The Shock And Awe of Masculine Leadership

The first president I remember was Carter. I liked him because he seemed nice. I thought "nice" was a good quality. I was child. I didn't know better. Like many children of the 70's and beyond, I grew up in a single, mother lead household. This meant that ale authority in the home was a foreign concept to me. I never had to negotiate a father. Men who came to the house knew to be "nice" to me in order to stay on good terms with my mother, except one. I hated him. The one male figure that was there in the later years, an uncle, was "nice". A provider was still dependent upon my mother for shelter. The only other male "authority figures" I knew were the few male teachers I had in school who's ability to punish was very limited and elders and pastors in the church I attended. Most of those men were "nice" and very few of them, well actually only one, commanded any respect from me whatsoever.

I say all this to point out that Americans by and large are unfamiliar with strong male leadership. Obama was a very passive, feminine president. His way of handling conflict was very feminine in that it was the passive aggressive type rather than direct and confrontational. It worked for him because many Americans are really only familiar with that kind of man. I was always off put by an Obama that crossed his legs. In my opinion, men crossing their legs is an extremely feminine act. It goes against our anatomy (we have narrow hips not wide ones) and the idea of not allowing my testicles and penis space to hang out, bothers me. If you noticed, Obama would change to "legs open" when dealing with more masculine people, though he would occasionally fall back to crossing his legs. This was one of the things that struck me about Trump. I have not seen Trump sit with his legs crossed. Now it may have happened but I haven't witnessed it. When I saw that, I knew we were dealing with alpha. Now let me get to the point of all this.

Since Trump has taken office, he has executed a number of items that he said he would execute. This has had the effect of shocking the public because they have been used to cucked "leadership" that put's its fingers in the wind to find out which way to go. It will be but a short amount of time before mayors and governors, among others realize that they are not dealing with some beta, approval seeking male as president. They are dealing with a stone cold alpha male. A lot of the noise we're hearing from left leaning women is because they understand that they hold exactly ZERO sway over alpha men. Alpha men could give a fuck about any particular woman's approval (aside from perhaps his mother and even THAT is limited). And when it comes to a group of women he has no sexual interest in, who serve no purpose to him, that is, NOT PRODUCTIVE, he doesn't give them the time of day. These women know this. This why a bunch of them marched all over the US. They are scared to death that the gig is up. They are not really afraid of Trump himself. They are afraid that his success would be seen as an example by other men whom they have been able to emotionally and financially manipulate.

And so this feminized country where "he wouldn't dare" is a common refrain, Trump's willingness to build the wall has shocked the public. That he will make Mexico pay for it (by any number of means) is also shocking to them. They are all saying "he can't do that!" Well yes he can and he can because he has the will to execute. This will to execute is what has been lacking in the Republican party. They are still behaving as cucks with their howls about The Wall and sanctuary cities because they have been trained to seek approval before executing. As I said earlier, these folks are going to realize that they are dealing with an actual man.

For example, when Trump announced that the government exists to serve the "citizens". it is a reformulation of "this is my home, this is my castle, these are my people and I decide who gets to come in and who gets to stay." It is a very masculine statement that could never have come out of Obama's mouth or any Democrat for that matter. And understand that the ISIS Jihadis and other countries where men are not nearly as cucked recognizes this. Males ALWAYS recognize the higher status male and very few have the guts to stand up to him to take his crown. See for all their talk about "unfit to serve" as president, the opposition only shows that they are unfit to run any business. You cannot run a large successful business that regularly takes risks without being willing to execute. You cannot run such a large enterprise without the large balls to negotiate from a position of strength or the appearance of strength. To people who are unaccustomed to risk and live the "need approval" life, these things are absolutely alien. However; to those of us who know, we recognize this.

The left has tried to vilify alpha behavior as "hyper-masculine" and "bullying" (mind you there is such a thing as bullying but that's a different convo). In this way, masculine behavior: taking charge, executing, not bending to female emotional blackmail for example, is seen as negative. This is why these women's marches have many many males (many of whom raised by single mothers) that speak so much gibberish about rights their wives already have or how the government rather than them, should be providing for their wives and [usually] female children. And I note the female children because many times when I hear men trying to cuck other men, they lead with "I have daughters".

And? That you have a daughter is no excuse to try to enslave other people's male children.

So yes, this new administration is going to be a master class in manliness for a lot of boys and young men who have not seen such examples on TV (where simpering, idiot males rule) or in their lives. There will be errors and mistakes. They happen but even those will be lessons in how men should handle fails.

Millions of Fraudulent Votes?

So the latest MSM hissy fit is over Trump's assertion that millions of people voted illegally or fraudulently. The press has asked Trump for proof. That is reasonable. His "proof" thus far has been to point to two studies, the authors of whom have claimed that Trump has misrepresented their studies. Thus the MSM have declared that Trump's allegations are false "fake news". But is it?

First, the MSM has still not figured out Trump. By bringing up the subject Trump is forcing the media to put voter fraud front and center to the electorate. This is exactly what he wants to have done. With the question out there, someone or some organization is going to have to spend some time researching the claim because of course they can't let Trump slide on his "lies". What would such intrepid people find out? Lets take a look at the possibilities.

First, let us recall that when Jill Stein wanted to have recounts the results in Michigan uncovered a trove of voter ballots that had no provenance. After that news came out the whole recount thing was dropped and fell off the media radar. The existence of such a trove in one state should have sent alarm bells ringing across the country. There should have been investigations in every state. There wasn't. We know why. But lets continue down this hypothetical.

Trump said "millions of people". Plural. So lets assume that "millions" means a minimum of 2 million votes. Is that a lot of votes? Well lets look at it this way, CNN says that there were a total of 128,824,833 votes in the presidential election. 2 million votes would be 1.55% of the vote (just about the difference between Hillary and Donald's popular number). That's actually not a whole lot. There are 50 states. If we assume that all these "illegal" votes were equally distributed among the states (not the case in the least bit) then it would mean that each state would have 40,000 votes. In the least populous state, Wyoming, which has 544,270 that would be less than 10% of it's population (a greater percentage of it's voting population):

Statewide, most other counties, aside from Teton, still use standard precinct voting and, other than Teton and Natrona, standard paper pollbooks. Even so, turnout at the state level also broke records, with an unofficial tally of 258,725 votes cast.

. However we know that if we are discussing illegal voting from persons who should not be voting, usually resident aliens and illegal immigrants, they are highly packed in north eastern and south eastern states with large urban populations and sanctuary policies.

This brings us to the next point. Voter ID.

Many [Democrat run] States and cities have laws in place that allow people to show up on election day and vote without any challenge whatsoever. In fact some of these laws explicitly forbid asking citizenship status or anything like that because they call it "voter intimidation". Thus anyone can walk into a voting precinct on election day and without any barriers cast a ballot. Since no one can challenge these voters no one knows how many people have voted illegally.

This is THE problem. The MSM is claiming Trump's claim as false without telling the audience that laws have been in place that actually hides any potential voter fraud. Thus when studies are done on the subject no one can "find" voter fraud because the government officials actively cover-up and hinder discovering such things. By the time anyone can show such fraud, such as the case of Al Franken's election, it is too late. It is the case that these fraudulent votes affect local races far worse than they do larger elections. Illegal voters tend to be concentrated in certain neighborhoods and therefore affect the representatives from those neighborhoods. This is not only a US thing. The UK has recently uncovered massive voter fraud in neighborhoods that are predominantly "Asian" (and they don't mean Chinese).

Lastly I'll mention the use of immigration policy as a means of affecting elections. While this is not legal "fraudulent" voting, it is something that I have no doubt in on Trump (and other's) mind. Up to 1965 the US was a 90% white nation. Since the passage of the immigration act and various amnesties all of which were passed with assurances that the balance of the population would go unchanged, resulted in the white population in the US dropping to around 65%. In any other nation, this would be called ethnic if not racial cleansing in progress. Many of these new comers vote Democrat (Cubans being a huge exception). Democrats therefore have a existential interest in a decreasing white population (so long as they continue to supply the majority of the tax revenue, but that's another topic). The last election showed that Democrats did best in urban "diverse" locations and did diarheally shitty everywhere else. Where, outside of DC is it easiest to hide 40,000 illegal votes? Why in states with large urban populations where such votes would be "only" 50-100 votes where you can claim worries are "overblown". We know that there was a concerted effort between Democrats and foreign nations to get citizens of other countries to become nationalized citizens in order to vote "against Trump"(2).

In Chicago, Aurora Rosiles, 76, and her husband Abelardo, 75, attended a citizenship workshop at the Mexican consulate organized by the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights; the couple is originally from Michoacán, Mexico. About 2.7 million of the 8.8 million legal residents in the U.S. are Mexican immigrants, but as a group they are less likely to become citizens.

I consider this fraudulent voting. Of course it's perfectly legal but for a major party to be party in stacking the voter rolls with foreigners in collusion with foreign governments to be treasonous.

So it is certainly correct to say Trump has no "proof" that millions of fraudulent votes were cast. However the MSM has not provided "proof" that such an event doesn't occur (proving a negative is hard). But here's the thing, if Trump is serious and uses the power of the Fed to force investigations in every state and to back voter ID laws (which should be nationwide), we could find out what the real deal is.

Steve Harvey Proves a Better Leader Than John Lewis

John Lewis brought shame to himself and his office when he made an ass of himself by announcing that he was going to boycott Trump's inauguration. In his publicity seeking attack on Trump, and that's what it was, he not only announced his non-attendance but he said that Trump was an illegitimate president.

The media, as usual spun this as Trump "attacking" a Civil Rights icon, as if people involved in the Civil Rights era are infallible, when Trump didn't roll over and play dead when attacked by a black person. Trump pointedly showed how black political leadership has utterly failed in their alleged "duty" to represent black America. He pointed out how far Selma, AL has fallen. He pointed out the totally unacceptable levels of homicides and other violence that plague urban black America.

Of course neither Lewis nor the MSM can handle the truth and have no answers for the facts pointed out by Trump, so they fall back on the tired, worn out, creased, missing corners race of spades card. See, John Lewis knows that Trump is legitimate. He knows how the Electoral College works. He knows the popular vote does not determine presidential elections. He's been fine with that for as long as he's been in office. Lewis doesn't have to like Trump. Lewis doesn't have to agree with Trump. Lewis, as a representative of his district took an oath to uphold the Constitution. In his declaring Trump illegitimate, he failed to live up to his oath.

In stark contrast to Lewis, Steve Harvey, to the ire of his fans, accepted an invitation from Trump to meet and probably discuss issues affecting black folks. I don't know, wasn't in the room. I'm not that much of a Harvey fan. I don't listen to the show unless I have to (company car with no aux input). I did hear that he was very much against Trump during the campaign. That was his right and to some "duty" as a citizen. I have no problem with that on principle. But what is important here is that once the election was over (or shortly thereafter) Steve understood that the time is now to move along. Trump is president. You respect the office, even if you don't respect the office holder and as a citizen, when called, you provide service. Period.

For this, Steve Harvey has gained more respect from me. Lewis can go away.

While on the subject let me also point out that Jennifer Holliday is also a sham and shame who will not get any support from me. She previously agreed to perform at the inauguration. Her position was that though she didn't agree with Trump, that her performance would be for healing and bringing people together. Now personally, I don't think a citizen should have to explain why he or she is performing for or with the head of state, but this seems to be a trend now. Anyway, Holliday backed out of her agreement (which shows a lack of character IMO). She said that her fans or whomever were mad because her performance would be seen as endorsing Trump and his ideas.

Once again I'll point out the double fucking standard at work here. When Christian bakers and caterers refused to sell gay wedding cakes or provide catering to a gay marriage because they felt that such participation was and endorsement of something they opposed morally, They got hemmed up in courts. Shut down, sued and trashed by the media. Never mind that they were exercising constitutional rights. The left said that their cakes and catering services were not endorsements but rather simple business transactions with no moral statements.

So now performing for Trump is an endorsement of him and his ideas. This is why I'm not a Democrat. This is why I am not a liberal. This is why I'm no longer "on the left" (I am center). These blatant hypocrisies are unacceptable. If there is one thing I hope this term of office does, I hope it breaks the hypocrisy. It needs to happen. And if it means taking out a few Civil Right's icons, then so be it.

Pussy Galore

If only I was talking about a Bond movie.

Apparently the October Surprise is not the mountains of leaks showing that Clinton is an admitted two face liar who would like to change the rules of the Senate (and executive) in order to allow Democrats to do whatever it is that peaks their fancy. Nor is it that her foundation accepted money from Saudi Arabia even though they knew it was funding ISIS organizations. The million dollar birthday gift to Bill Clinton for an hour long meeting about who knows what.

Never mind that after the attacks on Sanders by the DNC because he is a non practicing Jew, something that would put them in league with orgs like Stormfront, But who also assailed the Catholic church (for purposes of disclosure I'm not a fan of either) and Catholics for being backwards. Never mind that Clinton's folks called Muslims and Blacks and Democratic voters in general, low information, low achievers and easy to manipulate. No, the most important thing, if you watch the rigged election, is whether Trump is down with pussy galore.

Which brings us to the actual topic of this post: The election is rigged.

Most of us understand "rigged' elections as someone hacking voting machines. Miscounts of ballots. Disappearing ballots. Purposely mismanaging voting locations to limit voting. But that is not what Trump means and it is not how this election is being rigged.

Again, we know from various leaks that various "news" organizations and internet giants are down with the DNC and with Clinton in particular. Since these outlets have an outsize influence on what people see, they are able to manipulate opinion and information and therefore have an outsize influence on the election (or anything else).

Let's give an example. When gay marriage was something that the media wanted you to get behind they changed the phrasing to "marriage equality". They knew that the public by and large associates very strongly with "equality". Thus if you were against "equality" you were for discrimination. Discrimination is bad to therefore opposition to gay marriage is bad. next thing you know, gay marriage sweeps America and Christians who actually follow the Bible get sued, something that could have never happened even 20 years ago.

Hence we see the media can stack the deck in favour of or against a topic. Which brings us to Trump. The media has been very willing to allow people to make unsubstantiated allegation against Trump. In decades past no news organization would dare risk their reputation, let alone lawyer and verdicts that could be in the millions by allowing their organzations to be used for libelous speech. Now if a woman says she was "assaulted" by a man, its put out as if it is fact. Reputations are damaged and there is no recourse. Why? Because 9 times out of 10, there is no official report to anyone. How can you defend yourself against a charge that only exists, legally, in the mind of the accuser?

I don't know if these allegations are true. Neither does any of the news outlets who are running with these stories. The responsible thing would be to not report until they are confirmed or at least some kind of verification process, other than the word of the accuser is done. But that's not what we're seeing here. So this is the rigging. Get the media to influence the people. Make them fearful of a candidate. Minimize the coverage and questioning of the preferred candidate and blow up or fabricate reports on the "out" candidate. Use key fear triggering words like "terrifying", "crazy", "unstable", etc. Those of us familiar with NLP know that these are trigger words and by associating them with a candidate will trigger a fear response (or worse) when confronted with anything associated with the candidate.

To make things worse, the media, in collusion with elected officials have allowed physical violence against supporters of a candidate to go unpunished. When reported on, these criminal and IMO treasonous acts are said to be "lively" and "peaceful' protests or the violence is blamed on the rhetoric of the candidate who the victims support. It defies logic but is repeated often.

So again, this rigged election is not about hacked machines and all that. No, it is a huge psy-op against the public. It is the use of economic blackmail against those who support a particular candidate. But most revealing it is the apparent triumph of Vagina Politics.

Pussy Galore indeed.

Trump Trolls Media. Media Takes Bait

So yesterday I was told that Trump said Obama founded ISIS. It was later that I saw the report about that statement. It was funny because the fact that I was told about it with the expectation that I would be upset, showed just how effective Trump's trolling was. Now we know full well that Obama didn't found ISIS in the manner we think of founding. But this excellent example of trolling forced those who were offended to show how stupid Trump is. In doing that they run across pieces like this one where the truth is even worse than the original statement.

Let us be clear. If we are going to be strict we have to credit the rise of ISIS with the entire cold war against Russia in Afghanistan. No Mujahideen, no Taliban. No Taliban no Al-Qaeda. No Al-Qaeda no ISIS. Straight line. Now presidents and other "higher ups" knew that the way to keep these Jihadis in line was to have strong, often brutal leadership. GW Bush apparently didn't get the memo and created a power vacuum in Iraq which would be the current founding event of ISIS. No Iraq war, no ISIS.

So in brilliant fashion not only did Trump troll Obama and Democrats, he also trolled establishment Republicans, all of whom are against Trump. Those establishment Republicans started the Iraq war and they don't want the public to realize that THEY are the ones responsible for ISIS. Now lets get to Obama and Hillary.

Having established that it was mainstream Republican establishment types that are actually responsible for the Iraq war and therefore the rise of ISIS can we put any responsibility for the spread and growth of ISIS on Obama? Certainly.

It was president Obama who involved the United States to be involved in the deposition and assassination of a sitting head of state who was a partner against ISIS and Al-Qaeda. This cannot be understated. Ghadaffi with all his faults, had emerged as a force against Al-Qaeda AND as a check against massive cross meditterean immigration to Europe. The US, under Obama provided air cover for "rebel groups" some of whom later pledged allegiance to Al-Qaeda. As if THAT wasn't enough, Hillary and other Obama staffers knowingly LIED about the cause of the deaths of American servicemen and an ambassador. Deaths that were the direct result of the US involvement in Libya. So we have one count of Obama enabling the rise of ISIS in an area of the world where ISIS did not exist.

Secondly, Obama, still not understanding the crucial role of certain types of leadership in the Muslim world, sided with "rebel groups" in Syria to depose Assad. As a result of funding and providing arms (and logistical support) to "approved rebel groups" ISIS established itself in Syria (which is partially how we get the name ISIS). As a matter of fact, some of those "moderate rebel groups" not only aligned themselves with ISIS but gave them the arms the US "covertly" supplied to them. You can't make this shit up.

Currently the only country in Syria that has actually not supported or supplied terrorists is Russia! Think about it!

So we have a second count where Obama has in fact enabled the establishment of ISIS in a place that had no ISIS.

So while it may be total sarcasm to say that Obama "founded" ISIS, it is entirely correct to say that in at least two cases, Obama enabled the creation of ISIS camps/strongholds where they did not exist. The more the media reports on Trump's comments the more those of the public who seek to "verify" information will learn the truth. It may not be exactly what Trump says, but that is not the point.

It Was Wrong Then. It's Wrong Now.

Back in the day. Black citizen trying to exercise his rights as a citizen.

Yesterday. A White citizen trying to exericise his rights as a citizen.

If we had a real president he would have a national broadcast to condemn these acts of treason and sedition and bring the full force of the government down on any person, government official, state and/or municipality that failed to vigorously uphold the law.

The Megyn Distraction: The Rule Of Vagina Politics

For those who watched the Donald Trump Show AKA Republican Debate you know that Trump was asked an irrelevant question AKA: Personal smear question by one Megyn Kelly. It was a classic example of Cuckservatism and the Feminist Party (AKA Democratic Party) total surrender to gyno-politics and an blatant attempt to distract the US voter from possibly the most important comment made that night.

Megyn Kelly asked trump about his comments about women he does not like:

“You’ve called women you don’t like fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals,”

Let's stop here for a moment. I don't know anyone who speaks kindly of people they do not like. So asking someone about the unkind words they said about someone or people they don't like is like asking whether air has oxygen. The purpose of that question was to smear Trump and to attempt to use gender issues to break him and by extension any man who does not toe the feminist line.

“Only Rosie O’Donnell,” Trump interrupted with a sneer, earning cheers from the crowd.

Lets stop here as well. It is well known that Rosie O'Donnell and Trump do not like each other Why is this even RELEVANT to a presidential campaign? It is not. Again this is an attempted smear on Trump.

“For the record, it was way beyond Rosie O’Donnell,” Kelly said – before launching into a laundry list Trump’s most misogynistic moments:

Your Twitter account has several disparaging comments about women’s looks. You once told a contestant on the Celebrity Apprentice it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees. Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president? And how do you answer the charge from Hillary Clinton – that you are part of the war on women?

I no longer watch The Apprentice due to Trump's actions in regards to Obama's birth certificate so I don't know of the comment. I do know that when I did watch the show he has said some pretty harsh things to "losers". Even if the charge is true how does that equal "war against women"? Particularly given that women have been given equal access to his Apprentice show including is daughter? Even though the Apprentice is a show with "show" expectations it's outcome is generally a matter of merit. You either made the goal as team leader and won or you missed your goal as team leader and got sent home. If anything The Apprentice is about performance, not gender. No wonder Clinton, who thinks she is owed the presidency because she possesses a vagina would have a problem with it.

“What I say is what I say, and honestly, Megyn, if you don’t like it, I’m sorry. I’ve been very nice to you, although I could probably maybe not be based on the way you’ve treated me, but I wouldn’t do that.”

Why did Donald say "I've been very nice to you, althought I could probably not be based on the way you've treated me"? Well it's not like that twit Donna Brazile said on This Week, that is was because Megyn wasn't sucking up to Trump like a little girl. No, it was because Trump saw it for the smear attack that it was and responded in kind. And the problem with that is, that these Cuckservatives and the Feminist Party aren't used to men standing up to them. That's why none of the male panelist told Brazile that she was full of shit for that comment. Worse than that, these people on This Week even proposed that women as a class cannot be insulted by any man. Seriously. Apparently for them "equal treatment" means "special treatment".

And here's the other sexist thing about Megyn's question. There was no commentary about insults to men. Trump has called men, politicians and others, all kinds of things. Yet that isn't even up for discussion. No, it's only a problem if a woman gets insulted. Then it's an attack on all women. Utter bullshit.

Of course the GCP (Grand Cuck Party) loves the fact that attention is being paid to Megyn and her bullshit question because while people are talking about that they are not talking about the comment Trump made about donors.

FOX News Brett Baier (talking to Trump): Now, 15 years ago, you called yourself a liberal on health care. You were for a single-payer system, a Canadian-style system. Why were you for that then and why aren’t you for it now?

TRUMP: As far as single payer, it works in Canada. It works incredibly well in Scotland. It could have worked in a different age, which is the age you’re talking about here.

What I’d like to see is a private system without the artificial lines around every state. I have a big company with thousands and thousands of employees. And if I’m negotiating in New York or in New Jersey or in California, I have like one bidder. Nobody can bid.

You know why?

Because the insurance companies are making a fortune because they have control of the politicians, of course, with the exception of the politicians on this stage. (uneasy laughter) But they have total control of the politicians. They’re making a fortune.

Get rid of the artificial lines and you will have…yourself great plans…

BAIER: Mr. Trump, it’s not just your past support for single-payer health care. You’ve also supported a host of other liberal policies….You’ve also donated to several Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton included, and Nancy Pelosi. You explained away those donations saying you did that to get business-related favors. And you said recently, quote, “When you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do.”

TRUMP: You’d better believe it.

BAIER: — they do?

TRUMP: If I ask them, if I need them, you know, most of the people on this stage I’ve given to, just so you understand, a lot of money.

TRUMP: I will tell you that our system is broken. I gave to many people, before this, before two months ago, I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And do you know what? When I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them, they are there for me. And that’s a broken system.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What did you get from Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi?

TRUMP: Well, I’ll tell you what, with Hillary Clinton, I said be at my wedding and she came to my wedding. You know why?

She didn’t have a choice because I gave. I gave to a foundation that, frankly, that foundation is supposed to do good. I didn’t know her money would be used on private jets going all over the world. It was.

BAIER: Hold on…..We’re going to — we’re going to move on.” (Transcript: Read the Full Text of the Primetime Republican Debate, Time)

Never before has a debate of presidential candidates has it been said outright to the voter how the donor system works. Yes, those of us intensely interested in politics knows this but the average voter doesn't. And you'll note that none of the persons on stage denied what Trump said because they knew he was right and if they claimed otherwise he'd release the receipts.

This was the bombshell on the stage. This is the issue that actually unites the left and the dissident right. They both know what the donors do and they both object to it but are too locked into their ideologies to join forces to dismantle the growing corporate donor state partnership.

I guess Megyn Kelly can be proud of the service she has rendered for the nation. Vagina never fails to distract Americans from important things.