Friday, July 1, 2016

Independence Day state of the nation

So, did you hear the one about a former President who, while at an airport, just happened to run into the current Attorney General, whose Department of Justice is allegedly investigating said President's wife, and did not discuss anything of consequence related to that? They discussed grandchildren and golf. They felt the need to engage in small talk such that they conducted a friendly chinwag not on the AG's plane, not on the former President's plane, but on a third "neutral" plane.
The media, of course, believed every word that the AG said with regard to the untoward topics of conversation and did not lead with the story. Their message, as it always is with regard to the current Government and everything connected to/with it, was nothing to see here, move along.
This is the same Department of Justice, wouldn't you know it, that seeks to delay the American people's ability to see the e-mails between the former President's wife's aides and the "foundation" established in his name that collects money from rogue regimes, and whose unofficial motto has been, "No price is too high for the sale of national secrets or resources."
Dear reader, you must also be aware that there is a legislative body known as Congress that, under the Constitution, exists as a check on the President's power, controls the purse-strings and has the ability to launch investigations into misbehaviors and misdeeds. Yet, it has given away the store to the executive not just once but twice and whatever investigations into unlawful behavior—which in one instance cost the lives of four Americans—it has set into motion have been conducted by paper tigers.
Even better, the leader of the Central Intelligence Agency cites climate change as a matter of pressing concern. The head of the Federal Bureau of Investigations says, in the wake of the slaughter of forty-nine people by a jihadist who was known to them but let off the hook, that his agency's work in combating terror could not have been better, and the Secretary of Defense cites the openness of the military to transgenders as proof of the country's strength and resolve.
The current President has used executive orders to bring about an invasion of the country by drug lords, gang-bangers and radical Islamists, to allow for government control of the country's infrastructure including transportation and energy, to transform "too white" suburbs by relocating poorer segments of the population into them, and to chip significant chunks out of the bedrock of the Second Amendment. Congress has fought him on absolutely none of this.
What Congress did do was allow a 26-hour sit-in by Democrats on the House floor who were fueled by memories of the '60s Civil Rights era, as well as by pizza and Starbucks coffee, believing they were heroes for demanding that people be denied protection without recourse just because the Government says so. The Government considers anyone who even once attended a Tea Party rally to be a potential terrorist. Not once does anyone in the media posit that if only the FBI and ICE and other authorities were not shackled the way that they are, and if only terrorists weren't free to plan mass carnage while in the midst of our society, then there would be not much of a need for a "no fly, no buy" list. Seriously, these same people we don't trust to be on a plane are walking the streets? Is there anyone other than Democrats who thinks this constitutes "common sense" policy?
Congress talks a good game about the need to prevent government shut-downs, but when push comes to temper-tantrums, the Speaker of the House folds like a cheap tent. This same pushover, though, tells all and sundry that he is considering a run for the Presidency in 2020. This same dolt threatens a potential President with a lawsuit for one of his suggested policies, but hasn't sued the current President on any number of his executive overreaches.
Are you laughing yet, dear reader? No, nor am I.
When asked about gun control by a reporter, a Congressman by the name of Charlie Rangel, who hasn't paid his taxes, who has embezzled money, who hasn't explained the purposes behind his villa in the Dominican Republic, as investigated by the Ethics Committee, said that he saw no reason why the constituents of his New York City district should have guns. When asked by the reporter why he and other politicians could have the protection of armed guards, Rangel laughed contemptuously and opined, "Well, that's a little different. I think we deserve ... I think we need to be protected down here." In other words, Rangle is saying, the sheeple can be at the mercy of the wolves, but I and my fellow crooks deserve protection because we're so wonderful.
In other news, people in Britain voted by 52 percent in a fair and democratic referendum to free their nation from an ungovernable central bureaucracy and the global elites are plotting to reverse the result. Those who are anti-Brexit and anti-Trump talk darkly about "xenophobia" and that the voice of the people represents extremism becoming mainstream. The President delivers a rambling soliloquy about how his establishment credentials equal true populism and that our real enemy is climate change. The Secretary of State opines that the terrorist attack at Istanbul Airport that killed 44 proves that ISIS is desperate and knows it is losing.
The same people who believe in tolerance, diversity, being good global citizens and climate change, those who would answer "yes" if someone asked them in they were passionate about the environment, did the following to a park in San Francisco after a "Pride" event:


And, in case you haven't noticed, for the first time in American history, a presidential nominee has to fight a war on three fronts: Against the opposition party that lies, a media complex that covers up for the opposition party, and his own party, that alleges that the nominee is an intolerable bigot because he wants a temporary ban on those coming into the country who could potentially cause trouble, as in slaughtering citizens with bombs, hunting knives and scary "assault weapons" that go ratta-tatta-tatta, and because he called out a judge for having provable links to the Mexican superiority organization, La Raza.
Republicans call this presidential nominee out for these insufferable moral crimes while giving aid and comfort to the other party's nominee who:
  • flunked the DC bar exam
  • was removed from her first major job as a staffer on the House Judiciary Committee for being incompetent
  • was complicit in the Whitewater scandal in which people's property was confiscated
  • lied about dodging sniper fire at Tuzla, Bosnia
  • stole plates, furniture and artwork from the White House upon leaving it
  • covered up the slaughter of four Americans in Benghazi, blamed a video, misled grieving families, and angrily asked at the investigatory Senate hearing, "what difference does it make?"
  • ignored security procedures at the Secretary of State office and broke rules for handling national security information
  • amassed a big fortune through speaking engagements, which she refuses to disclose
  • accepted donations to the Clinton Foundation from countries with very repressive regimes that are not friendly to women or gays
  • has consistently blamed a "right-wing conspiracy" for pointing out her foibles and exposing her (and husband Bill)
  • is married to the aforementioned Bill Clinton, a serial rapist/sexual assaulter, covering up for him, and using him to get a Senate seat, the position of Secretary of State and the Democrat party nominee status through a rigged system in line with her modus operandi.
Grandstanders like fifth columnist George Will whine that they had no choice but to leave the GOP due to the aforementioned turpitude of their party's nominee, one Donald Trump, but seem oblivious to the fact that supporters of the nominee are only-too-eagerly advising them to not let the door hit them on their vaginas on the way out.
Happy Fourth of July. You can go back to your cookout now.

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

It's time the Remainiacs accepted their democratically delivered defeat

I don't think I have ever been so disturbed by anything—except perhaps the "allow a rapist into the ladies' room" Bay State bathroom bill—than the bellyaching that occurred only hours after Brexit won the day during the early morning hours of June 24.
Almost immediately, the Remainiac crowd, comprised of just the sort of young people that Lenin once called "useful idiots," started a #NotInMyName campaign, borrowing the same petulant slogan from the anti-Iraq War protests fourteen years ago. A note was left for an Italian couple by their London neighbors who earnestly wanted them to know they were welcome despite "the awful news this morning."
Then an on-line petition to hold a second referendum was launched, which within a few days had attracted up to 3 million signatures—77,000 of which were removed because they were fraudulent as they came from non-British citizens, according to fellow Blogspotter Bigfoot's Place. It's true—the Commons have found the petition to be riddled with deceit. That is typical of hard-line liberals in that they cannot do anything without being underhanded or crooked. Honesty has no place in a Leftie's agenda, ever.
The best part? The petition was started in advance of the vote by a Leave campaigner, William Oliver Healey, who anticipated a slim Remain victory and stated in the original petition draft, "the logistical probability of getting a turnout to be a minimum of 75% and of that, 60% of the vote must be one or the other (leave or remain) is in my opinion next to impossible without a compulsory element to the voting system. I have been opposed to the bureaucratic and undemocratic nature of the European Union as an institution privately for many years and for all of my political career." The Remainiacs co-opted this and used the percentages argument to bolster their demand.
Luckily, the petition, even though it has more than gathered the required amount of signatures to be debated by Parliament, stands no chance of triggering another referendum, according to UK elections expert, John Curtice.
"How many people voted in favour of Leave? Seventeen million. One million [the number of signatures it had collected at the time] is chicken feed by comparison. It's no good people signing the petition now, they should have done it before. Even then, these petitions don't always mean a great deal," Curtice told the Press Association. Furthermore, David Cameron, Prime Minister until October, has insisted there will be no chance of a second referendum.
What I really find incredulous is that some voters who had opted for Leave had said that they voted to get out of the EU in jest, as a protest against the current Conservative government, because they thought Remain would win by a comfortable margin and that their votes would not impact on the overall result. This includes columnist for The Sun Kelvin MacKenzie who noted, "When I put my cross against Leave I felt a surge as though for the first time in my life my vote did count. I had power. Four days later I don't feel quite the same. I have buyer's remorse. A sense of be careful what you wish for. To be truthful I am fearful of what lies ahead. Am I alone?"
Well, Mr. MacKenzie, you're just going to have to live with it. The rest of us are only too eager to see Great Britain become great once more, free of its shackles. As for the rest of you morons who want another vote? Maybe next time don't be cavalier with your vote or treat it frivolously. People died so you could have that right. Always cast your vote for who or what you hope will win, not for what you believe will lose. There is no such thing as a "protest vote". There is only a vote, one way or the other. Be a responsible citizen and don't regard your vote as if it's for a poll on social media.
It truly bothers me that there are so many people who don't respect the democratic way, of giving the people a voice and letting them decide. As Jack Harvey writes in The Yorker, "Why is democracy held in such contempt" in the wake of the successful Brexit vote?
All of this reveals a deep, disturbing contempt for democracy, even more astonishing in a country with a tradition of fighting for democracy. Standing on the shoulders of the Chartists, the Suffragettes and others, who fought for and gave their lives in the pursuit of suffrage and democracy in Britain, many Britons today want a free, democratic decision revoked. Can it be any crazier when an MP [David Lammy] asks for Parliament to reject the vote of the electorate? After months of ugly campaigning in which average people were treated like infants by their politicians, now the people themselves wish for over half the public’s decision to be swept under the carpet and forgotten.
If Cameron hadn't tried to put the issue over the EU to rest by holding a referendum, then we wouldn't have had a say. Life would have trudged on underneath this neo-Marxist entity telling us how many refugees we must accept, how powerful our appliances can be, and how much we need to pay for deadbeat member nations that have nothing and produce nothing. Oh, but gee whiz, they're our "friends," and we can't let them down, that would be so ungrateful—and, of course, racist. Every single instance of nationalism, populism, anti-globalism must be "racist," because these people who believe in being ruled over by powerful men (and women), who believe in being serfs to an unaccountable superstate, have no other argument. The Remain campaign proved that beyond all doubts, and 52 percent of voters saw through it.
Consider this: In June 2008, when Ireland voted on the Lisbon Treaty, because Ireland's constitution was the only one that allowed for it, the vote was 53.2 percent against it. The EU responded by sweet-talking the Irish, assuring them on the subjects of importance to them, and then made them vote again. In October 2009, Ireland voted by 67 percent in favor of the Lisbon Treaty.
I have no doubt whatsoever that the same will happen here, that a second EU referendum would be manipulated to ensure that the EU—and the corporatists and the globalists behind the bloc—get the result it wants. The EU does not care about democracy. I don't know how anyone could be fooled into thinking that they can possibly have true freedom under its soft, but nonetheless menacing, dictatorship.
The EU won't be happy until its motherload of rules and regulations put almost the entire continent in the same situation as Venezuela. When Europeans of all stripes and persuasions start starving to death, the EU will crow about its successful population control policies. The migrant class will still be fed. Starvation will apply to Europe's Caucasians only.
All right, fine, perhaps I'm jesting. I don't even know anymore. The EU is the new Soviet Union. It can rule as it likes. Frankly, I don't see why any member state is obliged to follow their diktats. Why can't they show it up for the hollow organization it truly is? If, say, the Netherlands decides it doesn't want to pay its dues or abide by a ruling on vacuum cleaners, what's the EU going to do? Invade Holland with its non-existent military? Bring George Soros into The Hague to lecture the Dutch on their responsibilities?
This is a question I had long asked myself while Britain was still part of this rotten, would-be empire. What would happen if say a Eurosceptic Prime Minister said "no, we're not doing that" with no negotiations, just pure defiance. Tell me, how would the EU respond? It may be the new Soviet Union, but a limp-wristed one whose bark is far worse than its bite. The problem has always been the weak establishment people that keep being put in power, the ones who roll over for the EU and corporate America. Both command "jump," and whatever milquetoast is in the PM's office—Labour, Conservative, it doesn't matter—responds, "Jolly good, how high?"
I'll tell you right now, the EU is frightened because it knows it's not effective. The successful Brexit vote, and the call for referendums by other member nations, is kicking in the door to its palace. It can only watch in despair as its dream of dominion crashes and burns.
And they have reacted with the easily predictable temper-tantrum: Britain has in essence been told by the EU leadership, Pack up your shit and get out. European People's Party chairman Manfred Weber declared, "Exit negotiations should be concluded within two years at max. There cannot be any special treatment. Leave means leave." Thank the Lord for that, Mr. Weber.
Another champion of the people, Member of the European Parliament Elmar Brok sniffed, "If Britain wants to have a similar status to Switzerland and Norway, then it will also have to pay into EU structural funds like those countries do. The British public will find out what that means." If you were trying to intimidate me, dude, it didn't work. Man, do I regret that we here in Britain won't be dictated to by dour Teutonic socialists such as this. Pity us, dear reader!

 
 Elmar Brok, the quintessential EU party animal *

The angry reaction to Brexit by Remainiac crybabies can be summed up none-too-succinctly by one vile little toerag by the name of Giles Coren. Writing in The Times, Coren alleges that old people must become more stupid with age because they don't buy into the climate change agenda, and posits that because the Leave vote was most successful with the 50-64 age group, "The less time a person had left on earth to live and face up to their decision, in other words, the more likely they were to vote to leave the European Union. The wrinkly bastards stitched us young 'uns up good and proper on Thursday. From their stair lifts and their Zimmer frames, their electric recliner beds and their walk-in baths, they reached out with their wizened old writing hands to make their wobbly crosses and screwed their children and their children's children for a thousand generations."
Why The Times, a broadsheet of some considerable intellectual caliber, cheapened itself by accepting this scrawling creed of an obvious lunatic, I'll never know. Can I ask, just when in this mad society we live in did we decide that young people really are the know-it-alls they believe themselves to be? When did we decide that older people were not sources of wisdom and declare them potentially unfit for the vote? Coren would place an upper age limit on the right to vote, and that is beyond despicable.
You work hard, pay your taxes, and gain some insight into how the world really works, and then you get contemptuous rabble like Coren telling you that you should be ineligible to vote, because all you do is steal young people's futures. Amazing.
This is the same Giles Coren that previously bashed the Polish, referring to them as "Polacks" and alleging that "if England is not the land of milk and honey it appeared to them three or four years ago, then, frankly, they can clear off out of it." This is the same Giles Coren that once wrote on his Twitter page: "Next door have bought their 12-year-old son a drum kit. For fuck's sake! Do I kill him then burn it? Or do I fuck him, then kill him then burn it?"
Helluva guy, that Giles Coren. Let's all follow him off a cliff. Any takers?

*Photo by Francois Lenoir/Reuters

Friday, June 24, 2016

It's not 1975 anymore (Brexit won!)

After all the dirt, the mud-slinging, the cheap shots, the inaccurate statements, the moot points being made throughout a campaign full of histrionics, the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union on Thursday, June 23, 2016.
Mark that date on your calendar, folks. History has been made. Not only did Britain take back its sovereignty, but it was the remarkable undoing of a Prime Minister. Forty-one years ago, after having been in the European Economic Community for two-and-a-half years, Britain voted overwhelmingly to stay in Europe by a vote of 67-33 percent.
Today, fueled by an irate North of England and a fed-up Middle England, the Leave forces got a hard-fought, much-deserved victory. The final tally was Leave 52 percent, Remain 48, with a voter turnout of 72 percent.


 
Photo from The Daily Telegraph by Stefan Rousseau

The results were noteworthy in terms of how the different countries within Britain voted. Leave won in England fairly decisively, by 53 percent. In Wales, Leave matched the national average at 52 percent. In Northern Ireland, however, Remain won by 56 percent and it triumphed in Scotland by 62 percent.
Both Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland and Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish Independence Party leader, have said that the results demonstrate a need for separation from Great Britain. While it is true that Remain carried every constituency in Scotland, Leave did win in seven districts of Northern Ireland: Belfast East, Lagan Valley, North Antrim, East Antrim, South Antrim, Strangford and Upper Bann, and a razor-thin margin of defeat in Belfast North. Not so cut-and-dry as Sinn Fein would have us believe. Perhaps the only regrettable point about the EU referendum is that Sturgeon's case for a separate Scotland, whose population clearly wants to still be ruled by the EU, is justifiable. Expect another Scottish independence referendum in two years' time. Just consider, in 2014, Scotland voted to stay with the UK by 55 percent; the vote to stay in Europe was 62!
This morning, around 8 a.m., Prime Minister David Cameron resigned, noting, "The will of the British people is an instruction that must be delivered." In Cameron's defense, he gave the people of this country the chance to vote, to engage democratically on a huge issue of extreme relevance to our lives. Before the General Election of 2015, Cameron vowed to let the referendum take place after he renegotiated a deal for greater powers within the EU. After the Conservatives won that election, Cameron said again that he would honor his promise of holding a referendum, which was announced this past February after Cameron's talks with Brussels had reached their completion. And although he campaigned vigorously against leaving the EU, Cameron said he would invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty which provides for a steady but eventual withdrawal from the EU, although it appears he has decided to leave that job to the next Prime Minister which could well be Leave figurehead and former London mayor Boris Johnson.
In voting to Leave, the majority of Britons said no to this current government, which hasn't shown much of a spine and has delivered budgets that are bewildering in their dissonance. The majority of this nation also said no to big business and corporations whose agendas are not in line with our own. It is the small businesses, the real heroes of capitalism, that voted Leave and it is little wonder why.
Patrick Wintour of The Guardian wrote, in the wake of a successful Brexit result, "All the familiar points of authority in London society—Downing Street, big business, economic expertise, the foreign policy establishment—have been spurned by the equivalent of a popular cluster bomb." Damn right.
The people of Britain wanted to stop being dictated to and routinely threatened by an out-of-touch and out-of-control, bureaucratic establishment. We successfully grabbed hold of the Holy Grail of greater liberty and sovereignty over our own borders, our own affairs. As UKIP leader Nigel Farage declared this morning, "We've got our country back."
In fact, many analysts predicted that in the wake of a Brexit, more EU member countries would start the ball rolling towards leaving the Soviet-style bloc themselves. That is indeed what has happened. Marine Le Pen has promised a "Frexit" should her National Front do well in the French presidential election next year. Geert Wilders of the Netherlands' Freedom Party congratulated the British and endorsed a "Nexit" campaign. Mateo Salvini of Italy's Northern League has thanked Britain, said Leave voters had courage and said of Italy, "Now it's our turn." The Swedish Democrats, too, have spoken positively of a possible "Swexit".
Americans have July 4 as their Independence Day. The British finally have one: June 23. As a British citizen since April, I was proud to play my part on this date of historical significance and to have had the chance to officially have my say. It's a wonderful time to be a Brit. I haven't felt this proud or this psyched since my beloved Boston Red Sox won the World Series in 2004.
As Farage noted, "We have fought against the multinationals, we have fought against the big merchant banks, we have fought against big politics, we have fought against lies, corruption and deceit." That's a wonderful feeling, mes amis.
The Remainiacs, meanwhile, are not happy campers. They've started a #NotInMyName campaign that is currently trending. One poor sap wrote: "Don't think I have ever felt more depressed about the future of this country than this morning." Harry Potter series author J.K. Rowling wrote on Twitter: "I don't think I've ever wanted magic more." Calm down, dearies. Just drink some more Kool-Aid and everything will be alright.
Personally, I'm happy that the real globalist-embracing lunatics lost this battle: Barack Obama, Jean Claude-Juncker, Angela Merkel, George Soros, et al. One major battle won, one more to go. Roll on November.

Saturday, June 18, 2016

Does the government really care about you?

Good day to you, dear reader. Have you gotten on your hands and knees and praised the glory that is your government yet? Better get used to it before you're forced to do so. Think it can't happen? Look at North Korea.
Why is that a problem?, you ask. Isn't the government good and benevolent and full of public servants who know what's best for me and my family, because they care so much about us?
Well, here's the problem: There are entities known as special interests. Special interests give money to legislators in the government to ensure that certain agendas are carried through and never threatened. Money and special-interest agendas corrupt our public servants. As the saying goes, an individual goes into government to do good and they end up staying to do well.
Such an individual (let's just assume the individual is a he), be he a Congressman or governor, can be seen in his office with a portrait of himself behind the desk, surrounded by "yes men" and other assorted acolytes, talking about, say, worker's rights, even though the individual hasn't worked a day in twenty years. He puts his suit on, gives interviews, attends soirees, and can sometimes actually be found in the office he got elected to. That's about as much as you can expect of him. And when your phone doesn't ring, you know it's him getting back to you about just how concerned he is that you're upset or worried about something or other.
It's tricky because even though you, and all those you share your district with, are supposed to be his focus, he has overlords. They are known as lobbyists. They are many and varied, and almost none of them are good—in fact, many of them stand against whatever it was that made you vote for your public servant to represent you. The Saudi lobby is perhaps the largest, most powerful and certainly the most onerous. They pump billions into Washington so that our dear politicians will keep quiet about the Wahhabi poison they spread and their covert support for ISIS and other terrorist states and organizations. Even Salon.com acknowledges this.
The other really powerful lobbies include the tech sector, led by such altruistic men like Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, the fine folks at Google, etc., who can't get enough HB1 visa holders into the country so they can sack American workers earning $40 in hour in favor of Indians earning $20. The Financial Lobby is another, working hard for its bailouts every time it mismanages our money. Big Pharma, which managed to worm its way into Obamacare legislation to ensure it wouldn't be left behind. Too much money from extended Medicaid rebate programs on the table, after all. The other free-wheeling members are the American Association of Retired Persons, "Big Oil," and the agribusiness, mining and defense industries. Yes, the National Rifle Association is there too, even though, unlike the others, its influence derives less from spending and more from its membership.
That is why the government is plagued by individuals like Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, and John "Bonehead" Boehner before him, and Eric Cantor before him ... and on, and on ... Men who claim to stand on principles—the principles that built this nation and made it great, don'tcha know—but who roll over like a bitch on heat whenever the the money men come knocking. The media's job, of course, is to tell us, "Tonight, Congress is deliberating the passage of such-and-such a bill to facilitate this-and-that, so that the American people can blah-de-blah." And then the sheeple that make up the electorate whistle while they work, believing that they're part of some great system that loves them and will move heaven and earth to keep them secure and safeguard their values.
If that's true, then someone needs to explain why the aforementioned Paul Ryan will not utter a word when the executioner executive, Barry from Honolulu, has defied the Constitution repeatedly for seven-and-a-half years, but comes out with some bizarre reasoning to lambaste the Presidential nominee for his own party:
We are a separate but equal branch of government, and don't think for a second we're not going to stand up for the legislative branch's prerogatives and priorities. There's a question about the 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act which is about whether that act gave the President discretion on certain things. That's a legal question that there's a good debate about. I would sue any President who exceeds his or her powers.
Thank you, Paulie. I would say, go back to your padded cell, but electing maniacs to office is the American way. That's why you can stand there and pontificate, knowing full well that last December you gave what is supposed to be your political opponent a total green light for spending, and therefore the path he wanted to pursue for the rest of his time in office, but reason that it was a great deal because it lifted the oil-export ban. Golly gee. Party hardy, folks.
You don't have millions flowing into your coffer like Mr. Obama, but I'm sure you can afford a pack of hamburgers to throw on your new state-of-the-art barbecue, the one you brought all your neighbors over to gawk at, while you drink your Pabst and posit, "I wonder how dem Steelers are goin' to do next season?" like it's the greatest philosophical question facing the country today. (Sorry, Pittsburghers, I'm not picking on you, honest. I had to choose something, so that's what popped into my head first.)
Oh well, doesn't matter. Keep that mind as blank as possible and pretend that you're still living in the land of the free and the brave. The country is not free because it is subjected to creeping sharia law from the over 1 million "Syrian refugees" Obama has shipped in and due to the constant push for amnesty for those who broke the law; and it's not brave because we're forever being lectured to about our need to engage in soul-searching after every slaughter that occurs as if it's our fault that it happened and the need to provide "safe spaces" for sensitive morons who can't handle differing points of view and who would strike down the First Amendment as enthusiastically as Obama tees off.
Dear reader, sleep well at night knowing that your hard-working government blames you for the deficiencies in this great land. A jihadist shoots forty-nine innocent people, American citizens, a crowd of gay and/or Hispanic revelers doing nothing wrong, and it is not only the fault of Joe Sixpack because he dares to believe in the sanctity of the Constitution, without which the United States would never and could never have been the great country it used to be, but the response to terror, not the terror itself, is the problem.
At least according to USA Today, who on June 16, just three days after the Orlando massacre, "reported" that the alleged growth of white supremacists in America is the bogeyman who we should all hide under the bed from. Omar Mateen doesn't come close to representing Muslims—and HOW DARE you believe for a moment that he does—but Dylann Roof somehow speaks for all white people, for all Trump voters especially. Because, you know, only white people are voting for Trump. Better inform Diamond and Silk that they must be white supremacists.
We have members of our "hard-working" government, Senator Mark Kirk, Senator Ben Sasse, Senator Lindsey Graham, Representative Fred Upton, Representative Steve King et al., bashing Trump, constantly scheming to strip him of his nomination at the Republican Convention and replace him with some effete stooge. None of these guys could ever bring themselves to put even an eighth of this fury into criticizing the Dear Leader. No, no, Obama's untouchable. The Never Trump brigade dials up the money guys like Mark Cuban, and disseminates the agenda through patsies like Hugh Hewitt, Michael Medved, Michael Graham and Glenn Beck—who always needs a fresh supply of crushed-up Cheetos in the studio so that he can mock Trump. Former Representative and host of MSNBC's Morning Joe Joe Scarborough tells Republicans that they must disavow Donald Trump.
Hey, they're conservatives, though, so don't dare criticize them, you populist airheads, you. They're conservatives who believe Hillary Clinton is a much greater choice because she'll continue the great American tradition of unbalanced trade deals that wipe out entire American communities, the flow of "undocumented workers" who give the Chamber of Commerce its precious supply of cheap labor, and illegal wars to spread Jeffersonian democracy.
How about that one, folks? We can instruct foreigners, through guns and butter, how to live democratically, by knocking out their Western-friendly leaders, while instituting a kleptocracy advancing the cause of authoritarianism at home. Nice one.
Let's all skip to CPAC so we can listen to great conservatives like ... Eddie Munster ... I mean, Paul Ryan. How anyone who is a true conservative patriot can watch a man like that approach the podium and not immediately boo his ass off-stage is beyond me. In case you didn't attend CPAC this year, dear reader, you also missed such inspirational luminaries such as John Kasich, Marco Rubio, Ben Sasse, Dana Perino and Steve King. Better book time off for next year's conference, ladies and gents. You never know, they might have Ben Rhodes speaking. Wouldn't want to miss that, now would you? Hey, he knows how to manipulate the media, the conservative movement could use a guy like that!
Trump is the enemy, remember that. He's a racist, sexist bully. But we certainly won't hold it against anyone who worked for Obama, not for one second. Hey, the President is just a liberal in the traditional American sense. We don't know what all you rubes are getting so worked up about. Why don't you trust your government? The government is America, and don't you love your country?!
Honest to God, if this is what conservatism has become, count me out. At least the Left is honest about who they are. No pretenses there, ever. They're complete hypocrites, but that never gives them any pause for shame.
I turn again to Allen West, who addressed Department of Homeland Security chief Jeh Johnson, his appalling reluctance to address Islamic terrorism as such, his equating of right-wing opposition to the government as a similar threat to national security and his declaration that gun control is now "part and parcel of Homeland Security".
I find it unconscionable that the person entrusted with the security of the American homeland is more concerned about "building trust" and "respect" of and for the Muslim community. I tend to believe it's the Muslim community that needs to earn the trust of the American people and display its respect and honor of our way of life and the rule of law in this Constitutional Republic. 
How is it that Jeh Johnson can say something so asinine without any national outrage? Actually, Johnson should resign immediately, because his statements disqualify him from being objective in protecting the American people. I dare say President Obama won't relieve him of his duties because it seems to be the sentiment of Obama and his administration.
Better blacklist Allen West, all you purists. Doesn't sound much like a conservative to me. He doesn't want to go along to get along. He kinda sounds like Trump—you know, the evil guy who wants to make members of this government actually do some work? Imagine that. A government that actually worked for you? Oh, the horror! That's not America, that's not who we are!
So here's the reason why Islamo-Nazi terrorism continues to affect this great land of ours and why nothing ever gets done about it. You want to know how much your government cares about you? The Daily Caller has done an excellent job in providing the answer to that. According to this bombshell report, the FBI walked away from investigations of the Tsarnaev brothers, Syed Farook, Nidal Hassan and Omar Mateen because its training material related to Islamic terrorism was purged, preventing it from further pursuing these cases.
Jeh Johnson's DHS formed an advisory committee that would officially label such terrorist events as "home-grown terror," "workplace violence" or "man-made disasters." Johnson was urged by a so-called investigation subcommittee to not be focused on the activities of one religion and to consider right-wingers an equal and just as violent threat to the country, a.k.a. Tea Party activists, Cruz supporters, Trump supporters, pro-life groups, border control advocates, etc. The menacing, but entirely fictional (from what I can tell) angry, white military veteran. The country is full of "home-grown" terrorists like Dylann Roof. Connecting Roof with any of the aforementioned right-wing elements listed is fine, that's not offensive whatsoever. Just don't connect Farook, Hassan, the Tsarnaevs or Mateen with Islam. Adherents to the "religion of peace" must be protected from the First Amendment, which is why we must go after the Second, thereby setting a precedent. But, don't worry, we'll show our tolerance by ignoring the ever-growing demand for sharia law.
This government's Homeland Security operations care so much about you, my fellow citizens who love freedom and the American way, that it took the advice of a subcommittee participant, Syrian immigrant Laila Alawa. Alawa praised the 9/11 attack and has called the U.S. "evil" and "the great Satan" and advocates an end to free speech. Feeling safe and secure in your Department of Homeland Security and its castration of the FBI, mes amis?
An aside if I may: As Mark Levin recently put it, "Barack Obama seeks to draw attention away from his failed, his utterly failed, policies when it comes to securing this nation to an attack on the Bill of Rights." Ummm, Barry, if guns are so horrible, why don't you set the example, practice what you preach, and tell your Secret Service to ditch their firearms? Have them carry nightsticks. Demonstrate how much more safer you'll be without those big, scary guns, Mr., ahem, President. And the same goes for Seth Moulton and every other douche of a gun-grabbing politician out there. Set the example.
Levin also notes that we're having a debate not on how these failures occurred and what can be done to change course, but the same old tired chastisement on the need to disarm.
Where I am going with this? I don't trust human beings. But the way I see it, I have two choices available to me: To place my faith in government or the ordinary person just trying to eke out a living for him or herself. The government has a very strong tendency to centralize power and exert it. The average Joe or Jane does not. Therefore, I place my faith in the ordinary citizenry. That doesn't mean I'm an anarchist. I distrust government just like any other person with libertarian principles.
Yes, I know there are people who will rage with guns and their rampages can't always be predicted—though taking stock of what these people say on Facebook or Twitter would be helpful—and sometimes the guns will have been legally purchased and yadda-yadda. But there is no sort of legislation whatsoever that can prevent terrorist butchery with guns, even in these wonderful bastions of safety, gun-free zones. There isn't. You can argue with facts if you like, but they won't change.
As for the Left, if it has any integrity whatsoever, it needs to make a choice. Will it stand with women and gays or will it continue its absurd defense of radical Islam? What has to happen, if Orlando wasn't enough, for these people to make the distinction?
America doesn't need gun control. It needs another Joe McCarthy and a House Un-American Activities Committee, version two. It can't come soon enough. All you Paul Ryan-loving, Trump-hating "conservatives" had better get out of the way lest we investigate you as well.

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

Forty-nine dead in Orlando: Guess who's to blame?

As you may have guessed by now, dear reader, the world does not have "slow news days" anymore. Many people imagine that such is the case, which is why they read celebrity gossip magazines or throw themselves into the battle for phony civil rights causes such as allowing male predators into women's restrooms and partying like it's 1964.
So much to discuss ... The usual media/liberal hypocrisy surrounding Donald Trump and the Latino supremicist judge in the Trump U. case, which shouldn't even be a case as it no longer has a lead plaintiff. Girls wearing gym shorts underneath their uniform skirts at school because they're facing an ever-growing problem of physical sexual harassment from boys—another great result from the gender warriors to be proud of. Try to deny boys their sense of masculinity by taking away most avenues with which to display it, and this is the predictable result. The continuing lunacy of the Italian coast guard rescuing migrants in the Mediterranean. Europe doesn't have bigger problems, including the migrants that are already there by the hundreds of thousands? I guess not, because they have to save the lives of even thousands of more "refugees" who will go on to terrorize Germans or Swedes or amass in the fetid "jungle" in Calais, engaging in brutal knife-fights with each other, to try to break into Britain. How about the fresh wave of half-truths and pretext agitprop being engaged in by David Cameron, George Osborne and the rest of the Remain loonies because support for the Leave campaign has surged.
(As an aside: I finally but firmly chewed out the fine folks at the Britain Stronger In Europe gang, who I referenced in the first installment of my series on the Leave side and my immutable support for it, and threatened them with Citizens Advice action if they did not stop sending me e-mails. Well, they stopped!)
Yet it seems that almost every time there's already a plethora of stuff on my template to write about, some douchebag loser goes on a shooting spree. So, yes, we're going to talk about Omar Mateen and his takedown of forty-nine innocent people at the Orlando gay nightclub, Pulse. Fifty people died, but that includes Mateen himself, so I am more than happy to exclude him. He doesn't count. Living advertisements for abortion never do, in my none-too-humble opinion.
For starters, Dear Leader Barry Hussein Obama, as always, refused to condemn this deadly rampage as Islamic terrorism. Barry from Honolulu told those assembled in the White House press corps that the slaughter was an "act of terror and hate" and added, "We have reached no definitive judgment on the precise motivations of the killer."
Alright, as to this being an act of terror—well, no shit! To merely call it terrorism is to be plain and generic about it, clearly implying that this carnage could have been brought about by anyone. To those who have not drunk the Kool-Aid or have otherwise become politically correct robots through any other method, to those who can still think for themselves, it was obvious from the get-go that this was Islamic terrorism. You only needed to hear the fucker's name—Omar Mateen—to deduce this. And yet this so-called President declares this an open investigation.
An open investigation because we don't know the killer's motives. You know, there's a chance that dear ol' Omar could have been traumatized by a Confederate flag. He might have considered becoming a Tea Party activist. Maybe he was talking to too many blue-eyed veterans returning from the field of battle and bringing all their psychotic anger back into the country with them. That's what the media tells us and that is official Department of Homeland Security policy: Watch out for angry white war veterans. Their list of domestic terrorist atrocities are just mind-boggling, after all.
Or, hey, perhaps little Omar was considering converting to Christianity. Islam had nothing to do with it, see, because Mateen wanted to embrace Jesus Christ and all the hatred and violence that goes along with that sort of thing, y'know? Even the Westboro Baptist Church, as vile and contemptible as they are, never killed anyone, gay or otherwise, yet we're to believe they and other fundamentalist Christians are every bit the threat that Islamic fundamentalists are.
Let's not even mention that Omar's father is a Taliban-supporting Afghan refugee that America generously took in, who says that his son flipped out because he witnessed two gay men kissing. The gay community is at fault, you see, not Islam. Islam is precious and just filled to the brim with peacefulness. One leader of a mosque in Orlando, when subjected to questioning by local news media, shrugged. "We don't know what you want," the imam said. To stop killing us according to your backwards sharia law would be a good indication of what we want from you, you stupid-ass weirdo.
According to Allen West, as reported on his website, the senior imam of the Islamic Society of Central Florida, Muhammad Musri, said that "mass shootings" are to blame for the tragedy while urging people not to "jump to conclusions."
Obama has no problem calling out Dylan Roof as a Dixie flag-embracing racist—which it could be effectively argued that he was—and leads the charge to ban the Stars and Bars. But when it comes to calling out Islamic terror or the surveillance of radical mosques, places where genuine hatred ferments, places where no truly peaceful Muslims go, Obama suddenly has issues with the truth.
The FBI, meanwhile, is as listless as they come. I can think of only one instance in recent memory in which the FBI actually did something to prevent a terrorist attack. Agents were on the case of Usaamah Rahim, who was known to be planning terror attacks, and who was killed by Boston police in June last year when they stopped him and were threatened with a military-style knife. One success in nearly a decade. Does anyone else have any more federal law enforcement success stories with regard to foiling terror attacks? I'd love to know about them, because I sure haven't heard any.
Why is the FBI so horrible at its job? Because the two people who have been at the top of the pecking order throughout the past nearly eight years of this hopeless, gutless administration, Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, have paralyzed the agency with political correctness. Lynch slammed FIFA soccer heads in the ferocious manner and with the exact zeal that we all, those of us with brains, can only wish she'd employ in tackling the "allahu akhbar" crowd.
Then we have that old chestnut: Gun control. I have had it up to here—picture me standing up with my hand stretched as high as it will go, which in my case is a good 6 feet, 7 inches—with the argument that every time some mental case or jihadist—assuming the two are actually mutually exclusive—grabs a firearm and goes "bang, bang" and kills any number of people, that it's the gun's fault. That our Second Amendment is somehow to blame and that it needs to be struck from the 18th century parchment that it's enshrined on. It's a "living" document, don'tcha know. We should be able to alter the Constitution at whim, which any intelligent person may argue defeats the bloody purpose of having it, but never mind. Progressivism ├╝ber alles!
Here's the question of the day for you, mes amis: If Omar Mateen does not represent all Muslims, as the Left is swift in reminding us, then how the hell does he represent all gun owners/users? I would love somebody to address that particular question. For the likes of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, it is not acceptable to question an entire religion. But somehow it is acceptable to go after millions of law-abiding citizens in trying to take away their equalizers. Only the Left could possibly think this makes an iota of sense at all.
Omar Mateen did not pledge himself to the Gun Owners of America. He pledged himself to the radical cause of establishing a caliphate, embracing the genocide that obviously accompanies such a pursuit. Doesn't matter. The problem is guns and the Second Amendment. You and I must pay the price for what Omar Mateen, Nidal Hassan at Ford Hood, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik in San Bernadino, Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez in Chattanooga and even the gunmen at the Texas "Draw Muhammad" contest—even though, thank the Lord, they never got the chance to kill anyone—have done.
For the sins of gun-toting terrorists, the average, law-abiding citizen must sacrifice. Too bad Obama didn't have guns to blame in the cases of the Tsarnaev brothers, the Moore, Oklahoma beheading—or the 2014 Parliament Hill shootings in Ottawa because that was Canada and not the U.S. No way to spin-doctor or profit from those events, eh, Barry?
God forbid we actually lock dangerously psychotic people away, for their own good as well as others, or to jail or deport ISIS-worshiping dirtbags that the FBI has known about for years, as with Omar Mateen. We can't do either of those. So the Messiah-in-Chief, his lapdog media and the dumb-ass half of the nation's electorate that make up his disciples attack guns as the end-all, be-all of the problem and act as if all the firearms were removed from society, we'd all be safe. There'd be no such things as pressure cooker, pipe or nail bombs or any other type of home-assembled devices to take as many people out as possible being used by the aggrieved, the disgruntled or the Islamic fanatics. We know that would never happen because the authorities, as I have made clear, are doing such a marvelous job of keeping us safe.
"We will work all day and all night to understand the path to that terrible night. We're also gonna look hard at our own work, to see whether there is something we should have done differently. So far, the honest answer is, I don't think so," FBI director James Comey said.
Mr. Comey, with all due but begrudging respect, you are an idiot. We're all still waiting to hear about whatever possible indictment of Hillary Clinton may or may not be forthcoming from your office, and you're telling us, in so many measured words, that the FBI's work is as pristine as can be expected in the wake of this massacre, when the perpetrator of it was known to you for the past three years? That's just pathetic. Screw you!
Perhaps if the FBI didn't declare people it is watching, folks who are on a "no-fly" list for Chrissakes, fit to have a gun, we wouldn't be having these massacres. The National Rifle Association may just be crazy enough to say the Second Amendment applies to potential terrorists. I doubt any clear-thinking person would. I'm getting really fed up with reading about how such-and-such a person was on some kind of watch list or was in any other way known to the police or other authorities every time a mass shooting occurs.
Wait, it gets better ... The FBI ended its investigation of Mateen because they thought he was the victim of racism by his co-workers. The investigation was closed after ten months because, golly gee, according to a news source, the FBI "took Mateen's statements he was trying to taunt his coworkers because he thought he was being marginalized because of his Muslim faith," and thus suspended their inquiry of him. Poor little ol' Omar! Liberals have yet to explain how suspicion of Muslims equals racism, but never mind, the ends always justify the means, in line with their warped world-view.
I am so tired of these liberals who claim, no matter how appalling a Muslim-instigated atrocity, that, "oh, as long as we continue to embrace diversity, we'll be alright, that is our strength, not our weakness." Yes, it's worked fabulously so far. That's why forty-nine people who only wanted a fun time in a nightclub are now dead.
While we're on this charming subject of guns and the human slaughters in which they have been used, we may also consider using existing gun laws to nail criminals for life if they are involved in shootings. Instead, we slap their wrists, say we cannot act against them because it would violate their civil rights if we did, and do everything under the law to ensure they "rock the vote". And we keep talking about how evil guns are. As if these "weapons of murder" have minds and killer instincts of their own.
Scores of young people in inner-city Chicago, in inner-city neighborhoods across the country, get taken out every weekend with guns, illegally purchased and not borrowed from mommy and daddy. Mommy and daddy don't have guns because they live in gun-free zones. The media doesn't touch it with a ten-foot pole. Black Lives Matter isn't interested because white people aren't involved.
In front of the aforementioned White House press corps, Obama said, "We have to, I think, do some soul-searching." This is exactly what he said after the San Bernadino massacre. Mark Levin put it best:
This is what is so damned frustrating, angering even. You and I have to do soul-searching after some Islamo-Nazi murders forty-nine people. You and I have do soul-searching. We don't have to do any soul-searching, Obama, and I don't plan to do any soul-searching. I do a lot of head-scratching when it comes to you.
The Left will continue to ignore real problems in America because they have a completely perverted understanding of civil rights and are still waiting for their angry white man to nail to a progressive cross for all to bear witness to. "See, here he is, the blue-eyed military veteran and violent Tea Party activist we warned you about," they will say as actual, real-life terrorists, who are registered Democrats, plan their slaughters and given every leeway to carry them out by a completely useless federal law enforcement structure and a piece of garbage "President" that cares absolutely nothing about those that he swore, twice, during his inaugurations to protect.
Before I end this piece, I want to address the subject of the gay community. We know there are decent people that make up its numbers. But perhaps, finally, the gay mafia that seeks to control the mindset of said community, turning it against all those who dare not sing from their hymn sheets, deliberately seeking out and punishing Christian bakers, photographers and florists for the "crime" of turning down the provision of their services for gay weddings, will turn its wrath on the real, and now proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, threat to its existence.
Say what you will about Peter Tatchell and his long history of OutRage! activism. At least he gets it with regard to Islamic fundamentalism. Tatchell has said that sharia law represents "a clerical form of fascism". One can only hope more men like Tatchell, or the conservative gay journalist Milo Yiannopoulos, will be born from and make their mark in the gay community and force its collective mind to concentrate on the actual challenges facing it.
I've got news for you, dear gay reader: Mateen's is not the first radical Islamic attack on gays. Al-Qaeda killed two gay rights activists in Bangladesh, hacking them to death for publishing the country's only LGBT magazine, in April. Wake up, my gay friends, please wake up. Combat your concrete enemies, not your imagined ones. Hint: It's not Melissa's Sweet Cakes of Oregon or those who prefer civil unions to gay marriage.
And, for Pete's sake, arm yourselves. As Mark Levin said in his June 13 show, "I want to tell people who listen to this show who are gay, you'd better start paying attention to the Second Amendment too. You need to protect yourselves, because despite what Barack Obama says, with his immigration policies and the way he ties the hands of law enforcement, you're not protected. And you're not going to be protected. And the Islamo-Nazis are going to keep targeting you."
Happy gay pride to everyone I've ever known on the 'net or in real life who are homosexual or bisexual. I want to see you alive and prosperous. Nonetheless, until you take account of who your definitive enemy is, and who is responsible for their perpetuation, you run the risk of being neither. We are all in this ship together, boys and girls.

Monday, June 6, 2016

The Massachusetts transgender bathroom bill: Predators 1, Women 0

"Today, I'd have to say, was one of my proudest moments as Speaker of the House."
Which vote is Massachusetts State Speaker of the House Bob DeLeo referencing here, dear reader?
(a) A vote in favor of declaring school choice official Bay State law
(b) A vote to establish a rigid educational curriculum, including actual history with an emphasis on the Constitution, for the state's children and overturn Common Core
(c) A vote that stipulates that Massachusetts will not follow the path of Colorado by legalizing marijuana, medical or otherwise
(d) A vote to deny funding to the Feds' refugee resettlement program, and that places in the state, such as Hanscom Air Force Base, are off-limits to migrants, Obama's diktats be damned
Well, none of those, as it turns out. The "proudest moment" for DeLeo was overseeing a vote to establish a transgender bathroom law. A law that is not so much about transgenders—many of whom are quiet, decent people—but to turn society on its collective head, a vote in favor of a law that will refuse to recognize the very real differences between boys and girls, men and women. The so-called "bathroom bill" (H. 4343) passed 116-36.
When asked about the legacy for his grandson and granddaughters, DeLeo gushed, "All I could think about was my six-month-old granddaughter. The first one and only one I have." Too bad he couldn't have thought about what this will really mean for her. When she asks him why the little boys are showing their you-know-whats in the bathroom or shower room, DeLeo will tell her, "Why, that was because of a landmark civil rights vote that Grandpappy was part of. I did that for you, little one."
Preening for the press on the State House steps, DeLeo continued: "When you think about the history of Massachusetts, and our legacy in terms of civil rights and what we have done, you consider the fact that this is just another great moment in our history, and it really makes you so proud to be from Massachusetts."
So proud. Don't forget so arrogant and so self-aggrandizing in your assessment of this "great vote," Mistah Speakah.
This bill is all about civil rights, is it? A few questions come to mind. When did trangender people ever have to drink at different water bubblers? When did transgenders have water canons and K-9 dogs turned on them when they tried to communicate their concerns? Did transgenders ever get told what school they could or could not attend? Did people dealing with issues of gender ever get lynched or denied the right to vote? To equate this with the civil rights fight that black Americans had to endure, and win, is head-scratching at best, outright insensitive at worst.
But we know that the trials and travails of transgender people have been paralyzingly painful because Chas Bono has been telling us about it for thirty years.
If anyone, under this law, objects to the presence of a man or men in the ladies' restroom or locker room, such a reaction will be considered "hate speech" and subject the protester—any decent woman or man worried about his wife or daughter—to criminal prosecution. They will face a hefty fine and up to two years of jail time. This is a bill that is about discrimination—discrimination against you, me, our fathers, our brothers, but especially our daughters, our mothers, our wives.
Governor Charlie Baker is so desperate to push this squalid bill through the Legislature and sign it into law that he does not want it going to a conference committee, where differences between the Senate and House versions would get worked out. Baker wants the Senate to vote on and pass the House version.
Massachusetts State Attorney General Maura Healey has a solution though. To all women who "have a problem" with this manufactured civil rights legislation, she advises, "Hold it." How's that for sacrificing your convenience to satisfy all the perverts, sexual predators, child molesters/pornographers, whack-jobs who are dangerously out-of-touch with reality and other assorted scum out there who want to use the women's restroom for their own nefarious purposes? Aren't you glad to be from Massachusetts?
I think I'll start a business aimed at the Bay State female population, selling T-shirts saying, "Because of Massachusetts, I started wearing diapers again." If I was a woman, I'd certainly wear one (the shirt, but perhaps even the diaper), just to stick it to those who think it's wonderful to have inconvenienced me. Better a bit of embarrassment than full-scale humiliation, which is the only choice facing the state's women with the advent of this bill.
Oh, that won't happen, you say. Only soft-hearted men, who aren't really men because they don't consider themselves such, who are genuinely making the transition to womanhood will be availing themselves of that choice. I'm just being the typical, bigoted right-winger who wants to bash the LGBTQ community. Yeah? Alright, consider this: The Legislature would not even consider an amendment to the bathroom bill that would have barred registered sex offenders and child abusers. Representative Shaunna O'Connell submitted this amendment for consideration and it was resoundingly rejected. Got that? An amendment that would have allowed for the arrest and prosecution of known sex offenders who said they feel like women just to get into a women's bathroom or locker room was voted down, 92-58. 
So what provisions exist now, under this horrible law, to address the egregious abuse of girls or women that no doubt will be occurring as a result of this glaring lack of standards? Your guess is as good as mine. The police will be powerless to pursue it. It'll be exactly like the situation with women in Germany or Sweden who get assaulted and have no recourse because their psychotic governments won't allow them any.
Let me get this straight, Speaker DeLeo, it is perhaps the proudest moment of your life to give carte blanche to rapists, molesters and child pornographers to access women's bathrooms? You hero, you man of the people!
By what Constitutional right does this "proud" state declare when it is appropriate that a girl be exposed to a boy's anatomy? I understand that innocent but embarrassing incidents occur in households that brothers and sisters stumble into, but at least that's within the safe confines of the family domicile. People, men and women alike, actually used to bristle at the thought that their girls would share any sort of confines with unrelated naked boys. They knew the difference.
Jeff Kuhner, a WRKO-Boston talk show host, wrote a piece for the World Tribune entitled "Republican governor joins the transgender revolution", in which he details what this bill is really all about and Baker's reasons for signing it—to satisfy the liberal Democrat community and the editors of The Boston Globe that he cares so much more about than his own base, the ones who got him elected. From Mr. Kuhner's commentary:
Yet, the issue goes beyond simply empowering sexual deviants. On my show, a female caller, who went by the name of Kate, explained how she recently went to a local eatery in Waltham, Massachusetts. 
When she went into the ladies' room, she saw two men standing there. When she commented and apologized how she must have accidently gone into the men's restroom, the two brutes began screaming at her and taunting her how they were "the real ladies here." 
One of the men even went right up to her face, daring her to deny he was a woman and didn't belong there. Kate said she felt threatened and humiliated, quickly bolting out of the women's restroom—and the restaurant. She didn't feel safe. And I don't blame her. 
The transgender rights bill is a blatant form of discrimination against normal people. It violates the privacy rights, civil liberties and security of everyone—men, women and children—in favor of a tiny, militant minority. 
The Kates of this world must now endure constant humiliation and violations of their dignity simply to appease the gods of political correctness. 
The ultimate objective of the transgender movement is not simply to legitimize cross-dressers and individuals once deemed mentally ill. It is something even more nefarious—and ominous: The attempt to eradicate biological sexual differences; the very notion that men and women are fundamentally distinct is under assault. 
Even the communists and the Nazis never went this far. It is social engineering on a scale Lenin or Hitler could never dream of.
I'm sorry, mes amis, is this boring you? What would you rather have me talk about? The disgraceful activity engaged in by Black Lives Matter (Only When White People Are Involved) and other affiliated gang-bangers, La Raza-inspired activists, George Soros-funded communist agitators and various other leftist/anarchist thugs in San Jose last Thursday night at the Trump rally? What else is there to say about it but this: If it keeps up, Trump will win by a landslide. So, keep it up, you Mexican flag-waving imbeciles. Keep doing what you do. Six months from now, you'll be well on the outside looking in, deservedly so, and you will have no-one to blame for it but your pea-brained selves because you don't even know how to properly protest without looking like haters, which of course you are. End of.
I'm much more concerned with the nonsense that the millennials think is important and consider themselves heroic for championing. Boys wearing dresses. Toy aisles in department stores axing gender-specific labeling. Non-gender-specific parenting. The 21st-century version of bra burning. These people, who act as if life beyond their bedrooms is just one big Cosmopolitan magazine, won't rest until everyone is a sexless robot, and this is supposed to give us hope for the future? What kind of world is this going to be even just a mere decade from now?
Now we've got their ultimate middle finger to traditional society, bathroom/shower facility bills, in which anyone, regardless of how insane they may be (because we don't lock them away, but that's another story), can use whatever designation they feel is appropriate. It matters not one iota how many victims will be created due to this legislation, the civil rights gravy train must keep running.
And Massachusetts—with Charlie Baker and Bob DeLeo at the forefront—is spearheading such efforts. Yep. Proud days.

Friday, June 3, 2016

Why the white community will never speak French

William Kristol has a solution to what National Review columnist Jim Geraghty calls the "incoherent, authoritarian, populist demagogue" that is Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump. Kristol, the editor of The Weak Standard ... oops, I meant The Weekly Standard, easy mistake to make, proposes as his savior for true conservatives one David French.
Who, you ask? Well, exactly. French is a writer for The National Review. Another purist brainbox. And he's a lawyer, just in case any Cruz-bots wanted to salivate over that fact. And, that's it. Now, dear reader, contain your understandable excitement. At this time of writing, French is simply considering a run.
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, if they share just one thing in common, both have massive name recognition. Say the name "David French" to the average person and not only will he or she not have the slightest idea who that is but will probably have the image of a bespectacled, professorial beardie-weirdie. Perhaps that's unfair, and it's not necessarily what Mr. French looks like, but it does have that guilty bourgeois-cum-avant garde ring to it. Professor David French. Sir David French. Master of Arts David French. Nothing amiss in any of those. Could you possibly imagine a Master of Arts Donald Trump? Neither can I, and that's a good thing.
Turns out, Monsieur David French has some baggage. In that same magazine, run by the current brat-pack that causes William F. Buckley to turn in his grave, French opines that "working class whites have moral responsibilities". Gee, what could he possibly mean?
Essentially, French argues that that white working-class people "are barely trying" at getting a job or succeeding in life. He mocks entire communities who have been devastated by big, unfair trade deals like NAFTA, GATT and, if the elites get their way, TPP. They are vilified as "bitter clingers" by the racial arsonist-in-chief. Their sons and daughters cannot get places at universities because they must stand aside for black or Hispanic people who scored considerably less on their SATs to take their spots, all in the name of "fairness". It's never a hate crime if any of them get assaulted for nothing more than their skin color. All the while, they get told what marvelous, advantageous privilege they possess. If that's privilege, my dear non-white friends, you can have it. Take it; I don't want it anymore.
French, who claims to have compassion for these people and indeed all Americans, chastises them for abusing disability and other government programs.
"You don't have to do any work (your disability lawyer does all the heavy lifting), you make money, and you get drugs," French haughtily admonishes them.
According to this compassionate, real conservative—and we know that he must be one because he writes for National Review and Bill Kristol tells us he is—the struggling white communities across America have to smile and march to crappy, soul-sapping McJobs and sing homilies to what a great life it is to be part of a post-industrial, post-Constitutional America. What a wonderful time to be alive, y'know? Hey, it could be worse, all you Oxycontin-popping typical white people!
I mean, really, what is their problem? They salivate like Pavlov's dog over the so-called and alleged racism, nativism and xenophobia of Trump but they don't seem to want elitists like this lecturing them about their responsibilities. Golly, that's so perplexing, isn't it?
How dare white people embrace victimhood? The rest of the country has, and not a damn word ever gets spoken or written about it, but apparently whites aren't normal, fallible human beings. They're the backbone of the nation—forgetting, of course, that their spines have all been broken.
That's not bad enough. French is writing in response to, and in defense of, a previous piece written by another writer of great compassion, Kevin Williamson. Get a load of this butthole:
The white middle class may like the idea of Trump as a giant pulsing humanoid middle finger held up in the face of the Cathedral, they may sing hymns to Trump the destroyer and whisper darkly about “globalists” and — odious, stupid term — “the Establishment,” but nobody did this to them. They failed themselves. 
Nothing happened to them. There wasn’t some awful disaster. There wasn’t a war or a famine or a plague or a foreign occupation. Even the economic changes of the past few decades do very little to explain the dysfunction and negligence — and the incomprehensible malice — of poor white America. So the gypsum business in Garbutt ain’t what it used to be. There is more to life in the 21st century than wallboard and cheap sentimentality about how the Man closed the factories down. 
The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. Forget all your cheap theatrical Bruce Springsteen crap. Forget your sanctimony about struggling Rust Belt factory towns and your conspiracy theories about the wily Orientals stealing our jobs. Forget your goddamned gypsum, and, if he has a problem with that, forget Ed Burke, too. The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump’s speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin. What they need isn’t analgesics, literal or political. They need real opportunity, which means that they need real change, which means that they need U-Haul.
Black Lives Matter (Only When White People Are Involved) couldn't have written a more poisonous, hateful, anti-Caucasian screed. This is disgusting.
"Kevin is right. If getting a job means renting a U-Haul, rent the U-Haul," Mssr. French sniffs. Can you feel the love? What an awesome potential presidential candidate!
Being a conservative these days is the easiest gig in the country. Honestly. All you have to do is say you hate Donald Trump, write a bunch of insensitive crap explaining why, yuk it up with the fifth columnists on CNN and MSNBC, and have vain fools like Erick Erickson, Mitt Romney, Rich Lowry, Glenn Beck, William Kristol, et al. worship at your feet. Nice work if you can get it. Eh, Frenchie?