University of Delaware backs down

This is likely only because of the heat they were feeling thanks to FIRE. But they have cancelled the program.

Late Thursday, University of Delaware President Patrick Harker released on the school’s website a Message to the University of Delaware Community terminating the university’s ideological reeducation program, which FIRE condemned as an exercise in thought reform. He stated, “I have directed that the program be stopped immediately. No further activities under the current framework will be conducted.” Harker also called for a “full and broad-based review” of the program’s practices and purposes. While concerns remain about the University of Delaware’s commitment to free expression, FIRE commends President Harker for his decision to immediately terminate the Orwellian residence life education program.

This is a victory. A small one, but hopefully these small victories will add up and the systematic moonbattization of academia can come to an end.

A big thumbs-up to FIRE. Make sure to show them your support.

Previous:
Brainwashing at the University of Delaware

Brainwashing at University of Delaware

I am in shock at this.

The University of Delaware subjects students in its residence halls to a shocking program of ideological reeducation that is referred to in the university’s own materials as a “treatment” for students’ incorrect attitudes and beliefs. The Orwellian program requires the approximately 7,000 students in Delaware’s residence halls to adopt highly specific university-approved views on issues ranging from politics to race, sexuality, sociology, moral philosophy, and environmentalism. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is calling for the total dismantling of the program, which is a flagrant violation of students’ rights to freedom of conscience and freedom from compelled speech.

“The University of Delaware’s residence life education program is a grave intrusion into students’ private beliefs,” FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. “The university has decided that it is not enough to expose its students to the values it considers important; instead, it must coerce its students into accepting those values as their own. At a public university like Delaware, this is both unconscionable and unconstitutional.”

The university’s views are forced on students through a comprehensive manipulation of the residence hall environment, from mandatory training sessions to “sustainability” door decorations. Students living in the university’s eight housing complexes are required to attend training sessions, floor meetings, and one-on-one meetings with their Resident Assistants (RAs). The RAs who facilitate these meetings have received their own intensive training from the university, including a “diversity facilitation training” session at which RAs were taught, among other things, that “[a] racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality.”

The university suggests that at one-on-one sessions with students, RAs should ask intrusive personal questions such as “When did you discover your sexual identity?” Students who express discomfort with this type of questioning often meet with disapproval from their RAs, who write reports on these one-on-one sessions and deliver these reports to their superiors. One student identified in a write-up as an RA’s “worst” one-on-one session was a young woman who stated that she was tired of having “diversity shoved down her throat.”

According to the program’s materials, the goal of the residence life education program is for students in the university’s residence halls to achieve certain “competencies” that the university has decreed its students must develop in order to achieve the overall educational goal of “citizenship.” These competencies include: “Students will recognize that systemic oppression exists in our society,” “Students will recognize the benefits of dismantling systems of oppression,” and “Students will be able to utilize their knowledge of sustainability to change their daily habits and consumer mentality.”

At various points in the program, students are also pressured or even required to take actions that outwardly indicate their agreement with the university’s ideology, regardless of their personal beliefs. Such actions include displaying specific door decorations, committing to reduce their ecological footprint by at least 20%, taking action by advocating for an “oppressed” social group, and taking action by advocating for a “sustainable world.”

In the Office of Residence Life’s internal materials, these programs are described using the harrowing language of ideological reeducation. In documents relating to the assessment of student learning, for example, the residence hall lesson plans are referred to as “treatments.”

In a letter sent yesterday to University of Delaware President Patrick Harker, FIRE pointed out the stark contradiction between the residence life education program and the values of a free society. FIRE’s letter to President Harker also underscored the University of Delaware’s legal obligation to abide by the First Amendment. FIRE reminded Harker of the Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), a case decided during World War II that remains the law of the land. Justice Robert H. Jackson, writing for the Court, declared, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”

“The fact that the university views its students as patients in need of treatment for some sort of moral sickness betrays a total lack of respect not only for students’ basic rights, but for students themselves,” Lukianoff said. “The University of Delaware has both a legal and a moral obligation to immediately dismantle this program, and FIRE will not rest until it has.”

FIRE is a nonprofit educational foundation that unites civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, due process rights, freedom of expression, and rights of conscience on our campuses. FIRE would like to thank the Delaware Association of Scholars (DAS) for its invaluable assistance in this case. FIRE’s efforts to preserve liberty at the University of Delaware and elsewhere can be seen by visiting www.thefire.org.

It's just unbelievable. There are no words. Fun fact? Freshman are required to live in the dorms unless they have family nearby.

What's really fun is that Democrats like John Edwards want everyone to go to college. And why not? Then everyone will be brainwashed into being perfect little zombie-fied moonbats.

Please feel free to contact the University of Delaware and demand that they stop this. We live in a free society, and to be completely frank, this is bullshit. NO ONE should have to put up with that. NO ONE.

Patrick Harker, President, University of Delaware: 302-831-2111; president@udel.edu
Kathleen G. Kerr, Director of Residence Life, University of Delaware: 302-831-1201; kkerr@udel.edu

Also, please make sure to visit the FIRE website and show your support. It's a great organization, fighting against the indoctrination of the people who will be running our country in the future.

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.

Obama: Our troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians

You know, I think liberals were right when they said Iraq is just another Vietnam. We've got liberals insulting our troops right and left, with politicians clamoring for defeat while crying "QUAGMIRE!" and simultaneously smearing our troops with this kind of garbage -- just like in Vietnam.

Presidential hopeful Barack Obama was warned by a friendly voter Monday to avoid public spats with his Democratic rivals - but remarks he made later could add fuel to the criticism against him.

Maggie North of Claremont told Obama he risks becoming part of the usual political scene if he keeps being drawn into well-publicized disputes with rivals. He and chief rival Hillary Rodham Clinton have jabbed at each other over foreign policy, the war on terrorism and the use of nuclear weapons.

...

But during a later appearance before about 800 people in Nashua, Obama made a comment likely to further the spats he was warned about.

Answering a question on how he would refocus U.S. troops out of Iraq to better fight terrorism, he said, "We've to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there."

Earlier this month, Obama drew criticism when he said he would send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists even without local permission, if warranted.

John Kerry did it and won the Democratic nomination. Maybe Obama thinks it will work for him, too. After all, every Dem thinks crap like that of our troops, because they hate them. It's just that most of them are seasoned politicians who are smart enough not to say it out loud (most).

However -- that anyone would say something like that, let alone say it to gain political profit, about our troops in Iraq is despicable in my book. There is nothing lower than insulting, smearing, and debasing the sacrifice of the men and women over there risking their lives for Obama to act like a donkey's ass. They protect his right to slander them, yet this is how he repays them?

There really is nothing lower.

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?

But STILL don't question their patriotism!

They really, really support the troops! Really, they do!

These idiots keep blathering on about how they don't want us to win in Iraq, and then get furious when we call them cowards, traitors, and defeatocrats (emphasis mine):

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.

Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.

"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."

So basically, he is rather blatantly admitting that he doesn't want there to be positive signs of progress from Iraq because it would hurt the Dems politically.

Haven't we conservatives been saying that all along? And now, he just proved us right.

But don't question their patriotism, oh no. It's patriotic to wish for your country to fail, don't you see? It's a good thing for the terrorists who want to attack and kill us to win in Iraq. They love America SO much!

As Misha from Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler says,

Try them, convict them and execute them for treason.

Or, if that’s too rough for you, let’s just cram them into container ships and send them off to whichever totalitarian dystopia they’re worshiping at the moment, because a free country has absolutely no use for them. Whatsoever. They’d probably f*ck up the harvest if we used them as fertilizer.

Hat Tip: Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler

Previous:
Democrats side with terrorists
Did you get your white feathers yet?
Navy SEAL memorial dedicated over liberal protests

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

trea·son (trē'zən)
n.

Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.

A betrayal of trust or confidence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misha responds:

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

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

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

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

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


CODEPINK: The new face of treason

Pitt student Matt Schiros behind Help My Baby Live hoax?

Snopes.com FINALLY acknowledged the Help My Baby Live scam:

Recipe for a hoax: Establish a web site announcing that you are going to bring about (or allow) some dire circumstance unless you can raise a specified amount by a given deadline. Set up a mechanism on your web site to receive donations publicly (or at least make it appear that you're receiving donations, even if you really aren't). Stand back and watch with amusement as people heap opprobrium on you for daring to consider such a terrible thing, much less crassly tying it to money.

No matter how many times the scenario plays out, people keep falling for it. Once it was supposed rabbit owners claiming they were going to kill and eat their bunnies unless their exorbitant demands for money were met by self-imposed deadlines; more recently it's been Help My Baby Live, a site on which an ostensibly expectant couple maintains they're not "financially secure enough" to raise a child and are going to opt for an abortion unless they can raise $50,000 in donations within three months.

... there are several clues that indicate the "Help My Baby Live" site is not on the level, but rather a prank to yank the collective chains of a gullible audience:

The PayPal account initially used on the site to accept donations (which has since been shut down by PayPal) was tied to a Matthew Schiros, whose name shows up as the author of an anti-abortion blog entry (which has since been removed from the internet).

Interesting, to say the least. But the "evidence" tying Matt Schiros to the site is simply that he is listed as the administrative and techical support for Invisihosting, a company I think he works for, and that the site is simply using the hosting company's PayPal account.

In the Snopes.com forum for this topic, this was posted:

The source code for the page reveals an e-mail address of schiros+paypal@invisihosting.com hooked to the PayPal account. Googling on 'schiros' and 'invisihosting' links the name 'Matthew Schiros' to the e-mail address 'schiros@invisihosting.com' and that blog.

- snopes

The Democratic Underground is all over it, labeling Matt Schiros a right-winger, and indicative of pro-lifers, claiming it is the work of "wingnuts" and wondering how many "anti-choice people" they've hoodwinked, and what their "real motives" are.

On CourtTv's message boards, a user posted an e-mail exchange between him/herself and Matthew:

Matthew,

I was directed to this website http://www.helpmybabylive.com/ from a very busy bulletin board that I frequent. Well as you can tell I was appalled by the very nature of this website so I wanted to find out who in the world would make such a heinous or fraudulent website. Well naturally they were a bunch of cowards, so they went through you to get the anonymity they were wanting and that YOU are allowing. So, I decided to email you and ask you politely to remove that website. I realize that it is most likely in your interest to allow sites like this and this is how you are making money, but I think you should take into account that not everyone is going to do good with anonymous sites and that it may fall back on you. I am waiting anxiously for your reply.

Thanks so much

Here is his information incase you would like to give him a piece of your mind about the process he uses to allow others to basically do what they want and not get caught. He is an accomplice imo and should be treated as such.

Registrant:
InvisiHosting, LLC

1817 E. Oltorf
Apt 2103
Austin, Texas 78741
United States

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: HELPMYBABYLIVE.COM
Created on: 16-Jun-07
Expires on: 16-Jun-08
Last Updated on: 16-Jun-07

Administrative Contact:
Schiros, Matthew schiros@invisihosting.com
InvisiHosting, LLC
1817 E. Oltorf
Apt 2103
Austin, Texas 78741
United States
5124664146

Technical Contact:
Schiros, Matthew schiros@invisihosting.com
InvisiHosting, LLC
1817 E. Oltorf
Apt 2103
Austin, Texas 78741
United States
5124664146

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello,
Thanks for your email. You're not the first person to email us about this site, and you won't be the last.

InvisiHosting is about empowering the absolute freedom of speech on the Internet, unconstrained by any outside party that might want to restrict content according to their own personal preference or sense of taste.
We've got both an ethical and contractual obligation to our customers to not play censor, or content monitor, or any other such thing. If the site in question is illegal, have no doubt that we will be informed by the proper authorities and directed to remove it, but it is not our job to become the good taste police.

Think of the logical consequences of your request, that we remove their site. Would you restrict all speech only to things that you agree with, or, at the least, are not personally or morally offended by? That's the same attitude that the Muslims who rioted after the publication of the Danish cartoons took, that free speech's limit is someone else's feelings. If we are truly to be a free society, everyone must be allowed to say whatever they'd like about whatever they'd like without fear of retribution.

I understand that you don't like the site, but our position will always be that the solution to speech one disagrees with is counter-speech, not censorship. If you'd like to set up a page of your own decrying their behavior, we'd be happy to host that as well, because we believe in free speech for everyone.

I hope you'll think this over, and I appreciate your comments.

Matt Schiros

Matt Schiros, however, also is apparently not new to posting offensive websites, such as www.amiblackornot.com which allegedly (I have not visited the site) asks visitors to rate "how black" the people pictured on the site are by using racial slurs.

So, who knows? I'd still be interested in finding out the truth, whether it is Matt Schiros behind the hoax, or someone else.

Previous:
Help my baby live?
PayPal pulls out!

PayPal pulls out!

The Help My Baby Live monsters are reporting that PayPal shut down their donations. Good to hear:

PayPal has shut down our donations, although we've managed to keep all the money made so far. We're working on finding a different payment processor, but until then, you can contact us at the email address to the right, or, even better, contact the people at InvisiHosting.

We'll find a new payment processor shortly, don't worry.

We've noticed that a lot of people have been complaining about this site, through multiple channels. If you really don't like it, and you really want it taken down that badly, buy the domain from us and close us down in the capitalist way. We'll entertain serious, 5 figure bids for it.

Also, we lost about a day's worth of email, so if you emailed us between Wednesday and Thursday, please re-send it. Sorry, computers and such.

75 days left until the dreaded abortion they claim they need the money to avoid getting. Seriously, this thing has scam written all over it, and since I wrote my original blog post, their donations have increased to over $13,000. Sad -- these people don't deserve a dime.

I'm still surprised that no one has blown the lid of these people. When will that happen? I think we all want to know who these people are, and what their real agenda is.

Previous: Help My Baby Live?

Rosie exploits her daughter to send a message

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Help My Baby Live?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They also have a sort of FAQ section:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best part of all is the terms and conditions section:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hmm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus. Hillary would probably be proud.

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

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

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

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

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!!

How to Defraud American Workers

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



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

Jobs Americans won't do, huh?

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

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

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