Friday, July 31, 2009

More On Obama, Gates & The Increasingly Used Race Card

I found this at the link below but to save you from actually having to go there I've placed it here. This was written By Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs. I'm not even going to add a thing. She says it better than I can even attempt.

Professor Henry Louis Gates' arrest by Cambridge, Mass., police Sgt. James Crowley became a big issue because the president made a statement inciting hatred on national television.

Obama admonished us, suggesting that this became a big story because it “shows that race is still a troubling issue.” Wrong. It ignited a “national debate” because Obama made it a national debate — and Americans are sick and tired of the African-American president calling us racists.

Barack Obama now is trying to backtrack on his racist demagoguery.

“In my choice of words,” he said Friday, “I unfortunately, I think, gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department or Crowley specifically.” But he did not apologize, and invited both Crowley and Gates to visit the White House.

Gates demanded an apology from Crowley. But Crowley says he won’t apologize. What should he apologize for? Doing his job? Obama is the one who should apologize. He should apologize both to Crowley and the American people. He should apologize for making this arrest a big issue when he said law enforcement “acted stupidly” and, like the boy who cried wolf, yelled racism.

Obama tried to incite racial division and wrongly criticized the police during a news conference. The lap-dog media, in what can kindly be described as a docile news conference on healthcare, lobbed Obama a racially charged question — giving him, yet again, an opportunity to whip the American people with the racism charge and demonize law enforcement as racist.

This validates the op-ed I penned on Obama's NAACP speech just days before his tongue lashing of law enforcement. The speech was scandalous. The NAACP audience listened to the African-American president of the United States rail against discrimination in the country that elected him. His antagonist in the speech was the big white bogeymen, stealing the very lives and futures of black children, Muslims, Latinos, and gays. Demagoguery.

Obama complained that "more than half a century after Brown v. Board, the dream of a world-class education is still being deferred all across the country. African-American students are lagging behind white classmates in reading and math, an achievement gap that is growing in states that once led the way in the civil rights movement."

Does Obama believe, and does he expect us to believe, that this "achievement gap" is because of white racism? If there is an "achievement gap," it is because the left seized public education and destroyed it. No one, of whatever color, wants to send his or her kids to a public school. Affluent Americans opt out, and industrious Americans home school.

But the Democrats deny school vouchers to the poor, which amounts to denying them an opportunity for a real education. The left wants to keep them down on the farm.

Once again, Obama grabbed the opportunity on national television, in yet another seizure of the airwaves, to divide and create discord. Mind you, that was Obama’s fourth prime-time press event in almost as many months — more than Bush had in his last three years (and the craven networks would not accommodate Bush’s last one, while we were at war). Bush had a total of four in his eight years in office.

The Gates question was the only question not related to healthcare. And there was a mix up when Obama called on Lynn Sweet (the reporter who asked about Gates' arrest) for the last question: It was another reporter’s turn. But rest assured that Obama made sure he went back to Sweet and gave her the last question. On racism.

Obama kicked off his remarks on the arrest by saying, “Skip Gates is a friend.” So what? Friends of Obama can’t break the law? Friends of Obama are above the law?

Then Obama admitted that he had not seen “all the facts,” but still charged that “the Cambridge police acted stupidly,” and played the race card: “What I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcing disproportionately. That’s just a fact.”

What does this racism propaganda have to do with the Gates meltdown? Was Gates really railroaded by a racist cop? In reality, Crowley trains other police officers on race issues. And the Boston Globe reported that Crowley once “desperately tried to save the life of Reggie Lewis after the Boston Celtics star collapsed while practicing in the school gym.”

The man has a record and a reputation that neither Gates nor Obama could hold a candle to.

Yet in a second news conference, Obama continued to preach to us, and obfuscated his remarks in the first one. He admonished us and told us the arrest was a teachable moment. Teachable for whom? If anyone ought to learn something, it ought to be him.

First, he should learn to stop pulling the race card at every turn. Second, he should not jump to conclusions and blame whitey. Third, he must stop his attempts to divide the American people based on a fallacious, racist narrative.

Obama said Crowley and Gates “both overreacted.” Wrong. Moral equivalency. Further, Obama’s remarks on the arrest angered cops and emboldened criminals. I am thrilled that the Cambridge police unions had a press conference to defend Crowley. They voiced their support for Crowley and said they “deeply resent” Obama’s reckless remarks. They want an apology and they more than deserve one. Considering how brilliantly Obama apologizes to despots, murderers and enemies, it should be a breeze. But it won’t happen. Obama has never apologized to a good guy.

Thursday, July 30, 2009

Why Is Palestine Muslim Land?

This is a mighty fine question. In fact, it's a question that many laypersons have probably asked themselves at one point or another. Occasionally, between angry rantings, I attempt to bring the answer to a question or two that may be useful to society. I actually found a pretty good, and historically accurate representation of the answer to the above asked question. I hope you'll all take a moment to read and become enlightened if you were not already. I don't remember where exactly I was tipped off toward this story unfortunately but I traced it back to this link where my information comes from.

We all hear the "Religion of Peace" constantly screeching about how Palestine is rightfully their land. We know that they are constantly being terribly oppressed by those horrible Jews. Let’s talk about Muslim land. Why do the Muslims actually claim this particular land? What is "Muslim Land"?

Robert Spencer, a great author and Islamic religious scholar puts it this way.

The 3rd of March 1924 that…the criminal English agent, Mustafa Kemal (so-called Ataturk, the “Father of the Turks”!) announced that the Grand National Assembly had agreed to destroy the Khilafah; and…the establish…a secular, irreligious, Turkish republic….

Since that day the Islamic ummah [nation, community] has lived a life full of calamities; she was broken up into small mini states controlled by the enemies of Islam in every aspect. The Muslims were oppressed and became the object of the kuffar’s [that is, unbelievers’] derision in Kashmir, Philippines, Thailand, Chechnya, Iraq, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Afghanistan, Palestine and other lands belonging to the Muslims [...]

So the crime took place and the kuffar tightened their grip over the Islamic lands and tore it up into pieces….In place of a single Khilafah state they established cartoon states and installed rulers as agents to carry out the orders of their kuffar masters. They abolished the Islamic Sharee’ah [religious law] from the sphere of ruling, economy, international relations, domestic transactions and judiciary.[...]

“Without the Khilafah, the Islamic lands will remain torn up and the Islamic peoples will remain divided. Without the Khilafah the kafir, crusader and colonial states will continue to control us, plunder our resources and create divisions amongst us. Without the Khilafah, the Jews will continue to occupy our sacred places and kill and humiliate our brothers in Palestine. Without the Khilafah, the Islamic peoples in Bosnia, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kashmir, Uzbekistan and so on will continue to be killed….Without the Khilafah, those Muslims who do not work seriously for its implementation will be sinful and incur the anger of Allâh, even if they fast, pray, make Hajj [pilgrimage] and pay Zakah [alms]. This is because the work to establish the Khilafah Rashidah is a fard [obligation] on every Muslim, and it should be conducted with the most extreme effort and utmost speed.[...]

Well, just from the above passage, we have learned that Muslims believe that they own Bosnia, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kashmir, Uzbekistan, Kashmir, Philippines, and Thailand. They also lay claim to the entity calling itself “palestine” but we already know that “palestine” was never a nation, just another region stolen by and occupied by Muslims.

And there is something else also. In Islamic law, jihad warfare may be defensive or offensive. Jihad is ordinarily fard kifaya – an obligation on the Muslim community as a whole, from which some are freed if others take it up. Jihad becomes fard ayn, or obligatory on every individual Muslim to aid in any way he can, if a Muslim land is attacked. That is what jihadists argue today – that the American presence in Iraq and Afghanistan makes jihad fard ayn, or obligatory on every individual Muslims.

But still, that is just jihad for the defense of Muslim lands. There is also offensive jihad, in line with Muhammad’s command that Muslims offer non-Muslims conversion to Islam, subjugation as inferiors under Islamic rule, or war. But in Islamic law, only the caliph is authorized to wage offensive jihad.

That’s a primary reason why jihadists want to restore the caliphate. Some would even say that they’ve already done so. In 1996 the Taliban’s Mullah Omar went to the shrine of the Respectable Cloak of Muhammad in Kandahar and stood on the roof of the shrine wrapped in the cloak. His followers proclaimed him Emir al Momineen, or leader of the believers – a title of the caliph. So far, however, only a jihadist group in Algeria has joined the Taliban in accepting Mullah Omar as caliph.

In any case, the desire to restore the caliphate ultimately highlights the expansionist, imperialist, totalitarian, globalist aims of the jihad movement, even as today it presents itself as a defensive action against Western evils. This is, I believe, a crucial point for our understanding the enemy properly, so that we can formulate the proper defensive responses. If we don’t understand what we’re up against correctly, we will not defend ourselves properly against it. And that is, unfortunately, in many ways the fix we’re in today.

Now, by the time of his death in 632 AD, Muhammad had extended his control via raids and battles over most of southern Arabia. Near the end of his life, Muhammad sent letters to the empires of the Middle East demanding their submission to his authority. This dispels any notion that the Muhammad intended Islam’s expansion to stop with Arabia. Muhammad fought and crushed the people of the Arabian peninsula. Other Caliphs fought and crushed the people of the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and Europe, all in the name of Allah. Arab Muslim armies occupied and terrorized the Holy Land, conquered what is now Iraq and Iran, then swept west across North Africa, into Spain, and finally into France. Forunately, the Muslim offensive was halted at the Battle of Poitiers/Tours, not far from Paris, in 732 AD. But, in the east, the jihad penetrated deep into Central Asia.

Spencer writes “Almost overnight, the more advanced civilizations of the Middle East, North Africa, Persia, and Iberia saw their agriculture, native religions, and populations destroyed or plundered… jihad engulfed much of the Byzantine, Visigothic, Frankish, and Persian Empires and left the newborn Islamic Empire controlling territory from Southern France, south through Spain, east across North Africa to India, and north to Russia. Early in the second millennium AD, the Mongol invasion from the east greatly weakened the Islamic Empire and ended Arab predominance therein.”

“Some twenty-five years before the first Crusading army set out from central Europe for the Holy Land, the Turkish (Ottoman) armies began an assault on the Christian Byzantine Empire, which had ruled what is now Turkey since the Roman Empire’s capital was moved to Constantinople in 325 AD. At the battle of Manzikert, in 1071, the Christian forces suffered a disastrous defeat, which left much of Anatolia (Turkey) open to invasion. This second wave of jihad was temporarily held up by the invading Latin Armies during the Crusades (see Islam 101 FAQs), but, by the beginning of the 14th century, the Turks were threatening Constantinople and Europe itself. In the West, Roman Catholic armies were bit by bit forcing Muslim forces down the Iberian peninsula, until, in 1492, they were definitively expelled (the Reconquista).

One of the most significant engagements between the invading Muslims and the indigenous peoples of the region was the Battle of Kosovo in 1389, where the Turks annihilated a multinational army under the Serbian King, St. Lazar, though their progress into Europe was significantly slowed. After numerous attempts dating back to the seventh century, Constantinople, the jewel of Eastern Christendom, finally fell in 1453 to the armies of Sultan Mahomet II. Lest one ascribe the atrocities of the first wave of jihad to the “Arabness” of its perpetrators, the Turks showed they were fully capable of living up to the principles of the Quran and the Sunnah.”

We all know the canard perpetrated by Muslims that Muslims are not attacking their enemies, but only counterattacking, so that if non-Muslims would only stop provoking them, all would be well.

History says otherwise. That is why when Osama bin Laden talks, he utters orthodox Islam: Muslims must convert non-Muslims by force, if necessary, or otherwise kill them. This is why Islam has been on the attack since its birth in the 7th century AD. Muhammad started fighting to force conversions and his followers continue to fight to this day, hoping to spread Islam throughout the world.

Logical arguments as to why Islam is appealing to so many millions of people are scarce, which is why moderate Islam today is nearly non-existant, and with regards to deception and mendacity, for Muslims, history renews itself each day. This is all the more reason why Osama bin Laden and his vicious followers need to be hunted down, targetted, and destroyed.

So, readers, when Muslims in Dearborn, Michigan, hold an anti-American, anti-Israel demonstration and carry signs bearing slogans such as “US Hands Off Muslim Land”, now you’ll know what they’re talking about.

So, why is Palestine Muslim land? Well, basically it comes down to this, Islam lays claim to any land it occupies, breaches and terrorizes? If they've ever terrorized the people and confiscated the land, Allah says it belongs to them. If they kill or enslave the people and take the land and then 100 years later the people fight back and win the land back, it's still not theirs. Islam will never stop until they have complete control of not only Palestine, but every other land mass on earth. Their warmongering, scratch that, peaceful Allah tells them it is their duty. The method for conquering is usually violence but in the U.S. and the U.K. they have shown that they'll settle for playing the victim and using our own laws and hospitality against us to gain the eventual majority as well as control. I'm willing to bet they won't be quite so hospitable once they run things.

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Racism Everywhere, She's Racist, He's Racist, We're All Racist

So we all remember last week, or two weeks ago, this woman who called the police in Cambridge Massachusetts because it appeared that somebody was breaking into a neighbor's house. This is not that article but it does give you a little story about which I'm am about to pitch my bitch.

Licia Whalen was out walking to lunch in a black Harvard professor's Cambridge neighborhood near the University when an elderly woman without a cell phone stopped her because she was concerned there was a possible burglary in progress. The woman who dialed 911 to report a possible break-in at the home of black Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. It turned out to be the professor himself with his driver trying to get in because he had misplaced or his key didn't work or something. The cops were racist the caller was racist, everybody was racist. I wish I didn't live in a country where every single white person is racist but that is the sad truth. There is not a single white non-racist person in the United States, that's a fact!

Whalen (who is actually hispanic) was vilified as a racist on blogs after a police report said she described the possible burglars as "two black males with backpacks." Tapes of the call released earlier this week revealed that Whalen did not mention race. When pressed by a dispatcher on whether the men were white, black or Hispanic, she said one of them might have been Hispanic.

So, anyhow, police show up, question said black men. One of said black men becomes angry and belligerent, said police ask for ID, said black man produces ID but continues being a douchebag, said police arrest his ass for disorderly conduct, said police get called racist AGAIN! The arrest by a white police officer sparks a national debate over racial profiling and police conduct. President Obama says the police acted "stupidly". They did, they should know better than to arrest a black man for anything if they're white. He could have actually murdered somebody in front of them and if he's arrested by a white officer they're racist in this country.

Let me tell you what happens if I'm standing outside my home and the cops come to question me about something and I decide that since it's my home, I am entitled to do whatever the fuck I want regardless of what they want. They will kick the shit out of me, handcuff me, possibly taze me, and take my ass to jail, just like they did to Gates. Want to guess what color I am? I'll give you one guess, it's not black, it's not hispanic. If you call me white I'm smearing your name all over for racial discrimination because I'm Irish-American and I find "white" highly offensive.

I know there are racist cops out there somewhere. I know there are a lot of non-racist but simply moronic cops out there. There are plenty of morons with low IQ's, a badge, and an inferiority complex to attempt to make up for. There are also a lot of good cops who do their jobs as best they can. It's not that you're black it's that you were acting like a fucking asshole. It's also not that any person giving the description of black, or African American or whatever it be is racist, it's that this is pertinent fucking information. Whether a person is black or white or Hispanic makes a big motherfucking difference you whiny racism screaming assholes! That's like saying I can't tell you the color of the get-away car because I only see cars not colors. That's fucking super, then rejoice in the fact that nobody will ever get caught for any crimes they commit.

Once again, the most racist people in this country today, are usually the assholes that are presenting the race card in the first place and they should simply be ignored. Unfortunately for us, the media is full of retards and other various self-serving assholes and perpetuating the "racism" issue is always a good way to make some money.


Our Brilliant President In Action

Barack Hussein Obama... I'm not even sure he can spell that without a teleprompter. Hat tip to Infidel Bloggers Alliance for this one.




I will certainly sleep better knowing there is a special olympian at the helm. No wonder he thinks socialism is a good policy, he doesn't have no need for that there book learnin'.

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

The Origins of Political Correctness

I found this Address by Bill Lind Director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism at the Free Congress Foundation today. I simply couldn't resist posting it.

In modern America, people have to be fearful of what they say, of what they write, and of what they think. They have to be afraid of using the wrong word, a word denounced as offensive or insensitive, or racist, sexist, or homophobic. What causes this fear? Political correctness. This is an address to political correctness in modern times and it's destructiveness. I will quote it as I found it the majority of the time and at other times where I've added my own commentary I will try to show that as well. I won't lead in anymore because I think Mr. Lind says it best.

We have seen other countries, particularly in this century, where this has been the case (rampant political correctness). And we have always regarded them with a mixture of pity, and to be truthful, some amusement, because it has struck us as so strange that people would allow a situation to develop where they would be afraid of what words they used. But we now have this situation in this country. We have it primarily on college campuses, but it is spreading throughout the whole society. Were does it come from? What is it?

We call it "Political Correctness." The name originated as something of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of it as only half-serious. In fact, it’s deadly serious. It is the great disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world. It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.

If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is Cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious.

First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than on college campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the other sainted "victims" groups that PC revolves around, quickly find themselves in judicial trouble. Within the small legal system of the college, they face formal charges – some star-chamber proceeding – and punishment. That is a little look into the future that Political Correctness intends for the nation as a whole.

Indeed, all ideologies are totalitarian because the essence of an ideology (I would note that conservatism correctly understood is not an ideology) is to take some philosophy and say on the basis of this philosophy certain things must be true – such as the whole of the history of our culture is the history of the oppression of women. Since reality contradicts that, reality must be forbidden. It must become forbidden to acknowledge the reality of our history. People must be forced to live a lie, and since people are naturally reluctant to live a lie, they naturally use their ears and eyes to look out and say, "Wait a minute. This isn’t true. I can see it isn’t true," the power of the state must be put behind the demand to live a lie. That is why ideology invariably creates a totalitarian state.

Second, the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, like economic Marxism, has a single factor explanation of history. Economic Marxism says that all of history is determined by ownership of means of production. Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, says that all history is determined by power, by which groups defined in terms of race, sex, etc., have power over which other groups. Nothing else matters. All literature, indeed, is about that. Everything in the past is about that one thing.

Third, just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e. workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil. In the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness certain groups are good – feminist women, (only feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals. These groups are determined to be "victims," and therefore automatically good regardless of what any of them do. Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil, thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic Marxism.

Fourth, both economic and cultural Marxism rely on expropriation. When the classical Marxists, the communists, took over a country like Russia, they expropriated the bourgeoisie, they took away their property. Similarly, when the cultural Marxists take over a university campus, they expropriate through things like quotas for admissions. When a white student with superior qualifications is denied admittance to a college in favor of a black or Hispanic who isn’t as well qualified, the white student is expropriated. And indeed, affirmative action, in our whole society today, is a system of expropriation. White owned companies don’t get a contract because the contract is reserved for a company owned by, say, Hispanics or women. So expropriation is a principle tool for both forms of Marxism.

And finally, both have a method of analysis that automatically gives the answers they want. For the classical Marxist, it’s Marxist economics. For the cultural Marxist, it’s deconstruction. Deconstruction essentially takes any text, removes all meaning from it and re-inserts any meaning desired. So we find, for example, that all of Shakespeare is about the suppression of women, or the Bible is really about race and gender. All of these texts simply become grist for the mill, which proves that "all history is about which groups have power over which other groups." So the parallels are very evident between the classical Marxism that we’re familiar with in the old Soviet Union and the cultural Marxism that we see today as Political Correctness.

But the parallels are not accidents. The parallels did not come from nothing. The fact of the matter is that Political Correctness has a history, a history that is much longer than many people are aware of outside a small group of academics who have studied this. And the history goes back, as I said, to World War I, as do so many of the pathologies that are today bringing our society, and indeed our culture, down.

Marxist theory said that when the general European war came (as it did come in Europe in 1914), the working class throughout Europe would rise up and overthrow their governments – the bourgeois governments – because the workers had more in common with each other across the national boundaries than they had in common with the bourgeoisie and the ruling class in their own country. Well, 1914 came and it didn’t happen. Throughout Europe, workers rallied to their flag and happily marched off to fight each other. The Kaiser shook hands with the leaders of the Marxist Social Democratic Party in Germany and said there are no parties now, there are only Germans. And this happened in every country in Europe. So something was wrong.

Marxists knew by definition it couldn’t be the theory. In 1917, they finally got a Marxist coup in Russia and it looked like the theory was working, but it stalled again. It didn’t spread and when attempts were made to spread immediately after the war, with the Spartacist uprising in Berlin, with the Bela Kun government in Hungary, with the Munich Soviet, the workers didn’t support them.

So the Marxists’ had a problem. And two Marxist theorists went to work on it: Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary. Gramsci said the workers will never see their true class interests, as defined by Marxism, until they are freed from Western culture, and particularly from the Christian religion – that they are blinded by culture and religion to their true class interests. Lukacs, who was considered the most brilliant Marxist theorist since Marx himself, said in 1919, "Who will save us from Western Civilization?" He also theorized that the great obstacle to the creation of a Marxist paradise was the culture: Western civilization itself.

Lukacs gets a chance to put his ideas into practice, because when the home grown Bolshevik Bela Kun government is established in Hungary in 1919, he becomes deputy commissar for culture, and the first thing he did was introduce sex education into the Hungarian schools. This ensured that the workers would not support the Bela Kun government, because the Hungarian people looked at this aghast, workers as well as everyone else. But he had already made the connection that today many of us are still surprised by, that we would consider the "latest thing."

In 1923 in Germany, a think-tank is established that takes on the role of translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms, that creates Political Correctness as we know it today, and essentially it has created the basis for it by the end of the 1930s. This comes about because the very wealthy young son of a millionaire German trader by the name of Felix Weil has become a Marxist and has lots of money to spend. He is disturbed by the divisions among the Marxists, so he sponsors something called the First Marxist Work Week, where he brings Lukacs and many of the key German thinkers together for a week, working on the differences of Marxism.

And he says, "What we need is a think-tank." Washington is full of think tanks and we think of them as very modern. In fact they go back quite a ways. He endows an institute, associated with Frankfurt University, established in 1923, that was originally supposed to be known as the Institute for Marxism. But the people behind it decided at the beginning that it was not to their advantage to be openly identified as Marxist. The last thing Political Correctness wants is for people to figure out it’s a form of Marxism. So instead they decide to name it the Institute for Social Research.

Weil is very clear about his goals. In 1971, he wrote to Martin Jay the author of a principle book on the Frankfurt School, as the Institute for Social Research soon becomes known informally, and he said, "I wanted the institute to become known, perhaps famous, due to its contributions to Marxism." Well, he was successful. The first director of the Institute, Carl Grunberg, an Austrian economist, concluded his opening address, according to Martin Jay, "by clearly stating his personal allegiance to Marxism as a scientific methodology." Marxism, he said, would be the ruling principle at the Institute, and that never changed.

The initial work at the Institute was rather conventional, but in 1930 it acquired a new director named Max Horkheimer, and Horkheimer’s views were very different. He was very much a Marxist renegade. The people who create and form the Frankfurt School are renegade Marxists. They’re still very much Marxist in their thinking, but they’re effectively run out of the party. Moscow looks at what they are doing and says, "Hey, this isn’t us, and we’re not going to bless this."

Horkheimer’s initial heresy is that he is very interested in Freud, and the key to making the translation of Marxism from economic into cultural terms is essentially that he combined it with Freudism. Again, Martin Jay writes, "If it can be said that in the early years of its history, the Institute concerned itself primarily with an analysis of bourgeois society’s socio-economic sub-structure," – and I point out that Jay is very sympathetic to the Frankfurt School, I’m not reading from a critic here – "in the years after 1930 its primary interests lay in its cultural superstructure. Indeed the traditional Marxist formula regarding the relationship between the two was brought into question by Critical Theory."

The stuff we’ve been hearing about this morning – the radical feminism, the women’s studies departments, the gay studies departments, the black studies departments – all these things are branches of Critical Theory. What the Frankfurt School essentially does is draw on both Marx and Freud in the 1930s to create this theory called Critical Theory. The term is ingenious because you’re tempted to ask, "What is the theory?" The theory is to criticize. The theory is that the way to bring down Western culture and the capitalist order is not to lay down an alternative. They explicitly refuse to do that. They say it can’t be done, that we can’t imagine what a free society would look like (their definition of a free society). As long as we’re living under repression – the repression of a capitalistic economic order which creates (in their theory) the Freudian condition, the conditions that Freud describes in individuals of repression – we can’t even imagine it. What Critical Theory is about is simply criticizing. It calls for the most destructive criticism possible, in every possible way, designed to bring the current order down. And, of course, when we hear from the feminists that the whole of society is just out to get women and so on, that kind of criticism is a derivative of Critical Theory. It is all coming from the 1930s, not the 1960s.

Other key members who join up around this time are Theodore Adorno, and, most importantly, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse. Fromm and Marcuse introduce an element which is central to Political Correctness, and that’s the sexual element. And particularly Marcuse, who in his own writings calls for a society of "polymorphous perversity," that is his definition of the future of the world that they want to create. Marcuse in particular by the 1930s is writing some very extreme stuff on the need for sexual liberation, but this runs through the whole Institute. So do most of the themes we see in Political Correctness, again in the early 30s. In Fromm’s view, masculinity and femininity were not reflections of ‘essential’ sexual differences, as the Romantics had thought. They were derived instead from differences in life functions, which were in part socially determined." Sex is a construct; sexual differences are a construct.

Another example is the emphasis we now see on environmentalism. "Materialism as far back as Hobbes had led to a manipulative dominating attitude toward nature." That was Horkhemier writing in 1933 in Materialismus und Moral. "The theme of man’s domination of nature," according to Jay, " was to become a central concern of the Frankfurt School in subsequent years." "Horkheimer’s antagonism to the fetishization of labor, (here’s were they’re obviously departing from Marxist orthodoxy) expressed another dimension of his materialism, the demand for human, sensual happiness." In one of his most trenchant essays, Egoism and the Movement for Emancipation, written in 1936, Horkeimer "discussed the hostility to personal gratification inherent in bourgeois culture." And he specifically referred to the Marquis de Sade, favorably, for his "protest…against asceticism in the name of a higher morality."

How does all of this stuff flood in here? How does it flood into our universities, and indeed into our lives today? The members of the Frankfurt School are Marxist, they are also, to a man, Jewish. In 1933 the Nazis came to power in Germany, and not surprisingly they shut down the Institute for Social Research. And its members fled. They fled to New York City, and the Institute was reestablished there in 1933 with help from Columbia University. And the members of the Institute, gradually through the 1930s, though many of them remained writing in German, shift their focus from Critical Theory about German society, destructive criticism about every aspect of that society, to Critical Theory directed toward American society. There is another very important transition when the war comes. Some of them go to work for the government, including Herbert Marcuse, who became a key figure in the OSS (the predecessor to the CIA), and some, including Horkheimer and Adorno, move to Hollywood.

These origins of Political Correctness would probably not mean too much to us today except for two subsequent events. The first was the student rebellion in the mid-1960s, which was driven largely by resistance to the draft and the Vietnam War. But the student rebels needed theory of some sort. They couldn’t just get out there and say, "Hell no we won’t go," they had to have some theoretical explanation behind it. Very few of them were interested in wading through Das Kapital. Classical, economic Marxism is not light, and most of the radicals of the 60s were not deep. Fortunately for them, and unfortunately for our country today, and not just in the university, Herbert Marcuse remained in America when the Frankfurt School relocated back to Frankfurt after the war. And whereas Mr. Adorno in Germany is appalled by the student rebellion when it breaks out there – when the student rebels come into Adorno’s classroom, he calls the police and has them arrested – Herbert Marcuse, who remained here, saw the 60s student rebellion as the great chance. He saw the opportunity to take the work of the Frankfurt School and make it the theory of the New Left in the United States.

One of Marcuse’s books was the key book. It virtually became the bible of the SDS and the student rebels of the 60s. That book was Eros and Civilization. Marcuse argues that under a capitalistic order (he downplays the Marxism very strongly here, it is subtitled, A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, but the framework is Marxist), repression is the essence of that order and that gives us the person Freud describes – the person with all the hang-ups, the neuroses, because his sexual instincts are repressed. We can envision a future, if we can only destroy this existing oppressive order, in which we liberate eros, we liberate libido, in which we have a world of "polymorphous perversity," in which you can "do you own thing." And by the way, in that world there will no longer be work, only play. What a wonderful message for the radicals of the mid-60s! They’re students, they’re baby-boomers, and they’ve grown up never having to worry about anything except eventually having to get a job. And here is a guy writing in a way they can easily follow. He doesn’t require them to read a lot of heavy Marxism and tells them everything they want to hear which is essentially, "Do your own thing," "If it feels good do it," and "You never have to go to work." By the way, Marcuse is also the man who creates the phrase, "Make love, not war." Coming back to the situation people face on campus, Marcuse defines "liberating tolerance" as intolerance for anything coming from the Right and tolerance for anything coming from the Left. Marcuse joined the Frankfurt School, in 1932 (if I remember right). So, all of this goes back to the 1930s.

In conclusion, America today is in the throws of the greatest and direst transformation in its history. We are becoming an ideological state, a country with an official state ideology enforced by the power of the state. In "hate crimes" we now have people serving jail sentences for political thoughts. And the Congress is now moving to expand that category ever further. Affirmative action is part of it. The terror against anyone who dissents from Political Correctness on campus is part of it. It’s exactly what we have seen happen in Russia, in Germany, in Italy, in China, and now it’s coming here. And we don’t recognize it because we call it Political Correctness and laugh it off. My message today is that it’s not funny, it’s here, it’s growing and it will eventually destroy, as it seeks to destroy, everything that we have ever defined as our freedom and our culture.


Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Your Mom Won't Pay Her Dept... No Problem, You'll Pay It.

Pennsylvania... Welcome to the state of idiocracy.

There is a law suddenly being enforced with gusto in Pennsylvania. The law can force adult children to pay their parents' health-care costs.

If Mom and Pop can't pay, you pay. If they have the money but refuse to pay, you pay. If you don't, watch your credit rating sink under the weight of a legal judgment that will haunt you for life.

It happened to Don Grant. It can happen to you.

The Havertown man is nearly 50 and struggling to pay his mortgage and $100,000 in student loans incurred by his daughter, a recent Albright College grad.

Last year, Grant was sued because his mother, Diana Fichera, did not pay an $8,000 bill at a Delaware County nursing home, where she rehabilitated after surgery.

Grant went to court with his half-sister, who was also sued. He told the nursing-home attorney that he's estranged from his mother and that Fichera has income from Social Security plus two pensions.

The nursing-home lawyer told Grant that all would be resolved if Fichera paid up. When she again refused, the judgment was entered against the whole family.

Public records show pages of judgments and liens against Fichera, 71, who receives a $1,434 monthly pension after working for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for 23 years. (Unlike wages, which can be garnisheed, Social Security and pensions are generally exempt from seizure.)

In 2006, the Wallingford Nursing & Rehab Center sued Fichera for not paying a $28,000bill. Two years later, she accrued another debt at Brinton Manor in Glen Mills. This time, the nursing-home lawyer got creative.

Blue Bell lawyer Brian Scott Dietrich represents Brinton Manor, but did not return phone calls for comment. Pennsylvania State University law professor Katherine Pearson knew why as soon as I mentioned his name.

"There are three or four major lawyers in Pennsylvania who specialize in representing nursing homes and hospitals, and one of their favorite tools is Pennsylvania's filial statute. Dietrich is one of them," says Pearson, an expert on the arcane issue, also known as "support of indigents."

"These attorneys will bring suit against adult children even if the children live out of state and even if it's been years since they had contact with their parent."

The legal concept of requiring children to support their parents predates colonial America.

"The worst part? She's got as much money coming in as we do," he says. "And I'm being held responsible for her irresponsibility."

I have come to the conclusion that we have a severe overpopulation of lawyers. What do we do when we have an overpopulation of dogs? We put some to sleep. I propose we put a few thousand lawyers to sleep. Ethically challenged assholes. How much goddamn dumber can we get as a society before we're just unmoving, unthinking, globs of primordial goo, oozing around on the ground, drooling and running into one another? Whatever happened to taking responsibility for yourself? The next thing we know, we'll be responsible for the dept of everybody who lives on the same block, or the same neighborhood, or maybe even the same state. Oh yeah, Obama the Socialist Savior is in office. We're closer than we may think.

Retardation & Depression

Proof that I'm not the one with the problem.

Friday, July 17, 2009

Not Afraid of Needles Yet? You Will Be!

Every once in a while I see something that horrifies me on more than one level. Three out of five times that something was not specifically caused by Obama. One out of ten times that something wasn't directly inspired by the Democratic Left. This, is one of those times. I actually saw this news breaking on Friday and meant to write about it then but didn't manage it. I'll do it now.

In case you hadn't caught it yet. In Denver, Colorado, 6,000 patients may have been exposed to hepatitis C by a painkiller-addicted technician who had the disease and allegedly passed on dirty syringes to patients.

You may want to read that one more time.

The technician has been jailed, thousands of rattled patients have been getting hepatitis C tests. Ten cases of hepatitis C have been linked to Rose Medical Center, where Kristen Diane Parker worked until April.

During a police interview videotaped June 30 that was played in court Thursday, the 26-year-old Parker told a detective that she kept dirty saline-filled syringes in her pocket and watched for opportunities when doctors and nurses left the room. She then allegedly stole syringes filled with Fentanyl from operating carts and replaced them with the used syringes.

"I didn't want to make it obvious to everyone that I was using," the 26-year-old Parker told the detective in the interview, saying she stole between 15 and 20 syringes of Fentanyl. "I knew my limit."

Ohhhhh, 15 to 20 is the appropriate number? I was unaware, I am all the more enlightned now, thank you crack-whore hospital helper.

I can't help but wonder to myself, could this make a pretty damn sweet Kaplan University commercial?

She said she had a problem with painkillers in the past and she may have gotten hepatitis C when she used heroin last summer while living in New Jersey.

"She's going to take responsibility," Parker's attorney Gregory Graf said.

No, I beg to differ. With our legal system she won't be taking responsibility. Spending a year or two in jail is not taking responsibility for causing a lifetime of health problems and probably death to the people she infected.

A key point that could lead to more serious charges is whether she knew she was infected with hepatitis C.

She tested positive for the disease before starting her job at Rose in October, but she didn't follow up when told about it because she didn't have health insurance or money for a doctor and she got distracted with her new job.

Reasonable enough, who wouldn't get distracted from a disease like Hep C. It's not like it's a major disease that will kill your liver and you eventually. Any average person would just write that one off and forget about it. Doesn't that actually mean that she did in fact know that she was infected?

She also hospital officials didn't make it clear she tested positive.

Ohhhh, of course. I'm sorry miss crack-whore but your tests came back positive for Hepatitis C, apparently isn't clear enough. Again, I can see how one could mistake "You have Hepatitis C" for "you might not have Hepatitis C", it's a simple mistake. It's an even more simple mistake when having actually heard your results would make you even more liable for your own irresponsible and downright retarded actions.

Those infected with hepatitis C are not barred from working in health services, so long as standard precautions are taken, according to the CDC.

Here's a thought... maybe we should look into that little oversight of trust. We don't let child molesters care for children do we? We should probably consider not letting people who have life threatening diseases from careless use of needles play around with needles in the care of medical patients who I'm guessing, would prefer not contract diseases from the same careless actions. Just a thought.

"She knew she had hepatitis C, she's a health care worker and she understands how this disease is spread," said Pat Criscito, 56, an author and freelance writer from Monument south of Denver. She underwent back and hand surgery at Rose last fall and spent a sleepless night worrying about hepatitis C while she waited for her test results. Criscito said a positive result would have been meant certain death because years of arthritis treatment have severely weakened her immune system.

Yet I forsee the outcome being minor at best because we don't want to violate the "rights" of this self proclaimed "good person". Oh yes, she was on the news being interviewed while crying and saying she knows she's a good person and didn't intend for this to happen. I have a question. What the fuck did you expect to happen you fucking retard? I'm pretty confident that this is exactly the sort of thing that disqualifies one from "good person" status.

This woman should be receive a real punishment in my opinion and that doesn't mean a couple years in prison where she'll just spread it further. I vote for public crucifixion. I say we strip her down, nail her to a cross and plant that fucker in a public square in a nice sunny spot. We put a sign in front of her that says what she did, then we should give her a couple thousand paper-cuts, cover her with sugar, and set fire ants to work on her. If the ants and the sun don't get her quick enough we give her an iv so she stays alive long enough for them to get her before starvation or dehydration. A nice, solid example of people who do stupid shit like this is exactly what we need.

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Obamacare Is Good For Everybody! Here's Proof!

I originally said I don't agree with this socialized healthcare stuff. The more I read the more I realize that brilliant and fantastical idea it is. I've totally changed my mind.

Healthcare legislation is quickly picking up momentum in Washington.

Three separate committees in the House of Representatives are hard at work hammering out details of a bill. Votes are planned today in the Education and Labor and Ways and Means committees on a plan that majority House Democrats presented this week. The legislation seeks to provide coverage to nearly all Americans by subsidizing the poor and penalizing individuals and employers who don't purchase health insurance.

Each proposal carries an estimated price tag of about $1 Trillion over the next decade. And that figure will probably balloon says Rep. Ron Paul. "They've never been right on projections of medical programs," referring to his colleagues in Congress, "they're always off by 100%, 200%. It always costs a lot more."

No way Ron Paul, the messiah knows exactly what he's doing!

As far as the Texas Congressman is concerned, healthcare is not a right. "I don't have a right to medical care," he emphatically states. In his view, the constitution only guarantees citizens "life, liberty and (the right to) keep the fruits of my labor."

You're so, so wrong Mr. Texas congressman. This is America where everybody has the RIGHT to whatever the fuck they want!

Don't be mistaken, he's very clear to point out, he is in favor of all citizens receiving medical care. "I want everybody to have maximum care at the best price. And that's why I want the government out of it completely."

Government run healthcare would be the best thing ever! Don't you understand Mr. Congressman. Look at how smoothly and efficiently the DMV runs. I absolutely savor every trip there for the stress free and genuinely great experience. I can't wait until healthcare is exactly the same.

If you don't believe me, or your messiah then just look at these testimonials!

"When I get high blood pressure do to no fault of my own, I need to know I'm taken care of, it's my right."

"I brought my family here because we couldn't get free healthcare in Mexico. In America money is grows on trees so we should get some of it. I don't understand why the fact that we're not legal here should exclude us from our rightful piece of the pie."

"Gangbangin' is a straight full time job. We be in da street, rollin', keepin' it real 'n' shit but sometimes we get shot and our profession doesn't provide us with a good healthplan. We need Obama's plan to get us fixed up, get them bullets removed 'n' shit, so we can get back to work as soon as possible."

"Pimpin' ain't easy yo! I gots ta be chasin' dem ho's all over da damn place to get ma ends. I'm self employed 'n' shit and I cain't afford ma own healthcare let alone dem broke-ass bitches. When I be fuckin' a ho and I get the AIDS, I gots ta know I'ma gon get the care I need and the drugs to keep me on the street running my game. A nigga gotta make a livin'."

"We have legitimate disabilities and are unable to work. It's not our fault, we can't help it. We have high blood pressure, high cholesterol, heart disease, and achy joints that don't allow us to work. We need to go to the doctor A LOT and that gets very expensive. Why shouldn't we have the right to get the care we need?"

"I'm too sexy for a job, but nobody is too sexy to get their share of the Obamacare, I want mine."

"Mah baby daddy knocked me up and left my ass. Now I'm gon' be left to take care dis child all by myself. I'm not going to have the time to hold down a job when I'm taking care of baby Tyrique or my other kids, Chamiqua, Jonipha, Tallelipha, Chandalier, Syphillus, and Jallallifondinandiqua. Babies is expensive and I gots to know they gonna get the care they be needin' so they can make me some granbabies."

"My face gets infected all the time, it gets all red and shit and hurts like a mother. I can't get a job because they discriminate against me for looking different. I need to get those antibiotics so I need my Obama care too."

"I'm less fortunate motherfuckers! I don't have a job, I don't need no goddamn job motherfuckers so fuck off! Sometimes I do get sick from sleeping on the park bench in the rain so I need to go to the hospital and get fixed up so I can get back to pissing in public stairwells, I need my Obamacare!"

"Slangin', bangin' just straight hangin'! Dealin' ain't an easy job but folks need their fix. I'm providing a public service. I'm damn near like a public servant or some shit but there ain't no healthcare in this profession. That shit ain't fair, I needs my Obamacare."

"I spend my days smokin' crack. When you smoke the crack you gotta smoke more and more every day. Sometimes I put in a 16 hour day just smokin' the crack, lookin' for more crack, suckin' a dick to get some crack, I'm exhausted at the end of the day. I have the Herpes, the AIDS, the Gonorrhea, the Syphillus, all that shit. My ailments need treated but I just don't have time for a full time job so I don't get healthcare. I'm a citizen, why shouldn't I have a right to free healthcare?"

"We love having kids, we've had two more kids since this picture was taken. We hope to have 43 more kids by 2011. I work, but my wife's job is to take care of our kids. A single income just doesn't provide the money we need to take care of all of our kids. It's our right to have as many kids as we want to have and we should get help taking care of all of them because we're doing God's work. We need Obamacare so we can meet our goal of 3,000 children before we move on to a better place."

"I shit on stuff. I spend all day just walkin' around, shitting all over the place. I shit on sidewalks, I shit in trash cans, I shit on your car. Sometimes I pick up the shit and throw it at people, or paint a sweet shit picture on the door of a building. All that shitting requires a lot of time. Sometimes my bowels get clogged and I can't shit. When that happens I got to get my free healthcare so I can get unclogged and get back to making my steaming fresh art."

"I like to stick my dick in shit. I fuck things, anything, knots in trees, chipmunk holes, car mufflers, broken windows, couch cushions, all sorts of things. Sometimes my dick gets stuck, it gets cuts and lacerations and other damage that has to get fixed. Since I'm on the sex offender registry I can't get a job but I'm a citizen too so I have the right to free healthcare."

"I spend my whole day doing charitable stuff. Like in this photo, I'm advocating staying in school, getting an education, not being a moran, and getting a brain. Go USA! I'm a citizen and I'm doing good by telling kids to not be morans, why shouldn't I get healthcare just because this ain't a "job."

"I had eggs that needed to be used before they spoiled. I don't have a job because I'm slightly retarded and I don't have a husband to get a job and take care of me or my kids for the same reason. I should have the right to do what I want because they're my eggs. My babies are all fucked up and sick cause people say I have no business having kids but it's not their business. I have the right to have as many kids as I want and they're going to need to get healthcare so I need Obamacare."

"We don't have jobs because we don't want jobs. We shouldn't have to work if we don't want to! We spend all of our assistance checks on shitty tattoos and shittier cigarettes and the shittiest food we can find, that doesn't leave anything for healthcare when we get sick. Doctor says we gonna get cancer someday from the cigarettes and we're going to need a lot of healthcare when we do. We think Obamacare is our right and it needs passed as soon as possible."

"Aaalalala! Allaaaah hu akbar! Die filthy American dogs! Islam will rule the west, your blood will be spilled! I can't get a job because I'm both illegal and I blow shit up! I've blown up my last two employers for being Infidel dogs! You must give me healthcare because you are racist and anti-islamic, pro-zionist pigs who oppress the religion of peace! Behead those who insult Islam! We're peaceful, Islam is a peaceful religion and if you don't give us free healthcare we'll blow up your buildings and kill your citizens. When I beat my wife for not giving me more children, or not walking a full ten feet behind me, or showing a strand of hair, she has to go to the hospital and get fixed so I can rape her when she refuses sex because she is my property in the eyes of the great Allah! Mohammad is his prophet, peace be upon him! You must give me healthcare you infidel! I want my Obamacare so I can continue to be a healthy Jihadi warrior for Islam!"

Is that not convincing that we need Obamacare? It breaks my heart to see that these fine, upstanding citizens, cannot get the care they need. Every American has the RIGHT to free healthcare even if they don't work an actual job. I work a job but I hate money. I hope to give up at least 1/2, maybe even 2/3 of my paycheck to provide healthcare so these citizens can continue being productive and generally awesome. I'm willing to actually give up all of my money for this great cause.

To me, these trucks represent America, they represent us, the citizens who have jobs. The people on back represent those of us who are less fortunate and can't get the care they need. We're strong, we have strong backs like these trucks. We can carry the less fortunate. We'll pile them on our backs and carry them with us to prosperity. There's plenty of room for everybody if we can just find it in our hearts to pay extortionate... I mean reasonable taxes to help them exercise their right to receive healthcare equivalent to what we get. As you can see, there's plenty of room for everybody so hop on! Lets do our part to support Obamacare!

"I'm coming, I'm coming, as soon as I can get across this damn border. Oh shit, I twisted my ankle, make room for me on the back of the truck!"

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

City Paying For Jackson Funeral?

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is trying to quell the escalating debate over who should pick up the estimated $1.4 million tab for police, traffic control and other services related to Michael Jackson's memorial service.

Villaraigosa, who was vacationing in South Africa a week ago when more than 17,000 fans flocked to downtown Los Angeles to watch the public memorial, asserted Monday that the city will pay. He said he will not ask the Jackson family or AEG Live, the owner of the Staples Center where the event was held, to help the city recoup its expenses, and he lambasted a city Web site set up to request donations.

"This is a world-class city, and we provide fire and police protection, period," Villaraigosa said during his first public appearance since returning from his weeklong trip. "The idea that we would charge the family for a funeral is nonsensical."

Despite his comments, the City Council was expected to take up the issue Tuesday when City Attorney Carmen Trutanich reports on the costs of the event. Trutanich launched an investigation into laws to force third parties to pay the municipal costs associated with unexpected events such as the Jackson memorial.

Villaraigosa told reporters that major events such as the memorial occur frequently in Los Angeles and other big cities. New York and Chicago do not ask others to cough up cash, he said.

The mayor called the city's donation Web site, which raised $35,000, "ridiculous." The site stopped operating Friday afternoon. It was unclear whether the money would be returned to donors.

Villaraigosa's comments was in contrast to a statement attributed to him in a news release distributed by his office last week. In it, he encouraged Jackson fans to memorialize the pop star by donating to the city.

The release quoted Villaraigosa as saying: "Michael Jackson's music touched millions of fans across the globe. Donations will help the City of Angels provide the extraordinary public safety resources required to give Michael the safe, orderly and respectful memorial he deserves."

Matt Szabo, the mayor's spokesman, said the idea to seek donations came from Councilwoman Jan Perry, who served as acting mayor while Villaraigosa and City Council President Eric Garcetti were out of the country.

"Her office asked for donations to be mailed in," Szabo said. "The bottom line is our office then moved to support that effort with an online contribution form."

Perry could not immediately be reached for comment.

The issue took on political overtones last week when several council members asked who was going to foot the bill at a time when the city faces a $530 million budget shortfall and layoffs. One of the most vocal critics was Councilman Dennis Zine, who said taxpayers don't typically pay for motorcade escorts for funerals.

Zine said he agreed with Villaraigosa that the city should not solicit donations, but asserted that the Jackson family and AEG Live should pay.

"AEG and the Jackson family turned this memorial into a worldwide event. The taxpayers should not be responsible for what they did," Zine said Monday.

Zine introduced a motion calling for a review of city policies governing expenditures on such events and a detailed report of the costs related to Jackson's death, as well as who approved the expenditures.

Councilwoman Janice Hahn, meanwhile, introduced a motion asking for a full accounting of tourism-related revenue that flowed into the city after the singer died June 25.

Both motions are on the council's agenda for July 21.

Do you know who has to pay for my funeral if I die? My family does! Do you know who will pay for your funeral if you die? Your family will. There is no way in hell the city should be paying for that child molesting ass-clown's funeral. The entire state can't even collectively afford a pack of Juicy Fruit and they're paying for the funeral of this fruit? This is ridiculous. The fill in mayor was absolutely right to ask for donations before having the city foot the bill. If the city's coffers were overflowing with excess money it might be one thing but California taxpayers will pay this and since they're broke the rest of us will pay instead. Now is not the time for our country to be footing ludicrous bills for overrated pop-star-molester funerals.

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Healthcare Under Obama... Or Lack There Of

Hat tip to Nicki for this gem. I don't even know what to say. This gives me heartburn. Watch it, watch it, watch it, watch it all!

Now, let me first just say, Michael Moore, I hope one of your arteries explode you fat fucking douchebag. Let me also say, that if you still agree with Obama and socialized healthcare, may you join Michael Moore at the free clinic. Oh yeah, Moore's fat ass is rich so he can afford to get around it. You, you poor schmuck, will wait, and hopefully die a long, painful death for voting for the socialist. Have a nice goddamn day.

Saturday, July 11, 2009

Race Card At The Pool

I'm so sick of people who bitch and whine and cry racism at little to no provocation. This whole ridiculous fiasco was occurring this weekend while I didn't have the time to actually blog about it. For the most part the various new channels that cover it are so liberal they bleed retardation and the other ones are far too afraid to touch it for fear of causing a riot. I on the other hand, have no such qualms.

The basic point is this.

More than 60 campers from Northeast Philadelphia were turned away from a private swim club and left to wonder if their race was the reason.


One child who they interviewed was well coached but still a fairly poor actor. He said
"I heard this lady, she was like, 'Uh, what are all these black kids doing here?' She's like, 'I'm scared they might do something to my child"

View more news videos at:

Yeah, that sounds exactly what some evil white person would likely say.

The Creative Steps Day Camp paid more than $1900 to The Valley Swim Club. The Valley Swim Club is a private club that advertises open membership. But the campers' first visit to the pool suggested otherwise.

"When the minority children got in the pool all of the Caucasian children immediately exited the pool"

All of them? Really? Hmmm.

Another person connected with the daycare said that
"The pool attendants came and told the black children that they did not allow minorities in the club and needed the children to leave immediately."

Does anybody actually believe that anybody is that goddamn stupid in this day and age? Even if they did think this, nobody is going to say that because it's an absolute, guaranteed lawsuit.

The daycare was refunded their money but are unhappy and claiming racism. The owners say otherwise. They call the situation a misunderstanding. On its Web site, the Valley Club disputed the allegations of racism. "We had originally agreed to invite the camps to use our facility, knowing full well that the children from the camps were from multi-ethnic backgrounds," the statement said. The statement was basically that there weren't enough lifeguards to keep up with the guard to child ratio required.

"Unfortunately, we quickly learned that we underestimated the capacity of our facilities and realized that we could not accommodate the number of children from these camps. All funds were returned to the camps and we will re-evaluate the issue at a later date to determine whether it can be feasible in the future." CNN attempted to speak with club President John Duesler on Thursday. He said he had no comment and asked CNN to leave the club property.

Two other day-care centers, neither of which included minority children, had previously been similarly disinvited.

That was ALL they said about that. As far as I'm aware nobody actually looked into and or proved or disproved this statement.

Of course, we all know that claiming no comment is admitting racist activities.

I used to be a lifeguard and I know this is a valid rule if that's the case. A rather obese and very angry/opinionated black woman was interviewed in the midst of a rant about how they had enough members on the daycare staff to make up for the lack of guards. This is a nice try but no dice. It doesn't matter if there are 12 daycare staff to each child. There have to be enough LIFEGUARDS on staff to make up the ratio and the daycare staff are neither employed by the pool, or certified lifeguards, of this I'm sure.

The commission is investigating the allegations, spokeswoman Shannon Powers said, and will attempt to resolve the conflict out of court.


Now the NAACP is foaming at the mouth at the chance to stick it to the swim club.

Daniel Veres, a 16-year old Hispanic teen who is also a member, says the entire situation is just a misunderstanding. "We're not judgmental, we're just friendly," Veres said of the mostly white club.

I guess hispanics don't count.

If anybody ever wondered where the racism in society can be traced back to, this is it. Not the so called racist pool owners but the racist people who are just looking for an excuse to pull the race card any chance they get in order to get their own way.

You can check the full articles here and here.

Friday, July 10, 2009

Islamization of Britain

And on an only slight deviation of my previous point. Though I strongly believe that Pat Robertson is a nutter himself, this is a very good video pointing out a very real problem.

I disagree that it's got even the slightest hint of anything to do with Britain's leaving Christianity. This has got to do with a generation of people who care more about political correctness and not offending somebody more than they care about the freedoms their grandfathers fought and in many cases died for. It does not require Christianity to stand up to radical Islam taking over our society, it takes a sense of what freedom really is and the balls to stand up for it. Wake up people and get a grasp on reality! Yeah yeah, I know, we're American and that's over there, it won't happen here. I assure you that they're first, we are next.

More Geert Wilders

Thanks to The Lone Voice for pointing out the wherabouts of this one. Since 9/10 of America hasn't a clue who Geert Wilders is I feel it is my duty to assist in keeping the rest updated where I can. This is a recent interview between Wilders and Euronews. I think I would be failing to do Mr. Wilders justice if I attempted to pick and choose pieces to post so I'm posting it minus a small part irrelevant to Islam as I found it here.

Geert Wilders is the leader of the Freedom Party in the Netherlands, a political group described as “Islamophobic”. The party performed well in the recent European elections. Wilders’ anti-Islamic and anti-EU rhetoric seems to win over more and more Dutch people, mostly those who are scared about immigration and enlargement. euronews interviewed Wilders in a bunker-like meeting room of the Dutch parliament in the Hague. That was said to be for security reasons, because Wilders has been granted special protection due to his controversial anti-Koran movie and provocative anti-Islamic speeches.

euronews: Geert Wilder, welcome to euronews. Are you concerned for the future of Europe?

Wilders: I’m very concerned for the future of Europe. I believe Europe is a beautiful continent with strong countries, but unfortunately, because of the influx of the mass immigration and the Islamisation of our societies, I’m afraid that at the end of the day it will cost us our freedom. So, indeed yes, I’m very concerned.

euronews: Why do you think that Islam is a threat for Europe. What is scaring you?

Wilders: Let me first say, I make a distinction between the ideology, the religion Islam, and the people. I’ve nothing against Muslims, I’ve nothing against people. I have a problem with the Islamic ideology. I believe it’s a totalitarian ideology, that it should not be compared so much with other religions, but with other totalitarian ideologies like communism or fascism. And there is no room in the Islamic ideology for anything else but Islam. And this is what I think that we should really fear.

euronews: Don’t you think that to say that Islam is a totalitarian ideology is dangerous, just from an intellectual point of view? Because we see that Iran for instance is fighting for more democracy and they are Muslim.

Wilders: No, once again, people, I’ve nothing against people, and I acknowledge that there are moderate people who call themselves Muslims, so there are moderate Muslims, and we should invest in moderate Muslims. But I don’t believe in a moderate Islam, I don’t think that like Christianity -the Old Testament and New Testament, and separation of church and state, and enlightment in the last centuries – that this will ever happen in the [sic] Islam, so I think we should not invest or believe in a European or moderate Islam. But of course we should invest in people and we should invest in democracy.

euronews: How should you separate the concept of Islam as a whole, which you say is a totalitarian ideology, a religion, and the single Muslim, that you say he could also be a moderate?

Wilders: I admit that the majority of the Muslims in our western society today are not extremists, they are not terrorists, they are normal people like you and me, and I believe that there’s nothing wrong with that. But I also believe that even though the majority of those Muslims in the western societies today are not extremists or terrorists, that if we will get more of massive immigration we will get also more of the Islamic culture and the Islamic identity and the Islamic ideology in our societies, and then our societies will change: we will have what we are witnessing in the UK today, 85 sharia courts functioning where a woman is less worth than a man, where homosexuals should be killed. I mean this kind of anti-democratic law, sharia, is part of the Islamic ideology, is exactly what is happening in Europe today.

euronews: You have said once that all the Muslim people who want, in Europe, to implement the sharia law must leave Europe. Do you still agree with this statement?
Wilders: I think sharia, the implementation of sharia is the end of democracy. If you believe in sharia, you believe that apostates, that everybody who is not a Christian [sic] should either be a dhimmitude, and he should be living under the rule of Muslims, or either should be killed. The same goes for women or homosexuals. They would have a terrible way of life in a society where sharia is implemented, so I really do believe that if you are in a country and you are in favour of the implementation of sharia that there is very little for you to do. It means that you believe that women are worth less, half, or even more less then man.

euronews: Sorry but no, the sharia law is very clear. The UK Islamic court are not hanging homosexuals.

Wilders: No, but they have a law based on the Koran. And if we start acting like you are suggesting now, if we start saying that, “Hey, it’s only about private law and it’s not really about the penal code, so please let us allow only this part of the sharia in our society” I will tell you that there will be a next step and there will be another step, so I think that we should say: no sharia in our western, free, European and other societies, because if we allow “step A” , however innocent it might look, and I belive it’s not innocent at all, that there will be a next step and another step. And the political elite in the European societies will allow it for politically correct reasons, because they are cultural relativists, they believe that all cultures are equal. Gordon Brown, the Prime minister of the United Kingdom, is the biggest coward of Europe. When he sent me away, when I wanted to enter the UK just to show a movie and to have a discussion in the House of Lords. This is the kind of leaders that we have in Europe today and they should be removed and replaced by more brave leaders.

euronews: That’s a problem of public order at home, also for the British…

Wilders: Only in the UK. He decided, not because there was any threat, because it was not, like I said, I visited many countries for the same reasons, I was welcomed in a very positive way, but the prime minister of the UK was afraid that somebody came and spoke against his views and say something nasty, according to him, against Islam and he feared that. And there was pressure from Islamic people from the House of Lords, so he gave in, he gave in, he gave up. He played again the Chamberlain of Europe of 2009.

euronews: You are against Turkey joining the European Union…

Wilders: For sure…

euronews: Many federalists are against Turkey joining the EU, because they say that it will dilute the EU and the idea of a federal Europe will disappear. So you should be in favour of Turkey joining the EU…

Wilders: I’m against a federal Europe. I want us to stay independent, and Holland to only cooperate in the economical framework, and I’m against the joining of Turkey. I’ve nothing against Turkey, it’s a very respected ally within NATO and a good friend of the Dutch people. But I believe it’s not a member of the family. A good neighbour is not the same as being a member of the family, and it’s an Islamic country. We will not only pay a very high price when it comes to all the costs, all the money that we will have to pay to Turkey, but it’s an Islamic country and will get even more immigration to our societies, which is the last thing that we should need.

Thursday, July 9, 2009

Adventures In McDonalds

I went to McDonald's today, MISTAKE number one. I never go to McDonald's because they feed you toxic filth. I'm confident that enough of that rubbish will make one glow in the dark but I'm sure as shit not going to test the theory.


So anyway, I had to work far away from home and office and I had to get up at the asscrack of dawn so I didn't feel like making myself breakfast to take with me or getting up early enough to eat one before I left. I decided when I got a break to get myself some breakfast burritos because they somewhat resemble edible food on occasion. THIS WAS NOT THAT OCCASION!

I ordered three breakfast burritos, a hashbrown, and a milk. I also asked for 6 packs of hot sauce, 2 for each burrito. When I receive my order I usually check because I know McDonalds is usually staffed by retards but today I failed to do so. I checked before I left the parking lot though. When I looked in the bag I got two burritos, 1 pack of hot sauce, and no hashbrown. So, back through the drive through I went. I explained exactly what I ordered and exactly what I had gotten. She said drive to the second window and I did. This time I received another bag. Inside the second bag I immediately checked and she had given me 1 more burrito, 1 more pack of hot sauce, and still no hashbrown.

Again I told her what she had done and she actually looked at me with one eye (the other appeared to be oriented toward something 90 degrees to her left) like she was doing the math in her head. What the hell is so difficult about this. She went back, fucked around for a minute, and returned with 1 hashbrown, and one more pack of hot sauce. This time I'm pissed. I say to her "that's three packs of hot sauce, I asked for 6, that means I would like 3 more" and I held up 3 fingers. She gets me 3 more and says. "Thank you, sorry about that". Holy fucking christ, if I could have one wish it would be that stupid were physically painful!

When I finally get to eating my food I found that my 3 burritos might have actually been equal to 1.5. Usually the things are a decent size, these things were fucking tiny. Apparently McDonalds is tightening their belt. They were literally half the size they usually are.



I didn't consider this a terrible thing because I really probably didn't need 3 normal sized burritos anyhow so I just let it go. I think this is proof that McDonalds is in fact an "equal opportunity employer". Can't spell your own fucking name or count to 6, we'll give your stupid ass a job!

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

Robin Williams on Golf

I thought I would switch things up for a change and put something up that I actually liked. I never really developed much of an opinion of the Robin Williams. Frankly I think the guy is bat-shit crazy, certifiable, but some of his stuff is good. This is one of them. I know so many people who like this sport and even watch it on tv. I would personally rather watch the wind blow but to each his own. When I play my ball goes into the forest, to the bottom of the lake, it's stolen by rogue eagles in mid flight! I have a slice that comes back around 180 degrees flying at my head like a precision guided missile at my cranium. For these reasons I tend to avoid the sport.

He's right about the stroke thing though. He left out the wrapping of the nine iron around trees part!

Monday, July 6, 2009

We're Putting Down Our Guns, Please Promise You Won't Rape Us

News has struck of yet another brilliant plan set in motion by the Obama administration. President Obama and Russian President/Puppet of Vladimir Putin, Dmitry Medvedev struck a deal to reduce their nations' stockpiles of nuclear warheads to as few as 1,500 each, pointing their arsenals toward the lowest levels of any U.S.-Russia arms control agreement.

The document signed by the two leaders at a Moscow summit, Obama's first in Russia, is meant as a guide for negotiators as the nations work toward a replacement pact for the START arms control agreement that expires in December. The joint understanding completed by Obama and Medvedev, signed after about three hours of talks at the Kremlin, also commits the new treaty to lower longer-range missiles for delivering nuclear bombs to between 500 and 1,100.

The leaders announced several other deals meant to show progress toward resetting badly damaged U.S.-Russian relations. They outlined other areas in which they said their countries would work together to help stabilize Afghanistan, including increasing assistance to the Afghan army and police, and training counternarcotics personnel. A joint statement said that they welcomed increased international support for upcoming Afghan elections and that they were prepared to help Afghanistan and Pakistan work together against the "common threats of terrorism, extremism and drug trafficking.

"The United States and Russia have more in common than they have differences," Obama said earlier as he and Medvedev first sat down in an ornate Kremlin room.

There are parts of this I see as a good thing. Russia is a necessary and potentially valuable ally. My problem lies with reduction of our own, and even their nuclear arsenal. Yes, they need to better control some things like the security of their nuclear capabilities against corruption and loss but that doesn't necessarily mean reducing it. Sure we don't really need all of the weapons we have. The problem is that I forsee the left being perfectly fine with ditching everything eventually to the point where we must defend ourselves with sticks if given their own way. Disarming in this capacity, in the world in which we currently live is a bad idea. This is exactly what the Kim Jong Il's and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's of the world want. Impotent superpowers are not superpowers long. This isn't going to cause them to rethink their ways. This is simply going to show them that we are willing to castrate ourselves despite the more blatant threats they throw our way. We need to grow a set of balls not cut them off. We can create positive relations with the russians without beating the dead horse of the cold war.

Sunday, July 5, 2009

Airplane Ettiquette, Eating, Bastard Children, and Fat People!

I have a question... I have a solution... I have and issue and some commentary on that issue that came up today. I was sitting and talking with my brother who I don't see all that often and discussing various issues like we generally do on holidays and such. Most of what we discus centers around work since we both work in exactly the same field (which will remain unnamed).

Anyhow, we somehow got into the subject of flying, flights, airplane rides and the idiots in those airplanes. We both do and have done a lot of traveling as a requirement of our chosen careers. Fortunately for me I've taken a slightly different direction which has limited my travel to significantly less distance which rarely requires air travel. My brother on the other hand goes all over the country and then some still.

Our discussions and views are similar but with different approaches to dealing with them. He's much more willing to just sit and take it while I'm very likely to just turn around and inform you that you're an irritating asshole and you need to tone it the fuck down.

I have to give some examples in order to give you a bit of an idea what I mean. Far too many people just don't understand that they are in fact irritating or just ignorant.

Here's one example. Eating on a plane. If the flight is long they will give you the option of food. If they give you the option of food that's fine I can't argue with that. If the flight is short though and you don't get the option that's a different story. I'm sorry but you need to get your ass to the airport in time to eat before you get on the plane or learn to control your urges. I can't stand when people get disgusting fast food at the airport and then bring that foul smelling shit on the plane with them. I almost never eat fast food because it usually makes me sick, the smell is worse than the food itself.

On one flight I had some fat bitch bring a huge McDonald's breakfast on the plane and proceed to chow down beside me to the point it made me want to hurl. I know your big ass is hungry but that shouldn't be my problem. I'm not the one that made you not have enough time to eat before you got on the plane so why the hell should I and everybody else have to smell it for 4 hours?


I had another guy bring a giant submarine sandwich on the plane and proceed to eat that beside me. It wasn't the fact that he was eating the sandwich but the fact that he didn't have the manners to shut the fuck up while he was doing it. This guy gnawed and gnashed his way through that thing like a starving farm animal while trying to carry on a conversation (that he started) with me the entire time. What this translates to is a combination of words and food flying out of his mouth resembling an oak tree being pushed through an industrial wood chipper. This is avoidable and unnecessary.

Some smells are avoidable and some are not. There are plenty of things on a plane that just can't be helped and there are some that passengers need to know better. I have two rules that should be absolute. If you're going to be flying you know you are going to be in tight quarters so be courteous to other passengers. Take a fucking shower before you get on the plane. I don't care if you don't ever shower other than that, get in a shower and scrub your ass like you've never scrubbed before if you're going to fly. After you've taken your shower put on some deodorant and leave it at that.

DO NOT put on half a bottle of cologne or perfume! Leave that shit at home. What smells good to you may not smell so good to the rest of us. Old ladies are the biggest offenders. Old lady perfume tends to smell like industrial floor cleanser, turpentine, and a hospital. Leave that fucking shit at home. Sense of smell apparently isn't so keen in the elderly either and that usually leads to the use of a half a bottle of this nasty shit and you can smell it 3/4 of a mile away. When you put that in a cramped airline cabin it chokes the rest of us half to death. Do not bathe in perfume and then get on a plane because I don't want to fly 4 hours with a migraine because of the horrific smells wafting off you!

Children on planes. I really don't like children, I don't discriminate, I don't like any children and yours are included. Some can pull off a long flight while being good and some cannot. Generally the smaller they are the worse they are. You know your kids, you need to have the common sense to know if you can control them and if you can't you have no business on a flight irritating the rest of us. I actually had a lady allow her kid to kick the back of my seat for 10 minutes straight on one flight. One time she asked him very nicely not to do that and when he failed to stop she simply began ignoring it.

Finally I got pissed off and turned around and told her in no uncertain terms to control that little brat and keep him from kicking the back of my goddamn seat. I don't remember my exact words but I wasn't nice at all because I was pissed off and sick of it. The bitch had the nerve to look at me like I was wrong and say "he's just a kid, he doesn't know better". I don't give a fuck if he's a kid or not, it's your job to teach him to know better if he doesn't, not to let him do it while somebody else suffers for it.

On top of this there are kids throwing fits and waling babies abound. I know you would like to go places but I really don't care. Babies will do what babies will do and this is why they don't belong on planes. The sound of that little bastard screaming for an hour is like a fork down a chalkboard for an hour. I can't get up and leave to get away from it and it's unfair to everybody who has to listen to it. Until the little brat is old enough to not throw random fits keep them out of planes. In the mean time, I propose that you have 10 minutes to shut that child up before a gag order is imposed on him/her.


Finally, the fat people on planes issue. We've heard a lot about this one lately and it's for good reason. We all know how I feel about fat people, you made you fat, I didn't, so either deal with the consequences or do something about it. When you get on a plane, most of the time you pay the same amount I do and I'm not willing to share my seat with your fat ass. I don't want your spare tire taking up my arm rest and part of my seat. I shouldn't have to rest my arm on your belly!

You're basically paying for space. You should pay for exactly the amount of space that you take up. With air fares rising and body weights rising with it it's starting to cost all of us more to make up for your gigantic ass on the plane. You are the one causing more fuel to be burned and I can remember when I could take two bags on the plane as long as their weight was under a certain amount. Now I can only take one bag on the plane and must pay for the second and it's partly your fat-ass fault. Soon, and I think on some airlines, all stowed baggage is an extra cost because of this.


This shit is fucking ridiculous! I'm alright with an individual having to pay for two seats if they're too big, if that's the way the airline wants to do it. I propose an easier idea. Price of flight should be based primarily on weight. There should be a set price to start out. At increments based on reasonable amounts of weight and seat size, etc., passengers should have their fare increased. When you buy your ticket you buy it based on a weight. When you get the the airport amongst the other shit they put you through you get on a scale and if it varies by enough (you're a liar) your price reflects it. If you weigh less your price may reflect that as well.


A 300 pound man should be paying significantly more than a 150 pound man because if no other reason it costs significantly more to transport him. The same thing happens with little notice in a car. If you're bigger you'll burn a lot more gas and so will the plane. This increase based on weight could also carry over into the fact that if you weigh enough you should have to pay for the seat beside you as well. You may have to pay the base rate for two passengers or more if you're big enough and that's nobody's fault but your own.


There is absolutely nothing discriminatory about this. If you're fat and alright with that then fine by me but don't expect me to give you or pay for special treatment for you because you can't stop eating. This country has gone and is still going far past the line with the constant entitlement culture that we've allowed to thrive. It's about time people start getting put back in their place and realize the world does not revolve around them. When you're in a public place or a public flight, etc., you are the one who needs to conform and not the other way around.