Category Archives: journalists

Hate Speech and Murder

On 1st October, an alleged single male individual opened fire with several rifles on a crowd of people attending a Country and Western Music Concert in Paradise, Nevada.  Paradise, Nevada is located in the greater Las Vegas, Nevada area very close to McCarran International Airport.

As most adults are aware, some fifty-eight people were killed at the scene or died as a result shortly following.  Over four hundred people were wounded.

This is a horrific event.  All the victims of the homicidal attack were attending a music concert.   None of them, to anyone’s knowledge, had ever offended the murderer or even inconvenienced him.  This action was horrific.  Decent people around the world are horrified.

As horrible as this was, and the personal damage caused to victims and survivors alike is the reaction of the Left.  Those who claim to stand against ‘hate speech’ and publicly advocate an ‘inclusive’ and understanding view of others.

One Democrat, California State Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Paramount) made a Facebook statement, on his Facebook page, blaming and specifically including every firearms owner in the United States as being responsible.

Former Secretary Hillary Clinton made a comment of equal venom and ignorance by vilifying sound suppressors – ‘silencers’ – hypothetically.  Just for the record, no sound suppressors were employed.  Nor did the crowd react instantly to the sound of gunfire.

Even more disgusting were the comments by CBS vice president and senior legal counsel Hayley Geftman-Gold (formerly employed in New York).  She said victims of the Las Vegas mass murder were “Republican gun toters” not deserving of sympathy.  She was fired after the statements were made public; but her position indicated a level of bias.

It is interesting in this context to note her statement was made public in a Facebook statement.  She later, after being apprised of her indefensible statement, apologized with much more consideration of her words than her initial statement.

Her unguarded statement is frighteningly reminiscent of the attitude of many dictators and junta members of the last century in showing no regard for ‘them’ (whoever disagreed with the speaker or the speaker’s party).  She essentially wrote off everyone who wasn’t totally agreeing with her feelings.

Just so there are NO misunderstandings, this is HATE SPEECH at the rawest.  It is incredible hatred and undisguised.  One wonders how many other similar statements were made and NOT publicly reported.

In contrast, how many on the Left accuse normal people of hate speech for disagreeing with their continuing destruction of Western values and freedom?

In contrast:

In 2013 (no newer information) there were 6,056 abortions reported in the State of Nevada.  I’m not picking on Nevada, but that’s where the shooting occurred.  Reported.  So this is a minimum number, assuming everyone reports everything accurately and so forth.  This information is from ‘‘ and cites information from CDC information collection.

In other words, the murders of 1st October amount to One Percent (1%) of the abortions performed in 2013.  From another view, that was roughly seventeen abortions per day (counting Saturday and Sunday).  So in about three and one half days, the numbers of abortions performed roughly equalled the number of people killed at the Las Vegas murders.

The mass-murder on 1st October was hideous.  What does that make the number of intentionally caused deaths due to abortions?  And keep in mind, that isn’t the number of deaths caused currently – the information is four years old.

Of course, this is trivialized by those promoting abortion.  After all, those are not ‘real’ deaths, as the victims were not ‘real’ people; they hadn’t been born yet.  Who cares?

One wonders if the deaths of infants in the United States by abortion is trivialized by people like Hayley Geftman-Gold in similar manner?

Or, in the famous words of another famous (infamous?) leftist, “What difference does it make anyway?”

I should also explain the lives of people are precious in the sight of God, and therefore precious to me.  I am certainly not as good at it as God, but constantly getting better.  (Better than I was, anyway.)  I do not rejoice in the deaths of ‘others’.  Not other races, not other nationalities, not other religions, not other political viewpoints.  (I am aware some jackass will object I left something out in that last sentence.)  Yeah, at times I feel less ‘Christian’ than I should; but then I pray about it and get my head back on straight.


Leave a comment

Filed under Abortion, Crime, journalists, Political Correctness, Politics

So Much for the Referendum

I kept hearing in the news on NPR (I listen to the classical music and hear the official left wing news when I cannot turn down the sound in time) about how the Georgia special election was to be a ‘referendum’ on President Trump being elected.

The ‘referendum’ endorsed the election of President Trump rather than repudiate the election. Which undercuts the Democrat position.

I rather imagine the Democrat Continuum will use the standard ploy in dealing with this development. Ignore it. Pretend it never happened. If prompted, pretend it didn’t mean a thing. Tell everyone how it was a ‘moral’ victory how the Democratic Continuum candidate scored so many votes – without mentioning the incredible amount of money funneled into the election from all the Democrat Continuum donors around the country.

Here’s the moral of the story: President Trump won the last election because the voters of the United States preferred Mr. Trump and what he represents to Secretary Hillary Clinton and what she represents. And the Democrat Continuum is still panicked and upset and still denying why they lost.

Leave a comment

Filed under Civilization, Idiot Politicians, journalists, Politics

One Interesting Lesson from the Alex Jones – Megyn Kelly Confrontation

According to many in the alleged ‘news’ industry, reporters and news agencies are to ask hard questions and expose the unspoken view of various issues.

However, when the broad front of the corporate “news media’ – personified by NBC and Megyn Kelly – encounter someone asking hard questions and a (publicly) unspoken view, they decide to vilify the person so doing.

What is even more offensive is Megyn Kelly (of NBC) attacked Mr. Jones not by answering any of his objections or questions, but by attacking Mr. Jones by appealing to the portrayed emotional response of ‘the parents’ of the Sandy Hook victims. Not only that, but by using a third party report of the emotional response.

When the ‘media’ makes up allegations against President Trump, the President is ‘demanded’ to answer all the inane and baseless charges. Yet, when Alex Jones has some unanswered questions about Sandy Hook, he is told to shut up and not bother ‘anyone’; mainly the mainstream news media.

This is another revelation of the hypocrisy of the left based ‘news media’. The question is not about whether Sandy Hook happened or not, the question is why does Megyn Kelly and NBC believe they are the final decision on reality.

Leave a comment

Filed under Crime, journalists, Political Correctness

Violent Trump Supporters?

I just saw a headline wherein Donald Trump ‘admitted’ his supporters were ‘violent’. This was on a tour (the “Thank You” tour) at a stop in Orlando, Florida. The President-Elect made an attempt to ‘calm’ them, not for the first time, by the way. The story was carried on CNN, NBS, and of course, the Huffington Post.

I have to wonder what is meant here by ‘violent’ or ‘mean and nasty’. I wonder just how many automobiles where destroyed by ‘Trump supporters’? How many people where attacked and beaten for being ‘other’? How many police officers were called out and then attacked by ‘Trump supporters’ in the course of riots? I do recall some ‘Trump supporters’ being less than sympathetic when all the idiot liberals cried, sucked their thumbs and wailed over the prospect of having to get a job.

Oddly enough, I don’t remember ANY liberal candidate, politician or alleged “reporter”decrying or demanding any of the liberal inspired rioters cease and desist in the aftermath of Secretary Clinton’s overwhelming defeat. All I heard from the left wing propaganda – excuse me, I mean ‘news’ – outlets was sympathy and understanding for the confusion, disappointment and ‘fear’ (of getting a real job?) for the rioters.

As long as I’m on the subject:

What about the ‘conflict of interest’ problem possible with President-Elect Trump’s business holdings and his responsibility as President? He ‘might’ have a problem.

But never mentioned by the Democrat Propaganda Machine – excuse me, I meant to say, the ‘news media’ – is any hint of Secretary Clinton’s up-to-the-moment conflicts of interest when acting in the official capacity of Secretary of State. Nor any comment about the very questionable activities of the ‘Clinton Foundation’.

President-Elect Trump’s choice for Secretary of State has been innuendoed regarding his dealings with and relationship to Russia and Russian leadership. Really? Having a working relationship with others is a bad thing? Being competent in dealing with others is a bad thing? I guess it depends on one’s viewpoint.

I recall during much of the Cold War how the liberal side went to great extremes to take the side of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), colloquially referred to as ‘Russia’. The Soviets were all decent people, their leaders honorable and all problems arising between the two powers (the U. S. and the U. S. S. R.) were always the total fault of the antiquated and reactionary United States.

Now, that Russia is no longer the champion of socialism/communism, the liberals seem to think dealing with them is not such a good idea. How odd.

I’m not going to start on First Lady Michelle Obama’s statement about “… no hope…” Once again, I suppose it depends on one’s viewpoint. (Being productive and earning an income or welfare.)

Actually, this whole problem is summed up very adequately in one word. “Crybaby”.


Filed under Civilization, General Idiocy, Idiot Politicians, journalists, Political Correctness, Politics, Racism

Rare Glock Wanted!

If anyone knows about these pistols, I have two buyers who will pay cash for one each.

In the above referenced video, the U. S. President reports the existence of a Glock pistol with “… a lot of clips in it …” Aside from the rather uneducated errors in the comments, I am aware of no Glock pistol which will accept more than one ‘clip’ at one time. Nor am I aware of any Glock pistol which uses a ‘clip’; they use magazines. I am companioned in this mystification by a good friend who is a Glock collector and – at least for me and the girls I accompany – rather an expert in the world of Glock.

However, since it is proper to keep an open mind about such matters, I am prepared to be educated. So, if anyone knows of such a device, please bring it to my attention. And I want to buy one. I like firearms oddities. (Please include photos and asking price.)

In the same CNN interview, the President also made reference to an ‘assault weapon’ carried by the radicalized Islamic who conducted the murders in Orlando, Florida over the weekend. This also confuses me. The rifle carried by the Islamic shooter is not an AR 15; nor is an AR 15 an assault rifle. Notice I used the term ‘assault rifle’ vice ‘assault weapon’.

The U. S. Armed Forces – and other armed forces about the world – have used the term ‘assault rifle’ for a number of years. It is NOT a particular rifle, but a category of rifle employed by soldiers under certain conditions. Among other considerations, an assault rifle is capable of fully automatic fire at the desire of the user. The weapon carried by the Islamic shooter does not have that capability. One also notes the absence of the use of term ‘assault weapon’ in the Armed Forces. There are no ‘assault pistols’, no ‘assault shotguns’, no ‘assault potato peelers’ or other such items. There is a class of fully automatic weapons which can be used in an assault (a noun as opposed to a adjective), but these are properly referred to as ‘light machine guns’; not ‘assault machine guns’.

I applaud the President’s decision to not identify the rifle used by the Muslim shooter; it was not as reported in the initial reports as an AR 15, but is a SIG-Sauer MCX Carbine. This rifle is not fully automatic either. Nor has anyone in a position to report the incident – witnesses – reported any fully automatic fire delivered. The two hours, more or less, the Muslim shooter had unrestricted control over his victims surely explains the number of victims killed and wounded rather than the rate of fire of the weapon or weapons involved.

Of course, the term ‘assault weapon‘ has long been used by the ‘media’, but only in the attempt to vilify weapons and the people who own them. I cannot believe our President would use incorrect and biased language in such a manner.

What also strikes me as odd is the President’s reluctance to associate an Islamic shooter targeting what appears to be homosexual men, with the Islamic, Koran based teaching that homosexuals are evil and should be killed. The President says this was an act of terror, but not Islamic or Muslim terror.

I suppose the comments of the shooter’s father shed no light on the matter, either.

The President did admit the profusion of laws prohibiting all manner of people – U. S. veterans who have someone else balance their check book for instance – do nothing to prevent this sort of terror attack. But then he went on to suggest ‘more’ is needed to curb the availability of firearms to normal U. S. citizens. Since the Muslim shooter passed a background check – never having been convicted of a crime or misdemeanor associated with domestic violence – the President hinted this standard was too permissive and needs to be more restrictive.

Perhaps as a nation we should not allow those who refuse our cultural norms – like murdering homosexuals, Jews, or anyone not a Muslim – to live in this nation? Perhaps the President is not looking at the real problem. What a shocking thought!

1 Comment

Filed under Civilization, Firearms and their use, Idiot Politicians, Islam, journalists, Political Correctness, Politics

Two Constitutional Outrages

I have a problem with pigeons currently. A pair of pigeons found a roof support on the front of my house – I think it is primarily decorative – and have been landing there. In consequence, they defecate on my front steps. Right smack in the middle of the top two steps. For a small pair of birds – pigeons, not more than a couple of pounds each I would guess – they sure process a lot of food. Apparently. They leave the processed food on my steps.

I clean the steps of the pigeon waste regular and have attempted to scare them away by yelling at them. (No poison, shooting – difficult in an incorporated city – or fatal measures. Yet.) They seem to have cleared off temporarily, but I’m watching.

In the recent past, a group of human pigeons have descended upon the Donald Trump campaign. (I classify these people as human pigeons as they are not very bright and leave messes behind.) As they carry ‘Bernie’ placards, one gathers they are Democrat in nature. The sole purpose of descending upon the Donald Trump campaign is to disrupt and prevent the event – speeches and campaigning – from taking place.

This is an outrage. It is a clear and flagrant violation of the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech – voicing opinions. Not only is it a violation of the wording of the First Amendment, it is a violation of the spirit of the First Amendment. Technically, the First Amendment only applies to the Federal Government and by logical extension SCOTUS has held this applies to all levels of government. No government can retaliate or stifle opposing views by force of authority. However, the spirit of the First Amendment in the United States applies to all citizens; no group is ‘entitled’ to deny another group to voice their opinions and forcibly prevent an opposing view.

One notes, the left is famous and notorious for such actions. Over the past forty years, I have read accounts of various left wing groups banding together to forcibly and sometimes violently prevent pro Constitution and pro American speakers and groups from voicing opinions about issues and elections.

For instance, in February of this year (2016) ‘liberal’ (meaning left wing) activists attempted to prevent Ben Shapiro at California State University-Los Angeles (CSULA) from speaking.

Look back at the era of the 1960s and 1970s. I cannot find references to them – odd that – but I recall any number of conservative or Republican speakers who were denied the ability to make a speech in a private venue by anti-American protesters under the ‘liberal’ banner. To deny those things happened is to expose one’s ignorance or fraudulent nature.

Without doubt, the ‘protesters’ – the pigeons – at the Trump campaign event were ‘progressives’ who seek to destroy any real discussion or difference of opinion – opposing opinion – to their agenda of political dominance.

This was not a protest or rally to voice opposing opinions to Donald Trump; it was a concerted attack to prevent Donald Trump from exercising his rights as an American citizen to speak and sway other’s opinions.

The Trump campaign paid for the venue, organized the schedule and provided logistical support at their cost.

No protesters paid for anything regarding the event. They just went to deny others the right to either speak their mind or to hear what was to be said.

That is an outrage.

The second outrage is the ‘media’s” reporting. Most all went out of their way to blame Donald Trump for being ‘inflammatory’ rather than the pigeons from defecating. Not one – initially – brought up the issue of the pigeon’s denying other rights to assemble and voice opinions.

Why not?

The usual suspects in the “media”, the ones who do their best to sound and act like the Democrat Party’s propaganda wing are opposed to Donald Trump from the outset. After all, Donald Trump is a capitalist, not a socialist, believes in individual merit and the idea that one who works and puts out effort should gain wealth by doing so. This is absolute opposition to the goals of the Democrat Party. So they ignore the basic considerations of decency and applaud any move to hamper the cause of Donald Trump. The First Amendment – or the spirit thereof – does not apply to Donald Trump.

One could say much of the “media” are merely pigeons with publishing (to include television and radio) ability.

However, Fox News seemed to be following this mindset; at least part of the cause of the violence and upheaval at the Trump rally was due to Donald Trump’s view on things. Mr. Trump’s views is decidedly not politically correct and this offends many people, but can this be properly seen as ‘the’ cause for the problems of liberal agents violently and unashamedly denying Mr. Trump the right to express himself?

The Republican High Command is both afraid and angry with Donald Trump. Why? Because Donald Trump is very popular and because Donald Trump is not considered a loyal Republican candidate (stooge). The repercussions of a Donald Trump victory bode ill for the security and income of the members of the Republican High Command. One sees the Republican High Command putting pressure on Fox News to paint Donald Trump in a bad light.

Even if it means siding with the Democrat Party to obscure the actual pigeons. And that is outrageous as well.


Filed under Civilization, Idiot Politicians, journalists, Political Correctness, Politics

Difficult to believe.

I sit here listening to the NPR radio station – it has classical music; now the news is on.

Then a ‘news program’ comes on. The Leftist News Reader is interviewing two Leftist ‘experts’ about the problem of ISIS – DASH in Arabic – and the subject is introduced about how to best blame President Bush for the current mess.

President Obama (PBUH) claims ‘we’ are winning against DASH. Despite the fact DASH has gained territory about half the size of Syria, our President claims our (his) strategy is solid. Most observers – like you and I – have reason to doubt this.

The question of the current DASH and other Islamic Terrorists arise. Is President Bush responsible, since he ‘started’ the war? Or is President Obama (PBUH) responsible for pulling all our troops out and essentially allowing Islamic Terrorists to run wild for the past six years?

The Leftist talking heads all agree, we would not have this problem at all if President Bush hadn’t interfered with Islamic Terrorism campaigns all those years ago. President Obama (PBUH) is completely innocent of any responsibility for allowing Islamic Terrorists free reign in the area – and world, for that matter.

They say this with a straight face. I cannot believe it.

One of the Leftists claim then President Bush announced his then strategies were winning in Iraq. That was when we had beat Saddam’s army and located Saddam himself hiding in a hastily dug hole. That was when the United States was actually fighting a war against Islamic Terror instead of making excuses for Islamic Terror.

The Leftists on the program all agree the past statements of President Bush and the current nonsense of President Obama (PBUH) are equivalent.

How can anyone believe that sort of claim? How does anyone with a functioning brain spout drivel like that with a straight face?

Then the question of “What is the likelihood of ‘another’ Iraq war?”

The Leftist talking heads all speak in terms of ‘support’, and ignore the danger of allowing DASH and other Islamic Terrorists to do as they please as the basis for military action. Since the Progressive elements in the U. S. don’t want to commit troops to counter the obvious military threat to world peace and freedom, there isn’t any point in proposing U. S. military counter action.

The idea of Islamic Terrorists renewing their attacks on the U. S. totally slip their attention. The connection between Islamic Terrorists in the mid East and attacks on the United States simply holds no consequence to this band of nit-wits.



Filed under Civilization, Idiot Politicians, Islam, journalists