Browsed by
Month: January 2017

Why can’t they leave the kids alone?

Why can’t they leave the kids alone?

I could honestly write a book about Democrats and their double standards.  I really could.

So, ever since Trump was elected, leftists have said vicious things about Trump’s wife and children.  Most of his children are adults (Ivanka and I are roughly the same age), except for Barron, who is ten years old.

I can understand going after his adult kids.  They did the same to Romney’s sons, and McCain’s kids.  But they have a nasty habit of going after the underage ones too.  For example, they went after the Bush twins (although I think they were in college for at least part of their father’s two terms in office).  They viciously went after Palin’s kids in 2008, and continue to trash Palin’s children, even though that election ended, like, seven or eight years ago.  Jesus, people, get over it.

And now they continue this tradition by making vicious (and really stupid) jokes about a ten year old kid.  Why?  You don’t know the kid.  You know nothing about him.  You don’t know what his political leanings are, if he has any at all.  He didn’t do anything to anyone. I don’t understand this vicious animosity towards him.

Look, most Republicans did not go after Obama’s daughters.  Some people did say nasty things, but those were only random losers on the Internet.  Then there was that poor woman who criticized their demeanor and attire at what I think was a turkey pardoning one year.  It was some official White House event, and his daughters were there.  Some woman criticized them on Facebook and her life was basically ruined over it, and to be honest I thought her criticism wasn’t even that bad.  Then again, I wasn’t too bothered by how Obama’s daughters looked at that event.  He wasn’t going to be in office forever and the nation managed to survive, so whatever.  But even the mildest criticism of Obama’s daughters got one woman a LOT of shit, and it wasn’t fair.

Now we’ve got douchebags stating that if their mother were to be raped, they’d rather she be raped by Barron, because his penis is supposedly small.  Yes, someone actually said that about a ten year old boy.  Then there was that idiotic SNL “writer” who stated that Barron would be the first homeschool shooter.  She, at least, got suspended from SNL.  And she apologized.  People have also said that Barron is autistic, based on some freaking video footage and rumors.  As if being autistic were bad or something.  So what if he’s autistic?  The kid is rich, his parents can afford the best care money can buy.  It’s not your damn problem and it’s none of your damn business.

So, offer mild and fair criticism of a Democrat’s children, and your life is totally ruined.  But whenever it comes to a Republican’s kid, go ahead and mock them – call them rapists, call them stupid, claim that they’re insane and about to shoot up the house, call them sluts, make fun of their disability, etc.  That’s your liberal double-standards right there, and it’s disgusting.

It’s reason number 34098530459830598340598340583058340583405834095834085 for why I will NEVER vote Democrat.

Oh God, not this again

Oh God, not this again


Yep.  Another book has been declared “problematic” because the villains in the story are non-white.  This time, Veronica Roth’s latest, Carve the Mark has been deemed problematic by Justina Ireland, an author and blogger I have not heard of (not an insult; nobody’s heard of me, so it’s all good).

Why?  Because the antagonistic rulers of the planet the two main characters live on happens to be brown-skinned people with a culture that seems to be inspired by Islam.  This is according to Ms. Ireland.  I have a copy of the book and so far I have read the first chapter, so I can only go by what she’s saying.

Ms. Ireland also mentions The Continent, the book by Keira Drake that was torpedoed before its release no thanks to a bunch of SJW book bloggers who insisted that it was raaaaaaaacist because one non-white race was described as “savage” – I wrote about that here.

Her blog post is entitled “The Continent, Carve the Mark and the Trope of the Dark-Skinned Aggressor” and it’s pretty much what you expect.  Lots of whining about racism and blah blah blah.  The post was also published in December of 2016, before the release of either book (The Continent was slated for a January 3 release, but was postponed after much SJW whining; it will now be published next year, after the bad guys are turned into Catholic white men, presumably).

Ms. Ireland gave a listing of all the awful characteristics assigned to the bad guys – kinky, curly hair, tribal-ish body markings, war-like, aggressive behavior, etc.  Uh, this is all based on reality, people.  Or, more accurately, history.  Yes, Native American tribes and African tribes were really like this, and many centuries before the Europeans discovered either of them, the European tribes were like that too.  SO?  That’s how they were, and both authors were obviously drawing their inspiration from history.

As for Ms. Roth, she shows her ballsiness once again by daring to include Islamic characteristics in the culture of the Shotet, the antagonist tribe.  Not many mainstream authors would dare offer any sort of criticism of Islam.

I have yet to read the book in its entirety, so we shall see.  I’m fine with a rival or antagonistic tribe being non-white.  It doesn’t bother me.  That does not mean I consider non-whites to be illiterate savages or anything.  Quite the contrary — I am non-white.  I can claim two different Native American tribes as part of my ancestry (one of which is Cherokee.  I cannot remember the other one, and yes, I am ashamed of that).  But I’m not going to deny reality or history to appease anybody.  Those tribes, in many ways…well, let’s say they were different.  Some of their customs were just concerning to me, like the human sacrifices of the Mayans (if you were to see a picture of me, you’d recognize me as looking very Mayan, because I can claim them too, I guess.  I seriously look like Lord Pacal, I really do).  Maybe I’m biased because I’m a (bad) Christian.

What would bother me would be that all the non-white characters are uniformly evil, violent and stupid.  Then that would be flat-out racist.  You can tell if an author is blatantly racist by how they treat their non-white characters.  It’s especially apparent if the characters are ridiculous, one-dimensional stereotypes.  I wish I had some examples to give, but I have none.

I really hate double standards.  I really, really do.  If it weren’t for double standards, the left wouldn’t have any standards at all.  They routinely engage in these double standards, and the culture tropes in stories are no different.

Pick a mainstream novel.  Any novel.  I guarantee you that ninety percent of the titles you choose will feature antagonistic characters that are white, straight Christian people that are uniformly evil and irredeemable.  I’ll bet you a million dollars that those characters are flat and one-dimensional.  I’ll bet you that they’re nothing more than ridiculous stereotypes.  I actually have an example for you.

Jenny Pox by J.L. Bryan.  It’s the first in a series, and I have not read any other books in the series because frankly, I don’t want to.  But I had heard about how anti-Christian this one was, and wanted to see for myself.  The critics were right.

Briefly…the story revolves around Jenny, who has a very deadly ability – her touch is lethal.  She lives in the Deep South and has to wear gloves all the time so that she does not kill people.  She eventually earns the ire of the Popular Girl who is this big Christian conservative.  The Popular Girl goes on a radio show that’s obviously hosted by a Glenn Beck-Rush Limbaugh composite character that is fat and disgusting.  The Radio Host and the Popular Girl are cardboard cutouts.  They are not real people – they exist only to portray conservatives in a negative light.  There is a random scene in which the Popular Girl sucks some guy’s dick – it serves no purpose other than to give some dudes wank material, and to portray Christians as hypocrites (because any Christian that has an orgasm ever is a raging hypocrite, amirite?).  It’s graphic, yet totally unnecessary.

It’s been a while since I read that book, so there’s probably stuff I missed.  There is also a scene in which Jenny and her friend go to some sort of Christian haunted house, and they ruthlessly mock it.  I am not sure what they’re called, but Christian haunted houses don’t have the usual jump scares, like coffins, cobwebs, ghosts, etc.  Instead, they have scenes of traumatic, sad stuff like the scene of a car crash caused by drunk driving, the carnage of an abortion, etc.  Liberals, for some reason, absolutely hate these haunted houses.

It’s okay for Christians to be uniformly portrayed as horrible people, but doing the same to one of the left’s pet victim classes…oh, that’s bad.  And more often than not, their claims of racism in such books are completely exaggerated.

I shouldn’t be surprised.  These are the same people that insists upon the non-existence of Islamic terrorism.  When they do acknowledge the horrible aspects of Islam, they insist we respect it in the name of “diversity” and “understanding different cultures.”

Oh, and I almost forgot.  I only learned of this via r/YALit, in a thread about some book blogger burning an ARC of Carve the Mark, screenshots of which were posted to the blogger’s Snapchat.  And the kicker?  The Redditors at r/YALit are defending the book blogger, stating that there’s nothing wrong with burning a book.  Oh no, it’s not THAT bad.

Really?  Because if I were to burn a copy of, say, Simon and the Homo-Sapien Agenda you people would feel very differently.  Then you’d shriek about how book burning is horrible and all.

I agree that one person burning one copy of a given book is not censorship.  After all, it isn’t keeping me from reading it.  However, it still strikes me as hypocritical coming from a bunch of leftists.  As I said, they’re the ones usually shrieking about book burnings and censorship and whatnot.

By the way, I am not much of a book burner.  I have no desire to burn any book because it’s counterproductive and it’s just…ugh, it’s just wrong.  It doesn’t conjure up a positive image, unless one happens to be in Siberia or something, and has no firewood to start a fire.  I’m just, once again, pointing out their hypocrisy.

So this post is already really, really long-winded.  I’m going to go read Carve the Mark and once I finish it, I will post my assessment of it at my book review blog.

So yesterday was pretty awesome

So yesterday was pretty awesome

I’m on a three-day mini vacation, and spent most of yesterday on the road.  I did, however, livestream the President and the Vice-President’s swearing in (and then turned it off, missing Jackie Evancho’s performance of our national anthem…will definitely watch it tonight).

It was amazing.  I felt so overwhelmingly proud to be an American, and thought of all the whiny leftists that got totally triggered that day, like this woman (who obviously staged this, knowing the cameras were focused on her):


Hehehe. Utterly hilarious.

Why does everything have to be political?

Why does everything have to be political?

Way back in November, I was reading this article over on Breitbart about how ESPN has lost thousands of subscribers in October:  ESPN Loses Over Half a Million Subscribers and one question popped into my head.  Why does everything have to be political?

There are probably many reasons why ESPN is losing so many subscribers.  It might not all be due to politics, but in the article, the ESPN ombudsman stated that the network had been tilting too far to the left lately:

ESPN Ombudsman Jim Brady, admitted that the network lurched way too far to the left in recent years, alienating many viewers.

I don’t watch sports at all, but I know how sports fans feel, if they are indeed canceling their subscriptions over the political content.  It’s SPORTS, people!  Why are they talking about politics at all?  These days, the left has to inject their opinions in everything – music, movies, books, magazines, TV shows, fashion, and video games.  Sports was the last thing they hadn’t ruined, and then Colin Kapaernick had to take a knee and now they’ve gone overboard.  It’s absolutely everywhere.

Take magazines for example.  I love reading fashion magazines.  I’ve been reading them since I was a kid, when my mom bought me Sassy and ‘TEEN after I had ‘become a lady.’  I had a political blog about eight years ago that I kept private because I was afraid of being harassed by liberals, and back then I noticed the overwhelming bias.  This year, the top fashion magazines made a big deal out of endorsing Hillary Clinton for President in their November issues.  Vogue did it, Glamour did it, and Elle probably did, although I have not read that issue.  Vogue made a big deal out of never having endorsed a Presidential candidate before, and that because of the “historic” nature of this one, they just had to.  Vogue put Michelle Obama on the cover of the December issue and I canceled my iPad subscription (too late, because I have already paid for that issue).

These magazines never have anything nice to say about Republicans.  Sure, Vogue did a piece on Sarah Palin before the 2008 election (it appeared in the February 2008 issue) and it wasn’t too bad, but their tone changed once she was selected as McCain’s running mate.  Vogue has also done a piece on South Carolina governor Nikki Haley (who has been nominated as the ambassador to the UN).

The September 2012 issue of Elle had a nasty hit-piece on Republican women.  I think Marie Claire has done a few pieces on Republican women, but the majority of anything mentioning Republicans or conseravtives is overwhelmingly negative.  It’s fashion – why are there any political articles in these magazines?  Most of them are cringingly bad anyway.

I will never, ever forget this little feature in an issue of Marie Claire.  I will have to look through my archives to find out which issue it was, but it was a few years ago.  It was a list of possible talking points to use when at a party.  Among them was a talking point about gun rights.  The suggested talking point was this (paraphrased):  How does having a gun in my thong drawer keep me safe?

Really?  Well, let me see.  First of all, unless your thongs are all kept in your nightstand drawer, having your gun there isn’t such a great place, because it’s kind of out of reach.  Seconds matter.  I think that it’s only logical to have your gun as close as possible.  And a thong drawer?  Jesus.  I don’t own any butt floss.  Why not a sock drawer?  Furthermore, the gun is only useful if you know how to use it.  I don’t own a gun and I have never actually used one, but I would like to someday.  Gun rights are very important to me.  I’m short and unfit, and even if I were fit, I’m still a short woman, and can use all the help I can get.

Of course, this liberal bias is everywhere.  During the Bush years, artists like Tori Amos and Pink would write songs about how much they hated Dubya.  Madonna would shriek “fuck you George” at her concerts.  Dita Von Teese tried to rape a George Bush look-a-like for a music video by Agent Provocateur.  Green Day wrote a whole album about how horrible rednecks are, or whatever.  And who could forget all of those horrible, ridiculous, one-sided anti-war movies?  Most of them flopped, so maybe it is possible to forget them.

But back to the point.  Sports isn’t even safe now.  You cannot escape the liberal crap.  They push their agenda and their opinions on absolutely everything.

Sex and violence

Sex and violence

So I was mucking about on r/books and I found this interview with the author of the Lemony Snicket series.  Apparently, the guy is going to publish a book about a sex-obsessed teenage boy, and it’ll be published in August of this year.

In it, there is the obligatory “how do you feel about your young readers accidentally picking up this sexy book” question and the obligatory “like, omigod why are people freaking out over sex when violence is so much worse?” answer.

Yes, violence is horrible and definitely not for kids, but sex isn’t for children either.  I am sick and tired of seeing this idiotic argument from authors (and others).

Over the duration of writing my first novel (tentatively titled Nemesis), I’ve wrestled with the amount of sex and sex abuse in the story.  Is it too graphic?  Is it too over the top?  Is it gratuitous?  Is it cringey?  I was originally going to publish it and market it as YA, but I don’t think I can anymore.  Maybe New Adult, or something.  But it’s pretty raw, and I would never, ever in a million years hand over my novel to a twelve year old kid.  No, no, no, no, NO.

It’s a shame and a tragedy that our society is becoming increasingly numb to acts of violence.  This recent incident of the schizophrenic white teenager being kidnapped and tortured by four black people is proof of that.  There’s great swaths of our society that thinks this shit is just badass and/or hilarious.

The same goes for sex.  Back when I was twelve, I wouldn’t have ever entertained the thought of having sex with anyone.  Now it’s common place for tweens to have sex.  At least, that’s the impression I get.  There’s certainly a lot of people who think there’s nothing wrong with someone that young being sexually active.

Here is the difference between violence and sex.  Violence is objectively wrong.  Hardly anybody will disagree with that, except for sociopaths.  But sex is more complex.  It is a vital part of our beings, of ourselves.  We wouldn’t be here without it.  Sex is important.  It’s not something to be taken lightly, and yet our sex-obsessed society treats it as if it’s just nothing.  As if it’s no more significant than going clubbing or playing a game of catch in your backyard.

Movies, TV shows and books often glamorize promiscuity and casual sex.  That’s done a lot of harm in our society.  STDs, single motherhood (which leads to a lot of other issues), broken families (ditto), depression, etc.

Did it ever occur to these people that some people feel differently about kids and sex?  They just seem so horrified that anyone would be concerned about their nine year old reading about some guy who can’t keep it in his pants.  And did it occur to them that one can be concerned about both sex and violence?

I think this is part and parcel of the progressive’s plan to eventually normalize pedophilia.  As I’ve noted previously, they’re already working on it.  This stupid faux outrage will continue, and people like me will be vilified for being concerned about it.

About last night

About last night

Ugh.  I’ve already mentioned one idiot actor on this blog, and now I’m about to foul it up with another one.  So yes, everyone is talking about fake Margaret Thatcher’s ridiculous, hammy performance at some stupid awards show last night.  Boo hoo, actors are sooooooo vilified!  By the way, back in November I wrote a post about how the left politicizes everything and I think it’s very relevant at the moment, but I will finish it and post it tomorrow or something.

There’s a lot I could say about what fake Margaret said, but I’m just going to post Mark Levin’s remarks on the subject (h/t Chicks on the Right):

Meryl Streep said nothing when Obama’s Justice Department was targeting reporters and intercepting their communications; she said nothing when Obama’s Justice Department was arming Mexican drug lords, resulting in murder; she said nothing when Obama’s IRS was threatening and intimidating private citizens because of their viewpoints; she said nothing when Obama’s NSA was gathering a massive amount of telephonic activity by American citizens; she said nothing when Obama threw Israel over the cliff at the UN; she said nothing when Obama’s policies (or lack thereof) contributed to the growth of ISIS and its genocide, rape, slavery, and torture; etc.
Streep is a liberal ass and partisan who should stick to what she knows — memorizing words written by people smarter than her and then repeating them when directed to do so. She’s incapable of basic reasoning and comprehension. She also disrespected her industry and the viewing public by using the Golden Globe Awards’ ceremony to burp up her baloney, as if what she had to say was so urgent and momentous.
And micdrop.
Wow, the rage I feel is just horrific right now.

Wow, the rage I feel is just horrific right now.


I saw this online just a few minutes ago.  First, it was at Michelle’s Mirror.  Then I saw that Michelle Malkin mentioned it on her Twitter feed.  It has not gone viral yet, but it should.

This shit is why I don’t vote Democrat.  I never have, and I never will.  So to address this hideous bitch’s points one by one.

Shithole?  Mexico is a fucking shithole, bitch.  A third of Mexico’s population has already invaded our country.  THAT’s a shithole.  Whatever city in rural America that utterly offended you so could not possibly be anywhere as bad as Mexico.  That’s the first thing.  The second thing is that your precious cities and suburbs aren’t much better for many reasons, but I’ll list two:  pollution and crime.

White people are far from being the only violent, misogynist ones.  Plenty of blacks and Hispanics are just as violent.  In fact, and I really hate to admit this, but blacks commit the vast majority of crime in this entire nation.  Chicago may as well be a fucking war zone given the mind-boggling amount of gun violence there (and Chicago is a gun-free city…good job, morons).

Big corporations don’t want to open call centers, factories, etc in the US because it costs too much money to operate.  There’s a shitload of environmental regulations and other regulations one has to go through just to get approved to build something, and then there’s the business of running it, including the hiring of a workforce and how much it would cost to keep the damn lights on.  I know that most corporations are run by idiotic bigots like you, but I highly doubt it’s because they’re all, “eeeewww, racists!”  It’s more like, “it costs too much money to build a factory in the middle of nowhere.”

Oh, I get it.  This rancid shitstain wants the entire country to be run by progtards.  These rural cities need progressives on their city councils so that every single aspect of their lives is dictated to by sanctimonious wastes of space like her.  Uh, no bitch.  Furthermore, all her progressive policies would do is feed, clothe and shelter a feral underclass that will continue to commit crimes despite the fact that their every need is met.  The three biggest cities in this country (Los Angeles, Chicago and New York City) are good examples of this.

Did it ever occur to her, and many other liberals, that people in these rural cities see no need for fiber Internet?  In all likelihood, we’re talking about farmers and people with small businesses, people who have been doing business a certain way for years and so far it’s clearly working for them.  Of course, if people like her weren’t so bigoted, maybe these people could get jobs that paid enough to justify paying hundreds of dollars a month for high speed Internet.  This bitch thinks that high speed Internet will automatically result in “enlightened” progressives that like having gay orgies or something.  No, it won’t.  In fact, it might turn out to be your worst nightmare, because these incorrigible bigots you hate so much will be able to communicate with another and coordinate political action.  Four years of Trump might turn into eight, and possibly four to eight years of Pence too.  So yeah, if rural America wants the Internet, I’m all for it.

You’ve already clearly sacrificed tolerance.  You are completely and utterly unwilling to consider these people human beings, much less willing to work with them on anything.  Tolerance and acceptance are two different things.  You can still dislike something while tolerating it.

Oh, and notice how this rancid hag does not give any specifics with regards to the alleged bigotry and intolerance found in “rural” America.  And just exactly how are they intolerant and bigoted?  What specific examples of bigotry can you give, or are you just making all this shit up because you clearly won’t live to see the first female president’s inaguration?

Now we get to the part that pisses me off the most.  If you honestly think that these rural people are “voting against their best interests” then you don’t know anything about these people.  You clearly do not know what you’re talking about.

I’m not a rural person.  I’ve lived in rural areas and the subdivision I currently live in is kind of rural.  But I’m not a rural person.  From what I understand, rural people are independent.  For example, the house my parents currently live in runs on well water.  My parents also burn their own trash.  My grandfather takes his trash to the dump himself.

My now deceased step-grandfather came of age during the Great Depression.  He did pretty much everything himself.  He even made beds for us when my family moved to his town!  Rural folk do everything themselves, and they’re totally fine with it!  They don’t need some sanctimonius city bitch swooping in and telling them they have to let a bunch of illegal immigrants live in their neighborhood, or how much corn they can plant, or what kind of light bulbs they should use, etc.  All they want is to be left alone.

This statement of hers contradicts everything else she’s said.  If these people were as truly as bigoted and intolerant as she claims, voting Democrat would be against their self interests.  After all, the Democrats are the ones that want to flood our country with Mexico’s population.

Which brings me to her next point, that these rural people don’t want “brown” people to thrive.  Even if that were true, so?  And what is that even supposed to mean, anyway?  Once again, she gives no examples.  Just tosses that stupid talking point out there because it’ll piss people off.  These rural, independent folk have no respect for someone that leeches off of the government.  After all, they get by with far less than most welfare queens in Chicago or NYC do.  I can’t blame them for feeling that way.

And by her admission, big corporations refuse to build factories, etc in their cities because they can’t stand the bigotry.  Evidently, by her own admission politics has nothing to do with that.  Voting Democrat won’t magically convince these corporations to build anywhere but Mexico or China or whatever.  By her idiotic logic, “brown” people “thriving” would be against their best interests.

I’m sure you’ve heard about all the companies that want to build factories and stuff ever since Trump was elected.  It’s obvious that this hateful bitch is full of shit.  It’s also obvious that she does not know what she’s talking about.

I am half-black, half-Hispanic.  I am also a woman.  I have voted Republican my whole life.  Even though I have spent most of my life living on military bases, I have a lot of respect for rural folks.  I have respect for city folks too, by the way, and suburbanites.  All three have different qualities; all three bring something different to the table.  This woman knows absolutely nothing about my best interests, or anyone else’s interests.  I am sick and tired of leftists bringing this up.

These rural people want jobs.  These rural people are offended by the fact that criminals from Mexico get treated like royalty because they come from a poor country.  These rural people are offended by the fact that many people in this country are living off of the taxpayer’s dime while they struggle and work hard every damn day.

Shit, she has so much contempt for rural America, what would she think of the average third world country?  They don’t have Internet either.  Oh, but they’re brown skinned people, so they’re okay.  This woman thinks “brown” people are objectively better than rural people, which is absurd because nobody is perfect, not even these illegal immigrants she loves so much.  Take a good look at the crime statistics for Los Angeles.  Proof right there that these people are not perfect.

This crap pisses me off.  It really does, especially that “they’re voting against their best interests” bullshit.  I don’t need welfare.  I don’t need the government to run every aspect of my life.  Voting Democrat or for any progressive party will never be in my best interest because I care about FREEDOM more than anything else in the world.