Below are the 10 most recent journal entries recorded in the "jordan179" journal:
[<< Previous 10 entries]
Glorious Victory Over Embarrassed Transgirls|
To those of you celebrating the reversal of the trangender bathroom order ...
... what is the exact POINT of this?
I don't know what YOU do in the bathroom but I have gone to men's rooms all my life, and in my experience guys do not generally waggle their dicks at one another. I certainly don't do any such thing, not even if I use the urinals instead of the stalls. Nor do I gape in awe at some other man's equipment.
In women's rooms, where the bathrooms are ALL closed stalls, I would imagine that there is even LESS public display of hoo-has, glittery or standard-issue.
Indeed, if a transgender mtf goes into a woman's room, how do you KNOW that she has a Y chromosome? Likewise, if a ftm goes into a men's room, that he LACKS that most important bit of teeny weeny cellular machinery?
Are you going to start challenging butch looking women and femme-looking men when they go to the bathroom? How will this be resolved, forced stripping? What do you do about the angry and embarrassed XX women who just happen to be kind of mannish-looking, or XY men who happen to be kind of effeminate?
What about POST-operative transsexuals (these would be mtf with vaginal or ftm with penile structures)? Are you going to CLOSELY examine their junk? What if it passes muster? Full CAT scans to investigate the interior architecture? Perhaps we should have chromosomal scanners at the entrance to the bathroom?
And if this absurd action succeeds, what exactly will we have gained. I haven't heard very many people worrying about the ftm transguys in the men's room, so apparently real men aren't afraid of them. Okay, so I'm guessing it's the mtf transgirls in the women's room.
"They'll rape women unless we make it illegal!" Um, raping women is ALREADY illegal, and has been so during the whole millennium and some odd centuries history of the Anglo-Saxon legal code on which our own common law is based.
"They'll rape LITTLE GIRLS unless we make it illegal!" Well, ever since we instituted the age of consent laws in medieval times (around three-quarters of a millennium ago), that's been even MORE illegal than raping grown women.
"They'll ignore the laws and rape anyway!" Okay, but if they're willing to ignore the laws which mandate years in prison for the felony of rape, then ...
... what makes you think they'll OBEY the law which mandates a few days in prison or a small fine for the misdemeanor or offense of using the wrong bathroom?
"Well gee, I would have gone to the women's room and raped the little girls with my rapeyness. but luckily for those little girls, I remembered that going to the women's room was ILLEGAL. Curses! Foiled again!"
The main effect of this law will be embarrassing young transgirls.
Let me repeat this. The main effect of the law will be causing emotional pain to teenagers and in some cases actual CHILDREN who are ALREADY in emotional pain due to sexual dysphoria.
Congratulations, my fellow conservatives. You've succeeded in pushing around some emotionally-vulnerable little girls. Or, looked at another way, some emotionally-vulnerable little boys. Oh yeah, in the latter case, what you're doing is MUCH braver and more socially important.
Don't we have actual ENEMIES to fight?
My Oldest Sister-in-Law Christina Died|
She was seriously ill and had been for longer than I knew her, so this wasn't totally a surprise. But she was only 38 years old, just 5 years older than my wife. She died in her sleep at her home, sometime after 2 am in San Francisco.
I knew her fairly well, and liked her.
My wife is devastated.
9-11 Quarter To The Foe! (2016)|
Fifteen years ago, the Islamists launched an unprovoked surprise attack against the United States of America. This attack began with the capture of hundreds of American civilians upon airliners: these civilians, who under the Laws of War should have been interned for the duration and treated humanely, were instead murdered by crashing the airliners upon which they traveled into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
In doing so, the Islamists morally-absolved us from our reponsibility to use any Islamist prisoners we took according to the Laws of War. We may rightly put them to death upon or after capture, with torture if we find it useful or even merely amusing, for any reason or whim we desire.
What is more, by attacking a civilian target (the World Trade Center) the Islamists absolved us of any responsibility to avoid civilian casualties in attacking them. ALL Islamists are fair game -- men, women and babes in arms -- and we need feel no guilt about causing their deaths.
Sadly, we have responded to 9-11 by deciding that we must be nicer to Muslims, rather than they to us. Throughout the West we have yielded even the impartial enforcements of our own laws upon Islam and Islamists, causing great suffering to innocent Western civilians, who have endured beatings, rapes and enslavement by the enemy within.
There are signs throughout the West that we are growing tired of this supine forbearance. Nationalist and nativist movements are growing in Europe and America. Western populations are less quick to apologize. At the same time, the enemy behavior is growing ever more atrocious.
I devoutly hope that a day will come when the West finally reaches the end of its patience. And then a red day of reckoning will come, and we will take the war to the strongholds of the foe, and the fireballs will burst and the mushroom clouds blossom over their cities, their homes burn and their streets run with the boiling blood of their people. And those who have invaded the West will -- instead of clamoring to get in, will beg to be allowed to get out, and their pleas be answered by the merciless stutter of the machine-guns ending their vile lives. And the dark reign of Islam be ended for ever and ever.
Until then, remember. No surrender, no retreat, no compromise -- and 9-11 Quarter to the Foe!
On the Milwaukee Riots|
From what I can tell it was a good shooting, and the main problem is that the Mayor has been acting with "restraint" in dealing with the rioters. The job of city officials in a riot is to make sure the cops break heads, shoot to kill (if necessary, take out the ringleaders with snipers) if things get out of control, and haul the scum off to jail and prosecute them for every offense they can pile together so that their city does not become known as a safe place to riot. Riots can destroy the futures of cities, because businesses will not move back into cities where their security against total destruction cannot be assured.
As for the kind of vile creatures who treat times like this as an opprtunity to destroy cities -- who cares whether they live or die? All that happens if they live is that they cause more misery.
As for the riot tourists, they should not be allowed to go from city to city unscathed doing this sort of thing. It is insane that we allow there to exist a group of rich college kids who attack people and destroy property for recreation, pretending to be "social activists." Kill 'em, or put them to work at hard labor. The hobby would become a bit less popular then.
Do Not Get a Green Dot Card -- You Risk Both Information and Monetary Theft - Wahlgreen's Complicit|
I attempted to get a Green Dot Card. Wahlgreen's took $1.95 from me. I then tried to initialize the card. Green Dot claimed that my name and social security information was unverifiable, even though it is recorded by the State of California and the Social Security Administration. Green Dot then said that they would not send a permanent card, meaning I was unable to get ID from them, and that they would anyway deduct a $7.95 fee for the service, and I could not reload the card. I am thus out almost $10 for the "service" of having my time wasted. I have also create a security threat to myself by giving my personal information, including Date of Birth and Social Security #, to a company which is demonstrably either incompetent or fraudulent.
I hereby state that Green Dot Corporation is an untrustworthy fiduciary corporation and advise all readers to shun their supposed "service." If you use it, be aware that they may at whim provide you no service, and steal your personal information in the process. How are they making money? I won't use their service any more.
Well, they have my $10. And my information, which they may well sell repeatedly to even less reputable groups.
So -- deal with them at your own risk. Or, if you're wise -- DON'T.
Why I'm Going To Vote For Donald Trump|
I am perfectly aware that Donald Trump is a very flawed human being, and worse is probably guilty of deliberate criminal fraud and possibly other felonies. However, the exact same thing is true of Hillary Clinton, with the addition of multiple murders. And ...
... Trump actually GETS that his number one job as President is going to be national security. He's said he's going to increase the power of our military and ... and this is the REALLY important part ...
... take back control of our borders, particularly in keeping out illegal aliens and Muslims.
The Democrats don't even seem to understand why this is important. They can't look past "We can get VOTES from the illegals if we naturalize them as citizens" and "the Muslims will VOTE for us" and see that what they are embarking on is one of the classic ways countries die -- namely, have a political faction invite in foreign barbarians to gain advantage in their conflicts with their rival politicians.
The Mexicans don't have values all that incompatible with our own. I'd be okay with making it easier for them to immigrate, coupled with heightened border security and screening out the criminal and terrorist element.
But that's NOT what the Democrats are doing. They're leaving the border wide open for ANYONE to come through, including foreign terrorists. If this goes on, eventually our enemies will walk A-Bombs in to the country by this route. This is security suicide.
The Muslims are far, far worse. They are impelled by a radical religious ideology that tells them that they have the right to rule the lands of the Infidel, and that any atrocity is justifiable in that cause -- that THEIR law should prevail over our Constitution
Those friends of mine who are female, or LGBTQ, should reflect that YOU are among the people who Muslims consider inferior (or in the case of LGBTQ, downright abominations) and worthy of abuse with no right to defend yourselves against this. You are seeing in Europe what happens when lots of Muslims are let into a country. Why do you believe it wouldn't happen here?
If we go with Hillary for 4 or 8 years, at the end of this America may well be embroiled in an ethnic civil war. We know what THAT looks like too -- I direct your gaze to the former Yugoslavia.
We Americans will probably win that war, but it won't be pretty, and when we come out of it we will have a really bone-deep hatred of those we fought (and probably extirpated in our own country). We will not be inclined to mercy. The consequences will be even worse abroad than they were here.
Hillary won't even listen to this argument. Her top adviser (and possible lover) is a Muslim. She will call anyone who points out the danger a "racist" (even though Islam is a RELIGION). She DID send a man to PRISON for criticizing Islam in a movie, and was PROUD of doing so.
So in conclusion, morally I don't see much difference between Hillary and Trump (Hillary seems more murderous, though), and Trump's proposed policies are considerably less disastrous for America than Hillary's. Given that the choice is binary, I choose Trump, as by far the lesser of the two evils.
Regarding the Orlando Attacks ...|
What you're seeing here is the Caliphate attempting to enforce its laws -- shari'a -- in Western societies by means of terrorist attack. This is part of a wave of terrorism they explicitly called for, to be launched during Ramadan. And in shari'a, homosexuality is punishable by death.
This target was cleverly-chosen, because the point is to get some Westerners who hate homosexuals, to sympathize with the motives of the attackers. Also, gays are at least perceived to be politically-vulnerable, because their political allies are unwilling or unable to do anything against Muslim anti-homosexuals, as it will offend Muslims (the Muslim radicals, watching our system from the outside, don't realize that gays don't vote as a bloc).
Unless we as a nation act effectively to block terrorist entry into America, and the radicalization of Muslims in America by ending the idea of "different culture" as a de facto exculpatory factor; and in cases like this respond with massive and deliberately over-proportionate retaliation against the foreign sponsors (where present), these attacks will continue. Islam will [i]always[/i] find lunatics whose mad hate can be encouraged, rather than suppressed, by a religion largely built around hatred; and they can be primed and shot off like rounds of ammunition against us -- and worse, like precision guided munitions, against the parts of our society which they don't like.
Worse, because it means that they will change us to be more like them.
Have you enjoyed the last 40 or so years of freedom to be openly gay, a freedom unprecedented in the history of the West, maybe of civilization? Do you want to keep it?
Then be prepared to fight for it, because Islam does not mean that you should keep it.
That is the significance of what happened in Orlando, and what has already begun happening in London and many other places in Europe.
FIght, or lose your freedom.
Legal Question Regarding George W. Bush's Possible Culpability|
If George W. Bush participated in enabling Saudi accomplices to 9-11 flee the country, can he be prosecuted as an accessory after the fact? I know that his Presidential immunity no longer applies -- after the end of his second term, he no longer needs to be impeached to be charged with a crime.
If so, perhaps some Democrats should make their reputation going after this target. Heck, or even REPUBLICANS.
If Bush did this, I want to see him end his days in prison.
If the Saudis were behind 9-11 ...|
Then our entire foreign policy from 2001 on has been insane, as it would mean that the main threat to American national security is Saudi Arabia. If Saudi Arabia launched a war against us on 9-11-2001, starting that war with attacking civilian targets without a declaration of war and murdering civilians taken captive on the airliners, it means that no Rules of War apply to our treatment of the Saudis. We should then begin the annihilation of Saudi Arabia, with the goal being depopulation of the Kingdom. Destroy the cities, destroy the water sources, drive the people into the desert and let them try to swim like fish in the sea of the people ... of the Empty Quarter. The desert wil ltake care of our problems for us.
As for the oil fields, annex them and never give them back.
Yes, I'm angry, but when it comes to the revelation that a supposed US ALLY has committed the worst act of war against us in the last century, and one which was itself exterminationst in approach, there is no sane reason for mercy.
Kill 'em all, let Allah sort them out.
ADDENDUM: We should let them unconditionally surrender, as Japan did. Unlike Japan, I'd say hang the royals. Also, we keep the oil fields. Forever. They've shown they're not mature enough to handle the power that wealth can buy -- they can just kiss our feet like good little Arabs and thank us every time they see us for letting them live.If they resist after surrender, then kill a lot of them until the survivors beg to be allowed to surrender.
The New Nationalist Right Are MEANIES And Won't Take Their Beatings and they Hit Me, Mommy! WAAAH!!|Encountered the following statement here:
One of the most easily recognizable features of the new nationalist right is its general embrace of rhetoric, often harsh rhetoric, as a means of furthering its political goals.
This statement is almost comical in that it is (a) true and (b) leaves out the rather important fact that this "general embrace" represents the "new nationalist right" copying the behavior which the "New Left" has engaged in for the last HALF-CENTURY.
"One of the most easily recognizable features of the Western Allies in World War II was their willingness to break the rules of war as regarded civilians."
The lie in both statements is a lie of implication and omission. The wording is clearly meant to imply that the new nationalist right in the first statement, and the Western Allies in World War II, were behaving badly by the standards of their era and opposition. In both statements the implicatation would be false, because the Axis and Soviets both treated civilians far worse than did the Western Allies, and the New Left (which is now, of course a fairly old Left) is far less tolerant of political opposition.
What's actually happened is that the American Right, having finally tired of behaving in an extremely civilized fashion and getting treated by the media as if they were vicious, while they see the Left behave viciously and be treated by the same media with forbearance and understanding; has adopted some vicious tactics, under the theory that if they're going to be accused of viciousness anyway, they might as well practice it. And people including you are acting as if it's a terrible thing, that the Right is finally fighting back.
Terrible. Don't they know that they're just supposed to curl up and try to protect their vitals during the beating? How dare[ they get up and throw punches of their own?
And what's really terrible is that it's turning out that the Leftists have glass jaws. Poor babies are sitting on the floor clutching their bruised faces and crying "But they hit us! We were just trying to beat them up and they hit us! This is unfair!"
Poor, poor babies.
[<< Previous 10 entries]