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.

Photo of the Day

Here's your snortworthy photo of the day:



Hat Tip: Moonbattery

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

Compassionate Conservatism? You got that right.

Liberals like to make themselves feel high and mighty through their self-righteous efforts to "save" the less-fortunate, usually through horrible policies that put the very less-fortunate liberals pretend to care about in worse positions than they were in before. But hey, it makes libs feel all warm and squishy inside, and then they get to pretend that they "care" -- paging John Edwards if you need an example. They then simultaneously deride conservatives as heartless bastards who don't give a rat's ass about those worse off than we are. They sneer about "compassionate conservatives", but guess what? They got that exactly right.

George Will's new Townhall column gives us some interesting facts about who puts their money where their mouth is, from Arthur Brooks' book, Who Really Cares: The Suprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.

The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.

Liberals, when you start putting your own money where your mouth is, rather than taxing the little people you claim to want to help into oblivion to make up for your own lack of charity, then we'll believe that you really care. Until then, I think we'll hang on to that compassionate conservative label. It seems about perfect.

Hat Tip: Moonbattery

Breaking News: Psychiatrist finds that liberals are crazy!

A psychiatrist who has treated over 1,500 patients has come to the unshocking conclusion that liberalism is indeed a mental disorder.

Just when liberals thought it was safe to start identifying themselves as such, an acclaimed, veteran psychiatrist is making the case that the ideology motivating them is actually a mental disorder.

"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness." "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."

...

Rossiter says the kind of liberalism being displayed by the two major candidates for the Democratic Party presidential nomination can only be understood as a psychological disorder.

"A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do," he says. "A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do."

Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:

creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;

satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;

augmenting primitive feelings of envy;

rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.

"The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says. "When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."

So, Dr. Rossiter has concluded what conservatives have been saying for a long, long time -- that liberalism is nothing more than politics practiced by someone with a mindset of a five-year-old, immature and emotional.

Does this mean that with some mental help, liberalism can disappear? Interesting, indeed...

Hat Tip: Evaluation

Liberals + Murderers - Death Penalty = Justice

Troy Victorino is notorious in Florida. He's known as the ringleader of the group of thugs responsible for the aptly named "XBox Murders" -- the brutal, savage slayings of six people in Deltona, Florida.

Here in Jacksonville, the local "alternative" paper (read: liberal), Folio Weekly, interviewed Victorino, who is currently on Death Row at the Union Correctional Institute in Raiford. Unsurprisingly, the interview was all about the injustice of the death penalty, how the state is out to get vengeance, and how the death penalty doesn't solve anything. I won't post the entire interview, but here are some snippets:

Folio Weekly: What's your view of capital punishment?
Troy Victorino: My personal views are that it doesn't solve anything. It's just a way of murdering someone legally. There's no real sense to it. It doesn't solve any problems. It doesn't fix anything. It doesn't deter crime.

FW: Are you talking about revenge?
TV: Yeah. As long as the public cheers it on, they're not gonna stop it.

FW: You're saying it's not the actual lethal injection that's cruel and unusual, but simply undergoing execution?
TV: I think that anytime that you kill anyone, it's cruel and unusual. Especially if you lock them away for X amount of time and every day that person has to dwell on the day that they're gonna die. And people out there, cheering it on, the news broadcasting it all over, it's just a public spectacle. And I think it's more cruel in that sense than any other. Anytime you kill someone, there's a measure of cruelty. That's anything -- in any kind of homicide or killing.

How compelling. I especially loved the part where the murderer talks about how cruel it is to kill someone. Ain't that irony for you.

For those unfamiliar, here's what happened:

From the doorway, to the left, a 17-year-old lay in a recliner, legs draped across an ottoman. His head was crushed and his face, neck, chest and stomach stabbed. His wounds show he fought hard. He was a musician and an actor. His name was Jonathan Gleason.

A few feet away, a 34-year-old lay on the floor -- beaten in the face. He had left New York City to escape trouble and violence. His name was Anthony Vega.

Around the corner, past the closet, Vega's girlfriend was in a bedroom. She was stabbed behind her ear, and in her right breast and hip. Others in the home had been mutilated after they died. But this 19-year-old whose father called her "Princess" hung on for quite a while. While her heart continued to beat, they slit her throat, three times. That's all she could take. Her name was Michelle Ann Nathan.

Across the hall, lying in the doorway of the next bedroom was a 28-year-old. Like Vega and Gleason, he, too, fought. But he also suffered a similar fate. He was stabbed at least 15 times in his chest and 10 times in his stomach. But he died from being beaten in the head. His name was Roberto Gonzalez. His friends called him "Tito."

No single room held more death than the master bedroom. Next to flipped mattresses lay a 30-year-old from Puerto Rico, naked. Just one head wound stretched from his ear to his forehead. Teeth were knocked out. His throat cut. His name was Francisco Ayo-Roman. His friends called him "Flaco."

On the other side of the room, a limp brown figure lay. It was a dachshund named George. Someone had stomped his snout so many times it killed him. He lay next to his master, her legs half inside the bathroom, naked body halfway out. It's here Flaco's 22-year-old girlfriend offered up a final breath after suffering the most abuse of the six victims. Even after she died from the beatings and the cuts, her body had been sexually desecrated.


Her connection to another home had sparked trouble. She called the police after finding a man's belongings in her grandmother's home. There was a run-in, and then another. The man grew angrier and angrier. He wanted his stuff back. He wanted revenge. She didn't want a fight.

She wanted it to end, and this is how it did.

Her name was Erin Belanger. She was raped with a baseball bat.

Three other men were responsible for the murders besides Victorino: Robert Cannon, Jerone Hunter, and Michael Salas. But multiple people pointed to Victorino as the ringleader. He had it out for Erin Belanger.

Belanger had called the police when she discovered Victorino squatting in her grandmother's house. She removed his belongings from her "Nana's" house, including an Xbox. She kept it boxed up in her house and was willing to give it back to him. But Victorino was furious that she called the police on him, and the quest for revenge started.

He initially gathered six people to go by the house Belanger lived in, and a screaming match started. Belanger, terrified, called the police. Victorino and his group of thugs left, but not until they had slashed the tires of two cars. One of the people who participated, Nicole Kogut, told investigators:

"I was like, hold it, we did, just did like $500 worth of damage. And Troy's like, 'So? I want them dead.'"

So Victorino gathered some people and went to Wal-Mart to get his weapons of choice: baseball bats. He had accomplices. He had the tools. He planned the attack. Six people were soon to be brutally killed, and Victorino was found guilty and sentenced to the death penalty.

And like many murderers, much of Victorino's life has been a crime spree.

Before the Aug. 6, 2004, killings, eight of his last 11 years had been spent in prison -- six for beating a man so severely he needed 18 hours of reconstructive surgery. Victorino pummeled Michael Simpson for four to six minutes, records show, shoving a walking cane down his throat and knocking out three of his teeth. The reason for the violence: Simpson would later say he believed Victorino wanted his souped-up Honda CRX.

Behind bars, Victorino was still notorious. He was repeatedly disciplined in prison for fighting and generally being "a security threat," state documents show. One time in 2000, he was accused of hitting an inmate in the face with a lock after calling him a snitch. Locked up, he still had power -- he was the leader of a Latin Kings gang, state records show.

Most ordinary people would celebrate the fact that this violent monster is behind bars and will be put to death, never again able to inflict such pain and torture upon innocent people.

But not if you're a liberal.

If you're a liberal, you'll probably be howling about the injustice of the death penalty, and how cruel it is. I think beating and stabbing someone to death, only to then rape them with a baseball bat, is pretty damn cruel, too. And no matter what Troy Victorino or your local liberal rag might claim, the death penalty does deter crime. As far as I'm concerned, though, that is not why we put murderers to death. We put them to death because it is punishment. After you've brutally murdered six people, in addition to beating someone almost to death, I don't think you're in much of a position to point the finger about receiving a cruel and unusual death, nor to expect that you deserve a peaceful death in your sleep.

Will liberals ever understand this? Troy Victorino is just another murderer, and of course he's going to do all he can to try to avoid the death penalty. What's even more sickening is the liberals that enable him and others like him.

DailyKos: How to Build an IED 101

First of all, remember that we are never, ever to question their patriotism.

DailyKos diarist boilerman10 has posted a new diary explaining how to build an IED (the actual information on how to make an IED will not be reproduced here):

Now, what is the I.E.D.? Improvised explosive devices of the type generally spoken of in the news stories are usually a charge of RDX or other easy to handle and mold plastic explosive arranged in one of three general ways. As either a bomb proper for explosive effect, perhaps containing scraps of metal for shrapnel effect as well, or as a Claymore type device to spew shrapnel in a specific direction, or as a shaped charge device for highly localized explosive effect against heavy structures, vehicles, or other hard cased target.

The so-called "sophisticated" IED the press gets all foamy about is the shaped charge device. Making one of these is so easy a cave man can do it. There are two basic forms: 1, rectagular; and 2, circular. Circular is more common. The rectangular form is sometimes used for explosive cutting of heavy plate steel, or rock slab shearing. It is very effective for linear splitting and cutting. To make one of these quickly...

Now before anyone worries that we are conducting bomb making class for Kossacks please be aware that anyone STUPID enough to try this at home deserves fully what the government will do to them! The diary is illustrative of how simple it is to make horrifying devices it is not for backyard "enthusiasts" nor for any other purpose beyond illustrating the simplicity of IED making!

Yes, he is simply trying to illustrate how easy it is to make the horrifying device, but he urges that no one actually make any. I guess if someone reads the diary who might have been contemplating setting one off, the fact that Boilerman10 said you shouldn't will stop them in their tracks!

He also whines that monitoring Iran is just an excuse for Bush to attack Iran, that innocent country that would never help arm insurgents in Iraq that are fighting our soldiers. Iran would never want to cause harm to us, the United States, the Great Satan!

In any case, this isn't exactly new territory (Bowling for Columbine, anyone?), but all the same, it's usually liberals that don't seem to have a problem with making information like this -- you know, the kind that can cause death, destruction, and mayhem -- more easily available for terrorists and murderers.

Hat Tip: Hot Air

Joking banned at OSU

In the interest of forcing diversity down students' throats, Ohio State University has banned jokes, in a slightly chilling "Diversity Statement":

Diversity is a cornerstone of community at The Ohio State University. The Office of University Housing defines the concept as an inclusive mixture of all the differences that make the individuals at The Ohio State University unique. Through exposure, critical thinking, appreciation and interactions within our residence halls and larger university communities our goal is to empower students, staff, faculty and friends. In this, we attempt to learn from the wide array of human similarities and differences in an increasingly diverse world.

Our goals are to:

Increase sensitivity to differences through exposure, dialogue, and personal reflection

Address thoughtlessness that may limit our efforts

Maintain a talented and qualified staff with a commitment and conviction toward diversity.

One of the most important components of your college education is learning to respect and appreciate the lifestyles, values, ideas, cultures, and backgrounds of others you encounter. The residence hall communities at The Ohio State University are rich in the diversity of the communities. As a student in our community, you are asked to be respectful of these differences:

Do not joke about differences related to race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, ability,
socioeconomic background, etc.

Do not use obscene words or gestures. Oftentimes these are unwelcome and offensive to students in your community.

Listen to other students living in your floor community. If a person indicates that a behavior or action is offensive, you should stop the behavior immediately.

Actively challenge the stereotypes you have of others. Use your time to consider the new experiences you are having at The Ohio State University, instead of relying upon the past evaluations you have had of others.

When in doubt about the impact of your words or actions, simply ask.

It is the responsibility of any student in the residence halls to report incidents of racial or other discrimination or harassment to residence hall staff.

See, diversity and tolerance are the most important things in the world, even if it means stifling First Amendment rights!

For this, FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) has just awarded OSU the Speech Code of the Month:

FIRE announces its Speech Code of the Month for September 2007: The Ohio State University.

The Office of University Housing at Ohio State, a public university, maintains a Diversity Statement that severely restricts what students in Ohio State's residence halls can and cannot say.

The Diversity Statement also contains another, quite cryptic, prohibition: "Words, actions, and behaviors that inflict or threaten infliction of bodily or emotional harm, whether done intentionally or with reckless disregard, are not permitted." Could anyone at Ohio State actually explain what this prohibition means? How exactly does one threaten to inflict emotional harm? Would that mean shouting, "Hey you! Get out of here or I'm going to hurt your feelings..."? The problem with a prohibition like this one is that it is unconstitutionally vague. The Supreme Court has held that to avoid vagueness, a regulation must "give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly." Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108 (1972). It is safe to say that no reasonable person can figure out exactly what this sentence prohibits.

For these reasons, The Ohio State University is our September 2007 Speech Code of the Month.

So, out of curiosity, how does one know when a joke is considered hurtful? Are blonde jokes out? Are all those great Gators vs. Buckeyes videos gone? This gives plenty of students license to point the finger at someone for whatever they want; but when someone can get in trouble for saying something "hurtful", there's too much doubt that can come into play. It becomes a he said-she said situation. Unless students are forced to carry around recording devices 24 hours a day, how can you really prove someone was making a -- gasp! -- offensive joke? And what if someone misinterprets a phrase or a joke? And what will the punishment be for making said offensive jokes?

Here's an even bigger question: where is that bastion of free speech, the ACLU? My guess is they're probably agreeing with OSU on this one. After all, it's done in the name of tolerance and diversity, so it's perfectly fine to trample on the free speech rights of OSU students.

I'm sure that OSU administrators have good intentions. I doubt they're sitting in their offices, cackling that they're going to make 1984 a reality. But all the same... the road to hell is still paved with good intentions.

Hat Tip: Moonbattery

G.I. Joe is no longer a Real American Hero

Not in the new movie, anyways.

My newest post at Wizbang covers it all:

G.I. Joe was unabashedly patriotic. Many fans were, of course, excited to hear about the new movie to be released by Paramount.

But of course, in the liberal land of Hollyweird, a Real American Hero is just unacceptable. Nope, it's gotta be a global hero. G.I. Joe will be a global operation, not an American one, and G.I. Joe now stands for Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity:

The studio's live-action feature film version of G.I. Joe will no longer revolve around a top-secret U.S. special forces team but rather an international operation.

In a follow-up to their confirmation that Stephen Sommers will direct G.I. Joe, Variety offers this new description of the team: "G.I. Joe is now a Brussels-based outfit that stands for Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity, an international co-ed force of operatives who use hi-tech equipment to battle Cobra, an evil organization headed by a double-crossing Scottish arms dealer. The property is closer in tone to X-Men and James Bond than a war film."

...

So why the changes? Hasbro and Paramount execs recently spoke about the challenges of marketing a film about the U.S. military at a time when the current U.S. administration and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are at a low-point in global polls. When a studio makes a film as expensive as G.I. Joe will likely be, they want to know that as many people as possible around the world will want to see it. In other words, G.I. Joe -- "A Real American Hero" -- is a tough sell.

Nothing is sacred to liberals. Nothing patriotic or American is worth preserving. And I'm sure it never crossed their little liberal minds that perhaps if Hollywood made movies in the vein of those released during WWII, in which America, the military, and our soldiers were portrayed as strong, patriotic heroes, rather than today's military movies in which the United States is always the bad guy, war is always "wrong", and our soldiers are morally corrupt, people wouldn't have such a negative outlook on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (the mainstream media should get that memo, as well). They could be supportive and make movies that showed America, our troops, and their mission in a positive light. But that would go against the liberal agenda. What's even worse is that one of the scripts they had was evocative of the patriotic G.I. Joe, but they chose to go with a script that was less militaristic, described as "X-Men meets Mission: Impossible".

Make sure to read the whole thing.

Firefighters forced to ride in Gay Pride parade

It must be wonderful to be included as a "minority" liberal -- you know, a minority race, gender, sexuality, religion, whatever. You're free to force all of those "majority" people to bend over backwards to accomodate you in the name of "tolerance" and "diversity", regardless of how they feel or what they think about it. I mean, I'm a woman -- that makes me special. Let's say that a room that I work has too much blue in it, and naturally, rooms that I work in need to fairly represent my womanhood. Therefore, the head of my office should re-decorate the entire building to more accurately represent women and make women feel more comfortable. Even though no one in the office has complained, they're really just suffering in silence, and if what I want isn't done, it's clearly because all of the men in my office are sexist. And because of that, I also think that all of the men in my office should have to go through gender equality and appreciation seminars.

See how much fun it is?? Because I'm a minority, I can make "the man" do whatever I want!! This is so awesome!

Did I saw awesome? I meant to say pathetic -- forcing everyone around you to swallow your crap whether they believe in or agree with it or not.

We now have a shining new example of this in San Diego Fire Chief Tracy Garman, an open lesbian who brags to 365gay.com that she lives with her partner and is one of only a handful of openly lesbian fire chiefs in the country. She decided that four firefighters should be forced to participate in the city's Gay Pride parade, when usually it is on a volunteer basis only.

Now, all four of those firefighters are taking legal action against their superiors, and for good reason (emphasis mine):

Four San Diego firefighters charge their superiors forced them to ride in San Diego's Gay Pride parade.

“You could not even look at the crowd without getting some kind of sexual gesture. If any crew member were to hang up pictures at the station of what we saw, we would be disciplined.” So said one of four San Diego firefighters who say their superiors forced them, in full uniform and on their city fire truck, to attend the July 21 San Diego “Gay Pride” parade, according to an Aug. 6 press release from the Ann Arbor, Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center.

The Center is representing the firefighters in their legal claims against the city of San Diego.

According to the Center’s press release, the four firefighters’ superiors told them on July 20 that they would have to ride in the parade. In the past, firefighters who attended the parade “generally did so on a volunteer basis,” said the press release. When the four firefighters protested, their superiors told them they must ride in the parade or face disciplinary action.

San Diego Fire Chief Tracy Jarman has said the parade is a “fun event and all employees are encouraged to participate.” San Diego’s Republican mayor, Jerry Sanders, appointed Jarman fire chief in June 2006. According to 365Gay.com, Jarman “lives with her domestic partner” and is “one of only a handful of openly lesbian fire chiefs in the country.”

“What happened to these dedicated public servants was inexcusable,” said Charles LiMandri, the Center’s West Coast director, who is representing the firefighters. “The City should have known from past experience the kind of offensive activities that go on at this event. This was a clear case of sexual harassment in violation of state and federal law as well as the City’s own code of conduct.”

While on parade, the firefighters “were subjected to vile sexual taunts from homosexuals lining the parade route,” said the press release. “Show me your hose,” “you can put out my fire,” “you’re making me hot,” “give me mouth-to-mouth,”“blow my hose,” were some of the comments those along the parade route hurled at the firefighters. When the firefighters did not respond, “some in the crowd turned hostile and started shouting, ‘F—k you firemen’ and others began ‘flipping them off,’” said the press release.

Some bystanders committed lewd acts, directed at the firefighters, such as exposing their genitals, grabbing the crotch, and blowing kisses. The firefighters, however, were not physically assaulted.

Last year, Chief Jarman told Gay and Lesbian Times that she has always kept her personal and private lives separate. She said she told Sanders she wanted to make the department more diverse – but, she said, “it’s not just the Gay community. I think we need to do a better job of recruiting across the board so that we reflect the community.”

Ah, tolerance.

Isn't it great to live in a country where firefighters are made to become more tolerant of diversity by being forced to attend a Gay Pride parade where they were subjected to this kind of vile behavior?

I mean, man. Chief Jarman must be a shining little beacon of what it means to be accepting of other people's ideals, morals, and values.

Hat Tip: Moonbattery

How liberals became extremists

Rich Lowry has a great piece about how the liberalism of the 60s gave birth to the monster that is liberalism today:

From a distance of nearly 50 years, the liberalism of 1960 is hardly recognizable. It was comfortable with the use of American power abroad, unabashedly patriotic, and forward-looking. But that was before The Fall.
...
The real John F. Kennedy wasn't the paladin of liberal purity of myth. He was friends with Joseph McCarthy. In his 1952 campaign for Senate and his 1960 presidential campaign, he got to the right of his Republican opponents on key issues. "Kennedy did not want anyone to tag him as a liberal, which he regarded as the kiss of death in electoral politics," Piereson writes. As president, he was vigorously anti-communist, a tax-cutter and a cautious supporter of civil rights.

His kind of liberalism -- "tough and realistic," as Piereson puts it, in the tradition of FDR and Truman -- was carried away in the riptide of his death. In a crucial and counterintuitive interpretive act, the nation's opinion elite made JFK a martyr to civil rights instead of the Cold War. Kennedy had been killed by a communist, Lee Harvey Oswald, who a few years before had tried to defect to the Soviet Union. Liberals nonetheless blamed the assassination on, in the characteristic words of Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, "the hatred and bitterness that has been injected into the life of our nation by bigots."

Make sure to read the whole thing.

Daily Kos: They compassionately hate the troops!

I love when liberals blather on about how tolerant and compassionate they are. Usually, this is either immediately followed or preceded by said liberal doing everything in their power to silence their critics or those who have different viewpoints as them.

It's no secret that they hate the troops. Why, they just openly admitted that they hoped Gen. Petraus came back with a negative report from Iraq, because a positive one would be bad for them politically. The various liberal bastions of America -- like San Francisco, for example -- do everything in their power to demoralize, insult, shut down, attack, and antagonize anyone or anything associated with the military.

And what is the best example of this? Why, popular liberal blog Daily Kos. Actually, popular doesn't quite cover it. Daily Kos is the most visited liberal website in the world. And no one hates our troops and the Iraq war effort more than the Kos Kids.

Statements like this are the norm there:

"...I feel nothing over the death of merceneries. They aren't in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them."

"Our sons and daughters need to realize that choosing to be a soldier means a decision to place themselves among "the damned," since no matter what they end up doing while on the field of battle, they will eventually be damned.. damned if they do and damned if they do not. Realizing that compliance with a superior's order to shoot and kill the enemy may well lead to the damnation (the self-extirpation) of one's soul. On the other hand, noncompliance will lead to that of being court-martialed."

And that's just the beginning. I would say that the Kos Kids are just following Washington's lead, in the footsteps of great American leaders such as James Clyburn, House Majority Whip:

"I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us," Clyburn said. "We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report."

Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us."

But no, it is sadly the other way around. Washington is following the example of the Krazy Kos Kids, latching onto their moonbattery with all they've got.

Witness how Barack Osama Obama, Shrillary Clinton, and John "Silky Pony" Edwards all couldn't get in line fast enough to go to the YearlyKos convention to pander to the extremists. Like it or not, folks, the Kos Kids are mainstream. Welcome to the Democratic Party.

And how did a soldier get treated at YearlyKos when he dared offer a different opinion from the rest of the moonbats?

He got shouted down. Here's video:



Now, a few weeks ago, Daily Kos diarist AWhitneyBrown decided to share his thoughts on our "morally retarded" military (emphasis mine):

Hello, I’m A. Whitney Brown, and I support our brave troops overseas. We all do and we all should. But what about those troops who are not so brave? Perhaps they just signed up hoping for some extra money for college, for the medical insurance, or even some hot gay military sex. Suddenly they find themselves in Iraq for the fourth or fifth time and they’re not so brave. In fact they're crapping in their pants. Shouldn’t we support them just as much? I think we should. In fact we should support them more, because a brave man does but once, whereas a coward dies a thousand deaths.
...
But to answer the question, what I mean when I say I support our troops is that I actually pay for their food, their ammo, their upkeep, transport, everything. I pay for all of it.
And I do that not only because I’m a patriotic American, although I am, but also because they take 35% out of my check every week and if I don’t pay it I will end up in jail.
That is what I mean by ‘I support our troops’. I mean I am involuntarily, under threat of prison, forced to pay for their support. Now do I resent that?
You’re damn right I do. Because it is stupid as hell. Other countries pay taxes, but they get something for it, like health care. What do I get? I get to kill a bunch of Iraqis. Whoopdeedoo.
...
So yes, I resent my support for the killing of Iraqis for which I get not even a memento or trophy. But do I still support the individual men and women who have given so much to serve their country?
No. I think they’re a bunch of idiots. I also think they’re morally retarded. Because they sign a contract that says they will kill whoever you tell me to kill. And that is morally retarded.
Friends, the most important moral decision a man makes in the course of a day is "Who am I going to kill today?"
That’s a decision you should agonize over, dream about, rehearse in your mind for hours, not just leave up to some hare-brained President you didn’t even vote for.
A man’s killing list is a very personal matter. It should be between him and those persistent voices in his head.
So to sum up, I don’t like our troops, I don’t like what they’re doing, I don’t like their fat, whining families, and yet, I support them. Thank God I live in a free country. Thank You.

More recently, he's decided to keep up the asshattery, claiming his hatred for our military is because he's compassionate (emphasis mine, again):

Michelle Malkin just mentioned on Fox that I called our troops 'morally retarded".
But her criticism was mild compared to what I received here.
I was not misunderstood nor taken out of context, an attempt at humor did not go astray, no, the truth is my view is genuinely despised. I can understand why. Nobody wants to think of themselves or their loved ones morally deficient.
Nevertheless, I admonish not from anger or to mock, but from compassion.

Get it? He only insults the selfless sacrifice of our troops because he cares. Sniffle. Let's carry on, and I'll spare you all of his drivel about how he thinks the military chain-of-command works, and skip right to the good part:

To surrender the judgement of that most critical question, who should I kill today, would be irresponsible in the extreme, in such a case.
Such recklessness would indicate a fundamental failure of the innate moral facility. That is what I mean by morally retarded.
For this view, I have been called Anti-Military.
My response is this: Who on earth could be Pro-Military! The purpose of a military is to kill. It is at best a necessary evil. Necessary only because someone else has a military that threatens our survival.
Pro-Military? That's like being Pro-Abortion! Or Pro-chemo-therapy!
A military is an extortion demanded of us by other militaries, a practical acquiesence to the world as it is, but only a sadist, a brute, a glory-monger, a thief or a tyrant can look at a military as a good thing, noble in itself.
Only a society blind with avarice or fear would see a military as anything other than an indictment of our inability to persuade! And yes, an indictment of our courage to try.
Meanwhile, I still, under threat of prison, involuntarily, support our troops with 35 percent forcibly taken from every paycheck.

Don't it just fill your heart with pride?

Maybe it does for a certain type of person (three are running for President), but not me. I think it's disgusting, despicable, and if this... the urge to use a much worse word is overwhelming, but I'll stick with asshat doesn't want to support our troops, then why doesn't he just leave? If he's got such a problem with it, he can leave. No one will miss ya, buddy.

Yet, Shrillary, Osama Obama, and the Breck Girl are groveling at the feet of the Krazy Kos Kids.

Yes, this is exactly who I want running our country -- people who will grovel at the feet of Markos Moulitsas and his Krazy Kids.

But, you know, don't question extremist liberals' patriotism or anything. Because they just LOVE America AND our military.

Previous:
But STILL don't question their patriotism!

The tactics of Nancy Pelosi's ethical Congress

Silly, silly Democrats. Do they really think they're going to get away with stuff like this without it getting out? Even if no one in the House talks, there's something called CSPAN -- remember? And stuff like this always gets out, especially if it's been videotaped.

Eric Cantor explains what happened:

High drama on the house floor tonight. Dems brought an Agriculture appropriations bill to the floor greatly expanding government programs, yet again. Republicans moved to recommit the bill to committee, in order to add language prohibiting any taxpayer funds under the agriculture programs from going to illegal immigrants.

The Democrat chair closed the roll call when Republicans had won – as the electronic voting tally indicated enough votes to return the bill to committee. Shouting erupted on the floor, as the Democrats attempted to change the outcome of the vote after the gavel had come down – the vote was closed.

Republicans attempted to adjourn, but we were ruled out of order. Confusion set in as members waited at least five minutes for the chair’s decision.

Republicans members then began to leave the floor in protest, after Democrats proved they would go to whatever lengths necessary to further their agenda. A bad call by the chair, the vote was closed. Then the Democrats allowed their members to continue voting to change the outcome. An outrage. Is this a democracy or a dictatorship?

All but a few Republicans refused to vote on final passage since it became obvious that a fair vote would not happen.

UPDATE:Republicans are conferencing this morning after the travesty that occurred last night on the floor of the house. The overwhelming sense of the members is, we have to stand up and reject the democrats manipulation of the rules of the house to further their attempts to thwart Republican efforts to stop government benefits from flowing to illegal immigrants. Republican house members are demanding that democrats right their wrongs.

That is SO ethical! Pioneer Pelosi is right. Most ethical Congress ever.

The Politico has more:

Details remain fuzzy, but numerous Republicans argued afterward that they had secured a 215-213 win on their motion to bar undocumented immigrants from receiving any federal funds apportioned in the agricultural spending bill for employment or rental assistance. Democrats, however, argued the measure was deadlocked at 214-214 and failed, members and aides on both sides of the aisle said afterward.

One GOP aide saw McNulty gavel the vote to a close after receiving a signal from his leaders – but before reading the official tally. And votes continued to shift even after he closed the roll call - a strange development in itself.

Whatever the final tally, acrimony quickly exploded between lawmakers on either side of the aisle as Democratic leaders tried to plot a solution, while parliamentarians on either side argued over protocol.

Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) eventually offered a motion to reconsider, according to floor staff on either side, ostensibly giving members a chance to recast their votes. But the maneuver sparked a chorus of angry protests from the Republicans, yelling “shame” on Democrats, while they returned fire with angry volleys of their own.

When Democrats finally moved to consider the spending bill as the last vote of the night, furious Republicans left the chamber en masse to protest the maneuver. The House eventually recessed at 11:18 p.m. But Republicans quickly discovered that there was no longer any record of the controversial vote and immediately charged Democrats with erasing the bad result.

Best part of all?

It was caught on camera. All of it:



Here's Eric Cantor reacting on the floor:



You know, are the Dems really this arrogant? It seems they must be. I mean, you've got them publicly admitting that they want failure from Iraq because it would benefit them politically, and now you've got Pioneer Pelosi's most ethical Congress ever using strong-arm tactics to cheat on a vote, all of which is caught by videotape and aired on CSPAN. I mean, are they idiots? Their approval rating is lower than George Bush's (and that's saying something!), yet they keep acting as if the American people are too stupid to catch onto what they are doing! It's the damnedest thing I've ever seen! I mean, how much more blatant can you be? At least attempt to hide your bullshit. But, in their arrogance, they don't think they have to.

And the vote the Dems so furiously wanted to defeat? It would keep illegal immigrants from getting taxpayer funding in the agriculture bill.

Man, they sure do love America, those Dems.

As Kathryn Jean Lopez noted, is this a democracy or a dictatorship?

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

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.

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.

accountability:
noun
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

11 most frustrating things about the Cut-And-Run crowd

Over at Right Wing News, John Hawkins has posted a list from one of his readers, The 11 most frustrating things about the Cut-And-Run crowd:

The opponents of the war often display several common threads which cause me some frustration:

1. Failure to understand that more than just Iraq is at stake.

2. Failure to understand that the whole bit about WMD's, whether Bush lied, blah blah, is old news and that "where we go from here" is the only question worth asking.

3. Failure to understand that our troops may be bringing freedom to Iraqis, but in reality they're fighting for the security of the US, not Iraq.

4. Failure to grasp that the problem with the War on Terror is not that it's too aggressive and ruthless, but rather that it has not been aggressive and ruthless enough.

5. Failure to understand that the war in Iraq WILL continue, with or without American involvement. If we leave, Saudi Arabia and Egypt will supply weapons to the Sunnis while Iran supplies them to the Shiites. Turkey is likely to invade the Kurdish north, as well.

6. Obsession with comparisons of the Vietnam War and its aftermath, and the resulting attempts to force a square peg into a round hole.

7. Failure to offer any workable solutions - other than abandoning the effort entirely.

8. Failure to recognize that our enemies and their state sponsors are not interested in helping us build a democratic Iraq and that they do not share our political goals.

9. Obsession with "talking" with people who want us dead.

10. Refusal to recognize that some people in this world are just plain rotten, that the fact is we're all naturally evil, not naturally good.

11. Willingness to call the US genocidal, racist, and cruel, without ever applying those labels to our enemies where they belong.

I will admit that some of the left-leaning posters....appear to be attempting an honest discussion on the issue. They are hobbled less by wickedness, and more by simple naive thinking. Remember, these are the same people that believed Neville Chamberlain and his announcement of "peace in our time" back in 1938. Right before the world exploded into a war that killed millions. I doubt we will ever get through to them....

MRC President John Bozell takes on Elizabeth Edwards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God is “a sadistic bastard.” (Marcotte)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hat Tip: Newsbusters

John Kerry supports "Fairness Doctrine"

Ugh.



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nancy Pelosi: Go Team Canada!

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



Here's a close-up:



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

Admiral (Adm) or General (Gen)

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

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

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

Hat Tip: Qando