Posts Tagged ‘rapist’

Brock Turner, Stanford, College Rape Culture, And The Liberal Progressivism That Is Responsible For All Three

September 2, 2016

So let’s start with the current story of the vile punk rapist who got a joke six-month sentence which was apparently twice as harsh as it should have been given the fact that they released him in three.

And decent people are left saying, “What the hell…?”

And the ONLY reason liberals are angry is because women constitute one of the perennial victim classes that make up the left.  And how dare you prey on one of our victim classes when it is our coalition of victim classes that is supposed to be able to ride political correctness to exploit everyone else instead?

I recently read an LA Times op ed titled, “Understanding the Nate Parker scandal” by Michael Eric Dyson in which the author rehashes every leftist slogan as he tries to swim through the waters of liberal butthurt women and black butthurt activists who both demand that their sacred cows remain sacred.  I mean, gosh, they’re both such victims, and what happens when one liberal protected victim class preys on another liberal victim class?  It’s GOT to be the white man’s fault; it’s just GOT to.  So the conclusion of the article would seem to be that every time a black man rapes a white woman, a white male should do hard, painful time for it.  Because otherwise the piece was a load of patronizing leftist drivel.

Allow me to dive in – since this is a story about a rapist swimmer – and offer my own op ed on the gist of this despicable story.  Brock Turner is an entitled punk who doesn’t believe he should be held responsible for his own actions; Stanford is one of the most leftist liberal progressive major universities in the nation, and “college rape culture” is the inevitable result of leftist Darwinian values, in that order.

We start with this pathetic little worm Brock Turner and the sense of entitlement that permeates his little roach soul.  The view is, “If I want something, someone else should provide it for me.”  You know, like if I want your money, I should vote for the government to confiscate it from hard-working people and redistribute it to me.  As I will say throughout here, it’s just the exact same entitlement worldview on a different entitlement stage.  I want your hard-earned money and you won’t give it up to me unless I redistribute it to myself; I want your sex and you won’t give it to me unless I can redistribute your unconscious body behind a dumpster.  Either way, I’m taking something that isn’t mine, and I ought to be able to do it because after all, I’m entitled and somebody somewhere owes me what I want but can’t obtain the honest way by legitimately working for it.

“Affluenza” is the latest form of stupid entitlement excuses.  It wasn’t Brock Turner’s fault, it was “the whole rotten village,” right?  But ALL of these damn excuses are vile.  “I did it because I’m rich and white” is no more morally shame-worthy of an excuse than “I did it because I’m poor and black.”  And I simply state for the record that accepting the latter entitlement excuse guaranteed that the former one would ultimately succeed, too.  So black writer Michael Eric Dyson, trying to explain or better-yet explain away Nate Parker’s behavior, blames it on “jock culture” and “male privilege.”  How about you did it because you’re a bad person and you’re going to pay the consequences of your depraved actions?

If you live by victim mentality, you ought to die by victim mentality.  Because sooner or later, you whiny victim, there will come a more whiny victim than you.  And so now the feminists who “fundamentally transformed” women into a victim class are aghast and appalled because male rapists are themselves victims.

It’s like liberal heroine Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who falsely claimed special status because she believes that somewhere in her family ancestry going back to the dinosaurs, somebody was a Native American.  It’s like that, because somewhere sometime I was a victim of something.  And I’m not responsible because after all, I’m a victim and I’ve got the entitled whining to prove it.

And thank you, liberalism.  That whole load of crap would have been impossible without the toxic pile of fecal matter that is your worldview.

So our rapist swimmer went to Stanford, of course.  Where else would a whiny liberal puke go?

Now, consider the “college culture” and whose damn culture it is:

Liberal Colleges

That’s political donations.  Now consider the faculties of these indoctrination centers:

If you’ve spent time in a college or university any time in the past quarter-century you probably aren’t surprised to hear that professors have become strikingly more liberal. In 1990, according to survey data by the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) at UCLA, 42 percent of professors identified as “liberal” or “far-left.” By 2014, that number had jumped to 60 percent.

Over the same period, the number of academics identifying as “moderate” fell by 13 percentage points, and the share of “conservative” and “far-right” professors dropped nearly six points. In the academy, liberals now outnumber conservatives by roughly 5 to 1. Among the general public, on the other hand, conservatives are considerably more prevalent than liberals and have been for some time.

Let’s put it in terms of the Pottery Barn Rule that Colin Powel claims he told Bush before he went into Iraq: “You break it, you bought it.”

The college “rape culture” is out of control.  And you’ll find that “over the same period” that liberalism came to so entirely dominate college/university culture, rape culture came right along with it.

On the liberal diatribe, conservatives are warmongers.  How dare we want to fight back against terrorists who want to burn us alive?  Obama’s 1,900 percent increase in terrorism is surely much more peaceful, right?  But by that same diatribe that brought Obama to power, liberals are rapists.  The more liberal you are, the more rapist you are, and vice versa.

This is no accident.  It is literally a scientific progression, as I’ve described before:

And the horror that results in society is equally true of the individual who lives by Darwinism.

Why do we as individuals rape, murder and sleep around?  Because – and I quote – “rape is (in the vernacular of evolutionary biology) an adaptation, a trait encoded by genes that confers an advantage on anyone who possesses them. Back in the late Pleistocene epoch 100,000 years ago, men who carried rape genes had a reproductive and evolutionary edge over men who did not: they sired children not only with willing mates, but also with unwilling ones, allowing them to leave more offspring (also carrying rape genes) who were similarly more likely to survive and reproduce, unto the nth generation. That would be us. And that is why we carry rape genes today. The family trees of prehistoric men lacking rape genes petered out.”  Darwinism is “a scientific idea that, if true, consigns traditions of self-restraint, loyalty, the very basis of family life, to the shredder.”  Now go ye and do likewise.  Unless something inside of you screams “NO!  I will NOT live in accordance with that terrible, wicked, demonic theory of Darwinian evolution!”

One incredibly interesting read calls this “Darwin’s Dirty Secret.”

Let’s call it the ULTIMATE ENTITLEMENT EXCUSE: “I’m a rapist because I evolved that way.”

And progressive liberals “evolved” to become the most closed-minded, rabidly intolerant fascists there are.

Liberal progressivism is intellectual godlessness, and to put it in terms of Obama’s incredibly hypocritical debt, intellectual godlessness leads to moral godlessness 20 trillion times out of 20 trillion times.

If you can murder a baby, you can certainly whitewash away the act that led to the creation of that baby.

I love the Word of God, which is WHY I so passionately reject liberal progressivism which is so totally the denial of the Word of God and the God of the Bible as it is dominated by secular humanism, atheism, Darwinism, postmodernism, existentialism, behaviorism and every other vile form of “-ism” there is.  God’s Word declares:

  • Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from God – Colossians 2:8
  • Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. – Romans 1:22
  • … always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.  – 2 Timothy 3:7

Whatever progressive liberalism touches, it infects with cancer.  It touched Brock Turner, just as it touched our societal acceptance of drugs and alcohol, touched our abandonment of God and His morality in favor of the amoral nihilism of Darwinism, touched the embrace of personal responsibility and replaced it with the denial of the same and the embrace of the entitlement and victimhood mindset.

You “carry your rape genes,” liberal; I’ll carry my Bible.

And the empirical fact of the matter is that the morality that comes from my Bible is so vastly superior to the depraved bile that comes out of your university system that it is far more beyond belief than the belief in God that you so ardently deny.

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Hold Multi-Millionaire Hillary Clinton To The Same Standard As ‘Out-Of-Touch’ ‘Filthy-Rich’ Mitt Romney Or Just Acknowledge You’re A Hypocrite

June 24, 2014

Hillary Clinton said she left the White House with her still-smiling-from-all-the-oral-sex husband “dead broke”:

“You have no reason to remember, but we came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt,” Clinton said. “We had no money when we got there, and we struggled to piece together the resources for mortgages for houses, for Chelsea’s education. It was not easy. Bill has worked really hard. And it’s been amazing to me. He’s worked very hard.”

I grant that Bill worked really “hard” and “very hard.”  But that was mostly Monica Lewinsky’s doing. truth to be told.

But the “worked hard” jokes aside, what an out-of-touch LIAR Hillary Clinton is.

Make that what a filthy RICH out-of-touch liar.

Even the reliably leftist Politifact rules Hillary’s ridiculous claim as “mostly false.”  And that after giving her every possible benefit of the doubt imaginable.

Do you know what “dead broke” means?  It means you’re begging your parents to let you have your old room back.  It means you’re sleeping on somebody’s couch.  Hey, it means you don’t have gracious parents or gracious friends and you’re HOMELESS.

It DOESN’T mean you’re paying your mortgages for multi-million dollar HOUSES (plural).

The year “dead broke” Hillary left the White House, she and “worked hard” Bill made over $12 million:

As Hillary Clinton backpedaled this week on comments that she and Bill Clinton were “dead broke” after leaving the White House, financial disclosure forms shed more light on just how shaky that claim really was.

Technically, Bill and Hillary Clinton were in debt when they left the White House. Financial forms filed for 2000 show assets between $781,000 and almost $1.8 million — and liabilities between $2.3 million and $10.6 million, mostly for legal bills.

But as the outgoing first couple, they had tremendous earning potential. And within just one year, their financial troubles were effectively gone.

Hillary Clinton’s Senate disclosure forms show that in 2001, they reported earning nearly $12 million. Most of that came from Bill Clinton’s speechmaking, and the rest came from an advance for Hillary Clinton’s book.

And that didn’t even include Hillary Clinton’s Senate salary, Bill Clinton’s pension or money made on investments.

As soon as they left the White House, Hillary Clinton entered the Senate and was earning a $145,000 salary; her husband’s pension was also north of $150,000.

All told, their financial snapshot in 2001 was drastically different than when they left the White House — assets were listed at between $6 million and $30 million; liabilities were between $1.3 million and $5.6 million. And despite their financial issues, they got help from family friend and fundraiser Terry McAuliffe (now, the governor of Virginia) to secure a loan at the time for a $1.7 million home in Chappaqua, N.Y.

These finer details made Clinton’s comment about being “dead broke” all the more questionable.

But it was a DEAD BROKE DOZEN MILLION, WASN’T IT?

And now this “dead broke” lady is worth at least $120 million:

NEW YORK, June 23, 2014 /PRNewswire/ — Hillary and Bill Clinton’s current net worth is US$120 million, according to a Wealth-X estimate released today, a far cry from the less than US$5 million they had in the bank in 2001 at the end of Bill’s tenure as US president.

The net worth of the former First Lady, US Senator, and US Secretary of State, who is a likely Democratic presidential candidate for 2016, is under intense media scrutiny after she said in a recent interview with ABC News’ Diane Sawyer that she and her husband were “dead broke” when they left the White House in 2001.

Wealth-X estimates that the combined net worth of the Clintons was below US$5 million when they left the White House. They amassed their current US$120 million fortune through fees from speaking engagements, revenues from their books, and her salary from her government positions.

Other sources have her wealth at $200 million, which she “earned” by “giv[ing] speeches to Goldman Sachs for $200,000 each.”  Which by the way puts her into Mitt Romney territory in pretty much every imaginable sense.

On the heels of her “dead broke” hypocrisy, hypocrite Hillary further twisted reality into a pretzel by declaring, “I’m not truly well off” like that arch-fiend who shall not be named [Mitt Romney]:

Hillary Clinton, who has a net worth upwards of $50 million, said in an interview that she is “unlike a lot of people who are truly well off.”

Clinton was derided for comments made last week that her family was “dead broke” when it left the White House in 2000 although they were far from the poverty line. Bill and Hillary Clinton have reportedly made more than $100 million since leaving the White House.

But Hillary, who charges a six figure speaking fee, says with a burst of laughter that she is not “truly well off” and that her wealth is the result of “hard work,” according to The Guardian.

America’s glaring income inequality is certain to be a central bone of contention in the 2016 presidential election. But with her huge personal wealth, how could Clinton possibly hope to be credible on this issue when people see her as part of the problem, not its solution?

“But they don’t see me as part of the problem,” she protests, “because we pay ordinary income tax, unlike a lot of people who are truly well off, not to name names; and we’ve done it through dint of hard work,” she says, letting off another burst of laughter. If past form is any guide, she must be finding my question painful.

Hillary’s attitude on wealth has been the target of criticism, even from the left. Howard Fineman called her “dead broke” comment “disastrous” and “offensive to even some Democrats.” MSNBC’s Chuck Todd said that Hillary comes off as a “politician who perhaps only hangs out with millionaires and donors and feels poor by comparison.”

I mean, what would she have us believe?  Who paid $200,000 a speech from this woman?  Homeless people???  Obviously not: she got filthy rich telling filthy rich people exactly what they wanted to hear.  And as for her “hard work,” how hard is it to put your name on books that three other people are known to have actually written for her???

She got paid MILLIONS of dollars for work she didn’t do; but she “feels little people’s pain”???

I suppose that’s better than when she was earning her living by slandering little girls who were victimized by child rapists and getting hard-core pedophiles off scott free with technicalities.

Hillary Clinton is a LIFE of quintessential, abject, demon-possessed hypocrisy.  Which is why liberals love her so much.  She campaigns on “the war on women” when SHE warred on women far more viciously than damn near any man but the rapist she got off.  And she has the man-sized balls to run on “economic fairness” when she is every bit as filthy rich and every bit as in bed with the filthy rich as the people she demonizes.

When the Republicans have a rich candidate, you can count on the demonic-hypocrite Democrat Party and their media propaganda machine to demonize that candidate over wealth; when it’s THEIR candidate who is filthy rich – like FDR, like JFK, and more recently like John Kerry and now Hillary Clinton – suddenly the wealth of the candidate is entirely irrelevant.

And of course, the left plays the same abject hypocrite game with “the war on women.”  Obama pays his females far less than his males while demonizing EVERYONE ELSE for doing what HE DOESObama was documented has having created a hostile workplace for women.  Female White House staffers called it a “boy’s club.”  I mean, literally, if a man is beating and raping a little GIRL, but he’s for aborting the child he fathers as a result of his raping, liberals like Hillary Clinton are FINE with it.

This is a sick nation that is about to die as a result of it’s voting for the wrath of God in the form of every Obama policy that Hillary Clinton would gleefully continue and accelerate.

You either care for America’s children the way Hillary Clinton “cared” for the little girl she demonized and raped a second time, or you would willingly lay down your life if it would stop A SECOND Saul Alinsky radical from taking office.

Is Obama Able To Finally Keep A Damn Promise And Turn America Around? Mr. Disbarred ‘It Depends On What The Meaning Of The Word ‘Is’ Is’ Says Yes He Can!

September 6, 2012

Nobody denies that Bill Clinton is able to give a great speech.  If anything, Clinton’s speeches make Obama look mediocre by comparison.  Particularly when Clinton talks about his record and you’re a sentient life form who has any consciousness of reality as to Obama’s economy after four years of his failed policies.

But ultimately, Bill Clinton’s speech amounted to this: “Trust me.  Obama is the man to lead us to shared prosperity.”

I could point out that “shared prosperity” didn’t work in the U.S.S.R.; it didn’t work in Maoist China; it didn’t work in Cuba; it didn’t work in North Korea.  It didn’t work pretty much anywhere it has ever been tried.  It is bankrupting Europe as we speak.  And it won’t work here.  But I’m more fixated on Bill Clinton’s “Trust me” thing.

How many intelligent people don’t understand that Bill Clinton gave his speech as a career Democrat who was loyally trying to rally Democrats?  Probably zero.  But unfortunately, there simply aren’t a lot of intelligent people any more, thanks to what liberals have done to our government schools over the last forty damn years.

It comes down to this: Bill Clinton was a president who got his ass historically kicked for his party’s failures in 1994.  And as a result of that asskicking, Republicans took control of both the House and the Senate.  And as a result of that repudiation, Bill Clinton said, “The era of big government is over,” and began to govern NOT as a liberal like Obama but as a moderate who compromised and worked with the Republican Party.  And as a result of that “era of big government is over” governance, America got a balanced budget and began to thrive under grand tax cuts like the capital gains rate that Clinton cut from 28% to 20%.  That Republican-style tax cut unleashed the economy, causing capital investment to MORE THAN TRIPLE.

That, for the record, is because Tax Cuts Increase Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues.

It is a deliberately forgotten fact that Clinton ended his presidency as a success because he benefitted from the policies of a completely Republican-controlled Congress.  Bush ended his presidency as a disaster because he was plagued by the policies of a completely Democrat-controlled Congress.

It is a national disgrace that this nation is controlled by a mainstream media propaganda machine that keeps pumping the message that Obama couldn’t succeed because of Republican obstructionism.  Because they will NEVER be consistent or honest and tell you that our economy melted down in 2008 thanks to the policies of Democrats who controlled both the House AND the Senate, whereas Obama benefitted from complete control of both branches of Congress for his first two years in office and now still has Democrats controlling the Senate.  George Bush would have LOVED to have enjoyed as little “obstructionism” as he was burdened by his last two years in office under the rule of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

That is why every single time I hear a Democrat mention “Republican obstructionism” I can know that I am dealing with a completely dishonest human being and that it is time to move on.  Because you have got to be an abject lying hypocrite to say that after George Bush tried not once but SEVENTEEN TIMES to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac prior to the collapse of those two institutions which triggered the mortgage-market meltdown in 2008.  When you look at the FACT that conservative economists literally PREDICTED the collapse when Democrats empowered Fannie and Freddie to give mortgages to people who could not possibly afford to pay their loans; when you look at the FACT that Fannie and Freddie were the ONLY entities that were empowered to create the subprime-based mortgage backed securities that became the “toxic assets” that poisoned the portfolios of suddenly bankrupted firms like Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch; when you look at the FACT that as this disaster was building and building and building after Bill Clinton expanded the disasterous loan program, and that Democrats in Congress rabidly refused any kind of reform of these suicidal policies when there was still time to fix what was broken, you are simply a fool if you don’t acknowledge that it was DEMOCRATS who were the obstructionists.  And all you people are for whining about Republicans is DISHONEST HYPOCRITES.

And somehow Bill Clinton managed to completely omit the FACT that he created a financial collapse and resulting serious recession of his own in the DotCom Bubble collapse that resulted in George Bush watching $7.1 trillion in wealth vaporized while the 78% of the Nasdaq portfolio valuation was annihilated.  And the only reason that recession isn’t well-remembered is that the 9/11 disaster that resulted from Bill Clinton’s gutting the military and the CIA and our intelligence apparatus and leaving us both weak and blind even as he emboldened Osama bin Laden to view America as a weak “paper tiger” that was “ready to be cowed by an attack.”

Bill Clinton omitted the fact that he left George Bush in a hole that wasn’t a lot less deep than the hole Bush left Obama in.

So should we trust Bill Clinton when he rallies to his fellow Democrat and says, “Trust me, Obama is the only man who can lead you to a better future?”

How about not?

Let’s see: Juanita Broaddrick credibly accused Bill Clinton of raping her. There’s no question Bill Clinton had a sexual affair with Gennifer Flowers – and lied about it. Bill Clinton paid Paula Jones $850,000 to settle her sexual harassment case against him. Kathleen Willey was a loyal Democrat and supporter of Bill Clinton until he grabbed her hand and placed it on his genitalia. And then we all know about how he lied about his sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky, even calling her a “stalker,” until it was revealed that she had a dress with his semen on it.

Yeah, I’d trust Bill Clinton.  Every bit as much as Monica Lewinsky’s father would trust Bill Clinton with Monica’s younger sister.

As a result of his “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky” bullcrap, Bill Clinton was DISBARRED FROM PRACTICING LAW.

Lawyers constitute the fourth most distrusted profession in America.  And Bill Clinton was too dishonest to remain part of it.  That should only add to the weight that the slickest politician of all time – he was nicknamed “Slick Willie” as governor of Arkansas for damn good reason – is the king of the second most distrusted profession in America as a politician.

And so, yeah, if I were in the market for a used car, and Bill Clinton came out as the salesman, I would go find myself another used car salesman.

Barack Obama is a wildly failed president.  And he is a failure for the very reason that Bill Clinton was ultimately a successful president: because while Bill Clinton compromised and negotiated and bargained with Republicans, Barack Obama surrounded himself with radical leftist ideologues and has steered America left like no president ever has before him.

Obama is going to make a bunch of promises to turn America around and cut the deficit and create jobs, etc. etc., blah, blah, blah.  They’re the same promises he failed to keep four years ago and he’s going to demand more of the same failed policies that failed to fulfill those promises that he demanded the last four failed years.