First off, I would like to speak briefly about the Kathy Giffin publicity stunt. At least that's what I believe it was. If you aren't familiar, then I will fill you in real quick. 

She did a photo shoot where she held a fake decapitated head that resembled President Trump's head. 

So, she did that, received a ton of backlash, then quickly apologized. 

Ok.. Fair enough. She did something that many thought crossed the line and tried to make amends. 

Good to go. Now let's move on, right? 


Well, she recently hired a lawyer and had a press conference where she claimed she was bullied by Trump and his family and was being discriminated against. Oh, yeah. She also claims to be a free speech activist.  

Really, Kathy? You're being bullied? Bullied by the guy and his family whose fake head you held up covered in fake blood appearing to have been decapitated?  

Did the President threaten to have you locked up? Not that there wouldn't be any precedence for that. To name just a few presidents that locked up journalists for speaking poorly of them were: Woodrow Wilson, Abraham Lincoln, & John Adams. I believe those first two are worshipped by the left.

As far as I know, all he and his family did was tweet how messed up it was for you to post that picture. 

Yet, somehow you manage to come up with the idea that you are being victimized "AGAIN" by another old white man. 

Seriously? GTFOH. 

The second thing I would like to talk about is Trump's pullout of the Paris climate agreement. 

So, every liberal and their non-binary, non-gender specific mom is pretty upset about that.  

But why?  

How many people who really think that climate change is a danger are opting out of their current lifestyles that use fossil fuel based products and throwing them out in order to nurture mothr Earth?

I would guess 99.9% aren't. Just slightly less than the percentage of the number of climate models that didn't prove to be accurate.  

Anyway, why should you expect your government to regulate (even further than it already is) corporations and businesses to sacrifice their profit to reduce their carbon emissions? Do people not realize that to do this will cost companies money, or even worse, completely shut down a company because they cannot afford the technology to reduce emissions? This will result in loss in employment gains or an increase of cost in product.

This whole climate change business is anti-human at its core. Meaning that we should sacrifice our well being so that nature can flourish. 

Except the thing is.. 

We are also a part of nature! 

And yes, I understand that there are "alternative" sources of energy. However, if you do the research you will find that these technologies are either extremely expensive or extremely inefficient. With perhaps one exception, that is nuclear technology. 

Making solar panels is terrible for the environment. The resources needed must be mined. This tears the landscape up and actually pollutes more.  

The only way for humans to not influence the climate in any way is to nearly eradicate most of the world's human population. The sick thing is, is that many liberals are for poulation control. 

Not to mention the whole Paris deal is just a dog and pony show for liberal leaders to pander to their uninformed voters in order to stay in power. 

If you think we should sacrifice in order for a rare insect to survive, then you are anti-human.

If you think you should be able to express yourself artistically in whatever way you feel fit , but want critics of your art work to be silenced, then you are anti-free speech.

Thanks for reading.