My thoughts on Trump’s “Concentration Camps” for kids.

OMG, isn’t it so sad that this poor Mexican child was put in a cage… that is fake… and by his own parents? Better throw open the border entirely, or else you’re a monster.

There just doesn’t seem to be any escape from the idiotic and infuriating whining and virtue signalling on social media and in the mainstream media, about how much of a bad man Trump is. It’s just completely ridiculous at this point. Every story seems to follow the same path.

  • Trump says or does something.
  • Fake news mainstream media acts as if it as the worst thing ever.
  • Idiots on social media buy into fake news story and pretend to be offended over it.
  • Rational people try to debate with idiots by appealing to reason.
  • Idiots choose to use emotion rather than reason.
  • Idiots demand that we throw out common sense in favour of basing official policy around their own subjective emotions.
  • Truth comes out that debunks fake news narrative.
  • Idiots ignore truth and continue to believe the original lies.
  • Trump says or does something new.
  • Fake news mainstream media acts as if THIS is the worst thing ever and quietly moves on from previous “scandal”.
  • Cycle repeats ad infinitum.

It’s all just so tiring at this point. Look I’m not saying that there aren’t any legitimate reasons to criticise Trump at all. I’ve done so myself in the past, and I will continue to do so, whenever I feel he’s deserving of it. But in regards to the current scandal that the horde of TDS sufferers are outraged over, namely his  alleged “concentration camps” for migrant children, I think he has done nothing wrong at all.

This is what people actually believe is happening.

The reality is that Trump’s “concentration camps” are anything but, as the following two videos make quite clear.

Trump’s voters voted for him for many reasons, but the biggest reason of all was because of his pledge to deal with illegal immigration, primarily coming from the southern border. He has a mandate to deal with the issue, and the way I can see it, there are only four possible options.

  1. He can do nothing and effectively give up on having a border at all.
  2. He can build a border wall that stops people from illegally entering in the first place.
  3. He can have agents capture and deport illegal immigrants on the spot.
  4. He can capture and detain immigrants until they’ve had a chance to have their cases heard by a judge. Then deport them afterwards

Option one is the very option he was elected NOT to do. The American people are sick and tired of the consistent failure to defend the borders, and they will not accept this at all.

Option two is the preferred option,  and is the one he was voted in to implement. However, his enemies in congress are doing everything in their power to prevent this from happening.

Option three would be a great temporary measure to implement before building the wall, but he’s prevented from doing this, thanks to the actions of a corrupt judiciary that demands “due process” for every captured illegal immigrant. Despite not being citizens, and not being subject to the same constitutional protections as citizens, there is still an expectation that they waste time and money on court cases, before inevitably deporting them.

This means that the only option left is option four, which is the option that Trump is going with. Illegal immigrants have committed a crime by crossing the border illegally, and like all criminals, they are arrested, sent to jail, and given a chance in court to defend themselves. However, kids can’t go to jail with them, because jail is for adults, which inevitably means that kids and adults have to be separated, with the kids taken into state care instead. This is what all the outrage is over. Kids being taken into state care, while their illegal immigrant parents are in jail for committing a crime. But where is this same outrage when other criminals are arrested and separated from their children? Why is it an issue when illegal immigrants are arrested for the crime of illegal border crossing and separated from their kids, but there is no similar outrage in every other circumstance were a person is arrested and separated from their own children?

It’s just emotional blackmail. There’s no attempt at reason. No attempt at nuance. It’s just complete and utter insanity at this point. They don’t offer any reasonable solution to deal with the flow of illegal immigration. They just lash out at every single attempt to solve it.

“Can I build a border wall?”

“No, we won’t give you the funding.”

“Ok, can I have our agents patrol, capture and deport them straight away?”

“No, you have to give them a chance to defend themselves in court before deporting them.”

“Ok, I’ll do that then.”

“No you can’t do that. Many of them have children, and kids can’t be held in jail while their parents are waiting for their court appearance.”

“Ok that’s fine, we’ll build facilities to care for the children. They’ll have nice beds. They’ll have good food and healthcare. We’ll even provide education and leisure activities for them. They’ll be well looked after, while they’re waiting for their parents.”

“No you can’t do that. You can’t separate children from their parents.”

“Ok, so I can’t build a wall to keep them out. I can’t deport them as soon as they’re caught, because they have to appear in court first. I can’t keep the kids in jail with the parents while the parents are waiting for their court appearance, and I can’t take the kids into state care while the parents are in jail, because I can’t separate them. So what can I do instead?”


But we know exactly what he can do. The only option they’ll ever accept. Do nothing. Stop enforcing the border. Stop rounding up illegal immigrants entirely. Stop sending people back. Just abolish the border entirely and let everyone in, with no regard for the longterm consequences of doing so.

That’s literally all they will accept. And that’s the one thing he was elected not to do.

Child rapist is “trans-aged” apparently.

Look at this poor child. would you believe, that they’re actually trying this 9 year old boy as an adult, just because he engaged in sexual activities with his fellow children? What is the world coming to?

We live in rapidly dying societies. We’ve lost all reason and all sense of reality. We care more about not offending vocal minorities, than we do about protecting the needs of the majority. We give an inch, and a mile… no, not a mile, but rather a light-year is taken in return. When we show ourselves to be willing to compromise on something as basic as objective reality, it stands to reason that there will always be unscrupulous people out there who will be there to prey upon our moral cowardice, if it’s advantageous for them to do so.


A child rapist on trial for sexually assaulting three little girls is now claiming he’s a “trans-aged” little boy trapped in a man’s body. 

Remember though. The slippery slope is just a fallacy invented by bigots to justify their bigotry.

This is what they actually think we believe when we talk about slippery slopes.

According to the Chicago Tribune, 38-year-old Joseph Roman has been accused of violating three girls between the ages of 6 and 8. Now, Roman’s defending himself by claiming he’s a 9-year-old stuck in a grown man’s body.

“A Chicago man accused of sexually assaulting three young girls told prosecutors he considered himself a boy in a man’s body, according to Cook County court documents.

Joseph Roman, 38, is charged with predatory criminal sexual assault stemming from repeated attacks on three girls who were 6 to 8 years old at the time, according to prosecutors. Roman was a friend of the girls’ families at the time of the attacks between 2015 and January of this year.” 

He needs to be fucking executed. Nothing less will suffice for a piece of shit like this.

I think this method will suffice nicely.

Roman’s victims included a 6-year-old girl whose family stayed briefly in his home, and an 8-year-old girl who sometimes stayed with him while her mother worked a late-night shift at her job.  

But this innocent 9 year old boy who is too young to have possibly gone through adolescence, was somehow driven to sexually violate them. It’s not his fault though, as he is clearly too young to comprehend the gravity of his actions. Plus, he’s below the age of consent himself as well, so technically speaking, those three girls are just as guilty of raping him, as he is of raping them. I guess we just gotta let them all go free, or punish them all equally. It’s the only fair solution.

Of course, those of us with more than four brain cells between our ears knew it was only a matter of time before someone offered up the “trans-age” excuse in defense of assaulting children.


In fact, most of us knew the day was coming back when this 52-year-old guy first started claiming he was a 6-year-old girl stuck in an adult male’s body.

Yes, I remember that case well.

If you don’t think that THIS is a 6 year old girl, you’re an evil monster.

Then again, we also knew the left’s whole “open-minds, open-bathrooms” policy would likely lead to women being creeped on and attacked by men in public restrooms and changing spaces – which it didhere and here and also here. 

Yeah, but that’s a small price to pay for not potentially hurting the feeling of a demographics that makes up around 0.3% of the population.

But if men who think they’re women deserve to be treated as such simply because they say so, then whose to say this fully grown guy in Chicago shouldn’t be treated as a little boy stuck in a grown man’s body?

And that’s exactly the point I bring up with regards to the slippery slope, because it is a valid comparison. If we’re going to force people to throw out everything they know and understand about objective reality in one scenario, then what’s to say that we won’t force them to do the exact same thing in other scenarios as well? Why is it OK to demand that people refer to other people with all the physical and genetic characteristics of males, as females, if that is their preference, but we don’t expect similar things to happen in regards to race, species, and in this case, age?

“She’s clearly a cat, you hate filled bigot. How is that in *current year*, there are still uneducated fools like you who don’t understand this?”

One need look no further to see why the left’s “trans” logic is a house of cards that has no hope of standing.

When I look at a case like this, I can’t help but wonder. Is this the sort of thing that people will soon be defending in just a few short years? I know that might sound completely paranoid, but just look at how much things have “progressed” already in the past few years. Is it really hard to believe that something like this might be promoted as normal very soon?

Expecting basic literacy skills from teachers is “racist”.

I’m a firm believer that “equality of opportunity” is a good code of conduct to live by. I don’t see any reason why a person should be denied a fair opportunity for something, on account of their membership of a certain race, gender, sexual orientation etc., if none of these things are a relevant factor.

However, a lot of people seem to confuse “equality of opportunity” with “equality of outcome” and therefore assume that if we aren’t seeing equality of outcome in certain places, that this must be down to discrimination. The problem is, that while we might be all “equal” in terms of our rights and protections under the law, that doesn’t mean that we’re equal in every way. And that’s just it, we aren’t all equal. We all have different strengths and weaknesses, and some people just aren’t as capable in certain endeavours as others. Some people are simply capable of reaching higher standards than others and it’s impossible to have equality while maintaining these high standards. The only way equality can be achieved is by dragging the standards down to the level of the weakest candidates which of course by definition means a lower quality of standards.

I’ve actually touched on this sort of thing before in a post I wrote nearly two years ago. The post in question dealt with a story about how the United Stated Marine Corps was lowering their fitness standards so that women could qualify (under the existing standards at the time, not one woman had ever passed). The logic given for this was that the test was “sexist”, and “outdated”, and that standards needed to be changed, so that women could pass. The standards that existed had nothing to do with sexism though. They were just the standards that it was felt Marines needed to meet in order to actually do their job properly. Men just had a natural advantage because due to biology, they’re physically stronger than women on average. If a man couldn’t meet the existing standards, he wouldn’t pass either. The obvious endgame of this decision to change the standards, is that in a potential future conflict, there will be marines on the battlefield who are less capable, and therefore, more likely to either die, or cause the deaths of their colleagues. That doesn’t seem to matter though. Not hurting the feelings of unqualified applicants is more important than keeping people alive apparently.

Today’s story deals with teachers, rather than military personnel. I don’t think we can expect any potential deaths because of this decision, but we could see plenty of students having their future earning potential and livelihoods hindered, because of having been taught by inferior teachers. I’m of the believe that the student’s needs are more important than the feelings of unqualified teachers. New York State doesn’t seem to share my views on the topic.

From Daily Caller

Prospective teachers in New York will likely no longer have to pass a basic reading and writing literacy exam, the Associated Press is reporting.

Who needs teachers who are capable of reading and writing? I’m sure they’ll do an excellent job teaching students how to read and write… without knowing how to do those things themselves.

The state’s Board of Regents is expected to ditch the Academic Literacy Skills Test in part because black and Hispanic teaching candidates struggled to pass the exam, according to the AP.


“Aw sheeeit. We wuz kangz yo. We don’ need no muh’fuggin crackah tests to be able to get dat learn on with those kidz n shit.”

“A+. Congratulations, you’re now a qualified teacher Tyrone. Your student’s future depends on how well you teach them.”

So because black and Hispanic candidates struggle to pass the test, it must be racist somehow. I don’t really understand how this could be exactly. I don’t think we’ll be getting an explanation as to how either. Just that it “must be racist because they aren’t passing”.

Also I would like to once again point out, that if America is such a racist, white supremacist, white privileged society, then why is it that on average, Indians, East Asians, and Jews, are more successful than white people? Why do the racist white people cause blacks and Hispanics to fail, but they don’t do the same for the other groups? It’s just such a mystery. Well, it is if you choose to be willfully ignorant, make certain possible explanations taboo, and therefore limit the possibilities as to what the answer could be.


It’s not even white supremacy. East Asians are the ones who come out on top.

Just 41 percent of black teaching candidates and 46 percent of Hispanics passed the test on their first try, compared to 64 percent of white candidates.

So a large percentage of white people fail the test as well then? And a fairly large percentage of black and Hispanic do actually pass, but just not as large a percentage as white people. Sounds like it’s just a tough test that passes the qualified applicants, and fails the unqualified, regardless of their race. What could be fairer than that?

The multiple choice exam is meant to ensure high standards among prospective teachers, which many teaching preparation programs have struggled to do.

A December 2016 study by the National Council on Teacher Quality found that 44 percent of teaching programs “cannot ensure that most of their incoming candidates are among the top half of college students.”

Maybe the teaching programs scrapped their own set of standards for prospective course coordinators, and now there are inferior people teaching prospective teachers.

Hey, anything is possible.

A state task force recommended the board scrap the exam because of the number of black and hispanic candidates struggling to pass it. The board is expected to adopt the recommendations on Monday.

Lets not maintain high standards. Lets allow our standards to be dictated by the level of the weakest candidates.

There are too many black NBA players. This must be because of racism. This white man’s skill levels should be the standard for playing in the NBA so we can achieve equality.

“We want high standards, without a doubt.


Not every given test is going to get us there,” Pace University professor Leslie Soodak told the AP.

“So lets just scrap the tests entirely then.”

Soodak was a member of the task force that advocated abandoning literacy tests for teachers.

“Having a white workforce really doesn’t match our student body anymore,” Soodak added.

But…but…I thought we were all equal, and race doesn’t matter. Surely we should judge people not “by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” That would be the proper thing to do, right?


This meme sure gets a lot of mileage.

Opponents to the exam unsuccessfully attempted to have it struck down in court in 2015, arguing that it was discriminatory because racial minorities performed worse on the test than white candidates.

No explanation as to how exactly a multiple choice questionnaire could be discriminatory. Like I said, there are other possibilities to take into consideration that could more easily explain why these minorities are performing worse on average.

Just posting this again, to let it sink in. Keep in mind that there are parts where there is overlap both in the high and low parts. This would explain the minorities who do pass, and the whites who fail. Outliers always exist, but the mean, median, and mode are what will define the pattern.

A federal judge declined to strike it down, however.

Nice to see there are still some good judges. Of course, that never stops these people. They’re like religious zealots. If they have a goal, they’ll keep pushing and pushing for it, until they eventually get their way. Ultimately, they can lose a hundred times in a row, and it doesn’t matter, because they’ll just try again until they finally win once.

And they only need to win once.

Douchebag celebrity George Takei cries about Trump yet again.

Between Brexit, the Migrant Crisis, and the Trump phenomenon, one of the most annoying things to see as of late, has been the huge amount of celebrities, coming down from their ivory towers to lecture all of us dumb little people about how terrible we are for having the audacity to have sociopolitical opinions that they personally disagree with.

For example, remember when that unhygienic walking bio-hazard, Bob Geldof, took time out of his busy schedule of avoiding the shower, to instead give the finger to a bunch of poor English fisherman for supporting the leave option in the Brexit Referendum?

It’s amazing how a man can do so much good for charity, and still be a massive, unlikeable dickhead of the highest order.

How about George Clooney, constantly virtue signalling about how more needs to be done, to help those millions of young, military aged, African men, who are coming from various Sub-Saharan African countries to Europe, allegedly to escape the brutal Syrian civil war? Well, when a migrant camp is set up close to his Italian mansion, we don’t hear a peep out of him volunteering to open his own door to them. You see, it’s only us little people who have to actually do more to help, and it’s only us little people who have to suffer the consequences of making such stupid decisions. Big time celebrities like George Clooney just have to appear in public and talk down to rest of us, without actually paying the price.

Not only was he the worst Batman ever, who killed the Batman film series for 8 years, but he’s just an obnoxious prick in general.

One of the vocal celebrities discussing political matters as of late, has been former Star Trek actor George Takei, a guy who once used his social media presence to just post funny memes, but has in the past year or so, used it to lash out at Trump non-stop. Now look, I’m not saying he has no right to express his opinion on the new President-Elect. Nobody, including Trump, is above criticism or scrutiny. As much as I joke around with the whole “Glorious Leader” shtick, I am in actuality well aware of the fact that Trump is far from perfect and indeed, has character flaws of his own. I’ve just always felt that the alternatives to Trump were a whole lot worse, as well as genuinely agreeing with him on many issues. However, the kind of hysteria being directed against him at times is just ridiculous and quite frankly, stupid. So stupid in fact, that it’s no surprise that the Huffington Post of all publications, has decided to give it a platform.

An example of the typical journalistic standards on the Huffington Post.
And again.
In fact, they have memes like this to mock how their narrative changes depending on their needs at the time.

Anyway, so lets take a look at what Takei had to say.


From Huffington Post

“Star Trek” veteran George Takei blasted a Donald Trump surrogate’s contention that the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II set a precedent for a national Muslim registry.

They interned Japanese-Americans during World War 2, because they were at war with Japan at the time, and they feared the possibility of spies and saboteurs, loyal to their homeland, working against their war effort from the inside. They did the same thing to German-Americans and Italian-Americans too, because they were also at war with these countries at the same time. You can debate the morality behind this action if you wish, but it wasn’t done just for the sake of it. They were genuinely concerned about a possible threat to national security and to the country’s survival, and did what they thought was in their best interests at the time.

If anything, I think this just reinforces the point that multiculturalism is a ridiculous, flawed idea. If having a multicultural society results in such a scenario were people of differing cultural backgrounds, living within the same borders, under the same government, mistrust each other that much, that a single crises causes one group to round up and intern others, out of the fear that they could be enemy collaborators, then how could it possibly be considered a good thing? As the old saying goes, “United we stand, divided we fall”. That’s why I believe that diversity is not a strength. Unity is, and there are plenty of scientific studies that back this up.

The idea of a database that tracks Muslims, promoted by Trump early on the campaign trail, was seconded by Carl Higbie Wednesday. In an interview with Fox News’ Megyn Kelly, Higby, who served as spokesman for a pro-Trump super PAC, said the proposal would “pass Constitutional muster.”

“There is precedent for it,” he said.

Yep, I mentioned it 9 months ago in my post about “Why I support Trump”. It’s a perfectly legal action to take. The only dilemma is the ethical concerns surrounding it. However, what is worse? Without allowing your own population a vote on the matter, importing millions of followers of an ideology, which for the past 1400 years, has proven itself completely incompatible with Western liberal values and democracy, is still proving so to this day [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] , and allowing them to run amok in your society? Or, taking whatever steps are necessary to prevent the deaths of your own people, at the hands of the followers of that ideology?

I’m not one to get into scaremongering and witch hunts, but at the same time, I think we need to be vigilant and to look out for our own wellbeing first and foremost. Western civilisation was not built by the followers of Islam. Indeed, for most of our history, we have been fighting to keep Islam out of our lands. They have absolutely no moral claim to share in the benefits of the societies that our own ancestors created for us. In the last 70 years or so, we’ve relaxed our immigration policies towards them, and this has been a disaster for us.

Ideally, I would prefer to see a sane immigration policy brought in again, in which we still allow the immigration of qualified professionals (Doctors, IT specialists, engineers etc), regardless of their racial, religious, or national background, but don’t allow unskilled workers in anymore. We have no need for them, and we have no moral obligation to take them in. I think this would be the best solution. However, I can’t see that changing any time soon, so at least having a way to monitor those coming in would be a nice start. If they don’t like it, then they’re quite free to just not come. Our safety in our own countries is more important than making sure that they’re not offended in countries that they are CHOOSING to come to.

None of the above videos are in any way comparable to a “Muslim database” obviously, but the point I’m trying to make by posting them is that it’s nothing unusual for them to show up and get offended by things in their host nations, even though they willingly chose to come to them.

But Takei, who was interned with his family in wartime, shot back with articulate fury Thursday on MSNBC’s “The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell.”

“It is not a precedent,” Takei said in the MSNBC exchange. “It is the most disgraceful chapter of American history.”

Really? I thought slavery was. Or possibly the eugenic program. Or perhaps those pointless wars in the Middle East which were based on lies. Or maybe it was the conquest of the American landmass in the first place. The “most disgraceful” chapter tends to change, depending on the narrative being pushed at the time.

“Registration of any group of people, and certainly registration of Muslims, is a prelude to internment,” he said later. “This is something that we cannot have happen again. It is dangerous and it is a moral bankruptcy. We’ve got to stand up and resist this, and I would urge all good Americans to write to your congressional representatives and the president-elect and tell them that this is not what we stand for as a nation.”

Very touching George. Your concern for Muslims is most impressive, especially seeing as you yourself are an openly gay man. Lets take a look at these two maps.

The first is a map of Muslim majority countries in the world.


Next, we have a map of countries in which being gay is illegal.

Countries where being gay is illegal.

Notice the amount of overlap between the two maps? And with the huge number of Muslims who seem to agree with these laws, even in the West, I can’t help but wonder, would they be as concerned about his well-being as he is about theirs?

Probably not.
“Turkeys against Christmasphobia”.

Lets learn to compromise.


There’s a reason why so many MENA countries have such poor human rights records, and it isn’t colonialism, racism from white people, cosmic radiation, voodoo curses, or any of the other countless bullshit excuses that are trotted out to explain their problems. A country is a reflection of the people who live there, and when those people are a bunch of 85-90 IQ sexual deviants, with a worldview that was archaic a millennium ago, then it can hardly be surprising that some messed up behaviours become commonplace in that country as a result. Ordinarily, we’re told to believe that geographical location is the sole determinant of this behaviour, and that if we move large masses of people from a geographical location where a certain behaviour is practiced, to somewhere where it isn’t, and don’t force them to integrate with the population of their new location (that would be racist), that somehow, they’ll just give up the old behaviour by pure magic, to behave more like the population of the host society. This of course is complete nonsense, and I don’t understand how anyone can still buy it. Because we can no longer pretend that they will change their barbaric behaviour on arrival, a new suggestion has been put forward. Compromise.

From The Journal

WESTERN STATES SHOULD legally permit immigrant communities to surgically “nick” young girls’ vaginas as an alternative to genital mutilation.


I wonder what kind of stupid argument these idiots are going to put forward in favour of this bright idea.

That was the argument put forward by a pair of US gynecologists in a hotly-challenged paper this week.

The two doctors stated in the Journal of Medical Ethics that such a “compromise” could allow groups to honour cultural or religious prescripts while saving millions of girls from invasive and disfiguring genital slashing practised in some African and Middle Eastern cultures.

In what world does this sound like a logical and sensible argument? The idea of actually “compromising” on such a barbaric practice is completely insane. What other “compromises” should western societies make with these backwards cultures in order to make them feel welcome?

“Hey lads, I know that throwing gay people off of buildings to their deaths is a part of your culture. But you can’t do that here. As a compromise, you can just beat them to a bloody pulp with baseballs bats instead.”


“Hey lads, I know that stoning adulterers to death is a part of your culture. But you can’t do that here. As a compromise, you can just stone them until they end up in a coma instead.”


“Hey lads, I know you like gang raping unaccompanied women who aren’t covered from head to toe. But you can’t do that here. As a compromise, you can only rape them on an individual basis, instead of in a gang.”

Seriously, how fucking ludicrous is this suggestion of compromise?

Kavita Arora of the Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland and Allan Jacobs of Stony Brook University in New York state, said:

We are not arguing that any procedure on the female genitalia is desirable.

Then why are you offering a compromise rather than resisting it outright?

“Rather, we only argue that certain procedures ought to be tolerated by liberal societies”, which have outlawed such practices but host immigrants for whom it is part of their culture.


If its outlawed, then it should be forbidden to everyone. If they want to practice their culture, you know where they can do that? In the countries they came from. When they’re in another country, they should abide by the cultural norms of that country. If an element of their culture is incompatible with the culture of their host society, they have two choices. Leave, or stop practicing that part of their culture. It’s really that simple.

Efforts to enforce an outright ban on female genital mutilation (FGM) have often had the opposite effect – driving the practice underground and putting women at even greater risk, said the duo.

Strange how native European men aren’t filled with the same desire to resist this ban so they can mutilate female genitals. If I didn’t know better, I’d think there are vast differences between us, and the African/Middle Eastern men that we’re flooding our countries with. But that couldn’t possibly be true, because we’re all exactly the same and equal. Only brainless, hate filled, racists, would think otherwise.

But many peers immediately dismissed the idea.

There is still some sanity in this world after all.

According to Arianne Shahvisi of the University of Sussex ethics department in Britain:”One must not cause irreversible changes to the body of another person without their consent.”

I agree. I think we should also outlaw infant male circumcision too while we’re at it. I believe that males have the right to body integrity too. Maybe circumcised boys might end up wishing they still had their foreskins when they get older, and they should have the right to not have the decision made for them. Of course, I know such a ban would piss off the Jews to no end, so it will probably never happen. Would be funny to see them whining about it though.

This rabbi would be terribly upset if he couldn’t cut the foreskin off baby penises and suck the blood out. Consequences of doing so be damned.

Arora and Jacobs, however, contended that a one-size-fits-all approach ignored that many people believed the procedure to be a means of achieving “moral or ritual purity” for their child.

Vaginal cutting is widely regarded as a libido-reducer, intended in certain cultures to keep a woman chaste.

“We’re a first world country in the 21st century. We let women make their own choices and claim to value gender equality. But we better keep those Muslims girls chaste.”

According to the World Health Organisation, about three million girls a year fall victim to genital mutilation.

It can cause urinary difficulties, cysts and infection, infertility and complications in childbirth.

But we can’t ban it outright. We need to reach a compromise instead.

Like dental work

Arora and Jacobs have proposed new sub-categories of genital cutting.

Category One would entail procedures with no long-lasting effect on the appearance or function of the genitalia, such as a “small nick” in the skin.

Procedures under Category Two may affect appearance, but not reproductive capacity or sexual enjoyment, they said. This could include removing the “hood” or skin-fold covering the clitoris or trimming the labia (labiaplasty).

The first two categories, they said, should be reclassified as female genital “alteration” (FGA) rather than “mutilation”.

“These procedures are equivalent or less extensive than male circumcision in procedure, scope and effect,” they wrote.

Indeed, they are equivalent or less extensive than orthodontia, breast implantation or even the elective labiaplasty for which affluent women pay thousands of dollars.

Unclear is whether this type of procedure would be considered valid by communities who perform FGM.

Categories Three to Five should remain outlawed, said the pair.

These included procedures to remove the clitoris or other parts of the vagina, often to be stitched closed with only a small hole for urine, menstrual blood and intercourse.

And what if they “accidentally” botch a category one procedure and end up giving a category 3 or higher? Is that considered an acceptable risk? Similar things have happened with male circumcisions, so what’s to say it couldn’t happen here too?

Brian Earp of the Bioethics Research Institute in New York said Arora and Jacobs erred in using male circumcision as a benchmark for what is permissible.

“Ultimately, I suggest that children of whatever sex or gender should be free from having healthy parts of their most intimate sexual organs either damaged or removed, before they can understand what is at stake in such an intervention and agree to it themselves,” he wrote in a commentary.

I completely agree. It’s their body, so they should get to choose what happens to it.

Earlier this month, the United Nations said at least 200 million girls and women alive today have been subjected to FGM – some 44 million aged 14 and younger.

In the 30 countries where the practice is most widespread, the majority were cut before their fifth birthday, according to the UN.

Such vibrancy. Such diversity. So colourful and exciting. We need more of this to enrich our boring countries.

Nintendo does the racism.

Damn you Nintendo. How could you be so hate filled?

The image that made this poor man cry. It's almost as horrific as a swastika.
The image that made this poor white man cry. It’s almost as horrific as seeing a swastika.

From My Nintendo News

Business Insider reporter Ben Gilbert was recently invited by Nintendo to try out Super Mario Maker in New York City. During his time with the upcoming Wii U title, Gilbert noticed that his hand wasn’t displayed on the TV screen during gameplay. Instead, a hand that seemingly belongs to a white woman mimicked his movements as he was editing a level on the Wii U GamePad’s touch screen. According to Gilbert, this is a “bizarre, glaring flaw” in Super Mario Maker.

“Yes, I’m a white guy, but my fingers are far from long and slender (sadly),” Gilbert writes.

“What if I were, say, a 10-year-old black girl? Or a 30-year-old Japanese man? Or literally anything other than an adult white woman (which the hand appears to belong to)?

“Given the mainstream appeal of the mustachioed hero and his ongoing battle against Bowser, you’d think Nintendo – a company that’s repeatedly shown willingness to be inclusive – would have thought of this.

“When I asked Nintendo reps about the hand and if it could be changed, they confirmed that it couldn’t be. They also reacted with surprise that there wasn’t an option to swap it out.”

This is so terrible. How could Nintendo do something like this? Don’t they realise how offensive this is? Clearly this is yet another example of white supremacy (even though Nintendo is a Japanese company). Thank God a white man took it upon himself to be offended on behalf of those poor unfortunate non-white victims who are being so obviously oppressed here. Clearly, he knows what’s best for these people, more than they do themselves, and he most certainly is not the true racist in this situation, by acting as if he has the right to get offended on their behalf. No, clearly he is the greatest hero for minority rights since Martin Luther King, and anybody who disagrees, is clearly insane.

US soldiers stationed in Muslim countries ordered to observe Ramadan.

Hey, look on the bright side, at least it will give them some practice for when the West is completely Islamified.

Yes, these are actually American soldiers. So tolerant. So progressive.
Yes, these are actually American soldiers. So tolerant. So progressive.

From Weekly Standard

A top commander in southwest Asia reminded U.S military personnel stationed in Muslim countries in the Middle East of the restrictions placed on them during Ramadan. According to a report by the U.S. Air Forces Central Command Public Affairs, Brig. Gen. John Quintas, 380th Air Expeditionary Wing commander in Southwest Asia, said that the U.S. is “committed to the concepts of tolerance, freedom and diversity.” But he added that soldiers should “become more informed and appreciative of the traditions and history of the people in this region of the world… [R]emember we are guests here and that the host nation is our shoulder-to-shoulder, brothers and sisters in arms, risking their lives for our common cause to defeat terrorism.”

During the 30-day religious celebration of Ramadan, even non-Muslims are expected to obey local laws regarding eating, drinking, and using tobacco in public. Violators can be fined up to $685 or receive two months in jail. A spokesperson for United States Central Command [CENTCOM] said that “we are not aware of any specific instances of anyone being arrested” for such violations.

\For military personnel outside of U.S.-controlled areas, the only exceptions for the rules are for those “performing strenuous labor.” Such personnel are “authorized to drink and consume as much food as they need to maintain proper hydration and energy.” It is unclear what constitutes “strenuous labor” or whether additional exceptions might be made during a heatwave affecting some areas of the region that has taken hundreds of lives.

When asked if the restrictions were new or simply a continuation of past policy, a CENTCOM spokesperson replied:

There has been no change in policy…  [W]hile the US does not have a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the UAE, it is common practice to ensure all Soldiers, Sailors, Airman, and Marines deployed to Muslim countries are culturally aware that during the month of Ramadan, practicing Muslims do not consume anything from sunrise to sunset as a pillar of their faith. Commanders throughout the AOR create policies to ensure their subordinates respect the laws and culture of our hosts at all times.

The report on CENTCOM’s website is accompanied by the following graphic urging military personnel to “respect Ramadan.”

I find the bolded part particularly interesting. First of all, there’s the idea of being tolerant, and respecting freedom and diversity… concepts Shariah ruled countries are completely at odds with. I’m not saying that individual Muslims don’t believe in these concepts, but can anyone honestly name a country with Islamic law that does support these concepts? I honestly can’t think of one myself.

Saudi Arabian gay pride parade, 2015.
Saudi Arabian gay pride parade, 2015.

I also think it’s interesting that it says that soldiers should recognise that they are guests in these countries and therefore should be respectful towards their way of life. I wonder if Muslims in the US are expected to behave the same way towards their host nation.

From Center for Security Policy

According to a new nationwide online survey (Below) of 600 Muslims living in the United States, significant minorities embrace supremacist notions that could pose a threat to America’s security and its constitutional form of government.

The numbers of potential jihadists among the majority of Muslims who appear not to be sympathetic to such notions raise a number of public policy choices that warrant careful consideration and urgent debate, including: the necessity for enhanced surveillance of Muslim communities; refugee resettlement, asylum and other immigration programs that are swelling their numbers and density; and the viability of so-called “countering violent extremism” initiatives that are supposed to stymie radicalization within those communities.

Overall, the survey, which was conducted by The Polling Company for the Center for Security Policy (CSP), suggests that a substantial number of Muslims living in the United States see the country very differently than does the population overall.  The sentiments of the latter were sampled in late May in another CSP-commissioned Polling Company nationwide survey.

According to the just-released survey of Muslims, a majority (51%) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.”  When that question was put to the broader U.S. population, the overwhelming majority held that shariah should not displace the U.S. Constitution (86% to 2%).

More than half (51%) of U.S. Muslims polled also believe either that they should have the choice of American or shariah courts, or that they should have their own tribunals to apply shariah. Only 39% of those polled said that Muslims in the U.S. should be subject to American courts.

These notions were powerfully rejected by the broader population according to the Center’s earlier national survey.  It found by a margin of 92%-2% that Muslims should be subject to the same courts as other citizens, rather than have their own courts and tribunals here in the U.S.

Even more troubling, is the fact that nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”

By contrast, the broader survey found that a 63% majority of those sampled said that “the freedom to engage in expression that offends Muslims or anybody else is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and cannot be restricted.”

Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in this country.

Center for Security Policy President, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., observed:

The findings of the Center for Security Policy’s survey of Muslims in America suggests that we have a serious problem.  The Pew Research Center estimates that the number of Muslims in the United States was 2.75 million in 2011, and growing at a rate of 80-90 thousand a year.  If those estimates are accurate, the United States would have approximately 3 million Muslims today.  That would translate into roughly 300,000 Muslims living in the United States who believe that shariah is “The Muslim God Allah’s law that Muslims must follow and impose worldwide by Jihad.”
It is incumbent on the many American Muslims who want neither to live under the brutal repression of shariah nor to impose it on anybody else to work with the rest of us who revere and uphold the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution in protecting our nation against the Islamic supremacists and their jihad.

Their values are completely at odds with those of the American public at large. Also, I’m guessing that not all of those polled were honest about their true feelings. I’m sure that only the stupider ones were completely honest. I’d bet the smarter ones only pretended to be opposed to living under Shariah law, or to using violence to achieve their goals, because they would have been smart enough to realise the trouble they could cause for themselves by being open about it.

Then again, lots of them are quite open about it, and haven't had any problems as a result.
Then again, lots of them are quite open about it, and haven’t had any problems as a result.

So let me ask this question. If these Muslims want to live under Shariah law so badly, why did they choose to go to a country, where Shariah law isn’t practiced, when there are countries which do practice it?

I see only two possible explanations

  1. To leech off of a country with a far higher standard of living… like parasites really.
  2. They’re actively engaged in conquest. They outright admit that they believe that Shariah law is “Allah’s” law and that they have a duty to impose it on the world through jihad. Is it really that hard to believe that those already in our nations are acting as a fifth column to weaken us from the inside, thus making us easier to conquer?

Of course, you can be sure that nothing will be done about this. Authorities and the media will probably blame it all on white racism or something, and tell us that if we just act a bit nicer towards them, eventually they’ll give up their desire to conquer us, and will magically change their entire belief system to be more like ours. If you ask for evidence to support this theory, you’re obviously just a hate filled racist who uses fear of being conquered as an excuse when really, you just hate their skin colour.

“Yes, you got us. We just really, really hate their skin colour. It really is that simple. There’s no other possible explanation”

Pure evil: Leaflets saying “#White lives matter” distributed.


In what can only be described as “a new holocaust”,  someone has taken it upon themselves to commit one of the greatest evils imaginable… they dared to suggest that white people have a right to live.

From CTPost

Flyers with the slogan — “#White Lives Matter” — an apparent racist response to the widely used social-media hashtag, #Black Lives Matter, have been tossed on local driveways and lawns in the Compo Road area, prompting local officials to denounce the message.

So by denouncing the message, doesn’t that mean that you believe that white lives don’t matter then?

Officials say they are troubled by the distribution of the flyers in town, which have unsettled many of those who found them on their doorsteps over the last week.

“I am deeply concerned and disappointed that statements like this have found their way to Westport homes,” First Selectman Jim Marpe said in a statement Friday. “This kind of racial ugliness has no place anywhere, and certainly not in Westport.”

He’s deeply concerned at the idea that there are white people out there who have the audacity to think we have a right to exist.

The first selectman added, “I have always been proud to speak of Westport as an open and welcoming community, and I continue to believe that the vast majority of Westporters practice that belief through tolerance, inclusion and everyday civil behavior … This past year has reminded us that our nation still needs to deal with some serious racial issues, and now we know that Westport is not immune.”

Tolerant and inclusive…except for white people because they don’t count. In fact, they don’t even exist. Race is just a social construct, except when white people do bad things, or non-whites suffer, in which case, it does exist.

The local flyers apparently respond to the #Black Lives Matters hashtag used on social over the last year in the wake of the deaths of black men in confrontations with police in several high-profile incidents.

Marpe said he has asked TEAM Westport, a group that tries to foster greater diversity and tolerance locally, “to work with Interfaith Clergy, the Board of Education and the appropriate town agencies, to lead our community’s response to these outrageous statements and, more importantly, the behaviors and beliefs that underpin them.”

It’s so outrageous that we need to think of an idea to put a stop to such thoughts. Perhaps we can send them to gulags for re-education.

Say it with me now...White lives don't matter.
Say it with me now…White lives don’t matter.

Harold Bailey, the TEAM Westport chairman, said Friday he’s working on setting up meetings with the leaders of a number of organizations to get a “consolidated response” to the flyer distribution.

An excellent idea. This is clearly the biggest threat facing your community today. We can’t have any white people thinking they have a right to exist.

As of now, he said, “We’re not sure why this is being done or who is doing it.”

Bailey said that taken on face value, the flyers could be an answer to “Black Lives Matter,” which in addition to being used widely on social media, has been chanted at demonstrations following the black men’s deaths.

“Black Lives Matter, he said, is “really a statement of a reminder that” some people feel “they are marginalized by society.”

Bailey said by turning the flyer’s message “completely on its head,” it could mean “you don’t matter” or “we matter more,” but added, “That’s not what this town stands for.”

Only black people feel marginalised. Despite the fact that whites are blamed for every single thing in the world, there isn’t any possibility that innocent whites could themselves possibly feel marginalised…seeing as there’s no such thing as an innocent white.

The only people whose lives matter.
The only people whose lives matter.

He said TEAM Westport strives to incorporate diversity in all institutions in town. “We feel diversity is an attitude,” he said.

Similar flyers were also recently distributed nearby in Milford.

Meanwhile, local police have not received a formal complaint about the flyers so they haven’t begun an investigation into the matter, according to Capt. Samuel Arciola, police spokesman.

“We’re aware of the situation,” he said, adding that police will be on the lookout for anyone “arbitrarily” tossing flyers on lawns or driveways.

Thank goodness we have the cops looking into it. As we all know, this is how it all starts. First, racist white people start thinking they have a right to live. Then, they start sharing that belief with others. Eventually, they start building gas chambers for everyone else.

Such scary times we live in….

Heart transplant wasted on worthless thug who died 2 years later in high speed chase.

He could have been president someday.

Oh political correctness. You never cease to amaze me. This kid had a heart disease that would have eventually killed him. Doctors didn’t think he deserved a heart transplant because they didn’t trust him to stick to the necessary medication routine following the transplant (he was negligent with taking his medication in the past so there was a precedent there). They were also concerned by his extensive criminal record at the age of 15.

Of course, the media got a hold of the story, started crying about “human rights violations” and bullied the hospital into going back on their judgement and giving him the heart. Now, two years later, the idiot is killed in a high speed chase. That heart could have gone to someone else, who actually deserved it. Instead, it goes to waste.

From Daily Mail

  • Anthony Stokes died on Tuesday after he crashed a stolen car into a pole while fleeing from the scene of an attempted burglary in Roswell, Georgia
  • He had fired at an elderly woman after breaking into her home
  • Less than two years ago, he was given a life-saving heart transplant
  • He was initially denied the surgery because doctors said he had previously failed to take medication so would be ‘non-compliant’ with the treatment
  • But they changed their minds following pressure from civil rights groups and the boy’s family, who said he had been stereotyped as a troubled teen
  • After the transplant, he said he was grateful for a second chance at life

A teenager who received a life-saving heart transplant two years ago after initially being denied because of his bad behavior has died following a high-speed car chase with police.

Anthony Stokes, 17, died on Tuesday after he crashed a stolen Honda into a pole as he fled the scene of an attempted burglary at an elderly woman’s home in Roswell, Georgia.

His death comes less than two years after he was given a second chance at life following a heart transplant at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, the Atlanta Journal Constitution reported.

The boy, from Decatur, suffered from a dilated cardiomyopathy so his heart was unable to pump enough blood. The condition can lead to irregular heartbeats, blood clots or heart failure. 

He had been given just six to nine months to live but the hospital initially refused to put him on the waiting list for a new organ because they thought he would be ‘non-compliant’ with the treatment.

Patients can be disqualified from getting a transplant if a hospital doubts they’ll stick to the medication regimen after the operation.

At the time, the hospital said that Stokes had failed to take his medication in the past, so his history of non-compliance meant he was not put on the waiting list.

But family and friends alleged that his low school grades and brushes with the law were the real reason he had been ruled out.

Stokes’ mother, Melencia Hamilton, told reporters that her son, who wore a court-ordered monitoring device, had been stereotyped as a troubled teen.

Following pressure from national media coverage, the boy’s family and civil rights groups, the hospital backpedaled in August 2013, and the teenager received a new heart. 

‘After reviewing the situation, they said Anthony would be placed on the list for a heart transplant and that he would be first in line, due to his weakened heart condition,’ spokesman Mark Bell said. 

In 2013, the Orlando Sentinel reported that the average cost of a heart transplant is between $550,000 and $650,000. That year, 63 Georgia patients received a heart transplant, according to the United Network for Organ Sharing. Just six of those were between the ages of 11 and 17.

The hospital that carried out the transplant, Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, had long been quiet about the surgery and its cost – citing patient privacy laws – and declined to comment on Wednesday, saying only: ‘We are deeply saddened by this loss.’

Photographs on Stokes’ Facebook page show him shirtless with a large scar to his chest from the surgery. Other images show him pointing a firearm at the camera or holding up wads of cash.

On January 10 this year, he was arrested and charged with possession of tools for the commission of a crime and criminal attempt, according to DeKalb County jail, and he was released from jail on February 3 after posting $5,000 bond. 

Then on Tuesday, Stokes put on a mask and allegedly kicked in an elderly woman’s door in Roswell and shot at her after finding her watching television inside, police told CBS46.

She fled to a back bedroom and was unharmed but bullet holes could be seen in her walls and a black car was seen fleeing from the scene . 

Police responding to a nearby call spotted a car that matched its description and took chase.

With police on his tail, Stokes clipped a car on an intersection and hurtled towards the curb – knocking down a 33-year-old woman before smashing into SunTrust Bank sign and wrapping the car around its pole, Officer Lisa Holland said.

The injured pedestrian, Clementina Hernandez, is in good condition in hospital but Stokes passed away after he was cut from the car and taken to hospital. 

The crash remains under investigation. The vehicle had been reported missing from Dunwoody so Dunwoody Police are also involved in the investigation.

Channel 2 recalled how, back in 2013, Stokes had said he was excited that the heart transplant would give him a second chance at life.

‘So I can live a second chance,’ he said. ‘Get a second chance and do things I want to do.’ 

Such a promising young man. Only the very worst of racists would suggest that he didn't deserve that heart.
Such a promising young man. Only the very worst of racists would suggest that he didn’t deserve that heart.

I’d really like to hope that there wasn’t someone else who was more deserving on the waiting list and who ended up dying. Even if there wasn’t, think of all that money (at least half a million dollars) that was wasted, when the doctors had already wisely predicted that the heart was wasted on this guy. This is why I always try to point out that emotion should never be used when making important decisions. Cold hard logic is all that matters. It might sound cruel, or inhumane, but people made this decision based on emotion, rather than logic and it’s obvious from the results, that logic should have been followed.

Our people wish to display our flag in schools. How long until one of our vibrant cultural enrichers cries about it?

I’ve read some good news that I felt like showing. Apparently, each primary school is set to receive a flag in preparation for the 100th anniversary of the 1916 rising. Most people seem to be in favour of it according to a poll conducted.

From Newstalk

We asked how you feel about the Irish flag and anthem in primary schools. The results are in…

It seems Ireland is quite divided on the issue of anthems in the classroom, but less so on the flag

Following reports, in the Mail, that all 3,300 primary schools in the country would soon receive a tricolor from the government ahead of the 1916 commemorations, we asked you if you believed Irish primary schools should display the Irish flag, and if primary school pupils should sing the national anthem at the start of each school day?

Regarding the question of the anthem, you responded with a result that was decidedly divided, with 52.75% voting Yes, and 47.25% voting no.

Poll question: Should every primary school sing the National Anthem every morning?



However, there was a far clearer statment made on the poll asking if the national flag should be flown at every school.

Poll question: Should the Irish national flag be displayed in every school?



This is fantastic news. As the old saying goes, united we stand, divided we fall. I know our country isn’t perfect, but in the end, we have to take some pride in it, or else we’re doomed to lose everything that makes it unique and special. Seeing our people take pride in it, gives me hope that they’ll be more willing to stand up for it if… say…something like this happens.

From Fox News

Students at the University of California, Irvine have voted to make their school a more “culturally inclusive” place by banning the American flag.

The Associated Students of University of California (ASUCI) passed a resolution March 3 that would remove the Stars & Stripes along with every other flag from the lobby of a complex housing the offices of the student government.

“Designing a culturally inclusive space aims to remove barriers that create undue effort and separation by planning and designing spaces that enable everyone to participate equally and confidentially,” read the resolution authored by Matthew Guevara.

The resolution passed 6-4. Two people abstained. Let me break down the vote for you — six unAmerican students, four patriots and two individuals who could have a career in House Republican leadership.

Guevara’s resolution, which was in dire need of an edit, rambled on about “paradigms of conformity” and “homogenized standards” and blah, blah, blah.

It sounds like Mr. Guevara could have a future career in community organizing or the Democratic party.

“The American flag has been flown in instances of colonialism and imperialism,” he bemoaned. “Flags not only serve as symbols of patriotism or weapons for nationalism, but also construct cultural mythologies and narratives that in turn charge nationalistic sentiments.”

I know, folks. I know it’s California. But this is beyond bizarre even for the yoga and granola crowd.

I reached out to the university for a comment and a very nice spokesperson (who seemed anxious for the weekend) assured me the university did not endorse the resolution.

She also told me the executive board of the student government association is going to meet this weekend and discuss the possibility of a veto.

Reza Zomorrodian, the ASUCI president and a young patriot, told me he was very upset over the student government’s actions and will push for a veto.

“It’s an attack on American values,” he said. “A lot of people want to come to the United States for a reason – it’s because of the freedoms we have.”

Zomorrodian told me the legislation was the result of a longstanding feud over the display of the American flag. He said unknown perpetrators kept taking down the flag and he would put it back up.  The flag is currently folded and being protected in a vice president’s office.

“I’m really disappointed in our legislative council right now,” he said. “I’m firmly against what they did. I think it was a horrible idea.”

Zomorrodian said he wants the American public to know that UC Irvine is a patriotic campus.

Only six people voted for this,” he said. “We have 22,000 undergrads here. Six people made this decision. The UC Irvine has made huge contributions to bettering this country. This is an elected body that made a decision for the whole and will suffer the consequences of making that decision.”

Mr. Zomorrodian sounds like a very nice young man who understands what the American flag represents — and I hope he musters the votes necessary to rehoist the Stars & Stripes.

As for the handful of un-American rabblerousers who’ve brought shame upon the campus of UC Irvine – I would offer these gentle words:

If you have a problem with the flag and what that flag stands for and the brave men and women who died for that flag – then you are more than welcome to pack your bags and haul your ungrateful buttocks across the border.

And one final thought about the vandals who keep taking down the flag in the dark of night. I wonder if Mr. Zomorrodian has considered asking the university’s ROTC program for help. I suspect a handful of young soldiers might be able to nip that problem in the bud.

***UPDATE: Apparently Fox News exaggerated the story (LOL I really shouldn’t be surprised). Apparently what really happened was that the college only voted to remove the American Flag (along with flags of every other country) from a common area on the campus. There’ll still be an American flag flying on the campus grounds, but there won’t be one in the common area. I still believe that it was a pointless move and just pandering to political correctness, but it wasn’t as ridiculous as I originally thought. I value my integrity and don’t wish to be deceptive when I post information here, hence why I’m taking time to clarify what actually happened ***

How about this story


Portsmouth, Va. – Portsmouth Sheriff Bill Watson says he is furious after a group of judges told him to take down an American flag display.
Sheriff Watson said his agency got the American flag display as a gift from members of the Portsmouth Fire Department a few weeks ago.
It’s made of old fire hoses which a sign beneath it that reads, “A Tribute to Public Safety.”
Watson said he requested to have it mounted on the wall in the lobby of the courthouse but was shocked by what he was told.
Watson said he was told, “Not only do we not want it on the wall, we don’t want it in the courthouse.”
Watson said, “I just can’t believe that they don’t want to display the American flag in a courthouse, I mean that’s the most asinine thing I’ve ever heard in my life.”
NewsChannel 3 spoke with a judge who didn’t want to be identified about the issue. The judge told us it was decided that the lobby of the courthouse is not the appropriate place for the display.
He said they don’t want any display or memorial of it’s kind positioned in the lobby when people walk into the courthouse.
The judge said if you allow one type of display, then you will have to allow all types.
The judge said having the display in the lobby sets the wrong precedent. The decision is upsetting Watson and others.
Watson said, “They expect my deputies to put their life on the line for a judge. If somebody was going to come into a courtroom with a gun, the deputy is supposed to stand in front of the judge and take a bullet, but yet they won’t let us have our flag, saluting public safety? To me, that’s a slap in the face.”

Displaying this publicly is like 10 new holocausts at the same time.
Displaying this publicly is like 10 new holocausts at the same time.

The last bolded paragraph of the Fox News story, I agree with completely. If the American flag upsets you so much, then why the fuck are you in America? How dare you go into another country, then demand they change to make you more comfortable. You should be grateful for the opportunity that you have been given. I would direct the same response to anyone who cried about the Irish flag in Irish schools by the way. I don’t care where you came from, you’re in Ireland now. if you don’t like Ireland, and its symbols, then go somewhere else.

If I’m mistaken in accusing non-Americans of doing this, and it was in fact Americans themselves who did it, can I just say, what the fuck is wrong with you? You always go on about how America is this great inclusive country, a “melting pot” so to speak. If that’s the case, then shouldn’t the American flag be representative  of everyone in America. Who cares if you’re white, black, Hispanic, Asian, Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc. You’re all supposed to be Americans, one people, united by the common bond of being American.

But of course, that’s bollocks. You say diversity is your strength. But as I already pointed out, the belief that most would share is that united we stand, divided we fall. So how can both possibly be true? Looking at the racial and religious tensions that go on there, it’s obvious that diversity is tearing your country apart. I only hope that those of us here in Ireland are smart enough to not make the same mistakes. We’re Irish, and we’re proud of it. United we stand, divided we will not be.