THAT'S Sharon Stone?!

Wow... someone hasn't been aging gracefully.

There are just no words.

Elizabeth Edwards refuses to discuss left-based personal attacks

Well gee whiz, ain't that just the shocker of the century!!

Bill O'Reilly discussed it on The O'Reilly Factor with Dick Morris, mentioning he invited Elizabeth Edwards on his show to discuss personal attacks from the left:

"Okay, now after that interview, and nobody knows this, we called Elizabeth Edwards. And we said, ‘you know we’re real interested in this personal attack stuff because we have a problem with that on the left. Would you come on, either sit, you know, on a set, or on the phone?’ ‘No.’ Now, I’m saying to myself, wait a minute, you call into a program that no one watches, alright. And you have a point, no one watches. She’s- nobody sees this. I’m giving you a forum where ten million people on radio and TV are going to see it and you say no."

"Alright, now, we called Edwards as I mentioned, Elizabeth Edwards. And said, ‘look we want to talk about this too, these personal attacks.’ And she says ‘no.’"

And gee, she said no. I'm just shocked. Shocked and appalled. Who would've thought?

Hat tip: Newsbusters

Our little boy is becoming a woman!

Bet you never thought you'd hear anyone be encouraged for saying that, huh?

A video on CNN proves that, for moonbattery, no low is too low.

Paula Zahn interviews a "transgendered" boy and his family. All right, fair enough. Transgenders can make that decision for themselves and their family should love and accept them for it, right?

Except, in this case, the boy is seven. Let's start with his parents. They have five boys, and then have a sixth Paula refers to as "George". And his parents started dressing and referring to him as a girl at around the age of two when they "realized" that he liked pink, pretty, and feminine things -- which clearly was a sign from their eighteen-month-old that he wanted to be a girl, not a boy. And the mother gushes about how she "let" her four-year-old boy dress up in a pink gown, there was sheer joy in "her" face and how "she" came out of "her" shell.

More evidence that "George" supposedly wanted to be a girl was that he wanted to go to the bathroom in public with Mommy instead of Daddy -- because, you know, little boys never use public bathrooms with their moms. That's a rare sight, right there. They say "George" became depressed and angry, and attempted to cut off his penis with scissors. And the mother states, very seriously, that if she didn't "let" her son become a girl, he/she would take his/her own life... "whether it be tomorrow, or the next week, or the next month".

Because, you know, five-year-olds understand what suicide is and everything.

So the parents took him/her out of school for a year, grew out his/her hair, dressed him/her in girl clothes, and re-enrolled him/her into a new school as a girl.

One of the most disturbing parts of the video is when they interview "Ashley", who agreed to be interviewed only if "her" face was hidden -- because a seven-year-old thinks of things like that. And "her" answers seemed to come too easily for a seven-year-old to have thought them up on their own... it was too scripted, too coached.

As Van Helsing notes at MoonBattery:

In the olden days, if a disturbed child exhibited persistent delusions, science would attempt to provide a cure. But we're more enlightened now. We indulge the delusions, and twist reality around in an attempt to conform to them. After all, who's to say one reality is more real than another?

In conclusion, Zahn says of the parents:

They know they will face difficult decisions as [the boy] reaches puberty, but for now they say they'll do whatever it takes to make their child happy.

How thoughtful. Apparently his future will feature hormone-induced mutation and sexual mutilation, all because no one was politically incorrect enough to refrain from feeding a small child's delusions.

Frankly, this video makes me sick, and it doesn't have anything to do with the transgender population making the choice to be transgender. It is because a child at eighteen months, or four years, or seven years, does not understand what transgender is. The parents are the ones pushing this on the child, and at less than two years old! How much more sickening can you get?!

I feel bad for that poor child... robbed of a normal childhood by parents twisting around innocent actions to fit their own sickening ideals.

Michael Moore will make 50% of all of Sicko's profits

Michael Moore, that man who just wants to spread the words of truth and freedom, will make an astonishing 50% of all of Sicko's profits, the LA Times is reporting.

But what's even better is the statement he made:

The ramifications of that loaded deal are not lost on the filmmaker, particularly since "Sicko" is arguably his most populist film yet.

"It's a really interesting irony for me," Moore says, as his chauffeured Lexus SUV (a hybrid) steers through afternoon traffic on the filmmaker's return from a taping of "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno."

While some filmmakers' wealth can make their films seem elitist, Moore argues that his moviemaking and financial accomplishments actually have allowed him to remain even more focused on the real world.

"What it should do to me is remind me every single day that I have an even greater responsibility to do good with the success that I have been blessed with," Moore says. "I need to make sure that I am able to make the next film with the money that I have made on this film."

By being financially independent, Moore says, he is insulated from the corporate pressures that might try to dilute his impassioned documentaries, which include "Roger & Me," "Bowling for Columbine" and the Oscar-winning "Fahrenheit 9/11."
"The money allows me to never have to give in, never compromise," says Moore, wearing his trademark T-shirt, jeans and windbreaker, his Michigan State baseball hat off for the moment. "Nothing can ever be held over my head in the sense of, 'If you don't do this, we won't give you your money!' 'Oh, wow, I guess I'll be in really bad shape, won't I?'

"That's an enormous bit of freedom that I have — to stay completely true to the things I believe in. But I have an even greater responsibility because I have been blessed with that great success. I challenge myself with that, constantly."

"Certainly, the No. 1 question I get asked is, 'What can I do?' " Moore says. "I am not prepared for that. Because I am not leading a movement to revolutionize the healthcare system in America. I am making a movie. I have spent a year and a half making this film, and this is my contribution."

Moore says his first-class travel, accommodations and car service are not his choice, or even his preference (the latter statement has been disputed by some people who have worked with him).

"Harvey pays for all this," he says. "I would never stay at the Four Seasons, with all due respect to the Four Seasons. If I were coming out here on my own, I would never stay there. They pay for that because that's the workplace and I'm working and we do the junket there."

People who resent his wealth, Moore says, are not generally working-class stiffs like himself who have moved into the upper class. "When one of us succeeds, we're happy about that. We don't begrudge that. The begrudging that comes from my success or my financial success comes from people who grew up in a little nicer home and somehow didn't get the same break that I was fortunate enough to get in this business. So they are embittered."

I love how he claims he doesn't want first class treatment or anything... as he is being driven around town in a chauffeured Lexus SUV hybrid. Did I say love? I meant hate. I can't stand when rich people try to make themselves sound more like us... "Oh, well, we don't really splurge on too much, we try to spend our money responsibly," says ____, speaking from the balcony overlooking the tennis courts, pool, and beach view of their estate. Good grief! This is America! We believe in capitalism! It's ok to spend the money you earned on whatever it is that you want!

However, when you are part of the "do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do" class, like Michael Moore is, I guess you want to keep those little tidbits to yourself.

Anyways, I just found this interesting, to say the least -- especially Michael Moore's whole "Now I can be true to myself!" drivel. Yeah, yeah, we got it. Just stop talking. We'd all be a lot happier.

I also love how he says that his first few crockumentaries were "impassioned"... because he didn't really care about those. He cares about the healthcare industry... even though he doesn't want to lead a revolution to change it. Gotcha, Mikey.

I guess we can put it this way: if Dubya was for socialized healthcare, like what they have in Cuba and Canada, then you'd make a crockumentary railing about that, too, huh? Whatever conservatives are against and liberals are for -- got it. Michael Moore's foot, meet Michael Moore's mouth.

Seriously... just stop talking. Really.

As if I needed another reason to dislike Michael Moore... blech.

Duncan Hunter speaks about the shamnesty bill

I just received this statement from presidential candidate Duncan Hunter:

By a vote of 46 to 53, the U.S. Senate voted today not to proceed with debate on legislation providing amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants presently living in the United States. Following the Senate's vote, Presidential Candidate and U.S. Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) made the following statement:

"From the very beginning of the immigration debate, the American people were clear in their strong opposition to granting amnesty to more than 12 million illegal immigrants. While this flawed piece of legislation should never have been considered in the first place, I commend my colleagues in the Senate who positioned themselves with the American people and rejected this amnesty bill.

"The idea that amnesty must be accepted in order to achieve secure and enforceable borders is absurd. The effort to provide citizenship benefits to millions of illegal immigrants failed -- not once, but twice. It is time that we abandon the concept of rewarding those who have broken our laws and take action to secure our borders and enforce existing immigration laws. This is what the American people have been demanding and this is what they deserve.

"Executing one existing law in particular, the Secure Fence Act, would go a long way to bringing a greater element of security to our Southern land border. By constructing double-layered security fencing across the major smuggling corridors on the U.S.-Mexico border, as required by the Secure Fence Act, we will have taken a significant step towards achieving a border that is enforceable and no longer a conduit for illegal activity."

NOTE: Congressman Duncan authored the fencing provisions in the Secure Fence Act, extending the San Diego Border Fence across Arizona, and portions of New Mexico and Texas.

I've said it before, I'll say it again -- we need Duncan Hunter in 2008.

On June 30th, another FEC finance report is due. You can donate using the form located below on my blog, or go on over to Duncan's page at www.gohunter08.com. If you want a true conservative in the White House -- and Hunter is -- then get on over to his page and donate a few dollars if you can.

Only in Hollyweird...

... would "anxiety" be an excuse for "medicinal marijuana" use. My bs-o-meter is going off here.

I love the one line: "Dave never thought he was the type who would use marijuana as medicine, until he did - and realized marijuana works."

But I'm sure he'd use it just for fun, right? And hey, now that he found some doc to say he was "suffering from anxiety" he can use it every day if he wants and not get in trouble. I can just imagine the scene at work:

Boss: Dave, why are you staring at your screen saver eating Doritos?
Dave: Well, the fish... they're just like... all swimming... hehe...
Boss: Dave, you smell like... have you been smoking pot!?
Dave: Here ya' go... (hands prescription allowing medicinal marijuana use)
Boss: (Rolls his eyes and stomps away)

MRC President John Bozell takes on Elizabeth Edwards

As the Edwards campaign wallows in hypocrisy, the MSM has decided to completely ignore it and has jumped on board enthusiastically. The Edwards-Coulter match has been almost tabloid fodder for the media, as it is yet another excuse for them to portray a successful conservative woman as "hateful", and the liberal woman as a kindly, compassionate person who simply wants to "rise above" hate speech and keep the political dialogue higher than that.

Yet, when Ann Coulter engaged in "hate speech" at CPAC earlier this year, John Edwards celebrated as he found another way to make money by using "Coulter Cash":

Friday afternoon, Republican mouthpiece Ann Coulter brought hate-speech politics to a new low.
This video shows Coulter addressing the American Conservative Union's Political Action Conference, March, 2, 2007 in Washington, D.C.

We must show that inflaming prejudice to attack progressive leaders will only backfire.

Can you help us raise $100,000 in "Coulter Cash" this week to keep this campaign charging ahead and fight back against the politics of bigotry?

With such a genius fundraising opportunity, I don't know why the Edwards campaign is complaining, as it obviously gives them the chance to raise so much money. But I digress. The point here is the Edwards' campaign's blatant hypocrisy.

John Bozell of the Media Research Center has fired back at Elizabeth Edwards over the hiring and firing of controversial, bigoted, hate-filled bloggers Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan in a new press release:

Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, has called on Americans to stop conservative Ann Coulter’s “hate words.” But when that campaign hired two hateful, anti-Christian bigots as “official” bloggers, Mrs. Edwards did not object and the campaign decided to give them a “fair shake,” as John Edwards said. The bloggers resigned in February only after their bigoted writings were exposed by other bloggers and conservative talk radio, causing a huge embarrassment.

ABC, CBS, and NBC interviewed Elizabeth Edwards this morning to allow her to further complain about Coulter’s “hate words,” but none mentioned the Edwards campaign’s bigoted bloggers. Concerning Elizabeth Edwards’ silence about the “hate-mongers” in her husband’s own presidential campaign, MRC President Brent Bozell issued the following statement:

“Elizabeth Edwards, who apparently is now acting as spokesperson for the Edwards campaign and who is very familiar with and active in the blog world, never said a word about the campaign’s hiring and defending of Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan. Mrs. Edwards is a hypocrite. These two bloggers are notorious for writing such repulsive things as,

“What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit? You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.” (Marcotte)

In the Duke Lacrosse case, “Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it?” (Marcotte)

Sen. Rick Santorum talks about sex “lest his lack of self-control be manifested by f***ing his desk on the Senate floor.” (Marcotte)

God is “a sadistic bastard.” (Marcotte)

Pope Benedict, “he’s just a dictator … the Pope’s gotta’ tell women who give birth to stillborns that their babies are cast into Satan’s maw.” (Marcotte)

President Bush has a “wingnut Christofascist base.” (McEwan)

“When CNN invited Ann Coulter to comment on the 2004 presidential debates, I sniffed, ‘I didn’t realize they had officially transformed into the C*** News Network.” (McEwan)

“Elizabeth Edwards and the liberal media have a double standard when it comes to ‘hate words.’ If it’s hate towards conservatives, it’s okay with them. But if it’s criticism of the Edwards campaign by a conservative, it’s ‘ugliness’ that ‘debases political dialogue.’ The liberal media need to ask, Will Elizabeth Edwards rebuke those hateful bloggers and, by the way, did she have a hand in hiring them?

I still want to know why Elizabeth Edwards is defending her husband, anyways. Isn't he the one running for President? Shouldn't he have the, uh, cojones to handle this himself? Oh, silly me. Why would I think that a man who gets $400 haircuts and then an additional $225 at a spa and salon called the "Pink Sapphire" in "services", and charge exorbitant speaking fees to a poverty group, be able to defend himself? Of course he's hiding behind his wife's skirts.

Either way, the Edwards campaign should be slammed for their blatant, foul hypocrisy and lay off of Ann Coulter. Why was it ok for Bill Maher to say it about our vice president, but not ok for Ann Coulter to remark upon that hypocrisy when it comes to John Edwards? Was it that hard to understand what she was saying? I understood exactly what she meant.

But waiting for the mainstream media to call out a liberal for being hateful, hypocritical, treasonous, or any other negative anything, is like waiting for... well, John Edwards to stop being a greedy bastard.

Hat Tip: Newsbusters

Senate phones crash, plus the picture of the day

The Hill is reporting that the Senate phones have crashed due to a "modest increase" in calling:

Many Senate office phones were down Thursday morning due to a “modest increase in call volume,” according to an e-mail from the Senate assistant sergeant at arms and the chief information officer.

Opponents of the bipartisan immigration reform bill that stalled in the Senate after a 46-53 cloture vote this morning said foes of the bill had flooded Senate offices with phone calls.

“The Verizon telephone switch[board] serving the Senate is experiencing problems that are being exacerbated by this morning’s modest increase in call volume,” says the e-mail, which was sent at 9:45 a.m.

Verizon is attempting to resolve problems and the voicemail system has been temporarily disconnected from the telephone switchboard.

“Calls will still go to the voice mail system, but callers will receive the generic voice mail greeting (‘You have reached the United States Senate voice messaging service ...’) rather than the voice mail greeting of the person or office being called,” the notice continued.

It is unknown when the telephones and voicemail service will be up and running again.
Senate Sergeant at Arms Terrance Gainer could not be reached for comment.

Yet, a good number of Senators -- even with so many calls saying they don't support this bill -- still don't get it. Hopefully this thing will die for good now.

In the meantime, let's enjoy the picture of the day:

Pickpocket attacks former Marine; very soon regrets it

From MSNBC:

Bill Barnes says he was scratching off a losing $2 lottery ticket inside a gas station when he felt a hand slip into his front-left pants pocket, where he had $300 in cash.

He immediately grabbed the person's wrist with his left hand and started throwing punches with his right, landing six or seven blows before a store manager intervened.

"I guess he thought I was an easy mark," Barnes, 72, told The Grand Rapids Press for a story Tuesday.

He's anything but an easy mark: Barnes served in the Marines, was an accomplished Golden Gloves boxer and retired after 20 years as an iron worker.

Jesse Daniel Rae, 27, was arraigned Monday in Rockford District Court on one count of unarmed robbery.

Barnes said he had just withdrawn the money from a bank machine and put it in the pocket of his shorts before driving to a service station in Comstock Park, a Grand Rapids suburb.

He remembers noticing a patron acting suspiciously, asking the price of different brands of cigarettes and other items. While turned away, Barnes felt the hand in his pocket, so he took action.

"I guess I acted on instinct," he said.

Barnes was a regional runner-up in Golden Gloves competition in the novice and open divisions before enlisting in the Marines in 1956.

After retiring as an iron worker, he now works part-time as a starter at a golf course.

Barnes said he'd probably do the same thing again under the same circumstances, if for no other reason than what he would face back home.

"I wouldn't want my wife to give me hell for lettin' that guy get my money," he said with a smile.

These stories go to show, time and time again, be careful who you mess with, because they just might end up being or having been a member of our Armed Forces.

The Spice Girls are Back!

Britain takes another step towards making 1984 a reality

Little by little, government is trying to assert control over our everyday lives, thanks to liberals, moonbattery, and nannyism. Europe is about ten steps ahead of us, but American liberals are scurrying to catch up.

Van Helsing at Moonbattery notes,

One of the more disturbing aspects of 1984 is the way the government would attempt to control our thoughts by deleting words from the language. More disturbing still is the way real-life bureaucrats have followed suit.

The Justice Department wants the word "prostitute" removed from the national vocabulary, and "persons who sell sex persistently" will be used instead. A Justice Department spokesperson said,

"We just wanted to remove the stigma of the label 'common prostitute'. It's been around since 1824, so it was a bit outdated. It just wasn't really helpful to label people."

People are labeled, regardless. It doesn't change the act of prostitution if you take away what it is called. But I guess I'm missing the point. It's just another way to exert control over the general population.

Michigan woman sues Starburst for being chewy

Seriously, I have had it up to here with these ridiculous lawsuits.

From Fox News:

Starburst Fruit Chews are exactly as their name would indicate: chewy. But one Michigan woman says the candies are so chewy, they should come with a warning label.

Victoria McArthur, of Romero, Mich., is suing Starbursts' parent company, Mars Inc., for more than $25,000 for "permanent personal injuries" she claims she sustained after biting into one of their yellow candy in 2005.

"I don't know, maybe about 3 chews and it literally locked my jaw … and it just literally pulled my jaw out of joint," she told MyFoxDetroit.com.

McArthur's lawyer, Brian Muawad, says the candies caused her to develop a condition known as temporal mandibular joint dysfunction. McArthur says she has had trouble chewing, talking and sleeping since the incident.

McArthur says she just wants to make sure nobody else meets the same end she did when she decided to indulge her sweetooth.

"I don't want to see anybody else have to go through what I have gone through from eating a piece of candy that was supposed to be soft chew," she said.

So basically, she had a few Starbursts, her jaw got kinda sore, and a light bulb went off. To their own credit, Mars told the woman to blow off, and refused to settle. The suit is going to court, where it can waste thousands of our taxpayer dollars.

Cloture vote fails, 46 - 53

John Hawkins liveblogged the cloture vote in the Senate over at Right Wing News.

End result? We win, with 46 nay and 53 yea.

Here's some advice, folks -- and this is from someone who fought this bill as hard as anyone on the net.

Be magnanimous in victory.

Remember the people who fought for us all along, like Jim DeMint, Tom Coburn, David Vitter, Jeff Sessions and some of the other people who played a smaller, but still significant role, like Elizabeth Dole and John Cornyn.

Don't forget that the House Republicans stepped up when it counted and sent a message to the Senate by opposing amnesty.

Keep in mind that John Ensign, the head of the RNSC, voted for cloture when it counted -- and he let people know his decision before the vote started. So, he didn't just go with flow once he saw the bill was going to lose, like Sam Brownback and some of the others. Tossing a few bucks the NRSC's way as a thank-you wouldn't be the worst idea in the world.

Last but not least, take a day and drink in the victory. It took way too long and it was way too hard, but the American people won out in the end. Take a little time to be happy about that.

PS: Here's a piece of free advice for George Bush and the Republican senators who ended up on the wrong end of this bill: You need to get right with your base and with the American people -- and you need to do it in a hurry.

Here's the roll call:

Team America:

Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Brown (D-OH)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Landrieu (D-LA)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Webb (D-VA)

Team Mexico:

Akaka (D-HI)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Conrad (D-ND)
Craig (R-ID)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Schumer (D-NY)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

John Kerry supports "Fairness Doctrine"

Ugh.



I am so sick and tired of liberals harping on, all shrill and hysterical, about talk radio being overwhelmingly conservative. So what? The answer is a government-enforced legislation requiring there to be a "balance"? Like the mainstream media is fair and balanced, right guys? Whoops, gotta be politically correct. Right, people?

Well gee, government enforcing what can and can't be said in the media. Call me crazy, but doesn't that go against something called... freedom of press? And there was liberal talk radio -- Air America. It had a grand total of what, five listeners? It tanked, and that's why talk radio is overwhelmingly conservative -- because liberal talk radio was a disaster. A quagmire is perhaps a better word to use, since liberals are so fond of that particular word.

Hate to tell you this, but the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is not at work here. If it was, believe me, we'd have a monopoly on all media, not just talk radio. I mean, liberals have the upper edge in almost every other forum, from newspapers to television to the blogosphere (and you don't know how much it pains me to have to write that last one). We have the upper edge in radio, one out of four widely used news sources, and they're getting their panties all in a bunch. Conservatives don't get all hysterical about ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, PBS, MSNBC, The NY Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post... well, so on and so forth... being "balanced". Conservatives aren't shrieking about how we need legislation to fix that -- because that just serves to further undermine our Constitution and one of the inalienable rights housed within it. The government has no right to enforce what can or cannot be said in media -- period.

And besides, what is so bad about conservatives getting their message out somewhere? Liberals' message is overwhelmingly heard. Are they that insecure that they can't even listen to an opposing thought?

Wait, that was a dumb question. I take it back.

Oh, and wait, I forgot. Conservatives like our Constitution. My bad.

It's just another hole. They poke holes into our "inalienable" rights one by one, until the Constitution is just a meaningless piece of paper some dead guys wrote a long time ago. They want to take away our freedom of press with the "fairness doctrine". They want to take away our right to bear arms any way they can, such as by imposing outrageous bureaucratic red tape on gun shops, and they want to take away our freedom of speech with "politically correct" speech requirements, hate speech enforcements, and other things like the McCain-Feingold Act.

A little at a time, they'll keep punching holes. How long will we allow it to happen?

"Priceless" Moment of the Day

I visited Zombietime today, a great website to see if there were any new posts. Lo and behold, there was a new gallery from Zombie, at the "Trans March 2007".

For those unfamiliar, Zombietime is a website run by a photographer who remains anonymous to infiltrate crazy liberal gatherings, usually in San Francisco. And the Trans March 2007 gallery did not disappoint. Here is Zombie's summary of the event:

These photos were taken at the "Trans March" in San Francisco on June 22, 2007. The Trans March is, according to the event's own website, a gathering of "ftm, mtf, bayot, crossdressers, sadhin, hijra, transvestites, bantut, drag queens, drag kings, mahu, transsexuals, bakla, travesti, genderqueers, kathoey, two spirit, intersex and those with other labels for themselves and no labels for themselves, those who see gender as having more than two options, and those who live between the existing options."

The event was part of "Pride Weekend," on which there are three marches: The lesser-known Trans March (for transsexuals) on Friday, followed by the Dyke March (for lesbians) on Saturday, and culminating in the huge Pride Parade (for all gay people) on Sunday. The photos on this page are only from the Trans March.

There were waaaay too many "priceless" photos to pick just one, so here are a few of my favorites, but by far not the best. Visit Zombietime to see the rest of the gallery.

Update on Rosie's "My Daughter is a Terrorist" photo

Jeez, y'all, she was just playing terrorist. No need to get all uppity.

She spoke about it to The Showbuzz in an email, saying:

"They don't watch TV – this is how they play/the boys had fatigues and were playing war/the girls wanted some/they run around the house with water guns/shooting each other."

"It's fascinating to me/that an image of a child dressed up as a soldier/evokes so much attention/yet the real soldiers – their deaths – their wounded bodies/doesn't seem to faze most/or make news."

They're just playing terrorists. That's all. It's ok. No big deal. She just happened to snap a photo and it somehow ended up on her website, but there is no political motivation there. Although, now that you bring it up...

Why do people still take this woman seriously? I can't believe she still has fans.

Previous: Rosie exploits her daughter to send a message

The Pot: Meet Kettle Segment Continues: Elizabeth Edwards

I always kind of snicker whenever a Democrat whines about Republicans being mean. First of all, if you're in politics to begin with, it's going to happen. I know, I know, as a Democrat you are a superior being and a moral authority and therefore supposed to be immune to such attacks, but they'll happen. Get over it.

Elizabeth Edwards chastised Ann Coulter for the "personal" attacks on her husband, John "Breck Girl" Edwards, which "lower public discourse". Every time you hear a Dem talk about public discourse being lowered, you know it has become the time to stop listening. If they won't acknowledge it in themselves (and they won't), they have no right to point the finger.

Anyways, here's what Elizabeth Edwards had to say:

Elizabeth Edwards pleaded Tuesday with Ann Coulter to "stop the personal attacks," a day after the conservative commentator said she wished Edwards' husband, Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, had been killed by terrorists.

"The things she has said over the years, not just about John but about other candidates, lowers the political dialogue at precisely the time we need to raise it," Edwards said by phone on MSNBC's "Hardball" program, where Coulter was a guest.

Elizabeth Edwards said she did not consult her husband before confronting Coulter on the air, adding that she felt the pundit's remarks were "a dialogue on hatefulness and ugliness."

On ABC's "Good Morning America" on Monday, Coulter was asked about a March speech in which she used a gay slur to refer to Edwards.

"If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot," Coulter said Monday, picking up on remarks made by HBO's Bill Maher. Maher suggested in March that "people wouldn't be dying needlessly" if Vice President Dick Cheney had been killed in an insurgent attack in Afghanistan.

I remember John Maher's remarks. They FLOORED me. I was furious. I understand where Ann was going with what she said completely. But, that is not the point I'm making here.

Let's look at the oh-so-honorable Elizabeth Edwards' background with "public discourse", name-calling, and personal attacks.

Remember when not too long ago, she attacked someone? Not a politician, not a public figure. No, she said she was terrified of her neighbor, because he was (cue scary music and flashes of lightning)... Republican!

Elizabeth Edwards says she is scared of the "rabid, rabid Republican" who owns property across the street from her Orange County home — and she doesn't want her kids going near the gun-toting neighbor.

Edwards, the wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, particularly recalls the time neighbor Monty Johnson brought out a gun while chasing workers investigating a right of way off his property. The Edwards family has yet to meet Johnson in person.

"I wouldn't be nice to him anyway," Edwards said in an interview. "I don't want my kids anywhere near some guy who when he doesn't like somebody, the first thing he does is pull a gun out. It scares the business out of me."

Edwards views Johnson as a "rabid, rabid Republican" who refuses to clean up his "slummy" property just to spite her family, whose lavish 28,000-square-foot estate is nearby on 102 wooded acres.

Johnson, 55, acknowledges his Republican roots. But he takes offense to the suggestion he has purposefully left his property, including an old garage that he leases for use as a car shop, in dilapidated condition.

"I have to budget. I have to leave within my means," Johnson said. "I don't have millions of dollars to fix the place."

Johnson, who has posted a "Go Rudy Giuliani 2008" sign on a fence just 100 feet from the entrance to the Edwards' driveway, has criticized Edwards for the scale of their nearby home. The property and home, which includes an indoor basketball court, an indoor handball court and an indoor pool, is valued at $5.3 million.

The Edwardses are still putting the final touches on the property, which they purchased in 2003.

"I thought he was supposed to be for the poor people," Johnson said. "But does he ever socialize with any poor people? He doesn't speak to me."

Johnson said he has put his property on the market, in part blaming the high property taxes for his decision to leave. He also wants to move for another reason.

"I don't want to live somewhere where someone's always complaining about me," he said.

I can't believe it!! A Democrat... attacking a Republican?! NO! What Elizabeth did, in my opinion, was much worse however. Ann was attacking John Edwards, a politician and public figure running for President. Elizabeth attacked her neighbor, someone unknown and someone she had no profit to make from attacking, unless you count further elevating your reputation as a snooty Democrat who thinks they belong to an elite class and anyone who doesn't fit into that elite class needs to go away.

Anyhow, Pot, meet Kettle. Notice how they're both black?

As John Hawkins said when he published this story on Right Wing News, "Also, isn't it kind of pathetic that Elizabeth Edwards had to speak up for her husband because what -- he's afraid of Ann Coulter? If the Breck Girl can't stand up to Ann Coulter, what makes anyone think he can take on Al-Qaeda? Get out from behind your wife's skirt and start fighting your own battles, pretty boy."

Roll Call!

From the Senate, here is the roll call for today's cloture vote.

Team Mexico - 64:

Akaka (D-HI)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Brownback (R-KS)
Burr (R-NC)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Craig (R-ID)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Durbin (D-IL)
Ensign (R-NV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Schumer (D-NY)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Team America - 35:

Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bunning (R-KY)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Enzi (R-WY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Landrieu (D-LA)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Sununu (R-NH)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)

Some senators will vote for cloture, but then against the bill, because they think we are all too stupid to understand what they are doing. Remember folks, keep the pressure on.

Call or e-mail them here.

Call the National Republican Senatorial Committee at (202) 675-6000 and the Republican National Committee at (202) 863-8500 (option 1).

Let them know you won't support any senator who supports this bill. Maybe also throw in that you'll be on board for John Hawkins' Payback Project. If this bill passes, I know I will be.

Rosie exploits her daughter to send a message

This was the main banner today on Rosie O'Donnell's website, Rosie.com:



That is Rosie's youngest daughter with bullets strapped around her. We all know Rosie abhors guns, war, and hunting -- remember her blowout on her original "Rosie O'Donnell Show" with Tom Selleck over the NRA?

So gee, what could she be putting bullets around her youngest daughter, taking a picture, and then posting it as the main banner on her website? Could it be to send a political message? Noooo! Rosie would never exploit her daughter like that!!

Here are some of the comments left expressing awe, admiration, or apparently, an uncontrollable impulse to cry hysterically at the site of bullets on a child. The asterisks are mine, of course.

KARLA
RO, I AGREE WITH U ON MOSTLY EVERYTHING. BUT SOMEHOW I FOUND THE PICTURE OF VIVI DISTURBING. I DON’T EVEN LET MY CHILDREN PLAY WITH ANYTHING SIMILAR TO THAT. IT’S JUST A COMMENT. BUT OH WELL!!!!!!

Jessi
My god... . that picture. I can’t stop crying. This war is such bullsh*t.

Joanne
OH SNAP! That picture of VIVI is so real, that it is scary…to think, places in the world children are trained to kill, dressed like that. SHOCK AND AWE! WOOP THERE IT IS! Dear God!

Jessika
Oh, WOW Vivi looks beautiful.! the fact that U let her explore her imagination like that shows what a good mom U R. In some countries though, they are training terrorists that young, how sad is that?

Steven
Powerful picture on your header. What we need to be focusing on, instead of you know who. Love it. I can see the negative comments flowing in.

There are more comments, of course, but they are just more of the same.

I don't know what point Rosie is trying to get across with that picture, considering we all know how much she hates guns. And, funnily enough, which countries are known to use children as ammo in war? Hmm... not the USA!

I'm sure Rosie would disagree, though. Or say something along the lines of, "American oppression is what makes these freedom fighters become forced to use their children, who they love so dearly, to fight against oppression. If we would just pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan immediately, they will no longer be oppressed and we can save the children. SAVE THE CHILDREN!!"

PETA states the obvious about Michael Moore

Perez Hilton has a letter today from PETA Founder and President Ingrid Newkirk to Michael Moore and the world, telling him and us the little known fact that he is, indeed... FAT.

Well gee, thanks for that Ingrid, we never noticed before. Whatcha gonna tell us next?

To: World
From: Ingrid Newkirk

Sometimes, I stop and think about myself versus the rest of the uncivilized world. I know how hard it must be to live up to my fascinating wit, supreme intelligence, and high moral authority. I know that most of you people are heathens, eating your disgusting meat and propping up a Holocaust of broiler chickens, allowing poor donkeys to be used in suicide bombings and not understanding that the deaths of animals, not people, is what really matters. Who cares if people are dying of AIDS and medical research involving animals can save millions of lives? Did you not hear me when I said a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy? WE'RE ALL THE SAME!!

That said, I understand that it is difficult for all to be as enlightened as I am. From now on, I will offer up my wisdom every day, bestowing upon you an undeniable fact. To the truly enlightened, these will seem rather obvious. But just remember, that most people -- disgusting, hollow, meat-eating, animal-murdering, people -- cannot grasp such simple thoughts such as the ones I will present. They will be baby steps on the road to great enlightenment, such as I have achieved. Then and only then can you realize that becoming vegetarian is the way to go, along with closing all zoos and circuses, outlawing pets of any kind, and setting fire to anyplace, anywhere, which uses animal testing or keeps animals in captivity. TOTAL ANIMAL LIBERATION!

But we're getting off track. Here is our first fact for the series. It may seem hard for you to understand, but remember that this is the only way for us to become enlightened.

Fact #1, something most of you have never been able to fathom before: The sun rises in the East.

This is pretty similar to how her actual letter to Michael Moore reads. You mean, Michael Moore is a huge fatso?! NO!!! I never noticed that before! I thought he could fit into Nicole Richie's wardrobe! And being vegetarian is the only thing that will save him from his obesity?! Well thank you, Ingrid Newkirk, thank you soooo much! You've done a great service to the world!

Here's an excerpt from her letter (emphasis mine):

Dear Mike,

Congratulations from PETA on the reviews for SiCKO. Although we think that your film could actually help reform America’s sorely inadequate health care system, there’s an elephant in the room, and it is you. With all due respect, no one can help but notice that a weighty health issue is affecting you personally. We’d like to help you fix that. Going vegetarian is an easy and life-saving step that people of all economic backgrounds can take in order to become less reliant on the government’s shoddy healthcare system, and it’s something that you and all Americans can benefit from personally. Vegetarians weigh, on average, up to 20 percent less than their meat-eating counterparts—meaning less weight-related problems like heart attacks and strokes—and live about eight years longer. I’m sure that your fans would appreciate having you around longer! By going vegetarian, you would also provide a powerful message of personal responsibility for one’s health, allowing others to become less reliant on a
system that doesn’t care about them. As they say at Nike (sorry!): “Just do it.” We can help, but first, here are some facts: ...

Yawn. That was eye-opening, thank you Ingrid.

If you'd like to read the rest, visit Perez Hilton.com.

Reality check from an Iraq War Vet

Pete Hegseth, a First Lieutenant in the Army National Guard and executive director of Vets for Freedom served in Iraq with the 101st Airborne Division from September 2005 to July 2006. He writes today in the Washington Post about the reality check needed for the anti-war crowd on Capitol Hill.

· A deadline for withdrawal is an incentive for Iraqi political compromise. Levin thinks we ought to pressure Iraq's government with a warning tantamount to saying: "You better fix the situation before we leave and your country descends into chaos." He should consider the more likely result: an American exit date crushing any incentive for Iraqi leaders to cooperate and instead prompting rival factions to position themselves to capitalize on the looming power void.

My experience in Iraq bore this out. Only after my unit established a meaningful relationship with the president of the Samarra city council -- built on tangible security improvements and a commitment to cooperation -- did political progress occur. Our relationship fostered unforeseen political opportunities and encouraged leaders, even ones from rival tribes, to side with American and Iraqi forces against local insurgents and foreign fighters.

· We are "supporting the troops" by demanding an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Levin says that "our troops should hear an unequivocal message from Congress that we support them." He explains his vote to fund and "support" the troops while simultaneously trying to legislate the war's end. But what kind of "support" and "unequivocal message" do the troops hear from leaders in Congress who call their commanders "incompetent" or declare the war "lost"?

Such statements provide nearly instant enemy propaganda to every mud hut with a satellite dish in Iraq and throughout the Arab world. These messages do not spell support, no matter how you spin them. And they could inspire insurgents, making the situation more dangerous for our soldiers and Marines.

In his op-ed, Sen. Levin invoked the example of Abraham Lincoln, who endured years of challenges before finding the right generals and strategy to win the Civil War. After four years of uncertainty in Iraq, America finally has both the general and the strategy to turn the tide. The question is whether 2007 will unfold like 1865 or 1969.

President Lincoln chose to fight a bloody and unpopular war because he believed the enemy had to be defeated. He was right. And to me, that sounds more than a bit like the situation our country faces today. What path will we choose?

Be sure to read the entire thing. It's a great piece. And of course, thanks to Pete Hegseth (and all of our soldiers) for being a hero and serving our country in these dangerous times.

No million dollar pants here

Thank God, some sense in our courts, for once.

The absurd judge who sued a dry-cleaning company for losing a pair of his pants (and then finding them but he refused to take them back) for $52 million lost, and is forced to pay the dry cleaners for all costs they suffered during the trial.

A judge on Monday ruled in favor of a dry cleaner that was sued for $54 million over a missing pair of pants in a case that garnered international attention and renewed calls for litigation reform.
District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff ruled that the Korean immigrant owners of Custom Cleaners did not violate the city's Consumer Protection Act by failing to live up to Roy L. Pearson's expectations of the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign that was once placed in the store window.

"Plaintiff Roy L. Pearson, Jr. takes nothing from the defendants, and defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung are awarded the costs of this action against the plaintiff Roy L. Pearson, Jr.," the ruling read.

Pearson, an administrative law judge, originally sought $67 million from the Chungs after he claimed they lost a pair of suit trousers and later tried to return a pair that he said was not his. He arrived at the figure by adding up years of law violations and almost $2 million in common law claims. Pearson later dropped demands for damages related to the pants and focused his claims on signs in the shop, which have since been removed.

Chris Manning, the Chungs' attorney, countered that no reasonable person would interpret the signs to be an unconditional promise of satisfaction.

The two-day trial earlier this month drew a standing-room-only crowd, including many Korean and international media outlets covering the story. It even overshadowed the drunken driving trial of former Mayor Marion Barry.

The Chungs also said the trial had taken an enormous financial and emotional toll on them and exposed them to widespread ridicule.

I was half expecting him to win the suit, given what ridiculous lawsuits we see nowadays. Good for them.

R.I.P., Charles Lindberg

A hero from the Greatest Generation has gone.

Charles W. Lindberg, one of the U.S. Marines who raised the first American flag over Iwo Jima during World War II, has died. He was 86.

Lindberg died Sunday at Fairview Southdale hospital in the Minneapolis suburb of Edina, said John Pose, director of the Morris Nilsen Funeral Home in Richfield, which is handling Lindberg's funeral.

Lindberg spent decades explaining that it was his patrol, not the one captured in the famous Associated Press photograph by Joe Rosenthal, that raised the first flag as U.S. forces fought to take the Japanese island.

In the late morning of Feb. 23, 1945, Lindberg fired his flame-thrower into enemy pillboxes at the base of Mount Suribachi and then joined five other Marines fighting their way to the top. He was awarded the Silver Star for bravery.

"Two of our men found this big, long pipe there," he said in an interview with The Associated Press in 2003. "We tied the flag to it, took it to the highest spot we could find and we raised it.

"Down below, the troops started to cheer, the ship's whistles went off, it was just something that you would never forget," he said. "It didn't last too long, because the enemy started coming out of the caves."

The moment was captured by Sgt. Lou Lowery, a photographer from the Marine Corps' Leatherneck magazine. It was the first time a foreign flag flew on Japanese soil, according to the book "Flags of Our Fathers," by James Bradley with Ron Powers. Bradley's father, Navy Corpsman John Bradley, was one of the men in the famous photo of the second flag-raising.

"We thought it would be a slaughterhouse up on Suribachi," Lindberg said in the book. "I still don't understand why we were not attacked."

Three of the men in the first raising never saw their photos. They were among the more than 6,800 U.S. servicemen killed in the five-week battle for the island.

By Lindberg's account, his commander ordered the first flag replaced and safeguarded because he worried someone would take it as a souvenir. Lindberg was back in combat when six men raised the second, larger flag about four hours later.

Here's goodbye to a true hero. Keep his family in your thoughts and prayers.

Rest easy, sleep well my brothers.
Know the line has held, your job is done.
Rest easy, sleep well.
Others have taken up where you fell,
the line has held.
Peace, peace, and farewell.

Help My Baby Live?

I checked my MySpace today, and a friend of mine had posted a bulletin about this website, Help My Baby Live, expressing disgust. Naturally curiosity overtook me, and I checked it out.

Basically, the concept is this. A couple got pregnant, does not want to abort, but is not financially stable enough to raise a child. They also do not want to give up the baby for adoption, because it would be "too hard" after giving birth. So they are asking for donations -- $50,000 to be exact -- to keep their baby, because they want to be "financially stable" (and a 50k lump sum will do just that!). If not, they will abort and "donate the money to charity".

Here is the "About Us" section to "explain":

As happens to many young couples, my girlfriend and I have found ourselves confronted with a decision to make about having a child, and we're not sure what to do. There are many options available to us, and a difficult evaluation of the responsibilities and obligations, as well as the joys, that come with raising a child.

Our two real options are either having and raising the child, or aborting. While we'd like to think that adoption is a viable option for us, my girlfriend doesn't believe that she'd be able to give up a child after giving birth to it, and that's not something I'm going to pressure us into doing. We also don't want to be subconsciously resentful of a child that we kept when we weren't ready for it. If we're not ready to raise it, we're not going to bring a baby into the world.

Because of the state we're in, we have about three months to make a decision one way or the other. Right now, we're leaning toward abortion. We're simply not financially secure enough to ensure that we can bring up a kid in the environment it would deserve. It's not that we're poor, we just don't have the stability that we think having a baby necessitates.

Please don't mis-understand, it's not that we _want_ to abort the baby. Although neither of us is particularly pro-life, we don't want to have to have an abortion. We think we'd be pretty good parents, and we both would enjoy raising a kid. We're both from pretty good stock, well educated and intelligent. We'd be able to raise the child in a good environment, teach it right, keep it out of trouble, and introduce a new productive member of humanity to the world. Our kid won't grow up and rob you.

Right now, we just can't afford it, which is why we're here, on this site. We've crunched some numbers, and we believe that, to really set ourselves up in a good environemnt for the baby, we need $50,000. That'll give us the down payment on a decent house, get us a car that runs reliably, allow us to save away a little for the baby's college fund, cover any medical bills (she's uninsured), and give us a little buffer while she's not working.

Here is why they "need" $50,000:

It comes down to this. If we can't raise the $50,000 in the next 3 months, we'll have to choose abortion. We don't like it, and we don't like the nature of our appeal, but it is what it is. We're asking you to donate money to us using the link to your left. Anything you can give would be appreciated.

Understand that you are giving the money to us, with no obligation on our part. We want to remain anonymous, for our sake and for that of our child, if we have one. We don't think it'd be right for anyone to know that their existance depended upon a fiscal calculation, regardless of the rationality of that decision. We're not going to contact you, we're not going to post pictures, we're not going to give you status updates. After three months, our decision will be made, and this site will go away.

We're not a non-profit, we're going to pay taxes on anything that's given to us. You can't write off anything you give us on your taxes. We're not a registered corporation or organization. We're just two people.

Please do not attempt to contact us. We have registered and hosted this site through a company that allows for anonymity in that proces, and are having them handle our donations as well. They will not tell you our names, because they don't know them. They don't know how to contact us. When the time's up, we'll get ahold of them and tell them how to get us the money.

We appreciate your time, and hope that you'll be able to give something. We know this isn't exactly tasteful, but that doesn't change our situation.

They also have a sort of FAQ section:

Thanks for all your supportive emails. The non-supportive ones, well, they're entitled to their opinion.
We've been asked the same questions by many people. I'll answer them here, to minimize confusion.

What happens to the money if you end up aborting? - If we have an abortion, we will donate 100% of the money we receive to a national, recognized, legit charity dedicated to helping people in our situation out. Probably a pro-life group.

Why didn't you just use birth control? - We do.

You're disgusting! How dare you place a monetary value on the life of a child! - Don't be absurd. The question of finances is always a decision when confronted with the choice of having a child. And for you pro-choice people out there, many of your arguments for abortion deal with the financial consequences of raising a child. So don't look down your nose at us because we're up front about it.

You don't need $50,000/house/car to raise a baby! - No, you're right. We don't need it to raise a baby. But it's still a precondition to the kind of life that we think is necessary to raising a healthy, well-balanced child, and we're not going to give birth until we've reached that level of security. You may disagree with our reasoning, but there it is.

Your child will be damaged from this! - No it won't, becaue we would never tell a.) anyone, b.) the child specificially. Thats why we want to remain anonymous.

Best part of all is the terms and conditions section:

You are _giving_ us money, with no expectation of getting anything in return, ever. We are not obligated to do, or refrain from, anything as a result of your or anyone else's donation.

You do not, and will never, know who we are. You agree not to try to find out who we are. You agree not to contact InvisiHosting about our site. You agree that knowing our identitiy is not a condition of your gift. You agree to not disclose any information about us to any other party.

This is not a non-profit. You don't get to write this off on your taxes, and we have to pay taxes on any gifts you give us.

You agree to pay only through PayPal and only to the account of InvisiHosting, LLC, who will then transfer the money to us at the end of three months.

You agree not to hold InvisiHosting, LLC liable for any actions on our part. You agree that they are not responsible for any dissatisfaction that you may experience as a result of donating to us.

You agree to forfeit $25,000 per violation of these terms.

Hmm.

Well, my first instinct was that it was some sort of a fake or a hoax. I googled the site, which only brought up a few forums discussing the website speculating that it originates out of Austin, Texas based on IP addresses. I also checked Snopes, but a quick search of the site brought up nothing.

That said, there's multiple problems at work here.

First of all, why do you need a $50,000 lump sum to raise a baby? You don't. People raise children in less than perfect circumstances that grow up to be responsible, intelligent, good, decent human beings all the time. If you aren't poor, like you say, then you'll be fine. I understand it isn't perfect, but you can work through it -- if you really want to.

And isn't that the biggest question? They practically say it themselves. It's not whether they can or cannot, it's whether they will or will not. They say themselves in the little FAQ section that they don't need the $50k, but it sure would be nice, and otherwise, bye bye baby.

Well gee, I would like $50k as well, as well as a nicer car, a big house, a brand new wardrobe, and to never have to work again. Who wants to donate money for that??

I mean, come on. You made a choice to have premarital sex when you are not financially ready for a baby, and a baby is a possible consequence anytime you have sex. I'm not getting preachy here -- my point is simply that if you are going to have sex, you have to be willing to accept the fact that there is a possibility of ending up pregnant, no matter how careful you are. And now, you're asking for other people to pay up for your poor planning?

Jesus. Hillary would probably be proud.

The other dilemma here is validity. How is anyone supposed to know where the money is actually going? How does anyone know they aren't just going to go use it on crack, or a vacation to France, or who the hell knows what? They are anonymous and are giving no evidence besides words on a website that it will actually go to the well-being of their child or a charity, if they abort. I mean, a down payment on a house and a car that runs reliably? And they flat-out say that they aren't going to offer any proof. Take them at their word.

Right now, according to the website, they have received $10,200 with 82 days left. And if all of this is 100% accurate, and they aren't lying about anything, then in 82 days they very possibly will be destroying a life. Because a mere $10k in the bank won't be enough to help you raise a baby?

I mean, really. This is just wrong on so many levels.

I hope national media picks this up and these people are found out. The cowards -- on multiple levels, too -- should be willing to show their faces for the scumbags they are.

Top Ten Worst Celebrity Boobs Jobs

With pictures!!

Listaholic has the Top Ten Worst Celebrity Boobs Jobs:

With all the time and money at their disposal, you would think that celebrities who decide to get their breasts done have access to the best cosmetic surgeons out there who at least have an idea how to go about performing a boob job. As it turns out, too many female celebrities enter a plastic surgeon’s office and come out looking like they’ve been forced to swallow coconuts (or in some cases, watermelons) only to have them lodged inside their chests. Some celebrities also find their implants eventually rippling, and the effect, to say the least, is absolutely gross.

Here are the Ten Worst Celebrity Boob Jobs ever.

10. Ivanka Trump





9. Janet Jackson





8. Victoria Beckham





7. Tori Spelling





6. Courtney Love





5. Susan Ward





4. Christina Aguilera





3. Pamela Anderson





2. Tara Reid





1. Vivica A. Fox






My take? I agree with most of the list, although I'd move Vivica A. Fox down -- way down -- along with Christina Aguilera, and put Courtney Love and Victoria Beckham higher up on the list. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see what is attractive about breasts so rock-hard and fake-looking that they look like if you shot Victoria Beckham in the chest, the bullet would bounce off. And Ivanka Trump I'd just take off the list. Her's are not that bad.

For explanation and uncensored pics, check out Listaholic.

Got an F? Sue!

The NY Post has a story today about a student who received an F -- and is suing Columbia's nursing school.

Nicholas Perrino was kicked out of the Ivy League institution's School of Nursing for missing an exam, and now he is suing to get back in.

"I should have went to Yale," moaned Perrino, who is representing himself in the case.

The 27-year-old Illinois native said he was working toward two master's degrees last summer, when his grandparents became gravely ill, forcing him to take a few days off.

He told his instructors he would be absent for a skills exam and tried to arrange a makeup, Perrino claims in documents filed June 15 in Manhattan Supreme Court.

Instead, he says, the school failed him in the course - part of a fast-track master's program.

Filing academic grievances and appealing to the Columbia provost got him nowhere, he said, and he was withdrawn from the School of Nursing.

"It's insane," Perrino said. "It's not like I killed someone."

Perrino is asking a judge to remove the "F" from his transcript, reinstate him at the school and reimburse tuition costs for classes he has already taken.

I would lambast Nicholas Perrino for this, but honestly, what do you expect? You can't use liberal propaganda day in and day out, brainwashing students with "multiculturalism" and "tolerance" seminars and have an overall nanny state without a good number of students actually swallowing the liberalism and eventually, having it come back to bite you in the you-know-where.

Although, just for fun, let's talk about Perrino. He not only wanted the F removed, but he wants to be reimbursed tuition costs and be reinstated?! Good Lord. Yet he's moaning, "I should have gone to Yale!" Oh, you poor little Ivy League kid! You know, getting an F sucks and all, but if you had time to notify your professors before you missed a few days, then couldn't you have done the work before you left, and not after? And he was on a fast-track program, so that means, well, missing a few days can be monumental, which I'm sure he knew.

It was a choice he had to make, an admittedly tough one: visit my ailing grandparents (this is assuming he is being 100% truthful, mind you), or potentially fail. Thing is, a professor does not have to honor you if you miss class if you took the time to notify him and didn't do the work in advance. It's a risk you take. Sometimes, it is school policy (I discovered that one myself once) and you have to go see higher powers, which, I know, he said he did. But all the same -- miss class, risk suffering the consequences, even if there is a very good reason for you to be absent. It's the chance you take and a choice he made.

He has to now deal with the consequences of the choice he made, something liberals simply do not understand.

And the far-reaching effects? Will this make college professors a little bit more nervous to hand out Fs for fear that a disgruntled student will sue? Who knows? But that doesn't matter to Perrino.

He's following his dreams!!

Paris Hilton kicked out of the Bad Boy Bad Girl Club

The letter is priceless! From TMZ:

Dear Paris,

You are hereby notified that your membership in the Bad Boy Bad Girl club has been revoked. You slipped over the edge into stupid and are no longer good at being bad, so we want you out and will not refund your dues. And by "dues" I mean the dues you paid by doing a sex video, starring in "The Simple Life," getting drunk in public, converting others to the club [Brittney and Lindsey, which, by the way, will also be receiving this notice], showing the world -- via the paparazzi -- your coochi, and all around acting without remorse or apology ... all wonderful things.

However, real Bad Girls don't drink and drive, real bad girls don't get caught, real bad girls don't go to jail [that's only cool if you're a guy], and real bad girls don't call Sarah Silverman a bitch. Moreover, we all know the rich don't do jail time, and if they do, they do it with class [see Martha Stewart for details]. Therefore, you're out.

Fortunately for the other members of the club, you can't buy your way back in. Feel free to re-apply, but for now you are on permanent suspension.

Sincerely,

Steve Santagati
President

P.S. Notifying you via TMZ is considered official.

How to Defraud American Workers

A reader, Graham, sent me the link to this video. Frankly, it makes me sick. It's about five minutes long, but it's disgusting:



I hope there is something that I'm missing here, that this is not as blatant fraud as it seems to be. However, cynical me is finding that hard to believe. If anyone has more information about this seminar, I would love to hear it.

Jobs Americans won't do, huh?

You know, we have all these groups to prevent discrimination against minorities, immuigrants, women, minority religions, and so on and so forth, but it seems that every day Americans are the ones being discriminated against most these days. Who is going to speak up for us??

I don't know why I even bother to ask.

Please remember to contact your senators today and tomorrow. We have to put an end to this crap.

The time is now

... to contact your senators. The immigration bill is rearing its ugly head yet again on Tuesday, and what better way to greet them back from the weekend with a mountain of phone calls? Tell them you won't support anyone who votes for this bill or for cloture.

Get their e-mail addresses and phone numbers here.

Call the National Republican Senatorial Committee at (202) 675-6000, and call the Republican National Committee at (202) 863-8500 (option 1).

Also, yesterday John Hawkins of Right Wing News had a great entry about where the bill is standing right now:

My source tells me that this has left a sour taste in the mouth of a number of Republican senators who are upset that Mitch McConnell is cooperating with Harry Reid to curtail the rights of Republican senators. Moreover, there's a growing fear that a dangerous precedent is being set here that could be used against Republican senators again and again as long as they're in the minority. After all, if the "clay pigeon" strategy is used against conservatives on the immigration issue, who's to say it won't also be used against them on any number of issues in the future? According to my source, this is causing a lot of nervousness amongst Republican senators and it has Mitch McConnell acting very defensively behind closed doors about working with Harry Reid to roll members of his own caucus. Because of this issue, my source tells me that the vote for the "clay pigeon" strategy is no longer a slam dunk and it is possible that the "grand bargainers" may not be able to get 60 votes to put the bill on the floor as a new bill. If that turns out to be the case, the bill is dead.

Make sure to read it all here.

Paris Hilton update!

Paris Hilton will be released from prison next Tuesday, prison officials have announced.

So, let's get a nice quote from the lovely heirhead herself:

“I’m so much more grateful for everything that I have, even just to have a pillow at night or food. You know my gratitude has gone up so much and I just realize that the media used me to make fun of and be mean about it. Frankly [I’m] sick of it and I want to use my fame in a good way. I am behind glass and I want to give my dad a big hug and they won’t even let me do that. That’s how the rules are, you have to be behind glass. I’m not a criminal, I’m not dangerous, so it makes me feel like that. It’s hard but I’m stronger everyday. I just can’t wait to see my family and have a nice meal and be in my own bed and appreciate all the things I took for granted and never really thought much about.”

The media is "mean". She wants to use her fame in a "good way". Yawn.

Marilyn Manson is an idiot

Dita von Teese was in Tokyo last night for the "Very Lingerie Week". She performed her signature burlesque show as models walked the catwalk in sexy lingerie.

I think Dita von Teese is one of the sexiest women alive -- sexier than Posh Spice, or most Hollywood stick figure actresses like Lindsay Lohan, who was #1 on Maxim's Hot 100 for some reason. I love that she is actually a HEALTHY looking woman, with curves that she is proud of. And she always seems to come off as classy and elegant, despite her profession as a burlesque dancer. You never see her flashing her crotch or her boobies -- although I'm sure some men would like her to -- and she doesn't parade around on drugs or constantly hammered, or causing feuds with every starlet who looks at her the wrong way. If she has crazy antics, she keeps them behind closed doors, which means she is capable of exhibiting self-control in public, a concept most celebrities can't fathom in public or in private.

She, to me, seems to epitome of a classic pin-up model: sexy, but still classy and elegant.

Anyways, enjoy. Even I have to admire her hotness! ;)

Nancy Pelosi: Go Team Canada!

You read right -- straight from Madam Speaker Pioneer Pelosi's website:



Here's a close-up:



Notice the "CANADA" in gold lettering on the patch on her shoulder? That's because it is a Canadian officer:

Admiral (Adm) or General (Gen)

On the cuffs, one broad gold horizontal stripe; on the epaulets, four small gold maple leaves in a diamond pattern with crossed swords and a crown above. Unless written otherwise, all epaulets have "CANADA" in gold lettering on the epaulets on the part nearest the sleeve.

Is she that dense that she couldn't figure that out before she made it live on her website? She honestly couldn't tell the difference between a Canadian officer and an American one?

Oh well, she's Pioneer Pelosi -- above all criticism!!

Hat Tip: Qando

News Flash: Wild dolphins are not Flipper!

You know, there is such a thing as a Darwin Award for a reason.

From my wonderful home state of Florida:

Marine researchers are warning about a growing number of dolphin bite cases in Sarasota County, according to a Local 6 News report.

Florida experts said wild dolphins are becoming more aggressive because boaters are feeding them.

"It seems reasonable to understand why you wouldn't feed a bear or something more dangerous-appearing, but these are wild animals," dolphin researcher Jason Allen said. "They are wild animals with lots of sharp teeth."

Officials said a dolphin bit a woman from Lakeland earlier this month when she tried to pet it.

It is illegal to feed, harass, swim with or follow wild dolphins. Violators face misdemeanor charges for committing the crimes.

Well gee, you mean wild animals aren't friendly like trained ones? Hey, maybe we shouldn't pet the wild animal with razor sharp teeth!

Who wants to bet someone will file a lawsuit over this, too?


You mean, not all dolphins are Flipper?!

Seattle Presents: Moonbats-In-Training!

A Seattle school board meeting went awry after adults in charge refused to make mini-moonbats act like... well, adults. Sprinkle a little military hatred on top, and you've got yourself a perfect moonbat sundae.

From The Seattle Times:

A protest of military recruiting in Seattle Public Schools has shut down tonight's School Board meeting.

Acting President Darlene Flynn recessed the meeting before she could even take roll because about 30 students marched into the meeting room chanting, "Yo School Board, what's up? We're here to say we've had enough."

Some students covered with fake blood collapsed on the floor, then were carried around the room. After the demonstration, the students spoke to the meeting's attendees in support of a proposed policy they wrote that would require military recruitment to be confined to twice-yearly recruitment fairs.

After more than a half-hour, the board convened with the district's attorney to discuss its course of action. Board members re-entered the board meeting room, where the students demanded 10 to 15 minutes to address them.

Instead, board member Brita Butler-Wall made a motion to reconvene in a small boardroom. The media — but not the public — were allowed inside while the board continued its business.

"We couldn't hear each other, and if you can't hear each other, you can't do the public's business," Flynn said.

At 7:45 p.m., the board voted to return to the boardroom after a break. The protesters had moved outside.

Blatant military hatred aside (although, what else can you expect from the Starbucks State?), why were these kids allowed to carry on like this? Once upon a time, you were required to make a point intelligently, using facts, not hysteria. Not for moonbats, oh no -- gross emotionalism is what they use as ammo, and that's what these kids did, and they got away with it.

A toddler learns that if he throws a temper tantrum, he will either be punished or rewarded. And that's what these kids did -- threw a massive temper tantrum and they were rewarded. Rather than actually maintain control of the school board meeting, Acting President Darlene Flynn just awarded legitimacy to their hissy fit and taught them that throwing hissy fits will get them whatever they want.

All of that aside, what is it about the left coast that makes them hate the military so damn much? I feel bad for anyone stationed in Seattle.

Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin

Angelina abandons her Cambodian project

This is overwhelmingly typical of celebrities, who are so fickle and shallow they adopt pet causes, keep with them for a few years, and then move onto the next one. Remember Sheryl Crow used to be all over VH1's Save the Music? Now, she's on to battling global warming, one sheet of toilet paper at a time!

Angelina Jolie, "humanitarian"/UN propaganda puppet-ambassador, is known to adopt kids every few months. Her first adopted child, Maddox, was from Cambodia. She was awarded citizenship by Cambodian king Norodom Sihamoni (in addition to her "Citizen of the World" designation by the United Nations Correspondents Association).

One pet project she created was the Maddox Jolie Project:

The overall goal of this project is to protect and rehabilitate the wildlife, eco-system and watershed conservation values of the Samlaut Multiple Use Area, Battambang Province.

Cambodia has had a long history in protected area development. By the time of independence in 1957 over two million hectares of Cambodia’s forest was designated as either wildlife sanctuary or forest protection reserves. The subsequent intervention of political insecurity, war, and political isolation resulted in the neglect of these reserves. However, the re-establishment of protected areas has become an integral part of Cambodia’s national rehabilitation since the beginning of the post-war period. A key aspect of this development has been efforts to provide for nature conservation and wildlife protection. This includes the designation of 23 separate protected areas by Royal Decree in November 1993.

The Samlaut Multiple-Use Management Area is one of these. Located on the Cambodian – Thai border within an isolated portion of far western Cambodia, it has a total area of approximately 60,000 hectares. About 39,000 ha. lie within the municipality of Pailin whilst the remaining 21,000 ha. lie within Samlaut district of Battambang province. Its boundaries follow old road alignments, some of which have been maintained in trafficable condition and river and stream courses. The reserve was therefore designated as a multiple-use management area because of concerns that the inevitability of industrialized gemstone mining would lead to the substantive degradation of its nature conservation values.

Project status:

Because of lack of funds the future of this project is uncertain.

Surprise, surprise.

Kids, this is what we call spreading yourself too thin. Celebrities do this often. It's not exactly like Angelina Jolie doesn't have enough money to continue to fund the project. I mean, she prostitutes photos of her kids left and right to whichever magazine happens to be the highest bidder. Couldn't she use some of that money?

My guess is that she probably forgot about it and moved onto something more publicity grabbing. Whoops! I meant, something more important.


Angelina Jolie and her Cambodian son, Maddox

SHOCKING Study: Journalists give primarily to Democrats!!!

Right now, you could knock me over with a feather.

MSNBC made the SHOCKING discovery:

A CNN reporter gave $500 to John Kerry's campaign the same month he was embedded with the U.S. Army in Iraq. An assistant managing editor at Forbes magazine not only sent $2,000 to Republicans, but also volunteers as a director of an ExxonMobil-funded group that questions global warming. A junior editor at Dow Jones Newswires gave $1,036 to the liberal group MoveOn.org and keeps a blog listing "people I don't like," starting with George Bush, Pat Robertson, the Christian Coalition, the NRA and corporate America ("these are the people who are really in charge").

MSNBC.com identified 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.

The pattern of donations, with nearly nine out of 10 giving to Democratic candidates and causes, appears to confirm a leftward tilt in newsrooms.

Gee, you mean most mainstream media journalists lean to the left and support liberal causes!? Say it isn't so!!!

Here's a great quote:

Several of the donating journalists said they had no regrets, whatever the ethical concerns.

"Probably there should be a rule against it," said New Yorker writer Mark Singer, who wrote the magazine's profile of Howard Dean during the 2004 campaign, then gave $250 to America Coming Together and its get-out-the-vote campaign to defeat President Bush. "But there's a rule against murder. If someone had murdered Hitler — a journalist interviewing him had murdered him — the world would be a better place. I only feel good, as a citizen, about getting rid of George Bush, who has been the most destructive president in my lifetime. I certainly don't regret it."

I'm shocked right now, SHOCKED! The mainstream media -- be biased towards the left?! NO! Of course, MSNBC doesn't make that case ("the donor list is only a sampling of over 100,000 journalists"), but who are we kidding.

George Packer, from the New Yorker, is at least honest about it:

The war correspondent for the magazine since 2003 and author of the acclaimed 2005 book "The Assassins' Gate: America in Iraq," Packer gave $750 to the Democratic National Committee in August 2004 and $250 to Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett, an anti-war Democrat who campaigned unsuccessfully for a seat in Congress from Ohio in 2006.

In addition to his reported pieces, Packer also writes commentary for the magazine, such as his June 11 piece ruing Bush's "shallow, unreflective character."

"My readers know my views on politics and politicians because I make no secret of them in my comments for The New Yorker and elsewhere," Packer said. "If giving money to a politician prejudiced my ability to think and write honestly, I wouldn't do it. Fortunately, it doesn't."

But most MSM journalists -- and MSNBC -- act as if Packer is unusual. He isn't. It's completely the norm. The BBC admitted it, and maybe this is the American media's small step.

Osama bin Laden, you're my hero!!

That is the premise of a new prize-winning play from "playwright" Dennis Kelly, who wrote it after the war in Iraq begun. He won $20,000 and Britain's Meyer-Whitworth award last November, and it has now begun appearing in Sydney, Australia.

Is Osama a hero? That's the provocative beginning of a new play about the "war on terror".

A SCHOOL assignment asks students to name a contemporary hero who is prepared to give up personal wealth for what he believes in and is inspirational to many people.

The show, with a cast of five, now comes to La Mama with the stated aim of getting audiences to consider some of the implications of the so-called "war on terror".

"It's a deliberately provocative title designed to shock us into action," says the play's director, Syd Brisbane. "Dissent about what's happening is hard to find. You need strength and purpose to keep the debate moving forward."

The play functions as a microcosm of the world after the terrorist strikes on New York and Washington, with violence now much more paramount.

Gary, played by Xavier Samuel, is the student who believes in honesty and names Osama bin Laden as his modern hero. This results in him being seized by people from the housing estate where he lives, and bound and gagged.

Bins and garages have been blowing up on the estate and Gary gets the blame. The playwright, whose earlier play Debris was performed in Melbourne last year, described Osama as a "brutal play" that expressed his own confusion about the state of the world.

Brisbane says it is quite political, with Gary's plight used to symbolise that of others accused of terrorism. "When he says there is no proof against him, he's told the evidence isn't necessary in dealing with terrorists."

Funny how things like this are always labeled as "provocative".

Of course, it turns Osama bin Laden into a moral hero, and his supporters are people who are oppressed and believe in "honesty". Not terrorists, oh no -- the big, mean, USA is the real terrorist. We don't really catch "terrorists", we catch innocent people who are only expressing themselves by blowing themselves and other people up, and acting out against American oppression. We should look up to them -- better yet, let's just all do what they say, and convert to Islam and live under Shariah law! They're good, honest people with our best intentions in mind, right? Right?

Unfortunately, this is nowhere near out of the ordinary for the liberal arts community. Art today is no longer about making beautiful, meaningful works of art to inspire others. It is meant to offend and disgust the average person. If decent Americans are not outraged, then they haven't done their job.

And this is just another example.

Expect a glowing review from the New York Times -- perhaps Maureen Dowd could gush over how hot she thinks "Gary" is the way she gushes over how hot Eminem is -- any day now.

Hat Tip: MoonBattery