The Kenyan's 3rd Term: How He'll Do It

The Twenty-second Amendment of the United States Constitution sets a term limit for election and overall time of service to the office of President of the United States.  Congress passed the amendment on March 21, 1947, and it was ratified by the requisite 36 of the then 48 states on February 27, 1951. Whew!  So we are saved from another disastrous term of the Kenyan's destructive administration, right?

Wait just a minute.  Not so fast.

It's common knowledge that the Kenyan isn't too keen on receding into private life after his second term, as he has affirmatively indicated, so how can a self absorbed psychopathic narcissist circumvent the Constitution and enable himself to continue holding the reins of power?  There's an answer to that, as we shall see.

Let's start with the Democrat Party's presidential candidate, one Hillary Rodham Clinton. After all the ill will and blood letting between her and the Kenyan in both 2008 and 2012 campaigns, how is it that these two are now so lovingly aligned?  Can it be ascribed to simply party loyalty?  Or of mending of fences?  Hardly.

The stage is already being set for Hillary to either win - or contest the results of - the 2016 election.  Two plausible scenarios of doubt and discontent begin to fall into place:  Russia will hack the election in favor of Trump (although there's not a shred of evidence to support this, it's still being floated by left wing media.  Putin actually would most likely prefer HRC as the US leader given their already established cozy relationship); Soros will manipulate the voting results in favor of Hillary because he in fact controls the company that provides many of the voting machines.  Other conspiracy theories include a major attack on the US will result in election suspension; or civil unrest or a financial crisis will render a similar result, or the Kenyan will simply pull a coupe d'etat. These last few may be possible, but unlikely.

Not one to engage in tinfoil hat conspiracy theories, I must say the following one is so Machiavellian and sinister that I tend to give it some credibility.

Let's stipulate on the outset that HRC is seriously, seriously ill. There's ample evidence of this.  But exactly how ill is she?  There's a compelling 10 minute video by a medical professor showing some of HRC's leaked medical records from 2015 which indicate that she has a condition called Subcortical Vascular Dementia.   This condition is progressive - meaning it gets worse and worse over time - and usually results in patients living just 3 to 5 years after diagnosis. If this is her diagnosis, she's got maybe 18 months to live.  Or given the rate of decline in her health over just the past few weeks, maybe much, much less.

In It Together

So why would she run for president?  And why would her party support such a decisions?  These are key questions.

Two reasons come immediately to mind.  First, HRC's ambitions have always to be the first female president.  That's to be her legacy, even if it results in a death in office.  With literally her dying breath she wants that distinction.  And if elected, and if on the day of her inauguration she passes away or becomes certifiably incapacitated, there will be a constitutional crisis as to who will be president. And that decision - not withstanding any constitutional provisions to the contrary for such an occurrence - may very well and most probably fall to the Kenyan.  It's a mutually advantageous arrangement, then, isn't it?  A win-win.  A legacy for one, extended power for the other.  The ruling party continues on.  Can't do it, you say?

Well, that's the second reason.

From Russia With Love

Russia.  The country we love to hate.  Ever since Stalin's Soviet Union in 1945, whom General George Patton wanted to take out after his Third Army rolled into Berlin ending the European war, to Khrushchev's ballistic missiles based in Cuba and aimed at Florida in the 1960s (as a young boy growing up in Clearwater in those days, it was a very real and constant threat, which today is forgotten as either ancient or obscure history), to James Bond's arch nemesis, to today's news that Russia is hacking into the United States intelligence service, the Russian Bear seems to have a voracious appetite, and is seen as an enemy to most Americans living today.  Even today Russia continues to flex its military muscle (images here) during war exercises in Crimea.

That Russia is a threat is undeniable.  Three years ago Edward Snowden pulled back the curtain to let Americans see how vulnerable our intelligence services are.  He described the leak last month of NSA espionage tools, potentially by Russia as an “implicit threat” to the US government. Efforts by hackers called the Shadow Brokers to auction off NSA computer code used to break into foreign networks were an attempt to show Washington how vulnerable it was, he added.   We hack them, they hack us, we all hack China and everybody else.   Spy versus spy in a digital world. 

But wait.

There's a worse threat to the Western world, and to the United States especially, and that threat is Islam.  Islam isn't a country; it's not a race; it's not a tribe; it's not even an idea.  It's a death cult that has been in existence for 1,400 years.  Neither its goals nor its methods have changed in all that time.  Its mandate is simple:  To the world, convert or die.  Even with Soviet Union President  Khrushchev's famous "we will bury you!" threat, in this writer's view, is laughable compared to the insidious real threat of Islam.

Here's why.

Russia is a nation.  The United States is a nation.  Both have been preparing and training for war with other nation states for millennia.  We both know how to fight in a nation state against nation state conflict.  But with Islam both countries face a two pronged attack as Islam wages both an asymmetrical and psychological war against Christian nations. As to psychology they move into a new region - a community, a county, a state, a nation -  and by slowly pretending to assimilate, or simply through overwhelming numbers, known to DHS as "settlement jihad", they seek to become a majority.  When that happens, they take over that once free society, and enact sharia law.  As to the physical war, they are violent, to be sure, as their creed demands, and attack at every opportunity.  In fact, there have been over 29,000 worldwide deaths involved from over 11,000 attacks since September 11, 2001.  Here's just a partial list.

And make no mistake, and say what you will about Vladimir Putin, but understand that he has brought Russia back into the Christian fold.  The Soviets were atheists, true, but not so were the Russian people.  Putin has embraced the Orthodox Christian Church, and even more importantly, has prevented Muslims from entering the country.  The United States in contrast, does all it can under the Kenyan's administration to admit as many Muslim savages as he possibly can, while denigrating Christianity.  I have personal contact with several of these sleeper agents, and I can state unequivocally that we're in for a major surprise one day when these peaceful moderate Muslims rise up and begin killing us.  That will be after they are elected to local office by those naive souls who just can't seem to see the forest for the trees.  And when once in political power they will begin to ever so slowly change the American way of life.  Just note London's schizophrenic psyche after electing a Muslin mayor, for a perfect example of insane Islamic influence. 

So if Russia is a threat - and it is -  it's no greater a threat than Zika, or tuberculosis or even leprosy.  These threats and many others - including human threats like Hispanic gangs and Muslim sleepers -  have been introduced into the United States by the Kenyan's hateful arrogance and the catastrophic impact on our culture and way of life have yet to be fully felt.  But that's not so in Putin's administration.

So instead of fighting Russia on all fronts, a far better plan to deal with the global threat of Islam is to join with Russia - perhaps even take some notes from Putin's policies regarding same - and engage, defeat and completely annihilate Islam from the face of the Earth.  The enemy of my enemy is my friend, after all.  And Islam is the enemy of all mankind.  It cannot be appeased.  It cannot be contained.  It must be destroyed.

Don't doubt me on this.

Censorship In The Free Market

It seems that every day there's a new revelation that social media sites are anti-conservative, and enact usage policies that are downright blatant censorship.  No kidding.  First Facebook was busted for its anti-conservative bias in its trending news feeds.  Then Twitter was exposed censoring content from members it didn't like.  And now it's YouTube's turn to take the hit. The Google-owned platform recently released new “advertiser friendly” guidelines that stipulated how discussion of “controversial or sensitive subjects and events” would be punished by the user being unable to collect advertising money on such videos. Well.  That's not entirely censorship as you can still post rants and raves.  It's just the new policies won't allow advertisers to pay you for them.  

So what's all the flap about?  There are so many outlets on the Internet for free expression, just find one and use it.  Disqus enables a user to comment on news sites and elsewhere, for instance.  Your voice will be heard.  Ironically, conservatives are the first to hold free enterprise sacrosanct, argue that private companies exist to make a profit, and companies can enact policies as they see fit.  But they tend to become a little less idealistic when censorship and free enterprise intersect. If I ran a global for-profit conservative social media outlet with billions of followers, I probably wouldn't want the likes of the Kenyan or Michael Moore or Hillary or Lena Dunham or anyone writing for the New York Times on my system either.  And guess what?  As a private company, I'd have the perfect right to ban them, or make it difficult  from them to spread their Alinsky-ite nonsensical garbage to my kindred followers.  Wouldn't I? 

So Facebook, Twitter and YouTubers, go set up your own conservative social media system and promote it. Or better yet, use Blogger or Wordpress to create your own blog and sell subscriptions to your writings.  Monopolies exist to be bested after all.  For years, everyone thought General Motors would be king of the road forever, but then these Japanese came over and basically ate GM's lunch.  They did it faster, better and cheaper.  And people bought their cars in record numbers.  Same thing could happen to Google.  They bigger they are, the harder they fall.  Same with Facebook; it become so cumbersome and invasive I quit using it several years ago. 

So when conservatives complain about censorship - and I hate censorship, too, don't get me wrong - I'd remind them of their core principals.  Free speech, yes, of course.  But free markets as well.    If liberal social media companies' trite biases and policies bother you, don't buy stock in those companies, and cancel your subscriptions to them.  It's their right to present their product, and it's your right as a consumer to not buy it.

So quit bitching and go build your own platform, like a true self reliant American.  Take on the giants, kick their ass, and create some jobs and a boatload of money in the process.

It Takes A VIllage To Abuse A Man

Every man who has ever been in a relationship with a woman knows that the myth that there's no such thing as a man being abused by a female is emphatically false.  In fact the abusive female stereotypes are ingrained in our culture:  picture the hefty harpy in hair curlers with a rolling pin; the high maintenance broad complaining about  - well - everything; the henpecked milquetoast hubby; lyrics from Pink Floyd " . . . their fat psychopathic wives, beat them to within inches of their lives"; and even Shakespeare writing about the taming of the shrew.  Clearly men have been abused, harassed and victimized since time immemorial.  Yet furthering and doubling down on that abuse of men is what the feminist movement has been all about for the last fifty years: denigrate men, worship women. 

Started in earnest during the "enlightenment" of the 1960s, this vile movement was formed by women too smug, too angry, too vicious and yes, too ugly to ever attract a man's attention.  A whole generation of women, taunted with the false notion of  "If a man can, I can too," have been lead into an adversarial relationship with men.  Studies today indicate a majority of millennial men want little or nothing to do with a male-female relationship.  It's just too damn vexing to deal with a post feminist self absorbed woman. As proof of this just consider the number of selfies posted by young women on social media in the last few years.  Narcissism and self absorption is the rule for today's girls as they scream, "I love me, so I don't need you!"  Yikes.  What man needs that?  One can readily see why the gay movement has blossomed, and why many men want to become women.  Because of feminists' belief that men are rapists waiting for an opportunity, and that men are violent by nature, men who are involved in relationships are being abused more than ever.  On study even finds that up to 48% of men in the US have said they've suffered domestic abuse in their relationships with partners.

Here are some actual verbatim comments by men who are in, or are recently free from, disastrous male-female relationships where the man is the victim of spousal abuse.  Absolutely anonymous, of course.

It takes a village...

Female abusers succeed by co-opting the social infrastructure, institutional supports, and popular beliefs that become complicit in the abuse. Female abusers exploit, manipulate, and ransom not only men's resources but their personal security. To catch these predators one has to know what weapons these femdom adherents use. These include alienation of children, financial waste, hiding assets, triangulation (affairs), divorce,  gaslighting, deliberately triggering anger, ignoring, marginalization, public disrespect, insulting, and false reporting. All of these are not only acceptable for women - they are routinely supported and encouraged in our social and civil institutions and talk about abuse.

Men, have you noticed any of those weapons aimed at you?   Anyone?  Yep, I can guarantee every man reading this has experienced all or most of these in each of his relationships with women.

Duplicitous double standard . .

We not only don't believe men's stories - we actively marginalize them in our laws and institutions. We are duplicitous even in our morality and reasoning: when men cheat they are dogs - when women cheat it's because they are unappreciated at home. More than 2/3 of divorces are filed by women, not men. Women press for commitment, get exactly what they wanted then devalue it.  Abused men don't stay in these relationships because they can't recognize the abuse - they stay because women have an entire village to help them perpetrate this insanity without pause, or reflection.  And God help the poor bastard who ever tries to fight back.  He can't; he's just got to take it.

The truth of the statement "Women press for commitment, get exactly what they want, then devalue it" cannot be overemphasized.  That should be a canon taught in second year law school.

Divorce will free me . .

In the hands of an abuser or narcissist woman, divorce and related law is a tool with devastating potential - it provides women the means to coerce men with the very real and demonstrable threat to deprive a man of his very liberty, alienate his children, and destroy his reputation. Divorce is not a way out for abused men.  It doesn't end the abuse - it escalates it. It is a paralyzing reality for any man faced with an abusive spouse.   

Men who have lived through a divorce or two, especially with kids involved, might not disagree in any way this this. 

Masculinity is at stake . . 

Men are abused with lies, deception, gaslighting, alienation and manipulation on a stage with an all too willing public audience. Masculinity? Seriously? This is what you think troubles an abused man most? How about the very real prospect of legal, parental, and social suicide within that non-believing public so aptly described? Where do you naively expect them to find actual safety?

I can answer that:  With the boys.  Or in solitude.


Criminal enterprise . .
Female abusers operate more like white collar criminals - victims are targeted and destroyed with little or no consequence to the perpetrator.  Unless physical wounds are present, no crime other than misandry is committed.  There are no shelters for men, because shelter is not what would save them. The only thing they really need is societal objectivity - and it's not forthcoming.

There you have it.   The ugliness of societal misandry as it manifests itself as spousal abuse.  It's legal, it's supported by both society and law, and it's committed every day, in ever greater frequency.  But we don't see it - yet -  because men typically won't admit that they have been - or are now - victims of domestic psychological spousal violence.  The problem will come to light, however, because there are thousands upon thousands of relationships in the US alone that are being destroyed by female domestic abuse.  And that abuse and its attendant resentment will eventually boil to the surface, where it can be seen and recognized by all.  And hopefully stopped.

Until then boys, heed Paul Simon's sage advice: ". . Make a new plan, Stan.  Drop off the key, Lee.  Slip out the back, Jack,   Just get yourself free."  Amen.