People are obsessing over the wrong type of diversity

     It seems everywhere I turn, people, (mostly young dumb clueless liberals who think of their whining as "activism"), are nerd raging about how so and so institution needs to hire more minorities, how such and such place needs to have more women leading the place, how this and this school needs more minorities taking classes from it, how that and that business has too many white men working for it, etc, etc, the list goes on and on but they are all along these lines.
     While any business or institution needs to be fair to every race, gender, religion, etc, and while diversity is an important aspect of any group, it is not the main goal of the business/group.
      A car shop's job is to fix cars. A car shop's job is not to make sure it hires enough Hispanic people so liberals won't call it a racist business.
      The minute a business or organization starts to care more about "being diverse" than to deliver the product or service it is designed to give, that is when their quality of work goes down. That is when they don't perform as well. That is when they're not doing as good as they could. And this is one of the many contributing reasons why our country is starting to suck more and more. It isn't by far the main one, but that's not the topic of this post. Let me show a simple and quick example to illustrate what I mean.
      Let's say 2 grocery stores wants to hire 6 cashiers. 10 people apply to it, and the business ranks them by how good cashiers they are. 1 being the best cashier out of the 10, and 10 being the worst. Next to each number is the race of the person. For the simplicity of the argument, out of the 10 people, all of them are either Black, White, or Hispanic.
     1. Black
     2. White
     3. Hispanic
     4. White
     5. White
     6. White
     7. Black
     8. White
     9. Hispanic
     10. White

      Grocery store #1 has been brainwashed by liberal media. They think having a diverse staff is more important than being a good cashier. So they hire 2 people of every race, being "fair." So they hire numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 9.
     Grocery store #2 respects all races, and doesn't give a flying shit what race you are. They want good cashiers, so they do the logical thing and hire numbers 1-6.
      Now compare the two stores. Grocery store #1 skipped persons 5 and 6, even though they were better cashiers than 7 and 9. They passed up better applicants to be more diverse. So they end up with a worse workforce vs grocery store #2.
     Worse workforce=less work=less products/services= crappier products/services=worse company.
      Now, this one example might not seem like it can cause America to become a less desired place to live. But picture thousands of companies doing this for decades and decades. Over that time we have a huge percentage of the working population who are doing their job worse than someone else who applied. We have people entrenched in their positions who are lazy, rude, horrible workers who lower the quality of a company or organization. You wonder why the government can't get anything done? You wonder why the local restaurant consistently fails to do basic things like have a schedule for their workers, know of their own hiring process, have rude and horrible waiters, yet is still standing?  You wonder why the store clerk can do things slowly on purpose just to irritate you, and talk to you in a demeaning tone, yet still is able to keep his/her job throughout the years? You wonder why the office worker is head of her/his department yet takes an hour everyday to log into his/her computer because that simple task completely bewilders them everyday?!
     It's because we have people in their positions not because they were qualified for their jobs, but because of the color of their skin. By definition, that is racist: judging someone by the color of their skin. It's exactly what Martin Luther King. Jr deplored and spoke out against for years. And now people who claim to be inspired by him are doing the one thing he worked so hard against.
      Absolutely fucking disgusting.   
   

     

    Now let's move onto the second part of this post. Does anyone know why diversity is important in a company, organization, school, etc, whatever the case may be? Because people coming from different walks of life have different ways of solving problems, different outlooks on things, different ways of approaching a goal or challenge, different personalities, etc, etc, you get the idea. This leads to people being exposed to ideas, concepts, outlooks, etc, that normally they would not be exposed to if they were in a group of everyone who was the same. 

     More choices: a better opportunity to choose a better choice. Diversity brings increased worker productivity, increased profits, higher worker morale, etc, etc, because they are able to do things better, faster, more efficiently, due to the diverse pool of thought and ideas that they have available in their workforce. 

      Look at history. The high points of many countries and empires were at the time that they had many immigrants come together within their borders. This diversity brought profit and power. Islamic Caliphate, Roman Empire, Renaissance Italy, America in the 20th century, all had extremely diverse populations. These people brought their different experiences, life lessons, perspectives, etc, to the important industries: science, manufacturing, the arts, math, which made the country/empire more prosperous. 

     The problem with today's society that throws that diversity concept out the window is the emergence of total near encompassing, mainstream, bandwagoning culture that the vast majority of Americans are included in. So today, a company might have a diverse employee base by race, but by diversity of the mind, they are near monotonous. They all have the near exact same political beliefs, near exact same hobbies, near exact same way of thinking, near exact same personality, near exact same outlook on life, near exact way of working, etc, etc, the list goes on. 

     That is a workforce that doesn't think outside the box, that can't come up with a minority dissent on an issue, that everyone gets stumped on the exact same problem because they all think the exact same way and they can't picture thinking any differently, that is not adaptive, that cannot have a different opinion on an issue that is not the mainstream opinion, etc, you get the idea. 

     Monotonous workforce=less work=less products/services=crappier products/services=worse company. 

     In conclusion, you notice how I didn't put up any links or citations for anything I wrote. That's because I don't need to. You can understand everything I wrote using logic, reason, and a rational and linear thought process. Any verifiable facts can be easily found using a simple Google search. To reiterate, my two main points in this post are:

1. It is NOT the goal or requirement of an organization or business to have a diverse workplace. It's goals is to provide the product and/or service it was made to provide. If the best workers I can hire happen to be mostly of one race, I'm going to hire every single one of them, and not hire other people who aren't as good but are of a different race. That is not racist at all, it is common sense business practice.  
2. Diversity of the mind is WAY more important than diversity of race.             

P.S. Not all white people are racist. Not all white males hate everything that is not male and white. Not all males wake up every day and think "Oh how can I keep women down today?" Judge people by their statements and actions, not their gender or the color of their skin.

Why does Australia want to punish it's citizens for fighting against despotism?

     The Australian government is seeking to pass a law that would strip their citizens of their citizenship if they go to Syria and fight against the dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad.

http://muslimvillage.com/2014/01/22/48932/australians-fighting-in-syria-risk-loosing-citizenship/

     There are already Australian laws making fighting in Syria, (for any side), illegal for Australian citizens or dual Australian/Syrian citizens as well.

http://muslimvillage.com/2012/08/29/27701/australian-citizens-fighting-in-syrian-conflict-illegal-australian-government/

      There are a number of things wrong with these laws/proposals.
      1. This conflict does not concern Australia or the Australian government, so why do they feel like they have the right to regulate it? What gives them the right to tell their citizens "You don't have the right to fight to protect people who just want basic human rights"?

      2. By doing this, they are telling their citizens that the ideal of fighting to protect other people is not the correct thing to do. This reeks of neo-liberalism because it the regulation of morality, and that the liberals in government know what's best for us, even better than we do.

      3. By doing this, the Australian government is establishing the norm that violence is an 100% automatic "radical and extreme act," (except when the Australian government and/or military does it, of course). How did I come to this conclusion? A logical path following the government's statements on this. The Australian government said that the reason they already have these laws, and why they seek this new proposal, is because they are worried about "Australians becoming extremist and returning home." If they were truly worried about this, they had better come up with something else, because this law will not address that worry at all.
      Just because an Australian goes over to Syria to fight, does not mean that they will become radicalized. Violence, in of itself,  is not an extreme or radical action. On the contrary, it is rational, logical, and in line with human psychology, (which is why you have to train or be indoctrinated to be a pacifist, because non-violence is against the primal psychology of humans). Risking yourself to save another person has historically been seen as selfless, brave, and noble. Now, the Australian government seeks to turn that norm upside down. Now, risking yourself to save someone else is seen as "radical" and "extreme," not to mention illegal.     

      4. The laws and proposal insinuate that ALL Syrian rebels are extremists, and that by simply fighting alongside them, you will be brainwashed by their radicalism, and become extreme.
      One only need to do a simple Google search to see that not all of the Syrian rebels are religious extremists. The rebels are not one monotonous group, as many racist and bigoted Americans would want you to believe. There are religious radicals under the ISIS, (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria), umbrella, who are linked to Al-Qaida. The other rebel umbrella is the FSA, (Free Syrian Army), which is a secular and moderate organization. Saying that all Syrian rebels are terrorists is a simpleton's cop-out of looking at the conflict, and not reflective of reality at all. Saying so is an insult to the FSA, as they make a point to distinguish themselves from the ISIS in ideology and fighting tactics. It is also an insult because hundreds of FSA combatants have given their lives fighting against the ISIS, to prevent the radicals from hijacking the revolution, killing civilians, imposing a twisted version of Islam upon a population who doesn't want it, etc, etc. For more on this, you can do a simple Google search or visit the Institute for the Study of War's blog entry:

http://iswsyria.blogspot.com/2014/01/syrian-rebels-attack-isis.html

      5. The Australian government, by doing this, is pushing another disturbing neo-liberalist norm: That dictatorships, oligarchies, and fascism is okay, but democracy, universal human rights, and freedom is not. By not allowing people to fight as rebels against Assad, (whose government is all three of those descriptions: a dictatorship, an oligarchy, and a fascist regime), the Australian government is saying "Assad's way of government is acceptable to us."

      So there you have it, 5 reasons why these Australians laws and proposal are stupid all the way around. It only ends up hurting the Syrian people, who need every combatant they can get to protect themselves, and gives the Australian government Not only that, it is against traditional Australian values, which is all the more reason why we should disapprove of these laws. Australians are a people that pride ourselves in ideals like freedom and democracy, and also helping our fellow man. The country has a history of individual Australians traveling to fight in foreign wars that they believed were justified. All of a sudden, the current Australian government is calling that historical tradition wrong, illegal, and not noble. Australians serving in the British Army volunteered to fight in the Russian Civil War in 1918-1919, Australian citizens volunteered in fighting in the Spanish Civil War, (mostly on the Republic's side but there were some on the fascist's side as well), the Boer War, and the Rhodesian military, just to name a few. These volunteers were regarded as heroes and patriots. Now suddenly the same action gets you branded a terrorist and a traitor to your country! How does fighting in a war that your government is not involved in considered a traitorous act?! It has nothing to do with Australia! Which is the exact reason why the Australian government should just BUTT THE FUCK OUT OF THIS AND FUCKING MIND THEIR OWN FUCKING GOD DAMN BUSINESS AND STOP TRYING TO CONTROL EVERYTHING!            

People admire Obama for WHAT?!

     The mindless drones that are Obama worshipers continue to adore him, even as he fucks them over again and again. This is evident in the poll that shows that Barack Obama is the most admired man in the world for the 6th year in a row. 

  http://www.gallup.com/poll/166646/obama-clinton-continue-reign-admired-man-woman.aspx

      The insanity of this is mind boggling. These people conveniently ignore and do not mention the numerous horrible, atrocious, and sickening actions that Obama does year after year, and turn all of those actions into good, helpful, noble actions. They defy logic. They clash against rationale. When I mention these awful crimes that Obama does, his lovers simply cannot respond. They have no response when challenged on their beliefs. The set of morals and values one must have to admire Obama is completely nauseating.

      Let's go through a list of all the crimes, horrible actions, and acts of terrorism Barack Obama has done while in office, shall we???

      1. Enacted policies that benefit the 1% and the Wall Street cronies.
      Obama acts like he's a friend to the poor, a protector to the most vulnerable of our society, when in reality, he couldn't give a flaming fuck about us. He's a servant to the 1% of our country, those fat greedy fucks whose sole mission in life is to gobble as much wealth as they can, and damn anyone who gets in their way. This article says it all:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/11/24/obamas_policies_have_helped_wall_st_fat_cats_120768.html

      The stock market has had it's best year in several years, despite the fact that the economy is still in ruins, thanks to “quantitative easing” (money creation) by the Federal Reserve Board. This has helped Wall Street while destroying the middle class, because near zero interest rates undermine savings. Despite ample evidence of fraud, Obama has protected all Wall Street executives. Not a single one has been prosecuted for fraud or completely destroying the economy in 2008. He's also given fat cats a break such as in this example he "signed a stimulus bill that spent $165 on bonuses for AIG executives." 
     During George Bush's presidency, the top 1% percent earned 65% of the national income. Now, they earn 95% of it. Wall Street investment banks also get from federal loan guarantees what amounts to an $83 billion subsidy. And guess where the money from that subsidy comes from? Yeah, the sweat of us hard working Americans. President Obama has “redistributed” more tax dollars to crony capitalists than to the poor. From the $787 billion “stimulus” that didn’t stimulate, to subsidies for “green” companies that produced more corruption than energy, to Obamacare, every “investment” he has made has produced a windfall for the politically connected but hasn’t helped ordinary Americans.
     The evidence is overwhelming, and this is just from one article. There are literally dozens and dozens of other examples out there that all point to the same conclusion: Obama hates poor people, and loves the mega-rich. He says he's all about "reducing income inequality," yet he enacts policies that increase income inequality. 

     2. Enacted policies that directly hurt poor people.
     Remember that whole story about Mitt Romney paying less in taxes that his secretary? Well, guess who was the president during that time that approved that tax plan? Oh right, it was Obama. Obama makes the poor people pay more and more in taxes every year, while, percentage wise, he makes the rich pay less and less. I can just look at my paycheck from year to year and see the negative impacts the fat greedy politician has cost me. (I'm not going to tell you how much I make, rest assured, it's close to nothing).  In the first half of 2012, I paid 4.3% in all taxes combined. In the last half, I paid 9.1%. That's almost doubling my taxes in 6 months. Now, I pay a whopping 20.6% in all taxes. That's 1/5 of everything I make. That may not seem like a lot, to you people who make a lot more money than me. But when you don't make a lot of money, each percentage increase is felt more because poorer people need every dollar they make.
     Not only has Obama raised taxes directly on the vast majority of Americans, he's added more indirect taxes and taxes on things people buy. Obamacare alone put 21 new taxes on the American people. He gloats about it on it's own fucking website:

 http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-taxes.php

     3. Enacted fascist policies, such as the NDAA, the renewal of the Patriot Act, and the continuation of Guantanamo Bay.
     Liberals who cried and cried when George Bush, (I hate him just as much as Obama), enacted the Patriot Act were strangely silent when Obama signed the NDAA into law, which gives the government the right to kill you without having to give any reason at all. It also allows the government to indefinitely detain you, no trial, without charging you with anything, and without giving you access to a lawyer. Mussolini and Franco would be jumping with joy if they were in charge of a government with that legal power. The government can now basically do whatever it wants to the American people, and justify it as "fighting terrorism."
     Obama is perfectly clear: He hates the American people. He has declared war on the American people. He could not care less if you died right fucking now.

     4. Obama has increased the debt more during his first 3 years than George Bush did in his entire 8 years.
       Obama loves spending over peoples' money just as much as he hates them. His spending is completely and utterly out of control. We are trillions and trillions of dollars in debt. The deficit is skyrocketing. He  spends more in government handouts, spends more on the military industrial complex, spends more in foreign aid to dictators and terrorists, spends more in bloated government bureaucracies, more More MORE! It's never enough for him, he just has to out-do himself every year. Inflation is rising so much faster than people's wages, it's constantly decreasing peoples' spending power, making them poorer and poorer. He's just running this country into the fucking ground.

 http://www.cbsnews.com/news/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/

      5. Has killed hundreds of unarmed innocent civilians through his terroristic drone program, while trying to cover up how many civilians the program has killed. 
       God, does this make my blood boil. I can't stand it. I cannot stand my tax dollars being used to kill unarmed civilians WHO AREN'T FUCKING BOTHERING ANYONE. It's the very definition of terrorism. He is deliberately killing civilians in these countries so these governments will politically do whatever he tells them. It is no different than Al-Qaeda slamming planes into buildings to try and make the US do what it wants. In fact, Obama is worse than Osama Bin Laden could ever hope of being, because the US is a trillion times stronger than a dozen men in a cave. Thus, their capacity to do damage is a trillion times bigger than Al-Qaeda's. The US oppresses and kills more people than Al-Qaeda ever will.
     People try and skirt around this issue. They conveniently don't mention it when they are flattering Obama. Well, just because you don't talk about it, doesn't mean it isn't happening!!!! According to the definition of terrorism, Obama is a terrorist. It is not un-American to say so, in fact, it's in line with our American morals and values to tell the truth, to not judge Obama differently because of his nationality or position. Now matter what race, religion, occupation, or nationality a person is, we have a duty to say that if that person is killing unarmed people on purpose, that person is a terrorist!
      Look at just this one website, with all its examples, all its evidence, all its data on the terroristic drone program. It's completely overwhelming, it leaves no doubt at all. The Obama lovers simply have no response for this: "What? Obama kills innocent people? But....but...liberals like him love everyone!"

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/

      The whole purpose of the program is to kill innocents, so people in Yemen, Pakistan, etc, will get mad at the US. Rightly so, they have every right to take up arms against the US to protect themselves. It is logical and rational, not driven by religious hate, as the neo-cons would have you believe. So when these people attack the US, the neo-cons can stand up and cry "Oh see how they hate us! They won't stop attacking us! We have to spend more on our military empire, more drone strikes, more intervention, more killing, more death, more misery, more suffering, and most of all: MORE AMERICAN TERRORISM! 

     6. Gives money and weapons to dictators, terrorists, and oligarchies, so they can kill even more unarmed people.
     Obama's endless blood-thirst isn't satisfied with the amount of the civilians the US kills directly, oh no, that wouldn't be nearly enough. So he gives billions and billions of dollars every year, our hard earned tax dollars, and gives them to governments, saying "Oh, I know you guys kill civilians on purpose, and oppress your people, and suck their wealth dry, and have a completely incompetent government full of crooks and cronies.....so here's 2 billion dollars to buy more weapons and tanks and missiles and jet fighters with. Have a nice day!"
      Just look at the top ten recipients of US foreign aid in 2012:

 

     
     Is that the type of governments you want running around with weapons bought with your money?! Selling weapons to terrorists is in of itself, an act of terrorism. The majority of these countries have terroristic governments. By definition, the US government is committing an act of terrorism by giving these governments money. Just Google these countries' human rights records and list of war crimes. You can go to HumanRightsWatch.org or AmnestyInternational.org or any of the hundreds of sites you will get in a Google search with any of these countries' human rights record. You could spend days reading all of them. It's sickening. We are financing the suffering of literally millions and millions of people. Why don't more people care? Just because they aren't Americans doesn't make them any less a people than we are. You and I could've just as easily been born in one of these countries as we could've in America.

     7. Supports the fascist NSA and their Orwellian policies and practices.
     Do I even need to say more? Every month or so we get a new revelation about how the NSA tramples all the fuck over our 4th amendment rights. It never stops. Just when you think it couldn't get worse...it does. Again and again. The NSA is the most fascist un-American institution out there. It's all about total and utter control of the American people. It doesn't do what it does to protect you, it doesn't give a flaming fuck about you or me. It just wants one thing: control.
     Here's just a few things the NSA does to you and me on a daily basis:

• Steals your emails, (over 75% of all Internet traffic). 
• Steals your phone calls, (Over 50% of the entire amount of cell phone calls made in the world. Reported by the Washington Post on December 5th , 2013). 
• Infects computers with viruses and malware to get information.
• Infects companies' computers and networks with viruses and malware in retaliation when the company doesn't hand the NSA the information it wants. 
• Bribed companies with millions of dollars to get information.
• Steals your Internet history. 
• Can track your movement via your phone. 
• Spies on foreign citizens, governments, journalists, and other news media. 
• Broke it's own rules about surveillance 2,776 times. (They must be fucking retarded, or they simply don't care. Or probably both. What other company or business would still be running if they broke the rules 2,776 times?!) 
• They intercept computers mid-shipment and install spyware on them. 
• Snoops in on online video games (Oh yeah, gotta catch all those terrorists that play World of Warcraft online all the time huehuehue).
• NSA leaders routinely lie about what they do/what they do not do, and lie about statistics about these programs. 
• Secret courts "authorize" the NSA to do these programs, and the government tries to keep these courts secret so the public won't know what the NSA is authorized to do. 
• Shares American's private information with Israel, (reported by the Guardian on September 11th, 2013).   

And guess what? Even the fucking god-damn piece of shit White House says all of these programs has not prevented a single terrorist attack! (White House panel, reported by NBC news on December 20th, 2013). So for all this bullshit, the program does not even attain the stated goal whatsoever.    
 
     Conclusion

      People love Obama for this sick shit. They think he's the greatest thing to happen since Clinton. They think he honestly cares about the American people, but it's just those nasty Republicans who limit how much good he can do! How the hell can you admire a thief, a terrorist, a thug, a crook, a fascist, a rich elitist scumbag?!   
      Oh, I know the NSA looks at this website. I post provocative, anti-government posts all the time. I know they're all over this. They're probably gonna charge me with some bullshit charge like "online terrorism," even though I've never endorsed violence against civilians, and I has always spoken out against terrorist acts, no matter who the perpetrator is. Even if it's the President himself! Fine, let them spy on me, let them harass me, I don't care. I know I'm doing the right thing by speaking out against terrorism and criminals. If doing that gets me in trouble, then I'll wear it like a badge of honor.
      The stupidity of the American people is the #1 source of suffering for people in the entire world.
     And for you personally Mr. Obama:

FUCK YOU!

       

     

Russia and Iran are hypocrites on the issue of intervention

     Syria's revolution is a very complicated one, so I'm going to just lay out the basics on it, so we don't waste a lot time before getting to the main idea of this post. There is a 3 way battle going in the country right now.
     1. Syria's dictatorship is putting down a revolution that has been waging since 2011. They are backed by Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah.
     2. The moderate, secular rebels, under the umbrella group called the Free Syrian Army, (FSA), are fighting against the dictator and the extremist rebels, (next group down). They have very few backers, only the US for non-lethal aid and individual foreign volunteers.
     3. The extremist rebels are also fighting against the dictator and the moderate rebels. They are backed by Al-Qaida and many of the Gulf states, (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc).

     The main point of this post, in one sentence, is that Russia and Iran cry all the time that the West cannot intervene in Syria, yet they're intervening in it themselves. It's hypocrisy at it's best. It's an attempt to try and seem impartial and fair to the Syrian people, but really they're just doing it to better themselves in the political/military realm. Iran has at least 4,000 troops in there right now, http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/06/17/syrian-activists-say-al-qaida-linked-militants-blow-up-shiite-mosque-in-hatla/ and Russia has sold at least 50% of the arms Syria has, including $1 billion in 2011 alone, http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/29/us-syria-crisis-russia-arms-insight-idUSBRE97S0WW20130829.

     To be fair, Russia and Iran are operating as the same as virtually every other country does: They have 2 sets of rules: one that they say that everyone else has to follow, and one set for themselves. The thing is, the rule set for themselves is blank; they don't have to abide by any rules, even those they expect other countries to follow. It's how the US can say to other Al-Qaida "Don't kill civilians," and then turn around and bomb Iraqi civilians dead. It's how Pakistan can whine to the US about drone strikes killing its citizens, and then it turns around and kills Pakistani civilians in broad daylight.  
     But just because other countries do it doesn't make it right. In Russia's mind, other countries cannot intervene in Syria. Except Russia. It can, because it's special, and doesn't have to follow any rules. Iran believes the exact same for Iran, Hezbollah thinks the exact same thing for Hezbollah. So we have all these countries and organizations running around with weapons, thinking that they are so fucking special that they don't have to follow any rules. Is it any surprise as to why these leads to never ending war in the world?

      I'm not saying on whether the US, Russia, etc, should or should not intervene in Syria. That's not what this post is about. All I'm saying is that do not follow the "do as I say, not as I do" routine. Don't ask a country to do something that you won't do yourself.
     Ironically, a Russian statement on this bears some truth:

A statement from the Russian Foreign Ministry this morning warned of "catastrophic consequences" for Syria and the region if the United States and its allies intervene.

 http://abcnews.go.com/International/russia-warns-catastrophic-consequences-us-meddles-syria/story?id=20081747

     He's right, there are catastrophic consequences for foreign intervention. Syria's civil war started off as a purely domestic war between the dictatorship and rebels. But now, it seems all the major countries in the world are picking a side and getting their hands dirty to sway the war one way or another to benefit themselves. The US and Israel are supporting the rebels because they want Assad gone. Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah are supporting Assad because they want Assad in power. Saudi Arabia and Qatar want the extremist rebels to win because they want a hard-line Islamic government in power. This has increased the number of soldiers and arms in the battlefield tenfold, which only dishes out more death, more destruction, more refugees, more seriously injured civilians, etc, etc. 

     It's like a fistfight at a soccer game: what started off as a fight between two players has turned out into a full field brawl, with both teams at it, plus the referees, players, police, etc.

     Suddenly, the war is not about what the Syrian people want anymore. It's all about what other countries want. And that's the tragedy of the whole thing. What started off as a legitimate revolution has now been hijacked by foreign and extremist elements.

     What can we ordinary Americans do about this? Unfortunately, not much, as usual. But at least, when this war is over, we can be on the right side of history. We can say "I supported the moderate, secular rebels, and I did not support the dictatorship or the radical rebels." We can talk talk talk. Post on facebook, twitter, tumblr, write a letter to the editor for a newspaper, etc. Explain that not all of the rebels are extremists, that the Syrian people have a fundamental right to basic human rights, and the right to fight anyone who takes them away from them, that using violence is acceptable if you use it to defend yourself or someone else who is under attack. Challenge the racists, the bigots, explain that Islam is not the cause of this conflict, that this conflict is purely political and this type of conflict has occurred plenty of times in non-Islamic countries.
     That's all we can do for now.    

  

France's colonist imperialism continues

     In case you guys didn't know, which is very possible considering how mum the US media is on this, France invaded another African country in the last couple of days, (They already invaded Mali earlier this year, wait, you didn't hear about that either?!). The latest victim of the French aspire to return to their colonial glory days is the Central African Republic, (CAR).
     Now, the CAR has a whole host problems without the French involved; it's not like France is the only cause of their problems. But certainly France's invasion has done nothing but benefit the 1% of French society. A quick summary of what's happening: The CAR is in a civil war right now, (as it is more often than not), and the battles lines are not exactly clear. We got a new government run by Michel Djotodia, the leader of the Seleka rebel group that came to power last year in a rebellion. They overthrew the government of Francois Bozize, who had come to power in 2003 by force, (hence was not legitimate).
     So we have this new Seleka government battling remnants of Bozize's fighters and supporters, in addition to people who are sick of the Seleka's many and horrible human rights abuses in their short 1 year rule. This was bad enough before the French invaded this year. But they did, fighting against the Seleka government.
     Here's the main point of this post, one that will show that France is not fighting to "help the poor African people or for humanitarian/selfless reasons." On December 9th it was reported that the French soldiers are going door to door in the capital Bangui, seizing all weapons and leaving the residents defenseless: 

 http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ilKuiauSYXwMH7rs8eYqbHHTpFwg?docId=dd8da109-c3d7-41ed-b32c-3cb8d5a420bb

     You don't have to go any further to see why any sensible, ordinary, hard-working, law-abiding citizen of the CAR would fight against the French. They're seizing weapons that people, regardless of race or religion, are entitled to have to defend themselves and their family. This fascist crackdown leaves them without any weapons to defend themselves from any thugs or gangs that are taking advantage of the chaos due to the civil war. They've even taken machetes.

     The French are just making enemies at this point. I mean, how would you react if Chinese or Russian troops were walking down your street in your neighborhood, knocking down your doors, and demanding all of your guns and melee weapons? That's right, you'd say "Hell no and fuck no" and start fighting back against these foreign occupiers who are trying to deny you your rights. That's what our ancestors did against the British, that's what the French underground resistance did against the Nazis, and that's what the Vietnamese did against the French and the Americans.

     This isn't France's first meddling in the CAR. The CAR was France's former colony, in which the European country did the standard crimes that all colonial powers did back then: Abuse the country for cheap labor, deny them basic human rights, and stealing their natural resources for profit back home, while the citizens of CAR see none of that profit.
     France also supported the authoritarian dictator Francois Bozize when he was in power, and is currently backing his supporters in this civil war. That's right, all of the suffering that Bozize inflicted on his people, the French helped him do that, why? For a friendly government that they could manipulate and control. Since France was Bozize's lifeline, they could make him do whatever they wanted him to, since without them, he would surely fall rather quickly.

 What can we ordinary Americans do about this? You know I usually try to end a post with practical advice. Unfortunately, there is very little Americans can do about this; this is between France and the CAR. But we can use our voice. Just like I'm doing now, all I'm doing is typing on a keyboard. Use whatever social media you normally use: Facebook, Twitter, blog, Tumblr, etc, whatever, it doesn't matter. Write in defense of the citizens of CAR, since they hardly have the means to have their voices and opinions travel around the world in a nanosecond like you and I do. Explain to people how they have the right to defend themselves, that they have the right to violently overthrow a dictator like Bozize, who oppressed and repressed them for years. Explain that just like not all Christians are bloodthirsty killers like some of the extreme Christian vigilante groups in the CAR, that not all Muslims are bloodthirsty killers like some of the radical Seleka. There are good and bad in every race and religion. Preach equality, unlike some radical Americans, who support the French and support disarming all CAR Muslims so they will be defenseless. 

     So there you have it, an imperial power sticking it's nose in a civil war that is quickly becoming a sectarian war. Things are going to suck there for a while. A European country who has no business being there isn't helping at all. Did France learn anything from Vietnam? MIND YOUR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS AND STOP STEALING THINGS FROM OTHER PEOPLE!! 

And everyone's...okay with this?

Every week, the world learns more and more about how the NSA is being the world's #1 douchebag when it comes to respecting our privacy and actually doing anything to protect us or better this country. This week's revelation is that they collect and log 5 billion cell phone calls everyday. 

 http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/national/how-the-nsa-is-tracking-people-right-now/634/

Not only that, but they use these logs to track your every movements. They can even track your relationship with others, since they have the ability to run tracking data to identify which cellphone users' paths cross, even when you're not even using it. When you move from cell phone tower range to another cell phone tower range, the NSA keeps track of these movement. When confronted about this by the Washington Post, the NSA replied in the most fucked up, retarded piece of shit reply I've ever seen in my entire life.

"NSA says it doesn't collect intentionally US location information in bulk."

Hey, NSA asshole dipshit. You log 5 billion cell phone calls every damn day. What, by accident? Do you expect anyone in the entire planet to believe that pathetic excuse?

The NSA just doesn't do this to terrorist suspects, no, it does it to millions of Americans, who have done nothing wrong. This is its normal, run of the mill practice, it's default surveillance. It's pissing companies off so much, that even big business proponents like Google and Microsoft are getting pissed off, and introducing new methods to try and hide data from the NSA. Because every time the NSA spies on an American, it has to get through a company's data in order to do so, such as Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, etc. And companies do not like that at all, not any less than Americans, but companies have more power to do something about it when they're pissed off. The American people have the potential to be more powerful, but that would require mobilization off their fat couches and doing something about it, which doesn't look like it's gonna happen anytime soon.

But, a small section of the population is getting really pissed off. Activists in Utah want to cut off the water supply to a NSA database center:

 http://swampland.time.com/2013/12/04/nsa-opponents-want-to-cut-off-utah-facility-from-water-supply/

The NSA has called their database "FASCIA." Isn't it hilarious and ironic that word is very similar to the word "fascist?" Or maybe that's the reason they named it that in the first place, to publicly gloat how much fascism they're getting away with in broad daylight.

Oh wait, it gets better. The NSA also has infected ten of thousands of computers with viruses and malware to get the information they want.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/74845/the-nsa-probably-has-installed-a-virus-on-your-computer-and-everyone-else-s

This is massive destruction of the 4th amendment. The NSA is at war with the American people. They must hate us a hell of a lot to be able to do all the shit they do to us on a daily basis and be okay with it all. They believe they have the right, the privilege, to know anything and everything in the world, laws and logic be damned. They will do whatever it takes to get the information they want. They will pass any law to protect their own actions, so that if anyone complains, they can sneer "Oh it's legal!"

What can we ordinary citizens do about it? Not much unfortunately, but the things we can do, we should do very adamantly. Resist resist resist. Write to your congressmen, write letters to the editor to your newspapers, follow activist groups that are fighting on this issue, go to a protest, or write about in your blog, twitter, whatever. Heck, the NSA is probably reading this blog right now. I know I write provocative anti-government, anti-fascist, anti-neo con shit. I know exactly what I'm doing. Provocative, in your face shit gets people thinking. I ain't scared of the NSA, and nor should anyone else, including you. They're bullies, they're trying to intimidate us into submission. They're trying to scare us into not speaking up, to stay silent. They want complacent, docile, drone citizens. Don't let them win!!

To the NSA prick who's reading this: FUCK YOU ALL!!    

Why pay to play online games suck (and other subscription based cloud software)

     This post will be a bit different than normal. Usually I talk about politics but today I'm going to be talking about video games. Video games is another big interest of mine; I started playing them in 1st grade. They're a good stress reliever because it allows someone to completely detach themselves from this fucked up world for just a little bit, and focus on something fun.
      The traditional way of selling and playing video games has been like buying 99% of all other products: you pay for it upfront, a one time deal, and then it is yours forever. This is the way it has been ever since video games were able to be sold to customers and they could take it home. This happened from the 1980's to about the mid 2000's. That's when things started to change, slowly at first, but now, this new way of selling video games is becoming more and more prevalent, and analysts say that eventually, all video games will be sold in the way I'm about to describe. This is rather annoying for me, because this new way completely fucking sucks.
      This new way is that you pay per month to log onto a company's server online to play a game. You no longer have a physical copy of the game. You just have a subscription, a log-in that you use. This sucks for us, the customers, for a number of reasons.

1. The cost of subscription based software will rapidly become more expensive than buying a physical copy, starting in just the first few months of owning the software. For example, let's say I bought Hellgate London in 2008 for $50. That's all it would cost me to play that game till the day I die. Now, let's look at the second example, where I would pay $10 a month to play Hellgate London online, through the company's servers. In just half a year, it would be more expensive for me to subscribe to that game versus if I had paid a one time price to have a physical copy of it. Fast forward to November of 2013. In the first example, guess how much money I've spent on Hellgate London? That's right, still $50. But how much would I have paid in the second example? A whooping $900.  For one fucking game. That is absolutely mind-boggling how expensive it would be, in addition to how mind-boggling it is that band-wagoning swag fags think this subscription based software is cool and hip and so much better than the "old way."
2. If you want to avoid paying that astronomical amount as described above, you have to constantly subscribe and un-subscribe to all your video games, based on the ones you're only currently playing at the moment. Let's say you only play 2 video games at a time. So you subscribe to those two for a while, then once you beat the game or tired of playing it, you have to unsubscribe to those 2 games, (to avoid being charged monthly for a game you don't even play), and then subscribe to 2 new video games. What if one of your friends comes over and wants to play a game you're not currently subscribing to? "Oh sorry man, can't play that one, I'm not subscribing to it at the moment."
3. If your internet goes out, bam, there goes your game. This is critical for people with shitty internet, like me. (Xfinity is ripping my landlord off like a motherfucker. She's paying for 55 mbps and I'm sitting on the fucking computer and can clearly see I'm only getting 5 mbps). Meanwhile, I'm having a blast fighting sand monsters in Prince of Persia, while you're sitting on your ass, not being able to play any of your games, because your internet went out. 
4. If the company goes under and gets rid of it's servers, then bam, there goes your game. I play a few games, like Hellgate London and Titan Quest, whose companies who made them no longer exist because they went out of business. Guess what, I'm still having a blast playing those games. But if you subscribed to one of these games online, then you lost your game. Sucks for you.       

 

     And this just doesn't go for video games, it applies to other online subscription software that lets you access it in the cloud, such as Microsoft Office 365. Let's say you and 3 other friends decide to get Microsoft 365 for the 4 years you guys are going to be in college. That's $100 per person, if you get the best plan geared towards students. (Some other plans for students are $130 per person, and they only allow you to have Office 365 on one device.)
      But let's say you and your 3 friends are smart and get the actual CD for Microsoft Office 2013. Guess how much that costs each of you? $13.75. I know critics of this idea will say "But the box software of Office 2013 will only let you put it on one computer!" To which I reply "Then install it without internet access and never register it. That way, Microsoft will never know how many times you've installed it!" It's a simple and easy way to save money. My siblings and I did this with Office 2010. We've had it installed on 5 different computers, all for way less than if we did Microsoft 365.
     In conclusion, this is very troubling for gamers like me, because if all video games start to be sold like this, then I'll simply not buy anymore new video games, and I'll just continue to play old video games. I refuse to go through all that BS just to have a little fun. If I spend my hard earned money to buy a game, then I better damn as well be able to play it when I want, how I want, and install it on as many systems as I want to. Combine this problem with the fact that the quality of storyline, gameplay, and the music of video games on a whole has substantially gotten pathetically worse since about 2008, (Skyrim is the one exception, and the only game since 2008 that I'd consider to be one of my favorite games), and we could possibly have the death of the video game industry as we know it.        

Woman is murdered for asking for help after a car crash

A 19 year old woman, Renisha McBride, was in a car crash with a parked vehicle. A family who was there at the time of the crash offered to help her, because she appeared confused and was bleeding. She refused help, and instead walked a mile to another house, asking for help. The homeowner said he "feared for his life" and shot McBride in the face with a shotgun, killing her.

Renisha McBride

Full story: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20131111/METRO01/311110095/Autopsy-Detroit-woman-19-shot-face-not-close-range?

Okay, this case is bizarre. There are many things that do not make sense and need answering. The fact that this happened on November 2nd and we still have very few facts about this case is very troubling. As the report in the link says, this story has more questions than answers, specifically:

1. Why did McBride refuse help at the scene of the accident and not wait for police and an ambulance?
2. Why did McBride walk a mile to ask for help, when help was already offered to her and refused?
3. Why did the homeowner shoot McBride in the face for simply walking up to his door and asking for help?

The way I see it, one of two things happened. But the fact remains is that none of us, myself included, really knows what actually happened. All we can do is conjecture based on the facts we already know. So here are the two scenarios:

1. McBride was wacked out on something, either illegal drugs or using prescription drugs that are used to treat mental health problems but end up making mental health problems worse in a person, (that's a whole different topic). That would explain why she appeared "confused" to witnesses, refused help, refused to stay and wait for police and an ambulance, (which were on their way), and walked a mile to another house. Police report said she actually walked off for a while a first time after initially being in the crash, returned to the scene of the accident, and then, upon hearing the police were coming, walked off a second time. All of that is irrational behavior and one of them is a crime, (leaving the scene of an accident). She didn't want the cops finding out that she was wacked out on something, so she left. I do not believe that simply saying this is a possibility is an insult to McBride or her family. It is a logical theory based on the facts we already know. But again, do I know if this is actually the case or not? Nope, not by a long shot. 
2. McBride was racially profiled by a white man brainwashed by our pathetic mainstream media, brainwashed into thinking that all black people are criminals so logically the only reason why a black person would be at his house at 3:40 a.m. would be to rob him. So, he did what the brainwashing media tells him to do: shoot. So he did. 

But it's possible that both happened. One does not exclude the other. Just because McBride might've been wacked out on something does not mean that the homeowner could or couldn't racially profile her. This might've been just a freak incident. But, whatever happened, it did show two important things that are the lesson of this week's post:

• Abuse of drugs while driving is bad, (mmkay). Recreational drug use in private property is not a problem. It's when people abuse it that it becomes a problem. If McBride was on something, it might've had a role on why she did all the irrational and bizarre things that she did. 
• When someone knocks on your door, even at night, find out who it is and properly identify it he/she is a threat before shooting. The homeowner broke 2 fundamental rules of proper gun use. 1. Always identify your target before shooting. 2. Do not put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to shoot. 

The homeowner said that the discharge of his shotgun was an "accident." There is no accidental discharges of firearms, only neglectful discharges. And, what are the odds that this neglectful discharge happened to be pointed right at McBride's face? What a coincidence, right?!
The homeowner thought McBride was a threat. She was not a threat. Therefore, the homeowner did not properly identify his target. His finger had to be on the trigger for the gun to go off, yet he said it was accident, meaning he did not want to shoot. So his finger was on the trigger when he was not ready to shoot.

A sad and bizarre case. Keep your eye out for developments in this story. Maybe the authorities will figure out what the hell happened and why it happened.    

 

Why I'll be voting for Robert Sarvis and not Ken Cucinelli or Terry McAuliffe

     The election for Governor of Virginia is less than a week away. The candidates are Republican Ken Cucinelli, Democrat Terry McAuliffe, and Libertarian Robert Sarvis. Wait, there's a third candidate? I thought there was only Cucinelli and McAuliffe. I mean, that's all the media talks about, (Of course they do. They wouldn't want to give attention to a non-establishment supporter, RIGHT?!)

      I will be voting for Sarvis for a number of reasons. It's really no contest. Cucinelli and McAuliffe are both God awful candidates. It's a testament to both the parties' decadence that this is the best they can come up with. So here are the reasons:

1. Cucinelli opposes gay marriage. Sarvis supports it. 

     I'm as straight as they get, but I support gay marriage. Why? Because there's no reason not to. All the conservative arguments against gay marriage are complete and utter bullshit:

• Gay marriage will ruin the sanctity of marriage. Really?! Look at the stats at marriages now in days. 45% of all marriages end in divorce is a low ball estimate, some estimates say as high as 65%. Abuse is rampant, cheating is a plague, people being their children's friends instead of disciplining them when they do illegal or immoral things is the new norm. So, all that doesn't ruin the sanctity of marriage, but gay marriage will? Yeah right. Someone else's marriage has no effect on how I see my marriage or what it means to me.
• Gay marriage is against Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. No. It's. Not. You can read the Torah, Bible, and Quran from front to back, and you will find absolutely NOTHING about banning gay marriage. This is just another example of people using religion as a cover to protect their own hatred ideals. Besides, let's just say for argument's sake, that Christianity does ban gay marriage. Fine, then you personally, don't get married. But just because you think you shouldn't do something, does not give you the right to shove that ideal down someone else's throat, and say to them that they have to have the same opinion about this certain something that you do. 
• More gay marriages end in divorce that heterosexual marriages. There is no conclusive evidence that shows this. Yes, some websites say so, but other websites, which are just as credible, say no. So one of them is lying. Which one is it? I don't know. That's why it's inconclusive. Besides, let's just say for argument's sake, that more gay marriages end in divorce than heterosexual marriages. So, using that same logic, we should ban Christians from getting married, because more Christians get divorced than Muslims. We should only allow Muslims to get married in this country. If we made that law, people would be up in arms, rightly so, because that's infringing on their rights. So why should we do the same thing to gays if Americans would riot if that same thing happened to them? 
• Gay marriages lead to more trouble making kids, lower grades, etc. Again, no conclusive evidence. Sure, you can find a scientific study done by a influential organization that says so, but then you can turn around and find another scientific study done by another influential organization that says completely the opposite. Besides, even if it were true, since when did America ban everything except the group that is the best? That's like looking at schooling demographics, and banning all races from going to school except Asians, because Asians do the best in school. It's insane!

      2. McAuliffe supports fascist gun control, Sarvis does not.

       Gun control restricts peoples' inalienable right to defend themselves. It hurts law abiding citizens while helping criminals and thugs. There is really no argument here. The thing that will hurt citizens the most will be limiting magazines to only 10 rounds. I don't know about you, but if I'm facing 2 thugs each with gun that can hold 30 bullets, I'd sure as hell want a gun that can hold 30 bullets rather than 10. It's still possible to beat them, but a smaller magazine will just make it harder. And in a life or death situation, you want every advantage you can get.

     3. Cucinelli voted to not raise the minimum wage.

      http://votesmart.org/bill/3821/11799/50871/minimum-wage-increase#.UnFgFBBKQTs
      One of the most basic things they teach you in economics is that the minimum wage must be proportional to inflation and standard of living. Well, the neo-cons have been so successful in keeping the minimum wage down for decades, while inflation and the standard of living have skyrocketed. If the minimum wage was proportional to inflation today, it would be more than $10. (Look it up, I'm not gonna waste my time putting a link for this well known fact).
     Cucinelli follows the standard Republican mantra of not giving a flaming fuck about the poor people working their asses off to put food on the table. He just wants to lower taxes for his super rich friends and supporters, while squeezing the middle class out of existence and forcing them into the poor class.

      4. McAuliffe wants to increase Medicaid, furthering our national debt and furthering peoples' dependence on government.  Sarvis does not.

     http://votesmart.org/public-statement/800471/issue-position-healthcare-and-virginias-economy#.UnFidxBKQTs
     Where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government has the right to take money from hard working people and give it to other people? That's right, nowhere. The Constitution does not give the federal government the right to run such programs as Medicaid and Medicare. Those two programs are an overwhelming huge part of our federal debt. As tragic as peoples' stories are, we just cannot afford to keep these programs. They're running our country into the ground. Do I sound heartless because I don't want to give money to Grandma and poor kids? Maybe. But I don't think it is heartless to say to someone who is old and sick "I'm sorry, but I am in debt up to my eyeballs. My financial situation is a complete and utter wreck. I really can't afford to give you any money right now."
      What the government should be focused on is strengthening the economy enough so that people do not need to rely on Medicaid and Medicare and lowering ridiculous medical costs so they don't cost the same as a house to get a simple operation done. There's nothing in the Constitution saying that the states themselves cannot provide Medicaid and Medicare, just so as long as they don't use federal money. People should also change their spending and lifestyle habits so that they're not completely broke when they get old. For example, in many other countries, old people move in with their children when they cannot live and work on their own. The child then pays for much of their old parents' expenses, eliminating the need for such programs as Medicaid and Medicare.

      5. Both Cucinelli and McAuliffe do not want to legalize marijuana or end the ridiculous war on drugs. Sarvis wants to do both.
      http://www.robertsarvis.com/issues/drug-reform
     Cucinelli and McAuliffe both believe that the government knows what's better for you than you do. They believe the government knows how to better spend your money than you do. They believe that since they personally do not believe smoking marijuana is a good idea, then that means they should force that idea down peoples' throats, and make it so no one can smoke it.
      If you think that smoking marijuana is bad/immoral, fine, I have no problem with that. Then don't do it then! But don't try and make everyone else think that same way!
      Outlawing marijuana gives power to the Mexican drug cartels, because now they have a monopoly on selling the stuff, because legal companies can't. Estimates say that a whooping 60% of the cartels' profits come from selling marijuana:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/opinion/19longmire.html?_r=0

     Just imagine if every ABC store also sold marijuana, for example. You could get it virtually in any town, and for much cheaper, because getting stuff on the black market is always more expensive than getting something the legal way. It wouldn't be profitable for the cartels to sell it anymore. Boom. There goes 60% of their profits. With a crippled income, it makes it a hell of a lot easier to fight them. But Republicans and Democrats want the war on drugs to continue. They want Mexican citizens to be continued to get kidnapped and beheaded. Why? Because as long as there is a war right next to us, the government can continue to sell weapons to both the cartels and the Mexican government. War is a racket. They can continue to get money for training the Mexican army and police. They don't give a flaming fuck about the Mexican people. They just want money money money.  
     Prohibition didn't work with alcohol, and it's not working with marijuana. The government should not micro-manage peoples' individual spending habits on luxuries. They should stop viewing casual users as criminals, just like casual users of alcohol are not alcoholics.

     And there concludes my list. This is not a completely full list, just the top 5. Notice that both Cucinelli and McAuliffe both have ideas that I like. Cucinelli does not favor gun control. I agree with him on that issue. McAuliffe supports gay marriage. I agree with him on that issue. The thing is that their negatives far outweigh their positives. Sarvis is the only one where I agree with him on all the important issues and the majority of issues in general.

Robert Sarvis, Libertarian candidate for governor of Virginia

Vote on November 5th!            

 

More evidence that the US has a terrorist government

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch recently released a publication that, in essence, shows that the US government is killing a lot more civilians in countries like Pakistan and Yemen that they freely admit.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/security-and-human-rights/drones/will-i-be-next
video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o5GOvAarMc
http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/10/21/us-reassess-targeted-killings-yemen

The numbers speak for themselves:

• In Yemen, Human Rights Watch investigated six selected airstrikes since 2009 and concluded that at least 57 of the 82 people killed were civilians, including a pregnant woman.
• Amnesty International said it found strong evidence that more than 30 civilians were killed in four of the attacks in Pakistan. 
• The groups’ findings coincide with a report released Friday by a U.N. human rights investigator, who estimated that 2,200 people have been killed in drone strikes over the past decade in Pakistan. Of those casualties, at least 400 were civilians and 200 others were “probable noncombatants,” according to the U.N. official, Ben Emmerson. He said the statistics were provided by Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry.
• Amnesty International highlighted a July 6, 2012, drone attack in the village of Zowi Sidgi, near the city of Miran Shah, in which it said 18 civilians — including a 14-year-old boy — were killed. 
• In December 2009, a US cruise missile strike on a Bedouin camp in the southern village of al-Majalah killed 14 alleged AQAP fighters and 41 civilians, two-thirds of them women and children. The attack involved cluster munitions – inherently indiscriminate weapons that pose unacceptable dangers to civilians.

The ages of the victims speak for themselves:

• By the end (of 2 particular drone strikes in Pakistan), 18 people were dead, including at 14-year-old boy, and 22 others were wounded, including an 8-year-old girl.
• It recounts another strike, in October 2012, in which a 68-year-old woman, Mamana Bibi, was blown apart by a drone as she picked vegetables in front of her grandchildren, several of whom were injured in the attack. 

Shakira, a Pakistani girl that was 1 year old when a US drone strike hit her and disfigured her. Was she a terrorist? Was she a future producer of terrorists???

The refusal of responsibility, the lack of transparency, and the arrogance of our government acting like a complete God damn dick speaks for itself:

•  With rare exceptions, the US government only acknowledges its role in targeted killings in general terms, refusing to take responsibility for individual strikes or provide casualty figures, including civilian deaths. The Yemeni authorities have been almost as silent. Both governments declined comment on the six strikes that Human Rights Watch investigated.   
• The six strikes also did not meet US policy guidelines for targeted killings that Obama disclosed in May 2013, Human Rights Watch said. 
•  The U.S. government almost never publicly acknowledges its role in individual drone strikes, and its legal justifications for targeting specific people are shrouded in secrecy. 
•  But in virtually all cases, the groups said, it was impossible to know whether the targets had met Obama’s threshold of posing an imminent threat to the United States, because U.S. officials have kept that information a secret.

The aftermath of a Pakistani wedding, bombed by an American drone. If this happened at your wedding, wouldn't you be PISSED OFF?!

What is the definition of terrorism? That's right, killing unarmed civilians. That's what the US is doing, and has been doing for centuries. It's time to get people out of their comfort zones. People feel uncomfortable talking about the crimes that their country's soldiers do, or admitting that they aren't 100% perfect little angels. Fuck your uncomfortableness. People are dying by the thousands because of the American peoples' lazy inaction. The American people could easily solve 90% of the nation's problems by simply voting third party, but no, they still vote for Republicans and Democrats, while both parties are working tirelessly day and night to ruin us.

Look at the facts, look at the stats, look at history, look at peoples' stories. The US HAS A TERRORIST GOVERNMENT. Our American values compel us to get rid of this fucking government as fast as possible, any way we can. Our government is an insult to it's people. It kills innocents on purpose to rile up the friends and families of those killed, so they can justify their one-sided war to get more power and resources.  People have the right to be mad at America. People have the right to fight against America, because America has killed their innocents. If someone killed your wife/husband/son/daughter, wouldn't you think it would be justified if you fought back and killed the murderer?

Afghani children, killed by an American airstrike. Why do we sit in silence when our soldiers kill innocents, yet we constantly demand that citizens of other countries condemn their terrorists? Do not ask someone to do something that you are unwilling to do yourself.

Simply saying basic sentences about the US government will make it easier and more comfortable for you to talk about these concepts. Stating "People have the right to take up arms against America" starts the conversation. We need to have these painful conversations. Yes, it's uncomfortable to talk about these concepts, but the government has pushed this on itself.  Only then can we work towards purging the terrorists out of our government.

Oh, America isn't the only one to blame for this. Drone strikes require the approval of the country it's happening in, otherwise, they would attack our drones with their Air Force or ground to air defenses. But they don't. They let America kill their citizens. The Pakistani and Yemeni are corrupt, self-centered oligarchies that do not care about the well-being of their citizens. They oppress them, denying them the most basic of human rights. Those governments need to be overthrown just as much as America's government needs to be. Without "foreign aid," aka, bribery, from the US, (paid by us, the taxpayers), these governments would not last a month. They're simply puppet governments that allow the US to do what it wants in their country.