Home Blog Page 23

Democrats Want Missles for Terrorists, But No Guns for Americans


Obama is the biggest smuggler of guns to terrorists.

(FRONT PAGE MAG) You won’t find many of the Democrats who pulled their phony publicity stunt over gun control backing the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act. It was after all their very own administration that chose to sendF-16 fighter jets, not to mention other serious firepower, to the Muslim Brotherhood regime that ruled in Egypt before being overthrown by military intervention and popular protests.

Not only was the Muslim Brotherhood regime linked to Hamas, which was designated as a foreign terrorist group by the State Department, but it had helped ISIS open up a front in the Sinai. Hamas is an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. Al Qaeda is currently run by a Brotherhood splinter group. Osama bin Laden had been a member of the Brotherhood. Zarqawi, the founder of the group that eventually became ISIS, was freed as a gesture to the Muslim Brotherhood. If the Muslim Brotherhood were any more involved in Islamic terrorism, it would have copyrighted the term.

But Secretary of State John Kerry had defended the weapons giveaway to the Brotherhood by claiming that, “Not everything lends itself to a simple classification, black or white.” Apparently aiding Islamic terrorists defies simple classification. Not everything is black and white. Sometimes it’s bright red.

While Democrats have harped on gun sales to potential terrorists, their own government was responsible for selling far more lethal weapons to far more dangerous Islamic terrorist groups.

Our weapons have gone to such diverse forces for democracy in Syria as the Islamist militias operating under the moniker of the Free Syrian Army whose leader defended Al Qaeda and the majority of whose commanders wanted to work with Al Qaeda, Jaysh al-Qasas, a former ally of ISIS and Ghuraba al-Sham, which had called for slaughtering Americans “like cattle” and whose former leader had ISIS ties.

The Free Syrian Army had included the Farouq Brigades, which forced non-Muslims to pay Jizya taxes and which became notorious when one of its commanders was filmed eating a heart. The Muslim Brotherhood’s Tawheed Brigade, which was part of the Free Syrian Army, the Syrian Islamic Liberation Front and the Islamic Front, had called for imposing Sharia in an Islamic State alongside Al Qaeda.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s Mujahadeen Army, which included such democratic secular brigades as the Glory of Islam Brigade, the Islamic Light Movement, the Rightly Guided Brigades, the Lions of Islam and the Swords of Islam, and the Islamist Nour al Din al Zinki got TOW missiles.

Despite the feverish enthusiasm of Democrats for running background checks on Americans buying guns, they had no interest in conducting background checks on the Islamic terrorist groups they were sending missiles to.

The biggest smuggler of weapons to terrorists isn’t hiding in a cave somewhere in Pakistan. He isn’t living in exile in a villa in Latin America. Instead he lives in comfortable luxury in the White House.

Obama had secretly authorized Timber Sycamore, the code name that stood for an alliance with the Saudis to smuggle assault rifles and missiles to Syrian Jihadists. He endorsed a Qatariweapons smuggling operation to Libyan Jihadists which the White House later admitted was aiding “Islamic militant groups” who were “more antidemocratic, more hard-line, closer to an extreme version of Islam”. NATO forces around Libya were told to turn a blind eye to the weapons smuggling.

Guns and missiles flowed through Benghazi on orders from Obama. But the impetus had come from Hillary Clinton. The same Hillary Clinton who is so vocal about gun control in America fought to arm Jihadists in Libya. And Hillary also insisted that even more had to be done to arm Syrian Jihadists as well.

Obama, Hillary and other Democrats seem to think that Americans can’t be trusted with guns, but Islamists can. They’re as passionate about arming Islamic terrorists as they are about disarming Americans.

The Democrats blamed the Orlando Islamic terrorist attack by Omar Mateen on homophobia. Meanwhile the administration continues to aid Shiite militias that murder gay men.

Asaib Ahl al-Haq, also known as The League of the Righteous, is backed by Iran, and like its “moderate” backer in Tehran has become notorious for its massacres of gay men. Asaib Ahl al-Haq has beheaded gay men. The death total has been estimated to be higher than in the Pulse nightclub massacre.

Today Asaib Ahl al-Haq is a key player in the campaign against ISIS. Shiite militias are in charge in Iraq and American support for the Shiite effort, like its support for the Sunni effort in Syria, means support for Jihadist groups.

Obama freed the leaders of Asaib Ahl al-Haq, even though aside from its massacres of gay men, Asaib Ahl al-Haq has claimed credit for thousands of attacks on Americans. It had abducted and murdered American soldiers. And it continues to threaten Americans in Iraq today. Yet the United States has acted as its air force and its terrorists and killers allegedly carry our weapons.

Obama’s Iran nuke deal has funded a major arms shopping spree by the Islamic terror state. And yet the Democrats so dedicated to gun control were enthusiastically in favor of a plan which allows Iran to toy with nuclear technology whose destructive capability is so far above that of any gun that the latter might as well not even exist. They also have no problems with Iran’s weapons shopping spree.

Their philosophy continues to be that guns and missiles for terrorists are not a problem. Only Americans buying guns must be stopped even at the cost of our civil rights. And that is the problem in a nutshell.

Orlando was an Islamic terrorist attack. Democrats have put on a great show of caring about the abstract existence of firearms, but none about the threat of Islamic terrorists. Guns do not shoot themselves. Their lack of concern and interest in the motives of Islamic terrorists is the problem.

Obama has dispensed guns to Islamic terrorists without bothering with any background checks. Media accounts repeatedly spew nonsense about how Islamic Jihadists dedicated to establishing systems of Sharia law are really secular and democratic moderates. The same newspapers and news networks that are horrified at the idea of an American being able to purchase an AR-15 see no problems with Islamic terrorists getting their hands on everything from TOW missiles to F-16 jets.

Even Islamic terrorists who were allied with groups officially listed as terrorists still received weapons and support. That is unacceptable. And we may never know the full consequences of that treason.

If the Democrats really want gun control, then let them start by controlling the flood of guns and missiles going to terrorists. Not to mention drug cartels. If they really want gun control, then they can start by ending the sale of weapons to regimes tied to terrorism, including Qatar and Saudi Arabia. If they really want gun control, then they can prevent the recurrence of similar weapons smuggling schemes to Islamist groups by signing on to the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act.

But Democrats don’t oppose guns going to terrorists. They only oppose guns going to Americans.

New York approves the nation’s first “Terrorist Registry” – and it’s Horrifying


“The short version: if the federal government says you’re a terrorist—without providing any concrete proof or due process as required by the Constitution—you’re a terrorist, and New York State will list you in a public terrorist registry. Your name, description, address, occupation, and photo would all be available to anyone with Internet access: your neighbors, employers—anyone.”

(RARE) Following the Orlando nightclub shooting, New York’s state senate passed a bill it’s touting as a “Historic First-Ever State Terrorist Registry Proposed to Protect the Number One Terrorist Target in the United States – New York.”

The basic concept is a lot like a sex offender registry, only for suspected terrorists:

Registrants would be required to complete a standardized registration form and law enforcement agencies would collect a current photograph, fingerprints and a DNA sample….

The New York State Terrorist Registry would be made available to local, state and federal law enforcement agencies.

And like the Sex Offender Registry, the non-confidential information of each registrant, would be available to the public.

Now, the bill’s cosponsors are telling the press the registry will only include those who have been convicted of an act of terrorism.

“This would give local law enforcement the tools that they need so that they are aware if there is somebody in their community that has been convicted of terrorism who still may be a threat to the safety and security of Americans,” said State Senator Cathy Young, one of the cosponsors.

But the text of the legislation itself seems to say otherwise.

In subdivision one, the bill spells out not one but two ways to get on the terrorist registry:

“Terrorist” means any person who is convicted of any terrorist offense set forth in subdivision two of this section, and/or who has engaged in any verifiable act of terrorism pursuant to subdivision three of this section.

So the first way is precisely what Young says it is: a conviction for terrorism.

But the second way, in subdivision three, doesn’t necessarily require a conviction at all.

In fact, that section includes four separate circumstances under which someone who has never been convicted of terrorism could be placed on the public registry should this bill become law.

The two most concerning of these are in subsections (d) and (e):

(d) listed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s terrorist screening center on the terrorist screening database; and/or 3

(e) identified by the United States Department of Homeland Security, the United States Department of State, the United States Department of Justice, the United States Department of Defense or any of its armed services, the United States Central Intelligence Agency, and/or the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, as a person who has committed a terrorist act against the United States or any of its citizens, and/or who is a member of a designated terrorist organization pursuant to section 1189 of title 8 of the United States Code.

The short version: if the federal government says you’re a terrorist—without providing any concrete proof or due process as required by the Constitution—you’re a terrorist, and New York State will list you in a public terrorist registry.

Your name, description, address, occupation, and photo would all be available to anyone with Internet access: your neighbors, employers—anyone.

And once a registry is created, it’s not difficult to imagine additional regulations following, particularly residency rules like those some jurisdictions apply to convicted sex offenders now, which ban them from living in certain parts of town.

It’s difficult to overstate how alarming it is that a bill this dangerous to due process and individual liberty has actually passed a state legislature. After all the uproar over Donald Trump’s outrageous Muslim registry idea, the New York state senate has quietly created a program that in its vagueness could pose an even more expansive threat.

Wikileaks Is Releasing ‘Enough Evidence’ to Indict Hillary Clinton


From Hillary Clinton stating that no American died in Libya even though she knew that was a lie, to proof that Hillary had knowledge of Libyan rebels committing genocide and funding them anyway, and emails which document the real agenda behind taking out Gaddafi, the Think About Now website has been exposing the truth about the horrific liar that is Hillary Clinton. Now with help of wikileaks, the truth is now even easier to find.

Wikileaks Exposes Hillary Emails That Could End Her Campaign & FB is Censoring It


Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, claimed on Sunday that he is preparing to release another slate of emails recovered from Hillary Clinton’s private server that will provide enough evidence for her indictment.

Julian Assange’s statements came in an interview on ITV’s Peston on Sunday. According to Assange, Wikileaks is preparing “upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton … We have emails pending publication, that is correct,” Assange said.

The Wikileaks team already released emails which uncovered that the presidential frontrunner was instrumental in spreading chaos and extremism in Libya. They also revealed that she pushed for oil privatization in Mexico and forwarded emails claiming a Sunni-Shiite war would be good for Israel and the West.
Clinton email reveals: Google sought overthrow of Syria’s Assad
Stating the obvious to anyone who’s paying attention, Assange doesn’t believe that United States Attorney General Loretta Lynch will indict Hillary: “the FBI can push for concessions from the new Clinton government in exchange for its lack of indictment.”

“She’s not going to indict Hillary Clinton, that’s not possible. It’s not going to happen. But the FBI can push for concessions from a Clinton government,” Assange said.
Assange also accused Google of helping Clinton during the Benghazi scandal and with her presidential campaign. Assange claimed that Google “is intensely aligned with US exceptionalism” and believes that Google itself is hoping for a Clinton victory in November.

Assange rightly calls clinton a “liberal war hawk,” citing emails in which she advocated for overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. “They predicted that the postwar outcome would be something like it is … she has a long history of being a liberal war hawk,” Assange said.

Assange believes that Clinton is starting to feel the pressure from organizations like Wikileaks who have demanded her to be more transparent. “She has pushed for the prosecution of Wikileaks,” Assange noted about Clinton. “We do see her as a bit of problem for freedom of the press more generally.”

What are your thoughts? Do you think Hillary will finally be convicted?

Islam is the problem, Not Guns


In the wake of this horrendous attack in Orlando that left to over a hundred gay men shot, every pundit is jumping to spin their views on the topic. Hillary is already blaming a lack of gun control, even though the man passed multiple tests and licenses, and Trump is blaming are lack of calling out one another to government officials – you know, the same people who show up to the wrong people’s houses for drug raids and kill their dogs.

Now, undoubtebly the topic of Islam is also being brought up, and for good reason – the man was a practicising muslim, he came from afghan parents, and his views regarding homosexuals aren’t in opposition to various Islamic texts, but rather they are a projection of them.

In this episode of the Libertarian atheist podcast, I delve into the problem of Islam, and why guns are not to blame for this horrendous attack.

Embeded player not working? Just go directly to the feed here

Video: When Hillary Clinton Defended a Rapist


It is the duty of all young women to support Hillary Clinton – and there’s a special place in hell for those who do not.
These were the words of Madeleine Albright just a few months ago, and yet I wonder “where in hell do those who defend child rapist go?”

Why do I ask this question? Because Hillary Clinton did just that, and laughed about the fact that she knew he was guilty. She proceeded to defend the man and smear the rape victim’s reputation for personal gain.


Newly discovered audio recordings of Hillary Clinton from the early 1980s include the former first lady’s frank and detailed assessment of the most significant criminal case of her legal career: defending a man accused of raping a 12-year-old girl.

In 1975, the same year she married Bill, Hillary Clinton agreed to serve as the court-appointed attorney for Thomas Alfred Taylor, a 41-year-old accused of raping the child after luring her into a car.

If you want to imagine the stereotypical lurking child kidnapping rapist, he was just that.


Now one might contest that she was simply doing her duty in defending a rapist, and lord knows, how could she have known he did it?

Well, it turns out she did.

“I had him take a polygraph, which he passed – which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,” she added with a laugh.

Clinton can also be heard laughing at several points when discussing the crime lab’s accidental destruction of DNA evidence that tied Taylor to the crime.

In the case, Clinton did everything from suggest that girls like her fantasize about older men, that the client had a history of emotional instability, and that – since she’s from a disorganized family – she was apt to exaggerate everything.

These allegations against the client were made up, according to reports from the complainant years later. So I ask you, is someone who defends someone she knows is a child rapist by smearing a 12 year old’s reputation a hero for women? Is there a special place in hell for this rape victim because she’s not pro-Hillary?

More articles regarding Hillary Clinton

How Hillary Clinton Auctioned Off American Power to Foreign Countries

Clinton: The US “Did Not Lose a Single Person” in Libya  

Emails Prove Hillary Knew Libyan Rebels Were Committing Genocide & Supported Them Anyway 

Candy-flavored ADHD Drugs & “ADHD Superheroes” – The New Low for Psychiatry


In 2013, nearly four-and-a-half million kids between the ages of 0-17 were prescribed ADHD drugs and, of those, 188,899 were zero to five year olds. In a new low for psychiatry, the drug peddlers of big pharma have taken a new approach in ensuring that children will swallow their kiddie cocaine – fruit flavored chewable Adderal.

(CCHR) The psycho-pharmaceutical industry is very interested in kids. So interested, that it’s now targeting children with the irresistible lure of tasty, candy-coated ADHD drugs and imaginary ADHD Superheroes.

But there’s no candy-coating the fact these fruity tasting ADHD drugs share the same Schedule II category as cocaine, morphine and opium and, as such, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) warns that Adderall and Ritalin are “defined as drugs with a high potential for abuse…with use potentially leading to severe psychological or physical dependence,” and are considered “dangerous” drugs.

Hence the term “Kiddie Cocaine.”

Add to these dangers the fact that there is no test for the completely subjective psychiatric diagnosis of ADHD, which was made clear with the National Institute of Health (NIH) Consensus Statement: “We do not have an independent, valid test for ADHD,” and “There are no data to indicate that ADHD is due to a brain malfunction.

However, regardless of no known cause for the subjective ADHD diagnosis, nor any clue about how the psychiatric drugs actually work as “treatment” for ADHD, the psycho-pharmaceutical industry is expanding the already overprescribed child and adolescent amphetamines market with new chewy, melt-in-your-mouth,

The potential short and long-term profits associated with direct-to-children-candy-coated-pill marketing will certainly increase what many already believe are ADHD drug prescriptions at epidemic levels. For instance, according to IMS Health Vector One National Database for 2013, nearly four-and-a-half million kids between the ages of 0-17 were prescribed ADHD drugs and, of those, 188,899 were zero to five year olds—essentially toddlers and preschoolers being prescribed “dangerous” and highly addictive drugs.[4]

Moreover ADHD “treatments,” such as Ritalin and Adderall, are federally controlled substances and come with 44 warnings from eight countries, including the U.S., United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, France and Singapore, citing heart and cardiovascular problems, mania/psychosis, hallucinations, depression, violence/hostility/aggression, seizures, anxiety, addiction or dependence, suicidal ideation and even death.

Given the known serious adverse effects associated with ADHD drugs, one might reasonably expect efforts to curb the pharmaceutical industry’s marketing directed toward children. Rather, though, words like subtle, novel, sophisticated, and creative have been used to explain the pharmaceutical industry’s marketing schemes to reel in children and, ultimately, expand profits.

Adzenys, manufactured by Neos Therapeutics, is the first of the candy-like ADHD drugs that actually dissolves in the mouth. This cocaine-like “treatment” was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in January for children ages 6 years and older, and the chewable, fruity-flavored drug comes in a convenient blister pack for easy pop-in-the-mouth-and-go “treatment.

Sounds so very Mary Poppins-spoon-full-of-sugar, but what’s the downside to the candy-flavored drug? There are many. According to the drug label, just psychiatric adverse reactions for Adzenys include: “CNS stimulants, at recommended doses, may cause psychotic or manic symptoms, e.g., hallucinations, delusional thinking, or mania in patients without prior history of psychotic illness or mania.”medikidz-explain-living-with-adhd

But candy-flavored drugs are not the first attempt by the psycho-pharmaceutical industry at marketing to children. In an attempt to explain ADHD to children, the psycho-pharmaceutical industry also has been supporting ADHD-themed comic books through Medikidz, a children’s medical education organization, that publishes more than a dozen comic books, dealing with a host of healthcare issues, including ADHD: Medikidz Explain Living with ADHD.

While Medikidz uses several Superheroes, like Skinderella (skin and adhd-medikidz-1bone issues), Gastro (gastro/intestinal system), and Pump (heart and adhd-medikidz-1blood disorders), Axon, “the brain specialist,” is ADHD’s Superhero. The imaginary planet, shaped like a human body, is called MediLand and it is here that Superhero Axon takes the child into the brain to understand the alleged complexities of ADHD.

Yes, it would appear that it will take the psycho-pharmaceutical industry relying on imaginary Superheroes to fill children’s minds with comical, not scientific, reasons for having been diagnosed with the psychiatric disorder, ADHD and, thus, benefit from the pharmaceutical’s drug “treatment.”

The problem with Superheroes, though, is that they are imaginary and the information the ADHD Superhero provides does not reflect the findings of the lowly mortals back on Earth at the National Institute of Health, which remains clueless about the causes of ADHD, openly admitting that “there are no data to indicate that ADHD is due to a brain malfunction.”[9]

And, although the pharmaceutical industry argues it is not directly targeting children, the ADHD comic book, for example, is sponsored by Shire Pharmaceuticals, which also, coincidentally, happens to market several ADHD drugs, including Adderall. In 2013 Shire subsidized 50,000 copies of the comic book and the fantasy surrounding ADHD appears to be working.[10] Since 2002, sales of ADHD drugs have increased exponentially from $1.7 billion to nearly $9 billion in 2012.

In a fictional world Superheroes are capable of extraordinary superhuman knowledge and abilities. In the real world, though, candy-coating dangerous ADHD drugs doesn’t make them safe or effective, and using Superheroes to describe non-existent brain disorders doesn’t make them real. In the real world, people who push on children harmful drugs, disguised as candy, aren’t Superheroes, they’re drug dealers…they’re villains.

Kelly Patricia O’Meara is an award-winning former investigative reporter for the Washington Times’ Insight Magazine, penning dozens of articles exposing the fraud of psychiatric diagnosis and the dangers of the psychiatric drugs—including her ground-breaking 1999 cover story, “Guns & Doses,” exposing the link between psychiatric drugs and acts of senseless violence. She is also the author of the highly acclaimed book, Psyched Out: How Psychiatry Sells Mental Illness and Pushes Pills that Kill. Prior to working as an investigative journalist, O’Meara spent sixteen years on Capitol Hill as a congressional staffer to four Members of Congress. She holds a B.S. in Political Science from the University of Maryland.

Breaking: Ted Cruz Drops Out of Race


Ted Cruz, the evangelical Christian Texan presidential candidate, dropped out of the 2016 race Tuesday night, which has removed the last hurdle for Trump’s quest to become the Republican nominee.

(Washington Post) Cruz’s decision came after losing overwhelmingly to Trump in the Indiana primary, all but ensuring that real estate mogul will claim his party’s mantle at the Republican National Convention in July.

“I said I would continue on as long as there is a viable path to victory. Tonight, I’m sorry to say, it appears that path has been foreclosed,” Cruz told a small group of supporters here Tuesday night. “Together we left it all on the field in Indiana. We gave it everything we got, but the voters chose another path.”

Cruz also said he would “continue to fight for liberty,” but did not address whether he would support Trump as the nominee.

The exit comes after a series of desperate moves to keep his candidacy afloat in recent weeks, including naming former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina as his running mate in a bizarre announcement where Cruz spoke for a half hour and Fiorina sang to his young daughters.

In his last day on the campaign trail, Cruz unloaded on Trump, calling the businessman a”pathological liar” and a “narcissist” who was proud of being a “serial philanderer.” The attacks were reminiscent of the broadsides Sen. Marco Rubio launched against Trump in the waning days of his own presidential campaign — and a far cry from the lavish praise Cruz heaped on Trump for most of 2015, declaring, “I like Donald Trump.”

Cruz’s campaign hit its zenith in February when he resoundingly won the Iowa caucuses, due in large part to months of cultivating grassroots support in the state. But it soon became a roller-coaster ride of crushing losses in states where Cruz expected to do well, including South Carolina and Georgia, followed by resounding wins in his home state of Texas and Wisconsin. Cruz’s campaign used its grasp of the delegate process to beat Trump at state conventions where delegates were chosen, but it was not enough to overcome the businessman’s tally and strength with the electorate.

The fact that Cruz remained one of the last candidates standing in a once-crowded field would have been viewed as improbable when he entered the race 14 months earlier. Cruz, the first major candidate to enter the race, is a first-term senator best known for getting under the skin of his Senate colleagues and championing controversial tactics to block the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. He was painted as a long-shot underdog who was too religious and conservative to advance past the early nominating contests.

But his campaign had a meticulous strategy it planned to roll out over the year that followed, and it started working soon after he announced.

“It is the time for truth. It is the time for liberty. It is the time to reclaim the Constitution of the United States,” Cruz said during his campaign kickoff at Liberty University, which was founded by the fundamentalist preacher Jerry Fallwell.

Cruz was immediately buoyed by impressive fundraising and the national platform that comes with announcing first. Groups backing the senator raised $31 million during the first week of his candidacy, and the campaign raked in $4 million.

The Texas Republican’s campaign employed a strategy of slowly introducing Cruz to a national audience while furiously working to shore up support with local activists and evangelical leaders in the first four voting states and the South, where the campaign expected Cruz to do well.

The campaign also talked about securing the support of delegates to the July convention almost as soon as it launched, envisioning Cruz in a head-to-head matchup with an establishment rival. The campaign sent emissaries to far-flung places such as Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands to try to lock down delegate support over the summer.

It was a campaign that reflected its candidate: methodical, strategic and data-driven. Cruz’s campaign deployed a sophisticated data strategy that used psychographic information to appeal to the fears or hopes of potential voters.

Cruz touted his outsider status and contempt for what he called the “Washington cartel” of politicians and lobbyists in politics to get rich. He made the enmity of his Senate colleagues a point of pride, joking about needing a “food taster” in the Senate dining room. He made it clear that no other candidate would get to the right of him, particularly on the issue of immigration.

But then came Donald Trump.

Cruz made an early, conscious decision to buddy up to Trump, brushing aside the businessman’s caustic comments about Mexicans and praising his toughness on immigration.

The two men met at Trump Tower in July, where Cruz invited Trump to tour the U.S.-Mexico border with him. Trump went, but Cruz could not because of Senate votes. Cruz and Trump both appeared at a rally against the Iranian nuclear deal on Capitol Hill in September.

As rivals were punching at Trump during the fall and quickly seeing their poll numbers drop as the businessman swatted back at them with insults, Cruz lavished praise on his rival for the nomination.

Cruz also tacked sharply to the right in order to compete with Trump’s rhetoric. Cruz’s immigration proposals grew tougher the longer Trump was in the race. He criticized Trump’s plan for mass deportation of illegal immigrants, then seemed to support it. He spoke of being weary of foreign intervention, but promised to “carpet bomb” the Islamic State to see if “sand can glow in the dark” there. He introduced a bill to bar refugees from Syria and other groups.

In December — as Cruz’s poll numbers were up nationally and in Iowa — he was caught on tape saying at a closed-door fundraiser that Trump may not have the judgment to be president. Cruz moved to smooth over the fracas, but Trump pounced. A few weeks later in January, Trump questioned whether Cruz, who was born in Canada, is eligible to be president.

Cruz then went on an offensive blitz against the businessman, assailing him for supporting partial-birth abortion and bankrolling Democratic candidates. It seemed to work, with Cruz beating Trump in the Iowa caucuses. But the momentum stopped in New Hampshire, where Trump won by big margins before marching to victories in South Carolina and Nevada.

Trump also upended Cruz’s plan to chalk up big wins in the South, an area the campaign saw as receptive to Cruz’s unyielding conservatism and his Christian faith. The campaign was hit with internal turmoil when Cruz fired his communications director, Rick Tyler, after Tyler posted on social media a video falsely purporting to show Sen. March Rubio disparaging the Bible. Some of Cruz’s most prominent backers openly questioned his campaign strategy.

Despite his other losses in the South, Cruz notched a big win in his home state that offered him a bonanza of delegates and kept his candidacy alive. A win in Wisconsin in early April infused much-needed momentum into the flagging campaign.

Cruz’s team proved adept at mastering the arcane art of delegate allocation, regularly snatching delegate support from Trump at state conventions. But as the primary calendar moved to the Northeast — an area hostile to Cruz, who derided “New York values” on the campaign trail — Trump gained momentum while Cruz flagged.

Indiana, which Cruz’s team had identified – along with Nebraska and California – as a state where it thought it could do well, never warmed to him. Cruz announced that he and Ohio Gov. John Kasich had an agreement where Cruz would campaign in Indiana and Kasich would not, instead focusing on Oregon and New Mexico. But the alliance turned rocky just hours after it was announced when Kasich refused to tell his supporters to vote for Cruz. The Texas Republican later said that there was no alliance, to which Kasich’s chief strategist tweeted, “I can’t stand liars.”

Cruz laced into Trump across the state, criticizing the endorsement he received from boxer Mike Tyson, who served time in prison in Indiana on a rape conviction, and decrying Trump as an insecure bully. The Fiorina announcement, meant to revive Cruz’s flagging candidacy in the state, gave it no discernable boost. The two barnstormed around the state, where Cruz faced less than enthusiastic crowds, and confronted a pro-Trump protester in Marion.

Cruz said of Trump, “This man is lying to you and he’s taking advantage of you.”

The man accused Cruz of lying, and said: “You’ll find out tomorrow. Indiana don’t want you.”

McAfee Produces Most Honest Campaign Ad Ever


“You don’t know the horrible aspects of war. I’ve been through two wars and I know. I’ve seen cities and homes in ashes. I’ve seen thousands of men lying on the ground, their dead faces looking up at the skies. I tell you, war is Hell!” -William Tecumseh Sherman

John Mcaffee is running an interesting campaign. Rather than attempting to hide his mistakes, he comes out and simply admits them. By doing this he is showing humility, which is a characteristic no other candidate is showing. While LP candidate Gary Johnson is calling  Trump a pussy , and Austin Peterson is calling the other candidates drug dealers, McAfee is hitting on the most important issue – war!

In the new campaign ad for McAfee and his VP nominee, Judd Weiss, they present the most important fact that everyone should care about – War is Hell.


Personally, I don’t believe McAfee has a shot in winning this election – the libertarian party will most likely not have a shot for a few more election cycles. What the LP can do is educate people on the principles of libertarianism, and McAfee is doing that as well as Ron Paul did back in 2012.

Watch McAfee Perfectly Explain Libertarianism in Under 2 Minutes

Let us know your views on the subjects in the comment section below, and feel free to join us on facebook and twitter

Man Banned from His Own Land for Living Off-Grid


Tyler Truitt joined the military in a belief that he was fighting for America’s freedom. However, after returning, he’s being given a lesson in what “freedom” means to the government.

The former soldier lives on his own property, but because he’s not using the city’s electricity or its utility grid, his existence is now being deemed illegal.

“We live out here off the grid, 100 percent self-sustaining,” Truitt said. “So I basically made all my utilities: I have my solar panels, I have my rainwater collection and stuff.”

Truitt manages to live on his own property by creating own electricity and collecting his water from the rain. He lives in a modular home, and his life is a testament to indivualistic and off the grid living.

This type of individualism is frowned upon by the state. By removing the “necessity” of state run utilities, Truitt is seen as an enemy.

“They say our house is a trailer, which is not allowed in city limits,” Truitt said. “They came and they condemned our house and told us if we stayed here we’d be arrested for trespassing on our own property, and the reason why is, they said, it was unsafe living conditions because we don’t have city utilities hooked up,” he explained.

Not only is Truitt’s crime victimless, it is actually a net benefit to society and ingenuity. This is considered a threat to the existing social hierarchy, and as a result he’s being treated as a criminal.

“I took an oath that I would support and defend the constitution and the freedoms that entails, and I really feel like those are being trampled upon,” Truitt said. Truitt is absolutely right.

Like a true believer in freedom, Truitt is not standing down.

“You have to stand up for what you believe in. They could come out here today if they wanted to and take us to jail for trespassing if that’s what they want to call it and, you know, that’d be fine with me,” said Truitt. “I’ll still come back the next day and the next day and the next day because it’s my home and because I live here. Where else am I supposed to go really?”

Wyoming & Colorado Primaries Prove They Don’t Give a F*ck About Your Vote


Get out and vote! If you don’t vote you can’t complain!


Clinton Wins Wyoming…Kind Of


In Wyoming people did vote and they’re complaining. Bernie Sanders won again Saturday — and still lost.

Sanders took Wyoming by an amazing 12 percentage-point margin in statewide caucuses, beating Hillary Clinton 56-44 percent.


But under the Democratic Party’s insane delegate system, Sanders’ winning streak — he has won seven out of the past eight contests — counts for little.


In fact, despite his win, he splits Wyoming’s 14 pledged delegates 7 to 7.


If you add in the state’s four superdelegates, who already pledged their allegiance to Clinton in January, Hillary managed to get a 11-7 lead over Bernie even though she lost.


Of the 500 superdelegates who have announced whom they’re supporting, 469 say they’re for Clinton.

Even the liberal establishment cesspool that is MSNBC pointed out the absurdity.


On Morning Joe Monday, co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski were exasperated by just how rigged the Democratic primary system must be for Vermont Sanders to have won 8 or the last 9 primaries and still fallen further back in the overall delegate count.


“Bernie Sanders won Wyoming by 12 percent, but he might not even pick up a single delegate. Hillary Clinton was awarded 11 delegates, Bernie Sanders only seven,” Scarborough said. “Why does the Democratic Party even have voting booths? This system is so rigged.”


“The party sends its activists out and [sends] people chattering on TV and chattering on talk radio about voter disenfranchisement,” Scarborough added. “This same party tells voters to ‘Go to Hell!’ when they select somebody by 12 percentage points and end up letting the other candidate, who lost by 12 percentage points, win the most delegates. That — by definition — is voter disenfranchisement!”


The Curious Case of Colorado


Without a single vote being cast by Republican voters in Colorado, Ted Cruz won 21 delegates from the state’s seven congressional assemblies and 13 delegates at the state convention on Saturday April 9th, 2016.

While the Colorado GOP establishment changed the primary process in August 2015 – the opposition to Trump delegates has supporters of the businessman up in arms.


How is this possible?


According to an article by the Denver Post back in August: “Colorado will not vote for a Republican Candidate at its 2016 caucus…The GOP executive committee has vote to cancel the traditional presidential preference poll after the national party changed its rules to require a state’s delegates to support the candidates who wins the caucus vote.”


The GOP delegates decided that democracy is too important to be left up to the voters, and proved that with a tweet.



Why your vote doesn’t matter, and never will


“The people who cast the votes don’t decide an election, the people who count the votes do.”

Joseph Stalin


“Political power comes out of the barrel of a gun.”

Mao Zedong


“If voting made any difference they wouldn’t let us do it.”

Mark Twain


Mark was completely correct, which is why they didn’t let people vote in Colorado; moreover, the assumption that your vote ever mattered is a lie.


A 2014 study, headed by the political scientists Martin Gilens, of Princeton, and Benjamin Page, of Northwestern, demonstrated what most Americans already know – interest groups take precedent over everything.

“Our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts,” Gilens and Page write:

Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.

In their conclusion, Gilens and Page go even further, asserting that “In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule—at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover … even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.”

Why this will always be the case

None of this is a shock, of course. It is simply the natural result of any system which is given monopolistic and coercive power over an area—in enough time, every government becomes completely tyrannical. The political jargon is different depending on the time and the area, but the tactics are nearly always the same.


Convince people that they need you, and that without you they would be lost. Convince them that they need to be controlled, and that without the use of violence by them then the enemy they create will take over. Then when you’ve gathered up enough power, take the wealth of the nation for yourself and divide it out to the people who were running the show in the first place. This belief system, that we need to be coercively controlled by a monopoly, is known as statism.


Statism views humans as helpless, incompetent, and bumbling creatures who need to be ruled by an elite class with unfounded claims of superiority, wisdom, and divine power.  Until people wake up to the fact that statism is man’s greatest enemy, we will never be free.