This might appear vague to you, a then means to reject it intellectually and socially. I don't have the patience or time this Sunday morning to devote the time and effort to say with depth and intensity what I think about just what I briefly scanned on your site. It wouldn't be pretty. :-) Believe it or not I, at least momentarily, meant that in at least a somewhat friendly manner.
So let us understand your efforts. You wrote us an e-mail based on what may or may not be on the website. You admit that you only gave a brief glance and now you have an opinion of the entire website. No one gave you a timeline to write this e-mail. You could have taken the all the time you needed to write what you wanted to say. If you are going to address this website intellectually, perhaps you should read the entire website or at least the subject matter you wish to comment on before you actually hit the "send" button. This way, you will have the information so you can actually comment on the subject matter intelligently.
Whether or not you wish to address us in a "somewhat friendly manner" is always up to you and anyone what decides to write us. We always are polite and respectful to anyone that writes us regardless of their attitude toward us. You will never see any personal attacks or insults hurled from us.
Just these two points showed me how obviously intellectually weak and socially nasty and snarky your site obviously is to a significant degree. If I had read further I would probably find much worse.
(1) "We could easily tell you were a Liberal just from your e-mail. It had no subject matter, no intellectual thoughts or ideas, and the only actual thought you were able to convey was a personal attack with the intent of insulting us. So, of course you are a Liberal. What else could you be?"
You are referring to the e-mail sent to us on 12 October 2013 by James Jenko. Our response was not an attack; it was an observation that he was a Liberal was a result of similar e-mails we receive all the time. If you bothered to read past e-mails, you will see the similarities.
That incorrect, ridiculous, all-inclusive massive characterization could (by noting certain other words or phrases) be flipped to supposedly clearly identify ("What else could you be?") a conservative. That would also be incorrect and ridiculous. It was empty of any intelligent, thoughtful "intellectual thoughts or ideas" itself. And it was a snarky attack. Actually I will be that way myself sometimes, uncommonly, when I decide someone deserves that and I'm in the mood to do that. I usually stay from it because it, at least superficially, detracts from certain truths that are important to make.
The only attack was the name-calling resorted to by Mr. Jenko. We know he was a Liberal because he told us - he apparently quite proud of that fact. It did not surprise us at all that he was a Liberal because all he could do was to attack us without disputing a single word on the website. This is one common trait with many of the e-mails we receive at this website. There a couple of pages you might want to look at. "Are You A Conservative" and "Are You A Liberal". Now before you have a fit, we know that all of these examples do not apply to everyone Conservative or Liberal. However, all of these examples come from what these groups say and their actions.
What was incorrect or ridiculous about our reply to Mr. Jenko? We addressed the e-mail as written and we were polite in our response. We added no additional meaning to the e-mail. He did not give us much to work with so we did the best we could with what we had. Again, please take the time to see similar attitudes in other e-mails we have received over the past eight years. Personal attacks on our existence and resorting to name-calling without disputing anything on the website always come from Liberals. Why would we not assume what he confirmed? It was not a big surprise to us and you seem to take offense that it was not a big surprise.
(2) This one is especially simple and easy. Your nasty rationalizations that they deserve such treatment; that they shouldn't expect more considering why they ended up there.
Absolutely wrong. In one current lingo: "big fail." It's a county jail. It is not prison; even there still aren't guilty. Such statements on your website involve people who have yet to go to trial. It is probable that some over the months, the years, have be found not guilty (I know; not necessarily innocent (see OJ)) in court. they didn't deserve that treatment. I'm not being soft. I am being fair.
You did find a point of confusion. On the Joe Arpaio Page (we think this is what you are referencing), we did inadvertently refer to the tent jail as the "tent prison". You are absolutely right, it is not a prison, it is jail and they are two different entities. We have made that correction.
It would appear that some of the inmates like the treatment they receive in the tent jail because so many have been several times before. These people are called repeat offenders.
Most of the inmates by a wide margin are not there waiting for a trial, they either have had their trial or they pled guilty and are serving their sentence imposed by the court. People convicted of crimes with sentences of less than one year do not go to prison, they go to jail... and in Maricopa County, they go to Sheriff Arpiao's jail which is in the desert where they live in tents - the same tents American Soldiers and Marines live in while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those that are on chain gangs are not waiting for their trial; they have already had their day in court and are serving their sentences. If they do not want to go to jail, they should not commit the crimes whereby they end up in jail. Sorry, we have little sympathy for the criminal element. We have no sympathy for pimps, thieves, vandals, etc... that made the conscience decision to break the law and harm their victims. These are the people that we have sympathy, not the criminals that have decided to victimize others for selfish reasons. Perhaps the people in jail should have stayed in school and worked harder on getting a higher score on the SATs. Face it, the school was provided for them at no cost. Taxpayers foot that bill... the same taxpayers victimized by these criminals. We could go on an entire rant about crime and you could counter with some argument about the inequities of the world and how unfair society treats some while others seem to have everything handed to them. None of that really matters. It is all about right and wrong and the choices each of us make as individuals. These free choices are the defining qualities that help to shape and determine our futures.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with having a conservative website. There is wrong doing with one that is not just leaning right (intelligently, rationally, thoughtfully; same regards a liberal site), but rather one that is so weak intellectually and so nasty socially, e.g., Brietbart et al.
What have we printed that is inaccurate or untrue? You keep saying that we are intellectually weak, but you offer no examples to support your opinion.
I sincerely wish you all well, and I'll say it -- MERRY CHRISTMAS!
And a Merry Christmas to you too.
Sincerely,
John Linzmayer
Delanco, NJ
PS I wanted to be sure I was right about your overall, or for the most part, display of intellectual (ironically, often your word choice) weakness, not considering the biggest of pictures concerning the well being of all Americans; for that matter probably not World's population. I then went back to look at your homepage and "Mission Statement." It was then confirmed. You deserve this. At least you're not Storm Front.
We are happy that you did not immediately refer to us as Nazis. Nothing could be further from the truth, but that never stops many people that are so filled with so much hated. We are not sure how you can say that we are not concerned for the well being of Americans, especially when you offer no argument other than an empty accusation.
I obviously haven't changed one mind or significantly influenced anyone positively. I do fell good that I wrote those words. Hey, I'm supposed to feel elite. Right! I was making fun of myself. :-)
Why have you not changed anyone's mind or significantly influenced anyone positively? Your words, not ours. If you are right about your core beliefs, you should be able to offer an intelligent argument that could sway someone.
I still wish you all well. Again -- merry Christmas.
PPS I wasn't so brief, was I? :-)
That is ok. We are happy to read and reply to any e-mail from anyone that writes us. And again, Merry Christmas to you too. It really is a pleasure to have the greeting "Merry Christmas" and not some other weakened seasonal greeting.
--TOP--
E-mails from teresa hall
1 of 2
26 December 2013
teresa hall wrote:
Seems to me you have too much idle time on your hands!
Signed,
Phil Robertson & Paul Watson advocate
Perhaps a quick explanation of what we do here is in order. We record historical events that many wish we would not. We do this so people will not forget. We offer commentary on these events that many wish we would not. The tone of your e-mail is one that seems to indicate that what we do is not worthy of doing. It is easy to understand why some would want us to stop keeping people informed of what some people and groups like to fill their days. Certainly, some of these people have much too much idle time on their hands. This can be seen in the time they take to protest not having a job instead of actually looking for a job i.e. the Occupy Wall Street Movement. Others are busy with terrorist activities ranging from vandalism or other people's property to threatening and harassing the families of those that do not agree with their political beliefs.
The one thing we did notice about your e-mail was the complaining of our existence and the way we spend our time but you failed to say where we were in error or inaccurate with anything we have printed. But thanks for writing.
--TOP--
E-mails from teresa hall
2 of 2
29 December 2013
teresa hall wrote:
Shut up
Let us examine the brief history of this series of correspondence. First, you write us with a somewhat condescending e-mail and then we respond to your e-mail in a very cordial and respectful manner. We cited examples to help you understand our response with the hopes of perhaps engaging in some form of discourse. Like most people that write us to complain that we exist at all, your response is totally devoid of any intellectual content or rational thought. Congratulations, you have lived up to everything we have come to expect from anyone that is able to express into words the vast ideas that run through your mind and is able to write e-mails with such finesse such as you have. The pride that must be yours to produce such an intelligent and well-thought out dialog that would put all of us in our place is certainly overwhelming even to the point of humbling to all that dare read your quick witted retort (note sarcastic tone). This must happen on a regular basis whenever someone like us actually challenges your mental capacity as we have apparently done. Your family and teachers must be so proud of the contribution you make toward society with your ability to achieve such deep thought. It is clear with your response to our reply to you that you are certainly the analytical mastermind among your peers.
--TOP--
23 December 2013
Phillip Robertson wrote:
Honesty man, I get that your trying to make a point but a hate website isn't the right way to go. I am a Republican and proud to be so.
How do you consider this to be a "Hate Website"? All we have done is to list achievements, beliefs, statements, and actions of these groups for the historical record. We have also added our commentary and none of what we have said is hateful... it is right on point. Now we understand that it is easy for someone that sympathizes with these groups to hate us and want to refer to anything we write as hate speech, but that does not make it true - far from it. What it shows is that we are reporting in a fashion that is true and accurate, so much so that you have not bothered to contradict a single statement or explained where we are in error. All you have done was to refer to this website as a "Hate Website". You may call yourself a Republican, but you do not appear to be a Conservative by any stretch of the imagination. And what are we to take from this? It means that if you are going to try and label this website a "Hate Website", you are more likely than not a RINO (Republican In Name Only).
I like you scandal treason page, it shows how absolutely insane you are. A hate page based upon someone's beliefs and actions? Its not for you to judge.
So you do not think we should have an opinion on someone's actions. You do not think we should actually stand up and say when we see something that is wrong. "It's not for you to judge". That is what you said. That is interesting. We will examine that statement more closely. You are saying that it is not for us to have an opinion based on our core values and we should not use those core values to determine right or wrong. We believe that Communism is wrong. We believe that it is wrong to destroy someone else's property. We believe it is wrong to steal. These are judgments based on core beliefs and values, but according to you, it is not for us to make a judgment on someone else doing these things. That is very disappointing that you would have that view and actually voice that belief.
What core values should we have and if we are to assume that any judgment on our part is ethically or morally wrong, why is any judgment made toward us not ethically or morally wrong?
It pretty much looks like you you looked up liberal activists and complied a list and wrote an essay saying how much you hate gays, liberals, and people standing up for their own beliefs.
Where did we say we hated anyone? We need you to follow up on that question for us. It is not that we hate Liberals; it is just that we do not agree with their values such as the redistribution of wealth policies, intense and intrusive government regulation, high taxes, socialist programs that cause more and more dependency, etc... Their value system that allows them to hold the Liberal viewpoints they proudly and openly support seem in stark opposition to the values that America was founded upon that we just cannot agree with them.
Where did we ever say we hated Gays? Where did we ever say we hated people standing up for their own beliefs? We want you to give us the quotes on that.
We believe in the US Constitution. We believe that it is one of the World's most important documents ever written as it gives Liberty to the people of the United States of America. So many Liberals would rewrite it. In fact, we have the Liberal version of the Constitution. To prove our point, take a look at the following quote by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
"I would not look to the US Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary... It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US Constitution, Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?"
-- Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Supreme Court Justice speaking to Al-Hayat TV, an Egyptian TV station, that she would not recommend the U.S. Constitution as model for Egypt's new government, 30 January 2012
A Supreme Court Justice does not think the US Constitution is worth using as a template for another country's Constitution. This is the very same Constitution she swore to uphold and protect. Is this an issue we should not judge?
If you want to play the politics game, lets talk about Obama care. You ask for equal taxes, i agree, but with health care for all, the deficit in spending money and tax revenue increases and they need more money. Wheres it come from? I say budget cuts but no, why not the wealthy?
You brought it up so we shall discuss Obamacare. For 200 years we have as citizens provided ourselves with medical care. We have seen the doctor we wanted to see. Why do we not need the government screwing up our healthcare and putting restrictions on our healthcare because that is exactly what Obamacare does? Why does the government have any right to interfere with my healthcare? Why does the government have any right to know anything about my medical information that should be between me and my doctor? Why do I have to pay for your healthcare and why should you be forced to pay for mine?
Maybe Obamacare is a good thing. After all, the government would now have the power to demand anyone receiving any government assistance to have a physical under the guise of preventive healthcare. So, one blood test can check for any illegal drug usage. Is this an invasion of privacy? Should the government know whether or not a person has a terminal illness? Is it any of the government's business? More directly, is it any business of the IRS?
Is the government supposed to give the citizens everything they want and require the wealthy to provide the money for it? If the government should morally provide healthcare for its citizens, why should the government not be morally required to provide food, or housing, or whatever else you want for its citizens? Where does it all end?
At the end of the day it comes down to your complete disrespect of of others rights, complete ignorance of the law, and disrespect.
--
Sincerely,
Phillip Robertson
At no point have we disrespected anyone's rights. We would like to have you offer a specific example of where you think we have done so. Keep in mind it is many of the people we write about that want to stop us from speaking. You kind of sound like one of them. We would also like you to site an example of our "ignorance of the law".
As far as disrespect, it is not us that have resorted to name calling and personal attacks, but rather the people that are so critical of this website. You should read the "Hate Mail Page" for examples. If you take an honest look, you will see that we have been very respectful of anyone that writes us.
We look forward to your response and hearing what kind of proud Republican you really are.
--TOP--
24 October 2013
Brittany Horne wrote:
Your list, Common Beliefs of Today's Liberals, is a list of things that are neither beliefs (the definition being "a strongly held opinion or conviction"), nor are they common amongst liberals. You have chosen to focus solely on those who are best defined at the extreme end of the liberal political spectrum. I do believe in the right of speaking the truth if it is indeed the truth being spoken. However, I do not agree with the distortion or disregard of the truth. My concern is for those who are looking at your site for factual information and are instead sprayed with unabashedly biased articles and so-called "facts". As a liberal, I am offended that my beliefs and my political affiliation is being so misrepresented.
Actually, these beliefs are what make up the Liberals core values. We would never conclude that the entire list would make up what every Liberal believes, however, they all come from articles and public statements from Liberals and Left-Wing politicians. Obviously, some people are more Liberal than others just as on the Conservative side some Conservatives are more Conservative than others are. This does not change the validity. We are sure you are offended. Which of the list do you see as inaccurate?
As Conservatives, we would be offended too if this list applied to us. However, keep in mind that most Liberals enjoy their status as Liberals. They do not always want others to know them as Liberals but rather would like to change the name to "Progressive" or some other vague phrase that no one actually has defined, but that does not change their core beliefs. We probably suspect that many probably do not apply to you. We would ask you this question – How many from the Liberal list apply to you and how many from the Conservative list apply to you?
--TOP--
21 October 2013
douglas monical wrote:
just one question will Joe go after Ted Cruz and check his birth certificate and legal status to run for President and make sure that he is not Candian with the same determination as he has done looking for Obamas?
What did come of the Obama investigation or has he gone RHINO and wasted the tax payers dollars on a fools errand?
That is two questions, not one. To our knowledge, Ted Cruz is not running for President at the moment and we are unsure if there is any question of his country of birth. Maybe there is and maybe that question will be raised by someone at some point. It would be our bet that he would be able to prove his citizenship by birth when the time comes. Do you think he is Canadian by birth? How much determination do you actually need to confirm this information?
As to whether or not Sheriff Joe Arpaio (we assume that is the "Joe" you are referencing) is still investigating the birth records of President Obama or anyone else, we would have to direct you to the Maricope Arizona County Sheriff's Office and check with them as they have failed to confer with us on this matter.
--TOP--
12 October 2013
james jenko wrote:
This website is either a joke or you are all complete morons.
It is common of people like you to say we are wrong about our ideas without offering a single intelligent thought or description where we are wrong. Your e-mail is completely devoid of any substance or rational thought. You have not disputed a single word on this website and there is a reason for this. You do not have a good argument. You do not even have a good excuse.
And by the way, your website looks like shit, not even including the content. And yes, I am a liberal.
We could easily tell you were a Liberal just from your e-mail. It had no subject matter, no intellectual thoughts or ideas, and the only actual thought you were able to convey was a personal attack with the intent of insulting us. So, of course you are a Liberal. What else could you be?
--TOP--
15 September 2013
Dave Rouse wrote:
I disagree with pretty much all of your misinformation and bias ref Gary Yourofsky.
I also disagree with any violent or illegal actions carried out by activist groups.
I will do what I'm able to do within the system to change the perception the majority of the US population has about our perceived need to eat animal products and by extension, the need to cruelly raise and inhumanely harvest these animals. I will also increase my support for PETA.
We have never understood why so many people are against eating animals. Mankind has eaten animals for hundreds of thousands of years. If we are indeed equal to all animals on the planet, why are we not allowed to consume meat like the lion or bear?
I admire Yourofsky's passionately stated facts and wish I had his abilities to rationally argue against the meat and dairy industries. I disdain your slant on his "real" reasons for his actions.
Now are getting somewhere. What did we get wrong? Please correct us. What part of what we printed on Gary Yourofsky did we get wrong? We want to be accurate so if we made a mistake, please let us know and we will make the necessary changes. By his own words, he supports women getting raped. This was his quote. How are we supposed to take that? But you feel free to support anyone you wish to support. A woman that wears clothing unacceptable to Gary Yourofsky's standard and has been raped is something you support because he does. If you support him, then this is what you are supporting. But she got what she deserved, right?(note sarcastic tone)
Gary Yourofsky wishes for researchers to die from the diseases they are trying to find cures to save mankind and other animals. It does make you wonder how he would have felt about Louis Pasteur and his cure for rabies. It seems Mr. Yourofsky would like to have seen Louis Pasteur die from rabies instead of developing the rabies vaccine thereby saving countless numbers of humans and animals from this horrible disease. But you feel free to support anyone you wish to support.
He really does not love animals, he loves fighting "injustice" as he sees it. And what is injustice? It is anyone that does not believe as he does.
In the future I will follow PETA's as well as opponent's views so that I may better understand and react to inappropriate and inaccurate statements from either side.
So, you are going to increase your support for PeTA, an organization that kills well over 90% of the animals it claims it tries to find homes for yet does not. There is a reason for this too. PeTA does not believe in animal ownership. But this obviously is what you support.
--TOP--
22 August 2013
gnarlee@XXXXXXX.net wrote:
Greetings,
I read with great interest your "Are You a Liberal" page. The top part -- the definition of Liberal from the dictionary -- made a lot of sense, and I felt it was pretty much in line with my core beliefs.
However, your long list of the things that I supposedly believe, as a Liberal, were consistently off the mark. It's as if you took all the things you've heard Liberals say that you disagree with, and stamped those on the forehead of all Liberals -- or everyone who disagrees with you. Why?
If you're trying to convince your readers to believe what you believe, then why not simply argue each position on its merits, rather than demonizing those who disagree with you?
We are not trying to demonize anyone; we are just maintaining the record of what the Liberal agenda has been. Every one of these has been in the news or publically stated. That is where we have found these Liberal ideals.
I love America. But my love for my country isn't blind. And sometimes, someone you love might need intervention & check themselves into rehab. That's tough love. And that's where I'm at with my country.
We have no doubt that you love America. The question is really this. Do you love America because of the Freedoms you have or because of what America can do for you?
You're trying awfully hard to associate Liberals with Marxists and Communists. As you did so well with the definition of 'Liberal', I suggest that you do the same with 'Marxist' and 'Communist'. I can assure you that only a very small number of Liberals fit the definitions of Marxist
or Communist.
This is not a hard association to make. One only need look at the Occupy Movement to see the Marxist/Communist connection. The idea for Obamacare is nothing but one of Socialized medicine. The Redistribution of Private Wealth is another idea whereby property and/or money is taken from those that worked hard to earn it and given to others that did not earn it.
One document that aligns quite well with my beliefs is the Republican Party Platform from 1956 (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25838). It's pretty simple - America's prosperity should be widely shared, and that high wages & salaries for workers are the engine of prosperity. Support unions, and the right of workers to organize. Engage in war only as necessary to
protect peoples' right to self-determination, and then, only if resources allow.
America's prosperity should be shared, but that does not mean my hard earned money should be taken from me and given to someone else that did not earn it. America's prosperity came from Freedom and Liberty, which was the result of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" not Redistribution of Wealth policies.
Take note of the second paragraph from the website you presented to us.
"We give devoted homage to the Founding Fathers. They not only proclaimed that the freedom and rights of men came from the Creator and not from the State, but they provided safeguards to those freedoms."
It is Liberals that disrespect the Founding Fathers having publically referred to them as "Slave owning white men that did not want to pay their taxes." It was the Democrat Party that took a vote whether to keep "God" in their platform in the 2012 election. If you took an honest look at the vote, you would see that a majority voted against keeping God in their platform, but to a crowd that did not want God to be in their platform, the leaders of the Democrat Party, against the vote felt they had no choice but to keep God in their platform regardless of the boos their delegates threw at them.
You have to wonder how many Liberals would vote for the Constitution today. How many would want to change it? Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg does not think the US Constitution is worth very much based on her comments.
"I would not look to the US Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary... IT really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US Constitution, Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?"
-- Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Supreme Court Justice speaking to Al-Hayat TV, an Egyptian TV station, that she would not recommend the U.S. Constitution as model for Egypt's new government, 30 January 2012
What are we supposed to think about this comment from a Supreme Court Judge? The US Constitution is probably the most important document ever written as it exists to prevent an all powerful government from controlling the population thereby leaving the population to live under an umbrella of Freedom and Liberty.
If you really think that Liberals are Marxists, then you'll probably have Republican President Dwight Eisenhower in the Marxist/Communist column, too.
It is unbelievable how you can come to that conclusion. There was nothing that indicated that from the website you offered or any other historic document that we could find.
I oppose my Government tracking my every move, and reading my email. The
Fourth Amendment still stands.
But do you oppose the government from tracking our every move and reading our e-mail?
I oppose the theft of $trillions of our money by Wall St. banks.
We do too. But maybe not for the same reason. We do not believe the Wall St. Banks are evil entities. But we do believe they should not have been bailed out of their financial problems. This was at least partially created by the lending policies forced on the banks from the Liberals that wanted loans to poor people that could not afford the payments. This was a political decision made by Liberal politians rather than a sound financial decision made by people that actually cared about the financial stability of the country.
I oppose the Fed spending $85 Billion of our tax money (and our childrens' taxes) *every month* to support the stock market & keep stock prices from crashing.
Who did you vote for in the 2008 and 2012 elections? If it was Obama, then you have supported these very actions. It has been no secret who and what Barack Obama is. Obama must do this in order to keep the stock market up. This fools most people into thinking the economy is much more stable than it really is with the $17 trillion national debt that is growing faster than we could ever pay for it.
I oppose using the U.S. military to acquire a global empire by force. If we're really just trying to defend ourselves, we *don't* need troops in over 130 countries to do it. In fact, some people don't like us occupying their country, and they try to convince us to leave. That's not terrorism
-- that's self defense.
The US Military is not trying to acquire a global empire by force. What country are we in where the population does not want us? Germany? Japan? Korea? You should list the countries where America's military is not welcome and where America's military is welcome and compare the two lists. It seems you do not understand why we are in these countries and the importance of us being there.
The people of every nation have the right to defend themselves from illegal occupation. Yes, even if they have lots of oil.
What is your stance of the United States pushing the Iraqi Army out of Kuwait? Was that an illegal occupation of Iraq?
Osama bin Laden was WRONG to attack the U.S. -- but President Bush gave
him what he wanted (he removed U.S. bases from holy cities in Saudi Arabia).
This is just another reason not to trust or deal with Islamic terrorists.
I oppose the murder of American citizens by drones, at our President's order, without due process.
Again, who did you vote for in 2008 and 2012?
Sadly, our enemies are of our own making.
Now that is a Liberal talking point. You think it is our fault that we are hated despite everything good we have done around the world. That sounds much like example #9 in "Are You a Liberal".
I'm sure that if we talked for a while, we'd find some common ground.
We probably would. You do not sound like an evil person and we hope we do not come across as one either. As a Liberal, which of the list do you see as accurate? Obviously, very, very few people would ever make every one of these points. How many do apply to you from "Are You a Liberal" and "Are You a Conservative"?
When President Bush did things & approved policies that were un-American, I protested. Same with President Obama. Wrong is WRONG.
Indeed it is. Wrong is wrong. Something is either right or it is wrong. There is rarely any gray area.
Whistleblowers are people who report crimes against the American People. Edward Snowden is a whistleblower, as is Pfc. Bradley Manning. They deserve protection -- along with our Rights (according to the Constitution). The crimes that they revealed should be prosecuted. Reporting a crime is NOT a crime.
There is a problem here. Edward Snowden and PFC Bradley Manning did not have the authority to do what he did. They were entrusted with certain secrets and they intentionally gave that information to others.
I propose that we engage in a conversation, and discuss some issues. We'd probably find ourselves agreeing on some things, or agreeing to disagree, but I think we'd end up learning a lot -- enough to work together to change some really important things, and enough to pull ourselves out of the nosedive we're in.
I invite you to respond, and to post the dialog in its entirety.
And we have posted your e-mail in its entirety as we do with all of the e-mails we post.
And if you want to know what I think about something, just ask. It's *so* much better than guessing & being wrong.
We would love to hear your comments on a few subjects. They are listed below.
- What is your take on the Redistribution of Wealth?
- Is Obamacare going to be what it was promised to be?
- How much tax should an individual pay?
- What are your views on gun control?
- What is your opinion about Illegal immigration?
Thanks for your time.
We look forward to hearing from you.
--TOP--
02 August 2013
giuseppe nero wrote:
Just wondering if you check for communists under your beds before retiring at night?
When we read comments like the example you sent us, we know one of two things about you. Either you do not understand the dangers of Communism or you support Communism. What this tells us is that you either are uneducated or you have some selfish desire to forcibly inflict Communism on others. If you support Communism, you are in complete opposition to the four facets of Freedom - Liberty, Independence, Personal Responsibility, and Self-Reliance. We know this because Communism and other forms of Marxist doctrine exist in total opposition to Freedom. People that would write something like your comment exist under the freedoms that others have provided for you. The Umbrella of Freedom that has been given to you and what you take for granted is something that you would never provide for others. You do not have the character that would allow you to do so.
What is so sad is that your comments are exactly what schools are teaching young people today and it is clear they have done a wonderful job of instilling such values in you. So on behalf of those of us that have supported Freedom and have served and fought for Freedom allow us to leave you with this thought. It was a privilege to serve in the name of Freedom even if people like you will never understand or appreciate what has been given to you.
--TOP--
29 July 2013
Gerald Chan wrote:
release all our members of Earth liberation front you have imprisoned in the past or else me and my army of new world order mercenaries are going to fucking visit you today and bomb your facilities and kill all you fuckers.do it right now if u want ur facilities and ur people to live another day on this earth and more importantly if u want ur families,friends and relativies to be safe today.u dont know who the hell iam and u wont see me coming till its too late.and also if u dont comply with this offer right now too i will kill a hostage i have with me right now.i have a live hostage right now and will upload the video right now.u have 24hrs to meet my demands or suffer the consequences.
And here we have the truth about the Left-Wing. Ah, yes... the tolerance and the love... You can just feel it emanate from your words. You have just summed up the true nature of the Environmental Movement. You have also summed up the education level of the Environmental Movement. Based on your e-mail, the lack of education of your people is shocking. The worst part is you are probably the smart one of your group.
--TOP--
12 July 2013
Logan Mills wrote:
Hie. I am from New Zealand.want to ask how do you join ELF,and once you are a member of ELF do you start going immediately on ELF missions anywhere to protect the environment?.me and my friend want to become part of it as we believe in the same things that define you.protecting/defending the natural environment from human threats. We would really want to become part of it as we believe that humans are a disease to the planet destroying the earth,and the earth needs to be protected from parasitic human species of this planet.we care/love the earth so much.i am looking forward to hearing from you as urgently as possible.thank you.
After reading this e-mail, our first thoughts were to have you fill out an application and send us money. But it would be wrong to try to fool someone who has no idea what they are doing. From what we have witnessed from this e-mail, you will probably be one of the most educated in your group, you will indeed be an asset to whatever eco-terrorist group(s) you decide join.
Did you even bother reading this website? If you did, you certainly did not understand anything you were reading.
--TOP--
The following e-mail is a bit longwinded, but if you can bear to read it in its entirety, our commentary will help clear up the excuses for Islamic terrorism contained within the author's mind while never actually disputing anything on this website. Keep in mind when you read this e-mail, Jews and Christians do not make an effort to bomb public areas killing Muslims in the name of their religion. This is apparently news to the author.
E-mails from Jessica Mccormick
1 of 2
16 June 2013
Subject: Islamic misconceptions and Jewish Terrorism
Jessica Mccormick wrote:
I ran across your site, and I will admit that for the first 10 minutes, I was absolutely convinced you were a troll. As a non-Muslim, and a dedicated student of ancient histories and theology, I was shocked at how biased and misinformed you were. I am not going to pretend to remember everything you asserted, but I am going to answer what I do recall, and I hope very much that I address most of what I took issue with.
I have to start primarily by stating the obvious. Most of your claims of "intolerance" are pulled from, and based on, excerpts from the Qu'ran that actually correlate quite closely to the Bible and the Talmud. I have to assume you have no knowledge of what the Talmud is, or of its content. It's a Secondary Judaic Holy Book, used primarily by Zionist Jews (the ones pushing for an Israeli state). The Talmud instructs Jews in the following behaviors:
Actually, our views of Islamic intolerance come from the rhetoric from Islamic leaders and the actions of Muslims from around the world. Perhaps you have heard Muslims yelling "Death to America" and "Death to Israel". They also carry signs while protesting in Western countries that usually say something on the order of "Behead Those Who Insult Islam" or "Butcher Those That Mock Islam". Rhetoric like this is what we see as the intolerant nature of Islam. It can also be referred to as pure hatred toward non-Muslims. It is clear that you either cannot or will not see the truth that is so obvious to anyone capable of rational and intellectual thought. We also have presented the QUOTES from various Islamic sources, which you have not disputed. In fact, you have not disputed any facts we have on the website. We hear what Muslims say. We see their actions on the news at night. But if you feel the need to make excuses so you can blame the world's problems on Christians and Jews, then you are free to do this. It does not make you right, but it just is your right to believe whatever you wish - an ideal that is not an option under Islamic Law. Keep in mind that Islamic religious leaders take exception to anyone that expresses critical beliefs of Islam. Actions of this nature are sometimes referred to as "Intolerance".
After reading your e-mail in its entirety, we have a few thoughts to share with anyone that is going to take the time to read what you have written. Everything you wrote literally has nothing to do with anything on this website. You offer nothing that contradicts or compliments anything we have written on this website. This e-mail illustrates your complete lack of education, integrity, and ability for intellectual thought. We understand that you have to maintain the position you have if you are to rationalize and find feeble excuses for Islamic Terrorism while at the same time blaming the victims of Islam for the terrorist acts of Muslims. Your e-mail was nothing more than an attempt to shift the blame away from the Islamic terrorists that kill Christians and Jews who are only trying to live in peace without the fear of being killed by terrorists.
"There is nothing that Jews are more convinced of than the harm which Christians can do to the children of Israel. Because of this, the rulers of the Chosen People have always instructed them not to accept any help from Christians who will always resort to murder, and to other crimes, whenever they cannot otherwise obtain their evil ends. Thus a Jew must not employ a Christian as a nurse, or as a teacher for his children, or as a doctor, a barber or an obstetrician.
1. NOT AS A NURSE
In Iore Dea (81,7, Hagah) it says:
"A child must not be nursed by a Nokhri, if an Israelite can be had; for the milk of the Nokhrith hardens the heart of a child and builds up an evil nature in him."
2. NOT AS A TEACHER
In Iore Dea (153,1, Hagah) it says:
"A child must not be given to the Akum to learn manners, literature or the arts, for they will lead him to heresy."
3. NOT AS A DOCTOR
In Iore Dea (155,1) it says:
"When a Jew is wounded in any way, even so gravely that he would have to violate the Sabbath in having a doctor, he must not employ the services of a Christian (Akum) doctor who is not known to everyone in the neighborhood; for we must guard against the spilling of blood. Even when it is not known if the patient will live or die, such a doctor must not be allowed to attend him. If, however, he is sure to die, then such a doctor may attend him, since an extra hour of life is not much to lose. If the Akum insists that a certain medicine is good, you may believe him, but be sure not to buy it from him. There are some who say that this holds only when the Akum offer help free, and that it can be accepted every time it is paid for. But it can be taken for granted that they would not harm a Jew just for the sake of a matter of money."
In Pesachim (25a) it says:
"Rabbi Jochanan says: medical help can be accepted from all except idolaters, fornicators and murderers."
4. NOT AS A BARBER
In Iore Dea (156,1 ) it says:
"You must not be shaven by an Akum unless your Jewish friends are with you. There are some who say that it is not permitted to be shaved by an Akum even when others are present, unless you can see yourself in a mirror."
5. NOT AS AN OBSTETRICIAN
In Abhodah Zarah (26a) it says:
"Our Rabbis have passed it down to us, that a foreign woman must never be allowed to act as midwife at the birth of a child of Israel, because they are given to the shedding of blood. The Elders say, however, that a foreign woman may perform this task provided there are other Jewish women present, but never alone. Rabbi Meir, however, says that it is not allowed even when others are present. For they often crush the soft head of the child with their hand and kill it; and they can do this without being noticed by those who are present."
From what has been shown thus far, it is clear that, according to the teaching of the Talmud, Christians are idolaters and hateful to Jews. As a consequence, every Jew who wishes to please God has a duty to observe all the precepts which were given to the Fathers of their race when they lived in the Holy Land concerning the idolatrous gentiles, both those who lived amongst them and those in nearby countries.
A Jew is therefore required (1) To avoid Christians; (2) To do all he can to exterminate them.
CHAPTER I - CHRISTIANS MUST BE AVOIDED
Jews are required to avoid all contact with Christians for four reasons: (1) Because they are not worthy to share in the Jewish way of life; (2) Because they are unclean; (3) Because they are idolators; (4) Because they are murderers.
Article I. —Christians Must Be Avoided—Because They Are Unworthy to Share Jewish Customs
A Jew, by the fact that he belongs to the chosen people and is circumcized, possesses so great a dignity that no one, not even an angel, can share equality with him.(1) In fact, he is considered almost the equal of God. "He who strikes an Israelite" says Rabbi Chanina "acts as if he slaps the face of God's Divine Majesty."(2) A Jew is always considered good, in spite of certain sins which he may commit; nor can his sins contaminate him, any more
than dirt contaminates the kernel in a nut, but only soils its shell.(3) A Jew alone is looked upon as a man; the whole world is his and all things should serve him, especially "animals which have the form of men."(4)
(1) cf. Chullin, 91b
(2) cf. Sanhedrin, 58b
(3) cf. Chagigah, 15b
(4) "Thus on the Sabbath day Jews celebrate with wine, meats, fish and all the delicacies made for men; for them it is a full holiday; they abstain from all kinds of work and will not lift a finger to do anything that has the appearance of labor or that involves work of any kind. Thus if there is need to light a fire in winter, to light or blow out a candle, to cook or heat food, or to milk cows, they employ poor Christians to do such work. Hence they glory in the fact that they are masters and Christians are their servants who must minister to them while they rest at their ease. Christian rulers should see to it that this should be stopped and that others should not minister to Jews in this way on their Sabbath and other festivals. And it must be admitted that we, to the detriment of our Christian liberty, aid them too much in upholding their superstition to avoid all kinds of work on the Sabbath." Buxtorf in Synag. Jud. p. 382.
Thus it is plain that they regard all contact with Christians as contaminating and as detracting from their dignity. They are therefore required to keep as far away as possible from all who live and act as Christians do.(5)
(5) "They are diligently warned not to have any contact with Christians, not to play with their children, nor to eat or drink with them, nor to have anything to do with them socially. And parents tell their children the conversation of Christians is so horrible and vicious that they conceive an implacable hatred of Christians from their very cradle." Ibedem, ch. VII, p. 136.
1. A JEW MUST NOT SALUTE A CHRISTIAN
In Gittin (62a) it says:
"A Jew must not enter the home of a Nokhri on a feast day to offer him greetings. However, if he meets him on the street, he may offer him a greeting, but curtly and with head bowed."
2. A JEW MUST NOT RETURN THE GREETINGS OF A CHRISTIAN
In Iore Dea (148,10) it says:
"A Jew must not return the greeting of a Christian by bowing before him. It is good, therefore, to salute him first and so avoid having to answer him back if the Akum salutes him first."(6)
(6) Urbanity is therefore not the reason why Jews appear so amiable in bowing down so humbly before Christians.
Rabbi Kohana says that when a Jew salutes a Christian he should say "Peace to my Lord," but intend this for his own Rabbi. For the Tosephoth says: "For his heart was turned towards his own Rabbi."
3. A JEW MUST NOT GO BEFORE A CHRISTIAN JUDGE
In Choschen Hammischpat (26,1) it says:
"A Jew is not permitted to bring his case before Akum judges, even if the matter is judged by the decisions of Jewish law, and even if both parties agree to abide by such decisions. He who does so is impious and similar to one who calumniates and blasphemes, and who raises his hand against the Law given us by Moses, our great law-giver. Hagah says 'The Bethin has the power to excommunicate such a one until he release his Jewish brother from the hands of the Gentile.' "
4. A CHRISTIAN CANNOT BE USED AS A WITNESS
In Choschen Ham. (34,19) it says:
"A Goi or a servant is not capable of acting as a witness."
5. A JEW CANNOT EAT CHRISTIAN FOOD
In Iore Dea (112,1) it says:
"The Elders forbade the eating of the bread of the Akum, lest we would seem to be familiar with them."
And in Abhodah Zarah (35b) it says:
"The following things belonging to the Goim are forbidden: Milk which a Goi takes from a cow, in the absence of a Jew;(7) also their bread, etc."
(7) "For fear he would mix the milk of swine or of some other unclean animal with it"—Surenhusius Mischnah Ab. Zar. p.6.
6. A JEW MUST NEVER ACT IN ANY WAY LIKE A CHRISTIAN
In Iore Dea (178,1) it says:
"It is not permitted to imitate the customs of the Akum, nor to act like them. Nor is it permitted to wear clothes like the Akum, nor to comb the hair as they do...neither must Jews build houses that look like temples of the Akum."
Since, however, it is not possible to observe all these rules in every place, the Hagah says that they can be overlooked to a certain extent when, for instance, it is to the advantage of a Jew to do so; for example, if a Jew would profit by a trade which requires a certain kind of dress.
Lastly, the Talmud commands that Christians are to be killed without mercy. In the Abhodah Zarah (26b) it says:
"Heretics, traitors and apostates are to be thrown into a well and not rescued."
And in Choschen Hammischpat (388,10) it says:
"A spy is to be killed, even in our days, wherever he is found. He may be killed even before he confesses. And even if he admits that he only intended to do harm to somebody, and if the harm which he intended is not very great, it is sufficient to have him condemned to death. He must be warned, however, not to confess to this. But if he impudently says 'No, I will confess it!' then he must be killed, and the sooner the better. If there is no time to warn him, it is not necessary to do so. There are some who say that a traitor is to be put to death only when it is impossible to get rid of him by mutilating him, that is, by cutting out his tongue or his eyes, but if this can be done he must not be killed, since he is not any worse than others who persecute us."
And in Choschen Hamm. again (388,15) it says:
"If it can be proved that someone has betrayed Israel three times, or has given the money of Israelites to the Akum, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of the earth."
* * * * *
I. RENEGADES TO BE KILLED
Even a Christian who is found studying the Law of Israel merits death. In Sanhedrin (59a) it says:
"Rabbi Jochanan says: A Goi who pries into the Law is guilty to death."
II. BAPTIZED JEWS ARE TO BE PUT TO DEATH
In Hilkhoth Akum (X, 2) it says:
"These things [supra] are intended for idolaters. But Israelites also, who lapse from their religion and become epicureans, are to be killed, and we must persecute them to the end. For they afflict Israel and turn the people from God."
* * *
And in Iore Dea (158,2 Hagah) it says:
"Renegades who turn to the pleasures of the Akum, and who become contaminated with them by worshipping stars and planets as they do, are to be killed."
Likewise in Choschen Hamm. (425,5) it says:
"Jews who become epicureans, who take to the worship of stars and planets and sin maliciously; also those who eat the flesh of wounded animals, or who dress in vain clothes, deserve the name of epicureans; likewise those who deny the Torah and the Prophets of Israel—the law is that all those should be killed; and those who have the power of life and death should have them killed; and if this cannot be done, they should be led to their death by deceptive methods."
Rabbi Maimonides, in Hilkhoth Teschubhah (III,8) gives the list of those who are considered as denying the Law:
"There are three classes of people who deny the Law of the Torah: (1) Those who say that the Torah was not given by God, at least one verse or one word of it, and who say that it was all the work of Moses; (2) Those who reject the explanation of the Torah, namely, the Oral Law of the Mischnah, and do not recognize the authority of the Doctors of the Law, like the followers of Tsadok (Sadducees) and Baithos; (3) Those who say that God changed the Law for another New Law, and that the Torah no longer has any value, although they do not deny that it was given by God, as the Christians and the Turks believe. All of these deny the Law of the Torah."
III. CHRISTIANS ARE TO BE KILLED BECAUSE THEY ARE TYRANTS
In Zohar (I,25a) it says:
"The People of the Earth are idolaters, and it has been written about them: Let them be wiped off the face of the earth. Destroy the memory of the Amalekites. They are with us still in this Fourth Captivity, namely, the Princes [of Rome] . . . who are really Amalakites."
1. THESE PRINCES ARE TO BE KILLED FIRST
For if they are allowed to live, the hope of the liberation of the Jews is in vain, and their prayers for release from this Fourth Captivity are of no avail. In Zohar (I,219B) it says:
"It is certain that our captivity will last until the princes of the gentiles who worship idols are destroyed."
And again in Zohar (II,19a) it says:
"Rabbi Jehuda said: Come and see how it is; how the princes have assumed power over Israel and the Israelites make no outcry. But their rejoicing is heard when the prince falls. It is written that: the King of the Egyptians died and soon the children of Israel were released from captivity; they cried out and their voice ascended to God."
2. THE PRINCEDOM WHOSE CHIEF CITY IS ROME IS THE ONE TO BE HATED MOST OF ALL BY THE JEWS
They call it the Kingdom of Esau, and of the Edomites, the Kingdom of Pride, the Wicked Kingdom, Impious Rome. The Turkish Empire is called the Kingdom of the Ismaelites which they do not wish to destroy. The Kingdom of Rome, however, must be exterminated, because when corrupt Rome is destroyed, salvation and freedom will come to God's Chosen People.(5)
(5) cf. Synag. Jud. ch.X, p.212.
Rabbi David Kimchi writes as follows in Obadiam:
"What the Prophets foretold about the destruction of Edom in the last days was intended for Rome, as Isaiah explains (ch. 34,1): Come near, ye nations, to hear . . . For when Rome is destroyed, Israel shall be redeemed."
Rabbi Abraham also, in his book Tseror Hammor, section Schoftim, says the same:
"Immediately after Rome is destroyed we shall be redeemed."
IV. LASTLY, ALL CHRISTIANS, INCLUDING THE BEST OF THEM, ARE TO BE KILLED
In Abhodah Zarah (26b, Tosephoth) it says:
"Even the best of the Goim should be killed"
The Schulchan Arukh, after the words of Iore Dea (158, 1) that those of the Akum who do no harm to Jews are not to be killed, namely those who do not wage war against Israel, thus explains the word Milchamah—war:
"But in time of war the Akum are to be killed, for it is written: 'The good among the Akum deserve to be killed, etc.' "
V. A JEW WHO KILLS A CHRISTIAN COMMITS NO SIN, BUT OFFERS AN ACCEPTABLE SACRIFICE TO GOD
In Sepher Or Israel (177b) it says:
"Take the life of the Kliphoth and kill them, and you will please God the same as one who offers incense to Him."
And in Ialkut Simoni (245c. n. 772) it says:
"Everyone who sheds the blood of the impious is as acceptable to God as he who offers a sacrifice to God."
VI. AFTER THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE AT JERUSALEM, THE ONLY SACRIFICE NECESSARY IS THE EXTERMINATION OF CHRISTIANS
In Zohar (III,227b) the Good Pastor says:
"The only sacrifice required is that we remove the unclean from amongst us."
Zohar (II, 43a), explaining the precept of Moses about the redemption of the first born of an ass by offering a lamb, says:
"The ass means the non-Jew, who is to be redeemed by the offering of a lamb, which is the dispersed sheep of Israel. But if he refuses to be redeemed, then break his skull....They should be taken out of the book of the living, for it is said about them: He who sins against me, I shall take out of the book of life."
VII. THOSE WHO KILL CHRISTIANS SHALL HAVE A HIGH PLACE IN HEAVEN
In Zohar (I,38b, and 39a) it says:
"In the palaces of the fourth heaven are those who lamented over Sion and Jerusalem, and all those who destroyed idolatrous nations ... and those who killed off people who worship idols are clothed in purple garments so that they may be recognized and honored."
VIII. JEWS MUST NEVER CEASE TO EXTERMINATE THE GOIM; THEY MUST NEVER LEAVE THEM IN PEACE AND NEVER SUBMIT TO THEM
In Hilkhoth Akum (X, 1) it says:
"Do not eat with idolaters, nor permit them to worship their idols; for it is written: Make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them (Deuter. ch. 7, 2). Either turn away from their idols or kill them."
Ibidem (X,7):
"In places where Jews are strong, no idolater must be allowed to remain..."
IX. ALL JEWS ARE OBLIGED TO UNITE TOGETHER TO DESTROY TRAITORS AMONG THEM
In Choschen Hamm. (338,16) it says:
"All the inhabitants of a city are obliged to contribute to the expense of killing a traitor, even those who have to pay other taxes."
X. NO FESTIVAL, NO MATTER HOW SOLEMN, MUST PREVENT THE BEHEADING OF A CHRISTIAN
In Pesachim (49b) it says:
"Rabbi Eliezer said: It is permitted to cut off the head of an 'idiot' [one of the People of the Earth] on the feast of the Atonement when it falls on the Sabbath.(6) His disciples said to him: Rabbi, you should rather say to sacrifice. But he replied: By no means, for it is necessary to pray while sacrificing, and there is no need of prayers when you behead someone."
(6) No day more holy than this could be imagined.
XI. THE ONE OBJECT OF ALL THE ACTIONS AND PRAYERS OF THE JEWS SHOULD BE TO DESTROY THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION
Thus the Jews picture their Messiah and Liberator whom they expect, as a persecutor who will inflict great calamities upon non-Jews. The Talmud lists three great evils which will come upon the world when the Messiah comes. In Schabbath (118a) it says:
"Whoever eats three meals on the Sabbath shall be saved from the three evils: from the punishments of the Messiah, from the pain of hell and from the war of Magog; for it is written: Behold, I shall send you Elias the Prophet before the coming of the 'Day' of the Lord, etc."
XII. IN THEIR PRAYERS THE JEWS SIGH FOR THE COMING OF THE REVENGEFUL MESSIAH, ESPECIALLY ON THE EVE OF THE PASSOVER:
"Pour out thy anger upon the nations that know thee not, and upon the kingdoms which do not invoke thy name; Pour out thy indignation upon them, and let thy wrathful anger take hold of them; Persecute and destroy them in anger from under the heavens of the Lord."(7)
(7) cf. Sanhedrin, chap. VII near the end, and Iebhammoth, the last chap.
They also pray as follows:
"How long will thy strength remain captive and thy beauty lie under the hand of the oppressor? O God! Show forth thy strength and thy zeal against our enemies; break their strength and let them be confounded..."
And again:
"Cut off the hope of the unjust; let all heretics perish at once; root out, break up and destroy the Proud Kingdom; hasten to make all peoples subject in our days."
* * *
At that very same time, on Good Friday, that "Prince of the Proud Empire" of Rome, the Pope, prays, and orders everyone in the world to pray for all "heretics" and those who are "lost", as follows:
"Let us pray for the perfidious Jews: that the Lord our God may take away the veil from their hearts, that they may acknowledge Jesus Christ our Lord.
"Omnipotent and Eternal God, who does not even exclude Jewish perfidy from thy mercy: hear our prayers which we offer for the blindness of that people, that, having recognized the light of thy truth, which is Christ, they may come out of their darkness, Through Jesus Christ our Lord . . ."
If you would like the remaining 30 or so excerpts from the Talmud, I would be happy to supply them. Now, I shall move on to the remaining Abrahamic religion. Christianity:
On Punishing 'Immorality'
Leviticus 20:9
If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.
20:10
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
20:13
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death.
Deuteronomy 22:20-1
If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house.
Exodus 35:2
For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.
On Destroying Other People
Deuteronomy 7:1-2
When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations . . . then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.
20:10-17
When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. . . . This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you.
On the Evil of Biblical Law
Ezekiel 20:25-26
I also gave them over to statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by; I let them become defiled through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn—that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the LORD.
On Slavery & Subjugation of Women
Ephesians 5:22-24
Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Exodus 21:20-21
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
1 Peter 2:13
Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men.
2:18
Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.
Leviticus 25:44-45
"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property."
Because this website is not a religious website and we are not qualified to speak as experts on the Talmud, allow us to make the following statements. Your subject title "Islamic misconceptions and Jewish Terrorism" was more than enough to inform us of your perspective. I do not know of any Jews anywhere that live by the precepts you wrote. Nowhere has anyone here seen where Jews dislike Christians because of their religious beliefs. In fact, it is the opposite that is true. It is Christians that actually support Jews and the state of Israel. Apparently, that is a total surprise to you. Nowhere do we see where Jews avoid employing, working, or living alongside of Christians as a matter of daily life. While it is clear that you went to a lot of effort to try and make some point showing your anti-Semitic opinions and beliefs, it just does not prove to be accurate at all as we have shown as being part of daily life.
What we do understand is that you would rather the Jews in Israel give up everything they have worked for, fought for, and died for to live and worship as a free people. You would rather have them give up Israel, the one country in the Middle East that actually offers Freedom of Religion for all and give it to Muslims, rename it Palestine, take away the Right of Freedom of Religion, and force the Jewish population to suffer at the hands of Muslims that, believe it or not, are hated and detested by Muslims who, incidentally, love and respect the views of Nazis, and Adolf Hitler as written in Mein Kampf.
Did you actually speak to any Jews about what you wrote about the Talmud with regards to their daily life and attitudes toward Christians especially about killing Christians and living among them? Is that what you see when you see a Jewish person in public?
You also referenced quotes from various Muslims. I prefer Hitler for my go-to on evil members of a religion:
"...the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew."
- Adolf Hitler
"They refer to me as an uneducated barbarian. Yes, we are barbarians. We want to be barbarians, it is an honored title to us. We shall rejuvenate the world. This world is near its end."
- Rauschning, Hitler Speaks, p. 87
". . . the discovery of the Jewish virus is one of the greatest revolutions that has taken place in the world. The battle in which we are engaged today is of the same sort as the battle waged, during the last century, by Pasteur and Koch. How many diseases have their origin in the Jewish virus! ... We shall regain our health only be eliminating the Jew."
- Adolf Hitler (quoted in Burleigh and Wippermann, Racial State, p. 107)
"If only one country, for whatever reason, tolerates a Jewish family in it, that family will become the germ center for fresh sedition. If one little Jewish boy survives without any Jewish education, with no synagogue and no Hebrew school, it [Judaism] is in his soul. Even if there had never been a synagogue or a Jewish school or an Old Testament, the Jewish spirit would still exist and exert its influence. It has been there from the beginning and there is no Jew, not a single one, who does not personify it."
- Robert Wistrich, Hitler's Apocalypse, p. 122
"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."
-Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
As for your claims that Islam does not preach tolerance:
"Allah forbids you not respecting those who fight you not for religion, nor drive you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly. Surely Allah loves the doers of justice.
Allah forbids you only respecting those who fight you for religion, and drive you forth from your homes and help (others) in your expulsion, that you make friends of them; and whoever makes friends of them, these are the wrongdoers" (60:8, 9).
Why fighting was allowed
The Muslims were allowed to fight indeed, but what was the object? Not to compel the unbelievers to accept Islam, for it was against all the broad principles in which they had hitherto been brought up. No, it was to establish religious freedom, to stop all religious persecution, to protect the houses of worship of all religions, mosques among them. Here are a few quotations:
"And if Allah did not repel some people by others, cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques in which Allah's name is much remembered, would have been pulled down" (22:40).
"And fight them until there is no persecution, and religion is only for Allah" (2:193).
"And fight them until there is no more persecution, and all religions for Allah" (8:39).
Under what conditions was the permission to fight given to the Muslims? Every student of Islamic history knows that the Holy Prophet and his companions were subjected to the severest persecution, as Islam began to gain ground at Makkah; over a hundred of them fled to Abyssinia, but persecution grew still more relentless. Ultimately, the Muslims had to take refuge in Madinah, but they were not left alone even there, and the sword was taken up by the enemy to annihilate Islam and the Muslims. The Quran bears express testimony to this:
"Permission (to fight) is given to those on whom war is made, because they are oppressed. And Allah is able to assist them — those who are driven from their homes without a just cause except that they say: Our Lord is Allah"
(22:39, 40).
Later, the express condition was laid down:
"And fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but be not aggressive. Surely Allah loves not the aggressors" (2:190).
The Quran, therefore, allowed fighting only to save a persecuted community from powerful oppressors, and hence the condition was laid down that fighting was to be stopped as soon as persecution ceased:
"But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight them until there is no persecution" (2:192, 193).
If the enemy offered peace, peace was to be accepted, though the enemy's intention might be only to deceive the Muslims:
"And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it, and trust in Allah. Surely He is the Hearer, the Knower. And if they intend to deceive thee, then surely Allah is sufficient for thee" (8:61, 62).
One of the fundamental truths established by the sacred texts is that no one can be compelled to accept Islam. It is the duty of Muslims to establish the proof of Islam to the people so that truth can be made clear from falsehood. After that, whoever wishes to accept Islam may do so and whoever wishes to continue upon unbelief may do so. No one should be threatened or harmed in any way if he does not wish to accept Islam.
Among the many decisive pieces of evidence in this regard are the following. God says:
"Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth has been made clear from error. Whoever rejects false worship and believes in God has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that never breaks. And God hears and knows all things." (Quran 2:256)
God says:
"If it had been your Lord's will, all of the people on Earth would have believed. Would you then compel the people so to have them believe?" (Quran 10:99)
God says:
"So if they dispute with you, say 'I have submitted my whole self to God, and so have those who follow me.' And say to the People of the Scripture and to the unlearned: 'Do you also submit yourselves?' If they do, then they are on right guidance. But if they turn away, your duty is only to convey the Message. And in God's sight are all of His servants." (Quran 3:20)
God says:
"The Messenger's duty is but to proclaim the Message." (Quran 5:99)
"To each among you we have prescribed a law and an open way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you one people, but his plan is to test you in what he has given you, so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah. It is he that will show you the truth of the matters in which you dispute'. (Q: 5:48)
Says Holy Qur'an: "Would you compel people that they should become believers?" (10:99 & 13:40). For, belief (iman) is something concerned with intellect and soul and not with physical body. On compulsion one may outwardly declare belief but the heart may reject it; in fact, compulsion tends to prejudice the heart permanently even against plainest of truths, such as Allah and His Messenger (PBUH) had given expounded.
Allah tells believers: Do not insult what they call gods that are other than Allah.
Beyond tolerance, Islam supports harmony with other religions. In the edict he issued in Hijri 5, Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) gave full protection to Christians of conquered territories in all religious, spiritual, social, cultural, economic and legal matters; he had warned that anyone who went against these provisions was an accursed offender on lslam. Non-muslim citizens were treated as equals of Muslims. In fact, it was incumbent on the Governments to protect their life and property so much so that they were exempt from military service. An English translation of a document is presented below for reference to understand the Prophet's (PBUH) magnanimity & Tolerance towards communal harmony and safety and security of other faiths.
"This is a message from Muhammad Ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them. Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them." No compulsion is to be on them.
I actually have no true need to express my opinion, nor do I need to denigrate any of those expressed by you. I presume that the number of examples I have given of Islam being a tolerant religion, and of the intolerance of Judaism and Christianity, sufficiently convey a new perspective that will allow for your own further research into the subject.
P.S. Palestine has been a recognized nation in the land of Canaan since circa 500BC. The Palestinians (Muslims) were there long before Israel and had a far better established claim to the land.
Like so many other people that write us about how "ill informed" we are about Islam and what a "Peaceful" and "Tolerant" religion it is, you failed to actually say what we say where we made our mistake. The reason you failed to do so is because we did not make a mistake. We got it right. We are completely accurate with our writings about Islam. The best you could do was to try and say that Christianity and Judaism is the cause of the problems and terrorism in the Middle East, Islam is misunderstood, and the public has misconceptions about the true intentions of Islam because of the illogical idea that Islam is only on the planet to spread love and tolerance to all the people of Earth. We know this from the subject title of this e-mail "Islamic Misconceptions and Jewish Terrorism".
That being said, we do like your comments about Hitler. Islam is the only religion that considers Hitler to be a great man and that is because Nazism and Islam have so much in common.
It is easy to determine how tolerant Jews and Christians are with respects to other religions. The hatred that is directed to other religions comes from Islam toward Jews and Christians. This is seen in the actions of those that follow the religion. For some reason, you seem to have turned a blind and ignorant eye toward the truth. Jews and Christians have done nothing to stop Muslims from worshiping as they please. The same cannot be said for Muslims and their attitude toward Jews and Christians. Apparently this is something you have never seen or heard of based on your e-mail. You seem to be totally ignorant of Islam's hatred of any religion that is not Islam.
We are not sure where you see any tolerance of Islam toward Christianity or Judaism or any other religions. This can be easily seen in laws that make it illegal to worship any religion except Islam in many Islamic countries. This can also be seen in the terrorism and killings of non-Muslims by devout Muslims around the world today, but apparently this is news to you.
Before we end this response, allow us to address the last sentence of your e-mail that we found very interesting.
"Palestine has been a recognized nation in the land of Canaan since circa 500BC. The Palestinians (Muslims) were there long before Israel and had a far better established claim to the land."
The stupidity of this statement by you is almost beyond believability. Your statement shows you have no idea of the history of the Middle East. There was never an independent and sovereign nation called "Palestine". In fact, the phrase "Palestinians" as a people was not even used until 1964 when it was created by the Soviets. The term "Palestinian People" as a description of Arabs in Palestine appeared for the first time in the preamble of the 1964 PLO Charter, drafted in Moscow. The Charter was affirmed by the first 422 members of the Palestinian National Council, handpicked by the KGB. This term was formally used by newspapers around the world after 1967. There were no Muslims in 500BC... Not a single one.
What you seem to have missed was the lack of Muslims 2000 years ago. How even the most ignorant of people could make this claim that Palestinians (Muslims) were around 500BC is proof you have no idea of what you speak.
Judea was an autonomous state in the Persian Empire following the return from Babylonian exile thanks to Cyrus, King of Persia. Following the death of Alexander the Great who had captured the Persian Empire, it became part of two Hellenistic. There were no Muslims or Palestinians as you claim. Muslims did not even exist until the 7th century, a fact that seems to have eluded you. Islam has only existed for some 1400 years. Another fact that is completely forgotten by you based on your statement.
All that being said, we do recognize your attempt to demonize Judeo-Christian beliefs while at the same time given a pass to the hatred of Islam toward the rest of the non-Islamic world. We would expect nothing less from those that hate this website.
--TOP--
E-mails from Jessica Mccormick
2 of 2
20 June 2013
I require merely one fact to discredit your entire senseless rant. Herodotus ( who is universally accepted to be the indisputable Father of History) is the THE VERY FIRST DEDICATED HISTORIAN, most credible source of all Ancient History, who traveled the Land of Canaan as well as all known civilizations within the Middle East, with the sole intention of being the first person to compile a comprehensive history of the known world, who lived circa 475BC so is actually a first hand contemporary source for knowledge of the world, and is considered the preeminent historian because his actual, original, and authentic masterpiece has survived in great condition, as well as having a far lower occurrence of missing or illegible narratives than any other recovered ancient text
Quick biography of Herodotus: http://www.ancientgreece.com/s/People/Herodotus/
First ever mention of Palestine in history: The first clear use of the term Palestine to refer to the entire area between Phoenicia and Egypt was in 5th century BC Greece. Herodotus wrote of a 'district of Syria, called Palaistinę" in The Histories, the first historical work clearly defining the region, which included the Central Mountain Range and the Jordan River.
You did not cite the quote where Herodotus refers to what is modern day Israel as "Palestine". Somehow you failed to present the one fact that would discredit our entire "senseless rant." However, if you wish to refer to Israel as "Palestine" and claim it for the predominate population who lived there in 500BC, we should note that these people you are referring to are Jews.
Prior to the Romans conquering the area, it was known as Judea. Keep in mind there were no Muslims in existence because the religion had not yet been invented, but there were Jews living all throughout the area and Judaism was the predominate religion. Even though the Persian Empire was in control of Judea prior to the Romans and Alexander the Great, there were no Muslims, so it is strange how anyone could actually conclude that Muslims have had a greater claim to the land than anyone else.
This is a letter to Pharaoh from the Vassal of Jerusalem, one of many city-states in Canaan that Pharaoh appointed Vassals to in order to have more supervision over his Empire. If any of this evidence confuses you to the same extent as the last e-mail, I fully recommend Google. It's not hard to use, has a vast wealth of knowledge, just don't trust sites that are religiously connected. Go with sites that use Science to support their claims.
Letter from the ruler of Jerusalem to Pharoah: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burna-Buriash which reads "With regard to the Kassites… Though the house is well fortified, they attempted a very serious crime. They took their tools, and I had to seek shelter by a support for the roof. And so if he (pharaoh) is going to send troops into Jerusalem, let them come with a garrison for regular service…. And please make the Kassites responsible for the evil deed. I was almost killed by the Kassites in my own house. May the king make an inquiry in their regard.
—Abdi-Heba, King of Jerusalem El-Amarna tablet BC1350."
What does that have to do with anything? Are you trying to prove the lack of Muslim existence in the Middle East at that time period? How does any of this, your 2nd e-mail disprove or even address anything on this website?
The information we have on this website related to the history of the area now referred to as Israel is also easily found on Google. You might also consider going with sites that do not have the agenda that excuses Islamic terrorism with the desire of blaming Israel for the troubles in the Middle East when all it is trying to do is to survive, not conquer other countries.
--TOP--
We received the following e-mail from a reader of this website that we felt made an important point. While it is not Hate Mail, we offer it for your reading pleasure.
18 April 2013
Evan Knappenberger wrote:
My name is Evan M Knappenberger and I live at Eastern Mennonite University in Harrisonburg Virginia. My phone number is 434-XXX-XXXX. I am a card-carrying member of some of the following groups: vets for peace, ivaw, ufpj, pax christi, socialist alternative, DSA, and a few others, I can't remember them all right now. I have many good years of organizing community left in me, and I won't stop until Jesus comes back in glory to rule nonviolently over all of us.
Please add me to the hall of fame. It would be an honor.
Thanks!
Before we can add you to anything, we first must have heard of you. Up until now, we have not. After reading about some of these groups where you claim membership, it is clear that you see a problem with companies making a profit. What you fail to realize is that anyone that works for a living for these companies has the opportunity to make a profit from his/her labor. If they choose not to do so, it is no one's problem but the individual. Another thing you fail to realize is if a company does not make a profit, it goes out of business.
We know you cannot remember what groups you belong to, because it really does not matter. The Socialist agenda is the only thing that matters. The fact that these groups are mostly Socialist is the reason that you have found a fascination with them. This does not make you part of the solution, it makes you part of the problem.
The thing that people like you seem unable to comprehend is that it is Freedom and Capitalism that have given Americans the highest standard of living in the world. As a Socialist, we know you see the individual effort toward Self-Reliance and Independence troubling because Socialism, Marxism, Communism, and other such philosophies all have one thing in common... the theft of hard work from those that work hard in order to give others a free ride by giving them something they did not earn. You offered an example of this by requesting that we provide you with some recognition that you have not earned. Is this what they are teaching you at Eastern Mennonite University in Harrisonburg, Virginia?
Aside from wanting us to give you some notoriety, what is it that you found on the website that you either liked or disliked?
--TOP--
We received the following e-mail from a reader of this website that we felt made an important point. While it is not Hate Mail, we offer it for your reading pleasure.
19 March 2013
reevescandace wrote:
I recently stumbled upon your site and I am so grateful that I have found it. I am considered to be a minority, a half black/half white biracial female and I am completely fed up with the hate crime foolishness, the "white people are the only ones who can be racist" lies, affirmative action garbage and many other evils perpetuated upon the American people daily.
We actually have a name for people like you... American. Not White American, Black American, African-American, Hispanic American, etc... You get it, we can tell and quite frankly, we appreciate you seeing through the racial filter. People get so involved on defining people based on race, religion, or some other arbitrary dynamic that they forget what is really important. We are Americans, nothing more, nothing less.
I will be the first to say that I DO NOT support affirmative action. I find it to be the most racist and dehumanizing piece of garbage ever invented. You mean to tell me that you won't hire me based on my merits but because of the color of my skin? How degrading! I am not rich nor was I born to a rich or even functional family for that matter. I learned to work hard and earn my way and I don't expect to be given anything. Why can't minorities drop the entitlement attitude and work for the betterment of their own personal lives?
You are exactly right. Just a point, they really do not believe in "Affirmative Action". What they really believe in is "Preferential Treatment". Have you seen a professional basketball team recently? No supporter in Affirmative Action would ever want to subject those beliefs on pro sports. If they did, only 10-15% of the teams would be black. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the others that have made an industry of Racism would never stand for that.
Imagine how much stronger the country as a whole would be if we held firm to a "results oriented" doctrine for workers as opposed to some arbitrary race based diversification scheme that was supposed to make everyone equal. The fact is we are not all equal with respects to ability. This is a concept that completely eludes the Left-Wing agenda.
I'm sorry for the rant but as a minority I feel that I am more closely scrutinized and ostracized because I don't support Obama and I don't support indefinite welfare checks and food stamps for people who refuse to work. I feel that the mainstream media is trying to tear America apart by focusing on superficial differences among us like skin color and gender. I am an American not a hyphenated American hailing from some continent I've never even been!
We could not agree with you more. You understand the reality of the world and you are willing to work based on your own ability and advance based on your own merit. You do not need these Liberal racist groups that say they hate racism, but have no problem practicing and advancing reverse racism under the guise of fair play and equal rights.
I wish more people would realize this as well and work together to make America great again instead of demanding perks they did not earn and being belligerent towards the very people who are financing those said perks.
The real question is this... Why do people that I do not know believe they have a right or even feel entitled to take my money for their own benefit and personal use? This is of course, the concept of any and all "Redistribution of Wealth" policies that only serve to enslave the poor and keep them poor. It is not the "Rich" that keep poor people down and unable to climb the ladder of success, it is the easy handouts that keep them from realizing how to become successful. When life is given to you, you lose the mental ability to work toward a goal and achieve it.
You get it and we know you feel somewhat relieved to have a sense of personal understanding of the way the world works even though you may not have the power to make common sense changes that should apply to the law but do not.
In closing, I just wanted to offer you my support and let you know that not all minorities have the entitlement mentality or are liberal haters of America though you never insinuated such things. I am an American and I am proud of that. Thank you.
We are fully aware of that, but it is always nice to hear it from among the crowd. Just remember, we are not alone. There are 59 million others that believe as you/we do. Those are the ones that tried to stop Obama last November.
--TOP--
01 March 2013
kerry agecoutay wrote:
I was hoping that I could be on your hit list, let me know and I will give my facebook page and more info about me and if I can have this wonderful opportunity I would like to share it with all my 1000 and 1000s of friends across this great planet.
What have you done to deserve a place on the "Hit List Page"? You must be one of those individuals that just want accolades, distinction, and honor given to you without actually earning it? That is the direction that society is moving. This must be the only conclusion we can come to because you have not given us one reason to consider you as anything else.
this would be really realy cool for my reputation and my ego
What are you, a 16 year old girl?
While it is important in life to maintain a solid reputation and a positive ego, perhaps hard work might be a better way to build a foundation for a solid reputation and this would help with your ego. Actually doing anything worthy of doing would probably do a great deal to improving your reputation and ego. It is not our help you need, but rather it is a lifestyle of self-reliance and gaining the ability for rational and intelligent thought that would do the most for your reputation and ego. It is a selfish act to want anything without actually doing anything to acquire whatever it is that you want.
One thing you might want to do is to educate yourself to a point where you can actually discuss a topic. Forgetting the reputation you have gained from the e-mail you sent us, what would we say about you on the "Hit List Page"? Did you just want is to put your name there with no understanding why you were there or what you have actually accomplished? And why would you even want to be there? Are you that insecure about yourself that you felt the need to break the law for attention? Is this the way you were raised? Where are you morals? Where are your ethics? Is this what your parents taught you, that you should harm people that have done no wrong? Do you really believe you should take the law into your own hands with absolutely no authority to do so? Is this the way you wish others to treat you?
Yours truly
I am indigenous to N Amerkkka and I am marred to a Jew
PS please get back to me ASAP
Why did you feel it was important to note that you are "marred to a Jew"? Is that fact somehow relevant to your e-mail? How does any part of being a Jew contribute to whatever it is you wish to share with us?
Your poorly written e-mail, your use of the word "Jew", and the chosen spelling of "Amerkkka" leads us to question your ability to actually have an intelligent conversation with a rational argument supporting your thoughts at all.
--TOP--
20 January 2013
brucehyland@XXXXXXXXXX.com wrote:
I live in South Africa (a very big meat eating country by the way) and as a result fast becoming one of the most obese and unhealthy nations on the planet (doubt we'll ever catch up with the "land of the free ..... hamburger")
Have there been any changes that have resulted in South Africa becoming a bigger meat eating country? With most countries and civilizations, more meat means a higher standard of living and a better lifestyle for the overall population.
I became Vegan in 2006 (and yes I am still alive and VERY healthy ... Thanks for asking).
Congratulations for becoming a vegan and we never asked if you were alive and healthy. We do not believe we have ever head of you. But if you are happy being a vegan, we hope you enjoy the lifestyle. All meat lovers in your area will accept and appreciate the fact the price of meat will drop due to the lower demand for the product. Kudos all around.
I grew up on a steady diet of Barbecued corpses like most people in this country. My father was on 6 types of chronic medication before his poor body finally gave up. Cholestral, diabetes, heart disease etc etc. ALL because of his lovely "Western diet".
Has anyone actually forced you to eat anything you did not want to eat? Correct us if we are mistaken, but has not eating meat by humans been pretty much a dietary standard in Africa for the last 100,000+ years? How do you consider that to be a "Western diet"?
When I changed my lifestyle I was stunned by the animosity I received from friends, colleagues and worst of all, family. My choice in diet didn't affect their lives at all, yet the attacks my family (wife and 2 kids) and I had to deal with were astounding to say the least. They (friends, colleagues etc) felt like we had joined some weird cult. I do not know ANY other vegans on a personal level, and in fact have only met one other vegan (that I know of) in my entire life.
We cannot comment on what your friends and colleagues stated to you as we were not invited to dine with you. If you want to eat salad for lunch, it is unclear why anyone would care that you have decided not to eat a hamburger. Perhaps you decided to vocalize your opinions about the "unhealthy lifestyle" your friends were living and how a vegan lifestyle was so much superior. Vegans are everywhere. It is a popular lifestyle choice with many. It is annoying when they try to change everyone else's lifestyle to match their own, but that is the only "attacks" we have ever heard of.
I started to wonder why this lifestyle that I had chosen "offended" so many people. After all, veganism is environmentally friendly, certainly animal friendly, and yet, we endure the harshest criticism imaginable. I began thinking that perhaps meat-eaters didn't like the thought of being told that their lifestyle is in fact self-destructive (as well as harmful to the planet). It's strange, because I had been a meat eater all my life, and I had NO issue with admitting that I had been wrong, and that changing to a healthy lifestyle was the only logical choice.
We have never heard of anyone being offended by a vegan lifestyle. The only people that seem to be offended by a diet lifestyle are the vegans that hate others for eating meat. People that eat meat could not care less what anyone else considers to be the diet of choice. But please, offer us an example of what you mean.
I wish I was as passionate as Gary Yourofsky (I only discovered him a couple of weeks ago) and guys like Paul Watson. These so called "eco-terrorists" have the balls to take on industries that are destroying this planet. Isn't it interesting that they are labeled terrorists, yet the USA can go into another country and steal its oil and that's all cool! These double standards are typical of a brainwashed society.
Where has the US stolen any other country's oil? If you re referring to the first Gulf War where Iraq invaded Kuwait, you will find the only people that tried to steal any oil was Iraq stealing the oil fields from Kuwait. It was the US that was the primary obstacle that prevented that. What double standards and brainwashing are you referring? If you really want to be true to your intellect, you will find the brainwashing is on the Liberal vegan peacenik society.
My wife and I never forced our kids to be vegan. Our eldest decided to go back to eating animal products last year (a sad day for me). Then, about 6 months later, he watched Yourofsky's speech and announced he wanted nothing to do with the "hideous meat and dairy industries" (a happy day for me). He's a "buff gym type" all on plant matter. He's a brilliant example of how the meat and dairy industries lie to us. This guy has an amazing physique and NO animal protein at all!
That is great. It is nice to be free to make the choice you want to make instead of being forced to make a particular choice. That is the difference in being free and being forced to accept the choices others made for you, which is what the vegan movement wants to do to those that eat meat.
If it is wrong to eat meat, is it wrong to own pets that eat meat? For that matter, if it is wrong for humans to eat meat, why is it acceptable for other creatures to eat meat? Do humane not have the same rights as a bear or any other omnivore?
Please don't spread garbage about guys like Gary Yourofsky. He's an amazing individual and it's truly an inspiration to witness his passion in action (you label it terrorism)
What is it that we said about Gary Yourofsky? We printed information from his website. We printed what he has publicly stated. If you want to call that garbage, that is fine. We agree. We understand what Gary Yourofsky is. We hold an opinion based on HIS statements and HIS website. We know people like you do not like other people remembering what your heroes have stated and stood for in the past, but we will not let anyone forget that wants to remember.
Terrorism is what the animal industry is doing to the planet and its inhabitants. Do some "serious" research. You may be amazed by what you find. I certainly was. Try the "China Study". It's what got Bill Clinton on the right track (Bill Clinton supports Sea Shepherd by the way, what you would call a terrorist organisation)
Perhaps it is statements like this that is the cause of your friends and colleagues to show a certain amount of animosity toward you. Maybe your arguments and condescension of their lifestyle have become boring and they just do not want to hear your opinions about how their diet and the industry that provides food for their families is the cause of so many problems to "the planet and its inhabitants". It could be they are smart enough not to fall for the brainwashing ideals you have accepted as the only way to salvation so as to live in harmony with nature and whatever you consider to be a valid way of life.
If you believe that sinking fishing boats and attacking whaling boats that for whatever reason never fight back, is the right thing to do, well, this shows something about the brainwashing that you have received. The idea that Bill Clinton and his political agenda support the Sea Shepherd Society if true would not surprise anyone. And if you think making a statement like that will change our opinions, it is no wonder your friends want nothing to with you.
--TOP--
10 January 2013
Ryan Grossklaus wrote:
I was reading your 100+ ways to identify a liberal--meh. Your assertions are mostly gross exaggerations. Make it more concise and up to date, it seems like you wrote that in early 2002. You go against class warfare, but to me it seems like you are engaged in some type of partisan warfare. I am disagreeing with your website, but I am trying to make an educated constructive criticism. If you are going to explain what a liberal is with 100+ examples it losses its message. Unless you are making some type of joke where the creators of the site (theoretically) sat around a room and though of as many things as they could.
Actually, they are not gross exaggerations. They are accurate. You may not like it, but each one comes from a public statement from liberals trying to make a point. For whatever it is worth, we do not like it either. We find it to be a total disgrace. We find it just as insulting ad you do. That does not make it any less factual. Keep in mind what you just said… You are saying that we have too many examples that prove our point.
It is not partisan warfare we are engaged in, but rather facts from public statements. We print what Liberals say and we are vilified and hated by those same Liberals and other like-minded persons. We have never tried to prevent anyone from speaking, but those that criticize us want nothing more than to stop us from voicing our opinions. In fact, not only have we never tried to prevent anyone from speaking, we have actually printed what opponents of this website have said and having done so, we have caused them to hate us. So, you could say there is a partisan war going on, but it is the Liberals that have declared war against us with the goal of silencing us because they cannot actually intellectually fight our ideas.
We understand the attempt to demean and undermine our opinions as some kind of joke because it is hard, if not impossible, to intellectually counter what we say. Usually, the attempt includes insults and personal attacks. How do we know this? It is easy. You did not make any claim as to what statements on "Are You A Liberal" you felt were incorrect. We have heard every single one of these statements stated by Liberals over the years just as we have heard every single one of the statements mentioned by Conservative minded people in "Are You A Conservative". Not all Liberals have stated every one of the statements, but Liberals just as the Conservative have stated many of what is mentioned on the respective pages. You do not have to like it, but we have found the statements to be true and accurate.
Also, what about the liberals who are veterans and have learned that the military may not be a wise choice for someone/everyone. Also, take into consideration how many opportunities the government is giving veterans ie free college.
In all honesty, if you are a Liberal, why would you ever want to consider joining the military? The entire military establishment is totally counter to Liberal beliefs. It is the Liberal agenda that wants to cut military budgets. It is the Liberal mentality such as groups like CodePINK that makes fun and calls Soldier and Marines war criminals and murders. The entire "Love and Peace" mentality no matter what that emanates from the uncensored Liberal speaking points is totally in contradiction to the role of the military.
--TOP--