Saturday, April 05, 2014

If you want to justify evil, just call someone a name, demonize them, and destroy their career

It's simple, really. Even if you treat others decently in your place of employment, for more than a decade, in an organization you helped found, don't express an opinion that the tyrannous Left doesn't like. Or else.

I guess "tolerance" extends only to your own peculiar predilections. Forget God. Forget Nature. Forget millennia of moral absolutes.

Well, time to find a new browser (until the next witch hunt).

Brendan Eich Steps Down as Mozilla CEO:
"Believing a certain group of people don't deserve to live their lives like other simply because of who they love is not a political view. It reads as extremely hateful and that makes people uncomfortable."
Sin is not "love." And lust does not create a Constitutional right.

Refusing to legitimize an unnatural and perverse act by calling it "marriage" is not bigotry; refusing to redefine one of society's fundamental institutions is not "hateful" (but demonizing those who defend it is).

No one I know wants to deny anyone their license to play house with the consenting adult(s) of their choosing.

Not all adults have the right to marry. Would you abolish all barriers to it? Would you redefine the word into absurdity?

What about sodomy makes it sacrosanct to you? It's a behavior; as such, it is subject to moral judgment. Where do you draw the line? Incest? Polygyny? Zoophilia? Pedophilia? A young adult male and his browser? Why can't they all get "married"? What gives you the right to deny them their equality? Who are you to forbid their happiness? Why are you so hateful?

You don't have any problem making moral judgments against those whose morality you despise. That makes you a bigot, doesn't it?

This isn't about equal rights. This isn't about "letting people live like others."

This is about using the force of government -- and now, the marketplace -- to coerce the endorsement of that which is immoral and unnatural. This is about demonizing those whose positions you dislike.

And that doesn't even depend on religious doctrine -- though Christ's endorsement of one man, one woman, for life with the glorious possibility of children should be enough.

Nowhere in Nature does any species engage in exclusively-homosexual relationships. Even the Darwinist knows that exclusively-homosexual relationships mean the end of the species. And it's a violation of design; even a simple man knows that the relevant organs are made for ... other purposes.

And you won't let Eich "live his life like others."

Fascist. Hypocrite.

Friday, March 28, 2014

Why can't all deranged fatwas be limited to space travel?

If only Islam's perverse rulings were confined to other planets. This world would be a much better place.

But people like green_planet and Okay_a_Username won't allow it. Whether because of actual devotion to the genocidal pedophile Muhammad or just plain hatred of Christianity (everyone knows that Islam is its mortal enemy), the effect is the same: jihad advances and the only real defense against it is undermined.

As for the ruling itself? "religious leaders argue that making the trip would be tantamount to committing suicide, which all religions tend to frown upon."

Religions, yes. But Islam? It forbids suicide unless you're able to murder or maim non-Muslims in the process. Then you get paradise (Qur'an 9:111). (What a deal!)

Below are replies to the propaganda so popular with devout Muslims and their suicidally-nescient Useful Idiots, this time at Crave:
@green_planet

You're quite a liar, aren't you?

Yours is the standard Islamic apologist/Useful Idiot tu quoque: "Okay, Islam is bad, but Christianity is too."

First, thanks for admitting that Islam kills.

Second, yes, it is true that Christians commit evil often, but it is not true that the religions "teach the same crap." Neither is it true that Islam is only "accused" of the same teachings.

Christ committed no sin, spoke only the truth, healed the sick, raised the dead, died for the sins of the whole world, and resurrected, commanding His people to love even their enemies.

On the other hand, Muhammad preached and practiced genocide, anti-Semitism, pedophilia, rape, slavery, torture, mutilation, polygyny, wife-beating, theft, arson, deceit, sedition, treason, and blasphemy, warning his followers, "Allah made me do it, and you will too, or else!"

No, there is no comparison.
"Allah’s Apostle said, '[...] I have been made victorious with terror [...]'" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).
@Okay_a_Username
That is not only historically-illiterate, it is perverse.

Islam has been raping, enslaving, and slaughtering non-Muslims (and those they consider not-Muslim-enough) for nearly one and one-half millennia as knowledge, zeal, and resources allow, including 9/11 and twenty-two thousand jihad attacks since.

They do so because Muhammad preached and practiced it.

Hitler hated Christianity but admired Islam. He allied with Muslims to slaughter Jews, including the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who exhorted Nazis in the concentration camps to do their "work" diligently.

As for Yugoslavia, even if atrocities were committed against Muslims, it was in defense against jihad and because of similar atrocities committed against them, a fact of which you are conveniently ignorant (or worse, you choose to omit).

There's only one group of people on Earth detonating their shoes, underwear, intestines, and breasts in efforts to murder and maim "unbelievers."
"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle [...] if they perform that, then they save their lives and property from me [...]'" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).
You have to "blame the religion."
And here are a few more comments on that article from other misunderstanderers of Islam and ... some pithy replies:
ascpgh Feb 22, 2014
How about strapping a belt bomb on and going to a local market to set it off? How about taking control of an airliner and deliberately crashing it into buildings?

Going to Mars is suicide and they are "against" that? If so centrally powerful and unified voice of Islam, why have they waited this long to address suicide as being on the bad list of weekend activities for Muslims?
dixiedog1944 Feb 22, 2014
@ascpgh Hey, you gotta' blow some people up to make suicide worth it. They would probably starve to death before a U.S. mission arrived and they could attack. Simple economics.
SantiagoMatamoros Feb 22, 2014
@dixiedog1944 @ascpgh

"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah?" (Qur'an 9:111).
Ed9065 Feb 22, 2014
@SantiagoMatamoros @dixiedog1944 @ascpgh Yeah, extremists tend to like twisting the Qur'an/bible/Torah/whatever to what they want you to do.
SantiagoMatamoros Mar 5, 2014
@Ed9065

How much does "kill the pagans wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5) have to be twisted in order to get the faithful to ... you know ... kill pagans wherever they find them?
keizer790 Feb 23, 2014
Extremist groups are not the normal, average folks of them! Generalizing is never a good idea
SantiagoMatamoros Mar 5, 2014
@keizer790

Who's "generalizing"?

Muhammad is the one who commanded his followers to "kill the pagans wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5).

Blame him.
Ninaj1990 Feb 23, 2014
@ascpgh An ingnorant comment.... the terrorists don't know a thing about the religion they claim to follow.... and before making comments like this educate yourself a little.
SantiagoMatamoros Mar 5, 2014
@Ninaj1990

The genocidal pedophile Muhammad boasted, "I have been made victorious with terror ..." (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

It sounds like the "terrorists" know a whole lot more about your religion than you do.

Or, perhaps, they're just more honest.

An alternative to the anti-American in the White House

He talks a good game.

Sunday, March 23, 2014

Just when you thought "man-to-man" was a basketball reference

Speaking of March Madness, I went to a basketball game -- actually, it was a fan-site post on UCLA's recent victory in the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament -- and a kerfuffle over orientation broke out.

I offered a sympathetic (and gentle) affirmation of Truth and for my efforts received the obligatory, unthinking, and knee-jerk accusation of bigotry.

What, exactly, puts a literally-deviant (and immoral) act beyond reproach? How does a lust constitute a moral good?

Here's my reply to someone who prefers demonizing over debate:
How is recognizing that I'm no better than anyone else a "mask"? And how does argumentum ad hominem prove the rectitude of your position?

As for "prejudice"? That's not only absurd, it's intellectual suicide:
-Every act is subject to moral judgment; in fact, you just made one. Doesn't that make you "prejudiced"?

-Why is it that you can make moral judgments and I can't? Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?

-Is there any act or "relationship" of which you would not approve? If so, then why would you deny anyone their happiness? Doesn't that make you a bigot?

-What makes your "truth" more valid than mine? If there exists no absolute, objective standard of right and wrong, then you are completely unable to condemn anyone else's perspective, because what's true for them is just as "true" as what's true for you.
But an absolute, objective morality exists. Christ endorsed one man and one woman for life.

Our sinfulness does not negate that.
Update: samollie followed up with:
I never judged you. I stated a fact, not anyone's version of truth. I respect the fact that you believe nobody believes to be mistreated, yet you are still judging another because of your faith. That is prejudice, automatically handing down judgment no matter what. We'll leave it at that and agree to disagree.
To which I replied:
You did judge me; "prejudice" is a moral evaluation.

(And since you don't know me, that would make you ... prejudiced.)

The word means "judging before knowing"; since I'm judging no one but merely affirming an objective moral truth regarding a behavior, your use of "prejudice" is inapt (at best; at worst it's a craven attempt to demonize me and quash criticism of something you consider sacrosanct).

Rather than engage in ad hominem attacks, why don't you prove the rectitude of your position?

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

A fictional president introducing a fictional explanation of origins

From here:
A fictional president introducing a fictional explanation of origins?

Brilliant.

The foundation of Science is observation and experimentation. No one has ever observed Life arise apart from Life and Life's programs. No one has ever witnessed program arise by accident from nothing. No one has ever shown that cells form magically from the muck by only random, natural processes. And no one can answer the question: When the first human being arose, with whom did he or she reproduce?

Darwinists take one fact -- that random, minor genetic mutations occur -- and from it leap nonsensically to the conclusion that from a first accidental cell all Life -- including us -- arose.

Besides the fact that genetic mutations are typically either neutral, harmful, or deadly to an organism, no one's ever seen a mutation result in newer, more complex program, structure, or function.

Neither do living things evolve into significantly-different forms; Life is stable, even over the Darwinists' "millions" of years. After almost 400 million years, the coelacanth is a coelacanth. After several million years, the ancient camel's DNA matches the modern camel's. Geckos and frogs on a hidden plateau in Australia undisturbed for millions of years are still only geckos and frogs. Darwin's finches were still ... finches. And after tens of thousands of generations, Lenski's E. coli evolved into ... E. coli with an eating disorder. (They're still bacteria.)

To believe Darwin's creation myth, not only must you believe that for which no evidence exists, but you have to deny what you know is empirically-true. You have to violate Science's fundamental tenets.

Darwin's creation myth is atheistic naturalism conducting its own Inquisition. It's Gaia in a lab coat.

It isn't Science; it's science fiction.

Monday, February 24, 2014

Calling Conservative Republican a "conservative Republican" is like calling the genocidal pedophile Muhammad a "prophet"

One of the more rabid examples of the psychosis necessary to defend the murderous child-rapist Muhammad.

From here:
More absurd ad hominem?

For the benefit of anyone else who might come across this, I use translations by Muslims, for Muslims, and I provide specific citations so that everyone can determine for themselves who is telling the truth and who is defending the genocidal pedophile Muhammad.

Speaking of the inaptly-named "conservative republican," we're waiting still for him to explain why he defends "kill the pagans wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5) and "The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) married me when I was seven years old. The narrator Sulaiman said: or Six years. He had intercourse with me when I was nine years old" (Abu Dawud Book 11, Hadith 2116).

Don't hold your breath, folks, Con has demonstrated a pathological aversion to facts.

Monday, February 10, 2014

Degenerate Leftists make Republican promoting bad theology look like Philipp Melanchthon

The theology of the candidate mentioned in the article is abysmal -- homosexuality, along with every other sin, comes from the heart -- but those opposing her in defense of perversion and tyranny are even worse.

Offered in response to one of the deranged Left's foot-soldiers, here:
How absurd.

It is the Democratic Party which is the major political bastion of racism (and sexism) in the United States. That's why any "minorities" -- but especially Blacks, because of their near total compliance with your party's electoral dictates -- are eviscerated if they think for themselves and do anything but what their masters on the Left demand of them.

The Republican Party is the party of Lincoln, the Emancipation Proclamation, the Thirteenth Amendment, the Civil Rights Act (a greater percentage of Republicans than Democrats supported it), and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

But the Democrat Party is the party of slavery, Segregation, the KKK (its terrorist wing), and institutionalized racial division, demagoguery, and exploitation.

Here's a blunt obliteration of the absurd manipulation by which so many of your elected representatives have risen to and maintained power:
"There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs - partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs."

--Booker T. Washington.

Sunday, February 02, 2014

An argument for the PC as the ultimate gaming system

The first time your favorite console manufacturer comes out with a newer and more powerful system and all the games you already own don't run on it, you realize the value of the PC.

Besides the flexibility to upgrade hardware for better performance and more features, older -- and just plain old -- games still run just as well as (or better than) when they were new.

And the experience isn't limited to the office/study; connect the PC to a 65" plasma and an AV receiver with 5.1 surround sound, put the hardware into an HTPC-format case, and add a wireless mouse and keyboard, a couple of Logitech Cordless Rumblepad 2s, and a 22" touchscreen monitor on the side, and you've got an unrivaled gaming experience.

Besides everything else the PC can do. Which is everything.

And here's one last argument for the PC:

Can your console do this?
It really just does everything.

World hijab day?

Wonderful.

So, when's World Swastika Day?

Saturday, January 18, 2014

Islamic barbarism isn't an aberration, it's devotion

Bomb threats around the world over a movie? Must be Islam.

I wouldn't use "wacky" to describe jihadists. "Obedient" is more accurate.

From here:
I remember being in the theater with my brother to see THE SENTINEL when we first saw the trailer for what is now call, THE MESSAGE. Originally it was entitled, MUHAMMAD: MESSENGER OF GOD. We were excited only because it looked so grand and epic - also because my brother was history major. (He was offered to teach and Hunter University and later offered a position with the Federal Government to work in foreign American embassies) We never did get to see since it was taken out of the theaters due to bomb threats in other parts of the world and especially when a NY theater was taken hostage by savage Muslims (big surprise!) because the film contained "the prophet's" name and were against his story being told in the film - yet the producer/director was Muslim. Anyway. That was 1977 and not much has changed - and I bet most thought the attack on the Twin Towers was the first terrorist attack on America, let alone NY. NOT. These people have always been wacky my brother always stated.
Ironically, the story of Muhammad is exponentially more frightening than any fictional mass-murdering psychopath's: according to Islam's own "sacred" texts, Muhammad preached and practiced genocide, anti-Semitism, pedophilia, rape, slavery, torture, mutilation, religious and gender apartheid, wife-beating, polygyny, theft, vandalism, sedition, treason, and blasphemy and warned his followers, "Allah made me do it, and you will, too, or else!"

And Islam's "influence" on America goes back long before the 1970s. The only reason 9/11 (or even the '93 WTC attack) was a surprise to most of us is because we'd been shielded by two oceans from what the rest of the world has endured for the last one and one-half millennia.

In fact, Muhammad's doctrines have been harming Americans since the Republic's founding: John Adams and Thomas Jefferson met with an ambassador of the Barbary States (the Marines' Hymn, "to the shores of Tripoli ...") to find out why they were capturing our ships and murdering and enslaving our sailors. The reason, they were told, was that they were unbelievers and so all they had belonged to Islam.

And John Smith of Pocahontas fame? Before he came to the New World, he made a name for himself defending the West against jihad.

And if you want to go back to before America was a gleam in England's eye, Queen Isabella of Spain agreed to pay for Columbus' "shortcut" to Asia -- a detour around Islamic lands and all that that entailed -- after she defeated the last of Andalusia's (Al-Andalus') Muslim overlords, completing Spain's eight-hundred-year War of Liberation from Islam, the Reconquista.

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

The West's leaders arrogant, deluded, compromised

How can you win a war you refuse to wage? Against an enemy you refuse to name?

Insight on our political, media, and academic insanity, from here:
In today's conflict with Islamic jihad, the jihadis likewise do not respect their non-Muslim foes. The Infidels are "the most vile of created beings" (Qur'an 98:6) while the Muslims are "the best of peoples" (Qur'an 3:110). There is no sense of shared values. Yet the leaders and opinion makers among the non-Muslims do not understand or accept this. They continue to believe that gestures of good will will be appreciated and reciprocated. They continue to think that their own careful displays of respect for the values and principles of the jihadis will be received with something other than amused contempt. They continue to send their young soldiers into the Afghanistan meat grinder, imagining that they're winning hearts and minds by forcing our soldiers to train their "allies" who, in appallingly increasing numbers, turn on them and murder them as soon as they have the opportunity.

Monday, July 29, 2013

The persecuted Church in Syria

The president cares more about helping jihadists nation-build -- and himself to the luxuries that American taxes and debt can buy -- than helping his (allegedly-) fellow Christians.

As for "Why?" Islam, of course.

From here:
Mourning Christians in Syria were still awaiting answers Monday, July 8, as to why Islamic militants with links to opposition rebels entered Christian villages more than a month ago killing several people, including children, in what locals called a "massacre".

Vatican-backed news agency Fides said the gunmen raided the village of al-Duwayr/Douar, outside the city of Homs near Lebanon, where they immediately executed a man and his daughter in their home and burned their bodies. The fighters reportedly also occupied the village church from where snipers began firing at terrified civilians, killing an- 11-year-old boy and a girl of 18, and injuring some 10 people, two seriously.

Militants remained in the church where they were holding village Mayor Joseph Jamil Adra, a Christian, and another Christian man, Fides said. Their situation was not immediately clear Monday, July 8.

Christian refugees were quoted as saying that the fighters of opposition group Jabhat al-Nusra, which has pledged its allegiance to terror group al-Qaida, also "destroyed and burned all the houses" in the village, prompting the roughly 100 Greek-Orthodox families living in the area to flee.

The time for (what's left of) the Christian West to aid its brothers and sisters in the east is long past-due.

And no, this Crusade doesn't involve President Bush's well-intentioned-but-suicidal nation-building, but it does begin with telling the truth about the enemy.

Monday, July 15, 2013

If Kennedy were running today, the Democrats would burn him

This is an interesting article on the power of narrative in shaping people's opinions. (I disagree that we don't need someone like Reagan and that America's enemies from the last half-century are no longer threats. If anything, they're in power now.)

A few thoughts awaiting moderation there:
A good story is a wonderful thing; the key to its effectiveness in changing perception is the manipulation of emotion. That's what liberals and other charlatans are good at.

Reagan excelled at exposing the nonsense of the Left and reminding people of what made this nation great: Individual Liberty and moral goodness. We don't have anyone today who both really believes in those ideals and can communicate them plainly.

(And when we get close, the media assassins go for the jugular.)

It wasn't that long ago that I could have voted for a Democrat; John F. Kennedy understood that lower taxes -- which is really just increased freedom -- makes people more prosperous, and he believed in and defended America against its enemies.

If Kennedy were running today, the Democrats would burn him at the stake.

A Christian cannot vote Democrat. (If they do, it's because they've accepted uncritically the nescient propaganda of the left. It's like serving on a jury, where a defense lawyer throws out any lie they can think of to create "reasonable doubt" in the minds of at least one juror.)

That party has made the Founding Fathers into potential terrorists and embraces pretty much whatever is perverse, cruel, or tyrannical. It is faithless.

It's too bad that today's Republicans are, by and large, devoid of the passion for freedom and moral rectitude that our Founders and Framers possessed. After all, why vote for a fake liberal when you can get the real thing?

Saturday, July 13, 2013

The National Park System doing Darwin's dirty work

If you haven't been to Zion National Park in Utah, you're missing out. It's a cathedral.

Which is ironic, since your tax dollars go to forcing Darwin's creation myth on visitors through the park's tram narration (the only way to ride through Zion's scenic route) and educational displays and programs.

Disturbingly, I observed a park ranger repeatedly telling kids that even though the local Indians drew dinosaurs centuries ago, they didn't actually see any, since the "terrible lizards" lived millions of years before we did.

For a group of people who boast so loudly of their reason and intellect, Darwinists are remarkably superstitious (and ill-informed, intellectually-dishonest, and hypocritical). The only reason that evolutionists claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago -- and long before humans -- is because God can't be true. They have to believe -- and force everyone else to believe -- that Life arose by accident from preexisting muck. Millions of years give a tinge of possibility to their fable.

The only problem is, no one has observed the truth of any its core elements. (For example, we do know that random genetic mutations occur in the cells of living things, but these end usually in sickness or death.)

That's why that ranger proselytizes for her irrational religion. That's why she has to convince others -- and herself -- that even though Indians depicted their experience of dinosaurs so many years ago, their art can not mean what it obviously means. She has to have others reject obvious fact in service to her anti-intellectual and anti-empirical religious philosophy, evidence of which no one has observed, ever.

Our public employees should refrain from forcing their religious beliefs on others (especially children) and instead to just stick to the facts as we find them.

Saturday, April 20, 2013

Not a Christian nation? America's government an embodiment of the Two Kingdoms: James Madison on Martin Luther

Atheists and other usurpers want to convince the public that the United States was never, in any sense, a Christian nation. Well, there's one problem: the facts don't bear this out.

If it wasn't enough that the Puritans were influenced by it, America's supreme law, the Constitution, is the incarnation of Martin Luther's doctrine of the Two Kingdoms, the idea that the religious and civil realms are, and should be, separate, which is, of course, an explication of Christ's command to "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's."

How do we know this? James Madison, the Father of the Constitution declares it in an 1821 letter to F. L. Schaeffer:
It illustrates the excellence of a system [American Constitutional government] which, by a due distinction, to which the genius and courage of Luther led the way, between what is due to Caesar and what is due to God, best promotes the discharge of both obligations. The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity.

Sunday, April 07, 2013

ESPN deceives the public in defense of sodomy-as-"marriage"

In this article about several NFL players possibly declaring their preference for men, ESPN has banned from posting and deleted the comments of (among others) those who support the traditional description of marriage.

(You'll notice that the first few comments visible give the impression that NFL fans/ESPN readers all support homosexuality.)

So, at ESPN, you can name-call, lie, and denigrate religion -- as the militant homosexuals and their Useful Idiots do -- but never, ever refer to sodomy as "sodomy."

(Is this also Disney's official position?)

No one's advocating harming homosexuals. But to use the force of law and the persuasive power of the media to force the acceptance and silence criticism of what is perverse and immoral is a crime against the People.

Who's next for "marriage"? Zoophiles? Pedophiles? Necrophiliacs? Siblings? Farmers? When's Adulterer Pride Month?

Shame on ESPN.

Thursday, March 07, 2013

Forget titanoceratops. What about Darwin's titanic fraud?

Linked tangentially to this:
Darwinists are some of the most illogical -- and unintentionally ironic -- of all people, committing the very same thought-"crime" of which they accuse others: Making up stories not only devoid of empirical fact, but opposed by it. (Not to mention, their fairy tales are impossible to verify.)

Who has observed Life arise apart from Life or Life's programs? Who has observed a fish evolve into a reptile, or an ape-like creature into a man?

And when the first modern human arose, with what (not "whom") did he/she/it reproduce? Of course, there was no one else, but Darwinists don't want you to notice that little detail. They make the first man a zoophile who can somehow reproduce with non-humans.

But it must be true! And if you disagree, you're an idiot. 

Thursday, February 28, 2013

Obama's changing position on sodomy-as-"marriage" not an evolution, but a confession

You don't wake up one day in mid-life and decide that sodomy is a good thing.

Neither does an "expert" on the Constitution decide all-of-a-sudden that what was a "state matter" when unpopular is -- now that's it's picked up some steam -- a matter to be mandated nationally by the Court.

The pseudo-president's misuse of public resources in perverting the Law and subverting our Republic proves his malice. Obama Lawyers Said to Back Gay Marriage at U.S. High Court:
The Obama administration will urge the U.S. Supreme Court to reinstate same-sex marriage in California, taking a stand in a historic case that could lead to gay nuptials across the country, an administration official said.

Sunday, February 17, 2013

(Allegedly) former Nazi Franklin Delano Roosevelt nominates covert Nazi convert to head CIA

You just can't make this stuff up.

First, Obama's obliterating the Constitution and bankrupting and disarming the Republic. Then, he nominates a flaming anti-Semite for Secretary of Defense.

Now, he wants a compromised and closeted convert to command our covert collection of critical combatant contemplation and communication:
former Marine platoon commander, FBI swat team leader, and counterterrorism & Muslim Brotherhood expert John Guandolo broke last week [...] that John Brennan, President Obama's nominee to head the CIA, converted to Islam while CIA station chief in Saudi Arabia.

In John's analysis, Brennan's conversion represents the culmination of a campaign against Brennan by a foreign intelligence service. Giving Brennan the most charitable benefit of the doubt, this reveals Brennan's susceptibility to manipulation. By itself, the secret circumstances of this conversion to the religion that is also the basis for jihad war to entrench the totalitarian legal-political system of sharia should be troubling. But coupled with Brennan's activities as the president's top counterterrorism adviser -- frequent, close work with Islamic organizations (e.g., ISNA) that operate on behalf of terrorists groups (Hamas, a wing of the Muslim Brotherhood) -- Brennan should certainly and without question not be confirmed.

Will our lawmakers, our representatives, our last, best and only hope, act on this information, or even seek an account of his activities from Brennan himself? Last week, no senator put a single question to Brennan regarding his associations with MB groups, his (at best) lame public statements regarding Al Qaeda's ideology (nothing to do with Islam, in Brennan's view), or his touting of Hezbollah's "moderate elements" and "legitimate" mechanisms.
Great job, America. You elected Hitler to end the Holocaust.

Monday, February 04, 2013

Ironic Gore

From here:
the fact that we have 24/7 propaganda masquerading as news, it does have an impact.
That's a certain text.

(He's got to be joking, right?)