Amazon

When Harry Met Sally: Happy New Year!

Sometimes it is best to take a break from life and enjoy a great scene. This is brought to us from When Harry Met Sally. May we all find peace, love and happiness in the upcoming year.



What the Hell Does Containment Mean?

For the past few weeks, I keep hearing about containing ISIS. Containing ISIS is our strategy. What the heck does that mean? Can we get some definitive answers as to what that means? And if I sound repetitive, I am, because I have no idea what containment means when the Obama Administration says it.

Containment:
"
1.the act or condition of containing.
2. an act or policy of restricting the territorial growth or ideological influence of another, especially a hostile nation.
3. (in a nuclear power plant) an enclosure completely surrounding a nuclear reactor, designed to prevent the release of radioactive material in the event of an accident.
"

Let's take the second definition. "The policy of restricting the territorial growth..." The way I see it, the White House policy is NOT to defeat ISIS. It is to let them have the caliphate where they are. This is similar to his "red lines" in Syria. He wants to let countries do whatever they are going to do, no matter how evil and detrimental it is to the world. He views IS as a state. Therefore they are afforded the right to be left alone. Why so many folks go along or agree with this monstrously stupid policy is beyond me.

The sad part is that the President actually believes this. He believes in this policy. While I disagree with many positions Barack Obama has taken, this one is not just disagreeable. The containment doctrine will go down in history as one of the stupidest and immoral the U.S. has ever taken.

What If Conservatives Argued Like Liberals?

Thanks to our leftist media and culture, the zeitgeist is that you're either liberal/leftist or you're a retrograde freak who hates minorities, gays and women.  So, it got me thinking what it would be like if we lived in a bizarro world where conservative views are the norm and liberals are the underdogs who, in spite having completely rational and cogent views, are constantly subjected to name calling, brow beating and a biased, agenda pushing media.

In other words, if conservatives argued like liberals, it would look something like this:

If you support gun control, you're racist.

Blacks make up 13% of the population, yet are responsible for 75% of the crime, much of it towards their own people.  But you know what's an even bigger cause for concern?  The cops that try to police that crime.  If Michael Brown is any indication, blacks aren't armed enough.  Can you imagine the victory cry if Brown was the one who came out alive on that fateful evening?  Sure, the guns owned by black and Latino gang members are for the most part unregistered, but, if just one more registered one had been sold to our folk hero, Michael Brown, we would have one less dead black man and one more dead, power abusing cop.  Thanks a lot racist gun control!

If you believe in wealth redistribution and, as a result, want to vote for Bernie Sanders, you're racist.

So, you hate the 1%, huh?  People that make a lot of money get under your craw?  You do realize that a lot of that 1% are Jewish, and that Asians dominate high paying Silicon valley tech jobs, right?  Okay fine, you anti-semite and hater of Asians!  You clearly feel that Jews own too much and have too much power and that Asians have IQs that are way too high and it's therefore unfair that they get high paying computer programming and engineering jobs.  OH, and what about highly successful black people, such as Dr. Dre who is worth more than $500,000,000?  You must hate it when black people succeed and escape their ghetto upbringing and therefore prefer to punish them for it by taxing them.  You feel they owe you so much, you racist prick.

If you don't believe in God, you're racist. 

Judaism, Christianity and Islam all came from the Middle East, while Sikhism and Buddhism came from East Asia.  If you're an atheist, you're rejecting and, in many cases, judging the cultures and beliefs of people who are from these areas.  Also, Jesus was a Jew, so there is one Jew who you hold in contempt.  In addition to that, many blacks hold strong religious convictions, whether it be Christian  or Muslim (sometimes even Jewish!), so you're also rejecting the views of blacks within your own country!  Don't you feel ashamed for being so racist?  Granted, if you're a liberal atheist, you somehow having a hard-on and a crush on Islam in spite it being the least liberal religion and with the strongest group of adherents who would gladly kill you for being an infidel, but, that's besides the point.  Consistency isn't important and you're trying to prove you're NOT racist here.

If you're a feminist, you're racist.

You think women are oppressed, and you want to smash the patriarchy?  You want to fight back against the testosterone driven, violent nature of men?  Well then you clearly hate blacks, Hispanics and Arabs, for those are the three most masculine and patriarchal ethnic groups.  Whenever a woman complains that she's being "catcalled", is it usually by a polo-shirt wearing, blonde haired, blue eyed Caucasian male that yells, "daaaamn, nice ass!"?  Well, granted, Gabe and I do tend to hoot and holler at the legs in the skirts at University of Michigan's campus, but I'd wager we're the exception.  Also, for the most part, Arab men (especially Muslims, but it doesn't exclude Christian Arabs as well), tend to stick to normative gender rolls and reject progressive views; they make no bones about calling loose women "sluts."  The same can pretty much be said about blacks and Hispanics, who also tend to not think very highly of homosexuals either.  So, ergo, if you are a feminist or a gay rights supporter, you are predominantly fighting against black, Hispanic and Arab cultures and are thus racist.

If you support the gay community, you're racist.

Guess which group of people hate gays more than any other?  Think really hard! It's the one that has no problem stringing them up on ropes or throwing them off of roofs.  I get it; you want gays to have the same rights as straight people, so you're willing to walk into a bakery owned by a Christian family, claim "emotional" damages when they refuse to make your gay cake and then collect a hefty sum from them.  But, would you force a Muslim baker to do the same thing and put him out of business?  Because you know damn well the Muslim baker wouldn't make your cake (though he would like to put you in his cake).  Well, if you're willing to bankrupt a Christian business, are you ready to accept the mantel of "racist" when you do the same thing to a Muslim one?

If you support Planned Parenthood or abortion in general, you're racist.

Actually, this one isn't too far from the truth.  Quotes such as "The most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective" and "The undeniably feebleminded should indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind" are directly attributable to Margaret Sanger.  Now, realistically, in theory I believe similar sentiments since we do need less stupid peopleBut, a while ago, when a friend of mine wore a jokey t-shirt that reads "abortion is racist" is it really so much of a joke if it was started on the premise of limiting the propagation of black people or the "feebleminded" as Sanger put it?  I actually wonder if progressive liberals really do think of it as a good way to keep the black population down so they won't be bothered by homeless people begging for change outside the abortion clinic.

If you support illegal immigration and don't want to curtail chain immigration, you're racist.

Seems strange, huh?  How can it be racist to NOT let illegal immigrants and relatives of legal and semi legal immigrants into the country.  Well, if you knew the peril they put themselves through at the hands of drug gangs, in addition to the hellish and poor life they'll live in the States when some wealthy, corporate wage slave pays them under the table while they live in filthy, crime infested, all Spanish speaking barrios, you'd think twice about okaying their entry.  But, if putting these people through hell is what you want, then keep the gates wide open.

If you support the EPA and further attempts to curb carbon emissions, you're racist.  

You do realize that China and India are two of the biggest polluters in the world, and that the United States has the cleanest air in the world, right?  Well, how would you like it if you had no choice but to emit green house gases in the air, while people walk around in masks and some so called "advanced" Western country rubbed their clean air and "high standard living" in your face?  Not to mention laughed at your choice of feline delicacy.  You're clearly trying to say, "ha, ha, you dirty Chinks, we're better than you!"  And now you want to regulate carbon emissions EVEN MORE?!  Way to rub it in their faces, assholes!  Actually, while I began this post as a satire of how the left calls everything racist, I can draw a reasonable conclusion that there is some "West is the best" attitude on the part of left considering they know damn well that underdeveloped nations will NEVER go through a proper industrial revolution without burning fossil fuels since the alternative is too costly.  Therefore, it actually IS a somewhat racist, or, at very least, a pro-West stance to force underdeveloped countries to comply with our emission standards.

If you think any of the above arguments are stupider than the ones put forth by the tards at Salon.com or AddicitngInfo.com,  you also probably feel that pedophilia is a perfectly acceptable life choice and are therefore not racist against Muslims.






LudditeBlogger Takes the Pledge


Even though I'm not  a Trump fan, I get why people like him. As Bill O'Reilly put it, we want an "avenger," an anti-Obama who will stand up to the baddies and fight back. But regardless of my personal feelings, if Trump wins the GOP nomination, I hereby swear that I will support him, work for him, and vote for him.

In fact, I hereby swear that I will do that regardless of who the nominee is, and I hope that you will too.
Is there anybody out there who really believes that a President Mitt Romney would not have been, oh, I don't know, 300 gazillion trillion times better than Barack Obama? Just think how different the world would be:

  • No Obamacare. We'd all have been able to keep the healthcare we liked, and the 30 million uninsured could have been covered in another way that didn't upset one-sixth of our economy.
  • No (or a very weakened) ISIS, because Romney would have left troops in Iraq.
  • No ridiculous Iran deal, which gave the America-hating mullahs money and legitimacy.
  • No equally ridiculous climate deal, which lets China keep doing whatever it wants for 15 years while our economy suffers.
  • No "war on cops" because Romney's attorney general would not be slobbering over the Black Lives Matter thugs like Holder and Lynch have done.
  • No "stabbing intifada" in Israel, as a President Romney would have made it clear to Abbas and his merry band of inciters whose side America was on.
  • The Keystone XL pipeline would be under construction and the "war on coal" would be over.
  • As for terror attacks, if there were any, Romney would not be afraid to blame them on radical Islam. And Guantanamo would still have its full complement of prisoners. 

In 2012, 2 million+ McCain/Palin voters didn't go to the polls for Romney/Ryan. Forget the tinfoil-hat theories about voter fraud: that alone would have made the difference. And why did they stay home, enabling Obama to serve what was obviously going to be a disastrous second term? Because Romney was not "conservative" enough. Because Romney was a Mormon. Because Romney picked Paul Ryan.  Because Romney was a RINO. Because Romney, in short, was not their dream candidate.

The Democrats have one viable candidate, who voters don't trust and who is being investigated by the FBI. This should be a slam-dunk election for the GOP. But we'll blow it by threatening to stay home, or go third-party, if we don't get our way. That's why we have to support whoever the nominee is.

Sure, the Republicans are mealy-mouthed cowards. But they're OUR mealy-mouthed cowards. And the alternative is just too bleak.

You're Not a Special Little Snow Flake and Your Self Esteem Is too High

I'm fully convinced that the entire business of psychoanalysis and psychology is nothing more than a scam to keep people reliant on so called experts to continually reassure them that they aren't losers in spite making decisions that would indicate everything to the contrary.  Most people eventually realize that they aren't anything special in the grand scheme of things, find a mate, have some kids, tend to some hobbies and call it a life.

At least that's how it used to be.

But now, thanks to a mix of factors that include but are not limited to technology's democratization of the ability to make one's voice heard, the school system's treatment of mediocre achievements as if they are Pulitzer Prize winning works, the equal acceptance of any and all lifestyles and cultures and the inability to tell people when they just plain suck, we have created a culture of smug narcissists who are incapable of looking at the big picture and see the world for what it is.

Case in point: the girl I went on a date with this past Friday.

I know what you're thinking.  Edwin's bitter that she didn't put out and this is just a revenge piece.  But this tale isn't told out of bitterness for, I felt, that, in spite not getting very far with this lady, I was still the big victor of the evening in the battle of the sexes for dropping a truth bomb that her therapist never would dare.  I didn't even know she had a therapist until she admitted this to me after I made fun of people who see therapists.  Note: the disdain does not apply to psychiatrists since mental illness is a real thing.

Dates for me usually go like this:

I take a girl out, we get a couple drinks at first bar of choice, go to a different place, walk around the downtown area, I make some moves, we start kissing and then she either invites me back or says good night and we meet again or don't.  This time, while she invited me back to her place to smoke some bud, she said she's isn't putting out.  Fair enough.  What was surprising was her definition of "putting out" meant "me touching her at all."  In her words it was "too much, too soon."  I was taken aback.  What kind of fool's game was I in for?

The questions started to fly: "do you always do this?", "do you always expect a girl to put out on the first date?" "When is the last time..." and on and on and on.  With a smack to the forehead and a slight bit of frustration at how this date turned into an interview, I sat down and said, "what do you want?"  She said, "I don't want to settle. I want to see what's out there and be able to date other guys."  I don't know what level of social retardation it takes to tell someone who you're on a date with that you're also going to see other people.  The correct response to any man you're interested in is, "if you want more to happen, you're going to have to call me again" or something to that affect, not, "I'm going to date around and see what other people I might make a connection with."  On top of that, she added some psycho babble probably taught to her by her therapist:  "I don't want to NEED to date somebody, so I know that I WANT to date somebody."

This one wasn't a head scratcher, but it was annoying; rewarded by men and an overly forgiving society for doing nothing more than being a woman whose one hobby is posing in fetish magazines for PLUS SIZED women, she "complained" that, when she went onto the OKCupid dating site, her inbox filled up with 200+ messages in the first couple of weeks and she just doesn't have time address them all.  I jokingly remarked "I know some people who would love to have that problem, but I'm flattered you picked mine above the rest."

So, rather than try to make it a romantic evening of smooching sans the sex, she asked me to tell it "like it is" from a guy's perspective.  She picked the wrong guy.

I told her that, as a man, especially one of average to slightly above average looks, we don't have it so easy in the dating world.  We don't have the luxury of GETTING 200+ messages in our OKC inboxes, that is being HANDED 200+ OPTIONS.  That, when we're young, the instruction manual to the opposite sex is fraught with politically correct nonsense that rarely actually plays out in real life.  Boys aren't taught that the more attractive a girl is, even at a young age, she is given carte blanche to act as antisocial as she wants and have zero accountability for her actions.  Or that, if you pursue her, you WILL most likely get shut down.  That is, unless, you're a wickedly good looking type or you're the black kid in a mostly white school.

But this isn't all about looks, is it?  She said, "I thought guys are attracted to a woman with confidence."  Yeah, "confidence."  THAT is what all of the overweight women in the world lack.  I remember reading in a Mad Magazine, I think it was, "the first thing a man notices about a woman depends on which direction she's going."  Society DOES NOT determine beauty standards; your penis does and is directly attracted to high chest to hip and waste to hip ratio.  Don't get me wrong, I value intelligence just because I don't want the post coital conversation to be full of "yeahs", "ums" and "likes" and, on top of that, when attractive women get into male dominated hobbies such as comic books, video games or listening to heavy metal, their value shoots through the roof.

So men, through a potentially embarrassing process of trial and error or, if we're lucky to have stumbled upon dating/pickup/seduction guide books, learn the rules of the game.  We realize that we should NEVER take what a woman says at face value; that "no" doesn't mean no, it means try a couple more times before it really means no; that we never ask "can I kiss you" but we just go for it; that we don't call back for a couple days even after coitus has occurred unless she calls or texts us first; and we keep our options open, and our standards at an acceptable level for how much bullshit we're willing to put up with.  Higher the standards, higher the level of bullshit.  Ugly truths they are.

In response, she said, "I'd hate to think a guy is only into me for my looks.  How can a guy like a girl ONLY for looks?"  I told her that, if an average chump lucks upon a blonde, 19 year old bimbo with a great boob job and a killer body, he'll MAKE himself like her.  He'll turn that one night stand into a two year stand and put up with missing out on games, concerts and other fun events because what is his other option?  A man is most content after coitus, especially if he doesn't get it that often and, the more attractive the woman is, the higher the contentment.  This is why men marry women who they have nothing in common with; fear that they'll never get it again or from someone as attractive.

This is also why 36 year old women now are consigned to their therapists on a weekly basis; because the influence of feminism has taught them that they are "empowered" if they play the game like a man, that is go from one dick to the next, in spite the fact that they're not playing any game.  For a woman to be slutty and call it being "empowered" is no different from kicking down a bunch of bowling pins and claiming that you're a professional bowler.  Then, at nearly middle age, when all of her friends are getting married and she's getting dumped AGAIN by another field playing 30 year old with a tan, a washboard stomach and a full head of hair, she will go to the therapist and he will tell her what a special little snow flake she is and to never settle for second best.

Well, that got me thrown out of her trailer, but at least she's only 25, so there's still time for her to figure all of this out, I'd hope.

Oh, and if you think I'm a misogynist pig for writing the above, then I'd highly suggest you consult this article from Huffington Post, which says pretty much the same thing.


Yes, Shoot Down the Plane

Last night was the 1 millionth Republican debate. It featured the ambiguously gay duo of Trump and Bush. A high brow foreign policy debate between Cruz and Rubio. And finally the hawkish Christie vs. the libertarian Paul. Yes there were others on the stage, but seriously should not have been there.

My favorite part of the debate came when Chris Christie gave the following answer as to whether he would shoot down a Russian fighter jet.



Hell yes!

I want a President who is prepared and willing to stand up to Vladimir Putin. That includes shooting down planes. The reason I like this answer is that it shows our allies that we are serious about winning and protecting them. Europe is looking for answers and a strong leader. While it looks like it may be too little, too late for Christie, his answer on the no fly zone was great.

This debate season is long and we have a few months to go before Iowa. I hope that we hear more from Gov. Chris Christie.

The Difference Between Right-Wing and "Far-Right"

Yesterday, I probably received one of the biggest compliments I've ever received from an associate of none other than former KKK member and White Nationalist activist David Duke.  He told me that I'm not part of the "brain dead, liberal masses", but that I'm "far more dangerous" and a "formidable foe" who is "good at posing like an ally."  I mentioned a long time ago that, when you declare yourself a libertarian defender of all that is non-PC, you're swimming with sharks and, well, I wanted to swim with sharks and suss this guy out a bit.  I saw this guy post a comment on Rockin' Mr. E's video on In-Group Nepotism, but, it looks like it's since been removed.  I shall tell my version of the exchange.

Basically I told this guy I'm a Jew and that, in spite what I wrote in this article, I don't really have much objection to the "racial realist" findings of Jared Taylor, who I falsely call a White Supremacist, or, for that matter John Derbyshire, who was fired from the National Review for writing this (an article I don't entirely agree with by the way).  Anyhoo, I told this guy how I think non-Jewish white people are the group that are shit upon most in the U.S., that European culture is being attacked and how I have no problem with whites expressing pride in their culture, a crime punishable in the mainstream media by ostracism and cries of racism.

This clearly wasn't enough for this guy.  For some reason, in spite the fact that he has no ties or interest in the Middle East at all, he sided with the Palestinians in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  He had no problem drawing direct parallels to the Holocaust and the Nazi and Soviet occupations of neighboring countries to what Israel is doing now, which is merely trying to defend itself.  He asked me, "isn't it ironic that Netanyahu wants to protect his borders, while condemning the U.S. for protecting theirs?"  I said, "well, if that is the case, that is pretty ironic and I agree that we SHOULD protect our borders against illegal aliens and Syrian refugees."

This STILL wasn't enough.  Eventually this led to a rabbit hole of Palestinians=victims, Israelis=aggressors coupled with the typical White Nationalist Holocaust revisionism.  But, the question I had for this guy is, "why do you CARE so much about it and why do you have a such a hard on for Muslims?"  His answer was that he didn't have "hard on for Muslims, but just that every race/ethnicity should have its own homeland and shouldn't be forced to live with others."  So I told him that Muslims have 52 countries and the Jews have ONE, and it's the size of New Jersey.  The only thing he could do was play mental gymnastics about how the Holocaust was over-exaggerated and how the Palestinians are the good guys.

The point of all this?  Aside from his ascription to the cult of Holocaust denial, there is not much that  makes him different from a typical, Israel/Jew hating leftist.  His symbol is that of a hammer and sickle with a skull on top of it, implying he's anti-Communist, but, what is he if not a leftist, just with more racially separatist views; I neglect to say "racist" since, technically, he doesn't think the Jews are "subhuman", he thinks me and my type are "superhuman" and dangerous.  I was touched. 

But, I digress.  He's a socialist through and through, whether he puts the word "national" in front of it or not.

And that's where I FINALLY get to the point of this article.

I'm right-wing, but I'm not NOT "far-right", which is no different from far-left, unless you enjoy the oppression of the hammer and sickle more than the crooked cross.  In addition, Mussolini wasn't a race-obsessed eugenicist like Hitler, so that REALLY negates any difference between Communism and Fascism.  The term "far right" is a way the mainstream media demonizes anybody with a right of center position.  For instance, the leftists at Addicting Info created this quiz titled "Are You a Nazi? A Ten Question Quiz for Conservatives".  In terms of slanderous propaganda, how much more brazen and shameless can you get?  Winston Churchill, who fought against the Nazis, is a conservative.  But, what's history to these people. 

Why don't we go through these one by one and see how the leftists are trying to smear us:

1. Do you oppose immigration and believe that America is for “Americans only?”

I oppose illegal immigration and immigration from people who are threats to American safety and can't be vetted properly.  Furthermore, I think, since 1965, the insane amount of immigrants who are coming into the country and aren't assimilating, creating their own little nation-states, that is balkanizing the country, have no interest in becoming Americans, either culturally or officially.

2. Do you oppose feminism, and do you believe that motherhood should be the prime role of women, in order to “strengthen the family unit?”

I most certainly oppose 2nd and 3rd wave feminism; the "right" to yank a growing baby out of the womb (with few exceptions), the "freedom" to swallow gallons of jizz and jump on every dick without consequence (save for now needing a shrink to figure out all those contradicting emotions you're feeling), the ability to falsely accuse men of rape after drunkenly fucking one and feeling bad about it, having the government pay for birth control and all around being coddled, rather than actually working hard are NOT empowering.  Also, as retrograde as it sounds, women statistically are happier at home tending to the children.  This is why they work less hours and get easier jobs than the ones men get.

3. Do you support the establishment of a new system of education, which would oversee the “moral development” of children?

This question is so dumb, I don't even know what it's supposed to mean.  Also why is "moral development" in ironic quotes.  Moral development is a bad thing now?

4. Do you believe that the economy and the government should be debt-free?

Yes.

5. Do you believe that America should be “energy sufficient,” and that we should exploit natural resources, such as land and water, in order to achieve that goal? (Bonus question: Is it a good idea to put ‘fossil fuel-producing corporations,’ like fracking wells, oil rigs and garbage incinerators in economically depressed regions of the country, to stimulate economic growth and create jobs for minorities?)

Yes.  Global warming/climate change is a hoax on the part of the EPA to stifle companies from growing and to redistribute wealth.  The climate changes all the time.  Also, cap 'n' trade is a way to line the pockets of politicians, and Al Gore heats his enormous home and fuels his private jets with fossil fuels that he complains about.

6. Do you support the right of citizens to keep and bear arms? (No, Nazi’s do not support taking guns away, contrary to right wing bullshit.)

Yes.

7. Do you want to do away with the separation of church and state?

No, and neither do most prominent conservatives.  However, the nation was founded on Christian principles, as was every Western society; this is why we don't have sex with little children like the Romans did.

 8. Do you want to see the US government get involved in the “spiritual upbringing” of children?

I'm not even going to bother answering such a stupid question.

9. Are you a true supporter of “traditional American values?” (The Nazi’s call it ‘traditional Aryan values,’ but we know what you mean.)

Oh, you mean "hard work", "being self-sufficient", "not depending on free handouts", "raising a family" and "having moral fortitude"?  If those are "traditional Aryan values", then I suppose you feel blacks, Jews, Hispanics and Arabs should not work hard, not be self-sufficient, should depend on free handouts, should not raise a family and have no moral fortitude.  Got it.

10. Do you believe that minorities and immigrants are a threat to the traditional United States?

Depends on which "minorities" and "immigrants" you're talking about.  If you're talking about Japanese people who brought us sushi, Godzilla and Nintendo to the U.S., then no.  On the other hand, if you're talking about Muslim immigrants from countries with views that are in complete opposition to Western values, who are doing a great job tearing apart countries in Europe with their no-go zones, establishing Sharia courts in places in England and turning Sweden into the rape capital of the world, then I would say "yes."

Holy Christ, there's a "bonus" section.  These people just don't give up, but then, neither do I:

1. Oppose labor unions and want to see them outlawed.

Not outlawed, but have their bargaining power reduced through "right to work" legislation, because stupid high pensions are insane, union workers can drink on the job and not get fired and, the economic cycle should determine the value of someone's work, not some arbitrary metric you assign.

2. Agree that there is a “war on white people” and that ‘reverse-racism’ is a real problem in the United States.

Not a war, but definitely a level of disdain.  Hey mainstream media, why don't you lampoon black culture for a change?  Or are saggy pants, face tattoos, grills on teeth and treating women like "bitchez" a sign of high culture?

3. Believe that gays present a real threat to “traditional American values” and the “traditional American family.”

Nope, but they can be a threat to a family business that makes the one time faux pas of not making a gay cake and now are without income.

4. Hate “Communists” and are willing to apply that label to everyone you disagree with politically.

Oh, you mean the way you apply "Nazi" to everyone you disagree with politically?



Pro-Israel Libertarians is a Thing?

Libertarian Lauren Southern of The Rebel Media gives a clear and concise argument as to why one should support Israel if one chooses to engage in the debate at all.

Stop Bashing Trump, You Cucks

I get it.  He's not "your guy."  He doesn't have the experience of Scott Walker or Ted Cruz.  And thank fucking God he's not an open borders RINO like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio.  And he maybe not be Obi Wan Ben Carson or the probably was cute when she was younger, sassy CEO Carly Fiorina. But, he's what you got and there ain't nothin' you can do about it.

What burns me up about people on the right attacking Donald Trump is how damn cucky it is!  THAT is what the insult "cuckservative" was invented for.  Yeah, crow about how some David Duke worshiping dingus uses that word on a message board, but the more I see the Republicans genuflecting to the left by condemning Donald Trump's recent comments about not wanting to import Muslims into the U.S., the more I realized how big of pussies the GOP establishment is, balking at the thought that someone is going to call them the R word!

You're going to get called a racist no matter what you do.  Until you admit that, as a white person, if you defend yourself against some thug in the inner city trying to rob you at gun or knife point, you committed a hate crime, you will be called a racist.  "You have, they want, thus give" is the mantra of the left.  I've been called a bigot, a racist, a sexist, a misogynist, a xenophobe and an Islamophobe (though never a homophobe because I don't find fags scary) and, you know what happened?  Nothing, absolutely nothing.

If, as an adult, you can't stand by your principles, then why bother having any in the first place?

The big argument against Donald Trump is that he "has no ideas."  The hell he hasn't.  You just haven't been paying attention.  You know who has though?  The commie-pinkos at Huffington Post.  All of a sudden, when Donald Trump proposes that the tax code should be simplified into four tiers, in which the lowest income earners pay nothing, those that make $30,000 or more pay 10% and taxes increase accordingly, the HuffPo complains that it will lead to an increase in the national deficit.

WHAT THE FUCK does the Huffington Post know or care about deficits?  Did they know or care about deficits when Obama was spending far above and beyond them?  Hell, did they know about these things when Bush was doing it?  Of course not; they knew that Bush was Hitler and Obama is Jesus.  They also forgot to mention that forgotten populist/Socialist hero Ralph Nader at one point proposed that nobody who makes under $200,000 be taxed at all!

But, I digress.

Donald Trump is just saying what everyone else is thinking and the fact that Republicans immediately try to extricate him from the party and condemn him is absolutely sickening.  Trump might actually be a sperg (or aspie depending on how you want to call those on the Autism spectrum).  Rather than being polite and dancing around the elephant, he sees the elephant, pulls out a giant sword and just starts stabbing it over and over again.  Do you honestly think that, if we cut off immigration from Muslim countries, as Donald Trump suggests, people would complain?  "OH NO!!! We have LESS potential for terrorist threats?!  FUCK, I'm going to be able to go to a public place and not worry as much about Farook and his mail order bride opening fire on me?!"

Oh, and if you compare Donald Trump to Adolph Hitler, you're either disingenuous, painfully stupid or a bigot yourself.

In order to turn this country around and make it good again, all you need to do are these things:

1. Close the border between the U.S. and Mexico by building a wall.  Don't believe the hype that, if you build a ten foot wall, someone will build an eleven foot ladder.  Israel has a wall and it considerably reduced the amount of undesirables entering their country.

2. End chain immigration so that family members of family members of family members can't use this loophole to keep importing more people.

3. Make it a crime on a federal level to have sanctuary cities so that killers who come in illegally can't essentially hide out in the open in these havens of leftism.

4.  Okay, the first three were about immigration and could have been reduced into one bullet point, but the fourth is to cut the corporate tax rate down to 15% so that companies won't have incentive to ship their manufacturing plants overseas, thus helping to keep jobs within U.S. borders.

5.  Limit welfare for single mothers in inner cities to one child.  Pop out any more?  Have their baby daddies take care of 'em, not the government.

6.  End affirmative action.  Only the best of the best should be at our universities.

7.  Speaking of universities, end public funding for universities that have bogus classes like "gender studies" and whatever "liberal arts" nonsense incubates perpetual activists, rather than future scientists.

8.  Roll back anti-discrimination laws.  It's gone too far. No, gays, you don't have a right to sue a bakery because they won't make your stupid gay cake and make them pay you $150,000 for "damages."  Christian bakers, on the other hand, if you don't want to make a cake honoring a gay wedding, don't make the cake.  Hey, fags, do you really want a cake made haphazardly by people who don't believe in your cause?  Go somewhere else.

       (Note: if you do use anti-discrimination laws to bankrupt a business, can you at least make it a Muslim one?)

9.  Allow for profiling at airports.  In fact, every airport should have a "This is a Sikh/this is a Muslim" poster which instructs that, if you see a Sikh, let him pass unabated, but, if you see a Muslim, give him a little push back.  You will probably save lives.

10.  Cut off immigration from Muslim countries except for the scientists who, in spite spending all of the government resources developing bombs, somehow found a cure for cancer on the side, or just allow in the Christians, Jews and atheists from those countries.  Those really aren't hard to vet because Muslims hate Christianity so much, they usually won't pose as Christians.

11.  Stop wasting money looking for "renewable" energy, build the Keystone pipeline, allow for more drilling and tell the EPA to go fuck itself.

12.  Give out free posters of Dana Loesch posing nude atop a pile of AK-47's.

There ya go.  Problem solved.  And Trump says what's what, which is refreshing.

In other news, Pat Buchanan wrote this article about how everything and everyone is shifting rightward.  Maybe there is a future after all.


Ben Sasse is my Hero!

Take a moment to watch a leader. Ben Sasse is great!



Donald Trump: Real Life Supervillain?!

Is Donald Trump a real life supervillain?

Who cares?

I don’t care if people call him a real life supervillain. I don’t care if people call him a fascist. I don’t care if people compare him to Hitler (as wrong and ignorant as that is, there is no comparison to Hitler). If Trump doesn't care, why should I?

I do care when I hear these opinions in YouTube videos about comic book movies!

I like to keep my politics separate from my entertainment as entertainment for me is escapism from the real world, though I readily admit politics can be extremely entertaining in its own right. That means when I’m watching a video review of a TV show or movie trailer I don’t want political comments that have nothing to do with the show. What I want is relevant discussion and analysis.

Too often lately I am seeing personal politics intrude into my entertainment video viewing, and I don’t appreciate it. The video linked to above is just the most recent offender, not the first and only one I have come across. I would link to more but I don't make lists of things that annoy me, so my apologies to anyone who wishes more proof. Trust me, it's out there. And I get the point the reviewer is making about dated popular corporate references, but previous versions of (in this case) Lex Luthor have already used Donald Trump as a reference point, just watch Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman, or read Modern Age Post-Crisis Superman comics. Been there, done that, thank you very much!

This has nothing to do with whether I like Trump or not. My liking or disliking Trump is irrelevant, and so is the reviewer's opinion of Trump to the video review of the show or trailer at hand, no matter what the reviewer thinks of him.

The worst part is it’s not even intelligent commentary with regard to Trump, it has simply become fashionable to add some spice to a video, and it makes me sick. I’d feel the same way if people were insulting President Obama in this manner, or Hillary Clinton. These insults are not only beneath the viewers, they are irrelevant to the conversation. That is why I’m writing my thoughts here rather than in the comments sections of the videos where the offenders have offended me with their seemingly matter of fact comments about the man.

And it is that matter of factness that bothers me the most. It’s easy to throw an insult at a person someone disagrees with, but to do so in a nonpolitical forum where people of all sorts of political persuasions and backgrounds gather together for a common purpose is insulting to us, the viewers. It’s the height of arrogance to believe it’s OK to hurl these insults because one thinks it’s the “cool” thing to do, and I have no doubt that is the reason this is happening. Worse, it’s not even clever, it’s groupthink.

Let me be clear: I don’t care about the personal politics of the reviewer. I don’t care if the reviewer is straight, gay, bi, transgendered, etc. I could not care less about any of that! I only care about the quality of the review. The reason I take my time to watch these videos is because the reviewers do make quality reviews.

So to the reviewers I ask this: So what if within your circle of friends you all think Donald Trump is a real life supervillain? So what if everyone else is saying the same thing in their videos? If everyone jumped off a bridge, to cite the old cliché, would you?

Stupid question, you already have!

Get With the Program




I joined the NRA today, and Wayne LaPierre can thank National Public Radio for that.


I'd been thinking of doing it for some time now, as a protest against silliness.

Like a friend's silly response to the Paris terror attacks: "Well at least now maybe we'll get some sensible gun laws in this country." Or the silliness of the MSM and their contempt for people who offer "thoughts and prayers" because they are "part of the problem" ("the problem" being that Americans like their guns. Bitter clingers, you know).

Or our frankly unserious Lecturer in Chief, Barack Obama, wagging his finger at the American people once again. Uh-oh: the president is disappointed in us! "A recent poll shows that the American public has dropped another 6 points, with the president and first lady "moderately disapproving" of them. Analysts attribute the slide to the president's irritation with citizens not wanting to give up their guns and refusing to bow to his superior wisdom." MSNBC could do a segment. Haha.

Anyway, this morning I happened to catch Diane Rehm's show on NPR, and was treated to a mish-mash of liberal logic, willful blindness, and sneering righteousness. It was the elite looking down on the bitter clingers, laughing at our guns and our religion.

If even one person at the Bataclan had been armed, dozens of lives might have been saved in Paris. I say MIGHT have: we can't know for sure. But they would have had a chance. And liberals refuse to acknowledge that.

Diane Rehm will never know that she inspired me to become an NRA member, but she wouldn't be pleased if she did, and that makes me happy. I don't want to be an alarmist, but we're at a point where we are in danger of losing some very basic rights. If my $25 contribution can help fight back against that a little bit, it's worth it.


And I get a free pocket knife.

Those Damn Republicans!

For years, I have watched the Republican Party trundle along pretending that it does not have any issues. The fact that a large minority of Republicans believe some crazy things is nothing new. Donald Trump is a prime example, saying that we must ban Muslims from entering the United States. Some are anti-science. Some don’t vaccinate. Some won’t officiate or bake a cake for a gay wedding. And the rest of the party either turns a blind eye because they agree or they just don’t want to rock the boat. Many argue that they support these things or that maybe there is something rotten in the ideological core of the Republican Party.

What kind of political party encourages or creates such bizarre beliefs? Have the ideals of Lincoln been turned around? Where are the moderates? Seriously, we hear so much talk about the moderate Republicans or the establishment types. Do they exist? When the party does pick a “moderate”, it’s a whacky Donald Trump.

Has the Party been Hijacked?


Or maybe not. All along, maybe there is just a stream of Republicanism that encourages this thought.

There are many who would agree with all of the above sentiments about the Republican Party. Certainly Paul Krugman has no love and does not hold back any of his feelings. Yet, for the people who agree with this logical argument, do you also agree that Islam has a very serious problem? I would love to see Krugman write an article about the crazy Islamic culture.

You see, according to PEW, over 10% of the world’s Islamic observers believe in radical Islam, and want to murder you and me. Many others are silent or certainly not vocal enough. If there are that many good Muslims, where are they? The mainstream media certainly says there are, and so does the administration. We are also told that this does not represent Islamic faith, that it is a perversion.

I could sit here pointing out that, while some of the folks in my party believe some strange things, in the Republican Party it is completely opposite of what is happening in Islam; there is a very public civil war of ideas happening (ie: Jeb Bush and Donald Trump).

Islam has an enormous problem. Where is the civil war in the Islamic world? Where are the moderates speaking up? The silence of the Islamic community is deafening.

Farook was not Radicalized Mr. President- He was Raised a Terrorist

The President gave a short speech from the Oval Office on Sunday. In the speech, he stated that Omar Farook had taken to the dark forces of radicalization. At first glance, many of us were happy to hear that the President acknowledged that it was a terrorism, but I read an AFP article this morning with some quotes from the terrorist's father.

"He said he agreed with (IS chief Abu Bakr) al-Baghdadi's ideas for creating the Islamic State, and he was obsessed by Israel,"

Well that does not seem so bad, it seems that the President was spot on... but then the article continued with this gem.

"I always used to say to him, be calm, patience, in two years' time Israel will no longer exist,"

"Geopolitics are changing: Russia, China, America too, nobody wants Jews over there. They will put them all in Ukraine. Why bother fighting them? We did that before, and we lost,"


Oh my.


I hope that President Obama was briefed on these statements before the AFP report because... this shows that the Farook was not radicalized, he was raised a radical!

We were told a narrative that he took to ISIS ideology and went down this dark path. Frankly, looking at his father's words, the path seemingly was not too long. The more we find out about these San Bernardino terrorists, the more we have to question the "moderate" views of them prior to this act.

Do people really go from moderate, "normal" people to crazy savages who murder their co-workers?

Why Waste Your Time Watching Obama Address the Nation, When You Can Read This Instead?


Sex, listening to Cirith Ungol and Manilla Road, reading horror comics and/or Michael Moorcock novels, watching an Italian splatter flick and/or drinking are all activities which will prove a million times more stimulating than watching lame duck President Barack Hussein Obama condescendingly address the nation tonight, trying to convince ignoramuses, who don't believe him anyway, that the biggest threat to our nation is "climate change", that Islam is a religion of peace, that Christian "terrorists" are FAR worse than the Muslims who blew up 130 people in France or shot 14 people in San Bernardino and that, in order to stop gun violence we need to take away guns from people in spite the fact that the majority of the people committing gun violence live in inner cities, obtained those guns illegally and have funny French sounding names like Deandre.

So, rather than wasting your time listening to all of Barry's nonsense, read this rant about stuff that drives me crazy about our backwards, "lunatics running the asylum" culture we live in.

Let's start with the one that seems to be annoying EVERYONE left, right and center these days: Feminism.  The greatest accomplishments of Feminism are that it made getting laid waaaay easier (so thank you for that one), but at the same time helped increase the profits of psychiatrists, sellers of anti-depressants and pet store owners.  At this point, all modern, 2nd and 3rd wave feminism seems to indicate is that there are no differences between the genders, that women have the wherewithal to carry on as men.  And I'm not talking about getting into professional fields, which they were never once barred or excluded from in the first place.  The irony is that  homebody women of the 1950s were actually smarter in fields of history and literature than the so called "liberated" women of today.

I'm actually talking about sex here.  Somewhere, in our politically correct culture, the word "slut" became a hateful, misogynistic slur rather than a way to describe a woman of loose moral resolve.  The fact that sleeping with loads of men is considered empowering when it's something that doesn't take any skill to do, something that women can do AT WILL at any time unless they are so butt ugly that no amount of booze will make it tolerable, sort of negates the whole "empowering" thing.  How is that empowering?  The fact that you can do it already implies that you have power and what does it prove?

It proves that avoiding the biological imperative because you've been taught it's "oppressive" is more important than establishing a healthy, happy relationship with a man who actually cares about you and, WILL inevitably lead to depression, mental breakdown and the need for anti-depressants and copious trips to the psychiatrist's office.

Now you're going to look at me and say I'm a hypocrite for carrying on my licentious lifestyle: the last two girls I slept with told me that there are men that they would just sleep with and have no intent on dating, while the men that they plan TO date have to wait before the girl puts out.  How much sense does that make?  The men you PLAN on keeping have to wait an indefinite amount of time and put in the effort for the "privilege" of kissing a mouth and licking a vagina that has taken many (including mine) men's dicks while a cad like me, who JUST meets you THAT NIGHT, gets all of this wonderful stuff without putting any effort in?  What's the saying about the milk and the cow?  Best bet is to not call the girl back unless you ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY can't live without her musings on life; if you DO think you want to turn a one night stand into a two year stand, I'd suggest waiting a few days to contact her unless she contacts you first.  Nothing is less sexy to a woman than a needy man.

And if she's like the couple of bar servers that I "hilariously" asked if they would prefer either Ted Cruz or Ted Kazcynski as the new President and couldn't tell me who either of those were, then I'd wager to not bother unless the sex was REALLY good.

Also, if you think the "right" to suck a baby out of your belly using a vacuum while stabbing it with other harpoon-like instruments even after it's developed human body parts is something to celebrate, then you must also be proud of Amy Winehouse and her defiant stance against rehab.

So, what else can I rant about?  Oh yeah, transgenderism.  Did you know that, if you're not having luck with the ladies and you want to beat some of them up, all you have to do is chop your dick off?  Yep!  The only distinction in the world of mixed martial arts between a man and a woman is the thing hanging between his/her/its legs.  Therefore, if you're a man and you want to circumvent conventions such as the one where you shouldn't hit women, just become one.  Forget your immense upper body strength, just pound that bitch until she's good 'n' bloody.

Also, if you're a horny perv like me and want a peek at the nice, round, lovely, spandex wrapped butts that you just stared at while running six miles on the tread mill, just walk right into the women's locker room!  If anyone complains just say, "don't discriminate against me! I'm a woman!  I just happen to also be a lesbian!" and then get the person thrown out of the gym.  Also, if you're working out at Planet Fitness, don't actually TRY because they'll kick you out for that as well.

Let's talk about the Jews now.  Hey Joooooz, they say a cuckservative is someone who cares more about Israel's borders than those of the U.S.  Don't be a cuck.  Support Israel's right to not live with a bunch of primate Muslims trying to kill them AND support the right of the U.S. to close its borders to Syrian "refugees" of, who we have proved with the San Bernardino shooting are impossible to properly vet, and illegal aliens from Mexico who get paid under the table to do jobs that Americans would gladly do while setting up little all Spanish speaking barrios in little patches all over the country.  If you think that's racist, you're dumb.  I would say the same thing if the people spoke Russian, which is the language of the country my parents came from LEGALLY.

On the note of the Jooooz, I was pleasantly surprised at the last local Republican meeting when an Orthodox Jew talked not about Israel, but about the right to obtain guns.  That's right, more Jews need to be like Harvey Keitel, Roy Scheider, Jerry Orbach, Mickey from Rocky and Bugsy Siegel, not pussy ass New York leftist Jews like Woody Allen.  Neuroses are the stupidest, most annoying, obnoxious things ever, not signs of wittiness, even though I'm a Woody Allen fan.  Neurosis is also an awesome band.

Other things that make my bottom 50 list: Obamacare, raising the minimum wage, not building the keystone pipeline, "progressive taxes", unions, affirmative action, trigger warnings, gun control and welfare recipients.

Uhhh, so currently on my reading list is Republican Party Animal by David Cole, The Redneck Manifesto by Jim Goad and The 48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene, but chances are I'll probably just read The Bane of the Black Sword and a bunch of old horror comics from Eerie and Yoe publications.

And now a list of right wingy punk and metal songs:

Public Image Ltd. - "The Body" (anti-abortion) 
Circle Jerks - "Forced Labor" (pro-capitalist, anti-Communist/statist) 
Germs - "Communist Eyes" (anti-Communist)
Conflict - "An Option" (closing border to refugees from Islamic countries)
Slayer - "Dittohead" (tribute to Rush Limbaugh)
Slayer - "Silent Scream" (anti-abortion) 
Witchfinder General - "Death Penalty" (pro-death penalty)
Agnostic Front - "Public Assistance" (anti-welfare)
Carnivore - "U.S.A. for U.S.A." (self explanatory)
S.O.D. - "Fuck the Middle East" (the most pro-Israel song written by a skinhead, look it up!)
Ramones - "High Risk Insurance" (national defense)
Ramones - "This Ain't Havana" (anti-welfare)
Minor Threat - "Guilty of Being White" (black on white racism) 
Black Flag - "White Minority" (hard to tell if the anti-immigrant stance is ironic or not)
The Stranglers - "Curfew" (impending Communist invasion)
Fear - "Bomb the Russians" (self-explanatory)
Murphy's Law - "California Pipeline" (pro-Reagan lyrics)
Type O Negative - "Kill All the White People" (makes fun of Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan) 

Also Red Dawn is a boring movie even though it's kind of funny.