Normally, I wouldn’t call someone a Filthy Antifa Whore (FAW). However, since Moldylocks, who was shown getting punched out at this weekend’s Berkeley protests by some dude everyone claims is a fascist/racist/neo-nazi/somethingorother, is a nasty, unwashed, slovenly sow, and since she did, in fact,
demonstrate riot, throw bottles, and assault people at a rally for a President whom she apparently does not like, and since there are photos of said skank on the Internet baring her unshaven, unwashed, beaver and sprocket, that probably reek of week-old garbage and decaying pork, wide for the world – and presumably her parents – to see, I think FAW is appropriate.
No, I’m not giving you a link, pervs. When I ran across it while doing an image search on the protests the other day, I’m pretty sure I developed a severe case of post-traumatic stress, and I may or may not have gone blind for an unspecified period of time, while desperately stumbling around my house trying to find enough brain bleach to erase that image from my mind forever. Suffice it to say that cum-gurgling sausage junkie gives the term “bearded clam” an entire new meaning.
Her mommy and daddy must be so proud!
The FAW decided to speak out to the uber-friendly media – journowhores who will take any opportunity to make Trump supporters or anyone who didn’t worship at the cankles of Queen Pantsuit – look like a horde of fascist monkeys.
She was just a peaceable protester, you see.
She was just there to show her support, you see.
They were “rushed” by the counter-demonstrators, you see.
Her boyfriend disappeared, you see (oh-so-brave soul, who probably saw some pissed off demonstrators, who decided they’d had just about enough bullshit from the black-clad fascist crowd, and decided to hide, while his filthy hippie whore decided to engage in some assault) and she was just trying to protect herself.
“There was no time for emotion,” she said. “I was just terrified. I didn’t have time to process what was happening to me. All I knew was I was trying to find my boyfriend and not get hit…When it was happening I realized they were trying to crack my skull on the curb and on the rocks in the planter.”
During the entire attack, Rosealma said she never saw any Berkeley police officers. She also said the attack was unprovoked.
“I didn’t exchange words with anyone,” she said. “I was just standing there.”
Funny how the journaljizzer reporting on this story didn’t include photos that clearly show the FAW is lying.
Oh, whoops! Who would that be holding a bottle with the all-telling dreadlocks snaking out from under her hat?
And who would this be, viciously attacking that guy before getting “equal treatment” at the hands of her would-be victim?
Oh, did you want a clearer photo of the FAW getting her ass handed to her as she holds said bottle?
What’s that red arrow pointing to? Would that be a bottle? Gee, but she was just an innocent protester, lending her support, right? She only accidentally ran into that guy’s fist!
And she didn’t plan on violence, right?
Except that she did. Publicly. On Facebook. With her barely literate minions encouraging her “beat they ass.” Of course, now her account has been locked tight, but the Internet is forever, you noxious cum dumpster, and there are plenty of screen shots out there.
None of the “news” outlets covering this story mention this awkwardly inconvenient visual evidence. None of them even tried to appear balanced in any way! They’re simply all falling all over themselves to paint this hairy, walking septic tank of spectacular FAIL as a victim.
I’m used to the media being a completely biased, cocked up horde of communist-fellating fucknozzles. But to pretend to be objective, when there’s so much visual evidence available that contradicts the FAW’s claim of innocent victimhood? Come on!
She was not a victim. She was not innocent. She came to that protest fully prepared to attack those who dared to hold different political views than she did. What she didn’t expect is for the targets of her rage boner to fight back.
Recall when I said to prepare for civil war?
Just remember how that fucking fist felt cracking into your face, you miserable, lying sack of cunt. I’m pretty sure no one is going to play nice with you any longer.
Karma is a bitch.
First, I apologize for the hiatus. Had some medical stuff to take care of, as well as some work stuff, as well as some home stuff, as well as naps. Because naps are way more important than any other… stuff. So naps.
I have been following the news, though, and I have to say that certain elements on both the right and the left seem to be
angling demanding screaming for fomenting an actual war.
First there was an article in Foreign Policy magazine by a Rosa Brooks, who back in April 2016 wrote for the magazine that Trump actually was formulating a pretty coherent foreign policy. Recently she penned a screed discussing ways we could get rid of 45 that includes a… military coup. Um.
What would top U.S. military leaders do if given an order that struck them as not merely ill-advised, but dangerously unhinged? An order that wasn’t along the lines of “Prepare a plan to invade Iraq if Congress authorizes it based on questionable intelligence,” but “Prepare to invade Mexico tomorrow!” or “Start rounding up Muslim Americans and sending them to Guantánamo!” or “I’m going to teach China a lesson — with nukes!”
It’s impossible to say, of course. The prospect of American military leaders responding to a presidential order with open defiance is frightening — but so, too, is the prospect of military obedience to an insane order. After all, military officers swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not the president. For the first time in my life, I can imagine plausible scenarios in which senior military officials might simply tell the president: “No, sir. We’re not doing that,” to thunderous applause from the New York Times editorial board.
Now, I discussed this in a previous rant during the primaries after he claimed that because he’s oh-so-cool, military commanders would just fall in line and obey his orders, and target civilians for extermination, no matter how illegal.
The UCMJ states very specifically that members of the military must follow lawful orders.
I remember very clearly sitting in the bay in Basic Training and discussing lawful versus unlawful orders. I remember the Drill Sergeants specifically telling us that not only must we refuse to obey an unlawful order, but we could be legally prosecuted for doing so! I would say murdering civilians kind of qualifies.
The “I was only following orders” defense didn’t work for Nazi assholes, and they won’t work in this country either.
But a military coup? That’s a whole lotta different from disobeying an unlawful order.
Of course, the unhinged leftist celebricunts didn’t let that stop them. After either having read the piece (doubtful, since most of them would need a thesaurus and additional brain cells to comprehend it), or just come up with the bright idea after a night of snorting Lithium ground up with paint chips, and sipping Drano, they are insanely claiming that the military would stand with them in a military coup against Trump.
I. Shit. You. Not.
The amazing lack of self awareness from a crowd that is too cowardly to defend themselves with a firearm, and promotes citizen disarmament writ large, claiming that men and women with guns will stand up with them to promote their unhinged agenda would be hilarious, if it wasn’t sadly delusional.
Such deranged retards include the always entertaining (in the sheer lunacy of her statements) Sarah Silverman, and the sputtering, spewing, frothing, former Minnesota Vikings punter and current DERP! potato Chris Kluwe(less).
While I appreciated Kluwe(less)’s ardent defense of marriage equality and gay rights (after all, even a blind squirrel can find a nut sometimes, and in this case, the squirrel and the nut are one and the same), his moronic social justice bleating and this current claims of somehow being an “expert” at combat (no, the armed forces do not use the Glock 17 – as a matter of fact Sig Sauer just beat out Glock, FN America, and Beretta – the maker of the current M9 service pistol – in the competition to become the military’s handgun), make him less than competent to comment on current or potential combat situations. Video games and kicking a football =\= real life combat, you pugnacious fucktard. And encouraging your frothing buddies to loot gun stores and armories will only get them killed.
And then, there were the fires, looting, and riots at Berkeley.
Why? Because the special snowflakes couldn’t possibly allow someone with whom they disagree to have the opportunity to speak. Home of the free speech movement, indeed. It’s more like a bowel movement nowadays. This caused the Trump Administration to threaten to cut off funds to Bezerkeley, and rightfully so. I’m a taxpayer, and so is every individual who holds views that differing views from the howling psychopaths who set property on fire in order to silence a speaker whom they dislike. And personally, I don’t want my tax dollars used to fund suppression of free speech. I’m fairly sure others don’t either. If Bezerkeley insists on doing so, they don’t need my hard earned dollars.
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) on Thursday released a statement calling the president’s apparent threat an “abuse of power.”
“President Donald Trump cannot bully our university into silence. Simply put, President Trump’s empty threat to cut funding from UC Berkeley is an abuse of power,” she said in the statement.
So Trump can’t “bully” the university into ostensible silence by withholding federal money that belongs to all taxpayers, but the university can use federal money that belongs to all taxpayers to bully an invited guest into silence? Is that the way it works, you dried up, hypocritical hag? You want our money to fund your tyrannical tactics, and if we threaten to pull our funds, you call it bullying?
Yeah, how about you go get fucked by a rabid wildebeest, MKAY?
The university claims that masked agitators came onto campus and began throwing Molotov cocktails and rocks, and interrupting a protest.
Yeah, I sure believe that one. Pull the other one, will ya?
Ultimately, it doesn’t matter who the agitators were. They were there to start a war. They were there to instigate violence. Just like these celebricunts are doing (from the relative safety of their gated communities, of course). Just like the jackwagons who decided a Bank of America and a Starbucks were cool (and easy) targets in DC to vandalize.
You want a war, cupcakes? You won’t like the outcome. That’s a promise. We are better trained, better prepared, and better qualified to kick your hairy, unwashed, pussy hat-wearing asses than you and your mewling band of paintball buddies.
Shut up and sit down before you hurt yourselves.
The latest absurdity in this whole race relations debacle fomented by Eric Holder and his politicized Justice Department is the list of demands the Black Student Union at none other than UC Berkeley has presented to the university. This is so stupid it cannot possibly be taken seriously, but it’s Berkeley, so the Chancellor has taken the list “under advisement.”
William La Jeunesse reported on “America’s Newsroom” that the black student union wants a building renamed after Shakur, a former Black Panther and the first woman on the FBI’s list of Most Wanted Terrorists.
Shakur, who was convicted of killing New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster, escaped from prison in the 1970s and has been hiding out in Cuba ever since. In 2013, the FBI designated her a terrorist and is offering a $2 million reward for information that would lead to her capture.
But the black student union at UC Berkeley calls her an “icon of resistance within oppressed communities,” La Jeunesse reported.
“We want the renaming of it to someone, Assata Shakur, who we feel like represents us as black students,” Cori McGowens, a junior at UC Berkeley said.
In addition to demanding the building be renamed, the students also demanded that the university hire two black admissions officers, two black psychologists experienced in racial discrimination, two black advisers to recruit and mentor black students and create an African American student resource center, La Jeunesse said.
You ever see a dog when it’s really confused, so it sort of cocks its head to one side and looks at you like you’ve just presented it with a Bitcoin algorithm to solve?
That was me when I read this retardery.
Apparently black students at Berkeley feel all marginalized, excluded, and ignored. Interesting that this is ostensibly going on in a liberal utopia intent on instilling in its students a sense of social justice that’s so profound, its social justice symposiums include gems such as a workshop that “…will present a herstory of the #BlackLivesMatter movement and will highlight the organizing being done at UC Berkeley’s campus, across the bay area, and nationwide. We will focus on the framework and hxstory of #BlackLivesMatter, the context of Ferguson, as well as the national surge in organizing around the non-indictments of the officers that murdered Mike Brown and Eric Garner. Additionally we will explore how movement leaders are centering the work on queer and trans* narratives, experiences, and leadership. Lastly, we aim to address horizontal allyship and how that has played out in organizing spaces within the movement.” — Presented by a male scholar by the name of David Turner (who probably is feeling all sorts of guilt about being the owner of a penis, and if he had the guts, would likely snip that puppy off with a pair of rusty pliers just to punish himself with pain for being a privileged oppressor).
But I digress…
Black students in this socially tolerant utopia are apparently feeling marginalized, and their response is to demand that a building be named after a…
A terrorist who escaped prison after committing an act of murder. Joanne Chesimard, (aka Assata Shakur) a member of the radical Black Liberation Army, shot and killed New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster execution-style in 1973, after she and two others were pulled over for a routine traffic stop. She just pulled out her pistol and shot the officer, and then finished the job with his own pistol by administering two rounds to the officer’s head.
And apparently, this is what black students at Berkeley identify with. This violent terrorist is what represents the black student population at Berkeley, by their own admission.
Now, if you’re feeling marginalized and ignored, one would think you would want to do something positive to bring attention to your perceived plight. If you are feeling like you’re isolated, one would think you would want to integrate into the community in a positive manner.
And yet, these students aren’t just demanding that a building be named after a murderous terrorist, but I would submit their demands will actually further segregate and isolate them from the general community at Berkeley! Black advisors. Black psychologists. A resource center for African Americans. Instead of integrating, it seems they want to create a whole separate black Berkeley!
Segregation is so last century!
I would hope that the chancellor simply deposited that pile of excrement where it belongs, but again… it’s Berkley.
BBC news reports this morning that
global warming… uh… climate change is apparently responsible for an increase in violence.
Quoting a “study” from Berkeley (this should already make you suspicious, because anything resembling objective research from that nest of communist blowhards would be as rare as koala bears in my bathtub), the article says that the world is about to become a much more violent place.
US scientists found that even small changes in temperature or rainfall correlated with a rise in assaults, rapes and murders, as well as group conflicts and war.
Apparently scientists have now decided that correlation does equal causation.
Marshall Burke, from the University of California, Berkeley, said: “This is a relationship we observe across time and across all major continents around the world. The relationship we find between these climate variables and conflict outcomes are often very large.”
The researchers looked at 60 studies from around the world, with data spanning hundreds of years.
They report a “substantial” correlation between climate and conflict.
To his credit, Burke did say he wanted to be “careful” about attributing anything directly to “climate change,” and at least he admits that climate has been changing for hundreds of years. Admitting that weather does, in fact, fluctuate is the first step in curing the “anthropogenic climate change” disease.
But he found results to be “interesting,” such as an “increase in domestic violence in India during recent droughts, and a spike in assaults, rapes and murders during heatwaves in the US.” Now, if I were to examine the situation of the droughts, for instance, I’d say, “OK, the drought is causing economic hardship. Considering that in a nation such as the US, economic and fiscal issues are the top causes of divorce in the United States, it is certainly unsurprising that they would cause marital strife elsewhere! And while it’s gauche and illegal to beat up on your spouse in the United States, wife beating is pretty much endemic in other parts of the world!”
The authors of the study admit as much.
“One of the main mechanisms that seems to be at play is changes in economic conditions. We know that climate affects economic conditions around the world, particularly agrarian parts of the world.
“There is lots of evidence that changes in economic conditions affect people’s decisions about whether or not to join a rebellion, for example.”
Well, there are a lot of things that can cause a deterioration in economic conditions, including climate, earthquakes, overpopulation and Keynesians. To claim that any or all of them are responsible for violence is somewhat disingenuous.
And thankfully, there are other, more honest researchers who disagree with the conclusions.
Work published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggested that this environmental factor was not to blame for civil war in Africa.
Instead, Dr Halvard Buhaug, from the Peace Research Institute Oslo, Norway, concluded that the conflict was linked to other factors such as high infant mortality, proximity to international borders and high local population density.
Commenting on the latest research, he said: “I disagree with the sweeping conclusion (the authors) draw and believe that their strong statement about a general causal link between climate and conflict is unwarranted by the empirical analysis that they provide.
“I was surprised to see not a single reference to a real-world conflict that plausibly would not have occurred in the absence of observed climatic extremes. If the authors wish to claim a strong causal link, providing some form of case validation is critical.”
But don’t let that stop you, Marshall Burke! Keep panic mongering about climate change. Maybe you’ll get a rimjob from Al Gore.