President Obama’s historic election in 2008 seemed like it could be a turning point for America. He campaigned and was elected on a platform to end income inequality, racial inequality, aggressive military policies, and trampling of individual rights in the US. Unfortunately, he failed on every one of these measures.
Here is our list of the top 5 reasons Obama is the worst president in history.
Guantanamo Bay detention camp
Obama made several pledges to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay during his campaign for president in 2008 calling it “a sad chapter in American history”. To this day, the facility remain in operation.
Obama campaigned on opposition to former President Bush’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Afghanistan was began on October 7th 2001, and the US handed the country over to NATO Peacekeepers on August 11th, 2003. (America remained only as support for the NATO Peacekeepers.
On December 1st, 2009, President Obama announces a troop “surge” into Afghanistan returning American troops to major combat operations. In 2016, the US still has a heavy military presence in Afghanistan.
March 20th, 2003, the US invasion of Iraq began. By May 1st, the Iraqi Government had fallen, and a coalition government was formed by August. The Iraq insurgency caused continuing military operations in Iraq for many more years.
In November 2008, the The U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement, between President G.W. Bush and the democratically elected Iraqi government stipulated all US troops would leave Iraq by 2011.
While campaigning for president in 2007, Obama said: “No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime, no more tracking citizens…”. Obama also said that mass surveillance of the American people put “forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide.” Things changed once he became president however. In 2013, after news broke that the US government was collecting and monitoring all Americans cell phone date (including numbers called, and GPS locations and time stamps), The Obama administration released a statement saying the blanket, unwarranted surveillance of American citizens was a “critical tool in protecting the nation from terror threats” and that “[t]he president welcomes a discussion of the trade-offs between security and civil liberties.”
Although it seems as if president Obama is saying that these sacrifices of personal liberty are necessary to preserve our safety, terrorist attacks are on the rise. many would argue that it is president Obama’s very policies that have allowed more, deadlier, and more frequent terrorists attacks to occur.
For many of us, the 2008 election of President Obama seemed to symbolize the end of racism in America. It was proof that we, as a people, had overcome this stain on our nation. As someone who grew up in the 1980’s and 90’s, I felt that I had seen race relations steadily improving through the late 90’s and early 2000’s, and that the election of a black president was a symbolic victory over racism in this country.
However, since the election of President Obama, race relations have nose dived. This country, racially, is in far worse shape then it was when I was a child in the 1980’s or any time since.
A Rasmussen poll early this year showed that 50% of Americans think race relation are getting worse, and only 20% think they are getting better.
The National debt in 2008 (the last year of President Bush’s term) was $10,024,724,896,912.49.When Bush took office, the debt was $5,674,178,209,886.86. This means that G.W. Bush raised the US National Debt $4,350,546,687,025,83. In 2016 it has ballooned to $18,825,061,664,535.94. This means that President Obama raised the National debt $8,801,736,767,623.45. That is more then double what GW Bush did. Think about that. Under Bush, many people complained of insane government spending to fund 2 unpopular wars and the expansion of the surveillance state. Obama doubled that spending yet still cut benefits to the American people.
economic growth rate
The Bureau of Economic Analysis has calculated the GDP since 1929. In that time, there has never been a time where the GDP has not gone over 3% during a 10 year stretch until President Obama. In 2006, under President Bush, the GDP slipped to 2.7%. It has not gone above that since. In 2016, Bloomberg reported that the first quarter had a GDP of 0.5%. (Under President Bush, the media started saying we were in a recession when the GDP slowed to a 2.3% growth… The economy is far worse now.
While the Obama administration likes to claim that it is doing good on the unemployment rate, the truth is otherwise. The administration claims a 4.7% unemployment rate. However they are using the U-3 unemployment numbers which doesn’t included a lot of people that are unemployed. Using the U-6 numbers, the unemployment numbers are at 9.7%. This is still far higher then pre-recession numbers.
% of Americans on public assistance
Forbes has reported that more then half of the country is now receiving taxpayer funded government subsidies. There is a theory that the only way to turn a democratic society to socialism is to make things so bad for the majority of people, that they demand socialism.
Growth of economic divide
President Obama has been at the forefront of slamming the top “1%” in this country, but according to Huffington Post (usually a cheerleader for the Obama administration) “the top 1 percent of U.S. earners captured 93 percent of all the income growth in the country” during Obama’s Presidency. This is a huge increase from the 65% of income growth that the 1% gained under former president Bush. The New York Times states “Income inequality in the United States has been growing for decades, but the trend appears to have accelerated during the Obama administration. ”
Did we miss anything? Do you disagree? This is why we think Obama is the worst president in history, let us know what you think in the comments below.
The terrorist attack on the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando Florida on June 12th, 2016 was a horrible act of violence perpetrated against innocent people. I think we can all agree on that. But the more I read about what happened, the more things don’t seem to add up.
Let’s start with the official story. Just before closing time, American born 29 year old Omar Mateen entered a LGBT nightclub in Orlando and began killing people. Armed with an “assault rifle” and a handgun, Mateen killed 49 people, and injured 53 more. After a 3 hour standoff, Orlando police crashed through a wall and engaged Mateen in a gunfight some have called a “hail of bullets”. Sateen was killed. Sateen is said to have acted alone.
Was He a Jihadist?
President Obama has said “We know enough to say this was an act of terror and act of hate,”. Mateen’s parents, who are from Afghanistan, said he’d expressed outrage after seeing two men kiss in Miami. They also say that they didn’t consider him particularly religious.
So it would seem that this was just a lone, crazy man with access to guns and a hatred of homosexuals… It just doesn’t add up.
NBC has been trying to claim that Mateen was a hateful, racist, bigot, and not a religious person at all. Yet many people who were inside the club have stated that Mateen tried to not hit black people and one person has said that Mateen “I don’t have a problem with Black people” and another victim claims she was spared because she was Black and that Mateen said to her “Black people have suffered enough”. The victim goes on to say that Mateen said “This is about my country.” Was he speaking of Afghanistan? Some of the victims, as we have seen, were indeed Black, but we do also know that at least two of them were in the bathroom where Mateen eventually engaged Police Officers, and that the NY Post has hinted that some of the victims may have fallen to “Friendly Fire”. One of the victims in that bathroom, Akyra Murray, was said (by her friend) to have been shot once in the arm. She latter died from her injuries. Was she hit additional times by “Friendly Fire”?
Just before the attacks began, Mateen called 911, and pledged allegiance to ISIS. And although the media is reporting “There has been no claim of responsibility for the attack on jihadi forums, but ISIS sympathizers have reacted by praising the attack on pro-Islamic State forums.”, other media reports say A message posted in Arabic on a dark web site associated with the ISIS news agency Amaq said “the armed attack that targeted a gay night club in the city of Orlando in the American state of Florida and that bore more than a 100 killed and wounded was carried out by an Islamic state fighter.”. That sounds like a claim of responsibility to me…
Reports are coming in that Mateen may have been a regular at gay bars in Orlando, and that he had a profile on a gay dating web site. So this seems to disrupt the narrative that he was a gay hating crazy lone gunman. Mateen’s father, Seddique Matten, (who made the claim that his son hated gay people) Has publicly stated his support for the Taliban in Afghanistan. Under the Taliban, Homosexuality was crime punishable by death. It seems clear that a man that supports a hardline religious government that advocates the death penalty for homosexuality would have instilled those same values in his son. He just wouldn’t admit that to the rest of us. Seddique Mateen had claimed he was running for president of Afghanistan, which made me think he was a nut case himself, until I found that he has actually had meetings with the State Department, and prominent congressman involved with foreign affairs (some reports say he had even met with President Obama).
Omar Mateen, seems to have been far more religious then the media reports want us to believe.While attending a barbecue in 2017, Mateen reported threatened to shoot everyone at the event after a piece of pork accidentally touched his hamburger. Mateen also reportedly claimed on social media that he wanted to be a “Martyr” for Islam. In addition, Mateen traveled to Saudi Arabia (another country that enforces the death penalty for homosexuality) in 2011, and 2012 for the Islamic pilgrimage to Mecca called Umrah. These do not seem like the actions of someone who is “not very religious”.
A spokesman for Saudi Arabia’s Interior tels @NBCNews Mateen performed Umrah (the lesser pilgrimage) twice, in 2011, 2012 #Orlando
Is it possible that Omar Mateen’s father claims that Mateen was not a practicing Muslim because he found out that he had experimented with homosexuality, and he then told his son that the only way he could make reparations to Allah for his sin was to commit the horrendous act we saw on June 12th? That is only speculation, but an interesting point.
What Happened in the Club Doesn’t Make Sense
The actual events that took place in the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando don’t make much sense as they are being reported. Omar Mateen fired off between 500 and 1,000 rounds while inside the club. There is no official number, but we can speculate based on the following information: 49 people were killed, and 53 people injured. Many of the killed and injured were struck multiple times with reports of survivors being hit 8, and 10 times. The shootout with the police that eventually ended the attack was said to be a “hail of bullets”. In a high stress combat situation, well trained troops often have a 20% accuracy rate. Omar Mateen was not highly trained.
The main weapon used by Omar Mateen was a Sig Sauer MCX. This weapon comes with a 20 or 30 round magazine, but takes a standard size magazine that has 50 round versions available. If he fired 1,000 rounds, then he would have had to have had 20 magazines, at a weight of 40 pounds, with him when he walked into the bar as well as a 30 inch long rifle. He would have had to reload 20 times, and if he was trained, it would take him 5 seconds to reload, ready the weapon and begin firing again. (that doesn’t take into account extra time needed to fumble through whatever he was carrying the magazines in in the dark.) Even if he was extremely accurate, he still would have had to reload 4 or 5 times in his initial attack.
In close quarters combat, and Sig Sauer MCX is a lousy weapon. The 2 and a half foot length makes it difficult to swing around and aim, and the .223 rounds he was using are not very effective. I spoke with an Army weapons trainer who explained to me the 5.56 (the military version of the .223) is designed to be a “non-lethal” round. A .223 round is the same size projectile as a .22 with the main difference being it has more powder, and is therefore more likely to just go straight through you. (whereas a .22 will likely loose momentum and tumble around inside of you.) Yet a .22 is considered by many to be a “toy gun”. I received my marksmanship merit badge in the Boy Scouts with a .22 rifle when I was 13 years old, and I owned a semi-automatic .22 rifle when I was 11 years old. Soldiers are trained to put 3 rounds of 5.56/.223 in someone’s chest to take them out of the fight without killing them. (this explains the survivors with multiple gunshot wounds). What this doesn’t explain is why no one seems to have fought back. No one hit him over the head with a bottle or a chair? No one was behind him, or to his side when he started shooting? No one saw him walking through the club with 40 pounds of ammo and a 30 inch rifle?
Could it be that Omar Mateen was not acting alone?
This former NYPD officer lays out a convincing argument as to why he suspects Omar Mateen was not the only shooter in the Pulse Nightclub. Here is a statement from someone who is reported to be an “eyewitness”. He claims that Mateen said he was the 4th shooter.
Another person who was in the club says he heard multiple guns going off at the same time, and that he is pretty sure there was more then one shooter. This witness also claims that the weapon used was fully automatic. Despite claims by the anti gun groups, this isn’t a modification that Mateen could have made to the weapon he is said to have been carrying.
This series of videos filmed by people outside the club, shows police engaged in a gun fight outside the club. Mateen was shot by police inside the club in a bathroom.
Whether Omar Mateen was acting alone inside the Pulse Nightclub, or if he had accomplices either protecting him, keeping people from escape, or actively participating in the shooting, we may never know because it doesn’t fit the mainstream narrative that Mateen was a crazy lone gunman.
Did Omar Mateen Have Help on the Outside?
Another issue with the Orlando terrorist attack that has been bothering me is the logistics of the actual attack. Within a week of the attack, Omar Mateen supposedly bought the two guns used and ammunition used in the attack. The MSRP for the Sig Sauer MCX is $1,866. A 50 round magazine for the MCX will cost about $50. 20 of those adds another $1,000 to the total. 1200 rounds of .223 ammo (in bulk) will cost another $500. A Glock 17 costs about $600. So we are over $4,000 in weapons purchased a week before the attack by Omar Mateen. Shouldn’t this have thrown up a red flag somewhere? Isn’t it odd that someone who works as a security guard would have an extra $4,000 laying around to buy weapons?
Mateen apparently tried to cover his tracks somewhat buy buying the weapons and ammunition at different stores. One gun store in Florida claims Mateen tried to purchase body armor and ammunition from their store. When they became suspicious of him, and refused, Mateen called someone and started arguing with them over the phone in Arabic. Is this evidence of an accomplice? The store owner says he called the FBI to report Mateen. It seems that the FBI (who are likely now in possession of Mateen’s phone) could go back to the date he visited that gun store, and figure out who he was speaking to.
What did the Government Know?
Seddique Mateen pictured with Rep. Ed Royce, Chairman of the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
And let’s talk about what the FBI did or did not know. The FBI interviewed Omar Mateen 3 separate times while investigating him for terrorism. Department of Homeland Security agent Philip Haney has stated that he was investigating terrorism links to not only the Mosque that Omar Mateen went to 3 times a week (3 times a week? didn’t they say he wasn’t very religious?), but also the Mosque that the San Bernardino shooters went to, as part of the same investigation. However, the investigation was shut down because the State Department (then run by Hillary Clinton) and the Obama administration believed it unfairly singled out Muslims. I can understand a concern for civil liberties violations, but after the San Bernardino attack, wouldn’t it have been prudent to re open that investigation?
Considering Omar Mateen worshiped at a Mosque that was under investigation for terrorism links, and considering that Omar Mateen himself had been investigated several times for terrorism, how then was Omar Mateen able to pass a federal background check for an armed security guard license? How was Omar Mateen able to pass a federal background check to work for a security company with national security contracts? How was Omar Mateen able to pass a federal background check to purchase weapons?
Did Omar Mateens father pull strings with his government contacts in the State Department to clear Omar Mateens background checks?
Did the Government Know Beforehand?
Is it possible that the government knew before hand that this was going to happen, yet they did nothing to stop it? This theory is not without precedent. Their is ample evidence the US Government knew the Pearl Harbor Attack that started WWII was imminent, yet did nothing to stop it. Some people think the same can be said about 9/11. Whether this knowledge fell on deaf ears because our leaders are inept, or because the government wanted the attacks to happen to push an agenda, we do not know. But Pearl Harbor did lead us into WWII, and 9/11 did lead us into war with Afghanistan and Iraq. Was the Orlando attack allowed to happen to push gun control on the American people?
Did The Government Plan It?
In the 1960’s, the US Government proposed Operation: Northwoods. The proposal included “False Flag” attacks, and orchestrating terrorist attacks in Florida to sway public opinion against the Cubans. President JFK rejected the proposal, but that doesn’t mean similar proposals haven’t been approved today. The simple fact that reports from inside the club seem to indicate the shooter (or shooters) were well trained military personnel, seem to back up this claim.
The problem with this theory is that the administration, and the mainstream media are trying to hard to force the events of the Orlando shooting into their agenda. They are telling us that this a hate crime against gays, and not a jihadi attack. They are telling us this is a lone nut job who had too easy access to firearms, when he was obviously surrounded by Islamic extremist sympathizers and enablers. If the government planned this attack, they would have picked a better patsy.
Did the Orlando Attack Even Happen?
There is an interesting theory that the entire Pulse Nightclub attack was an orchestrated, fictional event. The article linked above shows some very compelling video of what is obviously staged events of “victims” being carried away from the club. This clip that shows an “injured” club goer not only being carried to the club, instead of away from it, but being put down, and standing on his own when they think the camera is panned away is particularly damning.
However, I think this is more the result of news stations trying to have a better story then their counterparts. The reporters at the scene need good footage for the story so they ask people to “show us how you carried your friend out of the club”.
My Final Thoughts
I think the Pulse Nightclub Terrorist Attacks is a sad case of a troubled youth who may have had homosexual leanings but was brought up in a violent and oppressive religion. He was forced to hide who he was from his family and friends, and when they found out, he was forced to “make amends for his sins” by committing an atrocious act that their view of their religion demands.
I think our government and the mainstream media immediately tried to put a spin on this to further their own agenda to disarm the American people. They have distorted the facts to make this look like it was a “lone nut-job” who was a non practicing Muslim, was a racist, and hated gay people. They have made the villain not the man who committed the attack, nor the twisted version of Islam that his family and friends support, but his ability to purchase a weapon. Even though he should have (at the very least) been under surveillance for purchasing that weapon (hell, I’m probably under surveillance for all the things I searched on Google to write this article). As a result, we may never know who was pushing Omar Mateen to act, who was enabling him, and who may have been assisting him.
Where this horrific Islamic Terrorist Attack should have been used to bring light to the bigotry against the LGBT community from within the Islamic community, and maybe help drive the leaders who perpetrate that hate out of places of authority in the Muslim communities, it is instead being used to further divide our country. And that makes this tragedy even more tragic.
How can people claim that this attack has nothing to do with Islam when just weeks prior to the Pulse Nightclub Terrorist Attack, a Muslim Imam spoke in Orlando who has said that gay people must be killed out of compassion. Let us not forget the Muslim who tried to burn down a gay nightclub in Seattle in 2014. No one was injured, and the incident was written off as “homophobia”. Are we really going to ignore the simple fact that these people are under the influence of religious elders who tell them it is okay to kill gay people? Are we so afraid of being labeled “Islamaphobic” that we will ignore the calls but a large number of the Muslim community to kill gay people? Are we going to continue to ignore Islams role when people do what their Islamic leaders tell them to do?
I hear it every time there is another Islamic Terrorist killing people. “It is a fringe minority”. But is it really?
In America, murder is punishable by the death penalty. Not everyone in the USA agrees with the death penalty, but almost all of us agree that murder is bad. Pretty much, the only thing (other then murder) that can get you the death penalty in the USA is espionage, or treason. Some people are also against the death penalty for these acts, but most still agree that they are wrong.
I bring this up to demonstrate that it is fair to conclude that if a country, as a whole, has capital punishment (the death penalty) for a particular crime, then most people in that country likely believe that the offense is a crime.
Recently, a Muslim Scholar was recorded as saying that homosexuals need to die, and killing them is the compassionate thing to do. In a 2013 speech Sheikh Sekaleshfar said this regarding gays, “Death is the sentence. We know there’s nothing to be embarrassed about this, death is the sentence…We have to have that compassion for people, with homosexuals, it’s the same, out of compassion, let’s get rid of them now.”
What is even more disturbing is that this man was in the Orlando area speaking at a local Mosque weeks before this despicable act of terrorism took place.
I am all for free speech. People should be able to say whatever they want, however, it is the duty of everyone who doesn’t agree with that speech to not give those people a venue to express their toxic views. This vile person should not have been allowed to speak, much less invited to speak, at a Mosque (or any other venue) in the USA. This man, as well as all the people that supported his visit to central Florida are complicit in the horrendous act of terror that has happened in Orlando.
Of course, all of Islam does not follow this tenant. The Hanafite school of Islam (currently seen mainly in South and Eastern Asia) teaches that no physical punishment is warranted for homosexuality. Gay Imam Ludovic Mohammed Zahed (from France) says “Allah does not speak out against homosexuality in the Quran”. So it is clear that not all Muslims share this hatred of homosexuality. However, it is far more then a “Fringe Minority”. I feel that it is the responsibility of the more sensible Muslim leaders to constantly denounce the hate that is being spewed by the Muslims that promote hatred. When they do not, they are
Some people may claim that Christianity holds the same animosity toward homosexuals. This is not true. No Christian nation holds homosexuality as a crime punishable by death. Although there are fringe groups (like Westboro Baptist Church) that claim that “God Hates Fags”, it is clear from scripture that God doesn’t hate anyone. People who hold these beliefs are not following the teachings of Christ who said in John 13:14 “A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.”.
The Episcopal Church affirmed at the 1976 General Convention that homosexuals are “children of God” who deserve acceptance and pastoral care from the church and equal protection under the law.
The Catholic Church states in the Catechism of the Catholic Church “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible… They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”.
Anyone who makes the claim that their religious sect advocates violence against homosexuals is themselves an evil person who should be chastised and repudiated by the rest of the followers of their faith.And when entire nations promote such violence based off of religious ideologies, the should be expelled from the community of nations. There population should be denied the freedom to travel to other nations that do not share their views, and they should be denied aid by countries that do not share their views. (Of course, their should be exceptions for people who are fleeing the oppression of those regimes who denounce those beliefs).
To eliminate this behavior, it is necessary to isolate the people with these beliefs, and not let them co-mingle with humanity at large. And yes, that means we need to stop buying oil from Saudi Arabia. We need to stop vacationing to Dubai. We not to immediately stop giving hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to Nigeria.
By continuously supporting countries that advocate the death of homosexuals, both financially, and socially, we are, in effect, supporting the murder of homosexuals. This needs to stop.
The 2016 election season has shown that the people are tired of the status quo. The nation has woken up to the fact that our political parties are corrupt, and our “choices’ are chosen for us. The GOP was to ignorant to see the threat that Donald Trump posed to their plans. They wrote him off as a joke, as another Ron Paul. The GOP leaders thought Trump was a side show. But Trump’s marketing savvy toppled the plans of the Republican overlords, and it now looks like he will be the nominee. (If he isn’t, the Republicans will likely face a populist backlash that may spell the end of the “Grand Old Party”.
But what about the Democrats? Bernie Sanders was the Donald Trump of the Democratic ticket. He was supposed to be the fringe candidate. The campaigner who’s ideas were so far left, that he made the regular candidates look moderate. He wasn’t supposed to be a threat.
After all, everyone knows Socialism is bad. By it’s very definition, Socialism is the enemy of freedom. Socialism is the denial of the rights of the individual in favor of the betterment of society as a whole. Socialism is about submitting to the demands of the government.
How could groups like “Black Lives Matter” be pro Socialism? Socialism demands strict obedience to the law and the police that enforce it. How can the artists support Socialism? Socialism demands the giving up of free speech, and free expression in exchange for the social peace. Speaking out against corruption is not tolerated in Socialism. Deciding how you want to live is not tolerated in Socialism. Having your own thoughts is not tolerated in Socialism.
So how can the left support Socialism?
But this isn’t the 1900’s. The industrial revolution is over. The “worker” has no place left in society. Robots and AI are taking manufacturing jobs, domestic service jobs, and hospitality jobs. The working class sees a bleak future. Socialism gives them hope. People are willing to give up their freedom for a roof over their heads, for food, for security.
So Bernie Sanders support grew. The Democrats saw that the Republicans were to ignorant to stop the surge of populist revolt. The Democrats didn’t want to go down that road. So they devised a plan to steal the nomination.
The elitist who control both the Republican and Democrat parties have made a decision. “Let the populists have Trump as the GOP nominee, and we will elect Hillary Clinton”. In June of 2015, I predicted we would have another “Clinton vs Bush” election. It wouldn’t really matter who won, because Hillary and Jeb both took orders from the same people. But that all changed. Trump took the Republican nomination, so now the elites that run the country have only one option left, Hillary Clinton. They aren’t about to let Bernie Sanders ruin that.
So now the mainstream media is claiming Hillary is the “presumptive nominee”. Many people disagree because Hillary only has the required votes if you count super delegates (who don’t vote until the national convention). How did Hillary get these votes? There have been reports of rampant election fraud at many primaries including New York, Iowa, Puerto Rico, California, Kentucky, Nevada, and others.
And then there is the question of super delegates. Our system of representative democracy is based on the idea that we vote for someone to represent us in the actual voting. There are 4,051 of those “pledged” delegates. These are people who are supposed to vote in the manner laid out by their state convention (for example, South Dakota has 20 delegates, both Clinton and Sanders will get votes from 10 of them). Then there are 715 “super delegates”. These people vote for whomever they want to, not who the population wants. So who are these people?
According to Wikipedia, they are:
438 elected members (with 434 votes) from the Democratic National Committee (including the chairs and vice-chairs of each state’s Democratic Party)
20 distinguished party leaders (DPL), consisting of current and former presidents, current and former vice-presidents, former congressional leaders, and former DNC chairs
193 Democratic members of the United States House of Representatives (including non-voting delegates from DC and territories)
47 Democratic members of the United States Senate (including Washington, DC shadow senators)
21 Democratic governors (including territorial governors and the Mayor of the District of Columbia).
You can also see a full list of who these “super delegates” are, and who they have pledged to vote for by checking here.
Granted, people could sway the votes of the super delegates by writing their elected official and letting them know that they will note be re-elected to their post if they go against the popular vote… but we all know politics today, people vote on the party line no matter who the candidate is, or what they have done.
So Hillary stole the nomination, and she is now the candidate for the elite. She will steal the general election as well if she needs to, but realistically, all the Bernie supporters will now go into the Hillary camp even though Donald Trump is far more like Bernie Sanders then Hillary Clinton ever was. But Hillary has learned her lesson. Don’t be surprised if her new arsenal of lies includes Bernie’s talking points. She now knows what you want to hear. And above all else, Hillary Clinton is a politician. A corrupt, elitist, crony capitalist politician, but a politician none the less.
King Tutankhamun (more commonly known as King Tut) was an Egyptian Pharaoh that ruled Egypt from 1332 BC until 1323 BC. As Jon Manchip White writes, in his foreword to the 1977 edition of Carter’s The Discovery of the Tomb of Tutankhamun, “The pharaoh who in life was one of the least esteemed of Egypt’s Pharaohs has become in death the most renowned.” King Tut is best know from his tomb which was discovered mostly intact, and un looted, in 1923. Buried with him (and placed on his thigh) was an iron dagger with a golden handle and sheath and a crystal knob on the hilt that scientists are now claiming is extraterrestrial in origin.
King Tut was the son of famed Pharaoh Akhenaten (who some claim was an alien hybrid). Akhenaten was known as the Pharaoh that created monotheism when he changed the religion of Egypt from the worship of Amen (and numerous other gods) to the worship of Aten (the sun god). Akhenaten died in 1335 BC and was succeeded by his wife Nefertiti. Nefertiti was succeeded by Tutankhamun.
Tutankhamun was born Tutankhaten but changed his name to Tutankhamun after he reverted the theology of Egypt back to the worship of Amun (and his pantheon of gods), and forsaken the god of his father Akhenaten. Many believe that the young Pharaoh made the change under direction from his advisors, possibly under duress.
The dagger found with Tutankhamun was found, using non-invasive, portable X-ray fluorescence spectrometry, to contain a high percentages of nickel. This is consistent with meteoric iron. “The nickel and cobalt ratio in the dagger blade is consistent with that of iron meteorites that have preserved the primitive chondritic ratio during planetary differentiation in the early solar system,” researchers said.
There is something here that is bothering me. King Tut was died in 1323 BC. Modern archaeological evidence identifies the start of the iron age to be around 1200 BC, marking the end of the Bronze Age. Between 1200 BC and 1000 BC.
So King Tut had an expertly made iron dagger buried with him 132 years before the start of the Iron Age? Could it be that this dagger was made on another planet, and brought here by Tutankhamun’s alien grandparents? That the dagger was handed down to Akhenaten, and in turn handed down to Tutankhamun? That when Tut died, as the end of the Thutmosid royal line, the dagger was buried with him?
Maybe this dagger was a lesson from the aliens on how to smelt iron. A lesson, that over the next 132 year, would bring humans into the Iron Age.
Maybe I don’t know what I am talking about, but it seems strange that nobody thought to bring up the simple fact that a iron dagger was around 132 years before the dawn of the Iron Age. There are so many artifacts and inscriptions in Egyptology that are either ignored, or “altered” because they don’t fit the accepted timeline. Maybe it is time we rethink the timeline.
It is no secret the higher education in America is a joke. Our children today put themselves in insane amounts of debt for degree’s that are, in large part, useless. I received my degree in 1995, and quickly realized that all it was good for was entry level jobs that I could have obtained with nothing more then a high school education.
Now sure, things would have been different if I would have gotten a degree in something good like engineering, but I was young, and dumb and thought a degree (in anything) equaled a good job in the field the degree was for.
The truth is, you only really need a good degree for certain fields, and the rest of the degree’s offered by colleges and universities are not their to help you get a job, but instead are only their to help the university raise profits, and help you be more knowledgeable. This might be good if universities were affordable, but they are not.
Most people want a degree so they can get a good job that pays well enough for them to afford a home, and a decent lifestyle. For most of us, however, it cost more to go to college then it would to buy a home, and we spend so long trying to pay off those student loans that we can’t afford the house that we went to college to be able to afford.
So why does college cost so much? In 2016, tuition for one year at Yale costs $47,600.00 . When did the cost of an education get so high? In November of 1965, Yale raised it’s tuition to $1,950 per year. This made Yale the most expensive college in the US (tied with Princeton who raised their tuition to the same amount at the same time.) This was about a 10% increase for Yale. By 1970, the cost had ballooned another 25% to $2,550. By 1980, the cost had more then doubled to $6,210.
What caused these drastic increases in tuition? On November 8th 1965 (just 10 days before Yale raised it’s rates by 10%), President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Higher Education Act of 1965 as part of his “Great Society” domestic agenda. This act guaranteed low cost, government subsidized loans for students, and created a cash windfall for universities.
No longer did universities have to charge affordable rates for tuition in order to keep the halls of academia filled. Thank to government interference, these greedy universities could charge whatever they wanted to, and the government would unquestioningly hand out low cost loans to the young, impressionable students who wanted nothing more then a good education. Once again, we saw the ignorance of a well-intentioned liberal agenda corrupted by greed. We saw a law that was supposed to help educate the country be used to indebt the populace.
It truly is this very naïve idealism that looks to me to be the downfall of our society. People often want to pass laws that on the surface seem like a good idea. However, no one takes the time to see how these laws will really play out in practice.
We have seen this time and time again. When President Woodrow Wilson signed into law the Federal Revenue act in 1913, he created an income tax that was only supposed to tax the top 1% of earners in the US. (even in 1913 laws were passed to help the 99% and tax the 1%). The Revenue Act of 1913 stipulated that only people making over $20,000 per year (2010 equivalent of $374,000 per year) would pay tax, and even then it would only be at a rate of 1%.
In 1913, the American public was sold on the idea that the top 1% needed to pay their share. We passed an income tax that was supposed to only affect them, and indeed in 1913 less then 1% of the population had to pay the income tax. 100 years later, 85% of the population is paying a far higher income tax, and we are once again being told that the top 1% need to pay more… We’ve seen this game before.
But back to the original subject. A friend of mine recently tried to put forth the opinion that government cuts were the cause of the decline in the quality of higher education in America. He mentioned UC as a prime example of “death by a million cuts” (I am pretty sure this was supposed to be a reference to Lingchi the infamous Chinese execution method of death by 1,000 cuts.) A quick search into the UC financial reports (easily available online) show The UC system(as a non profit public school) made a net income of almost a million dollars last year. That is after paying over 6 million in salaries, giving out over 4 million in research grants, and donating over half a million to public service projects not to mention the 8 million it put into it’s medical centers. That doesn’t seem like “death by a million cuts” to me. But I get it… Imagine how much more they could do if we were to just give them more of our money…
I get it. Back when I was in high school and college (20 years ago), I was an anarchist. We had the cool music. The British had the Sex Pistols song “Anarchy in the UK” In America, we had the Megadeth cover of it, and the women had the Motley Crue version. Anarchy was cool.
We were rebelling against an oppressive government trying to force laws and rules on us that we thought were unnecessary, or just plain wrong. We didn’t need a bunch of old dude telling us what to do. We didn’t need to be governed. We could have a society that worked well without all the laws because we knew how to be decent human beings.
Eventually, I grew to realize that eliminating the government was not going to happen, so I became a Libertarian. If we couldn’t get rid of the government, at least we could make it as small as possible. Get it out of our lives.
Anarchists today have everything backward. They say we don’t need laws, and then they march, protest and riot proving exactly why we do need laws. They say the system is corrupt and oppressive, and then support making that system bigger, and more oppressive as a way to solve it being to big and oppressive. They say they don’t need to be told what to do, and that advocate socialism.
I think the problem is that they don’t understand what socialism is. When you ask an anarchist, a protestor, a Bernie Sanders support what socialism is, they usually have some answer like “It is when the government helps people”. This is wrong. Socialism is when the needs of society overrule the needs of the individual. So, yes, you get free college. You wanted a liberal arts degree? To bad, society needs more accountants. You want to live in California? To bad, we need those accountants in Nebraska. Socialism is giving up your rights as an individual to do what the government decides is best for society as a whole. You want to start a business in New York? To bad, the government things you need to pick cotton in South Carolina.
Socialism is every person is equally a slave to the government.
You can not be an anarchist and a socialist. Anyone who says they are simply does not understand the meaning of those terms.
Socialism thrives for equality by equally oppressing everyone. The proponents of todays socialism like to point to Denmark as a model socialist country. They will tell you how everything is free in Denmark, but they won’t tell you that the income tax rate in Denmark is 55.8%. Added to that is another 8% social security tax. This means that the average person in Denmark pays 63.8% of their income in taxes each week. On top of that, Denmark has a 25% federal sales tax. In America, we don’t have a federal sales tax (many states have sales tax, and it varies from state to state).
Of course, anyone with any knowledge of history can tell you that socialism fails. Look at England after WW2 (when it was illegal to quit your job. it was decreed by the Control of Engagement Order that “no man between the ages of 18 and 50, or woman between the ages of 18 and 40, can change occupations at will. The Minister of Labor has the power to direct such workers to the employment he considers best for the national interest.”). Look at NAZI (National Socialism) Germany, or Mussolini’s socialist Italy. Look at the USSR, Cuba or North Korea. Look what socialism has done to Venezuela today.
Anarchy is the ultimate freedom. It is rejecting government, and relying upon yourself. Socialism is slavery. It is submitting to government and expecting government to take care of you. Socialism is a pipe dream sold to ignorant, lazy people.
Merriam Webster dictionary defines hypocrisy as “behavior that does not agree with what someone claims to believe or feel”.
These days we see that hypocrisy everywhere. If you are a Christian baker, you are forced by the courts to bake a cake for homosexual weddings, even if it goes against your religious beliefs. If you are a Muslim cab driver, freedom of religion allows you to refuse to drive cabs with ads for a gay event.
We all know the story of Kim Davis who was arrested for refusing to give marriage licenses to gay couples, yet how many know about Charee Stanley the Muslim flight attendant that refused to serve alcoholic beverages?
“What this case comes down to is no one should have to choose between their career and religion and it’s incumbent upon employers to provide a safe environment where employees can feel they can practice their religion freely,” said Lena Masri, an attorney with Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
Progressives continue to applaud people like Bruce Springsteen for refusing to perform in North Carolina over opposition to religious laws in the state while attacking people like the Christian Florist for refusing to do floral arrangements for a gay wedding.
Religious Freedom that only applies to one religion is not Religious Freedom. The right to refuse service is invalid if only some people have that right.
Of course this go far beyond religious discrimination. Progressives claim Donald Trump is inciting violence, yet the only violence at Donald Trump rallies is from the progressives protesting him.
To talk about the hypocrisy of the leading progressive candidates deserves an article all it’s own, so here is one from the Washington Post, and another from the Huffington post about Hillary Clinton’s hypocrisy. Here is one from the National Review, and another from Western Journalism showing Bernie Sanders hypocrisy.
We are seeing the blatant hypocrisy of the progressives in cinema as well. We all know that Hollywood is a bastion for liberal ideologies, yet even they can’t escape the scorn of the social justice warrior.
Paramount pictures has come under fire for casting Scarlett Johansson in the live action American version of the Japanese anime Ghost in the Shell (even though the character she plays was obviously meant to be a representation of a Caucasian in the 1995 anime that was made in Japan… remember the blue eyes??? That is anime speak for “white person”)
Similarly, folks are starting to get upset that a Tibetan male character from the “Doctor Strange” comic books is being portrayed by Tilda Swinton (a British female) in the live action adaptation of Doctor Strange.
Yet, no one is upset that Akira Kurosawa’s landmark film Seven Samurai is being remade as an American western staring Denzel Washington. So I guess it is okay to “whitewash” a foreign film if you are using a minority cast. I mean, it was okay to change the race of the main characters in The Karate Kid, and Annie because you were replacing white people with black people. It is okay to change the genders of the characters in Ghostbuster because you are replacing men with women. It just isn’t okay to change gender or race if you are changing them into white people.
The blame for this progressive hypocrisy really comes from our nations universities. And who could expect anything less then hypocrisy to come from university students? UCLA recently reported that the average college freshman comes from a family with a median income 60% higher then the national average. Yes, you read that right. The average social justice warrior complaining about the rich people wrecking this country are coming from rich families. That seems like these social justice warriors are nothing more then sniveling little children rebelling against their parents success. Protesting the rich, while being the rich sounds a lot like “behavior that does not agree with what someone claims to believe or feel”.
We have all heard the talking points. “men make 20% more then women”. This seems plausible. American business was male dominated until the Women’s Lib movement in the 1960’s. Women entering the workforce at the time had a great many obstacles to overcome, and it seems logical that they still face some obstacles 50 years later. But do they? Let’s take a look at why there is a gender wage gap.
The “wage gap” that we all hear about is based on flawed data. The 20% number is arrived at by calculating end of year tax returns of “full time” employees. It does not take into effect variables such as hours worked, seniority, or career choices.
Full time is defined as over 30 hours per week. If you look at only people who work 40 hours a week, men only make 13% more then women. Conversely, if you look at just people who work between 30 and 34 hours per week, women make 9% more then men.
In many ways, most men build their identity around their jobs. They identify as their job title. They socialize at work. They build their self worth around their career. Many women, on the other hand, tend to separate their lives from their work. Their self worth isn’t dependent on their jobs, and their social circles exist outside their work life.
I don’t think one way is necessarily better then the other, but I do think the difference in the ways of thinking affects wages.
The next problem with the “wage gap” myth is that it lumps all workers together, regardless of vocation. It says “that male engineer makes more then that female social worker, and that isn’t fair”.
The top 10 paying jobs for masters degrees according to Monster.com are:
Physician Assistant Studies
The 5 worst paying Master’s Degree’s according to the same article are:
Library and Information Science
Does anyone else see the correlation here? 8 of the top 10 Master’s Degree programs chosen by women fall into the bottom 5 paying jobs you can get with a Master’s Degree. Meanwhile, 8 of the top Master’s Degree’s that men study for fall in the top 10 paying master’s degree’s.
Saying that the wage gap is unfair, and women deserve to be paid the same as men, is the same as saying a social worker (average pay $56,900 per year) deserves to paid the same as a mechanical engineer (average pay $105,000 per year).
These statistics alone make up for the 30% “gender wage gap” everyone keeps talking about, but there are still more things that contribute. 43% of women leave their jobs to spend time raising their children, and then come back into the workforce at a later date. This disrupts seniority. It is very simple. If a person works at a job for 10 years, then quits for 5 years to raise a child from birth until they enter school, then returns to the workforce, they are starting with 15 years less seniority then someone who stayed at the same job. That is 15 years worth of raises that they did not get. Why would someone think that an accountant should be making the same as a different accountant with 15 years seniority over them?
So why is their a Gender Wage Gap?
The reality of why there is a gender wage gap is women choose to pursue less lucrative careers, they choose to work less hours, and they choose to prioritize things other then their careers. Women are not being discriminated against. There is no misogynistic conspiracy to keep women down. Women just have different priorities, different interests, and different loyalties then men. Neither is right or wrong, it is just what makes us unique.
Many of us have seen the headlines about the absurd PC culture that is going on at universities today. Children are having nervous breakdowns when the see political slogans written in chalk, or are panicking when they mistake a Catholic Friar for a KKK member. Some students say they can’t be in the same classes as people with differing opinions, and they need safe spaces to protect them from free speech.
Many correspondents have blamed this on rampant left wing ideologies, but I disagree. College has always been a place for idealism and liberal thought. It is okay to have big dreams of making a utopian society when you are young and stupid, but college should be a place where you learn to accept reality. The reality is: one person’s utopia, is another persons prison. As a representative republic, our government is set up to protect the rights of the people who would be entrapped by your “socialist utopia”.
In the 1940’s, England tried to create a “Democratic Socialist” utopia. In it, you could go to jail if you quit the job the government picked for you. They repealed most of their socialist policies in 1950, but the remaining ones still left such a huge tax burden on their citizens that those that could afford it (like John Lennon) fled to America. Imagine that.
The real problem at the universities of America is a complete failure of the said universities to do their job. You see, universities are supposed to be preparing our children for the real world. The real world is full of people with ideologies that differ from one another. If college is failing at the simple task of teaching children to be tolerant of someone else’s ideas, then they are creating a generation of children that will not be useful in society. They will not be able to hold a job, and they will probably never make it out of their parents basement.
You see, in the real world, no one will agree with you all the time. Your landlord may have different social beliefs, your boss may have different political ideologies (I guarantee you most business owners and entrepreneurs are capitalists), that store clerk may have a different religious belief then you. Wherever you go during the day, you will run into people who don’t believe the same things you do.
I used to work on a national daytime talk show that was run by one of the most liberal women in Hollywood. On her show, nepotism ran wild. The office staff was brutally mean to the working staff, we were constantly being forced to see and hear offensive things… It happens everywhere you go. College shouldn’t protect you from things that are offensive, it should teach you how to deal with them in an adult manner. If the universities of this country are failing at that, then they are failing at one of the basic principles of life. You simply cannot survive in society if you are not tolerant of viewpoints that are different then yours, or offend your fragile sensibilities.
When I was a child, we had a saying: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me”. Someone forgot to explain that to children of today. You would think that they would have learned it by the college level, but apparently the college professors can’t do their job.