User Profile: yohannbiimu


Member Since: October 01, 2010


123 To page: Go
  • [20] June 22, 2016 at 1:48pm

    No…just make them as susceptible of being murdered on the street as the rest of us. Take away THEIR protection and their gated communities, and see how they squeal about that.

  • [5] June 22, 2016 at 1:36pm

    This has been referenced before, but Detroit is a prime example of America totally under the control of progressives. God help us if Hillary weasels her way back into the White House.

  • [2] June 22, 2016 at 1:32pm


  • [13] June 19, 2016 at 11:56am

    ANY freaking weapon can be “an assault weapon.” A freaking steak-knife can be “an assault weapon,’ if you know how to use one as such. It’s the same stupidity that they’ve used in referring to “global climate change,” when “global warming” fell off the rails. If a leftist progressive/collectivist is speaking, you can be sure that their words are meant to dumb-down and pervert the truth.

    Responses (3) +
  • [10] June 19, 2016 at 11:51am

    I’ve procrastinated long enough…I HAVE to get one…AND a sidearm…AND a shotgun! My town is out-of-the-way NOW, but we’ve reached the boiling point, and things are REALLY gonna get ugly FAST.

    Responses (3) +
  • [4] June 18, 2016 at 2:23pm

    Why are mental lightweights like this given the time of day? America is being deluged with DUMB!

  • [2] June 18, 2016 at 2:05pm

    Elizabeth Taylor was a “household name” back in the late 1940′s and early 50′s, long before Michael Caine even entered the cinematic world, but it illustrates why the pay scale was ultimately fair.

    Caine’s film career began in 1956, but he did not get his first major role in a film until 1964 (Zulu), after 16 films of either uncredited or minor credited roles. On the other hand, Taylor was given meaty roles when she was only 10, and was sharing top billing when she was 12 (National Velvet 1944). So, she had a much longer, and more impressive resume than he did, when they made X, Y, & Zee in 1972–even if her career had begin to decline at the time.

  • June 17, 2016 at 8:37am

    I’m totally down with taking away the right to vote for people who do not have a rational reason why they are voting for someone. I’m also down for taking away their right to vote if they do not, nor have ever had any “skin in the game.” I’m sick of paying for a person’s lifestyle, AND their idiotic decisions on election day.

  • [3] June 13, 2016 at 1:13pm

    This is such a no-brainer issue. It is an issue about people who have a 7th century ideology, who hate non-Muslims, women, and ESPECIALLY non-Muslim homosexuals. We have accommodated these savages long enough. They must either behave like human beings, or they need to move to Canada, Sweden, or some OTHER place that will tolerate their barbarity.

    As far as Clinton’s or Obama’s desires, their insanity must be called out for what it is.

  • June 3, 2016 at 6:27pm

    I hate to disagree with Curt, but Obama DOES hate America. There is nothing about it, as it was founded, that Obama has ANY love for. He’d rather that we were more like North Korea than one that has a rule of law, with a constitution that is intended to be protection for individual citizens AGAINST an all-powerful central authority.

  • [2] May 20, 2016 at 2:10pm

    Oh yeah…like you are going to get Muslims to pick “none.” They are going to have YOU on YOUR knees, proclaiming Allah as your god, before you get THEM to reject their religion. You can try to persuade them with facts and science, but THEIR methods of “persuasion” are a lot more successful than words that they say are “blasphemous.” Your very existence is a death-sentence to them.

  • [1] May 20, 2016 at 2:04pm

    It is NOT possible to read Christ’s commission to his disciples and followers and interpret it as a call for armed conquest of the world. To make such a statement, one must either be ignorant of what it states, or they are evil–and I am presuming that MISTER Francis knows what Matthew 28: 19-20 says.

    This man is a devil appearing outwardly to be an angel of light, but his dirty gutty-guts are marred by darkness and death. IF there is any spiritual rightness and truth among the Roman Catholic flock, they ought to reject this man with the spirit of Antichrist, and denounce is satanic utterances. He is leading his church into the same destruction that the “leaders” of Europe are leading their nations.

  • [3] May 14, 2016 at 2:32pm

    This guy is great, not just because he is so undeniably right on EVERY issue, he’s gay, and yet is utterly against ALL of the fascist gay agenda. He mind is on a course of liberty and freedom, regardless of WHO you are. He is for Christians, and believes that they are being persecuted for being who they are.

  • May 14, 2016 at 2:24pm

    The guy taking the video SHOULD have called the police PRIOR to taking recording the assault. What was HE thinking?

  • [1] May 14, 2016 at 1:58pm

    I agree with you wholeheartedly. If THE Ted is truly for defending the Constitution, then what better position could he DO it than in the SCOTUS? Rejecting such a chance sounds idiotic to me.

  • [1] May 14, 2016 at 1:54pm

    I think that this news IS significant, if for the fact that Cruz would reject being nominated to a position where he could defend the document that he claims to be so utterly fond of. That he would do so seems rather insane, if you ask me.

    BTW, I VOTED for Cruz in the NC primary. I am no fan of Trump, but will vote for him if he is truly the anti-PC guy that he claims that he is (i.e. he will offend the pro-”transgender” agenda, and all of the other leftist insanity that we are being assaulted with).

  • [3] May 14, 2016 at 1:47pm

    IF The Ted would get chosen to be nominated for a seat on the Supreme Court, and IF he really cares about our rule of law, then he OUGHT to JUMP at the chance of an appointment–the “desire of (his) heart” be damned. Our constitution is being DESTROYED by leftists, and the SCOTUS is where their destruction and erosion mostly takes place. Being a justice of our highest court COULD be more important to the preservation of our country than him being president. We desperately NEED as many clear-headed, SANE rule-of-law-minded individuals manning seats on this court, and his refusal to entertain such thoughts is INSANE.

  • [2] May 14, 2016 at 1:38pm

    The SCOTUS is where the Constitution MUST be maintained, and we desperately NEED sane, rule-of-law-minded men there to DEFEND our Constitution. I cannot think of a better position for such a man than being a justice of our highest court. Rejecting such an opportunity is INSANE.

  • [7] May 14, 2016 at 1:35pm

    I agree with you wholeheartedly. What better place for Cruz than in the SCOTUS? “The desire of (his) heart” be damned! If asked, he should JUMP at the chance to turn our highest court BACK towards sanity and the rule of law.

  • [1] May 14, 2016 at 1:27pm

    Most American “Christians” are doing a fair job with being part of the world, and siding with the left. They will be siding with them against Bible-believers who are followers of Jesus Christ–who are against everything that is currently a campaign issue between these two godless candidates.

    I generally disagree with the notions presented by this radio talking head. The left doesn’t need Trump to attack decent-minded, godly people. That is happening as we speak, and as with everything else that has been tried, it will roll off of Trump like water off a duck.

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love