Connect with us

Satire

Trump pulls a Thanos, kills half the population as single Tweet makes every Democrats’ head explode

Published

on

Trump pulls a Thanos kills half the population as single Tweet makes every Democrats head explode

“It’s unconstitutional!”

“He’s a dictator!”

“We’re moving to Canada!”

“He can’t do that!”

…seconds later…

Boom!

With a single funny Tweet, President Trump eliminated the competition for the foreseeable future as the collective heads of every Democrat, progressive, and mainstream media pundit exploded simultaneously.

“I showed my professor the Tweet on my phone. He started turning bright red, then purple, and his head started swelling,” said a student at USC. “We evacuated just in time. From outside the classroom, we heard a small explosion.”

Reaction from the media was limited as most fell victim to the “Tweetimation,” as some are calling it, a play on the “Decimation” from Avengers: Infinity War. But unlike the Decimation which took a randomly selected half of all life across the universe, the Tweetimation only killed off the political left and those suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome. While it was felt mostly in the United States, reports are coming in that the effects are also being felt in Iran, China, and North Korea.

The Decimation may have been fictional and the Tweetimation may be satire, but that doesn’t take away from the extreme levels of hatred this single Tweet will create in leftist circles across the country.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Advertisement

0

Democrats

Fear not! We are sanitizing the language of surprise incidental contacts

Published

on

By

Fear not We are sanitizing the language of surprise incidental contacts

We’re taking a cue from the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to take the fear out of societal violence.

Not to make light of a very serious situation that has been caused by the national socialist left. From their predilection to further media contagion to denigrating the culture to leftists actually being mass murders.

We as a society need to address this situation, but not by making it worse and stripping the innocent of their means of self-defense or destroying due process with Gun Confiscation SWATing laws.

There are a number of steps that can be taken without dismantling our basic human rights such as the steps they are taking in Adams County with FASTER –Faculty/Administrator Safety Training and Emergency Response as reported by Fox31 KDVR-TV.

Even subsidizing the 2nd Amendment. But since the left loves to deny reality and distract from problems they’ve caused, we’re going to illustrate their sheer absurdity by applying the same type of nonsense to other criminal acts and inanimate objects.

Engage Satire!

The SF Board of Supervisors is trying to sanitize the language with regard to convicted felons and other dangerous criminals. This is to dial up the absurdity to 11 and apply this kind of ‘PC’ nonsense to the issue of firearms and other weapons – or more appropriately: Tubular object dispersal systems.

Perhaps we should bow down to our betters on the left with their ever-superior knowledge in how to solve intractable problems such as crime. This is true progress, since there will no longer be criminal roaming the streets, only ‘justice-involved persons’ or ‘persons with a history of substance use’.

This has inspired us to get to work and solve other problems of violence – better known as ‘surprise incidental contact’. So comrades, this is a list of the old, discredited terms and their new sanitized versions in no particular disorder:

  • Cartridges – single unit object dispenser.
  • Gun – Tubular object dispersal system.
  • Handgun – Handheld tubular object dispersal system.
  • Rifle – Shoulder braced tubular object dispersal system.
  • Gun free zone – tubular object dispersal system denial area.
  • ‘Assault Weapon’ – Randomly designated tubular object dispensing system.
  • Military style – noncivil chic.
  • Violence – Surprise incidental contact.
  • Knife – Bifurcational hand tool.
  • Shooting – Mistimed object dispersal.
  • Mass murderer – Surprise contact incident participant.
  • Good guys with a gun – incidental tubular object dispersal system operators.
  • High capacity magazine – Randomly designated single unit object dispersal clip.
  • Chainsaw bayonet [this is for CNN] – segmented plant material bifurcational tool accessory.

So, how would this de-weaponized Newspeak work? Easy, just use this translation matrix – or word corresponding chart – to convert those scary words to the calm and bright PC versions.

Usage example: A military style ‘assault weapon’ would be a noncivil chic, randomly designated tubular object dispersal system. Doesn’t that sound a whole lot better and not as frightening?

No more scary words

Leftists think they are entitled to not be offended and to complete safety, and they don’t care what all of someone else’s God-given rights they have to trample in order to achieve that impossibility. The ‘PC’ sanitization of the language can go to absurd lengths as we have demonstrated.

Now with all of those formerly scary terms recast and sanitized we shan’t need to worry about these events taking place. As long as we’re not caught without our handheld tubular object dispersal system or in a tubular object dispersal system denial realm.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Seven things that should be banned before ‘assault weapons’

Published

on

Seven things that should be banned before assault weapons

Yesterday, the first Republican signed onto an “assault weapons” ban. Pete King, New York’s RINO Congressman, spoke out against the weapons that were used in recent mass shootings in Gilroy, El Paso, and Dayton.

“They are weapons of mass slaughter,” King said. “I don’t see any need for them in everyday society.”

Let’s get one thing out of the way before continuing. It doesn’t matter whether Pete King or anyone else sees a need for particular firearms in everyday society. That’s not their call. He was elected with the sole purpose of defending the Constitution, and that includes the 2nd Amendment. But even if pretend his actions are not betrayals to his oath of office, he’s ignoring the very thing leftists love to ignore: The 2nd Amendment is the people’s protection against a tyrannical government, whether foreign or domestic. Those who believe our government could never turn tyrannical are buying into the same con job the people of Venezuela believed in when their government was playing nice and taking guns.

One can argue that if it weren’t for the 2nd Amendment, this nation would have already fallen to the hands of oppression from Washington DC or elsewhere.

With that understood, let’s be empathetic conservatives and see things from the left’s perspective for a moment. They’re scared because bad people use AR-15s and other “assault weapons” to commit mass shootings. This fear is driving the calls for banning them. People fear death. It’s understandable. But less than 1% of 1% of AR-15s in America are used to commit crimes. This means 99.99% of AR-15 owners are law abiding or at least aren’t using their firearms in their crimes. It also means millions will have their right to defend themselves against tyranny or crime hampered tremendously. Furthermore, those of us who are not “assault weapons” owners will be less safe; the presence of such firearms is often what keeps bad elements at bay, even if they’re not directly in our hands.

But since we’re trying to see things from the left’s perspective, let’s assume they feel the need to be protected from the evils of “assault rifles” and in our post-truth society, their feelings supersede our facts. Fine. Then in such a world, we must be cognizant of the various other things that are actually much more dangerous than “assault rifles.” If people need to be protected from those, then there are many other things that need to be banned as well. After all, a lung cancer death is just as heartbreaking as a gunshot death. Dead is dead. If we’re trying to prevent unnecessary death, then let’s start banning the things that kill us unnecessarily.

It took three minutes to compile this list of seven things in a quick brainstorming session with my nephew. He’s 12. I’m sure if we put more time into it we could have come up with dozens more.

Cigarettes

The obvious place to start the list is with something that more people oppose than firearms. The consensus among scientists is that smoking is bad for your health and will eventually kill you. This is, of course, common sense. So why are they still legal? Shouldn’t they have been banned the moment we learned they’re the primary cause of multiple top killers in the health arena like lung cancer and heart disease?

One can argue that since they kill slowly, they’re not as evil. But my mother, who died earlier this month from lunch cancer, would have argued her suffering at the end of her life was harder than dying quickly.

Doctors

If you want to only ban “quick” killers, then let’s ban doctors. Medical malpractice results in a quarter-million unnecessary deaths in America each year, and many of these deaths happen suddenly. Those dastardly deviants with their medical degrees use ultra-sharp scalpels and heart-stopping drugs almost every day! How can they be allowed to continue their reign of terror?

Oh, but doctors usually save lives. Fine. We’ll give them a pass for now, but we have our collectivist eyes on them. But there are things that don’t save lives that are extremely deadly…

Knives

For every person who dies from a rifle shot – whether it’s considered by the leftist elite to be an “assault rifle” or not – there are 100 people who are killed by knives or other sharp objects like swords, machetes, battle axes (though statistics are slim on actual battle axe deaths), spears, scalpels (strike that, those are normally used by doctors and we already gave them a pass), and box cutters. Assault knives are a much more prolific weapon of choice than “assault weapons” when one wants someone else dead.

The argument against banning knives is that we need them for cooking. Perhaps it’s time to only allow trained cooking professionals to have them, properly licensed, of course. We should also consider laws that all knives need to be kept in knife safes.

Unhealthy Foods

Speaking of foods, how in the world is McDonald’s still in business in 21st century America? It’s… appalling. Heart disease is the nation’s leading cause of death, and fast food has to play a major role in this with their saturated fats and nutrient-challenged offerings of sustenance.

Naysayers may complain that nobody’s forcing anyone else to eat unhealthy foods. It’s a choice and therefore shouldn’t be banned. So if the criteria is choice, there’s a killer in many of our backyards that imposes its own will on others…

Dogs

Death is not the only problem with mass shootings. People are often injured by them as well. In fact, there are normally many more mass shooting survivors who are injured but not killed. The same can be said about dogs. These potentially vicious creatures are running amok through the streets seeking a human (or cat) to devour. The death toll may be low, but with around 4.5 million dog bites reported each year and 6,000-13,000 serious enough for hospitalization (where the victims then have to contend with the aforementioned dangers of doctors), we can’t overlook our canine “friends.”

But they’re not people. PETA will have a problem if we start targeting animals. We need to keep this list focused on people. And some of the most deadly people in the world aren’t hiding in the shadows committing their acts of violence. They’re not only doing it in public. Many of them are actually getting paid for it.

Sports

If you watch American television, you’ve likely come across the grizzly actions performed by athletes. Boxers, hockey players, football players, mixed martial artists… the harm they do is unfathomable. And don’t get me started on why no criminal charges are filed whenever someone charges the mound and starts a bench-clearing brawl. These ruffians are a menace to society and we’re giving our hard-earned dollars to their owners (wait, we’re not supposed to say that anymore) so we can actually WATCH this violence taking place.

But it’s not just adults. Children are exploited constantly, forced to “play” games that lead to 3.5 MILLION injuries per year. Sorry folks, but this is unacceptable.

And lastly, speaking of children…

Abortion

Somewhere around 50,000,000 Americans have been killed by abortion since Roe v. Wade. Full stop.


Obviously, this satirical look at the dangers of this world is not really calling for a ban on dogs, guns, or anything else.

Emotions are the singular driving force behind calls for “assault weapons” bans. The statistics don’t support them. Common sense doesn’t support them. The Constitution doesn’t support them. If we are being rational, gun bans should be taken off the table.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Let’s subsidize the 2nd Amendment

Published

on

Lets subsidize the 2nd Amendment

If there’s one thing that chaps my fiscal conservative khakis, it’s subsidies. Too much in taxpayer dollars is given to people and private businesses through programs designed to “help” them despite the demonstrable reality that most subsidies merely enable continued failure. For example, ethanol subsidies combined with fuel mix mandates artificially inflate demand and price while setting farmers up for a cataclysmic fall when superior alternatives arise. Then, there are sugar subsidies which take money from taxpayers so they can then spend MORE on sugar-based products than they would if the subsidies didn’t exist.

In our welfare state, individual subsidies are often panned by the right and embraced by the left, but there are clear arguments about both perspectives. People really do need help sometimes, and it’s not just because they’re lazy or wishing to live off welfare. Many need help through hard times so they can get themselves back on their feet. On the flip side, the left’s perspective that more people on welfare means they’re helping more people is one of the most backward concepts latched onto by a political ideology known for its backwards concepts.

As a whole, both individual and corporate subsidies need to be reduced by weening as many as possible off the assistance merry-go-round through increased prosperity and opportunity, In many cases, this can be accomplished by pulling government out of the way and letting Americans do what Americans are capable of doing when unhindered.

With my obligatory anti-subsidy rant out of the way, let’s talk about guns. More importantly, let’s talk about crime. As crazy ideas go, this is one that’s certain to be panned by both the right and the left, but it’s crazy enough to work. As I’ve said before, the way to mitigate gun violence is to make gun laws looser, not stricter. A gunman’s favorite venue is a place where there are no other guns present. Gun-free zones are massacre spots waiting to happen.

The argument that more “good guys with guns” would help relieve the so-called gun violence epidemic is demonstrated in places where the opposite is the law of the land. Chicago decided to eliminate “good guys with guns” with obtuse gun laws that restrict law abiding citizens from owning firearms. But their gun problem has consistently been getting worse. This makes no sense to the left who can’t seem to grasp that criminals will do as criminals do. They’ll acquire, carry, and utilize firearms illegally, and in a place where the law abiding citizenry is disarmed, it’s the criminals who will rule the streets.

It’s time to give the people the means by which they can defend themselves against crime and government tyranny. Instead of trying to take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, we should arm them. It’s time for the government to subsidize the 2nd Amendment.

Any adult who is willing to go through gun safety, care, and usage training and who has no criminal record should be offered a “personal firearm” with varying degrees of government assistance. Low-income families can get them for free, one per household. Others can receive a voucher to help subsidize their purchase of qualified firearms from registered dealers participating in the program.

Just because someone can’t afford a gun doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have one. If the government allows easy and often free access to healthcare, education, food, and other necessities, they should also offer free and easy access to the one thing that can protect them when things get really bad.

Many will balk. They’ll say it’s a terrible idea because more guns means more crime. But they’re wrong. More guns in the hands of the right people will mean less crime. Moreover, the knowledge that any given household a criminal may intend to enter has a certain likelihood of having an armed resident is a deterrent in itself.

There are plenty of drawbacks, which is why this concept is practically impossible to implement in America today. The first time a government-subsidized firearm is used in a deadly crime will be the policy’s death knell. As a society, we have a tendency to focus on individual instances rather than the big picture, which is why calls for “assault weapons” bans are so prevalent despite the fact that less than 1% of 1% of AR-15 owners use their firearms to commit a crime.

But wait a second. You’re thinking it’s ridiculous to call for government to help people acquire more firearms because some will be used to harm others. It’s a terrible plan, you’re thinking. But isn’t that the argument made by pro-abortion activists who are calling for government to fund abortion?

Obviously this is article is (mostly) tongue-in-cheek. It’ll never happen. But it’s no less ludicrous than people calling on government to fund abortion clinics like Planned Parenthood. As Will Chamberlain from Human Events noted, the same calls to subsidize Planned Parenthood could be made into calls to subsidize the NRA.

At least with gun subsidies it’s certain that doing so will save lives. With abortion subsidies, it’s all about taking life.

Why should low-income families have to choose between putting food on the table and having access to the tools that can keep their family safe? The left calls for subsidized abortions to take lives. Why not subsidized guns to save them?

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending