NYC Mayor declares war on Sodas, runs interference for Jihadists

Just to get this straight. When stealth Jihadist Feisal Abdul Rauf wanted to construct a mosque two blocks from 9/11's ground zero, Michael Bloomberg vehemently defended Rauf's right to do so by citing the separation of church and state, despite the fact that the goal of Jihadists like Rauf is to establish a rule of law that disregards the U.S. Constitution in its entirety.

Now, Mayor doofus has declared a war on sodas that are too big and says he is 'simply forcing you to understand' when asked to defend his position.

A more blatant example of the psychological defense mechanism known as displacement one will not find:

Displacement involves taking out our frustrations, feelings and impulses on people or objects that are less threatening. Displaced aggression is a common example of this defense mechanism. Rather than express our anger in ways that could lead to negative consequences (like arguing with our boss), we instead express our anger towards a person or object that poses no threat (such as our spouse, children or pets).

Or like movie theater owners who sell 32 oz. sodas in one cup.

Can it be any more obvious that Michael Bloomberg is nothing more than a bully and a coward who is taking out his inability to confront real threats by going after those who aren't threatening to him at all?

Bloomberg is doing the equivalent of kicking his innocent dog.

Entities that sell 32 oz. sodas represent the dog.

Via MSNBC:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Here is Bloomberg from two years ago, talking about respecting the separation of church and state as a reason why the ground zero mosque should be built. Conspicuously absent from Mayor dhimmi is an acknowledgment that Islam seeks no such separation, as long as sharia law is involved.

Mexican Ambassador's foolishly flawed logic in Fast and Furious argument

Mexico's ambassador to the United States is actually making the argument that Operation Fast and Furious so damaged his country's perception of America that tighter gun control laws should be enacted here.

What? Yeah, I know.

Via the Hill:

The Mexican ambassador to the United States on Thursday said a botched gun-tracking operation by America “poisoned” public opinion of the United States for the citizens of its southern neighbor.

Ambassador Arturo Sarukhan told a room of reporters on Capitol Hill that the failed Operation Fast and Furious, which has been the focus of a Republican investigation in the House for more than a year, “put a lot of strain” on U.S.-Mexico relations.

“Fast and Furious has poisoned the well-spring of public opinion in Mexico as it relates to the cooperation and engagement with the United States,” Sarukhan said.

“It does put a lot of strain on the huge strides that we’ve achieved with two successive administrations in the United States,” he said.

Sarukhan was on the Hill at the invitation of Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) to promote tighter gun laws in the United States, including the reinstatement of the federal assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004.

It long ago became apparent that the reason the ATF was forcing gun store owners to sell weapons to straw purchasers who would then 'walk' those guns into Mexico was so that those store owners could be set up and tighter gun laws could be enacted as a result. Fast and Furious was all about creating a political climate that would facilitate the passage of such laws. The lives of innocent Mexicans and at least one U.S. Agent have been sacrificed in the name of gun control.

Yet, when whistle blowers came forward after the murder of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was found to be connected to Fast and Furious, the jig was up. ATF was outed. In the many months since, so has Eric Holder's Justice Department.

Despite all of this, Sarukhan is pointing to Fast and Furious as a reason for tighter gun laws?? Fast and Furious is a reason for accountability at the highest levels in the U.S. Government, not a reason for further hamstringing law abiding gun store owners. Nonetheless, Mexico has apparently decided to help the Obama administration double down on the reason why Fast and Furious was implemented; that reason was gun control. Period.

It would appear that Mexico's formal position involves threading a needle that makes them look unbelievably foolish in the process. The good news is that Fast and Furious has gotten too big to be ignored.

The bad news for Mexico is that their position on it is akin to a 2 + 2 = 5 argument.

Video: Alex Jones confronted outside Bilderberg meeting

The Alex Jones / Ron Paul / 9/11 Truther movements have long maintained that the Bilderberg globalists are a much greater threat to our Republic than are the Islamists. Whenever you bring up the Islamic threat to western civilization, it's all but ignored because the New World Order crowd is actually behind the Islamists' rise according to the Jones crew.

That's why it was nice to see the Daily Caller's Jamie Weinstein ask Jones one very simple question: If the Bilderbergs are so powerful, why do they put up with protesters like Jones and his posse? Jones' answer was something about the Republic still having freedoms available that prevent such protests from being shut down. This is important because protests outside mosques or in Islamic countries don't often take place without significant consequences. The Ground Zero mosque was a rare exception but Jones believes that Feisal Abdul Rauf is actually a globalist "stooge" because the imam is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). It never seems to dawn on these people that perhaps it's Islamists like Rauf who are using western entities.

There is no way Alex Jones and the gang could protest like this inside a Muslim country like, say, Saudi Arabia.

Conversely, Islamists love Alex Jones. He runs interference for them by pushing 9/11 Conspiracy theories while publicly seeing them as a threat not worth dealing with because the NWO is actually using them for its own agenda. Shouldn't we begin considering the possibility that Jones is actively working toward that end instead of being a dupe?

That leads to another common refrain from the Alex Jones bunch; the elite power brokers that make up the NWO are not nearly as ignorant as they would have us believe. Should not the same apply to Jones? Is he ignorant of the Islamic threat to western civilization? If not, then he is actively fomenting anger among his followers and intentionally directing that anger away from where it should go. Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in Media, did an excellent job exposing Jones as a likely Agent Provocateur back in 2010.

The real question should be: If the Bilderbergs are more powerful than the Islamists, why is it that you - Mr. Jones - protest the former without incident but don't dare protest the latter?

Via the Daily Caller: