Search This Blog

Wednesday, January 27, 2016

Donald Trump and Ross Perot

George H.W. Bush lost to William Jefferson Blyth III—AKA "Bill Clinton"—in the 1992 Presidential election. The winners write history of course, so the current political thinking is that Ross Perot's participation in the 1992 election was insignificant. Ross Perot got 19% of the popular vote. Current main stream media "thinkers" conclude that an equal number of Democrats and Republicans—as well as independents—voted for Ross Perot. They claim that his one-note message that our current leaders are bankrupting the country found equal footing on both sides of the aisle.
On November 3, Bill Clinton won the election to be the 42nd President of the United States by a wide margin in the Electoral College, receiving 43 percent of the popular vote against Bush's 37.5 percent and Perot's 18.9%. It was the first time since 1968 that a candidate won the White House with under 50 percent of the popular vote. Only Washington, D.C. and Clinton's home state of Arkansas gave the majority of their votes to a single candidate in the entire country; the rest were won by pluralities of the vote.

President Bush's 37.5% was the lowest percentage total for a sitting president seeking re-election since William Howard Taft in 1912 (23.2%). The 1912 election was also a three way race (between Taft, Woodrow Wilson, and Theodore Roosevelt).
Okay, so a century of elections and only twice did the winner not receive a majority of the votes. If you believe that Ross Perot didn't allow Clinton to win then you must believe that as many or more democrats and left-leaning-independents voted for Ross Perot as Republican and right-leaning independents voted for Ross Perot. My feeling is that the conservative vote was split equally between Ross Perot and George H.W. Bush. I don't know if Bill was lucky or clever. What I think, is that Hillary is following her husband's playbook. We won't know whether that's true until Trump loses the Republican nomination and begins an independent run. At that point we will know.

Trump in answer to a question asking whether he's ready to reassure Republicans that he will run as a Republican and will not run as an independent should he lose the nomination, answers that he is "ready to reassure." He just hasn't done it yet. Notice please what he says, and not what you assumed. Watch the following video a few times if necessary. Donald Trump's boycott of the Fox debate on Thursday represents two things. The first is an absolute refusal to go along with the rules of the contest. If somebody tries to change the rules mid-game that makes that person a losing A-Hole who only wants to change the rules because he's losing. Do you think that somebody who refuses to debate on the agreed upon network and timeslot and instead uses his money and celebrity to host a "fundraising event" simultaneously, is the kind of person who will just give up if he loses the Republican nomination? The second thing his boycott represents, is his debate ineptitude. He's not good at it. He doesn't enjoy it. He knows if he gets a tough policy question he'll be seen as clueless and foolish, thereby ruining his chances. So far he's been dealt either softball questions, or the kind of questions that fall within his own specialty which is finance and economics. What will he answer when the questions are on foreign policy? Let's look back a bit and see what happened when George W. Bush took some foreign policy questions in the 2000 election, shall we?
George W Bush had definitely not been briefed for all the questions a local TV interview fired at him on the campaign trail. The Republican frontrunner in the United States presidential elections was subjected to a little foreign policy quiz he obviously did not enjoy.

The BBC's Nick Miles reports: "One out of four, hardly impressive" Asked by the reporter of a Boston television station to name four international statesmen recently in the news, Mr Bush got 25% right - if you consider first names a mere luxury.

First off, Andy Hiller, political reporter for WHDH-TV in Boston, Massachusetts, wanted to know whether the potential next president of the US could name the president of Chechnya.

Mr Bush: "No, can you?"

Instead, Mr Hiller fired off his second question. "Can you name the president of Taiwan?"

Bush: "Yeah, Lee." His score so far: 50%.

But then came the crunch question: "Can you name the general who is in charge of Pakistan?"

Mr Bush needed a breather. "Wait, wait, is this 50 questions?"

Hiller: "No, it's four questions of four leaders in four hot spots, " the reporter tried to put his victim at ease.

"The new Pakistani general, he's just been elected - not elected, this guy took over office. It appears this guy is going to bring stability to the country and I think that's good news for the sub-continent," the Republican candidate offered.

Good news, but not an answer, and the interviewer insisted: "Can you name him?"

"General. I can't name the general. General" was all Mr. Bush had to offer.

The reporter tried another country in the same region, but the Indian prime minister's name did not come to George Bush either.

"The new prime minister of India is - no."

Monday, January 18, 2016

Happy Martin Luther Carnage Day!

I think we should start this holiday honoring "Dr." Martin Luther King Jr. with some videos.









There's plenty more where those came from. If you had Colin Flaherty's massive library of black mob violence you could watch examples like those above for weeks and never repeat a single one.

We could talk about why. Isn't why the most important question? The problem that you get into when asking why, is that the answer sounds racist. So white people end up making shit up. "They're poor." "Their ancestors were slaves." "They're profiled." "They're kept poor by a racist white society." Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Keep making shit up, whitey. Keep trying the same thing over and over hoping for a different result. Yeah, that'll work.

So here we are. And here they are. Why can't we all just get along? There's that why question again. There are poor people all over the world. They don't act like this. Every single human being on Earth has a slave ancestor somewhere in his family tree. I guarantee it! Yes, you have a slave ancestor. Go back far enough and he or she is there. Do you act like this?

Let's talk about profiling. Before you hire someone, do you ask about their educational background? You profiler you. Do you ask about their employment background? Profiler! Do you judge them based on their appearance? You damn profiler! Suppose they have a felony or two? You just can't stop profiling can you? The fact is, that if you're store security, you know it's the kids and the teens that are most likely to shoplift. Sorry kids and teens you've been profiled. If only it wasn't mostly kids and teens that shoplifted. If you weigh 400 pounds you're going to have a hard time getting life insurance, and if you do it's going to cost you a pretty penny. That's profiling. Are you a smoker? Do you drink heavily? Take drugs? Same story on getting that life insurance. Profiling. The fact is that everybody is profiled all the time. Sometimes that profiling works in your favor sometimes it does not. We humans look for patterns. We look for rules that help us determine whether a course of action will be successful, dangerous, pleasurable, deadly, etc. Is she the woman/man for you? Who cares! She/he is HOT!!! Later you might find out that she/he is an idiot. You didn't care at first because something in your DNA said: she/he is the ONE!

Last but not least for reasons why black people are so incredibly violent in comparison to every other race on Earth is the possibility that our racist white society is keeping blacks from succeeding. Actually, I have to admit, there is some truth to that. We passed laws making it possible for a married couple to get divorced for no reason at all. We passed laws making it possible for a woman to divorce her husband for no reason at all, and then force him to keep paying her money for the next eighteen years, AKA "child support." We passed laws that—under the Constitution of the United States of America—should be impossible, yet here we are, and here they are. We passed laws making it legal to discriminate based on race. I.E. if you're black you're put at the top of the hired list. The top of the accepted to college list. We passed laws giving a free lunch card to practically every black person in the country. [the exception proves the rule]

WARNING PROFANITY IN THE FOLLOWING VIDEO!



Isn't it time to face the cold hard fact that some people need a babysitter for life, and sadly most black people fit that profile. So "Dr." Martin Luther King, today is your birthday. Actually it's not! Most people probably think it is, but they never bothered to discover why it's always on a Monday.
["Dr," Martin Luther, Jr. Day] is observed on the third Monday of January each year, which is around King's birthday, January 15.
So, Dr. King, as you sit in Heaven looking down at all this black violence, drugs, drive-bys, gangs, endemic black unemployment, and a parasitic lifestyle, what would you say to all the blacks in America today? Would it be more judge not by skin color but by character? Well obviously that's not going to work.

Where did everything go so far off the rails, leaving us with this cataclysmic forty-one-million-black-people train wreck? If you look at history since your death, it's evident that somebody somewhere knew just what to do, to keep your people slavishly checking the vote box for the Democratic nominee. You were a Republican, right? How did they do it, Dr. King?

Sunday, January 17, 2016

Obama's Control Trifecta

These days the news is about wars and rumors of wars. Do you want to know why? Maybe it's tribalism, or maybe it's original sin. Maybe it's the desire of every unhappy human to see the world itself, finally, prophecy after prophecy, end with both a whimper and a bang. There is a fire waiting. I don't know if it's Hell or the Apocalypse, but the fire—that will burn us all—has been patiently waiting in the wings, for quite some time now.

We know it's there; we can feel it, like a splinter in our minds. Why do people so enjoy the suffering of others? No, of course I'm not talking about sanctimonious you! You give to charity. You go to church. You counsel troubled youth or maybe you give blood. You don't eat meat, or maybe you blog about Indi movies that everyone "MUST SEE!"

You don't believe you enjoy the suffering of others? Okay think about every joke you ever heard—that was actually funny and not a stupid pun—where somebody got hurt. There was always a "somebody" who was the butt of the joke. Have you ever lain in your bed at night listening to the thunder and lightning, while the rain poured down from the sky and you felt so happy? Why were you happy? There you were, all snug and warm, while outside your home vagrants hunted for a bridge to crawl under. You were happy! Happy because you are a winner and all the people getting wet are losers. No? I guess it's just me. But let me take you back in time. Back...back...back... Maybe you forgot? Do you remember the day when the bully was picking on the loser? You were happy because it wasn't you. You laughed when the bully laughed. You didn't see anything when the teacher asked what happened. Say it with me ... "I didn't see anything." Okay bristle and deny if that's what you want to do. I was there. I saw your smirks and your grins. I saw the evil glisten of your mocking eyes. I know you down to the glycerin and cholesterol choking your heart.

The bully needs a victim. The despotic leader needs an enemy. The tyrant needs a target. Whether it be Jews or Kulaks, the evil villain needs some people to suffer while he revels in the approbation of the people who are his audience, who are happy because it's not they who suffer.

CONTROL! Give the people food, shelter and an enemy, and you have control. If some rebel, it's because they're sick, insane, criminal, haters, or traitors. They fear science, they fear certain races, or creeds. They're cowards! Yes that's it! They're cowards who fear the knife cutting off their heads. This concept known as Islamophobia is also exhibited by rabbits who similarly display an irrational phobia of being eaten by hawks and snakes.

So, finally, here we are. Evil is manifest in the Islamic State. Obama is the evil villain who gave birth to this abomination. Every horror, every tragedy, every rape, murder, torture, every suffering imaginable lies squarely and truly at the feet of President Hope and Change. How did he do it? How did this stumbling farce—this jackass extraordinaire—manage such unimaginable evil? I call it the evil villain control trifecta: EBT, Section-Eight, and ISISor "ISIL" as Obama likes to call it because he's smart and we're all stupid. Thanks Obama! Because there we were, feeling all unhappy in our snug warm little homes and you were there to bring the rain...of blood.

Islamic State kidnaps 400 civilians in Syrian city of Deir al-Zor: monitor

BEIRUT

Islamic State militants kidnapped at least 400 civilians when they attacked government-held areas in the eastern Syrian city of Deir al-Zor on Saturday, a monitoring group said.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said on Sunday families of pro-government fighters were among those abducted.

"There is genuine fear for their lives, there is a fear that the group might execute them as it has done before in other areas," said the Observatory's head Rami Abdulrahamn.

Deir al-Zor is the main town in a province of the same name. The province links Islamic State's de facto capital in the Syrian city of Raqqa with territory controlled by the militant group in neighboring Iraq.

Syria's state news agency SANA said earlier that at least 300 people, including women and children, had been killed during the attacks in Deir al-Zor, but it made no mention of people getting kidnapped.

AND NOW OBAMA GETS TO RULE THE WORLD!

Some unprecedented news, folks. Never in the history of the United Nations has a U.S. President taken the chairmanship of the powerful UN Security Council. Perhaps it is because of what could arguably be a Constitutional prohibition against doing so. To wit: Section 9 of the Constitution says:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Nonetheless, the rotating chairmanship of the council goes to the U.S. this month. The normal course of business would have U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice take the gavel. However, this time will be different. Constitution be damned, Barack Hussein Obama has decided to put HIMSELF in the drivers seat, and will preside over global nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament talks slated to begin September 24th. The Financial Times says:

Barack Obama will cement the new co-operative relationship between the US and the United Nations this month when he becomes the first American president to chair its 15-member Security Council. The topic for the summit-level session of the council on September 24 is nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament - one of several global challenges that the US now wants to see addressed at a multinational level.

UN officials also hope a climate change debate on September 22 will give fresh impetus to the search for a global climate deal at Copenhagen in December. There are also hopes a possible meeting between Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli prime minister, and Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian Authority president, that Mr. Obama would host, could lead to a breakthrough about a timetable for Middle East peace.