Log in

jordan179 Below are the 10 most recent journal entries recorded in the "jordan179" journal:

[<< Previous 10 entries]

July 30th, 2015
09:32 pm


A Thought On the Democrats Valuing Blacks Greatly
The Democrats used to value blacks greatly.

Then, the Republicans made the Democrats stop buying and selling them at auction.

It was a little dispute called the American Civil War. You may have heard of it.

Tags: , ,

(25 comments | Leave a comment)

July 16th, 2015
09:10 pm


Quick Thought on the Mass Murder in Tennessee
The really sad thing here is that the shooter was successful.  The solution to this is to harden the targets by allowing the military to go armed even when on Stateside assignments.  Had the Marines been armed, there's a good chance nobody would have died, instead of four people.

Yes.  That math was intentional.  The shooter abandoned his humanity when he chose his side.

(12 comments | Leave a comment)

June 26th, 2015
09:55 pm


Supreme Court Decisions
I am glad that the Supreme Court sustained the legality of same-sex marriage across the country.  It is my profound belief, based on the logic that marriage is a mutual choice between any two people who decide to unite their lives in love, that marriage should not be only allowed between persons of opposite sexes.  Marriage is not purely for the purpose of sexual reproduction:  if that were the case, then what of marriages between people of which at least one is infertile?  Given that marriage is not purely for the purpose of sexual reproduction, then there is no logical reason to forbid it to same-sex couples.

I like the idea of same-sex marriages.  Why should same-sex couples be denied the honorable resolution of their courtship in marriage?

Same-sex marriages do not devalue heterosexual marriages, because same-sex couples do not marry any more easily than to heterosexual ones.  And there is no logical reason to assume that same sex couples somehow don't really mean it when they get married.

I am glad that America is moving beyond a purely religious view of marriage.

I am far less enthusiastic that the Supreme Court chose to uphold Obamacare.  The law was passed unconstitutionally and altered unconstitutionally, and the very same logic being used to justify it (that it would cause disorder were it not to be upheld) could be used to uphold any irregularly-passed law.  What is to prevent Obama, or more importantly his successors, from simply decreeing laws and the Supreme Court holding that we must treat them as properly-passed and constitutional simply because it would be inconvenient to end them?

I fear that in this decision, we are witnessing the beginning of the end of the American Republic.

Tags: ,

(59 comments | Leave a comment)

June 23rd, 2015
06:10 am


On the Death of Talha Asmal, and Suicide Bombers in General
I'm extremely glad that Talha Asmal is dead.  He chose to go fight for the most clear manifestation of Evil in the modern world, and he picked a way (or had it picked for him by his cruel and insane leaders) which blew him to bits, thus disposing of the little knot of vileness that was his self.  If he has a soul, I hope it's burning in Hell, if there is a Hell.

Yes, he was 17.  Boo-hoo.  Being one year under the age of majority in the country that you willingly betrayed to fight for its enemies does not excuse deliberately sgning on to a military force famous primarily for its abuse of civilians, random murder of whoever violates its variable and insane laws-of-the-moment, and repeated rape and wrongful imprisonment of women.

I hope only that nobody about whose life I care was killed or injuried in the detonation which ended the existence of this thing in human form.  I'd call him a "dog," but I like dogs.

I personally think that, unless we have intelligence to be obtained by the interrogation of ISIS members, they should be shot out of hand , and in the case of suicide-bombers, self-detonated.  I'd say "in pigsties," but I like pigs more than I do ISIS members, and I believe that pigs have more right to live than do ISIS members.

Besides, the explosion would ruin the bacon.

Seriously, only when we stop pretending to ourselves that those who join the Terrorists are combatants like any other combatants and deserve the respect we would give other combatants will we start to win the psychological war.  Joining the Terrorists means voluntarily abandoning one's humanity; we must begin to acknowledge this.  Until we do, they will keep using our respect for other humans against us.


(17 comments | Leave a comment)

June 11th, 2015
06:34 am


"It Isn't Islam At All" (short poem by another)

From the comments on Breitbart London (I don't know the identity of the original author).


"It Isn't Islam At All"

If a jihadi cuts your head off
You shouldn’t get too perplexed
He’s only doing what he’s told
By a seventh century text
And even as you bleed to death
There’s one thing to recall
This isn’t Islam at all
Oh no, Good Lord,
This isn’t Islam at all.

If a Muslim crucifies you
Don’t be too alarmed
It’s written in his holy book
That infidels must be harmed
And even as you die of thirst
There’s one thing to recall
This isn’t Islam at all
Oh no, Good God,
This isn’t Islam at all.

If ISIS your rapes your daughter
Don’t feel too forlorn
It was all commanded by their Lord
Before we were even born
And even as the they slake their lust
There’s one thing to recall
This isn’t Islam at all
Oh no, oh no, we trust,
This isn’t Islam at all.

If warriors take an aid worker
We mustn’t be too dismayed
They’ll simply burn the chap alive
Unless the ransom’s paid
And even as the match is lit
There’s one thing to recall
This isn’t Islam at all
Oh no, Allah be praised,
This isn’t Islam at all.

Current Mood: amusedamused
Tags: , ,

(4 comments | Leave a comment)

May 25th, 2015
07:01 am


A MLP Related Memorial Day Thought
Last night I slept safe in my bed and awoke after a good night's sleep.  I did not fear that, in the night, the enemies of my country would come and destroy my house and kill myself or my wife or any of my loved ones.  I take this for granted, as do most Americans.  Even though I know better, having extensively studied both military and social history, I tend to assume that peace and law are the norm, war and crime very rare exceptions to the rule.

The truth is that -- to the extent that peace and order are the norm -- this is only because the brave have been willing to fight and subdue those forces which would bring war and crime to our shores and make them normal -- as, indeed, they have been normal for depressingly large numbers of humans during depressingly long periods of history.  Read about the Classical Dark Ages -- it's very beautifully discussed in the works of Homer, among dryer and more academic places.  Or the Medieval Dark Ages.  Or Europe during the World Wars, or Africa and the Middle East right now.

This brings up the point that we are far from safe now, though we are safer than we might otherwise be, because of the brave people in uniform who guard us while we sleep.  A new evil -- or simply this generation's version of a very old evil -- is rising in the Mideast and in Africa.  It wants to kill or enslave us all.  It is willing to burn up as many of the humans running its meme in their brains as it needs to win, and it won't be stopped until we are both able and willing to instead kill the humans who have been the most virulently infected by it.

Its name is radical Islam, and it won't go away just because we whine that it won't play fair and we pick up our toys and go home.  It will follow us home, as Europe has already found out but mostly refuses to face, and as America should have realized on 9-11 and maybe is starting to realize again after a score of pinprick terrorist attacks, most recently on a convention in Garland Texas, which might have been worse had not a brave man with a pistol shot straight enough to neutralize the superior arms and armor of his foe by killing the creatures bearing them.

It is in the process of acquiring nuclear missiles.  Soon, it will be able to kill not a half-dozen here or a half-dozen there, nor even a few thousand when it gets its hands on some passenger jets, but hundreds of thousands per attack.  More, if we're actually stupid enough to let the radical Muslims build up a sizable arsenal.  Our best hope there is a sadly-selfish one -- it's far more likely that the first atomic war radical Islam will start will be Iran vs. Israel or Pakistan vs. India, which both will give us warning, and allies who will have flashed-over from rules-of-engagement to kill-em-all mode, and will probably remain in that mode until the end of the war.

We are facing a global war of survival, a true "clash of civilizations" in Huntington's famous term, and it will not end until either their survivors tremble and beg before us, offering concession after concession in return for being allowed to live and practice a safely-watered-down version of what they once considered an invincible Faith; or our survivors tremble and beg before them, hoping for mercy and lives in dhimmitude, which will mean accepting whatever abuse the Faithful choose to dish out to us, whenever they want to, with scant hope of redress -- and virtually no freedom of speech or ability to bear arms.  Read up on it -- the social history of non-Muslims under Islam is scarcely secret.  Heck, it's playing out right now in Iraq and Syria under ISIS.

The Pony relevance of this?

In the Shadow Wars, the Ponies struggle for survival against a merciless alien foe.  They win, and in winning earn the right to live on, to see their civilization live on, and to have a future for their foals.  And then time passes.  New generations are born.  And these new generations don't understand that the peace and prosperity and safety that they take for granted was bought with the blood, sweat and tears of their elders.  The veteran Ponies become strange old stallions and mares, who start at loud noises and seem saddened by certain memories, and their children and grandchildren don't know why.  Or rather, they know, but don't want to admit it to themselves, because that would mean admitting that the Universe is a dangerous place, and safety can turn to terror in an instant of bad fortune.

Princess Luna is used to this.  It's part of why she went mad, over a millennium ago.  The generation that fought the Wars, long-lived as never before due to advancing medical technlogy, will learn it.

This scenario required little creativity for me to invent.  It's basically a Ponification of what happened to the Greatest Generation, the one that fought World War II -- as should be obvious from the Translation Convention I gave for the titles of Sweetie Belle's hit songs (two of them based on the Andrews Sisters -- the other one cribbed from Robotech, because I just couldn't resist having her be that world's "Lin Minmei"

Ah, well.  The Millennials haven't learned the lesson yet, thanks to poor leadership on George W. Bush's part, and close-to-treasonous leadership on Barack H. Obama's part.  The lesson will be learned, one way or another.  My personal belief is that at the end we will still be standing tall, and it will be the Muslim world in ruins, having to submit to our culture; because we are a damned strong people, and history is littered with the wreckage of would-be global tyrannies who thought we were weak.  That applies both to us, and to the British who originally founded our nation.

But we shouldn't get too cocky.  There's an even longer history of wrecked civilizations who went down before the mindless will to hate that is the essence of Islam.  We will win if we are both smart and brave, but we can lose by being stupid and cowardly.  And if we win, as always it will be because the courageous among us would rather die on their feet than live on their knees.

I guess my theory is simply that Love beats Hate.  If I didn't believe this, I'd hardly be a fan of My Little Pony, nor would I be writing the Shadow Wars Storyverse.

Hooray for the Harmony!


(18 comments | Leave a comment)

May 10th, 2015
07:08 am


British Hard Left Throws a Tantrum

As many of you probably know by now, the British have voted in a majority Tory Government.

To translate from Parliamentary to Federal political terms, the formal British executive authority is the monarch (Queen Elizabeth II); she does not stand for election but instead was instated in office through hereditary right subject to the definitions of succession agreed upon by previous monarchs and the Parliament; normally succcession to the Throne is known well before the demise or abdication of the new monarch's predecessor.  Since the monarchy has lost most of its actual powers, the real government is legislative:  the country is governed by the Prime Minister, who is chosen by the majority party or by a coalition of parties which together constitute a majority in Parliament.  At periodic intervals or when a motion of "No Confidence" is passed, there is a "General Election," in which all Parliamentary seats are up for grabs.

Because nobody is directly elected on a national basis, the British have not a two-party system, but a many-party system.  The two big British parties are Conservative and Unionist (the "Tories") at 331 Members after this election; and the Labour Party at 232 members after this election; followed rather embarrassingly (though the current British don't even grasp why this should embarrass them) by the Scottish National Party at 56 members.  All the other small parties together have 30 members, and of course the other small parties cannot vote as a bloc as in many cases they are opposite on the issues.

Doing a little math, we can see that if every non-Tory party formed a coalition they would have 318 members, to the Tories' 331.  In other words, the Tories have not a plurality but a solid majority; unless the party splits, there is absolutely no way for the Tories not to get what they want in Parliament.  This means that the Tories can "form a Government" (select all Ministers including the Prime Minister) without regard to the wishes of the other Parties, and the other Parties can only stand and watch impotently as this happens.

Which is just fine, as this state of affairs exists because the Tories won a clear majority of the seats, and -- at 331 to 318 even if the other Parties voted together as a bloc -- this means that they won a clear majority of the votes as well.  In other words, most of the British people who were qualified to and cared to vote, voted Tory.

The hardcore British Left is currently throwing a tantrum about this.  Yesterday, British Leftists rioted in some major cities, breaking things and defacing monuments, under the motto "Tories Out Now!"

This speaks of being reality-challenged.  They had a chance to get the Tories out of Parliamentary seats -- it was called the General Election.  They failed, miserably -- not only did they not get the Tories out, but the Tories picked up Parliamentary seats.

It was the clear voice of the people, demanding a Conservative Government.  Which is what they will be getting.

The Left, of course, has it's own strange definition of "the people," meaning "the people who agree with us," which can often lead to farcical situations, especially where the radical Left is concerned, where "the people who agree with us" can often be a very small minority indeed.

But perhaps, one might argue, the Left is merely practicing hardball politics here, using the threat of rioting to intimidate the Tories into giving up some of the power they've won at the ballot boxes?  The problem with this is that Labour is still a minority, which means that if they started a civil war tomorrow, they'd be outnumbered.  And outgunned, as the British Armed Forces and police services are, of course, even more majority-Tory than the country as a whole.

If the British Conservatives simply are able to to stand firm, therefore -- not "go all wet," as they put it on that side of the Atlantic -- the hardcore Left can rage and wail and scream and pound their fists against the ground, to no avail.  And then they'll tucker themselves out, and their mommies will tuck them in to nap, and the business of Government can continue, performed by the adults.

Tags: ,

(22 comments | Leave a comment)

May 8th, 2015
10:28 pm


The TRUE Winning Entry in the Garland, Texas "Draw Muhammed" Picture Contest

The winning entry in the Garland, TX "Draw Muhammed" picture contest

It warms the cockles of my heart to know that Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi gave up their only lives to inflict a minor ankle wound on a security guard, and that they were so inept in their attacks that despite the fact that they were wearing body armor and carrying rifles, a Texas traffic cop with a <i>pistol</i> killed both of them. The radical Muslim community may think that they accomplished something -- but all they did was to demonstrate how very, very <i>inept</i> are the Terrorists, when they're facing armed Americans.

To the families of Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi -- how does it feel knowing that your kinsmen were such <i>incompetent</i> holy warriors? Or, honestly, are you just glad that you don't have to deal with those violent fools ever again?

Tags: , ,

(9 comments | Leave a comment)

May 3rd, 2015
06:50 pm


Muslim Terrorists Attack Free Speech Event in Garland TX
Muslim terrorists attacked a Muhammed Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest at Garland, Texas.  Two terrorists attempted a drive-by shooting which wounded one security guard.  They promptly died in a hail of gunfire from the Garland police SWAT team that was also guarding the event.

Sadly, one man was wounded and the event was canceled in an evacuation ordered by the police. Fortunately, no one got killed!

Under Obama, it's no longer safe to exercise one's freedom of speech in Texas.

When will we get our freedoms back?

Current Mood: angryangry
Tags: , , ,

(29 comments | Leave a comment)

May 2nd, 2015
12:47 pm


Post-Mortem on the Baltimore Riots

The Baltimore riots are over.  The burnt wreckage of what had been the homes and businesses and vehicles of innocent human beings has cooled down.  Victims of cruel, random and racist beatings by the mob are beginning the long process of recovory from their injuries.  Many of the victims' dreams have been destroyed; in some cases the damage done will complete the fall of these people into poverty, despair and death.

What have we learned?

I.  It Had Nothing To Do With Freddie Gray

It is important to understand that none of the violence had anything to do with Freddie Gray, the 25-year-old man who died in the custody of the Baltimore Police Department.  What happened was that thugs -- beasts in human form, who lusted to loot and burn and destroy -- did so.  If any of this has the incidental effect of resulting in justice being done in Freddie Gray's situation, that is incidental; and it is as likely to result in injustice being done in the case (if the prosecution of the police officers be primarly political).

This point must be emphasized.  As far as I know, none of the people who suffered the losses of their homes, businesses or vehicles were police officers involved in the death of Freddie Gray.  Even if they had been, this is a society in peacetime, and such matters can best be dealt with by the criminal justice system, not by rampaging mobs.  Did you like the spectacle of such mobs attacking black suspects in the Old South?  No?  Then what makes such better here and now?

If one wants to argue that the city of Baltimore was not in peacetime; that this was a war, very well.  Then if it was war,why were the mobs not dealt with by airstrikes, mortar and automatic weapons fire?  They were, after all, concentrated, unarmored, poor at fieldcraft, and would have made easy targets for such tactics.  Atrocity, you say?  Well, so it would have been, because it was peacetime.  If it were war, they would have been enemy combatants, and hence such their deaths would have been wholly legitimate.

II.  Stop Riots Before They Start

A. No Right to Riot

The clear mistake made by the City of Baltimore was in not sending out riot-gear equipped police at the beginning of the riots with orders to confront and disperse any crowds behaving unlawfully, whether or not their unlawful conduct was under the false-flag of "protest."  There is and never has been any Constitutional right to riot; only to lawful assembly.  To assemble and block public thoroughfares or attack people or destroy property is unlawful.

The content of one's political purpose in such assembly is irrelevant.  It must be, if one wishes for a free society.  If the state be allowed to deem an assembly (or for that matter, riot) justifiable by virtue of its noble purpose; and another unjustifiable by virtue of its ignoble purpose; then the state is empowered to decide which ideas may or may not be expressed, and to what degree.  That way not only lies, but is, tyranny.

B. Mobs and How To Stop Them

The change of a crowd into a mob is a social phase transition.  The mob crystallizes around instigators, who tend to be relatively strong-willed and intelligent people who feel hatred and want violence; the bulk of the mob consists of relatively weak-willed and stupid people whose sense of right and wrong is largely governed by perceived group sentiment.  When part of the mob, this majority will imagine whatever they do right, no matter how horrible it is, because it goes along with group sentiment.

Once the riot has started, the only way to stop a mob is to exhaust it, panic it, or destroy its leadership.  To exhaust a mob requires that one hold it off from its target long enough for the mob to give up.  While this is happening, it will wreak random destruction on property and visit random harm on persons within the area it controls.

To panic a mob requires the infliction of fear, pain, injury and perhaps death upon its bulk, especially the leading edge.  Since the bulk of the mob is stupid, weak-willed and governed by consensus, they will flee a source of perceived pain.  Even if the methods chosen are nonlethal, injury and death to both its members and to victims are quite likely from trampling as the mob routs.

To destroy the leadership of a mob, in a riot, requires at a minimum the use of non-lethal violence to arrest or incapacitate its leaders.  The most efficient method is the use of snipers to kill the leadership.  This is morally justified under riot conditions -- it is killing the most guilty to spare the more innocent.  However, this is very politically unpopular in peacetime.

Stopping a mob from forming in the first place is the most humane method.  At the start, very few individuals are willing to engage in violence, because their perceived social norms are still those of civic peace.  The instigators try to shift this over by successfully carrying out acts of violence or other violations of order.  The best way to prevent the mob from forming is to quickly and efficiently arrest its leaders, hence leaving a crowd of stupid and weak-willed people who can easily be dispersed.

This is both legal (incitement to riot is a criminal offense) and moral (because it prevents serious violence and property damage from occurring).  And it is good riot control strategy.

III.  The Failure of Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake

The main reason for the Baltimore Riot of 2015 was the feckless, incompetent and indecisive leadership of Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake.  She ordered the Baltimore Police Department not to confront the crowds, thus allowing their formation into mobs.  Then, after the riots had started, she outright stated that, as part of her deliberate policy, "we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well."  Space of which, predictably, "those who wished to destroy" took complete advantage.

Not only did she order the Baltimore police not to confront the crowds, she ensured that they could not effectively do so, because they were sent out in most cases without full riot gear. Initially, long arms and armored fighting vehicles were not made available to them.  And she delayed asking for the deployment of the National Guard, even after the mob had begun setting fires.  As far as I can tell, she didn't try to stop the riots until she noticed that popular opinion was turning against her leadership.

Only then did she begin to make sane and competent decisions -- or, more likely, turn over the decision-making to someone who was capable of making such decisions.  She denounced the rioters as "thugs," and someone apparently gave orders to make holding and prosecuting captured rioters a priority.

Even then, she backpedaled.  When the riots were safely over, she apologized for calling the rioters "thugs."  And she thanked the Nation of Islam for acting as a go-between with the Crips, Bloods and other deadly gangs to negotiate a peace.  In other words, she's willing to treat with street gangs and give them concessions for not breaking the nice city she has there, because it would be a shame if somebody broke it!

Stephanie Rawlings-Blake has proven herself completely incompetent to hold any responsible political office.  If she wins re-election, this will clearly be a vote on the part of the City of Baltimore that it wants to decline.  Hopefully, this will be the end of her political career.

IV. The Elite Agitators, and Obama's Responsibility

President Obama bears his share of the blame for the riots.  He has been spreading lies about increasing police brutality toward blacks; this has been done for blatant political gain on his part, as he wants to portray the Democrats as the only shield for blacks against such police brutality, and the Republicans as proponents of such brutality.  (A laughable argument, if one knows the history of the South, the Civil War, Reconstruction, Jim Crow laws or the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950's and 1960's -- but most people don't know this history at all).

As part of this strategy, he has refused to acknowledge, investigate or prosecute the network of mob agitators which has been growing for a generation.  Rich college students and graduates, who because of their wealth have the time and resources to engage in such activities, literally amuse themselves by travelling from city to city in search of riots to start.  Their excuse, both to themselves and to others, is that they are left-wingers attempting to start a revolution.  The real reason, of course, is that they like hurting people and breaking things.

This is a very elitist game.  The riot tourists rarely suffer more than very minor physical injuries, and their own sources of livelihood -- rich parents in safe neighborhoods which the police would never let be sacked by mobs -- are unaffected by unrest, or at least unaffected to any disagree that these rich brats imagine will ever hurt them.  They go to the riot, have their fun, and go home laughing while someone else's neighborhood burns behind them.

It is the people who live in the poor neighborhood who are homeless because their houses burned down; destitute because their businesses, the products of a lifetime of effort, were destroyed, ill and in pain because their prescription records were destroyed along with the pharmacy (and some prescriptions, especially opiates, require records or physical medicines on-site even in this computer age).  They will suffer or die, but they are emininently dispensible people to the agitators, whose homes and sources of income and medical records remain intact.

It is the job of the Federal Government to crack down on interstate criminals, such as these riot tourists.  It is especifically the job of the FBI, which operates under the authority of the Justice Department.  But under the racist Eric Holder, cracking down on black supremacist terrorists was the last thing the Justice Department was likely to do.  Loretta Lynch is unlikely to do any better.  States may cooperate with each other to share information on the agitators, but the Federal Government will continue to be asleep at the switch -- or even act against those state and municipal officials who try to put down the riots.  The chaos which will erupt in the inner cities from now until at least 2017 will be part of the price America paid for re-electing Obama in 2012.

V. Gun Control

Baltimore, and the state of Maryland, have some fairly strict gun control laws.  As is always the case, this does little to nothing to prevent actual criminals from carrying guns. What this may have done was make it more difficult for the honest citizens to protect their own neighborhoods against the mobs.

Watching the videos from Baltimore, one thing that I noticed was a serious lack of citizen resistance to the mobs.  Once upon a time, it would have been difficult for a mob to sack a family-owned store without first acccepting that the first few in would fall to the guns of the defenders.  This was not a factor in Baltimore 2015, though some brave citizens apparently defended -- and in some cases beat back -- those attacking their store, by wielding baseball bats and axe handles (or at least this is what they admitted to wielding).

It might be argued that the mob would have had more guns under looser gun-control laws.  Perhaps -- but the defenders enjoy the advantage in any firefight where they are holding their ground in a structure, especially against uncoordinated mobs. Usually, what happens is that one or two shots ring out, a thug falls, and the rest of the mob decides to seek easier prey.  The morale of a mob is mercurial, and very easily broken by even a little effective resistance.

Back in the days of the Civil Rights movement, there were cases where black neighborhood defense organizations successfully beat back organized Ku Klux Klan attacks with gunfire from the houses.  And in the LA Riots of 1992, vicious mobs of rioters were beaten back by a few gallant Koreans who took to their rooftops with rifles.  The fact that thugs in both cases who went out in the expectation of having a little fun instead coughed out their lives without benefit of morphine, lying and dying in a dirty street is but icing upon the cake, deterring the next lot of riot tourists.

That could have happened in Baltimore.  It didn't, because of gun control.  Thank you, Governor O'Malley.  Many thugs who are still alive and breathing also thank you, though their future victims would not thank you as profusely if they understood the connections.

V. The Price For Baltimore

When major rioting erupts in a city, especially when the rioters destroy businesses, and especially when they are permitted to do so with impunity by the municipal government, that government sends a signal to businesses.  The signal is "You will not be protected; you are not safe here."  Businesses respond by moving out of the neighborhood, and new businesses by not moving into the neighborhood.  The cities (or in the case of larger cities) neighborhoods damaged by the race riots of the 1960's have for the most part still not recovered.

Whether Baltimore as a whole will accelerate its decline, or only the neighborhoods in which actual destruction was wrought, is as yet unknown.  What is certain is that those areas affected will be affected for decades, no matter what funds are brought to bear to rebuild them.  The people of those neighborhoods have spoken -- whether by rioting or by failing to take to the rooftops and windows with rifles and gun down the rioters.  They did not care, and those who make the mistake of continuing to live in those neighborhoods will pay the price for decades to come.

The smart ones will move elsewhere.

As for the riot tourists, they are going home to their well-appointed apartments and rich homes, smiles of smug, sadistic satisfaction on their faces at the memory of a devastated looking shopkeeper, or some father beaten bloody to the ground before the eyes of his children.  They feel big and powerful today.

The Mayor of Baltimore did nothing to stop them.  And the President of the United States is doing nothing to track them down or punish them.

Such is justice in Obama's America.


In the next two years, there will be more race riots in American cities, almost all taking the form of racist black mobs attacking people of other races.  Whether or not these riots will be put down promptly will be up to state and local officials; the Federal government will generally either not intervene, or try to exacerbate the situation.

Elect a Democratic mayor, and you increase the chance of this happening in your city or neighborhood.  Elect a Democraticc President, and you increase the chance of this happening to city or neighborhoods all over the country.

Do you want less rioting, and more punishment for rioters?

Then vote Republican in 2016.

Current Mood: happyhappy
Tags: , ,

(37 comments | Leave a comment)

[<< Previous 10 entries]

Fantastic Worlds. Powered by LiveJournal.com