Friday, July 22, 2016

Teddy Boy's revenge

Well, finally. After all the threats and the icy ruminations, the Republicans—the great majority of them—have unified and officially chosen Donald Trump as their presidential candidate.
Grover Norquist has given a good speech praising Trump for his tax plan and his ability to get both the economy and job creation moving. Trump Jr. electrified the crowd with the message that while looking after all Americans is a noble goal, the current administration's policies do nothing to achieve that. Chris Christie, possibly the new attorney general in a Trump administration, tore into Hillary, although his saber-rattling with regard to Russia was frustrating.
Hillary Clinton is in deep trouble, as the nation has been smitten by Melania Trump in the wake of her speech. The liberals, the media, the Clinton campaign are all alleging that she stole chunks of the speech from Michelle Obama's 2008 victory speech. They had to, because Melania's a good woman, who speaks from the heart, who embodies the American dream in every way. She's not a bitter, smouldering virago who cares only about herself and her own advancement and absolutely nothing else. It's the Democrat way.
Ted Cruz, unfortunately, did not do his job by endorsing Trump—and, yes, that was his job. Why he even went to the convention is questionable if he was not to rise above the past. It seems to me to be the act of a secret agent for the Democrats or a plant for Goldman Sachs, for whom Cruz's wife, Heidi, works. What kind of political future this man expects to have when he acts like this is impossible to say. I understand his reluctance in order to be a man of honor by defending his wife and father, but what was the point of his attendance except to rile up the audience by refusing to deliver his endorsement?
This is not CPAC; this is not some "purist" conservative think-tank; this is not a RedState event. This is the Republican conventionCruz should have sat it out along with George Will and Bill Kristol. Chris Christie declared that Cruz "showed himself to not be a man of his word," and he's correct.
According to talk-show host Jeff Kuhner, a Cruz-supporting delegate at the convention said to him that he knew for certain that Trump was prepared to nominate Cruz to take Scalia's seat on the Supreme Court. Cruz must have known this as well. Why would he deliberately throw that away? What is with Teddy Boy and the Cruz-bots? As a caller to Kuhner's show brilliantly put it, "Japan can forgive the two nuclear bombs dropped on it enough to be our ally and side with the U.S. because it knows it makes geopolitical sense. Cruz can't overcome snide remarks about his family to show unity for the good of the country?"
Cruz wants voters to vote their conscience, but there's only Gary Johnson and Hillary Clinton on the ticket, as well as some no-names running their own little shitwagon campaigns that never get more than between 0.5 to 1 percent, so who does Cruz mean? Teddy Boy has shown himself to be a man who holds grudges, and we don't need that within the party. We have no end of little boys like Jeb Bush, Lindsey Graham, Mitt Romney, Glenn Beck, Erick Erickson, et al., who apparently have no clue how to be a mensch. Michael Savage said it best: This was "not voting your conscience. This was a sour-grapes backstabber and he should never have been put on the platform."
As Scott Walker succinctly put it, "A vote for anyone other than Donald Trump is a vote for Hillary Clinton." Marco Rubio, to his credit, said, "the time for fighting each other is over. It's time to come together and fight for a new direction for America." It looks as if Reince Preibus's work in getting Republicans to accept Trump paid off, Cruz's display of selfishness be damned.
If Cruz wants to stamp his feet like Nixon in 1960, let him. He brought whatever obsolescence that may come his way upon himself. The Never Trump spokesman had his say and he can screw off. I don't want to hear any more about this snake in a human form. He's a charlatan. He played a good game along with Mike Lee, Jeff Sessions and Rand Paul throughout the heady days before the launch of the Presidential contest. What was it all for? Your guess is as good as mine. At least Sessions still has a future.
Let the convention roll on by uplifting a successful business man who gave it his all due to his love of country and countrymen and deserves this show of support.

Wednesday, July 13, 2016

A Black-only nation? Bring it on!

I do believe that I have officially had it with America. If groups such as La Raza, the New Black Panthers and Black Lives Matter (Only When White People Are Involved) are free to establish a cottage industry based on domestic terrorism and no-one is prepared to do a damn thing about it, then I can truly say I'm disinterested about the U.S.A's fate.
Through complacence, through a willingness to believe what the media tells them, through being misled by the double-talk of the current President, the American people will deservedly suffer. I'm tired of putting all my energy into worrying about the actions of Black Lives Matter (Only When White People Are Involved) and the New Black Panthers and every other SDS-style, university-born organization of thugs when all I see are normal people shrugging their shoulders and thinking that government will eventutally sort things out and make it right.
Pass the mac'n'cheese and the remote. The only thing that matters is Orange is the New Black. It helps take one's mind off the guilt of having a good home in a good neighborhood with good food, don'tcha know. We know we're bad people because the President and these organizations tell us that we have all the privilege and that we misappropriate the culture of the oppressed.
The country has a population who believes these aforementioned terrorist entities are legitimate civil rights organizations and jump to conclusions about the nature of some shootings. People don't get shot by the police for no reason; there is always something that precipitates it. I don't put on the uniform and the badge every day and chances are great that neither do you, dear reader. We don't know the full extent of these cases, but we have a government/media complex that isn't the slightest bit interested in doing the research and identifying the facts.
Why, oh why, did people at the service for the five DPD officers, who were killed by a black racist, who rushed toward the source of bullets in an attempt to protect the rabble who were bashing them, applaud for this so-called President when he treated the event as yet another opportunity to lecture on "systemic racism"? The man gets away with offensive remarks and speeches, time and time again, but all we keep doing is cheering him and pretending that he's such a great intuitive leader who has all our best interests at heart.
Are Americans that profoundly stupid? Or are we just cowed, too weak from having been hit ceaselessly by this administration and knowing we won't win no matter how much we speak up?
Let me address the police shootings that so enraged the living sack of garbage known as Micha X. In the case of Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, the police suspected that he was trying to reach around to his back pocket for a handgun. Tasering him didn't work. He kept trying to reach for a possible gun, and according to witnesses before the incident, the general consensus was that he did possess one. He wasn't taken down because he was black or because he was selling CDs on the street corner. Sterling had police approach him because he had, according to the same witnesses, been acting aggressive.
And guess what? It's come out now that Sterling was a sex offender and had a entire rap sheet, including aggravated battery, criminal damage to property, possession of drugs with intent to distribute and illegal possession of a weapon with a controlled dangerous substance. Sterling had previously served five years for drug-related activity.
In the case of Philando Castile in St. Paul, he had warned the officer—who, according to Castile's girlfriend, was "Chinese," as if that means or should mean anything—that he had a legal firearm, as he was supposed to do. However, the officer had instructed him not to reach for his ID and yet Castile still moved in such a way as to elicit a response. The officer reacted. Blame poor training by the relevant police academy for the officer's panic if you want, but I highly doubt an "Asian" officer shot a black guy because of his race.
It turns out that Castile was a suspect in a recent robbery. That's why he was pulled over. It was not for a busted tail-light as claimed by his beau, the female Geraldo Rivera wannabe. Castile may have done the right thing in warning officers that he had a gun, but he should have listened when told not to reach for anything. The officer, Jeronimo Yanez, a Hispanic and not an Asian, acted in what he determined was self-defense.
A tangent if I may: Who starts filming a reality TV-style documentary when their loved one is dying? The girlfriend was livestreaming Castile's death?
This case demonstrates to me—and I am sure I am not alone in this—just how persuasive and ultimately destructive social media has become. Public relations and business magazines constantly trumpet the line that social media has unleashed valuable avenues of outreach and of education—however dubious—nationwide and globally. It rarely gets mentioned how to contain the darker elements to the phenomenon.
Now I realize that blogging is part of the social media sphere. Mere mortals, everyday people, like myself who love to write and have something to say on a regular basis used to have to rely on newspapers or magazines. You could get a column if you were deemed worthy enough (a.k.a. had kissed enough asses), but it would be subject to their standards. Well, I have a message for the media: I have standards too, and they don't line up with yours. Therefore, sites like Diaryland, where I started in 2001, and Blogger, the haven for my ruminations for nearly nine years now, are resources I was only too eager to tap into and am grateful for.
The question is, where do you draw the line? Can the line even be drawn? We don't know, and certainly Facebook and Twitter haven't exactly been leading the way on the issue. They clamp down on conservative news or opinion but staunchly defend every extremist radical terrorist if it can be argued that they are in any way victims of oppressive white society. We need investigations into both of these shootings. We need the truth, and if these cops acted inappropriately, they will be punished with fines, with possible jail, certainly with the loss of their occupations.
Never mind any of this, though, because it doesn't fit the narrative that cops are pigs who need to "fry like bacon," and that white people are evil, appropriate obscene amounts of privilege only to themselves and need to be systemically, methodically killed off.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a white Republican, joined Van Jones, a black liberal commentator, to tape a Facebook video. In it, Mr. Gingrich said that "if you are a normal, white American, the truth is you don't understand being black in America and you instinctively underestimate the level of discrimination and the level of additional risk." Really, Gingrich? You phony. Mr. Trump, please don't pick this boob as your veep.
So what about Dylan Noble? Not that long ago, on June 25, the white 19-year-old was fatally shot by Fresno police. Noble, according to reports, had made the same mistake as Castile, by motioning in such a way as to prompt action. But where's the media? If police brutality is the problem, why isn't the execution of Noble by law enforcement getting any constant play? The killings of Sterling and Castile can be looped endlessly, but Noble got consigned to a cold position six feet underground without causing even the slightest hiccup to the news cycle.
Again, it defies the narrative. There's no money to be made in the questionable death of a young white man. "Well, the policemen in Fresno feared for their lives, they didn't know what Noble was up to," is the predictable response by the average American. OK, why isn't that the case for Sterling and Castile, whose actions prior to their own killings were equally contentious?
The New Black Panthers have said that they will be armed during their protests at the Republican convention in Cleveland. The party's leader, Hashim Nzinga, said, "If it is an open state to carry, we will exercise our Second Amendment rights because there are other groups threatening to be there that are threatening to do harm to us." This must be the only instance in which a domestic terrorist group borne of the New Left has ever cared about anything in the Constitution. The God-given right to self-defense protected by the Bill of Rights, drafted by 18th century white men, suddenly means something to them. Amazing.
The "defense minister" for the New Black Panthers, Babu Omowale, has said that his organization wants the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina to exist as a radical, socialist Black state, a nation within a nation. Omowale told Breitbart reporter Aaron Klein, "We just need to start migrating back to those states and taking control of the economics in those states. If black people move in, most definitely white people will move out. So it's not a hard process for us to have our own country within a country."
I think it's a brilliant idea. I hereby give my total assent and approval to it. I back it 110 percent. The U.S. will take in the white people that Omowale is correct in saying will "move out". I sure as fuck would too. Have these states that Lincoln fought to free from slavery, go ahead. Reverse Martin Luther King's dream of color-blindness and of total integration into American society where race would not be seen, only merit. Fine. The hell with segregated policing, as endorsed by Houston city council member Dwight Boykins. That has already been tried, in places like Washington D.C., where black policemen in black neighborhoods are called "oreos" and "Uncle Toms." It will not work.
This "cracker" has had enough. Have at it, Black Panthers. You can count on my support. I will not beg you to stay; that's how little your presence means to me. And, even better, you can recruit all the deadbeat minorities in the U.K. to be a part of your new state too. I'm sure you won't turn them away from your black homeland. Two solutions for the price of one! I love it. And La Raza can have California as well. Who wants it, it's already a third-world basket case.
Maybe then, at long last, I and the 65 percent of the rest of the country that is Caucasian, will be free from your welfare payments, your cries of victimhood and charges that we're sucking all the opportunities from you because of our insufferable privilege. No more ghettos. Gun crime will plummet.
There is a way to save America. Babu Omowale's proposal is it. The only drawback I can see is that when it does become the new Liberia, the new Haiti, as of course it inevitably will, we will have to let these modern-day confederates back in and engage in yet another Reconstruction. But at least then, finally, African-Americans may be grateful for the goodness and richness and opportunities that America provides for them, if only they would apply themselves.

Sunday, July 3, 2016

They'll find some way of going after "cupcake" next

Were you aware that the word for a popular snack—"brownie"—is racist, mes amis? Oh yes, it must be, because staff at a New Jersey elementary school said it was.
Concerns were raised after a nine-year-old mentioned the word "brownie" at a third-grade party at the William P. Tatem Elementary School in Collingswood. Another pupil who overheard the word accused the boy of racism, but he was simply referring to the chocolatey baked good, just like the ones that the school provided for the end-of-year class event.
Staff at the school contacted the police. According to the child's mother, Stacy Dos Santos, as reported in The Philadelphia Enquirer, "there was a police officer with a gun in his holster talking to my son, and saying, 'Tell me what you said.' He [the boy] didn't have anybody on his side."
The Daily Mail reports:
The incident has outraged some parents who believe police are being called too frequently into classrooms to resolve disputes that should be left to teachers. Collingswood Superintendent Scott Oswald estimated that over the past month, police were called to as many as five incidents per day across the district of 1,875 students. Nationwide, many people have raised concerns over the increasing presence of police in schools, particularly in the form of School Resource Officers.
Matt Agorist of The Free Thought Project offers a striking analogy between young pupils and jailbirds:
It seems that schools in America are starting to more closely resemble prisons than learning facilities. Think about it—children are locked in behind steel doors all day long as armed agents of the state patrol the grounds. A few minutes out of the day, the students are given a little yard time—and again, they are kept under the watch of armed state agents.
The boy's father was contacted about the whole incident, which the police referred to the New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency. As Mark Levin noted, "hearing a nine-year-old talking about snacks definitely makes you wonder how he could possibly be safe living in a home with people who raised him to behave that way." The child was also instructed to stay home from his last day of third grade.
Consider the boy's last name: Dos Santos. It's Portuguese. Are the Portuguese or Brazilians not Latinos? If they're not, then just what are they? The language and those who speak it originated on the Iberian Peninsula, same as with the Spanish. Brazil, if that is indeed where the boy's family's ancestors hail from, has the same sort of demographics as Central or South American Spanish-speaking countries. This is not difficult to work out if you possess even a rough understanding of geography.
Unfortunately, a change to another public school for the boy might not change anything. During a May 25 school district meeting, both school officials and the police, with representatives from the county prosecutor's office present, were instructed that every single instance of name-calling, that any act or statement that, no matter how flimsy, could be regarded as racist, should be reported to the police as well as the aforementioned child protection agency.
This reflects, in my humble opinion, what is occurring with our nation's security and the agency entrusted to it, The Department of Homeland Security. That department's head, Jeh Johnson, was recently grilled by Senator Ted Cruz—remember him, anyone? I guess the existence of much more important stuff like Snapchat, NBA championship games and America's Got Talent can erase him from one's memory banks. 
To fill you in, Cruz asked Johnson, at a Senate Juidiciary Committe hearing, why the authority in charge of our safety and security were cutting out references to jihad and Allah and Islam from government documents. When Cruz referred to Phil Haney, the former DHS employee who blew the whistle on the Obama administration's efforts to tie law enforcement and was involved in efforts to cover up instances of radical Islamic terrorism, Johnson responded, "I don't know who Mr. Haney is. I wouldn't know him if he walked in the room."
A government that won't allow terms that definitively point to radical, jihad-inspired Islamic terror in its documents. A boy who was put through the ringer for saying "brownie". It points to the same disease that has infected the minds of the body politic. Don't say this, don't refer to that. You'll get a cop's gun in your face, you'll pay a fine, you'll be under house arrest, you'll serve some jail time. As the Soviets might have said, Ne vystupayut protiv revolyutsii, tovarishch!  Don't oppose the revolution, comrade!
Liberals, tell me again how we're not living under a dictatorship, in which it's possible that elementary school officials will traumatize a third-grader by refusing to believe him when he defends himself and referring this incident of non-existent racism to law enforcement who, in turn, contacts the state's child protection agency? This is what eight years of Barack Hussein Obama has done to the once-great nation of the United States of America. Everyone is hyper-sensitive to any instance of perceived offense, no matter how ridiculous.
Please tell me how this incident is simply anecdotal, inform me how I'm just a reactionary wingnut for bringing this up. I'd like to know.
I wonder what kind of Fourth of July the Dos Santos family of Collingswood, New Jersey are going to have. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they completely ignored it.
Better go check those burgers on the grill, dear reader. Watch those pretty fireworks and celebrate your "land of the free". Yep, yep. 

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 ostensibly untoward 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 if 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.