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

Connect with us


Owning The News in 140 Characters



Those of you familiar with my columns know that for some time I have argued that Trump’s tweets are anything but “childish reactions” or “temper tantrums” or any other nonsense.

They have been 100% strategic, deliberate, and focused, designed to provide the fake news media with a topic of conversation for a news cycle—or often two or three—while the administration methodically dismantles Barack Obama’s regulative state and erases his very existence from the historical record. Further, I have argued that the nature of the tweets, or the topic, is completely irrelevant and in some cases non-existent (“covfefe”). The point is never, ever the topic of the tweet. The point is the reaction it will provoke from the fake news media that will absorb the news cycle and entirely distract from real policies.

Why in the world would a White House that is succeeding want to distract from its successes?

Ah, grasshopper, you ask a pre-Trump/traditional RINO question.

Trending: Maxine Waters Wants Trump Supporters To Stop Confronting Her

Trump’s team knew since early in the primary that he would never, ever get fair or objective treatment from the media. Moreover, since early in the primaries, it was clear that even half of the “conservative” media—and ya’ll know who you are—would never really explain Trump’s goals, objectives, or methods but would in knee-jerk fashion bash him so that he couldn’t even count on so-called “friendly” media support.

In other words, the policies would have to be enacted with neither widespread support . . . or criticism. To Team Trump, all you had to do was get the policies in place, and they would speak to the public for themselves, whether in jobs and investment as a result of regulation-cutting and trade policy, meetings with foreign leaders (including both threats and promises), or taking a scythe to the abomination of Deep State appointees in virtually all the agencies.

Any one of these policies in a “normal” Republican administration would be chewed up, fricasseed and buried before it ever saw the light of day, much less implementation. Yet here we are with achievement after achievement of the Trump administration not only getting established, but showing results. Two weeks ago “news” (such as it was) emerged that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had conducted a major “repeal and replace” of 46 Obama-era attorneys at DOJ. Today, a story on the staffing of the National Labor Relations Board describes a similar significant (yet mostly unnoticed) shift.

Then came Trump’s “mean” Joe-and-Mika tweet. Predictably, both the left and the virtue-signaling right screamed like Nasguls at the affrontery and lack of class on Trump’s part. And once again, the subject of the 146 characters was beside the point: it was designed to provoke a firestorm. If it hadn’t been “PsychoJoe,” it would have been Megyn Kelly, Rosie O’Donnell, or even an absurdity such as “covfefe.” But the objective was achieved with perfection.

On or around the day that Trump generated the PsychoJoe tweet, the administration concluded, advanced, or initiated the following policies:

*The US got a new sugar deal with Mexico, much more favorable to us.

*The administration imposed sanctions on Chinese businesses for unfair economic and

financial practices.

*The House passed Kate’s Law and the Sanctuary Cities bill

*Trump held an energy roundtable vowing to make the United States the energy capital of the world.

*The President hosted Korea’s Jae-in for meetings and a dinner

*(Probably the most important and almost totally unremarked on) The administration announced a much tighter definition of “close family” for its travel ban—now temporarily approved by the US Supreme Court, excluding grandparents, nephews, nieces, etc.

And many more. A study by the Media Research Center found that the networks gave 28 times more coverage to Trump’s tweet than to the passage of Kate’s Law—and that was just one of a half-dozen major achievements of the administration that day.

In and around this time, the administration announced it was ditching the “Rivers of America” regulations in the EPA enacted under Obama. This alone constituted a massive power shirt away from the federal government and back to individuals, freedom, and private property rights.

Oh, and whatever else the administration is publicly saying it is, or is not doing, the Iraqi government announced it had retaken Mosul, broke the back of ISIS, and declared the caliphate over.

Wait, I thought Trump said we’d defeat ISIS, but that he’d never announce our strategy? Yet there ISIS is, pretty much defeated.

Well-meaning GOP pundits will shake their fist and say, “But Trump isn’t getting credit for any of that.” Sorry, pre-Trump thinking. He would never get credit from the fake news media, and would more likely, but allowing the policies themselves to become the targets, permitted many if not most of them to be stalled or defeated in the same manner the Deep State controlled George W. Bush and his father. Trump gets all the credit he needs from the implementation, which will produce the results he wants, which will in fact provide him a massive re-election victory.

In January, I met with a top person in Team Trump. (Here I’ll use the fake news “unnamed source” card, but you can’t get much higher). “How do you like how we’re flooding the zone?” he asked about the incredible number of policy rollouts. I noted this was 100% counter-Alinsky, occupying the enemy with so many avenues of assault that they couldn’t respond. Moreover, a diversion or major distraction during the offensive makes it all the more delicious.

“Do you think they’ll get wise?” he asked. “No,” I replied. “They are far to arrogant to believe that Trump is smarter than they are or that they are just that dumb.”


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