Troll Level Expert: Lured to Texas, two would-be jihadists die within seconds of arriving at “Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest”

Screen Shot 2015-05-04 at 2.19.17 PM

As we discussed most recently in regard to the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack in Paris, I feel very strongly that nothing should be off-limits to satirists. With that said, however, I find something incredibly distasteful about yesterday’s “Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest” in the Dallas suburb or Garland, Texas, that reached its climax with the killing of two aspiring jihadists. [note: The link above will take you to promotional materials for the event, as well as images of “artwork” which promised to be on display.]

In the case of Charlie Hebdo, I truly feel as though the cartoonists were not looking to incite violence, but to draw attention to the hypocrisy they saw within modern, conservative Islam. In this instance, though, I get the very clear sense that the folks involved were merely using their so-called “art” as justification to provoke a fight for which they were well prepared. [The event organizers claim to have spent $30,000 on armed guards.] And I think the distinction is an important one.

This isn’t, of course, to say that the folks who planned the event knew that their actions would attract armed Muslim radicals. With that said, however, from what little I’ve read about the organizers of the event, and the snipers they had in place, it seems at least somewhat plausible that this whole thing was purposefully constructed in order to yield this very result.

I’m not suggesting that Pamela Geller, the President of the anti-Muslim American Freedom Defense Initiative, planned the inflammatory event in hopes of attracting men like these two that drove in from Phoenix and put themselves in the crosshairs of a well-trained security force, but I do think it’s fair to say there were likely some within the organization that were not altogether displeased by the outcome. [Gellar, who also heads a group called “Stop the Islamization of America,” has been referred to by the Souther Poverty Law Center as “the anti-Muslim movement’s most visible and flamboyant figurehead.”]

I know I’ll likely be accused of hyperbole, but, when I first heard the news today that these two Muslim converts were shot dead within seconds of exiting their car in the parking lot of the Curtis Culwell Center, the first thing to cross my mind was the case of Byron Smith, the Minnesota man found guilty a few years ago of premeditated murder after having set a trap for a pair of teenage burglars.

This isn’t, of course, to dismiss the actions of the two men who were killed. They were armed, and, had they not been stopped, they would have undoubtedly killed others. With that said, though, I can’t help but think that they were, to some degree, set up. And it makes me wonder if perhaps this could be a strategy that we see more of going forward… setting up tempting terrorist honeypots and just waiting for them to show up to be killed.

According to CNN, by the way, Geller intends to host more events like this one. “I will not abridge my freedoms so as not to offend savages,” she said. “This incident shows how much needed our event really was. The freedom of speech is under violent assault here in our nation. The question now before us: Will we stand and defend it or bow to violence, thuggery and savagery?”

“Savages,” for what it’s worth, is a phrase Geller uses often. Here’s an ad her organization ran a few years ago in the New York City subway system.

Screen Shot 2015-05-04 at 2.32.47 PM

While Gellar says they didn’t know that anything like this would happen, Joe Harn, spokesman for the Garland police department, which, according to the American Freedom Defense Initiative, was one of the entities paid to provide security at the event, said, “We were prepared for something like this.” And, judging from the photos I’ve seen, they were.

Here’s Dutch politician Geert Wilders posing with a few members of the hired SWAT team just before they killed the two Muslim men who had shown up to kill them.

Screen Shot 2015-05-04 at 3.43.51 PM

One last thing, the American Freedom Defense Initiative chose this venue, which is owned by the Garland, Texas school district, because an event denouncing Islamophobia was held there this past in January. That event, called “Stand with the Prophet,” was intended to counter Islamophobia in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attack.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  1. Anonymouse
    Posted May 4, 2015 at 8:49 pm | Permalink

    They built a roach motel for terrorists.

  2. EOS
    Posted May 4, 2015 at 10:03 pm | Permalink

    Way to go Garland PD! Note to would be ISIS terrorists: in America, we shoot back.

  3. Elviscostello
    Posted May 4, 2015 at 10:58 pm | Permalink

    “As we discussed most recently in regard to the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack in Paris, I feel very strongly that nothing should be off-limits to satirists.”

    Mark, as often as I agree with you, this is where your post should have stopped. No however, no but, no well if. Either we have the freedom to satirize all religion, or satirize no religion. I saw Book of Mormon, and my sister was apalled that I did (she’s Mormon). If there was a Book of Islam, just as raunchy, just as funny, just as offensive, I’d see it too. Islam doesn’t get a pass because it says so, any more than the Mormons, Catholics, Baptists, or Pastafarians do.
    Isn’t art sometimes offensive? I assume you want the freedom to create offensive art, otherwise, we could go back to that magical time when “degenerate art” was destroyed, along with artists and intellectuals and Jews.

  4. Posted May 5, 2015 at 12:27 am | Permalink

    I support sacrilege of any kind, particularly against the Abrahamic religions.

    However, it saddens me that two idiots took the bait and gave these bigots exactly what they hoped for.

  5. Posted May 5, 2015 at 1:51 am | Permalink

    Does EOS believe that people did not shoot back in other contexts?

    During the Charlie Hebdo attacks, there was plenty of shooting by police. During the attack on the Jewish grocery store, there was also plenty of shooting. During the Al Shabab attack on a University in Garissa, the military was deployed and there was plenty of shooting. During the Westgate attack here in Nairobi, there was so much shooting that the building was mostly rendered useless.

    The lists go on. There are few sustained terror attacks (as opposed to simple bus bombings, for example) that don’t involve shooting by police or military.

    I think that EOS isn’t paying attention (as usual). Shooting is not a deterrent.

    Clearly, the bigots who put on this event are elated to have been given this political gift. Though one can’t say for sure, one could speculate that they are slightly disappointed that no civilians were killed.

  6. Posted May 5, 2015 at 5:29 am | Permalink

    I don’t disagree Elvis. I did not say that these folks in Texas did not have a right to do what they did. I did however question their motives, as I think they were being deliberately provocative in hopes of forcing a confrontation. And I attempted to make the case that what the folks at Charlie Hedbo were doing was different. To put things more simply, I thing there’s a distinction to be made between a play about the odd origins of a religion and an event which encourages everyone with a pencil to draw a religious figure as a child-molesting demon. Again, though, I was not suggesting that people should not have the right to satire. I just think it’s important to point out when said satire is being created by racist assholes.

  7. Posted May 5, 2015 at 6:00 am | Permalink

    If the KKK sponsored a “Draw a black person” contest, it would be bigotry, not satire.

    These reprehensible forms of speech are protected, and that is fine, but they should be called out for what they are. Charlie Hebdo was offensive (to me), but it should be obvious that the goals were very different. Charlie Hebdo’s brand of infantile humor did not distinguish between targets and lacked a political lobbying component aimed at suppressing a specific minority.

  8. EOS
    Posted May 5, 2015 at 6:48 am | Permalink


    Except, Arabs are Caucasians and Mohammad was a child molester. I think persons who want to restrict speech to appease terrorists are the real assholes.

  9. Meta
    Posted May 5, 2015 at 8:00 am | Permalink

    Also in Texas this week:

    “Texas Governor Deploys State Guard To Stave Off Obama Takeover”

    Since Gen. Sam Houston executed his famous retreat to glory to defeat the superior forces of Gen. Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, Texas has been ground zero for military training. We have so many military bases in the Lone Star State we could practically attack Russia.

    So when rookie Texas Gov. Greg Abbott announced he was ordering the Texas State Guard to monitor a Navy SEAL/Green Beret joint training exercise, which was taking place in Texas and several other states, everybody here looked up from their iPhones. What?

    It seems there is concern among some folks that this so-called training maneuver is just a cover story. What’s really going on? President Obama is about to use Special Forces to put Texas under martial law.

    Let’s walk over by the fence where nobody can hear us, and I’ll tell you the story.

    You see, there are these Wal-Marts in West Texas that supposedly closed for six months for “renovation.” That’s what they want you to believe. The truth is these Wal-Marts are going to be military guerrilla-warfare staging areas and FEMA processing camps for political prisoners. The prisoners are going to be transported by train cars that have already been equipped with shackles.

    Don’t take my word for it. That comes directly from a Texas Ranger, who seems pretty plugged in, if you ask me. You and I both know President Obama has been waiting a long time for this, and now it’s happening. It’s a classic false flag operation. Don’t pay any attention to the mainstream media; all they’re going to do is lie and attack everyone who’s trying to tell you the truth.

    Did I mention the ISIS terrorists? They’ve come across the border and are going to hit soft targets all across the Southwest. They’ve set up camp a few miles outside of El Paso.

    That includes a Mexican army officer and Mexican federal police inspector. Not sure what they’re doing there, but probably nothing good. That’s why the Special Forces guys are here, get it? To wipe out ISIS and impose martial law. So now you know, whaddya say we get back to the party and grab another beer?

    It’s true that the paranoid worldview of right-wing militia types has remarkable stamina. But that’s not news.

    What is news is that there seem to be enough of them in Texas to influence the governor of the state to react — some might use the word pander — to them.

    That started Monday when a public briefing by the Army in Bastrop County, which is just east of Austin, got raucous. The poor U.S. Army colonel probably just thought he was going to give a regular briefing, but instead 200 patriots shouted him down, told him he was a liar and grilled him about the imminent federal takeover of Texas and subsequent imposition of martial law.

    “We just want to make sure our guys are trained. We want to hone our skills,” Lt. Col. Mark Listoria tried to explain in vain.

    One wonders what Listoria was thinking to himself as he walked to his car after two hours of his life he’ll never get back. God bless Texas? Maybe not.

    The next day Abbott decided he had to take action. He announced that he was going to ask the Texas State Guard to monitor Operation Jade Helm from start to finish.

    “It is important that Texans know their safety, constitutional rights, private property rights and civil liberties will not be infringed upon,” Abbott said.

    Read more:

  10. Dan
    Posted May 5, 2015 at 8:52 am | Permalink

    Why would it matter if they did (obviously they did) plan to lured these would be serial killers into a trap? It’s no different than setting up traps for pedophiles online and/or with Chris Hansen.

    These people need to be removed from society.

  11. Kristin
    Posted May 5, 2015 at 9:16 am | Permalink

    i think it was awful. Yes they are well within their rights to do it. But Peter is right. Any other ethnic group and we’d be against it as hate speech. There are many times that our rights are thoughtlessly (at best) deployed. This is one of them.

  12. Eel
    Posted May 5, 2015 at 9:42 am | Permalink

    A relevant comic from the Onion.

  13. kjc
    Posted May 5, 2015 at 10:19 am | Permalink

    one of the more lame Onion pieces.

  14. Lynne
    Posted May 5, 2015 at 10:33 am | Permalink

    I really value our freedom of speech. One of the many reasons I do is that when someone uses their speech to promote their bigotry, decent people get to use their freedom of speech to denounce it. I don’t make much distinction between Charlie Hebdo and these Texans in that I find the content of both to be offensive and bigoted. Even though I hate the content of their speech though, I will do whatever it takes to defend their right to say what they would like. Then I get to say what I like and dismiss them as racist A-holes. Somehow nobody dies and everyone gets to say their piece.

  15. EOS
    Posted May 5, 2015 at 10:36 am | Permalink

    No, Muslims do not get to impose Sharia in America. Just like every other religion, Islam can be criticized and false claims disputed in public. If they can’t handle it, they never should have considered moving to a country where freedoms are highly valued. If you don’t treat Muslims as shitty as you do persons of other faiths, then you are bigoted and hypocritical.

  16. kjc
    Posted May 5, 2015 at 11:02 am | Permalink

    “Just like every other religion, Islam can be criticized and false claims disputed in public. If they can’t handle it, they never should have considered moving to a country where freedoms are highly valued. If you don’t treat Muslims as shitty as you do persons of other faiths, then you are bigoted and hypocritical.”

    Exactly. And Muslims shouldn’t expect Christians to fix their cars or serve them pizza either.

  17. Eel
    Posted May 5, 2015 at 11:46 am | Permalink

    Also in Texas today.

    “Teen chlamydia epidemic rages in sex ed-shunning Texas school district”

  18. Mr. Y
    Posted May 5, 2015 at 11:57 am | Permalink

    EOS: “If they can’t handle it, they never should have considered moving to a country where freedoms are highly valued.”

    KJC: “And Muslims shouldn’t expect Christians to fix their cars or serve them pizza either.”


    That was beautiful, KJC.

  19. John Galt
    Posted May 5, 2015 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

    If the event organizers were smart, next time they would sell hunting licenses to people and let them take shots at the junior terrorists as they show up.

  20. EOS
    Posted May 5, 2015 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

    I don’t have a problem with fixing cars or serving pizza.

  21. anonymous
    Posted May 5, 2015 at 1:14 pm | Permalink

    You have said in the past that people (Christians) should be able to choose who they do business with, EOS.

  22. EOS
    Posted May 5, 2015 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

    No I didn’t. Don’t make up shit. I said that no one should be compelled to participate in sinful activities. I would make a birthday cake for a homosexual and don’t see a logical reason not to.

  23. Frosted Flakes
    Posted May 5, 2015 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

    Maybe we could make a list of things that do constitute PARTICIPATION in the sin of gay marriage, according to some Christians, and what things do not constitute participation. Would that be so hard?

  24. Posted May 5, 2015 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

    I suspect that most of the Americans who call “Charlie Hebdo” infantile or racist never read a single issue of the paper, are not familiar with French humor or politics, and are responding to a few cherry-picked cover images online. I used to read it regularly, and found it no more offensive than any comparable sample of American political humor; in fact, it was often smarter, more progressive, and more politically astute. It was also a decidedly mixed bag, with many different writers and artists, some better than others, and a lot of the references went over my head. Of the five murdered artists, Charb had the most anti-clerical agenda, Cabu was a sweet old hippie fervent about peace and ecology, Wolinski did Feifferesque sketches about sex and politics (his recurring strip, “Monsieur,” was about two men discussing politics without listening to one another), Honoré did woodcut-like portraits (and was also known for his literary rebuses and witty illustrations for Larousse), Tignous drew gag cartoons (I’ve seen more from him about McDonald’s than about Islam). They were all different.

    I’m also tired of hearing people say that cartoons about Muslim terrorists are “punching down”; it’s like saying that mocking the KKK shows intolerance to working class Christians. The CH cartoons I’ve seen were directed at extremists and terrorists, not the majority of Muslims. I have to admit that I don’t like extremists and terrorists.

    The Texas event just seems depressing: depressing that the organizers wanted to do it, depressing that others wanted to kill them for it. And, frankly, depressing to see EOS exulting that two men were killed.

  25. EOS
    Posted May 5, 2015 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

    Guess I’m jaded after seeing so many images of people getting beheaded and burned alive. I’m praying for ISIS but will not let their atrocities make me so fearful that I would consider limiting our freedoms or walking on eggshells in the hopes of not offending them.

  26. stupid hick
    Posted May 5, 2015 at 6:14 pm | Permalink

    There’s a difference between walking on eggshells so as not to offend, and intentionally pushing people’s buttons trying to provoke violence. I’m not in favor of restricting freedom. Just sad that assholes like Pam Geller exist. She’s worse than the Fred Phelps clan.

  27. EOS
    Posted May 5, 2015 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

    Slaughtering thousands of innocents might be considered pushing people’s buttons to try to provoke violence, but cartoon depictions of a long deceased man is not a rational provocation for killing anyone. Pam Geller is not someone I admire, but her actions are far less offensive than ISIS. She’s merely exposing their depravity. Pam Geller and Fred Phelps are idiots, but ISIS is evil incarnate.

  28. Frosted Flakes
    Posted May 5, 2015 at 7:37 pm | Permalink

    I don’t object to the cartoons that clearly mock and target ISIS. I absolutely do not appreciate the cartoons that attack Islam, in general, with stupid slogans like “go home mo”. Some of the cartoons just seem like bigoted hate speech without redeeming value, in my opinion, and I think it is valid and healthy for people to be critical of some of those particular cartoons…

  29. Posted May 5, 2015 at 7:59 pm | Permalink

    Thank you all for your thoughts on this subject. I appreciate them.

    As for you comment, EOS, about how “no one should be compelled to participate in sinful activities,” I’m not sure I’m clear on where you think that line should be drawn. You say that a baker shouldn’t be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding. How about a pharmacist… should she be compelled to sell condoms to two men? How about a teacher…. should she be forced to educate an open gay student? How about a pizza delivery person… should he be forced to hand over a pizza to a lesbian couple, knowing that it will likely fuel a wild night of love making? It seems to be to be a slippery slope.

  30. stupid hick
    Posted May 5, 2015 at 8:45 pm | Permalink

    No argument from me, I agree that ISIS is worse than Pam Geller, but it’s clear to me that her event isn’t motivated by free speech or art. She just likes to provoke Muslims. I presume she was quite satisfied with the violent result. I bet we can count on more from her. She wants to incite conflict.

  31. EOS
    Posted May 5, 2015 at 8:46 pm | Permalink

    There is no slippery slope. I draw the line as guided by the Bible. I won’t participate in any aspect of a wedding where it could be misconstrued as affirming the relationship to be similar to the natural complimentary relationship of one man and one woman. You can draw your line wherever you want. There’s no reason not to associate with or not to do business with any category of sinner except when the relationship would encourage the person to perceive their sin as acceptable and that there isn’t a need for repentance.

  32. Posted May 5, 2015 at 9:08 pm | Permalink

    So you would help one man guide his penis into another man, if he were to ask you, and not see that as a violation of biblical law, but you wouldn’t bake a cake for a gay wedding, as doing so would sanction a legal union… Do I have that right? Facilitating a “sinful” act is OK. The only problem is participating, however far removed, in a legal ceremony.

  33. anonymous
    Posted May 5, 2015 at 9:36 pm | Permalink

    It gets better.

    “Anti-Islam Activist Pam Geller Compares Herself To Rosa Parks”

  34. Posted May 5, 2015 at 10:21 pm | Permalink

    Frosted Flakes — Well, I can’t disagree with that. I will point out, though, that political humor is often impenetrable to someone from another culture. CH’s humor was often very topical. Some cartoons that Americans fussed over (one depicting a black cabinet member as a monkey, for example) were ridiculing specific images and slogans disseminated by the Front National. For most of the cartoonists, the main agenda was attacking the right. One good rule of thumb: if you don’t recognize the person being caricatured, you probably don’t understand the cartoon.

    I’ll also point out that the French have more of a taste for rude, transgressive humor than Americans., and that the cartoons were only part of the paper.

  35. Posted May 6, 2015 at 12:34 am | Permalink

    I just have no appreciation for the artform that Charlie Hebdo represents, but am happy they exist.

    I don’t have to like it but I think it should be obvious the Charlie Hebdo and Pam Gellar’s bigoted event are two very different things.

  36. Jcp2
    Posted May 6, 2015 at 2:31 am | Permalink

    Did anybody actually read accounts of what happened here? It’s not like two guys walked into an ambush by snipers in ghillie suits. Two men with body armor and assault rifles shot an unarmed school safety officer before being shot by a single police officer with a department issue handgun. The whole thing was basically over before the SWAT team showed up. That was incredibly brave and skilled. What’s more worrisome is that these sorts of small groups acting in sympathy without central direction are very difficult to detect and act against before they act themselves. True, one could argue that the two men were provoked, but that is not an excuse for their actions. What if the provocation was one’s very existence and identity? American Jewish centers have long adopted a policy of entrance security with armed guards because of this.

  37. Frosted Flakes
    Posted May 6, 2015 at 3:34 am | Permalink

    Doug Skinner,

    I was actually referring to the cartoons that were available for viewing at the Texas exhibit/ contest. Some of the cartoons seemed like a healthy response to extremism and terrorism and other cartoons seemed to be stereotyping Muslim people in a hateful way. I do see your point, which I think Peter is making also, that CH legitimize itself to some extent because it’s organizing principle is critique in general, whereas the Texas event seems to have been organized from hateful misunderstanding of Islam in general and aimed at provocation. There is a huge difference between the two..All non extremist people from the different religions should be striving to become allied with each other against extremism inside and outside their own particular religions. Christian extremism is a big problem too…

  38. Frosted Flakes
    Posted May 6, 2015 at 4:14 am | Permalink


    I think most of us would agree that it would make sense for you to exempt yourself from certain essential aspects of the ceremony…

    The thing I find so puzzling, in terms of strategy, is that by taking such an extreme policy of non-participation you effectively give away all of your power. It is a lot more powerful to serve the gay customer in one of the non essential aspects of the ceremony because it would give you the opportunity to express your belief to them directly that you believe they are making a sinful mistake. Your hands would be clean. No?

  39. EOS
    Posted May 6, 2015 at 4:50 am | Permalink

    Frosted Flakes,
    It is already illegal in many communities to express an opinion of disapproval directly to a homosexual. Ypsilanti is one of those communities with a non-discrimination ordinance that restricts speech that is percieved to be hateful regardless of the intention. In Canada and many other parts of the world it is illegal to read certain parts of the Bible on TV or over the radio. I don’t have the power or the desire to impose my beliefs on an unwilling participant. I’m merely standing my ground to preserve the right to choose my personal course of action. It’s a non-negotiable. In the words of e.e. cumming, “There is some shit I will not eat!”

  40. EOS
    Posted May 6, 2015 at 5:15 am | Permalink

    No Mark,

    Facillitating a sinful act is not acceptable. Participating in sodomy is a violation of Biblical law. If you feel you are in need of further instruction for where to draw the line, read the book. God’s laws are for our benefit, not to restrict our enjoyment, but to make it more abundant. His way is best.

  41. XXX
    Posted May 6, 2015 at 6:17 am | Permalink

    The Bible also forbids the cutting of beards, the eating of shellfish and any number of other things you probably do, EOS. It also defends the practice of slavery. The Bible is a big book that lends itself to multiple interpretations. People can, and have, used it to defend all kinds of things.

  42. EOS
    Posted May 6, 2015 at 6:59 am | Permalink

    I retain the right to make my life decisions based on my interpretation of it. No law or no one else’s interpretation can force me to do otherwise.

  43. anonymous
    Posted May 6, 2015 at 7:31 am | Permalink

    EOS, how can you say on one hand “you can draw your line wherever you want,” and, on the other, say there is no slippery slope. What do you say to the strict Muslim who will not serve uncovered women in his place of business? Or for that matter a Christian motel owner who will not rent rooms to male couples?

  44. EOS
    Posted May 6, 2015 at 7:41 am | Permalink

    I don’t say anything. It’s called tolerance.

  45. Frosted Flakes
    Posted May 6, 2015 at 7:43 am | Permalink

    It is illegal, in Ypsilanti, to say something like “homosexuality is a sin” and to provide the relevant bible verse?

  46. EOS
    Posted May 6, 2015 at 8:07 am | Permalink

    It depends upon the whims of those persons appointed to the Human Relations Committee by the Mayor. If someone feels offended by it, they can report it to the Human Relations Committee. This committee can levy fines, compel training, or ask for criminal charges to be levied. A person can spend tens of thousands of dollars in court costs and legal fees before the HRC backs down. They will not allow a case to go to an unfavorable court, because a person with standing can get the law rescinded. The state law does not include homosexuality as a specially protected class.

  47. Posted May 6, 2015 at 8:26 am | Permalink

    When did turn into

  48. EOS
    Posted May 6, 2015 at 8:32 am | Permalink

    Look at the history. When I contribute there is a lot more discussion. I help make this blog better.

  49. kjc
    Posted May 6, 2015 at 9:05 am | Permalink

    A lot more *pointless* discussion. Don’t get it twisted. You annoy people, they swat you like a fly, you buzz around some more, ad infinitum. You toxify the environment needlessly and convince no one of anything except that a subset of Christians are total assholes. Some strange stubborn self-righteous boredom keeps you here.

  50. Frosted Flakes
    Posted May 6, 2015 at 9:26 am | Permalink

    I appreciate that we get to hear EOS’s perspective even if I often do not agree with it. The gay wedding cake baker issue seems ridiculous to me and trying to figure out where EOS is coming from on this issue can be frustrating…However, If anybody on this blog needs to reconsider their own toxicity it is you, KJC. Really, there is nobody else who spreads so much hate and says so little, in my opinion.

  51. anonymous
    Posted May 6, 2015 at 10:01 am | Permalink

    So EOS would not make a gay wedding cake but he would make a cake for a gay orgy. I think I’m now getting some clarity on where he stands.

  52. jcp2
    Posted May 6, 2015 at 10:52 am | Permalink

    EOS would not make a cake that says for a gay wedding on it, nor would EOS make a cake that says for a gay orgy on it. EOS would make a cake that says nothing on it, and if it were to be used for a gay wedding or a gay orgy after it was purchased, that would be tolerable. It’s the saying part that EOS has a problem with, not the eating part.

  53. stupid hick
    Posted May 6, 2015 at 8:31 pm | Permalink

    EOS and Dan and John Galt all make valuable contributions to the discussion. Without them the comments section would be a sycophant echo chamber.

One Trackback

  1. […] we’ve had great stories these past few weeks about the right wing provocation of radical Muslims and the spread of violent biker gangs throughout the southwest, it never would have crossed my mind […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


BUY LOCAL... or shop at Amazon through this link Banner Initiative American Under Maynardism