Search This Blog


Friday, November 28, 2014

Fisking Darlena Cunha's - In Defense of Rioting

H/T Moonbattery (I'm trying to be nice, well not really, but I'm trying to be non-profane, so even though it would have been fun to intentionally misspell Cunha, I didn't ... Okay, but I did have to mention the possibility.)
Because when you have succeeded, it ceases to be a possibility, in our capitalist society, that anyone else helped you.[1] And if no one helped you succeed, then no one is holding anyone else back from succeeding.[2] Except they did help you, and they are holding people back.[3] So that blaming someone else for your failures in the United States may very well be an astute observation of reality, particularly as it comes to white privilege versus black privilege. And, yes, they are different, and they are tied to race, and that doesn’t make me a racist, it makes me a realist. If anything, I am racist because I am white. Until I have had to walk in a person of color’s skin, I will never understand, I will always take things for granted, and I will be inherently privileged.[4] But by ignoring the very real issues this country still faces in terms of race to promote an as-of-yet imaginary colorblind society, we contribute to the problem at hand, which is centuries of abuses lobbied against other humans on no basis but that of their skin color.[5]
There's more than this paragraph at the link, but I wanted to focus on this because in less than 200 words, it contains the essence of her liberal ideology.

[1] Let's start with the asinine strawman that "when you have succeeded ... [it's not possible] that anyone helped you." She is of course referencing one of the most widely ridiculed and risible of Obama arguments ... ever, aka: "You didn't build that."

We're born as helpless infants. If NOBODY helped us when we were helpless infants we would all have quickly dehydrated and died. Everybody understands that without civilization itself, entrepreneurs could not build successful businesses. Nobody is disputing that. Not even the most hard-core, dyed in the wool, pulled himself up by his bootstraps, came out of a trailer park and became a millionaire, conservative would EVER claim that he'd NEVER been helped! This "You didn't build that" argument dishonestly reworded to [nobody helped you] is the most fatuous flatulent asinine disgusting insulting absurd base moronic buffoonish amateurish cheesy imbecility that ever disgraced a once respected media publication. SHAME ON YOU TIME MAGAZINE!

[2] A two-parter for stupidity. Logically the starting assertion that nobody helped you is false, but even if that were impossibly somehow true, it wouldn't logically follow that [therefore] no one hindered you. This is yet more fatuous strawman posturing by a run-of-the-mill liberal hack rewording tattered and worn liberal talking points and spit-balling [teh stoopid] to see who'll be suckered.

[3] Finally we get to the very gestalt, the crux of Darlena Cunha's insane paranoid moonbat philosophical framework. Her understanding that some evil collective [the 1% perhaps?] herein referenced conspiratorially as "THEY" conspired in some diabolical way to hold people [the 99% perhaps?] back. The apparent basis for her illogical assumption is that "you didn't build that" because you were helped, therefore if you built nothing at all, logically [it is to laugh] it must mean that you were prevented from building that because "THEY" conspired to stop you. You failed geometry because they [Koch brothers perhaps?] rewrote the world's geometry books in Greek? I.E. Graecum est; non legitur. Sure ma! That's the ticket; see, I failed Geometry because it's a bunch of Greek gobbledygook. Hey, Darlena, thanks for the non sequitur!

[4] Paraphrased, Darlena argues that: [In America if you fail it's someone else's fault. This is especially true if you're black because all white people are racist and even when we don't mean to be, we unconsciously conspire to hinder black people and hold them back from success. Even those racist white people who are so racist they actually think they aren't racist, are incapable of disputing this indisputable fact because: being white we have no standing to even argue the point.] So Darlena at last the truth comes out. You admit you're a racist. I would mention that you should be ashamed of yourself, but obviously you already got the memo. Even though you're a racist, I disagree vehemently with the conclusion that all white people are therefore racist. You can feel all guilty and evil if that's what makes you feel ooey-gooey inside, but your guilt stops where your own skin ends, and Earth's atmosphere begins.

[5] Perhaps of the entire self-effacing pathetic screed, this is the most vile and yes, racist. You really are a racist Darlena Cunha. Paraphrased as: [By officially ignoring what race people are, society actually exacerbates racial injustice.] This is straight out of 1984.
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
― George Orwell, 1984
This is what I call the BIG LIE. It's the race card writ large. [Only injustice can correct injustice. Only another equally despicable wrong can right a historical wrong.] What we do, we do, because the ends justify the means. We can't understand the wisdom of this folly because we're standing in the middle of it and therefore can't see the big picture. We're blinded to the forest by all these trees. Hey sure Darlena! I'll just turn off my critical rational judgement and leave everything up to those wiser few in their ivory towers—such as yourself—who actually can see the bigger picture.

On second thought, why don't you climb down off your high horse, Darlena, and open your eyes. I understand that you've spent your entire life absorbing the Big Lie. I understand that you've spent it with your eyes closed and your nose in the air, an insufferable smug supercilious jackass. I understand that your despicably vile and odious systemic racism was fostered and inculcated by parents, teachers, friends, and elders. I understand that you can't help being a deluded and self-defeating racist imbecile, blown helplessly by the winds of fate and helpless in the face of your incalculable white guilt. You poor suffering benighted simpleton. I feel bad for you. Really! What I think you need is a good hard slap right in the face by cold hard reality. Perhaps reality will oblige. God knows you deserve it.

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

A black community self-destructs while the MSM cheers them on.

Lord, how long wilt thou look on? rescue my soul from their destructions, my darling from the lions. I will give thee thanks in the great congregation: I will praise thee among much people. Let not them that are mine enemies wrongfully rejoice over me: neither let them wink with the eye that hate me without a cause. Psalm 35.17
It's difficult not to judge, prejudge, see? It's difficult not to assume: well, they can't help it. It's difficult not to be racist towards black people when they—black people, the mainstream media, Democrats, assorted hate groups like the Black Panthers, and the NAACP, etc—beat you in the head with racism, both literally and figuratively beat you in the head, over and over.

A drum beat that never stops. You can hear it pounding in the night, never ceasing. Hate Hate Hate. It's difficult not to hate them. Reginald Denny's life was, not ruined, but certainly made worse. Rodney King was beaten, viciously beaten. But in retaliation, people, some would say 'thugs', some would use a certain non-pc word, I'll just say certain 'people', picked someone simply because he was white. They brutally beat his brains out on the pavement while a video camera crew taped this barbaric lynching. Lord, how long wilt thou look on?

White's still alive and well, kept fresh and new by an unending drumbeat that to my mind and my memory began with "Roots" and continues to this day... beat beat beat beat a complicit mainstream media that revels, glories, exults in violence blood fire murder and racism. Who's more racist, the guy with the brick or the guy with his brains leaking out of his head? The guy in a helicopter with the camera taping away, or the man who has seemingly forgiven those who destroyed his life?

In a completely unrelated story, a twelve-year-old boy was shot and killed by a policeman. While there is very little information about this incident, and while the name of the police officer has not yet been released, there is one almost certain conclusion that can immediately be drawn. The police officer who killed the 12-year-old black kid, was also black. How do I know? What makes me so certain? Because if the cop had been white, this story—this tragic and wrongful death—would eclipse even the rioting, burning, and looting following the Ferguson decision.

The first three questions the mainstream media asks to decide "newsworthy" stories are 1. What happened? 2. What race is the victim? 3. What race is the perpetrator? If 1. is particularly vicious, 2. is black, and 3. is white. Then that's a 24/7 news item that can be run for months until a final court decision. Otherwise it's mentioned and promptly forgotten.

The soft bigotry of low expectations is the sound I hear on television day after day. Beat Beat Beat. It's too evil not to be deliberate. The burning question that's been on my mind ever since this "War on Whites" was declared by the MSM, is what is their end-game?

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

GrÜbermensch—the perfect boomerang

Gruber is a boat-anchor. Tie this around their necks and throw them over the side. Schadenfreude is delicious isn't it? Gruber's favorite phrase—because he repeats his idée fixe over and over, is that the people are stupid. We're rubes. We don't know any better.

However, when he speaks of the American people, who exactly is it that he's calling stupid? Is it me? I didn't vote for a Democrat. Did you vote for a Democrat? Did you vote for Obama? Who is it that Gruber describes as so clueless? So lacking in economic understanding? Who's moronic enough that they would actually cast their ballot for these knob-headed bumbling morons who would vote for something so economically destructive? Who in fact are the feckless twits who elected this narcissistic communist traitor that signed it?

There was not a single Republican in either the Senate or the House who voted for Obamacare. Not. One! The President Scumbag who signed the most economically destructive travesty of a bill in the history of these United States into law is not a Republican. He's the diametric opposite of a Republican. And we have some bad ones. But NOT. ONE. REPUBLICAN voted for this. So class, who can answer this question: How many Republicans voted for the "Affordable" "Care" act?

You've seen it elsewhere, you'll see it here. Here's hoping it goes GrÜberviral.

There's letters seal'd, and my two schoolfellows,
Whom I will trust as I will adders fang'd—
They bear the mandate, they must sweep my way
And marshal me to knavery. Let it work;
For 'tis the sport to have the enginer
Hoist with his own petard, an't shall go hard
But I will delve one yard below their mines
And blow them at the moon.

Sunday, November 16, 2014

The Nova Option is required at this time

I.E. You bring a knife we bring a gun. You bring a nuke, we bring a nova!

What do we do about Obama? It's great that Republicans now hold congress. It's great that thanks to Jonathan Gruber, the truth about Obamacare is finally being reported and therefore more and more people are slowly awakening from their six-year-long government-begotten stupor. But Obama doesn't care about any of that. Far from being chastened, he's become even more defiant!

So what are our options? There's Impeachment of course, but that would be merely a sideshow, a circus for the masses and much ado about nothing. Obama could be impeached, but he could not be convicted, because conviction requires that two-thirds of the Senate vote to convict. Republicans don't have that kind of majority, and Democrats care more about their careers than they do about justice or the will of the people. So what's left?

There is no constitutional provision nor statute that explicitly permits executive orders. The term "executive power" Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, refers to the title of President as the executive. He is instructed therein by the declaration "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 5, else he faces impeachment. Most executive orders use these Constitutional reasonings as the authorization allowing for their issuance to be justified as part of the President's sworn duties,[2] the intent being to help direct officers of the U.S. Executive carry out their delegated duties as well as the normal operations of the federal government: the consequence of failing to comply possibly being the removal from office.[3]
An executive order of the President must find support in the Constitution, either in a clause granting the President specific power, or by a delegation of power by Congress to the President.[4]
The Office of the Federal Register is responsible for assigning the Executive order a sequential number after receipt of the signed original from the White House and printing the text of the Executive order in the daily Federal Register and Title 3 of the Code of Federal Regulations.[5]
The President of the United States has intransigently—with chin arrogantly thrust into the sky—proclaimed that he will do whatever he wants, the will of the people be damned. He's got two years to finish fundamentally transforming the USA into a 3rd-world dysfunctional dystopia, and he will damn well accomplish that mission no matter what. The recent shenanigans of the Democrats in the Senate provide a blueprint on how to get around stumbling blocks, although to be honest in Obama's case it would be more apropos to say bumbling block.
Senate Democrats took the dramatic step Thursday of eliminating filibusters for most nominations by presidents, a power play they said was necessary to fix a broken system but one that Republicans said will only rupture it further.

Democrats used a rare parliamentary move to change the rules so that federal judicial nominees and executive-office appointments can advance to confirmation votes by a simple majority of senators, rather than the 60-vote supermajority that has been the standard for nearly four decades.

The immediate rationale for the move was to allow the confirmation of three picks by President Obama to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit — the most recent examples of what Democrats have long considered unreasonably partisan obstruction by Republicans.

In the long term, the rule change represents a substantial power shift in a chamber that for more than two centuries has prided itself on affording more rights to the minority party than any other legislative body in the world. Now, a president whose party holds the majority in the Senate is virtually assured of having his nominees approved, with far less opportunity for political obstruction.
The Democrats in a straight party-line majority vote, changed rules that were in place for half-a-century. Who's to say that so-called Executive Orders even though Presidents have issued them, seemingly from the very beginning, are permissible? America has a system of checks and balances, and it's apparent, incredibly undeniably apparent that the Executive Branch has usurped the power of Congress. He must be stopped and because of the bicameral system in place and the constraints of the Impeachment process, he cannot be stopped by Congress. Therefore the 3rd branch must perform its solemn duty to reign in this naked power grab by an imperious megalomaniacal sociopath with delusions of Godhood.

THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR EXECUTIVE ORDERS IN THE CONSTITUTION! So the solution is simple. Somehow, the legitimacy of these so-called Presidential Executive Orders must be challenged in the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Take away his pen. He'll still have a phone. I guess he can use it to cry into.

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Neo-Con Thought Experiment

Didn't we all read about those dastardly neo-cons of the George W. Bush era? They wanted to take over the entire world and remake all the Earth's manifold cultures in their own white-bread male heterosexual capitalist image. It's almost as though they thought they were God or something!

Left-thinking proud non-white trans-sexual communist anarchists promptly went to work with a passion! They immediately dubbed—as in dumbass-dubya—these traditionalist stodgy money-grubbing fools "Neo-cons." Leftists poring studiously and reverentially over the Alinsky play book wasted no time. After the endless recounts of 2000 were finally quashed at last by the Supreme Court, the left—by left I mean every American who'd voted for Al Gore—ignoring the fact that the game was over, continued campaigning and never ceased for the entire eight-year Bush Presidency. I suppose that at the very least you have to admire their tireless obstinacy. For eight long years, the national main-stream media focused unwaveringly on any and every issue that cast conservatives and especially George W. Bush in a bad light.

For about a week after 9-11 it was as though America breifly rested in the hypnotic and deceptive eye of a class-five hurricane. All was peaceful for about one week. During that one glorious week, every American both Democrat and Republican, black, white, male, female, transgender (okay maybe not them) plastered red-white-and-blue bumper stickers on their vehicles. They put red-white-and-blue ribbons around their trees. All of America was one giant angry family intent on some serious payback.

Needless to say, this unsettling period of unprecedented patriotism seriously threw left-wingers off their stride. Nothing daunted, they rebounded with a passion, continuing to repeat ad-infinitum the same lies they'd been chanting like a demonic mantra from Satan himself. Bush Stole The Election! He's not the President! The five Neo-Con Supreme Court justices overruled the American people! It was almost as though the mainstream media had taken upon itself the guise of Gandalf the Gray confronting the monstrously evil George W Bush himself.

To this day, the entire left-wing world is united in its hatred and scorn for the horrifically evil GWB. "Blame Bush" to this day has became the ubiquitous never-failing excuse for every ill in the universe. "Why didn't you do your homework?" asks the teacher. To which you might reply: "I couldn't because when I saw how President Bush was destroying the entire world and nobody could stop him, I couldn't stop crying. I tried to do my homework but the pages kept getting wet, and my furious pencil kept ripping the paper, and at last I went outside and fell to my knees and I prayed to Darwin: 'Oh magical Darwin,' I prayed, 'Please let George W. Bush die of cancer or a heart attack or a stoke. In Darwin's name I prayed, amen.' I said, and then without doing my homework I fell into an exhausted and heartbroken sleep. And that's why I don't have my homework, because of George W. Bush."

Imagine—as John Lennon would say—imagine a world at peace. Imagine no more hunger. Imagine no more war. Imagine no more killing over religion, no more war over scarce resources, no more war over political dogma. No more war ever. I wonder if you can?

Ask yourself this one simple question: What if your neighbor was horribly abusing their wife and children? Would you still be friends? What if every day you were left wondering: Will he lose it and finally kill them tonight? Will that drunken vicious evil bastard finally beat them to death tonight? Will they be carried out of my neighbor's house in broken little pieces in the morning?

Police and paramedics were called to Danieal’s West Philadelphia home and when they opened her bedroom door, the stench of decay hit them. Danieal, who had been dead for several hours, was on a dirty mattress surrounded by feces. Maggot-infested bedsores covered her back. She had been on the mattress for such a long time, the shape of her body was imprinted into the mattress. A grand jury report was released this week, indicting nine people and describing Danieal’s life of pain, neglect, abuse and eventual death.

The mother of a 14-year-old girl who starved to death while under city supervision will “accept responsibility” for the crime and plead guilty to third-degree murder charges, her attorney said yesterday.

Andrea Kelly, 39, will agree to serve 20 to 40 years in prison for the 2006 death of her daughter, Danieal, said lawyer Richard Quinton Hark.

The girl, who suffered from cerebral palsy, weighed just 46 pounds when she died in a sweltering apartment. Her legs looked liked bare bone and her back was full of gaping bedsores infested with maggots.
The entire world is filled up with really bad people. When governments are so poor and dysfunctional that thousands, hundred's of thousands, millions, die of malnutrition, what would you do if they were your neighbor? Would you keep taking them food even though none of it seemed to make it to the children? Would you pay their bills and watch helplessly as the violence and abuse continued unabated?

Would it really be so terrible a world if the entire world had the same laws and the same freedoms? Does it make me a bigot or a racist that I point out the vast intractable evil that continues to enslave most of the globe in spite of decades of charity? Am I really such a mean vicious evil neo-con when I say that right now, it's not working? THIS, WHAT WE'RE DOING, IT ISN'T WORKING!!! Am I crazy? Or is it the entire rest of the world?

Oh, I know, I know, I'm just drinking too much of that old Neo-con Cool-ade. It would never work would it? Famine, filth, blood and slaughter are just too enchanting, too inviting, too par for the course, to just throw away on some pipe dream or pie in the sky impossibility.

In the entire history of the world, has there ever been a country so powerful that they could really do it, if they really wanted to? The Romans couldn't do it; if not America, then who?

Monday, October 13, 2014

One More Time On Gun Control

His first point is this: "Australia in 1996 had the biggest massacre on Earth; still hasn't been beaten."
The Port Arthur massacre, of 28–29 April 1996, was a killing spree in which 35 people were killed and 23 wounded, mainly at the historic Port Arthur prison colony, a popular tourist site in south-eastern Tasmania, Australia. Martin Bryant, a 28-year-old from New Town, a suburb of Hobart, eventually was given 35 life sentences without possibility of parole. He has significant intellectual disabilities and is now imprisoned in the Wilfred Lopes Centre near Risdon Prison Complex.

The Port Arthur massacre remains one of the deadliest shootings worldwide committed by a single person and remains the deadliest in the English-speaking world.
Well, the Port Arthur Massacre was a bad one there's no doubt about that. But there's another massacre that has it beat hands down:
The Oklahoma City bombing was a domestic terrorist bomb attack on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995. The bombing killed 168 people and injured more than 680 others. The blast destroyed or damaged 324 buildings within a 16-block radius, destroyed or burned 86 cars, and shattered glass in 258 nearby buildings, causing at least an estimated $652 million worth of damage...

On April 17–18, 1995, McVeigh and Nichols removed their supplies from their storage unit in Herington, Kansas, where Nichols lived. They loaded their bomb supplies into a Ryder rental truck. The two then drove to Geary Lake State Park, where they nailed boards onto the floor of the truck to hold the 13 barrels in place and mixed the chemicals using plastic buckets and a bathroom scale. Each filled barrel weighed nearly 500 pounds (230 kg). McVeigh added more explosives to the driver's side of the cargo bay, which he could ignite (killing himself in the process) at close range with his Glock 21 pistol in case the primary fuses failed.] During McVeigh's trial, Lori Fortier (the wife of Michael Fortier) stated that McVeigh claimed to have arranged the barrels in order to form a shaped charge. This was achieved by tamping the aluminum side panel of the truck with bags of ammonium nitrate fertilizer to direct the blast laterally towards the building. Specifically, McVeigh arranged the barrels in the shape of a backwards J ...
In 1996 an Australian massacre caused lawmakers in that country to outlaw guns throughout the country. If people have guns, the argument goes, they might use them to massacre 35 people. Yet it was only a year earlier, when Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols used ammonium nitrate—fertilizer—to kill 168 people. Even though this deadly fertilizer is widely available for purchase in thousands upon thousands of stores, our congress somehow neglected to outlaw it after this horrific massacre! How did they miss this? In addition, barrels—used to hold the deadly fertilizer—also weren't outlawed, nor in fact were trucks—used to hold the deadly barrels. Not even nails were outlawed when clearly it was the nails put in the barrels which ended up killing most of the people. It's as though Congress is just begging for another Oklahoma City style massacre. You'd think they would have jumped all over these incredibly dangerous weapons just lying around at greenhouses, hardware stores and used car lots around the country, but no! Instead all Congress did was pass a law that would tighten security around Federal buildings.

Jim Jefferies' first argument is that the people cannot be trusted with the right to own guns, because one crazy person will abuse that right. You know, it occurs to me that I've heard a similar argument recently. It's called the Heckler's Veto. And this Heckler's Veto was recently used to ban the wearing of patriotic t-shirts in California. Yes, while people supposedly have the right to freedom of speech, in California public schools at least, wearing the American Flag or other symbols such as the American Bald-Eagle with talons clutching a bundle of arrows has been forbidden. No patriotism to be tolerated on Cinco De Mayo. One might even assume that in Australia if some nefarious chin-wagger could manage to slaughter 35 people simply using words, the government would promptly outlaw talking.

Jefferies' next argument is that guns are not useful to protect yourself with. He quickly brings up the assault rifle straw-man, and some statistics about suicides—which reminds me of a typical Piers Morgan Mythoid[1]. Here are some real statistics however: 70 to 80 million American adults own one or more guns. In 2011 nearly 40,000 Americans committed suicide, and half of them used a gun to do it. Guns are certainly the most popular method of suicide, but remember the other half? They used various methods: poison, prescription drugs, rope, razor blades, etc. Should we then outlaw these less popular suicide methods?

Dividing 20,000 by 80 million gives the gun-owning per capita suicide-by-gun rate of roughly 0.00025. That's less than one three-thousandth of one percent. Yet Jim Jefferies claims that you gun owners are "80% more likely to use that gun on yourself" than you are to use it to protect yourself.

It's always been a source of deep frustration to me that statistics of gun deaths are so readily accessible, yet gun saves are completely impossible to discover. How many people used a gun either to wound, kill, or just frighten away a would be rapist, murderer, burglar, etc.? That information just isn't there. When I was twenty-five years old, four young men armed with baseball bats accosted me in a parking lot. I pulled my Beretta out from under the seat and the bad guys promptly bugged out. Nobody was hurt. I called the police just because, but I doubt any of the information taken in the police report made it into statistics anywhere. If I'd lived in Australia however ... I wonder ... would I be writing this today, or would I be sipping soup through a straw with an imbecilic grin upon my face and a track of drool working its way down my chin?

His next argument is that if you have kids you can't have a gun which is readily accessible. You'd have to keep it in a gun safe and therefore couldn't get to it in an emergency. Luckily for gun owners, there are things called metal doors and deadbolts, and even biometric gun safes which only require a touch of the owners finger to open. Furthermore, being attacked is much more likely outside of your home. Thus the concealed carry permit and the quickly accessible gun in a hidden holster on your person. The point is simply this: anybody with a bare modicum of intelligence can safely and responsibly own a gun and have it quickly available when needed.

Jim Jefferies' final argument is that the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment is no longer valid. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government that needs to be overthrown. Jefferies argument is that the government has tanks and jets and drones. He argues that opposing that kind of firepower with hand guns or even assault rifles is absurd. As he says: You're bringing a gun to a drone fight. Allow me to repeat a statistic: THERE ARE 80 MILLION ADULT GUN OWNERS! In comparison, "As of 31 December 2013, 1,369,532 people were on active duty in the armed forces, with an additional 850,880 people in the seven reserve components." So, 80 million versus two million. And the military won't be able to use its tanks and jets, because all of the noncombatants live cheek-by-jowl with the rebels. It's called asymmetric warfare, and it becomes ever so much more effective when the military sympathizes with those they fight against, as in their own neighbors, their own family and friends.

While only 80 million people own guns, there are a lot more than 80 million guns. It's more like 300 million. Even more important than that, 320 million with knives, hammers, machetes, swords, nail guns, chainsaws, cars, trucks, and the list goes on and on. If the people in their hundreds of millions rise up against a tyrannical government, that government will be overthrown. If every American were all deprived of our guns however, that revolutionary process would claim vastly more innocent lives before it was over. Guns truly are the great equalizer, and believe it or not, when it gets down to brass tacks, a quality hunting rifle is probably a much more efficient and accurate weapon than an M-16. So yes we could, if necessary, bring about 300 million guns to that hypothetical drone fight.

[1] Mythoid — (my own creation) A statistical claim that seems genuine since it's so impressively numbery, but when you actually look into its veracity, it turns out that it's just not true. It was apparently just completely made up out of whole cloth, then passed around by left-wing kooks to the point where it's believed by them, simply because it's been quoted back and forth so often.

Thursday, October 9, 2014

Hands Up, I'm a Retard!

Notice: for those of you with mentally retarded friends or relatives, when I use the word 'retard' I'm specifically not referring to birth defects or tragic accidents. I will not apologize for my use of the word retard. It's a great word. It's really the best word to use for certain types of people. You see, some people are retarded, and some people ... well they're just retards.

So another black is killed in St. Louis and now I suppose we're in for yet more mob violence, looting, arson, shootings, etc. The new meme is a sandwich. Last time it was hands up, don't shoot. Before that it was Skittles. Now it's a sandwich:

Warning Profanity Ahead!

There's apparently a language barrier in the black community. When we think in terms of 'cause and effect', the black community thinks in terms of 'racism.' Blacks don't seem to understand that their own thoughtless or violent actions cause negative consequences; they also don't seem to understand that belonging to a group brings consequences when others in that group take thoughtless or violent actions. I'm speaking here of being an accomplice or an accomplice after the fact. For instance, being a member of a black flash mob.

Let's start with the fact that racism and cause and effect are two different things. Actually, I can't start with 'racism' directly, because the definitions of words mean different things to different people, depending on who they think they are. To most non-black people, racism means treating a particular person in an aggressive, hostile, or unfair way simply because of their race. Please notice that this definition doesn't pertain to any race in particular. Incredibly, the word racism means something completely different to an American black. To understand what the word 'racism' means to an American black, you must first understand that the word has for blacks become a gestalt for every ill. Think of it as the diametrical opposite of the word 'panacea.'

Black people in the USA have been taught from the cradle that everyone non-black hates them, and wants to keep them in the ghetto until they can finally be put back in the cotton fields, with 'massah crackin' de whip.' Now then, what I just wrote—some would argue—could itself be racist. Except for the inconvenient fact that every bit of it is absolutely true, even if not readily provable. It's like beating a child in the head routinely. That behavior may not be readily provable without a video, but you can nevertheless still extrapolate that apparent fact by raising your hand to the child and watching as he cowers and covers his head with his arms. You see, some things are just so obvious that demanding proof is itself, dishonest.

You wan't proof? I'll start with the recent death of Liberian visitor Thomas Duncan, the one who came to America after repeatedly lying about his contact with two victims of Ebola. Twitchy has the evidence and it's not pretty.

You want some more proof? How about voting demographics? How about proof that everything in the known universe is apparently racist to black people. Courtesy of The Daily Caller, this litany of mind-boggling stupidity will leave you breathless in astonishment! You could literally spend the rest of the day clicking links in there and still not see it all. It's like the Smithsonian Institute of retards who scream 'racism'.

So, to make it simple for everyone to understand what racism means to black people, all that was necessary was to just change Toddler's Rules and substitute the word "racist" for "mine."

An African American's Rules for Racism:
  1. If I say it's racist, it's racist
  2. If it's a criticism of me, it's racist
  3. If it's a criticism of any black person, it's racist
  4. If you're white, you're a racist
  5. If you're white and better than me at anything, in any way, it's racist
  6. If whites and blacks are doing something beneficial or heroic together, blacks did it
  7. If whites and blacks are doing something harmful or nefarious together, whites did it
  8. If it just looks like racism, it's racist
  9. If I think it's racist, it's racist
  10. If I say it's not racist and then later change my mind, it was always racist
  11. Once you're a racist, you will always be a racist no matter what
  12. If you're white and you disagree with this list, it's because you're a racist
So finally, back to the disconnect between cause and effect. When non-black people are caught in the act of breaking the law, they expect negative consequences. When black people are caught breaking the law, they expect racism. When non-black people don't get that job they applied for, they apply for another job. When black people don't land that job, they call the EEOC. The list is infinite. When anything bad happens to a non-black person, they look for the reason the bad thing happened. When anything bad happens to a black person, they know the reason, yep it's racism.