March 8, 2013

  • Rand Paul’s Filibuster

    If any of you have not watched ay of Rand Paul’s Filibuster then I highly reccomend starting.  I just started mysef, and as of this posting have watched about 13 minutes.  I am deeply disappointed with the majority of Republicans for going along with Obama on the drone program, and with his attempts to establish martial law in general.  However, I am starting to warm up to Rand Paul.  He seems like he might be on the level.

    I have a question for Barack Osama & friends, if he hasn’t killed anyone yet, and does not plan to (as he claims), then what does he need such laws and procedures for?  The “War on Terror” is a complete crock.  One cannot win an undeclared and undefined war.  The ultimate purpose of that “war” is to establish martial law domestically, and all of our soldiers that are getting killed and mutilated overseas are getting killed and mutilated for nothing.  Fighting for freedom for some other place while our own country become PROGRESSIVEly less and less free is no kind of victory.

    I understand the need for going into Afghanistan (assuming that 9/11 was not an inside job), but Iraq, Libya, Syria, and all that other meddling was/is entirely pointless and counterproductive.  The best government that any North African or Middle Eastern country (aside from Israel) can hope for is a secular dictator like Sacha Baron Cohen’s character from “The Dictator.”  Admiral General Aladeen or whatever his name was.  Tampering with those backward countries only makes things worse.  Christians in Iraq and Egypt have it so much worse as a result of US meddling.  They are always the first people the Muslims will mess with when they get angry or overly bored.  Let them have their countries while we have ours.  We won’t go to their countries, and they don’t need to come to ours.  This isn’t rocket science.

    But I digress.  Obama and the Dems want to be able to kill citizens at any point for any reason.  Maybe they will blow up a whole restaurant to get one guy (as Rand Paul suggested).  Maybe they will use drones to deal with political dissent and people who list rational objections to bad government policy.  I really hope this garbage anti-American legislation is overturned.

    Anyways, watch the video:

March 7, 2013

March 6, 2013

  • Patriotism = Hate, According to the Left

    For some time the left has been working to connect patriotism with hate, racism, and terrorism.  We are headed towards a police state with no freedom, and the government has taken an adversarial position against the citizens.  We can see it both in their attacks on the 2nd ammendment, and the way they are stockpiling guns, ammunition, and now tanks. 

    The left has come out and officially stated that they are afraid of patriotic law abiding American citizens.  What we are seeing now is a smear campaign in order to garner some public support for the impending police state.  People are most amenable to police states when they feel threatened.

    I am posting the entire article below, and my comments will be interspersed.

    Source: http://news.yahoo.com/extreme-anti-government-u-groups-record-high-could-164159284.html

    Extreme anti-government U.S. groups at record high, could grow: report

    By Colleen Jenkins | Reuters – 3 hrs ago

    –The first mistake here is the title.  “Extreme” is a relative term depending on your perspective, and anything can be classified as extreme in a subjective sense.

    WINSTON-SALEM, North Carolina (Reuters) – The number of extreme anti-government groups in the United States grew to an all-time high in 2012, and a backlash against federal gun control measures could fuel more growth in the movement, the Southern Poverty Law Center said on Tuesday.

    –The second mistake is quoting from the “Southern Poverty Law Center” as if they were some kind of legitimate source.  Those people are nothing but a left wing propaganda machine, and anything but an objective unbiased research center or source of information.  Also, if people are anti-government then there is a reason for it.  If the government continues to act ridiculous and set itself against the people then more people are going to be anti-goverment.

    Active militia and so-called Patriot groups totaled 1,360 last year, a massive jump from the 149 recorded in 2008 in an annual count of extremist groups by the Alabama-based civil rights organization.

    –Again, what objective basis is there for calling these people extremists?  The formation of militias is entirely Constitutional, and stems from the 2nd ammendment.  There is no basis for calling these people extremists.  Patriots are the guardians of freedom in this country, if the government is doing it’s job then they should not be at odds with any patriotic person.  It is when they are doing things they should not do then we have a problem.  I also do not see the point in qualifying “patriot” organizations with “so-called” unless one is trying to condemn anyone who self identifies as patriotic.  Just because the SPLC calls people extremists does not make it so.  Reality is objective. 

    The number of organizations the center terms hate groups, or those that attack minority groups, dropped slightly to 1,007 in 2012 from a record high of 1,018 in 2011.

    –These so-called statistics are worthless as the means of classification are entirely subjective.  What makes someone a hate group?  That they hate someone?  Can you prove they hate someone?  If so then you had better classify the Black Panthers, New Black Panthers, and SPLC as hate groups.

    Active hate groups identified by the center are scattered throughout the country and include the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, white nationalists and racist skinheads.

    –Mentioning the KKK and Neo-Nazis in the same article with patriots does not put them on the same level or establish an association, although I know that is what the author is TRYING to do.  The KKK and Neo-Nazis are hate groups, it’s true.  Skinheads are Neo-Nazis, so mentioning them separately serves no logical purpose, and calling them racist is gratuitous because there are no non-racist skin heads.  The author and the two editors clearly do not know what they are talking about, and are attempting to make it look like there are more white racist groups then there actually are. 

    Nationalism is not racist nor is it predicated on hate.  Nationalism is simply the belief that every people group has the right to self rule, and part of that involves having a country in which they are the majority.  Nationalism has everything to do with self preservation and a respect for human dignity, and jack all to do with racism.  Calling someone a “white nationalist” is about as coherent as calling someone a white Democrat.  Nationalism is anti-Imperialist.  The left is good at condemning imperialism when it WAS perpetrated by white people, but does not have a problem with imperialism when other groups are involved. 

    So I can’t help but get the impression that the author is trying to throw out terms to look informed, and to make the WS movement look larger than it is, but the fact is she is grossly ignorant.  Also, if we are going to go after racist groups why is there no mention of La Raza?  Seriously. Because Obama met with them?  Well, that doesn’t make them non-racist. 

    Some organizations, such as Christian groups, strongly object to their categorization by the center as “hate groups” and say the civil rights organization is itself stirring up hatred.

    –Because it is.

    In a letter on Tuesday, the center’s president urged Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to shore up federal resources devoted to countering the threat of domestic hate and extremist groups.

    –Oh yes, because a police state is the answer.  Once we have a police state then everything is going to be all rainbows and unicorns.  This is a perfect example of how the left is motivated by hate and fear.  They want the government to beat on people that they hate, without understanding, and they don’t stop to think about how the type of system they are advocating might affect them.  Once the police state is established the SPLC people will be just as jacked if they stay out past curfew as Captain America.

    “As in the period before the Oklahoma City bombing, we now also are seeing ominous threats from those who believe that the government is poised to take their guns,” said president J. Richard Cohen on behalf of the law center.

    The Patriot movement last reached a peak in 1996, a year after right-wing extremist Timothy McVeigh set off a truck bomb outside the Oklahoma City federal building, killing 168 people. McVeigh and a co-conspirator were convicted. McVeigh was executed.

    –What is “The Patriot movement,” and why is she capitalizing “Patriot” but not “movement”?  Not only do we have yellow journalism, but also bad writing in general.  Claiming that patriotism and terrorism are linked does not make it so, but we have to expect this coming from the same people who are continually comparing the Founding Fathers to Islamic terrorists.  The fact is the real patriot movement peaked in the 1700′s, and resulted in the English despots being thrown out in favor of a more just adminstrative system. 

    Since both the author and her source are being subjective, there is no way of pinning down exactly what she means, but there are lots of people who will read this article and all they will take from it is; patriotism = bad, and police state = good.

    As long as the government is doing it’s job the there is no reason for the government to be at odds with patriots.  Patriots are the people who love their country.  If he government is doing anything other than what they should, then they are criminals and should be treated as such. 

    Homeland Security spokeswoman Nicole Stickel said on Tuesday the department has been working with law enforcement “to better mitigate and respond to violent extremism, regardless of the ideological beliefs that may motivate it, including violence perpetuated by violent sovereign citizens and anti-government militia groups.”

    –So basically they are manufactoring an excuse to institute a fascist/communist police state.  They have been laying the ground work for some time now.  They are bringing in the drones, and un-Constitutional legislation that allows the targetting and killing of American citizens if they are deemed to be a threat by the state. 

    The number of such groups, whose adherents view the federal government as their enemy, dwindled in the late 1990s and early 2000s only to rise sharply in the past four years.

    –Because the Federal Government views us as the enemy and has treated us accordingly.  The economic policies have bankrupted this country and saddled us with debt.  As the economy languishes Obama and friends decide to give away more money to countries and people groups who hate us.  Obama should have been arrested and dragged to jail in handcuffs for giving money to Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood.  That is absolutely criminal.  But aside from the economy, they also attack our freedom.  They stockpile guns, ammunition, and now tanks, while trying to manufactor excuses to disarm us.  They flood our country with unwanted 3rd world immigration and make us pay for those people.  They already view us as the enemy, and if they want to change our perception of them then they need to change their actions toward us.  Patriotic people only have a quarrel with anti-American policies.  Stop those policies and there will be no problem.

    A sluggish U.S. economy combined with the election and re-election of Democrat Barack Obama as the country’s first black president have stoked anger and fear in some Americans and helped drive the growth of extremist groups, said Mark Potok, senior fellow at the center and editor of the report.

    –No, no, his being PART black has nothing to do with it.  The left continually brings that up as if it were some sort of trump card that somehow delegitimises attacks on his policies.  But it’s nothing more than shameless disgusting hypocrisy.  The left, and the liberal media, was at the forefront of the attacks on Herman Cain.  Unlike Barack Osama, Herman Cain was a real black man, and an American.  Obama is a half-breed Kenyan Muslim, whose only black American ancestry comes ironiclly from his mother.  I’m sick to death of hearing the left try to tie in rational policy objections with racism.  Just stop. 

    Any government which is at odds with the people needs to either change what they are doing to step down.  The fact that growing numbers of people are overtly upset with Obama and the Dems should tell them something.  I don’t know why they thought rigging the election would ever lead to popular support.  Maybe they didn’t and they are fine with people hating them because one way or another they intend to establish a police state with a command economy.

    GUN CONTROL EFFORTS COULD SPARK NEW GROWTH

    Potok said the national conversation about gun control since the December shooting deaths of 20 children and six adults at a Connecticut elementary school could cause the number of anti-government groups to swell again.

    –I am not convinced that the government didn’t have a hand in Sandy Hook.  But what they can do to reverse some of this anger is back off on the gun control.  If you don’t like where it is leading then back off. 

    Congress is considering bills that would ban assault weapons, expand background checks for prospective gun buyers, crack down on illegal gun trafficking and improve school security.

    –If they were serious about protecting the schools then they would put armed guards in the schools or require the staff to carry weapons. 

    A number of states are contemplating laws aimed at nullifying any federal gun control measures.

    “We are seeing this huge reaction to the potential of gun control,” Potok said. “And that reaction is so angry that it is hard not to be afraid of what is coming down the road.”

    –So then rather than bother us, get on the government and tell them to stop doing what they are doing, this isn’t rocket science here.  We are also scared of what these criminals in the government have planned for this country.  They have stockpiled coffins, ammunition, and tanks for domestic use.  They have staffed and activated the FEMA camps, and they are preparing to deploy drones. 

    Potok said membership totals for U.S. hate and anti-government groups were difficult to ascertain. He estimated there are between 200,000 to 300,000 people involved in hate groups and 300,000 to 400,000 in militia groups.

    –Being opposed to the government and loving your country is hate according to these people, and saying that it is does not make is so.

    Among hate groups identified by the center is the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian lobbying group, due to its anti-gay stances. The group strongly rejects its categorization as a hate group and says “reckless rhetoric” from the Southern Poverty Law Center spurred a shooting at its Washington headquarters last summer. The center denies the charge.

    “They are the ones who are fomenting hatred against us which has resulted in violence against us,” said Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council. “To label us a hate group is clearly a slander.”

    –Yes it is, but slander is what the left does.  All of their arguments are predicate on emotion and fear of freedom.  But that’s OK, the more they cry “hate” and “racist” the less meaning those terms have.

    The number of hate groups may also increase in response to immigration reform measures that reinforce their members’ fears about the country’s changing demographics, including the projected loss of the white majority, the law center said in its report.

    –It is amazing how much capacity the left has for criticizing the people who critisize policies rather than looking into the policies themselves.  They recognize tat they policies are contraversial, but are incapable of thinking about what that is. 

    Again, the government needs to stop what it’s doing.  Nobody wants to be replaced by a different people group, and we don’t want to see our country dragged down to the level of Mexico or the Middle East.  Where are we supposed to go if our country gets wrecked?  Obozo killed the space program so we can’t go to Mars any time soon.  The only purpose of the “immigration reform” is to fix things so that Democrats will be able to win every election hands down.  They want to flood the country with Democrat voters.  Marginalizing the people in favor of foreigners is a terribly unjust way of going about to get votes.  This is why people are anti-government, because the government is anti-us. 

    (Reporting by Colleen Jenkins; Editing by Cynthia Johnston and Andrew Hay)

    –This article makes a mockery of journalism.

  • Hugo Chavez & Cold Freeze

    Well, Obama’s friend is dead now.  I would extend my condolences to Obama except that would be insincere.  In fact, on the surface this looks like a good thing for Venezuela, to finally be rid of that prick.  The only problem is that it is highly likely whoever takes his place will be just as bad, if not worse.  Those people down there can’t be very smart to have elected a despot like Hugo Chavez in the first place, and my theory is that most of them are not smart enough to realize that the damage he caused to the country was caused by his policies.  Much like the Obamanites in the US. 

    In other news we are having severe cold and snowstorms:

    http://weather.yahoo.com/deadly-snowstorm-slams-road-air-travel-midwest-001801446.html

    Here we have global warming at it’s finest, making things get colder.  This is part of the reason why I can never take “global warming” seriously.  If we have some unusually hot weather it’s “global warming,” but then if it is getting colder they also attribute that to global warming.  So basically, it’s getting colder because it’s getting warmer.  Right.  Because that is entirely rational.  The global warming alarmists are definitely working to establish an unfalsifiable tautology. 

March 4, 2013

  • Gun Control Mentality

    I want to take a moment to discuss the mentality that exists among gun control advocates, and why it is flawed. 

    The only people hurt by gun control are law abiding citizens.  Murder, rape, theft, and assault are already illegal.  People who want to do those things will do them with or without guns, and if they want guns bad enough they will still get them from the black market.  My point is that they are already breaking the law, so putting more laws in place isn’t going to stop them, but what it will do is make it harder for non-criminals to defend themselves.  Punishing law abiding citizens for the actions of criminals makes about as much sense as collectively punishing a class. 

    Here is an analogy for gun control:

    Back when I was in high school I had some teachers that would let us watch movies in class.  It was either for the purpose of giving us a form of celebration, or illustrating the concepts we were learning about.  Under those circumstances most students would cooperate, but there were always one or two pricks who would goof off and make noise.  Sometimes the teacher would terminate the movie on behalf of those pricks, and instead give a written assignment for the whole class.  Why do that?  The just thing to do would be to punish only those pricks.  Send them out of class if they refuse to cooperate.  But no, everyone had to be punished.  As a method of prevention such action is both unjust and lazy, not to mention inadequate.  It was worth noting that the bad behavior of those individuals often continued following the new assignment/punishment.

    The whole gun control argument is predicated entirely on emotion, and what it boils down to is leftists saying “I don’t trust you with guns,” or “how do I know you won’t go crazy if you own a gun?”  The guns do not make people go crazy, they are inanimate objects.  I could say that it doesn’t matter to me whether or not what I have or don’t have makes you uneasy, and I could say that it doesn’t matter objectively what you think, but instead I would like to emphasize that those same concerns are AT LEAST equally valid regarding government.  Why is it OK for the government to possess implements of destruction when law abiding citizens cannot?  What special factor is it that makes the government inherently superior and exempt from the sort of insanity that allegedly afflicts citizens when they are armed?  I would like to hear someone attempt to answer that in a logical way, the key word being attempt.  The fact is, governments kill.  Not only do governments kill foreign nationals, but they also kill their own citizens, and governments kill on a much larger scale than do the worst most reprehensible individuals in any given society.  Also, it is a good deal more difficult to hold governments accountable for murder than it is individuals. 

    The fact is, gun control arguments are predicated upon the concept of the ubermensch.  The belief that government, by nature, is somehow more responsible and trustworthy than the citizenry is inseperable from the concept that there is an intellectually and morally superior breed of man, and that this superior man composes the governing body.  There is no way around it.  One cannot argue against citizenry owning weapons based on alleged moral and intellectual aptitude or ineptitude, without applying those same arguments to government.  Having more faith in the government than in fellow citizens puts the government on a pedistal.  If one is concerned about human behavior then that concern applies to all humans, unless one believes that there are quality gradations within humanity based on class.  I know this is getting redundant, but if you trust government more than you trust citizens, then it is because you believe that they have superior intellect and/or virtue over the average man.  You believe in the concept of the ubermensch.

      iron-sky

    While I do believe that there is variation when it comes to intellect and virtue, those are variations which exist primarily between individuals rather than groups.  The concept of the ubermensch is dangerous because it creates a climate where it is difficult or impossible to hold the government accountable.  People accept actions and decisions based upon the presumed merit of the governing body rather than upon the actual merit of those actions or decision.  People are also more likely to change their views based on what the government and their chronies say rather than what facts and logic would dictate.  People are also more likely to accept natural rights violations because the government supposedly determines morality.  Basically, people now accept a multitude of things uncritically that they might otherwise stop and think about, or flat out reject.

    Red Skull

    Objective and moral assessment go out the window, because they are no longer needed as far as the citizens are concerned.  The moral majority (if there was one) is replaced by a servile majority, which is critical of those few who still think critically rather than the government, and this only serves to make the tyranny stronger.  If you don’t like something he says then the problem lies with you according to the logic, and you might need to be done away with for the greater good.

    Hitler

    The ubermensch mentality was what allowed the Nazis to get away with doing the things they did.  People accepted the Nazi ideology based more on the presumed merit of those who perpetuated it rather than it’s actual merits, and those who criticized it were reported by their neighbors.  Most people didn’t complain when the Jews were rounded up, and those who did were forcefully silenced. 

    It is worth noting that the Nazis took up all the guns from law abiding citizens.  They took away all the guns before they took away all the Jews.  If people still had their guns then at the very least the Nazis would have bled a little when they started rounding people up, even if most of the people were brainwashed into being unsympathetic toward them.

    The fact is, gun control is really about people control.  Governments want gun control for the same reason they want the citizens to see them as superior.  They want to be able to do whatever they want without being challenged on any level.  It is evident that most people in government consider themselves to be a superior breed of man, and they want us to believe it too, but I’m not buying it. 

    I want to make something very clear, anyone can be the Jews next time.  A lot of people don’t seem to care when the government goes after the other guy, or the other group, but if they go after him they can go after you, especially in the sort of cultural climate where people either don’t care or just accept it when the government goes after anyone for any reason.

    The second ammendment wasn’t created strictly for home defense, although that is included, it was created to safeguard our freedom in case the government ever got out of control.  When I see liberals saying things like “F*** the 2nd ammendment” and “the Constitution is outdated” I am gravely concerned.  It just goes to show how divorced the left is from the founding principles of our nation.  Our country was not founded based on being mean to Native Americans or women.  Niether did the founding fathers have anything in common with Al Qaida or Hamas.

    Our country was founded based on freedom, and the idea that there are inalienable natural rights which exist independent of human agency.  When those rights are violated by a government then the government loses it’s legitimacy.  We don’t just accept whatever the government does because it’s the government or because we hate group X. 

February 27, 2013

  • Nicki Minaj and “Modern Art”

    I have always been at least a bit off to the side of pop-culture, caring more about interesting things than average things.  Yes I know that ”interesting” is subjective, but the things I like are generally well put together, at least on some level, and the pop-culture things I don’t like are typically dumbed down and/or designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator, like reality TV.  Anyways, I think you know you are getting old when it takes longer for the pop-culture crazes to filter into your area of perception.

    That being said, the way it typically goes for me is I start seeing all sorts of talk and attention over some character, and then at some point I become aware that this character has some sort of following.  If I’m bombarded with it for a while then I MIGHT decide to check it out.  Part of the reason why I don’t become aware of these characters when they appear is because I don’t listen to the same radio stations that normal people do, or watch TV, and even though I check the news on a daily basis I usually stick to actual news, because I don’t see the relevance of who is banging who in Hollyweird or whatever. 

    In any case, I kept seeing stuff about this Nicki Minaj character in news headlines on yahoo.  Nicki Minaj said this, or Nicki Minaj did that…  Then one day after one of my friends sang a line from one of her songs I decided to check her out and see what the appeal was.  So I checked her out on youtube, and I don’t see what the appeal is.  I tried to watch two or three of her music videos but it was very difficult to make it all the way through them. 

    The songs I watched started out with a fairly decent structure, but were frequently interrupted by bursts of chaos, which caused me so much discomfort that it bordered on physical pain.  Note to interrogators in Guantanamo: Consider forcing the terrorists to listen to Nicki Minaj.  After a while they will surely crack.

    I like music to be structured, and when it lacks a definitive structure I have a hard time listening to it.  It literally disrupts the normal workings of my brain, like a bomb going off in my head.  I don’t remember what the songs were about because the structure of the music was so bad that I was unable to get past that.  90% of the time I don’t listen to words in music anyways.  I sort of zone out or use music as background while I am writing or drawing. 

    To be fair, it does seem like she has talent, but that could also have been digitally edited.  She could be quite awful in real life, although that doesn’t seem entirely likely given her physical appearance.  For all intents and purposes Nicki Minaj is physically unattractive.  My understanding was that in the popular music industry women are typically expected to be attractive and/or have some serious talent.  Logic would dictate that she has serious talent.  Of course, it’s wasted on the poor quality of her music, and undermined by her slutty outfits.  I also don’t understand why she is trying to show off that body anyways.  My mom has a better physique and she is 58. 

    So when it comes to the question of why someone like Nicki Minaj is popular, I am 100% in the dark.  There is a theory that many of the popular music artists have made a pact with Satan, which could explain how music which tends to range from mediocre to terrible can become popular on such a large scale, while other better groups do not receive nearly so much attention.  However, it could also be that such music appeals to the lowest common denominator, or it appeals to certain types of people in the same way that “modern art” does.

    “Modern art” is another phenomenon that I don’t understand.  I don’t understand why so much museum space is being taken up with squiggly lines and splatter paint, or imagery based on scatophilia when there is so much good art out there today which deserves to be showcased.  Making splatter paint or squiggly lines does not take a hundredth of the skill it takes to produce a live portrait, or even a still life.  It took me a long time last week just to do some rough sketches of my character from Skyrim (she kept moving, like a real life subject often will), but I could have done a modern art splatter painting or slopped some colors on a paper in under a minute. 

    I don’t think the average person knows that.  “Modern art” has to be one of the biggest cons ever.  People slopping something down, assigning it some bombast or pompous sounding title, and then selling it for loads of money.  Then people line up and pay to go look at that crap, and assign some kind of subjective emotional meaning to it, even though it really is complete crap that doesn’t look like anything, or at best it looks like something disgusting.

    I don’t know whether things like this are the cause of our cultural decline, or a symptom of it.

    I don’t understand why so many people allow others to make value judgments for them.  Just because some cultural elite(s) say that something is good or valuable does not make it so.  If it looks or sounds like crap it probably is crap.

February 21, 2013

  • I will blaspheme Islam

    So apparently there are some Pakis who want to try the Pakistani ambassador to the US for blasphemy, because she suggested loosening the blasphemy laws in Pakistan a.k.a. Porkistan, a.k.a. Pukistan. 

    Muslims have to be the most sensitive people in the world, to want to kill their own people over slight disagreements.  Death and violence is the answer to disputes in Islam.  So earlier we had a retarded girl from a Christian family get accused of “blasphemy” for supposedly burning Koran pages.  Although people have been executed for blasphemy following court convictions, sometimes they are killed by mobs prior to completion of a trial. 

    Any culture, society, government, or belief system which does not allow for freedom of speech is not worth preserving and needs to go.  Executing someone for their opinion or something that they said is absolutely savage, disgusting, and pure evil.  I don’t care how offensive it was.  Stop being so sensitive.  Stop being a baby.  The left has the same problem, always wanting to curtail people’s freedom of speech to protect their own feelings.  News flash, the world doesn’t care about your feelings.  If your feelings are so delicate that they impair your functioning then learn not to have them.  I used to be sensitive when I was young, and I would literally attack other kids (only boys) for things that they said to me.  This was elementary age.  As a result of that I found myself in trouble a lot, and I had to learn to be less emotional so that I could function properly.  You can mute your own emotions.  You cannot completely eliminate them but you can reduce them and learn not to act on them so much.  Really it is something that everyone should learn to do.

    But I digress, I want to say something more about Islam specifically.  I absolutely detest that savage backward desert religion.  Muhammad is nothing sacred to me and neither is the Koran.  As far as I am concerned the Koran is a book of blasphemy.  Also, Muhammad was a pedophile.  Don’t excuse him.  He was a pedophile, he liked to have sex with little girls, and sometimes boys as well.  So he was also a queer.  To me, he is more unclean than the pigs Muslims are always shunning.  Also, there is no such thing as Allah, the false moongod of Mecca.  If Allah were real he would just be another pig in a pen on some farm someplace.  Maybe if I ever take up farming I will ranch pigs, and name one of them Allah.  Maybe I will even fashion a brand like the Muslim symbol for Allah, and brand it onto the biggest most disgusting pig on the farm, because that’s what Islam is. 

    Oh yes, I know that any Muslims reading this will be enraged and try to kill me, or worse.  But that will only validate all of my points I have made here, and in addition, I am not someone you want to mess with.  Anyone who tries anything is going to pay a heavy heavy price. 

    Source: http://news.yahoo.com/pakistan-accuses-ambassador-u-blasphemy-124213305.html

February 20, 2013

  • Rape and Cry Rape

    This one is for the ladies.  I wanted to talk about what to do in situations of rape and alleged rape.

    Rape:

    It appears that the left is intent on making helpless victims of all the law abiding citizens.  This is because the left does not believe that the role of government is to serve the people, they believe that the role of people is to serve the government.  They want slaves, not citizens.  That being said, I wanted to give some practical advice on what you can do if a rapist comes after you.  This advice is for if you find yourself in a situation of actual rape, and does not apply if you invited the guy over for sex and changed your mind during coitis, or if you had “one too many” and went to Happy Land without thinking. 

    So if the rapist comes after you, and you have no gun, the best thing you can do is dig your long fingernails into his eyes.  If you don’t have long fingernails right now you should consider growing them out, because if properly maintained they can serve as weapons which are typically overlooked by the statists and everyone else.  Forget about trying to batter him with punches and kicks.  A punch from the average woman is probably only enough to irritate the average man.  Also screaming is not that helpful, because these days the majority of people ignore screams, or they run away from them rather than towards.  When the rapist comes, it’s you and him. 

    The eye is the most sensitive part of the body.  You might be thinking that the nuts are, but a hair on the nuts is not going to cause any kind of irritation, whereas a hair stuck in the eye can cause major difficulties.  So if attacked, go for the eyes.  Scoop those suckers out, and once he is blinded he will be fairly helpless against any follow up attacks so long as you avoid grappling with him.  Don’t worry about getting icky eyeball juice on your hands or anything.  It’s his eyes or your virginity, and while I normally would not want to condemn anyone to a life of blindness, once someone viciously attacks you like that then you have a right to do whatever is necessary to defend yourself, especially if you are physically overmatched. 

    If you cannot reach his eyes for any reason then mash his nuts as hard as you can, then go for his eyes.  Don’t show any mercy because the rapist deserves none, and he will show you none.

    Now that I wrote this one watch the liberals start clamoring for limiting the length of fingernails.

    Cry Rape:

    I can’t just talk about rape without also talking about cry rape.  By “cry rape” I am of course talking about women who engage in fornication or adultury, and accuse their male co-conspirator of rape in order to get themselves out of trouble.  So, the advice I gave regarding what to do if raped does not apply to the cry rape women. 

    My advice for cry rape women is to just confess what you did, and the sooner the better.  The fact is, the longer you put it off the worse things will go for you, because the longer you decieve him the greater the offense.  Also, what if your boyfriend or husband decides to go after the alleged rapist?  Then not only are you condemning an innocent man to a serious assault and possible death (the accused rapist), but you are also condemning your husband or boyfriend (who would think he was only righting a wrong), to jail and possibly death.  You run the risk of ruining two lives needlessly.

    Yes I know you’re a selfish little twat, so that probably doesn’t factor in.  You care only about yourself and your personal comfort, but the thing is, maintaining lies over long periods of time requires effort, and after doing what you did things are never going to be as they were before anyways.

    “Oh but I may lose my boyfriend/husband!”–So what?  Obviously you can do without him or else you wouldn’t have been able to have that little fling that you just did. 

    “But I will be branded/stigmatized as a slut!”–Well, that’s because you are a slut.  If the shoe fits, wear it.  You should have thought about that before you cheated.  But don’t worry, there are lots of guys who like sluts.  They don’t like sluts for marriage, but they do like sluts for other things.  Just ask Ramzpaul if you don’t believe me.  If you were interested in marriage then you should not have cheated.  Just like if you are a teenage kid trying to go to an elite university, you don’t spend highschool skipping class and failing to turn in your homework.  Take responsibility for yourself. 

    Yes, it will probably be difficult for you to find a guy willing to marry you who doesn’t have a bad record of his own, but you put yourself in that situation, and you don’t have the right to falsely accuse someone of rape.  If I go and rob a gas station then my life isn’t going to be the same again either.  It’s not the gas stations fault that I robbed it, and any criminal charges, jail time, and lack of job opportunities that follow are a result of my own indescretion.  Yes it would lower the quality of my life, and after that I would probably be faced with the prospect of menial work or a life of crime for the rest of my life.  Yes that would be really awful, but if you aren’t prepared to face the consequences of an action then don’t take the action.

    Also, when you cry rape you do a serious disservice to actual rape victims who are looking for justice.  When an actual rape occurs it is a serious life changing thing.  My first reaction when a woman tells me she was raped should be sympathy and righteous indignation, not incredulity, but these days when I hear someone talk about rape I often react with incredulity.  Especially when a few drinks were involved. 

February 18, 2013

  • Don’t ever read “The Atlantic Wire”

    I actually do read news from the liberal media most of the time, especially since I get most of my news off of Yahoo, but this group called “The Atlantic Wire” goes way to far.  They are the most sloppy and unprofessional news outlet I have ever seen.  When I read it I can’t tell if it’s a blog or a news.  When I read blogs I’m OK with people being open with their biases, but I expect news articles to be atonal.  Look at this:

    Once asked if congressional law could stop the president from authorizing interrogators to crush the testicles of a detainee’s child, Yoo responded, “I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.” Yoo as critic of executive overreach reaches new heights of hypocrisy.

    –Whether or not the author thinks this guy is a hypocrite is irrelevant.  When I’m reading the news I can usually tell which side the author is on, but that doesn’t mean it is OK for them to blurt out their opinions and emotions like that.  How is that news?  How is that profesional? 

    Poor naive Mitt Romney. This government outsider thinks you actually pass laws in Washington! But he is right about one thing: Immigration reform would never pass a Republican-controlled Senate.

    –This segment is dripping with the author’s emotions.  Sun Tsu said never to let your enemies see your emotions, and when you post in something like a public news outlet and wantonly display your emotions like that then your enemies are going to see.  For example, I have seen this, and now I have less respect for this author and news source, and I am actively working to reduce the amount of views they will get as a result.  Condescending statements have no place in a news article.  Editorials and blogs are for opinion, news is SUPPOSED to be for facts.  If I want someone’s opinion I will read an editorial or blog.  I expect the news to be news, and the reporter’s opinion is not relevant to the news, it’s just slag which gets in the way of the story.  Also, there is no call for putting an exclamation mark ANYWHERE in a news article.  We don’t want to hear your emotions or emphasis, just tell us what happened and keep your emotions to yourself.  What a clown.

    The Atlantic’s James Fallows has written extensively about Senate Republicans abuse of the filibuster since they’ve been in the minority for the last six years. Fallows writes:

    –Now he is openly outing the bias of his entire organization.  Maybe liberals enjoy this kind of “reporting” but I just find it irritating. 

    Once upon a time, Fallows told On the Media, it took 67 votes to break a filibuster, but the filibuster had to be real

    –Seriously?  So is this a kids story book now?  Do I really need to explain how juvanile and inappropriate it is to begin any part of a news article with “once upon a time”?  After that I just stopped reading.  Yahoo has been posting articles from “The Atlantic Wire” from time to time, which is how I found out about them.  If you ever come across an article by them the best thing to do is immediately hit the back button. 

    Here is the article I took my excerpts from: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/06/obama-vs-senate-republicans-who-hates-constitution-more/53652/

    Yes, I know I use derisive adjectives and sarcasm in my blog from time to time, but the thing is, this is a blog.  Blogs and editorials are where you are supposed to display your opinion.  News articles are supposed to have standards.  They are supposed to convey the news, and that’s it.  Any opinions and sarcasm are totally inappropriate for a news article. 

    I actually trained in journalism for about a year when I was in college.  Originally I was going to go into it, but then I changed my mind.  However, as a result I tend to hold journalists to journalist standards, and people like that (Atlantic Wire) fall miserably short.  I don’t know how they even graduates from school without understanding the difference between news and editorials. 

February 16, 2013

  • Drones WILL be Deployed over the US

    “1984″ is on it’s way.  It is official, Congress has passed a bill allowing for drones to be deployed over the US, and Barack Osama is expected to sign.  Of course he is going to sign, he’s a totalitarian control freak statist elitist.  He hates us, and sees us as his enemy, which is why he is trying to disarm us, and why the government is stockpiling weapons and ammo of their own. 

    All you sludge brained liberals who voted for the Democrats bear some of the blame for this.  All of us on the right know that this is bad, but let me break it down for all the leftists who are thick between the ears. The entire purpose of deploying drones over the US is to kill and spy on US citizens. They will use these to eliminate “domestic enemies.” BTW, the greatest domestic enemy right now is our crap heap government.   They have already laid the groundwork for target killings of US citizens without trial, now they will do it over the US as well as abroad.  People will simply be killed in their own homes.  One night you might be sleeping, and suddenly your house will be rocked by an explosion.  You will go outside and see flames coming from your neighbors bedroom.  If it even makes the news, they will say that a gas line exploded, or some other contrived bullcrap.

    Someday it might be you.  Maybe SOMEDAY you will actually get upset over something the government does to the point where you complain about it loudly and publicly (I know it’s hard to imagine because the government is your God, but everyone has their line that can’t be crossed), and they will come for you.  You probably won’t even see it coming.  One second you will be asleep, and the next second you will be dead.

    But that is not the only danger these drones pose. They will also be crashing into people’s houses, and into airplanes loaded with passengers. If/when that happens, every single politician who participated in this God forsaken bill will be a murderer, assuming that they cannot be considered such already.  I know you liberals hate us Conservatives/traditional Americans, and a lot of you will probably cheer for the drones as long as we are the ones being targetted, killed, and spied upon.  But on the other hand you probably have friends and family who fly.  The drones will be crashing into airplanes and homes, and the accidents will be without prejudice toward creed or ideology.  Think about that one.

    Now we have this coupled with Obama’s executive orders to take control of the internet, so this way they can track and kill people like me for speaking out.  I know that lots of leftists would be happy to see me go, and I’m fine with that, but I’m not going to stop speaking the truth until I can’t speak anymore.

    I think it would be sweet irony and justice if the drones malfunctioned and crashed into the White House or the Congress building. 

    Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/7/coming-to-a-sky-near-you/?page=1