I've moved — check out my new blog at cassyfiano.com!

Redirecting in 10 seconds...

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

German government encourages incest

As if we needed any more reminders that Europe is plunging dangerously deeper and deeper into depravity and moonbattery, the German Federal Health Education Center (a subsidiary of the German government's Ministry for Family Affairs) released a booklet proving that it can, and will get worse.

The German government is encouraging parents to engage in incest, pedophilia, and molestation (emphasis mine):

Booklets from a subsidiary of the German government's Ministry for Family Affairs encourage parents to sexually massage their children as young as 1 to 3 years of age. Two 40-page booklets entitled "Love, Body and Playing Doctor" by the German Federal Health Education Center (Bundeszentrale für gesundheitliche Aufklärung - BZgA) are aimed at parents - the first addressing children from 1-3 and the other children from 4-6 years of age.

"Fathers do not devote enough attention to the clitoris and vagina of their daughters. Their caresses too seldom pertain to these regions, while this is the only way the girls can develop a sense of pride in their sex," reads the booklet regarding 1-3 year olds. The authors rationalize, "The child touches all parts of their father's body, sometimes arousing him. The father should do the same."

Another product of the BZgA is a song book aimed at children of four and slightly older which includes several songs espousing masturbation. The song-book entitled "Nose, belly and bum" includes one song with the following lyrics: "When I touch my body, I discover what I have. I have a vagina, because I am a girl. Vagina is not only for peeing. When I touch it, I feel a pleasant tingle."

According to the Polish daily newspaper Rzeczpospolita, the BZgA booklet is an obligatory read in nine German regions. It is used for training nursery, kindergarten and elementary school teachers. Ironically it is recommended by many organizations officially fighting pedophilia, such as the German Kunderschutzbund. BZgA sends out millions of copies of the booklet every year.

I'm curious. How does molesting your three-year-old teach her to have pride in her "sex"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most children who have suffered from molestation feel deep shame?

The scary thing is that these booklets are being used in German schools, encouraging incestuous molestation and teaching four-year-olds about masturbation.

Is this the kind of age-appropriate sex ed that Barack Obama would support? Teaching four-year-old girls that when they touch their vagina, they feel a "pleasant tingle"?

The really sad thing is that German parents have no choice but to subject their children to this depravity, thus robbing them of their innocence. Germany outlawed homeschooling in 1933. Families can always immigrate to another country where it isn't considered OK to touch and massage your two-year-old daughter's clitoris and vagina, but that doesn't take away the moonbattery.

This is the worst kind of abuse. And I am in absolute shock that Germany would force this upon innocent children. Well, I guess I really shouldn't be so shocked, because I'm sure that a few years back, it started with some politician deciding that four-year-olds needed "age appropriate sex ed". It's what we call a slippery slope. You give someone an inch, and they take a mile. It starts with "age appropriate sex ed" at first, right? And then, a little at a time, it gets worse and worse until suddenly, we arrive at this.

This is, of course, how we find countries get overtaken by moonbattery.

Are you taking notes, Mr. Obama?

Hat Tip: Moonbattery

Guest blogging at Right Wing News

I will be guest-blogging at Right Wing News today. Make sure to go over there to check it out!

So You Think You Can Make a Statement?

You know, I don't watch the Fox show So You Think You Can Dance?. Never have, probably never will. Actually, I take that back: I think I watched five minutes of the auditions the first season, got bored, and never watched it again. I'm surprised it's even still on the air.

And apparently, they've whipped themselves up quite a bit of controversy. Newsbusters, Michelle Malkin, and Webloggin all are following the story on how choreographer Wade Robson decided to have an anti-war/pro-peace night with ten dance solos to reflect that message, and how that same night, Mia Michaels, the other choreographer, wore a Marine Corps Dress Blues jacket with the emblem upside down. She says she didn't realize the emblem was upside down, that it was all for "fashion", and she had no idea it would be insulting for a civilian who didn't earn those stripes, to use a cliche, to wear a military dress uniform and then defile it.

And of course, it was all a big "coincidence", I'm sure.

Michaels even complained to TV Guide that she was receiving "hate mail" (emphasis mine):

Emmy-nominated choreographer Mia Michaels thought she was going to have a wonderful day. She woke up this morning to find hundreds of messages posted on her website. “And I thought, wow, I must’ve been a really good judge last night,” says Michaels. But then she opened the messages and was shocked by their tone and content. “It was hate mail,” she says simply. “Saying things like, ‘You should be ashamed of yourself.’ It was really intense. It was awful.”

The writers were responding to a jacket worn by Michaels on Wednesday’s show. She had no idea that anyone would be offended by it, she says. She simply thought she was being fashionable by wearing a navy blue military jacket that happened to have a Marine emblem, upside down, on the sleeves. After hearing the feedback, Michaels tried to make amends on the air. “I understand why people were upset and I respect that,” she says. “That symbol is sacred to the Marines, it’s what they earned. The problem needed to be addressed and I’m glad we addressed it. That’s why I made a public apology.”

First of all, in what world does she live in that "you should be ashamed of yourself" is hate mail? If she wants to know what hate mail looks like, Michelle Malkin can clue her in, as she unfortunately tends to receive quite a bit. I guess it's simply confirmation that moonbats see truth as hate mail, because those hate mongers were telling the truth: she should absolutely be ashamed of herself.

Look at me, I'm all a-full of hate today!

Lt. Col. Patrick from Duty in the Desert explains what it is that is so insulting about her defiling the jacket (emphasis mine):

I accept the fact that perhaps Michaels’ didn’t realize how strongly people would feel about the issue but this goes beyond a simple upside down emblem. The dress blues themselves are sacred to the men and women who have earned the right to wear them. Military personnel follow strict guidelines pertaining to dress codes. Even more importantly, fallen Marines are often buried in their dress blues. The uniform is important to the families and members of the U.S. military and it should be respected.

The fact that Mia Michaels wore the blouse (not jacket) with an upside down Marine emblem on the same night that Wade Robson choreographed an anti-war dance solo is not some mere coincidence in my estimation.

Then, on top of that, that same night (by "coincidence", as I said before), Wade Robson choreographed an anti-war "statement" with ten dance solos. The show told him they wanted ten dance solos to the same routine, and he and his wife decided they should make a statement that "everyone can connect to". And what is there that Americans love more than moonbats rubbing our faces in their anti-war drivel? Each dancer had words such as "humility", "love", "passion", "understanding", "honesty", and "compassion" on their outfits, and I guess they were supposed to somehow represent those traits through their dancing.

In the TV Guide interview, executive producer Nigel Lythgoe said he just couldn't understand how people thought anti-war meant anti-troops, and that they were just making, again, a "statement":

But the problem didn’t stop with her. Adding to the perfect storm of controversy on Wednesday night’s show was Dance’s other Emmy-nominated choreographer, Wade Robson. He had fashioned the 10 identical solo dances around an antiwar theme. Set to the music of John Mayer’s “Waiting on the World to Change,” the dancers wore peace symbols and printed slogans. That put executive producer Nigel Lythgoe in the crosshairs of more angry feedback from those who believe that an antiwar dance means the show and its dancers are unpatriotic and do not support the troops. “Who would’ve dreamt — with the dancers using words like ‘humility,’ ‘love’ and ‘passion’ — that I would be defending a television show that uses words like that?” asks Lythgoe, who also apologized on air.

But at the same time, Lythgoe stood his ground. “Art should be allowed to make statements,” he said. “I’m so proud to be part of a show that allows freedom of expression,” says Michaels. “Nigel has allowed us to be who we are. He never edits us and he lets us express ourselves as artists. I think that is rare and extraordinary.”

You know, he's right. Art should be allowed to make provocative and controversial statements. But when you make provocative and controversial statements, you can't act all shocked and shaken when people are, well, provoked and your statement incites controversy. But, Hollywood elitists being what they are, always fail to realize that we don't bask in their supreme perfectness. We aren't drinking the Kool-Aid, and we don't eagerly swallow every single little statement they give us. Sometimes we -- gasp! -- disagree, a tough realization for elitists who think they are always, infinitely right.

And there's nothing wrong, really, with making an anti-war statement, I guess. A little tactless considering we are, in fact, at war, but nothing wrong with it. Who is really pro-war, anyways? I mean, no one likes war. No one likes seeing our troops die, the best and brightest of us. The difference is that some of us understand that sometimes it is necessary, and some of us think that putting daisies in our rifles while holding hands singing "Kumbaya" with Al-Qaeda will solve all of our problems.

What I don't get is why they didn't ever consider possibly making a "Support the Troops" statement. Well, I take that back -- I know why, it's because moonbat liberals don't support our troops and never have, but let's pretend for a minute. Isn't that a message just about everyone can get behind? Regardless of your feelings on the war, you can and should support our troops. The dancers could have had words inscribed on their outfits like "valor", "courage", "integrity", "sacrifice", "honor", "selflessness", and even some of the words that the show used, like "humility" and "compassion". Now that would have been an inspiring show.

But no, they chose to travel the beaten path and bleat on about how they don't agree with war, and add a new insult to an old argument by disrespecting our Marines, and then backpedal furiously when people -- shockingly enough! -- were offended.

I'm not even really that surprised.

Mia Michaels, in her oh-so-fashionable insult to the Marine Corps.

Monday, July 30, 2007

Happy Birthday to Me!

Yes, today, July 30th, is my birthday. I am officially now 23 years old -- yay!

*By the way, the urge to remark, "My God, I'm getting old" is overwhelming for the sheer sarcastic pleasure of it, but I can already foresee the kind of responses I'd get. ;) *

Saturday, July 28, 2007

Vick loses endorsements; NFL pulls jersey

Michael Vick is in a lot of trouble. He's innocent until proven guilty, but in the media, his fate already seems decided. It was no surprise when it was announced that Vick has been suspended from his Nike endorsements, and the Donruss trading card company has pulled Vick's card. Meanwhile, the NFL and the Falcons have stopped selling his jersey. TMZ has the story:

Michael Vick is in deep doggy doo-doo with his endorsement partners for his alleged role in a dogfighting ring. The Atlanta Falcons quarterback has been suspended from big money contracts with Nike, Reebok and a trading card company, thanks to a federal dogfighting indictment against him.

This week, Nike suspended Vick without pay, and released a statement that "Nike is concerned by the serious and highly disturbing allegations made against Michael Vick, and we consider any cruelty to animals inhumane and abhorrent." The company vowed to stop selling Vick-related products but chose not to terminate his contact until his case was filed. Due process of puppy law!

Reebok opted to stop selling Vick's Falcons jersey, as has the NFL, which has suspended sales of Vick's number 7 jersey on nflshop.com. And the Donruss trading card company has pulled Vick's card from new packs.

I said it before, but Vick isn't going to be able to run his way out of this tight spot. Even if he is found innocent, and I hope to God he is, I get the feeling that his reputation may not ever rebound.

Previous: Michael Vick in trouble for illegal dogfighting

Can't run your way out of this one, Vick.

Did global warming cause this, too?

As Newsbusters noted, the recent floods in England have been attributed to global warming by many media outlets. Indeed, any kind of weather changes seem to be attributed to global warming. Active hurricane season? Global warming. Mild hurricane season? Global warming. Severe winter? Global warming. Mild winter? Global winter. Flooding? Global warming. Droughts? Global warming.

No matter what happens, it seems to be the fault of global warming. Yet, the American media has been strangely silent about the deaths of at least 70 Peruvian children due to freezing weather:

At least 70 children have died during a spell of freezing weather in the Andean regions of Peru, officials have said.

The children, all under five years old, died of pneumonia and other respiratory illnesses over the past three months.

They lived in rural areas at high altitude, where temperatures in some cases are reported to have plummeted to as low as -20C (-4F).

Peruvian Health Minister Carlos Vallejos said almost 2,000 medics had been deployed in the affected areas.

He told the BBC he expected the situation to get worse before it improves.

Forecasters in Peru are predicting the cold spell will continue until September.

Even low-lying jungle regions are facing unusually cold weather, with temperatures dropping to 10C (50F).

Many adults have also died during the harsh winter, and thousands of people are suffering from pneumonia and other respiratory infections.

As Newsbusters noted, Google and LexisNexis have no record of American media covering this, one of the worst cold-related disasters in Peruvian history. They were happy to cover flooding in England, something that could easily be a symptom of global warming. But something that punches a hole in that story gets overlooked, regardless of the scope. Children are dying in Peru, but it doesn't fit into a neat little liberal agenda, so it gets overlooked.

Unless, of course, someone gets some kind of miraculous brainwave on how to say that this cold snap was caused by global warming, instead.

Hat Tip: Newsbusters

I get Simpsonized

In honor of The Simpsons Movie, I got simpsonized, courtesy of SimpsonizeMe.com.

Friday, July 27, 2007

The Breck Girl goes paranoid

Apparently, a bunch of unnamed people want to silence him, and that these mysterious people will control the media. They want to keep him quiet, he says, so that his message about poverty (at $55k a message) and universal healthcare cannot be heard. He says people who make $100 million a year (who are these people??) don't want this stuff to be heard. But he's a WARRIOR, and he will NEVER be silenced!! NEVER!

Just out of curiosity, can anyone remind me who supports silencing voices in media due to "fairness" and who doesn't?

Um... isn't it... the Democrats?

Come on -- how much more biased to the left does the media need to be before the Breck Girl considers it "fair"?

And really, how much more hypocritical can the multi-millionaire Breck Girl be? He bashes the rich, when he was an ambulance-chasing trial lawyer who picked cases with the highest possible rewards, while charging astronomically huge fees to his clients. Now, he has an income of over $400k a year, probably a large portion of which comes from his poverty speeches, which he charges $55k for. He's worth approximately $70 million. He has a 28,000 square foot mansion which has an estimated worth of about $6 million. It is a 102-acre estate with a private gym, pool, a basketball court and racquetball court.

HuffPo, of course, claims that the Breck Girl is not a hypocrite at all:

It is not hypocritical for rich people to help the poor. It is kind and generous.

John Edwards is constantly attacked by the right-wing for fighting poverty while at the same time ... wait for it ... being rich! How dare he?!

So, what is he supposed to do? Hide his money and keep it from everyone else like a good greedy, conservative? It wouldn't be hypocritical to be greedy with your money if you're rich, but it would be hypocritical if you tried to help others? How dumb do you have to be to think that Republican talking point makes any sense

Uh, no. It's not hypocritical for the Breck Girl to be rich and to donate to charity or "fight for poverty". It is hypocritical, however, for him to bash rich people and capitalism, claim he looks out for the "little people" while charging ridiculously high fees in his trials (supposedly anywhere between 30-40%) and freakishly high fees to speak about poverty. It's hypocritical to be railing on about "Two Americas" while spending $400 on haircuts, or $225 in "services" from a salon called the Pink Sapphire.

Then there's also the private jets. There's the Wal-Mart bashing, even though he made sure to be one of the first to get a PS3 there, and apparently, even owned stock there at one time. His son makes fun of kids whose parents aren't rich and therefore have to buy shoes from Wal-Mart, a story Edwards himself told to participants of a United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union-sponsored call. Yet he lectures us about the great divide in classes, leading to his famous "Two Americas". He rails against hedge funds, but simultaneously invests in them.

That, my friend, is hypocrisy.

So, with all of this against him, no wonder the Breck Girl is terrified about being silenced. Although, you know... it might only be beneficial to him, when you think about it...

Hat Tip: Iowa Voice

You WILL believe in man-made global warming!!

This is how the Goracle's global warming movement has always worked. Agree, or suffer the consequences. This is just the first time someone has made the mistake of admitting it publicly (emphasis mine):

During a Capitol Hill hearing yesterday, Sen. James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican and ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, confronted EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson about the strongly-worded letter written July 13 by Michael T. Eckhart, president of the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) that was sent to Marlo Lewis, senior fellow of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).

"It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar," Mr. Eckhart wrote. "If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on."

"Statements like this are of concern to me. I am a believer in cooperation and collaboration across all sectors," Mr. Johnson assured. "This is an area I will look into for the record."

When Mr. Johnson confirmed that EPA is a member of ACORE, Mr. Inhofe asked if "it is appropriate to be a part of an organization that is headed up by a person who makes this statement."

Late yesterday, Mr. Inhofe announced he will send letters to the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, and EPA, urging them to "reconsider their membership of ACORE."

In a written response sent to Inside the Beltway last week, Mr. Eckhart apologized to "all the public who were offended" by his choice of words. He said he intended his letter to be a "private communication" in the context of "personal combat and jousting."

However, this column earlier this week published another letter Mr. Eckhart sent in September to CEI President Fred Smith, saying "my children will have a lesser life because you are being paid by oil companies to spread a false story."

He said he would give CEI, which advocates "sound science," 90 days to reverse its "position" on global warming, "or I will take every action I can think of to shut you down," including filing complaints with the Internal Revenue Service "on the basis that CEI is really a lobbyist for the energy industry."

Funny thing is, Mr. Lewis and CEI weren't disputing that climate change exists. He just has a different opinion what causes it.

And this was the reaction from the president of ACORE, a tax-payer funded organization which over 400 organizations pay into, including the EPA and the federal Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and Energy.

What I don't understand is how these "scientists" are so damn sure. Since when is science so cut and dry? When has a scientist ever been 100% sure of anything?

But people like the Goracle and this Michael Eckert aren't drinking the global warming Kool-Aid for the science. Notice how the only way to combat global warming is by putting the economy of the United States in the toilet? Notice how the United States is the country which must sacrifice the most in order to "Save the Planet"?

I don't think so.

Thankfully, I don't work for a government agency or department, so I don't have to worry about Mr. Eckert trying to destroy my career or having to think a certain way.

Hat tip: Moonbattery

Nicole Richie will be going to jail


Nicole Richie was sentenced today for her second -- get that, her second -- DUI.

She got a whopping four days. FOUR DAYS.

Celebrity justice. Isn't it great?

This is perhaps the only case in which I feel bad for Paris Hilton. I fully believe that Paris should've gone to jail for the entire length of time that she did, but Nicole gets caught with a DUI twice and gets four days because the manipulative little law-breaker is parading around her pregnancy to get the judge to be lenient.

Nicole should be going to jail just as long as Paris did, if not longer, especially because she apparently will not have to go to jail until she gives birth, so the pregnant woman in jail concern should be scrapped.

And a DUI twice?! I mean, my Lord. It's bad enough that she carelessly put people's lives at risk as a rich celebutard who could hire a driver when she's drunk and on drugs, but she did it twice! With absolutely NO regard for what could possibly happen!

I have to say it again.

Don't you just love celebrity justice? Fair and balanced, all the way.

Thursday, July 26, 2007


Well... I promised I would post a few pictures of me earlier this week, and I haven't done so yet. Readers asked for the pictures, so I am responding! Here's a few different pictures for y'all to enjoy. ;)

How to Pick Up Chicks?

A friend of mine sent me a link to a video on YouTube of a series called "Young Hollywood". This "episode" is entitled "The Pick Up Artists" and it is of four guys named Nehow (sp? it was impossible to tell), Matador, Mystery, and Lovedrop (I'm not kidding on the names) who claim they can pick up any girl, anywhere, any time. And if you buy their book, you can too!

Apparently, they're an "international community" of pickup artists, and the "art form" was "invented" by Mystery.

What, were they the first men ever to decide they wanted to pick up a chick at a bar? Please. The best part is, Lovedrop brags that they spent the last ten or fifteen years "developing the system".

Dude, if you've been developing this system for picking up chicks for ten or fifteen years and you are still just picking up chicks every night, I'd be kind of embarassed, but that's me.

Mystery claims that these four are defining all social interaction, and that there are natural phases that every sexual relationship goes through, and that most people aren't aware of those phases. If you buy their book, you can learn what those phases are and get ANY woman you want into bed!!!

Can I just mention that if any of these four guys came up to me at a bar, that I wouldn't give them the time of day? Nehow gives me a strong gay vibe, Matador... well, he kind of comes off like a child molester. And the other two give off the biggest geek vibes I've ever seen, but they are so disgustingly full of themselves that they don't stand a chance. Being a geek is not a bad thing, but when you are so ridiculously self-assured that you brag about how you can get any woman into bed... well, that's the number one way to ensure that you'll be sleeping alone.

And their names! If someone came up to me and said, "Sup, baby, my name's Matador", or "Hey, I'm Mystery", I don't think I'd be able to resist the urge to laugh. I mean, come on! Matador? Mystery? Lovedrop? Where do they come up with these names??

Anyways, Mystery goes on to say that by using their system, every woman is available to you, taken, single, married, whatever. She'll never say no, and she'll never want to. It's like a superpower, he says. And if you buy their book, you can, too!

Excuse me while I snort in disbelief.

Matador states that, when picking up girls, emotions are bad. Nehow adds that what works is being a fun, compelling person who "sucks people in". When you see them doing a pick-up, he says, you can't tell they're doing a pick-up. They're just cool guys. Hanging out.

If I can't tell a guy is trying to pick me up when he's doing a pick-up because he's a "cool guy hanging out", it'll be unsuccessful. Girls kind of want to know that you're interested. The aloof thing is our territory, buddy.

Nehow goes on to say that he can make out with a girl while she's holding her boyfriend's hand, and there's a "method" he uses to do that. UGH.

These guys just annoy the crap out of me! This whole "I can get any girl I want using my pick-up artist superpowers". Do they not realize that guys that full of themselves are huge turn-offs? Girls aren't interested in guys who brag about how they can get you into bed because they are just that awesome.

The worst part of these guys is that, although they have egos the size of Jupiter, not one of them is good-looking! They all have weird names, and when I watch the video more, every single one of them gives off that creepy vibe. You know, like if they got caught molesting baby goats you wouldn't be surprised.

I mean, what is their big dating secret? Rohypnol?

I guess if you buy their book, you, too, can learn how to pick up any girl by looking like a serial killer/goat molestor who has an ego bigger than Colin Farrell's. Just slather on some black nail polish, grow your hair out to be nice and long, and make sure it is greasy as well, get some hip sunglasses going on, give yourself a "cool" name like Matador, Mystery, or Lovedrop, and girls will SWOON.


Upon doing some research, I found this interesting little snippet (emphasis mine):

Frances Whiting, writing for The Sunday Mail, also criticized Mystery Method tactics used by Mystery. She writes: “Mystery advises would-be wooers to: ‘Take the victim down from their friends, family and home. Once isolated they have no outside support and in their confusion are easily led astray.’ Oh, I'm sorry, clearly I'm reading from that other well-known book about male/female relationships, Dating: A Stalker's Guide…and why any man would follow Mystery's advice I do not know.”

That is incredibly disturbing. I feel mildly vindicated. Just by looking at these guys, you can tell how creepy they are, and that quote says it all. Isolating friends and family from the "victim" in order to keep them confused and with a lack of support so you can lead them astray?

Nice. The leading strategy of domestic abusers is what Mystery is recommending (and I know firsthand). Well, it's also the leading strategy of cult leaders, now that I think about it.

And this is how Mystery advocates getting girls into bed. Nice.

How to (successfully) pick up a woman at a bar

Sherry Glaser terrifies Clinton supporters

Zombie is reporting that moonbats from CODEPINK and Breasts not Bombs infiltrated Shrillary's campaign headquarters for a debate-watching party (visit the link for uncensored, NSFW pics if you so dare). They gleefully paraded around the party topless, as Shrillary supporters chanted her name like a bunch of zombies.

Sherry Glaser was, of course, in attendance.

This woman just creeps me out. Seriously, there seems to be something wrong with her. I visited her website and found a rather interesting blog entry, written November 20 of last year, in which she storms into a military recruiter's office and demands him to make the troops stop raping and murdering innocent people (emphasis mine):

A couple of weeks ago Breasts Not Bombs staged a demonstration outside the Military recruitment center in Ukiah, California because we feel that office is the first introduction to our young men and women as to what it means to be a soldier. We felt the need to find the root and address the aberrant and excessive violence that has led our military to commit war crimes like rape and murder. Though there were ten of us on the street that day, we opted not to take our shirts off. We blamed it on the weather and well, it was a major street and we had concern about traffic. But the truth is I was afraid. Afraid to bare my breasts to again be subject to judgement and ridicule for my outrageous behavior and my bountiful bosom. Although it was a spirited and well supported action, It felt disappointing. We even took the opportunity to go into the recruitment office and converse with the Sergeant in charge. Although he could not take responsibility for the troops run amok or even point me in the direction of those who might be, besides a "few bad apples." It felt like we built a bridge. He could see our humanity and we could see his. We were civil, kind and very calm. But, inside I'm bursting with terrible rage and sorrow. It's so strong that I'm compelled to tear off my shirt, pull out my hair and weep. Yes, it's dramatic, but it feels like this really is an emergency. I mean why is so unacceptable to bare my breasts. Why does the public at large have such a definitive and immediate reaction to my flesh, but the death of 2,900 American Soldiers and upwards of 200,000 Iraqi's elicits little response. Every day that our government debates and hem and haws there are REAL PEOPLE being violently killed.

What keeps me under wraps is also the simple size of my breasts, how they look. They are enormous, yes. It feels like I am carrying the sorrow of the world right under my nose. I wonder if so much of the breast cancer we are seeing is the unexpressed grief of this world. I dream of weeping, bare breasted with a million other women on the White House Lawn. I long for a world wide weep. Why are women kept in such restraint. What is so scary about our breasts.

This woman is so severely unhinged!

Look, lady, it isn't like Anna Kournikova or Jessica Alba is standing there with their tops off. No offense, but there is no one that wants to see your breasts! No one! You aren't a spring chicken anymore. It isn't all women's breasts that are scary, just yours.

And of course, there's the standard liberal line about how our troops are rapists and murderers. I would love it if she said that to me. Love it.

Her entire rambling post just goes to show how moonbats work and think. Not to mention, I don't think she could go a single sentence without butchering it grammatically.

I just don't get it, what is it that makes people take her seriously?! And she cries about how terrified she is of baring her gigantic, droopy breasts, but she does it... all the time. Whenever she has the opportunity to, actually. Yeah, she's terrified, all right.

And on top of the craziness, she thinks Shrillary is not far left enough? My God. I'd hate to think of what her ideal candidate would be like.

Hat Tip: Moonbattery, who so graciously added red bars to the picture below.

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

She's here!

Ten days early, too!

Francesca Lynn was born today, July 24th. Here's a couple of pictures: one with me and my little sister, and one of just her beautiful face (mine's not so beautiful considering I am unshowered with no makeup!).

Lack of blogging

Hey everyone,

Just wanted to post a little update about the lack of blogging the past few days.

First of all, I just started a new day job, and my schedule is a little bit different, so please bear with me as I adjust. I should be doing some blogging tomorrow night, and hopefully will be able to get back into the swing of things then.

Second, I'm pretty sure I have not mentioned this yet, but my parents are having a baby. My mom is nine months along, and it is looking like my baby sister is coming any day now. Obviously, when that happens, I will be gone, probably for a few days, to be in the hospital with my parents, so consider this a forewarning more than anything. :)

But anyways, I haven't forgotten, I've just been really busy what with a new job and trips to the doctor with my mom and everything, but I will be back -- I promise! Check back tomorrow night for some fresh new stuff. In the meantime, maybe I'll post some new pics of me or something to make up for the "CODEPINK" photoshopped picture in the post below as a couple of readers have suggested until I can get things going again. ;)

Thanks for being so great, everyone!

Friday, July 20, 2007

It's easy to commit treason when you have politicians to help

trea·son (trē'zən)
  • Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
  • A betrayal of trust or confidence.

  • Would giving money to terrorists in Iraq today constitute treason? I don't think the Greatest Generation would have stood for this, but we just roll over and take it, because after all, the groups in question are acting for "peace".

    Misha from The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler has the story of how two American "anti-war groups" gave $600,000 in cash and supplies to terrorists in Iraq:

    A New York Times best-selling author says members of the supposed "peace movement" delivered hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash and supplies to terrorists engaged in a bloody street battle against United States Marines in Iraq.

    The latest book by Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson (U.S. Air Force-Ret.) is called War Crimes: The Left's Campaign to Destroy Our Military and Lose the War on Terror. In the book, he claims that two anti-war groups -- "United for Peace & Justice" and "CODEPINK: Women for Peace" -- literally gave aid and comfort to terrorists when they delivered $600,000 in cash and supplies they claim was humanitarian aid to civilians.

    According to Patterson, Congressman Henry Waxman (D-California) facilitated the transaction for CODEPINK by signing a letter allowing them to get the cash and supplies into Fallujah.

    "Here is an American Congressman .... Here are American citizens who belong to these organizations," says Patterson. "They travel to Iraq and they are materially supporting, they are aiding and abetting the enemy that is killing American Marines. If that's not treason, nothing is."

    Patterson says that is not the only treacherous thing these groups have done. "When the Iraq war first started, CODEPINK and Medea Benjamin went to Baghdad and opened an office designed to try to encourage American soldiers to desert, go AWOL, and not fight the war," he explains. "Again, that's aiding and abetting the enemy."

    The author laments that the story has received virtually no coverage by the U.S. media.

    Misha responds:

    Assuming for the moment, since that’s all one can responsibly do until some evidence is produced, that he’s got the goods and that his “i”s are dotted and his “t”s crossed, CODEPINK, in association with a U.S. Congressman, conspired to and succeeded in funding the terrorist scum that we’re at war with, the swine killing our servicemen and -women, and we all know that those cavedwelling apes don’t use their funds to buy apple pies and band aids with.

    Do you have a relative or loved one over in the sand box right now? In that case, he or she may, at this very moment, be fired upon with weapons bought and paid for by CODEPINK, in association with Henry Waxman (D-al Qaeda).

    I have a loved one in the sandbox right now. I have friends there. How about you?

    It doesn't surprise me in the least that CODEPINK would do something like this. However, it is absolutely infuriating that a United States Congressman would facilitate the transaction.

    There should be a full investigation put forth to investigate this, and if it is true, then every last person involved should be executed for treason. PERIOD.

    CODEPINK: The new face of treason

    Democrats side with terrorists

    Remember the Flying Imams? For those who aren't familiar, let's recap from a column I wrote in December:

    By now, everyone has heard the story of the six Muslim passengers escorted off a United Airways flight, after making numerous passengers and crew nervous through their incredibly suspicious actions. Prior to boarding, the six men gathered together in the waiting area to pray – twice – before yelling, in a quiet environment, “Allahu Akhbar!”. In case anyone has forgotten, those are the infamous words also spoken by the hijackers on the four planes as they were taking over the flights. It is also what was shouted as Nick Berg was beheaded. I could go on and on, but why bother? That’s not a real offense, when you think about it. Enough to make you nervous, sure. But nothing to get kicked off a plane over, right?

    The story only gets more bizarre.

    The six men, who waited together, prayed together, and boarded together, proceed to spread themselves out along the plane – very similar to the positioning of the terrorists on the fateful 9-11 flights. An Arabic-speaking passenger reported that the men repeatedly invoked the name Osama bin Laden and spoke of terrorism and condemned America for “killing Saddam”. This same passenger was one of the passengers who pulled a flight attendant to the side and reported what he had heard. Several of them also asked for seatbelt extenders, only needed for passengers 280 pounds or more. One of the men told police he was, in fact, 280 pounds – but weighed in at much, much less (201 pounds). In fact, none of the men were 280 pounds – the weight of the men ranged from 170 – 250 pounds. Passengers reported that none of the men even fastened the seatbelt extenders. They placed them underneath their seats. What, pray tell, did they need them for? And yet another passenger reported to police that one of the men complained that some nations did not follow “shariah law” and that his job in Bakersfield, CA was a cover – for “representing Muslims in the US”.

    Oh, another fun fact – all of the men had one way tickets and no baggage.

    The captain made the decision to have the men escorted off the plane based on many complaints from many different passengers, as well as consulting a federal air marshal, a U.S. Airways ground security coordinator and the airline’s security office in Phoenix.

    And now, of course, the Muslim men are crying foul. They are saying they were removed from the plane on a basis of racism, and that they disturbed no one on the flight.

    A US airways investigation, as well as two other independent investigations, have determined the crew handled the situation correctly.

    Of course, they six flying imams flipped out. They filed lawsuits against US Airways and the "John Does" who reported the suspicious activity, CAIR had a field day, and if I remember correctly, even had a Muslim pray-in at the airport to "combat racism" because they weren't acting suspiciously at all, and the people who reported them were being racist.

    This prompted Michelle Malkin's John Doe Manifesto. I'll post a few little excerpts here, but make sure the read the entire thing.

    Dear Muslim Terrorist Plotter/Planner/Funder/Enabler/Apologist,

    You do not know me. But I am on the lookout for you. You are my enemy. And I am yours.

    I am John Doe.


    I will never forget the example of the passengers of United Airlines Flight 93 who refused to sit back on 9/11 and let themselves be murdered in the name of Islam without a fight.

    I will never forget the passengers and crew members who tackled al Qaeda shoe-bomber Richard Reid on American Airlines Flight 63 before he had a chance to blow up the plane over the Atlantic Ocean.

    I will never forget the alertness of actor James Woods, who notified a stewardess that several Arab men sitting in his first-class cabin on an August 2001 flight were behaving strangely. The men turned out to be 9/11 hijackers on a test run.


    I will not be censored in the name of tolerance.

    I will not be cowed by your Beltway lobbying groups in moderate clothing. I will not cringe when you shriek about “profiling” or “Islamophobia.”

    I will put my family’s safety above sensitivity. I will put my country above multiculturalism.

    I will not submit to your will. I will not be intimidated.

    I am John Doe.

    Pass it on.

    Anyways, all of this culminated in a "John Doe" Amendment to protect Americans from frivolous lawsuits who report suspicious activity.

    Guess who voted it down in both the House and the Senate.

    Yep, Dems. In the Senate, NO Republicans voted against the amendment. Surprisingly, Shrillary voted for it while Obama sat out.

    House leaders reacted:

    "This is a slap in the face of good citizens who do their patriotic duty and come forward, and it caves in to radical Islamists," said Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican and ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee.

    Mr. King and Rep. Steve Pearce, New Mexico Republican, sponsored the provision after a group of Muslim imams filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against US Airways and unknown "John Doe" passengers. The imams were removed from US Airways Flight 300 on Nov. 20 after fellow passengers on the Minneapolis-to-Phoenix flight complained about the imams' suspicious behavior.

    "Democrats are trying to find any technical excuse to keep immunity out of the language of the bill to protect citizens, who in good faith, report suspicious activity to police or law enforcement," Mr. King said. "I don't see how you can have a homeland security bill without protecting people who come forward to report suspicious activity."

    “We have always said that any discussion of September 11 in any way, shape or form would be made on sacred ground, with reverence to those who were lost,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat.

    “We promised you answers, and we promised you a safer America. Hopefully, this legislation will fulfill the rest of the promise,” Mrs. Pelosi said.

    Florida Rep. Adam Putnam, chairman of the House Republican Conference, said failure to enact the provision will hold "the threat of endless litigation over the heads of the American people."

    "Democrats are discouraging citizens from reporting suspicious behavior. And that, simply, leaves America vulnerable to terrorist attacks," Mr. Putnam said.

    Nancy Pelosi is promising a safer America while simultaneously refusing to protect Americans for speaking up?!

    If Dems had their way, United 93 would have been successfully hijacked. Richard Reid would have blown up that plane midflight over the Atlantic. People will be much less willing to speak up or act against suspicious behavior when the threat of litigation is hanging over their heads! And for actual terrorists, they know that if their act is foiled, they can just sue us and claim innocence.

    And they wonder why we question their patriotism, despite their siding with the enemy time and time again.

    It's not over yet -- Republicans have sworn to reintroduce the amendment. Therefore, keep the pressure on. Contact your Congressman/woman and your senators. Contact Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Since they aren't willing to act based on what is in the best interests of the country, then hit 'em where it hurts and protest. Let them know this can and will hurt their political career.

    Congress switchboard: 202-224-3121
    Nancy Pelosi’s office: 202-225-4965
    Harry Reid’s office: 202-224-3542

    Image from Justin at Right on the Right

    Thursday, July 19, 2007

    The Iraq War summed up in one poster

    From IMAO:

    The John Edwards Poverty Tour!


    From Allah at Hot Air:

    Elizabeth Edwards: Doing the work that John won't do

    Well, gee whiz. John Edwards really puts his wife to good use. She takes on rabid Republican neighbors for him, attacks Ann Coulter for him, and now even speaks out in campaign ads for him!

    What is she talking about in his newest ad? Why, how strong he is, of course (emphasis mine):

    Elizabeth Edwards tells voters her husband, Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards, is a tough guy "who can stare the worst in the face and not blink" in an ad set to start airing Wednesday in New Hampshire.

    Elizabeth Edwards, who makes frequent campaign stops in early voting states for her husband, appears in the ad that the campaign hopes will highlight the couple's marriage.

    "I have been blessed for the last 30 years to be married to the most optimistic person that I have ever met," she says as photographs from the campaign fade in and out. "But at the same time he has an unbelievable toughness, particularly about other people, and that is his ability to fight for them."

    "You're not going to outsmart him. He works harder than any human being that I know, always has," Elizabeth Edwards says. "It's unbelievably important that, in our president, we have someone who can stare the worst in the face and not blink."


    Optimistic? OK. I can give Edwards that. But painting a picture of John Edwards as some macho-wacho tough guy who can stare down Osama bin Laden is a laugh. He couldn't even take on skinny Ann Coulter on his own! His wife had to do it for him.

    Although, well, Ann Coulter is brilliant, intelligent, tough, and certainly has guts. That's a lot for the Breck Girl to take on.

    If Osama bin Laden tried to stare down John Edwards, he'd probably piss himself, start whimpering and crying, and tell Osama that he could have anything he wanted -- just don't mess up his hair!!

    If the Edwards campaign wanted to give us a laugh, they certainly succeeded.

    Hat Tip: Iowa Voice

    It's Official: Kim Kardashian is posing in Playboy

    Like that's a huge surprise. All she's famous for is being Paris Hilton's shopping buddy and starring in a raunchy sex tape. Playboy was bound to follow:

    Kim Kardashian is getting klassy!

    The amateur pornographer shot a pictorial for Playboy magazine Wednesday in Los Angeles, sources reveal exclusively to PerezHilton.com.

    Music video director Hype Williams was behind the lens. No word on when the images will hit the magazine or how much (or little) Kardashian was paid.

    Does this surprise anyone? She's not famous for anything, she isn't special or different from anyone else except that she's rich and has a nice ass. However, like all pampered, spoiled celebutantes, she wants to be famous, and is surrounded by enough "yes" people to believe that she is special and different and talented, just like Paris Hilton. And the easiest way to become a household name without actually doing any work is by either releasing a sex tape or posing in Playboy.

    I read a quote somewhere years ago. I think I was still in high school when I saw this, but it really struck me. I don't remember who said it or why, but I just for whatever reason have always remembered it, because it is so relevant to celebrities today:

    People used to be famous for being special. Now, people are special because they are famous.

    And isn't that really the case? 75% of celebutards in Hollywood are not that talented. They're famous because they're famous; famous as much for who they are dating, or how often they were photographed with nip slips or without underwear, or who they are feuding with, as they are for their latest CD or movie or TV show.

    And yes, I know -- I guess in a small way I am contributing to that. As much as a I loathe Hollywood, I'm addicted to the gossip.

    But, anyways, Kim Kardashian is determined to become famous, and the next pit stop on the road to fame is Playboy, so keep your eyes peeled.

    A preview of what's to come?

    Wednesday, July 18, 2007

    Cats vs. Dogs? You're right: there's no comparison

    John Hawkins over at Right Wing News has a post about which makes a better pet, cats or dogs.

    He was prompted to write the post based on this quote by John Hood:

    "According to a number of historians and classicists, domesticated cats have probably been of greater practical value to humanity than domesticated dogs, due to their critical role in reducing the population of grain-eating and disease-carrying rodents. Medieval European foolishness linking cats, witchcraft, and the Devil led to eradication programs that may well have paved the way for deadly plagues. Karma.

    Dogs may be friendlier, but cats have been more useful.

    Now back to your regularly scheduled program, more political but probably less controversial."

    Here's what John responded with:

    Of course, Hood would have to go for the "cats eat rats" angle because that is the only service cats have provided to mankind aside from perhaps keeping the loonier members of the "crazy cat lady" set distracted so that they don't poison the neighborhood children.

    On the other hand, dogs also kill vermin, have helped humans hunt for food, have served as guard dogs, track people, act as guide dogs for the blind, and have helped humankind in warfare throughout the ages.

    Then there's the fact that dogs are loyal to people. They're the only animals that can fairly be said to have cast their lot with mankind. Cats? They're barely domesticated wild animals, which some people find attractive. "Look how independent the cat is!" Well, do you know what other animals are independent? Pretty much all the wild animals. Raccoons, chimps, manatees -- the only difference is that cats are just domesticated enough to hang around and eat food you leave them in return damaging things in your house and being generally unsociable.

    Now, I don't hate cats, but come on -- comparing them to dogs? They're not as good as pets and they certainly haven't been as useful through history. Dogs earned their slot as man's best friend while cats are back there with guinea pigs, hamsters, and ferrets slugging it out for a very distant second place.

    Now here's my take. :)

    I don't disagree with what John says about dogs. They have been very useful throughout mankind, are loyal, playful, blah blah blah.

    However, they can be far more annoying than any cat. They're also much more high-maintenance.

    Don't get me wrong -- I like dogs. I don't have one because I live in an apartment. If I had a house with a big backyard, I'd probably get a dog. However, dogs can also get on my nerves, especially small dogs. I don't like yapping, and I don't particularly like being licked. They require so much attention, constantly. Some dogs even get jealous if you give attention to someone or something else. Some dogs will pee themselves when they get excited. Some dogs will hump your leg, something that I don't think most people enjoy. If you go out of town, you either have to put it in a kennel or get a dog sitter. Every time they need to use the bathroom, you have to take them outside.

    Now, dogs can be great. It's a great feeling to come home to a dog so excited and joyful to see you. They are endlessly loyal, and with a big backyard, can be a lot of fun. I really do like dogs, and when I get a house, I have every intention of getting a [large] dog.

    And now, onto cats.

    Yes, cats don't show the same loyalty as dogs do -- on the surface. Cats just don't fawn over their owners the way that dogs do. However, that doesn't mean they don't have their ways of showing affection and love. My kitten, for example, is almost always waiting for me when I get home, right by the door. I don't know if he waits there all day for me to come home (I sincerely doubt it) or how he knows when I'm about to come in (I assume hears the keys in the lock), but he's almost always there, by the door, ready to greet me. The few times he isn't, he'll usually come racing from my bedroom to rub against my leg and purr.

    My kitten is also a total mama's boy, but he's not annoying about it. He loves affection and loves to curl up in an armchair with me while I read, but if I want him to go away, he doesn't pout or whine or whimper. He is affectionate without being needy, and there's a huge distinction there. He's just as happy curled up in the chair next to me as he is curled up in my lap.

    I don't have to take him out every single day. I don't have to bathe him once a week. Cats in general are just so much more low maintenance than dogs! I might be going to visit some family in Massachusetts in the next few months, and I won't need to put him in a kennel. All I'll have to do is set out plenty of food and water, a clean litter box, and ask someone to stop by every few days to make sure he still has enough food and to change his litter box if it needs to be. I won't have to worry about my apartment being a complete wreck.

    And there are people who say that dogs give unconditional love in a way that cats can't, but I don't agree. I think cats give unconditional love; they just don't give it to anyone who gives them some cat nip, whereas dogs love anyone who gives them a doggie treat and a pat on the head.

    Robert de Niro even vouched for cats in Meet the Parents!

    So you prefer an emotionally shallow animal? See, Greg, if you yell at a dog, his ears will go down and his tail will cover his genitals even if he's done nothing wrong. It's very easy to break a dog. But cats make you work for their affection. Cats don't sell out like dogs do.

    I think he makes a pretty good point. ;)

    But anyways, the thing is, you can't compare cats and dogs. They're completely different. Comparing them is like comparing apples to diet coke. And I don't see why it has to be one or the other. Can't people like both cats AND dogs? I do.

    And to close, here's my kitten. He's awesome -- he even likes the American flag! He's taken to hanging out there lately. :)

    Just because I can

    I'm posting this video again. No reason. It's just always fun to watch this wonderful video!

    I came across it browsing on Iowa Voice and thought, what the heck. It never gets old.

    I feel pretty!

    Rhiannon O'Donnabhain demands that the IRS pay for his/her sex change

    What would you define as a medically necessary procedure? I'm sure most people would say appendectomies, heart bypasses... things along those lines, right?

    Rhiannon O'Donnabhain wants to add sex change to that list.

    He/She is suing the IRS when they for denying his/her write-off of $25,000 in medical expenses for a sex change (emphasis mine):

    After a tormented existence as a father, a husband, a Coast Guardsman, and a construction worker, a 57-year-old suburban Boston man underwent a sex-change operation. And then she wrote off the $25,000 in medical expenses on her taxes.

    But the IRS disallowed the deduction, ruling the procedure was cosmetic, not a medical necessity, in a potentially precedent-setting dispute now before the US Tax Court.

    Rhiannon O'Donnabhain is suing the IRS in a case that advocates for the transgendered are hoping will force the tax agency to treat sex-change operations the same as appendectomies, heart bypasses, and other deductible medical procedures. The case is set to go to trial July 24.

    An estimated 1,600 to 2,000 people a year undergo sex-change surgery in the United States, according to the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association.

    O'Donnabhain, now 63, served in the Coast Guard, got married, helped to raise three children, and worked as a supervisor at various engineering and construction jobs, including the Big Dig highway project. O'Donnabhain said she could have paid back the approximately $5,000 she received in her tax refund, but decided to challenge the IRS because she believes the ruling against her was rooted in politics and prejudice.
    "This goes way beyond money," O'Donnabhain said in an interview with the Associated Press. "If I were to give the money back, it would be saying it's OK for you to do this to me. It is not OK for them to do this to me or anyone like me."

    The federal Tax Court has never issued an opinion in a similar case, said Jennifer Levi, a lawyer with Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the Boston-based legal organization representing O'Donnabhain.

    But the IRS has ruled against allowing the deduction in at least one other case. In a 2005 case, the IRS ruled the costs of a woman's gender reassignment surgery and related treatments were not deductible as medical expenses. The IRS cited the section of the tax code that says cosmetic surgery or similar procedures are deductible only when they are needed to improve a congenital abnormality, an accident or trauma, or a disfiguring disease.

    Where to even begin.

    If O'Donnabhain wins, then basically, what will happen is that we, the American taxpayer, will be forced to pay for the choice of transgenders everywhere to disfigure themselves (more on that later). You know, when it comes down to it, if some dude wants to make himself a chick, then that's his/her decision. I don't want to have anything to do with it, and why should I have to pay for it??

    Does O'Donnabhain care about that? Noooo! All he/she can worry about is him/herself. He/she wants a sex change, and he/she doesn't want to have to pay for it, and because he/she is considered a "minority", we must all roll over and submit to his/her whims because he/she thinks that otherwise... it isn't fair!

    I feel like I'm listening to a five-year-old when I hear this guy/girl go on about how he shouldn't have to pay. All he/she has to do is stamp his/her foot and pout, and we'll be back in kindergarten.

    Thing is, a sex change is not a necessary operation. He/she sure may feel like it is, but will he/she die if he/she does not get one? Will his/her heart stop beating? Will he/she cease to breathe? Will brain function desist? I don't think so; therefore, how can it be considered necessary?

    Your choice, your money.

    Now, here's what really puzzles me about sex changes.

    When it comes down to it, is the sex really changed?

    I mean, think about it. Just because you castrate some guy and carve a vagina into him and pump him full of hormones, how does that make him female? There is more to a vagina than what you see in Playboy, biologically speaking. Most of it is inside our bodies, not outside. I don't think doctors can add on a cervix, or a uterus, or ovaries, or fallopian tubes, or any of that kind of thing -- just like you can't add on a prostate or testis to a woman.

    I guess I could be wrong about that, and I'm sincerely curious as to how that happens if I am wrong, so if anyone is like, an OB/GYN or something reading this and could let me know, e-mail me. :)

    Either way, just because you disfigure yourself down there and take a bunch of hormones, it doesn't make you the opposite sex.

    As my buddy John Hawkins said, "They have male parts surgically altered to look female. I mean, if they sewed you inside a cow suit and stuck two horns on your head, you wouldn't become a cow!"

    All biology questions aside, I still don't think this is something we, the taxpayers, should be forced to pay for just because some selfish prick doesn't want to. Hasn't he/she ever heard the expression "You can't have your cake and eat it, too"? I mean, well gee, I want the government to give me a million dollars, but I bet I couldn't sue them for that and win, could I? And wouldn't it be incredibly selfish for me to do so? But that doesn't matter to O'Donnabhain, does it? He/she will foist that $25,000 tab on us without thinking twice.

    Regardless of how you feel about someone getting a sex change, it shouldn't be the taxpayers' responsibility to pick up the tab for them to have a voluntary procedure. That is wrong. And now that O'Donnabhain is suing, he/she's going to suck up taxpayer money even if the case gets thrown out.

    I hope the judge laughs him/her out of court.

    Rhionnan O'Donnabhain: A Portrait of Selfishness

    Deport Them Now!

    Michelle Malkin and Hot Air have issued a call to arms: a movement created to pressure the government to deport convicted criminal aliens.

    We've seen it over and over again the past few months: illegal aliens killing someone while driving drunk; rapists; murderers -- most of them with past convictions who not only were not deported, but allowed to walk the streets, free again.

    Michelle's column explains why we need to act:

    My fellow Americans, we have a problem. We spend billions of dollars on homeland security, but our government can’t even track and deport convicted criminal aliens. These are not the well-meaning “newcomers” who just want to “pursue economic opportunities” by “doing the jobs no one else will do.” These are foreign-born thugs, sex offenders, murderers, and repeat drunk drivers who are destroying the American Dream.


    The terrible kidnapping and murder of 12-year-old Zina Linnik in Tacoma, Wash., on July 4th is a typical example of the criminal alien revolving door. Terapon Adhahn, Linnik’s suspected kidnapper and killer who allegedly snatched her from the backyard of her home, is a permanent legal resident from Thailand. He was convicted of incest in 1990. Adhahn had sexually attacked his 16-year-old relative and pleaded down from a second-degree rape. Two years later, he was convicted of intimidation with a dangerous weapon. Section 1227(a)(2)(C), Title 8, of the U.S. code dealing with immigration states: “Any alien who at any time after admission is convicted under any law of…using, owning, possessing, or carrying…any weapon, part, or accessory which is a firearm or destructive device…in violation of any law is deportable.”

    But Adhahn was not deported. In fact, as Lorie Dankers, spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Seattle, admitted: “He escaped our attention.”

    Just like illegal alien gangster Mwenda Murithi , who was arrested 27 times without deportation before being arrested in the shooting death of 13-year-old innocent bystander Schanna Gayden last month in Illinois.

    Just like illegal alien thug Ezeiquiel Lopez, who built up a six-year rap sheet without deportation before being arrested in the murder of Deputy Frank Fabiano two months ago in Wisconsin.

    Just like illegal alien Juan Leonardo Quintero, who had been previously deported after committing crimes from indecency with a child to driving while intoxicated, but who traipsed back into the U.S. last fall and was arrested after allegedly shooting Houston police officer Rodney Johnson four times in the head during a routine traffic stop.


    It is not “anti-immigrant radicals” who are fed up with the failure to kick out and keep out criminal aliens. Zina Linnik’s uncle, Anatoly Kalchik, points out that his family was a family of legal immigrants who all obeyed the laws. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported: “Zina’s uncle was angry that the suspect had not been deported after being convicted in a sex crime. “We are all immigrants, but we come legally,” Anatoly Kalchik said of his family. He added that the adults all cleared a criminal background check. ‘If someone is a sex offender, or any kind of offender, he has no business being in America,’ he said.”


    Rep. David Price, a North Carolina Democrat, is sponsoring legislation to require monthly prison and jail checks by DHS to track incarcerated illegal aliens, increase spending on criminal alien deportations, and expand a program known as 287(g) to encourage more local and state officials to cooperate with the feds to help identify and deport criminal aliens in their hometowns.

    Why the hell aren’t we doing all this already? How many more innocent lives will be taken or ruined before we do?

    After the defeat of the Bush-Kennedy amnesty bill last month, I received tons of e-mail from readers asking: “What can I do?” Answer: Don’t wait for Washington. Sign up to help pressure our government to rid this country of convicted criminal aliens at www.deportthemnow.com.

    For Zina. For Schanna. For Deputy Fabiano. For Officer Johnson. For our safety, sovereignty, and the protection of the American Dream for those who deserve it.

    Make sure the read the column in its entirety.

    Michelle is right -- this has gone on far too long. Since the government won't act, its time that we do. Visit Deport Them Now and together, we can send a powerful message to the government that they cannot ignore.

    Media Mythbusters

    Lorie Byrd of Wizbang just e-mailed me to announce the launch of a very cool site, Media Mythbusters wiki.

    On the site's blog, Lorie explains why she decided this site needed to be built:

    In 2006, the Associated Press ran a story about six Sunnis who were doused with kerosene and burned alive while nearby Iraqi soldiers watched and did nothing. The source for the story was identified as Captain Jamil Hussein of the Iraqi police force. The story received wide coverage and was even cited by NBC news as the tipping point that led them to begin referring to the war in Iraq as a civil war.

    Digging by bloggers (in particular Curt at Flopping Aces) revealed that not only was the story not substantiated, nor could a “Captain Jamil Hussein” be found, but that the AP had cited Captain Jamil Hussein as the source for more than 60 other stories, most about Sunni on Shia violence. Eventually, in reaction to questions from bloggers, much of the “Sunni burning six” story was retracted and “Captain Jamil Hussein” was eventually determined to be a pseudonym. I wondered how the untrue story got reported as widely as it did, considering the suspicion surrounding the source from the very beginning. I looked for some type of online archive in which suspicious stories and sources were tracked and I was unable to find anything. In order to find previous similar stories it was necessary to search many different major and new media sources to piece together a full picture. There were already some excellent sites tracking media bias, but no one site archiving information about stories that had been found to be inaccurate or untrue.

    I tossed around the idea for such an archive with some of my blogger friends and a few liked the idea and suggested the site be in wiki format so that many contributors could post there as new information became available. The result is the Media Mythbuster wiki.

    You can browse the various stories on the site already, such as Rathergate, fauxtography and the Captain Jamil Hussein story, or submit a news tip yourself. As a wiki site, you can submit or update stories as they come. It's another great way to show the mainstream media that they will not be able to be unaccountable for irresponsible journalism anymore.

    Make sure to check it out!

    The real reason Al Gore invented global warming

    It all makes perfect sense now!!

    Hat Tip: Newsbusters

    Tuesday, July 17, 2007

    Michael Vick in trouble for illegal dogfighting

    Too bad. He was a great runningback -- er, quarterback who just likes to run a lot and throw very little.

    I don't know what kind of trouble he will be in for this, but I'm sure the Falcons won't be happy if he is convicted:

    Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick was indicted Tuesday by a federal grand jury on charges related to illegal dogfighting.

    Vick and three others are charged with competitive dogfighting, procuring and training pit bulls for fighting and conducting the enterprise across state lines.

    The dogfighting operation was named "Bad Newz Kennels," according to the indictment, and the dogs were housed, trained and fought at a Surry County, Va., property owned by Vick.

    The indictment alleges that the 27-year-old Vick and his co-defendants began a grisly dogfighting operation in early 2001 in which dogs fought to the death — or close. Losing dogs were sometimes killed by electrocution, drowning, hanging or gunshots.

    If convicted, Vick and the others — Purnell A. Peace, Quanis L. Phillips and Tony Taylor — could face up to six years in prison, $350,000 in fines and restitution.

    Authorities seized 66 dogs, including 55 pit bulls, and equipment commonly used in dogfighting. About half the dogs were tethered to car axles with heavy chains that allowed the dogs to get close to each other, but not to have contact — an arrangement typical for fighting dogs, according to the search warrant affidavit.

    Before fights, participating dogs of the same sex would be weighed and bathed, according to the filings. Opposing dogs would be washed to remove any poison or narcotic placed on the dog's coat that could affect the other dog's performance.

    Sometimes, dogs weren't fed to "make it more hungry for the other dog," it said.

    Of course, PETA had to jump in with a statement:

    PETA’s offices, located just over an hour away from Michael Vick’s rural mansion—where we now know dozens if not hundreds of dogs were forced to fight to the death in the pit—has been receiving vague allegations of Vick’s involvement in illegal animal fighting activity for years, sadly without much concrete evidence to back it up. While local authorities—who have historically mishandled dogfighting cases—sat on evidence in this case, the U.S. Attorney’s office was obviously determined to get the job done. The professional sports world is plagued with players who have been accused, charged, or convicted of cruelty to animals, abusing pit bulls, and dog fighting, and we hope that this indictment sends a loud and clear message to players and the NFL that celebrity is not a sufficient excuse for breaking the law, and that animal abuse should never be tolerated under any circumstances.
    -PETA Director Daphna Nachminovitch

    TMZ has more:

    Vick was charged with illegal competitive dogfighting, which involves training pit bulls to fight against other dogs. When authorities searched Vick's property this month, they found 54 pit bulls and a host of brutal items including a "rape stand," used to hold dogs in place for mating; an electric treadmill modified for dogs and a bloodied piece of carpeting.

    So far, Vick has only been indicted, not convicted. So, who knows whether he is guilty or not.

    However, whoever is guilty of this -- whether it is Vick or a family member of his exploiting his generosity, as he claims -- this is a sickening crime, and I hope whoever is found to be the culprit is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If Vick is found guilty, he should be given no leniency whatsoever.

    Can't run your way out of this one, Vick.

    Britain says no to student's Christian purity ring

    And so the downward spiral continues:

    A teenager whose teachers had stopped her wearing a “purity ring” at school to symbolize her commitment to virginity has lost a High Court fight against the ban.

    Lydia Playfoot, 16, says her silver ring is an expression of her faith and had argued in court that it should be exempt from school regulations banning the wearing of jewelry.

    “I am very disappointed by the decision this morning by the High Court not to allow me to wear my purity ring to school as an expression of my Christian faith not to have sex outside marriage,” Playfoot said in a statement Monday.

    “I believe that the judge’s decision will mean that slowly, over time, people such as school governors, employers, political organizations and others will be allowed to stop Christians from publicly expressing and practicing their faith.”

    Playfoot’s parents are key members of the British arm of the American chastity campaign group the Silver Ring Thing, a religious group which urges abstinence among young people.

    Those who sign up wear a ring on the third finger of the left hand. It is inscribed with “Thess. 4:3-4,” a reference to a Biblical passage from Thessalonians which reads: “God wants you to be holy, so you should keep clear of all sexual sin.”

    During the case, Playfoot’s lawyers argued that the ban by her school in Horsham, West Sussex, breached her human rights to “freedom of thought, conscience and religion” which are protected by the European Convention on Human Rights.

    Lawyers for the school denied discrimination and said the purity ring breached its rules on wearing jewelry.

    They said allowances were made for Muslim and Sikh pupils only for items integral to their religious beliefs and that, for the same reason, crucifixes were also allowed. But it argued that the purity ring was not an integral part of the Christian faith.

    Playfoot said in her statement she would consult her legal team to consider whether to appeal.

    This is, at the very least, disappointing.

    First of all, why a ban on jewelry to begin with? If some kid wants to wear a ring, is it really going to bother anyone? I never understood schools that did that. I mean, if there's a dress code, I can understand not allowing anything ostentatious. But a ring, or a necklace underneath a blouse, or modest-sized earrings, are not going to hurt anyone, or be a distraction, or anything like that.

    I mean, I went to Catholic school. We wore uniforms and were still allowed to wear necklaces, rings, earrings -- any kind of jewelry we wanted as long as it wasn't ostentatious.

    And why on Earth would a school want to discourage its students from abstaining from sex? I would think they would want to promote that ring and what it stood for, not punish her for wearing it. That just doesn't make sense.

    Well, hang on. I forgot that Britain is overrun with moonbats today, so scratch that. In the United States, we're running as fast as we can in that direction, too, so who knows?

    On top of that, they allow Muslim and Sikh students to get around the jewelry ban, but why not this? They say they allow crucifixes too, but who knows if that is true or not? And if it is, I'd be willing to bet it is only because banning crucifixes would be too vulgar a display of anti-Christian bias.

    And how can they not understand how it is a symbol for Christianity when it has a Christian verse enscribed onto it? Although, I'd be willing to bet they understand it perfectly fine.

    Whatever the truth behind the banning of this ring is, even in the best possible scenario it is still, at the least, saddening -- that a girl will be prohibited from wearing a ring encouraging chastity and abstinence, two things schools should be promoting.

    Mitt Romney, Pretty Boy Extraordinaire!

    What is happening to men in this country? I mean, sheesh.

    You see so many worrying about hair gel and exfoliators and moisturizing and waxing... isn't that supposed to be our department? Our meaning women? I mean, I get keeping yourself clean and looking nice, but come on. It's not unusual to find men who take longer to get ready than I do, and that's an automatic strike against you. God help you if I were to find out you spent more money than I do on "health and beauty" supplies.

    Enter Mitt Romney.

    Everyone knows how much of a pretty boy he is anyways -- Ben Affleck hypocritically called him a Ken doll -- but good Lord. I think he's trying to catch up to John Edwards:

    What kinds of things do you think of when you hear "communications consulting"?

    Speechwriting? Message strategy?

    Well, "communications consulting" is how presidential candidate Mitt Romney recorded $300 in payments to a California company that describes itself as "a mobile beauty team for hair, makeup and men's grooming and spa services."

    Romney spokesman Kevin Madden confirmed that the payments -- actually two separate $150 charges -- were for makeup, though he said the former Massachusetts governor had only one session with Hidden Beauty of West Hills, Calif. That was before the May 3 Republican presidential debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif., co-sponsored by MSNBC and The Politico.

    "We used them once but booked time twice and still had to render payment for the appointment time," said Madden, who said the disbursement was listed as "communications consulting" because it was paid from the communications division's budget.

    Politicians often wear makeup for photo and video shoots. Federal campaigns, on at least 26 different occasions since 2002, reported paying for haircuts and other primping -- services totaling $7,443, according to an analysis by The Politico of Federal Election Commission data. And Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards refunded $800 his campaign shelled out for two haircuts after he was criticized for them.

    But Stacy Andrews, who made up Romney for Hidden Beauty, said he barely needs makeup.

    "He's already tan," she said. "We basically put a drop of foundation on him … and we powdered him a little bit."

    All right. I get if you're going to be on national television, you need to look good and wear a little makeup. But $300? $300?! For a little drop of foundation and some powder?

    I think I spend 1/6 of that on my total beauty "budget", if you can even call it that. I never throw shampoo and conditioner bottles away, so I practically have the shampoo aisle from Walgreens in the closet in my bathroom, albeit with assorted half-empty bottles. You can get foundation and powder for $5 a pop, and I promise you it is just as good as the high-end stuff. It's not that I wouldn't ever use the high-end stuff, but I buy it sparingly and use it sparingly (as in, only for special occasions) so it lasts a while. I don't bust out the Sephora products to go to Winn-Dixie. There are so much more important things I can be spending my money on than make-up!

    Now, don't get me wrong, I doubt most women are as stingy as I am when it comes to make-up and hair care and that kind of thing. But I doubt most women spend anywhere near $300 on make-up in an entire year, much less in one sitting. And to hear a man is spending that much money for a bit of foundation and some powder? Couldn't his wife have just done it for him? I mean, honestly.

    God help him if he ever has to go to the Middle East as President. His make-up might get smudged!

    Seriously, folks. Do you want someone in office so concerned about make-up that they spend $300 in a single sitting?

    Maybe John Edwards and Mitt Romney could run on a ticket together. The Breck Girl and the Ken Doll... a victory for pretty boys everywhere!

    Ben Affleck, Meet the Kettle

    Saturday, July 14, 2007

    Crossing the line one too many times

    I'd like to introduce you to someone today, in case you aren't yet acquainted.

    His name is Ted Rall. Perhaps you've heard of him: he's one of the most well-known cartoonists (and op-ed writers) alive today. He's also one of the most vile, despicable, hateful, bigoted, unhinged people alive. However, don't consider him on the fringe; the bio from his website shows just how celebrated he is (emphasis mine):

    ... Rall's cartoons were signed for national syndication. He moved to Universal Press Syndicate in 1996.

    His cartoons now appear in more than 140 publications, including the Philadelphia Daily News, Aspen Times, Hartford Advocate, Newark Star-Ledger, Los Angeles Times, Wilmington News-Journal, San Diego Reader, Village Voice, Harrisburg (PA) Patriot-News, Las Vegas Review Journal, Washington City Paper, Tucson Weekly, Sacramento News & Review, San Jose Mercury-News, Lexington Herald-Leader and New York Times.

    In 1996, he was one of three Finalists for the Pulitzer Prize. He was one of the New York Times' most reprinted cartoonists in 1997, 1999 and 2001. He also did color strips for both Time Magazine and Fortune Magazine from 1998 to 2001. He was awarded the 1998 Deadline Club Award by the Society of Professional Journalists for his cartoons. Rall received first place in both the 1995 and 2000 Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Awards for Cartoons. The award, founded in 1968, recognizes distinguished work on behalf of disadvantaged Americans.

    Ted Rall has shown appalling hatred towards our troops and America time and time again.

    He's accused our troops of being murderers for Halliburton (emphasis again mine):

    There was a time when service in U.S. military was honorable and professionally rewarding. But because of politicians who use the military to pump up corporate profits instead of defending us, that was a long time ago. Americans with personal integrity should boycott the volunteer military and discourage everyone they care about to do the same. "They come from parts of the country where jobs are hard to find," an acquaintance condescendingly excuses the enlistees. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? I'd rather sleep under a bridge, eating trash out of a Dumpster, than murder human beings for Halliburton.

    If we're attacked by a foreign power, as we last were in 1941 at Pearl Harbor, Americans will line up to volunteer. World War II, won six decades ago by a storied generation of draftees and volunteers, was fought to defend American freedom. But we haven't fought an honorable war since.

    He likened terrorists such as Osama bin Laden to our Founding Fathers:

    Whether or not I am a patriot is for others to judge. I do love this country, however, and I’m fighting my damnedest to remind my fellow Americans of our core values, those we all learned as children, and to stop the Hard Right from revolutionizing us into a neofascist nightmare. (By the way, I don’t recall labeling myself. And another by the way: since when are socialists anti-patriotic?)


    And I might think better of you when you stopped using loaded rhetoric like refering to resistance fighters (a clearer and more neutral term) as “terrorists.” Unless, of course, you also consider George Washington to have been a terrorist, in which case we’ll let it go.

    He's most known for mocking fallen hero Pat Tillman as an idiot and a sap. Pat Tillman was the man who gave up a multi-million dollar NFL contract to enlist in the Army and fight for his country. Rall drew the following cartoon (click for larger image):

    And now, Ted Rall is at it again: slandering our troops in the worst way, mocking everything that makes them honorable.

    As Michelle Malkin put it,

    Now, all in one cartoon, he shows his naked contempt for the very traits of the American soldier that helped give birth to this country and secured it for 231 years: willingness to sacrifice, faith, courage, respect for the commander-in-chief, and determination to complete their mission.

    Here is the newest, and possibly worst, cartoon (click for larger image):

    How many times can Ted Rall slander our military and our country without getting called out on it? Well, I take that back -- conservatives call him out. But liberals, with their "moral authority" stay silent. What a double standard, huh? If Ann Coulter does so much as mock what Bill Maher says on HBO, she's called out on it and castigated in the media for weeks. It's front page news. Ted Rall does it on a weekly basis, and nothing. Nada. Not a peep.

    And not only is he not called out on it, but he's given awards. Liberal publications heap respectability on him and embrace him as an outspoken, prolific "neo-traditionalist" who is launching a "vehicle for change".

    But still -- all politics aside -- how dare he slander and smear the very people who give him the right to slander and smear them? He has the right to think and say whatever he pleases -- thanks to those he so gleefully attacks -- but decent Americans everywhere should be outraged. And just because he can think it, and say it, and draw it, and write it, does not mean that he should, or that Universal Press Syndicate has to continue to syndicate him, or that supposedly respectable institutions, such as the New York Times, have to publish his vile cartoons.

    If liberals had any decency in them whatsoever, they would shun this despicable excuse for an American. But instead, he is welcomed, lauded, praised, rewarded -- for slandering the very people who give him the freedom he loves to take advantage of.

    So what can we do? We can contact the Universal Press Syndicate and demand that he is dropped from syndication:

    Universal Press Syndicate
    4520 Main Street
    Kansas City, MO 64111-7701
    (816) 932-6600

    If the paper you read carries his cartoons and/or op-ed columns, contact them and demand that they remove his material as well.

    Just because he has the right to draw and write whatever he pleases thanks to the Frist Amendment does not mean he can escape accountability.

    responsibility to someone or for some activity

    I'm not asking for him to be censored. I am asking for him to no longer be embraced and revered, for he has crossed the line too many times. For the sake of decency, and for our heroes fighting overseas whom he so easily mocks and bashes, we must stand up against him in protest. Contact Universal Press Syndicate. You can even contact Ted Rall himself. However you choose to do it, speak out against him.

    This kind of hatred should not be embraced any longer.

    Oh, and to close, some lovely hypocrisy from Ted Rall, in a Universal Press Syndicate interview, in which he proclaims he doesn't like hateful responses or vitriol (imagine that -- someone who spouts hate so often doesn't like hate!):

    Hateful responses get under my skin, death threats obviously more so. But there are other jobs for people who are afraid of extreme reactions to their political or other points of view: Dog catcher. Computer programmer. Centrist Democratic Senator. As someone else said, it's not about not being afraid; it's about what you do when you are afraid. I worry about the vitriol but I can't let it stop me. Besides, for every reader who hates my stuff are many more who like it!

    Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin