« The McLaughlin Group | Main | Woods and Obama in the Woods »

April 09, 2010

Comments

Ummahgummah

.

The inbred-looking Terry Moron is all fidgety and breathlessly worried whether the Bama can find a suitably LIEberal Supreme Court Candidate to replace the über LIEberal John Paul Stevens.

Don't get your panties in too much of a twist, Terr. This IS the Bama after all and: YES HE CAN.

.

Ummahgummah

.

A moslem answers the census:

Do you speak English ?
- Yes!

Name?
- Abdul al-Rhazib.

Sex?
- Three to five times a week.

No, no…I mean male or female?
- Yes, male, female, sometimes camel.

Holy cow!
- Yes, cow, sheep, animals in general.

But isn’t that hostile?
- Horse style, doggy style, free style, any style!

Oh dear!
- No, no! Deer run too fast…

.

Miguel de Mexico

I sincerely hope to see way more frequent postings by Gringoman :-) His postings seem to have the effect of Holy Water.. :-)

.

Posted by: Ummah Gummah | November 23, 2009 at 06:48 PM

.

Miguel de Mexico

Don't get your panties in too much of a twist, Terr. This IS the Bama after all and: YES HE CAN.

.

Posted by: Ummah Gummah | April 09, 2010 at 08:56 PM

Nothing to get all Allah Schmallah'd over, eh Lee?

Dgscol

A prominent member of the military industrial complex has mistaken me for an adolescent. Imagine that!

I have a comment about Liz Cheney's speech before the SRLC. She gives a fine speech - and is positioning herself for office, probably. What do we do about someone like her? She is another family member of a prominent political family, ... another American dynasty, appearing more and more like an aristocracy.

Her focus is security, and her father is into oil and security, sometimes called guns and oil. And what is wrong with that? It is a conflict of interest. It is a commercial interest that is too close to government. They are all heavily invested, and they want control of the government and our money. It is like Howard Hughes, as President, or Secretary of Defense. How can a politician without linkage to the security-industrial apparat stand up for the public interest? They are too easily intimidated because of the power and money behind people like the Cheneys. It was a conflict for her father, and it is also for Liz.


Dgscol

If all our politicians are "connected" through family relations or associates to companies that they represent, it is no wonder they cannot control the budget, or earmarks.

To obtain a smaller government, the government as a commercial hub that gives money away to itself, has to be curtailed.

How long are they going to rip us off for the sake of oil interests, how much are we fighting so that people in the Carlyle Group are profitable, ...

and that includes the other side where health care and HUD- housing are involved. How much money in uselessly spent to support associates and family?

xbjllb

Yes, unfortunately Obama has (and has always had) several boiler rooms full of rabid fans and hackers who will go to the depths of hell itself to defend their god. Ask Larry Sinclair, Jeff Rense, the Hillary Clinton campaign, or anyone who hasn't ever gotten on the Obama bus.

Do they represent the left at large? No way. Chicago crime mob fascist politics at its finest. In fact, I argue it's the most GOP aspect of the entire Obama experience.

But, in their very limited defense, they're doing their warfare in boiler rooms and online, not in combat fatigues and collecting huge arsenals to take down the antichrist Obama, starting with the local police.

That's a BIG difference. Do not ignore it or worse yet condone it, for it will be the end of your Party if you choose to do so.

M/M

Is this weird or what?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_russia_plane_crash

DJ

"While the Left tries to smear the Tea Party and all others who oppose Obama as a bunch of racist nutcases..."

-------------------

The underlying reason the Tea Partiers are labled racists is due to the fact they're standing in the way of the Left's wealth redistribution agenda. The uncomfortable truth is: Blacks, as a general rule, invariably wind up at the bottom in a multi-racial capitalist system. Hence,the Left's unrelenting struggle to redistribute wealth from producers to non-producers. A quasi-Marxist government redistributes the wealth, ergo, those at the bottom -- whom are disproportionately black -- will be the main beneficiaries of such a system. So any movement/protest that attempts to block wealth distribution is interpreted by the Left as racism in general and white-racism in particular.

DJ

Is this weird or what?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_russia_plane_crash

Posted by: M/M | April 10, 2010 at 07:14 AM

-------

It's troubling ans suspicious to say the least!

Ummah Gummah

Nothing to get all Allah Schmallah'd over, eh Lee?

POSTED BY: MIGUEL DE MEXICO | APRIL 09, 2010 AT 09:43 PM

--

Looks like I got a stalker..

.

Ummah Gummah

.

Holy SH**, M/M. I agree that that plane crash is more than "suspicious". But why would the Russians bother with Poland when they have so ay islamists they could - and should - be dealing with instead?

Normalizing their relations with Poland would serve Russia a lot better than something like this.

.

M/M

UG, they just took out the Polish Conservative Government in one plane flight. (Why the so many important Polish officials were flying on one plane is another story.) What treaty did Obama just sign?

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/10/president-of-poland-killed-in-plane-crash/just took out the Polish Conservative Government in one plane flight.

This was on a comment from the Hot Air blog:

"Polish-Russian relations had been improving of late after being poisoned for decades over the Katyn massacre of some 22,000 Polish officers.

Russia never has formally apologized for the murders but Putin’s decision to attend a memorial ceremony earlier this week in the forest near Katyn was seen as a gesture of goodwill toward reconciliation. Kaczynski wasn’t invited to that event. Putin, as prime minister, had invited his Polish counterpart, Tusk."

Hmm.....Interesting...

Ummahgummah

.

M/M, I agree.. this looks as if the Russians have their hands in it. I am just saying that it's beyond stupid of them to be doing this if indeed they did.

The danger is not Poland or other NATO/EU countries, but countries like iran and turkey.

Those are Russia's traditional enemies and I think they will try to take over Russia once again.

But the Hitler did some pretty insane illogical stuff as well.

This is a very bad thing for all of Europe which happened there..

.

M/M

M/M, I agree.. this looks as if the Russians have their hands in it. I am just saying that it's beyond stupid of them to be doing this if indeed they did.

The danger is not Poland or other NATO/EU countries, but countries like iran and turkey.
________________________

Putin is sending a message, consolidating power. Remember the picture of Putin chatting with Bush at the Olympics while Russian tanks were rolling through Georgia.

M/M

'Albeit a Controversial One within Europe, Morrissey acknowledges. Judy Dempsey for The New York Times offers some extended analysis on this point. "Mr. Kaczynski forged very close relations with Ukraine and Georgia, determined to bring them closer to NATO and eventually have them admitted to the American-led military organization"--Kaczynski "believed passionately that a strong NATO would prevent Russia from reasserting its influence over Eastern and Central Europe." But that didn't always sit well with EU members, who worried "an expanded NATO would ... lead to new East-West tensions." Then too, Kaczynski wasn't always a full EU supporter, concerned about "protect[ing] Poland's sovereignty against Brussels.
"http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/Polish-President-Dies-in-Crash-Taking-Stock-of-the-Loss-3182

M/M

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/world/europe/11kaczynski.html

M/M

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2490394/posts

M/M

European Union first next North American Union
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkMaTB9VpY0

DJ

I listened to Monica interview Dr. Christopher Metzler. Waste of time. Anyone who discuses racism and prefaces it by saying: "Of course racism still exists in this country, no one is saying it doesn't." without clarification of that statement is a sure sign the issue of racism is NOT going to be honestly discused.

M/M

I thought it was a good interview because Monicaread racists e-mails and played racist voice mails that Dr. Metzler received from the Left after appearing on Conservative shows. Racism does exist DJ, look how the left treats white Christian males.

Ummah Gummah

.

I agree with M/M. They often preface their discussions with that sort of thing kind of like a PC disclaimer so the Left can't attack them quite so easily.

It's sad that it's come to this but it is what it is.

Maybe the disclaimer should include what M/M said re. racism being redirected toward white men.

Or one could use the terms of the left and say that racism has become more "inclusive"

LOL

Or one could say that of course racism exists and will continue to exist as long as it is possible to use it as a tool to silence and disenfranchise one's political enemies and to extort money from others, of course.

So YES, racism DOES exist, but NOT the way the Left would have you believe.

.

DJ

Well, most racism nowadays is directed against whites. Anyone with common sense can see it everyday. It's ubiquitous. Ironically MOST of the racism and racial discrimination directed against whites is done so by other whites. Today its not only socially acceptable to practice racism against whites, it's openly encouraged and rewarded. Whites are the only racial category that the government sanctions discrimination against. On the otherhand there are oodles of laws (all put into place by whites) which favor blacks and "people of color." Yes whites ARE still as racially discriminatory as always, but they've turned the discrimination in on themselves. That said, blacks have always practiced racism against other blacks. Much more so than whites ever dreamed about. Here's a comedy act by Chris Rock that is very funny; but at the same time, it's also very true to life:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-kY0dybF2Y&feature=related

thorn66

From Dr. Christopher Metzler's website:

Black Voter disenfranchisement in 2008: Jim Crow Returns

"...Many of us believe that Jim Crow is no longer a way of life in America. The decision by the Republican Party in Macomb County reminds us that Jim Crow has returned on steroids. That is, whereas the old Jim Crow made no attempt to cover up its naked and virulent racism; the new Jim Crow tells us that this is not about race but about residency. In this case, the Republican Party knows that at the Federal level, Congress has passed legislation to “help people stay in their homes.” In fact, John McCain has made this a central tenant of his campaign. Yet he has not denounced the efforts to revive Jim Crow and disenfranchise blacks by the Republican Party.

Like the Jim Crow era, the Republican Party in the “post-racial” era of 2008 will claim that it is not targeting blacks since anyone including whites who have been subject to foreclosure, if the party has its way, loses the right to vote. The reality is that more blacks than whites have subprime mortgages subject to foreclosure and thus, according to this plan, disenfranchisement.

The Republican Party understands that it cannot use naked racial politics in this cycle with Barack Obama at the top of the Democratic ticket. However, it also realizes that it can resort to racial code by attempting to use Michigan law which allows challenges to voter qualification. By doing so, it can claim to be preventing voter fraud. Just like whites in the Jim Crow era claimed to be protecting the white race from extinction by prohibiting interracial marriage and that because white people had bigger heads, they had bigger brains.

Like the system devised by the Democratic Party at the time, the Republican Party has devised a system to disenfranchise blacks from voting by claiming that being subject to foreclosure also means being subject to losing the right to vote. An objective analysis of the causes of many foreclosures reveals that many blacks are the subject of foreclosure because banks and other lenders gave them loans that the banks knew were inappropriate in the first instance. Moreover, many people who face foreclosure are encouraged to seek refinancing, negotiate more favorable terms and stay in their homes. The “loss of residency” argument by the Republican Party is at best a specious one. Like the poll tax, the Republican Party requires that blacks pay their unscrupulous lenders or lose the right to vote. Should blacks who are renters and have been evicted from their homes face the same fate?

Finally, the Republican Party seeks to strip blacks of their right to vote not because they have committed a crime but because of financial hardship. The Gran Ole’ Party talks about its big tent. The Macomb County strategy reminds us that that big tent is undergirded by racism, skullduggery and Jim Crow principles. In December of 1898 the Richmond Times supported the move for disfranchisement in Virginia in the following words: "If we disfranchise the great body of Negroes, let us do so openly and above board and let there be an end of all sorts of jugglery." In 2008, The Republican Party has taken up the charge."

Dr. Christopher J. Metzler is Associate Dean at Georgetown University and author of a new book, The Construction and Rearticulation of Race in a “post-racial” America (2008).
http://christophermetzler.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=62:black-voter-disenfranchisement-in-2008-jim-crow-returns&catid=35:diversity&Itemid=62

Ken Jenkins

From Christopher Metzler's Wevsite

The Obama Presidency in Peril?
by Dr. Christopher Metzler, September 16, 2009
President Obama’s presidency is in peril for two primary reasons. The first, his inability to be a transformational leader to an American public hungry for it is of his own making. The second, the thinly veiled demonstration of racism unskillfully disguised as “concern for country” is both to be expected and not of his own making.

First, President Obama came into to office promising "change that we can believe in." However, on the signature issue of change, health care reform, he has not led; choosing instead to send a litany of mixed messages as to whether he would turn the Byzantine labyrinth that is the American health care system on its head. A transformational leader takes bold, decisive, innovative action if he or she believes that it is right for the country. Thus far, on health care, the President has not demonstrated transformational leadership; he has pledged fidelity to the status quo.

Time after time, the President and his team have delivered anemic polemics that were amateurish at best and incompetent at worst. These included a dreadful and inept message on the "public option" which seems to suggest that we can expect neither reasoned deliberation nor resolve from this President. Fearing that he was losing the rhetorical war, the President did what he has come to be known for; he delivered a speech.

The problem of course is that a good speechmaker does not a transformational leader make. While he scored some rhetorical points, he also raised grave questions about whether he is a transformational leader. Among them, did he fail to anticipate the pitfalls of changing the American health care system? Is he aware that transformational leadership requires the ability to orate and deliver? How does he define change? Is he counting on a critical mass of the non-critical thinkers among us to follow him because he is not George W. Bush?

Leadership, in a digital and global world, requires first having a message and then taking control of the message before the message gets lost in the real or manufactured political scandals of the day. What we have seen from this White House so far is that a) they don’t understand this b) they are incapable of rapid and deliberate responses and c) they intend to run from crisis throughout the Obama Presidency. This, of course, is counter to transformational leadership.

For example, former green jobs czar Van Jones was embroiled in controversy over comments he made prior to joining the White House. Was the White House aware of these statements? If so, did they think that in the information age the statements would not come to light? Once they came to light, why did it take them so long to act? Or does this White House think that if they ignore their opponents they will go away? The Van Jones controversy had been brewing for a long time (albeit not in the mainstream press; much like the ACORN controversy is now brewing) and the White House failed to address it at their peril while basking in reckless abandon.

The President did with Jones what he did with Rev. Wright; he took action long after the damage had been done. Are we to believe that this is transformational leadership?

On the controversy surrounding Henry Louis ‘Skip’ Gates, the President also demonstrated enervated leadership first calling out Crowley, the officer involved in the Gates arrest (although the President admitted that he did not know all the facts), then backing down and then inviting Gates and Crowley to the White House for an awkwardly staged and superfluous photo opportunity.

President Obama was elected by an American public famished for leadership, not pandering. We want to know that he will take the tough decisions utilizing solid and reasoned justifications. What we have gotten so far is leadership by speechifying, thus raising the question ‘does the emperor have clothes?’

America remains deeply divided among racial lines. Despite protestations to the contrary, there are Whites in this country that simply cannot and will not accept the legitimacy of a Black Presidency. Many of the Whites of whom I write, are the ones who still challenge the fact that the President was born in the United States. Their racial logic is riotous and birthed from White supremacy. In fact, at the so called 9-12 rally, a protestor held a sign which read, "the zoo has an African lion and the White House has a lying African."

During this relatively young Presidency, we have heard the constant refrain "we want our country back." If this sounds eerily familiar, it is because this was the same refrain we heard during the civil rights movement when there was a move afoot to ensure equal rights for Blacks. Of course, the Whites of whom I write deny any racial bias. I suppose that if one were to assume that racial bias means that one does not publicly use racial pejoratives when referring to the President, then one would be correct. However, during Jim Crow, it was not necessary to bar Blacks from voting because they were Black; the preferred methods included: poll taxes, voting tests and intimidation. Did this mean that racism had gone away; of course not. It meant then what it means today: racism continues to be the pig that we put lipstick on while calling it a beauty queen. It was a pig then and it is a pig now.

Moreover, so many Whites have conveniently and purposely bought into the dim-witted notion that the election of Barack Obama means the end of racism; that they have morphed into "post-racial," "post-racists" and "post-prejudice" Americans. Race in America is built on a complex belief system that contains an array of beliefs that continue to define our existence in 2009 whether we choose to accept this or not.

Do critical thinkers really believe that on Election Day 2008 Americans magically eliminated all of their racial attitudes and beliefs? Do critical thinkers really believe that the lack of civility surrounding political discourse in this country, from which south Carolina congressman Joe Wilson is rewarded with campaign largess for calling the President of the United States a liar during a joint address to Congress, is devoid of racial animus?

The election of a Black President has upset the political and racial calculus in a country that could not have foreseen such an election. Thus many Whites, including the ones of which I write, are choosing to play it both ways. On the one hand, they are appealing to a base of unabashedly racist ideologues that wallow in a shallow pit of racial filth. On the other hand, they want to stay true to what they view as "hardy American values" from an era gone by. (Read the time before the Black President). Thus, they employ the "we want our country back" rhetoric and deeply deny any racial virulence. Not all Whites who criticize the President do so out of racial animus. The problem is that too many do and in so doing, sink deeper into racial acrimony that continues to destroy American democracy.

While we have been on the "post-racial" path for some time, the election of President Obama has lit the movement on fire. The reality is that we are infected with "post-racial" palaver. This is not a complaint but a critique. This critique allows us to question the quixotic theorem advanced by the Whites of whom I write that their "country first" rhetoric is not contaminated with racist dogma.

Dr. Christopher J. Metzler is the author of The Construction and Rearticulation of Race in a ‘post-racial’ America and an associate dean at Georgetown University’s School of Continuing Studies.

Ummahgummah

.

Thanks to Thorn66 and Ken Jenkins for highlighting the fact that Christopher Metzler is hardly what one would call a Conservative.

I should have tried to hear the segment where Monica had him on because if he really got LIEberal hatemail and threatening phone calls that would be beyond shocking.

He does mention some of the Bama's many shortcomings but he does a very LIEberal job of trying to discredit criticism of the One as "racism".

If LIEberals are threatening him over what I saw on his website then what do they want? Will only a "kill whitey" website please them?

What will it take?

And why do whitelibs think they're not "whitey" too?

I hope that some of the people here whom I know and trust have heard the segment in question and can shed some light on this issue.

.

Ken Jenkins

I have seen and heard Dr. Metzler several times. He is an academic who presents well reasoned arguments and is by no means a liberal. If he is guilty of anything, I think it is of trying to be balanced. This piece in particular got him into some real hot water. I also suggest that you watch him on Fox News.

The Obama White House: Mired in Distraction
by Dr. Christopher Metzler, October 14, 2009
Why does President Barack Obama’s White House continue to be mired in distraction? Since the president took office there has been Gates Gate; the international snub in Copenhagen, Denmark, after the president flew there overnight to make a bid for Chicago to host the 2016 Summer Olympics; the call for New York Gov. David Patterson not to seek election to a full term; and now the puerile decision to attack Fox News.

"What I think is fair to say about Fox — and certainly it's the way we view it — is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party," White House Communications Director Anita Dunn said on CNN. "They take their talking points, put them on the air; take their opposition research, put them on the air. And that's fine. But let's not pretend they're a news network the way CNN is."

A real network the way CNN is? So now the White House is in the business of defining what a real network is and is not? I thought the role of the White House was to govern, not to endorse or legitimatize networks. Should we now expect that the White House will be telling us the difference between “real butter” and “real margarine” next? This is the theater of the absurd.

In a representative democracy, government does not get to tell the people which networks are real and which are not. We decide for ourselves. Is the White House comfortable engaging in a propaganda campaign? Surely Ms. Dunn does not think that this edict from the White House will distract from the real issues. Or, perhaps she does.

To be sure, presidents have always complained about the media. However, never has a White House engaged in such a high-level strategy to drive up a network’s ratings. So, thanks to the White House and Ms. Dunn, advertising time on Fox News may soon be more expensive. Perhaps, this is linked to their broader goal of stimulating the economy. (Stimulus Part II)?

If the president and his team decide they don’t wish to appear on Fox News then it is their choice to make. However, to have the White House take an official position vilifying a single network is amateurish and moronic.

Perhaps, the better role for Ms. Dunn is to define what a real communications strategy is for an increasingly distracted presidency and stick to it.

On the day before the first major vote on health care reform from a Senate committee, the news was about the war on Fox News. Is it any wonder that this continues to be a White House that is out of focus? Ms. Dunn, can you communicate to us with the same crystal clarity that you did about Fox News what the president’s real position on the public option is? Can you also let us know whether the president plans to commit to sending more troops to Afghanistan? Can you tell us why the White House thinks it can win the war in Afghanistan without seriously dealing with Pakistan? Does the president believe al-Qaida is in Pakistan or Afghanistan?

As the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, why does the president still employ the technique of rendition that allows combatants to be interrogated outside of the U.S.? We also want to know whether the president believes N.Y. Rep. Charlie Rangel should resign his chairmanship of the House Ways and Means Committee given the serious allegations surrounding him. Could you also communicate to us when Guantanamo Bay will close and what we will do with the prisoners there? Could you also tell us how many czars work in the White House and what they do? Is there discussion that the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded as a way of influencing U.S. foreign policy? If so, what’s the president’s position on this?

The White House even used its blog to criticize Fox News in a post called “Reality Check.” The reality is the White House would have more credibility if it would be truthful. The president will not appear on Fox News because he and others in the administration do not agree with the politics of many of its commentators and pundits. The same blog does not provide any reality check for NBC or MSNBC where the commentators and pundits support and generally fawn over the president.

As I wrote in “The Obama Presidency in Peril?” “Leadership, in a digital and global world, requires first having a message and then taking control of the message before the message gets lost in the real or manufactured political scandals of the day. What we have seen from this White House so far is that a) they don’t understand this b) they are incapable of rapid and deliberate responses and c) they intend to run from crisis throughout the Obama presidency. This, of course, is counter to transformational leadership.”

So, why does Obama the president appear to be less transformational than Obama the candidate? Perhaps it is because he needs more diversity in his close circle of advisers. According to a survey conducted by The National Journal magazine, 37 percent of top Obama administration officials graduated from Ivy League institutions. This raises the question of whether there is sufficient intellectual diversity to help the president become a transformational leader.
Intellectual diversity within the administration may help the president make decisions that focus on governing and eschew posturing.

Finally, some of you will no doubt conclude that this piece is a defense of Fox News. It is not. It is a defense of the right of critical thinkers to decide for ourselves what is fact and what is fiction without the imprimatur of the government.

Dr. Christopher J. Metzler is the author of “The Construction and Rearticulation of Race in a Post-Racial America” and an associate dean at Georgetown University’s School of Continuing Studies.

Silence In Numbers

So I went to a party today with my wife and three boys. I drank beer, we ate burgers, hot dogs, all the sides and fixins. A group of us played a fun game of bocce. The kids all played great together. The adults drank some more and joked around with each other. Strangers became friends, friends got closer...all in all the day was awesome.

So then I come on this site for the last time and see all the same people posting about such mundane crap. Bitching about the government, blaming political figures for their problems. some people posting since 10:00 this morning.

One question for you: are you fucking kidding me???!!! Is your life so meaningless that you have to sit at home and do nothing but....well, nothing actually.

Get out into the world and make friends. Enjoy your freedom. The constitution is not going awat despite what Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Crowley, and all the others try to sell you.

Your freedom, my freedom, all of our freedom is still intact. Stop caring about the government and live a little.

God, you guys are pathetic. Have a nice life. Jackasses.

Ummah Gummah

.

Don't let the door hit ya..

.

Ummah Gummah

.

@Ken Jenkins: He did sneak in a bit about the Bama being too slow to close Camp Gitmo and something about "renditions". In other words: The Bama isn't liberal enough for Dr. Metzler.

That is the most liberal of all: To be so overly concerned about the well-being of our worst enemies.

Sorry, but Gitmo is THE litmus for me to judge whether you're a lib or one of US.

No mercy for those howling head-cutters!

They deserve much worse than they are getting.

So the guy may not be as bad as some of the others, but he IS a lib when it comes to the nitty-gritty.

If this guy got nasty emails from the Left then that only goes to show how much of a problem we have with Marxist infestation in this country.

.

Miguel de Mexico

If this guy got nasty emails from the Left then that only goes to show how much of a problem we have with Marxist infestation in this country.

.

Posted by: Ummah Gummah | April 10, 2010 at 10:12 PM

No Lee, Fox is the problemo. Here come de holy water:

http://revcom.us/

SteveOk

Great show today Monica! Love to listen to you. I'm really becoming a fan of Hi Caliber. The guy is really talented!

Ummahgummah

.

LOL Yeah! Steve, Hi Caliber is not only good but funny as hell too!

.

Miguel de Mexico

Lee blows off a fellow at the conservative CATO INSTITUTE:

you guys so ran out of ideas, it is becoming funny. Even if Obama will sign the bill demanding the sun to raise from the East each morning, you'll blame him for pandering to China, or promoting radical left ideas and trying to force the solar energy sources on the world. That behavior meets the definition of paranoia, of course, paranoids are often funny and entertaining people, but it gets tiresome pretty soon...

POSTED BY: ILYA SHAPIRO | APRIL 08, 2010 AT 01:10 PM

--

Glad to hear that. It means you can leave. And don't come back.

.

Posted by: Ummah Gummah | April 08, 2010 at 02:36 PM

http://www.cato.org/people/ilya-shapiro

Nice job,numbnuts.

Miguel de Marxico

.

NICE TRY, "miguel". Love that Ilya Shapiro bit! Our little blog is really getting under your skin.

.

xbjllb

Sin, 90% of the cons on here are paid to be here by various interest groups. UG(h), for example, has been on the Israeli payroll FROM DAY ONE.

Others are backed by other various "think tanks".

The only people here not on anyone's payroll are the various liberals and a small handful of independents.

Just so you know why they appear to have no life. They're on the job.

M/M

Monica's usually puts up podcasts of her show. Sorry if I wasn't able to listen too closely to her guest, but I was doing other things. Frankly, I was trying to learn more about what was happening in Poland because I know that the Russians are capable of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4Nl_Q-EjbA

Even if Putin didn't do it, about half the people who post on the blogs believe he did. If that plane landed in France, do you think people would think Sarkozy did it?


DJ

"Thanks to Thorn66 and Ken Jenkins for highlighting the fact that Christopher Metzler is hardly what one would call a Conservative." ( --UG)

-------

Indeed. The article by Metzler that Thorn posted is especially revealing. It acually confirms what I was asserting in my comment @ April 10, 2010 at 09:22 AM.

BTW, I grew up in Detroit but currently reside in Macomb County.

Ummahgummah

Even if Putin didn't do it, about half the people who post on the blogs believe he did. If that plane landed in France, do you think people would think Sarkozy did it?


POSTED BY: M/M | APRIL 11, 2010 AT 05:06 AM

--

Sarkozy wasn't head of the KGB.

.

Ummahgummah

.

Oh and why is there no outcry in the international media about a plane carrying practically the entire government of Poland crashing after the visit to Katyn like there was about the Israelis allegedly assassinating the Hamas guy in his hotel room in Dubai?

Everyone else can do whatever they want. When Israel as much as coughs the entire world media lamestream descends on the like locusts.

I am beginning to wonder if they're all getting a little money on the side from SOWdi Barbaria.

.

.

DJ

"I am beginning to wonder if they're all getting a little money on the side from SOWdi Barbaria."

-------

Ummah, FOX is partially owned by SOWdi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. I think he owns around 10%(?) In any event many around the blogosphere are questioning whether or not the "Hemorrhoid With Ears" was put up to labeling Geert Wilders a right wing extremist.

Ummahgummah

.

The Hem called Geert Wilders an "extremist"??!! Interesting isn't it how they call Mr. Wilders all kinds of things but noone ever attacks him on what he actually says.

.

DJ

Carol Swain (courageous black women) exposes the SPLC:

Part I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-DZK3J1Qao&feature=player_embedded

Part II

Carol Swain says: "the SPLC believes, it seems, if you're white, you lose your right to criticise and protest ..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hslp5nqy2-U&feature=player_embedded

Ummahgummah

.

How much influence does 10% buy at FOX? What if the Hem had refused? Its really like moslems have the devil on their side. They produce nothing and just when we had permanently outrun them for good oil, which WE need for OUR progress, is found under virtually all moslem lands.

And they've been using the money they got from doing absolutely NOTHING to advance their sick cult inside our Western lands..

..building their filthy mosks.. even adding speakers to their prayer rockets, molesting our ears with their alla snackbar caterwauling.

If only some of us weren't so beholden to money, ie. the Golden Calf. Satan has given moslems a tool to use against us when it became clear that they'd never catch up with our progress and science.

.

DJ

"How much influence does 10% buy at FOX?"

----------

Good point. That only represents one small peice of the puzzle. Let's not forget the Bush's were/are best buddies with the SOwdis.

DJ

"The Hem called Geert Wilders an "extremist"??!!"

-----

He called him a fascist too.

Ummahgummah

.

I think that the SOWdis are making clandestine payments to many of our "media workers", not just here in the USA, but in AUS, EUR, UK as well.

They probably have offshore accounts they can access via what looks like a credit card.

I also believe that they are buying up politicians left and right. Mostly left and some "right", like Bush for example.

It would be interesting to audit some of these people and also to look into how they retire and where. How many European journos are retiring to say, Tenerife, Ticino, Toscana, etc? How many American media workers are living on the Cape and the Islands?

ON WHAT SALARY ARE THEY DOING THIS?!!!!!!!

.

DJ

"I also believe that they are buying up politicians left and right. Mostly left and some "right", like Bush for example.

It would be interesting to audit some of these people ..."

---------

A good place to start would be a thorough investigation into the Long-Legged-Mack-Daddy's campaign contributions.


M/M

Sarkozy wasn't head of the KGB.

Posted by: Ummah Gummah | April 11, 2010 at 09:23 AM
______________________

That is my point. I've read a lot of blogs and half the people on those blogs believe Putin is behind it because of his background. Even if he didn't do, people believe he did it.

Ummahgummah

.

I don't know how he would really benefit from this but it sure smells like KGB. And why were they flying in an aging Tupolev to begin with? Whose idea was it to have them all traveling together on the same plane?

I wonder who's gonna investigate the Black Box. IF they ever find it, know what I mean?

Are there tapes of the communications between the pilots and air traffic controllers?

Funny too, how the lamestream media isn't touching this one!!!!!!!!!!!

But a terrorist gets offed in a hotel in Dubai and they're ready to open the gas chambers.. oh these lying fiendish debasedly corrupt "journalists"!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh how they revel in their debased depravity!!!

They couldn't string an independent thought together if they tried!!!!!

Always ALWAYS on the side of islam and the ENEMIES OF AMERICA!!!!!

La guillotine pour eux!! LA GUILLOTINE!!!!!

Oh NO, we CAN NOT investigate what happened on this flight from Katyn to Warsaw! Nor can we ask any questions!

Perhaps Putin is also a paymaster they have to answer to?

.

The comments to this entry are closed.