Saturday, November 22, 2014

To read or not to read the New York Slimes, that is the question....

Here's an article in the New York Slimes about whether or not to delete your Uber app because one of the founders ridiculed the press, and they're misogynistic over there at Uber:

Written by this creature, Laura M. Holson:

Who writes for the New York Slimes as a Fashion and Style writer. Who else would hire this chubby mule as a Fashion and Style writer but the idiots at the New York Slimes? Seriously, would you take advice from this creature on fashion and style? Maybe on how to repel the opposite sex.

I recently took a cab in Chicago with my son-in-law, where the cab driver stunk like a moldy sock, it was a horrible ride. We just had to suck it up.

One month later, my wife and I took a ride in an Uber car in San Francisco, where the driver stunk a bit. The Uber app asked me to rate him. I gave him one star, and Uber refunded part of my money, apologized, and put the driver on notice to take baths or find another job. When was the last time a cab company did that? My wife said that cabs were better because they were government regulated. I beg to differ, the municipal governments are doing a horrible job regulating them. WE are regulating Uber, and we're doing a pretty good job. Last time I went to Vegas, I had to wait 45 minutes for a cab at the government regulated cab line. I wait three minutes for an Uber. Go government!

I'm sure the execs over at Uber are laying awake at night, worried that the hideous fashion and style writer Laura Holson is deleting their app. Maybe they'll muddle through it somehow. I predict they will survive. Since the New York Slimes, Laura Holson, and the cab companies seem at odds with the new economy, them, not so much.

Friday, September 12, 2014

Dr. Lona Smith on Prenups, and a boy is raped by a woman and owes her 150k in child support

"You feel like you've been asked to sign your life away."

Really? So, all the money that this man has made for a life of work, that's you signing your life away? How is this man's property considered yours, before you even get married to him? 

"Does he value me? Love me? Trust me?"

Let me quote one of my favorite presidents, "Trust but verify." And what does any of that have to do with this anyway? He already shouldn't trust you, because you've just stated that you believe that all of his possessions already belong to you if you get married, when you said you were signing your life away, and you're not even married to him yet. Why should anybody trust you after you told him in no uncertain terms that you can't be trusted? You're a hot chick, with an obvious agenda. Anybody who trusts you, deserves the ass-raping divorce settlement that they will inevitably be saddled with.

"Help, he wants me to sign a prenup."

Even that title screams gold-digger.

"Help me, he wants to protect himself from the inevitable ass-rape divorce I'm going to hand to him, with the benefit of a feminist-run court system. What can I do? A prenup is his only defense against the gold-digging bitch that I am, and he wants to take the power vested in me by the court system away with it."

48 seconds.

You need a survival guide, because he wants you to sign a prenup, like that's something you need to survive. Not a hurricane blowing down your house, or your spouse being killed, or being chased by a pack of wolves. No, getting the inevitable divorce, and finding out that the little princess has to sully her hands with a real job, just the thought of that is a horrible tragedy that you must survive. My brother Marines are getting killed in horrible conditions in the middle east, and you have to sign a prenup. Poor freakin you.

She mentions twice in ten seconds that she's a doctor, and her degree is in clinical psychology. But I could find no mention of a practicing Dr. Lona Smith anywhere, and no license for a Dr. Lona Smith in the state of Florida, where she claims she lives. There is no record of her writing a dissertation anywhere. So, maybe she is a non-practicing, non-licensed psychologist. On the other hand, maybe she's full of shit. Maybe she's a gold-digging poser who's hot, and a pathological liar.

He's the love of your life, and you almost killed him because he wanted you to sign a prenup? Lady, you don't even know what love is, if it's that big a deal to you. And if you WERE a practicing psychologist, being that good looking, you would have all kinds of media offers to do talk shows, and would be doing quite well financially, so you would be asking him to sign a prenup.

Two cancelled wedding dates, five fired attorneys, multiple "it's overs", I'm leaving threats, knock-down drag-out fights? What kind of idiot is this guy, who put up with this crap? And why would a clinical psychologist have such a problem handling this situation? If you're dumb enough to believe that this idiot is a clinical psychologist. And that shit doesn't get any easier after you're married. That bitch should have been on the launching pad after her first temper tantrum.

"Help you protect yourself."

By protecting yourself, she means making sure she gets a big enough cut of his crap after the inevitable divorce. And notice, this video is targeting one specific type of woman: the gold-digging bitch. Being protected in life, by taking all of his shit? Maybe you can protect yourself by getting an education or profession and earning your own damn money, which you claim you've already done, DOCTOR.

"Lead you down the aisle"

More like lead you down the green mile to the inevitable execution of your bank account. Have you ever heard someone more disingenuous? This woman sounds like Bagdad Bob telling everyone how he's kicking American ass to the music of rumbling M1A1 tanks in the background.

"Rainbows and butterflies."

Well after five fired attorneys and knock-down drag-out fights during the engagement, nobody should be thinking being married to DOCTOR Lona Smith is going to be rainbows and butterflies. More like claymores and air-strikes.

"This is our time."

Yes, it is your time. And you're dicking it up, like the colossal psycho gold-digger that you are.  The good news is, your children will probably be tough as nail after living in the post marriage war zone of your house.  They'll probably be able to survive a zombie apocalypse, or uprising of the sentient machines. Maybe even an uprising of zombie sentient machines, They will be tough, vicious little bastards. Trust me, I know.

"Fight fair."

Fight fair? Really? Again, you are going into a marriage fighting? How is it going to turn out I wonder?

I guess the entire video, and the tone of entitlement is breathtaking. She, and those like her automatically assume two things: 1) That there's probably going to be a divorce AND 2) His stuff is hers, and when he wants a prenup stating otherwise, then she throws a temper tantrum.

I was once living with this woman, and I told her that she should have to pay half of the utilities since we were living together. This woman cried for three days, that I would dare ask her to pay anything to live in my house. Mind you, I wasn't asking her to pay part of the mortgage as rent, but by all rights I should have asked her for that too. Finally she acquiesced and paid half of the utilities.

Her repeated protests were along the lines of, "When Prince Charming took his princess back to the castle, he didn't ask her to pay rent."

OK, do I look like Prince Freaking Charming. And not to bring this up, but that's a fairy tale. This is reality. If you are going to live under this roof, and you have a job and the means, and you claim you want equal rights, well then guess what? You get to pay an equal portion of the rent and utilities. You are not entitled to my stuff. We're equal, remember? That means you can get your own stuff, and if the marriage dissolves, you have the equal opportunity to get your own damn place, and not soak me for a lot of cash. The fact that we even need prenuptial agreements is bullshit. Take your crap, and everything that you bought during the marriage, which is probably not much besides a buttload of shoes and purses that cost a thousand bucks a piece, and get out.

here's a story about billionaire Ken Griffin and his prenup:

His entitlement princess to be, is challenging the pre-nup, because she claims she had to sign it under duress:

Reports say Mrs. Griffin filed documents in court in Illinois this week challenging the prenup, saying it was signed under duress. Mr. Griffin, who filed for divorce in July,reportedly didn’t disclose his financial information until days before the ceremony,and she signed the prenup three hours before a rehearsal dinner on the night before their July 19, 2003, wedding.
At stake is Mr. Griffin’s reported $5 billion fortune. If the prenup remains in place, Mrs. Griffin would get roughly 1% of that, or $50 million. If it doesn't she could get substantially more. 
So, fifty million dollars isn't enough for the little princess, She wants the whole enchilada for the duress he caused her for the last eleven years, where she lived in the lap of luxury. Poor little entitlement princess. She had to fly in gulf streams all over the world, and live in a collection of mansions, and now fifty million dollars just isn't going to cover it. What a greedy little bitch!

According to Business Outsider, prenups don't hold much weight in the British Judiciary:

Except when the roles are reversed, and the man wants to nullify the prenup:

London's Supreme Court just ruled against a former JP Morgan i-banker who wanted the court to reverse a decision that slashed his $7.8 million divorce settlement to $1.6 million, Bloomberg reports.
Judges found in favor of his ex-wife, a wealthy German heiress and one of the richest women in Europe, based on the prenup the couple signed in 1998.
So I guess, when you're a woman in Europe, the prenup holds up. When you're a man, then it doesn't even count.

In what seems to be a common occurrence, in high profile U.S. prenup cases, the woman claims she had to sign the prenup under duress, and sues the husband for more money. This happened to Deion Sanders and he was lucky enough to win. But what this really is, is a bunch of gold-digging whores refusing to take responsibility for their own lives. In most cases, they get more than enough in a divorce settlements to live comfortably for the rest of their lives, but even that's not enough.

I used to tell dudes, that if they're insistent on getting married, which they shouldn't be, then get a prenup and don't procreate with the woman. Yes, yes, I know I'm a hypocrite because I did get married. That was before I was introduced to the men's rights movement, and started paying attention to all this stuff.

Now it seems that you can't even get a prenup, they'll still come after you. And for the love of God, do not procreate with these women. That, I didn't do, and it saved me a lot of heartache.

Here's a story, if you can believe it, about a fourteen year old dude who was raped by a twenty year old woman, and now has to pay her child support here in Phoenix:

Statutory rape victim forced to pay child support

PHOENIX — Nick Olivas became a father at 14, a fact he wouldn't learn for eight years.
While in high school, Olivas had sex with a 20-year-old woman. As he sees it now, she took advantage of a lonely kid going through a rough patch at home.
State law says a child younger than 15 cannot consent with an adult under any circumstance, making Olivas a rape victim. Olivas didn't press charges and says he didn't realize at the time that it was even something to consider.
The two went their separate ways. Olivas, now 24 and living in Phoenix, graduated from high school, went to college and became a medical assistant.
Then two years ago, the state served him with papers demanding child support. That's how he found out he had a then-6-year-old daughter.
This has also happened in Kansas, and of course, California. Boys who were statutory rape victims were forced to pay child support. This is unbelievable crap, and one of the most despicable miscarriages of justice and violations of the Equal protection clause of the Constitution that I've ever seen.

Even more retarded, are comments like these from the Daily Mail version of the story:

Somebody named Imwilker from Gosport said:
"It's not the child's fault so her father should have to support her."

No, it's not the child's fault, but the father should not have to support her you dribbling
 idiot. The mother, who committed the statuatory rape, needs to bear ALL of the costs for her actions. 

Now, you can search the Superior Court website here in Maricopa County, and Nick Olivas does have family court documents, but they have been conveniently removed by the court, in an attempt to cover their tracks on this, and why shouldn't they? They know this is and the word justice don't belong together, so they are taking a lesson from the IRS. Obviously the judge doesn't want to be in the news for this. 

Here's the case number anyway: FC2014-052648

Another interesting tidbit of information here, Olivas has had his name all over the news, but the woman that commited the rape and had the child has had her name excluded/hidden, as has the Superior Court Judge that made the ruling. So, let me get this straight, if a woman is raped or the rapist, she gets to keep her identity a secret. If the man is the rapist, well he is outed immediately. That sounds like justice to me!

Friday, August 29, 2014

Special Privileges for Women in the Military

The other day, I saw one of these for the first time:

So the women veterans in Arizona get a special license plate?

Can you imagine the outcry, if male veterans, or male anything got their own special license plate in Arizona, or anywhere else? The lawsuits? The shows and articles in the mainstream media decrying the misogynist state of Arizona, where the patriarchy has set it up so men get their own license plate?

This is complete crap. But, it gets better, there is a center for women's veterans:

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has a National Center for Women Veterans

Their website states: The mission of the Center for Women Veterans is to ensure that:
  • Women veterans have access to VA benefits and services on par with male veterans.
  • VA programs are responsive to gender-specific needs of women veterans.
  • Outreach is performed to improve women veterans' awareness of services, benefits, and eligibility criteria.
  • Women veterans are treated with dignity and respect

Which is even more crap. I wonder if they get the same crappy treatment as the men do at the Phoenix VA. I doubt it, I'm sure they get better treatment than the men. I couldn't find a single case in the media of a woman vet who died waiting for care at the VA.

But wait, it gets better, if you get this woman veteran license plate :

"$17 goes to a special account in the Arizona Veterans’ Donation Fund to assist homeless women veterans."

Can you imagine if we came up with a state-sponsored program, where money goes to homeless men veterans, but not woman? Can you imagine the outcry, Eric Holder suing the State, the Nasty Organization for Bitches, or NOB, picketing the state capital? But they do this kind of crap, and nobody says a damn thing.

In 2010 the National Coalition for homeless veterans estimated that there were 3,328 female homeless veterans in the US. HUD estimates that there are 55.000 homeless male veterans. But hey, we need special treatment for the 3,328 women homeless veterans. If there even are that many.

By the way, listen to these knuckleheads at Journeymen pictures claim that there are 55,000 homeless female veterans across the country:

They're only off by an order of magnitude or so, but who cares about numbers when you're making shit up anyway?

Who the hell are these clowns at Journeymen pictures? According to their website:

For over twenty years Journeyman has distributed and co-produced, provocative, profound and original factual content

Well, maybe they got the twenty years right. But if their dates are off  as far on that as they are on their homeless numbers, then they've only been doing it for a few months. And I find their stories as profound as the farts I get, when I drink too much beer. No offense.

Why do women veterans get special treatment here? Did they earn it by sacrificing themselves more? Let's look at U.S. Troop casualties in Iraq, up to 2012:
4,487, 98% male. That means 90 women. Let's take a look at what that looks like:

Do the male veterans deserve this kind of treatment, given their sacrifice? And no one, no one has said a damn thing about this outrage. What do the Afghanistan casualties look like?

Pretty much the same. The fact that men have to shoulder 98% of the burden, and are insulted in this way is completely unsat.

But wait, there's more. Did you know, that there is a Women in Military Service for America Memorial?

There is, in Arlington National Cemetery:

Now I'm not detracting from women in the service, I'm just telling you it's complete crap that they get special privileges and honors. Is there a Men in Military Service for America memorial? No. This is all we get:

By the way, Arlington is a sacred place for our honored dead, that died heroically for this country, regardless of whether they were men or women. But, 98% of them are men. And for this place to be defiled by this bullshit monument is a complete outrage. In my mind, that monument to special privilege without sacrifice deserves a C4 enema.

Speaking of bullshit, here's some complete bullshit from NPR, about women veterans, about a female veteran who is bitching about not getting special priveledges:

"Many female veterans share Montoya's anger. They join the military for the same reasons men do—to escape dead-end towns or dysfunctional families, to pay for college or seek adventure, to follow their ideals or find a career—only to find themselves denigrated and sexually hounded by many of the "brothers" on whom they are supposed to rely. And when they go to war, this harassment does not necessarily stop. The double traumas of combat and sexual persecution may be why a 2008 RAND study found that female veterans are suffering double the rates of depression and post-traumatic stress disorder for their male counterparts."

So, NPR is claiming that women veterans are suffering double the rates of depression and PTSD because they are getting sexually harassed, AND are in combat. Well, since almost none of them ARE in combat, I have a different theory. They are claiming depression and PTSD at twice the rates of male veterans so they can get the cash. And they get a special office to do so, while the males are dying in line at the VA. If you haven't been in the trauma of combat, how do you get Post Traumatic Stress Disorder? Somebody bullying you on Twitter maybe?

And NPR equating combat with sexual harassment is ludicrous to say the least. This is where you contributions and tax dollars for PBS go to, these kinds of retarded claims. This is complete and utter crap. "Double traumas of combat and sexual persecution." Sexual persecution? Really PBS. And then PBS says, "only to find themselves denigrated and sexually hounded by many of the "brothers" on whom they are supposed to rely." Oh really? This is nothing but an insult to our fighting men by those pieces of crap over at PBS, who in no way, shape, or form deserve the umbrella of protection that the American fighting MAN gives them. These are the people that say "we support the troops" out of one side of their mouths, and in the next sentence, "only to find themselves denigrated and sexually hounded by many of the "brothers" on whom they are supposed to rely."

Who is this idiot writing this piece? Why, that would be Helen Benedict of the Columbia University's School of Journalism. 

Quite a looker, isn't she? Is it just my imagination, or do these unibrow, New York Feminists from Columbia have to get a certificate in hideous to join this club? Just askin.

Maybe it should be Helen Benedict Arnold. What else has Helen Benedict Arnold written?

Ms. Magazine: "The Scandal of Military Rape." Fall, 2008
In These Times: "Why Soldiers Rape." Aug. 13, 2008.
BBC News: "Women at War Face Sexual Violence." April 17, 2009 

Cause it's all about the rape culture, isn't it Helen Benedict Arnold? Unfortunately, Helen hasn't had much to write about in the last four years apparently, so she's stuck just indoctrinating future feminists over there at Columbia. I didn't see a single article on her website about the thousands of men who died for their country, but why would she write about that,we're all rapists, aren't we?

Here in Phoenix we have a special shelter for female homeless veterans:

According to the article titled Homeless female veterans recover at unique Phoenix facility, the shelter is for homeless, AND at-risk female veterans, whatever that means.

And they have 15 women at the shelter. Wow! Fifteen women! No word on how many are homeless and how many are "at risk."

Here's some other National Organization for Bitches spokeswoman, complaining about female veterans not getting special privileges:

"I would like to see female veterans receive the same recognition as the male veterans. Way too often the emphasis has been on the male veterans, along with their concerns and accomplishments. Rarely does HQ or even my employer recognize the contributions to this country that female veterans have provided."

I don't remember there being male veteran homeless shelters, or male veteran license plates, or male veteran anything. You don't want equality, you want it so everything is equal, but more equal for woman veterans right? And even if it were true that woman veterans don't get recognition, the men here are sacrificing life and limb, at a rate of over fifty times the female rate.

Here's something from the Unites States Department of Labor website:

"We must do a better job of informing employers that veterans, especially minority and female veterans, bring many valuable experiences and skills to the workplace."

Oh, ESPECIALLY female veterans. Well, as a white male veteran, I guess I'm just shit-out-of luck.

And, just a few days ago, those soft-headed gerbils in California, that bastion of military service, with claims to fame such as the American Taliban, have come up with a:

2014 California Veterans Conference: Summit on Women Veterans

And, last, but not least, here is the VA's Center for Women Veterans:

"2014 Champions of Change

On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 the White House honored ten leaders who are “Women Veteran Leader Champions of Change.”  The event recognized women Veteran industry leaders, highlighting their incredible contributions to our nation's business, public, and community service sectors."

Champions of Change. What kind of change? Fundamental change? Let me ask you something...if you love something...or you want to fundamentally change it? And what's it going to look like, if you change it? Will it look like something that rewards the 98% of veterans that risk their lives. Or, will it give SPECIAL attention, to those that sacrifice the least?

Saturday, August 23, 2014

Who tells the whole story about Robin Williams

All of us were saddened to learn about the untimely death of Robin Williams last week. Robin Williams was a great friend of the servicemen of the United States, he gave us one of the things of his that was very valuable, his time. His time to come out to the theater of operations, to made our time there a little less crappy. He had too little time as it turns out. His service to us, in my mind, is a debt, that we as servicemen owe to Robin Williams. And debts must be paid.

During the 2nd World War, many Hollywood stars supported the troops by performing for them, and in many cases fighting alongside them. My own grandfather fought with Jimmy Stewart in the Eight Air Force.There was Gene Autry, and Earnest Borgnine, and Walter Brennan, and many others.Nowadays, there's almost none. Robin Williams was too old to enlist, but his effort is much appreciated, and very unusual for those entitled little bitches that make up the bulk of twenty -first century Hollywood.

Speaking of gerbil-racing media turds, how did the press handle the death of Robin Williams? Here's the New York Times:

"Peering through his camera at Robin Williams in 2012, the cinematographer John Bailey thought he glimpsed something not previously evident in the comedian’s work. They were shooting the independent film “The Angriest Man in Brooklyn,” and Mr. Williams was playing a New York lawyer who, facing death, goes on a rant against the injustice and banality of life.

His performance, Mr. Bailey said Tuesday, was a window into the “Swiftian darkness of Robin’s heart.” The actor, like his character, was raging against the storm.

That defiance gave way on Monday to the personal demons that had long tormented Mr. Williams. With his suicide at age 63, Mr. Williams forever shut the window on a complicated soul that was rarely visible through the cracks of an astonishingly intact career."

Nowhere in this article, does it mention his two divorces, and the women that raked him over the coals for tens of millions of dollars. The fact that he was basically broke, and couldn't pay the back breaking alimony to two ex-wives, was totally ignored. All they mentioned was his substance abuse and depression.

Here's an interesting piece from the L.A. Times called, Report the truth -- the whole truth -- on Robin Williams' death.

"In fact, speaking more broadly, it is not a journalist's job to make the world a better place, to ensure our right thinking, or to defend the virtuous politicians that sophisticates like himself voted for while excoriating the evildoers elected by those country rubes on the other side. It is not his job to do good or be kind or be wise. The idea that any of this is a journalist’s job is a fallacy that seems to have infected the trade in the 1970s, when idealistic highbrows began to replace the Janes and Joes who knew a good story when they heard one.

Because that's the journalist's job: the story. His only job: to tell the whole story straight."

So how does the L.A. Times report the truth, articles about depression and substance addiction, the onset of parkinsons and the like? His divorces and financial problems weren't even mentioned in the cornucopia of articles that the LA Times put out about Williams, that bastion of unbiased, factual reporting. The fact that the L.A. Times is lecturing us on the need for unbiased reporting is laughable at best. But they're getting the worst, the internet is killing off this dinosaur of lost human integrity that is the hard print journalism business, and good riddance to it, I say. The only thing that would be more galling is if the New York Times decided that they also need to run an opinion piece on journalistic integrity.

Was depression an issue in Robin Williams death? Probably. Substance abuse? Probably not in this case. The onset of Parkinsons? Probably also a factor. But the major factor, the main reason? Here's a story from the UK:

"Battling depression and tormented by cash problems, Robin Williams looked a shadow of his former self before he took his own life, a neighbour has revealed.

The tragic comedy legend had told of his misery at having to return to TV at the age of 63 and take on film roles he did not want because two divorces had cost him £20million.

One resident in the quiet community where Robin lived, thought to have been the last neighbour to see him alive, spotted the actor recently and said ­tearfully: “Robin looked terrible. He had lost all his weight and look exceptionally gaunt. It was as though there was nothing behind his eyes, just a shell.”


Robin Williams had 'serious money troubles' after $30 million divorce bills and was 'depressed' his TV show had been axed
A source told how Williams had 'serious money troubles' and was left racked with depression after his CBS show, The Crazy Ones, was axed in May
Just weeks later he went back to rehab for a 'fine-tune' after a decades-long battle with alcohol and drug addiction
His Napa Valley ranch - nicknamed Villa of Smiles - is still on the market for $29.9 million two years after the Oscar winner tried to sell it for $35 million. He said he couldn't afford it anymore
Williams was forced to pay out $30 million in divorce settlements to his two former wives
He told TV executives it was 'nice to have a job where the checks will clear'

Once again, we have to go to the UK, to get the truth about what was going on here in America, the matriarchal US press will suppress the whole story, but we still have the L.A. Times telling us they won't change the story because "that's the journalist's job: the story. His only job: to tell the whole story straight."

Thanks for telling the story straight, U.S. journalists. You're my god damned heroes. Or, you're pieces of dog shit for hiding things that the matriarchy might frown on. The funny thing about the U.K. papers is that they're considered tabloid by U.S. standards, but they're the ones we have to get the facts from, they're the ones with the journalistic integrity. You know what this reminds me of? The Roman emperor Claudius. Considered a limping, deformed, lisping fool, he was crowned emperor as a joke, but he ended up being one of the best ones. His sense of decency and integrity, ended up making him a just and productive ruler, better than all of the corrupt Roman aristocracy around him. Much as Claudius was the butt of jokes, and a deformed man, so the U.K. tabloids have ended up being the only news outlets with journalistic integrity.

They report, you decide.

And, here's a member of the Manosphere, telling it like it is:

I don't agree with him completely, I think his going broke was one factor, probably the main factor, but not the only one.

So, back to our won debt to Robin Williams. The way, I see it, to pay this debt to Robin Williams is to do everything that we can to make sure that many men are spared having to go back to work in their sixties because some blood sucking whore financially raped you. Gentlemen, do not procreate with these women, do not get married, and if you have to do that, get a pre-nup.

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Mass Murderers, Serial Killers, Single Moms, and Feminism

Tonight I'm going to tell you how a single mom made a false rape claim to her son, which resulted in the murder of two innocents and the subsequent incarceration of the perpetrator who in my mind is really a victim in this too.

Harold Laird's mother told her son that they moved away from their last residence because their neighbor who Laird liked, and who was a good influence to the boy, sexually assaulted her repeatedly. So Harold went over to Douglas Redd's home, killed him and killed a woman who was also in the house.

Laird was raised by a single mom, a single mom who told her son a story about a sexual assault, claims that she never substantiated. The end result of this was the boy was incarcerated for life at 17 because his mother sent him off on a killing frenzy. Even worse, Laird couldn't even get along with other prisoners, and is a constant problem child in prison. Laird's only, brief, father figure was Redd, the man he killed.

Then we have Tyler Witt, 14, and Steven Colver, 17. Tyler and Steven had something in common, they both were raised by single moms. They also had something else in common, they both plotted to kill Tyler's mom.

Tyler's grandmother gave a proud testimony on how Tyler's mother raised her daughter, "Without out any involvement from the father at all." How proud she was! But then she pronounced, "Tyler was always a difficult child." I guess difficult's one way to describe it.

After Tyler talks Steven into killing her mother, she rolls on him and he ends up getting life in prison. She gets a lighter sentence, fifteen years to life. Guess his dad should have told him not to get involved with girls like that. Whoops, he didn't have a dad!

Let's move on to some facts about serial killers:

1) Over 90 percent of serial killers are male.

2) Serial killers hate their parents.
Sounds like most feminists I know.

3) Serial Killers tend to be intelligent, have high IQ’s and “street smart.”

There goes the feminist theory

4) Serial killers tend to come from unstable or dysfunctional families.

Yeah, no shit.

5) Serial killers usually come from single parent homes, abandoned by the father and raised by an aggressive mother.

I think "aggressive" here can be substituted by 'nasty, crazy, bitch.'

6) A serial killer’s family often has a history criminal, psychiatric and drug-abusing legacy.

7) Serial killers have a history of doing poorly in school. They have trouble keeping a job and often work as unskilled laborers.

Or as New York Times columnists

8) Many serial killers were abused as children. This abuse included, physical, sexual and emotional abuse. Often this abuse has come at the hands of another family member.

They probably makes them watch MSNBC or something

9) While growing up, many serial killers spent time in mental health facilities and have records of early psychological problems.

Making them eligible for their own show on MSNBC

10) Serial killers often began their practice by tormenting small creatures or animals.

Definitely sounds like a host on MSNBC

12) From an early age, many serial killers have shown an interest in pornography. This interest was often intensely and often included sadomasochistic pornography.

So, what are you saying here, is that really so bad?

13) More than 60 percent of serial killers are bedwetters- beyond the age of 12.

So, what's so bad about that? Many serial bed wetters go on to successful musical careers. Look at Coldplay.,136790

Serial killers are a feminist by product. Listen to what the web site Instigated has to say about it:

Serial killers and the matriarchy

"Feminists often love to mention serial killers and serial rapists as examples of men being horrid misogynists, forgetting that murderers and rapists make up a tiny fraction of a percentage of all men. Furthermore, they seem to forget that most serial killers suffer abuse from the hands of violent mothers and/or rarely have fathers present. At the very least they invariably have a dominant mother and weak father"

And he goes on here:

"In his book Serial Killers, Joel Norris highlights the strong link between serial killers and other violent individuals with the breakdown of the family which, in turn, leads to children being abused more often (children are more at risk from abuse when their father is removed) and with more unstable home lives. ...feminism is the leading reason for the rise in single-mother households, the rise in divorce, children being dumped in childcare and having multiple 'fathers' as mummy goes from one thug-lover to the next:"

From the book, Serial Killers, the Method and Madness of Monsters:

"Feminist theoreticians deeply dislike the mother component of serial killer
theory, dismissing it as just another aspect of the “blame it on mother” gynocidal
aspect of the male drive to kill females. Perhaps. Nonetheless,
there are remarkably many serial killers whose mothers showed tendency to
be highly controlling, overbearing, or overprotective of their sons.
This supports the theory that some serial killers’ behaviors are rooted in
gender identification involving a boy’s ability to successfully negotiate his
masculine autonomy from his mother—a challenge not faced by females.
When a boy cannot achieve this autonomy or when there is no solid foundation
for him from which to negotiate this autonomy, a sense of rage develops
in the child, and he subsequently carries the anger into adolescence
and adulthood."

This is a fancy way of saying the boy doesn't have a male role model to imprint on, to establish distance from his mother. This need for a male role model to show them the way was described in a baptism that I attended, where the pastor said, "They will sometimes listen to what you say, but they will always watch what you do."

But don't expect the feminists to accept statistics and rationality. Here's a post from the Puffington Host:

"A few months ago, social scientist W. Bradford Wilcox insisted in Slate that it’s worse to be raised by a single mother even if you’re not poor. Children of single mothers, he argued, are more likely to end up as pregnant teens, or in jail, or otherwise in trouble. For centuries Wilcox’s has been the common view. But in an age when single motherhood is becoming more common, these mothers (and social science research) are starting to challenge that view. In fact, some believe that in an era when children  are coddled and dependent for way too long, being a child of a single parent has distinct advantages."

Oh really? What advantages are those? Having a diverse group of brothers and sisters from different daddies? Living in section 8 housing? Raising a mass murderer or a serial killer?

What's going on over there at the Puffington Host:
James Franco Doesn't Look Like This Anymore

and... Pregnant Kourtney K..

 and New Tampon-Like Device Could Protect Women Against HIV

Which is important if you want to have five kids with different fathers

Here's some more fun facts from

"A study reported in Psychology Today found that “90 per cent of repeat adolescent firestarters live in a mother-only constellation”. A Michigan State University study of 72 adolescent murderers discovered that 75 per cent of them had divorced or never-married parents. And a 1987 study by Raymond Knight and Robert Prentky of 108 violent rapists, all repeat offenders, found that 60 per cent came from single-parent homes."

But don't listen to any facts or statistics, or any kind of reality. According to an opinion piece in the New York times by feminist Katie Roiphe in defense of single motherhood:

"Conservatives obsess over moral decline, and liberals worry extravagantly — and one could argue condescendingly — about children, but all exhibit a fundamental lack of imagination about what family can be — and perhaps more pressingly — what family is: we now live in a country in which 53 percent of the babies born to women under 30 are born to unmarried mothers. I happen to have two children with two different fathers,"

Good job Katie, how do you do the last names. Everyone have a different one? Here's some more bull shit from Katie:

"It is, in fact, our fantasies and crude stereotypes of this “typical single mother” that get in the way of a more rational, open-minded understanding of the variety and richness of different kinds of families."

Rational? There is nothing rational about this if you know anything about criminal behavior and where it originates. This is not a rational thing to do, this is something you do if you want a 250% increase in the chance of your child becoming a criminal.

By the way, is it just my imagination, or does this woman Katie Roiphe look like an insane bitch herself? Just saying...there are some desperate men out there, to procreate with this. Or, maybe they're just too lazy to masturbate.

What's going on over there at the New York Times?

The Enigma of Animal Suffering. We can’t assume that a cow raised for food experiences what a slave or victim of genocide does.

No, no we can't


Controlling the Ebola Epidemic Or, why we at the New York Times, don't know what the word epidemic means

Here's an article called "The Kids Are Not Really Alright" on Slate:

It’s worse to be raised by a single mother, even if you’re not poor."

"Take two contemporary social problems: teenage pregnancy and the incarceration of young males. Research by Sara McLanahan at Princeton University suggests that boys are significantly more likely to end up in jail or prison by the time they turn 30 if they are raised by a single mother. Specifically, McLanahan and a colleague found that boys raised in a single-parent household were more than twice as likely to be incarcerated, compared with boys raised in an intact, married home, even after controlling for differences in parental income, education, race, and ethnicity. Research on young men suggests they are less likely to engage in delinquent or illegal behavior when they have the affection, attention, and monitoring of their own mother and father."

Sunday, August 10, 2014

Marine Corps Feminist Pandering, and Readiness Degraders

The fact that a full bird colonel is debasing himself in this way is sickening to me. Why didn't you just retire Colonel? Do you need the star of a general that bad, that you would prostrate yourself like this on youtube and embarrass yourself and the Marine Corps?

Now I have this other story, of this woman, the deputy commandant of midshipmen Colonel Shea. Now, I don't know Colonel Shea, and I'm sure she's a good communications officer. But we don't have enough colonels who have experience as combat arms officers that we can put in this billet? We have to pander to the administration and put a woman in here? This post should be manned by someone who is going to provide a good example and someone who has seen some serious shit. This post is for someone who is supposedly training the future leaders of the Navy and Marine Corps. And they put a comm officer in there, so they can fill the billet with a woman?

Worse yet, someone gave her a Bronze Star. Let me tell you something about the Bronze Star. You can get it with combat V, or without combat V. Without combat V, the Bronze Star is something you can give a mail clerk when they do a good job. In my opinion, it shouldn't be given out at all except for acts of heroism. which means combat V. Unfortunately the services have been doing shit like this for the last few years, giving them out to woman to pander to Congress and the Administration.

Two women in 2012 got bronze stars from the Air Force, one of them "accurately executed operational funds across eight remote bases."

Holy shit! She did her job as an accountant. We have a bona fide war hero here!

And here's the other one:

"She fought through long days and expended every ounce of her expertise to develop the financial processes for the command"

We have brave men who died in Iraq and Afghanistan, were maimed in combat, who committed acts of bravery that were overlooked by their commanders. But if you're handling finances in the Air Force get out of the way, you just saved America.

Now I have nothing against these women, I really don't. I have something against the incompetent pandering jagoff officers who are committing  these acts of dishonor on a daily basis, recommending awards for boot polishing, giving commands out because of your sex and the like.

Not only that, but this kind of shit builds some serious resentment in the ranks from those brave men who are walking patrols, running convoys, on training teams, and the thousand other jobs that involve true risk and sacrifice. Then they get passed over for medals, commands, and promotion because they aren't women. This is complete and utter bullshit.

But I shouldn't be salty about it. Not all women are getting commands and medals. Here's a story about women in the Navy that are getting pregnant while on cruise, and have to be airlifted back:

Baby Aboard: The Navy Responds to High Rates of Unplanned Pregnancies Among Sailors

Unintended pregnancies are even more common among women in the Navy than they are in the general population and they can be even more disruptive to their lives and careers. The Navy is spending January addressing this issue through its peer-mentoring group, Coalition of Sailors Against Destructive Decisions (CSADD). Chapters “across the fleet” will spend the month focusing on “Planning a Family During Your Navy Career.”

Is the American taxpayer paying these sailors to go to family pregnancy classes, or are they paying them to man a station on a ship to protect this country? Honestly, if we were in a no shit war with someone like the Empire of Japan, or The Third Reich right now, we would be getting our ass kicked. This shit has got to stop.

Thursday, August 7, 2014

Why I'm wearing this stupid helmet

So, you might have heard that Burn the Ender is back on youtube, now calling himself Serin Edger, so make sure you cruise over to his new channel and see what's going on over there:

And that ties in nicely with why I'm wearing this stupid helmet. It goes with Freedom of Speech, or why I can't show my face on youtube. Freedom of Speech to me is a sacred right, the most sacred of our rights, given to us by the Framers of the Constitution, our Founding Fathers, and kept alive by the American fighting man. 

Why is this so important? The great economist and libertarian Milton Friedman once said that freedom was not the normal condition of man, oppression was the normal condition of man. And if you go back over human history for a couple of thousand years you will see, that this is correct. There were only a few times when human beings were not being oppressed by the individuals in power.

We are seeing this again, here, now, on youtube and the internet. This soft oppression is the case of feminists and their mangina allies going after MRAs and others who are critical of them, and asking youtube to ban their videos, label them as hate speech, or going after our livelihoods.

This is vile and despicable behavior. How many feminists have I gone after because I didn't like what they had to say? I'll tell you, not a single one. Even if I could stomach watching their drivel for more than a few seconds. But this is the way they want to fight, and will fight, by banning OUR speech, burning OUR books, censoring OUR videos. I say to them, who are the oppressors? Who are the ones that would chain us if they could, by banning our message, taxing us to death so we can pay for their healthcare, food, shelter, abortions, birth control, protection, and education? And then taking away our right to speak freely, that right paid for by the blood of the American fighting man for the last two hundred years, the men they defile at every opportunity.

I'll give you an example. A few years ago, some people wanted to honor the name of Colonel Gregory Boyington, a Marine hero who fought in the second world war by putting up a statue in his honor at the University of Washington

"Student senator Jill Edwards, according to minutes of the student government’s meeting on the subject, said she “didn’t believe a member of the Marine Corps was an example of the sort of person UW wanted to produce.”


Ashley Miller, another senator, argued “many monuments at UW already commemorate rich white men.”

First of all, you stupid white bitches, Col Boyington was half Cherokee Indian. Second of all, stupid white bitches from upper middle class America, he was far from rich. Now you twits have the right to speak your mind, but only because of men like him, or else you would really know the definition of what a rape culture was.

What's going on over there at the University of Washington? Let me check out their newspaper, the Daily...

UW professor strives to understand societal change,

WANPRC accused of violating the Animal Welfare Act, and

UW students, alumni, share their voice for events in Gaza.

You know, I must be some kind of idiot, I thought the University of Washington was an education facility, not a place where you can get indoctrinated so you can enjoy your new career as a barista. The only reason why I would go to school there would be because all the Manginas would make it a free for all as far as chicks, it would be like you're the only man on campus. Instead of big man on campus, you can be the only man on campus.

So we are beset by a cloud of moronic uneducated twits who are trying to silence us, and go after our livelihoods. Since I refuse to stoop to that level by silencing them, we have few options other than to get our brothers out there involved in the movement. Without men to protect them, provide them employment (the vast majority of entrepreneurs are men), or fix their houses and cars, they are completely screwed. 

So, I do refuse to go after their right to speak. But there is nothing that says they have the right to a husband, the right to have their car fixed, or the right to a plumber in the Constitution. So that is the tact we have to take. We have to spread the word to all men to start a silent protest, in Ghandi-esq fashion. You don't have to refuse service to women, but if they support feminists, if they come after our livelihood, if they try to silence us, it's going to have to come to this.

Then there is stuff like this on the Roosh forum:

Witchhunts are becoming more and more common. A full list of people purged from their jobs for their political or social views can be found here. The most recent and famous is the Modzilla CEO. Now it looks like another tech startup founder is about to go.

Imagine your account is connected to your real name. A liberal staff writer publishes a viral piece on an unpopular opinion you hold. A former girlfriend spreads a false abuse rumor. An employee part of a protected minority calls you bigoted because you don't share their politics. The mob realizes you aren't one of their tribe.

Whatever the accusation, your off hand comment or personally held view spins into a scandal as cultural elites and twitter mobs call for your resignation. Industry peers begin to distance themselves from you anticipating a purge. What would you do?

Hat tip: Vox Popoli

Here's another article from a creature named Alyssa Rosenberg, writing for the publication The "progress" that wants to inflict on us, is the progress of censorship of what they call 'hate speech.' The article is titled, 

"Facebook Sexism, YouTube Attacks On Feminist Frequency, And How Hate Speech Make Tech Take Sides"

Hate speech is a term you'll never hear a genuine lover of free speech use. In the article, Rosenberg wants youtube, facebook, and anybody else to ban what she thinks is 'offensive material' i.e. this 'hate speech.' Of course, she and her feminist friends and manginas get to determine exactly what this hate speech is. Right now she's saying it stuff that talks about rape. Soon it will be anything that mentions men's rights or father's rights. 

When they got some facebook posts removed, and some Anita Sarkeesian bullshit reinstated, Rosenburg trumpets, "the YouTub system worked exactly like the women’s coalition would like Facebook’s system to work.

By the way Allysa, I know you're going over to the Washington Post soon, and they don't exactly care about accuracy in reporting, but I believe that it's youtube, not youtub. 

Here's another blurb from Rosenberg, "heavily moderated sites like Ta-Nehisi Coates’ blog at The Atlantic exist, but they’re considered exceptions rather than the general rule, which tends more towards a consensus around sentiments like “don’t read the comments.”

Yes, Rosenberg, that's a good idea. If you don't like how someone uses free speech, don't read it. You have that right. Don't listen to it. Don't play that video game that you think is too violent. You can do all these things besides becoming the little Stalinist censor that you want to be. 

Here's another gem: "these conflicts aren’t always simply a matter of community governance. Reddit’s attempts to identify the Boston Marathon bombers, for example, may have had real repercussions for falsely-identified suspects and their families."

So, we don't want to trample on the rights of terrorists or anybody, but if you post something that the little feminists don't like, well we better hang those bastards! They must be silenced.

Hey Rosenberg, I have a question for you. Any relationship between you and the Rosenbergs that sold out their country by giving the Soviets secrets of the Atomic Bomb? I'm just curious, because you seem to have a preference for Stalinism also. Just asking. By the way, this woman is absolutely hideous. She doesn't have the garish orange hair, and fatness yet, but she definitely looks like she's protesting against makeup and a good haircut. Her degree is in Humanities of course. "I care about humans. Now shut the hell up, hatespeecher!"

What's going on over there at thinkstalinism, I mean thinkprogress?

Here's some good stuff: Nicki Minaj doesn't think her butt is unacceptable,

Guardians of the Galaxy: A Superhero movie that actually cares about innocent civilians,

and the unbearable whiteness of Moses written by Jack Jenkins.

I'm sorry you think Moses, being a white man is unbearable, Jack Jenkins, white man. If you're ashamed of your whiteness, perhaps you can move to another country where they will publicly humiliate you for being white. Like Washington DC.

So we don't have any freedom of speech. Not while the little femist stalinists are trolling around facebook and youtube, excuse me youtub. Not while the trolls look up what you've been doing and go after your job. So, this is to all you Rosenbergs, and Sarkeesians, who don't like free speech, except when it's theirs, who want to burn books, and censor video games. 

Get the hell out of my country. Pack up your shit and leave. I don't care where you go, just go. We don't want to fight for you, we don't want to bleed for you, we don't want to sacrifice our lives to protect you, and we certainly don't want our free speech restricted by the likes of you.

Get out.

 No offense