Sarcastic Sentry Volume 4, Issue 2

Starbuck’s goes political (again).

I get notice that several activists, who probably have never had a single thing bad happen to them beyond not being able to match up their socks from the dryer, have decided to change their order names when they go to Starbucks from “Muffy” or “Biff”, “Brandi” or “Dirk”. They’ve decided to have their name be “blacklivesmatter”. This way, when their cup of overpriced, hot muddy water is ready for their silver-spoon fed lips, the Barista has to call that out for all inside the coffee heaven to hear. Worse, I’m told that it came down from on high (the CEO) that doing this is a condition of employment—to NOT read it aloud will get you fired.

I wonder if I went there and wrote my name as “horsesasslivesmatter”. Will they call that out loud, too? Or is it just the anti-white social activism that is mandated? Are we that absorbed in white guilt? The “other side” of this social whack-a-mole is professing that they will just deface every bill they pay with BLUE LIVES MATTER written on the bill, (in big blue bold Sharpie). Do they think that will matter? The coffee artist isn’t going to care that the money is written on. They don’t even have to accept it.

No, the better method is to frequent a different coffee house. Dazbog makes and sells coffee. Dunkin Donuts does too. Seattle’s Finest. I could Google more. Probably every Starbucks has a place within 100 yards of it that sells coffee. Is theirs so good that you can’t grimace and swallow another brand down? Starbucks has a history of left-leaning, stupid activism.

It is well past time to punish them for their stupidity. If I drank coffee, it would be because I like coffee—not because I want a social lesson on how I should feel bad about myself for being able to afford buying one in a fine, clean, crime-free, police patrolled part of town. But I don’t drink coffee. I can’t punish them. I think I have spent less than $10 in a Starbucks my entire life—on hot chocolate. And it wasn’t even that good.

 

France learns another lesson the hard way, while the liberal media pointing fingers everywhere but where they should

France, during a celebration, witnessed carnage not seen since wartime last week. Another Muslim got a hold of a truck, instead of an AR-15 “assault rifle”, and used it to plow through a crowd of people for over a mile before being killed. More than 80 are killed, hundreds injured. The driver, a Tunisian born ISIS follower, was also a drug user, and obviously bi-sexual. His phone contained pictures and numbers of both men and women he had slept with. (One might recall a previous post of mine where I mention that Iraqi police stated that women were for babies—men were for pleasure.) So, extra-marital sex with both sexes, and drug use. Both things strictly forbidden by the Quran/Koran (however you want to spell that terrorism guide book), were apparent staples in this goon’s life. And they want to preach to me about being impure.

Worse, the media blames the truck! CNN CBC and the NYT all had headlines featuring that the truck did the carnage—not the ISIS inspired, Muslim crazed murderer driving it.

MSNBC referred to the event as a “truck crash”, Thursday evening. CBC ran this: “Children feared killed in Nice as a truck attacks ‘family event’”. NPR reported that “Scores dead after a truck plows in Bastille Day Crowd in Nice”.

While some may be forgiven for not specifically pointing out the nationality or motivation of the driver early on, the truck blaming continued even hours after French police and political leaders confirmed it was a terror attack. The Hill reported that dozens were dead after a truck drives into a crowd on Friday morning. NBC News wrote that 80 were killed in a truck attack. Reuters finally added the terror theme but did so haltingly by saying a truck ‘terrorist’ killed 80 in an attack in Nice.

No, he wasn’t a ‘terrorist’. He was a terrorist. No dicing. No word games. No soft pedaling.

CNN kept up the ruse for several hours—even after news of the driver and his social media divulges became public by headlining that “Truck Rams Crowd; 84 Dead in Nice.”

Since B. Hussein himself won’t call them radical Muslim extremists (or terrorists), why should we expect the media to?

We need to get these assault trucks off our streets. It is too easy to get one. It is easier to get a truck in some cities than it is to get a book. No civilian needs a truck that big. More government regulation is required. In the trucking industry, that is. The media? They’re already in the bag.

 Hard time to be a cop; killed or refused service

Lucky’s Teriyaki is a small diner, probably seats less than 40 in small town Sedro-Woolley, Washington. Last week they because nationally famous for telling 4 deputies eating there that they were not welcome to come back—that local customers do not like law enforcement. The police department called back and confirmed it. So they said they would oblige. They’d still respond to emergencies, being as that is their job and duty.

Odd isn’t it? The cops would still respond since that is what they’ve sworn to do and it is their job. The liberal “blacklivesmatter” idiots at Lucky’s don’t want to do their job—serve food. And they aren’t even sworn to do it. Now I don’t know if that is the prime reason the morons banished the cops, but given where they are, the piece fits in the puzzle quite well.

If I were a cop, sure I’d respond to a disturbance call there. Right after I fixed the flat, or replaced the headlight on the cruiser, or changed the batteries on the door lock remote. And I’d have to park off sight and wait for back up.

The owner’s son, turns out is more pragmatic and business-minded. He quickly apologized and offered LE free lunch if they’d come back. He said it was a “misunderstanding.”  If someone came tableside when I was eating and told (not asked), told me I was not welcome and to not come back, I’d say that was pretty clear.  There is only one word there more than one syllable. 

If I could be persuaded to ever go there for food again (and I doubt I could be—after all, SOMEBODY working there with saliva glands doesn’t like me for what I do for a living), I would insist on paying for my meal. Let them fail. Small businesses in Washington state have a fairly high failure rate (40% after 3 years). After that, we can just call the fire department to put out the flames.

Then there is Dallas, and Baton Rouge, and Milwaukee, and any number of places where cops are being shot at or killed.

The Dallas killer said he wanted to kill white people—especially white police officers. He did. Killed 5 wounded 7 more. The media nearly lauded his marksmanship skills. If he was that great a shot, all 12 would be dead…and he’d have 18 rounds left in the magazine.

Baton Rouge: The guy pissed off at white police officers kills a black one. He kills 3 officers in an ambush and wounds three others before graciously being put down like a rabid dog. The killer, also a former Marine posted several hints that he was losing it.

He posted that in revolutions, the only way to win was to fight back-to shed blood. It is the only way the bully knows to quit. So cops are bullies, and this crime fighting—at least to him—is a justified revolution. He even equated targeting and ambushing officers to the behavior of George Washington. Really?!? THE founding father would have approved of the killer’s revolutionary tactics?

I’ve said it before. You could not pay me enough to wear that uniform. I wore enough of them in my lifetime. Never that one. I tried once. In Cincinnati. I remember applying. When I turned my application in to the overweight black female corporal, she drew a big “+” on it. In the left upper corner she wrote a “W” (white). In the upper right corner she wrote an “M” (male). This was in 1985. I didn’t get the job. I can’t imagine how many more letters they have to choose from now. “G”, “H”, “T”, “Q”. All to appease a fringe minority who see themselves as deserving more.

No thanks. I’ll pass on being a cop.

 

 

The fix was always in

A good friend of mine sent me a very long text yesterday after the memes about Hillary Clinton started flying back and forth.  You know the ones about laws being for the little people or the poor people…  He called it his Rant du Jour.  I called it a masterpiece.

Kenneth Baldwin is a former Marine and Army dog.  He was a co-worker until he got railroaded.  He’s smart and prepared.  He’s one of those guys that after you meet him you sit back into the protective pillows of your recliner and whisper, “Shit.  I never thought of it that way.”  Like I said, he’s a good friend.  He’s one of about five people who if they called for help, I’d go on a leave of absence to come assist.  Here is his take on the FBI “investigation” and their conclusions.

Ken’s Rant du Jour:

The FBI Director is often touted as the “Top Law Enforcement Officer of the Land” and is supposed to be a super cop. I am not a super cop; I am a reformed cop. However, since 1984, I have been through more than a few classes on criminal law, substantive law, and procedural law.

I recall from my studies Mens Rea- you know, Culpable Mental State- whereas we would consider such a thing in determining whether a crime had been committed in order to validate our probable cause.

So, if I recall from the school house, those mental states are:
Knowingly, Intentionally, Recklessly, or With Criminal Negligence. Been a while, am I close?

I also recall that those mental states are mutually exclusive, meaning that if one committed an act With Criminal Negligence, then by definition they could not have had Intent. And, though a negligent crime usually has a lesser degree and lesser penalty attached, IT IS STILL CHARGED! That is why we have DEGREES of crimes!

So, when The FBI Director said that Killary did in fact show criminal negligence in her actions and inactions, but he didn’t recommend prosecution because she didn’t show intent…
How? Is? This? Not? Criminal?

A crime of negligence does not require intent; in fact if intent were present, it would then not be a negligent crime, but a higher level crime due to the INTENT.

Prosecutors are supposed to be on the side of Justice, and they are the ones who recommend and proffer charges. Law enforcement officers do not make recommendations of charges, they impartially investigate and report. If the act is in-progress or “fresh” they will arrest on probable cause and write a detailed report of their findings. Still, the prosecutor makes the call on charges.

For Comey to even publicize his opinion is possibly a malfeasance, and he should be looked at for sanctions and censure. His duty was only to report on the investigation, not to pull a publicity stunt for the Heir Apparent to Emperor Hussein.

End of Rant

Sentry’s thoughts:

I told you, he is a smart guy.

How odd it is that only days after an unpublicized highly unethical, unrecorded, unphotographed, yet highly planned meeting between Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch, that this finding is arrived at.   The Navy is putting the screws to a Reservist who did exactly what Comey said Clinton did–careless handling of classified material.  Yet she just gets a few days of bad press.

Do you think maybe that a few years from now that Comey and Lynch both retire comfortably with the buried and filtered millions they will receive from the Clinton Foundation?  The fix is in?  It always was.