Scared sh**less, Rep. Jesse Kremer wants guns in schools to fight....terrorism!!!

The effort to coerce "soft targets," people like you and me who don't carry a gun, into carrying out of fear for our lives, continues abated.

While violent crime has skyrocketed since concealed carry passed, and gun deaths in Milwaukee increased by 40% over last year, Scott Walker continues to perpetuate the myth that Wisconsin is now safer.

If not in UW classrooms, at least in our elementary, middle and high school buildings: Two Republican extremists have oddly made arming people in and around schools an idea who's time has come.

Even worse, the bill's creators admitted it was a way to protect supposed "responsible gun owners" from accidentally breaking the law in schools zones. You know, irresponsible behavior made legal:

Senate President Mary Lazich (R-New Berlin) said the measure is intended to make sure weapons permit holders aren't inadvertently committing crimes when they drop their kids off at school. "I don't want to see that happen to well intentioned law-abiding people," she said in an interview.

Apparently one guy forgot about his gun and was arrested. So the natural reaction...is make bad behavior legal?

This reminds me of time Rep. Joel Kleefisch tried to change the states child support law because one guy didn't like the amount he had to pay.

Not just the 2nd Amendment, we're fighting terrorism in schools: Even worse than worse, Republican Rep. Jesse Kremer said his sponsorship of the bill was based on fighting terrorism...in our schools? Watch in utter disbelief folks. Kewaskum is so proud. WISC:

Kremer: "The biggest concern I have isn't necessarily the nut-job, it is a terrorist attack. And right now we are ripe for a terrorist attack...it probably won't be in the big city, it'll be in a small rural area where no one expects it because they know those are soft targets."

Coincidentally, Kewaskum is a small rural area that could be attacked. Kremer's fear mongering might be your typical GOP get-out-the-vote effort for 2016. Ya think?

Bumbling Texas Governor Abbott and Lt. Governor Patrick aid terrorist by leaking details of arrest in that was in progress.

Not only are Republicans endangering the public by daring ISIS to attack Americans with immigration bans and heated rhetoric, but now they're spilling the beans on an in-progress investigation and arrest. Imagine what would have happened if a Democrat pulled this stunt:

Reuters: Two Texas politicians, Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Lieutenant Governor

Dan Patrick, made public details of an investigation into a terrorism suspect while it was still in progress, potentially jeopardizing the inquiry, three sources familiar with the matter said on Friday.

Anyone trust these tough on terrorist Repubicans that can't even keep a secret or follow instructions?

Abbott and Patrick released details from documents that were still under court seal, the sources said. A spokesman for Governor Abbott had no immediate comment. Patrick's office was not available for comment ... both Republicans and their party has been fiercely resisting Democratic President Barack Obama's plan to allow 10,000 Syrian refugees into the country over the next year, arguing that they pose a security risk to the United States.

It's clear both Abbott and Patrick both pose a security threat to law enforcement going after terrorists.

Abbott is an especially dangerous right wing zealot who just proposed a constitutional convention that would result in states being able to ignore the federal government and overturn Supreme Court decisions. Take a look, it's a secessionists wet dream and recipe for absolute nationwide chaos:

Common Cause has written about the consequences of a balanced budget amendment and the whole idea of a constitutional conventions, check it out. 

New Republican low: Kill the innocent families of terrorists!

The party of sociopaths? That would explain how Republicans could so easily ignore the horror of the Newtown massacre, and every other mass shooting since. Their callous indifference should have been a major tip-off.

The GOP presidential debate solidified that point in the most brutal way when the blood thirsty crowd supported of the idea expressed in the headline story pictured to the right by Sam Stein.

Make no mistake, this really is the path Republicans want to take us down, as a nation.

Donald Trump: “We have to be much tougher, we have to be much stronger than we've been. We have people that know what is going on … I would be very, very firm with families. And frankly, that will make people think, because they may not care much about their lives. But they do care, believe it or not, about their families' lives.”

Dr. Ben Carson: “You have to be able to look at the big picture and understand that it's actually merciful if you go ahead and finish the job rather than death by a thousand pricks.”

When co-moderator Hugh Hewitt, no shrinking violet when it comes to conservatism, asked Carson if he was “OK with the deaths of thousands of innocents children and civilians,” the crowd mercilessly booed.

How long will it be before Republicans rationalize going after other perceived enemies, like the Democrats? Isn't it time they took their country back? Like Jeb said:

"The idea that that is a solution to this, is just...is just crazy!"

Here's a string of tweets during the debate:

Trump compared to Hitler & Lord Voldemort!

The Republican presidential primary should covered by comedians, not reporters.

This is the least serious, most bizarre off the wall group of dumb asses yet, and I thought 2012 was hard to beat. It's impossible to pretend Trump, Cruz, Bush and Rubio have something thoughtful to say. If this were a movie, we would have walked after the first insulting debate and asked for our money back.

Here's another insulting example from Bizarro World:

HILL: Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump early Tuesday rejected criticism (and) said he was not worried about being compared to Hitler. "We're at war — get it through your head."

Kids book writer J.K. Rowling couldn't pass up acknowledging the emergence of another super villian:

Ted Cruz comes in at a close second to Trump and Lord Voldemort:

Republicans can't be allowed to ignore gun chaos!!!

The terrorist attack in California was all the Republicans needed to run off the cliff, and flip into panicky chaos. I put together the following recent comments that are without a doubt lunatics rantings.



Still not over the top enough for you? Try this Cruz ad:



Democrats and the news media continue to play along right wing crazy talk declaring that nothing can be done, killers will be killers, people will still get guns, and background checks aren't 100% perfect. That's leadership? What it tells me is that these freeloading Republicans are using the term "small government" as a convenient excuse to do nothing.

Don't be surprised when they use the same line to deal with everything from environmental protection to health care, feeding the idea that regulation is a waste of time.

But the talk of having an armed citizens police force is also based on a flawed premise. I remember the panicky call from my conservative friend in Milwaukee after he saw the lunkheads in his concealed carry class.

The following video report exposes how bad gun owners will be with their weapons, even after police training. And without the retraining that builds "muscle memory" (that overtakes and controls the shaking and adrenaline rush), gun owners revert back to their untrained state. From 2010:

The controlled study documented in these videos show that concealed carry permit holders are fooling themselves if they think they will be able to react effectively to armed aggressors. Most CCW holders won't even be able to un-holster their gun. They will more likely be killed themselves or kill innocent bystanders than stop the aggressor. For more details, see "Unintended Consequences: Pro-Handgun Experts Prove That Handguns Are a Dangerous Choice for Self-Defense." CCW permit holders don't protect innocent people. They kill them. http://www.vpc.org/studies/unincont.htm.`

Yes, Republicans want to sell arms Terrorists in US!!!

When you summarize a failure like banning the sale of guns to terrorists, you can see just how radical Republicans have become, and mindlessly beholden to the wacky NRA. 

Democrats are renewing calls for Congress to pass legislation aimed at preventing terrorists from buying guns. Similar bills — including a post-9/11 measure backed by the Justice Department under Republican President George W. Bush — have been stymied for years, thanks in large part to opposition from gun-rights groups and congressional Republicans.

Yes, our frightened party of armed panicky paranoids have been arming terrorists for years and no one knew, especially those brainy tea party dunces.

According to a March analysis by the Government Accountability Office, people on the FBI's consolidated Terrorist Watchlist successfully passed the background check required to purchase firearms more than 90 percent of the time, with more than 2,043 approvals between 2004 and 2014. The office is an investigative branch of Congress.

I guess it fits into the current narrative, that any gun law is worthless, since terrorists and criminals will find a way to get fire arms anyway. So what's the use?

Seriously, this new bill fine tunes the ban on gun sales to terrorists, and it's still expected to fail to get the votes in the Republican Senate and House:

The new Democratic push would let the attorney general compile a list of known and suspected terrorists. Federally licensed gun dealers would be barred from selling firearms to them if government officials believed they might use the weapon for terrorism.

Again, inept Republicans want to reassess and discuss it, you know, talk about it for awhile, until we forget about it completely. Now that's governing with courage and leadership:

House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., did not respond directly when asked Thursday if he favored barring people on the watch list from buying guns, saying, "We are just beginning this process of reassessing all of our security stances."

The fact that the new Democratic proposal is a fined tune list of suspected terrorist, and not just those many people on the "watch list," the NRA wants to misdirect and anger members by accusing the Dems of exploiting the Paris attacks:

The National Rifle Association signaled this week it will oppose Feinstein's bill, as it did those before it … "It is appalling that anti-gun politicians are exploiting the Paris terrorist attacks to push their gun-control agenda and distract from President Obama's failed foreign policy." 

Xenophobic GOP Presidential hopefuls want to screen out and welcome Syrian Christians only.

I haven't seen the Republican fear level this high since 9/11. Our run for cover, freedom and liberty loving gun toting conservative "leaders" can't retreat fast enough from the looming ISIS terror.

Sen. Ted Cruz: "There is no meaningful risk of Christians committing acts of terror. If there were a group of radical Christians pledging to murder anyone who had a different religious view than they, we would have a different national security situation."

Even though it received almost no coverage yesterday, Jeb Bush's comment about identifying Christian refugees stands out as one of the most scary and embarrassing positions yet. Remember, this is an "adult" running for president:

Reporter: "So what does the focus on Christian families actually look like?"

Bush: "What, you're a Christian, you can prove you're a Christian, it's..."

Reporter: "How?"

Bush: "I think you can prove it, if you can't prove it than you know...you err on the side of caution."

And of course there's always xenophobic Donald Trump with his more tempered approach:

Trump: "I'm gonna bomb the shit out of them. It's true...I don't care...I don't care, they've got to be stopped."

And this Instagram comment:

Trump: "Refugees are pouring into our great country from Syria, and we don't even know who they are. They could be ISIS, they could be anybody. What's our president doing, is he insane? 

As for both Cruz and Bush's comment "there are no Christian terrorists in the Middle East..." they're strongly suggesting Christian terrorism doesn't happen, even in the U.S.. Homegrown Christian terrorists exist, whether they're using religion as a justification or just your typical conservative anti-government extremist. Here are just a few examples:

Wisconsin Sikh Temple massacre  ...  The murder of Dr. George Tiller  ...  Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church shooting  ...  The murder of Dr. John Britton  ...  The Centennial Olympic Park bombing, The murder of Barnett Slepian by James Charles Kopp  ...  Planned Parenthood bombing, Brookline, Massachusetts 1994  ...  Suicide attack on IRS building in Austin, Texas, Feb. 18, 2010  …  The murder of Alan Berg, June 18, 1984  …  Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing, April 19, 1995  ...  The Knoxville Unitarian Universalist Church Shooting Everything  ...  The Ku Klux Klan Has Ever Done  ...  The Massacre At Zion Emmanuel AME Church in Charleston, S.C..

Radical Islam vs Radical Christian: "Radical Islam," a favorite xenophobic term used by Republicans everywhere, is meant to challenge political correctness.

But when I used the term "radical Christian" on my conservative friend in Milwaukee, he blew up, justifying past Christian killings.

Try using the term "radical Christian" sometime. I guarantee a heated irrational reaction.

Presidential candidate Marco Rubio made this bizarre and clueless leap; comparing the Islamic religion with Nazism, a political ideology. Surprise, Rubio's comment went unchallenged by George Stephanopoulos:

Sheriff Clarke thinks GOP should politicize Terrorist Attack in France to win White House.

The right wing freak out over the terrorist attacks in France was scary. Is it a red flag when gun toting "responsible law abiding" patriots reach for their semi-automatic security blanket in a panic?

Triggered the conservative Fear Center: My conservative friend in Milwaukee called last night, sounding very angry, and then hung up on me after blaming liberals and Obama for not taking ISIS seriously. I'm assuming French citizens, armed to the teeth, could've somehow stopped lunatics with bombs wrapped around their chest.

Hypocrite Opportunists: After an endless flurry of conservative fear mongering tweets, one stood out as the most hypocritical, from phony "Democrat" Sheriff David Clarke. Often critical of anyone supposedly exploiting shooting rampages with politically motivated calls for tougher gun laws, Clarke wasn't afraid to make his point ghoulishly political:

Journal Sentinel's Dan Bice had this reminder:

Other tweeters noticed too....

Check out Political Heat's story.

Obama weak? What about the Bush/Cheney hard line policy against our enemies and terrorist? A myth.

As commander and chief, Obama had every right to make the decision to swap Taliban prisoners for an American prisoner. Sure he could have told congress, but he didn't. That makes authoritarians very angry.

At times Obama is a weak leader for using "soft diplomacy," at other times he's the imperial president for taking swift action. 

Republicans have a sick obsession about telling the world the U.S. is weak, and the president is a failure. Message sent, thank you very much. For future reference, that'll help boost the standing of U.S. presidents to come who are called on to help solve another humanitarian or political crisis? 

Researching my past blog posts on the Bush/Cheney no compromise hard line positions in foreign policy, I came across this May 2008 revealing contradiction to the GOP's blustery statements today: 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Weak and hypocritical are the end results of the Bush administrations tough impossible stances with America’s perceived and real enemies. While the rest of the world looks on in disbelief, the administrations reversals and contradictions are viewed by the White House as having been part of the plan, or a misunderstood position.

The Washington Posts story, “Despite stance on negotiating with tyrants, U.S. lends Bashir an ear” highlights their “aw shucks, did we say that” attitude toward foreign policy.

Hypocrisy 101:

“It has at least provoked charges of hypocrisy, because Bush recently accused those advocating talks with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other radical figures of "appeasement…underscoring how White House policy has departed from his pointed public call to shun talks with radical tyrants and
dictators."

Appeasement #1:

“A special envoy of President Bush plans to meet with Sudanese President
Omar Hassan al-Bashir, whose government sheltered Osama bin Laden and pursued a scorched-earth policy in southern Sudan that resulted in more than 2 million deaths… spoken to or exchanged letters with Bashir on numerous occasions…reportedly offered the regime major concessions in exchange
for minor steps and rolled out the red carpet for some of its most reprehensible officials," said Susan Rice, who handled Africa policy in the Clinton administration and is a top adviser to the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).”

So Bush has offered letters, personal meetings and major concessions with a tyrant and mass murderer. That is the true definition of appeasement; giving something away in order to get something back. It’s interesting to note just who might have been tougher pursuing and punishing state sponsors of terrorism. “The Clinton administration…tried to isolate Sudan because of its ties to Osama bin Laden, imposed stiff sanctions against the government and placed it on the official list of state sponsors of terrorism.”

Appeasement #2, #3, #4, #5, #6:

His appointees have also pursued aggressive diplomacy with North Korea and
Libya and have even conducted limited business with Cuba, Syria and Iran.

I personally think the White House is really trying to desensitize us so we generally accept a certain level of “minor” corruption and incompetence. The more egregious misconduct in office charges have been successfully thwarted by simply not cooperating.

Wisconsin's Turning Point: Walker and Republicans market Idea Protesters are Terrorists, media buying into it.

It's odd how a small protest in northern Wisconsin has been met with such a major assault by state Republicans and media lackeys.

I'm working on video clips that show the strong push by state Republicans to tap down free speech and the First Amendment by redefining it as terrorism. This only applies of course to their political opposition, and not conservative armed civilians or paramilitary security groups willing to kill people to protect "freedom" and "property." Through "stand your ground" laws, we have made the destruction of property (usually covered by insurance) a penalty punishable by death.

Call it a turbulent 60's do-over, a conservative quest to right the wrongs of history's social upheaval that brought so much progress and change.

More to come....just be aware the message from the right wing is all about our left wing home grown "terrorists," and that would basically be your neighbor or friend, who just might oppose the "Walker Authority."

That's what I've been describing as a statewide movement to one party authoritarian rule, an amazing phenomenon the public appears to be willing to settle for if Walker's public opinion numbers are any indication.  

Republicans killing American Spirit! NRA killing Americans.

The whole background check debate said one thing loud and clear; Americans are now being encouraged to give up...don't try. The time when we did what we could to improve life in the U.S....eh, that just didn't work. "Throw in the towel and go home," say the NRA elite.

It's a cynical way to gain control over a beaten down public, who were ravaged and demoralized by the Great Recession. While Republicans are using this weak moment in our economy to roll out "disaster capitalism (where companies swoop in and not just profit from disasters, but take control of what was once public), the NRA wants us armed and ready to shoot the opposition, namely Democrats, liberals and RHINO's.

So what would you call these doom and gloomers, the divide and conquerors, the apocalyptic fabricators, these advocates of an armed revolution? Terrorists? I would.

That's just what was written recently, and sparked an immediate sky is falling push back from
conservative terrorists...I mean pundits all over the blogosphere.

Aurora Sentinel editor Dave Perry's description of the National Rifle Association: “No, no, no. Not the wannabe sick kid who blew up the Boston marathon or the freak that’s mailing ricin-laced letters to the president. I’m talking about the real terrorist threat here in America: the National Rifle Association.”

The response was so deliciously typical: a hoity-toity better that thou verbal shot that turns an observation into what else, "name calling." The conservative Colorado Peak Politics, where all of its opinion writers are anonymous chicken shits, wrote:

This guy couldn't put his name on this piece?

Those who cannot support an argument with reasoned thought, usually resort to name calling and ad hominem attacks. 

Is that a bumper sticker response or what? That's always their comeback, whether its a Facebook debate or in the comments section of an online story. Oh, but the air of conservative superiority continues after Perry writes where we should send these NRA terrorists...

“the guilty monsters directly to Guantanamo Bay for all eternity and let them rot in their own mental squalor.” How enlightened.

 Conservatives are so brainy, aren't they? The NRA is a terrorist organization, big surprise.

California Republican Terrorist Threat? Carries loaded Illegal Gun on Plane. TSA Makes Arrest.

With fellow Republicans doing everything they can to take down the U.S. economy in an attempt to defeat Barack Obama, is it really any stretch to assume one of them might want to take down a plane to make their point? That’s what California Assemblyman Tim Donnelly might have been planning when he took a loaded gun on a plane.

Okay, that’s crazy talk, but it’s not a stretch to read or hear a conservative spew that kind of speculation in the conservative media.  

But what’s bizarre about the story is the district Assemblyman Tim Donnelly represents; Twin Peaks!!!

Not only that, he didn’t have a license to carry. None! I know, Republicans are above the law and can be trusted with things like that, but we’ll have to wait and see if he’s charged for violating state law.

But come on, here we have a Republican “lawmaker” who thinks he can break two laws and get away with it.

SacBee: Days after he was issued a misdemeanor citation for carrying a loaded firearm into the Ontario airport, Assemblyman Tim Donnelly  indicated today that he does not have a permit to carry a concealed weapon … Donelly's briefcase contained a .45-caliber handgun with four rounds in its magazine, and a spare magazine containing five rounds … The 45-year-old Twin Peaks Republican said that he had armed himself because of recent death threats … Nico Melendez, spokesman for the TSA, said that it was his understanding that Donnelly did not possess a concealed weapons permit. Donnelly was cited for possession of a loaded firearm, punishable by a sentence of up to one year in jail and a $1,000 fine. The Transportation Security Administration also could levy a fine of up to $10,000.

But still, anyone who can disregard two big time laws, had to have an even bigger reason to do so. Is he our first elected terrorist, a Republican, to plot the takedown of a passenger plane? Hey, that’s what some people are saying.

Conservative Terrorist Threats!!! True. Obama Confronts Tea Party Loon.

29 year old tea party loudmouth and now icon Ryan Rhodes, and a female standing next to him, rambled on about being called terrorists by Biden and Homeland Security, and the wisdom of passing a balance budget amendment. 

1. The truth: The Southern Poverty Law Center came out with a list of American terrorist groups, many of them conservative, and Homeland Security's Sec. Janet Napolitano mentioned their findings. Conservatives went nuts and Napolitano did what any spineless Democrat would do, apologize for the telling the truth. The Truth: And who cares if Biden called tea party politicians terrorist (he didn't) for holding the nation hostage. 

2. The dumb idea: The balanced budget amendment is so ridiculous that anyone who believes in it has no credibility, none...ever.  They're rude and bullies, for example: 

“It doesn’t sound like you’re interested in listening,” Obama told him.

 “You haven’t listened either,” Rhodes shot back.

Panicky Republicans Play Victim; After Holding Americans and the Economy Hostage, claim the Truth is Unfair.

The fallout for Republicans may be big, or it may be forgotten completely by next week, over holding a gun to the head of our hostage nation and threatening to take it down. Here's three great responses. First, Lawrence O'Donnell sums up what we're going to see from here on out from the Republicans. On another note, O'Donnell gets some classic Alan Simpson comebacks and possible solution to the problem. I'm very skeptical of Simpson's plan that supposedly lower rates, cut loopholes and increases revenue. But if the CBO comes back with a decent report, well, we'll see.




I liked this analysis from Prof. Michael Eric Dyson and Bill Maher.



Here Al Sharpton and Dana Milbank respond to the irony of Sarah Palin's comments over the hostage and terrorist references, all the while accusing Obama of paling around with "terrorists" like Bill Ayres.

Bin Laden's Image Problem, and his unfulfilled rebranding.

One of the little known facts about al-Qaeda, explained in detail in the documentary “Power of Nightmares” (in 3 one hour sections), was that it was on its way out as a movement. The public turned on bin Laden for killing so many Muslims. But Bush turned everything around for bin Laden, and al-Qaeda’s popularity. Had Bush treated bin Laden as a criminal, and not as the most feared and evil man on earth, who knows how things would have turned out?

So Osama bin Laden mulled changing his image.

The Scottsman: Correspondence recovered from the Pakistan compound where Osama bin Laden was killed reveals the al-Qaeda leader was considering renaming his organization in order to revive its beleaguered reputation. bin Laden, the most ardent opponent of capitalism, thought a public relations overhaul would win the hearts and minds of greater numbers of Muslims … the unlikeliest of marketing men lamented that the group's full name, al-Qaeda al-Jihad, or The Base of Holy War, had become known around the world simply as al-Qaeda, or The Base. Lopping off the word "jihad," bin Laden wrote, allowed his western enemies to "claim deceptively that they are not at war with Islam".

He went on to note several ideas for new names, including Taifat al-Tawhed Wal-Jihad, meaning Monotheism and Jihad Group, or Jama'at I'Adat al-Khilafat al-Rashida, meaning Restoration of the Caliphate Group.

Check out the masterfully produced “Power of Nightmares” for a full explanation of the their movement and where we went so wrong fighting "terrorism" as a war.

Lamar Smith on the al-Qaeda Threat

The Hill reports

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said tightening gun laws to address the threat would be to surrender to terrorists at the expense of Americans' rights.

“We’ve seen time and again that terrorists will use anything, including our own rights and freedoms, to plot attacks against innocent Americans,” Smith said in an email. “But simply because terrorists abuse our liberties doesn’t mean that we should limit the rights of law-abiding Americans. On the contrary, to limit our rights is to give in to terrorists and the fear they try to spread.”

In other words, requiring everybody who buys a gun to first submit to a background check is tantamount to surrendering to the terrorists and limiting the rights of law-abiding Americans?

I wish someone would explain that to me.

cross posted at Mikeb302000

Please leave a comment.

CPAC mob member tells Cheney, he's a "war criminal.'

CPAC rhetoric took a liberal turn the other day. While the crowd there praised Ron Paul for advancing racial discrimination by private businesses and a small government return of Dickensian values, they also decided liberals may have been right about the Iraq war. Can you imagine if a liberal crowd member had shouted "war criminal" at Cheney?

So much for the Phony Hero Worship of 9/11 Responders....

If the "real" Americans are so patriotic, why haven't we heard a sound out of them over the Republican rejection of aid to our heroic 9/11 responders? Could bowing down to the almighty dollar come before their pain and sacrifice? Sure.

Related articles

• GOP filibusters health benefits for 9/11 heroes (americablog.com)
• Why Do Republicans Hate the Heroes of 9/11? (slog.thestranger.com)
• 9/11 health bill fails first test, Senate GOP filibusters (nydailynews.com)
• 'Shameless!': Senate Rejects 9/11 Health Bill (blogs.abcnews.com)

Engel: Terrorist suceed even when they fail.

This amazing revelation from Richard Engel brought to mind how easily Republicans are cowed by terrorism. If anything, conservatives have only encouraged terrorist to continue their campaign of fear. Maybe there's a symbiotic relationship between the two, with the media too afraid to bring up the issue?

Chris Hayes of the Nation Magazine:

Related articles

• Engel Falsely Accuses Fleisher Of Alleging Osama-Iraq Ties (newsbusters.org)

Admit it: Bin Laden Defeated Conservatives on 9/11!! Ever since they've been running scared.

The Constitutional conservatives attempting to “go around,” or selectively relax the guarantees of the First Amendment over building a Murfreesboro mosque, were in top bigoted form when they chose not to hide their fears of the “other.”

murfreesboropost: Attorneys in a lawsuit seeking to stop construction of a mosque in Murfreesboro contend through witness testimony that the proposed Islamic Center of Murfreesboro (ICM) does not meet the standard of a religious meeting place. Plaintiffs argued in court area Muslims want to institute Sharia Law in Murfreesboro and say Rutherford County Planning Director Doug Demosi and county officials should have investigated the political agenda of Muslim members before approving mosque site plans.

Get ready for the most obvious sign yet that the terrorists defeated American conservatives, who are so afraid of Muslims and Islam now, that sheer panic has set in.

Plaintiff's attorney Joe Brandon Jr. lashed out at Demosi under several sustained objections, some for "badgering the witness." "The county can make no law that gives preferential treatment or unduly burdens the free practice of religion," Demosi told the court.

"What if Osama bin Laden had filed for approval of a mosque? Would you have done anything differently," Brandon asked to the sustained objection of County Attorney Jim Cope.

"Are you suggesting you would give approval to a mosque with a connection to Jihad or without any assurances bodies are buried deep enough so they don't stink," Brandon asked Demosi. Plaintiffs argued they should have been given notice before approval of a burial on the property, but defense attorneys showed such approval does not require public comment or proof there is a dead body.

Plaintiffs also sought unsuccessfully to prevent a documentary film maker from joining cameras from CNN, WTVF (CBS), WZTV (FOX), WKRN (ABC) and WSMV (NBC).

The conservatives were defeated on 9/11. Bin Laden scared the daylights out them, and they can’t pull it together.

And I can’t wait for the documentary.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Mosque trial update: Mosque smaller than Super-Walmart (politics.nashvillepost.com)