Previous Post
Next Post


Yesterday RF highlighted yet another anti-gunner’s cri de coeur, asking when the government is going to finally get off its bureaucratic duff and ventilate a few “gun nuts” to demonstrate who’s boss. Susie Madrak posted her polemic at where’s she’s the managing editor. But to hear Susie tell it, we’re going to need a Kickstarter fundraiser to send Robert back to Tufts for a little remedial reading comprehension work. She says he totally missed the point of her post . . .

Here are the missives she posted in the comment section:

Susie Madrak says:
June 25, 2014 at 10:21
Hey, thanks for completely missing the point, since I’m a lifelong pacifist. What I was actually saying that there aren’t a lot of options to deal with people who defy the legal government — short of those that seem to inevitably lead to all-out violence, as we saw in Ruby Ridge and Waco. If you think I was advocating violence, you’re wrong.

Susie Madrak says:
June 25, 2014 at 14:12 (Edit)
Look: The post was in response to another article, chiding the federal government for backing down at the Bundy ranch. My response was to show that there were no good options here, and mentioned Ruby Ridge and Waco as examples of government overreaction. Do I wish the feds hadn’t backed away at the Bundy ranch? Yes. It’s dangerous when random citizens start making their own laws. Do I think the feds should have gone in and killed everyone? Of course not.

But it’s also a problem when so many armed people claim they want a revolution. At what point do we simply stop enforcing laws so they won’t start shooting? That’s a hell of a way to run a country.

It’s very surreal to be defending myself against the idea that I want to kill people when I do not.

Gee. Susie’s a pacifist. We must have screwed up. After she posted her comments, I went back and re-read her piece. But I had a problem. How do you take lines like, “…at what point does the federal government literally go to war with its own citizens?” and, “…what line has to be crossed in the good old U.S. of A. before we start mowing them down to make our point?” any other way?

Could I be suffering from the same dearth of comprehension that’s afflicting RF? Just to be sure, I emailed Ms. Madrak last night to invite her to write a post for TTAG explaining exactly what she really meant. And she promptly answered me in an email she asked not be reprinted. Without violating her wishes, she told me she’d spent the entire day after our post went up yesterday trying to walk back engage in a “constructive dialogue” over the meaning of her post. Apparently without much luck.

In short, her answer to our offer was thanks, but no thanks. We guess a lifelong pacifist — one whose web site features a drawing of her firing a machine gun and lobbing hand grenades — can’t be bothered to explain how her article wondering if it’s time to “…just get it over with (start a civil war)? You know, settle the burning question about whose is bigger,” doesn’t really mean what everyone thinks it means. We’re so confused. 

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Of course she’s a pacifist. She’s calling for other people to “mow down” those she targets. She’d never do that herself.

    • Ms Madrak didn’t mean she’d kill us with a machine gun… just hack us to death with a gigantic lawnmower. Because that’s what civilized anti-gun people do. Kill all gun owners with edged weapons.

      OMG, SUCH A GREAT PACIFIST! (/sarcasm)

      • Points for the Henry II reference – My favorite version of the quote is: “What miserable drones and traitors have I nourished and promoted in my household, who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric!”

    • +1 I was thinking the same thing. Progs would never get their hands dirty, that’s what the government is for.

  2. “as we saw in Ruby Ridge and Waco.”

    Study your f*cking history “ma’am.” Those incidents were the direct result of storm trooper tactics in situations that didn’t call for that level of force. A simple knock on the door in both of those situations would have likely led to the avoidance of violence and standoffs to begin with.

    What an ignorant, despicable statement.

    • In her second “walkback” posted above, she “mentioned Ruby Ridge and Waco as examples of government overreaction.”

      So while the statement wasn’t in support of the government per se, I’m with you — government killing of children by fire and bullets is a hell of a lot worse than an “overreaction.”

      • Yeah I saw that after I posted. She can try to back pedal all she wants. She used the words “those that seem to inevitably lead to all-out violence” to describe those two events. She has the chutzpa to tell RF that his reading comprehension isn’t up to snuff, so I have to assume she knows the definition of the word “inevitable.” That word, as defined by a hasty google search:

        “certain to happen; unavoidable.”

        The implication being that it was bound to happen. I am sure SHE believes it was bound to happen because Randy Weaver and the Davidians were determined to have a confrontation with the government. Well I hate to break it to her but I don’t believe for one second that either of those groups intended to have a standoff. I’m pretty sure that both of those incidents were anything but inevitable. Had the government simply approached those situations PEACEFULLY, I think the results would have been very different. For her to state that those incidents were inevitable, with an obvious bias against the Weavers and the Davidians, pretty much invalidates her pacifism. I suppose in her world pacifists are allowed to rubber stamp of the violence of others because it aligns with their statism.

        These types of statements make it very challenging to comment in a flame free environment, especially when she contradicts herself in the second statement.

        • These types of statements make it very challenging to comment in a flame free environment

          For some, maybe, but your flame-free statements are proof positive that you can make your points in a flame free environment, even when it’s hard for us not to tell Susie exactly what we think of her — in very graphic terms.

  3. I’m amazed that these sorts of rants by ‘pacifists’ don’t get more media attention. They insult normal gun owners every-which-way-but-Tuesday, threaten us, and inevitably tie the entire thing to issues with our penis length.

    Honestly, I though I had left nonsense like that behind when I graduated middle school. She can try and clarify, walk-back, or whatever she wants to call it, but her words are clear, their meaning is clear.

    So not only do we need to debate against people who choose not to use facts, statistics or logic, but we also have to do it while being insulted and threatened.

    Lovely. Classy lady right there, I tell you what.

    • Or as they would say in the South…..”Lovely. Classy lady right there, I tell you what, bless her heart.” hehehehe

      • Im sending you a bill for my new laptop… mine did not survive the shower of soda it just received.

        • I recommend reading posts from a tablet. The touchscreens seem to be immune to soda, water, beer, vodka, Gin, moonshine, …etc. etc. etc.

  4. Yeah, all the pacifists I know want govt. troops to shoot babies! Ban guns for the babies and shoot the babies parents if they have guns. Yes, they totally make sense.

    Violent pacifists for peace and stability that will save babies by shooting people. F*ck yeah!

    • SHE does not want to mow anybody down–she is a pacifist after all–instead she wants the government to do it for her. Serve and protect! Or maybe Strength and Honor!

      • Exactly.

        This woman is another certifiable loon. Claims to be a pacifist, but wants the government to shoot people.

        Riiiight. I think I’ve heard that line of thinking from a Quaker sermon before.

        Wait, nooooo, it wasn’t the Quakers… maybe the Mennonites? Hmmm. Nope, not them either.

        Hmmm. Gotta think about this. I’ve been around some pacifists in my time, but none of them were preaching her line.

  5. They banned my IP after my one and only ever comment on Crooks&Liars.

    I was replying to some woman who claimed that if there was a revolution it would be mostly brown people that would die, because you cant tell a white liberal from a white conservative. And then she added the random statement that Rwanda had happened, after all (I have not idea what her logic was).

    To which I had replied that the Hutus, didn’t seem to have a problem distinguishing the Tutsis. I refrained from specifically pointing out that by her logic mostly white people should have died during the Rwanda genocide.

    She then replied (as if to disprove her whole point) that there are physical differences that can easy differentiate Hutus from Tutsis.

    When I returned to reply to this easily disprovable falsehood, with a link to the Princeton U. study of just that issue, I found that I had been banned.

    And the Liberal censorship of dissent rolls on.

    • I’ve found the same thing on the anti-gunners’ forums and Facebook pages. Politely suggest gun control isn’t the answer but addressing mental health, and working harder to target recidivists is? That’s a bannin’

      • A bit off topic, but I’ve dad these experiences, too. Let me praise Salon in this regard, however. They are the only leftist site that hasn’t consistently censored (at least my) comments. It’s about the only good thing I have to say about Salon, but let’s give credit where it’s due.

        • Please, Please, Please don’t give them that “mental health” slippery-slope.

          Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed.

          Crimes like armed robbery and murder are already illegal. Enforce the (just) laws we have – deal with the situation when it arises, but knock it off with the mindreading and soothsaying. We need to be fighting to get our natural, human, Constitutionally-protected rights restored, not handing the antis more infringement tools.

    • Same here, the “super tolerant left” banned me and deleted any of my reasoned responses to their calls to murder fellow Americans.

    • Oh, absolutely!

      Hildabeast said it herself: “It takes a village”.

      Who needs the parents.

      • Killing adults to save children …. I’ve head that same logic used to firebomb abortion clinics – just sayin.

  6. To me, the question is “who is she?” She certainly isn’t a known spokesperson for liberal causes.

    • She doesn’t have to be either “known” or a “spokesperson.” What possible difference does that make.

      She published an article that made some strange claims. That article is available for anyone on the planet with Internet access to read. A lot of times, folks don’t read the name on a blog post. They don’t care about “who.”

      Do you want the nonsense she wrote to not be challenged?

  7. “It’s dangerous when random citizens start making their own laws.”

    Like when African-Americans used civil disobedience to challenge jim crow laws civil disobedience in the 60s?

    So much fail… in so few words.

    • exactly and the US government tried to take their guns away too… people strategically ignore that part

    • Or when the abolitionists were campaigning against slavery in the 1850’s?

      Or when the anti-war protesters were campaigning against the Vietnam war in the 60’s?

      The list goes on and on.

    • EDIT:
      “It’s dangerous when random citizens start making their own laws.”

      Like when African-Americans used civil disobedience to challenge jim crow laws in the 60s?

      So much fail… in so few words.

    • And, of course, those guys that didn’t set their muskets down on Lexington Green.

      America is the land of civil disobedience. But with all the Susies running amok, freedom is slipping away.

      Because, as its been said: “When the criminals fear the people, there is freedom. When the people fear the criminals, there is tyranny.”

  8. Yeah pacifist my ass.
    I do want to know how I go about posting on TTAG !?!?? It’s not a group. Just a page, but I never see comment on your posts so am I banned from posting ??? Since I’ve never posted I wonder why ?
    What do I have to do or be to post !??!?!

    • I have left at least two comment replies telling you that as long as you use the word “fuck” in your name, website url (currently listed as “fuck”), or email address, your comments will be automatically moderated. The fact that you didn’t see them is not our fault. I can’t exactly send you an email at “[email protected].” You’ll be able to post without problems as soon as you get a better imagination.

      • Matt, So much win in that I can’t help but smile. Trolls will be trolls, but I do like to see them eviscerated…

  9. Its interesting that these people always expect somebody else to go door to door and confiscate. Wonder if they are familiar with any of the surveys of LE that show large majorities of them would not follow orders for mass confiscation.

    • As long as “whatever it takes to get home safe” is their mantra, I don’t see door to door confiscation on their to-do list.

  10. Ironically, you won’t find many larger groups of pacifists than those that post on TTAG.

    • I don’t know about you, but I generally try to avoid confusing non-aggression with pacifism.

      I understood the intent of your post, and don’t necessarily disagree. But I will point out, under no uncertain terms, that I (and suspect almost everyone else here) am not a pacifist by any stretch of the imagination. I am quite familiar with violence and while I avoid it whenever possible, I understand that it’s an unfortunate fact of life and do not intend to allow myself or anyone around me to be a victim.

  11. She isn’t describing pacifism, she is saying she prefers to outsource her violence so she can reap the benefits while keeping her soul lily-white.

    • Well, that’s typical of modern American liberals in general. They don’t really want to get their hands dirty doing just about anything.

      They want to end poverty, but they want to do it from the comfort of their gated communities. So they exhort the government to seize more tax revenue from other people and give it to the layabouts that the liberals deem worthy.

      They want to stop pollution, so they have the government shut down business they don’t like and regulate behavior they don’t like, so they can live in their nice little enclaves.

      They claim to want better education, but they send their kids to private schools – because they’ve wrecked education in the US.

      Wanting the government to go kick the asses of people who have guns is just part of the overall liberal pattern of outsourcing their agenda. They’re intellectual and physical cowards, and they don’t want to confront problems themselves, in person. No, they want problems “taken care of,” and to do this they petition for more government control over people they don’t like and behaviors they want stopped.

      George Carlin, whilst on a rant about white liberal environmental puffery said “Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me.” He had these people’s number.

      • So much disappoint. I’ve a lot of respect for some of the technical stuff you post but this is just utter trash.
        Progressive taxation is based on the idea of marginal value of wealth. I’m honestly not sure where you were even going with ‘gated communities’ on this one. Oh, and nice classification of anyone on any type of social safety program as a ‘layabout.’ Enlightened.

        The idea of pollution control is so that NOBODY ANYWHERE has to put up with the negative impacts of pollution. The real cost of polluting is never taken into account by the polluters without external forces. Why would they? The only way to do anything about it is to regulate it at the market level. Show me any other effective way to prevent it and I’m game.

        There is no hypocrisy in working towards better public education and sending your own children to a private school. There just isn’t. You can strive towards better public education while not accepting the garbage schools you have access to. Those just aren’t incompatible.

        I’m a liberal. I’m a gun owner. I oppose magazine capacity restrictions–because they don’t make us safer. I support removing NFA restrictions on SBRs and suppressors–because this doesn’t make anyone safer. I carry everywhere I legally can. I’m a rational consumer of public policy. I support the idea that there are problems large enough where a centralized government is the only entity large enough tackle certain problems. You can’t ‘fix pollution’ or stop the CFC-mediated destruction of ozone by just going out and ‘getting your hands dirty’. In fact, that problem was BIGGER than one government could solved and required concerted international effort.

        I’m not a coward, and I have enough intellectual confidence that I don’t have to paint a false picture of my ideological opponents. Fortunately, not all conservatives are close-minded, ignorant asshats. You just happen to be all of those.

        • I see that you identify yourself as a liberal, progressive, gun owner, and a globalist. You’re mistaken if you believe that your freedom will ever survive progressive or globalist agendas. Individual Liberty is wholly incompatible. They are as oil is to water.

        • “I support the idea that there are problems large enough where a centralized government is the only entity large enough tackle certain problems.”

          Name one.

    • Excellent point.

      As I read recently, they want “no consequence.”

      Be it “free love” or “government, shoot that guy that is bothering me,” they want all the ‘benefits of their world view’ with none of the consequences.

  12. These anti’s often seem to treat police and feds like lifeless, soulless Golems. It doesnt count if they order the Golems to kill you for your beliefs. They’re still pure as the driven snow.
    So what if I cheered and danced as the feds murdered Sam and Vicki. I’m still a pacifist. Did I mention Randy might have been racist? That makes it all okay.

  13. a lifelong pacifist who has a cartoon picture of her throwing a grenade AND shooting a horribly drawn gun in front of a door that has an eviction notice on it? Right….

    Not to mention that pic is the homepage header…

    Ghandi was a lifelong pacifist, you are merely a useful idiot.

    EDIT: I commented before I got the point where the article talks about the pic hahaha, a little over zealous today.

  14. The BLM is literally a collection of random citizens who are making their own laws… They are not elected, we did not choose them to represent us, and their only oversight is an executive branch who can’t stop bitching that they don’t have enough power…..

    • Most people here haven’t dealt with the BLM. I have. And I’ve dealt with them in Nevada.

      There’s incompetence in US government bureaucracies by the super-tanker-full. You can see it everywhere, in every agency, from top to bottom.

      But the BLM… there are sectors of the BLM that boggle even the most cynical mind, and most all of the regional offices of the BLM that leave a thinking man’s jaw agape at the sheer, mind boggling stupidity of the policies and people are in Nevada.

      In all seriousness, there are many employees of the BLM in Nevada who shouldn’t be allow to possess a match or Bic lighter, never mind a firearm.

  15. “…at what point does the federal government literally go to war with ITS own citizens?”

    Curious wording to say the least

  16. Thou shalt not kill. Thous shalt simply cheer on the government as it kills. So sayeth the badly, madly misguided shrew. Can I get a hallelujah?

  17. pac·i·fism
    the belief that any violence, including war, is unjustifiable under any circumstances, and that all disputes should be settled by peaceful means.

    She’s not a pacifist.

    a political system in which the state has substantial and complete centralized control over social and economic affairs.

    This, however…

  18. Sarcasm does not translate well on written words. Let this be a lesson to her to indicate when a post is sarcastic by describing it as sarcastic in written words such as “the following words are sarcastic.”

  19. I would consider myself, in contradistinction to Ms. Madrak, an actual pacifist.
    Though I do not believe in non-violence, I do strongly believe in the principle of non-aggression.

    The difference is often found in the degree to which one is able to distinguish reality from fantasy. Realizing that violence does and will occur, my pacifist stance is that I do not initiate same, but will resort it in order to defend myself, my family and my property from aggression.

    Unrealistic pacifists like Susie here seem to think they can just pretend violence will go away. When confronted with the fact that it won’t, the cognitive dissonance they experience often takes their pendulum all the way to the other side of the spectrum. They embrace, even covet, violence- whether by their own hands or those of their proxies (i.e. the gubment)- and direct it against those who’ve challenged their silly worldview.

    Of course this is still part of their “it will just go away” mentality: They sincerely hope that if we’re gotten rid of, real threats will disappear as well.

    Total detachment from reality.

      • William Aprill defines violence as “use of force, or threat of the use of force, to achieve a desired result.”

        Assertive counterforce could, by that definition, be considered “violence.”

        by the strict confines of Aprill’s definition, violence is not itself “bad.” The word has taken on a bad connotation and has been manipulated by nannyists.

        How violence is USED is good or bad. It can be used to bad, such as bashing someone over the head with a shovel to steal their wallet. Or, it can be used for good, as in shooting the guy attempting to bash in your head to steal your wallet.

        One of our biggest problems is that we let the anti’s and Statists in general control the language. By subtly and over time manipulating the language so the people have a negative emotional response to the word “violence,” the get to morally equate those two actions.

        To them, if you use “violence,” you are, by THEIR definition, “bad” no matter what overall good may have arisen from your particular “application of force.”

        • I’d rather not let them get away with redefining words to fit their narrative and worldview. Maybe that’s just me…though I do recognize a bit of “pick your battles” comes up from time to time.

  20. Ms. Madrak wrote: “At what point do we simply stop enforcing laws so they won’t start shooting?”

    Perhaps she should consider the fact that many citizens think that the government has far, far overstepped its bounds. Perhaps it is, indeed, time to stop enforcing some laws, since many of those laws are unjust.

    We don’t want a revolution, ma’am. What we want is to LIVE IN PEACE. Without oppression from any person or government. Including our own.

    • I seem to recall a certain POTUS who declines to enforce any and all immigration laws related to a certain hemisphere to our south and a country immediately adjacent thereto. And I’m sure she applauds this abrogation because sometimes force is necessary to stop people from shooting Border Patrol agents, Police, and random ranchers. And also so she can have low-wage non-English-speaking people who can tend to her landscaping, cook her food, and clean her house.

      But that’s just dandy with her. Because they’re not her.

  21. This kind of thing is actually what turns me off of self-proclaimed pacifists in general.

    It works if the opposition is hypocritical and does not wish to be seen as such.

    If the opposition believes in what they want, though, then at the end of the day, force is the only thing that actually accomplishes anything.

    So really, the “pacifists” aren’t against violence, they just don’t want to get their own hands dirty.

    Much like we say of the anti-gunners – they’re not against guns, they just against guns in the hands of those that don’t agree with them.

  22. She is a “lifelong pacifist” in the same vein as Bill Ayers. They are pacifists, in that they seek peace, peace defined as the absence of opponents. The ends justify the means.

  23. We should treat her exactly how they treat us. We should be riling everyone up so that she gives a public apology, donates to a guns rights group, and gets fired from her job along with a good public shaming.

  24. “The defects and faults of the mind are like wounds in the body; after all imaginable care has been taken to heal them up, still there will be a scar left behind, and they are in continual danger of breaking the skin and bursting out again.”

    ~ Francois de La Rochefoucauld

    May Ms. Madrak get the help she needs and Godspeed her recovery. The violence she wishes, then represses, bespeaks a deeper, daily torment in her own mind. This won’t end soon, if ever, as she continues her struggle against victimhood and toward independence. God bless you, Ms. Madrak.

  25. The Crooks and Liars apparent regular commenters really got smacked around in the comments section of that story. I was surprised. Pro-gun comments out-numbered and out-voted the anti’s.

    Some of the anti comments are truly delusional, e.g. the repeated insistence that in order to own guns you must “join a militia.” It amazes me how many people still parse the second amendment and gloss over the fact that the right is guaranteed to the people, not the militia.

  26. Yikes! I get the felling she thinks we are stupid the understand her lofty ideals. Once again threatening heavily armed men.

  27. Typical liberal gun hater – make an outrageous statement that usually involves wishing for the death of 2A advocates or their children, then when they’re called on it, they claim that you somehow “misinterpreted” what they were trying to say.

    Baloney. The woman is a liar.

  28. I thought pacifist meant that you didn’t employ or entertain violence. Apparently it also means a crazy, unemployed, cat owner liberal who is a complete idiot.

    I sure hope the Shakers, Quakers, Amish and Buddhist don’t get confused.

  29. I ventured onto CrooksandLiars along with Emforty Gasmask and a few others. The basic premise is that anyone who is pro-gun must be an ammosexual who has sex with firearms and possesses delusional fantasies about warring with the government. Gun ownership, to them, is essentially the result of a small penis. I’m not sure how they would respond to an armed women. My willingness to use a Glock 23 as a self defense tool was met with derision. If comment moderation exists, it was not being properly applied.

    I may venture back from time to time, just to rile up the anti-gunners. Their hatred and intolerance is truly scary. Were I not already armed, their comments and thinly veiled threats would convince me to tool up.

    • Isn’t it funny that in this whole country of gun owners the people who are being war mongering, and really, literally, talking about ‘mowing people down with machine guns’ are the gun-hating, left-wing, liberals.
      Is it funny? Or should I have said scary, that the people who think no one should have guns want to see other Americans shot over it?”

    • “I’m a life long pacifist”
      … As long as there is someone around to kill the people I disagree with and fear, for me, like some kind of overlord tyrannical government.

      I felt like you left out a sentence.

  30. Madrak’s article is entitled “So At What Point Do We Actually Stand Up To The Gun Nuts?” Yesterday, I was struck by the “we” in her title and wondered if she really meant to include herself in the presupposed solutions she advanced. I went back and read her diatribe again and there is absolutely nothing that distances her from her use of the pronoun “we” or her calling for the death of those she disagrees with. Madrak is a paste eating moron that would delight in wallowing in the blood of those she hates and that includes the children of firearm owners.

  31. she told me she’d spent the entire day after our post went up yesterday trying to walk back engage in a “constructive dialogue” over the meaning of her post.

    Of course, she is a plain liar. When she first posted yesterday, I asked a simple, polite, and honest question. It was the first reply to her comment. She never bothered to answer.

    So, when she posted another comment later, I figured that she might have missed my question so I reminded her.

    I then asked a related follow up question in consideration of the new post she had made.

    How does she expect to engage in a dialog when she doesn’t answer a simple respectful question posed right after and below her own comment? Obviously, she lied. She apparently intended to engage in a monologue all along. 😉

    • Clearly this pretentious ass of a so-called pacifist is in dire need of a copy of Strunk and White.

    • Thanks, John. I also was wondering about that claim. I was wondering how it took her all day to post two comments.

      I, too, posed some questions to her in reply to one of her comments. I was really hoping that her presence on TTAG meant she had an open mind and wanted to discuss her gun rights in general and her article in particular.

      • Sometimes when the enemy enjoys a certain amount of success, it’s prudent to consider employing some of the same tactics that enemy used. Of course, this ought be carried out only when permissible within one’s own moral construct.

        RULE 4: Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.
        RULE 8: Keep the pressure on. Never let up.
        RULE 10: If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.
        RULE 11: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.

        • It’s not just this page, it’s the entire TTAG site. I sent them an email about it at 5:55 PM.

        • I didn’t get the warning until I hit “reply” on my main comment with the “rules” above. Fifty-five past the hour seems about right. You must have just caught the warning when it was enacted. I also emailed after posting the above and told them that the site was flagged. Hopefully TTAG will get it resolved soon enough. Nice dirty underhanded tactics by the antis. Bastards!

        • Yup, Google Chrome just flagged the page as a purveyor of malware. So I went to “Advanced”, and saw that absolutely nothing malicious had been detected on the site by Google [“Don’t be mean. While I evict you.”] So I waved a finger in the air and pressed on regardless, as that was the final choice under “Advanced.”

          I see Mr. Bloomberg’s been on the phone again.

      • And here’s the damning data, straight from the Chrome Diagnostic” page:

        Safe Browsing
        Diagnostic page for

        What is the current listing status for
        Site is listed as suspicious – visiting this web site may harm your computer.

        What happened when Google visited this site?
        Of the 295 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 0 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2014-06-26, and suspicious content was never found on this site within the past 90 days.
        This site was hosted on 2 network(s) including AS36351 (SOFTLAYER), AS16509 (AMAZON-02).

        Has this site acted as an intermediary resulting in further distribution of malware?
        Over the past 90 days, did not appear to function as an intermediary for the infection of any sites.

        Has this site hosted malware?
        No, this site has not hosted malicious software over the past 90 days.

        How did this happen?
        In some cases, third parties can add malicious code to legitimate sites, which would cause us to show the warning message.

        Next steps:
        Return to the previous page.
        If you are the owner of this web site, you can request a review of your site using Google Webmaster Tools. More information about the review process is available in Google’s Webmaster Help Center.

        Malicious reporting. Very noble.

        • And these are the types of people with which we are supposed to be having some sort of “conversation” about “reasonable” gun control. Yeah, right…

        • “In some cases, third parties can add malicious code to legitimate sites,”

          It sounds like somebody posted a malicious link in one of these threads, or even in their name, and Staff got it deleted in time. In the interim, I’ve been here all day and haven’t had any problems.

          Or it could be Bloombergese hackers! =:-O

      • Is it a coincidence that Susie Madrak is being discussed the same day this has happened?

  32. As a kid and teenager I grew-up in Orange County, California. There was a rabid Chapter of “The John Birch Society” in the late 1950’s and through the 1960’s. Two local newspapers, “The Anaheim Bulletin” (now defunct) and “Orange County Register” (still in operation, but more moderate today) were Flagship Rags for the very extremist right wing ultra-arch conservatives that ran that County.
    In the opinion and letters to the editor pages of those newspapers, it was commonplace to print opinions and letters where it was routinely advocated that for any person or group that opposed the John Birchers’ idea of Amerika there was ONLY one logical answer, which was, to “get a bunch of machine guns and mow those sons of b*tches down in the street”.

    So, congratulations Susie Madrak! You have warmed the stone cold hearts and brought icy tears of joy to the eyes of those now long dead ghosts of a great bastion of the most extreme conservatives ever seen in the United States of America. They are making a special place in Hell for you and have named a machine gun in your honor.

    • The ‘Extreme Right’ is often conflated to mean Conservative but the actual meaning is a reference is to Right wing socialists (like Nazis) as opposed to Left wing socialists (Soviets). American Conservatives want a Very Conservative reading and enforcement of the Bill Of Rights and USCONST where as Liberals want those documents reinterpreted to mean anything they say it means. In the light of the above the John Birch Society shared far more with the Left then it did with Conservatives

      • It’s long past time to clarify some terms.

        The political spectrum operates along two axis: liberal to conservative, and libertarian to authoritarian. A conservative *or* a liberal can lean libertarian *or* authoritarian. At the extreme, authoritarians are fascist. Stalin was a left-leaning authoritarian who preached equality while Hitler was a right-leaning authoritarian who preach inequality.

        Susie Madrak clearly leans authoritarian, as she wishes to use the power of the state to trample individual liberty. For many on the left, it’s guns; for many the right it’s abortion, but at the end all about using the state to stomp-out individual liberty.

        • @ Rich Grise…Hmmmm… the Political Quiz pegs me as “Libertarian” I thought I am more conservative. Thanks for the link.

        • The only relevant political spectrum is the Individual vs. the State. That’s it.

          Every little statist’s lofty justification for ramrodding his will down every other individual’s throat is just so much window dressing rationalization. Doesn’t matter if it’s some Fatherland fascism or Motherland communism. Neither does it matter whether it’s some secular dictatorship or religious authoritarianism. It’s all the same, stale acrid assault on liberty. People can quibble over Democrats and Republicans, as well, but that, too, is just dialing in the despotism.

          Once you stray beyond establishing property rights, an objective and transparent judiciary for adjudicating differences, and an impartial executive branch for enforcing those rulings, but otherwise leaving people the hell alone, then you’re down the road to serfdom. Everything else is just chit chat.

      • Good observations. In OC. CA, as I experienced it, these most extreme rightists were ardent Nationalists, strict Constitutionalists, semi-fundamentalist Christians who held the free enterprise system and traditional American values (as they defined them) in the highest esteem. I went to middle and high school with several kids of some very extreme men. Several times we got “lectures” from various of these Dads about the Communist infiltration of the United States, what it really meant to be an American, the “true” meaning of the Constitution and so forth.

        I would say these guys were Mussolini style super-nationalist Fascists and definitely anti-Semitists (it was the International Jewish Communist Conspiracy they were fighting). So, wherever that places them in your categorizations.

        The John Birch Society in OC, CA, may have deviated from the rest somewhat. I read some Birch Society literature written in OC,CA, which was mostly anti-Communist in content. I do not know of any actual violence they perpetrated, but in the first half of the 20th and last 30 years of the 19th Century OC,CA had active cells of the KKK and the local history reported violence against non-whites. So, OC, CA’s roots as a bastion of whatever you want to call it were deep.

        I was raised a Conservative Democrat from the Midwest (we came to CA in 1957) , so it was an interesting learning experience as a teenager becoming aware of the rest of the World outside my own Family. In mid-life I became a Conservative Constitutionalist, so these learnings had value in that evolution of my life, as well.

    • In Minnesota, there’s a chapter of the Society for the Preservation of Wooden Toilet Seats, also known as the Birch John Society. 😉

      • It was always my guess that some of those guys in OC,CA had a piece of birchwood stuck up a certain bodily orifice.

        • The Birch society was a bunch of ultra-radical reich-wingers, but I live right next-door to OC. It, and the OC Register, have a much more Libertarian vibe; the JBS is no way representative of OC in general.. In fact, the OC Register is proud of being a Libertarian paper. FWIW, here’s a link to its Company Information and History page.

          • Thanks for the link to Register History. Yeah, I would say they are more Libertarian today. In the 1960’s there were a lot of Libertarian threads in what they editorialized about and the Opinion Columns they wrote now that I think about it. More reich-wing (I like that phrase!) stuff appeared in letters and responses to Editorials and Opinions. The Anaheim Bulletin was the main reich-wing mouthpiece and had some really far-right stuff in its Editorials, Opinions and Letters to the Editor. Walter Knott was out there on the far, far, far right and, I think, had some influence on what was printed in the Bulletin and probably had interactions with R.C. Hoiles. Knott was definitely a central figure in Conservative Republican thinking in OC. He built the replica Independence Hall in Buena Park as an expansion of his Knott’s Berry Farm and held various right-wing events there. A lot of the ordinary folks in OC were very conservative Republicans and there were truckloads of money being made in aerospace industries serving NASA and the Military. Many of my friends’ Dads in Middle and High School worked for Autonetics, Rockwell and Lockheed, all of which were on La Palma Ave in Anaheim.
            It was an interesting time…that’s for sure.

    • “get a bunch of machine guns and mow those sons of b*tches down in the street”

      Can you give a reference to this John Birch Society quote, please?

      • Unfortunately, no. It was 46 years ago in letters to the Editor of the long defunct Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper. I was 17 and never forgot as it made such an impression on me. The writer(s), as best I recall, did not purport their statement to represent the JBS, but as a statement of their own, personal position.

  33. So let me get this straight, here we have a pacifist anti-gun writer saying,
    “When all other avenues of negotiation have failed the only way that remains to protect your point of view is…. GUNS…. Just as long as I don’t have to own, them be around them, or clean them. As long as someone else has guns in order to protect my opinion from people I am scared of I can sleep at night.”

    Did I get that just about right?
    Sounds like a Pro-gun stance to me. And actually is complete justification for the Second Amendment: Own guns so that people can’t take away your First Amendment rights.

  34. “But it’s also a problem when so many armed people claim they want a revolution. At what point do we simply stop enforcing laws so they won’t start shooting? That’s a hell of a way to run a country.”

    I think there need to be 2 responses to this quote:
    1. The only person who said anything about revolution was you.
    2. Do you even know how our country DOES run? Civil Disobedience is a hallmark of our system of laws, which are not absolute and constantly get repealed, over ruled by courts, and changed.

  35. I notice that a lot of her kind of pacifist are all in favor of dismembering children in the womb by the millions but I guess that’s different because it’s a woman’s right, right?

  36. Madrak probably couldn’t take time to answer your polite questions because she spent all day deleting comments she doesn’t agree with over at C&L.

    The low-level snark, name-calling, and progtard group think is so predictable,
    and tiresome. Just like DU, Kos, HuffPo, its basically a sewer.
    No reason to go back.

  37. “Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay; and claims a halo for his dishonesty.” Robert Heinlein

  38. Just about every mass shooter has posted on Facebook or some social media site about how they hate Guns,violence and Gun owners.

  39. Comments at that C&L posting are now conveniently closed.

    Get your ass handed to you, then turn over the checkerboard & declare victory. Classic Charlie Sheen “Winning!” Strategy.


  40. Hey Frankster, the Progressives have only dismembered 56 million children so far……..for the Kids . . Ofcourse!
    Adolf offed 18.4 million in the Reeducation or Die Camps.
    Ghenghis Khan killed 50 million by hand and sword.
    Stalin murdered 63 million.
    Mao killed 80 million.
    Just wait the Progressives will catch-up at all costs!
    To Americans that IS!
    The only good point is that more liberal babies and
    future Dim Voters die under the hands of Planned Murderhood
    than conservatives……….

  41. “At what point do we simply stop enforcing laws so they won’t start shooting? ”

    Hmmmm for one part, the drug laws that build up criminal empires!!

  42. The first ‘fail’ is the assumption that the current government is ‘legitimate’ in any sense but basic structure – Article by Article, Section by Section, the current power structure is in violation of the Constitution.

    Predating that Constitution, the Framers declared: “…to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government…” The fact that the current despotism centralized in the District of Corruption has not been replaced by violent overthrow is a testament to the restraint practiced by those armed citizens the fool criticizes.

Comments are closed.