Here comes... Abortionman!

Sickening:


This is just disgusting. Seriously... there is no humor in abortion. None whatsoever. For or against abortion, no one should sit there and pretend that getting an abortion is no big deal or something to laugh about. It's not like getting a Pap smear or something similarly innocuous. Abortion is a horrible thing to happen to someone, and it shouldn't be celebrated.

What's especially awful is that the woman in the video is -- gasp!! -- happy about having her baby. The boyfriend is the one who forces the abortion onto her.

Gee, doesn't that sound familiar? How many women find themselves in that exact situation -- unexpectedly pregnant and actually happy about it, but her shithead boyfriend pressures and guilts her into having an abortion for his own selfish reasons? Abortion in and of itself is a selfish act anyways, but I think you often find that the woman pressured into having the abortion is a victim, as well.

Mary Katharine Ham discussed this video on the O'Reilly Factor, and thinks it may be a parody. Whatever the intent behind the video was, it wasn't funny. It was crude, it was disgusting, and inappropriate doesn't even begin to cover it.

Link: sevenload.com

Hat Tip: Hot Air

Wanna die for some guy's art?

Then this project, my friend, is for YOU:

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thomas Friedman Hit in the Face by a Pie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hat Tips: Moonbattery and Michelle Malkin

There are no words.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hat Tip: Gateway Pundit

Incest is NEVER best.

Today's society is infested with an anything-goes attitude, especially when it comes to sex. Have sex with men, women, both at the same time, big groups, tie each other up, draw blood, wear bunny suits... anything goes, no matter how weird, and most people will be all right with it as long as its "behind closed doors". Some things, though, are just too weird, just too disgusting, just too wrong. This is one of those cases.

If you're easily offended, or squeamish, I suggest not reading.

A South Australian father and daughter have revealed they are a couple, and have had a child together.

John and Jenny Deaves reunited 30 years after Mr Deaves separated from Jenny's mother. Jenny was 31 and just two weeks after meeting, father and daughter had sex.

"John and I are in this relationship as consenting adults," Mrs Deaves told the Nine Network's 60 Minutes tonight. "We are just asking for a little bit of respect and understanding."

Their nine-month-old daughter Celeste, shown on TV, appears fit and healthy.

Mrs Deaves said soon after reuniting with her father she began to see him as a man first and her father second.

"I was looking at him, sort of going, oh, he's not too bad," she said. "Like you might look at a man across the bar at a nightclub."

Mrs Deaves brought two children, Samantha and Alex, into the relationship after splitting from her former partner.

Mr Deaves admitted that he "initially" thought having sex with his daughter was wrong. "Emotions take over, as people no doubt realise, there are times during your life where emotions do rule the heart, it rules the head," he said. "I knew it was illegal, of course I knew it was illegal but you know, so what."

Mrs Deaves said the physical relationship with her father was like "a sexual relationship with any other man". For Mr Deaves the sexual relationship was "absolutely fantastic".

A South Australian police media spokesman said "the couple is being monitored".

The most telling quote was the "I knew it was illegal, but you know, so what" comment. It's such a typical attitude today (and dare I say, such an attitude stems directly from liberalism!). If it feels good, do it. If it makes you happy, do it. Who cares if its wrong? Who cares if its selfish, or will hurt other people? If it makes you happy, do it!

And what's even worse is that this father and daughter had a child together. This is the height of selfishness, when people take part in depraved relationships, and then bring a child into the situation as well. Children of incest are at much higher risk for birth defects and deformities, not to mention, how do the parents explain their relationship to each other?

Of course, questions like these don't matter to these people. It makes them happy, so why not?

Anti-war thugs protest Easter Mass

Following in the grand tradition of anti-war thugs perfectly willing to resort to violence and bullying in order to get their way, comes the newest story of anti-war assholes.

A group of anti-war protestors calling themselves "Catholic Schoolgirls Against the War" burst into Easter Mass at Holy Name Cathedral in Chicago to protest the war, squirting fake blood on themselves and parishioners.

Six people were arrested at Holy Name parish's auditorium Sunday after disrupting an Easter mass to protest the Iraq war.

The group—whose female and male members identified themselves as Catholic Schoolgirls Against the War—stood up at the beginning of Cardinal Francis George's homily and shouted their opposition to the conflict, which marked its fifth anniversary last week. As security guards and ushers tried to remove them from the service, the demonstrators squirted fake blood on themselves and parishioners dressed in their Easter finery.

The red substance, which one protester later described as "stage blood," initially drew gasps and a few terrified yelps from the 600 worshipers at the mass. The shock, however, quickly transformed into anger as people booed the six while they were escorted from the parish auditorium.

"Even the pope calls for peace," the demonstrators chanted as they left. "Even the pope calls for peace."

"And so should we all," said George, drawing strong applause from the parish.

The protesters were all charged with felony criminal damage to property and two counts of simple battery for squirting the blood around the auditorium and onto worshipers' clothes, authorities said. Chicago police identified the six arrested as Donte D. Smith, 18; Ephran Ramirez Jr., 22; Ryane Ziemba, 25; Mercedes Phinaih, 18; Regan Maher, 25; and Angela Haban, 20.

George returned to his Easter homily without further addressing the disruption. A small number of worshipers, however, followed the protesters into the lobby to berate them for disrupting the service and frightening children in attendance.

"Are you happy with yourselves?" Mike Wainscott of Chicago shouted at the demonstrators as they were being handcuffed. "There were kids in there. You scared little kids with your selfish act. Are you happy now?"

In a statement issued Sunday afternoon by Catholic Schoolgirls Against the War, the group said it protested at Holy Name "to reach both Holy Name's large Easter audience—including Chicago's most prominent Catholic citizens, who commonly attend Easter mass at the church—and the many more viewers and readers of the local press, which usually extensively covers their services."

Here's video:


Do people like this really think that by protesting Easter Mass they're going to accomplish anything? I mean, honestly now. Did they think that this would endear people to their cause?

Catholic Schoolgirls Against the War describe themselves as:

... a humorous, political street threatre group composed of college students and young adults. The group was formed in October of 2006 and meets twice per month.

Does anyone find their little stunt "humorous"?

What's interesting about these kinds of anti-war thugs is how unwilling they are to have a rational debate. They just can't bring themselves to actually talk to those on the other side, to listen to what we have to say -- probably because they know that if they did, they'd lose. So they have to resort to these tactics to "win".

Interestingly, the DUmmies covered this story as well, and seemed to be split on their opinions with this protest. Some felt it was out of line. Some thought it was perfectly acceptable. Others thought that it was only out of line because it would be bad PR, and even a few conspiracy theories (it was really us warmongers!). Here's a sampling:

Bluzmann57:
There is a time and place for everything. This was neither the time nor the place. Now I am sure people in here will flame me because it always happens when I express an opinion, but f*ck it. I don't care. I am sticking by it. So I repeat, not the time, not the place. After all, Jesus was anti war. So why try to interrupt his celebration with this shit?

acmavm:
I agree. The Mass was a celebration in honor of the most peaceful human being to ever walk the Earth. If we lived by the rules he tried to teach us, we would truly live in peace.

coalition_unwilling:
"The most peaceful human being to ever walk the earth . . . " - you have got to be joking, right? First of all, there's lively debate as to whether the figure historically known as "Jesus of Nazareth" even existed. Even if the person did exist and even if the Synoptic Gospels give a reasonably reliable account of his teachings (highly questionable), the figure of the Synoptic Gospels alternates between radical pacifism and calls for violent radical change. (I can't bring the scriptural references to mind right now, but they are there within the first four Gospels.)

CatholicEdHead:
I agree. It was not the right time in the middle of Easter Sunday mass. They made many more enemies than friends.

goddess40:
this was the exact time and place for this. if this church is like our local catholic church - pushing the war and support for Bush.

anti-hate:
this is the exact time and place for this. Americans, including Catholics really need to get out of the bubble. Who cares if this upset the churchgoers. It's time to think about how the rest of the world is being inconvenienced by illegal invasions and killing. I am glad these six young people protested where they knew it would get media coverage......maybe it will wake up the comatose !

Itchinjim:
Disrupting an Easter Mass is an outrage. I don't care what your opinion of the war or the church is. This was a bullshit act and these persons should be charged with a hate crime.

earthside:
When U.S. bombs... actually fell on mosques in Iraq five years ago, killing people ... now THAT was an outrage.

Nobody got hurt ,,, just reminded in Chicago.

hifalutin:
My thoughts exactly. It makes us look as bad as 'them' if not worse on this special day.

Lydia Leftcoast:
Unlike the AIDS protests, this is totally whacko because for the most part, the Catholic church hierarchy is anti-war.

It's so far off the mark that I wonder if it has been done by agents provocateurs to discredit the anti-war movement, sort of like the masked "anarchists" who smashed windows at the WTO conference in Seattle.

And on and on. What's interesting is that the majority opinion seems to be that what they were doing was OK, just not where. Nothing wrong with squirting blood on innocent people, just don't do it in a church! Reserve your hatred and thuggery for those who deserve, like our military recruiting centers, right, DUmmies?

The entire act was an outrage, made even worse by carrying it out during Easter Mass. There was no reason for that. There's no real reason for these kind of protests, period -- why is it there's no such thing as "peaceful" protesting? -- but don't try to convince people like this idiots of that.

Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin

Is a dead dog considered art?

To Costa Rican "artist" Guillermo "Habacuc" Vargas it is. He found a dog on the street, tied him up, and gave explicit instructions for the dog to not be fed. Obviously, the dog died.

Habacuc’s exhibition included a legend spelled out in dog food reading “You are what you read,” photos and an incense burner that burned an ounce of marijauna and 175 “rock’ of crack cocaine. In the background, according to reports, the Sandista national anthem played backwards.

According to the artist, his “art” was a tribute to Natividad Canda, a Nicaraguan burglar killed in Costa Rica by two rottweilers guarding property he had entered at night. The incident caused friction between the two countries. Habacuc told the daily La Nacion, “I won’t say the dog died. The importance to me is the hypocracy of the people where an animal is the focus of attention where people come to see art but not when it’s in the street starving to death.”

“The same thing happened with poor Natividad Canda. The people sympathized with him only after he was dead,” the artist added.

Typical liberal -- crying huge crocodile tears over a burglar killed by guard dogs.

Animal abuse? No, of course not! This is art, see? We're just a bunch of idiots who aren't on his artistic plane. We just don't understand, and we're not expected to. We're supposed to be offended, while Vargas gets embraced in modern art circles. He's been chosen to represent Costa Rica in the “Bienal Centroamericana Honduras 2008".

Once upon a time, wasn't art supposed to be beautiful, inspirational, and yes, sometimes provocative? I don't think much in modern art fits those descriptions. Disgusting, offensive crap is a much better description.





Hat Tip: Moonbattery

The Code Pink wackos strike again

Wherever there's a chance to attack our military, there will Code Pink be. When a new Marine center opened in Berkeley, Code Pink made sure the show them how they support our troops:

Marine Captain Richard Lund recruits college students and graduates as candidates for officer positions in the marines. But carrying out that job in Berkeley is not always an easy task.

He has listened to a variety of complaints from members of the anti-war group Code Pink in recent weeks.

"We are so shocked and horrified that the Marines have come to Berkeley to prey on our children," said Zanne Joi, a Code Pink member.

Last week, the Code Pink group protested by defacing the recruiting center and calling the recruiters liars.

In the face of all this, one might ask why would any recruiter want to come to Berkeley?

Lund says that the office is close to the UC Berkeley campus and a BART station that it is convenient for recruits.

But what about the Berkeley attitude?

"It was a little bit of a consideration," Lund said. "But this is my home. This is America. I'm from the Bay Area. I don't mind being in any city, any neighborhood. To me it's all home."

The Marines did receive a couple of visitors who approve of their presence.

"It seems to me by trying to shut down recruiting on or near college campuses, you're really violating the principles of free speech. And I find that repugnant," said Berkeley resident Nancy Klein. "But we have to be a little bit crazy here, it's kind of our persona."

Here is how they defaced the center:





And the complaints the article spoke of? Code Pink wacko Diane Budd, who apparently was one of the organizers of the attack, was rather open on their motives, and it wasn't just to complain:

Donning pink hats, T-shirts and badges, a group of 10 braved rush-hour traffic on Shattuck Avenue to protest against the recruitment office located at 64 Shattuck Square.

“If there are to be no wars, there can be no warriors,” said Dianne Budd, one of the organizers.

“We found out a few days ago and decided to make their lives miserable,” she said, pinning up “RECRUITERS LIE, CHILDREN DIE” posters on the office windows. “We want people to know that it’s here and we want to shut them down. If people had been in there we were ready to hand out information about GI rights. We just want to speak the truth.”

As Budd and her fellow organizers held a pink banner with “No military predators in our town” written on it, hundreds of cars, buses and trucks honked their support and waved.

No one came to drag the protesters away as they stood waving banners and talking for almost two hours.

“It’s my first-amendment right,” Budd said smiling. “Who’s going to stop me?”

They sure got a nice, warm welcome from the moonbats inhabiting Berkeley. And remember, don't ever, EVER, question their patriotism.

Richard Lund, the recruiter in charge of the center, is firing back though. He wrote an open letter to the Code Pink wackjobs. Unlike just about anyone in Code Pink, he was intelligent, reasonable, calm, collected, and uninsulting (and in my opinion, makes them look even stupider than they make themselves look all on their own). Here's an excerpt, but be sure to read the entire thing:

While the protest that you staged in front of my office on Wednesday, Sept. 26th, was an exercise of your constitutional rights, the messages that you left behind were insulting, untrue, and ultimately misdirected. Additionally, from the comments quoted in the Berkeley Daily Planet article, it is clear that you have no idea what it is that I do here. Given that I was unaware of your planned protest, I was unable to contest your claims in person, so I will therefore address them here.

First, a little bit about who I am: I am a Marine captain with over eight years of service as a commissioned officer. I flew transport helicopters for most of my time in the Marine Corps before requesting orders to come here. Currently, I am the officer selection officer for the northern Bay Area. My job is to recruit, interview, screen, and evaluate college students and college graduates that show an interest in becoming officers in the Marine Corps. Once they’ve committed to pursuing this program, I help them apply, and if selected, I help them prepare for the rigors of Officer Candidate School and for the challenges of life as a Marine officer. To be eligible for my programs, you have to be either a full-time college student or a college graduate. I don’t pull anyone out of school, and high school students are not eligible.

...

Next, scrawled across the doorway to my office, you wrote, “Recruiters are Traitors.” Please explain this one. How exactly am I a traitor? Was I a traitor when I joined the Marine Corps all those years ago? Is every Marine, therefore, a traitor? Was I a traitor during my two stints in Iraq? Was I a traitor when I was delivering humanitarian aid to the victims of the tsunami in Sumatra? Or do you only consider me a traitor while I am on this job? The fact is, recruitment is and always has been a part of maintaining any military organization. In fact, recruitment is a necessity of any large organization. Large corporations have employees that recruit full-time. Even you, I’m sure, must expend some effort to recruit for Code Pink. So what, exactly, is it that makes me a traitor?

The fact is this: any independent nation must maintain a military (or be allied with those who do) to ensure the safety and security of its citizens. Regardless of what your opinions are of the current administration or the current conflict in Iraq, the U.S. military will be needed again in the future. If your counter-recruitment efforts are ultimately successful, who will defend us if we are directly attacked again as we were at Pearl Harbor? Who would respond if a future terrorist attack targets the Golden Gate Bridge, the BART system, or the UC Berkeley clock tower? And, to address the most hypocritical stance that your organization takes on its website, where would the peace keeping force come from that you advocate sending to Darfur?

Finally, I believe that your efforts in protesting my office are misdirected. I agree that your stated goals of peace and social justice are worthy ones. War is a terrible thing that should only be undertaken in the most dire, extreme, and necessary of circumstances. However, war is made by politicians. The conflict in Iraq was ordered by the president and authorized by Congress. They are the ones who have the power to change the policy in Iraq, not members of the military. We execute policy to the best of our ability and to the best of our human capacity. Protesting in front of my office may be an easy way to get your organization in the headlines of local papers, but it doesn’t further any of your stated goals.

Michelle Malkin is asking for any Bay Area patriots to go to the recruitment center and show your support:

It would be nice if folks in the Bay Area could show up and counter-protest the Code Pinkos and show Capt. Lund some support. As they say: Eagles Up!

If you aren't too fond of counter-protesting, or perhaps you don't think you have the time, you can still show Capt. Lund some support. Stop by, thank him for his service. Make a phone call to the recruitment center to say thank you, let him know that what he's doing is appreciated. If you can spare an hour or two though, show the Code Pink moonbats what real patriotism is and counter-protest.

Hat Tips: Michelle Malkin, Stop the ACLU

Man arrested for public sex acts with traffic signs

No, I'm not kidding.

A friend e-mailed me this story:

Sioux Falls police Tuesday arrested a 60-year-old man for burglary and for what they believe is at least two years worth of video-taped public sex acts.

Verle Peter Dills was arrested at his home at 2613 W. Bailey St. after a man who lives in the 1200 block of North Kiwanis Avenue chased Dills out of his yard Monday evening, police spokesman Loren McManus said.

The man saw Dills with a video camera and tripod and chased him for a short distance, McManus said. When the man returned home, Dills also returned with his camera and again was chased from the yard. He was seen entering the garage at 2613 W. Bailey St., McManus said.

There police found the video camera and a “large amount” of 8mm and VHS video of Dills engaged in masturbation and sex acts with traffic signs near his home, McManus said.

“We don’t know how long he’s been doing this,” he said.

He is charged with burglary, unlawful occupancy and six charges of indecent exposure.

He is being held in the Minnehaha County jail on $100,000 cash.

She wondered, and so do I: how exactly do you engage in "sex acts" with traffic signs?

Just curious.

And I can tell you this, if homeboy was engaging in "sex acts" in my front yard, he wouldn't be in jail. He'd be in the hospital.

Mother of the Year Award

I think Britney Spears may have just lost the Mother of the Year Award. No, I'm thinking it should now go to a feminist blogger, Biting Beaver, whose blog you can read by invitiation only. She's the one who enjoyed support from Majikthise, Feministing, and everyone's favorite feminist, Amanda Marcotte.

This wonderful mother apparently hates her son. By her logic, he hates women because he is a teenage boy who looks at porn (I thought just about every teenage boy looks at porn all the time, and even past the teenage years -- I'd be more worried if he didn't look at porn, personally). He also is destined to rape, abuse, hate, and subjugate women in any way possible because -- drumroll, please -- he has a penis!!

Don't believe me? Read it for yourself -- she mentions it in blog posts here and here (emphasis mine -- and there is some swearing):

I've had him read Dworkin, my site, and other places (namely OAG's site) and I still can't unseat this problem. He can recite feminist literature all day long, he can understand the tenets, the ideas behind it, how it links together but he will not allow this knowledge to stand in the way of his porn use.

I know, that as soon as my child leaves my home and moves into his own place that he will be looking at porn immediately. I know that I am raising a problem for women. I know that this child will one day grow and will fully absorb the messages that porn sends to men. I know that my child masturbates to degradation of my people (when I use that phrase I mean womyn) and that with every orgasm he will further solidify his own hatred of and superiority over, women.

I know that there will likely come a day where my son coerces a young woman into sex (rape) and there isn't a damned thing I can do about it. I look into the eyes of my son and they still sparkle like they did when he was a baby, but he's not a baby anymore, he's growing into a man and that man will have trained himself to degrade women before he leaves my home.

But he is not and the way he treats his girlfriend, his sister, his grandmother, and myself make me hate myself for not pouring him down the sink at Planned Parenthood or grabbing a rusty coathanger and doing the job myself even if it killed me.

My boys are good boys, they're smart boys, but they are boys and as such, the Patriarchy want them. The Patriarchy is doing it's level-best to assimilate my boys and bring them into the folds of Male Power and Privilege and it's my job to put the spark of empathy, the fire of self-determination and respect into their young minds to make women safer. To make their wives and girlfriends and fuck buddies safe from them, because left unchecked they could rape, they already have the equipment.

Now, if only I can figure out what to say *sigh*

Isn't that just lovely?

And of course, to new wave feminists, this is not only accepted and seen as normal, but any argument to the contrary is a sign of sexism and hatred of women.

But the best thing about Biting Beaver is that she forces her son to read her site, so he'll be wonderfully aware of how she wishes she aborted him.

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

Crossing the line one too many times

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

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



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

As Michelle Malkin put it,

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

accountability:
noun
responsibility to someone or for some activity

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

This kind of hatred should not be embraced any longer.

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

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

Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin

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?

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.

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.

IF he did it, here's how

Remember a little while back, November 2006 to be specific, when OJ Simpson was peddling a book deal, something along the lines of "If I killed them, here's how I would have done it"? The book, along with a Fox News special, ended up being scrapped because of public outrage.

Well, TMZ has obtained a manuscript from that book (or so they claim). I cannot vouch for the validity of this passage, but if it is real, then it is chilling. Fasten your seatbelts, because you're about to go on a bumpy ride (caution: contains strong language!):

I'm going to tell you a story you've never heard before, because no one knows this story the way I know it. It takes place on the night June 12, 1994, and it concerns the murder of my ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her young friend, Ronald Goldman. I want you to forget everything you think you know about that night because I know the facts better than anyone. I know the players. I've seen the evidence. I've heard the theories. And, of course, I've read all the stories: That I did it. That I did it but I don't know I did it. That I can no longer tell fact from fiction. That I wake up in the middle of the night, consumed by guilt, screaming.

...

I looked over at Goldman, and I was fuming. I guess he thought I was going to hit him, because he got into his little karate stance. "What the f*ck is that?" I said. "You think you can take me with your karate sh*t?" He started circling me, bobbing and weaving, and if I hadn't been so f*cking angry I would have laughed in his face. "O.J., come on!" It was Charlie again, pleading. Nicole moaned, regaining consciousness. She stirred on the ground and opened her eyes and looked at me, but it didn't seem like anything was registering. Charlie walked over and planted himself in front of me blocking my view. "We are f*cking done here, man-let's go!"

I noticed the knife in Charlie's hand, and in one deft move I removed my right glove and snatched it up. "We're not going anywhere," I said, turning to face Goldman. Goldman was still circling me, bobbing and weaving, but I didn't feel like laughing anymore. "You think you're tough, motherf*cker?" I said. I could hear Charlie just behind me, saying something, urging me to get the f*ck out of there, and at one point he even reached for me and tried to drag me away, but I shook him off, hard, and moved toward Goldman. "Okay, motherf*cker!" I said. "Show me how tough you are!"

Then something went horribly wrong, and I know what happened, but I can't tell you exactly how. I was still standing in Nicole's courtyard, of course, but for a few moments I couldn't remember how I'd gotten there, when I'd arrived, or even why I was there. Then it came back to me, very slowly: The recital-with little Sydney up on stage, dancing her little heart out; me, chipping balls into my neighbor's yard; Paula, angry, not answering her phone; Charlie, stopping by the house to tell me some more ugly sh*t about Nicole's behavior. Then what? The short, quick drive from Rockingham to the Bundy condo. And now?

Now I was standing in Nicole's courtyard, in the dark, listening to the loud, rhythmic, accelerated beating of my own heart. I put my left hand to my heart and my shirt felt strangely wet. I looked down at myself. For several moments, I couldn't get my mind around what I was seeing. The whole front of me was covered in blood, but it didn't compute. Is this really blood? I wondered. And whose blood is it? Is it mine? Am I hurt?

Another TMZ posting reveals, also from the book, that during the now-infamous Bronco chase scene, he considered killing himself with his Magnum:

A.C. drove another half-mile or so and pulled into an orange grove, where no one could spot us, not even from the sky. He got out to take a leak, and the moment he left the Bronco I reached for my grip. I unzipped it and pulled out the Magnum. I was in tremendous pain, and I saw nothing but more pain ahead of me, and I decided to end it. I realized, I can make this stop. One shot to the flicking [sic] head and it's over.

Is it possible that there is a more despicable man alive? Is there anyone more sick, and twisted, and selfish than this man?

I remember the OJ Simpson trial. Every reasonable person in America knew that he did it. I was still in middle school, but classes basically came to a halt. Day in and day out, we watched the trial in class. The day the verdict was announced, the school erupted into celebration by the... minority students and faculty. And I mean that literally -- they were cheering and dancing and shouting in the hallways, as if this was some kind of victory for the civil rights movement or something.

And OJ stood there in the courtroom, smirking.

Then there's this book. Whether he did it or not, how horribly selfish was that? I mean, to make a profit off of those murders -- including the murder of the mother of your children -- is sick, whether you did or not. Think about the effect this will have on Nicole and Ron's families, hearing about their loved ones being brutally murdered. And what about his children? How will they like reading about their mother being murdered in explicit detail? But that doesn't matter to Mr. OJ Simpson, oh no. Anything to make some money, right?

Sick, sick, sick, sick, sick. That man is despicable. Just, honestly, can you sink any lower?