President Oprah?

oprah winfrey

Oh God no.

By now leftists are still trying to figure out ways of defeating the Donald (they can’t, but it’s both entertaining and frustrating to watch them try), but one fundamental problem is that there is no Democrat that has anything close to the kind of charisma that can allow him or her to match up to Donald Trump. However, there’s a chance that the Democrats’ prayers may yet be answered, as the shrill reality TV host Oprah Winfrey has hinted that she may yet run against President Trump, presumably as a Democrat.

I can guarantee that there will be clueless leftist salivating over this very possibility (indeed, somewhat at Salon did write about this), but am I the only one who thinks an Oprah presidency is a retarded idea? After all, I’m sure many leftists seemed to object to the very idea of a TV star running for President, and now they’re going to throw their support for another TV star, let alone the kind of personality who, believe it or not, is even more of a lowest-common-denominator candidate than they perceive Trump to be (her show was literally vapid daytime TV, there’s nothing worse than that). Still, at least the left has finally accepted that you don’t need political experience to run for office, if only because reality hit them hard.

All that aside, I sincerely doubt that Oprah Winfrey would be a viable candidate, even if the DNC decided to run her against Donald Trump. The way I see it is that Oprah will make the same mistake Hillary did, by running on her gender. The Winfrey campaign would be focused almost entirely on identity politics, and why not? As a black woman, Winfrey would automatically gain favour amongst race-baiting progressives, but that’s about it. If she did run, she would probably be the favourite candidate of a media class that doesn’t want to get out of the 1990’s, when cable news and wedge-issue politics were actually effective.

Also, if they did run Oprah, I think it would be a sign that the Democrats have officially given up, that they are utterly incapable of thinking outside the box. Not that I’d have a problem. I want the Democratic Party to sink like the Titanic, that being the only adequate punishment for its years of corruption. However, it’s bad for anyone who wants the Republican Party to have any meaningful election. The way Trump’s going, he might stay in power until 2024. Hell, we may be in for a full repeat of the 12-year reign the Republicans enjoyed starting in 1980.

I can’t help but think that Oprah would be the candidate for the few Obama worshippers left in America, the people who want to forget all of Obama’s failings as a president, and the fact that nothing really improved for the working class under Obama. Winfrey, to put it bluntly, would be another candidate for the rich and powerful, another corporatist Democrat. That, I think, is why she will be doomed to failure.

Winfrey may have the establishment media, celebrity culture, and name recognition on her side, but it won’t make a difference. The establishment media is dying, as evidenced by its naked attempts to attack the alternative media (let’s face it, the PewDiePie ruckus was conjured up by the Wall Street Journal just to try and sink his career), and celebrity culture is becoming increasingly irrelevant (as evidenced by the Oscars’ low ratings). Name recognition can also be a double-edged sword. Hillary Clinton had plenty of name recognition too, because of the many skeletons lurking in her closet.

That’s not the only thing that might sink Winfrey’s chances. If Trump can do a good enough job during his first term, and it looks as if he is, he’ll likely be handed a second term on a silver platter. It wouldn’t be the first time. In 1984, Ronald Reagan won all but 15 electoral votes against a weak Democratic candidate. Given the historical precedent, I think that no Democrat candidate, let alone Oprah Winfrey, stands even a remote chance of winning, and yet there are people there who think that Oprah would make a better President than Donald Trump.

Still, I can partially understand the fantasy behind a Winfrey presidency. The contemporary left is beaten, broken and battered, presently shackled to an unashamedly corporate party that pretends to represent left-wing values, only to run an extremely corrupt candidate for President, and select yet another corporatist as its chair. If only they had a candidate with the kind of celebrity status that Trump has, maybe then they would have had a fighting chance. The truth is that the Democrats are finished unless they are willing to change. If they actually run Oprah against Trump, then that will just prove to everyone that the Democrats are the same old party that they’ve been for years, and they’ll continue to lose until they either reform or collapse. Yes, the Democrats are in an existential crisis, but Oprah is certainly not the answer.

Why I was right about Obama

obama

Four years ago, on the inauguration of former president Barack Obama’s second term, I wrote a post wherein I argued that his second term would be no different to the previous term. After all, America under Obama’s first term was still divided, thanks to the race-baiters in the media, and the economy barely improved at all. Meanwhile, America was still conducting silent wars in the Middle East under Obama’s watch, all while the corporatist establishment still made a killing. Obama spoke of “change”, and brought nothing under his first term.

With that in mind, I saw no reason why the second term would be any different, and apparently I was right. Months after Obama’s second term began, it was revealed that the NSA was secretly spying on everyone, and Obama approved of it. It was a massive scandal on par with the diplomatic cables scandal in 2010, went WikiLeaks revealed that the US government was spying on its own allies. Yet the Obama fanboys remained silent. How was that any different to George W. Bush pushing for the Patriot Act just because Obama has a D after his name? It isn’t, and yet the Obama worshippers in the mainstream media pretend that he’s somehow justified in doing all this.

I also predicted that America’s involvement in Afghanistan wouldn’t end until around 2014. I was right, though some US troops are still in Afghanistan in the war currently being fought against ISIS. Meanwhile, it’s also become apparent that the Obama administration’s ineptitude in the Middle East has created the ideal conditions for ISIS to flourish. His failures are compounded by his apparent refusal to say “radical Islam” (refusing to acknowledge it as a possible motivation for the Orlando massacre), demonstrating to ordinary Americans that he has no interest in combatting the single biggest existential threat to Western civilisation.

The US economy still didn’t improve, save for the urban and coastal areas, many of which vote overwhelmingly for the Democrat party. The Rust Belt and the flyover states didn’t get any help under Obama, and that’s one of the reasons why Donald Trump won in most of the states. All the while, Obama was trying to get America on board with the TPP, a trade agreement that would give multi-national corporations the power to sue a sovereign nation, or even private individuals. In terms of economics, Obama has been nothing other than a friend for the rich and powerful, and yet his adoring fans still give him a free pass.

However, I think there is one difference I should have taken into account. Given that Obama can’t ever seek re-election after the second term, he didn’t have to appease the voters anymore, so he set about a torridly partisan agenda that appeased the progressive overclass, but agitated Republicans and people who aren’t necessarily partisan either way. Thus, we saw Obama’s true colours. He was a sellout globalist who doesn’t give a crap about anyone who doesn’t think like him. In fact, his presidency was little more than a left-wing rehash of George W. Bush, an authoritarian expression of the deep state, which I would argue had expanded under Obama.

However, I was wrong in one way. When Obama promised change, he did affect some kind of change, but not in the way I expected. Under his watch, American society shifted further left, slowly being seduced by progressive platitudes as it desperately tries proving to the world that it can be more like Europe. Meanwhile, race relations have gotten worse, thanks to social justice warriors and organisations like Black Lives Matter (a black supremacist hate group founded on the lie that police deliberately target black youths because of their race), which is astounding because many people thought Obama would be the one to help fix race relations. How delusional they were.

All in all, I was mostly right in the sense that Obama’s second term was essentially the same old routine, except Obama could do almost anything he wanted to. Of course, the one thing I could guarantee remained the same was the sickening cult of personality that surrounded him, which just reeks of state worship. I always thought it was disturbing that people give any reverence to politicians, people who you know are going to lie. Evidently people expected Obama to be different, as if he’s above everyone else just because he was the first black president. Anyone who thought that has been thoroughly taken for a ride. The cult of personality around Obama was so widely accepted it’d make Kim Jong Un blush, as even people in Britain don’t question his actions.

Honestly, I’m glad that US presidents can’t have more than two terms, because it means that the most overrated president behind FDR doesn’t get the chance to screw up America even worse than he already had. With the way Obama’s been acting, along with the collusion within the Democrat party, a Republican presidency was inevitable. I just hope that Donald Trump does a halfway decent job, which would be miles better compared to Obama. I’m fairly optimistic too, considering Trump has already withdrawn from the TPP, which he said he’d do within the first few days of taking office. At this point, America after Obama is starting to look better. Maybe now more people will see beyond the cult of personality around Obama, and realise what a failure he truly was.

Don’t trust the Democrats

democrats

With Hillary Clinton definitely the Democrat nominee to contest Donald Trump, the Democrat party has never seemed more like an establishment party than it has now, but as degenerate and corrupt as Hillary is, she is the least of my concerns right now. On the eve of the Democratic National Convention, a number of leaked emails were released by WikiLeaks, and the content of the leaked emails indicated that the DNC intentionally rigged the Democrat primaries in favour of Hillary Clinton, with more leaks on her expected to be released soon.

The amount of corruption and collusion revealed by the leaks was so great that it led to Debbie Wasserman Schultz to resign as chair of the DNC, only to become a part of Hillary’s campaign. Of course, if you were a Bernie supporter, you’re probably furious right now. I wouldn’t be surprised if the whole scandal spawned a new wave of Never Hillary voters, which it absolutely should because Hillary is such a fundamentally unlikable politician. The thing to be remembered, however, is that Hillary is the creature of the Democrat establishment, and this isn’t the first time that the Democrats have dabbled in corruption. In fact, some would argue that the Democrats have always been corrupt. Now I don’t personally feel that the Democrats have always been corrupt, but I think they are definitely the shadiest of all political parties, and believe me, corruption is just one aspect of why the Democrats are untrustworthy.

I’ll start by talking about an issue that Democrats just love to exploit – race. Back in the 19th century, it was the Democrats who wanted to keep black people in chains. What progressives tend to forget is that slavery was abolished in 1865, by a Republican named Abraham Lincoln. In fact, the Republican Party was founded primarily as an abolitionist party back in 1854. The 13th Amendment, which effectively made slavery unconstitutional, was universally supported by Republicans in congress, but curiously, only 23% of Democrats in congress supported it. So why did the Democrats want to maintain slavery in America? Some would say this is because the Democrats in those days were simply the more conservative party back in the day (much like today’s Republicans). However, I personally think that for them to want to preserve slavery obviously meant that they profited in some way from it, as that was certainly the case for most of the world until Britain abolished slavery. The main reason the Democrats supported slavery seems to have been to maintain support from the Southern factions, including the wealthy slaveholders who may or may not have been backing the party.

Even after the abolition of slavery, the Democrats still held deeply racist attitudes that would make the modern Democrat party look very hypocritical. The Democrats supported Jim Crow laws that were in effect from the Reconstruction era up until 1965, and despite what the left may have told you, it was actually the Democrats who established the KKK. In the mid-1860’s, the fact that many black people identified with the Republican Party made it difficult for Southern Democrats to attain power, so they created the KKK with the sole purpose of controlling the electorate by intimidating Republicans (both black and white by the way). The Democrats were the party that opposed anti-lynching laws, and even Franklin D. Roosevelt, who is considered one of the best Presidents to ever run the union, held back anti-lynching laws. People didn’t start thinking that the Republicans were racist until Barry Goldwater opposed the Civil Right Act of 1964 (which inevitably attracted the support of racist Democrats), giving leftists the opportunity to smear all Republicans as vile racists for the next five decades, this despite the fact that it was the Republicans who were pushing the Civil Rights Act through. Since then, the left has now been able to shame gullible voters onto their side by smearing white Republicans as racists, and black Republicans as “Uncle Toms”. The Democrats and Republicans never switched positions. The Democrats simply adopted a different strategy for dealing with black voters – namely by becoming the party of the welfare state, which brings us to our next topic.

Since the days of the civil rights struggle, the Democrats had essentially become the party of the left, and that meant big government, and a pushing of the welfare state. Democrats will constantly proclaim that they care about the working class, but if you ask me, there’s nothing kind about keeping poor people dependant on government money. In fact, I feel that the only purpose for expanding the welfare state is to keep lazy people dependant on it, who will in term vote for bigger government, which is exactly what the Democrats want. What they won’t tell you is that Democrat policies, implemented without restraint, ruin local communities. A good example would be the city of Detroit, Michigan, a city that used to be famous for being the centre of the automotive industry in America, but after being consistently run by incompetent Democrat mayors for the past five decades, the city gradually became one of the sorriest, most run-down cities in America, to the point that it declared bankruptcy in 2013.

It’s also rich to hear Democrat supporters claim that they’re the party for the working class, when this is the same party that nominated one of the most corrupt politicians in recent memory. As I mentioned in my post three weeks ago, Hillary is backed by large corporations and hedge funds who probably don’t give a damn about the working class, and it’s their interests that Hillary will be answering to in the end. If they cared about the working class, they would probably nominate the candidate who actually gave a damn (Bernie was a socialist, but at least he gave air to the concerns of the poor), but they’re main goal this year is to ensure Hillary’s coronation.

Finally, it’s important to note that the Democrats claim to be the liberal opposition to the Republicans, but a cursory glance tells me that the only truly liberal party is the Libertarian Party. It makes no sense that a party that actively seeks to empower the state could honestly be called liberal. In fact, the Democrats are actively trying to take away your Second Amendment right to bear arms, under the guise of common sense. The true liberals would support your right to self-defence. What we’re seeing from the Democrats, meanwhile, is cold statism in the making, and yet the Republicans are the bad guys.

I’m no Republican, but I certainly don’t trust the Democrats, especially not with Hillary as their nominee. What’s even sadder is that the presidential race has essentially come down to two of the worst candidates either party has had in history. As bad as Donald Trump might sound, I think Hillary will do more harm to the country by depriving it of the change it so desperately craves because it is suffocating under the Democrat status quo. If America elects Hillary, then the only person who wins is Hillary.

Why Hillary Clinton cannot be trusted

hillary clinton

For most people, the US election has come down to two candidates – Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Personally I would rather that people consider Gary Johnson instead, but it looks like most people are only concerned with Trump vs. Clinton. However, if I was forced to choose between just Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, as so many Americans feel compelled to, something tells me that I would rather see Donald Trump be elected president. Trump isn’t my candidate of choice, but I like that he is actually capable of appealing to the average man, and he does so often entertainingly. Besides, out of all the candidates, the one I hate the most is Hillary Clinton.

Before anyone gets rubbed the wrong way, hear me out. Ever since I heard about Hillary, I mainly knew her as the wife of Bill Clinton, and for a while, that’s all she was to me. Even when she was Secretary of State, I never got what I was supposed to see in her, or why she was even in that position (though I later found out that the Secretary of State is appointed by the President). I personally believe that people only support Hillary for the following reasons.

  1. She is a woman, and that means electing the first female President (given that I come from a country that elected the Iron Lady, that distinction is completely meaningless to me).
  2. She is apparently very experienced (never mind that her negligence led to an attack on the American embassy in Benghazi, in which four Americans were killed).
  3. Voting for her means voting against Trump (probably one of the stupidest reasons to vote for a candidate).

The problem with American politics is that many Americans tend to be very tribal and simplistic when it comes to politics. If you’re not a Republican, then you must be a Democrat, and vice versa. In this case, that also means that if you’re a liberal, you must support Hillary Clinton, and if you’re a conservative, you must support Donald Trump. Neither assumption is true, giving the number of liberals who denounce Hillary, and the number of Republicans who want Trump gone.

Back to my point. What really irks me is when people say that “you’re gonna vote Hillary rather than Trump”, assuming that voting Hillary is the sane option. It’s very odd that young people, the people who should be diametrically opposed to the establishment, would rather support a candidate who represents the establishment more than any other candidate. It also bothers me that the establishment media outlets give Hillary unwavering praise, and that the Democratic Party is so willing to hand the nomination to her. That’s one reason why I don’t trust her. The other reason is that she will say literally say anything for public approval. In the past, she used to be opposed to gay marriage, but by the time of last year’s Supreme Court ruling, she appears to be fully in favour of it. Don’t even bother trusting her on the Iraq War, because she voted on favour of it. She also frequently avoids answering questions addressed to her, such as on the ABC interview where Hillary refused to clarify whether she was in favour of the Second Amendment, despite saying in 2008 that she supported gun rights. You literally can’t trust her on any position at all.

She’s also a pathological liar. Aside from all the times she’s flip-flopped on various positions, she once claimed that she landed under sniper fire during her visit to Bosnia in 1996, but even CBS could prove that was an utter lie. In reality, she was greeted peacefully, and there was no sniper fire at any of the army outposts she visited. Say what you will about Donald Trump lying, but Hillary always knows that she’s lying, and she lies more than anyone else in politics. Some role model she must be for young girls.

As bad as Donald Trump might be, he’s certainly no worse than Hillary, one of the most corrupt politicians in recent history. Besides the email server scandal, there’s a wealth of evidence that points to Hillary’s brazen corruption. Hillary used to be a strong advocate of socialised healthcare (I don’t know if I agree with the idea, but it’s nice that she once stood by that), but in 2006, she became the second-most highly paid recipient of donations from the healthcare industry, and since then she has never spoken about the matter again. Hillary is also known to have taken money from a number of multi-national corporations, including Citigroup, Time Warner, Dreamworks and Goldman Sachs (the company whose support I suspect is what gets people elected, since Obama had their support and he won), and shady investors such as Haim Saban and George Soros (who some suspect is paying people to disrupt Donald Trump’s rallies). She also takes in millions of dollars from regressive nations in the Middle East where being gay is punishable by death, with the biggest contributions coming from Saudi Arabia, who donated up to $50 million to Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Speaking of Bill, Hillary also has a history of covering up her husbands affairs, as evidenced by the numerous former mistresses and rape victims who have come out and revealed the extent to which Hillary has been an enabler for Bill’s rampant sexual assaults. Juanita Broaddrick, a woman Bill Clinton allegedly raped in 1978, recalled that in a meeting with Hillary, she implied that Juanita should remain silent about the incident. It seems laughable that Hillary can campaign on women’s issues when she practically allowed Bill to abuse women.

And then of course there’s the recent scandal surrounding leaked emails from her private server. This was being covered up by her, her husband, and Attorney General Loretta Lynch, with the latter being accused of taking bribes from Hillary. If you need final proof of Hillary’s corruption, yesterday’s verdict should suffice. The Justice Department decided not to press charges against Hillary, this coming after FBI director James Comey decided that there was “no basis for a criminal case”, despite the mounds of evidence for a criminal case in the form of the leaked emails.

What’s really telling is that David Petraeus can be charged for mishandling classified information while Hillary Clinton can walk away a free woman shows how corrupt she is. She is so entrenched within the political establishment that she can literally avoid punishment. It’s gotten so bad that open the revelation that she wouldn’t be charged, the people took to the Internet to express their disgust through memes.

laws are for poor people

At this rate, I fail to see how Donald Trump isn’t going to be elected. In my mind, Hillary represents everything that is so disgustingly corrupt about the American political establishment. She is a symbol of the status quo, and I’m not surprised why the elites want Hillary for president. However, we can’t trust Hillary. Her Machiavellian scheming has contributed greatly to the rise of ISIS, and if elected president, she will basically continue the status quo of the Obama administration, and she will do this because the elites benefit from this.

Hillary Clinton doesn’t give a damn about ordinary Americans. If she did, she would address the issues that Donald Trump has taken on board as part of his platform. I believe that she won’t because she is incapable of effectively challenging Trump on the issues that matter, and she would rather that ordinary people shut up and do what she tells them to do. She’s the American equivalent of Britain’s Theresa May, but she’s a thousand times worse. One of my biggest worries about 2016 is that America could do something completely insane – electing the most corrupt politician the world has ever seen. I fear this will happen because the mainstream media will most likely shame them into voting against their self-interest by guilt-tripping them into electing her because of her gender. So to my American readers, I would strongly reject Hillary. A vote for Hillary is a vote for corruption, a vote for the globalist elites, and a vote for the cancerous old politics of yesteryear.