Quick note on the Clintons. Nothing new to see here.

I followed the Clintons since 1992.  I was a great fan of the American Spectator.  It covered Whitewater, the Rose law firm records, Vince Foster in great detail.  The simple takeaway from that period, as well as Clinton’s two terms, is this.  Bill Clinton likes money and power and being loved by people.  He has no moral center, but his intent is never really evil.  He is that buddy who is a used car salesman who only wants to be loved and have fun.  You would hang out with him, but you would never let him date your sister!

Hillary is bad.  She wants it all and will do whatever she feels she wants to do and can get away with (by hiding behind the popular husband) that will allow her to reach her goals.  The Rose law firm billing records hid in her bedroom for years is an example (and a prelude to her current email scandal.)

She is truly a Alinsky acolyte, who decided to corrupt from within. But not for the goal of destroying America but to gain power OVER America.  Think Obama, without the charm.  Hillary has always been strident in her beliefs and has that personality which demands adherence to her way. I met a family who knew the Clintons just after they were elected.  The family was from Arkansas. In a conversation with them, they said this “You have no idea what you have done!”  They said Hillary ran the government while Bill just kinda hung out making friends.  That has never really changed.

So, to the issue of her emails/hiding data from the government and from the people.  Of course she did!  It is her way! Her team also realizes that asking forgiveness is far more effective if you are a Clinton than asking permission.

However, things are different now.  Hillary and Bill have a new enemy- Obama and Jarrett.  And frankly, I think Jarrett is better than the Clinton “cleaner” Cheryl Mills.  Old school vs new age.  It is Jarrett that released the email scandal.  Obama claims that his administration is the most transparent, which is a lie.  He hates the idea that Hillary brings up his bad acts, so he’s pissed.  As a It is rumored that Jarrett has prompted six investigations into Hillary.  That would be unbelievable if it were not for the fact that Jarrett fears Hillary would undermine Obama’s legacy and her agenda for Iran.  Which she would.

Obama adviser behind leak of Hillary Clinton’s email scandal

New vs old.


So, Jarrett is wanting another far left progressive to take over Obama’s mission.  Think for a minute that there is a farther left candidate out there than Hillary.  Yikes!   They want a weak leader that will influenced by Jarrett and Obama after they leave office.  Also, don’t forget, Jarrett is Iranian (Shia) and Hillary’s chief of staff is Muslim Brotherhood (Sunni).  I know, who would have thought that would even be part of any American political equation!!

Point is, Republicans need only to pop popcorn, get a cold drink and sit down while this works out.  Throw in a few subpoenas and watch the new age, left wing cat fight.

Booom! Done!

Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ferguson, DOJ and the outcome of reverse racism.

In a nutshell.  Holder is a racist. Obama is a racist.  Michelle is a racist.  It just is.  They hate the way America is handling with they consider a racist problem- black crime.  The problem they have is America is trying to hold blacks accountable for their crimes and failures, just like it does everybody else.  However, those three represent a group of blacks who do not want to address the real issues within the black community and instead want to make the rest of the nation bend to the failures of that certain element of the black community.  Sadly, the end result will be the good people within the black community will suffer the most.

Right now, Obama and Holder want to nationalize the way the police handle black criminals and miscreants.  They want us to be more sensitive to the bad behavior of blacks in general and look the other way when they commit crimes everybody should be arrested for.  That my friends is racism in its purest form. If an Asian kid does what Trayvon Martin did, nobody blinks.  Worse, if an Asian kid does what Martin did PRIOR to his death- committing a burglary and being found in possession of stolen property- the Asian kid would be arrested and prosecuted.  But as the American Thinker reminds us, that did not happen to Martin as he was caught up in the effort by the Miami police chief to play with the statistics and not the reality of black crime in the schools.

As evidence of those outcomes, the report cites information in the DOJ’s Orwellian 2014 “Dear Colleague Letter.” This letter was a follow up to a July 2012 executive order warning school districts to avoid “methods that result in disparate use of disciplinary tools.” The White House headlined the press release announcing this dubious stroke of reverse racism, “President Obama Signs New Initiative to Improve Educational Outcomes for African Americans.”

One model school district in the eyes of the DOJ was the Miami-Dade County Public Schools, one of the few districts with its own police department. The late Trayvon Martin had the seeming good fortune of pursuing his education therein.

Appearances deceive. The Miami-Dade Schools Police Department (M-DSPD) had problems unique to its peculiar mission. The exposure of the department’s practices began inadvertently with the Miami Herald story on Martin’s multiple suspensions. The article prompted M-DSPD Chief Charles Hurley to launch a major Internal Affairs (IA) investigation into the possible leak of this information to the Herald.

As the investigation began, the officers realized immediately that they had a problem on their hands. “Oh, God, oh, my God, oh, God,” one major reportedly said when first looking at Martin’s data.

He could see that Martin had been suspended twice already that school year for offenses that should have gotten him arrested. In each case, however, the case file on Martin was fudged to make the crime less serious than it was.

To their credit, the officers, when questioned, told the truth about Martin and about the policies that kept him out of the justice system. From their statements, made under oath, it appears that Hurley instructed his officers to divert offending juveniles away from the criminal justice system and back to their respective schools for discipline.

Hurley did this subtly. As one detective told IA, the arrest statistics coming out of Martin’s school, Dr. Michael M. Krop Senior High School, had been “quite high,” and the detectives “needed to find some way to lower the stats.” This directive allegedly came from Hurley.

At least a few officers confirmed that Hurley was particularly concerned with the arrest rates of black males. In a letter obtained by NBC 6 of South Florida, a senior detective wrote, “[Hurley] asked that I reduce the number of arrests I affect of all black juveniles. I told him regardless of the race of an individual; if probable cause existed for an arrest that individual would be arrested. He was not happy with my response to his request.”

“Chief Hurley, for the past year, has been telling his command staff to lower the arrest rates,” volunteered another high-ranking detective. When asked by IA whether the M-DSPD was avoiding making arrests, that detective replied, “What Chief Hurley said on the record is that he commends the officer for using his discretion. What Chief Hurley really meant is that he’s commended the officer for falsifying a police report.”

The IA interrogators seemed stunned by what they were hearing. They asked one female detective incredulously if she were actually ordered to “falsify reports.” She answered, “Pretty much, yes.”

This is Obama’s world.  Do not address the root reasons why blacks offend at a greater level than any other culture in America, but instead cover it up.  Why is beyond me, because we can simply go to Youtube and watch example after example of self-posted videos of blacks attacking and robbing randomly.  Unlike Obama and Holder, it appears they are proud of their criminal efforts and have no problem sharing with the rest of America and the world. (The second video links to Worldstar, which holds a ton of these types of videos.)

Now remember, Martin was given outs over and over from both his Hip-Hop dad and mom, and the police and the schools.  These three elements make up pretty much all of his world. Throw in friends and music and movies and he is convinced that being a bad ass is the way to go.  Not to study, or be responsible, or do the right thing.  Nope, be a thug because that is where the fun is!  Until you run into an armed citizen and get whacked.

Because of Obama and the fact it was a presidential election cycle, Zimmerman (who is now completely off the rails due to the damage caused by Florida and the DOJ) was villified and destroyed- for votes.

Darren Wilson and Ferguson was done for the same reason- the 2014 midterm.  I know that, you know that, they know that.  Now, the DOJ after all that work and effort is stuck with Ferguson and a good shoot by a good cop over a bad guy acting bad- ala Trayvon. So what to do?  Keep the blame going and drive Ferguson, and other agencies, into a federal way, a HOLDER/OBAMA APPROVED WAY, of dealing with blacks and their crimes.

After releasing a report that completely exonerated Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson of any wrongdoing in the death of an 18-year-old strong arm robbery suspect, Attorney General Eric Holder claimed that he was still “prepared” to dismantle the department, because racism was to blame for high rates of black violence and criminality.

Speaking to the press at Andrews Air Force Base on Friday, Holder claimed that he was “shocked” at what his investigators found in a review of the Ferguson, Missouri police department.

Holder said that Ferguson was “a community where this harm frequently appears to stem, at least in part, from racial bias — both implicit and explicit.”

He went on to vow that the federal government would fix the problem of racial disparities in violent crime in Missouri.

“We are prepared to use all the powers that we have to ensure that the situation changes there. That means everything from working with them to coming up with an entirely new structure,” Holder said. He went on to say that having the federal government rip apart and dismantle the department was also an option. “If that’s what’s necessary, we’re prepared to do that,” he said.

“The notion that you would use a law enforcement agency or law enforcement generally to generate revenue, and then the callous way in which that was done and the impact that it had on the lives of the ordinary citizens of that municipality, was just appalling. Appalling. And that is not something that we’re going to tolerate,” Holder continued.

Now Holder is right in one area, and using that to conflate into another.  Should police departments be expected to “tax” citizens with fines and tickets in order to fund cities? Man, is that an argument for another time! But, ask yourself this- Holder and Obama work for a government, and USE that government to fine and tax people, frivolously, in order to gain revenue.  But if Ferguson does it- that’s bad.   I know, Obama and Holder being hypocrites, who saw that coming!

But should police departments be looked at as revenue sourcing?  And how does that translate into offending blacks?  I will say this.  The best way to avoid offending blacks, many who cannot pay fines and end up on silly warrant lists, is to limit policing to what it was intended to be- keeping the peace.   That way everybody of all colors is happy.

But instead of addressing the big issue- that governments at all levels expect their law enforcement arm to partially fund itself by “enforcing laws”- Obama wants to put up blacks as victims and make them the poster children, and that is a mistake.

Why? Because if the DOJ manages to make it a rule that everybody is held accountable for crime EXCEPT for the black people, more black people will act out, and the usual victims of that acting out are…BLACK PEOPLE!

So what’s the point here? In Ferguson it is about the money for some.  Brown’s family attorney, Crump, will use this report to sue Ferguson.  Wilson’s life is over.  He didn’t do anything wrong but respond to a report of a crime and survive getting beaten by two black criminals.  That was his job!  Holder wants to make sure the police can’t do that job anymore!

In the end, it won’t matter. Because of Holder’s “FTP” effort, black across America are more willing to fight the police.  And because of that, more blacks and more police are going to get killed. Sadly, when black policeman is killed by two black robbers, there are no protests of blacks claiming “black lives matter”.

A police officer who went to a video game store to buy a present for his son ended up in a fierce gun battle with two would-be robbers, fighting to the end of his life to protect patrons and employees, a police captain said Friday.

Officer Robert Wilson III, 30, was at the counter of the GameStop store late Thursday afternoon when two brothers armed with semi-automatic weapons entered, the officer turned, and “the gunfight was on,” police homicide Capt. James Clark said.

“The officer was a hero and a warrior,” Clark said. “He fought to the very, very end, firing at both of them. Unfortunately, he lost his life.”

The brothers were identified Friday as Ramone Williams, 24, and Carlton Hipps, 29. Both had prior arrests, and police said Hipps had gotten out of prison in 2009. Both were charged with murder, attempted murder, robbery and related offenses.

Williams was in jail, and Hipps was hospitalized Friday and wearing Wilson’s handcuffs, authorities said. It was unclear if either man had an attorney who could comment on the charges.

Clark said Williams gave a statement to police, saying he and his brother did not see Wilson’s cruiser outside the store and did not know an officer was inside.

The men hid behind signs in the store as Wilson exchanged volleys with them. Clark credited the officer with saving lives by stepping away from other people in the store. He kept firing even after he was hit and “redefined what hero is all about,” Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey said.

This guy died trying to protect society and the people inside that store.  This guy is a hero.

robert wilson

These guys are dumbasses.

And because of those two, the officer is dead.  And truthfully, so is the kid in Madison who attacked the police, rather than go to jail quietly.  Of course, the media wants to say white cop killed unarmed black kid, but the truth is far more enlightening.

Tony Robinson was a 19-year-old street thug (Dindu Nuffin’ clan) who was previously involved in an armed robbery (April 2014) and pled guilty in October 2014 (case details).

Robinson pleaded guilty to armed robbery in October [2014] and was sentenced to six months in jail but a judge stayed the execution of the custodial term. He began serving a three-year probation period in December (link)

Ironically if the judge had carried out the sentencing term, Tony Robinson would be alive today.  Ultimately he was sentenced to three years probation, and can be seen in this picture above wearing his ankle monitor.  Robinson’s Twitter Account is HERE

At the age of 17 Robinson became a father and was sued for child support in 2014.   As a member of the Dindu Nuffins’ his family is customarily well versed in making excuses for his behavior and claiming the angelic felon was planning on attending college.

In addition more background on events are now surfacing including this witness statement from the neighborhood:

…This so called “gentle giant” was high on suspected hallucinagenics, and in a violent, volitile rage, walking down the streets of madison battering citizens, whom were frantically calling 911 for police assistance.

This out of control, violent man, high on acid hallucinagenic drugs, which not only gave him super human strength but made him impervious to pain, than battered a peace officer. Yes a peace officer who’s job that night was to protect the citizens screaming for help, and to protect the community from further harm from this man.

Again a man who made the choice to consume quantities of drugs, that made him a mad man, who was on a mission to critically harm others in his path”…. (link)

Sometimes it is just a street thug that gets killed, not a black kid or a white kid or an Asian kid or a Hispanic kid.  It is a thug, and thugs are colorblind.

Remember, the police were CALLED to the scene by his friends.  He was on drugs and attacking people.  Stopping that behavior IS THE JOB of the police and they cannot turn away, nor are they obligated to be hurt or killed by the suspect just because the suspect is one of Holder’s protected class. You can hear the audio of the call. His friends called on him, during which two more calls of assaults came in on the same suspect. The officer responded and within a few seconds was calling shots fired, which means he was jumped immediately.

So what does Holder want us to excuse? Gang affiliations?

Tony robinson 4 ankle monitor

Drug use?

Random acts of violence? Like this video?

Or this

Or this?

Attacking the police officer who was trying to stop him?

What exactly does Obama and Holder want from the rest of America?  Because if they think allowing random violent drug fueled crimes is a good idea, then they are bigger dumbasses than even I thought.




Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

The next time a confused person talks about why Obama is favoring Iran, hand them this.


Then walk away. When they come to you later, angered and fearful, just shrug your shoulders. You didn’t vote for the guy.

A couple of weeks ago, my MENSA bright buddy pointed out that the Obama administration was pivoting away from Europe and the Middle East and towards the Far East (China, India, Indochina). The obvious reasons are the vast majority of the people live there, the economies are growing, and the labor is cheap.  Add to the mix our South American partners, and we could walk away from the thousands of years of religious war, European nationalism and other problems we’ve tried to manage for two centuries.

I get that. What I don’t get is Obama favoring Iran over Saudi Arabia or any other nation in the region, and trust me, the Saudis don’t either.  However, this essay helps explain the plan, and it also stops me from wondering what our Middle East policy and plans are.  Obama has been criticized for not having one. I disagree.  He most definitely has a plan, just not a wise one.

President Barack Obama wishes the Islamic Republic of Iran every success. Its leaders, he explained in a recent interview, stand at a crossroads. They can choose to press ahead with their nuclear program, thereby continuing to flout the will of the international community and further isolate their country; or they can accept limitations on their nuclear ambitions and enter an era of harmonious relations with the rest of the world. “They have a path to break through that isolation and they should seize it,” the president urged—because “if they do, there’s incredible talent and resources and sophistication . . . inside of Iran, and it would be a very successful regional power.”

How eager is the president to see Iran break through its isolation and become a very successful regional power? Very eager. A year ago, Benjamin Rhodes, deputy national-security adviser for strategic communication and a key member of the president’s inner circle, shared some good news with a friendly group of Democratic-party activists. The November 2013 nuclear agreement between Tehran and the “P5+1”—the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany—represented, he said, not only “the best opportunity we’ve had to resolve the Iranian [nuclear] issue,” but “probably the biggest thing President Obama will do in his second term on foreign policy.” For the administration, Rhodes emphasized, “this is healthcare . . . , just to put it in context.” Unaware that he was being recorded, he then confided to his guests that Obama was planning to keep Congress in the dark and out of the picture: “We’re already kind of thinking through, how do we structure a deal so we don’t necessarily require legislative action right away.”

Why the need to bypass Congress? Rhodes had little need to elaborate. As the president himself once noted balefully, “[T]here is hostility and suspicion toward Iran, not just among members of Congress but the American people”—and besides, “members of Congress are very attentive to what Israel says on its security issues.” And that “hostility and suspicion” still persist, prompting the president in his latest State of the Union address to repeat his oft-stated warning that he will veto “any new sanctions bill that threatens to undo [the] progress” made so far toward a “comprehensive agreement” with the Islamic Republic.

As far as the president is concerned, the less we know about his Iran plans, the better. Yet those plans, as Rhodes stressed, are not a minor or incidental component of his foreign policy. To the contrary, they are central to his administration’s strategic thinking about the role of the United States in the world, and especially in the Middle East.

Moreover, that has been true from the beginning. In the first year of Obama’s first term, a senior administration official would later tell David Sanger of the New York Times, “There were more [White House] meetings on Iran than there were on Iraq, Afghanistan, and China. It was the thing we spent the most time on and talked about the least in public [emphasis added].” All along, Obama has regarded his hoped-for “comprehensive agreement” with Iran as an urgent priority, and, with rare exceptions, has consistently wrapped his approach to that priority in exceptional layers of secrecy.

From time to time, critics and even friends of the president have complained vocally about the seeming disarray or fecklessness of the administration’s handling of foreign policy. Words like amateurish, immature, and incompetent are bandied about; what’s needed, we’re told, is less ad-hoc fumbling, more of a guiding strategic vision. Most recently, Leslie Gelb, a former government official and past president of the Council on Foreign Relations, has charged that “the Obama team lacks the basic instincts and judgment necessary to conduct U.S. national-security policy,” and has urged the president to replace the entire inner core of his advisers with “strong and strategic people of proven . . . experience.”

One sympathizes with Gelb’s sense of alarm, but his premises are mistaken. Inexperience is a problem in this administration, but there is no lack of strategic vision. Quite the contrary: a strategy has been in place from the start, and however clumsily it may on occasion have been implemented, and whatever resistance it has generated abroad or at home, Obama has doggedly adhered to the policies that have flowed from it.

In what follows, we’ll trace the course of the most important of those policies and their contribution to the president’s announced determination to encourage and augment Iran’s potential as a successful regional power and as a friend and partner to the United States.

2009-2010: Round One, Part I

In the giddy aftermath of Obama’s electoral victory in 2008, anything seemed possible. The president saw himself as a transformational leader, not just in domestic politics but also in the international arena, where, as he believed, he had been elected to reverse the legacy of his predecessor, George W. Bush. To say that Obama regarded Bush’s foreign policy as anachronistic is an understatement. To him it was a caricature of yesteryear, the foreign-policy equivalent of Leave It to Beaver. Obama’s mission was to guide America out of Bushland, an arena in which the United States assembled global military coalitions to defeat enemies whom it depicted in terms like “Axis of Evil,” and into Obamaworld, a place more attuned to the nuances, complexities, and contradictions—and opportunities—of the 21st century. In today’s globalized environment, Obama told the United Nations General Assembly in September 2009, “our destiny is shared, power is no longer a zero-sum game. No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. . . . No balance of power among nations will hold.”

Read the rest. When you get done, you will finally grasp what we have been witnessing for a long time and wondering what in the hell was wrong with this guy.   The sad truth is nothing is wrong with him. He’s just willing to give up a hundred years of Western influence, reset the boundaries of nations using violence and chaos, and leave a Islamic fundamentalist government, which owns a nuke, in charge.

Seriously, what could go wrong?

Well, early on Obama had a chance to help the Iranian Green revolution seize control of the nation away from the nutjobs running it, which would have solved the whole issue of having to deal with them. So, there is that.

But Obama passed and a lot of people got killed.  All so he could force his policy and desires onto the reality. (Something he does a lot.)

Obama based his policy of outreach to Tehran on two key assumptions of the grand-bargain myth: that Tehran and Washington were natural allies, and that Washington itself was the primary cause of the enmity between the two. If only the United States were to adopt a less belligerent posture, so the thinking went, Iran would reciprocate. In his very first television interview from the White House, Obama announced his desire to talk to the Iranians, to see “where there are potential avenues for progress.” Echoing his inaugural address, he said, “[I]f countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.”

Unfortunately, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, ignored the president’s invitation. Five months later, in June 2009, when the Green Movement was born, his autocratic fist was still clenched. As the streets of Tehran exploded in the largest anti-government demonstrations the country had seen since the revolution of 1979, he used that fist to beat down the protesters. For their part, the protesters, hungry for democratic reform and enraged by government rigging of the recent presidential election, appealed to Obama for help. He responded meekly, issuing tepid statements of support while maintaining a steady posture of neutrality. To alienate Khamenei, after all, might kill the dream of a new era in U.S.-Iranian relations.

If this show of deference was calculated to warm the dictator’s heart, it failed. “What we intended as caution,” one of Obama’s aides would later tell a reporter, “the Iranians saw as weakness.” Indeed, the president’s studied “caution” may even have emboldened Tehran to push forward, in yet another in the long series of blatant violations of its obligations under the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), with its construction of a secret uranium enrichment facility in an underground bunker at Fordow, near Qom.

Oh yeah, that goofy nuclear thing where the theocracy in charge of Iran wants a nuke and at the same time believes if the region goes up in flames it pushes their version of Islamic dominance closer to the end goal.  That’s a bit iffy.  But remember, Obama did go to Harvard.

And what about Israel?  Obama’s position is simple- screw ‘em!

The Israelis did more than just criticize Obama; they also threatened to take action against Iran that would place the president in an intolerable dilemma. In 2011, Ehud Barak, the defense minister at the time, announced that Iran was quickly approaching a “zone of immunity,” meaning that its nuclear program would henceforth be impervious to Israeli attack. As Iran approached that zone, Israel would have no choice but to strike. And what would America do then? The Israeli warnings grew ever starker as the presidential election season heated up. Netanyahu, it seemed, was using the threat of Israeli action as a way of prodding Washington itself to take a harder line.

To this challenge, Obama responded by putting Israel in a bear hug. From one angle, it looked like an expression of profound friendship: the president significantly increased military and intelligence cooperation, and he insisted, fervently and loudly, that his policy was to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon by all means possible. With the aid of influential American Jews and Israelis who testified to his sincerity, Obama successfully blunted the force of the charge that he was hostile to Israel.

From another angle, however, the bear hug looked like an effort to break Netanyahu’s ribs. Even while expressing affection for Israel, Obama found ways to signal his loathing for its prime minister. During one tense meeting at the White House, for example, the president abruptly broke off to join his family for dinner, leaving Netanyahu to wait for him alone. In mitigation, Obama supporters would adduce ongoing friction between the two countries over West Bank settlements and peace negotiations with the Palestinians. This was true enough, but the two men differed on quite a number of issues, among which Iran held by far the greatest strategic significance. In managing the anxieties of his liberal Jewish supporters, Obama found it useful to explain the bad atmosphere as a function of Netanyahu’s “extremism” rather than of his own outreach to Iran—to suggest, in effect, that if only the hothead in the room would sit down and shut up, the grownups could proceed to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem along reasonable lines.

The tactic proved effective. At least for the duration, Obama prevented Israel from attacking Iran; preserved American freedom of action with regard to Iran’s nuclear program; and kept his disagreements with the Israeli government within the comfort zone of American Jewish Democrats.

Israel has over two hundred nukes and little desire to use them unless threatened with extinction.  Iran wants nukes so they can launch them at Israel.  Israel is small and densely populated with a little over eight million people.  Iran is large and sparsely populated with seventy-seven million potential martyrs.  Two nukes could cripple Israel and put her in a situation where surrounding Hamas and other armies could swarm her, which means they get lit up too!  Iran could take the loss of half its population and survive.  I mean, who is going to invade Iran? Iraq? The plan is for Iran to run Iraq (much to the horror of the Sunni and Kurd population), so that’s not going to happen.

According to the author, the key to the Iranian dominance was not the election of their “moderate” leader, but the reelection of Obama. Remember, Obama is a malignant narcissist who is LONG time friends with the Iranian and fellow communist sympathizer  Valerie Jarrett.  Both Obama and his inner circle, led by Jarrett, really want to change the way the world works.  For many reasons, some ego driven, other more along the line of what is called the transnational progressivism.   This theory of world government is what all the conspiracy theorists are trying to grasp, quantify and expose.

Which, in my opinion is a wasted effort. There is no need to expose them.  They are right there in front of you. Their first attempt at this was the EU.  Look how that has worked out.

The key concepts of transnational progressivism are:

Groups are what matter, not people. You are “Black” or “Christian” or “Mexican” or “Afghan” or “Sunni”, you are not yourself. You also don’t get to choose your group; it’s inherent in what you were when you were born. Someone else will categorize you into your group, and you will become a number, a body to count to decide how important that group is. And your group won’t change during your lifetime.

The goal of fairness is equality of result, not equality of opportunity. It isn’t important to let individuals fulfill their potential and express their dreams, what’s important is to make groups have power and representation in all things proportional to their numbers in the population. Fairness is for groups, not for individuals. The ideally fair system is based on quotas, not on merit, because that permits proper precise allocation of results.

Being a victim is politically significant. It’s not merely a plea for help or something to be pitied; it’s actually a status that grants extra political power. “Victimhood” isn’t a cult, it’s a valid political evaluation. Groups which are victims should be granted disproportionately more influence and representation, at the expense of the historic “dominant” culture.

Assimilation is evil. Immigrants must remain what they were before they arrived here, and should be treated that way. Our system must adapt to them, rather than expecting them to adapt to us (even if they want to). The migration of people across national borders is a way to ultimately erase the significance of those borders by diluting national identity in the destination country.

An ideal democracy is a coalition where political power is allocated among groups in proportion to their numbers. It has nothing to do with voting or with individual citizens expressing opinions, and in fact it doesn’t require elections at all. A “winner take all” system, or one ruled by a majority, is profoundly repugnant because it disenfranchise minority groups of all kinds and deprives them of their proper share of power.

National identity is evil. We should try to think of ourselves as citizens of the world, not as citizens of the nations in which we live, and we should try to minimize the effects of national interests, especially our own if we live in powerful nations.

And the people who promote the concept are, surprisingly, the same group they believe should be running it.  Of course, why not…

The social base of transnational progressivism constitutes a rising postnational intelligentsia (international law professors, NGO activists, foundation officers, UN bureaucrats, EU administrators, corporate executives, and politicians.) When social movements such as “transnationalism” and “global governance” are depicted as the result of social forces or the movement of history, a certain impersonal inevitability is implied. However, in the twentieth century the Bolshevik Revolution, the National Socialist revolution, the New Deal, the Reagan Revolution, the Gaullist national reconstruction in France, and the creation of the EU were not inevitable, but were the result of the exercise of political will by elites.

Similarly, transnationalism, multiculturalism, and global governance, like “diversity,” are ideological tools championed by activist elites, not impersonal forces of history. The success or failure of these values-laden concepts will ultimately depend upon the political will and effectiveness of these elites.

So if we have Obama being run by people who want to run the world, and he wants to redesign the Middle East leaving Iran (and Russia) in charge of that region, how is that going to work out of you and me?

Frankly, he doesn’t care.  We are just batteries providing power to the machine his people are going to control. The rest is just white noise, that humming in the background everyone ignores.

Worse, we cannot depend on the Congress to step up.  I believe they know the nation is screwed in the short term and crippled in the long.  It looks like they don’t care, as seen in this poster below, but I think they just can’t do anything about it because of PC and their own need for power. Remember, they know people who go to Davos too!  Whose pockets are getting lined or will after they retire?

If Iran dominates the region and acts as a counterweight to the Saudis, then Obama’s theory is the region will balance out.  If Iran can control the Iraqi oil reserves, it will become the fifth largest producer of oil according to one report.  Why Obama thinks that will serve the United States well is beyond me, so I’m thinking, as I said earlier, he doesn’t care.  If we run short of energy and the costs go up, it is a win for him anyway.

Read the whole essay and think on it for awhile.  It’s over unless something gives.  Transnational Progressives have control of large swaths of world governments.  Their goals will be met, or their attempts will cause great harm, which will unsettle nations. They will demonize and eliminate, if they can, any nationalist effort by citizens. (Helloooo Tea Party!)

And they don’t care. I heard rumor many of the uber rich are buying remote locations around the world in order to flee and survive what they feel may be the coming civil unrest when all the money is gone and the resources dry up.  These people are the same people who attend Davos every years and control most of the world’s money.

Super rich hedge fund managers are buying ‘secret boltholes’ where they can hideout in the event of civil uprising against growing inequality, it has been claimed.

Nervous financiers from across the globe have begun purchasing landing strips, homes and land in areas such as New Zealand so they can flee should people rise up.

With growing inequality and riots such as those in London in 2011 and in Ferguson and other parts of the USA last year, many financial leaders fear they could become targets for public fury.

Robert Johnson, president of the Institute of New Economic Thinking, told people at the World Economic Forum in Davos that many hedge fund managers were already planning their escapes.

What is funny is they seem to not quite get the big picture.  There is no escape.  If you can get to it, I can get to it, and so can millions of other really pissed off citizens.  Unless the uber rich buy a piece of land on the moon and a rocket to get there, they had better realize it is far safer to manage the world effectively than to trash it, all the while stealing all they can. Something I fear Obama and his ilk do not grasp.

Chaos is like a rabid dog you let off the lease to bite your enemy. Sooner or later, it is going to turn and bite you. Take a look at ISIL if you don’t believe me.







Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Comparing Islamic terrorism to Germany and Japan in WW2. A way to handle the problem- almost.

“What he said.”

Victor Davis Hanson is a brilliant historian and many, MANY times I’ve simply copied and pasted his thoughts on issues without comment. He just gets it right most of the time.

This time he makes the argument that in the past we’ve dealt with extremism by separating the extremists from the rest of a particular herd in order to beat them.

The terrorism in Paris is yet another bad chapter in an ongoing Western debate over a seeming paradox. Almost all recent global terrorism is attributable to Islamic-inspired violence — much of it directed against Muslims. And yet the vast majority of the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims do not directly aid and abet the spate of Islamic extremism.

How then to focus on the Islamic terrorists without polluting the surrounding sea in which these sharks swim?

Do history’s radical movements assume initial or even ongoing popular majorities to ensure their viability? Obviously, the vast majority of Germans, Japanese, Italians, and Russians did not support the extremists who came to power with Hitler, Tojo, Mussolini, and Lenin.

Indeed, besides carrying out the Holocaust against the Jews, Hitler killed thousands of his own Germans, an array of homosexuals, Communists, domestic critics, and the physically handicapped. Stalin caused more deaths among his own fellow Soviet citizens in the Twenties and Thirties than the Wehrmacht later did.

The point is that extremist movements, even when they become strong enough to reach power, are not always particularly kind to their own or well liked among them. That Muslim radicals kill Muslims in their midst does not necessarily mean that they do not prefer to kill non-Muslims.

The continued influence of radical Muslims who engage in terrorism hinges on whether they bring power, prestige, and resources to the people that they otherwise usually oppress. Islamic theocrats control governments only in the Gulf, Iran, and Gaza, and are trying to cobble together a caliphate largely in Syria and Iraq. Turkey likewise is moving toward theocracy. But Islamists are active, both above and below the radar, in almost every Muslim-majority nation — and they can manage this even where they enjoy very little popular support.

A great deal of attention has been given to radically changing views toward Islamic terrorism in the Middle East, after the disintegration of Syria and the rise of the Islamic State, along with the bloody rampage of Boko Haram in central Africa.

But what is even more striking is the large minorities who still either are willing to state their support for terrorists or say they are unconcerned about their activity. According to the Pew Global Attitudes Project, Muslim support for suicide bombing has dropped in recent years. Yet even so, in 2014 in major Islamic countries — Palestine, Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan — somewhere between 18 and 46 percent of the population expressed approval for the proposition that suicide bombing against civilian targets can “often/sometimes be justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies.”

The vast majority of Muslims no longer express support for the late Osama bin Laden, but sizable minorities in some countries still do: 15 percent in Egypt, 23 percent in Bangladesh, and 25 percent in Palestine. The polls suggest two disturbing possibilities. In a world of 1.5 billion Muslims, perhaps 150 million Muslims worldwide — 10 percent — still admire bin Laden, are not concerned about Islamic violence, and support suicide bombing against the perceived enemies of Islam. While Muslim majorities are beginning to react negatively to the escalating violence in their own midst, millions still do not.

And there is the hic in the hiccup.  I am convinced Muslims, almost all Muslims, are content to let their radical brethren take the fight to the unbelievers. They want Islam to dominate both religiously and as a government, it is the teachings after all, but are content to sit on the sidelines cheering for which ever side is winning.

For example, Iraqis fought against the Coalition.  “We hate Americans!” Until we won and they realized we were staying for a while then it was “We LOVE Americans” until it the insurgency looked like it was going to drive out the Coalition. Then it was “We HATE Americans!”  Then we crushed the insurgency and it was back to “Don’t leave us good friends!” Same with Afghanistan.

Germany wasn’t like that at all.  They turned on Hitler because they were suffering defeat, loss of life and loss of quality of life (continuous bombings of civilian targets will do that!).  And this is where we have a problem using this model to defeat Islamic terrorism. The vast majority of Muslims in the world do not suffer any negative effect for the acts of a relative few fellow believers.  The reason is Islam is a religion spread out over the globe.  Germany was a state, a place that could be identified and then destroyed.

Hanson gets to this point.  Muslim really want the terrorists to act out and eventually win. If they don’t, they are not true to their religion.  Sort of Christians secretly hoping Wickens one day rule the world sort of thing.

Clearly polls are not the only evidence of the level of support for Islamic-inspired radicalism. More important can be the degree of passivity of the population. General Sisi of Egypt recently argued that the Muslim clerical establishment bore a great deal of responsibility for global Islamic terrorism, not because these clerics necessarily voiced support for it, but because they were unwilling or unable to mobilize Muslims against it. I can recall meeting with a group of Libyan exiles living in the United States in 2006, all of whom were highly educated, Americanized professionals. They voiced optimism that their former tormentor Qaddafi was liberalizing their country and offering hope of recreating a civil society even for secularized dissidents like themselves. But when I mentioned the then-current case of the Islamic attacks against those associated with the caricatures of Mohammed in the Danish magazine Jyllands-Posten, all four Libyans voiced unanimous approval of the violence against such blasphemers. And when I asked them about the then-recent suicide bombings in Israel, they again voiced support for such activities.

And there you have it.  So how can you punish those people who want the violence in the name of their religion, but aren’t actually doing the violence.  The real issue is how do we whack the mole when the population of the moles is about 1.6 billion, give or take a few that actually may be Muslim in name only and realize Sharia law is a really bad idea.

However, we will have to figure a way to do just that if we want to ever push the Islamic terrorists to the back burner and keep them there.  We will never completely eliminate them, but we can persuade the others to smack them in the heads and make them go away- like a spoiled child at a picnic.   And we have to figure it out soon, because if not, the Islamic terrorist movement will gain members, power and worse- reach.

Hanson points out the obvious.

So far, international polling organizations have not conducted surveys in Muslim countries to ascertain popular attitudes about the attack on Charlie Hebdo. However, we should not be surprised if sizable minorities should voice their support. I would assume that a certain number of Muslims worldwide — perhaps the 150 million posited above — would admire the so-called martyrs whose terrorist acts were thought to be in service to the reputation of the prophet.

While there is great talk in the West that it is only a small minority of Muslims who support Islamic terrorism, and that the remedy for such terrorism must be found within the world of Islam, there is not much logical or historical evidence that such truisms matter much. Ten percent is a tiny minority of any population. But if 10 percent of Muslims worldwide support ongoing terrorist movements, that is still 150 million Muslims, who comprise a large enough pool to aid and abet terrorism, either by giving moral and financial support or by acting as pressure groups within mostly autocratic political systems.

We should not be surprised at that fact. If just 10 percent of the French population is Muslim, and perhaps just 10 percent of that subset supports Islamic violence, there remains a pool nevertheless of perhaps 600,000 radicalized French residents of Middle Eastern descent that offers the sort of environment in the French suburban ghettos that spawns the current terrorist violence.

Moreover, theoretical support or rejection of terrorism as evidenced by polls does not necessarily translate into real-life consequences, especially in non-democratic societies — as we know from supposed German disenchantment with Hitler during the last year of the war. Were we wrong in January 1945 to keep bombing “the Germans,” given that most by then both did not like the Nazi government and yet did not dare to actively oppose it?

The truth is that to the degree that radical Muslim terrorists kill other Muslims inside Islamic countries and make collective progress impossible, or, by their actions, do tangible damage to the reputation of these Islamic countries overseas, they will be become unpopular and eventually find too little support to continue their violence.

However, if Islamic-inspired violence abroad does not directly and negatively affect the Middle East, or if it creates a sense of fear of radical Islam among Westerners that does not translate into hardship for the Muslim world — or that perhaps even succeeds in winning a sort of warped prestige — then there is no reason to expect the Islamic community will take the necessary measures to curb it.

Not as long as they can blame the “West” and keep convincing themselves it is our fault they are so screwed up.

Punish them.  Part of it is weakening Saudi oil.  Part of it is making sure the rest of the seven billion people are on the same page and no longer supporting, because it is cool to do so, Islamic foolishness (Hey Afflick, I’m talking to you, moron!).

Until then, we are going to be subject to concentrated and random acts of violence worldwide in the name of Allah.







Posted in politics | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

An honest assessment from a public defender’s career. Sad but accurate.

We hear the PC version of life according to those no longer actually inside that life.  Here is a person who dealt with crime from the position of a public defender.  Still hoping for a different outcome, this lawyer has realized this particular hope will never be satisfied.

I am a public defender in a large southern metropolitan area. Fewer than ten percent of the people in the area I serve are black but over 90 per cent of my clients are black. The remaining ten percent are mainly Hispanics but there are a few whites.

I have no explanation for why this is, but crime has racial patterns. Hispanics usually commit two kinds of crime: sexual assault on children and driving under the influence. Blacks commit many violent crimes but very few sex crimes. The handful of whites I see commit all kinds of crimes. In my many years as a public defender I have represented only three Asians, and one was half black.

As a young lawyer, I believed the official story that blacks are law abiding, intelligent, family-oriented people, but are so poor they must turn to crime to survive. Actual black behavior was a shock to me.

The media invariably sugarcoat black behavior. Even the news reports of the very crimes I dealt with in court were slanted. Television news intentionally leaves out unflattering facts about the accused, and sometimes omits names that are obviously black. All this rocked my liberal, tolerant beliefs, but it took me years to set aside my illusions and accept the reality of what I see every day. I have now served thousands of blacks and their families, protecting their rights and defending them in court. What follow are my observations.

Although blacks are only a small percentage of our community, the courthouse is filled with them: the halls and gallery benches are overflowing with black defendants, families, and crime victims. Most whites with business in court arrive quietly, dress appropriately, and keep their heads down. They get in and get out–if they can–as fast as they can. For blacks, the courthouse is like a carnival. They all seem to know each other: hundreds and hundreds each day, gossiping, laughing loudly, waving, and crowding the halls.

When I am appointed to represent a client I introduce myself and explain that I am his lawyer. I explain the court process and my role in it, and I ask the client some basic questions about himself. At this stage, I can tell with great accuracy how people will react. Hispanics are extremely polite and deferential. An Hispanic will never call me by my first name and will answer my questions directly and with appropriate respect for my position. Whites are similarly respectful.

A black man will never call me Mr. Smith; I am always “Mike.” It is not unusual for a 19-year-old black to refer to me as “dog.” A black may mumble complaints about everything I say, and roll his eyes when I politely interrupt so I can continue with my explanation. Also, everything I say to blacks must be at about the third-grade level. If I slip and use adult language, they get angry because they think I am flaunting my superiority.

At the early stages of a case, I explain the process to my clients. I often do not yet have the information in the police reports. Blacks are unable to understand that I do not yet have answers to all of their questions, but that I will by a certain date. They live in the here and the now and are unable to wait for anything. Usually, by the second meeting with the client I have most of the police reports and understand their case.

Unlike people of other races, blacks never see their lawyer as someone who is there to help them. I am a part of the system against which they are waging war. They often explode with anger at me and are quick to blame me for anything that goes wrong in their case.

We’ve all seen this.  The black thug element believes the system is out to get him. Not because he’s a criminal, but because he is black. A message taught him over generations.  Lack of personal accountability is a way of life in the thug community.

The Constitution allows a defendant to make three crucial decisions in his case. He decides whether to plea guilty or not guilty. He decides whether to have a bench trial or a jury trial. He decides whether he will testify or whether he will remain silent. A client who insists on testifying is almost always making a terrible mistake, but I cannot stop him.

Most blacks are unable to speak English well. They cannot conjugate verbs. They have a poor grasp of verb tenses. They have a limited vocabulary. They cannot speak without swearing. They often become hostile on the stand. Many, when they testify, show a complete lack of empathy and are unable to conceal a morality based on the satisfaction of immediate, base needs. This is a disaster, especially in a jury trial. Most jurors are white, and are appalled by the demeanor of uneducated, criminal blacks.

Prosecutors are delighted when a black defendant takes the stand. It is like shooting fish in a barrel. However, the defense usually gets to cross-examine the black victim, who is likely to make just as bad an impression on the stand as the defendant. This is an invaluable gift to the defense, because jurors may not convict a defendant—even if they think he is guilty—if they dislike the victim even more than they dislike the defendant.

This is also true-

The decision to plea to a lesser charge turns on the strength of the evidence. When blacks ask the ultimate question—”Will we win at trial?”—I tell them I cannot know, but I then describe the strengths and weaknesses of our case. The weaknesses are usually obvious: There are five eyewitnesses against you. Or, you made a confession to both the detective and your grandmother. They found you in possession of a pink cell phone with a case that has rhinestones spelling the name of the victim of the robbery. There is a video of the murderer wearing the same shirt you were wearing when you were arrested, which has the words “In Da Houz” on the back, not to mention you have the same “RIP Pookie 7/4/12” tattoo on your neck as the man in the video. Etc.

If you tell a black man that the evidence is very harmful to his case, he will blame you. “You ain’t workin’ fo’ me.” “It like you workin’ with da State.” Every public defender hears this. The more you try to explain the evidence to a black man, the angrier he gets. It is my firm belief many black are unable to discuss the evidence against them rationally because they cannot view things from the perspective of others.


The cellie who knows the law.

I can attest from personal experience dealing with different kinds of criminals that black street thug criminals are everything the PD has described above and worse.  I actually interviewed one who had stolen from another person.  He said to me the following- and I paraphrase:

 I didn’t steal it from him. It was never his to begin with.  He could not hold onto it, which means it was never his to begin with, it was always mine. He was just holding onto it until I came along.

For a second I thought he was kidding. But he was dead serious because that is how things worked in his world.

This inability to see things from someone else’s perspective helps explain why there are so many black criminals. They do not understand the pain they are inflicting on others. One of my robbery clients is a good example. He and two co-defendants walked into a small store run by two young women. All three men were wearing masks. They drew handguns and ordered the women into a back room. One man beat a girl with his gun. The second man stood over the second girl while the third man emptied the cash register. All of this was on video.

My client was the one who beat the girl. When he asked me, “What are our chances at trial?” I said, “Not so good.” He immediately got angry, raised his voice, and accused me of working with the prosecution. I asked him how he thought a jury would react to the video. “They don’t care,” he said. I told him the jury would probably feel deeply sympathetic towards these two women and would be angry at him because of how he treated them. I asked him whether he felt bad for the women he had beaten and terrorized. He told me what I suspected—what too many blacks say about the suffering of others: “What do I care? She ain’t me. She ain’t kin. Don’t even know her.”

Years ago a Sheriff Office agent worked a series of ATM robberies that targeted white elderly women (this was back in the nineties).  The suspects were all young black males. When they were caught they confessed. In the confessions they were asked why elderly white females.  Their answer was chilling and applicable to today’s issues.

“Because we wanted to make sure they knew who they really needed to be afraid of.”

Where does this anger and almost psychotic disconnect come from? The easy answer is no fathers, the harder answer is this whole segment of society is imploding, and taking innocent victims along with it.  Back when I was young, the mothers and grandmothers ran the family and a young black male was respectful and afraid of his grandmother.  Today, it is different.

Many black defendants don’t even have mothers who care about them. Many are raised by grandmothers after the state removes the children from an incompetent teenaged mother. Many of these mothers and grandmothers are mentally unstable, and are completely disconnected from the realities they face in court and in life. A 47-year-old grandmother will deny that her grandson has gang ties even though his forehead is tattooed with a gang sign or slogan. When I point this out in as kind and understanding way as I can, she screams at me. When black women start screaming, they invoke the name of Jesus and shout swear words in the same breath.

Black women have great faith in God, but they have a twisted understanding of His role. They do not pray for strength or courage. They pray for results: the satisfaction of immediate needs. One of my clients was a black woman who prayed in a circle with her accomplices for God’s protection from the police before they would set out to commit a robbery.

The mothers and grandmothers pray in the hallways–not for justice, but for acquittal. When I explain that the evidence that their beloved child murdered the shop keeper is overwhelming, and that he should accept the very fair plea bargain I have negotiated, they will tell me that he is going to trial and will “ride with the Lord.” They tell me they speak to God every day and He assures them that the young man will be acquitted.

The mothers and grandmothers do not seem to be able to imagine and understand the consequences of going to trial and losing. Some–and this is a shocking reality it took me a long time to grasp–don’t really care what happens to the client, but want to make it look as though they care. This means pounding their chests in righteous indignation, and insisting on going to trial despite terrible evidence. They refuse to listen to the one person–me–who has the knowledge to make the best recommendation. These people soon lose interest in the case, and stop showing up after about the third or fourth court date. It is then easier for me to convince the client to act in his own best interests and accept a plea agreement.

Part of the problem is that underclass black women begin having babies at age 15. They continue to have babies, with different black men, until they have had five or six. These women do not go to school. They do not work. They are not ashamed to live on public money. They plan their entire lives around the expectation that they will always get free money and never have to work. I do not see this among whites, Hispanics, or any other people.

Yep. What he said. I’ve seen it. Now I’ve seen good black parents keep their kids in line, and if they strayed wore them out until they got back in line. But that is a shrinking percentage.  As the generations pass and grow further from Martin Luther King’s belief in equality and accountability, the Samuel L Jackson theory of life gains popularity.  Simply put it is always somebody else’s fault you are a shithead.

And will most likely stay a shithead for life.

From time to time the media report that although blacks are 12 percent of the population they are 40 percent of the prison population. This is supposed to be an outrage that results from unfair treatment by the criminal justice system. What the media only hint at is another staggering reality: recidivism. Black men are arrested and convicted over and over. It is typical for a black man to have five felony convictions before the age of 30. This kind of record is rare among whites and Hispanics, and probably even rarer among Asians.

At one time our office was looking for a motto that defined our philosophy. Someone joked that it should be: “Doesn’t everyone deserve an eleventh chance?”

I am a liberal. I believe that those of us who are able to produce abundance have a moral duty to provide basic food, shelter, and medical care for those who cannot care for themselves. I believe we have this duty even to those who can care for themselves but don’t. This world view requires compassion and a willingness to act on it.

My experience has taught me that we live in a nation in which a jury is more likely to convict a black defendant who has committed a crime against a white. Even the dullest of blacks know this. There would be a lot more black-on-white crime if this were not the case.

However, my experience has also taught me that blacks are different by almost any measure to all other people. They cannot reason as well. They cannot communicate as well. They cannot control their impulses as well. They are a threat to all who cross their paths, black and non-black alike.

And this from the guy who supposed to hold out hope beyond the rest of us- a liberal public defender!

I think his last point is the best- no more PC. We must speak the truth. Make SLJ stop singing about the police and start talking about the general breakdown of his own culture.

I do not know the solution to this problem. I do know that it is wrong to deceive the public. Whatever solutions we seek should be based on the truth rather than what we would prefer was the truth. As for myself, I will continue do my duty to protect the rights of all who need me.

Good luck.  Sadly, you are going to stay busy.




Posted in politics | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

A different kind of “class.” Obama and GWB Christmas gifts.

We all witnessed Obama’s self centered “I get mine” attitude.  Embarrassing and truly not surprising noting his personality flaws.

I think he really rang the bell on this one, not because of its global importance, but quite the opposite, it is the smallness of the moment that explains so much about who he is as a person.

So this is what his advisors had in mind when they said he feels “liberated” after the election. Now, as a late-stage lame duck, he’s free to be the d*ck he always wanted to be but couldn’t for fear of the electoral consequences.

If “You’re Only President Once” means anything, it means telling a pair of Army officers who’ve spent months planning their Hawaiian dream wedding that they’ll have to make way because you simply must, must golf at that very hour.

It was the second time that day that the couple heard from the nation’s commander in chief, whose affinity for golf has, at times, caused political headaches for the White House. Stationed in Hawaii and knowing the president spends his Christmas holiday on the islands, they invited him to their ceremony on a lark. They had received a letter earlier on Saturday saying Obama regretted he couldn’t come and wishing them happiness on their wedding day.

“It was kind of ironic they got the letter from them and then, within hours, they were told they had to be moved due to him,” Jamie McCarthy, Mallue’s sister, said in an interview. “It was emotional, especially for her—she’s the bride and in less than 24 hours they had to change everything they had planned.”

[A]nyone planning an event at the course when the president may be in town is warned about the potential for last-minute shuffling, said Naile Brennan, manager of K Bay Catering, which was handling logistics for the wedding. Brennan said they had other sites ready to go, and the couple ended up choosing the lush, green lawn near the home of Colonel Eric Schaefer, the commanding officer of the base, which offers an elevated view near the 16th hole.

I’m tempted to call this The Most Obama Thing Ever but realistically it is and can only be number two on that list. To make it to number one, O would have had to tee off while standing underneath the couple’s trellis, the ball perched atop a champagne glass engraved with their initials, while the bride sobbed quietly in the background. He’s got two years as president left; I give him 50/50 odds of making it happen eventually.

It is the pettiness of the offense.  Not that he did it, but that his attitude encourages his staff to be as dismissive.  If your boss is a d*ck,  and likes it, chances are he will eventually be surrounded by d*cks. It’s a magnetic thing I guess.

But on the other side of this is GWB.  Like or hate him, you cannot get around the fact he was just a decent person.  We can only wonder what his presidency would have been like had there been no 9/11.  A glimpse in the possibilities is given to us by Joseph Curl and his experiences around Christmas.

Every year, in the week between Christmas and New Year‘s, I think about George W. Bush.

It was in that week each year for the eight years I covered him as a reporter that he gave me a spectacular gift — and he knew it.

I started covering the newly elected president in 2000, when I was in my 30s. Back then, as a reporter for The Washington Times, we went everywhere the president went. If he went to Charlotte, North Carolina, to give a 30-minute speech on an airport tarmac, we went. Up at 4 a.m., an hourlong commute to Andrews Air Force Base, in place on the ground hours before POTUS landed, and there for hours and hours after he left — sometimes right through the evening news so network reporters could file live from the site.

We also went with the president to Texas every summer — often for a month — and every winter, too, over the holidays.

But here’s the thing: In December, we never left Washington, D.C., until the day after Christmas. Never. Mr. Bush and his wife, Laura, would always depart the White House a few days before the holiday and hunker down at Camp David, the presidential retreat in Maryland. After a few years, I asked a low-level White House staffer why.

I still remember what she said: “So all of us can be with our families on Christmas.”

Who was “us”? Hundreds and hundreds of people, that’s who. Sure, the reporters who covered the president, but also dozens and dozens on his staff, 100 Secret Service agents, maybe more, and all of those city cops required whenever the president’s on the move in D.C.

For me, that one-day delay was huge. My kids were 6 and 8 years old when Mr. Bush took office. When he went home to Prairie Chapel that last time in 2009, my girl was driving, the boy was 6 foot 1. But in the meantime, I was home for eight Christmas mornings, playing Santa, stoking the fire, mixing up hot chocolates.

That was President Bush. And every year for the past five, I’ve thought about what that meant to me. (By the way, some years, I got holiday duty, which meant I was off to Waco, Texas, the day after Christmas. But once again, the Bush White House had us covered: A press plane flew out with the president, and back then, reporters could pay $100 per family member for the plane ride. So sometimes, the family went along. For the kids, it was an adventure; for me, well, we were all together.)

All that has changed with President Obama. No more press plane, for one. Reporters are on their own — so taking family is, say, $1,000 a pop. Not likely. And this president would never delay his trip to his island getaway. He’s off every year well before Christmas. Hundreds and hundreds head off with him, leaving family behind.

No Christmas at home. Instead, the Hawaiian Village Waikiki Beach Resort. Nice, but not exactly home.

And that’s the point here.  Quality of character manifests itself in so many different ways.  Bad character does the same.  GWB would have never made that couple move over a round of golf. In fact, he’d probably work it in that he got to stop by and congratulate the young couple personally.

Class isn’t just about income or access or race.  It is about the heart.  Or lack of it.



Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Getting the threat of being a police officer wrong. Deaths are up, but so are assaults.

A recent liberal article stating that being a police officer was safer than before was hard to read. Simply because the article took one statistic- the number of deaths of officers in the line of duty- and said because the deaths went down it was safer.  And around that one point the writer built an entire article about how it was the police officer’s fault for the ongoing conflict between black thugs and law enforcement.


Sadly, the lack of interest in the truth reflects an agenda we can never change.  Bottom line is this, it is far more dangerous today than before.  Here is one statistic you don’t see- the assaults on officer in 2013 totaling 49,851.  FIFTY THOUSAND attacks on police while trying to do their job. If the police assaulted fifty thousand people, just because they could, it would be a real front page story.  But the assaults aren’t the police trying to be mean, it is usually the police reacting to a combative suspect, who chooses not to comply. Once a rarity, it is becoming standard behavior to resist arrest as though it were a game, or a “right.”

At some point people are going to have to take responsibility for themselves and their own actions.

Now for some inconvenient facts:

  • According to the FBI, an estimated 11,302,102 people were arrested in 2013.

  • During those arrests 49,851 Officers were assaulted while performing their duties, which averages 9.3 assaults per 100 officers.

  • There are approximately 400 deaths attributed to police each year, many of whom resisted arrest or attacked the police. That’s a death during 0.0035 of all arrests.  Even if you are overly cautious and put the number around 1,000 per year, that’s still a death during 0.0088 of all arrests, again the majority of whom were killed after resisting arrest.

  • More than 99.99% of arrests result in no deadly force.

Now the question is why aren’t the deaths of the police or the injuries suffered by the people we pay to maintain order a big deal?  The reason is there is an assumption that because we took on the job of a police officer being injured or killed is part of the job.

It is not.

Murdered because he served.

Nowhere in the contracts we sign or the social contract we have with society does it state we should take beatings or be killed. Not there, and I challenge anyone to find it.  This concept is a creation of a declining society not willing to accept their responsibility in keeping a society healthy.  We’ve seen how that element acts towards us and each other.

Reuters touches on one single point- deaths by firearms. But they don’t want to touch on the fact each and every day the police face potential death by the hands of strangers, who don’t know the officer, just see the color blue and want to kill it. When the color blue tells them to do something, it has become accept BY ALL PARTS OF AMERICA to protest as though that was a right.

(Reuters) – Gun related deaths of U.S. law enforcement officers rose by 56 percent in 2014 compared to the previous year, with about one-third of officers killed in an ambush, the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund said on Tuesday.

Across the country, 50 officers were killed by guns in 2014 compared to 32 in 2013, according to the website of the non-profit fund, which aims to increase safety for law enforcement officers.

The most deadly states were California, Texas, New York, Florida and Georgia, the group said.

“Fifteen officers were shot and killed in ambush, more than any other circumstance of fatal shootings in 2014,” the website said.

American Thinker posted a great article, one I urge everyone to read.  The title is “Non-Notable Deaths for 2014″.   Why non-notable? Because it was cops.  At one time in Britain a police officer’s death was a national tragedy, and the citizens reacted accordingly.  A death of a cop was a violation of British society.  They understood the contract between the two.  In America, we are basically anti-authority.  We love Billy the Kid and hated Pat Garrett.  We love John Dillinger and hated J Edgar Hoover.  And so on.

But in this article American Thinker listed the deaths and the events BEHIND the deaths.  Think about this- what if this were your world. The place you went to work every day. How would you view your life, the world, the risks, and how would you perform or interact with the citizenry?

But there are some individuals whose deaths made headlines in their own towns, and, very occasionally, nationwide.  These men then disappeared into the anonymity from which they had briefly emerged.  None made the Times’ D list.

They are the police officers killed in the line of duty.  In a year in which Michael Brown and Eric Garner were hailed as martyrs, and St. Trayvon was still worshipped, these cops deserve to be remembered, and honored — particularly the nearly 40% of the 47 police officers gunned down in 2014 who were shot by African-American males.

The European-American and Hispanic killers were the usual mix:  thugs, gang-bangers, including illegals, psychotics, and psychopaths.  At least one was the now familiar type who watched movies and played video games all day in his room in his parents’ house.  Two were motivated by anti-government sentiments, and so received nation-wide publicity.   “Patriots” Jerad and Amanda Miller drove across the country to support Cliven Bundy, but their rants disturbed other demonstrators, and they were asked to leave Bundy’s property.  They then shot Las Vegas Police officers Alyn Beck and Igor Soldo point-blank as the two men were eating lunch in a restaurant.   Survivalist and Serbian war re-enactor Eric Frein ambushed Pennsylvania State Trooper Byron Dickson as he walked out the front door of the State Police barracks in Blooming Grove.

AT goes on to list them.  Again, take the time to read and think what how the officers involved were doing or thinking just before they were murdered.  It usually goes that way, one second you are okay, the next you are being killed. Violent and quick.  And final.

Watch this video from 2013. This is a cop’s life. The black man, an intelligent, not crazy person with military background, without reason, steps out of his car and starts shooting. The suspect had his kids inside. Why in the world did he do it?  And where was the white cops kill black people randomly element here?

I think the response from his family members are revealing.  Just think if YOUR family member had been shot and you hear this.

Relatives said Allen, a father of five and an Army Reserve veteran who worked as a construction engineer between 2009 and 2012, was returning to his native South Carolina at the time of shooting.

He was caught traveling at 76 mph in a construction zone before he was pulled over.

His family said it was out of his character for him to pull a gun on an officer.

‘He would have never shot at a police official or anyone of the law,’ his cousin, Will Wright III, said. ‘He would not have missed the kill shot either.’

Won’t have missed the kill shot?? WTF?

Here are some more, all I’m sure followed up with the comments by family member stating the following:

1. The suspect was “getting his life together.”

2. Was “going back to school to get his degree.”

3.  “He would never hurt anyone. It must be a mistake.” Even though the suspect had a criminal record including shootings, robberies and drug offenses.

4. And of course the “It was the cop’s fault” meme.

In other cases, the killers didn’t have a record, but wanted to avoid an arrest.

Allen Bares, an off-duty deputy sheriff in Vermillion Parish, Louisiana, was mowing his lawn late in the afternoon on June 24th when he saw two young black males acting suspiciously.  They’d driven a stolen Lexus into a ditch.  Bares phoned in a report, then went up to the men and identified himself as a police officer.  He was shot several times, according to a neighbor, and “the young fellows” drove off in his truck.  Quintylan Richards and Baylon Taylor were arrested soon after the killing.

Another officer killed while questioning an individual about suspicious activity was Alexander Thalmann of New Bern, North Carolina.  He and his partner approached Bryan Stallings on March 28 at 11:45 p.m.  The suspect ran away from the police, pulled out a handgun, and fired on the two officers.  Thalmann, 22, a former Marine who had served only seven months with the police department, was struck in the head.  He left behind his mother, two sisters, and a brother.

The aftermath of the shooting was revealing.  Like Barrack Obama addressing the nation after the Fort Hood massacre, the mayor of New Bern, the appropriately named Dana Outlaw, had more pressing things on his mind than the killing of one of his officers.  In a Facebook post after the killing, he expatiated on the good weather before mentioning Thalmann.  He then cancelled a memorial service for the officer and attended the funeral of Stallings.  The killer had a long criminal record that included resisting arrest, assaulting an officer, larceny, possession of drugs, and lewd and lascivious conduct with a girl under sixteen.

Also typical was the coverage in the local media, concluding with a long defense of Stallings from a friend and witness.

Unlike Bares and Thalmann, Perry Renn knew he was dealing with a dangerous suspect.  On July 5th, he responded to a 911 call that a man was discharging a semi-automatic rifle at an intersection in Indianapolis.  As Renn and his partner approached the man, he began firing at them, hitting Renn three times.

The coverage was even more egregious than in the New Bern paper.  An article in the Indy Star brimmed with sympathy for the killer, Major Davis, Jr., a violent criminal with a long arrest record.  Family members placed the blame squarely on the police.

Renn, 51, a former paratrooper with 82nd Airborne, joined the Indianapolis Metropolitan PD after ten years in the Army.  He served 21 years as a patrol officer, and left behind his wife, parents, sister, and seven nieces and nephews.

The rest of the article highlights the deaths of good men and women trying to do the right thing in a society that is circling the toilet, in large part due to the bad policies and politics of the Progressive Left.

What the Left doesn’t get is once the dog is off the leash, initially targeting the hated police, that particular dog will turn and bite anyone it can reach.  Madness possesses no reason.

Okay, we can title this “It just gets funnier every time I watch it!” or “The many uses of the common hammer.”

And there will be many, many more to watch in the future.

Welcome to the Madness.




Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why didn’t the gun go off, the “FTP” in full color. Another example of the gunning down of cops by black youths. Thanks Obama.

It’s on.  I would love to say different, but I am now convinced the thug community, emboldened by riots, media, Obama, Holder and the rest, are now going to act out and try and kill police, and other authority figures, randomly, just like back in the late sixties and seventies.

I got a text from an active officer today saying some of the old guys were saying it felt the same way.  I agreed. I was just starting with my young career in the late seventies, and it was sporty at times.

But back in that day, when I was a teenager, the elements were different.

First, police had the backing of the community and if they whipped or shot someone who was doing a bad thing, nobody even blinked.  So the rules were clear for everyone involved, good and bad.  You beat a police officer and get shot for it- shame on you.  You shoot a cop and the police ran you to the ground and shot you- shame on you.

Second,  the bad guys understood they could attack the police, but then hell would rain down on them, and except for the lefties, nobody cared.  It created a safe environment where the bad guys CHOSE not to do anything too bad, because they knew what was coming.

Now it is different.  Now the police won’t engage to the extent that is necessary. And no, I don’t support over aggressive policing and the up arming of their departments.  What I’m saying is while the police may appear too aggressive, partially because they are forced to treat everyone “equal” as to not look biased (thanks lawyers and training), but in reality they are reacting to the possibility somebody is trying to kill them. Yet, when faced with the real attack, as shown in an earlier set of videos, they worry their actions will be criticized and they may suffer.  It causes hesitation.  So when they SHOULD be aggressive, they aren’t.

Here is a story that proves this exact point.

A white police officer killed a black teenager who was allegedly armed in a St. Louis suburb late Tuesday, leading to a small protest and four arrests at the scene of the shooting, according to police.

The death of Antonio Martin, 18 years old, comes as tensions run high in U.S. cities over the use of deadly force by police. The shooting happened in Berkeley, Mo., just miles from the town of Ferguson, where the death of an unarmed black teenager by a white police officer in August sparked months of demonstrations that turned violent at times….

Yeah, I know, blah blah blah. But here is the important part-

The shooting in Berkeley happened around 11:15 p.m., as the officer responded to a call of larceny at a gas station, said Chief Jon Belmar of the St. Louis County Police Department, which is investigating the shooting. The city of just over 9,000 residents is northwest of downtown St. Louis, tucked against the region’s main airport.

Police said two men approached the officer in the parking lots and one appeared to pull a gun. The officer fired his weapon three times with one round hitting and killing the suspect. A 9mm pistol with a scratched out serial number was recovered at the scene, Chief Belmar said.

The officer’s name wasn’t released by police, but officials confirmed he has been placed on administrative leave by the Berkeley Police Department. County police released the name of the 18-year-old on Wednesday morning. A call placed to Mr. Martin’s family wasn’t immediately returned.

A surveillance camera at the gas station captured the incident, and police released footage up to the moment of the shooting.

“The video goes on; there’s no reason for the family of this young man to have to see the rest of the video,” Chief Belmar said of the abbreviated footage. He added the department would be distributing more video from the scene that will include footage of the officer allegedly retreating to ensure transparency.



It is obvious the officer was just talking to the two young black men, when one decides to create distance so he can pull his weapon and shoot the officer in the face.  In my humble opinion, angels were watching over the officer.  We will find out in all probability the gun jammed, wasn’t loaded right or the safety was on.

It doesn’t matter.  The question is where is Holder or Obama or Sharpton to comment on this random attempted murder?  And if you note, the second suspect was not killed.  So the officer showed restraint. Something I’m sure the CNN chicks will point out when they raise their…and maybe a sign…?

Oh never mind.

This is not going to get any better. Any officer that answers a call alone is a fool.  Any department that thinks he should is derelict.  This is W…A…R.

And I remember.

Update: the consensus was this was an attempted ambush by the suspects.  Something happened to the gun.

“This individual could have complied with the officer. He could have ran away, he could have dropped the gun, all sort of things could have happened. It didn’t have to end with him approaching the officer with an arm extended and a 9 mm pistol in his hand,” Belmar said.

Milliken said his client recounted the details to him several hours after the shooting.

“The other guy was doing the talking, and as the cop starts talking, the suspect starts walking away again,” Millikan said. “At that point, the cop says, ‘Hey, come back here,’ and he turns around, pulls a gun from his left pant pocket.”

“He’s trying to process all of this, and the suspect raises it, points it at him. The cop pulls his weapon and starts backpedaling and fired three or four shots. It happened that quickly. He doesn’t understand why the suspect’s gun didn’t fire. I’m not sure if he tried to pull the trigger and it jammed.

Belmar said as the officer backpedaled,he stumbled and dropped the flashlight. Berkeley Mayor Theodore Hoskins, in a news conference later Wednesday morning, said it may have been a blessing in disguise.

“I think the officer, because he stumbled, may have saved his (own) life,” he said.

Millikan said it’s possible that his client was being set up for an ambush.

Store employees called 911 after the suspects stole from the store, Millikan said.

“Their behavior is certainly bizarre, and it wouldn’t surprise me at all, in the environment we are in, that’s for sure,” Millikan said.


Yep.  Or he just sucked as an assassin.


Posted in politics | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

NYPD, murder and the new age of “FTP” that is upon us.

First and foremost, the “crazed gunman” narrative attaching itself to the killer of the two NYPD officers must stop.  What does “crazed” mean?  In this case, it is used by the activists of all stripes as a means to keep the narrative of the police being the monsters and the blacks they interact with the victims- no matter how badly the blacks (and others) behave.  The narrative goes “If a white/Hispanic/Asian/other kills a black man- that person is a racist.  If a black man attacks and kills white/Hispanic/Asian they are “insane.”  And because of that, somebody owes black people something (with Al Sharpton getting his cut of course.)

The problem with that narrative is it isn’t true.  And like some mind controlled clones, everybody in the media, politics and education cannot break free from the narrative in order to save themselves and this nation.  They crash up against it over and over and over.

Over at the TCTH website, they took to the time to link to Colin Flaherty’s website “White girl bleed alot”.  Flaherty has been collecting video and documentation about the ongoing violent acts by blacks (and others) across the nation. Not only against the police, but between each other.  Spend some time on his website and you’ll never look at the “blacks are the victims” argument the same.   You can be assured Juan Williams hasn’t.

Who are these blacks?  They are the end result of a bad experiment going horribly wrong.  They didn’t exist in any large numbers back when I was a young kid.  In fact, I know from personal experience they were the outliers, shunned by the good families in the black community. But now, with Rap burning holes in the heads, the drugs, the generations of broken families and welfare, that same group has become a huge number.  Huge and lethal, and it influences others to act the same way.

violent crime stats

Bill Whittle points out the obvious.

Political correctness causes many people to avoid confronting the truth, which robs everyone’s ability to help the good people in the black community seize their reputations and futures back from the degrading influence of the black THUG community.  Part of the problem is that small segment of that small part of our nation has been excused, propped up and frankly allowed to fester to the point where  people in parts of our nation are simply not safe.

Nowadays we see “flash mob” robberies and theft perpetrated not by starving black street people but by young, well dressed MOBS of black kids!  How did that happen?!  Well, the short answer is that we, as a society under PC pressure, accepted and excused the bad behavior by a small segment of blacks as normal.  Over time, other blacks began to believe they should, and could, act the same way.  It took years, but it is here now.

How do I know? I saw it happen in my city.  Back in the mid-eighties the ruling white/black council in our city became tired of the police arresting black crack dealers. One of them actually said “Why are you arresting these young men. All they are trying to do is earn a living.”

I shit you not….

So the police stopped aggressive enforcement and soon the crime slowly slithered across the city- block by block, until the good people moved out and all that was left were thugs- slinging dope on the sidewalk to make a living, oh and whores slinging their stuff do to the same. But the council was happy. (Think Mayor De Blasio and Samuel Jackson.)

A perfect example of PC pressure, media bias and the sheer stupidity of the people on the Left is the now classic picture of the CNN crew- all white females except for one- putting up their hands in the now discredited Michael Brown’s “Hands up, don’t shoot.”

If they are so sure the police are just violent thugs themselves, then ask these cute little anchors “Where do you live?” I think you’ll find the answer enlightening. I’m betting NOT in the black section of town- where this happens all the time- but rather in a section of town surrounded by the police on the street.

Pay attention to the second part of this video, where the old black man is beaten by the young black men.  And especially the comment “don’t touch the backpack, it is mine.”  Why? Because the young black man followed the rule of the street “if you can take it, it is yours.”

Is that “crazed”?

I was trained and mentored by a black deputy, one of the first in the department back in the seventies.  He told me that their was no difference between the good black family and the white black family, that they all wanted the same things- to work hard, go to church, have a family, work towards their kids having a better life.

How did that get away from us?  And why, after all you have witnessed, do you still wonder why the police act the way they do?










Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

To Hillary and anyone else with the foolish notion you can empathize with them. You can’t. Ask the kids.

You can’t deal with them.  They should be treated like a recurring STD, when it shows up kill it off, take the meds to keep it away, but when it shows up again, kill it.  Then don’t let anyone else get it either.

The Pakistan Taliban went to a school and killed a hundred and thirty-two children, burned a teacher alive in front of them, and murdered a total of 148.  All for the love of Allah.  They wanted to make the parents feel pain.

Horrifying pictures have emerged showing the Taliban gun squad who slaughtered 132 innocent children posing in front of an extremist flag reading: ‘There is no God but Allah’.

The chilling photos show six heavily-armed gunmen standing in front of the white Islamist banner – the flag of the Pakistan Taliban – just hours before carrying out the bloody massacre.

The writing on the flag which is proudly hung behind them reads: ‘There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is Allah’s Messenger.’

Hours later, the death squad had carried out a indiscriminate slaughter at the Army Military School in Peshawar, in which 148 victims were shot to death.

The images were released by the terror group’s spokesman Mohammad Khurasani, as it was revealed the terror group is planning more attacks at schools in Pakistan.

In an email released this morning, Khurasani attempted to justify the attack by claiming that said the Pakistani army has long killed the innocent children and families of Taliban fighters.

He vowed more such militant attacks and told Pakistani civilians to detach themselves from all military institution, adding: ‘We are still able to carry out major attacks. This was just the trailer.’

In the email, the terror group warned Muslims to avoid places with military ties, saying it attacked the school to avenge the deaths of children allegedly killed by soldiers in tribal areas.

It accused the students at the army school of ‘following the path of their fathers and brothers to take part in the fight against the tribesmen’ nationwide.

This morning, Peshawar began the harrowing process of conducting mass funerals, the family of a teacher torched alive in front of her class by the men gathered to say funeral prayers.

Of course the leader of the Taliban doesn’t talk about how his violent 7th century form of religion has killed hundreds upon hundreds of innocent people prior to the army’s operation. Or that their goal is to enslave and murders millions more.

This is the woman they felt needed to be set on fire, in front of her students. You have to be a special kind of evil to be like this.

Tahira Kazi (left), the principal of the Army Public School and College in Peshawar, was set on fire by jihadists who slaughtered 142 people, most of them children

Her crime? Trying to teach children.

I get so tired of our intellectual elites blabbering about how we need to feel empathy.  I have no empathy.  They are venomous snakes that will bite and kill you given the opportunity.

They may feel justified, but so did Ted Bundy when killing his thirty-six or so women. Or James Jones, who had his entire cult take poison.  Being justified doesn’t mean you are right at all.  You must be judged on a large scale, a greater set of universal and natural laws.  Violate them willingly and with obvious pleasure and everything in heaven and earth should be moved to get to you and kill you dead- along with all of your friends.

But our leadership is insane with the idea we can deal with these people.  We can’t.  We need to continue to kill them and displace them and make them outcasts.  Eventually, if we do not tire, they will collapse and splinter, never to go totally away, just not be able to do this again.

Some of the dead.


Heartbreaking: Photographs of some of the students massacred by  Taliban gunmen



Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment