Wednesday, December 11, 2019

Spying on All USA Citizens Will Continue



Guess what happened this week when everyone in the mainstream media and unfortunately many print outlets were reporting almost explicitly on the Impeachment news?

The Patriot Act got re-instated. 

You remember, the good ole Patriot Act? The one that had a sunset provision, which means it would’ve just, ya know, ceased to exist? You know the Patriot Act I’m talking about, the one that expanded NSA spying powers to be able to read every single text message, e-mail, Facebook message, Instagram DM, Twitter DM, Snapchat story, phone call, and all other forms of electronic communication that is sent from any private citizen? You know the one, where those same unelected bureaucrats can literally spy on you through your webcam

The renewal of this basically means that all of that would’ve stopped in December of this year, but because of a sneak clause in the Stopgap Funding Bill, it got renewed for another 3 months. What was the reason they gave to begin warrantless, unconstitutional spying of ALL American citizens? To stop terrorism of course. 

Ask yourself. How many terrorist attacks have been stopped as a result of the Patriot Act? According to History.com:
Depending on whom you ask or what you read, the Patriot Act may or may not have prevented terrorism. According to a 2015 Washington Post article, the Justice Department admitted, “FBI agents can’t point to any major terrorism cases they’ve cracked thanks to the key snooping powers in the Patriot Act.” But a 2012 report from the conservative Heritage Foundation states 50 terrorist attacks have been thwarted since 9/11, with 47 being the direct result of the work of law enforcement and intelligence agencies. They claim the Patriot Act is essential to helping law enforcement identify leads and prevent attacks.

So who do you trust, a conservative (Right Wing) think tank? Or the actual Department of Justice who is a part of the government who ran the program? Of course the right wing think tank is going to side with the right wing president and right wing government of 2001 who signed this act into law. But would the Department of Justice purposely lie to make the law look meaningless? I think you know better than that. If anything, they’d lie in the direction that makes it look BETTER. But, they came up with a big fat donut. So why renew it?

Because Republican officials get what they want because they are Grizzlies who actually fight for it, regardless if it’s based on principle or not. Democrats are weak little teddy bears who fold at the slightest opposition to their ideas. Plus corruption on both sides of the aisle, and boom. 
So while all of you are too busy paying attention to whether or not Trump is going to be impeached, tried, and kicked out of office (spoiler alert, he’s not), I’ll continue to show you all the REAL shit that’s happening in the country.

Tuesday, December 3, 2019

Kamala the Cop Drops Out!



Kamala Harris is a cop.

Billionaires love Kamala Harris. 

But…

She dropped out. *Cues celebratory music*

Seriously, this is a good thing. Now, all we have to do is wait for Corey Booker, Michael Bloomberg, Mayor Pete, Amy Cloud Boot Jar, and whatever other centrists we have running….oh shit, Joe Biden’s still in the race? 

Why did Kamala Harris drop out, or in the words of most politicians trying to save face, “suspend her campaign”? She blames lack of finances. Which is hilarious considering my last blog post. 

I blame…her shitty record, lack of ability to defend her past when Tulsi Gabbard came out and caught that mean body during the debate. Making cash bail more expensive, denying a DNA test that would’ve reversed a decision that had a man in prison, using prisoners to fight wildfires they weren’t adequately trained for, allowing marijuana to lead to the arrests of over 1,800 residents of California during her tenure as Attorney General….probably THAT stuff. 

Everyone NOT named Bernie Sanders, Tulsi GabbardElizabethWarren or… (sigh) Joe Biden should just gone head and pick a Senate seat to run for. It’s over for you all.

Monday, November 25, 2019

Billionaires Love Kamala Harris


Kamala Harris is proving herself to be the corporate sell-out I always thought she was. Again.

So remember how she took all the money from OneWest Bank and affiliates, and then chose NOT to prosecute Steve Mnuchin

Or how she laughed when asked if she would support legalizing cannabis, even though her REPUBLICAN opponent was a supporter? Or when she wanted to make it more difficult for inmates to be released because of the cheap labor they provided?

Well as if all that wasn’t bad enough, it has now been revealed that there are more Billionaires donating to the Kamala Harris campaign than any other democratic nominee. In the era of anti-corruption, and democratic campaigns on all levels winning elections without taking any billionaire or SUPER-PAC money, Kamala Harris is the most popular candidate for those in the 1%.

According to TheRoot.com:
Apparently, the former state prosecutor and district attorney has gotten the bag from 46 billionaires since the top of 2019, including oil heir Gordon and Ann Getty, investor Dean Metropoulos, and philanthropist Laurene Powell Jobs. Star Wars kingpin George Lucas made his only donation to Harris.
With a celebrity net worth of $4 million, Harris is running neck and neck with the other black senator running for president, Corey Booker, for billionaire support.

Why do you think they love her so much? Do you think it’s because she’s going to raise their taxes to expand and build upon our social safety net? Do you think she will regulate these businesses efficiently? Do you think she will stop all of the Wall Street criminal activity that never really stopped, even after the recession? Will she legalize a plant that could potentially make some of these billionaires have competition (alcohol and big pharma to be specific) and *gasp* lose profit?

If you answered YES to any of those questions, you should just look at some history. OpenSecrets.org is a great website to see how much money any given industry has donated to a campaign or politician over the course of their career, and you can/should match those donations up with their voting records. You will quickly see how the two correlate. Basically, if an industry/billionaire gives you a bunch of money, it isn’t for no reason. They want something in return. And what that ‘something’ is in Kamala’s case, is more of the same. Don’t rock the boat. Don’t do anything that would change things TOO much. 

I think they would have the best candidate for keeping the status quo. Too abd for her (and good for everyone else), she’s polling extremely low. So much for being a “top tier” candidate, eh?

Anyway, Kamala gone head and get up outta here, let the real progressives in the race battle it out. The only corporatist that has a chance is Joe Biden, and he doesn’t have much of a shot either.  So let this be between Bernie and Liz. Go listen to some Snoop Dogg and 2Pac records while you smoke weed with your college buddies and then laugh at locking people up for doing it. We’ll be fighting for real structural change over here.

Wednesday, November 6, 2019

Donald Trump is the Logical Conclusion of Right Wing Politics

Donald Trump is the logical conclusion of right wing politics in the United States. He takes what has been coded for a long time, and decodes it for the common person. Instead of “we need secure borders and immigration needs to be a strict process”, we get “the Mexicans are sending criminals, they bring drugs, they’re rapists….I assume SOME are good people”. Instead of “fighting Islamic TERRORISM”, we get “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering this country”. You get the idea.

However, this past week, Donald Trump revealed yet another layer of right wing politics that we (the left and most regular people) already knew about these regime change wars (shout out Tulsi Gabbard) in the Middle East. 

It’s the oil stupid!

Agent Orange recently stated via press conference that we “have secured the oil, and we are now deciding what to do with it.” What does ‘secured the oil’ mean? There is no other way to interpret this but to assume he means ‘stole the oil’. Remember he said we should’ve taken the oil from Iraq? Everyone else who supported these wars tried to mask them as an altruistic, humanitarian effort. Not Trump. He just spoke the real. We’re stealing the oil. 

Imagine for a moment, that Russia (the boogeyman) just decided on their own to invade Alaska and “secure its oil”. How would we react? Pretty sure we would be ready to duke it out with Vlad and them. And we would be justified. Somehow, when it’s us doing the stealing and countless murders of civilians, it’s ok because we’re the ones doing it. 

On one hand, I’m happy Donny Boy is being so upfront, so that way we can’t keep up the façade of “humanitarian efforts”. No, we’re coming to rob, murder and destroy. We now have a President that admits it upfront. 

On the other hand, bruh, we can’t just go jack resources from sovereign countries! What are you thinking? How insane is our current Commander in Chief? Out of his effing mind apparently. But Trump gonna Trump, so we have to make sure we get Bernie in there to attempt to undo all of the crazy shit our current leader is saying and doing. 

Lastly, shout out to Kyle Kulinski for bringing this story to our attention, as it has not been on ANY mainstream news outlets. YouTube.com/seculartalk.

Tuesday, October 29, 2019

Talking About Race with White People

I’ve decided to stop talking about racial issues with most white people.

This endeavor of attempting to get people to see things from your point of view is the most tiring, frustrating exercise imaginable. It’s like describing color to someone who was born blind, or using sign language to explain sound to someone who was born deaf. They have absolutely no frame of reference, so therefore the concept is completely abstract.

When someone tells me they disagree with my views on race in America today, and I ask what they disagree with, the typical answers go something like this. “Yes, racism exists, but it’s not that bad anymore and black people and white people are basically treated the same now”; to which I usually respond with statistics and studies to prove why that is false. What are some of those statistics you ask? Here they go:

• In the 2015 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, about 17 million whites and 4 million African Americans reported having used an illicit drug within the last month.
• African Americans and whites use drugs at similar rates, but the imprisonment rate of African Americans for drug charges is almost 6 times that of whites.
• African Americans represent 12.5% of illicit drug users, but 29% of those arrested for drug offenses and 33% of those incarcerated in state facilities for drug offenses.

• In the United States today approximately 12.8 million students—or 27 percent of all those in school—attend school in a district in which over 75 percent of students are non-white. In a new report, researchers at EdBuild, a non-profit that analyzes school-funding issues, calculate that these students are getting dramatically shortchanged on the school-funding front.
• The majority of racially concentrated, non-white districts are also low-income. Poor, non-white districts educate about 20 percent of American students. By contrast, while 26 percent of American students attend school in a district where more than 75 percent of students are white, only 5 percent attend school in a racially concentrated, white, poor district.
• The researchers at EdBuild calculated that racially concentrated non-white districts receive, on average, only $11,682 of funding per student, in comparison to $13,908 for racially concentrated, white districts. Collectively, this means that, as EdBuild notes, "nonwhite school districts receive $23 billion less than white districts, despite serving the same number of students."
• Gaps between racially concentrated white and non-white districts persist even among high-poverty schools. On average, nationwide, high-poverty white districts receive approximately $1,500 more per student than high-poverty non-white districts (although they still receive less funding than wealthier white districts). Additionally, even low-poverty non-white districts receive less per-student funding than high-poverty white districts.


You can read this article from the Economistexplaining the wealth gap between blacks and whites (hint, it has nothing to do with who works harder or has better morals, but more about accumulated wealth over a long period of time). You can read about the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which was the first year (on paper) black people were legally allowed to purchase homes wherever they wanted. Read about redlining here, but if you’re not gonna click it, I’ll just give you the definition:
Redlining is an unethical practice that puts services (financial and otherwise) out of reach for residents of certain areas based on race or ethnicity.
What could that be? That could be charging higher interest rates for non-white customers, relocating business from areas where non-white people live, making predominately black areas all in one voting district rather than spreading them to ensure that the voting block is limited, etc.

And lastly, the sentencing disparity. “Well why do so many black people do crimes and get arrested?” Good question. The answer is…the same reason anyone of any other group does crime. However, in the case of black and brown people:
• Blacks pay a higher "trial penalty" than comparably-situated whites;
• Whites receive a larger reduction in sentence time than blacks and Latinos for providing "substantial assistance" to the prosecution;
• Blacks and Latinos with a more serious criminal record tend to be sentenced more severely than comparably-situated whites;
• Blacks are more likely to be jailed pending trial, and therefore tend to receive harsher sentences;
• Whites are more likely to hire a private attorney than Latinos or blacks, and therefore receive a less severe sentence.
• Black defendants who victimize whites tend to receive more severe sentences than both blacks who victimize other blacks (especially acquaintances), and whites who victimize whites.
• Latinos and blacks tend to be sentenced more harshly than whites for lower-level crimes such as drug crimes and property crimes;
• However, Latinos and blacks convicted of high-level drug offenses also tend to be more harshly sentenced than similarly-situated whites.
• In the vast majority of cases, the race of the victim tends to have an effect on the sentence outcome, with white victim cases more often resulting in death sentences;
• However, in some jurisdictions, notably in the federal system, the race of the defendant also affects sentencing outcomes, with minority defendants more likely to receive a death sentence than white defendants.
This reflects literally every level of criminal “justice”. We get arrested more often, sentenced more harshly, and receive the death penalty more often than white people for the SAME CRIMES THEY COMMIT.

But when I bring ALL THESE FACTS AND NUMBERS UP, the response from most white people I talk to about these issues is “Well, I don’t know, I just don’t feel like it’s that bad anymore.” Usually followed by a shoulder shrug, and my inner voice telling me “Some things white people just won’t understand.” Sorry to break it to you so publicly white people, we still cool. But don’t talk to me about an issue I have to live with every day and I KNOW the reality of it. I would never tell a woman “Yo, it’s not that bad out here for women anymore” after she tells me about all the various types of sexual harassment she has to deal with daily. I would never tell a gay person “Hey man it’s 2019, nobody hates gay people anymore” after he’s told me about how many times people shun him simply for being himself. If I don’t live your experience, how can I tell you the reality of that experience? I can’t. And neither can you white people.

So we won’t talk about it anymore. You want my thoughts? Follow me.

Monday, October 7, 2019

Unpopular Opinion About Syria

                                   


Here I go with the unpopular opinion of the day. 

I agree with Donald Trump pulling our troops out of Syria. 

I know, I know. He’s such a trash President that it is really reallyeasy to find something wrong with anything that he does. However, in THIS instance? He is correct.

Why is it a good thing to remove our troops from Syria? Simply put, we don’t need to be involved with wars going on in the middle east, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE WERE ORIGNALLY ON BOTH SIDES OF THE SYRIAN CIVIL WAR with the CIA backing one side, and the Pentagon backing their enemies. How can we honestly say that our involvement in a CIVIL WAR makes sense? Sending OUR troops to go die overseas because…..I’ve got nothing.

Why is it a bad thing for us to bounce? According to Splinter.com: 
Late on Sunday night, the Trump administration made a surprise announcement that it would pull back its remaining forces in Northern Syria and allow Turkish troops to commence a long-planned “operation” in the region. This operation is almost certainly going to look more like an invasion, as critics of Trump’s foreign policy say it gives Turkey carte blanche to wage war on its political enemies, namely the Syrian and Turkish ethnic Kurds who have controlled the region with U.S. support for years.” 

Will this be really tough for the Kurds? Yes. Is that sad? Yes. Do I feel bad for them as human beings? Absolutely. What I don’t feel however, is that this conflict is in any way OUR responsibility to solve. This is between THEM. I truly go by the ‘non-interventionist/defensive violence only’ philosophy, so under that ideology, name a country that we are currently engaged in war with (Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Niger, Somalia, Pakistan and Yemen) that threatened us or attacked us first? You are correct if your answer was zero. The only attack we faced was from Al-Qaeda, which isn’t a country, but an organization that has ties to several Middle Eastern countries. The people from Al-Qaeda who were on the plane? Saudi Arabian. Yet, they (Saudi Arabia) are one of our biggest allies, so out of all the countries we’re currently bombing, the one who ACTUALLY had the most ties to the attackers is still getting our backing. The whole reason we are supposed to be there was to murk Bin Laden and Sadaam. Mission accomplished. So…..what does Syria have to do with all this?

“The details are emerging of a new secret and quite stupid Saudi-US deal on Syria and the so-called ISIS. It involves oil and gas control of the entire region and the weakening of Russia and Iran by Saudi Arabian flooding the world market with cheap oil. Details were concluded in the September meeting by US Secretary of State John Kerry and the Saudi King. The unintended consequence will be to push Russia even faster to turn east to China and Eurasia.”

So, this is what it’s REALLY all about. The pipeline and the petrodollar. Big shock right? The U.S.A was/is involved with all these oil rich countries because money. So, if anyone who acts like we were there to help the Kurds and be humanitarians, is simply naïve. 

So yeah, even though ultimately there will be hard times for the Kurds in the near future, if we don’t get out now, we’ll be there 18 years later….

Wednesday, October 2, 2019

Bernie Sanders Chest Pains

So I can already see this whole ‘Bernie Sanders Had Blocked Arteries’ talk is about to be all anyone who is trying to smear the Sanders campaign will talk about for the next few cycles, so I wanna jump ahead of this and see what the different scenarios are that could possibly unfold. 

By the way, before we get into it, just know that he didn’t have a heart attack, he didn’t have open heart surgery, none of that. He complained about chest pain and had some stints inserted to unclog his arteries. It’s a relatively common procedure. He cancelled upcoming campaign stops, because he’s been going 100 miles an hour and hasn’t slowed down. He’s getting some rest. It’s healthy.

With all that said, this is going to be reported in a few ways, and the results could play out in a few ways as well. The main thing I see is a shift in the voters who haven’t completely decided on a candidate yet. I think voters who may have already been concerned about Bernie’s age will use this as more evidence to back up their claim that he isn’t healthy enough to be President. I totally disagree with this, however there is enough talk about this I’ve heard to concern me, as an avid Bernie guy. He doesn’t comb his hair and he doesn’t have great posture, so for optics purposes, this isn’t good at all. Many of those voters who aren’t sure who they like yet will swing from Sanders to Warren, or even Yang. We just have to hope that there aren’t that many people who think like this.

The news is going to continue to cast doubt in everyone’s mind as to the well-being of Bernie, so rather than ‘attack’ him like they’ve been doing, they will feign concern and act as if they care so much about Bernie’s health that dropping out of the race is what is best for him. This is one thing that could possibly connect, on account calling him a socialist hasn’t, calling him old hasn’t, saying he hasn’t done anything as a Senator hasn’t, calling him sexist hasn’t, and they never try to explain why his policies don’t work with any detail. And unfortunately, since we know many voters aren’t as well researched as others, the mostly A-political types who basically vote along party lines will see this as a big deal. 

We know Trump is going to go after Bernie in a vicious way using this as an area of attack. This is basically the ONLY area Trump could do any damage in my opinion. Debating literally ANY other topic, Sanders gives Trump the Stone Cold Stunner, Tombstone Piledriver, and Sweet Chin Music all over the stage. Go to physical wellbeing? We know Trump is an overweight dufus who binge eats fast food and never sleeps, but he has doctors who will blatantly lie to us about his health being phenomenal, he can win this aspect of the race, which as much as I wish it wasn’t, is indeed major

Bottom line, I think Elizabeth Warren is somewhere rejoicing as her poll numbers have been rising and she knows that realistically amongst the progressive wing of the party, Bernie is her only competition. As much as we all acknowledge that Liz is NO Bernie, she is the second most progressive candidate with a realistic chance of getting the nomination. There are other candidates that are more progressive in other areas (TulsiGabbard is more progressive on foreign policy, Andrew Yang is more progressive on drug policy), but when it comes to the total package of progressive ideology AND having a realistic chance to win the primary, Warren is the second best option. Is she too corporate and willing to play nice with the establishment for my liking? Absolutely. We have to seriously hope this minor setback for Bernie doesn’t lead to the disastrous consequences I laid out above.