Saturday, November 21, 2015

'Angry,' post-Paris thoughts

I have to say, I am quite impressed by the media's ability to churn out pieces of propaganda so quickly, even in the wake of a terror attack that killed nearly 140 and injured dozens of scores of others.
Last Friday, a millennial got in a cab in New York and the cab driver, an adherent to the "religion of peace," started weeping, saying that he hadn't had a fare for hours. The 23-year-old taxi passenger wrote on his Twitter that he was sorry—oh, so sorry—that other people had been "looking at him with fear or anger" during his shift. The young hippie added that the ride "was the saddest moment I've experienced as apart [sic] of the human race. Please, stop generalizing ppl [sic]."
You've heard this story, I take it? It certainly made all the rounds. The squeaky wheels always somehow manage to find the grease. But have you heard about the New York City Muslim cab driver who assaulted a Jewish passenger? You have to go to an Israeli or Jewish news site to read that one.
On November 16, Moshe Indig got a cab home to Brooklyn. When the driver dropped him off, after previously telling him off for speaking Hebrew during a call on his cell phone, he got out of the car, followed Indig and started punching him in the head.
"I was immediately concerned that he might have a knife or some other weapon," Indig said, "so I hit him forcefully. He grabbed my kippah and my cell phone and ran away."
You didn't hear about this? Hmmm. Doesn't follow the media's narrative, don'tcha know. Whatever you do, ppl, don't generalize.
Then there's the "heartbreaking" story of a hijab-wearing woman who was denied entry into Zara, a clothing store chain, in Paris, a city that had just been attacked by Islamic radicals. The security guard warned her that her headdress violated the store's policy which also doesn't allow for "baseball caps, hats, beanies, ski masks and scarves". The woman insisted on shopping, but the security guard told her, in so many words, Look, ma'am, I don't make the rules. I'm just here to enforce them.
You know what's coming next, don't you? Zara fired the security guard, apologized grovellingly to the woman and her family, saying that the security officer was out of line. The family, reportedly, was satisfied with the action taken.
Dear reader, I'll be honest, because I've absolutely had it. There's no point to this blog if I won't say what I really think and feel. So here goes: The incident at the Parisian Zara store was a set-up. It was designed to create a controversy so that a Muslim could scream, "Look at the prejudice, oh Allah! The Islamophobia!" If these people are not terrorists, then they deliberately create trouble just to make life for the rest of us, we kaffir, that bit more difficult. That security officer would probably have grabbed me by the collar and shuffled me out if I'd insisted on shopping with my Red Sox cap on. Would my family get a sincerely delivered apology? Would I have received compensation? Would John Henry have backed me up? Hello? Anyone out there?
These Muslim layabouts in our midst are every bit as bad as the Black Lives Matter (Only When White People are Involved) twats. Act disgustingly, disturb the peace, fail to show respect, threaten people even. And when the racist, brutality-embracing policeman arrives and does what his job requires him to do, said police officer gets fired by the milquetoast police department in charge of him. See how this works? I'm a minority, so I'll create a scene and when shit goes down, I'll cry racism or Islamophobia or whatever and you, you racist fucktards, can stuff that in your pipe and smoke it.
Speaking of cops, I would like to pay my deepest respect to Diesel, the K-9 officer who entered the apartment in Saint Denis only to encounter that truly vile piece of human trash, if ever there was one, who blew herself up. Diesel was a hero, valued member of the force and died in the line of duty. Why they can't use robots in these situations, like the Israeli army does, instead of imperiling a life, human or animal, is beyond me. Diesel means more to me than any of these terrorist/trouble-making VERMIN all over the place, with their paranoia, their complaints, their hypocrisy and their hair-trigger sensitivities. I repeat, I've had it.

Diesel, the Paris police dog. Regarded as a hero of the early-morning Paris siege, and rightly so.

I've gotta say, though, I hope that man they dragged out of the rubble with his filthy ass on display is so tortured, so fearful of Allah's wrath that he was caught naked, that he kills himself. Yeah, I said it. So what? One less savage cockroach in the world, only 1 billion left to go.
Oh, by the way, Michelle? Good move with the Conga dancing in the White House while Paris suffers. You couldn't have thought up a better if subtle way to slap the French and other freedom-loving people than this. No "Je suis Parisien" for her. Or that useless piece of luggage she owns, known to us as POTUS.
And yet, despite all this nonsense, there are people who think Christians in America are the threat to their ways of life. I'm serious. Why? Because they finally stood up and got heard regarding the constant debasement of Christmas given Starbucks's decision to go with a plain red takeaway cup for "the holidays". Don't these Christians know that they are hated and that they should just shut the hell up? Who gave these people free speech rights? Keep silent, don't make a fuss, keep taking it on the chin, let your businesses be shut down or serve jail-time for not following "the law"—as determined by one whack-job in a black robe—and maybe, maybe the American public will consider you decent and acceptable. A good Christian is one that knows his or her place, you see.

Speak up against this and be regarded as a domestic terrorist.

Perhaps Starbucks should have made the cups green and printed "Allah akbar" on them. I guarantee you, no-one in the media or the intelligentsia would have raised a stink over that. And your average citizen-moron, ever at the ready with their neutral and tolerant "Happy Holidays," would think Starbucks was the most diversity-supporting corporation in existence.
In fact, I can hear it now: "Oh, the cups are green, Bobby. How pretty! Oh, what's this written here? 'Allah akbar'? Oh, my, Bobby, isn't that great?! It's so, like, inclusive! I'll have to see if they have any similar holiday tree ornaments. Let's go to the food court at the mall, I have to try the new Whopper."
Now then, unless you've been caged-up for the past few months—and if so, better get used to it—you're aware that one of the biggest topics of the day involves the "Syrian refugees", a completely made-up, liberal-manufactured term, that the übermensch, as Michael Savage would put it, in the Oval Office will do nothing to stem the tide of. A population, by the way, that I would have no trouble whatsoever in telling, "You're not coming in, I don't care what you've been through. Go home. Fuck off!" There is no database with which to "vet" these people, and yet they're coming in by the hundreds of thousands anyway.
Paul Ryan, the new derpy-looking RINO House Speaker, foisted upon us just the way Courage the (Drunk) Cowardly Dog, a.k.a. Bonehead, was, may have won a veto-proof measure requiring stringent background checks. Big whoop.
I fail to see the sense in this when no infrastructure exists with which to check these invaders, who, incidentally, are not the harmless "widows and orphans" that Bozo the big-eared White House clown alleges, but are 95 percent strong, military-age men. Diesel was killed by a female Muslim, no? So even if they were just "widows" entering the country, we are to believe we're in no danger?
Ryan, however, is a pro-amnesty guy. Can we trust his judgment, especially when he seems insistent on taking care of this business now, rather than attaching these refugee concerns as riders on the December 11 omnibus bill? Fishface, a.ka. Mitch "The Squish" McConnell says "controversial" riders will be considered in the bill they submit to Obama. Well, I have to say, it'd be the first time these boobs have ever had the mind-blowing courage to risk a government shutdown. You know about the impending government shutdown, right? Why, it's the end of the world. How can you even compare the potential terrorist threat inherent in letting in "Syrian refugees" with that of a government shutdown? The latter is far worse, don't you see?
Paul Ryan, you are a phony. Yet another charlatan among the many in power.
These people on Capitol Hill are cowards, mes amis. I beseech you to never forget that. The Daily Caller's Matt K. Lewis may think Paul Ryan "rose to the occasion" with his veto-proof majority and warns against "lunatics" who "want to make conservatism fringy, angry, and exclusive." Well, I proudly proclaim myself a lunatic. I want it to be angry, so it ensures exclusiveness, so it ensures our national survival. Got that, Mr. Lewis, you jackass? I don't want one Muslim "refugee" coming in to my country. That's right, I said, mine. Because I worked and paid taxes and contributed to the society during my time there. I don't want any more damn trigger-happy layabouts coming in. Ryan may think it's showing compassion and that "that's not who we are" with regard to excluding any of them.  I profoundly disagree. If that makes me "angry and exclusive," so be it. I'm not so sure we are "fringy". Folks like Matt Lewis are in for a shocker if Donald Trump takes the reins. He'll find out what a majority looks like, once those rose-colored glasses are whacked off his face.

Friday, November 20, 2015

Obama: The modern-day Nabonidus?

You know, mes amis, when the President's critics talk about his irresponsible ways, they often compare him to a fat and happy Roman emperor, in particular, one in charge during the Empire's downfall. Tiberius, perhaps, who didn't really care for the job of ruler, just the luxury and notoriety that came with it. Or Diocletian, who persecuted Christians.
Caligula is one I've heard a lot. Caligula is quite valid as he tolerated absolutely no dissent. You said "yes, sir" to Little Boots or you would lose a fight to a lion or a set of heavy chains or whatever the depraved madman had in mind for you.
The late Roman Empire motif, with its breads and circuses and its fecklessness while the mother city burned, is easily understood. But how about another historical figure, one that goes so far back in time that Greek historian Herotodus would write about him?
I recently listened to the latest episode of Dan Carlin's excellent Hardcore Histories podcast, "Kings of Kings," in which he outlines the Achaemenid Persian empire, a lot of it as told through Herotodus. Cyrus the Great is the main star of the story, but Carlin touches upon the long life enjoyed by the Babylonian king Nabonidus as his was among the many states that fell along the way to the Persian empire's establishment.
Let's look at the comparisons:
Nabonidus ruled from 556 - 539 BC, and at 70 years of age, he seemed like a wizard and was revered as semi-mystical. But the king's interests were such that he would rather have gone on archaeological pursuits than be a king to his people. (Obama just wants to golf and attend soirées).
Nabonidus, in Carlin's words, was seen to be "favoring another God over theirs". (Much like Obama preferring any another country, preferably America's enemies, to America). And, as Carlin said, the king "gave the ultimate middle finger" to the country's priesthood by rejecting Marduk in favor of Sîn, thought to be an Assyrian moon-god. In those days, that was a major slight to one's own people. Belief in your God accompanied everything you, as a Babylonian or Assyrian or Median—or Persian—believed about yourself, your home and your ruler. (This is akin to Obama rejecting American traditions, and those who defend them: mainly, the "silent majority," blue-collar workers, soldiers and the Christian church.)
The people of Babylon could not figure Nabonidus out, as he sought to change the religion, and was not even present to honor Marduk, especially on the New Year when he was supposed to lead the people in a festival in which he himself would "physically grasp the hand of the god in front of the population to ensure success". In other words, those pesky traditions were standing in the way of whatever Nabonidus thought was important.
The banking system in Babylon was powerful and would outlive this hiccup in Babylonian political life. Yet, the people of the region were squeezed. Hiccup it may have been, but it was a akin to the 2008 financial crisis, perhaps even worse.
Carlin quotes the archaeologist Dr. Joan Oates, who wrote:
Clearly, Nabonidus's religious and administrative reforms provoked great resentment while the wars and extensive building programmes of his predecessors had proved a severe burden on the country's resources. Large numbers of economic texts reveal severe inflation, a situation now made worse by the spread of plague. Between 560 BC and 550 BC, prices rose by up to 50 percent, and from 560 BC to 485 BC, the total increase amounted to some 200 percent.
As inflation rose to 50 percent, where was Nabonidus? In another land, honoring another people's god.
Was Nabonidus trying to "fundamentally transform" Babylon?  Was he non compos mentis? Or did the king think that he was still acting in his country's best interest?  That remains unknown. What we do know is that Cyrus treated the elderly king respectfully after taking custody of him. 
Carlin himself notes, "There were people inside Babylon who might be considered, shall we say, vulnerable to propaganda that created dissent." But the people of Babylon had no opposition. Neither does contemporary America. The U.S. is run solely by executive fiat, the equivalent of a king's decrees. And we mere peons aren't the creators of propaganda; indeed, we are exposed to it, 24/7. Obama's knights are the media, the Praetorian Guardanother great Roman referenceas Mark Levin puts it, whose divisions include CNN, MSNBC, PBS, NPR, CBS, NBC, ABC ... and FOX. There, I said it.
Maybe I am doing incredible disservice to Nabonidus. Then again, who was he but a man who had the faith in the god(s) placed upon him? Obama had the left-wing establishment behind him the whole way. Attend Harvard Law School, Barry, and edit the school's Law Review publication, but don't write for it. Here, have a Senate seat but don't do anything other than vote "present". Here, have the Oval Office, but don't rile the people up too much. Make believe that you love Marduk, while you dance and party with Sîn.
And the people, "vulnerable to propaganda", kept their faith in their king (a.k.a., granting him a second term) and now we have seen the full picture facing us: An almost total destruction of the health-care system, immigration system, value of the dollar, NASA and space exploration, police departments, universities, zoning laws, racial harmony, the miliatry, the CIA and energy companies. In fact, big energy doesn't stand a chance as Obama's Sîn is Climate Change.
The present-day equivalent of the ascending Persian empire is waiting. And America is on its hit list and ripe for the picking. Cyrus will be re-born.

Saturday, November 14, 2015

Tragedy in Paris

It is disgusting beyond belief what occurred in Paris last night. A series of coördinated terrorist attacks in the city have left one hundred and twenty-eight dead and ninety-nine injured. A bomb went off outside the soccer stadium where France and Germany were playing an exhibition game. A restaurant in the 10th arrondissement was fired into and hostages were taken and killed in a concert venue. The eight terrorists are also among the dead, seven of them by suicide bombs.
French President François Hollande named Islamic State as the perpetrator, called the barbarity an act of war, tightened the country's borders and promised a tough response.
Perhaps this is what it takes to get Europe to re-think its suicidal policy regarding Muslim refugees? Maybe now European leaders everywhere will be given pause to reflect on what a terrible idea it is to encourage the invasion. Dare we hope that the European Union will mobilize whatever passes for its defense force, and allow individual countries to prepare their own armies, in tackling what is a blindingly obvious problem?
Muslim "migrants" brag about out-breeding Europeans on their own soil and demand housing and other benefits that they never lifted a finger to earn.  Not to mention the establishment of Sharia law in ever-widening plots of no-go areas. 
If no-one else has the guts to name call and point fingers, I will. German Chancellor Angela Merkel is to blame for last night's savagery in Paris. Former French President Nicholas Sarkozy is to blame. European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker is to blame. The United Nations and its High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres is to blame. And Barry Hussein Obama is to blame.
Call me nuts. Laugh at me. Say that I'm not being tolerant and not respectful of diversity. But I see things in actuality and with logic, while the rest of the world equates the terror in Paris with the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition and claims that if we Westerners would only treat the Muslim community and all the invad ... er, newcomers with kid gloves and feigning deference then we would have no problems.
I'll give you a perfect example of what I mean. On the radio this morning, the terrorist massacres in Paris was understandably the topic of the morning. The host noted that a French woman living in London sent an e-mail explaining that while London was more enlightened with respect to minorities—i.e., political correctness is much stronger in Britain than in the Gallic nation—brown and black people in Paris and the rest of France face prejudice in the form of rude service at establishments and suspicion in the workplace, etc. In other words, reading between the lines: Paris had it coming. The 128 dead deserved it.
Remember the automatic response among the young in Australia during the Lindt café terrorist siege last December in which two innocent people died?  Sydneysiders created the "I'll ride with you" hashtag to let the poor Muslim community know that they shouldn't feel any guilt whatsoever. And screw the innocent people who only wanted a hot chocolate or Christmas spice cappuccino. Serves them right for thinking about coffee and the joy of being alive and free in a first-world nation and not about the intolerance and other assorted hardships faced by the peace-loving Muslim community!
I don't play that game. And if we're ever to have anything remotely resembling peace and freedom and normalcy in Europe, neither will its leaders. The time to act is now.

Thursday, November 5, 2015

Muggy November 5th musings

I turn 46 tomorrow, dear reader. Now you know. I've entered old fart territory.
Yes, I know age is just a number. But still, forty-six. It's not a number that suggests leaping through meadows and climbing hills, at least not without a price to pay. That is, not being able to leap through a meadow or climb a hill again for at least six months, which is the time it takes for 46-year-old muscles, tendons and other assorted ligaments to recover from such youthful pursuits.
As I told a friend recently, "Sometimes I feel like I'm 25 again. Other times, I feel like I'm 100." That pretty much sums up how forty-five was for me. Get my drift?
So, as I wipe away the sweat in my thick moustache and beard that I've grown for "Movember", I reflect on my last day of being on the closer side to 40 than 50. I know that many of you will argue that I already am, given the rules of rounding up that we all learned in elementary school. And I agree. Just nod your head and humor this old man, alright?
So, why am I sweating, you ask? Good question. I will answer that.
One, London is having a remarkable Indian summer.  It's very mild and very humid.  It's 64 degrees Fahrenheit with a dew point to match. With blood already thickened from the onset of chilly mornings and evenings throughout September and October, this sudden onset of mugginess makes me break out in the profuse sweating that I am renowned for.  I can sweat in 0°F (-17°C) during a run.  I know, because I've done it before.  When I was still in my 20s albeit, but some things never change. (And, for clarification, this was when my place of residence on the globe was the Northeastern U.S., not London. If London ever achieved that temperature, it would make up the first six pages of every newspaper, I guarantee it.)
Two, I just got home from an appointment at the vascular clinic at the hospital. They performed a scan of the arteries in my neck to see if there was any evidence of arteriosclerosis occurring, given my high cholesterol count—which is inherited, by the way, and not the result of eating steak tips with melted Mozzarella every night. Not my fault. I was born with it.  Recent blood work indicates that my cholesterol count is on the way down, despite still being high, as a result of statins and that my liver is still in good condition. And the scan of the major arteries in my neck indicate no arteriosclerosis.
What an excellent birthday gift.
I offer all thanks to God for my still acceptable state of health, and I promise you, dear reader, I will return with entries about national/world events soon. There's a lot to discuss. I will do so very soon.

Sunday, October 11, 2015

Putin's Russia may be trouble, but it is not necessarily wrong

Carly Fiorina must surely be barking mad. On September 30, the Republican presidential candidate opined that we should provide a counterattack against Russia in Syria. After Russian president Vladimir Putin began his bombing campaign against anti-Assad rebels in the Middle Eastern country, Fiorina told Sean Hannity of FOX News that we must be prepared to use force against Putin's forces if necessary.
"I believe we must tell the Russians that we will conduct and secure a no-fly zone around anti-Assad rebel forces that we're supporting," Fiorina said.
Hannity asked, "Does that mean we might use force against Russian jets?"
"Well, hopefully not," Fiorina replied. "But if it does come to that, I think we must be prepared."
Marco Rubio agreed. Bad enough that Rubio is a sell-out and hardly the conservative we all thought him to be, but he too wants to stand up to Russia? He'll risk the tipping point into World War III, with the Chinese and Iranians being brought into the mix, and to what end? To protect the rebels fighting Bashar al-Assad? Even Ben Carson, regrettably, is spouting nonsense regarding the need to weaken al-Assad along with fighting ISIS.
There is no "Syrian Free Army". It is a myth. It collapsed long before it could even dream of being effective. The Syrian Free rebels are a figment of fools' imaginations, namely the Obama administration and the gender-bending play generals that make up what's left of our military command structure.
Did you hear that we spent $580 million to train these so-called Syrian good guys? Do you know how many we have? Nine. I mean, God bless 'em. Seriously, though, dude. Nine men for 580 million smackaroos. So the U.S. has abandoned this "training" program in favor of supplying rebel leaders with weapons. Apparently, according to the Pentagon, American authorities have vetted them to ensure that they do not have links to Islamist groups. Like, gosh, Al-Qaeda and Al-Nusra.
Last year, Stephen Gowans, in an excellent piece appearing on the Global Research website, wrote:
What separates the rebels in Syria that the United States and its allies arm, train, fund and direct from those it seeks to degrade and ultimately destroy is not a secular vs. Islamist orientation. Even the so-called 'moderate' rebels are under the sway of Islamist thinking ... The US-backed rebels coöperate with the Nusra Front, a branch of al-Qaeda operating in Syria, which the UN Security Council denounced this summer along with ISIS for their 'gross, systematic and widespread abuse of human rights' but which the United States has left out of its war on the Islamic State, even though its origins and methods are the same as those of ISIS, and its goals similar. Accordingly, the al-Qaeda franchise in Syria will continue to coördinate operations with CIA-directed rebels, unhindered by US strikes.
Yes, the U.S. has vetted these rebels. We aren't inspecting any of the tens of thousands of Muslim refugees invaders that the Obama administration is allowing into the country. But we've got a vetting policy in Syria? Don't even.
After three years of watching the United States and Obama's ineffective tip-toeing around the conflict in Syria, Putin was not going to wait anymore. He told America, in no uncertain terms, I'm getting involved, I will cripple the rebels in addition to ISIS—and we're going to secure some national interests while we're at it. After all, hasn't that been the end-game for you Americans?
I know that cynics can say that Putin is not really interested in saving Christians and Yazidis and that it's all about installing a new sheriff in town, an alternate power in the Middle East, a new, hegemonic world superpower taking the reigns. We can deal with and negotiate with Putin once we have a real president in the Oval Office. Putin will talk with and show respect for a strong American leader. Obama is anything but and Putin knows it, which is why he's making his move.
In his loathing for Barry Hussein, Putin is far from alone. I don't give a damn that he's a former KGB agent. The fact is, Mr. Putin is determined to not let al-Assad fall. In a strident speech he recently gave to the U.N., the Russian president asked, "Do you realize what you have done?" He was referring to the West's obsession with toppling dictators and trying to stamp democracy on the region. After encouraging the Arab Spring, and seeing what became of Libya after dispatching with Gaddafi, it is insane to try to do the same thing with Syria, he has argued.
Bashar al-Assad is not a nice man. He's a murderous weasel. But, bastard though he is, Putin is telling us, He's our bastard. Like him or not, he protects the Christian and Jewish communities in Syria. He is largely a secularist. He wants to fight radical Islamists. Putin has other reasons for supporting al-Assad, naturally, but that is irrelevant right now.
Let Putin and his Russia take over the fight. At least something is finally getting done to make some sense out of and restore some order in Syria. That was never going to, is never going to, and will never happen under the term of the big-eared bozo in the Oval Office. Putin is winning at chess while Obama struggles at checkers.
Have we forgotten that Russia has been tipping the FBI for a while now? They tried several times to warn us about the Tsarnaev brothers. The FBI thwarted many attempts by mainly Russian smugglers working in Moldova to give dirty bombs to Islamic groups. How did we find out about this? Why, our comrades in Putin's government.
Isn't it odd that the same country that called the Soviet Union a godless nation, which it was, is now being called out as a "godless sewer" by a former Soviet? A "Russian Insider" blog reports:
"Many Euro-Atlantic countries have moved away from their roots, including Christian values," Russian President Vladimir Putin said in a recent keynote speech. "Policies are being pursued that place on the same level a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership, a faith in God and a belief in Satan. This is the path to degradation." In his state of the nation address in mid-December, Mr. Putin also portrayed Russia as a staunch defender of "traditional values" against what he depicted as the morally bankrupt West. Social and religious conservatism, the former KGB officer insisted, is the only way to prevent the world from slipping into "chaotic darkness."
How ironic. Say what you will about Putin and the political power structure in Russia, but the gay mafia isn't putting Christians out of business over there. And neither is there any kowtowing to the Muslim community. In fact, many Chechen leaders are backing Putin.
While Russia strategically and effectively bombs the stuffing out of ISIS and the anti-Assad rebels, sorting out yet another mess caused by lack of American and Western leadership, France is busy pursuing a war crimes inquiry against al-Assad as the U.S. bombs a hospital in Afghanistan run by Doctors Without Borders. Will there be any war crimes investigation for that? No, of course not, because Obama is a Nobel Peace Prize winner, you see!
The administration, with its cadre of puppet generals in tow, denied the attack happened. When that didn't work, they threw NATO under the bus. Then, eventually, they came clean and said "sorry". So that's alright then.
Americans have got to stop embracing the fallacy of "free Syrian rebels" and that any plan for combating ISIS has to be connected to toppling Assad. It is nonsense. Why are some Republicans so defensive of Obama's dumbfounded so-called strategy in Syria?  The rebels are not "our" guys; they are treacherous and will likely turn on us if they do manage to finish off Assad. Why are Fiorina, Rubio, and, to a lesser but certain extent, Carson, so beholden to a policy that seeks to remove Assad?
If we had a genuine president and a strong military, Putin would not have parked himself into this conflict along with his long-term strategic gains. Russia is not a strong country. Its economy is very weak.  Putin is puffing up himself up on fumes. Despite that, Putin is much more of a true leader than Obama has ever been.
It is alarming when the Russian state steps up to become the world's leading superpower, but it is equally alarming to hear presidential candidates speak like war hawks, dangerously naïve ones at that.
Time to sweep these neo-conservatives and their blind rah-rah patriotism/jingoism back under the rock. Their time has come and gone.

Tuesday, October 6, 2015

The predictable overreaction to the latest mass shooting

There's been yet another school shooting in America, this time at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon. The shooter, whose name this blog will not provide as it will validate the attention he sought, killed nine people, it has been confirmed.
As usual, the President stepped up to the podium, in this instance only four hours after the incident, in which the full facts of the case had yet to be released by authorities, and opined once more that it's all our fault because most of us—you and me—the law-abiding public, refuse to allow the government to take the purest form of protection out of our hands.
The Supreme Court ruled as recently as 2008 in District of Columbia vs. Heller that the Constitution's Second Amendment upholds the right of an individual to possess a firearm for the lawful purpose of safeguarding one's person or home. In other words, the Court ruled, correctly, that the Second Amendment addresses one's right to self-defense.
This does not matter to Obama. I'm not saying the man encourages such slaughters, but it is evident that he licks his lips and rubs his hands together at the opportunity to lecture us about gun control. As his former protégé Raul Emmanuel has noted, never let a crisis go to waste.
He mentioned the need to politicize the issue. He said his ceaseless imploring and insistence that Americans surrender their guns is not about him seeking to control. Well, sorry, dear leader ... er, Mr. (So-Called) President, but you have a track record of bold-faced lying to us. You have expanded government above and beyond what the framers of our Constitution and Bill of Rights—you know, those evil white men who founded the country—intended. Why should we believe you?
In the wake of the massacre, you said "Each time this happens, I am going to bring this up." And Americans who believe in the ability to protect themselves with the ultimate equalizer will fight you every time, Mr (So-Called) President. Because we know damn well that you do not propose simple gun-control measures; you want outright confiscation.
By referencing Great Britain and Australia in his speech, Obama hinted at what he considers as no less than acceptable. The UK and Australia banned guns in response to the Dunblane and Port Arthur massacres respectively. I cannot attest to the sheep-like response of the British or Australians, but Americans will not so willingly walk down the path toward being stripped of their right and duty to look after themselves, especially by a leviathan that cares nothing about them.
As points out, in 1994, the number of privately owned firearms was 192 million. In 2009, the number had jumped to 310 million. However, the firearm-related murder and non-negligent homicide rate decreased from 6.6 per 100,000 in 1993 to 3.2 per 100,000 in 2011. Coincidence? I think not.
Progressives pontificate that we should re-think the Second Amendment as it was a product of its time. Well, golly gee, sure we should—just as, under this President, we're re-thinking the First, Fourth, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Mother Jones has posted on-line a full list of American mass shootings from 1982 to the present. Breaking this down according to White House administrations, we see that eight occurred while Reagan was in office. Six occurred under George H.W. Bush, seventeen under Clinton, sixteen under George W. Bush, and twenty-five, so far, under Obama. There was a sharp rise during the Clinton years, that was maintained during Dubya's administration, that has truly blossomed during Obama's reign. Draw what conclusions from this that you will. But I have to ask: Where's been the hope? Where's been the change?
If firearms are so evil, then why do even the leftiest of the Left-wing politicos out there have armed bodyguards?  Why doesn't Obama request that the Secret Service disarm?
There's so much that we could do to try as much as possible to prevent massacres like this without violating "the right of the People to keep and bear Arms," as stated by the Second Amendment. 
Perhaps our response to gun massacres should not be so silly, time-wasting and counter-productive. We have banned the Confederate flag and are busying ourselves digging up the bones of the generals who fought for Dixie, and those of their wives, based on the actions of one inbred, psychotic nutcase who had at one time posed with a small Stars and Bars. But when a Rainbow Flag is found on the wall of the apartment of a fruit loop with a massive chip on his shoulder who shot three people in Virginia, no-one dared speak of that flag as a potential symbol of hate. That would be ridiculous, of course, as only one person who embraced that flag carried out the atrocity. So why the effort to rid ourselves of the Confederate flag? These dumb-ass liberals never shut up about slavery, but they're going to attempt to completely whitewash Civil War history so that we have no reference point regarding this tireless debate? Someone please tell me how this makes sense, please?
Let us shed ourselves of another example of inane behavior regarding gun massacres: The establishment and existence of gun-free zones. Notice how these whackjobs intent on slaughtering other people with their often illegally purchased and unregistered guns avoid places where people are bound to be packing? A gun-free zone is the perfect place for cowards to carry out their sickening attacks. If we cannot even agree that the security guard at Umpqua should have had a firearm at his disposal to deal with potential armed troublemakers, then can I say that I am a lot more frightened of this level of ignorance than being caught up in a mass shooting on American soil.
Why is social media never to blame when these nutjobs post their intentions on-line? Facebook will not coöperate when it comes to taking down terror-abetting postings and most social media users are either silent or actively complicit in encouraging these people to act out their stated urge to murder and commit mayhem.
How about having a law-and-order justice system that will severely punish miscreants who violate gun control statutes such as the Sullivan Act? Shall we finally break the chokehold on the courts by the far Left and send criminals down for hard time who offend gun laws, instead of making excuses for them? 
And finally, for those mental rejects that take their parents' guns to commit these massacres? Maybe, just maybe, the authorities should heavily investigate said parents? Why do we not go after the parents or guardians of these young people once it is discovered that they used firearms registered to them to slaughter innocent people?
If the President wants to help, perhaps he could stop dividing Americans along manufactured fault-lines and encouraging victimhood? Maybe he could talk about the common bond of Americans and how those need to be strengthened?
We bring youngsters up in households with unstable family structures, with no belief in God or any sort of Higher Power, with insufficient, often downright negligent social support services, and pollute their growing but vulnerable brains with sex, drugs and violence. And more violence on top of that. We see 8-year-old kids playing Grand Theft Auto or listening to the worst filth that the rap industry can market to them, and we honestly wonder why we have not only a big increase in mental illness among young people, but misfits who ultimately lash out in homicidal rage.
And yet somehow it's always about the great majority of sane, non-violent owners of legally purchased and fully registered guns that are the problem when massacres take place. If this isn't the argument of a power-hungry demagogue, then I honestly don't know what else could be.
By the way, don't hold your breath that even if the petition calling on Obama to award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Chris Mintz, who is the only guy to have acted with any level of bravery against the shooter, got shot seven times in the legs and who will have to learn to walk again, gets the required number of signatures, that it will happen. Mr. Mintz is a white army veteran. 'Nuff said. If he should somehow convert to Islam during his time in the hospital, however, I am confident the proposal will be considered with due diligence and executed with the utmost expediency. 

Wednesday, September 9, 2015

Political correctness will ensure the invasion of Europe is successful

Gosh, what a fun age we're living in. Progressivism, political correctness and bleeding-heart air-headedness has never ruled the planet—even Vatican City—so thoroughly, so completely.
Europe is set to nearly double its population in five years by sheltering migrants fleeing Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan and sub-Saharan Africa. By "sheltering," I mean putting them on the dole and excusing their bad behavior, which they will no doubt engage in once they're cleaned up and refreshed, as a human right. And it's all because of one three-year-old boy.
Aylan Kurdi was found by police washed up dead on a beach in Turkey. Abdullah Kurdi, who survived, but who also lost his wife and an older boy, has been the face of true human tragedy. This man's pain is real, fierce and unrelenting. You do have to feel for him.
He never asked to become a cause célèbre, however. In fact, instead of blaming Europe, which he was trying to reach, he lambasted the Arab countries over his misfortune. "I want for Arab governments, not European countries, to see my children, and because of them to help people," Mr. Kurdi told reporters.
Spot on. Why aren't the Gulf States doing their bit for mainly Muslim refugees? Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman: Hello? Europe here. These are your co-religionists. How can you turn your backs on them?
"A sense of weary resignation at the plight of the Syrians—and hundreds of thousands of other refugees and migrants taking desperate risks to reach the safety of Europe—was briefly punctured by horrifying images of one of the young victims, a small boy whose body was discovered, face down in the sand, by a Turkish police officer," The NY Times informs us. Do you think by "weary resignation," they mean a general feeling of being fed up?
The New York Times opines that the "brutal image" of the drowned child must be seen. I will not link to the article, nor share the photo in this space. It has generated enough controversy, perverted enough minds and done the rounds 1,000 times over. But trust me, it exists, and it's pushed Europeans even faster into cultural and social suicide. We're talking maximum overdrive.
Hungary has been sending the refugees out as fast as its authorities can deal with them. A large putrid migrant camp still exists. Indeed, Budapest has become another Calais. But migrants don't want to be there, and Hungary knows it can do without them. Austria, understandably, has been reluctant to accept them through its country. Germany is the magnet attracting them. Angela Merkel, known as "Mama Merkel" to the refugee community, has announced that Germany will accept 800,000 migrants. If it wasn't for Merkel's Germany providing the incentive, perhaps this invasion of Europe would not be occurring.
Slovakia, meanwhile, has said it will not only accept only 200 refugees, but that they must be Christians. They know the deal. Yet, Pope Francis has said that it's the responsibility of every Catholic parish in Europe to shelter at least one refugee family. I think what the Pope is saying is that we might as well make use of these churches while Europe still has them. Fifty years from now, they very well might not exist.
In times of tragedy, cool heads prevail. And it is not cool-headedness to let hundreds of thousands more onto the continent simply because some photo made enough people weep. Amnesty International, Oxfam and other charities have said they have received calls from lots of British families who are willing to house one of the 20,000 refugees that David Cameron has announced will be allowed into the U.K. Of course, we will not vet these people at all. We will just open the door to them, clean them up, find them lodging, etc. And then we will be shocked when the next atrocity on behalf of the religion of peace happens. The news will demonstrate to us that Mohammed So-and-So came into the country as a migrant from Syria in 2015 ... yadda yadda yadda.
Yet what is well-known to those who prefer to use logic, and not emotion, to appraise the migrant crisis is that it is being organized by criminal gangs. Trevor Kavanagh's column in The Sun on August 24 stipulated, "Many migrants are genuinely fleeing for their lives. Most are economic opportunists paying gangsters big money to take them where they want to go." A report from RT informs us:
Police report Europe’s migrant crisis is getting more serious, with the interception of criminal trafficking networks having increased threefold in the last year. As the Mediterranean migrant crisis intensifies, the number of refugees in The Jungle camp in Calais has soared from 800 to 5,000. Many of its inhabitants have come from crisis-ridden states in Africa and the Middle East. Trafficking gangs, eager to cash in on their predicament, offer them hiding places in trucks and repeated attempts to enter Europe for a fixed price.
Ain't that swell? Yes, we're really helping these poor people out by encouraging this with our "humanitarian" principles.
The heads of Europe claim that women and children are in the mix and that it's not solely fit, young men coming in. Children? How long has the war in Syria been going on? Three years? So why are babies and infants being born into this hell, and then being put through another hell, on the dangerous journey to and through Europe? I hate to pick on Abdullah Kurdi, but why did he even have a 3-year-old son? I should think that in times of desperation and desolution, procreating would be the last thing on one's mind. Destruction is happening all around you, your state is gone, savages are taking over, and you need to plan for the future—so, hey, let's dip the wick and bring another life into this, that sounds like a brilliant idea. What is wrong with these people? And why is no-one asking the very question I just did?
But it doesn't matter. The migrant crisis has fueled a debate that is just as relevant to the United States as it is Europe: The issue of border controls. Kavanagh continues:
Ever-increasing numbers, a record 107,000 last month, have sparked dismay across Europe, not just in the UK. But scenes from Calais of angry and determined young men banging on the door to Britain is stoking particular outrage this side of the Channel. What gives them the right to demand entry? 
Yet there is a noisy minority on the political left who not only oppose border controls, but are doing everything in their power to subvert them. 
Supporters of Labour leader-in-waiting Jeremy Corbyn regard all forms of border control as "racism". So does a well-organised army of so-called charities such as Refugee Action and Asylum Aid, funded by the very taxpayers who want to know and choose who comes to these shores. They are backed by Labour luvvies, staffed by left-wing Labour activists and funded to the tune of millions of pounds by public money. 
And surprise, surprise, it is the BBC who offer them a loudhailer on primetime radio and TV. Tory ministers and critics of illegal immigration are portrayed by interviewers as heartless, while the pro-immigration lobby is heard with respect.
I don't know what Jorge Ramos thinks of the European migrant crisis, but he sure as heck wants the entire country of Mexico coming into the States. Do you think this can't happen in America? Do you think the same criminals organizing the rugby scrum into Europe aren't setting up a line of scrimmage South of the Border? As Jay Severin recently asked on his talk show, what if the entire population of Mexico, Central and South America decide to trek north in the millions, day after day? What would be America's response?
Meanwhile, while the citizenry of this country thinks it is being compassionate and tolerant with the housing of a Syrian refugee family having become the new keeping up with the Joneses, problems of our own will continue to fester. A recent letter in The Independent put things in stark perspective:
On the same day that Cameron announced giving away £100m to displaced people in Syria, NHS England announced the axing of 16 cancer drugs. 
We have now given £1bn towards displaced people in Syria. We also give £13bn annually in foreign aid. Could Mr Cameron please explain why Syrian migrants are now more important than English cancer patients?
Kavanagh concludes with, "Charity begins at home—not by encouraging millions of people to abandon theirs and demand a place in ours." I couldn't possibly agree more.