Questions We Should Be Asking About CNN

The recent Twitter drama between the arch-enemies CNN and the POTUS involves a meme of Trump wrestling a CNN logo. The news network featured went absolutely mad, claiming the President was inciting violence. This same network that employed Kathy Griffin, who had a gruesome photo shoot to showcase her holding a mock-severed head of President Trump. This is the same network that openly supported the Central Park production of a play in which actors pretended to assassinate the President. They hypocrisy is palpable.

That’s not the end of it, though! In their mission of self-destruction, they decided to blackmail the Reddit user who posted a version of the meme on the /r/The_Donald thread.

First, they wanted to investigate, getting information about the creator. After they found the original post of the meme, they looked at his other material, which tended to be racist and anti-Semitic in nature. CNN then found the user’s information by linking social media accounts. Suddenly, the creator apologizes. He is interviewed by CNN and makes a statement of remorse. He removes all of his posts from Reddit and tries to disappear from the web, for his safety and the privacy of his family.

Then! CNN decides to say that because he requested to remain unnamed due to his safety concerns, they won’t reveal his identity… as long as he remains silent:

CNN Blackmail

So, here are the questions we should be asking:

  1. Should we demand the same outrage over “violent rhetoric” aimed toward the President? Or should we just take it as it is: A joke.
  2. Should we further the leftist agenda of shutting down free speech with the nonsense that hate speech isn’t free speech?
  3. Can we turn a blind eye to this clear blackmail effort to silence a Reddit user simply for creating a meme?
  4. What is going to happen to CNN now that this self-destructive spiral is clearly spinning out of control?

I should mention that I am not supporting the tweet by the POTUS. Honestly, he makes himself look like a complete jackass and we know it is far from “presidential.” I am, however supporting his right to free speech. He can be critical of those who oppose him, he can post jokes about news corporations that consistently insult him on a daily basis, and he can call them out on their hypocrisy when they are clearly showing bias and double standards. He can… because he is free. Let’s not forget that we all share these freedoms. Don’t be silenced by fear.

– All the Spoils



CNN News Report How CNN found the Reddit user behind the Trump wrestling GIF:

You should also check out:



About: Socialism

Merriam-Webster Definition:

  1. Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
  2. A system of society or group living in which there is no private property
  3. A system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
  4. A stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

The World Socialist Movement ( falsely defines socialism “in practice” as “common ownership will mean everybody having the right to participate in decisions on how global resources will be used. It means nobody being able to take personal control of resources, beyond their own personal possessions” (What is Socialism?, para 3). This is in direct contradiction of (1) the actual definition of Socialism and (2) the historical “practice” of Socialism.

  1. “Everybody having the right to participate in decisions on how global resources will be used.” This sentence implies that the individual will be able to essentially vote on bills that will pass through government oversight. This is what we have in Democracy. When Socialism is actually implemented, all power goes to the government to make these decisions on behalf of the collective group. There is no individuality in a Socialist government, which is why it would never work in a melting pot of cultural diversity such as found in the United States.
  2. “It means nobody being able to take personal control of resources, beyond their own personal possessions.” This is also false. Socialism gives complete control over resources. This is why you see so many Socialist countries starving in bread lines and waiting weeks to have their broken bones treated in a hospital. The society effectively relinquishes their free will to determine their own need to their authoritarian overlords.

They go on to say, “Production under socialism would be directly and solely for use” (What is Socialism?, para 5). This is the most economically devastating idea one could dream up. Nothing will be made for profit. The individual workers would have no incentive to work hard. Why would anyone strive for management or overtime when the result is the same as its weakest link? The answer: they wouldn’t… unless there is corruption. Corruption, fraud, and scandal are prevalent in many Socialist countries where mafias and politicians live in luxury while the rest of society struggles to get their own piece of bread.

Ami Horowitz filmed a quick 9-minute video titled “What’s wrong with socialism?” where he asks Americans their opinion about socialism. Many of the people he interviewed on the street exclaimed, “Nothing is wrong with Socialism!” and “I like it!” He went on to take a deeper look into the ravages this political theory in practice has on the citizens of Venezuela. A woman stood in a bread line for an entire night before walking away with only a half-filled grocery bag. Government controlled mafias police the bread lines and often clear out the supply with their own grubby hands.

While Bernie Sanders used economic inequality to promote his political agenda (if you don’t remember, he always spoke about “the 1%!”), the reality of socialism would essentially divide the country into two classes: the super-poor consisting of the entire people under government control, and the super-rich who are the controlling government. Ami shows this in his video, highlighting the violence and squalor the citizens of Venezuela must endure on a daily basis. Many people supporting Democratic Socialism have an idealistic view of the movement, claiming that the damages done in the past by Socialism is just because “they weren’t doing it right.” Isn’t that how it starts? Can’t we say that some of them began on good intentions?

Socialism takes capitalism away. They take the freedom of individual rights and creates a society of cogs in the machine of government control. The socialist society has no individual ownership, but takes their personal possession and forcefully redistributes with the idealistic view that just because you live, you deserve to steal from your neighbor.



World Socialist Movement (2017). What is Socialism? Retrieved from:

Horowitz, Ami (2017). What’s wrong with socialism? Retrieved from:



About Me

If you are like me, your interest in political theory has peaked within the past few years. Throughout the next few weeks, I would like to share a post per day regarding various political theories including their origination, historical context, implementation, and current relevance. I never thought in my lifetime that would see so many people in the United States openly support Socialism or Communism, and yet Bernie Sanders almost won the Democratic nomination! I believe that we allowed this to happen because our schools are too concerned with soft, “political correctness,” with a fear of offending a group of people who hold certain ideas. They are being taught that anyone who has ideas separate of their own are inherently evil. I hope that this blog will serve as an educational outlet for diverse political views, supplying facts rather than anecdotal support for their claims.

Please note that the opinions in these essays do not reflect those of a specific political party and are only intended for critical, educational, and even entertainment purposes. If you would like to discuss a specific topic, please email me and I will be happy to review the suggestion.

I am a huge supporter of our Constitutional rights, so I welcome all views to aid in discussion. I will not block anyone unless they outright threaten harm to another person. You have the freedom of speech. You may choose to exercise that freedom in any way you see fit, however you should understand that there are consequences for our actions. You are free to eat whatever you want, but you should know that if you only drink 20 liters of cola every day, you will likely get ill and die- it is a consequence of your decision. Likewise, our speech has consequence. I understand that I cannot cuss at work and if I constantly say “FUCK!” I will likely get fired. I can’t argue for my First Amendment right to say “FUCK!” because the contract of employment likely outlined a required professional decorum policy- I am not sure because it was 7 years ago and who really reads them anyway?

There are many political agendas being propped up by people in the public light, namely celebrities and the mass media. The myth of the wage gap is spread as truth, the constant barrage of insults for our president is a daily expectation, terrorism is trending around the world, and the social programs run by our government encourage societal dependence on a centralized authority. We are losing our independence and conservatives who stand up and shout opposition or even predictions of our downfall are silenced, labeled as alt-right, racist, sexist, homophobic bigots.

I am very interested in researching the topics that are being publicized right now. I want to explore their validity in the media. I want to keep an objective view! I know that what I’ve said already makes it seem like I am anti-left or against the democratic party, but I’m not! I am literally the only conservative person in my group of friends. But what I seek more than pushing a political agenda is uncovering the truth. I welcome you to join me on this journey!

If you are wondering about my political affiliation, I am a Conservative Libertarian.

My Political Compass:


If you would like to see where you land on the Political Compass, I suggest you take the test:

OPINION: Amy Schumer is NOT Funny

This is a bit late in the game, but I figure I must find an outlet for opinions in hopes to discover like minds.

So, to kick of my first blogging experience, why not write about how much I hate Amy Schumer? Most people already know these things. I just hope this goes to show WHY I lost all respect for her and now refuse to inhibit her celebrity by staying away from anything she has a hand in creating.

  • The Blame Game: Amy released her Netflix stand up this year, titled The Leather Special. There sure was something special about that leather- it somehow didn’t burst at the seams. She blamed a Subreddit for dragging her reviews down, however it should be noted that the special was already getting 1.5 stars before the Subreddit even discussed collaborating in a 1-star take down. She also claimed it was an alt-right conspiracy against her because she is an outspoken female. Her history of blaming men for her failure to be funny is nothing new. She might be blind to the fact that women find her jokes disgusting, tedious, and one-note.

The worst thing to come of this accusation is that the entire Netflix rating system changed. It went from a star-tiered system to a thumbs-up/down. The benefit of a five-star system is that we can give a wide arrange of rating. We went from something on a gradated scale to something from the ancient Facebook “like/dislike” reactions. It was, quite literally, a step back. Good job, Amy. Your virtue signaling achieved the repressive reaction you intended! Way to be a “progressive feminist”

  • The Thief: The Leather Special was the last thing I ever watched of Amy’s before I started my personal protest. I actually watched it. I remember, years ago when I was still “finding myself,” I thought she was funny. She joked about sex, was self-deprecating, and was (at least for me) something new. I didn’t know that she was anything but new, because she has a history of stealing jokes. Here is a list (and it is the best I could get- there are probably more) of people she clearly stole jokes from and you can find links to the YouTube videos that show the jokes side by side!
  • Kevin Nealon (Comedian)
  • Dylan Moran (Comedian)
  • John Mulaney (Comedian)
  • Kyle Cease (Comedian)
  • College Humor (Web series)
  • MADTV (TV series)
  • Kathleen Madigan (Comedian)
  • Reasons not to date a magician (TV series)
  • Daniel Tosh (Comedian)
  • Ellen Degeneres (Comedian)
  • Tammy Pascatelli (Comedian)
  • Patrice O’Neal (Comedian)
  • Obvious Child (movie)
  • Wendy Liebman (Comedian)
  • Secret Policeman’s Ball (Mini-series benefit)
  • The League (TV series)
  • Hannibal Buress (Comedian)
  • Portlandia (TV series)
  • Spaceballs (movie)
  • Zach Galifianakis (Comedian)
  • Dave Attell (Comedian)
  • Ali Wong (Comedian)

*I am not including Louis CK or Dave Chappelle because, though the jokes are similar, they were changed enough to sort of make them her own. Plus, the ideas aren’t new and to demand completely raw material that hasn’t been thought of in the history of man would be unrealistic. With this standard, we could claim plagiarism of anyone who said, “what’s the deal with (insert topic)” for stealing from Jerry Seinfeld.

She even went so far as to admit she used to steal from department stores with her sister. I could understand if there were one or two jokes that she mistakenly used when she was starting out. I could understand if they were the same theme or even punch line, but the delivery or majority of the joke was changed. I could understand if she used jokes after asking permission and then citing the source! But none of these instances are the case for Amy!

Amy gained fame though stand-up comedy and started writing movies and TV shows. And with that celebrity status, the self-awareness should have been made a priority. The more famous people get, the narrower and more focused the microscope becomes on their lives. The same could be said for the material they produce. In an age where everything is documented and searchable online, she could have easily found that her material was already made by someone else. If the jokes, as in most of the cases listed above, are word-for-word copied, then the originators have every right to sue for copyright infringement. Amy certainly has the first amendment freedom to say whatever she likes, but she will also have to face the consequences of using material created by others for her own profit- namely monetary penalties and loss of integrity.

  • The Double Standard: You could also say that she is a hypocrite. This might be the biggest reason why I cannot stand Amy Schumer. Back in January 2016, a young film critic who goes by the twitter handle Lights Camera Jackson tweeted a picture with Schumer and attached the comment “Spent the night with @amyschumer. Certainly not the first guy to write that.” Schumer, who created her fame upon (among stolen jokes) jokes about promiscuity, vulgar details about sexual acts, and has even called herself a “whore” countless times, was quick to damn the tweet! She responded, “I get it. Cause I’m a whore? Glad I took a photo with you. Hi to your dad.”


The media was quick to defend Schumer, labeling Jackson as a sexist and misogynist. The New York Daily News claimed he was “shaming” Amy, and even said it was a “bad joke.” Funny how it’s only a bad joke if anyone else tells it, because we all know Amy has said similar things about herself. Maybe she was just jealous that she couldn’t come up with a funny quip to return fire. Instead, she plays victim of sexism and ruins the young critic’s reputation when he was just trying to play along.

This isn’t the first time Schumer was a cringe-worthy hypocrite. In April 2016, she quickly went on the defense against Glamour Magazine for… saying she inspires them? She was included with Melissa McCarthy, Adele, and Ashley Graham as women they find inspiring, however they included it in their plus-size appreciating issue. Though she has deemed herself “fat” and joked about how her size doesn’t keep her from getting that D on the reg, she demonized the magazine for daring to include her name anywhere near a plus-size issue saying, “not cool glamour not glamourous.” What is truly mind-blowing is that not only is she a hypocrite for chiding anyone calling her large when she does it herself, but the magazine didn’t even call her plus-sized! They merely included her in a list of names of women who inspire them. The fact that the other women are plus-size and the issue was aimed at plus-sized appreciation was somehow offensive to her. How dare you include her with those women! Again, this isn’t a complete list. I could probably write a book about her hypocrisy alone, but I have more to include! If she continues with this double standard, we can only hope that the media will wake up and condemn this blatant hypocrisy. Until then, those liberals unite! Speaking of which…

  • Keep the Politics out of it: Oh how I love this part. I was going to use the age-old adage “Don’t quit your day job,” but I really want her to quit her day job. She would probably fare well in data-entry or as a 3rd shift guard at a women’s prison. Let’s just make sure she has the least amount of public interaction as possible. After all, she thinks most of the country is disgusting, uninformed idiots for voting for Trump.

When a comedian takes on politics, they have it easy. If ever confronted with their views or statements, they just need to respond with “it was just a joke.” This is what happened surrounding the 2016 election of Donald Trump. In an interview in September 2016, Amy said she would move to Spain if Trump was elected. After Trump ended up winning, she reacted on Instagram with, “First of all the interview where I said I would move was in London and was said in jest. Not that anyone needs more than a headline to count something as official news.” Oh… I get it. So, whenever you say anything, it should be taken as a joke, right? We should never take you seriously, right?

I like to think that Amy is knowledgeable about the political views she tries to push, but it is clear she is just caged away from the real world, shrouded in an echo-chamber of liberal Hollywood. She claims to be feminist, but she doesn’t go beyond the “headline” to fact check any of her claims. She says inflammatory statements like “America hates women” and perpetuates the wage gap myth, but what does she actually cite with statements like this? Where are her statistics? She said that she’s never had a meaningful conversation with anti-Hillary voters who had anything bad to say about Hillary for president other than “she lied about her emails.” Evidence of an echo-chamber? Perhaps. But I will accept the challenge. If Amy would like to have a meaningful conversation with an anti-Hillary voter, she can reach out to me!

Though I have much more to say about this God Awful Cuntessa of Comedy, I should end this post before it becomes a novel. More to come!


-All the spoils


Side-by-side rip offs:

Amy Schumer’s Instagram post about The Leather Special conspiracy:

Amy Schumer v. Lights Camera Jackson:

Glamour Magazine Plus-size Issue:

Amy DOESN’T want to leave the country: