The French were also one of the countries that were participating in the "Oil for Food" scam that gave money to Hussein so he could replenish and rebuild his military, an act that was in clear violation of the ceasefire from the 1991 Gulf War. France did not want to find any evidence of WMDs in Iraq. Any evidence found would have cause problems with their involvement of helping to rearm Hussein.
America has for a longtime had a Love/Hate relationship with France. They were instrumental in America's Independence from England and we give them full credit for that.
I agree we have to stomp these sh*theads out of existence, but pissing on our allies and invading countries that had nothing to do with terrorism (those mongrels only setup camp in Iraq once Hussein was out of the picture) isn't a good way to fight this war.
You are forgetting that Hussein was directly involved in Terrorism. Whenever a Palestinian became a suicide bomber and killed Israelis, there was a $25,000 reward given to the suicide bomber's family. That money came from Saddam Hussein. He financed it all. You are also forgetting about the training camp with the airliner that was used to train terrorists on how to hijack commercial airlines. Make no mistake, Hussein WAS directly involved, at least to a degree, with international Islamic Terrorism.
But please do not forget that even with that evidence, Hussein would still be in power if he had only let the Weapons Inspectors perform the inspections that they were supposed to do. Because of his reluctance, he was obviously hiding something. The weapons inspectors were there to see that the means to produce WMDs had been dismantled in accordance to the ceasefire of 1991 where President George Bush (41) stopped coalition forces only one day short of Baghdad. Looking back, that was probably a mistake, but President Bush (41) did not want to get us involved in a long war. Hussein was given a chance. We tried options that allowed Hussein to stay in power much to the disappointment of the Iraqi people. These options did not work because Saddam Hussein refused to adhere to the conditions and terms of the ceasefire agreement and as a direct result of these actions, we are now in a long war. He violated the terms by building and possessing weapons that were in clear violation of those terms.
We know that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, but under the Bush Administration, the Left-wing refuses to see the truth.
"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors..."
-- Bill Clinton, President of the United States
Acknowledgment of Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs. This statement was never disputed by the Left-wing.
"Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future..."
-- Bill Clinton, President of the United States
"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, and the security of the world."
-- Bill Clinton, President of the United States
Acknowledgment of the danger that Iraq under Hussein posed the rest of the world. This statement was never disputed by the Left-wing.
"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government - a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently..."
-- Bill Clinton, President of the United States
Acknowledgment that a new peaceful government was not only a good idea, but necessary for peace in the region. This statement was never disputed by the Left-wing.
"Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people."
-- Bill Clinton, President of the United States
Acknowledgment of the consequences of inaction. This statement was never disputed by the Left-wing.
"And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."
-- Bill Clinton, President of the United States
Acknowledgment of the danger that the Left-wing refuses to admit. This statement was never disputed by the Left-wing.
The truth is and was known, but due to the political agenda of the Left-wing and their attempts to destroy President Bush, they have sabotaged the efforts to bring peace and democracy to the region.
--TOP--
17 December 2006
Shelly Kucera wrote:
we support the troops. there doing what there told, we suport them, just not what there told to do,.
We hear empty statements like this all the time. And that is exactly what they are... empty. There is no substance to this level of support at all.
How are you supporting them? Are you just not spitting at them at the airport when they return? Do you just not want them to be hurt? Are you out protesting with the signs saying "I Support the Insurgents"? Are you calling them "Killers"?
If you do not support what they are doing, if you do not support their mission and their orders, then you do not support them.
Are you in any of these pictures? Do you associate yourself with CodePINK or any of their comrades?
How do you support them if you do not support what they are doing? You do not support the mission so what is it exactly that you are supporting?
What do you consider "Supporting" them? How are you supporting the troops?
--TOP--
16 December 2006
artforears@***.com wrote:
Even though I disagree with many of your website's statements, I appreciate the fact that your points are stated in a very calm, straightforward manner. In addition to that, I do understand that you do all you can to back up your points with real evidence. The problem I have with your site is that you've turned an ethics issue into a political issue. It seems to me that so many people are put off by your website because you completely overdo the whole conservative thing.
We appreciate your e-mail. Many of the issues that are discussed here are very much politically based. It is too bad, but Terrorism is a politically based topic. Many of these groups have strong Marxist, Anarchist, Liberal, Socialist, and Communist philosophies. And they cannot be separated from their beliefs. You can look at the rants of Ward Churchill and Jay Bennish to see that. You can look at it as they opened the topic and set the rules. Once you start saying that President Bush and the Right-wing is responsible for the 9/11 attacks, then it becomes a political issue.
Please do not take issue with comments of Karl Rove who made the following statement, just remember that is was said because of actions and statements of others that blamed the 9/11 attacks on America.
"But perhaps the most important difference between Conservatives and Liberals can be found in the area of national security. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war. Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. In the wake of 9/11, Conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban."
-- Karl Rove, White House Deputy Chief of Staff at the New York State Conservative Party, June 22, 2005
People want to discuss their views on fur and animal cruelty, and while your website does argue your points well, NOBODY NEEDS ANOTHER POLITICAL WEBSITE!!! Because so many people are eager to discuss their political views, these people will use any excuse for a politically-motivated debate. If you're so sick of people e-mailing you with poorly written emails about the Bush administration and whatnot, then don't give people the oppertunity to do that in the first place!
We never said that we did not want anyone from responding to this website and we never complained about poorly written e-mails about the Bush Administration.
The following is a good example.
We receive some e-mails such as the following e-mail from Mishmuns415@***.com. E-mails like these are useless as they have absolutely no intelligent thought in their creation or meaning, but we have decided to print this one to show how weak some of the people that hate us really are. This was the entire e-mail as we received it.
Mishmuns415@***.com wrote:
your website... sucks
burn in hell
This must be what you are referencing. That was the extent of the e-mail sent to us. We made the observation that it lacked any rational or intelligent thought. We are not saying that the sender is stupid, just that the e-mail lacked any substance.
People doing research are trying to learn about animal rights laws and both sides of organizations like PETA, but your site is not what it claims to be. One of your primary focuses seems to be Liberals vs. Conservatives, yet it should not be.
Because of the political agenda that these people have, to leave out the political issue would be to leave out a relevant part of the argument. PeTA has strong Liberal views. They are political in every way. They have a political arm that is trying to change the laws of this country and they are a Liberal group. And because of that, politics cannot be removed from the discussion. It is who they are.
The Earth Liberation Front, Earth First!, Animal Liberation Front, and others have very strong Marxist and Anarchist agendas. This is not something that we are accusing them of, but rather it is an agenda that they proudly admit to.
It would be easier to not offend so many people if you would just separate the two components of your arguements.
We are not worried about offending anyone. We have backed up our opinions with facts and we are polite about it. We do not resort to name-calling, personal attacks or insults. You have even taken the time to comment on this fact. If you look, you will see that we have merely quoted these people. Sometimes, we have stated our opinions and it is clear that they are our opinions. We do use sarcasm to our advantage and we do not apologize for that.
You could dissect my e-mail and say that you're only responding with politically-driven arguements because people criticize your views.
We are not going to "dissect" your e-mail. You took the time to write us so we will show you the courtesy of answering your e-mail point-by-point.
We do not care if anyone does criticize our views. The Hate Mail page is full of those that do. And we proudly display those that do criticize us.
However, if you really do believe that you're better than the Liberals who e-mail you, why do you stoop to their level by continuing a conversation that no one's ever going to win?
We believe that the Liberal agenda is a dangerous concept and history has shown that to be true. The Liberal agenda is based on Marxism which is also the base for Socialism, Communism, and Anarchism. These doctrines seem like a good idea on the surface, but there is a reason that walls have to be built to keep populations inside of countries that have these governments.
Why must you turn a website about suffering animals and their annoying so-called "protectors" into a shameful display of political hate? Even if people have very poor debate skills, they can still defend themselves. Animals, however, cannot defend themselves from humans.
This website is not about suffering animals. It is about Terrorism. We are an anti-Terrorism website. Unfortunately, the Left-wing in America tends to side with al-Qaeda and other anti-American groups, which as we said earlier, is the political influence.
In my opinion (which you don't have to agree with), you should focus on animals who cannot do anything for themselves, as opposed to liberals who cannot do anything for themselves.
We love that statement!!! The fact that is came to us on an e-mail from someone that is somewhat critical of this website, although respectfully so, is priceless. It has probably not ever been stated better that that.
"...you should focus (the content of the website) on animals who cannot do anything for themselves, as opposed to liberals who cannot do anything for themselves."
That quote deserves to be reprinted a thousand times.
Do us all a favor and stop your pointless arguments.
You could call it an argument if you like. But remember, we are only responding to correspondence that others sent us. We did not go to them, they came to us. Just like you, they wanted a reply to their e-mail(s).
Don't focus on something you can't do anything about.
We do not believe that it is pointless and that we cannot do something about what we see as a danger. Letting people know the truth about these groups and people is an important and worthy goal. We are reporting on what groups like PeTA are doing and we are placing it on the Internet for anyone who wants to read about it.
Your website criticizes the current PETA organization for their improper forms of protests, so how about focusing on changing the way people protest animal cruelty, not who they vote for!
We criticize PeTA and other groups on this website because of what they say and do. They can march and protest all they want. We have no problem with that. In fact, as with the other groups listed on this website, we want them to be as loud as they can be. We are not in favor of improper forms of protest. And these forms can be where there is destruction of property.
Because of their political affiliations, who they vote for, and who they endorse are the people who have the power to force the citizens of this country to live under the laws they enact. Animal Rights is their cover story. It is not their primary concern. We have this documented.
If you have not done so already, take a look at these links as they clearly document our concerns.
We know that you may not agree with everything on this website. The comments on the political side of the website are there because politics are a major influence on virtually everything in our daily lives in this day and age. Right, wrong, good, or bad, that is life. There are people that want to force their lifestyles upon everyone. Earth First! and their counterparts are very much in this category. You can see this attitude in the Earth First Manifesto. It can be summed up in their "STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES" that state:
1. All life is born equal and should not be exploited or abused.
What is considered exploitation or abuse? These people consider using a horse to pull a plow to be exploitation and abuse.
2. There is no right to poison, pollute or destroy.
Using a tractor for farming is considered polluting.
3. As little as we need, not as much as we want.
Here is the proof showing what they really are. Despite of what they want people to believe about helping animals and being tireless protectors of Animal Rights, here is the underling truth. They are not interested in helping animals and they are not interested in helping people live a better life. They want to lower the standard of living for everyone.
While these ideals may sound good on the surface, wait until they are forced on the public. They are very arbitrary. Do you want someone else telling you what you need? They are trying to create a lifestyle like the lifestyle that is forced on the North Koreans. These Animal Rights groups have a zero tolerance for anything that contradicts their beliefs.
--TOP--
15 December 2006
Genevieve Nichols wrote:
First of all you are cowardly right wing scum that is afraid to face what we say is the truth. Their are several documented cases of the dirty deeds that our government has been apart of and turned around and pumped us with lies about whas really going on behind closed doors. One example of this is the events of 9/11 you know that the Bush clan and the rest of thier cronies were behind it. Look at all there conections. I am not going to spell them out for you because if you had a brain you would research this fact as I have. It looks like to me you are to busy looking at photos and not opening your minds. Your retoric f*cking makes me sick. F*CK YOU!!! YOU WILL GET YOURS IN THE END!!!!!
We will break this down and reply to it on a point-by-point basis.
First of all you are cowardly right wing scum that is afraid to face what we say is the truth.
In the very first sentence, you start with personal attacks and insults. You do not even try to state your ideas.
What incredible arrogance!!! Just because YOU say something does not automatically make it true. And who says that what you have to say is the truth. You offer absolutely no facts. All you do is to call us cowards. We suspect that you are busy living on the freedoms that other "cowardly right wing scum" have provided for you. You offer nothing showing any amount of courage in anything you do. And please do not come back with the deceptive and misleading notion that you show courage by marching and protesting. This takes no courage at all. You have the freedom to march and protest thanks to others, primarily the "cowardly right wing scum" that have fought and died so as to provide you with that freedom.
Their are several documented cases of the dirty deeds that our government has been apart of and turned around and pumped us with lies about whas really going on behind closed doors.
You must be referring to the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" that Hillary Clinton invented to hide what the Left-wing was doing behind closed doors.
One example of this is the events of 9/11 you know that the Bush clan and the rest of thier cronies were behind it. Look at all there conections.
So you think that President Bush was directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Would you please elaborate on these connections as our information could well be tainted by some un-named Right-Wing Conspiracy that you seem to reference? We are asking for your help on this, so the personal insults are not necessary although they do raise the question as to whether you really believe your own statements. You do seem to be more focused on personal attacks and insults rather than the substance of your statements.
I am not going to spell them out for you because if you had a brain you would research this fact as I have.
You refuse to offer any facts, however arbitrary or unsupported they may be, to support whatever argument you have. You still have not offered anything other than personal attacks and insults, and you have done all of this in one sentence. It is amazing how you can use so many words without actually saying anything of value in the process.
If you had anything that was credible, you would have offered it to defend your position. We do not believe that you have anything that you really believe is factual, but that is our opinion, so please, spell it out for us. Tell us the secrets that you have unsealed from their protective wrapper. Share with us the results of your endless research and the facts you have uncovered and brought to light to support your position. We are waiting in breathless anticipation in hopes of attaining the knowledge that will open up and bring to light the truth about Right-wing conspiracy proving that President Bush was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks and not al-Qaeda.
It looks like to me you are to busy looking at photos and not opening your minds.
If you would please provide the relevant information that would open our minds to the truth of which you speak, we would be very appreciative.
Your retoric f*cking makes me sick. F*CK YOU!!! YOU WILL GET YOURS IN THE END!!!!!
What is so pitiful about these last three sentences is that they are the sum total of your ability to communicate with others having opposing ideas. They clearly show your ideas have no substance. You seem to have the inability to generate an idea without the use of profanity. The belief that using the F-word proves that you are a highly educated and intelligent person may have a lot to do with it because you use it a lot, but in reality, it shows just the opposite. It is the use of grammar deficits, profanity, and reactionary bluster you have displayed that shows your intellectual weakness. You have offered nothing but the hysterical ranting of a highly emotional and irrational individual who appears to have no control over her emotions. You have shown that you are clearly not in control of your emotions. Instead, you are controlled by your emotions rather than your intellect, which, as we have shown, is severely lacking.
Unless you are breaking the law and are thereby a criminal, no one is out to get you. It is a good likelihood that no one even knows that you exist. You see conspiracies around every corner and you live in state of constant fear that everyone is out to get you.
And you know what? You could be right!!! Remember, it is not being paranoid if people are really trying to get you. Your friends... your best friends... the people you consider to be the most trusted, could actually be agents sent by the Federal Government to "keep an eye" on you. Your every move and conversation is probably being monitored. Even as you read this, your "friends" are probably working on a plot to involve you in some criminal conspiracy that will have far reaching consequences designed to take away all freedoms and enslave the world's population. They may even be covertly directing your life to force you into a situation where there is no escape. Are you really willing to take that chance? You should be very, very careful what you say and who you say it to...
--TOP--
12 December 2006
We receive some e-mails such as the following from Mishmuns415@***.com. E-mails like these are useless as they have absolutely no intelligent thought in their creation or meaning, but we have decided to print this one to show how weak some of the people that hate us really are. This was the entire e-mail as we received it.
Mishmuns415@***.com wrote:
your website... sucks
burn in hell
We understand that you do not like our website, and that is understandable. Some people cannot face the truth, especially when is backed by facts that you do not like. The above well thought out and articulated opinions can be viewed from several different perspectives.
You never did disagree with any content on the website.
You did not actually say what pages of the website you found upsetting.
Which of the above links did you disagree with and why? Was there another part of the website you did not like or was it just the website in its entirety? Did you just not like the fact that we stood up against Terrorism?
If you actually have the courage to answer this e-mail, please do us all a favor and find some intelligent thoughts to explain your ideas and opinions. And please try to put together a sentence that actually has some semblance of an idea or rational thought. Get someone to help you if you need assistance, because the above idea shows nothing but the hatred that one would expect from someone whose core beliefs are completely made up of the very essence of hatred. But please correct us if we are wrong.
--TOP--
29 November 2006
R. Allen wrote:
You repeatedly claim that you don't espouse violence. If that's true, please explain what is the action you're calling people to? How is it that "one person can make a big difference"? In what way are you suggesting they "make history" rather than "read about it"? You do remember that the definition of terrorism includes the implyed threat to one's safety/welfare?
Yes, I remember, this is your reality, as you tend to rewrite definitions to your liking (liberal being one you've rewritten). Still, as it's often questioned, please clarify, what is your "call to action"?
That was the entire e-mail sent to us by Mr. R. Allen, a frequent writer to the website. Allow us to address each point individually.
You repeatedly claim that you don't espouse violence. If that's true, please explain what is the action you're calling people to?
Mr. Allen, it is always a pleasure to hear from you. We understand your need to return to this website time and time again. You despise us and our very existence, yet you cannot stop reading every word that we write. You read each and every word hoping to find something that you can spin into something negative so as to give you a reason to hate us even more. You have the need try and make us out to be violent while ignoring the violence that is openly advocated, promoted, and supported by the Left-wing that we have documented extensively on this website.
Getting back to your question, counter protesting CodePINK is a good example. This is one way of letting Medea Benjamin and the rest of her American hating comrades know that there are those that will oppose their actions. Everyone can make a contribution.
How is it that "one person can make a big difference"?
So you believe that one person cannot make a difference? That is the pessimistic attitude that is in line with the rest of Liberalism. If you look at most Liberals causes, no one can help themselves. The biggest fear that Liberals have is that there are people somewhere can live their lives without Liberal interference. This is what is commonly referred to as "Independence".
In what way are you suggesting they "make history" rather than "read about it"?
We are not suggesting anything other than taking a stand and getting involved as best as one can. Standing firm and unified against terrorism is all we ask. And here you are opposing this.
You do remember that the definition of terrorism includes the imply ed threat to one's safety/welfare?
We have not threatened anyone. We have not tried to stop anyone from speaking. Throughout this website, we have stated that we want these people to be as vocal as possible. We want these people to keep talking and spouting the anti-American, pro-Terrorist rhetoric. And we are watching and writing about it...
Yes, I remember, this is your reality, as you tend to rewrite definitions to your liking (liberal being one you've rewritten). Still, as it's often questioned, please clarify, what is your "call to action"?
What does "Call to Action" mean? Are you kidding with this question? It means get involved and do what you can do. Everyone has a contribution that can be made to fight terrorism. No one is expecting that you will be joining us in this "Call to Action", but we appreciate you asking about it.
We would love to hear your definition of "Terrorism" and why our definition is inaccurate. And please spare us the incompetent diatribe and talking points, "If no one gets hurt, then it is not terrorism."
As far as your definition of "Liberal", do not even think of giving the definition stating that Liberalism is free from prejudice and bigotry, open-minded and tolerant. There is nothing "free of prejudice and bigotry" or "open-minded and tolerant" about modern day Liberalism. The photographic proof is displayed on our editorial entitled "Left-Wing Protesters - A Photographic Record". They can clearly be seen advocating and supporting genocide, anti-Semitism, and extreme hatred. The total lack of tolerance by any definition of the Left-wing can be seen throughout this website.
You are going out of your way to HATE us. You want to HATE us only because we have an opinion that is different from yours. So much for being "Open-Minded and Tolerant" of other ideas. We have threatened no one, yet you actually want us to so you would have an excuse for your hatred.
If you look at the Mission Statement as we have written it, it was done in a manner so as to irritate as many on the Left-wing as possible and from your response, we have been totally successful.
--TOP--
28 November 2006
Brandon Purdie wrote:
It would appear that you either ignored or just didn't quite get anything that your 7th grade history teacher taught you. The so-called "noble" American Revolution was not noble, and it was the exactly opposite of what you personify it as. It was a terrorist insurgency.
Actually, it was fighting against extreme taxation and the injustices against the tyranny of the English Monarch, something equivalent to a dictatorship of today.
But what do you think that our 7th grade teacher should have taught us? And we would certainly like to hear specifics.
At the time, I doubt that the term "terrorist" was even around much less popular. Instead, they used the term "traitor." Your great American heroes were traitors. They didn't support their government.
They did not support England. The Monarchy did not consider the colonist anything but possessions. The colonists did not support a government that did not allow them to be free. Remember, the reason that the Pilgrims left England and came to this country was for the freedom to practice their religion in the manner they wished.
By this very decision to leave England and forge their own future in the unknown, the colonists were a very independent by nature and believed in the Freedom and Liberty that this country offered. From the very beginning, all they were looking for was Freedom and Independence. And this concept stayed with them and with those that joined them later. Leaving England and life under the King was a primary objective. No one was looking for gold and riches. They understood the "riches" that were inherent with freedom.
So what did they do? They took matters into their own hands. Democracy wasn't a very popular idea in the 18th century.
At the time, Democracy was not even in existence, except in a much smaller scale with a few Indian tribes. Benjamin Franklin and his friends set up a Representative Republic and the colonists were strong enough to keep it.
Monarchy was the flavor of the day.
And yet that was not the form of government that was chosen for this country. That in and of itself speaks volumes, if you really can appreciate and understand what a step forward it was for the freedom and liberty of all under it.
The colonists rose up and revolted against what they personified as an unjust government. Criminals and traitors created your country. When you put it in such terms, it's not quite so romanticized, is it?
Unless you take a look at the history since then. You can call the forefathers of the United States of America whatever names you want, but it does not take a way that they envisioned and created a country that is the envy of the world. There is a reason that more people want to immigrate to America than all the other countries in the world combined.
Parallel this to the situation we have today. The "terrorists" don't support their government. They see the action of the government as unjust. So, what do they do? They take matters into their own hands. Take a look at the 2006 elections. The leftists, Marxists, and "terrorists" just seized control of Congress. Obviously, America is shifting its balance.
Take a look at the 2006 elections. Those elections would not have given the citizens of this country the power to effect change without the actions of the forefathers that you referred to when you made the statement, "Your great American heroes were traitors."
The smell of revolution is on the wind, but that doesn't mean it has to be violent. This movement that you advocate is sickening and is no better then al-Qaeda.
Where have we advocated violence? Where have we tried to stop anyone from speaking their mind?
The ALF and ELF have one thing that definitively separates them from your movement. They don't harm humans physically, advocate that kind of attack, or anything even close to it.
No one here has harmed anyone or advocated harming anyone. The same cannot be said for some of the groups we have reported on this website. Perhaps a few examples are in order.
"In a war you have to take up arms and people will get killed, and I can support that kind of action by petrol bombing and bombs under cars, and probably at a later stage, the shooting of vivisectors on their doorsteps. It's a war, and there's no other way you can stop vivisectors."
-- Tim Daley, British Animal Liberation Front Leader, BBC interview, 1987
"No one is gonna listen to people walking in the streets with signs, not if there's profit on the line. But something will happen when there's people in the street with Molotov cocktails."
-- Zachary Jenson, ELF activist
"The blood of timber executives is my natural drink, and the wail of dying forest supervisors is music to my ears." A charming cartoon in the same Journal says: "Trees are for hanging. Kill a developer."
-- Dave Foreman, Earth First! founder
"I would be overjoyed when the first scientist is killed by a liberation activist."
-- Vivien Smith, Former ALF Spokesperson, USA Today, September 3, 1991
"While innocent life will never be harmed in any action we undertake, where it is necessary, we will no longer hesitate to pick up the gun to implement justice, and provide the needed protection for our planet that decades of legal battles, pleading, protest, and economic sabotage have failed so drastically to achieve."
-- ELF issued a communiqué claiming responsibility for an arson attack on a U.S. Forest Service research facility in Irvine, PA in 2002
If you want to read more about what these people have stated in public, read The True Agenda of the Animal Rights Movement.
If they burn down a building, it's completely empty. From the reading I did on your site, you have a killing agenda going on.
You must be reading things that do not exist. Again, where have we threatened anyone?
I'll eat crow here if you can give me an instance where anyone was killed by the ALF. I have yet to read anything about it.
The Animal Liberation Front took credit for leaving a "Molotov cocktail" outside the Bel-Air home of a UCLA primate researcher. The ALF boasted in a Communiqué that it had left a bottle filled with a flammable liquid on the porch of Lynn Fairbanks' home in Bel-Air on June 30, 2006. Through their ignorance, the explosive device was mistakenly placed on the doorstep of the faculty member's neighbor, an elderly woman. By blind luck or additional ignorance, the device did not explode and kill anyone. Had the device functioned properly, the 70-year-old woman and her tenant would have had a very difficult time escaping because the house is backed against a hillside. These people almost killed an innocent people. And it was done with total and complete indifference whether or not anyone was hurt or killed. It is only a matter of time before some dies a very painful death, then what are you going to say?
It is only a matter of time before someone is killed by the actions of these people. And then what are they going to say? "It was an accident. We did not mean for it to happen. It was not our intention to harm anyone. We are peaceful, non-violent people." There is going to be some explanation meant to excuse and/or legitimize their actions. What they really will mean is "We did not mean for anyone to burn to death while trying to escape the fire we set so we should not be held responsible for their agonizing death. Besides, putting us in prison will not do anything to stop us."
They are taking the law into their own hands and no one seems to care which laws they take into their own hands. We have not heard any of these people say "Do not kill anyone." All we have heard was "We did not kill anyone."
Destroying an enemy's assets without killing them is more noble anyways. You just want the people to die, and sadly enough, it's because you know you can't smash any of the actual groups.
We are not trying to smash anything. We are only reporting the truth. The people that we have listed are the ones that wish the death of others. You only need to take a look at the quotes above to see who advocates the death of others.
The beauty of the left-wing is that since it's based on ideas instead of material things, it can't ever be destroyed.
Here is a newsflash. The Left-wing is based on Marxist ideals. And it can be destroyed once the truth of their agenda is exposed. Freedom and Liberty are the principles that America was founded. The Declaration of Independence was a document of the likes that had never been seen before in the history of the world. It put power into the hands of ordinary citizens and made government subservient to the people. The Left-wing wants to change that. Capitalism allows for an ever increasing standard by which success is measured. Socialism, on the other hand, allows for an ever increasing standard of dependency. The Left-wing is definitely trying to increase the dependency of the population. This lowers standards for everyone. Take a look at "Left-Wing Protesters - A Photographic Record" and you can see this for yourself.
There is a reason that you do not like this website. We have not done anything to harm anyone, yet you have accused us of doing just that. You said, "From the reading I did on your site, you have a killing agenda going on," and "You just want the people to die..." If you are asking if the world would be better off if there was no Marxist agenda, then you are right. Marxism, Socialism, and Communism are cancers on the human spirit. They do nothing but keep repressed the natural yearning to be free that every person has in their soul.
Because of this belief that we have and the facts that support them, you probably wish that you could take away our Right of Free Speech and silence this website. We, however, do not try to keep you from speaking. Throughout this website, we have said that we want you to keep all of the Left-wing speaking their mind and we want them to be loud. We want everyone to know who and what the Left-wing truly believes, not what they want everyone to think and believe. This is done in an effort to camouflage the true agenda of the Left-wing. This is further proof that Left-wing is always trying to hide their true intentions.
--TOP--
12 November 2006
E-mails from Evan Albert
1 of 2
Evan Albert wrote:
To Whom it may concern:
I stumbled on your page today and I must say that I am very disappointed with your views. You put people who have "Marxist ideals" on your list of so-called "Domestic Terrorists." Because a person labels themselves as believing in Marxist ideals does not make them sub-standard for anything, it is just another political philosophy.
Your contention is that Marxism is just another political philosophy. Do you really consider Marxism is equal to Freedom and Democracy? Take a look at the "The Meaning of Marxism". Marxism and the closely related philosophies of Socialism and Communism have killed hundreds of millions of people over the last century. Under a Marxist form of government, the state owns their citizens... all of them. They maintain some of the very lowest standards of living on the planet. And you consider them to be "just another political philosophy."
You might respond by saying "Well it has caused a lot of suffering around the world with the various countries in which it has existed."
And we would be right.
I would respond by saying, so has the United States.
Well... here is an unexpected contribution from the "Hate America" crowd. What other country on this planet would you rather live? We would really like an answer to this question so we can see what we can do to get you there.
The United States uses various forms of terrorism to exploit and control. Take the war in Iraq for example. The soldiers on the street are intimidating symbols of American strength, and the people can do nothing but give in to the occupation, even though their countrymen are being slain everyday by our troops.
That sounds much like what Senator John Kerry said.
"There is no reason that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
-- Senator John Kerry (D-MA)
It is pretty easy to see who you support. We are not sure why, but by your statement, you obviously do not like American strength, which would be why you see the need to weaken America.
We keep our people in line by means of intimidation with policemen, who keep control by acting tough and literally scaring anyone they are around.
What are you doing or trying to do or who are you associating yourself with that requires policemen to use intimidation to keep you under control in public? If someone is trying to break in to your house, the first thing you are going to do is to call the police.
The main key to power control in this country is intimidation.
Again, what are you doing that requires this response?
You have the DEA who raid peoples houses, and rip them from their families because they had to grow and sell marijuana out of a desperate need for money to support their families.
It seems clear that you support drug dealers. Maybe that is your problem. You seem to be hanging out with the wrong people.
If you hang out with rich people, you will have rich friends. If you hang out with smart people, you will have smart friends. If you hang out with drug dealers, you will have criminals as friends.
We have things like the patriot act in place,which is blatant violation of our rights to privacy.
So now you want to hinder the ability to find terrorists. And where do you find this "Right to Privacy"? Where is it promised to you, especially if you are consorting with terrorists that are trying to kill Americans in massive numbers?
We have peaceful protesters who are beaten by policemen for simply expressing their views.
How are they expressing their views? Why is it that the Left-wing sees Terrorism, Arson, and Violence as examples of "expressing their views"?
We live in a terror state.
And yet people from other countries cannot seem to just stay out. They just keep coming as fast as they can. There is a reason that the United States is building fence on the US/Mexican border. This is just another example of how the advocates of Anarchism see America.
It is un-American to question Authority, and un-American to label some people as terrorists simply because their ideals do not comply with yours.
We label someone a terrorist when they earn it. The people or groups that we have labeled as a terrorist have either committed a terrorist action or have supported the terrorist actions of others.
Remember, the bill of rights allows us to say and print anything we want, because freedom of speech is a key element in ensuring that tyranny can not exist in this country.
From
Evan
We are not trying to keep you from saying anything you like. The same cannot be said for that of the Left-wing. Look at the behavior of CodePINK. They are rude, disruptive, and loud. They work tirelessly trying to prevent others from exercising their Right of Free Speech.
PS- Anarchism is a philosophy of peace and true democracy, and individual sovereignty.
Until you dissent against it, then there is a very good chance that your family will be tormented and your house burned down in the name of urban sprawl or some other excuse that is felt entitles you to commit some violent act. And if you believe that arson is not a violent crime, then you have never been a victim of arson, have you?
Take a look at the pictorial collection "Left-Wing Protesters - A Photographic Record". Where is the philosophy of peace and true democracy, and individual sovereignty?
You do not even like us speaking our mind. We have not tried to harm you in anyway, but you detest our very existence. How do we know this? You wrote this e-mail showing your distaste for our opinion that is backed up by facts and statements from the Left-wing.
It is not "evil" like you may say it is.
You probably have the best of intentions, but because of the violence that is inherent with these groups, they are "Evil". It is easy to refuse to accept the that these people will take the law into their own hands with total disregard to the people that are harmed by their actions, but that is what they are. That is what they do. That is what they stand for. That is why they are "Evil".
It is the belief that every human is their own being, and they should not be governed by the top 1% of the population.
You do not seem to understand the Representative Republic form of government that we have in this country. It is the method of practicing Democracy that we have in this country.
Anarchism is true freedom, and true freedom does not exist in the country we live in now.
We will give you that. Taxes are much too high. The fruits of labor of the common man is taken away and given to people that have not worked for it.
You say that you believe in true freedom. We believe in true freedom and independence. For instance, we believe in the freedom to drive any car we want. That means SUVs if we believe that this is the best vehicle that is the most suitable for our individual lifestyle. Many Anarchists and others with Left-wing beliefs would try and stand in our way of this freedom proving that they do not truly believe in freedom. They believe in the level of freedom where they decide what we are free to drive and how we are to live as they see fit for us to live. Take a look at many articles we have on the subject.
If you want more examples, go to the Editorials Page of this website.
The founding fathers even said that every generation must win back its freedom, and blind support of the state only ensures continued oppression.
That is why we are here. You cannot fight for freedom if you are not informed and if you do not know who the enemy is and what their true intentions are. These are the people that are trying to take your freedom away. And you will notice that we are not trying to take any freedom from anyone, so don't label us as "Evil". We believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights... all of them.
--TOP--
13 November 2006
E-mails from Evan Albert
2 of 2
Evan Albert wrote:
The American Revolution was An act of violence, are your founding fathers "Terrorists" because they stood up for what they believed was right and used violence to get stuff done.
It is too bad that this is the extent of your knowledge of American history. What they stood up for was no taxation without representation and the right to keep the fruits of their labor. The British was not allowing industry to thrive independently and allow for self-sufficiency of the colonies. The colonies were to be totally dependent and reliant on England. This was a lack of freedom where the colonists were completely at the mercy of the King of England. There was no freedom of speech whereby one could criticize the government or the laws.
These people are modern day revolutionaries, standing up for what they believe is right.
The Animal-Liberation-Front-type militants who firebomb property, issue death-threats to researchers, turning animals loose in habitats into where they do not belong, and wreaking havoc all around destroying years of research. These are not the actions of revolutionaries, but rather of terrorists. The 9/11 terrorists were standing up for what they believed was right too.
And we are not as free as you may think in this country, you have just been successfully brainwashed to believe in the so-called freedom we experience.
Why do you believe that you not free? What exactly do you want to do that the government is keeping you from doing? You can say what you want. You can march when you want. Your statement only leads to one question: Who do you want to harm?
The ALF workers did nothing more than release minks (not abandon, mink can perfectly adapt to north American wilderness) who were held in bondage in torturous fur farms.
You just do not see why this is wrong. How many times have some Animal Rights activists released animals only to have them die of starvation in the wild? They are found all over the county where they are released. While they probably make good eating for hawks, eagles, vultures, and the rest of the predators in the wild, it does more harm than good.
What if someone decided that your possessions should be taken from you? What if some tree hugger decides to liberate anything made of wood from your house? Do you drive a car? Does it burn gasoline? What if some eco-terrorist decided that your car was the reason for global warming? Should they be allowed to do what they want to teach you a lesson? It does not matter if you drive a hybrid, it still burns gasoline, and therefore you are still a major cause of global warming.
Regarding the conflicting political beleifs, people could say the same thing about your conservative nationalist thought process, that it has resulted in the
deaths of millions around the globe.
What "millions around the globe" have America killed? What people are saying this? The Socialist Party, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and HAMAS; which one of the enemies of America and their "Hate America" doctrine have you decided to believe and support?
People could also look at the facts. We are the ones that liberated the Death Camps in Germany in WWII. We are the ones that freed the Pacific of the Japanese and their reign of terror in WWII. We feed the world. We provide disaster relief around the world and we are always the first to do so. We are the most generous nation in the history of the world. We ended Communism throughout Europe. Remember the falling of the Berlin Wall? That was America that did that. We free entire nations from tyranny. This is a very costly process and the Liberals are always responsible for the obstacles that are trying to prevent us from spreading Freedom, Liberty, and Democracy to people that have the burning desire to be free.
Liberals want peace, but they are never willing to die for it. They always want others to pay the high price of freedom. They love marching in total security knowing that they risk nothing but perhaps a $50 fine for disorderly conduct or some misdemeanor that earns them a mild slap on the wrist. It takes no courage to march when you risk nothing. Your marching and protesting amounts to nothing more that walking around carrying a sign uttering whatever nonsense your emotions dictate under the security of total freedom and right to do so that other people provide (probably the very people you are protesting), so don't make it out to be more courageous than it really is. Try doing that in another country where democracy and freedom is not so widespread.
--TOP--
12 November 2006
E-mails from rambosucks@*****.net
1 of 2
rambosucks@*****.net wrote:
Anarchism is not a form of treason against our country but a way to try and better the country and the A.L.F. is not a terroristic group it is to free animals that are being killed so wasteful pricks can have certain things they want and to wear f*cked up fur, if they commit arson it is not harmful to animals or the humans that work there nor is it an act against america it is an act against the filthy money hungry pigs that test on the animals.
We never said that Anarchism is a form of treason against America. The treason against our country is the empowerment of Islamic terrorist against out soldiers. No one likes the war in Iraq, but when you support the insurgents and give them money, how you can consider that to be something other than treason?
That being said, the ALF is indeed a terrorist group. We say that because of their actions. One only needs to take a look at their history of criminal activity to see that.
You can use the excuse that this is not terrorism because no one has been killed, except for the animals that froze to death or died of starvation after being released, but that would be a lie. It is as though no one has been harmed at all and the activists that affiliate themselves with the ALF are simply good Samaritans.
also anarchists are not the violent terrorists you are.
Here come the denials and the circular logic.
you are violently targeting people you call "liberal radicals", you say they are RIOTS when they are peaceful protests that the cops turn into riots to protect the REAL moneyhungry terrorists from being disturbed, the ones who are making money off of sick things such as animal testing and mountaintop removal and deforestation.
The people we call terrorists are the ones that support, advocate, or engage in arson, criminal trespass, breaking and entering, vandalism, and/or murder with the intent of intimidation or coercion.
You can always blame the police for the problems. Protest organizers setup circumstances where arrests will have to be made for breaking the law and then the police are blamed for protecting a city.
Of course, the fact that someone is making money is the real problem. Capitalism is the problem. This is where Anarchism meets Marxism.
you compiled a list to inform the american nation of terroristic people. but for what purpose?
To inform the public of the danger that these people pose others.
so they could just send them hate mail and protect them selves of them?
Self-defense is a pretty good motive.
NO more radicals such as yourself are going to start targeting them and soon some form of violence will ensue. so you see YOU are truly the american terrorist.
Do you mean "targeting them" as the ALF done to justify their very existence? Do you mean "targeting them" as the ELF done to promote their agenda? Do you mean "targeting them" as SHAC has done to explain their motives?
"I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories and the banks who fund them exploded tomorrow. I think it's perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and toss them through windows. Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it."
-- Bruce Friedrich, PeTA Campaign Director, Vegan Campaign Coordinator, Animal Rights 2001 Conference, July 2, 2001
"If someone is killing, on a regular basis, thousands of animals, and if that person can only be stopped in one way by the use of violence, then it is certainly a morally justifiable solution."
-- Jerry Vlasak, spokesman for the Animal Defense League, April 1, 2004
"In a war you have to take up arms and people will get killed, and I can support that kind of action by petrol bombing and bombs under cars, and probably at a later stage, the shooting of vivisectors on their doorsteps. It's a war, and there's no other way you can stop vivisectors."
-- Tim Daley, British Animal Liberation Front Leader, BBC interview, 1987
"Anybody who does business with this company, they become a legitimate target for the campaign,"
-- Jerry Vlasak, an ALF spokesman and a physician in Los Angeles
"The big difference between animal liberation activists and other so-called 'terrorists' is the targets; no innocent victims are ever targeted in animal lib campaigns. If you are not abusing and exploiting animals, there is no need to fear for one's safety."
-- Jerry Vlasak, ALF spokesman
"If they won't stop when you ask them nicely, they don't stop when you demonstrate to them what they're doing is wrong, then they should be stopped using whatever means are necessary."
-- Jerry Vlasak, ALF spokesman, In the 60 Minutes interview with Ed Bradley, aired on CBS on Sunday November 13, 2005
"I am convinced that we can shut down a lot of these animal abuse industries whether the public agrees with it or not. And whether these industries are shut down by violent or non-violent acts in the end, to me, doesn't really matter."
-- David Barbarash, Animal Liberation Front (ALF) Spokesman, BBC Documentary, "Beastly Business", October 2000
Justify what these people have said. How can anyone with any ethics and morals not see these people as terrorists? We make observations and you call us terrorists yet you accept their actions as non-violent.
This is just another good example of where you are against free speech with people that disagree with you. You must be one of those people that see criminal activity as freedom of expression, yet when someone criticizes your actions, you see that as terrorism or some violation of your civil rights.
--TOP--
13 November 2006
E-mails from rambosucks@*****.net
2 of 2
rambosucks@*****.net wrote:
dude youre ideals are totally f*cked out of whack get youre sh*t straight
What information is incorrect or inaccurate? You seem unable to put a sentence together without using profanity to get your point across that you have not made. Perhaps you could be a bit more specific about the idea you are trying to get across because so far in this e-mail, you have failed to convey any intelligent ideas thoughts.
--TOP--
12 November 2006
Alan Washington McChinstrap wrote: wrote:
I recently visited your website and found it very slanted. It seems the only targets you choose to select are those that would be considered "leftist" or in your own words "Marxist".
Did you see them as having something other than a Marxist agenda?
While at the same time you choose to ignore other violent "terrorist" domestic groups such as the Aryan Nation or the Confederate Hammerskins, members of the latter being implicated in the death of American servicemen.
The reason for this website was to inform the public of the domestic terrorist groups and other enemies of freedom that exist in this country today. We thought it was common knowledge that Nazis and other White Supremacist were "Bad". Were you unaware of this?
But we have mentioned them.
If you look at the Links page and the Cindy Sheehan page, you will clearly see where we list Aryan Nation/Skinheads/White Supremacists groups that have allied themselves with Cindy Sheehan and CodePINK. So, we have not ignored anything.
It would seem that if you truly were supportive of the troops you would at least include a violent group of this nature along with the window smashing activists of the ALF or ELF.
Arm
What does writing about the exploits of the ALF and ELF have to do with supporting the American serviceman? You say that we should include a piece about the violent actions of the Aryan/Nazi movement and that would show support for the military. How does writing about the Aryan/Nazi movement and their violent actions show support for American troops? What connection are you trying to make?
We showed how these Nazi groups have allied themselves with the likes of CodePINK. Is that what you consider supporting the troops? Cindy Sheehan, CodePINK, and their friends and supporters are perfect examples of not supporting the troops and we oppose their entire agenda. We have written about it in depth.
--TOP--
04 October 2006
Miranda wrote:
Interesting website. I do not believe it is justifiable to resort to violence to try and promote one's cause, but I also believe these animal rights groups are quite radical. There are many environmental and animal rights groups who are quite peaceful and do not believe in resorting to violence.
It is well known that the Animal Rights Movement exploits the good intentions of honest people that believe they are helping animals by supporting groups such as PeTA only to discover that their actions are actually supporting domestic terrorism.
Also, how is this kind of violence any different than extremely conservative groups that blow up abortion clinics, federal buildings (OKC), and events like the olympics? There are probably even people who belong to these animal rights organizations who do not believe in the practice of violence.
It is not any different. These ARE acts of Terrorism. We have made that connection. We were very pleased when Timothy McVeigh got the death penalty and when that sentence was carried out. We are sorry that Terry Nichols did not receive the same because he certainly deserved it!
Also, many of the teachers on this list are just trying to see things from a different perspective. They are educated people who have evaluated the effects of some the decisions that this country has made and have come to different conclusions than you have. It doesn't make them any less American to have a different point of view.
But their Marxist agenda does not strengthen America. Every country that has tried a Marxist form of government has had a population that pays the price. There is a reason that very few people are trying to get into a Marxist country compared to the number that are trying to escape.
America is a great country, but it's not perfect.
Which country do you consider a better place to live?
There is an enormous rich-poor gap that is growing.
There are more self-made millionaires in this country than any other country and the number keeps growing.
We have almost no affordable health care and the costs are rising.
Healthcare costs are rising for several reasons that are not limited to the following:
Increased liability for doctors results in increased malpractice insurance premiums.
Few people know what healthcare actually costs. They just want insurance to pay for everything regardless of the price.
Too many lawyers and frivolous lawsuits.
Not enough doctors, nurses, and healthcare workers.
Too much bureaucracy.
These are just a few. You can probably come up with many more if you want to.
And globally we are not very popular.
Unless you want to leave the country you currently reside, then we are everyone's first choice. There is a reason that we have so many illegal aliens in this country. Everyone wants to come to America.
It does seem that we are not globally popular until there is some kind of disaster, and then who is the first country that everyone comes to demanding immediate assistance. It seems that we are not popular until someone needs something. But who is popular with fair-weather friends?
Even economically America has fallen from number 1 as the world's most competitive economy, where it has sat for over many years, and slipped to number 6 according to Financial Times. So obviously, something is not perfect right now.
And if we could get rid of the tax burden that funds all of the unnecessary social and welfare programs that reward people for not working, we would be much better off. If we could get rid of the unions that cause so much wasteful spending and limit productivity, we might actually increase productivity. So you are right, things are not perfect right now.
Sometimes we need to look at things from a global point of view and decide how to improve our country. Change must happen in order for things to get better. I don't think any of these teachers are advocating violence or even that anyone deserved to die in a terrorist attack.
You have not read what Professor Ward Churchill or Jay Bennish had to say to their classes.
I believe that they are trying to look at things from a different perspective and maybe you don't like their conclusions, and that's okay not to agree with them. But I don't understand how that makes them into the enemy.
When they advocate, support, or side with people that commit acts of terrorism, then they make themselves into the enemy. When they promote Marxism values when it is well known and understood that hundreds of millions of people have died under these values, it is clear that they do not have the best interests of Americans as a primary concern.
So first I want to ask you what does "target of opportunity" mean? Are you suggesting that these people should be targets for attack? I certainly feel that is what you are suggesting.
We are not suggesting that these people should be killed. The idea came from several Left-wing websites known for advocating and promoting violence and terrorists attacks against people that will not do what they say. Groups like the ones prominently listed on the Enemy Targets page of this website. We want them to know that we are listening to what they say and do. Make no mistake, many of these people are very dangerous and they are Terrorists in every sense of the word.
As for your feelings, you are making the well-meaning but innocent mistake of thinking "Emotionally" rather than "Intelligently". You mean well, but you do not want to hurt anyone's feelings. You are probably a very nice person, but you have unfortunately been indoctrinated with a bit too much "Political Correctness" that is too widespread in today's society.
As far as the name "Target Of Opportunity" goes... well... we knew it would ruffle "Emotional" feathers.
And why should these people be considered terrorists?
Because of their actions and/or support of people that consider terrorism as a legitimate tactic.
Perhaps this might be a good time to review what the definition of Terrorism really is.
Terrorism - The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or group against people or property with the intent of intimidation or coercion often for ideological or political reasons.
We should not and are not afraid to speak the truth. We have quoted what these people have said and what they have done. And they and their supporters do not like it at all.
You refer to them as "enemy targets" and "domestic terrorists". You obviously believe in freedom of speech since you have posted this website, so why is it not okay for these people to utilize that constitutional right?
Unlike many that have tried to stop this website, we have never tried to stop any of these people from speaking their mind. In fact, we have clearly stated that they should keep doing it. No one here is trying to stop them from spouting what their true agenda really is.
Many of these people have not committed any acts of violence. They are simply expressing a verbal opinion just as you are with this site.
That is totally correct and we have the right to comment on their statements. We have not accused anyone of anything that they have not done.
However, you seem to be calling for violence against these people, and if that is so, what justifies your violence?
Unlike many of them, we are not calling for violence.
Wouldn't that make you a terrorist if held to the same standard that you are holding these people?
This is a perfect example of trying to legitimize the actions of domestic terrorist and demonize the many that comment and speak out against their actions. For that question to have any merit at all, you would have to show where we have tried to engage in terrorism. And you are deliberately leaving out that piece of information with the hopes of curtailing our right of free speech that you are so protective of for people and groups that are active supporters and advocates of all manner of Terrorist actions.
We have the courage to speak the truth and challenge anyone who wishes to commit acts of terrorism and they find this very frightening.
And if you aren't proposing violence against these people what exactly is the goal of this site?
If that is what you want to believe, you are free to do so. We have answered your questions in a direct, polite, and courteous manner. We know that we probably are not going to change your mind about actions of the people and groups listed on this website and that you want to consider us to be the "real" terrorists. You have alluded to that fact several times.
I would greatly appreciate it if you could respond to this e-mail.
Thank you,
Miranda
Maybe we are wrong, but it seems like you actually want us to be the Terrorist and not the ones that are actually supporting, advocating, and/or committing acts of arson, vandalism, and murder.
--TOP--
26 September 2006
Erin Schoeneman wrote:
To whomever this reaches,
I am a high school youth who is very much interested in animals rights. I have been a vegetarian for almost half a year, and a vegan (a person who abstains from all products of animal origin) for half of that time. I am certainly aware that an e-mail will not change your opinions, but I would like to offer you a different perspective, if possible, of animal rights activists. Perhaps I will serve only to enforce your hatred of our type, but nonetheless I would like to try.
We welcome all comments.
It is certainly true that PETA kills animals. It is also true that animal shelters kill animals. Healthy animals are euthanized not only by PETA, but all over the world because there are simply not enough homes for them. However, it is not PETA's goal to offer sanctuary to individual animals.
We have clearly stated this.
Rather, the goal of PETA is to offer a future free of suffering for animals. PETA's main goal is then to offer propaghanda to those who would distribute it, and to influence legislation and company policies.
PeTA's main goal is not Animal Rights. This is merely a front. If you want to see what PeTA really stands for, read "The True Agenda of the Animal Rights Movement". The PeTA leadership openly advocates and supports domestic terrorism.
There are actual organizations and individual people who are dedicated to offering sanctuary for animals (such as Farm Sanctuaries East and West). Saying that PETA should be offering homes to dogs is akin to saying that people working for the benefit of the homeless should be working instead for the benefit of disabled children.
We never said that or anything like that. PeTA makes the claim that they care more for animals. When an unwanted animal is placed with PeTA, it is done so with the assumption that the animal will be placed in a good home. Often times, the animal is euthanized in a van right in front of the house that it considered a safe home only minutes ago. There is no attempt to find a home for the animal.
Still, I don't agree with most of the things that PETA has done or continues to do, but I am grateful for their work on behalf of animals when it does, in fact, benefit animals.
Make no mistake, PeTA is after money. They want power and control. They are not the warm and friendly organization that they claim to be. It might have started out that way, but it has become an extremist group that supports terrorism. PeTA hired Gary Yourofsky as a spokesperson and lecturer for PeTA proving the leadership openly promotes terrorist tactics. They probably do not advertise his violent terrorist actions to the supporters of PeTA.
The ALF is particularly controversial, and my opinions on their actions might just earn me a harsh reply. I agree with the late Martin Luther King, who said, "An unjust law is no law." I admit that the actions of the ALF are easily perceivable as being terrorist actions, but I would beg to differ with any who would offer such a perception.
"Easily perceivable as being terrorist actions..." What else would you call them? This is the problem with the Animal Rights Movement. They see violence, arson, and destruction of property as examples of Free Speech rather then what it really is... Terrorism! If you do not understand this, then you do support terrorism. Take a look at the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front. How do you not consider their actions as anything other than Terrorism?
I do believe that animals are not ours to use for experimentation (especially when it serves cosmetic purposes only), food production, labor, entertainment, or clothing.
In the natural world, every living thing, be it plant or animal, uses and exploits everything that exists on the planet in order to survive just one more day regardless of the degree of separation. This is where all living things share a common link.
The most effective way to aid animals is to free them immediately, and destroy any equipment that is utilized in the harm of animals. This both aids the animals who are in harm's way, and makes it a financial risk to continue to inflict harm upon animals.
The most effective way is to kill everyone that opposes or dissents against your beliefs. There are some in the animal rights movement that have already suggested this concept.
If you think that the above examples should be illegal, then you should go through the legal channels to get the law changed. If you choose to engage in violence, then you are engaging terrorism.
However, these types of actions easily reach the level of arson and possibly murder, which are denounceable actions that I, and most other animal rights activists, do not support.
By your own words, these actions easily reach the level or arson and possible murder which shows the violence that is inherent Animal Rights Movement. Whether you denounce them or not, you associate yourself with and support the actions of these groups. You setup the chain of events that lead right up to the point of violence actions and then say that you denounce what follows by saying that we did not mean for that to happen. That is not very responsible. But it is others that have to live with the consequences. And that is not very ethical... or moral.
The one thing I am truly concerned over from your website was the statement that read something along the lives of, "Animal rights activists hate humans."
We are not going to let you get away with that. We have NEVER said that!!! Where have we stated that Animal rights activists hate humans? In the interest of fairness (and humor), we did have a link to a website that advocates the complete elimination of the human race. "The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement" was cited as a Left-wing idea that might the Earth's problems.
To the contrary, many animal rights activists are advocates for animals not because they hate humans, but because they believe that peace for all creatures begins with peace for the least of creatures, those being animals.
Do lions have the right to kill antelope? Do bears have a right to kill salmon? Do wolves have the right to kill sheep? This is nature. Mankind is part of nature. We have the right to feed ourselves. We have the right to eat what we can in order to survive without having to be told that we must eat tofu because someone else believes that we should not be allowed to eat chicken. We do not tell you what you can or cannot eat and we wish you would show the rest of the world the same consideration.
Many animal rights advocates also believe in human rights, and donate to human rights causes (such as scholarships for people with financial need, drug awareness groups, and others). Many animal rights activists are advocates for animals simply because they are the most abused of any group. Should any other group face such cruelties and prejudices, those activists would certainly be more concerned with that group and not animals. It is not because they are animals - it is because they suffer more than any others.
Every creature suffers and every creature dies at some point. Snakes eat creatures whole and alive. Cheetahs on the African savannah play with baby gazelles to teach their offspring to hunt before killing them.
If you are worried about animal testing, this is done in order to provide safe and effective medicine to people. You are more than welcome to boycott any medicine that has been tested on animals or have had animals used in the research to acquire the new drug.
If you are concerned about the cosmetics industry testing their products on animals, you need to speak to the lawyers that sue entire industries when they perceive a wrong has been committed on anyone or anything. Any industry that used animals to test products spend a lot of money that they would just assume save and not spend on the testing if it were not necessary. Liability issues brought about from trial lawyers suing for hundreds of millions to line their own pockets. Perhaps if you concerned yourself with limiting the liability of these companies, there would not be so much animal testing.
I certainly realize that I have not managed to change your beliefs or opinions. Hopefully, I have enlightened you to the other side of animal rights activists.
We firmly believe that many animal rights activists have good hearts. They have just been misled by PeTA and the rest of the animal rights movement that support the violent actions against people that they do not like.
I pray that I have been sufficiently concise and polite.
You have been extraordinarily polite and civil and we applaud you for it.
It is difficult to remain so, considering the frusterations of caring deeply for a group that is shown little or no mercy by the vast majority of people.
If you have a solid argument based on fact, it will hold up to scrutiny. We have a solid argument. We have presented it in detail and we show the facts that back up what we believe. You have read it and you really have not contradicted any of the content on this site.
It seems that your problem is you have a good heart and soul, but you are aligning yourself with many that do not. You are being tempted by ideals that are illegal, immoral, and unethical. You want to take action, but you are following leaders that are not looking out for your best interest. They are not being honest with you. They are tempting you to commit arson and other acts of violence.
I understand your opposition to people like me, but maybe you will come to understand and even tolerate us.
Sincerely,
Erin Schoeneman, Alabama high school sophomore
We do not oppose you. We oppose the actions of Terrorists. And we have the courage to call them what they truly are. And they are Terrorists. They are Terrorists because of what they do. We hope you do not become one of them. We hope that you will not give them your support. You have a bright future ahead of you. Please do not do something stupid to ruin it. Stupidity has its consequences.
--TOP--
21 September 2006
Christine 09wilsoc wrote:
Hi there.
I'd like to say that all though PeTA does fund groups like ALF and ELF not ever member is supportive of it. I personally don't believe burning down people's homes will help in any way.
You seem to be taking personally the reference of PeTA supporting terrorism. This is, of course, what they want you to do. They want YOU to assume the responsibility for THEIR actions. And unknowingly you do to some degree by supporting PeTA because they do support groups like the ALF and the ELF.
PeTA, like any organization, has points that not all of the members agree with!
Does PeTA know that you do not support their position of supporting the ALF and the ELF? Have you actually told them and received a response? Did you tell them that you will not stand for the destruction of property? You probably did not. Silence does not relieve you of your responsibility to do what is right, especially when you actively associate yourself with people that wish to harm others.
But that's the way the world works! Not everyone will have the same mind set.
But, whether you realize it or not, unless you take a stand against terrorism, you become part of the problem. All that is needed for evil to exist is for good people to do nothing.
I hope one day to create my own animal liberation organization that doesn't fund other organizations that hurt others, an organization that only helps. However, I'd like to once again point out although PeTA does fund ALF and ELF, PeTA doesn't do any terrorizing and neither do many of the members.
So your contention is that funding terrorism is different that actually engaging in terrorism? And only some of PeTA's members are actively engaging in terrorist actions. And how does this NOT make PeTA a Terrorist organization?
Please ease up on the PeTA bashing, many of us are actually helping animals without hurting anyone. (except of course, hurting the financial state of cruel companys that preform cruel acts to animals through boycotts)
We are not bashing PeTA, we are merely telling the truth. Even you did not contradict anything on the website. If you want to boycott McDonalds, go ahead. If you want to support the burning down of a McDonalds, you become one of them.
Would you stop or testify against someone that did have some role in arson, vandalism, or some other form of domestic terrorism? Do you have the strength of character to stand up against these illegal actions?
Many are acting within the law. Many are not. Many want to live within civilized society. Many do not. If you want to see what PeTA really stands for, read "The True Agenda of the Animal Rights Movement".
Thank you for reading, I await you're responce!
~Christine
Keep in mind that PeTA leadership does not really care for animals. They maintain a very Marxist agenda that is kept from the rank and file membership. We agree that many of the supporters have the best of intentions, but their good intentions are being exploited by radicals that have a less than honest agenda. If you read the link above, you can see their primary goal is not Animal Rights.
--TOP--
We did try to respond to Christine as is our policy, but she gave us a bogus e-mail address.
31 August 2006
E-mails from ally.kerr@******.net
1 of 6
ally.kerr@******.net wrote:
"...And it doesn't matter if it goes out with a bang either!" Who says that these people are non-violent!"
If a bomb goes of in a building with no people in it it's not violent.ALF always make sure there is any people or animals in any building they destroy.
interseting site though
ALF supporter
If someone burns down your house when you are not at home, are you saying that you do not considered this a violent act? If the 9/11 terrorists had crashed empty aircraft into an empty WTC, you would consider that non-violent? What kind of insane logic is that?
Take a look at another action of the ALF. They did not make sure that no one was in this house because there was someone home. In fact, it was the wrong house completely. The ALF does not make anyone safer, they only endanger people.
The Animal Liberation Front took credit for leaving a "Molotov cocktail" outside the Bel-Air home of a UCLA primate researcher. The ALF boasted in a Communiqué that it had left a bottle filled with a flammable liquid on the porch of Lynn Fairbanks' home in Bel-Air on June 30, 2006. The problem is that the explosive device was mistakenly placed on the doorstep of the faculty member's neighbor, a 70-year-old woman. This level of incompetence speaks volumes about the organization, but the failed arson attempt points at a much more basic failing of the group. They did not make sure the house was empty i.e. that nobody was in the house at the time of the attack and they did not even make sure that they had the right house
This organization originally centered its efforts on nonviolent resistance such as releasing test subjects from laboratories. But their tactics have grown to include fire-bombings, vandalism and physical attacks. They have threatened people connected to animal testing. And now, they are endangering and targeting innocent people.
It was only by chance that the Molotov cocktail failed to explode. According to arson investigators, had the device functioned properly, the 70-year-old woman and her tenant would have had a very difficult time escaping because the house is backed against a hillside. These people almost killed two innocent people. And it was done with total and complete indifference whether or not anyone was hurt or killed.
--TOP--
31 August 2006
E-mails from ally.kerr@******.net
2 of 6
ally.kerr@******.net wrote:
If the buildings and planes were empty that is not violent. Yes it is an attack on America but not violent if there was nobody involved.
It is a shame that your view of history is so weak. On the night of November 9, 1938, violence against Jews broke out across the Reich. It appeared to be unplanned, set off by Germans' anger over the assassination of a German official in Paris at the hands of a Jewish teenager. However, German propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels and other Nazis carefully organized the destruction. In two days, over 1,000 synagogues were burned, 7,000 Jewish businesses were trashed, looted, and burned. This will be forever known as Kristallnacht or the "Night of Broken Glass," so named for the shattered glass from the store windows that littered the streets.
This is where your views and the Nazis are so similar. But, according to you, these attacks are to be considered as non-violent crimes, that is, if you even consider them as crimes at all. The Nazis did not, why should the supporters of the ALF. They both show the same intense hatred and disrespect of others.
The ALF and other such organizations are no different than the Hitler Youth.
How would someone burning down my house when I was not there be violent?.
The fact that it could be considered a "Hate Crime" and you consider it to be non-violent. You consider this to be a non-violent crime. You are obviously not a homeowner. You have probably never had to really work for anything in your life, have you? Do you even consider these actions to be of a criminal in nature at all?
The molotov that was left outside the door of the person was a one of and is not in the ALF guidelines.
You do not seem to be so concerned that the elderly woman that owns the house and her tenant could have lost everything, not to mention that they could have been burned alive. That at least deserves a footnote of concern. It is a good thing that she and her tenant don't depend on the likes of you to protect them.
So the ALF should not have put it on there website.
Do you think that is the only thing they should have not done? You are not upset that there was an attempt to destroy a home and simultaneously burn two people alive, but rather that the ALF should have not have put it on their website. These criminals/terrorists thought that they had the right house, yet they never did check to see if the house was occupied. Why? Because they did not and do not care about the occupants or anyone else that lived nearby. They do not care about the people that have to clean up the sum of their destruction. They do not care about the danger that the firefighters are exposed to. They did not take into consideration the lives of others. They never do.
Unless they only put it on because it didn't harm anybody and resulted in a experimentor resigning, therefore helping animals without harming anyone.
The attempt to burn down that house was an act of violence to intimidate the person that they thought lived there. Do you think that they would have shed a single tear if the occupants of the house had burned to death? They would have done everything to cover up the act with total disregard for the harm and destruction they caused. Their actions show extreme indifference and selfishness toward others.
It would seem that they are guilty of attempted arson and attempted murder. But, as you see it, this falls under non-violent crimes. The Ku Klux Klan used the same intimidation strategy against Blacks and Jews. Explain how the ALF and their counterparts are different.
Perhaps this might be a good time to review a couple of definitions.
Terrorism - The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or group against people or property with the intent of intimidation or coercion often for ideological or political reasons.
Tolerance - The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.
Which of these definitions applies to the activities of the ALF that you support?
Maybe this should have been posted on a militia website instead and not the ALF site.
SMASH HLS
ALF
That's your answer!!! That's your solution to this crime!!! This is why the ALF and their supporters as so dangerous. If the occupants of that house had died, would you have helped the killers after the fact?
The ALF has actually tried to kill people. Explain why hard working people should not be allowed to defend themselves against Nazi styled terrorist attacks and why you consider them to be non-violent!
--TOP--
01 September 2006
E-mails from ally.kerr@******.net
3 of 6
ally.kerr@******.net wrote:
"You probably have not had to really work for anything in your life, have you?"
How would you know that. Not all in ALF are hippies and soapdodgers as I thought you would have known that anyway.I have a full time job that is hard work most days so don't come out with statements like that.
So your mortgage and possessions in your house are more important than the mortgage and possessions that belong to other people. You did not seem to be so outraged about destroying someone else's house and all of their possessions that took decades to collect. Your compassion for others is extraordinary.
"You do not seem to be so concerned that the elderly woman that owns the house and her tenant could have lost everything, not to mention that they could have been burned alive. That at least deserves a footnote of concern. It is a good thing that she and her tenant don't depend on the likes of you to protect them."
Obviously I would not have liked it if the old women had died or her tennant as they were innocent and were not the target.
You would not have liked it... You should have been outraged!!! You should have been but for the fact that you support the terrorist tactics of the ALF. You support the terrorist actions the ALF actively participates and promotes!
Make no mistake; the elderly lady and her tenant WERE targeted! They might not have been the intended target, but when you leave a fire bomb at someone's house, they are most assuredly are targeted! That fire bomb did not get there by itself. It was deliberately placed there with the intent of destroying everything in the house, including people and animals that might be living there.
"They did not take into consideration the lives of others. They never do."
They never do? WHAT!!! check out the behind the mask dvd and you will see many examples of ALF making sure there was no people inside. e.g a women from an ALF group talked about when they burned down a slaughterhouse, they watched the place for about 2 months before they burned it to the ground. They checked all the entrances and exits and even went into the building to check if people were there. Then they planted the device when they were all still in the area of the building so if anybody came they would not have set them off.
They never did check to see if anyone was home. They did not even check to see if they had the right house. THEY DID NOT CARE!!!
You seem to be missing a fundamental concept. IT IS NOT YOURS TO DESTROY! Do you want to have your house and possessions destroyed because someone disagrees with you? Of course not, but that might be nothing more than a selfish, elitist Liberal attitude that makes you think that you are better than other people.
Are you using the "Behind the Mask" DVD as a means to legitimize your actions? All you have done is to prove that their actions premeditated. But somehow in your mind that makes it acceptable. And you condone it. How does this not make you an advocate of terrorism? YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM AND NOT PART OF THE SOLUTION!!!
And keep in mind that no one checked the house when they placed a Molotov Cocktail at the residence of an elderly woman and her tenant, because they were in the house at the time the fire bomb was placed on the doorstep. And you want everyone to believe that these people are not a danger to others. These people are terrorists and pose a danger to everyone!
Also Rod Corondo said that for every action that is taken 5 or 6 are not because of the risk to human life.
And that makes arson and attempted murder an acceptable method? These are the selfish antics of selfish people.
"Explain why hard working people should not be allowed to defend themselves against these brown shirt, terrorist attacks and why you consider them to be non-violent!"
You can't be talking about the scientists surely,they are hard working people. WOW sounds really hard. What did you do at work today, Oh it was really hard I had to hold down a we beagle dog and a monkey withn 5 other people and then cut it open .It was hard.
We are talking about anyone that goes to work and earns a paycheck. If you want to change the law, go through the law making process. Do you want to have someone come after you because they believe that you do not work hard enough or they do not like your job or they do not like the car you drive? If someone can find something wrong with what you do, then by your reasoning, they should be able to come to your house and non-violently burn it down to the ground and if you just happen to be in it, who cares. Or maybe they decide that they do not like your neighbors and accidentally burn down your house with you in it. How you cannot accept that this is wrong shows a total lack of humanity on your part.
I knocked on my neighbours door but I don't know if I knocked to hard. It made a noise, so is that me being violent to a door.The door didn't scream or beg me to stop like the animals do.
The door you speak of is an inanimate, lifeless object. Knocking on the door does not harm anyone or anything. This is not a violent action. Kicking the door in does harm the door. This could be considered as a violent action. Arson is considered a violent action. In animal research, animals are unconscious/dead when they are dissected. To do it when they are alive and conscious is of no practical use.
--TOP--
02 September 2006
E-mails from ally.kerr@******.net
4 of 6
ally.kerr@******.net wrote:
"You seem to be missing a fundamental concept. IT IS NOT YOURS TO DESTROY!"
I believce this as well but in ALF and my opinion the animals are not the scientists to destroy.So in this I believe that 2 wrongs make a right in this sitiuation. e.g In America there is the death penalty for humans that kill other humans,so in that circumstance I believe that is 2 wrongs but the US government doesn't think so,they think it is right.
But it is the law passed by the lawmakers in this country. We understand your disdain for democracy and the democratic process. We know because you say that working the legitimate way does not work. For instance, you do not want other people coming to your residence and taking out their frustrations on you and your property, yet you think that you should be allowed to do so with others.
"You would not have liked it... You should have been outraged!!! You should have been but for the fact that you support the terrorist tactics of the ALF. You support the terrorist actions the ALF actively participates and promotes!"
OK I would have been outraged at an innocent life being taken. But I still support the actions taken by the ALF on other issues, e.g dogs,mice rabbits and monkeys taken from labs.
You would not have been outraged. You are doing everything you can to ensure that at some point someone is going to be killed through your actions and/or support of the ALF. You support activists that are setting the stage for this very eventuality.
"And that makes arson and attempted murder an acceptable method?"
NO not attempted murder, arson is acceptable to me when there is nobody in the building but I understand why people wouldn't mind if there was a few "scientists" in the building at the time.for every action that is taken 5 or 6 are not because of the risk to human life
If someone was stalking you and vandalizing your property, you would not feel the same way. There is always someone that can make a case for the destruction of property belonging to other people. To follow through and destroy someone else's property violates everything that is "Moral" and "Ethical". These concepts may be foreign and strange to you considering your terrorist ideology, but they are prerequisites for a civilized society and civilized people.
When someone is killed, and it will happen, how will you justify it? What are you going to say? "It was an accident. We didn't mean to kill anybody. We did it with the very best of intentions."
The killing of people that disagree with the Animal Rights movement is what they are trying to legitimize, at least in their own minds and the minds of their supporters. You prove that with your comment, "I understand why people wouldn't mind if there was a few "scientists" in the building at the time."
You don't mind people burning to death in their own house. You rationalize that to be a good thing. And how is this not considered Terrorism?
When an innocent bystander or a firefighter is killed, how are you going to rationalize that?
"All you have done is to prove that their actions premeditated. But somehow in your mind that makes is acceptable. And you condone it. How does this not make you an advocate of terrorism? YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM AND NOT PART OF THE SOLUTION!!!"
So if they were not premeditated they would be okay?. I never said I wasn't an advocate of the"terrorism" that the ALF indulge in.I'm part of the problem,FUNNY, all I want is to stop needles suffering to millions of animals and if that means making a few "scientists" scared then so be it.
We know that you are an advocate of terrorism. All you want to do is to be an advocate of terrorism. Somehow, this makes you feel important. Arson is a means to feel good. What you want to do is not what you ARE doing. Supporting terrorism is what you ARE doing and you do not have a problem with that. In fact, you are proud of it.
"In animal research, animals are unconscious/dead when they are dissected. To do it when they are alive and conscious is of no practical use."
WRONG vivisection - the act or practise of performing experiments on living animals,involving cutting into or dissecting the body.So you agree with ALF then that vivisection is a nonsence, good to see that.
We certainly do not agree with the ALF!!! To dissect the animals for the sake of dissecting them when they are alive and conscious is of no practical use. That is what you implied. The term "vivisection" was never mentioned and we never stated that vivisection is nonsense.
Experimenting on animals is an important and necessary part of the medical advancement process, unless you wish to use humans to perform experimentation. At some point in medical research, this is a step that has to be taken. But, if you have a better method, and with all of your education in the medical field, perhaps you could offer an alternative that is equally successful.
"We are talking about anyone that goes to work and earns a paycheck. If you want to change the law, go through the legislature. Do you want to have someone come after you because they believe that you do not work hard enough or they do not like your job? If someone can find something wrong with what you do, then by your reasoning, they should be able to come to your house and burn it down and if you just happen to be in it, who cares. Or maybe they decide that they do not like your neighbors and accidentally burn down your house with you in it. How you cannot accept that this is wrong shows a total lack of humanity on your part."
So Osama bin laden is entitled to a pay cheque then cause a lot of people in the middle east agree with him.NO. ALF don't go after people cause they don't work hard enough I was just pointing out what they do and how hard it must be for them.If someone found something wrong with what I do it would be interesting as I don't kill anything or mutilate living things for a living.As for burning down my neighbours house it wouldn't be that bad he's a butcher(only joking).We are talking about life and death of millions of creatures not just an argument with a neighbour.lack of humanity on my part,yeah and the "scientists" who cut up animals are humane cuddly lovely human beings I don't think so.
Like Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and Adolf Hitler, the ALF violently goes after people that disagree with their ideology. They are nothing but arsonist, vandals and criminals in general. They do it because they believe that they should be exempt from what is expected from the rest of the population.
I can understand why you say do it in a legitimate way but that just simply doesn't work. If it did millions more would be killed.So while peta and other groups write to companies and the government the ALF tries to help the animals of today and not the animals of 1000 years like the other groups would settle for.
So you want to take the law into your hands. If it is good enough for you, then it should be good enough for everyone else to do the same against you based on their personal beliefs without any consideration for the laws that govern civilized society. But you obviously consider that these laws do not apply to you.
--TOP--
02 September 2006
E-mails from ally.kerr@******.net
5 of 6
ally.kerr@******.net wrote:
Still liberal OK whatever.
I will respond to your other e-mail tommorow as I'm a busy man.
You took the time to write this e-mail to tell us that you will write us later. That's akin to writing a note that merely says, "Don't read this note." Are you out of ideas?
Still a racist republican?
Once you run out of ideas and you have nothing of substance you start the name-calling. And in typical Liberal fashion, you then resort to the race card. We have not made any racial comments. This is a hard concept for you to realize because you believe the very lies that you keep spouting. Of course, the hardest concept for you to comprehend is that we are not racists at all. But that would require you to vacate the thought processes that invariably and almost without exception leads you directly to the planned name-calling portion of your rants.
It is you that supports those that wish to destroy the property and lives of others that disagree with you. Based on your statements and what you have e-mailed us, you have more in common with the Nazis and the Islamic terrorist groups based upon your actions and rhetoric. And the people associated with these groups are indeed racists of the highest degree.
You have even stated that arson is an acceptable form of protest.
As that is all I seem to see coming out of republicans mouths. WOOOHOOO we got guns, big guns ours are bigger and more powerful than yours. HAHAHAHHAHA They are a joke and I bet you love Bill O'rielly on Fox HAHAHAHA another joke of a republican.
ALF
You are beginning to ramble incoherently. You have strayed off course in an attempt to change the subject because you know that the terrorism that you are supporting is morally and ethically bankrupt. That last statement isn't even good enough to be considered an intelligent thought much less a thought of any of substance.
You don't have a good argument. You don't even have a good excuse.
--TOP--
04 September 2006
E-mails from ally.kerr@******.net
6 of 6
ally.kerr@******.net wrote:
"But it is the law passed by the lawmakers in this country. We understand your disdain for democracy and the democratic process. We know because you say that working the legitimate way does not work. For instance, you do not want other people coming to your residence and taking out their frustrations on you and your property, yet you think that you should be allowed to do so with others."
Yes I do hate democracy( just parts of it) that is why I'm planning on moving to Iran but the republicans will probably go to war there next so I might change my mind because I don't want to be like the 100 000 civilians dead in Iraq now do I.
We know you hate democracy. We know you hate America too. Most of the Left-wing extremists do. It is an all too common trait of the Left-wing demonstrating the hatred and anti-American sentiment that is an intrinsic quality of their ideology. And what a surprise it is that you want to go to the one country that is the principle sponsor of terrorism on the planet.
Are you talking about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that Saddam Hussein killed by nerve gas or the torture chambers and then buried in mass graves? Let us not forget the Iraqi civilians that are targeted by Islamofascist every day.
If you think that America killed 100,000 Iraqi civilians, you believe way too much of the propaganda that the Anti-American groups are spouting. If America killed that many, the Iraqis would not be so happy to have us in their country.
"You are doing everything you can to ensure that at some point someone is going to be killed through your actions and/or support of the ALF. You support those that are setting the stage for this very eventuality."
In the 20 years since the ALF started they have killed nobody and in fact it is the normal animal rights activists who have been killed i.e Jill Phipps who was run over by a meat truck at a demo in England .Nobody was charged for this so where's the wonderful democracy here then.
We cannot comment on that because we have no information on this incident and you offered none. Perhaps you should contact Scotland Yard.
"All you want to do is to be an advocate of terrorism. Somehow, this makes you feel important. Arson is a means to feel good."
Yeah I feel really important and looking at fires makes me so happy maybe I would like it in Australia because they get a lot of big bush fires that would be perfect for me(NOT).
You are the one that stated you support arson. You seem to take great pride in that statement.
"The ALF goes after people that they disagree with. They are nothing but arsonist, vandals and criminals in general. They do it because they believe that they should be exempt from what is expected from the rest of the population."
They believe that smashing a few windows to save millions of animals is in the scale of things acceptable.
That is called vandalism. They also believe in arson. That is a crime too. This is what makes these people criminals. If you want to see what else they believe, read "The True Agenda of the Animal Rights Movement".
I noticed you didn't reply to the death penalty point that I sent.(INTERESTING)
Allow us to respond. This is your quote.
"In America there is the death penalty for humans that kill other humans,so in that circumstance I believe that is 2 wrongs but the US government doesn't think so,they think it is right."
Just like a prison sentence, the death penalty is an earned punishment. It is a severe punishment for severe crimes. Nothing more, nothing less. Again, if you have a problem with the law, feel free to contact the lawmakers and get the law changed. This is the way that Democracy works. This is probably the part of democracy that you hate because it requires an intelligent argument instead of arson, vandalism and other direct actions.
Still republican? you have stupid arguments, you have no excuse. and you shoot each other in the face when you go hunting. BUSH and Chaney HAHAHAH.
ALF supporter
You support arson and vandalism and you are an advocate of terrorism. And you say that we have stupid arguments. This is exactly what we would expect to hear from someone with the ideology that you seem to embrace.
If we may offer a quote from Melissa Mona who has been a contributor to this page, "we are not worried about your violent rhetoric because, judging from your grammar deficits, faulty thinking and reactionary bluster, you're a small and stupid group." And based on the tone of your e-mails, you also seem to be a very angry person full of hate.
And if you are referring to Vice-President Cheney and the shooting accident, it was an accident and you cannot accept that. Even Nancy Pelosi gave up on this accident because there was nothing more to it. And we noticed that you cannot even spell his name properly. You really should familiarize yourself with the "Spell/Grammar Check" feature on your computer.
--TOP--
We had a reply from another reader concerning above ALF supporter.
02 September 2006
TargetOfOpportunity Supporter wrote:
"If a bomb goes of in a building with no people in it it's not violent.ALF always make sure there is any people or animals in any building they destroy."
You have got too be kidding. I can't believe you have the audacity to admit that you would destroy a structure and not call it a violent act.
So if someone was to burn your car up, or your residence without your permission what kind of act would you call that, non-violent.
Why don't you ask the federal government if you destroy a building, what kind of act they consider it?
"If the buildings and planes were empty that is not violent. Yes it is an attack on America but not violent if there was nobody involved.How would someone burning down my house when I was not there be violent?.The molotov that was left outside the door of the person was a one of and is not in the ALF guidelines.So the ALF should not have put it on there website.Unless they only put it on because it didn't harm anybody and resulted in a experimentor resigning, therefore helping animals without harming anyone.Maybe this should have been posted on a militia website instead and not the ALF site."
Your beliefs are truly scary in every way, shape, and form. You are in fact a terrorist by your own admission in what you just wrote.
TargetOfOpportunity Supporter
Well said. Thanks for your support.
--TOP--
30 August 2006
David L. Bragassa wrote:
You might want to take another look at your definition of terrorism. It describes the USA perfectly.
David L. Bragassa
Here is more proof of the Left-wing, Hate America mentality. Mr. Bragassa, in your mind, what countries do you not consider fitting the description as terrorist nations? You and others of Left-wing speak ill of America, yet whenever the world needs help, who is the first country that is asked to provide assistance to any disaster? That's right, America.
What country gives aid to countries that speak ill of America? Once again, it is America.
We feed the world and nobody is grateful.
Whenever a country is invaded by another i.e. Iraq moving into Kuwait, North Vietnam moving into South Vietnam, North Korea moving into South Korea, Japan moving into China and the rest of the Pacific, and Germany moving into all of Europe. How many more examples do you want?
What country sent the most amount of aid when the Tsunami hit South Asia on 26 December 2004? Who would have guessed... it is America. And when other countries pledged aid to the disaster, who delivered it to people that needed it? The American military ensured a timely delivery. Keep in mind that these are the people that the Left-wing refers to as terrorists and killers.
You have no idea what terrorism really is. We understand your intense hatred for America so aside from America, what other organizations or countries does this definition of terrorism describe? And please, have the courage to be specific in your reply.
By the way, what country do you claim citizenship?
--TOP--
12 August 2006
Dignified to Ride! wrote:
Sir,
After reviewing your web site, I think the name and the people who are behind it represent everything wrong with our current political body in America (Beginning with the name "Target of opportunity" which comes across as saying: Aggressive, violent, sneaky, underhanded etc).
What is wrong with us publishing the statements made true word for word. Anything that is written on this web site is true to fact with the author that stated the statement named as well. As for you calling us sneaky, underhanded and violent, oh and let us not forget Aggressive... The name "Target of Opportunity" speaks for itself. We are saying in our name as well as our mission statement that we are making the American public aware of people who speak out against everything this nation stands for, what we believe in, and what we fight for.
We do not in any way support people who continuously send aid in the way of money and/or supplies to Terrorist countries who kill Americans and our Allies daily.
We also feel that organizations that desecrate the American Flag and try to harm our troops fighting for our country with the words and or actions deserve the full recognition they get. After all this "Target of Opportunity"... they say what they feel and we respond with what we feel, even though we back our responses up with facts.
You people seem to revel in pettiness, your short-sighted view coupled with your undying belief in the 19th century theory of manifest destiny is not only outdated but dangerous and irresponsible (Please check the history of Great Britain, Rome, Greece, China, Soviet Union, etc).
Are you reading the Left-wing Liberals statements and the pictures that depict where their true beliefs stand... or are just reading the writing on the wall and not looking in? We stated throughout this website that we are true Americans. We do not support the burning of our flag. We do not drape it around us like a toga. And we do not hang it upside down as a sign of disrespect as we march down Main Street USA... We support our troops and what they are fighting for, we support aid to our allies and we are PROUD to be Americans.
In reference to the 19th century, it sounds like are still living in the dark ages. Half of the countries you stated above where under very harsh governments and later in the 20th century were under Communist rule. Perhaps you are the one that needs to come into the 21st century.
I suggest that instead of spouting hate you go to a public library and take out a book on world history: you then may realize that the course our nation is on is unsustainable and will only lead to ruin.
At no time do we spout hate. We respond proudly with the truth and facts to contradict the hate that the Left-wing so vocally and proactively speaks of and, like you stated above, we are standing up to prevent further disaster to the disease that the Left Wing Liberals are so quick to spew forth.
Question: Is it better to stand up and point this out to prevent disaster or to be a sheep and follow the corporate status quo that leads to ruin?
Answer: It is better to aggressively discourage terrorism... especially against America because that is where we live. To negotiate with terrorists is pointless. While you think that talking things out with these people is a good idea, you cannot ever trust what they say. You do not seem to understand this fact. The best way to stop terrorism from these people is to let them know that we will retaliate in strength against any act of terrorism until they realize that they should have never considered terrorism as a viable method to achieve their goals.
Believe it or not these "Protesters" you rail against actually love this country and hate to see it destroyed by a bunch of right wing extremists who (you included) preach very similar rhetoric to what is coming out of Iran, if only different in detail! Think about it.
Dan Sorger
They do not love this country. They love the freedoms that others have fought and died for and then protest to defame their sacrifice. "Left-Wing Protesters - A Photographic Record" shows the protesters that you are so fond of. You must be beaming with pride - they sure are.
--TOP--
09 August 2006
E-mails from Bobbee P.
1 of 3
Bobbee P. wrote:
I find it amusing that you criticize a group for calling our soldiers 'killers'. To KILL is what we do in times of WAR. You can't tell me that bombing and causing casualties and LOSS OF LIFE is not KILLING.
From this viewpoint, it is easy to see that you do not support members of the American military.
Perhaps a definition is required.
Killer - someone who causes the death of a person with disregard for ethics and morals.
There is no doubt that this is the way you see the military along with those that we criticize for calling our soldiers 'killers'. Incidentally, these are the very groups that "claim" to have the best interest of military personnel in mind.
It would be interesting to note how you believe that this definition applies to al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and HAMAS. These people are killing Iraqis yet you do not even acknowledge that fact. It is no surprise that you side with and even defend these terrorist groups.
You do not even understand the reason for a standing military as we have in America. All you see are occupational troops and killers. You think that our troops are there to conquer another country. Nothing could be further from the truth, but because of your white-hot hatred for everything that America represents, you are never going to understand this concept.
What f*cked up planet are YOU from?
The one where the United States comes to the aid of people that need help while asking for very little to nothing in return. What planet are YOU from?
That's the problem with the religious right: they can't mind their own business and 'live and let live'. And even now the single most important issue of all to the Bush administration seems to be GAY MARRIAGE! Which they use as a smoke screen to hide behind to avoid the REAL issues. F*CK, we all KNOW gay marriage will be legal, it's just a matter of time -- so you may as well learn to LIVE with it because no matter WHAT you do, PROGRESS still moves busily forward.
What issues are you speaking of, the War on Terror? That is pretty much the dominate issue. You seem to like Gay Marriage. Check out Applying for a Marriage License. We would absolutely cherish your opinion.
Instead of being 'Born Again', why don't you ignorant f*ck tards simply 'Grow Up'??!
And for you, instead of being 'Born Again', why don't you consider becoming 'Basically Educated'. Your vocabulary certainly needs to be enhanced. You seem incapable or having an intelligent conversation without resorting to less than educated language.
An education would prove more useful instead of spouting off Marxist rhetoric that you do not even begin to understand yet seem to follow blindly. But perhaps we can assist you. These groups that you seem to look upon with pride and reverence bear strong Marxist beliefs. Read The Meaning of Marxism and then maybe you can understand what their true agenda really is.
And do not think that we did not notice your disdain for the religion thereby demonstrating the basic Marxist concepts so fundamental with your core beliefs. We understand that you do not like the "Freedom of Religion" in the United States Constitution that is guaranteed to all citizens. This is just another stab at taken at the religious beliefs of others thus showing a severe lack of tolerance and respect on your behalf.
--TOP--
01 September 2006
E-mails from Bobbee P.
2 of 3
Bobbee P. wrote:
At LEAST you spoke out, it's usually the exact opposite with you revisionist fundie idiots.
And of course, in the first sentence, you resort to name-calling. This is due to a lack of substance, ideas, and a vocabulary of sufficient strength so as to speak without the use of profanity. You have no place else to go. This is merely an observation and not a criticism. We do not expect anything more from you.
We have not revised anything. Where did you come up with that? It is the Left-wing that is constantly trying to revise history to their liking.
But I must tell you that even under your own definition of 'killer', the US military is not off the hook. But I don't differentiate between 'killer' and 'murderer' in times of war. If someone murders, they should face harsh consequences, PERIOD.
What does that say about the terrorists that are killing American and Iraqi alike? What should the harsh consequences for these terrorists be? That's where our military enters the picture, or as you call them "Killers".
I'd also be very interested in knowing what kind of twisted idea of 'morality' you idiots hold.
Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness, Freedom to choose the course of your life, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, etc...
It's unfortunate that not even a SINGLE of Bush's few dozen eligible extended family members had thought of joining the military. WHY? Isn't it OBVIOUS? They don't have enough conviction or stupidity to stand up for Bush's war of aggression to reset the table on foreign oil. And you idiots buy the lies hook, line and sinker, which is further evidence of your obvious contempt for Justice and Patriotism.
This is going to be a shock to you, but here in America we have a totally voluntary military. The personal in the military joined the military because they wanted to. Nobody asked you to do a thing. You are allowed to bask in the freedom that they provide and ensure for you without asking anything in return. They do not even ask you to be grateful for their blood and sweat. They certainly know that they would not get it from you.
As for my feelings on Muslim extremists, I see them in the same way I see the religious fundamentalists here in the states. We have our OWN fundamentalists to worry about and I'm not even quite sure that these guys were not paid off by the Bush administration to pull off 9/11. After all, Bush had given the TALIBAN 243 million dollars just before 9/11 in 2001. What could be more obvious than that?!
So you think that the 9/11 attacks were staged by the Bush Administration. In order to come to that conclusion, you have to believe that the Bush Administration was more likely than the Islamic terrorists to execute that attack.
REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of PanAm Flight 103!
REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993!
REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon!
REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the military barracks in Saudi Arabia!
REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the American Embassies in Africa!
REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the USS COLE!
REMEMBER the MUSLIM attack during the 1972 Olympics in Munich!
REMEMBER the MUSLIM attack on the Twin Towers on 9/11/01!
REMEMBER the MUSLIM attack on London, England on 7/7/05!
REMEMBER all the AMERICAN lives that were lost in those vicious MUSLIM attacks!
If and your side wants to believe that the Bush Administration planned that, go ahead. More power to you. And please, be loud and vocal about it.
What I find so hypocritical is that the 'Christians' who fight against gay marriage are behaving more like the TALIBAN and AL QAEDA, then like peaceful people.
And here is where the Left-wing shows their hate for religion. Where do Christians kill homosexuals in this country as a matter of law? Violence against anyone is against the law. In fact, violence against homosexuals is actually considered a "Hate Crime" and that has even more severe consequences.
Which is why gay marriage WILL be legal despite any attempts by religious bigots to change the definition of marriage. I find it very hypocritical too, that under the Bush administration, the size of the government has nearly DOUBLED, and now the religious scum are asking for even MORE control by government into our private lives with their illogical anti-gay legislation.
And here is where the Left-wing shows their hate for religion. Where do Christians kill homosexuals in this country as a matter of law? Violence against anyone is against the law. In fact, violence against homosexuals is actually considered a "Hate Crime" and that has even more severe consequences.
Take a look at the definition of marriage
Marriage - the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
Who is trying to change the definition of marriage? It is the "religious bigots" and "religious scum", as you so eloquently put it that are trying hard to keep the institution of marriage sacred and traditional.
You seem to be exceptionally fond of Gay Marriage. Check out Applying for a Marriage License. We would absolutely cherish your opinion on why you think that the religious types are trying to change the institute of marriage and not the Gay community.
As for an education, it seems you could have used something other than 'home SKooling' which is precisely what is transforming our nation into a country full of religious freaks and MORONIC rednecks.
You are the one that cannot see the difference in the American soldier and the Islamic terrorists. You are the one that does not understand the institute of marriage is the foundation for civilization and how civilization relies on the institution of marriage for stability. It goes much deeper than insurance benefits. But you obviously do not possess a clear or even a rudimentary understanding of it because it is not politically correct.
I regard "ideology" and "morality" as the two most dangerous forces on this planet. About "ideology" I have expressed my suspicions elsewhere; here I will only mention John Adams's verdict that shortening "ideology" to "idiocy" would save some space and add a great deal to clarity. He had the French Revolution in mind, but "ideologists" haven't changed much since then, have they?
You blame us for having an "ideology" and "morality". If you believe that "ideology" and "morality" are the two most dangerous forces on this planet, then it must be safe to say that you have no "ideology" or "morality". This does not surprise us. There is no use for additional comment on this because by your own admission, you are devoid of both.
As for "morality" -- or "moralic acid" as Nietzsche called it -- I consider it the major cause of almost all the major atrocities not caused by "ideology." This wonderful invention, "morality," allows people -- normal, ordinary people -- to do things so cruel and violent that they could never bring themselves to do them for selfish reasons. What the sociopath and sadist do for fun, the "moralist" does on behalf of "duty" or "justice."
Your pessimism seems to be your driving force. For everyone that uses morality to do wrong, there are thousands that use morality to do right. But you deliberately disregard and even condemn these people. In fact, you refer to them as "religious freaks", "MORONIC rednecks", "religious bigots", and "religious scum". You seem to have issues with people that have and live by a morality, which is not surprising due to your lack of any "ideology" and "morality".
"Morality," today, allows Moslems to stone women to death, as it once fueled the Christian witch-hunts. "Morality" has excused every war, and glorified some of them. "Morality" constantly plots to subvert the Constitutional guarantee of free speech. "Morality" inspires gay-bashing and the bombing of women's clinics. Why, without "morality" we might all suddenly go stark staring sane.
This is something that you need not fear because, by your own admission, you do not have any morality. Your bashing of people that have religious preferences is just a by-product of your immorality. But this is a perfect example of the lack of morality and lack of tolerance that is so typical of Liberal and Left-wing thinking.
My vision of Utopia would include a hell of a lot more kindness and mercy than we have now, and a hell of a lot less "morality.'
-- Robert Anton Wilson
OK, we get it... you do not like the concept of morality, you have no morality, and you do not you wish to ever get any morality. And this is a surprise to whom???
--TOP--
02 September 2006
E-mails from Bobbee P.
3 of 3
Bobbee P. wrote:
I find it very hypocritical that the GOP and religious terrorist groups in the US have the audacity to criticize groups like the Taliban (that LIBERALS were protesting and petitioning well BEFORE 9/11) yet Christian groups and fundamentalist terrorists like Timothy McVeigh (another radical CHRISTIAN) in the US behave more like the Taliban than anyone else?
This is just the kind of statement we would expect from a person with no sense of morality.
Could it be that the REAL TERRORISTS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISTS!?
In your mind, that is probably the way you see it. In your mind, the founding fathers of the United States probably fall into that category. This is the hatred that is so typical of the far Left-wing.
And just as Bush Sr. used the CIA to seduce, arm and train terrorists like Noriega, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden, sucking up to them as long as they did OUR dirty work, his SON is now using our own troops to do our OWN 'dirty work', and if it were true that we were in Iraq to fight TERRORISM, why would Bush & Cheney be raking in so many BILLIONS from Cheney's own Halliburton who's sucking out the oil, the Texas fuel barons who are profiting from this war and now Bush even has the AUDACITY to CUT THE PENSIONS of our veterans while innocent men and women: AMERICANS die for the profits of a few!
Noriega was helping the drug cartels to smuggle drugs into America. That is normally considered to be bad, but you seem to be of the opinion that he should be allowed to do this. But you have no morality.
It is easy to see why you like Idi Amin of Uganda. He had no morality either. With his rise to power in 1971, Idi Amin promising to abolish secret police, free all political prisoners, introduce economic reforms, and quickly return the country to civilian rule. However, elections will never be held during Amin's reign. Shortly after taking power Amin established the so-called "State Research Bureau," which were actually his own brand of death squads to hunt down and murder anyone that showed any dissenting opinions. Amin also had strong ties to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). What did America do to assist him in his rise to power?
You are forgetting the history of the war in Iraq. It is pointless, but we will try to explain it. Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990. Saddam Hussein's intent was to take control of the rich oil fields in Kuwait. He did not believe that anyone outside the Muslim world would do anything. The coalition forces led by America gave Iraq until January 15, 1992 to remove forces. If he had done so, there would not have been a war. He should have, but he did not.
Iraq had the 5th strongest army in the world. No other Muslim country would consider going to war to save Kuwait.
Before the coalition forces entered Baghdad, a ceasefire was signed. The weapons inspectors that were there to make sure that certain conditions of the ceasefire were upheld. They were asked to leave by Hussein under the Clinton Administration. There were 17 UN resolutions that were broken by Saddam Hussein that were conditions of the ceasefire. Iraq also helped to finance Islamic terrorists around the world. It is widely known that Iraq financed PLO suicide bombers in Israel.
With his gassing of the Kurds in the 1990s and the mass graves discovered by American troops, it is easy to see why, with your total lack of any morality, you would be disappointed to see a comrade taken down.
We helped Osama bin Laden and the Afghans when the Soviet Union invaded in 1979. We sent them the means to fight the invasion and we asked nothing in return. There is little doubt that you would have certainly sided with the Soviet Union in this invasion, especially when you consider their hate for religion and lack of morality is on par with yours.
You either don't see the danger of radical Islam or you do not believe that we should fight terrorists that are actively plotting our destruction. Take a look at "Islam - A Religion Based on Terrorism". And with your beliefs on Gay Marriage, you would not fare well with anyone in the Muslim community.
We do not know Vice-President Cheney's accountant, but wasn't he forced to sell his stock holdings in Halliburton when he ran for Vice-President so as to avoid a conflict of interest?
Why are we in Iraq? We are in Iraq to fight for our country and support our allies and to give everyone the opportunity and freedom to travel anywhere in the world without fear of being killed by terrorists. But do not worry because no one is going to ask you to help in the fight. You only need to bask in the freedom that others provide for you and they do so without even asking you for any gratitude or appreciation.
But more specifically, and the only thing that American hero, Cindy Sheenan has asked is if you are so much in favor of this war, why haven't you VOLUNTEERED to go replace a tired soldier on his second or third tour!? Why are you not using your OWN money to go to fight for 'freedom' in Iraq? Could it be that you really understand that it is just a front to make the wealthy in the US BECOME MORE wealthy?
We would love your opinion on our Cindy Sheehan page.
And you BET I hate religion. I hate religion because it prevents people from operating their own brains and from thinking rationally. And all religion has done in the past is create more wars, because EVERY war is about one of three things: GOD, LAND, or OIL.
No morality and hatred for religion. You seem to hate America as well. You hate the religious values that America was founded. By your own admission, you are full of hate and you have no morality. You could be the poster child for the extreme Left-wing. You really should contact the people at Air America Radio. You are just what they need.
Air America Radio
Voicemail: (212) 871-8290
E-mail: comments@airamericaradio.com
And I think it's about time we got rid of GOD, because GOD was the first COP and the REAL terrorists today are the cops among us: the FBI, the CIA, the Secret Police, Scotland Yard, the DEA, the ATF, and the WTO---> THOSE are the ones who are ones who are waging the real wars every single day. Wars against our freedom's, our liberties and our PRIVACY. Mail is being x-rayed, phones are tapped, the internet is not secure, there's surveillance camera's in every burger joint, street corner, CHURCH, mall, coffee shop, parking lot and coming soon to every dashboard near YOU. All due to the paranoia of a country gone insane with fear and a president who insists that we all behave as TERRORIZED as he behaves.
This is the ideology of the far Left-wing.
And Bush is the first president in US history who's used FEAR to control us and take away our rights. And the odds are STILL just as low for someone to die in a terrorist attack than to be struck by lightening and when we are willing to give up our rights because of the environment of FEAR that the corporate media has created to kiss our freedoms goodbye, you can REST ASSURED that the Terrorists have truly WON. When Americans are too afraid to go on an airplane, we've already LOST the war against terrorism.
You knowledge of history is as we expect. Remember FDR and the internment camps. Ponder on that one for a while.
But people like you refuse to believe that the REAL 'Evil-DOERS' are the corporations that puppeteer the politicians which are bankrupting the entire planet. Enron, Exxon, Shell, DuPont, Dow Chemical, General Electric, Boeing, Lockheed, Hughes Martin; WHO GET OFF and dangling the ENDLESS carrot of western corruption in the faces of those who DON'T BUY IT, don't WANT it, can see right through it, can't afford it and have every right to get pissed off enough to give it as good as they FUCKING GET IT, because you REAP what you fucking SOW. And in the end, it's only 'We the People' that are getting screwed. The innocent will always suffer, the GUILTY will always be set free, IGNORANCE is BLISS, WAR IS peace and PEACE is not PROFITABLE!
And here is the Marxist, Anti-Capitalist ideology and the intense hatred that is controlling the Left-wing. You probably want to get rid of all corporations. We should probably just liquidate them completely.
Keep up the good work. You are definitely a credit to your immoral culture and ideology.
If you have the courage, read "The Meaning of Marxism", "Left-Wing Protesters - A Photographic Record", and "50 Difficult Things You Can Do To Save the Earth".
--TOP--
01 August 2006
R. Allen wrote:
I see you deny Mr. Fedyski's claim about the protest numbers in Washington DC last Sept. Then you accuse him of making them up, and that there's no way to check those figures. Yet I had no trouble doing so simply by using google. The result was he overestimated the anti protest protester numbers, and underestimated the actual protest numbers. It seems you have no trouble finding "facts"(?) to support your positions, yet are suddenly incapable of discovering facts that dispute your claims.
We did not deny his claim that the protest took place, we disputed the stated figure of 250,000-300,000 protesters. There is a difference. We contacted the Washington DC police and they gave a figure of 150,000 protesters. The figure of 250,000-300,000 that Mr. Fedyski claimed was somewhat overstated by about 100%, which was the point we were trying to make. Again, we stated that protest groups rarely have the numbers they claim. We stated that the figure sounded made up and we standby that.
Since you seem to lump all liberals together, as in if you don't stand up against certain liberal groups, a person is supporting any and all liberal comments.
We do not lump all liberals together. This premise is wrong and merely an attempt to be critical of our existence. This website has shown what these groups have said and done and from that, it is easy to see what their true agenda is. But if you support terrorists, then you cannot say that you are opposed to their activities.
If that is so, aren't you then similarly responsible for any neocon comments that you don't refute?
It is not so, therefore, the rest of the question is irrelevant.
You claim to support freedom of thought, as long as it aggrees with your interpretation of information, yet when it differs, you place people into a group, and refer to their letters as "Hate Mail" , though I usually see little or no hate (except in your responses), just questions and wishes for you and your group to read more varieties of news sources.
Usually it is the "Hate Mail" that is of the most interest to others. For instance, you do not seem to be all that sympathetic to our existence at all or even our right to express our opinion. The very fact that we have printed your e-mail shows that we support freedom of thought.
Where have we expressed hatred toward anyone that written us? We have been polite and to the point on our responses. You have obviously not read the "Hate Mail" section and read the venom in the e-mails that come to us.
Perhaps checking with BBC's world news, moveon.org, and /or freespeachtv, you might learn something not sanitized by Fox and other sources.
Where do you think we get much of our information? Moveon.org is a goldmine of information. While they consider us and those like us to be the bane of their existence, we do not want them to stop what they are doing. Their view of the world and their ideology are very much what we have written about. We have even referenced the Socialist Worker Online on more than one occasion.
--TOP--
31 July 2006
E-mails from Jeannette Marxen
1 of 2
Jeannette Marxen wrote:
Against my better judgment, I took a look at your anti-CODEPINK website. Of course I was not surprised by the hate you spewed forth but after stumbling through all the lies I just had to respond. See, I have listened (or more accurately read) your opinion so now let me share with you my opinion of CODEPINK.
Please do. We welcome your input.
I have been attending CODEPINK events in D.C. for the past year and it has been the most inspiring and empowering group I have ever been involved with. You claim that CODEPINK is a sexist organization that only puts up with men if they "shut up." That is NOT true. The women you attack on your web page are the founders of CODEPINK but at every event I have attended there have been a large percentage of men. CODEPINK does not discriminate and many times will work in cooperation with other groups, some that have a mainly male membership.
Let's address this from a Liberal perspective. There are no men at any key or top leadership positions. It would surprise us if Medea Benjamin, Jodie Evans, Gael Murphy, Diane Wilson, or Carol Norris would take direction from a man on matters concerning the day-to-day operations of CodePINK. If you look at the many CodePINK chapters throughout the world, you will see that they are all led by women except the one from Iran. But please, correct us if we are wrong.
As for those chapters that "have a mainly male membership" (we will just take your word for it) are one of those "males" running it? Again, reference the above link to the many worldwide chapters. The Iranian chapter of CodePINK is probably largely male. Of course, that could be the one that you are referencing.
CODEPINK's events are geared towards everyone and what I find so great is not only all the male participation but also families bringing their children.
It is always good to speak ill of America and the mission that the American troops are fighting with children as participants and witnesses.
You also claim that CODEPINK hates our troops. Again this couldn't be farther from the truth. In fact, the last event I attended was the 4th of July Fast to bring the troops home.
We show this at the very top of the CodePINK webpage. These quotes come directly from CodePINK's Website.
"Mothers don't let your children grow up to be killers."
"Real military benefits include this oak box?"
"This way to death/war/lies/deception."
"All coffins (or flights to Iraq) 50% off."
"Special Package Deal! Join the military and get a free body bag!"
"If you want adventure sports, go rock climbing. If you want to die, join the military?"
"Defend Freedom: Protest Recruiters in your High Schools!"
How does this attitude show anything but contempt for the military and the Americans that serve within its honored ranks?
And then there is the generous donation of "Aid and Comfort" to, as Medea Benjamin so eloquently put it, the "other side".
CodePINK gave $650,000 of "Aid and Comfort" to our enemies. They did not give $650,000 of "Aid and Comfort" to our soldiers. They have also participated in war crimes tribunals against America and they refer to American soldiers as "Killers" on their website.
And while American troops might have appreciated this donation to the "other side", feel free to ask them how they really feel about it.
If we hated the troops would dozens of people starve themselves in support of them and the Iraqis? I tend to think that perhaps you don't understand that we can support the troops at the same time we can support the innocent victims of this unjust war. In fact, there were many Iraqi war veterans in attendance at the 4th of July Fast.
First of all, you are not "Fasting". Not eating between meals is not "Fasting". A "Rolling Fast" is not fasting. Taking turns not eating is not "Fasting".
You claim that we are rude, disturbing and loud. I have never once seen any member of a CODEPINK group be rude or harsh to anyone, even when a few pro-murder people show up to taunt the group of fasters. We may be loud as we march down the roads in D.C. but from the smiles and supportive honks from passer-byers, they don't seem to mind at all. For the rest of the time, sitting in Lafayette Park, discussing ways to spread the ideas of peace and listening to native Iraqis describe their plight is not disturbing anybody.
First of all, we never said that CodePINK was "rude, disturbing and loud". We said that they were "rude, disruptive, and loud". We thought we presented many examples of this on the CodePINK page. But with all of the material on the page, perhaps you did not comprehend everything in its entirety.
On 26 July 2006, at a joint meeting of Congress, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was insisting that Iraq remains on the front line against terrorism, when suddenly a demonstrator began shouting, "Iraqis want the troops to leave" and "Bring them home now." And who do you think that demonstrator was... that's right... Medea Benjamin, and she was there representing CodePINK.
Why would Medea Benjamin want to prevent the democratically elected Prime Minister from speaking? A Prime Minister elected by the people of Iraq. Perhaps she does not like Democracy. We know this to be true based on her Marxist past. These people have a Marxist agenda that they want to force on others. This is the same agenda that the Iranian backed Hezbollah have and want to force on the people of Iraq.
So in response to your above comment, yes, we stand by our claim that the tactics of CodePINK are rude, disruptive, and loud. We did not say that they were disturbing, but we appreciate that contribution.
Perhaps you need some more examples.
Medea Benjamin dragged off DNC floor in Handcuffs for unfurling "End the Occupation of Iraq" Banner. How is this not "rude, disruptive, and loud?"
As you can see in the picture on the left, in typical Liberal fashion, after acting selfishly and without any consideration for others, she is being escorted off the premises in handcuffs for being disruptive and causing trouble in public. How is this not "rude, disturbing and loud?"
In the picture on the right, she is in Miami complaining about others protesting CodePINK's agenda. She does not like the fact that others are exercising their right of Free Speech against CodePINK. You can just feel the love and tolerance of other viewpoints!
On March 18, 2005, CodePINK, the San Diego Coalition of Peace and Justice, the International Socialist Organization (ISO), and their supporters appeared in true form on Laurel Street in San Diego for a demonstration showing their full appreciation, support, and respect for all of the U.S. troops fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq and the Democracy that is being established there.
Why don't you ask the many American troops that you claim to support, what they think about this picture?
In these circles we often will have people express views that others might disagree with- after all we are all different. But what we do remember every time is that our goal is peace, and it's only by taking the time to listen and understand each other that there will ever be a chance for peace.
Is this the way you would have handled Adolf Hitler? A good part of Europe tried this from September 1939 until May 1945. Once the Nazis crossed into other countries, they were not really interested in listening to anyone. The same can be said for North Korea moving into South Korea, Japan moving into China and the rest of the Pacific, and Iraq moving into Kuwait. If you need any more examples, we will be happy to accommodate your wishes.
The problem is that you don't seem to understand why peace happens. Peace happens when a sworn enemy is afraid to attack because the consequences of their actions are known and severe. Talking is only going to work when there is no threat. Reference Neville Chamberlin in the 1930s.
There will always be people like you that want to put down people' efforts to help others they have little in common with or have never met but that just means we will have to work harder.
Thank you, Jeannette M
And there will always be people like you that will do whatever you can to shut us up and keep us from showing the public the true danger of organizations like CodePINK.
--TOP--
01 August 2006
E-mails from Jeannette Marxen
2 of 2
Jeannette Marxen wrote:
You seemed to offer nothing new to this discussion since you made all those claims on your website and I've already struggled through reading it once. All I can say is that you know very little of what CODEPINK is about.
What is it that we missed on the website? You certainly have not given any new information. The content of the website is pretty descriptive in detail with what we do know about CodePINK. We show their agenda and true nature. We show their lack of tolerance of others. We show their lack of respect for others. We show their true motivations. And you have offered any facts to the contrary. You just do not like the fact that we have done so.
We are able to stand behind our words and beliefs with facts. We do not misrepresent ourselves in any way. We are proud to be Americans and we make sure that all of the facts are presented correctly, unlike the one-sided, Marxist radicals that you present time and time again with CodePINK's words and actions. We stand proud with our American flag, not proud to deface it. And we stand behind the men and women who are fighting the war on terrorism. We do not hold press conferences boasting about giving money to our enemies knowing this "Aid" is guaranteed to be utilized against us. And finally, we do not participate in mock war crime tribunals against America nor do we refer to American soldiers as "Killers".
What kind of message are you sending our men and women in the armed services that fight for our freedom? What kind of message are you sending our children in this country? What message are you sending the rest of the world? What kind of role model is CodePINK representing with their words and actions that are one sided and based on Marxist doctrine.
CodePINK is an embarrassment to this nation. They do nothing but give our enemies the means to defeat everything that America stands for such as Liberty, Freedom, and Democracy. The freedoms that draw people from around the world to this country, CodePINK wishes to deprive other people from enjoying in their own countries.
I would hazard a guess that you have never bothered to take the time to come to one of the events. As a participant of the fast on the 4th of July, I can attest that I and my friend did in fact fast.
(3fast
Function: intransitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English fæstan
1 : to abstain from food
2 : to eat sparingly or abstain from some foods)
According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, we are fasting.
We have not stated that you did not fast. CodePINK clearly states that a rolling fast was in effect and was accepted as full participation in the "Hunger Strike". How long did you fast? Are you continuing to fast? Everyone was supposed fast until 21 September or until the troops come home. Neither of which has come to pass.
It has been reported that many have gone to a liquid diet such as fruit juices and energy drinks. After all, it is not actually eating. But by your definition, this is not fasting as it is not actually abstaining from food.
1 : to abstain from food
2 : to eat sparingly or abstain from some foods
Which definition applies to your act of fasting? The one where you abstain from some foods? By that definition that you see as applying to your situation, not eating lobster is considered fasting. If you did not eat lobster, then perhaps you were indeed fasting. If that is the case, then we stand corrected.
The problem is that it was billed as a "Hunger Strike" with "fasting" as a means to an end. A Hunger Strike is a refusal to eat until your demands are met. Taking turns not eating does not a hunger strike make.
Symbolism over Substance - the true Left-wing guideline. All that is important is that you say you are going to proceed with a hunger strike. It does not matter what you actually do, such as a bunch of people taking turns not eating and calling it a hunger strike. What counts is calling it a hunger strike. It is nothing but a lot of talk. The louder the better. The follow through is not nearly as important as the headlines received upfront. That kind of thinking is not going to protect America. It will do nothing but leave America vulnerable, weak, and divided, which is what they want. Do you remember the concept of divide and conquer? A country divided is the only way they can push their Marxist and Communist doctrine.
I find it mindblowing that you can simply dismiss the actions of people you know very little about.
We know a lot about CodePINK. We have written extensively about these people. We have written about their Marxist background and what their true agenda is. An agenda that you do not refute. We have written about CodePINK giving $650,000 to the "other side." Again, a fact that you do not contradict. Does this giving $650,000 to the "other side" fill you with pride?
Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with an organization being run by women. It seems to me that those that would have a problem with women in charge at CODEPINK would be sexist themselves.
We are not saying that there is anything wrong with it; we just made an observation. But by your last statement, if the roles were reversed then any organization that has a problem with men in charge would be sexist themselves. Is that how you would describe the National Organization for Women (NOW) and any other group of women that keeps referring to the "Glass Ceiling"? Aren't these the people that keep pushing for private industry to move women into positions of authority? By your definition, that is sexist.
A fact that you have overlooked is that both men and women contribute to this website to make sure that all opinions and ideas are supported by facts. This gives an accurate picture and not a narrow, one-sided view based on anti-American, Marxist propaganda that CodePINK promotes and you see as some golden nugget of truth.
And I assume that you including all the pictures of members being arrested is supposed to demonize them.
We are just showing the true agenda and nature of CodePINK and the other Marxist organizations that are their comrades of which you do not refute. We noticed you did not comment on the protest on 18 March 2005 in San Diego where CodePINK, the San Diego Coalition of Peace and Justice, the International Socialist Organization (ISO), and their supporters appeared with the defaced American flag.
Historically, many groups and people that we hold dear now have been arrested or jailed in the pursuit of peace. Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Gandhi to name a few. But then again, I almost wonder if these great men are not heroes to you but people you think of as enemies.
Do not compare yourselves with Martin Luther King. Did Martin Luther King ever march with a defaced American flag? No.
All Nelson Mandela has done in South Africa is to reverse racism against the white population. In the name of socialism, he has taken away land owned by white farmers and now the country cannot even feed itself.
And Gandhi would turn over in his grave with the comparison that you give the "hunger strike" that CodePINK has done in his memory. The lack of commitment on the part of CodePINK with this "Rolling Fast Hunger Strike" is nothing short of contemptible and insulting to his memory.
As I said before there will always be people that would rather hate others and kill others then work towards something greater and from your hate-filled website, it seems quite clear where you fall.
Here is a comment you made that is applicable here. You said, "I find it mindblowing that you can simply dismiss the actions of people you know very little about." Based on that statement, we have a question for you. How can you dismiss what we have to say when you do not know anything about us? And based on the groups that you support so strongly, it is quite clear where you fall with the Marxist agenda that you embrace.
And in the area of hate-filled personalities, you obviously have not heard Gael Murphy yell at the protesters that disagree with her. She does not express a lot of love when confronting others with opposing opinions.
--TOP--
14 July 2006
We received several e-mails from a person that goes by the name Robert Fedyski. He has accused us of omitting key elements of his e-mails. We may break up an e-mail so as to address each comment on a point-by-point basis but we have not omitted any part of his e-mails. We will therefore, print each e-mail as received in its entirety followed by our response.
The next six e-mails are from Robert Fedyski "EXACTLY AND COMPLETELY" as received.
--TOP--
12 July 2006
E-mails from Robert Fedyski
1 of 6
Robert Fedyski wrote:
YOU SOUND LIKE A BUNCH OF TERRORISTS, THREATENING THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF PEACEFUL PEOPLE, TO SATISFY THE GREED OF A FEW. MAYBE YOU SHOULD REREAD THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, AND A BIOGRAPHY OF IT'S PRIMARY AUTHOR, BENJAMIN FRANKLIN!
Above is the letter from Robert Fedyski "EXACTLY AND COMPLETELY" as received on 12 July 2006. Below is our reply.
YOU SOUND LIKE A BUNCH OF TERRORISTS, THREATENING THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF PEACEFUL PEOPLE, TO SATISFY THE GREED OF A FEW.
You are a little vague. You did not cite any examples of us sounding "like a bunch of terrorists, threatening the safety and welfare..." Where do we sound like that on this website? Allow us to show you who does sound like terrorists and advocate the destruction of property and the lives of others.
"Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are 'acceptable crimes' when used for the animal cause."
-- Alex Pacheco, Director, PeTA
"Property destruction is a legitimate political tool called economic sabotage, and it's meant to attack businesses and corporations."
-- David Barbarash, Spokesperson for the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), NPR radio show, "The Connection" January 7, 2002
""In a war you have to take up arms and people will get killed, and I can support that kind of action by petrol bombing and bombs under cars, and probably at a later stage, the shooting of vivisectors on their doorsteps. It's a war, and there's no other way you can stop vivisectors."
-- Tim Daley, British Animal Liberation Front Leader, BBC interview, 1987
"There are about 2,000 people prepared at any one time to take action for us... The children [of targeted scientists and executives] are enjoying a lifestyle built on the blood and abuse of innocent animals. Why should they be allowed to close the door on that and sit down and watch TV and enjoy themselves when animals are suffering and dying because of the actions of the family breadwinner? They are a justifiable target for protest."
-- Robin Webb, ALF leader, Sunday Herald ( Scotland) Sept. 19, 2004
For more examples, read our List of Enemy Targets also known as "The Hit List". We know... you don't like the name.
MAYBE YOU SHOULD REREAD THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, AND A BIOGRAPHY OF IT'S PRIMARY AUTHOR, BENJAMIN FRANKLIN!
Thomas Jefferson was the author of the Declaration of Independence, not Benjamin Franklin. Perhaps you should reacquaint yourself with the Declaration of Independence.
Are we supposed to listen to someone that has no credibility due to a total lack of historical knowledge? How are we supposed to take you seriously when you have not taken the time to get your facts in order? It is abundantly clear that you have no idea what you are talking about.
--TOP--
13 July 2006
E-mails from Robert Fedyski
2 of 6
Robert Fedyski wrote:
Though I stand corrected on one point,though you must recognize the threat implicate in "Target of Opportunity". And, for all your knowledge of the Declaration, you ignore the fact that those founding fathers performed these same type actions you call terrorism. To call liberals a threat, in light of the lies of our administration is amazing. Have you ever watched Free Speech TV, or just the Fox network while listening to that pillar of conservative thought, Rush Limbaugh? Do you recognize the right to protest, or should that be considered a threat too? Have you witnessed the perversion of the truth when reporting protests and arrest based on homeland security? Not to say that what you've published is exactly untrue, but it is extraordinarily well spun.
Above is the letter from Robert Fedyski "EXACTLY AND COMPLETELY" as received on 13 July 2006. Below is our reply.
Though I stand corrected on one point,though you must recognize the threat implicate in "Target of Opportunity".
It depends on the reason they are targeted.
And, for all your knowledge of the Declaration, you ignore the fact that those founding fathers performed these same type actions you call terrorism.
To say this merely states your disdain and lack of respect for the founding fathers of this country. You have to believe that King George III was right in the high taxation of the colonies and lack of representation of the colonists. The formation of the Representative Republic form of government that we enjoy today must be a real disappointment to you.
We could go on about the hundreds of millions of people that now live under freedom and have been saved from tyrants by the actions of the United States, but all you would do is to attack the people that are actually responsible for this outcome. How you can equate the founding fathers with the terrorists in Iraq and around the world, and that is what you are doing, just proves your support for terrorism.
Most of Europe is free today because of the American Revolution. It probably hurts many to hear that, but that does not detract from the historical fact of that statement.
To call liberals a threat, in light of the lies of our administration is amazing. Have you ever watched Free Speech TV, or just the Fox network while listening to that pillar of conservative thought, Rush Limbaugh?
The Marxist agenda is the threat. The support of terrorists is the threat. You actually want the Bush administration to be lying. This gives you a reason to hate. The big problem is that he is not lying. WMDs have been found in Iraq.
We get most of our content from the Liberal websites. All you have to do is to look at the "Links" page. Look at the "Anti-American Links" and you can see direct quotes from these people on this site. We use their own words to show the danger that these people pose.
Of course, we understand the hatred you have for the Conservative radio. You call them names. You say they lie. But you cannot debate them without getting into personal attacks and insults. You don't have a good argument, you never do. That is because you rarely have any solid facts that back up your position. Liberalism does not require facts because it is "emotionally" based rather than "intellectually" based.
Liberal radio pales in comparison to Conservative radio. No one believes the lies and anti-American thought that is expelled by the Left-wing. They do nothing but speak from the same talking points literally word for word.
Do you recognize the right to protest, or should that be considered a threat too? Have you witnessed the perversion of the truth when reporting protests and arrest based on homeland security?
Where have we ever tried to stop anyone from protesting? You have not seen that here. The protesting is not the problem. The only perversions we have seen are from CodePINK, Cindy Sheehan, and many of the others listed on this website.
Not to say that what you've published is exactly untrue, but it is extraordinarily well spun.
That is the problem with the Left-wing. They cannot accept the truth. Something is either true or it is not. If you are going to imply that we have information that is either not accurate, untrue, or a skillfully misrepresentation with the intent to mislead, you are going to have to be more specific, which you have not done. But you do like to try to say that we are not telling the truth without actually saying it.
--TOP--
13 July 2006
E-mails from Robert Fedyski
3 of 6
Robert Fedyski wrote:
WMD's found were from the 1991 Gulf War (largely from Bush senior's administration), you know that and won't accept it.
Don't tell me what I think, you dance around a question to make your "point". You remind me of people who block out unpleasant truth. What terrorists in Iraq, the ones from 9/11? That should be the Saudi, yet Bush's administration embraces them.
I don't want out administration to be lying, as you assert, but they are, and/or changing the rules after the fact (declassifying info they absolutely denied before). You speak w/authority about things you don't know. "You can't debate them", referring to the conservative radio hosts, TRUE. When Art Gish was on Limbaugh's show he wasn't permitted to speak freely, but was put down and made fun of by that druggie. I personally know Art, who is an honorable Christian man. And when did minimum wage and affordable health care become Marxist? As to perversions of the truth..., 9/11, turning that into a war in Iraq, the protests last year in Washington, where the Fox and network news only showed the 150-250 anti-protest protestors, NOT the 250,000-300,000 protestors. Why is it honorable to send more of our chidren to war to "Honor those who've already died"? Especially called for by a man who was AWOL from the NG, and where is the honor his family shows? When he puts his kids out there, then I'll consider not protesting that. As a father, I am appalled by his hypocracy!
To my "hatred" of conservative radio, I don't give it that much power over me, I mainly feel sorry for those whose minds are so closed. Preaching hatred and discrimination does not foster peace and justice. It is not proactive.
Above is the letter from Robert Fedyski "EXACTLY AND COMPLETELY" as received on 13 July 2006. Below is our reply.
WMD's found were from the 1991 Gulf War (largely from Bush senior's administration), you know that and won't accept it.
WMDs were found in the 1991 Gulf War. There have also been munitions of Sarin Gas and Mustard Gas found in Iraq since 2003. Here is the press release.
June 21, 2006
Washington, D.C. U.S. Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), Chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, joined Congressman Peter Hoekstra, (R-MI-2), Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, today to make a major announcement regarding the release of newly declassified information that proves the existence of chemical munitions in Iraq since 2003. The information was released by the Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, and contained an unclassified summary of analysis conducted by the National Ground Intelligence Center. In March, Senator Santorum began advocating for the release of these documents to the American public.
The information released today proves that weapons of mass destruction are, in fact, in Iraq, said Senator Santorum. It is essential for the American people to understand that these weapons are in Iraq. I will continue to advocate for the complete declassification of this report so we can more fully understand the complete WMD picture inside Iraq.
The following are the six key points contained in the unclassified overview:
Since 2003 Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent.
Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist.
Pre-Gulf War Iraqi chemical weapons could be sold on the black market. Use of these weapons by terrorists or insurgent groups would have implications for Coalition forces in Iraq. The possibility of use outside Iraq cannot be ruled out.
The most likely munitions remaining are sarin and mustard-filled projectiles.
The purity of the agent inside the munitions depends on many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives, and environmental storage conditions. While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal.
It has been reported in open press that insurgents and Iraqi groups desire to acquire and use chemical weapons.
It wasn't reported widely in the national media. It wasn't denounced as false or questionable by the Democrats. The reason - it is true.
Don't tell me what I think, you dance around a question to make your "point". You remind me of people who block out unpleasant truth.
We never told you what you think. We merely responded to what you wrote. What have we danced around? We have responded on point to every assertion you tried to make.
What terrorists in Iraq, the ones from 9/11? That should be the Saudi, yet Bush's administration embraces them.
This might be some news to you, but the 9/11 terrorists are dead. It was widely reported in all the newspapers. Are you forgetting the terrorists in Iraq that have set bombs in mosques? What about the terrorists and the suicide bombers in Iraq. And the terrorists that tried to stop the free elections in Iraq. Many of these terrorists come from Iran. All of this has been documented and even reported on the national media.
I don't want out administration to be lying, as you assert, but they are, and/or changing the rules after the fact (declassifying info they absolutely denied before). You speak w/authority about things you don't know.
What rules have they changed that you would rather have not. War is fluid by its very nature. Everything is in motion and changing at the same time. Strategies must be able to be adjusted to compensate for changes in the enemy's position and strength. Exactly what would have the rules not change? Be specific.
You told me earlier in this e-mail, "Don't tell me what I think." Well, show us the same courtesy and don't tell us what we know because you have no idea.
"You can't debate them", referring to the conservative radio hosts, TRUE. When Art Gish was on Limbaugh's show he wasn't permitted to speak freely, but was put down and made fun of by that druggie. I personally know Art, who is an honorable Christian man.
This comment is a prime example of your lack of substance. You revert to name-calling. Not that this is a big surprise, it is on the first page of the liberal handbook. You have a hard time engaging in a debate without resorting to personal attacks.
Rush Limbaugh does allow people to speak their mind. He enjoys it as well as his listeners. What you do not like is him giving his opinion. He is pretty hard to debate because he has ample facts to back his opinions. We cannot speak of the incident with Art Gish as we did not hear the dialog.
You can imagine how surprised we are to hear that you are an avid listener of Rush Limbaugh. How often do you listen to Rush?
And when did minimum wage and affordable health care become Marxist?
Why should there be a minimum wage? What should it be? Do you even know why there is a minimum wage? Why should an employer have to pay someone more money than they are worth?
The free market should decide what salary a position should command. The fact you don't allow the free market decide is where Marxism makes its appearance. Health care becomes much more affordable when lawyers like John Edwards stop suing everyone. The dependency on the government for health care is where Marxism makes its appearance again.
As to perversions of the truth..., 9/11, turning that into a war in Iraq, the protests last year in Washington, where the Fox and network news only showed the 150-250 anti-protest protestors, NOT the 250,000-300,000 protestors.
Your inaccurate perspective of history is nothing less than we would expect from someone thinking that Benjamin Franklin wrote the Declaration of Independence. Gulf War II is nothing more than an extension of Gulf War I. Saddam Hussein violated the ceasefire agreement that he signed in the first Gulf War. He ran fast and loose with the weapon inspectors in the late 1990s. That was during the Clinton Administration.
The Million Man March, the Million Mom March, and all of these other protest groups rarely have the numbers they claim. Where did you come up with the figure of "250,000-300,000 protestors"? That sounds made up.
Why is it honorable to send more of our chidren to war to "Honor those who've already died"?
You must be in favor of "Cut and Run". It would seem that your camp is highly afraid of and willing to give in to the terrorists. This is not a position of power that you are advocating. It is a position of weakness.
What is honorable is to finish what has been started. The military personnel in Iraq know the importance of their sacrifice. If you don't believe this, ask yourself this, why is President Bush so highly respected by the military? Because they believe in the mission. They believe in the leadership. There was a reason that the Democrats tried to ban the absentee ballots in Florida in the 2000 election. Most of them were from military personnel overseas. They also overwhelmingly voted for President Bush in the 2004 election.
Especially called for by a man who was AWOL from the NG, and where is the honor his family shows?
You are still stuck on trying to discredit President Bush. He wasn't AWOL. He did not run from any Vietnam service. His unit was never sent to Vietnam.
When he puts his kids out there, then I'll consider not protesting that. As a father, I am appalled by his hypocracy!
There is no draft. Anyone that serves in the military does so because they volunteered to do so. No one "puts their kids out there." To serve in the armed forces is a choice that every US citizen is free to make. First, you protest the draft, and then you protest that some choose the armed services without a draft. The people in the armed forces are there because they chose to be there. They did that when they voluntarily signed the enlistment papers.
Are your kids going to serve in the military?
To my "hatred" of conservative radio, I don't give it that much power over me, I mainly feel sorry for those whose minds are so closed.
You did not read the CodePINK and Cindy Sheehan pages, did you? Take a look at what these people have to say. Look at their websites. They are a primary source of information. These people have close minds and are full of hate.
Preaching hatred and discrimination does not foster peace and justice. It is not proactive.
You mean like the Islamic terrorists in Iraq that are killing Americans and Iraqis alike. So much for fostering peace and justice.
--TOP--
13 July 2006
E-mails from Robert Fedyski
4 of 6
Robert Fedyski wrote:
I spoke the truth, you again, read what you wanted and ignored the rest. Lumping all liberals together is as silly as lumping all conservatives together. By the way, Franklin was a major contributor to the Declaration, The founding fathers did use terrorist tactics (Boston Tea Party), Those weapons were remnants, minimum wage and affordable health care are reasonable considerations, especially when you look at the outsourcing of jobs, broken retirement contracts for hard working people, all in the name of profit/greed. Why should one man earn $26,000.00/hour (former pres of exxon w/retirement bonus, but w/out stock perks).
It's suddenly name calling, then ignore the truth. As for the numbers protesting, they were estmates by the police (the low end) and BBC & FSTV ( the higher numbers)
You've become boorish, and boring. You are blocked as you are SPAM.
Above is the letter from Robert Fedyski "EXACTLY AND COMPLETELY" as received on 13 July 2006. Below is our reply.
I spoke the truth, you again, read what you wanted and ignored the rest. Lumping all liberals together is as silly as lumping all conservatives together.
At no point have we lumped all liberals together. And we did address and answer each point you made.
By the way, Franklin was a major contributor to the Declaration...
And nowhere on this website did we challenge anything that Benjamin Franklin ever did. However, you clearly stated that Benjamin Franklin wrote the Declaration of Independence. And we pointed out that you were incorrect. We understand that you do not like to be corrected. We understand that in your mind, it doesn't really matter. Let's not confuse the issue of your viewpoint with a bunch of historical facts.
The founding fathers did use terrorist tactics (Boston Tea Party)...
In October 1773, colonists hold a mass meeting in Philadelphia in opposition to the tea tax and the monopoly of the East India Company. A committee then forces British tea agents to resign their positions. In November, a town meeting is held in Boston endorsing the actions taken by Philadelphia colonists. Bostonians then try, but fail, to get their British tea agents to resign. A few weeks later, three ships bearing tea sail into Boston harbor.
If you look at the following link from The History Place website you can see the events that create the prelude to the American Revolutionary war. You can equivocate these people with terrorism if you so desire. It was certainly rebellion and under the pressure of taxation without representation and the oppression that it causes.
Those weapons were remnants...
The Mustard Gas found was remnants, which means they had been used... the Sarin Nerve Agent had not been used and Sarin does not degrade with time. It was as potent now as it was the day it was manufactured.
minimum wage and affordable health care are reasonable considerations, especially when you look at the outsourcing of jobs, broken retirement contracts for hard working people, all in the name of profit/greed.
Look at the unemployment figures today. It is pretty low. The outsourcing of jobs might have changed the nature of the employment picture, but it has actually caused an increase of employment here in this country. We have countless illegal immigrants coming into this country for work. This only happens when there is ample work for all. We have so many engineering positions to fill that we have to search other countries to bring engineers in from the Far East because we cannot keep up with the demand.
You were a little vague with the "broken retirement contracts". Many Americans have not properly prepared for retirement. This was due to poor personal decisions and lack of planning. Many have the belief that someone else will take care of them when retirement comes, thus giving up the freedom of taking responsibility for one's own life and controlling your own destiny.
You never did answer the questions posed in our last response to you. Why should there be a minimum wage? What should it be? Do you even know why there is a minimum wage? Why should an employer have to pay someone more money than they are worth?
Do you have a clue who it is that pays for your healthcare? You do. You may think that your employer does, but that is not true. Your employer looks at the total cost of hiring a worker. These costs are:
These are the total costs. Your take home salary is approximately 45% of these costs. The employer sets up a place for you to work, then takes the risk that he will get more work out you than you cost him. If you cost him more money than you bring in, you will be a liability and probably be fired. If you make him money and prove to be an asset, you will increase your value to your employer.
The point is that you are not given anything. You have to work for everything you get. What are you going to do, force employers to hire you? If you are unmarketable because you cannot produce enough to cover your salary, why should an employer be forced to hire and keep you on the payroll?
Your theories revolve around the idea that people deserve certain things in life. You think that people deserve healthcare, retirement, a high paying job, etc... They do not deserve what they do not earn.
Why should one man earn $26,000.00/hour (former pres of exxon w/retirement bonus, but w/out stock perks).
This where your Marxist views are showing. Why shouldn't one man be able to earn $26,000/hour... or $26,000/week... or $26,000/month... or $26,000/year? What limit would you place on a person's ability to earn a living?
Why should you earn whatever it is that you earn? Regardless of what you earn, you probably earn more than someone else who has that same question. The fact is that it is none of your business what the president of Exxon earns. How does someone earning $26,000/hour (For academic purposes, we will just assume that you are right) cause you any problems? He is obviously worth that much to Exxon. Why should Exxon be forced to pay him more or why should he be forced to accept less. Do you think you should be forced to accept less salary than your employer is willing to pay you?
It's suddenly name calling, then ignore the truth. As for the numbers protesting, they were estmates by the police (the low end) and BBC & FSTV ( the higher numbers)
We have not ignored the truth. We have addressed each and every point you made. If you have a disagreement with the coverage from FOX News, perhaps you should contact them. We don't know where you acquired these figures, as you offered no references and therefore cannot verify the information, so we will not make any comments on them.
You've become boorish, and boring. You are blocked as you are SPAM.
Name-calling, personal attacks, and no substance to your arguments. You have met every one of our expectations.
--TOP--
14 July 2006
E-mails from Robert Fedyski
5 of 6
Robert Fedyski wrote:
i see you picked and spun my emails to your needs. no surprise, when you publish the whole letters they can't be twisted. your cowardice is clear, to tell the whole story would be to expose the true threat, stealing our freedoms, and perverting the truth and whole story. You conveniently PUBLISHED only PARTS of my letters (even to fragmenting sentences). And you ignored the questions you wanted. This is not GW2, or if it is, nthen maybe the Bush administration should admit that. you've lied more. You can name call but others can't. I think you may be starting to see the hypocracy of your own comments, or so COWARDLY AND LOW as to continue to pick and choose how to edit your quotes [of submitted letters]. You're afraid to publish responses EXACTLY AND COMPLETELY, because it would expose your front (since I see you name(s) nowhere. Again, I assert you are guilty cowards. Regardless, I wish PEACE [gosh, what a liberal, selfish perspective].
Thank you, as given the company you've placed me in, I have no fear of them.
Proudly giving my name, Robert Fedyski.
Above is the letter from Robert Fedyski "EXACTLY AND COMPLETELY" as received on 14 July 2006. Below is our reply.
We have printed your letters in whole and showed you the courtesy of e-mailing you with our response. At no time did we change or omit anything you had to say. Nothing was spun or twisted. We changed nothing. We PUBLISHED EVERYTHING you wrote "EXACTLY AND COMPLETELY" as you wrote it with all of their grammatical and spelling errors. We left out NOTHING. Every question was answered. Nothing was taken out of context.
And for all of your efforts, all you can do is to make false allegations and resort to personal attacks. You don't have a good argument. You don't even have a good excuse.
--TOP--
15 July 2006
E-mails from Robert Fedyski
6 of 6
Robert Fedyski wrote:
Dare you show yoour own info?
Above is the letter from Robert Fedyski "EXACTLY AND COMPLETELY" as received on 15 July 2006. Below is our reply.
We are not just one person. Who we are is not important. What is important is that we ARE... and you don't like that. Your responses are filled with hate. We speak the truth based on facts and that is all that matters. Who we are doesn't change the facts and you don't want to debate the facts. The only reason you want to know who we are is to you can resort to personal attacks or even tactics such as slashing our tires, throwing Molotov cocktails at hour homes, or trying and kill us. We know how dangerous you are. We have written extensively about the hatred you have for people that disagree with you and the danger you pose. That is why you don't like us.
On 13 July 2006, you wrote "You've become boorish, and boring. You are blocked as you are SPAM," and yet this is the second e-mail you have written since that e-mail. We must be much like a train wreck to you; it is a horrible thing to see, but you just cannot seem to look away. You cannot accept the truth of your own existence because your existence is based on your flawed "Emotionally" based thought processes rather than "Intellectually" based thought processes. You seem to deal in "Feelings" rather than "Facts" as dictated by your Left-wing agenda.
--TOP--
12 July 2006
E-mails from Amy Louise
1 of 2
Amy Louise wrote:
Please realize that these people whom you quote on your site are not fitting examples of the liberal thought pattern. These all seem to be the words of somewhat crazed fanatics, the type that pop up in every country, political group, seat of power, race, and culture.
You are absolutely correct, they are fanatics. One good example of these fanatics is Cindy Sheehan. The one thing that makes them dangerous is an extreme Marxist agenda and their support of terrorism. We have documented this extensively.
I am sure many members of the right do not like to be lumped in with the fanatics and over-zealous within thier political spectrum, and members of the left are no different.
Usually the Left-wing refers to these people as "Fascists", thus grouping everyone into one group. They do this without having a clue of what a "Fascist" really is. They just like the negative image that the label "Fascist" creates. Of course, this is a lie. If you look at the friends and supporters of Cindy Sheehan, you will find many Nazi and White Supremacist groups. No one is more fascist then these people. Again, proving that these people are not being honest about who they really are and what they really believe.
The categories of left, center, and right can hardly be treated in a black and white manner when there are millions of people that fall within each.
But there is right and wrong. These people wish to be exempted from the laws that they force on others. The terrorist tactics of the ALF, the ELF, and PeTA are a good example. They believe that they should be allowed to do as they please and everyone else be damned. Anyone that disagrees with them is a "Fascist". We merely point that out on this website. Because of this, there are many that want this site to be shutdown. Many have tried and many will continue to try. These people do not want "Freedom of Speech" to apply to us and anyone else that believes that Marxism and Terrorism is wrong.
For each one person you quote on your site there are probably thousands of liberals who really are peaceful and non-violent, who simply wish that the world was a better place.
Many of these people do not realize the true agenda of the people that they are supporting. Many of these people and groups have taken advantage of the genuine compassion people. One only needs to check into the actions of PeTA to prove this point. These people are not as they portray themselves.
In closing, I would like to say that while I am not happy with it, I am not suprised by the attitude of your website. The behavior and attitudes of people all across the political spectrum are showing me just how far our society is moving from the grand image Americans once had. I am amazed at the bitterness that has crept into our people and the lack of simple human compassion and understanding.
The attitude of this website is pointing out the truth of the left. Marxist ideals are being taught in schools. One only need to examine the values of Jay Bennish and Ward Churchill to see how far the institutions of America have moved to the left. The Pledge of Allegiance is no longer allowed in schools. What happened here? Why did this happen?
CodePINK is another group that you might want to examine a little more closely. You will see bitterness, hate, and a total lack of understanding of others. This trait runs rampant throughout this group and their associations. These people are definitely not in the grand image Americans once had.
I hope you will please rethink the wording and attitude of your website and will not judge a liberal by the actions of another person that happens to lay claim to the same title, just as I will not judge any good people who are right wing by your narrow-minded website. Also, for future reference, if you are going to speak out about those who are violent you may want to refrain from inciting people into violence against them. Hypocrisy isn't the best motivator.
This website has merely recorded those that are violent. At least you admit that these people on this site are violent and dangerous. The problem seems to be that you believe that these people can be reasoned with by talking. You don't seem to want any of these people punished or even challenged. Fighting back is not hypocrisy.
We notice that you did not state that any information was inaccurate, you just had problems with the existence of this website, or maybe it was just the name. If you can cite any inaccuracies or incorrect information on this website, let us know and we will make the necessary changes.
--TOP--
13 July 2006
E-mails from Amy Louise
2 of 2
Amy Louise wrote:
In response to the closing statement of your reply, no I didn't point out that anything contained within was false. All the quotes are indeed the quotes of the people mentioned, I'm not going to go into what they mean, interpretation, or even any sort of response to them wether it be punishment or reasoning. The whole point of my email, which you seem to have glazed past, is that these are a very poor example of leftists.
The people on this website are definitely fanatics. We know their attitude does not reflect the views of most people. The danger comes from those on the left that refuse to accept the truth about these people.
My views are to the left of the spectrum, yes. And I am a good person. I do my best to help people out, I am a hard worker, and believe it or not I don't call anyone a fascist. When it comes to my views vs. those of a right winger, the differences lie mostly in the role of government and how to handle finance, I don't promote blowing up buildings, killing people, or anything promoted by those quoted on your site; neither do any of the many many other liberals I know.
We believe you. There is no doubt that you are telling the complete truth.
"The only thing required for evil to exist and thrive is for good people to do nothing."
It is not enough to just standby and do nothing. These extremists and fanatics are representing the Left-wing that you claim allegiance. Our perspective is that they are they are damaging your credibility. With the exception of this e-mail, most of America never hears from people like you. We do hear from the likes of Cindy Sheehan. These are the people that are associated with you because you do not speak out against them.
In closing, leave your site up. I'm not asking you to take it down. I'm just saying that leftists don't come out of a cookie press and are not all alike. So maybe a change in wording to indicate that these people aren't the spokespeople for the entire spectrum of left leaning viewpoints might be a good idea.
We cannot make a change with these groups. We can only post what they say. You are the only one that can change these groups and that is because you are a liberal. Just take a look at your viewpoints and compare them to Marxist viewpoints. Then compare that to what the rest of the Left-wing has to say. You can then see just how left you are and the people that profess to represent you and the rest of your side.
If you are going to glaze over my point and fill your reply with links convincing me not to have a left viewpoint, don't bother replying. I am aware that there are flaws within the left, just as I am aware that there are flaws in the right, and my beliefs are rock solid. I believe in being a good person, and yes, I'm a leftist. Imagine that.
We have not glazed over any of your points. We have addressed each and every one of your assertions point-by-point. We have no reason to believe that you are not a good person. We just show that many on the Left have ulterior motives and we address them on this website.
--TOP--
09 July 2006
bmarot wrote:
I just read your articles against Code Pink. Thank you. I am sending a donation immediately.
You can send your money to anyone you wish to. If you believe that these people advance your beliefs and have your best interests at heart, then by all means, give them anything you like. They will appreciate you for making them richer.
I will join them today in support of south central farmers who are being evicted from a 350 family community garden and oasis in the middle of concrete hell so that the millionaire owner can build another warehouse in an area saturated with empty ones. That is the American Way.
We see why you relate to CodePINK. With your Marxist ideals, it is easy to see the connection. You are, of course, referring to the Los Angeles South Central Community Garden on property belonging to Ralph Horowitz. The people that you are referring to are not being evicted. To be evicted, there must have been a lease or agreement that allows the people to have legal access to the property. These people are trespassing. They have used Mr. Horowitz's land for their own selfish use without paying for the right to occupy the land. But this is the true nature of Marxism, so no one should be surprised. If these people want to plant vegetables or flowers or park cars or open a store to sell their produce, what gives them the right to do it on some else's property without permission. Why do you have a problem with someone else owning property. Property ownership is a long American tradition. That is the American Way.
You want to take property away from the rightful owner, who, with his money, paid for the land and the property taxes, and then give it to someone else without paying for it. This is a perfect example of Marxism. How do you correlate that with the American Way? It is clear that you oppose the idea of private land ownership. Of course, maybe the idea of private land ownership for people with names like "Horowitz" is just more than what you are willing to tolerate. How does that relate to the American Way? We would love to hear your answers to these questions.
Say, here's an idea... Why don't you offer the use of your property...? Oh, wait. That was somewhat pretentious of us. Why don't you acquire a mortgage, purchase some land, make payments on the mortgage, pay the taxes on it, buy insurance for it, then allow these "farmers" to make your property their community garden without any payment, agreement, or permission? And of course, if one of these people gets hurt while on your property, then in the typical Liberal fashion, they will sue you for negligence. This has become another American tradition made popular thanks to the infinite wisdom of the Left-wing and their Marxist agenda.
I hope you find your heart one day . . . if not borrow one on credit.
After advocating the theft of someone else's land, we just hope you are able to find a good set of ethics and morals that tells you in your heart that stealing is wrong. We just hope you find a conscience one day... one that doesn't find stealing to be an acceptable means of allowing others to acquire what they want without actually earning it.
After reading your e-mail, we noticed that you did not point out anything that you actually disagreed with including the existence of this website.
--TOP--
04 July 2006
Mark Pilger wrote:
By your definion of terroristism, the people ALF fight against are terrorists and the ALF are freedom fighters fighting terrorists.
Your refusal to understand and accept the reality of terrorism might be your problem.
"Some say it is morally unacceptable but it is equally unacceptable to use animals in experiments. The children of those scientists are enjoying a lifestyle built on the blood and abuse of innocent animals. Why should then be allowed to close the door on that and sit down and watch TV and enjoy themselves when animals are suffering and dying because of the actions of the family breadwinner? They are a justifiable target for protest."
-- Robin Webb
Is that what you consider "the people ALF fight against are terrorists and the ALF are freedom fighters fighting terrorists?" Take a look at "The True Agenda of the Animal Rights Movement".
The ALF is one of the few organizations devoted to pure freedom "for all" in a country (USA) in which everyone desires to do as he pleases, without ethics or morals, regardless how much freedom he takes from others in the process.
And how much freedom has anyone taken from anyone in the ALF? What freedoms have been taken from the ALF? The ALF, on the other hand, has destroyed property belonging to others. This is "without ethics or morals" as you say. These people are totally without any moral compass. Their motto should read, "Just do what we say and nobody gets hurt."
You have no right to kill. No one does.
The people in the Animal Rights Movement are the only ones that have talked about killing people.
ALF works to uphold that most basic of moral notions.
In no stretch of the imagination has the ALF upheld the most basic of any morals. We have seen and written extensively about the moral compass that guides the ALF.
I think you should return to an academic setting and learn and become wise and be a positive force in this world.
What academic setting is it that I should return to where it is stated that destroying the property of others that have not threatened me is moral? What academic setting is it that I should return to where it is stated that destroying the property of others that disagree with me is ethical? Is this an example of the education you have received with our tax dollars?
All you are doing right now is preaching hate and fear.
All we have done is to maintain a record of what these people have said and what they have done. The "preaching of hate and fear" is clearly been done by people in the Animal Rights Movement, among others listed on this website. Perhaps you did not read their résumé. Perhaps a few more quotes will help you see more clearly.
"If an 'animal abuser' were killed in a research lab firebombing, I would unequivocally support that, too."
-- Gary Yourofsky, founder of Animals Deserve Adequate Protection Today and Tomorrow (ADAPTT), now employed as PeTA's national lecturer
"I am convinced that we can shut down a lot of these animal abuse industries whether the public agrees with it or not. And whether these industries are shut down by violent or non-violent acts in the end, to me, doesn't really matter."
-- David Barbarash, Animal Liberation Front (ALF) Spokesman, BBC Documentary, "Beastly Business", October 2000
"I would be overjoyed when the first scientist is killed by a liberation activist."
-- Vivien Smith, Former ALF Spokesperson, USA Today, September 3, 1991
"I am convinced that we can shut down a lot of these animal abuse industries whether the public agrees with it or not. And whether these industries are shut down by violent or non-violent acts in the end, to me, doesn't really matter."
-- David Barbarash, Spokesperson for the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) No Compromise, BBC Documentary, "Beastly Business" (October 1, 2000)
How many more examples do you want? Would you please explain how these statements from the leadership of the ALF are not considered an agenda composed of hate and completely lacking of ethics and morals?
--TOP--
01 July 2006
E-mails from Kathy Harris
1 of 2
Kathy Harris wrote:
I don't know who you are, but your views are dangerous.
It is good to hear from someone at the Pensacola, FL chapter of CodePINK.
This country was built on freedom of speech, freedom of expressions, and the freedom to have a difference of opinion.
So why do you have such a problem with us having a different opinion. The fact is you do not really believe that we should be allowed to express a different opinion. This probably comes from the Left-wing, Marxist view that is the core belief of CodePINK.
Your agenda is wrong and it is dangerous. You look like fools trying to spread fear to the public. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
You are dangerous. You think you will gain strength by inciting false fear into people.
You are the dangerous ones. You openly support the insurgents that are killing American troops and Iraqi civilians. You support the insurgents that are bombing mosques, schools, and other public places where Iraqi civilians gather to live their lives. And you do it without any apology. You are doing everything you can to stop the spread of democracy to other people on this planet.
Instead you support the former regime under Saddam Hussein that encouraged torturing and killing its own citizens, condoned rape against women, and committed atrocities against its own people confirmed by the mass graves that have been uncovered by our troops.
And what is it that is false about what we have stated on this website? You were not clear.
This country was founded on diversity. After all, our fathers left the homeland to build a new country where freedoms would be tolerated. They creaed the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independance to protect diversity and religious and political freedoms. I suggest you familiarize yourself with it.
We keep hearing about all of that "tolerance" that exemplifies the finer points of the Left-wing. This e-mail proves that it is non-existent.
Tolerance - The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.
This country was founded on diversity, but you and your friends at CodePINK strive to prevent opinions that contradict your own. We have not tried to stop you from offering your views on anything. In fact, we welcome it yet you refuse to show the same consideration to others. You have not disputed anything on this website and that is because everything on this website is accurate and true.
To label an activity as un-American is dangerous. You are hiding behind an evil website.
It is not un-American if it is true. We do not sugar coat things here. The truth is not "evil" as you put it. You have no substance to your ideas and views so you resort to name-calling. You only see this website as "evil" because it differs greatly from your beliefs. So much for tolerance.
If you had courage, you would be proud to list your name and contact information.
That statement is exactly what a Liberal agenda signifies and that is the exemption from the expectations and rules that everyone else is expected to follow. We noticed that your contact information was missing from the CodePINK website and this e-mail.
That aside, we are not looking for recognition. Who we are as individuals is not important. We are not that vain. We are honest, hard working people that are not afraid to tell the truth. And so far, you have not disputed what is on this website, you just don't like its existence or the existence of those that made it. All you have done is read from the same Liberal talking points that are without substance.
Codepink supports the efforts of the men and women fighting this losing war.
And your support is clear with your reference to the "losing war" comment. You have no faith in the abilities of the men and women in the armed services. You have already set them up for defeat. Your defeatist attitude is apparent. You actually want them to suffer defeat just so you can say that you were right. That is not supporting anyone but the insurgents that are trying to kill the American troops.
It does not support the administration who lied to get it.
You mean the WMDs that have been found. The discovery of degraded mustard or sarin nerve agents. Incidentally, sarin nerve agents do not degrade with time.
Did you ever stop to think why the administration did it? It's called oil.
You mean aside from the 17 United Nations resolutions that violated the ceasefire agreement that Saddam Hussein signed in the first Gulf War and kicking out of the weapon inspectors in the late 1990s. The spreading of democracy and freedom had something to do with why the administration did it. Of course, that is the real problem that CodePINK has with the action. If it was just oil, all we needed to do was to just land troops, surround the oil reserves, and take what we wanted. But that did not happen, did it? We could have done the same with Kuwait and Iran too. But that did not happen, did it? Why are you people so opposed to allowing the Iraqi people to have an equivalent of the Bill of Rights and a Constitution from which to form laws for free people to live? And for the first time in the last 6000 years, the Iraqi's had free elections... several times. And they are very proud of it. Do you remember the purple fingers? And all of this was no thanks to you and your friends at CodePINK.
Did the insurgents at least show any gratitude for the $650,000 CodePINK gave them to kill American troops and Iraqis, both security forces and civilians?
It's also called greed. Cheney's company is Halliburton(the company that has landed all those contracts) to rebuild Iraq.
And what company would you have given the contract? What other company has the resources to do the job of rebuilding Iraq? And please be specific.
I suggest that you crawl back into your filthy hole and concentrate on different endeavors.
That must be that tolerance that we have heard so much about. This is exactly the kind of statement that we would expect from the good ladies at CodePINK.
--TOP--
01 July 2006
E-mails from Kathy Harris
2 of 2
Kathy Harris wrote:
Who's supporting insurgents? Nobody.
Read the CodePINK page. There are numerous examples or support for the insurgents. Take, for example, Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, 23, of Houston, Texas and Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker, 25, of Madras, Oregon. These two soldiers were tortured and killed by insurgents. These insurgents decapitated and cut out their hearts. Did CodePINK or any of the other peace activists condemn this killing? No they did not! All they did was to take great pleasure and delight in the knowledge that they could add the number "2" to the total number of US troops that have sacrificed everything. With the exception of people that really support the troops, no one has said a single thing against the terrorists that did this.
If you are not supporting the troops and their mission, then you are by default, supporting the insurgents. When CodePINK gives $650,000 in "aid and comfort", then you are supporting the insurgents. When CodePINK refers to American soldiers as "Killers", the insurgents pickup on this. You are listed as the contact person for CodePINK in Milton, FL.
On March 18, 2005, CodePINK, the San Diego Coalition of Peace and Justice, the International Socialist Organization (ISO), and their supporters appeared in true form on Laurel Street in San Diego for a demonstration showing their full appreciation, support, and respect for all of the U.S. troops fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq and the Democracy that is being established there.
What else could CodePINK do to prove their allegiance to the insurgents that wish to do America harm?
--TOP--
17 June 2006
E-mails from Glorystar
1 of 2
Glorystar wrote:
Webmaster -
I am afraid I must disagree with your view of the problem. I consider myself a liberal (indeed, my friends say I'm the most left-wing person they know), and I still loathe several of the organizations and people listed on your site.
In particular, I have no respect for Gary Yourofsky - when I was in middle school, he came to our class and told us how he freed thousands of minks from a fur farm, leaving them to die in the cold Wisconsin winter.
That alone proves that these people do not really care for animals. Animal Rights is merely a lie that hides the true agenda of these people. Their real agenda can easily be seen from what they say in public. We have this clearly documented in "The True Agenda of the Animal Rights Movement".
However, I strongly recommend that you change several of your views. For example, Karl Marx did not wish to create such a country as the Soviet Union became under the rule of Stalin. His Communist Manifesto was intended to be a way for people to live in harmony with each other.
Karl Marx wanted to create a utopian society where everyone had an equal share of everything. There are so many problems that are inherent with his Communist Manifesto and the entire Communist/Marxist doctrine. Take a look at "The Meaning of Marxism" and this will define and explain what Marxism really is.
I, like you, strongly oppose domestic terrorism under the guise of animal liberation. Unlike you, though, I do not savor branding the criminals who commit such horrid acts as 'targets of opportunity'. I believe those terrorists calling themselves righteous should be given over to the justice system, not given a vigilante's trial. I am aware that you do not, in any form, state that such a killing is acceptable, but it is the feeling I receive from your style. If I am mistaken, then I am sorry, but I do not think any crime should be repaid by another.
At no point on this website have we called for violence against anyone, nor have we called for any such action. The only people that have called for violence are some of the very people that we have listed on this website. These people need to be given credit for what they have done and what they have said.
As you may have gathered, I have no love for PETA, the ELF, or any of their crooked associates. However, I do support deregulation of national power - I am a fervent user of Linux, Mozilla, and other open-source materials. I simply do not believe that what is good for one corporate conglomeration is good for all of humanity. I am sorry if I have offended your beliefs, but I wish to share my ideas with you as you have with so many others around you.
I wish you happiness, wherever life may bring you.
- Glorystar
We are very pleased to hear from you that you "have no love for PeTA, the ELF, or any of their crooked associates." But, will you stand up against them? If you do not stand up against these people, then you silently encourage them. The only thing required for evil to exist and thrive is for good people to do nothing. This means you must stand against these people, not simply to just disagree with their methods in silence.
--TOP--
28 June 2006
E-mails from Glorystar
2 of 2
Glorystar wrote:
I will pass through the first paragraph of your response only because there is no dissent - so don't claim that I mutilated your response.
We understand that you wrote that just for the record and just for the record, we have no intention of making any such claim. We always respond to e-mails as they are sent to us and in their entirely.
"Karl Marx wanted to create a utopian society where everyone had an equal share of everything. There are so many problems that are inherent with his Communist Manifesto and the entire Communist/Marxist doctrine. Take a look at "The Meaning of Marxism" and this will define and explain what Marxism really is."
Admittedly, there are flaws in Karl Marx's vision of the future - primarily the fact that it is human nature to minimize work when possible. However, even though it was imperfect in ways, such as only allowing specific personal property, it still has potential. Perhaps rather than continue to post these messages, you should find a way to describe your vision of an ideal future - not necessarily perfect, but something to work towards.
"Admittedly, there are flaws in Karl Marx's vision of the future..." That is a pretty serious understatement. In fact, based on the historical implementation of his ideals, Communism has caused the deaths of 100 million people.
While it is human nature to minimize work when possible, this translates to working more efficiently. Getting the most out of the work that you do is human nature. Consider the definition of the word "Freedom" that we have used on this website.
Freedom - The right of the individual to exist, live, and prosper for their own sake...
That definition of "Freedom" is the ideal future. People can work as hard as they want to achieve the results that they desire. Socialism, Marxism, and Communism are in direct opposition to the natural yearning of the human spirit.
"At no point on this website have we called for violence against anyone, nor have we called for any such action. The only people that have called for violence are some of the very people that we have listed on this website. These people need to be given credit for what they have done and what they have said."
I agree that these terrorists need their so-called 'credit'. However, I do not think they should die when an alternative exists; it is possible to detain without killing. If you continue to claim that you do not promote violence, I am well aware that you never outright declare a position. Your attitude, however, can be clearly read from your site name - TARGET OF OPPORTUNITY. A target of opportunity is, according to several dictionaries, 'A target visible to a surface or air sensor or observer, which is within range of available weapons and against which fire has not been scheduled or requested.' You are essentially aiming the public's weapons at these people. Though they may be utterly inhumane, that does not mean we have to destroy them.
As was stated on the homepage "This website is a list and record..." We give them full credit for what they state in public. Their true meaning is not changed or taken out of context. These people pose a serious danger to the public based on their actions and statements. This is documented in "The True Agenda of the Animal Rights Movement". From their own words, these people make the case proving that they are dangerous.
We are informing the public of the danger that these people present. We have no problem calling these people out for their actions. These people are breaking the law and have no problems doing it. They have problems living within the same rules that everyone else is expected to. The danger that these people pose by their selfish actions, make them a TARGET OF OPPORTUNITY. While in some circles, this takes on a threatening meaning by nature, the idea that there are people that are watching and keeping a record should be noted by these people. We are definitely "aiming the public's weapons at these people." They are utterly inhumane and they should be stopped before they end up killing someone. Arson, burglary, vandalism and the other crimes that these people encourage in others and commit themselves do not make society safe place to live. The unwillingness to admit that these people are truly dangerous is the reason that we have and need dedicated people that are willing to do what is necessary to keep these terrorist's actions a priority.
"We are very pleased to hear from you that you "have no love for PeTA, the ELF, or any of their crooked associates." But, will you stand up against them? If you do not stand up against these people, then you silently encourage them. The only thing required for evil to exist and thrive is for good people to do nothing. This means you must stand against these people, not simply to just disagree with their methods in silence."
While I do not support a paramilitary stand against these individuals, I also don't "disagree with their methods in silence". I have joined several local groups petitioning to replace a PETA member in office this year.
Who is it in PeTA that you are trying to replace and why?
Thank you for your response, and the time you spent on it. If you wish, we may continue this conversation - please post it on your site.
Best regards,
- Glorystar
From your affection to Karl Marx, it is easy to see that we differ greatly on our political views, but we would love to continue this exchange of ideas.
--TOP--
10 May 2006
Tiffany Krog, Esq. wrote:
In a letter to you written by "Bryan" on 1/6/06, he states:
"What makes you think Bush is a good president?"
To which you respond, "lack of terrorist attacks in this country". Apparently you overlooked 9/11. I'd laugh if I wasn't so disturbed by your stupidity.
What we were talking about was the lack terrorist attacks since 9/11. We thought it was implied, but perhaps we were not clear enough. You must be one of those that believe that President Bush was responsible for 9/11 attacks. Before you answer, you might want to consider that this was not the first time that the World Trade Center was attacked. Remember the blind Sheik? If you believe that the 9/11 attack was President Bush's fault, then, for the same reason, you must believe that the World Trade Center in 1993 was President Clinton's fault.
PS I have so much more I could say about your inane positions and uninformed opinion, but I believe in getting paid for work...and engaging morons like you is work. Consider this letter to you as a free donation of rational thought.
You really did not say anything that contradicted or refuted any information on this website. You just do not like President Bush, you do not like the existence of this website, and you resort to personal attacks and name-calling.
It would seem that you could say more, but, for whatever reason (and we are not going to speculate as to what that reason is), you decided not to elaborate. In fact, you completely ran out of ideas of any substance at the end of the third sentence of your e-mail.
You have not really shown any rational thought or any real knowledge of history. Unless you consider personal attacks and name-calling to be rational thought. Is that what you consider to be a substantial donation?
PPS Don't forget to post this because you accept any and all comments!
Best regards,
Tiffany Krog, Esq.
Attorney at Law
DiJulio Law Group
100 West Broadway, Ste 840
Glendale, CA
818-502-1700
www.DiJuliolawgroup.com
There you go.
--TOP--
24 March 2006
Lauren Regan, Attorney at Law wrote:
Talk about a hate group, yours takes the cake. I hope you have a good lawyer because you've got some real problems with this website. Try going back and rereading the constitution and bill of rights and remember that democracy was built on dissent. Those that blindly follow like sheep without critically thinking about right and wrong end up off a cliff. I'm not looking to debate your politics but the slanderous nature of your sight is undemocratic.
Ms. Regan,
What information on this website is inaccurate or untrue? Show us where we are incorrect and we will make an immediate correction.
You can dissent all you want too. Nobody here is trying to stop you. In fact, we want you to be as loud as possible. It sounds like you want to be free to disagree with us, but we are not free to disagree with you. This is very typical and reminiscent with every Communist, Socialist, and Marxist based government that has ever existed since Karl Marx and his Communist Manifesto.
Obviously, you agree with many listed on this website. It sounds like you just do not want those people to have their ideals, beliefs, and actions commented on by others that are free to think and reason. With the facts known, it is easy to see and understand the danger posed by the people on this website.
It is easy to see why you do not want to debate your political beliefs. You could not point out anything that you actually disagreed with except for the very existence of this website. You don't have a good argument. You don't even have a good excuse.
...but the slanderous nature of your sight is undemocratic.
There are a couple of terms you might want to familiarize yourself.
Slander - Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.
Libel - A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.
As an attorney, you should know better. What Law School did you attend?
--TOP--
We had a reply from another reader concerning above e-mail from Lauren Regan. Normally, we make our own comments to e-mails, but this one was just too good not to print.
25 March 2006
Megan wrote:
I just had the pleasure of reading the latest "Hate Mail" and you are correct in that none of these people can provide a good argument, let alone an argument in general. They just state their opinions, never facts, and frankly, that doesn't present a powerful case. Also, did this Regan gal read the Bill of Rights and Constitution herself before slamming it onto you? Her reasoning doesn't make sense, if she is against government control/decisions, then why does she make you read a document that the government uses as supreme law of the land? I think you've read it quite well in order to condemn the likes of idiots like her. Would she prefer a government not at all and prefer chaos instead? Because that's when the fall of democracy will occur and the real terrorists/tyrannical leaders will appear. There's a difference between "blindly following like sheep" and causing destruction and putting innocent bystanders in peril. Civil disobedience is accepted when it is just that, CIVIL and NON VIOLENT. When it slides into violent protest, that's unnecessary and if anything, isn't as strong.
Fact #1: Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, "Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue."
Fact #2: Gandhi said, "The hardest metal yields to sufficient heat. Even so must the hardest heart melt before sufficiency of the heat of non-violence. And there is no limit to the capacity of non-violence to generate heat." If I'm not mistaken, isn't a lawyer needed for those protesters in jail that displayed violence, jeopardizing the lives of non-participants? I don't think one is needed for a mere website. And you are the one that's undemocratic? How so? By not burning down the nearest logger truck or SUV you see? Yeah, because that's going to make America really sway towards your opinion and immediately cease in driving their cars and building more houses. If she's not looking to debate you, then she shouldn't have written anything.
And that's all I have to say about that... ha-ha, keep up the good work!!!!!! :)
Megan
Thanks Megan!!!
--TOP--
26 February 2006
Sylvia Raye wrote:
I have never read such a load of crap in all my life.
What is it that you found inaccurate or untrue? The one thing that most of the e-mails we receive at the website have in common is the total lack of any attempt to even try to disprove the material that is presented. It is clear that you do not like what is presented here, but you do not offer anything to your substantiate your opinion... other than the insults, which is intellectually weak. But that is almost becoming the standard for any Left-wing opinion.
Please tell me exactly what is......... The American way of Life.
What is the American way of life? That is actually a very good question. It begins with the Declaration of Independence and the phrase "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" and it continues through the Bill of Rights and the United States Constitution. The American way of life is the reason that more people from the rest of the world want to come to this country and make a life. The right of the individual to exist, live, and prosper for their own sake. That is freedom. That is the American way of life. The American flag is the symbol of this freedom that is recognized throughout the world. And people that are busy burning the American flag are the ones that stand against the freedom that America represents.
Is it Paris Hilton with her puppy dog as a handbag or is it Michael Jackson with his pet monkey.?
If you do not like these people, then ignore them. Neither Paris Hilton with her puppy dog as a handbag or Michael Jackson with his pet monkey will bother you if you will just turn off the television. It is doubtful that these two are coming over to your place of residence and making themselves at home without your expressed written consent. If you are saying that these two examples are very superficial at the core, you will not get an argument from us. Nobody believes or has any expectation that Paris Hilton or Michael Jackson are going to go to do anything relevant for mankind like find a cure for cancer. But America is not built around a foundation of Paris Hilton and Michael Jackson. That is not what America or the American way of life is all about. People that want to immigrate to this country and make a better life will be happy to explain it if you still do not understand.
Could it possibly be Dick Cheney who shoots his best friend and last but not least your bumbling fumbling President George W. Bush who is a friend of our cold out of touch Prime Minister John Howard.
Take your pick.
Sylvia Raye
Sydney
Australia
Vice President Cheney shooting his best friend was an accident. That has been proven. You would probably want to make it out to be something it is not, but such is not the case. To do so would be dishonest. That was probably just an inadvertent oversight on your part.
If, as you put it, the "bumbling fumbling President George W. Bush" is so inept, then explain what he has done that you don't like and explain what specifically you would do differently. But do not complain that George W. Bush is doing something wrong. Explain in detail what you would do and how your ideas would fix whatever you see as a problem... if you can. We anxiously await your response.
--TOP--
23 January 2006
E-mails from Kerbear
1 of 3
Kerry wrote:
I have browsed through your website and feel you have been very broad in your accusations.
You appear to have accused all animal rights activists / environmentalists of having Socialist / Liberal agenda's - um, no. You have mocked and insulted the genuine and honest ideals of compassionate people and made un-researched statements.
All that has been done is we have brought out the truth about the ALF, the ELF, PeTA, and others that go to great lengths to create the illusion that they care about animals. Their claim is that their first priority is to care for the animals of the world. Nothing could be further from the truth. Instead, these groups and people feed off of the compassion that others have for animals to further their own selfish agendas. And it is a Left-wing agenda complete with Anarchist, Marxist, and Socialist ideologies. What information on this website is inaccurate or untrue? These people and groups are the ones that have insulted and taken advantage of the genuine and honest ideals of compassionate people. Read and follow the links. If you find any information that is not accurate or true, please send us an e-mail and we will make the appropriate changes.
You have twisted words and concentrated your attacks around a few extreme views.
The whole point of this information presented on this website is to show that the views of these people and groups ARE extreme... Very extreme. But, nothing has been twisted... Nothing has been taken out of context... Nothing has been misquoted. Their words and actions speak for themselves. And they speak volumes!
Your statement is very revealing. It sounds like you are making excuses for what these extremist have stated. You don't say that what they said was wrong. You don't condemn the statement. Instead, you make an excuse. You give them a pass. You don't have the courage to stand up and say "These are extreme acts and they are wrong! These people ARE evil!" Well, we do have the courage.
"My doctrine is this, that if we see cruelty or wrong that we have the power to stop, and do nothing, we make ourselves sharers in the guilt."
Anna Sewell (Author of "Black Beauty"; 1820-1878
This is not the time for playground tactics. It is like listening to those annoying and opinionated people who spend a great deal of time spouting how the Vatican is busting at the seams with paedophiles, all because of a few isolated incidents. Please.
You are so right, it is like listening to annoying and opinionated people that spend a great deal of time spouting off about things they know nothing about. Leaving room for possible exceptions, everyone listed on this website is very opinionated. And annoying. So very annoying!
If something isn't done to save our planet and soon, all the material possessions and luxuries you covert will be meaningless. "Lowering standards" is a very small price to pay for future generations - however there will always be the selfish few who care about no-one but themselves and their own comfort.
And here we have the essence of the Liberal agenda in all of its glory. Everyone should be equally miserable. Don't dare raise the standards of the people on the bottom that need it. Instead, lower everyone else's standard of living and bring it to the bottom because of junk science. And who are the selfish few? Those that drive SUVs? Those that drive gas burning automobiles? Those that eat meat? Those people that own pets? Those that fly in private jets? The Hollywood Elite? Which ones are you talking about? You were a bit vague.
What is going to happen to our planet and when is it going to happen? You Liberals can never answer that question. Every few years, someone Hollywood elitist goes on Oprah and declares that the oceans will be dead in 10 years, the polar icecaps will be gone in 12 years, or some unrealistic, unsound, or unproven theory like that. And it is always America's fault. It is never true. All you do is to "Cry Wolf." The sky is not falling Chicken Little. Planet Earth is a bit more resilient than you believe or care to know.
What are you doing to lower your standards? How does lowering standards ever help anyone? All it does is to bring about hardships. It makes the poor poorer.
And as far as those "selfish few who care about no one but themselves and their own comfort," a lot of limousine liberals come to mind. You are probably a believer in wind-power. Well, so are we. Wind power is a great idea. Windmills are a zero emissions technology. They should consider building wind farms on Cape Cod and that entire area. And who do you think is getting in the way. That's right. The big shot, elitist Liberals. They have done everything to stop it. And why, you may ask? Because it will interfere with their view of the ocean from their estates. All over the country the construction of windmills is running into opposition because these big shot, elitist Liberals are concerned with appearance issues instead of energy independence.
You need to rethink your own morals and agenda's before attacking others.
Regards
Kerry
But you don't feel the need to rethink your own morals and agenda's before attacking others, is that what you're saying?
This is a classic Liberal attack. Read "The True Agenda of the Animal Rights Movement" in its entirety. And follow the associated links. Are these the views that best describe your believe system, morals, and ethics? If they are, then you are completely unqualified to make any judgment to anyone's character or morals.
--TOP--
27 January 2006
E-mails from Kerbear
2 of 3
Kerry wrote:
You have taken the views of a minority of the animal rights movement and call us all terrorists. The movement is about peace, compassion and love of ALL living things - including people, (but according to you this is all a guise).
You don't seem to understand that the extreme Animal Rights groups have adopted a philosophy based on intimidation and instilling fear in others. This is where they earn the right to be called "Terrorists."
"These are the angry, immature, and disruptive antics of self-centered individuals with visions of greatness".
I am an animal rights activist and live my life with the utmost integrity. Just because I have chosen to dedicate my life to helping others and not to building a career or having a family or accumulating material possessions, does not mean I have visions of greatness. The majority of the movement are peaceful, caring people and sites like yours label us all as violent terrorists.
Animal Rights Activists, much like you, stand side-by-side with the ADL, the ELF, PeTA, among others, and you say nothing. You don't seem to know or care what their real agenda is, so you help advanced it by joining them in the public view by marching with them... and supporting them... and passing out leaflets with them... and advancing their agenda.
I am not going to debate this with you, we will have to agree to disagree. My energies are better spent elsewhere - I am off to peacefully leaflet outside a fur shop now, hopefully people will be less insulting than they were last week.
You are off to peacefully leaflet outside a fur shop... What a waste of time! Are you doing this with a group or just by yourself? If it is a group, who is this group? What are their affiliations? What do they represent and what is their real agenda? Do you even know the answers to these questions?
These are the angry, immature, and disruptive antics of self-centered individuals with visions of greatness. Face it, you can't be happy
annoying people and disrupting their lives, but then again, if you are, then the statement does include you.
And if people are insulting, maybe they understand the agenda that you are helping to advance. Or maybe you just remind them of some telemarketer calling early on a Saturday morning.
--TOP--
30 January 2006
E-mails from Kerbear
3 of 3
Kerry wrote:
You have taken the views of a minority of the animal rights movement and call us all terrorists. The movement is about peace, compassion and love of ALL living things - including people, (but according to you this is all a guise).
You don't seem to understand that the extreme Animal Rights groups have adopted a philosophy based on intimidation and instilling fear in
others. This is where they earn the right to be called "Terrorists."
You are an outsider and you are wrong, you don't have the slightest clue what the philosophy is, you have speculated.
We are outsiders and we just do not understand, so we read their website. We do not have the slightest clue of the philosophy of these Animal Rights groups, and we listen to what they have to say and we discover "The True Agenda of the Animal Rights Movement". Then, after all of that, we read the Earth Liberation Front manual. These are the reasons that we know that these people ARE Terrorists!
These are the angry, immature, and disruptive antics of self-centered individuals with visions of greatness.
I am an animal rights activist and live my life with the utmost integrity.
We have no doubt. We believe you.
Just because I have chosen to dedicate my life to helping others and not to building a career or having a family or accumulating material possessions, does not mean I have visions of greatness.
But when you consider everyone else to be an "outsider" and then make the statement that we "don't have the slightest clue what the philosophy is", there is a sense of elitism that prevails. And that is your vision of greatness.
The majority of the movement are peaceful, caring people and sites like yours label us all as violent terrorists.
And it is the Animal Rights groups listed on this website that have taken advantage of the good nature of the rank and file of the movement.
The majority of the Animal Rights Movement are peaceful people, but you stand side-by-side with PeTA, the ADL, the ELF, among others, and you say nothing. You are not strong enough to stand against the extreme actions of these groups. You don't seem to know or care what their real agenda is, so you help advanced it by joining them in the public view by marching with them... and supporting them... and passing out leaflets with them... and advancing their agenda. We have written what their true agenda is based on what they have said and what they have done. You just need to have the courage to accept the truth about these groups.
Again - you have no clue what it is about - if you did you wouldn't be making these ridiculous statements.
This is your third e-mail to us and so far you have not disputed one fact on this website. You think that we have grouped the entire Animal Rights Movement into one package. But to be truthful, we have not, you have. In fact, we have clearly pointed out in the first e-mail from you, that these Animal Rights groups have clearly taken advantage of the genuine and honest ideals of compassionate people.
I am not going to debate this with you, we will have to agree to disagree. My energies are better spent elsewhere - I am off to peacefully leaflet outside a fur shop now, hopefully people will be less insulting than they were last week.
You are off to peacefully leaflet outside a fur shop... What a waste of time! Are you doing this with a group or just by yourself? If it is a group, who is this group? What are their affiliations? What do they represent and what is their real agenda? Do you even know the answers to these questions? Perhaps you need to take another look at the ELF manual.
This is not a waste of time, it is very effective and I receive allot of support along with my friends. We do not belong to a particular group, we are concerned citizens. Our agenda is to educate people about fur farming. There is no conspiracy darling, you are a little paranoid it would appear.
No one here is stating anything about a conspiracy. It is always the Left-wing Liberals that are always referencing some conspiracy. Remember the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" from Hillary Clinton. We are supported by the facts and these facts that have been presented on this website. They are accurate and true. And you have not disputed a single one of those facts!
If peacefully leafleting is disrupting people's lives then I am guilty as charged - along with all the other people who are EMPLOYED to do it promoting food, clothing, services etc.
People are insulting because they feel guilty and when people feel guilty they get defensive and lash out. As you do. You may wish to do something useful with your time, like educating people about the importance of lets say.... recycling. Help save the environment and thereby the earth and the human race.
We are not the defensive ones. You are the one that have lashed out at us. You are the one that is supporting Terrorism. And you are trying to sugar coat it by saying that your intentions are pure and better than those that disagree with you does not change this fact.
You will receive no further correspondence from me and I will not be reading any further correspondence from you. Feel free to mail me as often as you like but I assure you I will not read a word.
Best wishes
Kerry
You only need the courage to see the truth. Without that courage and you will only be guided through the darkness by individuals that wish to take advantage of your good nature and they will only allow you to see what they want you to see.
--TOP--
07 January 2006
Vegan Peace wrote:
So I came across your website and i'm a little disturbed. By your own defintion terrorism is "Violence committed by an individual or group in order to intimidate or harm..." and then you say A.L.F is a terrorist organization in every sense of the word. But, you know yourself that they have never harmed anyone. Yes they have intimidated by means of property damage.
Well, there you go. They have damaged property. And they did it because they disagreed with someone. Take a look at the editorial entitled "The True Agenda of the Animals Rights Movement". Their true agenda comes through loud and clear.
Maybe we are not using the same definition for the word. Perhaps we should define the word Terrorism.
Terrorism - Violence committed by an individual or group in order to intimidate or harm...
That is a definition we used to use. Below is a definition that better defines the word.
Terrorism - The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or group against people or property with the intent of intimidation or coercion often for ideological or political reasons.
But by no means could they be considered terrorist ESPECIALLY not in league with 9/11 attacks. The 9/11 attack was "a plane aimed straight into a building" tactic in order to kill everyone in it and destroy the records it held. But A.L.F doesnt go on suicide missions to kill animal abusers or their children OR the animals. They destroy the property, release the animals, etc. in order to make it impossible for injustice to continue. They wouldnt do it if the animal abusers would listen to non-violent protest, but you should know, they dont, they never do, so it's necessary for them to show them that they want justice for all. in every sense of the word.
Just because they did not do what the 9/11 terrorists did does not mean they are not Terrorists. It just means that they are not at the top of the terrorist food chain. This was mentioned on the website.
The 9/11 Terrorists are just more famous. And that is really what these people want. They want recognition for their terrorist actions. If the 9/11 Terrorists had merely stolen the aircraft and flown them into the WTC... and the Pentagon... and a field in Pennsylvania... and there had been no loss of human life (aside from the terrorists), would they not be considered terrorists? What would you call them... vandals?
Allthough, i do value your opinion as we SHOULD all be allowed our own opinion. I respect that you dont agree with how the ALF goes about things but it's not fair to them for you to try and go so far as to call them TERRORISTS. and then to go even further and compare them to the terrorists of 9/11!
Actually, it is fair and accurate for those on this website to be considered as such. And that is our opinion and the opinion of people that have been attacked by these TERRORISTS. Their actions speak for themselves. That is what earns them the TERRORIST label.
How much private property do they have to damage and/or how many people do they have to kill before they are considered TERRORISTS?
--TOP--
06 January 2006
E-mails from Bryan
1 of 3
Bryan wrote:
I ran acrossed you making fun of another culture because they burnt a flag of ours.
We were not making fun of another culture. We were making fun of a bunch of Islamic Radicals screwing up the simple act of burning an American Flag.
Did you ever think that's why they hate us?
That's a tough one. We purchase and use most of their oil, thus providing them with tons of money to spend. We educate most of their rich kids. We give them aid when they need it. Our soldiers shed their blood to protect them, but you probably forgot about the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
One reason that they hate us is that they are afraid that our western culture will bring an assortment of undesirable lifestyles to their culture. Homosexuality and the many deviant behaviors, which are seen in the movies from Hollywood and on the TV every night, are just a couple of traits that they find very distasteful.
We're discriminatory, ignorant and obnixous.
This we agree on 100%. Most Liberals are discriminatory, ignorant and, as you wrote in your e-mail, 'obnixous.' You probably meant 'obnoxious', which is further evidence of the ignorance you just mentioned.
I see you're bitching about France not helping us with our affairs. Well you know, maybe they don't want to take down an entire country because of a group of people located in that country?
You were referencing the humorous editorial "Appreciation to France". France does not even want to "take down a country" even when the country in question is goose-stepping down the streets of Paris. But France sure wants to be in on the money that is to be made on the rebuilding of Iraq. It would be nice to have France just stand behind us and say, "We are behind you all the way." Keep in mind that America is not asking France to really do anything other than offer some verbal support and perhaps a vote when necessary in the useless UN (United Nations). History has proven that France is not of much use beyond that.
We're trying to be "democratic police". We kill innocent people, discriminate, attack countries, throw the amendment out during time of war, yet you still defend this pathetic country?
Are we to understand that you do not like democracy or believe that the Iraqi people want to live under a democratically elected government. The lines at the voting booths do not support this theory.
Which amendment are you referencing?
It is clear that you do not believe in democracy or support the soldiers. That pretty much clears up your position on "Supporting Our Troops" or as you probably refer to them "Baby Killers."
So what if Saddam had nuclear weapons? Maybe he was using them as protection.
The ignorance that you display from this statement is infinite. So it is your position that Saddam Hussein having nuclear weapons is a good idea. This is what you believe makes the world safer?
Why aren't we attacking the other WMD countries? Saddams soldiers didn't attack us, it was terrorist who lived in his country.
You mean other countries like Iran, Libya, or Syria? I guess you think that they should have Nuclear Weapons too. Do you think that will make the world safer? What about North Korea? Should we give them nuclear weapon technology too? Wait, President Bill Clinton already did that. What part of the world sleeping better because of that decision?
Saddams soldiers didn't attack us, it was terrorist who lived in his country.
It does appear that you are very weak on history. The first time was in Gulf War I. You remember the whole Kuwait thing with Iraq. We pushed out the Iraqi army much to the admiration of the Kuwaiti people and we stopped short of moving in on Bagdad. As to whether that was a mistake or not can be debated for decades. Saddam decided not to live with the terms of the negotiated settlement as set forth by the United Nations in 14 resolutions. This failure to adhere to the terms of the negotiated peace is what brought us to the second Gulf War.
What makes you think Bush is a good president?
low unemployment
low inflation
a great economy
strong economic growth
lack of terrorist attacks in this country
positive and decisive action against terrorism around the world
preventing nuclear threats in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and other countries
troops are already starting to come home from Iraq
more freedom exists in the world
he is not Al Gore or John F. Kerry
I remember when he shown up on USS abarham. He wore a military outfit, the last country ruler i noticed in a military uniform was saddam. Also, they played it out like he was over on the otherside of the world. He was in america, they just shot the camera towards the ocean.
No one ever said that the event took place in the Indian Ocean. In fact, it was clearly reported that the USS Abraham Lincoln was almost home when that visit took place. Your objection to the wearing the flight suit is not clear. President Bush is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. You seem to be comparing President Bush to Saddam Hussein as some sort of military dictator. Yet you seem to think that giving Saddam Hussein nuclear weapons is a good idea.
I also love how the american government can gather secret evidence to secretly get a secret warrant, then secretly spy on us.
So you think that preventing the American government from spying on terrorists and thus protecting the American people from terrorists is a good idea. Spying on terrorists and their associates is a good policy. It is the right policy. And it is the best way we can prevent another 9/11. What is it about the Liberal agenda that sees gathering intelligence on terrorists as a bad idea?
How does that makes you feel? Free perhaps?
We should not give Terrorists that seek to kill Americans the chance to do so. Why is this so hard for Liberals to understand? We should give them no place to hide and no chance to succeed as opposed to your sense of fair play for terrorists that want to kill us. You seem to want to apply techniques of "Affirmative Action" rules of engagement so as to "even the playing field" and give the terrorists a fair chance to kill us. That seems counter-productive but in the Liberal's way of thinking, it probably makes sense.
Stop being so "hurr-ah" for america.
We have fought for America. We love this country. We will never stop being "hurr-ah" for America... EVER!
It's not a fantastic place to be. Theres a few countries i'd rather be at the moment.
And since there are a few other countries that you would rather be at the moment, please feel free to go there as soon as possible. In fact, if you contact Sean Hannity, he has spoken in the past to pay for any Liberal that will leave this country and seek life elsewhere. This offer may or may not still be valid. If you contact the Sean Hannity Radio Show, they should be able to give you the details pertaining to the validity of this offer. If you need assistance in contacting Sean Hannity, let us know. Being the first, you may actually be able to profit financially from this offer.
Disclaimer:
The Sean Hannity Show has no affiliation with TargetOfOpportunity.com or any other website mentioned on the www.targetofopportunity.com website.
You never did say, but what country would you choose over the United States of America?
"And this picture is just another perfect example that proves these people cannot engage in a simple activity without endangering everyone around them!!!"
And what about this is not a true and accurate statement.
Can i say you're an idiot?
You can say anything you like. Just remember, you're the one that thinks that Saddam Hussein should have nuclear weapons.
I bet many would believe it.
Some of them are on this website.
Yes, we americans are so much smarter. It takes alot of education to be a manager at mcdonalds, Work at menards, mow lawns. May i also mention CKY movies/ Jackass episodes? Yes car surfing is really smart isnt it? Open you're eyes.
Some of us Americans are smarter. So far you have not actually given anyone any reason to think that you are one of them. You don't seem have much of an education at all. Grammar, spelling, capitalization of proper nouns seem to give you problems. While, in your words, "It takes alot of education to be a manager at mcdonalds, Work at menards, mow lawns", it seems to be a challenge of your skills to make use of the 'Spell Check' feature on your computer.
It could be that you just did not know that the word "I" is supposed to be capitalized when used as a personal pronoun considering the outcome-based education in some of today's schools. Capitalizing the word "America" could just be a lack of education or just disrespect. Either way, it shows very poorly on you as a person.
I'd like this to be put on the hatemail section.
Congratulations, you made it.
And i'd like a response back from you on my email, i wont be visiting your terribly made website again. Learn HTML/CCS/DIVS/JAVA/FLASH, so your website doesn't look like a freshman in highschool made it.
--
Bryan
Feel free to write us back anytime. And perhaps you should consider taking a 4th grade English class so your e-mails don't look like a child's letter to Santa Claus full of numerous grammatical errors and misspellings. It's cute when you are eight years old, but once you get beyond that, it's just annoying.
--TOP--
08 January 2006
E-mails from Bryan
2 of 3
Bryan wrote:
Okay, I was wondering why you're so ethusist for america, so I did research.
Why do you defend america? (lack of repect, that's why it's not capatalized)
Lack of education is the reason for the misspellings. You still have not quite figured out that 'Spell Check' feature on the word processor.
First of all, you're not a real big "us" as so you say, most likely, two people. You run your website off a Apache server, which I can do off my desktop thats sitting in my room.
So what? The size of the staff of this website has never been an issue. You have not found any inaccuracies with the content of the website.
Second, Your IP address' location is CA-British Columbia - Vancouver.
Here's a thought. This may be a difficult concept to grasp but, perhaps that is where the server is physically located.
You don't live in america. Unless of course you have a IP shadowing program.
Actually, we do live in America and are proud of it. Not so surprisingly, your research is somewhat lacking in accuracy. It could be that you really don't know what you are doing. After all, you have trouble with the proper spelling of the word 'Respect'. There is no shadowing program associated with this website.
So really, that makes no sense why you vigoriously defend this "fantastic" country.
You should really open your eyes. If this really needs to be explained to you, the answer is probably a little beyond your understanding.
--TOP--
08 January 2006
E-mails from Bryan
3 of 3
Bryan wrote:
Why wouldn't you base your "server" (just a computer) out of the country you love?
Quite frankly, we never gave much thought to the actual geographical location of the web hosting company's computer servers. You seem to be confusing web hosting with HONOR, LOYALTY, and PATRIOTISM for one's country. Perhaps that elitist Liberal attitude you display in your e-mail prevents you from possessing a true understanding of these basic concepts and ideals.
It seems the only rude gesture or comment you've thrown at me was my English,
Your lack of attention to detail was mentioned, but there was nothing rude about it. You are the one that resorted to showing disrespect and name-calling. But this is nothing out of the ordinary and so very typical of a Liberal viewpoint.
Which for a seventeen year old male, is quite good may i add.
Actually, it isn't quite good at all. In fact, it is pretty poor for a high school student, but that probably depends on what your standards are. Some people's standards are higher than others. And if this is what you consider "quite good", then your standards are not that high.
I could be typing to you in american. (EX - y do u do that man)
That example would be considered a form of informal "Shorthand" adapted for electronic text messaging using a computer keyboard or PDA. With the Liberal agendas and Outcome Based Education philosophies that schools embrace today, formal "Shorthand" may not be taught in schools anymore. Regardless, you do not seem to know or understand this concept, so allow us to define the example that you presented.
Shorthand - A system of rapid handwriting employing abbreviations and symbols to represent words, phrases, and letters.
Text Message - Any short electronically transmitted written message, especially those messages sent to a handheld device such as a pager, PDA, cell phone, or instant message (IM) software. Shorthand abbreviations are often used to increase the speed of conveying information.
I didn't research that far into your website,
That was pretty easy to see. Yet you were pretty quick to start with the name-calling and insulting language when you, by your own admission, did not know what you were talking about. If you ever do decide to actually read the website, we hope you find it enlightening, as its content is true and accurate.
I had done what was legal, I'm not a malicious kind of person.
"I had done what was legal..." What does that mean? No one accused you of doing anything illegal. It was never stated or implied that you were a "malicious kind of person." But you are disrespectful and extremely naïve with respect to the world in general. Believing that Saddam Hussein should have nuclear weapons... What were you thinking?
--TOP--
03 January 2006
Rita wrote:
Dear Sir/Madam:
I having been working as an independent activist AGAINST the ALF for awhile now and have had alot of sucess.Unfortunately, since I am married to a scientist who has developed a very well known drug
(tested on rats), my family, home, children and even pets live under the burden of threat from this group.
I like to think that I am a good example of how change can be brought about without violence, harrassment,
vandalism or threats.
Fear not as we will not use your e-mail address or last name. Keep in mind that because your husband has used animals for drug testing purposes (as you stated), SHAC, PCRM and others will consider you a serious threat and may take action against you.
I do take issue with one point.I disagree that "liberalism" poses a threat to America, as your mission statement mentions.I am a liberal and I advocate peace and peaceful demonstration, I'm not a threat to America.Additionally, if you look at ALF's guestbook or listen to one of Jerry Vlasaks recent comments, you'll see that they have recently made several pro-life comments, a position of the right.
Actually, Liberalism poses a very real threat to America and Freedom in general. Many examples are on this website. And as far as Jerry Vlasak goes, it is not his pro-life comments that were addressed on the website. They are not the comments that are so threatening to others. It is the other comments about killing scientists such as your husband and family that causes us reason for concern.
Additionally, I cringe at this part of your mission:
"Left-Wing activists that support the virtues of Domestic and Foreign Terrorists, and Radical Islam, which offers a blueprint for the Left's terrorist activities, all have one thing in common; a Zero Tolerance for anyone offering any opposing views or ideas."
What about this statement is not true? Just try to bring a Conservative speaker to any college campus in this country to hear the calls to shut them up. Take John Daly and his comments at Warren County Community College. If this story is new to you, just click on the link and read about it.
There are definitely some right-wingers who support terrorism and have zero tolerance, too. Didn't Pat Robertson advocate killing the president of Venezuela? I guess they aren't mentioned because you are obviously a right wing Republican.
Yes he did and he has been laughed at ever since. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were terrorists too and we certainly do not support their actions. In fact, we have actually compared the Domestic Terrorists listed on the website with Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. It is unbelievable that you cannot see the difference between Pat Robertson and the terrorists that might actually target you.
I like your website but I don't understand your need to catgorize every target as leftist. It's not accurate.
Each and every one of these people has a Leftist agenda. That is the one thing that the people that sympathize with those that actively call for the destruction of America have in common. Which one did you see with any incorrect information? Primarily, all that was done was to accurately quote what these people have stated in public. And you don't seem to like the fact that we did. If you did find an error in the website, please bring it to our attention and a change will be made immediately.
Also, what does your editorial about gay marriage have to do with terrorism?
This question proves that you are a Liberal and that Liberalism is dangerous. This was humor. And you took it seriously. By your own statement, you were unable to see the difference. Did you really believe for a moment that the piece of satire entitled "Applying for a Marriage License" was historically factual?
This has nothing to do with terrorism other than the same Liberal agenda that is responsible for the destruction of the sanctity and values of marriage and the American family unit. The fact that you questioned it as you did speaks volumes. This article is satire rooted in truth.
I'd be interested in an email reply but would prefer not to have my name used if answered on the site; it might invite terrorism.
Thanks.
You are right to assume it might invite terrorism. And it will be Left-wing Liberals committing the acts of terrorism thus proving the real danger that these people present.
--TOP--
Back to the Top
Total Website Count
©Copyright 2005 - 2016 TargetOfOpportunity.com
|