Monday, December 31, 2012

Words for 2013

The Greatest Depression
The Greatest Terrorist Attack
Shooting Spree
Very bloody riot
Demonstration run amok
Bankster suicide
Elected MP scandal
Another European Union bribes scandal
Terrorism on the rise
Extremists growing in power
Nazis gaining seats
New Communist terror organization
Alien invasion (just me hoping) 

Happy New Years everybody! Party like its the last year you are alive, because it may very be the case! 

How to dampen the financial collapse

As a politician, you should probably read this or; I see above in your future... 

Someone asked me for a viable, and doable, suggestion (or two) that politicians actually could do already today without too much fuzz in order to, at least, soften the approaching blow of our financial apocalypse.
So, let me suggest a few things with my birth nation of Sweden as example. Although this is Sweden specific, it could potentially be applied to your country as well.

First off, let us strengthen the armed forces (not needed in the U.S. that rather should cut their defense budget in half) at the same time as we strengthen our currency reserve and lower our public debt and do so with mostly applauds from the general public.

Can´t be done? Of course it can.

First off, cut politician salaries with 1/3. Secondly lower the number of politicians from 365 MP´s to 301. Also fire a few administrators and 2 ministers so the total number of Swedish ministers goes down from todays 21 to 19, and of course get rid of their respective departments. Also the political contributions to each party, paid for by the state, should be cut in half during 2013, and completely phased out before the election 2014. To further enhance how much effort our bellowed leader does, they should also lose their cushy pension scheme and their double living i.e. no more free apartments. And then it should be argued that all money saved (about 3-4bn SEK /year) should go to the defense budget. Why? Because firstly the Swedish military is a laughable entity and in desperate need of extra founding, and our masters can argue that they are cutting themselves in order to protect the country.

Second thing that easily can be done is to sell off a huge bunch of publicly owned businesses. SAS, SBAB, Nordea, Svenska Spel, and a lot of others can easily be sold today and could bring in lot of necessary extra funds.

I believe that during 2013 government entities for about 150bn SEK could be sold – probably a lot more. Only a few communists and a few union leaders would complain about this if the cash is used in a correct manor.

I would suggest the following on the basis of 150bn;

20bn = pay of public debt, could argue for more, but not necessary since Sweden currently is very financially stable and has a shrinking public debt.

20bn = to strengthen the currency reserve, preferably through purchase of gold. A stronger currency is, contrary to what mainstream cornflake-economists argue, a great thing for both the country and its inhabitants.

25bn = to Defense purchases. Both increase the number of and earlier buy the new fighter Jet of JAS Gripen, also instead of only having two units of surface-to-air missile groups, it should be three, or rather four.

55bn = much needed infrastructural investments. The Swedish train-track system is obsolete and horrible. Several roads need an upswing. We need a few more international airports. Also the government has promised a lot of future investments, which will never happen since the crisis will stop those, but they can instead be put to use during 2013 if they sell off a bunch of companies as is suggested. This big investment would be a great argument to throw around during election time.

The rest = to be put into a municipal rescue/support found and to be combined with the next step below.

This far, they can do it. Easily and fast. And if the political group of misfits currently leading my homeland would do what I just mentioned, they would almost surely be re-elected in 2014. It’s a win-win. They lowered their own income from being super rich and very well off, to become just slightly above rich. And while doing so they increase the safety of the people and country, created lots of military- and construction jobs, they have strengthen the purchasing power of the krona and increased the cushion in case of financial emergency. If they cannot use this together with the 55bn of new and better railways, upgraded airports and better roads to win the election of 2014, they are the most incompetent idiots ever seen.

This is however only the first step - what they can do right now and would be perceived as positive by almost all inhabitants.

These next two steps are not as popular, but just as important.

Firstly they should cut all subsidies to companies, secondly all subsidies to municipalities and local authorities, thirdly all subsidies to media and all other extra funded in society. Also they should cut foreign aid in half, or completely.

Especially the middle one, the so called “robin-hood”-tax that takes from the government and put it out into local branches, will be faced with very stiff opposition. Not a single local political will like this because it means they will need to cut things or raise taxes locally which are not so popular among local inhabitants.

This would save the government circa +120bn SEK / year (conservative number).

I would suggest that 80bn of that should be used to lower the VAT- and gasoline taxes. The VAT tax (Moms) is a taxation of consumption and is really something that hurts the little guy and the poor, lowering that should win a lot of points with the people. Gasoline taxes will of course get some tree-hugging Marxists to scream about destroying the planet, but if such idiots can be ignored almost every person in the country would love a government that lowered their gasoline costs.

The remaining 40bn should be divided up between the military, higher education and pensioners. Sweden is lacking in educational quality and we need more people with higher education, also the defense budget is ridiculously low as already mentioned. We need a proper military able to at least defend the country for more than a few weeks. Pensioners should, if possible, be completely excluded from paying taxes.

But what about the municipalities? And healthcare etc.?

Remember the fund from above? That will be the buffer they need. The rest they need to take care of themselves. It is time that people understand how crappy their local screw-ups are, and this is one way of showing them. Whether local politicians increase taxes or cut costs or a mix of the two in order to meet their criteria, is up to each local bunch of elected frauds.

The final thing that could be done in order to save the country and can be done easily is to increase the cost of borrowing and lower the excess amount of money circling the Swedish system. I.e. we need much higher interest rates and a much tighter grip on banks and their lending practices. This is the thing that most mainstream pundits and moronic Keynesian fools will complain over like crazies, which of course also tells you how important it is. We need to cut the total debt of Sweden by half, at least, and we need to “force” people to repay their loans instead of taking new ones.

So, there you have it. Suggestions that would lower public debt and make Sweden more lucrative and better equipped to handle any crisis, at the same time as we make it a safer, healthier and better place to live without cutting ANYTHING on healthcare, schools or hospitals. In fact if you read above, there´s actually more money going to those priorities.

PS. leaving the European Union would save an additional +25bn, which also is something to strive for... ds.

Why are we not doing this? Oh, that’s right, because we have a semi-socialist and semi-fascist government and not a single person within the elitists wants to change anything. They have it just fine, why change something that they are happy with? Nah, let the people starve… or, they can always have cake…

And above is not really what I would suggest, I would do a lot more and really take this further and truly change things, but it’s a start and if the current government did this or at least took it in this direction, we could perhaps survive The Greatest Depression. 

Sunday, December 30, 2012

Some are more equal than others

Oh my, that's a steady clear sign, I better obey and do my killing spree elsewhere... 

There should be no confusion as to why politicians want to ban guns and self-defense, it is for the very same reason that you, me, and everyone else, should always refuse and always be armed and ready to use our weaponry.

However let’s play with the idea for a moment that government is in earnest and that our politicians actually do want to save lives. Let us say that a total ban may actually have effect and/or that criminals actually do obey the law and will never use guns/weapons during their criminal activities. If so, why would our elected frauds, famous people, and many others within the high-and-mighty sphere, still be protected by armed guards? Why is the White House protected by snipers, missiles and a myriad of armed military? How come that when we watch a EU summit it is like watching a gun show with so many armed guards that you can hardly see which ones are the unelected politicians attending the meeting?

If our magnificent leaders want to disarm the people and keep all normal folk away from guns because they are so dangerous, why are they themselves surrounded by enough firepower to invade a small country?

If guns and too much ammunition are harmful and can lead to serious consequences and innocent lives taken, how come the elitists have so many guns around their children and family?

You may argue that since they are in power their lives are in more jeopardy then normal folk. Perhaps so, but it stands to reason that the argument used to disarm you and me, should apply in either case. If guns are dangerous to have around and if we need to rely on police for protection, why is it different for those in charge? Do not criminals obey the law when it comes to a MP, but do so when it comes to the local shop owner? Is a gun close to your kid more dangerous than when the same gun is close to the president’s kid?

I don´t know about you, but for me, and I am not only taking from an ideological standpoint here, it seems very weird and wrong for a person with 24/7 armed protection with even military around both him/her and his/her family (including the kids) at all times to stand up in front of a camera and say we need to take guns and the right to self-defense away from honest hard working people. Especially when that very same person is waging wars in other countries slaughtering kids and families on a daily basis.

Don´t you think that is kind of… hypocritical? Or what about this guy telling you to be disarmed, but shooting an intruder himself.

Or what about this potential shooting spree that never was. Remind me again, whats the difference between shooting teachers and schoolchildren and shooting at the police again..?

Don´t you get alarm bells going off in your head when you see this lack of consistent reasoning and don´t you feel sort of cheated when blatant hypocrisy is starring at you from behind a teleprompter?

To me, at the very least, they are saying that their armed guards can handle guns and there is no problem with having assault rifles and machine guns around kids as long as those are in the hands of hired professionals. In essence saying that you are not capable of protecting yourself or your kids, but as long as you have the money to pay for professional help, it’s ok.

Or, to put it even more bluntly, if you are rich it’s okay to have guns around, if you are poor not so much.

So - in best case scenario - those in charge are saying that raped women, robbed store owners, tortured house wives, cut into little pieces victims and anyone caught up in a mad shooting spree shouldn´t be protected because they are not rich and powerful enough.

You see, some really are more equal than others.

Of course our pompous elected frauds are not this good at heart, it’s not so much about keeping the poor down and the rich protected - that would be, as mentioned, the most benign interpretation.

No, instead it’s about protecting their asses and making damn sure that they can get away with anything. An unarmed populace is a controllable populace. Do you really think that all those mass graves from the 20th century would exist if every person on this planet owned guns?

But you don´t have to Godwin yourself or go to extremes.

It’s also about the smaller things, such as the police being able to shoot at people randomly without repercussions, or that the tax collector can safely steal your home, car and possessions without you being able to do something about it. Social services should be able to take your kids away while the bank cuts off your credit and the police shoot your dog and all you should be able to do is stand there with a stupid grin on your face asking “want me to bend over a bit longer?”.

If you have a gun you might actually protect your property, protect your kids and yourself, and surely we cannot have that. That’s your government’s job…

And here´s the next part of this malicious plot; if you are always afraid, and if you are unable to protect yourself and your kids from all the evilness of this world, where are you going to go to get help? To Government!

Gun control has nothing to do with guns, it is all about control. Regardless of what you may think about guns and gun ownership, you need to understand this part.  If you want to ban guns at least you should argue in a sincere way and from an honest standpoint.  

Friday, December 28, 2012

Predictions for 2013

As a self-pronounced oracle, justifiably so if you read my previous ramblings, I hereby announce a few prediction for 2013.

2013 will be a “wow”-year, and what I mean with that is that this coming year will be the year when the realization of how deep the financial chasm really is becomes more of public knowledge. It is already underway somewhat and one or two journalists have started to mention that our troubles may just have started – but 2013 will be different in the way that this year will be the first one since the crisis started back in 2007/2008 that the mainstream view will be really negative. Also coupled with more revelations about insolvent banks, defaulting governments and crashing markets it may very well bring forth the next step of The Greatest Depression.

Not sure exactly how this will manifest itself, but it is very likely that when this crisis mentality sets in that THAT will be IT for the world economy since ´trust´ is a key factor holding this house of cards together.

I once said that the real crash would happen around spring of 2010, and stuck to that prediction because all the signs and math pointed towards such an event. However thanks to a massive increase in the death-inflation-debt-bond-derivatives-scam and thanks to bought and paid for media, it didn’t happen. Sadly so since such a crisis would already be in the finishing stages – now, today, it’s much, much worse.

It is very likely that a major event will tip over the dominos this year instead, but I am still afraid that our Great and magnificent leaders will come up with a few new schemes to keep the ball rolling for another year. Hence a slower build-up and a much more painful demise awaits.

Shootings and terrorism will continue and keep government with a constant “reason” to increase surveillance and their own power. This is, in part, the only prediction I missed last year since I was absolutely convinced that a major terrorist attack would occur. Since it did not 2013 will see such an event instead. Also the mad shootings will continue and since I managed to see both the Brevik idiot and more school shootings in my crystal ball, you might want to pay attention this time. Another couple of such big events will happen, not only in the U.S. but I definitely see something happening in UK or in Sweden for example.

Of course such events are not because of already harsh gun laws or too much government and big banks running amok while psychiatric care is underfunded and we basically throw pills at all our teens for the tiniest little ill-feeling. No, it’s the complete opposite. The argument will be that we need to ban guns even more, and we of course need more government, more banks, less money to crazies and more pills to keep people happy. More surveillance and more super computers to stalk internet users will also be key responses.

Extremists will continue to grow in numbers and power exponentially. Both communists and National socialist have seen a huge upswing lately and this will not in any way halter or stop during 2013. On the contrary extremists and anti-democratic powers will gain more and more ground and this is especially true in Europe where the EU and ECB are hell-bent on destroying the entire western world. There will not be long before the echo of huge combat boots again is heard on the streets of European capitals. Nationalism will be a big thing during 2013 and the more our leaders try the worst they will make it. Succession movements, excudus of intelligentsia, and even a build up towards civil war are things you should be aware is coming.

Communists, having the bloodlust automatically built into their deranged minds, will start to hoard weaponry and I believe it to be very likely that police will discover one or two such weapon stashes, but it is also likely that new Red terrorist organizations will be born, if they haven´t started forming already.

Of course the “feeling” and stupendously moronic notion that the so called “austerity measures” was a failed policy will fester and grow as well, and with that even more arguments and power given over to extemists who always have more to give and always can blame some elusive force such as “the rich” or “immigrants”.

The tiny minute steps in the right direction taken by a few government, such as the Swedish one, will come to a screeching halt and do a 180 towards much more of the very same that created our mess in the first place. In essence Robert Mugabe will during 2013 become our new economic hero.

Complete idiots such as Krugman and Bernanke will, despite utter failure every step of the way, be looked at more and more as saviors. At least from media and our elected frauds who will be analyzing speeches and words from such evildoers carefully.  In reality its Zimbabwe and the Great Leader Mugabe they will follow, but that is not popular to say…

The search for an easy fix will really kick off. This can manifest itself in several ways. One way is what I´ve already mentioned; finding a scape goat. It was the Jews or the Muslims or the terrorists or the hackers or the rich or those darn immigrants. If we just get rid of such people, prosperity will come back.

Another one, which I am quite happy over, will be to blame larger international entities such as the World Bank and the European Union. Of course our leaders will go the other way - ignoring the cries from the people and driving them further into the warm bloody hands of totalitarians - and talk about how much we need a bigger UN, more international agreements, more Tobin taxes, and whatever else they can conjure up to create new cushy jobs to further their careers.

A third option will of course to continue down the lunatic road and demand bigger and stronger government while taxes increase and surveillance goes into overdrive. Not helping one bit with the crisis, but giving a temporary calm and false sense of security.

Probably all of the above and more will occur and one smug salesman after the other will proclaim to have the elixir to get us out with minimal damage.

They are all lying, malevolent bastards and nothing those above say or do will fix anything, but people, desperate to believe in something, will listen and follow until they realize it didn’t change anything AND THEN; all that remains will be those funny men with long dark shadows promising bliss through nationalism, socialism and unity.

Banks and finance gurus will proclaim the death of cash and argue that credit cards and a cash-free society is the way to go and work is already on the way to make this happen. Of course this is just another step by Fractional Reserve demons to gain more profits and a lovely suggestion in the eyes of politicians that will have more power while people lose even more insight into inflationary policies and hidden taxation.

Another war is coming. It’s really a tossup between Syria and Iran at the moment, but any other country or countries can be next. Venezuela and Columbia has been rattling their swords more and more, and in Africa there are so many ongoing or bubbling conflicts it’s hard to keep track of all of them. Israel is always fun, and Pakistan and India has lots of unresolved issues.

There will be more war, not less. The U.S. especially cannot stop waging wars since the only thing keeping U.S. GDP numbers above drowning levels is military spending.

My money is still on Iran. The build up towards such a conflict has been ridiculously similar to that of before both Iraq wars and all that is needed is a tiny little excuse and millions of Iranians will die. Obama has a big penis, and he need to show it by throwing lots of phallus shaped rockets at Persian children. He need to keep his kill ratio of kids and families way above that of any amateurish shooting spree maniac, how else will he be able to win a second Nobel Peace Prize?

Oh, and finally, things will start to get more and more expensive. Those inflationary policies are now starting to get felt in many countries and things like coffee, sugar, gasoline etc will become even more expensive.  

Well, there you have a few things to look forward to; have a happy 2013! 

Thursday, December 27, 2012

The Breakup of a defaulting Spain

Please put your hard earned cash into an account with us.. 

The Spanish bank, Bankia, dropped like a stone on markets the other day because apparently - to a huge surprise and causing turned heads everywhere (pfff...) - the bank has no value whatsoever, in fact it is an insolvent zombie bank.

You know what I did when I heard this “news”? I laughed.

This is something I´ve been pointing out since I started writing this blog. All Spanish banks are insolvent, bankrupt, done, zombified, over the hill, caput, dead, failed institutions, and absolute deathtraps for any person stupid enough to have cash within. And this has been the case for years, so it’s not something new to suddenly put forward as “news”.

´The Circle of destruction´ which is the name of the game going on in the entire world whereas government give free freshly printed cash to big bank and those banks in turn buy government debt/bonds in an endless circle back and forth, has one of its most outlandish spokespersons in Spain.

Spanish banks have lent hundreds of billions to developers and real-estate moguls who cannot sell shit because no one wants their crap. The Spanish government has in turn guaranteed those debts with tax payer money. Banks played the lottery of derivatives markets used those guarantees and toxic loans to play. Spain’s government then gave the banks lots of cash, which the banks used to buy more Spanish debt/bonds so they could remain at derivatives casino. Then the ECB stepped in and kept buying debt, both from banks and the Spanish Government, so the spiral could continue.

An endless circle of debts, inflationary money, derivatives and bad toxic loans - how can anyone believe that it can end in any other way then total collapse and absolute madness?

Spain is done for. Completely. When this entire scam unravels we will find that there is no value left anywhere in the entire Spanish economy and that 20-25% of unemployment will seem like the rosy good old days.

Basque- Catalan- and Galician separatists and nationalists will grow immensely in power while demonstrations go over into full-out bloody riots and then over into armed conflicts. Civil war is a real possibility and very likely outcome.

And the effect, only from Spain, on the entire European and consequently the world economy, cannot be understated. Spain is the last piece of termite infested domino when tipped over all the rest will follow.

I can see the Valkyries circling over our globe like vultures right now…

Saturday, December 22, 2012

It's for the children

Pedophiles, terrorists, suspicious men, Gay people, people with tattoos, porky individuals, sexually promiscuous women, and many more are out to get our young. This we know. We need to save kids from too dangerous equipment, we need padded homes with surveillance, and if we can tag our offspring with a GPS chip we really show how much we care.

We care so much about our young that we inject them with dozens of needles with reasonable risk for anaphylactic events and a fair possibility of getting narcolepsy – just because pharmaceutical companies and politicians say it is a good idea.

We care so much that we happily vote for soul-sucking thieves over and over again since they promise to give us indoctrinating gun-free schools so if not killed by armed assailants, the kids at least become useful automatons in service of the common good. And whenever a mass-shooting do occur at a school we can rest assured that the same government that is murdering hundreds, if not thousands, of kids overseas will protect us and our kids after the fact.

We love our kids so much that whenever our government randomly takes kids away from us to be raised within the social system, we are ecstatically cheerful.

We love our kids to such a degree that we refuse to be able to protect them and we will never use self-defense, because kids may grow up to love violence if we do and it’s the governments job to protect them, and us.

For the sake of children we´re willing to give up freedom of speech, our right to due trial, and happily we hand over all property rights. After all, what are a few rights and freedoms in comparison to looking after our young?

Every ban and new law we cheer – smoking is harmful for the children, so is alcohol, drugs, cars, food additives, sugar, chips, and many other things. Gratefully we accept new restrictions and new taxation, because we know it’s for the children.

In essence we want an ouch-free cushy environment and a society filled with pillows and soft blankets so no harm can ever come to anyone.

Sharp corners? Ban them! Tree-houses? Horrible! Outlaw immediately! And did you see the Johnson family next door? They allow their kids to ride a bike without helmet; perhaps we should call social services?

Internet is for pedophiles and terrorists, oh and by the way; why is that man working at a kindergarten? A bit suspicious, don´t you think? And a grown man coaching 14 year old girls’ football team? Weird...

Just remember, all we do is for the children. It would be soooo horrible if they grow up able to think and take care of themselves. So the next time your government wants to pass a law, make sure it will protect the young (if a politician say so, it must be true!), and then happily accept it.

Personally I love my kids so much I never had any. Would never bring offspring into a world filled with people like you – the idiots – who really, and truly, believe in what I just wrote above.  

I guess you can look at this picture without crying - I cannot. It fills me with tears every time I look at it, but you love this don´t you? After all, he´s just a dark skinned Muslim boy and the Nobel Prize Winning President did this to him, so it must be right. 

Oh, and happy marry fucking x-mas! 

Friday, December 21, 2012

Guns don´t kill people - Obama does

I re-post from the Market Ticker. No one can say it better then this.

Please also remember that Obama murders more kids per month then all school shootings put together, but they are colored and Muslim, so I guess you don´t care..?

Please read;

Obama's Hypocrisy Problem On Guns

I just got done throwing up (again) listening to Obama opine on gun control in the wake of the Newtown shooting
Let's step back for a moment and look at this issue with a wide-angle lens, starting with President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg, two of the loudest anti-gun proponents.

Let me first disclose where I'm coming from -- I'm a parent of a teen-age daughter and have raised her single-handed since she was in diapers.  She came into this world through an intentional act that I undertook with not only full acceptance of the potential consequence but actual planning for that consequence.  I would lay down my life for her, as would most parents.  And in a few years she will go off on her own, yet I believe ourrelationship will remain solid through the years. I hope to someday see the "circle of life" repeat with one or more grandchildren and, I hope, a worthy partner with whom she chooses to live her life with.
I still remember walking her out to the bus stop that first day of school, and her marching up into the bus to go to kindergarten.  Just like every other parent has done in one way or another.

I never gave much thought to the idea that she might be at risk while in school.  Oh sure, it's always a possibility -- anything is a possibility; there might be a tornado tomorrow, or lightning could hit you on the way to get the mail in the afternoon.  But there are some things that you start by believing, or you'dnever let your kid walk up those steps onto the bus.  Among them are that the teachers and staff are not creeps; they are there to help your child learn, not exploit them in some hideous way.  You cede to those people what is known as in loco parentis for a number of hours in the day, and then you take that responsibility back when your kid comes home in the afternoon.

If there's a bump in the night and it's a thug intent on attacking my family, it's my responsibility to deal with it first.  That's who I am as the head of the household.  I am the first responder, because my other alternative is to be the first victim, either alongside or right in front of my daughter. And again, while you don't expect such an event to happen, and you arrange your life as best you're

able to prevent it, there is no such thing as a guarantee
Now please understand one thing very clearly before we continue.
Mayor Bloomberg and President Obama don't have this issue.
They literally do not care about such things, and they design their life and their public office so as to be able to not care.  It is an intentional act they could cast aside should they so choose, but they have not and will not.
Mayor Bloomberg has a small cadre of hired hands who are near and with him literally 24 hours a day.  They are armed, all the time, and they are paid to worry about these things so he doesn't have to.
Likewise, President Obama has a literal army of trained, armed soldiers in the form of parts of the military and an entire division of officers (The Secret Service) whose job it is, once again, to make this not his problem for both him and his entire family.  Michelle and his children do not have to concern themselves about these issues because there are literally over a thousand others who are paid to take that responsibility -- up to and including eating a bullet in their place.
Neither of these people is proposing to rely on what they claim you should rely on -- a "law."  A piece of paper, which today doesn't even get printed on real paper; it's a ghost in a machine that glows at you in the dark.

They did not say that government gave them rights.  They stated that you had them, just as they had them, simply by virtue of being human and alive.  That all persons have them, and that they are unalienable -- unable to be removed by any man.

If you believe that you have a right to life because your creator endowed you with that right, and that this right is unalienable and thus cannot be taken from you (although it can certainly be disrespected!) then it follows that you have not only the right but the responsibility to defend your life.  That is, you have the right and the responsibility to deter to the best of your ability any other person who would take your life from you.
You may choose to delegate this responsibility to others, as Mayor Bloomberg and President Obama have, but your right to life is not inferior to theirs.  It is equal.  President Obama has no more right to live than you do.  You are his equal from the standpoint of what your creator, and his creator, endowed both of you with.
So we have established that you have the right to live, as does the President.  And if the President has the right to defend his life with deadly force, and indeed the responsibility to do so, then, should it be necessary, so do you.
This debate should end right there.  Up until all of these people in political office disband their police forces, their Secret Service details, throw down their own arms, armored cars, body armor and other defensive means of interdicting assault they have nothing -- not even a moralargument -- behind them in their demand that you disarm and become an intentional victim -- no matter who you are.

But of course the debate doesn't end there, because the false equivalences don't begin and end with rank hypocrisy and politicians crapping all over the documents they swear to uphold.
Worse, we the people keep electing jackasses just like them.  Indeed, in the last election we had two choices for President that were both hostile to your fundamental right to life.
Thus, we are compelled to continue our debate and look at the world around us.
Unfortunately when we continue our examination that we find that there is evil in the world.  There are those who disrespect other people's rights.  Some of them may want to kill you.  Everyone who undertakes to murder believes their reason for doing so is justified.  That they may be objectively insane doesn't change their view of the world.  Their desire to see you die is in direct conflict with your right to live.
In that situation one of you will be victorious, and the other will not.
It is your decision, and only justly your decision, how you resolve this conflict.  You have the right to surrender your life if you so wish, but in doing so you are making a decision that only you, and nobody else, has the authority to make.

President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg demand that you cede this decision to an insane criminal.
They are attempting to demand that you not defend your right to life, although they will not themselves do what they demand of you and cede theirdecision to any person who is insane and would kill them
They in fact spend millions of your taxpayer dollars to prevent the very victimization they demand you submit to from happening to them.
There is only one sane response to that demand, and it is for you to insist that these people perform an anatomically-impossible act.
Now let's put this in the context of your children.
When a child is born it is defenseless, hungry and cold.  The newborn baby is dependent upon its parents for everything, other than oxygen from the air, that it needs to survive.  It is incapable of feeding itself, it is incapable of adjusting its environment and bodily covering to deal with environmental changes such as heat or cold, and it is incapable of disposing of the waste products from bodily processes in a manner that will not make itself and others ill.  That child, during the next 18 years, undergoes growth in both mind and body, to the point where (hopefully) he or she is capable of discharging those responsibilities alone.
But until that time comes, you are that child's protector.  You are the one ensconced with the responsibility to protect that child's life.

That child's right to life is unalienable but as that child's parent you are the one charged with defending that right.

How dare you refuse to discharge that responsibility!

Mayor Bloomberg and President Obama, along with many others have, thus far successfully, demanded that you intentionally refuse to defend your child's right to life as soon as that child enters a school -- and they then attempt to compel you, by law, to have that child attend some form of school!

How dare you consent in place of that young person who is too young to do so!
They have the gall to tell you that your children must be unarmed targets while armed guards stand at the ready next to them on a literal 24 hour a day basis to prevent the same thing from happening to them, while forcing you to pay for their protection.
How dare you accept this premise while they smugly stand with their Secret Service and Police, armed to the teeth, not even willing to step inside a hotel without security first checking to make sure there has been no evil laid in!

Now I would like it very much if we could find a way to rid the world of evil.  Simply making all guns disappear, which is incidentally a factual impossibility, is unfortunately insufficient.  One of the worst mass-murders committed in the 20th century was undertaken by a man with less than a gallon of gasoline and two matches; he killed 80 people here in the United States and is currently in prison for life.  No gun law in the world could have changed that outcome, for he did not use a gun. Another nutjob blew up a federal building in Oklahoma; he used fertilizer, diesel fuel and a truck.  Likewise people have murdered with cars, SUVs, swimming pools, common household goods used as poisons along with sporting goods, including baseball bats, golf clubs and even their bare hands.  A not-insignificant number of murders in China in recent years have been committed (in schools no less!) by knife-wielding assailants.  Your kitchen contains more than enough implements of destruction to murder virtually anyone, especially if taken by surprise.  Harris and Klebold at Columbine not only used guns, they also attempted to blow up the school with tanks of ordinary propane; fortunately the detonators failed to work.
I don't see anyone talking about banning outdoor BBQ grills.

Fortunately man is clever and invented a device many years ago that makes the weak the equal of the strong.  It makes the 90lb woman the equal of the 250lb man who desires to******her.  It makes the 92 year old wheelchair-ridden widow able to stop two teenage thugs who break into her home with felony on their mind.
And it makes an elementary school principal, janitor or teacher able to stop a rampaging young man.
It's called a gun.
We recently read in the news about a deranged man who stole a gun and shot up a shopping mall in Oregon.  After shooting a couple of people his gun jammed.  He un-jammed it and then decided to shoot himself, despite the fact that the police had not yet arrived.  This puzzled me, as the pattern in these rampages is that the maniac continues to kill until he either runs out of ammunition or the police arrive and it is evident that he will be captured.  Then, as his final act of defiance, he kills himself.  This insane individual checked out before the cops got there, which is uncommon, despite having plenty of ammunition remaining -- and no cops yet at the door.
The media, Obama, Mayor Bloomberg, Joe Lieberman and others didn't talk about why he shot himself instead of continuing his rampage once he unjammed his gun.  They tried to keep that quiet on purpose, concealed from you because it destroys their justification for demanding that you cede the most-holy of all rights that you have -- your right to life -- to them.
You see, a man carrying a concealed weaponan ordinary law-abiding 22-year old citizen, pulled that weapon and used it to defend himself, his friend and her baby.

He didn't have a clear shot without the risk of hitting an innocent person and thus didn't fire.  He didn't have to.  The shooter saw him along with his gun and that was enough for him -- he decided to dispatch himself.
That's how it happens 98% of the time, according to the FBI.  98 times in 100 when a citizen uses a firearm in self-defense he or she doesn't have to shoot anyone.  It's simply enough that the weapon is there in the hands of a person willing to defend their right to life -- the criminal decides to terminate his assault.
The gun, the much-maligned gun, in the hands of a person willing to discharge their personal responsibility to defend their own life and those who they love, stops a felony in process more than one million times a year in the United States -- and 98% of the time that weapon is not discharged.
President Obama, Mayor Bloomberg, Lieberman, Pelosi, Boxer and more are all dancing in the blood of those dead children in Newtown and worse, they are lying to you about the true record that guns have in relationship to crime in this country and they know it as the counter to their argument that guns in the hands of citizens would not stop such assaults happened just days before!
Now let's look at another argument -- that citizens will shoot "wildly" and hit innocent people.  The facts say differently -- citizens in fact shoot the wrong person only 1/5th as often as police officers!
This really isn't surprising, when you think about it, and it also isn't an indictment of the police.  A police officer almost never is at the scene of a crime when it begins; he is called or otherwise discovers the crime in process.  As he was not the original intended victim it's not surprising that he's sometimes not real sure who the bad guy is.
A woman being raped, on the other hand, is quite sure who the rapist is at the moment he attempts his crime, since his body is attached to the instrument with which he intends to commit the assault.  Her odds of engaging the wrong person by accident are vanishingly small.

And this leads to the next problem -- the cops are never there.  They can't be.  When seconds count the police will be along in 5 minutes.  Within those 5 minutes a homicidal maniac can murder dozens of people.  The police will then "catch" (or kill) him, but you will still be dead.

It therefore is utterly ridiculous for you to rely on the police and insane for any government official to suggest (or worse, insist) that you do so; their purpose is to show up with a broom and clean up the mess, documenting it all for prosecutors, juries and judges -- if the assailant is still alive.
I've already made the case conclusively that our government at both State and Federal levels are full of hypocrites who insist that you cede to them your right to life, while they assiduously protect themselves at your expense, being unwilling to live with the restrictions they would impose on you.
But in truth it gets worse than that.
You see, our government has been running guns.  Illegally running guns.  Jaime Avila, in just one of many examples, purchased two rifles that were found at the scene of a federal agent shot near the Arizona-Mexico border.  Our government knew Mr. Avila was illegally trafficking weapons to the Sinaloa drug cartel.  Nonetheless, when his purchases were called into the BATFE for clearance the government intentionally approved the transactions despite knowing they were illegal. 
Two of those hundreds of weapons came back over the border and were used to murder Brian Terry.  Hundreds of Mexican citizens have been murdered with these guns in total -- guns that our government illegally, intentionally and maliciously allowed to be delivered to this murderous cartel.
Mr. Avila's sentence?  57 months in prison, or just under 6 years.
Two days before the Newtown Connecticut shootings.
Media outrage?  Zero.
Your outrage?  Did you even know about the sentence?
Guess who didn't tell you and run that story every 5 minutes on national TV -- the same media that is trying to ban your firearms!
An adjunct to the oft-heard argument that we shouldn't allow guns in places like schools, churches and similar is that civilians can't be trusted to only shoot when they should, and not when it's unclear if they could injure or kill an innocent person.
But the record says otherwise, and not only in the incident that occurred just days before Newtown at the Oregon mall.  Witness this incident from March of this yearone of over a million a year, when a deranged man claiming he wanted to see his children (who do not attend there) showed up at a church and kicked in the door while wielding a shotgun.
He didn't expect to find a parishioner with a pistol pointed at him, who then held the would-be shooter until the police arrived.  As in 98% of these cases the armed citizen in this event did not need to shoot -- by the mere presence of his firearm he likely prevented the nut with the shotgun from causing mayhem in the church.
Arguments over magazine size or type of weapon are distractions.  A man intent on murder who doesn't have a 30 round magazine will stuff three 10 rounders in his pocket instead.  You can change magazines in less than a second with a bit of practice; such a restriction burdens no criminal.  Not only did the alleged assailant in Newtown have a rifle with him that some people would like to ban he also stole two pistols, either of which alone was more than sufficient to commit the mass-murder that occurred.  In the instant case banning "assault weapons" would have changed exactly nothingnever mind that Connecticut already has an assault weapons ban and it did not prevent the crime!

What's worse is that banning weapons based on how they look (which is what so-called "assault weapons" bans do) has nothing to do with the ability of a firearm to inflict injury.  Semi-automatic firearms, which is what all of these are, were invented in the 1800s.  They were sold through the mail with no background check or anything else until 1968.  Many of the most popular firearms, including shotguns such as the Remington 1100, .22LR rifles such as the Ruger 10-22 and many hunting rifles are semi-automatic.
Indeed, the common AR-15 variants are most-often used for varmints, target practice and competition.  None of these weapons are "machine guns" orweapons of war, the sale and possession of machine guns (any weapon which can fire more than one round for each pull of the trigger) have been heavily regulated (but legal) since the National Firearms Act of 1934.

AR-15 variants are the most-popular sporting weapon sold in the United States; surveys show more than 3 million Americans own one.  They're popular because they're reasonably-priced, reasonably-accurate out of the box, have a light recoil and thus can be used by women and others of smaller stature without having your shoulder pounded to a bloody pulp and the ammunition is reasonably-priced since the cartridge is relatively small (in fact the bullet is about the same size and mass as a 22LR!)
These rifles are considered severely-underpowered for many hunting applications and in fact it is illegal to hunt deer with one in many states as they are not lethal enough to have a reasonable certainty of humanely taking the animal in question.  Common hunting rifles are far more deadly than an AR-15.
There is in fact nothing particularly special about the AR-15, or for that matter any other gun.
Now, onto legal constraints as they exist today, and the fallacy that they could have prevented what occurred last week.
Background checks are already necessary to buy guns but again do nothing to deter a determined criminal.  In the case of Newtown the system worked;the shooter attempted to buy his weapon at a store and was turned down.

He then turned to murder -- of his mother -- to acquire the weapons he used.
There is no background check system that would have prevented this tragedy.  The guns didn't come from a licensed dealer, there was no circumvention of the system via the so-called "gun show loophole" (or any other sort of loophole); the alleged perpetrator in fact murdered the lawful owner of the weapons in order to acquire them.

Further, mass-shooting events are almost-never random.  Columbine and the Aurora theater shooting both are known to have been extensively planned.  In the case of Newtown it is reported that the shooter destroyed his computer, including the hard disk, before beginning his assault, in addition to attempting to buy a gun in a store.  This evidences material amounts of planning and premeditation, which means he didn't randomly decide to shoot up a school, he planned to do so and selected that as the location most-likely to bring him "success" as he defined it in whatever twisted worldview he held.  Had he not been able to find someone with guns he could steal through committing murder (and consider that a cop could have been his intended target in that regard since they all have guns!) he could have used any one of a number of other easily-acquired means of committing murder and mayhem.  This shooter was clearly nuts, but insane does not mean unable to plan -- that he very-clearly was able to do, and did.
There are, however, three things we could have done, and any of them might have stopped the tragedy from occurring, or at least limited or prevented the loss of life.
The first is to get rid of the so-called "gun free zones"; they are nothing more than a public advertisement that the persons within them are unarmed and thus targets for anyone who wants to commit murder.
There is already a strong vetting process for school personnel.  We check them for criminal records for entirely valid reasons -- nobody wants a pedophile working for the school in contact with their kids!  There is no reason not to allow school districts, if they so choose, to allow those members of their staff and faculty who desire to acquire the training to carry concealed to do so while on school property.  In short removing the target of opportunity sign from the front door might have deterred this shooter.  If it didn't the principal and teachers who elected to be trained would have had a fighting chance.  And that's all we can ask for, really, when all the other defenses we try to put up in front of such an assault fail.
Second, if you're going to actually "up-armor" the schools, then do it and mean it.  Classroom doors must be able to be locked from the inside and require a key to open from the outside.  Sidelights and glass in the doors must be of shatter-proof material (e.g. wired glass or polycarbonate) so as to prevent someone from breaking a window and either walking in or reaching through or unlocking the door.  Doors must be able to withstand a reasonabledegree of assault, meaning they should be steel-framed and steel-cored, bolted to the building. The point is to deter assault, not make it impossible.  At the same time there needs to be a means for two-way communication to and from the office along with some sort of duress alarm so in the event of a serious problem the teachers can all be informed to lock the doors.  Many people want "single-point" entry with a passthrough from a front office or similar -- this is a nice idea for new schools, but is entirely unreasonable for existing construction.  In addition we need to be sensitive to the fact that you still have to deal with exposures during before and after-school periods (e.g. when buses are loading and unloading); there's only so much you can reasonably do without turning schools into prisons.  Our children are not prisoners of the State and we must not allow them to be treated as if they are.
Third, we must improve psychiatric surveillance and impose liability on those professionals who have a duty to report and fail to do so.  The shooter at the Colorado movie theater could have been interdicted on this basis but wasn't.  We don't yet know if that is the case in this incident, but the public deserves to know.  There is a serious civil liberty concern here that has to be balanced against public safety, and for this reason the exact criteria and how we perform that balance must take place through public debate.  There's nothing wrong with being crazy; we all have the right to be nuts so long as we're not a risk to anyone else.  But when someone expresses a credible desire to commit mass-murder that sort of shield must evaporate.

In short the answer is not found in gun bans -- no matter what sort of excuse is offered.  In the instant case there is no gun ban that would have changed the outcome.

But beyond the proved inability to be effective gun bans are nothing more than an outrageous demand by our political leadership that we submit not only ourselves but our children to slaughter by criminals, promoted by politicians dancing in dead childrens' blood and upon their still-warm corpses, while they hide behind their armed guards, bullet-proof windows and armored vehicles.

No citizen should stand for this crap -- not on an ethical basis, not on a moral basis, and not on a Constitutional basis. 

A school shooting in Sweden

In Sweden people are shot every single day, gun control works? My ass it does.. 

Apparently the Swedish police is taking preventive measures to tackle a future school shooting.

My only question is; why?

Guns are outlawed, all Swedish Schools are gun-free zones, and as our neighboring countries have proven, Norway especially, a shooting therefor becomes impossible. We know for a fact that only in bible-thumping America where guns grow on trees and every banjo playing nut-job is out to slaughter the innocent, such things occur.


Well, of course this is wrong, especially since… EVERY! SINGLE! SHOOTING! HAPPEN! IN! A! GUN! FREE! ZONE!!!

If you are a parent, regardless if you are in the U.S. in Sweden or wherever, and you don´t take action now; how will you feel after the fact? Once your kids are dead and you know they may have been saved if only self-defense had been allowed. Is the safety of your job and your fear of government bigger then how much you love your kids?

Of course teachers and parents should be armed. Of course every single woman out there should be armed. Of course every person you meet on the street should/could carry several guns. Of course guns should be allowed everywhere, all the time. That would be a safer, much safer society.

Politician’s don´t want you armed, that take away their power and if you can rely on yourself for protection, what do you need government for? And in the end you might use that gun to overthrow an oppressive and authoritarian government. Consequently you know why politician’s don´t want you carrying a gun. Has nothing to do with your or anyone else’s safety but theirs, only theirs.

The police can only, in the case of 99% of all crimes, arrive on the scene afterwards. Getting raped, robbed, murdered, or hacked into little pieces? Well, if you are lucky enough to put out a status update on Facebook so your friends can call the police or if you can call yourself before the slaughter or before that greasy smelly old rapists smack you down for a “fun time” – well then the police will arrive of course, but 10min, 15min, or perhaps 1 hour later. They will take your statement, if you are still alive, and they will try to do their job, but afterwards – after the fact.

And this really is a woman issue more than anything. A woman is physically weaker than a man and consequently THE ONLY way to equalize the balance of power is to be armed. It may be a pepper spray or you might have taken karate lessons, but since a man, especially several men, still is able to put any woman down, the only real protection a woman can rely on is a gun. If you are a feminist, advocating gun rights should be your number one priority – if not, how can you expect us thinking folk to take you seriously?

You should get a gun. Legally or illegally. That is your right, and don´t let anyone tell you differently. Get protected, protect the young, protect property rights and if anyone tries to rape, rob or kill you, shoot the bastard. So what if you get prosecuted, you are alive and you have shown the rest of the criminals that sometimes normal folk fight back. Damn your government. Damn the idiots. Get a gun! 

Thursday, December 20, 2012

One of those top ten lists

What says xxx-mas more then porn? 

Since its x-mas and the time of year when to think about top things to be grateful for, I thought it appropriate to put together a top ten list of my own. In the spirit of the season.

Consequently here is my top ten list of Porn Stars throughout the years:

Number 10 – Cheyenne Silver
One out of two Americans on this list and honestly she is not that good looking. Very few things going for her, and definitely not my type at all, but still… there is something about this woman. She has a great presence on screen, she seems to enjoy herself and her pretty distinct look makes her stand out. She did a few very memorable scenes and yes, there is something about her that puts her on my list - cannot really describe it better than that.

Number 9 – Sonia Red
This is probably the only porn actress who can look completely bored like: “where is my money already” and still pull off a scene with a huge tent growing in my pants. Beautiful Czech girl. Although I sometimes feel she would perform on an even higher scale with better directors (at least in her early days) this stunning brunette is definitely God´s gift to mankind. Adorable, very cute and has that sort of girlfriend feel about her. She probably deserves a higher placement, but as far as performance goes, too much up and down and a few really crappy ones at that.

Number 8 – Marcela Rubita (Im Isabel)
This tiny little lolita could win a list like this, but absolutely horrible co-actors, stupid storylines and totally ignorant director(s) kept this fantastic Columbian from becoming a worldwide star. Seemingly incapable to take a dick, even smaller ones, all the way in, she look tighter than anything seen on screen. Although her tininess and underage look probably put off many and despite all the bad acting and horrible scenes, she is beyond cute. Sadly she too disappeared before doing any real scenes with good co-stars, mostly amateurish crap. Still I cannot ignore which way my manhood points…

Number 7 – Tori Black
Not really my kind of girl and normally shouldn´t do it for me, too tall, too much American pornstar over her. But her performance is stunning and if this girl does not love sex I will eat my laptop. And those scenes where she explains and talk about it before and after is amazing stuff. Most porn stars claim to love sex and they probably do, despite what any feminist say, but not everyone convey it on screen every time in every scene. Tori do. Also she has several university degrees, among others a minor in Women´s Studies. J For that alone she deserves a place on my top ten list.

Number 6 – Molestky
Another Czech girl you just wanna…  houmpff and schmoumfff…  with. Way too short career and way too few movies out there, but what a magnificent cutie! Every scene with her, except for the incredibly stupid one with the black guys, is pure gold and hard-on approved by every male on this planet.

Number 5 – Litte Caprice
And Czech girl number three on this list. No wonder I moved to the Czech Republic… J And this woman I have actually seen in person on several occasions. I used to live in Brno and meet both her and her with her, back then, boyfriend in a shopping mall twice and I saw her waiting for a tram once (Brno is a pretty small city). Consequently that moves her up on this list a couple of places. Anyway, her performance is also great. You can see that she is enjoying herself and she has great, usually not fake, orgasms which is a big plus. She also has some of the best lesbian scenes ever made, not just because of her, but still. That cute button noose and adorable smile coupled with a great body was created to get us viewers really turned on.

Number 4 – Liza Shay
Here´s another gorgeous amazing woman looking so hot and sexy only few can, but still she manage to end up in one boring production after the other. I don´t know if this Russian girl like getting rough non-lub anal and deep throating every time, perhaps that’s the case, she seem to enjoy it mostly, but this is a girl I would like to see in softer nicer vids. This is a girl to cuddle, to take your time with and hug and kiss, not roughly penetrate in all holes. Porn does not always need to imply hard and rough stuff. Softer erotic as produced by x-art is just as exciting, especially with girls like this one. A woman does not get much better looking and sexier than this.

Number 3 – Ally Mac Tyana
This adorable French cutie manages to mix a tiny body and cuteness with real lady-like qualities. And when all other porn stars seem to shave their pubs completely, she kept her hair downstairs. A real woman, but cute, tiny and adorable at the same time – perfect balance. Too short career though, but very memorable.

Number 2 – Clara Morgane
Another stunning woman who really seemed to enjoy the scenes she was in. Beautiful French woman still doing modeling jobs, working as a TV host and lots more. Sexy, beautiful, and highly intelligent, and there is something with those French porn actresses isn´t it? Sadly she never did any raw gangbangs or BDSM scenes, but you cannot take away the sensuality and breathtaking performance in the few scenes she did do. Amazing woman, and great to watch.

Number 1 – Eva Roberts
This is not only one of the most gorgeous women to even enter porn; she is one of the most beautiful women ever. Absolut beauty and a stunning body with a tight ass and fantastic lips. This is the sort of woman that will make you come just passing you by, she should be sitting on a throne ruling us or be memorized in a Greek temple - and to see her do double penetrations and anal scenes is heaven on earth. Sadly she left porn years ago but as far as I am concern her work will never grow old. Please come back and show us more! 

And as a bonus;