About Me

Name:The New THOMA$ REPORT
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Search

Controversy? Only In Boulder

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 6:01:14 PM
Only in Boulder does something like this "cause a controversy." Boulder, Colorado is mostly liberal, and U of Colorado especially. And it is the liberals who are in "complete denial" about the Islamic terrorist threat, so a couple of former terrorists who "tell it like it is" are going to be "controversial." What they tell us is that Muslims (not just the terrorist kind) are TAUGHT FROM BIRTH to hate people who don't believe the way they do. "Infidels" are to always be an object of hatred. So it's no wonder the Islamic maniacs who CLAIM to be a "religious organization" (They're not.) have no trouble recruiting people who are ignorant enough to believe that crap about "74 virgins" at their beck and call if they are killed while attempting to kill Infidels (Makes you wonder how the girls remain virgins after they've had sex with the men a few times.). Liberals better "wake up," or when the Islamic terrorists are able to come here (after a liberal president "releases" them from fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan), guess who will be the first people killed? Liberals? (Rocky Mountain News)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Not Constrained By Truth

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 5:58:23 PM
Doonesbury was once asked why he did cartoons about politics, using themes that were patently false. His answer? This is a cartoon strip. I don't have to stick to the truth! Unfortunately, that's true. But impressionable kids AND adults read his drivel and believe it. His recent output is a repeat of a series he did some time ago where he pushed two ideas: that WE are responsible for the "recruiting increase" in terrorists in Iraq, and that WE "created" the Muslim extremists and terrorists who have been killing people who don't believe the same way they do for thousands of years. The strip involved tells us the terrorists "are new at this--you only just created us." What a load of bullpoop! It also creates the idea that we "can't beat these bozos," which is a fantasy, We ARE "beating these bozos," but the liberal press won't report it. I'm getting very tired of correcting this kind of crap. It amazes me that otherwise intelligent people BUY it. I probably shouldn't be surprised, since most people are proud of the fact that they "don't pay attention to politics," so why would I be surprised that they know nothing? They may not pay attention to politics, but they are fed this kind of stupid crap every day on the comics pages, not just by Doonesbury strips, but in other strips, as well. What amazes me is the editors put "Mallard Fillmore" on the editorial pages while leaving this where it is. That tells me more about the editors than anything else. "What is 'Mallard Fillmore?" Maybe you should look his strip up and find out. (Doonesbury)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

IS It "About the Black Church?"

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 5:51:53 PM
Rev. Jeremiah Wright keeps insisting the controversy about his "racist rantings" is "not about Rev. Wright, it's about the black church." He wishes. The uproar is about the idiot things he has said, many times, from his pulpit and Obama's insistence (which nobody believes for a minute) that he never heard Wright say such things in TWENTY YEARS of attending his church. One Wonders why Wright came out at this time and made his "racist rants" when he knew it would hurt Obama's chances of becoming president. I can give you an answer to that: he knows if Obama (a black man) is elected president, it will give the lie to his (Wright's) racist rants and he doesn't want that. He can't afford to have a black man elected president. This has nothing to do with "the black church." It has everything to do with Wright's "racist ranting" in his church for 20 years. Wright is doing the same thing Muslim Imams are doing. Inciting his followers to violence. If Obama is not nominated or elected, many of his followers will say it's because he's black, and some have even PROMISED violence. It's not. For my part, I don't like him because he's a SOCIALIST, not because he has some black blood in his body. I have the same thing against Hillary, though Obama is more of a socialist than she is, if you can believe that. To answer the question many people will ask, yes. I would vote for a black man for president, I would vote for a woman for president. I would vote for a black WOMAN for president. I would have voted for Alan Keys. I'd LIKE to vote for Condoleeza Rice. But she doesn't want it. (Yahoo News)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Newt's "Worn Out His Welcome"

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Tuesday, April 29, 2008 4:11:15 PM
When I see Newt Gingrich sitting on a couch next to  Nancy Pelosi pushing global warming, he has "worn out his welcome" with me because he has shown his complete IGNORANCE on "global warming" and I don't want his to be elected or appointed to ANY office that might affect me in the future. When I see this image it tells me not that "they" have agreed on something, but that HE has "agreed with HER!" ANY time I see a Republican sitting on the same couch with such as Pelosi, he loses ALL his credibility with me. I have unsubscribed from his e-mail newsletter and will from now on ignore anything he says, as I do with Democrats (except to learn of their latest idiocy).(Adam Naranjo)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Biggest, Most Successful Swindle Yet

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Tuesday, April 29, 2008 3:52:40 PM
AlGore was a "rich man" when he was vice-president. But not nearly as rich as he is now, after years of "working" the "global warming swindle." Now he wants to subject this country to what will be a TRILLION DOLLAR TAX to "help alleviate" global warming, which is only in his warped mind. He has already benefited from this scam to the tune of millions of dollars, and what is this "major catastrophe" to which he refers? A 1/4 degree temperature rise in A HUNDRED YEARS! Something that has been happening periodically since the dawn of time without ANY danger to humans, and NOT caused by humans. Even that highly vaunted picture of ice "breaking off" and sliding into the sea he uses to convince us is a MINIATURE, and the "ice" is plastic foam. Yes, ice DOES periodically break off and slide into the sea. It also reforms elsewhere. Polar bears DO have to swim now and then, but then they can swim for HUNDREDS OF MILES. They LIVE in "cold country" and have no trouble if it's a fraction of a degree warmer for a while. Gore has used his status asa a former vice-president to push the most massive swindle in the history of America (that we know about) and to enrich himself (beyond how rich he was already) in the process. He needs to be "reined in." His propaganda movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," is "required viewing" in many schools around the world. But according to a British court, contains at least ELEVEN lies (that they call "inaccuracies") and the film can't be shown to schoolchildren in that country without attention being called to those lies. Fred Singer, one of the world's top environmental scientists, the man who INVENTED the very instruments used to determine "global warming" or "global cooling," says this: "Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth has met its match: a devastating documentary recently shown on British television, which has now been viewed by millions of people on the Internet. Despite its flamboyant title, The Great Global Warming Swindle is based on sound science and interviews with real climate scientists, including me. An Inconvenient Truth, on the other hand, is mostly an emotional presentation from a single politician." This is the kind of person Al calls a "denier," as if his word is not worth anything, his knowledge and experience notwithstanding.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Attack! Attack!

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Tuesday, April 29, 2008 3:44:57 PM
Hillary once called The American Spectator "the right-wing publication that regularly attacked the [Clinton] administration." But she doesn't call what she and her husband did to the Spectator "an attack" after they used the IRS, the FBI and any number of other federal agencies and the courts to "attack" the Spectator for over 14 months, costing them a LOT of money for legal fees and almost destroying them. The fact that the Spectator was not found guilty of ANYTHING escaped notice of all but the "alternative ('right-wing') media." Seems like it's only an "attack" when it's coming HER way. Last time I heard, the Spectator was just a news magazine looking for truth. There's nothing that is an "attack" about printing the truth on a regular basis, unless your activities make you a regular target, as did those of Bill Clinton and, yes, Hillary. They're both swindlers and con men/women that happened to con their way into the presidency. They'd rather lie than tell the truth, when the truth would serve better. They'd rather steal than buy, when it would be easier to buy. They stole their way to riches while in office and beyond, now they can't resist telling us how rich they are, at every opportunity. Now Hillary is trying to con her way back into the White House, this time with HER in the "cat-bird seat." I hope this country isn't dumb enough to put that pair back in the White House so they can scam us out of more. I guess she's call this "an attack." Because I'm telling the truth about her. It's like the "swiftboating" tag. They use it as an epithet, assuming people  automatically see it as "lying" about somebody. In reality, the term means "telling the truth" about somebody, since the "swiftboaters" have never been found to be lying. (Amazon/Dick Morris)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

We Don't Want To Hear It!

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Monday, April 28, 2008 8:45:13 AM
Nonie Darwish is being censored in this country because she tells the truth about Arab teachings: She says, "As Arab children, we were taught about Jews in schools, at home, in the media, at mosque sermons, and by politicians. No one can escape the overwhelming anti-Semitic propaganda and the venomous hatred that my culture of origin advocated against Jews. In Gaza elementary schools I learned hate, vengeance, and retaliation. Peace was never an option; it was considered a sign of defeat and weakness. Those who wanted peace and compromise were called traitors and cowards. When I asked 'Why do we hate Jews?,' the answer was 'Aren't you a Muslim?' We were told 'Don't take candy from strangers since it could be a Jew trying to poison you,' or that Israeli soldiers would kill pregnant Arab women just for fun, place bets on whether she was carrying a boy or a girl, and cut her open to see who won the bet. My classmates would cry while reciting jihadist poetry daily, wishing to die as martyrs." This is the kind of hatred taught by MAINSTREAM Arabs in Islamic-controlled countries. Is it any wonder it is so easy to find Arabs who are sufficiently ignorant to believe that crap about "74 virgins" to screw around with forever" and the rightness of "killing Infidels" (not just Jews, but EVERYONE who doesn't believe as THEY do) taught by the Islamic militants? They keep saying Islam is a "peaceful" religion, but the lie is put to that by this. If you don't believe this, go to an Islamic-controlled country and learn their language. Then just listen. (National Review)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Not So "Innocent" After All

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Monday, April 28, 2008 8:38:46 AM
One Of the Imams who want to boycott an airline for "bouncing" them off a flight after they "prayed" in public and made remarks supporting Islamic terrorists before boarding their flight is NOT an "innocent "scholar" after all. He has an ADMITTED connection to Hamas and other terrorist organizations and goes about this country preaching HATE in Arabic. "World Net Daily" revealed, "The imams had attended a conference in Minneapolis of the North American Imams Federation, said Shahin, who is president of the group." Are American lawmen looking at what was taught at this conference? Probably not. The politicians in Washington are too afraid of "offending" Muslims to do what is LOGICAL in our defense. Personally, I think ALL such gatherings ought to be monitored by an Arab-speaking agent and their words reported. If they are "treasonable," they should be "brought to justice." That's only logic and common sense. As long as they can get away with calling us "racists" for keeping an eye on Muslims, we're going to lose. If the Nazis could have gotten away with that, we'd all be speaking German now. (World Net Daily)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Man-Made Disaster

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Sunday, April 27, 2008 3:23:07 PM
The Left must think we are SO stupid to think there is a REAL "oil shortage" when any shortage there is, is simply CAUSED by their insistence that we cannot drill for oil anywhere the United States is "in charge." Further, the left will not allow us to build ANY new oil refineries. There have been NO new oil refineries built in the United States in more than 30 years, while they're building ETHANOL refineries by the hundreds to get more and more expensive fuel that does NOTHING to reduce pollution on the market because they LIKE it. An oil shortage? No. Just a shortage of intelligence on the left. (Politixcartoons)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Clinton's Vendetta Against American Spectator

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Sunday, April 27, 2008 3:20:08 PM

I tried hard, but couldn't find any news reports about Bill Clinton's "vendetta" against the American Spectator, although I LIVED it. I was around when it WAS in the news. Whenever I put "vendetta" and "American Spectator" into a search engine, all I got was stories about the "American Spectator's vendetta against Bill Clinton. The man who wrote most of the stories recanted, calling it "journalistic terrorism." But the fact remains, there was MUCH to "unearth" concerning Bill and Hillary Clinton's political and illegal machinations. They try and convince the world that "nothing was ever found, but how about this: "Bill Clinton was impeached. Yes, he was. A majority of the U.S. House of Representatives voted to impeach Clinton on a count each of perjury and obstruction of justice. And although he was acquitted after a sham trial in the Senate (where his possession of those "FBI files" helped him a lot), he settled a sexual harassment lawsuit out of court with Paula Jones for $850,000, was cited for contempt of court, was fined and disbarred for five years from practicing law in Arkansas, and resigned from the Supreme Court bar rather than suffer further humiliation as the first U.S. president to be permanently disbarred from practice there. All of this was a consequence of his blatant lies under oath to a grand jury and to the American people, as well as his various attempts to cover up his and Hillary's convoluted dealings in the infamous Whitewater scandal. This is the caliber of man whom voters are now supposed to trust when he sings the praises of his better half." He and Hillary whine about "the politics of personal destruction," but they are the best practitioners of it, ever. They describe the Spectator's "Arkansas Project" as "looking for dirt" on Clinton, but I describe it as "looking for truth." And they found it--in spades. And Clinton used every power at his command as president to destroy the Spectator. He failed, but not without almost destroying the Spectator with legal fees to fight the various FBI and grand jury probes in a "14-month ordeal." And the Clintons cry about "the politics of personal destruction!" Sheesh! (American Spectator)

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Same 'Ol Same 'Ol

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Saturday, April 26, 2008 1:36:29 PM
Obama wants us to think he's something entirely new on the political scene, but he's just a "common liberal" with a new coat of paint. He hates it when we use his middle name (Hussein), when we call him a liberal/socialist (he is, both), and when somebody mentions his big, "Dumbo-like") floppy ears. What else does he dislike? He hates it when we talk about him sitting in Rev. Wright's pew for 20 years listening to his hate-filled, racist ravings and wants us to believe he (Obama) doesn't agree. I'm not stupid. If he didn't agree, he'd have left and gone to another church. I certainly would have. He says, "Rev. Wright isn't running for office, I am," and thinks that makes a difference. He talks about "change," as if we didn't know that "change," to him, means swifter movement toward socialism than we'd get under either of the other candidates. I think the stupid one in this plot is Obama, and I don't want a stupid president. Trouble is, I don't want someone who thinks "she's entitled" to be president and will do anything, tell any lie necessary to attain the office, either. At least, McCain is a Republican, even if he DOES act like a Democrat most of the time. Obama is, if you can believe it, even MORE liberal/socialist that Hillary. McCain just wants to "get along," even if it means "caving" to the liberals. Rush had a good idea to do what it takes to keep the Democrats fighting amongst themselves and spending a lot more money than they would have if the candidate had been decided a long time ago. They'll be surprised when their vote numbers in the general election come up with a LOT fewer Republican "cross-overs" than they thought. I feel sorry for my Indiana friends and relatives this week, with both Democrat candidates haranguing them. But that's nothing like what I will suffer in the Denver area in August. I'm "bracing" for it. (Marvin Olasky/Town Hall)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Uselsss "Gun Laws"

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Saturday, April 26, 2008 1:07:10 PM

In Chicago, Illinois, where they have some of the most draconian "anti-gun" laws, there have been 35 shootings and 9 deaths over ONE weekend recently. If that doesn't show the futility of making laws against gun ownership for honest people, I don't know what does.  In prison, where they don't even allow the GUARDS to carry guns, there are many murders. Some with smuggled-in guns, and others with home-made knives. Which just goes to show that if guns suddenly disappeared from the world, murder and violence would not. If there were no guns, people who want to commit violence will find a way.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

National ID Yet Again!

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Friday, April 25, 2008 8:47:37 AM
A number of years ago they passed the "Real ID Act," which is, in effect, a "national ID" for all Americans. If you drive, you would be required to give your Social Security number to get a driver's license, and that number would then forever be used to identify you for EVERYTHING. If you don't drive you'll soon be required to get a "State ID" card as a substitute, which will be handled the same way. But at least seven states have refused to honor it, and have made laws against it. Other states have notified the feds that they are still "thinking about it," which means they'll probably decide against it. Without funding, this law is "null and void," and we will have escaped yet another attempt to force us to have a "national ID" card that will then be required for ANY transaction, down to using a public toilet. Then some faceless bureaucrat you've never met and never will meet, will have the power to make you an "unperson"  at will, with a stroke of his pen or the click of his mouse. If he does, you'll have to "join the underground," because you won't be able to do ANYTHING without this card. Do you want to give that "faceless bureaucrat" that amount of power over you? Read the article linked below and send it to at least ten of your friends. It will cost you nothing but time (if you do it by e-mail), and your freedom is at stake. (APC)

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama: "Americans Don't Need Guns!"

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Friday, April 25, 2008 8:43:27 AM
Well, there you have it. Obama is an "anti-gun nut." He ignores all the shooting going on in "gun-free zones" and in other places where gun laws don't allow HONEST people who OBEY laws to be armed to protect themselves from ILLEGALLY-armed criminals who don't obey laws, anyway. What is it about Democrats that they can't see the truth when it stares them in the face? I don't know very many "anti-gun" Republicans because most Republicans are more intelligent than Democrats. Ann Coulter was right when she titled one of her books, "If Democrats Were Intelligent, They'd Be Republicans!" Obama SAYS he "respects the Second Amendment," but local gun laws are okay. How can that be if you can use logic? The Constitution and its Second Amendment is there specifically to STOP "local laws" against gun ownership and the carrying thereof. It is there to CONTROL the laws made by the states. But like a typical ignorant liberal, he "speaks out of both sides of his mouth" when he says we "don't need guns." We DO. To defend ourselves against the illegally-armed criminals the laws he likes will create. (On The Issues)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Three Grand Juries Didn't Buy Earle's Fantasy

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Thursday, April 24, 2008 2:33:25 PM
Remember Texas prosecutor Ronnie Earle, who makes it a habit of ponying up charges against his enemies and getting grand juries to indict them (and which are usually thrown out for lack of substance), got really pissed when THREE grand juries told him to "go fly" before another grand jury "bought his fantasies" and indicted Tom DeLay on the most minimal of charges, charges that are backed up ONLY by a statement to a prosecutor in an interview that he was "generally aware" of what his associates were doing. I guess he thinks they ought to be completely uncritical of his attempts to indict his enemies. The only reason he was able to destroy DeLay's career by "indicting" him is that the Republicans promised that anybody who got so indicted would "step down." The Democrats have made no such promises and thus, a number of Democrats guilty of many things, are still in the Congress. Earle even let a film company do a "documentary" about the case, showing just how "one-sided" he was. I don't know if this film was made before a judge's decision came down, but it definitely shows his bias. (Byron York/National Review)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12345Next »