Women’s March Greatest Threat to Free Expression

America’s whitest, loudest, (and dare I say biggest) snowflakes congregated in cities all over the country on January 21. Just one day after Donald Trump was sworn in as President of the United States. To protest what? We do not know. At first glance one might think “women’s issues” (whatever that means), moved on to killing babies, then they discussed gay rights, and then talked about racism, and finally ended on calling President Donald Trump a Nazi (original).

As one can easily figure out this march was politically charged. It had no real purpose but to whine and protest the newly elected President. There was no single common goal, there was no discussion of how to fix these goals, just malcontents complaining about how America did not decide to have it their way (mind you, America had been doing “their way” for eight years and saw little progress).

First off, no matter what you have been told, women do not make 77 cents to a man’s dollar for equal work. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ 2015 report, the average woman’s take home pay is 83 percent of that of a man. On the surface, that’s a big problem, but with a few control factors, that gap is quickly wiped away. For example, the average woman works between 36 to 38 hours per week, as opposed to the average man who works between 42 to 44 hours per week. On a 40 hour work week that’s between a 10 to 20 percent increase. Keeping pay fair, that means a man should make between 10 to 20 percent more than women on average. That doesn’t even take into consideration the types of jobs that women usually take as opposed to men. Throughout the country, women tend to choose jobs that allow them to stay close to home, have more flexible schedules, and do not require much travel or risk. Typically, these types of jobs have higher paychecks attached because of the added inconvenience, risk, and stress involved. On top of all of this, Time Magazine ran a study in 2010 that found, in the 50 largest cities in America, when job title, marital status, education, and experience is kept equal, women are paid 108 percent of what men make. Think what you will, but basic statistics wipe away the myth of a gender wage gap very quickly.  

What you also will not hear from the leftist media is that out of every 100 occupational fatalities, 93 of them are men. Following the same logic these demonstrators propose, would they also support making sure an equal amount of female workers die to males? Would they strive to insure a complete balance of occupation related deaths in the name of equality? No, because that is absurd, but demanding an employer to pay a women an equal amount to her male counterpart even though she worked less and has less experience is quite the advantage all over a mere difference in reproductive organs. Or, as Hillary Clinton advocated during one of her debates, that women should be paid the same as men regardless of their quality of work! Also, It is worth pointing out the same people who marched holding signs saying “I’m a vagina voter” will also be the first to tell you that your reproductive organs do not make you a woman. Let that sink in.

The march itself is proof women do not have issues. They enjoy the same right to peacefully assemble, the same right to vote, the same freedom of speech and of the press and all the other rights guaranteed by the Constitution as men. However, the greatest threat to these rights, most specifically, the right to life, and the right to free expression were the Women’s Marchers themselves. Women who wanted to join the march, but were also Pro-Life were not invited to “fight for their rights” alongside these other women. Are these women who believe in the sanctity of life less than female because of their beliefs? Are they not good enough because they do not conform to the lack of brain cells under those pink knit hats?

Look, I could go on forever about all of the double standards the Women’s March carried with them, but I will stop at just this last one. It is truly amazing that the Women’s Marchers can hold signs with the most profane, obscene, and disgusting language you could possibly think of toward women and smile, but President Trump was condemned so quickly by the media for using these same words.

Maybe instead of creating problems where there are none and condemning the President of the United States before he has even served a full day in office, they should have discussed the women in Saudi Arabia who cannot drive, or the girls in Pakistan who do not receive even basic education. Those on the left wouldn’t dare confront the horrifying reality Muslim women face, for it is too politically incorrect. In case you were unaware, pedophilia and the denial of basic human rights is permissible on the grounds of religion.

The reality is there are real issues that women in our world face today, but those who participated in the Women’s march do not care about other women, just their own self-esteem (or lack thereof). They are the misinformed lead by the malicious, and they are America’s special snowflakes.


Justice Served, Federal Jury Sentences Dylann Roof to Death

Dylann Roof, the 22 year old who shot nine African American churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina one and a half years ago has been sentenced to death by the jury.

The white supremacist attended Bible study with a gun on June 17, 2015 and shot the victims at the conclusion of their Bible study.

Closing arguments were made at his federal sentencing today. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jay Richardson reminded to jury of the “racist hatred,” citing examples of Roof’s scouting of the church multiple times prior to the shooting, his reloading of the gun seven times, and his lack of remorse throughout the entire trial. Richardson’s extensive closing statements were concluded with a tribute to the victims and their lives leading up to the shooting.  


“Sentence this defendant to death for killing Clementa Pinckney,” Richardson said. He then repeated the phrase, inserting every victim’s name each time.  

Roof also made his five minute closing argument, as he represented himself throughout the penalty phase of the trial.

“I have a right to ask you to give me a life sentence,” Roof said. “But I’m not sure what good that would do. All I know is only one of you has to disagree with giving me the death penalty.”

Roof expounded on his hatred, saying, “Anyone who hates anything, in their mind has a good reason for it. And sometimes that’s because they’ve been misled and sometimes it isn’t. But I would say that in this case the prosecution, along with anyone else who hates me, are the ones who have been misled.”

The jury reached its sentencing agreement after less than three hours’ deliberation, and has since sentenced Roof to death.

Roof faces separate prosecution from the state of South Carolina, in which the death penalty will also be sought. The world will watch and wait for the families of the victims to receive some sense of closure.

The Facts Are Now out on the ‘Muslim Who Cried Wolf’

When something in the world goes awry, everyone has two options. The first, wait until details emerge so clear thoughts and decisions can be formed based on fact. The second, which the Left loves to choose, instantly become outraged before any details are released and claim the most relevant “-ism”.

When Adam Saleh and Slim Albaher were removed from a Delta Airlines flight on December 21. Saleh took a video of himself being removed from the flight. His reason? He spoke Arabic while on the phone with his mother.

Let the boycotts and shouts of racism, xenophobia, Islamophobia commence!

Wait…back up…let’s take a minute to hear the other side of the story, right, Tolerant Left? Right?


According to Saleh, he and his friend were simply having a conversation in Arabic. This made those on the plane uncomfortable and they were removed. Obviously, from his point of view, the people on the plane are racists who are scared of another language regardless of what the words actually mean. If this is true, then Delta took the incorrect path in removing the two passengers.

But then, we get the other side of the story.

Delta released the following statement:

Upon landing the crew was debriefed and multiple passenger statements collected. Based on the information collected to date, it appears the customers who were removed sought to disrupt the cabin with provocative behavior, including shouting. This type of conduct is not welcome on any Delta flight. While one, according to media reports, is a known prankster who was video recorded and encouraged by his traveling companion, what is paramount to Delta is the safety and comfort of our passengers and employees. It is clear these individuals sought to violate that priority.

Does that sound like racism to you? Islamophobia? Xenophobia?

Didn’t think so.

Saleh has pulled several stunts on airlines in the past, including, but not limited to, claiming he spent an entire flight in a suitcase in the baggage hold and counting down from ten loudly in Arabic potentially indicating some sort of explosion or attack was going to happen when he hit zero (You can see his other “hilarious” stunts here). In a video posted shortly before the Delta one came about, he mentions that he was told by airport personnel that he would be in trouble. No reason is given in the video, but one can assume it is due to the general ruckus he is known to cause.

According to passenger Soledad O’Brien’s tweet, another passenger tipped off an attendant- this guy is known for his airplane pranks.

If indeed the situation occurred exactly as Saleh and Albaher describe it, Delta will have to answer to the SJWs of the world. And they should! Racism shouldn’t be tolerated in any situation.

But, unfortunately for the youtube star, all the evidence points in the opposite direction.

“People keep trying to use the fact that we’re pranksters against us, they keep trying to use our past against us,” said Albaher.

Here is the deal, Saleh and Albaher.

When your YouTube channel is chock full of the Muslim Crying Wolf, the age old fable comes back to bite you in the rear. If you are consistently going out of your way to start drama, it should come as no shock when people stop paying attention to your “plight”. Stop devaluing other people’s real life experiences with racial and ethnic prejudices by broadcasting your fake ones. Once you figure that out, maybe the rest of the world will value your opinion.

It is not a game of whether or not they were removed from a flight. The question is why. Maybe it was simply because they were speaking Arabic. Maybe it was because they were causing more of a scene than other passengers appreciated. Maybe it is because he has a history of race baiting others simply to prove it can be done. We do not know what happened before the video began. And quite frankly, Saleh’s YouTube channel is full of pranks or social experiments that leave us wondering. One thing we do know is that the Internet world jumped to conclusions with little evidence.

Screaming at a Woman Is Harassment, but Not if It’s Ivanka?

Some people like to take every chance they can get to express their hatred for President-elect Trump – even if it means berating his daughter in front of her husband and three children.

According to TMZ, a passenger on a JetBlue commercial flight that Ivanka and her family had also boarded “began verbally berating her” and her family. He screamed, “Your father is ruining this country,” and “Why is she on our flight? She should be flying private.” TMZ reported that she ignored him and distracted her children with crayons. As JetBlue personnel took him off the plane, he continued, “You’re kicking me off for expressing my opinion?!”

Several other news sources reported on this incident as well, using headlines such as, “Airline removes men who ‘expressed displeasure’ flying with Ivanka Trump” and “A Man Was Reportedly Kicked Off a JetBlue Flight After Confronting Ivanka Trump.”

Considering their use of the words “expressed displeasure” and “confronting” indicates that these news outlets intended to downplay the harassment by not calling it what it is. And the man who shouted at Ivanka and her family claimed that he was merely expressing his opinion. The husband of the harasser, Matthew Lasner, tweeted this morning about the incident. The tweet has since been deleted and his Twitter account removed.

Some people on the left, notably those who dislike President-elect Trump, have defended the harassment. Jessica Valenti, self-described feminist author and columnist for The Guardian, tweeted the following:

It is funny that she implies that Ivanka is a grown woman and therefore can handle harassment, because that doesn’t seem to be Valenti’s standard approach to women and harassment. Four years ago, she tweeted this:

And just last week, she tweeted this:

“Horrible to harass anyone at any age.” Unless your last name is Trump, of course; then you’re a grown woman and you can handle it. Didn’t Ivanka’s brother Eric say something similar regarding sexual harassment in the workplace?

Yet Valenti is not the only one defending the harasser. Others have claimed that those who defend Ivanka in this situation are therefore saying that Ivanka should never be criticized for her father’s campaign or incoming presidency. That is nonsense, of course, because nobody is saying that Ivanka is immune from criticism, yet that is the false choice that anti-Trump tweeters present to their audiences in order to justify their defense of harassment.

I understand their concerns; I am a conservative who did not vote for Donald Trump in the primaries and did not even vote for him in the general election. Technically, I am in agreement with those on the anti-Trump side who believe that the incoming president has run a campaign of divisiveness and hate. I even believe that Ivanka has enabled that divisiveness and hatred by supporting her father, although she herself had not contributed to it.

In a free country, we should be free to criticize public figures and the people who publicly and actively support them.

But we should never, ever harass them. Not only is it illegal, it is immoral and dangerous to our political climate.

Yet that is exactly what this man did to Ivanka. He harassed her. He screamed at her in front of her husband and children.

If this man had chosen to take a different approach, one that involved no screaming and no loaded declarations that her father is ruining this country, and instead decided to speak to her in a normal voice and had communicated his concerns civilly, perhaps she would have taken the time to respond, and even if not, at least he would have had a chance to express his opinions without getting kicked out of an airplane and without making the news.

Perhaps it is even true that President-elect Trump’s campaign increased the vitriol of our political climate. Reacting in kind, however, is not how it gets better. In fact, that is exactly how it gets worse. Hate begets hate. Fighting fire with fire only spreads the flames.

Please feel free to criticize the president-elect and his family; our first amendment gives us that right. Please feel free to do so publicly if you happen to run across any of them in person. But doing so civilly, without screaming, yields better results, and maybe even some action. Ivanka has influence over her father; if the harasser had spoken to her calmly throughout the flight, maybe they would have had a good conversation, and she would have relayed his concerns to the president-elect.

Instead we have a news story about a man harassing her, and people on Twitter defending harassment. Which could actually make a positive difference in this country?

The Alt-Right Is Not Conservative

Both major political parties saw their ideological foundations shift away from their long-established precedents. The Republican Party witnessed some of its members abandon the traditionally held small-government and pro-capitalist ideals in favor of populism and economic protectionism. The Democratic Party experienced a large transition towards governmental authoritarianism and economic socialism within its own base. This election cycle had no shortage of political movements, and recently a new movement has formed. Its very existence is the cause of great controversy and division within our political system. This movement is called the alt-right.

The movement has been a recent topic of discussion held by many political figures and reporters within the media, as they meticulously analyze it in order to get a sense of its purpose. Given all of national exposure that the alt-right receives, you would expect there to be a uniform sense of understanding about the nature of the movement. This is simply not the case. The mainstream media continuously describes the movement as being affiliated with conservatism on a theoretical basis, due simply to the fact that both beliefs lie on the right side of the political spectrum and that they share some of the same policy proposals. Liberal reporters, pundits, and politicians criticize the radical conduct of the alt-right, but then continue by denouncing all conservatives for their supposed “association” with the movement.

It is true that both the alt-right and conservatism are placed on the right side of the political spectrum, and that they share some of the same general policy proposals. However, the similarities between the two movements do not extend past these points, for the alt-right and conservatism differ in their sense of values, their views on culture, and their overall perspectives of the world itself.

The alt-right is a term that is given to individuals that believe in a sense of American white nationalism. What this means is that the alt-right proposes the protection of our country’s sense of exceptionalism, our sense of values, and our overall western culture. However, in order to achieve this feat, the alt-right views that the white-heritage of our nation’s founding colonists must be preserved. This stems from the movement’s unique perspective of the world, in which they view superficiality as a contributing factor to ideology. To them, one’s heritage, and subsequent skin color, is intertwined with one’s ideals. Therefore, an emphasis must be placed upon the external factors of the people. The alt-right makes proposals that are aimed at continuing our nation’s legacy of white heritage. They advocate for things like strong immigration regulations and enhanced border security in order to prevent an incorporation of different nationalities.

Conservatism teaches that it is necessary to preserve our original values, but the philosophy also understands that it is wrong to emphasize a protection of our country’s colonial white-heritage as a means of doing so. Conservatism recognizes the fact that one’s external features do not contribute to one’s beliefs. This is morally sound, for it does not matter which particular individuals may share our nation’s values, nor does it matter what these people may look like. All that matters is that our founding principles in and of themselves are retained. For this reason, conservatism advocates for a preservation of our country’s cultural values, such as the equality of opportunity for all people and the equitable protection of our natural rights, while not proposing white nationalism in any sense. Conservatism does share some similar policy proposals with the alt-right, like strict immigration and heightened border security, but the intent is solely for the assurance of preserving our ideological traditions. They are not a preventative measure aimed at defending the sovereignty of white colonial ancestry.

It may be tempting for conservatives to recognize or applaud the alt-right. Some may even consider joining the movement because they have the same political opponents and proposed policies. But, the alt-right’s prominence has resulted in the wrongful labeling of conservatism as a philosophy that is also in favor of white supremacy. Therefore, conservatives must completely denounce the alt-right, and they must unite in opposition to the movement in order to end the misrepresentation of conservatism’s true ideals.

VIDEO: Miley Cyrus Can’t Stop Crying

The former Disney star and now judge on the hit NBC TV show The Voice took to Twitter after Donald Trump’s upset victory early Wednesday morning. Miley expressed her shock and sadness through a video that appeared to be heartfelt and genuine. Within the first 20 seconds she did imply that half the country is closeminded, but we will look past that for now. She also said that Hillary deserves to be president at some point, but again we all know that won’t happen. What stood out was her accepting Donald Trump as her new president, and even offered to meet with him to talk about her point of views, in hopes of president-elect Trump getting to know why her and others like her believe the way she does.

Go ahead listen:

In all honesty, Donald Trump should meet with her and reach out to the POP community and those in Hollywood. Being a former reality TV show star, Mr. Trump could really make some inroads for the Republican party with that particular culture. What do you think?

Veteran’s Day Poem: A Soldier’s Dream

A soldier in another place,
With a look of sadness on his face.
He learns to walk in other lands,
And shoot the gun that is in his hands.

He leads a life of solitude and mistrust,
Because of a faraway land dry as dust.
He has seen things that others have not,
He has been to war he has earned his shot.

A shot at freedom away from it all,
Not down the street or up the hall.
But far away in the mountains of peace,
He finds some time to settle his lease.

A contract of duty and hope and pride,
Has elapsed over the years like a cold hard tide.
The waves of the years will pound away,
And wear down the soldier who will not sway.

He will always stand tall and loud and glad,
For he has been made great, he is ironclad.
A hero to many, a man just to some,
Always beating that stone-cold drum.

In the future still shrouded in mystery,
He looks back at that sad real history.
He looks in disbelief at the memories he held,
Of the lives that were lost, and the tears that swelled.

He hopes to become dear Jesus what you desire,
As he slowly climbs higher and higher.
Up into the wild blue yonder,
He looks and prays and slowly ponders.

And until dear Lord at Heaven’s gate,
A prayerful thought in a melodious state.
A powerful gate gleaming in the sun,
A gateway to hope when war is done.