Truth Before Dishonor

I would rather be right than popular

Author Archive

Alton Nolen’s Mother speaks out

Posted by DNW on 2014/09/29

In an update to the Alton Nolen story, we have his mother’s assurance that it was not him, or the real him, that was there when this thing “happened”.

He was raised in a loving home, you see.

And Mom says, he believed in God.

Though that is not quite what is at issue: since no one disputes that Alton Nolen believed in a god of some sort; just not the Christian God his mother and sister appear to – sincerely – profess.

No, the god Alton Nolen professed was the god Muslim faithful refer to as “Allah”. And it was apparently Alton Nolen’s belief in Allah and in the Koran as the word of Allah, that led Nolen to argue that women should be stoned for certain offenses, and is probably why he beheaded the woman he chose as one of his slashing victims.

But you know, Alton’s mom is, perhaps understandably, having a hard time dealing with this.

 

“Relatives of the main suspect in an Oklahoma workplace beheading insist that he is a good person and would never hurt anyone.

Mother Joyce Nolen and sister Megan Nolen made the emotional claims in a video posted Saturday to Facebook. Accused killer Alton Nolen has a violent criminal past and has spent multiple stints in prison, records have shown.

My son was a good kid,” said Joyce Nolen. “I know what they saying that he done, but I’m gonna tell you this – that’s not my son.”

 

Listening to the audio we hear this from his mother, transcribed below as accurately as possible without resorting to a phonetically reproduced “dialect” style of quoting:

 

“This uh I would like to make a statement on behalf of my son Alton Nolen …. my heart is just [undecipherable] right now

Uh, I know my son, my son was raised up in a lovin home. My son was raised up believing in God, that’s what he believed in. My son was a good kid.

You know, I know what they saying he done, but I’m gonna tell you this; that’s not my son.

There’s two sides to every story. And, we’re only hearing one.

His family, our hearts bleed right now, because what they saying Alton has done.

I wanta apologize to both families, because this is not Alton.

But I just … I’m praying that justice will prevail; the whole story will come out; the whole story.

 

There's two sides to every story ...

There’s two sides to every story …

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“There’s two sides to every story and we’re hearing only one …”

“I’m praying that justice will prevail. The whole story will come out … the whole story … “

 

Yeah, Alton  was a good kid. Probably no “serious felonies” as they say in Ferguson.

Their hearts are bleeding too, figuratively speaking. Almost as much as the decapitated body of Alton’s victim did literally.

But remember! The whole story has not come out! Who are we to judge his acts before “the other side” ( whatever that might be) is heard?

 

Now, as regards Alton’s assaults on police officers? The prison time?

Well as sis puts it: “Alton my brother has always been a great person, a loving person, he’s always been a people person, he’s never been a violent person … so, for something like this to have happened …. [note the use of the passive voice]… And we are all  still in shock right now, we’re all still in shock …”

Well, that settles that.

He was a good kid, done wrong. Fired. Driven to act out in a way contrary to his loving God believing nature and upbringing.

The solution is obvious. Call in Sharpton  and …

Burn down Oklahoma.

 

 

Posted in crime, Culture, Insanity, Islam, Liberal, media, Personal Responsibility, politics, society | Leave a Comment »

Liberal Comic Relief

Posted by DNW on 2014/09/29

Projectifying … projecticating … we call it maize …

Makes you wonder when it comes to the modern liberal individual, if one personality even knows what the other is saying.

Our recent visitor from American Liberal Times  – the fellow now inviting us to comment on his blog after having just recently purged it of years (he said) of conservative comment – presently informs the world that the “Mission of this [American Liberal Times] blog” is:

“Trying to get it right for the sake of sanity in a very dark and dangerous world. Blogging is one of the last bastions of freedom of speech and freedom of the press left to us and I think it can be far more accurate and truthful than most corporate-owned main stream media.”

A “very dark and dangerous world” he says; one in which blogs can be far more truthful and accurate than the mainstream press. Well, give him some credit: he doesn’t dare claim that his own blog, filled as it is with what he describes as literal hearsay, is one of those accurate and truthful blogs. That would be more than comically “outrageous”. That would be ludicrous.

Continuing on then, we quickly scroll down the bilious entries of the American Liberal Times blog and encounter more, much more, on this theme of a very dark and dangerous world.

We find for example the following description of “Righties”,  as ” … stinking mental garbage and unmitigated flamboyant exaggerations from the darkest pits of …” But wait. That’s not the quote we were looking for. That’s fulminating darkness alright; but it’s fulminating darkness that he obviously himself owns.

Was this the quote ? “… [the wealthy] privileged hungry savage lion wearing the royal robes of the rich right wing elitists still roams the countryside searching for the unfortunate poor whom it may emasculate, eviscerate and . . . devour!”.

No, that’s obviously dark and paranoid too, but not quite the quote we were looking for either.

The quote we are looking for is the one where he projects paranoid sentiments onto conservatives, rather than directly expressing them himself as a liberal.

Ok, ok, here it is, I’ve found it. Here’s where he looks in the mirror and starts pointing his finger at “rightie” so-called “paranoia”.

So, to repeat, da da da da da … the set up is that he thinks the world is very dark and dangerous, and da da da … roamed by elitists seeking to devour et cetera. And so now … yeah … and so now he has this friend you see, who knows conservatives,  and (drumroll):

 

” … Righties [who] always seemed to be living in a state of constant fear and paranoia . . . fear about the government planning to “come and get them” or “coming to do them in” or “coming to steal their guns and take away their freedoms or put them into a FEMA camp or something. …

and then speaking for himself The American Liberal Times author says:

“I know a few like this guy is describing too and the ones I know about never seem to have a minutes peace in their lives either – – always living on the edge – – always fearing some calamity just around the corner but never quite yet “Here” for some reason known only to them.

 

You see? It’s all so clear. Liberals may be paranoid, crazy, and conspiratorial, and live in “a very dark and dangerous world”, but it’s only because conservatives have made them be, and live, that way. Or something.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Culture, Humor - For Some, Liberal | 1 Comment »

But did he have his hands up in surrender?

Posted by DNW on 2014/09/26

Guest Posting from: The Progressive Center for Liberal-Islamic Solidarity and Sharia Justice.

 

“You have all seen this picture.

Greetings from the religion of peace

Greetings from the religion of peace

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is not the same picture we see!

Yes, so you say a woman was slaughtered with a knife, being decapitated in fact.  So you say the Muslim man who did this was caught in the process of attempting  to slaughter another. So you say he was shouting Islamic slogans as he engaged in this activity.

What’s any of that prove?

How can we Progressives who stand in solidarity with the oppressed and ignored of the world expect anything less, in this, a country so rife with injustice and bigotry and white hetero-normative privilege?

The important question, the question all good Progressives will instantly want to know is: “How come Alton Nolen was shot three times? And with a rifle!”

Was it because of his religion? Was it because he was black?

Imagining for a moment that there is some shred of truth to the corporate media line: Did he not pause even long enough to receive a fair warning? Were others proven to be in immanent danger of being harmed? How do those who say so, claim to know for sure?  Can their bigotry give them the power of reading minds?

What exactly has the alleged killing of one person, got to do with leveling lethal force against Alton Nolen when we do not yet know if there were any witnesses to the alleged first killing?

Why was Alton Nolen then made the repeated victim of potentially lethal force, when it has not even been proven that he intended to kill the one person with whom he was actually (and allegedly) witnessed to be in a tussle with?

What right had some uninvolved third party to interfere in this dispute and then to level potentially fatal violence against Alton, when they could not possibly have known what led to the altercation in the first place, and whether his actions in allegedly striking back against the power, were undoubtedly justified?

Instead Alton was ruthlessly gunned down … shot three times when he was virtually unarmed in comparison to a trigger happy corporate lackey with a rifle!!!

Alton had only, allegedly, a knife. The so-called knife was not even his own according to the initial reports. It was owned by the CORPORATION!

We suspect that what we have here is another instance of some rent-a-cop taking advantage of a power imbalance in order to lash out and victimize a person of color and a member of a maligned religious group, just because he was able to do so.

We demand information on exactly who the shooter was, and why he was armed in the first place! We demand to know who his parents are and where his wife and children live!

Who gave the would-be murderer of Alton Nolen a rifle? Who told him he was allowed to shoot Black men and Muslims? What right had the gunman to assume that the first (and remember it is only alleged) “beheading” was the work of Alton, and that the altercation which he did witness was not merely Alton defending himself, while uttering sacred prayers for deliverance, against an insufferable systemic provocation and disrespect?

Was the shooter even properly trained and licensed? Has he any indications in his background that he might be prejudiced against Muslims?

WHY … why we demand to know, did he shoot three times?!!! Was not one shot tearing into the helpless body of this poor, marginalized victim of capitalism, racism, and western imperialism  not enough?

 

Innocent!!!!

Innocent!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We demand the immediate involvement of Eric Holder, and the avenging of the attempted murder of Alton Nolen: victim of capitalism, religious bigotry, western imperialism, and hetero-normative race privilege!!!  “

 

 

 

The above opinion does not necessarily reflect the views of Truth Before Dishonor, its writers, contributors, employees, nor any sane person in the universe.

 

Posted in crime, Culture, Islam, Law, Liberal, politically correct, politics, race, Religion, Socialists | 6 Comments »

Have an opinion?

Posted by DNW on 2014/09/18

First tell us a lot  about yourself. Including the names of your friends and contacts, and affirm a waiver allowing us to collect and share more data on you.

 

Before we allow you to comment, tell us a lot about yourself

Before we allow you to comment, tell us a lot about yourself

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because that is what debate in a democracy, of the kind of democracy we envision, is all about …

Posted in Culture, media | Tagged: | 1 Comment »

Scotch Socialists

Posted by DNW on 2014/09/16

Just trying to keep things straight here in case of potential developments in the Still Somewhat United Kingdom: but, if Scotland declares its independence in order to form a more perfect collectivist state, is Scotland somehow automatically grandfathered in on the various agreements and crap we have with Great Britain?

I mean, like, man, how could this legally be? Wouldn’t Scotland then be a brand new country, with no treaties or agreements with anyone and no membership in any international organizations?

So … then Scotland wouldn’t even be a member of the United Nations, right? And the United States, for example, would have neither direct nor indirect obligations or arrangements with the Scotch – assuming they even exist for much longer before turning their country over to foreign laborers in return for a promise that their pensions will be paid until they die, or whatever.

But think for a minute.  What if Denmark invaded Scotland? Would anyone be legally obligated to respond in its defense? What if Donald Trump invaded … with the intention of turning the whole place into a game preserve?

And, in somewhat happier terms, might this mean in a legal context, for example,  that any annoying  socialist son-of-a-bitch you might run across, would be –  as long as he was Scotch – virtually outside the law … if that is, you could catch it off its home turf?

Now, “Why in the world … “, you might ask ” .. would I even wonder about something like that”? Especially as I am always carping in favor of freedom and self-determination?

The answer is obvious: Alex Salmond.

Speaking of punchable faces

Speaking of punchable faces

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, that Alex Salmond, pictured above. (Though you might be forgiven for mistaking him for that other tubby leftist Scotch miscreant George Galloway.)

I’ve been doing a little reading about the Scottish Independence referendum, and it is clear that a great deal of what has been driving it, unfortunately, is not a desire for more freedom, but a demand for less.

And who is especially in favor of it? Well, according to those profiled in The Guardian, it’s those who have heretofore had little or no interest in politics, and but who presently draw checks from it.

Sort of like Alex Salmond and his 17 years older wife, and his parents.

So what we have here in the Scotch Independence Movement, is a movement that appears to be largely by and for those who draw their meal tickets from the government and who are determined to make sure that if England is infected by “neo-liberal” ideas of the kind that spell individual rights and less government direction, they will not be part of it.

Of course others have a different opinion. Some see it, and speaking of Donald Trump, as part of a vast right wing conspiracy for which Salmond is acting as crony or front man.

Who can say really. All we really know is what the Scotch in favor of the movement say, and that is that they want less dangerous classical liberalism and more guaranteed welfare statism, even if it means paying for their “Independence” by importing a non-Scots replacement population in order to to underwrite it all.

Why don’t they just put guns to their heads and pull the triggers?

The Nazis, famous for being infamous,  were once also famous for complaining that many of the most vigorous of the German nationality had emigrated to America; leaving behind a more stolid and less heroic population than was necessary for an anti-classical liberal national revivification of the kind they envisioned. Their proposed solution was the organized militarization of their political culture, and the expulsion (or murder) all non-Germans in the perfervid  hope of reinvigorating their “people”.

The Scotch solution to an endemic national ennui and the threat of encroaching classical liberalism, is to declare independence from the source of the individual self-direction taint (England), and turn the country over to immigrants who will, they hope, underwrite the comfort of the present pensioner class.

Talk about two suicidal extremes proposed as answers to what was essentially the same question …

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Culture, Humor - For Some, Law, Liberal, politics, society, We Won't Miss You | 3 Comments »

Adjusting the angle of attack …

Posted by DNW on 2014/09/02

I’ve come to the conclusion that the tenor of some of my recent postings have done virtually no one, including myself, most especially myself, much good.

To put it in the most self-serving terms possible, this lapse has generally occurred while I was critiquing the work of leftist bloggers.

Now, when doing so you have a choice: 1, to stick to pointing out the faults of the narrative, or 2, to also if it seems justified, go after the one doing the narrating – usually by judging them by the announced standard by which they judge others.

With the left, the fundamental standards of social and political, if not all human value, are generally implied to be “intelligence” and artfulness. In their moral universe, the liberal moral universe,  moral values are not discovered, but “created”. So, for example, so-called “Tea Partiers” are berated for being, not merely wrong, but for being uncouth, uncultured, generally ignorant, and above all as fundamentally unintelligent.

Obviously then,  it’s quite tempting to analyze the left’s own polemics in the same terms.

And when you do so, that is to say act by not only marking their errors, but also the “reasonableness” of the errors, the transparency of the errors, and the likelihood of those falsehoods being deliberate as opposed to inadvertent, you are quite possibly tempted, as I have been, to throw up your hands and simply conclude that the liberal writers are either lying, or idiots, or both.

The recent result here has been half-a-dozen of my  posts prominently featuring the term “stupid” in reference to particular persons spouting a leftist line.

Now, in the abstract, they might deserve this treatment. Or they might not.

But I am tired of seeing it in my own productions.

In fact I am going to re-title a couple of my entries and make some modest textual changes.

I don’t want to become in some measure what I am critiquing, by picking up their standards and flinging them back at them. No matter how much they may seem to deserve it..

Even though I have often accused conservatives of playing with one hand tied behind their back, and of being inhibited by limits liberals don’t share, there has to be a better way than sounding as if you have adopted leftist premises yourself.

It’s not only stupid to become the enemy, but ultimately wrong.

Posted in Blogging Matters, Culture, Liberal, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy | Leave a Comment »

“We can’t save stupid white liberals …

Posted by DNW on 2014/08/30

From a provocative website I often read, resist agreeing with just as frequently, and occasionally comment on, comes this remark from another visitor concerning what looks to be a blossoming theme these days.

“We can’t save stupid white liberals and save ourselves at the same time.”

Seems that whenever there is a report that the chickens of chaos may come home to roost in the liberal coop itself, some observers are quick to offer up a grim “So who gives a damn?”

And what is a limited government type to think when the left/fascist social vandals and subverters of our once constitutional government of strictly enumerated powers, i.e., those who would drag us into fascistic liberty killing social programs like the Obamacare individual mandate, or who would flood the nation with illegally arriving aliens, are themselves targeted, quite literally and for death, by foreign jihadis?

Does one get upset? Do you ruefully shake your head at the irony? Or do you pull up a chair, and crack open a beer?

Now for the main bout of the evening, a tag team match. In the postmodern-left blue state corner, defending the internally driven ruination of western civilization, we have Amanda “Death to the Patriarchy” and borderline personality Marcotte, and Michael “Lord Humongous” Moore!

And opposing them in the Black Flag of Islam corner, we have Mohammad “The Knife” Mohammad, and Mo …

Ladies and Gentlemen, Ladies and Gentlemen I’m afraid that we have run into a difficulty here over the rules. Apparently, our contestants in the Black Flag of Islam corner, did not quite understand that they were supposed to await the bell before slicing into their opponents.

We are currently attempting to contact David Brooks and Chris Matthews as last minute replacements for the late Marcotte and Moore team.

 

So, somehow ISIS has not gotten the message that the American left is really more like them in their totalitarianism than not. And for some reason ISIS, not recognizing the American left as fundamentally their kind of people, proposes creating mayhem in certain leftist-rich targets.

Recalling then, Michael Moore’s infamous query as to why a liberal target like New York had to be attacked rather than some conservative place like Provo, Utah, what is a non-masochist to think about the possibility of the fat boy himself  (or those ideologically like him) being hoisted on his own malice packed petard?

Well, I’m not quite sure what to think, myself. It’s possible that there is a larger moral dimension to it, despite what one would naturally imagine.

But I am pretty sure that the guy who wrote this was on to something in a general way when he, to repeat, observed: “We can’t save stupid white liberals and save ourselves at the same time.

He says he figures we can’t.

If push comes to shove, I am as yet unconvinced we should even try.

 

Posted in Liberal, Socialists, society, terrorists, We Won't Miss You | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Scotland The Nanny State

Posted by DNW on 2014/08/25

Albania The Brave?

Alba Alban Albanay Albania what's the difference anyway ...

Alba Alban Albany Albania what’s the difference anyway …

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Great Britain no more?

Scotland is facing an independence referendum in about 23 days. And at present the news reports a 48% favorable headcount.

There are any number of implications to Scottish independence having to do with defense matters and currency, but the driving force behind the movement is from my perspective, surprising, as it is driven seemingly by the politically left-wing.

A glance at The Guardian’s article on divided families shows some very interesting opinions by those in favor of independence.

Apparently a significant number of supporters want national sovereignty, or independence, for the purpose of enhancing an already substantial Scottish welfare state.  This leaning is confirmed by a look at the Scottish National Party web site.

The Freedom to be unfree

The Freedom to be less free

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In addition, and speaking of voting away your freedom in the name of a worry free existence,  there seem to be numerous questions which would have to be resolved only after independence is declared.  Sort of like ObamaCare: you know, you have to vote for it before you can find out what’s in it.

Anyway, here are a couple of pro-independence voices recorded by The Guardian. Remarkably, they do seem to channel Ms Pelosi in a number of ways.

 

Caroline Wylie, says:

“I’m voting yes because of many things. I think the nationalists, while they’ve been in power, have delivered things that show they can govern properly. I like the fact that I live in a country that can deliver free prescriptions and university education for its children …

The no side say they will give us fresh tax-raising powers, although they are unspecified, but if they are to be believed we will get that anyway, whether it’s yes or no. …

I have to confess, though, that until the referendum campaign I was very apolitical, whereas all the rest of my family – my mum and dad and my two sisters – were all more politically engaged than I and are all against independence.

Most politicians are selfish, I think, and purely in it for themselves, but I think the SNP are different and want to look after ordinary people. We have a chance here to throw out all the debris of Westminster; the large, corrupt and cumbersome government that does not represent the ordinary people in the street.”

 

So, the previously politically uninformed and disengaged Ms Wylie says that the taxing power is going to go up anyway, and she likes free government stuff, and [elsewhere] that she trusts the Nationalists to properly spend the money they take in.

Our next example is from Clare McKenna. Clare says,

I never used to be very interested in politics, as I thought that most of our politicians were just in it for themselves. Then, when I began to study social work, I began to see the negative impact of London’s policies on very many poor and vulnerable people.

I just see independence for Scotland as an opportunity to reject the neo-liberalism at the heart of Westminster politics. This is all about protecting the interests of a tiny political elite and their wealthy supporters.

You can see that in the way that the coalition government, aided and abetted by the so-called Labour party, have punished poor people and disabled people in their austerity drive.

I have seen the pain and suffering that the Westminster government has caused to vulnerable families in Scotland. And now we have been given this fantastic opportunity to reject the greed, corruption and self-interest of Westminster rule and to create a new politics in Scotland.

 

Like Caroline then, Clare had also been uninformed and politically disengaged. But since then, she has discovered through her government job, that she likes and that people are deserving of free things. There is at present she says, just too much London driven Classical Liberalism going on. And like Caroline again, she is certain that once Independence is achieved and the tides of English influence recede from Scotland’s shores, Scots will finally have the freedom they need to be less free and more sharing; as corruption disappears and compulsory wealth redistribution blooms.

Now, for those of us who have been reading about the dwindling away of Scotland’s population and the  ratio of pensioners to workers, we wonder just how do Clare and Caroline expect this to happen?

Well, my guess is that Clare and Caroline really have no idea at all as to how this is supposed to work, since they have they admit, just begun to take an interest in politics. They cannot after all, be seriously expected to have it completely figured out. Discovering that Classical Liberalism is wasteful, corrupt, inhuman and cruel, and that Independence means compassion and caring and sharing out the wealth, is quite enough for starters.

On the other hand, the Scottish National Party has at least some notion as to how they will attempt this multiplication of loaves.

They will do it in part, by importing a replacement population, and then dressing them in kilts, or something ….

What a Yes vote means for immigration

The Scottish Government’s White Paper ‘Scotland’s Future’ lays out our approach.

We plan a controlled points-based system to support the migration of skilled workers for the benefit of Scotland’s economy. An independent Scotland will have an inclusive approach to citizenship and a humane approach to asylum seekers and refugees.

The Scots are exposed to the same anti-immigrant rhetoric of the right wing press, and Nigel Farage is as ever-present on Scottish TVs as he is south of the Border.

In Scotland we have to lump inappropriate Westminster immigration laws, and we are constantly told that they must become even more restrictive to protect us from the various ‘floods’ of ‘foreigners’ who are to erode our way of life.

Scotland votes for a Government at Holyrood that couldn’t sound any more different from the UK Tory Government on immigration and we are a better country for that. The difference in how the two Governments see immigration is best demonstrated in their various responses to the annual census of net migration.

In Scotland, when we see an increase in our population given our history of depopulation, we celebrate the good news. At Westminster it couldn’t make the politicians more miserable.

Scots are also becoming increasingly aware of our own population and demographic requirements. Only 20 or so years ago there was a real fear that our population would dip below five million. Although our population is currently growing at a healthy and welcome rate, there is still a realisation that our population levels remain more fragile than south of the Border.

We can only properly deal with that if migration policy is decided in the Scottish parliament, not by Westminster.

Scotland has always accommodated new people coming to our country — and one of the greatest sayings in Scotland is that ‘we are all Jock Tamson’s bairns’.”

 

And all will then be well: as Caroline and Clare will henceforth be able to more fully enjoy the comfort and security and caring and sharing which they have so recently discovered they, and all others, are entitled to experience through the miracle of redistributive justice, finally, at last, enabled by “Independence” … of a sort.

Well, free to enjoy as long as the imported replacement population allows them to.

Of course nothing to worry about anyway. Those scare mongers on the other side of the debate are making false claims, claims which don’t matter even if they are true, as we SNP types eventually get around to admitting:

 

” … people on the state pension are not necessarily dependent. It sounds academic, but it is also common sense. Think about friends and family who are on the state pension – are they all ‘dependent’? Even if they are right that more people are reaching retirement age, this does not mean suddenly our population will be unable to produce what a country needs to prosper, or that suddenly our spending on health will increase beyond control.

As one of the report’s authors puts it: “Sometimes you hear people saying that 60 is the new 50, and that is absolutely right. The health status of people the life expectancy of 60-year-olds is pretty much the same as it would have been for 50-year-olds 20 or 30 years ago”.

Older people are not the burden that the No campaign tells us they are.

But those who work to represent older people say what we already know – that older people contribute more to society than we tend to admit, including as workers. Age Scotland said “Older people have a great deal to offer to society: as workers, active citizens, cultural contributors and carers.” They say the Edinburgh findings “will help dispel the myth that our ageing population is a burden. On the contrary, it is something to be celebrated.”

See! All you have to do is equivocate the word “dependency”, and then celebrate it, and the problem magically goes away through the miracle of subversive redefinition and (more quietly now) …. changed expectations.  Ain’t that great?

Oh yeah, and don’t forget to import those foreigners. (Link within the above link:) “Our immigration policies and policies to support and encourage families could and must also address this trend.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Culture, Elections, Liberal, politics, stereotype | Leave a Comment »

ISIS threatens to destroy Chicago and Americans shrug

Posted by DNW on 2014/08/22

 

“E Pluribus Unum” no more.

WGNtv Chicago posts the alarming “news” that ISIS has the destruction of Chicago in its sights.

And Americans fed up with the totalitarian collectivists and moral nihilist appetite entities of the left who have already eaten away at not only our civilization but at our heritage of liberties, react with a shrug at the notion of the mayor of chicago trapped in the flaming ruins of the ecological niche his leftist ambition fouls and undermines.

We recall of course  that some 13 years ago progressive propagandist and cherished celebrity, His Rotundity Michael Moore, infamously set the stage for the spread of this attitude, when he asked in dismay why the Muslims had to attack New York, a liberal metropolis, rather than some conservative heartland site.

Gee, if the terrorists had just murdered conservative Christians, then Michael Moore could have understood, and maybe even sympathized.

Yeah Michael you submoral dog. So much for E Pluribus Unum, eh?

Well, thirteen years into it, those Americans who still value liberty and self-direction have gotten so used to the homicidal malice of the collectivist class, that they now, in turn, shrug at the thought of the collectivists themselves being destroyed by morally alien forces.

The underlying question is: What do you actually lose, when a malevolent parasite which has attached itself to you through your own long suffering tolerance and forbearance, is swept away by another?

Many have noticed that modern liberalism and Islamism are both anti-liberty of conscience, socially fascistic, and legally totalitarian ideologies. Many freedom loving Americans, less naive than their parents and grandparents, are apparently now prepared to stand back and watch “Hitler “and “Stalin” destroy each other; even if the war takes place on our own soil.

The question of whether the destruction would have unstoppably catastrophic side effects aside, it’s hard to blame a free man for shrugging at the destruction of those emotionalists who are, and have been, working for decades to destroy his freedom and ultimately his life.

What has a free man got to lose, when one flavor of collectivist is killed by another?

 

 

UPDATE:

Now here is something puzzling: the comments don’t seem to load up from the WGNtv link above anymore. Nor from the old (earlier today) history link, nor from internal links in the web page I preserved .

So, as a fair comment proof of this post’s contention, I shall quote a few of the more temperate comments below. Recognizable personal names are redacted, and discernibly racist crackpot bigotry is deleted.

 

            *****

    • J********a

      Dear Chicago,
      God forbid that you should fry like so many little french fries caught in the searing heat of a deep fryer. But, if you do, remember it was you and your kin that put Obama in office. You gave us a slug of a president whose ability in foreign affairs is zero to none.
      I will feel sorry for you later, because right now I can’t.

      w*****9

      Chicago goes up and this president must be removed before he takes the rest of the country down Impeachment and removal. He has clearly shown a total disregard for the security of this country and dares play golf at a time of crisis. Unfortunately, with ISIS here, possibly, we will need to employ every weapon at our disposal to eliminate them and their threat. Without security, what good is anything.

      1Yousuck

      perfect target! beautiful poetic justice!

      make no mistake. obama, democrats, libs, etc…truly believe in the undoing of Aimerican pride, power, success, etc…and a much more destructive and impoverished world is the natural result, when you undercut a free people.

      so, let the reaping of their sowing be true. these dark-hearted people are intent on allowing more evil, and letting it come here. therefore, let it come upon them FIRST!

      my prayer since obama’s first election has been simple: let ALL them that voted for him reap to the fullest, what they have sown: social degradation (ferguson), economic failure (unemployment, welfarism), and ground zero as the next terrorist attack (chicago)

       

      gunnyginalaska

      Dear ISIS, if you can’t hit Sh*tcago, might I suggest other cities like Oakland, SF, Trenton, Filthadelphia, Camden, Detoilet, or any other city full of liberals will work.

      *****

      Chicago and their corrupt leftist progressive politician’s polices and the “peaceful” muslims who live among them deserve each other.

      Iraq/Afg Vet

      Most Americans don’t have the stomach for what it would take to truly rid the world of this cancer. Rules of Engagement, the enemy using human shields and hiding in schools, religious temples and mosques all make any operation dicey, and open to scrutiny by those too meek to even take part — but not afraid to arm-chair QB. Once again, the U.S. is alone because our allies in Europe don’t have the stones to do what is needed. Once again, we will inevitably come to the rescue and risk our troops, spend our money and resources, and bear the burden of fighting another terrorist group in someone else’s backyard — while the rest of the world does nothing but judge. The only way to rid the world of these guys is to take them head on with severe malice. No more of the ticky-tack, PC, inoffensive stuff. Either we go in guns blazing and with bad intentions, or we sit out and tell the rest of the world to figure it out.

      Psalmon

      1. Sickens me to hear O talk about Justice for anyone who harms Americans, when he does nothing on Benghazi
      2. John Kerry our SOS keeps claiming Climate Change is our #1 threat

      These guys are almost bigger lunatics than ISIS.

 

Posted in Islam, Liberal, Philosophy, politics, Socialists, society, terrorists, Uncategorized, We Won't Miss You | 9 Comments »

Justifiably killing Michael Brown

Posted by DNW on 2014/08/19

One of the issues we have had to confront over and over again in the political wrangles over how we shall live under law together, if indeed we shall continue to do so, is the issue of wildly differing personal boundaries.

It’s clear that liberals on the one side and libertarians and conservatives on the other have what appear to be very different and even antithetical psychological and perhaps even organic expectations and requirements.

Think back to the days of liberal rage and hope in the 1960s and 1970s. Their anthems, their secular prayers, their hopes and dreams were full of collectivist and “community” yearnings. Yeah, some of it was conscious communism, watered down so as to seem humanistic and full of feeling, but, I think, much of it represented their natural yearnings. “No man is an island”, “Attention must be paid!”, “unconditional love” and I will lay me down for you like a bridge over troubled waters, yada yada yada.

Give me a moment … I can’t effen breathe in the humidity generated by that last series of liberal-mentality quotes.

Ok, so anyway the interpenetrative masochism, so to the taste of the left – the experience of which both convinces the leftist it has a “right” to exist while adding a fillip of sexually perverse excitement to his politics – is what sets the leftist anthropoid apart from morally redeemable human beings. The craving for submission and suffering simply cannot be unwound from the leftist DNA. It is after all, what makes them what they are, and is why they behave in the way they do.

In line with this, has anyone noticed that few if any have asked if the shop clerk who was assaulted and battered by Michael Brown would have been morally justified in standing his ground and killing Brown if necessary?

Where did Michael Brown presumptively derive the right to lay hands on another with impunity?

The man he assaulted was in fact small, and seemed to offer little if any resistance to Brown’s attack. But under what theory of law was he, dog-like, obligated not to do so? When did we reach the point in this country when an inoffensive person is considered morally bound to accept a battering or maiming for the sake of the well-being of a malicious and battering offender? How exactly is this equation rendered?

 

Here is an interesting video. Would it have been right and just for this woman to have killed her assailant? After all, she didn’t die herself.

 

http://newjersey.news12.com/multimedia/beating-attack-of-young-mother-caught-on-surveillance-video-1.5562236

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/29/arrest-made-in-nyc-suspect-in-nj-home-invasion-caught-on-nanny-cam/

 

Now our friend Michael Brown, this is a picture of Michael Brown below, did not break down a bolted door in order to beat the living shit out of a mother in front of her terrified daughter.

Brown from various sources

Brown from various sources

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, Michael Brown allegedly but feloniously robbed the Ferguson Market and Liquor store and assaulted – and technically battered – the employee.

 

Brown assaults employee while robbing store

Brown assaults employee while robbing store

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And then when Michael was allegedly finished robbing and assaulting at the market, he went strolling down the middle of the traffic lanes of a nearby street; whereupon, he assaulted – allegedly – a passing police officer who had asked him to stop blocking traffic and move to the sidewalk.

Now to put the cherry on top so to speak, he allegedly battered this police officer, tried to take away the cop’s gun, and then after a shot was discharged in the struggle over possession of the cop’s weapon, he briefly ran from the fracas he had started. He then, reportedly, turned about (was this guy channeling Trayvon?) taunted, and then charged at the cop.

Well, let’s place all the “alleged” material off to the side as provisional, as bracketed, and to this point hypothetical. And let’s consider the scenario in a hypothetical worst case scenario way; and here’s the big problem remaining.

Do grant for the sake of argument – and to this moment only for the sake of argument – that Michael Brown did indeed feloniously steal 50 bucks worth of cigars in a brazen strong arm robbery wherein he also assaulted and technically battered an employee. Grant further that he then sauntered down the middle of a public street interfering with traffic and thereby attracting the attention of a police officer who asked him to move out of the traffic lane and onto the walkway.

Further grant – for the sake of argument only – that Michael Brown did in fact refuse to do move out of the traffic lane, and attacked the cop in his car when the cop subsequently pulled up ahead in order to deal with the situation on foot. Grant also that Michael Brown battered the cop’s face. Grant that Michael Brown tried to take the officer’s weapon, and shoot the officer with it, only running off when he failed.

Grant that after Brown ran a short distance, he turned about after some modest number of feet, faced the cop who was ordering him to stop, and then taunted the cop: finally, charging him in order to … well Michael Brown only knows.

Amazingly in doing this, you have to grant felony robbery, and felony assault on a police officer; and probably attempted murder.

Yet if you grant all of that, and apparently some do even on Michael’s side, here is the problem remaining. Michael Brown’s apologists still don’t think that the police response was appropriate.

Now would they possibly alternatively concede that it would have been appropriate for the puny little store clerk to have killed Brown with a weapon, if, say, the preservation of clerk’s own bodily integrity while under active assault and battery, had depended on it?

No, I am convinced most on the left would not.

And I think we have good evidence for this conclusion: Trayvon Martin. After the bloodied face and skull of Zimmerman was finally shown, after it was eventually geometrically demonstrated that if Trayvon’s so-called girlfriend was to be believed at all, then Trayvon had had to have doubled back on Zimmerman in order to confront and attack him; even after the slim drink business; even after the burglar tools; even after the other fights and assaults … none of it mattered.

And not only to his family did it not matter, but neither to elderly white leftist provocation specialist trash like Perry Hood, or now our erstwhile commenter John The Liberal of American Liberal Times blog.

You might think that these moral miscreants are deliberately trying to cause a social Armageddon. But the more likely explanation is that they just don’t care, or are incapable of caring, about the truth.

Because in the final analysis, Michael Brown’s most ardent apologists, of whatever color or ethnic makeup, are simply moral aliens, people who have and who recognize no boundaries at all when it comes to satisfying their urges and wants, but who expect that those upon whom they impose, wheedle,  and often violently prey, will always submit.

Moral alien activists expect that they, or their social pets at least, may rape and plunder and assault, and that the victims will properly respond with unending and self-destructive restraint: all the better to abide the very rules which the Michael Browns and Trayvon Martins and Bill Ayers of the world sneer at. In other words they expect that all men will act like the pathetic and contemptible masochists we know as old white liberal males.

It is clear enough that we know who is actually doing the dying as a result of this poisonous attitude and psychology.

Maybe we should ask from a more broadly moral perspective, who really should be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

A moment of reflection …

Posted by DNW on 2014/08/19

I’ve taken a backward glance at a number of the posts I have put up in recent months, and noticed what has become a recurring theme for me: the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the everyday left and its mouthpieces.

I also notice that in choosing the most plainspoken and idiomatic terms available, I have repeatedly labeled their condition “stupidity”.

Now, this “Dishonest stupidity of everyday Progressives” business, is not a theme I have intentionally chosen to harp on. It is simply the result of watching what everyday progressives do, of listening carefully (and dispassionately above all else) to what they themselves say, and of then evaluating the narrative they are putting forth for (presumably) our consumption, for its logical coherence, evidence of intellectual integrity, and overall sense.

It is startling to reflect that in the process of reviewing so many different progressives’ work for intellectual coherence and truth value, I have been inexorably led to the same end-point; a place wherein I was confronted with the obvious:  that progressives habitually lie, are untroubled by their lying and duplicity, and that they are not even very clever in doing it.

Katie Halper, John The Liberal, Benjamin Crump, progressives big and small, public and not so public, they are all essentially the same ends-justify-the-means types who live in a world of moral convenience: one which they ultimately strive to order for their emotional comfort and satisfaction.

Ann Coulter sometime ago commented that despite the progressive’s constant talk of intelligence as if it were a cardinal if not the supreme, moral virtue, they seem to be quite deficient when it comes to exercising it themselves or in applying that intelligence standard to members of their political client class.

And perhaps that is the key, and why I placed the word “presumably” in parentheses when I said above that progressives were speaking for “our consumption”. They really are not. The progressives are not trying to convince us. Instead, as David Horowitz had made himself blue in the face pointing out, their rhetoric is not designed to convince us of the validity of their reasoning, so much as to wage social war upon us by manipulating emotionally immature, and mentally limited third parties.

Knowing their own herd then,  given who they themselves are, what they value, and who it is that aligns with them, they know that they need not be careful, accurate, or truthful; and that emotion and sarcasm serve their ends better than reason.

As their chosen audience has presumptively little or nothing in the way of critical faculties or genuine knowledge, they need not trouble themselves too much when it comes to arousing them.

“Stupid”, may not be the most artful word to describe the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of political progressives. But apart from terms such as “nihilist”, “self-serving hypocrite”, or “evil”, it seems upon consideration, to be the most accurate.

Posted in Blogging Matters, Liberal, Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Have a drink, listen, and watch the sunset

Posted by DNW on 2014/08/15

As the American polity stumbles under the weight of the brainless and behaviorally incontinent, recall to mind that the human spirit is larger than this present time, or even this nation.

So although we look toward the future of our own country and our people with confidence, we can also spend some moments in appreciating the heritage of the wider western world.

It’s not all jabbering leftists and snorting buffoons.

From YouTube, the famous adagio from the Concierto de Aranjuez performed by Angel Romero for a United Nations concert many years ago.

John Williams and other classical guitarists have performed this too, but as a Spaniard himself, the feeling Romero brings to it seems to be especially evocative.

 

 

Posted in Entertainment | Leave a Comment »

Speaking of Benjamin Crump

Posted by DNW on 2014/08/15

From his website: Intellectual powerhouse Benjamin Crump.

How did this clown ever get a law degree?

How did this clown ever get a law degree?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read the screen capture below and weep for civilization.

Three so-called “Esquires”, all signing off on a contemptibly inflammatory polemic intended to shift attention away from what appears to be a steadily creeping indictment of the moral character of the late Michael Brown of Ferguson, Missouri.

And all they succeed in demonstrating is their own moral and intellectual incompetence.

See the first paragraph issued by these legal geniuses: “piece mil” for “piecemeal”.  Unfortunately for them, it is the kind of error spell check won’t catch; since, both “piece” and “mil” are real words.

So three activist lawyers rush to the scene of a fiasco, put their demonstrably sub-par heads together, and that is what results.

 

Crump the illiterate crop

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did they write the nonsense they published above? Who knows? But it appears over Crump’s name.

 

Did they read it? Again, who knows? But one is justified in presuming that material published over a man’s name has at least been read by him.

 

Three publicity seeking bomb throwing lawyers, and apparently not one of them could spell “piecemeal”.

 

And just in case people are wondering if some AOL typist is responsible for the error in the statement:

 

Crump Esquire's statement

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kind of sums it up, doesn’t it?

Posted in Culture, education, Humor - For Some, Insanity, Law, Liberal, media, politics, society | 2 Comments »

The liberalism of the American Liberal Times blog

Posted by DNW on 2014/08/14

A little while ago I posted on my failed project to enter into a constructive dialog with a liberal … any liberal at all. The latest case being, one John The Liberal, the proprietor of the “American Liberal Times” blog.

That was then.

 

Now, introducing just a little more of John The Liberal.

American Liberal

Screen Shot

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

John The Liberal has a few observations and rhetorical-style questions.

We will present his remarks as “questions” and “comments”, and then propose our own “answers”.

 

1, Question  from John:

“It seems that some “Christians” . . . ( I have no reason to doubt they are Christians . . . I am not their judge and jury . . . That is God’s Business) . . . some Christians seems to be Hell-bent ( pardon the unintended pun) on getting themselves into trouble by trying to export their belief system to foreign cultures . . . did you ever notice?”

 

Answer:

Dear John.

Yes we have. This is probably due to the fact that it is a critical and essential part of their faith according to its very Founder. Sometimes it is referred to as “The Great Commission” . You have repeatedly referred to your own religious faith in terms which would lead one to assume that it had, or once had, something to do with Christianity as well. So perhaps you heard of the command to evangelize at one time.

The following references were mostly taken directly from a Bible verse site which easily accessible to anyone looking to confirm.

 

Matthew Chapter 28

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, [even] unto the end of the world.
Mark 16:15

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature.
Acts 1:8

But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
Luke 12:8

Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God
Mark 4:21

And he said unto them, Is a candle brought to be put under a bushel, or under a bed? and not to be set on a candlestick?”

 

It should also be noted that Church history records that all the original apostles did in fact “get into trouble” exporting their faith to foreign cultures; with only one apostle even surviving the commission: albeit in exile.  The plain fact is that the faith was at one time foreign to all cultures; even the culture of its homeland.

So yes, John. Many people have noticed.

 

2, Comment from John:

“I am one of those “Liberal Freaks” who firmly believes that if some pew-jumper church starts preaching politics from the pulpit it should lost its tax-exempt status . . . period . . . end of story. Why should they rake in millions of tax-free dollars for their big wig preachers to live high on the hog on and be able to shove their politics down their parishioners’ throats at the same time?

It has nothing to do with “freedum of ree-ligiun” at all.

It has to do with trying to mix politics and religion – – and that is something that simply cannot work out in the long run. …

I’m all in favor of the government taxing the Living Hell out of any church that makes itself a virtual headquarters of some political party.
Share this:callous! I didn’t mean for it to sound that way but I think it has to be asked.)

 

Answer: Jeremiah Wright and Trinity United

 

3, An “observation”  from John The Liberal of American Liberal Times:

“When tyranny comes to a nation it always comes wrapped in a flag and carrying a gun and a Bible.”

Answer:

Really, John?

Pol-Pot Mao Zedong (1) Mao Zedong (2) Robespierre

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pol Pot

 

Mao

 

Stalin

 

Robespierre and the efforts of his friends and allies

 

Posted in Blogging Matters, Character, Christianity, Humor - For Some, Insanity, Liberal, truth, Uncategorized | 8 Comments »

You are a modern liberal …

Posted by DNW on 2014/07/21

 

 

You are a modern liberal

… and you don’t believe in natural rights.

Ok … let’s ask some questions which may even seem silly at first, but which, in the asking, will clear away some of the unhappy vagueness we tend to live with out of social politeness or the fear of seeming too radical.

So:

Do you have, let’s say, a right to breathe? If so, where does this “right” come from? An act of Congress?

Do you have a right to be served by others? If so;

Do they have a right to be served by you? If so;

Do they have a right to serve themselves by not serving you?

 

The questions are too general or abstract or silly or provocative you say? And anyway, it all depends, you say? Alright then, “it all depends”.

In hopes of making some kind of progress, let’s wave away any of the question begging “balancing of rights” or “cultural context” distractions into which you would like segue, and try to press forward instead.

To continue on a slightly different tack.

Do you (yeah you personally) let’s say, have a right to speak freely? If the answer is “yes”, is that “right” merely a contingent legal permission – be it constitutional, statutory, whatever – which you for the time being enjoy? Can you equally well be deprived of that permission in a way which would leave you with no rational cause for complaint to someone else? If you cannot so be deprived without a rational cause for complaint to someone else, do you then claim a more basic right to that express right? If so, how, or upon what, is that claim grounded?

 

You are a modern liberal; and, let’s say for the sake of argument, that I am not.

And you’re determined that you are not  going to “fall for” any of the questions I have asked. A “right” you insist and will boldly maintain, is nothing more than an arbitrarily recognized social permission – that tolerance or support which others are habituated or intimidated into conceding to you. Usually written down if it is to mean anything.

You then as a modern liberal, consistently and without exception or proviso do assert and affirm that the concept of “rights” really renders down to what are in essence, no more than social permissions; having no other objective grounding or reality.

So now, let’s say that you the modern liberal, and I the not-modern-liberal find ourselves on an island. One with no law books.

I’m stronger that you are and … Yeah, yeah, trust me, I am. And, and anyway as I was about to say, although there is enough for both of us to survive, if I kill you now, I can live more than just comfortably. Besides, I find your weakness and whiny-ness annoying.

If I do kill you, have I done anything objectively wrong? If so what is it, and how do you know? Have I thereby, on this law book free island, deprived you of anything that could be called “rights”? Is my killing of you, “unjust” in any sense, even though no judicial writ runs here? If so, then how so; and, how do you know?

Have you any reason to complain over an injustice in my act? Notice I said “reason”; and notice that your utility to me is not an issue here. How would all this be balanced out under a social permission theory of rights?

Well now, I don’t really expect you as a liberal to answer these questions, or to take them seriously, or even to grant that the framing of the speculations is something you would abide or tolerate.

Because of course, these questions are not really meant to change a liberal mind regarding the nature and status of rights by means of pointing out just how incoherent the liberal use of the term rights is, when the term is used in the sense conceived of, and conceded by, liberals.

I know this because I have wasted many hours attempting to get modern-liberals to explain themselves: and their strategy has been, without exception, to either refuse to do so, or to shelter behind the terminology of a moral worldview which they in fact reject.

You liberals, high-minded or low, already know all this too. You know, explicitly or implicitly that you are are spouting clandestinely self-serving rhetoric not reason, and emoting, not deducing, when you speak of “rights”.

So what’s the point?

The point is that: what this exercise is really meant to do is to remind non-liberals that, in the final analysis, modern liberals are motivated by a simple will to power and/or by urges which they themselves don’t care to justify or explore too deeply.

This is a fact of social life which non-liberals need to face, and of which they need to steadily keep reminding themselves.

Liberals are able not only to readily face this view of themselves, they ultimately embrace it; and when pushed to the wall, they will even proclaim it. They see it – entropy, inherent meaninglessness, and ultimate nothingness – as a state of affairs which grants them freedom from ultimate consequences. Insofar of course, as there is a coherent “they” to them, and insofar as “freedom” has any any meaning, insofar as consequences have any significance, and insofar, insofar, insofar …

So, isn’t it about time that conservatives become brave enough to face what it is that liberals are blithely admitting about themselves as liberals?

Its only prudent, after all.

 

Posted in Conservative, Culture, Liberal, Philosophy, Real Life, society, Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 218 other followers

%d bloggers like this: