Enemies "Tolerated" On Our Streets

Ft. Lauderdale Florida, December 30, 2008

At first I had a little trouble reconciling my desire to shoot all these shits in the face with a 12 gauge, and my American principles and belief in the Bill of Rights. I knew there was something wrong with allowing these cockroaches to spew their venom on the streets of America, but couldn't justify the feeling.

But then I "got" it. Freedom of speech does not include letting your enemy proselytize in your own streets.

And these filth are our enemies. They want the liquidation of Israel and it's supporters, us, dead and extinct. They are savages of the first order. They are my and my nation's enemies, even if my fellow citizens are too stupid to understand that, and my "rulers" are to cowardly to admit it.

You didn't see a lot of Germans demonstrating on American street corners in favor of Hitler and the Nazis during WWII. Americans would have put them in the morgue or the ICU. Today, we tolerate it. We allow them to bully us and our friends. We are wimps and sissies.

What happened? Liberalism happened. Liberal Stupidity. Liberal "tolerance" that tolerates intolerance, and preens in its false, degraded, deranged, suicidal "superiority".

The rag-headed bitch calling for "ovens" evoked my special animosity. She could do with a facial rearrangment. The "Imam" of this pack of hyenas (with apologies to hyenas) is some black dude, who no doubt has a long and colorful criminal history. I fervently pray that his next prayer rug is the concrete block in the floor of a Florida penitentiary.

This shit is completely intolerable. This is the result of allowing our enemies, of which every asshole in this demonstration is one...to use our "tolerance" and "freedoms" against us.

We will be good and truly sorry one day.

And then, at least, I hope and pray, they will be good and sorry the day after that.

The Gunslinger

It Takes A Woman

Tammy Bruce, noted Democrat, feminist and lesbian, explains why women should vote for McCain/Palin in her piece, A Feminist's Argument for McCain's VP

The Revolution is ON!

The Gunslinger

Perils of the Secret Ballot

Wow, this really blew my mind:

"One of Barack's pet sociologists has written that when people have a secret vote, they might not vote for a black man. This may be why the DNC has moved away from primaries and toward caucuses. As Hillary discoverd to her loss, this makes it easier to diddle the results. I wonder if Barack gets in with a Democrat Congress, how long the secret vote will last."

It's a comment on an article I was reading.

It really stopped me in my tracks. Please remember back...at how well Obie did in the Democratic caucuses, but how so many actual elections were won by Hillary.

Partly explained as the result of getting out the truly motivated to caucuses (for which, I understand, in some cases you had to pay to participate), it never occurred to me that pressure to appear "non-racist" might skew the results.

Of course, I don't believe that because one is against Obie one is a racist....but I can certainly understand the intense Politically-Correct-Race-Politics pressure likely brought to bear upon Liberal Democrats to publicly declare for Obie, the first Black Candidate.

And when you see the overwhelming wins Hillary had in secret ballot votes, it does raise the question.

I don't know if the quote above is true, or can be properly attributed to an Obie operative. But it certainly opens an interesting line of inquiry...which ends with the fact of the General Election's Secret Ballot...

...and the question...

...if the Democrat vote was skewed by race-baiting in caucuses, and Obie got more votes than he would have otherwise as a result, his entire campaign is based on a false premise, and many of those who might have voted for him in public, may change their minds in the privacy of the voting booth.

And if this line of thinking has any validity (I'm not sure it does), then it is likely that the same thing is true with polls. What people feel publicly pressured to say "out loud" may not be, after all, what they actually believe.

It will be very interesting to see if the polls and the caucus numbers accord with the final results of the election.

The Gunslinger

You'd Think They'd Choke on the Very Words

But they have no shame, and words mean nothing to them except as tools to twist to their own uses and devices. It's amazing to watch them in action. You'd think at some point, they'd at least stutter as they spewed these absurd objections...in the face of the fact they they are supporting an empty suit with far less of a resume than Palin. But then, truth has never been their forte.

Executive Director of MoveOn.org Eli Pariser: “On his 72nd birthday, Senator McCain has chosen a VP based on her political currency rather than her ability to lead our country in a crisis. If John McCain wins in November, he’ll be the oldest president in U.S. history, and Sarah Palin would be a heartbeat away from being our commander in chief. It’s not only fair, but critical in this case, to ask if she’s up for the job of commander in chief. We just can’t afford a gamble like this with our future.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: “The selection of a vice presidential candidate is one of the most significant and telling decisions a presidential candidate can make. John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin raises serious questions about his judgment. Why, when the country is fighting two wars, facing an uncertain economy and an energy crisis, did Senator McCain make the choice that he did? Why, with so many other qualified women and men in his party, did John McCain choose Sarah Palin? Sarah Palin is not the right choice. She shares John McCain’s commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade and continuing George Bush’s failed economic policies. John McCain and Sarah Palin will not bring the American people the New Direction they need.”

New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer: “While Palin is a fine person, her lack of experience makes the thought of her assuming the presidency troubling. I particularly look forward to the Biden-Palin debate in Missouri.”

Barack Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton: “Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency. Governor Palin shares John McCain’s commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil and continuing George Bush’s failed economic policies — that’s not the change we need, it’s just more of the same.”

Staggeringly full of shit. Breathtaking, really.

The Gunslinger

Obamapollo

Descending to Earth to save us all— tonight in Denver...
Bow your head in gratitude for this divine blessing. Just ask (that good Catholic) Nancy Pelosi.

The Gunslinger

Pardon Me if I don't Comply

Do you mind if I just don't talk about the Democratic Convention? It's too absurd for words. It's a fellatio fest by Drunken Sluts upon Filthy Liars that is too nauseating to watch for more than two minutes straight.

Here is my snapshot description.

The Democrats lie, pretending to be fully functional human beings. The Drunken Slut media gush in wild adoration. The End.

And their protesters are inarticulate, thuggish boobs...and very thin on the ground. I guess they're Recreating '68 as it was in the girls dormitory second floor bathroom at some fly-over college on the prairie while the Turtles sang "Happy Together".

Scintillating.

The Gunslinger

Bush's Energy Plan

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

"Energy Policy: Imagine an energy plan that does it all , from allowing more oil drilling to spending billions on alternative energy sources such as wind, solar and nuclear. Well, guess what? Been there, done that.

IBD Series: Breaking The Back Of High Oil

'Energy has enormous implications for our economy, our environment and our national security," President Bush said in proposing the plan. "We cannot let another year go by without addressing these issues together in a comprehensive and balanced package."

That was in JUNE 2001, more than seven years ago.

His words came just after he first proposed a comprehensive energy bill that included 105 separate steps the U.S. should take to boost its energy supplies. It was something he promised repeatedly while campaigning for the presidency in 2000. He kept his promise. His first plan included, among many other things:

New drilling for more oil and gas and new refineries.

Building of nuclear power plants.

Revamping the U.S. electricity grid.

$10 billion in tax breaks to help push energy efficiency and alternative energy.

The fact is, these are remarkably similar to the plans that economists, oil experts and energy wonks say need to be put in place today in order to end our oil crisis.

Yet, those proposals went nowhere, not approved in 2001, not in 2002, not in 2003, not ever. Bush tried repeatedly to get something through Congress. He pleaded. He tried to cut deals with Democrats. It didn't work.

A New York Times headline from August 20, 2003, sums it up: "Ambitious Bush Plan Is Undone by Energy Politics."

That's an understatement. Instead, Democrats ridiculed Vice President Cheney for meeting with oil industry representatives to craft U.S. energy policy , and for insisting on finding more oil.

They had no plan themselves, mind you , apart from massively expensive global warming initiatives that would force Americans to lower their standard of living to Third World levels by spending as much as $800 billion a year to cool Earth.

Yet, if Bush's plan had been put in place in 2001, we'd have replaced millions of barrels of oil, billions of tons of coal and untold trillions of acre feet of natural gas with clean, safe nuclear power.

We'd be pumping millions of barrels more of oil, creating thousands of American jobs, cutting prices and saving literally hundreds of billions of dollars every year, money that today goes to line the pockets of the Saudi royal family, Venezuelan petrotyrant Hugo Chavez, Libyan leader-for-life Muammar Qadhafi and Vladimir Putin's Russia.

When the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007, and oil was $50 a barrel and corn $2 a bushel, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid promised an energy plan. We're still waiting for it. Today, crude oil is $134 and corn is $6.50.

It's pretty clear who's to blame: Congress. In fact, House and Senate Democrats have obstructed any progress in America's fight to regain some semblance of energy independence.

"Now is the time for Congress to move and get something done," President Bush said all the way back in August 2003. He's still waiting, and so are we.

Bush's original energy plan, derided by the Democrats and so-called progressives as a wet-kiss to Big Oil, was in fact a visionary plan. At the time, Reid joked that GOP now stood for"Gas, Oil and Plutonium." Funny, we don't hear anyone laughing now.

Such puerile shenanigans, as we've said before, endanger our security and weaken our standard of living."
---------

Thanks, Nancy.

The Gunslinger

Hope IS Alive

Reading with delighted anticipation about the possibility of Hillary conspiring to take the nomination out from under Obie at the Democrat Convention, I unfortunately saw an imminently sensible response:

"The Democratic Party would rather lose the election with Obama than lose the Black vote for 30 years because of convention shenannigans."

It was so logical that it put the delicious idea of a Clinton fire-bombing at the Convention into my "fantasy" column...sadly.

But then I was reminded of the actual makeup of the Democrat Party. It's a loose collection of contentious malcontents with competing priorities and agendas...and equal propensities for lying, hatred, arrogance, stupidity, greed, back-stabbing, flip-flopping, selfishness, disloyalty, short-sightedness and general cluelessness.

Will any one group among them willingly think past the immediate gratification of their own hunger for power, the opportunity to enact their own favorite policies...without regard to the long term effects it might have on the future of the party that really only exists to service their own ambitions?

The Democrats don't have a common underlying (overarching?) political philosophy. They are just a group of radical groups who all have their own diverse gripes and grievances. What's good for one is not necessarily good for all. And that just might be all it takes for some serious fireworks at the Convention.

God, I hope so.

The Gunslinger

Consistency is Not a Virtue to Democrats

In Obama was Selected, Not Elected, Ann Coulter exposes an abrupt Democratic about-face. Wow, there's a concept.

When the "popular vote" favored Gore over Bush in 2000, it was sacrosanct. But now that Hillary has won the "popular vote", it's all about the Rules of the Game.

The Rules of the Constitution are "meh...", but challenging the rules of the Democratic Party? Holy Crap, that's serious treason. And only a harridan bitch like (their former "can-do-no-wrong" favorite) Hillary Clinton would contemplate such a thing!

And, of course, the Drunken Sluts of the media are in full accessory-to-the-crime mode 24/7.

I wonder, couldn't they do something just enough different to surprise me? Their act, lowdown and dirty as it is, has actually become boring in its predictability.

The Gunslinger

Another Un-Attributed Gem

The OPEC minister may look you in the eye and say, "We are at war with you infidels and have been since the embargo in the 1970s. You are so arrogant you haven't even recognized it. You have more missiles, bombs, and technology; so we are fighting with the best weapon we have and extracting on a net basis about $700 billion/year out of your economy. We will destroy you! Death to the infidels!

While I am here I would like to thank you for the following: Not developing your 250-300 year supply of oil shale and tar sands. We know if you did this, it would create thousands of jobs for U.S. citizens, expand your engineering capabilities, and keep the wealth in the U.S. instead of sending it to us to finance our war against you infidels.

Thanks for limiting defense dept. purchases of oil sands from your neighbors to the north. We love it when you confuse your allies.

Thanks for over regulating every segment of your economy and thus delaying, by decades, the development of alternate fuel technologies.

Thanks for limiting drilling off your coasts, in Alaska, and anywhere there is an insect, bird, fish, or plant that might be inconvenienced. Better that your people suffer. Glad to see our lobbying efforts have been so effective.

Corn based Ethanol. Praise Allah for this sham program! Perhaps you will destroy yourself from the inside with theses types of policies. This is a gift from Allah, praise his name! We never would have thought of this one! This is better than when you pay your farmers NOT TO GROW FOOD. Have them use more energy to create less energy, and simultaneously drive up food prices.

Thank you U.S. Congress!

And finally, we appreciate you letting us fleece you without end. You will be glad to know we have been accumulating shares in your banks, real estate, and publicly held companies. We also finance a good portion of your debt and now manipulate your markets, currency, and economies for our benefit.

THANK YOU AMERICA!"

You stupid fools!

Praise Allah!!!

If You Wait Long Enough...

Even Democrats (some) will come to their senses:

Democrats and Our Enemies
By Joseph Lieberman
Wall Street Journal May 21, 2008


How did the Democratic Party get here? How did the party of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy drift so far from the foreign policy and national security principles and policies that were at the core of its identity and its purpose?

Beginning in the 1940s, the Democratic Party was forced to confront two of the most dangerous enemies our nation has ever faced: Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. In response, Democrats under Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy forged and conducted a foreign policy that was principled, internationalist, strong and successful.

This was the Democratic Party that I grew up in – a party that was unhesitatingly and proudly pro-American, a party that was unafraid to make moral judgments about the world beyond our borders. It was a party that understood that either the American people stood united with free nations and freedom fighters against the forces of totalitarianism, or that we would fall divided.

This was the Democratic Party of Harry Truman, who pledged that "it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures."

And this was the Democratic Party of John F. Kennedy, who promised in his inaugural address that the United States would "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of freedom."

This world-view began to come apart in the late 1960s, around the war in Vietnam. In its place, a very different view of the world took root in the Democratic Party. Rather than seeing the Cold War as an ideological contest between the free nations of the West and the repressive regimes of the communist world, this rival political philosophy saw America as the aggressor – a morally bankrupt, imperialist power whose militarism and "inordinate fear of communism" represented the real threat to world peace.

It argued that the Soviets and their allies were our enemies not because they were inspired by a totalitarian ideology fundamentally hostile to our way of life, or because they nursed ambitions of global conquest. Rather, the Soviets were our enemy because we had provoked them, because we threatened them, and because we failed to sit down and accord them the respect they deserved. In other words, the Cold War was mostly America's fault.

Of course that leftward lurch by the Democrats did not go unchallenged. Democratic Cold Warriors like Scoop Jackson fought against the tide. But despite their principled efforts, the Democratic Party through the 1970s and 1980s became prisoner to a foreign policy philosophy that was, in most respects, the antithesis of what Democrats had stood for under Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy.

Then, beginning in the 1980s, a new effort began on the part of some of us in the Democratic Party to reverse these developments, and reclaim our party's lost tradition of principle and strength in the world. Our band of so-called New Democrats was successful sooner than we imagined possible when, in 1992, Bill Clinton and Al Gore were elected. In the Balkans, for example, as President Clinton and his advisers slowly but surely came to recognize that American intervention, and only American intervention, could stop Slobodan Milosevic and his campaign of ethnic slaughter, Democratic attitudes about the use of military force in pursuit of our values and our security began to change.

This happy development continued into the 2000 campaign, when the Democratic candidate – Vice President Gore – championed a freedom-focused foreign policy, confident of America's moral responsibilities in the world, and unafraid to use our military power. He pledged to increase the defense budget by $50 billion more than his Republican opponent – and, to the dismay of the Democratic left, made sure that the party's platform endorsed a national missile defense.

By contrast, in 2000, Gov. George W. Bush promised a "humble foreign policy" and criticized our peacekeeping operations in the Balkans.

Today, less than a decade later, the parties have completely switched positions. The reversal began, like so much else in our time, on September 11, 2001. The attack on America by Islamist terrorists shook President Bush from the foreign policy course he was on. He saw September 11 for what it was: a direct ideological and military attack on us and our way of life. If the Democratic Party had stayed where it was in 2000, America could have confronted the terrorists with unity and strength in the years after 9/11.

Instead a debate soon began within the Democratic Party about how to respond to Mr. Bush. I felt strongly that Democrats should embrace the basic framework the president had advanced for the war on terror as our own, because it was our own. But that was not the choice most Democratic leaders made. When total victory did not come quickly in Iraq, the old voices of partisanship and peace at any price saw an opportunity to reassert themselves. By considering centrism to be collaboration with the enemy – not bin Laden, but Mr. Bush – activists have successfully pulled the Democratic Party further to the left than it has been at any point in the last 20 years.

Far too many Democratic leaders have kowtowed to these opinions rather than challenging them. That unfortunately includes Barack Obama, who, contrary to his rhetorical invocations of bipartisan change, has not been willing to stand up to his party's left wing on a single significant national security or international economic issue in this campaign.

In this, Sen. Obama stands in stark contrast to John McCain, who has shown the political courage throughout his career to do what he thinks is right – regardless of its popularity in his party or outside it.
John also understands something else that too many Democrats seem to have become confused about lately – the difference between America's friends and America's enemies.

There are of course times when it makes sense to engage in tough diplomacy with hostile governments. Yet what Mr. Obama has proposed is not selective engagement, but a blanket policy of meeting personally as president, without preconditions, in his first year in office, with the leaders of the most vicious, anti-American regimes on the planet.

Mr. Obama has said that in proposing this, he is following in the footsteps of Reagan and JFK. But Kennedy never met with Castro, and Reagan never met with Khomeini. And can anyone imagine Presidents Kennedy or Reagan sitting down unconditionally with Ahmadinejad or Chavez? I certainly cannot.

If a president ever embraced our worst enemies in this way, he would strengthen them and undermine our most steadfast allies.

A great Democratic secretary of state, Dean Acheson, once warned "no people in history have ever survived, who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies." This is a lesson that today's Democratic Party leaders need to relearn.

Front-Runner Might be Patriotic!

I didn't even read this piece. It's not the story that's the story here. It's the headline—and the candidate's behavior that made it possible/necessary—by the Associated Press, that notoriously Right Wing Attack Machine.

Unbelievable.

Has there every been a front-running candidate for President whose behavior, associations and opinions required him to prove to voters he's patriotic?

And he's still in the running?

Says something about the Democratic Party in these fine times, doesn't it?

The Gunslinger

Warning for America

Home of the Green Arrow Blog posted this warning. Take it seriously. It is literally a matter of life and death.

The Gunslinger

Evil and the Left (Revised Edition)

(Here is the edited version I promised. I think it's actually worth reading now.)

Why do the Left hate George W. Bush? Why do they expend so much energy, time, money and emotion to ruin and defame him? Why do they use such roaring rhetoric of hate and fury? Why do they go so far as to embrace our country's enemies, actively working for an American defeat in a hot war for the sole purpose of damaging this President?

It's a puzzle. It's insane to burn down one's house because one is angry with one's brother.

Whence this unhealthy emotional spleen? Why are they moved to wish for the death of their opponents? Why do they react violently when confronted, cheat and lie when confounded, name-call and personally attack when challenged, criminalize political enemies when defeated?

What reduces humans to this behavior where intellect is fogged, reason short-circuited, sanity unhinged and decency jettisoned?

Only one thing: FEAR

Fear can suspend the higher mental functions and allow the "lizard brain", the basest survival instincts, to take over. In the grip of this brutish sub-humanity, people act in ways they would normally abhor. History is rife with examples of degenerate human behavior caused by uncontrollable fear.

What, then, are the Left so afraid of that they are reduced to this primitive state?

The answer is both simple and nuanced. They fear EVIL.

Their fear is twofold. It is the natural fear of evil people and behavior, but it is also the existential fear of the very existence of incontrovertible EVIL.

The central and sacred ideology of the Left holds that there are no absolutes, that everything is relative, dependent on one's perspective. In other words: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

This philosophy renders innocent any and all behaviors in which Radicals wish to indulge. It is a belief system without rules, standards, demands or limits on personal (or political) behavior.

Anything that threatens this philosophy is, naturally, antithetical to the Left. If it were overthrown by incontrovertible evidence of the existence of any absolute it would mean the destruction of the foundation and justification for their libertine and self-indulgent lives.

The existence of undeniable, unequivocal EVIL presents just such a threat. Even more dangerous is the fact that there is a logical corollary: The existence of absolute EVIL logically demands the existence of absolute GOOD.

Further, the existence of GOOD and EVIL necessitates discriminating between the two and making judgments, rendering some behaviors actually unacceptable!

The self-indulgent, self-referential, narcissistic, smug, vain, lazy, cowardly, shallow, greedy, puerile, amoral would be judged and found wanting.

Naturally, given these calamitous consequences, the Left will go to any length to deny the existence of true EVIL.

And that is at the heart of the question.

While intellectually and politically, the Left continue to deny the existence of EVIL, it nevertheless impinges upon them emotionally, spiritually and intuitively and they feel the natural human dread, horror and panic in response. Since they refuse to acknowledge, name or accept the existence of the true source, they cast about wildly for an explanation for their turbulent, chaotic and nameless terror.

The straw-man proxy they have chosen as a substitute for the true source and cause of their trepidation and anxiety is President Bush.

To the Political it is a Convenient choice; to the Childish it is an Obvious choice; to the cowardly it is a Comforting choice.

It is politically Convenient because the President is a member and leader of the opposing political party – to blame him is advantageous to their own party.

To the simple it is Obvious that because President Bush is the “most powerful man in the world”, he must be responsible for everything that happens in the world.

To the cowardly it is a Comforting choice because the true EVIL that stalks the world is inhuman, profound, implacable. To face it requires a spiritual maturity, self-confidence, courage, honor, a sense of duty and sacrifice. Qualities the Left possess in short supply. It is a dread and looming threat to our very survival and way of life. It is bloodthirsty, mindless, insatiable, monstrous.

By pretending that a single, mortal, human man is the source, the Left create a fantasy in which EVIL is de-clawed and de-fanged, domesticated, reduced to a manageable size and controllable quantity. It becomes localized, minimized, limited and temporary.

That they have convinced themselves of this is evidenced by their conviction that evil will be banished from the world when a Democrat is elected president.

This does not explain, however, the vehemence with which they hate Bush. If blaming a mere man makes evil mundane, why the odd dissonance of apocalyptic, extreme and fanatical rhetoric over the machinations of an ordinary, mortal human?

I think it’s because on the subliminal level, Liberals experience the horrific dread caused by true EVIL. But because they consciously refuse to admit the fact of its existence, their subconscious is swamped by a madness of fear to which they deny healthy and appropriate expression. As a result, it overflows involuntarily in a barbarous, uncontrolled torrent of emotionalism.

These mad eruptions manifest as extravagant, grotesque, outlandish, implausible, and ridiculous accusations, roared at the highest decibel level with fervent, if unattractive, passion.

Nothing is too absurd, too vile, too indecent, too fantastic, too cruel, too patently false to be asserted, repeated or believed.

In their desperate attempt to deny the fact of EVIL, the Left have created a demented psychological fantasy world without internal logic or emotional control in which they have transferred all their primitive, superstitious dread and fear of EVIL onto George W. Bush.

And that is why their hatred of the President is so abiding, hysterical, illogical, anti-intellectual and emotionally overwrought.

The Gunslinger

The She-Clinton Needs to Just SHUT UP

Note to the Stupid C**t:

Passing a stupid, irresponsible, partisan, clownish, 60's radical, anti-American bill solely to ensure an American defeat so that Democrats can gloat over the destruction of a president...

...is NOT the will of the people. It is the soulless, blind ambition of partisan hacks to whom history, the future, "the good of the children", morals, ethics, decency, truth, courage and honor have no meaning.

The Gunslinger

Clown Pelosi

Thomas Sowell on Nancy Pelosi's road-trip, and the Democrats' profound irresponsibility.

"...clowning in the shadow of a mushroom cloud."

Good stuff as always.

The Gunslinger

Proven Liars

No surprise here. Just want to record and remember the next time I hear a Dhimmicrat campaign promise.

They're going to be fiscally responsible, remember? They're going to clean up the "culture of corruption" in Washington, remember? They're going to reduce pork, remember?

Yeah, right.

The Gunslinger

Dhimmicrat Agenda

Check out the real agenda of the "don't question my patriotism" Dhimmicrat hyenas! They spelled it out in print, online, in front of God and everybody!

Well...until they saw the reaction, and the glee with which Republicans were quoting it...and removed it from their website.

A little late, methinks...as the quotation lives on...and on...in Interspace, as they are wont to do.

They're goal is "undermining the President's foreign and national security policy."

How traitorous do they have to be before we can legitimately "question their patriotism"?

God, I hate 'em. It's too damn bad you can't just shoot the bastards.

The Gunslinger.