Thursday, August 11, 2016

It shouldn't be this difficult to tell which candidate is the true monster

When the pot calls the kettle black to the degree that Barry Hussein Obama did last week, you know that the bias in the government/media complex cannot possibly be any more naked than it currently is.
Last week, Bozo the Big-Eared Boob gave a press conference during his suck-up junket to Asia, telling a crowd of reporters in Singapore that Donald Trump is "unfit to serve as President." With respect to the GOP's support of Trump despite the candidate's bluntness—though some would call it refreshing honesty—Obama rhetorically asked Republicans, "What does this say about your party?"
Do I have to go over what having Hillary Clinton, especially after eight years of this complete failure of a President, says about the Democrats?
She has been a complete hack—what the Left, her defenders, laughably prefer to call a "public servant"—her whole life. Hillary could never have achieved any sort of power if not for her marriage to Bill Clinton, without which she would have been a complete loser her whole life. She was jettisoned from her job as a House Judiciary Committee staffer in 1974 for being what Watergate investigation chief counsel Jerry Zeifman called "a liar" as well as "an unethical, dishonest lawyer" who was seeking to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation. Whitewater, Travelgate, Vince Foster, Benghazi. She defended her rapist husband by referring to his victims as "nuts and sluts". E-mail scandals and using an unsecured private server as Secretary of State. Although FBI director James Comey did not recommend indictment or had her testimony under oath, he has said that "it is possible that hostile actors gained access" to information on her server.
She has solicited the support of Khizr Khan, a charlatan, an immigration lawyer whose job it is to get Saudis and Pakistanis into the country—basically profiting in visas for rich Muslims—a proven sharia law-supporter, based on his past writings, who is tied to the Clinton Foundation and whose career would pretty much tank under Trump's proposed ban on foreign Muslims. Khan alleges that Trump has never made any sacrifices, a truly laughable accusation to aim at a prominent businessman, but hasn't detailed any sacrifices that Hillary has ever made. (Oh wait, there aren't any.)
Also supporting Hillary is Seddique Mateen, the father of a jihadist mass-murderer who shot dead forty-nine people just months ago in the same city where Clinton was holding a rally that he attended. Mateen was seen sitting just twenty feet away from Clinton, pretty much front-and-center at the event in the Orlando suburb of Kissimmee. When interviewed by a gobsmacked member of the local media, Mateen said, "Hillary Clinton is good for United States [sic]." Allahu akhbar! You dumb infidels, heh heh heh. You can just picture Mateen's Saddam Hussein-style moustache rising up and down with each vicious chuckle.
Yet when Patricia Smith simply wants to know why her son, former information officer Sean Smith, was killed and why she was lied to about the events leading up to his death, Clinton cruelly dismisses her and won't talk to her any further. There is no outrage by the media. The Trump people are being so horrible to the "Gold Star" Khan family, but a complete lack of justice for Patricia Smith bothers no-one in the elite. Smith told Breitbart News Daily host Stephen K. Bannon:
She purposely treats me like dirt, and will not answer any questions that I have. And then I see her on TV, saying 'It was not my bailiwick.' This is the only person I've ever heard of who doesn't have a bailiwick when you're running the whole darn department! If it was her department, and it's not her bailiwick—why? Why can't these things be answered to me? Why did my son have to die, if it's not her bailiwick? Whose bailiwick was it? Who gave the order to pull all the security? I guess it's not her. I need these things answered, and I think I have the right to have them answered. What happens is, I get—people tell me, people until very recently told me that they put a hit on me, because they don't like the way I talk. Well, I'm still here, people. I'm still here, and I still want to know why my son is dead.
But the media and the establishment of both parties just wish Patricia Smith would go away. What a pain in the ass for poor Hillary! That's right, I said both parties, because Paul 'RINO' Ryan, Mittens Romney, Lindsey 'Grahamnesty', Glenn 'Cheeto Face' Beck and all these other Republican "heroes" can jump on Trump's case over the Khans, but they say nothing about the Democrats' total rejection of Patricia Smith's requests for answers to her inconvenient questions.
At long last, some justice may come Patricia Smith's way as she, along with Benghazi victim Tyrone Woods' father Charles, have filed a wrongful death lawsuit in federal court against Hillary Clinton. We shall see what comes of this. As usual, Hillary will probably take her place in court with that snarky bitch-face of hers, wondering why she must once again be made to answer for something.
Seriously, what has Hillary Clinton ever done, for anyone but herself? Donald Trump, along with Tony Schwartz, authored a book in 1987 called The Art of the Deal. With respect to that book, a reviewer for the New York Times said of Trump, "He makes one believe in the American dream again." In 2006, Trump teamed up with well-known motivational speaker, self-help guru and investor Robert Kiyosaki to author Why We Want You to be Rich. And what has Hillary given the world? Two self-pitying bitch-fests entitled Living History and Hard Choices and a tome in which she argues passionately for Big Daddy Government to bring children up, 1996's It Takes a Village. I know which books I would rather read. I would learn something constructive from Trump. It Takes a Village would school me in deconstruction of sorts, and I don't care for that.
So, to get back on track ... Let's see, I am supposed to feel horrified that Trump called on Russia to give back Hillary's e-mails. Right. That's so appalling! It defies the narrative from the diabolical neoconservatives, who wish to send more of America's young men and women to perish in far-off lands so they can make their blood money from contractors. Yeah, I'm really pissed off about that. Yep, yep.
Then I'm supposed to rethink my support for the Trump campaign because he expressed the thought that Mr. Khan's wife, Ghazala, didn't speak at the DNC convention because the sharia law that her husband supports doesn't allow her to. I refuse to buy the media narrative that she can't speak of her son because she'll get too upset. No, she'll be smacked across the room by Khzir once they get home if she does. Trump is 100 percent correct in his observation.
Now I'm expected to be furious because the media insists that Trump subtly called for Hillary's assassination at a rally in North Carolina. OK, let's have a look at what Trump actually said:
Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment. By the way, if she gets to pick her judges [for the Supreme Court], nothing you can do, folks. Although for the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know.
The media has treated this comment, taking out of context as they always do, as a sort of "wink, wink" suggestion that Hillary get a cap in her mammoth ass by gun-rights loonies. It is clear to anyone with a brain that what Trump meant was that the government is not going to take away people's Constitutionally protected right to self-defense without a hard fight. Second Amendment supporters know where they stand and they will defend the principles in the Bill of Rights, especially since they know that once the Second Amendment falls, the First won't be far behind. Freedom of speech will officially give way to political correctness, to be enforced in a style that would make Stalin cry with pride.
If you want to play the game involving veiled threats, I've got some examples for you, dear reader: In May 2008, Hillary Clinton herself referenced Robert F. Kennedy's 1968 assassination to explain why she was still running in the Democrat primaries against then-Senator Obama. Where was the media to accuse Hillary of pulling the "wink, wink"? Last month, Elizabeth Warren told Stephen Colbert that it was imperative that her base—the hardcore Left—must, with regard to Trump, "take him out now." Now, I'm sure the good whiter-than-white Native American senator from Taxachusetts did not intend to suggest that Trump be assassinated, nor was it necessary for her to clarify. But, by the media's standards, it sure can be interpreted as a threat, no? Establishment GOP hack consultant Rick Wilson, who looks like a goddamned pedophile if I may be allowed to say, opined last summer that the donor class must "put a bullet" in Trump. The reaction to that was, of course, complete media silence.

I is in ur internets
Getting ur young boys to play with me

Two key points:
(1) I'm supposed to take offense to an apparently succinct reference to Hillary Clinton's assassination when this bitter, dried-up, barely living period stain is responsible for at least SEVEN murders? Those would be former White House deputy Vince Foster, Benghazi victims Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods, Iranian nuclear scientist Shahram Amiri, and Democrat National Committee staffer and Bernie Sanders supporter Seth Rich, who, as a result of his righteous rage, was prepared to blow the whistle on the Clintons, exposing their delegate-stealing, vote-rigging modus operandi. Seriously, I am? Go fuck yourself.
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has vowed a $20,000 sum for whoever comes forward with any provable information regarding Rich's death and I hope it produces a result very soon.
(2) The bitch is dying anyway, and right in front of our eyes. Constant coughing at the podium. Weird brain freezes and head jerks. She nearly referred to Trump as her husband recently. (I'm perfectly sure that gave the Donald some screaming abdab-laden nightmares.)
But, for the mother of all proof, Clinton couldn't even walk up six friggin' stairs. Six. Stairs. Not six flights of stairs. Six damn stairs. Staff had to help drag her pathetic, solar eclipse-causing butt up to the landing. She is 69 years old. Not 89, not 99. I don't buy for one damn minute that a 69-year-old can't climb six stairs, unless it's already obvious that they're seriously sick. And that's Hillary. Sick in the head since birth, but now very sick in body. She is ridden with blood clots. Some medical experts have theorized that Hillary is prone to a pulmonary embolism, which would (thankfully) finish her off.

"Jesus Christ, this damn whore would weigh only 100 pounds if it weren't for that 50-pound caboose of hers!"

As always, I continue to be perplexed not only by the reluctance of the media to tell the truth, but of the Hitler-in-the-bunker, establishment Republicans who continue to see Trump as the embodiment of all evil when all he's done is construct buildings and say out loud what most normal people are thinking, when we have a demonstrable monster as his opponent. This is impudence on the grandest of scales.
Just for the record, all you "Never Trump" shitheads? Yeah, I'm still blaming you if Hillary wins in November.

Sunday, July 31, 2016

Another two weeks, another slide down the rabbit hole

Where to begin, considering the past two weeks since I last blogged?
A terror attack in Nice, France. The media blamed trucks. A shooting rampage at a mall in Munich, Germany, where getting hands on any firearm is damn near impossible, I might add. The German news services inform us that although the shooter was a "German-Iranian," religion had nothing to do with it and that he was just a bullied kid whose sympathies more resembled those of white supremacists than jihad. This, despite the fact that he had yelled "allah akhbar" before the slaughter. The rest of the intelligentsia worldwide accepted it as gospel.
Sexual assaults at music concerts in Sweden and Germany. One genius, Swedish "star" Zara Larsson, blamed men. Not refugee men, not throwback foreigners who have no place in Nordic or any European society, but just men in general, as if blond-haired, blue-eyed Swedes engaged in all the harassment.
On social media, Larsson wrote, "[Damn] you for making girls feel insecure when they go to a festival. I hate guys. Hate hate hate. How am I supposed to take it seriously when you say 'not all men', 'I'm a nice guy, I don't rape'? Where do all the 'nice guys' go when girls are raped? Are you too busy telling women how nice you are?" These men didn't bother saying a thing, they just groped because that's all they know. But according to Larsson, all men must pay the price for the sub-human throwbacks that Sweden allowed in because it is so concerned about its reputation for tolerance. Way to completely ignore the real issue, Ms. Larsson. Could I be so bold as to mutter about you, "typical feminist"?
That is the same moral equivocating that occurs when all terror of a certain religious bent these days gets compared to the Christian Crusades or Jewish settlements in "Palestinian" territory, which was won fair-and-square by Israel in 1967, but never mind. We already know that facts mean nothing to the progressives. The same moral equivocating that takes place when some criminally minded lowlife mows people down with an "assault weapon," but instead of blaming our lack of adequate detention of mentally ill people or blatantly not enforcing gun law statutes already on the books, or the deliberate release of dangerous gang-bangers by the current administration, the government/media complex and petulant Democrats on the floor of the House, demand that ordinary, law-abiding citizens be stripped of their equalizers. If you have a gun for your God-given, Constitutionally guaranteed right to self-defense, you're no better than the monster who shot up a nightclub in Orlando or a Christmas party in San Bernadino. That probably comes as a surprise to you, but that's the way the people in power think.
A coup in Turkey? Obama sides with the Islamo-Nazi, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who has stripped Turkey of its secularism and imposed sharia, just as he sided with the fanatical elements in Iraq, in Libya, and just as he tried to do with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Tunisia, and is trying to do with the fictionally pro-Western "freedom fighters" in Syria. Instead, all we ever hear from the Left and the neo-cons is that Bashar Al-Assad is the enemy, despite the fact that he is secular and loathes both Al Qaeda and ISIS.
An 84-year-old priest gets beheaded in a Catholic church in Rouen, France. This man survived the Nazis in the '40s, only to be decapitated in his church in a small city in Western Europe by invaders who, in many respects, are far worse. At least Nazis were afraid to die. The Pope, whom this poor priest would have recognized as God's representative on Earth, says the world is at war but that religion is not to blame. OK, so what exactly are we at war with? Is it a world war against knives, machetes and scimitars? I suppose if we outlawed them, along with trucks and scary "assault rifles," terror would just go away? Would these jihadists just try to strangle us with their douchy black bandannas instead?
It gets better. An office in Nuremberg that processes migrants was the focus of a failed bombing attack. An Algerian suspect was pursued by German authorities after he threatened to blow up a mall in Bremen. A 79-year-old German woman was raped by an Eritrean migrant in a cemetery in Ibbenbüren. Have you heard about any of this from the mainstream American media? No, of course not. The Pope needs to explain to us why Vatican City, under his administration, won't take down its own walls, so that the migrants of Italy can personally acquaint him with the peace that is so inherent to their religious convictions.
Yet, Donald Trump is reactionary for wanting to control Muslim immigration into the U.S. until we can figure out how to deal with this trend that is currently devastating France and Germany. He will have the FBI, ICE and border control agents do their proper jobs of protecting the nation. What an extremist! The same media that ignores Islamic terror, that won't report on the savagery of it in Europe or in the Middle East, is saber-rattling against Russia. Listening to the news and the talking-heads programs, you'd think that Vladimir Putin wants Trump in the White House. Why would he, when he owns Hillary?
Instead of the constant state of terror to which we must be on alert due to the wide-open border that the Democrats and Chamber of Commerce-controlled Republicans tell us is such a vital part of the "new normal," we should be horrified by Trump playfully calling upon Russia to hand over the e-mails it has no doubt hacked from Clinton's private server. If a would-be Republican president, such as Ted Cruz or Carly Fiorina, had instigated a war with Russia, the Left would be calling him or her irrational and that we were foolhardy to have not tried to make nice with a world superpower. During the early days of the war in Afghanistan, in the wake of 9/11, Lefties were wearing shirts declaring "NATO: Now A Terrorist Organization". Fifteen years later, NATO is sacrosanct. Funny how that happens. Because we must deflect from the real enemy; we must hold in high esteem the same neo-conservative thinking that got us into Iraq. Liberals, remember how you felt about that? Never mind. A Republican was in power at the time, different narrative. This time, it is about Hillary and her agenda, which is why Russia must be the focus of our rage.
The jihadists are slaughtering their way across Western Europe and these liberals want to attack a nuclear world power over e-mails. Christine Quinn, on a recent CNN debate on the whole made-up Russia/e-mail scandal, opined that "we're talking here about a government that has never been our ally and never been a friend." I suppose that's why Russia tried to warn us about the Tsarnaev brothers, but we wouldn't listen because those poor babes-in-the-woods needed generous American welfare? Does Quinn know any history at all? True enough, she noted "this government," but is she aware that Russia was an ally during World War II? Honestly, this is the same media that people turn to for updates about what's going on in the world. No wonder no-one knows anything. That being the case, thank God that Trump is so vocal, so invincible and so focused on the facts regarding the pathetic Democrats and their felonious nominee.
The mainstream Left is so desperate to get their establishment candidate into office that they will show disrespect for the very people they normally claim to champion. When a representative for the group Black Men for Bernie, Gary Frazier, dared to opine that "minority communities are suffering and blighted communities are suffering at the hands of established Democrats" and even suggested that the Obamas play the race card, boot-licker Hilary Rosen countered with "That is disrespectful to the first lady and it is disrespectful to the president to suggest that." Hilary Rosen, how often do you hang in the 'hood with black people? I will take Frazier's assessment about how the Democrats treat minorities any day over your pathetic guilty white liberal behind.
Now then, to look ahead, if I may, the first act of a Trump administration should be to turn Riyadh into a huge smoking pile of wreckage. The declassified intelligence report of the terrorist event on September 11, 2001 demonstrates that the government of Saudi Arabia was entirely complicit in the radicalization of jihadis and the execution of the plan of attack on New York City and Washington D.C. Time to pay Bin Abdulaziz's kingdom back for its heartwarming friendship. I won't be happy until every square meter of its capital city is ablaze, in a show of such ferociousness that it will make February 13, 1945 in Dresden look like a street party. Well, I can dream at least.
The second act of a Trump administration should be to bring out the National Guard with regard to Black Lives Matter (Only When White People Are Involved) and George Soros's satanic, communist stooges. If there has to be ten Kent State-style events on our streets, then needs must as the devil drives, as they say. Just as the lasting effect of the Kent State massacre was to put the kibosh on large-scale Leftie protests as America went into the '70s, so will similar measures end the scourge of the current batch of evil malcontents—and I mean forevermore as hopefully the American people will thenceforth never be idiotic enough to elect a Democrat to the highest office in the land again, unless the Democrats put God back in their platform, moderate their ideology and embrace the tax-cuts of JFK, the color-blindness of Martin Luther King, and reject the warmongering of the neoconservatives. We shall see if that day ever comes.
The third act of a new Trump administration has to be to declare the nonsense, the absolute charlatanry, of "Syrian rebels" that are on the U.S. or West's side. They do not exist. If they are not ISIS, they are al-Qaeda or any other Abdullah-come-lately group dedicated to bloodthirsty jihad. We must team up with Russia and take them all out. Of course, annihilating Raqqa would be a very good way to start.
To end this piece, I have heard about the "revolution" over at FOX, and I have to say that Megyn Kelly has finally proven her worth. She was instrumental in diposing the weak sister running the network. From what I hear, Rupert Murdoch's sons will be controlling FOX and forcing it further to the "center," just as MSNBC and CNN claim to be. It hardly matters; FOX has been irrelevant to real conservatives for quite some time now and you don't have to be a political intellectual to work that out.

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