Federast Funnies 2

Sunderland has applied to become a City of Culture, something which the Guardian reported. The below the line comments then became an hysterical rant about Sunderland, the North East and the working class who had the temerity to ignore the polyocracy by voting for Brexit. Just read the comments if you don't believe me. This was my reply:

Just when you thought that the defeated Federasts couldn't get any more pathetic they turn up mob-handed at the dear old Graun to show the rest of us that there are still deeper levels to which they can sink. I cannot decide which comments are the most puerile, because they are all equally rancid, so I will just leave you with this thought. We are the majority. The provincial middle class and the urban working class acting together can outvote the sexually self sufficient denizens of the London bubble. If your taxes have to rise to pay for Sunderland then that is all well and good. You can howl all you want as we outnumber you and can force you to suck up higher taxation just as you are being forced to suck up Brexit.

My comment lasted about two minutes before it was deleted on the grounds of being offensive.

Offensive comments are what the trendy middle class shit who have made the Guardian their home page left on the site, but never mind. We outvoted them once, we can continue to do so in the future, and let's all continue laughing at them in the meantime.

A Short Guide to the Clinton Email Scandals

Hillary Clinton's email scandals probably send most people to sleep, but they are far more important than Donald Trump boasting to a friend about his shagging proclivities.Trump was just shooting a line with a crony; Clinton woes are legal and the two should not be confused.

There are two sets of Clinton emails. The first are what we might call the Podesta mails which Wikileaks has got hold of and which are being released in batches. John Podesta was the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee and someone hacked into his Gmail account and then uploaded the contents to Wikileaks. Clinton is blaming the wicked Russians, but it is just as likely to have been some kid in his bedroom. How anyone of Podesta's standing could use a Gmail account for sensitive inner-party matters is beyond me, but that is what the man did.

What the mails show is the shear level of fixing that went on to ensure that Clinton got the Democratic nomination for the presidency. In a nutshell, the National Committee that was supposedly running  a free and fair set of primary elections to choose a candidate was actually working hand in glove with one candidate, Hillary Clinton.

None of that is illegal, but it is so wonderfully sleazy that it makes Latin-American politics look as pure as the driven snow by comparison. When you add to it the vast amounts of money that were shovelled into the Clinton Foundation courtesy of her State Department links, then you can add African politics to the sleaze equation.

However, where the illegality comes in is via the Clinton server scandal, which does seem to show illegality on a vast scale. As Secretary of State Clinton should have used a protected, American government server and email account for her official business. Instead, she chose to set up her own system, based on her own server, where she mixed public and private emails together.

When the story of that server broke in 2015, Clinton handed over all the emails which she said were of an official nature, and deleted the ones that were purely private. The problem is that few people believe anything that she says, so the hunt is now on for the so-called private emails. The problem for Clinton is that if the mails were purely related to family matters why did she delete them?

One of the people who had an e-mail account on that sever was Huma Abedin, a senior political aide who was married to Anthony Weiner, who was forced to resign due to his own sex scandals. It turned out recently that Weiner had been sexting a 15 year old girl, so the FBI got involved in the case and found that the computer that he had been using for his sex chats also contained some of the deleted Clinton e-mails. If those deleted mails were purely related to family matters, why are they now turning up on the computer of a political aide?

It all sound horribly complicated and a bit trivial, bit it is far from that. Clinton was obliged by law to use a government approved e-mail account and server and she didn't. She then deleted thousands of e-mails which she claimed were purely personal and some of them are turning up on an aide's computer which suggests that they were actually official.

That leads to the final question: if these e-mail are official, what did Clinton have to hide by trying to delete them?

Clinton is a byword for sleaze and corruption, as the Podesta mails show, but these mails may show far more: they may show illegality that is far more important than the technical one of using a non-approved server.

Sarah Olney, Lib-Dem anti-Brexit Candidate for Richmond Supports Brexit

Meet Sarah Olney, the newly minted Liberal-Democrat candidate for Richmond in the forthcoming by-election. Zac Goldsmith is the Tory who has resigned over the expansion of Heathrow airport and who plans to fight the election as an independent who is opposed to the expansion. The Lib-Dems are also opposed, and want to make the contest about Brexit.

So why did they choose Sarah Olney who is on record as opposing another referendum on the issue? Another vote is exactly what the Lib-Dems have been whining about ever since they and every other Federast in this country was left with their arses hanging out of various windows on the 23 June this year. Now they have chosen a candidate who stands in opposition to the policy that her party thinks will save them from extinction.

On the 14 of this month, Sarah wrote a posting for her blog which stated just that: "Britain is leaving the EU – OK, I accept that.  I don’t think we should re-run the referendum.  I think we should stick to the course that has been decided."

Now, as the Telegraph pointed out, Sarah has since deleted her entire blog, but Google cache still has a copy of the post and I have now uploaded that to an internet archive site so everybody can read it at their leisure.

What it shows is that whilst Sarah Olney is not a Brexiteer, she is also not a supporter of her party's inane policy of trying to reverse Brexit via another referendum.

So why should the people of Richmond choose her over Goldsmith? He at least has the virtue of being consistent in his opposition to both Heathrow expansion and the European Union. The Lib-Dems on the other hand have a history of agreeing to anything if there is the chance of a whiff of power, as they proved in 2010 when they ditched their policy of opposition to an increase in student fees.

How can anyone in Richmond be sure that they will not abandon their opposition to the new runway if the price is right? They have a candidate who seems to accept Brexit, so that cannot now be an issue. Far better to stick with Goldsmith who has put his career on the line to oppose the airport plans I would have thought.

Let's hear it for Donald Trump at 9/2

I'm not a gambler for the simple reason that I do not understand the thrill of that particular game, but I have just had a tenner on Donald Trump to win next month's American presidential election.

If I lose then a tenner is not going to break even my bank, but if I win then the laughs as the Guardianistas go into meltdown will make the Brexit vote pale into insignificance. The fact that I will be able to gloat about my small windfall will be the cherry on the cake.

I could argue that if the Trump core consituency turns out mob handed then he has a better than average chance of winning, but to be honest I can't be bothered.

This one is strictly for the laughs.

Federast Funnies

 First we had soft Brexit which was offered in opposition to hard Brexit. Then the Graun came up with extreme Brexit a few days ago and now we have chaotic Brexit. It's wonderful, it really is. Every day something new and entertaining as we are given access to the minds of the Federasts as they slowly come to terms with the reality of their defeat.

 What do you reckon to the above off the cuff comment of mine to a Guardian story? I think it is quite mild, actually, but the Graun reckoned that it was "offensive" and deleted it from their site. Then they sent me an e-mail telling me that, which was when I fell about laughing.

You can almost hear Federast arseholes clenching, can't you?

The Farage Handjob Photo & Other Surreal Moments in British Politics

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

The Left Prefers Posture to Planning for Post-Brexit Britain

“Make the bonfire, make the bonfire, put the Tories on the top. Put the Blairites in the middle, and we’ll burn the fucking lot!”

An admittedly rather droll chant from some leftists who went and wasted an afternoon protesting at the Tory conference on Sunday. I say wasted because now that we are about to leave the EU, something which the left has wanted from the beginning, we really should be discussing the Labour Movement's post-Brexit aims.

What industries do we want to nationalise, as part of what economic plan? Do we need to invest in further education and technical universities, and if so, why are we investing millions in third rate institutions that just turn out yet more members of the social work industry or other parasitic local government wallahs?

People, the left were the bulk of the original Brexiteers, back when the Tories wanked dementedly over the EEC, seeing it as a way to keep us under control.

We have freed ourselves from that: now it is time to free ourselves from an economic system that only benefits the rich and their middle class stooges.

Inane chanting outside the Tory conference is not helping to put together a coherent response to the new times, is it?