UPDATE: Kit Jarrell has responded, and I reply below. Experience suggests that she will fail to answer the questions I ask.
This needs to be said, and said loudly: Kit Jarrell is a bigot.
In her latest spew, she comments on the recent explosions at a mosque in Cincinnati:
I don’t care if some mosque got a taste of the medicine they’re handing out. How’s it feel, folks?
Let’s be clear on this: Kit is implying that all Muslims are terrorists. That’s bigotry at its most blatant. Does she have evidence that this mosque has been “handing out” bomb blasts? She does not. Someone says “mosque”, and Kit hears “terrorists”. No real thought is involved—just the knee-jerk fear of those who do not look or speak like us.
This is no different from the person who believes all Jews are greedy, or who believes all blacks are criminals. Someone who makes claims of that sort about Jews or blacks is instantly recognizable as a bigot. Kit merely chooses to be bigoted against a different group.
It’s important to call out examples of bigotry of the sort Kit displays. The FBI, in its Strategic Plan 2004-2009, points out that
Since 9/11, there has been an unprecedented number of hate crimes directed against Muslim, Sikh, and Arab-American individuals and institutions.
The constant drumbeat of hatred and bigotry promulgated by the radical right in this country is undoubtedly one of the many factors that contributes to this increase in crimes committed against the Muslim minority in this country. And let us not forget that the bigots of this world are not exactly careful in their choice of targets. Balbir Singh Sodhi was killed September 15, 2001 in retaliation for the 9/11 attacks. His murderer mistakenly believed Sodhi was of Middle Eastern descent.
There’s been speculation that bigotry may be a form of mental illness. I don’t buy it. Bigotry is a cultural artifact; it is learned. Someone taught Kit to be a bigot, possibly her parents or the peer group she grew up with. Hate is a choice, and the person who makes that choice is responsible for their own hate. This is a lesson that many bigots have yet to learn.
Kit will undoubtedly hang on to her blind, unreasoning hatred. The best that the rest of us can hope for is to learn from her how not to view the world around us.
My “hatred” is not hatred at all
When you cheer on those who bomb a place of worship, what other word applies?
and it’s not directed at people of any color, race, or nationality.
No, it’s directed at people of another religion—which does not change the fact that it is hatred. Side note: How can you specify where your hatred is or is not directed unless you first concede that it exists?
The color or nationality of proponents of this religion is completely incidental.
Straw man. I never claimed your bigotry was based on color or nationality.
Hate is a choice, yes. But so is terrorism. So is preaching death to infidels. So is beheading people. So is using your child as a human bomb carrier. So is preaching one thing in English and another in Arabic.
When did the congregation of the Islamic Association of Cincinnati choose to engage in terrorism, Kit?
When did the congregation of the Islamic Association of Cincinnati choose to preach death to infidels, Kit?
When did the congregation of the Islamic Association of Cincinnati choose to behead people, Kit?
When did the congregation of the Islamic Association of Cincinnati choose to use a child as a human bomb carrier, Kit?
When did the congregation of the Islamic Association of Cincinnati choose to preach one thing in English and another in Arabic, Kit?
When are you going to stop painting every Muslim with the same broad brush, Kit? More to the point… why do you need to do that?
So is working toward the ultimate defeat of this country, which is what you as a liberal do every day.
Straw man. You imagine I am a liberal because I pointed out your bigotry. You imagine that I must therefore be “working toward the ultimate defeat of this country”. With no facts to back up your charge, all that remains is your puerile fantasy about someone who dares to call you out for what you are.
Laying down and playing ‘tolerance and acceptance’ while our country is invaded and conquered is a liberal’s MO, not mine.
The fact that people live in this country and practice a religion different from your own is not an “invasion”, Kit. That’s simply another bigoted fantasy.
What is the answer, Kit? What action should all right-thinking Amurricans take? You clearly are pleased that a mosque was bombed. Should more mosques be bombed? Will that halt the Global War on Terror™?
No? Golly. So tell us: What purpose does bombing mosques serve… other than bringing vicarious satisfaction to bigots like yourself?


37 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:39 pm
Pingback from euphoricreality.net » Oh No! Attacks Against Muslims!
February 13th, 2006 at 5:09 pm
Pingback from ThinkingMeat » Kit's not "answering" anybody
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:59 pm
Ogre
I don’t understand why so many people keep saying that Muslims only attack Americans because Americans are bigots. That’s so wrong. Hello, it WAS the Muslims that attacked on 9/11. You DO remember 9/11, right? Do you know that Muslims attacked America that day?
December 22nd, 2005 at 3:04 pm
Jay
And what of the Muslims bigotry and hate? You are tolerant of their hate and bigotry that they learn from their bigot book?
December 22nd, 2005 at 3:19 pm
meatbrain
Ogre wrote:
I agree… and you’ll note I made no such statement.
Terrorists of all creeds attack the West for many reasons. I don’t defend terrorists. What I did here was to point out that when Kit applauds the bombing of a mosque, she is practicing bigotry.
December 22nd, 2005 at 3:30 pm
Ogre
Sorry, I mis-read that part about “hatred and bigotry promulgated by the radical right in this country is undoubtedly one of the many factors that contributes to this increase in crimes.”
December 22nd, 2005 at 3:37 pm
meatbrain
Jay wrote:
Jay, there are statements of bigotry and hate to be found in the writings of almost every religion. Shall we review examples of intolerance in the Christian bible?
The point is so easy, and you are working so very hard to miss it. When you portray all who share a given characteristic—be it skin color, age, gender, religion, hairstyle, whatever—as having a particular character flaw, you are practicing bigotry. Kit paints all who follow Islam as terrorists. This means she is a bigot. You cannot change that fact by pointing elsewhere and accusing the targets of her hatred of bigotry as well. In fact, when you do so, you’ve committed the same fallacy that Kit did: generalize from the behavior of a few members of the group to the entire group.
December 22nd, 2005 at 4:42 pm
medic92
Go get a dictionary. Look up “bigotry”. Read the definition. Find someone smarter than you to explain what the definition means. Apologize to Kit. Give up the notion that you’re an intellectual. See if McDonald’s will hire you back.
December 22nd, 2005 at 5:10 pm
Ogre
Now you’ve lost me, meatbrain.
Where in the Bible does it say that all Christians should go out and kill everyone who is not a Christian? The Koran does. Therefore, logically, any person who says that they follow the Koran is determined to kill anyone who is not Muslim. That’s not bigotry, that’s facts.
December 22nd, 2005 at 6:08 pm
meatbrain
Ogre wrote:
Where in my comments did I claim that it did?
Okay, let’s talk about literalism, shall we?
Exodus 21:15: “And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.”
Exodus 21:17: “And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.”
Leviticus 20:10: “And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.”
Logically, any person who says that they follow the Bible is determined to kill anyone who has ever struck or cursed their mother or father. Logically, any person who says that they follow the Bible is determined to kill anyone who has committed adultery. That’s facts.
Right? All Christians feel they are personally empowered to carry out these executions, ordained as they are by the Lord thy God. Doesn’t that logically follow, Ogre?
What’s that? Not necessarily? Hmm.
Is there just the slightest possibility that many Muslims do not interpret everything in the Koran in an absolutely literal fashion? Is there just the slightest possibility that you might not know everything there is to know about a religion and all of its millions of followers after having read a few carefully culled quotations from a book?
December 22nd, 2005 at 6:43 pm
John O'Brien
you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. you don’t personally know Kit nor do you know anything about her….
gee, does that make you bigotted against kit jarrell?
personally, i don’t think she goes far enough.
i’d love to see every fucking one of those mohammed worshipping allah loving, koran, (q’uran, toiletpaperran or how ever they’re choosing to spell it this week) memorizing fucks get shot right between the eyes.
how’s that for bigotted?
islam is nothing but a worthless religion which promotoes hate and opression, remember when you bleeding hearts used to fight oppression and all that stuff?
mohammed and all his followers can blow me while they’re blowing themselves up, personally i think they ALL should martyr themselves and get it over with so we don’t have to deal with their bullshit anymore…
stop appologizing to them for us, they’d just as soon see you dead as me or kit….
so shut up and sit down.
December 22nd, 2005 at 6:52 pm
TJ
Actually, Smite :
1. To inflict a heavy blow on, with or as if with the hand, a tool, or a weapon.
2. To drive or strike (a weapon, for example) forcefully onto or into something else.
3. To attack, damage, or destroy by or as if by blows.
... it is not a simply smack we are talking about here.
Additionally, you’ll atleast admit that those are punishments for those guilty of something – as opposed to blowing up innocents. IIRC, it was not up to the individual to carry out these punishments, but your local “law enforcement agency”.
And, if you really want to get to the point, which major religions are currently following the teachings of self-explosion and murder of otherwise-innocent non-believers?
/TJ
December 22nd, 2005 at 6:58 pm
meatbrain
TJ wrote:
The passages do not mention “smite”. They are translated as “put to death”. That means “put to death”.
The words are in the Christian Bible. Are you claiming that Christians don’t believe them literally as written?
What evidence do you have that this is taught universally throughout Islam? What evidence do you have that Muslims universally believe this to be their mandate?
December 22nd, 2005 at 7:24 pm
Kit Jarrell
First of all, you demonstrate an incredible lack of knowledge regarding the Old Testament law and its relation to modern-day Christians.
At that time, in the Old Testament. Jews were under the Mosaic law. This means, every single facet of their lives had a levitical, Mosaic law attached to it. Diet, marriage, business, all of it had a corresponding law. They followed these laws quite literally. Adulterers WERE stoned. People who cursed their parents WERE put to death.
However, as stated in the later books of the OT, such as Isaiah and many others, as well as ALL through the New Testament (read Paul’s letter to the Romans), the point of Christ coming was to bring grace. Christians today are not under Mosaic law, but under grace. Jews choose to continue to follow some of these laws, but not all.
There are still Biblical principles that we follow, obviously, but we also live under the blood of Christ, not the Levitical law laid down for ancient Israelites.
So you attempting to trap people into the “literal or not?” debate is to simply miss the whole point.
Not that it really matters, because you’re not interested in what anyone else has to say. It’s more convenient to simply write your article calling them bigots.
As for the whole “how can you prove all Muslims believe that?” thing, that’s just asinine. You give an impossibility, with the intent of ‘winning’ when the other person cannot produce the proof you require. Just as not all pro-lifers bomb abortion clinics, not all Muslims bomb Americans. However, I don’t see any Muslims standing up against the radicals, do you? At least there are a great number of pro-lifers openly against bombing clinics.
If you’re associated with a group of people who are committing any kind of action, you have three choices.
1) You openly agree,
2) You openly disagree,
3) You say nothing, and by doing so, give implicit approval.
Muslims in the US are doing #3. That means, they are just as responsible for the acts committed. That’s not even counting the schools in this country teaching Muslim children to hate America, or any of the other things going on. They belong to the same mosques, they are friends with them, they help support them through their associations and donations. Actions speak louder than words, but these people aren’t even trying to hide their affinity with the terrorists.
I’m not angry at the mischaracterization you engaged in about me personally, I feel sorry for you. I’m glad, however, that the defense of my country and my freedom does not fall to men like you, but instead to the brave, bloody, and resolute soldiers and Marines that are spending Christmas in a desert so that I don’t have to worry about some of your “terribly-discriminated-against” friends killing me or my family.
Have a great Christmas.
December 22nd, 2005 at 7:27 pm
Ogre
Bingo folks.
The Bible never says that Christians should openly kill and destroy any non-believers. The Koran does. That’s the difference. “Shall be” does not translate to “You do it.” Massive, massive difference.
December 22nd, 2005 at 7:53 pm
TJ
While little need be added, thanks mostly to Kit’s most recent addition, let me add that you (meatbrain) should re-read your 2 most recent comments and then re-read my most recent comment … pay close attention to where you say smiteth in the two.
And, for emphasis, “What evidence do you have that this is taught universally throughout Islam?” ... Kit is also right here; they are not all taught to hate us, but enough are atleast make my statement valid.
I would add that some Muslims are (willfully?) ignorant of the nature of the extreme wing of Islam … and that is why it is important to pull backk the curtain.
God bless America.
/TJ
December 22nd, 2005 at 8:16 pm
meatbrain
Kit, your understanding of the Bible and its modern interpretation is certainly extensive. Where is your comparable understanding of the Koran and its modern interpretation?
That’s what I thought. You’ve read a few quotes from the Koran, and you think you know how all Muslims interpret it. What is that, if not bigotry based solely in ignorance?
Do stop inventing things I didn’t say, and try to grasp the point. You applauded the bombing of a mosque merely because those who worship there are Muslim. You have no other knowledge whatsoever about the congregation at the Islamic Association of Cincinnati. None.
Yes. Have you even bothered to look?
Whoa. Where do you get the idea that because some terrorists are Muslim, every Muslim in the world is “associated” with them? Were all Catholics “associated” with the Irish Republican Army in its heyday? No? But of course not… a different standard applies to those who are not at least putatively Christian, does it not?
You’re wrong. But that will never get through to you. Your bigotry is far too strong to allow you to do the research needed to uncover your error—or to believe what you would find.
December 22nd, 2005 at 8:37 pm
meatbrain
TJ wrote:
What is “enough” in this context? Is there a magic percentage?
And no, Kit is not right. She hasn’t bothered to find out if Muslims are speaking out against terrorism. They are, but it doesn’t matter. Facts never matter to the bigot.
December 22nd, 2005 at 9:28 pm
meatbrain
Ogre wrote:
Seems to me that’s a matter of interpretation. Nevertheless, there are verses in the Bible that directly enjoin believers to kill. Shall we judge all Christians by them, and applaud when a Christian church is bombed?
December 23rd, 2005 at 12:06 pm
Kit Jarrell
I can’t help but notice the only comments on this article are the people that came to defend me, and your replies. Where’s your readership? Do they not share your views? better make some new names.
I’m not going to bother answering your accusations because you make more assumptions than anyone else I’ve ever seen. Who says I don’t have that same knowledge of the Koran? I’ve studied both extensively (as well as several other religious texts), but you obviously find it much more convenient to assume that I don’t know what i’m talking about. I also couldn’t help but notice that you can’t refute my points regarding the Bible, because the only things you know are the same talking points every skeptic brings up, even though they’ve been explained and disproven a hundred times.
You said, “Whoa. Where do you get the idea that because some terrorists are Muslim, every Muslim in the world is “associated” with them? Were all Catholics “associated” with the Irish Republican Army in its heyday? No? But of course not… a different standard applies to those who are not at least putatively Christian, does it not?”
This whole paragraph is, in a word, stupid. I was referring to ANY group. The word “associated” was used because they all belong to the same religion. Talk about twisting what I say. They are associated through their common religion. My point is, the association COULD end there, if “non-terrorist” Muslims wanted to stand up against the animalistic actions of the “radicals.” However, for the most part they don’t. And don’t give me that lame Google link. As I said before, actions speak louder than words, and there are plently of documented stories where American Muslim ‘clerics’ preached one thing in English, and then turned RIGHT around and preached the same militant anti-infidel crap we’re used to, in Arabic. Not to mention, the Muslim organizations in this country HAVE connections to terrorism. Or have you been ignoring the fact that the founders of CAIR have been -- and in some cases, still are -- in prison for terrorist activities?
The whole Catholic-IRA connection is also a pile of BS. Catholics in America didn’t side with the IRA, and there were many who stood up and said so. This isn’t even the same thing.
December 23rd, 2005 at 12:07 pm
Kit Jarrell
Your site crossed out the phrase “and in some cases, still are.” it should not have been crossed out.
December 23rd, 2005 at 1:15 pm
Ogre
“Seems to me that’s a matter of interpretation”
Nice. So YOU get to be the end-all interpretor of what the Koran and the Bible say. Very nice.
Well, you just go on living in your fantasy-land and interpreting things the way they are in your world. Meanwhile, the rest of us will interpret things as they actually are and will continue to work to destroy those who want us dead—even when those who want us dead are of the Muslim religion.
December 23rd, 2005 at 2:11 pm
meatbrain
Kit wrote:
How does (putatively) sharing the same religion make every Muslim an “associate” of all terrorists? You state this as an axiom. Why should anyone treat it as such?
What would “standing up” against the actions of terrorists consist of? What meaningful “standing up” would the members of the congregation at the Islamic Association of Cincinnati have to do before you would judge them as not deserving to be bombed? Do you know for a fact that they didn’t “stand up” against terrorists?
There’s a whole list of questions above that I asked you about the IAC. As I predicted, you can’t answer them.
Translation: No, Kit hasn’t ever bothered to find out if Muslims “stand up” against terrorism. She simply assumes that they do not. Bigotry is much easier to sustain in the absence of facts.
If you were to apply your logic consistently, Kit, you would have to agree that every single Catholic was “associated” with the IRA simply because they shared the same religion. That’s your standard of association for Muslims. Why does it not apply to Catholics?
I do thank you for proving my point for me: you do indeed choose to apply a double standard here.
(The crossed-out phrase was an artifact of the Textile markup system my site uses. It’s been fixed.)
December 23rd, 2005 at 2:20 pm
meatbrain
Ogre wrote:
Straw man. I made no such claim. My point was: You might interpret the Bible’s admonition that someone be “put to death” for a certain action to mean that the State shall do so. Others, though, could interpret it as commanding them to do the killing themselves. Just reading the words doesn’t tell you this.
Yet you’ll happily read an excerpt from the Koran and assume that every single Muslim takes it to mean it’s his job to kill you. Why? It seems to me that one reason for making this assumption could be that it helps excuse the blind hatred of Muslims.
Do you have a reliable way to tell if a given Muslim wants you dead? Or do you assume that they all do?
December 23rd, 2005 at 4:02 pm
Kit Jarrell
Answer your questions? Why, so you can just ignore the answers and continue to insult me? no, thanks. I’ve wasted enough time here. There is intelligent debate, and then there’s throwing pearls before swine.
That’s from the Bible too, in case you were wondering.
Out.
December 23rd, 2005 at 4:08 pm
medic92
What YOU seem to forget Meatbrain, is that in addition to the passages in the Koran that exhort Muslims to kill nonbelievers, you have the actions of the Muslims carrying it out.
You might find passages in the bible from Mosaic law saying children who disobey their parents are to be stoned. If you have anything that resembles a functioning brain you can also find the passages that render that law null & void. You can ignore the explanations all you want, but that just makes you even more ignorant, not right.
Let’s have some fun. Why don’t YOU find as many examples as you can of a town stoning a child for disobeying his parents like the bible said, and I’LL find as many examples as I can of Muslims following the Koran’s instructions to kill nonbelievers.
Just so I don’t have to spend the next year typing all MY results, can we restrict the timeline to just the last 20 years? That way I should be able to get all my examples typed up by New Years.
December 23rd, 2005 at 4:26 pm
skeptic
Well this is a little late. I don’t like bombs and violence directed against the innocent. I hope the police catch these criminals and put them away for a long time. I used to think that bombers should be examined carefully for signs of mental aberration until after the Oklahoma bombings. Then careful examination found the bombers were stupid, and inane trash without even the excuse of mental psychosis.
I have a sincere belief that everyone should be punished only for the crimes they themselves commit. Not for crimes others commit. I don’t want anyone to punish me for Catholic Terrorists, so I refrain from assuming that other people are mindlest torturers just because they are in the same political party as Dick Cheney.
Yes I was trying to be catty. So sue me, don’t throw a bomb at the nearest church.
December 23rd, 2005 at 5:07 pm
meatbrain
Kit wrote:
It’s perfectly OK to admit the truth, Kit: You had no evidence whatever that the people of the Islamic Association of Cincinnati had been “handing out” any violence or any incitement to violence. You cheered the fact that their mosque was bombed for just one reason: blind, unreasoning hatred of Muslims.
I’m not surprised that you’ve chosen to flee this discussion. I’ve found that bigots usually do just that when confronted with the reality of their expressions of hatred.
December 23rd, 2005 at 5:12 pm
meatbrain
Which of those Muslims are “associated” with the mosque in Cincinnati?
As usual, you continue to work hard to evade any meaningful discussion regarding my actual point: You cannot claim to know the character of any follower of a religion merely because you have read that religion’s scripture.
December 23rd, 2005 at 6:03 pm
kender
Uhhuh….
Jeez son…you got smacked up one side and down the other….looks like the road out of Kuwait up in here….nothing but a bunch of smokin’, ruined meathead arguments littering the page as far as the eye can see…..
Damn boy….feed the bear son, feed the bear.
December 23rd, 2005 at 6:17 pm
meatbrain
Kender wrote:
When was the last time, Kender, any of the imams at the Islamic Association of Cincinnati said someone should go out and kill someone simply because they didn’t believe the same as that imam, and then have the whole congregation blindly following that edict?
Uhhuh….
So, Kender: Do you also applaud the bombing of the IAC mosque?
December 27th, 2005 at 4:38 am
buddy don
hey thar, meatbrain, ye dun a verr good job makin yer point, even ifn yer opponents aint gittin whut yer sayin. i did wonta point out that thays reasons why not minny folks has cum by to fuss n fite on yer side: this here site aint but a cuple weeks old, fer one. but more importunt, far as i kin see, yer holdin yer own.
thays also this reason: who wants to fuss n fite with such folk? ifn they caint git yer basick point—that cundemmin all members of a group fer the ackshuns of a few eggstremists is bigotry—means that they aint a’usin the same dickshunairy fer the meanin of english wurds as everbidy else duz.
tiz also speshus fer em to claim folks that dont protest the ackshuns of a few eggstremists in thar relijun deserves to be killt n have thar house of worship bombed.
finely, whutever happend to lettin god do the judgin (frum 7th chap of matthew)? is that too literull a readin of the bible? mayhap yer opponents is the same kinda folk that wonts to argue jesus dint mean whut he sed in the garden of gesthsemane bout not livin (n dyin) by the sword?
December 28th, 2005 at 8:03 am
meatbrain
Thanks, Buddy Don, for demonstrating that it is indeed possible to understand what I was saying. You’ll note also that not one of the radical rightists who commented here had the balls to even acknowledge that the mindset they promote leads to the death of innocents like Balbir Singh Sodhi.
Their attitude is essentially a form of moral laziness. They cannot be bothered to distinguish between Muslims who commit terrorism, and those who do not. It’s just so much easier to hate all Muslims, indiscriminately.
January 9th, 2006 at 2:40 am
Rich
Hitler was a biped. Smite the bipeds!
counts own legs
Oh bugger….
April 8th, 2006 at 7:12 am
maxOblivion
Heh Buddy, great post and love the dialect:E
April 25th, 2006 at 8:57 pm
Don C. Hall
Excellent artcle, sir.
Came in on this a bit late, but better than never. We all know that apes groom one another for social order and it releases feelings of pleasure causing in some a feeling of “euphoric” and altered “reality.” It is a psychotically truism that Kit displays that and it shows she is vulnerable and feels threatened easily. Her writing partner, Heidi has stated numerous times on their Blog site that she is always, “Right.” They both display a monumental self-esteem and rudeness. Both share a personality types that ranges to serious clinical disorders, encompassing unexpected, even counterintuitive behaviors. They both desperately need other people to validate their Blog space. At first, they seem charming, but so does your usual run-of-the-mill narcissist.
I received the ugly, nasty, butt-end of Mrs. Jeannette “Kit” Jarrell and her writing partner, Heidi ten piece hit-series on me and my wife because we said “no” to a book deal to Random House. My wife and I did not like the company that we would have to keep in other men who were writing about LRP/LRRP/Ranger Vietnam memoirs from in Vietnam. One author was claiming he had 2 Silver Stars and 2 Purple Hearts for the same day’s combat. A military impossibility, but these two female Military Bloggers, after talking to them and sending them over 600 pages of official contemporaneous U.S. National Archive records of radio logs that refute 25 nonfiction books they did a smear hit-piece on my wife and I. Kill the messenger.
Your way of handling the Straw girl, Kit was great and on point. They have delusions of grandeur and ambitions that they should have been somebody by now.
Be careful of these two. Like the author I exposed for the fake military awards and not loaning him $7,500.00 for his start up, shoe-string magazine BTL (Behind the Lines) Linderer did a hit-piece on me and my book, “I SERVED” when he was able to borrow the money from someone else. These two women are like this author, Gary Linderer.
In time they’ll be like cornered animals and they can only fall back on their false egos, temper tantrums, shocking selfishness, a complete inability to engage in teamwork, and of course, blame the other people. With people like this, “The trust in life is gone: life itself has become a problem.” – Preface by Nietzsche.
Great smack down and enjoyed the Straw man. Kit swims uneasily in the sea of debate. In her Blog site she changes people’s comments, deletes them when they are not with her liking, and she is from my known experience a dishonest person. She is easily led by her nose by gifted storytellers over the 35 plus year old documentation that refutes what is put under her nose.
They are two over weight and cowardly girls who are admirers of (US Army retired) LTC James “Bo” Gritz and his brand of Christian Indenty Movement. Sounds more like a bowel movement to me, but these girls are dumb, ignorant, liars.
Thank you for shinning the light on Jeannette “Kit” Jarrell.
August 6th, 2006 at 2:10 pm
Don C. Hall
Heidi also infringe willingly on others’ art work using a 1942 Varga Girl to pose as if Heidi is that patriotic girl in Colonial dress, tight white pants and blue cape. This painting took Varga time to do, but for some reason Heidi feels it is her right to take and use it on her Blog site to illustrate her phony, staged and false patriotism. She is a thief, copyright infringer much like the people that she hangs with like the ex-author, Gary Linderer, that I busted for copyright infringement for stealing my chapter from my book ‘I SERVED.’ Maybe a phone call to Esquire magazine (the rightful owner of the copyrighted painting) is in order here.