Bre Faucheux's Blog, page 32

Immigration vs Liberal Logic

One might find this useful if ever in an argument over immigration with a liberal. Although, the liberals who have bought into “diversity is our strength” might be too far gone.

Arguing with a liberal about the economic impact of rampant immigration will twist your brain into a pretzel. It inevitably goes something like this:

“Illegal aliens and legal immigrants are taking millions of our jobs.”

“No, they’re not.”

“Then they’re all on welfare.”

“No, they’re not. Even most undocumented workers are productive members of society.” 

“How are they productive if they’re not taking jobs?”

“Undocumented workers are only taking jobs American’s don’t want.”

“Americans don’t want those jobs because migrant workers have been taking them for so many decades that wages have remained stagnant at a level that only a totally desperate person would work for. That is exactly how they are hurting us by taking jobs. They are not just taking up jobs, but they are keeping wages suppressed because Americans would have to reduce themselves to living like many migrant workers in substandard housing and driving badly broken vehicles in order to stay alive at those wages if they accepted those jobs.”

“Migrants only live at that level because they are forced to.”

“Exactly. They are forced to because the pay for those jobs never goes up because they are willing to live at that level out of desperation if that is what it takes to stay alive, and you’re willing to exploit them.”

“And if migrant workers didn’t do that, you’d have to pay more for all the food you eat. Do you really want to pay more for everything?”

Nearly 70% of all illegal immigrants are on welfare. That alone is a reason to kick them out. Welfare is taken out of the taxes from the middle class. Keep that up to sustain the millions of people crossing the border illegally and there won’t be a middle class anymore. Which would ironically serves the left’s purpose of making everyone poor so they will be further dependent on the government. Big government programs that the people need in order to stay alive secures that the ruling class will always rule. And it would have if Bush or Obama had managed to pass amnesty like they wanted to. 

And as far as this argument that the illegals do the jobs we don’t want, there were countless occasions while growing up where I would have taken those lower skilled jobs. We used to do those jobs. I would have made beds, I would have cut grass, I would have served tacos. Those are jobs meant for teens so they can get a little work experience before they move into better jobs. Not anymore. I can’t even go to a Chipotle or Panera Bread in my area and apply for a job if I don’t speak Spanish. And if I see a white person behind the counter, they’re usually a minority. Which I’m told by the left is a good thing. It’s a good thing that a country that was 90% white prior to 1965 now has wages so low that the middle class teens can’t apply for work to get experience and I couldn’t get a job at iHop if I wanted to because I never conceded to learning Spanish A language that was never necessary to know until our politicians realized they would get cheaper labor and more votes to the left if they allowed more from south of the border inside.

But the left has people genuinely believing that if you don’t want to speak Spanish and if you want English to be the primary language of this country, you’re racist. Meaning… the Japanese are racist for having Japanese and their primary language. The Chinese are racist for having two primary Chinese languages, Mandarin and Cantonese. The Russians are racist for wanting Russia to be their primary language. The Mexicans are racist for wanting Spanish to be their primary language. No no no… It’s only evil white Americans who are so pompous that they believe their entitled to actually having a primary language.

Maintaining a peasant immigrant labor class is what it is really all about.

And that, you see, is the bottom line — cheap labor via a peasant class. We don’t want to pay more for everything, so both political parties turn a blind eye to the cheap, illegal labor and keep the peasants coming, regardless of the social costs of maintaining a peasant class.

They are truly peasants, not just because of their living conditions, but because they supposedly have no voting rights (debatable). They have no say in the laws that govern them so live by the rules of another class of people, and they have to keep their heads low to keep from being deported. That means they dare not complain about working conditions either, as Americans most certainly would.

Peasants have to take what they get. That’s why we keep them illegal, and why we just catch and release them, letting them stay here in spite of the fact we know they have no legal right to because we just caught them crossing the border. It all forces them to keep their heads low … until one day they rise enough in numbers that they don’t keep their heads low any longer, and the peasants revolt against their slavish conditions.

Over 80% of women who try crossing the border between the U.S. and Mexico are raped by coyote gangs. If I were in a place of reasonable power, that alone would give me incentive to shut down the border so hard that people wouldn’t be tempted to try crossing.

Illegals and those who carry H1B visas are treated little better than cattle. Slaves. Indentured servants. They know that if the don’t put up with their shitty living conditions, they will either have to go home or they will be starve. Again, if I were in a position of power, I wouldn’t want that kind of enforced misery taking place in my country. Better that they either be sent back and stop encouraging others to come in illegally. Especially with promises of welfare money. 

What’s worse is that when the children of illegals get into the school system, they become radicalized by the left to believe that they’re being oppressed by evil white racists. When in reality, it was their parent’s choice to come into the country to start with. No one made them. And they are entitled to no special treatment what so ever. No one who cuts in line to immigrate or who commits crimes to do so is entitled to anything. 

What about the compassionate liberal argument for immigrant labor

At this point, the liberal turns to the compassion argument, since the economic argument for immigrant labor leads to ruin. The compassionate argument runs like this, this time started by the liberal:

“You are mean and cruel for wanting to kick a million and a half undocumented workers out of this country.”

“No more mean and cruel than you are for insisting on keeping out the hundreds of millions more people who want in but are kept out because they respect our immigration laws.”

“I don’t insist on keeping anyone out.”

“Of course you do. Otherwise, you’d spend all this protest energy trying to get the government to declare open borders to the whole world and let in everyone who wants in so long as they’re not criminals.”

“There wouldn’t be that many that would come in anyway.”

“Eliminate all immigration laws, except those barring criminals, and find out.”

“That is ridiculous. We have to have some reasonable limits because we cannot absorb hundreds of millions all at once.”

“So, you only want to keep out the ones who are respecting the legal process but keep in all the ones that jumped ahead of them in line? I want to kick out 1.5 million or more who jumped ahead in line, but you want to keep out hundreds of millions, and that makes you more compassionate?”

“Yes, it does. We cannot absorb hundreds of millions. It’s ridiculous. I would if we could, but it’s not even possible.”

“So, there is nothing wrong with having immigration laws, but just with enforcing them?”

“Yes, that’s mean and cruel because you are breaking up families.”

“Didn’t they know that was the huge risk they took in breaking the law and coming into the country illegally — that it might be really messy when they’re forced to leave?”

“You’re a racist with no heart.”

“What if I’m of English decent and also don’t want 1.5 million illegal aliens from the UK?”

“You’re English? See, I knew you were racist.”

“What if I just don’t want more people of any color, including my own, because we already have too many people in the US?”

“Why don’t you just leave the country and solve the problem then?”

“Aren’t you the one who promised you would leave if Trump was elected? Why should I just force the problem onto some other nation?

Let’s face it. The left thinks everyone on the planet is an American! They just don’t have their passport yet.

People don’t immigrate like they used to. It’s not 60k people coming from Asia during the California Gold Rush. It’s millions of people in the span of a few years or even less. This is when immigration becomes war and a time of extreme crisis. People aren’t coming over on wooden boats anymore. They’re coming in as if it were a conquest. And arguably it is.

Charles Dickens once wrote that the white elites drove him insane because they had so much sympathy for the plight of non-whites in other countries while they’re chimney was being cleaned by an impoverished white eleven year old right in front of them. How is this any different? Liberals have so much compassion for those who are worse off and chalk everything down to their environment as far as why they’re not succeeding. They want to give the goodies of the west to the open mouths of the third world, which in reality hurts the third world. For example, since whites from the west have spread better food sources to Africa, their population has exploded. Meaning that Africa, an already impoverished continent, won’t be able to maintain their own populace in a short amount of time. 

There’s nothing empathetic about wanting to keep illegals in the U.S. when they abuse the welfare state, drive illegally, make horrible wages that keep them and others impoverished, they keep wages down for the working class of U.S. citizens, they are raped along the way of entry, and then they demand special privileges such as citizenship right now as they do it.

Farage speaks for the people

As it turns out, the people of the Western world are stricter on immigration than both Trump and Farage.

Nigel Farage has slammed European Union (EU) institutions for continuing to foster large scale immigration from Muslim countries in opposition to the wishes of the people of Europe.

Citing a Chatham House survey published last week which sought the opinions of ten thousand people across ten European Union (EU) member states, Mr. Farage told his colleagues in the Strasbourg parliament: “Only 20 per cent of people want immigration from Muslim countries to continue. Just 20 per cent want us to keep on allowing people in from Muslim countries.

“Which means your voters have a harder line position on this than Donald Trump or myself, or frankly any party sitting in this parliament.

“That is where we’re going, and I simply cannot believe that you’re blind to the fact.”

He added: “The fact is, the European Union has no future at all in its current form, and I suspect you’re in for as big a shock in 2017 as you were in ’16.”

In a recent poll in the states, over 55% of the population approved of Trump’s “Muslim ban” which was actually a ban put forth by the Obama administration. Did I mention that Obama placed sanctions on other countries 19 times during his administration? And twice on the Middle East?

If this refusal to follow the will of the people continues, and the arguments put forth by those who have seen the horrors of Islam and it’s anti-women, anti-gay, anti-West cultural ways are continuously ignored, evolution might place the West on a list for extermination. Islam preaches conquering those who won’t convert. It preaches for them not to assimilate. And that it’s moral to kill those who disagree with them. They’ve done it countless times before in countries such as Lebanon. They will do so again if given the opportunity.

Anti-marriage advice from Scarlett

Scarlett has a few opinions about marriage. She should know. She’s been married twice.

Actress Scarlett Johansson says she’s not sure people are cut out to be in monogamous relationships which, she believes, require “a lot of work.”

“I think the idea of marriage is very romantic; it’s a beautiful idea, and the practice of it can be a very beautiful thing,” the 32-year-old actress said in a feature interview for this month’s issue of Playboy magazine. “I don’t think it’s natural to be a monogamous person. I might be skewered for that, but I think it’s work. It’s a lot of work.”

“And the fact that it is such work for so many people — for everyone — the fact of that proves that it is not a natural thing,” Johansson adds. “It’s something I have a lot of respect for and have participated in, but I think it definitely goes against some instinct to look beyond.”

The Avengers actress said being married is far “different” than not being married, and “anybody who tells you that it’s the same is lying.”

“It changes things,” she said.  “I have friends who were together for 10 years and then decided to get married, and I’ll ask them on their wedding day or right after if it’s different, and it always is. It is. It’s a beautiful responsibility, but it’s a responsibility.”

The star of Ghost in the Shell and her husband, French journalist Roman Dauriac, separated in January and have a 2-year-old daughter. Johansson also was previously married to actor Ryan Reynolds from 2008 to 2011.

Last week, Johansson told Entertainment Tonight she is “barely holding it together” as a working mother.

“I don’t profess to know anything about parenting, anything more than anybody else, [but] being a working mom is an incredible challenge, [and] it’s an incredible gift,” she said. “I think you always feel a little bit of guilt… If you’re at work, you feel like you’re missing out on those special moments with your kid. If you’re with your kid, you feel like you’re not giving enough to your job. It’s a balance.”

The actress marched in the pro-abortion, anti-Trump Women’s March last month after announcing, “I am marching on Washington to let our next president know that we, men and women alike, will not stand down or be silenced and will fight to protect our bodies and our choices.”

First things first… If you’re going to look for advice on marriage, never under any circumstances look to anyone associated with Hollywood for guidance. It’s a cesspool of immorality, drugs, infidelity, and moral relativism. Very few Hollywood marriages succeed. And why would they? The actors, producers, filmers, directors, etc. are always away on location. The only couple that I’ve heard of that had a mildly good take on this was Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connolly, who take turns making films and travel with the family in tow for one or the other to become “set bitch” as they call it. Not ideal, but if it works for them…

The problem with Scarlett saying this kind of thing is that younger people are listening to it. They’re starting to agree that marriage is for a few people out there but not for them and that getting married or being a mother won’t make them happy in life. Even though studies have shown that women who stay at home with their children and who are married are much more fulfilled and happier with life than those who work full time. Believe it or not, that cubicle won’t bring a life time of joy.

Yes, marriage is hard. No one denies that. And there are cases where divorce should be considered. I’ve always told myself that if I get married, the conditions under which I would file for divorce would be infidelity or emotion/physical/substance abuse. That’s it. If you’re reading this and you escaped a marriage for those reasons, you have my sympathies.

The truth of the matter (as someone bluntly stated in the comments of this Breitbart article), is that marriage is only really hard if you or your spouse are immoral. Or moral relativists. Those who are moral and committed to continuing to try and make an effort to be together, stay together. And commitment is a rarity these days in a society where women are being told that being in a marriage isn’t natural. Or if things don’t work out, no worries. You can always just get a divorce.

Scarlett sunk below the depths of respectability for me when she participated in that god awful anti-Trump advert that completely bombed and resulted in a number of response videos from people who can’t stand these liberal Hollywood elites talking down to those who pay for movie tickets. But telling younger women that that marriage is unnatural and that it’s “too hard” makes her an example for young women not to follow.

Although, it does make sense in a way. The left in general loves big government programs and the idea of taking money out the pockets of the “rich” or “top 1%” rather than doing the work themselves. So naturally the idea of marriage was too much work for Scarlett. Let’s see how this gamble works out when her beauty fades and the box office ticket sales begin to hit a snag.

The fame won’t make her happy thirty years down the road. But clearly the left has her believing that it will. And don’t listen to Hollywood liberal idiots trying to convince you (especially if you’re a young woman reading this) that marriage is unnatural or that monogamy doesn’t work. It’s been done since the beginning of time and women who are married and stay-at-home moms are happier. The studies have proven that to be true. Don’t let the left tell you otherwise. The left doesn’t want you to know this. They want your income taxes from your slave labor. Don’t give it to them. Also, couples that have only the husband working tend to make more money because the man is being taken care of by his woman and he can really thrive in a work environment. I understand that some women have to work because the economy is such shit that couples need duel incomes. My sympathies. This doesn’t apply to those people.

Of course marriage and kids aren’t for everyone. But then again, no woman was ever made truly fulfilled or happy by being a single mother, working constantly, and being away from her children who latch onto her legs begging her not to go to work.

 

Female Trump Supporters Don’t Need Feminism

Friday on ABC’s “The View,” actress Lena Dunham said being that “a part of feminism” is almost like “being a parent” and that the white women who voted for Donald Trump need to be enlightened “with the rhetoric of self-empowerment.”

The fact that Lena Dunham is claiming that she knows what it means to be parent without actually being a parent herself is more than a little arrogant. It’s downright ignorant. Only parents who actually try to raise their children well and be good role models know what it truly means to be a parent.

Women who voted for Trump did so because they don’t need feminism. Third wave feminism is nothing more than women trying to be superior to men. Fewer and fewer women identify with feminism. I think the running number of Americans who identify as feminists is under 18%. That alone is proof that the movement is losing steam. And for good reason. It’s allowed women to walk around thinking they don’t need a man or that they are better off without them.

Women in the west have a better quality of life than any other group of women in any other country in the entire world. We don’t need feminism. But maybe Lena Dunham could go to Iran and preach feminism there. Now that’s a country in desperate need of feminism. Although, Lena and others are likely to lose their head if they try. Just last week in Saudi Arabia, a woman was condemned to die by beheading in a Saudi Arabian parking lot. No trial. No lawyers. Just off with her head with onlookers watching and laughing. But clearly women voting for Trump is something more substantial to Lena.

I think it’s really important to remember that it is an incredible problem that 53% of women in this country — 53% of white women in this country voted for Donald Trump which means that they’re not only voting against the interests of their sisters, of women who may not look like them, who they may not understand but whose rights are just as important, but also remember that they are in that case voting against their own best interest.

The women who voted for Hillary in no way whatsoever consider themselves to be my sisters. They consider me the enemy. An outsider. Someone who is ignorant or in their colorful language, “hateful”. The truth is, Hillary is about as anti-feminist as you can get. She took money for her campaign from countries such as Saudi Arabia. She was completely in bed with them. Remember that whole beheading story? Does that sound like someone who has women’s best interests at heart? Not to mention that Hillary wanted to import more people from Islamic countries that considers a woman’s testimony in court to be worth 1/4 of a man’s testimony. Liberals might call pointing out honor killings and acid being thrown in women’s faces a bit racist even though Islam isn’t a race. I call it, “I don’t want those performing female genital mutilation living next door to me in the 21st century.”

I think what’s really hard, obviously it pains me as a caucasian women to think about how many women didn’t think about women who looked different or had different life experiences than them. They didn’t look outside their own back yard when they made the choice to vote for Donald Trump.

Looking outside their own backyard is exactly why women voted for Trump. Over 70% of illegal immigrants are on welfare which is crippling the middle class in taxes. Terrorist attacks in Europe are causing citizens to flee their native countries in fear of assault or death. The rape epidemic in Sweden is in exactly correlation with the amount of refugees (aka: economic migrants) being permitted in. White Londoners are a minority in their own city. Mexico’s age of consent is 12 and over 80% of women who attempt crossing the border into the U.S. illegally are raped or sold into human trafficking by coyote gangs.

That’s what American women have seen. And they said one huge, big, resounding NO! Looking out for your own interests is deemed by those on the left as selfish. Defending our borders against invaders is deemed racist. Saying western women have rights far superior to women in any other part of the world is deemed sexist. But American women who voted for Trump see these things. They know them to be true.

They might be afraid to speak out in the open with all the attacks from leftists as of late, but the one place where they know how to make their voices heard… is the voting booth.

Speaking with Courage | Interview with Thor Holt

Today I’m interviewing Thor Holt, the host of the wonderful podcast, Write with Courage. Thor is a talented author and a devoted advocate of free speech. I hope you enjoy the show.

The Nazi who hates God-Emperor

Oh boy… here comes Hollywood again to tell us how we ought to feel and think about the world.

Austrian-German actor Christoph Waltz has a piece of advice for President Donald Trump if the country wants to get back on the right track: “Go away.”

The two-time Oscar-winning Django Unchained star, who holds dual Austrian and German citizenship, told TMZ this week that he believes the United States is headed in a downward direction.

But the actor added that the country could yet recover: “Absolutely. That’s the fabulous quality of this society.”

When asked by TMZ what advice he’d give the president, Waltz only said: “Go away.”

The Vienna-born actor — who won Oscar gold for his roles as the ruthless Nazi killer Col. Hans Landa in Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds, and for playing the Civil War-era bounty hunter Dr. King Schultz in the director’s Django Unchained — has mostly avoided discussing U.S. presidential politics over much of the 2016 campaign.

Last summer, he criticized Britain’s exit from the European Union last year as “one of the silliest, most infantile things on earth.”

 

“It’s like handing someone a gun and telling them to shoot themself in the knee,” the actor told the Evening Standard last year of Brexit.

In a German-language interview with Austrian TV program Zib News in November, Waltz said Trump should not be allowed a grace period to see which of the policies and proposals he discussed on the campaign trail he might pursue.

“You can’t unsay what has been said,” Waltz said on the show, according to a translation by The Independent.

“Obama himself said in the meeting with Trump: We have to work on Trump feeling welcome, and if Trump is successful, the whole country is successful,” he added. “Really? If Trump is successful with what he announced during his campaign, it’s the end of the line.”

This one stings, because I truly liked Christophe’s previous work. He makes a wonderful villain. I guess now we know why.

Might I add the obvious? “Go away” is not an argument. Saying that the country would recover from the God-Emperor’s reign is not an argument. “You can’t unsay what has been said” is not an agument. “It’s the end of the line” is not an argument.

The virtue signaling might be strong with Christophe, but common sense isn’t. Just this morning a poll showed that 55% of the U.S. favor the God-Emperor’s recent stop on refugees (which are truly nothing but economic migrants as 92% of recent refugees cases have been proven fraudulent) entering the country from nations with a high rate of Islamic terrorism. Countries that were chosen by the Obama administration prior to the God-Emperor’s ascent to the cherry blossom throne. There’s also growing unfavorability of Muslim immigration spreading throughout Europe as white Europeans are fleeing their hometowns and feeling increasingly like minorities. Their politicians tell them that being a minority is good for them as the rape epidemic increases in exact tandem with the amount of refugees brought in.

Um…red flag!

The only way to send a clear message to Hollywood that we don’t give a shit about their political opinions or their lack of empathy toward the right is with our box office dollars. You might have sent a strong virtue signal to Hollywood, Christophe… but those who actually go see your films might not take kindly to it. Your choice. Your funeral.

Beautiful Diversity in Paris

But but but… diversity is our strength!

Paris City Hall announced Thursday an eight-foot tall bulletproof glass wall will shield the iconic Belle-Epoque Eiffel Tower from terrorist threats.

Coming just six days after a lone knife attacker rushed soldiers protecting the Louvre Palace museum, the new permanent wall will replace a temporary structure put in place in Summer 2016. Speaking in Paris Thursday morning, Bernard Gaudillères, president of the organisation that operates the tower, said the “bulletproof wall will encompass most of the gardens of the Eiffel Tower”, reports Le Figaro.

Mr. Gaudillères said because the wall will be made of bulletproof glass, it will still allow views of the Tower from the street. The new wall will prevent tourists and, it is hoped, would-be terrorists from approaching from any direction.

Now instead of walking to the monument from the street, visitors will be forced to enter through security checkpoints through the gardens. Despite this change, Paris has said access to the gardens and square underneath the tower will remain free of charge.

The decision to use glass, which will cost Paris some €20 million (£17 million), will prevent the tower from taking on the appearance of a “fortress”, and won’t “distort the architectural aspects of the surroundings”, reports Le Parisien.

This development comes as Paris struggles to recover the flagging tourist trade in the city, which has been driven away by fear of terrorism and surging crime. Breitbart London reported in January how Chinese tour operators are seeing a slump in bookings in France, with wealthy travellers instead opting for safer destinations like Italy, Spain, and Russia.

Jean-François Zhou, spokesman for a major Chinese travel firm, explained the attitude shift away from France, saying: “For a number of Chinese tourists, the dream of visiting France and Paris has turned into a nightmare.

“[Chinese tourists] are robbed in the palace of Versailles, at the foot of the Eiffel Tower, in front of their hotel, as they leave the coaches … In high season, not a day goes by without tourists being assaulted”.

The Chinese ex-pat who has lived in Paris for 20 years said he had watched the city become the number-one in Europe for “the upsurge in delinquency”.

Why do I get the feeling that the attempts to prevent the garden and Paris’s Eiffel Tower from looking like a fortress will fail spectacularly?

What can we attribute this to? An influx of economic migrants perhaps? God no. That would be racist.

But wait… Islam isn’t a race, is it? It’s a religion and a political ideology. And no religion or ideology is above criticism.

I had a friend predict recently that Paris would see an attack from an Islamic migrant at a major tourist site in a short matter of time. Given that there was a machete attack at the Louvre recently, it’s safe to say that it was an accurate prediction.

The influx of migrants into France as well as several other countries in Europe has left many natives feeling like strangers or even minorities in their own country. Some have fled to other countries. Tourism is falling. The danger is rising. And the virtue signaling by their politicians is failing to gain them any favor as right wing candidate Marine Le Pen gains ground for the upcoming presidential election in France.

I once thought to myself that if I made enough money one day, I’d like to revisit Paris once every other year. I’ve been three times and it’s beauty never fails to stun me. I’m thrilled to have seen it as much as I did and to have appreciated it’s splendor. Because I get the feeling that soon Paris won’t be the Paris I remember any longer. The images of the filth in the streets from the migrants and the photos from the RER being mostly migrants as well is enough to make me want to vomit. This isn’t a sudden flux of economic migrants. It’s a conquest. It’s an invasion. And immigration is  form of warfare.

Will the French realize they’re under attack quick enough to divert away from disaster? Only time will tell. The French have a long history of moral relativism and various sorts of degeneracy. And yet, their culture is incredibly rich. Full of great music, food, art, and romance. Perhaps giving way to conquest will be their ultimate virtue signal. And their ultimate demise. But hey, they’ll have their “solidarité.” If only someone could translate what they word means to the migrants…

House of Lords Treachery

Hat’s off to our allies across the pond.

The House of Lords has been warned it could be abolished if it tries to block Brexit later this month after a key bill cleared the House of Commons Wednesday evening.

The government saw off attempts by Remain-supporting MPs to frustrate Britain’s exit from the European Union, with the Commons finally passing the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill unamended, by 494 votes to 122.

Now the House of Lords will have to debate and approve the bill before Theresa May can formally give notice to the EU of Britain’s intention to withdraw under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.

However, the government does not hold a majority in the upper chamber, with many peers passionately pro-EU.

Various outlets report a government source warning Wednesday night that the House of Lords will face calls for its abolition if it tries to scupper Brexit.

The BBC quotes the source as saying: “If the Lords don’t want to face an overwhelming public call to be abolished they must get on and protect democracy and pass this bill.”

Brexit Secretary David Davis has also called on the upper chamber to “do its job” and “do its patriotic duty and actually give us the right to go on and negotiate that new relationship”.

It seems as though the British are taking a page out of Thomas Jefferson’s playbook in the colonial Declaration of Independence.

When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

I sincerely hope that the British people have their will followed by the House of Lords. For the House of Lords sake. I recall the last revolution that toppled a monarch in Britain wasn’t very pretty. Or at least it didn’t have a pretty ending for Charles I. 

Superbowl oh so white?

Arthur van Kaseman

‏@longhorn12471 15h15 hours ago#SuperBowl

Referees have been bought by #Trump! #Patriots#Falcons#WhiteSupremacy

Mad

@MadSwagMartin Mom:

“the patriots are full of white guys and the Seahawks are full of black guys…. Interesting”

Zemrag ‏

@Zemrag7 3h3 hours ago

Zemrag Retweeted

Was SO DISGUSTING!! Couldnt do a larger display of love for european #whitesupremacy genocidal thieves

LaBellavah-Aña ‏

@LaHBomba 8h8 hours ago

Neutrality helps the oppressor. Silence encourages the tormentor. -E.Wiesel. #WhitePrivilege#Whitesupremacy#Tombrady

Abdullah

@JesusTouchedM3

wow fuck to u white people and tom brady fucking racist islamaphobics

mansallah islam will rule the world #SuperBowl#WhiteSupremacy

Cipher714 @Cipher562

@KaraRBrown I agreed with you. Tom Brady represent white supremacy. Boston is run by racist white people.

NO NAZIS #RESIST

@onlinegrIfriend

tom brady didn’t win. patriots didn’t win. Racism won. Trump won. White America won. Fart on white people tomorrow.

The next random person I know in real life that tells me I’m a racial purist because I have the nerve to point out shit like what you see up above and because I flat out refuse to engage in white guilt, gets a high five to the face.

Hoaxing Media on the UC Berkeley Riots

Here’s my latest video. I hope you enjoy.