First time visitor? Learn more.

Allah Akbar and Ho, Ho, Ho

by Speranza ( 121 Comments › )
Filed under Al Qaeda, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Islam, Islamic Terrorism, Islamists, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Multiculturalism, Muslim Brotherhood, September 11 at January 3rd, 2014 - 12:00 pm

Can you imagine any time between 1937 and 1945 a Japanese flag flying over any site in America?  An Islamic flag in front of the World Trade Center in 1997 (four years after Muslims tried to bring down  the WTC down) presaged the Ramadan dinners, the “Islam is a religion of peace” pablum that is a part of the staple of American political culture. The sycophancy of the American presidency and the political elites regarding Islam is nauseating. I do recall Mohammad T. Mehdi from the 1970′s and 80′sm he was a loudmouthed rabble rouser.

by Daniel Greenfield

“A flag bearing a crescent and star flies from a flagpole in front of the World Trade Center, next to a Christmas tree and a menorah.”—New York Times, 1997

In 1997, Mohammed T. Mehdi, the head of the Arab-American Committee and the National Council on Islamic Affairs, lobbied to have a crescent and star put up at the World Trade Center during the holiday season. His wish was granted, despite the fact that he had been an adviser to Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman also known as the Blind Sheikh.

In the name of diversity and political correctness, an adviser to the religious leader behind the World Trade Center bombing, was allowed to plant an Islamic symbol of conquest in the very place that had been bombed.

Long before the Ground Zero Mosque was even a twinkle in the eye of a violent ex-waiter and aslumlord Imam, the World Trade Center allowed Mohammed T. Mehdi to bully it into flying the symbol of Islam.

By 1997, Mohammed T. Mehdi had become an unambiguously ugly public figure. He had been fired by Mayor Dinkins in 1992 for anti-Semitic remarks. The year before he had proclaimed that, “Millions of Arabs believe Saddam stands tall having defied Western colonialism”.

In 1995, the US Attorney’s Office in New York had listed Mehdi as an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of Sheikh Rahman. Mehdi had already published a book titled “Kennedy and Sirhan: Why?”, which contended that Robert Kennedy’s assassin had been acting in self-defense.

Because of Mehdi’s role in actively working on behalf of the Sheikh behind the wave of terrorism that included the original attack on the World Trade Center, turning down his request should have been a no-brainer. Instead in the winter of 1997 there was an Islamic star and crescent at the World Trade Center. And another one at the park in front of the White House.

Four years before the September 11 attacks; both targets had already been marked.

The previous year had marked the first annual Ramadan dinner at the State Department, integrating the Islamic celebration into the Clinton Administration’s schedule of events. Bill Clinton had not visited the World Trade Center after the bombing, but he did make time for Ramadan.

A month after 9/11, Bush went Clinton one better when he became the first president to host a Ramadan dinner at the White House. Many of the Muslim ambassadors at the event were representing countries that helped finance Al Qaeda. Little more than a month after September 11, the President of the United States sat down to break bread with the money men behind the attacks.

The Star and Crescent flying at the World Trade Center did not prevent it from being targeted in a second greater attack four years later. Nor did the Ramadan dinners keep the plane headed for the White House at bay. It took the self-sacrifice of its American passengers to do that. Instead every gesture of appeasement only seemed to make it worse.

[.....]

No one who understood what had happened at the World Trade Center in 1993, would have permitted a banner associated with its attackers to be flown there. But while the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, let Mehdi have his way with the World Trade Center, other Muslims were working to carry out Sheikh Abdel-Rahman’s agenda for a war on America and the free world.

[......]

While the Star and Crescent was blowing in the cold December wind coming off the Hudson River, an even colder wind was blowing out of Hamburg, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. A year earlier Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had come up with the idea and presented it to Osama bin Laden. A year later the operation began to move forward.

While Secretary of State Albright was holding her Ramadan dinners, other Ramadan dinners were being held out of sight at which more substantive events were being discussed.

While the US was busy bombing Yugoslavian civilians in order to create a separatist Muslim state for KLA terrorists; Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were recruiting the first of the 9/11 hijackers. While the United States tried to appease Muslims, Muslims plotted to murder Americans.

In 1997, the New York Daily News wrote an upbeat story about Mehdi’s Star and Crescent, which envisioned Islam blending merrily into the holiday season.

New York may seem a little brighter this holiday season as the glowing Muslim crescent and star symbol nudges its way onto a seasonal landscape of Christmas trees, menorahs and Kwanzaa candles.

Watch out, ho, ho, ho-ing Santas you might get drowned out by cheery folks yelling, “Allahu akbar!”

Four years later, cheery folks yelling “Allahu Akbar” had filled downtown Manhattan with ashen snow and brightened it with the flames of the burning towers of the World Trade Center.

The 9/11 hijackers left behind notes which said among other things, “Shout, ‘Allahu Akbar,’ because this strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers”.

If there were any Santas on those planes, they were certainly drowned out by the cries of “Allah Akbar”. And if that didn’t drown them out, having their throats being slit by the cheery folks with box cutters surely did.

[.......]

“It would be like a gift for somebody,” a police officer said, who was spending his holiday searching through the debris. A gift for the infidels from Islam.

While Muslims were stuffing their faces in November of 2001, Americans were mourning their dead. While Abdul, Mohammed and Raisa were picking through their lamb stew, Americans were picking up the pieces of their loved ones. But it was they who were told to be sensitive to Muslim concerns.

From Pakistan, Musharraf urged the US to suspend bombing his Taliban allies during Ramadan. In the name of sensitivity. New York City schools were making arrangements for Muslim prayers out of “heightened sensitivity to Muslim concerns after the Sept. 11 attack”. Instead of Americans being on the receiving end of “heightened sensitivity”, the ideology that had conspired to murder them was.

On the 9th anniversary of 9/11, Islam had another gift for New Yorkers. Having bought up a building damaged in their own attack, they plotted to set up a grand mosque near Ground Zero. Another gift to New Yorkers from the religion that kept on giving. Another Crescent and Star.

The same people who did not learn the lesson in 1997, and allowed the Crescent and Star to fly at the World Trade Center, were eager to let the Ground Zero Mosque go forward in the name of tolerance. But despite the Crescent and Star, appeasement proved to be no defense.

3,000 died on 9/11 because American leaders preferred to appease, rather than confront. And we are still busy appeasing, like never before.

Allah Akbar and Ho, Ho, Ho.

Read the rest – Allah Akbar and Ho, Ho, Ho

 

Tags: ,

Comments

Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

121 Responses to “Allah Akbar and Ho, Ho, Ho”
( jump to bottom )

  1. AZfederalist
    1 | January 3, 2014 12:09 pm

    What a crazy world we live in. Can’t imagine holding Shinto gatherings at the White House after Pearl Harbor, but I’ll bet the nuts who came up with these policies could.


  2. 2 | January 3, 2014 12:11 pm

    His wish was granted, despite the fact that he had been an adviser to Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman also known as the Blind Sheikh.

    That fact alone should have made him persona non grata to pretty much everyone. Instead, we see that this terrorist enabler is a man highly respected in the Islamic community. Make no mistake. Individually and as a group Muslims support terrorism against the United States and Israel. It is part of the fundamental foundations of their creed. Asking a Muslim to deny terrorism is akin to asking a Christian to deny the Divinity of Christ. Terrorism is that fundamental to their beliefs. As I’ve said before, you can look at Muslim “Charities” and see this. The “charatible giving” in the Muslim community is not alms for the poor, but funds to support the Jihad. Notice when there is a major natural disaster in Muslim countries. The rescue and support efforts are lead by the Red Cross, not the Red Crescent. The Red Crescent is one of the arms of the Jihad, an Jihad doesn’t require them to go to the aid of their fellow Muslims in distress, especially if they can get the kafir to pay for it.


  3. 3 | January 3, 2014 12:13 pm

    Ho Ho Ho!


  4. 4 | January 3, 2014 12:14 pm

    AZfederalist wrote:

    What a crazy world we live in. Can’t imagine holding Shinto gatherings at the White House after Pearl Harbor, but I’ll bet the nuts who came up with these policies could.

    Imagine if we had Bush or Obama during WWII? The Japanese and Nazis would have walked all over us.


  5. 5 | January 3, 2014 12:15 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Asking a Muslim to deny terrorism is akin to asking a Christian to deny the Divinity of Christ.

    That is the truest statement I have ever heard.


  6. 6 | January 3, 2014 12:28 pm

    @ Rodan:

    You will love this!

    Detroit police chief: Legal gun owners can deter crime

    Detroit— If more citizens were armed, criminals would think twice about attacking them, Detroit Police Chief James Craig said Thursday.

    Urban police chiefs are typically in favor of gun control or reluctant to discuss the issue, but Craig on Thursday was candid about how he’s changed his mind.

    “When we look at the good community members who have concealed weapons permits, the likelihood they’ll shoot is based on a lack of confidence in this Police Department,” Craig said at a press conference at police headquarters, adding that he thinks more Detroit citizens feel safer, thanks in part to a 7 percent drop in violent crime in 2013.

    Craig said he started believing that legal gun owners can deter crime when he became police chief in Portland, Maine, in 2009.

    “Coming from California (Craig was on the Los Angeles police force for 28 years), where it takes an act of Congress to get a concealed weapon permit, I got to Maine, where they give out lots of CCWs (carrying concealed weapon permits), and I had a stack of CCW permits I was denying; that was my orientation.

    “I changed my orientation real quick. Maine is one of the safest places in America. Clearly, suspects knew that good Americans were armed.”


  7. Speranza
    7 | January 3, 2014 12:36 pm

    AZfederalist wrote:

    What a crazy world we live in. Can’t imagine holding Shinto gatherings at the White House after Pearl Harbor, but I’ll bet the nuts who came up with these policies could.

    Oh you know it.


  8. 8 | January 3, 2014 12:36 pm

    @ Rodan:

    I saw that! It is good news. I wonder, though, about whether it will stop the drive for more gun control. In the end, gun control is not about crime control. The gun controllers don’t care if the crime rate goes up because people can’t defend themselves. Indeed, from where I am sitting that looks like a goal of theirs. Part of gun control is about making crime safer for the criminals. That is what they want to happen. That gives them an excuse to crack down in the name of “crime prevention”, and just make peoples’ lives more misterable and controlled than they already are. We’re goin gto see that happen in NYC, now that they’ve elected an openly Communist mayor. All I can say about that is no Federal bailout. When New York is bankrupt again, no Federal bailout of the city. Elections have consequences.


  9. Speranza
    9 | January 3, 2014 12:37 pm

    I mean the first day after the 9/11 murders he felt the need to go to a Mosque?


  10. brookly red
    10 | January 3, 2014 12:39 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    “I changed my orientation real quick. Maine is one of the safest places in America. Clearly, suspects knew that good Americans were armed.”

    while that is all true one can not discount the demographic(s)… Portland also has a lot less criminal types than say Detroit.


  11. RIX
    11 | January 3, 2014 12:41 pm

    The above article is a good example of why our enemies don’t respect us & think that we deserve what we get.


  12. 12 | January 3, 2014 12:43 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Part of gun control is about making crime safer for the criminals.

    Yup and more criminals means more Police State.


  13. 13 | January 3, 2014 12:43 pm

    @ brookly red:

    But if people of those demographics are armed, it changes the equation.


  14. 14 | January 3, 2014 12:44 pm

    Speranza wrote:

    I mean the first day after the 9/11 murders he felt the need to go to a Mosque?

    Thanks God we had FDR as our President during WWII. Can you imagine if we had Clinton, Bush or Obama?


  15. brookly red
    15 | January 3, 2014 1:01 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ brookly red:

    But if people of those demographics are armed, it changes the equation.

    it’s ironic you can be armed where you don’t need to be but where you need to be you couldn’t be (pardon the expression) to save your life.


  16. brookly red
    16 | January 3, 2014 1:03 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:

    Part of gun control is about making crime safer for the criminals.

    Yup and more criminals means more Police State.

    more irony- it’s takes a criminal to run a police state.


  17. brookly red
    17 | January 3, 2014 1:05 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ brookly red:

    But if people of those demographics are armed, it changes the equation.

    oh and right on time from Quinnipiac…
    http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/quinnipiac-study-concealed-carry-results-fewer-murders


  18. 18 | January 3, 2014 1:05 pm

    @ Rodan:
    I’ve been railing against the militarization of the police ever since Waco. Police are not soldiers, and soldiers are not police (I guess with the exception of Military Police). The skillsets are different. Personally, I don’t think law enforcement should be allowed any weapons that aren’t available to the general public. That is especially true of automatic weapons. Police are almost never goin got be in a position where they need full auto. They will almost always have the option of calling in backup. If a semi-automatic is good for civilians, then it is good enough forthe police. In that, I am not against police having a cruiser gun that is an AR-15, but it should have to conform to all the legalities of a civillian weapon, including things like the barrel length (has to be 16″ under federal law) and suppressors.


  19. 19 | January 3, 2014 1:14 pm

    brookly red wrote:

    it’s ironic you can be armed where you don’t need to be but where you need to be you couldn’t be (pardon the expression) to save your life.

    I think that there is enough evidence in that we can definitively say that more armed law-abiding citizens causes crime to go down. I read an article yesterday that mentioned in passing (and didn’t provide a link) a Harvard study that found world-wide the places that had the least restrictive gun control laws tend also to have less crime. I’ve not seen the study itself, but it stands to reason. All of these people playing the Knockout Game wouldn’t be doing it if they thought there was a reasonable chance they’d be shot for it. The simple presance of weapons tends to discourage criminal behavior. Again, not surprising, but something that the gun control advocates continue to ignore. That is because gun control isn’t really about crime. It is about reducing the capacity of the individual to defend himself or herself for criminals (in the street) and oppreessors (in the government). The “best” you can say tabout gun controllers is that they are extremely culturally imperialistic. They want to force culture to conform to their will. They don’t want to live in and America where people carry guns”. It is, at the end of the day, pure Liberal bigotry on display.


  20. 20 | January 3, 2014 1:14 pm

    @ brookly red:

    It’s by design.


  21. 21 | January 3, 2014 1:15 pm

    Welcome to the party, pal!


  22. 22 | January 3, 2014 1:17 pm

    brookly red wrote:

    Rodan wrote:
    @ brookly red:
    But if people of those demographics are armed, it changes the equation.

    oh and right on time from Quinnipiac…
    http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/quinnipiac-study-concealed-carry-results-fewer-murders

    Old news… covered that yesterday… :twisted:


  23. darkwords
    23 | January 3, 2014 1:18 pm

    10 percent of Muslims are radicalized. We should put a label on them and never stop killing them until they are all dead. If the other 90 percent want to object and side with the radicals. Well lets make them do just that.


  24. brookly red
    24 | January 3, 2014 1:21 pm

    doriangrey wrote:

    brookly red wrote:

    Rodan wrote:
    @ brookly red:
    But if people of those demographics are armed, it changes the equation.

    oh and right on time from Quinnipiac…
    http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/quinnipiac-study-concealed-carry-results-fewer-murders

    Old news… covered that yesterday…

    it’s not news till it runs on Drudge ;)


  25. darkwords
    25 | January 3, 2014 1:23 pm

    @ 9 Speranza: I’ve been to Mosques in different parts of the world. All pre 9/11. I foolish in my youth considered becoming a Sufi. Economics and a desire to date knocked me out of contention for dumbassery. The Mosques are all very beautiful and interesting. The people are friendly. The call to prayer has a romantic quality to it. But that is all superficial once you realize the raw hate that funds and fuels all that. There is no love in Islam. There is only death.


  26. heysoos
    26 | January 3, 2014 1:27 pm

    @ darkwords:
    Islamic design and architecture give me the creeps, I don’t give a damn how beautiful or glorious it’s supposed to be


  27. 27 | January 3, 2014 1:32 pm

    @ heysoos:

    I view it as ugly and Demonic.


  28. Speranza
    28 | January 3, 2014 1:36 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    Thanks God we had FDR as our President during WWII. Can you imagine if we had Clinton, Bush or Obama?

    They would be saying something stupid such as “Nazism is not the real Germany”. Well from 1933 -45 it ***ing was the Real Germany.


  29. Speranza
    29 | January 3, 2014 1:37 pm

    heysoos wrote:

    @ darkwords:
    Islamic design and architecture give me the creeps, I don’t give a damn how beautiful or glorious it’s supposed to be

    Every time I see a Mosque I get the chills.


  30. RIX
    30 | January 3, 2014 1:42 pm

    Speranza wrote:

    Rodan wrote:

    Thanks God we had FDR as our President during WWII. Can you imagine if we had Clinton, Bush or Obama?

    They would be saying something stupid such as “Nazism is not the real Germany”. Well from 1933 -45 it ***ing was the Real Germany.

    We would be searching for the moderate Nazis, just like we look for the moderate Taliban.


  31. darkwords
    31 | January 3, 2014 1:46 pm

    @ 26 heysoos: It does me also now. I would blow the big mosques up if I had the trigger. Wouldn’t even hesitate if the NYT was calling me a racist bigot.


  32. 32 | January 3, 2014 1:46 pm

    @ darkwords:

    Exactly. I’d say your active terrorist population is even smaller than that, but mainstream Islam supports and defends terrorism. They all do it. Everytime there is an incident the usual suspects come out of the woodwork to threaten us. “If you call me violent, I’ll fucking kill you” is the moderate Muslim’s mantra. If that i sthe way they want to feel, I say fine. Kill them until you either change their minds or you run out of Muslims. I really don’t care which of those things takes place.


  33. darkwords
    33 | January 3, 2014 1:47 pm

    @ 26 heysoos: Mosques actually smell as bad as a pig farm because everyone takes their shoes off to walk into the mosque. A lack of hygiene. Which is probably in the end what will kill them off.


  34. 34 | January 3, 2014 1:48 pm

    @ Speranza:

    They would restrict allied bombing of Japan and Germany. I don’t even want to imagine what those 3 would do in that situation.


  35. brookly red
    35 | January 3, 2014 1:49 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ darkwords:

    Exactly. I’d say your active terrorist population is even smaller than that, but mainstream Islam supports and defends terrorism. They all do it. Everytime there is an incident the usual suspects come out of the woodwork to threaten us. “If you call me violent, I’ll fucking kill you” is the moderate Muslim’s mantra. If that i sthe way they want to feel, I say fine. Kill them until you either change their minds or you run out of Muslims. I really don’t care which of those things takes place.

    hey I got an idea… we need to convince the liberals that muslims cause global warming.


  36. 36 | January 3, 2014 1:49 pm

    @ RIX:

    Lech Walesa said it best a few days ago: “America is no longer a world leader.”

    And who do we have to thank for THAT, I wonder? And since Hildebeest want to be Prez and was Secretary of State, I hope she’s totally hammered on this. Although now I’m hearing that dirtbag Kerry is actually thinking of running again.

    Democrats: Cornering the market on crazy dangerous since 1912.


  37. darkwords
    37 | January 3, 2014 1:52 pm

    @ 32 Iron Fist: If a big war breaks out with Islam I’ll go to Israel and join the IDF. If they will take me. I’m old. And part of old means I don’t give a rats ass anymore about a lot of stuff that was important to me when i was young. I think islam is such a big threat it would necessitate me putting my life on the line. I’ll probably be dead though before I ever have to back those words up. I am not in favor of the young dying in a war Obama created.


  38. brookly red
    38 | January 3, 2014 1:53 pm

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    @ RIX:

    Lech Walesa said it best a few days ago: “America is no longer a world leader.”

    And who do we have to thank for THAT, I wonder? And since Hildebeest want to be Prez and was Secretary of State, I hope she’s totally hammered on this. Although now I’m hearing that dirtbag Kerry is actually thinking of running again.

    Democrats: Cornering the market on crazy dangerous since 1912.

    Kerry and Hillary in a primary faceoff?

    buy Botox stock NOW!


  39. RIX
    39 | January 3, 2014 1:54 pm

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    @ RIX:

    Lech Walesa said it best a few days ago: “America is no longer a world leader.”

    And who do we have to thank for THAT, I wonder? And since Hildebeest want to be Prez and was Secretary of State, I hope she’s totally hammered on this. Although now I’m hearing that dirtbag Kerry is actually thinking of running again.

    Democrats: Cornering the market on crazy dangerous since 1912.

    Libs are embarrassed by American power & think that American Exceptionalism is silly, Obama made that obvious.


  40. brookly red
    40 | January 3, 2014 1:55 pm

    darkwords wrote:

    @ 32 Iron Fist: If a big war breaks out with Islam I’ll go to Israel and join the IDF. If they will take me. I’m old. And part of old means I don’t give a rats ass anymore about a lot of stuff that was important to me when i was young. I think islam is such a big threat it would necessitate me putting my life on the line. I’ll probably be dead though before I ever have to back those words up. I am not in favor of the young dying in a war Obama created.

    I think you will need to wait till they are done killing each other…


  41. 41 | January 3, 2014 1:58 pm

    darkwords wrote:

    The call to prayer has a romantic quality to it.

    Try being woken up to it every damn day for 6 months. Especially after working a 12 hour shift.


  42. darkwords
    42 | January 3, 2014 1:58 pm

    @ brookly red: It does look like a sunni versus shia cage match. That was 8 years in the preliminary Iraq Iran bout wasn’t it? More reasons to de nuke them.


  43. darkwords
    43 | January 3, 2014 1:59 pm

    @ 41 PaladinPhil: Banging your head against the wall is the first step to banging it on the floor.


  44. 44 | January 3, 2014 2:00 pm

    @ PaladinPhil:

    Hey I asked you a question on the previous thread but you vanished. I read about Mayor Ford in Toronto and saw that he is solid fiscally.


  45. 45 | January 3, 2014 2:01 pm

    The Syria War just took a twist. Nusra Front and the FSA are now attacking ISIS positions.


  46. 46 | January 3, 2014 2:02 pm

    brookly red wrote:

    we need to convince the liberals that muslims cause global warming.

    I like that idea. But I am afraid that the Liberals (being Liberals) would convert and think that Global Warming is saving us from a new Ice Age. Look at how Islam treats gays as opposed to how Christians treat gays. The Muslims kill gays. Christians say that they sin, but let him who is without sin cast the first stone. It is the Christians that the LGBTXYZ crowd hates. They have respect for the “glories” of Islam.


  47. 47 | January 3, 2014 2:03 pm

    @ Rodan:
    Depends on which liberal rag you read up here. :)

    Yeah, he is. First thing he did in the first year of his term was demand that EVERY city department find 10% savings. The howls of outrage was as if he was asking them to sacrifice their first born.


  48. 48 | January 3, 2014 2:06 pm

    @ PaladinPhil:

    Here in America, Conservatives are attacking and mocking the guy. They don’t know he is one of the good guys in Canadian politics.


  49. 49 | January 3, 2014 2:06 pm

    @ brookly red:

    And stock up on the Jiffy Pop.


  50. brookly red
    50 | January 3, 2014 2:06 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    The Syria War just took a twist. Nusra Front and the FSA are now attacking ISIS positions.

    can it be long till there natural instincts take over and the just shoot everything?


  51. 51 | January 3, 2014 2:11 pm

    @ Rodan:
    Yeah, I am biting my tongue severely in my photography group online chats lately. The majority of them are leftists and hard core Ford haters. I bring up the example of Justin Trudeau admitting to smoking pot while a member of parliament, and I get “it’s not the same thing”. Really? Both are illegal right?


  52. 52 | January 3, 2014 2:11 pm

    @ Rodan:

    That is good news. Like I’ve said before, Islam is a religion of caravan raiders. They are basically petty bandits, all of them. What we are seeing in Syria is squabbling over the spoils of war before they even have the thing won. That’ll end well.


  53. Guggi
    53 | January 3, 2014 2:25 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    I like that idea. But I am afraid that the Liberals (being Liberals) would convert and think that Global Warming is saving us from a new Ice Age.

    They would say that they are allowed to cause as much global warming as they want because they are NOT a Western culture but that we have to save even more CO2 to compensate it.


  54. 54 | January 3, 2014 2:30 pm

    @ Guggi:

    Yep. YOu’ll notice that they never go after China or India for their CO2 production. “Global Warming” isn’ t about “saving the environment”. It is about lowering the average standard of living in the West to be on par with the standard of living in the Third World. It is not the case that they want to bring the Third World up toWestern Standards. They very explicitly want ot lower our standard of living. In the name of “fairness”, you see. Now they are entitled to live like kings, but that is because they are special people. I don’t see why everybody doesn’t see through their bullshit.


  55. Guggi
    55 | January 3, 2014 2:35 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    It is about lowering the average standard of living in the West to be on par with the standard of living in the Third World.

    Yup, that is the explicit goal and they don’t even hide it.


  56. brookly red
  57. Guggi
    57 | January 3, 2014 2:40 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    I don’t see why everybody doesn’t see through their bullshit.

    Because they use scare tactics like cults. “The sky is falling if you/we….we will all die…”


  58. darkwords
    58 | January 3, 2014 2:40 pm

    The current state of Obamacare.

    Rocking horse people eat marshmallow pies.


  59. darkwords
    59 | January 3, 2014 2:43 pm

    @ 54 Iron Fist:For every 10 people in the US that go completely Ed Bagley crazy green there is one practical money driven no nonsense Chinese gold farmer who single handedly erases any net gain to the environment.

    America could meet the Al Gore standard of crazy and see climate change worsen by their own estimates.


  60. Bumr50
    60 | January 3, 2014 2:46 pm

    @ brookly red:

    Maybe Rep.Peter King’s head will explode


  61. Guggi
    61 | January 3, 2014 2:55 pm

    darkwords wrote:

    @ 54 Iron Fist:For every 10 people in the US that go completely Ed Bagley crazy green there is one practical money driven no nonsense Chinese gold farmer who single handedly erases any net gain to the environment.

    America could meet the Al Gore standard of crazy and see climate change worsen by their own estimates.

    The Chinese even want Billion of Dollars in compensation from the West because they Claim the West has caused global warming in the first place.


  62. 62 | January 3, 2014 2:57 pm

    @ Guggi:

    They are freaking Chicken Little, running around screaming the Sky is Falling. But in truth, they know it isn’t. The Global Warming Hoax is the method that they have chosen to bamboozle the populace with so that they can undo the Industrial Revolution for all but the chosen few. It is such a scam. Everybody with a high-0school education should have known it was a hoax once they started insisting that the “science is settled”. Science is never settled. Experimentation is on-going, all the time. Just because a counter-example hasn’t been found does not mean that one doesn’t exist. Science is supposed to be always questioning. You are looking for the truth, not to reinforce your preconceptions. The Global Warming Hoax turned this on its ear, and had that the “science” must neverbe questioned. They are still parroting that line, even though they have been proven time and again that they are liars.


  63. Guggi
    63 | January 3, 2014 2:59 pm

    The Chinese must feel like in a land of plenty: we handed them over our technology, our jobs and now they want to rob us because of “global warming”.


  64. 64 | January 3, 2014 3:00 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    I read it started becasue ISIS attacked some Night club in Aleppo owned by a Nusra guy.


  65. 65 | January 3, 2014 3:00 pm

    Guggi wrote:

    The Chinese must feel like in a land of plenty: we handed them over our technology, our jobs and now they want to rob us because of “global warming”.

    They are also building up their military.


  66. 66 | January 3, 2014 3:04 pm

    @ Guggi:

    Yeah well it’s karma that some AGW loons got stuck in ice!

    :lol:


  67. 67 | January 3, 2014 3:07 pm

    Obama is still going after gun control:

    The Obama administration on Friday announced a pair of executive actions aimed at strengthening federal background checks for gun purchasers, with a particular focus on limiting firearm access for those with mental health issues.

    One proposed rule change aims to clarify terminology used by federal law to prohibit people from purchasing a firearm for mental health reasons. The administration said states have complained that some wording is ambiguous, making it difficult to determine who should be blocked from buying a weapon.

    The change also will help states determine what information may be shared with the federal background check system for firearms transfers. The system has prevented more than 2 million guns from falling into the wrong hands, the Justice Department says.

    That last little bit is certainly open to question, and this doesn’t address the concern that I’ve had from the beginning. Instead of focusing on who can get a gun, they should be concerned about who is a danger to themselves or others, and getting them off the street. If a person is such a threat that you have to be concerned about them getting a gun, why are you leaving them on the street where they could, instead, beat someone to death with ta tire iron or claw hammer. That goes for both people with criminal records and people with mental illnesses. Obama is just using safety as an excuse for a power grab. It is not designed to make America safer, and does not make any step in that direction. It may marginally make it more difficult for some people to get a weapon, and those people might be dangerous, but then again, if they really thought they were dangerous they’d be committing them to a mental institution. Just another small dig at the Right to Keep and Bear arms. One more drip in the death of freedom in this country.


  68. 68 | January 3, 2014 3:21 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    Obama is still going after gun control:

    The Obama administration on Friday announced a pair of executive actions aimed at strengthening federal background checks for gun purchasers, with a particular focus on limiting firearm access for those with mental health issues.
    One proposed rule change aims to clarify terminology used by federal law to prohibit people from purchasing a firearm for mental health reasons. The administration said states have complained that some wording is ambiguous, making it difficult to determine who should be blocked from buying a weapon.
    The change also will help states determine what information may be shared with the federal background check system for firearms transfers. The system has prevented more than 2 million guns from falling into the wrong hands, the Justice Department says.

    That last little bit is certainly open to question, and this doesn’t address the concern that I’ve had from the beginning. Instead of focusing on who can get a gun, they should be concerned about who is a danger to themselves or others, and getting them off the street. If a person is such a threat that you have to be concerned about them getting a gun, why are you leaving them on the street where they could, instead, beat someone to death with ta tire iron or claw hammer. That goes for both people with criminal records and people with mental illnesses. Obama is just using safety as an excuse for a power grab. It is not designed to make America safer, and does not make any step in that direction. It may marginally make it more difficult for some people to get a weapon, and those people might be dangerous, but then again, if they really thought they were dangerous they’d be committing them to a mental institution. Just another small dig at the Right to Keep and Bear arms. One more drip in the death of freedom in this country.

    They know that they are liars, they know the only reason to make guns illegal is to allow a Marxist totalitarian government to take over. Obama and his cronies are hardcore Marxists, end of story period.

    World comes to end, Liberal heads explode.


  69. 69 | January 3, 2014 3:25 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:

    I read it started becasue ISIS attacked some Night club in Aleppo owned by a Nusra guy.

    Really, all of these “militias” are just jumped-up street gangs with access to better weaponry that your average Crip or Blood (or Hell’s Angel, for that matter) has access to. The mentality is exactly the same. They are dangerous the same way a broken beer bottle is dangerous. They aren’t really soldiers, nor do they display any tactical or strategic genius. They are good at killing people and dying. As bad as Assad is, these guy winning in Syria would be far worse.


  70. heysoos
    70 | January 3, 2014 3:30 pm

    you can smoke pot in Colorado, but you cannot grow hemp…
    this is how totally fucked up our govt is


  71. 71 | January 3, 2014 3:31 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    As bad as Assad is, these guy winning in Syria would be far worse.

    I disagree and look at this.

    Hezbollah Upgrades Missile Threat to Israel

    If Assad wins, Assad, Iran and Hezbollah will go after Israel next. If Nusra/FSA win, they will destroy Hezbollah. Without an enemy holding together, the component parts of Nusra will fall away and Syria will collapse as a state.

    Yo do know Israelis are rooting for the rebels?


  72. 72 | January 3, 2014 3:36 pm

    heysoos wrote:

    you can smoke pot in Colorado, but you cannot grow hemp…
    this is how totally fucked up our govt is

    The whole system is corrupt and useless.


  73. 73 | January 3, 2014 3:40 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    Yo do know Israelis are rooting for the rebels?

    I haven’t seen that. I an see some attractions to that, but I can also see it going much worse. These guys are real thugs. Sure, maybe they’ll spread war to Lebanon and go after Hezbollah. Maybe they won’t, too, because groups like this don’t even know what it means when you say “project power”. They aren’t going to be very good on logistics. The only reason Assad hasn’t wiped the floor with them is that the Syrian Army isn’t worth shit, either. Israel is really the only force in the region with the capability and infrastructure to project power. If Syria becomes like Somalia, how long before Syrian terror gangs are shooting up malls in Israel? Or even America. I am honestly surprised that we haven’t seen a major attack following the pattern of the Nairobi mall attack. There is really nothing in place to stop them from doing exactly what was done there anywhere in the United States. They’d have to pick their state, maybe, to duck the chances of facing armed victims, but that isn’t hard to do. They could do it in New York or LA and know that they didn’t have to worry about an armed citizen putting a premature end to their spree.


  74. Guggi
    74 | January 3, 2014 3:45 pm

    Most governments in the West (Europe/U.S.A.) are no longer serving the people but have become an end in themselves.


  75. 75 | January 3, 2014 3:51 pm

    @ Guggi:

    Very true. In America, we are fast approaching a time when the government no longer governs by the consent of the governed. Leftists don’t think much about that, but the right should be very concerned. The Leftist s actually want to encourage this. They want a violent revolution to propel themselves into totalitarian power. Constitutionalists, OTOH, want America to return to a time of limited government, more State autonomy, and greater personal freedom. The Left is opposed to all three of them. I honestly don’t know what is going to happen. The average American is more concerned about who Kim Kardashian is sleeping with than they are that the Federal Government is sucking the life-blood out of our society. I blame public schools for a lot of that. They teach Big Government, as though it was the most wonderful thing on the planet. Kids don’t know any better, and they grow up into adults who are generally incurious about history. Uninformed voters are worse than people who don’t vote. They have turned the process into one big scam, looking for dollars for themselves out of the government coffers, more often than not.


  76. 76 | January 3, 2014 3:54 pm

    Guggi wrote:

    Most governments in the West (Europe/U.S.A.) are no longer serving the people but have become an end in themselves.

    I think most Governments the globe are that way. In my case I have lost all faith in the American political system. Neither party represents me, so I am dropping out of electoral participation. I bet there are many doing that as well.


  77. 77 | January 3, 2014 3:58 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Constitutionalists, OTOH, want America to return to a time of limited government, more State autonomy, and greater personal freedom. The Left is opposed to all three of them.

    Many on the Right as well.


  78. Guggi
    78 | January 3, 2014 4:02 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    They have turned the process into one big scam, looking for dollars for themselves out of the government coffers, more often than not.

    This is some kind of “insurance fraud mentality”. I’ve paid for my insurance now I want some money back.


  79. Guggi
    79 | January 3, 2014 4:04 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    I think most Governments the globe are that way. In my case I have lost all faith in the American political system.

    Of course but mostly they don’t call themselves modern advanced Western “democracies”.


  80. 80 | January 3, 2014 4:06 pm

    @ Guggi:

    It’s all a scam.


  81. lobo91
    81 | January 3, 2014 4:08 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    That last little bit is certainly open to question, and this doesn’t address the concern that I’ve had from the beginning.

    It’s not even open to question. It’s an absolute lie, and they know it.

    That 2 million figure that they like to throw out there is the number of initial rejections by NICS since its inception in 1998.

    What they don’t tell you is that approximately 95% of those were “false positives,” where the system rejected someone who was not actually prohibited.


  82. 82 | January 3, 2014 4:10 pm

    The Party of limited Government and Individual Freedom is trying to prevent a ballot initiative in Florida.

    Attorney General Pam Bondi on Thursday asked the Florida Supreme Court to block a vote on a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow medical marijuana, becoming the highest-profile official to take on the ballot initiative.

    In a filing required because the group pushing the initiative has triggered an automatic review by the high court, Bondi wrote that the ballot language could deceive voters about the extent of marijuana use that would be allowed.

    Bondi said the ballot summary written by United for Care: People United for Medical Marijuana wrongly suggests that only people with “debilitating diseases” could get the leafy green substance.

    “But if the amendment passed, Florida law would allow marijuana in limitless situations,” she wrote. “Any physician could approve marijuana for seemingly any reason to seemingly any person (of any age) — including those without any ‘debilitating disease.’ So long as a physician held the opinion that the drug use ‘would likely outweigh’ the risks, Florida would be powerless to stop it.”

    Individual Liberty!
    /////


  83. lobo91
    83 | January 3, 2014 4:10 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Very true. In America, we are fast approaching a time when the government no longer governs by the consent of the governed.

    We passed that exit awhile back, I’m afraid. Not only does our government no longer have the consent of the governed, those in power openly mock anyone who dares to raise the issue.


  84. 84 | January 3, 2014 4:12 pm

    @ lobo91:

    You best bet they will label anyone they don’t like as having “mental issues” to bar them from having guns. This is going to open a can of worms.


  85. lobo91
    85 | January 3, 2014 4:14 pm

    @ Rodan:

    Sorry, but the fact that they’re trying to use a ballot initiative to approve it shows what a sham “medical marijuana” is. Medical treatments aren’t subject to public vote.


  86. heysoos
    86 | January 3, 2014 4:16 pm

    @ Rodan:
    have a drink and stfu…don’t make a spectacle


  87. lobo91
    87 | January 3, 2014 4:18 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    If a person is such a threat that you have to be concerned about them getting a gun, why are you leaving them on the street where they could, instead, beat someone to death with ta tire iron or claw hammer.

    Thanks to the ACLU and other far-left groups, we all know that isn’t going to happen. It’s pretty much impossible to have someone committed today until after they kill someone.

    If people outraged over Sandy Hook really wanted to reduce the possibility of it happening again, those are the laws they’d be trying to change, not ones about how many rounds a magazine can hold.


  88. lobo91
    88 | January 3, 2014 4:22 pm

    From the “some animals are more equal” file:

    Senator Demands To Know If NSA Spies On Congress

    Sen. Bernard Sanders sent a letter Friday to NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander demanding to know whether, in its broad records collections, the secret spy agency has gathered information from members of Congress.

    Judging by information that has been made public by the National Security Agency and judges who have heard cases challenging the NSA’s telephone records collection program, it seems likely that the agency has at least scooped up metadata from phone calls made or received by members of Congress.

    Mr. Sanders, a Vermont independent, said in his letter that he was troubled by revelations that the NSA had listened in on calls made by foreign leaders, including allies of the U.S.

    “I am writing today to as you one very simple question,” Mr. Sanders said. “Has the NSA spied, or is the NSA currently spying, on members of Congress or other American elected officials? ‘Spying’ would include gathering metadata on calls made from official or personal phones, content from websites visited or emails sent, or collecting any other data from a third party not made available to the general public in the regular course of business.”

    Yes, Bernie, they are spying on you and your pals, just as they’re spying on the rest of us.


  89. heysoos
    89 | January 3, 2014 4:24 pm

    @ lobo91:
    nothing like having a US senator or two in your pocket


  90. Speranza
    90 | January 3, 2014 4:34 pm

    Guggi wrote:

    Most governments in the West (Europe/U.S.A.) are no longer serving the people but have become an end in themselves.

    Look at the Tories as exhibit #1


  91. 91 | January 3, 2014 4:37 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    What they don’t tell you is that approximately 95% of those were “false positives,” where the system rejected someone who was not actually prohibited.

    I knew that it was a lot of false positives. And frankly, even the ones who are “prohibited persons” were not likely a threat to the community. The people who are threats to the community seldom purchase their weapons from gun dealers. I’,m not soled on the “prohibited person” thing, anyway. If they’ve served their time, and don’t pose a threat to the community, then why shouldn’t they have the right to keep and bear arms? And if they are a threat to the community that has been arrested and convicted on one thing, why are you letting them out of jail in the first place? Keeping the criminals locked up until they no longer pose a threat to the community would handle the “prohibited Person” thing without unduly burdening the innocent. If the guy is a threat with a gun, he is also a threat with a knife, claw hammer, or any number of things that he could use to kill and maim. This same thing is true of the mentally ill. If they are a danger to the community, you need them institutionalized, not on some list that theoretically keeps them from buying a gun.


  92. 92 | January 3, 2014 4:40 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    If people outraged over Sandy Hook really wanted to reduce the possibility of it happening again, those are the laws they’d be trying to change, not ones about how many rounds a magazine can hold.

    Exactly. Point blank, the liberals are glad when something like Sandy Hook happens. That gives them an emotional tool to work on people who aren’t really sold on gun control, but who don’t actively oppose it as well. They have their laws all queued up and ready to go before the first shot is fired. They see something like that as a political opportunity. They are, quite frankly, ghouls, waiting like vultures for something to happen so that they can push their anti-civil rights agenda.


  93. brookly red
    93 | January 3, 2014 4:55 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    They are, quite frankly, ghouls, waiting like vultures for something to happen so that they can push their anti-civil rights agenda.

    Ghouls… that is a pretty good description.


  94. lobo91
    94 | January 3, 2014 4:58 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    And if they are a threat to the community that has been arrested and convicted on one thing, why are you letting them out of jail in the first place? Keeping the criminals locked up until they no longer pose a threat to the community would handle the “prohibited Person” thing without unduly burdening the innocent.

    Of course, the answer to that is the same as the answer to why we don’t lock up crazy people anymore. The far-left doesn’t think it’s fair to the criminals to actually punish them.


  95. Guggi
    95 | January 3, 2014 5:04 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    The far-left doesn’t think it’s fair to the criminals to actually punish them.

    ..because it’s not their fault that they have become criminals but the fault of the white gendernormative oppressive male


  96. brookly red
    96 | January 3, 2014 5:07 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:

    And if they are a threat to the community that has been arrested and convicted on one thing, why are you letting them out of jail in the first place? Keeping the criminals locked up until they no longer pose a threat to the community would handle the “prohibited Person” thing without unduly burdening the innocent.

    Of course, the answer to that is the same as the answer to why we don’t lock up crazy people anymore. The far-left doesn’t think it’s fair to the criminals to actually punish them.

    to the left climate change skeptics need confinement, people who push other people in front of subways? not so much…


  97. 97 | January 3, 2014 5:08 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    The far-left doesn’t think it’s fair to the criminals to actually punish them.

    I am convinced that the Democrats prefer a high crime rate. Everything that they try to do on the subject is to protect the criminal. Not just when they are accused, but throughout their incarceration and beyond. The criminal class doesn’t threaten their hold on power, and, indeed, makes the plight of those living with it more desperate, and Liberals always want to increase desperation in the subject population. There is so much evidence that guns prevent many more crimes than they “cause” (not taking into account that the criminal could always use something else if the gun weren’t around) could almost be taken as a judicial given. We are well beyond the preponderance of the evidence pointing to this. We’ve seen gun ownership explode over the last twenty years, and the crime rate has gone steadily down. But, as I’ve said, the Democrats at best don’t care about the crime rate. It is disappointing that no Republican (nor even leader of the NRA, at least that I’ve seen) will call the Democrats on this. Too many people were willing to sign onto background checks, and background checks presuppose that the government has the right to take away people’s constitutional rights even after they’ve served their time. Gun control is the only place Democrats work “against” the interests of the criminal class, and I put “against” in quotes because the Democrats know that gun control doesn’t keep weapons out of the hands of dangerous criminals. The truth is that FedZilla really is more concerned that Martha Stewart (convicted felon) will buy a handgun than they are concerned that the Crips and Bloods have a steady supply of illegal machineguns.


  98. 98 | January 3, 2014 5:11 pm

    Guggi wrote:

    gendernormative

    Is another way to say normal. The Left is, of course, against anything that is normal, if it is “normal” according the the Judeo-Christian morality that permeates Western Civilization. OTOH, they keep quiet about the pederasty that is common in Afghanistan. We shouldn’t judge their culture, we are told. About child-rape, we are told this.


  99. Speranza
    99 | January 3, 2014 5:16 pm

    @ Iron Fist:
    To them “normal” is all relative, just like “right and wrong”.


  100. 100 | January 3, 2014 5:17 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    Guggi wrote:

    gendernormative

    Is another way to say normal. The Left is, of course, against anything that is normal, if it is “normal” according the the Judeo-Christian morality that permeates Western Civilization. OTOH, they keep quiet about the pederasty that is common in Afghanistan. We shouldn’t judge their culture, we are told. About child-rape, we are told this.

    I don’t know if they’re against “normal”, they just want to be the ones making that determination. Liberals become decidedly illiberal and intolerant of variance from their “norms” once they have power- just ask Phil Robertson.


  101. Speranza
    101 | January 3, 2014 5:17 pm

    brookly red wrote:

    to the left climate change skeptics need confinement, people who push other people in front of subways? not so much…

    The fact that they compare it to “Holocaust denial” shows you how bent they really are.


  102. Speranza
    102 | January 3, 2014 5:18 pm

    By the way there is a new thread up.


  103. brookly red
    103 | January 3, 2014 5:19 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    lobo91 wrote:

    The far-left doesn’t think it’s fair to the criminals to actually punish them.

    I am convinced that the Democrats prefer a high crime rate. Everything that they try to do on the subject is to protect the criminal. Not just when they are accused, but throughout their incarceration and beyond. The criminal class doesn’t threaten their hold on power, and, indeed, makes the plight of those living with it more desperate, and Liberals always want to increase desperation in the subject population. There is so much evidence that guns prevent many more crimes than they “cause” (not taking into account that the criminal could always use something else if the gun weren’t around) could almost be taken as a judicial given. We are well beyond the preponderance of the evidence pointing to this. We’ve seen gun ownership explode over the last twenty years, and the crime rate has gone steadily down. But, as I’ve said, the Democrats at best don’t care about the crime rate. It is disappointing that no Republican (nor even leader of the NRA, at least that I’ve seen) will call the Democrats on this. Too many people were willing to sign onto background checks, and background checks presuppose that the government has the right to take away people’s constitutional rights even after they’ve served their time. Gun control is the only place Democrats work “against” the interests of the criminal class, and I put “against” in quotes because the Democrats know that gun control doesn’t keep weapons out of the hands of dangerous criminals. The truth is that FedZilla really is more concerned that Martha Stewart (convicted felon) will buy a handgun than they are concerned that the Crips and Bloods have a steady supply of illegal machineguns.

    I think it is also we have lost our grip on what crime actually is… we need to remember that entering someone else property (country) with out their permission is a crime, taking a bribe? crime. wealth redistribution aka theft? crime. killing someone even if they are just a baby? crime. voting twice? crime. using EBT to buy alcohol? crime. I could go on all night but it’s not that libs are easy on criminals it,s they ARE criminals.


  104. 104 | January 3, 2014 5:20 pm

    @ MacDuff:

    Good point. Liberals believe that they should be the arbiters of what is right and wrong, and in general they will choose what is seen in the culture as “right” as what they consider “wrong”, and what is considered “wrong” (to a degree at least) to be what is “right”. They are tremendously intolerant of any deviation from their Leftist orthodoxy. That they will attack. child molesters, not so much.


  105. 105 | January 3, 2014 5:22 pm

    @ Speranza:

    The fact that they compare it to “Holocaust denial” shows you how bent they really are.

    Particularly curious given that many of them are Pali-loving borderline Holocaust deniers themselves.


  106. 106 | January 3, 2014 5:27 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ MacDuff:

    Good point. Liberals believe that they should be the arbiters of what is right and wrong, and in general they will choose what is seen in the culture as “right” as what they consider “wrong”, and what is considered “wrong” (to a degree at least) to be what is “right”. They are tremendously intolerant of any deviation from their Leftist orthodoxy. That they will attack. child molesters, not so much.

    Liberals are just authoritarian fascists with bad paint jobs.


  107. Speranza
    107 | January 3, 2014 5:28 pm

    MacDuff wrote:

    The fact that they compare it to “Holocaust denial” shows you how bent they really are.

    Particularly curious given that many of them are Pali-loving borderline Holocaust deniers themselves.

    Too true.


  108. darkwords
    108 | January 3, 2014 5:37 pm

    @ 82 Rodan: Pam Bondi is a problematic piece of work and shouldn’t even hold that office. Jeb Bush appointee or elected?


  109. lobo91
    109 | January 3, 2014 5:38 pm

    darkwords wrote:

    @ 82 Rodan: Pam Bondi is a problematic piece of work and shouldn’t even hold that office. Jeb Bush appointee or elected?

    Elected


  110. darkwords
    110 | January 3, 2014 5:39 pm

    @ 83 lobo91: What we need is a reality TV show that celebritizes citizens who beat city hall to a pulp. Pay 5 million dollars to the best beatdown of government by an individual. 24 episodes. Give every competitor some prize money.


  111. lobo91
    111 | January 3, 2014 5:41 pm

    @ MacDuff:

    If you want to see something written by a person who’s clearly lost her grip on reality, try this:


    Feminist Nutbag: Consensual Sex Between A Man And Woman Is “Always Rape” Because “It Is An Act of Violence” Against Women…


  112. brookly red
    112 | January 3, 2014 5:45 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ MacDuff:

    If you want to see something written by a person who’s clearly lost her grip on reality, try this:

    Feminist Nutbag: Consensual Sex Between A Man And Woman Is “Always Rape” Because “It Is An Act of Violence” Against Women…

    there is Congressional potential here…


  113. lobo91
    113 | January 3, 2014 5:48 pm

    @ brookly red:

    If you want to see something really hilarious, go to the comments for the original article.


  114. brookly red
    114 | January 3, 2014 5:52 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ brookly red:

    If you want to see something really hilarious, go to the comments for the original article.

    I am trapped inside by the weather with only a limited supply of beer… I am not sure I want to go there till I can re-supply.


  115. Guggi
    115 | January 3, 2014 5:59 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ MacDuff:

    If you want to see something written by a person who’s clearly lost her grip on reality, try this:

    Feminist Nutbag: Consensual Sex Between A Man And Woman Is “Always Rape” Because “It Is An Act of Violence” Against Women…

    Not new, first claimed by Andrea Dworkin


  116. 116 | January 3, 2014 6:02 pm

    @ lobo91:
    I think that it is good that the Left is taking off the mask and letting us see the crazy behind the clown-nose. “All heterosexual intercourse is rape” is such patent nonsense, but if we can we want the Left to defend this to the last man. I wonder, though, if heterosex is rape, why isn’t homosex as well? She just doesn’t feel that it is the same thing, but then they will; turn around and argue that gays should be allowed to get married because they are “just like” normal people. You can’t really have it both ways. Of course, logical consistency is not one of the strengths of the Left. They can, as Orwell says, hold in their minds two diametrically opposed ideas at the same time, with neither invalidating the other to the subjective view of the Marxist drone that is contemplating such things. I think that the American people will not so easily be fooled. Of course, the MFM will never report on stories like this, but they are getting out through social media. It is simply not possible to rigidly guard the Leftist Narrative in the eyes of the public.


  117. lobo91
    117 | January 3, 2014 6:08 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    They can, as Orwell says, hold in their minds two diametrically opposed ideas at the same time, with neither invalidating the other to the subjective view of the Marxist drone that is contemplating such things.

    Queers for Palestine


  118. brookly red
    118 | January 3, 2014 6:14 pm

    OK here is the poster boy for the left’s next “victim”.

    http://dovhikind.blogspot.com/2014/01/serial-knockout-attacker-arrested-in.html

    some how, some way they will find a way to justify his actions.


  119. brookly red
    119 | January 3, 2014 6:24 pm

    OK this does not fit the movie claim…

    http://freebeacon.com/u-s-seeking-al-qaeda-terrorist-linked-to-benghazi-attack/


  120. lobo91
    120 | January 3, 2014 6:31 pm

    @ brookly red:

    You were expecting consistency?


  121. brookly red
    121 | January 3, 2014 6:33 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ brookly red:

    You were expecting consistency?

    yes, I expect the facts to be consistently opposed to the official story.


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David