Weiner, Huma & Hillary

Now here is a strange trio. Mayor Candidate Weiner, his wife Huma, and Bill Clinton’s enabler Hillary. Huma Abedin was/is Hillary chief aide while Hillary was Secretary of State. To be in that position means you have access to virtually all of the Government’s Classified Information. You just have to have that, or have people who can get that. As noted, Huma Abedin was closely associated with Hillary and probably had the same access to the same information. Knowing that, Huma must have had a Government Clearance above Top Secret. (Very Hard to get and you should be squeeky clean) But as you will read (I hope) Huma is related to top officials in the Muslim Brotherhood and Sisterhood. I do remember getting a low classification clearance at one point and having foriegners with with that type background would have been an instant disqualifier as I remember the paperwork. Even at that level of the lowest clearance required me to tell the agency if I was taking a trip and leaving the country and where I was going, even if it was Canada.

Now we know this week, Huma did a Hillary to “Stand By Her Man” the Peter Tweeter Repeater, Anthony Weiner. You can’t make this stuff up. And it reminds you of 1992 and Hillary standing by Bill after the Bimbo Eruptions.

Now, what enters your mind is why? With Hillary, she wants to be President and be the most powerful woman in the world. Now with Huma, a Muslim, why is she married to a Jew where at home she would be dead due to an Honor Killing. It’s all Strange (but I think it’s got to do with Huma’s parents being in the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the ease of gettting info on the USA. But that’s me.) Now these two article dive into more than that and begs the question, would Bush have allowed this?

June 19, 2011
The Muslim Brotherhood and Weiner
By Eileen F. Toplansky

Far more disturbing than the salacious details of Weiner’s dalliances is the fact that apparently his mother-in-law is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Furthermore, Huma Abedin’s brother, Hassan, “is listed as a fellow and partner with a number of Muslim Brotherhood members.” Hassan works at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies (OCIS) at Oxford University. The Egyptian Al-Azhar University, well-known for a curriculum that encourages extremism and terrorism, is active in establishing links with OCIS.

How is it that the Western media, with its hourly analyses of Weiner, missed this salient point, yet Arab news sources revealed this connection? Walid Shoebat, formerly with the PLO, explains that Saleha Mahmoud Abedin, a professor in Saudi Arabia “belongs to the Sunni movement’s women’s division known as the Muslim Sisterhood.” During the recent uprising in Egypt, which resulted in Mubarak’s removal, “a special women’s unit within the Muslim Brotherhood served as ‘mules’ to deliver messages and acted as messengers for the terrorist group.”

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/the_muslim_brotherhood_and_weiner.html#ixzz2aItdnygu
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

How Long Will Muslim Brotherhood Force Huma Abedin to Stay Married to Anthony Weiner?
Posted by Dave Jolly in Culture, Islam, Judaism, Politics, Religion | 23 Comments

Anthony Weiner was a promising Democratic congressman from New York’s 9th District which is located entirely within Brooklyn. First elected in 1999, Weiner easily won re-elections with no less than 59% of the vote. In 2005, he ran for Mayor of New York City and lost, but still remained a very popular congressman.

In 2009, Weiner, a Jew, got engaged to Huma Abedin, a Muslim and aide to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. They married in 2010 and now have a son named Jordan Zain Weiner.

Last year, Weiner was caught sexting messages and nude images of himself, forcing him to resign from Congress in shame, but Abedin stood by him. Weiner is now running for Mayor of New York City again and he has been caught with even more sexting with over half a dozen different women. Weiner refuses to withdraw from the race and his popularity in New York does not seem to be diminished by the scandal. Once again, Abedin stands by her husband.

Huma Abedin is a devout Muslim from a powerful Muslim family. Her mother is Saleha Mahmoud Abedin, a professor and dean at Dar El-Hekma College in Saudi Arabia. She is also a prominent official in the Muslim Sisterhood, the female counterpart to the Muslim Brotherhood. Although Huma married a Jew, a mortal enemy of all Muslims, she is still accepted by her Muslim family and friends. Normally her marriage would have constituted her being disowned by the family and subjected to an honor killing.

So one has to beg the question why she had been allowed to marry a Jew and not face disgrace from her family and fellow Muslims?

I believe the answer can be found in a Muslim word ‘Muruna’. There are times when Muslim leadership believe it is more important to plant a spy to gain valuable information than it is for that spy to follow all Muslim law. It is not uncommon for Muslim leadership to push a woman into a relationship with a non-Muslim in order to gain the confidence and trust of an infidel. Once that trust has been gained, the Muslim woman can begin to exert some influence into the dealings of her husband and in the process learn important secrets that she can pass on to her Muslim handlers back home.

http://godfatherpolitics.com/11890/how-long-will-muslim-brotherhood-force-huma-abedin-to-stay-married-to-anthony-weiner/

85 Comments

  1. Pingback: Most Influential Blog Awards – Rules And Nominations | The Lonely Conservative

  2. Meanwhile, back in the real world:

    Eric, 7 Nov 2012: Fact # 1. The economy is in the toilet. Someone has to fix it. Obama has no clue. His total lack of business experience combined with his left wing ideology mean he is hostile to business generally, or else inclined to crony capitalism, see Solyndra or GM.

    Reality: http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130727/BIZ/307270309/-1/NEWS

    —-
    GM climbs to top in sales

    By Anna Mukai and Yuki Hagiwara

    TOKYO — General Motors outsold Toyota for the first time in six quarters, rising atop the industry and underscoring the resurgence of U.S. automakers as they roll out the best cars they’ve built in a generation.

    The 2.48 million vehicles that Toyota and its subsidiaries sold during the quarter ended June, based on monthly figures reported Friday, was shy of the 2.49 million that Detroit-based GM disclosed earlier this month. Toyota stayed ahead of Volkswagen, which sold 2.39 million vehicles last quarter.
    —-

    It’s a good think Obama wasn’t a wingnut, and didn’t let GM go bankrupt as the wingnuts wanted, isn’t it?…

  3. Again from the real world

    Dana has often spouted off about his paranoid fantasy that clergy and churches who chose not to officiate at gay marriages would be fined – despite this never happening in the numerous states and countries that actually had gay marriage.

    But here’s the reality – http://americablog.com/2013/07/indiana-makes-crime-preacher-conduct-gay-marriage.html

    —-
    In what appears to be a rather massive violation of the freedom of religion, the Republican party in Indiana appears to have amended the state criminal code to either make it a crime, or confirm that it remain a crime, for clergy to conduct weddings for gay couples.

    While it is not widely known, numerous mainstream American religions permit gay nuptials. The faiths include reform Judaism, Evangelical Lutherans, Episcopalians, and the United Church of Christ, among others.

    The amendment to the criminal code, which will go into effect on July 1, 2014, makes it a misdemeanor, punishable by up to 180 days in jail and a fine of $1,000 for clergy “solemnize” a marriage of two men or two women.
    —-

    As always, wingnuts are most worried about people doing to them what they want to do to others, such as remove their religious liberty.

  4. Yorkshire, you are guilty of promoting right-wing propaganda which is reminiscent of McCarthyism, that is, guilt by association. This simply is not just, as it was 60 years ago so judged. Why start this all over again, I ask.

  5. Rebus says:
    Monday, 29 July 2013 at 07:54

    Yorkshire, you are guilty of promoting right-wing propaganda which is reminiscent of McCarthyism, that is, guilt by association. This simply is not just, as it was 60 years ago so judged. Why start this all over again, I ask.

    I give you information, you call it McCartyism. Come back when you have refutation, then we can discuss. If it’s Propaganda as you say, it will be easy to tear apart. Saying McCartyism refutes nothing.

  6. Yorkshire, here is the guilt by association attempt by the author:

    How is it that the Western media, with its hourly analyses of Weiner, missed this salient point, yet Arab news sources revealed this connection? Walid Shoebat, formerly with the PLO, explains that Saleha Mahmoud Abedin, a professor in Saudi Arabia “belongs to the Sunni movement’s women’s division known as the Muslim Sisterhood.” During the recent uprising in Egypt, which resulted in Mubarak’s removal, “a special women’s unit within the Muslim Brotherhood served as ‘mules’ to deliver messages and acted as messengers for the terrorist group.”

    And here is the refutation of guilt by association:

    Huma Abedin is a devout Muslim from a powerful Muslim family. Her mother is Saleha Mahmoud Abedin, a professor and dean at Dar El-Hekma College in Saudi Arabia. She is also a prominent official in the Muslim Sisterhood, the female counterpart to the Muslim Brotherhood. Although Huma married a Jew, a mortal enemy of all Muslims, she is still accepted by her Muslim family and friends. Normally her marriage would have constituted her being disowned by the family and subjected to an honor killing.

    This then directly distinguishes Huma and her family from the Islamic extremists terrorists.

    And finally, the conspiracy theory is brought forth:

    Huma Abedin is a devout Muslim from a powerful Muslim family. Her mother is Saleha Mahmoud Abedin, a professor and dean at Dar El-Hekma College in Saudi Arabia. She is also a prominent official in the Muslim Sisterhood, the female counterpart to the Muslim Brotherhood. Although Huma married a Jew, a mortal enemy of all Muslims, she is still accepted by her Muslim family and friends. Normally her marriage would have constituted her being disowned by the family and subjected to an honor killing.

    So one has to beg the question why she had been allowed to marry a Jew and not face disgrace from her family and fellow Muslims?

    I believe the answer can be found in a Muslim word ‘Muruna’. There are times when Muslim leadership believe it is more important to plant a spy to gain valuable information than it is for that spy to follow all Muslim law. It is not uncommon for Muslim leadership to push a woman into a relationship with a non-Muslim in order to gain the confidence and trust of an infidel. Once that trust has been gained, the Muslim woman can begin to exert some influence into the dealings of her husband and in the process learn important secrets that she can pass on to her Muslim handlers back home.

    “Muslim handlers back home”? Oh please, Yorkshire, where is the evidence? You know what I think? This may well be a preemptive attack on Hillary Clinton, by smearing Huma, as if Hillary has any knowledge or influence or association whatsoever into the private lives of Huma and her husband.

    And on Anthony Weiner’s behavior, It’s sad, it’s pathetic, it’s reprehensible! This man is mentally ill. By standing by her man, the father of her child, Huma understandably wishes to hope for better times, for the sake of her marriage. Perhaps when she stood there at the press conference, even then she did not know all the facts.

    And note well: Divorce is a last resort for a Muslim: “The Prophet of Islam told the believers that: “Among all the permitted acts, divorce is the most hateful to God.”

    My heart goes out to Huma.

  7. Once that trust has been gained, the Muslim woman can begin to exert some influence into the dealings of her husband and in the process learn important secrets that she can pass on to her Muslim handlers back home.

    Huma Abedin’s influence over her husband is small potatoes compared to her influence with the former First Lady, Secretary of State, and current presidential aspriant Hillary Clinton. Hillary’s Huma’s intimate role model for standing-by-your-man. Politics certainly makes for strange bedfellows, or keeps bedfellows repeating the same foreplay, for the same reasons, in the same bed they’ve been sharing all along.

    Yep, Huma and Hillary are just two peas in pod, they’re both ambitious modern Democrat Party women who won’t stay home baking cookies when their meal ticket’s in trouble. No, they man-up, man the barricades, prepare to repel the insolent questions of probing reporters. Huma’s a trooper, and like Hillary before her leads from the front, she stands stiffly upright unbowed in the glare of public humiliation, and bravely takes the microphone and sullies herself for the cause, like common street walker lying to protect her abusive pimp.

    Other women, the ones who wouldn’t put up with Bill Clinton’s infatuation with young fat chicks or Anthony Weiner’s peter pictures for a nanosecond, can’t help but wonder why either Hillary or Huma put up with these degenerate slime balls. In the same situation, they’d cut their losses, call a divorce lawyer, and buy a little black dress and a dozen pairs of those fancy new high heal shoes.

    But, don’t cry for Huma, the truth is she’s serving a higher cause, she’s the Muslim Brotherhood’s top ranked mole in the US government. Her influence in the State Department alone has been invaluable to the cause of Islamic jihad. Carefully, quietly, she’s been the Brotherhood’s voice whispering sweet nothings in Hillary’s ear on the PLO, Israel, Lebanon, Egypt, Lybia, and Syria. Hillary depended heavily on Huma, her top adviser on Middle Eastern Affairs for back-channel communication and instructions from Huma’s well connected mother and the oil rich Princes of Arabia and Al Qaeda’s Mullahs pulling the US State Department’s strings.

    Think about that as you consider why the Obama Administration has been so blatant in their cover-up of the events leading up to the terrorist assault on Benghazi.

  8. I was with you up to here, Ropelight:

    But, don’t cry for Huma, the truth is she’s serving a higher cause, she’s the Muslim Brotherhood’s top ranked mole in the US government. Her influence in the State Department alone has been invaluable to the cause of Islamic jihad. Carefully, quietly, she’s been the Brotherhood’s voice whispering sweet nothings in Hillary’s ear on the PLO, Israel, Lebanon, Egypt, Lybia, and Syria. Hillary depended heavily on Huma, her top adviser on Middle Eastern Affairs for back-channel communication and instructions from Huma’s well connected mother and the oil rich Princes of Arabia and Al Qaeda’s Mullahs pulling the US State Department’s strings.

    Think about that as you consider why the Obama Administration has been so blatant in their cover-up of the events leading up to the terrorist assault on Benghazi.

    You present no evidence whatsoever for this, except for the usual conspiracy theories which the Right just loves to trot out.

    I interpret this garbage as the Right’s initial salvos against Hillary in case she decides to run in 2016, knowing full well if she does, there is no way in hell they can defeat her. And with her, will likely come a raft of Dems in the House and in the Senate. The Right is already in a panic!

  9. Now, here I though you were the one claiming to be a Seeker of the Truth.

    Well, here’s some advice for those who would travel that winding road: Seek the truth for yourself and when you find it, you’ll know it. For the ring of that truth will drive out the demons of darkness, dispel your childish illusions, and ease your paranoid fears. But beware, tread lightly, for danger lurks in the shadows. The truth, recognized and embraced, has the power to fill you with righteous courage or to destroy you with false confidence. The power of the truth both creates and destroys, often in equal proportions. Therefore, be forewarned. And guard ye well against preening pride.

    But, if you would free your mind from the empty pit of ignorance and of slavish adherence to the delusions of charlatans, then press on, brave soul, press on and see what happens.

  10. It’s a good think Obama wasn’t a wingnut, and didn’t let GM go bankrupt as the wingnuts wanted, isn’t it?…

    And the American taxpayers are in debt for how many tens of billions of dollars over the “Bailout”, money they will almost cernainly never get back?

  11. “Muslim handlers back home”? Oh please, Yorkshire, where is the evidence? You know what I think? This may well be a preemptive attack on Hillary Clinton, by smearing Huma, as if Hillary has any knowledge or influence or association whatsoever into the private lives of Huma and her husband.

    There’s a simple answer to that. Hillary can simply cut her ties to this questionable and even suspicious person.

  12. My heart goes out to Huma.

    Your brain ought to go out to her instead.

    If she thinks Weiner will change, then she’s as dumb as Olympic skier Lindsay Vonn, who is currently dating Tiger Woods. If Vonn thinks being an attractive blonde will keep her man from straying, she should remember his ex-wife was also an attractive blonde, and that that didn’t change things any.

  13. I interpret this garbage as the Right’s initial salvos against Hillary in case she decides to run in 2016, knowing full well if she does, there is no way in hell they can defeat her.

    I wouldn’t count on that. Looks matter in an election, and Hillary looks like hell; big bags under her eyes, wrinkles everywhere, and at least 30lbs overweight. And in three years she’s just gonna look worse. Indeed, she looks a lot like what she IS – namely, an ageing prostitute, a political whore who long ago gave up her honor and dignity for political power.

  14. Eric, Lindsay’s a smart girl, she knows Tigers don’t change their Tom catting ways, in fact, she’s likely counting on him to keep right on doing the things that got him where he is today. Once married (love to see the prenup) she’s in-line to cash in, big time, there could be well upwards of $100 million bucks up for grabs. Which is sure to bring out less than the best in all involved.

    On Hillary, that filthy whore has so much blood on her hands that vampires surround her bed and whisper in the night: Whitewater, Casa Grande, cattlebelly futures, Mina airport, the boys on the tracks, Bimbo Eruptions, Travelgate, FBI Filgate, Waco, Waco, Waco, Vince Foster, Vince Foster, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, and so many other reminders that chickens come home to roost.

  15. Will the comparison of Huma’s Stand by Her Man Weiner remind everyone of Hillary’s Tammy Wynette moment with Bill in 1992. And will the Tammy/Hillary I don’t bake cookies follow Hillary from now on. The comparison is just too RICH not to carry on.

  16. Rebus retorts truncatedly:
    And here is the refutation of guilt by association:

    Huma Abedin is a devout Muslim from a powerful Muslim family. Her mother is Saleha Mahmoud Abedin, a professor and dean at Dar El-Hekma College in Saudi Arabia. She is also a prominent official in the Muslim Sisterhood, the female counterpart to the Muslim Brotherhood. Although Huma married a Jew, a mortal enemy of all Muslims, she is still accepted by her Muslim family and friends. Normally her marriage would have constituted her being disowned by the family and subjected to an honor killing.

    Your selective cherry picking did not add why Huma is not a victim of an Honor Killing shortly after your selectiveness:

    I believe the answer can be found in a Muslim word ‘Muruna’. There are times when Muslim leadership believe it is more important to plant a spy to gain valuable information than it is for that spy to follow all Muslim law. (You know Rebus, that Sharia thingy about death to the infidel which Weiner is in their eyes) It is not uncommon for Muslim leadership to push a woman into a relationship with a non-Muslim in order to gain the confidence and trust of an infidel. Once that trust has been gained, the Muslim woman can begin to exert some influence into the dealings of her husband and in the process learn important secrets that she can pass on to her Muslim handlers back home.

  17. Rebus, a little quiz. It has a one word answer:

    Q. What does the 1993 WTC Bombing, the 2001 destruction of the WTC1&2, the Pentagon 9/11 plane crashing, the 9/11 Shanksville, PA plane crash, the Boston Bombings, the Ft. Hood Soldiers killed,the raids on two recruiting stations, the shoe bomber, the Ft. Dix plot, the Times Square Bomb plot, the underwear bomber, and a few more actions have in common? A. (Just one word needed) ____________

  18. Hoagie says:
    Monday, 29 July 2013 at 19:16

    Think he’ll get it Yorkshire?

    GMTA: I dunno, I wrote this in the same vein:

    Rebus:
    My heart goes out to Huma.

    Watch what you wish for, Huma may come and get it and just it. :-)

  19. The Thick Plottens:

    Weiner didn’t declare costs for lavish 2010 wedding

    Anthony Weiner may have violated federal law when he failed to disclose his lavish six-figure wedding in his financial disclosure forms, says a government accountability group.

    Ethics watchdog group National Legal and Policy Center examined the federal Financial Disclosure Reports for both Weiner and long-suffering wife Huma Abedin for 2010, the year of their wedding.

    The cost for the ceremony was at least $100,000 but probably ran closer to $250,000 including all accommodations, clothing and extras. Neither Weiner nor Abedin had the resources to pay for the ultra-expensive wedding, yet neither recorded gifts on their Financial Disclosure Reports for that year.

    Even though there is an exemption for gifts from personal friends, the Ethics in Government Act requires written permission from the House Ethics Committee for any Congressman getting gifts worth more than $250. Weiner had no such written permission.

    NLPC was preparing a complaint to the House Ethics Committee in 2011 against Weiner for filing a false Financial Disclosure Report when Weiner resigned from Congress after the first of his many sexting scandals, leaving the Committee without jurisdiction to take up an investigation.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/29/weiner-didnt-declare-costs-for-lavish-2010-wedding-to-long-suffering-wife/#ixzz2aU0GRbvw

    Taking Whitewater and Cattle Futures tips from Hillary???

  20. Yorkshire says:
    Monday, 29 July 2013 at 18:40
    Will the comparison of Huma’s Stand by Her Man Weiner remind everyone of Hillary’s Tammy Wynette moment with Bill in 1992. And will the Tammy/Hillary I don’t bake cookies follow Hillary from now on. The comparison is just too RICH not to carry on.

    They just covered this on Hannity, which I haven’t watched in a month after it became All Zimmerman All The Time. Anyway, they had on Andrea Tantarros (who looks like she’s putting on weight) and some toady for the Clintons. All the Toady wanted to talk about was how great the Clintons were, but it was Andrea who correctly pointed out that it was the Clintons who set the tone for the Weiners of the world. No matter how sleazy you were, as long as you had a loyal wife to “Stand by your man”, you could get away with anything and still continue your political career.

    Personally, I really don’t care. If New Yorkers want someone as trashy as Weiner for mayor, then they deserve whatever they get.

  21. Bill and Hillary Clinton are ‘livid’ at comparisons to Weiner’s sexcapades and Huma’s forgiveness

    By FREDRIC U. DICKER (Such a name for this story)
    NY Post
    Last Updated: 9:30 AM, July 29, 2013
    Posted: 1:40 AM, July 29, 2013

    Bill and Hillary Clinton are angry with efforts by mayoral hopeful Anthony Weiner and his campaign to compare his Internet sexcapades — and his wife Huma Abedin’s incredible forgiveness — to the Clintons’ notorious White House saga, The Post has learned.

    “The Clintons are upset with the comparisons that the Weiners seem to be encouraging — that Huma is ‘standing by her man’ the way Hillary did with Bill, which is not what she in fact did,’’ said a top state Democrat.

    Weiner and his campaign aides have explicitly referred to the Clintons as they privately seek to convince skeptical Democrats that voters can back Weiner despite his online sexual antics — just as they supported then-President Bill Clinton in the face of repeated allegations of marital betrayals.

    “The Clintons are pissed off that Weiner’s campaign is saying that Huma is just like Hillary,’’ said the source. “How dare they compare Huma with Hillary? Hillary was the first lady. Hillary was a senator. She was secretary of state.” (But Hill stood up for Bill when she was NADA)

    A longtime Hillary aide and Clinton friend, Abedin’s surprisingly unequivocal support of her husband after his bombshell admission Tuesday that he engaged in salacious online sexting well after he resigned in disgrace from Congress in 2011 left the Clintons stunned, continued the source.

    More fun here: (You just can’t make this stuff up)
    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/clintons_mad_as_hill_over_huma_tactic_DreEqQum5fMMD4SiXeWSLJ

  22. Bill and Hillary Clinton are angry with efforts by mayoral hopeful Anthony Weiner and his campaign to compare his Internet sexcapades — and his wife Huma Abedin’s incredible forgiveness — to the Clintons’ notorious White House saga, The Post has learned.

    “The Clintons are upset with the comparisons that the Weiners seem to be encouraging — that Huma is ‘standing by her man’ the way Hillary did with Bill, which is not what she in fact did,’’ said a top state Democrat.

    It’s fun to watch the turds turn on each other. And Hillary, so puffed up with self-importance, thinking she’s somehow above the sleazy scandals of the Weiners!

  23. Keep in mind that Anthony and Huma aren’t really married. Bill Clinton officiated at the fancy Long Island ceremony, but Slick’s not recognized to perform marriages in the State of New York.

    Maybe that wouldn’t be a big deal, or much of a deal at all, in ordinary situations involving ordinary people, but anything to do with the Clintons or with Wiener and Abedin isn’t ordinary and can’t be taken at face value. When the Clinton’s are involved values often get short shrift.

    We’re talking about people who’ll quibble over the meaning of is when the chips are down, nothing is beyond them, nothing at all.

  24. Keep in mind that Anthony and Huma aren’t really married. Bill Clinton officiated at the fancy Long Island ceremony, but Slick’s not recognized to perform marriages in the State of New York.

    N.Y. DOM. LAW § 11 subprovision 4.

    Once again you demonstrate yourself to be an idiot.

  25. Nothing in NY law allows an ex-president to officiate at a wedding in NY State, Bill Clinton’s participation was entirely for show. However if Anthony Wiener and Huma Abedin fulfilled the requirements of Section 11, subprovision 4, they would be legally married.

    Subprovision 4 requires a written contract of marriage signed by both parties and at least two witnesses, all of whom shall subscribe the same within this state, stating the place of residence of each of the parties and witnesses and the date and place of marriage, and acknowledged before a judge of a court of record of this state by the parties and witnesses in the manner required for the acknowledgment of a conveyance of real estate to entitle the same to be recorded.

    If Weiner and Abedin filed the necessary signed and witnessed paperwork and had it properly acknowledged by a judge they have fulfilled the requirements of subprovision 4.

    As matters stand, the little woman is still standing by her man. However if Wiener and Abadin failed to file the required paperwork and relied on Bill Clinton’s presumed authority as an ex-president then their marriage is invalid. Presumably, they retain the option to submit the proper
    paperwork even now at this late date unless NY law places a time limit on delayed submissions. Or they
    could repeat the marriage ceremony with an authorized official.

  26. What is hysterical is how highly offended the Clintons are over the comparison of Huma and Hillary. Of course Hillary was a First (or maybe the last woman on Bill’s list) Lady, and Hillary was a Sentor and Secretary of State. They all but said the lowly muslim Huma was a nothing. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  27. Ropelight 1: Keep in mind that Anthony and Huma aren’t really married.

    Ropelight 2: If Weiner and Abedin filed the necessary signed and witnessed paperwork and had it properly acknowledged by a judge they have fulfilled the requirements of subprovision 4.

    Thank you for admitting you lied, you useless piece of shit.

    However if Wiener and Abadin failed to file the required paperwork and relied on Bill Clinton’s presumed authority as an ex-president then their marriage is invalid.

    If.

    You made the positive claim that they weren’t really married. It is therefore up to you to show proof that this was not done.

    Where’s your proof, you useless, lying piece of shit? Personal Attack – First and Last Warning.

  28. Anthony Weiner was a member of Congress when he and Huma Abedin married, and she was a high ranking employee in the State Department. Consequently, both were subject to strict legal and ethical obligations to file accurate financial disclosures. Now, questions have again been raised about who paid for the expensive ceremony and for other associated expenses. Only Weiner’s resignation from Congress over his sexual perversions involving sending internet smut to young girls prevented the House Ethics Committee from pursuing the issue in 2010.

    Here’s a quote from the Daily Caller, as reported by The American Thinker (emphasis added)

    Anthony Weiner may have violated federal law when he failed to disclose his lavish six-figure wedding in his financial disclosure forms, says a government accountability group.
    Ethics watchdog group National Legal and Policy Center examined the federal Financial Disclosure Reports for both Weiner and long-suffering wife Huma Abedin for 2010, the year of their wedding.

    The cost for the ceremony was at least $100,000 but probably ran closer to $250,000 including all accommodations, clothing and extras. Neither Weiner nor Abedin had the resources to pay for the ultra-expensive wedding, yet neither recorded gifts on their Financial Disclosure Reports for that year.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/07/who_paid_for_weiners_wedding.html#ixzz2acVu727U

  29. Why would anyone care less if the little Weiner and the arab slut live or die let alone are married? They’re typical leftists: low-lives, vulgar and disgusting so who the hell cares?

  30. Where’s your proof, you useless, lying piece of shit? Personal Attack – First and Last Warning.

    Yorkshire, your double standard is beyond appalling.

    How about this one example of many from our foul-mouthed deleted?

    What a f***ing moron. You really are, Perry. Youy’re just trying to assuage your racial guilt your parents inculcated into you verrrrrry well. Accept that.

    Perry, there is a difference to alluding to a word with ********* since you can imagine or insert what you want or think, versus saying it.

  31. I do recall Hube asking Perry not to post personal information. Is that so difficult for Perry to understand? Or is he just being a malicious thug and bully?

  32. Is that so difficult for Perry to understand? Or is he just being a malicious thug and bully?

    Yes and yes.

    The thing is, he engages in foul-mouthery as well as anyone else here. But only he makes the threats and reveals personal information. (And no, Perry — those who have done so to you did it in retaliation for your own assholery.)

  33. I just don’t understand why, if Perry has a problem with what Yorkshire says, he finds it necessary to post info on Hube. Makes no sense. Especially when it had nothing to do with Perry.

  34. Hoagie, most likely it’s a self-serving sympathetic reaction to his own travails attempting to circumvent the consequences of violating Dana’s established rules so often and so flagrantly. Perry knows full well why he’s been banned here, and he knows the ban could be enforced at Dana’s discretion, yet Perry’s continued presence is currently tolerated only because he maintains the exceedingly transparent pretense of being someone else. So, by coming to the defense of another ungrateful and vulgar serial abuser, Perry is attempting to erect a shield of self-protection for himself.

    But, then again, when you’re dealing with the twisted minds of pole cats it could be nothing more than the well known compelling attraction of rabid dogs to vomit, or to each other’s nether regions.

  35. Hoagie says:
    Wednesday, 31 July 2013 at 11:04

    I do recall Hube asking Perry not to post personal information. Is that so difficult for Perry to understand? Or is he just being a malicious thug and bully?

    Perry is just pissed off at me over what I said to PIATOR. The basic problem is this is allegedly and should be about issues and ideas. However, for some, and I know we are all guilty of this at some point, have to attack the person, not the thought. Sometimes it’s a return for an insult, sometimes it’s because they can not form an opinion of the idea, but of the holder of the idea, and other times I just don’t know why because it’s not on topic, and other times ??????. Attacking the holder of the idea does not progress the discussion, it retards it. If you (as in anyone) read through the 400+ comments on Martin/Zimmerman thread, there are too many attacks. So???????????????????

  36. With the above distraction is over (who am I kidding other than myself), who thinks that the background and family connections of Huma presents a problem for this country with Huma’s very close connection and position with Hillary.

    I was talking to a friend on Monday about Weiner and his weiner tweeter problem and how Huma “stood by her man.” He commented about Huma and Weiner being two Jewish people. I then told him Huma IS Muslim and her mother was the head of the Muslim Sisterhood. Well, I could have knocked him over by hitting him with a feather. And after that, I wonder how many people believe the same not knowing Huma’s background and parental connections? I’m guessing it’s in the 90%+ range.

  37. I do recall Hube asking Perry not to post personal information. Is that so difficult for Perry to understand? Or is he just being a malicious thug and bully?

    Place (Ys) reveals little, certainly not as much as several on here who have revealed my full name and home location without being banned. I guess that doesn’t count, eh Hoagie? I don’t believe you have complained about that, have you Hoagie? But note well, Hube is very, very sensitive to the above statement. So guess why: He knows full well that his behavior on this blog would be seriously questioned by his administrators, were they to ever find out. So behaving in his typical manner, he puts his own job in jeopardy all by himself.

    But the fact is, his administration remains unaware, as far as I know.

    And what about Yorkshire’s double standard re Pho. Doesn’t count either, does it Hoagie?

    Hoagie, most likely it’s a self-serving sympathetic reaction to his own travails attempting to circumvent the consequences of violating Dana’s established rules so often and so flagrantly.

    Oh bullsh*t Ropelight. You whitey, racey, righties violate Dana’s rules too:

    Comments which threaten other commenters, whether physically, personally, financially, in their employment, or legally, will be deleted, and the person who made such threats will have his privilege to comment here revoked.

    You folks do this all the time whenever I come on here to express an opinion.

    Ropelight had a momentary lapse recently such that we actually debated the Trayvon Martin fiasco, until he let it deteriorate back down to the usual breaking of Dana’s rules. You have no class, Ropelight. You are a hater, pure and simple.

    So yeah, you folks are duplicitous whitey, racists, righties, for which there is more than enough evidence on this blog to prove my point!

    And then there is Yorkshire, who does not indulge in these personal attacks, the only exception from the regulars, with the exception also of Dana. You all should consider following Dana’s example.

  38. But note well, Hube is very, very sensitive to the above statement. So guess why: He knows full well that his behavior on this blog would be seriously questioned by his administrators, were they to ever find out. So behaving in his typical manner, he puts his own job in jeopardy all by himself.

    YAAWWWWWN. We’ve been through this ad nauseum.

    York, please (again) make the appropriate deletion. Thanks. And Perry? Do it again and I’ll respond in a like manner.

  39. With the above distraction is over (who am I kidding other than myself), who thinks that the background and family connections of Huma presents a problem for this country with Huma’s very close connection and position with Hillary.

    The problem is, Yorkshire, we saw the problems of playing this “guilt by association” game when Senator McCarthy did it in the early fifties.

    That was strike one against the Republicans. Strike two came when I saw the outrageous campaign Nixon and the Republicans ran against Kennedy in the 1959 general election, but I remained Republican and voted for Nixon anyway, a huge mistake.

    Strike three came with Goldwater in 1963, after which I’ve leaned Dem in 1983 when I voted for LBJ, who turned out to be a mixed blessing, and then voted for HHH in 1967.

    Regarding the American middle class, Republicans have overall gone downhill ever since, to the point now where we hardly even have a middle class anymore.

  40. Rebus says:
    Wednesday, 31 July 2013 at 13:01

    With the above distraction is over (who am I kidding other than myself), who thinks that the background and family connections of Huma presents a problem for this country with Huma’s very close connection and position with Hillary.

    The problem is, Yorkshire, we saw the problems of playing this “guilt by association” game when Senator McCarthy did it in the early fifties.

    So, to quote the Sec. of State at a Senate hearing on Benghazi “What Difference Does It Make?”

  41. Perry, I was debating, you were regurgitating. Don’t regurgitate, abbreviate. Save time, space, and face, reduce your latest obsessive/compulsive construct to WRR! Or, use lower case if caps seems to grand. Add a few more exclamation points if you think that would add punch to an otherwise trite and rather cumbersome juvenile taunt.

    Oh, and do try to write something you wouldn’t be ashamed to have your grandchildren read.

  42. Hube, if I refer to Hoagie as an entrepreneur, is that a violation? How about referring to Yorkshire as a retired government worker in contracts? My reference to you was a fairly general reference which leads no significant personal information. Like I said before, you are very, very sensitive, because you know your behavior on here is not acceptable for one with your occupation. In fact, you have become utterly paranoid about it. That, Hube, is quite telling in and of itself, about you!

    What could you reveal about me other than has already been revealed by the foul-mouthed miscreant righties on this blog?

    Be that as it may, I have to accept Yorkshire’s double standard.

    Good day.

  43. Like I said before, you are very, very sensitive, because you know your behavior on here is not acceptable for one with your occupation. In fact, you have become utterly paranoid about it. That, Hube, is quite telling in and of itself, about you!

    We’ve been through this a million times. Do you ever tire of repeating yourself? I’ve no hassle with the term “teacher,” but you go beyond that and you know it.

    Look, you don’t want your full name used here because you wish it — even though you’ve used it in the past numerous times. Why can I not use the same standard, hypocrite? Others may not have abided by your request; I have, however. But I will not anymore, among other things, unless you cease. And now.

  44. Place (Ys) reveals little, certainly not as much as several on here who have revealed my full name and home location without being banned.

    Everybody knows your full name, dumb@$$! Trying to hide it now is like Bill Clinton trying to claim he never had oral sex with Monica Lewinsky.

  45. But note well, Hube is very, very sensitive to the above statement. So guess why: He knows full well that his behavior on this blog would be seriously questioned by his administrators, were they to ever find out.

    The only one who cares about his blog behavior is YOU, you little snitch.

    So behaving in his typical manner, he puts his own job in jeopardy all by himself.

    Thus says Perry, expecting us to FORGET all the threats he has made to people’s jobs.

    When Dana gets back, I’m going to recommend you be banned permanently AGAIN. And if you try to sneak back on here by LYING about your identity again, then perhaps civil and even criminal charges are due.

  46. You folks do this all the time whenever I come on here to express an opinion.

    You come here to attack people, make enemies, and threaten people’s jobs. So quit whining that everyone here doesn’t love you; you’re like the drunken wedding guest who tries to grope the bride, p!sses on the wedding cake and plops a turd in the punchbowl. Then, after the groom (properly) throws him out, he weasels back in under a disguise, but soon reveals himself by resuming the same old behavior, then can’t figure out why everyone hates him and no one wants him around.

  47. Rebus says:
    Wednesday, 31 July 2013 at 12:42

    I do recall Hube asking Perry not to post personal information. Is that so difficult for Perry to understand? Or is he just being a malicious thug and bully?

    Place (Ys) reveals little, certainly not as much as several on here who have revealed my full name and home location without being banned.”

    So do you now admit you are the banned poster Perry Hood, back under a new name and ISP?

  48. Eric says:
    Wednesday, 31 July 2013 at 14:07

    Place (Ys) reveals little, certainly not as much as several on here who have revealed my full name and home location without being banned.

    Everybody knows your full name, dumb@$$! Trying to hide it now is like Bill Clinton trying to claim he never had oral sex with Monica Lewinsky.”

    Rebus hasn’t quite admitted to being Perry Hood. We can therefore talk of Perry Hood all day long, since Perry Hood is supposedly not here.

    However if Rebus admits to being Perry Hood returned under a different name in order to circumvent his prior expulsion, then Rebus will have “outed” himself, and, one would think the ban on “Rebus” would take effect automatically, Dana or no Dana.

  49. And then there is Yorkshire, who does not indulge in these personal attacks, the only exception from the regulars, with the exception also of Dana. You all should consider following Dana’s example.

    You mean, the Dana who warned you multiple times not to engage in certain behavior, warnings that were gratuitiously ignored, followed by a suspension, more warnings, another suspension, a few more warnings, then BANNED!??? THAT Dana, whose hospitality even now you abuse??

  50. Rebus hasn’t quite admitted to being Perry Hood.

    True, not directly. Still, “Rebus” stated a couple weeks ago that he had met with Dana, Hoagie, and Hube for lunch, and nobody else but Perry can make that claim.

  51. Rebus says:
    Wednesday, 31 July 2013 at 13:01

    With the above distraction is over (who am I kidding other than myself), who thinks that the background and family connections of Huma presents a problem for this country with Huma’s very close connection and position with Hillary.

    The problem is, Yorkshire, we saw the problems of playing this “guilt by association” game when Senator McCarthy did it in the early fifties. “

    I wasn’t alive then. What exactly, with specific examples and names of the not guilty, did we see?

  52. Rebus hasn’t quite admitted to being Perry xxxx. We can therefore talk of Perry Hood all day long, since Perry Hood is supposedly not here.

    However if Rebus admits to being Perry Xxxx returned under a different name in order to circumvent his prior expulsion, then Rebus will have “outed” himself, and, one would think the ban on “Rebus” would take effect automatically, Dana or no Dana.

    Yorkshire, as administrator, you have a job to do here, which is to redact the name which DNW revealed, like Dana has done in the past. This is obviously an egregious violation of Dana’s rules.

    Also, you should ban DNW, at least until Dana returns, when he can make a final decision.

  53. Rebus says:
    Wednesday, 31 July 2013 at 16:44

    Rebus hasn’t quite admitted to being Perry xxxx. We can therefore talk of Perry Hood all day long, since Perry Hood is supposedly not here.

    However if Rebus admits to being Perry Xxxx returned under a different name in order to circumvent his prior expulsion, then Rebus will have “outed” himself, and, one would think the ban on “Rebus” would take effect automatically, Dana or no Dana.

    Yorkshire, as administrator, you have a job to do here, which is to redact the name which DNW revealed, like Dana has done in the past. This is obviously an egregious violation of Dana’s rules.

    How is it a violation of Dana’s rules to mention the name of someone not posting here, Rebus?

    Are you complaining because you the banned person? Than cannot be can it?

    If you are the banned person, what are you doing here? Would not the presence of Perry Hood, masquerading under an assumed name after having been ejected from this site, be a violation of Dana’s rules?

    In order for you to establish a potential violation of a rule, Rebus, you have to establish that the rule applies to a particular case.

    What application did you have in mind?

    Also, you should ban DNW, at least until Dana returns, when he can make a final decision.

    I contacted Dana sometime before he went off regarding just this matter of trying to get to the bottom of the “Rebus” mystery. Yorkshire can verify this for himself if he likes.

    That said, I cannot imagine why you, whoever you are, should concern yourself with the fate of Perry Hood. He was banned long ago from this site, and has not, so far as anyone knows, sneaked back in.

  54. Rebus, please read

    “Are you complaining because you the banned person?”

    as,

    “Are you complaining because you are the banned person? “

    That, is a little editing that would actually make sense.

  55. That said, I cannot imagine why you, whoever you are, should concern yourself with the fate of Perry Hood. He was banned long ago from this site, and has not, so far as anyone knows, sneaked back in.

    LMAO! Exactly! :-D

  56. Rebus says:
    Wednesday, 31 July 2013 at 16:44

    Rebus hasn’t quite admitted to being Perry xxxx. We can therefore talk of Perry Hood all day long, since Perry Hood is supposedly not here.

    However if Rebus admits to being Perry Xxxx returned under a different name in order to circumvent his prior expulsion, then Rebus will have “outed” himself, and, one would think the ban on “Rebus” would take effect automatically, Dana or no Dana.

    Yorkshire, as administrator, you have a job to do here, which is to redact the name which DNW revealed, like Dana has done in the past. This is obviously an egregious violation of Dana’s rules.

    Also, you should ban DNW, at least until Dana returns, when he can make a final decision.

    Well, the Defense Counsel has asked the important Gordian Knot question. Is you is, or is you ain’t Perry? If you are, you are here, then you’re here under false pretenses since you have been Banned and no Parole granted by Dana. And if you’re not, you have not denied the questions put before you by many who have called you Perry. So, Rebus, what you say? Either way there is a whole lot of ‘splainin to either way along with apologies and all that goes along with it.

    An aside in this world of Parole CRAZINESS, in the other world of CRAZINESS, OJ has been Paroled on one of his convictions from the Las Vegas fiasco. HOWEVER, he has Not received parole for the other convictions. Therefore, he stays in jail. This world is turning Nuckin’ Futs faster than I was thinking. ;-) And it’s only Wednesday! :-|

  57. You made the positive claim that they weren’t really married. It is therefore up to you to show proof that this was not done.

    Where’s your proof, you useless, lying piece of shit? Personal Attack – First and Last Warning.

    The fact that ropelight has proven unable to actually address his lie by showing proof demonstrates that it wasn’t a personal attack, Yorkshire.

    It was simply an accurate description.

  58. Phoenician in a time of Romans says:

    Wednesday, 31 July 2013 at 18:42 (Edit)

    You made the positive claim that they weren’t really married. It is therefore up to you to show proof that this was not done.

    Where’s your proof, you useless, lying piece of shit? Personal Attack – First and Last Warning.

    The fact that ropelight has proven unable to actually address his lie by showing proof demonstrates that it wasn’t a personal attack, Yorkshire.

    It was simply an accurate description.

    Question PIATOR, since I’m sure you have never met Ropelight, and you have no physical evidence that he is a pile of excretement but as far as we can tell, he is a real life human, what physical basis of proof do you have to make your statement? Because in my own experience, I have seen a pile of excretement and it has no human characteristics. Unless proven otherwise, or it is a New Zealand thing we’ve missed or it is your phyiscal characteristics to make the call, the warning stands.

  59. Yorkshire, as administrator, you have a job to do here, which is to redact the name which DNW revealed, like Dana has done in the past.

    If the poster formerly known as Perry had an arrangement with Dana not to have his last name revealed, then that arrangement ended when Perry, after (repeatedly) violating other arrangements with Dana, was permanently banned.

    It’s like the line from The Road Warrior: “If you had a contract with this man, then it died with him.”

  60. That said, I cannot imagine why you, whoever you are, should concern yourself with the fate of Perry Hood. He was banned long ago from this site, and has not, so far as anyone knows, sneaked back in.

    Hahaha! Hilarious! I do believe you have boxed the little rat into a corner!

  61. Strike three came with Goldwater in 1963, after which I’ve leaned Dem in 1983 when I voted for LBJ, who turned out to be a mixed blessing

    More like a total disaster. 58,000 dead for no reason and all Johnson’s fault.

    Who knows what Goldwater would have done in Vietnam? But if he HAD gone in, I guarantee he would have WON!

  62. Be thankful, Perry Hood, that York is merciful and hasn’t banned you on general principles, as I would have done.

    And if “Rebus” and Perry Hood are two different people, then, as DNW pointed out, why should “Rebus” give a damn?

    Oh, and PS: I noticed you didn’t answer York’s questions AT ALL.

  63. Well, the Defense Counsel has asked the important Gordian Knot question. Is you is, or is you ain’t Perry? If you are, you are here, then you’re here under false pretenses since you have been Banned and no Parole granted by Dana. And if you’re not, you have not denied the questions put before you by many who have called you Perry. So, Rebus, what you say? Either way there is a whole lot of ‘splainin to either way along with apologies and all that goes along with it.

    Yorkshire, it does not matter who I am, slimeball DNW made an assumption then broke Dana’s rules, clearly. And you permitted it. That goes to your character, Yorkshire, which I thought was better than this.

    Then you threatened banning PisToR for this:

    Where’s your proof, you useless, lying piece of shit? Personal Attack

    Then what about this, Yorkshire, from another lying piece of sh*t on here?

    What a f***ing moron. You really are, Perry. Youy’re just trying to assuage your racial guilt your parents inculcated into you verrrrrry well. Accept that.

    You’ve stepped in it, Yorkshire. You have no rationale either, to extricate yourself from this barnyard. (:

    This is the same sort of crap we get from Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck and the like, the propaganda arm of the racey, whitey, rightie, whacky, lying radical segment of today’s American political scene.

  64. What kind of a person would write something like this?

    Looks matter in an election, and Hillary looks like hell; big bags under her eyes, wrinkles everywhere, and at least 30lbs overweight. And in three years she’s just gonna look worse. Indeed, she looks a lot like what she IS – namely, an ageing prostitute, a political whore who long ago gave up her honor and dignity for political power.

    Eric, you need your mouth washed out with pure lye, with the hope that such will clean up your lying persona.

  65. And more of the same from Ropelight:

    On Hillary, that filthy whore has so much blood on her hands that vampires surround her bed and whisper in the night: ….

    Proud of that, Ropelight?

  66. I think Greta van Susteren has it about right:

    The Huma Abedin story is the perfect story to look at journalism and the media.

    When you read a story about Abedin, check to see how many people supposedly providing information and facts are actually named. Be suspicious of any story loaded with unnamed sources — or even with one unnamed source. Nothing written about Weiner/Abedin is national security requiring anonymous sources. Absent names, you can assume the story is a platform for political payback and gossip.

    If one has something to say about Abedin, that person should have the courage to step up and put his or her name on it.

    Likewise, if you call yourself a journalist, demand information “on the record” — don’t let yourself be used by some unnamed source with an agenda. If you do, you are a gossip, not a journalist.

    PS: Let me say it again, yes, of course there are instances when anonymous sources should be used. This just isn’t one. Using anonymous sources irresponsibly is bad journalism not Woodward and Bernstein.

    Ropelight is an anonymous source, of trashtalk!

  67. Rebus says:
    Thursday, 1 August 2013 at 08:17

    Well, the Defense Counsel has asked the important Gordian Knot question. Is you is, or is you ain’t Perry? If you are, you are here, then you’re here under false pretenses since you have been Banned and no Parole granted by Dana. And if you’re not, you have not denied the questions put before you by many who have called you Perry. So, Rebus, what you say? Either way there is a whole lot of ‘splainin to either way along with apologies and all that goes along with it.

    Yorkshire, it does not matter who I am …

    If you are not Perry Hood, posting here under false pretenses, attempting to evade a ban that had been previously imposed on you, then you might be correct.

    However, given your sensitivity to the mention of the mere name of a twice expelled and banned poster, there is some reason to puzzle over your motives in objecting to the mere mention of his name.

    How would you, poster Rebus, even know who Perry Hood is? Why would poster Rebus care what was said about him? Why would new poster Rebus bring up old controversies and insert himself into a new non-controversy regarding the mention of the name of an expelled poster, now long absent?

    After all, the prohibition is against the malice driven exposure of the personal identity of current authors in good-standing, who have not been heretofore identified.

    Perry Hood was banned. He should be gone. You certainly are not claiming to be him. If you did it would probably lead to your immediate expulsion. It would certainly prove that you were engaging in deliberate deceit and subterfuge in order to appear here in the first place.

    What’s it to you what is said about some leftist clown you purportedly don’t even know?

    What’s your interest in this Perry Hood business?

  68. After Perry was banned here, he began to frequent Patterico’s site and spew his typically ugly invective there, so I exposed him for the malicious guttersnipe he’s proved himself to be over and over again. Once Dana confirmed my accusations, Perry was banned there too.

    Unwilling to change his behavior, or to accept his punishment, Perry then dishonestly concealed his identity behind the moniker Gramps2 and began to use multiple IP addresses to evade the consequences of his misbehavior.

    However, after he reemerged as Gramps2, it didn’t take long to detect the masquerade, I along with others noticed a pronounced similarity to Perry’s repetitious regurgitation of leftist claptrap along with his characteristic stylistic and ungrammatical constructions. So, I raised the question of his hidden identity, and Perry was subsequently exposed again, so he repeated the subterfuge, this time as Observer and with another new IP address, only to be discovered again and exposed to the ridicule he so righteously earned.

    At the same time he was masquerading at PP, Perry was also pretending to be Rebus here. His new IP address provided the fig leaf necessary for Dana to look the other way while it’s been clear for quite some time now that Rebus is Perry and that he’s trapped in the web of his own lies. Which is a fate he brought on himself and one he can’t escape, so in the stupidity of his overarching arrogance and in the well deserved self-loathing he alone has brought on himself, Perry is reduced to foolishly lashing out in puffed-up but impotent defense of someone he can’t even admit is him.

    Somehow, the punishment seems to fit the crime rather nicely. The Gods of the copybook headings must be laughing out loud.

  69. Gramps2 and began to use multiple IP addresses to evade the consequences of his misbehavior. …

    he repeated the subterfuge, this time as Observer and with another new IP address …

    Perry was also pretending to be Rebus here. His new IP address …

    Assuming that he went to the actual trouble of going into his router and making keyboard input adjustments, and that it wasn’t a matter of turning the router power on and off for a few and getting a reassignment automatically, he’s certainly gone to a lot of deliberate trouble to cover his tracks.

    Of course, if you are right, and we formally assume until such time as Rebus admits to being Perry Hood that he is not, then merely going thorough all those screen name contortions is pretty good evidence of someone’s bizarre intent to deceive in and of itself.

    This behavior however is not all that unusual for trolls. One leftist crackpot who made it a habit to troll and disrupt the AOL RKBA discussion board, had at least seven different names, which he claimed were necessitated by using successively free AOL trials.

    Of course AOL is and has been for a long while free to anyone with a high speed connection, so that claim tells you either one of two significant things.

    The fact that he invariably tried to disguise his “voice” when returning showed well enough his purpose to deceive, while his emotional inability to ignore commentators who had previously trounced him, undermined that same purpose.

    One can waste a lot of time arguing with nutcases, as I learned to my regret.

    In the case of Perry Hood, back when he was here, our slogging persistence did at least result in our collection of a handful of his on-the-record and unequivocally outrageous expressions of totalitarian ideology, as well as the exposure of certain sensibilities his kind usually don’t want to see the light of day.

    Thus, when someone eventually says no self-declared liberal or progressive would ever say such and such a crass and morally insane thing and mean it, one can at least rejoin, with citations, … Au contraire mon frere.

    And we have in some small measure, Perry Hood to thank for that.

  70. Yorkshire, it does not matter who I am

    Then why are you too cowardly to admit the truth of your identity? Because, if it were openly admitted, and your identity was the same as someone who had previously been banned, you would be in trouble and you know it. So, thus it matters very much who you are, which is exactly why you need to lie about your identity.

  71. That goes to your character, Yorkshire

    I’m not sure a liar, a fraud, and a rat fink has any business talking about someone else’s character!

  72. This is the same sort of crap we get from Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck and the like, the propaganda arm of the racey, whitey, rightie, whacky, lying radical segment of today’s American political scene.

    I would bet that you rarely if ever watch/listen to any of the above sources, and are thus pulling this trash out of your butt like you always do. You certainly never give any examples where any of the above have engaged in the behavior you accuse them of.

    Of course, making up lies out of thin air is just the standard modus operendi for the left wing turds.

  73. Perry’s like one of those haughty self-rejuvenating virgins so prevalent back in the late ’50s and early ’60s before the pill and the sexual revolution. You and the band at the Waldorf Astoria might have screwed her silly the night before, but that was then, and this is a different now. Tonight she’s a shy and trembling virgin who insists on being treated like a proper young lady. And, no, she doesn’t recall where or with whom she spent the previous evening, so there!

  74. Looks matter in an election, and Hillary looks like hell; big bags under her eyes, wrinkles everywhere, and at least 30lbs overweight. And in three years she’s just gonna look worse. Indeed, she looks a lot like what she IS – namely, an ageing prostitute, a political whore who long ago gave up her honor and dignity for political power.

    Eric, you need your mouth washed out with pure lye, with the hope that such will clean up your lying persona.

    Oh? And can you point to a single word in the above that I said was untrue? Granted, the word Prostitute was meant in the figurative sense, since no one really thinks someone as ugly as Hillary could make a living selling sexual favors for money!

    No, I meant Prostitute in the moral sense. Whatever values she may have had long ago she sold for access to political power. Keep in mind that Bill Clinton was not only guilty of adultery, but sexual harrassment and probably even rape, but Hillary, by staying with the scumbag, essentially gave her stamp of approval to such behavior. Power was simply much more important to her than morals.

Comments are closed.