skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Remember last autumn, mes amis, when "Syrian migrants" began their takeover of footsore march into Europe? Do you recall how we were told by everyone from Angela Merkel to Pope Francis that we had a duty to accept them into our communities? Does it ring in your memory the pleadings of Bob Geldof, Richard Branson and Benedict Cumberbatch to take a war-weary refugee family into your home so the warmth and good tidings of Britain could be shared amongst all?
Well, gee willikers, get a load of this story. Apparently, these poor battle-scorn babes-in-the-woods have been terrorizing their host families. A foster carer was attacked by a 16-year-old Afghan—my understanding of geography tells me Afghanistan is quite some way from Syria—who was posing as twelve. In another case, a teenager sexually assaulted another foster carer.
Tory MP David Davies cited an ever-growing report on dangerous refugee "children," noting that "one asylum seeker was even looking at jihadi websites and child abuse images".
Ah, these asylum seekers. They're just barrels of fun, are they not? The British offload by getting blind drunk and getting into fights with wheelie bins and traffic bollards. The refugees rape women and get involved with child porn and white slavery, all the while planning jihad against the host infidels. It's just a different culture, don'tcha know. Who are we to criticize?
According to the article:
According to official guidelines, authorities should only treat an individual as an adult if two officials think they look "significantly" over 18 and there is "clear and credible documentary evidence".
So that's alright, then. Yea!
There is "clear and credible documentary evidence" that this whole asylum-seeker/refugee program is a farce and that it needs to be ended ASAP. Perhaps if Prime Minister David Cameron had a pair, he'd have told Europe that the migrants were their problem and that Britain was under no duty to take any in. We have enough trouble with the "Jungle" in Calais to invite any more of this. But, no, Cameron busies himself with saving face with Europe instead and wanting to be "good". If you can prove to me that Cameron is an Edmund Burke-style conservative, I'll sashay around Soho at midnight on a Saturday in a ballerina's tutu.
Oh wait, I might be sexually assaulted by a migrant. Perhaps not.
President Obama's favorite outreach organization, Black Lives Matter (Only When White People Are Involved), cannot stop spreading the love.
A group of thugs, who by their own admission identify with the movement, intimidated an Iraq War veteran, Chris Marquez, while he was eating at a Washington, D.C. McDonald's establishment.
The rowdy gang asked Marquez if "black lives matter". Marquez did not respond and concentrated on finishing up his meal.
Marquez said: "I felt threatened and thought they were trying to intimidate me, so I figured I'm just going to keep to my food, eat my food and hopefully they'll leave me alone. And because I wasn't responding back to them, they were calling me a racist."
Upon leaving the restaurant, Marquez was set upon and beaten up by the group of three young men and one woman. All of the suspects in the beating are black. After pummeling Marquez to the ground, the gang robbed him of his wallet.
"As soon as I walked out of the McDonald's, I got hit in the back of the head, or the side of the head. I just dropped to the ground," Marquez reported. "My head really hurts. I get this sharp pain, straight down my face, and I haven't really slept too well at all since it happened. Kinda brought back memories of the war and stuff."
Marquez, a decorated Marine, is Hispanic. Police who have filed the report have said they are not pursuing the incident as a hate crime.
So there you have it. If you're black or Muslim or an illegal alien, the Obama administration, led by the Department of Just-us and Attorney General Loretta Lynch—and what an apropos last name she has—will crucify the perpetrator, even if all he/she did was raise an alarm over suspicious behavior, and we subsequently will hear about the incident for weeks. Lynch will tell you that you have the right to free speech, but in fact not really, and Obama will be the very essence of Presidential by reminding Americans for the umpteenth time that we bitter clingers have racism in our DNA.
If you are a legal Hispanic that served his country, however, you have clearly made up your mind to side with the problematic elements of American society, the ones that do actual work instead of community disorganizing and full-time rent-a-mob protesting, the ones who give back to society and not the takers and the shirkers. In other words, you're a racist, homophobic, misogynistic, transgressive, microagressive bastard and you deserved it, and Donald Trump would probably like you (and you probably like Trump). So, no hate crime legislation for you. If you sneaked across the border and shot some innocent American civilian, then you will be classified as a victim of a system that didn't embrace you. Too bad you're the wrong kind of Hispanic.
Just remember, Black Lives Matter (Only When White People Are Involved), the same people who burned down Ferguson and inner-city Baltimore, who advocate the killing of cops (not necessarily white ones) and who rapturously claim, as one King Noble did, that "it's open season on killing white people and crackers," will always have the President's sympathies.
On that note, I would like to reference the incident with Fairborn, Ohio police officer Lee Cyr who called the suicide of BLM (OWWPAI) activist MarShawn McCarrel a "happy ending."
The cop responded to a story on Facebook regarding 23-year-old McCarrel who shot himself in front of the Ohio State House. Cyr wrote, "Love a happy ending".
Of course, as could be predicted, Cyr has been placed on administrative leave while the police department investigates whether or not the officer violated the department's social media policy. Cyr was off-duty when he wrote the comment.
People are calling Cyr's comments, along with others who ventured "one less to worry about" and "now if only all black lifes (sic) matter members would follow suit that would be great," cruel and hateful.
I have no desire to be politically correct here, and, rest assured, I won't be. I don't agree with Officer Cyr, but his and other comments were born out of sheer frustration and from having had more than enough of these activists' lies, hypocrisy and dangerous propaganda. And though I do not condone suicide, I absolutely wish that other BLM (OWWPAI) activists and "community organizers" wake up one day to the fact that they are pathetic, parasitic, completely unemployable and unfit to exist in society given their separatist desires. Then they'll realize that it's time to stop wearing diapers, get a job and be grateful to the country that affords them a good lifestyle and rewards hard work.
Maybe there's hope for some of these young people. We can only pray for them.
Imagine, dear reader, if—to borrow this scenario from Michael Savage—Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was found dead at a remote ranch under very suspicious circumstances.
What if Ginsburg:
- Was considered healthy at the time of her trip to the lodge and had the trip OK'd by doctors who declared her fit enough for the excursion
- Had not stated any intent to retire soon
- Was found with a pillow over her head
- Was wearing pyjamas that were unwrinkled
And what if:
- The ranch owner, who found her and reported her death, was a conservative, a Republican donor and someone who had been honored by George W. Bush
- The county judge declared her death by telephone and did not order an autopsy
- Ginsburg's bodily fluids were disposed of by the funeral home
- There was an expressed desire by Ginsburg's family to not have an autopsy and to cremate her corpse
- Ginsburg was elemental in a recent Supreme Court decision that set back a Republican President's agenda
- The President did not attend her funeral and was far too keen to offer a nominee for the Court to take her place
Now imagine liberals, progressives and socialists nationwide—more than certainly in the media—stating, "Hold on, we cannot say that Justice Ginsburg's death was in any way connected to the President or his administration. Let's not indulge conspiracy theories." Does that sound likely? No, I don't think so either.
The media and the liberal cognoscenti would hardly be likely to posit, "Oh well, she had been battling cancer for nearly twenty years. We guess she lost the fight." Instead, "Demand An Autopsy" fever would be gripping the nation.
It was, in fact, conservative, constitutionalist, 79-year-old Judge Antonin Scalia who was found dead. Scalia had just voted to stall implementation of President Obama's Clean Power Plan which would have unleashed the full force of the EPA on the electricity sector. He was in a remote location. His host, Cibolo Creek ranch owner John Poindexter, had been honored by Obama. His family claim to have not requested an autopsy. Why? What kind of close family relatives do not wish to know the full details involving the death of one of their own?
Also, did county judge Cinderela Guevara not order an autopsy based on the family's alleged desire or was this an independent decision on her part? She did rule that an autopsy was not necessary without seeing Scalia's corpse.
So, no autopsy necessary for a Supreme Court judge. Do you think the same policy would apply to illegal aliens, who have not served the country in any way conceivable? Somehow I think they would unconditionally merit one.
One thing you need to know about Cinderela Guevara is that she appears to decree as she sees fit. In 2013, she ruled a recently married woman's death a suicide. The woman in question, one Melaney Parker Rayburn, had been run over by a Union Pacific Railroad train, yet a representative for Union Pacific told investigators that it appeared her body had been laid over the tracks while she was unconscious. Guevara did not order either a sexual assault evidence kit or an autopsy simply because a doctor told her that the cause of death was obvious.
I do not accept Guevara's recent declaration that Scalia died of a heart attack. Is that also "obvious" to her? Again, she has not even seen the body, yet she is fully prepared to pronounce a cause of death and that there is no evidence of foul play. The people of Presidio County, Texas either have a moron or someone with an agenda in charge. That's something that fits the definition of obvious.
Here's something this genius may have thought to consider. If Scalia's death was caused by a heart attack, is it possible that a drug that induces cardiac arrest but leaves behind no metabolites had been administered to him? Judge Cinderela could not even pronounce "myocardial infarction" at a press conference last week.
Guevara has said that the official death certificate for Scalia will be permanently filed in Presidio County. Guevara told local media,"After I did my job, yes, I kept playing it over and over in my mind and thought, 'Oh my God. History is being made in Presidio County'." An important man is dead and all this judge can concentrate on is the death certificate of a member of the Supreme Court being filed in her county. History will also show that Presidio County, under her jurisdiction, did not properly investigate the death.
It is clear that justice will not be done for Antonin Scalia. The media, or what passes for it, will not allow it. The President does not even attend Scalia's funeral while telling all and sundry that the Senate must consider any nominee he chooses, while the Senate does not have a duty to entertain a lame-duck President's wishes. Chuck Schumer himself told us that when, in 2007, he called upon the Senate to block all Bush SCOTUS nominees. Schumer's reasoning was sound as the precedent for rejecting Supreme Court nominees during a President's final year in office is evidenced throughout the country's history.
Alas, now he tells us that it doesn't matter what anyone said in the past regarding the issue. That man is a slimeball.
I will refrain from pointing fingers at anyone. But I will be damned if I'll be told that regarding Scalia's death to be a suspicious one is harboring a conspiracy theory. The evidence of a cover-up—from the county judge refusing an autopsy, the media declaring nothing to see here, folks, move along and President Barry ceaselessly making the case that we are duty-bound to consider His Highness's "qualified" SCOTUS pick—is just too overwhelming. My advice to judges Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito is, watch your back, fellas.
As Savage recently said on his show The Savage Nation, it's possible to understand, in light of this, why Judge Roberts voted that Obamacare was constitutional. The administration showed a pillow to him hours before the Court's decision on that issue.
I could be wrong. But with no autopsy, the flushing away of Scalia's bodily fluids, and the plan to cremate him despite the fact that this form of corpse disposal is not favored by devout Catholics, as Scalia was and his family are, we shall never know.
"It's something I'll never forget," Guevara said of Scalia's passing.
Nor will the rest of us, Cinderela.
Now then, mes amis, imagine you are Norwegian, Danish, Swedish or Finnish. You would be regarded as Scandinavian. You could also be called Nordic. You are the descendants of a proud warrior class known to history as the Vikings. They didn't suffer fools gladly nor take any BS.
Consider the following from an article in The Financial Times entitled "Have the Nordics turned nasty?"
Danish moves to confiscate asylum seekers' cash and jewelry; Norwegian officials deporting migrants over a freezing Arctic border; mobs of Swedish vigilantes pursuing immigrants. Have the Nordics turned nasty?
Examples of unexpectedly harsh Nordic policies in recent years are many. Norway introduced local begging bans two years ago to great international consternation. Both Denmark and Norway have taken out adverts in newspapers in Afghanistan and the Middle East to warn off would-be asylum seekers.
And Sweden may have provided one of the more poignant images of the region's internal conflict over the refugee crisis when its deputy prime minister broke down in tears at her own government's hardening of its immigration policy.
So if you question your nation's ability to absorb hundreds of thousands of "asylum seekers" culturally, your country's capacity to put them on the dole which was meant to sustain the native population, including the ageing population that was already putting a strain on the welfare system, and police inaction regarding crimes committed by the newcomers, including—gee whiz—rape of your women, you, as a Nordic, are "nasty".
These days, the contemporary products of Viking society are being led, as Michael Savage put it, by "ninnies and sissies". A ruling class that has already thrown in the towel due to an aching desire to be regarded as good. Or, you know, not nasty.
According to The Financial Times article, a former "Nordic" minister was quoted as saying, "The Nordics are not nasty, not at all. But I am deeply worried about the direction we are heading in." In other words, there aren't enough mosques in Scandinavia yet. Total capitulation has not quite been realized. Deeply worrying, indeed.
Nobody on the Left seems to have realized that it is the Scandinavians—as well as the Germans—who have pushed recycling and urged responsible use of nuclear power, preferring "clean" energy sources, as well as deliberately limiting their population growth. Does anyone seriously believe that a country overrun with Syrian "asylum seekers", meaning Iraqis, Afghans, Libyans and other undesirables, will place such an emphasis on environmentalism as the blue-eyed devil Nordics?
Maybe Scandinavians have come to understand the threat to their liberal policies? Perhaps they've comprehended the fact that a liberal society cannot have it both ways, that they must protect what they value, even if it means turning these oh-so-pitiable migrants out into the cold—which literally happened when Norwegian authorities turned back migrants on bicycles who tried to enter the country from its border with Russia.
Jimmie Akesson, leader of the Right-wing populist Sweden Democrats, said, "For us, mass immigration and welfare are opposites. You can't have both." A very astute observation.
Sweden, a country that has classically been concerned about its image as a beacon of humanitarian principles, has responded to the uproar caused by the 160,000 migrants that have taken up residence there in this past year alone as it has instituted tougher immigration policies. Nevertheless, vigilantes have been beating up Middle Eastern-looking foreigners in Stockholm, but have to have their faces covered by masks and hoods because the police would arrest them if they were identified. Does this nix the Swedish capital's status as civilized?
A European ambassador in Scandinavia, according to the FT piece, said, "Some people have long had this Utopian view of the Nordics and I think these recent events show that these countries have problems, just like all of us."
These are problems that everyone should understand. But when Denmark dares to collect cash and jewelry from asylum seekers, the Danes are compared to Nazis. Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen has called the legislation "the most misunderstood". He has been backed up in this regard by fellow Danish politician Morten Messerschmidt who noted that, "If you arrive with more than about €1,000 it is only reasonable that you pay your way in order to get generous benefits."
Luckily for Finland, which took on 32,500 migrants last year and is experiencing economic troubles, thousands of Iraqi migrants have voluntarily cancelled their bids for asylum and have returned where they belong.
Alas, it is not only the Nordics who have been examined as lacking in compassion. Consider the following article, from The Guardian, entitled "Foreign-born fascists radicalise UK far-Right movement". The piece analyzes the presence of Polish neo-fascists in anti-immigrant groups like PEGIDA UK. Noting that the "national rebirth" Narodowe Odrodzenie Polski organization operates as Zjednoczeni Emigranci Londyn (United Emigrants of London), the article states that the group attacked a north London music festival. Ukrainian and Italian influences are also mentioned.
I thought we were not supposed to discriminate against foreigners? Apparently, according to the highbrows at The Guardian, it's fine to be foreign if you're a "Syrian migrant" or "asylum seeker" from some third-world hellhole—but if you're a Pole, Ukrainian or Italian, you might be participating in groups that wish to cease the movements of these rapist ingrates into the country. Yet the same newspaper previously detailed the struggles of the Polish community in Britain.
The larger point is that once a sea of swarthy-looking humanity starting licking the shores of Europe, eastern European immigrants could take a hike. Who needs them anymore when we've got darker hungry mouths, caused by Hilary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, to feed? Why do we have to put up with the staunch, backwards Catholicism that the Polacks and other bohunks embrace when we can steadily increase the presence of adherents to "the religion of peace" instead?
Right, moonbats? Am I right?
