Milo Yiannopoulos Deflects Himself into a Wall

So I think that by now we all know who Milo Yiannopoulos is and what he is about. He was a writer for the conservative spinning website called Breitbart and apparently views things by the conservative viewpoint. What some people don't understand is that he is merely a professional troll that makes self loathing jokes about inappropriate topics to get a rise out of people. I don't even think he is really a conservative and I don't 100% even think that he is gay either. I think he just has a schtick and runs with it. Milo is what you get if Sasha Baron Cohen just played the character of Bruno for the rest of his life.

Recently I have criticized him for his handling of a scholarship that he set up. The scholarship was for impoverished white kids to get into college. I actually thought it was a good idea for a scholarship because you have ones for all other ethnicities and races of students, but not one for white males. However, we all know it was bullsh*t because he was merely pocketing the money he got into his own personal account, so no students received scholarship money, which makes him an extremely dishonest person.

Milo has scheduled many lectures and one in which he met a lot of hostility was at the University of California Berkeley. At the college, students protested and anarchists rioted. This caused people to blame liberals for hampering free speech, which some of them are, but what people don't understand is that anarchists are not necessarily partisan. While they protested Milo and Trump, they also protested Obama many times, so you have no idea that the anarchists are even liberals. I don't agree with the people who are rioting, but the guy has proven many times that he is a troll, so why should they want him to talk there anyways?

Fast forward to just this weekend where it was found out that Milo made a joke about pedophilia on the Amazing Atheist's Drunken Peasants. After hearing about it all of the liberals started jumping for joy because they hate him and in response he lost his book deal and resigned from Breitbart. According to the audio, he had sex with a priest when he was 13 or 14 years old and joked that "I wouldn't give nearly such good head if it hadn't been for him (Father Michael)." He added that he thinks that teenagers as young as 13 should be allowed to consent to sex if they are comfortable and mature enough. That my friends right there is agreeing with pedophilia and it is absolutely disgusting. Again, I don't really believe that he is an advocate for pedophilia, he just said something because he thought he was being cheeky, but he was dead wrong.

In response, the conservatives always have to deflect and their target was Lena Dunham and Milo's target was George Takei, two prominent liberal celebrities that bashed Donald Trump throughout the election. After I saw this meme on Facebook by the laughable excuse of a Facebook page called "God Emperor Trump"

I noticed that conservatives were trying to deflect on Lena Dunham, a celebrity that helped out on Hillary Clinton campaign. According to this meme, I can only conclude that Lena Dunham is a worse person than Milo because she "molested" her little sister and the liberals ignore her, but they loath Milo even though he was raped as a child. Okay, so what if you claim that she molested her sister? I am not saying that what she did wasn't bad, but what I am saying is that what he said also isn't good. 

I could have stopped there and thought to myself "wow, Lena Dunham is a disgusting person", but I am not a partisan person and I actually did my research. While all of the dummies in the comment section were making up lies like "Lena stuck her finger in her sister's vagina multiple times until she turned 17 and she enjoyed it," which can be proven false by merely looking at the source material. According to Dunham:

One day, as I sat in our driveway in Long Island playing with blocks and buckets, my curiosity got the best of me, Grace was sitting up, babbling and smiling, and I leaned down between her legs and carefully spread open her vagina. She didn't resist and when I saw what was inside I shrieked.

My mother came running. "Mama, Mama! Grace has something in there!"

My mother didn't bother asking why I had opened Grace's vagina. This was within the spectrum of things I did. She just got on her knees and looked for herself. It quickly became apparent that Grace had stuffed six or seven pebbles in there. My mother removed them patiently while Grace cackled, thrilled that her prank had been a success. 

I know that it was all taken completely out of context in order to unfairly deflect. So we can tell by that she was seven years old and her sister was a toddler. Now do I condone her touching her sister? No. Do I think it is horrible that she did it? Yes I do actually. However, she was seven years old, she was curious and she obviously didn't mean any harm. You see, context is really important when handling people who don't feel like doing the research. However, it doesn't stop there. After I was able to debunk what they were saying, they immediately stretched another situation that Dunham had with her younger sister when she was 17 years old. They claimed that Dunham had touched her sister in her private area in an inappropriate way. I actually read a quote from the book and it said something along the lines of her sister slept a few times in the same place as Dunham and while the sister was sleeping, Lena would watch TV and put her finger down her own legs and go to town on herself. 

The closest that I can find that makes her look anything like a molester was when she said "As she grew, I took to bribing her for her time and affection: one dollar in quarters if I could do her makeup like a "motorcycle chick." Three pieces of candy if I could kiss her on the lips for five seconds. Whatever she wanted to watch on TV if she just "relax on me." Basically, anything a sexual predator might do to woo a small suburban girl I was trying." Now I know what you might be saying, what a disgusting thing to do with your sister! And I completely agree, it is disturbing, but it doesn't make her a child molester or a rapist like this silly Facebook page claims with this meme. It puts things up for interpretation, but it doesn't make her any more than a creepy girl that did way too much experimenting with her sexuality to the negative impact of her own sister. 

But here is the question, how does the sister feel? Does she feel like she was the victim of rape or sexual assault by her sister? After her sister got slammed by conservatives, she came out on twitter and responded by saying "heteronormativity deems certain behaviours harmful, and others "normal"; the state and media are always invested in maintaining that... As a queer person: i'm committed to people narrating their own experiences, determining for themselves what has and has not been harmful... 2day, like every other day, is a good day to think about how we police the sexualities of young women, queer and trans people." So as you can see, she basically has stood by her sister and does not feel like she was ever raped or molested by her sister. She does however commend her sister for being honest about her experience. I see no way in which Dunham ever in her book boasted about anything even though I do feel like what she depicted in her book was kind of sickening, seeing as though I never did any of those things to my siblings. 

Of course when I was commenting on this thread on the Facebook page and debunked many of the claims made by the people posting on it, I was called an SJW, a "cuck" and basically every name in the small library of a dictionary that these Milo supporters had in their heads when they get backed into a corner. To me it was not only expected, but also extremely cute because I know that when I am disagreeing with people, I make sure that I act like a big boy and use adult words to prove my points instead of insulting others with ad hominem attacks. But again, this is what you can expect from conservative trolls on the internet (notice I don't group them in with regular conservatives because I know the difference between the two). 

However, the fun didn't stop there, no no, Milo couldn't just leave the story be and merely apologize, he had to go out and deflect off of another liberal advocate, the famous George Takei. Now George Takei is an openly gay former actor known for being spontaneous and fabulous with his famous tag-line "oh my..." Takei unfortunately became a victim of an attack by Milo when he posted on his website a video of George Takei "Defending Child Molestation". He then shows a video of Takei on the "Howard Stern Show", discussing Takei's first sexual encounter. The following is a quote from the conversation between Takei, Stern and Robin Quivers where he discussed how a summer camp counselor initiated sexual contact with Takei at summer camp. To make a long story short, Takei thought "it was both wonderful and scary and kind of intimidating, and delightful. I mean, all those opposites."

You look at that and you think to yourself, that isn't defending child molestation, that is merely a guy reliving his first sexual experience. Sure he was too young to have it and sure he was raped or molested by someone who took advantage of him, but again, Milo fails yet again. Now here is the thing, I don't know if he was being serious, but if he is, he merely did a great job of taking things out of context in order to attack a person that had a similar thing that happened to himself. However, instead of bragging about it and saying that "he taught me how to give good head," Takei merely talks about his experience. Saying that it was delightful isn't bragging about an experience, he just claims that it felt good to him. Again, he also claims that it was scary and intimidating, which is nothing close to what Milo said at all. In the end, Milo can claim that what he did was not that bad, he and his trolling supporters can claim that other people have said and done worse things, but it doesn't diminish his message. A message where he declared that it was okay to have sex with adolescent children as long as they consent. So if you agree, I guess that makes you exactly what Milo is, a child molester sympathizer. 

President Trump Loses Track of Reality

It has seriously been a very interesting few weeks since President Donald Trump was inaugurated in mid to late January. Since then someone was fired, then someone else was hired, they did something illegal and they were fired, then the president accused the media of lying and then he and the people that worked for him exaggerated and lied. Finally, he had a few press conferences where he pumped himself up and claimed that he had great ratings, while at the same time vehemently calling certain media outlets "fake news". Let me also mention that many of his laughable executive orders, like his temporary Muslim ban and his wall have been met with clear opposition by the people and the courts, which the President has whined about, showing he wasn't paying attention in 12th grade civics.

Let me clear the air, one thing that I feel like he did that was good was the whole deportation of illegal immigrants and those who were gang members and criminals. However, even that can be criticized because Obama deported those same illegal immigrants and they came creeping back into the country. Hopefully he can make a system that would stop illegal immigrants from coming into this country, but in order to do that, he would have to force businesses to stop hiring them, which goes completely against capitalism. Right now there is a demand for cheap, manual labor that our citizens do not want to take part in. We know from Georgia and Alabama that when these people were deported, their state economies plummeted because their citizens didn't want to pick fruits and vegetables for laughable wages. Knowing that Donald Trump isn't smart enough to realize this, I don't think that this problem will be solved.

What is the funniest thing to me throughout this first month of his presidency is the fact that he is either the smartest politician in the world or he is the dumbest man in the world. I think in many cases it is somewhere in between, but he hasn't done himself any favors. His temporary Muslim ban has proven to be one of the biggest executive order fails that I have ever seen. I know that a supporter of his would say "well, he is doing this to make the country safer because the Muslim immigrants and refugees from these countries are national security risks!" It would take just a few seconds for someone to look up the fact that the people that he has banned have never been responsible for a terrorist attack in this country's history and the people he hasn't banned are responsible for every Muslim terrorist attack in this nation's history. Donald Trump is now pursuing this in the courts because the courts have denied his executive order. Now While I don't believe he is racist, I do think he is completely clueless.

This hasn't stopped Donald from ignoring the terrorist attacks that have been caused by white people and people of other ethnicities and religions. This country has had a storied history of non Muslims attacking schools, colleges, government buildings, movie theaters, churches, and planned parenthoods in the past. I wonder why our president isn't trying to outlaw everyone from coming into this country? It is because it wouldn't go on well with his supporters if he did in fact do that or that he doesn't think white people can cause terrorist attacks. I mean the guy angrily tweets about a radical Islamic terrorist in France that was wielding a knife that didn't kill anyone, but coincidentally forgot to mention, or didn't know at all that a white nationalist that supported him shot up a mosque in Quebec and killed six people. I don't think he is aware of what happened because he didn't know that it actually happened. He watches Fox News all the time and they falsely reported that it was done by a Moroccan Nationalist and didn't apologize for three days.

But the fun doesn't stop there, he is currently going to a rampage against the media, or at least the members of the media that criticize him. And instead of ignoring them like he should be, he gets so butt hurt that his reactions come off as those from a petulant child. Now here is the thing, the media is wrong a lot and while sometimes people claim that they lie, including the president. However, when you look at the outlets that he supports like Fox News, Breitbart, and Info Wars, you can tell that the three of these lie or are wrong all the time, so you know exactly why he claims MSNBC and CNN are "fake news" to Donald Trump. The reason why Donald doesn't like them is because they have criticized him and they have called him out on his BS. And while they are not 100% factual themselves, the president, who claims that he never lies, has lied many, many times. From claiming that his victory is the best since Reagan, that what General Flynn has done was not illegal, and finally that his inaugural crowd size was really, really big.

Now I am not going to go into these topics, because they have been easily debunked by people whose jobs are to debunk Donald Trump. From what I have seen and from what he has shown, he has been extremely incompetent. Members of his own administration have been leaking information about how he is in meetings and some of the things that he has said and it hasn't been impressive. And here is how I know that President Trump is at the pinnacle of hypocrisy, with all of the leaks that have been coming out about him, he is no longer cheering them on like he was when Hillary was getting leaked, he has been getting very upset. He has plead that it is unfair that these leaks have been coming out about him when he was perfectly okay with things being leaked about other people.

Now I know what people are going to say "you are nothing more than a libtard cuck that is going to hate everything that President Trump does..." And I only respond by saying that I clearly supported his clearing of illegal immigrants from Mexico and hoping that he is being diligent about the issue of illegal immigration. I am merely attempting to make the claim that he is too dumb and not informed enough to know about the issue and how to solve it. Unfortunately, there are large records of things that Donald Trump said in the past in video form and in twitter form that has completely foiled some of the things that he says today and it makes him look like tweedle dumb. I wish that he would act more presidential and not so vindictive when people say truths about him. And besides, when he put out fake news, I didn't see him getting mad about it, so maybe this is just a taste of his own medicine and I think he deserves it.

Alternate Facts Ignore Violent White Nationalists

So he did what he promised to do, he (hopefully) temporarily banned Muslims from entering the country unless they have a green card. Currently mass chaos is ensuing and a lot of it is completely understandable. Now why are these people being temporarily banned from entering the United States? Apparently, people are refugees from these six or seven, predominantly Muslim countries are not allowed in this country because they are too violent and people feel like Islamic Extremists will fall through the cracks and start mass shootings and bombings like they "have" in European countries. If that was one hundred percent true, then that would be a valid reason to temporarily ban members of a certain religion and I am not saying that some of these people aren't violent, but Muslim terrorists that have committed mass crimes were either born in this country or they were from the countries where people weren't banned.

Now I have talked to a lot of Conservatives that are completely for a temporary ban who have told me a broad arrangement of things. The biggest one is that they want me to look at how bad the crime rate has risen in Europe to show that refugees and immigrants are a bad idea. I look at that and think to myself, yeah, that is true, it is pretty bad in those areas and the crime rate has doubled and there are only 2% of Muslim increase in those specific countries. The biggest worry is that these people are going to come to the United States and bring in Sharia law and then rape women because it is somehow acceptable in their cultures. Okay, that is a legitimate concern, but the problem is that we don't live in Europe. Things that are not acceptable here are acceptable there and the other way around. Our governments are way different, the courts are different, the police is different, public schooling is different, it might be a continent dominated by White people, but that doesn't make it the same. Someone once told me that Japan has banned Muslims too and it works for them as their crime rate is low. Well, Japan has a ban on gun and their crime rate is very low. Lets just ban guns so that we can be the same as Japan. Here is the problem, the same people who want to ban Muslims do not want to ban guns, which is pretty hilarious to me. You want to ban things that you do not like, but you do want to ban things you like, even though it makes other countries safer.

Again, there is a stereotype out there saying that Muslims are violent and are going to destroy America. To me, people who are saying that are people who want their culture to run the country and they feel like if there are other people who believe something different and have different culture, then their way of life will be destroyed. The reason why I know that is because we have people saying things about people that they probably have never met. When living in the bay area, I knew a ton of Muslims. I went to school with them, I went over their houses and at no time did I ever feel threatened. Their parents were friends with my parents and they treated me like family whenever I went to their houses. I never experienced any violence as a Jewish American, their so called "enemy" and my parents did the same with their kids. So no, I haven't experienced that and I think that certain people need to experience the positives of Islam before rushing to a complete judgement for whether they are good or bad people.

However, here is the problem, in a world of "Alternate Facts" there have been two recent vandalisms of Mosques in North America over the past eight days and one of them was a shooting. Now I have seen and heard very little from the mouths of Conservatives, especially from FOX News that came out that and said that the shooter was a Moroccan Muslim, which wasn't true, thanks guys, I thought you guys weren't a "fake news" organization. This turns the whole thing on it's head because now it is the White Nationalists that support Donald Trump that are doing the vandalism and committing the crimes and there are people that are denying the existence of this phenomenon because it isn't being reported.

I know what you are saying, "you're just a liberal that is anti-FOX News." On the contrary, I dislike all forms of mainstream media including CNN, MSNBC, and ABC too. Just because I dislike FOX News more doesn't make it any less inaccurate than the others. Not to mention, you probably complain about the others, so lets stay practical and honest, you don't care about accuracy because you have beliefs and you are probably partisan too, so lets not play this "you're being bias" game. With all of this said, since I have just proved that every ethnicity, every religion, and every race has a tendency to be violent, lets just let NOBODY in. Whites, blacks, Asians, Indian people, Middle Eastern people, and Latin American people, lets just keep all of them from coming in. If we are in it for "public safety", then lets keep the public safe, by banning all of the people. However, that will never happen because certain someones are still in denial about right and wrong. And while I could care less if Muslim refugees come or not, lets be honest here, they aren't hurting us, so lets put down this "they're dangerous" rhetoric because it isn't 100% accurate and it is destroying everything that we as a nation believes in.

Dear Liberals, Stop Punching Richard Spencer

Dear Liberals of America,

So it was either on the day of President Donald Trump's Inauguration or it was the day after during a women's march, but regardless a popular Neo Nazi was violently assaulted on camera. This Neo Nazi is named Richard Spencer, who is the "central thinker" of the Alternative Right Movement. He was standing on a sidewalk doing an interview where he said that "I am not a Neo Nazi, actually Neo Nazi's don't like me that much", then he showed some people his "Pepe the Frog" pin and gets absolutely decked in the face. Now aside from what he said, yes, he is a Neo Nazi and yes Neo Nazi's would be the kind of people who would take a liking to scum like him. We all remember when Richard Spencer did that conference with other "Alt. Right" members where they gladly stood up and raised their hands for a Nazi Solute and they all did so extremely proudly. Richard also referred to the media as "Lugen Pressen" or "Lying Press" in German, which was a term that Hitler and the Nazi's used to describe the media that criticized Hitler at the time. Finally, he made claims that he wished for the United States to be "ethnically cleansed" so that white people could once again rule.

Sufficed to say I don't see Richard Spencer or the rest of his Alt. Right cronies as being good people. What they believe is very dangerous to diversity in this country and would set us back almost one hundred years when it comes to progress. However, I don't think it is a smart idea to punch the guy in the face, nor do I condone it. Yes, I get it, Richard's ideals are quite frankly horrific and extremely controversial and they don't have a place in society. However, Richard is an American citizen, he was born in this country, therefore his ideas are protected under the First Amendment of the constitution and he doesn't deserve to get assaulted over it. Not only is it against the law to do so, but Richard and his blind followers come off as the kind of people that would take a punch in the face as a reason to hate liberals or left thinking individuals. People like him will likely use it against the left to prove that they are violent people, who are unable to use words in order to battle in the open market of ideas.

Now I know what people might be thinking, "did you just defend a Neo Nazi?" The answer is no, I did not just defend a Neo Nazi. I merely defended his right to voice his opinions without being violent and any abuse against that is silencing freedom of speech. I don't agree with ANYTHING that he has said and I know that he is a complete moron because he once wrongfully said that the Ancient Egyptians were white people in order to try to win an argument. I don't like him and never will I ever take his side on any matter, but if we want to protect our own freedom of speech and the freedom of speech of others, then we must allow Richard Spencer to say what he wants to say as long as he isn't slandering anyone. Not to mention the legal ramifications for anyone getting assaulted by people. You see, I didn't like it when Donald Trump supporters beat up protestors at his rallies and I don't like it when protestors punched Richard Spencer at protests. We need to start coming together as people and not assaulting othrs, which brings us apart.

You might think that he deserves to die because of what he says, which is fine, but that is against the law. It is against almost everything that our justice system is built on. If you want to go on assaulting people like him based off of what he says and what he believes then you can go ahead and do that, but understand that you no longer stand on a moral ground and you are just as bad of a person, if not worse than he currently is. However, that is up to you to decide if you want to be a good moral person, then you must believe that assaulting people is against the law and that while Richard Spencer might be a horrible person, with horrible beliefs, he does not deserve to die or get hurt.

Thank you for everyone who understood this simple message,

- Hank

Were We Too "Unfair" To Barack Obama?

So later today, the United States will be inaugurating a new president and it has caused me to reflect on the last years of Barack Obama. To be quite honest, Barack Obama was just, okay. He was far from being the worst president, but he also wasn't the best. If I were to rank him amongst all of the presidents we have ever had, I would put him somewhere between number twenty and twenty-five. I thought that he was a class act and had some good ideas by curing unemployment and bringing in a healthcare system, but at the end of the day, he was not strong enough to get what he wanted to get done, he still kept money with big businesses and continuously bailed them out and he made a lot of militaristic mistakes. Finally, at the end of the day, something about him and his administration has caused a lot of people to move on from him and vote for either the Republican candidate or not vote at all.

However, the real question is, were we too unfair to Barack Obama? The answer to that question is a resounding yes. Here was a guy that showed so much class and seemed to respect everyone and all about half of the country did was spit in his face when he probably would have invited them into his house and given them a bed to sleep in. This was since the beginning too. I remember certain people NEVER gave him a chance and was sitting there dogging him since the very beginning when he didn't even deserve it. And while he wasn't perfect to no stretch of the imagination, he would do something that the previous administration did and suddenly they would be against it, for some reason. I don't know, they always had a deep seeded hatred for Obama and never trusted him. This is why I laugh when they say "Donald Trump is the president, you must respect him, or leave this country!" Okay, so you know you complained about our previous president, non stop, for eight years and you have the audacity to tell people how to act when it comes to a guy they don't like? It is like they don't practice what they preach, it is pretty funny.

Because of this, I want to go through the top TEN predictions and claims that Republicans made before Obama was elected and during his regime that never came true. Now some of them were completely crazy when they made them and now that it is the end and we can now look back at how hilarious and crazy these claims were. So sit back and laugh at what stupid people thought would have been:

Number 1: Barack Obama is a Muslim

Now I know that his name is Barack Hussain Obama and it sounds like Osama Bin Laden, but Barack Obama was not a Muslim for a single day during his presidency. Barack Obama was raised by his single mother and his Christian parents, both his father and his step father were Muslims to a certain point. However, he is currently a practicing Christian and definitely not a Muslim. I think that he is definitely more open to other cultures and other backgrounds and people aren't comfortable about that.

Number 2: Barack Obama was born in Kenya

I remember back in 2009, President Elect, Donald Trump and Glenn Beck spearheaded the movement to have Barack Obama show his birth certificate because they thought he was born in Kenya. Barack was actually born in Hawaii in 1963, which was four years after Hawaii became a state in the United States. Republicans and Conservatives had their panties in a huge wad about this because they knew that if they could prove that Barack Obama wasn't born in this country, then they wouldn't have him as their president and therefore would be content with him not being there. Barack Obama eventually showed them his birth certificate, but the opposition still didn't believe him.

Number 3: Barack Obama supports terrorism

Because Barack Obama was "once" a Muslim and because people thought he was born in Kenya and because people thought he was soft on Islam and Terrorism, idiots thought that Barack Obama was not only a terrorist and that he supported terrorism because he refused to torture supposed terrorists and because he didn't trade people for the life of a reporter that was beheaded. However, the facts are that Obama has been a decently strong force against Islamic Terrorists and has dropped hundreds of bombs on Muslim countries where suspected terrorists are being housed.

Number 4: Barack Obama is a Communist

Absolutely ridiculous seeing as though he continued to bail out private companies. Yes he created the "Affordable Care Act", but that surely doesn't make his a Communist. The goal was to make healthcare more affordable for poor people that didn't have money for health insurance. While the act was not as affordable for the middle class and that is why they got mad at him, it didn't stop people from complaining about it without trying to change it.

Number 5: Barack Obama will raise gas prices

Now this is a tricky one. I remember that before Barack Obama was elected, gas prices were around five dollars where I lived. I remembered that liberals blamed George W. Bush's administration, but we all know that gas prices have almost nothing to do with who the President of the United States is. However, when Barack Obama became president, for some reason, gas prices plummeted and in the same place, gas prices are $2.89 in the same area that I lived in. So no, gas prices in Santa Clara California did not go higher than six dollars like people said it would. However, when Bush was president, Republicans said that the president wasn't in control of gas prices, but they all said that Obama magically would be.

Number 6: Barack Obama will take our guns

Let me just say that while Barack Obama was for banning automatic and semi automatic guns, but he wasn't in favor of taking guns away from responsible gun owners. The problem in this country is the fact that we clearly don't have much regulations on who gets firearms. You can be considered a flight risk and you can still get a gun because the mentality is to give guns to as many people as possible. This is because the gun industry is a business that doesn't care who gets the weapons in the first place. If the NRA and members of government took the time to make sure that crazy people didn't get guns, then the amount of mass shootings would go down.

Number 7: Barack Obama will destroy our economy

The jury is still completely out on this issue. On one hand, Republicans will tell you that he has destroyed our economy and brought us further into debt, on the other hand, Democrats will tell you that he saved the economy by lowering the unemployment and making jobs. Either way you put it people will argue and it is usually because they like Obama or they hate Obama. However, I don't think that Obama destroyed our economy, I mean, I feel better than I did in 2008, besides being eight years older and on my own...

Number 8: Barack Obama had a part in 9/11

Yes, there is one poor chap who thinks that Obama a big reason for September 11th, 2001 when two 747's crashed into the World Trade Center. The guy actually said that it was because "he wasn't around enough, he wasn't in the office." I know this might have been a good troll job, but I was just looking for a stretch. Which brings me to the number 9 thing that people wrongly say about Obama...

Number 9: Barack Obama was always on vacation

Barack Obama has been on vacation a lot, but is he always on vacation? The answer is no. Barack Obama has been in the white house for eight years, that is around 2,918 days. During that time, he has taken 28 vacations and spent 217 days on those vacation. On the other hand, George W. Bush spent the same number of days as president, but actually took 88 vacations that spanned exactly 533 total days. And these are the same people that supported Bush, but hated Obama, while at the same time telling him that he took too many vacation days.

And finally...

Number 10: Barack Obama is the worst president that we have ever had

Lets just forget the fact that we have had presidents that owned black slaves, we had presidents that forced Native American Indians on a trail of tears off of their land, we have had presidents that cheated on their wives with their secretary, we have had presidents that were found guilty of espionage, we have had presidents that nuked Japan, we have had presidents that cheated on their wives with hot, model, movie stars, and we have even had presidents who forced Japanese people in concentration camps. Has Obama ever done those things? Nope! So how is he the "worst president we have ever had"? We had a president who was such an impulsive gambler that he gambled away the white house China, his name was Warren G. Harding, are you telling me that Obama was worse than him? Because if you do, you are either joking or you are just plain biased.

To me, in all honesty, I think that there were many reasons why Republicans NEVER gave Obama a chance. One of them might have been because Democrats HATED George W. Bush. And while George was a good ol' boy that was unintentionally hilarious, he was a pretty bad president himself. I think it is that reason why Obama was never excepted. But while Bush had bipartisan support for basically his whole presidency, Obama didn't for some unexplained and mostly selfish reason. The fact is that Republicans lost and they hate losing. So what did they do? They spent the next 2,918 days complaining about it, but now, the complaining is over and now it is time for Democrats to complain for 4 or 8 years, who knows? Here restarts the never ending cycle of people complaining when the person they wanted to lose, wins.

And if you are a Republican that doesn't believe that other Republicans complained about the president, look at Fox News complaining for a total of 100 days after Obama became president:

Now I have no problem with them doing that. It is their right, if they don't like the ideals of the president and they want to expose the president, they are allowed to do so just like people should be allowed to criticize Donald Trump as well. However, the next time someone tells you not to complain, just show them this video because everyone does it. I wish we could all sit here and consider ourselves lucky that we had a guy in the white house that was respectful to all and would lift the shirt off of his back in order to help someone in need. I wish we could consider ourselves lucky that we had a guy in the white house that didn't insult people and didn't lash out at people when he was attacked. Finally, I am glad that we had a guy that was relatively relatable to me at least and strove to try to make this country better.

I know a lot of people will look at this and go "you love Obama and this proves it and you are an idiot for loving him!" On the contrary, I had many criticisms for the guy, I never voted for or against him and I knew he wasn't perfect. Lets all hope that in the end that Donald Trump does his best for this country and adds to the positivity of this country and everyone in it. I am not going to protest Trump, I am not going to wrongfully criticize him and I am not going judge him for what he did in the past. However I will say whats on my mind and call him out to keep him accountable and if any of his supporters don't like this, they can eat my shorts because that is exactly what I am going to do and be proud of it. You want to tell me to move to Mexico or Canada for it? Okay, so why didn't you move? Please tell me, why aren't you in Mexico or Canada right now for criticizing our former president? Oh thats right, you didn't, so sit down and listen to me complain, criticize, this, that and the third. And that is what Jesus... Barack Obama, I mean... Gandhi would have done. I hope everyone has a safe day at the inauguration and I hope everyone who attends wears their Trump Stamp! And a final, thanks Obama...

Donald Trump Calls CNN "Fake News" For No Reason

Let me set the scene for everyone who might not be completely up to speed on the intelligence level of our current president. So a few days ago, BuzzFeed, which is a "news agency" that is one that is kind of like TMZ, but doesn't just deal with celebrities. It is kind of like a liberal "hipster" news company that does "Top 10's", video sketches similar to College Humor as well has having people from certain parts of the country try snacks and foods from other parts of the country and get their own opinions on said snacks. I don't really view BuzzFeed as a legitimate news agency even though they think that they might be. So what happened was that BuzzFeed comes out with a 35 page dossier about how Donald Trump got a bunch of Russian prostitutes to come to his hotel room and have a "golden shower" party. Now I know that everyone wants to gouge their eyes out for picturing Donald Trump partaking in a golden shower scene, but we can all do that at the end of this post.

Now, let me just say that shame on BuzzFeed for putting out the report in the first place because it wasn't 100% verified by anyone. BuzzFeed took the excuse that they want to get news out first instead of getting accurate news out while at the same time disclaiming that "this isn't 100% verified". Still, let us be fair and say that it wasn't true that Donald Trump does golden showers. We all know that it is because he "is a germaphobe" even though he has exclaimed in the past that he "isn't a germaphobe." It's okay, ten years ago I would have told you that I couldn't get girls, but now I have a girlfriend, so people change I guess. What is the most discerning is the fact that Donald Trump doesn't know what fake news actually is. You know, those purposefully deceiving articles on Facebook that are titled, "Jaden Smith is Gay" or "Lady Gaga is a Man" or "Global Warming is Fake"... Sorry, that is "fake news" that conservatives believe in, moving on!

I have come to the conclusion that "fake news" to Donald Trump and his stanch supporters is anything that either criticizes Donald Trump or anything that makes him look bad (true or false). This usually being liberal platforms because they think that they can say something that might get Trump removed from his office before he even takes it. So far, the only news station that hasn't been coined "fake news" has been Fox News, which is funny because they either lie, are deceiving, or are dead wrong all the time. Well here's the thing, Donald Trump had his press conference, filled with blank folders with blank pieces of paper, because Trump is too stupid to know that "files" are all digital and the continuous "war" against fake news. After calling BuzzFeed fake news as well as CNN, reporter Jim Acosta decided to try to get Trump to answer a question. And while he was kind of rude about it, Donald continued to shut him down and tell him that he was fake news, while afterwards taking questions from Breitbart. Jim never got a chance to answer the question and Donald Trump looked like the strong parent that shut their child down.

Now, what did CNN do wrong to be coined by the President Elect "fake news"? Well, during the time when this 35 page golden shower piece had come out, CNN gained intelligence from CIA sources that the Russians had personal and financial information about Donald Trump. My guess is, yes, that is probably true, especially when you have members of the CIA having knowledge. So that is why CNN was called "fake news", sounds legit! Now I don't watch CNN because I feel like they can sometimes do a better job with their reporting internationally and at times they are very bias with that same reporting. They aren't the most bias, far from it, but I feel like they miss the point many times and don't ask the important questions. However, one cannot really call them "fake news" because there is no evidence that they are purposefully misleading people.

But I don't understand why Donald Trump has such a big problem with fake news in the first place. I would theorize that fake news was one of the biggest reasons why Donald Trump won in the first place. As a matter of fact, Paul Horner, a fake news writer that made a lot of money making up stories during the election said that he made up many stories that Donald Trump, his campaign manager and his supporters openly believed. Once he came up with a made up story about how Democrats were paying people to protest Donald Trump rallies. Horner went on to say that Donald's campaign manager Corey Lewandowski and Trump's son, Eric, actually retweeted another fake news story about how Amish people were voting for Donald Trump. Horner went on to conclude that he thought that Trump and his supporters would fact check his work, but they never did and that those people would look like idiots if they posted something that was untrue and then looked it up afterwards. However, "Trump supporters just kept running with it! They never fact check anything!" This allows me to conclude that if fake news hurts the opposition, then he doesn't care, but if it hurts him, it is "Fake News" and the war is on!

People in the media have to be mighty scared about this because it effects every one of them. There is no doubt that there are skeletons living in Donald Trump's closet and it is up to the media to expose that. It is up to the media to tell the people what is going on in this country and in the world and it is up to them to be truthful about it. Positive things about Donald Trump or negative things about Donald Trump, they are all allowed to be said. What our man-child of a president doesn't understand is that we have something in this country called "freedom of the press", which is protected under the first amendment. For a president that cares so much about Political Correctness and how we need free speech, he seems to get extra "triggered" when people have negative things to say about him. Should BuzzFeed apologize to him for doing what they did? Sure, they should, but it isn't like Donald really cares about lies, because he lies all the time and if he doesn't know it, then surely he is a complete idiot! When we lose our freedom of the press in this country is the moment where we stop being a free nation. Now lets all gouge our eyes out for picturing Donald Trump partaking in a golden shower!

Should Celebrities Be Allowed to Express Politics?

It doesn't take a brainiac to know that the majority of people (not all) in Hollywood are more liberally prone and most have been anti Donald Trump since he first ran for president. Heck, they might have hated him before that, I don't know. What I do know is that Academy Award winning actress, Meryl Streep had criticism of Donald Trump during her acceptance speech for her Golden Globe award. Now I don't know what she won it for and I really don't care, but it was mostly about how Donald Trump made fun of a disabled reporter last year. Now, again, I don't know why Donald Trump made fun of the guy, but I am guessing that Donald thought the guy wrote a false article on Trump and I do know that Donald DID mock him.

Now Donald responded to Meryl Streep in the best way he could. He went straight to twitter to call the Academy Award winning actress "overrated" and that he has never mocked a disabled reporter. I guess to Donald Trump, taking a limp-wrist slap to the chest multiple times and making a a paralyzed looking face with his mouth open is totally NOT mocking not only the reporter, but also handicapped and disabled people. So there is that, Donald Trump lied, again, doesn't surprise me though. You would think he would be discrete about it, but Donald doesn't do discrete. But there it is, left right out in the open.

Now every conservative internet outlet out there is going after celebrities, and almost every conservative person on social media is re-posting memes by other celebrities because they had the audacity to get "political" and to voice their ideas. Lets be honest here, most of them got triggered because Streep criticized Trump and I get it, it is cute. You can't actually go after what she said, because most of it is probably true, so you have to go after her character and the fact that she is wealthy. For this reason, she needs to "shut the hell up" and just be an actor. I love it how many "right wingers" care so much about freedom of speech and how political correctness destroys everything. Someone needs to understand that free speech goes both ways. You can say what you want without slandering people, but if people get offended, they have the right to call you a racist or a sexist. Do I subscribe to this mode of argument or debate? No! And the reason is because I do not get offended as easily. However, this is how freedom of speech works and if you don't like it, stop claiming you are so for it, because you aren't.

Maybe I am lost here or maybe I am from another planet, but movies, music, and pretty much every other forms of art media have been up for political interpretation. I love listening to music of all genres and from all periods because it always reminds me of what went on at the time. The same goes for movies as well. All of these things carry political meaning from time to time. So, okay, they can talk about it in their movies, their songs, in their paintings, sculptures, poems, and books, but just don't use you status to form a platform about it. Okay, yeah, sounds good. That only goes completely against our constitution that many appear to hold dear. I guess the next time a celebrity has an opinion about something, they should just shut their pie holes until they say something that bashes Hillary, Black Lives Matter, political correctness, and Obama, to which we will pretend it never happened.

But lets talk about a celebrity that "had an opinion", a guy that knows "nothing about politics" and someone who consistently "says the wrong things in the wrong places"... Our President Elect! He is a self-claimed billionaire that makes a lot of money, it tough, infallible, and will somehow make America Great... Again... Where are all of his sheep condemning his freedom of speech? Oh yeah, they are so far up his butt that they forget about all of that. Here are pictures of him with celebrities,

here are pictures of him on the red carpet,

 and here are pictures of him at his huge mansion!

It is so easy, but because you are such a big fan of his, you don't care to expose it. You know Streep is right, but you are so triggered that you don't have a legitimate response. 

Maybe it "wasn't the best place to say what she said," maybe "the Golden Globes should be about movies and television, not bashing Trump," and "maybe Meryl Streep should just do her job and leave the politics to the politicians and the sofa politicians," just like you all. But hey, you are a doctor, a teacher, a construction worker, a police officer, a member of the military, a weatherman, a baker, a toll booth operator, an athlete, a photographer, or a used car salesman. You don't know anything about politics either, so maybe the next time you have the slightest political opinion, maybe you should remember Meryl Streep and shut your mouth. You wouldn't like that either, would you? Yeah, thats what I thought.

As for all of the other celebrities like Mark Wahlberg and Denzel Washington who want to tell others not to use their position of power to share their political opinions, I say, okay, that is fine, you guys are in every right to say so and I respect their insight and like them as actors. However, these two guys have been in movies that have exposed negative aspects of our society and I didn't see these guys complaining about it when they did it. The moment that we are unable or too afraid to share our insight and our opinions, is the moment we lose our right to express our mind and the moment we all become mindless drones without a way to question the world that we live in. I hope those two understand that the next time they see problems in society.