Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Thursday, September 11, 2014

Never Forget




The monster of Islamic terrorism came roaring from cerulean skies in passenger jetliners used as missiles. 

 
Jihad came to America.






Jihad is still being waged against America.


George Santayana: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.


70 comments:

  1. Having done fraud investigations, you can imagine if other "bad people" with nothing else better to do than hack Home Depot and Target that Jihadists, whatever, will be paying much more to get into other more critical systems. Not that our personal financial security isn't important, of course. Think about the electrical grid and such.

    And with Obama's blessing, thousands upon thousands of people UNKNOWN to us have infiltrated our borders. I feel truck bombs, car bombs, suicide bombers and even IEDs will like explode.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Never forget.

    The POTUS last night? He had the look of someone offering a mea culpa in advance of leadership failure should there be an attack today. Obama was posturing. He also seemed to be channeling George W. and one particular statement that the former Commander-in-Chief made whilst seated at his White House desk on the evening of 9/11.

    Swofford never forgets.

    Tammy

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, September 11, 2001 - Let Us Never Forget! I know that I won’t!
    So Obama has finally laid out his “Strategy” to eradicate this Islamic“cancer” known to the rest of the world as "ISIS”, but to Obama as “ISIL ”.
    That was a mighty tough speech last night, once again we heard him drawing a red line like he already did in Syria back then when he did . . . . NOTHING!
    With Obama calling "ISIS” NON Islamic we don’t have a chance in Hell of winning this war.... If there is any justice in this world. History should leave a blank space in the books covering Obamás terms in office.

    But have no fear and cheer up all you Libs. we can always count on you HYPOCRITE LIBERALS to and rave and keep on blaming Bush, and show your hate for Ronald Reagan, and call Sarah Palin stupid names. . Or better yet, talk about “Climate Change or Gun Controls!
    A man who loved and believed in this country, a man who was a real Patriot, a man who believed in America and stood up for her. A man who called Russia an Evil empire, and didn’t tell the Russian President that he will have "MORE FLEXIBILITY" to deal with issues like missile defense after the U.S. Presidential election”, when he wasn’t aware that he was talking to an open microphone. A man who was a leader rather than a golfer. It’s no wonder that the Progressives hated him and still do.

    It is simply depressing and beyond words that with ALL the crap-o-la going on the world, with ALL the sandals, after sandals, that are attributed to Obama and his totally INEPT administration (past and present) and that we have two and a half more years of endless streams of lies, after lies. Not to mention (but I will) the fact that with ALL this going on at home and in Iraq, in Benghazi, Libya, with ISSI in Syria, and Iran, and in Gaza, with Hamas, the Palestinian Terrorist organization

    We the American people know what is best for ourselves, and what to do about it. We don’t need any instruction from a “Community Organizer” or the Food Police to tell us differently. Or to tell us to eat veggie-burgers instead of Hamburgers. .
    We don’t need any instructions from the dreams of Our Fathers, or Their Wives.
    And with all this the liberal media is still busy trying to tie Chris Christie to that Bridge sandal asking every question over and over again trying to get him involved with it as they just can’t seem to believe he had nothing to do with it. It seems as if this is the most Major Crisis facing America today.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Obama told the Nation that "Our objective is clear: we will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counter-terrorism strategy.”

    But WILL HE? Or will he set a new series of worthless Sanctions as he ins known to do?
    And why does the Obama insistent use of the acronym “ISIL” to describe the savages who is our ENEMY! This is pretty interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  5. There is no moderate Islam, only Islam, so Obama’s calling these Savages anything other then what they are us total BS. . These people we call Islamists are devout Muslims, not radicals, not peaceful by any means or twist of his imagination. . They are EVIL as Ronald Reagan said they are. I don’t care what these progressive Idiots want to say about Mr. Reagan! These twisted people always seem to be cheering for the wrong side.
    Maybe we should play reruns for the infamous 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers over every year on September the 11th just to remind them and try to wake them up., .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Templar: There is indeed moderate Islam. But the crazies are the ones that are running amok.

      I am ordinarily against the death penalty. but everyone in ISIS, Hamas, and Hesbollah needs to be killed on sight for committing genocide. It's an act of self defense to do so, not murder.

      Delete
  6. With regard to Obama's speech last night, the eve of 9/11 (and other speeches, too)...

    Obama believes -- more, likely, pretends -- that merely his saying so changes reality.

    He uses this technique with great frequency.

    Worse, people believe him! I don't get it!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks for a beautiful tribute AOW. We have a fool in the WH and just hope we can get through a couple more years of his nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not a FOOL, Bunkerville, he is a FIEND. A very clever devil.

      Delete
  8. God bless you AOW on this Sept 11th..I shall light candles at the Memorial ...

    ReplyDelete
  9. @ Bunkerville,

    "We have a fool in the WH and just hope we can get through a couple more years of his nonsense."

    You are quite right, my friend, but what do we do about the [fools] who elected him twice? How do we fix a Nation which is rotting from within? Hillary now looms on the horizon!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To be, or not to be?

      That IS the QUESTION.

      In choosing Marxian-Fabian-Progressive-Liberal-Statist-Dictatorial Government by EDICT, our ignorant, selfish, shortsighted electorate has chosen NOT to be.

      They are forcing the nation to commit SUICIDE. And Oh how that makes the hearts of those vicious, quasi-benevolent, anti-Christian, anti-Capitalist Jewish intellectuals and the power-mad Industrial Titans, who started us on the path to Disintegration, SING with JOY at their unholy triumph.

      Delete
  10. I don't understand the conspiracy theory behind the use of "ISIL". This is the acronym used by the Defense Intelligence Agency and DoD, who provide a lions share of the information found within the Presidential Daily Briefs [not to mention those on the right who use it as well]. People are willingly being led around by the nose by the media and sock-puppy bobble-heads in the pundit-sphere.

    With as much ammunition that this Administration provides with which to legitimately oppose it, those who invent contrived drama just end up looking like clowns.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ironically, Marco Rubio is on Fox right now, saying only ISIL, and repeatedly. Clearly, he's in league with Obama.....

      Delete
    2. CI,
      ISIL indicates what the IS wishes to control.

      However, I don't refer to the IS as ISIL. I don't want to give jihadomaniacs even a smidgen of wish fulfillment.

      In fact, I prefer to refer to ISIS and ISIL as the IS. The term "IS" may be a sort of smidgen of wish fulfillment. But the organization has indeed declared itself a state (a caliphate).

      BTW, the caliph holds a PhD in Islamic studies according to this background information.

      Delete
    3. "I don't want to give jihadomaniacs even a smidgen of wish fulfillment."

      And you don't see the same by referring to them as IS? I don't care what individuals refer to the as [I'd prefer 'dress wearing-goat humping-ass clowns but it's difficult to acronymize that]...but it's the invented, conspiratorial tautology by some in the media who claim to represent the Conservative base, that ends up making the base looks stupid. This unfortunately filters down to the average citizen, just like the insinuations that Obama is a secret Muslim. It just damages the brand for no value added.

      Delete
    4. CI,
      And you don't see the same by referring to them as IS?

      To a certain extent, yes. But I have to refer to "the movement" in some kind of terminology.

      Delete
    5. Agreed. FYI, in the region they've been referring to ISIL/ISIS/IS as "DAASH"....Dulat al-Islam fi al-Iraq wal-Sham.

      Just to stir the acronym soup a bit.....

      Delete
    6. Don't tell Obama.
      Pockystahn, ISIL.
      He just has to be different.

      Delete
    7. Ed - Speaking only in this narrow regard...that was part of my point, If we expect a POTUS to merely mimic pop culture and our media...then he's definitely different. If we expect a POTUS to mirror the intelligence agencies that provide him information, then he's more correct than most.

      Delete
    8. "DAASH" reminds me of "Tash", the deity C. S. Lewis created for the quasi Turkish "Calormenes" in the Narnia books.... as a stand-in for the Muslim deity.

      Delete
    9. That's ironic. I remember that from the books.

      Delete
  11. Let us remember this about 9/11/01....

    Some 100,000 people were working in the WTC in 2001. The jihadists that day expected and intended to kill a lot more people than the number of souls who actually perished.

    Jihadomania itself has not perished.

    Now jihadomaniacs -- ISIS and perhaps other groups as well -- are often armed with weapons other than box cutters and hijacked jetliners.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What 9/11 forces me to remember is that there is noting one man won't do to another. Any man to any other man. That is our condition.

      Kerouac was wrong, the universe doesn't dispose of its own evil.
      We are faced with that task.

      Delete
  12. Too bad the Left doesn't remember 9/11 the same way we do. My friend, Manhattan Infidel, had this to say in his blog before he went on to talk about last night's Yankee's game:

    "I am sick of 9/11. I am sick of how our oversocialized, guilt-ridden left uses it as a “teachable moment” to discuss white privilege and the historical sins of America.

    I am sick of 9/11 being used as an example of “tolerance.” Let’s not forget, please have Muslim Imams at all prayer services. Anything else would be racist you hick, hateful Americans.

    I’m sick of the permanent police state that has risen up in the wake of 9/11.

    I’m sick of how the two worst Presidents in American history (Bush 43 and Obama) have destroyed in 13 years what it took their predecessors 225 years to build.

    Bin Ladin won. America died on 9/11."

    He has a point, doesn't he?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I’m sick of how the two worst Presidents in American history (Bush 43 and Obama) have destroyed in 13 years what it took their predecessors 225 years to build."

      That gets an Amen.

      Delete
  13. .

    Oh Benghazi ...

    "Jihad is still being waged against America."

    And ... so what? Jihad is losing daily.

    Putting the aircraft attacks on USA in context, the attacks themselves were visually - propaganda gold. But that is all. At no time was USA as a country at risk. The attacks never threatened USA government, the people's support of USA government, or the civilian leadership of USA government.

    Jihad may have won _one_ PR battle but is has totally lost every aspect of the war.

    Ema Nymton
    ~@:o?
    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello, Ema,

      If we simply count numbers dead and amounts of property destroyed in billions of dollars, you are right. "We" -- whoever we are, I wouldn't dare presume to say anymore -- are clearly far ahead of the Islamaniacs.

      HOWEVER, have you not considered what "they" would do, if "they" should ever develop nuclear capability?

      IF they had had nuclear bombs, I am morally certain they would have had no qualms about using them on this fateful date thirteen years ago.

      HAD an attack of that magnitude struck us then, New York City and and Washington, DC and environs would have been reduced to smoking rubble and saturated with radiation sure to produce cancer in most of the the few who managed to survive the attack.

      And "OH! what transports of delight" that would have produced among the Palestinians, the Iraqis, the Afghans,the Pakistanis, the Libyans, probably everyone else in that benighted region, and in much of Africa!

      Israel, of course, would have been incinerated simultaneously or soon thereafter, IF the savage beasts had nuclear capability.

      So incredibly STUPID are the so-called Palestinians, they would never even CONSIDER that they TOO would would be reduced to powdery ash along with the hated Jewish State. In fact so PERVERSE and DEMENTED are they, it seems likely would actually REJOICE at the idea of DYING for SHEER SPITE if it meant the destruction of The Jewish State.

      How crazy is that?

      Delete
    2. Ema: You are figuratively p**sing on the graves of the very real victims of the unprovoked 9/11 aggression, by saying that nothing happened here.

      It also must be noted, Ema that this statement: " The attacks never threatened USA government, the people's support of USA government, or the civilian leadership of USA government." is entirely false. Your knowledge of the 9/11 attacks seems to end just at the WTC?

      You forget that these aggressors hit the Pentagon, murdering innocent people in government here. And Flight 93, which almost took out the Capitol building, for crying out loud, was a HUGE threat to the civilian government of the US.

      Delete
    3. .

      dmarks,

      "... by saying that nothing happened here."

      Classic 'Reading Comprehension 101' failure. No one, except dmarks, is 'saying that nothing happened here.' Now go back and have someone else read the statement to you slowly - what is written and have that person explain to you what is written.

      _____________________________~

      FreeThinke,

      "How crazy is that?"

      Got to admit, your writing is totally like crazy. The whole comment from beginning to end is way out there, makes very little sense, and qualifies as crazy.

      Ema Nymton
      ~@:o?
      .

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. Ema: I pass Reading Comprehension 401 with flying colours. The only fault here is you for writing what you wrote. That I read what you wrote is not a problem on my part.

      The attacks directly threatened the USA government, including its civilian leadership. This includes the hundreds or thousands who would have died on Capitol Hill had the "Let's Roll" heroes not overcome daunting odds and stopped Flight 93. It includes fifty-nine federal employees who died. To deny what the main things the attacks did is to belittle, and to claim that they did nothing.

      Your claim "The attacks never threatened USA government, the people's support of USA government, or the civilian leadership of USA government." is the opposite of what happened, on two of the three points. The attacks threatened the civilian leadership and the USA government both.

      It is perfect reading comprehension on my part to question your claim that a huge airliner on its way to impact with the US Capitol Building was not a threat to the USA civilian government.

      Delete
    6. Ema,
      I find your comment directed at FT very telling -- about YOU!

      FT made a polite and reasoned response to you when many others have long given up on having reasoned discourse with you.

      And how do you respond?

      You tell FT, "your writing is totally like crazy. The whole comment from beginning to end is way out there, makes very little sense, and qualifies as crazy."

      I'll be interested to see FT's comment about your recent comment to him. Oh, and just in case you now delete your comment, I have it permanently saved via comment notification.

      Delete
    7. It's all right, AOW. I am reasonably sure Ema is not irritated with me for the remark she responded to so acerbically, but probably for my less restrained, less polite remarks about our president -- a man who for some unfathomable reason a few diehard liberals like Ema still support.

      I don't begrudge anyone his point of view no matter how much I may disagree with it, but for the life of me I cannot understand why we have to be so RUDE, INTEMPERATE and UNKIND towards each other as we tend to be today. It isn't matter of Left v. Right anymore, since both sides indulge in boorishness almost equally now.

      Nevertheless, I think it the better part of wisdom to try to be as cordial and diplomatic as possible, unless provoked by the sort of repeated personal attacks characteristic of trolls.

      Trolls are a lot like like Islamists in that they deserve no consideration whatsoever. (^;§

      Delete
    8. FT,
      There was no reason for her to be so rude.

      She supports Obama. That's her right in a free society. But it is also your right not to support him.

      I've previously warned Ema about her rudeness -- one recent time, about her rudeness toward me. She apologized because she didn't want to be cut off from commenting to this blog.

      I will not warn her again. I'll just cut her off.

      Delete
    9. Ema is a perfect example of a terrible citizen. The type of person who is a danger to a free and enlightened society. I have this informed decision from her knee-jerk and reactionary defense of the abuse of power by the President/ruling order, and the ludicrous claim that Fox News etc are the real danger.

      Imagine that: that we are more in danger from dissent against the ruling order, than we are from the ruling order stealing from us and diminishing our rights.

      I have my own issues with Fox News, but its current role of criticizing those in power is exactly why we have a First Amendment in the first place. Something people like Ema, who hate much of the Bill of Rights, either don't understand, or want eliminated.

      Delete
    10. Anyway, Ema, how about your claim that the 9/11 attacks, specifically in the form of Flight 93 headed toward the US Capitol, never threatened the civilian leadership of the USA government?

      I expect crickets.

      Delete
    11. .

      dmarks,

      "Anyway, Ema, how about your claim that the 9/11 attacks, specifically in the form of Flight 93 headed toward the US Capitol, never threatened the civilian leadership of the USA government?"

      I will type this real slowly for dmarks. Try not to get lost in your projection of what you want Ema Nymton to have said; follow along.

      ""Putting the aircraft attacks on USA in context, the attacks themselves were visually - propaganda gold. But that is all. At no time was USA as a country at risk. The attacks never threatened USA government, the people's support of USA government, or the civilian leadership of USA government.""

      As the _whole_paragraph_ makes clear, beyond the propaganda gold, the underlying people of USA's support for USA was _NEVER_ threatened by the air craft attacks in Virginia or New York.

      One of the fundamental bedrocks tenets is that USA people believe in USA's form of government and the rule of law. USA people have seen their leaders die in office before and have seen the processes of succession of government continue unaffected. USA people may have been shocked to see the attacks on USA soil but that is all. The loss of general officers in the Pentagon did not lead to military mutiny and the loss of civilian executive office personnel would not have led to the collapse of USA government. (Yes. The actually physical safety of the individual civilian office holder may have been threatened, but the civilian office holder was never threatened (there is a difference).)

      Ema Nymton apologizes to dmarks for confusing dmarks.

      Ema Nymton
      ~@:o?
      .

      Delete
    12. Ema said: "Ema Nymton apologizes to dmarks for confusing dmarks."

      I wasn't confused, and have always been consistent. Your argument, in contrast, has collapsed, and you have run away from it.

      You, Ema, specifically claimed " The attacks never threatened USA government, the people's support of USA government, or the civilian leadership of USA government.". These were your three main points. One, two, and three. I pointed out the incontrovertible facts on the first and third of your points. I did not question the second one. Two of your points are wildly off, and third one is OK.

      Your response was to run away from the points you were wrong on, and attempt again and again to "prove" to me your second point... which I never contested at all.

      I "follow along" quite well. I apologize to Ema for confusing Ema by reading her arguments as she writes them, and not being as nimble as she as she shifts and evades.

      Ema needs to type real slow. Slower than she has. And proofread. A lot more.

      Delete
    13. .

      dmarks,

      "The attacks threatened the civilian leadership and the USA government both."

      OK, Ema Nymton will try to dumb this down so dmarks might be able to understand.

      Air plane fly into building. USA government not threatened. USA government is strong and brave.
      Timothy McVeigh (RW domestic terrorist) blows up building in Oklahoma killing many local civilian leadership persons. Civilian leadership (local and USA) not threatened. USA government is strong and brave.

      The following may be hard for dmarks to comprehend. USA government is more than buildings, monuments, civilian leadership, and people. USA government is the rule of law over the individual; something many people domestically and internationally fail to grasp.

      Hopefully Ema Nymton has dumbed-down the discussion to the point that dmarks is able to understand.

      Have a nice day ...

      Ema Nymton
      ~@:o?
      .

      Delete

    14. Ema said: "Ema Nymton will try to dumb this down...."

      You are a laughingstock of this and other blogs. Your comments, much more often than not, dumb down any comment section.

      And here again you attempt to prove your alternate reality version of history. I am just glad that the Democrats and Republicans in Congress take seriously the undeniable event to kill the USA's civilian leaders. And flat out ignore those like you who say it was nothing.

      Why don't you stick instead to wanting to censor the free press like you usually do?

      Delete
    15. .

      To borrow a line from President Reagan,"There you go again."

      "And flat out ignore those like you who say it was nothing."

      Do not know who dmarks is whimpering about when dmarks burps out, 'who say it was nothing.'

      Ema Nymton says, "Putting the aircraft attacks on USA in context, the attacks themselves were visually - propaganda gold."

      Have a nice day ...

      Ema Nymton
      ~@:o?
      .

      Delete
    16. At last, sense seems to be getting through. Ema didn't insist, as she had so many times before, that a near-miss attempt to kill Congress was not a threat to the US's civilian leaders.

      Delete
  14. Enema,

    Did you forget to take your meds again? It appears so.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Enema,

    I agree with you assessment that it was propaganda gold. The fortunate thing about that day is we had a President who took action to calm the nation and reassure the world that we were still strong and united.

    From the speech last night it is clear that there still is no strategy and it is an inconvenience that obama must deal with something like this. Now he is seeking congressional approval but if this was a social issue he would just use his phone and his pen. I can't say I blame him for wanting to share the blame because a failure that he alone approved would further ruin his failed presidency.

    ReplyDelete
  16. NOTE:

    Mention of or discussion of "blog feuds" here at this blog will be deleted as soon as an administrator becomes aware of such comments.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Comments way off topic are deleted as soon as an administrator becomes aware of such comments.

    Digressions are one thing, hijacking a thread something else altogether.

    ReplyDelete
  18. In his address to the American people last night, President Obama declared he would “degrade and ultimately destroy” the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.
    "ISIS is not Islamic", Obama said as he gave yet another one of his meaningless, powerless, boring, propaganda ridden, speeches. We need to remember 9-11 every day.. I don't mean bloggers need to write about it every day, but we, as Americans, need to think of that horrible day every day we walk this, God's green earth and remember WHY we fight our enemies and why we love our families and friends.

    President Obama, needs to shut up about the ISIS "threat to the West" because he and he alone created this Terrorist Army from Hell. ISIS did not magically and suddenly appear out of the ground. It raised it’s ugly head once again to show the world the pure evil of Islam as it was seen recently in the videos of American hostages being beheaded by the Islamic State, like thef attacks on U.S. embassies, we stood around much too long with our hands in our pockets doing nothing at all, except if you call playing golf doing something!
    Critics on both the left and the right picked apart the portions of the speech they disliked and trust me there was much to dislike. . But the most specifically ridiculous thing that he said was that there “Won’t be any “Boots on the Ground” Contradictions have consequences and the many contradictory things he has said about the fight against terrorism. Now suppose it becomes necessary to have “Boots on the Ground” ? What then? Or would it become like drawing a bright red line, and he would have to eat his words?
    But the goal was a sound one. And it was good to hear the commander-in-chief sounding like George Bush for once!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Funny how 911 post attracts the revisionists and the forgetful.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Replies
    1. The key difference here is that Massoud was on 'our side' so to speak. Ahrar-al-Sham is decidedly not. I don't see the remaining similarities in and of themselves, as portending another catastrophic attack on the homeland.

      Delete
    2. CI,
      Hold.

      The.

      Phone.

      Aren't we temporarily allied with Ahrar-al-Sham in an attempt to exterminate ISIS? Something along the lines of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

      Delete
    3. AOW - As much as John McCain might wish otherwise, western military aid has not been funneled to AAS, nor is it part of the Free Syrian Army. I have no idea if that is going to change, but I wouldn't advocate supporting them. Yet another area where the media fails us...they portray ISIS/ISIL, maybe Jabhat al-Nusra on a good day....and then 'everybody else'.

      Delete
    4. Hit ISIS, but if they are in the middle of doing something like killing all of the mass-murderers they captured from Assad's air base wait until just after they complete that task.

      Delete
  21. islam is a cancer. A cancer cannot be partially removed.

    ReplyDelete
  22. " A cancer cannot be partially removed."

    And cockroaches cannot be "partially" exterminated!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AMEN!

      Clear, simple, direct and to the point.

      AMEN!

      Delete
    2. I believe Obama has made the mistake of not treating Hamas the same as ISIS. They are equally evil.

      Delete
  23. Replies
    1. I'd rather remember the hard working men and women, and the heroes that died that day.

      The filthy savages controlled from a cave in Afghanistan really want us to remember them. I hope their memory recedes from history to something like a bad smell, and that is all.

      Delete
    2. Dmarks,
      These filthy savages certainly belong in the dustbin of history. Until then, like Woodsterman and unlike the mealy-mouthed political leaders presently infesting the West, I will not forget who the enemy is and stomp their guts out.

      Delete
    3. AOW: I hope you got my point. The victims of the attack are worth remembering. The perpetrators, while not worth remembering, regardless must be remembered by us so we are vigilant in sending them to the roach motel in the sky. At that point, they should remain only in memory as an example of what happens to those who engage in such debased evil.

      Delete
    4. Dmarks,
      Yes, I got your point.

      But I know Odie. He's a fighter and has identified the enemy, human and ideological.

      I'm growing ever weary of the whitewash of the ideology that drives this enemy.

      Delete
  24. AOW, I've never and will never forget about the Victims. THAT is one of the core elements of a civilized society. To forget the victims completely dismisses the evil. Not going to happen.

    But from one end of the criminal to homicidal maniac spectrum of instance, the libtards LOVE to forget about the victims. I truly wonder why that is. No doubt it is rooted in sociopath and ignorance but there is even more disgusting elements that are nebulous to me.

    Dmarks, God Bless you for your patience. I've talked to libtards on the net for 20+ years and after not seeing a single one absorb a gram of intelligence, I just don't bother anymore. In fact, I prefer to see them stumble through life as mushrooms so they can reap some of what they deserve.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kid,
      But from one end of the criminal to homicidal maniac spectrum of instance, the libtards LOVE to forget about the victims. I truly wonder why that is.

      Because they see those matters as proof that the perpetrators are victims of something or other -- part of their core ideology that accountability should be ignored. I see these same ideas in education -- the beginning of which may well have been the poor self-esteem meme. That meme roared into the education field back in the early 90s, I think. At least, the early 90s is when I became aware of it.

      Furthermore, many people today refuse to recognize the existence of evil.

      I've talked to libtards on the net for 20+ years and after not seeing a single one absorb a gram of intelligence, I just don't bother anymore.

      I've seen a few turnarounds, but very rarely. David Horowitz had a turnaround, but look what it took.

      Delete
    2. Kid,
      As I think more about the matter of self-esteem, I first heard that excuse of "poor self-esteem" back in the mid-80s.

      Delete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective