Saturday, December 25, 2010


A Muslim woman wearing a burqa began lobbing grenades and finally blew herself up murdering 45 of the poorest refuges and Pakistanis standing in lines for food. There are at least a couple of critical lessons from this horrible "religious" incident. It is defined by the Imams to be a religious act of Jihad, thus defining murder as a religious act.

First, we must assume that any and all Muslim woman wearing burqas have a bomb strapped to there body. If you see an intense woman wearing a burqa, shoot first, ask questions later. Oh, WAIT, we can't discern her intensity because she's covered from head to toe. Better to shoot first and not worry about whether she is actually a walking time-bomb, just shoot and save your family because you simply don't know. Better safe than sorry? Secondly, Islam and Islamic apologists continue to establish themselves as the most murderous religion and crusaders going today.

Just as sad is that there are millions of Muslims who condone this type of activity. In my book, that makes them just as guilty as the sect that did this anti-human act. Now, not only must we consider Muslim men between the ages of 18 and 45 to be the most likely to try to blow up infidels and Islamic apostates so are Muslim women wearing burqas.

Saturday, December 18, 2010


U.S. diplomatic at-large Bill Richardson, went to Pyongyang and he rated the tensions between North and South Korea as "a tinderbox."

With this evaluation in mind, I'm wondering if South Korea would be interested in our US missile defense system begun by Ronald Reagan which is up and operating now. Liberals are so anti-missile defense, they wouldn't care that they'd be responsible for the death of millions. If Obama and Democrats are successful in destroying the only option that could protect South Korea.

This insane shrimp Kim Jong Il is just crazy enough to launch a nuclear missile. (Ahmedinejad is just as crazy in Iran.) In fact, I think Kim is spoiling to send a bunch of nuclear bombs. The only thing that could possibly stop even one of the potential missiles from North Korea is something Obama has done everything he can to eliminate from our defensive forces.

Now there's the Start Treaty that Obama and Democrats are pushing which would reduce our nuclear options. Unfortunately, Russia has been helping spreading nuclear weapons while they demand that we disarm ourselves. But a threat from the former Soviet Union is one thing. Unfortunately, they are not the only one of what is now at least two nuclear unstable nations where the threats really are with more unstable nations seeking nuclear bombs. Russia will come to rue the day they began nuclear arming the despots.

But brain-dead blind liberals ignore reality. We are either able to defend ourselves not just from Russia, but from, North Korea and Iran. If we're not, as Obama prefer to have us undefended, there will be a war. Will we be prepared mentally and defensively, to save America.

The answer at this point? I don't think so, not with Obama in charge.

Sunday, December 12, 2010


Mr.Fareed Zakaria attack’s Glenn Beck’s 10% figure of Muslim terrorists saying that would amount to157-million Muslim terrorists worldwide claiming that it is an irrational number. But the way he restricts the definition of Islamic terrorists, he could claim there were only a few hundred worldwide. For example, he glibly refuses to define silent supporters, funders, and promoters of terrorism as terrorists because, as he claims, the US State Department refuses to include those very sustainers of terrorism at the direction of President Barack Obama, a very convenient definition.

The Obama administration followed by the New York Times, Washington Post, NBC, CBS, ABC have all changed their definition of what a terrorist is and how terrorism is to be defined. No wonder his research numbers are so distorted. It estimated that seventy per cent of Saudi Arabians are generally considered Wahhabi, the Islamic sect consider one of the most extreme and the sect to which the 911 terrorists belonged. Recent Wiki-leaked US State Department cables revealed that Saudi Arabia funds terror in massive amounts, including spending $100-billion dollars proselytizing Wahhabism around the world, the very sect most directly linked to the deaths of 3000 innocent Americans on our own soil and attacks all over the world, attacks, not only against America, but anyone or country who does not submit to radical Islam, including other sects of Islam.

Zakaria claims US State Department figure show 10,000 terrorist attacks around the world. What Zakaria refuses to define is what he means by a terrorist attack. Are the honor murders of young Muslim women terrorist in nature? Or, is the murder of a Muslim who converts to Christianity or Hinduism a hate crime not a terrorist attack? How about the murder of thirteen Americans by the Ft. Hood Muslim radical?

Zakaria also fails to address another important issue. For every successful terrorist attack, there are thousands planned. Failed attacks or incomplete attack efforts are not included in his statistics, even though we know they are constantly occurring. What about personal attacks, by Muslims on Christians in Iraq and Pakistan, Indonesia and elsewhere…are they terrorist attacks or just “hate” crimes? It is obvious they’re part of Muslim terrorism attacks. What about terrorist attacks of one Muslim sect against another Muslim sect…are those identified as terrorism or inner-faith disagreements?

Zakaria condescendingly extrapolates that the 10,000 “successful” terrorist attacks means that only about 100 persons were involved per attack. He claims that the maximum number and should be counted as taking part, blatantly ignoring number of terrorist supporters it took to raise and pay the money to organizations who fund terrorists and ignoring organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood. That organization alone was said to have two-million members in 1948 but who today seems to try to hide its numbers, despite being in an estimated more than 25-35 countries and dedicated to the proposition of Muslim domination.

Would you say that because there were only 19 radical terrorists killed in their terrorists attack on 911 that that number was all it took to plan, fund, train and carry out the attack? For every terrorists who carries out a successful attack, murder, suicide bombing, IED attack or a “kill all infidels” attack, there are literally thousands of Muslims who silently, financially or philosophically support each terrorists attacker. So Mr. Zakaria’s numbers are extremely suspect if not aggressively misleading. All one has to be to be a terrorist is be a silent sponsor, and he’s still a terrorist. Something, Mr. Zakaria refused to acknowledge.

Hate in the Muslim world it mono-directional…that is to say, that anyone not Muslim is an infidel, which indeed categorizes all non-Muslims as specific targets, and while every Muslim in every Mosque may not be a terrorist, there are potential terrorists found in every mosque it seems or would-be terrorists in the making, and when time meets opportunity, you can rest assured they will act based on that hate whether one or a thousand and whether in America or Pakistan.

Zakaria also uses another "trick" of language to dispute Beck’s claim. He said "believe me if there were 157 million terrorists ACTIVE across the world we'd know about it.” It is a particularly specious argument because, the vast majority of terrorists whose goal it is to destroy western democracy and freedom may not be described as “active,” they are the funders, money sources and advocates of death to freedom lovers everywhere. They are no less a terrorist because they are silent. Can you really have ten-thousand terrorist incidents without vast numbers to back them up? For every soldier, it takes thousands to support them physically and financially.

One of the interesting things the Wikileaks documents revealed is just how involved financially the leaders and people of Saudi Arabia are and have been in supporting terrorism. Saudi Arabia’s Population of 25,391,000 is estimated to be 70 per cent of Saudis are Wahhabi Muslim or about 18 million in Saudis alone. Also, it’s estimated that 70 per cent of Muslims in the US are said to have Wahhabist leanings and want Wahhabism taught and in control the Islamic message.

So Mr. Zacaria again uses a method of linguistic twisting to claim that there are not many Muslims in America who want to install Sharia law in America. He says, I can't find any poll, study or shred of evidence that suggests that 1.57 million American Muslims want to overturn the Constitution and install Islamic law. The problem is that it is, by Zakaria's own beliefs, politically incorrect to even ask such questions about the religious tendencies of Muslims, so he thus hides behind his a grammatical construct to justify his assertions. He simply does not want or refuses to ask the question in the polls he claims to have consulted.

Finally, Mr. Zakaria irrational and nearly hysterical claim that Mr. Beck is fomenting anger against the government is just another Zakaria linguistic trick to attack Mr. Beck. He claims that Beck’s warnings about Obama policies to socialize America are a terroristic effort because Beck disagrees with those policies. That, Mr. Zakiaria claims, is an attack on the GOVERNMENT, not a disagreement with the Constitution destroying actions of a very flawed highly leftist president.

So, Mr. Zakaria, your conclusions are not only weak and insubstantial, they show a desire to twist the realities of Muslim radicalism, and those millions upon millions in the Islamic world who support the terroristic elements of Islam from the shadows who you refuse to identify as terrorists. Thank you, now we know where your sympathies lay.

Sunday, November 21, 2010


What is it that's driving Americans crazy, as illustrated by the TSA's horrendously invasive groping and feel up policies advocated to combat terrorists getting on planes? It's politicians who demand that we pay a personally horrible cost and be subjected to personal degradation that they exempt themselves from.

I suggest that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and every member of their families be subject to the exact policies they're demanding be imposed on Americans for at least a year before those policies are applied to us. Obama-Hillary are refusing the feel up groping she imposing on children.

If there is anyone who is giving us probably cause to search him or her it's Obama and Hillary. They are in the process of destroying America, much like terrorists. Sounds like probably cause to me.

I think Obama and Hillary be groped and felt up every time they get on a plane, even when getting on Air Force One. If they're scared that the pilots who are flying the plane will crash it, how can we trust the alleged president and secretary of state?

What are the chances of this happening…zero, nada, zilch. But one can dream.

Thursday, November 18, 2010


OK Americans we have arrived. Either we have to (1) install a system to profile airline passengers, which liberals claim violates the fourth amendment of unreasonable searches and seizures, (2) we accept the same-sex groping of our genitalia which is a violation of our fourth amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures ("Hey, don't touch my Junk!") or (3) have an X-ray showing your naked body which is a violation of the fourth amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures.

In a way it's a decision to use our brains, eyes or hands to maintain our security. Sort of like a pick-your-poison. By using our brains we can profile and assume that 3-year old children may not be terrorist threats. To avoid even the perception of profiling, we seem to be willing to allow the fondling of the most private parts of our children and ourselves by persons whose sexual-orientation or proclivities are not necessarily known or even to have X-rays (that could be considered child pornography) and naked pictures of us taken.

I vote on using our brains rather than our eyes, leave our children, nuns, and grandmothers with their sanity and dignity. It's about time to adopt the Israeli model. Extra training of gropers isn't going to cut it if that male groper is gay and enjoying himself or a lesbian and enjoying herself. All the extra training will do is help them do their groping more efficiently. Of course, this theory is so totally politically incorrect, I'm certain I'll will be accused of homophobia.

Then, there is also the amount of radiation that it absorbed by our bodies if we fly a lot, but that's a medical question and doesn't necessarily conflict with the fourth amendment. It is also too stupid to force pilots to under go profiling for obvious reasons. It's also too stupid to think that the gropers will find a bomb on a pilot since he or she are the ones to have their hands on the stick. Pilots can fly the plane into the ground any time they want.


Wednesday, November 03, 2010


I’ve read many assertions as to what Republicans and the new Tea Party congressmen and women and senators must do to fulfill the promise of a more conservative agenda. For the most part, the solutions involve presenting specific legislative proposals that address a variety of issues.

My assertion is even more fundamental. If Conservatives are to enshrine the principles of the U.S. Constitution, we must do so by challenging the fundamental premises put forth by Liberal Democrats and the Main Stream Media, including the pundits who constantly make assumptions as though only their premises are valid.

The truth is that at least half of those premises are wrong to start with so Conservative must resists the urge to accept the premises offered as inviolate, and redefine the concepts under consideration in light of the Constitution, not the assumed conventional wisdom. Because a liberal pundit makes an assertion in his or her question that something is so, does not make it so.

If a journalist’s question assumes Republicans must compromise with Barack Obama, then the Republican must attack the journalist’s assumption first and reverse the assumption is that it is Obama who must compromise with the newly elected congressional members.

No longer must Republicans simply accept the basis of questions by the MSM. They must go on the attack defending our Constitutional right to incorporate the principles of our founding fathers. Because a proposition is considered “progressive” does not mean it’s Constitutional or even desirable. When the new elected office holders in Washington understand that and do it, then we’ll know we have a chance to save America.

Sunday, October 31, 2010


It is becoming more and more apparent that non-Muslims can no longer trust which Muslim mosque, school, charitable organization, Imams or individual Muslims foments terror. We simply don’t know whether there is a “Muslim” constituency that does not support fatwa’s, murdering infidels, promoting Jihad, and forced Islamic conversion, which means you can trust none.

Now, individual Muslims are conducting their own private jihads, encouraged but not necessarily connected to a specific Islamic terror group. Terror spouting Imams encourage this approach. “You go kill Americans.” America is seeing the direct results of these admonitions.

Because the vast majority of Muslims have not vociferously and continually condemned Islamic radical terrorism but remained silent in the face of Islamic radical murder in all forms against the non-Islamic world, we are left to wonder about every Muslim we see.

Juan William, who expressed a very mild feeling of concern about getting on a plane with persons in Muslim garb was castigated by the left and then fired by National Public Radio. Bill O’Reilly correctly pointed out that it was all Muslims who planned and carried out 911. That is a fact we can no longer afford to ignore.

Joy Behar and Woopi Goldberg walked off the set in response to O’Reilly’s comments that all Muslims carried out 911. But I can guarantee that both of them, getting on a plane with a Muslim woman with bumps and things poking out from under her burqa, would have qualms of fear and question whether they admit it or not. I simply don’t believe that they can have any other feelings given the nature of Islamic silence, because these two ultra-liberals really don’t know which individual Muslim is the threat either.

About the only thing that will change Behar and Goldberg’s collective political correctness is when their loved ones are targeted and murdered by Islamic terrorists. But their political correctness will be their death, plain and simple. What their fit of pique proved is that they’d rather allow themselves to be the target of Muslim death squads than be political incorrect. Behar in particular is so blind that she is incapable of understanding the threat to Jews until some idiot Muslim radical nukes Israel. Maybe then she will understand that, as of now, we cannot trust any Muslim until Islam joins the real world of peace.

Even the terminally politically correct Bill Mahar said the other day that the fact that the most popular newly born boy name in Britain is Mohammad is of great concern to him. His hypocrisy is astounding. He says that’s not bigotry. But if a liberal is doing the defining, Bill Mahar is a bigot plain and simple in the same way that Juan Williams is a bigot.

The truth about Muslims, despite the fact that Karim Abdul Jabbar is Muslim or not, has nothing to do with knowing that other Muslims are not a potential threat to us. Jabbar remains silent and does not speak out against Muslim extremism, is the perfect example of why we simply can’t take the chance of questioning every Muslim’s intentions. How do we know if the very wealthy Jabbar is not funding Islamic charities that funnel money to the terrorists? Perhaps Behar and Goldberg will demand that Muslims “SHOW US THEIR RESOLVE” against Islamic hate.

I don’t know which Muslim is or is not a suicide bomber who hides their C-4 beneath their Muslim garb. DO YOU? Do Iraqis who constantly die in their marketplaces when their own countrymen and women detonate bombs beneath their robes know? Williams was right. Because we don’t know and don’t see any major Islamic leaders fight the cancer that is growing on Islam, it is we who have to protect ourselves with our gut instinct.

Saturday, October 30, 2010


The promoters of the "rally to restore sanity" have claimed that the event it taking place on Saturday October 30 on the Washington National Mall.


Official WARNING from NewsGnome:

Please share this with all thinking people. Please do not tell the Stephen Colbert or Jon Stewart or their supporters that their sanity will remain in question even if they go to or listen to the rally.

Thursday, October 28, 2010


In just a few hours now, it is likely that Republicans will take control of the House of Representatives and possible put the senate into a 50-50 split. That will mean Obama's possibility of implementing his far left agenda will be stopped.

Although that sounds good, it also provides Obama with an enemy to rail against and blame for any and all issues which he considers negative. Based on his perpetual blame game, usually against America and George W. Bush, he will blame with abandon. We have watched him do this with nearly everything from the economy to almost all foreign policy trips. He seems to be incapable of compromise. He is dictatorial by nature.

Most economic projections predict grudgingly slow recovery. Next year, 2011, could see more joblessness and nearly no economic growth. President Bill Clinton was the ultimate triangulator and compromiser. Obama is a stone cold ideologue whose stubborn governing has been cast in stone. Compromise is not an option. Republican and conservatives will be blamed.

Saturday, October 23, 2010


Is it worse for priests to molest children or is it worse for Imams to cut the heads off Jewish Journalists and prisoners of war in their custody

Is it worse to show (now deceased) Catholic Cardinal O'Conner with a condom or is it worse for Muslims to kill the Dutch producer of a documentary showing the plight of Muslim women?

Is it worse to produce and perform a play, making fun of compassionate Catholic nuns or is it worse for Muslims to demand a fatwa death of a cartoonist who drew a cartoon of Mohammad?

Is it worse to publish a caricature of Mohammad or is it worse for Muslims to riot killing hundreds of other Muslims in the process?

Is it worse for a Muslim Prince of the House of Saud to be a homosexual who beat to death his male servant in a homosexual encounter or is it worse to behead openly gay Muslims?

Is it worse for Mohammad Atta to ogle girls in bikinis before murdering 3000 Americans and citizens of other countries or is it worse to stone to death a Muslim woman who allegedly committed adultery?

Is it worse to kill infidels, as the Quran preaches, or is it worse to murder your own daughter for the honor of an Islamic family because she walked down the street with a non-family member?

Is it worse to keep Islamic girls and women ignorant and uneducated or is worse to strap bombs to their bodies and blow them up as suicide bombers?

Is it worse to convince children to become suicide bombers or is it worse to murder Muslims of the wrong Islamic sect with bombs.

Is it worse to cover Islamic women head to foot or is it worse….wait a minute…Maybe Islamic men are doing this applying Sharia law on purpose because their women are so ugly. Scratch this one.

Is it worse to force Islamic conversion of captured prisoners through torture or is it worse to force them and other women and children into slavery in the Arab world?

Is it worse to build a victory Mosque at Ground Zero, the site of the murder of 2000 Americans by Wahhabi Muslims, or is it worse to jail and murder members of other religions who propose building their religious structures in Saudi Arabia?

Is it worse to burn the Quran causing killing of Muslims during the riots that follow, or is it worse to burn the Bible and any other religious text in Saudi Arabia and jailing anyone who may be carrying such texts?

Just wondering!