That Mohammed was a sharp guy. Look at how he anticipated the pederast movement as well as those who are bestiality advocates. I like a religion that does not condemn we Chicken Fanciers.

I have never seen the robes other than parades and demonstrations on TV but I did know three KKK members. Each of them were the type of people that I avoided as much as possible, because they were all bombs with short fuses.

What, you want to spoil the narrative with reality?

Shame on you, thats racist.

They do say appearances can be deceiving...



A nun gets into a cab and notices that the VERY handsome cab driver won't stop staring at her.

She asks him why he is staring.

He replies: "I have a question to ask you but I don't want to offend you."

She answers, "My son, you cannot offend me. When you're as old as I am and have been a nun as long as I have, you get a chance to see and hear just about everything. I'm sure that there's nothing you could say or ask that I would find offensive."

"Well, I've always had a fantasy to have a nun kiss me."

She responds, "Well, let's see what we can do about that: #1, you have to be single and #2, you must be Catholic."

The cab driver is very excited and says, "Yes, I'm single and Catholic!"

"OK," the nun says. "Pull in to the next alley."

The nun fulfills his fantasy, with a kiss that would make a hooker blush.

But when they get back on the road, the cab driver starts crying.

"My dear child," says the nun, "why are you crying?"

"Forgive me but I've sinned. I lied and I must confess, I'm married and I'm Jewish."



The nun says, "That's OK. My name is Kevyn and I'm going to a fancy dress party."

You will note that the author makes careful distinction between friend and foe. Her speaks his wrath about his friend and essentially forgives him but his foe is subject to very careful, devious plotting, without any consideration of reconciliation. He uses his enemy's desire to harm him as a weapon against that foe and ultimately exults in the success of his plot.

"In the morning glad I see
My foe outstretchd beneath the tree"

If Elvis took lessons for around fifty years he might make the chorus at the Met.

Well you got that one right. It was a spoof, very well disguised, that got picked up by other news agencies that did not check into the source material. This is getting very tiresome, there doesn't seem to be any agency that tells truth when it comes to disseminating fake info on politics. It really looks like we need a review of what free speech entails and the 'right' to say anything at any time is not a right, it is sometimes abuse.

Marv, the Indian dolt has to count his blessings that this was a fifteen year old who only smirked at him. Had he done his chant and drum shtick in my face when I was seventeen I would have cleaned his clock for him and left him crumpled on the pavement. I would have definitely been laughing at the fool for doing the Hiawatha routine in the middle of an open plaza. It doesn't matter that he was "praying", he needed to get his prayer wheel out of the kid's face and stop shouting in his ear.

You may have had some bad experiences when you were a kid but you need to stop making snap judgments based on your bad experience, alone. This is the essence of prejudice, you condemn all Christian boys because their facial expressions were similar or because of their Christianity.

I would think A O'C has crossed the baseline of what we can tolerate in our elected officials. Who in their right minds can accept her views, on virtually anything. It is time to demand that she should be returned to the bar she left vacant to become a Senator; she can easily be replaced by Incitatus as Senator and it would be a hundredfold improvement.

The U.S. military is using surveillance drones over dozens of foreign countries, so it should come as no surprise that surveillance drones are also patrolling the skies over America.

America is spy state. There is little we can do and less we can say anymore that isn't watched and recorded by someone — or multiple someones — somewhere.

Back in 2016, USA Today reported that the Pentagon "has deployed drones to spy over U.S. territory for non-military missions over the past decade." The admission came from a report filed by a Pentagon inspector general who stated the flights are "rare and lawful." It turns out neither is the case.

The U.S. military trains its drone pilots in the U.S. That means that hundreds of U.S. military-style drones are being flown over American citizens every year. And since the drones military drone pilots will be flying over areas of operation contain visual and auditory surveillance capabilities, as well as a myriad of weapons systems, there is little doubt those drones are at least casually snooping on Americans.

These training operations are going on eight hours a day, five days a week, according to Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).

According to media reports from several years ago, the military anticipated it would have about 200 drones operating out of 105 airbases in the U.S. by 2015. Doubtless there are far more now. That doesn't sound "rare" to me. Despite extensive research, I was unable to find a definitive figure for an "official" tally of the number of military drones operating over America... not that the official number would be in any way accurate. Government lies to us about everything all the time.

The Border Patrol has used drones for years to watch for illegals and smuggling operations. It has the largest fleet of drones, or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), for domestic surveillance of any government agency. It uses at least nine Predator drones equipped with night-vision technology and long-range cameras capable of reading license plates, or did as far back as 2013, according to a report in the Christian Science Monitor. Some reports indicate Border Patrol may have 24 or more operating today.

The ACLU claims Border Patrol's drones also have see-through imaging technology — the ability to peer through walls and into vehicles — along with facial recognition technology linked to federal databases. Unlike the military drones used for killing people in countries in which the U.S. is fighting wars, the Border Patrol's don't fire missiles, or at least the Border patrol says they won't.

Border Patrol has also been making its drones available to local police departments since around 2010.

The FBI has also used drones for many years. In 2013, then-FBI Director Robert Mueller — now President Donald Trump persecutor — admitted to Congress that the FBI was using drones for domestic surveillance operations. He also admitted the FBI got assistance from and shared information with other federal agencies like the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense and National Security Agency.

Police departments across the country are also looking to get in on the drone action. They claim they would only use them to find missing persons and similar search missions. For around $50,000 — about the cost of a new police cruiser — law enforcement agencies can procure a drone capable of mass surveillance and with the ability to fire both lethal and non-lethal ammunition.

North Dakota police, thanks to a law passed in 2015, can use drones to shoot people. President Barack Obama granted the CIA permission to assassinate an American citizen — the radical American-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki — on foreign soil. al-Awlaki, his 16-year-old son (also a U.S. citizen) and another man were killed by a CIA drone.

From killing Americans without due process overseas to killing them in America is a short leap indeed, and one we should all be concerned about. Even supposed libertarian-leaning Republican Senator Rand Paul has indicated he would be OK with law enforcement using drones to neutralize (read kill) a suspect considered dangerous.

Police claim they won't abuse their new aerial toys by spying on people or harming them. "We're not going to use it to be invading somebody's privacy. It'll be used for situations we have with criminals," Montgomery County Sheriff Tommy Gage told his local television station in a report from 2012.

But according to the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, suspects aren't "criminals" until they've been convicted of a crime. The police by and large long ago determined that 5th Amendment — and the 4th — doesn't matter. That is seen by the number of unarmed and innocent people killed by police each year... numbers in the hundreds.

Last summer Congress considered a bill pushed by DHS that would give the agency the ability to "track," "disrupt," "control," "seize or otherwise confiscate" any drone that the government deems to be a "threat," without a warrant or due process. DHS and DOJ might interpret this vague and overbroad language to include the power to stop journalists from using drones to document government malfeasance, according to EFF.

The government loves to spy on us but doesn't like having the tables turned.

While government wants "legal authority" to shoot down our drones, it is unlawful for us to shoot down any drones — even privately-owned drones — spying on you above your own property, according to federal law, which treats drones like other aircraft.

Government believes it owns the skies — even the skies around your house — and created a federal agency to oversee the ownership: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). According to federal law 18 USC § 32:

a) Whoever willfully —

(1) sets fire to, damages, destroys, disables, or wrecks any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States or any civil aircraft used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce;

...shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years or both.

The law does allow the shooting down of drones in self-defense: if it is trying to ram into you or someone else or if it is armed with a weapon.

A Kentucky man who came to be known as the Drone Slayer was arrested after he shot down a drone that was hovering over his teenage daughter who was sunbathing in the backyard. Criminal charges were later dropped, but he continues to face the possibility of a civil suit over the $1,800 photography drone he destroyed.

According to lawyers, if a drone is flying around or over your property and refuses to stop you should look into legal ordinances to see to if the operator is violating peeping tom, nuisance, noise or invasion of privacy laws. If one of these has been violated, you can complain to police. You also may take civil action to get it to stop and be compensated for any damages you can prove.

Unsurprisingly, a company has created a handheld direct-energy weapon, called a Batelle Drone Defender Counter-UAS device, which will disable a drone by interfering with its control system. Also unsurprisingly, the weapon is still illegal for civilian use but is being tested for military applications.

Yours for the truth,
Bob Livingston
Bob Livingston
Editor, The Bob Livingston Letter™

Some olive branch, you grew a poison apple and lured your foe into eating it.

I have had varying opinions about Sici. Some of the material he posts is excellent and other posts are borderline insane. I even wrote a post about the dichotomy I observed between some of his writings/ posts and the other materials. This is a repost so you don't need to look it up.

The Anomaly That Is Sicilianthing

Sicilianthing is above all else a confusing poster. Every off the wall conspiracy theory, sovereign citizen claptrap and we are all serfs of the Queen theories abound in his posts. He is enamored with the writing of Anna Von Reich, another off the wall nut case with her esoteric legalese jargon and bizarre theories of the nature of the US government and citizenship.

Then he posts things such as "And They Wonder Why We’re Angry ?” https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-138454-1.html

It is astounding, Most of his posts to me are worthless but then he will respond to one of mine and I find his riposte cogent, insightful and in many cases something I can agree with.

I have speculated about the nature of certain posters, as for instance I stated that Don Dinsdale had to be a team of a least six to account for the sheer volume of his postings. Is that the case with Sicilian Thing? Do we have multiple persons, most of whom are insane paranoiacs, who have interspersed among them some rational people who are aware of history and politics?

He keeps me guessing; when he is on, he has much of value to say. When I get led down the garden path by one of his Anna Reitz rants I vow to not open any more of his posts. He is like potato chips; you always have to go back for just one more.

So in what world is that equivalent to Obama giving his mother-in-law a government position, which provided her with better medical care than those who pay for it and a pension for life for simply babysitting her grand-kids? Considering the kids age and having their own secret service entourage don't you think that is a little excessive?

And you can't get over your Trump Derangement Syndrome.

I cannot get upset about a simple mural when I consider that Msgr. Jack Eagan of Notre Dame invited Alinski to stay at Notre Dame after Chicago's Cardinal John Cody got wise to Alinski's true nature and shut down the Chicago office and censured the priests who were supporting Alinski. Eagan and other priests at Notre Dame, who were supporters of Alinski's "principles", urged the writing of Rules for Radicals.

Eagan's Boss in Chicago was Cardinal Bernardin who's "Consistent Ethics" plagues the church to this day with Pope Francis being the latest Exponent of this philosophy. Bernardin was a mentor and Role Model for Barrack Obama.

Notre Dame forgot they were a Catholic University and covered the Corpus so Barrack Obama could come and Speak. It would be better if they left them uncovered and watched Obama burst into flames.

The amazing harm Alinski/Notre Dame has done to this nation is documented here:

https://www.ncregister.com/images/uploads/Pronechen-ALINSKY.jpg
BLOGS | SEP. 24, 2016

Unmasking Saul Alinsky, a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing
A brilliant new EWTN film unmasks the man behind community organizing and what has greatly contributed to today's chaotic culture.
Joseph Pronechen
Do you want an understanding of where so much of society’s problems originated and how things went radically wrong in everything from culture to family life to politics?

You’ll find out from A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing, set to air on EWTN television on Saturday evening, Sept. 24, at 6 pm Eastern time (check schedule for other time zones).

The film is no less than riveting. By the brilliant team of Richard and Stephen Payne, the father-son filmmakers who head Arcadia Films, it explores the life and beliefs of one Saul Alinsky, often called the father of community organizing.

Sure, he said he wanted to help the poor, but we see how his tactics were no less than wrong and anti-Christian. He deceived many and used and abused elements in the Catholic Church in the process.

Richard Payne explained that St. Matthew gave the filmmakers the classic three-act structure in 7:15-20.

Act One: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves.” In this act we get the story of the rise of Alinsky, where he got his ideas, and how as a socialist/Marxist he began applying them to manipulate people and society.

Act Two: “By their fruits you will know them.” Was there good fruit in his work, or did it lead to a basket of rotten goods?

Act Three: “A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit.” Here comes the assessment of the fruits which look ready for the trash heap. People at this point should be asking themselves, How did we get to this precipice and is there hope to back away from it? Here is where the Paynes turn up the spotlights to overcome the heat. It’s not a paradox in this film.


The film immediately grabs our attention with the tale of a wolf dressing as a sheep to mingle unnoticed with the sheep in the pasture. That sets the stage for the early years of Alinsky.

Period photos, headlines, and film bring to life the narration of Alinsky’s beginnings and growth in a fascinating way to get to understand the man. The Paynes blend these techniques in a way that keeps us moving closer to the edge of our seats as details pile up about his rise to unholy power.

Born in 1909 into an Orthodox Jewish family where the father was a successful middle class tailor, Alinsky became an agnostic and wanted to help the poor rise out of their condition. But how?

In college he took a social pathology course that, among other things, devalued marriage and family and ideas were constructed in Marxist terms.

“Treat persons not as persons but symbols,” says Alinsky in one of the vignettes throughout the film, punctuating Alinsky’s ideas in his own words. Actor Jim Morlino of Navis Pictures portrays Alinsky as that disguised wolf yet shows his sinister and dark edge, like a commentator in a 50s film noir.

“Life is a corrupting process…he who fears corruption fears life…” he says another time.

“Truth is relative and is changing,” he asserts. Get the picture? There’s a healthy dose of relativism already here in early to mid-20th century. Make truth what you want it to be at the moment.

In his sheep’s clothing he says again, “The end justifies almost any means.” And “You do what you can and clothe it in moral garments.”

That he did, we learn. It all sounded so good, helping the poor improve their lot. Who could be against that? But with what we learn are Marxist, Socialist, Communist tactics?

Of course, he must have picked up a thing or two from Chicago’s mob bosses. Studying criminality on a fellowship, he got to known the ruthless Al Capone and then Frank Nitti who took over for Capone. By his own admission, Alinsky said of Nitti, “I called him the professor and I became his student.”

In sheep’s clothing, Alinsky linked with the trade unions to help backside workers in Chicago’s meat packing industry. A noble goal to get them out of squalor. He befriended a Catholic who introduced him to members of the Church and subsequently parish leaders who didn’t spot the wolf beneath.

The Paynes reveal some telling examples of the way Alinsky worked among the sheep who maybe didn’t realize the philosophy behind the tactics he was about to use.

One of the good examples we get is the conflict when the University of Chicago attempted to expand its campus into a poor neighborhood. Alinsky got the chance to apply his Marxist conflict theory using division and deceit to conquer, casting the university into the role of the big rich bully enemy against his poor group.

As we get other examples, one of the experts briefly interviewed in the film says the organizing talk used was the language of peace and light, but all this was putting into place something different — a great evil coming in like a fog where people no longer see things distinctly. His idea to help the poor was good, but the means were evil.

These short, insightful commentaries come at critical moments from people including Allice von Hildebrand, Father Andrew Apostoli, Father Mitch Pacwa, and actors playing Blessed Jerzy Popiełuszko (we think we’re seeing the priest himself), Leo XIII, Hildegard of Bingen, and St. John Paul II, and clips of Bishop Fulton Sheen.

The Paynes bring us some shattered news in the way we learn a number of Catholics thought Alinsky’s way was the way to go to help empower the poor. One was Msgr. John (Jack) Egan who became a close associate and prompted Alinsky to write what would be his last book, Rules for Radicals (which is linked to Marx).

We learn that Cardinal John Cody of Chicago shut down the priest’s office when he realized what was going on with the organizing. But Msgr. Egan was invited to the Notre Dame University where he stayed for several years, working with five priests — four were Alinsky supporters — to form the Campaign for Human Development, convinced Alinsky’s approach was the best.

Msgr. Egan was appointed co-chair of the first Call to Action conference where radicals took over. One recommendation was training Alinsky organizers. At a news conference Cardinal John Krol said that “rebels have taken over our conference.”

It should be no surprise that Msgr. Egan up to a month before he died called for ordinations of women and married priests.

In this fascinating film, the Paynes are cinematic investigative reporters showing us how after Alinsky died, the organization used its Marxist, socialist progress causes to influence every facet of American political power and culture. Alinsky organizing has vastly impacted our society’s culture, marriage, family life, morality and even spiritualty. Over 800 Alinsky organizations are spread throughout American communities today.

As one of his ardent followers stated, it’s guised under the name of liberalism instead of socialism. Alinsky was a major wolf, and there were others. The Paynes make the connection by detailing for us, with names and places and ideas all visualized, the three “hellfire movements of Marxism” that helped Alinsky and then affected Americans.

We’re shocked to learn about Frankfurt Socialism called Institute for Social Research in the USA, to change and bring down America by criticizing it, developing political correctness, the sexual revolution, and gender conflict and confusion; Gramsci Socialism targeting specifically the Catholic Church and transform America’s Judeo-Christian culture from the inside through law, media, entertainment, and family life, and limit religion only to private worship; Fabian Socialism to slowly break down the morals of the family in a stealthy, nearly imperceptible way.

Sound familiar when you look around?

The film helps us understand how these goals have affected our society, politics (some top politicians were Alinsky followers), media, entertainment, families, morality, culture and even, sadly, some inside our Church. We have to be aware of that. St. John Paul II called this culture of death.

We’re reminded the names of the devil are his tactics — liar, deceiver, divider, accuser, adversary, lawless one, destroyer. Alinsky dedicated his book to Lucifer. Sadly, and tragically, Alinsky said if there is a heaven or hell, he would choose to the latter where he could organize. We’re told not to hate Alinsky but pray for him.

Despite all this the Paynes don’t leave us stranded because ultimately, they said the film is not a political one but a spiritual one. The last part, beautifully intertwined with the delicacy of lace yet the strength of steel, shows us that despite what has been done to America, by seeing what we have to reclaim there is hope of restoration.

The filmmakers spell out the way with uplifting visual details that multiply the effect of the narrative line which Stephen Payne delivers in a way that brings the viewer to trust the facts as coming from a caring authority who is also a friend.

We see what are the true social principles of the Catholic Church, how to restore our country to a nation recognizing that rights come from God and our God-given heritage, and how important our Blessed Mother is in this reclamation.

The Paynes end as they began, with the story of a wolf — only this one ends differently.

Bahmner where did you get this apocryphal etymological derivation of MugWump? It was definitely a created term and as I recall its origin was in a cartoon showing those early RINOS squatting precariously on a fence with the Mug an Wump legend.

A MugQuomp might be a great chief in the Algonquins but Hiawatha, an Onandaga chief of the Iriquois Conferderacy would have considered him small potatoes.