Islamic Rage Boy Redux
Mar 18, 2007 Uncategorized
I wrote a quick piece earlier about the Gathering of Eagles. I plan on writing a big post on the experiences of the day and my take on the importance of the event. In the earlier item I indicated that there was a situation that could have gotten out of control and it involved a Muslim (probably a convert) who seemed to be attempting to become a “victim” like the Imams who were practicing terrorist acts on an airplane. Muslims love to incite something and then act like victims and CAIR loves to defend them. In this particular incident, problems could have escalated quickly and a lot of people would have been arrested. One Muslim would have been stomped flat on the sidewalk in the process. Here is how I saw things happen. An elderly veteran was standing along the sidewalk on Constitution near Henry Bacon Drive and he made a comment about Muslims and peace. I do not know what the comment was but I think it was in response to one of the signs the anti war crowd was carrying. In any event, this guy who was standing on the other side of the sidewalk got upset really quickly and wanted to defend his religion of peace. Here is the exchange as best as I remember it:
Muslim: I’m a Muslim what you have to say about that?
Vet: I’m a hog farmer from the Mid West.
Muslim: F**k you. You want to die today old man?
Vet: If it is my day to go I’m OK with it.
Muslim (stepping up nearly nose to nose with vet): So what you sayin’ is you want to die. I just want you to raise one hand and I am going to beat your cracker ass all over the place.
Vet: Really nigger, well go ahead and try.
Muslim: Go ahead, raise one hand cracker and I am going to kill you right here. I will kill your cracker ass right here.
Vet: I’m not raising a hand nigger, that is what you want. Go eat some pork somewhere why don’t you?At this point I stepped between them and told them both that we were not there to fight. I told the Muslim to go back where he was and we were where we belonged. I kept telling the old vet that we do not want to give him a reason to say he is a victim and that there were too many cameras that would film it and show it out of context. We would end up looking like a bunch of bigots while the MSM ignored the racial attack that was started by him. Other vets stepped up and reinforced the idea. The Muslim went back tot he fence and then he walked around the line and ended up behind the vet.
Muslim: Here I am old man. What you gonna do? You still got shit to say.
Vet: Yeah, you want a bacon sandwich? (Reaches into pocket and pulls bacon sandwich wrapped in a napkin out and unwraps it).
Muslim (recoiling like Dracula seeing a Cross): Very funny cracker. We’re gonna see how funny this is when I kill your ass. I ain’t afraid of you mother fu**kers.A police officer arrives and looks at the Muslim. The Muslim is instructed to leave and go back down the street and away from the veterans. The Muslim goes back to where he was a few feet from us.
Muslim (to no one in particular): I am gonna kick that Mother fu**ers ass. I will send him home in a body bag. People think they can mess with me. I’m a man and I ain’t afraid of these sorry mother fu**ers.
Woman with vets: Why are you here causing trouble. What kind of man goes around threatening to kill people.
Muslim: I ain’t afraid of you. [steps into the middle of the crowd of veterans taunting them]. You all ain’t sh*t. I am here and I ain’t afraid.
Big Dog: We do not need to give him a reason to say we attacked him. He is trying to provoke us. There are too many cameras here and he knows it.
Woman: Some man.
Muslim: You look like a man yourself.
The conversation wound down after an exchange of words. Then a few people with microphones walked over to asked the Muslim a few questions and interview him. As I was passing, I heard him use the words kick somebody’s ass to the interviewer.
This entire incident could have really gotten ugly and I have no doubt the Muslim guy would have been killed. There were untold numbers of veterans of all ages who were more than willing to stomp this guy into a puddle of goo. This guy wanted to provoke a response and he wanted to exploit that response. He would love to be able to call CAIR and the MSM and complain how he, as an American Muslim, was singled out and mistreated by a bunch of baby-killing vets while he peacefully strolled along the street in pursuit of happiness and oneness with Allah. The MSM and CAIR would have bought this hook, line, and sinker and the vets acts, though they would have been justified) would have been used against them by those who want to believe that we are a bad nation. Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed but this guy should be thanking Allah that there were so many cameras around or he might not have made it.
My friends Potfry and Buckley at The Nose on Your Face (TNOYF), have come up with a little symbol and they call him Islamic Rage Boy. I thought of Islamic Rage Boy when this broke out because of the way the Muslim acted. He went from standing by the fence to full blown rage in the time it took to cross a sidewalk. He was out of control and his response was much greater than one would have expected for the stimulus. In any event, here is a picture of Islamic Rage boy and a picture of the Muslim who was at the event. You decide if their traits are similar.
As you can see Islamic Rage Boy and the fellow at the GOE have quite a lot in common including the beard and the look of open-mouthed rage. It was interesting seeing this guy defend the peacefulness of his religion by escalating to full blown rage and then threatening to kill people.
BTW, I heard at the GOE that four Islamic groups had sponsored the anti-war rally. That should be all that anyone needs to know because all we ever needed to know about Islam, we learned on 9/11.
It seems to me that CAIR might somehow pick up on this incident and paint this guy as a victim. He was no victim and our guys did not allow him the chance to become one. I imagine he will be dead in a few years if he fails to control his rage. I think he has a bomb vest at home that might solve his problems.
**Islamic Rage Boy is used with permission of TNOYF. Muslim Rage Guy courtesy of stupidity.
Tags: Commentary
Hillary Contradicts Her Husband, and God
Mar 16, 2007 Uncategorized
Yesterday Hillary Clinton was elusive on the issue of whether homosexuality was immoral and she indicated that she would let others decide that. Evidently “others” have weighed in and told her what her position should be because Hillary released a statement where she said that homosexuality was not immoral (which means that she believes it is moral). She will probably try to say she never said it was moral but you only have two choices and we know which one the “others” have told her to select.
“Well I’ve heard from a number of my friends and I’ve certainly clarified with them any misunderstanding that anyone had, because I disagree with General Pace completely. I do not think homosexuality is immoral. But the point I was trying to make is that this policy of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is not working. I have been against it for many years because I think it does a grave injustice to patriotic Americans who want to serve their country. And so I have called for its repeal and I’d like to follow the lead of our allies like, Great Britain and Israel and let people who wish to serve their country be able to join and do so. And then let the uniform code of military justice determine if conduct is inappropriate or unbecoming. That’s fine. That’s what we do with everybody. But let’s not be eliminating people because of who they are or who they love.”Hotline On Call
Hillary has trumpeted her co-presidency with husband Bill. Two for the price of one, and all that. She has taken credit for things she views as accomplishments during his tenure so it is only fair to hold her to that standard when looking at this issue. Bill Clinton gave us the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy with which she disagrees so by her logic, she gave it to us as well. This policy was a compromise when the Clintons were unable to force acceptance of openly gay people in the military, a promise they made on the campaign trail.
Interestingly, Hillary thinks that it is OK for openly gay people to serve in the military but she opposes gay marriage. This is nothing more than pandering to all audiences in her egocentric world. She wants the Christian vote, the gay vote and every other vote in between and she will twist herself a million different ways in order to be everything to everyone. In a style that is not uniquely Clinton, she can not take a position and defend it. I imagine that she could be both sides of a debate and that is unfortunate. Leadership involves leading and while leading involves compromise, it does not involve pandering. A true leader takes a position and defends that position. Hillary fails in that regard. She determined that the issue was for others to decide and now she has weighed in which means that she has allowed those “others” to make up her mind for her. Whatever flash poll her people took, or whatever email traffic she received, must have told her that this was the position to take. A true leader would have a position and stick with it. A true leader convinces others, not the other way around.
A commenter to my site (named Mike) wrote this in response to my post about Obama and Clinton and their stand on homosexuality:
Ok first, I am a gay man….second, I don’t give a shit whether you accept me or not…thirdly, its not an issue of homosexuals forcing an agenda onto society as much as it is society waging war against homosexuals. Its a battle that the extreme right is losing by the way….
What is sad is that you have no idea what it means to be a moral person. It’s certainly not sitting on your ass cursing at the TV screen at those who have abortions or homosexuals, and then go to church every sunday.[sic] Being moral means getting off your ass, going out to help those in need, honesty, tolerance, high character, and inclusion. You don’t have any of those traits, your are not moral. That goes for any human being, not just gay or straight.
Mike, like Hillary, is part of the group trying to force an agenda and yes there is an agenda. The gays want society to view their behavior as perfectly normal. They want to change our traditions and our laws to suit their particular beliefs. They want to change the thousands of years old definition of marriage in order to be afforded that which contradicts the values and beliefs held by this country and civilization. Contrary to what Mike says there is no battle being waged by Conservatives against the gays. The battle is being waged by the gays against that which we as a civilization have held to be correct, and moral.
For a guy who preaches tolerance, Mike makes a lot of assumptions about me. You see, I know he is immoral because he told me that he is a gay man. I know that the Bible says that is an abomination (punishable by death) so there is no mystery. Mike has no knowledge of me and my work. He is unaware of the countless hours I have spent taking care of gay people dying from HIV. He is unaware how many women I have talked to about abortion and other options available. He is unaware of the donations my family makes to many organizations and to the Church he chides me about. Mike is intolerant and he, like Hillary, is intent on forcing me and everyone else into believing that what he does is perfectly normal. Well Mike, it is not.
People like Mike have an agenda and they belong to groups that push that agenda in order to take our civilization the way of the Roman Empire. While people like Mike can be harmful, Hillary is a true threat because she wants to be in a position that will have a huge influence in the direction this country takes. With “others” like Mike telling Hillary what is moral, and with people like Hillary listening, this country is in trouble.
It is also interesting that Hillary said it was for others to decide and they weighed in. She, by her own admission, has heard from a number of people who told her what to think. Why is it that she ignores what people like Peter Pace says? Is she saying that when he weighed in he was wrong but those “others” who weighed in were wrong? Why would the person who wants to be the Commander in Chief take the word of “others” as to what should be allowed in the military and ignore the opinion of someone who is actually in the military? Why don’t we take a poll of people in the military and see what those “others” have to say?
Hillary listen to anyone in the military, get real. She has hated the military all her life and her disregard of General Pace’s opinion is in keeping with her deep rooted hate.
Tags: Commentary
Hillary and Obama Doing a Gay Dance
Mar 15, 2007 Political
General Peter Pace stated earlier this week that he believed that homosexuality was immoral and that statement drew fire from the pro gay groups in this country whose militant acts are aimed at forcing people to accept their behavior. Pace had the courage to say it and he did not apologize more than to say he should have remained focused on policy, not his personal opinion. I know there are a lot of people who think that he was not entitled to express his opinion but that is only because his opinion differs from theirs. If he had said that he did not think homosexuality was immoral no one complaining now would have said a word, but he would have been blasted by the other side. If he was discussing torture and said that torture was immoral his words would be used as a rebuke of the Bush Administration who many believe endorses torture.
Hillary Clinton and Hussein Obama want to be President of the United States one day. They have both courted the black vote and they have courted the religious vote and they have also courted the gay vote. How many times did Hillary say evangelical in that one interview? It was probably more than she said in all her years in college but she was out there trying to appeal to the religious voters. Neither of these two has enough testicular fortitude to say what they believe in. They certainly do not have the integrity shown by Pace. Each of these two danced around the issue when asked about it only to have a spokesperson say that they did not agree with Pace.
Why did a spokesperson have to come out and say something? Why is it that they did not say what they believed? It is because their beliefs change depending upon who they happen to be speaking to. They can not say they believe that homosexuality is immoral or they will lose the gay vote. Neither of them wants to suffer the wrath of the pink berets as they get in a snit about the word immoral. Neither can say that it is not immoral because that would upset the religious voters and the socially conservative black voters who agree with what Pace said. They are not taking a stance based on political motivations because they have no principles. If they believe it to be moral then have the courage to say so. If they believe it is immoral than have the courage to say that as well. General Pace demonstrated courage and that is something that is definitely something that these two candidates lack.
The only person who said that he did not believe homosexuality was immoral was Republican John Warner, a man who was married to Liz Taylor. She has been married nine times so it is not like there were any morals there. If she had as many sticking out of her as she had stuck in, she would look like a porcupine. Warner, of course, did not suffer the backlash that Pace did and he did the same thing Pace did. He expressed his opinion about morality and it just happened to differ from Pace’s. No one asked Warner to apologize or to keep his opinion to himself.
The gay agenda is to force acceptance on everyone. It is not going to happen.
Tags: Commentary, Political
Gun Control is so Effective it Kills
Mar 15, 2007 Uncategorized
New York City has the second most stringent gun control laws in the US second only to Washington DC. The news is always full of stories about how people with guns in these cities have killed someone. Yet the liberals believe that the solution to the problem is more of what does not work. They are always demanding more gun control. Baltimore is banning BB guns because some of them look real and criminals use them. How about punishing the criminals who used them? Maryland is on a kick to get rid of “assault” rifles when most crimes are committed by handguns and are committed by people who are not supposed to have a gun. Nearly all legal gun owners are law abiding citizens and they do not use their guns for crime.
The anti-gun lobby is gunning for Maryland by claiming that an assault weapon is linked to crime in Maryland every 48 hours. This is extrapolated from data provided by law enforcement. They do not say what linked to crime means so realistically if a person reports that his home was broken in to and the police see he owns an assault weapon, they could say it was linked to crime. It is all smoke and mirrors. In Maryland’s rural counties there are hardly any crimes involving guns. The murder rate by gun is low and in some cases fewer than 10 a year. But gun grabbers will punish the law abiding citizens who live in these areas because government is unable, or more accurately unwilling, to put people who use guns in the commission of a crime in jail. Hell, Maryland is trying to ban the death penalty. The argument is that it does not deter criminals. neither does a 5 year sentence for robbery but we still impose the punishment.
In New York, a man shot and killed a citizen and two auxiliary police officers and killed them before he was killed by police. How did this happen in a city where guns are banned and only the elite (including those who oppose gun ownership) can get a carry permit. The facts are that gun control does not work.
When people are allowed to exercise their Second Amendment rights and when those rights are protected as diligently as those of the First Amendment, then this country will be a safer place.
Story:
WNBC
Tags: Commentary
On Pace with the Gays
Mar 13, 2007 Military
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine General Peter Pace, said in an interview that homosexuality was immoral. Of course, all the gay groups have gotten their panties in a wad. How dare the top military guy say what he thinks the military should do and how dare this man decide what is immoral. Leaving aside the generality that nothing is immoral to the gays and the liberal left, we would have to ask what allows society in general to decide what is immoral. If we said that adults having sex with children was immoral there would be no huge uproar from most people, except the sick perverts who are committing the acts. If we said it was immoral to murder someone there would be no outcry to “take it back.” The only time liberals cry immoral is when the murderer is put to death for his crime.
But homosexuals are a special breed. They have imposed themselves upon the rest of society and are trying to make the 90% of the population that is not gay accept the acts of the other 10%. Our laws are founded in Judeo-Christian laws and the most widely accepted book on morality is the Bible. I will admit that not all religions accept the Bible as authority but this country was founded on the principles in that book and it is still the basis for our laws. The Bible lays out very clearly that God intended for a man and a woman to share a life as one. The Old Testament calls homosexuality an abomination and the punishment for it is death. The Ten Commandments are God’s law and in them he says to honor thy father and mother. He did not say father and father or mother and mother. If he wanted it any other way he might have said honor your parents.
I am tired of people trying to tell me what I should feel is right. I am tired of the homosexuals trying to impose their will upon others. The military had a rule against homosexuality and Clinton changed that to don’t ask, don’t tell. This allowed gays to serve so long as they did not express their sexuality. This is not good enough for them so they are again trying to impose themselves upon an institution. General Pace was well within his right to say that homosexuality is immoral. He was brought up that way and his religious beliefs tell him that. For those who say that religion has no place you would do well to remember that we end our oaths with “so help me God.” Title 10 United States Code, section 502 does not make that phrase optional. Therefore God is invoked in the oath that General Pace and any other military member took. Asked about the situation Pace gave his honest answer and he is being excoriated.
I wonder, for the sake of argument, how it would have been if a different question had been asked. Suppose they asked him if a rapist should be allowed in the service and he said no because it is immoral to rape someone. How about if they asked if a child molester should be allowed in the military and his answer was no because that act is immoral. If rapists and child molesters made a stink and called Pace a bigot, do you think anyone would come to their defense? If no one came to their defense would that mean we agree with his assessment? If they made the stink should we call him on the carpet for it or should we respect his opinion as the highest ranking person in the military?
Republican Senator John Warner of Virginia took issue with what Pace said. Warner said that he disagrees that homosexuality is immoral. I guess when it comes to what men and women do in their own bedrooms Warner and the other amoral jackasses in Congress take issue with those who express views that are firmly rooted in their religious beliefs. So I have to wonder why it is that all these pompous asses were so upset with Mark Foley and his dirty messages. Jordan Edmund was nearly 18 when Foley sent the messages and there was no sexual contact between them. Why was everyone so upset that Foley was contacting this page and alluding to homosexual behavior and yet they are upset that Pace does not agree with homosexual behavior? Why did Congress drum a gay Congressman out of its membership but screams for gays to be in the military? I don’t want to hear any comments about the page being a child, he was a few weeks shy of 18 and could have enlisted in the service where, if the Congress and the gays get their way, he could have engaged in sexual behavior/
Homosexuality is immoral and it is an abomination. I really do not care if the gay community likes that or not because it is the way I see it and I will not change that point of view. Homosexuality is also not good for the good order and discipline of the service. There are people who would argue that gays are in the military right now and that is true but no one (or few) know who they are. If they were openly gay there would be problems. I think General Pace was absolutely correct and he should not back down from his opinion at all. If the gays do not like it, too bad.
The great societies of the past eventually failed. The Roman Empire, the Greeks, all of them fell by the wayside. One thing they had in common was a lot of immoral behavior and a large part of that behavior was homosexuality. The acceptance of homosexuality and the idea that this behavior is normal will lead us down the same path to destruction.
If homosexuality is so normal, why do they need special treatment? Why is AIDS so much more prevalent in that community? Why is everyone in society expected to accept them and their point of view but contrary opinions belong to bigots? Ninety percent of the population is not homosexual. It would appear that the majority rules and even if that is hard to understand, just look at nature and learn. The sex organs of a man and a woman were meant to fit together. No such provision exists for men or women exclusively.
Tags: Commentary