Image 01 Image 03

Andrew McCarthy: Islamist ideology seeks to “supplant our Constitution”

Andrew McCarthy: Islamist ideology seeks to “supplant our Constitution”

Testimony offered in Ted Cruz Senate hearing – Willful Blindness.

You may have read Andrew McCarthy’s excellent work at National Review, but you might not be aware that McCarthy is a former federal prosecutor and expert on Islamic terrorism.

McCarthy offered some very enlightening and chilling testimony this week at a Senate hearing on Islamic terrorism which was led by Senator Ted Cruz.

He described his testimony in vivid detail in a column at PJ Media:

Willful Blindness and Radical Islam: My Testimony

On Tuesday, I was a panelist at the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing on “Willful Blindness: Consequences of Agency Efforts to Deemphasize Radical Islam in Combating Terrorism.”

The hearing was held by the Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts,” chaired by Senator Ted Cruz (R. Tex.).

Chairman Cruz, members of the committee, my name is Andrew C. McCarthy. For over eighteen years, I was a federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York, retiring from the Justice Department in 2003 as the chief assistant United States attorney in charge of the Southern District’s satellite office.

I worked on terrorism investigations and trials in various capacities following the jihadist bombing of the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993, and continuing through the end of my Justice Department tenure. This included several weeks helping supervise our command post near Ground Zero in lower Manhattan in the aftermath of the jihadist atrocities of September 11, 2001, in which nearly 3,000 Americans were killed by al-Qaeda jihadists in the worst domestic attack by a foreign enemy in American history…

Consequently, I have had the opportunity to participate “on the front lines,” as it were, of our government’s initial responses to the enemy’s declaration of jihadist war against the United States (which, in effect, is what the 1993 WTC bombing was): as well as in our transformation from a pre-9/11 law-enforcement-centric counterterrorism approach to a post 9/11 war-footing, with critical law-enforcement and domestic-intelligence support missions.

I remain convinced that this war-footing strategy is the only sensible counterterrorism paradigm for our current threat environment — very much including its prevention-first counterterrorism mindset, relying on intelligence-driven policing — as opposed to the pre-9/11 emphasis on prosecution that sees terrorism as a criminal-justice matter mainly to be addressed by investigations after attacks have occurred.

You should really read the whole thing.

Here’s a short clip from McCarthy’s testimony in which he describes radical Islam by saying: “This political ideology, which is radical, would supplant our Constitution.” Watch:

Democrats also invited guests to this hearing. They included a Muslim advocacy activist and a representative from the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Their presence served the purpose of advancing the false moral relativism that Democrats have been pushing for the last several years; that extremism is extremism, whether it’s carried out by Jihadists or members of the KKK.

CNS News has some of the details on their testimony:

Farhana Khera, president and executive director of Muslim Advocates, explained how using those terms [Islamism, Jihad, etc.] makes America less safe.

“ISIS wants this to be a war against Islam and by using religiously loaded terminology like jihad, we’re playing into their mindset. … It’s also grossly inaccurate. I think we need to call the threat what is it. It’s ISIS. It’s al-Qaeda,” Khera said.

“And it’s no different from the [Ku Klux Klan] or those who attack abortion clinics. We wouldn’t go and say there’s a problem with radical Christianity or radical Christian terrorism. We call the threat what it is. It’s the KKK. It’s those attacking women’s health clinics,” she continued.

If you want four to eight more years of these ridiculous mental gymnastics to deny the reality of what’s happening in the world and here in the United States, be sure to vote for Hillary or stay home on election day.

If not, you already know what you need to do. Hold your nose if necessary.

Featured image via YouTube.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


“If you want four to eight more years of these ridiculous mental gymnastics to deny the reality of what’s happening in the world and here in the United States, be sure to vote for Hillary or stay home on election day.”

Nice attempt at a false dichotomy.

Many of us won’t vote for EITHER stinking, lying, pathological Collectivist fraud. Thanks.

McCarthy was a Cruz supporter, BTW. Many of his fellows are, like me, never, ever, under ANY circumstance, going to vote for Der Donald, while we certainly WILL vote for conservatives.

    Wisewerds in reply to Ragspierre. | June 30, 2016 at 6:29 pm

    Rags, time to stop denying reality.

    No matter how much you might want it to be otherwise, the reality is this:

    A vote for anyone but Trump is half a vote for Hillary.

    I supported Cruz in the primaries. I voted for Cruz. I did not vote for Trump.

    But at this point, the choice is down to Hillary or Trump. And I sure as h*ll don’t want to see Hillary elected.

    Trump will do some good things for the country. (Yes, he quite likely also do some bad things, but that’s better than Hillary, who will ONLY do bad things).

    Plus, Trump has shown a facility for making liberal heads explode. I bet even you secretly enjoy that.

    And, regardless of what you chose to do, boy am I tired of your ceaseless whining!

    Just my two cents.

    Respectfully yours, Wisewerds.

      Ragspierre in reply to Wisewerds. | June 30, 2016 at 6:33 pm

      I do deal in reality.

      I only deal in reality.

      T-rump is a stinking, lying, pathological Collectivist fraud.

      THAT is reality.

      TX-rifraph in reply to Wisewerds. | June 30, 2016 at 7:42 pm

      “A vote for anyone but Trump is half a vote for Hillary”

      That is mathematical reality.

        Zachary in reply to TX-rifraph. | June 30, 2016 at 7:52 pm

        Common core math? C’mon man, even following that bizarre logic, if a non vote for Trump is a half vote for Hillary, then a non vote for Hillary is a half vote for Trump. Crap I guess you win. Or Trump does. Or everybody half loses.

        I’m confused.

          TX-rifraph in reply to Zachary. | June 30, 2016 at 9:09 pm

          I will attempt to be clear. Then, my logic is fair game. Here is my assumptions:
          a) Trump and Hillary have the same number of votes so we start with a tie.
          b) I show up to vote and so does another voter.
          c) The other voter votes for Hillary.
          d) If I vote for Hillary, she is up by two votes (difference of two votes)
          e) If I vote for Trump, I neutralize the other vote so the tie remains (difference of zero votes)
          f) If I do not vote, Hillary is up by one vote which is half way to me actually voting for Hillary (difference of one vote)

          If my assumptions are not acceptable, then criticize freely as the argument folds. I at least hope I have made my thinking clear.

      Zachary in reply to Wisewerds. | June 30, 2016 at 7:57 pm

      If the candidate doesn’t motivate people to vote for him, it’s his fault and nobody else’s. See: Romney 2012.

      To your math “reality”, allow me to play along, if I don’t vote for Trump or Hillary, my conscience is clean. That’s like +100 points in my reality. So I win, and we all lose because these sleaze bags were the BEST WE COULD DO?

      Trump still has time to turn things around to where I could maybe hold my nose. So far he hasn’t made any headway.

        gospace in reply to Zachary. | June 30, 2016 at 9:38 pm

        If you don’t vote at all, your conscience isn’t clean, because you helped elect one or the other. You can vote third party, and down ticket conservatives, but not voting at all doesn’t clear you.

        I’ll be voting Trump as the lesser of two evil option. Unless- and this is a very real but improbable unless- a third party candidate is within reach of winning my state. Libertarians taking one or two states, especially if it’s a larger electoral vote state, could be enough to give us our best option for this election. A Republican president selected by a Republican majority legislature. Likely to hold office for but one term. But that’s probably going to include an appointment to the currently open SC seat, and another one. Maybe two.

      inspectorudy in reply to Wisewerds. | June 30, 2016 at 8:21 pm

      I hate to agree with you but this is a life or death moment for our country. The SCOTUS alone is worth voting for Trump simply because he doesn’t seem to be that concerned about who is appointed. But we know who hillary will appoint! They will make Ginsburg look conservative! Rags, get a grip and realize that ethics, honesty, honor, and logic have to be thrown to the winds and we must vote for Trump. It is like a man jumping out of an airplane without a parachute and he has the option of grabbing a table cloth or just going down and having zero chance of surviving. Trump is our table cloth!

      Arminius in reply to Wisewerds. | July 1, 2016 at 12:30 am

      I’m just curoius. I have no control being just one dumb ass Texas voter for Cruz. Now I am told must accept reality and vote Trump or I am effectifely voting for Clinton.

      What if the delegates choose someone other than Trump at the convention? They don’t have to no matter what their state did, for the most part. There is no such law.

      Will all the Trumpkins now telling me that I have to suck up then throw a tantrum and pick up their ball and go home and effectively vote for Clinton?

    I also see no need whatsoever to defile myself and vote for Trump. The reality: Trump supporters have screwed this nation by pushing this orange blowhard into prominence.

    And irrational fear mongering from the Left and the Right is what has goaded many people into making bad decisions, over and over.

    Trump or Hillary? A distinction without a difference.

      scooterjay in reply to jennifer a johnson. | June 30, 2016 at 7:56 pm

      Am I correct to assume that you and this Ragspierre fella will stay home and not vote? I sure as hell better not see you on the comments section post November 2016.
      We will all admire your ideology and tenacity as President Hillary frog-marches us into oblivion. /sarc

        Ragspierre in reply to scooterjay. | June 30, 2016 at 7:59 pm

        Jeebus, ANOTHER non=reader!

        Plus, sucker, what are you going to do to us for posting?

        Fascist pig.

        scooterjay in reply to scooterjay. | June 30, 2016 at 7:59 pm

        must have touched a nerve…..I got a “down twinkles” by someone!

        Zachary in reply to scooterjay. | June 30, 2016 at 8:01 pm

        It’s a big ticket and of course we should still vote for all downticket. No more party voting for me though.

        Oh noes now I only have 4 months to post here? I better get busy then.

        Scooterjay, you wrote: “I sure as hell better not see you on the comments section post November 2016.”

        Or what?

          scooterjay in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | June 30, 2016 at 10:23 pm

          Not meant as a threat. If you don’t vote, you can’t fuss. Simple as that.

          Agreed. It’s amazing how many people didn’t vote in ’08 and ’12, though, and don’t have a qualm about complaining loudly and often.

          KirbySalad55 in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | July 1, 2016 at 12:14 pm

          Scooter, if you rub Ragspierre’s arse the wrong way Fuzzy will pop out every time to protect her little boy.

          Pathetic really.

          “Scooter, if you rub Ragspierre’s arse the wrong way Fuzzy will pop out every time to protect her little boy.”

          LOL, it does seem that way.

          Maybe Fuzzy and rags are sockpuppets…

          Nah, Fuzzy writes too well and could never get down to the rags level of incompetent petulant bafflegab and histrionics.

          heh. I think it just seems that way because Rags (and Jennifer) are the two most outspoken and prolific #NeverTrump people who comment here, but as you know, I jump in from time to time as the mood strikes or, as in this case, a particular comment catches my eye.

          I was interested in what scooterjay thought s/he would do if Rags continued commenting at LI past November. I very much dislike it when anyone dons some mantle of phony authority on this site and have responded to others who do that, as well. The professor is the only one who has any say at all in who comments here and who doesn’t. Period. Veiled threats rub me the wrong way (though I do believe scooter when s/he says the above wasn’t intended as a real threat), so I asked, “or what?”. A perfectly reasonable question.

      inspectorudy in reply to jennifer a johnson. | June 30, 2016 at 8:26 pm

      Jennifer, I have read your comments with admiration but on this we have a difference. We cannot allow hillary to become the next POTUS.
      Surely you must see that she is so much worse than an unknown like Trump. Sure he is an a$$holoe who has no vocabulary or logical thoughts but he is all we have. I would take him, with a Republican Congress to temper, him over the likes of the dictator hillary. Can’t you see this?

        As a parent I have had to “let” my children make decisions that I would never make. I’d advise them, warn them of the consequences and sometimes plead with them and then I let go of the matter. Things play out as expected and there is a learning curve that is painful.

        To see many elevate Trump as a catalyst of “change” or “chaos in DC,” as some have stated here, while at the same time ignoring Trump’s obvious fatal character flaws and his blatantly bad business track record would be like my children seeking to be entertained by suspending reality watching some Disney cartoon character on some DVD they want to replay over and over – it makes them feel so reassured and not because of the character, but because they are safely at home where things are good.

        I live in Chicago. Illinois has two senators: Democrat Durbin and Republican(?!) Kirk. Both vote a Democrat agenda, Durbin more than Kirk. Both vote for more gun control, with them trying to appease the crying black Democrat voting moms whose fatherless kids are slain on Chicago streets by gang members and illegal aliens in our “Welcoming City” within Illinois’ Great Society. The easy road, briefly, is what got Illinois into this “mess.” Saying “we have no choice” is what got Illinois into its budget crisis like no other. The same applies to our country a million-fold.

        If you want Trump to do what I hear people say they want him to do, then his overreach and lawlessness and tyranny and full throated arm waving bully pulpit antics will be more jack boot than a Hillary presidency. Our Constitution will then be supplanted to make some people feel “secure.”

        I have a choice. I will vote down ticket for a strong Conservative Congress that will hopefully put on its big boy pants and withstand a Hillary press.

        I wash my hands of Trump.

        And, I ditto Fuzzy’s comments.

    bw222 in reply to Ragspierre. | June 30, 2016 at 9:30 pm

    Cruz has real problems when people get a chance to vote.

    Two years ago I thought there was no way I would not support Cruz. Then I discovered he wanted to double legal immigration (with biggest increases for Mexico, India and China)and increase H-1Bs by 500% and everything started to fall apart – his horrendous campaign, Glenn Beck, his dad, insinuating Trump was partially responsible for the Chicago riot, fanatical supporters, etc., etc., etc.

    All Cruz accomplished in 2016 was to damage his political future.

      SDN in reply to bw222. | June 30, 2016 at 11:52 pm

      Quite a compendium of half truths and outright lies you’ve deposited there.

      Interesting comment. I don’t think Cruz’s campaign was horrendous (though obviously it failed), but there were some problems with it. A couple of things come immediately to mind: one was misreading the mood of the nation; he was running a 2010 campaign, not a 20116 campaign. He seems to have thought, as did I actually, that there were still TEA Party types/Reagan democrats/et al. out there who felt as they did in ’10, but many had moved on to more anger and frustration and wanted to “blow the whole thing up.” While this 2010 mindset was not an obvious flaw at the time (at least not to me, but then, I was the exact demographic Cruz was going for and won), it became more clear over time; the second was his unwillingness to go after Trump for many of those early months. This, again, was a mistake in hindsight, though at the time many people did question his apparently naive faith that Trump would be honorable and return the favor, but he misread Trump, and he misread the eagerness for a “savior” that has developed on the right since 2010. All that pent up anger and frustration seems to have had the effect that it so often has throughout history, and Trump fans want someone who will–unilaterally–“fix” everything. They don’t say this outright, but that’s the obvious conclusion to draw as they refuse to support any Republican for Congress and have even come to believe that actual conservatives like Cruz are the “enemy.” No one would have predicated that in 2010.

      Glenn Beck has become a freak show. I am almost ashamed to admit that I watched his Fox show almost every day. He was saying things that weren’t being said, and he was often proven right as events unfolded. I was never a fan of teary, sniffling crap, but then, I don’t like teary, sniffling crap from anyone. But he was otherwise interesting, and he did have a knack for presenting pretty complex ideas and information in a clear, lucid way. I did follow him off to his online tv channel (before it all was the Blaze), but after a few months, he started his transformation in earnest (there were a few glimpses of it on Fox). I watched less and less often, and when he started blubbering about how he’d feel compelled to serve as president, as president! Glann Beck!!, if called by the people to do so, I cancelled my subscription and never went back. He as off the rails and only got worse as time went on (from what I read or saw on clips that made the rounds). Cruz was happy to accept Beck into his campaign, and that was definitely a mistake. Nothing compared, however, to Trump’s gushing acceptance of even-more-loony-than-Beck, Alex Jones. At least Beck was once nominally sane.

      What’s wrong with Cruz’s dad? Don’t tell me you believe he was a conspirator in the assassination of President Kennedy. (That, btw, was an unforgivable move by Trump; it showed his own lack of character in stark detail, and it revealed his lack of respect for his fawning fans.)

      H-1B visas aren’t the problem; these are granted only to those foreign nationals who can demonstrate that they have a college degree or equivalent professional license in their field. Legal immigration in this country is a disaster, and has long been so; Cruz’s strategy to change that was not only support for providing more places for H-1B visa applicants (not just willy-nilly handing them out; some H-1B visas go ungranted even now) but was also for criminalizing visa overstays. H-1B visa holders are tied directly to their employer, so they are easier to monitor and track (and deport should they lose their jobs and not find another employer-sponsor within the allotted time). Cruz was very clear that legal immigration is the goal, and the immigrants we accept should be upstanding people who work for a living and don’t depend on the American welfare state to live (and to support their families “back home”.

      Cruz also was adamant, and has been since his 2012 election, about closing the border, deporting of criminal aliens, defunding and otherwise going after “sanctuary cities,” prohibiting benefits to illegal aliens, and expanding e-verify. With regard to visas, including H-1Bs, he wanted to make that dependent, as it should be, on the American economy and employment numbers. He also wanted to end birthright citizenship (anchor babies) and end, completely, “diversity” visas and to prioritize instead persecuted minorities (i.e. Middle Eastern Christians) for legal immigration.

      In short, Cruz understands that illegal immigration is not going to be stopped by a 100-foot solid gold wall with “Trump” signs flashing in neon atop the turrets. Pointing to Cruz’s desire to expand legal immigration via H-1B visas without taking into account the larger plan of which that is an element is dishonest and, frankly, a bit slimy. What has become relatively clear through the 2016 primary process is that there is a large swath of Americans who oppose even legal immigration. That has never been my stance or belief; I’ve opposed illegal immigration for many reasons relating to the economy but the main reason has always been that it’s freaking illegal. Trump seems to have hit on an anti-legal immmigration nerve running through the right that I do not relate to and cannot understand or support.

      Trump was, at least partially, responsible for the Chicago riot. Trump is a divisive, petty little man who thrives on drama and on the power he has over his fans (a power, by the way, that he may wield with great pleasure . . . while simultaneously disdaining these mindless drones he so easily manipulates). He’s long been a hot-headed, obnoxious jerk whose Twitter feed is full of his personal rantings about and attacks on anyone and everyone who criticizes him.

      He’s told his fans at rallies that some people, you know who they are, need to be “punched in the face,” and he also said that fans should “knock the hell out of” any detractors who might have tomatoes to throw at Trump, and he even said he’d pay the legal fees (first he walked this back, but then–in typical flip-floppy, finger to the wind Trump fashion–he doubled down on his original assertion). Did Trump or his campaign organize a violent protest and in that moment incite violence? No. But he has made it clear that he not only doesn’t mind the violence against anyone who opposes him but also fully supports it with legal defense fees. So yes, Trump is partially responsible for his fans’ violence. We don’t see that at any Republican candidate’s rallies, and we certainly didn’t see it at Cruz’s.

      In fact, the Trump candidacy has turned a new page in the political and law enforcement handbook. We are used to seeing police in full protective riot gear at just about any leftist / progressive protest (from Occupy to SJW to BLM anti-police rallies to G-20 summits), and we are equally used to seeing police in regular uniform standing around casually chatting with TEA Party protesters who offer the officers bottles of water not spittle-laced vitriol shouted in their faces. That’s because the left is well-known for its violence, and now, it seems, that the right will be regarded the same way.

      The people engaged in the violence are, of course, the main parties to blame, but Trump has, single-handedly, changed the playing field. And not in a good way.

      As far as Cruz supporters being “fanatical,” I suppose that is in the eye of the beholder because as far as I can see, there is no supporter quite as fanatical as a Trump fan. He inspires not only willful blindness and selective hearing but also a level of foaming-at-the-mouth fanaticism that even Obama never inspired in his koolaid-swigging zombies.

        scooterjay in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | July 1, 2016 at 2:15 am

        Holy wall of text, Batman!

          Aw, is reading text uppeppered with pretty pictures and dancing graphics too much for you? Okay, I’ll put it in Trump-speak (at least the surface areas that require no thought, per Trump-speak rules and standards).

          Cruz’s campaign was bad. Really bad. But hey, he’s a good guy, so it wasn’t that bad. There were parts of it, parts, of it. That were not good. I am better than that. In fact, I am the best at running both a bad and a good campaign. Cruz? Not so much.

          Glenn Beck is bad. He’s not good. You know what I mean. Beck is a liar and a person who lies. He is a bad person. We should call him “Bad, Not-Good Glenn.” I bet his wife is ugly. I haven’t seen her, so I don’t know for sure, but you can bet that my wife, Melania, is way hotter. My wife’s a 10, but Beck’s wife, whom I’ve never met, but I saw pictures, and let me tell you, she is not a ten. No. Nowhere near a 10. Bad, Not-Good Glenn has an ugly wife. Glenn and Ugly wife sitting in a tree . . . . lalala.

          Cruz’s dad. Yeah, right? You know what I’m saying, right? You know, right? That Cruz’s dad, I’m just saying, was in a photo with Oswald before JFK was shot. Shot! Cruz’s dad! He was there!! But I’m not trying to suggest anything. I just know that a certain media outlet has the story. It’s a story about Cruz’s dad being in a photo with Lee Harvey Oswald before Kennedy was killed. But I don’t want to suggest anything, I just was to say things. I’m not really sure what “suggest” means come to think of it. But my people do, and they tell me that I didn’t suggest it. Excuse me while I go consult with myself on this point.

          Violence is bad. I always say that. Just ask my wife or daughter. I say it all the time. In fact, I am saying it now. Violence is bad! But if you hear someone saying “horrible” things about me, just “punch ’em in the face” and “knock the hell out of ’em’; I will pay your legal fees! Wait, no, I won’t. Wait, yes, yes I will after all.

          See? That’s what this media does! It takes my words and repeats them with video of me saying them, but you know it’s just that the media is bad. And not good. And also very horrible.

          But the main thing, the main thing is the wall, wait, not, scratch that, the main thing is trade agreements now. Well, I always focused on that. It’s the main thing all along. That’s what I’m really, what this campaign has really, since the start you know, focused on trade. That’s the heart of my campaign. Trade. Free trade, fair trade, trade is what I know. I know free trade, and I know fair trade. There’s also trade salad, bar-b-que trade, fried trade, trade sandwiches, trade stew, pineapple trade, trade gumbo, there’s all kinds of trade. And I know them all.

          The people who know me know that I am a trade person. I love trade. And trade loves me! Just ask Trade here, who is also a veteran. And who love puppies, apple pie, and baseball. Just like me. I love those things. Those things, like trade, are good. They are not bad. They are good. Good. I like good things. I do not like bad things. Bad things are bad and not good.

          KirbySalad55 in reply to scooterjay. | July 1, 2016 at 12:25 pm

          Politics ain’t bean bag.

          Get some preparation H for those sores.

          The context of the punch them and I’ll pay your legal fees was at one particular rally it was reported to Trump that at least one possibly more persons had managed to smuggle in some items that could be used as weapons to throw at Trump. So Trump announced to the crowd (quite rightly imho) that if they spotted someone trying to throw something at him to punch them in the face and he would pay their legal fees.

          Given what we have seen since then with the deranged anti-trumper violence, he was quite justified in so doing.

          Don’t let the facts get in your way there Fuzzy.

          Also, neither Trump nor the National Enquirer said Cruz’s daddy was involved in the Kennedy assassination. They just noted that he appeared to be in a picture with Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans a few months prior. Others noted that daddy Cruz suddenly had a hankering to flee to Canada shortly after the assassination after living in the USA for years.

          Cruz dropped out of the race as soon as this came up giving further credence to maybe there was something to this story and that’s why he dropped out of the race so suddenly and unexpectedly.

          Or maybe what I wrote about Cruz’s daddy is not true and just BS, but politics ain’t bean bag and Cruz started the whole thing by going after Trump’s wife with nudie photos. Cruz people were peddling the nudie photo stuff for a month or two prior to the Utah publication.

          Cruz found out you mess with the Bull you get the horns. Those horns in this case went right up old daddy Cruz’s rear end !!!

          Politics ain’t bean bag.

          Hee! I love this. You tell me not to “let the facts get in” my way and then launch into a bizarre diatribe about how Cruz’s father was probably involved in the JFK assassination and that Cruz himself knows it to be true. Wow. That’s so nuts I don’t even know what to say.

          And btw, Cruz lost by far more than he expected in the Northeast, and he waited until the Indiana results came in to see if he had a shot at scooping up delegates enough to challenge Trump in a second vote (if there were one). He dropped out because he lost Indiana, too, and the writing was on the wall. It was not unexpected at all; people had been writing about Indiana being the last chance for Cruz since practically the minute he lost by so much to Trump in NY. (just because you didn’t expect something, doesn’t mean no one did, right?)

          And Kasich dropped out the next day. Oh, wait! Maybe Kasich was secretly involved in the JFK assassination, too, and he thought he better drop out so that no one would be the wiser. Oooh, oooh, maybe he was worried Trump would reveal him to be the son of a two-headed alien from some distant planet! I bet that’s what it was.

          Ragspierre in reply to scooterjay. | July 1, 2016 at 4:39 pm

          You are are lying idiot.

          KirbySalad55 in reply to scooterjay. | July 1, 2016 at 5:54 pm

          Ah Rags appears, one of the first Cruz peddlers of the nudie photo bit for little Cruz.

          Cruz is a gutless liar of low character and moral fiber. I liked him once, but he didn’t keep his word and pledge to support the nominee and he would rather see Hillary president than wipe the bloody nose Trump gave him and be an man that honors his word. He’s scum that will never get a vote from this republican ever.

          He could have been vice-president, but turned out he isn’t man enough and doesn’t have the character for it.

          Ragspierre in reply to scooterjay. | July 1, 2016 at 8:08 pm

          Actually, you lying SOS, Cruz has remained neutral on the issue of endorsing T-rump.

          T-rump, OTOH DID break his pledge. Openly. As I’m sure you know, but prefer to lie about.

          Great T-rump sucker!

          Barry in reply to scooterjay. | July 1, 2016 at 10:55 pm

          ” Cruz has remained neutral ”

          LOL, you’ll accuse trump supporters of unbridled devotion, and then you come up with that tidbit.

          So, “neutral” has a new meaning. It means break your solemn pledge.


          Ragspierre in reply to scooterjay. | July 2, 2016 at 4:04 am

          No, you lying moron.

          Neutral means neutral. And T-rump is not yet the nominee.

          Is he, you lying moron?

          But T-rump “broke his solemn pledge”, you lying moron.

“And it’s no different from the [Ku Klux Klan] or those who attack abortion clinics. We wouldn’t go and say there’s a problem with radical Christianity or radical Christian terrorism.”

That is such a load of BS. There is no such thing as “radical Christianity” or “radical Christian terrorism.”

KKK members believe in a hateful, racist ideology that is antithetical to Christian theology. And people who murder abortion doctors are acting against the express teachings of Christianity, which says to “turn the other cheek” and “love thy neighbor as thyself.”

Contrast that with Islamic terrorists, who can cite multiple verses from the qu’ran that tell them it is their duty as good Muslims to conquer, subjugate, and kill “infidels” (i.e. non-Muslims), stone homosexuals to death, etc.

In other words, Christians who bomb and murder are acting in DEFIANCE of Christian theology, while Muslims who bomb and murder are acting in COMPLIANCE with Islamic theology.

And that is a huge difference.

    scooterjay in reply to Observer. | June 30, 2016 at 7:58 pm

    Yep, I must have missed all those days in my churchgoing times since 1965 where the Minister told us to go and kill those unlike up in the name of Christianity. spit, and double spit!

    Zachary in reply to Observer. | June 30, 2016 at 8:03 pm

    It seems lately to many that all Christianity is considered radical. Sad state of affairs.

I was a nevertrump until Orlando. I think that at least he will fight back – she won’t. I don’t relish the thought of a NY Liberal as pres – but I would rather have the one that may actually like this country. I’m going to puke in my mount but Vote for Trump.

    Ragspierre in reply to PRNeoCon. | June 30, 2016 at 7:57 pm

    And you’ll note that nobody here will call you a traitor, irrational, or a RINO.

    I may think your choice is wrong, but it’s your choice and you have to live with it.

      inspectorudy in reply to Ragspierre. | June 30, 2016 at 8:33 pm

      Rags, I will not vote up or down on your comment because we have to do anything to stop the corruption of the clintons. Can you imagine all of the old discarded clinton appointees coming back? Podesta, Emanuel, Stephanapolous, Brock, McCaulif, Panetta and all of the liars we all know she will appoint. OMG! I too hate the thought of Trump but look at the alternative! hillary clinton, the most corrupt dishonest person to ever run for president in our country’s history! Trump is an empty suit but at least he doesn’t have a history of total corruption. Please disregard the insulting nature of his acolytes and vote for him for the good of our nation.

Congress is doing plenty to undermine the Constitution on their own without the islamists’ help.

Fuzzy Slippers:
I will merely disagree with you. I’m disappointed that you think I am incapable of reading text. I just got home from a 12 hour night shift and am in no mood for argument. I did like how you doubled down with the second wall of text, though. Have a nice day!

Xenomethean | July 1, 2016 at 6:27 pm

Islam is the down fall of any nation! Evidence is in the south pacific area.