consultants are sandburs

Monday, September 16, 2013

Guess who.

On Sept. 11, 2013, a dangerous and viral strain of Muslims invaded Washington, D.C., to march and declare victory over Christians and Jews and to otherwise thumb their noses at everyone who does not believe in allah. While only 30 or so had the "courage" to actually appear on the streets of D.C., having been surrounded by a horde of "Rolling Thunder" Harley Davidson motorcycle riders, and despite the fact that the Muslims secured a permit and the motorcyclists were denied one by Barack Hussein Obama's National Park Service, let us take a lesson from our Islamic "friends." It is time that we Christians, Jews, people of faith and all true patriots say enough is enough and ourselves, in a very real way, "Occupy Washington" to cleanse the nation of the half-Muslim, anti-white, socialist fraud in the White House before the nation goes under for the final count.

Lesioned mind Larry.
This link. Who else, but?

For something entirely different.

Here

I encourage readers to not draw any parallels. Separate things. Really.

Larry K. dresses quite fashionably.

Tidy dresser.Untidy mind.



______________UPDATE______________
TPM seizes on Klayman speak, here, the item titled, "Conservative Attorney Larry Klayman Calls For Coup Against Obama." It is an analysis that is not generous toward the distinguished litigator and bon vivant.

It includes a photo of said litigator.

The man looks so level headed ...

And he dresses so well for one characterized as a "coup" advocate and would-be coup instigator. Remember, however, "coup" is TPM's wording, not mine. "Raging asshole" would be my characterization*, if pressed for one, that seeming, in truth, to be more fitting than "coup" instigator.

Yet the recently filed Klayman lawsuits seeking mega-damages against the NSA and private sector anti-privacy media/web collaborators prove blind pigs on occasion can find a truffle or two.

___________________________
* In the sense of usage per Bebo v. Delander, 632 NW 2d 732, 739-740 (Minn.App. 2001) ("Expressions of opinion, rhetoric, and figurative language are generally not actionable if, in context, the audience would understand the statement is not a representation of fact. [...] Courts consider four factors when determining whether a statement is one of fact or opinion: (1) the precision and specificity of the statement; (2) the statement's verifiability; (3) the social and literary context of the statement; and (4) the public context in which the statement was made.")

No comments: