An Unlikely Nationalist...From Ireland

Ireland's Kevin Sharkey

Kevin Sharkey is an unlikely Irish Nationalist. Born of an Irish nurse and a Nigerian father, studying at the time, at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland. (https://www.irishcentral.com/news/irishvoice/irish-immigration-kevin-sharkey)

Kevin Sharkey was born in Dublin in St. Patrick’s Mother and Baby Home of Navan Road in 1961, but was brought up in Killybegs, County Donegal. His birth father was a Nigerian student at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, and his birth mother was of Irish descent.

With no state supports available for single parents at the time, adoption was the societal norm. Kevin was adopted by the Sharkey family at a very young age. As a child he took part in Irish dancing, which won him 37 medals before the age of 12.

In late 2005, Kevin Sharkey announced his intention to take the Irish State to the European Court of Human Rights, in order to force the recognition of same-sex partnerships, specifically civil partnerships. Sharkey cited personal reasons for this, decrying the fact that if he were to marry his long-term male partner Ade Antigha in Spain (where the two were living at the time), the marriage would not be recognized by Irish law. Ireland since legalized Civil Partnerships in 2011 and Same-Sex Marriage in 2015.

His life has not been without its struggles, both personal and financial. In the summer of 2016, struggling again with his finances, Sharkey briefly became homeless while living in Dublin.

Today he is Senior Vice President and Executive Editorial Director, Decorating, and Executive Creative Director, Merchandising for Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. (MSLO).

Sharkey’s key issue in the contest is immigration into Ireland, but not in the way many might expect. Despite being a child of an immigrant and black father Sharkey is calling for less immigration, not more, stating that Ireland must put Irish people first.

In that regard, he echoes Donald Trump and his “Put America First” platform, but Sharkey is also providing the first major challenge on the issue of who gets to immigrate to Ireland.

Currently some 115,000 immigrants are entering Ireland annually, many from Third World countries wracked with war and turmoil. They arrive with language, education and placement problems that has overwhelmed Ireland at times.

The total foreign-born population of Ireland is now 12 percent, approximately the same as America’s numbers. For a country far better known for emigration, the immigrant influx has proven a difficult issue. Worse still, these new arivals come at a time when Ireland is still repaying huge loans to Europe from the financial bailout.

A general lack of housing, and access to medical care are just two huge issues the country is grappling with.

So, with his anti-immigrant tone, Sharkey is articulating what many Irish seem to be thinking but fear to voicing, out of concerns over being called “racist.”

Many of Kevin Sharkey’s quotes sound close to those of Trump’s; "If we don't protect our future, if we don't protect what we have, what has made us Irish, we won't be Irish in 200 years.”

"I'm not against immigration. Look at Australia. They have a beautiful system there. If you are contributing, if you have a trade that we need and you can support yourself you are welcome.”

He’s added, “Ireland is being repopulated and it doesn't seem to matter to the powers that be who is coming.”

He calls for 'open dialogue' on immigration. (FULL INTERVIEW https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7r8WhmzlSs)

As for Sharkey, he notes, that there’s a belief among many in Ireland that the Irish themselves are being left behind. Sharkey stated that in running for president, “I'd hope to bring an awareness to the fact that in Ireland we seem to have shifted away a little bit from looking after the Irish first.”

Ireland, he says, has "fallen into this politically correct speech and people are censoring themselves when they really should be able to have an honest dialogue."

Kevin Sharkey is right.

It’d be good...from a Nationalist viewpoint to see Kevin Sharkey shock Michael Higgins (the favorite) in Ireland’s Presidential election later this year.

Just HOW Widespread is Judicial Misconduct, in the U.S.?...

Just HOW Widespread is Judicial Misconduct, in the U.S.?...
.
.
I recently saw comments on a post I had up on the Taos Terror suspects and the links between the father of Siraj Ibn Wahhaj and Linda Sarsour and a roup embraced by the DNC, "Jummah at the DNC," about a New Mexico judge released the suspects on a new cash bond.

Someone posted that it was coveted on Fox News. I don't watch ANY televised "news" in America. I do know that Liberals/Progressives reject Fox News the way Conservatives reject CNN, NBC, the NY Times and WaPo.

I reject them all and I, unlike those who reject some, know the difference between "news" and COMMENTARY/opinion.

I very much LIKE the COMMENTARY of Fox News and the Wall Street Journal and I DO NOT much like the COMMENTARY of CNN, NBC, the NY Times and WaPo.

ALL politics, ALL political coverage is COMMENTARY/OPINION.

That's why I look for local sources on such stories.

At any rate, it seems true that Albuquerque Judge, Sarah Backus (yes, let the "Mrs. Magoo" jokes fly...Jim Backus was the voice of the immortal cartoon character "Mr. Magoo") DID indeed release the defendants in the case on a no cash (signature) bond. (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.abqjournal.com/1208891/judge-getting-threats-over-ruling-in-taos-compound-case.html/amp)

Turns out Ms. Backus appears to be a rather freewheeling judge when it comes to violent offenders. She's often released violent offenders on low, or no bail, so this is sort of, "par for the course" for Mrs. Magoo.

I generally DON'T much like judicial discretion. One murder suspect in Albuquerque getting low bail and one in Texas getting no bail is NOT "equal justice before the law."

In my view, the law should be prescribed I'm a set of strictly adhered to mathematical analytics.

For instance, in most assaults, someone initiated the violence. That person is generally the guilty party, UNLESS there are exculpatory circumstances, approached by multiple assailants, delivering the first blow as the other person went into attack mode, etc. Self defense is like obscenity, "We all know it, when we see it."

Outside of the defense of self, life and property, all other violence is criminal.

We seem to have gone off the criminal justice rails with "the war on drugs," punishing many drug crimes more severely than violent crimes. Nothing indicates the incompetence of our entire criminal justice system than that.

So, I could see if Judge Sarah Backus gave low, or no bail for drug offenders, or other non-violent offenders, and I'd be okay with that, but she's apparently doubled down on stupid by going soft on most violent offenders.

It's ironic that in the very same week, West Virginia impeached it's entire State Supreme Court. Of course, ot had nothing to do with judicial judgment, but instead, the legislature impeached all four members of its Supreme Court over the issue of over-spending. (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna900461).

Judges constantly self-servingly argue that, "An independent judiciary is vital to a democracy."

FIRST,  that's complete and utter bullshit. A judiciary should be independent of the other branches of government, but that requires even more direct and substantial accountability to the public.

SECOND, we DON'T HAVE "a democracy."

AND THIRD, both the law and the judiciary must always be accountable to THE PEOPLE.

IF a judge is notoriously soft on violent offenders, like the former Palo Alto judge, Aaron Persky (the guy who gave a 6 month sentence to Brock Turner for raping an unconscious woman), a process of public petition, requiring only say, between 5,000 & 10,000 signatures be required to bring that judge to a public judicial review.

In the case of Judge Aaron Perky he was recalled this past June...over two years too late. How much other damage, how many other questionable decisions did he make over the past 30 months? (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/06/06/us/politics/judge-persky-brock-turner-recall.amp.html)

A public judicial review would serve two purposes, (1) to scrutinize a given judge's decision to ascertain temperment, potential biases and competence AND (2) to scrutinize the law.

IF a law bars certain procedures, or, for instance, allows for the exclusion of evidence the public does not agree with, etc. the public needs to know that and proper safeguards SHOULD BE in place to allow those laws to be repaired via Public Referendum.

It would seem Sarah Backus should, at the least, have to face such a public judicial review. IF she can demonstrate that the law demands such leniency for violent offenders, then the existing laws are the issue. IF her defense is, "judicial discretion," then both her temperment and competence/"fitness for Office" are in question.

At any rate, the judiciary across the board must be made accountable to the people in a direct and expedient way.
.

Why Schopenhauer's Law is as Vital as it is Ineluctable

.
.
.
Entropy is as undeniable as gravity and yet both have their detractors. Today, they are called "Progressives."

Arthur Schopenhauer, the German philosopher of the 19th Century and author of the gteat work, "The World as Will and Representation," (https://www.amazon.com/dp/1539705285/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_KTVCBbEYQSCNY) is credited with a pithy explanation of the Thermodynamic Law of entropy, that was included in the book, "Murphy's Laws." It goes, "If you put a spoonful of wine in a barrel full of sewage, you get sewage. If you put a spoonful of sewage in a barrel full of wine, you get sewage."

It is amusing, in a pessimistic, "We're doomed," kind of way, that so many non-science types, those who "can't do the math," seem convinced that Anthropogenic Climate Change is "established science" (there's no such thing), when there isn't even agreement, let alone consensus on the primary causes of current climate change, nor especially on what to do about it, but reject much more basic and widely accepted scientific PRINCIPLES, such as; there are only two genders (XX & XY), gravity and entropy exist and both appear to be Ineluctable (unchanging).

All of that is strange...but even more SAD.

It DOES NOT appear that merit/achievement is, in any way, related to race/ethnicity, gender, nor socio-economic condition. It is primarily, even virtually SOLELY an individual trait, which is why I oppose the ideas of "protected groups," group preferences, etc. They stigmatize the beneficiaries and slander those "protected groups" with the stigma of "presumed incompetence." That SHOULD BE an outrage to all decent people. Yet today, we see all sorts of "Progressives" rejecting that view AND the idea of entropy with their policies.

We see it New York City's Mayor Bill DeBlasio looking to scuttle the stringent entrance exams for NYC's elite schools (Stuyvesant, Bronx Academy of Science, etc) because not enough of this group, or that is passing those exams.

It is seen in "Sanctuary City" policies ostensibly designed to "protect migrant workers," but that wind up shielding violent gang members, human traffickers, drug smugglers and other criminals.

It's seen in gender preferences and the lowering of physical standards in Police and Fire Departments and STEM programs in education, because "not enough females appear attracted to math and science."

Perhaps worst of all, it's seen in the policy of putting a few substandard students in with high achieving "Honors Classes," in hopes of motivating the low achievers.

ALL of these debacles are "well intentioned." ALL of them are also predicated in the rejection of accepted scientific PRINCIPLES, like gravity and entropy.

In every above case, Arthur Schopenhauer's Law applies. "Add a spoonful of sewage (low achievers/poor students, those who reject conventional Western morality, break our laws) to a vat of fine wine...and you get sewage. Add a spoonful of fine wine to a vat of sewage...and you STILL have sewage."

It is impossible to uplift the unmotivated, undisciplined, or criminally inclined by contact with the highly motivated, well disciplined law abiders.

Such "environmental impact" only seems to work, when it works at all, in reverse of the way "Progressives" think it does. Highly disciplined, high achieving students can be motivated towards dysfunction when they see unruly, undisciplined, low achieving students mollified, encouraged and allowed to "get away with it."

So, WHY do "Progressives" get that wrong?

Again, most reject basic scientific PRINCIPLES and come from among liberal arts majors who had trouble with the math.

Dysfunction is easy...and, all too often, FUN.

Discipline is hard. Self discipline is hardest of all.

Athletes must have it. Good athletes are all students of their respective sports. They study the body, human performance, as well as game tactics. The undisciplined, but extremely physically gifted almost always fall by the wayside early on, and if they get to a high level never achieve the way more disciplined athletes do. Michael Jordan, Arnie Palmer, Ervin "Magic" Johnson, Larry Bird, Jack Nicklaus,
Bill Russell, Tiger Woods, Peyton Manning, Tom Brady were all extremely disciplined and devoted students of their games. They were as devoted and disciplined in their realms as any high level scientific researcher, or business leader is in theirs.

This ISN'T to say, "Why bother" trying to reach the unmotivated, undisciplined, low academic achievers, just that it CAN'T be done by placing them among the high achievers. Entropy doesn't work that way.

Education is a lifelong procedure, because life IS education.

Just as dysfunction is easy and discipline hard, the SAME goes for civilization. Our civilization depends upon the highest achievers being put into positions where they can move society forward. Civilization, as we know it, is tenuous at best. Once lost...extremely difficult to rebuild.

Some poor students and people who were "unmotivated slackers" in youth, will be "late bloomers," BUT education, like maturation is a process that can't be forced.

Today's "Progressivism" is dangerous precisely because it fails to understand and appreciate basic science. That many "Progressives" claim to champion science (at least what science they perceive to be in agreement with their preconceived notions) makes their ignorance only that much more dangerous.

They believe they champion science, in championing their own baseless preconceptions, mistakenly believing that gives them some innate, or a priori understanding of science.

This delusion is what allows so many self-proclaimed "Progressives" to look down on others, the religious, blue collar workers and those heretics who disagree.

That coupled with the cheap (no cost) sense of personal virtue ("I care about my fellow man"...without actually DOING, or sacrificing anything) is too much of a psychological bargain for many to pass up.

However Arthur Schopenhauer remains correct and undeniable. The current and ongoing misguided war on standards has been yet another "Progressive" disaster.
.

Does THIS Make Our Media Complicit?

.
.
.
You may, or may not have heard about the terrorist training camp busted outside of Taos, New Mexico last week. Some outlets described it as, "A training camp for school shooters."

It DIDN'T get much play in the NY Times, WaPo, ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, etc., probably because of its links to Linda Sarsour, the radical Muslim darling of the DNC and Bernie Sanders.

What our media, either deliberately, or incompetently left out was THIS (https://www.facebook.com/166792236711749/posts/1986585344732420/)

Some Conservative outlets stated that Imam Siraj Wahhaj spoke at the 2012 Democratic Convention, when in fact, he was only part of a Muslim group called "Jummah at the DNC."
A group that moderate Muslims have consistently called out as Jihadist. (https://aifdemocracy.org/the-trouble-with-jumah-at-the-dnc/)

"Jummah at the DNC" IS representative of the DNC's anti-American agenda. As the American Islamic Forum for Democracy has said of "Jummah at the DNC's" leaders, "The leaders of this event – Jibril Hough and Imam Siraj Wahhaj as advertised are no moderates. They are radicals. These individuals embrace Islamist supremacy and have demonstrated support for radical ideologies."

So while Imam Siraj Wahhaj DID NOT address the 2012 Democratic Convention, his group was endorsed by the DNC. His son, also named Siraj Wahhaj ran the Taos, NM terror training camp.

There is no doubt that Imam Siraj Wahhaj is Linda Sarsour, another DNC darling and big Bernie Sanders supporter. (https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/270991/father-new-mexico-islamist-compound-leader-linda-leo-hohmann)

Even the reliably Leftist Bill Maher gets it right about Islam (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/11/04/maher_how_about_a_democratic_party_that_says_we_find_beliefs_behind_terrorist_acts_intolerable.html).

The reason the MSM has barely covered the Taos Terror Training camp story is the links between the DNC and both Linda Sarsour and her mentor, Imam Siraj Wahhaj.

Does that make this media complicit in aiding and abetting Jihadist terrorists, or are is this media merely anti-American?
.

THIS...Is CNN

.
.
.
I haven't watched TV News in ages, though I DO comb through YouTube, etc (LOVE Mark Dice, Candace Owens & Colin Flaherty, among others), and I do read a wide array of print media.

Many Americans don't understand that ALL the actual "news" on the U.S. "Newsmedia" are the SAME. ALL the same stories covered and in the exact same way. ALL our outlets AND print media reports are "vetted" (actually edited and often fictionalized by the FBI (domestic) & CIA (foreign).

ONLY the COMMENTARY differs.

Fox News, CNN, MSNBC all air the SAME "news" accounts, the SAME way. They ONLY differ as to OPINION, or COMMENTARY.

Yes, I'll acknowledge that the Wall Street Journal's & Fox News' commentary resonates much more with me and I revile that of ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC/MSNBC, the NY Times, WaPo, etc. BUT I still distrust ALL the "news" we get fed by all of these sources.

Politics is NOT "news."

ALL politics is viewpoint/opinion...or COMMENTARY.

Here's a great example of CNN rigging a "Trump voter panel," with a CNN plant. (https://youtu.be/buMab0eGAjk)

This IS important because it shows CNN; (1) offering political commentary as "news" and (2) putting in a plant to offer Corporately owned CNN's editorial opinions as that of some American citizens.

I've previously posted the hilarious bit of Don Lemon actually outing a CNN cameraman forced into action as an on-camera interviewee, to again give CNN's Corporatist editorial opinion (https://youtu.be/7ClR5yHBfks). ANYONE who puts any faith in THIS media...is a fool.

THIS is a LIE.

THIS is FAKE "news."

THIS is CNN.
.

Epidemics?...

.
.
.
.
CNN is at it again.

More FAKE NEWS!

Yesterday CNN's John Blake wrote a piece focused on a few recent examples of white EDP's calling the police on blacks who committed no crimes. (https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/08/10/us/white-flight-911-calls/index.html)

He wrongly included a Philadelphia Starbucks incident in which two black loiterers were asked to leave the store after refusing to purchase anything.

Contrary to media reports, UNTIL that event, patrons were allowed to stay as long as they wished, even if they bought a single item. People of all backgrounds had been expelled from Starbucks stores over refusing to buy items.

Since then, apparently "loitering is allowed" in Starbucks.

I don't go to any Starbucks, so I really don't care if they suffer a massive influx of loiterers.

In many of the cases where people have called police without cause, the caller was cited. I've said that such calls SHOULD BE charged as "filing/making a false police report."

Now, CNN and John Blake have an agenda...that is, "Anti-black bigotry by whites is rampant."

Of course, this is the network that ran with the deliberate "Hands up, don't shoot" LIE, perpetrated ONLY by Michael Brown's accomplice, Dorian Johnson and contradicted by virtually every other witness at the scene. In other words, CNN deliberately sought out that false account, knowing it was contradicted by the other (less biased) witnesses and ran with THAT.

Likewise here, the focus is on a handful (I've looked hard and found five) of white EDP's calling the police on black people committing no crimes. Most of the callers were clearly hysterical and could easily be classified as Emotionally Disturbed Persons.

Making a false complaint IS a crime. It's "making/filing a false report." That can be criminally charged.

What is conveniently ignored, is the rash of black motorists, a number who don't appear as EDP's, a pastor, an apparently educated woman, a state legislator posting videos on social media claimimg cops who stopped them were intimidating and "racist," only to have their accounts be debunked by police Body Cam and Dashboard Cam video. A number of charges have been made in those cases. (https://youtu.be/uD_AnaFlyUA)

The TRUTH is there is NO epidemic...in either case.

There have always been EDP's, from all backgrounds, who call the police for any...or no reason at all and if you look hard enough, you'd always find some white EDP's,  some black and some "other," calling police on people from another group. That's gone on forever.

SAME with police stops. People of every background have lied about police interactions.

Now, in the age of social media, it's easier than ever to put such videos "out there."

It's also easier, thanks to Dashboard Cameras and Body Cams for Police Departments to debunk these lies.

So, in conclusion, CNN LIES...yet AGAIN!

Tell me you're not surprised...please.
.

Tribalism, Agrarianism and Socialism...

.
.
The American Indians, like the Celts, Sub-Saharan Africans, Pacific Islanders and other tribal people made Socialism/Collectivism "work," the same way that the American South made its agrarian economy work...mostly via chattel slavery.

The American Indian tribes were constantly at war with each other. The Sioux were originally a coastal tribe that traded along the Potomac River. They were first chased north and West by the Iriquois, then chased from Minnesota by the Chippewa and Shoshoni. In the Plains, they warred with the Cheyenne, Black Foot and Crow.

If you look at those tribal structures, NONE of our modern day politicians would want anything like that system. Among American Indians, the Chief usually very quickly became the poorest man in the tribe, as others could come to him with needs and he'd have to supply, as best he could, a practice that usually left the Chief destitute, unless the tribe was constantly supplied with plunder.

The Industrial Revolution eradicated chattel slavery, but initially replaced it with an equivalent, "Company Towns," etc. where workers were effectively owned by the company they worked for.

Socialism is a failed economic system.

What's needed is a better, or a more improved social system, but humans are still too flawed for that.

Today, Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the world...AND an ultra Leftist (owner of the Washington Post), HOWEVER, Amazon, like Walmart and some other corporations, pays workers so little, they qualify for Food Stamps and Section 8 Housing, etc., meaning WE, the taxpayers, pay a large part of their worker's tabs.

Socialism's Command Economy wouldn't help those workers, nor the beleagured taxpayers, BUT charging these companies for the social services tabs of their own workers....might.

Such policies WOULD NOT make those owners, nor any of us, "better people," but they'd remove some of the profit in acting badly.
.