Police in New York City are scrambling to locate the producers of a YouTube video that depicts a stolen replica of the Statue of Liberty blindfolded, beheaded and smashed into pieces a display that one terror expert says is intended to “instill fear” in everyday Americans.

The 59-second video shows the 8-foot, 200-pound replica statue, which was stolen from a Brooklyn coffee shop last month, being decapitated and pulverized — accompanied by the words “We don’t want your freedom” and “Death to America.”

The video is sick and disturbing. The people behind it need to be captured and prosecuted. If you have any information please contact the New York Police Department 1-888-NYC-SAFE or The FBI

I have no idea if this was a childish hoax or was the work of radical Muslims – either way it’s disturbing and sick!

Share on Facebook

It reminds me of the old junkie commercials from the 90′s… “Nobody said ‘I want to be a terrorist when I grow up.’”

I certainly never thought myself a terrorist or involved in terrorist activities, but that’s not what the DoD manual says.

On the last 2 pages of the DoD manual, (PDF here) obtained by the ACLU, they state that protests are considered low-level terrorism.  That means that Tea Party protesters, abortion protesters, and even David Letterman protesters are considered terrorists.

The DoD refresher course/manual begins:

“Anti-terrorism (AT) and Force Protection (FP) are two facets of the Department of Defense (DoD) Mission Assurance Program. It is DoD policy, as found in DoDI 2000.16, that the DoD Components and the DoD elements and personnel shall be protected from terrorist acts through a high priority, comprehensive, AT program. The DoD’s AT program shall be all encompassing using an integrated systems approach.”

The first question of the Terrorism Threat Factors, “Knowledge Check 1″ section reads as follows:

Which of the following is an example of low-level terrorism activity?

Select the correct answer and then click Check Your Answer.

O   Attacking the Pentagon

O   IEDs

O   Hate crimes against racial groups

O   Protests

***

The “correct” answer is Protests.

Of course the left-wing blogs like Salon associate this with “fascists” on the right.  However, fascism is left-wing and totalitarian.  Fascism can go left or right.  It’s incredibly disingenuous to blame a group based upon the actions of lone “crazies” like Tiller’s killer.  I could say the very same thing for the Arkansas murder of the Army recruiter for the left, or what we learned about the Holocaust Museum shooting (although the below shows a lack of research or knowledge of the shooter’s political leanings, blaming it on the right).

…thus giving the government under the rubric of fighting domestic terrorism unrestrained and unsupervisable power to suppress legitimate political activities, the unleashing and justifications for Christian fascists to murder those they do not like (such as the assassination of Dr. George Tiller and the killing at the Holocaust Museum a few days ago) – this news adds further fuel to the fire.

The far left fails to realize the gravity of this for all of America, not just some political ideology.  We all protest and we all stand up and fight for what we believe in.  To be considered terrorists for our voice is something we should all be concerned about.

Share on Facebook

Details are trickling out regarding the shooter of the two soldiers yesterday in Arkansas.  Carlos Bledsoe, at only 24 years old, recently converted to Islam possibly on a trip to Yemen.  He changed his name upon his conversion to Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad.  Abdul will be charged with 15 counts of terrorism and capital murder.

Little Rock Police Chief Stuart Thomas says Muhammad intentionally targeted military personnel.

23-year-old Private William Long, of Conway, died as a result of his injuries.

18-year-old Private Second Class Quinton Ezeagwula, of Jacksonville, was also shot.  Chief Thomas says he is in stable condition and will recover.

Police say Muhammad opened fire because of his religious beliefs.  He was a recent convert to Islam.

“We have no indication that the suspect did act alone and of his own accord, and it’s our belief he acted with a specific intent to target military personnel and did so unilaterally and did so with intent today and today only,” Thomas said.

Police say Muhammad had never met his victims.

The following was also learned of the man in custody:

I have learned from a well-placed source that Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, who killed one soldier and wounded another at a a Little Rock military recruiting center today, and who faces charges of terrorism as well as first-degree murder, has recently returned from Yemen, where he studied jihad with an Islamic scholar there.

Apparently the Islamic scholar under whom this American convert to Islam studied was yet another misunderstander of Islam’s true, peaceful teachings.

Jihad terror on American soil: Muslim kills soldier, wounds another at Arkansas military recruiting center:  Jihadwatch

Another interesting point to note regarding the name of the criminal is his chosen middle name, Mujahid.  Mujahid means ‘One who fights the Jihad’ or ‘Holy Fighter.’  The plural is Mujahadin and the translation is basically the one who kills and fights in the name of religion.

I wonder when Obama will come out with a statement of outrage condemning this deadly, violent act as he did with the Dr. Tiller murder… 14 hrs. later and still counting… crickets*

The fact that, in Janet Napolitano’s (JaNo) words, we had a home grown man-made disaster, of all places, in the south, that should raise some major alarms and Americans should be made aware of it.  We hadn’t been attacked for 7.5 years and within the past couple weeks we had a terrorist plot intercepted in NYC and a failed interception of this young man who murdered a U.S. soldier and injured another.   I hope the military personnel takes note of how much Obama really cares about them!

The liberally biased media should be ashamed of itself for covering this story up from the public!

Share on Facebook

Time to give credit where credit is due.  I’m glad to see that Obama had the sense about him to reverse his original notion to release the detainee photos which would have caused greater damage to our nation, our troops, and our national security, on top of the CIA memo release:

In a dramatic and high-profile reversal for his young administration, President Barack Obama is seeking to block the release of 44 photographs depicting abuse of detainees in U.S. military custody in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Justice Department had already agreed to release the photos by May 28 in response to a lawsuit, but Obama is shifting course.

“Last week, the President met with his legal team and told them that he did not feel comfortable with the release of the DOD photos because he believes their release would endanger our troops, and because he believes that the national security implications of such a release have not been fully presented to the court,” said a White House official who asked not to be named.

“At the end of that meeting, the President directed his counsel to object to the immediate release of the photos on those grounds,” the official said.

At least some of the polling data that is decent, such as the majority of Americans disagreeing with the photo release decision, is being listened to.

Obama’s reversal is sure to set off an outcry on the left, which has pushed the Obama administration to come clean about interrogation policies and other actions carried out by the Bush administration.

I better see some of those “coexist” people and the liberals who protest every single aspect of war, protesting this and Obama.  I don’t much care for hypocrites so I hope they stand true to their principles and are upset about the change of heart… I won’t hold my breath, although I think some of the true progressives will protest just about anything (code pink?)

Obama endorsed such openness during the campaign – and even released memos detailing interrogation practices critics call torture.

Obama has come nowhere near keeping his promise of transparency in the government.  He has had several opportunities to do so, not just regarding national security items, and he has chosen the opposite.

All I can say is that I am pleased with this decision from his administration at least!

Share on Facebook

The same Homeland Security Department office that categorized veterans as potential terrorists issued an earlier report that defined dozens of “extremists” ranging from black power activists to abortion foes. The report was nixed within hours and recalled from state and local law enforcement officials.

Whites and blacks, Christians and Jews, Cubans and Mexicans, along with tax-hating Americans were among several political leanings listed in the “Domestic Extremism Lexicon” that came out of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) in late March.

The lexicon lists definitions for key terms and phrases used by Homeland Security analysts “that addresses the nature and scope of the threat that domestic, non-Islamic extremism poses to the United States,” the report said.

For the Lexicon Report click here (PDF file).

“Although we have evidence that some of the groups described in this and other DHS intelligence products are an active terror threat to our nation, I would be interested in knowing why this lexicon mentioning left-wing extremist groups was deemed inappropriate by DHS and recalled, yet a similar report focusing on veterans, antiabortion activists and anti-illegal immigration activists was fit for distribution and sent out by DHS to law enforcement agencies across the country,” Mr. King said.

Oh goody – so we come to find out that people who oppose abortion and illegal immigration (on the right) and those who oppose war or are dedicated to environmental/animal causes (on the left) are lumped into the extremist category just like the Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nazis etc.

The right-wing definition remains the same as the report that was just released from DHS last month, where Veterans of war were gravely offended.

The latest report to become public, the lexicon on domestic extremism, stated that people involved with anti-immigration extremism “may have been known to advocate or engage in criminal activity and plot acts of violence and terrorism to advance their extremist goals.”

“They are highly critical of the U.S. government’s response to illegal immigration and oppose government programs that are designed to extend ‘rights’ to illegal aliens, such as issuing driver’s licenses or national identification cards and providing in-state tuition, medical benefits, or public education.”

“Cuban independence extremism” is defined as those who “do not recognize the legitimacy of the Communist Cuban Government and who attempt to subvert it through acts of violence, mainly within the U.S.”

And, the “tax-resistance movement” is described as “groups or individuals who vehemently believe taxes violate their constitutional rights.”

So if I am opposed to something my government is doing which I know deep down will be detrimental to our economy and society, then I am an extremist?  Did I get that right?  Well consider me part of the Right Wing Extremist Faction!

Cubans who do not agree with communism are also extremists?  I guess Gloria Estefan would be one too!

Let’s also not forget about taxes – do people who oppose taxes by finding loop holes in the tax code also fall under this definition?  They try extremely hard to fight taxes when April creeps up!

When does somebody see through the fog and realize that maybe it’s not the individual citizens of the United States who are extremists, but perhaps it’s the government itself that threatens this country’s future and its foundation.

Instead of making up these ridiculous reports, maybe DHS should spend its time on the impending attacks now that our national security has been compromised and we are much more vulnerable to “Man-Caused Disasters,” as Janet Napolitano would say.

Share on Facebook

Part of a letter from Andrew C. McCarthy:

Dear Attorney General Holder:

[...]

Moreover, in light of public statements by both you and the President, it is dismayingly clear that, under your leadership, the Justice Department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers legal advice to government policy makers—like the government lawyers who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy—may be subject to investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice, in addition to empty but professionally damaging accusations of ethical misconduct. Given that stance, any prudent lawyer would have to hesitate before offering advice to the government.

Beyond that, as elucidated in my writing (including my proposal for a new national security court, which I understand the Task Force has perused), I believe alien enemy combatants should be detained at Guantanamo Bay (or a facility like it) until the conclusion of hostilities.  This national defense measure is deeply rooted in the venerable laws of war and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the 2004 Hamdi case.  Yet, as recently as Wednesday, you asserted that, in your considered judgment, such notions violate America’s “commitment to the rule of law.”  Indeed, you elaborated, “Nothing symbolizes our [adminstration’s] new course more than our decision to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay…. President Obama believes, and I strongly agree, that Guantanamo has come to represent a time and an approach that we want to put behind us: a disregard for our centuries-long respect for the rule of law[.]”  (Emphasis added.)

Given your policy of conducting ruinous criminal and ethics investigations of lawyers over the advice they offer the government, and your specific position that the wartime detention I would endorse is tantamount to a violation of law, it makes little sense for me to attend the Task Force meeting. After all, my choice would be to remain silent or risk jeopardizing myself.

For what it may be worth, I will say this much.  For eight years, we have had a robust debate in the United States about how to handle alien terrorists captured during a defensive war authorized by Congress after nearly 3000 of our fellow Americans were annihilated.  Essentially, there have been two camps.  One calls for prosecution in the civilian criminal justice system, the strategy used throughout the 1990s.  The other calls for a military justice approach of combatant detention and war-crimes prosecutions by military commission.  Because each theory has its downsides, many commentators, myself included, have proposed a third way: a hybrid system, designed for the realities of modern international terrorism—a new system that would address the needs to protect our classified defense secrets and to assure Americans, as well as our allies, that we are detaining the right people.

There are differences in these various proposals.  But their proponents, and adherents to both the military and civilian justice approaches, have all agreed on at least one thing:  Foreign terrorists trained to execute mass-murder attacks cannot simply be released while the war ensues and Americans are still being targeted.  We have already released too many jihadists who, as night follows day, have resumed plotting to kill Americans. Indeed, according to recent reports, a released Guantanamo detainee is now leading Taliban combat operations in Afghanistan, where President Obama has just sent additional American forces.
The Obama campaign smeared Guantanamo Bay as a human rights blight.  Consistent with that hyperbolic rhetoric, the President began his administration by promising to close the detention camp within a year.  The President did this even though he and you (a) agree Gitmo is a top-flight prison facility, (b) acknowledge that our nation is still at war, and (c) concede that many Gitmo detainees are extremely dangerous terrorists who cannot be tried under civilian court rules.  Patently, the commitment to close Guantanamo Bay within a year was made without a plan for what to do with these detainees who cannot be tried. Consequently, the Detention Policy Task Force is not an effort to arrive at the best policy.  It is an effort to justify a bad policy that has already been adopted: to wit, the Obama administration policy to release trained terrorists outright if that’s what it takes to close Gitmo by January.

Obviously, I am powerless to stop the administration from releasing top al Qaeda operatives who planned mass-murder attacks against American cities—like Binyam Mohammed (the accomplice of “Dirty Bomber” Jose Padilla) whom the administration recently transferred to Britain, where he is now at liberty and living on public assistance.  I am similarly powerless to stop the administration from admitting into the United States such alien jihadists as the 17 remaining Uighur detainees.  According to National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, the Uighurs will apparently live freely, on American taxpayer assistance, despite the facts that they are affiliated with a terrorist organization and have received terrorist paramilitary training.  Under federal immigration law (the 2005 REAL ID Act), those facts render them excludable from the United States. The Uighurs’ impending release is thus a remarkable development given the Obama administration’s propensity to deride its predecessor’s purported insensitivity to the rule of law.

I am, in addition, powerless to stop the President, as he takes these reckless steps, from touting his Detention Policy Task Force as a demonstration of his national security seriousness.  But I can decline to participate in the charade.

[...]

Read the entire letter here.

W00T!  You can’t argue with that!

Share on Facebook

Human Events reports:

Moving quickly to release Chinese Uighur terrorists into the United States, Obama administration officials have — for the second time — overridden objections of federal agencies responsible for national security.

The first time — as I reported on April 20 — the White House overrode the inter-agency panel it created from all the national security agencies to review all the cases of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners. That panel found that the seventeen Uighurs — members of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement captured at an al-Qaeda training camp in Pakistan — were too dangerous to release in the United States.

I reported in more detail here.

Share on Facebook

The New York Times just like their uber-left counterparts care more about islamofascist terrorists than their own country and its citizens.

NYT also lied in an article last weekwhen describing the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.  The NYT claimed that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times, which will become a typical liberal talking point when arguing about Gitmo detainees and interrogation methods.  Khalid was only waterboarded a total of 5 times.  Let me repeat that again, 5 times!  Each of those times is timed specifically which was defined by law in order to meet specific conditions that would not be considered torture.  There is also a physician on site when waterboarding is used.

The New York Times reported last week that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 terror attacks, was waterboarded 183 times in one month by CIA interrogators. The “183 times” was widely circulated by news outlets throughout the world.

It was shocking. And it was highly misleading. The number is a vast inflation, according to information from a U.S. official and the testimony of the terrorists themselves.

A U.S. official with knowledge of the interrogation program told FOX News that the much-cited figure represents the number of times water was poured onto Mohammed’s face — not the number of times the CIA applied the simulated-drowning technique on the terror suspect. According to a 2007 Red Cross report, he was subjected a total of “five sessions of ill-treatment.”

Our own soldiers have been trained and waterboarded more times than all the detainees combined.  Only 3 of the detainees were ever waterboarded and 2 of those were major leaders in the radical Islam movement who had valuable information.  That information was disclosed to us through waterboarding.  If these detainees were only waterboarded 5-10 times total imagine how easy it would be for them to train for that now.

“The water was poured 183 times — there were 183 pours,” the official explained, adding that “each pour was a matter of seconds.”

The Times and dozens of other outlets wrote that the CIA also waterboarded senior Al Qaeda member Abu Zubaydah 83 times, but Zubayda himself, a close associate of Usama bin Laden, told the Red Cross he was waterboarded no more than 10 times.

And again that would be 83 pours of water… entirely different than being waterboarded 83 times.  Each sessions consists of short and long pours of water and the specific time allotted per session was all laid out.

The Justice Department memos described the maximum allowed use of the waterboard on any detainee, based on tactical training given to U.S. troops to resist interrogations:

– Five days of use in one month, with no more than two “sessions” in a day;
– Up to six applications (something like a dunk) lasting more than 10 seconds but less than 40 seconds per session;
– 12 minutes of total “water application” in a 24-hour period

These lying Democrats have now put our country at incredible risk and have given our enemies plenty of ammo and ability to train and be more difficult to glean information from.  As an FYI to the peaceniks – people are evil, they are not all good in this world and there is nothing you can do to change that or control that even if you can’t understand that.  Sharing tea and crumpets with them will not resolve anything, nor will it keep your country safe.

Real American…./Sarc!  Hey NYT – did your article happen to mention that Khalid is the one who chopped off Daniel Pearl’s head?  I guess that’s acceptible to the likes of NYT… and the hypocrites on the far left.

Share on Facebook

The Obama administration is preparing to admit into the United States as many as seven Chinese Muslims who have been imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay in the first release of any of the detainees into this country, according to current and former U.S. officials.

I have put classifieds into all the local papers:  Wanted: Caring Families Needed to House Unfortunate Terrorists From Gitmo: 1-800-I-VOTED-4-OBAMA

Their release is seen as a crucial step to plans, announced by President Obama during his first week in office, to close the prison and relocate the detainees. Administration officials also believe that settling some of them in American communities will set an example, helping to persuade other nations to accept Guantanamo detainees too.

Any detainees released into the country will most likely vote Democrat in the next elections, especially after receiving welfare payments from taxpayers.  I’m sure they will pose no threat to the country since there was probably no reason whatsoever they were detained at Gitmo in the first place/sarc.

But the decision to release the Chinese Muslims, known as Uighurs, is not final and faces challenges from within the government, as well as likely public opposition. Among government agencies, the Homeland Security Department has registered concerns about the plan.

The move would also incense Chinese officials, who consider the Uighurs domestic terrorists and want those held at Guantanamo handed over for investigation. U.S. officials no longer consider the Chinese Muslims to be enemy combatants and fear they would be mistreated in China.

The Chinese will not let them back into the country and if they do re-enter they will prosecute the Uighurs as domestic terrorists, but the United States doesn’t get the hint and is admitting them into the country.

There are 17 Uighurs (pronounced WEE-gers) at Guantanamo. A U.S. official familiar with the discussions over their release said that as many as seven could be resettled in the U.S., possibly in two or more small groups.
Officials have not said where in the United States they might live. But many Uighur immigrants from China live in Washington’s Virginia suburbs, and advocates have urged that the detainees be resettled near people who speak their language and are familiar with their customs.

I hope all my under 30 friends who voted for Obama are amenable to the fact that they could be their next-door neighbors in Northern Virginia.  The suburbs of Northern Virginia went blue and many in the area are having second thoughts about their vote.  I say too bad – you reap what you sow.

The Uighurs were sent to Guantanamo in 2002 after being captured in Pakistan. Before that, they had gravitated to Afghanistan, where they received firearms training at a camp apparently run by a Uighur separatist.

Some former U.S. officials have said government information indicates that the Uighurs may pose a danger if released. But other officials and human rights organizations insist they pose no threat to Americans.

These men were trained and caught in camps that promote jihad.  These men are not threats to our society and the citizens of America?  Human Rights groups or U.S. Intel officials – which one would you be willing to listen to and believe when discussing the possible threats posed.

“It is kind of hard to tell other countries you would like them to accept some of these guys from Guantanamo if you are not willing to accept them,” said the U.S. official, who described the internal discussions on condition of anonymity.

So through the act of appeasement we need to set an example to change the minds of other countries.  It’s like the old saying:  “If someone told you to jump off a bridge, would you?”    The whole idea of making a decision that could possibly put the citizens of the United States at risk, due to the fact that there is more concern over the lives of terrorists than the lives of U.S. citizens, just reeks of idiocy and insanity!  Why would any country accept terrorists just because the U.S. does.  Is that not a little arrogant and presumptuous on our part?  If I were any other country I would look at the U.S. and say, “Good for you… but I’m not taking that chance and putting the lives of my countrymen at stake.”

The acceptance of these terrorists are also hurting foreign relations with China.  Appeasement does more harm for relations than anything else.  The more you try to please everyone, the more you upset and hurt everyone.  Evidence of this is as simple as looking at your own personal life.  Did you ever try to please all your friends when you were younger? I was in a group of friends and one of my girlfriends was an appeaser.  She would say one thing to one person and promise the opposite to another.  When word got back that she was two faced and pinning others against one another, she was the one who got in trouble, not the group.  If you don’t stand for anything you will fall for everything.

The release is a slap in the face to Beijing, which has requested that the Uighur prisoners be repatriated to China to stand trial for separatist activities. In their testimony before the Guantanamo tribunal, the Uighurs admitted that their purpose in going to Afghanistan was to receive military training to fight Chinese rule over Xinjiang.

“If these people are terrorists, they should be punished. If they are not terrorists, the United States should apologize to China for holding them so long and make compensation,” said Zhang Jiadong, an expert in terrorism at Fudan University’s Center for American Studies. Zhang said, however, that he did not expect the Chinese government to retaliate because it was already widely anticipated in Beijing that the United States would not return the Uighurs to China.

Within the prison, Uighurs are not considered a grave threat and are allowed greater freedom, such as television privileges, than other detainees.

But the TV privileges underscored potential difficulties to come, according to one current and one former U.S. official. Not long after being granted access to TV, some of the Uighurs were watching a soccer game. When a woman with bare arms was shown on the screen, one of the group grabbed the television and threw it to the ground, according to the officials.

They aren’t a grave threat, but when they see a woman with bare arms they throw a television screen – I’m sure that will go over real well in Northern Virginia.  “Beware of Tank Tops!”

The Uighurs are not as dangerous as other detainees or terrorist groups, but they still do pose possible threats and problems to our society.  There are other societies that are more accepting of these individuals, but I fear that not only will there be problems for the Uighurs assimilating into American culture, but vice versa for Americans encountering the Uighurs if they are released.  Knowing already that they were against the Chinese government and aligned themselves with aspects of radical Islam, there is good reason to believe that they may come to dislike or despise the culture in the states after a matter of time.  Based on their behavior in Gitmo with the television incident, they may not like seeing women with equal rights to men, wearing revealing clothing, showing their hair, seeing homosexual couples in public, the practicing of various religions, etc.

Share on Facebook

Nancy Pelosi is one of the most contemptible personalities in existence today.  She must be one of the most immoral characters as well.  She is now lying about the harsh interrogation methods used on terrorists and detainees in Gitmo. 

She was briefed along with several other colleagues back in 2002 after the 9/11 attacks and after a legal team and the CIA put together techniques that could be used but would not be considered torture under international treaties/law.  One of those techniques is called waterboarding; something Nancy Pelosi says she didn’t know about, or at least did not know that the technique would actually be used on a detainee. 

I already posted on the fact that Pelosi was made privy to all of this information back in 2002 and was even shown waterboarding.  Those who attended the meeting even asked whether or not these techniques would be harsh enough.  She now has the audacity to sit there and lie to the public about what she knew.  She has the gall to lie to us and treat the public like morons by stating she did not realize those techniques would actually be used on the detainees!  Are you kidding me Nancy?

Pelosi says she was briefed by Bush administration officials on the legal justification for using waterboarding — but that they never followed through on promises to inform her when they actually began using “enhanced” interrogation techniques

“In that or any other briefing…we were not, and I repeat, were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation techniques were used. What they did tell us is that they had some legislative counsel … opinions that they could be used,” she told reporters today.

Earlier, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) criticized Pelosi and other Democratic leaders for backing probes into the use of waterboarding — after reportedly failing to raise objections during a briefing on its potential use in 2002.

“Well, yesterday I saw a partial list of the number of members of the House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans, who were briefed on these interrogation methods and not a word was raised at the time, not one word,” Boehner told reporters at his weekly news availability.

“And I think you’re going to hear more and more about the bigger picture here, that what — the war on terror after 9/11 was done in a bipartisan basis on lots of fronts. And that bigger story will be coming out,” he added.

Pelosi says members who receive classified intelligence briefings are powerless to act on them — or even discuss them with staff — due to confidentiality requirements.

As a consequence, some members simply skip classified briefings to avoid being “hamstrung” by requirements they keep silent on the topics discussed.

So Nancy, just how stupid do you think we are? Or put another way, just how stupid do we now believe you are?

In the immediate post-9/11 atmosphere, did you really think the Intelligence community was only going to just “talk” about using enhanced interrogation techniques on captured high-level personnel?  Nancy, are you really that stupid as to believe that?  You believe the Intel types went to all the trouble of researching the techniques, getting legal opinions that ok’d their use…and then what? Let these masterminds of terror sit there in their cells getting three squares a day on our dime?

Nancy, if you really are that stupid and dim-witted, then you have no business whatsoever being in a governing, leadership position (You could still be in the government with those qualifications but definitely not Speaker of the House).  You should resign immediately. If you’re not that dim-witted, then you are an obvious liar that holds the average citizen’s intelligence in contempt. Again, you should resign immediately. Either way, Nancy, your response to this issue has tested you and found you completely lacking in integrity, honesty, and leadership. You don’t belong in DC, please leave and DLTDHYOTAOTWO.

Share on Facebook