The Viewership of The View...

 ...might surprise you, it surely surprised me. It has been reported that in January it had over 2.5 million viewers. That was the highest amount of morons monthly viewers who watched said show in the last two years (more at the source). That is way down from from its all time high of over 6 million viewers in a single month, that month being November 2008 (more at the source). I was dismayed at first but now am hopeful that the fall in viewership since its all time high might mean that once liberal Americans may be smartening up, at least a bit. 

 

I will readily admit, I do not watch it. While I have watched a few times for a few minutes at most each time - I can say without a doubt that I believe mostly liberals & idiots (redundant - isn't it) watch it, maybe along with bored housewives or househusbands as the domestic situation may stand nowadays. I firmly believe that people who watch it either fared very poorly in school, or if they did well in school their lives are almost purely academic and based upon leftist teachings and that most of the viewers lack common sense and any practical experience in virtually all of the subjects discussed on the show.

 

In fact, I am convinced enough to be of the opinion that the hosts of the show (the women who make up the regular recurring discussion panel and the men too, if there are any) are truly unintelligent and or ignorant when it comes to the issues they discuss, to their evident emotion driven talking points and to the ideals which they profess. Take for example one of the latest claims by one of their panelists  - Sunny Hostin. Let me tell you, I think the sun shines at best only very dimly on Sunny when it comes to intelligence & knowledge. I truly have to ask: Is the show and the things the hosts talk about and what they actually say and believe all totally scripted? 

 

I mean really now, can anyone be so ignorant of things that have been in the news lately and that have been going on for eons. At least two of three and maybe also the third one, that Sunny commented on (earthquakes, eclipses and cicada breeding cycles) have been taking place for longer than mankind has walked the earth without any connection to the liberal mindset and agenda, well maybe until now as per Sunny. Can anyone else on the face of the planet be stupid enough to have been brainwashed by the likes of  politicians like Biden, Harris and Kerry and by an activist by who, in my opinion, is by way of her seemingly hissy fit performances nothing more, at least in my opinion, than a spoiled brat of a prissy twit - and yes I mean Greta Thunberg - to actually suggest that these naturally occurring phenomenon are somehow related to climate change. I ask because that is most certainly, as I understood it, what Sunny appeared to try blame on climate change (the term the libs changed to when global warming was questioned). 

 

I think it was one of the most idiotic statements I have heard in relation to both nature & so called climate change; I think little angry Greta may have nothing on Sunny when it comes to emotional & ignorant drivel. In brief, Miss Hostin reportedly said that the anticipated concurrent hatch & breeding cycles of two species of cicadas, the eclipse of April 8th and recent earthquake(s) are somehow related to climate change in a cause and effect manner, at least if I understood her correctly. It seems her co-hosts believed likewise. Please go to the source to read and hear more about it. The thing is, I would bet that almost 100% of their viewership would have believed that such a cause and effect condition existed, between climate change and those three events, if only another two of the show's hosts had not debunked Sunny's idea. Another thing is, how bad is it when what I and many see as your loony leftist co-hosts are the ones to put down your even loonier & further far left statements! 

 

Honestly folks I cannot understand how over two million people watched said show this past January. I think they would have viewed a more intelligent show and possibly learned something real had they just watched Gilligan's Island reruns. News articles that I have read about the claims they make on The View truly scare me in as much as so many people who vote are apparently ignorant enough and evidently gullible enough to swallow every word they say hook, line & sinker. Of course there is hope because while the January ratings are the highest for The View in two years, they are nowhere nearly as high as the all time viewership in a single month nor even close to their average rating of 3.5 million viewers per show in their tenth season (more at the source). As they are now in their 27th season (same source as the last one) one can see that the amount of monthly viewers has dropped remarkably. My guess is that it picked up in January only because we have entered the election year which I figure just probably means more kooks have crawled out from under the stairs to watch them. I have high hopes though that the seeming downward trend, over all since their highest rating in November 2008, means that more and more so called woke liberal leftists of the Democrat party are actually waking up to what seems to me (an independent voter not affiliated with any political party) to be the apparent reality that: The Democrat party and all those who fervently & unquestionably support it and their goals are totally out of their minds; and thus the folks who have awakened need to support Donald J. Trump in this years election.

All the best,

Glenn B

Many Liberals Truly Are Idiots...

 ...of the type who seek out and are only happy once they find something they believe is offensive. They love being pissed off - at anything - no matter how trivial or ridiculous.  Take for example that the state of Washington reportedly has banned the use of the word marijuana in official documents. They say it is racist and the governor supposedly has signed a bill into law banning the use of a word that has zero racial connotations except in the minds of leftist morons. More at the source. Unfrigging-believable!

 

All the best,

Glenn B

Beware Falling Rocks

A woman running for a seat in Congress allegedly made comments that in essence say that the moon is tactically valuable to earth because if rocks are dropped from there they will impact earth with the energy of hundreds of nuclear bombs. More here: http://www.dailywire.com/news/13949/democrat-running-congress-thinks-you-can-destroy-hank-berrien

My thoughts on this are simply that it is amazing how folks who are seemingly imbeciles or maybe even idiots can be run for positions of authority in our government. You probably safely can bet there are people of equal lesser intelligence already therein (like the Congressman who said Guam could possibly tip over and capsize if over populated). 

 

Just in case you were wondering, though I figure you have already guessed it, she is running as a Democrat.

 

All the best,

Glenn B

No Wolves Allowed

 

 

Yep!

 

All the best,

GB

Police Reportedly Use Mugshots As Targets...

...and I am just about at a loss for words to say how this makes me feel but believe me, it is not good at all. To say I am disgusted, by such behavior on the part of they who have sworn to uphold and or protect the Constitution and who supposedly are to uphold the law while serving us and protecting us, would be an understatement.

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2015/01/16/north-miami-beach-cops-shoot-at-mugshots-of-black-teens/

That a police department's snipers reportedly were using mugshots, of people they had previously arrested, as targets at a range where others could readily see what they were doing was not merely stupid but was blatantly arrogant. To make it even worse, the mugshots allegedly were all of black men which of course, in todays racially charged atmosphere, was not only piss poor judgment but was asking for trouble.

Not only does behavior like that perpetuate racism, the arrogance of the us against them mentality (the 'us' being the police and the 'them' being everyone else) but it also reeks of impropriety. It hints that the department involved, from their chief (who was apparently aware of the practice) down to whatever lowest level officers were using those targets (with whatever supervisors and range officers fell between those ranks) were possibly well on their way to criminality. It makes me wonder, though I doubt it, if summary executions were not far over the horizon. That said, I must ask: What could possibly drive the department to use those mugshots, of their own past prisoner? It is beyond the realm of logic and reason.

Yet, the chief of the department excuses it as them not violating any laws or policies! In fact, the chief was reported to have said that the technique is in wide use and the photographs are vital for facial recognition. One has to wonder - for facial recognition as related to what? Were they planning SWAT missions against the specific people in those mughsots? Otherwise why use them for facial recognition. Anyway, that is obvious BS because in any police departments facial recognition drill there would be (or should be) included other photographs of similar looking individuals who were not criminals or in other words which were 'no shoot' photos among the actual 'shoot targets' of the bad guys. Without the no shoot targets their is no facial recognition worth a darn that is getting done (unless of course you intend to actually only go out and shoot the guys specifically pictured on your targets).

Now, if you think I am wrong about what I just said, go to the linked article and watch the second video in it. It is of Chief Dennis explain why and how the muGshots were supposed to have been used as facial recognition targets. One persons mugshot in the photo array of six mugshots was to have been the target - YET ALL SIX  OF THE MUGSHOTS IN THE PHIOTO ARRAY SHOWN HAD BULLET HOLESIN THEM! It is painfully obvious that if his snipers shot all those holes into the targets, they were not using them for facial recognition unless of course the sniper(s) firing those shots were remarkably terrible at facial recognition and thus should not be qualified as snipers. Once again, I am brought to wonder were they planning summary executions, or were they being absolutely moronically stupid in using those targets. I am not giving them an out by saying maybe it was stupidity - well, maybe I am because either way, I think these buffoons should be severely disciplined and at least the chief should be stepping down as it out of the department (if not all of them).

The chief though was also quoted as saying this:

“Our policies were not violated,” “There is no discipline forthcoming from the individuals who were involved with this.” (source)

Their policies were not violated so no discipline is about to be doled out - is he trying to tell us that behavior that likely would get a civilian investigated and maybe arrested and charged with terroristic threats, or maybe with the civilian being placed into observation at the local looney bin and all his guns seized, is okay for the police to carry out without repercussions! Is he also trying to tell us that officers who use extremely bad judgment in the performance of their duties should not be disciplined at least with mandatory training on how to practice better judgment or is he trying to tell us to mind our own business and that the police department, and only the police department, will determine the practices and policies for officers to follow without the public having a say regardless of how irrational was any given police behavior. I think this man needs to turn in his badge and gun without delay if only because he is a liability to the department that hired him and to the community that pays his salary. In fact, I think that any law enforcement officer who endorses that type of behavior should hand in his or her badge and gun and then go to a shrinks office where his or her head can be pulled out of his or her asshole so it can be thoroughly examined.

Now mind you, I am not opposed to using actual photographs of people as targets, especially for sniper targets. That is when the sniper would be preparing to go out on an operation that would specifically target and individual or group of them. Say for instance the suspect in the not too long ago shooting of the state police officers in PA, or say of a dirtbag like Osama bin Laden, or of some other legally sought after individual who was considered armed and dangerous. To do what it seems they did in the North Miami PD though, I believe, is inexcusable and I think there should be several jobs openings in that department in the near future if what has been reported is true.

Is that anti-police? No it is not. It is anti bad law enforcement practices and it is anti-employment of arrogant morons working in law enforcement.

All the best,
Glenn B

Stupidity In Crime

A robbery suspect in South Carolina has died after police say he spray painted his face to conceal his identity during the crime, WLTX reported.

(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,542740,00.html)

This, you can explain to your children, is the reason they want to do well in high school, trade school and or college - so they can avoid finding themselves doing something for a living that requires no degree and no amount of intelligence. Yes I am referring to the idea of having to resort to a life of crime, although I must admit the person who wrote the above sentence could have paid more attention in school. Did the robber die only after police say he spray painted his face, or did he die after, and possibly as a result of the fact, he spray painted his face. Whatever - at least the reporter has a decent job and probably graduated high school as well as college. The robber, on the other hand, probably did not graduate high school (at least not on his own merit) and probably was not a college man. Then again, he probably never watched the James Bond movie Goldfinger either and now he is dead!

All the best,
GB

Is It Something In The Water...

...that could make someone ask the question that was recently asked at a Town Hall meeting in Salinas, CA? The meeting had been called concerning recent gang violence in or around Salinas, CA that has already resulted in the deaths of 6 people there this year (yes that would be in less than 2 months). The very first question reportedly was asked by Peter Valdez of Salinas who in essence asked: "why gun locks couldn’t be enforced in the city – forcing gang members to lock their guns in order to transport them". Get that? Read it again if you don't because the implications of what this man believes are there indeed. Does this person actually believe that gang members, who are quite possibly responsible for 6 homicides due to gang violence, are going to obey a law that tells them they must utilize gun locks when transporting firearms that they already own illegally and with which they kill people? Does he actually believe that because the government says to do something that gang members will all immediately obey? Does he think that because Obama was elected all things will now be rosy and we have been saved and gun control will prevent all violent gun related crimes? Did he think that was an intelligent question to have asked? Did he think at all before asking it?

My guess would be he sure thought it a good idea otherwise why ask such a question. Why would he believe that to be a good idea? Well probably because he was edumacated within the pUblik skuel sistem of kaleeforneeah where they taught him that the government has the power to do anything, and the peons must obey the government in all things about gun control, and that gun control is the end all be all to put an end to violent crime. After all, isn't California one of the states with the toughest gun control laws. They have a law or regulation to cover just about all aspects of whatever legal firearms ownership they allow, so does it not stand to reason that criminals should follow those laws and regulations too!!! Well maybe that makes sense to Mr. Valdez and to millions like him who have drunk the Kool-Aid (no offense to Kool-Aid intended, I love the stuff) from the everlasting fountain of ignorance. Maybe someone does not understand what it means to be a gun toting criminal because the government of California tries to make all gun owners appear criminal, and they who legally own firearms do follow the laws - so why wouldn't honest gang members do likewise! Oh it hurts to even think of what was going through this man's mind when he asked that question.

There is no note about any follow-up questions asked by Mr. Valdez in the article (at the Californian.com) from whence I gleaned this information, but the article does say that: "Salinas police Cmdr. Dino Bardoni was the first official placed in the hot seat tonight as a town hall meeting kicked off...". Now tell me what does a line like that tell you about the reporter writing up this event. Hot Seat? Whom is kidding whom here? Was that supposed to have been a tough question to have answered because the question itself was, in the mind of the reporter, such a cunning one; or was it just getting hot for the commander because he had to try to remain polite, civil, and informative in the face of what to me was an absolutely stupid question that probably made him want to burst out with laughter? As for the commander, he handled that question with kid gloves as he explained: "Gang member(s) are not going to adhere to the law". I have to wonder if Mr. Salinas understood how that answered his question.

The short article goes onto state that "he is one of six panelists...". For sanity's sake I hope that meant that the Police Commander is one of the six panelists and not that Mr. Salinas is one of them.

My hat doff to Another Gun Blog which brought this to my attention.

All the best,
Glenn B

Some People Are Crazy, Some Are Criminal, Some Are Stupid...

...and if you read this article: Man Sentenced to Life for Killing Teen Who Walked on His Lawn you will see an examples of a man who was probably crazy and criminal as it now stands, and a number of other people (quite likely 12) who were, in my opinion, just outright stupid. Read the article for yourselves and it will, or should, be readily apparent why I believe the convicted man was both crazy (note I did not say legally insane) and criminal. It should also be readily apparent why I think the members of the jury who convicted him were stupid. If is not apparent you can always come back and ask me, in the comments section, why I thought they were stupid; and no I will not think you stupid for asking.

What a legal system!

All the best,
Glenn B