Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Iran’

An appeal to my reasonable conservative friends:

Important: if you are not reasonable and open-minded, don’t read any further. I’m not looking for “zots.” I’m looking for reasonable people who are serious about making the right choice. When I know I’ve chosen wisely, I feel at peace, without doubt in my mind, and start to get excited – like Chrissy Mathews, I get “that tingle.” How do you feel when you know you’ve made the right choice?

At this point, you’ve been following the primary race for months, and that means you are looking to make the right choice. Are you aware of how important making the right choice is in this primary process? I agree, and that’s why it is important to keep an open mind. That’s why you’ve read this far, so you might as well hear me out.

Obama has made it clear that he is pinning his reelection efforts on class warfare. So, think about whom you would want the GOP nominee to be if you were Obama, and you needed a target for class warfare? I agree – Mitt Romney. Understand that Obama uses Alinsky tactics, and Alinsky tactic 13 is “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Simply put, it is much easier to attack an organization or an idea if you can ‘put a face on it’. If you can find a single individual who both represents your opponent, and who, given the right spin, can be portrayed as the face of evil, you can use this person as a proxy for your attacks on your adversary. What face would you put on the 1%? Mitt Romney.

You may think that Mitt Romney is a great guy, and a great example of success, and I agree with some of that (and certainly applaud his success), and I would add that you should have no doubt in your mind that this is exactly what Obama will do (stick a big, fat 1% on him), and you can imagine that he is licking his chops in anticipation of doing it. If Mitt Romney is the nominee, this is what the general election will look like. Click Here. No matter what he says or how well he says it, he will not be able to shake that label. How does that make you feel about Mitt? And it doesn’t help that he has a habit of making mistakes and saying the wrong thing. Click here. Even Romney booster John McCain no longer believes Romney can win. Click Here. Moving on.

Obama’s second trick is throwing “red meat” distractions to keep us from discussing the areas where he is most vulnerable, such as economic and foreign policy. The biggest distraction so far has been the contraception controversy. And Rick Santorum took the bait- big time. Rick Santorum is a great father with great moral values, but he is also a one trick pony. Social issues are important, but he just can’t stop talking about them, and that has gotten him in a ton of trouble. The issue isn’t that he talks a lot about social policy, the issue is that he just can’t change gears quickly enough to avoid the damage caused by Obama’s intentional deceptions and sleights-of-hand. Consider how many distractions Obama will throw out there if Rick is the nominee. We’ll be talking about birth control all the way through November. By the time Rick manages to shift the debate back to Obama’s weak points, it may be too late.

Rick also tends to make serious, and very public, mistakes. For example, he loses his cool very quickly. Click Here. Cringing? He also gets confused regularly – in this instance, he gives Obama credit for CREATING jobs, publicly, on CNN! Click here. Just imagine if he makes even ONE mistake like this in the months between the nomination and the general election. Understand the very real risk with Rick. How do you feel about that, given the stakes?

Please understand that all of this is just fact, and I understand that some of you will now feel a bit disturbed and unsure at this point. But, I digress.

Newt is a flawed man, but recognize that his flaws are less subject to substantive attack. For example, Freddie and Fannie? It may be a big deal in the Republican primary, but Democrats do NOT want to go there! Yes, he’s had multiple marriages, but how many times has Rush been married? Do you still listen to Rush, at least here and there? And, of course, Democrats cannot launch credible attacks on the subject of adultery – we can go there. Before I close, I urge you to do one thing, and one thing only… please watch this video – click here. You’ve read this far, so another minute or two won’t kill you. Click here. Now, how do you feel about this man going up against Barack Obama?

The above letter from J.M. Stein at Red Side of Life is so good, as is, that I chose not to break up his text with my comments.

Indeed, Stein makes a very compelling case. But if there is still any doubt in your mind, please consider a few additional facts:

  • Besides the “1%er” card that Stein says will be played against Romney, the Democrats also have their old favorite: the race card. Mitt is a very committed member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, aka the Mormons, and until 1978, Mormon theology relegated blacks to a kind of second-class membership in the church. After considerable social and political pressure, the church’s “living prophet” declared a new “revelation” changing the previous position which had been held since the church’s inception. Already, many on the Left are raising a stink about this. We can be sure that if Mitt were the nominee, this ugly issue would only get uglier — much uglier. The Democrat-Media Complex will make sure of that.
  • The issue of contraception is problematic for Santorum not only for the reason Stein explains — namely, that the Left is skillfully and shamelessly using it to sidetrack discussion away from Obama’s staggering malfeasances in both foreign and domestic policy — but also because the driving force behind Obama is the “Shadow Party” funded by George Soros, who has an obsession with population control. Soros and other Agenda 21 promoters believe that world population must be reduced by literally billions of people. Santorum, the father of seven children — one of whom has Trisomy-18, a genetic disorder for which many Leftists believe abortion to be the only appropriate response — has the Left’s bull’s-eye on his back.
  • The Left surely will demonize Newt just as viciously as they would Romney or Santorum. That’s what the Left does — to anyone who opposes them. A key difference, however, is that Newt fights back. Like the late, great Andrew Breitbart, Newt is a “happy warrior” who both understands the Left, and loves taking them on. Plus, like Breitbart, Newt understands that Big Media is every bit as much our opponent as is the Democratic Party. He is smart, articulate and confident enough to be able to answer their attacks on the spot, without hemming or hawing. People in media continually try to nail Newt with their “gotcha” questions — but they never succeed.
  • America’s survival is threatened not only by terrorism and rogue states outside our borders, but by two major enemies within: communism and radical Islam. Yet, no other candidate besides Newt even mentions Saul Alinsky, Bill Ayers and George Soros. Newt is the only one who seems to recognize — or at least, will publicly say — that Obama is not a misguided incompetent with well-meaning intentions, but rather a Marxist radical who believes America is more evil than good, and who is committed to destroying the freedoms that have made America great. As for radical Islam, while Rick Santorum recognizes the threat from Iran, and is very knowledgeable on national security matters, only Newt recognizes — and openly talks aboutthe giant strides that sharia (Islamic law) has already made right here in the U.S., thanks to CAIR, ISNA, ICNA, MAS, MSA and the whole alphabet soup of Muslim Brotherhood-spawned groups that, despite proven connections to Hamas and other terror groups, are presented as legitimate “moderates” in our media and have infiltrated our government at high levels, including within the Department of Homeland Security.
  • We can look around and see the perfect storm of economic collapse, national-security threats and inflamed social passions that is converging on us. America is — whether or not we yet realize it — in as much danger now as Britain was in the spring of 1940. Almost too late, the British people finally recognized that Winston Churchill — whom they’d previously despised as “impulsive” and “arrogant,” whom they’d castigated for his “poor judgment” and “grandiose ideas” — was actually the best man, perhaps the only man, who could lead them through the crisis. I’m not saying Newt is Churchill — but having studied Churchill, I am struck by the remarkable parallels between the two. Just as Churchill saw who Hitler really was long before most of his countrymen woke up, Newt understands the dangers to America that many people have so far been unable or unwilling to see. Newt will help open their eyes — because, like Churchill, Newt has a gift for explaining things in ways people can understand. Just as importantly, Newt has the bulldog tenacity and unabashed can-do attitude that the nation needs in its leader if we are to make it through the tough times ahead. As we saw so clearly during the South Carolina debate — when standing ovations kept erupting as Newt spoke — Newt has, as Churchill did, the power to inspire.
Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Rep. Allen West recently gave an awesome speech to the Center for Security Policy.

While it seems that our media can only focus on one “crisis” at a time, Allen West never takes his eye off of all the threats to U.S. national security.

No teleprompter, you’ll notice. The man is a walking encyclopedia, and he can communicate.

What Paul Ryan does for budget issues, Allen West does for national security.

Hat Tip: Big Peace

Read Full Post »

Here is a chillingly prophetic piece dating from January 7, 2009. Think back, for a minute, to those days after Obama had been elected but before he’d been inaugurated… those days of “The Office of the President-Elect” and the cheap-imitation presidential seal… And then, only 25 days after this piece was written, Obama was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize — after being in office less than two weeks. I never saw this article at the time. As I read it today, I got goosebumps — and not the good kind — as I compared what we know now with what people such as Henry Kissinger were thinking 29 months ago as they looked forward to the age of “hope and change”….

WASHINGTON, DC, January 7, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In an interview with CNBC Monday, former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said that President-Elect Barack Obama’s most important, or defining task would be the creation of “a new world order.”

“The president-elect is coming into office at a moment when there is upheaval in many parts of the world simultaneously,” said Kissinger.

“Upheaval,” he says. Isn’t that cute? And that was before Greece went up in flames, Spain erupted in protests, Hezbollah dug in near Tijuana, Mexico descended into total chaos, North Korea sank a South Korean ship and attacked one of their islands, the Deepwater Horizon oil well blew out, China (or someone) test-fired a missile off the coast of Los Angeles, a Muslim U.S. Army doctor massacred soldiers at Ft. Hood, Iran started building missile bases in Venezuela, Iranian protesters got slaughtered in the streets, Syrian protesters got slaughtered in the streets, Libyan protesters got slaughtered in the streets, Bahraini protesters got slaughtered…. are we seeing a pattern here? Kissinger continues:

“You have India, Pakistan; you have the jihadist movement. So he [Obama] can’t really say there is one problem, that it’s the most important one. But he can give new impetus to American foreign policy partly because the reception of him is so extraordinary around the world. [Right, Henry. Especially from the queen of England. And the prime minister of Israel. And French president Sarkozy.]  I think his task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period when, really, a new world order can be created.”

“It’s a great opportunity, it isn’t just a crisis.”

Henry is sounding nearly word-for-word like Rahm Emanuel here. And Frances Fox Piven. And Saul Alinsky. Ah, yes, Kissinger the “community organizer” — who knew?

Some commentators have suggested that the highly escalated conflicts in the Middle East and the world financial crisis have made the time ripe for a long-anticipated and foreshadowed “New World Order” to come to fruition.  Celebrated Canadian author Michael O’Brien, who has written extensively on the ‘new world order,’ spoke with LifeSiteNews.com about Kissinger’s statement.

“Only in one sense is Kissinger’s analysis correct,” said O’Brien.  “The current world situation is presently one of a multitude of crises and at the same time a moment of opportunity.  However, positing a leap towards what he calls a ‘new world order’ is fraught with difficulties.

“What does the term mean? In all likelihood it can only mean an imposed top-down global social-political revolution.  In other words, solutions would then come from a reigning authority over all nations putting aside individual conscience and principles of national self-determination.”

O’Brien added: “A true and healthy order in the human community can only arise from an internal revolution of the moral order. It cannot be imposed without imposing greater ills.  In all likelihood, Kissinger and like-minded globalists, see the present world configuration as a creative disintegration which would usher in a new form of world government.  In such a situation, management by crisis overrides authentic exercise of human freedom and responsibility.”

Because the real agenda of the one-world control freaks revolves around global population control, pro-lifers are ahead of the game in recognizing the core dynamic of the globalists.

For pro-life advocates, the proposal of a ‘new world order’ has been linked to the anti-life principles promoted at the United Nations.  Pope Benedict, while still a Cardinal, expounded on this matter in the introduction to a book published in 1997.  Then-Cardinal Ratzinger wrote the preface to a book by Michel Schooyans, entitled “The Gospel: Confronting World Disorder.

…Ratzinger first denounces the “new world order” describing it as more or less a culmination of Marxism. He goes on to say that a Christian is “obliged to protest” against it.

Christian protest, if it is truly Christian, will have a different character than Leftist/secular protests — both in what we advocate, and in how we advocate it. In my opinion, the starting point for every citizen who is a Christian should be signing the Manhattan Declaration of Christian Conscience. As we stand for our principles in the political sphere, we need to remember that the root problem is spiritual in nature, and that is where the real war must be fought, both within ourselves as individuals, and within the culture: “an internal revolution of the moral order,” in Michael O’Brien’s wise words.

The world-government control freaks and their initiatives, from the United Nations to the Bilderberg Group, from Agenda 21 to the Millennium Goals, represent a mind-set that, far from being limited to the Kissingers of the world conferring in dark-paneled rooms, is right out in the open and pervades our public life. That mind-set is materialism —  the unspoken assumption that man is nothing more than an evolved combination of chemicals, therefore any individual life is worth little to nothing, and the great masses of human beings should be managed by their self-appointed “superiors.” If there is no soul, if all that exists is what we see with our eyes, why not have government-forced abortions in America, as Obama’s science czar, John Holdren, has advocated? If an individual life is worth nothing, why not impose social uniformity by “eliminating” 25 million Americans in “re-education camps,” as Obama’s friend Bill Ayers and his Weather Underground terror group once discussed?

It’s quite telling that Saul Alinsky, the father of “community organizing,” dedicated his book to Lucifer, a.k.a. Satan. You may recall that when Jesus was tempted in the desert, one of the temptations Satan proffered was global rule — worldly power — the only kind of power that an Alinsky, a Kissinger, or an Obama seems to recognize. But Jesus did not choose that kind of power. He chose — and enables every one of us to choose — the power of self-giving love. And that is the only power that can change the world for the better.

Read Full Post »

Yes, America, it’s deliberate.

Victor Sharpe has written a breathtakingly brilliant analysis at American Thinker:

Not content with creating havoc in the U.S. economy, setting Americans against each other, and forcing through a health reform act which has nothing to do with health but everything to do with the redistribution of wealth and an immense increase in governmental interference, our president has now opened a Pandora’s Box in the Middle East.  It may well usher in a catastrophe not seen since World War 2.

From his notorious Cairo speech to the present, President Obama speaks, and disaster follows.  Some commentators believe that President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton are so utterly naïve as to make themselves unable to understand what will happen in Egypt as a result of their undermining of the Mubarak regime.

The question is justifiably asked: Do they truly believe that the next regime that comes to power will have the interests of the U.S. and the West at heart?

My fear is that Obama is not naïve at all, but he instead knows only too well what he is doing, for he is eagerly promoting Islamic power in the world while diminishing the West and Israel, however much innocent blood will flow as a result.

Inevitably, sooner or later, the Muslim Brotherhood will take power, usher in a barbaric Islamist power in Egypt that will control the Suez Canal, and show no mercy to its own people or its perceived foes.

So now we see what the present incumbent in the White House has wrought, and so can our few remaining allies.  They must now wonder what confidence they can ever have in any future alliance with the United States.

We should be aware of what endemic Islamic violence has wrought in the past.  For example, assassinations of Arab leaders are not an infrequent occurrence.  After the 1948 Arab-Israel War, the King of Jordan, Abdullah, was murdered by followers of the Muslim fanatic, the Mufti of Jerusalem.

The Egyptian prime minister, Nokrashi Pasha, was also struck down.  The forces behind the killings were elements of both Arab socialist movements and the Muslim Brotherhood.  Today, in the streets of Cairo, we have an unholy alliance of the current radical left with the same Muslim Brotherhood.

The Suez Canal is a major lifeline for the economies of Europe and the United States.  It has been the source of political disruption in the past, as it may well be in the near future. And the Muslim Brotherhood may soon control it. As always, the past is our guidepost to the future.

In 1952, Gamal Abdul Nasser seized control of the Egyptian state and forged an alliance with the Soviet Union, which provided enormous arms shipments to Egypt.

Feeling greatly empowered, Nasser broke both the 1949 Armistice Agreement with Israel and international law by blocking the Suez Canal to Israeli ships and other vessels bringing cargoes to and from the Jewish state.  At the same time, Nasser blockaded the narrow Straits of Tiran at the foot of the Sinai peninsula, thus preventing Israeli maritime trade with the Far East and Africa.

Critical chokepoints in flow of oil from the Middle East to the rest of the world: Orange shows the Suez Canal; black shows the Bab al-Mandeb; purple shows the Straits of Hormuz, where the Persian Gulf feeds out to the Gulf of Oman. The red oval shows the Straits of Tiran, on which Israel depends for access to Africa and the Far East.

Nasser eventually nationalized the Suez Canal on July 27, 1956.  This illegal act threatened the oil supplies to Britain and France from the Middle East.  The economic stranglehold on Israel became intolerable, and Arab terrorism against the Jewish state led to many Israeli civilian deaths.  (Incidentally, Arab terrorism began long before the so-called Israeli “occupation,” which Arab and pro-Arab propagandists now use as the excuse for present Arab aggression against Israel.)

In October 1956, war by Britain, France, and Israel against Egypt broke out.  Israeli forces, in what became known as the One Hundred Hours War, defeated the Egyptians in Sinai and Gaza and broke the naval blockade.  Britain and France invaded the Canal Zone to end Nasser’s blockade of the Suez Canal.

Under U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, Britain and France were eventually forced out of Egypt.  This was, as future events showed, a dreadful blunder on the part of the Eisenhower administration.  It was the beginning of Britain’s decline as a world power.  It also led to Nasser remaining in power.

The Egyptian dictator’s political and pan-Arab ambitions again climaxed in 1967.  Nasser again blockaded the Suez Canal to Israeli shipping and reinstituted the naval blockade at the mouth of the Tiran Straits.

This in turn led, in 1967, to the hasty withdrawal of the U.N. buffer force that had been in place to prevent further Egyptian aggression against Israel.  U.N. Secretary General U. Thant folded under Arab pressure and arbitrarily withdrew the buffer force.  Egyptian armed forces then entered the Sinai, heading for the Israeli border.

The Arab and Muslim world called then, just as now, for Israel’s extermination, and huge mobs in Arab capitals uttered lurid threats for Israel’s defeat and the slaughter of her people.  The world prepared for Israel’s destruction, but everyone was astonished when in June 1967, Israel — forced to fight a defensive war of survival — destroyed the combined Egyptian, Syrian, and Jordanian armies and air forces within six days.

The Suez Canal and the Straits of Tiran were again open for the free passage of Israeli ships.  Nasser fell from power and was replaced by Anwar Sadat.  However, in 1973, the Syrian and Egyptian armies attacked Israel on the holiest day in the Jewish religious calendar, Yom Kippur, which gave its name to the war.

Israel was hard put to survive initially, but she gradually beat back the Arab threat.  Sadat eventually decided that war was not an option for the time being and chose to make peace with Israel.

Israel vacated the entire Sinai desert (95% of the territories Israel conquered) and gave up the oil-producing facilities it had developed at Abu Rodeis — all in return for a signed peace agreement with Egypt.  Jordan eventually followed Egypt’s decision, but both Arab nations maintained a frigid peace with the Jewish state.

Anwar Sadat was subsequently assassinated by members of the Muslim Brotherhood.  His successor was Hosni Mubarak, who, for the last thirty years, has kept control over the seething Egyptian masses and the volatile Arab street.

Now his thirty-year rule has been fatally undermined by U.S. President, Barack Hussein Obama, in a betrayal that is as astonishing as it is deplorable.

It is clear to any child that a new Egyptian regime will, if not immediately, be hijacked by the Muslim Brotherhood, which is now calling for Egypt to prepare itself again for war with Israel and for the blockading of the Suez Canal to American, Western, and Israeli shipping.  Obama is no fool; he engineered this.

So, thanks to President Obama, we are back to square one with an Islamic Egyptian regime poised to send Egypt’s massively armed army back into Sinai and towards the Israeli border with the aim of exterminating the Jewish state.  So much for “land for peace.”

But what economic turmoil would a new Egyptian Islamic closure of the Canal mean to the West?

It is estimated that slightly more than two million barrels of crude oil and refined petroleum products flow both north and south through the Suez Canal every day.

In 2009, for example, almost 35,000 ships transited the Suez Canal, and 10 percent were petroleum tankers.  Oil shipments from the Persian Gulf travel through the Canal primarily to European ports, but also to the United States.

Additionally, the Sumed Oil pipeline provides an alternative to the Suez Canal, transporting as much as 3 million barrels of crude oil from Saudi Arabia and several Gulf states.  It amounts to up to seven percent of Europe’s oil needs.  Since the violence erupted in Egypt, European oil prices have risen far more than they have in the United States.

If the Muslim Brotherhood, which was founded in 1928, takes over Egypt, it is more than likely that both the Canal and the pipeline would be shut again, causing oil tankers to travel around the Cape of Good Hope, adding six thousand miles to the journey to Europe alone.  Not what an economically strapped Europe wants.

At the same time, the Brotherhood, now governing over 80 million Egyptians and possessing a huge military, would join with a radicalized Yemen in blockading the Bab al Mandeb straits at the foot of the Red Sea. [see map above]

Add to the noxious mix the Islamic Republic of Iran, and we may well see the closure of the Gulf of Oman [see map above], with additional disruptions of oil shipments to the West. The economic reality for America will be catastrophic.

Under Obama’s watch, the true democratic revolution against the mullahs in Iran was snuffed out because the American president refused to support the demonstrators in the streets of Tehran.  In contrast, the same Obama ordered Hosni Mubarak to leave office and let the rioters in Cairo have “free” elections.

Following Condoleezza Rice’s naïve call for “free” and democratic elections in Gaza, a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood (Hamas) used the democratic process to come to power and immediately trashed all semblance of democracy by instituting oppressive sharia law and raining thousands of missiles upon Israeli towns and villages.

The grotesque policies of Obama have caused Lebanon to fall under Islamic occupation, with the Iranian puppet, Hezb’allah, now controlling the Lebanese government.  Jordan’s kinglet, Abdullah, sits on a powder keg whereby his throne is under increasing pressure from violent members of the same Muslim Brotherhood.

So there you have it.  Islam increasingly holds Europe, America, and what is left of the free world in its clutches…and the left cheers it on.

Let me close with the words of Michael D. Evans, New York Times bestselling author of Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos:

It’s no coincidence that Al Baradei showed up in Cairo only two days after the uprising began and was immediately named a negotiator by the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, he had been waiting in the wings for quite a while.

He’s on the board of an organization headed by George Soros and Zbigniew Brzezinski called International Crisis Group. Brzezinski is the same man who supervised the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1979.

Another board member of the ICC is one Javier Solana. Solana is one of the most powerful figures in the European Union. Because of Solana’s Marxist sympathies, and his support for the regime of Cuba’s Fidel Castro, Solana was on the USA’s subversive list.

Former U.S. National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, who once smuggled incriminating documents out of the Clinton White House [ed.’s note: the documents were smuggled out of the National Archives] by hiding them in his clothing, is another Board Member, as is General Wesley Clark, once fired from his NATO command.

Mohamed El Baradei also sits on the ICC’s Board [until his return to Egypt last month] and thus, seeing the hand of George Soros along with the other players who for so long have plotted against the West and Israel, the Islamists are joined together.”

What, one wonders, will history say of the foreign policies of Barack Hussein Obama?

Read Full Post »

If you didn’t hear Mark Levin’s interview with Frank Gaffney on Monday, you need to.

It is probably the most truthful and accurate assessment of what’s really going on that you will hear.

Hat tip: The Right Scoop

Read Full Post »

If we didn't laugh…

…we’d cry.  Or go crazy.

This takes the cake:

It started with Iran’s arrest of fourteen squirrels accused of being Western spies. Yes, you read that right: squirrels. (“Seems the moles have some competition!”)

And then there were the two Israeli pigeons that were caught doing surveillance on the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz.  (Presumably they were supposed to report back to Israeli intelligence — wouldn’t that make them “stool pigeons”?  Especially if they managed — as I dearly hope they did — to leave some stool samples on the mullahs’ heads before they got nabbed!)

And who knew that antelope could be used as spies? (That was in Lebanon.)  Well, if anyone could figure out how to do it, it’d be those crafty Jews, wouldn’t it!

Now, Egypt is getting in on the act, accusing Israel of orchestrating recent shark attacks on the shores of the Red Sea (to cut into Egypt’s income from tourism, don’t ya know).

But surely the worst thing those evil Zionist Masters of the World have done is to set wild boars loose in the fields of Samaria to eat up the crops of the poor Palestinian farmers.  Ah, you ask, but wouldn’t the boars — they are wild, after all — also invade the nearby Israeli croplands?  Ummm…  er… well, I don’t know, but… those evil genius Jews have got it figured out!  They probably implanted some kind of  computer chips inside the pigs’ brains!

Sheesh. I always thought American Ostrich Syndrome (put your head in the sand and pretend there are no bad guys in the world, and we should all just join hands in a circle, buy the world a Coke and teach the world to sing — Kumbaya, preferably) was the most delusional thing out there.

But hey, I’ll take American naïveté any day, over the fevered paranoia that puts bushy-tailed rodents under arrest.  (“Help, Bullwinkle, help!”)

Americans often have a hard time seeing anyone as an enemy, even when someone’s got a gun to their head.  But those who’ve been brainwashed by Muhammad’s cult tend to see enemies behind every tree…  or up in the trees!

Folks, it’s a zoo out there.

And that’s no joke.

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: