Ethics Quote Of The Day, 9/11 Edition: Nicholas Haros, Jr.

“’Some people did something,’ said a freshman congresswoman from Minnesota. Today I am here to respond to you exactly who did what to whom. Madam, objectively speaking, we know who and what was done. There is no uncertainty about that. Why your confusion? On that day, 19 Islamic terrorist members of al Qaeda killed over 3,000 people and caused billions of dollars of economic damage. Is that clear? But as to whom…I was attacked, your relatives and friends were attacked, our constitutional freedoms were attacked and our nation’s founding on Judeo-Christian principles were attacked. That’s what some people did. Got that now?”

Nicholas Haros Jr, reading the names of the 9/11 victims, including his mother, at today’s commemoration of the Twin Towers attack.

Res ipsa loquitur.

59 thoughts on “Ethics Quote Of The Day, 9/11 Edition: Nicholas Haros, Jr.

  1. He should have called her out by name. Period. What moron would pick 9-11 to make some really, really stupid, biased, and nasty comment like that? Enemy of the state comes to mind…

    • A duly elected representative of some of the people of the great state of Minnesota, where all the people are above average. Reminds me of once hearing someone saying of Denmark, “if adopting Sharia law were on the ballot in Denmark, they’d vote it in.” What is wrong with electorates? Do they have some sort of death wish?

    • He should have called her out by name. Period. What moron would pick 9-11 to make some really, really stupid, biased, and nasty comment like that? Enemy of the state comes to mind…

      ::: raises hand :::

      E2, I am an evil person through-and-through. I think I was born this way and can’t blame my environment. I think evil and I all the time am dealing in thoughtcrime.

      So, perhaps I can help you to understand what causes a moron — and there are many I guess — to think in this way thereby becoming an Enemy of the State.

      I’m taking questions so don’t hold back!

    • E2,
      I don’t think she made that comment today. I think it was made several months ago.
      (Was there an EA post on it at the time, Jack?)

      • Omar made the comment trying to explain the genesis of CAIR. Omar said that, because some people (Islamic terrorists) did something (hijacked 4 planes, slamming three of them into buildings, killing over 3,000 innocent people and caused untotaled billions in economic harm), that all Muslims were subjugated to second class citizens. Ignore that CAIR predates September 11, 2001, that Muslim civil liberties were not impaired, that there was not a rash of anti-Islamic hate, or that Muslims were not subjected to second class citizenry, everything else she was somewhat tru . . . oh, forget it. I can’t even sarcast with a straight face. Truth be told, Omar is a nasty person.


  2. While he’s absolutely right, and should’ve called her by name, and 99.99% of me says this is absolutely appropriate, .01% of me wonders if this is a “not the right time or place” sort of thing.

    Someone convince that .01% of me otherwise.

      • Because memorial services should be about the united grieving of a united people.

        Now, if we are willing to openly admit that the election of Ilhan Omar was some sort of fluke that got someone into office with ideas clearly inimical to the United States, then the comments are great.

        • Because memorial services should be about the united grieving of a united people.

          But this particular event, and everything that came out of it, is all questionable. It led to an invasion, first off, of a sovereign country that had nothing to do with the attack. There were bizarre military spy-ops having to do with anthrax in order to rouse the people up in fear so they would assent to such an unjustifiable attack. This attack led to many many different levels of evil, certainly against the social body of Iraq, but it has all backfired as well against America and Americans themselves. Destructive energies were released which no one seems to be able to name, and because they cannot be named people suffer without understanding causation.

          The undermining of civil society and ‘constitutional values’ is another result and this is also ‘ramifying’ in our present as the capacity to think and see freely — to correctly analyse the present — is turned into a kind of crime. The ‘blow-back’ from all of these events has been and continues to be extreme. Yet no one can come out and talk about it. Once, the Left seemed to have that role. Now they can only talk about the rights of sexual perverts and cross-dressers.

          The Funeral Oration of Pericles is said to be the finest example of a motivating speech. Well, a speech of that sort could not be spoken in this present because everything is confused, and motives are confused, and devious powers operate behind the scenes and through trickery and manipulation.

          The speech that needs to be made is one where the orator brings everything out into the light of day and sets youth in movement to rectify things, to recover lost moral ground, to rebuild and reestablish the structural values of a Nation that has gone off the rails. But who could make that speech? Who could even conceive of its necessary terms? Instead we might get some false and cloying propaganda presentation at half-time which is a purely fabricated and therefore insincere rhetorical presentation. Who can speak the truth in the present? What is the truth that needs to be spoken? You are not allowed to state the truth — that will be called anti-Americanism — and so you have to speak from a group of ‘talking-points’. And that does not a convincing or moving speech make . . .

          Ilhan Omar is an irrelevancy in respect to what has brought the country to this strange, discomfiting place.

    • When would he ever get the chance to say something the world needed to hear and could hear.

      Would the Gettysburg Address been as poignant if it were a merely a speech given in DesMoine.

      Does that get you over the hump?

      • Gettysburg Address was a time of war, where anyone offended by the speech would have been the enemy, and that’s fine.

        Now, if we are to go ahead and openly claim that Ilhan Omar’s worldview IS the enemy of our Republic, then my .01% concern goes away.

        If we’re going to go ahead and pretend and continue to play nice nice games because she’s elected by citizens of this nation, then the .01% is still unconvinced.

        • The issue was about appropriateness. I never considered that either speech would be considered offensive nor do I care if the statement is offensive to those with allegiences to the actual perpetrators of the act of war if it gives solace to a family member of a victim.

          I understood the issue to be whether the gentleman reading names should have taken the opportunity during the event to make his remarks. My point was that the event was to mark an event that we are told to “never forget”. That means that we must never forget those who perpetrated the attacks and why they did so as much as never forgetting those who died. My reference to Gettysburg related to the context of the timing which increases the relative weight of the statement. A witty comeback loses something if uttered a day later.

          Should we choregraph the statements of the relatives of victims to ensure that “some people” would not be offended? I think not.

          Given we have troops in Afghanistan we are still at war and anyone

        • Omar’s world view is directly opposed to the foundation of the US. She has a much said so herself. She ridicules people who believe al Qaeda is an evil group. She mocks those who think Sharia violates US law.


    • I’m going to agree with your .01% side and play the devil’s advocate to the masses.

      I think if he said her name:
      1) It brings down his comment to a personal level, where people can dismiss it as petty.
      2) If he wants the comment to go far and wide, there’s this idea that any publicity is good publicity and tainting his good comments with her name is not desirable.

      So I think I like his strategy here:
      1) it makes people say “who’s he talking about” and gets them to actively get involved in further discussion.
      2) Those who know, well, they know exactly who.
      3) No more free publicity for that MN district.

        • ugh – who knows? I think we’d have to get the opinion of someone who’s actually in that district. I honestly don’t know the population demographics (or even the election results history). Even if it’s a very competitive district or even heavily favored to GOP historically, I think the district needs to identify a valid candidate. (Perhaps they have?)

          • Have been in that District. It has been a Democrat District since 1963. She replaced Keith Ellison.
            That was after she spent 2 years in the Minnesota Legislature after she unseated a Democrat who had been in the seat since 1973, 44 years. Basically she covers the Minneapolis area; solidly Democratic seat with a large Somali population. Throw in the fact that she is a progressive leftist and she will likely be re-elected.

            • Jut, you really think non-Somalis in the district are enthused about her? Won’t the Dem machine primary her? Or is she simply assured of the seat because she’s a Dem? That’s depressing.

        • Low. I think that the Justice Democrats spent a lot of time determining which districts were up for grabs (safe Democratic strongholds that would never vote for Republicans, but had unpopular incumbents used to running unopposed, for instance), and then a lot of sweat equity getting them elected. I think that some of the squad are more insulated than others. I think AOC is safe, for instance. But Omar in particular might have problems. She spends so much of her time focused on the one nation in the Middles East that happens to be full of Jews that the good citizens of Minnesota, I think, might end up wondering whether or not she represents them, or the Muslim Brotherhood. Depending on who runs against her, I think he’s a one-termer.

            • I’d say the odds of Omar’s reelection are actually pretty good, considering Obama stuffed her district with Muslim Somali immigrants. AOC, well, we’ll see. The “four sisters” as one of my former co-workers called them, are VERY popular with the far-left wing of the party, and I’m sure they will have no problem raising lots of cash to stay in power next year from that wing. It’s just a question of will Nancy endanger her party in the short run to be rid of them in the long run.

              • In all fairness, Obama does not explain the Somali population. They started coming during Clinton

                But, Minnesota is a refugee magnet of sorts.

                Large Russian contingents in ‘79; Hmong in the ‘80s; Somalis in the 90’s; Liberians in the 90’s; Hispanics from 90’s to the present; and the Governor wanted to open the door to an unlimited number of Syrian refugees a few years ago; untold numbers from Gary and Chicago…wait, what?

                The various groups have successfully assimilated to various degrees, but this is a very risky experiment that is probably playing out in Great Britain and maybe was tried in the Roman Empire.


            • Maybe. I think she made a deal with Baba Pelosi, and part of the deal was her firing her Justice-Democrat supplied Chief of Staff and a requirement that she stay out of the spotlight until after 2020. *If* she’s primaried, I think you’re right, but I think the DNC will discourage her being primaried.

                • Jack, I think Pelosi would rather Rep. Omar just either shut up or speak WAY more carefully. Just a guess and completely outside of my own leanings: having younger women of color and other diverse aspects around gives some cover to Pelosi, if those younger WOC are doing just fine and not making too many waves. The Squad has opinions, they aren’t quiet, and they refuse to go along to get along. They’re not as concerned about re-election as many others, because all of them were in some ways surprises to get where they are. AOC wasn’t even supposed to win her primary, because the white dude she beat was decently liked and didn’t make waves.

  3. “Some people did something,’ said a freshman congresswoman from Minnesota. Today I am here to respond to you exactly who did what to whom. Madam, objectively speaking, we know who and what was done. There is no uncertainty about that. Why your confusion? On that day, 19 Islamic terrorist members of al Qaeda killed over 3,000 people and caused billions of dollars of economic damage. Is that clear? But as to whom…I was attacked, your relatives and friends were attacked, our constitutional freedoms were attacked and our nation’s founding on Judeo-Christian principles were attacked. That’s what some people did. Got that now?”

    Ooooh. this one is juicy. I’ll go to work on it — since no one else is capable — and you will all be better off for it.

    Despite what Omar said, and what she meant, or what she didn’t say, and may not have meant — this is quite unimportant — the official and the socially-coerced position is that America’s fate is tied with Israel’s fate. Indeed, Israel, through American Jewry, have so heavily invested in the US, and so influenced the policies of the US in respect to Israel and — they say — ‘fighting Israel’s wars’ — that to even peep up a slight bit, to complain, to point out the irregularity of a foreign state with so much power in this nation, that is illegal thought. Thoughtcrime. If you have any social position and you say such a thing you will be destroyed.

    Land of the free, home of the brave, that sort of thing . . .

    I have no liking for Omar and see her as insidious. But far more insidious is the kind of back-room power that Israel has over America. This is wrong. A child should be able to see this. I have hardly bothered to pay attention to what Omar says or doesn’t say: it does not matter. The real perverse thing in the room is not Omar and whatever she intends, but the entire relationship with this foreign state.

    Now, there is a great deal of ‘confusion’ around 9/11. That is: scrape the surface even a bit and the ‘narrative’ falls to pieces. I do not profess to know what happened, but there are so many parts and events that contradict the official story, not the least being: Two planes, three buildings. So many different things do not add up. And serious people, and sincere and decent people with good education backgrounds — engineers, professors, scientists — also come to the same conclusions: there is much more here than meets the eye. And none of that can be reported nor can it be talked about.

    Land of the free, home of the brave, that sort of thing . . .

    We do know in definite detail what happened that day; who engineered it; why all the air defenses were down, and a thousand other questions. We do certainly know that ‘constitutional rights’ have evaporated, but we do not know who stands behind this or who shall we say *benefits*. Horrifying wars have been set in motion in the aftermath, and the social fabric of the United States has been ripped . . . and continues to rip. And we still are largely in the dark about these things.

    We *cobble together* comforting narratives, or better said we hold on, rather desperately, to fractured and torn ‘narratives’ that we cling to so as not to face the angst that there is a great deal more to these events than meets the eyes.

    I do love the line ‘the nations founding on Judeo-Christian principles were attacked’, when in fact it is far more true that interior forces — entities and powers within our own Judeo-Christian culture — have no problem at all bringing out the most pernicious and undermining influences and doing tremendous harm to the nation through malevolence!

    Yeah, go ahead, attack her. Some mileage can be gotten out of it I suppose. But my opinion is that if we really wanted to get ultra-serious about analyzing the maleficent influences operating in our present we would have to deal in far more difficult territory and themes. The ‘attack Omar’ thing is just a game, a way of diverting attention.

    • Aliza
      America is not fighting Isreal’s wars, we are keeping Isreal from waging all out war on its enemies and having a middle east engaged in a full scale war of competing religions. The one thing that keeps people fighting to the death is religion. Isreal once saw a large number of nations as enemies. Today, the enemies list is basically Iran and its unaligner surrogates. Beginning with Carter, the U.S. has in fact brokered better relationships between Isreal and Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and to a lesser extent smaller nations.

      I also think it a bit presumptious to say you are the only one capable to analyze the statements and a big reason why commenters often tune you out.

      • Oh, that’s my shtick. Presumption, arrogance, you know . . .

        In secret I am really exceedingly humble. 🙂

        Jokes aside, I just want to get the right topics out in the open. Here, I fight against — mostly men — who choose to attach themselves to conventional views and understandings. It is generally situated within ‘patriotic discourse’ about American and Americanism.

        I do not propose that I have the interpretation of what goes on behind the scenes. I long ago came to understand that between myself and ‘the object’ (understanding, seeing) there is a sort of cloud: a mystifying and obscuring cloud. I think that in regard to some issues we can apply analysis to *see* behind the scenes but we can never do this completely. We might be able to do that in our close, immediate world, but the more removed we are, and the more there are ‘powers & principalities’ between us and what we propose to *see*, we do not *see* but rely on interpretation offered by powerful others.

        Does this make sense to you?

        But with that said, I suppose that what I think that your analysis — what you have just offered here as a counter-proposal, a counter-assertion — seems very naive. Even if one relies on the available facts: the material that we can access if we devote the time to do so.

        What is more interesting, from my own perspective, is that you have this perspective, and that somehow it got put together for you. It is a very conventional understanding and it is the one ‘given out’.

        Make thy two eyes, like stars, start from their spheres,
        Thy knotted and combinèd locks to part
        And each particular hair to stand on end,
        Like quills upon the fearful porpentine.
        But this eternal blazon must not be
        To ears of flesh and blood. List, list, O, list!
        If thou didst ever thy dear father love—

        The rôle that has been given me is a contrary Hamleta with philosophical pretensions. I had a vision of my father’s ghost you see.

        I begin to believe that in stark ways — but in ways that we can see through — we live in a world in which powerful forces mold perception and mediate what we see and how we see. In my view, ‘to take the Red Pill’ means to begin to dismantle some of this structure. It is not in any sense just me though. There are hundreds and thousands of people who access information that you won’t, and they begin to converse among themselves.

        It is true that in that situation there are dangers of misinterpretation.

      • I also think it a bit presumptuous to say you are the only one capable to analyze the statements and a big reason why commenters often tune you out.

        I read almost every post written on this blog. I even read Humble Talent despite his cat-comments. Sometimes, I admit, I gloss a bit. But it is my duty, don’t you see, to take ethics seriously. And ethics is a branch of philosophy. That is, it takes a philosophic mind to think in ethical terms. If someone is here for entertainment, to pass the time, or to merely *agree* or to *complain*: that is not real ethical work.

        How could you ever tune out someone as obviously wonderful as me?!? This just makes no sense.

        I bring joy, wonder, depth, vision, and on one occasion I even submitted a recipe. 🙂

      • My ‘purpose’ here, as I have said right from the beginning, is just to ‘arrive at understanding’. I have tentatively concluded, in respect to many whop write here, and perhaps this applies in many places & circumstances, that there are people who just do not wish to understand. They have a will that is set against understanding. The refuse to understand. I have labored to understand why this is. And every once in a while I mention what my conclusions are. Fear. Convention. The difficulty of turning against the coercive power of ‘authority’. But there is also the issue of what the Hindus understand as ‘maya’: the cloud of ignorance that surrounds all incarnated beings. I am uncertain what exactly corresponds to this in Christian terms but I suppose it would be ‘diabolical obfuscation’.

        There are certain points of *barriers* as I might call them which have been established for you by ‘power’ and which you are unable to cross. This is tragic or, to put it less dramatically, ‘profoundly disturbing’. Because if ‘power’ has established that there is one category in which you cannot exercise free thought and free rational discourse, this implies and suggest that there may be others. It stands to reason that there are others. And as you know, if you have read what I write, I consider it an ethical imperative to expose these to the light of day.

        I said — and I say it again — that because *you-plural* cannot or will not do it, I will undertake to do it ‘for the betterment of all’. This is all a joke because — and you know this as well as I know this — I am resented because I speak absolutely boldly and I say exactly what I think and about the topics that seem important to me, and this is offensive to those who live in fear, or are constrained by ‘established barriers’ they will not go beyond.

        So, you tell me that America has not been enlisted, as it were, to ‘fight Israel’s wars’. I can only suggest to you t6hat you are not seeing the full picture here. And entire process and movement within the historical dimension of Occidental culture in the 20th Century. I am going to include here a snip of some discourse that I came across and saved. I cannpt remember right now what article I got this from or who the author is, but in it he discusses Nietzsche’s understanding of Jews and Jewish emancipation. It will present to you a ‘realm’ of thinking in respect to which you are forbidden. That is, ‘power’ forbids you to think along thse lines, and you accept the barrier that has been established and tremble if even you get near to it.

        This attitude is now what ‘Americanism’ has become. Not ‘home of the brave and land of the free’, but something very very different. My purpose is to alert thinking people to this and to influence them to see *what has happened to them* and why. That is a first step to be able to remediate the condition into which they have sunk. This is entirely consistent with what I said I would do and what I have done as I encountered the ‘ethical imperatives’ here.

        In regard to Nietzsche:

        What he did not foresee is that with the Jewish influence might come Israel’s influence over America – that greenest, most youthful and rambunctious and least spiritual and cultural of all the Western fatherlands. The specific form of Israeli rule thus has been exceptionally demeaning. It has accompanied the decimation of the old European aristocracies via the War, and the subsequent democratization of Europe, with the attendant success of capitalism – which could not do other than accent the Jewish ‘genius for money’ to the detriment of the superior spirituality or ‘moralism’ of Judaism. It is accompanied by the radical reorientation of the rapport between Europe and Israel: the shame and obsequiousness of the one, and the invincible mistrust and concealed will to power of the other. We who are confronted with this reality must battle it – particularly as it becomes increasingly clear that the present ‘ruling class’, which is as unrelated to the Jews as to Europe, has every intention of eliminating the peoples of the West, of eliminating us, by means of indiscriminate breeding with non-European peoples, whether as a form of revenge or precaution or greed, it is sometimes impossible to say. Far from representing the cultivation or emergence of a new European ruling class, this can represent only the absolute obliteration of its possibility. We have become almost totally powerless to stem the flood of non-Western peoples into Europe and America which has been prepared. A new project is urgently in order.

        Do you see? Do you understand what *we* perceive that we are up against? Will you make an effort to see the Larger Picture of what is going on in Europe and, in a more advanced and tangled way, in America? Will you make the decision to reclaim your sovereign intellect from the false-freedom of the scared individual who simply cannot cross invisible barriers that have been established for him?

        At the very least — at the least! — you owe it to yourself to understand what we see and why we see it, and how we are educating ourselves to deal with a present whose walls close in around us.

        We have to resist your indolent — your narcotic — sleepiness. We have to wake up.

      • It continues (and now I remember: I think this is Julius Evola):

        The healthy man atimes knows not the nature of health – until he falls prey to illness. In disease, in degeneration, the true standards become clear in a way they could not when they were merely presupposed; and in the present malady, perhaps even moribundity, of the West, we must relearn, or learn for the first time, our Occidental virtue, for the benefit of a future Occidental Man.

        But the barbarism of the Germans is indicated by Nietzsche to be their quality, toward the reclamation of European vitality. It is therefore not wrongheaded to hope that this barbarism precisely might favour a liberation from the present moralistic labyrinth into which we have been plummeted – not by subtly seeking the route of escape, which is often beyond the power of those who would attempt it, but rather by bursting asunder the very walls. But this is of value only as it is supplemented: for the English suffer definite shortcomings which are particularly un-European. Nietzsche indicates two of the greatest: they are unphilosophical, and they are unmusical. They lack ‘power of spirituality, real profundity of spiritual perception’. This pushes them, by Nietzsche’s estimation, into the arms of a crude Christianity.

        To me this makes good sense, all of it. In this strange time in which we find ourselves we not5ice that we have been fundamentally weakened. It is kind of like being neutered but at an intellectual level. We cannot ‘think dangerously’ though we will often ‘act brutally’. We are not seeing nor are we thinking clearly. We see and act through ‘provided tropes’. Other people, other powers, constrain us and control us. Yet we keep repeating like an old parrot that we are ‘the freest people who has ever existed’. It is true that the right to free speech is a tremendous power to have. But it only works if the intellect of men, or people, will actually function.

        And anyone who does not see or will not see how our important journals of opinion have become Maoist Propaganda Organs is simply blind: he does not have the historical presence of mind to *see* what is being done to him and why. So, he stays within the prison build for him and refuses — himself! — to venture out of it. It is a scary world of great uncertainty out there.

        But there are people — mostly young people I have noticed — who are willing to put themselves on the line in order to clarify the situation and to try to define what is going on, and why, in this utterly strange present: a juncture in which we will either *barbarously* push our way through the barriers, or remain cowed and cowards simply because we do not have the internal fortitude to *see* in full dimension.

        You will either recover your power . . . or you will give in and become a neutered man. A neutered man cannot defend his home nor his family nor his nation or his people! He cannot even define *his people* because intervening power asserts counter-definitions.

        The ‘crude Christianity’ is a weakened state in which one is bound by conventions and has not really gotten to the core — the metaphysical core — of what Christianity means.

        Going further:

        For surely, these are not simple days, nor easy times. No meagre challenges face us. In our day, European democracy – better say, with greater precision, Enlightenment ‘liberalism’ – is drawing its ultimate conclusions. There are many ways of characterizing this fateful occurrence, but in the context of the European problem we might phrase it thus: the ‘Enlightenment’ has made Western man smallest and most fragmented at precisely that historical moment he has most need of being mightiest and most unified. He has been strapped to a secret wheel of Ixion, subjected to the influence of elements foreign to his soul, which moreover have no love for him and which would gladly dilute him out of existence. He is cowed by shame, belittled by unworthy appetites, demeaned by the ready ease of feeding them. He is surrounded each day the more by newcomers arrived from distant lands, who are physiologically haler (because simpler, crasser) and ideologically cleaner and more resolved than he. He has been uprooted at every turn, distanced from all those fertile values of fixed community by which he might have been nourished to strength. His high culture has been sterilized, his soul vulgarized, his heart slaked and his spirit slackened. The conditions are ripe for his utter and final extermination from this globe which he once ruled in the perfect naïveté of his right, and which he has in countless respects rendered more beautiful and nobler. But in these very conditions are precisely the conditions also for his renewal: namely, the danger and the pain to awaken his slumbering mind, the trial to test and harden these atrophied muscles, the enemies to unite him to his kith and kin in common cause – the very calamity in which his spirit may learn again to soar, lest it drown. A new birth is possible today, a birth by fire – if no longer for Irishman and Italians, Austrians and Gauls, then for something higher, something stronger yet.

        Pretty well-said in my humble opinion.

  4. Today’s failed first time commenter is Bog Man, who writes as his trenchant comment to this post…

    “He seems like a true gutless POS, disgracing his mother’s memory and the country. In other words, a true Trump pig and great representation of right-wing trash.”

    Right. Spammed.

    1. How was his comment “gutless”?
    2. How did he disgrace his mother’s memory by pointedly resisting political efforts to distort teh event that killed her?
    3. How does clarifying the identity and motives of the killers as those allied with Omar and the NYT (which said the airplanes did it) still try to obscure them disgrace the country?
    4. What do his comments have to do with President Trump?
    5. Why is rebuking Omar “right wing”?
    6. How did so many people get this way?

    • 1. It wasn’t. Gutless is anyone who says anything the left doesn’t agree with and can’t be easily silenced.

      2. He didn’t. However, as far as the left is concerned, any kind of straight talk that doesn’t fit the narrative is a disgrace to the speaker. Now, when the left goes partisan, like the funeral of Paul Wellstone, that’s another story…

      3. It doesn’t. But the let’s primary concern is kissing minority ass.

      4. Nothing, But, to the left, everything that opposes their agenda is about President Trump.

      5. It isn’t, but to the left, anyone who rebukes one of them, especially an uber-minority like Congresswoman Pull-Start, is right-wing.

      6. Well, that could be a long story. We could talk about the two parties pulling further apart, social media making it a little too easy for people to say whatever pops into their heads and have the whole world hear it, pop culture becoming increasingly vulgar, a media that’s lost its objectivity, and so on. However, I don’t think that’s it. You see, character isn’t so much built as it is revealed, and I think a lot of folks, more than we think, were always this way. It’s just easier now for them to spout off and think they are somehow speaking truth to power or making the world a better place by doing it.

    • This man is going to be called a racist by roughly 78 million public figures. The odds are about 3 in 5 that they’ve already figured out where he lives and are already planning to send their Putty Patrol (antifa) to harass his loved ones ruin his life.

      There is no way he doesn’t know this. Incredibly gutsy guy.

    • “He seems like a true gutless POS, disgracing his mother’s memory and the country. In other words, a true Trump pig and great representation of right-wing trash.”

      Wow, that’s quite a first comment!

      That person sounds exactly like a couple of the left wing extremist internet trolls that I’ve come across that have commented in threads in the Madison Wisconsin area. You all got to read some of our “honored” local trolls in those Facebook comments I shared. The only goal of these trolls is to attack anything and everyone that appears to lean to the right of the political aisle, they never seem to actually comment on the topic and never seem to add anything relevant to conversations – true internet trolls.

      • Frequently they also accuse those who don’t agree with them of being losers, racists, or of engaging in deviant sexual practices. One of my favorites was “you’re probably strumming your bone right now thinking of Trump.” Like anybody even slightly right of center is reduced to choking the chicken while the lefties are all banging a different model every night.

  5. I really like what Haros said but I think that his incredibly courageous and ethical statement plus the shirt that he wore intentionally politicized what should be a memorial event honoring the victims of the attack; in that regard, I think his action was unethical regardless of the fact that what was said was courageous and ethical.

    If 9/11 memorial events where family members read the names of those that died regularly turns into political grandstanding events, I think they should stop the events and allow people to remember those who died in their own way.

    • Do we not remind people who did what on December 7, 1941, that day that will live in infamy. Even though we have good relations with Japan we cannot escape the fact that it was Japan that bombed Pearl Harbor. We do not forget that which brought us into WW2. I bet few of us could identify any one thing that got the U.S. into the European theatre to fight the Nazis.

      We honor the dead on 9/11 by reading all the names but do very little on December 7 to honor those lost that day. Instead, we remind everyone of that atrocity, have a moment of silence, and then move on.

      If we do not continually remind people on September 11 who did what to whom and even why, we will lose the meaning of why we are even memorializing the lost.

      If not him who, and if not then, when?

      I have no problem with his choices.

      • “We honor the dead on 9/11 by reading all the names but do very little on December 7 to honor those lost that day. Instead, we remind everyone of that atrocity, have a moment of silence, and then move on.”

        What they are doing is memorializing those who died, which I have no problem with, but when it starts to turn into political theater it needs to stop. We don’t need virtue signaling at a memorial event. The fact that we don’t need to read all the names of those that died at Pearl Harbor to be reminded of the catastrophic event that took place; in the same way, we don’t need to read the names of those that died on 9/11.

        I’ll grant Haros this; the way he chose to do this made national headlines where if he had just talked to a reporter on the sidelines it never would have gotten national exposure. So he intentionally politicized a memorial event to courageously take a fact based ethical “jab” at a politician and people choose to justify his action because his words were ethical and they use Sicilian Ethics or Consequentialism, i.e. the ends justifies the means, to rationalize his action. I choose to honor his words but I do not honor his method of delivering those words.

        For the record; members of Congress need to be hammered hard for the stupid shit that comes out of their mouths, but a memorial for the dead people killed in a mass murder is not the place to do it.

Leave a Reply to Jack Marshall Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.