How an Anti-Trump Symbol Got Confused for a Swastika

Neo-Nazi or Bernie Bro? That is the question, and the answer appears to be the latter.

But the answer raises a few more questions.

Last week San Jose Inside published an “I Saw You” column that appears weekly in Metro Silicon Valley’s print edition. An unnamed reader submitted an anecdote about a man standing in a garage overlooking the San Jose Women’s March, where he reportedly began flipping people off while holding a Swastika symbol. A photo that accompanied the story online showed two men, one holding the small sign and the other possessing a camera with a long lens.

The reaction on Facebook and this website was immediate and all over the map, as some readers boldly opposed hate speech—a few went overboard, making threats that have apparently been removed—while others argued that the men were actually protesters.

We haven’t been able to speak with either of the men in the photo, but commenters have since pointed out that the sign the man held was actually an anti-Donald Trump protest symbol. From a distance it looks to be a Swastika, but up close the sign consists of four large “T” letters and smaller letters “RUMP” filling out the extra space.

SJSU lecturer Joe Miller says this is the symbol an unknown man possessed at the San Jose Women’s March. (Image via Facebook)

SJSU lecturer Joe Miller says this is the symbol an unknown man possessed at the San Jose Women’s March. (Image via Facebook)

Joe Miller, a lecturer on design at San Jose State University, reached out to San Jose Inside and confirmed that he saw the man holding the sign.

“I kind of lumped it in my mind with the ‘Fuck Trump’ posters that day, which there were many more of,” Miller said. “I heard, too, that he was flipping people off, but I never saw that at the time.”

A student in Miller’s class, which discussed the incident and the design principles of the protest symbol, identified the man’s hat as pro-Bernie Sanders paraphernalia.

Since last week, a few questions have been raised:

  1. Was it appropriate to publish the “I Saw You” column and photo without independently verifying the identity and motives of the men?

In short: yes. We strive to be as transparent as possible about the news and the way we gather it. The packaging of the post could have been more precise, but the debate surrounding President Trump requires all of us to consider what kind of country we’re becoming and what style of governance is taking place under this new administration. Reports of hate crimes are on the rise since Trump won the election, and—all due respect to symbols of auspiciousness—no image holds greater association with evil than a red Swastika. We rely on readers and sources to give us information, and many times that information is incomplete.

  1. Was the protest symbol poorly designed?

Yes, it’s a poor design. Trump has parroted fascist remarks and deserves criticism. But it’s a terribly mixed message to have anti-Trump protesters carrying around what appear to be Swastikas from just a short distance.

  1. Was it unwise for a man to stand on a balcony with what appeared to be a Swastika and then antagonize other protesters?

Yes, it was unwise. Speech is protected, but perception, as Congressman Ro Khanna recently said, takes on greater significance in a sound bite culture.

Josh Koehn is the managing editor for San Jose Inside and Metro Silicon Valley. Email tips to [email protected] or follow him on Twitter at @Josh_Koehn.

44 Comments

  1. “… no image holds greater association with evil than a red Swastika.”

    Not in China.
    Not in the territories of the former USSR.
    Not in Palestine.

    • Wait. Why apologize to trump supporters? How did he maim them? What’s the standing? I think there are quite a few Nazis and sympathizers among the ranks of the trump lovers, all the way to the top. I believe one got punched in the face recently and a few thousand more held a convention and ball during inauguration week. One is now on the security council. I also believe David duke and trump are compadres, and bannon and breitbart are deeply imbedded now in the policy and PR communications with and for the so-called ALTRIGHT.

      And by the way, even if it were a handful of nazis it’s still wrong. As such quantities are like a handful of plagued vermin. Still enough disease to cause the deaths of millions if left unchecked. Here’s an idea: exterminate the nazi rats. It’s not about free speech, it’s about a group that systematically murdered Jews and marginalized, and would complete their mission if given the power and government support. Guess what? They now are in power and have government support. That to me is a coup of the America that wrestled and defeated its own nazi sympathizers and chose to fight and defeat the Nazis 70 years ago. Authoritarianism is inadequte. It is a euphemism for Nazi.

      • “I think there are quite a few Nazis and sympathizers among the ranks of the trump lovers, all the way to the top.”

        Stupidity of the first rank. To brand anyone in 21st century America a Nazi is to brand oneself an idiot. Nazism, as defined by Hitler himself, was an all-inclusive sociopolitical system designed for a particular people (ethnic Germans) in a particular place (Germany) at a particular time (post-Versailles). It is far too precise a word to qualify as a reasonable euphemism for anything.

        • I will make it easy for you: the origin of communism wasnt China or Vietnam or Cuba or even Russia. And yet….it like nazism is a political philosophy. Inherent in it is social and economic order. DUH! Search for the root of politic….And even Hitler’s intent was to not stay in Germany. Hello! WWII! To say it was meant to stay in Germany for a particular time and place reflects willful denial of history and Hitler’s intent. Would Hitler have been happy to find allies in 21st C USA? Yes as much as he was happy to have them in Britain and the US in the early 20th C. Did you not think this through before posting? I’m not sure about your ranks of stupidity. I think you just say stuff that sounds tough and certain. But you’re really thin on thought here, pal.

          Communism in china is not the communism of Cuba, but put special sauce pickles onions on a sesame seed bun and it’s a BIG MAC.

          • > I will make it easy for you: the origin of communism wasnt China or Vietnam or Cuba or even Russia.

            So, educate us, professor: what WAS the origin of communism?

            And, as a follow-up question, a lot of people spend a lot of time in the twentieth century talking about “communism”. What were they talking about?

          • Your definition of Nazism serves your simple mind but it has nothing to do with the new Weltanschauung* Hitler envisioned for the Volk,** one in which race and personality functioned as the chief obstacle to the threat posed to society by inferior peoples. If you think Hitler’s adventures into foreign lands were recruiting missions you’re dumber than I thought. Nazism was for Germans, period.

            *an organic system encompassing German values, traditions, religion, culture, and view of human existence.
            **his perception of the German people without class distinctions.

      • As I said before Bill you, like to follow that little red book, blame your enemy for what you are or have done.
        Today liberalism is the ugly face of authoritarianism.
        Just look at the work of the brown shirts in Berkeley the other night.

        • @finfan. i think your simple mind is stuck on narrow definitions based on an historical perspective. Nazism was a nationalism supported by anti-capitalist socialism and racial purity, and yet opposed to full on communism. On the genetic front, yes, Aryan dreams, but politically it was nationalism of a stripe we are experiencing here what with the attempt to marginalize, oust, and threaten difference and dissent. There are no muscles you can tear stretching your thought out a bit. And speaking of stretching, Hitler’s intention was not to recruit but to gain space. Period. Expand the footprint , but not dilute the foot’s whiteness.

          You refuse to study the complex philosophies of Nazism vis a vis other political economic theories, but I see why. You lack the nuance to fully grasp nazism with any depth. To you it’s all goose steps and leather of the early mid 20th century. Who’s stuck in time???

          I refuse to call you dumb. It’s apparent in your insecure defensiveness and your really simple thinking. Please try your schtick in a classroom of academics. Best to preserve one’s delusions of intellectual heft online.

          • Billy,

            I have read your response now over 3 times, slowly. I can only conclude that taking you seriously would be an insult to your intelligence.

          • Nazism is itself stuck in a narrow slice of history, which ended in 1945. That is not only an historical perspective but an historical fact, albeit one that clashes with your self-serving delusion that your cause is noble and great. You are not fighting Nazis, and your insisting you are just makes you sound stupid.

          • Js robillard. You tickle me with your cuteness. But just admit that it’s over your head. It’s ok. No blood no foul. There are layers of thought you might not have access to from time to time no matter how many times you read it. It’s ok. You don’t have a God-given right to know or understand everything just because you believe you’re of the superior race.

            Same goes to you finfan. Calling someone stupid or dumb doesn’t help your argument and really shows how small you are..I invite you to tell the American nazi party that they don’t exist and that Nazism died with Hitler.

            And Speaking of small, why are all you nazis hiding?

            After reading about today’s American Nazi Party–they do exist in the 21st century in America– and after finding a much cited–and dubious–quote from the great fuher himself that the Jewish Question will resurrect in the US., i can see clear parallels between your thoughts and stances and those espoused by ANP and the other national socialist groups.

            So I’m now accusing you of being national socialist of the White Power/Nazi movement.

            I’m pretty sure if I go back and analyze all your comments over the years and those of some other characters on here, I can easily prove your sympathies are in line with the American Nazi/ alt-right Cause. Word for word. Position by position.

            Come on out of the shadows, you Nazi pigs. I’m calling you out now.

            One of the planks by the ANP is to maintain a very low profile and avoid attention, propogating the White Cause through small cells and subtler messaging. In fact no nazi today would ever carry a swastika flag. It’s
            Against the party’s rules of engagement. The cause is underground and less overt.

            Nice try, guys. But you’re out.

            And quite frankly I’ve no noble cause. This whole Trump thing is the last gasp of a bygone period of American hate and bigotry. It will extinguish itself. But you do deserve to be outed as Nazis anyway.

          • This is an easy one Billy, Who is calling for the death of all the Jews. Who has billboards up saying death to America,
            What president in the last say 8 years gave the Israelis the finger every chance he got.
            What World organization is trying to screw that little tiny country out of existence every chance it gets?
            Who paying for the rioters, the looting, and all those protester that just suddenly appear.

            Clue it’s not Trump, the Republicans , or the Tea Party.

            Think for a while Billy

          • > Come on out of the shadows, you Nazi pigs. I’m calling you out now.

            No, you’re not.

            You’re hiding behind a fake name on an anonymous blog.

            Use you’re REAL name and call a REAL, non-public person a Nazi and we’ll see if your bank account is worth cleaning out, or if you’re just some pathetic loser waiting in the free food line at the homeless shelter and texting from your Obamaphone.

          • Billy sez:

            “I think there are quite a few Nazis and sympathizers among the ranks of the Trump lovers, all the way to the top.”

            There are a lot more Stalinists in the Obama/Hillary crowd—all the way to the top, including those two.

            Next: Nazis were Socialists. It’s right in their party name. But the left constantly tries to use Orwellian wordplay to claim the National Socialist party were capitalists. History proves that’s fabricated nonsense. As usual, you are exactly what you accuse others of being.

            What has Socialism ever accomplished, without using the confiscated wealth of the productive sector? History shows that it’s failed in every country—and that Communists are just Socialists in a hurry.

            How old are you, anyway, Billy? Still a little wet behind the ears, based on your head-nodding along with the leftist narrative. And if it weren’t for your psychological projection and name-calling, your posts would look like this:

            BILLY: [” … “].

            The difference between conservatives and leftists is easy to understand: conservatives believe in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. We’d be happy to stop right there.

            But leftists have one long term goal: Dictatorship. With themselves, of course, being the dictators over everyone else. That’s why you folks are still throwing your juvenile tantrums over a fair and democratic election. You expected Ms Obama 2.0 to complete the process that Obama started. But America gave her the boot; deal with it.

            If you disagree, then post just exactly *where* you’re willing to stop. What’s your end game? I’ve posted mine; let’s see yours. Be specific.

            Your kind is everything you accuse the rest of us of being: you are absolute, total racists, you don’t believe in the Constitution, and you’re happiest when the Bill of
            rights is being gutted.

            Alinsky gave you your marching orders: “Accuse the enemy of doing what you’re doing.” The leftist mouth-breathers follow his orders like good little Brown Shirts; you’ve been doing it right here.

            So, what’s your end game? Spell it out.

            Since you will prevaricate, here it is in a nutshell: you’d love to put all the conservative voters who propelled President Trump into office into FEMA camps, wouldn’t you? Of course you would. Because normal folks will never willingly buy into your leftist carp. So the only alternative you have left is force.

            Good luck with that. America defenestrated that nonsense last November. Thus, your non-stop tantrums.

  2. Spin it any way you want. Clearly this was just another example of the Liberal compulsion to assign the “racist” label reflexively and carelessly.
    Maybe there’s a lesson here for you liberals. You jumped to an erroneous conclusion regarding that guy. Maybe you’re also in error about the tens of millions of other Americans you imagine are racists. And maybe Donald Trump is your President because those tens of millions of Americans finally got sick of being called racists.

    • If you support a misogynist who unapologetically spews racial hate, what does it say about you? what conclusion do you expect people to draw? at best you looked the other way regarding the mans morals to get what you wanted policy wise. protesters responses has at times been extremely reprehensible as of late, but that does not absolve your actions anymore than one crime negates another. you have helped to elevate and normalize greed disrespect, narcissism and hate as acceptable. chalk it up to political ideology if it makes you feel better, but honesty it’s about respect, and you just sold it to get what you want.

      • SNIVAL72,
        Where the hell were you when Sick Willy was getting his weasel waxed in the Oral Office, and that criminal wife of his was out collecting bribe money for the cover up of the latest bimbo eruption?
        Nice time to sling sum mud!

      • “If you support a misogynist who unapologetically spews racial hate”

        Please place quotes from him here:

    • As someone commenting on the picture, I should not have jumped to the conclusions I did. You are right. I apologize.

  3. 1. Was it appropriate to publish the “I Saw You” column and photo without independently verifying the identity and motives of the men?

    In short: yes.

    Really? From here it looked like jumping to conclusions, and then publicly scolding the wrong perps. It looked like Murphy’s Law being applied to reporters.

    No doubt our reporter now sees, with the crystal clarity of 20/20 hindsight, that a simple (but tedious) vetting process would have avoided stirring up the hate-fest. But maybe the hate-fest was the objective, or maybe it was just an opportunity to exploit. But the egg-on-face result was because the story turned out to be flat wrong: all that holier-than-thou finger-wagging and scolding was being directed at a couple guys on your own side of the fence! ☺

    Along with the pictures, that article came across like a tribal screed. Even the pretense of objectivity—playing the game—would seem to be a no-brainer, since the media already has some pretty overwhelming advantages. Why be the bully? The only reason is that your arguments are über-weak. One of the media’s biggest advantages is in telling readers what to think. But heavy handed leftist political screeds can be counter-productive if they start to sound like they’re in the ☭Daily Worker. Earth to Reporter: not everyone thinks like you do. And not everyone agrees, as we saw last November.

    Even if the media has the right to take pics of people in public, the very one-sided slant of that article, along with the pictures (*nudge*) sent a clear message of who the bad guys are (those two!) And of course the good guys are invariably eco-saints; they’re always held in the very highest esteem. So when an eco-saint utters something, the media often never bothers with a skeptic’s view. Instead, the eco-saint’s words resonate exclusively in all their green glory, while standing on the smallest carbon footprint this side of Algore. But if there is ever a counter-point from a skeptic, for some reason it never looks or sounds very good. Funny about that…

    Also, just like eco-saints, there are also organized eco-Authorities, such as NASA, USHCN, NOAA, etc. Those Authorities can not be questioned.

    Of course, that’s a textbook example of the Appeal to Authority logical fallacy. But no matter, since that particular logical fallacy works extremely well on the folks that got good ‘n’ edumacated by are government’s .edu factories.

    Since they never encountered a teacher of critical thinking, they can easily ignore the mountain of evidence available showing conclusively that NASA, NOAA, and similar government agencies routinely “adjust” past temperatures, generally by lowering the temperatures farther back in time, thus fabricating what appears to be a scary acceleration in global warming. Their “adjustments” always go in the most alarming direction, and any related issues are spun in whatever way is most alarming to the populace (like coloring maps bright red for temps in the 80’s ºF).

    So we have a Government/Media axis that is doing what’s good for the government and the media. But that’s not the same as doing what’s good for the country, or for the people supposedly being served by that self-serving axis.

    • @smokey. You use so many words for so little to say! Ranting is easy. Watch!

      First, yes. More vetting, but really, why publish the I SAW YOU column in the first place? It’s such a passive aggressive form. Like public shaming-lite. If there is anything about liberals, it’s that passive aggressive cattiness applied inappropriately. It’s unbearable: “I saw you, Hitler, rushing into France!” Tsk. Tsk.

      And what’s ridiculous is how the author tries to blame it on a poorly designed symbol and even gets an unwitting design stooge from Sjsu to opine. Now THATS appealing to authority, as Joe is numero uno about such discussions.

      But this whole thing is a molehill. The “I Saw You” isn’t meant to be an objective article. That’s where you’re wrong. Context, young man! Again, it’s a cute, dated column that’s a relic of printed weekly alternative journalism culture. A filler when the sales guy didn’t meet the ad quota and the features writer came up 4 grafs short. It’s supposed to disappear with the kitty litter or the recyclables. But online it petrifies and remains for eternity. It’s an anonymous gotcha. As such, the “guest” writer would not have approached the two. But a gotcha column to people who appear to be nazis? Wrong approach. Kill the gotcha column and go straight-shooting journalism,” Who are these Nazis in our presence?”

      But, then you go on about eco-saints. Clearly your agenda is showing. Horrible pivot on your part and with such doltish name-calling.

      I think it has worked well for America to trust the scientists who have spent their lives studying and performing significant feats, and have advanced our knowledge based upon scientific methodology requiring evidence . And if YOU were educated in the sciences you would know that MOST take objective and nonbiased approaches very seriously. It’s about an honor code, but it’s also about PEER REVIEW. And with NASA it’s about safety in engineering. They need to anticipate atmosphere and weather patterns. In the sciences, it is dishonorable to have your work exposed by peers as falsified or tampered, and it is career-ending. Your diatribe of scientists conspiring to lie is so outrageous, you’d think you’d have proof. yet you present zero proof. Then again, you’re anti-evidence. Btw, Since before climate change was ever uttered, those temperature colors have always represented temperature ranges. Yet you point that out as evidence of a conspiracy… to what? What is the benefit of lying? Skepticism is good and guess what? That’s what peer review is! It is built into the methodology of re-creating experiments and data analysis and results. If you’ve seen a study you will always see the same approach, including how the study was conducted, sample sizes, environments and controls, how data was acquired, what the scientists found flawed in the study, what needed to be done to scrub the data without introducing bias, recommendations about future studies for clarification, RAW DATA so it can be analyzed, statistical results, and a discussion of the findings. The academic requirements to arrive to this level are incredibly challenging and take months to years to produce.

      So I have to ask, what is the benefit of opposing anything that might improve the use of the worlds limited resources? Where’s your dog in this fight? Do you own a coal mine? Are you heavily invested in oil or GM? Or maybe you’re in a Beijing state of mind. Your very unreasonable lopsided perspective is as bad as the lopsided perspective you found in an inherently lopsided article. But the difference is, the article does not attempt to be fair and balanced, and you act as if you are…this is where your credibility collapses, Or goes up in smoke.

      Present your evidence and not just opinionated rants. I bet you have no evidence to counter the claims by the so-called authorities.

      • Smokey,
        I’m afraid your way over their pointed little heads full of mush, as your point has nothing to do with the way they feel.

  4. Declaring other people to be haters is just an instance of moral supremacism.

    People like supremacism. They just don’t like OTHER people’s’ supremacism.

      • > And people like cheese with their supremacism, especially their burrito supremacism.

        OK.

        Probably sounds a lot wittier in a stand-up comedy club with a laugh track and a lot of drunk progressives in the audience.

        • No one uses laugh tracks in comedy clubs and when people are appropriately disarmed, they are all progressives. See, regressives are the defensive static type. Hey want no progress out of fear of the unknown. Imbibing liberates!!…but what was funny was my dismantling of your ridiculous all encompassing statement about supremacism with a simple reference to Taco Bell. And did you like that it was a Mexican food? I could have said pizza. But I chose Mexican food to desupremacize your yearning for unchallenged supremacy. That’s called wit. Absent the dim you display.

          • “No one uses laugh tracks in comedy clubs and when people are appropriately disarmed, they are all progressives”

            What is appropriately disarmed? Are you speaking literally or figuratively? I dont think anyone would consider you or your comments funny, witty or enlightened….whether they were “disarmed” or not. But, i’m sure the mirror finds you absolutely mesmerizing.

          • And I will tell you what’s not funny: attempting to make “hate” a relative, debatable term. You cannot defang hate or minimize the threat it has on democracy. Hate is a clearly defined act or language reflecting irrational indefensible views about supremacy, difference, exceptionalism, and extermination.

            I do think hate is sometimes misapplied, but I would not dismiss it as you do so casually

          • > And I will tell you what’s not funny: attempting to make “hate” a relative, debatable term. You cannot defang hate or minimize the threat it has on democracy. Hate is a clearly defined act or language reflecting irrational indefensible views about supremacy, difference, exceptionalism, and extermination.

            Billy:

            You sound like a “hate fundamentalist”.

            Is it OK to hate “haters”? Who is on your list of people that it is permissible to hate?

      • @bohica. Another who thinks in broad strokes! Where do you folks come from? Here’s a joke: what’s the difference between a Bohica and a paranoid coward? The fathers.

      • Are you seriously going to evoke COMMUNISM? and a handbook? Do they even exist anymore outside of Putin’s library of subversive strategies like, say, support the most unstable, psychologically deluded narcissist, and if she doesn’t bite, go for someone worse like Trump?

        Who the heck is my enemy? You? Isn’t that a very loose definition? I mean I don’t even know you, much less consider you an enemy. Indeed, being called an enemy is an elevation of title to you, worthy of a duel to death. You and I are merely mixing it up on a dull Saturday across electrically transmitted data bytes…enemy? No. Putin the commie is an enemy. North Korea and Iran are enemies. China is an enemy. You’re… well, you are merely you. As I am merely me. Chilax on the enemy stuff.

          • Only a genuine “Red Diaper Doper Baby” would answer like that Little Billy.

            A good communist will always start with your a Nazi/Fascist and hope you will slink away and he will win the argument.

            Come on Bill why can’t you guys ever admit what you are and really think and want.

        • Sorry Billy,
          I should have said it right out of the Government School Manifesto. It works as you’re the end result!

        • Billy sez:

          ” Chilax on the enemy stuff.”

          That’s just more Billy/Alinsky carp; I recall Obama stating that Republicans are “the enemy.” (And IANAR, so don’t start.)

          Billy is an Alinsky puppet whether he knows it or not. His mentor wrote these Rules For Radicals:

          #1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.”

          Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. Alinsky added another factor: Perception. As we saw in the election, the Left has fewer supporters than real Americans. But with the conniving assistance of Big Media, it appears to be more numerous.

          #2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”

          Because that results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. That’s why the Dems are currently in confused retreat following the election.

          #3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.”

          A corollary of #2. Try to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty among voters. Tell them they were wrong. Big Media helps that dishonesty immensely (and why ‘dishonesty’? DJT has been in office for 23 days; not nearly enough to judge whether he’s either right or wrong).

          #4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

          Alinsky explained: “If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters.”

          #5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”

          There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. But the new President seems to be immune, so this is backfiring. Thus, it’s counterproductive.

          #6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”

          Alinsky: ‘They will keep doing it without urging and come back to do more.’ But they do not enjoy being whipped at the polls. Without a one-sided Media, tyhey would already be scattered to the winds.

          #7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”

          ‘Don’t become old news.’ That is already happening.

          #8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.”

          Keep the opposition off balance, advises Alinsky. But the President is solidly grounded. It’s very hard to get him off balance.

          #9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”

          That applies to lots of situations, including the demonizing of DJT. The public sees that.

          #10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.”

          And vice-versa. Americans have common sense, and respect fairness. The Left has overstepped with #10.

          #11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”

          What is their alternative? Hillary?

          #12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

          This is a two way street. President Trump is just getting started—and the talking heads may have bit off more than they can chew. Time will tell.

          So as we see, Alinsky’s rules work both ways. And Trump is no shrinking violet. If he uses the office effectively, he will find that it weilds more power than Big Media—and without the media, the Billy contingent will be up the proverbial creek without a paddle.

          Alinsky expressed his opinion on related subjects. These are right out of the erstwhile Soviets’ playbook (paraphrased):

          • Healthcare – Control healthcare and you control the people.

          The Soviets said ‘food'; now it’s healthcare. So we will see if it has the same effect.

          • Poverty – Increase the Poverty level as high as possible; poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to subsist on.

          This is true. Food stamps, free medical care, cash EBT cards topped up monthly, Obamaphones, Section 8, etc. But what if those EBT cards don’t get re-filled? This is another knife that can cut both ways, if the President has the cojones. I would advise him to do it, and let the chips fall wherever. And in the mean time, a deaf person would hear the howls of anguish.

          • Debt – Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.

          Obama deliberately spent/wasted $Trillions, much of it with no Congressional authorization. It may be effective—but I challenge anyone to try and defend it. And it opens the door to huge defense spending now.

          • Gun Control – Remove the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state.

          Which is the goal …isn’t it, Billy?

          • Education – Take control of what people read and listen to take control of what children learn in school.

          The central strategy.

          • Religion – Remove the belief in the God from schools. Replace ‘God’ with ‘Government’.

          • Class Warfare – Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take from (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.

          Question for Billy: Are we on course with your agenda?

          • Smokey,
            You threw the Rulebook for Radicals at Billy, Well done I owe you another bag of cookies.
            Sometimes I think the left doesn’t think we read their propaganda.

  5. Josh is infinite monkeys at a infinite typewriters, once in a while he makes Shakespeare. Most of the time he’s flinging poo and making mistakes.

    For the once in a while great works he produces (Shirakawa investigation) I think we should cut him some slack, even if all he’s giving is a half-arsed apology.

Leave a Reply to Eric Fuentes Cancel reply