Are Republicans as equal as the Code Pinkos?

I guess we'll see. They've asked for a protest permit with the same privileges as the Code Pinkos... in Berkeley. Who's betting that their request will be denied?

The Berkeley College Republicans are looking to get the same permit privileges that anti-war group Code Pink use to protest outside the Marine recruiting center in Downtown Berkeley.

Working with Councilmember Kriss Worthington, the group is asking for sound waiver permits and a parking spot reservation outside the center on Wednesdays from 12 to 4 p.m., the same time Code Pink protests outside the center, said Kimberly Wagner, activism chair for the Berkeley College Republicans.

“(Code Pink’s) claim is that they’re protecting free speech,” she said. “I kind of don’t feel they are, they are inhibiting the recruitment center in general. It’s important that they are not unopposed, that there are people willing to fight them. Even though it’s Berkeley, the liberal center of America, there will be people (opposed).”

Worthington is working to have the item appear on an agenda in May.

My guess is that their request will be denied.

The group is also circulating to make the recruitment center a protected zone -- sure to go over well with the Berkeley libs.

While I'm glad that someone in Berkeley is standing up to the Code Pinkos (it sure as hell needed to be done), I can't help but wonder what the Marines think. I highly doubt that they ever anticipated that opening a recruitment center in Berkeley would bring on this much attention or put them in this kind of political crossfire. And I doubt that they want this much protesting going on in front of their office, even if it is to support them. It's great that the College Republicans are doing this, but I don't see how it improves the situation for the Marines -- do you?

Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin

Previous:
Video of the Day
Video of the Day: "Peaceful" protesting in Berkeley
Medea Benjamin finds that the Marines can be useful
"We've served this nation to protect the likes of ingrates like you."
Berkeley moonbats are attacking the police now, too
The Code Pink wackos strike again

The editor of the Buffalo Beast responds

Remember Ian Murphy, the shithead who had such horrible things to say about our troops? You know, this stuff:

So, 4000 rubes are dead. Cry me the Tigris. Another 30,000 have been seriously wounded. Boo fucking hoo. They got what they asked for—and cool robotic limbs, too.

Likely, just reading the above paragraph made you uncomfortable. But why?

The benevolence of America’s “troops” is sacrosanct. Questioning their rectitude simply isn’t done. It’s the forbidden zone. We may rail against this tragic war, but our soldiers are lauded by all as saints. Why? They volunteered to partake in this savage idiocy, and for this they deserve our utmost respect? I think not.

The nearly two-thirds of us who know this war is bullshit need to stop sucking off the troops. They get enough action raping female soldiers and sodomizing Iraqi detainees. The political left is intent on “supporting” the troops by bringing them home, which is a good thing. But after rightly denouncing the administration’s lies and condemning this awful war, relatively sensible pundits—like Keith Olbermann—turn around and lovingly praise the soldiers’ brave service to the country.

Ian writes for a lovely rag called the Buffalo Beast. I opened my e-mail today and saw the following comment submitted for approval at Wizbang by the Beast's editor, Paul Fallon:

Just so none of you feel you got the wrong dude, the guy in the photo thatMac Lorry posted, is me but the phone number is wrong, so if you call that# you'll be harassing the wrong person. I am the publisher of The Beast. Idon't hide behind screen names like most of you pussies. The dumbmotherfuckers in this country have no conception of how close they are tobecoming the next Gestapo or Hitler youth. Then I suppose the Nazissupported the troops too. If you want to kick my ass drop me an email. Iwas in the military but I was a medic so maybe I'm not so tough. That virusshit is bogus. Watch for a counter-attack soon.

He's referring to one of Wizbang's commenters, Mac Lorry, who published contact information from the Beast's public domain.

Of course, he goes straight for the liberal talking point of how we're THISCLOSE to being herded like cattle into railcars headed straight for concentration camps, all for disagreeing with Chimpy McHitlerburton!! Apparently, if you support the troops, that makes you a Nazi!!

Gee, that's an insult conservatives have never heard. Do liberal have no imagination, no creativity? Sheesh.

Whether or not the virus part is true, the "counter-attack" threat is interesting. What, pray tell, could he have planned for us?? I'll be busy shivering in my socks and pajamas. In the meantime, someone let me know when this douche comes up with an original idea. I won't hold my breath.

Coast Guard Appreciation Day

Last Saturday, I attended the Annual Coast Guard Appreciation Day at Bing's Landing in Palm Coast, Florida. The event was hosted by the U.S. Navy League, and featured lots of great entertainment, including a performance by the Navy Southeast Ceremonial Band. There were also several displays and demonstrations, such as an interdiction of counter-narcotics, a helicopter rescue, and a Coast guard bomb-dog team demonstration. Proceeds benefitted the Northeast Florida Chapter of the Chief Petty Officer's Association.

Personnel from the following sectors were present: Coast Guard Sector Jacksonville, Coast Guard Helicopter Interdiction Tactical Squadron Jacksonville, Coast Guard Air Station Savannah, Ga., Coast Guard Station Mayport, Coast Guard Maritime Safety and Security Team from Kings Bay, Ga., and Coast Guard Aids to Navigation Team Jacksonville Beach.

Ensign Michael Arnett was my escort for the day, who is stationed at Sector Jacksonville. He is part of the Vessel Boarding and Security Team, which put on one of the demonstrations.

Here are some of the pictures from the event, which was extremely well-attended. It was great to see the Coast Guard get such support and appreciation from local residents.


Me with a few Coast Guard vessels in the background.


A Thunderbird on display along with several other classic cars.


One of the demonstrations of the day -- a rescue swimmer jumps out of a HH-65 Dolphin Helicopter and in these pictures, is being hoisted back in.




Sector Jacksonville Vessel Boarding and Security Team preparing for a law enforcement boarding demonstration.


Suspects have given up due to the presence of a Coast Guard helo and boarding team en route.




A Coast Guard utility boat on display.

A pirate attending chats with a Coast Guard Petty Officer.


A construction tender and aids-to-navigation vessel on display.

This time, they're REALLY going to vote. For real this time. Seriously.

Every election, the media breathlessly proclaims that this time, the youth are really, really going to matter. They're going to show up in record numbers! They're going to make a difference! And then, Election Day rolls around in November and... nothing.

But this year, this year!, it's going to be different. This year, "the youth" actually are going to vote!

Election after election, when all the obvious story lines are exhausted, the media tend to turn to an oldie but goody: "Will this be the race where young people finally start voting?" Youth vote advocates insist that young people are more dialed in than ever this year, while political hacks who have been in the business for decades roll their eyes at the notion.

Given that, The Fix recognizes the danger in making the following statement: The youth vote will matter in 2008. A look back over the last few months shows a massive increase in youth (people ages 18 through 29) voting; the number of young people voting quadrupled in Tennessee and tripled in states such as Iowa, Missouri and Texas, according to a new study by Harvard University's Institute of Politics.

The report goes on to say that the growth in young people's participation in the electoral process is not a "one-time phenomenon" but, rather, represents a "civic reawakening of a new generation."

A civic reawakening? Were 20-year-olds "awake" to politics before and somehow "fell asleep"? Um... ok. And, you know, there's the teensy problem of this poll being conducted with MTV's help, which automatically dampens the prospect of it becoming a reality.

Look, if "young people" vote, then that's fantastic. If they don't, then oh well. They aren't going to make or break elections, no matter how much the media fawns over them. Every election season its the same old song and dance, and it ain't a different tune this time around.

Hat Tip: E.M. Zanotti

Spitzer's call girl is suing Girls Gone Wild... AND supporting Hillary!

Ashley Alexandra Dupre, best know as former New York Governor Spitzer's favorite call girl, is suing Girls Gone Wild. She says she was "too drunk" to give consent... snort.

Ashley Alexandra Dupré claims in the lawsuit that she was only 17 years old at the time the GGW crew took topless video of her. She says that the crew got her drunk before asking her to flash her boobs. Her main arguments are that she was a) too young to consent to being videotaped b) too drunk to give consent.

...

Ashley Alexandra Dupré is suing for $10 million.

I kind of have to wonder how this lawsuit will have any credibility. I mean, if the girl ended up being a prostitute before she was 22, then it isn't that surprising that she was perfectly comfortable flashing her boobs for some guys at 17. And how will she prove her case anyways? How can she possibly prove that the crew got her drunk unless Girls Gone Wild has it on video? And if I remember correctly, Joe Francis debunked her "too young" theory, too, saying that at 17 it was legal as long as she wasn't actually performing any sexual acts. In any case, he says he has video of her signing a consent form and giving them ID. And she did, after all, spend an entire week on board the Girls Gone Wild bus.

Francis said in March that Dupre spent a week on a "Girls Gone Wild" bus and made seven full-length tapes after signing release papers. He also said he bought her a bus ticket home to North Carolina.

Francis said he was surprised by the lawsuit.

"It is incomprehensible that Ms. Dupre could claim she did not give her consent to be filmed by Girls Gone Wild, when in fact we have videotape of her giving consent, while showing her identification," Francis said in a statement.

He said the photos were taken "in front of a room full of people, including two newspapers and multiple crews we had in the room." Francis also said he would be happy to discuss the $1 million offer with her again.

Seven tapes? A week on the Girls Gone Wild bus? I think she knew what she was doing. For her offer to stick, she would have to claim that they kidnapped her! Otherwise, how could she explain the week-long filming?

Someone should explain to this girl that, believe it or not, you are actually responsible for your own actions.

And finally, guess who she's supporting for the Presidency? You guessed it: Hillary.

Wonder how Hillary feels having landed Spitzer's prostitute?



Hat Tip: The Jawa Report

Hollywood director: Jesus likely fathered by "Roman rapist"

Stupid:

In his upcoming biography of Jesus, "Basic Instinct" director Paul Verhoeven will make the shocking claim that Christ probably was the son of Mary and a Roman soldier who raped her during the Jewish uprising in Galilee.

An Amsterdam publishing house said Wednesday it will publish the Dutch filmmaker's biography of Jesus, "Jesus of Nazareth: A Realistic Portrait," in September.

It will be translated into English in 2009, Marianna Sterk of the publishing house J.M. Meulenhoff said. Verhoeven hopes it will be a springboard for him to raise interest in making a film along the same lines, she said.

The 69-year-old director, who also directed "Showgirls" — starring Elizabeth Berkley in one of the most panned films of the '90s — and sci-fi action hits like "Total Recall" and "RoboCop," as well as the sci-fi bust "Starship Troopers," claims he and co-biographer Rob van Scheers have written the most realistic portrayal of Jesus ever published.

In addition to suggesting that the Virgin Mary may have been a rape victim, the book will also say that Christ was not betrayed by Judas Iscariot, one of the 12 original apostles of Jesus, as the New Testament states.

This kind of stuff is simply ridiculous. Is it insulting that someone would imply that Jesus was fathered by a rapist? Of course, but people are allowed to believe anything they'd like. What's annoying about claims like these is that these idiots have absolutely no evidence to back it up. It's about as credible as the idea that there was a spaceship being dragged behind the Halle-Bopp Comet. He just decides that this is how it maybe happened and call it "the most realistic portrayal" EVER.

Um, sure, buddy. And Starship Troopers and Showgirls were GOOD movies.

Hat Tip: Newsbusters

Lefty blogger: "So 4,000 Rubes Are Dead, Cry Me A Tigris"

There really isn't anything that can adequately prepare you for the depravity of what you are about to read, so let's just jump right into it. Here's an essay from yet another patriotic liberal. Be cautioned before clicking the link: LGF is reporting that clicking the donation link leads to a virus, so be very careful.

So, 4000 rubes are dead. Cry me the Tigris. Another 30,000 have been seriously wounded. Boo fucking hoo. They got what they asked for—and cool robotic limbs, too.

Likely, just reading the above paragraph made you uncomfortable. But why?

The benevolence of America’s “troops” is sacrosanct. Questioning their rectitude simply isn’t done. It’s the forbidden zone. We may rail against this tragic war, but our soldiers are lauded by all as saints. Why? They volunteered to partake in this savage idiocy, and for this they deserve our utmost respect? I think not.

The nearly two-thirds of us who know this war is bullshit need to stop sucking off the troops. They get enough action raping female soldiers and sodomizing Iraqi detainees. The political left is intent on “supporting” the troops by bringing them home, which is a good thing. But after rightly denouncing the administration’s lies and condemning this awful war, relatively sensible pundits—like Keith Olbermann—turn around and lovingly praise the soldiers’ brave service to the country. Why?

What service are they providing? I don’t remember ordering 300,000 dead Iraqis—although I was doing a lot of heavy narcotics back in ‘03. Our soldiers are not providing a service to the country, they’re providing a service to a criminal administration and their oil company cronies. When a mafia don orders a hit, is the assassin absolved of personal responsibility when it’s carried out? Of course not. What if the hit man was fooled into service? We’d all say, “Tough shit, you dumb Guido,” then lock him up and throw away the key.

As a society, we need to discard our blind deference to military service. There’s nothing admirable about volunteering to murder people. There’s nothing admirable about being rooked by obvious propaganda. There’s nothing admirable about doing what you’re told if what you’re told to do is terrible.

We all learned recently that the Bush administration instituted its policy of global torture during quaint White House meetings. And we already know this war was started with lies. Shame on them. But what about the people who physically carry out these atrocities? We’ve seen bad apples punished and CEO despots walk free, but all verbal and written denouncement is focused on our leaders. Surely, they deserve that and more—decapitation, really. But why can’t we be critical of the people who have actually tortured and murdered hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens? We deride private contractors like Blackwater for similar conduct—why are the troops blameless?

...

Again, what is heroic about involving one’s self in a foolish war, being a shitty pilot or getting tortured? Yeah, it must have sucked, but getting your ass kicked every day for five years doesn’t make you a hero—it makes you a Bad News Bear.

Here’s where America’s military lust becomes a true perversion. If we truly valued military prowess, John McCain would be viewed as a failure. But duty alone is enough to inspire our gratitude. Hence the left’s tendency to obligatorily praise the troops while decrying the sum of their actions. Good thing, too, because this war is unwinnable.

...

How despicable must a military campaign be before Americans turn on their beloved troops? After chiding the “War on Toddlers” as fool-headed and pointlessly barbaric, would Keith Olbermann still thank the troops for their service? After the “Great Grandmother Slaughter of 2010,” will the press remove the fat military cock from its mouth? Following “Operation Murder Fluffy Kittens,” will the left finally nix the “honored service” crap? No. No, they won’t.

Pat Dollard has this asshat's contact info. The piece originates out of Buffalo, New York and the author is Ian Murphy. Here's his contact info:
Ian Murphy
ian@buffalobeast.com

This little shithead doesn't understand why so many Americans have such respect and reverence for the military. Maybe it's because of the incredible sacrifice they make on a daily basis -- the risks they put themselves in, the lives they give up, the danger they face daily -- all to defend the freedoms this asshat so thoroughly enjoys.

And he's apparently not content to say he doesn't like our troops -- oh, no. He's gotta smear and slander them while he's at it. Apparently they're raping their fellow female soldiers, sodomizing Iraqis, and murdering civilians right and left.

Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, huh?

Oh, and apparently, John McCain's incredible sacrifice of being tortured daily for five years as a POW in Vietnam is meaningless -- not just meaningless, but stupid and unworthy of our gratitude.

If this guy can't understand the service our troops are making for this country, then he's an idiot. And if he can so cavalierly accuse them of such despicable acts without even a modicum of proof to show that these things are actually happening on a regular basis (which, of course, they aren't), then he isn't just stupid.

I just cannot understand what makes so many on the left hate our military so much. I just don't get it.

There's really no deep commentary I can give to you about this, beyond to say the obvious -- that this guy is a disgusting idiotic creep who must have some kind of mental disorder to look at our military the way he does. The only thing I really can say is this: that every day, I am grateful for the sacrifices that our soldiers have made, because were it not for the fact that they have been so willing to be stronger and more selfless than I am, I wouldn't have the life I had today, and I wouldn't be enjoying the freedoms I enjoy every day. And it is all thanks to our military.

Maybe this asshat should remember who it is that gives him the freedom to say such horrible things.

Hat Tip: Ace of Spades

Reporter to Obama: "Do your amazing good looks hinder your campaign?"

Or... something along those lines. Maybe the local reporter is getting a tingle up her leg, just like Chris Matthews, at the mere mention of Obama's name.

Oh, and stay to listen to him whine about the "underhandedness" of his atrocious bowling score being reported in the media. Apparently, he was really incensed about that -- he's not THAT bad, y'all.


Hat Tip: Hot Air

Quote of the Day

Genius from one of the biggest celebutards out there:

"I don’t know what our government does except put us into debt and blow up other countries."
- Madonna

Right, honey. That's all the government does. How brilliant you are.

At least she admits that she knows jack shit about anything more important than being a provocative slut 24/7 -- that is what she built her career on, right? And if she can admit she knows nothing about government, then she can keep her mouth shut about it as well.

Video of the Day

A flashback to when baseball and patriotism were still synonymous:



Ed at Hot Air writes:

I’ve written about this before at Captain’s Quarters, but the context bears repeating. In 1976, a sense of ennui had gripped the nation. In a year-long bicentennial celebration, many wondered if the economic stagnation that had lasted all decade meant that America’s best years were in the rear-view mirror. The commercialized bicentennial festivities felt forced and false. It seemed that pride in our country had dissipated into cynicism and retreat.

The unprompted, extemporaneous response to Monday’s heroics is the often untold story of that day. Over 40,000 baseball fans saw Monday risk his career by grabbing what could easily have been a fireball to rescue the American flag from a couple of asshats, and suddenly it recalled the real patriotism and passion for America that had been missing in 1976. At first in isolated pockets but soon sweeping around the stands like The Wave would later do, Americans stood up and sang “God Bless America” — not prompted by the stadium organist but fueled by love of country.

If you saw two men attempting to burn an American flag, would you stop them? Or would you continue on your way? I hope that most of us would intervene, but I fear that we've fallen into the same funk that Ed describes above -- thanks primarily to liberals who hate our country and try their hardest to make patriotic Americans ashamed for their love of country.

This video should serve as a reminder of how precious a symbol our flag is.

Hat Tip: Hot Air

Photo of the Day

Creepiest. Photo. EVER.

Kim Kardashian, like, is endorsing, like Barack Obama.

Like, for realz. Because, like, he's totally into, like, change and stuff. That's like, totally something, like, we can all, like, believe in.

Kardashian quickly explained that their dinner was anything but one-on-one: “It wasn’t just him and I. I was at an event.”

"He just seemed very firm about the change, and that’s, like, his motto," Kardashian said, probably trying to allude to Obama’s "Change We Can Believe In" campaign slogan.

That's like, so, like, totally deep. Like.

I wonder, like, if Kim Kardashian could, like, point out one thing, like, that Barack Obama has, like, done in, like, the past ten years. Or if, like, she can explain, like, his association with, like, racist America-hating pastors, and, like, terrorists, and like, other, like, totally not hot people. But, like, how could we, like, ever expect, like, a deep thinker like Kim Kardashian, like, to think, like, about anything deeper than, like, "change". I mean, all she's, like, ever done is, like, have sex with a guy and, like, be Paris Hilton's, like, BFF.

But anyways, like, who cares? Obama is, like, so, like, totally hot right now. And that's like, totally, like, good enough for Hollywood.

Problems in the bedroom?

Dr. Melissa Clouthier has the answers. Here are some of the reasons your sex drive may be suffering:

Messed Up Priorities--Do you really have to watch Sports Center again at 11:00 p.m.? You had a window and it slammed shut with your wife's tired eye lids. Get the kids to bed before your own bedtime. Putting kids to bed at 10 or 10:30 makes for sexual frustration. You're just too tired to do it. Turn off the TV, the computer, the book, the phone calls, the kids, the housework, whatever, and get in bed in time to have sex.
You Hate Your Lover--Oh, you don't want to admit it, but there it is. Sex requires a certain amount emotional engagement. Some men and women find themselves nearly impotent because they cannot imagine having sex with him/her. Their drive is gone. Men are as prone to psychological impotence as women, here. It's called unresolved anger. Find a therapist and resolve it.
Masturbation substitutes for the real deal--It's faster. It's easier. It's less demanding. It can be fit in to the routine. It's convenient for the emotionally stunted who have trouble in a mutual relationship. Whatever the issue, it's a substitute. Maybe it's not no sex drive, maybe it's misapplied sex drive. If you're in a relationship, it's unfair to divert the attention away from your mate.

Check out Melissa's blog for more.

Ramos and Compean drug smuggler pleads guilty

So when will Ramos and Compean be released?

Here's the story:

The Mexican national who was the star witness in a controversial prosecution that resulted in the sentencing of two Border Patrol agents to more than a decade in prison pleaded guilty to multiple drug charges in federal court Thursday.

On Feb. 17, 2005, Osvaldo Aldrete Davila attempted to smuggle more than 700 pounds of marijuana into the United States along the Texas-Mexico border, in the small town of Fabens, Texas. As he tried to flee arrest on foot, two Border Patrol agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, shot at him. Ramos's bullet hit Davila in the buttocks.

The incident gained national attention when U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton with the Western District of Texas worked out an immunity deal for Davila if he would return to the United States and testify against Ramos and Compean.

The case sparked controversy as members of Congress from both parties called for President Bush to pardon the two agents or to commute their sentences. The Senate Judiciary Committee and House Foreign Affairs Committee conducted hearings on the case.

Davila was arrested and indicted last November based on two other drug deals from 2005, and he has pleaded guilty to those crimes. Those crimes, in which he tried to bring illegal drugs into the country in September and October 2005, occurred after he was given immunity for the initial drug bust in February 2005, when he was shot.

Davila was charged with two counts of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, one count of conspiracy to import a controlled substance and one count of conspiracy to possess a controlled substance with intent to distribute.

Davila brought those two loads into the United States during a time when the U.S. Justice Department had given him six unconditional border-crossing cards.

The very fact that these two Border Patrol Agents are in prison is a travesty. President Bush commuted Scooter Libby's sentence -- why not Ramos and Compean? Amd check out what they've had to deal with in prison:

They are now in prisons where they are surrounded by criminals, which they themselves have arrested. They were being held in the general population -- until Ignacio Ramos was the victim of a brutal attack by a group of illegal immigrants yelling “Maten a la migra!” which means “Kill the Border Patrol agent.” He suffered repeated blows and kicks, and allegedly did not receive medical attention for up to 48 hours after the attack. His wife reported he had a concussion, with blood coming out of his ears after the attackers kicked him wearing their prison work-issued, steel toe boots in the back, ribs, and head.

Now that this drug smuggler who took advantage of the immunity given to him for helping to put two good men behind bars to smuggle more drugs has pled guilty for his transgressions, is it not finally time to set Ramos and Compean free? This has gone on long enough. At least someone is seeking clemency for the agents.

Hat Tip: Tammy Bruce

Previous:
What about the Border Patrol Agents?
An Open Letter to President Bush

Wanna die for some guy's art?

Then this project, my friend, is for YOU:

The prizewinning artist Gregor Schneider, enfant terrible of the German cultural scene, is looking for a volunteer who is willing to die for his – that is, Mr Schneider’s – art.

He wants someone whose dying hours will be spent in an art gallery with the public admiring the way the light plays on the flesh of a person gasping for the last breath.

Politicians and curators are in a state of uproar about Mr Schneider’s plans. The 39-year-old artist has been concerned with death for much of his career. He gained critical acclaim for a sculpture, Hannelore Reuen, of a dead woman. He has been hatching his current idea since 1996, and now has a sympathetic pathologist and art collector to help to find a candidate who wants to become a work of art in the final days of his or her life.

“The dying person would determine everything in advance, he would be the absolute centre of attention,” said Mr Schneider. “Everything will be done in consultation with the relatives, and the public will watch the death in an appropriately private atmosphere.”

...

The Schneider project, however, seems to have gone too far. It is being compared with watching executions in the United States. The influential gallery owner Beatrix Kalwa spoke for many German curators who rule out the idea of giving space to Mr Schneider’s artistic endeavour. “Existential matters like death, birth or the act of reproduction do not belong in a museum,” she said. “There is a fundamental difference between portraying these acts in an art form, and showing them in actuality.”

The head of the German hospice foundation that provides care for the terminally ill, Eugen Brysch, said: “This is pure voyeurism and makes a mockery of those who are dying.” But Mr Schneider, who feigned his own death as part of an exhibition in Germany in 2000, argues that death is already undignified and that his aim is to restore its grace.

This guy is a prize-winning artist? Here's an example of his "art":



Modern art is just so great, isn't it? You got people putting crucifixes in urine, covering the Virgin Mary with crap and vaginas, a naked chocolate and "anatomically correct" Jesus, starving dogs, attempting to abort themselves, and now letting someone die in a museum -- and it's all called "art".

Death is not something for people to put on display. Some things deserve respect, and a person dying is one of them.

Green pies and Dumb Pamphlets: Eco-nuts' newest weapons

Since using facts and science doesn't work, eco-nuts have to resort to lying and intimidation to further their anti-Capitalist agenda. The entire global warming environmental wackjob scam is really about anti-capitalism and elitism, after all. The science doesn't measure up. Follow the cash trail and you'll see what this really is all about.

Two eco-nuts used green pies and pamphlets as the newest weapons in the fight to intimidate anyone who doesn't buy into the global warming scam, and unwittingly revealed the true motive (emphasis mine):

A female audience member ran on stage last night and threw a green pie at New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who had just begun a lecture on environmentalism in Salomon 101. The woman had been sitting in the south side of the auditorium's front row when she pulled the pie out of a Brown Bookstore plastic bag that had been tucked in a red backpack and leapt out of her seat.

At the same time the woman threw the pie, a male accomplice seated a few rows back ran down the aisle and onto the stage, throwing small pamphlets explaining the actions into the crowd.

After the pie hit Friedman and splattered on his face and torso, the two jumped offstage and ran out of the southeast exit of the building, followed closely by a man trying to catch them. […]

The pamphlets thrown by the male accomplice identified the pair as the "Greenwash Guerillas," who wrote that they were acting "on behalf of the earth (sic) and all true environmentalists."

One side of the pamphlet contains an excerpt from a September 2006 review of Friedman's book, "The World is Flat," written by Raymond Lotta for the journal "Revolution," which styles itself as the "Voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA." The review is highly critical of Friedman, who the review claims cannot see his own errors while "seated in the business class of his analytical jetliner."

The other side contains five bullet-points explaining why "Thomas Friedman deserves a pie in the face," which include reasons like "his sickeningly cheery applaud for free market capitalism's conquest of the planet," and "for helping turn environmentalism into a fake plastic consumer product for the privileged."

A pie in the face because someone supports free market capitalism? They gave themselves away without even knowing it. What's really interesting is the whining about environmentalism being "a fake plastic consumer product"... for the privileged.

This little incident, by the way, took place at Brown -- an Ivy League school. Think this wackjobs might be just a teensy bit privileged? How about the Goreacle? The celebrities who want to "go green"? Those are some pretty privileged people, wouldn't you say? And of course, while they love to preach about the importance of stopping global warming, actually practicing what they preach is completely out of the question.

When the biggest supporters of global warming are some of the most privileged people on the planet, enjoying the benefits of capitalism daily, do they really have much room to complain?

Here's video of the pie-throwing from Hot Air. Check out the terrible aim:

Thomas Friedman Hit in the Face by a Pie

Of course, the HuffPo loonies couldn't be happier:

Friedman says he is a geo-green. Whether the earth is flat or round he does not care. He is no geo nor green. In fact he does not care a thing about the environment. Friedman is a neocon zionist warmonger, and will propose anything that serves that purpose.

Today a pie, tomorrow maybe something he truly deserved. This is a result of frustration to the absolute short sighted policy of greed and power that has stretched the mob to it's edge. I predicted that this will start happening. You can't keep stamping down legitimate policy change and not expect an eventual backlash. Hide behind your walls 2% of America and pay those security companies. It is only going to get worse. Honestly what do expect?

Ooh, would that pie had hit him square in his know it all corporate loving puss!

I second the motion that Friedman is a pompous gasbag and I too resented his stubborn and pedantic stance on the war. But, if they were my children, those pie throwers would've gotten a spanking. Demonstrate without wasting food. (Part of me wishes I was still young and foolish enough to do something so ... goofy.)

Could not have happened to a more deserving fellow. Profiting on crap is all he is doing.

He deserves a fist in my opinion. I like to see him send his daughters to the war he promoted. He is one SOB.

Why his daughter and not him? He can get his fat ass shot off just like everyone else. I say take all of them, Wolfewitz, Pearle, Feith, David Broder and that other old coot from the NYT and all the rest who sold the f-ing war, including Friedman, and send them to the war they love so much.

Good.
Friedman was a cheerleader for Bush's Iraq war.
The scumbag should donate his speaking fees to veterans' groups.

You really are a clueless little authoritarian twit, aren't you. Throwing a pie is as harnless an expression of disapproval as rotten tomatoes aimed at a bad actor or actress. These were once common demonstrations of disgust, but now in Authoritarian Amerikka, we're not allowed to demonstrate without being corralled into invisible "Free Speech Zones" while the farthest right has hijacked every talk radio station in America and rallies millions to smear, harrass and harangue liberals, a word they have actually turned into a pejorative by sheer force of their bullying nastiness. Yet if you try to call in and point out that thatese baboons who have hijacked the entire AM radio dial and allowed to lie 24/7 by major corporations without challenge or question, you will be shouted down as intolerant for correctly describing the thugs as "rednecks." So we haven't seen the equal application of free speech for 15 years of redneck ruin bullying us into silence.

I have an idea to demonstrate Free Speech in its most creative sense: Let's build and display in the public square of every city actual working replica of guillotines, using the "platform" to educate the public as to what happens when a country gives away its entire budget surplus to billionaires in tax cuts, handing out loanshark prosperity then yanking the houses from under them.

You have to have money to get your point across,you have to fly,you can't promote your agenda from the basement of your home.These people you bumrap are trying to improve the world unlike almost all Republicans who are in a race to destroy the environment,kill all the brown people they can,ruin the economy and oh yeah ,give themselves a tax break.

Bummer. That's cheating. No shortcuts allowed. It's gotta be real pie if it's gonna be a real protest.

I could go on with those for a while, but you get the general idea. If these eco-nuts really wanted to nail eco-hypocrites, though, they really should start with the king of the whole movement: the Goreacle himself.

Hat Tips: Moonbattery and Michelle Malkin

Why Jim DeMint should be McCain's running mate

There's been a lot of chatter about who John McCain will choose to be his running mate. Most worrying is the speculation about Joe Lieberman taking the veep spot.

That would be a bad, bad idea. Already conservatives are angry with John McCain. And while McCain is showing that he can win crossover Democrats, he hasn't shown that he can reach out to conservatives. When he does try to, it comes across as fake, forced. For McCain to win, he needs to be genuine. He isn't a conservative, and he shouldn't try to pretend that he is. He should just be himself, be honest and up front about where he stands, and find another way to reach out to conservatives without coming across as condescending. And the best way to do that is to choose a conservative running mate.

Choosing the person to be your running mate needs to be a strategic move, not about who you've been good buddies with in the Senate. A good politician will choose someone who can balance them out -- someone who is strong where you are weak, who can be tough on the points where maybe you're a little squishy.

And that's why South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint would be a fantastic choice for John McCain's running mate. Let's take a look at his bio for starters:

Elected as South Carolina’s 55th senator in 2004 after serving six years in the U.S House of Representatives, Jim DeMint has quickly established himself as one of the most effective conservative leaders in Washington. He was recently ranked as the Senate’s most conservative member by National Journal and as the number one senator voting for responsible tax and spending policies by the National Taxpayer Union.

Even as a freshman, Jim has shown that he has no interest in sitting on the sidelines in the Senate. Instead, he has leveraged his expertise in placing products and ideas in a crowded marketplace, gained as the owner of a small market research firm. He has become an effective national voice in Washington's fight to regain the trust of the American people, most recently on the issues of immigration and wasteful spending.

In late 2006, he was elected by his colleagues as Chairman of the Senate Steering Committee, which is comprised of the majority of Republican senators and works to shape and advance conservative legislation. He also serves on the Commerce, Science, and Transportation; Energy and Natural Resources; Foreign Relations and Joint Economic Committees.

Senator DeMint is a conservative through and through. He's got experience, and he'd be able to assuage the bruised egos that many conservatives are still nursing. He's a fiscal conservative, and a leader of conservatives in the Senate. The National Journal has named Senator DeMint the most conservative senator. He's been on the front lines of the fight for earmark reform. He has a life ACU rating of 98. The issues he focuses on are earmark reform, illegal immigration, and family values -- which is a good complement for McCain. Conservatives would be happy to know that there is someone in the White House who would fight for their values, and McCain would still have his moderate appeal to capture crossover Democrats.

One of Senator DeMint's strongest positions is on illegal immigration -- which is one of McCain's weakest areas for Republicans and conservatives. McCain has stood for amnesty and open borders, and many people are understandably horrified at the thought of what will happen to our borders and immigration with President John McCain. This is where Vice President Jim DeMint would be the most beneficial. McCain is now claiming that he has changed his mind on illegal immigration and open borders (to an extent), but who can actually believe that? With Senator DeMint as his running mate, there would be a lot more credibility to that claim. Consider how he fought to defeat the shamnesty disaster last year:

After the cloture vote failure at noon on Thursday, Harry Reid could not get unanimous consent to call up amendments to the bill because Jim DeMint refused to give his consent. This was extremely problematic for Reid because he wanted to get in votes on 6 more amendments before the last try at a cloture vote.

At that point, all the senators who were participants in the "Grand Compromise" AKA the "Masters of the Universe" by the opponents of the bill, leaned on DeMint to try to get him to give consent for the bill to move forward. Unfortunately for them, DeMint wouldn't budge. This essentially killed the entire afternoon that the pro-amnesty side hoped to use to shore up support for the bill.

While DeMint was gumming up the works, the opponents of the bill, including most prominently Jim DeMint, Jeff Sessions, and Tom Coburn, huddled and came up with a list of conservative amendments they wanted considered.

The "Grand Compromise" crowd didn't want a lot of these amendments to be voted on because either some of the amendments would have been accepted and it would have killed the bill or alternately, they would have had to vote against common sense enforcement measures and made themselves look bad.

Senator DeMint would be, in my opinion, the best choice for John McCain's running mate. Because, let's face it -- McCain is not now, nor will he ever be, a conservative. We can whine, bith, and gripe all day long about that fact. But it won't change anything -- he'll still be our nominee, and he won't be any more conservative. The solution for McCain and for conservatives would be to get a true conservative in as Vice President -- and Jim DeMint would easily be the best choice.

There's a gator in my kitchen!

Maybe it's sad that this story cracks me up. But it does. This is so Florida!

It's a running joke here in Jacksonville that if you live here long enough, alligator encounters cease to be scary because they happen all the time. And if you have an inground pool in your backyard, forget it. Now, don't get me wrong -- I wouldn't be laughing at an alligator in my kitchen. But I don't know that I'd exactly be surprised, either.

Allah wonders the benefits of living in Florida:

Hurricanes, 98-degree weather with 98% humidity, cockroaches the size of a human fist, the occasional eight-foot gator in the kitchen — what is it that makes it all worth it? Is it the possibility of casting the tiebreaking vote in a U.S. presidential election? Even I’m not that much of a political junkie.

Don't forget the snakes, spiders, and assorted other creepy crawlies. If it stings, flies, or bites, it probably lives here. There's also the sharks, the jellyfish, and the Portuguese Man O' Wars. There's also the occasional tornadoes -- especially during thunderstorm season -- and traffic hazards thanks to all the, erm, transplants who probably shouldn't be driving anymore.

Makes it sound like the untamed wilderness, huh?

Florida. It's a great place to live. (And I really do mean that!!)

Peace thugs attack an Iraq war veteran...

... and his family (emphasis mine).

For the second time in as many weeks, an Iraq War Veteran and his family held a Support the Troops rally across the street from the weekly "peace" protest in this college town. This week the true nature of the ‘peace’ activists was revealed for all to see. When the veteran’s 14 year old son crossed the street to videotape the protesters and their signs, the protesters became agitated and began harassing the boy. The right to record video in any public venue is long established in law and any attempt to interfere with that right is a violation of civil rights.

Seeing the escalating tension across the street, the veteran and his wife crossed over, leaving their three youngest children on the other side for safety while they went to retrieve their eldest son. Two of the female ‘peace’ protesters then attacked the veteran’s wife. When the veteran pulled one of those attackers off his wife he was jumped by four or five of the ‘peace’ people and knocked to the ground where they held him while beating him and smashing his eyeglasses.

The son pulled the remaining attacker off his mother, but the attacker managed to get in one last kick to his mother’s head with her boot. She then punched the son in his face while his mother called the police.

This all took place at a busy intersection, the mother had been knocked into the street in bumper to bumper traffic. People were visible in the windows of shops and a bar nearby. One might think someone would intervene to put a stop to the assault. One would be wrong. In a scene eerily reminiscent of the Kitty Genovese tragedy in New York, the bystanders and passers-by refused to stand up to the ‘peace’ thugs. Displaying a craven cowardice one would not have expected in middle America they would rather go on their way thankful that it was not them being assaulted. It was NOT them, today, but what about tomorrow?

When the police arrived they reviewed the video of the incident and then, astonishingly, refused to make any arrests, even when one of the ‘peace’ thugs spit in the face of on the 14 year old boy right in front of the police and they did nothing! Officers, that is an assault! I don’t know where or how they train police in Edinboro but they obviously need some refresher courses!

One of the police was very aggressive toward the veteran and his family as if they were the attackers!

Can you sink any lower? Is it possible?

It's bad enough -- horrible enough -- to attack a war veteran. But to attack his wife? His child? And all because the fourteen-year-old boy was videotaping their protest.

Sickening. There aren't really any words bad enough to describe the kinds of people who would do something like this.

Sadly, this kind of behavior has become so widespread that a website has been set up to document this attacks, named appropriately enough Peace Thugs. You can also see the extreme intolerance the "peace movement" practices. They don't want people with opposing viewpoints to be able to express them at all -- disagree with the "peace" activists, and suffer the consequences.

These people don't support our military. They don't want our troops home safe. They hate our soldiers and this is why you see recruiting offices attacked and vandalized, veterans cursed at and spat on, and in more and more cases, are physically assaulted.

And most Americans don't even know it's going on.

Our troops are the best and brightest among us. They make incredible sacrifices and take extreme risks to protect us and our rights. They shouldn't be coming home in fear of what they will have to face. We should be standing behind them -- and shunning people who pull these kinds of stunts. Our troops should know, without a shadow of a doubt, that all decent Americans are behind them. It's our responsibility to do that -- and it's the least we can do.

Hat Tip: Gateway Pundit

Julia Roberts doesn't wear deodorant.

Um, ew.

Money quote:

I don't actually use deodorant. I don't like to share that with a lot of people.

Yet she doesn't mind saying it on the Oprah Winfrey show.

And of course, this came up because we should only use organic products to fight global warming.

Me, I'll keep using my deodorant... and all kinds of other products, too, that aren't organic. I don't want to walk around all smelly and nasty so that the Goreacle can line his pockets with his global warming scam. No, thank you.

Hat Tip: Conservative Grapevine

Video of the Day

A live grenade is pulled from a soldier's leg. CRAZY.



Hat Tip: The Jawa Report

Gen. Petraeus to be named Centcom Commander

Gen. Petraeus is getting a well-deserved promotion.

Army Gen. David Petraeus has been asked to take over the U.S. military's Central Command, which oversees combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to the Associated Press.

CNN says Defense Secretary Robert Gates will make a major announcement at 11 a.m. ET.

Army Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno is expected to take command of coalition forces in Iraq, according to CNN and AP.

If he's confirmed by the Senate, Petraeus would replace Adm. William Fallon, who stepped down in March amid reports that he disagreed with the Bush administration's posture toward Iran.

Update at 11:09 a.m. ET: Gates says President Bush will nominate Petraeus to run Central Command and Odierno to take his place in Baghdad.

"I am absolutely confident he is the best man for the job," Gates tells reporters at the Pentagon.

He doesn't expect Petraeus to leave Iraq until late summer or early fall.

Update at 11:15 a.m. ET: Gates says he was surprised by Fallon's request to retire.

"It's my belief that General Odierno, General Petraeus and Admiral Fallon were all in exactly the same position when it came to their views of Iranian interference inside Iraq," he says. "And it is a hard position because what the Iranians are doing is killing American servicemen and women inside Iraq. And so I don't think there's any difference of view among them on that issue whatsoever."

Update at 11:55 a.m. ET: Petraeus just issued a statement: "I am honored to be nominated for this position and to have an opportunity to continue to serve with America's Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, Coastguardsmen, and Civilians."

Blackfive saw this coming before the rest of us did.

Lefties were rooting for Petraeus to get the promotion -- but only because they're terrified he'll run for President in 2012. I don't see Petraeus running for President, but I'd enthusiastically support him if he did!

I have to wonder what this will mean for Iraq, however. Petraeus has done an incredible job with the rebuilding and stabilization process, and handled the surge magnificently. Losing his leadership in Iraq will be a blow, indeed -- but Odierno seems to have been learning from Petraeus and hopefully will be able to step ably into the large shoes Petraeus left for him to fill.

I'll update as more details are made available.

Hat Tip: Hot Air

Photo of the Day

Here's your snortworthy photo of the day:



Hat Tip: Moonbattery

In honor of Earth Day...

... here's your Goracle lie for the day.

Most of us with a modicum of common sense already know that Al Gore's fictional film, An Inconvenient Truth, was full of crap. I call it fictional because that movie was so full of lies, manipulations, and, well, crap that there's no way you could call it a documentary.

ABC news points out just how fake it actually was -- they used computer generated images from the fictional movie The Day After Tomorrow. Newsbusters has the transcript:

SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS)

(Voiceover) Wait a minute, that shot looks just like the one in the opening credits of 'The Day After Tomorrow."

KAREN GOULEKAS (VISUAL EFFECTS SUPERVISOR)

Yeah, that's, that's our shot. That's a fully computer generated shot. There's nothing real in there.

SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS)

(Voiceover) Audiences expect Hollywood to twist fact into fiction. But Gore's documentary does the opposite, using a fake shot to make a real point, that ice shelves are disappearing, and vanishing ice means global warming.

KAREN GOULEKAS (VISUAL EFFECTS SUPERVISOR)

That was one hell of a shot. I think it's great that he used it.

SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS)

(Voiceover) It seems the decision for now is left to the audience. Can the same created image educate and entertain us about our planet in change?

SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS)

(Off-camera) And it raises another question for you to consider. Is it wrong for a documentary to use a fabricated Hollywood shot to make a point, even if there's science behind it? Well, we tried to ask Al Gore and the movie studio, but neither responded to our calls.

Interestingly enough, this clip was cut from the video ABC posted on their website. Wonder why they felt they needed to do that.

Of course, if global warming wasn't a huge scam, then the Goracle wouldn't need to use fake Hollywood shots to push his point. If the science was accurate and reliable, he wouldn't have to just make stuff up. But he's got an agenda to push, dang it, and he'll do whatever he needs to do! Who cares if the ice in Antarctica is actually thickening? Global warming is real, because Al Gore says it is!!

Hat Tip: Moonbattery

Foreign Policy vs. Waffles? No contest!

Well, apparently Barack Obama can't be bothered to answer questions about foreign policy... not when he's eating his waffles, gosh darn it!


Maybe the Snobamamessiah doesn't realize that when you campaign, people will ask you questions. And if he really does have such superior foreign policy knowledge and experience, then why does it bother him if he happens to be eating a waffle? What, he can't swallow the bite he has in his mouth, answer the question, and resume eating? It should be a cakewalk for him, since he is so experienced in foreign policy. Right?

I really love how he gets so annoyed over pushy reporters. What's his reaction going to be if he's President and entire countries get "pushy"?

Thank heavens it was just a waffle and not some yummy arugula. What would his response have been then??

Hat Tips: Michelle Malkin and Right Wing News

Who do white men hate more, blacks or women?

That is the question posed by Nora Ephron -- the writer who gave us such sappy movies as "You've Got Mail", "Sleepless in Seattle", and "When Harry Met Sally". (Emphasis mine, of course.)

... But now there are two and we're facing Pennsylvania and whom are we kidding? This is an election about whether the people of Pennsylvania hate blacks more than they hate women. And when I say people, I don’t mean people, I mean white men. How ironic is this? After all this time, after all these stupid articles about how powerless white men are and how they can’t even get into college because of overachieving women and affirmative action and mean lady teachers who expected them to sit still in the third grade even though they were all suffering from terminal attention deficit disorder — after all this, they turn out (surprise!) to have all the power. (As they always did, by the way; I hope you didn’t believe any of those articles.)

To put it bluntly, the next president will be elected by them: the outcome of Tuesday’s primary will depend on whether they go for Hillary or Obama, and the outcome of the general election will depend on whether enough of them vote for McCain. A lot of them will: white men cannot be relied on, as all of us know who have spent a lifetime dating them. And McCain is a compelling candidate, particularly because of the Torture Thing. As for the Democratic hope that McCain’s temper will be a problem, don’t bet on it. A lot of white men have terrible tempers, and what’s more, they think it’s normal.

If Hillary pulls it out in Pennsylvania, and she could, and if she follows it up in Indiana, she can make a credible case that she deserves to be the candidate; these last primaries will show which of the two Democratic candidates is better at overcoming the bias of a vast chunk of the population that has never in its history had to vote for anyone but a candidate who could have been their father or their brother or their son, and who has never had to think of the president of the United States as anyone other than someone they might have been had circumstances been just slightly different.

Hillary’s case is not an attractive one, because what she’ll essentially be saying (and has been saying, although very carefully) is that she can attract more racist white male voters than Obama can. Nonetheless, and as I said, she has a case.

Holy Christ Almighty. Where to even begin.

I think it's fair that Ephron is saying in this piece that white males are dumb, angry, racist, sexist, and unreliable, and only are in positions of power because they are white males. Can we all be in agreement on that?

Good. Because it's all crap.

Why is it that liberals think that, if white men decide not to vote for Obama, it means they HATE black people? Or that if they don't vote for Hillary, they HATE women? Did it ever occur to them that they, like all intelligent people in the United States, don't like their politics? Gee, what a thought.

And what's interesting is how Ephron sneers at the "suffering" white men receive at the hands of mean women, and points out how these white men are "somehow" able to rise above affirmative action, feminism, and the myriad of benefits handed to minorities simply for... being a minority. The difference, my dear Nora, is that most white men don't see themselves as victims. A lot -- but not all -- of minorities, feminists, and liberals do. Therefore, when white men are presented with overwhelming obstacles, they find a way to overcome them. A lot of people who are women and/or minorities do this, too, but it doesn't fit into the "WHITE MEN IN POWER!!" screed.

It's called being in charge of your own life, and not letting anyone stand in the way of achieving your goals but yourself -- liberal victims should try it some time, rather than relying on government programs to give them the world.

And yes, this next election will be decided mainly by white men. They are the largest voting block. In a democratic society, that is the way it works. If the largest voting block was Hispanic women, then Hispanic women would decide. You can't force equality in the amount of people who vote -- although I'm sure liberals would love to. In the name of fairness, of course! To make sure minority voices are heard, they'd be more than happy to silence white male majority voices.

Right, Nora?

But, of course, we can't rely upon white men to do anything except, apparently, keep minorities and women down. And we women know this having dated them.

Nora, if you're reading this, I want you to repeat this after me five hundred times. Actually, just keep repeating it until it sinks into that hate-filled little brain of yours.

MEN. ARE. NOT. THE. ENEMY.

I don't know if you're single or not, but Nora honey, if you are, it isn't because men are unreliable scum. It's probably because you hate men and your insane ideas of what men should be send them running away from you screaming. If you are married to a white man, well... I'd be curious about how it is your husband lives with someone who apparently thinks so lowly of all white men.

And I hate to break it to you, but white men are not the only ones with awful tempers. In fact, I'd argue that women are worse than men are in the temper department. They may not be able to hit as hard or yell as loud, but women are malicious. They're vindictive. They don't forget anything. The quote "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" is in existence for a reason. Piss off a woman, and she will want to make your life a living hell. Settling the dispute won't be good enough, oh no. This is because most women are, quite frankly, vindictive bitches -- ask any twelve-year-old girl which sex is more cruel. I dare you. And that's probably because most women are more emotional than men are. Men can be more logical; when they're in an argument, most of them are able to keep their emotions out of it. A lot of women can't.

I really don't understand the man-hating that goes on so prevalently. Why are white men looked at so much as the enemy? You can say they're "in power", but there are white male CEOs and white male blue collar workers. It isn't like every white man looks like the Monopoly guy, living in some ivory tower, pointing and laughing at the brutal sufferings of his female and minority slaves. What reality do these people live in?

Rachel wonders if it hurts to see the world that way, and kinda hopes so. I really hope so. How awesome would it be if this kind of hate, stupidity, and ignorance was painful?

I know I'd laugh.

Hat Tip: Rachel Lucas

Benny al Dosakee with Lee Greenwood

Iraqi interpreter Benny al Dosakee has been granted a green card, and was invited to an event with "God Bless the USA" singer Lee Greenwood. He gets to hear the song for the first time in this video.



Inspiring.

On a tip from John Hawkins.

Kerry tries to make up for his nine years of doing nothing; fails miserably.

I guess John Kerry didn't like people pointing out that he's been a waste of space in Congress for the last nine years. He released a list of legislative accomplishments... none of which can actually be attributed to him.

Heh. Watch:

Here's the list of Kerry's so-called accomplishments.

A lot of commenters said that they were glad that politicians like Kerry haven't been able to do anything. That's true; but it's also yet another reason to kick his sorry ass out of Congress and replace him with someone who loves his country, his military, and his fellow Americans, and is more concerned with serving those fellow Americans than furthering his own career.

I know, I know -- that would mean tossing out a lot more people than just John Kerry. But he's not a bad place to start.

Hat Tip: Moonbattery

Ready to get the goosebumps?

Then watch this video. I work way too much to be able to have seen all of the welcome festivities for the Pope, which sucks in and of itself, but I'm especially sore to have missed this. Rosetta at The Hostages says,

If you don’t get goose bumps in the last minute you need to see a doctor.

I disagree. It took the U.S. Army Chorus, oh, two notes before I got the goosebumps. I don't think angels could have sung any more beautifully.

Enjoy:


I don't think you could find a better example of God-loving patriotism than that.

Hat Tip: Ace of Spades

More from Aliza Shvarts: Ranting against the "Patriarchal Heteronormative"

Oh, boy. Here's video of Aliza Shvarts, the girl I just wrote about earlier today, who made an art project out of artificially inseminating herself as often as possible, and then -- somehow -- giving herself home abortions.

Well, here's Aliza ranting against the "institution", and the "establishment", the "patriarchal heteronormative"... and a lot of other crap. Try to figure out what kind of point she was trying to make, because I couldn't figure out what she was saying. It's the definition of talking and talking without saying a word.

Is she just the definiton of a spoiled rich brat wanting to feel important or what?!

Welcome to the modern feminist movement.

Hat Tip: American Digest

Don't Go ahead and tase me, bro!

What happens when you get pulled over for a traffic stop, don't comply with the officer, tell him to "do what you gotta do", swing at the officer when he tries to arrest you, and then turn around and try to walk away?

Well, this happens.

Liberals will probably get their panties all in a bunch over this, of course, but this guy had it coming. You cannot swing at a police officer and not get tasered -- not to mention walking to a vehicle filled with unidentified people. How does the officer know what his intentions are, especially after this former football player just swung at him?

I don't care if the police officer is wrong in the situation (and there hasn't been a video I've seen yet where I've thought he has been). When he tells you to comply, you comply. If he tells you not to walk away, don't walk away. When you are about to be arrested is not the time to fight the officer -- if he really is in the wrong, there's a time and place to do so, and most of these idiots we see getting tasered, if not all of them, don't seem to be able to understand that.

He's got only himself to blame.

Hat Tip: Hot Air

The Ed Morrissey Show

Today I will be on the Ed Morrissey Show from 3:00 - 3:30. Make sure to listen in; we'll be talking about my recent female blogger post, and possibly last night's Democratic debate.

Make sure to tune in!

Vote our way... OR ELSE.

Here's a tolerant post from the oh-so-tolerant folks over at the Daily Kos. Either we vote Barack into office... or it's revolution time, baby.

The United States of America are on the brink of a major revolution. I am not talking about some fuzzy "internet revolution" or similar hogwash but the real McCoy.

I mean armed uprising, riots, civil war. The full Monty.

I know, I know, you are going to say that this is impossible, no way, I am being pessimistic etc.

...

This is outrageous but not surprising as the ckickens are coming home to roost and after exploiting pretty much the whole globe and now facing stiff competion of other players like China, India, and Brazil, the US corporations have resorted to the last market they have not sucked dry until recently: the American Homeland.

The people are understandably outraged and demand action (Welcome to the club. Do you now understand why all over the world American flags have been burned?). In previous elections it was easy to distract, you only had to find a big enough gotcha or push enough buttons to distract from a pressing issue. However, this time there are not enough buttons to push and by panically pushing ALL buttons hard and often this tool is being overused and backfires.

...

This election, and the way an Obama administration is going to perform, is the crossroads for the American Nation. Either reform or revolution. The powers to be are not going to cede their powers voluntarily. They never do. If Obama fails, there will be someone else and there is no guarantee that this is not going to be someone like Lenin, or worse, Hitler.

But after so much gloom, cheer up! Here come the good news: If the nation and people in question were anyone else but America and the Americans I would stick a fork in them.

The Americans however, have proven to be a very special people and to have the incredible ability to do the right thing (after trying all other options to quote Winston C. here). Obama is going to be the next president and you can count yourself lucky. You are probably the luckiest b*stards in the universe to have such a leader emerging then when you need him the most.

On the other hand, you should never forget what is at stake and what awaits should you fail.

Gee, how tolerant. How democratic. The people decide something that the Kos Kids don't like, and it's time to rebel! Show those nasty Republicans who's boss!!

I could talk about how crazy this is, or about how indicative this is of the psyches of the insane left. But I had a different thought.

On what planet do liberals think they could overthrow us conservatives using violent force?! I mean, come on now. Which side likes guns? I mean, they tell us all the time how we're violent, war-mongering, gun-toting, God-fearing demons. Let's just say that they're exactly right. We're violent, war-mongering, gun-toting, God-fearing demons. Well, liberals, then, are peaceful, Kumbaya-singing, gun-fearing, atheist idiots. Who do you think would win in that fight, hmm?

Seriously. What would they do? Throw daisies at us?

Oh, wait, that's right. Liberals believe in diplomacy. So they'd sit there and talk us to death. Ask us how this new American Revolution makes us feel. Try to find out our motivation for being evil violent demons. Try to talk us into being "better" Americans. Cuz, you know, diplomacy works and all.

Although, I think I'd rather take my chances with a shotgun than have to endure liberal "diplomacy" until I surrender. I mean, that's gotta be one of the nine circles of hell.

In any case, if this guy really thinks that a revolution is what's needed, then bring it on.

As if they'd stand a chance.

Hat Tip: Right Wing News

There are no words.

There are no words, when something like this is considered art:

Art major Aliza Shvarts '08 wants to make a statement.

Beginning next Tuesday, Shvarts (pictured) will be displaying her senior art project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she artificially inseminated herself "as often as possible" while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibition will feature video recordings of these forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process.

The goal in creating the art exhibition, Shvarts said, was to spark conversation and debate on the relationship between art and the human body. But her project has already provoked more than just debate, inciting, for instance, outcry at a forum for fellow senior art majors held last week. And when told about Shvarts' project, students on both ends of the abortion debate have expressed shock saying the project does everything from violate moral code to trivialize abortion.

But Shvarts insists her concept was not designed for "shock value."

"I hope it inspires some sort of discourse," Shvarts said. "Sure, some people will be upset with the message and will not agree with it, but it's not the intention of the piece to scandalize anyone."

The "fabricators," or donors, of the sperm were not paid for their services, but Shvarts required them to periodically take tests for sexually transmitted diseases. She said she was not concerned about any medical effects the forced miscarriages may have had on her body. The abortifacient drugs she took were legal and herbal, she said, and she did not feel the need to consult a doctor about her repeated miscarriages.

OK, well, the "there are no words" thing is false. There ARE words.

This is disgusting, this is vile, and I cannot believe that Yale would approve this kind of thing.

Actually, well, yes, I can believe it, but it saddens me. A lot. What is happening on these college campuses? Students seem to pretty much have free reign to do whatever they feel like doing, and there sure won't be any faculty or staff to stop them -- unless, of course, it's involving a conservative viewpoint. As long as it fits into the liberal agenda, then students can do anything, no matter how depraved.

And I have to wonder how this girl's parents feel about this. They couldn't possibly be proud, could they? I mean, what would they say? "Oh, gee, well, we're so happy that our little girl is endangering her health and sanity by giving herself multiple abortions without seeing a doctor first, and then putting her blood and the videos of her home abortions on display at school. She's just so smart, we're so proud!"

Was this girl also not concerned about her health at all? Well, that's a stupid question -- apparently not, because if she was, she would have seen a damn doctor.

Is the story about the sperm donors strange to anyone but me? I mean... so, she was "artificially inseminated", but they weren't paid for their "donation". How, exactly, did she go about acquiring it? Something seems a little off there, but maybe I'm just reading too much into it.

In any case, this is easily the most awful story I'm going to write about today -- probably this week. Yale shouldn't be allowing this to go on. Yes, this girl has freedom of speech like all the rest of us, but no one is required to go out of their way to support that -- they just can't hinder it. The university has every right to tell her they don't want this disgusting display on their campus, but we all know they won't.

That something like this is allowed to go on -- and is considered art, no less -- is a sad indicator of what our society is like today.

Hat Tip: Gateway Pundit

Poor Little Female Bloggers

I don't remember how, but a few days ago I stumbled across this blog post about why there is apparently a lack of female bloggers on Glamour's political blog:

I asked around and heard a lot of different answers. Some say it's because the men got a head start. Jen Moseley, the politics editor at Feministing says, "I think there are a lot of female political bloggers out there. But since most of the 'old guard' big political blogs (funny that something 4-5 years old can be considered old now), were started by men, so they're still looked at as the only ones that matter."

Amy Richards, an author and one of the co-founders of Third Wave, thinks that the amount of attention focused on the boys might be more than just their first-mover status—it's an artifact of their historical control of the media. Richards claims that "Political punditry has always been dominated by men and thus blogging is likely to follow that pattern." Richards agrees that women aren't becoming blogospheric stars as quickly as some of their male colleagues. She says, "I know that women are jumping into this debate with their opinions and perspectives, but because they are doing so in spaces more likely to attract women—they aren't being legitimized."

Ezra Klein agreed with Amy about the ghettoization of female voices, noting that while male political bloggers are known as "political" bloggers, women are more often known as "feminist" bloggers. "There's this rich and broad feminist blogosphere, which is heavily female and very political, but considered a different sort of animal. Is Jill Filipovic a political blogger? Ann Friedman?" he says. Male bloggers are seen as talking about politics with a universal point of view, but when we women bring our perspective to the field, it's seen as as a minority opinion.

But does it have to be that way? Blogs are supposed to be populist and thus it would seem like women could more easily level the playing field here than in other media. Red State's Mike Krempasky says, "You'd think the internet would be the great equalizer or the ultimate meritocracy. 'far from it." Looking at my blogroll, I'd have to agree.

Argh. How do we change that? How loud do women have to shout? Or is it sadly that we have to stop seeing politics from a woman's point of view to get taken seriously?

UGH.

Whenever I read these kinds of articles, I just want to smack the author in the face. Here's what they seem to be completely incapable of understanding: if you think you're a victim, that's all you'll ever be.

First of all, is Arianna Huffington really the best example of a female blogger she could come up with? I can think of several right off the top of my head: Michelle Malkin (duh!), Pamela Geller, Em Zanotti, LaShawn Barber, Mary Katharine Ham, Rachel Lucas, Melissa Clouthier... the list goes on and on, and these are just conservative female bloggers.

Right Wing News even did two pieces on female conservative bloggers, and most of them looked at being a female blogger as an asset.

I've never had one single person tell me my opinion had less merit because I'm a woman, or that I wasn't as good as the guy bloggers out there. I've seen no evidence of a "boy's club" in the blogosphere; in fact, every single male blogger I have had any kind of communication with whatsoever has been gracious, helpful, and more than willing to assist me in building my blogging career.

And good grief, the "ghettoization" of female voices?! What the hell planet is this Megan Carpentier writing from? Because there are more male bloggers than female, female voices are being "silenced" and "ghettoized"?!

Uh, sorry, honey. Not quite. Maybe if you live in Saudi Arabia you could have a point. But here, the only thing keeping female bloggers back is... female bloggers.

Why, then, are there more male bloggers than female? The answer is simple, and it's feminism's favorite catch phrase: choice. Men, in general, are more interested in politics than women are. Sure, women are interested, but I don't think that there are as many women who are diehard political junkies like there are men. Go ahead, feminists, rip my skin off for stating That Which Must Never Be Said: that women do not have the same interests as men do. Anyways, if you want proof, look at blogosphere readership. Most people reading politics blogs are men, so it stands to reason that most political bloggers would be men as well. This also means being a female blogger is more of an asset, and not just because it gives all your male readers something to ogle at (although that's a plus, too). It means you stand out more, your blog stands out more. And that's a good thing.

Women also tend to be more thin-skinned. The insults female bloggers get are very personal, and very hurtful. They very often have nothing whatsoever to do with what you're actually writing about, unless of course you're talking about how ugly you are or perverted sexual tendencies. A lot of women just cannot take that kind of thing. It's like an arrow to the heart for them. After so much of that, a lot of them quit, because it isn't worth the stress and heartache for them.

And why does the internet -- the political blogosphere, specifically -- need to be "the great equalizer"? Why does it matter how many female vs. male bloggers there are out there? There is not one blog I read because of the gender of the author. I read them because of the content in the blogs, what the blogger has to say. I could give two shits whether it's a man or a women writing behind the computer screen. Putting the emphasis on something as shallow as gender accomplishes what? Instead of focusing on the skin-deep, why doesn't this lady focus on the ideas different bloggers put forth?

I don't know where feminists got this idea that all male-dominated careers were unfair to women unless there are an exactly equal number of women participating in these careers, but it's ridiculous. They need to get over the bean-counting. Living in a state of perpetual outrage or victimhood will get you nowhere.

So, Miss Megan, as long as you live in a mindset where Poor Little Female Bloggers can't make it in the Mean Old Boys' Club, then that's exactly what it will always be for you. Meanwhile, those of us who realize that we can make it if we're willing to work hard enough are too busy enjoying our careers as bloggers to worry about the ratio of male vs. female bloggers. Whining about female voices being silenced when it's not even remotely the truth just makes you look insecure and idiotic.

Grow up, and instead of blaming the mean 'ole misogynistic men for your failures, take responsibility for yourself. Start living in the real world. There are a wealth of intelligent, unique, thoughtful voices out there, both male and female. You don't have to be a brain surgeon to see that.

Happy Tax Day!

To celebrate your tax day -- everyone's favorite day of the year -- here's a fun little video, featuring Senator Ted Kennedy:



Do as I say, not as I do. Right, right.

Was it just me, or did he look a little red-faced? Do you think maybe he'd had a few to drink?

Jeesh. Silly me. That was a dumb question. Wondering whether or not Teddy Kennedy's been drinking is like wondering whether the Sun rises in the East or the West... the answer's pretty obvious.

Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin

Women make an informed choice?! How DARE they?!

Feministing is hyperventilating over a new Oklahoma law that requires for women to view ultrasounds before having abortions, and that the doctor must point out all the features of that child as well (heartbeat, fetal movements, etc.).

Because, you know, how dare women see an image of the baby they're about to kill!

An in-the-know friend of Feministing emailed to explain the bill to us:

SB 1878 is a hideous piece of anti-choice omnibus legislation that would, among other things, compel physicians one hour prior to performing an abortion to do an ultrasound on the patient and point out various features (e.g. heart beat, fetal movements) to the patient. A vaginal probe ultrasound is mandated if that gives the best image, even in those instances where the unwanted pregnancy is the result of rape. In first trimester terminations (almost all of them) that will be the case. There is a very hefty penalty if the physician fails to perform an ultrasound. (BTW, Oklahoma already has a law that requires doctors to offer women the opportunity to view an ultrasound at no cost to the woman by referral to a location that provides no-cost ultrasounds).

The bill also:

Prevents employers from "discriminating" against health care workers who refuse to perform a medical procedure (i.e. abortion, or a pap smear on a single woman)

Says only physicians can prescribe mifepristone (the abortion pill also known as RU-486) -- even though this is already the law

Requires women's health clinics that provide abortion to "conspicuously" post a sign on the premises that states it is "against the law for anyone, regardless of his or her relationship to you, to force you to have an abortion."

The Oklahoma State Medical Association opposes the bill because it interferes with the practice of medicine. Also, if a doctor fails to comply with the law, the fines are absurd -- starting at $10,000 and possibly up to $100,000. (Compare that to the maximum fine for DUI or reckless homicide in Oklahoma -- $1,000.)

...

Antichoicers call this "informed consent." But as Jessica wrote awhile back, when Will Saletan had a horrible column on mandatory-ultrasound legislation,

Because obviously women who have made the decision to end a pregnancy won’t understand the “truth” unless it’s put up on an easy-viewing screen. As Amanda so aptly noted in an email exchange: "If women only knew that they were getting abortions when they got abortions!!!!!"

Right. What mandatory-ultrasound-viewing bills do is insult women by assuming they haven't fully considered what they're doing when they decide to opt for abortion. We don't need the "help" of antichoice state legislators to understand what abortion is. We get it.

What is it with pro-abortion advocates being against this? If abortion is so great, and you aren't actually killing a child, then why does it matter if a mother sees an ultrasound? If it's no big deal, and it's just a "blob of flesh", as abortionists like to say so often, then it shouldn't be a problem.

Of course, the reason abortion advocates are so against this is because they know that if many women see an ultrasound of their baby, they'll change their mind. And we all know how lucrative the abortion business is. But in this bill, women are allowed to "avert their eyes" if they so choose during the ultrasound, so really, aren't they really complaining about nothing? If she so chooses, she can close her eyes and never look at the baby she's about to murder. Fine, go ahead -- whatever makes you sleep better at night, honey.

And why criticize the anti-discrimination part of the bill? If a doctor wants to work at, say, Planned Parenthood so he can help women who can't afford to see an OB/GYN or get birth control, but doesn't want to perform abortions, then isn't that his decision? They're basically arguing that doctors should be prosecuted for refusing to perform abortions. How does that make any sense?

The sign, in my opinion, is a great idea. Too many women are forced into abortions, led to believe that they have no other choices, by boyfriends or husbands most often, but by the clinic workers themselves as well. (But hey, gotta bring in that dough!)

So, posting a sign saying that it is illegal to force a woman to have an abortion is a negative... how?

The complaints about these types of things really show that the "pro-choice" movement isn't about choice at all. Choice has nothing to do with it. They want all women to have abortions... they want abortions to be as commonplace as Pap smears (and no, Amanda Marcotte, they aren't quite the same thing). They don't want women to decide to keep their baby or give it up for adoption, for reasons I just can't understand. Even if you're pro-abortion, why is it something to be proud of, to push women towards? No one should want to have an abortion. It's a horrible, awful thing. If you really feel like you have no choice, then it's understandable (sort of). But to parade around like it's no big thing to abort a baby is ridiculous. It is a big deal -- it's a huge deal -- and it's something that will often have a lifelong (negative) effect on the mother.

If abortion advocates really were about choice, then provisions like this wouldn't make them so angry. They'd want these mothers to make informed choices, they'd want them to know exactly what was going on with these babies so that they understand completely what it is they're doing. You can sneeringly claim that of course they understand what they're doing, but most don't. They're scared, they're confused, and they feel like they have no other options. It's only fair to them to tell them -- to show them the life growing inside of them, to give them all possible information about adoption and what help is available if they choose to keep the child. She should then be told exactly what the procedure will be like, including how painful it will be and what effect it has on the baby. Then, and only then, can you say that a mother has a made an informed choice. Only then can she truly understand exactly what she's doing.

But see, if that were to happen before every woman went in to have an abortion, I'd wager that the number of abortions would plummet. And abortion advocates simply can't have that.

Pro-"choice"? Bullshit.