Another Day, Another Justin Trudeau Scandal

By Joshua Weigert
July 11th, 2020

Co-founders of WE Charity Craig (left) and Marc Kielburger introduce Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his wife Sophie Gregoire at a WE Day celebration in 2015. (Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press)

Throughout his five years in office, Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, is no stranger to scandals and ethics violations. This past week, it was revealed that Trudeau was involved in another scandal. This time, it might be his worst violation yet.

On June 25th, Trudeau and his Liberal Party announced a $912 million program offering grants to college/university students in exchange for “supervised volunteer hours.” In other words, Trudeau was planning on paying students for their (mainly) leftist activism.

The government would not run the $912 million program, but instead, it was a contract sole-sourced to WE Charity (in other words, WE Charity will solely receive and divide the grants to students).

You may be somewhat familiar with WE Charity as they organize and run the “WE Day” events, which are stadium-sized youth empowerment events celebrating (mainly) leftist activism.

Trudeau had previous ties with the charity, as his wife, Sophie Trudeau, received $1,500 for participating in an event in 2012 before Justin became the Liberal leader and Prime Minister.

This alone caused plenty of eyebrows to be raised at Trudeaus June 25th announcement. How can Trudeau give a billion dollars to a charity he has ties with?

According to the CBC, “Trudeau admitted to reporters earlier this week that he did not recuse himself from cabinet discussions that led to the decision to award the contract to WE Charity” (1).

Then a bombshell dropped this past Thursday afternoon.
WE Charity came out on Thursday with a statement that they don’t pay their speakers any speaking or travel fees.

However, less than an hour later, it was revealed that BOTH Margaret Trudeau (Justin’s mother) and Alexandre Trudeau (Justin’s brother) received $250,000 and $32,000, respectively (2).

Graphic credit to the Post Millennial

Justin Trudeau awarded a charity that he has family ties with, who have paid his family members speaking fees, with almost a billion dollars of taxpayer money. This isn’t just some small-scale scandal, as there are 912 million reasons why this is serious. This type of scandal SHOULD bring down ANY leader and/or Prime Minister. However, Trudeau has survived two previous ethics violations during his reign as Prime Minister.

His first violation occurred a few months after winning his first election, where he and his family vacationed on Aga Khan’s private island. At the same time, Khan’s business was in contract talks with the Canadian Federal government (3).

His second violation was brought to light last summer, where he attempted to interfere and pressure the Attorney General to go soft on SNC-Lavalin, a construction firm located in Montreal who was found to be involved in a bribing scandal (4). You may not know that Justin Trudeau’s election district is in Montreal. Coincidence?

Trudeau also survived a black-face scandal where he painted his face black not once, not twice, but on AT LEAST three separate times (Trudeau admits he may have painted his face more than three times) (5).

If history is any indicator, I doubt this WE Charity scandal will destroy his political career. Had ANY Conservative (or any Republican in the US) been involved in Trudeau’s previous and current scandals, they would have had their political life tarnished. However, Trudeau has the Canadian leftist media in his pocket, and this scandal will be forgotten in a few weeks.

You can be corrupt and commit racist acts, but if you promulgate the leftist narrative, you will be forgiven. This is real injustice.



The Myth of Black Lives Matter

By Joshua Weigert
July 7th, 2020

Since its conception, Black Lives Matter (BLM) has caused a severe division in the American political landscape for various reasons. BLM was founded in 2013 as a result of the acquittal of George Zimmerman for the death of Trayvon Martin. BLM viewed this verdict as injustice and demanded societal reforms. Subsequent high-profile black deaths in the years following led to more and more protesting by BLM.

Because of BLM’s media attention, this has led to certain confusions and myths pertaining to BLM to arise. Most of these confusions and myths relate to what BLM actually is. The most prevalent myth of them all is that BLM is just an innocent slogan fighting for black rights. Because of this, there is a significant pushback against BLM.

There seem to be two main objections to BLM. The grievances pertaining to BLM are as follows:

  1. The slogan “Black Lives Matter,”
  2. The organization BLM

First, I think it is essential to differentiate between the phrase “black lives matter” and the organization BLM, as they are very different. Yes, black lives matter. Are there large groups of people who think they don’t? The implication of a slogan saying “X matters”, implies that there is a counter-thought of “X doesn’t matter,” or a passive attitude of X isn’t important. The Ku Klux Klan (KKK) is a vile organization that has been rightly shunned and ostracized for decades. However, according to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), it is estimated that the KKK comprises of about 3,000 individuals. Considering the population of the United States is about 330 million, this is an extremely tiny minority of people who make up the KKK. Is there any other community of people who oppose black lives? However, I am not too interested in the first objection to BLM as the main topic of this article pertains mostly to the second objection.

What are the purposes and objectives of BLM as an organization? It seems as though many are confused about their main goals and what they are actually fighting for or against. Take the below video clip as an example.

In the video clip, the CNN host Don Lemon argues with actor Terry Crews on BLM’s objectives. Lemon claims that BLM is an organization only interested in police injustice, while Crews explains that BLM goes beyond police injustice.

Who is right?

First, it’s hard to ignore Lemons’ pontification and belittlement of Crews. Who is Lemon to tell Crews to get tougher skin? If Lemon really wanted to hear about Crews’ views and arguments against BLM, he would have let him express them. Lemon didn’t allow Crews to do so, consistently cutting him off and talking down to him.

Lemon claims that BLM is not “all-encompassing”, and that the BLM movement “is about police brutality… not about what is happening in black neighborhoods”. Lastly, he then talks about how BLM is not about black on black crime.

Essentially, Lemon argues that “black lives matter” does not pertain to all black lives.

However, on BLM’s website, the organization talks about how we “must ensure we are building a movement that brings all of us to the front.” The site goes on to affirm the lives of “all Black lives along the gender spectrum.” Lastly, BLM promises to “work vigorously for freedom and justice for Black people and, by extension, all people.”

This organization claims to be for ALL black injustices, including black on black violence. Sorry Lemon, but BLM has gone well beyond police injustices.

BLM expanding beyond police injustice is not inherently wrong. The issue with BLM is that it is a Marxist organization. In an interview with Jared Ball of the Real News Network, BLM co-founder Patrisse Cullors said, “we actually do have an ideological frame. Myself and Alicia (another co-founder) in particular are trained organizers.” Cullors goes on to say, “we are trained Marxists. We are super-versed on, sort of, ideological theories. And I think that what we really tried to do is build a movement that could be utilized by many, many black folk.”

BLM has admitted they are trained Marxists. This is even more evident by the use of “comrade” throughout their website, and the general anti-capitalist/ pro-social and economic revolution mission statement.

BLM supports illegal immigrants, defunding the police, abortion, and a host of other issues from the leftist platform. BLM even plans to “disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure.”

For these reasons, it is difficult for many Americans to get behind an organization that undermines America. It is a myth that BLM is just an innocent movement or slogan. BLM is more than that. BLM is a political ideology that is incompatible with American values and her way of life.


No, You Should Not Be Ashamed to Celebrate the 4th of July

By Joshua Weigert
July 3rd, 2020

For the past several days, there has been much talk about “canceling” the 4th of July. The idea behind canceling Independence Day is not a surprise: America is a terrible, awful, no good place. The reasons for this canceling are equally not surprising: Racism towards African-Americans, Native Indians, and general anti-LGBTQAAIIPEIEIOAT&T sentiments. 

Yes, the history of America was not always great and, at times, profoundly evil. Slavery and Jim Crow laws are examples of how systemic racism and bigotry were able to run rampant. However, this does not mean that America, the American Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence, is rooted in racism and/or evil. Few more profound words have ever been written than “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” 

THIS is what America was founded on. THIS is what America strives towards. THIS is also what leftists are trying to destroy. 

Earlier this week, the official Democrat Party twitter likened Mount Rushmore to a symbol of white supremacy. 

The tweet linked an article that parroted a view that the American monument was a symbol of racism. The tweet also lambasted the monument by claiming it was on land stolen from tribal communities. 

The mainstream media have echoed the Democrat Party and are pushing a narrative that America is genuinely and foundationally racist and evil. On the same day, the New York Times published an article with a tweet that read, “Mount Rushmore was built on land that belonged to the Lakota tribe and sculpted by a man who had strong bonds with the Ku Klux Klan. It features the faces of 2 U.S. presidents who were slaveholders.”

The Constitution grants both the Democrat Party and the New York Times the freedom to criticize America. The values and guarantees embedded in the Constitution create the fertile ground for the success of both organizations like the New York Times and the career politicians in the Democrat Party. 

Singer and songwriter Pharrell Williams also came out this week mildly criticizing the 4th of July. Pharrell Williams is roughly worth $150 million. All of Williams’ success and monetary worth is a result of America and the ideals that intertwine our great country. 

The radical left is rejecting the foundational principles of America. The extreme left only sees the disparity of outcomes of various groups and points to a flawed system as the culprit. Yes, all men are created equal. But, this does not mean that all men will have an identical outcome. This point is where the radical left is confused. Pharrell Williams and I are created equal. However, we do not have comparable singing skills. In this way, we do not have a similar outcome. Or, let’s take Lebron James’ jump shot and compare it with my own. We’re both created equally, but have unequal outcomes. 

This is the fundamental difference between conservatism and leftism. Conservatives look at America and see the possibilities and the freedoms it grants and allows. Leftism sees inequality of outcome and jumps to the conclusion that America should not be celebrated. 

Fredrick Douglass, one of the most famous abolitionists in history, was a former slave turned writer, speaker, and statesman. Contrary to many abolitionists in his day who saw the Constitution as a document supporting slavery, Douglass saw it as a “glorious liberty document.” Douglass understood the Declaration of Independence as a charter of “saving principles.” Douglass believed the Constitution enshrined the principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence, where “all men are created equal” and born with “unalienable Rights.” Douglass went further and looked at the language used in the Constitution and said that “it will be found to contain principles and purposes, entirely hostile to the existence of slavery.”

Douglass recognized that the Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution did not, at the time, apply to women and African-Americans. However, he knew that these documents could and should apply to these groups. He saw potential in the documents and found it to be beautiful. 

Today, America is the free-est most prosperous nation in the world. Americans have fought and died for freedom in Europe and around the world. Americans are the most charitable people in the world. There is no greater place for opportunity than the United States of America. This is all as a result of the principles and ideals set forward by the Founding Fathers in both the Declaration of Independence, where all men are created equal and the Constitution, which enriches our Rights as American citizens.

What did Fredrick Douglass see in the Founding Fathers, The Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution that modern-day leftists can’t? How could a former African-American slave understand the potential and beauty in the founding of America, but the media and the Democrat Party can not? 

As I write this we see a push from leftists to re-segregate areas for “black safe spaces.” We see a push for monetary reparations to African-Americans who were not slaves, from white people who were not slave-owners. We see leftist groups like BLM and Antifa riot and use violence to intimidate. They claim that white people as a race need to repair and fix the damages done by their kin. These leftists rejecting the foundation of America, where all men are created equal, is not progression, its regression. 

In the words of the Spanish philosopher George Santayana, “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Happy Independence Day, America!


More Fake Noose

By Ken Gulley

As America continues to reel from the dilemma posed by the purely political response to Covid-19 and nationwide protests against perceived racial injustice, a sudden rash of “Fake Hate Crimes” have gained national attention.

If you remember the mid-20-teens and the rash of fake hate crimes after the first Black Lives Matter movement after Ferguson, you probably remember this website tracking confirmed fakes: lickity-Link.

Well the new spurt of fake hate crimes seem a bit different. They’re not being falsely perpetuated by the victim but rather being stoked by third parties and the media.

1. While this instance is not the most recent, it is the most high profile.

Bubba Wallace, NASCAR’s only black driver, made headlines when he and his team discovered a noose purposely placed in their garage prior to races at Talladega Speedway.

Wallace was in the news recently after rightfully criticizing Kyle Larson’s use of the N-word during an online racing session. Wallace later asked for Larson to have a second chance.

Bubba then made headway when he critiqued NASCAR fans for their use of Confederate flag imagery and ran a Black Lives Matter car at Martinsville Speedway.

Soon after, the purported hate crime took place with the discovery of a noose in Wallace’s garage. It was later determined that the noose was in fact used as a pull down rope for the garage door and had been set in place since 2019. The rope, fashioned like a small noose only wide enough for a hand, was not targeted at Wallace or anyone specifically.

The Left was unfairly quick to lambast NASCAR and its fans as racist.

2. Five ropes were discovered hanging from a tree in an Oakland, CA park.

The ropes, described as nooses, led to an open investigation regarding a hate crime. In spite of the lack of a “hangman’s knot” being used, the investigation was pushed forward.

It would seem that the investigation would come to a crashing halt when a man, a black man, clarified that he hung the ropes as workout equipment and not a symbol of hate.

“Out of the dozen and hundreds and thousands of people that walked by, no one has thought that it looked anywhere close to a noose. Folks have used it for exercise. It was really a fun addition to the park that we tried to create,” Sengbe said.

“It’s unfortunate that a genuine gesture of just wanting to have a good time got misinterpreted into something so heinous,” he told the station.

In spite of this clarification, the investigation was continued and pushed forward to the FBI.

3. A black man in Palmdale found hanging from a tree is ruled a suicide.

In spite of Coroner suspicions that the hanging was a suicide, family members, friends, and local protestors have thrown a suspicious eye at police officers for a possible cover-up or even participation in the act. Thats right, they suspect police hung a black man near city halls. That black man is named Robert Fuller.

While a multitude of news media outlets are covering the story, almost all of them have failed to notate a few things:

(1) Fuller had previous attempts at suicide including an attempt to set himself on fire (2) Fuller was placed in a psych ward approximately one month prior to this incident (3) the catalyst for both incidents of self harm seem to point to a love triangle. *It should be noted this information is obtained from an unnamed police source with knowledge of the incident and investigation.

Due to community pressure, LASO has forwarded the case to the AG of California for transparency purposes and to further investigate the possibility of a hate crime.

With a continuation of the investigation, police were ordered to look for further information surrounding Fuller’s death including speaking with Fuller’s half brother – the other male involved in the suspected love triangle: Terron Boone.

During the investigation, Officers located Boone and discovered he had kidnapped, imprisoned, and beaten a former girlfriend for over week in an attempt to conjure evidence surrounding Fuller’s death. A warrant was issues for Boone’s arrest.

When officers attempted a traffic stop to arrest Boone for the above crime, Terron engaged in a gun battle with deputies and was killed. A female in the vehicle (not the victim of the earlier mentioned crime) was also struck and wounded. A child in the car was unharmed.

During NPRs initial coverage of the story, Boone’s act of shooting at the police was not even mentioned. Of course, this spurned protestor’s appeal that a cover-up is taking place.

On top of this, almost every article I read regarding the initial incident surrounding Fuller’s death has also pointed to another black man who was found hanging in Victorville – 50 miles east of Palmdale.

This note by reporters attempts to point to a connection and “spree” of lynchings in these northern cities of the Los Angeles Metro Area.

The Victorville man, Malcom Harsch, a black man, was also found hanging from a tree and questions swirled around his death being a racist murder rather than a suicide.

A few days ago, Harsch’s family released a statement concluding a suicide after video evidence was found of Harsch taking his own life.


Keveon Gomera was arrested after painting swastikas on catholic headstones this past Monday.

It is unknown if Keveon was hoping to pass this act off as a fake hate crime but he also attempted to burn an American flag, attacked a security guard and was caught soon after.


• Wallace BLM Car (Leftist bias)

• Wallace on Larson

• Oakland Noose

• Palmdale Hanging (Right bias)

• LAT Boone Killed (Left lean)

• NBC (Left lean)

• Harsch Suicide

• PC Campus Swastikas

Penitence Not Required

George Floyd wasn’t a perfect man but none of us are. Floyd does not need to be perfect to accept the fact that his death was a horrible tragedy and injustice at the hands of a government agent.

With that in mind, I would like to dispel with the idea that you must agree with all of the BLM narrative and become an activist, otherwise “if you are silent you are complicit / racist / etc”

How Black Conservatives are Often Treated

Im black.

My ethnic makeup should not give greater credence to what I am saying as long as my statements are sound wisdom.

But in today’s world, it’s all too important.

Know this, If you go on your merry life quietly living without ever becoming an “activist” but instead you treat you neighbor with love and respect regardless of what they look like – I won’t judge you.

In fact, I think you’ll do more good than most people ever will from their social media soap boxes.

Dont get me wrong, proactively fighting racism is a good thing. Taking an anti-racist activist position is a good thing. Fighting evil in all its forms is honorable.

But the forceful condemnation of the passive, quiet, or even the ignorant is tiresome. I won’t demand that you declare some virtuous position for sake of acceptance. Doing such will only lead to a war of virtue signaling that demands more.

The Golden rule satisfies all calls for equality.

As a black man, as a human being, and as an American, all I ask of you is to be treated with love and respect. I do not demand the groveling penitence of self-flagellation that is being required of everyone to atone for past sins of which you have never partaken.

Remember the Golden rule and honor God.

  • KG

Yes, White People CAN Talk About Race Issues

By Joshua Weigert
May 31st, 2020

Image by Paweł Pająk

I don’t know who needs to hear this, but you have a voice and CAN talk about race issues. Whether you are white, black, yellow, purple or neon orange, no one has the right to tell you to be quiet and that your voice doesn’t matter.

As a white male, I have been bombarded with posts on social media about how my white voice needs to “shut up” and listen to the voices of African-Americans and other visible minorities. I think listening is important. But I will not be silenced.

No one, let me say it again, no one has the right to silence you and your thoughts on any issue and/or topic. Your skin colour does not determine your right to speak on an issue, nor does it determine what you should think about a particular issue. This would be the very definition of racism. Open dialogue between different ideas and opinions are crucial during this time for comfort, healing and to overcome issues we face in society.

The killing of George Floyd is inexcusable. You are hard pressed to find someone who disagrees with this sentiment. However, there are a plethora of paths to take in the aftermath of this tragedy that either exasperate or help heal racial tensions.  

If you were to only listen to the loudest voices at the moment, you would hear:

#1. America is supremely racist and African-Americans are being systematically gunned down,

#2. Reparations need to be made to the African-American community,


#3. Disband the police force.

I disagree with all three of the sentiments above, and that’s okay. You and I can both have differing opinions and thoughts on all three of these points. Some of my opinions and thoughts may be right, some may be wrong. Some of your opinions and thoughts can be equally right or wrong.

And that’s okay.

I will never know what it is like to be African-American in the USA. I will never know what it is like to be Asian-American. I am willing to listen. I am willing to discuss. I am willing to learn. I am willing to fix any issues we can fix together.

Silencing voices does not breakdown walls, it creates new ones and reinforces old ones.

We need more dialogue right now, not less.   

The Media Cares About Racial Division, NOT Racial Injustice

By Joshua Weigert
May 28th, 2020

Recently, video footage emerged of a man who saw grotesque and inexcusable violence committed against him. George Floyd? No. I’m referring to an elderly white male in a Michigan nursing home who was repeatedly beat in the head by an African-American caregiver.

***Warning: Graphic Content Below***

***Given our unfortunate political and racial climate, I have to preface the rest of this article with a word on how the killing of George Floyd is deeply tragic and infuriating. These police officers deserve to be fired, arrested and have the book thrown at them.***

Chances are you’ve never seen that video of the white elderly man being physically abused. I don’t blame you. This story never gained media attention for the very simple reason that it was a white victim and an African-American perpetrator. This is easily one of the most senseless acts of violence one can imagine, and the perpetrator is a deeply evil individual.

The video footage of the abuse was not from a hidden camera. The perpetrator purposely filmed himself beating the victim, as this is not the first time he’s filmed himself abusing seniors.

Where are our politicians condemning this hate attack? Where are our Hollywood moral leaders retweeting this video? Where are our fearless journalists reporting this attack?

Unfortunately, the mainstream media isn’t interested in these stories. The mainstream media are only interested in stories where African-Americans are abused at the hands of white Americans. We know this is true because we know the names of those African-Americans who have died at the hands of the police: Freddie Gray, Philando Castile, Alton Sterling, Walter Scott, Tamir Rice, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, George Floyd, and several others. virtually every instance of violence against African-Americans by the police is reported on the news. It’s proven that the African-American victim at the hands of white people (usually police officers) sells. Mainstream media outlets would have the story going 24/7 while we are bombarded with new witnesses, developments, evidence, etcetera.

Think to yourself, had the abused elderly man been African-American and the perpetrator been white, would it dominate the news story?

Yes, it’s extremely likely that it would be.

But the mainstream media would never broadcast this story as it goes against the narrative that the United States of America is deeply racist in its core against African-Americans.

You can see this agenda by the way the media have portraying the rioters and looters in Minneapolis. The mainstream media have been consistently calling these people “protesters” instead of the criminals that they actually are.

Now, this does not mean ALL of those taking to the streets of Minneapolis are criminals, as a large group of them are actually peacefully protesting the killing of Floyd. I am only referring to those who have been caught on camera looting Target and AutoZone, and those who burned down condominium developments.

What’s both shocking and baffling is that the mainstream media have now attempted to compare the Second Amendment marches and rallies in Virginia, or the marches in Michigan over the enforcement of COVID-19 lock-down measures, to the ongoing riots and looting in Minneapolis. They’re attempting to push a narrative that “white” protesters in both Virginia and Michigan were allowed to express themselves, openly carry guns and enter state buildings, while African-American protesters would never be allowed to do such things.

The question is, which stores were looted in Virginia? Which banks were robbed in Michigan? How many millions of dollars in destroyed property were there in either Michigan or Virginia?

The answer to the above questions is that there were no riots, there was no looting, and there was no damaged property during those demonstrations.

Not only did the previous protests in Virginia and Michigan not involve rioting or looting, they didn’t break the law. Firearms are allowed in the Michigan state Capitol building.

Comparing the protests in Virginia and Michigan to the riots in Minneapolis is willfully deceptive and further gaslights the existing racial tensions in the US, which one can say is their goal.  

Where are all these supposed racists? Where are the people defending the police officers who killed Floyd?

It isn’t even clear that this killing was racially motivated, as opposed to bad policing.

That didn’t stop Ice Cube from tweeting out this:

The issue is, the photo on the right is NOT of the police officer. The person on the right is professional troll and fraudster Jonathan Lee Riches. It doesn’t matter though, as it fits the narrative for Ice Cube and the 150,000 people who “liked” the tweet.

It is important to highlight injustice. But it is also equally important not meet this injustice with injustice and violence, and to push false narratives and ahistoricism.

If the media cared about justice, they would be condemning Joe Biden’s “you ain’t black” comments. If the media cared about African-Americans, they would be asking why the Democrats have done nothing to improve the poverty rates in the black community. If the media cared about African-Americans, they would showcase how horrific the single motherhood rate is in the African-American community.

Both can be true at once, George Floyd’s death is inexcusable and those police officers should face justice and the full extent of the law, and that the mainstream media is only interested in a narrative that pushes a racially divisive agenda that America is a supremely racist nation.

Whites are Red, Blacks are Blue

“If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, you ain’t black.” – Joe Biden

If this was a joke, as the Washington Posts suggest, (1) Biden sure took his time to set up and deliver and an awful punchline that produced no chuckles.

But apparently, the black community is fine with being the butt of a joke as long as it comes from the right mouth.

If you need any clarification at all, this wasn’t a joke. This “gaff” was a freudian slip for how the Progressive Left views the black vote. (2)

Blacks only have themselves to blame – voting Left at a 90% clip and expecting largely nothing in return. (3)

State of the Union 2020

Democrat elected cities make it harder for them to find successful schools. (4) They run states making it harder to find good work or start their own business. (5) Their states do more to champion illegal aliens then black causes – and of course working ceaselessly to remove their ability to protect themselves against a government they still claim is racist. (6/7)

If this were merely a joke, it would not so clearly echo exactly the same attacks against those us who dared to escape Democrat’s ideological plantation. Attacks we’ve been on the receiving end for years now: (8)

  • “How can you vote for Republicans, they don’t care about your people.”
  • “You’re an oreo.”
  • “Uncle Tom.”
  • “You forget what color you are?”
  • “You’re in the sunken place.”
  • “Wigga”
  • “House nigga.”
  • “Sell out.”
  • “Race traitor.”

As a black Constitutional Conservative, I have been labeled all these things and more. The latter of which is unironically borrowed from the Nazis (Hello Godwin). (9)

What is ironic, however, is that most of these attacks against black conservatives and libertarians are from black enforcers.
Biden didn’t say anything new. (10) In some weird way, I pity him for the heat he has received on the issue.

When boiled down, Biden’s message is atrociously racist in that it assumes blacks cannot think for themselves. The suggestion that merely considering voting Republican meant losing your “blackness,” would never had made waves if a black man said the same thing.

In essence, Biden simply violated the same rules afforded to the “N” word. He uttered it while white. And thats why the Left in the main stream media have been so soft on their response to the issue.

Instead of outright condemnation of this statement, they choose to act as apologists.
Somehow, the Left understands that calling Obama “articulate” is underhanded racism but they shrug their shoulders at the suggestion that blacks will lose their identity by considering Trump. (11)

If this all sounds strange to you in the non-black community – just understand that having you blackness questioned is common tactic in the black community. It is a way in which the community at large disowns and disavows a person in their entirety.

It is similar to a hispanic being disowned by hispanics for not speaking Spanish. It is likened to an asian being disowned by their specific asian community for marrying outside their race. Or similar for a homosexual man being told he is less of a man for not preferring women. I am ignorant of such an equivalent in the caucasian community.

This is why Clarence Thomas, despite his status as a Supreme Court Justice, would not be mentioned inside the Black History Museum in DC had it not been curators devoting a portion to his black female accuser, Anita Hill.(12)

This is why Thomas Sowell is an unknown figure to the black community despite being a renowned economist and social commenter in Conservative-Libertarian circles. (13)

Some people call it, “being uninvited to the cookout.” I call it an extreme form of identity politics. I call it racism. (14)

Perhaps they’ll consider the words of Malcom X (or maybe they’ll suggest he wasn’t black enough).

Whatever they decide, they’ll be used by the Left to vote blue because they foolishly fear the Right will… “put ya’ll back in chains!” – Joe Biden (15)

– Signed, a black Constitutional Conservative, Ken Gulley

(1) WP – (Leftis bias)
(2) Fox – (Right 
(3) Pew – (Research)
(4) Cato – (Libertarian Bias)
(5) CFP –
(6) SFT –
(7) NYT – (Left bias)
(8) Quora –

(9) Rassenchade –
(10) Larry Elder – (Right bias)
(11) News One – (left lean$
(12) TheHill – (Liberal bias)
(13) RCP – (Right bias)
(14) KYM –

(15) CBS – (Liberal lean)

Catherine Herridge is being attacked for upsetting the left-wing media establishment

By Joshua Weigert
May 16, 2020

CBS Photo Archive

I’ve been sitting back and watching for the past couple of days how the mainstream media have either condemned CBS News correspondent Catherine Herridge, or remained silent while Democrats and other media outlets attack her.

All Catherine Herridge did was tweet out some official government documents. She didn’t add any spin on it or anything. She just tweeted them out to show the world.

The documents Herridge tweeted contained a list of dozens of former Obama administration officials who reportedly asked for documents that led to the identity of former national security adviser Michael Flynn being “unmasked” (1).

Andrew Bates, the director for rapid response for the Biden campaign tweeted out “SCOOP: Catherine Herridge is a partisan, right-wing hack who is a regular conduit for conservative media manipulation ploys because she agrees to publicize things before contacting the target to ask for comment”

I am old enough to remember when left wing journalists and media outlets defended each other and started hashtags when President Trump (or any government official/ Republican) was mean to them. They claimed President Trump was attacking the freedom of speech and the press.

Where are they now?

Yamiche Alcindor of PBS was labelled a hero by the mainstream media outlets for receiving President Trumps *justified* criticism. In typical leftist fashion, they claimed sexism, racism and a hatred for free press as the motivation for President Trump’s outburst.

But when Catherine Herridge, who is acting like a real journalist and unravels REAL stories, she is maliciously smeared. These same “reporters” who defended Yamiche are now silent.

If you wanted further proof about how performative and phony the “we stand with you (insert left-wing journalist here)!” antics are, look no further than this story.

The Democrats and mainstream media are so in bed with each other, that the Daily Beast came out with an article on Thursday with the headline “The New CBS Reporter Driving Democrats—and Some of Her Own Colleagues—Crazy” (2).

The Daily Beast had no issue condemning President Trump for “attacking” women journalists as some sort of veiled sexism, but they’re not just silent on the attacks on Herridge, they are one of the ones leading the attack on her reputation.  

The question that must be asked is why would Herridge be driving her own “colleagues” and media outlets like the Daily Beast crazy? Is not her job to report news and uncover stories from Washington? Why would her colleagues be upset at her for this? The fact is, it’s never really been about truth. The are only interested in truth if it means a negative spin for Republicans and President Trump. In the end, orange man is bad.

It’s obvious why the Democrats would be upset, though. They’ve had a free pass with the mainstream media for decades, and when a noisy reporter enters the scene, they must be shouted down. They expect reporters to do their bidding, like CNN’s Jim Acosta, who only ever cares about annoying the President with “gotcha” questions and a general lack of intelligence.

But I was told attacking journalists was a horrible thing for our democracy! I mean, when orange man does it, he’s destroying America and free-speech, right?

Democrats never adhere to the standards they set for Republicans and President Trump, and the mainstream media will never call them out for it, either.


Michael Flynn, the FBI and Obama’s corruption

By Joshua Weigert
May 13, 2020

President Barack Obama and Michael FlynnGetty
Images; AP

In 2008, a little-known first term senator from Illinois won the Democratic Presidential nomination by defeating the favoured Hillary Clinton. Obama ran on a campaign of “hope”, “change” and “yes we can”, where he was not going to be a part of the typical Washington elite class. Barack Obama then became President Obama.

Flashforward 8-12 years and two dramatically different viewpoints exist regarding Obama’s presidency:

#1. Obama’s presidency was historic and was a smooth and scandal-free 8 years.

#2. Obama’s presidency was historic, but also extremely corrupt and full of scandals and government overreach.

The former viewpoint is largely held by Democrats, the mainstream media and students, while the latter viewpoint is held by Republicans, conservatives and anyone paying attention to politics during Obama’s 8-year presidency.

For the entirety of Obama’s presidency, the mainstream media gushed, swooned and protected him. They treated him with kid-gloves during periods where he should have seen heavy scrutiny. Some of these periods include:

Obama using the IRS to go after political opponents (2), Former Obama Attorney General Eric Holder labelling himself President Obama’s “wing-man” (3), or Holder’s successor Loretta Lynch meeting on an airplane with Bill Clinton while the DOJ was investigating Hillary Clinton (4).

This past week, Obama, while talking about the DOJ dismissing the Michael Flynn case, suggested releasing Flynn was political hackery. Obama claimed there is precedent for someone who committed perjury to getting off “scot-free.” Obama then discussed how he’s worried about our institutions being potentially corrupt by this administration.

Flynn wasn’t brought up on perjury charges. Flynn plead guilty to one count of making false statements to the FBI during an interview he didn’t know was for an investigation.

Obama discusses his fear for institutions not following the rule of law, yet has no comment about his DOJ’s despicable and corrupt behaviour during this Flynn investigation.

Michael Flynn was being charged because he had a conversation with the ambassador from Russia.

That’s it.

That’s the case. That’s the entirety of it.

According to the Hill, “The FBI opened a counterintelligence probe of Flynn in August 2016 on the absurd ground that he might be a clandestine Russian agent. (Flynn is a retired three-star Army general and decorated combat commander, who had then recently written a book identifying Russia as a committed global adversary of the United States.) This suspicion was frivolously supported” (1).

James Comey, the then-director of the FBI, authorized closing the investigation in December of 2016. The paperwork was completed on January 4th, 2017, which was 20 days before the interview with Michael Flynn. The FBI then learned that the future national security advisor, Michael Flynn, had communications in December with ambassador to Russia Sergey Kislyak. However, the government was already monitoring Kislyak and recordings indicated that Flynn did not do anything inappropriate during the interview. In other words, there was no ground to reopen or continue the counterintelligence investigation or to open a criminal investigation (1).

The DOJ contends in it’s memorandum in support of the case dismissal, that any false statements made by Flynn “could not have been material because there was no legitimate basis to investigate or interview him. Federal law makes materiality an essential element of a false-statements charges” (1).

If the Flynn interview was not connected to any proper investigation, any false statements (if any) made could and would not have been material. The discussion between Flynn and Kislyak was recorded, and Flynn stressed that the agents could listen to the conversation if they wanted to know what was said and discussed. Because of this, any misstatements during the interview of Flynn could not have affected the FBI’s “understanding” of the Flynn/Kislyak discussion.

It is important to note that President Obama was in the loop with the Flynn investigation. He talked to Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates about how Flynn was being targeted for an investigation (4). He was aware of what was going on with the Flynn investigation, as he was aware of the wiretapped phone calls with Flynn (6). This is important because the next part shows how the FBI mishandled this investigation.

It appears the agents attempted to deceive Flynn about the reason of the interview. An FBI “302” report is a form used to take notes and summarize interviews with witnesses. It would start with noting the nature of the interview, which the FBI agents did NOT do. Flynn was discouraged from consulting council and from reporting the FBI’s request for an interview from the White House chain-of-command. Furthermore, Flynn was not given the advice of rights.

In other words, there was no due process. The FBI attempted to elicit statements by deceiving Flynn about his legal rights.

The FBI does not electronically record most interviews, which is why 302’s are very important in general. 302’s are supposed to be completed 5 days prior to an interview, so that they are as accurate as possible. One agent usually is the main interrogator while another agent takes notes. Then, they draft and finalize their 302 report together so that there are no mistakes and that it accurately reflects the interviewee’s statements. Accuracy is key, here.

Flynn’s 302 was the furthest thing from accurate. His 302 went through several drafts, and after 17 days of the interview, it still was being edited. We know from text messages that Lisa page was editing the 302. Page was NOT an agent nor present during the Flynn interview. Why was she editing what Flynn said? In texts, we know that Peter Strzok (who interviewed Flynn) heavily edited Joe Pientka’s (who also interviewed Flynn) version. Strzok planned to make final edits after Page was done her edits. It took another 5 days, 22 days after the interview, for the 302 to be completed. The FBI has not produced the earliest versions and edits of the 302.

The case against Flynn comes down to the testimony of two FBI agents: Strzok, who was terminated for misconduct, and Pientka, who appears to have played a significant role in serial misrepresentations made to obtain surveillance warrants against Carter Page, the former Trump campaign adviser (1).

In other words, there was no case against Flynn. Instead, it was just FBI corruption.

The Hill writes:

“If this case had gone to trial, the whole sordid story would have come out. No rational jury would have convicted Flynn of making false statements based on the testimony of Strzok and Pientka. The bureau’s irregular tactics, its dissembling, the equivocal nature of Flynn’s statements and the FBI’s sense that he was not trying to be deceptive, would have made proof beyond a reasonable doubt an insuperable hurdle.”

The FBI coerced Flynn into a guilty plea to continue the Trump/Russia collusion investigation.

In the end, the DOJ dismissing the prosecution of Flynn was justifiable, given the serious corruption and mismanagement of the investigation, instigated by the then Commander-in-Chief, Barack Obama. Obama’s goal was to spy on and to find something, anything, that could be used against President Trump and his allies.  

Flynn’s biggest crime was being associated with President Trump.

Will the mainstream media scrutinize the handling of this investigation? It’s very unlikely they will. In their eyes, Obama was and is a flawless president. Although Obama started his presidency with hope and change, he ended it with corruption. He said he wasn’t going to be your typical Washington politician. He was right. He was far worse.



Clear, Reasoned, Conservatism