Welcome

Welcome to my blog. Here you will find information that is both interesting and useless. You can even see how Steve, my camera, sees the world through my eyes, or get your hands on my latest novel, Jihad Joe at:

http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/119633

Thanks for visiting. Hope you enjoyed the coffee and cake. Sorry we ran out of donuts.


Tuesday, July 28, 2015

More Illegals than unemployed Americans

According to The Washington Free Beacon, illegal aliens (I refuse to call them immigrants) now outnumber American unemployed workers. The numbers are: 11.3 million illegal aliens in 2014 vs. 9.6 million unemployed Americans in the same year. The data comes from Pew Research Center and Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Of the criminals from other countries who came here, along with visa-holding workers, and those with expired visas who are now engaged in criminal activity (being an illegal alien, that is) 8.1 million are in the American work force  and account for 5.1% of the total labor force and soon-to-be Democrats. 

That puts a lot of actual American citizens on the unemployment line.

"Unauthorized immigrants [read: illegal aliens] make up 5.1% of the U.S. labor force. In the U.S. labor force there were 8.1 million unauthorized [illegal aliens] immigrants either working or looking for work in 2012," Pew says.

Pew goes on to say: "Last year, President Obama took executive action to expand an existing program and establish a new one that would offer work permits and deportation relief to an estimated 5 million unauthorized immigrants. The actions--which are on hold because of a lawsuit by 26 states--would be open to unauthorized immigrants who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children, who are parents with a child who is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident as long as they meet certain requirements."

Yes, certain requirements require they vote Democrat. That is the rhyme and reason for Obama's "generosity" in the first place. You can bet if immigrants tended to vote for the GOP, this would not be a story.





Sunday, July 26, 2015

Zarif Says Kerry is Full of Fertilizer

When John Kerry pretended to flex his muscles with the statement about the US's "ability to use military force" if Iran fails to comply with the nuclear deal, Javad Zarif, Iran's Foreign Minister, nearly wet himself laughing calling Lurch's statement an empty threat.

Kerry did not argue the point because he knows his buddy Javad (his friends call him "Mohammad") is absolutely correct. The Obama administration's testicles have ascended and everybody knows it. 

Obama and his motley crew have shown just how tough they are at the bargaining table.

"Unfortunately, the US Secretary of State once again talked about the rotten hope of "the ability of the US for using military force," Javad Zarif said in a statement. He reviled what he called the "uselessness of such empty threats against the nation of Iran and the resistance of the nation of Iran," and such remarks should be consigned "to the last century."

Of course Iran's religious thinking is still stuck in the Seventh Century, but that's another issue.

Kerry and other American officials "have repeatedly admitted that these threats have no effect on the will of the people of Iran and that it will change the situation to their disadvantage," the Iranian Foreign Minister claimed, then adding: "Therefore, it would be better for Americans to abandon their old habit and put aside once and for all their threatening language and sanctions against this great people."

One can only imagine John Kerry grovelling at these words and bellowing out a hail and hearty apology.

This is the Obama "badministration" at work


Jihadi John: getting out of Dodge, coward-style

The ISIS poster scum known as "Jihadi John" (JJ) has been identified. You remember him--he's the brave terrorist who beheaded Americans and people from other nations while they were helplessly tied up and on their knees. He spoke bravely into the camera and then performed his barbaric work. 

JJ kept his face covered, only his eyes and hands could be seen, but he has been unmasked by the Washington Post and the BBC. It is reported that he left ISIS because he is afraid for his own life due to the US-led attacks, and his fellow scumbag terrorists who are jealous of his notoriety.

According to The Daily Express, this pussy doesn't give a crap about getting virgins, what he wants is to get out of Dodge because he believes ISIS no longer has any use for him. "So it is possible he will end up suffering the same fate as his victims," they wrote.

So who is this masked man, you ask?

The cowardly butcher is identified as Mohammed Emwazi (Mohammed, wow, who'd a thunk?) born and raised in not-so-great Britain. He is 26-years-old, has a degree in computer science and comes from a well-to-do family, which blows the minds of libtards everywhere.

His first ISIS video was in August 2014 and he made several more since then.

Mohammed is wanted by the U.S. -led coalition for the beheading murders of journalists James Foley and Stephen Sotloff, and aid workers David Haines, Peter Kassig and Alan Henning.

JJ thinks his fellow terrorists might want to kill him out of envy, a sin in other religions, but evidently there are no sins in Islam as long as your actions go to help the religion of peace. 

JJ may have joined a less well-known Islamic jihadist group in Syria in order to lay low from ISIS, and it is said he may eventually head to North Africa, marry 4 goats and settle down. 

But I think he will be captured or killed before that happy event.

The Express writes that "The British terrorist, from London, is said to have been terrified by the publicity after he was identified as the sick murderer of British and American hostages--and fear being hunted down by British and U.S. special forces in Iraq and Syria."

One can only hope that he is at least as terrified as the people he so mercilessly killed, in the style that Islamic scripture prescribes.

I hope he gets what he deserves.


Saturday, July 25, 2015

Why the NY Times Sucks Eggs

It must be wonderful being a liberal. 

If you're a liberal leftist president, you get to go on the Daily Show and have Jon Stewart fawn all over you, perhaps giggling like a schoolgirl invited to the prom by the High School quarterback.

If you're a liberal leftist presidential campaigner, you get the New York Times to change their lede on you regarding two inspector generals who have called for an investigation as to whether you mishandled classified information on your secret private email server.

Instead of the lede reading: 
Washington--Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday.
The cleverly rewritten lede read:
Washington--Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday.
The change was done after the Clinton campaign requested it,  Politico reports. The so-called reporter for the "paper of record," the "Gray Lady" or "The Leftist Rag," as I like to call them, Michael Schmidt, said "It was a response to complaints we received from the Clinton camp that we thought were reasonable, and we made them."

What wusses.
Hillary misspells "Nuclear"

The original lede was captured by NewsDiffs, an organization that tracks changes to news stories.

As you can see, the original lede pointed out the accusation that Hillary was the reason for the investigation and subject involved as she "mishandled" classified information.

If she is elected President of the United States, I have no doubts that she will mishandle the job as she has consistently done in the past (see the Watergate trials, for example).


The Foxes Guarding the Lions

It has to be embarrassing to be in the military and not be allowed to have a weapon at your disposal when working here at home. After all, every military person gets formal weapons training--the Marine Corps is trained in virtually all hand-held weapons--but is not allowed to use that training to prevent him or her from being a sitting Halal duck.

Why are they exempt from their Second Amendment rights?

Now the public has taken the bull crap by the horns after the Islamic terror attack in Chattanooga, TN, and are using their Second Amendment rights to guard those who guard the USA. 

But the Pentagon is asking individuals who have taken this problem to heart, to not stand guard at military recruiting offices. 

I guess our military gets paid to be sitting Halal ducks.

Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook explained in a statement that Defense Secretary Ash Carter "is currently reviewing recommendations from the services for making our installations and facilities sager--including our recruiting stations." This came after the July 16 attack by a Muslim jihadist named Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez that killed four Marines and one Navy sailor.

Cook added: "While we greatly appreciate the outpouring of support for our recruiters from the American pubic, we ask that individuals not stand guard at recruiting offices as it could adversely impact our mission, and potentially create unintended security risks."

I see the increase in "security risk" to be most notable for the scumcrumpets who try to kill our military. Terrorists will think twice, if they think at all.

I wonder what the recommendations are going to be from the services. Maybe Obama will use his pen to decree that all male military recruiters wear thobes and women recruiters wear jilbabs. 

Wearing their religious clothing ought to deflate their ire.

Maybe our so-called president will have recruiting stations post signs that read: "The Marine Corps is looking for a few good Muslims."

Islamic jihadists interpret the term "good Muslims" as those who follow the scripture, so that would make them, from our way of viewing it, bad Muslims because they are commanded to kill all infidels who refuse to convert to Islam and do not follow that order, whether from ignorance of scripture or refusal to kill indiscriminately. 

But let me be absolutely clear: I do not in any way "hate" Muslims. 

It is Islam that poses the problem and those Muslims who follow the Medina Koran are the problem, not Muslims in general. Most Muslims follow the Mecca-inspired Koran, which was written at a time when Muhammad was weak militarily. But by the time he got to Medina, he had over 10 thousand warriors and suddenly the Koran became less tolerant of infidels.

I don't hate Muslims--I am married to an ex-Muslim, or "apostate." Being an apostate calls for a death sentence in countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia, to name just two.

Religion of tolerance? Peace?

Thank God for the peaceful Muslims.



Friday, July 24, 2015

Ford, Chevy and Islam slug it out

"Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things--that takes religion" Steven Weinberg
These words above, by Nobel Laureate and atheist, Steven Weinberg, are being lived out daily in the Muslim world--ostensibly good people doing bad things to those who don't believe as they believe.

 While I am not advocating for the abolishing of religion, I am saying that Islam above all other religions, is the most intolerant and most violent.

When a religious person makes a claim about what you should or shouldn't do to please God, he is saying something he cannot possibly know to be true for a fact. There are no facts when it comes to faith per se, only belief of what is true.

It may be a fact Muhammad existed, (this question is up for debate) but it is not a fact he is a prophet of Allah (Islam's perpetually angry god) or that Allah even exists. One believes of his existence through faith, just as one believes Jesus (who did, in fact, exist) is the Son of God.

So-called devout Muslims see infidels as evil, and justify killing us in accordance with their scripture. After all, if it was good for Muhammad, it is good for them because Islam says that the prophet of Islam should be imitated in every way. Devout Muslim men grow beards sans mustache to imitate Muhammad, and they also use henna to color their facial hair as he did.

The Hadith, or biography of Muhammad, goes into incredible detail of his life, right down to his recommendation of using a small stone to wipe the urine from one's penis after urinating. And speaking of piss, Muhammad recommended the drinking of camel urine to cure certain ailments. Really.

Muhammad was a warrior, pedophile, slave-owner, Jew-hater, and misogynist. Is it any wonder that "good" Muslims kill infidels, take sex slaves, hate Jews, and treat women as chattel?

Islamic terrorism is being perpetrated not by those who misunderstand Islam; it is being perpetrated by those who understand it better than the peaceful Muslims who are unaware of what is in their scripture, and have no idea about Koranic abrogation.

Imagine if religious intolerance carried itself across other borders: a Ford owner stands on a street corner with the Taurus Maintenance Book preaching about the evils of Chevy sedans. "Do not be swayed by the lies perpetrated by the Chevrolet dealers. They will sell their souls to sell you their inferior cars."

Again, I am not advocating banishing religion from the world--not in the least--but I believe Weinberg makes a decent point about religion, especially as it applies today to Islam.

Most religions preach peace, tolerance and love of one's neighbors. Islam preaches the opposite.

But when you examine it closely, you will find that all religions are in some way blasphemous about all other religions because they say theirs is the one true path to salvation. 

The only difference is that Islam will kill you if you disagree.