Edward Archer said he shot Philadelphia Police Officer Jesse Hartnett because “police bend laws that are contrary to the teachings of the Quran.” But Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney, who is one of the bigger fools on this planet, immediately announced that the shooting had “nothing to do with being a Muslim or following the Islamic faith.”
This denial and willful ignorance is no way to win a war, and a very good way to lose it.
Meanwhile, Edward Archer should not be on trial in civilian court. This is a continuation of the false premise that every jihad plot is a separate criminal incident, unrelated to any and all others. It is part of the denial that there is a global jihad, or any overarching belief system, ideology, or goal that ties these separate incidents to one another. Edward Archer is one combatant in a much larger war. The U.S. didn’t put every captured German soldier on trial in a civilian court during World War II, and we shouldn’t be doing this now.
“Trial begins for suspect accused of shooting Philadelphia Police officer,” WPVI, January 25, 2018 (thanks to Z.):
CENTER CITY (WPVI) — The trial of a man charged with shooting a police officer in West Philadelphia at point-blank range two years ago got underway Thursday in a Center City courtroom….
The trial for 32-Year-old Edward Archer opened today with statements from both the prosecution and the defense.
But even before that, as each charge was read, Archer – rather than entering a plea of guilty or not guilty – replied, “I don’t plead to anyone but Allah.”
Judge Leon Tucker then entered a plea of not guilty.
The prosecution said during the trial, jurors will see video, physical evidence, and hear from witnesses about the night of January 7, 2016.
Officer Jesse Hartnett was shot 3 times while sitting in his patrol car at 60th and Spruce in West Philadelphia.
His left arm was shattered by gunfire, leaving him unable to work as a police officer. Prosecutors say he has had 11 surgeries.
Police said video from the intersection shows Archer approaching the cruiser, charging the driver and firing 13 times. Prosecutors detailed how Hartnett kicked the door of his vehicle open and chased after Archer, firing 7 shots, one of which hit Archer in buttocks. Responding officers then arrested him nearby.
Authorities say Archer would later confess to the shooting, saying he did it in the name of Islam.
The defense, in its opening statement, hailed Officer Hartnett as a hero but asked jurors to put aside sympathy and emotion and focus on the law….
Michael Copeland says
See the clever satire in the style of a Monty Python sketch:
“We did this because our holy texts exhort us to to do it.”
“No you didn’t.”
“Wait, what? Yes we did…”
“No, this has nothing to do with religion. You guys are just using religion as a front for social and geopolitical reasons.”
See more at https://wizbangblog.com/2015/11/17/radical-islamism-given-the-monty-python-treatment/
Shmoovie says
Excellent!
Thanks for the link.
Shmoovie says
Remember a time when mayors were outraged by violence perpetrated against their police officers..
All these useless, gutless PC worms must have the same CAIR-approved list of ‘suggested” public comments for post-islamic violence– “Nothing to Do With” being the one to repeat.
D Austin says
That’s how Democrats get votes to run their plantations. It’s the cops fault, vote for me.
And don’t forget the Democrat mantra, “we need more laws, more money, and more personnel” to take care of the problems we create.
Shmoovie says
Plus “more time”.
Dhimmicrat ideas of improvement generally take decades of failure.
LeftisruiningCanada says
“And don’t forget the Democrat mantra, “we need more laws, more money, and more personnel””
Sounds oddly like how Communism usually plays out.
steve daly says
Spencer absolutely on target to raise the issue being at war. These attacks are from forces and propaganda directly at war with western civilization. We don’t need to have a requirement to build a legal case against those who have declared war on us. Eventually we will find we have to empower DHS with authority to pursue interrogation and surveillance of agents of countries or organizations that have declared war on us. Leave the corrupt FBI out of this.
steve daly says
DHS detain them in Guantanamo
Jack Holan says
Robert, I believe that was the same comment given by King Faisel’s assassin in 1975 after committing the Act. The Friday of that week he was beheaded with a Golden Sword. The moral of the story; he got what he wished for justice before Allah!
JawsV says
Philly mayor Kenney is as ignorant about Islam as Geo W Bush on 9/11.
Frank Anderson says
JawsV, as much as I supported GWB in both elections, especially considering how much I dreaded the possibility of his opponents winning, and as much as I did not know either time about islam, I wish he had known more than I did at the time before pumping that ridiculous “religion of peace” line. Unlike GWB, this mayor and all others who present in public that lie have no excuse. We have now 17 years of very public description and demonstration that we are confronting, if it is a religion, a religion of death, slavery, war and lying.
Each time this lie is repeated, regardless of the exact language, I believe the speaker should be recognized, remembered and called to account in any electoral or public campaign for the rest of his life for collaboration with an enemy in time of war. I continue to quote the most liberal, and most frequently reversed Court of Appeals in the United States, because with this one case they got it right for one time: “Deliberate ignorance constitutes knowledge of the truth.” Wyle v. R.J. Reynolds, 709 F.2d 585 (9th Cir. 1983). Kenney and all who spread that lie can no longer claim to be speaking out of ignorance.
JawsV says
I agree we were all unknowledgeable about Islam when the Moslems attacked us. Bush was given the “religion of peace” line by Muslims. Anyone with even a scant knowledge of Islam and Islam’s bellicose history would have never gone there. But, you expect the American president to be savvy on all issues. Not in this case. Not concerning Islamic Jihad.
Now, as you say, there’s no excuse. None whatsoever. That this mayor is saying “nothing to do with Islam” is ignorance in the extreme. According to RS Islam is a religion. OK. Then it’s a BAD religion. There are other bad religions but only Islam prescribes killing others for its deity.
Isn’t ignorance about the law no excuse? Same concerning Islam.
Paulette says
I think GWB knew exactly what he was doing. Back then, I was a Democrat but still appalled by that religion of peace crap speech. That was the beginning of PC America.
Jack Holan says
I agree that Islam is the only major Religion to proscribe death to non-believers. It has not evolved in 1400 years. I don’t know what hold it has over the apologists for it but there is more at lay than we can see since a blind man could see and feel the evil.
Frank Anderson says
JawsV, whether anyone else agrees, it is my proposition that ignorance of islam by a public official in the United States in 2018 is deliberate, for which no excuse is acceptable.
StellaSaidSo says
I agree, Paulette, that Dubya knew exactly what he was doing. I remember the MB goons standing behind him as a he pronounced Islam a ‘religion of peace’. It was during his administration that the MB secured its toehold in the WH. The Bush family and the Bin Laden family go back a long way. Dubya let all his Saudi chums quietly leave the US after 9/11, despite most flights out of the US being cancelled.
JawsV says
Jack, you don’t mean “proscribe” you mean “prescribe.” Proscribe means to forbid.
I can’t agree that GWB knew Islam wasn’t peaceful and so was lying to and deceiving Americans when he called it “peace.” Why would he do that? 3,000 Americans had just been slaughtered by Muslims and Islam. I think he was a know-nothing about Islam as most of us were and went with the Muslim party line.
I didn’t know anything about Islam when 9/11 happened. I think it’s the same for W. Now I know a lot about Islam but W seems as ignorant as ever, still pushing the “peaceful” agenda.
gravenimage says
Agreed, Frank. And for all his faults, a Democrat in the White House during 9/11 would have been much, much worse.
Frank Anderson says
I ask for correction if I am in error that a defendant in a criminal case is not required to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty, or any other issue I discuss. In this case I think his statement is one that I would hate to be involved in defending, because it probably can and will be used against him as the case proceeds. In general, unless a deal can be made before the hearing that the defendant understands and accepts, the defendant should plead not guilty in order to buy time to see the prosecution’s case and see if a deal can be made, and if not, to prepare his defense if any. A plea of not guilty is simply a claim for the rights that any accused has under the Constitution and nothing more. Those rights include for example (not a complete list): a speedy trial, before an impartial jury or judge in place of a jury, an unbiased judge, a prosecutor who performs all duties in accordance with his legal and ethical obligations, evidence that is legally obtained and admissible, a defense that is zealous, competent and within the bounds of the law and professional conduct, and a record properly made and maintained for appeal.
A possible issue for appeal is having some remark made in opening or closing argument about the defendant claiming his Constitutional right to refuse to testify. A careless remark on that subject can result in a mistrial, a new trial ordered by the trial court or on appeal, or dismissal of the case entirely. Similarly, and in general, a defendant’s plea of not guilty should not be taken as anything more than a procedural necessity to go forward with the case, whether the plea is entered on the record by the defendant, his attorney or the judge. As long as terrorism is “just another crime” in our legal system, if we want convictions for the guilty which will be upheld through any and all appeals, and acquittals for those who are not guilty, all the details of the law and rules of procedure must be strictly followed, whatever the time and whatever the cost.
I suggest that just as much care should be taken to avoid any prejudicial inference from a plea of not guilty in the presence of overwhelming evidence (whether in this case or others), as must be taken whenever Fifth Amendment privilege is claimed. Some people reading here may be called to serve on juries, whether in this case or others. If they are disqualified because of bias, think about who is left to determine the case. How likely are they to convict if a proper case is presented? If a guilty person is not convicted, there is no second chance in that court. There is a possible second chance under “dual sovereignty” in the corresponding federal or state court other than the one hearing the present case. As expensive as criminal trials are, the fewer, the shorter, the simpler, the less expensive, the more we will be able to afford them and provide the resources as the number of cases increases. “Learn to subdue my passions. . .” One man’s opinion.
gravenimage says
This Muslim perp does not recognize the validity of US courts to try him, Frank.
Frank Anderson says
GI, whether he (the “accused”) recognizes the court’s authority or not, all steps of the proceeding from beginning at the event, investigation, arrest and very first appearance, to end, through any and all appeals, must conform to applicable rules. Any error, any small, seemingly insignificant error, can cause a reversal on appeal to produce a new trial, where witnesses and evidence may be unavailable, or a release of the “accused”. As long as terror is “just another crime”. . .
To call this situation displeasing to me is an understatement. But it is a fact that exists we must either accept or find a way to change or give up on holding terrorists to account by lawful criminal conviction. My preference does not matter. Lynch mobs violate the Constitution and the law.
gravenimage says
Frank, I never once suggested that we not follow legal procedure–I was just expounding on the motives of this pious Muslim in rejecting the authority of the court.
And where did you *ever* get the idea that I was suggesting a lynch mob? That is just calumny.
Frank Anderson says
GI, I always write *exactly* what I mean. There is a law school “first contact with the Dean” story illustrating that practice of at least 40 years. I never or suggested *you* wanted a lynch mob or summary execution on the spot. How many others on this story seem to without having a decent clue, much less the complete story of why the officer did not kill a man when he may have had an arguable opportunity? What would be the comments to the contrary if he had killed the “accused”?
How many stories have been published nationally in just the past few years about officer killings, some of which were entirely legal and justified and some which were ruled illegal resulting in the officer’s conviction? This officer did at the time, with seconds to make a decision, make a decision not to kill. Questioning for not killing with incomplete details is just as abusive and unjust as questioning a decision to kill (ex. Michael Brown) when all the facts ultimately obtained show the officer acted correctly. I cannot understand why people are willing to serve as police officers with the conflicts they must face.
Champ says
Graven, “Frank” did the same thing with me by making all sorts of assumptions about me, too, so I think there’s something wrong with his reading comprehension.
Frank Anderson says
“Champ” of what?, my reading comprehension has been well-demonstrated in 22 years of classroom education, 2 degrees, pieces of 3 others, a certificate after examination as an engineer, 2 licenses to practice law after 3 day bar examinations each, and over 30 years as a licensed attorney, where I received favorable comments in open court from judges whom I never heard give similar comments to other lawyers. I really think you could benefit from professional counseling. Your rage exposes some real problems.
Champ says
“Frank”, I don’t care how many degrees you have …your reading comprehension is still *very* poor when it comes to things written by others HERE. And only a pathetic loser would pull out his “22 years of classroom education” and degrees, etc, in an attempt to bolster just how SMART he thinks he is …wow that’s rich but thanks for the laugh!!!
Guess that makes you the smartest guy here, right? So we all need to bow to whatever Lord Frank has to say. Got it.
Get over yourself.
Frank Anderson says
Champ of what? It doesn’t matter what you think. You question me, insult me, call me names and drop the “F-bomb” but you never address the issues. Why? Because you have the same blood-lust as muslims, wanting to see a police officer not just shoot but *kill* a man the officer decided did not need killing? It is good for people to see you as you are instead of as you from time to time pretend to be. Thank you for showing me and others your real face. Keep it up. “You shall know the Truth and the Truth shall set you free!” The truth about you is that you are not equipped or inclined to think beyond a certain level and not one least dimension further. Good luck with your deliberate ignorance.
Champ says
“Frank”, I DID “address the issue”, and the proof is all right there in black and white. Now you’re playing silly games because you’re a silly old man comfortable with lying.
And it was YOU that “questioned” me first, and then YOU “insulted” me, so of course I dropped a few f-bombs because you’re a pompous ass. You deserved it. Oh but now you’re playing the hapless victim when you started the whole thing.
And this ridiculous gem from “Frank”, the moron:
“Because you have the same blood-lust as muslims, wanting to see a police officer not just shoot but *kill* a man the officer decided did not need killing?”
More preposterous accusations from Mr.PhD, who once again, demonstrates his terrible reading comprehension, claiming that I have the “same blood-lust as muslims”? Yeah, sure …shows how low ole “Frank” will go to try and make a point. Nothing could be further from the truth about me and everyone here knows it. But poor “Frank” is deluded enough to think that anyone is buying his below-the-belt lies and judgments about me.
Also, you are living in a fantasy world if you don’t think that a police officer has the right to defend himself against this kind of an attack. Of course he does. Join the real world and get your head out of your ass “Frank.” And I remember Undaunted confronting you on this SAME issue about a year ago, because you are the one that doesn’t GET IT when it comes to a police officers right to defend himself. Face it, you’ve lost your case on this one. Epic fail!
Get over yourself “Frank” and stop your whinin’ …
Champ says
**PROJECTION ALERT** from “Frank” …
“Good luck with your deliberate ignorance.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Right back atcha!!
Hilarious ’cause he’s talking about himself 😀
Pam says
1 It matters Not if he sees the court has a right to the trial. If a law is broken by someone in a country that country always has the right to jail and a trial.
2 This so called religion is Not a religion But a way of life.
3 IF in our country legally then our laws apply Even the death penalty
4 Under Obama our officials lost track of almost 50% of all the Muslims allowed into the USA. And a lot of them Were Not Vetted.
In my opinion ( I am a 63 year old female ) at some point it will break down to them or US. What side would any of you choose?? And be smart enough to understand they believe in Killing Gays, they believe No woman can leave the house unless escorted by a male. They believe sex prior to marriage for a woman is cause to kill that woman. And they believe they have the right to marry and have sex with a 9 year old girl.
Frank Anderson says
Pam, a lot of people, including me, agree with you. I’m afraid too much is being made that he refused to plead and that the judge had to enter the opening plea for him. That part is just part of the “dance”. People who might sit on any jury do not need to get disqualified because they have become prejudiced or even outraged at his silence, which might be considered a display of contempt. Most of the time I have seen attorneys enter the procedural not guilty plea for their clients; but speculate/predict this client directed his attorney to let the judge enter it. Whatever the reason, no harm was done, and the process to trial continues.
Manny says
When he’s locked up behind bars he can plead to Allah all he wants.
Champ says
I am NOT shocked that a pious-muslim-murdering-thug would go on a shooting rampage. What surprises me the most–why wasn’t this guy shot and killed on the spot? Certainly the officer had every legal right!
Frank Anderson says
Champ, I think I understand how you feel. Please allow me to suggest that you consider how hard it is to make such a call from a distance. Darren Wilson was not only horribly injured (a smashed eye socket) before killing Michael Brown, he was injured again by the false reports made against him (“Hands up! Don’t shoot!”) until the truth came out (*Never Happened*). An officer can easily find himself in jail and charged with murder for shooting someone who richly deserves it. Even more absurd is the case of the 6 officers in Baltimore who did not shoot anyone but who were charged and prosecuted, 3 through trial, for murder before the publicity hungry prosecutor gave up. Please let the facts come out and let the case go to conclusion. At least some of the time the “right” result will happen. Consider what every candidate that you might vote for thinks and will act if elected about the problems we are having.
Champ says
Don’t patronize me, Frank. In this instance the office had every right and every reason to kill this guy on the spot–but perhaps not the opportunity, I don’t know. Killing him would have been the “right” thing to do and then this story would have had a happy ending.
Champ says
BTW, the other incidents you mentioned are irrelevant to this, or any other situation, where an officer finds that his life is clearly in danger.
LeftisruiningCanada says
Would the fact that the perp was fleeing the scene, and no longer threatening to shoot, when the officer shot him make the difference i wonder?
Frank Anderson says
Champ, please don’t confuse courtesy with patronizing. Until you have held a firearm in your hand and have had to pull the trigger to kill a human being and then face the legal consequences in addition to the social consequences of the attendant publicity you are not qualified to tell an officer what he should do, even if you were present at the event. Do you know ALL the facts and circumstances that went into the officer’s reason for his decision? The officer was in charge of his actions and made his decision how to deal with it as it appeared to him. If you are so eager to see someone dead, you do the killing and take the consequences. Don’t try to tell other people how to do their jobs, risking their lives and liberty.
9mm/40cal/44cal/45cal justice is great for blow hards and movies, but not for the quality people who put on a uniform which becomes a target every day, for violence, publicity seeking prosecutors and hungry civil rights lawyers, to protect our society and attempt to maintain a little security and order with “gentlemen” like the “accused” running around loose.
Champ says
Oh Frank, get over yourself …
That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it. I repeat:
Don’t patronize me, Frank. In this instance the office had every right and every reason to kill this guy on the spot–but perhaps not the opportunity, I don’t know. Killing him would have been the “right” thing to do and then this story would have had a happy ending.
Don’t like it? Tough.
Now go patronize someone else, Mr. Know-It-All. And I certainly don’t need your “courtesy” either.
Frank Anderson says
It is clear from your rage that you have neither the experience nor the wisdom to face a kill or not decision on your own. So you must sit safely in your armchair and bemoan the fact that an officer exercised his good judgment in a law abiding fashion to not kill. Your thoughts and contributions to this question are useless to any sound discussion or conclusion. In addition to my advising clients on self-defense issues, possibly longer than you have been alive, I have faced that decision in civilian life a number of times and handled it well each time. As you seem to demonstrate the inability to learn, I hope others will learn from your example. Champion of what?
Champ says
Shove it, Frank …
Take aim at the real enemy: islam.
If you can, Little Man.
Yeah you’ve definitely revealed your ..size.
Champ says
I guess I need to repeat myself because “Frank” has not convinced me otherwise …
In this instance the office had every right and every reason to kill this guy on the spot–but perhaps not the opportunity, I don’t know. Killing him would have been the “right” thing to do and then this story would have had a happy ending.
And, the other incidents you mentioned are irrelevant to this, or any other situation, where an officer finds that his life is clearly in danger.
“Frank” is a hapless whiner and dope.
Move along Little Man …
Frank Anderson says
Mighty and Strong man with words, I wonder how well you could handle the investigation after you killed someone? I would never take your case unless forced into it because you are too uncooperative to risk a reputation and license to defend. Good luck.
Champ says
Hi, Jay Boo, thank you for sharing, but I stand by my comment 100% and without apology.
Perhaps you and “Frank” need to reread my thoughts on the matter a bit more carefully–or not. I think both of you have grossly misunderstood where I’m coming from. But even if still don’t ‘get’ my perspective know that I don’t care if you agree with me. This is how I see it, and that’s that; and I won’t change my mind.
Take care, Jay Boo.
Champ says
Just more small talk from the big man “Frank” whose continues to reveal what a Little Man he is.
Hey Fuck You “Frank” …”Frank” enough for you, pal.
Now get lost.
Frank Anderson says
I am in all ways and things where God wants me at the moment, Regardless of your impression of yourself you neither are nor write for God. If our host, Robert Spencer, or his designated representatives wish me to “Get Lost” all they need to do is ask. It is their place; and they decide as a “private” as opposed to a “public” endeavor, to admit or exclude anyone they wish. So much for your attempted order.
Champ says
“Frank”, you fool, I want you to “get lost” as far as addressing me–hello!
There is something seriously wrong with you, pal.
NOW. GET. LOST.
Capiche, moron!
LeftisruiningCanada says
Not really my business of course, but have to say Champ, this seems a little uncalled for.
Though we all have our way of reading what others write, i just can’t see where Mr Anderson was belittling or disrespectful, or patronizing.
Anyway, it is what it is.
Champ says
Left, if you don’t see how “Frank” patronized and then insulted me then think again …
Perhaps the definition of “patronize” will help you:
“treat with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority.”
This is EXACTLY how he came across. Also, he thinks that he’s the smartest guy here. Or did you miss his above comment where he’s bragging about how many degrees he has?
At any rate, thanks for sharing. Take care.
Champ says
Not really my business of course, but have to say Champ, this seems a little uncalled for.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are wrong, Left.
My response to “Frank” was completely called for.
Not only was the guy patronizing me with his superior know-it-all attitude, but he only wanted to win the argument and silence my perspective. Hey that’s one great way to start a fight with anyone!
So I will end by stating that I stand by everything I’ve written in support of my (above) comment and point of view–even if no one else supports it, and I make NO apology to anyone for how I see things. Not now. Not ever.
And sometimes I swear, so what. Don’t like it? Tough.
LeftisruiningCanada says
This may all have been a good example of what Christ Jesus meant when he said to turn the other cheek.
That’s fine, though, we are all just folk trying to get along.
Champ says
Left, I really like you, and I’m sorry for getting sideways with you, brother. You are a good soul, and I appreciate your kind words. Yes, I receive your encouragement to turn the other cheek. Thank you. Take care!
Your sister-in-Christ,
Champ 🙂
Champ says
Sensitive, weak-willed, bleeding-hearts, like “Frank”, just aren’t very well suited for this fight against islam. The fact that he’s taken issue with me wanting to see this evil perp killed for attempting to murder a police officer demonstrates, to me, just how unfit “Frank” truly is for this fight. Of course anyone, and everyone, can leave comments on this forum, so I am not suggesting he stop commenting. But he’s clearly a very weak and feckless contributor where the rubber meets the road when your life is at rish, and it shows in his weak ‘advice’. I certainly wouldn’t want “Frank” in a fox hole with me because he’s too a-scared to defend himself and others.
And I have given this a lot of thought, and I wouldn’t hesitate for one minute to shot to kill someone intent on killing me. No way. And it doesn’t even bother me to say that. But guys like “Frank” are bad apples and a bad influence in this fight against islam, because they’re just too sensitive and weak to put up a fight. Wow why is he here? Seems strange to me because this is Jihad Watch. You know, where we are confronted with the reality that muslims are plotting and carrying out jihad against us all over the world. This war isn’t for sissies like “Frank”, so perhaps he should work at a library or join discussion groups that cater to sensitive types.
Frank Anderson says
Champ, you have actually written something with which I wholeheartedly agree: You would not hesitate to kill someone trying to kill you. Neither would I. I have had death threats for a series of reasons against me for 50 years. I have had to be, and still am, prepared every minute every day to respond with deadly force to any attempt because I am physically unable to respond with anything less. I have been through killings and self-defense issues in multiple cases and capacities. I would not want to go through that or ask anyone else to go through it if any alternative exists.
Obviously I have conducted myself totally within the bounds of the law or I would not have *right now* licenses on retired status to practice law in 2 states. The officer who declined to kill a man when he may or may not have had that option exercised HIS reason and judgment in THAT situation to reduce any consequences he might face if he acted otherwise. The cases I discussed, that you say have no relevance, show clearly how miserable are the consequences an officer can face if a life is lost in his “presence” by any means, whether the death is by shooting, “vehicle accident” or otherwise.
You were in error when you earlier wrote I have a Ph.D. A Ph.D. degree is usually defined academically as 77 semester hours or more at the doctoral level after a Bachelor’s degree. I have a J.D. which is a minimum of 88 semester hours after a Bachelor’s, in my case from a nationally accredited law school. A Ph.D. is vouched for, granted, by a committee of other Ph.D.’s. A J.D. for a lawyer is vouched for by at least 1 state supreme court by issuing a license to practice. I happen to have earned and defended after a life-and-death struggle licenses from 2. The only way that is important to us is that I have spent years not only with the experience, but the education and professional qualification to state *opinions” to which others may differ on legal matters. Please, do you have any comparable qualifications to support yours?
This officer, who obviously wanted to do his job, but did not want to endanger himself through the legal system any more than he should accept any danger from the “accused” if the “accused” threatened him, made a decision that deserves respect and praise. Your challenging his decision is totally out of place and inappropriate because you weren’t there and you don’t know all the facts, as you have admitted. The more you write, the more you show what you don’t know and can’t support. There are other characters on JW, in wrestling terminology, “heels”, for you to imitate. Keep writing; but remember the lightning bug.
Champ says
Let the record show, that the arrogant, pompous ass, “Frank”, continues with his patronizing and insulting remarks toward me. He is one superior-minded piece of work, alright.Yuk.
All I have to say is that I’m thankful NOT to be his poor wife …or she probably divorced him already, and for the reasons I’ve just listed.
This ass-clown is a waste of my precious time, so back to fighting the real enemy: islam and company.
Champ says
ps …
This is for those still reading the exchange between me and “Frank” …
Before you credit “Frank” with being ‘nice’ to me, take note of how he *ends* things. He saves the worst, for last.
His comment is somewhat cloak and dagger: It’s cloaked with a measure of kindness, in the beginning–mixed with him boasting about his superior credentials (again), and then he sticks it to me with those pompous-ass dagger words that are dripping with disdain.
So don’t even bother trying to point out to me how ‘nice’ you think that “Frank” is being, cause he’s not. Wait for it–he shows his true colors at the end.
Take care y’all!
Champ ✿ says
And I absolutely *love* my moniker Champ! …my maiden name is Champion and I’m very proud of it!
“Frank” enjoys mocking my moniker, but he’s only demonstrating that he’s a child by doing so.
Knock yourself out “Frank”!
Champ says
Undaunted, where are you?!
I would love to have Undaunted weigh-in on this subject right now. And I know for a fact that he and “Frank” have hugely disagreed, in the past, about situations like this. I’ve read some of their past exchanges.
Undaunted was (or is) a police officer, and his spot on perspective would be *greatly* appreciated!!
gravenimage says
Philadelphia: Muslim who shot cop refuses to enter plea, saying “I don’t plead to anyone but Allah”
………………….
Of course, Muslims don’t respect a civilized justice system–just Shari’ah law, where there would be feted for trying to murder an Infidel police officer.
God, I hate Islam.
Chris Malan says
“Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney, who is one of the bigger fools on this planet…” The Bigger Fools on This Planet Society is a huge but very hotly contested group. Are you sure Jim is really thick enough to make it into this group?
Strange that so many of these people end up in public life. They are clever enough – or should I say cunning enough? – to get the great unwashed to vote for them. Jimboy is another triumph of democracy. The great unwashed got Socrates to drink hemlock, exercising their democratic right in that cradle of democracy – Greece. And all because the great unwashed don’t like obvious intelligence. As one of my friends said many years ago, they can smell intelligence and they don’t like the smell.
FYI says
He can plead to allah {“slay the unbelievers wherever ye find them”} all he wants but it will do no good because it is God {“thou shalt not kill”} who will judge these islamic thugs.
It is worse for the convert to islam because they have no excuse;they CHOSE to follow allah instead of God.
“If the Lord is God,
follow Him.
But if baal be,
follow him”
I kings 18 v 21
We know the difference between the Lord God(who gave us His commandments to obey) and allah(who disagrees with God and tells his followers they are free to break God’s Commandments)
hammar says
mo ham mad was no prophet, al lah is no god.
What don’t they understand is that God is not going to
help anyone who is unworthy. islam is not helping them
…duh…wake up mo. Oh no mo is dead for centuries.
buried somewhere in Saudi Arabia under the ground rotten.