The Washington Post Calls Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi An “Austere Religious Scholar”

According to some, not so reliable sources, namely WaPo, Mr. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, known as “austere religious scholar,” has passed away, just recently, surrounded by his children (at least two of them) and a group of his closest friends. Mr al-Baghdadi was 48 years old.

But, If you are one of the well-informed (aka those who don’t read The Washington Post), you know that:

Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, the terror organization that is responsible for murdering tens of thousands of people around the World, detonated a suicide vest that killed him and two of his children when cornered by US special forces unit.

(Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi took over as the head of ISIS after his predecessor Abu Omar al-Baghdadi was killed in 2010.)

Obituary for a terrorist.

What is wrong with The Washington Post?

For some — still unclear — reason, The Washington Post decided to come up with a very special obituary. What’s the occasion? Death of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, austere religious scholar at helm of Islamic State, dies at 48.

How the hell did Joby Warrick come up with this headline, and who approved it for publication? This “religious scholar” used to enjoy killing people by setting them on fire or cutting their heads off.

After a considerable backlash, WaPo changed the headline to:

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, extremist leader of Islamic State, dies at 48.

After changing the original line, Vice President of Communications at Washington Post Kristine Coratti Kelly said in a tweet:

Regarding our al-Baghdadi obituary, the headline should never have read that way and we changed it quickly.

Kristine Coratti Kelly

(Vice President of Communications at Washington Post)

So, “the headline should never have read that way.“ Really?
How about the headline should have never been written that way?
Or the entire obituary should have never been written the way it was.
Or maybe it should have never been written at all.

Although WaPo has abstained from referring to al-Baghdadi as “an austere religious scholar” in the obituary’s headline, they could not bring themselves to do the same if it comes to the rest of his obituary. WaPo seems to agree that al-Baghdadi wasn’t acting like a religious scholar as the head of ISIS or when he blew himself and two of his children up, but they made sure to state in the top paragraph that… He used to be one in the past.

(From Washington Post. The first paragraph of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi ‘s obituary)

When Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi took the reins of the Islamic State of Iraq in 2010, few had heard of the organization or its new leader, then an austere religious scholar with wire-frame glasses and no known aptitude for fighting and killing.

Accidental leader?

I don’t think so.

One could think when reading Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi obituary, that he was chosen to lead an ultra-brutal terrorist organization because of his captivating personality and sense of humor. We should believe that he minded his own business and out of the blue has received a phone call from the ISIS board of directors asking him to become a new CEO.


ISIS: Listen, Abu. We know you have absolutely no experience if it comes to our industry. But, you look incredibly cool in those wire-frame glasses, and we believe that your looks will turn to be a great asset to our business after you become the new face of our corporation.
Abu: I’m in (with my extensive collection of designer glasses).


Nothing was accidental.

  • Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was known in the world of terror.
  • His extremist views were known in the world of terror.
  • What he was capable of was known in the world of terror.
  • And now it’s widely known to everyone in the world of terror, that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is dead.

I wonder…

I wonder what Jeff Bezos — the owner of The Washington Post, has to say about this fiasco. I’m genuinely interested in his opinion.

Update (Oct 30, 2019): Two children died with al-Baghdadi when he detonated a bomb vest, one fewer than initially reported. I’ve updated the post.

Thank You For Reading

Robert “Beto” O’Rourke Wants Your Guns

Sell us your guns, or else!

Democratic “presidential contender,” Robert “Beto” O’Rourke thinks police agencies will partner in his plan to take away legal weapons from gun-owning Americans

Somehow he has figured it all out. Americans are eagerly waiting for his weapons control plan to become a law, and then will meekly hand over their weapons, no questions asked.

In the case of encountering, someone who won’t subscribe to Beto’s interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, he has plan B ready. He’s going to enlist the help of the law enforcement agencies, which, in his opinion, will happily jump in and (using their firepower) help him disarm resistant gun owners.

Yeah, I think just as in any law that is not followed or flagrantly abused, there have to be consequences, or else there is no respect for the law. So you know, in that case, I think there would be a visit by law enforcement to recover that firearm and to make sure that it is purchased, bought back so that it cannot be potentially used against somebody else.

Robert “Beto” O’Rourke

(Explaining what is going to happen if someone will tell him to pound the sand.)

In short, if his ambitious plan encounters any resistance, he will grab a phone and call 9 1 1.

Not so fast, Beto.

There’s a minor problem — The Second Amendment.

Luckily for us, over 200 years ago, our Founding Fathers were able to foresee the future and saw some guy named Beto, and a bunch of his friends, trying to disregard the will of the people, and after disarming them, govern as they see fit.


The reason for the addition of the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution was to make sure that citizens have the means to defend themselves against an oppressive government, otherwise known as Guys like Beto.


Fortunately, it looks like all those founders, a long time ago, were a bunch of quite brilliant men, and threw a monkey wrench into Beto’s plans before he even started planning. The name of the wrench — you guess — is, the Second Amendment.

Beto’s wet dream.

There’s another minor problem — Men and women of the law enforcement.

Members of police forces are not thrilled by the idea of being used as the government enforcers. Taking away citizen’s rights by force isn’t exactly a popular concept among the men and women who ware sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

The thought of anyone utilizing my sheriff’s office or any other law enforcement agency in this country as their personal Gestapo to go door to door violating citizen’s rights is disgusting, unrealistic and downright un-American.

Eddy County Sheriff Mark Cage

(When talking to Townhall.)

Mr. O’Rourke believes that whoever came up with a motto seen on police cars: “To Serve And Protect”, had him and his friends in mind. He thinks that the men and women of law enforcement are there to protect politicians and to enforce their ridiculous ideas.

I think that you have to be concerned for the safety of the citizen [too] because, at that point, they don’t know if law enforcement is coming to protect them or disarm them and that creates a very tense situation.

Weld County Sheriff Steve Reams

(When talking to Townhall.)

Because of his support for police, President Donald Trump enjoys a high level of popularity among members of law enforcement agencies. Maybe O’Rourke thinks that his insane idea of elevating our cops above the U.S. Constitution will cause them to switch their support from Trump to him — the one and only — Beto O’Rourke. The problem is, police officers don’t want to be elevated by O’Rourke.

Mr. O’Rourke is delusional in regards to his gun control ideas. The biggest fear of any free society is the government at your door, wanting to take away your rights by force. I do not see the men and women of law enforcement sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution doing this. In an act of desperation, Mr. O’Rourke is shamefully using tragedies our country has experienced and fear for his political gain. The very foundation of law enforcement is public trust. Frankly, no one should trust a man who talks out of both sides of his mouth.

San Juan County Sheriff Shane Ferrari

(When talking to Townhall.)

Science is the king.

From the laboratory of rational thinking.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Anti-gun lobby points to the “well-regulated Militia” clause in the Second Amendment. They argue that the right to bear arms should be given only to organized groups, like the National Guard.

I’ve grown tired of all those constitutional scholars explaining the meaning of the Second Amendment and decided to go thoroughly scientific and with the help of Google Translate once and for all decipher what precisely James Madison had in mind when he proposed The Second Amendment.

First, I’ve used Google to Translate the Second Amendment from English to Polish (it works well with other languages too).

Click Image For full-size Version

Then I’ve taken Polish translation and repeated the process in the opposite direction — from Polish back to English.

Finally! Thanks to my superior intellect and algorithms behind Google Translate, the meaning of the Second Amendment is clear and can not be questioned.

The last (very important) thought.

Mr. James Madison believed that:

We need a well-regulated militia for the security of the state, but at the same time, the people, have a right to own and carry firearms for personal protection.

For personal protection means — in case the state will decide to use the well-regulated militia to kick our personal ass.

NOTE: To the law-makers on Capitol and all Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. Enjoy the fruits of my hard work, and…

You’re welcome!!!

Thank You For Reading

President Trump Goes After Never Trumper Republicans

Finally, The Commander In Chief calls the opposition inside the Republican party for what it is — human scum.

No more Mr nice guy. Donald Trump is reaching into deeper layers of his vocabulary basket, and in my opinion, he’s doing the right thing. There’s no reason why the President should be respectful to people who, in some cases, greatly benefited from his support when they run for office, but after being elected, work very hard to have him destroyed.

The Republican opposition to Donald Trump has existed from the moment he made his run for office, official. Many lawmakers oppose Trump and would reach the highest levels of political excitement seeing his presidency failed.

The Never Trumpers don’t care how many regular citizens will get hurt if the President’s policies, due to opposition’s destructive actions, will fail. No matter how many people will lose their jobs, their pensions, their houses, as long as Donald Trump gets kicked out of the White House, his haters are going to be filled with joy.

The last thought.

In a nutshell.

They — the Republican establishment — hiding behind Democrats, deep state and mainstream media, work furiously hard to destroy President Of The United States just because he is doing a much better job then they were ever able or willing to do. Many politicians rush to oppose him, even when he wants to do what they were trying to do just a short while ago without success.

So, Washington hates Trump because Trump makes Washington look bad. I can understand this sentiment. On the other hand, it’s not his fault that many of those distinguished ladies and gentlemen on Capitol are a bunch of idiots, and him refusing to bring himself down to their level should not be held against him.

Thank You For Reading

The 129 Republicans Refused to Stand With President Donald Trump

The entire Republican leadership in the House voted against President Trump’s decision to pull US troops of the Syrian border.

  • Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)
  • Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA)
  • Republican Conference Chairwoman Liz Cheney
  • GOP Policy Committee Chairman Gary Palmer (R-AL)
  • Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX), the top Republican on the Foreign Affairs Committee who co-sponsored the legislation with the panel’s Democratic chairman.

129 Republican representatives voted to condemn President Trump for withdrawing the U.S. military from the Syrian border and leaving Kurdish forces in Northeast Syria without U.S. backup.

Interesting enough, we’re talking about the same members of Congress who refused to support sending U.S. soldiers to Syria in the first place. So, sending our soldiers to Syria was wrong, but pulling them out of there is much worse. So much worse, that two-thirds of Republicans in the House decided to break ranks and voted with Democrats (The final vote was 354-60) to rebuke President’s decision.
Some people are never happy.

You either with us or against us.

I know it sounds dramatic but, to 129 guys/girls in the House — choose your sides wisely, there’s no middle ground.

I don’t understand why instead of waiting a few days, let VP Pence and SecState Pompeo negotiate with Pres Erdogan and see how the situation on the Syrian border will play out, our guys(?) rushed to take such a heavy-duty stand against President Trump. (Hopefully, it was just a one-time act of insanity caused by substantial stress and a lack of proper diet.) There are better ways of expressing disagreement with the leader of your party.


Just a day after 129 Republican members of Congress decided to stand with Democrats against a Republican President, and condemn his decision to pull our soldiers of the Syrian border, the five-day ceasefire has been agreed on.

A little rough love from the President.

It will give Kurdish-led forces time to pull back from controlled by the Turkish military “safe zone,” which Pres. Erdogan wants to create along the Turkish/Syrian border. Once the Kurds are cleared from the safe zone, Turkey will commit to a permanent ceasefire.

Will ceasefire work? I have no idea. It looks like at least one side involved in the “deal” doesn’t take it seriously. Turkey accused Kurdish forces of violating the agreement by launching 14 attacks since the agreement to end bloodshed was reached.


Republican leadership in Congress could call a press conference or come up with an opened letter presenting different, in their opinion better solution to the problem. Instead, for some unexplainable reason, they decided to use the worst option available — cooperation with people who look to destroy not just the President but the entire Republican party. That’s smart, very smart. Very smart if one wants to commit political suicide.

The last thought.

I’m not going to judge the President’s decision; my security clearance doesn’t cover access to information needed to form a decent opinion, but I’m going to comment on the way most Republicans in Congress reacted to it.

Although the resolution has no legal force, I see a passing of it in the House as a huge win for the Democrats. They sold the resolution as support of Kurdish allies, who worked closely with American troops in the fight against Islamic State, but designed and then used it to drive a wedge between President and Republicans in Congress and as help to create a narrative that Pres. Trump is losing the support of his party.

To Democrats — great move. Could help your impeachment efforts.
To Republicans — what the hell is wrong with you? Your President is under assault (which started right after it became clear that he will run for office,) and you instead of defending him decided to bent over for Democrats?

I have bad and good news to share with you ladies and gents of Republican part of US Congress:
Bad news — You’ve been used.
Good news — It won’t be forgotten.

Addendum.

Below I’ve dropped a list of Republican members of Congress, who allowed themselves be used by Democrats in the war against Donald Trump.

These are Republicans who voted with Democrats.

Thank You For Reading

ABC News is trying to pass gun range videos as combat footage from Syria!

Slaughter in Syria!!!

Or maybe not?

ABC News took the footage from a nighttime machine gun demonstration at the Knob Creek Gun Range in West Point, Kentucky, and presented it as the frontline battle between Syrian Kurds and the invading Turkish troops.

Starting at 0.47 Knob Creek gun range footage starts.

This video, obtained by ABC News, appears to show the fury of the Turkish attack on the border town of Tal Abyad.

Senior foreign correspondent Ian Pannell, who is in Syria, said Monday on Good Morning America.

Appears to show the fury…
It never appeared to be a Turkish attack. People at ABC News wanted it to be a Turkish attack, and they had made a decision to call it a Turkish attack. Unfortunately for ABC’s “news team”, we are not stupid and we pay attention.

This kind of “reporting” could have serious consequences, including but not limited to, causing a drop in the stock market. Of course, all those geniuses in ABC and other “news” outlets don’t care about consequences as long as they can make Trump administration look bad.

They (ABC News) regret the error.

Of course, they do. ABC News looks like a bunch of idiots not worthy of being called news organization.

It’s puzzling to me why we keep tolerating this kind of behavior coming from the news outlets. It seems that mainstream media will jump on every chance to create a crisis, and then use it to scare people into believing that the world as we know it is about to end.

Certain four-letter words can’t be said on network TV because that could offend someone. Certain situations can’t be depicted on network TV because that could hurt someone’s feelings. FCC makes sure that nothing offensive gets on the air. But, if it comes to news, there’s absolutely no oversight.

How about a “news” designed to create a fake crisis? News design to scare people to death and push them into making decisions that otherwise they would not make? Like selling a beautiful ocean-front summer house with significant loss because they ware made to believe that in a couple of months, the house will end up underwater. Or voting for some guy they usually would not vote for.

I think that allowing a lie to be published as a fact, is much more harmful than someone accidentally dropping the F-Bomb when talking about the weather.

So, FCC, where are you?

The last thought.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I have no problem whatsoever with hard-working journalists who make every effort to keep us informed. Good or bad, sad or funny, if something happened I want to know about it. But I have enough political hacks masquerading as journalists creating crises every time someone passes gas in a public setting.

So, FCC, where are you?

Thank You For Reading

Trump vs. Pelosi — Game’s On

Unnamed but trustworthy sources had informed one of the major news organizations, which under the condition of staying anonymous, told us that according to well-informed snitches on the Capitol, as a result of multiple secret meetings between the members of the US Congress and the top levels representatives of the administration, the agreement on the extremely important subject has been reached. Details have not been given yet.

UPDATE:
It looks like a few hours before the end of the last meeting, the transcripts of the negotiations were leaked to the media by a whistleblower.

UPDATE:
This is the essence of what they had communicated:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi is playing checkers while President Donald Trump is playing chess.

Another UPDATE (from the second whistleblower):
Speaker Nancy Pelosi gaming skills have been downgraded — Ms. Pelosi is playing Tic-Tac-Toe now.

Pres. Trump decided to trust his gut.

When theory-based expert opinions don’t match the complexity of reality, one has to use his own life experience to find the best solution to the problem.

I have a gut, and my gut tells me more sometimes than anybody else’s brain can ever tell me.

Donald Trump

A fresh approach to an old problem.

President finally decided to take matters in his own hands, and instead of listening to advisors (who kept telling him to cooperate with a democratic leadership by supplying them with documents and witnesses to support their endless investigations,) he has chosen a different path.

In response to the newest attempt by democrats to overturn results of the last presidential election — they opened impeachment inquiry (without a floor vote authorizing an impeachment inquiry) — the President called the inquiry illegitimate and refused to cooperate.

Unsurprisingly it created lots of criticism coming from the left. They say that the Constitution plainly states that the House Of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment. This means that, if the House wants to impeach someone, it only needs to gather a simple majority in support of articles of impeachment that can be presented to the Senate.

I agree 100 percent with the above statement. All the House needs to start the impeachment process is a simple majority. But there’s a question I’d like to ask.

How do we know that there are enough representatives in the House supporting the impeachment?
There was no vote…

Having speaker Pelosi, and few others running around while screaming — IMPEACHMENT is not the same as having the majority of the House supporting the effort.

The last thought.

Donald Trump does the right thing when refusing to cooperate with Democrats on what they call Impeachment Inquiry or Proceedings or whatever they want to call it. In reality, it is just another fake investigation of nonexistent crime.

No matter what Democrats (after many days of a secret behind the closed-door proceedings,) will come up with (and they will come up with something), at the end of a day, the Senat will have the last word in this disaster.

If republicans in US Senat will subpoena the right people and will ask the right questions, it won’t end well for many boys and girls who mistook Pres. Trump for easy prey. But that’s IF they do the right thing.

Thank You For Reading

Rebuttal Letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Impeachment Effort

The White House sends a letter to Speaker Pelosi and the Legislative Branch committees’ outlining their non-compliance with unconstitutional encroachments intended to facilitate impeachment.

The last paragraph of the rebuttal letter.

(Full letter)

For the foregoing reasons, the President cannot allow your constitutionally illegitimate proceedings to distract him and those in the Executive Branch from their work on behalf of the American people. The President has a country to lead. The American people elected him to do this job, and he remains focused on fulfilling his promises to the American people. He has important work that he must continue on their behalf, both at home and around the world, including continuing strong economic growth, extending historically low levels of unemployment, negotiating trade deals, fixing our broken immigration system, lowering prescription drug prices, and addressing mass shooting violence. We hope that, in light of the many deficiencies we have identified in your proceedings, you will abandon the current invalid efforts to pursue an impeachment inquiry and join the President in focusing on the many important goals that matter to the American people.

If you don’t want (don’t have time) to read the letter in its entirety, I’m providing the short version below.

Dear Madam Speaker and Messrs. Chairmen:

Go pound sand.

Thank You.

It’s getting more and more exciting! Fasten your seatbelts, and enjoy the ride.

Thank You For Reading

President Trump Pulling U.S. Troops Out Of Syria…

…fulfilling a campaign promise to withdraw from “endless war” in the Middle East.

As a result of many decades of complaints from people around the globe criticizing the United States for its imperialistic politics, and accusations of bullying nations into submission, President Trump, in an effort to make everyone happy, is reducing US military presence abroad. As a first step, he’s pulling our troops out of Northern Syria.

Oddly, the same people who used to complain about the USA being policeman of the world, are now complaining that we don’t want the job anymore. They have questions!

  • What about ISIS fighters still operating in Iraq and Syria?
  • What about over 10,000 militants currently detained by the Kurds?
  • What about security for sprawling camps filled with tens of thousands of displaced Syrian families?
  • What about Turkey’s impending incursion?

These are all excellent questions, and I’d like to add another one:

  • What about Europe?

What about all those “superpowers” sitting much closer to the Middle-East than we are? Like Germany, or France, or maybe Great Britain. Perhaps they should send their soldiers to Syria and tell Tayyip Erdogan to calm down and stop dreaming about military escapades into his neighbor’s territory.

President Trump has explained his decision.

I was elected on getting out of these ridiculous endless wars, where our great Military functions as a policing operation to the benefit of people who don’t even like the USA.

The two most unhappy countries at this move are Russia & China, because they love seeing us bogged down, watching over a quagmire, & spending big dollars to do so.

When I took over, our Military was totally depleted. Now it is stronger than ever before. The endless and ridiculous wars are ENDING! We will be focused on the big picture, knowing we can always go back & BLAST!

Pres. Donald Trump

The last thought.

Europeans are still around. When it comes to dealing with the local problems, Europe should take the initiative instead of looking at the United States. I don’t mind helping our allies, but I don’t think they should expect the US military to do all the dirty work. (While they, the allies, watch the action on TV.)

Thank You For Reading

Eat The Babies — They Fart Too Much

Ridicule as a weapon of (political) war.

No one likes being laughed at.

In an attempt to mock the Green New Deal (and the rest of climate change mumbo-jumbo) promoted by New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, LaRouchePAC planted one of its activists at AOC’s Town Hall meeting.

Even if we were to bomb Russia, we still have too many people. Too much pollution. So we have to get rid of the babies. That’s a big problem. Just stopping having babies is not enough. We need to eat the babies.

Using ridicule as a way of fighting political opposition isn’t new. People have used ridicule and satire as a powerful weapon to cut their enemies down to size since — oh well — since there ware enemies in need to be cut down to size.

Let’s borrow a couple of thoughts from leading progressive thinkers…,

1

The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?
This is the war — this is our World War II.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

(Before she realized that no one with the social intelligence above that of a sea sponge was going to take her seriously.)

2

People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction.

Greta Thunberg (Activist)

(Before she realized that she should be back in school on the other side of the ocean instead reading to a bunch of people in UN.)

3

Can you Imagine Eating Human Flesh?
I feel somewhat hesitant but to not appear overly conservative…I’d have to say….I’d be open to at least tasting it

Prof. Magnus Soderlund

(Before he realized that that suggestion of having just recently deceased member of immediate family for lunch, is not going to sit well with the most of the civilized population.)

…and using exaggeration, elevate them to the next, satirical, level of insanity.

(NOTE: I don’t think there’s any need for exaggeration in case of this Soderlund guy. Hi’s already way up there.)

Twelve years? That’s way too long. Let’s cut it down to just a few months.
We are not even going to survive until Christmas. It won’t matter anyway, because by that time, the North Pole will melt, and beloved Santa and the rest of his crew will die miserable deaths as a result of drowning in crystal clear, icy water — assuring that way proper nutrition for other North Pole residents, who are better swimmers.
(Sorry, no Christmas presents for you.)

What about all those people dropping like flies because of our fragile ecosystems are collapsing?

Well, let’s be practical and listen to the advice of Prof. Soderlund. We should take those who are no longer contributing to our society (individuals killed by collapsing ecosystems), and use their remains to replace traditional meat products.
By doing so, we’ll be able to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions by forcing all those evil methane-producing, farting cows into extinction without creating any food shortages in the process.
(Passing gas will become a criminal offense.)

But wait! Why not push it a little further. (this is where LaRouchePAC satirical drama comes in.) There’s no need to wait for someone to die to be eligible to become part of our menu.
Let’s go after our babies. Nothing, ladies and gentlemen, is going to prevent us from saving the planet!

Save the planet — eat the children!

(Over time, propagation will grow to be an occupation paid by the food industry.)

This approach will take care of two problems: over-population and assurance of proper, high-quality nutrition.
Fewer kids — No replacement for old geezers. Fewer humans to feed. More food for the rest of us.
Higher food quality — Veal is better than beef.

Is satirical sketch presented by the LaRouchePAC member at the AOC’s Town Hall meeting , that much off from reality? Progressives are pushing the idea of abortion after birth already.

Was that insane? Of course, it was! But…

Some times just explaining why your way of life is superior to the way the opposition wants everybody to live by, is not enough. On occasion, there’s an unavoidable need for ridiculing the ideas or solutions to problems proposed by those on the opposite end of the ideological spectrum to make people listen to your arguments.

Shocking the people who are too busy, too tired, or just simply too ignorant to care about what is happening around them and forcing them back into paying attention, ensures that all of us, and not only those in power, are influencing the way our country is governed.

The headline like:

THEY WANT TO EAT BABIES!!!,

works much better than:

The controversy around the new abortion bill explained.

So, ladies and gents — bon appétit!

Thank You For Reading

Do Nothing Democrat Savages

Trump vs. Do Nothings

The bare-knuckle fight is on!

It looks like gloves are off. We’ll see who will land the first punch. For now, Trump is satisfied with naming the opposite corner — the Do-Nothing-Party. I’ve already heard people calling the Democrats — Do Nothings. I think this new name will stick.

It seems like everyone’s attention is focused on the “Do Nothing Democrat Savages” part of the tweet. The part which caught my eye sits at the end of the president’s comment. It says:

Oh well, maybe next time!

Was that a threat? Donald Trump is known as a guy who always gets even. And he’s not shy about it.

On Twitter,

or in his book.

Think Big And Kick Ass
In Business And Life

Originally published: 2007

In his book, Trump dedicates the entire Chapter to the importance of retaliation on people who mistreated him.

My motto is: Always get even. When somebody screws you, screw them back in spades.

Donald Trump

It could be interesting to watch President Of The United States getting even with people who screw him.

Thank You For Reading