Wednesday, January 23, 2019
This, I felt, was very good, very "deep thought". Me? I'm on the hard right in many ways. Not every way, but my nation comes first. There are things that I feel you can do whatever you want in your own compound, just don't bring it out into the street. But I totally agree with the "quality control" thought in here.
This was watched in increments, because there were several places where I needed stop to think about that thing or another. Go get something to eat (popcorn, as it were), go get a cup of coffee, etc.
You may not like this, or you may be glued to it. I just felt pulled to watch the whole thing and digest the thought.
Monday, January 21, 2019
Super Blood Moon. Last one until 2021. I'm not going to go all "supernatural" on you, BUUUUUUUUUUUT, The Donald is beyond reasonable explanation.
How. In. The. FU#* did he win? How? Explain this to me.
Saturday, January 19, 2019
To Nasty Pisslousy, for one, RIF. Know who the POTUS is? Have you ever heard the line "You're fired"? Monday is IT, bitches. Just know that. New elections to fill your slots? HARD core security to ensure eligible voters? :*
Friday, January 18, 2019
It's when you see the complete history of Mueller's abuses of the "Justice" system, that you realize we've been living in tyranny for a LONG time.
I think we (bloggers and other alternative media) have an obligation to make time to sound the alarm. We need to regularly post re-caps of prior offenses, crimes, and abuses of power, from the time of Bill Clinton onward - INCLUDING GW Bush.
Younger voters won't know of these. They need to see the long history of offenses laid out, in detail, to understand WHY the old geezers and geezettes are angry at what has happened to their country.
If they are 21 now, they were only 10 when BO took over. Their knowledge of Bush is filtered by the heavy propaganda that was around since they were TWO!
They know NOTHING of BJC and HRC, nor of the sleazy deals they made, and the lies they told. What they know is filtered - primarily by Leftists.
So, education is # 1.
Is this the Rebellion Triangle? American to England to France?
Uprisings by the working classes in those countries have been going on longer than the Media and the Leftist Establishment would like you to know about. The Yellow Jackets Revolt is the latest in a long series of incidents in those 3 countries, and may be the one that sets off the Global Open Rebellion Against the Leftists.
I was a kid when a lot of earlier rebellions happened - in Africa and much of Asia. The thing is, even then, the revolts spread virally.
It's even more likely now, with the easy spread of videos and organizing tools on social media. The more the Left pushes back, the harder their opponents will respond. The only thing that can stop them now is access to weapons.
Even without guns, the YJs can do a lot of damage, which is happening right now. You will notice that you have NOT generally seen these scenes of violence on TV. I'm not sure which end of the feed is censoring the news - the French, or the US media.
But, censorship is no excuse. These videos are widely available online. If the Leftist Media WANTED this to get out, it would.
As for America, about the only thing stopping our Patriotic Opposition from doing the same is Trump. Who is, after all, a compromiser and a relative centrist. He has kept America from not-so Civil War, by giving people some hope that all is not lost.
God help the Left if Trump doesn't win in 2020. It could be the last time we see our country intact.
I'm just putting the link here, because it's an interesting idea, in a well-written story.
I found so many news clips, tv, radio, newspaper, etc when I googled it, that I figured everyone knew and had formed an opinion.
But with the current general inability to pay attention for more than 30 seconds anymore (unless it really upsets you), I figured the occasional reminder couldn't hurt.
As well, we now have the subversion about the lies that were supposedly told in rigging a poll (OMG) by the right. But doesn't the left do that continually?
Again, I'm thinking this one may have been a set up to open the door to investigation?
Thursday, January 17, 2019
A lot of us in the Right are looking forward to President Trump’s next Supreme Court appointment, which will probably cement a conservative majority on the Court for at least two decades. But I’m looking forward to it out of a kind of hope some might find peculiar.
Imagine that the appointee is Amy Coney Barrett, recently installed on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Barrett is a Catholic, and apparently a serious one. (Sad to say, serious Catholics are a declining demographic in these United States.) Having seen Brian Buescher abused by the Democrats over his Catholicism, I’m hoping for exchanges such as the following at Judge Barrett’s confirmation hearing:
Sen. Harris: Judge Barrett, what is your opinion of the decision in Roe v. Wade?
Judge Barrett: It was an outrage. Clearly wrongly decided.
Sen. Harris: So you would vote to overturn that decision?
Judge Barrett: Given the opportunity? I certainly would.
Sen. Harris: How can you sit there and advocate the repeal of a woman’s right to choose?
Judge Barrett: Abortion is murder. If there’s a right to life, there can be no right to murder.
Sen. Harris: I’m appalled that you can consider yourself fit for the highest court in America.
Judge Barrett: I’m appalled that you, who openly defend the murder of innocent children, have a seat in the U.S. Senate.
Sen. Harris: How dare you!
Judge Barrett: Why not? You were never going to vote to confirm me, so why shouldn’t I say what I think?
I’d buy a Pay-Per-View to see that. Maybe it’s unlikely, but still...!
He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States. [Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section 3]
The president’s duties, as indicated by the citation above, do include informing Congress about “the state of the union.” However, the relevant clause does not specify how that duty is to be performed: neither how often, nor where, nor by what means. Moreover, the “tradition” of a public State Of The Union Address, delivered in person and orally to a joint session of Congress, is far younger than most people believe: proto-fascist Woodrow Wilson began the “tradition” in 1913.
Thus, Nancy Pelosi cannot “cancel” this presidential duty, as has been suggested by some commentators. President Trump can simply select an alternate means of conveying the information to Congress that he believes Congress should receive.
The presidential duty of informing Congress about the state of the union derives from several characteristics of the early United States:
- News relevant to the entire nation took several weeks to circulate, rather than being instantaneous;
- Sessions of Congress were far shorter then than now, typically only a few weeks per year;
- A Representative or Senator had to make a difficult overland journey to attend a session;
- The president was the only federal official whose official duties were continuous.
Today a formal State Of The Union Address is a relic, something that could easily be disposed of with no adverse consequences. Presidents use it mainly for televised publicity, self-congratulation, and to whip up support for their personal legislative agendas. There would be a lot less Sturm und Drang about it were presidents to return to the Nineteenth Century practice of submitting a written summary to Congress and letting it go at that.
Mr. President: How about doing it via an email? You have an email-address list of all those clowns on Capitol Hill, don’t you? Just a thought, mind you.
Wednesday, January 16, 2019
Other than the Indigenous Americans - and, by that, I mean those who immigrated to the land now known as the USA long before the more recent invasions by Norsemen, Europeans, Spanish, Africans, and Asians - all are what the PC call immigrants.
By that, they mean that you, or your ancestors, are present in this country quasi-illegally. Not the most recent immigrants/undocumented Americans, of course. THEY have a RIGHT to be here.
But, you, whose families have lived here for generations - you really should feel unworthy to be here.
I'm an Old-School American. I'm fine with some special assistance to people new to this country - help with English language acquisition, adjustment to the culture and law. That's for those who actually made the trip. By the time the first Native Americans show up in those families, that help should be less needed.
That acculturation, which ALL Americans have had to manage, is part of what makes us a country, rather than a loose confederation of tribes.
One major factor limiting that adjustment is the growing propensity of recent immigrants to marry someone from the "Old Country". This slows both cultural adjustment and language fluency.
Frankly, if someone wants to marry a non-American, they have several choices:
- Go to that country, marry them, and wait until the normal immigration process, with background checks and waits is complete. Return with them.
- Wait until they get an IMMIGRATION visa - not a visitor's visa, nor a student visa, nor any other kind. Then, marry them.
- Go to their country to live - permanently
Precisely so, AHEM.
Tuesday, January 15, 2019
Sooooo...Mueller's a white hat? And, just perhaps, this "government shut down" will result in recall elections?
Monday, January 14, 2019
I look at my 380, which I carry when I want a smaller package. It works much better than you may have been led to believe. Proven fact, just make sure your shot is in place.
I look at my 9's, same generic warning. Good round, good effectiveness, aim carefully and you win.
I look at my 45's, and I know it will do its job. Get it in, and it's done. Most of the time, check my body and that's what you'll find.
BUT! Just look at the 40. I'm sitting here, looking at a stack of mags loaded with these. And they're so pretty. Bigger than the 9, faster than the 45, something about it just sings to me.
Would I like a full honk 10mm? Uhm, yeah. BUT! Again, is this 40 the ultimate compromise? More rounds, same mag, more horsepower than either of the others? 9/45? I tend to think so.
I was a Combat Arms Technician for a priority of my military career. I learned to read the numbers, understand them for the sake of my family/property.
Something about this round sings to me for a PDW.
What you carry/trust is up to you. 380 will do, and do quite well, 9mm is pretty sweet, all things considered. 45 is well trusted the world over. Why is the 40 ridiculed? I researched, and it does it all, and it does it well.
Friday, January 11, 2019
It's an unrelenting pressure on many sides:
- Invasion by aliens, who tie up social services and courts, with the help of NGOs funded by our own government.
- Deliberate lying to overwhelm the legitimate resources intended for actual refugees (this was filmed in Europe, but similar scams have been documented in the USA).
- Policing of Free Speech
- Damore at Google - at the time, his firing did seem like overkill - was his knowledge of Dragonfly, the search engine created by Google to censor its citizens the Real Reason?
- Trans-gressions - can cost you a job/career
- Aggressive use of government commissions and bureaucracies to squelch dissenters and put fear into average people, who haven't the money to fight them. Obama was aggressive in extending beyond the law to pursue 'criminals' who wouldn't conform to his administration's norms. Trump seems to be willing to abide by the state's decisions.
- Use of the courts as an extension of the Leftist agenda
- 24/7365 media propaganda - this is NOT a new thing
- Manufacturing of 'consensus' - when WE use the word consensus, we mean that we agree on the overall policy/plan, with some minor differences. When THEY use the word consensus, it means something else entirely. My first introduction to the technique was in schools where I taught. I saw manufactured pseudo-consensus crop up, over and over again, using that method.
- Encoding rules/policies/laws that are then used to hammer out dissent. If you don't read VoxDay, you're missing a treat. He's not afraid to oppose the majority. His books on SJW's and how to fight them are well worth the cost.
Thursday, January 10, 2019
Let us but PRAY that enough have awakened to the truth. Sorry I can't give you a percentage, but I believe many/MANY have. Is it enough? I don't know...
Tuesday, January 8, 2019
That's not a culture friendly to creating larger families - and, when I was young, who would have ever considered a two-child family as "larger"?
In less than a century, China has morphed from a culture in which the bride's family had to pony up a substantial dowry, to one in which even the plainest, dullest girl can have her choice of attractive would-be grooms.
Other than using their surplus men, who can never create a Chinese family, as the bulwark of an increasingly aggressive military, what can China do?
This connection between population changes and political upheaval is not a new phenomenon.
I found this shocker on Louder with Crowder - the sex ratio in Sweden is even worse than the one in China - find out why.
The French Revolution was, in part, precipitated by the dramatic increase in population during the 18th century. During that same time period, the price of consumer goods, such as bread, had increased dramatically.
The urban population had their wages held down by the competition from the swelling population. A few bad years in the crop production was all that was needed to jack up talk of revolution.
To a certain extent, the fervor for revolt was amped up by the Americans' success in overthrowing the government. But the biggest part of that resentment of the nobility was DRIVEN BY THEIR OWN ACTIONS (today's Progressive Elite might want to take note):
The bolded sections might well give the Progressive Elite some concern; their own lifestyles are disturbingly close to that description.The French aristocracy, however, was not a single social unit but a series of differing groups. At the top were the hereditary nobles—a few descended from royalty or from feudal lords of the Middle Ages but more from families ennobled within the past two or three centuries. These “nobles of the sword” tended to view most of their countrymen, including the lesser nobility, as vulgar upstarts.Below the nobility of the sword came the “nobility of the robe,” including the justices of the parlements and other courts and a host of other officials. The nobles of the robe, or their ancestors, had originally become nobles by buying their offices. But since these offices were then handed down from father to son, the mercenary origins of their status had become somewhat obscured over time.By the late eighteenth century there was often little practical distinction between the nobility of the robe and of the sword; marriages between members of the two groups were common. On the whole, the nobles of the robe were, in fact, richer than the nobles of the sword, and their firm hold on key governmental positions gave them more power and influence.Many noblemen, however, had little wealth, power, or glamor. They belonged to the lowest level of French aristocracy—the hobereaux, the “little falcons.” In an effort to conserve at least part of their traditional status, almost all of the hobereaux insisted on the meticulous collection of the surviving feudal and manorial dues from the peasantry.
I've long enjoyed reading about statistics and the relationship between a country's demographics and their history. I was an oddball in my History classes, but it's paying off now,
As Recep Tayyip Erdogan once said, there is no “moderate” Islam. And now Rashida Tlaib, the newly elected Muslim Congressvermin from Michigan, has confirmed that verdict:
Tlaib deleted the tweet swiftly...but not swiftly enough to prevent the Internet, with its inexhaustible memory, from capturing it.
Rashida Tlaib is plainly anti-American. The Michiganders who put her in office are equally anti-American. Islam is anti-American, which is why Muslims were forbidden to immigrate to the United States under the terms of the 1952 McCarran-Walter Immigration and Nationality Act. And the rest of the country needs to know it.
I shall repeat myself:
No further immigration of Muslims can be permitted.
Every Muslim in the U.S. must be expelled.
All mosques must be demolished.
Wake up, America...before you wake up dead.
Saturday, January 5, 2019
The old gag that “You can tell when a politician is lying because his lips move” has a lot of truth to it.
You can also tell when a politician is growing desperate. The desperate politician won’t stand his ground. He keeps changing his reasons for being for or against whatever issue is most prominent in political discourse. You can see this right now in the Democrats’ attempt to thwart the border wall.
First, they claimed it wouldn’t work. Shortly after that it would be “too expensive,” indicating that it would work. A little bit later it was derided as “unnecessary,” which suggests that it might not be too expensive after all. Then came the denunciations of a wall as “racist,” which implies that a wall would be necessary, affordable, and effective. Today the Democrats are denouncing the wall as “immoral.” From that we can infer that it wouldn’t be racist at all. But what would make it immoral? No one will say.
The public wants the wall. We elected President Trump largely for that reason. The Border Patrol wants the wall, plus additional measures to buttress its effect. Other nations that have erected physical barriers on their borders have reaped large benefits. Israel is perhaps the best example.
But the Democrats are adamant that there shall be no wall. They’re willing to “go to the wall” to prevent it.
I claim that the jury is in on this issue: the Democrats are against the wall because President Trump and a solid majority of the Americans polled on the subject do want it.
Among other things it would complement the wall on Mexico’s southern border. Think about that.
AOC is tweeting about her style-setting gold hoops and red lipstick.
It seems that she doesn't know much about the famous women who preceded her.
Or, to be more accurate, much of anything.
Wednesday, January 2, 2019
Move down in age, and target the younger ones - who will NOT be able to partake harmlessly without penalty. You're not cleaning up the problem, you're just moving it to a new demographic.
Raconteur Report agrees - click here to read the perspective of a nurse on this 'victimless crime'.
He may go a little far with the punishments. But, they have to be made severe enough that the prospect of being caught is a deterrent.
No, it's not victimless. The poor kids that grow up in a house with an addict are some of the most wretched victims. Society hasn't the guts to pull them out of there, except for a few. By the time the social workers stop falling for the tearful "I'm going to change my ways, don't take my kids!" line, the kids have been damaged by their parents' crap, and are less likely to be adoptable.
What I think?
Pull them out the first time for 6 months. Return is based on both a clean urine/blood sample AND a job. Not school - a job.
The second time, put them up for adoption. All parental rights severed for good. Do NOT let the grandparents take them - in many cases, they're the ones whose failed parenting contributed to their kid's screwups. With that threat, grandparents will work harder to keep that kid straight.
This all started when Elite, monied, connected parents found their kids were drug users. They could not bring themselves to cut them off from support if they continued using, nor to allow them to face the legal consequences of their acts.
So, they started this 'victimless' idea. They argued for leniency in the courts, publicly-paid-for rehab centers (more like hospitals, really, with amenities and soft-spoken people to tell the addict that it wasn't his fault), and misdemeanor status for first offenses (and further offenses), or 'only a user, not a dealer' offenders.
It largely worked - for them. They kept their kid out of the system, managed to use their money to deal with the health, legal, and addiction problems, and often managed to get little Courtney or Kurt back on track eventually.
For the less wealthy, less connected, it was a disaster. For them, for their families, for their neighborhood. They used in public, had to deal to afford their own drugs, and screwed up their own, formerly stable, but poor, neighborhoods. Multiple generations were screwed up, intellectually, academically, culturally, morally, and religiously. Those are the kids that are scoring at the bottom of the scale, often turning to drugs themselves, and often sexually exploited by the lowlifes coming and going from their homes, or others in their neighborhood who took advantage of their parentless situation.
Today's addicts? More of them are now driven by doctor-facilitated pain meds, then refusal to prescribe more, because "you'll get addicted'.
Get addicted? They ARE addicted. And, it's the medical establishment, AND the drug companies that profited from their addictions, that has a responsibility - morally and legally - to clean up the mess they made.
One year of serious addiction treatment for any addict that wants it, including clearing up their legal messes, as much as can be done.
After that carrot, the stick. jail time - 2-5 years, NOT to be forgone because of expensive lawyers or another round of treatment. Yes, they will have a record. After 5 years of clean living on the outside, they can apply to have it wiped out, and restore their voting rights, ability to work around kids, etc.
That 'clean living' thing? Includes alcohol use, ANY further rehab visits, and any violent crime.
Second time, they're incarcerated for a decade or more.
Third time, life.
It's tough love, guys. It's the only thing that's worked. Consequences, no acceptance of their B$, and a willingness to have them face the mess they've made of their lives, and the people they've hurt.