The left is not liberal.

What I am about to say may seem kind of strange to some. Mainly because there was a time when the left and liberals were synonymous with each other. However, that is no longer the case. The left are no longer liberal if anything they have become the anti-liberal.

In a ironic twist, the right has begin to shift towards being liberal. Even the alt-right which is made up of some very racist people, have become more liberal then the left is today. Now I understand many people may be yelling at their monitors after reading, but let me make my case.
Most people don’t really know what a liberal is. When they hear the word, they tend to automatically think Democrat or the left.  It’s as if it’s just simply another label used for them and they would be wrong.
However, being a liberal simply means you believe people should be free and independent, or if you will a person believe in Live and Let Live. 
Doing a quick search online reveals the following definition for what a liberal is.




1. open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values. “they have more liberal views toward marriage and divorce than some people”

favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms. “liberal citizenship laws”
“the values of a liberal society” (in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform.

Now that you’ve read that, let me ask you something. When colleges and student groups go around trying to silence others from being heard, is that liberal or is it oppressive? 
These students and colleges that don’t want other opinions to be be heard are literally oppressing another person’s freedom to speak and be heard all because they disagree with it. They’re not open to new ideas, or opinions, they’re not being respectful to their rights and individual freedoms. Instead they’re trying to force their collectivist ideas onto others while being the only voice heard.
At the Berkeley protest, that resulted in violent outbreaks to stop and silence the Free Speech protesters. As well as the violence that broke out the silence Milo yiannopoulos. It wasn’t the left or the progressives talking about tolerance for new ideas and different opinions, it was people on the right who did. It was Trump supporters, even the racist/white supremacist we’re the ones talking about it. Talking about how they disagree with people, but respect their right to be heard. Why the left did everything they could to silence the other side.
Needless to say, I never thought I’d see the day when a white supremacist was on the right side of history for once.

Even when Christians, Christians that belive homosexuality is wrong (not all of us do), refuse to bake a cake they are attacked by the left and sued for not participating in doing what they feel is a morally wrong thing to do.  
Is the owner of the shop free to live their lives how they want, when they are forced to do something they don’t want to do? Is the homosexual couple displaying liberty? How about when religious companies that are forced to pay for healthcare that allows for abortion, effectively making them pay for other people to kill their own born child? Of course not.
A true liberal would let others to speak and not use violence to silence them. They would let the free-market take effect when it came to that baker. They would not force a company and its owners to pay for abortion or birth control. Nor would a liberal sue a company for not baking them a cake.
The pendulum has now shifted, it is the many who are on the right who are becoming liberal. More liberal then left has been in some time. Even hateful racist and homophobic groups now are the new liberals in a ironic twist of fate. As there was a time when the right and those groups on the right didn’t want other groups or individuals with dissenting opinions be heard.
Now with left and progressive behaving as typical fascist do. As they grow more and more intolerant of other who do not conform to their collective mentality and ideas, to the point of useing violence against anyone who is not in agreement with them. They’ve lost the title of liberal. As they cannot tolerate anybody who does not think as they do. 
It is definitely interesting to live in these times and watch as the pendulum swings. Remember there was a time when it was the right who helped free the slaves and fought for people’s individual freedoms and then the pendulum switch to the left.

Now it’s going back to the right. Where it is the people on the right fighting for are individual freedoms and not just gun rights, but also our freedom of speech 

Now I’m not saying the right is any better than the left but I am saying the right is now the liberal side.


It’s France turn to elect their Trump.

C-LvYmPXgAA1bubWe are starting to see people stand up around the world and say, “enough is enough.” As their leaders, in what can be be described as attempting to deliberately cause the erosion of their own countries.

The United Kingdom had brexit, The United states elected Trump and now France could elect their Trump, La Pen. Who actually wants to try and save her county from the influx of immigration that has led to a huge uptick in terrorist attacks there, and the destruction of their own culture. While Macron, who her competitor in this election. His solution to this is to do nothing and to tell people to just get use to it as they are now part of their life.

C-L-yzcXkAEP8W-.pngOf course its easy for Macron, an old style aristocrat to do nothing, with him living away from the mess, living a highly lavish lifestyle in his expensive home. Because he does not need to experience what other who are not so lucky must deal with due to his decision-making.

Ignoring the corrupt media, which is trying to control who people vote for. I think there is a good chance La Pen could actually win. If she does, it would be interesting to see.

I should note here, that for all the complaining the US is doing about Russia’s influence in our election. The U.S. Does not seem to have any issues with trying to influence the election in France. But mark my words, if La Pen wins, The US will blame it on Russia.

I don’t buy it.

It seems I have grown highly skeptical of anything I hear from the news and our government. In a way, I have learned from resent history just how trustworthy our government is. And I think I have for many good reasons.

Remember why we had gone in and toppled Saddam Hussein? Where we had been being told that he had weapons of mass destruction. Turned out that was a big lie. A lie that has made Iraq much worse place for it. Or how the government has been spying on us in violation of the constitution. Or been putting people in secret prisons without trial?

So, now that we spent millions of dollars to do cosmetic damage to an air base, I don’t think that it’s unreasonable for me to immediately be skeptical of the reasons behind launching the tomahawk missiles. Asking if the excuses the government gave us even make any sense?

The more I think about it, the more it looks like we are being feed a load of bull. So let’s review a few things and ask a few questions too.

1.Bashar al-Assad regime was blamed in the past for using chemical weapons, threatened with US intervention because of the accusation. After many months of an investigation, it turned out that al-Assad regime did not use chemical weapons, but the rebels used it on them self to blame on al-Assad.

2. After the attack al-Assad agreed to dispose of the chemical weapons he did have with the help of Russia.

3. Both the UN and the US investigated and found and signed off that al-Assad had destroyed all his chemical weapons.

4. al-Assad Was winning the war and had no need to use chemical weapons, So why would he do so risking it all and becoming the next Saddam Hussein?

5. Why would Russia know about it and do nothing knowing it would make them look bad?

6. Remember US has been blaming Russia for hacking the elections and has yet to put forth any evidence for it making it look like the US is trying to make Russia look bad.

7. The use launched an attack before an investigation was completed.

8. The U.S only says there is evidence for their claims, but refuses to show it.

9. Wikileaks shown us that the US had wanted long before this happened to take out Syria government.

Looking at this list, what reason do I have to believe what our government and media is telling us about Syria?

Liar liar pants on fire.

Louise rosealma has found out the hard way that some men will treat women as their equal after one man had punched her in the face when protesters for free speach (alt-right) clashed  with ANTIFA ( who ironically are a group of fascist who say they are anti-fascist), who had been attacking the Free Speech protesters. Click here for the video of it.

Ms. rosealma, our snowflake, who is now crying about being punched by a man. Doesn’t appear so innocent when we start doing a little investigative work. You see, before she ever had gone to the protest she said something very interesting in her Twitter feed.

When she talks about how she wants a hundred scalps, it almost makes it look like she is looking for a fight, a physical fight at that. And as we start looking around more, we can see from other photos, that she was wearing padded gloves. You know, the kind you would wear if you were planning on getting into a fight.

Kind of like the one here.

Oh but it doesn’t end there. You see the same man who had been seen puching her in the video, also had gone Toe to Toe with just moments earlier. Supposably, because she was putting fireworks inside of glass containers that were blowing up and injuring people. Basically she was making IED’s. And this man who punched her, did so to stop her.

So, now after she got punched and she’s giving the media a sob story that doesn’t line up with even what we see in the video, she set up a go fund me page asking for $45,000 for medical expenses, four little cut on her nose, that magically healed moments after she was punched.

So yeah, of course I’m not buying it, but I’m sure there’s going to be a lot of social justice Warriors and feminists, who are going to donate.

What the best firearm for home defense?

There are places around the world where it is illegal to use a firearm to defend yourself. Some would even say it is even illegal to defend yourself at all using any force. However, in the U.S. You can use firearms to defend yourself and even your property. Personally, I won’t use my firearm to prevent someone from taking my TV. Frankly a television is not worth a person’s life. Even that of a drugged out thief. Then again, I’m not going to ask if they are there to kill me or just take my TV.

There is a debate about what kind of firearm one needs to defend themselves. So, I wanted to put my two cents in and answer what is the best one to used to protect yourself. So, is it a hand gun, Shotgun or a semi-auto rifle?

Now you may not like my answer, but I’ll say it any ways. The best firearm for home defense simply depends on where you live and what threat your most likely to encounter. Because each firearm is better suited for different situations.

For example, if you live alone in the city and don’t live in a gang infested area, then a shotgun maybe best. Because, if someone breaks in, you just need to lock yourself in your room point the gun at the door and if they come in, you stop them right there and then. Think of the shotgun as the gun you hold the fort down with.

However, a shot gun is not always practical. If you have a family, chances are if someone breaks in you need to protect them while they are in another room. As it is hard to open doors with a shotgun in your hand, let alone holding a child in one hand, while holding a shotgun in another. Once you have your kid, book it to your room and grab the shotgun. So, anyway, a handgun may be best for you to have only if you have nothing or another gun waiting. As its easier to control a handgun while opening doors and carrying a child. And if someone already has your child or your child is nearby, using a shot gun may be a bad idea. The best way to think of a handgun in home defense is to think of it more like it made for hostage rescue.

(semi-auto rifle)
Rifles, perhaps the best weapon to defend yourself with, may not always be a good choice for home defense, as the projectiles coming out, do so at such high speed they are hard to stop. Resulting on them going through walls and hitting innocent people unintentionally. If you live in a rural area, where other people live far away and you’re not worried about penetration and where police response can take hours. Then nothing beats a semi-auto rifle. They are easy to use and easier to control than a hand gun. They are also great at protecting oneself from the wildlife.

Lets not ignore how they are also best in areas prone to gang violence. Just the sight of a semi-auto rifle has been known to send groups of gang members running. Even when they themselves are armed. Gangs members often don’t attack or break into homes alone. They do so in groups, and if a fire fight starts with the group, having better control with the ability to fire 30 rounds going to help equalize the situation.

They are also the best firearm to use in areas prone to riots and to have just in case the preppers wet dream happens and the SHTF.

So really, the firearm you need will be dependent on where you live and what kind of threat you expect. You can’t go wrong with all three, but if you can only one, choose based upon what your home defense needs are.

White privilege strikes again.

If you are white and a victim of sexual assault, then the person who assaulted you can receive a less harsh sentence if the victim is white. Because white children suffer less than the people of other races. At least according to a court of appeals in the UK.

So please, tell me more about my white privilege.

Here is a link to the article

Why I am opting out of ObamaCare. It is a scam.

I’ve decided that I will not be signing up for the Affordable Healthcare Act. Which is also being called ObamaCare? It’s not that I’m some headstrong Republican who only watches Fox news. I actually supported the Affordable Healthcare Act in the beginning. I wanted to work. I wanted affordable healthcare. And I wanted other people to have it as well.

When I looked through my options of the different health coverages I found coverages to be…. Well I found them to be a joke. The premiums were incredibly high, even after you take the subsidy into account. The premiums on the low-end and the ones that fell somewhere in the middle, would not be so bad if it wasn’t for the high deductible that comes with it.
If a person can afford such deductibles, then they obviously wouldn’t even require the subsidy in the first place.

Let’s look at a scenario. I have a family of three. Some people have more and some have less. However, for the point I’m making in this scenario, I’m going to use my family as an example. After inputting all my information in, I found that at the lowest end, I can get insurance for about $380 a month. Using the subsidy I would have about $2000 year. Now this is not bad and normally I have no problem with. However, let’s do some math. And by same miracle, the premiums don’t go up over the next five years.

In the first year, all three of us go to the doctor twice. Dr. visit normally cost about $80 a visit out here. Now because the vast majority of health insurance that are listed on required a deductible to be paid off before you can receive the lower doctor visits. So, I will end up paying the full price. This means I’ll spend about $320.

The next year the same thing. Except my son gets a high fever, and we take him to the emergency room. The ER visit cost me $900. Again, because I have not reached my deductible of say $5000, which is the average deductible. I have to pay this out of my pocket. So this year, I spent $1220. This means that for the last few years I have now spent $5,220.00 and I have received nothing in return. And I still have three more years to go.

The next two years is more doctor visits. However, I’m in my fourth-year. I break my finger. I now have a $2000 ER visit because of it. I also have medicine to pay for. There’re another $80 for its generics painkillers. Because I have not reached the deductible again. So, I’m paying the full price of $80.

This means in those two additional years I now spent $11,300.00 with my insurance not kicking in to take care of any of it.

Let’s say on the fifth year I end up hospitalized. My bill comes out to a grand total of $7000. So I finally reached my deductible, and I have to pay $5000. However, now I have to pay 40% of that $2000 left. That is $800. The kicker is the insurance company has a deal with the hospital. They only pay 20%, and they get to pocket the other 20%. So they spend $400. Pocketing the other $400. So they spend nothing. Collecting $10,000 worth of premiums. That’s all profit.
In the end, I ended up spending a whopping grand total of $19,100.00
ironically I would have spent far less being uninsured.

Dr. visits: $1600.00
My son’s ER visit: $900.00
My broken finger: $2000.00
painkillers: $80.00
My hospital stay which is normally $7000. However, because hospitals here tend to reduce what uninsured people pay to just around 20%. My hospital bill will cost me just around $1400.
Grand total: $5900.00

Guess which one appears to be more affordable to me? I will give you a hint. It’s not the Affordable Healthcare Act.