She Bore, then she killed

August 2016 - Sheborah Thomas, a mother of 3 from Houston, Texas, killed 2 of her children (5 and 7 years old) by drowning them in the bathtub.  She then placed the bodies under her neighbor’s house.  Her oldest child is safe with the father.

Thomas at first tried to bury the bodies, but found it “too difficult”.

(call me crazy, but to me that would be the easy part of this whole tragedy.  I would think killing 2 innocent little kids would be the hard part.  But that’s just me)

The puzzling thing about this is incident is that the kids seemed fine; there were no signs of abuse and they seemed well taken care of (they went to childcare and had regular dental visits).  Not sure why the mother snapped all of a sudden.

People of course will try to make excuses for her (stress, money, etc).  Sorry, but that’s no excuse to kill people.  If it had been a man who did this to his kids, there would be no such sympathy from the public, especially the feminazis.

_______________________

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/08/15/houston-woman-charged-with-capital-murder-after-allegedly-drowning-her-two-children-hiding-bodies-under-neighbors-house/

Tough Luck

I made the mistake of picking up a Vogue magazine that was lying around (one of the taglines listed on the cover caught my eye):

Good Mood or Good Sex: Do Women have to choose?

This was on the bottom right hand corner of the July 2013 issue of (american) Vogue Magazine. The article it was describing was titled "Tough Love", written by Elizabeth Weil.

Full disclosure: I did not get all the way through the article; after the first couple of pages I just couldn’t take it anymore; it was so nauseating and it started to make me upset.

The article was about American (or western) women taking anti-depressants, and how anti-depressants were killing their libido.

I started to read the description of some of the women interviewed and what they had to say.

From the little I read, it seemed most of these women were from the upper middle class.  They have everything: A career (or a husband that provides for them), a nice home, material goods, a comfortable lifestyle, a loving husband, children (in some cases), etc.  Absolutely nothing in their life to be stressed or depressed about (other than the usual stress of working, commuting, raising kids, etc – what most people, including men, also have to deal with).

One of interviewees claimed her husband was physically attractive, supportive, a good father, etc; basically, a good catch.  She claimed she loved her husband but that she would rather sit on a cactus (or something to that effect) than sleep with him.

WTF?!

So she would rather be tortured (because sitting on a cactus IS torture) than share intimacy with the man whom she promised to love and cherish for the rest of her life, a man who supports and is there for her?  REALLY?!

These aren’t women living in war zones or who are living below the poverty line.  They are well-to-do women who have everything women want (or so they say).  And they are STILL depressed?  They still feel the need to take anti-depressants? (which affect their libodo)?

What a bunch of selfish, evil, cunts.

Also, I don’t mean to sound callous, but technically women don’t have to be “in the mood” to have sex with their husbands.  Libido is actually more important for men because they aren’t able to perform (i.e. “get it up”) without it.  Women don’t have this problem.  In fact, many of them humor their husbands and have sex with them even though they may not be as into it all the time.  While this is not an ideal situation (it’s much better if the woman is also into it), you can still have sex.

The article by Ms. Weil just points out how self-centered women are.  They can “have it all” and still find something to complain about.

Men may not always want to take the trash out or mow the lawn, but they do it anyway (especially if their wives ask them to).  They don’t’ say that they would rather sit on a cactus.  I realize the two scenarios are not exactly the same, but I’m just making a point.

My god – how women have fallen.  They have gone from loving us to despising us and seeing us as just another inconvenience in their lives.  Or maybe they’ve always felt like that.  I’ll never know.

This is what awaits young men who want to start dating seriously and get married:  Frigid prudes who will withhold sex from them one day, after they’ve been trapped into a relationship.

It doesn’t matter how good of a husband you try to be, it doesn’t matter how good of a father you are to the children, it doesn’t matter how hard you work, it doesn’t matter if you support her in her career, it doesn’t matter how many chores you do around the house, or how many diapers you change, or how often you cook dinner or clean up the kitchen, or how much you spend on furniture or on gifts, it doesn’t matter how many trips or vacations you take, at the end of the day it will never be enough for her and she will be depressed or stressed and will not want to have sex with you.

It’s always “I’m too tired” or “I have a headache”, or “I’m depressed”, etc.  Always something.  I wonder how women would feel if anytime they wanted to have a deep conversation, her significant other would cut her off with the same excuses over and over.  I’ll bet the women would be pissed.  But only women are allowed to be mad at their husbands.  Husbands who are snubbed by their wives are expected to just take it. In silence.  Stoically.

Sex.  It doesn’t even have to take much time or effort on her part, and it means the world to her man, but even that is too much to ask of her.

And then everyone wonders why half of all marriages end in divorce, or why some men (who are otherwise considered “good” men) are driven into the arms of another woman.

Nasty bitches.  They’ll withhold sex from their husband for years, but as soon as they get a divorce, they’ll have a one-night stand with the first guy they meet at a bar after being newly single.  Gross.

There was a stupid post on some dumb blog trying to make excuses for women on meds:

http://honestmom.com/2013/07/11/why-im-in-vogue-magazine-this-month-and-hoping-no-one-in-my-family-reads-it/ 

I would honestly like to know why these women are taking these meds in the first place, when by all appearances they don't have to (as "feminism" gave them everything they ever wanted).  But rather than asking WHY these women are taking these drugs, she argues that "the medical community needs to solve the low-libido problem" (when in fact, it is WOMEN who need to look at themselves and why they feel the need to be pill poppers, which the medical community is only too happy to oblige).  Stupid ass-backwards logic from these women, but they are too blind and stupid to see it.  After all, feminism has taught them that women can do no wrong, and that if they have a problem, it means that someone else is causing it.  It's never women's fault - it's always the fault of somebody else.

Tea Leoni: She's played prudes on-screen, and she's probably one off-screen as well.

Women like these are the reason why this web log exists.  They were the catalyst for this web log.  The article by Ms. Weil just confirmed what I already knew but was afraid to accept.

It was difficult at first.  Years of conditioning by feminism is hard to shake off.  In the past, if some guy criticized women, I just assumed they were a sexist pig.  And while it doesn’t mean they weren’t, I now know I can’t assume that anymore.  Some women actually are jerks and deserve to be criticized.

Growing up I was told that if I just did this, or just did that, and respected women, that women would respond in kind, or that they would “like” me.  I was told that women respond favorably and positively to a “good man”, as opposed to a jerk.

LOL.  Sounds naïve, and I guess it was, but I was young and didn’t know any better.  Now I know.  Decades later.  So I finally decided to write a web log about this topic, since this stuff can’t really be talked about in public because you’ll be accused of being a misogynist, but more importantly, your livelihood and your family’s well-being could be adversely affected.  That’s how our politically-correct society functions now.  There is no free speech anymore (even if it’s the truth).

I know not all women are like this.  This is not a blog about all women.  Just SOME women.

Speaking of women I like: I would like to pay my respects to Carrie Fisher.  I don’t know what her politics were, and I don’t care (I’m assuming she identified as a feminist, though).  I am a huge Star Wars fan, and Princess Leia is one of my favorite characters.  Unlike the character “Rey” from the new star wars movie (the force awakens), Princess Leia never struck me as a token female character.  She was just a great character that happened to be female.  That’s how it should be.

R.I.P. Carrie.  We love you very much.  My condolences to your family.

Merry Christmas

I'm putting aside my hostility today and wishing everyone a merry christmas.  May we not let the trivial things make us forget what is really important.

Yoga Yetis

300 lbs women, err - About 300 women (i.e. harpies with too much time on their hands) took to the streets to protest a letter they saw in a local newspaper.

Alan Sorrentino, a 63-year old man from Barrinton, Rhode Island wrote a letter to the Barrington Times that stated, “To all yoga pant wearers, I struggle with my own physicality as I age. I don’t want to struggle with yours.  Yoga pants can be adorable on children and young women. However, on mature, adult women there is something bizarre and disturbing about the appearance they make in public. Yuck!”

Alan Sorrentino

Though I personally don’t believe his statement is 100% correct, I thought it was relatively harmless (and funny; after all, he also included a self-deprecating comment).  Not so to the attention-seeking, eternally-offended feminists, however.

The hateful response from these banshees was surprising (or not really, if you are familiar with feminazis).  The article states that “Jamie Burke, a 40-year-old mom of two, was so outraged by his letter that she organized a peaceful protest that marched right to Sorrentino's door.”

Peaceful?  Yeah right.  These corpulent cunts and their supporters left threatening messages on Mr. Sorrentino’s telephone, telling him to “watch his a*s*s” and “We're showing up to your house, you f**k!”.  He was also told his house would be vandalized.

Imagine if these kind of people protested outside your door – pretty intimidating, no?


So let’s turn this around.  Say it was a 63-year old woman who said older men should not be wearing sneakers because those are for young people, and all these men walked up to her house protesting and leaving threatening messages on her phone.  That would be considered “violence against women” and “sexist” by the media and the feminazis.

But when feminists do this to an old man, it’s considered acceptable.

Truly a sick society we live in.

Normally I would have supported the protesters’ views (because I don’t care what people wear, even if they look bad in it), however, because of their behavior and the way they handled this incident, I’m going to call them out.  I don’t like calling people names either, but they deserve it so here it goes:

These nasty bovine bitches need to get a life and need to grow a thicker skin.  The correct response would have been to simply ignore Mr. Sorrentino’s letter, or to write in a rebuttal letter to the newspaper.  But instead, these washed-up skanks decided to make a mountain out of a molehill.  This protest was entirely over the top and unnecessary (there are more important issues in the world that are in need of a protest).

'Outraged' mother of 2, Jamie Burke - LOL.

Here she is again: duh . . . my wittle feewings are hurt . . .boo hoo hoo :(

and here is the morning show cunt who thought the protest was a nice idea

300 losers picking on a single old man?  Yeah, you guys are really tough, aren’t you?  What a pathetic bunch of shrill hags.  I feel sorry for their kids (the ones who took their children on this mock crusade).  Nice parenting.  I hope all of them spill their latte’s on their yoga pants.

 Hashtag warriors.  LOL

You're 53?  That's nice.  Would you like a prize for participating in life, since you obviously wont' be getting the blue ribbon?

Mmm-hmm . . .

And finally, since the harpies in Rhode Island responded so caustically, I will respond in kind:

Pick your battles, people.  This particular one was not worth it.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/sisterhood-yoga-pants-protests-death-195000082.html

The United States Secret Cervix

 Julia Pierson, (former) Director of the Secret Service.

Nice "do", lady.  More like a don't.

On September 19, 2014, a 42-year old man broke into the White House.

Omar Gonzalez, an army veteran from the Iraq war, eluded various layers of security and was able to enter deep into the White house just minutes after the president and his family had taken off in a helicopter for a weekend getaway at Camp David.  Gonzalez was carrying a two and a half inch knife.

OG (Omar Gonzalez). This idiot thinks he's still in Iraq and
that Barack Hussein is the same as Saddam Hussein.


The intruder was able to run unobstructed across the entire White House lawn (70 yards), sprint up to the front door past a guard, then enter the building and run up two halls before being stopped just outside the “Green Room”, which is located right next to the oval office.

This is the furthest anyone has gotten inside the executive mansion (most jumpers are usually tackled by secret service men near the fence)

This debacle caused the FEMALE director of the Secret Service, Julia Pierson, to resign (she has been the only female director to date).  They had to bring in a retired MALE agent to temporarily replace her.

 Aww, Pooh!

Pierson had been named the director of the U.S. Secret Service in March 2013 by President Obama (in order to be politically correct).  The Secret Service Agency had been marred by scandal a year before, where men in the secret service slept with prostitutes while on a summit meeting in Colombia.

(But honestly, who cares? As long as it’s on their own time and they didn’t reveal any state secrets or endanger anyone, it’s nobody’s business).

This should be a hit with my female constituents . . .

Hiring a woman was suppose to “change the culture of the agency from a ‘boy’s club’ or‘frat house’ culture”.  People were hoping she would “change the male dominated service”.

(now, if someone had said we need more male schoolteachers to change the “female-dominated school system”, that would have been seen as sexist.  But for some reason, feminists and the politically-correct crowd see no problem with such statements if they are directed against men.  Bunch of hypocrites . . .)


While I do agree that those protecting the president should be of better character, the most important thing is being competent at your job.  If the president or a member of his family dies on your watch, nobody is going to care what swell upstanding people your agents are.  They aren’t going to care that your agents are feminists or that those agents care about ‘feelings’.  The people want to be assured that those protecting the president can kick some butt if the situation calls for it.  In the end, Julia Pierson lost the respect of those working under her, as well as the members of congress.

While you may not like the men in the sunglasses above, competence trumps political-correctness.


It also didn’t help that Pierson initially lied to the press and the president about the details of the incident.

During the congressional hearings, she oftentimes refused to answer questions directly.  It was also discovered during the hearings that under her tenure, an armed security contractor (who had a criminal past) had not been screened and was allowed to get on an elevator with the president during a trip in Atlanta.  In addition, during a different presidential trip in March, one secret service agent was found passed out drunk in front of the president’s room.

This isn’t quite the way to “clean house”.

The sad thing is, she looked good on paper.  She has many years of experience (having joined the secret service in 1983, and having served as the Secret Service’s chief of staff in 2008).  She also served on the protective details of the three previous presidents (Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr.).  It’s unfortunate.

Tokenism never works, at least not for long.

However, to be fair, everyone in the president’s security detail failed miserably that day.  Here’s the breakdown:



1.
The surveillance team outside the fence (who are suppose to warn agents inside the grounds about a break in, in order to give those agents a head start over the intruder), failed to notice Gonzalez.

2.
The alarm box at the front entrance had been turned off because the White House ushers were complaining that it was “too loud”.

(Well no shit, stupid – it’s suppose to be loud.  It’s an alarm.  I’m going to take a wild guess and say these ushers were female.)

 White House officials claimed the alarms boxes were malfunctioning and unnecessarily sounding off (but again, it’s the secret service’s job to get that fixed).  That’s a very poor excuse.

3.
The front door was left unlocked (because there was no alarm, the inside guard failed to close and lock the door in time).  There was also no guard outside the door (like there should have been)



4.
The ‘hounds’ were not released.

White House officials claim the guard dogs were not sent out because there were other people out (whom they didn’t want to get hurt).

(I have to ask: What is the point of having attack dogs if you don’t use them?  The White House always has security people (“Friendlies”) around the premises.  Are they all suppose to rush inside before the dogs can be released?  What if the intruder rushes in with them?  So dumb)

However, it was later revealed that the officer in charge of the guard dogs: 1) was on his personal cell phone, 2) did not have his earpiece in, and 3) also did not have his back-up radio on him (he had left it in his locker), so he was not aware of the breach and did not send out the attack dog.

5.
Agents, though armed, failed to shoot the suspect.  Gonzales brushed past an agent with a drawn gun near the entrance.


The intruder also managed to overpower and push his way past a FEMALE secret service agent inside the white house.  Authorities claim that “gender was not a factor”.

(I disagree. It would have been less likely for a man to be pushed over, due to men’s generally larger frames and muscle mass).

It took an off-duty secret service agent (he was leaving for the night) to notice Gonzalez and tackle him to the ground.  Thank goodness at least one guy (who wasn’t even suppose to be working since his shift was over) did HIS job properly.

Utter incompetence on the part of everyone else.

Political correctness in general, and feminism in particular, endangers lives.  Therefore, it has no place in critical jobs such as these (or any job for that matter).

If you can’t meet the requirements of the job, then you should find another job. If that female guard who was shoved aside does not pass the physical qualifications that men have to pass, she should be fired.  I also think the White House ushers and the guard in charge of the dogs should be fired.


Sources:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/white-house-fence-jumper-inquiry-reveals-multiple-secret/story?id=26899949

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fence-jumper-made-it-further-in-white-house-than-secret-service-let-on/

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/01/politics/secret-service-director-resigns/

http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/29/white-house-fence-jumper-pushed-past-female-guard/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-intruder-was-tackled-by-off-duty-secret-service-agent/2014/09/30/052fb86c-48b4-11e4-b72e-d60a9229cc10_story.html