skip to main |
skip to sidebar
By now, most of America and perhaps the world has heard the news from Massachusetts in which a juvenile court judge declared 18-year-old Michelle Carter guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the death of her putative boyfriend, 19-year-old Conrad Roy. Carter was found to have urged Roy to commit suicide, which he did through carbon monoxide poisoning by sitting in his idling truck, through a barrage of texts imploring him to do so.
Some have called the ruling a miscarriage of justice. Some have said the case is one in which the letter of the First Amendment has been imperiled.
We're imperiling the First Amendment by stipulating that people, especially young adults, have no idea how to properly use the communication technology to which they've been entrusted? Honestly? I'm hardly a legal scholar, however my understanding is that the First Amendment does not provide cover for language that incites violence or encourages people to commit illegal or dangerous acts.
It was reported in early February that since January 20, over 12,000 postings on social media have called for the assassination of President Trump. Are any of those covered by the right to speech and expression, despite the fact that it's, you know, illegal to kill the President? Is opining that somebody out there must "take one for the team" by whacking Mr. Trump incitement to violence and illegality or is it not? It would appear pretty clear-cut to anyone with even a wet brain.
Now then, if telling someone to "be a man" and kill himself is not encouraging an illegal or dangerous act, then I would love to know what it is. When a mob boss orders a hit on someone, is he not complicit in that person's death, even though he would not be anywhere near the death scene?
The Massachusetts Juvenile Court has the chance, now that a guilty verdict on the charge of manslaughter has been handed down by the presiding judge, to put an obvious psychopath in the clink where she belongs for two decades and we have geniuses decrying it on the basis of some very dubious interpretation of freedom of speech protections. Incredible.
This is like giving a loaded firearm to a severely mentally unstable individual and, after the predictable carnage is unleashed, saying, Well, gee, I didn't expect that he would actually use it. How could you expect me to have known that? (On that note, would we "imperil" the letter of the Second Amendment by denying said firearm to said irrational person?)
I do agree with Jazz Shaw, in his Hot Air website piece, when he writes:
If someone on Twitter tells you to DIAF ('die in a fire' which I've been guilty of tweeting a couple of times) they might be accused of being a shockingly rude or offensive boor. But if you are actually unstable or self-destructive enough to turn around and self-immolate then you had some serious, unresolved issues long before the offensive tweeter came up on your radar.
Fair enough, Jazz. But Carter's harassment and admonishment of Roy concerning the issue of his suicide, before he was successful at it, was relentless. This was no one, fleeting moment of distemper, for which one may wake up the next day and feel foolish. This was determined, deliberate encouragement of a man who was on the edge in terms of his stated desire to die.
If Carter had not told Roy to go back into the truck after he initially admitted to being scared and determining that he actually wanted to live, that would be different. That's the thing that seals the deal for me beyond any shadow of doubt. If she had seen the sense in letting it go when Roy admitted his fright, there would have been no possibility of a manslaughter charge against her. Roy was profoundly depressed, but as it turns out, not suicidal after all. By badgering him to get back inside the vehicle on the grounds that he was a coward if he did not, Carter made her intentions all too clear. She was adamant that he die.
With her vile texts, Carter deliberately manipulated his thoughts and encouraged him to go against his own instincts. That's exactly why I don't buy the argument that Roy was his own moral arbiter. That's grade A bullshit. Here we go again, as a society not being able or willing to understand depressive mental illness. So young Mr. Roy just needed to pull himself up by his bootstraps and stand up to her, eh?
Were any of the people arguing against Carter's possible incarceration once nineteen years old themselves, or did they just spring from the earth as fully functional over-25s? Have they never experienced the concept of an awkward adolescent young man being completely under the spell of a good-looking woman, either themselves or through their sons' interactions? Young girls too can be just as easily manipulated by handsome but callous young men, so it slices both ways. Forgive me, dear reader, I know I'm headed into the weeds here, but I had to point that out, because I believe it strengthens the case for both Roy's actions and Carter as a major contributing factor in them.
Massive props to talk-show host Chris Salcedo who was good enough to take the time to debate me via e-mail on the merits of the case. Salcedo pointed out to me, "There is no law, that I know of, that makes suicide illegal. Further, I don't know of any law that make it illegal for a person to text words or say words that encourages suicide. Because of this ruling, an idiot who is watching a guy threaten to jump off a tall building and yelling 'JUMP!' is punishable."
When I told Mr. Salcedo that I understood that we can't legislate morality, he replied, "Actually it's simpler than that. There is no law that holds people accountable for texting encouragement for suicide. If there was, then I'd be ok with the sentence."
I maintain that there must be a price to be paid for on-line behavior that goes too far. I do not want the government sticking its big, fat, odiferous butt in our business; this would be an issue for the judiciary as determined by the Supreme Court. I will never be alright with the rule of law when it stipulates that a person can do what Michelle Carter did and just skip away into the sunset. Not in my world.
This case probably will not set any further legal precedent. Even if it does, however, it will make people realize that there are consequences to what is said and expressed through texts and on the internet, especially social media. Please don't talk to me about the personal responsibility of Conrad Roy, when the issue is the responsibility—or abrogation thereof—of the so-called girlfriend who was absolutely complicit in his death.
Way to go, Alex Jones! One thoroughly corrupt media icon—darling of the swamp—down, scores of others left. But if what Jones has just done to Megyn Kelly is to become the standard by which we judge these self-important nobodies, then the mainstream media has run out of rocks to hide under.
I'm looking forward to hearing the MSM, as Jones abbreviates it, try to explain this one away. But a little backstory before we begin the tale of how Jones completely dismantled Kelly and her nascent but apparently now still-born personal media empire.
Alex Jones is regarded as a far-right conspiracy theorist by many. He maintains that the atrocity of September 11, 2001 was an inside job committed by elements deep within the government to gin up a case for war, not with perpetrator Saudi Arabia but Iraq. He has said that he believes that animal-human hybrids were secretly created thirty years ago. Most infamously, he was alleged to have said that the Sandy Hook elementary school shootings in Newtown, Connecticut were staged by the government to motivate strict gun control measures, though Jones insists that he played devil's advocate to that argument, not that he endorsed it.
The parents involved in the Sandy Hook tragedy were understandably upset and enraged and, as a result of Kelly's interview with Jones, Kelly lost her role as host of an upcoming Sandy Hook Promise charity event.
As Charlie May on Salon.com notes (I read it for research purposes), "[I]t is clear that Kelly is providing Jones with a massive spotlight in her latest ploy for ratings—something she has made a career doing." And how. Ratings, we should note, that are lower than those of repeats of America's Funniest Home Videos and 60 Minutes.
In the teaser for the interview with Jones that is to air tonight (Sunday), Kelly notes that Jones is regarded as "the most paranoid man in America," and asks him if that's true. Jones is featured opining that "authoritarianism knows humanity is awakening, and it's moving against humanity on a planetary scale. The great global battle for the future of our species is being fought right now." Kelly presses him on the anger expressed at him for calling Sandy Hook a false-flag operation designed to push the gun-control agenda, to which Jones replies, "well, they don't get angry at the half-million dead Iraqis from the sanctions." Of course, Jones is heard saying about 9/11 that it was an inside job engineered by criminal elements in the government working with the Saudis to frame Iraq.
Now, say what you will about Jones' thoughts on 9/11, but he has come around with respect to the Newtown shootings. He has stated that he agrees with the families affected by Sandy Hook, the ones who demanded that MSNBC yank the interview, and on his InfoWars website, Jones alleges that Kelly only asked him about the controversy created when what he did was present both sides of the debate and did not look at the full story. "She [Kelly] makes it sound like I'm saying that Sandy Hook didn't happen," Jones balks.
This is not the discussion nor the point of this entry though, dear reader. Think what you will about Alex Jones. Personally, I think he wanders off the ranch a little too often, but that some of the ideas that Jones often stretches out into conspiracy theories are correct. Not about 9/11 nor Sandy Hook, but other things he has discussed with regard to the New World Order. That's neither here nor there. The issue is that Kelly has proven, despite all claims to be her own "reporter," to be your typical duplicitous, egomaniac media whore (yes, I did just say that), and absolutely not to be trusted.
I will repeat, it does not matter what you think about Mr. Jones. Megyn Kelly set him up for what was undoubtedly a political hit job on him. Unfortunately for her, he taped Kelly soothing him with promises that she would not engage in "gotcha" tactics nor attempt to demonize him, that all she wanted was to show another side of Alex Jones, the regular human being that is Alex Jones whenever he is away from his microphone. Good thing that Jones is a paranoid man.
Here is how Kelly kicks off her ploy, almost flirting with Jones in order to secure his agreement to be interviewed.
Kelly: "This [her show] is a news magazine program, across from 60 Minutes, and it's a good opportunity for long-form story telling. You know, it's like, not a three-minute interview, it's in-depth profiles of people. And, at the top of my list for this, was you."
Jones: [Sarcastically:] "So it's like an investigative report into fake news?"
Kelly: [Uneasily] "No. No, what we're doing?"
Jones: [Warily]: "Yeah. Come on."
Kelly: "No, no, no. The reason you are interesting to me is because I followed your custody case, and I think you had a very good point about the way the media was covering it, and for some reason treated you and your family as fair game when they never would have done that to, if you will, a mainstream media figure. I saw a different side of you, in that whole thing. You know, you just became very fascinating to me ... The comments I heard from you during the course of that trial reminded me that you're just like anybody, you're a dad and you go through the same things we go through. I thought that would be an interesting story to tell."
Later in the tape that Jones recorded, we hear Kelly assuring him that there was no reason to think that he would be ambushed as her show is "different." You can trust her, she's not like all the others.
Kelly: "You know, for lack of a better term, I'm trying to create a different kind of program. And it's fine, I'll ask you about some of the controversies, of course, and you'll say whatever you want to say, but it's not going to be some kind of 'gotcha' hit-piece, I promise you that ... I promise you, that is not what this will be. It really will be about, 'who is this guy?' My goal is for your listeners—and the Left, you know, who'll be watching MSNBC—to say, 'wow, that was very interesting.'"
Now that Kelly thinks she has Alex reeled in, especially by citing her network's progressive audience, she pretends to be the reporter he can trust, who not only wants to delve into his own deep human feelings, but that whatever controversies are discussed during the interview will not be aired without him getting to review the content first and consent to airing it.
Kelly: "All I can do is give you my word, and tell you, there's one thing about me: I do what I say I'm going to do. I don't double-cross. So, I promise you when it's over, you'll say, 'absolutely, she did what she said she was gonna do,' and you'll be fine with it. I'm not looking to portray you as some bogeyman or do any kind of a 'gotcha' moment ...
"Of course, I'm going to do a fair interview. I'm still me. You know, I'm not going to go out there and be Barbara Walters. But, you know, you just trust me. I really just want to talk about you, you know, you, [in the context] of broadcast media as opposed to print media. [Watchers] will get to take the measure of the man, away from the studio. I know exactly what you mean, you get behind that anchor desk and there's a rush of adrenaline, and I always used to say that it's like my superhero self when I'm behind the anchor desk. But this is something different altogether, this is your chance to tell people who you are ...
"I always say that I'm a combination of Mike Wallace, Opray Winfrey and Larry the Cable Guy."
Jones: [Laughing] I like Larry the Cable Guy, he's a good guy.
Kelly: "I love him, so that's who you'll get interviewing you. Tee-hee-hee." [Laughs]
You just trust me. I especially love that one. Talk about something that, as Prima Donna Comey would say, can be taken as a direction. That sounds like some Middle Eastern, budding jihadist cab driver, doesn't it? You just trust me. I know where I go. I get you where you want to go, you will be happy. Allahu akh ...! Oh, sorry. Heh heh. You just trust me.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the content of the tape that Jones released in the wake of the interview teaser. In so doing, Jones has proven that Kelly very much did intend to make him appear to be a bogeyman and that she did include content relating to controversies that he was not consulted on beforehand.
In the end, Kelly wanted to go after President Trump through Alex Jones. Because Jones endorsed Trump during his campaign, Mr. Trump returned the favor by appearing on his show several times before winning the Presidency. Kelly, in her Tweet written in response to the Sandy Hook charity dropping her as host, wrote that despite the goal of the interview being "to shine a light, as journalists are supposed to do, on this influential figure," she also opined that "President Trump, by praising and citing him, appearing on his show, and giving him White House press credentials, has helped elevate Jones, to the alarm of many."
Let me parse this: Wink, wink. President Trump is an unstable, mentally ill conspiracy theorist himself.
Megyn Kelly was correct on one point. Alex Jones is not a mainstream sort of guy, and clearly he never will be. He loves him some conspiracy theories a little too much. But he is also a smart man and not one to be messed with. Kelly, and the entire incendiary, seditious, Trump-hating media that she is a part of, have just been served, big-time. And for that, Jones merits our gratitude.
It is war, dear reader. Make no mistake about it. It is a state of war that we find ourselves in.
Radical Islam not only declared war on us many years ago, which we in the West continue to deny because we think that's the superior way to go about it—to just ignore it and hope we ourselves or our loved ones don't get affected by it. Now the radical Left has made only too clear, through their words and their actions, that they seek the elimination of the workers, the contributors, the makers and the givers in society. You know, the "deplorables".
If the Antifa goons and other assorted two-legged trash cannot get at Trump, they will riot, cause unrest, block roads and beat up the President's supporters. And now, stoked by the vicious musings and exhibitions of celebrities and those in the media, they will take out high-ranking members of the Republican party, even though most of the GOP is complicit in the Democrat/Deep State coup against the Trump administration.
Hatred, however, as we have seen time and time again, is indiscriminate.
A Bernie Bro went ballistic and, rifle in hand, started shooting into the Eugene Simpson Stadium Park in Alexandria, Virginia where a congressional charity baseball game practice was in session. Majority House whip Steve Scalise, a Louisiana Republican, was hit while on second base and is currently in critical condition.
The anti-Second Amendment gun-grabbing crowd cannot square with the fact that one of their own had a firearm—because it's just toothless, Right-wing hicks that have them, y'know. Furthermore, the stark reality is that if Scalice had not been at the game—if the 51-year-old had decided he was not well enough to attend—there would have been no armed cops there. In other words, had Mr. Scalice not been on the baseball field, we would very likely have had another Orlando-style massacre nearly a year to the day since the jihadist Omar Mateen took out 49 at the Pulse nightclub.
I tell you, those guns, they just have sinister minds of their own. We can't possibly blame the radical Islamist or the Rachel Madcow-worshiping moonbat for their actions, now can we? Incidentally, I'm still waiting for vehicle and kitchen knives control here in England, but never mind.
Suddenly, there's soul-searching occurring among all the subversive talking heads. Maddow herself vows she and her network will look into the matter, to "see where the evidence leads," and Joe Scarborough is suddenly concerned about the tone of current political rhetoric, conveniently forgetting that he and his consort co-host Mika Brezhinski have done nothing but ratchet up a tirade against President Trump since the day he took office.
The media now desires a "Kumbaya" moment and opines that everyone is to blame. They are asserting that the Left needs to calm down but also, in a tizzy of the moral equivalence that we have thoroughly come to expect from them, alleging that the Right has to chill as well. Can anybody tell me which college campus has erupted, how many buildings or cars have been torched, or people assaulted due to roving gangs of Sean Hannity-following conservatives? Come on, all you know-it-alls on the Left and in the media, tell me who they are.
Every single instance of politically generated violence in the U.S. lately is attributable to the progressives. But it's still somehow President Trump's language that is to blame, don'tcha know. Golly gee. Funny how that works.
All the beautiful, peaceful liberals on social media, meanwhile, offered their predictable justifications for the shooting of Rep. Scalise. Here's a small sampling:
- "If the shooter has a serious health condition then is taking potshots at the GOP house [sic] leadership considered self defense?"
- "If KKK support [sic] Steve scalise [sic] dies, the shooter deserves a holiday, true leadership. Now the trumps, kush & Miller [sic] need to be 'transitioned'."
- "It seems callous to say it out loud, but Republicans are pushing a health care bill that will kill people. As dead as any shooting victim."
Isn't it great how the cheap, fake assertions of Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi with regard to the GOP health care bill, which isn't even a repeal of Obamacare, just the same with a bit of free-market principles sprinkled on like jimmies—and which the Senate hasn't even finished with yet—has these moonbats in a murder-advocating spot of bother? These idiots say nothing about Barry Obama's $70 million dollar book deal, the $5 million mansion he and Michelle now reside at, and his schmoozing of the Wall Street crowd for a $1 billion dollar donation for his own Presidential library, because he was such a caring man of the people and his legacy deserves to be immortalized. Yep, yep.
Don't give me the free speech argument for these freaks. Not only would the First Amendment be under attack if the Coughing Pantsuit had gotten into office, and if they had their way, but freedom of speech and of expression does not cover direct calls for violence, and that is all that the Left has offered going back to the Occupooper and Black Lives Matter (Only When White People are Involved) "movements," stirred up by Saint Obama, and the Antifag domestic terrorists mobilized in response to the legal and Constitutionally sanctioned Trump presidency.
Not that I'm about to let Mr. Trump off the hook, because he had a great chance to respond to this Leftist chaos and upheaval, but instead all we heard from him was some milquetoast RNC-approved screed about how all Americans need to come together—which is impossible because the Alinskyite Left won't allow it—and how hard our congressmen work—which is truly risible, unless Mr. Trump means hard work performed in pursuit of removing him from office through investigations into fake crimes and made-up allegations of foreign "collusion" with which to "steal" the election.
"We can all agree that we are blessed to be Americans. Our children deserve to grow up in nation of safety and peace and that we are strongest when we are unified and when we work together for the common good," Trump said hours after the shooting. So where is the unity in advance of the common good going to come from, Mr. President? Honestly, I'd love to know from which corner of the nation that will materialize, because I sure as hell don't see it.
"We may have our differences, but we do well, in times like these, to remember that everyone who serves in our nation's capital is here because, above all, they love our country," Trump also said in his speech. How he did not throw this ridiculous pablum back at speechwriter Stephen Miller and fire him on the spot is mystifying to me.
To be honest, I can't envision a more useless government body, that isn't even slightly interested in doing its job—the work of the people—than the current Congress. Mind you, I can't possibly imagine why, led as it is by inspirational luminaries such as Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelsoi. And you know that Ryan and McConnell, the majority leaders, really oppose Schumer and Pelosi in their zeal to impeach the President? Right? Anyone?
I've had it with them. The 115th Congress of the United States is a huge embarrassment, nakedly flaunting its corruption and laziness and willingness to protect its graft by allowing investigations into non-wrongdoings by President Trump and the appointment of a partisan special prosecutor. But that doesn't give a warped progressive the right to try to take out any member of the majority party. That is an act of war, and it ought to be regarded as such.
America is at boiling point right now and the first shot of our second civil war has just been fired. I say, the response to the enemy is long overdue and should be met with the fiercest firepower possible. Alas, it's not going to happen. Congress won't fight. The President, if that cringeworthy speech he gave is any indication, won't fight.
How much more of the Left's insidious hatred, pure viciousness and revolutionary Marxist impulses be mainstreamed and tolerated before it is mercilessly beaten back? When will enough really be enough?
As it stands now, The Resistance has no resistance.
Picture a supermarket in the sticks, dear reader. Then imagine that a transient—a.k.a., a bum—keeps wandering in, roaming the aisles and generally disturbing shoppers and staff alike. Would you have him trapped and shot? Of course you wouldn't. Normal people would want to see him removed, but not hurt. No reason to be cruel, right?
Yet, the former example is exactly what happened in Crayford, England, only the living being involved was not a human, but a red fox. The vixen reportedly kept wandering into the store. So pest control was contacted, the lactating mother vulpine trapped and executed, and her cubs left to wander the loading bay area in confusion and to fend for themselves, which they probably won't be able to do. Protests and proposed boycotts of Sainsbury's ensued from the incident, and quite rightly too.
Local Donna Zimmer noted, "I will not be shopping with Sainsbury's again as I am disgusted by the way this store opted to contact pest control to have this fox destroyed rather than contact the various wildlife charities such as the RSPCA or The Fox Project that would have come out to check on the animal's health and would have dealt with this situation very differently."
At the end of the day, however, it'll be swept under the rug, because it's only an animal. And not just any animal, mind you, but one that dares to be successful and thrive in our environment. Therefore, we shouldn't worry about indiscriminately murdering them.
We humans sprang from the deep well of nature ourselves, but we have largely forgotten that or displaced it in our collective memory. A forest that just sits there and looks beautiful, that isn't being used for military exercises, campgrounds or rich people's sex rituals, is always vulnerable to the whims of developers who are only too keen to build yet another cathedral of retail therapy to the planet's gormless naked apes.
Then there's the bloodthirstiness involved in domineering wildlife, such as we do. For instance, I often wonder what we here in Britain think we're achieving by trying to wipe out the grey squirrel, Sciurus carolinensis, in order to "save" the British red squirrel, Sciurus vulgaris. To listen to the sadistic proponents of the native squirrel population, you'd think the grey was "vulgaris".
An army on behalf of the red squirrel has been formed and their aim is to wipe out "the enemy," the American grey squirrels. Never mind that S. carolinensis did not ask to be here. Victorian visitors to North America brought the larger tree rodents back to Britain as "fashionable additions" to estates. The greys found the British climate much to their liking and became successful. So much so that it has been determined that the battle against the grey squirrel has been lost, but that has not deterred the psychopaths of Red Squirrels United, toothless Cumbrian hicks who apparently have nothing better to do but shoot their air rifles at mothering creatures in a land where equalizers dare not be used against humans by civilians, no matter how great the threat.
The problem here is that we're so on guard against the rather natural human instinct to judge and to appraise other humans, which we can no longer due, at least openly, thanks to our Lords Temporal who have burdened us with their political correctness, that we are taking it out on the "lower creatures".
We were under the impression that humans were not allowed to see color or judge by appearances
Image © the BBC
The problem with the reds versus the greys is that the greys outcompete the reds in areas where they clash and that the greys pass the Squirrel Pox Virus onto the reds whose immune systems offer no defense against it. It is noble and good-natured to want to save the red squirrels. It is detestable that killing, either through shooting or poisoning, be the method through which this supposed good-heartedness be expressed.
We can press the issue of native versus non-native. British grey squirrels are a product of their environment stretching back over 140 years. Am I less of a "native" of this land, despite my seventeen years here, my citizenship and my fluency in British English, my accent notwithstanding? I adapted, didn't I? Come 2031, I will have been here for longer than I lived on the other side of the Atlantic. Am I still to be regarded as an "invasive" creature? It only follows, therefore, that we must establish the degree to which a species can be considered native due to its adaptability, correct?
Professor Acorn points out, "the very definition of 'nativeness' used by these organisations is based on political boundaries and associations, rather than by the actual range of species or the birthplace of individuals. To demonstrate how meaningless this is, a polar bear from Alaska would be regarded as 'native' to the Nevada deserts, simply because it is a 'native species' of the USA. This is clearly an absurd definition!"
To wit, one may not like a Yank in their space, but I'm not going anywhere, and neither are the grey squirrels. The numbers of S. carolinensis have grown to over 2.5 million in Great Britain, so the cull being proposed by the red squirrel brigade would never end and represent petty viciousness just for the sake of it.
Red squirrels were not always so adored. Before the greys took over, guess what the attitude to S. vulgaris was? That's right. They were to be abused and driven off. They were not exactly given warm welcome in most residents' gardens. In 1903, the Highland Squirrel Club was formed to do exactly what the Red Squirrel United gang seeks to prevent—a wipeout of S. vulgaris. Should we go after the ancestors of the Highland Squirrel Club rednecks? (In fact, our reds are not native, because they were exterminated and had to be imported back into Britain from Scandinavia!)
The Wildlife Trusts, supposedly there to look after denizens of field and forest, have banded together a group of 5,000 volunteers to "save the red squirrels" by bludgeoning grey squirrels to death. But as the RSPCA's Rob Atkinson noted a few years ago, "Up until the 1970s, you could get a licence to kill red squirrels. So, they were the baddies then. Now it's grey squirrels. There's absolutely no point in doing it." The reason there is no point to it is because loss of habitat and other human activities largely define the decline in the red squirrel population, according to ecologists who have studied the situation and not just taken up clubs and air rifles based on some sick, misplaced and misdirected bout of patriotism. "It's ethically dubious killing one species for the sake of another," Atkinson says.
Can the Wildlife Trusts tell me that they know for sure that the volunteers they have recruited for their indiscriminate, illogical and illiberal cull are not just mindless thugs who enjoy engaging in cruelty?
It's disheartening to see the degree to which we will go after species simply because they affect our comfortability factor. At another supermarket, one we frequent, there were rats in the area. They lived in the bushes and didn't bother anyone. All they did was share the bread that a local resident throws to the pigeons—what "clever" people call "flying rats"—on Saturday mornings. It wasn't long until my wife and I didn't notice their presence anymore. Who were the rats hurting? They were wiped out because they were Rattus norvegicus, no other reason.
We also have the almost complete decimation of zoo creatures in Venezuela, thanks to the people power of socialism that has put the country's human population on the brink of starvation, and the beating up of police horses by the Antifags, er ... Antifa goon squads, so we know where the Left stands on animal rights. Which is, quite demonstrably, to say not at all, because they never offer any condemnation of it. (They'd kick K-9 officers too if only those animals didn't offer the very real possibility of ripping their diseased, worthless guts out.) Bash a squirrel or bash a horse. Gotta have something to crow about on Facebook or Instagram, don't you?
Human beings don't have the best track record in treating each other very equitably, therefore it's no wonder that nature so often suffers by our actions and at our hands. If we are to consider how our actions effect others, to guard against "triggering" our fellow travelers, perhaps we could consider extending that social contract to the creatures among us least able to fight back?
A few quick words on the Paris Climate Change Accord, if I may. This issue is so absurd, based as it is on pure fantasy that seeks to drain the taxpayers while increasing the size and scope of government and making the usual corporate players richer than they already are.
In announcing that the U.S. would pull out of the agreement, President Trump noted that "China would be allowed to build hundreds of additional coal plants ... India will be allowed to double its coal production by 2020 ... Even Europe is allowed to continue construction of coal plants," but that the United States itself absolutely must not burn any coal or further provide the facilities with which to burn it.
We can call this thing an accord, an agreement or a deal, but it is actually a treaty, and it is required by the Constitution under Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 to be confirmed by the Senate. Instead, in typical fashion, Barack Obama, as Mr. Trump pointed out, went around the Senate and through his negotiations gave other countries considerable leeway which America, if it signed, would not have.
The essence of the Trump presidency, according to progressives
Image © by Munguia
But all the big corporations are in favor of the agreement, the Left was quick to point out. Suddenly, liberals are so fond of big business. What happened to them being such nasty, monstrous polluters and cathedrals of greed, as the progressives have been alleging for decades? You can't blame a business, no matter how big, for wanting to pursue profits and stay ahead in the game, but they can pay their "fair share" in taxes, can't they? But it won't be Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook or Sundar Pichai, so I wonder who, aside from energy providers, the "millionaires and billionaires" are that Bernie Sanders and his rag-tag army of supporters want to punish? The New York Times-worshiping crowd wouldn't dream of making life tough for those super-rich, tax-avoiding fat (but hep) cats.
Maybe Jake Tapper, Anderson Cooper, Wolf Blitzer, Megyn Kelly or Don Lemon can enlighten the American people as to why this is? You say a hundred-year-old light bulb shines brighter than the minds of any of these media "stars," dear reader? Gotcha.
Try convincing me that this agreement doesn't have George Soros's fingerprints all over it, as if B. Hussein Obama's smudges weren't enough to thoroughly contaminate it.
If the Paris Climate Change agreement is so wonderful, and their arguments in favor of the U.S. being a participatory member of the deal are so convincing, why didn't the progressives push for it to go through Congress? Why aren't liberals ever comfortable with We the People getting to scrutinize their agenda for ourselves? Instead, the pinkos would rather play the Blame Trump game when they imperiled this treaty by not pursuing the proper channels for its passage.
Demanding more money for NATO from Europe was just part one. Part two was telling these lazy ingrates, in addition to the rest of the world, that the U.S. taxpayer is no longer going to give them a blank check with which to "save the world". If it's that big an issue, put up yourselves—or shut up. Think locally, act locally, that's what the Trump revolution has in store for you.
Well, that was a fat load of nothing. Having stated that, I don't know if I'm talking about the UK General Election or the James Comey testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee.
In Britain, as you may have heard, Prime Minister Theresa May suffered a backlash as the Conservative party that she heads failed to secure a majority, which she missed by eight seats in Parliament. Labour made significant gains, with a 40 percent share of the vote to the slightly over 42 percent for the Tories.
This election was supposed to set an agenda. Instead, it's cast uncertainty.
Mrs. May has no-one but herself to blame. She called a snap election and then proceeded to run a piss-poor campaign because she thought she had it in the bag. How Pantsuit-esque of her. As has been pointed out by many pundits on this side of the pond, she launched her campaign fancying herself Margaret Thatcher; she came out the other side looking like Ted Heath.
Although the Conservatives got more votes than all of Tony Blair's three terms combined, with the help of a resurgent Scottish Conservative party led by the feisty Ruth Davidson, it is scary how close Jeremy Corbyn came into power, led by a "youthquake" of newly registered voters between 18 and 35 years of age who don't know the dangers of socialism because they have never been taught them. Like Bernie Sanders voters in the U.S., all these kids know is that capitalism "isn't working" for them.
Hey, kids, maybe get off all the mind-warping pot you smoke and, instead of the newest PlayStation or Nintendo console, consider getting a suit with which to potentially sell yourself to an employer someday, and you may discover otherwise. I know it's radical to think that this is the era of the free lunch, but if you want to revel in things that don't exist, we could also be living in the era of the unicorn. You're living better than kings or queens in the middle ages could have ever dreamed, but you're too numb in the head to realize it. If you don't care to spend your fives and tenners on a suit, how about a plane ticket to Caracas? Plenty of protests to take part in there—the only hitch is that they're virulently anti-socialist because Chavez's and Maduro's "people power" is killing them. I'm guessing you didn't want to know, young 'uns. Turn up your Beats and forget you heard that.
Smart people know that Corbyn and Sanders were in the fantasy-flogging business, but try telling that to all the hipsters and dipsters out there. But, to be fair, I would like to think this wouldn't be the case if we hadn't failed them through poor education, lack of discipline and allowing runaway political correctness to singe their minds worse than marijuana ever could.
All you helicopter parents who religiously search for the latest middle-class trends in The Times or The Daily Telegraph lifestyle sections can vote Conservative all you like. Your children are basket-cases. Congratulations. Thanks for that.
Not that I'm forgetting all the layabout welfare deadbeats and the army of zombies they have created.
Lordy, as James Comey, would say. This country's got problems that I don't think a coalition with the Democratic Unionist Party or Brexit can solve. You can't change minds when their owners are asleep at the wheel.
● ● ●
Speaking of James Comey, I wonder if the Washington happy hour was worth it. There is nothing there for liberals to sink their teeth into (though no doubt Democrats will keep trying).
The former FBI "director" reïterated his earlier statement that President Trump did not request that he drop the investigation into Russian hacking in the elections, that he hoped there were tapes of his conversation with Trump regarding Mike Flynn, and, in fact, Comey revealed in his Senate testimony that he leaked, that the notes he took of his interactions with Trump were shared with a friend of his at Columbia Law School, one Professor Daniel Richman.
Richman is on the run now, incidentally. With friends like James Comey, you too can have a cell in a department of corrections facility.
In asserting that he couldn't depend on the White House for his troubled conscience regarding earlier conversations with the President, because he considered him untrustworthy, Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee, "I woke up in the middle of night on Monday night, because it didn't dawn on me originally, there might be corroboration ... So I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter. I didn't do it myself for a variety of reasons, but I asked him to because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel."
Comey then praised special counsel Robert Mueller, because the task to which Mr. Mueller—Comey's literal best friend—has been assigned is "very important." Integrity, thy name is James B. Comey, amirite? Mueller should pray that there's no bus under which he can be thrown.
Finally, we have James Comey opining about the possibility of tapes having been made of his White House conversation with Mr. Trump. Comey bases this hope on a Tweet that Trump put out that stated, "James Comey better hope that there are no 'tapes' of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!" It seems to me that this is classic Trump in full humor, similar to when he told the Russkies, hey, if you've got the goods on Hillary, please share them, to which liberals reacted with a shit-storm.
"I've seen the tweet about tapes," Comey said. "Lordy, I hope there are tapes." So does the unicorn I mentioned earlier, you drama queen.
Progressives adore bitchiness, and Comey dished out plenty of it during the Senate testimony. He said that he did not trust Mr. Trump because he "was honestly concerned he might lie." He noted that he did not want to leave Trump "with an impression that the bureau was trying to do something to him" regarding the so-called Russia contacts dossier. He alleged that Trump's expression of hope that he would let the case against Flynn go was an implied but strongly delivered "direction". He recalled that he told Attorney General Jeff Sessions to ensure that he wasn't left alone in the room with the President. With all of this, the only thing James Comey has accomplished is painting himself several shades of martyr.
What has Comey gained? The very strong possibility of legal action being launched against him by the President's lawyer Marc Kasowitz in a complaint to be filed with the Department of Justice Inspector General with regard to Comey's admission of leaking information. Time for Comey to start pondering, What would Eliott Ness do?
Because Comey is such a loser on all accounts, and proved it in this latest sham and waste of the country's time and resources, liberals now hate him all over again.
Hope you enjoyed happy hour, all you deep state-worshiping Obamabots. Lordy, I hope reality is about to hit you all sooner than you think.
This entry is being written in the aftermath of the latest Islamic terrorist attack—I call these things what they are as opposed to the government that purports to protect us. Eight are dead and forty-eight hospitalized after a ramming and stabbing attack at London Bridge yesterday evening.
I will bet anyone, right here, right now, that the perpetrators of this attack were known to the authorities.
But you see, it's not Islam's fault. It's Ramadan, after all, so you know all the fanatics chanting "allahu akbar" with their heads in each other's posteriors, are being good little worshipers. It's the van's fault. Time for vehicle control. I mean, we're already in the game of blaming inanimate objects, and not people, for innocent deaths and we've been doing it for years. According to this logic, this is the next step we clearly have to take.
The esteemed "mayor," Sadiq Khan, who not only prior to this said that terrorist attacks are simply part and parcel of living in a big city—perish the thought that we actually control who gets to walk free among us—but now that denizens of this city of London "should not be alarmed."
OK. Right. I'll just be calm until this happens yet again. I guarantee you that it will. Prime Minister Theresa May has said in response to this fresh slaughter that "enough is enough," but I don't know what that means. Does it mean 24/7 surveillance of mosques and internment of radical elements uncovered from said surveillance? Does it mean telling the E.U. to go screw itself—that it doesn't matter if we're still part of it until 2019—and implementing tough border control, Trump-style, immediately? (What's Europe going to do, kick us out?)
I cannot dedicate a whole entry to this kind of thing anymore, dear reader. I'm at a loss. What can I say that I haven't said dozens of times before over the years? What can I put in this blog that you can't already read on Breitbart or The Drudge Report? I don't want to just parrot the news. That's not what I do here.
If I thought the powers-that-be were reading this blog and prepared to take into careful consideration every word I wrote, that would be different. But it's becoming far too common. I can't type until my fingers are numb about a problem that keeps occurring and that no-one wants to do a damn thing about. It's not that I don't care; just, what's the point?
Michael Savage has it right when he says that observing the hordes of cretinous, celebrity- and status-obsessed white people that make up our Western majorities can provide you with the ultimate answer and reason for why the U.S, U.K. and Europe are in the poor political conditions they are in and why they all face this constant Islamofascist terrorist threat. If most white males have a big-ass TV, a big-ass barbeque and a big-ass dick (or actively working to correct that), then life is just fine and dandy. Just keep watching sports and peeling yourself off the sofa to scratch yourself during the plethora of drug, beer and automobile commercials, dudes. If you're a white female, just sing and dance along the sidewalk with your friends, something I actually witnessed earlier today. As long as your nearest-and-dearest aren't affected, you have no reason to care, am I right? Can't let those terrorists win, even if they are!
I can tell you this: Geert Wilders is correct. Until everyone, in government and in society, is prepared to say that Islam is the problem and the sole reason why deadly attacks keep occurring, then nothing will change. That's it.
Either we remain profoundly stupid and ignorant and hog-tied by political correctness—or we grow up, stop electing total morons and complicit cowards like Sadiq Khan, and prepare to acknowledge reality. Aside from that, there is no more that can possibly be said.
To be honest, I don't think anything frustrates me more, in terms of things I can't control, than a mainstream media that pretends it is simply following up on a "major" story and that the President is directly responsible for its perpetuation, as opposed to it continuing to script a completely false narrative designed to damage the administration's reputation and eventually bring the President down.
There used to be a time when you needed two verifiable sources to run with a story in television or script news. Editors-in-chief used to be individuals who would laugh their reporters or sub-editors out of the office if they expected a transcript of a letter as read over the telephone by an "anonymous source" as a lead story, as journalism par excellence. Yet this is routinely how The New York Times and The Washington Post run their little rags.
But to return the point I kicked off this entry with, the other day on NBC's The Today Show, the morning after Memorial Day, the hosts stated: "The President is back from his overseas trip, but some of these same headlines persist."
"That's right, we're back to the same storylines in Washington as people kind of shake off the holiday weekend."
"Absolutely, there's some new overnight developments to tell you about regarding this Russia investigation." (Notice how these cretins always have to agree with each other every time it is their turn to speak?)
Cut to news report: "Heading into summer, the President and his team are already feeling the heat. [Nightdragon: Hahaha, oh, what a scream these newspeople are!] Mr. Trump is fending off critical headlines."
Those critical headlines are completely made-up, they are the products of manufactured sensationalism and Soviet-style propogandism. Anonymous sources from within the deep state, and all the Bushites and Obama holdovers contained therein, continue to hound President Trump. And the media seriously expects us to think that this "Russia investigation" and all the baloney associated with it just germinated in a vacuum. It just exists outside any sphere of influence, and their duty is to report it, even though no examples of crimes actually committed nor any sources tapped can be revealed. You know why? Because no crimes were committed by this President and these sources are bogus.
We hear now that the wonder boy, the deputy chair for every White House meeting, Jared Kushner requested a direct line of communication to the Russians through ambassador Sergei Kislyak. Again, this is proof of "collusion" how?
As Andrew McCarthy wrote in National Review: "In principle, as stressed by Trump national-security adviser H. R. McMaster, there is nothing wrong with the concept of back channels. All administrations use them ...The United States and Russia are global competitors with large nuclear arsenals and some important mutual interests. It is often desirable for adversaries to maintain open lines for frank communication beneath all of their public posturing. Obama certainly seemed to think so when, in his infamous hot-mic mishap, he beseeched Putin factotum Dmitry Medvedev to let Vlad know he'd have 'more flexibility' to accommodate Russia on missile defense after the 2012 election was over. Until last fall, national-security conservatives were ridiculed for agitating about Russia. So it is with back channels, which the media-Democrat complex were not bothered by until a Republican was elected president."
Well, exactly.
Furthermore, will anyone in the media point out that this, like so much else, has only been revealed because Mr. Trump was illegally surveilled during his campaign and time as President-Elect? Of course not. Kushner is an agent of the Russians and that's all you need to know. Join us for more 24-hour coverage on this "breaking" news story tomorrow.
There are so many genuine issues of grave concern like ISIS, Iran and North Korea, plus the drug deaths and other assorted mayhem brought to us by those paragons of virtual signalling known as sanctuary cities, or perhaps even the issue of the over 46,000 "refugees" that the U.S. has admitted in just this year of 2017, that should be on the news everyday, but drama queen James Comey's notes and mental patient John McCain's anti-Russia ramblings are what the media expects us to care about.
Then we have cases when the media could not make any more clear their bias against Mr. Trump and his supporters.
I won't go into specifics about Kathy Griffin and the total mental breakdown she suffered in which she thought holding up a bloody fascimile of Donald Trump's head and being photographed doing so was a great rebellious statement worthy of merit.
Everyone is already aware of this; it's gone viral.
However, shortly after the understandable furor this caused, Molly Ball on CNN dismissed the whole incident as not only much ado about nothing, but proof of baseless paranoia on the part of "the Trump people".
"Donald Trump Jr. is out there saying this is now considered to be acceptable discourse by the Left," host Jake Tapper said.
Ball responded, "Who is saying it's acceptable discourse, exactly? Donald Trump Jr.? Who would say it's even discourse? I mean, I have a hard time bringing myself to care about something like this, I think it's just speaks to the need to see themselves as a victim, that they're constantly being persecuted, the Trump people are constantly are having to point to the elites who are looking down on them."
So, it's Trump's fault. It's the deplorables' fault. Geddit? Forget that 11-year-old Barron Trump witnessed footage of the photo on the TV he was watching at the time and the stress caused to Melania Trump who had to comfort and re-assure her profoundly upset young son who believed that his father had been decapitated.
Chelsea Clinton, to her credit, condemned Griffin's vile, revolting stunt. Most of the liberals in the media, however? For them it was a case of, nothing to see here, folks, move along.
And here's just a taste of an exchange on CNN between contributor Dave Urban and former Obama administration loser Jen Psaki:
Urban: "I think we've got much bigger issues to focus on than Kathy Griffin.
Jen Pasaki:"Agreed with David. Tee-hee-hee."
You see, these people have to titter like airheads after every statement so that they connect with the imbeciles who watch them, believe them and hang on every word they say.
Now then ... The mainstream media certainly brought themselves to care and focused intently on the rodeo rider who wore an Obama mask. That's all he did. He wore a mask, a clean mask, a mask that had no fake blood smeared all over it. That was evidence of racism in America, you see. That needed wall-to-wall coverage because it said something deep about what kind of country we were. Lefties sure were bummed about that one.
Griffin's apology would have carried at least some modicum of weight if she had actually addressed President Trump. Rep. Gianforte recognized Ben Jacobs during his victory speech apology over Broken-Glassesgate. In fact, Griffin is so genuine in her apology that she hired a dirtbag liberal lawyer to announce in a press conference that she is the victim of "an older white guy" and that Trump "broke" her. By the way, was it really necessary for Griffin to point out that the President is white? If you're a petulant social justice warrior like her, then I suppose it is.
Speaking of social justice warriors, it appears we have a radical student takeover and potential hostage situation at Evergreen State College in the state of Washington. The college's president George Bridges is too much of a wimp to direct the police to take action, so I appeal to the President to override this and send in the National Guard. Arrest every single worthless piece of crap who disrespected the school with their whiny, Obama-style, race-obsessed, self-loathing/suicidal (as pertains to the majority white "students"), and violence-laced domestic terrorism—the modern-day Weather Underground, it would appear—expel them and deny them their diplomas.
Can somebody—anybody—in this government of ours stop dicking around long enough to send a message to the anarchists at Evergreen strong enough to put the kibosh on all other potential protests?
I've said it before and I'll say it again: The incident at Kent State on May 4, 1970, in which four students were killed, was deeply, indubitably regrettable. And nobody should die in any quashing of radical student agitation these days. That is absolutely not what I am arguing for. Something has got to be done though, because here's the thing: Did we witness any further agitation anywhere after May 4, 1970? No, we didn't.
Mr. President, put Twitter away long enough to take back that school!
Postscript: Incidentally, various pundits have questioned why Melania Trump refused to wear a hijab in Saudi Arabia only to cover her face with a veil at the Vatican.
Folks, this is an easy one. You ain't gotta be Poirot to figure this one out. Mrs. Trump is the first Catholic First Lady since Jackie Kennedy. OK? She wasn't going to cover up in the name of a religion of peace that she wasn't an adherent to. But she was going to show respect in the holiest of sites for the religion that she does follow. Even, admittedly, in front a Pope who is a former bouncer and to the Left of Abbie Hoffman.
Was that honestly so difficult to work out?
