skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Earlier this week, as the nation approached its Memorial Day, in honor of those who served and fought, a public school civics teacher from the Greater Boston town of Hopkinton left a voicemail for the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, an organization that describes itself as "a non-partisan, non-profit 501c(4) organization committed to improving the quality of life in Massachusetts by advocating for fiscal responsibility and good government solutions"—the sort of thing state Democrats naturally decry as "a Republican front". She opined on the subject of illegal immigrants and homeless veterans. Although she initially appears supportive of veterans, her true feelings about them are revealed as the message goes on. And it is nasty beyond belief.
"I'm kind of just so sick of all of this supposedly illegal immigrants over our veterans. Our veterans should get jobs. I'm so sick of hearing about homeless veterans. They sucked the wind, they got salaries and stipends and additional pay for a 'dangerous duty' [heavy sarcasm], and all this nonsense. And they can't even go get a job after they've been trained supposedly by our 'glorious military' [more heavy sarcasm]. Go get a job like everybody else, if you're so angry. Why should they get priority over other people who are either homeless or, y'know, unemployed. I'm just so sick of it. Most of them are drug addicts anyway, they barely get out of high school and they go into the military—and you know that. Not too many people graduate from college, if you look at the percentages, who worked hard in high school, in college, and went into the military in the first place. [?] So you're all backwards. [Addressing the MFA] Backwards, hateful fascists. We're on to you. We're reporting you."
A couple of questions here: She's not angry? Don't you just love these "peace and love" types who spew their guts everywhere, but think you and I are the angry ones? Observe how she obviously doesn't reserve this kind of bile toward entitled, EBT card-carrying losers. Notice how she seems to think that anyone who dares not to be academically gifted might as well be cannon fodder. Lastly, if you heard the voicemail, you would hear her voice drip with acid-laced cynicism when she pronounces the words "dangerous duty" and "glorious military".
I will never understand the mindset of anyone who thinks that our veterans are ruthless killers who join up simply to satisfy a bloodlust by slaughtering greasy foreigners and how they didn't fight for our rights. I suppose our rights are protected by liberal Supreme Court justices, not the soliders who fight oppression and supression wherever it exists.
These are the liberal-Lefties who have their heads firmly in the sand and never worry about the threat from our enemies. Their mantra is such: As long as America has open borders, preaches tolerance, compassion and diversity and considers support for gay marriage the ultimate pinnacle of sophistication, then the country is safe. Why have a military full of "backwards" people? If we would just live by our ideals, no-one would want to attack us, because we're so good and have "Co-Exist" bumper sticks on our cars.
If you have conservative values and support the troops, co-existence doesn't apply to you. Now you know why the country is so thoroughly ass-backwards. This woman, I repeat, is a public school civics teacher. Your kids are subjected to nogoodniks like this for whatever passes for education these days.
She is far from alone in her hatred for veterans. On Veteran's Day last year, a charming man by the name of Michael Schuette wrote on his Twitter page, "OK for my yearly Veterans day speech ... To all vets ... you are NOT hero's [sic] ... You NEVER FOUGHT FOR ANY OF MY FREEDOMS!!!!! You NEVER sacrificed for this country. YOU WANNA MEET HERO'S? [sic] ... Well shake hands with CIVILIAN EMTs, Nurses, Firefighters, Lawyers and anyone in the ACLU. Please feel free to add some more hero's below but Veterans you are NOT American hero's. [sic]"
You just know that anyone who capitalises nouns, uses ellipses when a period would do just fine and spells heroes as "hero's" is exactly the sort of person we should be listening to.
There are far too many examples of anti-veteran bias expressed by people who are either truly ungrateful and/or jealous cowards. I would be unable to mention them all here, but you get the drift. Most of them are wimps, plain and simple. The homeless vet is in the state that he's in because he had the bravery to do something which required him to see things no civilian should have to and he's still fighting it. This is a matter you cannot expect some jumped-up puke who thinks he or she is courageous for bashing the military to understand.
You get people like director Michael Moore, actor Seth Rogan or a state representative like Louisiana's Stephen Ortego who pat themselves on the backs for trashing veterans with all sorts of spiteful talk and know that they won't have to answer for it because (1) the media has their backs and (2) they wouldn't go anywhere veterans are present. In other words, they stand little chance of getting their noses broken, as they should. (Most veterans would be too gentlemanly to do that anyway.) They criticize from afar and expect profile in courage awards.
The truth is, the soldier who served and is proud to have done so and desires nothing more than a "welcome home" is as American as mom, apple pie, ragtime and picket fences. And that's an America these people can't stand and would stop at nothing to dismantle and destroy. If these people had their way, there wouldn't be one neighborhood in the U.S. that didn't look like Lagos on acid. Except, of course, for the gated communities that they would live in, because that would be their self-awarded reward for being tolerant and diversity-embracing.
You only have to look at the progressive disdain for and antipathy toward the film American Sniper. Chris Kyle was a gifted, remarkable marksman and he used his sniping ability to take out the enemy. You see, it doesn't matter that Kyle saw his job as not just fighting for American values and freedoms but protecting Iraqi citizens from insurgent "freedom fighters". But no, Kyle must be a racist because he called members of the insurgency "savages".
What the Left not only thinks but encourages others to think about the men and women that train hard and fight hard, in the field and possibly for decades afterwards in their consciences, should be declared criminal. I know, free speech and all, but this kind of stuff can kill a country. How can any nation have this kind of anti-military, anti-veteran sentiment among a good chuck of its citizenry and survive?
Happy Memorial Day to all veterans of all our wars. And thank you.
"This is nothing to celebrate. This is a matter of justice."
So says Michael Ward, a firefighter who responded on the day of the Boston Marathon bombing on April 15, 2013, referring to the death penalty sentence that has been handed down on Dzhokhar "Flashbang" Tsarnaev by the jury.
I agree with Mr. Ward in theory. Four innocent lives, including that of an 8-year-old boy who was obliterated so completely by one of the bombs that his relatives had nothing to place in his coffin, were taken on that day. You cannot celebrate a death sentence knowing what happened to merit it.
Nevertheless, the jury's decision in favor of capital punishment for this terrorist slimebag—who, let's face it, should have been shot dead in that boat in Watertown—is justice, rare justice to come from a completely blue state, and that is something to, if not celebrate, find great satisfaction in.
The Nightdragon, admittedly, is a huge proponent of the death penalty, proud of it and offers absolutely no apologies to anyone for it. I couldn't possibly care less about any offense I cause to anyone on this issue even if you paid me to. Especially as it applies to Douchebag Dzhokhar.
If anything, it means that Judy Clarke—the attorney who helped spare the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, September 11 suspect Zacarias Moussaoui, and the shooter of Gabrielle Giffords, Jared Lee Loughner, capital punishment—finally lost a death penalty case. About time.
Massachusetts does not have the death penalty—thanks to the traitorous state representative John Slattery, who reversed his vote in 1997, ensuring that the attempt to resurrect it in the Bay State failed by his vote and his vote alone. However, Eric Holder's Justice Department sought the death penalty for Tsarnaev (all due credit to Mr. Holder for it) and he was tried on federal charges. Flashbang will now be transferred to the U.S. Government death row facility in Terre Haute, Indiana.
What the jury said, in sentencing Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to death, is that the life of a terrorist, someone who committed an act of war on American soil, is not more important than, or even equal to, the four innocent lives that he took.
Liberals, naturally, don't see it that way. They think he should have been allowed to receive three square halal meals every day and continue getting his Koran handed to him by kaffir prison officers wearing gloves. They claim that Flashbang would have been confined to a small room with the tiniest of windows for twenty-three hours a day. That would have been a form of torture, according to them, and therefore, life imprisonment should have been the choice. If that's true, then why did Tsarnaev's team fight so hard for life in prison? If that would have been worse than capital punishment, then why would it come as a relief to Dzhokhar and his horrible family if he'd gotten it?
The members of the jury, luckily, weren't that stupid to believe such obvious bullshit.
Opposition to capital punishment for Tsarnaev is yet another desperate attempt on the part of the Left to undermine American values and morals.
But alas, all we're hearing is how the United States is looking aberrant in its embrace of the death penalty for Tsarnaev and how it's harming our image with the rest of the world. Funny how liberals don't seem to care about how much of the rest of the world—Russia and many Eastern European countries, most of Africa, most of the Latin American countries and a good chunk of Asia—consider homosexuality unnatural and gay marriage an unthinkable deviation from an acceptable societal standard. But when it comes to capital punishment, suddenly we should be concerned about what the rest of the world thinks.
If Canadians, Brits and Western Europeans want to sniff haughtily at our decision to dispatch with Flashbang, let them. This attitude certainly explains why Europe is falling apart at the seams.
Apparently, according to 60 percent of Beantowners, to be "Boston Strong" is to be "above" the death penalty and to resist the temptation for judicial retribution. My ass.
As for Lefties quoting Jesus and the Christian ethic, which it seems they always cynically rely on to try to sway others, even though they know nothing about it? Matthew 5:17 makes it very clear how Jesus would feel about the death penalty. "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." The Law of Moses was robustly in favor of the death penalty. Jesus did not address the death penalty much at all because that was not His reason for walking the earth. But it is pretty clear to all who actually know something about the Christian religion that Jesus was not, and would not have been, an opponent of capital punishment. So, moonbats, please shut it with regard to Jesus, whom you don't have a relationship with and in fact spend most of your athiestic lives in support of agendas against those who believe in and know Jesus as their Lord and Savior.
We patched this guy up in the hospital after his capture, obviously on taxpayer money. We gave him a fair civilian trial and paid for the best defense lawyers, no doubt funded by taxpayer money. We brought his vile, worthless family in from Chechnya to provide "moral" support for him during the deliberations for his punishment—you guessed it, on the backs of taxpayers. We gave Flashbang every conceivable bloody chance under the law. Yet, liberals are not happy. The jury did not go their way.
Is the death penalty vindictive justice? If valuing human life to the extent that we prohibit the taking of it and declaring that the price to be paid for premeditated murder is the state-sanctioned death of those who commit it is your idea of vindictive, then it's a definition that requires you to search your soul.
By putting Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to death, we have established, hopefully and finally, what we are prepared to do when militants, Islamic or otherwise, seek to take out innocent people based on nothing more than a fanantical grudge against them or their society.
The jury's decision is justice, at last, for Krystle Marie Campbell, Lu Lingzi, Sean Collier, and little Martin Richard. And also for those who suffered ghastly injuries as a result of the bomb explosions.
Farewell, Flashbang. You're a stain on this Earth that cannot be removed fast enough.
And as for you, Watertown Police Department? Next time this happens, just shoot to kill and pretend the gun went off by mistake, will you?
Can the excuse-making on behalf of criminals and the bad behavior that turns fatherless boys into dangerous men on behalf of the Left get any more insane than the manufactured debate over the word "thug"?
This is a word that we can apply just as equally to white skinheads as well as black gang-bangers. I thought this word—in an exceedingly perverse way, mind you—was the ultimate expression of equal opportunity and of color blindness.
But, no. Because the word is a very handy way to describe those who went on a wrecking spree throughout the city of Baltimore, then we must naturally be racist by referring to them as thugs.
"Thug" is the new "n"-word, you see. The progressives running—or would that be ruining?—this country will stop at nothing in their attempt to smash the police and let lawlessness completely swamp poor neighborhoods.
Obama called the rioters "criminals and thugs". To give the Prez the credit he's due, he did not take it back.
Baltimore mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake did apologize for her use of the word, saying that she uttered it while under stress. On April 27, Rawlings-Blake said at a press conference that Baltimore was being "destroyed by thugs who in a very senseless way are trying to tear down what so many have fought for". Nothing wrong—or inaccurate—about that statement. Two days later, on Twitter, the liberal mayor said she was sorry using the "t"-word. (More accurately, the "th"-word, but never mind.)
"I wanted to clarify my comments on 'thugs.' When you speak out of frustration and anger, one can say things in a way that you don't mean," Rawlings-Blake wrote. "That night we saw misguided young people who need to be held accountable, but who also need support. And my comments then didn't convey that."
Baltimore City Councilman Carl Stokes opined on CNN that calling "our children" thugs was akin to calling them "n"-words. "These are children who have been set aside, marginalized, who have not been engaged by us. No, we don't have to call them thugs," Stokes squealed. Violins and tissues, anyone?
Reverend Jamal Bryant, yet another jaded human megaphone hiding under the guise of knowing what God wants, like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright, opined that to call the "children" (i.e., the looters, the arsonists, those committing assault and battery) thugs is insensitive as they "are upset and frustrated".
"You don't call six police officers who kill a man without probable cause 'thugs'," Bryant sniffed. Yeah, Jamal, Earth to Jamal? Because we didn't know all the facts of the case surrounding Freddie Grey at that time. You want to prosecute officers of the law just because, before any concrete facts have trickled in, but the "children" can chimp out and destroy all they like and they should never be expected to atone or take responsibility for their behavior or their complete ignorance of the social contract that declares looting, arson or grevious bodily harm unacceptable. This is the world the "good reverend" Bryant wants us all to live in.
In fact, the murder charges filed against the cops involved—three of whom are black, I thought I'd mention—may be dropped because the findings regarding Grey's death do not fit prosecutor Marilyn Mosby's case.
Mosby, incidentally, appeared on stage during a concert by Prince in memory of Freddie Grey.
Is it just me or are attorneys supposed to treat cases objectively? Perhaps you're not expected to abide by normal court rules when you're an affirmative action beneficiary? The crackers made the rules, so only the crackers should follow them.
"I don't gotta follow rules, y'all. Who do you think I is?"
On MSNBC, Brittney Cooper attempted to convince whatever audience she had that the bile-filled fantasy place she lives in exists in the real world. When asked by Alex Wagner about "thug," Cooper replied that the word is "rooted in a racialized understading of black people."
Actually, "thug" is derived from thuggee, a criminal network of assassins that terrorized India for six centuries, beginning around 1356 A.D. Their name came from the Hindi word for "thief".
That, of course, is not the end of Cooper's madness. She later asked, "[W]hen are we going to have a language to talk about the systemic violence that white folks do in the name of anti-blackness and white supremacy in this country? We don't have a language for that."
We don't have a language for Brittney Cooper's systemic anti-blackness violence by white people because it doesn't exist. End of.
Here's the truth: The issue of the word "thug" is yet another attempt to not just dampen the concept of law-and-order and responsibility, but to stifle free speech. To use a word that correctly identifies the type of people running amok as they burn a city to the ground and harm their fellow Americans is a thorn in the side of the liberal agenda. So just equate "thug" with the "n"-word and lecture the average American, for the fifteen-thousandth time, that they're racists who should be ashamed of themselves, steal words and expressions, and cloak the agenda, and presto! Debate is stifled, dissension is dead.
Don't let these airheads control you. "Rev." Bryant says that "'thugs' is the 21st-century word for the "n"-word." Well, calling a thug a thug is the 21st-century version of calling a spade a spade.
One of the biggest lessons that one can take away from this recent U.K. general election is that knee-jerk, far-Left politicians are complete and total boobs, and it's high-time, finally, that we stopped taking any of them seriously.
Ed Miliband's desire to put the strangehold on businesses—while wanting to clamp down on people's right to free speech by delcaring any form of "Islamophobia" one of the worst crimes you could possibly commit—is the reason he lost. Nicola Sturgeon, leader of the Scottish National Party, did very well—but that success is limited to Scotland. Thank the Lord she won't be sharing power with Labour in the House of Commons. She is as socialist as they get while also arguing in favor of a complete scrapping of Britain's Trident nuclear defense. As discussed on this page previously, the Scottish are real characters who for some reason will embrace just about any far-Left garbage you could throw at them. They did, to their credit, vote to remain in the Union back in September—but only by 53 percent.
Before I go any further, I want to say that I have long admired Scotland. The Scots gave so many great inventions to the world, and Edinburgh is one of the most beautiful capital cities a country could wish for. You could say I'm deeply disappointed at the loony Left militancy rife throughout that land. I would have thought the Scottish were far too intelligent to embrace this bullshit.
Nonetheless, given this quick back history, it'll come as little suprise that one of the most notoriously narcissistic and obstinate politicians who has been staining British politics since the 1980s is a Scot. His name is George Galloway. You may have heard of him. Only he didn't concentrate on Scotland. He decided to infest English politics instead.
He's the man who voiced his desire in 2003 to see the "British wolves" (military) in Iraq get slaughtered by Saddam Hussein's forces. He testified before the U.S. Congress in 2005 regarding alleged profiteering from the U.N. Oil for Food program, telling the media upon his arrival in Washington D.C., "I have no expectation of justice from a group of Christian fundamentalist and Zionist activists."
Please refer to this ancient entry for proof of just how long ordinary citizens like me have had to bear witness to this nogoodnik.
Galloway became the leader of a political party called Respect, after Labour had ejected him from its ranks, that originally took the Socialist Workers Party under its wing. In 2007, even the SWP couldn't handle being aligned with Galloway anymore and re-asserted its independence from Respect.
(Curiously, Galloway has not endorsed the Scottish National Party. Indeed, he encouraged a "no" vote on Scottish Independence last September and said that the SNP represents "the politics of grudge". This is perhaps the only matter on which I agree, or could possibly ever agree, with Galloway.)
Having already engaged in an extremely dirty campaign against Oona King in 2004 for an East London MP seat, in which he attacked her Jewish heritage and support for the Iraq War, the so-called Respect candidate authored what has probably been the most vicious, smear-laden campaigns in modern history against Labour's candidate, Naz Shah.
During the campaign, Shah had been very honest and open about her experience with forced marriage. As such, Shah was recognized as the candidate who would address the concerns of and give voice to the Muslim women in Bradford West—a constituency that has a majority of Muslim voters. (Bradford is a city in North Yorkshire.) Galloway, however, attacked her claims to have suffered at the hands of the community she grew up in, with he and Respect claiming that she lied in addition to slandering the Muslim community. Shah countered with, "I don’t want anybody to experience what I went through. I think that was a travesty."
Galloway, in all-too-typical far-Left style, has promised a legal battle to try to get the Bradford West results overturned. For a man who claims "Respect", he and his foul party have absolutely no idea what the word means. See the connection to Obama yet? This clown and the Prez are ideological soulmates. Galloway cannot stand to lose and wants to destroy a woman that dared to run against him and yet claims to respect democracy. Obama cannot stand to lose, either in the States or in Israel, which explains his utter contempt for both Americans and Israelis, yet asks everybody else to "search their souls". Could these men possibly be any more alike? And when are voters finally going to see these self-loving twats for the power-hungry and completely bigoted people they are to the extent where they will not only never be elected to any office anywhere but regarded as a joke if they try?
If a gutless goon like George Galloway wouldn't force someone into conservatism, I don't know who else could. Then again, we know there are plenty of "Hitler-in-the-bunker" moonbats out there who would go down with the ship no matter what. If you told these people to throw their mothers into a gas chamber in the name of workers' rights or Palestine, they would trip over themselves in the rush to collect their family matriarchs for the sacrifice.
My only fear regarding Galloway is that he said he would concentrate on London again if he lost in Bradford. He would vie for the mayorship of Tower Hamlets. Well, why not? It's already run by a cheating, lying, embezzling, tyrannical son-of-a-bitch by the name of Lutfur Rahman. What's another cheater, liar, embezzler and wanna-be dictator? The people of Tower Hamlets are probably used to that by now. He'd fit that community like a hand to a glove.
But Galloway won't leave Bradford without a fight.
See how extreme liberals act? Those on the Right step down and quietly leave if they lose an election, like Nigel Farage of UKIP. Galloway, just like Obama, just like Al Gore, just like Martha Coakley (in Massachusetts) and others too numerous to name, has to contest every single number. Don't you love when their attempts to rig the system in their favor fail? When they lose, they claim that they're demanding a recount and launching legal action against possible voter fraud in the name of democracy. Doesn't matter to them if voter fraud gets them into office. Funny how that works, isn't it?
Naz Shah, in turn, is considering legal action against Galloway. "It [the demand for a recount] is a pathetic attempt from someone who doesn't accept defeat. I have got a job to do. I need to work for the people of Bradford. I fought him on policy and as far as I'm concerned my work can speak for itself. I'll let the Labour party deal with that," Shah said.
Good for her. Shah may be a liberal herself, but she's a damn sight better than the fedora-wearing fruitcake (believe me, there are at least two other f-words I'm struggling to keep from calling this spineless twerp) she defeated.
Galloway has twice before been attacked in public. Most recently, in September, in Notting Hill, London where he was set upon by another man. Journalist Peter Oborne asked, "why the silence" over the attack? Because, Peter, no-one wanted to go down on record as having stuck up for this obsequious, spiteful, hypocritical mess of a man. So Galloway had his jaw broken. Boo-hoo. Let me call the waaa-mbulance.
In 2009, Galloway was taunted on a plane to Glasgow by a group of six men and then knocked down onto a luggage carousel in the airport's baggage collection area.
For anyone who thinks either incident is out-of-line, he didn't have a gun turned on him nor was he threatened with being blown up. Nor even beheaded which I gather is how this radical Islamist-admiring cunt would deal with his detractors if only he could. With free speech comes responsibility.
So, George, that's what you get for wishing to declare Bradford "an Israeli-free zone." If you talk the talk, be prepared to walk the walk. Alas, I forget, you're above that though, aren't you, precious petal?
The fall-out from the cartoon contest in Garland, Texas has gone pretty much in the direction that I thought it would. That is to say, Blame Pamela Geller, blame the artists, blame the event organizers, even blame the Curtis Culwell Center for letting out space to them.
How is it that blaming the victim in America is for the most part forbidden, but when the victim of a crime dared to criticize "the religion of peace", then the victim is to blame? We're all about coddling the victim in this country, except when they dare to engage in an activity that is politically incorrect.
If neo-Nazis entered a New Black Panther meeting with guns blazing, we'd never hear the end of it. Race relations just rolled back 100 years, victimhood, racism, victimhood, slavery, victimhood, let even more illegals into the country to counter the white population, victimhood ...
Jihadists try to commit a massacre at an art exhibition and nearly everybody bends over backwards to try to understand and accommodate the criminals' point-of-view. What has happened to us? When the fuck did we become such milquetoasts?
We knew what to expect from the folks at MSNBC and CNN. For instance, Chris Cuomo, who believes our rights come from man and are not God-given, opined that "hate speech is excluded from protection. Don't just say you love the Constitution, read it." I wasn't aware that Cuomo is a scholar on the Constitution, a lawyer or a judge, but my understanding is that the Supreme Court ruled in 1942, in Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire, that libel or "fighting words" which tempt others to act against a certain group of people (i.e. "Kill Italians", "Kill Poles", etc.) is outside the limits of free speech. But there is nothing in Geller's actions that constituted "fighting words," except in the minds of radical Muslims and their mushhead defenders.
Those who supposedly ought to know better, such as the commentators on FOX News, have been offering disappointing editorializing, to say the least.
Megyn Kelly, who I had dismissed as an airhead after she challenged Rudy Guiliani for daring to question President Obama's love for America, has redeemed herself. She is the precious rare anchor at the Roger Ailes-owned network brave enough to stick up for free speech. Kelly said on-air, "Over the last seventy-two hours, we have heard the event organizers condemned as being too provocative, too stupid, even for inviting their own attempted murder. If this is where American sentiment stands on this issue, then the jihadis are officially winning."
Sean Hannity, during an exchange with the vile and truly contemptible British Muslim activist Anjem Choudary, stuck up for Pamela Geller and her right to free speech as well.
But Greta Van Susteren said, "It's one thing for someone to stand up for the First Amendment and put his own you-know-what on the line, but here, those insisting they were defending the First Amendment were knowingly putting officers' lives on the line—the police. My message is simple—protect our police. Do not recklessly lure them into danger and that is what happened in Garland, Texas at the Muhammad cartoon contest."
Firstly, they shoot to kill in Texas, God bless 'em, so there was minimal danger given the level of security present at the Curtis Culwell Center. Secondly, it's the police's duty to protect and serve. If they can supervise hundreds of spoiled brats in the middle of the street shouting "hands up, don't shoot," then they can supervise a controversial art exhibition.
Then, we have Bill O'Reilly. What O'Reilly had to say regarding the riot in Baltimore was truth-telling at its finest:
The litany of excuse-making is excruciating. The rioters are angry because America is a country of mass incarceration. People who burn down buildings and loot are just misdirected folks who feel hopeless. And if you feel hopeless, it's okay to riot.
You see, it's not really the fault of those who commit crimes, it's the fault of America because we don't provide jobs for everyone. Instead of pinpointing the problem and then trying to solve it, you get insane theories that attempt to provide justification for Americans hurting other Americans. If you can't make big money, go ahead and sell heroin. No problem.
Here's the truth: How can anyone provide a job that pays a decent salary to somebody who can barely read or write? To somebody who cannot speak English? To somebody who has tattoos all over their body, who is defiant, who is disrespectful and who doesn't even want to work because they have a sense of entitlement that says they are victims, 'You owe me.'
Does that sound like a good job-seeking resume?
And don't tell me those folks don't exist. They are legion.
But on the issue of free speech, O'Reilly has lost it. Donald Trump had joined the crowd asking "why?" regarding Pamela Geller: "What is she doing with drawing Mohammed? It looks like she's actually taunting people. You know, I'm one that believes in free speech probably more than she does. But what is the purpose of this?"
To this, O'Reilly responded:
Mr. Trump is correct. By setting up a contest and awarding $10,000 for a depiction of the Prophet Mohammed, the American Freedom Defense Initiative spurred a violent incident. That wasn’t smart, even though the group has its supporters.
Now the group that did the insulting says it’s entitled to profane Mohammed because in the Islamic religion any kind of depiction of him is a sin. They say they can do that in America because of freedom of speech. Well that’s true. They have the right to do it here. But again, it’s stupid. It accomplishes nothing.
Insulting a religion with more than a billion followers world wide does not advance the cost of defeating the fanatical jihadists. It hurts the cause, does it not?
Still trust Greta Van Susteren, Donald Trump or Bill O'Reilly to stick up for your First Amendment rights? I thought not.
Counter that weak appeasement with what Jeff Kuhner on his May 7 WRKO radio show said: "To everybody in the media who have backed away from Pamela Geller, shame on you. Not only do I stand with Pamela Geller, but I am going to get her on this show. And to the radical Islamists out there, you want to come for me? Bring it on, you cowards. Put that in your Koran and smoke it!"
You see, this is how an American patriot, one who is not afraid of and will not kowtow to the jihadists and their liberal bedfellows, talks. Well done, Jeff Kuhner.
Pamela Geller is an American hero. She brought these jihadists out of the woodwork and exposed the Islamic terrorist threat in America for what it is. She deserves our praise and admiration and protection, not our condemnation.
As for you, Roger Ailes, you establishment pussy? Do us all a favor and have an aneurysm or a stroke or something. Then maybe the FOX News network can actually be the conservative alternative it claims to be once your pantywaisted ass is gone.
Citizens of Albion are currently voting in the British General Election today and the results will trickle in tonight. By tomorrow morning, if not sooner, we will know who the leader of the United Kingdom is. Will the election usher in fresh blood in Labour's Ed Miliband? (I'm sorry, but I'm inclined to vote against this guy given the fact that his last name is no visual treat. That 'ili' is ugly to look at.) Or will the population stick with the devil we know in David Cameron?
You have to remember that for the past five years, the U.K. has been led by a coalition government. If the present government seemed to be not as conservative in its governance that some would have preferred, it's because they shared power with the left-wing Liberal Democrats who, in many ways, are the "lite" version of Labour. Nick Clegg is a likeable, intelligent man, but he is also an idealist and he has been our Deputy Prime Minister since 2010.
It is entirely possible that the Conservatives could share a coalition with Labour, given that the two are, according to polls, neck-and-neck. If so, not much would change. If the Conservatives get a strong majority, then they alone would occupy the seat of power in Parliament.
David Cameron, in some respects, rubs off as unctious and always has. But he is, at the same time, a smart, shrewd leader who does have the British people's backs with regard to the economy and the terrorist threat. One of the best policies the Conservatives enacted during their current tenure was the removal of "squatters' rights". It is much easier to get rid of human pests that lock you out of your own home or who are occupying a building they have no right to occupy than it used to be.
Chancellor George Osborne's Budgets, though retaining the curious and inane Air Passenger Duty which even he has admitted is a fraud, has consistenly lowered the tax threshold for middle-class families.
A look at the Conservative manifesto for 2015 demonstrates a desire for lower taxes for the middle class, an abolition of taxes for minimum wage workers, a commitment to develop on brownfields rather than the Green Belts (nature reserves that surround British cities), a guaranteed £8 billion in funding for the NHS, and a 1 percent rise in equipment spending for defense.
No government will grant you everything you want, especially when power is shared with another party. But the Conservative manifesto is a good start. This government hasn't been as satisfying as I'd have hoped for, but I believe it deserves a second chance.
The Nightdragon endorses David Cameron for Prime Minister of the U.K. and The Conservatives for a majority in the House of Commons.
Since the attack by two Muslim men on the "Mohammed cartoon" art contest in Garland, Texas earlier this week, pundits and other media types have, instead of siding with Pamela Geller's freedom of expression, been asking, "Why did she have to provoke Muslims? Does she not have anything better to do? She and her group got what was coming to them."
On Sunday, May 3, two gunmen strode up to the arena where the contest took place and shot a security guard in the ankle before both being shot dead by other members of the sizeable security force present at the event. Geller knew better than to leave herself or her guests vulnerable. Of course, in Texas, they don't mess around. If this event had taken place in a blue state such as Maryland, Massachusetts or Washington where they're proud to ban guns, there would have been a massacre.
With regard to Geller and her motives, let me spell it out for you. It's really quite simple:
See, in the U.S. we (still) have something known as the First Amendment. It protects freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of expression. It grants a platform to those with a voice and penchant to use it. End of. Again, this is the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Not the fifth, not the eighth, not the fourteenth. Numero uno.
If you value freedom, then you should not concern yourself with why Pamela Geller held this contest. Instead, you should be concerned with those that want to silence her, those that want to declare freedom of expression illegal if it offends those of a certain religion, those that want to kill others over what they perceive as an offence.
If Pamela Geller wants to invite the anti-Islam Dutch politician Geert Wilders over to help host a contest in which participants draw the prophet Mohammed, then she has the right. I don't want to hear about why she did it. That does not matter to me and, furthermore, it is irrelevant. She has the right, that's why, and that's all there is to it.
When that limp-wrist of an artist Andres Serrano stuck a crucifix in a vial of urine and called it "Piss Christ," all the academics, media and other assorted frappuccino-drinkers loved it. Of course, these people would attend the opening of an empty envelope if you told them they were good, tolerant people for doing so. If some radical Palestinian farmer had a cow in a field and charged people for watching it produce cow patties, then the wine-and-cheese crowd would make him a very rich man indeed. He could buy a keffiyeh for every day of the year while no doubt donating 15 percent of his earnings to Hamas. And the liberals would be saying that we need more immigrants like him.
Alas, I digress ... Serrano is a rude little man and I was personally offended by his work. However, the point is, me being offended doesn't amount to a hill of beans compared to Serrano's right to produce and offer to the public whatever he wants. The First Amendment protects the right to all forms and matter of speech. It's easy to protect speech you agree with; it's the neo-Nazis, to use a familiar example, that make you question your loyalty to such lofty free market of thought ideals. But in the end, you must give the neo-Nazis, the Westboro Baptist Church, hunting enthusiasts and other assorted toothless inbreds their day in the sun. If they apply for a permit, they have a right to march or protest.
The liberal elite wants to declare rioters, looters and arsonists "protestors" while ignoring the fact that their violence is spontaneous and that they never bothered to get the city's permission to demonstrate. Yet, we hear all the time about how it's all about protecting their First Amendment right, even though the amendment does not in any way sanction illicit and destructive protest. No, see, what the loonies of Black Lives Matter and other cowards engage in is what we used to call "disturbing the peace". Show me where in the First Amendment that is granted as a right to American citizens.
Peaceful, private expressions of thought and ideas, such as the cartoon contest in Garland, is what we have all have a right to. If someone is offended, then they are free to make whatever counterpoint they desire within the limits of the law. If anyone had told Andres Serrano that he was not allowed to produce his "art," then I would be among the first to rise up and say, "why not?" I woud have his back, though I find what he wants to peddle absolutely repugnant.
I would think that, regardless of how they feel about her stance toward Islam, Obama-bot Lefties who think rioters should be given space to destroy, as Balitmore mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake put it, would defend Geller. But no, of course not. She is an uppity Jew who dares to mock the "religion of peace". We must therefore question her right to express her views—and anyone else who dares to think that we reserve the right to offend someone with pointed critiques of any religion.
Shame on anyone who thinks this way.
