It's been a year or more since I last posted here let alone even set eyes on this blog. I like reading my old posts and kinda wish I had continued so I could have a neat place for all my thoughts. Anyhow since I stopped posting on blogger I defaulted back to using facebook status' as my blog. The word limit is strangely liberating and comforting for me as a writer. It forces me to cut to chase and cut out the fat in my writing. I wish I could have my posts semi-automaticly posted on a blog like this but such a service has yet to emerge (Tumblr is like that but in reverse which is useless to me). My knowledge has grown greatly since I last wrote here, moving closer to difficult truths is both a blessing and a curse for obvious reasons. It's scary how fucked up America is right now especially my generation. But my knowledge also makes me feel sort of in control of my destiny in a way my piers don't have. They are essentially oblivious to the mess they/we are walking into (America today). I can see ahead. I'm prepared for the worst. I'm exsploring different avenues, escape plans, etc. Talking to an immigration lawyer friend about how difficult it would be for me to move to Australia or Canada and the like.
I'll use this re-engagement post, to record some impressions I have looking over this blog (and my writing and thus my thoughts at that time compared to my thoughts today).
1. I'm both less "patriotic" and more patriotic. I'm much less of a "war on terror", Sean Hannity-esque, American flag-waver (which I regard as naive, plastic "patriotism" which doesn't help the nation) but more of what i consider a true "patriot". I no longer identify so much strictly with "America" (1 nation seperate from europe, etc.). I identify with "the west" (i.e. the european/anglosphere/white world). Plastic "patriotism" of which I once induldged is about grilling Obama supporters on his adminstration's refusal to use the term "war on terror" and to be obbessed with supporting Israel (as if it were are 51st state). But such a shallow mindset is fading among right wingers of late. I lost that "patriotism" what seems like years ago. Not to mention my hardcore neo-con days in high school. I lost that ideology way long ago and the mammoth paper I wrote for my english class, "Defending Goliath" a 40 page neocon foreign policy agenda that argued for invading Iran and other such things would probably embarrses me if I read it today (though my views on Iran aren't so different today actually). I am not alone in this metamorphisis of which I write. That false ideology that saw America as a great nation destine to slay foreign dragons abroad in perupuity was of those false prosperous days before the housing crash. With that bubble's popping so popped many delusions of the 9/11-Bush decade. Saving the european charchter of the western nations (USA, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Europe) is my patriotism. And for whats its worth I see many on the right especially those younger people moving towards my current ideas. The Ron Paul-ites would say that the move is from neocon's like Mark Levin and Micheal Medved to Ron Paul style conservativismm (non-intervention, end the fed, etc.). This is true to an extent but Ron Paul is not the be all end all at all. He ignores issues Americans are yearning to act on (immigration, and other connected issues of demography, affirmative action, etc.). The move is really from the Bush's and Mark Levin's and even Limbaugh's toward Pat Buchanan style conservatism (Steve Sailer, John Derbyshire, RadioDerb, Vdare, Alt-Right, Amren, Jared Taylor, Youth for Western Civilization, the Political Cesspool, James Edwards, Richard Spencer, Paul Gottfried, Occidental Observer and Kevin Macdonald, HBD chick, Peter Brimelow, Marcus Epstein, the HL Mencken, National Policy Instuite, Center for Immigration Studies, with a dash of Mark Steyn). I assume the mass of politically engaged, internet savy peeps on the right haven't arrived at the above for mentioned end point yet but are curbing in that direction at the moment. The question is can and/or will they be able to find these sites and these videos and these articles and these guys? If and when they do, they like me, will settle down having found the people that speak for them after a long time of thinking people like them had thoughts few others had. That is probably a bigger "if" than I'd like to admit but even so it's just in the air. The zeitgeist (on the right but also just among whites in general who aren't already committed leftists) there is a move in this direction. People who don't even read Buchanan columns are making the same points he's making on their own.
2. I never right about "the terrorists threat" these days like I used to.
3. I dislike and distrust the "GOP" (i.e. the machinery of the GOP, the establishment, etc.) much more than I used to.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Grambling State
I finally figured out how to best exsplain why I would never join the army unless forced to choose between Iraq or Illinois State Penitentary.
Joining the army circa 2010 is like going to Grambling State University.
Joining the army circa 2010 is like going to Grambling State University.
Daniel Returns
Deja Vu.
That's what I'm thinking right now as I type this. Why? Because when I began this blog I began by mentioning at the outset that I had a habit of starting a blog going full on with it for a month or two, writing lots of posts that tended to turn out 4 times larger than what I set out to write and then quickly "burning out" and falling off till I forget the blogs existence entirely and return to the place of instant reaction, facebook. Well thats exactly how it went down this time aswell but, miracously, I return! Back with more knowledge that might start at fight thanksgiving. I ain't giving up on "America Departed" that easily. The sight of the header alone convinced me. I was exspecting to be embarrsed by this blog (as I usually am by my old writing, of any sort). But with this I looked at the header: "AMERICA DEPARTED: Chronicles of America at the Tipping Point, A Day by Day Record of the Obama Years" I said to myself, "that actually sounds like a blog I would want to read" which is a good sign.
I'd like to say after reading much of this blog for the first time in a long time that while I often wrote posts 4 times longer than what I set out to write that's not because it took me longer to say what I intialed sat down to write a post about but because the damn freedom of no word limits allowed me to exsplore and exspand my intial point to larger points). I'm used to using my Facebook status as my de facto blog and thus used to being cut off around 4 sentences worth of words. So what began as making a 3-4 sentence point about Haiti would turn into a mammoth 7 paragraph essay on Haiti. If my tone sounds regretful it's not because I consider those long distance efforts verbose (thats a problem for me all the time), rather they were some of my best posts on this blog, the problem is the exspareted feeling of writing a long piece, taking the time to edit it and make it good (out of sheer instict) and then finishing tired and realizing 1. that you did this work for no pay (which actually doesn't bother me much at all since what young person exspects money for there opinions when you grew up on facebook?) but worse 2. no one probably, ever, going to read your efforts-a very depressing thought. "Whats all the effort for?" Well I like writing. I have these opinions and what can one do with orginal ideas about the world? I feel I have to unload them. Discard them in a way. Put them in the archive for later reference. So that if I am thinking a lot about Haiti in July and about the loss of open spaces in autumn I can get a digital record of my thoughts on those issues down for posterity and sort of free myself from thinking (deeply) again about those subjects, atleast in the near term, and can move on to the next fascination (peak oil, at the moment) without the pent up baggage of previous thoughts that I think are worth sharing (or, usually, think are better than what the pro-pundits are saying) which I still have rattling around my head. This is why re-reading my old posts today was so fun. I couldn't remember any of them. It seemed like I wrote them 2-3 years ago thinking about how much I've learned in the time inbetween now and then. Anyways, to meander back to what I was talking about for an unknown upstart of 20 to start a mere blogger blog is such an up hill climb with no roadmap it's seems impossible. Sure, it can work 1. if your a Mickey Kaus or Steve Sailer who began in print media and in turn has a large pool fans to drawl upon when you launch a blog or 2. if you got in on the blogging revoultion on the ground floor ala Ezra Klein and Matthew Ygelsias and were thus easily and happily co-opted into cushy positions in the mainstream press online and/or print out of the Wadhington Post or whatever dinasaur media entities desire to get in on this whole blogging thing. How do you build up a blog that isn't a "Stuff White People Like" blog. What are you susposed to wait for a stray visitor searching through Blogger's 80 million unkown blogs and then hope he tells his friends? Or are you supposed to hope your friends who are nice enough to read your blog more than once email a link to it to there email-list. Well, my generation is post-email really so we don't even have email lists (if we do its all our siblings and parents emails probably). Are you depressed as hell already? Well, I wouldn't bring you this far down if I couldn't bring you back up. Because despite all the rational discouragement I just dished out to the aspiring young pundits of the world I have decided that all that rational pessmism doesn't matter at all. I have very little exsoectation of this blog being anything more than a diary. Sure your secret admirers and occasionally nice family memembers may every once and a awhile take a look out of curiosity but outside such far-and-between visits no one's going to read this (atleast in the near term) except for your humble servant. And I'm fine with that. So this is really just a record, a notebook, an archive of thoughts that were too long for a Facebook status. I like starting out with the slate clean as far as blogging again after a long absence but I've already done that 3 or 4 times and "America Departed" is such a damn good name that I think I should just come back here and start anew like Deja Vu. Boo!
So, yes, this is basically my diary/notebook. But, I warn you, you won't find any crushes or nightmares or gossip here. What you will find is terryfingly powerful knowledge the kind of knowledge that is compells the rigetous to action and compels scoundrels to slander and careerists to evasion. I'm giving you something here and your either going to slap back at it, walk away or join the cause. Your world is falling apart. The world you grew up in is in decay. Your intrest in your society is not selfless but competly self-intrested. Politics is not something that would get my attention had I been born in 1941 or 1912. The specter of the Soviet Union doesn't seem like something that drive me at all to write. The specter, however, of dispossesion of yourself, your family, friends, tribe, is a matter, for better or worse, which I must care about. This is my life. I have grown up with diveristy. I have spent a great deal of time in black neighborhoods and white ones (were I live) and I have concluded I much prefer to live within white "culture", "white world". You can call it "boring". Cool, hope you like living in Port-a-Prince. I myself am more of Paris-London-Berlin guy. Enjoy your shack. So I would prefer to live in a majority european America. NO hate in involved here. I come in peace. I don't want to hurt anybody from Haiti or Mexico I just don't want you to be able to sneak into my country, bring your 300 relatives each, and then make me submit to being ruled by Jesse Jackson Jr.. I prefer the alternative. Less Al Sharpton. Less L.A. Riots (diversity in action). Less LA RAZA. Less racial tension. Less discussion of race. Less conflict. I want community in the truest sense of that word, people getting along with each other, sharing a common culture, common language, common morals (e.g. monogamous marriage, etc.), and so on. Think London during the war. Does that make me a bad guy? A threat to you or anyone else? Whom? Why? You want to make a better world. You wanna cure AIDS or whatever. And I don't fuck with you for your worldview? I don't want any concerntration camps. I don't want blacks to have to walk on the side of the road or drink different water fountains. I don't want slavery back. No, I want to live my life in a society that values what European culture has valued and extolled for millena. I want a society with monogamous marriage where men who work hard and do good don't have to worry about finding wives because all the women have been shamed into not having kids and working like men. I want a society were its thought leaders understand the eternal truths of society. I don't want the Bishop of Cantebury endorcing lesbian priests, Sharia law, and feminism. I want leaders in my society who understand the difficult and inturn important truths of life, that men and women are different and have fundmrntally roles in a healthy society, who understand that family is the absolute buidling block of society without which a society crumbles into hellish decadence. I want to be able to focus as a society on us european's moral collapse. We must correct our tragic fall into moral anarchy and guess what? Not because I read it in the bible but because it's the best for our happiness as indivuals aswell. I don't want to have to deal with immigration. I don't want us to always have to talk about the racial strife, the muslim riots in Paris, the LA RAZA rallies on May Day. I hope you get the picture of the society I want. If you think the moral health of our society is A-OK and marriage is an obosolete instuition then go be a bachelor and/or bachelerotte the rest of your life, enjoy Thanksgiving at 65 by yourself. I myself think fuliment and family go together. I think hip hop is a descipcable music and culture. But if you wanna listen to 50 Cent when your 55 be a old fool. Our culture may be made for 21 year olds but I have bad news bro: your only 21 once, there of other years in life when hip hop and decadent chaos may not fufill you any longer. I could desrcibe much worse, rest assured. And to return the senstive but nessacairy subject of race: sure you have your store bough platitudes about co-existence and tolerance. Well, good. I'm not telling any one to shoot anyone cause there any color. Co-Existence, fine. I only ask you to look to the most diverse places on earth and tell me what you see: violence, strife, division, social atomization, secession, civil war, geonocide. And then I ask you only: do you want more diversity now or less? But hey Mr. white guy who pretends to not care a wit about race: how are you going to feel when you click on the telly for the state of the union and Jesse Jackson Jr. is giving it and the speaker of the house is Luis GUitterez? "I wouldn't mind at all. why would I?" Ofcourse, thats what you say. Nothing phases you with your PC poker face on. But tell me, Mr. Fashionable Yuppie, when you come home, take off the walking GAP catalogue, watch your Jon Stewart, and un-strap your PC Muffler what do you think then Mr. Fashionable Yuppie? Do you still "not care at all" about being a minority in a country you, deep down always thought of as a, gasp, "white country"? dare I say, even, thought of it as "your country?"
Are you scared that if you admit this that you will be on the road to Holacaust Denial? I assure your not. I myself am a jew and a scot. No, you are not, despite what years of insidious media and enternaiment brainwashing, becoming a right wing racist extremist Timothy McVeigh running around a winter forest in military gear preparing for the second coming of Christ. No, what your doing when you accept things like that your tribe, or that, as a human subject to evoultion, you naturally feel more comfortable around people of your own race you are not discovering that slavery was good or that there was no Holacaust, no, your accepting your natural human preferences and nature as a human primate which is true to every group of people on this earth. And accepting this as naturally is not to justify bigotry, it doesn't mean that it's OK to enslave black people. No, like most anything, too much tribalism can be a very bad thing. But tribalism when moderated at its natural level were one treats peoples of other races equally, but doesn't hate oneself for prefering the company, on average, of people like you is not an evil thing. It's something blacks and all other races are already to say whenever they want. I am not asking you to embrace Hitler or David Duke or the KKK. That stuff holds no intrest for me. I'm not into "all-white" this or that. I just want people of European ancestory to de-brainwash themselves. To rinse the white guilt and ethnocentric-masochism out of there minds that public schools, movies and TV shows with subtle (very subtle) but consitent anti-white themes/sterotypes have ingrained deep in our pysches not through persuading us to distrust ourselves and see the worst in our tribe/race/group/whatever. They instilled in us ("they" does not mean jews) by making the whitest, blondest, blue eyed actors the greedy, evil villian in the movies we saw everytime and making non-whites in films always kind, calm, smart, and sometimes even godly (e.g. Morgan Freeman in that Jim Carrey movie, Forest Whitker in "Ghost Dog") by never showing, say, black children in groups acting the rambacious way black children in groups often behave in real life. All the things in real life which breeds not hatred but fear and/or hostility towards to blacks (among all groups) in real life exsperiences like getting mugged or whatever by a black thug/bum or whatever that sttuff was long ago exiled from the silver screen, realism replaced with the new goal of dispelling "racist" sterotypes about minorities. Sterotypes ofcourse are often based on a germ of truth or, often, just plain facts (see crime stats for black on white crime, etc.). So Hollywood after the 70's decided to dispell these "racist" false sterotypes of blacks by creating actually fake sterotypes of another group but a group which society is allowed to slander and pick on and sterotype contrary to facts: white people. So next week "Law & Order" has a episode on Johnny Jihad a blonde haired blue eyed jihadist who blows up an airplane. Ever heard of that happening?
I'm tired, bye. I'm back.
That's what I'm thinking right now as I type this. Why? Because when I began this blog I began by mentioning at the outset that I had a habit of starting a blog going full on with it for a month or two, writing lots of posts that tended to turn out 4 times larger than what I set out to write and then quickly "burning out" and falling off till I forget the blogs existence entirely and return to the place of instant reaction, facebook. Well thats exactly how it went down this time aswell but, miracously, I return! Back with more knowledge that might start at fight thanksgiving. I ain't giving up on "America Departed" that easily. The sight of the header alone convinced me. I was exspecting to be embarrsed by this blog (as I usually am by my old writing, of any sort). But with this I looked at the header: "AMERICA DEPARTED: Chronicles of America at the Tipping Point, A Day by Day Record of the Obama Years" I said to myself, "that actually sounds like a blog I would want to read" which is a good sign.
I'd like to say after reading much of this blog for the first time in a long time that while I often wrote posts 4 times longer than what I set out to write that's not because it took me longer to say what I intialed sat down to write a post about but because the damn freedom of no word limits allowed me to exsplore and exspand my intial point to larger points). I'm used to using my Facebook status as my de facto blog and thus used to being cut off around 4 sentences worth of words. So what began as making a 3-4 sentence point about Haiti would turn into a mammoth 7 paragraph essay on Haiti. If my tone sounds regretful it's not because I consider those long distance efforts verbose (thats a problem for me all the time), rather they were some of my best posts on this blog, the problem is the exspareted feeling of writing a long piece, taking the time to edit it and make it good (out of sheer instict) and then finishing tired and realizing 1. that you did this work for no pay (which actually doesn't bother me much at all since what young person exspects money for there opinions when you grew up on facebook?) but worse 2. no one probably, ever, going to read your efforts-a very depressing thought. "Whats all the effort for?" Well I like writing. I have these opinions and what can one do with orginal ideas about the world? I feel I have to unload them. Discard them in a way. Put them in the archive for later reference. So that if I am thinking a lot about Haiti in July and about the loss of open spaces in autumn I can get a digital record of my thoughts on those issues down for posterity and sort of free myself from thinking (deeply) again about those subjects, atleast in the near term, and can move on to the next fascination (peak oil, at the moment) without the pent up baggage of previous thoughts that I think are worth sharing (or, usually, think are better than what the pro-pundits are saying) which I still have rattling around my head. This is why re-reading my old posts today was so fun. I couldn't remember any of them. It seemed like I wrote them 2-3 years ago thinking about how much I've learned in the time inbetween now and then. Anyways, to meander back to what I was talking about for an unknown upstart of 20 to start a mere blogger blog is such an up hill climb with no roadmap it's seems impossible. Sure, it can work 1. if your a Mickey Kaus or Steve Sailer who began in print media and in turn has a large pool fans to drawl upon when you launch a blog or 2. if you got in on the blogging revoultion on the ground floor ala Ezra Klein and Matthew Ygelsias and were thus easily and happily co-opted into cushy positions in the mainstream press online and/or print out of the Wadhington Post or whatever dinasaur media entities desire to get in on this whole blogging thing. How do you build up a blog that isn't a "Stuff White People Like" blog. What are you susposed to wait for a stray visitor searching through Blogger's 80 million unkown blogs and then hope he tells his friends? Or are you supposed to hope your friends who are nice enough to read your blog more than once email a link to it to there email-list. Well, my generation is post-email really so we don't even have email lists (if we do its all our siblings and parents emails probably). Are you depressed as hell already? Well, I wouldn't bring you this far down if I couldn't bring you back up. Because despite all the rational discouragement I just dished out to the aspiring young pundits of the world I have decided that all that rational pessmism doesn't matter at all. I have very little exsoectation of this blog being anything more than a diary. Sure your secret admirers and occasionally nice family memembers may every once and a awhile take a look out of curiosity but outside such far-and-between visits no one's going to read this (atleast in the near term) except for your humble servant. And I'm fine with that. So this is really just a record, a notebook, an archive of thoughts that were too long for a Facebook status. I like starting out with the slate clean as far as blogging again after a long absence but I've already done that 3 or 4 times and "America Departed" is such a damn good name that I think I should just come back here and start anew like Deja Vu. Boo!
So, yes, this is basically my diary/notebook. But, I warn you, you won't find any crushes or nightmares or gossip here. What you will find is terryfingly powerful knowledge the kind of knowledge that is compells the rigetous to action and compels scoundrels to slander and careerists to evasion. I'm giving you something here and your either going to slap back at it, walk away or join the cause. Your world is falling apart. The world you grew up in is in decay. Your intrest in your society is not selfless but competly self-intrested. Politics is not something that would get my attention had I been born in 1941 or 1912. The specter of the Soviet Union doesn't seem like something that drive me at all to write. The specter, however, of dispossesion of yourself, your family, friends, tribe, is a matter, for better or worse, which I must care about. This is my life. I have grown up with diveristy. I have spent a great deal of time in black neighborhoods and white ones (were I live) and I have concluded I much prefer to live within white "culture", "white world". You can call it "boring". Cool, hope you like living in Port-a-Prince. I myself am more of Paris-London-Berlin guy. Enjoy your shack. So I would prefer to live in a majority european America. NO hate in involved here. I come in peace. I don't want to hurt anybody from Haiti or Mexico I just don't want you to be able to sneak into my country, bring your 300 relatives each, and then make me submit to being ruled by Jesse Jackson Jr.. I prefer the alternative. Less Al Sharpton. Less L.A. Riots (diversity in action). Less LA RAZA. Less racial tension. Less discussion of race. Less conflict. I want community in the truest sense of that word, people getting along with each other, sharing a common culture, common language, common morals (e.g. monogamous marriage, etc.), and so on. Think London during the war. Does that make me a bad guy? A threat to you or anyone else? Whom? Why? You want to make a better world. You wanna cure AIDS or whatever. And I don't fuck with you for your worldview? I don't want any concerntration camps. I don't want blacks to have to walk on the side of the road or drink different water fountains. I don't want slavery back. No, I want to live my life in a society that values what European culture has valued and extolled for millena. I want a society with monogamous marriage where men who work hard and do good don't have to worry about finding wives because all the women have been shamed into not having kids and working like men. I want a society were its thought leaders understand the eternal truths of society. I don't want the Bishop of Cantebury endorcing lesbian priests, Sharia law, and feminism. I want leaders in my society who understand the difficult and inturn important truths of life, that men and women are different and have fundmrntally roles in a healthy society, who understand that family is the absolute buidling block of society without which a society crumbles into hellish decadence. I want to be able to focus as a society on us european's moral collapse. We must correct our tragic fall into moral anarchy and guess what? Not because I read it in the bible but because it's the best for our happiness as indivuals aswell. I don't want to have to deal with immigration. I don't want us to always have to talk about the racial strife, the muslim riots in Paris, the LA RAZA rallies on May Day. I hope you get the picture of the society I want. If you think the moral health of our society is A-OK and marriage is an obosolete instuition then go be a bachelor and/or bachelerotte the rest of your life, enjoy Thanksgiving at 65 by yourself. I myself think fuliment and family go together. I think hip hop is a descipcable music and culture. But if you wanna listen to 50 Cent when your 55 be a old fool. Our culture may be made for 21 year olds but I have bad news bro: your only 21 once, there of other years in life when hip hop and decadent chaos may not fufill you any longer. I could desrcibe much worse, rest assured. And to return the senstive but nessacairy subject of race: sure you have your store bough platitudes about co-existence and tolerance. Well, good. I'm not telling any one to shoot anyone cause there any color. Co-Existence, fine. I only ask you to look to the most diverse places on earth and tell me what you see: violence, strife, division, social atomization, secession, civil war, geonocide. And then I ask you only: do you want more diversity now or less? But hey Mr. white guy who pretends to not care a wit about race: how are you going to feel when you click on the telly for the state of the union and Jesse Jackson Jr. is giving it and the speaker of the house is Luis GUitterez? "I wouldn't mind at all. why would I?" Ofcourse, thats what you say. Nothing phases you with your PC poker face on. But tell me, Mr. Fashionable Yuppie, when you come home, take off the walking GAP catalogue, watch your Jon Stewart, and un-strap your PC Muffler what do you think then Mr. Fashionable Yuppie? Do you still "not care at all" about being a minority in a country you, deep down always thought of as a, gasp, "white country"? dare I say, even, thought of it as "your country?"
Are you scared that if you admit this that you will be on the road to Holacaust Denial? I assure your not. I myself am a jew and a scot. No, you are not, despite what years of insidious media and enternaiment brainwashing, becoming a right wing racist extremist Timothy McVeigh running around a winter forest in military gear preparing for the second coming of Christ. No, what your doing when you accept things like that your tribe, or that, as a human subject to evoultion, you naturally feel more comfortable around people of your own race you are not discovering that slavery was good or that there was no Holacaust, no, your accepting your natural human preferences and nature as a human primate which is true to every group of people on this earth. And accepting this as naturally is not to justify bigotry, it doesn't mean that it's OK to enslave black people. No, like most anything, too much tribalism can be a very bad thing. But tribalism when moderated at its natural level were one treats peoples of other races equally, but doesn't hate oneself for prefering the company, on average, of people like you is not an evil thing. It's something blacks and all other races are already to say whenever they want. I am not asking you to embrace Hitler or David Duke or the KKK. That stuff holds no intrest for me. I'm not into "all-white" this or that. I just want people of European ancestory to de-brainwash themselves. To rinse the white guilt and ethnocentric-masochism out of there minds that public schools, movies and TV shows with subtle (very subtle) but consitent anti-white themes/sterotypes have ingrained deep in our pysches not through persuading us to distrust ourselves and see the worst in our tribe/race/group/whatever. They instilled in us ("they" does not mean jews) by making the whitest, blondest, blue eyed actors the greedy, evil villian in the movies we saw everytime and making non-whites in films always kind, calm, smart, and sometimes even godly (e.g. Morgan Freeman in that Jim Carrey movie, Forest Whitker in "Ghost Dog") by never showing, say, black children in groups acting the rambacious way black children in groups often behave in real life. All the things in real life which breeds not hatred but fear and/or hostility towards to blacks (among all groups) in real life exsperiences like getting mugged or whatever by a black thug/bum or whatever that sttuff was long ago exiled from the silver screen, realism replaced with the new goal of dispelling "racist" sterotypes about minorities. Sterotypes ofcourse are often based on a germ of truth or, often, just plain facts (see crime stats for black on white crime, etc.). So Hollywood after the 70's decided to dispell these "racist" false sterotypes of blacks by creating actually fake sterotypes of another group but a group which society is allowed to slander and pick on and sterotype contrary to facts: white people. So next week "Law & Order" has a episode on Johnny Jihad a blonde haired blue eyed jihadist who blows up an airplane. Ever heard of that happening?
I'm tired, bye. I'm back.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
The future we know is coming but ignore
Millions of westerners today claim that we know 1. how hot it will be in a century, how much climates will change and how much of that change will be natural and how much will be caused by man. They claim that there is no debate about these questions (even though they are almost impossible to answer) and claim that all the exsperts agree (also untrue). However in another hugely important era of demographics unlike climatolgy we can actually predict what the future will look like. We know that Russia will be majority muslim in 2050 and that France and the Netherlands will also go majority muslims in this century also. Furthermore, we know that our own nation, America, will no longer have a white/European majority in around 2050.
All those who don't care abobut truth and merely want to be PC should stop reading now. The truth is that we have a grim future ahead of us to avoid that unlike the climate scare is completly real and obvious. Their are no nations on earth with muslim majjorities which are also free. So if France becoming muslim is not good. We will slowly lose our European allies as they become muslim.
And why shouldn't we avoid a latino majority coming about in America also since latinos commit more crime, do worse at school, are more racist than, etctera ectera compared to whites? (and a latino-black majority would impose socialism aswell.)
so instead of reducing immigration we kill our economny with useless carbon taxes. decline, oh sweet decline.
All those who don't care abobut truth and merely want to be PC should stop reading now. The truth is that we have a grim future ahead of us to avoid that unlike the climate scare is completly real and obvious. Their are no nations on earth with muslim majjorities which are also free. So if France becoming muslim is not good. We will slowly lose our European allies as they become muslim.
And why shouldn't we avoid a latino majority coming about in America also since latinos commit more crime, do worse at school, are more racist than, etctera ectera compared to whites? (and a latino-black majority would impose socialism aswell.)
so instead of reducing immigration we kill our economny with useless carbon taxes. decline, oh sweet decline.
Muslims and I
I like muslims and I think that they like me more than the average Bill Ayers. A war between muslims & westeners is not inveitable.It didn't really exist until the 60's with the rise of hedonstic liberal culture, sexual anarchy, radical feminism that, reasonably, threatned many muslims who didn't want their daughters dressing like Paris Hilton & their wives cheating on them. They saw how liberals tried to purge the west of our identity, traditions & values & they feared the influx of 60's culture doing the same to their societies. Liberals don't realize that muslims hate them the most. & still liberals try to show what friends of Islam they are by saying things like that Dutch legislator (who said he would be ok with sharia law in Rotterdam who said, we need to be nice to Muslims now so that they treat us now so that muslims will be nice to us when their the majority in Europe.
Is it racist?
Is it racist to not embrace full on the demographic transformation of your society, a transformation, furthermore, that will make your group go from a majority to an minority in a few decades and be divested of substanial political say (e.g. to be divested)? According to a huge amount of liberals the answer is yes but only if your white and you don't love going from a majority to a minority in your beloved England, France or America. However, liberals conclude, if your a black South African who doesn't want to become a minority thats just fine. Isn't racism treating people different on racial grounds?
Thursday, February 11, 2010
If
If a terrorist attack occurs under Obama and the culprit trained along side the Nigerian bomber in Yemen and if the Nigerian knew them and knew of their plan, i hope those who fought to give the Nigerian terrorist lawyers, and mirnada right and to not allow him to even be touched (let alone waterboarded) & allowed us to only ask him nicely for info, i hope they know they will be responcible for the death of those people b/c they felt that saving the lives of innocents was less important than not touching a Nigerian terrorist.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
The Return of "The White Man's Burden"?
Are we a nation or a charity?
How many millions in free health care for Hitians (esp. those brought to south Florida hospitals has the American tax payer ponied up w/o even being asked? Half of America is on acid, they don't realize we are the world debtors nation & want us to give Afruca a 100 billion for "climate change" last month & now want us to become hopeless Haiti's baby sister, China doesn't act like this they aren't occupying 3 nations & spending billions on foreigners nor throwing away their economy w/ Cap & Trade nonsense, they arent paying a billion to give KSM a 5 year trial for a crime he already confessed to. I feel that a imposter has gotten ahold of our treasury (not to mention our justice department and all the rest).
China, detestable as the regime is in certain respects (it is just like a mob family), operates in all the good ways that American Presidents and diplomats sued to until the yuppies came along (hitting a zenith with Obama).
-When Africa tries to so obviously use "climate change" alarmism as a mere means of blackmailing money and aid out of the guilty white west, and Ethipoian delegates say that their willing to settle for a 100 billion up front in increasing payments for the next 50 years (from America primarily) for the purpose of helping Africa "cope with climate change" whatever that means, American diplomats just 20 years ago would've laughed the African global welfare hucksters out of the room. "'I will settle for a 100 billion up front' Who the fuck do these African primitivest ake us for Zulu's?'" George Kennan and Oliver North would joke had they been in power now. Ofcourse neither nor patriots like North and Kennan are anywhere close to the Obama adminstration and George Kennan and other statesmen unafraid of saying "America First" are long gone, replaced by namby pampy liberals with degrees in Multicultural Studies and Oppression Studies from Weslyan and Brown, literal, pussies who bow down to African dicators to quell their third world hard ons. They where only too happy to shovel the American tax payers money into the money bags of the Robert Mugabe's and General Gaddafi's of Africa. The whole continent is terminally corrupted and it's a waste of time to even try to help these goverments (outside preventing epdimics), the whole contient is cursed with misgoverment or so it has been since the end of colonial rule on the contient. I now see where the Al Sharpton's and Jesse Jackson's we Americans nknow and hate so well got their roots for these Africans are even better hucksters and shakedown artists and ehortationists than they are. The African delegates at the sinister Coopnhegan Climate Summit just started to collectivly shourt, repeating some African tribal phrase or whatnot again and again like barabarians at the gates. Their refrain probably translates roughly to, "DON'T FORGOT ABOUT AFRICA! DON'T FORGET ABOUT AFRICA!". The African poliical huckster has usually been educated in Europe for a little and knows how to push all the liberals buttons to make them reach for their nations collective wallots. They guilt weak chinned European liberals (and now American weak chinned liberals too!!) by saying that "you, in the west, have forgotten us and neglected us". Aren't tehy embarrsed to talk to their colonial owners-France England, Belgium, etc,-like they are, literrally, the children of the white europeans that white europeans all once thought if them as-children (as far as civilization was concerned). The great benefactors and enthusaists of Gilded Age imperialism-Teddy Roosevelt, Cecil Rhodes, the BOer leader Peter Krueger, etc. all shared atleast one general belief in common which was that Africans (among other "Mongogreloid" races) simply weren't equipt to govern themselves without descending into their natural state of anarchy, chaos and barabarism. But now it almosy seems as if this sadly determivistic view of Africa (which would obviously apply to African extracts like Haiti and Jamaica too) is some-what true. Haiti would be better off had Canada been running the nation for 50 years,and most all of Africa would be dramaticly worse off had European colonalism never come to what was a savage jungle and brought with them civilization (trains planes, automoblies, mickey mouse, offefe, magazines, the printed word, shoes, and all the 800 thousand things that certainly weren't invinted in Africa.
I mean what do the Haitians look like right now? they look like the black New Orlenians, like children screaming for help from their parents, who can make all their troubles go away and give them aide and shelter and food again and again and again forever. Yet it does no good. Its not our fault that Africans, in general, around the world, elect hucksters and con-artists to reprsent themselves in goverment posts. Just imagine a contient so full of corruption that the slimy, racist, anti-white, black Power, would-be-warlord, South African President, Jacob Zuma (read Peter Hitchens profile of Zuma in the American Conservative). Barring the discovery of some phenominally fought over rescource on the African contient, it seems to me that Africa will, no matter how you may or may not like it, be the poorest contient on earth. We have to come to terms with the facts of the matter. Their is no "Blank Slate" Steven Pinker showed that years ago. Africa doesn't have to be such a hell hole. It can be better than it is but it will never in my estmiation. Same goes with the black-white education/achievment gap which just won't go away no matter how much money the left pours into the task, how maany tests they make easier to leseen the test score gap and all the other outragous liberal schemes to thrawt honest hard working whites because their white.
It seems we haven't escaped the era of the "White Man's Burden", have we now? Just look out the national window to Haiti where platoons of American white do-gooders race into the nation. We saw the same mobilization in New Orleans after Katrina, Iran after their earthquake and after the Tsumani in the mid-2000's that wracked so much hof poly-Asia. This is a product of being too wealthy for too long perhaps. Americans (and I mean white Americans by "Americans") have 1. grown to take their/our huge post-WW2 wealth for granted almost as a constant that will continue as it has automaticly forever and 2. They have devolped a masochist, anti-white, self-hating, third world fetishizing pathology that makes them disdain even the suggestion of acting on grounds of national intrests.
Witness the terribly inept American anti-war movement that was led by the left (to the movement eventual downfalll). These self hating old hippy leftists that took the reigns of the anti-war movement (enter George Galloway) where so fucked up with their own "White Man's Burdens" issues that they couldn't even manage to argue against the war(s) in Iraq and Afganistan on grounds of national intrest (seemingly ever). In shunning self intrest & national intrest (as the idiot internationalists these liberal types are) they discarded the best arguments(s) against the Iraq (and Afgan) war(s) a crucial error which posssibly lead to the failure of what could've been a succeful movement had patriots from the Buchanan wing of the GOP lead the anti-war movement instead. But rather than argue that "I troops are heroes and thats just the point, its not worth shedding our best and brightestst, our blood and treasure in conflicts that have little to do with our national security at all. If we want to stop the next 9/11 we must secure our borders and ports and airports and fix our broken Immigration Units. Doing that would not only be a 1000 times cheaper and more effective in protecting us than a war in Iraq it would save us billions in other areas. And then again, why are we having our boys fighting and die and loose limbs and why are we spending billions we don't have on wars for people who , atelast in Iraq, hate us. !9 year old American young men should not be arriving home with out their legs just to help build a nation of people who spit upon his effort and our nation and all that we've done for the Iraqi's. We deposed of their dictator, spent trillions rebuilding their society setting gup the first arab democracy in the region. I think we've give more than enough of our blood and treasure on Iraq, this was a war of charity, we owe them nothing, if anything, the Iraqi's owe us!"
But instead of making fiery, logical, populist, patriotic arguments of national intrest in favor of withdrawl from Iraq the potheads at MoveOn.org, the Cindy Sheehans and Code Pink's and the rest of their ilk made anti-American arguments against the war that accused our President of deceit, conspiracy to make his friends rich, war crimes, they painted and someimes even called our soldiers murderers making them out to be sadistic cowboys running around Bagdad killing little brown people for fun. They threw red/pink paint on veterans and generals on the hill to symbolize "the blood on thir hands". They accused Donalds Rumsfield and the whole goverment of war crimes and rambled about half baked leftist conspiracy theories about Haliburton, the Caryllyle Group, Exxon Mobile, putting Bush and Cheney in office to bring the nation to war and increase their profits. Micheal Moore's shameful documentary film, "Farhenheit 9/11" asserted that the CIA had trained and created Osama Bin Laden, training Bin Laden at exactly the tactics he would use against America on September 11th, 2001. In truth, the CIA had a tenous indirect relationship with Osama and Osama got most of his funding from his brother Salem and his uber-wealthly Saudi cla though he did fight alongside the Mujohaiden who the US did fund to fight the Soviet invaders inAfganistan. Also, the CIA never trained Bin Laden least of all would they have treained him or any other Afgan freedom fighter how to ram airliners into sky scrapers considering their were not such sky scrapers to ram 747's into in Kabul at the time (or today probably too). This isn't the only such blatantly fallacious claim made by Moore and inturn made by his army of folowers in the course of the entire decade of the aughts. The most outragous perhaps is the claim that we went to war in Afganistan to build a pipeline which funnily enough has never been built still as of 2010.
Again, rather than saying "Bush went o war in Afganistan to build a pipeline" point out that we ran off to war in Afganistan with no long term gameplan or any conception of what the endgame was there. We were pissed off after 9/11 and ran off too war in a mindless rage not thinking off the long term at all. It would have been approbarite to go in and atleast shock and awe the Taliban into learning a lesson about who not to host (e.g. Al Quada). Thats what we should have done and then left within a year or two. rather than getting bogged down in a pointless occupation. We should've realized that we couldn't stay there forever and make sure Al-Quada didn't come back. We didn't have the money nor the will to do so. And the war was futile in that all that we did really was focre a nomadic inclined people to move into either Pakistan or someother Islamic country like Yemen where Al-Quada set up shop. We have to realize that Al-Quada is not a nation but a franchise that is scattered and has bases in Yemen, Jakarta, East Timor, Nigeria, Syria, and many more places (including probably the US) where we can war at all at once. We can't occupy Yemen and Nigeria and Syria and Afganistan and Pakistan all at once. But we can secure our borders and ports, and tighten the screenin process for deciding which muslims are allowe dto entire the United States and we can do all that for much cheaper".
This is basically, as I said before, the Buchananite Old Right paleocon arguments against the war and the American people would've had no trouble embarcing them. Because just like Pat Buchanan himself, we who opposed the wars on the right we're known to be patriots. With Buchanan you didn't have to wonder if he was using the anti-war movement as a front for his anti-americanism or anti-capttilist crusade. Americans didnt want to embrace anti-american demogauges and other forms of hucksters that made up so much of the anti-war movement like Jesse Jackson, George Galloway or Tim Robins.
How can you help the dear leader today?
Theres something creepy and servile and principally un-American about the fact that their is a book sold at every Barnes & Nobles & Borders entitled, "50 ways you can help Obama". They also have a gizzalion Obama personality cult merchandice (the little blue book of "the Ones" masterful qoutes like: "There is no red state America or blue state America, there is only the United States of America!"). This is something you find in North Korea, little kids being tested on what they can do for the dear leader.
Working for the worthless
The hardest working/most creative & intelligent people in America, people who have given us millions of jobs & great products like the Ipod & Starbucks-their income gets taxed upwards of 40-70%. You mightn't care if someones taxes are raised from 20 to 45% (so that Obama can send checks to ppl who pay no taxes) but that means that those people will work half the week for the Goverment & do they get the 200,000 they give in taxes back in gov. services? No, not even close.
"A History of Green Lights Gone Bad"...
...perhaps that would work as the title of the documentrary that Roger Ebert suggested in 1996 which would consist of segments devoted to chronicling indivual cases of mind bogglingly bad desicions on the part of film studios. This would means that you would take maybe 5-7 terrible movies with the worst/dumbest plots and try to answer for each movie in the course of maybe 15-30 mineutes segments, the question: how did this move get the green light?
So you would contact all the people known to have participated in the green lighting/finacing process for these films-executive producers, etc.-and interview them and then interview actors maybe too, etc.
Heres a good example of the kind of movie I'm speaking of: "Joe's Apartment" inwhich a guy finds he can talk to coackroaches, he becomes friends with his coackroaches and when he gets an eviction notice from the apartment landlord the coachroaches band together to bring down the landlord. By the way, "Joe's Apartment" was not an animated movie. It was from 1996 so they did the coachroaches with claymation (a important fact in the movie's badness. Another movie that would be a good fit for this would be "Even cowgirls get the blues" by Gus Zan vand starring Uma Thurman who plays a hitch hiker hippy with huge thumbs (seemingly a foot long).
The point is, i should say, that i think someone should make such a documentaries.
So you would contact all the people known to have participated in the green lighting/finacing process for these films-executive producers, etc.-and interview them and then interview actors maybe too, etc.
Heres a good example of the kind of movie I'm speaking of: "Joe's Apartment" inwhich a guy finds he can talk to coackroaches, he becomes friends with his coackroaches and when he gets an eviction notice from the apartment landlord the coachroaches band together to bring down the landlord. By the way, "Joe's Apartment" was not an animated movie. It was from 1996 so they did the coachroaches with claymation (a important fact in the movie's badness. Another movie that would be a good fit for this would be "Even cowgirls get the blues" by Gus Zan vand starring Uma Thurman who plays a hitch hiker hippy with huge thumbs (seemingly a foot long).
The point is, i should say, that i think someone should make such a documentaries.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Are liberals more close-minded than conservative?
NOTES ON LIBERALS FROM A FORMER LIBERAL MAROONED IN LIBERALDOME: I think liberals tend to be more close minded & intellectually curious. I think it b/ liberals hate to even hear others views they might not know anything about a immigration but if ur not a obama fan they don't want to hear wat u have to say. They hate debating issues. Yet conservatives love to argue & never refuse to even hear the left out, this all makes sense since most begin as liberals by default in life b/c the media is liberal & only those with the intellectual curiousity ever even exsplore the other side's views which most libetals dont even know.
There is no liberal version of William F. BUckley's TV show, Firing Line whererin Buckley would debate liberals paying fastidous attention to the details of liberal's arguments, usually disagreeing but still always taking the liberals arguments serious. People complain about FOX all the time as biased but there is no Hannity & Colmes on another network. On CNN and MSNBC all we got is liberals, they make no pretense of balance, Hannity was the conservative and Holmes was the liberal where is Rachel Maddow's counter-weight conservative on the other side of her anchor desk?
Just look at the classic libetal facial geture: the smug, condescending your-views-are-such-a-joke-its-comical face.
I hesitate to discuss this liberal smugness/clos mindedness because I fear being viewed as part of the Palin crowd. There is nothing wrong with being dismissive of Sara Palin cause she is not ready for show time, not even close. I've said this from the moment she came into our lives.
Anyways I really believe that atleast with regard to those Americans now below 30 years of age (my mileu) the following is the general case: that the more intellectually rigorous and curious exsplore the views of the right and are becoming conservatives as they see that the view point of a National Review which never gets any play on ABC or CNN is, on most things, the correct view. Those with the most complacent, smug, unintrested, uncurious minds stay default liberals which is to say they don't know what the liberal position may be on immigration but they know they support it, they are democrats by cultural affinties and accept the whole assortment of liberal views without scruntizing them.
Look are society since about 15 years ago has been one inwhich the partus of the media (celebrity tabloid blogs and magazine, political sites, movies,etc.) has become a bigger part of a lives as a result of our growing investment in the internet. With younger Americans, my crowd, who have grown up in this enviorment their whole lives, because of the Daily Show & Colbert those who became "liberals" became such at a younger age than previous generations but did so not because this generation of people is more political. Because of the Daily Show and the Colbert Report (shows for young people) and how politics has become more central to the arts and life in gen eral (as a watercool subject of conversation) kids develope political idenities passivley at a incrasing young age (before they know anything usually).
Kids are shaped by those around them, who they look up to, etc. Increasingly the immediate geographical and cultural surroundings of an indivual are supplanted by online or TV and media in generals influence in deciding someones views. Meaning that the daughter of a evangelical in Alabama 40 years ago would have been more likely to end up a Republican but because of the influx of the internet and cable TV, parents have become less of an influence on children and TV stars like Jon Stewart have become larger factors when it comes to determining a (young) persons political idenity.
So for instance, during the last decade, school kids came home (like me and my friends) and watched the Daily Show (while 30 years ago kids of the same age would've watched Happy Days or whatever). Being subjected to the Daily Show and CNN from a very young age on a regular basis has a great effect. And so i think most perhaps just many kids decide nowadays that there "a Jon Stewart person" rather than a Sara Palin type person. In other words, its become a way of cultural identifying yourself as being either hip, urban, edgy (e.g. Jon Stewart) or being square, provincial and traditional (Sara Palin). The influence of a celberity world of all liberals is also important.
There is no liberal version of William F. BUckley's TV show, Firing Line whererin Buckley would debate liberals paying fastidous attention to the details of liberal's arguments, usually disagreeing but still always taking the liberals arguments serious. People complain about FOX all the time as biased but there is no Hannity & Colmes on another network. On CNN and MSNBC all we got is liberals, they make no pretense of balance, Hannity was the conservative and Holmes was the liberal where is Rachel Maddow's counter-weight conservative on the other side of her anchor desk?
Just look at the classic libetal facial geture: the smug, condescending your-views-are-such-a-joke-its-comical face.
I hesitate to discuss this liberal smugness/clos mindedness because I fear being viewed as part of the Palin crowd. There is nothing wrong with being dismissive of Sara Palin cause she is not ready for show time, not even close. I've said this from the moment she came into our lives.
Anyways I really believe that atleast with regard to those Americans now below 30 years of age (my mileu) the following is the general case: that the more intellectually rigorous and curious exsplore the views of the right and are becoming conservatives as they see that the view point of a National Review which never gets any play on ABC or CNN is, on most things, the correct view. Those with the most complacent, smug, unintrested, uncurious minds stay default liberals which is to say they don't know what the liberal position may be on immigration but they know they support it, they are democrats by cultural affinties and accept the whole assortment of liberal views without scruntizing them.
Look are society since about 15 years ago has been one inwhich the partus of the media (celebrity tabloid blogs and magazine, political sites, movies,etc.) has become a bigger part of a lives as a result of our growing investment in the internet. With younger Americans, my crowd, who have grown up in this enviorment their whole lives, because of the Daily Show & Colbert those who became "liberals" became such at a younger age than previous generations but did so not because this generation of people is more political. Because of the Daily Show and the Colbert Report (shows for young people) and how politics has become more central to the arts and life in gen eral (as a watercool subject of conversation) kids develope political idenities passivley at a incrasing young age (before they know anything usually).
Kids are shaped by those around them, who they look up to, etc. Increasingly the immediate geographical and cultural surroundings of an indivual are supplanted by online or TV and media in generals influence in deciding someones views. Meaning that the daughter of a evangelical in Alabama 40 years ago would have been more likely to end up a Republican but because of the influx of the internet and cable TV, parents have become less of an influence on children and TV stars like Jon Stewart have become larger factors when it comes to determining a (young) persons political idenity.
So for instance, during the last decade, school kids came home (like me and my friends) and watched the Daily Show (while 30 years ago kids of the same age would've watched Happy Days or whatever). Being subjected to the Daily Show and CNN from a very young age on a regular basis has a great effect. And so i think most perhaps just many kids decide nowadays that there "a Jon Stewart person" rather than a Sara Palin type person. In other words, its become a way of cultural identifying yourself as being either hip, urban, edgy (e.g. Jon Stewart) or being square, provincial and traditional (Sara Palin). The influence of a celberity world of all liberals is also important.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Meg Whitmen: who the fuck greenlighted this pro-amensty nun's run?
"THE NEXT GOVERNOR MUST HAVE A SPINE OF STEEL KNOW WHAT SHE BELIEVES AND STICK WITH IT"
-MEG WHITMAN
I really hate Meg Whitmen cause she looks like McCain, the women to me. Shes like Gwen Ifill, she never says anything intresting and I'm sure that her whole political career was dreamed up in some mediocre neo-con's office (e.g. "Hey, what about that bitch, the CEO of Ebay? She'd sell real good with Orange County Housewives."
Meg Whitmen is so mind bogglingly bad a candiate for this race or any race. She is worst than Martha Coakely. Whitmen looks like a Catholic nun.
BUT MY GOD, THE GOP RUNS A PRO-AMENSTY, DULLER THAN A WHITE WALL OLD NUN FOR CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR.
Ok, its come to the point where i think that leftists today are dumber than conservatives
Eric Alterman sounds so dumb here talking to Mickey Kaus. It's funny, you can tell Mickey Kaus is suprised by how unsophisticated Eric Alterman is (who is for the left, relatively smart).
Mirananda Rights or waterboards for terrorists?
The Nigerian Christmas bomber would've killed hundreds over the skies of Detriot hsd it not been for a Dutchmen bum rushing him. We now know that Obama would have preffered that the Dutchmen had first read the nigerian "his miranada rights" ("to remain silent...right to the power of attorney..") first & that whole tackling thing probably would've cost him a de-merit had he been a CIA agent. what did the FBI do when he gets off the plane at Obama request? They read a Nigerian non-citizen his miranada rights (though he doesn't have any such miranada rights)!"YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT"! and then you give him a lawyer to tell him to not answer the CIA interrogators questions. This guy told them "their are more like me"! So that shows he has info about other plots & where going to just let him say "no" when we ask where the next attack is gonna be? NIGERIAN TERRORISTS WHO TRY TO MURDERER HUNDREDS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE IN A PLANE OVER DETROIT with potentially life saving info about future attacks ARE NOT AMERICAN CITIZENS WHO ARE TO BE TREATED LIKE SHOP LIFTERS.
davidfrum tweets,
davidfrum tweets,
Yoo and Bybee: "Poor judgment" says DOJ review. http://bit.ly/9GLRtUAnd what do we say of the people who Mirandized the underwear bomber? 2 days ago reply
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)