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 Breitbart.com 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.

Wednesday, August 26, 2015

News catch-up: Tomatoes, La fraternité des Américains, orange rivers, the truth about illegals and the ramming of diversity

That's right, folks. Time for another one of my infamous news mash-ups.

What's Spanish for 'egregious waste of food'?

I logged on to the 'net this morning to be greeted by an image on Google of cartoon characters, some of whom look like Ed, Edd and Eddy, getting pelted with tomatoes. A click on the image informed me that it's the 70th year of La Tomatina, a tomato-tossing festival in the Valencian town of Buño.
This is a festival that commemorates a fight that ensued when a participant in the 1945 Gigantes y Cabezudos (Giants and Big-Heads) figures parade tumbled from the float he was riding on and, in a fit of rage, overturned a vegetable market stall. People in the square, piqued by the man's display of temper, then grabbed tomatoes and started throwing them at one another. The next year, on the same day, people reënacted the event in the square. And from this was born a tradition.
Now then, I have never found food fights amusing. I have never seen the funny side to food being thrown about, scraped off the walls and floor and placed in the garbage pail. Call me a party-pooper, call me a wet blanket, call me a killjoy. For me, food is something that is produced for the benefit of an organic body, such as the ones we've got, to process in order to stay alive. There is nothing laughable about seeing food, even poor quality food, being deliberately wasted.
We waste food for fucked-up entertainment purposes while other people are literally starving to death. Only in the West.
Spain, I have news for you. Hang on to those tomatoes. Put an end to La Tomatina. Due to the socialism you've embraced for almost all of those 70 years that Buño has celebrated a mass public brawl, you're going to need that food. Someday soon, tomatoes are all you're going to have to exist on. I highly suggest that in future you not employ them so uselessly. 
¡Feliz aniversario, La Tomatina! Congrats on reaching 70. Now enough is enough. 

They love us! They really love us!

Isn't it remarkable how things can change in the space of one moment? One terrifying moment, in which people go from ordinary to heroes? I speak, of course, of the three Americans Anthony Sadler, Spencer Stone and Alek Skarlatos, Brit Chris Norman and French-American Mark Moogalian who tackled, subdued and—I can barely contain my excitement here—beat the crap out of the AK-47-toting terrorist piece of rubbish called Ayoub El Khazzani.
Sadler, Stone, Skarlatos, and Norman received Legion of Honor awards at a ceremony at the Élysée Palace. Moogalian will receive his own award once he recovers from the gunshot wound he received when he tried taking away El Khazzani's weapon.
"By their courage, they saved lives. They gave us an example of what is possible to do in these kinds of situations," French President François Hollande said at the ceremony. What is that, monsieur? You mean, you are not looking down upon these gung-ho attitudes as unsophisticated? By possible, do you mean permissible as viewed through the Gallic lens of life?
These men of action knew that when seconds count, the authorities are minutes away. They would not, as Norman put it, be the guys who die sitting down. The masscre that could have occurred on the high-speed Thylas train if no-one had acted, if everyone had cowered behind their seats—cowering is the European way, after all—would have made the Charlie Hebdo office massacre look like a playground incident.
I hope the people of Europe, and especially France, who expected us to intervene during the two destructive conflicts that they erupted in, which the U.S. never asked for, remain consistent henceforth in their gratitude. And it would be about goddamned time. When the U.S. needs Europe, where is she? Too busy banning 1,600-watt vacuum cleaners and taking in thousands upon thousands of African and Middle Eastern refugees who add nothing of value to the culture. But hey, diversity is its own reward, n'est pas? Just ask the passengers of the Amsterdam to Paris train.
A combined 521,415 U.S. soldiers died fighting in Europe's two World Wars. Vietnam, though? Screw you, America. You're on your own.
Maybe the next time the U.S. requests European assistance in toppling a dictator or in trying to win the war against extremism—granted we will have to wait until we have a real president in office and not a petulant man-child who thinks the answer to everything is golf—then the high-brows of the European Commission will not dismiss us, not demonize us.
How many more Americans have to intervene in saving Europeans from their own dull-headedness before they get the unceasing respect they deserve? Because I'm growing tired of Americans pulling chestnuts out of fires for scant recognition, especially on behalf of supposedly democratic governments that won't even allow their people to protect themselves.
Thank you, France, for honoring those brave men who saved a trainload of lives. And you're welcome. Iweonly ask that you never forget it. 

The EPA would like your lives to return to normal, you crybaby, sue-crazy peons 

What would the flora, fauna and native American population around the Animas River do without the Environmental Protection Agency, full of Obama-administration hacks, to protect it? I suspect that the river would not be orange from heavy metals contamination and life surrounding it having to go into shutdown mode.
Three million gallons of toxic wastewater was released into the Animas after the government agency opened up Colorado's idle Gold King Mine to inspect it.
Worse yet, internal documents demonstrate that the EPA was fully aware of the potential for a "blowout" of the mine that would unleash "large volumes" of contaminated wastewater.
The EPA said in the wake of the so-called accident that life should return to normal and that the river was "restoring itself". Golly gee, isn't it odd that a much larger body of water, the Gulf of Mexico, was not described as restoring itself after the 2009 Gulf Oil spill? The perpetrator of that environmental crime was petroleum company BP, so naturally, that catastrophe had to go by a different narrative.
The Gulf spill was a disaster for which it was fine to assign blame. The pollution of the Animas River was merely an accident and all we have to worry about is sediment, so there's nothing to see here, folks. Now move along. It's not as if the Animas is prone to swells during heavy rains or spring snow melts that would disturb river-bed sediments like any other tributary. 

This photo would have won a Pulitzer Prize if only the river had been polluted by a private company and/or Republican administration 

At least you'd expect an Obamabot-infested government entity to display cultural sensitivity, right? Wrong. Navajo Nation president Russell Bagaye said that the EPA approached residents of the Nation, a large percentage of whom aren't English-speaking, to sign documents forfeiting the right to litigation.
"[T]he EPA is trying to minimize the amount of compensation that the people deserve," Bagaye said. "They want to close these cases and they don't want more compensation to come later."
Well, the EPA can deliver much-needed water for the Navajo Nation's crops, can't they? Sure they can—in dirty oil-contaminated tanks. Bagaye's finger came out oily and blackened after he inspected the tank with it. "This is totally unacceptable," Bagaye understandably raged afterwards. "How can anybody give water from a tank like this that was clearly an oil tank and expect us to drink it, our animals to drink it? And to contaminate our soil with this?"
Where was Elizabeth "Fauxcahontas" Warren when her people needed her? Or Ward Churchill? Isn't he an American Indian? Both had nothing to say, nothing to give in the wake of the crisis occurring in the Navajo Nation.
Polluting rivers and insulting Native Americans—your tax dollars at work, ladies and gents. 

Temple's truths will set us free

Chanell Temple is a name you want to remember. She might be going places and deservedly so. On the night of Monday, August 17, Temple was attending a Huntington Park, California city council meeting during which she heard a council member compare the illegal alien experience to slavery. Temple stood up, approched the mic, and took the council to task:
"Please do not tarnish the name of black slaves by comparing them to your plight. There's no comparison. None ... Immigrants are people with a choice, they come here by choice. Black slaves didn't have a choice. This country has been good to illegal immigrants. You have been given jobs, houses, tax money—free tax money—welfare, Social Security, they open up businesses for you guys, et cetera. I don't know of any illegal aliens who have been hung from a tree. I don't know any of them who have dogs been sicced on them. My people get three strikes. My people commit a crime, they go to jail. You people commit a crime, they get amnesty. It is wrong ... We're not going to have a set of laws for you people and a set of laws for us."
Temple's admonishment was greeted with thunderous applause.
She also reminded the council of the true nature of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. "In the U.S. we have one rule of law," Temple said. "I also want to talk about the Fourteenth Amendment, which was added to the Constitution in regards to blacks being given birthright citizenship because blacks helped build this country, including the White House—twice." (A reference to the building's post-Revolutionary War construction and reconstruction in the wake of the War of 1812.)
Chanell Temple told Breitbart News that she marched in the wake of Kate Steinle's slaughter at the hands of a five-times deported illegal alien in sanctuary city San Francisco and that she supports Donald Trump "a hundred percent".
This is not an African-American who will be given recognition by the mainstream media— the NBCs, the CNNs, the FOX News types—or the Obama administration. You won't see Bernie Sanders giving her accolades during his campaign. But it hardly matters. Chanell Temple had her say in what is technically, marginally, still a free country without a modern-day Stasi dragging her away. Her words are out there for people to ingest and act on.
She told the truth, and the more Chanell Temples there are out there, people who have had enough and who won't be silenced anymore, the higher the likelihood that we will be set free. 

And speaking of being 'set free' ...

Had enough diversity, and the insane bullshit that comes with it, yet? Staff at the Royal Free Hospital in North London probably have.
The former vice president of Kenya, Michael Wamalwa, spent his last earthly moments at the hospital, dying there in 2003. Whenever he needed serious treatment, he was flown into London to receive it. White man's burden, you see.
Twelve years later, his family requested that staff sacrifice a ram because, if they did not do so, Wamalwamadingdong's soul could not "be at peace". This apparently is in accordance with the Bukusu tribe's death ritual pastimes.
The family spokesman Geoffrey Matumbai said that "it is very important that we show respect to the dead among the Bukusu community by following our traditions."
Naturally, the slaughter of an animal is very much not in accordance with NHS health and safety policies. The request was rejected as the sacrifice would breach infection controls. So the poor Bukusu clan just has to live with a curse. Golly gee, it's heartbreaking.
Now then, I think this country has more to worry about and can do without the demands of a primitive people who deign to tell us what traditions, moronically superstitious ones at that, are important to perform on our own territory, don't you think?

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

Ashley Madison hack was justice served

Let's set one thing straight for the record before I begin. I don't like hackers, criminals with no respect for privacy and who blatantly violate people's right to such over the internet. Cyber crime must be combated.
Nonetheless, it should be common knowledge to everyone that there is no such thing as safety on the Web. Hackers can slice through almost any level of security if they are determined enough. To post one's name, address and credit card details along with their deviant sexual fantasies and ads seeking illicit affairs can only be seen as foolhardy at best, irredeemably stupid at worst.
The hackers threatened to post the data on-line if site owner Avid Life Media did not shut down Ashley Madison and a similar site, EstablishedMen.com, for good. Sometimes you have to hand it to hackers and whistleblowers. Every now and then, they get it right by going after and exposing truly despicable people or businesses.
Avid Life Media CEO Noel Biderman responded to the hacking, noting, "Like us or not, this is still a criminal act." True. Yet, give me one good reason why these Ashley Madison users should not be exposed. They are low-lives; they had it coming.
Ashley Madison's motto was "Life is short. Have an affair." It was marketed to people who are either married or in a committed relationship. The site had 37 million registered users. Trish McDermott, the co-founder of Match.com—a dating website aimed at singles—called Ashley Madison a "business built on the back of broken hearts, ruined marriages and damaged families", an entirely accurate statement.
What the douches using Ashley Madison didn't realize was that not only was their information obviously not safe and secure, but the website itself cheated. Over 70 percent of Ashley Madison users are male, so the site created female ads that were completely fugazi to give the impression of more women using the service than actually were. In fact, Ashley Madison wanted to advertise during the 2009 SuperBowl, arguing that its core demographic would be watching, but NBC wisely refused.
Ashley Madison is not likely to back down as they have said that they are working closely with the authorities. If that's true, the information that the hackers received will probably be published on-line soon in what I'm guessing will be an Ashley Madison users name-and-shame site. There have also been reports of extortion e-mails being sent to individual users, requesting 225 dollars to keep the secret from their nearest-and-dearests.
The hack was an intervention that was almost divine in its execution. The irony is rich, indeed, because a website promoting cheating had previously told its customers "we'll keep this discrete and you can trust us". Justice has been done. These customers now know what it's like to be let down.
Screw them. Anybody that would break the trust that another human being has in them deserves this exposure. I'm sick of men who have no morals and just want to dip their wick. They made a very conscious choice.  Their sexual pleasure meant more to them than their families. If their lives are ruined, that's great news. I have no sympathy whatsoever. There is no saving grace for any of these ogres. They can mutter "I'm sorry" all they want, but they're only sorry they got caught. I couldn't care less about the consequences for those exposed by the hack. 
And I certainly will not lose any sleep over the jobs lost when Avid Life Media gets destroyed by the many lawsuits that are soon to come their way. This is what happens when you work for an organization that profits directly from immorality. 
The wrong people brought Ashley Madison down. But at least a lot of rubbish is about to be cleaned up. 

Sunday, August 16, 2015

Bernie's Lives Matter

Would you like a fine example of the expression "just can't win" in practice?
Look no further than what happened to Bernie "Boin-ie" Sanders at an event at a Seattle park in which he was due to commemmorate the founding of Medicare and Social Security. Members from Black Lives Matter (Only When White People Are Involved) stormed the stage, grabbed the microphone from Sanders and said, "BLM on the mic! Break it down, yo!"
OK, what they really said was, "Bernie Sanders, I would like to welcome you this place called Seattle. Which is actually occupied Duwamish land. Stolen!"
Who'd have thought that Sanders' version of "This Land is Your Land" would come back to haunt him?
Now then, you cannot get more left-wing than Boin-ie Sanders. The self-avowed socialist, Independent senator from Vermont and Democratic presidential candidate has promised to apologize for slavery if he gets into office. Because a film about slavery and civil rights like 12 Years A Slave, Selma, Django Unchained and 500 Years Later, coming out every year just hasn't been enough to awaken the consciousness of those pesky Typical White People for whom racism is part of their DNA. (We know this is true, because President Barry Hussein said so.)
Not enough for the Black Lives Matter flotsam. No, not by a long shot. Bernie Sanders might as well be a far-Right wingnut as the protestors ripped into him for apparently being too complacent regarding alleged police brutality. You know, police officers holding the line and protecting themselves from thugs. Poh-lice bru-TALITY, son!
"Join us now in holding Bernie Sanders accountable for his actions," the Seattle chapter of BLM (OWWPAI) urged the crowd. The protesting rabble also cited inequality of schools and gentrification taking place in Seattle among their grievances. Evil, evil gentrification. Where the marketplace pushes out the undesirables who make bad neighborhoods bad. Because everybody just loves living next door to feckless, violent poster persons for Margaret Sanger's manifesto with chips on their shoulders. Right?
Sanders was pushed around by a couple of loudmouths, silently backed away and exited stage left, allowing the podium and the entire event to be taken over by brainless zombies. Now doesn't that just speak to great leadership abilities? (Trump will clean their clocks when they pull this garbage with him.) He did recover in time for the second rally at the University of Washington's Hec Edmundson Pavilion in which he criticized the "billionaire class" and told all assembled:
"Too many young lives are being destroyed by the so-called 'War on Drugs' and too many lives are being destroyed by our system of incarceration. No President will fight harder to end the stain of racism and reform our criminal justice system."
Golly gee, ain't that swell?
Too many lives destroyed by incarceration, Boin-ie? How about the lives destroyed which led to the incarceration of those concerned? Oh yeah, comrade, I forgot. Like most Lefties of your stripe, you don't care about those. Innocent victims will have no place in Sanders' America. Unless they're black or Latino or illegal.
As The Who once sang, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
By the way, to go off on a bit of a tangent, if I may: Has anyone come up with a formula yet to determine what a liberal would do if one illegal alien killed another illegal alien? Is there an answer to this vexing problem? Would the origin of the person killed be revealed or would that be hushed as with the perpetrator of the crime? I think they would pretend to decry the illegal alien victim's killing while letting the illegal alien criminal—if that's not a completely redundant phrase—slip through the system. In other words, you can't even trust the progressives with illegal alien lives. I guess they too must suffer the occasional casuality in the country's race to the bottom.
Sanders has balls, I'll give him that.  To pose as the savior of the nation and the candidate for the everyday man and woman forty-three years after penning an essay entilted "Man—and woman" in which he postulated that women fantacize about being raped by three men while having intercourse "with her man" takes some chutzpah.  I guess that's the result of growing up in a hippie commune.  Maybe he's learned from it. Only time will tell.
In the meantime, I wonder what these Seattle members of BLM (OWWPAI) are going to do if the land they're on is stolen, occupied Duwamish land? Are they prepared to hand it back and live elsewhere? Of course not. There are too many supermarkets and too few people on food stamps. That issue must be tackled first, you see.

Friday, August 14, 2015

"Climate change": And another thing ...

I have been given cause to believe that my previous entry was lacking as it did not address the "elephant in the room" regarding an environmentally friendly planet.
Isn't it all for naught to fight "climate change," or advocate recycling or bicycling to work and whatever else these hippies come up with, when no-one dares to tackle population growth, either through cowardice or an unwillingness to believe it's an issue?
We're going to have 11.2 billion people by 2100, according to the U.N. Yes, I know, the U.N. But this is a statistic I can believe.
Now because I'm concerned about this does not mean that I am some Planned Parenthood-embracing fanatic encouraging abortions at every turn. I do not see, however, what is so wrong with educating people in the third world about family planning.
God did tell Adam and Eve in the Book of Genesis, "As for you, be fruitful and multiply; Populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it." I doubt very seriously that He intended for us to duplicate so much that space and resources on the planet come at a desperate premium. Is that what God wanted? For constant war to break out because there are simply too many people competing for too few life-sustaining supplies?
Sorry, I don't buy it for one moment.
Environmental activist George Monbiot doesn't think it's a problem. And I have to agree that the poorer you are, the less likely you are to produce carbon emissions. But that, as I think I'm trying to make clear, is not the central issue. We're so wrapped up in the climate change fairy tale, that we can't separate it from any other problem affecting life on this planet.
Humans have a right to be on this Earth. We are as much a part of its fabric, its life-affirming matrix, as any other living being. But we cannot keep up this fallacy that certain populations can breed out of control, such as in Africa and such as in Asia, and that it won't ever become a problem, for us and for every other living creature daring to try to live here.
For those who wish to imply that I'm racist because I'm singling out Africa and Asia, those are the two most troublesome population boom centers of the globe, like it or not. I'm just providing the facts. I'd be saying the exact same thing about Ireland or Norway or the Czech Republic if their population numbers produced a parabolic curve so steep that not even Tony Hawk would dare to descend it.
Folks, it's all BS of the highest degree to talk of any issue involving environmental awareness until we're willing to challenge the sanguinity regarding world population growth.

Thursday, August 13, 2015

Those who say climate change is the biggest challenge are mentally challenged

On August 2, the Prez introduced his "Clean Power Plan" in a speech at the White House. He told all assembled that, "We only get one home. We only get one planet."
What would we do without the World's Smartest Man bestowing on us such esoteric but crucial information?
The plan seeks to slash carbon emissions by 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. It will also encourage solar and wind energy. You know, because they've worked so brilliantly so far and there's such a market for them. Solyndra ring a bell, anyone?  I'll refresh your memory: It was a solar power start-up company that received federal grants as part of Obama's stimulus package in 2009. Just two years later, it collapsed, leaving hundreds of millions that the taxpayer has to cover.
Wind power cannot be relied upon, either. All it does is blight the off-shore with huge wind turbines which don't deliver in energy costs what it takes to construct them. 
Obama has said that climate change is the biggest issue facing our children and grandchildren.
"If you believe like I do that we can't condemn our kids and grandkids to a planet that's beyond fixing, then I'm asking you to share this message with your friends and family," Barry Hussein said.
Grandchildren? Let's take one generation's worry at a time, Dear Leader. The children will long have been either beheaded or converted to radical Islam by the time carbon levels will have reached that 32 percent reduction.
The grandchildren won't understand the snake-oil salesman words of Obama today, because they will be bilingual in Spanish and Arabic—two languages that go great together, just ask the Moors.
I have a question for you, dear reader. Has Friends of the Earth or the Sierra Club ever hounded anybody in the black or other minority communities into environmental-friendliness? Hell, no. These environmental groups consist of sanctimonious white people solely to bully, intimidate, harass and browbeat other white people.
You see, young 'uns, the longer you live, the more this stuff dawns on you. I know you weren't shown nor encouraged to question what you were taught or to consider the other side. Not in elementary school, middle school, high school or college. You've lived your whole lives thus far, towing the party line and being of the opinion that conservatives are unenlightened, boorish, unsophisticated vandals who need defeating. You call them evil, even though you don't believe in evil, because you don't believe Satan exists, because you don't believe in God.
The question has been asked many, many times. Where's the proof of global warming, or even of climate change? The best we get is An Inconvenient Truth, a film that follows around the lecture circuit a man whose house gives off more carbon dioxide in one month than the average American household does in a year.
Why have liberals abandoned the Socratic method? Why are they so afraid of points of view which question theirs that they forbid debate? All they ever have to offer are personal opinions and a few "facts" they read in Mother Jones or Rolling Stone. When asked for proof that those who dare to go against politically correct ideology are wrong, liberals stumble and parry. They won't provide facts; they can't provide them; and they can't provide them because they do not exist to back up their silly assertions. "Well, I think" said in a haughty manner is not a signal that facts or proof are going to be provided during the ensuing harangue.
Boston, Massachusetts had a record 108.6 inches of snowfall over the past winter. That's 9,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools worth of snow. A mound of snow and ice in a makeshift snowfield in South Boston was still alive and well in June. Maybe that's due to all the rubbish and dirt mixed within it. Nevertheless, from whence did all that snow come if it's so mild in the Arctic that all the polar ice is melting away? How and/or why did a location only 42 degrees north experience weather that would have taken Roald Amundsen's breath away?
Research has demonstrated that violent storm activity has decreased, not increased, over the past thirty years. Archaeologists and historians have said that wine-quality grapes grew in London one thousand years ago. That time period, the Medieval Warm Period, was warmer than today by nearly five degrees Celsius. Man was not around 120,000 years ago when glaciers melted and seas rose by eighteen to twenty feet. More than 30,000 scientists have declared that natural factors determine carbon dioxide levels and that there is no impending catastrophe on the horizon.
Even the co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, has emerged as a doubter of the veracity of climate change. "There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth's atmosphere over the past 100 years. There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia. The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming," Moore told The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee last year.
The science regarding climate change is far from settled, despite Obama lecturing us that "the science tells us we have to do more".
Mankind has a big ego. He likes to imagine that he's created a huge problem so that he can go about solving it. How you solve a problem that doesn't exist is yet to be answered, but sane people didn't invent the phrase "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" for no reason. The atmosphere is not broken.
Here's what liberals won't admit. Entire careers and policy-making decisions revolve around a fantasy because it is all part of a $1.5 trillion industry. Whenever there's money to be made out of story in which facts are irrelevant, the liberals line up at the trough. Climate change has proven to be the story that has hoodwinked the most people.
Besides, are we really to trust the same people who tell us that Mike Brown was a "gentle giant" who was executed by officer Darren Wilson in cold blood? Even the Holder Department of Just-Us said that Officer Wilson shooting Brown was a case of legitimate self-defense. But the Black Lives Matter rabble refuses to acknowledge reality. Don't tell me for one moment that environmentally conscious hippies aren't part of these anti-police demonstrations whenever/wherever they occur.
With regard to climate change, Obama says, "There is no Plan B." I'm glad the President is so concerned with fighting an intangible bogeyman while the real world throws up real threats to our existence. A nuclear Iran, for instance? Don't worry, the mullahs are only interested in building infrastructure and looking after their people. They'll be on board once they see how great fighting climate change is.
There is not even a Plan A when it comes to ISIS raping, destroying and beheading their merry way across the Middle East. But, that's only in Syria and Iraq, dude. It won't be coming to a community near you, despite wide-open borders. We know that because moonbat liberals say so. So just play with your (energy-consuming) gadgets, sip your frappuccinos and be happy. The real world can't get us in Starbucks.