Search Results

Sociopathic coward Kat Wilton has her panties in a twist about illegal immigrants:

“Illegal alien/immigrant” DOES NOT EQUAL “illegal person”

First, you gotta love the title of that post. Of course Kat Wilton would deny that illegal immigrants are people — i.e., human. It’s a sacred tenet of the wingnut that The Other must be demonized and denigrated. How dare anyone suggest that those brownish things crossing our borders might possible be the same as good Christians like Kat?

What is even more hilarious is that Kat seems to think she has some sort of moral authority in this discussion. In a comment on the blog post at Bearing Drift that occasioned Kat’s whining, she states:

However, again, you have NOT proven that you are standing on moral ground when you support ignoring and disobeying current law.

What a knee-slapper! Kat Wilton, who advocates for mass murder and the lynching of Supreme Court justices, is arrogating to herself the right to lecture someone else about “moral ground”?!?

Sorry, Kat. You gave up all right to consider yourself a moral person a long, long time ago. Go ahead and pretend that you have some sort of morality if it makes you feel better. The truly decent people who have seen your hatred and bigotry and are disgusted by you know better.

Is Cat going soft? In a post regarding some medical problems that Rep. John Murtha has been sealing with, she says:

Am I going to wish him dead, like the loony lefties did with Rush and so many other conservative figures when they were ill?

Nope.

Gee, Cat, why so mellow? You didn’t have any problem agitating for the murder of Supreme Court justices, after all.

I think Cat is losing her edge.

Shorter Kat:

• I’m going to waste as much energy as possible, because being a thoughtless ignorant contrarian is the ‘Murrkan thing to do.

  ‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard, and shamelessly pilfered from Sadly, No.

Well, here’s a surprise… over at Cathouse Chat, the faux-”Christian” Cat still wants to commit murder. Commenting on today’s Supreme Court ruling regarding the death penalty, Cat screeches:

Rope. Tree. Justices.

Some assembly required.

Boy, there’s nothing that gets a good “Christian” woman’s heart going all a-pittypat quicker than fantasizing about taking the lives of other people. Keep in mind that this is the same degenerate headcase that wants to commit nuclear mass murder.

This is one of the truly delicious benefits of the blogging phenomenon. Anyone can set up a blog — and thus there is nothing stopping a religiowhacko like Cat from exposing just what kind of moral vacuum she chooses to live in.

UPDATE 06/25/08 6:44 PM EDT: John Cole nails it:

Some days the only reasonable explanation for the apparent bloodlust from some of these folks is that they really just like death.

UPDATE 06/25/08 9:24 PM EDT: Oh, lookie… Moral cretin Big Dog is another faux-”Christian” who slavers over the thought of committing murder:

I think if a person who rapes a child (in a state that had the death penalty for the offense) is released and rapes another child, the members of the court who allowed it should be hanged in front of the Supreme Court building.

UPDATE 06/26/08 11:52 AM EDT: It is impossible to overstate the moral depravity of a wingnut. Now Big Dog wants enact revenge by murdering children:

…I honestly believe that if a judge makes a ruling that allows a criminal back on the street then the next time the criminal strikes it should happen to the judge’s family… Like all these judges that keep letting child molesters out of jail and the next time the molester strikes he kills a kid. That should be the judge’s kid, not yours or mine, so the judge is made to pay for his decision.

Why, pray tell, do we allow such people things to participate in a civilized society?

You all remember Kat, right? She’s the nice Christian lady who wants to nuke all those Terrifying Brown People™. Well, she seems to think that just posting a bunch of quotes is enough to make her point. Unfortunately, there are a lot of quotes out there. As you can see in this mirror, I posted a couple of relevant quotes in her comments:

“The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.” —Theodore Roosevelt

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”—Dwight D. Eisenhower

But even Presidents who disagree even slightly with Kat get deleted. She’s so terrified of any opposing opinions nowadays that she hits the Delete key without even thinking. The only way Kat can maintain her worldview, it seems, is to completely block out anything that isn’t in lockstep.

I can’t live in fear of the world like that. Kat, it seems, has cocooned herself in fear. I pity her.

Over at Cathouse Chat, Kat — who posts a daily Bible verse on her blog — has come up with a Christian solution to terrorism: she wants to nuke anyone she doesn’t like:

Truly a chilling necessity – but it may be a chilling necessity similar to Hiroshima and Nagasaki: it may be that we must ruthlessly kill thousands, so that we may forever eradicate the murderous Islamo-fascist terrorists – and so that millions may finally live in peace and in freedom from oppression, tyranny and terror… After we have exterminated these vermin forever, after we have wiped out these vicious thugs that have forced us to do what we hate, after their bodies and their ideology have been reduced to their atomic particles – after all this, we can bind up our wounds, and in triumphant sorrow return home to mourn our methods.

That’s right, folks. Mass murder is just fine with Kat — so long as we take the precaution of feeling a little “triumphant sorrow” afterwards. And you gotta love the assumption that the nuclear incineration of God know how many people will ensure that “millions may finally live in peace and in freedom from oppression, tyranny and terror”. After all, it worked the last time we tried it, right?

I posted a few questions for Kat in her comments:

1. Which targets, specifically, do you want the US to attack with atomic or thermonuclear weapons?


2. What casualties do you estimate from such an action?


3. What rate of post-bombing cancers and birth defects do you anticipate among the survivors?


4. What do you estimate that the environmental consequences of these attacks may be?


5. What diplomatic consequences do you anticipate, should the US carry out such nuclear attacks?


6. Do you actually believe, as you imply in your post, that such nuclear attacks would be a manifestation of love?

It will be educational to see how Kat answers — if she dares to answer these questions at all. Read the rest of this entry »