Comical Politics

The End of Chicago's Police Chief

If he had not retired he would have to be fired.  If nothing else to show that the new Mayor is doing something.  That is what Chicago police have been like under the Democrats and their so called police chief.  Always have been ever since the Dalys who were kind of Democrats but not when it came to Chicago.  Remember there is nothing that is American that the Democrats have not destroyed. Then came the real Democrats, after the Daleys, to Chicago and they are still there.  Evey one who can is leaving Chicago and Cook County where the Democrats reign.  Most Blacks are not bright enough, there are exceptions, to see that they are and have been taken advantage of by the Democrats for their, the Democrats, personnel gain.  That is ALL the Democrats care about.

The police department under this superintend or the previous one have not done anything, and I mean anything, to change any criminality in Chicago.  It have only gotten worse, much worse.  The Chicago police department have been unable to kick butt and take names from the people who should not walk the ground of the City of Chicago.  That is one of the big reason people are leaving.  The policing in Chicago is worse than bad.  You do not go for any week-end without a lot of people being shot and killed.  Thanks to the police superintendent and the Mayor of Chicago.  It is good he set a retirement date so that the Mayor would not have to fire him.  He is so bad; not one wants him.  But let us not forget he is a minority.  The white superintendent before him did not do any better.  It is all the Mayor's, all of them, fault.  NYC is following in its footsteps.  He had to be fired because the Democrats are so so bad.  They have never ever cared about what is happening to minorities of any kind.  All Democrats care about is their own ability to hold power and make money for themselves.  Nothing else.  I would challenge anyone to show me where they cared about anything their big mouths spoke about.  Including killing of minorities in Chicago.  Remember, Obama never came to Chicago.  This is unlike Trump.

It is all very funny what the Democrats continue to do to what was once America's premier cities.

Zinn, Daniels, and the Professor Detmer

In a recent column by Jerry Davich in the Gary Post-Tribune, he called Purdue University Calumet professor David Detmer some kind of knight for taking on Mitch Daniels and Purdue University over Howard Zinn the author of the "People's History of the United States."  Davich as usual is wrong on all fronts.  (Remember he is Croatian.  He hates Jews and other minorities.  It is part of his upbringing.  Look at his recent column.  Zimmerman is one of his families last names.  Although he says he is related to Robert Zimmerman, Bob Dylan, he never explains how a Jewish name, or person, came into his family.  Could he be ashamed?  Or as is true of all Croats, he denies it could ever be.  Remember that Croatians, beside killing Serbs, loved to kill Jews.  That was their goal in life.) 

Daniels as Indiana governor took on Zinn, and good for him.  That is Daniels.  See what occurred in the following: In July 2013, the Associated Press revealed that former Republican Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels asked for assurance from his education advisors that Zinn's works were not taught in K–12 public schools in the state.[95] The AP had gained access to Daniels' emails under a Freedom of Information Act request. Daniels also wanted a "cleanup" of K–12 professional development courses to eliminate "propaganda and highlight (if there is any) the more useful offerings."[96] In one of the emails, Daniels expressed contempt for Zinn upon his death:[97] This terrible anti-American academic has finally passed away...The obits and commentaries mentioned his book, A People’s History of the United States, is the ‘textbook of choice in high schools and colleges around the country.’ It is a truly execrable, anti-factual piece of disinformation that misstates American history on every page. Can someone assure me that it is not in use anywhere in Indiana? If it is, how do we get rid of it before more young people are force-fed a totally false version of our history? At the time the emails were released, Daniels was serving as the president of Purdue University. In response, 90 Purdue professors issued an open letter expressing their concern.[98][99][100][101] Because of Daniels' attempt to suppress Zinn's book, the former governor was accused of censorship, to which Daniels responded by saying that his views were misrepresented, and that if Zinn were alive and a member of the Purdue faculty, he would defend his free speech rights and right to publish.[102]   Remember that Daniels was always right about Zinn.  Zinn dominated American History as it was taught in K-12 and in college.  Zinn was the most used book in education as a history book of the United States.  The problem is that Zinn was all wrong and so is the Professor Detmer from Purdue Calumet who defended him.  Zinn always criticized America by Zinn using today's standards of behavior and morality.  So does Detmer practice the same thing.  They are all both completely wrong and their fellow historians show that this is the case.  see the following historians on Zinn.  Remember he was even critical of his role in World War II when he was a lowly bomber.  He second guessed everyone in his role.  He did not like it end of story.  I wonder if he second guessed Churchill or Hitler etc.  Churchill would not be the leader against Hitler if he did not believe, falsely, that the British Empire was coming back and Hitler would not have lost the war if he did not have a human weakness to believe in astrology.  But that is the criticism of Zinn.  He is a fake historian but Professor Detmer defends him because he is also a fake. He is a fake in all, and I mean all, that he writes.  He is still writing about existentialism that dies after 1970.  But he can make a name for himself because he is the only one writing about it.

But Zinn would not become a multimillionaire if he stuck the the known truth about America.  He found out at the end of WWII that he could be very popular if he questioned the premise of people's decisions after the fact, especially when it came to Germany and Japan during WWII.  So to sell he had to make American look bad and the Europeans look bad.  And he did, which is all he did.  And Zinn became very wealthy.   At the same time he always said he was anti-American.  He said he was communist, an anarchist, or a democratic socialist what ever that meant to him.P

Zinn's book was used to teach almost all the high schools in Indiana, among most other states. and it was uses to teach future historians by Purdue University Education School how American History is to be taught.  The all uses Howard Zinn's "People's History of the United States."  No other book.  And it was used by historians in college such as Professor Lerner.  He thinks of himself as an historian by he is just a liberal pontificate, actually way to the left of liberal as it Detmer.  Like his compatriot in crime Senator Sanders, Zinn is a Marxist multi-millionaire.  Go figure. 

This is what Daniels tries to oppose.  Both as governor of the State of Indiana and as President of Purdue University.  He wanted diversity it historical thought about the United States.  But it was not to be because of people like Detmer.  Who once in their lives proves that they hate America, and all that it stands for.  He prefers the European perspective and especially the high thinking French.  His specialty is existentialism and that is what he wrote his books on.  Jean Paul Sartre a Frenchman who was, depending what was happening at that time, was either an existentialism or a Marxist.  Depending on the day and he never ever condemned the killing of innocent civilians by Communists.  He liked it.  As a matter of fact he was the last and only French intellectual to defend it -- except for Detmer.  Neither is any longer taught or taken seriously.  Why should you?

His mistake, and all who have followed him, is to assume that history is all about 2019.  Zinn also presumes that he is the arbitrate of all human actions and he is the only human of any value in making decisions.  This is the overall mistake that they all make.  Can I think that Christopher Columbus, that is all Latinos, have hated and always hate Jews?  Yes it is true.  As history as always shown.  But I do not act on it.  I know that the Latinos were following the accepted belief about Jews in most of human history.  Nothing more and nothing less.  It cost the Latinos plenty.  Since they got rid of Jews, during the 15th Century, they have been useless to humanity.  Is it because of their lack of Jews? or God's punishment? or something else? I do not know.  But I do not publish a stupid and idiotic book called: "The People's History of Latino People."  It would all be a lie.  As Zinn is but an effective one.  

What the dumb columnist did not deal is with any critical views of the professor and Zinn.  Remember they all evaluated Americans of over 500 years ago by today's standards of action, belief, and morality.  It is easy to do that.  In addition, not Detmer or Zinn viewed any of the people making decisions and actions as being human.  Only the professors are.  Why is Detmer teaching on Sartre at a second rate school?  It was decisions he made or were made for him.  Zinn is the same and so it Columbus.  The Indians hated the Indians.  Can you blame them?  They were slaves and human sacrifices for other tribes.  It is still going today.  Ritual Contemporary Child Sacrifices  Where is Detmer and Zinn?  I hope they are all dead.  It would explain their silence all these years.

Zinn is so Jewish.  He leaves no, and I mean no, legacy to anything Jewish.  It just happened.  He is the big laugh of American academics.  Remember only the Jewish bible talks and is in fact against any human and especially child sacrifices to gods and anything else.  But Detmer and Zinn do NOT know anything about the Jewish faith.  Nothing.

 

Midterm Election is the End of the United States

I am not about to tell you how tomorrow's election will turn out.  The polls and talking heads are enough for that.  Nor will I tell you that the end of America's economic growth will happen, no borders, abortion at will, etc.  Although all are a possibility and many more when the Democrats take over the House.  President Trump was a short, if not complete, slow down of the end.  But he neither will end nor begin a continuation of the American values.  It has been many, many years in denial.  (Included in that was a younger self.)  He cannot do it by himself.  The best option is for Americans to have another civil war, with real weapons, since for once the country seems to be divided 50/50.  Personally I thing a good civil was is what the United States needs. 

In some ways it does not matter who wins the midterm election   The very fact that it is a contentious election is enough to show the end of American values.  It will be slower if Republicans win and it will be faster if Democrats win.  There is no other possibility.  If you think there is another you are fooling yourself and others.

It is like Jews fooling themselves that somehow Democrats will not come after them to kill them.  They always have historically.  Why is 2018 somehow different?  But Jews will keep fooling themselves just like they have done for over 2,000 years.

What is the end of American values?  What it basically means, and has meant for almost 250 years is what is embodied in the First Amendment of the American Constitution.  Nothing else matters.  Everything we talk about is a derivative of the First Amendment and that is all there is to it.  The First Amendment is the actual display of what American beliefs are.  They are freedoms granted to the individual, I repeat individual, irrespective of who may or may not be in charge.  There is no amending or changing the First Amendment.  It is absolute.  That is the way it was treated by the Supreme Court always.  Even though they were not perfect is in its implementation.  Everything else we discuss or implement as policy is a derivative of these freedoms.  Be that immigration, education, welfare, income inequality, etc.  They all go back to the First Amendment.

Why?  Because the First Amendment is not just a list of "like to have" freedoms.  It is what defines a human being.  It is the very meaning of what it is to be human.  That is to be in control of yourself and your future, for good or bad.  Anything less is not a human being one is an animal of some kind.  If you do not have the First Amendment as your values you are not a human being but an animal.  That has always been the difference between human beings and the animal and rock kingdoms.

The other amendments of what is called the "Bill of Rights" support the First Amendment.  They are actually re-iteration of how a free individual should be treated by a "government" to continue being a human being.  How a human being can keep on being a human being with G-d given rights (the Second Amendment is each individuals protection) in spite of what the government becomes.

The values that are personified in the First Amendment, as a definition of what it means to be human, are English.  They are part and parcel of the English culture.  These values are what it has always meant to be Anglo Saxon (property rights and the Magna Carta.  It is no longer accepted because these people are being defined, the Anglo people, as inherently evil.  Who was not?  As a matter of fact, no one was.  The English were a little better because of their conception of what it was to be human.

Who will win tomorrow be definition it will not be the First Amendment.  Only, and I mean only, the United States has anything close to the First Amendment as a definition of its values and what it means to be human.  It most direct precursor is the English culture.  But, that has been gone for over 100 years and America is finished because other cultures have become the majority they do not believe, or even understand, what the English culture had as its values.  Mexico is the biggest culture in the United States.  The land mass called the United States will become like Mexico for good or bad.  But, it will NOT be the United States with its English value of the First Amendment.  Do not be mistaken.  I am not Anglo-Saxon; but I do know what they gave to the world.  All societies took away -- always taking.  Only a few gave anything to advance human beings as human beings.   The European Union, the most advanced society after the United States, has done away with the First Amendment.  That should actually not be surprising.  It was never part of Europe's history.  

Progressives by definition for the past 100 years or more has slowly done away with the First Amendment.  Its goal has always seemed positive: to better the individual.  But, it never bettered the First Amendment: my home (what ever it may be) is my castle and no one can or should deny that.

 

 

The Problem With the Supreme Court is That This is Probably True

The Press Is Wrong on Masterpiece Cakeshop. The Baker Lost..

Bakery owner Jack Phillips got the decision he wanted, but the next time he turns away a same-sex couple, he will lose his case.

Steve Pinker is a Jewish Fraud

The following article points out that in fact Prof. Steve Pinker of Harvard and his wife, also a professor at Harvard, are generally a fraud.  Everything he has written about climate change turns out to be scientifically not true.  But like the so called "Pocahontas", they make a lot of money being the frauds that they are, especially at Harvard.  Harvard is nothing but the center of the American fraud and it makes money at it.  

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#4480712e4c7c

How England Had Died.

Remember all  great ideas, like free speech and free press, die when they meet Islam.  It is now happening to America's mother country, or it is already dead, and will happen to America soon.

Unlike the judge who delivered his 13-month sentence, I watched Tommy Robinson's entire Facebook Live stream on the Muslim grooming gangs trial outside Leeds Crown Court.  It is a little over an hour long and very enlightening....

The U.K. versus free speech.

Is There Any Racism in America?

The correct answer is NO.  There is no racism in America.  How can that be?  First, we all recognize the crazy racist: the KKK. American Nazi Party, White People's Party, Black Lives Matter, The Nation of Islam, etc.  There is no question they are the racist kooks.  But gratefully they do not have a great influence on the truth of racism. 

Now why NO.  What is racism?  The definition and meaning of racism is to characterized a group of people by some identifiable similarity of that group.  It is taking an individual and identifying him/her positively or negatively by what he/she have in common with some group.  Racism can be about a race (obviously), religion, ethnicity, or even national origin.  What is important about the identification is that it is not a factual truth of the whole group, especially all individuals.  The problem with racism as an explanatory variable is that the only real way to empirically find it is by examining the inside of somebody's head or brain.  That is just not possible or practical. 

Therefore, we have resorted to the use of the terms "racist" or "racism" as a way of negatively characterizing someone we do not like -- a lot.  It is easy and we do not have to give reasons.  "What you say is racist."  End of story.  

 

When South Africa Kills Jews

It is ironic that this is the face of a Jew killer which most Jews worked to make free.  I think it would be nice if she just died.  It is funny, if not comical, that South Africa is now the leading Jew killing nation in the world.  Go for it.  We Jews will show them that we can kill South Africans as well as we saved them.  Is that not always the case for Jews?

http://www.jerusalemonline.com/news/politics-and-military/politics/israel-to-reprimand-south-africas-envoy-over-ministers-remarks-27142?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Netanyahu+tells+Putin+Israel+is+against+Iran+keeping+forces+in+Syria++and+more+news+from+JerusalemOnline&utm_campaign=EveningNewsletter+-+Recurring

 

FBI Comical Pursuit of Islam

The FBI is becoming a big joke to Americans. They finally arrested the wife, Muslim, of the Muslim shooter in Orlando. But they still cannot face reality that it is Muslims. 

Now we find out that the Florida airport shooter was a Muslim too. Cannot be reality must be coincidence according to the FBI.

Related articles

Anti-Muslim assaults reach 9/11-era levels, FBI data show

4 days after Fort Lauderdale rampage, gunman still an enigma

Suspect charged in Florida airport shooting

Betrayal: ‘Proud’ Dad Portman Flips the Meaning of State Support of Marriage

To either support his own guilt feelings or to accommodate the gay marriage lobby or because of pressure from his son and/or his wife Republican Congressman Rob Portman has turned the meaning of marriage and libertarianism on its head.  See the following confused explanation of his new stance:

Proud’ Dad Portman Flips to Support Gay Son on Same-Sex Marriage.

I cannot claim to know what is going on in Portman's head; but, I can evaluate what he says publicly and the policy stand he takes.  The libertarian position can only be defined as one where the state has nothing to do with marriage.  It would be fine and justifiable if he had taken that position and said that he had "re-thought" the question now that his son is at Yale and gay that state policy should say nothing about marriage.  Here he would be saying that government should get out of any recognition of, or any involvement with, marriage.  That would not be a stand for "gay marriage" or any definition of marriage.  It would be saying that people should be allowed to live as they want and with whom they want to and it is not the state's business.

But, Portman does make it the state's business.

If the state is going to recognize marriage, from a conservative point of view (and a libertarian one), it can only be because the state recognizes some overwhelming state, or societal interest.  These interests must at least be in the area of survival and/or national, i.e. state, security.   Nothing here would lead someone, under any circumstance, to support "gay marriage."  And neither can Representative Portman.

The state has for a long time recognized marriage as exclusively between one man and one women because of long standing historical and religious reasons.  Today under this theory it would be legitimate to exclude "gay marriage" under conservative concepts; but not under libertarian ones.  Libertarian concepts would at best say that there is no place for the state to be in the marriage definition business.  There are many, many definitions of marriage.  Why would one or two take precedence over all the rest? 

This is Portman's betrayal and the lie presented by his son.  It is also the lie which most gay activist present.

The only, and I mean only, reason that the state can justify in having an interest in marriage is national suicide as it relates to national security.  There is nothing in being a conservative or a libertarian that requires an individual or a society to commit suicide.  Therefore the one and sole state interest in marriage is the consequence of that coupling, which is more children.  Only the increase in fertility, i.e. new babies, justifies and explains the state's interest in marriage.  Under these principles, there would be greater justification for polygamy than there is from gay marriage.  (All states have a greater justification for polygamy than gay marriage; although, there are other social problems with polygamy.)

All these couplings have minimal advantage or no advantage to fertility: gay marriage, bestiality, general fetishes, co-habitation, marriage to inanimate objects, etc.  As a consequence, the state cannot and should not have anything to say, as far as policy, about these.

Portman, understandably as a bereaved father, has turned state policy on its head when it comes to gay marriage.  He not only betrayed his principles; he also stood the conservative and libertarian cause on its head.  There is no reason for him to continue in politics representing conservative/libertarian ideas.

Related articles

Boehner: 'I can't imagine' supporting a gay son's marriage

• Sen. Portman changes gay marriage stance (wcpo.com)
• Senator Rob Portman reveals he has a gay son, now supports same-sex marriage (thesunnews.typepad.com)
• Portman backs gay marriage after son comes out (politico.com)