Rep. Peter King is a supporter of terrorists

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) is an ardent supporter of a terrorist group that has murdered thousands of people in the UK. Keep that in mind as you listen to this insane rant by King.

We’ll get back to the substance of King’s rant in just a minute, but first let’s take up the charge that Sen. Rand Paul “… is part of that ‘hate America crowd’ and doesn’t deserve to be in the United States Senate…”

Peter King is the ultimate hypocrite with that charge, he makes Harry Reid look like a man of honor and Barack Obama a candidate for sainthood.

King supported a vile terrorist group, the Irish Republican Army, who murdered thousands in Northern Ireland and Britain.

They were no different than Islamic terrorists, except we would rate the Islamists to be braver and more honorable than the IRA. The Islamists at least have the decency to blow themselves up when they murder innocent civilians. The IRA used car bombs and satchel bombs in department stores after running off from the bombs like the cowards they were – and are.

Here’s the description of Peter King from the Washington Post. I’m certainly no fan of the Post, but they have this one down pat.

In 1985, the Irish government boycotted the St. Patrick’s Day parade in New York City, the biggest celebration in the Irish American calendar. The cause of its umbrage was Peter T. King, that year’s grand marshal and someone the Irish government said was an “avowed” supporter of a terrorist organization, the Irish Republican Army.

King, then a local politician on Long Island, was one of the most zealous American defenders of the militant IRA and its campaign to drive the British out of Northern Ireland. He argued that IRA violence was an inevitable response to British repression and that the organization had to be understood in the context of a centuries-long struggle for independence.

The British government is a murder machine,” King said. He described the IRA, which mastered the car bomb as an instrument of urban terror, as a “legitimate force.” And he compared Gerry Adams, the leader of Sinn Fein, the IRA’s political wing, to George Washington.

A quarter-century later, King is chairman of the powerful House Homeland Security Committee.

King sounds like the apologists for the “Palestinians”, Hezbollah, Hamas, al Qaeda, and every other murderous bunch of Islamists around the world. The IRA were butchers. Their goal was to murder as many civilians, especially the elderly, women, children, the most defenseless, as they could. Peter King supported these butchers.

King thinks car bombs are a “legitimate force”. We wonder how he would have felt had the car bomb that was discovered in Times Square a few years ago – with no help from the NSA or the Patriot Act – had gone off and killed dozens of New Yorkers? If a car bomb under the control of the IRA is legitimate, certainly this one would have been too, right?

Here’s what King is ranting against. Rand Paul is filing a class action suit against the President and the NSA for their telephone collection work.

Senator Paul’s point about a single warrant applying to millions of Americans without naming any of them is a valid Constitutional argument.

Keep in mind, as Rep. King talks about warrants, he’s talking about going to the Foreign Intelligence Service Act court. The FISA court is a secret court. Their rulings, and the arguments leading to those rulings, are made in secret and are classified. There is absolutely no transparency with this court.

From 1979, when the court was established, through 2012, the FISA court has granted 33,949 warrants, modified 504 warrants, and denied 11 warrants. The FISA court is a rubber stamp.

The second point King makes about Sen. Paul’s comments related to the Director of National Security, James Clapper, who heads the NSA, sharing a prison cell with Edward Snowden is simply stupid. Clapper arguably committed perjury in his testimony before the Congress. He could be, and in our view should be, charged and tried for perjury.

We will stand with Sen. Rand Paul on this issue.

Rep. King, you’re a hypocritical, terrorist supporting, terrorist loving, blowhard. You don’t deserve to be in the Congress. You don’t deserve to be called an American. Actually Rep. King, you could have been tried under the Patriot Act for your support of the IRA since they were recognized by the US government as a terrorist organization.

Perhaps somebody should think about finding a way to do that. There’s no statute of limitations on aiding and abetting murder and terrorism.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Curmudgeon - Check Out 600w 200h

D.C. Man Who Fought Back Against Robber Now Charged With Murder
Colorado Democrats pass gun control, Magpul announces details of exit
  • warnertoddhuston

    Thus guy is one of the true idiots in Congress. He is on par with the nutcase from florida, Grayson.

    • Michael Becker

      Or the entire Black Caucus.

      • jim_m

        Hey now. You never know when Guam might capsize!

  • Brucehenry

    Yet while King was one of FOX’s go-to talking heads throughout the Bush administration’s misnamed “War on Terror,” left wing blogs kept trying to alert the public to this issue. It was ignored by the right and by the GOP, where King has remained a leading voice.

    It was just a couple of years ago he was getting all kinds of kudos on the right for his so-called “hearings” into Islamic radicalization.

    Note how the FOX story contains NOT ONE WORD about King’s past support of the IRA, even though that support was well-known at the time.

    • Michael Becker

      They give John Kerry a complete pass on committing treason in 1973 in Paris while a Naval Reserve officer. They give Teddy Kennedy a complete pass on trying to cut a deal with the Russians to get help defeating Reagan in ’84.

      Don’t get your panties in a wad, there’s a whole bunch more “overlooking” goes on with leftists.

      • Brucehenry

        I’m sorry, I forgot two wrongs make a right.

        • More like you don’t view it as wrong when your side does it.

          • Brucehenry

            Nuh-uh, YOU

          • Sadly, that is the most cogent response one can expect of you.

          • jim_m

            Bruce is very consistent. He opposes King’s funding of the IRA, which was done to further the cause of independence for Northern Ireland, and he supports the efforts of Kerry and Kennedy which were done to further the cause of damaging the US and ultimately destroying our freedoms by subjugating our nation to our enemies.

          • Brucehenry

            The Kerry/Kennedy thingies don’t sound like they’d stand up to a Snopesing, so I don’t have anything pro or con to say about them. I can see where the IRA was coming from, but that doesn’t excuse King, who can’t STAND it when brown people blow innocents up but is OK with white Irish guys blowing innocents up.

          • jim_m

            They are both absolutely true and neither has denied them, they were both corroborated independently. Kerry absolutely met with the N Vietnamese in Paris and Kennedy absolutely met with the Soviets in an attempt to undermine Reagan,

            But no it doesn’t excuse King and I never claimed that it did.

            But for you, King does not excuse them either.

          • Brucehenry

            Oh sure and Hillary hasn’t denied she personally strangled Vince Foster and Reagan never denied his henchmen met with the Ayatollah’s henchmen to delay the release of the 52 hostages to in order to ensure Reagan’s 1980 election. So that must mean both things happened.

            I notice you don’t include links to the “independent corroboration” you claim exists to support your allegations. Get it from World Net Daily or from Infowars?

          • jim_m

            Funny. Go ahead and snark but the fact remains that both Kerry and Kennedy treated with our enemies. Only the grossly ignorant on either side deny this. Those on the left have acknowledged that these events took place, although they justify the meetings. You just look like an ignorant ass and blinkered ideologue trying to deny what everyone accepts as true.

          • Brucehenry

            There is a difference — your favorite phrase — between attending a meeting and “committing treason” or “cutting a deal with the Russians,” genius.

            Which is why we’re not charging Dennis Rodman with treason right now for “treating with our enemies,” I suppose.

            I notice the absence of links again. That’s because to Jim, “independent corroboration” means “multiple assertions of the same crazy allegation by many wingnut blogs.”

          • jim_m

            For Kerry meeting with the N Vietnamese was nearly treason.

            Kennedy was proposing to the soviets actions that he hoped would cost Reagan the elections. He was putting partisan advantage above the national security of the nation (very much like obama, which is probably why you are defending him so)

            In both cases, it is illegal to conduct what amounts to foreign policy unless you are the President or his designee. But then you don’t give a rip about leftists breaking the law. The law should never get applied to the left as far as you’re concerned.

          • Seeing as how lurch still held a commission as an officer of the Naval Reserve at the time…

          • Brucehenry

            As far as anyone can tell you have only the allegations of geniuses like Alex Jones, Jerome Corsi, and Glenn Beck (I presume) to support your accusation that Kerry “committed treason” or that Kennedy did anything untoward.

            You weren’t at these meetings and have only the word of ax grinders as “independent corroboration, ” as far as I can tell. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

            I noticed your applause of Walter’s call on the other thread for intellectual honesty. Let’s see some from you for a change.

          • Why don’t you start with the Congressional Record where John Kerry testified to meeting both sides in Paris?

          • Brucehenry

            A meeting is not treason. Or rather, is not necessarily treason.

          • jim_m


          • Brucehenry

            Ooooh, burn.

            Any links yet?

          • jim_m

            F you Bruce.

            Here is your lover Kennedy betraying pour nation to the soviets so he can get Reagan out of office

            The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.

            Kennedy wanted to give the Soviets secrets so they could cut a better arms deal against our own national security interests.

            You even fucking deny what Kerry has already admited to himself

            A major theme of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) in 1971 involved sending representatives to Paris and to Hanoi to meet with communist leaders.

            John Kerry has admitted to meeting in 1970 in Paris with Madame Nguyen Thi Binh, the Foreign Minister of the Provisional Revolutionary Government, the “waiting-in-the-wings government” ready to take over South Vietnam once the Communists won. The Viet Cong operated as the military arm of the PRG. Kerry also met with representatives of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, the official name of the North Vietnamese communist government in Hanoi. North Vietnam’s lead delegate at that time was Le Duc Tho, who along with Ho Chi Minh was one of the original founders of the Communist Party of Indochina and one of North Vietnam’s chief strategists.

            You’ve become a useless troll and should be banned.

          • Brucehenry

            You think I should be banned because I have repeatedly embarrassed you lately.

          • jim_m

            I used to stick up for you and you’ve come close to getting banned before. I won’t anymore.

          • Brucehenry

            A meeting isn’t necessarily treason. A viloation of the Logan Act isn’t necessarily treason. Do you not get that?

          • jim_m

            You denied that the meetings ever took place.

            Admit that they took place you lying a-hole. Quit moving the goal posts and admit you were wrong.

          • Brucehenry

            I explicitly SAID, Mr Reading Comprehension, in my reply to Rodney above, and I quote: “I don’t deny the meetings took place. I deny any treason was committed.”

            BTW I can’t get your Forbes link to work. I’ll refresh the page and try again.

          • jim_m

            You claimed that they wouldn’t stand up to “a Snopesing”

            So come on. Show us the links that prove these events never happened. I’ve shown you the Kennedy offereed the KGB the opportunity to get information that would be advantageous in arms negotiations. I have shown you that Kerry admits to meeting with the N Vietnamese.

            Or are you finally admitted that the meetings took place and you are moving the goal posts again. SO Kerry admits to being in the meetings and you now demand that we prove that he met with specific individuals??!?! Screw you. I proved what I claimed. Why don’t you do something and prove your counter claim?

            I know why. It’s because you are an ignorant, lying troll. You don’t even take umbrage to being called a liar because you know it is true.

          • Brucehenry

            Throughout this “conversation,” (if you can call a conversation an event in which one guy types and another shouts fuckyous, insults, and threats) I never once claimed these meetings didn’t take place, I simply denied any treason was committed. In YOUR link this Nguyen Thi Binh person was mentioned. I was careful to assert only that no treason was committed, not that Kerry didn’t meet with this person. Nor did I make any demands about who he met with. Where do you get this stuff?

            The goal posts are exactly where I found them. It is up to the person alleging treason to prove treason, it seems to me. A meeting is a meeting. It may be a violation of the Logan Act — it may not. But even if it is, that doesn’t make it treason. That’s my only point, and has been throughout this thread.

            Now, all that being said, the Forbes article is kind of umm, troubling, to say the least. I’ll look into it a little more.

          • jim_m

            You posted an allegation that they were urban myth. That is the same thing as saying that they didn’t happen.

          • Brucehenry

            Nope. Closest I came was saying the “Kerry/Kennedy thingies don’t sound like they’d stand up to a Snopesing.” As Jim might say, “There is a difference.”

            Matter of fact, when I used that phrase there had as yet been no mention of the WORD, “meeting,” so that obviously doesn’t constitute a denial of them.

          • jim_m

            It’s an allegation that they are not true. I just demonstrated what I said was true. There is no difference, except that you deny that facts have anything to do with truth.

          • Brucehenry

            Once again, the Kennedy thing comes closer to what I would call treason if true. The Kerry thing? While it may arguably have been a violation of the Logan Act it still wouldn’t constitute treason.

            I’m, again, pretty damn sure if John Mitchell could have indicted Kerry for treason — or for that matter, Logan Act violations — he would have done so.

          • jim_m

            Yeah and I am sure that his comrades in VVA would have testified against him, or maybe the N Vietnamese. The standard is not whether we can convict him.

            Stop with the amoral leftist position that if you cannot be convicted then you didn’t do anything wrong.

          • Brucehenry

            Sure as soon as you stop with the amoral rightwing position that to be accused is to be convicted — except if you’re George Zimmerman.

          • jim_m

            Yeah like I’m petitioning to have Kerry hanged.

          • Brucehenry

            LOL. But you did chime in in support of Becker’s allegation of Kerry’s “treason.”

            I hope you acknowledge the difference between what may be a violation of the Logan Act and “treason.”

            Now, let’s hang RODMANNN!!

          • jim_m

            I do recognize that. I think that Kennedy was dangerously close to treason with his offer to Andropov. I also think that Kerry gave aid and comfort to the enemy with his testimony before congress.

            Rodman should face some consequences.

          • Brucehenry

            What you accuse Kerry of is different than what Becker accused him of, way upthread.

          • jim_m

            I’m sorry. When did I become responsible for Becker?

          • Brucehenry

            You’re serious? Most of this thread has been taken up with your vociferous denunciation of my denial that Kerry committed “treason,” as Becker alleged. Replete with fuckyous, claims I said shit I didn’t say, threats and insults…you know, all your usual stuff.

            I believe you call it “intellectual honesty.”

          • Brucehenry

            I don’t take umbrage here because it’s just a comment section on a blog. Nothing to get upset about. One of the great things about commenting on blogs is that I can say snarky stuff that might get me punched in the nose in a bar. I can hardly deny that pleasure to others.

          • jim_m

            You take no umbrage because you have no personal sense of honor and you have no moral compass.

          • Brucehenry

            Consider yourself challenged to a duel with pistols at dawn. I’ll have my second contact yours.

            If I don’t show up on time feel free to start without me.

          • jim_m

            I’ll be waiting for that contact.

          • Brucehenry


          • jim_m

            Yeah, I know. It was just another joke, like your claim that you were going to look at the Kennedy stuff further.

          • Brucehenry

            You know I did look at it a little and, except for the Forbes story, all the links were to sites like freerepublic, World Net Daily, etc. The most reputable link I found, except for Forbes, was “The American Spectator,” Hardly Gospel.

            So, maybe there’s something to this allegation, and maybe it’s just the Drudge factor — repeat an allegation enough times in the wingnutosphere and sooner or later it squirms into the mainstream. Hmmph.

            Oh and did you seriously believe I would fight a duel? Or that I thought you would?

          • jim_m

            Yeah. You are still denying that Kennedy did this. Figures. There is no limit to which you will deny the truth.

          • Brucehenry

            Just not the credulous rube you apparently are, Jim. It’ll take more than an internet meme to persuade me of what you call “truth.”

          • jim_m

            Idiot. this was not an internet meme. This goes back to before the internet.

            Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.

            How much internet and social media were going on in 1991? What a scumbag liar you have become. So this is an internet meme because the London Times uncovered Ted Kennedy offering to sell out the nation to the Soviets (before the internet was even remotely the media tool it is today)?

            What is the next lie you are going to tell about this story?

            You have said it never happened. I show that it did.

            You claim it is only some internet meme and I show that it was a story before the internet in legitimate newspapers.

            So what is it Bruce? What lie are you now going to claim to weasel out of this issue?

          • jim_m

            Come Bruce, Concoct some other lame lie to deny the truth. Tell me genius. When did social media become a force on the internet? 1991 according to you.

            You were on the internet with your 386 PC running Windows 3.11? How did Facebook look back then? How many blogs were you reading in 1991?

            Tell me genius, how this story is an internet meme when it was before any of that.

            Like I said you are a desperate, lying troll.

          • jim_m

            Here’s another source for you.

            Is it still just some bogus internet meme? Do I need to post links from the Washington Times and other newspapers too? How about CNS?

            Are you that dishonest that you will never admit that this is real?

          • jim_m

            Hey, Bruce, can you furnish a screen grab from the 1991 London Times to substantiate your claim that this is some bogus internet meme?

            Or did mommy tell you to get out of the basement and go to bed already?

          • Brucehenry

            The American Spectator, the Washington Times, and CNS are all repeating the same story — one told in this Paul Kengor character’s book — about a memo supposedly “uncovered” in 1991 by a London Times reporter. The memo discusses a Soviet diplomat’s version of what he was allegedly told by a former Sen Tunney about the views held, allegedly, by Ted Kennedy.

            BTW, in this case, despite your flat assertion early in this thread that Kennedy “absolutely met with the Soviets in an attempt to undermine Reagan,” no such meeting is even ALLEGED to have taken place.As a matter of fact, some of these articles in these blogs explicitly state that there was never any meeting.

            There is no indication that the Times ever ran such a story, in 1991 or at any other time, only that this memo was “uncovered” by a Times reporter. It would be up to YOU, as the accuser, to link to such an article, not up to me to prove a negative.

            And yes, an internet meme can be derived from an old rumor or an accusation from long ago. You have mentioned, for instance, the meme that “Lincoln was gay” which I first heard in the 1990s.

            In typical Jim fashion, you have taken a memo in which a minor Soviet diplomat allegedly reports what Tunney allegedly told him about what Kennedy wanted to do into “absolute proof” that Kennedy met with the Soviets — except the memo never said that, and neither did the Times or anyone else.

          • jim_m

            So you are alleging that they have all been duped? Please. Go find me the retractions to their stories.

          • Brucehenry

            No, Smartest Man On The Internet, I’m saying that you have repeatedly claimed to have PROVEN that “Kennedy met with the Soviets” by posting these links.

            What you have proven is that you can find many links all making the same claim — that a Times reporter wrote a story about a memo he says he discovered. In this memo, a Soviet diplomat reports his interpretation of what Tunney supposedly said about what Ted Kennedy is willing to do.

            In all these articles, it is made clear that Kennedy NEVER ACTUALLY MET WITH THE SOVIETS.

            In other words, YOUR OWN LINKS, all of them, prove that you got the facts wrong.

            Now, is there such a memo? Possibly. Does the memo reflect what Kennedy actually wished to do? We don’t know. The diplomat never talked to Kennedy himself, only this Tunney guy, and we also don’t know if he interpreted Tunney’s thoughts correctly. Did any actual meeting occur between Kennedy and the Soviets in which Kennedy “attempts to undermine” the President?


            Ha ha you didn’t read your own links.

            Again, “independent corroboration” to you means “multiple websites reporting the same questionable story.” A story which doesn’t prove what you have repeatedly claimed it proves even if taken as Gospel. Thus we see what Jim means by “intellectual honesty.”

          • jim_m

            Fair enough, Kennedy never met with Andropov, but he made the offer to sell out our nation.. Of course you approve of selling out our nation to our enemies.

            Note that I am man enough to admit that whereas you are too much of an ideologue and cowardly troll to do so when you are wrong.

          • Brucehenry

            For one thing, I haven’t been wrong here, you have.

            For another, we only have this report of a memo as evidence that any offer was made. This memo reports that Tunney says Kennedy is willing to do this stuff. We have no way of knowing to what extent Tunney was allegedly “speaking for” Kennedy. The diplomat claims he is, but sometimes, as we learned from Iraq, spies tell their bosses what they think their bosses want to hear. We have no admission from Kennedy, that’s for sure.

            I’m afraid you wouldn’t know “the truth” if it whacked you upside the head, Jim. “The truth” is that all your linky links go back to one book by this professor from Grove City College. There is NO :”independent corroboration” of what you allege, whether you are alleging an actual meeting or whether you are alleging an actual offer.

            So who is the troll, Jimmy? The guy who keeps his feet on the ground and demands actual, you know, PROOF of a wild accusation, or the spitting spewer of screwyous, threats, and insults?

            “Take umbrage” at that, genius.

          • jim_m

            You claim that this as some internet meme, you claimed that both allegations against Kerry and Kennedy were an urban myth.

            You have been wrong, you are just too much of a lying ideologue and troll to admit it.

          • Brucehenry

            No, YOU have claimed to have proven that Kerry “committed treason” when you haven’t. He may have violated the Logan Act, but there is NO PROOF that he committed treason.

            You have also claimed that Kennedy “absolutely” met with the Soviets in an effort to undermine Reagan. You claimed to have “independent corroboration” of this claim. You didn’t have any such independent corroboration, just link after link to the same information.

            Not only did Kennedy NOT meet with the Soviets, but you have only this one memo from a 1991 book to indicate that this so-called offer was ever made, and your memo doesn’t prove that Kennedy himself actually made it.

            So no, I wasn’t wrong. You were. But I won’t insist that you say so. I know it’s too hard for you.

          • jim_m

            You have consistently moved the goal posts from your original claim that kerry never ,met with the N Vietnamese to he never met with specific people to nothing happened because he was never charged with treason.

            The same for the Kennedy story. It went from he never talked to the Soviets to it is an urban myth to it is only an internet meme.

            You have trolled this whole issue.

          • Brucehenry

            Never denied Kerry met with the Vietnamese, just that he didn’t commit treason by doing so. The only specific person I mentioned was the one he was accused of meeting with IN YOUR OWN LINK. It doesn’t really matter who he met with and I never said it did.

            At first I didn’t dispute that Kennedy had met with the Soviets, just expressed doubt at the accusation of undermining. Later I discovered, through YOUR OWN LINKS, that this meeting you claimed “absolutely” happened, umm DIDN’T.

            Never used the phrase “urban myth.” You keep saying I did but I didn’t. BTW Snopes has NO information on the Kennedy thing that I can find.

            Once again if the goalposts have moved it wasn’t me who moved them.. I denied Becker’s claim that Kerry committed treason and I expressed doubt that Kennedy “met with the Soviets” and I was correct in both instances.

          • Brucehenry

            Never denied Kerry met with the Vietnamese, just that he didn’t commit treason by doing so. The only specific person I mentioned was the one he was accused of meeting with IN YOUR OWN LINK. It doesn’t really matter who he met with and I never said it did.

            At first I didn’t dispute that Kennedy had met with the Soviets, just expressed doubt at the accusation of undermining. Later I discovered, through YOUR OWN LINKS, that this meeting you claimed “absolutely” happened, umm DIDN’T.

            Never used the phrase “urban myth.” You keep saying I did but I didn’t. BTW Snopes has NO information on the Kennedy thing that I can find.

            Once again if the goalposts have moved it wasn’t me who moved them.. I denied Becker’s claim that Kerry committed treason and I expressed doubt that Kennedy “met with the Soviets” and I was correct in both instances.

          • I’ll stand as your second, and await the pleasure of mister henry’s imaginary friend.

          • I’ll stand as your second, and await the pleasure of mister henry’s imaginary friend.

          • It took you this long to figure that out?

          • It took you this long to figure that out?

          • jim_m

            Funny how all of a sudden your computer doesn’t work. Link works fine for me. It works, you just don’t want to admit that I furnished the link you asked for.

            And, gee, I’m sorry, when you denied that the meetings took place to me I kind of expected that you would respond to me about your concession.

          • Brucehenry

            Look down, I checked it out and it is indeed troubling. I have promised to look into it more.

            Now, produce a quote in which I deny these meetings ever took place.

          • jim_m

            Come on Bruce. You claimed that “The Kerry/Kennedy thingies don’t sound like they’d stand up to a Snopesing”

            Pony up your proof. Come on. I ponied up my proof that these meetings happened and provided you multiple sources for one.

          • jim_m

            Don’t bother to admit that I just proved that Kerry met with the N Vietnamese, which you denied.

            Don’t bother to admit that I just proved that Kennedy met with the Soviets, which you have denied.

            And explain how what Kennedy did, offering to give the Soviets information so they could cut a arms treaty that would give them an advantage over our own national security interests, is not a treasonous act.

            I suppose you don’t have any problem with people meeting with our enemies and willingly putting US lives at risk for their political advantage.

          • Brucehenry

            Dude, “sweetness and light” is another wingnut blog!

            And your block quote is unattributed. What’s up with that?

            I’m pretty sure if Kerry had met with Nguyen Thi Binh and “committed treason” during that meeting, Nixon’s Justice Dept MIGHT have noticed and, you know, arrested his ass.

          • jim_m

            Both blockquotes are attributed dumbass.

            How about Forbes then jackass?

            Are you going to claim that Forbes is some right wing conspiracy blog. Screw you Bruce. I have presented you with the truth and you could at least admit that fact. But no You are too intent on being an a-hole and a troll.

            Don’t expect me to cut you any slack here if you are going to be a troll.

            I want you to admit that what you were calling an urban myth actually did happen.

          • shorter brucehenreid: I got less than nothing. Moving goal posts…

          • Brucehenry

            The goal posts are exactly where I found them. Becker alleges “treason” at these meetings Kerry and Kennedy, respectively, had with the North Vietnamese and the Soviets. I don’t deny the meetings took place. I deny any treason was committed.

          • jim_m

            Stop being a lying sack of S### and admit that you were wrong here. We cited real history and you deny things that even Kerry has admitted to. You called them urban myths and have yet to concede the point. You have become nothing more than a partisan troll, lying about the facts and refusing to admit the fact when they are shown to you.

          • Brucehenry

            Quotes? Ha ha, I know you can’t find quotes.

          • LiberalNightmare

            It is treason, if your a US naval officer at the time.

          • Brucehenry

            So why wasn’t he arrested for it?

          • jim_m

            Again, it’s about being able to try and convict someone. In which case your claim is that nothing happened.

          • He got an OTH which was later upgraded to an Honorable by Dhimmy.

          • jim_m

            Jeez, Bruce. In the tank a little for the left? Is there nothing that they have done that you will ever admit to? Are you like Chico and still backing the bogus video story? Are you still tracking with Media Matters that Clinton never had any relationship with Monica Lewinsky?

            You are either willfully ignorant or dishonest and it’s really hard to tell which.

            You’ve become a disgusting ignorant troll the last few months.

          • Brucehenry

            Shorter Jim: “I got nothin.'”

          • jim_m

            Rodney already answered, Mr Troll.

            Kerry testified to meeting with the enemy when he was still a member of the Navy Reserves. The meeting was illegal.

            Why don’t you come up with something that proves that our claims are wrong. I suppose that your trip to snopes came up empty otherwise you would be going on about how you have proof that we fell for some urban myth.

            You are the troll who has nothing but is willing to deny demonstrable fact because you no longer believe that facts have anything to do with truth. Your ideology tells you what is true and it doesn’t matter what facts are given to you.

          • Brucehenry

            Even if the meeting was illegal, and that’s debatable, it can be a violation of the Logan Act without being treason, genius. The Logan Act is the law you cite,I’m guessing, as evidence of Kerry’s actions being illegal.

            There have been many instances over the years of actors being accused of violation of the Logan Act. Violations of the Logan Act aren’t “treason,” as Becker (and apparently Rodney, and maybe you?) alleges.

            BTW, did you edit your above comment that Kerry’s meeting was “clearly” treason to “nearly” treason, or am I mistaken?

            If you want to show me “demonstrable” fact, go ahead. All you have done so far is show that you do not know what English words mean, and that you give undue credulity to wingnut internet memes. I haven’t even checked Snopes because the allegations put forth don’t pass the smell test. But maybe I will.

          • jim_m

            Screw you Bruce. I posted your freaking links to the truth and you can’t be bothered to respond.

            You’re just another troll, like Lee Ward or SPongeBob

      • Brucehenry
  • Lawrence Westlake

    King is a like a dog whistle for the Idiocracy components of the chattering classes. The left hates him. He’s a Republican and he’s one of the most ardent opponents of Islamofascist terrorism. Hence these sort of hit pieces by the likes of WaPo. The Paulbot demographic hates him, because they see the gumbmint doing stuff that offends their absurd, spoiled brat visions of what a government should be like and reflexively they have to oppose it. The Limbaugh/Malkin demographic hates him, because they’re uneducated, inexperienced and irrational, and thus they lack the ability to engage in critical thinking. FYI, having a beer with some Sinn Fein guys in a bar doesn’t mean you “support” the IRA and saying that Sinn Fein should have been part of the peace process, which ultimately they were, doesn’t mean you “support car bombs.” Here’s an analogy. If for example you were going to talk about a comprehensive peace treaty in Afghanistan wouldn’t you have to have the Taliban at the table? Duh. And obviously they’re a “legitimate force,” in the sense that they’re a major player with boots on the ground, without which any peace agreement would be meaningless. Doesn’t mean they’re not terrorists. Juxtapose to the Northern Ireland issues about which King was speaking. Connect the dots. Ultimately the blogosphere’s constant detachment from reality can be described by that classic scene in My Cousin Vinny: “I shot the clerk.” Context is everything. Agendas, lack of attention spans and ignorance create the contexts of facile and vacant mindsets.

    • jim_m

      Jeez dude, make a paragraph.

    • Michael Becker

      Dude, you’re an idiot.

      King wasn’t “having a beer”, he was openly supporting car bombings by the IRA against the Brits.

      Check out the context, check out his agenda. He was supporting terrorists.

      Oh, and you are really an idiot. (The “Enter” key is the one you use to make one of those “paragraph” thingys.)

      On second thought, scratch the paragraphs. A paragraph separates thoughts in a post. You have no thoughts in your post so you really didn’t need any paragraphs at all.

  • King is a career Rhino, and evil as it gets. I’m with Rand Paul, with the exception of Snowden. I thank Snowden for his patriot stand against the NSA to warn America. Our lousy lying government has done nothing but protect and fund terrorist organizations since the usurper took office. You can’t trust P. King or the Regime, just know that, of which all of them should be charged with TREASON

  • Latetermabornionist

    Peter King sucks

  • westcoastwiser

    King is just an angry white man.