I have long argued (for more than 20 years, in fact) that the policies of Israel amount to apartheid and are really nothing more than racism, when you get down to it.

Now the Israeli government has adopted an actual law that takes the "soft" racism (e.g. right of return, etc.) and has turned it into actual, hard, factual discrimination.

Netanyahu:  “We will keep ensuring civil rights in Israel’s democracy but the majority also has rights and the majority decides. An absolute majority wants to ensure our state’s Jewish character for generations to come..”

Israel has every right to do this, as a sovereign state.

But I and others have every right to call it as we see it, and to refuse to support it -- officially or otherwise.

It is time for America, if there is any actual belief in civil rights remaining in this country, to tell Israel to go **** a duck.  And if this nation does not immediately do it, and you know damn well it won't, then shut the **** up about so-called "civil rights" as you simply do not believe in them -- you're a lying sack of crap.

Anyone writing this sort of column deserves to be a slave because they volunteered:

The right of Californians to self-government and democracy suffered a serious blow Wednesday when the state Supreme Court ordered that a proposition asking voters if they want to break the most populous state in the nation into three states must be removed from the November ballot.

A right predates government.

A government can only respect or disrespect a right.  And governments only exist with and so long as the consent of the people exists.

As soon as that ends so does the government.

There are two ways that plays out, if said consent evaporates: peacefully, and not-so-much.

One would always hope for the former, but sadly sometimes people who have government power that has ceased to be consensual refuse to give it up and the second becomes necessary.

The question thus becomes very simple: Is it actually the demand of the people of California to reorganize the state into three, or is this just someone, or a few someones, whining because they didn't get their way?

If the former then you have both the right and indeed the obligation to take care of business.

If the latter, well, then persuasion (until you reach the former state), or if you're unable to do so then moving to a state with a government that better-aligns with what you believe, is the proper path to be on.

There's a load of BeeEss flying around about boys in blue who are being lauded as "heroes" for their actions in apprehending a couple of thugs.

Watch the video.

I don't see heroes -- I see felons committing multiple serious criminal acts of malfeasance and felony negligence.

Repeatedly driving with one hand to repeat the obvious multiple times (e.g. "shots fired") in traffic, during a pursuit is the very definition of reckless driving.  That alone is a criminal offense.

But then it gets much worse because that cop plays Hollywood Movie and shoots through his windshield.

Anyone who has any knowledge of ballistics would never do that.  The reason is simple -- the glass will alter the trajectory of the round and the degree of deflection is then magnified by the distance from the windshield to the intended target.

In other words you cannot aim at someone through a windshield in your car when the intended target is orders of magnitude further away from the windshield than you are and have that actually be "aimed fire."  It is random fire and randomly firing a weapon is the very definition of a negligent and felonious discharge of said weapon.

It does not matter if you had a legitimate target or not because your rounds are not aimed at him or her.  If you are chasing someone who is shooting at you and you randomly fire your weapon, not aiming at the perpetrator but rather shooting literally at random, you are still a felon irrespective of whether the other person is a felon too.

Second, when said cop took both hands off the wheel to fire with his (presumed) "strong hand" out the window that also was not aimed fire, never mind the outrageous reckless operation of his vehicle during that time.  His shooting in that instance in the video was nothing different than the thug who turns a gun sideways; it is by definition random fire and thus felonious in that it is grossly negligent.

How is it that we live in 2018 and yet with MDTs in every car, which you can see in this cop car, the officer has to tell the dispatcher where he is and to do so he must key a microphone that requires taking his hands off the wheel?  What sort of horse**** is this where the vehicle is not set up to automatically and continually report position by GPS whenever the lights and/or siren are engaged so the officer can pay attention to not ramming the other vehicles on the road, or being rammed by them, while he engages in his pursuit?

I get it -- he got the bad guy.  Ok.

But that doesn't change a thing.  The shots he fired were reckless and intentionally so as was his operation of the vehicle during the pursuit.  All of those are criminal offenses and those that involved the use of a firearm were felonies.

Yeah, the bad guy needs to go to prison.  But there was more than one bad guy -- the cop who played Hollywood was the other one, and he too needs to face charges for that outrageous display.  Had that been you or I we'd be sitting in jail right now facing multiple felony indictments and it must be the same for the so-called "boys in blue" when they outrageously endanger the public, as was the case here.

With a nice, special price -- an original piece of art!

Email kairia.rocks@gmail.com for more information -- or read here!

So yeah, this is what we are told we must embrace.

We must not deride it.

We must not consider it odd, strange, perverted or anything of the sort.

Caitlyn Jenner is pictured at the 2018 ESPY Awards alongside her rumored girlfriend Sophia Hutchins, 21.

The 68-year-old former Olympian sported a black velour knee-length dress with black pumps as she hit the red carpet at the Microsoft Theater in Los Angeles on Wednesday.

Uh huh.

A nearly 70 year old "dating" a 21 year old.  Right.  This is an equals power relationship, right?  Especially when the older is both rich and famous while the younger was apparently first met when a college student.

Oh, and "Sophia"?  Uh...... no, not really.

Two "ladies", right?  Uh, no, those are not two lesbians getting along.

It's two guys folks -- two gay men.  That's what you factually have here.

Oh, and Scott is the age of Bruce's second-youngest child.  Which, I remind you, is a pattern that gay men do frequently exhibit (then again it's not exactly uncommon for heterosexual men to like younger partners either!)

As adults both of these men are free to make whatever choices they wish.  But those of us who have children (say much less just those of us who have no desire to cut off this or that body part) have every right to look at this pair of individuals as well beyond the "ordinary" thing that you often see with some "older dude" dating a younger woman.

I see plenty of that crap around here; 60 year old dudes with a big fat penis extender (in the form of a nice expensive boat) with a 20-ish cute, big-breasted (probably artificial) girl traipsing around on same.  I've even come around a corner in my much more-modest vessel and seen two horizontal snakes playing on the cushions in said go-fast right out in the open.  It's not exactly uncommon but nobody with more than 2 nickels of intelligence to rub together has any trouble identifying what is going on and said fat balding bastard probably stuffed 6 Viagras down his throat too.

How do you deflect comments like "you're a predatory piece of ****" -- or worse?

Claim to be "trans" and thus "protected" from such criticism and people spitting in your direction when they see you.

Well, guess what -- I don't recognize such "protection" and you're a piece of ****, Bruce.