Hate Mail


Contact Us


Hate Mail - 2012 Disclaimer:
We reserve the right to print any email that we receive.
We make no corrections for grammar or spelling.

Our Commentary is in Red.

Updated 20 December 2012

18 December 2012

Steve000 wrote:

I guess you would do nothing if saw a person abusing an animal...just wait for a law to be made against it, and in the meantime do nothing to help them????

That's right, you are PUSSY who talks about what other people doing is terror!

Maybe you were unaware of this, but there are laws against animal abuse. There is no need for a law to be implemented. We are giving those that commit acts of terrorism the credit for their actions. We take the time to explain why their actions are acts of terror. They are meant to be from the inception of the idea.

If you are a witness to an animal being abused, you should report the violation to the police. They would be happy to interfere into the lives of those individuals committing these crimes.

It is clear you support one or many of the eco-terrorist groups listed on this website. Your attitude displays obvious support of their actions. Would you support these actions if you or someone in your family was targeted? If your history is somewhat incomplete, you will see these are the same actions the Nazis committed on Jewish Germans in the 1930s. But perhaps we should not confuse your support of eco-terrorists with a bunch of facts.


E-mails from Michael Storms
1 of 3

17 December 2012

Michael Storms wrote:

Listen is clear you have some useful information related to certain topics but save your opinions about Islam for your Pet dog or the Wall. It is clear you have zero comprehension concerning matters related to Islam. And you lose credibility when you talk about things without your facts lined up. Talk about what you know and do not guess at what you think you know. People that hold views like yours and provide ignorant opinions do nothing but cause divide. Islam is very profound and vast and contains more information than you could learn in 1000 years...if you lived that Long. Have some self respect.

We have a pretty good comprehension of Islam and how it relates to us (non-Muslims). We listen to what the leaders of Islam say with their vast years of Islamic study. Because we have so many quotes and video clips from true dedicated Muslims, we understand exactly what Islam is. But, if you think we have gotten our facts wrong, please correct us. We ask you with all sincerity. If we have it wrong, please show is the error of our ways. What you have not disputed with any facts whatsoever is that we absolutely do understand the hatred inherent in the teachings of Islam. We hear it every time we hear "Death to America", "Death to Israel", and "Death to anyone that insults Islam". We see it in every Islamic terrorist attack. Perhaps you forgot the Muslims dancing in the streets after hearing of the planes crashing into the World Trade Center. Allow us to present a few quotes from the leaders of Islam that have a full understanding of Islam.

"At the end of the day, innocent people, when we say innocent people we mean Muslims...if you are non-Muslim then you are guilty... I must have hatred toward everything not-Islam."
-- Imam Anjem Choudary

"Jerusalem belongs to us, and the whole world belongs to us!"
-- Shaykh Safwat Hegazy, Egyptian member of the Muslim Brotherhood in a recent video threatened all non-Muslims

"I am telling you that my religion [Islam] doesn't tolerate other religions. It doesn't tolerate. The only one law which needs to be spread, it can be here or anywhere else has to be Islam."
-- Cleric Abdul Nacer Benbrika in an interview with ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) in November 2005

"A Muslim man can have sexual pleasure with a little girl as young as a baby. But he should not penetrate her vaginally, however he can sodomize her"
-- Imam Khomeini, the top Shia authority, Tehriro vasyleh, fourth edition, Qom, Iran, 1990

"Let the entire world hear me. Our hostility to the Great Satan [America] is absolute... I conclude my speech with the slogan that will continue to reverberate on all occasions so that nobody will think that we have weakened. Regardless of how the world has changed after 11 September, Death to America will remain our reverberating and powerful slogan: Death to America"
-- Hassan Nasrallah, Secretary-General of Lebanon's Hezbollah (or "Party of God"),BBC Monitoring: Al-Manar, 27 September 2002

"Islam is a revolutionary faith that comes to destroy any government made by man. Islam doesn't look for a nation to be in better condition than another nation. Islam doesn't care about the land or who own the land. The goal of Islam is to rule the entire world and submit all of mankind to the faith of Islam. Any nation or power in this world that tries to get in the way of that goal, Islam will fight and destroy."
-- Mawlana Abul Ala Mawdudi, founder of Pakistan's Fundamentalist Movement

"Islam is not just a religion. It is a way of life. It's specific in the Koran that jihad is about fighting. There is no such thing as innocents. The idea of the Islamic state is terror against anyone who doesn't support Islamic ideology."
-- A black American convert initially drawn to Islam by admiration for Malcolm X. Reality

"All you Jews can go straight to hell."
-- Quannell X, National Youth minister for the Nation Of Islam, New York Daily News, October 17, 1995

And now, we have a clear understanding. After these quotes, any non-Muslim has a right to be afraid of Islam. There are so many more quotes from Islamic leaders. Islam is a religion that advocates total hatred of other religions. In fact, hatred is preached from the pulpit on a daily basis.

If Islam is a profound and vast religion and contains more information than we could learn in 1000 years, would you hold that same view if we converted to Islam? Does that apply to everyone or just those that understand the dangers to Infidels that worship God within the context of another religion? Do the Islamic scholars share that same 1000 year timeline inability to understand Islam that you have imposed on us? So far, no one has made a case based on facts that Islam is a religion of Peace and Tolerance. You have not done it. You have not even made the slightest attempt to do so. All you did was to state we did not know what we were talking about, but you did not offer a single bit of information that contradicts anything we have stated. We have supported our opinions, you should show some respect and do the same because so far, you have not.


E-mails from Michael Storms
2 of 3

18 December 2012

Michael Storms wrote:

I was going to type "lol" Because many of the people...not all...but many or most are NOT Muslim and are in fact categorized as deviants and disbelievers like the shia and pseudo salafi/wahhabbi sects which are among the most EXTREME liars pretending to be Muslims. Did you know that the pseudo salafi and wahhabbi sects are not sunni muslims AND that our history is filled with constant battles against them? Did you know they would just as quickly call me a non muslim as you...if my beliefs did not match up with theirs? Did you know in Muslim lands these people would Also kill me if my belief was not exactly like theirs? They are the extreme LITERALISTS and anthropomorphists OUR MESSENGER MUHAMMAD warned US Muslims about. They justify killing anyone to achieve à goal. They are not the main body of Muslims but they are the ones you hear the most about. Does L K DA sound regular? Because those are the wahhabbi and pseudo salafi groups. And people jumping up and down at the trade centre attacks you can be were Also from these groups. Islam does not permit killing innocent people and Islam specifically tells all of humanity they are entitled to believe whatever they choose and they will be judged accordingly. As for the shia....Well they are à bunch of sickos anyway and koolmainee the NON MUSLIM was à child rapist without à doubt. À real scumbag. Your problem is failing to separate WHO is WHO and what makes à Muslim a Muslim and the identifying the different SECTS WHO claim they are Muslim but in fact are Not. And we....the main body of Muslims constantly condemn, and war with these other idiots Because their ACTIONS give à horrible picture and they call it Islam. We defend this religion and have always been doing so. NOT everyone WHO claims to be Muslim are Muslim and not every Brown skinned Arab is à Muslim or Persian for that matter. If someone says they are we accept it until they DO OR SAY something that takes them out of the religion. And the fanatics with their stupid and misguided belief have always been à problem for us. And will continue to be until they are fully dealt with. But this is à all processes. I dont have the time to get into all your points so excuse me for not providing you with à book. I have personally seen dozens and dozens of videos of stupid shia from Iran saying moronic things as Well as the wahhabbi and others. There is no shortage at all. But it does not represent Islam at all. There are Also thousands of other videos giving à proper view. I will provide you with à single name of à scholarly brother WHO represents this religion correctly at the end of this. Using this name if you pay close will be able to pen other names and view other videos condemning those WHO misrepresent this religion. As for the Israel issue.....Well.......this land WAS STOLEN from the palistinians by extreme jews...fanatics you could Well call them. So this automatically means the land is the palistinians and the Muslim brotherhood wants it BACK for the brothers and sisters WHO lost it. If an invasion took place in the USA and land was lost...would you be at fault for organizing yourselves and trying to reclaim it? Of course not, but this is Because you are American???????????? And anyone else on this planet is not allowed to recover stolen land....Because they are not American?

You are completely wrong about the Jews stealing land from Palestinian Arabs. There was never a country called Palestine. The Palestinian Arabs could have had a country anytime they wanted since 1948, but they refused to accept a country for Jews. United Nations Resolution 181 recommended a partition of the territory from the British Mandate for Palestine into two states - one for Jews and one for Palestinian Arabs. But the rejection of partition by the Arabs left in place as the legally operative Mandate for Palestine, the 1924 Anglo-American Convention, and Article 80 of the United Nations Charter. All of the Arab countries objected to the creation of the Jewish state and fought a war against its creation. This was Israel's War of Independence in 1948. Despite their superior numbers, the Arab countries lost the war and the Palestinian state never materialized because of this loss. In the war that was waged, the territory allotted to be the Palestinian state by the UN partition resolution was divided between Israel and Jordan. 4/5 of the land was to go to the Palestinian Arabs and only 1/5 to Jews. But because the Arabs hated Jews so much, they were not willing to settle for a Jewish country and went to war against them in hopes of taking the land that was supposed to be for a Jewish homeland. When you go to war, you often loose land. This was a war the Arabs started. They have no one to blame but themselves. Had the Arabs not rejected the agreement and accepted a Jewish country with a small sliver of land that can hardly be seen on a map compared to the rest of the Arab land, they would have a country of their own, but because if their hatred, they do not and Jordan now has it.

Let us take a look at who got the land that has previously been the Palestinian mandate. Land that was supposed to go to Palestinian Arabs was taken mostly by Jordan. Do you ever wonder why you always hear about returning to the 1967 borders? Why not return to the 1948 borders that the UN Resolution 181 recommended? The reason is simple… because Jordan would have to give up a lot of land. So that lie that Israel stole the land meant for the Palestinian Arabs is nothing but a lie that Muslims cling to so as to justify terrorism against Israel and any country that sides with Israel. Have you noticed that no Muslim ever charges Jordan with theft of land from the Palestinians?

It is funny how you can see that so many Muslims of varying sects that live under Islam that is supposed to be a religion of "Peace", are ever so violent with Islam as their excuse. Why is there so much hatred of Jews within the Muslim community? That is what caused the 1948 War of Independence for Israel. If Muslims really wanted to live in peace with everyone else, there would be peace in the Middle East... but such is not the case. Instead, we have Islam as it was meant to be - a totalitarian ideology that rejects Democracy, personal freedom, and every other religion.

"Islam is a revolutionary faith that comes to destroy any government made by man. Islam doesn't look for a nation to be in better condition than another nation. Islam doesn't care about the land or who own the land. The goal of Islam is to rule the entire world and submit all of mankind to the faith of Islam. Any nation or power in this world that tries to get in the way of that goal, Islam will fight and destroy."
-- Mawlana Abul Ala Mawdudi, founder of Pakistan's Fundamentalist Movement

If Islam is such a "Peaceful" religion, why do we not see one billion Muslims protesting against the Islamic terrorist and referring to them as the scumbags they are instead of being worshiped as heroes especially when they kill Jews and Americans? It is easy to claim the terrorists are such a small fraction of Muslims, but then you have to take into account the facts that we rarely, if ever, hear Muslims speaking against these Muslim terrorists and you never see any Muslims suggesting tolerance be shown to Infidels. What you do hear is Muslims referring to these people in public as not "real Muslims" or something like that to discredit them, but we never hear actual condemnation. However, we do see Palestinians dancing in the streets celebrating the World Trade Center attack on 9/11 and the murder of over 3000 Americans. These were your average Muslims.

99% of all terrorism is committed by serious followers of Islam. You can never say these people are not Muslims. They take the study and practice of Islam very, very seriously. They know the Koran and live by its teachings and yet they are the cause of most of the world's terrorist activities.

If you want to worship Allah, go right ahead, but show others the same respect and stop supporting the Muslims that try to kill them because they practice another religion. In fact, not only should you stop supporting them, you should publicly condemn.

Try to be balanced on this point and do your homework and study history before copy and paste replies become a habit. Like I said.....CLEARLY YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ISLAM. The name of the Muslim scholar WHO represents Islam Hamza Yusuf.....YouTube it.

What about the other 1.3 billion Muslims that do not know of Hamza Yusuf? What about the other Muslim leaders that contradict Hamza Yusuf and call for the hatred that we see all over the world? What about Imam Anjem Choudary? He seems like a pretty serious Muslim. Are you saying that Imam Anjem Choudary does not represent Islam correctly?


E-mails from Michael Storms
3 of 3

20 December 2012

Michael Storms wrote:

Also one last note....this conversation is a waste of time. I am sure you want the last Word So go ahead and reply with whatever you like. I am finished. Take care and remember THERE IS NO god WORTHY OF WORSHIP EXCEPT ALLAH, Muhammad...peace be upon Him IS THE FINAL MESSENGER FROM ALLAH. ISLAM IS THE TRUE RELIGION AND THE ONLY RELIGION ACCEPTABLE TOO ALLAH. JESUS CHRIST IS MUSLIM AND NEVER DIED. HE WILL RETURN TO KILL THE ANTI CHRIST AND CONFIRM ISLAM AS THE TRUE RELIGION.

This shows how deluded you are. How can you say that Jesus Christ is Muslim? This is obviously news to you, but Jesus was a Jew. Islam did not exist until more than 600 years after his death. How could anyone ever face God with having followed the things that Mohammed wrote? What you find in Islam is forced conversions at the point of a sword, slavery from its inception until the present, killing non-Muslims because they are not Muslims. Where is Peace found in Islam? Where is the love? With the way that Islam treats Infidels, it is hard to actually understand how Allah is God. Allah comes across more like Satan trying to prove to his disciples that he is really God. Islam is more akin to Devil Worship. What are we to make of the following passage from the Koran?

Ishaq: 327 - Allah said, "A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion."

Here we find that Allah desires killing before selecting captives then taking his possessions and enslaving those that are captured. Killing is required to spread the religion. Whether you do that in the name of Islam, or Christianity, or any other religion, it is not a loving God that is setting forth such a doctrine and the only place you see an order like this is in Satan worship.

Do you not see that of all religions in the world, Islam is at war with every one of them... even among some of its own? Islam is a religion of war and terrorism.

What about Imam Anjem Choudary? He clearly proclaims that Muslims cannot be taken at their word. He clearly states that Muslims will tell you one thing in public, but behind closed doors, they will say something else. This is commonly known as "Deceit" effectively saying that Muslims cannot be trusted when dealing with non-Muslims as they are likely not to be honest when speaking to people they refer to as Infidels.

From our webpage Islam - A Religion Based On Terrorism:

"Whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, whether you believe it or not, Islamic Terrorists are the cause for almost all of the world's terrorist attacks. There are always detractors that will advance the notion that these "Islamic Terrorists" are not true Muslims, but such is not the case. These terrorists are dedicated Muslims and serious students of Islam and its teachings. They understand what Islam is, what it means to be a defender of Allah and of Islam, and what is required to be a good Muslim. Remember, Muslims believe that Islam is the only true religion, superior to all other religions and beliefs. These Muslims believe they are on a mission with orders directly from Allah as written in the Koran to destroy anything they see as a threat or an insult to Islam and Allah."

This e-mail you have written confirms exactly what we have stated above.

If you truly believe that Islam is the only true religion, then how can you truly get along with people of other religions? Could they count on you for help from persecution from other Muslims trying to kill them or would you give them up to your fellow Muslims to be killed, forcibly converted to Islam, or enslaved. If Allah is truly the same God that Jews and Christians worship, why would any Muslim care how someone else worshipped the same God by any other name? Keep in mind that every Muslim is following the example and the teachings of Mohammed, not the teachings of God. Muslims even gave God a different name. How can that be the same God? There is nothing about Allah that seems merciful as does the God of the Jews and Christians, the one and only God. By the words of Muslims, Allah has more in common with Satan rather than any loving God that is if you consider Islam to be a religion. If Islam is just considered a totalitarian doctrine, then it is more in line with Adolf Hitler and Nazism, who incidentally is admired throughout the Muslim world.


E-mails from Matt Macintosh
1 of 2

16 December 2012

Matt Macintosh wrote:

terrorists terrorists terrorists terrorists marxists left wing terrorists terrorists terrorists anarchists anarchists terrorists terrorists wants to take out freedumb terrorists terrorists wants to harm 'merica! terrorists!

f*cking retards

Thanks Matt for your eye-opening e-mail. We know this must be a proud moment in your life for you to have finished this correspondence showing your capacity for intellectual thought. It is abundantly clear that you have written what you truly believe and at an academic level that places you at the top of your peers. We bet the self-satisfaction you must be feeling can hardly be contained and because of this "well-written" e-mail that we found so hilariously tragic sent to us with such pride from its author, we could not resist sharing it with the world.

We can see what you feel about Freedom by the way you spell it. We also see the respect you give to America for that same reason and as an American, thanks for nothing. It is clear that no American could ever count on you for anything positive.

With everything you could have written these are the words you decided upon using. What this proves is that you do not have the intellectual ability to actually have a rational conversation. You cannot and do not dispute a single fact on this website. We know this because you have not done so you seem want to bury your head in the sand and ignore the facts. Maybe you do not believe there are terrorists on this planet or you just do not know what terrorism is. Perhaps you just do not care. All we have done is to show some of the aspects of Terrorism and some of the groups committing these crimes. We are fully aware that many people, apparently such as yourself, do not like us recording these events. People do not like others knowing about crimes they have committed.

Why would you even send an e-mail like this that displays such ignorance on your part? If you thought we would find your e-mail insulting, you were wrong on every level because we did not. What bothered us the most was the lack of intelligence and effort put into the writing of this e-mail that can only be described as incompetent, unrefined, unskilled, impotent, and just plain stupid.


E-mails from Matt Macintosh
2 of 2

17 December 2012

Matt Macintosh wrote:

i'm not trying to have any "rational conversation" with you, i just wanted to let you know that you guys are completely morons.
p.s. the earth liberation front, earth first, and animal liberation front are heroes, and i glad that they causing damage to insane sadists.
f*ck you.

Why would you write an e-mail to someone without the intent of making a rational argument? Does that somehow make you feel better… or smarter? Is that the way you further the ideas that you hold dear? Do you actually expect to change people's minds to your way of thinking with this strategy? If you really believe you are right on this matter, why write such an idiotic e-mail? We do not actually expect an answer to any of these questions we just asked.

We know you are not trying to have a rational conversation with us. People that support the groups you consider heroes never do. The crimes they commit cannot be justified, that is why a rational debate is impossible. Just like the Nazis, the crimes are the same and for the same reason. We clearly see the intellect the supporters of these groups have. You cannot justify what you do, so you finish with some insult as though makes your point. These groups have nothing but selfishness, intolerance, and a Marxist agenda as their core of their beliefs. These are the traits that permeate society and a free people like a cancer. We know you are not going to understand that concept.

You could have tried to make a point showing that your beliefs are right, but you refused to do so. That is because you cannot do so. Instead, you justify to yourself that violence against people you do not like is acceptable. You do not like that we have an opinion based on their actions that their actions are wrong. Would you support them if they targeted you?

We are going to present a question to you that we know you cannot answer. No one that supports these Eco-Terrorists can ever answer. Here goes. If it is morally right for "Animal Rights Activists" to attack and destroy property in the name of animal rights, the environment, global warming, etc..., is it morally right for someone to target and commit an act of violence or destruction against the same activist for whatever reason they view as justifiable?

We know you cannot answer that simple question because you are unable to have a rational conversation, but we do thank you for writing us and visiting the website. It is always a pleasure to present the opinions of those that hate us.


15 December 2012

Kathy McShane wrote:

Hi, been viewing your website recently as I am a History student studying the Middle East, although you will argue against this, your website is one sided, very bias. Will not be recommending your website as I think it is ridiculous,coming from an unbiased view you need to change it. The only time I would encourage people to read it is if they wanted a good laugh reading about f*cking looney bins ' beliefs'. Emailing from Ireland and to think I thought my Country was backwards, it hasn't half gave me a good giggle, cant wait to show my lecturer and friends in Uni tomorrow.
Thanks you made my Sunday :)

This e-mail is so much like many others we receive here. We print the truth and we give credit where credit is due. If you want to call this bias, you are free to do so. It is easy to dismiss the truth as biased especially when others do not like it and they are always the first ones to complain about it.

We are glad to have a student of Middle Eastern History write us, however we were somewhat disappointed that you did not offer any actual opinion with any basis in fact. What is it that you think we got wrong? Seeing as how you seem to be unable or unwilling to explain what we are in error, perhaps your lecturer and friends might be willing to help you form an actual argument to support your beliefs.

We know this is a rhetorical question as we do not actually expect an answer, but what specifically are your disagreements with our beliefs and what we have printed on the website? We await your response.


E-mails from Alexander Grant
1 of 2

02 November 2012

Alexander Grant wrote:

Hi Men and Women of TOP,
I remember looking at your website a few years ago. (For the life of me I can't remember how I first stumbled upon it.) I'm not sure how quickly, if at all, you respond to emails. From the amount of information on the website, I'm sure most of your days are filled with research and the likes. But I just had a few questions and would love some feedback if and when you get a chance.

I guess I would need to preface this first question by asking what your religious and spiritual beliefs are as a whole? I'm sure, as with any group, each member has their own beliefs, but the website does seem to have a protestant Christian feel to it. I could be wrong, so forgive me if I am. Regardless, I guess my first question is how you feel about how Christianity is being used today to promote hatred(a bit strong maybe)? I think it's very sad.

We are not a religious group, but we do hold Judeo-Christian values. These are the principles and values on which the United States of America was founded. While there are a very small percentage of religious minded people that espouse hatred such as the KKK, for the most part, most of what is referred to as hatred is merely criticism that is directed at Christian groups from Liberal groups that have their own agenda. The perfect example is clearly stated as #54 from "Are You A Liberal". Many people do not want to be told they must live within certain laws of civilized society. For instance, we have laws against murder, destruction of property, theft, etc… Many people believe that these laws do not apply to them or they should be exempt from these laws because they have some agenda. Judeo-Christian values influence these laws.

My next question has to do with something on your editorial page, "Are you a Conservative?" The way those points are laid out, it appears that your group is Conservative. Maybe I am wrong again.

Yes, we are a Conservative group. We hold Conservative values such as Freedom, Liberty, Independence, and Self-Reliance. We believe in a Constitutional government. We stand against Marxism, Communism, Socialism, and Terrorism. None of these values have any place within a free society where Freedom, Liberty, Independence, and Self-Reliance are valued because they oppose these four traits.

However, one of your points mentions gays and lesbians getting special rights or privileges What are these rights exactly? I find that offensive and don't believe the gays should get extra rights.

These special privileges are what make the Gay community a protected minority. A marriage has always been between a man and a woman. That is the way it should be. If you believe that marriage should be between a man and a man or a woman and a woman, you have to include any combination beyond that definition. Read "Applying for a Marriage License" and tell us what you think. We know this editorial is absurd – it is supposed to be. That is the point.

Well it looks like I only had two questions, even though one is two parts, but I would love to pick your groups brain more if I get a response. I'm thinking I won't just because I don't think this falls into a 'Hate Mail' category With that being said, I'd like to request that my email not be posted on your site. Or at least not my email address.

We never print or share the e-mail address of anyone that writes us. Thank you very much for your e-mail.

E-mails from Alexander Grant
2 of 2

18 December 2012

Alexander Grant wrote:

Hi all,
Thank you for the speedy reply! And I enjoyed reading your feedback, although I found some of your responses to be misguided or inaccurate. Let me elaborate, as respectfully as I can, of course. While I absolutely uphold your right to "hold Judeo-Christian values," I would hope that you respect the right of other's to hold differing beliefs or lack of beliefs. And I trust you do, as that is a part of the moral fabric of American culture. The United States was founded on certain Judeo Christian principles, I'll concede to that. However, The United States operates under a Constitution that separates Church from State, so it's irrelevant what religion the principles came from. Also, the United States is drastically different both demographically and geographically from 1776. Now we have so many vastly different types of people living here. I think that is one of the foundations that makes our country so great. No matter how different we are, we can still unite under our flag together.

The separation of Church and State is merely a position whereby the Government does not support a specific religion over another religion. There is no endorsement of one particular religion. It seems that many see this not as "Freedom of Religion", but rather "Freedom from Religion". That was never the intention of Separation of Church and State. You would think that we could unite under our flag together, but that does not seem to be the case. It is not other religions that complain about a display of Jesus in a manger, but rather those that dislike Christianity. It is hatred toward Christians that empowers the anti-Christmas agenda. Suddenly it becomes political incorrect to wish someone "Merry Christmas" as some people consider it some personal insult.

On a side note, it's great that we have laws against murder and destruction of property and theft. But while these are mostly principles of Christian (and other religion's) teachings, I think these fall into the category of common sense. I feel fully confident that I will one day explain to my kids why you shouldn't steal from other's without the mention of God. However, maybe it helps you, and I completely support your right to hold these religious beliefs. And yes, there are plenty of people who don't think laws apply to them. We are all guilty of that sometimes, whether it's speeding occasionally or what have you. But breaking laws is something that all people do, regardless of political affiliation or religious beliefs. Our prisons are full of Liberals and Conservatives, Jews and Christians and Muslims and Atheists. In the essence of driving the point you made about Conservative Christian hate groups, I would suggest using Westboro Baptist Church. They are the first of many that come to my mind. Have you heard of them? They're the vile(excuse me) people who picket the funerals of dead American soldiers. In fact, they should be on your Target List.

They are very vile people, but they are mostly from a single family whose leader is the Pastor. They only number about 50 or so and are not growing. We do have them on the Links Page under Anti-American, Racist, and Terrorist Links. We have no love of this group.

Whomever responded to my previous email forgot to answer my question about the special rights being given to the gay's and lesbians. But I think that the extremist groups that oppose marriage equality are in a protected minority as well. These groups can hide behind the walls of religion when making their bigoted claims, the cry foul when people ridicule them. But that's what happens to any person whom holds such an extreme viewpoint.

Since when is it an extreme viewpoint that marriage should be between a man and a woman? Here is the problem. Take a look at the following quote.

"At first they wanted tolerance, then they wanted acceptance, and now they demand approval. The next thing you know, the Gay community will insist that any act committed under the banner of homosexuality must be considered normal and should be taught in schools."
-- David Meyer, speaking about the expansion of the Gay lifestyle in every aspect of American life, August 2004

What does marriage give a couple? The traditional definition of marriage is between a man and a woman… sometimes with several women. But the intent is as a communion between a man and a woman. Polygamy was made illegal in all states about 100 years ago; however, there is no law that prevents a man from openly living together under the same roof with several women as man and wives.

I did read the editorial about marriage license and I will admit that it was very funny. Of course, I'd respectfully have to disagree with most of what it was asserting. I've heard a lot of arguments against marriage equality for two consenting (tax paying) adults, whom happen to be of the same sex. It'll ruin the sanctity of marriage. It's not natural. The purpose of marriage is to procreate. You can't redefine marriage. If you allow a man and a man, what's next? Man and two women, man and dog, man and chair?
But none of these really hold any weight to them.
1) Sanctity of Marriage - With a 50% divorce rate, I'd say that heterosexual couples are tarnishing the name of marriage all on their own. The fact that divorce and remarriage are even allowed is ruining the sanctity of this 'Holy Matrimony.' Why are atheists allowed to get married? Why don't Christian organizations protest and attempt to create laws that would make it illegal to divorce?

The only people that make money in a divorce are the lawyers. The Lawyer Associations would love to add another few million potential clients in need of a divorce attorney. There are so many things that are ruining the sanctity of Holy Matrimony. An endless number of books have been written on the subject of divorce.

2) 1) Not Natural - I've heard this one but don't quite understand it. I guess it's kind of a way of saying, "That's gross," without having to say it. But, no offense, I find straight-sex gross, but I would never get in your face about it and call you, "unnatural" or an "abomination." Homosexual behavior can be evidenced in over 1500 species in nature.

You are right, it has been observed in many creatures. We are not sure if the 1500 is accurate, but for the sake of arguing, we will assume that number is correct. What you forget is that the individuals in this 1500 do not procreate. They never create any offspring by the nature of their homosexual. We humans have made homosexuality a social issue rather than a purely biological one. It is unnatural for the purposes of procreation. Before you assert, what about people that are unable to have children, but have the necessary drives, there is nothing that prevents them from being great parents, a mother and a father, as is natural among humans.

3) Procreation - I haven't personally heard this one in a while but it's still relevant I'm sure. First, I don't think procreation is a problem for our species, as our population is exponentially growing. And it can't have anything to do with life expectancy, because in Biblical times, people lived for hundreds of years. Some straight couples are too old to have kids. Some straight couples are infertile. They should also not be allowed to get married according to this argument.

It is procreation of a family. Children are best raised by a Mother and a Father. This has been proven time and time again over the last 10,000 years.

4) Redefine - Marriage already has different definitions. It has also been redefined several times. Abraham, of the Christian bible and a prominent figure in the religion, took a second wife after his first couldn't produce him a son. That's not one man and one woman. There was a time in this country when African Americans weren't allowed to be married, but we redefined that. This country is all about redefining things, because we understand that the world is constantly changing around us.

Specifically in regards to the Marriage License editorial, there were a few things that were off. I know you've already claimed it as "absurd" but it's not just that, it's plain wrong.

The two straight brothers whom want to get married - That IS incest and I think we are all pretty clear about how we view that. Before the Civil War, first cousins were allowed to get married in the United States. Now that is illegal, because it is incest. So if gay marriage is legalized, I don't think incest will make another run at legality.

It is not considered incest if two brothers got married. They would both be considered consenting adults capable of living their lives as they see fit. If that sounds gross, it is. If the law is changed to allow two men to marry each other, why not allow two brothers to marry? If brothers desire to marry each other for whatever reason, but never had sex with each other, why not let them? That is not incest. Incest requires sexual contact. Could they not use the tax break? They could still live straight lives even to the extent of dating other women if they wanted. It is often referred to as an open marriage. The question becomes if you allow two homosexual men marry, why not two brothers who are not gay?

The 4 'bisexual' people getting married - I'm assuming your website didn't write this article, as you have called it 'absurd' yourself, but I'd love to know who did write it. I don't think they know what 'bi-sexual' means. Because the group marriage would be better called polygamous.

The four bisexual people wanted to have a communal group marriage. Again, if you are going to allow Homosexual marriage, why not a marriage between two men and two women?

The guy that wants to marry himself - I see nothing wrong with this, to be quite honest. It puts a very humours image in my head but I'm afraid the poor sap won't get any benefits to marrying himself. He will still only have income and he can't claim a spouse on tax forms because there wouldn't be another person.

The fact you see nothing wrong with it is the problem. It is clearly absurd just as Gay Marriage is. That is the whole point of the article.

If you allow one exception to marriage, what prevents the same argument to support the other possibilities? Virtually every society has discovered that the best formula for a family is a mother and father. Most of the arguments in favor of homosexual marriage have been because of some legal tax or insurance situation.

We did not write the article. It was sent to us from an unknown source. While we would like to take credit for it, we cannot.

The Gay Rights movement is a Civil Rights issues. Which side do you really want to be on in 40 years, when we can look back in history books like we can with the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's? While the two movements are not the same at all, (I would never try to undermine what African American's went through, to what I am going through today) I think in one way it is worse for the gays and lesbians.

Let us look at it as a Civil Rights issue. How do you prove that one is a homosexual? We are looking at this from a job discrimination perspective. If a company is required to have so many homosexuals, how do you prove that a Straight person has not taken a position that a Gay person should have? If a Gay person is to say he or she was discriminated against in being hired, how do you decide that 40 percent of the employees are not Gay? A Gay man can certainly be married to a Straight woman.

When you have so many people out there who are attempting to make Constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage based on their personal beliefs, I fear for our society.
When taken literally, the Bible states, 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
I personally have never lied with a woman, so I have nothing to base it on. I guess I'm in the clear. (I meant that as a joke, but see my point of taking things literally)
And if a group is going to take that part literally true and continue to preach it today, why not take the whole thing literally? Why aren't there Christians out there trying to ban the eating of shellfish, or working on the Sabbath, or making clothes from two-type of fabric? These are all in the Judeo-Christian bible as abominable acts and punishable by death.

The whole idea of marriage is for a man and woman to get married and to raise a family. There is a commitment between a man and a woman made in the vows promised when married. A man teaches and thinks differently from a woman. These two attitudes are used to raise children to become the next generation. Men and women each have particular traits that need to be taught to the next generation. Today, being a strong man is often condemned and so many new adults suffer because they were not raised by a strong man.

I hope you all can read this email, appreciate it for what it is, and respond if you feel like it. I tried my best to remain respectful and not resort to name calling. I did this because I was attempting to stay out of your Hate Mail section. I hope you can see that this isn't hate mail, and most of it isn't directed at your website. I genuinely just enjoy civil discourse, as weird as that sounds. I'm thankful that we have the right to not only have differing opinions, but express them freely.
Thanks, and have a good Sunday!


Please do not take offense about being in the Hate Mail section. If you look at the other hate mail we have received, you will soon discover why it is called hate mail. That being said, we thought that your e-mail was well written and deserving of sharing with the rest of the world if they choose to read it.


19 September 2012

Amy Schieber wrote:

Look at the whole picture ..

Look at the earth , how big is the earth? How many people do you think we could fit on this planet ? Would we have enough resources to provide for such a large population? How many people = too many people .. ?

So you are implying there are too many people on this planet. What do you propose should be done to reduce the number? Do you think there are too many of any one group of people?

Populations of any species tend to be self limiting. Nature controls this. When the population of any species gets out of control, something causes a decline. That is the way it has always worked in nature.

What do you think should be done to control the population of humans and what number humans do you think should be allowed to live on Earth? If you really believe what you are saying, it comes down to which humans should be allowed to live on this planet and/or who should be allowed to reproduce? When and where there are periods of starvation, should help be sent?

Also, ask yourself... How does somebody else's abortion affect you?

Are you really asking how killing a baby affects us? We think killing a viable baby and depriving the baby of a life is wrong. However, never let it be said that we do not have an open mind. If you are going to say that there are too many people on this planet and you believe that abortion (killing an unborn baby that would have a normal birth) is a birth control measure, do you believe that it is wrong to use the nuclear weapons to control (eliminate) population of the Earth?

Are you the one risking medical complications , are you the one risking an eternity in hell (if it does exist(anything is possible). Are you the one having to live with a possible guilt complex for the rest of your life ... did you choose the abortion , did your perform the procedure?

Please do not insult our intelligence by claiming the women that have abortions believe they are risking an eternity in Hell because they made a decision not to have a baby. If they really believed they were risking an eternity in Hell, they would not even consider the choice.

If guilt is such a major consideration in having an abortion, why would so many women's groups that are pro-abortion want to inflict such serious guilt on women?

If you answered no to these things , then how does it really affect you , and how is it any of your business?

When you say it like that, you might be right. It is really none of our business. By that same rational, it is also none of our business if someone breaks into your house and rapes you. That act does not affect any of us either. That is between you, the attacker, and the police if you choose to include them. It is none of our business what happens to you so why should we care at all if you are attacked? If you want the answer, we will give you one.

Do you realize that abortions actually prevent overpopulation of childrens homes .. Do you realize that in taxes we pay for these children to live .. can you afford to continue pitching in your portion , or are you suffering through financial hardships and also protesting high taxes?

When you really get look at the support of abortion, you have forgotten about one particular view point. A baby is an unborn person. Pro-Abortionists by their stance on abortion are saying that the world is better off without this person even being born. One less person to be a drag on society; One less person that will expect entitlements from the taxpayers; one less person that will never contribute anything to this country. Yep, that is the Liberal mentality we have come to love and respect.

Do you wish your mother had abortion when she was pregnant with you?

Do you realize that abortion can mean one less kid experiencing child abuse & neglect.

Abortion is one less child without parents , one less child who feels unwanted and unloved ..

On less child who feels abandoned.

Do you realize that when children grow up feeling these things , they often become prone to violence and committing crimes ...

Do you know what else will stop this? Killing the baby right moments after it is born. We can call this a Post-Birth Abortion. Would you support this? How is this really any different that a pre-birth abortion? The baby has never actually lived any life that is meaningful. The baby has not contributed anything to society. The baby has not proved to be useful at all. Should this baby be allowed to live?

If you really believe what you say, would you support the sterilization of any women that receive abortions? This would be the answer to all of your concerns.

There are so many things that you are not seeing ... There is good and bad in everything ... even within yourself ... To judge someone else and their choices that stem from individuality is not morally sound . If you are catholic or christian , if you follow the bible , take this into consideration , it states that only god is to pass judgement upon others.. Are you god?

Well, you seem to be judging us… Are you God? The question should be are you living a Godly? If you had to face God tomorrow and explain your beliefs, actions, and deeds, could you do it proudly? You do not have to go to church every Sunday to be religious. Having a conscience and caring enough about others to really help them live Free and Independent lives would please God. Living a life where thinking of others and putting other's needs before your own needs when you can is a selfless act.

If you were raped and ended up pregnant or your child was raped , can you be positive that you would want your child/you to go through the pregnancy, the morning sickness, the food cravings, the pain involved ,

Rape is a terrible thing. Why take it out on the child. There are plenty of couples that want children that cannot have children. The child would make their lives very happy and the child would grow up in a loving home. Instead, you choose to kill the baby and never give the baby the same chance you had… a life to live with all of its trials, happiness, and pain… just like everyone else on this planet.

Tell me , do you like having every choice you make in your life being scrutinized , do you like when people pass judgment upon you?

People pass judgment on you based on the hair color you have, how close together your eyes are, how beautiful are or are not. What difference does it make what anyone else thinks. You are free to do whatever you like. Abortion was legal before Roe vs. Wade and it is legal now. Keep in mind that you are judging us as you ask that question.

If being pregnant was a health risk to yourself , if giving birth to a child could mean giving up your own life , could you be sure that you would be brave enough to sacrifice yourself when the time came.. Can you see the future , how do you know that you wouldn't be filled with fear if put into the position...

Very few births in this country end up in the death of the mother. Marines and Soldiers put their lives on the line for a lot less than the example you just offered. This could be a good example why women should not be placed on the front line units in the military.

You need to expand your mind and be conscious of everything , every perspective ...

True selfishness is only in denying ourselves true happiness.. For the way we feel about ourselves is the way we treat others...

Selfishness is the care about one's self without the consideration of anyone else. That is a pretty good characteristic of the Liberal mentality. You expect everyone to accept your opinion and you are not tolerant of anyone else opinion. You said it as well as we could have stated it. You treat others that believe as you do well. Anyone that does not feel the same way, you have no tolerance for their views.

a teenage girl forced to have a child and raise it , may have to sacrifice her dreams , which leads to unhappiness , the unhappiness reflects off of her and shines onto others in the form of verbal and physical abuse, negativity .. etc..

And just think how different her life would be if she had kept her legs closed and decided not to have sex. Here is something that so many people do not seem to know. The primary purpose for sex is reproduction. It is not supposed to be a fun way to pass an afternoon. The fact that it is pleasurable is a by-product of the main reason for sex… making a baby. When you go out of your way to have sex, you are doing everything you can do to have a baby. Why is it that so many people do not understand that?

We have to make ourselves happy before we can really make anybody else happy ..

So we are to understand that you believe it is important to make yourself happy before anyone else. That is a good ideology… Look out for number one. The one thing we can take from that statement is that you are certainly not ready to be a parent. In fact, with that attitude and for the sake of the overpopulation of the planet, you should seriously consider permanent sterilization for yourself.

learn to be accepting .. learn to agree on disagreeing , this is the happy medium ..

That is how you live your life. Are you accepting of us and our opinions?

We do not have to agree with something in order to accept it ..

You just have to stand on both sides of the fence ...

How do you do that and still have any semblance of conviction of your beliefs?


E-mails from Kelsey Haggerty
1 of 2

17 August 2012

Kelsey Haggerty wrote:

I am completely unimpressed with your website. You call people "terrorists" who have the best interest of EVERYONE ON THE PLANET in mind. Only a terrorist would try to villainize someone who is trying to help all without prejudice.

Apparently you were impressed enough to write us. We refer to people as terrorists who commit terrorist acts. We have been pretty consistent on this. Now, to you, we are terrorists, not because of anything we have done, but just because we exist and have the courage to oppose your view point.

Perhaps you are one of the many that believe that terrorist acts are a good thing when they support your beliefs. We do not have to vilify anyone. All we have to do is to show their actions and to quote them for every one to see what they are. We have shown Muslim terrorists for what they have actually done and said. Apparently, you believe these people only have the best interest of everyone on the planet. That is what you stated. Of course, then you refer to us as terrorists for simply printing the truth. Of course you are unimpressed with this website. Based on your e-mail, you do not appear to have the education or ability for intelligent thought to understand it.

We have spoken against Communism and Terrorism. We have embraced Freedom, Liberty, Independence, Self-Reliance, and Capitalism, five items that form the reasons for the success of the United States of America. What do you believe is in the best interest of everyone on the planet and what did we say that opposed the best interest of everyone on the planet?


E-mails from Kelsey Haggerty
2 of 2

19 August 2012

Kelsey Haggerty wrote:

You seem like a bunch of hillbilly morons with too much time to kill. My writing to you doesn't indicate that I was "impressed" by your site. I was appalled and since you feel that you have the right to post your opinions and call people terrorists just because you think that they are; I felt I had the right to write mine.

We know you were and continue to be appalled by the content of this website. Your hatred is evident. And it is not just that we "feel" that we have the right to post our opinions, we actually do have that right as guaranteed in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution that covers Free Speech and Freedom of the Press, which incidentally was actually aimed at protecting and allowing political speech. As far as the label of "Terrorist" goes, we are merely giving credit where credit is due. You obviously believe we have made some horrendous mistake with regards to some of the actions of one of your heroes that we have credited on this website, but you have failed to specify our error. What is it that we said that is incorrect or inaccurate? Here is your chance to actually justify the actions of this person that has your respect and sympathy.

We would say that your resorting to the personal attack by referring to us as "a bunch of hillbilly morons with too much time to kill" is surprising, but it is not. It is exactly what we expect from those that hate us, but are unable to intelligently dispute the website content. It appears that insults and hysterical ranting are the only weapons at your disposal, because so far, you have not actually offered any intelligent argument to any of the information on this website. You have not even mentioned what it is that we said that has brought you to writing us these scalding e-mails. This does not surprise us and we are not insulted because we know you this is the best you can do. You have no other way to counter the facts. This is the only way you can attack us as though it will change anything. All it does is to show you have nothing intelligent to say.

I am not referring to any Muslim terrorists, and I am not referring to ALL of the people you have printed on your site. I didn't waste my time reading articles on your site any further than the one I am referring to.

What article is that? This is the second e-mail where you have shown your disdain for us, yet you have still failed to actually dispute any information on this website from the article you read... or even the articles you did not read.

And the individual I am referring to is one who I have heard speak and know to be an intelligent, well read activist who is brave enough to go out and speak his opinion to thousands; rather than spout out some ridiculousness with the safety and anonymity of the internet.

The name of this brave and courageous person that you hold in such high regard is still missing from the body of your e-mail. We would really like to know who it is that you find so compelling and what information you believe we have gotten incorrect, because if we have gotten something wrong, we certainly want to correct it.

And for you to attack my intelligence for simply opposing what you put out there to the world as "fact" shows that you don't have the dignity and/or respect to understand that there are others out there who have a different point of view.

At no point have we attacked your intelligence for opposing our views. All we have done is to address the subject matter of your e-mails as written by you. So far, you have not cited any facts that you believe are inaccurate or even told us who it is that you do not like us writing about.

Apparently you are never wrong. Apparently you are the smartest person alive. Apparently you are just too self-important to think that an intelligent argument can be had if the opposing idea isn't the same as yours.

It is not that we are never wrong, it is just that you have not offered any evidence that we are wrong about anything. This is your second e-mail to us where you have not cited any incorrect information contained within the website that, by your own admission, you have not actually read.

We would love to address an intelligent argument from you and we will be respectful when responding, but so far, we have not offered an intelligent argument in either of your e-mails.

But we do understand you hate filled emotions you have for us and those that hold the same values and opinions.


E-mails from pamela hernandez
1 of 2

16 August 2012

pamela hernandez wrote:

I am sorry, maybe you did not research your material correctly. this country would go to hell without the immigrant workers here busting their asses doing the hard work that lazy Americans do not want to do. AND I AM AN AMERICAN. I love this country, many good things about it, but I am ashamed at the lack of intelligence of many of the citizens. GIVE THEM RIGHTS, STOP THE DEPORTATIONS!

Exactly where do you think we have made our mistake? If you are referring to the illegal immigrants that work in the fields, it might surprise you to know what only a very small percentage of illegal immigrant workers actually work in the fields (less than 3%). What you seem so quick to ignore is that legal immigrants could do the same work and the work would be available if the illegal immigrants were not working those jobs.

If you love this country, why do you support people that break the law? For instance, it is illegal to enter this country without clearing customs. This applies to everyone – even Americans like you. Why do you think countries have immigration laws?

Do you honestly think that this country would go to hell without the immigrant workers? That is like saying that this country would go to hell without lawbreakers, i.e. people that commit crimes. That is just an uneducated statement made while thinking emotionally rather than intellectually. But if you really believe what you have said, why do you not just call for the release any illegal immigrants from prison, allow them to stay in the United States, and give them whatever rights you claim they should have? Do you think that American citizens would be better off by following that example or would American citizens better served by deporting immigrants that have broken the law and are here illegally? Perhaps we should just remove any immigration laws from the books. After all, that is what you are saying.

What you seem not to understand is that as a country of laws, everyone is expected to live by these laws. That means no entering the country illegally, no driving without a license and insurance, and no using a stolen Social Security Number to acquire a job. These are just a few of the laws that are broken everyday by illegal immigrants in this country.

By your e-mail, it is clear you do not understand the problems of illegal immigration. To you, there are no problems. Illegal immigrants are just poor people just looking for a job to feed their families. Of course, you are totally wrong. Look at the crime that is caused by Mexican gangs. Whenever a crime or accident is caused by an illegal immigrant, it is something that should have never happened because this person or persons should have not been in the position to have committed the crime or cause the problem. These things happen because someone broke the law.

First of all, everyone in this country has the same rights. Deportations are the penalty for the crime for a non-American entering this country illegally. Deportations are not prison sentences, but rather an act of being sent back to the country of their origin.

Perhaps if we ended social welfare programs where people are paid for not doing any work when it is clear that there is plenty of work to be done, Americans would not be so lazy because they could not afford to be.


E-mails from pamela hernandez
2 of 2

18 August 2012

pamela hernandez wrote:

I am referring to the workers that work in the factories shelling crabs and plucking chickens and those kind of jobs where ICE does random busts and locks up many hardworking illegals who are trying to take care of their families and live their lives.

Did you notice how you use the word "illegal"? That is an accurate use of the word because they are here illegally. Of course, your argument could be used when speaking of drug dealers. They are hardworking people that are only trying to earn a living and provide for their families. We do not see a difference, do you? They both are committing crimes. They are both causing problems for law-abiding people, including the immigrants that came here legally. We have no problem with anyone that comes to this country and obeys the laws of this country. What you seem to have such a hard time understanding is that illegal immigrants are breaking the law.

You write a good looking piece with lots of words but in reality you still do not have any idea what you are talking about. There are so many more factors to the theme that you have not even begun to address in your website. And I have a job and two children to care for and am not going to take the time to go over the whole ridiculous history of it to someone who already has their mind set in ignorance. They were here first. They have the right to come back. And to stay. your website is full of mean and ignorant comments.

What information on this website do you dispute? So far, you have not stated any actual argument other than we are against illegal immigration. Please make note exactly what we said – ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. This is what you are talking about and this is what we are talking about. You just seem to be very willing to ignore the lack of respect for the borders of this country that others have. You are very sympathetic to people that come to this country illegally – this includes anyone with criminal aspirations because you accept the premise that they deserve to be here to live their lives without any regard to the laws of this country.

They were not here first. That is a fallacy. They were not born here. They came long after this country was established. However, that does not prevent them from coming to America… not at all. The United States has a policy whereby people from foreign countries are allowed to immigrate to America and become citizens. From your e-mail, you were completely unaware of this fact. There is a legal procedure to be followed. And every day, thousands of new citizens are sworn in as legal citizens of this country and it has been going on for a very long time; this is not a new policy.

You took the time to write us, yet you are quick to say that you are not going to explain your position that counters us and proves us totally wrong. The reason is so clear… you cannot. You do not have an argument to sustain your position and you cannot actually dispute the facts on this website and the facts that are common sense.

If you do not care about the borders that separate this country from other countries, why do you even care that you are an American, because apparently it means nothing to you being an American. America only exists because of borders. We know you probably will not fully comprehend this statement, but most others that read this reply will.


E-mails from Oana Prescure
1 of 2

06 August 2012

Oana Prescure wrote:

As any other law or provision in this world, anthing can be interpreted. The same goes for the quotes on your site. Why dont you give readers a chance to comment your opinion? Are animal lover communists, or you are? You dont even accept any opinion. Stop fooling the citizens with your stupid arguments. They do not stand for a healthy mind.

Go ahead and interrupt the quotes you have read on our website. What conclusion do you find? We give our readers a chance to comment on anything they read on this website. All they have to do is to write us and many have. That is what you are doing with the e-mail you have written. How did you fail to see that?

If what you say is true and anything can be interpreted, then nothing has any real meaning. Of course, you failed to actually cite any quote that you believe we misinterpreted. We do not believe this was an accident. It is not the quotes where you have a problem; it is our very existence that you find so troublesome. Why is that? Here is the answer. You cannot argue with the facts presented on this website. You are unable to do so and so you do not. You have absolutely no facts to back up your opinions so you respond emotionally with hatred toward us.

You ask the question, "Are animal lover communists, or you are?" Everyone here loves animals. Everyone here has or had a pet of some kind during some part of their lives. It might be news to you, but being fond of animals, either as pets or as food, bears no relationship with being a Communist. We never stated that on this website. Believing in Communism is an entirely different matter based on entirely different criteria from the love of animals. To us, that seems so simple, but apparently to you, there is some confusion. We would be happy to answer any questions on the two subjects if you would care to actually ask specific questions.

Which arguments do you find stupid? You did not say so we are unable to address this part of your e-mail.

Please also put the whole context in which those quotes were given. There was someone saying they would kill the animals themselves. I would kill an animals myself If if knew it suffered less than what other would do to it.

It seems you do not know what is being said by the people we quote. To you, there is a clear lack of the ability to understand what is said. Nothing is taken out of context. The quotes are just what they are. They mean just what they say. What quote are you finding so difficult to understand? Just tell us and perhaps we can provide clarity.

I really think you are sick. And if you ask me....really...I would take EXTREME measures to eradicate those like you. here! I said it. Now call me a terrorist.

You hate us for recording the truth and offering an opinion based on the facts. You are free to hold another opinion if you choose to. If you wish to interrupt the evidence in another way other than how we have, you are free to do so.

So, you would take extreme measures to eradicate us for showing how people that you sympathize with wish to harm others. Please note that we have not threatened anyone. We have not harmed anyone. All we have done is to exercise our Right of Free Speech as guaranteed in the US Constitution. Not only have we done so, we have offered your words of hatred too. Keep in mind that the only thing you have clearly stated was to explain your hatred to us and how you wish to take extreme measures to eradicate us. You cannot even debate whatever it is that you actually believe. We say this because you have not offered a single example of anything you find objectionable on this website.

We do not have to call you a terrorist, you have already described that is how you want your life to be interpreted - a hate filled individual that wishes harm to come to anyone that does not share the same belief system. Did we interpret that correctly?


E-mails from Oana Prescure
2 of 2

08 August 2012

Oana Prescure wrote:

Is this an analysis on the text? You really make me laugh. Now I see. You take every single mail and interpret it (as I mentioned before) into something that supports your arguments.

We addressed what you wrote in your e-mail. Words have meaning and we replied to the words you chose to illustrate your ideas and thoughts. Nothing that you wrote supported any argument we have ever presented. In fact, it pretty much went against anything we have ever stated. However, we did respond to your comments exactly as you wrote your ideas with our opinions and the only way you could counter our reply is to say that we did not interpret what you wrote correctly. While it might be difficult for you to comprehend, we did respond to what you wrote. While this might not have been what you were actually thinking, this is your fault because apparently, you did not effectively communicate what you really meant to say. You relied on us to read between the lines and comment on something that you did not actually write. Sorry, we do not do that, we only respond on the written word from those that e-mail us.

If you really cared about animals (not like we do, these "stupid animals lovers") you wouldnt spend your time on analysing otherts opinions, you would do something that really helps animals.

We do not remember ever using the term "stupid animals lovers". If you are going to use the quotation marks to indicate a quote by us, please cite the source so we can place the context.

In order to address your e-mail (or any e-mail), we have to read and analyze the e-mail so as to give an intelligent reply. We know you do not think it is intelligent and that is your choice. We will let anyone that wants to read your e-mail the option of siding with your opinion.

But, as any other ass* that stands in front of the TV and makes stupid comments about anyone and anything, you are just some lazy people with no purpose in life. Instead on that, you should really try to solve your frustration. Again, I feel very, very sorry for you. I really hope you deserve my pity :(

If you really believe that statement, why then are you writing us? Allow us to offer our opinion on your statement. You have no real intelligent or rational thoughts to counter so you revert to calling us names and making personal attacks. These e-mails are the extent of your arsenal knowledge.

We do not know what your purpose in life is, but allow us to offer a suggestion. You should go to a junior high school English teacher and allow constructive criticism so as to improve your writing abilities and the ability to say what you mean.

Stop talking about free speech :) You dont exercise free speech. As I said, you interpret and try to turn things around into your advantage. You are just like the media. :)

You are saying that we do not exercise Free Speech? We are pretty sure this website and our replying to your e-mails is an exercise in Free Speech. Based on the content of your e-mails, we understand why you have failed to see this fact.

And for the record, we have not turned anything around, we have only responded to what you wrote in your e-mail. It is a mystery why you do not understand this fact. You see, the way it works, you write us a scalding e-mail and we respond with an answer showing courtesy and respect. We do not need to resort to insults or personal attacks as you have.

What is it you wrote that we took out of context? Please be specific.

And as my last opinion to what you wrote: you can call me whatever you want, the point is you are too rigid for this world, that's why now I am something awful for you. Maybe you should try reading between the lines some time, so that you can really understand what other people mean. Until then I consider you nothing but a bunch of pupils, I guess. Thats your mental level. I wont explain myself, because you as an adult would not need that, right?

We did not call you anything. You are the one that offered the description based on the agenda that you desired. All we did was to respond to your e-mail in a respectful manner. You are not something awful to us. It seems we are awful to you because, you want to use extreme measures to eradicate us. All you are to us is someone that does not have the ability to say what you mean, rather you want others to read between the lines, then you get upset when you do not like what they read.

Perhaps if you really want others to know what you mean, you should not expect anyone to read between the lines. It is a simple concept to understand. We say what we mean. If you want others to read between the lines, you place them into a precarious position where they are forced to interpret what you are saying. You rely on others to figure out what you really mean. Apparently you do this because you refuse to explain yourself. One can only imagine why you would do this, but if you want us to read between the lines and based on the content of your e-mails, what we read is that you cannot explain yourself. You have no idea how to write or think rationally or intelligently. You certainly have problems writing. Your e-mails reflect this fact.

With the misspellings, errors in grammar, and the inability to convey what you actually mean, you have shown the education we have come to expect from people that hate us for speaking against Terrorism, Communism, and other selfish Marxist ideals.

Let us see if you really can write an intelligent e-mail. We will give you one more chance to express yourself in an intelligent manner. We do not expect our readers to read between the lines and you should not want us to read between the lines. In your own words, tell us specifically what you find wrong with the actual content on this website.


04 August 2012

Fahad Ali wrote:

I just want to say you sick people who created this site, try ur best to stop your own poeple reverting to ISLAM, when they read the Glorious Quran and Hadith, i can show you millions of christians reverted to ISLAM. try to stop them rather than writing all Bullsh*ts or try having debates with Muslim scholars Zakir Naik no not him probably one of his student of student of student of student will slap you with his knowledge of Islam. Inshallah we muslim will see you going to hell and that day you will regret Inshallah

We have never stopped anyone from "reverting" to Islam. Anyone's relationship with God is between the individual and God. It is not our business nor do we intend on making it our business. The same cannot be said for Islam. Islam kills any Muslim that tries to leave Islam. What a tolerant religion! (note sarcastic tone)

We will have a debate with you. What is it on this website that is inaccurate? You hate us, but you never say why you hate us, other than the fact we are not Muslim.

History is documented with the events of Islam and the 1700th century life it wants everyone to have. What is it that Islam has done for mankind? What inventions has Islam given to the world? What scientific discovers have been made by Muslims? How many Nobel Prizes have been won by Muslims compared to the rest of the world? What do Muslim countries produce? The only reason they have the money they do is because someone in the west drilled for oil in their country. Muslim countries only have the technology that Western countries have had for decades prior. Without the Western world, Islamic countries would not even have flushing toilets today much less any other modern convenience. We know this because none of them were invented by Muslims.

And on a side note, Islam is the only religion whose leadership embraces Nazi Doctrine.

Anytime you or anyone else wishes to debate what we have written about Islam and the dangers it is for non-Muslims, we would be happy to engage in that dialog. Anytime anyone wants to show where we have printed something in error on this website, we welcome the correction. So far, you have not done so.


01 August 2012

Russell Fry wrote:

You have no true concept of Islam, or of how we think. I live in Indonesia and it is he most peaceful place I have ever lived. I am from America and I know the truth behind so called "Democracy" and "Capitalism." I know the truth behind the statistics of child molestation, rape of women, murder, gang violence, drug and alcohol abuse, prostitution, sexually transmitted diseases, and the list goes on and on and on. Why don't the Islamic countries I have visited not suffer these afflictions?

With your inherent hate of America, we are very happy you found a home in another country that makes you happy. That is one of the advantages of growing up in a free Democracy such as America; you are allowed to leave whenever you wish. Not every person from every country can say the same. Many of these countries are under control of Islamic Law.

As we have said on this website, Islam has no fundamental concept of Inalienable Rights as is the foundation of the United States. We can see why you chose to leave as the concept of Individual Rights obviously has no meaning to you nor do you care about the rights of others, so it is good that you decided to leave. Did you surrender your citizenship and your right to vote?

"True Islam permits neither elections nor democracy."
-- Sufi Mohammed, Muslim Cleric

Islam is an ideology that is not entitled to equal respect and acceptance (especially from non-Muslims), because Islamic ideas and values do not carry equal moral weight. Islam is not merely a belief in God. It is a word that means submission. Islam is an establishment of rules that define a social hierarchy where Muslims submit to Allah, women submit to men, and all non-Muslims submit to total Islamic rule and domination. While there are some Muslims, less than .01%, who take issue with these aspects of Islamic theology, but that does not change what Islam is and that is a religion of dominance and submission of anything non-Islamic.

Islamic countries are places where censorship, intimidation and brute force are shamelessly employed to protect Islam from intellectual analysis. There are entities known as the "Religious Police" and they have absolute power in all things of a religious nature. In the America, we are still free to openly exercise our right to debate the merits of the Islamic value system against Western Liberalism. It does kind of make you wonder what they fear from any intellectual analysis of Islam?

Allow us to address your list of grievances.

As far as the molestation of women, which religion is it that allows 9 and 10 year old girls to marry men two to eight times older than they are? We understand that you probably do not see marriage to be child molestation, but it is when the bride is 9 years old. In every civilized country, anything like this is against the law... except in Islam. Imagine that...

"A Muslim man can have sexual pleasure with a little girl as young as a baby. But he should not penetrate her vaginally, however he can sodomize her."
-- Imam Khomeini, the top Shia authority, Tehriro vasyleh, fourth edition, Qom, Iran, 1990

Sweden had an extremely low number of rapes for the last 100 years until they started allowing the immigration of Muslims. Since then, the number of rapes has increased over 500% and is still rising and it is a direct result of the Muslim migration. The same thing has happened in other countries that has allowed something on the order of unrestricted immigration of Muslims. The reason is simple. Muslims do not respect anything not Islamic. This means people, laws, and property.

Saudi Arabia has a high incidence of rape than America does by 500%. One important difference between America and Islamic countries is that we do not imprison our rape victims. As a civilization, we also do not consider honor killings to be honorable. It does make you wonder how many rapes are not reported because of these Islamic traditions.

Islam has everything to do with murder. Since the 9-11 attack, there have been over 19,000 documented acts of terrorism from Muslims. Most of these have been against non-Muslims. What you choose to ignore is that the followers of Islam kill non-Muslims everyday and for the only reason being that the victims are not Muslim. We have a few videos of Muslims killing non-Muslims and not a single Muslim is outraged. Not a single Muslim speaks against these terrorist acts. Perhaps a few quotes are in order.

"I am proud to kill in the name of God."
-- Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Underwear Bomber, in a statement on the second day of his trial where he suddenly pleaded guilty to all charges, 16 February 2012

"At the end of the day, innocent people, when we say innocent people we mean Muslims...if you are non-muslim then you are guilty... I must have hatred toward everything not-Islam."
-- Imam Anjem Choudary

"Martyrdom operations - suicide bombings - should be exported outside Palestine. I encourage Palestinians to take suicide bombings worldwide. Don't be shy about it."
-- Hassan Nasrallah, Secretary-General of Lebanon's Hezbollah (or "Party of God"), Washington Times 6 December 2002

"Every Muslim should be a terrorist."
-- Dr. Zakir Naik, Islamic speaker

"Muslims must educate their children to Jihad and to hatred of the Jews, the Christians, and the infidels."
-- Saudi preacher Sheikh Muhammad Saleh Al-Munajjid

Islam as a religion is not the least bit interested in living in harmony with non-Muslims at least that is what the leaders are touting.

It is obvious you have not visited the Muslims neighborhoods of Detroit. There are gangs of Muslims that exist only to rape women so as to send a message that they are whores for being out alone. There are certain Muslim neighborhoods that are exceedingly dangerous for non-Muslims to be in at night.

Alcohol abuse is a problem. Prostitution is a problem. STDs are a problem. Just like in other countries throughout history. We know Muslims partake in drinking alcoholic beverages because we have seen them do so. We also know that Muslims have enjoyed the company of prostitutes because they have been caught on video tape. They have also been caught on tape trying to have sex with minor girls. These problems are with the humans in general. The fact you do not hear about them much in Islamic countries is because it is not reported because there is no Freedom of the Press in Islamic countries. The government controls what population is to know. People want what they cannot have. There are people in Islamic countries that are in prison for smuggling alcohol into the country. Did you ever wonder to who the recipient of the liquor was...? Citizens of that country... Muslims.

In all of your e-mail where you complain that we do know nothing of Islam and we do not understand how Muslims think, you have not disputed a single fact showing where we have misunderstood Islam. Why do you take the time to read "Quotes From The Islamic World". We have seen the actions of Muslims. We have heard the rhetoric from Muslims.

It is clear that you have blinders on when it comes to the truth about Islam. We have cited many examples of the true nature of Islam and you have yet to dispute a single fact presented on this website. With your hatred of America and your total love for Islam, how would you know if these things were going on in any Islamic country? Would you even acknowledge it if you found out about it? Are there people in prison in these Islamic countries you have visited for committing crimes related to drug and alcohol abuse, prostitution, sexually transmitted diseases, and whatever other ills of society you want to blame America? If there are, then it clearly exists in these countries.

What facts about Islam have we misunderstood?


15 July 2012

Mubarak shaikh wrote:

Read Qur'an in ur mother tunkh

We have read enough of the Koran (Qur'an) to see what it says and we have published our findings. We have many quotes from the Koran on our website – none of which you dispute and all of which we find somewhat distressing. But we do like the elegant manner you worded your e-mail... very intelligent. You are obviously one of the smartest examples of your peer group.

Muslim Terrorists that attack and kill non-Muslims spend years studying the Koran to the point they can recite it verbatim. We have never doubted that Islamic Terrorists are serious students of the Koran and live their lives by its teachings, which is why they commit the terrorist acts they do.

We see the intolerance that Islam has toward other religions and the tragic results when Islam clashes with any other religion as it always has. We know the dangers of Islam and the hatred of non-Muslims that is taught from childhood. Muslims may claim that the word "Islam" translates to "Peace", but that is a lie as can be verified in the 1400 year history since Islam was first established. Islam has been at war with every religion from the beginning and it does not look like any changes to that history will be occurring anytime in the future.

Attack, capture, kill, enslave, and loot - these are the five attributes that non-Muslims can expect from the followers of Islam. This has been Islam's gift to non-Muslims. You are welcome to offer an opinion that contradicts this opinion, but if you do, please support it with facts.

We will ask you the same question we ask just about everyone that sends us e-mails with comments that have no real intelligent thought. We never do receive an answer, but we will take this opportunity to present you with the question. What exactly do you dispute or see as inaccurate with material on this website? For the record, we do not actually expect an intelligent answer. As with other similar e-mails, we know you will not address the question. We know the best you will be able to do is to hurl a barrage of insults at us as if that was actually going to increase the intelligence of your answer. You will be unable to offer any support to your argument and instead give an evasive answer that does not address our question. Of course, this is if you even have the courage to respond to this reply to your e-mail.


12 July 2012

Justin Hess wrote:


If you believe so much in giving to the rich to benefit the economy, and neglecting society’s role in helping to ensure better opportunities for the poor/elderly/disabled/uneducated, then why does your website look like it’s created by a 1990’s high-school dropout living with his mom and working part time as a scam of the week “send money here” promoter? I mean, welcome to 2012 and sorry you missed out on attending all those Java and CSS classes! Did learning how to do things cost to much for you or were you just looking to perpetuate the most ignorant and destructive messages you possibility could in order to get noticed and eventually become Republican hero like George Zimmerman, or Timothy McVeigh?

You should really think about changing the décor – I’m thinking red and black with an upside down burning cross as your logo or a picture of a dead homeless guy who was once a caring father and lost everything because he had cancer! (hah! That will show him!)

Oh, why not just go all out and throw up a couple of swastikas and coding a special traffic counter that will count black and Hispanics as 3/5ths of 1 visit! This effort should be quite lucrative and may bump you up to another tax bracket! One step closer to your ultimate life goal of paying as little as you possibly can into the country that has and will continue to protect – even incentivize – the hateful, jaded, out-of-touch and divisive stance you symbolize.

On this 4th of July, I wish you will finally realize that helping our veterans when they come home would be more valuable than spreading hate for others in this country.

Good luck with the redesign,
J.R., Dallas, Texas

This was an e-mail we received with a fake e-mail address and because of this, it can only been viewed as nothing more than a drive-by shooting via e-mail - a truly cowardly act. An attack of insults designed to hurt our feelings. If we thought emotionally like Liberals do, we would be hurt, but such is not the case. We think intelligently so have the ability to address this e-mail for what it is.

This e-mail is so weak that the author cannot even justify its existence. It is clear the author of this e-mail is unable to support a single word contained within this e-mail. By using a fake e-mail address he runs away before we can even address the product of his weak mind and lack of education. This e-mail was nothing more than an attack with no foundation or intelligent thought at all. This e-mail come from a spineless individual that does not have the ability for rational thought or even the conviction of his own beliefs to actually challenge anything on this website. We receive e-mails like this all the time. We are printing it to show what so many people that hate us consider to be an intelligent and well worded e-mail.

It is not that we want to give the rich so much; it is just that we do not think we should take from anyone at all, the rich included. No one is neglecting society's role in helping the poor/elderly/disabled. Perhaps if Social Security benefits were not taxed, that might help all three of these examples. As far as the uneducated go, the Liberals have been in charge of education for the last 60+ years and it is pretty easy to see the result i.e. this e-mail. Remember, it was Ted Kennedy that wrote the "No Child Left Behind" legislation. Liberals are quick to point out what a failure that piece of legislation was.

Of course, we have spoken against Timothy McVeigh and other such terrorists, but you probably did not read that part because you do not want to read anything that contradicts your views on the world. You want to hate us and so you do. We stand against terrorism and you stand against us. It is easy to see which side you support.

Sorry you do not like the layout of the website. We did notice you did not dispute a single fact. This is the one thing that is so common among writers of e-mails like this. They like to throw accusations and suggestions of Nazi associations (#54, "Are You A Liberal"), yet they always fail to challenge the actual writing and facts contained within the website. To do so would require rational and intelligent thought, a commodity which based on this e-mail, you fail to possess.

Where you got the idea we would want to treat anyone as a 3/5 of a person is unknown. Keep in mind that it was groups like the KKK that believed this. What most people fail to remember is that the KKK was an arm of the Democratic Party. If you are familiar with history at all, you will remember that it was the Democrats in power that stood against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It was Democrats that protested against Black people aka African Americans, from entering colleges in Arkansas. It was Democrats that sprayed protesters with fire hoses. And today, it is the Democrat Party that wants to keep minorities dependent on Government, punish successful people and reward failure. This increased Dependence is not Freedom, it is slavery.

We certainly did not suggest that anyone should be treated as 3/5 of a person and you know it. Obviously, this is something you want to believe with all your being. It sounds like you believe the lies propagated by the Liberal mentality.

It is our guess that we do more for Veterans than you do when you considering everyone here being a Veteran. We would love to ask you what you do for Veterans, but we cannot because you could not show the courage to allow us to actually ask the question, which is a pretty good measure of your dependability.


E-mails from Dan Sifer
1 of 2

05 July 2012

Dan Sifer wrote:

That declaring something Un- American is not realistic since we are a republic democracy. Any ideals or viewpoints can be considered American. Communism and socialism are not anti-American. They are fundamental similar to many American movements. Your page is offensive in the fact that your organization pretends to pick what is considered American. The only thing I can legitimately say is anti-American is the false ideals that someone can be anti-American because of their political views.

This might be a good time to actually discuss what we consider anti-American. We believe in the US Constitution, Freedom, Liberty, Independence, and Self-Reliance. We believe in a Free Market which is defined by Capitalism. We believe in earning one's way through life. We believe in individual rights. The rights of the citizens are more important than the rights of the Government. The government should not control our lives. That is not Freedom. We also believe in Free Speech for all people, not just the Left-Wing. You can say what you want to say and we should be free to agree for whatever reason or disagree for whatever reason and you should not be allowed to stop us from holding our position.

If you think that someone cannot be anti-America for their political ideas, you are completely wrong. If you want to say that America is evil and the worst nation that has ever existed on the planet, how can you not say that is not anti-American? America exists as it does because of the US Constitution. If you speak against the US Constitution as an outdated piece of penmanship that has no place in modern times, how is that not anti-American?

Communism and Socialism are anti-American. They directly oppose freedom and individual rights. Under Communism and Socialism, the Government controls pretty much everything. The Government has control over who goes to school, who gets what medical care, and how much an individual can achieve. They control the Press. Freedom of Speech does not exist. The Government controls the standard of living under which everyone is forced to live. Perhaps this would be a good time to show you the definition of Freedom as it seems you missed it on this website.

Freedom - The right of the individual to exist, live, and prosper for his (or her) own sake...

Under Communism, the most that one can hope for is to escape it. What the individual can expect is the complete elimination of private ownership and individual freedom that confines everyone to a drab, mindless existence with no hope of ever gaining anything more than a daily ration and staying alive. Under Communism, everything is provided for you. That is not Freedom; that is slavery. They will give you just enough to allow you to survive. They will give you hope with the promise of a Utopian society that will never materialize. It cannot, but there are those that believe it can if only everyone will believe as they do and do what they say. The problem is that this concept opposes the natural yearning for freedom that exists in the human spirit.

The secret about Socialists is that Socialists do not actually want to live under Socialism; they want everyone else to live under Socialism. The leaders will always find a way to get around the restrictions and laws that control everyone's life while leaving the 99% stuck with the "Socialist Paradise" that the leaders want them to have. Nothing about this smells of Freedom; it bears the stench of slavery. It is people like us that try to educate every one of the dangers of Socialism, Marxism, and Communism and here you are embracing it as being pro-American.

"They do not have to actually produce anything. They only have to pass one student after another with the knowledge that they are able to derive out of the Teachers Edition textbook. The answers are in the back of the book. They know about one subject, but not much about the rest of the world. And then they have their social agenda that is probably the main reason that they were hired in the first place. Because of a less than great work ethic, i.e. teaching the subject material that they are supposed to teach, they probably cannot survive in the world outside of the halls of academia. The problem rests with the fact that their position of power over the students in their classroom is absolute. The students are placed in a position where they have to appease the Professor to pass the course.
Case in point: Why are the political views of an English Professor John Daly so prevalent in the classroom? He has never had a real job outside of the classroom. What is he really trying to teach? Is the real goal to teach English or Socialist Indoctrination?"

This was from our website page on John Daly. What about it? Did you not read the page concerning the encounter with Rebecca Beech? It was John Daly that was trying to censor what was said and who came to speak on campus. You forgot that part. It is not the Conservatives that are doing the censorship, it is the Liberal entity. The big difference is that Conservatives have an opinion to offer based on facts on the Liberal viewpoint. Liberals want to prevent Conservatives from speaking or existing. Which one do you consider censorship? Because you used John Daly as an example, let us look at some of his quotes on this subject.

"Real freedom will come when soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors."
-- John Daly, Professor of English, Warren County Community College

"The administration at WCCC believes Rebecca Beach is an innocent student acting alone, but I recognized her literature right away as being part of a national Right-Wing movement. Her group is an ultra Right-Wing, possibly fascist, group."
-- John Daly, Professor of English, Warren County Community College

"I will continue to expose your Right-Wing, anti-people politics until groups like yours won't dare show their face on a college campus."
-- John Daly, Professor of English, Warren County Community College

"Your literature and signs in the entrance lobby look like fascist propaganda and is extremely offensive."
-- John Daly, Professor of English, Warren County Community College

When you speak to Liberals about Universities, they say that a University is a place where all viewpoints can be shared and openly discussed. Nothing can be further from the truth, but they will say it every day until someone says something they do not like, then they just call us Nazis. They cannot dispute the facts, so they resort to name-calling and personal insults. Here are a few of his quotations based on his trying to censor Rebecca Beech. Keep in mind that Rebecca Beech was not speaking, she only emailed the faculty to inform them that a veteran of the war in Iraq, Lt. Col. Scott Rutter, would be on campus. Rebecca had also placed posters around campus advertising the event. Keep in mind that attendance was NOT mandatory. It was of free choice that anyone could attend. This is what John Daly was trying to stop. How is this not censorship? It is certainly clear what his view on the military is, but it is pretty much the same mindset shared by every other Liberal group.

I think your organization does in fact sound similar to that of many censorship organizations. You do not have to go to that individual class or school, you are not oppressed, but seek to oppress the views of others. Historically that fits very well in comparing your site to that of nazi Germany instead America. I just happened on your site, but it's strong views and no actual support makes it clear this is propaganda. You can look up that definition too. Also, let me be clear..this email is intended to for certain audiences addressed...posting this or any other correspondence for other purposes is prohibited and protected by law. One more thing, did your site actually make a difference? Did you happen to silence opinions of others? Nope. There is still plenty who believe that social ideas are American. Best part is...America is only going to get more progressive.

Have a nice day!


Daniel Sifer

Where have we tried to censor anyone? You are confusing having an opinion contrary to your opinion to be censorship. We have never tried to censor anyone from speaking their mind. The same cannot be said for those that hate this website. Even you are trying to associate our existence with Nazi Germany just because we do not believe as you do. This is right out of the Liberal playbook whereby if anyone disagrees with you, they need to be vilified. We have also listed this comparison of anyone that disagrees with the Liberal viewpoint to Nazis in our editorial, "Are You A Liberal". It is number 54.

We are not trying to oppress anyone. If you actually had a real knowledge of Communism and Socialism, you would see that is an oppressive form of Government. It would probably be the acme of ignorance to mention the millions of people that were murdered under the careful control of Communism regimes. How many did Stalin kill just to censor their ideas?

So please, to say that Socialism and Communism are not anti-American is just laughable on so many levels.

Here is a question for you. Is Capitalism anti-American? We keep seeing all of these Liberal groups demonstrating against Capitalism in the Occupy Movement, it must be bad, evil, and counterproductive to society in general. What is your take on the evil of Capitalism?


E-mails from Dan Sifer
2 of 2

06 July 2012

Dan Sifer wrote:

Your ridiculous. Not defending any one or inviting you to an argument. You simply can not censor people.

We are not censoring anyone. You do not seem to understand this fact. Not only are we not censoring anyone, we are actually printing what others have said. We do not want these people to stop speaking. We are putting their ideas out there for all to see. We are giving them full credit for what they have said and/or done. For some reason, you believe by our commenting on their views equates to censorship.

As far as your teacher daly issue, I think that without being their I can not define his words as figurative or sincere. I can say his minute influence should not be worth all your attention.

John Daly made it an issue. We are only giving him credit for his efforts thereby recording history so no one forgets. We do have other mentions of teachers from other institutions higher learning. We did not just single out one Marxist professor. You mentioned him in your e-mail so we respectfully addressed the points you made in your e-mail.

Pointing out your propaganda, and that an American who has nothing to do with who or what you attack find your methods vulgar and embarrasing.

All we did was to collect the data and record the information. What do you find vulgar and embarrassing about that? As far as your claim of propaganda, it seems you do not know what propaganda is. Propaganda is half-truths. So far, you have not actually disputed anything we have printed other than to say it is a waste of time and it is an attempt to censor people.

We know that our efforts to record history irritate anyone holding the Left-Wing Liberal agenda. This is not our problem; it is their problem. The facts are accurate. You have to look at the reason that certain people are offended by these facts. The reason is they think "emotionally" rather than "intellectually". Even you seem quick to call us violent even thought we rail against the violence committed by the people and groups on this website. We have threatened no one and we have never tried to stop anyone from speaking. In fact, we have quoted them endlessly giving them full credit for their words and we are vilified for this act. The hatred others have toward us is due to nothing but emotional ranting with no basis in fact. The personal attacks seen in the many e-mails we have printed display this observation.

Also, even if I.agreed with you I find your website ineffective, and not helping the causes you list.

We are not trying to help the causes we list. We are trying to educate people that these groups are out there and what their true agenda is. Maybe you failed to notice, but none of these groups are trying to help people. As far as being ineffective, you are wrong about that by the shear rational that you are writing to us. Apparently you think we are effective on some level.

I would think your narrow examples of community college teacher issues are a waste of the extreme effort you put in. I would mention the language you use actually can be considered threatening, which your site is. I would advise you to put your efforts into other things, that actually have an positive influence in your goals.

What language do you find threatening? What is it that we have said that threatens anyone? The only way we have threatened anyone is the fact that we have recorded historic events that these people would not like others to remember.

At the end of day I am not asking you not to have your views, but asking you to convey them in a way that did not make people threatened, as I do by your language and method of articulation.

We have not threatened anyone nor do we intend to do so. It is funny how you find us to be the ones that are threatening and yet you ignore the hatred, threats, and actions of the groups we write about without a second thought.

Again, not that I need to mention this in my email for it to hold legitimate power, this email is protected under laws and for engender parties only.

We have communicated our points. Have a.good day.

Also, your question about capitalism. To much of anything is bad.

So you are saying that too much Capitalism is bad. How can you have too much Capitalism? It seems you do not understand what Capitalism is.

Capitalism - an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained by private individuals.

The cornerstone of Capitalism is private ownership of property. If you are going to take the opinion that there is too much Capitalism, then you have to believe there is too much ownership of property. Another important facet of Capitalism is free trade of labor. If contract is entered into with two parties for an exchange of wealth for labor, why would you want to limit that? If you limit Capitalism, then you are limiting productivity.

What is it about Capitalism you do not like? Is it the fact that some people have more than others? In a Capitalist society, most people are poor because of the choices they made. This is a hard fact to swallow, but it is true. Take a look at how many lottery winners have spent everything they received in the lottery and have little to nothing to show for it. Take a look at people that have inherited large sums of wealth and go through it in just a couple of years and end up bankrupt. These are the outcomes by choices made by individuals.

I can see advantages of having it neccrsary but I feel business will eventually equate humans at a value we had 100 years ago. I think regulation is needed, and not sure I can from you the best method...but can say that even without the fed the free market is not free and regulated by accumulations of wealth.

The Free Market is regulated by commerce which is controlled by the availability of goods and services available to the public. The public chooses which products and services they want to purchase. This is what controls the economy. The more you allow the government to interfere, the more problems you have. Capitalism boils down to the Law of Supply and Demand. Governmental interference with taxes, price controls, regulation, etc… affects the price to the consumer. This lowers productivity in the manufacturing process and increases costs which are passed on to the consumer. Products cost more and less people can afford them. As such, through government interference, a lower standard of living is achieved.

Where would you limit Capitalism and how would that limit increase the standard of living, productivity, or anything else?

We want the same thing as Americans, embrace that..freedom, but we don't agree on how we get it. But I don't use name calling and big bold letters, red font, to get my point across. Like your site.

It is not a matter of getting Freedom; it is a matter of keeping it. Freedom is something that is not given to you, but taken from you. When a government makes you dependent on them for all of life's needs, you are not free. Freedom consists of three things - Independence, Liberty, and Self-Reliance. The more of these things that are taken away or given up for convenience, the less free you are.

There are reasons that we use red font. The first is that it differentiates our comments from the data we are commenting on or from the reply and the person that e-mailed us. We do not have any details, but there was a study in the 1990s that stated that Liberals hated red font. For whatever reason, it causes hysterical and sometimes uncontrollable reactions. It also seems to cause a display of extreme hatred showing the true nature of the Liberal mindset as can be seen from the past e-mails we have received. We have found the results of that study to be accurate.

When people read my email, hopefully you respected my wish for privacy, I am not coming across violent like your site. It invokes violence or potentially can. I think you should care about that.

You are not coming across as violent. When people read your e-mails, violent is not how they will remember you.

We do understand why you want to say that this website is violent. In your mind, you see us as a threat by keeping a record of the groups we have on this website. We know that to the Liberal mindset, you do not want anyone to remember what was said or done. Instead, we like to give full credit where credit is due.


24 June 2012 wrote:

Dear administrator of,

I've read some of your article and the only thing I've caught is that you're so dumb that you don't worth insults, even if I'd like so much to flout you. Some of the people that you injured (I haven't read all the articles, only that about gary yourofsky, ALF and other like these) are people who fight against animals and sometimes human oppression and murder, and calling them "terrorist" is a demonstration of your ignorance and bestiality, that moreover is the cause of the injustice they fight. If you weren't so obtuse and disgustingly and absurdly full of your nationalism , so much that you feel these people threatening your beloved america, you would see how many crimes america, which you probably see as the homeland of freedome, made and nowadays make against the world and the animals,included the humans, as most of the governments of the world; crimes which are unknown to most of the people, who continues their life ignoring that quite everything of their life, their habits, are plagiarized by a society made up to substain the capitalism and industrial production of our times, which only target is to make money, with the tacit consent and often even the involvement of politics; it doesn't matter if making money needs the exploitation and the murder of other humans and animals. Only a society built on fake ideals as nationalism, violence, consumerism, predominance on the other and patriottism can accept it and make it become the normality, making the folks become passive accomplices of this sick system. To give you a common example of that I've just write, I would make you know that before your loved america attacked Iraq, USA supported Iraq in the war against Iran in the years 1981-1988 ( the Iraq wanted to conquer the oil wells of Iran in the land of Bassora), and the most part of the Iraq army has been funded by america, which is now fighting the same Iraq it armed, describing its inhabitants as mad terrorists, to gain oil wells in that area. I hope you've understood something of what I've write, also because I'm not either from England nor America and due to this I can't write very well in english, so I apologize for every grammarian and syntactit error I could have made. Looking forward your reply,

luigi brancati

We can tell you cannot write very well. You also cannot think very well. This e-mail is pretty much devoid of any rational or intelligent thought. You have not challenged a single fact other than to say you do not like us referring to the Animal Rights Activists that resort to terrorist tactics as Terrorists. It is obvious that you have missed the very reason that we have referred to them as "Terrorists". The reason is because they use terrorist tactics to achieve their goal. However, we do see the opportunity you took to insult America and we are sure that was the main goal of this e-mail.

It is clear that you do not understand anything about this website. We stand against terrorism, plain and simple. But we would love to see why you think we are so dumb. Much like everyone else that is filled with hatred toward us and cannot hold an intelligent conversation, you have not actually disputed anything on this website other than to side with Gary Yourofsky and the other Animal Rights activists that believe that laws other people are required to live by do not apply to them. It is our beloved America that we do love but it is the individual American that is harmed by these terrorist tactics.

As far as Nationalism goes, it is clear you have no idea what this means. It is not Nationalism that we believe in. It is Freedom, Liberty, Independence, and Self-Reliance that we hold in such high regard. While people like you see these ideals as "fake ideals" we take them a bit more seriously. It is clear by your e-mail that you are a staunch advocate for any anti-capitalist belief. As far as the crimes that no one knows of and that you do know of, perhaps you would like to share with the rest of us. If you know anything about history, you will see it is the United States of America that is the first country called to help when a country has a problem. It was the United States that helped to bail out the banks of Europe. It is America that will try to help the failing Socialist European economy, which will only cause havoc with the American economy.

Before you forget all about history, allow us to remind you that it was Iraq that attacked Kuwait so as to take control of Kuwaiti oil fields. That is why America and many other nations followed America to save the sovereign nation of Kuwait. America did not attack Iraq without provocation. It seems you only want to believe that America is the aggressor rather than the country that helps other nations being attacked.

For all of your ranting about Consumerism, we would like to remind you who it is that buys and therefore supports a very large part of the manufacturing of goods that are produced in Italy. Just remember that it is Consumerism and capitalism that keeps the economy growing, which keeps companies in business. The result of that trend keeps a large portion of the population employed. If you think that Consumerism is bad, it is clear that you have no idea what a free market economy really is and how it works. Perhaps you do not believe in having an ample supply of goods that people want and need. We would love to have you explain how consumers buying and using products, also known as Consumerism, affects the economy. And as you brought it the subject of Consumerism, who made the computer you are using and what Operating System is on it?


25 May 2012

David Thompson wrote:

I really cannot understand why you would support Joe Arpaio and actively wish for more sheriffs like him. The man is a monster who violates civil rights and basic human dignity and rights at every opportunity. Under this man's training and direction a truly reprehensible number of accused criminals and detained persons have died under suspicious circumstances. In every instance, false reports have been filed and Arpaio has attempted to block investigations at every turn.

Well, let us discuss why we like Sheriff Arpaio. He enforces the immigration laws of the United States. He has reduced the cost to the taxpayer of housing inmates that have committed crimes and are in jail for committing those crimes.

The deaths you speak of, has Joe Arpaio or any of his deputies been the cause of these deaths? Just the way that Joe Arpaio operates, he is a magnet for the press to watch his every action and yet, he has not been seriously accused, except by his opponents, of any crimes. Certainly, the state of Arizona would take action if he was breaking the law. The citizens of Maricope County keep re-electing him in every election by a wide margin. We at this website are not the ones that keep him in the elected office he holds. It sounds like your argument is with the people of Maricope County.

His abuses of power a well documented and his favoritism and misappropriation of tax payer money is truly egregious. If he were a military commander or a leader of the Iraqi's that you folks hold in such disdain you would agree that his actions are tantamount to war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Is Joe Arpaio embezzling money? Is he skimming money and placing the illegal proceeds in hidden bank accounts? With the way the Obama administration is going after him, you would think the IRS would find something that would destroy his credibility and put him in prison for tax evasion. The IRS is pretty good about things like this and it is no secret that they are tenacious with their investigative resources. If he is breaking the law, he will get caught and the punishment will be severe. Do you have any proof that he has committed or been involved any criminal activity? What you fail to realize is that no one has to go to his jail. They end up there because they have broken the law and this is the punishment.

It is funny how you use the military as a comparison. It is the military personnel living in the tents in the desert that inspired Joe Arpaio to build his jail the way he did. In fact, his attempt to recreate the same conditions that the military often lives with is probably why you hold him in such contempt. Face it, Joe Arpaio is treating his prisoners like the best of American citizens that serve proudly in the United States military.

How would you treat the criminals in his care? If you think about it from a Green point of view, think of how much energy is being saved by not having to run air conditioning. The savings to the environment is enormous.

Perhaps if these criminals do not like life in the tent prison and the menu offered at taxpayer's expense, maybe life changing decision to a productive law abiding way of life should be adopted. However, if they want to continue to roll the dice and see what they can get away with by committing crimes in Maricope County, they just might return to visit Club Arpaio. If the criminal element would just leave Maricope County, not even the state of Arizona, just the county, the population of the prison would drop to nothing and we are sure that would be acceptable to Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the rest of the citizens of Maricope County.

This country is one of the greatest in the world for two reasons: Our constitution and that we were founded with the rights of the individual in mind. Individual liberties and the protection of those are our legacy.

The protection of these liberties and freedoms you speak of is part of controlling the criminal element within society. Why do the criminals stay within the jurisdiction of Sheriff Joe Arpaio?

This man does everything in his power and things that shouldn't be within his power, to violate these rights and to oppress people that disagree with him. The sheer number of times he has arrested people that argued against him or said less than glowing praise for him is astounding. If this man were in charge of a country he would be a dictator on par with Stalin. It boggles the mind that you can claim to love this country and yet you feel that someone like this traitor to our nation's spirit is a good American that should be emulated. Our founding fathers would be ashamed and disgusted by this man and would probably have had him executed.

This country is full of lawyers that would love nothing more than to sue any law enforcement agency just for name recognition. If Joe Arpaio is arresting and putting people in jail for sole act of disagreeing and/or arguing with him, thousands of these lawyers would have pounced on him.

How would the founding fathers feel about the criminals in his jail? If he is arresting people for nothing, there would be a serious law suit where he would not be able to win. It sounds like you do not like someone that actually stands and acts on the laws of this country. If you think that he has broken the law, the States Attorney of Arizona might like to hear from you with the evidence you have. Have you spoken to the States Attorney?

Specifically, what has Joe Arpaio done to be labeled a traitor? What laws has he broken? We know what his distracters have said. They hate him and want him gone. There are probably many government officials that do not like him. It would seem if he was truly breaking the law, he would be gone from office and perhaps in his own prison with new management running the prison.

He represents everything that we fought to free ourselves from and defending this monster of a man is an insult to this country. It is a sad and sorry state when a people starts to think that it's more important to punish the guilty than protect the innocent. When people think it's okay for a couple of innocents to suffer so long as more guilty are punished, we have fallen too far.

If you want to look at it as a numbers game, how many innocents suffer under Joe Arpaio compared to the number of innocents that suffer at the hands of those criminals in Joe Arpaio's jail? If you want to condemn the criminal justice system as not being perfect, go ahead. It is not perfect. It is run by imperfect people, but the flip side is someone has to house these criminals and Joe Arpaio was elected to do just that and he does it very well.

Do you want to release all of the prisoners and close the prison?

At the very least you have to realize that with our bloated legal codes every person commits at least a minor crime every day nd could end up suffering becaus of thugs like Arpaio. And even if you are scrupulous about breaking no law, innocent people are still harmed by him nd the punishments he doles out do no good for anyone. The states that instate the the most brutal or extreme punishments never show a decrease in criminal activity. The deterrent theory has been proven wrong. It's not even open to debate, it is categorically WRONG. It doesn't work.

We see how you want to treat prisoners. Prisons should be more like vacation spas. The inmate's day should include such activities as spending time by the pool, afternoon massage, cucumbers slices on the eyes, aroma therapy, and other such relaxing activities that ease the stress of prison life. Their sentences should not be a punishment for their criminal activities. Is that not what you are actually saying when you condemn prison as the punishment that it is supposed to be?

Prison sentences are doled out by the courts. One can look at prisons one of three ways. 1) A place to rehabilitate criminals. 2) A place to punish criminals. 3) A place to store criminals after they are removed from society to make the citizens safer if only for the time the criminal is in prison.

You make a good point about the deterrent theory. It is easy to argue that if putting criminals in jail was a true deterrent, there would not be any criminals on the streets. The reality is there are criminals on the streets because criminals are not afraid of the punishment. Prison is a good place to remove criminals from society if only for a short while. Actually, Joe Arpaio has actually made this case. He has stated in so many words that if criminals want to keep returning to his desert tent jail, he will always have space available for them. And guess what… many of them do return. Whose fault is that? Is it Joe Arpaio's fault? Is it the criminal's fault? Is it our fault for not understanding enough? For those that return over and over again, they certainly know what conditions are like there and they keep breaking the law and forcing the justice system to send them back to Joe Arpaio's prison. Apparently life is not bad enough to stop repeat offenders from committing the crimes in Maricope County where Joe Arpaio is the sheriff.

What you do not seem to understand is that some people will just not learn. They seem destined to keep committing crimes again and again. The punishment does not seem to stop the problem. Does this mean that we should not punish these people and remove them from civilized society?

Perhaps the real question is what would you do if you were Sheriff of Maricope County?


E-mails from Mitch
1 of 2

09 May 2012

Mitch wrote:

Funny thing. I' ve only heard about one species of animal that would put 6,000,000 of it's own species in gas chambers, slice other species members heads off because they believe in a different spook in the sky than the other human, drive planes into buildings, etc, etc. How do you monsters live with yourselves? Have a nice day.

How do we live with ourselves? What are you talking about? We oppose everything you just mentioned. That is the very purpose of this website. We stand against Marxism, Socialism, and Terrorism, which, if you know anything about history, covers everything you just mentioned. Did you miss that aspect of this website? Somehow, you missed the Home Page and the very first paragraph of the Mission Statement, the second page of this website. Perhaps you should read these two pages again.

Did you even take the time to read this website before you wrote you scathing e-mail questioning how we can live with ourselves?

It is obvious that you have no idea or understanding what this website contains yet feels compelled and qualified to comment on the content.

E-mails like this make up about 30% of the e-mails we receive. They make no sense because it is clear that the author has no idea what this website is. When you read this e-mail, it appears that the author is saying we support these terrorist actions and genocide. Nothing could be further from the truth. A fact that is easy to see if you actually read the website.

It is the Left-Wing that supports everything you mentioned in your e-mail. The terrorism from the Animal Rights Movement is a product of the Left-Wing Liberal agenda.

Terrorism from Islamic terrorists are tolerated by the Liberal mind with excuses that we deserved the attacks but all efforts to combat this terrorism are condemned by the Left-Wing groups.

Marxist ideals are supported by the Left-Wing - the same ideals that require more and more dependency on government entitlement programs and less and less Freedom, Independence, and Liberty, which has been the foundation for the greatness of America since 1776. Just look at the Occupy Wall Street Movement. The Communists and Socialists reign supreme.

If we are to assume the 6 million people you refer to were the Jews killed by the Nazis, allow us to educate us more. It was at a minimum of 6 million Jews that were murdered by the Nazis. If you actually studied history, you would see the number of people that died due to the Nazis was more like 75 - 100 million people. You conveniently left out the Russians, French, British, Americans, and the other many countries around the world that suffered at the hands of the Nazi - National Socialist Movement. Notice the word "Socialist" for that philosophy is at the very core of the movement that caused all the death, destruction, and suffering. And let us not forget the German people that suffered and died at the hands of the National Socialist Movement.

This website exists to record events so as to educate people. We want people to remember what happens when Freedom, Liberty, and Independence are missing components in agendas such as Communist, Marxist, and Socialist ideals. That is why we rail against these ideals.

There is really only one question remaining to ask. Now that we know how you despise us for our beliefs and how we stand against Terrorism, Marxism, and the anti-Capitalist and anti-American beliefs of the Left-Wing, how do you live with yourself?


E-mails from Mitch
2 of 2

12 May 2012

Mitch wrote:

Please spend a few months in the Netherlands-A perfect Society.

That is an interesting claim. Are you living there now or are you still in America? Have you surrendered your American Citizenship for a perfect life in the Netherlands? If not, why not. Everyone in the Netherlands speaks English. It is a mandatory language taught in all schools in the Netherlands.

Left-Wing Liberal agenda for trying to protect animals??? How can you compare Social viewpoints with saving lives of ANY spices, including ours.

It is the Left-Wing that makes up pretty much the entire Animal Rights Movement. You are maintaining the viewpoint of all of the Animal Rights Activists whereby eating meat is considered murder if a human eats meat, but not if another animal does the same. The Animal Rights Movement keeps saying that humans are part of nature, and then they immediately say that eating meat is wrong even though it has been part of nature for hundreds of thousands of years.

You people must get a big donation from the Koch brothers and the other hate mongers.

We do not take any donations from anyone. We do not take any donations from the members of the Animal Rights Movement that have no problem with exercising their hatred toward others as is seen by their actions of destruction and criminal activity.

I don't make a million a year but I work hard to make a living.

How much harder is it when so much of your money is taken from you and given to others that did not earn it?

The republicans and Conservative spook in the spy freaks would have me killed for wanting people to have health care and wanting all humans and other animals to have rights. Animal abusers feel the same way about killing people. Read up on it. I would not heard a fly. A republican conservative is a version of a "Christian Taliban" You insult me because I believe in different things than you.

We have not insulted you and no one wants to kill you... We love to hear from people like you that have no problem with the name calling i.e. "Christian Taliban". If you really think that Republican Conservatives are this way, it is an uninformed viewpoint you hold. This is not necessarily your fault; you just believe everything the Left-Wing says about Conservatives. Please keep in mind that most of the personnel that serve in the military are Conservatives. This probably enforces your belief of the "Christian Taliban" association with Conservatives. This may be news to you, but not many Liberals have a strong desire to join the military. In fact, you will see that the draft dodgers almost always associate themselves with Left-Wing Liberals.

As to whether or not you would "heard a fly", we will have to take your word on that.

Perfect example. Republican conservatives do not care if anyone lives or dies, if it would make a million dollar corporation an extra dollar they would kill they're own mothers, in the name of "Jesus" of course. A liberal that supports the ALF.

Really… This is what you cite as a "perfect" example. You say that Conservatives do not care if anyone lives or dies. Where did you get this idea? This seems to be a statement that comes from what you want to believe about Conservatives and those that hold a Conservative viewpoint. In this statement, you clearly show your dislike of other people's religious beliefs.

The Conservative agenda against Socialized Medicine is scam where medical care will be heavily rationed by the government that also certifies new medicine. Do you not see a conflict of interest here? No one is trying to stop you from getting healthcare, but why do I have to pay for it? Why do I have to pay for the healthcare that Bill Gates, Barbara Streisand, and other rich people receive? Why should you pay for our healthcare? Why should I have to pay for your healthcare? Why can you not pay for your own healthcare? Why do you feel that you need to have the government to take my hard earned money and give it to everyone else that did not earn it? Do you not understand that this level of dependency is nothing more than slavery to the government? It is a direct attack against Liberty and Self-Reliance. This country is well over 200 years old and somehow, without Socialized Medicine, we have become the greatest country in the world that is the beacon of freedom, not to mention we are the country that liberated the Netherlands of another group people that were severe Animal Rights believers. In case you did not know your history, these people were referred to as the Nazis.

Have a nice day. I do appreciate hearing your viewpoints. I hope to goodness Obama wins. He's not perfect, but anything is better than a God freak Conservative. ALL religion and hatred is vile, vulgar poison. Which seems to be what Conservatives believe. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I like hearing other peoples opinions. But don't ever call me a terrorist because I disagree with you. Typical Jesus- sicko Conservative. anti-American beliefs of the Left-Wing- very sick statement.

Let us correct you... you are wrong. But what you do not seem to understand is that you actually want to be wrong because this justifies your beliefs. You want to believe that all religion is bad, and therefore, a belief in God is a bad thing because then it would show that some things you want to do cannot be judged. Because this is not a religious website we will not delve into further discussion on religion beyond this brief generalization.

We never referred to you as a terrorist... Not once. Apparently you do not appreciate hearing our viewpoints because you are so quick to label them with the term "Jesus-sicko Conservative".

We would love to have you explain how anything we have stated are anti-American beliefs of the Left-Wing is anything but factual. If you do decide to explain this, please be specific with what is actually written on this website.


E-mails from Declan White
1 of 2

21 April 2012

Declan White wrote:

Dear Men and Women of Target of Opportunity.

Instead of writing a lengthy letter, like many others offended by your website, I am going to ask you one question at a time, so you can focus on answering my questions to the best of your abilities.

My first question is as follows: What makes us humans, better than animals?

Sincerely, Declan White

We should probably ask you the reverse question as you seem to believe something contrary. What makes some animals better than humans and where do you draw the line?

While we offer you our opinion, think about that question.

This e-mail was a little vague, but it appears to be an Animal Rights question so we will treat it as such.

Nature is the driving force of life. Survival instinct is the key motivator that keeps life on this planet. It is not so much that humans are better than animals, but rather it is a question where we draw the line. Animal Rights Activists are quick to assert that whales, dolphins, and whatever other creature they deem is the flavor of the month are just as intelligent as Humans and that these particular animals are being mistreated based on some arbitrary standard of on their own criteria.

"In the natural world, every living thing, be it plant or animal, exploits every other living thing that exists on the planet in order to survive just one more day regardless of the degree of separation. Like it or not, that is nature."
-- David Meyer, July 2006

Animals rely on plants and plants rely on animals to survive. But what is also true is that Animals rely on other animals to live and plants rely on other plants to live. Plants provide food for animals and animals provide food for plants. Here is something that so many Animal Rights Activists do not seem to comprehend. Animals also provide food for other animals, including humans. This is not wrong or unethical. It is natural. It is the cycle of life.

Some animals eat other animals to survive. Their intellectual abilities allow them to figure out how to hunt and kill other animals to survive. Lions do this. Alligators do this. Whales do this. Spiders do this. Humans do this and it is not wrong. Tens of thousands of years ago, mankind learned how to farm and domesticate animals for food and clothing. Man is as successful as a species today because of the intellectual and physical ability to do this. By introducing agriculture into daily life, we are able to support larger populations.

Let us address where we draw the line. As with other species, we draw the line at individual survival. Whales want to live, but they still want to eat Krill, Plankton, small fish, and whatever else is on their diet. If it is acceptable for whales to eat these living creatures, why are humans not allowed to do the same? Are whales better than humans with certain rights we are not allowed to share?

If hunting and killing a whale for food is wrong, where do you draw the line for killing another animal species in order to survive? What about killing a deer? Is that wrong? People eat deer meat for food. What about the whale? If it is wrong to kill a whale, is it wrong to kill a maggot? The maggot only wants to survive and grow into a healthy fly. We can go further and use a flea as an example. Is it wrong to kill a flea for any reason? What about bacteria and viruses? These are living organisms. Do they have as much of a right to live as a human or a whale? Is it wrong to use bleach as a cleaning product because it kills bacteria? It is our vanity that we as humans want a clean place to live. One could make an argument, be it a weak argument, and state that living in a clean disinfected home is not natural because such a place really does not exist in nature.

We can use plants as an example. Why is it that it is acceptable to allow the vegetables in your garden to grow, yet you have absolutely no problem killing the weeds that grow naturally? How are the weeds any less worthy of a life than old growth forests?

So, where do you draw the line at what has a right to live and what does not?


E-mails from Declan White
2 of 2

22 April 2012

Declan White wrote:

Dear Target of Opportunity,

You have many valid points, I will give you that. You are clearly well-read. However, I would like to ask the questions first, and afterwards (do not let me forget), I will answer your's. Please also refrain from all of the additional information, I would like to keep these emails short and sweet.

So if we are no better than animals, what makes it right for us to murder them for food, when we can't murder our weaker neighbors and eat them? Cannibalism is in nature too (birds, bats, frogs, etc.).

Sincerely, Declan White

We never stated that we are no better than animals. You made that assertion with your question. We believe we are better than other animal species just as the bear believes that bears are better than all other species. Just remember, we take care of other animals better than any other species.

People as a whole do not consider themselves "animals". We elevate ourselves above the level of animals because we strive to be better than them. We hold ourselves as humans to a high standard in all aspects of life.

The definition of the word "Murder" is so misused with the Animal Rights Movement. It is not murder to kill an animal for food. It is not murder to kill a mosquito. If you are going to say that it is an act of murder to kill a cow for food, then you have to say it is an act of murder to kill lice because you do not want them in your hair. If you are going to consider that animals have the same rights as humans and hold humans to the this standard, then if you find a jellyfish washed up on the beach, is it an act of murder or at the very least an act of Depraved Indifference not to put it back into the ocean?

The use of the word "Murder" by the Animal Rights Movement is intentional so as to elevate animals to the same plane as humans. Again, we ask, where do you draw the line? What creature or living organism is it not considered murder when it is killed?

The Cheetah does not murder the gazelle. He hunts it and kills it for food so he can survive. A bear does not commit an act of murder when he catches the salmon that he eats while it is still alive. Does the spider murder the fly that is caught in the spider's web or does he kill the fly?

Addressing your reference to cannibalism, if you get into the organic chemistry and molecular makeup of flesh, there is little difference in eating venison and eating human flesh. That being said, there are several reasons that Cannibalism is considered wrong. First, it violates certain taboos that were established and held sacred by civilized society for thousands of years. The burial of a body in a final resting place is of a spiritual nature and belief. This is done out of respect for the person that died and the life that he/she lived.

Secondly, consuming the same creatures that you can reproduce with is fundamentally detrimental to the long-term survival of the species.


19 April 2012

Asim Munshi wrote:

I am a typical Muslim teenager(13) and stumbled accross your website whilst browsing the internet.

I shall start by asking you start to stop making these horrible, insensitive remarks. In the west, Islam is portrayed very differently than it is in the east. Like many things, the bad gets exxagerated and the good is hardly ever mentioned. In fact, 99% of Muslims are kind, caring people. 1% are not, yet these are the only people talked about. In the Qu'ran it clearly states, 'God hates the aggressors'. You can interpret that any way you like, but I can't really see how you can interpret that as 'most Muslims are terrorists'.

What have we stated that is incorrect? You many consider the information to be insensitive, but it is factual so what you are actually saying is that the truth is insensitive and should not be viewed because someone might be offended. Do you know who should be offended the most by these acts of Islamic terrorism? The 99% of Muslims that you mentioned do not speak against it. We believe that most Muslims would rather go on with their day-to-day lives rather than commit acts of terrorism. The problem is when the 99% are not offended by the actions that occur every day by Muslims and they fail or refuse speak out as we have done. Non-Muslims cannot clean up the 1% (assuming this is accurate as you claim). It will require the actions of the "99%" of the Muslims.

What you do not seem to see is that the leaders of Islam have a different attitude and philosophy from what you assert is the prevalent attitude of the 99% of all Muslims.

We know you accept the Muslim lifestyle and that is fine with us. You want to love and show tolerance to all other people regardless of all other differences. But is has been clear that this is not the history of Islam.

However, in Islam, if you are put in a life threatening situation, God says you can do everything possible to stop this. Many Muslims, in Palastine, are facing this- they are being unfairly thrown out of their country with nowhere to go. However, no western country will respond, so it must be made clear to everyone what is happening.

As with many people on this planet, you need to reacquaint yourself with United Nations Resolution 181. In 1948 when Israel became a sovereign country, land that was supposed to be given to the Palestinian Arabs was taken by Jordan and Egypt. These two countries, as well as all other Muslim countries, never offered their Muslim brothers a place to go. No Arab country wanted to assimilate these Muslims into their populations. Why is that? That is an easy question. All other Muslims countries saw a better use for these people. They wanted their Muslim brothers to suffer. They wanted them to be pawns in a hate war against the newly formed Israel. If you have the courage to accept the historical truth, you can read "The Truth About the Palestinian People".

As for what you have been taught about Palestine, there is no country of Palestine. There never has been. We know that if Israel is destroyed, it is very likely that Palestine will be the new name of the country, but that has not happened yet.

Here is a question for you. What country in the Middle East allows the freedom of religion and worship for all religions? Here is the answer… Israel. Israel is the only country that allows Muslims to practice Islam, Jews to practice Judaism, Christians to practice Christianity. If Israel is conquered by Muslims, the practice of Freedom of Religion will end at the tip of a sword. Why is it that it is acceptable for Jews to live under a Muslim government with Shariah Law prevails, but not acceptable for Muslims to live under a Jewish government where Democracy prevails?

Have you read the Hamas Charter of 1988?

You are presuming that all Muslims feel that it is their duty to make this clear through violence and killing innocent people. This is where we come back to 1% and 99%. 1% take this to far and believe that this is their duty, 99% are peaceful Muslims. If everyone in the world knew this, maybe people like you would stop stereotyping and realise the truth.

Let us just reiterate again that the "99%" as you have labeled them, have failed to put the pressure on the 1%. We know the "1%" commit the acts of terrorism in the name of Islam. They are taught their actions are right and honorable under the teachings of Islam. They kill in the name of Islam. Whatever happened to the concept that Islam was a religion of peace? It does not seem to be a prevalent concept taught to these people. Why do the "99%" not condemn the individuals rather than excuse their actions by saying these people are not good Muslims? Why do we not see the "99%" of the "Good Muslims" publicly spitting on the photos of the Islam terrorists instead of holding them in high regard? You probably do not remember seeing the Palestinians dancing in the streets and celebrating upon hearing of the news of the September 11 attacks.

Where are the Muslims not protesting against this terrorism committed by Islamic terrorist? The Muslims that we do see protesting are calling for "Death to America", "Death to Israel", and "Death to non-Believers". Every time a Muslim commits a terrorist act, they help to stereotype themselves. Why have you not spoken out against the Muslim terrorists as we have instead of just stereotyping them as a small 1% of Muslims as though it was just some statistical error? Why have you and the other 99% not stood up against the actions of the 18,000+ acts of terrorism committed by Muslims around the world as we have? Remember, you have not disputed any of the facts on this website. You have only referred to these facts as being "insensitive". In fact, it is the shear accuracy of this website that you find most troublesome.

You seem to be so worried about the way the world views Islamic terrorists rather than the terrorism committed by these Muslims in the name of Islam. Other religions do not have such a terrorist problem with 99% of Jews or Christians living as peaceful citizens and 1% committing terrorist acts. The reason is that non-Islamic religions do not have their leaders publicly stating what we have listed in "Quotes from the Muslim World".

I hope this has somewhat helped you understand a little more about Islam.


We hope our response helps you understand a little more about what Muslims should do to stop Islamic inspired terrorism.


E-mails from Aislinn Sjölander
1 of 2

23 March 2012

Aislinn Sjölander wrote:

Okay, my name is Ashli. I'm your everyday, average teenage white girl. And I just have to say that your website made me want to cry, and punch something (in my teenage angst) at the same time. What I don't understand is why some people (like you, for example) would write such cruel things about other religions and cultures. I can understand you wanting to have your own opinion, etc. But calling all Islamic people "terrorists"?

You need to take another look at what we have written about Islam. We never said that all Muslims were terrorists. What we stated was that in Islam, it is the obligation of all Muslims to live according to the teachings of Islam and the Koran. This is not some ideology we are inventing. This is what Muslims believe. They believe the Koran is the word directly from Allah, not from man. It is God's law, not man's law. We believe that most Muslims are not radical terrorists, but Islam is a radical religion. Look at what the leaders of Islam have publicly stated. We have the quotes. If you want to see the truth about Islam, take the time to read the "Islamic Links" on this website.

With most of the acts of terrorism committed by serious followers of Islam, why does the world not see a worldwide public outcry against these Muslims from the other 1.3 billion Muslims? Every Muslim should be rallying against Muslim terrorists, but we see barely a whimper from the Muslim community. When we do see something, all we see is an excuse that these terrorists are not "true Muslims" when these terrorists are actually very serious students of Islam and many can recite the Koran from memory. Why is that? There is a reason. By Islamic law, it is considered bad form to speak against a Muslim doing God's duty according to the Koran. To Muslims, a world without non-Muslims is the goal. To most Muslims, non-Islamic religions and beliefs are an insult to Islam.

Despite what you might want to believe, Islam is not a tolerant religion. It is not a peaceful religion. It is religion of submission and by force if necessary. If you do not believe this, try practicing some other religion in an Islamic country. In Saudi Arabia, just giving a Bible to a Muslim is a punishable offense with a mandatory prison sentence. Another point to keep in mind is that many serious Muslims around the world share a fascination with Adolf Hitler and his writings in "Mein Kampf". They have this belief in sync with the teachings of the Koran.

Am I a terrorist for wanting to be myself, and believe what I want? Am I a terrorist because I believe what the ELF has done is right?

You can believe anything you want. You are free to do that. Apparently, you believe that destroying someone else's property is an acceptable form of speech or protest. We have never stated you were a terrorist. However, by your own admission, you clearly are a supporter of the terrorist actions committed by the ELF.

What if you believed in something that was in direct opposition to what the ELF stated? Would they have the right to destroy your home and terrorize you?

The actions committed by the ELF movement are not morally, ethically, or legally right. Being a teenage girl, you might not know that it is wrong to destroy the property of others. You should know this, but apparently you do not. The ELF movement does not have the authority to do what it does when it vandalizes someone else's property for whatever reason they feel justified.

Allow us to present a question to you. If it is morally right for "Animal Rights Activists" to attack and destroy property in the name of Animal Rights, the environment, global warming, etc..., is it morally right for someone to target and commit an act of violence or destruction against the same activist for whatever reason they view as justifiable?

I sure was not one of the men who hijacked a plane on 9/11. So why call these people "terrorists"?

Are you saying that the 9-11 terrorists would not be terrorists if the World Trade Center was destroyed with no loss of human life (other than the terrorists)? That is essentially what you say happens when the ELF destroys someone's possessions but no one is physically harmed. Is that what you are saying that you believe?

Terrorism is defined by Princeton Univ. as : ' the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) AGAINST CIVILIANS in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature, this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.'

You are absolutely right. That is an accurate definition of Terrorism. It is much like the definition we offer.

"Terrorism - The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or group against people or property with the intent of intimidation or coercion often for ideological or political reasons...

No where on your website did you state that the ELF committed acts of violence against any American citizen (or any person, in this case).

All of the attacks were against American citizens. Do you not understand that? Arson is a violent act. Vandalism is a violent act. It is meant to be violent. That is the point. It is harmful to the person targeted. When someone's home is invaded or attacked, it causes financial and emotional damage to everyone living in the house, both adults and children - to instill fear by property destruction. How does that not conform to the meaning of terrorism based on the definition that you offered? Think about it, no one wants to leave their home and return to find it destroyed, vandalized, or burned to the ground. To worry about things like that as a real possibility is to live in fear and that is what these terrorists that use Animal Rights as an excuse want to do.

These people would love to use these same tactics on us even though we do not harm animals. We only differ due to ideology and we voice our opinion. These "activists" hate. They hate anyone that does not believe as they do or anyone that is willing to voice a contrary opinion backed up with facts. They hate anyone that stands in their way from accomplishing what they want to achieve. Take a look at Ryan Daniel Lewis, Lili Marie Holland, Eva Rose Holland, and Jeremiah Dean Colcleasure . They did not like new houses being built so they attempted to firebomb a new housing development, not save animals. This had nothing to do with Animal Rights. They did not like people with money buying new high-priced homes. These four people hold the same anti-Capitalist, anti-Corporation views that the rest of the Animal Rights movement centers itself.

I noticed that you said something along the lines of, "Children have been targeted for attacks!". You are incorrect in so many ways with this statement. The ELF is against any harm towards humans, animals, etc. I also noticed that you compared the ELF to the KKK... where do you even get this idea from??

If you know your history, you will see that the KKK used the same tactics. They burned buildings to the ground. They vandalized homes of people they detested. That is where we got that idea. Where do you think the ELF and the other Animal Rights activists got their ideas?

So you question the quote, 'Children have been target for attacks!" Allow us to give you the quotes.

"There are about 2,000 people prepared at any one time to take action for us... The children [of targeted scientists and executives] are enjoying a lifestyle built on the blood and abuse of innocent animals. Why should they be allowed to close the door on that and sit down and watch TV and enjoy themselves when animals are suffering and dying because of the actions of the family breadwinner? They are a justifiable target for protest."
-- Robin Webb, ALF leader, Sunday Herald (Scotland) Sept. 19, 2004

Here we see where children can be targeted for protest. Keep in mind what the word 'protest' means to these people. It means terrorize. It means vandalize. It means threaten. Please do not say that this is the ALF and not the ELF. There is no substantial difference in the ALF and the ELF. They use the same tactics for the same reasons. Keep in mind how these people protest. They destroy the property of others. They seek to terrorize people they hate because of political ideology. If you can find a difference, we would love to hear what you think the difference is.

"As my close colleague, Dr. Jerry Vlasak, surmised - and I back him 100% on this - the assassination of a vivisector or two would probably save millions of nonhuman animal lives. And given the escalating situation at UCLA, who knows what may happen?"
-- Jason Miller, relentless anti-capitalist, animal liberationist, and senior editor and founder of Thomas Paine's Corner. Jason Miller is also a Press Officer for the North American Animal Liberation Press Office (NAAPO)

When you least expect it, in a hallway or on an elevator, in the stairwell or going to your car after torturing primates all day, you'll get a much bigger puncture from a 10cc syringe right in your back filled with rat poison, and we'll be gone so fast you'll never know who did it. We know where you go during the day, we know where you do your dry cleaning, we know where you shop and we know that you will end up being cornered and taught a lesson you and your family will never forget. Until you end your experimentation on primates, we'll be in your life forever watching, waiting and then doing to you exactly what you do to them.
-- An Animal Liberation Front (ALF) Communiqué threatening UCLA researchers as reported by Jerry Vlasak's North American Animal Liberation Press Office (NAAPO) website on 26 March 2009

Here we see where a threat of death by an animal "activist" using a syringe and rat poison.

"While innocent life will never be harmed in any action we undertake, where it is necessary, we will no longer hesitate to pick up the gun to implement justice, and provide the needed protection for our planet that decades of legal battles, pleading, protest, and economic sabotage have failed so drastically to achieve."
-- Earth Liberation Front issued a communiqué claiming responsibility for an arson attack on a U.S. Forest Service research facility in Irvine, PA in 2002

Here we see where using firearms are to be implemented as a part of their protesting and sabotage. It is all done in an effort to violently attack their targets.

You can see more of these quotes by reading "The True Agenda of the Animal Rights Movement".

The KKK was a group of white supremacists who violated the little rights that African Americans had back then. The last time I checked, the Earth Liberation Front did not go around in white suits, physically scarring citizens with their own two hands. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Have you ever seen videos of protesters in any major city (Think back in time a few years, not the Occupy Movement) ? Large amounts of police brutality were used on these peaceful protesters. Why did they deserve this? Last I checked, A public park is PUBLIC.

When you see these "activists" from the ELF and the other Animal Rights groups, you see them wearing hooded sweatshirts with black bandanas hiding their faces much like Islamic terrorists. The only difference in the attire of the KKK and the ELF are the colors.

Public parks are just that… PUBLIC. They there for everyone, not just a narrow segment of society that wishes to control and dictate the way everyone else should live. Because you did not specify which protests you are speaking of, it is hard to give an intelligent answer to your question. Were the protesters there legally? You will find that if protesters are peaceful and are protesting with the proper permits, you will see this does not happen. Police rarely have clashes with protesters unless problems occur. Some of the exceptions would be the race riots during the 1960s. Is this the example you speak of?

Did you see anything like this with the Tea Party Demonstrations?

Why ignore the Occupy Movement. They hold very same viewpoint of the Animal Rights Movement - Marxist doctrine, anti-Capitalism, anti-Corporation. The thought processes of the people that are part of the Occupy Movement are the very same thought processes of the people that make up the Animal Rights Movement. There is very little difference. Their agenda is the same.

I don't have much else to say, but I hoped this E-Mail opened your eyes to what you have been posting to your website. Some one else could come along (doing research for a simple school project), like me; and their world can be changed. No offense to my generation, but they tend to believe anything they read on the internet. Now you see the dilemma. We don't need radical white supremacists in this generation, too. I thank you for your time in reading this, and hope you all have a great night.

Ashli S.

So far, you have not stated anything that is incorrect on this website. You have misread a few things. We are able to excuse this somewhat due to your youth. You have not matured enough to prevent your emotions from getting the best of you. It is obvious you do not like what we have written. It is not all that pretty. The truth is not always pretty. We understand that. But everything on this website is factual. It is not a good thing that most of the world's terrorists are Muslims committing the atrocities they commit in the name of Islam, but it is a reality. The same is true of the Animal Rights Movement and groups that resort to terrorist styled tactics.

Perhaps you do not understand the purpose of this website. This website is here to make a stand against terrorism in all of its forms. We stand against Socialism, Communism, and any other forms of Marxism. We do not support terrorism in any form. If you missed this message contained within the 150+ pages of this website, we would recommend that you take another look at the contents with an open mind clear of negative emotions and you will see what we actually stand for.


E-mails from Aislinn Sjölander
2 of 2

30 March 2012

Aislinn Sjölander wrote:

Even If you did not say that "all Muslims are terrorists", you surely implied it.

This is an emotional response to a statement we never stated. You so much want to see what you think we should be saying because you seek to find fault with this website. What we said was that Islam is not a Religion of Peace. The word "Islam" might translated as "Peace" to Muslims, but to non-Muslims it does not. Islam is a totalitarian ideology that was founded as a religion of forced conversion with no tolerance of other religions or non-Islamic thought. With Shariah Law, it is not compatible with Democracy, Freedom, or Liberty. Islam is a religion that looks down upon all other religions and all other non-Muslim people as not worthy of life. This is easily seen in Islamic teachings by the religious leaders and Islamic actions that make the news daily.

Not all Muslims are good Muslims. That statement can be taken several ways. To non-Muslims, a good Muslim does not engage in terrorism. A good Muslim does not support terrorism and speaks out against terrorism. A good Muslim is ashamed by Islamic terrorists. A good Muslim tolerates other religions to exist and flourish.

To fundamentalist Muslims, the above description is not a good Muslim. To the fundamentalist Muslim, a good Muslim lives and dies by the Koran and the teachings of the Muslim leadership. To the fundamentalist Muslim, deceit is a weapon to be used against non-Muslims. A good Muslim stands with their Muslim brothers and sisters. A good Muslim does not speak against the actions of another Muslim. That is why you see so little action against Islamic terrorists.

Every Muslim is expected to be and wants to be a good Muslim. It just depends on who they decide to answer to - non-Muslims or the Mullahs at the local mosque.

By saying that Islam is not a 'religion of peace', you are saying that any one who follows the Islamic faith is not a peaceful person. I happen to know well over 10 Muslims. And I don't mean "American Muslims", either. I mean people who live in Egypt, India, and Iran. I've met these people in person, and not one of them would harm a fly. Yes, I understand that this is 10 out of who knows how many people. But, if 10 random people are harmless, why not those other people?

We can show you 19 Muslims from the Middle East that have no problem killing any non-Muslim and did so on 11 September 2001. Did you mean those people? We can give you over 18,000 examples of Islamic terrorism.

Islam is not a Religion of Peace. Islam does not tolerate other religions. In its history, Islam has allowed other religions to exist under the umbrella of Islam provided they pay a tax to exist, but usually they just kill in the name of their religion. Muslims have done so since its inception 1400 years ago.

You stated that the leaders of Islam stated certain things that may deem them 'radical'. Just because a leader of a certain region states something does not mean every single person agrees and follows with what that person is saying. Answer me this: is Islam the only 'radical' religion, as you so call it? Look at Christianity. The crusades, the Salem Witch Trials, the KKK, etc. Radical Christians may not have crashed an airplane into a government building, but they sure have done some equivalence.

Let us use Christianity as an example. Christianity has had its dark moments in its history and we will concur that these actions were wrong, but it is not the general nature of Christianity. If you actually look at Islam, you will see that it is at war with every other religion on the planet. No other religion can say that. You have stated that Christianity has done some horrible acts equal to Islam. That is exactly what we are saying. These actions of Muslims have been EVIL in the past, are EVIL now, and they continue to be EVIL in the future. You do not see these atrocities currently being committed by Muslims are not being committed by Christians, Jews, Hindus, or any other religious groups. But you do see Muslims committing crimes against people of other religions for the sole reason that they hold other values and worship in a non-Islamic tradition.

We have shown what Muslim leaders have said. We did not make up these statements. The quotes we have are accurate. You have not disputed any of the facts, you just do not like that we have place these quotes on the website for all to see.

If you want to compare Islam with Christianity, look at the good that Christian Missionaries do all over the world. You see nothing like that from Islam. What you do see is Muslims killing the Christians. You see Christian groups helping people all over the world. You rarely, if ever, see Muslim groups unselfishly helping people around the world. You never see help coming from Islamic groups to non-Muslims.

I never came out and said "I think destroying some one's property is good/right." I think the damage the ELF caused was not entirely right in the way that it effected other people. But the fact that the ELF stood up for what they believe in, is what I consider to be "right".

You state it is "not entirely right". Do you not understand that it is wrong in every way regardless of the motives? What we take from your statement is that if you believe an action to be right, then it is ok for someone to target and take action against a law abiding citizen? Is that what you are saying? Guess what… The 19 Islamic terrorists that hijacked and crashed four planes on 11 September 2001 stood up for that they believed. Other Muslims all over the world were dancing in the streets upon hearing the news. Not all Muslims, but way too many were celebrating. They did not see what a terrible act this was. They danced and thanked Allah.

And I'm pretty sure that someone such as Daniel McGowan would not have shown up on my doorstep and blew up my home, because I disagreed with what they were doing. In what way would that be harming the environment? Seeing as how that is the only reason they did what they did.

What would stop Daniel McGowan from showing up on your doorstep and damaging your home? Would it matter if it was someone else other than Daniel McGowan? What if it was some other person or group with some other reason to hate you? What if they just had a different agenda they wanted to impose on you? What you do not seem to understand is that they did not have the right or the authority to do what they do.

I enjoyed the stereotype you included about teenagers, you seem to stereotype a lot. Not all teenagers are naive. Not all teenagers go around and bully other kids, or vandalize property. I sure don't. "Allow us tp present a question.....reason they view as justifiable?" : Obviously the victims have spoken out, or the associates of the ELF wouldn't be sitting in jail.

No, but you seem to support others that damage the property of others. You never did answer the question. It was a moral question. Does the ELF, or any other group, have the right to do the damage they do? Of course the victims spoke out against these criminals. You actually stated our case. You called the people attacked by the ELF movement "Victims". Yes they are and they are no different than assault victims, car theft victims, or rape victims and these victims were attacked by people with no morals and if it was the ELF that committed the attack, the ELF has your support because they stood up for what they believe.

Exactly how did we stereotype you? Your e-mail stating your comments and admission that you were a teenage girl is what stereotyped you. It is clear you do not have a good understanding of right and wrong by the very fact that you support the ELF. You cannot even answer the question we presented to you. Allow us to present it to you again.

If it is morally right for "Animal Rights Activists" to attack and destroy property in the name of animal rights, the environment, global warming, etc..., is it morally right for someone to target and commit an act of violence or destruction against the same activist for whatever reason they view as justifiable?

Technically, 9/11 would not have happened had there been no intention of lives being lost. Those men did not plan this attack out in a way that there would be no workers in those buildings.

You are right, that was the intention - to kill. But what if there had not been any loss of human life? Would the 19 Islamic terrorists have your support then? What if the terrorists had leased two cargo 747s and called ahead to anounce their intentions with a warning to get everyone out of the buildings then crashed into the World Trade Center. Would that have been an act of terrorism? How is that any different than what the ELF does?

The ELF made sure everyone was out of harm's way.

So that is your argument, there were no witnesses? That justifies their actions in your mind that no one was physically harmed. What if the ELF attackers decided not to set this self-imposed limitation? What if the ELF movement targeted you by accident because they had the wrong address? Would you feel the same?

And yes, no one wants to return to their home to find it vandalized, much in the same way that these environmentalists do not want to return to their "home" cut down and processed.

How is it their home when they do not own the property? They have no legal right to the property. So many environmentalists think that all land belongs to them. You know this by the way you placed the word "home" in quotation marks. It is not really their home; they just want to stake a claim on land that is not theirs to have.

Why is it ok to harvest vegetables but not trees? Trees are a natural renewable product, yet there is such an outcry when someone wants to cut down a tree.

I do know my history, the KKK not only burnt down homes and such, they also killed anyone they detested. They hated these people so much that they had the initiative to end their lives.

The ELF hates people so much they destroy their homes. Explain the difference. Is it because no one was physically harmed? Is that the way you are able to justify the morality of their actions?

What if the KKK had not harmed anyone physically? Would that have legitimized their actions? They are standing up for what they believe. That is what you are saying separates the ELF and the KKK – the killing. If you take away the killing, according to you, the KKK and the ELF are the same.

Do you get your quotations off of some internet source? No everything on the internet is legitimate, you know.

We got the quotes from many sources and they are all accurate. What quotes do you think are incorrect or inaccurate? If you are going to accuse us of not being accurate, you have to be specific in your accusations.

And every time I've seen an ELF protester, they've been dirtied by the hardships of a "hippie life", so to say. Only the people who committed crimes dressed in black. But yet, with the Occupy movement, people obeyed the law. If they were asked to leave the property- they left. On some occasions they were not given fair warning and beaten off of the property.

The Occupy Protesters broke the law on numerous occasions. They were all given fair warning to vacate certain areas. When refused to leave, they were pepper sprayed.

I really wish you would quit referring to my "youth". You say this as if I was an eight year old who wants to be a Vet when she grows up. Your information may be factual, but most of it is also bias and stereotypical. Facts should be facts only, not mixed with opinions.
Thanks again,

The bias and stereotypical qualities you offer are nothing more than the emotional response of your youth. It has nothing to do with the facts that you admit are factual. You feel the compulsion to try and denigrate the facts we have presented with emotional thinking rather than rational and intellectual thought. We have offered our opinions based on the facts and are clearly differentiated as opinions. You have offered your opinion based on the emotional thought process that allows you to try to justify, at least on some level, that the ELF movement is partially right in its actions because they stand for something.

Remember that we did not mention your youth first, you did. One day when you go into the world and have to work and earn a living, you will understand the hard work that is necessary to achieve a good life and why it is wrong for someone to destroy what you have worked hard to earn. You will learn that your standard of living is a product of the work you produce. When someone destroys what you have worked hard to earn, you will see why actions that empower the terrorist styled Animal Rights groups is wrong.


21 March 2012

Mazen Mokhtar wrote:

Biggest f*cking goofs. Dumb f*cks. Remember this website when you're in your grave.
Stupid f*cks

We receive a lot of e-mails like this all the time and your e-mail illustrates your ignorance and total lack of even a rudimentary education - certainly no education that any respectable teacher would want to stake a claim. You probably do not understand our assessment of your e-mail, but if you ask someone capable of rational thought, they will be happy to show you how we came to this conclusion. Any English teacher at the local high school would be more than happy to assist you with this.

We have decided to print your e-mail because it shows that people like yourself that respond to us with e-mails of this intellectual quality are completely lacking any mental capacity of rational thought and have absolutely no intellectual substance whatsoever. Your ignorance is a shinning beacon for those that despise the material on this website even thought they can muster no argument to the contrary. We offer information you are completely ill-prepared to dispute, yet you attempt to do so with the only weapon in your mental arsenal – insults, personal attacks, and profanity.

Do you not find it strange that we never wish anything happen to you but you are so quick to hate us? We have never tried to stop you from speaking. In fact, we actually help spread your message by printing your e-mail as we are doing here. But all people like you want is for us to go away and stop having an opinion. It seems you are not a fan of the First Amendment, are you? To people like you, Freedom of Speech is only for people that share your views, such as the ones you presented in this e-mail so proudly. The truth is your e-mail shows you are completely unable to offer a single argument to anything on this website so you have to resort to insults, profanity, and a total lack of any intelligent thought. Based on the level of education displayed in your e-mail, it is doubtful that you even understood what this website is all about and the reason for its existence.


E-mails from matt dylan
1 of 2

12 March 2012

matt dylan wrote:

Aside from the terrorist activists whats your thoughts on animal rights in general??

We do not believe in the Animal Rights as the Animal Rights Activists do. We firmly believe that unnecessary cruelty toward animals is morally wrong. We do believe in using animals in medical research because there is no substitution. How else do you find medicines for animals to take care of their health? Many drugs that are used on animals are modified for human use. Cancer drugs are tested on animals and then they are tested on humans. Drugs are tested on humans every day and they are tested on humans more than they are on animals i.e. non-humans.

Animals are used in the production of all sorts of products that humans use daily. Humans are also used in this testing. Much of this testing would not be necessary if the product liability protection was not necessary, but because this is a very litigious world, corporations need to protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits.

Animal Rights Movement maintains very anti-Capitalist and Socialist beliefs as can be verified by the propaganda that permeates their literature and sound bites. If you look at the editorial "The True Agenda of the Animal Rights Movement", the connection to the anti-capitalist agenda is quite clear. Most of the Animal Rights leadership is not even concerned with animals at all. The subject of Animal Rights is the excuse they use for their anti-capitalist agenda. That is the sad part. But please, read what they have to say. Take a close look at what they say. We have the quotes.

We believe that pet ownership is a good thing and it forms a close bond between humans and their pets. But if you look at the Animal Rights quotes, you can see that so many want to end this relationship. They continue to make the claim that animals are equal to humans, yet they want to make everyone a vegetarian and end the diet of meat. How can this be? Are we to believe that humans less equal than bears, pigs, raccoons, and other omnivores because they are allowed to eat meat whenever they like.

The consumption of meat by humans becomes a question of Freedom and Liberty. It is no one's business what my diet consists of or the way I choose to live my life as long as I live within the laws of civilized society. Neither is it my business what anyone within the Animal Rights consumes as food. Who are they to determine what anyone else is allowed to eat? If we decide that the laws of civilized society mean nothing, then we have no civilization and therefore no rights at all other than the rights we give ourselves.

Here is a quote we would like to present.

"In the natural world, every living thing, be it plant or animal, exploits every other living thing that exists on the planet in order to survive just one more day regardless of the degree of separation. Like it or not, that is nature."
-- David Meyer, July 2006

The lion exploits the weakness and slow speed of its prey to feed the pride. The antelope exploits the lack of endurance of the cheetah to get away and survive another day. Animals exploit plants to survive and plants exploit animals to survive. This is natural. This is nature. Man is no different. Just like all other animals, Man uses his brain to figure out how to survive another day and this includes the exploitation of every possible entity to provide food, shelter, security, and any other advantage necessary to survive just one more minute, one more hour, one more day. This aspect of nature is what the Animal Rights Movement completely ignores or refuses to accept.


E-mails from matt dylan
2 of 2

13 March 2012

matt dylan wrote:

About the testing thing they already have a cure for cancer its anti neoplaston treatment and animal testing can be better replaced with simulation in heated temps. And etc. And it doesnt harm anyone. Also do you eat meat??? And it shouldnt be legal that's the problem I think because its terrible. I am not a terrorist by the way I just think animal cruelty is wrong. How would you like to be a lab rat or beagle I think it would suck.

In our conversations, we have never thought of you as a terrorist and we hope we have not come across that way. We think that animal cruelty is wrong too. Being cruel to an animal for the sake of being cruel is morally and ethically wrong and we have never stated anything to the contrary.

Which cancer do they have a cure for? There are so many. I know they do not have a cure for breast cancer, lung cancer, throat cancer, ovarian cancer, or pancreatic cancer. So which cancer(s) have been found a cure?

Are you a doctor? How do you know that animal testing can be totally replaced in every case with "simulation in heated temps"? If that is true, you should go around to all the medical research labs and inform them of this revelation. Is this a cheaper alternative to animal testing? How does this method work in determining the dosage of a drug and how effective the new drug will be?

We do eat meat and we like it. Here is the question that we can never get someone that thinks that eating meat is evil. Why can humans not enjoy the same rights that a bear enjoys when it comes to eating meat? If it is legal/moral/ethical for a bear to eat meat, why is it not for a human? When bears catch an animal, they eat it while it is still alive. At least humans kill the animal before eating it.

How would you like to be a cottontail bunny living in the wild? Is that what you want? Did you know that a wild cottontail has a life expectancy of approximately 30 days before a predator or disease kills it? Living in the wild is not necessarily a pleasant experience. It is just one that most animals have endured since there were animal on this planet.

As much as you do not like us eating meat, you have to explain why it is morally and/or ethically wrong for humans to eat meat, but not other animals? Is it wrong and should it be illegal to feed your dog or cat meat or meat by products? If not, why are some animals allowed to eat meat and other are not? Where is the line drawn?


E-mails from Alex Hecklan
1 of 2

06 March 2012

Alex Hecklan wrote:

My name is Alexander James Hecklan, founder of the Angry Animals Conservation Society. You really need to get your facts straight. The fact that eco-"terrorists" have never physically harmed a sole is no coincidence. Organizations like ours plan out actions for months before we carry them out, to ensure we only save lives, and harm no one, therefore we are non-violent. Arson is a crime, and I know that, but the right thing to do isn't always what is legal. Why do we test on, slaughter, and abuse other creatures? Is it because they are at a lower level of intellect? If so, (like I've said many times before), why don't we go around testing on, abusing, and eating those who are mentally challenged? Do we hurt them because they are different? If so, then we are all racists!

So you spend months planning out attacks on people. How many months of planning did the eco-terrorist that left a fire bomb on the porch of an elderly lady thinking that it was the home of Lynn Fairbanks? They did not even have the right address despite the "months" of planning. Luckily, they were too incompetent to ignite the device. What about the attack on Linda's Fashions? The eco-terrorist that vandalized the store did not even know the store did not even sell furs, the very reason the store was targeted... another example of incompetence from "months of planning".

Why do you limit yourself to "non-violence" against humans? Why do you choose not to harm anyone physically? As you stated, "the right thing to do isn't always what is legal." So why limit yourself to not harming anyone? Could you actually be critical to any activist that took it to the next level? What grounds would you condemn someone that did this? They would just say that, "the right thing to do isn't always what is legal," and just look at you as not having the necessary commitment to do what was needed to be done to achieve the desired results.

We do like the way you use the word "racists". To use it in the context you did proves you have no idea what it really means, but it does meet the characteristic of #144 on the list of "Are You A Liberal".

Speaking of racism, how do your actions differ from those of the KKK burning the homes of people they find offensive? What is the difference in the actions? In this case, no one is harmed so what is the difference?

If you want to change the laws on animal testing, we will not get in your way. If you actually read the website, you will not find us actually endorsing animal testing. We just ask questions Animal Rights Activists can never answer. Questions like the following. In the advancement of medical research where animals are used, what is your suggestion for a suitable replacement?

There is testing on humans all the time and the only times we can remember when it is used on the mentally challenged is perhaps when test subjects are college students who believe that socialism is a good idea.

Why do companies test on animals? That is a good question. Do you think they do it just to spend the money when it is so unnecessary? There must be a reason and it is probably likely that the reason is product liability. Perhaps they use animals to find cures for the very animals used in the testing. Drugs that veterinary doctors use have to be tested on something, right?

As far as eating meat, why do humans not have the same rights as bears, raccoons, crows, woodpeckers or any other omnivore?

Have you ever planned and committed an action against PeTA? They have killed animals because they do not wish to take the time to actually place the animals in a good home so they can live out their lives in a loving home. If not, why not? You even mention them on your website.

Here is a question we can never find an Animal Rights person to answer. Let us see if you have the courage to actually answer the question rather than ignore it.

If it is morally right for "Animal Rights Activists" to attack and destroy property in the name of Animal Rights, the environment, global warming, etc..., is it morally right for someone to target and commit an act of violence or destruction against the same activist for whatever reason they view as justifiable?

The last point I would like to mention is the fact that you are trying to abolish violence committed by terrorists, yet you have a f*cking "hit-list" on your website! You f*cking hypocrites! Do me a favor, and research you facts before you share them online you dumbf*cks! If people like you didn't exist, there would be no us, no A.L.F., and no eco-"terrorists" on this Earth! You are the problem, not us! F*CK YOU C*NTS, YOU WILL NEVER STOP US!

What facts do you dispute? We know we will not receive an answer to that question. You have no intention of citing any specifics facts on this website; you are too busy hating our existence.

Unlike groups like you are part of, we have never advanced the idea that any action should be taken against anyone on this website. Terrorizing people is wrong. We know this is not news to you. It is just that you do not care about other people. There will always be people like you because there will always be people that believe that certain laws should not apply to you or that your rebel nature entitles you to destroy other people's lives. After all, that is how your actions are designed to work, right?

We call the page in question a "Hit List" because it infuriates Liberals such as it has with you… And by your mentioning of it, it is clear this devious strategy of ours is still working exactly as planned. It would not matter what we called this page because it would have the same meaning. We could have titled it the "Enemies List" or "Terrorist List" or "Painted Pony List". We could have not even given it a name. It is a list of groups and people wishing to harm other people. You make the claim that you are not harming anyone person, yet your actions are designed to do just that. The reason you burn down houses is because is causes harm, so your inane theory of not harming anyone is a lie from the first thought. It is the harm that you cause that gives you strength.

It is too bad that you cannot actually speak intelligently without having to resort to profanity, personal attacks, or insults. We do not expect anything more from you.

"We cannot be assimilated, and will only assimilate others and continue to grow as the years pass, and may we one day wish that our society is the entire world. Only then, will we have fufilled our goals."

That quote is very reminiscent of the values of al-Qaeda, HAMAS, and any other Islamic terrorist group. It is easy to see why you included it in your e-mail.

Until every cage has been emptied, AND YOU ARE IN ONE!..............The Angry Animals Conservation Society

So you wish we were in a cage because we do not break the law or because we mention the actions of such groups as yours or because we have an opinion about such criminal behavior. We had never heard of you before this e-mail. Thank you for the introduction to your group.


E-mails from Alex Hecklan
2 of 2

08 March 2012

Alex Hecklan wrote:

I am challenging facts on your website.

What facts do you dispute? All you have said is that by destroying someone's property, no harm is done. Any rational thinking person knows you do not really believe this because the reason for the attack is to do harm. You are claiming that because you do not physical harm anyone, you have not committed an act of terrorism. The fact is a crime is being committed when an act of vandalism destroys someone's property because it does harm the person whose property is being destroyed. It is an act of terrorism when the person targeted was singled out for whatever reason and their property was destroyed as an act of vengeance with the intent of instilling fear to that person. That is the very point of the attack and destruction of property.

I am challenging the fact that you call us terrorists! The difference between us and terrorists is that that we actually save lives, and once more have never physically harmed a sole.

By definition you are terrorists. Examine the actions in question then look at the definition of the word "Terrorist". The idea of attacking and destroying someone else's property is a threat to the person that is the target of the attack. The attack is meant to terrorize by its very nature. To instill fear is the reason for the destruction of property.

By your standard, if the 9-11 Islamic Terrorists had not killed anyone and only crashed empty airliners into the World Trade Center thereby destroying them, this would not have been an act of terrorism because no one would have been harmed. You might have even considered it an act of Free Speech instead of the terrorist act it was and was meant to be.

Of course it is our view that by destroying other people's property, you have indeed harmed people. You have harmed them financially at a minimum. If you do not consider this act to be a crime, they you could not consider Identity Theft to be a crime because in Identity Theft, no one is physically harmed.

Had you not been another ignorant moron you may also have realized that I placed a "you" in the place of a "your" in the middle of my letter! HA! Poorly educated, as I hypothosized!

Your mistake is ignorance on your part, not ours. We printed your e-mail exactly as we receive it aside from trying to sanitize certain words that some people are unable to avoid using when they cannot intelligently state their position without resorting to profanity due to a limited vocabulary. We absolutely want people to see the how people like you actually write an e-mail. You know, give credit where credit is due. As clearly stated at the top of the page, we make no corrections for grammar or spelling.

There are other mistakes contained within your e-mails that we did not correct. As others read these e-mails from you, they will clearly see the level of your education. That is why we never make corrections to the e-mails we receive. We believe you meant to write "soul" instead of "sole" when referring to harming people, but maybe you really meant that any Direct Action attacks had not physically harmed any shoes, boots, and/or other footwear.

We were laughingly fascinated with your own spelling of "hypothosized". We are not going to address the other misspellings, along with your views in these e-mails, which stand as a glaring monument to the level of your education, intellect, and moral values.

Lastly, in response to the comment on PETA, yes, I have spoke out on many occasions against them!

Yes, but you have not actually committed a direct action against them. Why not? This leads us to believe that while you support and promote direct action, you have not actually involved yourself as you would like others to believe. This would explain why we have never heard of your group prior to you writing us. Of course, you are always free to tell us of your direct actions committed in the name of Animal Rights.

I would not be surprised if this wasn't published, since I obviously have a point. Sincerely, A. Hecklan

It is published. The only point you have is that you have totally failed to commit a direct action against PeTA and you are never going to commit a direct action against PeTA. You are not going to commit a "harmless" attack where no person is physically harmed.

P.S. Next time I will use the term "speciesist" instead of racist, when adressing you.

We are not telling you what to say. You can use whatever words you like and we encourage that. When you write us, we only want what is in your heart, mind, and intellectual ability to be contained within the e-mails you send us. We were just correcting what we considered your misuse of the word "racist". If "racist" is what you meant to say, far be it for us to tell you otherwise.


E-mails from Jesse Michael
1 of 2

12 February 2012

Jesse Michael wrote:

Your website is awesome! Thank you! I am learning about all these leftist/anti-capitalist groups I had no idea existed before I read your website.

I think it's kinda weird that you don't think American Nazis and Aryan Nation folks hate America, because, well, they obviously do considering most americans are not aryan (you're probably all like "THEY'RE NOT AMERICAN IF THEIR AN IMMIGRANT". And well, I guess America was kinda inhabited when Europeans came. But, Native Americans aren't really people, so...okay okay, I see where you're going.

So what, are you just one crazy fat dude masturbating over ineffectual liberal groups? I mean, most of the groups you've listed on your site aren't considered a real threat. You need to do your homework, fatty.

I live in Idaho. Lot's of awesome, fat, white racists here you could have gay sex with.

Okay, have fun with your suppressed homosexuality! Don't take it out on little boys, although, I suspect you already have.

In solidarity,

It is clear that your e-mail is a bit disingenuous not that anyone here is surprised. Your disdain for us is ever so apparent. It is too bad that this correspondence is the very best that you could muster. The time you took to write your thoughts with no time restriction clearly illustrates the epitome of your intellectual development. You must be so proud of your display of "mental superiority". Apparently, insults and personal attacks are the extent of your critical thinking. Not a single reference to any intelligent thought at all. You must be so proud launching this volley of torpedoes with explosively charged insults demonstrating the limits of your conceptual and rational thinking that makes you what you are and in such a dramatic fashion.

You say that we need to do our homework. What do you mean? You have not stated a single incorrect fact, idea, or opinion on this website. You did not address a single idea on the website. Apparently you do not have the ability to think rationally or to form a single idea that disputes any facts presented.

Aside from your insults, all you have actually stated is being in solidarity with people that abuse children. This falls into our theory that if you are a criminal, sex offender, or drug addict, sex offender, illegal alien, or on welfare, you are a thousand times more likely to vote for the candidate advocating the Liberal agenda - an ideology we vehemently oppose. Of course, you know of our opposition of the Liberal/Socialist Ideology because of the scalding e-mail you wrote. Our staunch opposition to this ideology was the primary motivation for your e-mail.

If you had actually read the website, you would have seen how we do not support any White Supremacist groups and have actually shown that fact within the 150+ pages of this website.

Perhaps this would be a good time to explain the differences between you and us. Left-wing Liberals do not seem to have the cognitive abilities to grasp discipline, hard work, and integrity. Freedom, Liberty, Independence, and Self-Reliance are foreign concepts. They expect so much of life to be given to them at the expense of others. This flies in the face of those four ideals.

This is what we believe and this is the reason you insult us.

This is the Liberal view of the US Constitution is one that believes that the United States Constitution is a living, breathing document. It expands and contracts with time. Sometimes, it must cast off things that are no longer useful. The US Constitution is a hindrance to the Liberal agenda because it limits what government can do. It does not limit the freedom of the individual citizen. The reason it was written was to limit government. This is why Liberals always want to change it, go around it, or just outright ignore it.

This is what we illustrate when we publish the photos of Liberals and their actions and this is the reason you insult us.

Because it is obvious that you do not understand this website, it is important to note the following facts. True Socialists do not actually want to live under Socialism; they want to live over Socialism. They understand what Socialism is and how restrictive it is. Socialism turns people into refugees that are totally dependent on the generosity of the government. It is their desire to force everyone else to live under the rule of Socialism with such conviction with all of its promises of free food, healthcare, and everything else promised by the ruling class. However, the leaders that proclaim the greatness of Socialism will make sure they are exempted from the restrictions that apply to the rest of the population. The truth face of Socialism is a limited existence with very little hope of ever gaining anything more than a daily ration and living a life as the government requires.

Because we write about this point is the reason you hate us.

We adhere to the ideals we mentioned earlier: Freedom, Liberty, Independence, and Self-Reliance. These are the cornerstones to everything we believe and the way we live our lives. This is what we try to advance. We understand your desire to fight is on this matter. We understand your need to denigrate, malign, and insult us. It is all you have in your mental arsenal. You are no different than the many others that have put forth the same effort. You have no intellectual argument. We know this because you were so focused on thinking emotionally and insulting us you completely failed to present the slightest development of any intellectual or rational thought.

Because we state our beliefs with conviction is why you loathe us. Because you cannot dispute the facts stated on this website is why you have no choice but to resort to a weak offensive of personal attacks and insults to counter the facts.

You do not have a good argument... You do not even have a good excuse.

However, this e-mail does make us believe one thing and that is you are definitely the smart one within your pier group. Thank goodness your friends have you to look up to as a role model.


E-mails from Jesse Michael
2 of 2

13 February 2012

Jesse Michael wrote:

Ha, nice response. Do you have a saved file somewhere and copy-and-paste the hundreds of hate email you get.

Yes and it is called the "Hate Mail Page" and you made it.

Here's the thing: people could use rational arguments to prove you wrong. You could use, what you consider, rational argumentation to prove your delusional points. When you're blinded by an ideology, you're "rationality" is augmented by your ideological biases. Rationality isn't real. Have fun thinking you're intellectually superior to everyone who disagrees with you - that's delusional too.

You could use a rational argument to prove us wrong, but you were unable to find a rational argument. You seem to think that you are superior to us by your e-mails yet you are unable to actually form anything resembling an intelligent thought to have a rational discussion. This certainly does not make you anyone's intellectual superior.

Also, do you have any idea what an anarchist is? We kind of have a lot in common with people like you, but, we think that capitalism and the free market restricts freedom. We see it creating hierarchical structures with the rich on top and the poor masses working for them. The freedom of the poor is highly restricted within the context of a consumer economy, thus, it has nothing to do with freedom or American values.

Yes, we do know exactly what an Anarchist is. If you had bothered to read our editorial "Forms of Government", you would see our definition.

Seeing how you did not read it, here it is.

  • Anarchism emerged out of the Socialist movement as a distinct politics in the nineteenth century.

  • The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.

Whenever you see any group of anarchists, you always see communist doctrine. But for the sake of education, please explain how Anarchism is superior to Capitalism in elevating the poor and increasing their standard of living thereby improving their lives without taking from those that earn and giving to those that do not. This is an honest question. We would love to have an honest discussion on this subject.


27 January 2012

oldbat wrote:

You too are "targets of opportunity" for those that oppose racism, bigotry, and ignorance. You say one person can make a big difference. Are these some of your "heroes"; Timothy McVeigh, Jared Lee Loughner, Scott Roeder, James Von Brunn, Albert Jack O'Neal, Dustin Grey Fricke, Tiffany Dawn O'Neal Maxwell,and Wallace Woodard III, Joseph Stack, just to name a few? They fit your brand of sociopathic vigilantism.

Paul Watson and the KKK

You are absolutely right. These people would love to stop us from speaking. They would love to harm us. They do HATE us with a passion because we express our views. Their feelings toward us are so very clear. The one thing you failed to do was to cite specific examples of racism, bigotry, and ignorance on this website. As with so many e-mails from people that passionately dislike us, you failed to dispute a single fact.

No, they are not our heroes. Why would you think that? Did you even read this website? Where have we ever sided with any White Supremacist groups? If you actually bothered to read the Links Page, you would clearly see where we place all White Supremacist Groups. We have clearly spoken against everything these people represent that you offered as examples. Of course, this would require that you actually you read this website with an open mind. Your hatred of us is clear. You so want to associate us with some facet of bigotry that you cannot comprehend what we have actually said.

We do like the picture you send that actually shows the like mindedness of Paul Watson and the KKK, Neo Nazis, and the entire White Supremacist mindset. So, when you take an honest look at Timothy McVeigh, Jared Lee Loughner, Scott Roeder, James Von Brunn, Albert Jack O'Neal, Dustin Grey Fricke, Tiffany Dawn O'Neal Maxwell,and Wallace Woodard III, Joseph Stack, just to name a few, it is easy to see these people are more clearly representative of the actions you seem to support.


26 January 2012

Melissa Tulin wrote:

I came upon your website and while I don't agree with much of what's on it, I do support your right to free speech. However, don't you think that some people will misconstrue your disclaimer of "for educational purposes only" and go after some of the people on this list? There are quite a few unbalanced people out there. Don't you think your rhetoric is encouraging violence?

So many people write us and say they do not agree with this website, but no one ever actually challenges the facts.

We do not believe that some people will misconstrue anything on this website. The people that agree with us are law-abiding individuals. Unlike the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd and the Animal Rights groups, we are not interested in destroying other people's property. We are not interested breaking the law or taking the law into our own hands. Proof of this can easily been seen when a comparison between "Occupy Wall Street" and the "Tea Party". How many people were arrested with each group? How out of control and violent was each group? How many laws were broken with each group? Drugs, public nudity, vandalism, and violence what was associated with "Occupy Wall Street" was completely absent in every Tea Party gathering.

While there are unbalanced people on all sides, you will find that the majority of the unbalanced belong to the groups we have listed on this website and we know this by their actions.

Also, while it's good that you put Stormfront and the Klan on your list of undesirables, at the same time you include a link to vdare, a website which often hosts articles by racist writers. As a person of color myself, I find this website offensive.

What has been published on that you find so offensive? If you can show that is a racist website, we would be happy to remove it from our links page.

Once again, I support your right to free speech, but perhaps you should tone things down a bit.


If you are asking us to tone down the truth, that is the same as telling us not to print the truth. Sorry, that will not happen. The truth needs to be shouted as loud as it can be from the highest mountain for all to hear. If you can find where we have printed inaccurate material, we will gladly make the necessary correction. So far, you have not offered any examples.


19 January 2012

amaara haani wrote:

Dear whoevermadethiswebsite,
the whole content of your webpage is false and insult to the muslims everywhere. you've clearly read between the lines and based a webpage on a whole bunch of gibberish. please do your research well.

We know that this website is disliked by Muslims everywhere and the reason is because the information contained within is true. There is nothing incorrect or inaccurate. In fact, as with everyone else that has written us about any of the editorials on Islam, you have not disputed a single fact. All you have done is to make the accusation without a single intelligent thought disputing anything on the website. There is a reason for the lack of intelligent argument and that reason is that you have no argument. You cannot dispute the facts because they are totally accurate and without bias. The facts are undisputed and stand on their own.

However, we would certainly like to hear any specific details where we are wrong about Islam but if you do decide to attempt to dispute the facts, we want you to actually cite the specifics and not just offer a blanket that states we are wrong. So far, neither you nor anyone else has been able to do this. So, please, tell us where we are wrong. We await your reply.


Back to the Top

Total Website Count

©Copyright 2005 - 2016