Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us


Donald Trump Keeps The Spirit of Andrew Jackson Alive



WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump positions himself as the next Andrew Jackson. He does so in flagrant defiance of the Democrats, the media, public school teachers, and revisionist historians everywhere.

And why the Hell not?

When it comes to populism, Jackson was the real deal. The man was a 12-year old prisoner of war in the American Revolution. He railed against the “establishment” as he tore into his big-government opponent John Quincy Adams, the globalist Jeb of his family. And in office, he established the “spoils system” whereby his own salt-of-the-earth supporters got the government jobs instead of the fancy entrenched bureaucrats or Gary Cohn and Dina Powell.

Technically, Jackson birthed the Democratic Party, the organization currently run by eco-crazy San Francisco billionaires and fading know-nothing Nancy Pelosi. But today’s Democrats have no claim on Jackson’s legacy or ideas, and they don’t even want one. They have turned Jackson into a millennial villain. They turned against the very guy who started their party, the same way they turned on liberal congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard when she said she didn’t want a war in Syria. They have deleted their history and lost their compass.

Trending: WHAT? Barack Obama Says He’s ‘First American President From Kenya’ In Foreign Speech

The establishment kicked Jackson off the $20 bill in favor of Harriet Tubman, who will take over in 2020. Jackson’s presence on the bill meant something to his supporters, because Jackson happened to be the most fervent, fanatical opponent of central banks ever to occupy the White House. So it felt good to know that the Federal Reserve had to print Jackson’s face over and over again, his stoic glare reminding them with every minted sheet just how much they’re raising inflation for everyone. His face on that bill was like a punk rock libertarian consolation prize. But it’s no more.

There is no clearer mark of tyranny than a tyrant’s face on a piece of currency. Harriet Tubman is no tyrant, but her presence on a $20 bill will remind everyone who touches it of the progressive hostility that put her there. Every day, cashiers and busboys and street urchins will notice that the bill has been changed, and will comment to themselves that the bill has been changed. They will question why, and inevitably someone will tell them that it’s because Andrew Jackson was a “racist.” That’s what the progressive globalist establishment wants. They want their own outrages to constantly be on your mind. Annoyance is their tactic. When they were out of power, it was merely agitation. After Obama got elected, it became policy. America must now look down at every $20 bill and remember: the people in charge changed the very face of the money that I need to stay alive. The people in charge, therefore, are not to be messed with.

The Democrats don’t really care about racism in history, because most of the racism practiced in America in history was practiced by them. The Democrats were the white racist party throughout the twentieth century, fighting hood and cross for segregation. They have no problem with their icon Woodrow Wilson, arguably the most racist modern president, who gets a free pass in official history books because he gave us the income tax and the Federal Reserve. When the Missouri Democratic Party recently changed the name of its annual Jefferson-Jackson Dinner, they changed the name to honor Harry Truman. Gaze upon this selection from the unauthorized Truman archives: a 1911 letter to Bess:

“I think one man is just as good as another so long as he’s honest and decent and not a nigger or a Chinaman. Uncle Will says that the Lord made a white man from dust, a nigger from mud, then He threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman,” Truman wrote.

“[Uncle Will] does hate Chinese and Japs. So do I. It is race prejudice, I guess. But I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, yellow men in Asia and white men in Europe and America,” Truman added.

But Truman stays on the dime, while Jackson gets kicked off the front of the Twenty, no longer worthy to hang next to the Federal Reserve seal, the Treasurer’s signature, and that creepy pyramid with the eyeball on it. The Democrats haven’t changed. They merely noticed population trends and pushed their racism back in the other direction. Their real enemy is populism. Their real enemy, besides Trump, is Andrew Jackson.

“It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their own selfish purposes,” Jackson once said. The trend he described is truer of no generation than our own. The government of the rich has infected every single facet of our society and our consciousness.

Pass a supermarket news rack this week and you’ll see faces of some of TIME’s 100 Most Influential People: liberal Washington Post sugar-daddy Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates’ wife (honored in a piece by Facebook’s Sheryl Sandberg), some movie actor named Riz Ahmed. You will see Alec Baldwin on Vanity Fair ripping on Trump. And you will see, I kid you not, Chuck Schumer’s cousin, alleged comedian Amy Schumer, in a one-piece on the cover of the InStyle “Beauty Issue.”

We live in a country where Chuck Schumer’s cousin is on the cover of the “Beauty Issue,” against all evidence to the contrary. But she gets to be beautiful. We have to pretend she’s beautiful. She is, after all, Chuck Schumer’s cousin.

This, my fellow countrymen, is the mark of tyranny:

President Trump sees all that is going on, and he knows why it’s going on. He knows that it needs to be stopped, or else the people will lose our voice entirely to an inhuman viral establishment that traffics in banality and erases faces from the public domain. So he meets with community bankers at the White House, knowing full well how much the Democrats’ Dodd-Frank law helped out the big banks at the expense of the small ones. So he knocks out regulations on small business, knowing full well how the Democrats and Republicans both want to regulate small businesses to death because they compete with corporations like Comcast and Koch Industries. So he skips the White House Correspondents Dinner to hang out with the “better people” of Pennsylvania.

Donald Trump is an innately gregarious man, which creates the effect of populism. But in returning to the source material, Trump is making it clear that he knows what it’s all about. And maybe, by harnessing this non-partisan populist spirit, he can manage to prevent another Civil War.


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.


CNN: Hurricanes Kill People Because of Sexism



CNN headline news: Hurricanes kill people because THEY’RE SEXIST.

In the wake of Hurricane Harvey ripping through Texas, a 2016 CNN article has resurfaced on my feminist Twitter feed, titled: “Female hurricanes are deadlier than male hurricanes, study says.” Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, I guess.

It would make more sense if they believed female hurricanes were actually more violent than male hurricanes — women being the more vengeful and vindictive of the sexes — but no, femininity is absolved, because it’s sexism that justifies female meteorological aggression.

According to this dubious study, female-named hurricanes result in more death and destruction than male-named hurricanes, because people prepare less for them. And this all has to do with our sexist notion that women are weaker than men:

“Feminine-named hurricanes (vs. masculine-named hurricanes) cause significantly more deaths, apparently because they lead to a lower perceived risk and consequently less preparedness,” a team of researchers wrote in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“In other words, a hurricane named ‘Priscilla’ probably wouldn’t be taken as seriously as a hurricane named ‘Bruno,’ which might spark more fear and prompt more people to flee.”

Either CNN must take the general human population for complete idiots, or their newsroom is ideologically brainwashed and braindead. This study is just a sad waste of tax money.

By Brant Kelly – _DSC9079.jpg, CC BY 2.0,

I never thought I would see the day when I have to spell out to feminists that hurricanes are not people. They possess no sentient or sexual characteristics. They’re freaking CLOUDS. Hurricane names are picked from a predetermined list, the names have nothing to do with the severity of the storm. Everybody knows this.

Meteorologists aren’t mulling in their laboratories, going “gee, this hurricane on the gulf coast has windspeeds of 100 mph; sounds like a Butch, what do you think? Oh, but the next one over in California is only at 80mph; let’s name it Sally!”

How utterly dumb must someone be to dismiss a deadly hurricane and stay at home just because it’s named Katrina instead of Kevin? Virtually nobody, or they are hopelessly stupid and deserve to be drowned under a flooding attic.

That’s right — all of those poor, dead people? They all died just because they hate women. It is the fate feminists want to befall on all those who dare question the superiority — I mean, equality, er um, equity — of women.

Of course, this isn’t what feminists are actually saying. In reality, their theory is much more absurd.

They say gender bias is unconscious. Our sexist notions are so deeply ingrained in our instincts, that even though we “know” that a hurricane is just a hurricane, whether named Christopher or Christina, our preconceived notions about the sexes are so deeply rooted in our minds that they taint our judgments and actions without ourselves realizing it. In order to undo this instinctual sexism, our minds must be constantly on the alert for “wrongthink,” purified with the ideology of feminism.

CNN’s so-called “study”? This is the drivel that passes these days as the scientific method:

“In one experiment, participants predicted the intensity of 10 hurricanes — five with female names and five with male names. The male hurricanes were deemed more intense — regardless of the gender of the participant.

That’s right. Researchers literally just questioned participants in the experiment to judge the severity of several hypothetical storms, only given their names. No other information.

Side note: the male hurricanes were deemed more intense regardless of the gender of the participant. Men are not the exclusive perpetrators of sexism here. Ah, but they’re not let off the hook. I’m sure each of those female participants was just a victim of “internalized misogyny” — which means women can only hold prejudice towards other women by learning it from a male-dominated society.

“In another test, participants were asked to judge the risks of a hypothetical “Hurricane Alexander” and a “Hurricane Alexandra.” Despite being told both had uncertain intensity, respondents considered Hurricane Alexander to be riskier.

Of course people are going to judge female storms as milder than males storms — you’ve given them no other information to go on. It’s a rigged experiment.

“A third experiment tested whether participants would be more likely to evacuate due to a “Hurricane Christopher” vs. a “Hurricane Christina.” As expected, more people would flee their homes if Hurricane Christopher came barreling toward them compared to an impending Hurricane Christina.”

How convenient that another study has already debunked this entire concept.

The government-subsidized study confirming implicit sexism in hurricane fatalities relies completely on restricted data that’s sensitive to the study’s conclusion. If there’s an implicitly sexist reaction to hurricane names, there should also be a sexist response to tropical storm names. Guess what? There isn’t! Hurricane Alberto in 1994 caused 30 deaths and $1 billion in damage, and from 2010-14, 18 tropical storms off the Atlantic wreaked 235 deaths.

What about hurricanes that didn’t make landfall? They would have seen that male-named storms such as hurricane Bill in 1991 were also not taken seriously, not because of sexism, but because of real-life circumstances.

They also excluded fatalities outside of the United States (how ethno-centric of those feminists!). In 1980, Hurricane Allen racked 269 deaths along the U.S.-Mexico border and $1 billion in damage.

Once the hypothesis is applied to a broader or entirely different data sets, it doesn’t appear to apply anymore. Color me surprised.

This claim of implicit sexism is just another way that feminists are belittling these disasters, blaming fairytale sexism instead of dysfunctional government responses and a lack of human charity and foresight for increased damage and destruction.

Storms used to be only given female names — but that changed when feminists complained that such a practice was sexist. Roxcy Bolton was noted as stating: “Women are not disasters, destroying life and communities and leaving a lasting and devastating effect.”

I don’t know about that — when you let women vote, be single mothers, hold elected positions, rob men in divorce courts, open the borders to hostile populations, and practice unrestrained sexual liberation, they’re worse than hurricanes. Women destroy entire civilizations.

And with that, I’ll hunker down and wait out the coming storm, because it looks like there’s nowhere to run from the rising flood of feminism.



Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Our Privacy Policy has been updated to support the latest regulations.Click to learn more.×

Thanks for sharing!

We invite you to become a Big League Politics insider. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Send this to a friend