Category: Cluebat

I don’t like Obambi. This fact is far from secret. So far, in fact, that it couldn’t get to secret if it took a nickel to go to China. The man — and I think I’m taking a dangerous liberty with that word here — is a buffoon. He makes speeches that vaguely promise the moon but he’d be lucky if he could figure out how to deliver green cheese. He hasn’t accomplished a damned thing in his time in the US Senate and his experience, were it expressed as a fraction, would be written as diddly over squat. And before any of the usual suspects start blabbing about “another inexperienced Senator from Illinois,” let me explain one very, very simple little thing to you:

Even on the best God damned day of his life, Barack still wouldn’t be a match for Abe if Lincoln was coming off a three day drunk. Period. The minute — hell, screw that; the SECOND — that the words “God damn America” came out of his sorry piehole, Lincoln would have fistf*cked Jeremiah Wrong right in the mouth! And that, ladies and gentlemen, is everything that you will ever need to know about Barack Obama and Abraham Lincoln. Case closed (not that that’ll keep me from shooting my mouth off some more). Lincoln was a man of principles and integrity who stuck to his guns, even if they were pointed at him; Obambi is a smarmy fop with a messianic complex who twists in the wind of public opinion. Lincoln met adversity head-on; Obambi’s a deer in the headlights. Obama’s chumminess with seditious elements has shown him to be a two-faced little pretty boy; Lincoln (who, let’s be honest, was a less than hansom man) once quipped, in all seriousness, “if I were two-faced, would I be wearing this one?” You get the idea.

And you know what? Nothing that I’ve written so far in this post means jack. Not a damned word of it. The reason why is simple: I’m Canadian. I don’t live in the U-S of A and I’m not going to be voting in their election, so whatever the hell I think about Obama or McCain or anyone else doesn’t add up to half a fart in a hurricane. My opinion just plain doesn’t matter.

So, what the hell am I shooting my mouth off for, then? Well, to be honest, I rather like the Yanks. There, I said it. Sure, they piss me off every now and then; the softwood lumber thing is a bit of a longtime burr under my saddle and Ann Coulter’s “lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent” crack made me want to bend her over and ram my Shutthef*ckup Stickâ„¢ up her narrow ass until her ears popped, but for the most part, all the Americans I’ve met have all been the nicest folks. And, contrary to popular belief, a hell of a lot more polite than a lot of Canucks I can think of.

So, I like the Yanks (it’s not as if I were the first, after all). I also understand how democracy works. It needs to be healthy and in order for that to be true, the people need to have faith in it. They need to be able to put some faith into their parties, even if that party is (ugh) the Democrats. That’s why I’m writing this: to help the Dems out. Not because I have any love for them, of course, but if they can improve themselves, then the Republicans will have no choice but to either improve in response or be banished to the political wilderness. The end result will be better for everybody, even for us up here in the Great White North®, seeing as how they’re our biggest trading partners and all.

That’s why I’ve decided to help out the donkeys; and I’m going go do it by explaining…

Why Obama Is Doomed To Lose

Dear Jackasses:

There are plenty of reasons not to vote for him; so many that I’m not even going to bother going into them all here. It doesn’t matter, anyway. None of them are the real reason why he’s going to lose. The real irony of it is, that he would lose anyway and it wouldn’t even be his fault. It would be yours, not his. The man could be the greatest political thinker of the generation and he’d still lose.

It’s because he’s a black Democrat.

There, I said it. It may not sound like a very nice thing to say but it’s still the truth and nothing you can do can escape that. Short of an untimely death (unlikely), John McCain is going to be the next President of the United States of America and there’s nothing that you or I or anyone else can do about it. You picked a losing horse.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying you should have gone with Billary. She would have lost because she’s a woman Democrat. But I’m not talking about her, I’m talking about Obama, so let’s get on with it.

Borat Obambi’s going to lose because he’s a black Democrat. He’s not going to lose because he’s a Democrat; ya’ll were dumb enough to re-elect Billy-Bob, weren’t ya? I guess you think that it’s because he’s black, then?

WRONG!

Mark well my words on this one, because I’m speaking as someone who’s on the outside, looking in. I really don’t give a damn who you pick to run your country. I’d like you to be wise in your choices, but it’s really your mess to clean up if you blow it, not mine. In America, anyone can grow up to be President; it’s one of the risks you take. That being said, here’s my opinion, as a neutral party who considers himself a fairly keen observer of where American culture has been heading in my lifetime (and even a little bit before): Sometime in the next 20-24 years (five or six elections), if not sooner, the United States WILL have a President who is a woman… or black… or both. Yes, I have someone in mind and no, I’m not gonna tell you who, so shut the hell up.

You see, little Mr. Bananafanafofama isn’t going to lose because he’s black or because he’s a Democrat. He’s going to lose because he’s black AND a Democrat. That combination is political hemlock in the United States. For what it’s worth, to get back to Billary for a second (last time, I promise): being a woman AND a Democrat has the same effect. You boneheads could find yourselves a balck or female version of friggin’ Eisnehower and you still wouldn’t be able to get them elected.

YOU can’t get a black or a woman elected president. YOU. The only, and I mean ONLY, people that you can get elected are white males, and you’ve got no one but yourselves to blame for that. Not a soul. It’s ALL YOUR FAULT! You’ve been busting your asses for years to shackle yourselves to this anchor and now, you’ve got no God damned business acting surprised at your success. ‘Twas long and strong many elections ago, and you have laboured upon it since; ah, ’tis a ponderous chain, my little Ebenezers…

How did you do this to yourselves, you ask? Why can’t you get such a candidate elected? The answer is simple, and it’s going to make you sick: ANY Presidential candidate that you put forward who isn’t a white guy is going to have affirmative action emanating off of them like a stink that would knock flies off a shitwagon. It’s because you’ve been furiously bending yourselves over every barstool in the joint for decades in a frenzied rush to brand yourselves as The Party Of Affirmative Action®. Congratulations, you have succeeded. Now you’ve painted yourselves into a corner that will take you even longer to get out of than it took you to get into. Nice going.

The problem is that the American public thinks something about affirmative action. They think it and talk amongst themselves about it, but not around Leftbot moonbats (they don’t feel like listening to the bullshit). In their minds, it is a very simple yet factual equation:

[affirmative action] = [inferior quality]

They’ve all seen it. Two candidates apply for a job. One has a good education, fine marks, and years of experience in the field; the other did poorly in school, and has never been able to keep a job. Which one got hired? The one that wasn’t a healthy, white, Christian male, of course. It’s bad enough in the workplace, but do you really want some second-rate token (yeah, you heard me) running the country?? You might, but they sure as hell don’t. And that’s where you’re screwed.

Sure, you may have been able to browbeat Geraldine Ferraro quite soundly but her words should have sounded a warning for you. You were only able to get the result you desired because she could be ganged up on; that’s the only real tool you have. But when an American goes in to that booth to vote, they’re all alone with their conscience. There is NO ONE there to harangue them.

They look at that ballot and ask themselves, “is this the best candidate?” If they have to look at it and ask, “is this the best [insert adjective here] candidate?” … Well then, that’s one adjective too many and you’re screwed. They want the BEST candidate for the job, PERIOD, and they don’t give a damn if he/she’s a three-legged, post-menopausal, transsexual whose family tree can be traced back to when a freed slave ancestor married a Cherokee princess. 🙄 Just as long as that pesky adjective doesn’t get shoved in their faces, they’re fine.

You, on the other hand, have wedged that adjective in there so tightly that there’s no prying it loose. You’ve fastened that millstone around your necks and you’re actually stupid enough to be proud of it. Whether you want to admit it or not, Obumble’s been playing the race card all along… and so have you.  In perhaps trying to atone for your past sins, methinks thou dost protest too much.

Hoisted by your own petard.

I hope you enjoyed our little chat; really, I do. And I hope you walk away just a little bit wiser for it. You do your country no service by setting the bar so low for your competition. Good luck getting your act together.

Until then, I’ll be relaxing up here amongst the beavers and igloos and, a few years from now, when it comes on the television, I’ll kick back and crack a cold Canadian beer (that’s “moonshine” to you) and watch the swearing in of the first black/female President of the United States. Another Republican in the White House, because then they win their party’s nomination, nobody at all will wonder if they deserve it or not.

They won’t have to.

Of course, I did. And so did every other mean, nasty, homophobic, anti-multicultural, knuckle-dragging, islamophobic, intolerant, Christian, gun-totin’, pickup-drivin’, nascar-watchin’, intolerant, scaryscaryscary, rightwingrightwingrightwing, redneck neanderthal in the country.

We said that this would happen and all the “progressives” did was fling the ad hominem like a bunch of cranky caged apes with too much poop within reach. They called us every dirty name in the book and howled to the skies that “gay marriage” was not the thin edge of the wedge; it was about rights, nothing more. Well, as usual, the Fearmongering Of The Right Wing Nutjobs® has come to pass…

“Polygamy is happening in Toronto; it’s not common, but it’s happening,” said Hindy, imam at Salahuddin Islamic Centre.

Hindy, hardly a stranger to controversy, is well known for his friendship with the family of Omar Khadr, the young Canadian detainee at Guantanamo Bay, and his outspoken views on the implementation of Islamic law. In the past five years, Hindy said he has officiated or “blessed” more than 30 polygamous marriages; the most recent was two months ago. Even some imams in the GTA have second wives, he added.

“This is in our religion and nobody can force us to do anything against our religion,” he said. “If the laws of the country conflict with Islamic law, if one goes against the other, then I am going to follow Islamic law, simple as that.”

There you have it. Polygamy and another step towards the dhimmitude of Canada, all in one handy package. A two-fer. Nice, eh?

We said that this would happen. But still, the “progressives” who got us into this mess are playing dumb, pretending that they have no idea how such a thing could happen.  I mean, how could we possibly have polygamy in Canada?? Wake up, shitheads; this isn’t happening because you let it happen, it’s happening because you made it happen!

Aw, now I’m probably gonna get called an islamophobe. Hey, it’s just their culture, it’s not hurting or screwing over anybody, right? Bullshit:

…Hindy advises men to keep the second marriage a secret as long as they can, even from the first wife. There have been instances where he has gone with the men to their homes to share the news with the first wives, in an attempt to help lessen the blow.

Hindy had advised Rigby’s husband to stay quiet. When Rigby emailed Hindy, soon after discovering he had conducted the marriage, he offered little support.

“You have to stand beside him in these difficult times. You should stop causing problems to him. You will not get anything by divorce except destroying your life,” she said he told her.

Well, at least they’re not trying to ram their ideals down anybody else’s throats, right? Wrong, again (by years, this time):

A controversial Toronto imam warned Public Safety Minister Anne McLellan at a closed-door meeting to stop “terrorizing” Canadian Muslims.”If you try to cross the line I can’t guarantee what is going to happen. Our young people, we can’t control,” Aly Hindy, the head of Scarborough’s Salaheddin Islamic Centre, recalls telling the minister at the May meeting she held in Toronto with dozens of Muslim leaders.

Translation: “We’re gonna do whatever the hell we want, and if you try to get in the way, we’re gonna run amok on your asses.”

Hey, “progressives,” I got a little message for ya. You might be thinking to yourselves, in the backs of your little pea brains, “when they come for me, who will be left to speak up?“  And you know damned well that they will come for you.

The answer is that WE will be left. Mean, evil, gun-totin’ intolerant rednecks. We’ll be left because we don’t allow ourselves to be screwed with. When totalitarian assholes push us, we push back, and we aren’t afraid of escalation; we give as good as we get — usually better. And it’s not just because we have guns and know how to use them (although that’s always nice); it’s just who we are. We love our freedom, we understand that it isn’t free, and we’re willing to pay for it. No matter the price. So we’ll be the ones that are left to speak up.

Here’s the problem for you, though:

I can’t speak for everyone, so I’ll just speak for me. While I’ll be around to speak up, I won’t. Not for you. After all the damage you’ve done, I’ll be more than happy to leave you to the God damned wolves.

My kin, on the other hand, are safe. And they’re staying that way.

And while you’re at it, explain the District of Columbia, too.

For those of you that might be just awakening from your winter hibernation, His Blondeness, Dave “Da Dork” Miller, the Lord High Asshat of The Arsehole Of The Universe has once again begun burbling up his own butthole about attacking law-abiding firearms owners with a nation-wide handgun ban in Canada.

Where the hell am I going to start with disassembling this shitskullery? Well, I guess the best place to start is with the idiocy from Daveyboy’s on piehole: (more…)

Well, it’s out there now. And yes, I have no doubt whatsoever that the assorted jihadiots around the globe are even now preparing their collective hissy fit over it. Well, tough titty; it’s out there and, like those cartoons that you got your panties all in a knot over, it’s not going to uninvent itself.

In spite of the fact that nobody wanted to show it (likely afraid that they’d end up on one of Islam’s Funniest Home Beheadings®), Geert Wilders has managed to release his work, Fitna, into that great untamed frontier of the information age. That would be the internet, of course. And, as Paul over at Celestial Junk put it, all the apeshit stunts aren’t going to have quite the desired effect…

And now, more people … millions more … will see Fitna than would’ve seen it had the barbarians and their “progressive” appeasers just simply kept their damned mouths shut.

Pretty much sums it up, doesn’t it? Here’s the flick:

Not a lot of time for shooting my mouth off right now, I’m afraid. Not that that’s likely to shut me up, of course. 😉

I stumbled over a thread over at CGN the other day that brought to mind an argument that I got into with one of those anti-gun lamebrains. You know the kind of bonehead I’m talking about: “guns are the problem; less guns and more laws will fix everything.” Trust in Big Nanny®. Big Nanny® will take care of everything for you; you don’t need to look after yourself.

Yeah, those idiots. I, on the other hand, am one of those ones that believes that the solution isn’t less guns, it’s more guns… and give ’em to the right people.

So, since I’m too damned lazy to put up a whole post right now, here’s a few vids to watch and think about.

Yup, “gun-free zones” will solve it for ya.

Home invasion: no gun (no embedding for some reason?)…

Click here

Home invasion, got gun…

That’s how we like to think of ourselves, isn’t it? Wonderful Canada, a towering bastion of the Championing Of Human Rights® and a shining example for the other nations of the world. Gives us all a warm, fuzzy, self-satisfied kind of feeling, doesn’t it? We just love to think of ourselves and being the ones to whom others look to for guidance; that we set a great example for others to follow.

Well, it turns out that we’re setting an example, all right; just not in the way that we’d like to think we are. It seems that there’s a lot of talk across dinner tables in the Cayman Islands about us. It seems some bunch down there calling themselves that “People’s Progressive Movement” (always beware of any cadre with the word “progressive” in their name) is proposing some changes to their constitution and, just the way we like it, plenty of people in the Islands are pointing to our example.

The problem is, they’re pointing to us as an example of what NOT to do (emphasis and commentary are mine, of course)…

More than a dozen members of Cayman’s clergy attended a meeting organised by the United Democratic Party concerning the constitutional changes proposed by the People’s Progressive Movement.

Of particular concern to the clergy in the proposed changes is having a Bill of Rights enshrined in the new Constitution and the constitutional establishment of a Human Rights Commission. […]

Mr. Glidden said there were two ways Cayman could codify the UN Conventions on Human Rights; either through local legislation or by enshrining a Bill of Rights in the new Constitution. He pointed out that the Constitution would be much more difficult to change if the people of the Cayman Islands ever decided they wanted to change some aspect of the Bill of Rights.

Reverend Nicholas Sykes spoke about his concerns about the formation of a Human Rights Commission, the provision for which is proposed by the PPM to be included in the new constitution.

Mr. Sykes said the proposed Bill of Rights and its related quasi–legal structures “are likely to affect us at the deepest levels of our lives” [you have NO idea how much, Nick -D].

Referring to page 13 of the PPM’s Explanatory Notes to the Summary of Proposals with regard to the constitution changes, Mr, Sykes noted document states the new Human Rights Commission would, in addition to seeking to ensure that human rights are respected, “also help individuals with credible complaints about breaches of human rights by mediating those disputes or, if necessary, help them bring their complaints to the courts or other appropriate bodies [sound familiar? -D].”

Mr. Sykes drew attention to the “other appropriate bodies” part of the statement and said he would give examples of the workings of other appropriate bodies and particular Human Rights Commission elsewhere in the western world.

“I can assure you that justice in the eyes of these newly–conceived bodies has been quite unlike the justice to which we are accustomed,” he said. “I suspect, though we are not told, that chief among the other appropriate bodies being referred to in the [Explanatory] Notes would be an arm of the new Human Rights Commission itself. That is the way it works elsewhere.”

In addition to calling the stated proposed purpose of the Human Rights Commission – “to ensure that human rights are being respected”– a utopian measure that seeks to conform to international treaties and to the Bill of Rights, Mr. Sykes said the system would be one–sided.

“The function of the commission and any related appropriate bodies is to assist the complainant, to assist the bringing of complaints, to help individuals with credible complaints about breaches of human rights,” he said. “What about the other side of the issue? The literature given to us does not dignify the one being complained against with a description. Let me call him the defendant. All the assistance goes to the complainant, but where is the assistance given to the defendant?

“The system is one–sided, and in this matter alone, is offensive to a reasonable person’s sense of justice.” […]

“Personally, I would go further and say that the social experiment in human rights that Britain and the European countries have engaged in has been an unparalleled disaster for them.”

Mr. Sykes detailed several cases taken on by the Canadian Human Rights Commissions.

“In [Human Rights Commission] the defendant’s right to due process is withdrawn. They reach judgments on the basis of no fixed law and by simply agreeing to hear a case, they tie up the defendant in bureaucracy and paperwork, and bleed him for the cost of lawyers, while the person who brings the complaint, however frivolous, stands to lose nothing.” [pretty much sums it up, doesn’t it? -D]

Mr. Sykes said over half all of the Canadian Human Rights Commissions “hate crime” cases have been brought by one person who was a former employee of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. […]

“This is the sort of madness you’ll face in Cayman if [the Bill of Rights] comes,” he said. […]

Mr. Ebanks warned that many of the judges and other who would interpret a Bill of Rights in Cayman would be coming from countries like Canada and the United Kingdom, where post–modern thinking is widely accepted.

So there you have it. In a nutshell: “After the unholy mess that these Miniluvs have made of people’s rights in Canada and elsewhere, you want to bring them here?!? Are you mad!?!”

The worst part of all this is, that they’re absolutely right. These Leftist bureaucratic abominations have done more to run roughshod over people’s rights than anything else in free western history that I can think of. I, for one, am more than a little embarrassed to find that another free state within the Commonwealth is finding themselves looking to us, not as an example of the heights to which they may aspire, but rather the depths to which they can sink. Caymanians would be wise indeed to pay close heed to the words of warning of at least one Canadian, who wrote in a recent letter to the editors of the Cayman Compass:

Speaking as a Canadian, I would strongly urge all your readers to pay heed to Mr. Sykes and avoid any notion of a bill of rights like the plague.

Twenty–five years of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has done nothing but diminish the freedom of Canadians to speak their mind and associate with whom they wish, and turn what were once the assumed rights of Englishmen into privileges to be decided by ever more intrusive government meddlers.

The recent Internet videos showing the ordeal of Ezra Levant before one of our provincial Human Rights Commissions has made a laughingstock of Canada; Mr. Calder is entirely correct in describing it as madness.

I don’t know if anyone from the Cayman Islands ever comes by here or not but if they do, I cannot suggest strongly enough that they heed the warnings of men like Messrs. Sykes and Ebanks. They clearly have your best interests at heart and even if they didn’t, their actions cannot but be of benefit to you in the long run.

Trust me on this one. I come from a land that has learned this bitter lesson the hard way.