This is a pattern you see over and over again: conservatives show up to a protest or counter protest, liberals show up, conservatives get their asses kicked, conservatives whine.

We need to try to break the vicious cycle here.

1) The cops do not have time to baby sit you. Self defense is your own duty.

2) Expect violent confrontation. Do not go to these events if you can't deal.

3) Learn how to box. This means taking boxing lessons. Do not go to the ground unless you've got a lot of friends with you. (See the vid to understand why).

4) Get physically in shape. Lift weights. Get bigger. You shouldn't be getting pushed around by fat tools in t-shirts that descend all the way to their ankles.

Instead of having some inane 'black-is-white' argument with a SWPL about something so obvious that it needs no discussion, why just not attack the source of their dysfunction? Why just not reply with an indignant, "Shut up, fag!" when presented with some bleeding-heart nonsense about why I need to give away more of my money to fixing NAMs or giving them handouts?

The next time I hear some lib whine to me about Prop 8 or Obamacare, I'll try this and let you know how it goes.

Anyways, I've got to get the wife a new car. I wanted to get something that was AWD in case we moved to a snowy area and didn't have too much ground clearance so that it has a low CG while having a passenger capacity of 5. A turbo would be nice as well, especially on a 4-banger. I liked the idea of a Subaru Outback because, on paper, it met those requirements. The reviews were less than stellar. I liked the idea of a minivan, but the Honda Odyssey seats 7, which is too much for us given the gas mileage and cost of the vehicle. I won't buy an American car having seen my parents go through too much heart-ache with them.

The Mazda CX-7 looks 1/2-way decent. Any other suggestions?

With custody, she can then demand “child support” that may amount to half, two-thirds, or more of your income.

This is slavery. I have a friend who works under the table to hide income from the courts.

For Christian men who attend a NAPARC or conservative Missouri Synod church, I counsel them to marry, but only because there is some ecclesiastical authority preventing marriages from going bad. Some. I've still seen nasty divorces even in these churches, so pick your church elders wisely.

Over at Roissy's, a married reader councils against marriage, stating that even though "game" made his marriage palatable, it is still not worth it.

Many Christians and people into "the culture war" are worried about "pick-up artists" and guys like Roissy who take the climate of today's sexual mores to their logical conclusion. "We can't keep Western civilization going that way!" is usually the argument. Still, more evangelicals and culture warriors knock guys like Roissy because it doesn't validate their own lifestyle. They're miserable, so everyone else should be also. Evangelicalism is every bit as feminized and destructive to men as the culture at large, so the marriages in it are no better. Divorce is as common at evangelical churches as the fruity music they play every Sunday morning, and the pews are filled with shrews clucking on about something stupid their husbands did/said earlier that week.

To these latter types I ask, "Why do you care what everyone else does?" Sure Western civilization will collapse if everyone acted this way, but it's headed for collapse already and not really worth preserving at this point. The federal government takes 1/3 of my pay through income taxes alone. Why would I want that preserved? Why would I want to support a federal government that can't keep its hands off my guns and free speech rights? Short of violence, the only thing that can get rid of the monstrosity that the federal government has become is to starve it of fresh new taxpayers.

Sometimes, you've gotta just get out the real big explosives and start over from scratch (the Constitution).

But I'm fairly certain that if these objectors actually read what pick-up artists are saying, their marriages would be much, much happier.

It's good for your marriage when your wife's friends flirt with you and ask her where she found you. It's good to act like you have a back-bone. It's good to treat your wife like a kid-sister. That doesn't mean be an asshole, it doesn't mean be a jerk, but it does mean that you recognize your natural authority as the head of the relationship and act accordingly.

I find it bizarre that men nowadays let their women mock them publicly or let them assume more authority in the relationship than that which men naturally have. Why do men tolerate from their women what they wouldn't tolerate from their own male friends?

In short, marriage in the modern West (and especially the USA) has turned into this big male-bullying exercise. If you tolerate bullying, you get more of it.

Chucky Johnson took this picture of the El Segundo jetty while on his bike ride down from Venice Beach. I used to live right over the hill from this spot off Grand Avenue and used to surf it when the tide got low enough and the surf got big enough to take off in front of the jetty going left.

Notice how Chucky Johnson sticks to the almost entirely white portions of Los Angeles, even though they are few and far between and pressed entirely up against the coast except for Long Beach?

Be prepared to outlaw violent alternative primary loyalties, including some religions (which in the case of the U. S. would require Constitutional amendments). To those who argue that religious tolerance must be unlimited, I ask, would we tolerate the re-establishment of the Aztec religion, with its demand for ceaseless human sacrifices, on American soil? Of course not.

So, the "But freedom of religion!" people have some experimenting to do in their heads with Islam also. Should we allow a religion that calls for the subjugation of nonbelievers to propagate in this country? Of course not.

The cultural Marxists, leaping to the defense of “diversity,” their favorite poison for Western societies, claim Major Hasan’s massacre of his fellow soldiers does not represent Islam. Sorry, but it represents Islam all too well. Islam does not recognize any separation between church and state. States have no legitimacy in Islam; legitimacy adheres only to the Ummah, the community of all believers. The only legitimate law is Sharia. All Muslims are commanded to wage jihad against all non-Islamics. Loyalty to Islam must be the believer’s primary loyalty. ...
The U.S. military has already seen soldiers kill other soldiers as part of gang-related activities. Gangs may be as important an alternate primary loyalty as religion. As the state loses its legitimacy, the variety of new primary loyalties that arise to replace it will be limitless. As this column has often warned, Fourth Generation war is not just something fought “over there.” It comes to a theater near you. That includes places like Ft. Hood. Many 4GW entities know that the best way to deal with hostile state security forces, police as well as military, is to take them from within. Last week also saw the killing of five British soldiers in Afghanistan by an Afghan policeman working with their unit. Many police departments along the southern U.S. border are owned by the drug traffickers.

Both of these things (gangs/Muslims) are immigration problems. Both are racial problems as well. How will this end?

The Establishment, which continues to pretend the state (or Globalist super-state) has a monopoly on primary loyalty, predictably proclaimed the shootings the actions of “a madman.” That is what old and passing orders always say about the first avatars of the coming order (or disorder). It’s how the old order whistles past the graveyard – its own graveyard.

I got unnecessarily hissy with John and Morgen, but I think subscribing to Islam clearly fits the definition of treason under the Constitution, for the reasons I outlined in the comments. Giving the enemy aid, comfort, and adherence is treason. Islam is at war with us. We can simply follow SNK's flow-chart

Read all the comments and as usual you acquit yourself quit well. The US must ask and answer a few questions. This could be a flowchart.
1) Is this a war? Yes? No?
2) If "Yes", do we want to win? Yes? No?
3) If "Yes", who is the enemy?
4) Name the enemy
5) Kill every last one of the enemy you can until someone says 'uncle' and surrenders unconditionally.
I think the US (leaders at least & 'leaders' is a euphemism) has not answered question #1. Until we answer, this low-intensity war will continue and ratchet upward as the muslim population grows.

On your "Operation CamelBack", what would we have done with Nazi indoctrination centers in the US in WWII that were doing the same thing as the muslims are now? Since nazi-ism would not have been tolerated in the US in WWII, and action would have been taken (death, deportation) I would think there is a case to do the same with muslims.

Of course, no one would want such deaths on their hands when they've cooled off and thought about it, so Operation Camelback is the way to go.

The preacher at the time was Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Yemeni scholar who was banned from addressing a meeting in London by video link in August because he is accused of supporting attacks on British troops and backing terrorist organisations.

Under our current rubric of Invade the World/Invite the World, we can expect more of these mosques as Muslims become more numerous in the US. What's that you say? You don't want more mosques? What about freedom of religion you bigot? After all, if we don't let whoever wants to come to America to come to America and do whatever they want, we wouldn't be America, would we? We'd be just like Adolph Hitler.

Considering I think the expulsion of all Muslims from the United States to be warranted based on shari'ah being a treasonous political doctrine that calls for the deprivation of Constitutional rights of infidels, I have to answer in the affirmative.

If everyone held to my view, the Jews would be decidedly better off.

SoCal is a hotbed of shari'ah promoting activity for anyone with eyes to see. Jews are harassed by Muslims at Berkeley, UCI, UCLA, and there is pro-"Palestinian" activity at every UC school and USC.

“The hour of judgment will only come when Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, when the Jews hide behind the rocks and the trees, and the rocks and the trees cry out, ‘O Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.’”

So Muslims wait in anticipation for the apocalyptic day in which they will rise up and kill Jews. It's right there in the Hadith compiled by Muslim, which is regarded as sahih, hence, Sahih Muslim.

Might such a hadith have influenced guys like, say, Ahmedinejad? Sure sounds a lot like the stuff he says. How about Sheikh Tantawi - the Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar (the nearest thing Islam has to a Pope)? His entire dissertation was antisemitic and based on ahadith like these and Surah 2.

I dunno. What do you think? Antisemitic or not, are my views good for the Jews?