If You "Felt the Burn", I'm Sorry

 To the Bernie Sanders supporters, I'm sorry. The DNC leak makes it very clear the Democratic Party did everything they could to undermine the Sander's campaign, leaving his supporters up in arms. Outside of the DNC rose protests, with many Sander's supporters saying they would be voting for Trump instead of Hillary, citing her untrustworthy nature and due to the leaks specifically. The leak was so bad the Democratic National Committee apologized to Bernie for how malicious the emails were, one suggesting an attack on his Jewish faith. Despite the fact that DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schult, who in emails belittled Bernie to help Hillary's campaign while claiming to be unbiased in her job , resigned, the damage was far from over, at least for Sander's supporters

At the DNC, Bernie Sanders took being thrown away by the Democratic party like a champ, as he again preached to his devoted supporters that Trump was not a viable option and that Hillary, who he once said was unfit for the job, was the only option for POTUS.. Some supporters embraced the idea of the first women president, while most of his supporters wept as their hero essentially gave up on the "revolution". Despite efforts of the Cameramen to avoid the emotional Sander's supporters, it was evident that the DNC was divided, even more so than the RNC. As Sanders hit his key points including the distribution of wealth, harmony among races and those with varying sexual preferences, and raising the minimum wage, his supporters stood firm and were arguably the loudest and most genuine in showing their support. Though Bernie left the stage vowing to do everything he could to make America greater, the disdain from other speakers towards the strong Bernie supporters was apparent.

The most disgusting moment towards the Bernie supporters came before Bernie had even spoken, when Sarah Silverman and Al Franken took stage. Sarah Silverman claimed to have been a supporter of Sanders but then suggested she would happily take up voting for Clinton. The moment of disgust came moments later where Silverman said "Can I just say, to the 'Bernie or bust' people, you’re being ridiculous." The crowds didn't take the comedian's words well, and the once quiet chant of "Bernie" rose, leaving Silverman and Franken looking a bit worried and confused, but it got worse. After the noise calmed down came the final blow, where Franken said him and Silverman were a "bridge". Silverman chimed in and said "How do you figure that, Al? How do you figure that we’re a bridge?”, "Well, you were for Bernie, I’m for Hillary, so we are like a bridge" in a very scripted attempt, more than likely suggested by someone else(Hillary reps), to bring Bernie and Hillary supporters together. But understand, the unification was only attempted with the purpose of Hillary winning the election.

As someone who would never vote for Hillary or Bernie, I was in shock at how poorly the Sander's supporters had been treated at the convention and during the campaigning process by their own party. Silverman and Franken's commentary turned into an overwhelming smack in the face to anyone who wouldn't convert to support Clinton, when it shouldn't have shocked anyone that Bernie supporters were straying from the Democratic party. Why would such a dedicated following switch to the side of a woman who had the party eating from her hand encouraging the failure of the Sander's campaign? Bernie never had a chance and his supporters were completely cheated due to the Democratic parties agenda to promote the Clinton dynasty. While I strongly disagree with the "Feel the Bern" movement,  their choice to abandon their party's candidate on the grounds they won't compromise their values is missing in all parties, and admirable. 

Jack Dorsey Frequently Associates with Those Who "Incite Violence"

Recently Breitbart Tech editor and provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos was permanently banned from Twitter under the claim he broke Twitter's rule of "inciting violence" against Leslie Jones after he released a review of the new Ghostbusters film she stars in. Upon releasing the review, some followers of Milo said obnoxious and racist things about Leslie Jones causing her to report those individual Twitter users and Milo himself, despite Milo only essentially saying she was illiterate and a man after Leslie Jones attacked him with hateful comments. But according to many articles on the matter, Milo is a racist that rallied other racists with hate speech to attack her and even hacked into Leslie Jones's twitter account to send fake tweets to tarnish her reputation. Of course that narrative was completely fabricated and was crafted for the sole purpose of dispatching one of the most prominent homosexual conservatives on social media, but more interestingly one of the few times Twitter has actually permanently banned someone for "inciting violence".

Jack Dorsey(my fellow Bishop Dubourg High School Alum) typically sees associating with those who "incite violence" as the right thing to do as he attended a Q&A with Deray Mckesson of Black Lives Matter, a group notorious for "inciting violence". While never directly killing anyone(Deray Mckesson),The anti-police message associated with Black Lives Matter has caused(incited) their followers to attack and murder innocent officers on numerous occasions within the last month. On July 7th, in Dallas, TX,  Micah Johnson killed five officers and injured another nine claiming he "wanted to kill white people" after hearing the message of Black Lives Matter following the deaths of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile. Of course Black Lives Matter claims to condemn these actions, but does nothing to stop their followers from taking to Twitter to applaud police murders or  stop them from encouraging more. Surely Jack Dorsey would step in and ban Black Lives Matter and their members for "inciting violence", right? Nope, they got an emoji.

Jack Dorsey and Deray Mckesson of BLM say they want Twitter to represent,
"every voice", ironically.

Since a B-list actress was protected from mean words, surely a presidential candidate would be protected as well, right? Nope. If you search "Kill Trump" on Twitter, you can find dozens, probably hundreds, of post with people begging for Trump to be killed and for people to step up and assassinate him. These posts have been around for months with new ones coming up everyday, and the shear amount makes the odds that Twitter's staff isn't seeing them very slim. However, if you search Twitter for "Kill Hillary" or "Kill Bernie" you will find nothing, so either Trump's supporters are that much more tame than Hillary's and Bernie's or Twitter is more or less targeting and allowing the targeting of prominent conservative figures. But this comes as no surprise from a company that denies any threat in Islam and is extremely slow to react to radical Islamic posts, such as those promoting ISIS or those simply promoting the most recent terror attacks.

Since Twitter is all about eliminating hate speech and those "inciting violence" it's rather alarming to see the vast amount of ISIS sympathizers and ISIS members themselves posting so frequently on Twitter. What's even more alarming is that critiquing Islam will get your tweet deleted or get your account suspended faster than actually being in ISIS and posting the "violence inciting" material being critiqued. How is it that Twitter's employees miss the accounts of ISIS members sharing details of their acts and displaying warnings for future attacks but immediately know to rush to the aid of Leslie Jones? How does Twitter allow Farrakhan, who's called for the murder of innocent people, to get a platform of speech, but not a gay man who said a movie sucked? Again, it seems there's a clash of priorities.

Despite permanently suspending an account for "inciting violence" by sharing an opinion, Jack Dorsey has made a personal effort to surround himself with those guilty of the same crime but to a much higher degree. Milo Yianoppoulos made a film review critiquing a movie, while Black Lives Matter calls for actions against cops. Milo's supporters wrongly hurt feelings(as Milo agreed) while Black Lives Matter's supporters killed almost a dozen officers in a month's time and wounded many more(which other supporters applauded). Taking Milo down has been one of Twitter's main priorities for a while now, but, for some reason, they've done the bare minimum at stopping ISIS and their supporters from tweeting of their disgusting acts including killing Americans and slaughtering native homosexuals . Twitter has done nothing to stop death threats and and death wishes aimed at Trump, but coincidentally there are no death wishes towards Hillary or Bernie you can find that haven't been removed, suggesting that at the end of the day this is politics. Twitter is a very left platform, with fittingly left views in that they want everyone treated equally unless you disagree with their ideology. Milo's permanent suspension was coming with or without the Leslie Jones conflict. Why? Milo's conservative comments and opinions have made him targeted by Twitter for a while now, because things like disagreeing with Transgender people's choices is "problematic", and saying "feminism is cancer" is "inciting violence" and dangerous. While Twitter is a private company that has the right to do what they please, the reasoning behind Milo's ban is clearly a lie based on the table of people Jack Dorsey associates with and who he allows to remain on Twitter despite having a proven record, with a body count to show, of "inciting violence".

Thanks for reading, if you like what you've read subscribe and follow me on twitter @Robash97

Update: Twitter executives and employees squirmed when Milo asked if they supported free speech at the RNC, and Wikileaks has threatened to start a rival company due to Milo's ban.

Why the 3%er Movement is Relevant

 The term 3%'ers (III%'ers or 3 Percenters) refers to the claimed 3% of colonists who fought in the American Revolutionary War against the British to achieve American independence. Today, another group has taken the statistic as a title with what they see as the same mission. Resisting authoritarianism, tyranny, and upholding the constitution. To the radical liberal plague enveloping the college scene of America, some of the 3% might appear as a bunch of redneck vigilantes fringing on the grounds of racism. Presumptuous feelings aside, to understand the movement you must review ancient history; the 90's.

The flag of the 3%ers. 

 The birth of the 3%'er movement was not an anomaly. In the wake of the Columbine shootings, people were gravitating heavily towards the idea of gun control. Every person had their opinion on the issue, and some were even in favor of the U.S implementing the same policies,ironically, as Britain. To one who follows the constitution strictly, this is was a nightmare, especially after 1994 which introduced the Federal Assault Weapon Ban which, whether you like the amendment or not, infringed on the right to bear arms. The main focus being that weapons with such stomping power should not be of easy access to those with the intent to cause harm to innocent people. However, the 3%ers and many other Americans, as well as many outside of the U.S, recognize this is not a weapons issue but a people issue.



The Obama administration, mostly Obama himself, consistently persuades(with major success)the public that he's not trying to deny citizens their right to bear arms, but trying to stop criminals from attaining high power or even military grade firearms. This is bullshit. Obama has openly declared assault weapons being available to the public is immoral, and has attempted many times to eliminate guns held by legal carriers off the streets despite the new 'Wild Wild West' created by him in Chicago. Basically, Obama, and the rest of the left are saying "You can have guns, just none that can really do anything", and that's how the 3%ers perceive this. If the government ever began to enforce laws the citizens disapproved of, we would not be able to defend ourselves due to the fact our equipment could not combat the military's in a fight to protect our freedom, which denies the purpose of the second amendment that's already being infringed on, and the idea that a democratic country could turn on it's own people isn't abstract to the history books.


Last year in Colorado as many know, Freedom of religion was denied to a Christian bakery for stating it was against their religion to provide cake for a gay couple's wedding. Now if it was me in that situation, I would say "fuck you" and leave because there's other bakeries and I wouldn't want to fund a place of such discrimination. The couple took another approach and brought it to court, and won denying a religious belief that is fundamental in every major monotheistic religion in the world(against homosexuality), and while I have nothing but support for the LBGTQ community, it seems that religious freedom is very dim flame in the Left's agenda. Across America, cases like this are increasingly common, where religion is open to persecution(unless it's Islam) and never defended(unless it's Islam).


 Islam, as some are aware, and many unwilling to accept, commits more theological based crime than any other religion world wide, due to it's inherently aggressive nature found within the Quran and the dedication of its many followers. This is made especially apparent by the rapid increase of crime in Europe due to the E.U allowing both innocent and dangerous people to flood in from predominantly Muslim countries with absolutely no information as to who any of these people were. The statistics are shocking, as within less than a year of the refugee invasion, the Dailymail reported migrant crime went up 79%. The statistics in Sweden make it clear that since the migration, the rate of rapes has increased. The 3%ers recognize that Islam is a massive potential threat to Western civilization that is both proven and somewhat hidden. The 3%ers have been seen protesting outside of Mosques in the U.S with guns, discouraging Muslims from coming to America and in general being here. And while I don't support these actions, there is clear evidence to support the notion that the values of Americans, both conservative and especially liberal, heavily conflict with those of the Middle Eastern Islamic community, seeing as how we don't make it a habit to throw gay people off of buildings or decapitate those with different beliefs. Actions like those mentioned are the inherit threat of allowing undocumented refugees into the U.S, which is why the 3%ers are so concerned with Islam in general.

"Syrian" Refugees stopped at European borders respond with love. (http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/624648/Chilling-message-menacing-migrants-demand-open-borders-die)

 The rise of 3%ers should not be a shock to anyone as some of us have allowed the government to convince us that we can't responsibly carry weapons, but should trust said weapons in the hands of those who serve under our government who deny the enemy at home and abroad. Denying legal gun owners the right to military grade weapons makes it easy for tyrannical power to come, take control via military force, and push citizens around in the same way the British did to the early colonists(which is why the 2nd Amendment exists), and in the same way Hitler did to the Jewish.It's also rather terrifying to see our president consistently deny the inherit threat of Islam on American soil and equally as terrifying when a presidential candidate can openly break the law that others have been punished for and be charged with nothing. While I don't think the U.S army is about to march down the street to impose the will of Obama Christ, are we the people truly to be disarmed of our ability to combat possible government tyranny by a president with the potential to be succeeded by a woman who, despite clear evidence of guilt, walked away from a crime that could put you or I behind bars?


If you've enjoyed reading this, please subscribe for weekly content, and follow me on twitter @RobAsh97, Thank you.