Thursday, August 20, 2015
Because most people are less concerned with the blood coming out of Megyn Kelly's whatever than they are with the blood that came out of Kate Steinle's bullet wound. That is all.
Sunday, August 09, 2015
When we see a margin of error in a poll, is it really the same for any points within a poll? In other words, if a poll has a 3% margin of error, does that mean that someone who has 5% in the poll has a 95% chance of having between 2% and 8%, or is the 5% only valid for someone who gets 50% in the poll? I am under the impression that the further away you are from 50%, the smaller the margin of error should be, but I am not certain about this. Any statistic geeks want to explain it to me? That is all.
Monday, August 03, 2015
Am I the only one who thought of this column when I first began to notice the words "cuckservative," "race-cuck," etc.? I particularly like this line:
Do we even have the language anymore to articulate the concept of being personally cuckolded? Is the word “cuckold” even in current circulation?Well, maybe it ought to be. And now it is being brought back. That is all.
Saturday, August 01, 2015
I don't see what all of the brouhaha over Huckabee's comments about Obama leading the Jews to the ovens is about. Huckabee's position is that if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, it will use it against Israel. Now, you can debate the merits of this belief. Personally, I don't think the Iranians will do it; they are evil, but they are not crazy. This doesn't mean I want them to have nukes. It would probably lead to an arms race and get Iran a lot more influence over the Middle East. But I do not think they are Bond villains. However, if you think they would use it against Israel, the comparison is perfectly apt. As I said, you can debate the merits of what Huckabee is suggesting. But if you think that Iran would nuke Israel if given a chance, then the comparison is quite apt. The only difference is that the deaths will be over a much smaller period of time. I just don't see how comparing hundreds of thousands or millions of civilians being vaporized and more civilians dying a slow agonizing death from radiation poisoning to the Holocaust diminishes the Holocaust. That is all.
Sunday, July 26, 2015
Interesting piece by "hateful Heretic" on the new term "Cuckservative." In case you missed it, a "cuckservative" is a (normally establishment) conservative who wants to make conservatism friendly to multiculturalism and "anti-racist" (a code word for anti-white). The good news is that the campaign has been noticed. Matt K. Lewis and Erick Erickson have both commented on it. They would not comment on it if they weren't worried it would affect people. Join the Hashtag campaign on twitter: #cuckservative. That is all.
The Hulk Hogan incident has reminded me of this earlier post about the Paula Deen incident. It is said that if you want to know who is in control, figure out who you are not allowed to criticize. I might say, find out who you are not allowed to insult. There has been a big brouhaha over making pictures of Mohammed as a way to stand up to Muslim terrorists. Well, in Black-Run American, you are not allowed to criticize blacks, or to insult them. If people are having their lives ruined because of perfectly natural statements made in private, it is time to once again defy the PC police so they don't nigger everything up, especially with the new Obama directive to niggerize all of the neighborhoods in America. Nigger. I mean, that is all.
Monday, May 11, 2015
Don't throw it away (not if it is postage paid, anyway). Instead, print out the following picture and mail it back, along with all of the paraphernalia that came with the letter to you:
That is all.
That is all.
24ahead.com often talks about how conservatives miss opportunities to discredit amnesty supporters by being stupid in their questions. To demonstrate, I wish to show you this article about a town meeting featuring Lindsey Graham and John McCain back in 2013 when they were promoting the "Gang of Eight" amnesty bill. Graham, lying, told the crowd this:
“Who’s got the ‘Remember 1986’ truck out there?” Graham asked. “If we remember what we did not do in 1986 and get it done this time, there will not be a third wave of illegal immigration, and that’s how you get 70 votes (for the bill in the Senate).”The attendee replied:
“With all due respect, you didn’t do the job in 1986 and I doubt very seriously that you’ll do the job again,” he said to applause.John McCain shot back, again lying:
“All I can tell you is, sir, that we negotiated with every segment of America’s economy, and the religious side, and every other part of America, and all of them, literally without exception, are in support of this legislation.”The thing is, there were several responses that would have hurt them much more. Firstly, when Graham suggested that we "do what we didn't do in 1986," someone should have asked specific questions to discredit him, like these: * Senator Graham, you say that we can avoid another 1986 by doing "what we didn't do in 1986." Exactly what do you plan to do different to avoid another wave of illegal immigration? At this point, if he answers anything that involves making legal immigration easier, the answer back ought to be something along the lines of: "If we wanted a massive increase in immigration, wouldn't we not care about illegal immigration?" * Senator Graham, the main thing we did wrong in 1986 was give the illegal aliens legal status first, then schedule enforcement for later. Every report out currently says that you plan to give the illegal aliens legal status before increasing enforcement. Doesn't that undercut your plans to "avoid doing what we did in 1986?" (The report (April 4 2013) came out earlier than the town meeting (April 29 2013, the Monday before the April 30 article)) - if there were a town meeting a few weeks later, after the bill had passed the Senate Judiciary Committee (or partway through markup), one could also have asked: *Senator Graham, you claim that we can avoid another 1986 by doing "what we didn't do in 1986." However, the main problem with the 1986 amnesty was that it put legalization before enforcement, and during committee markup, you helped to shoot down any amendments that would make legalization dependent on border security. Doesn't that mean you are trying to repeat the mistakes of 1986? Admittedly, the third question would not have been possible at the town meeting, as it occurred priot to committee markup. But the first two questions could have been asked with the information that was already well-known. Doing so, and spreading a video of the resulting dissembling, would have hurt McCaion and Graham;'s credibility. Secondly, McCain's statement that support of the Gang of Eight bill is unanimous is laughably ludicrous. One could have simply asked him: * McCain, you say that every part of America is in support of the Gang of Eight legislation. Why don't you include the American Legion, which came out against your legislation back in February? * McCain, you say that support for this bill is unanimous. However, it is well known that Immigration and Customs Enforcement was locked out of the negotiations over the bill, towards which they have expressed severe skepticism. Isn't it possible that you have manufactured unanimous agreement by deliberately avoiding meeting with anyone who disagrees? With such inveterate liars, a little prior research and an ability to bring facts to bear would go a long way to changing the debate. That is all.
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
This is a cartoon comparing antisemitism and antijaphetism. Antijaphetism refers to a prejudice against European Gentiles (white Gentiles). I am not the first to use the term. The etymology basically parallels that of antisemitism - whereas biblically, Jews are the sons of Shem (Semites), Europeans are the sons of Japheth (Japhetites or Japhites). The man on the left is a white Gentile, accusing Jews of assaulting white women, general greed and avarice, and of controlling the U.S. government. He denies the Holocaust, using the term "Holohoax" and "Z.O.G. (Zionist Occupied Government). The man on the right is Jewish, and is accusing white Gentiles of oppressing non-whites (a Latino, a black, and an Asian), and of general cruelty. I do think that one of the major problems in our current society is antijaphetism, and that there is a lot of antijaphetism in the Jewish community - at least among the elite, those who have influence in our society. On the other hand, I think that responding to this with a general anger at Jews is counterproductive. The fact that Chuck Schumer or Sheldon Adelson often conform to antisemitic stereotypes ought not be held against Ben Stein, Don Feder, or Nicholas Stix. That is all.
After seeing this little scribble re-printed in my local newspaper, I decided to take action and make my own cartoon response: It is time that all who criticize "inaction" on amnesty or who talk about a "do-nothing Congress" or who in other ways suggest that we owe illegal aliens something, or that there is some failure in not passing legislation to open our borders, are confronted with the evil of what they are really suggesting. Traitors to our nation ought not to be given a pass. That is all.