The Monkey At The Typewriter

A thousand monkeys pecking away at typewriters will never write Hamlet. Even if one did, it wouldn’t make him Shakespeare. But one will eventually come near enough that he will be considered a great playwright by those who want to believe. And once someone is convinced a monkey is a genius, good luck trying to convince them otherwise.

When the monkey types “to pee or not to pee,” his defenders will say “oh, we knew what he meant to type, stop making a big deal over a little typo.”

I get it, the idea of a monkey typing great works is so cool that people just want to believe it. And when you want to believe in something, signs start appearing all around you.

And monkeys, like other animals, are good at picking up cues. There once was a man who believed he had taught his horse to do math because he would ask it a question like “What’s 3+4?” and the horse would paw at the ground the correct amount of times. It wasn’t until the matter was studied by others that it was discovered the owner was giving the horse an unnoticed cue when he wanted it to stop. Predictably, the horse’s owner didn’t believe the explanation and continued to believe his horse was as talented in mathematics as he.

Same thing with my dog. She just seems to know what’s up even before I say “Wanna go for walkies?” I love my dog, but I’m pretty sure she’s neither a genius nor psychic. She’s just responding to some cue I’m giving her I’m unaware of.

And same with the monkey. It is looking for a cue on how people react. Most monkeys don’t give a shit about how people perceive them, but some monkeys crave attention. Some monkeys want to be the star of the whole damn circus, even if it means biting the truly talented performers in the ass just to get a laugh. The monkey is appealing to the cheap seats.

So the monkey sits at its typewriter and bangs out a hole bunch of crap. Most of it is gibberish, but it doesn’t matter. The gibberish is tossed aside by those looking for a line that comes close enough to “To thine own self be true.” And once the monkey realizes it has a winner on its hands, he’s going to type it over and over so long as people continue to give him approval.

So how does one dissuade another that a monkey is not Shakespeare? Sadly, it can’t be done. And the more you point to the pages of nonsense the monkey has written, the more the true believer will read method in the madness. You’ll just have to be patient, I’m afraid. Saps wake up eventually, they just need to do it in their own time and in their own way. Nobody likes to admit that they’ve been had, least of all by a monkey. The more you call them stupid and the more you point out the typos the monkey makes, the more they will dig in their heels. It will happen, though. You’ve got to know that, right? Or is it possible that you might be giving the monkey a little more credit for his talents than he deserves?

Like my writing? Please follow me on Twitter or Facebook, sign up for my newsletter, or check me out on Amazon.

The Russian Bounty Story Is Pretty Stupid If You Think About It (You Won't)

If for one brief moment you were to question what you have been told by anonymous agents who offer no evidence, you might find some holes in the narrative provided to you by the media. Indulge me for a moment while I point out a few.

The story: Russia offered bounties to Taliban fighters to kill U.S. troops

If Russia had wanted the Taliban to kill U.S. troops, it would have given them what they required, not what they already had in abundance. A question for you all: does anybody wish to argue that the Taliban requires motivation to kill U.S. troops? Isn’t that why we hate them in the first place, because they hate us? Weren’t we told they hate us for our freedom?

If they hated us and wanted to kill us prior to 9/11, do you think their hatred has abated since then? Do you think thousands of drone strikes and a 19-year war on their own soil are not motivation enough? Do you not think Trump dropping MOAB (Mother Of All Bombs) on the Taliban might not motivate them more than anything the Russians could do? And do you think Putin talked Trump into doing that?

No, Taliban soldiers don’t need frequent killer cards stamped by Putin, or any other kind of motivator. Ask any Taliban fighter, and he’d likely tell you that if you want to help them kill U.S. and allied soldiers, give them weapons and let them do what they do best.

Think about it: if you wanted someone dead, and you knew some psycho who also wanted that person dead, would you pay that person, or would you simply leave a weapon handy for that person and let nature take it’s course? If you pay him to do the job, you just might be implicated for your part in the crime. But provide access to a weapon, and you have plausible denial.

That’s what the U.S. does all the time. Look at how much advanced weaponry we’re selling to Ukraine. We didn’t even hide it, we proudly celebrated it. One of the central arguments the Democrats had against President Trump at his impeachment trial is that he temporarily suspended arms shipments to Ukraine that were to (allegedly) be used to protect them from Russia. Hell, we’re the largest exporter of military equipment in the world. We even supply weapons to people we’re supposed to be against.

If Russia wanted the Taliban to kill U.S. troops, they would arm them, not try to motivate them. This is so obvious I would be shocked if anyone bothered to argue with me.

Why, then would our intelligence agencies say Russia was offering bounties to kill U.S. troops if they could provide no evidence? I can’t say for sure, but it wouldn’t surprise me too greatly to learn that Russia WAS supplying arms to our enemies. Hell, if WE are supplying arms not only to Russia’s enemies but our own as well, it would be kind of weird if Russia wasn’t selling a little something something to The Taliban. Russia is, after all, the world’s second largest arms supplier. Behind the U.S.

So why a pronouncement that Russia is offering bounties? Shock value. It’s pretty clear. Accusing—or even, God forbid, providing evidence—that Russia sold weapons to our enemies would make them no more guilty than our government is. And it makes them look less stupid, because they aren’t selling arms to ISIS. Offering bounties, on the other hand, while making no sense, would make them appear especially evil.

That does sound pretty, evil, doesn’t it? Yeah, it does. It also sounds undeniably stupid. And while you might make the case that Putin’s Russia is evil, you cannot convince me that Putin is stupid. But if anyone wants to try, be my guest.

You could make some convoluted explanation that that’s how evil people do things: they just don’t care how they are perceived. They laugh in the face of international opinion, spitting in the rest of the world's eye and defying them to stop them. 

That’s not a realistic argument. Hitler was as evil as they come but even he was pretty thoughtful about how he presented himself to the world. Nobody really knew the true horrors of his death camps until they were liberated. Generally, people only act this way in narratives concocted by intelligence agencies, narratives that are used as propaganda to promote their nation’s agendas.

The same picture was painted of Saddam Hussein in the buildup to the Iraq War. Saddam was undeniably evil. But he was not stupid. He wasn’t the guy portrayed to us by our government. He did everything possible to avoid the U.S.’s intent to overthrow him. Evil dictators are pretty smart when it comes to self-preservation.

Same thing with President Assad in Syria. Again, not a nice guy, but not bath-salts-eat-the-face-off-a-guy-while-the-police-are-watching kind of crazy. Which is what he would have had to have been to use chemical weapons on his own people at the very moment when victory seemed most assured. I heard the desperate attempts to explain why Assad would do this in the Washington Post and The New York Times, and they boiled down to the idea that he did it out of sheer evil intent. Again, this works in comic books and propaganda, but in real life, not so much.

The idea that Putin paid bounties to Taliban fighters to kill U.S. soldiers has no precedent I’m aware of in history, though there are countless instances of such stories being used for propaganda purposes by our own and other governments that are intent on aggression against other nations. This alone strongly suggests which way we should lean in judging the veracity of the narrative. The fact that no evidence is provided to back such claims, and the fact that they are accepted so readily by so many, is ample evidence of the power propaganda techniques have always had.

Like my writing? Please follow me on Twitter or Facebook, sign up for my newsletter, or check me out on Amazon.

Advice To Democrats From A Vermin Supreme Voter

First off, let me say that the headline was not 100% truthful and was merely used to grab your attention. I have not as yet firmly committed myself to voting for Mr. Supreme, I’m still hoping a more appealing third-party candidate arises.

But will I vote for Vermin Supreme if he is the only option besides Donald Trump and Joe Biden? You betcha.

It won’t pay for me to try to convince you why I’d vote for a guy who wears a boot on his head rather than the Democratic Party’s candidate, just as it will avail you nothing to tell me how I’d be insane not to vote for a racist/imperialist in undeniable cognitive decline. I’m just here to share some facts with you in the hopes that your next presidential candidate is less morally repugnant than the last two have been.

You see, while I broke with the Democratic Party after voting for Bill Clinton in 1992 and feeling very dirty about myself, I’m not above voting for the lesser of two evils. While I voted Green in 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2016, I did vote for President Obama in 2012. The Republicans seemed especially odious that year and Obama, while still evil, was a poke in the eye, not necessarily of Mitt Romney, but of the Republican base.

So my vote IS attainable, but it isn’t a guaranteed lock Democrats can rely on no matter how bad a candidate they put forth, and no matter how badly they manipulate the system to keep a candidate I like from ever winning. You can’t expect me to vote election after election not for a candidate but merely against one. My thought is if we unconditionally give our vote to the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party will just get worse and worse. Time seems to have borne this out. And so I offer you—not advice—but facts from which you can begin to piece together the reality you now face.

You’ve rallied the troops. The core of Democratic voters hate President Trump more than they hate cancer. They hate him more than they hate virtually anyone or anything in the entire history of the world, with the possible exception of Vladimir Putin. Which is odd, because eight years ago Obama would have told you the 80’s were calling and they want their foreign policy back.

Unfortunately, the core of Democratic voters are not enough to beat Trump. At least they weren’t in 2016. Granted, four years of Trump undoubtedly peeled away some of his support, but the Democrats still need to do something more than rile up the base. It serves no purpose to continue to beat a horse that is already running in the direction you want it to go with all the speed it can muster. The problem is, that horse has been beaten into such a frenzy it has become rather frightening to those outside the base

Your job is to garner whatever votes you can that are outside of the core Democratic constituency. You have failed miserably at this. The only votes you might be gaining have nothing to do with your efforts but with the undeniable fact that Trump is an incompetent and unlikeable president.

I’m trying my best to provide you not with opinions—to which you are immune—but with facts, which just might make you stop and ponder for a moment. Because you need to consider what your reactions to date have looked like to those whose votes you require to achieve your great purpose in life: defeating Trump. They look a little something like this:

Speaking as one to the left of the Democratic Party, they frighten me. Deeply. Existentially. They disturb me so greatly that I am constantly vacillating between which idea frightens me more, a Trump re-election or a Biden presidency.

The Russiagate narrative has captured the soul of the Democratic Party the way the fear of witches captured the soul of Salemites in the 17th Century. This troubles me for the following reasons:

1. It is used as an excuse for continued U.S. imperialism and militarism and is a real threat to global peace.

2. It is used as an excuse for censorhip.

3. It has allowed people to think that presenting the assertions of anonymous agents within intelligence agencies is proof of anything, an idea that is about as Orwellian as you can get.

Now while I have briefly veered from facts to opinions, let me circle back and say that it is a fact that these opinions are widely held by the very voters the Democratic Party will need to beat Trump and regain the Senate. Below are some examples of the view from outside Democratic orthodoxy:

Here is the view from the left of the Democratic mainstream, a voting bloc you need: https://www.mintpressnews.com/afghanistan-bounty-scandal-comes-at-suspiciously-important-time-us-military/269138/

Here is the view of the Black Left, a voting bloc you need: https://www.blackagendareport.com/freedom-rider-russia-afghanistan-and-big-lie?fbclid=IwAR1BMUIWLKRkIDTVPT08t5QixX44ufMtkobl2rUk5be5y_Rv9qKsZcjcGR4

Here is an article taken from the Ron Paul Institute, whose libertarian voters could be swayed by an alternative to Trump that had something more to offer than perpetual hostilities and military entanglement, a bloc that takes civil liberties very seriously and is appalled at attempts at censorship: http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2020/june/30/russiagate-s-last-gasp/

This is the view from the conservative side of things, not all of whom are thrilled with Trump and could be wooed by an alternative: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/three-glaring-problems-with-the-nyt-russian-taliban-bounty-story/?fbclid=IwAR1e-LJX9EL5haFm5713rQs-8lQTt2ECdCAsSx4MZXRNVE4j9uPEbRukugk

These are the opinions you must accept others as having. They are held by millions of people who otherwise might be willing to consider voting Democrat. You cannot permit yourself to shut them out. Censoring them will not cause them to go away nor will calling people who have them "Putin puppets" endear them to your cause or help in your professed goal of ousting Trump from office. These are facts I present to you, ignore them at your own peril.

Like my writing? Please follow me on Twitter or Facebook, sign up for my newsletter, or check me out on Amazon.

What A New York Times Editor Looks Like

The New York Times is arguably THE newspaper of note. “All the news that’s fit to print” reads their motto. As a child I knew this to be a serious newspaper because it didn’t have a comics section. As a young adult, I knew it to be an intelligent publication because their crossword puzzle was so much harder than any other paper’s. And from that time to now, I always had an idea of those in charge of the newspaper, an unknown and unknowable group of intellectuals who came from the very best schools and worked their way up the ranks to at last sit at the peak of the journalistic mountain. Journalistic gods who could not be questioned but only admired.

When I imagined an editor at the Gray Lady, I pictured…well, a gray lady. Or a gray man. Someone seasoned by a career in journalism. Someone who had seen it all, who had travelled throughout the world and gotten to know the most influential and interesting people on the planet.Someone who had sat in trenches with soldiers in wartime and been witness to the suffering of ordinary people as the great events of our age played out. And then I watched this interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpurFfcSNfU&t=190s

This is Bari Weiss, opinions page editor for The New York Times. Not at all what I had imagined. 

The very first words out of her mouth set the tone: “Oh, I don’t know. I don’t know who can beat him (Donald Trump)”. It is a window into her soul. Clearly it is the horse race that is of primary concern to her, not issues. Eleanor Roosevelt said “Great minds discuss ideas; average ones discuss events; small minds discuss people.” Hers is obviously not a great mind, and it could be argued that it is not the event itself but the outsized personality of Trump that demands her attention.

Obvious too is her vested interest in the subject. She does not sit back as would be expected of an editor, apart from and above the fray, objective like any professional journalist should be. There is a clear bias in her viewpoint, which Joe Rogan cleverly feeds.

The next time she opens her mother to speak, it is do say: “Duh”.

Her third utterance begins with a repeat of her first: “I don’t know who can beat him right now. And I’m sc… I don’t know.” It’s pretty apparent she was about to say “I’m scared”, and then stopped, remembering that as a journalist she’s not supposed to insert her own emotions and feelings into her writing or speech.

Keep in mind now we are discussing an editor of the opinions section for the most prestigious newspaper in the United States, not some gum-cracking secretary for The Enquirer. One would assume she has beaten out virtually every other person with a journalism degree in the country. Chris Hedges isn’t even worthy of a job with the NYT.

Okay, now fast forward to one and a half minutes in, when Joe Rogan mentions Tulsi Gabbard as one of those running in the Democratic primary. There is an immediate reaction from Bari, and she utters the word “montras (mispronunciation of monstrous)”. Clearly she has deeply felt opinions of why Tulsi is a bad candidate. Let’s listen to her explain them.

“Monstrous…ideas.”

“She’s an Assad toady.”

Joe Rogan: “What’s that mean? What’s a toady?”

At this point Berri is uncertain of her own argument, even though she is so obviously viscerally attached to it. She looks off-camera for confirmation.

Berri: “I think that I used that word right. Jamie, can you look up what toady means?”

So obviously it is not a word she uses often. Hence, the statement “she’s an Assad toady” is not a position she came to on her own but rather she is parroting what she has heard another or others say. She then hammers home her unfamiliarity with the word she just used by misspelling it to Jamie: “t-o-a-d-i-e”. Keep in mind she works in print journalism. At America’s premier newspaper. As an editor.

Joe Rogan: “What does that mean?”

Berri: “I think it means what I think it means.”

Whenever you see someone expressing thoughts in words they are not familiar with, it is because they are expressing thoughts they did not think themselves. To further the point that the argument she makes did not evolve from actual thoughts in her own mind, she answers Joe Rogan’s question “So she’s an Assad sycophant, is that what you’re saying?”

Berri: “Yeah, that’s pr-…that’s known.”

So obviously it’s proven and known, but to whom? If it was proven and known to Berri, she would have facts or arguments to back up such an assertion, right? I mean, she is the editor of the opinions page of The New York Times. Who on this planet should be more qualified to back up a statement with a compelling and fact-packed argument? But that is not the case, so it’s simply that she has her opinion on good authority. In other words, she as a journalist and editorial writer and editor, is doing nothing more than parroting the opinions of others, the very opposite of what one should expect from someone in her position. She is not a free thinker providing perspective and facts to other free thinkers, she is part of a chain of command that funnels down the official position from her bosses to her readers.  I’m guessing there have been no opinion pieces in the New York Times about Tulsi Gabbard that does not call her a toady or at least imply it.

I do not accuse her of being a censor. She’s just not that bright or self-aware. It is clear from the interview she thinks she’s a real journalist. She’s assuredly received enough pats on the head and “good girls” from those above her to believe what she’s doing is quality work in the same vein as Edward R. Murrow, Molly Ivins, or H. L. Mencken. But if she had the same desire to dig for and share the truth as them, she would not be where she is now.  

Bari Weiss has very strong opinions without any idea of why she has them. One would be tempted to say she was unfit to run a high school newspaper but she is precisely the kind to be chosen: the kind who will never ever rock the boat or inconvenience power. She has proven herself time after time in a system that weeds out the trouble makers, the free thinkers, and the truth tellers. Hell, she doesn't even seem capable of standing on equal footing while talking politics with a guy who had people eat bugs on Fear Factor and does commentary on cage fighting. 

Take one more look. This is the best of the best, the crème de la crème corporate media has to offer. Now look at what indie journalism and indie commentators have to say, and tell me which impresses you more, which is more deserving of your time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jS-sxJFn6O0&t=876s

Like my writing? Please follow me on Twitter or Facebook, sign up for my newsletter, or check me out on Amazon.

The Liberals' Feckless Opposition To Trump: A Rant

The liberal response to Donald Trump has been nothing short of infantile. They can act any way they want, I can’t tell them any differently, but it’s not doing anything to get Trump out of office. I’ve tried explaining it to them for the last four years, but they’ve had their fingers in their ears and been screaming, “Nyah, nyah, I can’t hear you, Russian bot.”

The problem with an infantile mindset is that infants are not capable of doing anything for themselves. The best an infant can do is cry and hope one of its parents comes and takes care of the problem for them. That’s what liberals are doing now. They shriek in the hopes that someone will take care of the dirty diaper that is their president.

In the absence of actual parents, they glom on to any authority figure they hope will fight their fight for them. Enter Daddy Deepstate. For four years he’s been yanking their chain and they’ve been lapping it up. “The authorities are going to come and take care of the big bad monster,” they say. It’s been four years yet and nothing’s been done, but you know how kids are able to watch the same damn movie night after night for years.

Yeah, they’ve got the TV on in the background while the grownups are busy trying to do grownup stuff. I’ve heard the same damn story hundreds of times already. I’ve seen their little eyes get all wide when the lady on TV announces a bombshell. They get up and do their little happy dance in their footie pyjamas as the good witch says she’s going to lasso the orange ogre at last. She mixes powerful incantations into her speech, words like “if true”, “allegedly”, and “unnamed sources”.

But it always ends in disappointment. The ogre gets away in the end.  

Which they should know! Because they watch the same damn video EVERY FREAKING NIGHT! If someone would please buy them another video to watch.

Do they really think the latest evidence-free assertion from anonymous sources is going to be what brings down Trump? Has Daddy Deepstate and Mommy Media ever really done anything for you? But you know how kids tend to obsess over purple dinosaurs and the like. You can’t tell them it’s just a guy in a purple suit. And he's singing their song: "I love you, You love me, Trump and his supporters are SCUM!"

The thing is, all the liberals have to do to take down Trump is get out of his way and let him stumble down the ramp in front of his legions. There’s an exploding debt, a crashing economy, and a completely inept handling of a pandemic. All they have to do is step back a little bit and let happen what will come naturally. Just shut up and let the big oaf expose himself.

BUT THEY JUST CAN’T HELP THEMSELVES! They try to attack Trump, but they are only capable of doing so in the most atrocious ways. And in the process, they are making themselves repugnant to both the centrists and the far left, the two voting blocs they most require. Calling anti-war activists “Putin puppets” is doing nothing to win their vote.

Dear God, watching liberals get outmaneuvered by Trump is like watching some guy lose a wrestling match to an oversized stuffed bear. In a pit of filth. You ask yourself how it's even possible, but time after time you watch as liberals somehow end up on their backs gasping in the filth with the bear perched upon their chest, a mindless grin on its face and not a drop of crud on its fur. IT’S A STUFFED BEAR! HOW CAN YOU BE LOSING TO A STUFFED BEAR? But no sooner does the next round begin than they somehow get all tangled up in their Kente cloth and the bear’s again on top of them and they turn purple at the indignity of it all. It’s hard not to laugh, people. Harder still not to turn the channel.

I find myself wishing Jerry Springer still had a show so I could watch something a little less repulsive. I find myself wishing the Democrats had someone a little less insane than Adam Schiff, like say Joe McCarthy. I wish they had a more youthful and vibrant candidate, like Bernie Sanders, or a more charismatic one, like Walter Mondale. Or even just a better strategist, like Charles Manson.

If Trump gets reelected, I want liberals to promise me something: stay out of his way. Because I guarantee you before his second term is ended, his own supporters will force him to resign. That’s how incompetent he is. The only reason he’s made it this far is because they hate the alternative and are willing to blame everything on them. And because your total ineptness to oppose him in any meaningful way has given people who don’t like Trump no reason to join with you. Trump has only made it this far with your help.

Okay, rant over. You can take your fingers out of your ears now.

Like my writing? Please follow me on Twitter or Facebook, sign up for my newsletter, or check me out on Amazon.

Spreading Gossip Ruins Lives, Especially When The Gossip Comes From The CIA

If you share a news article, it is your responsibility to research the veracity of the article, otherwise it is simply gossip. We might think gossip is harmless, but it ruins lives. And when it is gossip planted by intelligence agencies that exist to promote U.S. dominance all over the world, it could quite possibly ruin hundreds of millions of lives.

Here’s how a rumor starts. Some nefarious individual has an agenda and so whispers an idea into the ear of someone whose job it is to collect news. Now collecting news, like picking apples, is hard work, so both the apple picker and the journalist aren’t going to question too much when someone drops what they’re working to get right onto their lap. But if you’re a responsible fruit picker, you should give that apple a quick inspection to make sure it’s not rotten.

But the paid gossip thinks even a rotten apple is a juicy item. The only thing different between a gossip and a journalist at this point is that a journalist makes sure to be precise about the unverifiable information they receive.

The nefarious rumor starter knows which ears to whisper into first. They only speak to the most respectable news institutions, usually The New York Times and The Washington Post. They do this to give their rumors a veneer of legitimacy. And the NYT and WaPo, respected institutions that they are, will qualify the story they report by mentioning somewhere in the article that the entire story relies on anonymous sources within agencies whose job it is to create rumors to advance their agenda. Okay, they don’t say it quite like that, but they do admit—if you read it carefully—that they have no actual proof for anything they’ve said in the article.

But that’s just how a rumor is born, not how it spreads. Like some infectious disease in a country crammed with people who don’t believe in masks, it gets around quickly. First the other news outlets take the story and run with it. Because, as I’ve said before, why pick fruit when ripe ones are already falling onto your lap? Because the second tier gossips can’t stake claim to breaking the rumor…er, news, it is their job to put a twist to it. And in twisting it, the first thing they tend to do is drop the “according to unnamed sources working for agencies that exist to spread misinformation that supports their agendas” part of the story. You see, since they’re reporting second hand, they can now claim they got their information from The New York Times rather than from those unsavory rumor mongers who have been known to tell a whopper or two in their time that have led to a few million people dying in needless wars. 

Now it used to be when people got news, they paid for it. And having paid for a newspaper, they took the time to actually read it. That’s not how news works in the 21^st Century. Today people receive their news for free, and since it is free and abundant, they have no appreciation for it and merely take it in on a superficial level. Today, people get their news from headlines.

And since nobody pays for their sources of information anymore, the providers of information have had to look for other sources of income. Which is to say that the sources of information are no longer working for you, they are working for others whose intent it is to get you to believe what they want you to believe. To that end, they are more concerned about grabbing your attention than educating you. And they are more interested in providing cheap content than insightful articles. In short, our journalistic institutions have become click-bait farms. And gossip mongers, willing ears for those with stories to tell.

Once unsubstantiated rumors have been echoed through the establishment media in order to give it a perceived respectability, it is then bounced around social media by those who were told when they were young that gossip was just a sin but never really saw the harm in it. And from that point, the damage has been done. Because no matter how un-subtantiated the gossip is, it makes a mess. It's like throwing a mudball at someone in a white dress, you're never going to get the stain out. Start a rumor, and it will always be in the consciousness of the public no matter how wrong it was. Like pee tapes. Or Weapons Of Mass Destruction. 

Which is why your mother always told you, don't be a gossip. It hurts innocent people while those who started the gossip just sit back and smile.

Like my writing? Please follow me on Twitter or Facebook, sign up for my newsletter, or check me out on Amazon.

This Is What Resistance Looks Like

When a new power came on the scene and routed the Democratic Party in 2016, it would have been easy for them to just quit. But like the true Jedi warriors they are, they felt it was their duty to 

oppose the enemy, and so formed the resistance. From the moment they were brought 

low until now, they have been brick by brick building a path to ultimate 

victory for their party. Now, mere months away until they unleash 

their assault  against the Death Star, it is time to look 

back on the heroic struggle they have waged. 

This, then, is the story of

 the Resistance 

in pictures.

(Cue Music)

First they donned hats and missed brunch to attend a rally:

They let people know they were offended by Trump's vulgar ways:

They created art to show that they would not tolerate men reducing women to mere sex objects and body shaming anyone who had a less than idealized physique:

They created art to show that love is love and that homosexuality was not something that should be used to mock people:

They showed that, unlike Trump, they they weren't xenophobes with an irrational fear of people from other countries:

Obama's and HRC's communication director

Unlike Trump and his supporters who pushed ridiculous conspiracy theories, the Resistance stuck to the facts. Because facts matter: 

These were not mere token displays of resistance, these were meaningful, impactful acts of protest: 

And when it came time to take a stance on police violence, the Democrats got real: 

They worked to build alliances with other rebel factions:

Of course, when the nation's leaders needed to come together to deal with the financial crisis resulting from the pandemic, the Resistance showed that they were able to work with the Republicans to help the average American: 

Yes, the Democrats had a master strategy for success. That's why, when it came time to take Trump down in the 2020 election, they knew they needed a special kind of firebrand to handle the job, a man with bold new ideas and the kind of fire in the belly that would be required to stand up to Trump:

It's said that a picture is worth a thousand words. Here's hoping these pictures have inspired you to take up the flag of resistance and carry it into victory in November. Because once Trump's gone, everything will once again be as it should:

Like my writing? Please follow me on Twitter or Facebook, sign up for my newsletter, or check me out on Amazon.