If It Was Completely 100% Legal For Me To Just Go Out To Shoot Someone (a hypothetical)...

 

...this guy maybe would be high on my list. I agree with him - "There is always hope..." but not hope that a former (or current) president of the USA would be assassinated as far as I am concerned. Can you imagine, he actually has been quoted as seemingly being hopeful a former president of the USA will be assassinated, specifically President Trump! More at the source. I think that the apparent unmitigated gall of this mouthpiece, and the absolute hatred directed at President Trump by leftists is despicable (or directed at anyone and there are plenty they seem to hate).

 

Of course, my having said that, I must point out that such a thought is purely hypothetical on my part as I am a law abiding citizen of the USA especially concerning the use of force and because in all likelihood I would never shoot anyone just for the heck of it, that even if it became 100 percent legal to do so. I do have high morals when it comes to using violence and while I would not shirk away from legally using violence to defend myself, shooting or otherwise harming someone just because I felt like doing it is not something I would ever do. Thus, I know it definitely would never happen in light of the extremely high probability it would never become legal to do so and because of my morals relative to the use of force.

 

That is unless an apparent leftist wussy like him actually could grow a pair of man-nuts big enough whereby he posed an imminent threat to my, or to another innocent person's, life (or posed a threat to either of us of serious bodily injury). The thing is though, he probably is merely a loudmouthed pansy. In such an unlikely case though, I would not hesitate to defend myself and possibly the other innocent person with legally justifiable force to stop such an imminent threat. Guy's like this though, blabbermouths in my opinion,  seemingly tend to hide behind being a member of the media (or maybe just behind or enveloped within the leftist wall of scum). If I ever did have to legally use deadly force to stop him from being such a threat to myself, or to another innocent person, I am pretty sure I would be remorseful for hurting him or taking his life as it might wind up when trying to stop the threat. Then again, I think any remorse would be at least partially mitigated by how much of a piece of shit is he in my opinion.

 

Please note, I am in no way, shape or form condoning using illegal violence against this man or anyone else. In fact, I am completely against the use of illegal violence to attain an end. That even if it were to be used against someone I consider to be a useless, hateful, vindictive mouthpiece for violent leftists who might actually act upon such seed being planted in their brains by a person like him; he who seemingly holds hope that President Trump will be assassinated.

All the best,

Glenn B

It's A War Zone Out There

All the best,
Glenn B

When It Comes To Fake News - ABC May have Just Won 1st Place

An ABC news report on the fighting in Syria between the Turkish military and Kurdish forces reportedly featured a spectacular video of the fighting. It also evidently depicted scores if not hundreds of spectators making videos of the shooting and explosions with their cell phones. Really? Just watch the video. The thing was though, according to published reports, the video actually showed a full auto shoot at the Knob Creek Gun Range in Kentucky and had nothing to do with the fighting in Syria. More at the source.


Folks, the news does not get much more fake than that! Anyway ABC supposedly has apologized for it. My guess is had they not been caught with their pants on fire, they never would have mentioned it. I have no doubt someone on the left will now use it, in their continued anti-gun crusade, to show just how terrible are gun owners in the US of A that their shooting at a range could be confused for warfare. Really though, I think all it shows is how low they can go to make fake news.

All the best,
Glenn B

Not Even Worthy Of The National Enquirer...

...let alone being reported on by a national media outlet; yet, Fox News has reported that a minor squabble in a restaurant included one woman calling another the headline grabbing "n word". How the fuck that managed to become headline news is beyond my comprehension; it's like this blog-post becoming national news because I just printed that struck out expletive.

Let's face it folks, while the word is patently offensive and usually meant to be offensive, especially when uttered in anger, such an incident is frivolous at best as compared to truly news worthy items and does not warrant a spot in the headlines. It is akin to calling someone a redneck, a chink, a bonehead, a wop, a mick, a guinea, a kraut, a dego, a spic, a cracker, a slope, a darkie, an Indian giver, a round eyes, a queer, a homophobe, a slut, a whore monger and on and on and on but tell me, does someone uttering those words, in a minor altercation, really deserve becoming national news!

For an editor to have somehow arrived at the conclusion that it was newsworthy enough to be reported on the homepage of a major media outlet, I think, was absolutely preposterous. There are far more important things taking place in this country and in the world that could and probably should have filled the space that this report filled.

While such reporting is sometimes interesting and can fire the emotions, it is merely trivial in the scope of things. For some reason though, petty happenings of little to no importance are evidently extremely attractive and apparently more important than valid news worthy happenings - at least to those who report them. It is about time that the media gets it's priorities in order and moves beyond the reporting of negligible events by reporting on the truly important current events that are honestly news worthy. 

All the best,
Glenn B

Correction: The original version of this blog-post showed that Fox News was now run by Disney. This was and remains incorrect as far as I am now aware. While Disney bought out some of Fox, they did not purchase Fox News.

Mexico & Clinton - More Biased Balderdash In The Media?

So, Reuters is reporting that Hillary Clinton will not have a meeting with Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto and they are making it appear as if she said she will not do so because Donald Trump created problems there. (Souce of both of the following quotes.)

"U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said on Monday she will not accept an invitation from Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto for a visit after rival Donald Trump created what she called a "diplomatic incident" in his foray there."

Doesn't that sound to you like she said she will not meet with him because Trump created a diplomatic incident there. It sure sounds like that to me and many readers would probably get that far and stop reading, at least the biased for Clinton and against Trump voter types that so strongly seem to support a leftist platform and let's be honest, also the die hard Trump voters who cannot accept any criticism of him. Yet, if you would just read on, to the very next paragraph, you would see that apparently that is not what Clinton said in response to a question as to whether or not she would meet with the president of Mexico. What she said was much briefer and seemingly made no reference to Trumps visit there, at least if quoted correctly.

"In a written excerpt from an interview with ABC News that will air Tuesday morning, Clinton simply said "no" when asked if she would travel to Mexico before the election on Nov. 8, without elaborating further."

The first paragraph certainly seems like an embellishment or certainly at least an exaggeration of what she reportedly really said, at least it seems that way to me especially in light of the fact that it was reported she did not elaborate further.

Now pardon me for being so bold as to say this but wouldn't one think that the candidate who keeps boasting about her record as Secretary of State (the chief diplomat in the USA) would most assuredly accept an invitation from our country's neighbor to the south to visit with that country's president as a sign of good diplomacy if for no other reason! Instead, she just gives a one word answer "no" that she will not accept such an invitation and snubs him just like that.

I also imagine that one would think that the candidate that Clinton brands as racist, Donald Trump, would never accept such an invitation. Yet, he did so and has already met with the Mexican president. Regardless of their differing opinions on border security and illegal immigration and whether or not they clashed over such issues, at least Trump had the respect for president Pena Nieto to meet with him and discuss the issue face to face. And to think, now Clinton is trying to assert that Trump's visit was a dismal failure because she says he did not breach certain issues - who is kidding whom here! She is a weasel at best and likely will be the ruin of America if elected.

All the best,
Glenn B

Ann Coulter - Smarter and More Patriotic Than O'Reilly By Far

She aborts the anchor baby fiasco espoused by O'Reilly and certain politicos with her research into Supreme Court decisions that rely on the true meaning of the 14th amendment. More here.

O'Reilly has once again proved himself little more than a leftist lover as far as I can see.

All the best,
GB

 

Woman Killed By Escalator & Video Appears Online Without Warning Of Graphic Content

NOTE THIS BLOGPOST CONTAINS A GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION OF AN INNOCENT WOMAN BEING KILLED IN A HORRIFIC ACCIDENT AND THE LINKED ARTICLE SHOWS A VERY GRAPHIC EVIDENTLY RAW VIDEO OF THE TRAGEDY:

It was almost like she was pulled into a meat grinder and they showed the very graphic video of it in the article I read about it. It wasn't gory with blood everywhere, but a video (a quite graphic video) accompanying this article clearly showed a Chinese woman as she was pulled into the inner-workings of an escalator.t really was much the same as I have seen meat go through the top section of a meat grinder. The escalator's landing platform collapsed under her but not before she pushed her child to safety. The child was grabbed by a woman who had been at the top, that same woman who grabbed the child then tried to pull out the woman who was being pulled into the escalator. Another two women, who had been at the top, seemed at a loss as what to do. There was no hope of getting her out without someone hitting the emergency stop of the escalator and evidently no one thought of doing so (if indeed escalators in China have emergency stop buttons). At least there was something good to be seen amid the tragedy in that the child was saved.

I am pretty saddened that we have come to this in our society. The this being the willingness to accept the media showing someone dying or at least going to their death, what most certainly was a terrible death and in this case made more terrible because she was aware of what was happening and was helpless to stop it, only so the media can make more money by assuring it gets as many views as possible.

Did I watch it? Yes, I did but only because I opened the link to the article and the commercial that preceded the news video auto played. I scrolled down as it did so and read some of the article. When I realized the commercial was done, I scrolled back up to see what I expected would be a typical American type news report with reporters being shown as they yacked away at one another and maybe a photo or two of emergency responders at the scene. Instead, what I saw was a woman being pulled to her death in the bowels of an escalator. As I said though, not before she was able to save her child. Maybe I am naïve but I never expected to see that.

I am not all that squeamish, I have seen some pretty gory things before. However, when I am sitting at home, in a good mood, reading the news online, I don't need to have that thrown in my face without warning. I had a choice, click on the link to the article or click on a link to the video of it. I chose to go to the article and there was the apparently raw video anyway! If I had been given a warning of graphic content, I may or may not have watched it later but certainly would not have watched at that particular moment.

I am, or can be, as curious as the next person, even as to the morbid. Yet, I like to be forewarned so I can decide if I want to view something like that or not. I just don't get any enjoyment in seeing an innocent person lose her life in such a manner and detest that some people do enjoy it, in that there is evidence of a breakdown of our society. I also am incensed that Fox would put it there without warning and thus not give the viewer an opportunity to knowledgably decline watching it. It's not an action or war movie, it's real life coming to an end. Stuff like that is more what I would have expected to see in the pages of a supermarket tabloid of yesteryear than in the content of a major media outlet today - at least without a warning as to its content.

All the best,
Glenn B 

Headlines That Do Not Deserve To Be Headlines...

...seem to be an all too often occurrence. Maybe it is because of all the competition in the news media, what with the numerous newspapers, the online media sites, the new magazines, the tabloids, and the television and radio media. Still though, despite the amount of competition to grab a headline, there are certain things that just don't seem worthy of the headline spot.

For example, today I am spending the day with my mom, and she pointed to the New York Daily News (the newspaper), and said to me: "Does that deserve to be a headline, the Daily News should be ashamed of itself". I took a gander at the headline to which she had pointed, and there on the cover of the April 4, 2007 final city-edition of the NY Daily News was printed the following headline above a picture of Rolling Stone Keith Richards:

I Snorted My Dad

Now can you imagine that headline gracing the front page of your local newspaper. I imagine that it, or something close to it appeared on newspapers and other media throughout the USA today; yet I could imagine much better headlines that would have been, in my opinion, much more newsworthy. There are several wars and violent outbreaks, uprisings, and the like taking place in the world today. There are the 15 British sailors still held captive (yes I know their freedom was promised, but last I saw their releaser is set for tomorrow). There are natural disasters that take place everyday. There are murder mysteries, their are missing persons, there are found persons, there are babies being born, their are politics being made (such as the Congress voting to ban the term Global War On Terrorism in official publications - go figure), there are political nominations being made, there is the run for the presidency of the USA, there are obituaries, there is even a story about a 5 footed toad - all of which, I think, would be more headline worthy than Keith Richards claim to have mixed some of his dad's ashes (post cremation) with cocaine and then snorted them.

A headline along those lines is something I would expect on the Star or National Enquirer. Who knows, even they may have had a more newsworthy headline on their latest edition. I just cannot imagine what it is that brought the editors of the New York Daily news, or any other newspaper to place such a headline on the front page in front of all the other news that is out there. I was disappointed that Fox News television had a spot on this earlier today. I was likewise when I saw or heard it elsewhere. Sure, people may have interest in Keith Richards, and what he says, and claims to have done (although the latest I heard was that he said this was a joke and he never really did it), and maybe there is a place for it in the entertainment section of the news. Yet, I must ask: Should so called 'news' like that be newsworthy enough to make the front page headlines? Apparently my mother does not think so, and for at least the second or third time in my 51 plus years as her son, I agree with her 100 percent!

I will be emailing some of the local news media in my area, and some of the national news media to voice my discontent with their headline content. Yes I know they have a right to print it, but I too have a right to voice my disgust over what they find newsworthy when so many more important things are happening in the world today.

All the best,
Glenn B