Donald Trump is a Trojan horse and the embodiment of every absurd lie that liberals tell about Conservatives

Donald Trump is a RINO who will say anything, no matter how shameful, in order to win. He's the other lying liberal from New York, he's broken every promise made to his constituents, and he is a fraud completely unfit to serve as president.

If Trump were only a petty, bitter, pathetic, vile, little man who fears and loathes women, then there might be something to work with there. (His wife's public criticism of his craven personal attacks offers some hope for him). But Donald Trump is much more than just a red-faced, orange-haired blowhard.

Donald Trump is a fundamentally dishonest liberal whose "conversion" is not only conveniently recent but obviously feigned; Trump has already promised his support for nearly every item on a liberal's Festivus list, including: touch-back amnesty, declaring that "hopefully they all come back"; negotiations on deportation and not the enforcement of existing law; socialized medicine more absolute than Barack Obama's; more funding for Planned Parenthood, despite their mass slaughtering of innocents -- the literal poisoning, burning, crushing, and tearing apart of babies -- and then selling their remains; presidential edicts; one-bathroom-for-all; modifications of the Republican position against abortion; and punitive taxation and regulation for businesses that refuse to obey his orders.

Add to that his longtime funding of and praise for liberals (when Ted Cruz was opposing statists on both sides of the aisle in defense of the Constitution and the American people, Donald Trump was still buying politicians, including candidates opposed to the Tea Party), his use of Eminent Domain for personal gain (and not the public good), his making his products overseas, his support for increases in H1B visas, and his hiring of foreign workers (legal and illegal) instead of Americans, and Donald Trump is the establishment and everything that he claims to oppose.

The only thing that Trump's said that he seems to really believe is that Islam hates us; tragically, he doesn't know why, and he doesn't care to find out. And not only had he modified his "ban" (it was just a "suggestion"; Orlando's attack reinstated it, apparently), but his "concern" about Islam doesn't prevent him from condemning free people's defying Islamic totalitarianism, as he did with Pamela Geller's "Draw Muhammad" contest.

And after numerous blunders, insults, and flip-flops, Trump's offered something new: where his initial proposal of a wall to secure our borders contained no racist elements, Trump has now attacked a judge on racial grounds.

Besides the lying, bluster, and inconstancy, Trump speaks as if "2 Corinthians" is the opening to a bad joke, and he's being sued for child sex slavery, has lusted after his own daughter (publicly, on at least two occasions), defends rapists, and will engage in any character assassination -- no matter how bizarre, absurd, or crass -- in order to destroy an opponent.

But you can trust Donald Trump. Every version of him. Just ask John Miller ... over a Trump steak ... in the dining hall of Trump University.

Abraham Lincoln. Frederick Douglass. Harriet Tubman. Ronald Reagan. Ted Cruz. Donald Trump is a Trojan horse and the embodiment of every absurd lie that liberals tell about Conservatives (a term that Trump can't even define). He is merely the other side of Hillary's two-headed coin, and he will destroy the Republican Party.

America could have had a Reagan, but because of open primaries, the cult of personality, and Fox News's around-the-clock, slavish promotion of every ridiculous lie that Trump utters, we're stuck with Il Duce versus Kim Jong-Hillary.

Pervasive (il)liberal bias hides the tilt, or When the world's crooked, the straight look biased

I recall speaking with a friend (quite a few years ago) about media bias. He thought that Fox News was slanted to the Right. I shared that Fox News is pretty center of the road; it just looks biased in view of the rest of Media's overwhelming (il)liberal tilt.

Since when is patriotism a partisan issue? How can opposing the burning, crushing, and tearing to pieces of the innocent in the womb by their own mothers be "extreme"? Liberals lock their doors; shouldn't our borders be secure? They arm their security; what makes them and their children more deserving of protection than our own? And how is the self-evident truth that the human body was created for male-female unions suddenly "hate"?

The Left thinks that jihadists merit understanding, inclusion, negotiations, and access to nuclear weapons, but when a member the leftist media asks about American citizens' essential, God-given, unalienable rights?

You should know better.

And the Republicans are useless (or worse), giving the Tyrant-in-Chief everything he wants.

Some good observations on the Left's divine right of kings, from here:

The most maddening aspect of the polarization debate is the hidden presumption of liberalism’s right to rule. Authors such as Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann attribute most of the polarization in Washington to the Republican Party, which they and other observers argue has become too extreme. This will come as news to grassroots conservatives, who overwhelmingly believe that Republicans in the capital haven’t been nearly extreme enough in opposing President Obama’s governmental gigantism. It’s an implausible case, as there is little in conservative ideology today that you can’t find in Barry Goldwater’s Conscience of a Conservative or in Ronald Reagan’s famous “Time for Choosing” speech of 50 years ago. The difference today is that Republicans have won some landslide elections and lately a majority in Congress, and this galls liberals, whose real answer to polarization is conservatism’s unconditional surrender.

The racist party hates Reagan

Yes, there is little to distinguish many of the two parties' leaders, but the principles those politicians are supposed to represent couldn't be more diametric.

A response to this with credit to this:

A greater percentage of Congressional Republicans than Democrats supported the Civil Rights Act.

You ought to ask the reasons for Reagan's positions, but you won't, since facts are anathema to you.

Blacks benefited from Reagan's economic policies more than Whites (color-based identifiers are revolting, but since you define people by the melanin-content of their skin cells, so be it).

Pat Buchanan (who's got his own issues with jihad and Israel) invented the term "Southern strategy"; what did he say about the "change" in Republicanism?

"We would build our Republican Party on a foundation of states' rights, human rights, small government, and a strong national defense, and leave it to the ‘party of [Democratic Georgia Gov. Lester] Maddox, [1966 Democratic challenger against Spiro Agnew for Maryland governor George] Mahoney and [Democratic Alabama Gov. George] Wallace to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.”

If Southerners wanted to stay with the racist party, they'd have stayed Democrat. They went to the Republican Party because of the freedom issues Buchanan noted.

And right after Reagan's "states rights" speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi -- where Democrat Michael Dukakis spoke eight years later -- he went to New York to speak before the Urban League.

Reagan opposed "affirmative action" -- racial quotas -- just like JFK, Bayard Rustin, and the Urban League board of directors. He hired Clarence Thomas and Colin Powell. And Reagan signed Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday into a national holiday and approved a 25-year extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Why do you hate "states' rights, human rights, small government, and a strong national defense"? Why do you hate America and its citizens of every hue?

Democrats depend on the obedience -- and ignorance -- of "minority" voters in fastening their chains on them.

You're either too gullible to realize it or too complicit to admit it.

Not everyone in Silicon Valley's having a cold one with Barack "Jim Jones" Obama

What good is all the processing power in the world if you don't have any sense?

When Silicon Valley -- and Hollywood and other multibillionaires -- fund the destruction of the Republic, one small voice might not be much to get excited over.

But if dissent against Dear Leader crops up in even liberal strongholds, then perhaps there is hope for the nation.

It's good to see that not everyone in Silicon Valley's having a cold one with Barack "Jim Jones" Obama, from here and here.

Despite "stockpiles" of Saddam's WMD in the hands of jihadists, the Left still blame Bush

The "irrational" Left is at it again, trying to provide cover for Obama's malfeasance by blaming his predecessor:

McCain is right; it could have been avoided. If, in the aftermath of 9/11, President George W. Bush had treated the arguments of Feith, McCain, and other advocates of the Iraq War with the disdain they deserved, we (and the Iraqis) wouldn’t be where we are today.

Iraq is imploding because Sunni and Shiite have warred against each other for more than a thousand years. This is what Islam does.

So, yes. Put the blame where it belongs. Some of it on a president who didn't know and didn't learn but had to do something in light of 9/11. (And he was right about Saddam's "stockpiles.") Pile a more generous helping on his successor who, being the "smartest president ever" and a(n allegedly) former Muslim, must have known what would occur but abandoned anyway gains made in Iraq at unfathomable cost in blood (and treasure).

But the bulk of the responsibility for the current "mess" in Iraq goes to the ideology that motivates so much death and destruction: Islam.

What it really means to be a Democrat

Some new website's supposed to help you find out the best place to live based on your ideology.

I couldn't help noticing the bias in some of the categories, and -- being the generous person that I am -- I whipped up a few explanations to help readers understand just what they're voting for.

Of course, Republicans today are often just as bad. They're little more than Democrats-in-Conservatives'-clothing and therefore utterly redundant and useless.

(And no, this is not a blanket condemnation of all Democrats; John F. Kennedy, for example, lowered taxes, believed in a strong military, and opposed Communism.

You know, what Obama would call a "right-wing extremist.")

Originally from here [edited]:

What the categories really mean:

A Democrat: You prefer the party of slavery, Segregation, the KKK, and institutionalized racial division, animosity, exploitation, and dependence. (And now Islamophilia.)

Pro-choice: You support a woman's right to murder her unborn baby while he or she is still growing inside her.

Pro-Environment: You support politicians manipulating, taxing, and regulating free peoples based on junk "science" and outright fraud. And you don't realize that climate change has been occurring since long before SUVs or George Bush ever arrived on the scene. (Medieval Warming Period, anyone?)

Pro-Gun Control: You want to be helpless against both criminals and tyrants, a policy which history has proven always works out well. (Unless you're a celebrity or politician, in which case, you've got bodyguards -- or the U.S. military -- armed to the teeth to protect you and yours. Why do you think that your children are more valuable than ours, again?)

Pro-Tax: You're "pro-tax" only as long as others are paying the taxes, not you. Like Bill and Hillary Clinton, you take advantage of all sorts of loopholes to get out of paying your "fair share." (And don't mention charity: Neither Barack Obama nor Joe Biden gave to others nearly as much as a Conservative family of five on one teachers' salary ... until they ran for and won the White House.)

Palin nails Domestic and Foreign Policy in one paragraph

Of course, this is an improper use of "baptism."

But her pointing out the utter hypocrisy of the murderous and craven Left and a proper response to those who would enslave or slaughter innocents merely for rejecting their "invitation" to convert to their genocidal ideology is moral and brilliant.

From here:

I do have to apologize for that. I am sorry. Not all intolerant, anti-freedom, leftist liberals are hypocrites. I'm kidding, yes they are. And they are not right. The policies that poke our allies in the eye and coddle adversaries instead of putting the fear of God in our enemies. Come on! Enemies who would utterly annihilate America. They obviously have information on plots to carry out jihad. Oh, but you can’t offend them, can’t make them feel uncomfortable, not even a smidgen. Well, if I were in charge, they would know that waterboarding is how we baptize terrorists.

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?

Buying Al Gore: A good investment for jihad

Have you ever noticed how liberals oppose Capitalism for others but not for themselves? Free men can do whatever they want with their property, even Al Gore. If only his rank hypocrisy were the sole story here!

The father of Anthropogenic Global Warming -- someone who's made a fortune foaming-at-the-mouth about our use of fossil fuels destroying the planet and who helped create an industry used by governments to further enslave their citizens -- just sold his mostly-unused television network to the emir of Qatar.

I guess Big Oil isn't evil if the check is big enough.

And there's something much more menacing about Al Gore's new owners and what this arrangement means for the United States: Al-Jazeera is a propaganda arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose stated goal is to destroy Western Civilization from within. They own now not only a lobbyist who was only a few hundred votes from the presidency, but in taking over Current TV, it won't be just PBS airing their jihadist nonsense -- they've gained access into homes across the nation.

Here's another nail in the coffin:

“Of course Al didn’t show up [to a meeting with his new masters],” said one high placed Current staffer. “He has no credibility.

"He’s supposed to be the face of clean energy and just sold [the channel] to very big oil, the emir of Qatar! Current never even took big oil advertising—and Al Gore, that bulls***ter sells to the emir?”

The meeting, while not contentious, was, according to staffers who spoke on the condition of anonymity, miserable. The mostly left-leaning group—some still in denial —weren’t buying what Al Jazeera was selling.

Oil? The Left's not buying that, since they hate whatever makes us prosperous. But jihad and shari'a -- the antithesis of Christianity, Liberty, and our modern notions of human rights -- they buy that in bulk.

Bold colors

It's easy to see from the comments below why -- while the rest of the Pyrite State was voting for a muscular fraud -- I voted for McClintock.

He's one of the few people who understand what makes America great and can articulate it.

Don't abandon what is true. Fight for it. From here:

Common Sense After a Close Election
Northern Division Republican Women
Rancho Cordova, California
November 17, 2012

"Now let's pull up our socks, wipe our noses and get back in this fight."

After listening to ten days of hand wringing and doom saying from the usual suspects that Republicans must abandon our principles if we are to survive, we need a little of Mark Twain's common sense. I suggest we all take it to heart.

He said, "We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it -- and stop there; lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot stove-lid. She will never sit down on a hot stove-lid again -- and that is well; but also she will never sit down on a cold one anymore."

So it is in that spirit that I will begin with three incontrovertible truths about this election.

First, the same election that returned Barack Obama to the White House also returned the second largest House Republican majority since World War II - bigger than anything Newt Gingrich ever had.

Second, according to polls before, during and after this election, the American people agree with us fundamentally on issues involving the economy, Obamacare, government spending, bailouts - you name it.

Third, the American people are about to get a graduate level course in Obamanomics, and at the end of that course, they are going to be a lot sadder and a lot wiser.

That is not to say that there aren't many lessons that we need to learn and to learn well from this election, particularly here in California. But capitulation is not one of them.

Have we forgotten that just two years ago, Republicans campaigned on clear principles of individual liberty and constitutionally limited government? We took strong and united stands to oppose Obamacare, rein in out-of-control spending, roll back the regulatory burdens that are crushing our economy and yes - dare I say it - secure our borders? Have we forgotten that the result was one of the most stunning mid-term elections in American history: a net gain of 63 U.S. House seats, six U.S. Senate seats, 19 state legislatures, six governors and nearly 700 state legislative seats?

Now we're told, just two years later, after a net loss of just eight House seats, two Senate seats and a 2 1/2-percentage point loss of the White House, that we must abandon these principles or consign ourselves to the dustbin of history.

If you want to see a catastrophic election, look at 1976.

We not only lost the Presidency, but as a result of that election the Democrats held 61 U.S. Senate seats (today they have 55); and 292 House seats (today they have just 201).

Then, we heard the same chorus of impending doom that we hear today. We had to moderate our image. We had to broaden our base. In short, that we had to become more like the Democrats.

Here is what Ronald Reagan said to the naysayers of 1976:

Americans are hungry to feel once again a sense of mission and greatness.

I don 't know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, "We must broaden the base of our party"-when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents...

Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?

Let us show that we stand for fiscal integrity and sound money and above all for an end to deficit spending, with ultimate retirement of the national debt.

Fortunately, we had the good sense to take that advice, and four years later Ronald Reagan became President, and shortly after that it was morning again in America. That would never have happened if we had listened to the usual suspects of their day and become a pathetic reflection of the Democrats. As Phil Gramm said, "why would anyone want to vote for a fake Democrat when they can have the real thing?"

The first of the cold stove lids we are told not to sit on is illegal immigration. Republicans, they say, must accept the notion that our nation can no longer control its borders and we should declare amnesty for the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens now in this country. We should do so, we are told, because our position on border security has hopelessly alienated Latino voters who would otherwise share our values.

It is true that Latino voters are a growing part of the American electorate - making up ten percent of the vote in 2012, of which 71 percent voted for Barack Obama, according to the CBS exit poll.

Sean Trende is the senior political analyst for Real Clear Politics. Last May, he published an article addressing this argument directly. He made three points.

First, Latino voters are not a monolithic group on this issue. Citing 2008 exit polling, he noted that a majority of Latino voters "either thought that illegal immigration was fairly unimportant or thought that it was important and voted Republican."

So why are Latinos voting for Democrats? Very simply, he said, once you adjust for socio-economic status, Latinos vote pretty much the same as the general voting population. But because they are disproportionately poor, they tend to vote disproportionately Democratic. However, as they begin to work their way up the socio-economic ladder and assimilate into American society, they become more and more Republican.

Second, citing research from the Pew Institute, he pointed out that the wave of illegal immigration has now crested, and may actually be reversing. He noted that every immigration wave has followed this pattern. Those who stay become more and more assimilated and more and more Republican as the years go by.

As recently as 20 years ago, we used to hear a lot about the Italian vote or the Irish vote. We don't hear about that anymore because they have melted into the general population. The demographic tide, he said, is not running against the Republicans, but running with them.

Third, he points out that a very sizeable part of the Republican base is firmly opposed to illegal immigration, and that abandoning that position could be politically catastrophic. He reminded us, "In a large, diverse country, every move to gain one member of a political coalition usually alienates another member."

Heather MacDonald makes the same point in the aftermath of the election. She notes that 62 percent of Latino voters support Obamacare. They overwhelmingly support higher taxes to pay for a larger government and more public services. These are not voters who will suddenly flock to the Republican banner because we have reversed our position on border security.

That's not to say Republicans should ignore the Latino vote - far from it - and I will get to that in a few minutes. But to suggest that Republicans need to reverse themselves on a fundamental issue of national sovereignty and the rule of law is unprincipled, counterproductive, self-destructive and wrong.

Ironically, the issues where most Latino and African-American voters do agree with us are the social issues, like abortion and marriage -- but of course, we're told by the same naysayers that we should repudiate our position on these messy social issues.

Let's look closer at the polling on the social issues. According to exit polling by Public Opinion Strategies, it is true that five percent of voters last week said that the most important issue in their vote for President was their pro-choice/pro-abortion position. Five percent of the entire electorate is nothing to sneeze at.

But four percent of voters said that the most important issue in casting their vote for President was their pro-life/anti-abortion position. That's a statistical tie.

I have a question for you. How many of those hard-core, single-issue abortion-on-demand Obama voters will suddenly switch their votes to Republicans once we've renounced our position on this issue?

Now, here's a bonus question: how many of that four percent of the electorate who support us solely because of our pro-life position are going to stay with us once we have repudiated them?

It is important in politics to know the difference between addition and subtraction. Addition is what creates majorities and subtraction is what destroys them. In this single exercise, we have just subtracted four percent of the entire American electorate from our vote and added little or nothing.

Now, repeat this process on every other so-called social issue, and tell me if we will be better off or worse off for taking this advice.

With all this said, there is no blinking at the fact that we just lost an election that we should have won, and to pretend there's nothing wrong meets Einstein's definition of insanity. There's a great deal wrong and a great deal that we need to address.

The voters who appeared at the polls agree with us on Obamacare. According to the CBS exit poll, by a plurality of 49 to 44 percent, they want to repeal some or all of Obamacare.

They agree with us on the size of government. By a margin of 51 to 43 percent, they believe that government is "doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals."

They agree with us on taxes. By a resounding margin of 63 to 33 percent, they disagreed with the statement that "taxes should be raised to help cut the deficit."

Perhaps most telling of all, 52 percent of voters agreed "things in this country today are seriously off on the wrong track," and yet then voted to continue down that wrong track for another four years.

As Lincoln said, "The voters are everything. If the voters get their backsides too close to the fire, they'll just have to sit on the blisters a while." It is a painful experience; but it is a learning experience. And at the end of that experience, they emerge sadder but wiser and in time for the next election.

We are winning the issues. And that means over time we will be winning the votes -- but only if we stay true to our principles and true to the millions of Americans who are already with us and many more who may not consider themselves Republicans today - but who believe as we believe.

What was the single biggest political movement in 2009 and 2010? It was the much-maligned, politically incorrect Tea Party, which energized fully one third of the American electorate across party lines. Although 60 percent were Republicans, 20 percent were Independents and 20 percent were Democrats. Long before the Tea Party, we had another name for that phenomenon. We used to call it the "Reagan Coalition." But this year, those who tell us we need a bigger tent told the Tea Party to get out. And many did.

Who brought a tidal wave of young people into the party? It was the much maligned and politically incorrect Ron Paul, whose simple message of unadulterated freedom resonated deeply on college campuses. Eight thousand UC Berkeley students turned out last year to hear that message. But this year, those who tell us we need a bigger tent told Ron Paul and his supporters to get out. And they did. In fact, many of their votes went to Obama.

A well-intentioned supporter e-mailed me last week and said, "we've got to kick the religious right out of the party." I reminded him that we did that in 1976, when the religious right voted for Jimmy Carter.

My point is, you cannot build a majority by systematically ejecting the constituent parts of that coalition. You build a majority by adding to that coalition by taking your principles to new constituencies.

Working Americans of every race know instinctively that you cannot borrow and spend your way rich. We need to appeal to them.

Immigrants came to this country to escape the stultifying central planning and corrupt bureaucracies that ravaged their economies. We need to appeal to them.

For the first time in our history, young people face a bleaker future than their parents enjoyed. We need to appeal to them.

The very groups of voters most damaged by Obama's policies are those who voted for Obama - we need to appeal to them.

Not in the closing days of a campaign poisoned with partisanship - but right now.

We need to recognize that a large portion of our population is not familiar with the self-evident truths of the American Founding and has no compass with which to follow back to the prosperity, happiness and fulfillment that is the hallmark of free societies.

Without that clarion call - without a party of freedom willing to paint our positions in bold colors - I am afraid that as the economy suffocates under the avalanche of government burdens, intrusions, restrictions, regulations and edicts, people in their growing despair, will increasingly turn to the false hope that paternalistic government offers.

The only antidote to that is the self-evident truth of the American founding: that freedom works and we need to put it back to work.

Like it or not, we are at this moment the only party equipped to revive and restore those truths and take them to the millions of Americans who are desperately searching for them.

Great parties are built upon great principles, and they are judged by their devotion to those principles. Since its inception, the central principle of the Republican Party can be summarized in a word: freedom. The closer we have hewn to this principle, the better we have done; the farther we have drifted from it, the worse that we - and the country - have done.

Dick Armey put it more simply: "When we act like us, we win, and when we act like them, we lose."

The Republican Women formed originally as the educational arm of the Republican Party. Never has that role been more important than it is today. We will not win the political battle until we win the battle over principles. We need to begin that campaign today. We can be confident that these principles resonate, but only when we are true to them with our existing constituencies while we reach out with them to new constituencies.

That is our challenge. That is our destiny. That is the salvation of our country. Now, fellow Republicans, let's pull up our socks, wipe our noses, and get back in this fight.

What can you expect from someone who thinks that Muslims have a Constitutional right to his own daughters?

Hello, Tony, and welcome to 2003.
This is the earliest e-mail addressed to a public figure containing the revised signature.

Following is a response to the inveterate liar Anthony Sokolow, who advocates Socialism and Shari'a. In other words, an Obamaphile:

Tony,

How sad. You can't defend your nescient agitating for the bankruptcy of the American Republic, so you resort (again) to absurdity.

You are a liar and a masochist.

I did not select my nom de guerre out of pretention. (How stupid! If I were to do something like that, I'd have to be twelve-years-old and harboring intense feelings of insecurity . . . which goes a long way toward explaining why you thought of that first.) I chose the name to make a point regarding the one and one-half millennia-old existential threat posed by Islam. Unsurprisingly, you don't get it.

And where have I called myself a "scholar"? (Thanks for the compliment, by the way.) All one needs to understand Islam's texts, tenets, and timeline is the ability to read, some free time, and a little intellectual honesty. You have the time to participate in these e-mail exchanges (I'd use "debates," but that implies at least two sides contending more-or-less equally), so you do have some free time on your hands, and . . . .

. . . Well, I guess one out of three isn't too bad. (If this were Major League Baseball, you'd be an All-Star.)

With regard to the Henry quote, shall I remind you of how I disgrace you publicly every time you bring it up? You will recall that I demonstrated conclusively that you were several years late in pointing out its origin and that the only reason it showed up in its older form is because of a quirk in Hotmail.

Is anyone really surprised that you can't be honest? After all, you defend on Constitutional grounds the right of Muslims to exercise the freedom in their religion to behead you and rape and enslave your wife and two daughters.

You really ought to spend less time on the computer. After all, you've got bigger things to worry about. Like how to explain to your daughters your giving them up as sex slaves to the Ikhwan.

A.

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here." -attributed commonly to, but inspired by, Patrick Henry

"I know no Savior apart from the One born by the Virgin, died on the cross, and given out at the altar." -Martin Luther

If this is what happens in a "moderate, secular" Egypt, wait 'til the Muslim Brotherhood's in power

CBS News' Lara Logan Assaulted During Egypt Protests:

"On Friday, Feb. 11, the day Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak stepped down, CBS chief foreign correspondent Lara Logan was covering the jubilation in Tahrir Square for a '60 Minutes' story when she and her team and their security were surrounded by a dangerous element amidst the celebration. It was a mob of more than 200 people whipped into frenzy.

In the crush of the mob, she was separated from her crew. She was surrounded and suffered a brutal and sustained sexual assault and beating before being saved by a group of women and an estimated 20 Egyptian soldiers."

Keep her in your prayers.

UPDATE: The Muslims were shouting, "Jew! Jew!" while they raped her for twenty to thirty minutes. How did CBS forget to print those little details? We mustn't confuse anyone with the facts, right, CBS? Can't throw a wet blanket on Obama's little rebellion, can we?

Just like Carter, who still doesn't understand that removing brutal dictators holding rabid Muslims in check only allows the rabid Muslims to take over.

Well done, CBS. Great job, Mr. President!

Muslims beheading the Left's fantasies about Islam, one journalist at a time

What, if anything, have our "unbiased observers," our professional opinion makers, learned from their experiences up-close-and-personal with Islam? Expecting masses grateful for Obama and the Left's shared hatred of Western Civilization enlightened multiculturalism and support for implementing shari'a their "democracy," what did they find?

Anderson Cooper punched in the head ten times. Christiane Amanpour threatened repeatedly by a man clearly barely able to restrain his rage (I've seen that face of Muslim civility before; he would have snapped if not for his friend's restraining him). Katie Couric "menaced" and shoved. An ABC News team nearly beheaded. A Fox News team "beaten severely."

Will they blame Islam, which inculcates both a deep and abiding hatred for all things non-Muslim and an autonomic resorting to threats and violence?  Or will they continue repeating the Big Lie, blaming instead Mubarak, poverty, President Bush, America, or the Jews?

And do you think that Anderson Cooper's noticed yet the stark contrast between the completely peaceful, respectful, and restrained protests of American patriots and the rage of the Muslim street? Will he apologize for his ridiculous and disgusting name-calling and begin to investigate just why the "Arab" world is on fire?

Too many coincidences for it to be coincidental

The Muslim Brotherhood -- whose stated goal is to bring down Western Civilization from within -- is seeking to usurp the Egyptian government in partnership with former IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, the "moderate" Muslim who duped the West with soothing talk of "dialogue" and "mutual respect" into doing nothing with Iran, a jihad state in pursuit of nuclear weapons.

How does a Muslim's aiding a Muslim terrorist nation gain Weapons of Mass Destruction deserve a peace prize, again?

Speaking of losing nations entirely to Islamic rule, just as Obama and his Goebbels in the media are trying to convince you that he's the new Reagan, GE's begun a campaign in "remembrance" of the great former president.  Yes, that GE.  Living-off-your-tax-dollars GE.  Just-absorbed-into-the-Obama-administration GE.

It's good to see that while the world burns, Obama's focusing his attention on what really matters.

The three words of his obfuscation

It's an impenetrable mystery. The Attorney General of the United States says that he stays up at night worrying about the next terrorist attack, but he seems to care little about why Muslims kill, referring cluelessly to their motivation being "for whatever reason."

Shouldn't an attorney general have at least a mild curiosity about the cause of 9/11 and more than sixteen thousand terrorist attacks since then?

"The threat has changed from simply worrying about foreigners coming here, to worrying about people in the United States, American citizens -- raised here, born here, and who for whatever reason, have decided that they are going to become radicalized and take up arms against the nation in which they were born," he said.

In the last 24 months, Holder said, 126 people have been indicted on terrorist-related charges, Fifty of those people are American citizens.

"I think that what is most alarming to me is the totality of what we see, the attorney general said. "Whether it is an attempt to bomb the New York City subway system, an attempt to bring down an airplane over Detroit, an attempt to set off a bomb in Times Square ... I think that gives us a sense of the breadth of the challenges that we face, and the kinds of things that our enemy is trying to do."

Just who is "our enemy"? I'm stumped.

What possibly could be the common denominator between all these people trying to murder innocents? American citizenship?

Holder says many of these converts to al Qaeda have something in common: a link to radical cleric Anwar Al Awlaki, an American citizen himself.

That clears things up a bit; links to Awlaki cause terrorism. So, from where is he getting the teachings that turn men into bloodthirsty animals? Is a pajama-clad Awlaki in his basement just making things up?

Speaking of basements . . .

"The ability to go into your basement, turn on your computer, find a site that has this kind of hatred spewed ... they have an ability to take somebody who is perhaps just interested, perhaps just on the edge, and take them over to the other side," he said.

Do you have a basement? When you see a Christmas tree, is your first thought, "Kill!"? When you see a Nativity, do you immediately reach for your pants to detonate your underwear? Are you "just interested" in maiming and decapitating unbelievers? Does the sound of "Jingle Bells" cause uncontrollable, murderous rage to well up within you?

Me neither.

To combat the threat of Americans turning to al Qaeda and violence, the United States is monitoring scores of radicals and has set up stings to blunt the threat.

So, Homeland Security has narrowed down the list of potential terrorists to American citizens, people who use computers, and people with basements.

You know, the usual suspects.*

*It's curious that this time, Holder didn't include tea partiers, conservatives, returning military, the Founding Fathers, or octogenarians on his watch-list. Perhaps it was just an oversight.

Feckless Obama covering-up launch of Chinese missile near Los Angeles?

Toxic children's toys are not the only things China's exporting to the U.S.:

[. . .]

Two governmental military experts with extensive experience working with missiles and computer security systems have examined the television video and conclude the mysterious contrail originating some 30 miles off the coast near Los Angeles did not come from a jet – but rather, they say the exhaust and the billowing plume emanated from a single source nozzle of a missile, probably made in China.

They further suggest the missile was fired from a submerged Chinese nuclear submarine off America's coast, and point out that the timing of the alleged Chinese missile shot coincided with an increasing confrontation between the U.S. and China, and was likely meant to send a message to Washington.

Indeed, the Federal Aviation Administration documents that there were no aircraft flying in the area at that time, the night of Nov. 8.

"The question that still must be answered is why NORAD's muted response was simply that North America was not threatened, and later our government approved the lame excuse that the picture recorded was simply an aircraft leaving a contrail," said retired U.S. Air Force Brig. Gen. Jim Cash.

A former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot and commander of an F-15 squadron and an F-16 wing, Cash was assigned to NORAD as an assistant director of operations at the Cheyenne Mountain complex near Colorado Springs, Colo., and is fully knowledgeable of NORAD procedures.

"There is absolutely no doubt that what was captured on video off the coast of California was a missile launch, was clearly observed by NORAD, assessed by a four-star general in minutes, and passed to the president immediately," he said.

Even more ominously, cautioned Cash: "We must question the timing of this shot across our bow. The president was abroad being diplomatic, which means trying to placate China which is becoming overly concerned with our handling a totally out-of-control deficit in spending."

[. . .]

Madsen, who today is an investigative journalist, said the Pentagon is working "overtime with the media and on the Internet to cover up the latest debacle. However, even some reporters who cover the Pentagon full-time are beginning to question the Pentagon's version of events ... over the skies west of Los Angeles."

Dr. Lyle J. Rapacki of Sentinel Intelligence Services, LLC, said the contrail incident off the Los Angeles coast is "fraught with peril" due to the defense systems and protocols in place that should have detected the alleged submarine.

"The decision to officially announce that North America was not threatened," he said, "and all the excitement was due to an aircraft leaving a contrail is a decision that reaches beyond the four-star general level and goes directly to a decision made by the commander-in-chief."

If national suicide is funny, then these guys are hilarious

Somehow, undermining civilization is funnier when it's someone else's society crumbling at the hands of its own citizens. Is it too soon to declare that the clowns in Washington (real and elected) have got to go?

Always insightful commentary from the gents at Power Line, this time on today's Rally to Reassure the Desperate:

Stewart called on the nation to move forward 'concession by concession,' the way cars yield to one another when they merge from two lanes into one. I don't watch Stewart's show, so I don't know whether he applied this model when President Obama was ramming legislation like health care reform through Congress without making any real concessions to Republicans (not even Olympia Snowe). I do know that Stewart is now criticizing Obama not for insufficient willingness to compromise, but for failing to be even more transformative than he has been.

Stewart also pressed his theory that the 24 hour pundit cycle is making it harder to solve 'our problems.' He offered no analysis to support the implausible notion that cable news and talk shows -- of mostly poor quality to be sure, but also lightly watched for the most part -- are having such an effect.

Stewart seems to be obsessed with punditry. But I believe it washes over the body politic as a whole either unconsumed or taken (as Stewart's performances are) mostly for its entertainment value. The causes, and the most interesting symptoms, of our polarization (if that's what Stewart is complaining about) lie elsewhere.

JOHN adds: 'Polarization' consists of us conservatives and other non-liberals--80 percent of the population--resisting Obama's and Stewart's left-wing agenda.

ABC, YouTube describe abortion as "gruesome," "shocking," and "disgusting," protest having to show its conclusion

How long until those responsible for the disclaimers are fired for telling the truth?

If abortion is a "Constitutional right," if it is something to be protected, then why would viewing its product shock or disgust? Why do even its defenders consider it "gruesome"? Why would the television station protest that they were "forced" to air the ad? Why would they be reluctant to advertise a fundamental plank in the Democratic Party's platform?

The Left forces sexual deviance down throats of the public (it seems you can't watch a major network show or relevant news report without homosexual propaganda being pushed), and now it's found a new life partner in Islam (though it'll be shocked to find that its new lover is interested not in a long-term commitment but only mut'ah). Why not be proud of what they claim is a fundamental matter of equality and women's rights?  If they're only lumps of tissue and not children, why hide anything?

Because those are babies.

Serial child butchers' work exposed; supporters can't help but tell the truth about it:

"An anti-abortion candidate running for D.C. delegate to the U.S. House is airing what is arguably one of this election cycle’s most provocative TV campaign ads, featuring extremely graphic images of aborted fetuses.

The 30-second ad for Missy Smith will air 24 times on local broadcast network affiliates across the greater Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. It is so explicit that it's preceded by a 15-second warning that was added by the stations’ administrators.

Over gruesome images of bloody and lifeless premature bodies, Smith says she had two abortions but has turned against the practice.

“I was told it’s not a baby. They lied to me. They exploited me. Then I learned the truth and I’ve suffered for years,” she says. “And believe me I am angry. My heart has been ripped out. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Norton – they all support the murder of babies and the abuse of women by abortion. It’s time to make child killing illegal again.”

YouTube has pulled the video from its site, posting a notice that it amounted to “a violation of YouTube's policy on shocking and disgusting content.”

WJLA, the local ABC affiliate to first air the ad, noted in its disclaimer that the station was required to air the ad under federal law."

One holocaust exposed (if briefly; even the UK is less fiendish in its policy); now, if only the Source and Sustenance of 1400 years of holocaust can receive the same treatment. Nine years of hiding what Islam wrought on 9/11 and in nearly 20,000 documented terrorist attacks since then, amplified now in an apparently coordinated media propaganda push in defense of Islam.

Break the dam. Release the river!

Burning the text responsible for nearly one and one-half millennia of genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery is "hate," but practicing such depravity -- that's religious liberty!

Obvious racists burning Qur'an.
Do they know something we don't?

I didn't endorse Terry Jones' (apparent) publicity stunt (if he were acting on his convictions, the pile of refuse would have burned), and I don't advocate burning books in general, but has anyone noticed that all during the Islamophilic media's fabricated controversy (in defense of the Ground Zero mosque; it was no coincidence) over his plan to burn Qur'an, those enlightened defenders of the oppressed ignored the genocidal, pedophilic elephant in the room?

"After condemnations from around the world, Jones called off the burning."

Who's calling off "kill the pagans wherever you find them . . . Fight those who disbelieve . . . even if they are the People of the Book [Jews and Christians, mostly] . . . Paradise [belongs to those who] fight in his cause, and slay and are slain" (Qur'an 9)?

The West's political and media "leaders" are so blinded by their suicidal ignorance, guilt, and self-loathing, their hatred of Christianity, and their need for approval that rather than condemn Muhammad's medieval* Mein Kampf, they attack those who oppose its martial, monstrous, misogynistic mandates.

It is up to us to inform the ignorant, fire the treasonous, persuade the moderate, expose the deceitful, and oppose the devout. Vigorously.

*Another expression of the West's hatred of its Christian past, Islamic barbarity is compared often to Medieval Europe or Christianity's "early days," not realizing (or caring) that Christ was raising the dead six centuries before Muhammad was a gleam in satan's eye.

Suicidally-ignorant bigots align with their future Islamic overlords in calling ivory "black" and agitating for freedom of beheading, child-rape, and slavery

An obviously principled defense of religious liberty . . . if you call "sacralized" genocide, pedophilia, rape, slavery, and treason "religion"

What more than blind hatred of Christianity -- and of America for retaining vestiges of its Christian founding principles, along with no small number of Christians -- spurs the godless left to rally in defense of "religious freedom" when the "religion" they're defending will take away not only their freedom, but their heads, their wives, and their daughters?

The truth is, when it is Christians or Jews expressing their religion freely (or engaging in just plain self-preservation, as in Israel's defense of its very existence or the effort to stop the Islamic house of ill-repute at Ground Zero) those defending the mosque now foam at the mouth about separation of church and state.

What in the world do socialists have in common with pseudo-religious, murdering tyrants?

And what race is Islam, anyway?

Deep down inside, many of these craven traitors must understand that when push comes to shove, and they've succeeded in diminishing the influence of Christianity in America so that Islam reigns, they'll be forced to make a choice: Convert, submit, or die.  And they must know that when that time does come, they're going to convert.  When faced with tyranny, cowards submit.  And being the tyrants that many of them are, they'll delight in having a chance finally to stick it to "Good white Christian folk" of every ethnicity.

But these Useful Idiot dhimmis and their Muslim puppet masters misunderstand the American spirit because they are not American in any meaningful sense of the word.  Americans do not submit. We do not surrender.  We will not stand by idly while the rabidly-ignorant-and-vicious savage those we love.

Look, she misspelled "dead."
Good Muslims make "dead" neighbors.

Notice how the treasonous, clueless media support the cultural jihad in America, a movement which will do away ultimately with their freedom of the press (not that they're using it lately for anything other than undermining the Republic): "which would include a prayer room;" as if having one means that Muslims obeying the word of Allah and emulating Muhammad's example didn't bring down the towers and exterminate the three thousand.

In other words, what comfort to non-Muslims is a "prayer room" when its occupants will be praying for our subjugation and humiliation or slaughter?  The mujahideen media gins up opposition to defense of the Republic by Americans opposing a monument to the nineteen and their murderous "god" at Ground Zero:

Opponents of the center, which would include a prayer room, say its proposed location is insensitive and fear it will harbor religious extremism. Those who back it cite the right to religious freedom and a need to promote tolerance and understanding.

Hundreds of opponents on Sunday chanted 'No Mosque,' sang patriotic songs and waved photographs of violent attacks by Islamic extremists.

One sign read: 'Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all the terrorists were Muslim.'

Around the corner, supporters chanted: 'We don't care what bigots say, religious freedom is here to stay.'

A supporter, retired school teacher Ilene Kahn, said: 'This has become a political tool to preach hatred. The peace-loving Muslims did not attack us.'

What Ms. Kahn doesn't realize is what every Muslim knows: The mosque represents imperialistic, triumphalist, militant Islam.  Also known as "just Islam."  Yet, besides Miss America -- who adds treason to lewdness in Muslim eyes; I can hear that fatwa coming, it's coming 'round the bend -- where are the "peace-loving Muslims" opposing the mosque?

Ali Akram, a local doctor who supports the project, said: "The people who say the mosque is too close to Ground Zero, those are the same people that protest mosques in Brooklyn and Staten Island and Tennessee and Wisconsin and California. What radius will they go for?

How 'bout Mecca?  But even then, that city belongs to the pagans from whom it was stolen.

Many in the crowd opposing the center were firefighters and construction workers, who carried signs reading: "This is Sacred Ground to New Yorkers."

And it should be to all non-Muslims of every religion and nationality.

One sign read: "Everything I Ever Needed to Know about Islam I Learned on 9/11."

That's pretty much it.