dumb themselves down because they assume black people are mentally inferior and cannot comprehend intelligent words.

“According to new research by Cydney Dupree, assistant professor of organizational behavior at Yale SOM, white liberals tend to downplay their own verbal competence in exchanges with racial minorities, compared to how other white Americans act in such exchanges. The study is scheduled for publication in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.”

“Compared to how other white Americans act in such exchanges” = in contrast to non-liberals, i.e. conservatives and moderates.

“Dupree and her co-author, Susan Fiske of Princeton University, began by analyzing the words used in campaign speeches delivered by Democratic and Republican presidential candidates to different audiences over the years. They scanned 74 speeches delivered by white candidates over a 25-year period. Approximately half were addressed to mostly-minority audiences—at a Hispanic small business roundtable discussion or a black church, for example. They then paired each speech delivered to a mostly-minority audience with a comparable speech delivered at a mostly-white audience—at a mostly-white church or university, for example. The researchers analyzed the text of these speeches for two measures: words related to competence (that is, words about ability or status, such as “assertive” or “competitive”) and words related to warmth (that is, words about friendliness, such as “supportive” and “compassionate”). 

The team found that Democratic candidates used fewer competence-related words in speeches delivered to mostly minority audiences than they did in speeches delivered to mostly white audiences. The difference wasn’t statistically significant in speeches by Republican candidates, though “it was harder to find speeches from Republicans delivered to minority audiences,” Dupree notes. There was no difference in Democrats’ or Republicans’ usage of words related to warmth. “It was really surprising to see that for nearly three decades, Democratic presidential candidates have been engaging in this predicted behavior.” 

The researchers didn’t stop with politicians. They even studied everyday white liberals, just normal people in day-to-day situations:

“They designed a series of experiments in which white participants were asked to respond to a hypothetical or presumed-real interaction partner. For half of these participants, their partner was given a stereotypically white name (such as “Emily”); for the other half, their partner was given a stereotypically black name (such as “Lakisha”). Participants were asked to select from a list of words for an email to their partner. For some studies, this email was for a work-related task; for others, this email was simply to introduce themselves. Each word had been previously scored on how warm or competent it appears. The word “sad,” for example, scored low for both warmth and competence. “Melancholy,” on the other hand, scored high for competence and low on warmth.

Here’s the key finding:

The researchers found that liberal individuals were less likely to use words that would make them appear highly competent when the person they were addressing was presumed to be black rather than white. No significant differences were seen in the word selection of conservatives based on the presumed race of their partner. “It was kind of an unpleasant surprise to see this subtle but persistent effect,” Dupree says. “Even if it’s ultimately well-intentioned, it could be seen as patronizing.”

Dupree and Fiske suspect that the behavior stems from a liberal person’s desire to connect with other races. One possible reason for the “competence downshift,” as the authors describe it, is that, regardless of race, people tend to downplay their competence when they want to appear likeable and friendly. But it’s also possible that “this is happening because people are using common stereotypes in an effort to get along,” Dupree says.”

So when white liberals talk to black people, they just automatically assume black people are dumb and can’t handle Big Words.

White liberals have the Savior Complex. They believe minorities are so incompetent and inferior and stunted that they require benevolent white liberals to get by.

Most conservatives are probably not surprised at all by this, of course. I’ve been saying for a while that white liberals, with their “soft bigotry of low expectations,” are the most racist people of all.

White liberals don’t view minorities as equals. It’s technically a white supremacist mindset, but in their view it’s different because they feel bad about it.

Black conservatives like Walter Williams have been pointing this out for years:

“Andrew Kenny says that whites treat blacks like animals. When a dog misbehaves, we don’t blame the dog; we blame the owner for improper training. In Africa, when blacks behave badly, Kenny says colonialism, imperialism, apartheid, globalization or multi-nationalism is blamed for not bringing up blacks properly. Liberals saw South Africa’s, apartheid and other human rights abuses as unjust because blacks were suffering at the hands of whites. They hold whites accountable to civilized standards of behavior. Blacks are not held to civilized standards of behavior. From the liberal’s point of view it might even be racist to expect blacks to adhere to civilized standards of behavior.”

Interestingly enough, the Yale Study was published on November 15, almost two weeks ago. Are you surprised you’re only now hearing about it, and that the Democratic media basically ignored it? Me neither.


On a somewhat related note, I’m sure you’ll enjoy this:


How Trump Can Convince White Dems like Schumer & Pelosi to Support the Border Wall

Yesterday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) spoke about negotiating with President Trump to fund the border wall:

Let’s hope the final figure ends up being closer to the $5 billion Trump wants, but overall it’s going to be like pulling teeth to get this wall funded given that we just lost the House. President Trump really needs to find a way to get through to these Democrats on the matter.

I’m no expert on negotiation, but I do know one thing about people: they will generally only work with you and cut a deal with you if it is in their best interest to do so.

This has been the defining problem for the immigration/border wall debate these past two years. President Trump needs Democrat support if we are ever going to get the border wall funded and built, given the fact that we lost the House and only have 53 of the required 60 votes in the Senate. The problem is that Democrats want more immigration–legal and illegal–because it works to their benefit. They get more votes and more cheap nannying/housekeeping.

On its face, it might seem completely impossible to get any Democrat support for the wall. But perhaps it’s not all that far-fetched.

See, white Democrats have for the past two decades been under the assumption that the “browning of America” will work only to their benefit. Their reasoning is that Hispanics vote overwhelmingly Democrat, and since the Hispanic share of the US population is increasing with each passing year, it will only continue to benefit them.

But then something happened this past summer, and I don’t think we really understand its full significance yet. I’m talking about when Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez defeated incumbent Democrat Rep. Joe Crowley in the primary. At the old Medium site, I wrote that it was a glimpse into the future of American politics in that the district went from majority white to majority nonwhite, and this demographic shift, rather than political “issues”, was the reason Crowley lost to Ocasio-Cortez.

Simply put, the majority-Hispanic district realized it didn’t have to keep voting for the old white guy anymore. They had the numbers to replace him with “one of their own”. And those aren’t my words, they’re Ocasio-Cortez’s words. Her campaign slogan was, “It’s time for one of us.” She’ll claim it means a “real person” from the neighborhood rather than an out of touch career politician, but what she really meant was a fellow Hispanic rather than some old white guy. Just look at her campaign poster:


You can see it right here at the bottom: “One of us/Una de las Nuestras.”

Joe Crowley even complained that Ocasio-Cortez was making the election about race:


Crowley realized what was happening. His exasperation showed when he was reported to have said, at a private event, “I can’t help that I was born white.”

He knew.

If you believe, as I and many others do, that democracy in a diverse society devolves into little more than a racial headcount, then what happened to Joe Crowley in the Bronx was not only unsurprising, but a sign of things to come.

This is the key to getting Democrat support for the wall.

The answer is to target white Democrats in majority-minority districts and appeal to their self-interest.

Point to Joe Crowley as Exhibit A that if we don’t get immigration under control, then white Democrats will be run out of power.

White Democrats believe that no matter how “brown” America gets, the “New Americans” will still keep voting for white Democrats. White Democrats, like the racists they are, believe they are entitled to nonwhite support (white Democrats have a serious Savior Complex generally) and will remain at the top of the pyramid indefinitely. They envision a party of nonwhite voters, but with white politicians (i.e. themselves):


Ocasio-Cortez has just shown us that is not going to be the case. The future will not resemble the pyramid model they envision. More majority-minority districts–and states–will come be represented not by white Democrats but by nonwhite Democrats.

Trump should say quite clearly to white Democrats like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi: “If we don’t get immigration under control, then what happened to Joe Crowley is going to happen to you, eventually.”

I really think they’ll listen to that.

Maybe more old white Dems need to go the way of Joe Crowley for them to really grasp what’s going on, but eventually they’ll understand.

At that point I think you’ll see white Democrats come around to the border wall and become more hawkish on immigration. They’ll realize it is in their self-interest.

Feminists Are Ruining Dating

This is just sad to read, from an Atlantic article by Kate Julian entitled “Why Are Young People Having So Little Sex?“:

“I mentioned to several of the people I interviewed for this piece that I’d met my husband in an elevator, in 2001. …I was fascinated by the extent to which this prompted other women to sigh and say that they’d just love to meet someone that way. And yet quite a few of them suggested that if a random guy started talking to them in an elevator, they would be weirded out. ‘Creeper! Get away from me,’ one woman imagined thinking. ‘Anytime we’re in silence, we look at our phones,” explained her friend, nodding.’”

Larry Kummer of Fabius Maximus adds on to that:

“Surveys, such as this by YouGov, show that large numbers of women consider normal introductory behavior to be sexual harassment. Twenty-eight percent of young women (age 18 to 24) consider paying her a complement to be harassment; twenty-eight percent consider winking at her to be harassment. Forty-eight consider placing your hand on a woman’s lower back to be harassment. Young men deal with young women, aware that a large fraction are primed to see them as predators.”

So these women want their prince charming to come along and sweep them off their feet out of nowhere, and yet they’re more likely to tell that potential prince charming to get lost than they are to swoon over him.

I wrote last week about the epidemic of porn addiction and how it is killing real-life sex. That’s something men are inflicting upon themselves (and women, by definition).

But this, right here, is a scourge that women are inflicting on themselves–and men, of course. Women have become caught up in a mass panic over men, and wouldn’t you know it, these women are finding it ain’t so easy to meet decent guys these days.

There’s this widespread perception in society that Every Man Is A Potential Rapist and, as the quote above points out, men are aware of it, and so go to great lengths to avoid being a “creeper”–and often that means just avoiding women altogether.

A lot of this has to do with the widespread belief in the false stat that 1 in 5 women are raped. So many women believe this, and act accordingly. They think that at any moment they could be raped.

But do you really think 1 in 5 women have been forcibly raped by a stranger? That is such a rare thing to happen, and yet we’re led to believe that it happens all the time, everywhere. But it doesn’t. Just think of all the women you know in your life and it becomes pretty clear almost immediately that the stat is a lie.

Crime statistics show that the rape rate in the US is about 0.5 out of every 1,000 people. Additionally, only 26% of rapes are done by strangers. Most rapes are carried out by people the victim knows: 38% of rapes are done by friends/acquaintances, 26% by current or former intimate partners, and the remaining 7% are by relatives.

The odds of being raped by a stranger are very low, but perceived by women to be very, very high. This is by design: feminists created the rape culture myth to ruin relations between men and women. Because women who are in healthy, traditional relationships with decent alpha males are highly unlikely to be hysterical and shrieking in the streets with pussyhats on their heads. Happy, satisfied women are the death of feminism.

Feminists need women miserable, unsatisfied, and alone. That’s how they become feminists. The single, mad-at-the-world, 30+ catlady is their ideal target.

As for men, feminists prefer them to be cowed, submissive betas, and for two reasons: one, because they’ll roll over on demand, and two, because they ultimately cannot satisfy their women, both physically and emotionally.

Even if we grant that many rapes go unreported, the rate is still not anywhere near 1 in 5. Christina Hoff Sommers (aka “Based Mom”) cites reputable studies that put the actual college campus rape rate (where there is said to be a “rape culture crisis” disproportionate to society at large) at 1 in 40, not 1 in 5.

It’s a full-time job debunking all these leftist lies. If we had an honest media worth anything, they’d be doing it, but unfortunately the media today is the source of the lies and misinformation.

MORE PREDICTABLE: Leftists Dishonestly Claim Border Patrol’s Use of Tear Gas is Hitler-style “Gassing”

They all just parrot the exact same shit over and over again:

You’ll start to notice a pattern here:

They’re all on the same page, as usual.


And here’s the particularly noxious Ben Rhodes:


Rhodes’ tweet is particularly rich given the fact that in 2013, the Obama administration, which he was working for at the time, did exactly what the Trump administration is doing today:


Did we hear any hysteria over the Obama Administration GASSING INNOCENT REFUGEES? No. In fact, we didn’t hear jack shit.

There’s a reason they’re all using the phrase “gassing.”

We’ve all heard the phrase “gassing” before. It’s mostly used to describe how Hitler tried to exterminate the Jews–he “gassed them.”

And back in 2003 in an effort to sell the Iraq War, proponents reminded us that Saddam Hussein was an evil man who “gassed the Kurds.”

So it’s no wonder leftists are trying to say Trump is “gassing” the migrant caravan.

It’s really quite something to see them all using the same phrase:


Some of them aren’t just implying THIS IS EXACTLY LIKE HITLER!!!11!! Some are just outright saying it:

To these mendacious pieces of work, there’s no difference between using non-lethal tear gas to disperse rock-throwing invading hordes and using lethal gas to systematically exterminate a race of people detained in death camps.

Keeping up with their dishonesty is a full-time job.

The New Left


The old left used to be about the working class and the poor. That was the FDR coalition which persisted for decades.

Now the Democratic Party is about getting lower income minorities to vote for a party that primarily caters to upper class urban white liberals.

PREDICTABLE: Democratic Media Trying to Guilt Nation into Accepting Open Borders with Emotional Image

They did it with the “refugee crisis” in 2015 with the drowned Syrian boy. They tried it earlier this year with the crying migrant girl, as well as the “kids in cages“.

The lefty media consistently tries to guilt you into supporting open borders by waving “heartwrenching” photos of distressed migrants in front of your face.

Now the media has is using the above photo as its latest prop to advocate for abolishing the US border.

And they are all using it:

CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post, CBS, NBC.

The supposed “mainstream” media is pure Democratic Party Propaganda.

“Looks like we have to get rid of our borders because of a photo.”

Fuck off. We will not be emotionally blackmailed by the Fake News Media.


Because all illegal immigrants are saints.

And have you noticed that lately, the Dems have just said “fuck it” and are now calling everyone in the caravan “refugees”?

Their 2019 Newspeak dictionary has changed “undocumented immigrant” to simply “refugee” because the term “refugee” evokes sympathy.

Let in the refugees! They’re all fleeing misery and evil! 

Classifying all prospective immigrants as refugees works to the left’s benefit because we have the moral imperative to take in refugees.

Even though the “refugees” were offered asylum in Mexico and said, “Nah, fuck that, we want to go to America to get all that awesome welfare and bang those sexy American chicks.”

Not very refugee-like behavior. It would be like if someone got sick and demanded to be rushed to the hospital, but upon arriving they said, “I don’t like this hospital. I want to go to a different one.”

White Americans: It’s OK to Want to Remain the Majority

So many traditional conservatives–or “Old Right” conservatives, Reagan conservatives–insist that they only oppose illegal immigration. They claim they have no problem with legal migration and in fact want more of it. Here’s an example, James Woods, who I usually like and who seems to really “get it” for the most part:

Making legal immigration easier? Why?

It’s definitely not because more immigrants will benefit the GOP electorally.

Because “Diversity is our strength”? I figured Woods would be too smart to believe that nonsense. But maybe not.

I really think a lot of the pre-Trump Republicans have been trained to take “Diversity is our strength” as an article of faith in our new national religion of secular globalism, or have at least been scared into accepting it by the threat of being called a racist.

My theory is that many Republicans who supported PC globalist candidates like Bush, McCain, Romney and even Reagan (I know he’s the Sacred Cow of all Sacred Cows on the right but the fact is, he signed a massive amnesty bill in 1986 and got no border security in exchange) deluded themselves into believing this “Diversity is our strength” nonsense to rationalize their candidates’ support for open borders.

Of course, the candidates themselves supported open borders and increased immigration simply because their big business donors and allies wanted the cheap labor. There is little else to it from their perspective.

But in order to avoid the cognitive dissonance that would come from supporting GOP candidates who were in favor of the demographic transformation of America from a predominantly White Christian nation into a “diverse” collection of competing and non-assimilating tribes, Republican voters had to come up with some reassuring lie to tell themselves. The truth was too difficult to handle.

It’s really hard to admit that your party’s nominees aren’t actually on your side. The ramifications of that are too depressing to contemplate: either you have to switch parties, which is out of the question, or you have to admit that neither party is actually on your side and the political system is totally corrupt and broken, which is an incredibly bleak reality for people to reckon with.

So in order to keep on pretending they weren’t powerless, in their minds they told themselves that Romney, Bush, McCain and Reagan weren’t actually selling out the country by supporting open borders and amnesty. No, they were just trying to give us more Diversity, which we all know Is Our Strength.

Yes, that’s it! The reason the GOP didn’t offer a serious immigration restrictionist option until Donald Trump (a candidate the party Establishment famously resisted and still resists to this day) was not because the party was in hopelessly thrall to rootless corporations seeking cheap labor, but rather because Diversity Is Our Strength and everyone agrees!

The debate was over, the science was settled, there were no other options available for you to choose from. Candidate A wants more Diversity, and so do Candidates B, C, D, and E. We don’t have the option to vote against Diversity because Diversity is awesome as hell and everyone agrees.

That was what most Republicans told themselves prior to Trump. Because their only options were to delude themselves or abandon the party, which was not feasible.

Another part of the reassuring lie about diversity was that many immigrants would be “natural conservatives.” Or that they’d be voting Republican once they reached the middle class and achieved the American Dream.

We were also assured that it’s a racist conspiracy theory to suggest even one American in the history of this nation has ever had his job taken by an immigrant, or that even one nickel of government welfare has ever gone to an immigrant. And we were also informed that immigrants never ever commit crimes and in fact make us all safer because apparently they’re all more civilized than us barbaric Americans (who immigrants for some reason want to live among.)

But now that Trump has come along, Republicans no longer have to delude themselves about immigration.

So let’s be honest here: what’s the real reason above all else we oppose mass immigration? Because we oppose the demographic transformation of our country.

Yes, I know, we’ll all say illegal immigration is bad because it costs Americans jobs, increases crime, costs the government money in welfare and healthcare, and it’s a pipeline for horrible drugs. Those are all valid reasons.

But what’s the real reason, above all? You know what it is. You’re just afraid to say it because the media will scream RACIST!!! But let’s be honest:

I don’t want to become a minority. You don’t want to become a minority.

White people are not allowed to want to remain the majority in this country. Democrats have them trained to believe they’re Bad People for wanting to remain the majority.

But it’s not wrong, or evil, or racist. Don’t ever let anyone tell you otherwise.

If it’s racist for us to want to remain the majority, then why isn’t it racist for nonwhites to want to become the majority?

Why isn’t it racist for Dems to deliberately pursue policies that decrease the white population in this country?

Both sides want to be the majority, but only one side is called racist for it. This is entirely by design.

If Republicans were importing immigrants that voted 80% Republican, you can bet your ass Democrats would be howling in objection and demanding a halt to immigration. You and I both know they wouldn’t be biting their tongues out of fear of being called racists.

But for some reason Reagan/Bush Conservatives have trained themselves to not say anything about the fact that the Dems are importing scores of future Dem voters under the guise of a “multicultural” and compassionate immigration policy.

“Wouldn’t want to give anyone the impression that we’re Racists!”

The real reason we want to get tough on immigration is to slow or even stop the demographic transformation of our country. And to do that it takes more than just ending illegal immigration. We have to make demographic preservation a priority of our immigration policy.

That sounds hard to read. You’re wincing and uncomfortable because you’ve been told over and over that That’s Racist. You’ve been trained to believe that whites acting in their own self-interest will lead to another Nazi holocaust. That’s by design.

But understand this: Democrats have made the demographic replacement of white people a priority of their immigration policy.

And they’ve been succeeding, too, because Republicans have offered little to no resistance up to this point because they’re afraid of being called racists.


For virtually all of American history, America was ~85% white, 13% black and 2% other. Then, after Ted Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration reform, the white percentage began shrinking, the black percentage stayed the same and we added categories for Hispanic and Asian, both of which began to grow significantly. Today America is ~62% white, 13% black, 16% Hispanic, 5% Asian and 4% other/mixed.

The demographic transformation ushered in by the 1965 law was deliberate, and it is not racist at all to oppose it. White people are allowed to oppose the Democrats’ deliberate effort to phase them out.

Now, I don’t think Teddy Kennedy initially intended to turn America into a third world hellhole by importing people from third world hellholes. I think his motivation was an overly idealistic, pie-in-the-sky, multiculturalist fantasy. I think back in the 60s, leftists really did believe all that shit about Cultural Enrichment and the Melting Pot, or maybe they just wanted some more foreign cuisine options around town.

I don’t think their initial goal was malicious demographic replacement, and this is because they had no serious reason to seek it in 1965. They had just won the 1964 Presidential election in a landslide and had also won in 1960. They lost in 1956 and 1952, but prior to that they had won five straight elections from 1932 to 1948. The Democratic coalition was strong. I don’t think Dems in 1965 were thinking, “Shit, we’d better import a new electorate or we’re never gonna win again.”

I believe it took them a while to realize that if they were going to win consistently and turn this country into a socialist hellhole (or, in their eyes, a utopia), they’d have to import a new electorate. They probably didn’t realize this until the 1990s when California went permanently blue due to mass Hispanic Immigration. That was when they realized that changing the demographics of this country could one day ensure them a permanent hold on power.

California, believe it or not, was a solidly Republican state for decades prior to 1992. Presidents Reagan and Nixon both hailed from California, and the state voted for the Republican Presidential candidate in every election but one between 1952-1988 (1964).

But now, California has not voted Republican since 1988 and probably never will again, and the reason is immigration. The state has been completely transformed.

Today California’s population is nearly one third foreign born, up from 21.7% in 1990. The state was 19% Hispanic in 1980, today it is over 40%. Hispanics represent the largest racial group in California. It is not a coincidence that over that time, California went from a reliably red state to a deep blue one.

Unless we get a handle on immigration, what has happened in California is what will happen nationwide. When white people became a minority in California, the state became permanently blue. The same will happen to the country at large when white people become a minority sometime in the next 25 years.

I’m not saying end all immigration. I’m saying we should end all illegal immigration and dramatically reform legal immigration by cutting the numbers of legal immigrants and changing the countries of origin away from the “diversity lottery” system.

We need to move away from “diversity” and instead towards cultural fit and merit. We shouldn’t be importing people from, say, Eritrea just because America needs more diversity and representation from every country. There is nothing inherently desirable about having people from a wide array of ethnic and national backgrounds, yet that assumption has been the foundation of our immigration policy since 1965.

We should be importing people who have something to offer and will enrich our country. A surgeon from Denmark will make a much better immigrant than a low-skilled worker from, say, Tajikistan.

Most Europeans have a decent grasp of English. I just came back from Germany and basically everyone speaks English. It was easy for me in Germany and it would be relatively easy for a German in America. We need people who are like this: they will be good linguistic and cultural fits. It’s not that much of a transition from Europe to America, and so Europeans make the best immigrants.

It’s not just “because Europeans are white”, either. There are lots of white people who wouldn’t and don’t make good immigrants, particularly Eastern Europeans.

So Republicans need to make a choice here: are we actually going to do something to try to stop the Democrats from phasing white people out as a racial group?

Or are we going to continue to delude ourselves and ignore it in exchange for the hope of not being called racists?

And the worst part is, every Republican knows the Democrats will call us racists no matter how hard we try to prove otherwise.

Basically the choice is: fight back on immigration, be slandered as Racists.

Or: don’t fight back on immigration, still be slandered as Racists anyway.

Twitter is Mass Purging Conservatives

Another one bites the dust: Jesse Kelly, I believe he writes at “The Resurgent,” has just been banned from Twitter. Why? Because he’s based, tells it like it is and gives no fucks. He’s an alpha male who skewers leftists on a daily basis. So of course he’s gotta go.

He’s the latest in a long line of prominent conservatives to be banned by Twitter:

This was the official reason (or lack thereof) Twitter gave Kelly:

“Multiple violations.”

“Please do not respond to this email.”

So they don’t even tell him what specifically he said, and then they tell him not to respond. You’re banned forever and that’s the end of it.

This is basically what Medium told me about my old website.

Pretty soon Twitter will be totally devoid of any decent Republican voices. The only “Republicans” left will be the Officially Approved Lapdog Republicans like Bill Kristol (who was recently revealed to be funded by a leftwing billionaire), Joe Scarborough, Max Boot and the other virtue signaling losers.

Twitter is enforcing the intolerant left’s cultural agenda. Social media must be a sterile, conformist hive mind of bland, politically correct leftism. It must only be hospitable for NPCs.

You will be free to discuss any topic so long as you follow the official rules.

“Refugees welcome!”

“Gender is a social construct.”

“Colin Kaepernick is a hero.”

“Orange Man Bad!”

“Did you see SNL last night?”


Big tech companies are officially the foremost threats to free speech in America. The government doesn’t have shit on Twitter, Facebook and Google.

And if you think it’s bad now, just wait until the next Democrat President, when they’re all on the same side!