One Hundred Days

What can I say?  I would have liked to have seen, like millions of other voters, more progress coming from President Trump.  And, like those other supporters, I wanted to see a brutal and final death to that obamination known as Obamacare.  That didn't happen.  Yet.  I wanted to hear the sweet sounds of heavy diesel machinery digging the foundations of the border wall, but, alas, that hasn't happened.  Yet.  And I would like to have seen the resignations of all the Kenyan's appointed vermin, and see them sent slinking out of the DC swamp and into the harsh, cleansing light of day.  But that hasn't happened,  Yet.

But I, like millions of other voters, realize that it would require divine intervention for one man to accomplish all these Herculean tasks in the first hundred days of his presidency, especially give the level and intensity of his opposition.  From all sides, I might add.  And realizing this this, I'm more than willing to cut the man some slack.  Fighting the New York Times and Chuck Schumer and Paul Ryan, et al, all at the same time, can't be easy.  So I, and millions of other supporters, will watch.  And wait.  And take copious notes.

Realistically, however, the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court in of itself was worth the election.  Chances are good to excellent that there will be one, and most probably two, vacancies on the Court within the next four years.  And if those nominees are as constitutionally oriented as is Justice Gorsuch, I am encouraged to believe the nation can be saved.  Hallelujah and praise be!

But most concerning of all is Trump's adherence to a big tent philosophy in his administration.  By that I mean that, while recognizing Trump is not an ideologue, he does recognize that he is where he  is - that is, that he won the election - because he promised to rid us of the entrenched political elites and their continuing mismanagement of the government.  By keeping these philosophically misaligned operatives on board, he risks having his agenda sabotaged, neutered and rendered moot.  The people won, so why should we include the losers in our policy making?  We shouldn't, of course, and these DC swampers must go.  Immediately.  In that vein, and not to put too fine a point on it, but Ivanka and Jared have exactly NO role in making administration policy.  While they're pretty and successful, and all that, it remains true that they are young, politically inexperienced and deeply rooted in their New York, liberal upbringing.  Which is exactly what the American voters voted against.  I understand nepotism to a degree, but this ain't a monarchy.  

Concerns about these issues are heard when one puts one's ear to the ground.  Others are commenting in similar ways, as well. He's got an uphill fight, and we are behind him.  Understanding Trump, it may be part of an overarching plan to quell the left simply by having them sit at the table.  That's a big and bold - and possibly dangerous - plan, but if anyone can pull it off, it's Trump.  He's told us time and again, deal making is an art form.

Let's hope that is the situation.  And that it works.   

Fat Ugly Chicks Win One

What happens when natural biology is weaponized . . .

If ever there was a compelling arugument for tort reform, the recent and ongoing drama at Fox News would come up as Exhibit A.  And the genesis for that drama is the illogical and insane adherence to political correct feminist dogma.  

Here's the rub.  Television, and especially cable TV, is a visual medium, and producers have come a long way in market savvy since news anchors were exclusively old white men.  Think Dan Rather, Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley.  TV back then was in black and white, so all that was needed was a talking head.  With great hair.

Today we have high definition, mega-pixels television in vivid color, and news management knows its customer base wants to see pretty.  And cable delivers on pretty.  Does it ever.  So nowadays we get babes.  Hot babes.  Beautiful, voluptuous, buxom hotties with great legs.  And yes, we viewers get to see legs. Sculpted, shapely and long legs.  Remember Megyn Kelly's glass desktop?  Yeah, me, too.  Bear with me here, I'm not going soft core on you. There's a point to this.

In light of modern news technology, we now have a plethora of hot babes reading the evening news to us.  In vivid and high def color.  Consequently, downstairs at human resources, female job applicants get the unmistakable message that fat, ugly chicks need not apply.  Not for on-air talent positions, anyway.  It's simply a fact of life.

So then let's say we have a universe of hot babes wandering around the offices and studios, interacting with male counterparts in all departments.  And as males will, they notice that there's a sea of very attractive ladies milling about.  The copy boy, who has all of $17 in his checking account, may greet one of the hotties and admiringly say, "If I told you had a fabulous body, would you hold it against me?"  What do you think would happen? He'd get the extended middle finger, or a curt but to-the-point castrating rebuff, and that would be the end of it.  Yet let a famous man who is also a news anchor, and who earns $20 million a year, leer or possibly lick his lips or engage in some other demonstration of appreciation of a particular woman's appearance, what do you think would happen in that case?  Right.  Lawsuit.  And that severe legal assault on a completely innocent and normal biological reaction is wrong on so many levels.  And we have the fat, ugly feminists to thank for it. 

Here's the natural biology of men and women.  Normal women want to be attractive to men.  Normal men want women to be attractive.  But the fat, ugly feminists want everyone to suffer as they believe they have suffered.  They believe they've been left out of the accessibility pool of desirable females.  They probably have been, but for reasons other than lack of physical attractiveness.  No matter, they want to wreck the natural biological process.  End attractiveness.  End male response to attractiveness.  So to that end, to court we will go.

The definition of "tort" for the purposes of this discussion is a civil wrong or wrongful act, whether intentional or accidental, from which injury occurs to another.  Now in the context of torts, an "injury" describes the invasion of a legal right, as opposed to "harm," which describes a loss or detriment in fact that an individual suffers.  But what right is assailed?  What injury is sustained?

What this means is that feminists have essentially weaponized the natural act of a man noticing a woman and commenting on it.  It's unlikely that any real sexual assault occurred, like the guy grabbing her in the hall and having his way with her.  Nope, this is simply verbal commentary - no touching - we're talking about.  But insurance companies and defendants' attorney teams don't want to go to court and fight, citing court battle costs may exceed any settlement awards.  So they settle.  Worse, if the accused does settle the case, he is still guilty - not because he did it - but because, being male, he simply could have.  Think about that.  Legalized extortion is still alive and well.  Just like the scams the racist shakedown clowns Sharpton and Jackson still try to pull off.

What is the inevitable outcome of the fat and ugly harpy feminists winning this battle in the so called war of the sexes?  For one, sleazy attorneys like Gloria Allred and her ilk getting rich beyond their courtroom abilities.  For another, it sets a troubling cultural precedent.  And it only punishes men.  Women still show lots of skin, cleavage and leg to attract a man's interest.  But men are not supposed to notice, let alone comment.  But far beyond that, we're seeing a cultural reaction backlash to this feminist bullying.  Ever heard of MGTOW?  Follow that link.  A seismic shift in male-female relationships is under way, and it ain't good.

And for this unnatural extortion we can thank the fat and ugly harpies who brought us modern feminism.

Civility's Post Mortem

Another psychopathic Negro murders an innocent, random victim, and unrepentantly posts it streaming live on Facebook.  Then politely saves the taxpayer from having to prosecute him.  All across the country, teens kill themselves streaming live on Facebook, eager for that one brief moment of fleeting fame.  And society cannot look away.  In Berkeley, Antifa forms another violent mob, beating people up merely because they hold a different political viewpoint.  Lost on this mob is the irony that they shout anti-fascist slogans while simultaneously enacting fascist activities, all the while pretending to honor free speech.  In New York, vicious Hispanic gangs rape and kill with abandon, and law enforcement holds back, so as not to offend a protected group.  Mexican drug cartels gun down entire families in their sleep,and no one intervenes for fear of reprisals.  Law enforcement quakes in fear, as these cartels kill lawmen on both sides of the border.  And in Washington the deep state continues its sedition with its unbridled sabotage of the duly elected Trump Administration, determined to keep the divisiveness prevalent during the Kenyan's reign alive and well.

On college campuses all over the United States, the extreme left progressive movement continues to turn high-tuition-paying students into brainwashed fanatics.  The liberal-lesbian Wellesley College student newspaper calls for retaliation against students who refuse to wear the brown shirt of progressivism.  And at Arizona State, a female Hispanic professor of Global Politics of Human Rights gave her class the option of protesting President Trump or taking a final exam.  The irony seems to lost on these useful idiots, as well.

The progressive social Marxist narrative is that white men are to blame for all our woes.  Ironic.  The founders of this nation, white men all, realized that a constitutional republic is contingent upon an educated and informed public.  And for two hundred-plus years America has been the bastion of freedom of the world, saving countless millions from tyranny and enslavement.  But imperative to progressives is the dumbing down of the electorate so that it may be easily controlled, and by extension, told what to think.  Censorship replaces free speech.  Political correctness replaces common sense. Violence replaces dialogue.  Intentions replace actions.  As we fear, day by day, that Orwell was right, as we watch the language and meaning of words change before our eyes, as we watch illiterate, uneducated, diseased and unskilled sub-humans flood our lands, as we arm ourselves in anticipation of the inevitable conflict to come, are we actually witnessing the demise of Western civilization?  One hopes not.

But for a society who cannot look away from the constant morbidity to which we're exposed, it would seem that civility is quite dead.

UPDATE 19 April 2017:
The day after this post was published, yet another radicalized Negro Islamist killed three people.  And, as if to prove my point above, this senseless violence occurred in liberal, gun-free Fresno, California. You know, where only criminals can have guns.  After assuring its citizens to fear not, that that Muslim "lone wolf" terror was overblown, the Fresno Bee (and the New York Times, as well) had egg - er, blood - on their faces as 39 year old Kori Ali Muhammad randomly sought out and killed three white people, shooting them point blank.  Thanks should be given to the Kenyan and his eight-year reign of racial divisiveness, and to his puppet master George Soros for instilling this kind of violent hatred among the more intellectually malleable among us.  Racial violence isn't by whites on blacks; it's quite the other way around.  And it's no wonder folks want to be armed.  And at all times.