Yearly Archives: 2016

I hope God grants you the strength to deal with whatever fate has in store

Posted on by
Reply

We are celebrating the 50th anniversary of our high school graduation in Toronto where not-quite-all of us will be meeting in September to party and reminisce. Quite extraordinary that with only a couple of exceptions I remember every single one of the possibly 140-150 members of my graduating class. I have also been reading the short biographies many of them have been putting up online, and even among the one who feel successful enough to describe their life stories there is a good deal of ups and downs. There are many divorces, and there are a number where their wives or husbands have passed away, which I feel even worse about, strangely, than about the list of the fifteen of my classmates who have themselves passed away, as shocking as each of these is. I am certainly the one who has ended up farthest away from Toronto – and it is amazing how many still live there or thereabouts. But with every zig in life there is a zag that comes soon enough with it. The only thing I can think of as my wish for others is that I hope God grants you the strength to deal with whatever fate has in store for you. I regret I am going to miss it, but with the distance Melbourne to Toronto recorded as 10,110 miles (which looks more like a binary number rather than base ten), it is not to be. But my thoughts will definitely be with them.

A necessary discussion on the first steps in defeating terrorism

Posted on by
Reply

How extreme is this?

The standard rebuttal that all faiths have at one time or another shown themselves prone to violence and repression misses the essential point. All the major religions have reformed themselves, reducing or eliminating the all-too-human tendency to sanctimonious oppression—and none of these faiths, let us remember, endorsed oppression as a universal creedal or Divine imperative. Such is not the case with Islam, a communion that since its inception in the 7th century has seldom strayed from its sanguinary path of carnage and subdual. Its incendiary prescriptions and commands, as many scholars have noted, are open-ended and contain no “sunset clause.” They are perpetual and mandatory, feeding what essayist Bill Kassel calls “religious-themed barbarism.”

Not extreme at all. Read it through. And read the comments too.

And there is plenty of stupid going around

Posted on by
Reply

iriny is wasted on the stupid

You know, no one thinks that Obama and Hillary really did set up ISIS. Saying so is kind of a metaphor for geopolitical incompetence of the most extraordinary kind. If they had not blundered as they had across the middle east, and in particular in Iraq and Libya, ISIS would never have formed, or if formed, would never have reached the kind of extension it now has. The above sentiment therefore comes with this one:

sarcasm because beating the crap out of people is illegal

The problem is, if you are among those who are irony-free, you won’t see the point. And while there is some satisfaction in laughing at you, the reality is that when stupid reaches the highest levels of political decision making, there is nothing really to laugh about.

Hope and change

Posted on by
Reply

trump controversies and hillary scandals

I don’t know if others have worked it out yet but if Trump doesn’t become president then Hillary does. It also does seem to me that there are far too many independent minds who are locked into the left-media narrative and seem to repeat almost verbatim the things they find in The New York Times, handily repeated for them by The Oz and Fairfax Press. And what does get me is that with Hillary you will get nothing you say you want – not a single thing – other than a continuation of the Obama years which Hillary’s stint as Secretary of State has well and truly prepared her for.

You like open borders, she’s your woman. You like unrestricted immigration, then you know who to vote for. Want spending even more undisciplined than now, then that’s the way to go. Want the sleaziest and most corrupt administration in history – one guaranteed to be sold to the highest bidder – then just keep plugging Hillary.

Trump is unusual, truly never been tested with high office. OK, but why is it an advantage that Hillary has been, when everything she has done, to the extent that she has done anything at all, has turned to ashes. A candidate without a single accomplishment to her name, other than name recognition. The funny thing is that Trump really does offer Hope and Change. He may not deliver, but he might. I know what he wants to do and my wish is that he is actually able to do it.

I thought Romney was the last hope for the West, and maybe he was. But there is now Donald Trump. (1) He is not Hillary. (2) He knows something about balancing a set of books. (3) He might even be able to close the American border. (4) He loves America and the American way of life – that is, our way of life.

You don’t see it so you don’t see it. But let me tell you, if you don’t see it, you have nothing to tell me about who to vote for in the American presidential election in November.

The killer instinct

Posted on by
Reply

Let’s go to what he is reported to have said: Trump: Maybe ‘Second Amendment People’ Could Stop Clinton From Picking Judges.

Trump said at a rally in Wilmington, North Carolina, on Tuesday that if Clinton gets to pick federal judges as president, there is nothing that can be done to protect the right to bear arms.

But then he adds without elaboration that maybe supporters of the Second Amendment could figure out a way. . . .

My first reaction on hearing that he had said this was to think that it was the first time I had heard him utter a defeatist word, hypothesising that Hillary might win in November. But then I have watched the reaction across the media, and even among the supposed conservative media, accepting the left-media’s interpretation of what Trump had said, that he had been advocating some kind of violence against Hillary. There are political morons everywhere, I’m afraid, but the left-media must be amazed at how stupid the conservative side of politics is. I will go to the logic of what Trump is supposed to have said, which is that:

  • if Hillary is elected
  • and she gets to choose the next Supreme Court justices
  • and she chooses nominees who are opposed to the second amendment
  • then, what?

It ought to be obvious that if she is already president, her death would have no effect on who is chosen for the Supreme Court. Suppose she nominates Judges X and Y and then another blood clot to the brain carries her off. The same nominees will go forward under President Kaine.

The thing that makes Trump so different from all of the other Republicans is that he is not gun shy of a serious fight. He must be no little dismayed and quite a lot disgusted by the Republican first eleven who are weak beyond measure and who have no fight in them. The way the story continues is how it looked to me even as I read his words:

Trump himself seemed unaware of the controversy in an interview shortly after the rally, but he repeated that his point was that Second Amendment advocates are a powerful lobby. Former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani also came to Trump’s defense.

“I think you are talking about — I’m not sure because I haven’t’ heard this question — but I think you’re talking about the power of people that are in favor of the Second Amendment, and they have tremendous political power,” he said.

When asked about Democrats’ statements equating the remark to condoning violence, Trump said: Oh no, no. This is political power.”

Giuliani added, “I mean, this is the Clinton trick book that you fall for all the time.”

Trump senior communications adviser Jason Miller told CBS News’ Major Garrett the accusations the GOP nominee was calling for violence are “completely ridiculous.”

“Donald Trump was obviously talking about American voters who are passionate about their Second Amendment rights and advocating they use that power at the ballot box,” Miller told CBS News. “The Clinton campaign is desperate and is obviously throwing all sorts of outrageous charges. I am surprised so many reporters are falling hook-line-and-sinker for what is obviously a ridiculous charge.”

I’m not surprised, of course, and I would be surprised if he really were surprised. The media are Trump’s most relentless enemies.

What I like about Trump is that he brings a gun to a knife fight. He does not back down. He’s new at this political game, but what he is not new at is fighting to win. You want to win yourself, you want to get your policies up even with the gale force media winds in front. It disgusts me to see how weak his support is. Here it is, you dummkopfs. We are down to the last two, and if it’s not Trump then its Hillary. Don’t tell me about all of your concerns with this and that. If you are not all in for Trump, then do me a favour and just shut up.

It’s not what you do but who you are that counts

Posted on by
Reply

obama daughter smoking grass

Compare and contrast the media response. First this:

MAKING DADDY PROUD: MALIA OBAMA CAUGHT SMOKING WEED

Are you even aware this took place, in Chicago where smoking grass is illegal? And then there was this:

Bush’s daughter in under-age drinks bust.

This you will remember although it happened fifteen years ago [!!!] because the news reporting went on for days at the highest level of intensity. And she was 19 at the time so in any sensible country there would have been nothing illegal about it. And the effects of grass are much greater than the effects of drink, specially on young children. But that’s not the point. It is what is reported and turned into scandal and what is not. And it is not so much “what” as “who”.

Unfit to be president in many ways – here’s one more

Posted on by
Reply

Donald Trump suggests that political pressure could be applied to a President Clinton on the selection of supreme court justices in relation to the 2nd amendment and every unhinged journalist goes off the deep end accusing him of advocating violence. The story: Trump: Maybe ‘Second Amendment People’ Could Stop Clinton From Picking Judges.

Trump said at a rally in Wilmington, North Carolina, on Tuesday that if Clinton gets to pick federal judges as president, there is nothing that can be done to protect the right to bear arms.

But then he adds without elaboration that maybe supporters of the Second Amendment could figure out a way. . . .

Like, say, through the Senate rejecting a nominee, maybe. Anyway, here he is:

Trump himself seemed unaware of the controversy in an interview shortly after the rally, but he repeated that his point was that Second Amendment advocates are a powerful lobby. Former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani also came to Trump’s defense.

“I think you are talking about — I’m not sure because I haven’t’ heard this question — but I think you’re talking about the power of people that are in favor of the Second Amendment, and they have tremendous political power,” he said.

When asked about Democrats’ statements equating the remark to condoning violence, Trump said: Oh no, no. This is political power.”

Giuliani added, “I mean, this is the Clinton trick book that you fall for all the time.”

Trump senior communications adviser Jason Miller told CBS News’ Major Garrett the accusations the GOP nominee was calling for violence are “completely ridiculous.”

“Donald Trump was obviously talking about American voters who are passionate about their Second Amendment rights and advocating they use that power at the ballot box,” Miller told CBS News. “The Clinton campaign is desperate and is obviously throwing all sorts of outrageous charges. I am surprised so many reporters are falling hook-line-and-sinker for what is obviously a ridiculous charge.”

I’m not surprised, of course, but who can be so disciplined in everything they say so that nothing cannot be twisted to make it seem anything you like.

Then there is this story which, as always, shows up in The Daily Mail and thus will have virtually no impact in the United States: Child rape victim comes forward for the first time in 40 years to call Hillary Clinton a ‘liar’ who defended her rapist by smearing her, blocking evidence and callously laughing that she knew he was guilty. The story is an old one but not the statement of the 12-year old victim of a rapist who was defended by Hillary Clinton. The victim is now 54.

  • ‘Hillary Clinton is not for women and children,’ says Kathy Shelton, 54, who was 12 years old when she was raped by Thomas Alfred Taylor in Arkansas
  • Clinton was the rapist’s defense lawyer, pleading him down to ‘unlawful fondling of a minor’
  • The 41-year-old drifter served less than a year in prison
  • The plea came after Clinton was able to block the admission of forensic evidence that linked her client to the crime
  • Shelton says she’s furious that Clinton has been portraying herself as a lifelong advocate of women and girls on the campaign trail
  • Clinton accused Shelton of ‘seeking out older men’ in the case and demanded that she undergo a grueling court-ordered psychiatric examination
  • The presidential candidate later laughed while discussing aspects of the case in a recently-unearthed audiotaped interview from the 1980s

Have a listen to the interview below from the 1980s.

Go to link for a complete wrap up of the events.

From the same people who brought you Malcolm Turnbull

Posted on by
Reply

The Australian – a Murdoch paper – has a supplement on the American Election. Not all that neutral, as you can see by clicking the link. But in case you cannot be bothered, here is what you see right after the intro:

President Obama said Republican nominee Donald Trump is “unfit” to be president and questioned why top GOP lawmakers continued to endorse Trump for the White House while denouncing his actions.

Which comes with the following video:

The power of self-deception within the media class is extraordinary. They pass off their shallow and subjective valuations as deeply considered objective truths. This from The New York Times is almost beyond parody: Trump Is Testing the Norms of Objectivity in Journalism. That the media fail this test in every single election is neither here nor there. That they believe they are objective is the true idiocy. Let me quote:

If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?

Because if you believe all of those things, you have to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century, if not longer, and approach it in a way you’ve never approached anything in your career. If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable.

Uncharted territory!!! What a bunch of self-deluded bozos these media people are.