skip to main |
skip to sidebar
There is a saying: "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't". I wonder if that observation will ring true given the announced resignation of Attorney General Eric Holder.
It is difficult to imagine a worse attorney general than Holder. It is noted in a BBC news piece that Obama "praised his prosecution of terrorism suspects and his protection of voting rights".
Let's break this down, shall we? (Especially since "breakin' it down" is a favorite pasttime of "Holder's people"):
● Prosecution of terror suspects:
Holder opposed waterboarding which has been proven to be a very effective but non-life-threatening way to obtain information from suspects, wanted to give Guantanamo suspects federal civilian trials in New York, and supported the exchange of five "high-risk" Guantanamo inmates for Sargeant Bowe Bergdahl, a deserter "who cost soldiers' lives" according to fellow soldiers.
● Protection of voting rights:
Holder did not prosecute members of the New Black Panther Party for intimidating voters in Philadelphia in 2008. When questioned about this during a House appropriations subcommittee hearing, Holder said that the threatening of white voters at the polling station did not compare to "what people endured in the South in the '60s" and that making a big deal out of it disgraced the legacy of the "people who put their lives on the line, who risked all, for my people".
My people. Can you imagine a white assistant to the assistant to the sheriff of East Bumhump saying this sort of thing, never mind a white attorney general? And, regarding the South in the 1960s, Mr. Holder? You weren't there. You were attending junior high and high school in New York City while the struggle for equality raged in Alabama and Mississippi. Yet, he talked as if he personally witnessed one moment of it for himself. But then, that's the sort of honesty and "transparency" we have come to expect from Obama and Company.
Like nearly everything else in this squalid executive office, ultimately, it was all about race. Holder treated both the Zimmerman case and the incident in Ferguson, Missouri with such compelling intensity and urgency that it was almost like Alger Hiss redux. Yet what everyone knows but won't say is that if Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown had been shot by another black person, officer or not, neither case would have come close to garnering national attention.
Then we have the infamous 2009/10 Fast and Furious fiasco, in which the ATF in Arizona oversaw a sting operation to sell firearms to Mexican drug cartel leaders in the hopes that it would lead to their arrests but has, if you'll pardon the expression, backfired. Holder was held in contempt of Congress in 2012 for refusing to release Department of Justice documents related to the operation. Fortunately, a U.S. District Court judge has recently denied further executive privilege to continue stonewalling on the release of a list of Fast and Furious documents, so we will eventually get to the truth. Some pundits have theorized that Holder is getting out while the gettin' is good.
Holder will also be remembered for increasing the levels and powers of the surveillance state. Under his tenure, the National Security Agency has analyzed and stored an increasing collection of the public's electronic communications—thank you for blowing the whistle, Edward Snowden—while the Internal Revenue Service subjected conservative groups to stringent, over-the-top scrutiny.
Can Holder's replacement be any worse? I cannot imagine how the Attorney General's office could get any lower, but the Obama administration, as with life, knows no limits on levels with which to free-fall. The point-of-view of whomever occupies the position is not likely to change. Sources say that possible replacements include a Hispanic (to assist with enacting amnesty for illegals), a woman (to fight the "war on women") and an openly gay U.S. attorney (a gift to the LGBT community who idolize Holder).
I am gladdened by Holder's departure and the door can't swing shut on him fast enough for me. I also know that conservatives, including myself, will not be happy with whoever ends up in the AG's chair. That would be expecting the impossible. I just pray that Holder's legacy will not prove to be lightweight compared to that of his successor.
Recently, according to accusations, a 15-year-old boy torched the Manchester Dogs' Home, a canine rehoming charity. Over 50 dogs died as a consequence of the blaze. It is thought that the teenager committed this act of arson because he was previously bitten by a dog.
Some locals risked their lives in saving some of the animals. Area residents Jason Dyer and Dean Rostock charged into the burning kennel, sparing 20 dogs from death.
In the wake of the fire, the boy, who was later bailed after his arrest, was the recipient of many angry missives, including death threats. One Twitter user wrote that the adolescent arsonist "doesn't deserve protection. He deserves a very painful punishment".
Does that go a little too far, dear reader? Yes, he is fifteen and perhaps he can be rehabilitated, if he did cause the fire.
But, if it was him, then this was an act of pure evil. Please don't give me this "he only killed some dogs" claptrap.
Here's the kicker: Would this kid torch an old-age home if he clashed with a senior citizen? You have to wonder.
Psychopaths and animal cruelty are definitively linked. Time and time again, killers from Ian Brady to the Boston Strangler, Dunblane shooter Thomas Hamilton to Mary Bell, have displayed cruelty to animals as children. Prison cells in every nation contain murderers who worked their bloodlust out on animals first.
Dr Alan R. Felthous, Professor and Director of Forensic Psychiatry at Saint Louis University School of Medicine, held studies in the 1980s that demonstrated a strong link between animal cruelty early in life to aggression against humans later on. The result of Felthous's study "showed that those men with a high rate of recurrent and serious aggression had histories of a larger number of episodes of animal cruelty in childhood in comparison with those who were non-aggressive, based on independent ratings."
The public felt intense sadness, anger and disgust at the death of innocent pets by a deliberate act of destruction. The outpouring of support for the dogs' home was so large that police were reportedly overwhelmed by it.
It makes the threatening messages aimed at the boy easier to understand, doesn't it? We know where this might lead. On a certain level, the abuse the boy has been receiving can be seen a subconscious way of protecting ourselves from a possibly deranged individual who could become the next Raul Moat, a crazed killer.
Although the family of the teenaged boy initially refused to move, they were eventually convinced by police to be rehoused. Is there going to be a thorough psychiatric evalution of this kid with the police involved every step of the way? Or is he just going to serve a little time in a juvenile detention home and walk back out into the world with a new identity?
Are we going to heed the danger signals, the same ones that have been a constant for the whole of human history? Or are we just going to say that he paid the price and leave him to possibly slaughter an innocent person in the future?
If this kid eventually goes beserk (again), we can't say we weren't warned.
But, then, we never seem to learn from history, do we?
If you think the United States faces an illegal alien crisis and has trouble controlling its borders—which, I think we can say without the slightest hint of conjecture, it does—just know that the situation in Britain is often not much better.
It's not bad enough that the U.K. has to accept a certain number of migrants, set by Brussels and not Westminster, from every single new addition to the European Community, which now includes Bulgaria and Romania, which in turn constitutes the rich (but unsavory) strain of Roma communities that run throughout the populations of both countries. We also have potential migrants from elsewhere lining up along the northern shore of France, the city of Calais in particular, looking to sneak into the U.K. any way they can.
Earlier this month, up to one-hundred migrants attempted to rush aboard a P&O tourist ferry that was preparing to return to England. They had jumped barbed wire barriers and outfoxed security to get to the ferry boarding area. The illegals were only successfully turned away when water cannons were fired at them.
This rabble consists of the usual suspects: Middle Easterners and Africans. All men. All between 18 and 45 years old.
A truck driver who was interviewed said that he sees "migrants all grouped together trying to get on to the trucks" every time he's in Calais.
Just as with the U.S., the U.K. is seen as a soft touch which is why so many migrants don't want to stay in France, or go elsewhere like Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany or Sweden. In Britain, they know they can tap into an easily abused welfare system and work in the black market that flourishes here.
Mayor of Calais Natacha Bouchart has threatened the British with a total blockade of the city's port if the country does not help to control the situation, which she has described as "unmanageable". She has every right to do this if the government will not act on this crisis.
* * *
It would appear that the Labour party has either learned nothing from its last time in charge of the country or it does not care. It has moved further Left from its policies—or at least the policies it trotted out for the public's perusal—under Tony Blair, a process started by Gordon Brown and now endorsed by Ed Miliband.
Stating that Britain remains obsessed with class, and promotes people on that basis, shadow equalities minister—drink that one in, dear reader, equalities minister—Gloria De Piero cited an "inequality of opportunity" that is set into the framework of many professions and she wants to "smash the glass ceiling" that exists in British workplace environments.
What De Piero is proposing is that public sector organizations will be required to monitor the social backgrounds of staff members.
Referring to what it means to be Labour, De Piero noted, "We believe all of us have the right to live in dignity, free from discrimination". Except, of course, if you're middle class. Then all your dignity can be chucked out the window.
Unfortunately, this is not just one moonbat speaking. Alan Milburn, the social mobility adviser—drink that one in, dear ... aw, fuck it—endorses a policy by which companies will have to declare the social background of their workforces.
Has this party truly learned nothing about the unfairness of affirmative action, or "positive discrimination" as they call it here?
I suppose they would say it was "for the children".
* * *
Speaking of Labour—and it would be unfair to attribute this sort of imprudence solely to them as loose screws who have earned their places in the annals of dumb-assery also exist among the Tories and Lib Dems—let me introduce you to candidate for MP Vicki Kirby.
On her Twitter account, Kirby referred to Israel as "evil" and said that the "Zionist God" might be Adolf Hitler.
Kirby wrote that, in her version of history, Israel was "invented" when saving Jews from Hitler, who "seems to be their teacher". Also, she "will make sure my kids teach their children how evil Israel is".
Labour leader Ed Miliband, a man of Jewish heritage himself, responded to this bile, declaring that "we do and we will resolutely oppose the isolation of Israel" through a boycott of Israeli products which Kirby supports.
Labour has suspended her, nulling her campaign.
Not to be outdone by Kirby, another Labour candidate, Jed Sullivan, wrote on Twitter that he was all in favor of adoption by gays, adding that gay fathers would "know where all the best parks are". He also opined that women missed International Women's Day because "they took too long to get ready."
Probably not the best idea to post jokes like these, which admittedly are funny as long as you're not a politically correct robot, if you're running for a seat in the Commons. Sullivan has since apologized for causing any offense.
* * *
But, lo and behold, it's not all insensitivity and anti-Semitism in this news smörgåsbord. Manchester police have collaborated with the Community Security Trust, an organization which looks after the Jewish community in Britain, to protect Jewish citizens attending synagogue and events over the High Holy Days, including Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur and the Jewish New Year.
Mobile police stations will be set up at four locations throughout the Greater Manchester area with additional patrols to cover routes to and from synagogues.
The Greater Manchester area has seen a spike in anti-Semitic incidents, mostly whipped up by the furor of rabble-rousers protesting violence in Gaza. These "protestors" have made such a nuisance of themselves, day after day after day, that Manchester City Council had to declare an end to their demonstrations on King Street and reign them in, limiting their scope for subsequent protests. (I know, it's hard to believe that Gaza demonstrators don't have jobs to attend on a daily basis, eh?)
The Community Security Trust has released figures showing 52 anti-Semitic attacks across the Manchester metropolitan region in July. This constitutes a 300 percent rise on July 2013 when 13 incidents were recorded. There were 96 incidents in the whole of the previous six months.
It is definitely encouraging that the police are working to help secure a safe environment for the Jewish community. Given the contemporary political and social environment in which it seems that only Muslims get all the comforts and conveniences, it is refreshing that something is being done for another religious and cultural group of citizens.
We need more of this and on a much more frequent scale. Nonetheless, this is a good starting point.
So, dear reader, was the Scottish vote rejecting total independence from the United Kingdom a disaster or a relief? I harbor no doubts whatsoever that it's the latter.
What you need to know, before any other argument you care to put forth, is that a "yes" vote would have given power to a mega-socialist, Putin-admiring, anti-American bully. His name is Alex Salmond, who was the First Minister for Scotland—until, to give him a gentleman's credit, he resigned following the No campaign's victory.
Scotland has its own cabinet and its own government. It won devolved powers via referendum in 1997, along with Wales and Northern Ireland, courtesy of Tony Blair's Labour government. Current Prime Minister David Cameron has said that, in the wake of the independence referendum, more powers, including tax decisions, will be handed to Scotland.
The United Kingdom isn't broken. It works fine as it is. Think of the separate countries of Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England as separate states. But they are all part of the larger whole known as Great Britain. In this day and age, does it make sense to break up a major Western power? That's what the success of a "yes" vote would have done.
I am not an apologist for past British Empire wrongs, especially with regard to Northern Ireland. But Northern Ireland is part of Great Britain now; there can be no going back. You cannot force British families living there, whose ancestry in that area goes back centuries, to be paid in euros when they're happy with the pound. You cannot force them into the Irish health care system when they're satisfied with the NHS.
Salmond's far-Left style does appeal to Celtic peoples for who-knows-what reasons. Scotland is no different than Wales—or the IRA—in embracing radical politics. (They make great conservatives when they emigrate to America, though, especially the Irish.) Perhaps if they stopped painting themselves as victims of an imperialist state, the revolutionary politics they embrace would melt away.
An independent Scotland, led by Alex Salmond, would have been antagonistic toward America. Salmond's government let Pan Am Flight 103 bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi be free to return to Libya in August 2009, citing his terminal illness as an excuse. He lived for three years after being set free.
Salmond praises Putin as a great leader and refuses to apologize for this admiration for the Russian president. The Putin government was not only disappointed but furious that the No campaign succeeded. Salmond would have removed all nuclear missiles in Scotland, an end-game possibility that had the Russians salivating. Now that Scotland has voted to remain part of the U.K., the missiles will remain.
I'm fairly certain that if the Yes campaign had won, Alex Salmond would have soon patched up differences with Barack Obama, who encouraged a No vote. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, and Obama judged this one correctly. How long, though, would it have taken until Salmond and the Dear Leader coöperated and collaborated on ways to completely screw the American people and their way of life?
Believe me, these two would have seen eye-to-eye in no time.
An independent Scotland would have re-joined the EU as a separate nation and, once accepted, signed the Schengen agreement which allows for open borders between all European nations that are part of it. The UK is not a signatory to this agreement. Therefore, England would have had to build a fence all along its border with Scotland to prevent all the swarthy ruffians that Salmond would have welcomed with open arms from leaking into its territory. As if the UK doesn't currently have enough problems with immigration.
Futhermore, they let 16- and 17-year-olds vote. That was an obvious move to try to fluff up a victory in favor of independence. Letting under-18s vote, uninformed, misinformed and ill-informed as they usually are, was a cynical way of propping up the Yes campaign. They knew only too well that people that young could be manipulated into embracing independence because they would not think about the deeper issues.
For my American readers, don't be fooled into thinking that just because America broke away from Great Britain that any attempt by another entity to do so is reason to blindly embrace it. It is not. You need to research the people behind such an attempt, their political persuasion, the cynicism with which they are operating their campaign and whether or not it will benefit the U.S. if their secession is successful. It also helps if you know whether or not the independence campaign is being spearheaded by a tin-pot dictator à la Alex Salmond.
I suggest that the British Government wait 20 or 30 years and then allow another independence referendum in Scotland. This time, let the Scottish government give its people a solid plan for independence instead of operating it like Obamacare, in the style of "just vote for it now, and we'll figure out the details later". See if the young 'uns who voted "yes" now still feel the same then. And hold the campaign like most normal countries do and allow only 18s-and-over to vote. At least then we can say the campaign was truly fair and the people of Scotland knew what they were voting for.
The nightdragon congratulates the people of Scotland for seeing through the manipulations and desperate shenanigans of the Yes campaign and voting by a majority of 55.3 percent against it.
Since my "comeback" to this blog, you may be wondering the following: Do the Nightdragon and his good lady wife still keep rats?
We do, in fact.
This is our youngest girl (out of three) called Gwen.
I will share pictures of our other rat-girls Crunchie and Twix later. But, for now, enjoy Gwen's slow moves to some chill music:
Exactly seven years ago—and when I say exactly, I mean to the day—I wrote: "Anyone who knows just the most rudimentary aspects about life in contemporary Britain knows that we—the Government, businesses, and most of the British citizenry brow-beaten by political correctness—bend over backwards to avoid offending our Muslim community."
Nothing, absolutely nothing, has changed since then.
Take the case of Lauren Chase of Birchgrove, Wales who left comments on the Facebook page of a "little Egyptian rat" she did not like. Chase insinuated that he had snuck into the U.K. in the back of a delivery truck and opined to him that she did not like Muslims or their religion. The receiver of these comments told authorities he felt that because of his "ethnic appearance," he had been targeted.
Now then, Chase certainly needs to know that it is not proper behavior to target people based only on appearances and to abuse them. A work order of one week would have sufficed.
However, Chase was punished with a 12-month community order with supervision, an 80-hour unpaid work scheme that she must complete and the attendance of a ten-session racism and equality programme.
Got that? For daring to use free speech in a manner that is offensive to a protected class of people, whose contributions to Western society are dubious to begin with, this young lady was slapped with a year-long community order, in which she must be supervised. She must do eighty hours of unpaid work. And attend ten—count 'em, ten—classes on learning to celebrate diversity.
How much do you wish to bet that anyone who has recently called a white person a "honky" or "kaffir" will be present during these sessions?
Lauren Chase, the court heard, was suffering from depression and getting her help for it "is certainly on the agenda," according defender Matt Henson. Two thoughts here: If she is depressed, then how is this stringent punishment she received at the hands of the state going to help? And if a young person who is a Muslim or some other disadvantaged type that we strive so hard to protect from the realities of life, which can include white people as long as they're inbred and brainless, stabs an innocent person, then claims depression? I guarantee you that a little slap on the wrist, like a worthless ASBO, will be all they will face. No supervision. No 80-hour work order. No semester-long series of classes preaching tolerance. Certainly no jail time.
Now consider this entry, written slightly over seven years ago, in which I wrote: "The government is so afraid of the big bad Islamic bogeyman that if a Muslim complains about a cartoon pig or the swirl of a Burger King ice cream looking like the word 'Allah' written in the Arabic alphabet, immediate action is taken."
Recently, an outstanding member of our society, one Zayn Sheikh, called for the very popular British cartoon "Peppa Pig" to stop being aired on television. Not only does the sight of happy animated pigs offend Muslim sensitivites, but according to Sheikh, his young son has gone from wanting to be a doctor to wanting to be a pig.
You can't make this stuff up.
Zayn Sheikh and his defenders wish that British television would air enriching cartoons such as "Abdullah the Cat". According to a poster on the "Muslims Against Peppa Pig" Facebook page, Abdullah is "the halal cat". Huh? Does that mean Abdullah's body if used as meat—to perhaps feed a hungry jihadist—is halal or the food Abdullah eats is halal? I'm confused.
It's funny how Jewish citizens, who are also not allowed to eat or touch pork, never opine on the harmful effects of pigs in children's cartoons. Maybe it's because they realize they have far more important things to worry about in their lives. (Namely, increasing anti-Semitism from the Muslim community and their Lefty supporters, whipped up by anti-Israel protests, but that's an entire entry by itself.)
Lastly, in evidence of what is known to all those with a brain and who use it concerning the disrespect with which Christians are treated day in and day out, Cumbria County Council ordered Peter Nelson to take down a 9-foot tall crucifix he placed on the local slag banks of Workington. The crucifix is in memory of his deceased wife Angela.
A council spokesman said that, although the authority sympathizes with Mr. Nelson (yep, mmm-hmmm, sure ...), the crucifix "does not have planning permission and we have asked him to take it down".
Refreshingly, 2,000 signatures have been lodged with the council in protest and several dozens of local people marched with Mr. Nelson in support of him and his cause. Craig Elliott, a friend of Mr. Nelson's, said that the crucifix won't "be taken down without a fight."
So, for the million-dollar question: How seriously do you believe the council would have anything to say if some local Muslim erected a minaret on Worthington's slag heap?
For a Christian like Peter Nelson, the case is clear: "You did not seek planning permission, rules must be obeyed, we sympathize but you cannot be allowed to do this." For a Muslim, the policy would instantly have been "turn a blind eye." Nothing to see here, folks, move along ...
That's because the practitioners of "the religion of peace" are a protected class, you see.
Seven years from now, I fully expect, they still will be.
Before I delve into this, I need you to keep in mind, dear reader, that French fries are known as "chips" in Britain. This word survives in this sense in American English in the phrase "fish and chips".
Now then, one popular electrical kitchen item in many British homes is something called the chip pan. You pour oil into it, plug it in and fry your potato sticks or wedges up in that. Sounds safe, right? As you have already guessed, they are notorious for catching fire as a result of all the oil that is involved with using them.
It also doesn't help that many people, who are on the idiotic side of the spectrum, use their chip pans after a night out and addled with intoxicants. As soon as they get in the door at 4 a.m., they think the following:
In the campiest English accent I am capable of:
"Ooh, time for some chips. That would be just lovely. Some nice, lovely chips coming up."
After firing up the chip pan, you can almost guarantee an individual like this will crash on their living room sofa, intending to wait for the oil to get hot, and become absorbed in their text messages or a repeat of "The X Factor" or whatever vacuous garbage passes for "entertainment" these days. It is just a matter of a very short time till this person, along with several unlucky neighbors, will be made homeless once the oil goes beyond being hot, if you get my drift.
Chairman of the Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Authority David Acton said, in the wake of two serious local home chip fires in the space of one day, "Chip pans are dangerous and we want people to get rid of them and use safer alternatives like oven chips instead." The Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service notes that "chip pans can be extremely dangerous" and "are the cause of the largest number of fire-related injuries in the home." [Emphasis mine.]
So, chip pans are pretty bad and really shouldn't even be offered on the market. I am not a big fan of the ban, but this is one exception I'd consider, especially as these devices are responsible for causing most fires in the average home.
The unelected oligarchs of the European Union have declared war on powerful electrical appliances. A ban on vacuum cleaners with motors of 1,600 watts or over went into effect last week. The aim is to make only vacuums with just 900-watt motors available by 2016. Not satisfied with this, a whole range of other high-power electricals including tea kettles, hairdryers and lawnmowers will be banned and replaced by lower-wattage versions.
How this makes sense when people will be using these appliances for longer in order to get their carpet clean or hair dry or water to boil has not been explained.
Also, is anyone — aside from those who honestly believe the Obama adminstration is committed to defeating ISIS — stupid enough to believe that these privileged politcos will abide by the same diktats they handed down to us?
Seriously, go into European Commission leader Jean-Claude Juncker's home in 2016, and I guarantee you'll find not just one but several 1,600-watt vacuum cleaners. Hypocrisy, it's elemental, dear Watson/reader.
Chip pans, however, do not appear to be on the list of appliances targeted by the EU. It's fine to allow people to endanger their lives and possibly those of others by using these little fire-starters.
The EU needs to learn that the point behind a ban on things, if considered, usually evolves from the desire to save lives, not power. The purchase of a 1,600-watt vacuum cleaner to adequately clean one's floors is a free market choice. Having to flee your residence because your jackass of a neighbor viewed his kitchen as his personal fast-food establishment while high is a choice no-one would make.
I am not suprised that the EU lacks the libertarian élan to know the difference.
