Political correctness claims its first Santa

Last month, I wrote about how political correctness has reached a new low by asking Australian Santa Clauses to say "Ha Ha Ha!" instead of the traditional "Ho Ho Ho!". It was supposedly insulting to women and frightening for children. I wrote:

Of all the ridiculous things to say might be politically incorrect, the famous laughter of Santa Claus is beyond ridiculous. Westaff's spokesperson said that they merely "encouraged" the Santas to use 'Ha Ha Ha' instead, but why would a simple suggestion cause multiple Santas to quit?

And let's say someone does get offended. Let's say some kid does get scared.

Who cares?!?

If someone if offended, they can get over it and themselves. If some kid gets a little bit scared by the big man in a red suit, I'm sure he or she will get over it as well without suffering any long-term damage. What do these people think is going to happen? That the five-year-old scared by Santa is going to spend the rest of his life in therapy because Santa said 'Ho Ho Ho' instead of 'Ha Ha Ha'?

Have you ever heard anything more ridiculous?

If a kid was scared of Santa, the way he laughed probably wouldn't change that. And if some chick walking down the street got "offended" because she thought Santa was calling her a ho, then she was probably looking for a situation to take advantage of.

Sadly, the first Santa Claus has been sacked for being unwilling to throw out tradition for political correctness and the "I'm Offended, Therefore I Am" crowd.

A shop has sacked its Santa Claus for saying Ho-ho-ho.

John Oakes, 70, got his marching orders after the store decreed that women might be offended because 'ho' is American slang for a whore. Instead, he was supposed to say Ha-ha-ha.

"They're are trying to kill the spirit of Christmas," said Mr Oakes, who has been a Santa for ten years.

He was also found guilty of singing Jingle Bells at the Myer department store in Cairns, Northern Australia.

He said: "The manager told me my services were no longer required. When I asked her why, she replied, 'You said Ho-ho-ho and that's not appropriate'. Not appropriate? How long has Santa been calling Hohoho, for goodness sake? She also said I wasn't supposed to sing."

Sad, isn't it?

Have we -- and by we, I mean those of us who are a part of western civilization in general -- really become this sensitive? I'm really curious as to how and why we got here. Who can honestly look at this as a victory? Wow, way to go, Department Store Manager -- you fired Santa for saying the phrase that he has been known for saying for hundreds of years. Bet it makes you feel real powerful, huh? It makes you wonder how far some people will go to destroy commonly loved pastimes and traditions, regardless of how harmless they may be.

When I first heard about this story, the Santa Clauses had stood up and protested, and tradition beat political correctness. Unfortunately, when it comes to moonbattery and political correctness, common sense can only go so far.

MIT: Moonbats In Training

Pop quiz.

Let's say you're at Logan International Airport, the very same airport in which half of the 9-11 hijackers met on that fateful day to begin their carnage. You're minding your own business when someone walks by holding something in their hand that looks like C4 that is hooked up to something that looks like a circuit board on the back of their hoodie by a bunch of wires. The words "Socket To Me" are written on the back of the hoodie. She's also making a spectacle of herself while at the airport.

What would your first reaction be?

MIT's Star Simpson did just that, for "Career Day" at school (she had been wearing the ensemble to campus for the previous few days). She was then shocked when she was promptly surrounded by airport security wielding machine guns, and then found herself in jail.

Simpson told authorities she was “surprised” she landed in jail. After all, she wrote on her Web site that she spends her free time “saving the planet from evil villains” and loves “crazy ideas.”

There is absolutely nothing artistic about scaring people in public places, even if her father, Hugh Simpson, told the Maui News in Star’s native Hawaii that he was “proud” of his daughter. Then he boasted that his daughter went to a park after she was freed on $750 bail to “stretch her arms because she had been in a small room for hours and hours.”

I hope she gets used to it because stupidity is not an excuse for criminality; an “art project” to attract prospective employers that terrorizes perfect strangers should certainly be a deterrent from Star Simpson ever landing a job.

But, apparently, MIT does not see it that way. It seems that Simpson had worn her bizarre ensemble for days before she showed up at Logan airport with it. All part of Career Day, she later told cops. No one on campus thought it prudent to tell her to take it off, especially considering that it is just days past the six-year anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

MIT needs to throw Star Simpson off campus because her “crazy ideas” - such as wearing a hoax device at the airport where two of the planes left on that dark morning when 3,000 people were murdered in this country - are unacceptable. Her parents, who did not react with any sort of responsibility for the actions of their daughter, should forfeit any cash they paid for her tuition thus far.

Until the schools are taken to task in this town for allowing stupidity, such as thinking a fake bomb attached to a sweatshirt is art appropriate for Career Day, hardworking people in this state will continue to pay the price for over-privileged out-of-towners to use our city as their personal playgrounds.

Of course, moonbats are sympathetic, calling her an artist, someone courageous was just trying to take on "corrupt" politicians. They don't seem to realize showing up at an airport with a phony bomb is asking for trouble, especially when you are trying to draw attention to yourself.

Could it be she was seeking publicity???

No, no, that couldn't be it. It was just an experiment for Career Day at MIT, a school that apparently thought it ok for a girl to walk around with a phony bomb for days on end. If there's going to be another Virginia Tech massacre, it'll probably be at MIT if someone walking around with a phony bomb on their back raises no eyebrows and causes no alarms.

And how did moonbats respond to Michele McPhee's column in the Boston Herald exposing the attention whore for what she is?

Your just jealous because she has brains and you dont!

What is with editorialist reporter? Does she want to lick every cops buttons clean while she's foaming at the mouth with her populist pap. I want to know if anyone has ever seen her and Ed Anger of the Weekly World News in the same room together. If you're ever down at the Herald or WTTK you can spot her very easily she'll be the one wearing the Lector mask.

Lookit--time for the Herald to catch a clue. Nobody's buying your inane BS. Get over yourself and try, really try and write some news. It goes like htis: who, what, when, where and why. It does not go: BECAUSE I SAID SO. Now please explain to me exactly what journalism school Herald reporters are supposed to go to: The Helen Keller School of Journalism perhaps?

The scariest part of this whole situation is not the teenager who did a foolish thing. It is the cops and the security forces that did not know how to react to what they thought was a threatening situation. Boston authorities have twice now demonstrated that they cannot handle the responsibility given them.

Only a paranoid idiot could have thought that the device looked like a bomb. The girl's mistake was not realizing that Logan security is provided by paranoid gestapo.

Okay I get it. This column is performance art. You're trying to reflect the proudly belligerent ignorance of popular American thought. By pretending to be a shrill, reactionary moron and pretending you advocate the shooting death of this woman, you're subtly subverting the raw paranoid hysteria that gave us incidents like this, and the Mooninite fiasco. Well played, sir or madam. I almost believed you actually WERE the stupid, sheltered harpy who "wrote" this piece. Nice art project.

I'm getting kind of tired of the country's most cowardly people wetting their pants and reducing our civil liberties because they're afraid of terrorists. The best was to deal with terrorists is to get them, just like we did Osama bin Laden. Oh. That's right, mission unaccomplished. We lose something like 50,000 people a year in traffic accidents, and the worst restrictions on our personal freedoms from that are having to pay more for safer cars and to wear seat belts. But with terrorists, instead we let the whiny namby-pambys and momma's boys (and girls) act our their unreasonable fears and "change our world." Cripes people, buck up and realize that the fear-mongers are doing precisely what terrorists want!

And on and on and on.

It isn't fear mongering for police to take something like this seriously. She may well have simply been a stupid kid, but what is the alternative? What if she hadn't just been some stupid kid and really did have a bomb, but police just looked at her and thought, "Oh, that's just some kid being stupid?"

Simpson got into MIT, so obviously she's an intelligent girl. I highly doubt that she had no idea what kind of reaction this would cause, and injecting fear into people just for the hell of it is inexcusable. She deserved to go to jail, and if MIT had any kind of common sense at all, they'd expel her. But, in all likelihood, she'll return to the college as a celebrated "artist" without facing any repercussions for her actions whatsoever.



Hat Tip: Moonbattery

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

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

There is no god but Allah... in Britain

Why don't we just go ahead and re-name Europe Eurabia? The islamicized moonbattery that is taking over is getting out of control.

Fresh off the 7/7 terrorist attacks, Newlands Primary School in Wakefield, West Yorkshire has decided that, while practicing penmanship, students should write pro-Islam statements such as "I bear witness that there is no god but Allah" and "Allah is the greatest". Why the teacher chose pro-Islam statements when there are no Muslims in her classroom is a mystery, I'm sure:

ANGRY parents have blasted a teacher for telling ten-year-olds to copy a Muslim prayer saying “There is no God but Allah”.

Helen Green is said to have picked the Muslim call to prayer as HAND-WRITING practice. It includes the lines “Allah is the greatest” and “I bear witness that there is no God but Allah”.

Pupil Billy Darbyshire’s stepmum Hayley Clayton said: “The explanation was that the children were learning about Islam in RE. “But this was like he was taking an oath. A Muslim child would never be asked to write a Bible passage. Why didn’t she choose a passage from a normal story book to teach handwriting?”

Hayley, 23, said Mrs Green — deputy head of Newlands Primary School in Wakefield, West Yorks — had acknowledged it was a “sensitive issue” because three of the 7/7 suicide bombers came from Leeds, 15 miles away. She added: “If it’s sensitive why choose that prayer?”

Billy’s angry dad Martin, 32, said there were no Muslims in the ten-year-old’s class. He added: “I am not religious but it offended me. It must have been worse for children whose parents do have different beliefs.”

Wakefield Council officials said they believed the prayer had been written for RE.

It's only a matter of time before this starts here in America. Remember California's mandatory Islam immersion course?

It's funny. If the teacher had used Christian phrases rather than Muslim ones, moonbat liberals would be howling, and this would be all over the news.

Hat Tip: Moonbattery

German government encourages incest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you taking notes, Mr. Obama?

Hat Tip: Moonbattery

You WILL believe in man-made global warming!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't think so.

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

Hat tip: Moonbattery

Racism causes breast cancer!

And since only black people can be victims of racism, this only affect black women:

Black women who feel they've been victims of racial discrimination are more likely than their peers to develop breast cancer, a large study suggests.

The study, which followed 59,000 African-American women for six years, found that those who reported more incidents of racial discrimination had a higher risk of breast cancer.

The relationship was stronger among women younger than 50, researchers found. This finding is particularly interesting, they note, in light of the fact that, unlike the case with older women, breast cancer is more common among young black women than young white women.

It's possible that racial discrimination plays some role, according to the researchers, led by Dr. Teletia R. Taylor of Howard University in Washington, D.C.

They report their findings in the American Journal of Epidemiology.

Past studies have suggested that over time, perceived racial discrimination can take a toll on a person's health. A possible explanation is that unjust treatment serves as a source of chronic stress, which itself has been linked to poorer physical health.

In the current study, women were asked how often they faced "everyday" discrimination, like receiving poorer service than other people at stores, or feeling that people are "afraid" of them or act superior to them.

They were also asked whether they'd ever been treated unjustly on the job, in trying to get housing, or by the police -- all considered examples of "major" discrimination.

Overall, Taylor's team found, women who said they frequently ran up against everyday types of discrimination had a higher risk of developing breast cancer. The same pattern was seen with major discrimination; women who reported on-the-job discrimination, for example, had a 32 percent higher risk of breast cancer than women who reported no such prejudice.

Women who said they'd faced discrimination on the job, in housing and from the police were 48 percent more likely to develop the disease than those who reported no incidents of major discrimination.

More studies, according to Taylor's team, are needed to confirm these findings, and to uncover the reasons for the connection between racism and breast cancer.

SOURCE: American Journal of Epidemiology, July 1, 2007.

First of all, how can this study be legitimate if they only studied black women? I know, according to civil rights "leaders" like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, black people are the only ones who are victims of racism. But what about racism against Hispanics? Asians? Native Americans? Middle-Easterns? Or -- dare I say it -- whites?!

Second, I love the hypocrisy at work here -- racial discrimination builds up over time, causing higher instances of breast cancer, but there were higher instances of breast cancer in the younger women, under 50 -- not the older. But... I thought... it was racial discrimination building up over time! So, therefore, shouldn't older women have higher instances of breast cancer?

But, well, that wouldn't work because older women already have higher instances of breast cancer.

As they say, more studies are needed. Your taxpayer dollars at work, folks!!

Hat Tip: Moonbattery

How To Pick Up A Gay Man 101

That is apparently the new curriculum for German students 14 and up. Controversy is understandably brewing, and this of course is being taught in the name of "tolerance" and, as the WaPo puts it, "by practicing homosexual wooing techniques... break down age-old schoolyard prejudices".

They say you can't understand someone until you walk a mile in his shoes. Perhaps with this in mind, Germany's Regional Institute for School and Media has introduced a series of exercises in which students pick up same-sex partners. Pupils 14 years old and up will participate by practicing homosexual wooing techniques -- and in the process, officials hope, break down age-old schoolyard prejudices.

In the United States, conservative groups such as the Citizens for Community Values are on the record against so-called "homosexuality education" programs. In a 2004 report, the group says such programs are "nothing more than a deceptive ploy designed to preach safety while actually encouraging sexual behaviors." The Cincinnati-based CCV has not commented specifically on this latest German innovation, but it's a safe bet that it would oppose any programs on the gay pickup scene in American schools.

But is it likely this program will be adopted by any schools here? Not without a little tweaking, of course. I suggest that this program be expanded to include straight students as well. After all, adolescents -- especially boys -- of every sexual orientation and proclivity need help picking up a mate. If the program is to be true to its mission of teaching understanding and tolerance, it should ensure that no child is left behind.

It is not right to force children to do these things -- become a Muslim in an immersion course, learn how to pick up gay men. I don't understand why parents tolerate this to begin with. If I had children and they came home telling me they were learning how to pick up gay men, I would be livid. I would not rest until whoever pioneered that program was fired.

When it comes down to it, schools have no right to push these kinds of propaganda and agendas. Schools are supposed to be a place where children go to learn, not be brainwashed. The more we inflict this kind of liberal moonbattery on our children, the more worried I become. What kind of adults are we raising?

Hat tip: Moonbattery.

Our little boy is becoming a woman!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As Van Helsing notes at MoonBattery:

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

In conclusion, Zahn says of the parents:

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

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

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

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

Britain takes another step towards making 1984 a reality

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

Van Helsing at Moonbattery notes,

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

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

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

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

John Kerry supports "Fairness Doctrine"

Ugh.



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Priceless" Moment of the Day

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

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

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

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

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

Got an F? Sue!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He's following his dreams!!

Virginia school bans touching

If you go to school in Virginia, don't you dare give another student a hug:

Fairfax County middle school student Hal Beaulieu hopped up from his lunch table one day a few months ago, sat next to his girlfriend and slipped his arm around her shoulder. That landed him a trip to the school office.

Among his crimes: hugging.

All touching -- not only fighting or inappropriate touching -- is against the rules at Kilmer Middle School in Vienna. Hand-holding, handshakes and high-fives? Banned. The rule has been conveyed to students this way: "NO PHYSICAL CONTACT!!!!!"

School officials say the rule helps keep crowded hallways and lunchrooms safe and orderly, and ensures that all students are comfortable. But Hal, 13, and his parents think the school's hands-off approach goes too far, and they are lobbying for a change.

"I think hugging is a good thing," said Hal, a seventh-grader, a few days before the end of the school year. "I put my arm around her. It was like for 15 seconds. I didn't think it would be a big deal."

A Fairfax schools spokesman said there is no countywide ban like the one at Kilmer, but many middle schools and some elementary schools have similar "keep your hands to yourself" rules. Officials in Arlington, Loudoun and Prince George's counties said schools in those systems prohibit inappropriate touching and disruptive behavior but don't forbid all contact.

Deborah Hernandez, Kilmer's principal, said the rule makes sense in a school that was built for 850 students but houses 1,100. She said that students should have their personal space protected and that many lack the maturity to understand what is acceptable or welcome.

She has seen a poke escalate into a fight and a handshake that is a gang sign. Some students -- and these are friends -- play "bloody knuckles," which involves slamming their knuckles together as hard as they can. Counselors have heard from girls who are uncomfortable hugging boys but embarrassed to tell anyone. And in a culturally diverse school, officials say, families might have different views of what is appropriate.

Hal's troubles began one day in March when he got up from his assigned cafeteria table and went to a nearby table where his then-girlfriend was sitting. He admits he broke one rule -- getting up from his assigned table without permission -- and he accepts a reprimand for that. "The table thing, I'm guilty," he said.

A school security officer spotted the hug and sent Hal to the office, where he was cited for two infractions. He was warned that a third misstep could lead to in-school suspension or detention.

School officials said that the girl didn't complain and that they have no reason to believe the hug was unwelcome.

There are no words to describe the ridiculousness at work here. Assigned cafeteria table? Hugging your girlfriend or giving a handshake are "infractions"? Good grief.

I fear for the day when I have children and have to send them to school. I really do.

But don't accuse them of hating the military!

To put simply, this makes me furious. Beyond furious. Livid.

The annual aerial show by the U.S. Navy’s Blue Angels — a San Francisco tradition dating back to 1981 that pumps millions into the local economy — is running into opposition from three local peace advocacy groups that are calling for a permanent halt to the popular Fleet Week flyover.

CodePink, Global Exchange and Veterans for Peace, Chapter 69, are working with Supervisor Chris Daly on a Board of Supervisors resolution to address concerns over the Blue Angels.

Daly acknowledged he is considering a call to halt the flyovers because, he said, “they seem dangerous and unnecessary.” Daly said he plans on introducing the resolution as early as Tuesday, but is still drafting the language. A resolution is not legally binding, but states a board position.

The Blue Angels, a team of navy fighter pilots, fly over San Francisco during Fleet Week, which this year is scheduled for Oct. 4 through Oct. 9. For four of the six days, the flashy blue- and yellow-striped planes soar through the skies over the northern waterfront at speeds reaching 700 miles per hour, and perform such maneuvers as vertical rolls. As part of the show, six planes group together in tight formation to perform deft maneuvers.

The Blue Angels have 35 air shows scheduled in 2007 in various U.S. locations. Last year, more than 15 million people watched the fighter pilots.

Veterans for Peace takes issue with the pro-military message and the recruiting efforts that come along with the annual visit as well as what it refers to as the “noise pollution.” The group calls the event a public safety risk, pointing to the April crash of a Blue Angels plane during an air show in Beaufort, S.C.

Just a slight miscalculation or a mechanical failure can cause a plane to “go barreling into the Golden Gate Bridge or a high-rise and cause a significant amount of damage,” said Paul Cox, a Vietnam veteran and member of the Veterans for Peace.

Edward Leonard, chairman of the San Francisco Fleet Week Committee, said that since the April plane crash, the Blue Angels are back flying and “we think it’s safe.” He added that the planes’ maneuvers require approval by the Federal Aviation Administration, the more challenging maneuvers are conducted over the Bay waters and that “commercial airlines fly over The City all the time.”

Fleet Week attracts about 1 million people to The City’s waterfront and sinks about $4 million into The City’s economy, according to Leonard. When the Blue Angels did not fly over San Francisco in 2004, attendance and revenue dropped by more than 50 percent, he said.

Leonard said Fleet Week comes with a variety of benefits, from boosting the local economy to providing people “a chance to say thanks for the people serving in the military now.”

CodePink has launched an online petition, signed by more than 500 people to date, calling on leaders to end the flyovers for reasons of public safety, air pollution and fuel waste.

Cox said the resolution would establish that city leaders and the public are not in support of having the Blue Angels.

“We can then take the next steps we have to legally stop them,” he said.

I'm sure most people don't know this, but the Blue Angels were "born" in my hometown. I grew up watching them fly over the St. John's River twice a year at air shows. Sometimes we would actually go on base, but usually, my family (along with a few friends) would take our boat out and watch from the water, and the fighter jets especially dazzled us. My brother, especially, as a kid loved the Blue Angels. I remember one year, one of the planes flew low enough that, when my brother and I, little kids, gave him a thumbs up cheering, we could see the pilot in it give us a thumbs up back. It made my day, but especially my brother's day. Watching those air shows, and specifically the Blue Angels, is what gave my brother his dream of being a pilot.

This is not new ground for San Francisco. They literally hate the military there (don't accuse them of that, no sir. They just LOVE our troops). The Navy pulled out of San Francisco, sending an amphibious assault ship [reader correction], the USS Makin Island, to San Diego instead. Some examples of anti-military bias in San Francisco? They killed a popular NJROTC program. It refused to let a retired battleship, the USS Iowa, dock. San Franciscans have notoriously held up signs advocating the fragging of officers in anti-military demonstrations. They've even thrown molotav cocktails at police officers in protest of the war. They banned military recruiting at public high schools and colleges (remember career day at school?). A San Francisco Board of Supervisors member went on Fox News saying that we should get rid of the United States military altogether, saying, "What good has it done us?" Michelle Malkin did an entire Vent giving details of these incidents and more.

Think back to when you were a kid, if you were lucky enough to see the Blue Angels fly. Think about the look on your children's faces when they were awed by their amazing stunts. Forget kids, the Blue Angels fill adults and kids alike with wonder and awe. I cannot possibly think of one negative thing about the Blue Angels putting on a show. Not one single thing. The Blue Angels pilots are people to be looked up to, revered, like all of our military servicemen and women.

Banning the Blue Angels. Only in moonbat-filled, liberal land, San Francisco would this fly. Oops, wrong choice of words.

Hat tip: Right Wing News

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has more, including a look back at Seattle moonbats:

According to the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), which oversees preschool teacher training, curriculum standards, and daycare accreditation, "That's Not Fair! A Teacher's Guide to Activism with Young Children" is "an exciting and informative" resource for "developing community-building, deep thinking, and partnership.to change the world for the better."
On page 106 of the guide, co-author Ann Pelo details an activism project she initiated at a Seattle preschool after her students spotted a Blue Angels rehearsal overhead as they played in a local park. "Those are Navy airplanes," Pelo lectured the toddlers. "They're built for war, but right now, there is no war, so the pilots learn how to do fancy tricks in their planes." The kids returned to playing, but Pelo wouldn't let it rest. The next day she pushes the children to "communicate their feelings about the Blue Angels."

Pelo proudly describes her precociously politicized students' handiwork:

"They drew pictures of planes with Xs through them: 'This is a crossed-off bombing plane.' They drew bomb factories labeled: 'No.'

"Respect our words, Blue Angels. Respect kids' words. Don't kill people."

"If you blow up our city, we won't be happy about it. And our whole city will be destroyed. And if you blow up my favorite library, I won't be happy because there are some good books there that I haven't read yet."

Pelo reports that the children "poured out their strong feelings about the Blue Angels in their messages and seemed relieved and relaxed." But it's obvious this cathartic exercise was less for the children and more for the ax-grinding Pelo, who readily admits that she "didn't ask for parents' input about their letter-writing - she didn't genuinely want it. She felt passionately that they had done the right thing, and she wasn't interested in hearing otherwise."

NASA's Griffin caves under political pressure

Typical:

The head of NASA told scientists and engineers that he regrets airing his personal views about global warming during a recent radio interview, according to a video of the meeting obtained by The Associated Press.

NASA administrator Michael Griffin said in the closed-door meeting Monday at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena that “unfortunately, this is an issue which has become far more political than technical, and it would have been well for me to have stayed out of it.”

“All I can really do is apologize to all you guys.... I feel badly that I caused this amount of controversy over something like this,” he said.

I was really disappointed to see this. It's interesting how, whenever a scientist or climatologist or politician or college professor or whatever, speaks out against the global warming hysteria their career is threatened. I don't know what happened with Griffin, but reading between the lines leads me to believe that he probably was "gently" asked to make some sort of statement. He hit the nail on the head: the problem is more political than technical.

For Al Gore and the global warming fanatics, it's a dead lock. There is NO argument to be had. Al Gore invented the internet, so we must believe everything he says about global warming. He said so, and a bunch of celebretards believe it too, and therefore it is 100% accurate that humans invented global warming, and the planet is going to die, and the only way to prevent it is to cause massive destruction to the economy in the United States.

Unfortunately for the Goracle, Leo, Laurie David, Pioneer Pelosi, and the rest of the hysterics, the argument is far from over. There is even a petition, The Global Warming Petition Project (which over 17,000 scientists have signed) stating that global warming is not a problem and might actually be environmentally helpful:

Below is an eight page review of information on the subject of "global warming," and a petition in the form of a reply card. Please consider these materials carefully.

The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.

This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.

The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries.

It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice.

We urge you to sign and return the petition card. If you would like more cards for use by your colleagues, these will be sent.

Frederick Seitz
Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.
President Emeritus, Rockefeller University

Unfortunately, most of the fanatics aren't interested in actually stopping global warming. As Griffin discovered, the argument is for political gain. Just thirty years ago, they were saying we'd be in a massive ice age right now. Shoot, my weatherman can't even predict whether it will rain in a few days, and we're supposed to believe Al Gore -- who isn't a scientist or a climatologist -- is who we should believe can predict what the weather will be like ten or twenty years from now?

Unfortunately, the political crowd will excommunicate you if you question their gospel. Too bad Griffin couldn't stick to his guns.

Previous: NASA scientist "unsure" of validity of global warming

Cindy Sheehan: So Long, and Good Night!

Cindy Sheehan posted a long, rambling, anti-American message on DailyKos entitled "Good Riddance, Attention Whore" in which she says she's FINALLY going to stop exploiting her son's death to push her own political agenda and dishonoring the sacrifice he made, and just go home and quit speaking for the Democratic Party.

All together now: WOO-HOO!

I mean, honestly -- it is about time!

I have come to some heartbreaking conclusions this Memorial Day Morning. These are not spur of the moment reflections, but things I have been meditating on for about a year now. The conclusions that I have slowly and very reluctantly come to are very heartbreaking to me.

The first conclusion is that I was the darling of the so-called left as long as I limited my protests to George Bush and the Republican Party. Of course, I was slandered and libeled by the right as a "tool" of the Democratic Party. This label was to marginalize me and my message. How could a woman have an original thought, or be working outside of our "two-party" system?

So now, she's a "feminist", too. Not only are us Republicans blood-thirsty cretins who want to steal oil from the innocent little civilians in the Middle East who don't wish us any harm at all, but we hate women, too. And "so-called left"?! How much more left does she want the Democratic Party to lean? Scary thought.

However, when I started to hold the Democratic Party to the same standards that I held the Republican Party, support for my cause started to erode and the "left" started labeling me with the same slurs that the right used. I guess no one paid attention to me when I said that the issue of peace and people dying for no reason is not a matter of "right or left", but "right and wrong."

I am deemed a radical because I believe that partisan politics should be left to the wayside when hundreds of thousands of people are dying for a war based on lies that is supported by Democrats and Republican alike. It amazes me that people who are sharp on the issues and can zero in like a laser beam on lies, misrepresentations, and political expediency when it comes to one party refuse to recognize it in their own party. Blind party loyalty is dangerous whatever side it occurs on. People of the world look on us Americans as jokes because we allow our political leaders so much murderous latitude and if we don’t find alternatives to this corrupt "two" party system our Representative Republic will die and be replaced with what we are rapidly descending into with nary a check or balance: a fascist corporate wasteland. I am demonized because I don’t see party affiliation or nationality when I look at a person, I see that person’s heart. If someone looks, dresses, acts, talks and votes like a Republican, then why do they deserve support just because he/she calls him/herself a Democrat?

She held the Republican Party to the same standards as she did the Democrats? Please. And Democrats are not supporting this war just like Republicans are. They have been trying to get us out of there with everything they have, no matter how catastrophic the results would be. But that's not enough for Psycho Sheehan... oh, no. Although, she is right about the blindness to corruption in their own party, although I'm sure she was referring to Republicans. Democrats never acknowledge corruption in their party -- they are too busy looking for problems with the GOP. And I love hearing liberals harp on and on and on about Republicans being fascists, or turning us into, as Psycho Sheehan puts it, "a fascist corporate wasteland". Uh, the socialism and nannyism that they love so much is exactly what would turn this country into a fascist wasteland.

And its funny how someone who "doesn't see party affiliation" uses Republicans as examples for all of her negative smearings.

I have also reached the conclusion that if I am doing what I am doing because I am an "attention whore" then I really need to be committed. I have invested everything I have into trying to bring peace with justice to a country that wants neither. If an individual wants both, then normally he/she is not willing to do more than walk in a protest march or sit behind his/her computer criticizing others. I have spent every available cent I got from the money a "grateful" country gave me when they killed my son and every penny that I have received in speaking or book fees since then. I have sacrificed a 29 year marriage and have traveled for extended periods of time away from Casey’s brother and sisters and my health has suffered and my hospital bills from last summer (when I almost died) are in collection because I have used all my energy trying to stop this country from slaughtering innocent human beings. I have been called every despicable name that small minds can think of and have had my life threatened many times.

... The most devastating conclusion that I reached this morning, however, was that Casey did indeed die for nothing. His precious lifeblood drained out in a country far away from his family who loves him, killed by his own country which is beholden to and run by a war machine that even controls what we think. I have tried every since he died to make his sacrifice meaningful. Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months while Democrats and Republicans play politics with human lives. It is so painful to me to know that I bought into this system for so many years and Casey paid the price for that allegiance. I failed my boy and that hurts the most.

You know, she hit the nail on the head with that last sentence: she failed her boy. She is a disgrace to the sacrifice he made -- to fight and die for a country he believed in. I don't think I have ever seen someone so shamelessly exploit their child's death. I don't know that even John Edwards would sink so low -- or perhaps he just hasn't had the opportunity. And of course, she just HAD to throw in some anti-Americanism there. I don't think she's capable of opening her mouth without bashing the United States. And where does she get off thinking that we are killing innocent people? THEY. WANT. TO. KILL. US. And given the opportunity -- like, for example, if we were to pick up and leave Iraq without stabilizing the region first -- they will. We will see another 9-11, and probably on a much larger scale. No doubt about it.

Our brave young men and women in Iraq have been abandoned there indefinitely by their cowardly leaders who move them around like pawns on a chessboard of destruction and the people of Iraq have been doomed to death and fates worse than death by people worried more about elections than people. However, in five, ten, or fifteen years, our troops will come limping home in another abject defeat and ten or twenty years from then, our children’s children will be seeing their loved ones die for no reason, because their grandparents also bought into this corrupt system. George Bush will never be impeached because if the Democrats dig too deeply, they may unearth a few skeletons in their own graves and the system will perpetuate itself in perpetuity.

If Democrats dig too deeply they may unearth a few skeletons? Honey, that ain't a possibility. It's a certainty. You don't even have to dig to find skeletons in the Democrats' closets -- they're right out there, for anyone to see. But mainstream media bias keeps it from being reported.

This is my resignation letter as the "face" of the American anti-war movement. This is not my "Checkers" moment, because I will never give up trying to help people in the world who are harmed by the empire of the good old US of A, but I am finished working in, or outside of this system. This system forcefully resists being helped and eats up the people who try to help it. I am getting out before it totally consumes me or anymore people that I love and the rest of my resources.

Good-bye America ...you are not the country that I love and I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I can’t make you be that country unless you want it.

It’s up to you now.

She'll never give up is really just her way of saying she'll be gone until she figures out a new way to exploit her son's death, or the war, or a little butterfly that flew by her window, or the fact that fictitious polar bears are floating away on fictitious icebergs, or any other "movement" she feels she can capitalize upon.

Oh, and Cindy? There are plenty of countries that are exactly what you want to turn the United States into. They're called Venezuela and Cuba, and until we overthrew Saddam, Iraq. You can "sacrifice" all you want, with book deals and appearance fees, and coffee-and-ice-cream diets, but you're right. We won't do it.

And no one will cry any tears if you leave. So go. Sequester yourself, and hopefully we never have to hear from you again.

Although I won't hold my breath that this will be the last of you.

Memorial Day, Washington-Liberal Style

How do residents of Orcas Island, WA celebrate Memorial Day? By desecrating the final resting places of our fallen soldiers:

Vandals burned dozens of small American flags that decorated veterans' graves for Memorial Day and replaced many of them with hand-drawn swastikas, authorities said Monday.

Forty-six flag standards were found empty and another 33 flags were in charred tatters Sunday in the cemetery, authorities said. Swastikas drawn on paper appeared where 14 of the flags had been.

Members of the American Legion on this island off Washington's northwest coast replaced the burned flags with new ones Sunday afternoon.

The vandals struck again on Memorial Day after a guard left at dawn, the San Juan County sheriff's office said. This time, the vandals left 33 of the hand-drawn swastikas.

"This is not an act of free speech. This is a crime," Sheriff Bill Cumming said in a statement released Monday afternoon

I just have to wonder sometimes -- do these people have no sense of decency? Attacking recruiting stations, protesting at funerals, desecrating graves... and for what? What point are they trying to make... what goal can they accomplish by disrespecting our fallen soldiers? How much more despicable can you get?

Liberals will tell you that while they "don't agree", they won't speak out against these actions because the soldiers died for their right to protest. Maybe so, but just because you can do something does not, by any means, mean that you should -- or that the rest of us should condone it. Whoever did this should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and made to pay reparations to the family members of those soldiers. They should be made examples of.

What I want to know is, would this be considered a hate crime for liberals? They're introducing legislation to specify "hate crimes" against minority groups, as opposed to just regular old "mean" crimes against us normal people. Would this count as a hate crime, even though it wasn't committed against the liberals' favorite groups (i.e., gays or minorities)? Probably not.

Don't expect to see this in the mainstream media, either. I doubt this will even make a blip on the national radar.

Hat tip: Michelle Malkin.

The United States: Paving the Way for Violence Against Women!

Ever wished you could rape a woman whenever you want? Think stoning women is fun?

No?

Well, you'd be surprised to learn that apparently the United States advocates that kind of thing -- or at least, according to blogger Sapphire Blue at the Democratic Underground:

This girl is 17. She is being stoned to death, half-naked, by the men of an Iraqi village for fraternizing with a boy from another religion. And all the while it is happening other men look on cheering and take pictures of the carnage with their mobile phones. The police stand by and do nothing while other men disrobe and dishonor a woman for the sake, they say, of restoring their own.

By the end of the television news report, the girl is not writhing anymore. She is dead. And not one man did one thing to stop it.

Yanar Mohammed, president of the Organization of Women's Freedom in Iraq (OWFI), in an interview with Women's Human Rights Net highlighted the effects of this war on women (whrnet.org/docs/interview-yanar-0603.html <1>).

... Mohammed, in a CNN interview, May 19, 2007, made two points no U.S. citizen wants to hear.

First, she said, the number of honor killings in Iraq have increased by the hundreds since the invasion.

Second, she went on, 10 years ago, long before the country was "freed," honor killings did not exist.

Pressed by the CNN reporter to explain the difference, Mohammed was short and to the point: "Someone came in from the outside and gave us "democracy," she said. The problem, she went on, is that the new democracy became Islamic -- not secular.

Now, she reports, men come to a house, bang on the door, say "This is a whorehouse" and murder all the women there. … It is sectarianism hiding behind religion."

The situation is even worse than that, however. With the change in the Iraqi Constitution, articles that protected the rights of women were eliminated. Now discrimination against women is, indeed, "honorable," is "religious," is legal.

Honor killings didn't exist before the United States freed Iraq?? We made discrimination against women honorable, religious, and legal?? Is this person serious?! What's funny to me is the contradiction made by Mohammed in the same breath. Honor killings didn't exist before the country was freed, but they've increased since the invasion. Hmm.

Of course they are, and most the commenters jumped right on the blame-US bandwagon.

Sadly enough for the Democratic Underground, honor killings are not a new concept, and they are not unique to Iraq. According to the U.N., liberals favorite organization in the whole world, they take place in countless countries, such as: Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, the Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey, Yemen, and other Mediterranean and Gulf countries, and that they had also taken place in such countries as France, Germany and the United Kingdom within migrant communities.

Only in crazy moonbat liberal circles would democracy be pointed to as the cause of honor killings.