:: Da' Militant One's Lair ::

:: Friday, September 27, 2002 ::

First let me say that George Bush is not as dumb as folks would believe, but he is also not as smart as he thinks he is. The speech at the U.N. was brilliant because he put together a coherent argument on why Iraq is a problem. He also boxed himself in a corner from which he is now trying to escape. War with Iraq serves many useful purposes for Bush and republicans.

:: DM1 9/27/2002 11:29:00 PM [+] ::
...

I see that some media folks are starting to ask tough questions of the Bush Administration.
Well I have some of my own:

1. Where is Osama?
2. Where is Mullah Omar?
3. Where is the Hart-Rudman Report on Terrorism that was given to Bush in the Spring of 2001?
4. Is Rep. Cynthia McKinney more right than wromg?
5. If Iraq is such an immediate threat why did Bush take a 30 day vacation and go to fund raisers?
6. Why are most of the republicans braying for war chickenhawks while most of the democrats are veterans?
7. If we can't catch Osama who doesn't have a big army, how can we catch Saddam Hussein?
8. Why is Condoleeza Rice the National Security Advisor?
9. If we are so right, why is Kuwait against our invading Iraq.
10. Why can't we see the SEC report on Bush and Harkin? If he was exnorated, wouldn't that strengthen him and weaken his critics?

Just a few questions that I have been wondering about.

:: DM1 9/22/2002 01:46:00 AM [+] ::
...

Addendum to the previous rant. The knucklehead ticked me off so bad I had to get him!:


Also, in your second cowardly response you couldn't even bring yourself to
speak the truth. The soldiers killed by the confederates were United States
soldiers and citizens. For you to use the term "United States soldiers" is
to admit that your whole premise was and is a lie. The terms "federals",
"yankees", and "Union" are terms coined by lairs and curs such as you. The
U.S. Constitution applies only to United States citizens. The traitors that
you mentioned renounced their allegiance and citizenship to the country. I
can see why Trent Lott, John Ashcroft, and Bob Barr and big fans of yours.
You didn't win in 1865 and you won't win now. Too cowardly and yellow for
your own good. Crawl back into the slime with the rest of the ooze.

:: DM1 9/02/2002 07:12:00 AM [+] ::
...

Another email exchange between me and the idiot from the Council of Coservative Citizens. I was showing someone his earlier emails and he emailed right in the middle of it:



----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 9:26 AM
Subject: Re: Alabama Civil Rights Monument


You obviously have no respect for the law, but instead view the impulse of the mob as a virtue. Mob ignorance is your strongest ally. First, Salmon P. Chase was appointed to the Supreme Court by Abraham Lincoln, who usurped the Constitution to make war on the South. Chase was an abolitionist and a hater of the South who wanted to pursue every avenue of prosecution against the leaders of the Confederacy. Nevertheless, Chase found no law that allowed prosecution of the defeated Confederates. Despite a lack of jurisdiction, Jefferson Davis was imprisoned without writ of habeas
corpus for two years. During this time, federal officials sought some legal trick to try Davis for treason. The only recourse for the Federals would have been the creation of an ex post facto law to try Davis. This, also, is unconstitutional. After two years of unjust imprisonment, Davis was released. So any attempt to punish the Confederates would have amounted to a lawless mob lynching. As for King, he got away with his crimes because he had a mob-and the liberal press-as allies. King was sexual profligate and a communist stooge posing as a Christian minister. This makes him not only a wretch, but a total hypocrite. It was King who practiced "civil disobedience," which is by definition lawlessness. But you are right about one thing. We do drink the dregs of history
because we live under the dismal shadow of African incompetence, barbarism, criminality, and lassitude that has wrecked our civilization. No white civilization was ever improved by black supremacy, as Zimbabwe, South Africa, and Detroit clearly demonstrate.


MY RESPONSE:

I was just showing someone your ignorant response. Then you go and out do
yourself!

:: DM1 9/02/2002 07:09:00 AM [+] ::
...

This is the Email that started the previous rant. The writer had argued against a Civil Rights Monument in Alabama:

To Whomever,

I wanted to give you my view of article on the CCC "Thwarting an Alabama Capitol Landscape Scheme". The writer states the following:

"Ironically, any civil rights monument erected at the capital would be an homage to lawlessness and civil disobedience; a fact which eludes commissioners who condemn Meadows actions as "disruptive."

Using the writer's logic, I assume that the writer finds the thousands of monuments constructed to honor the confederacy which was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of United States soldiers during the Civil War equally "lawless". I doubt it because when one is truly morally bankrupt the first thing to go is integrity. I also assume that the writer would insist that the confederates (also known as "Davis, Lee, Jackson, et al.) were "freedom fighters" opposing oppression. If you insist on beating up the civil rights monument, at least, have the integrity to be consistent in your logic and thought.

:: DM1 9/02/2002 07:02:00 AM [+] ::
...

First in a series of emails between Da' Militant One and an idiot with the Council of Conservative Citizens on the traitors: Robert (The Butcher) Lee, Jefferson (Where's my N-gger!) Davis, and the rest of the confederate scum that planted 600,000 U.S. Soldiers:

----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: Alabama Civil Rights Monument

"Militant One"

We don't usually abide ignorance, but we will be a little patient in your case. You imply that the Confederacy was an "outlaw" nation. If that is the case, why weren't all the Confederate leaders, from Davis on down, arrested and charged with treason? The reason is that the secession of the Confederate states was entirely legal and Constitutional, as ruled by US Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase in July, 1865. Furthermore, the yankees-Union-Federals, what ever you choose to call
them, pursued an illegal and unconstitutional war against the South. Lincoln threatened to disband the Supreme Court when the justices refused to sanction his ILLEGAL action of raising troops to invade the South. Furthermore, by using Federal soldiers against legally constituted states in secession, Lincoln violated the Posse Comitatus by using the army against civilians. But no doubt in your feeble little mind, might always makes right. So again, when King and his gang set out from Selma on their march, they were warned that they were violating the law. So the US government stepped in and aided King in his lawlessness, once again trampling on the laws of a sovereign
Southern State.

MY RESPONSE:

Talk about a fraudulent explanation. They should have been hanged! However, Lincoln thought that he was doing what was right by not ordering the traitors to be put to death. The lack of logic and thought of you rebuttle makes it abundantly clear why there will never be any peace in this
country. You can't stand the fact that for all of your lies, revisions, and half-truths, you still can't change history! Salomon Chase! Please! Some other Supreme court knucklehead said that blacks had no rights that a white man had to respect. Please find someone with a brain to respond to me next time because it's charlatans like you that make my job easy! King and his gang? The real truth is the white southern neo-confederate racists such as you have never had anything, but hate and anger for black folk, but that's okay because you will reap what you sow tenfold. So crawl
back in your hole and drink your "bitter dregs!"

:: DM1 9/02/2002 06:58:00 AM [+] ::
...

Old Rant to Fox News on Tony Snow, Bill O'Reilly, Brit Hume, et al. (Nov 2001):

I know you boys think you have gems in the good ol' boys mentioned above. To label them pompous, arrogant jerks, does a disservice to pompous, arrogant jerks. It seems like the motto of your station is to hate all things liberal and democratic. I dare say that their views and opinions are not new or surprising. I just finished watching a rerun of "All in the Family" and the arguments that were debated on the show 30 years ago are still being debated. The funny thing about tv show scripts is that you can write and arrange the scripts so that your point of view always prevails. Unlike "All in the Family" the scripts that the gentlemen above use are old, tired, and dated. What's really funny is that before any of them open their mouths I always know what they are going to say. They have a problem with liberals, feminists, gays, unions, and last but not least the Clintons. The crowning moment was watching Bill O'Reilly try and preach to Geraldo Rivera about his past. Dollar Bill (The Multimillion Common Guy) couldn't hold Geraldo's jock----- (you know the rest). Geraldo doesn't need Dollar Bill or any of the others mentioned above to smooth his way. If the Fox News audience doesn't like Geraldo, I don't think Geraldo needs any help in responding to his detractors. A "no spin zone?", if O'Reilly could keep his mouth shut long enough to allow his guests to respond then I guess the description is apt. That he never gives those who disagree with him a chance to talk speaks volumes about his own inadequacies. The rest of the lot is cut from the same cloth and I suspect that Fox News will be around a long time just like "All in the Family". Unlike "All in the Family" there is nothing original about the good ol' boys. Just a bunch of rich angry white guys pointing a finger at every thing and every body who have the nerve to disagree.

:: DM1 9/02/2002 06:44:00 AM [+] ::
...

Memo to the Washington Post:

I used to get the Washington Times, but they would never stop printing any rumor about Bill Clinton so long as it was vicious and nasty. I now find your newspaper to be useless, but for a different reason. Bush's and Cheney's corporate careers demand closer scrutiny in the current environment. A great deal was made about their business experiences. Bush touted his management experiences when running for president. I have examined the record, and all I see is a failure who was fortunate to be the son of a president. Cheney it seems spent a lot of time doing business with Iraq. If Bill Clinton's penis is worth a $40 million investigation surely the actions of Bush and Cheney are worth closer examination. Thus far I find your newspaper very lacking in getting to the heart of these issues. I guess you don't want to be accused of "liberal bias". One more thing you don't have to worry about is being mistaken for the newspaper you used to be. You have become a "toothless tiger" scared of your own shadow. This current administration is running the country into the ground and I don't see the Washington Post asking the tough questions or investigating possible criminal activities by the president and vice president. Your newspaper is no longer worth the money I pay. If you ever get your spine back, I may resubscribe. However, with Ms. Graham gone, I don't think you have the character or integrity to do your duty as it should be done. Where have you gone, Bob Woodward?

:: DM1 9/02/2002 06:40:00 AM [+] ::
...