Posted on 06/01/2012 10:13:24 PM PDT by Innovative
What is it with you Willardbots, you just can’t ever tell the truth ? Attack, lie, distort, manipulate, deceive... absolutely shameless. I could never support Willard because I have something you don’t... a conscience. Same goes for Zero, too. My soul ain’t for sale to those con-men. How much did you get for yours ?
Try posting something original. Innovative already wore out all your talking points for the rest of the year.
As someone said, LOOKS LIKE A DUCK, QUACKS LIKE A DUCK . . ..
But for you benefit as I you grow on one, I will try to put a shine new red bow on the same old comment of how your behavior is received on this end to make Friday night a little more special :-).
“Attack, lie, distort, manipulate, deceive...”
You have become unhinged.
I didn’t answer this post to me from last night on the Nancy Reagan thread...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2890162/posts?page=131#131
...because I had hoped you were having an “off” night.
I was wrong.
I just keep going around in circles. Yay. Hey. (snapping fingers, humming a few bars.) Yeah. Hey. I just keep going 'round in circles. (Moving with funk.)
I that original enough for you love? :-). (You do know I call you that with an affection that only one FReeper who completely disagrees with but still somehow likes and might I even say respects a bit a fellow FReeper? Even though as mentioned I do think you are totally whacked on this specific subject :).
There you go again. You Willardbots just can’t stop yourselves from mindless attacks on Conservatives.
No, sweetie, the problem is you Willardbots are completely exposed for all to see. Your Emperor has no clothes.
There you go again calling anyone who doesn’t think Obama=Romney or Romney=Obama a “Williardbot.” Is that all you got field? I am disappointed. Talk about bring out the same ole’ same ole’.
Yes, you do. It's called "wasting JimRob's bandwith."
Try post #33. You can hitch a ride on the Willard & Zero failmobile. Next stop ? Hell.
oops. I had to cut into this dance of yours with dixie because here is another silly ole’ mindless tactic of the I HATE ROMNEY I HAVE ABSOLUTELY LOST MY MIND CROWD and that is calling anyone who doesn’t believe OBAMA=ROMNEY or ROMNEY=OBAMA a Romney worshipper or accusing them on placing Romney in some sort of ‘Godlike ‘position. WHen the poster is usually sanely just arguing logically the Obama doesn’t equal Romney and vice versa. You clothes have no owner with the ability to decipher reality on the Obama issue and they are sad because they HATE Obama. They are even wondering what the hell you are thinking.
You keep on wasting that bandwith while I enjoy my late-night meal.
It’s gonna get pretty dull soon around here with just you and I trading predictable jabs back and forth. Hell we could probably cut and paste last nights ‘ for something different. You know it isn’t gonna change for either one of us. Slow night at the fight club sadly. I was looking forward to throwing and tossing, and of course pummeling you and the Obama=Romney game, but between our quick jabs we’ll both be bored without new blood to toy with. :)
haha. Are you eating for real? I am jealous. Or are you insinuating that you are trying to have me for dinner. Haha. I told you you were on bath salts. lol.
>>”Funny, you spend all your time attacking Romney and spreading lies about him, but never see you say a single negative thing about Obama.”<<
You noticed that, too, huh?
Wrong and wrong. Time to get your prescription renewed (eyeglasses or otherwise).
>”Romney is a liberal, he always has been and always will be. Liberalism is his core.”<
_______________________________
And 0bama is a Communist, he always has been and always will be. Communism is his core.
I’m no fan of RINO-Romney, but I’ll sure hold my nose and pull the lever for him before I stay at home and cast a vote for the Communist/Marxist/Socialist America-hating Barack Hussein 0bama.
*snickers*
Hey, now, don’t be making fun of Willard and his sycophants or you’ll be accused of working for Zero’s campaign.
You think replacing the failed Communist Emperor with a failed Socialist Governor is the solution ? Here's a thought... How about demanding the GOP dump Willard for a successful and accomplished Conservative Governor like Scott Walker ?
I don’t care if they vote for him. Heck I encourage it as a means of picking up downticket seats. But treating him like the second coming of Jesus is disgusting.
Oh, brother, I remember those cretins. Most of the current batch of knuckle-dragging Willardbots are the second and third tier contingent. The real raving nutters left here, most via the white lightning.
The whole thing is kind of strange. I think back to the Wyoming caucus earlier this year, said to be the most conservative state in the union. Romney ended up with the lion's share of delegates out of that state despite Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum still being in the race at that time. Yet Gingrich and Santorum were blown out of the water by Romney in the most conservative state in America. So basically Wyoming conservatives have embraced Romney as their standard-bearer.
All of this just seems incongruous with what is being stated in this most conservative forum.
Anyway, I wonder why you yourself don't throw your hat in the ring and run as a conservative third party candidate. You seem to be very vocal regarding your displeasure over our choices during this coming election and it seems to me that the presidency could be yours if you could direct your energies accordingly.
I might consider voting for you once I learn additional data about your positions. For example, would you get the federal government completely out of the "entitlement" programs and would you support a less onerous federal tax structure that rewards those who are successful? I think those are winning positions.
Bad Gov. RomneyCARE uses taxpayer money to “bail out”.
Bad Gov. ROmneyCARE’s RomneyCARE meant using US taxpayer money.
Bad Gov. RomneyCARE’s Olympic visit meant using US taxpayer money.
Bad Gov. RomneyCARE is a phoney who should pull out. NOW.
You can wish all you want.
The bottom line is that we have 0bama or Romney this time around.
I hear people repeating these talking points all the time. My recollection of Romney's record as Massachusetts governor is much different than yours, and mine is backed up by the actual facts.
Romney didn't push through gay marriage. In fact, he opposed it vehemently and sought to implement a constitutional amendment for the state that would override the state supreme court's ruling that gay marriage was legal. While I don't agree with Romney's overall stance on gays, the facts on gay marriage support him as being very firmly AGAINST it:
As governor, Romney faced challenge on gay marriage (LA Times)
His record on judges also appears to be much more complex than a simple talking point. Remembering that he was governor in a state that is the deepest blue of all blue states, with only 12% of voters identifying themselves as Republican, he certainly wasn't going to get a Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia through the nominating process, not that he necessarily would have nominated judges of their particular ideology. I'm not arguing that he was a model of conservative consistency here, just that without some degree of pragmatism, a Republican governor of Massachusetts would never have had any judges confirmed at all. It does appear that Romney became much more conservative in his judicial appointments in his final year in office. Some would say that was because he was looking ahead to running for president, but it could also be because he was fighting an activist state supreme court and his philosophy on judges changed for the better.
A Look at Romney’s Judicial Philosophy: Conservative Reform in the Most Liberal State
As for "WillardCare" providing abortions, the healthcare law that Romney signed did not provide for abortion coverage. There was an independent board called the Commonwealth Connector that later added abortion coverage to the plans offered through the state healthcare exchange.
Deja Vu: The Latest Attacks from Santorum
Romney is not a perfect candidate, but in 2008, he was actually the "conservative" alternative to John McCain, once Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo fell by the wayside. His record as governor of Massachusetts is complex and deserves much more analysis than the simple talking points that you're attaching to it.
Why wouldn’t I run ? For starters, there are many more qualified people than myself. Even were it remotely possible, I would think serving in lower office would tend to be a minimal prerequisite, wouldn’t you ? (Or at least a business executive of a major company with management skills)
Strange could be a word. The people that should’ve run oddly did not. It left the field with a bunch of egomaniacs that were second-tier at best. Most of us were expecting Palin to get in, as she was the proverbial “next in line” candidate with the Conservative base behind her. Why she didn’t is the question (it’s not like the media ever let up on their attacks of her, so she was already used to it, so that wasn’t necessarily the reason). Perhaps it is because she could see the disastrous situation in DC and whomever would be President for the next term wasn’t likely going to be able to turn things around in just 4 short years. I’ll not bother to entertain other nefarious reasons floated about in internetland.
One thing, however, is crystal clear. The entire process for selecting the Presidential nominee is profoundly broken and must be changed. This ludicrous IA-NH-SC troika that makes or breaks candidates has to stop. Neither IA nor NH, both now Democrat states Presidentially, have any business playing a major role in determining the GOP nominee. States like TX ought to have a leading early role, especially since it is amongst the most solid of GOP Presidential states (having not voted for a Democrat since 1976).
I’ve advocated methods such as drafting candidates and Conservative pre-primaries to weed out the unviable nominees and RINOs (Willard would not even get past the door).
Well, you’ll pardon me if I refuse to support either left-wing abomination.
And yet your response is soooooo educated. You sound like a Dimocrat - can't provide a cogent line of reasoning to support your mania, so you resort to school-yard "cutdowns". I knew you were "compromised" when you pinged Diogenesis for "some truth" - he also needs to have his meds regulated since he became so obsessed against Romney that Obama is an OK choice.
You're right. It is. But you can spare me the Willardbot talking points. I've heard everything, and you can refer to my thousands of posts from the period 2005/06 up to the present day on the subject to set you straight.
No, I won’t pardon you for ensuring the total destruction of America by your stealth support for 0bama.
I completely understand how frustrating it is for us Conservatives to be forced to choose the lesser of two evils.
Think about the SCOTUS. 0bama appointees are what will destroy our country.
Diogenesis knows Willard is a liar, a cheat, a Socialist and a fraud and has the links to back it up. Therefore, Dio is a lot more trustworthy and knowledgeable on the subject of Willard than his peanut gallery of mindless groupies.
BTW, trebb, your hypocrisy is showing lecturing others on “schoolyard cutdowns” when you punctuate it with a particularly vicious and unsubstantiated attack on Diogenesis.
The argument for SCOTUS would be valid... HOWEVER, there is an enormous problem with that. Willard cannot be trusted on judges, period. He lined the benches of the commonwealth with ultraleft Democrat hacks (very few were Republicans, and those that were likely anything but Conservative). I suggest you look up the case of Brian & Beverly Mauck. We’ve discussed it ad infinitum on Free Republic.
I think it is a mistake that we have allowed the notion to prevail that only those with law degrees or "C" level executive experience need apply and then that you should make your politics your entire career, in which case, your upward progression is dependent upon how many favors you can give and how many palms you can grease on the way up.
The establishment have created these rules to keep regular people out of the process and as a result, we have political cronyism in place - an entire class of people who have no issue imposing socialism on the rest of us because they know that they will be part of the protected class that gets to make all the rules for everybody else.
Perfect case in point is this Obama socialized medicine. It's good enough for us rabble but note that government workers have their own health care system which is far superior to what anybody has in the private sector. In fact, you would see Obama-Care repealed on Monday morning if it were to be imposed upon congressmen today.
As for Palin, I would have voted for her. I spent all last summer boosting her candidacy and I was 95% sure (at this time last year) that she was running. I think had she run, none of us would be talking about Mitt Romney today as I think Palin would have won this going away. However, I think the liberal media would have launched a smear campaign against her the likes we have never seen. The liberals are not as threatened by Romney (but they may be in for a surprise). At any rate, I think a Palin vs Obama race in November would have united the conservatives and we would prevail - though it would have been much uglier.
Lastly, totally agree on the flawed process. In a nutshell, this is the remedy I have been proposing:
Hold THREE national primary elections (actually three sets of 50-state primary elections).
The first set of state primaries to be held in February. Only those with 15% of the state vote move on. (This should weed out the fringe candidates and the pretenders.) No delegates to be awarded in this first run-off.
Hold a second set of primaries around the April timeframe. In these primaries, 50% of the available delegates are awarded on a proportional basis. In this manner, we should narrow the field to 2-3 finalists as those with lesser delegates will run out of money and drop out.
The third and final set of primaries to be held in June. The remaining 50% of delegates to be awarded in each state on a proportional basis.
The candidates will then take those delegates to their respective conventions in which a nominee will be chosen to represent their party in the November elections.
Let me mention one more thing. These primaries must be CLOSED to party members only. So if you are a registered Republican, you have no business voting in a Democrat primary - and vice versa. If you are registered Independent, sorry, you don't get to vote in a primary. Unless you want to register as a Republican or a Democrat, or a third party (such as the Libertarians), you have no business selecting a party nominee. (You may vote as you choose in the general however.)
In this manner, all citizens who belong to a political party will have an equal say in who their party's nominee will be.
I'm open to ideas of a better way but that's my best effort so far.
I have had several "debates" with him and, like you, he has a serious case of Romney derangement to the point where another term for Obama is preferable if it means Romney loses. Your argument for my "hypocrisy" is akin to the race-baiters using the charge of racism against those willing to see/state the truth because they can't/won't see or acknowledge the truth. I liked Bachmann/Cain/Perry/Gingrich, but none of them is still in the game, except they are able to make the distinction and prefer Romney to Obama. Rush, Levine, and a host of other good minds also make the distinction, so I am comfortable with wanting to stop Obama even if it means Romney is the one who wins.
>>Newt’s toast. Stay home or move the ball in the right direction. It may not be a TD but its a turnover.<<
Brilliant!
I wish it was ABR but it isn’t. It’s MR or this dude...
1. Do you know anyone who has the understanding and gained their understanding of Jesus Christ and defend it, and they got that understanding from someone like Jeremiah Wright? Do you know anyone who is a good Christian that believes there is no salvation unless there’s collective salvation?
2. Do you know somebody who is raised and/or mentored by communists?
3. Do you have friends or acquaintances that are Marxists, Communists, or have been actively engaged in the overthrow of the United States government?
4. Have you ever been at a party celebrating someone who has been accused of domestic terrorism?
5. Do you know anyone or have you ever been to a party and gave a toast to someone who is accused of being a Muslim terrorist?
6. Do you or any of your friends have the belief that terrorism doesn’t really exist? And that by definition jihad is only a holy struggle?
7. How many of you or how many of your friends have hired members of the Muslim Brotherhood to provide security for your business or their business? Or would hire members of the Muslim Brotherhood to go through and put together your security for your town?
8. Do you have any friends that believe the Muslim Brotherhood is largely secular and good?
9. Do you know anybody that thinks NASA’s foremost goal should be Muslim outreach, so you can help them and NASA can help them feel good?
10. Do you know anybody who believes that Occupy Wall Street features the best people in our country right now?
11. Is it even conceivable that anyone you know or associate with would think that killing Osama Bin Laden was a tough decision? With that, you have a single friend who in that case would make sure that we have a “blame someone else” memo ready just in case it went wrong?
12. Do you have anybody in your circle of friends or your circle of influence that believes America and Israel is the biggest obstacle to peace and stability in the world. Do you know anyone who believes the United States constitution needs to be a photo negative to be right with the world today?
13. Would you or anyone you know take a gift given to the United States after 9/11, a bust of Winston Churchill, and try to give it back to the prime minister on your first meeting? And when he says, “No, no, that’s a gift, you can keep it,” would you or anyone in your circle of influence then take that bust, box it up, ship it back yourself and say “We don’t need it anymore”?
14. Do you know anyone, a single person, who has a wife or a husband that has never been proud of the United States of America until something good happened in their life?
15. Do you know anybody who would actively defend allowing a baby to die without treatment in a hospital if an abortion failed? That the baby would be born outside, the doctors would have it, and they would be allowed to put it in a closet and just let it die?
16. Would someone in your life withhold needed money from poor countries or suggest that needed money from poor countries was withheld unless they change the Constitution to be pro-abortion?
17. Do you know anybody who believes the only way out of debt is to spend $5 trillion in three and a half years? Or believes Solyndra and other green businesses were a good bet, and that the people’s hard earned money is something you should gamble with and you think that it should continue?
18. How many people do you know personally that would give a shout out to someone to say, “Hey, I just want to say hi to Bob over there and thank Bob – It’s been a great day, Bob,” before you had to announce to the country that 13 soldiers were murdered by an Islamic extremist on our own soil?
19. Do you know anybody who claims to be a huge Israeli supporter? Do you know anybody who says, “I’m the biggest fan of Israel, they’re our biggest and strongest ally, and I’m a huge supporter. I’m the best thing that has happened.” And that when the prime minister of that country flew from the other side of the globe to have a scheduled dinner with you, you would humiliate him and blow off for dinner? Let him eat alone while you had a quiet dinner someplace else with friends? Do you know anybody who says, “I am the biggest supporter of Israel,” and then visited all of the Muslim countries around Israel but couldn’t find the time to go to Israel? And that as Israel’s biggest, most loyal supporter, believes they should go back to the indefensible ’67 borders? I understand it if you’re not a fan of Israel, but if you’re a fan of Israel, do you know a soul that is a true fan of Israel that says, “Yes, go back to the ’67 borders”?
20. Do you know any committed capitalist who believes in redistribution of wealth?
See what we are up against?
To: EternalVigilance
So, you hate both Obama and Romney, yet the anti-Romney posts far outweigh the anti-Obama posts. Like a chicken coop getting ready to vote for either a fox or a chihuahua, to run the place, and spending all its energy attacking the chihuahua...
37 posted on Saturday, May 19, 2012 10:44:35 AM by trebb (”If a man will not work, he should not eat” From 2 Thes 3)
And of these 2, which is more dangerous to our survival?
I especially welcome comments from those who (claim) that Mittens is 10 times worst than Dear Leader and thus, we shold all stay home or vote for someone else come November.
How's about any of you who have been disparaging the Mormon Religion (and no, I'm Catholic and thus do not necessarily support what Mormons advocate) provide ANYTING printed or advanced by Mormons which is even close to what many Muslims and specifically, the Muslim Brotherhood (which Obama supports and defends) do?
The Muslim Brotherhood Creed: “Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”
The Muslim Brotherhood Agenda as outlined in 1991 in Phildelphia:
"The process of settlement [of Islam in the United States] is a "Civilization-Jihadist" process with all the word means.
THE IKHWAN MUST UNDERSTAND THAT ALL THEIR WORK IN AMERICA IS A KIND OF GRAND JIHAD IN ELIMINATING AND DESTROYING THE WESTERN CIVILIZATION FROM WITHIN AND "SABOTAGING" THEIR MISERABLE HOUSE BY THEIR HANDS AND THE HANDS OF THE BELIEVERS SO THAT IT IS ELIMINATED AND GOD'S RELIGION IS MADE VICTORIOUS OVER ALL RELIGIONS.
Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who choose to slack.
(THESE ARE BUT A FEW OF THE SUPPORTERS/MEMBERS OF THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD OBAMA HAS APPOINTED TO HIGH LEVELS/ADVISORS IN HIS REGIME:
All it takes for .....
..... to triumph is for good men to do nothing.......!"
....you know, like staying home or writing in someone's name which is the same thing as affirmatively, voting for the closest most of us will ever come to WITNESSING PURE EVIL while still alive...Barack, Barry, Hussein, Soetoro, Obama.
"Oh yeah, we'll stand on 'PRINCIPLES' and show them what's what, then in 2016, we will really, REALLY, work to elect a true Conservative....."
Yeah, right, provided there is still a United States of America left as we used to know it.
THEM: Oh, don't worry, we will keep the House and take the Senate and that way, we will keep Dear Leader in check.
Oh course you will with the Weeper of the House (Bone-er) and wuss, RINO extraodinaire and he who is afraid of his own shadow, Mitch McConnell leading the charge.
Mmm, mmm, mmm!
Most people that actually know the truth, see that there is no way to save our economic future. Half of America would rather die than give up their free stuff and the other half cannot sustain their greed. America will default and America will start over... this time we do it using the Constitution and this time we get it right for our Founders and GOD... who has gifted us with this “Greatest Republic”. I will either be part of that rebirth or I will die trying to restore what once was. I pray daily that I am wrong. If we had a Reagan to lead us from the wilderness, then I would not be so pessimistic... but we have obamao and willard. There is no Reagan at bat this time.
LLS
I don’t think our Founding Fathers would be happy at all with the spectacle of our country today. Ben Franklin probably might not be surprised, but still disappointed. Of course, when serving in national office at the time (let’s use 1789 as a baseline), this was a country of under 4 million people and mostly agrarian in nature (more like a large state in area by comparison today but with a small population). Serving in Congress then, you could personally know your member, and there’s a good chance you would’ve either taken a meal or sat down to drinks with them, either at a local tavern or at their home. Now ? It’s largely impossible when a single House member has to represent what is coming up on a million people (look at Montana). Senators, it’s even worse.
Even the legislature. Back then, you would’ve personally known virtually every person in your constituency, and in some cases, you’d cast your vote for a candidate right out in the open (and there’s a good chance if you were respected enough, you’d have been drafted to run and expected to serve). Now ? Some state legislative members represent more people now than entire members of Congress did 200 years ago. Even my member on a city council represents at or around 15,000 people (and that’s with a 40-member body !). You’re lucky to make contact with a fraction of that number, nevermind there’s no way to personally know all those voters.
Of course, what’s the alternative ? If we go Constitutionally on the number of federal legislators as it specified, it would swell to, what, over 10,000 members ? Forgive me, I recall calculating the exact figure, which escapes me. Sure, you’d have members closer to their constituents, but such a body would be a nightmare in action. Of course, one would say nothing could get done (and that might be a positive), but it would be too unwieldly in organization.
Of course, it might be interesting to see what it would look like in action, if only from an academic standpoint. It might turn out to be better, so long as in electing all those people we eliminated the bureaucratic army in DC that has been out of control for so long (btw, I actually favor eliminating civil service and return to the old standard of patronage. This is simply because that aforementioned army is a permanent political liberal Democrat class that remains with administration after administration, and when Republicans get in, they work mightily to undermine them and they’re almost impossible to remove. A return to patronage means that you bring all your people in, all the way down to janitor, they’re in for 2 years or 4 years or 6 or 8 (tops) and then everybody’s out and replaced by the succeeding party or candidate. Not without its downsides, but after more than about 130 years of it, we can see what a mess it has become).
Your primary idea is interesting. I think mine was revolving groups of states, with the most Republican ones going first and the least GOP last (DC & Hawaii, of which both should have zero impact on the GOP choice — the latter I favor cutting loose as a state, so long as we secure permanent access to our bases. DC should be retroceded to Maryland, which is already a cesspool).
Closed primaries, yes absolutely. Having Democrats come in and choose nominees in close races (be it President or on down) has got to stop. I’ll add in another controversial notion I make no apologies for — raising the voting age back up to 21. Brainwashed schoolchildren in college have no business casting votes, and most of those do so where they go to school (where they have no vested long-term interest in that given community), and that has to stop. The sole exception to that is 18-21 military. You’re old enough to fight for your country, you’re old enough to vote (and drink — lower the age back to 18. I’d rather college students get drunk than vote, anyhow). ;-)
You may be “comfortable”, I am not — with either abomination.
Sorry, dude. No sale. Zero and Willard are both abominations, and I will not rubber stamp the false choice of one disaster over another.
They are both 100% unacceptable.
Post #95.
LLS
That’s why we’ve got to draft Gov. Scott Walker. Look at what he’s managed to do in the face of a thugocracy in Wisconsin. THAT is what we need in a President.
You can argue over whether the 2002 Olympics in SLC were a good thing, but you can’t argue the success.
This is chess and not checkers, my FRiend. The stakes are higher than discomfort. There are people who hate us, in the administration RIGHT NOW. We are not talking about the “end of the GOP” or “the end of conservatism”, we are talking about the end of the USA.
Though we are all aware of Obama’s proclivity towards appeasing Islam and Islamic Republics; his negotiating with our enemies (Taliban); his release of captured Terrorists; his support of the “Arab Spring” in the ME which has led to the takeover of those countries by Radical Islamists; etc, many are not aware of what he has done to facilitate their (Islamists) acceptance and appointment to positions of “trust” within our own Government
Here are but 6 of those individuals:
Rashad Hussain
Kifa Mustapha
Momamed Elibiary
Huma Abedin
Daliah Mogahed
Mohamed Magid
Considering that some Freepers have framed their arguments that voting for Romney would be not only NOT “Patriotic,” but worst, “Not Christian,” perhaps they should stop and consider what we face with another 4 years of a Regime under Obama would mean and his facilitating “Stealth Jihad” and the Islamization of America.
Islam is a frontal attack on Christianity and Judaism and its time we understood this threat and called it what it is. We are not in a “war on terror”, which so many politically correct politicians would have us believe.
The whole world is, and has been for 1,400 years, in a WAR AGAINST ISLAM! If we do not stand up against this cancerous enemy, whose ultimate goal is to bring the entire world into submission to Islam and have all people worship none but Allah, then Western Civilization and human freedom as we know it will soon cease to exist.
America faces in addition to the threat of violent jihad another, even more toxic danger – a stealthy and pre-violent form of warfare aimed at destroying our constitutional form of democratic government and free society. The Muslim Brotherhood is the prime-mover behind this seditious campaign, which it calls “civilization jihad.”
For a detailed description of who these individuals pictured above are, their goals and what damage they have done and the real threat they pose, see the following:
Muslim Brotherhood in America Part 8: Team Obama and the Islamists
IF after viewing this video, one does not come away with the resolve to do whatever it takes to defeat Barack Hussein Obama, then I worry about the future of our Great Republic.
PS: One should at least bookmark this most enlightening, informative, well researched and documented 10-part Series by Frank Gaffney (Muslim Brotherhood in America) and watch all of it as soon as time permits.
posted on by Conservative Vermont Vet (l)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.