Who Cares About the #NFL, If They Stand or Kneel, I Don't.

Conservatives are in a state of absolute horror over kneeling football players.  The left vigorously defends their absolute right TO KNEEL as a First Amendment issue, not that the left even cares about the First Amendment.

Personally, I don't give a flying fuck about this issue and neither should any sane human being because the FREE MARKET should be sorting it out. The NFL consists of privately owned football teams that generally operate under rules established by the NFL, something that is also their right.

Above all, football is a BUSINESS, a very big and lucrative business.  According to Forbes, the average NFL franchise is worth $2.5 billion and the Dallas Cowboys are worth nearly $5 billion, here.   If the fans don't like the actions of the players and teams, actions that are reinforced by team owners and NFL rules, then the fans can just boycott football and Walk Away.  Decisions have an economic impact.  If ticket sales and revenues nosedive because the fans revolt and cease being fans then the football teams will definitely suffer an economic consequence.

Meanwhile, we have the right demanding that the football players be FORCED to stand for the National Anthem.  Guess what?  It's NOT their right to demand anything.  Heck, even President Trump, who I generally like but disagree with on this issue, has chirped in with recent tweets:

The NFL players are at it again - taking a knee when they should be standing proudly for the National Anthem. Numerous players, from different teams, wanted to show their “outrage” at something that most of them are unable to define. They make a fortune doing what they love......

.....Be happy, be cool! A football game, that fans are paying soooo much money to watch and enjoy, is no place to protest. Most of that money goes to the players anyway. Find another way to protest. Stand proudly for your National Anthem or be Suspended Without Pay!

Lol, 'SUSPENDED WITHOUT PAY' for failing to worship the flag is indeed draconian and ridiculous.  Since when was the NFL required to worship Old Glory?

I 100% endorse the right of football teams to make their own business decisions and they absolutely have the right to make BAD decision that hold the potential to negatively impact revenues and profits.  That's the definition of free enterprise.

How did football even become a political football?  Why is football suddenly a prop for statism and an icon of statist values and worship?

I have a solution: Ditch the playing of the National Anthem and just pay ball! Hello, isn't that what football is supposed to do, or was until it became a stupid political hot potato issue.  Even worse, why has football become just another divisive racial issue, mostly black players vs. white fans?

Crazy Reuters even ran a piece titled:

NFL: Last sports bastion of white, male conservatives

Of people who identified themselves as part of the NFL fan base 83 percent were white, 64 percent were male, 51 percent were 45 years or older, only 32 percent made less than $60,000 a year, and, to finish the point, registered Republicans were 21 percent more likely to be NFL fans than registered Democrats. Another factoid: NFL fans were 59 percent more likely than the average American to have played golf in the last year. You think the NFL is a lunch-bucket league? Not unless the lunch bucket is from Hermes.
But football’s appeal is more than demographics. The numbers reflect the values of white conservative males.

Wait a minute...How can white football fans who embrace mostly black football athletes be racist or a 'last sports bastion of white, male conservatives'?  If white football fans were indeed racists, they certainly wouldn't be shelling out big bucks to attend football games or devote so much time to watching football on TV.  Many of the NFL's most beloved and respected players are African American but it's somehow racist for white males to be football fans in a sports industry dominated by African Americans?

Personally, my biggest problems with football and other major sports is that the teams are all welfare queens who suck up a ton of taxpayer dollars and these taxpayer dollars do in fact subsidize the fat salaries of athletes.  Furthermore, football has been used as a propaganda vehicle by the government and the military industrial complex to worship the military and its missions.  In fact, the Pentagon even pays the NFL.

The Pentagon paid 14 NFL teams $5.4 million to 'salute troops'

As an antiwar activist, it's my view that using tax dollars to endorse America's wars is wrong and immoral.  Moreover, I endorse ending our neocon foreign policy and bringing our troops home to defend America, be with their families and NOT be killed in stupid wars.  US foreign policy is nothing more than MURDERING for defense contractor profits and has nothing whatsoever to do with US national security.

Finally, it's my belief that Trump should just butt out of telling the NFL how to run its business; nobody told him how to run his businesses.  Nationalizing sports is a very dangerous thing and renders sports nothing more than bread and circuses for the state.

If the NFL and team owners make decisions that hurt them, so be it. In a free market, customers always rule and fans are indeed customers. 

Iran is NOT a terrorist nation. Saudi Arabia is the Kingpin of Islamist Terrorism.

Because of the US media, the military industrial complex and the neocons who control the US government, Iran is a nation that is constantly but unjustifiably vilified. The hate against Iran is so intense that the ignorant masses who believe the government and media are lusting to bomb to smithereens a nation of over 80 million folks who are guilty of NOTHING. Yet, nothing less than mushroom clouds over Iran will satisfy their appetite for mass murder and genocide. They are all singing to the tune of John McCain's Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran. Insane McCain is an evil rat bastard whose chronic lust for war renders him a dangerous sociopath. It's time to set the record straight on Iran and we need to start with Islamic terrorism and who is really guilty. Neither Iran nor Iranians nor Shiite Muslims are responsible for any acts of Islamist terrorism. All Islamist terrorism has been committed by Sunni Salafist Wahhabists who practice the most vile, deadly and intolerant form of Islam ever to exist. Wahhabism was spawned on the Arabian Peninsula and is the religion of Saudi Arabia, here. Let's briefly recap Islamic terror attacks. The list is EXTENSIVE, here, and everybody should read it but I'll list the major Islamist attacks, all of which were committed by Sunni Salafist Wahhabists and NOT Iran or Iranians or even Shiite Muslims. 08/07/1998 Tanzania and Kenya - 2 US embassies blown up, 224 dead
09/11/2001 World Trade Center bombing, 2,996 dead
10/12/2002 Bali bombings of resort area, 202 dead
10/23/2002 Moscow theatre attack, 129 dead
03/11/2004 Madrid train bombings, 192 dead
09/01/2004 Beslan, Russia school massacre, 385 dead
07/07/2007 London, 4 terror attacks on trains/bus, 50 dead
07/11/2006 Mumbai, India train bombing, 209 dead
11/26/2008 Mumbai financial district attack, 166 dead
11/13/2015 Paris Bataclan night club attacks, 137 dead
07/14/2016 Nice, France, Bastille Day attack, 86 dead

I REPEAT, neither Iran nor Iranians nor Shiite Muslims were responsible for any of these terror attacks. Yet, the kingpin of Islamist terror, Saudi Arabia, constantly gets a pass on its terrorism and the West blames Iran. Of course, it's a boldfaced lie. Exactly why the West genuflects before the evil terrorist nation of Saudi Arabia and behave like Saudi Stooges is complicated and involves the petro-dollar, explained here: Petro Dollar = ISIS Dollar, Saudi Arabia, Sunni Salafist Wahhabism and US Foreign Policy - Connect the Dots

Although I frequently speak the truth on Iran, Saudi Arabia and Islamist terrorism, I'm constantly attacked on social media by neocons, Saudi Bots, Saudi apologists, American Warvangelicals and assorted other uninformed folks who believe the government, neocon and Saudi narrative. It's OKAY, I'm used to attacks like this, a recent Twitter attack:

"You’re a fake MAGA supporter. Likely a troll account subsidized my the mullahs, designed to make our push for regime change look bad. Go back to polishing the ayatollah’s butt plug." LOL, now who is polishing the 'butt plug' of Islamist terrorists? NOT ME!!

Never FORGET that 15 of the 19 911 terrorists were Saudi nationals; 2 were from the UAE, 1 was from Egypt and 1 was from Lebanon. None were Iranians or Shiite Muslims. Recently, I posted a ton of stuff on Saudi Arabia committing genocide against the Houthi in Yemen. It's made even more despicable because the US is helping the Saudis commit genocide and I have criticized Trump and his administration on this issue. Facebook shut me down and I'm now pretty much in permanent Facebook jail because I do expose the horrors of war and war crimes, regardless of who does it. What does this tell me? It tells me that Facebook is not only a Saudi apologist but is also staffed with Saudi defenders and apologists who will shut down anybody who exposes the truth about the Saudis and Sunni Salafist Wahhabism. The social media war on truth is very real, especially for antiwar peace activists. As one who advocates for peace, liberty and prosperity for all people along with many others, it's true that we are being singled out and purged from social media. Despite my abhorrence of Wahhabism and much of Islam which I view as a very dangerous anti-liberty and intolerant ideology, I have consistently OPPOSED bombing, invading and attacking Muslim countries. They have problems and issues that only Muslims can solve. Western interventions only result in creating more jihadists and more terrorism. Facebook, Twitter, Google and gang are all Deep State operatives. Oppose the global system controlled by the military-industrial-security complex, banksters and NWO corporatists, then be prepared to suffer the consequences. I'm not about to give up or give in. As a citizen who researches and loves history, I will always pursue truth and justice. For more information on the issue of Saudi Arabia, Iran and Islamist terrorist, please read: Saudi Arabia and Sunni Wahhabism are Islamist Terrorists and NOT Iran, Shiite Islam, Shiites and Iranians

OH, and by the way, Iran is NOT enriching uranium nor does it have nuclear bombs, something that even the most hardcore Iran haters in the Trump Administration will even admit. Obama did 2 things that I like - he negotiated the JCPOA and opened up a US embassy in Cuba, something that was long over due. Regarding the JCPOA or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, it's been severely twisted by western neocons and even the Trump Administration. The goal of the JCPOA was to get Iran to give up its nuclear weapon ambitions in exchange for the lifting of sanctions. Iran is in compliance with the deal and it's the US that has reneged. For more on the JCPOA, please read.
Trump, Iran and the JCPOA - What it is and what isn't it. Well, that's my 2 cents for today. I come in peace, advocate for peace and pray for peace. Murdering folks for defense contractor and bankster profits DOES NOTHING for the cause of peace or peaceful co-existence.

Obama was NOT a man of peace & he exploded the world into more wars

Although Obama campaigned as a man of peace and advocated for a more peaceful foreign policy, his actual 8 year record is anything but peaceful.  Obama famously gave a speech saying that he was “opposed to dumb wars”.  Well, Obama lied and many died and he apparently doesn't believe that HIS wars were dumb wars.

The Nobel Peace Prize winning president astoundingly dropped over 26,000 in 2016 alone, his last year as president, here.

Democrats and liberals may cling to the delusion that Obama's foreign policy was brilliantly peaceful but Obama geographically outperformed George W. Bush when it came to expanding military operations by bombing and intervening in even more nations.   Obama's foreign policy legacy includes operations in 7 countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan.

None of these countries posed a national security threat to the US and all are Muslim majority nations.  While Republican wingnuts accuse Obama of actually being a Muslim (he's not), Obama's record on destroying Muslim lands and killing Muslims is pretty horrific. 

According to the very liberal The Atlantic, there were 3 theaters of US military operations when Obama assumed the presidency in 2009 - Afghanistan and Iraq both had troops and Pakistan was targeted with drone strikes. By 2016, Obama expanded military operations to include Syria, Libya and several nations in Africa and few Americans even knew what we were doing in Africa.

Vox ran a piece in October, 2017 on the expanding US military presence in Africa that began under George W. Bush and continued under Obama and Trump.

Why were US soldiers even in Niger? America’s shadow wars in Africa, explained.American troops are fighting in multiple African countries without anyone back home really noticing.

The Pentagon is rapidly expanding its presence in Africa and is now engaged in military operations — including active combat — in more than half a dozen African countries....

US forces have also regularly conducted raids and other missions in Chad, Cameroon, Uganda, and, of course, Niger, where there are at least 800 American troops deployed.

The missions rely on a broad array of legal authorities but have one particularly important thing in common: They have never been specifically authorized by Congress, let alone discussed and debated by the American public. Huge questions exist as to the strategic importance and relevance of all these missions, and whether they improve US national security enough to justify the high cost in blood and treasure. Since 2001, at least 36 soldiers have died conducting or supporting military operations in Africa, including Sgt. La David Johnson and the three others killed in Niger earlier this month....

.....the US has been working with governments in heavily Muslim West Africa to counter local Islamist groups since the George W. Bush administration. The US presence there ramped up considerably under the Obama administration...

Does anybody even know what the hell is going on in Africa and has been going on through 3 presidential administrations?  No!! Does anybody even know why Obama disastrously intervened in Syria or Libya while substantially destroying both nations?  NO!!

US military bases are strung around the world like an octopus.

Click the link source to enlarge: https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2013/06/fo1029_usbases12001.gif


The 2016 presidential election put the foreign policy establishment in meltdown mode as Trump continuously hammered US foreign policy.  The foreign policy elites never expected Hillary Clinton to lose but they still felt extremely exposed, and to the point that they actually began attacking each other and some of it is downright hilarious.  Foreign Policy Magazine, a rabid neocon mouthpiece owned by the Washington Post, outright attacked Ben Rhodes, an Obama Deputy National Security Advisor, with a blistering piece titled:

A stunning profile of Ben Rhodes, the asshole who is the president’s foreign policy guru

Rhodes comes off like a real asshole. This is not a matter of politics — I have voted for Obama twice. Nor do I mind Rhodes’s contempt for many political reporters: “Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”  

But, as that quote indicates, he comes off like an overweening little schmuck. This quotation seems to capture his worldview: “He referred to the American foreign policy establishment as the Blob. According to Rhodes, the Blob includes Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, and other Iraq-war promoters from both parties who now whine incessantly about the collapse of the American security order in Europe and the Middle East.” Blowing off Robert Gates takes nerve. 

Rhodes and others around Obama keep on talking about doing all this novel thinking, playing from a new playbook, bucking the establishment thinking. But if that is the case, why have they given so much foreign policy power to two career hacks who never have had an original thought? I mean, of course, Joe Biden and John Kerry. I guess the answer can only be that those two are puppets, and (as in Biden’s case) are given losing propositions like Iraq to handle.

LOL, that is seriously brutal and that piece was written BEFORE Trump was even elected.  These days, the entire foreign policy establishment is bipolar manic depressive and they just can't figure out why all their seemingly brilliant knuckleheads have failed miserably.

In any event, Obama and the Dems did massively ratchet up deadly foreign interventions.  Hillary ran on Obama's foreign policy, a foreign policy that she had a hand in crafting.

One thing is certain - the American people are finally fed up with neocon foreign policy and want a change.   Trump is just the guy to do it and he's got an awesome opportunity to get it right so long as he ignores the freaking neocons in his own administration. 

Why You Should Hold Your Nose and VOTE Republican for the Senate

As an independent voter, I'm hardly a fan of the Republicans whom I view as big spending, warmongering socialists and corporatists.  The Senate exception is Rand Paul who is the only constitutionalist out of a body of 100 and while some Republicans are not too horrid, most are worthless sellouts.

However, there are indeed critically important situation wherein voting R for the Senate makes a whole lot of sense EVEN if the Republican has a nasty record on a lot of issues.  Furthermore, it's highly unlikely that a Democrat would be an improvement over the worst Republican.

Let's examine 3 big reasons why voting Republican for a senator makes sense for conservatives and constitutionalists.

1. FEDERAL COURTS AND SCOTUS  The Senate alone has the power to confirm judicial nominees including Supreme Court Justices. If the Democrats control the Senate during the presidency of Donald Trump, there will be zero confirmations of any Trump Supreme Court nominees (except for a flaming Democrat approved liberal) and SCOTUS will become a 4-4 court which absolutely translates to SCOTUS becoming a lame duck court that will be incapable of rolling back unconstitutional acts of Congress and federal agencies.  Bear in mind that Obama and the Dems had 8 years to load up the federal court system with liberal jurists.  Trump's presidency holds the potential to level the ideological balance of the federal judiciary.

According to the SCOTUS website "Each Term, approximately 7,000-8,000 new cases are filed in the Supreme Court.", and "Plenary review, with oral arguments by attorneys, is currently granted in about 80 of those cases each Term, and the Court typically disposes of about 100 or more cases without plenary review.", here.

Plenary review is a legal procedure defining how higher courts review the decisions of lower courts.
In any event, SCOTUS takes very few cases and just because somebody files an appeal to SCOTUS, the probability of SCOTUS accepting the case is quite low (close to zero).

2. TREATY RATIFICATION AND US SOVEREIGNTY  The Senate alone has the power to ratify treaties and it's a difficult process requiring a super majority 2/3 ratification.  Consequently, few treaties are ratified. This is critically important because UN and global governance advocates seek to weaken and ultimately destroy US national sovereignty by ratifying UN treaties.

The Republicans have successfully stopped many nasty treaties from being ratified including the Law of the Sea Treaty also know as LOST which would have put all the oceans and seas under UN control.  The Republicans have stopped the Democrats from ratifying the UN's Small Arms Treaty which was a direct assault on gun rights.

Republican Senators generally tend to uphold US sovereignty and reject sovereignty slashing UN treaties.  The Democrats welcome outsourcing US sovereignty to supranational institutions.

3. SECOND AMENDMENT The R's are far more likely to uphold the 2nd amendment than the Democrats who have a long history of not only opposing the 2nd amendment but slowly hacking away at it.

In summary, the courts, treaty ratification and the 2nd amendment are 3 big reasons to vote Republican in Senate races, especially tight Senate races in swing states.

The Democrats gaining control of the Senate would be an abomination and Chuck Schumer as Senate Majority Leader would derail the entire Trump Agenda.  Therefore, anybody who lives in a swing state where the Senate race will be tight, hold your nose and vote Republican because the alternative is far worse.

How did Hillary Clinton really lose the 2016 election? It wasn't because of the Russians.

The Dems, the Deep State, Trump haters and the media cling to the delusion that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election delivered victory to Trump and snatched an earned victory from Hillary. Let's autopsy the election based on numerical facts. Doing the math in conjunction with understanding American voters brings the entire 2016 election into focus.

For starters, Hillary lost 6 states that Obama won TWICE and those states and their electoral votes are FL (29), PA (20), OH (18),  MI (16), WI (10) and IA (6).  That's a total of 99 Electoral Votes in an election that Trump won 306-232 (74 Electoral Votes).

Roughly, about a third of voters (up to 36-39% according to some estimates) classify themselves as Independents even if they loosely affiliate with the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, the Libertarian or the Green Party. Independent voters are unpredictable, fickle and tend to shun establishment candidates and embrace change.  Precisely because Independent voters are a significant voting block, they are indeed the general election kingmakers in the critical swing states, even if swing states vary from election to election.  Everybody got the swing states wrong in 2016.

Independent voters also tend to be economic voters who care about jobs and  growth.  Obama did well with Independents in 2008 but lost support in 2012 because they soured on his economic policies.  Romney did well with Independent voters but not well enough to win.

Hillary was basically running on Obama economic policies.  However, other factors came into play.  The Green Party candidate, Jill Stein, appealed to antiwar voters and folks with strong environmental concerns.  In Wisconsin and Michigan, votes for Stein exceeded Trump's victory margins so it can be accurately stated that Stein cost Clinton Wisconsin and Michigan, here.

Wisconsin:
Overall Trump margin of victory: 27,257 votes
Jill Stein vote total: 30,980
Gary Johnson vote total: 106,442

Michigan
Overall Trump margin of victory: 13,107 votes
Jill Stein vote total: 51,427
Gary Johnson vote total: 172,726

Gary Johnson voters were highly unlikely to vote for Clinton because the Libertarian Party runs on less government, less wars and less spending.  If anything, Gary Johnson voters took votes away from Trump.  Anyway, Stein voters causing Clinton to lose WI and MI had nothing whatsoever to do with Russia or Putin but were merely the ideological choices of voters who didn't like or trust Clinton on foreign policy and the environment.

OH and PA  are viewed as rust belt states and both have suffered greatly from the loss of manufacturing and factory jobs. Trump won them as a revolt against the Obama economy. In OH, Trump clobbered Clinton by 455,000 votes despite Stein getting 44,000 and Johnson getting 169,000 votes.  PA was tighter because blue cities like Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Harrisburg tend to outvote the rural population to carry the state to Democrat victories.

Pennsylvania
Overall Trump margin of victory: 71,794
Jill Stein vote total: 48,657
Gary Johnson vote total: 142,334

PA was damn close and could have gone either way.  I actually know somebody who travels extensively for his job through western and rural PA.  He said it was wallpapered with Trump signs and he saw no Clinton signs.  At the end of the day, the economic rural voters did manage to outvote Pennsylvania's big population centers with an awesome voter turnout.

Again, the PA and OH voters were economic, working class voters - the folks who suffered the most under 8 years of Obama and Democrat economic rule.  They were hungry for change.  These economic voters were never impacted by Russia or Putin.  In fact, they could care less what Russia thinks of them or their voting habits.

FL was also close despite having a decent economy unlike rustbelt OH and PA.  FL however is a classic purple state that can go either way - its a GOTV game.  Big blue liberal cities like Miami are balanced the deeply red panhandle. During the Bush-Gore fiasco, the dastardly media called the election for Gore based on FL results despite the fact that folks in the panhandle who are in a different time zone had not finished voting.  When the election was deliberately called for Gore to swing the election, many folks in the panhandle didn't bother to vote.  They NEVER made that mistake again.

Florida also has vibrant and substantial 3rd party movements that do impact general elections and help to make them 'squeakers'.

Florida
Overall Trump margin of victory: 119,489
Jill Stein vote total: 64,060
Gary Johnson vote total: 206,189

Morever, it's true that while 3rd parties do not win elections, they are indeed the general election kingmakers in tight races in tight states.

To believe that Putin or Russia somehow function as Russian Election Bots that permeate the brains of American voters is insane.

Clinton lost for 2 big reasons:  1. her overt warmongering interventionist foreign policy cost her the antiwar vote and those voters were furious with the mass genocide that resulted from Obama-Clinton interventions in Syria and Libya (a big reason why Stein did well enough in MI and WI to keep Clinton from winning) and 2. the economy.  The economy is always the biggie and it was Bill Clinton who coined the phrase 'it's the economy stupid', something his wife never understood.

Finally, American voters are NOT under the influence of Russia or Putin DESPITE the creepy media and the Democrats REFUSING to believe that the American people rejected Clinton for reasons that are incredibly obvious to anybody who isn't deranged or delusional or a total moron.

Clinton was a terrible candidate who failed connect with the concerns of the voters, many of whom were seriously listening to Trump who had an outstanding talent for tapping into voter concerns, especially working class voter concerns.  When Clinton called Trump supporters deplorables, racists, sexists, homophobes, zenophobes and Islamophobes, that insult helped to seal her fate among undecided voters.  Being distant from voter concerns, a Mitt Romney affliction, is one thing but flatout humiliating and degrading voters you are trying to romance was profoundly stupid and arrogant.  Clinton thought she was being funny and cute in an election she thought she had already bagged but fate has a funny way of upsetting the best laid plans.

Clinton sunk herself and all without the help of Russia or Putin.

Conservative Victories at the 5-4 Supreme Court - Thank Trump Voters

As a Libertarian leaning, Ron Paul supporting constitutionalist, I endorsed Donald Trump for president AFTER Rand Paul was out of the running and I documented my reasons here where I listed the top 10 reasons to vote for Trump. One of those reasons was the Supreme Court.  Trump replacing the deceased Justice Scalia instead of Hillary Clinton having that power was indeed critically important for liberty activists, constitutionalists and gun rights.

Many other big cases were pending and a string major conservative victories, most 5-4 decisions, has been awesome for conservatives even if it has left the left reeling in misery and disappointment.

Those decisions include:

Upholding Trump's travel ban: Let me be clear - this was never a Muslim ban and Trump himself said so.  However, it was a national security initiative to screen foreigners entering America.  There is nothing fundamentally wrong with a nation having the power to decide who gets to enter a country as nobody wants terrorists.  The left may be stroking out over this SCOTUS decision but it makes no sense for a country NOT to screen foreigners.

Upholding the right of a baker NOT to bake a cake: Call it a 1st amendment issue or a property rights issue but nobody should be forced to do anything that violates his/her conscience and religious beliefs.

Upheld the right of pregnancy crisis centers NOT to be forced to disclose that taxpayer subsidized abortions are available.  These pregnancy crisis centers are pro-life organizations that offer counseling and advice to pregnant women. It certainly should be their right to do so and WITHOUT being FORCED to become an advocate for abortion.

Denying public sector unions the right to force workers to pay union dues.  This case is a huge defeat for public sector unions and the Dems because union dues subsidize the Democratic Party.  SCOTUS correctly ruled that public sector workers should NOT be FORCED to pay union dues to fund things that they fundamentally oppose.  It was a 1st amendment issue.

Gerrymandering is an interesting issue.  When Democrats controlled most governorships and state legislatures, they heavily gerrymandered to carve out permanent Democrat majority districts.  Nobody complained except Republicans.  Well, now that the Republicans currently control governorships and state legislatures in most states, the Democrats have gone ballistic filing lawsuits that obviously are demanding that the courts restore their gerrymandering powers.  It was OKAY for the Dems to gerrymander but it's not OKAY for the Republicans to do the same thing.

The Supreme Court punted on the gerrymandering issue while refusing to intervene on behalf of the Democrats.  SCOTUS kicking this can down the road leaves open the possibility of future judicial action.

Anway, these are very important issues that have been conservatively and correctly decided by SCOTUS and only because Trump's presidential victory resulted in the appointment to the Supreme Court of a constitutionalist, Neil Gorsuch.  The Democrats love using the courts as a hammer to enforce their anti-liberty dictates.

With Trump, judicial power has swung back to the conservative-constitutional side which of course is a victory for liberty.

Social Media, Facebook, Saudi Arabia, Sunni Salafist Wahhabism and CENSORSHIP

I'm possibly winding down a 3 day Facebook ban (usually my jail time bans are followed by more bans), after having 4-5 24 hour bans inflicted upon me for no justifiable reason within the last several weeks.  My crime?  I'm being accused of the generic 'violating community standards'.  Community standards has a nice ring because it invokes the hate and intolerance of the unknowable but vastly powerful collective.

Anyway, my latest ban is the direct result of a post on Yemen and how the Saudis with US help are committing a horrific genocide against the Houthi in Yemen.  In fact, the Saudis are attacking a port where 70-80% of aid for the starving Houthis comes in - that port is barely keeping the Houthi alive.  Anybody can engine search 'starving Houthi' and get a ton of gut wrenching photos of the face famine and starvation, Saudi style.  Yes, I do indeed confess to commenting that the Saudis are savages.  The Saudis also very recently bombed a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Yemen.  Even the Saudi worshiping US State Department took notice.

DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS HOSPITAL BOMBING IN YEMEN EARNS RARE SAUDI REBUKE AT STATE DEPARTMENT

Calling the Saudis 'savages' is a no no on FB.

For the record, I frequently call violent thugs and goons savages regardless of religion or race.  I've called Antifa folks savages and they are mostly spoiled white liberal nutjobs.  I've called Muslims who chop off heads and slit throats savages.  I've called the neocons savages for their numerous war crimes against humanity and they are nearly 100% Caucasian white males (John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Chuck Schumer and many others in Congress).  I've also called America's warmongering Evangelicals the WARVANGELICALS because of their appetite for wars, especially wars on Muslim nations.  I've probably also called them savages.  Frankly, I'll call anybody a 'savage' if they have no respect for the rights of other human beings, if they bomb their countries, if they assault them, if they murder them, if they rape them and if they destroy property.

Thugs and goons are savages.  Period.  It doesn't matter if savagery committed in the name of a country, the state, a religion, an ideology or even an individual.

As a peace activist, I advocate AGAINST America's wars and the bombing, droning, invasion and occupation of Muslim countries.  US foreign policy only creates MORE dangerous jihadists, more instability, more tyranny and more suffering.  Over the years I have posted many article on the horrific death tolls of Muslims in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and other Muslim nations that have been subjected to US military interventions.

Yet and despite my activism AGAINST killing Muslims, I'm accused of the PC label of being anti-Islam because I called the Saudis savages.  Well, the Saudis are no more and no less savage than anybody who commits violence against other human beings.  Yeah, they get to hide behind their religion of Sunni Salafist Wahhabism and this in my opinion is a huge mistake.  Furthermore it's my view that everybody should be calling out the Saudis for their actions and their dastardly and murderous deeds are numerous.  The Saudis with more than a little help from the US are the kingpins behind ISIS in Syria and Iraq.  The Saudis have flooded Iraq, Syria and even Libya with Wahhabist ISIS terrorists.  Wahhabism itself is a cult of violence as well as being the most intolerant form of Islam ever to exist.  Wahhabism is a clear and present danger to the world.  It funds radical Wahhabist mosques everywhere.

Ironically, I follow a lot of Muslims and ex-Muslims on Twitter and they are TERRIFIED of Wahhabism and the Wahhabis.  There are even Muslim Imans who reject Wahhabism.  Wahhabism may not be Islam but it certainly is taking over Islam.  Then there is the Sunni-Shiite rift that has been waging for about 1400 years.  Most Sunni Muslims want to reject Wahhabism.  Syria is a 90% Sunni majority nation yet Assad who is an Alewite is popular and easily wins elections.  Why?  The Syrians are incredibly tolerant despite being a multi-ethnic, multi-religious nation.  The Sunni majority Syrians live in fear and dread of being Wahhabized which is why they back non-Sunni Assad.

I even blogged about Sunni Islam back in 2013.

Why Sunni Islam is Crucial to World Peace and Crushing the NWO


While it's clear that I've been singled out for persecution by Facebook for the crime of speaking the truth, I can only draw several conclusions from this insanity.  One, Facebook is in fact a Saudi Stooge and apologist and it's functioning as a deep state operative.  Moreover, I've accused Trump's neocon War Cabinet of the same thing.  Secondly, I strongly suspect that the Facebook Gestapo has been heavily infiltrated with Sunni Salafist Wahhabists who obviously have the power to go after anybody that exposes the sickest and most vile religious ideology in human history.

Finally, all I can say is SHAME ON FACEBOOK.  Sometimes shame is effective in achieving change.  It should be incumbent on all civilized and peace loving human beings to constantly SHAME the Saudis because one thing they can't handle is bad press.  Hence the Saudi obsession with controlling the media, especially social media, is indeed very real.

Saudi power won't last forever and hopefully neither will Facebook.  Want to talk community standards Mark Zuckerberg?  I do and you have no standards.  Community standards says it's OKAY to call the daughter of President Trump a 'feckless cu*t' but it's not OKAY to oppose murdering Muslims. 

Fascistbook is going full blown Nazi. May it rot in hell were it belongs.