I knew I should be afraid

Brad Willis

Brad Willis is a writer based in Greenville, South Carolina. Willis spent a decade as an award-winning broadcast journalist. He has worked as a freelance writer, columnist, and professional blogger since 2005. He has also served as a commentator and guest on a wide variety of television, radio, and internet shows.

You may also like...

10 Responses

  1. Astin says:

    These terrorbabies are the most fearsome thing yet! Former FBI agents, who I won’t name, have provided evidence, which I won’t reveal, that they could be a potential threat… maybe.

    They say you do the most learning in those early years. I know this is true, because I learned to talk and walk as a baby, and I STILL do those things today! What if I’d been taught to walk terroristically? Or what if my first words were “cookie” or “mama”, both of them being code for nefarious things I’m sure.

    Also, as is WELL-documented in America, kids ALWAYS turn out the way their parents expect them to. Never, NEVER, in the history of parenting has a child followed their own path or been influenced by their peers. This is why there are so many doctors and lawyers and so few illiterate losers on the drugs. Obviously these babies can be easily trained over their lifetimes by parents who are only focused on the end game, and not on the well-being of their child.

    Not to mention that in the 20 years before these babies will carry out their training, NOTHING could possibly change in attitudes between countries and cultures.

    Finally, and this is the most important point – this MAY already be going on! What if, say, 40 or 50 years ago, an Ayatollah sent some people to have babies in Texas, but even more nefariously – WHITE babies. Then they grew up to become idiotic, bigotted, brainless politicians who would use their pulpits to spread fear and insecurity to cover up their OWN nefarious plans! Would we even see these people now?

  2. Grange95 says:

    Just so I’m clear, when I marry my boyfriend next year (here in that bastion of “San Francisco values”–Iowa) we can invite the thrice-divorced serial adulterer Newt Gingrich to our reception, but only if we convert to Islam first?

    Dang, wedding planning can be so complicated.

  3. otis says:

    Newt’s conversion to Islam is next month, but I think he plans on being bi-sexual for the next 13 or 14 months.

  4. Julius_Goat says:

    JULIUS_GOAT: [stands on desk] Oh Captain, my captain!

  5. KenP says:

    You gain a bit of weight and your pants got tight? You seem cranky.

    Remember that freedom of speech thingy the media types so love? Cuts both ways.

  6. otis says:

    Sure…I fully support their freedom of speech. The worst thing would be if they believed this but we didn’t know about it because they weren’t allowed to say it. THAT would be scary.

  7. Julius_Goat says:

    I am not a media type, but I love “that freedom of speech thing.” I’ve observed that loving that is more of an American thing than a media thing.

    Anyway, it doesn’t seem to me that Otis is saying that those who are fomenting fear of Muslims and gays and Mexicans shouldn’t be allowed to say what they are saying. He just seems to be pointing out that what they are saying is harmful and foolish and more than a little anti-freedom.

  8. pokerpeaker says:

    I LIKE having gay people around because it’s never my fault.

  9. Aaron says:

    Putting aside the stupidity of terrorist babies and the anti-gay marriage lobby, the discussion of the 14th amendment brings up some interesting philosophical and ethical questions. The original intent of the amendment was to ensure that states would not discriminate (ha) against former slaves because they were not citizens. The idea that children of non-citizens born in the US are citizens did not originate with the amendment, but stemmed from a case involving the children of Chinese immigrants in 1898. The concept of illegal immigration was not really in place at that time, and the parents of the children were not breaking the law, in danger of being deported, or working outside the “normal” workforce. However this is the basis for stating citizenship is granted to all children born to immigrants on American soil. Because of this now we have these major ethical questions. What do you do with the kids when the parents get deported? If the parents go to social services to get aid for the kids, which the kids as citizens are entitled to, shouldn’t they call the police on the parents since they are breaking the law? I assume they would if they parents were breaking any other law. Should the parents benefit from the social benefits obtained for the citizen children (food stamps, WIC, etc)? How do you send benefits to an address of known illegal immigrants and not send the police to arrest the people breaking the law? If the family were breaking any other law, would you support the police not being sent in to enforce the law? Just something to think about.

    Oh, and everyone has the right to free speech, but everyone has the responsibility to use it wisely.

  10. otis says:

    All good points, Aaron, and all good points for debate. If people would keep it like that instead of suggesting we fear terror babies, we might just get somewhere.

Leave a Reply

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