Huckabee kisses his veep dreams goodbye

And all with one little quote:

During a speech before the National Rifle Association convention Friday afternoon in Louisville, Kentucky, former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee — who has endorsed presumptive GOP nominee John McCain — joked that an unexpected offstage noise was Democrat Barack Obama looking to avoid a gunman.

“That was Barack Obama, he just tripped off a chair, he’s getting ready to speak,” said the former Arkansas governor, to audience laughter. “Somebody aimed a gun at him and he dove for the floor.”

Way to go, asshat. Real classy. Joke about someone trying to kill one of your political opponents. Douchebag.

Hat tip: Hot Air

Would you rather name your kid Superman or 4Real?

Honestly, I think this may be the dumbest court battle ever.

A New Zealand couple had a baby. They wanted to name him 4Real, but the New Zealand Registrar of Births, Deaths, and Marriages rejected the name, saying that numerals are not allowed in names. Now, Pat and Sheena Wheaton are officially naming him Superman, but will refer to him as 4Real:

A New Zealand couple is looking to call their newborn son Superman -- but only because their chosen name of 4Real has been rejected by the government registry.

Pat and Sheena Wheaton say they will get around the decision by the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages by officially naming their son Superman but referring to him as 4Real, the New Zealand Herald newspaper has reported.

The Wheatons decided on the name after seeing the baby for the first time in an ultrasound scan and realizing their baby was "for real."

They decided 4Real was the best way to write it, but the name was rejected because the registrar said a name had to be a sequence of characters.

Pat Wheaton said he was considering appealing the decision through the courts, but whatever happens he won't be budged on his choice.

"No matter what, it's going to stay 4Real," Wheaton told the Herald, "I'm certainly not a quitter."

A spokesman for the Department of Internal Affairs, which operates the registry, told the Herald discussions with the Wheatons about their son's name were continuing.

The baby is now 2 months old. The Wheatons first applied to register his name in June.

Let's say the Wheatons decided to fight for the name. Regardless of the outcome of the case, the poor kid loses! He'll be mocked for life -- whichever of the two names they give him! I mean, my God -- Superman?! 4Real?!

Parents who do this to their children, I'm curious: do you consider the effect your ridiculous names will have on your child? I mean, did the Wheatons ever stop and think about how their son will feel at 5, 10, 15 about being called 4Real? Or even worse, having to introduce himself as Superman?!

I mean, either way, this kid's gonna lose.

Don't get me wrong -- I don't think the government should tell people what they can and can't name their children, barring profanity. However, I do think parents should exercize some common sense, and think of their damn child before they name the poor kid some crackpot name like 4Real!

4Real. I can imagine a whole running joke very similar to the whole "Who's On First" bit coming from that name.

Daily Kos: They compassionately hate the troops!

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

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

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

Statements like this are the norm there:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He got shouted down. Here's video:



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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't it just fill your heart with pride?

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

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

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

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

Previous:
But STILL don't question their patriotism!

Rhiannon O'Donnabhain demands that the IRS pay for his/her sex change

What would you define as a medically necessary procedure? I'm sure most people would say appendectomies, heart bypasses... things along those lines, right?

Rhiannon O'Donnabhain wants to add sex change to that list.

He/She is suing the IRS when they for denying his/her write-off of $25,000 in medical expenses for a sex change (emphasis mine):

After a tormented existence as a father, a husband, a Coast Guardsman, and a construction worker, a 57-year-old suburban Boston man underwent a sex-change operation. And then she wrote off the $25,000 in medical expenses on her taxes.

But the IRS disallowed the deduction, ruling the procedure was cosmetic, not a medical necessity, in a potentially precedent-setting dispute now before the US Tax Court.

Rhiannon O'Donnabhain is suing the IRS in a case that advocates for the transgendered are hoping will force the tax agency to treat sex-change operations the same as appendectomies, heart bypasses, and other deductible medical procedures. The case is set to go to trial July 24.

An estimated 1,600 to 2,000 people a year undergo sex-change surgery in the United States, according to the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association.

O'Donnabhain, now 63, served in the Coast Guard, got married, helped to raise three children, and worked as a supervisor at various engineering and construction jobs, including the Big Dig highway project. O'Donnabhain said she could have paid back the approximately $5,000 she received in her tax refund, but decided to challenge the IRS because she believes the ruling against her was rooted in politics and prejudice.
"This goes way beyond money," O'Donnabhain said in an interview with the Associated Press. "If I were to give the money back, it would be saying it's OK for you to do this to me. It is not OK for them to do this to me or anyone like me."

The federal Tax Court has never issued an opinion in a similar case, said Jennifer Levi, a lawyer with Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the Boston-based legal organization representing O'Donnabhain.

But the IRS has ruled against allowing the deduction in at least one other case. In a 2005 case, the IRS ruled the costs of a woman's gender reassignment surgery and related treatments were not deductible as medical expenses. The IRS cited the section of the tax code that says cosmetic surgery or similar procedures are deductible only when they are needed to improve a congenital abnormality, an accident or trauma, or a disfiguring disease.

Where to even begin.

If O'Donnabhain wins, then basically, what will happen is that we, the American taxpayer, will be forced to pay for the choice of transgenders everywhere to disfigure themselves (more on that later). You know, when it comes down to it, if some dude wants to make himself a chick, then that's his/her decision. I don't want to have anything to do with it, and why should I have to pay for it??

Does O'Donnabhain care about that? Noooo! All he/she can worry about is him/herself. He/she wants a sex change, and he/she doesn't want to have to pay for it, and because he/she is considered a "minority", we must all roll over and submit to his/her whims because he/she thinks that otherwise... it isn't fair!

I feel like I'm listening to a five-year-old when I hear this guy/girl go on about how he shouldn't have to pay. All he/she has to do is stamp his/her foot and pout, and we'll be back in kindergarten.

Thing is, a sex change is not a necessary operation. He/she sure may feel like it is, but will he/she die if he/she does not get one? Will his/her heart stop beating? Will he/she cease to breathe? Will brain function desist? I don't think so; therefore, how can it be considered necessary?

Your choice, your money.

Now, here's what really puzzles me about sex changes.

When it comes down to it, is the sex really changed?

I mean, think about it. Just because you castrate some guy and carve a vagina into him and pump him full of hormones, how does that make him female? There is more to a vagina than what you see in Playboy, biologically speaking. Most of it is inside our bodies, not outside. I don't think doctors can add on a cervix, or a uterus, or ovaries, or fallopian tubes, or any of that kind of thing -- just like you can't add on a prostate or testis to a woman.

I guess I could be wrong about that, and I'm sincerely curious as to how that happens if I am wrong, so if anyone is like, an OB/GYN or something reading this and could let me know, e-mail me. :)

Either way, just because you disfigure yourself down there and take a bunch of hormones, it doesn't make you the opposite sex.

As my buddy John Hawkins said, "They have male parts surgically altered to look female. I mean, if they sewed you inside a cow suit and stuck two horns on your head, you wouldn't become a cow!"

All biology questions aside, I still don't think this is something we, the taxpayers, should be forced to pay for just because some selfish prick doesn't want to. Hasn't he/she ever heard the expression "You can't have your cake and eat it, too"? I mean, well gee, I want the government to give me a million dollars, but I bet I couldn't sue them for that and win, could I? And wouldn't it be incredibly selfish for me to do so? But that doesn't matter to O'Donnabhain, does it? He/she will foist that $25,000 tab on us without thinking twice.

Regardless of how you feel about someone getting a sex change, it shouldn't be the taxpayers' responsibility to pick up the tab for them to have a voluntary procedure. That is wrong. And now that O'Donnabhain is suing, he/she's going to suck up taxpayer money even if the case gets thrown out.

I hope the judge laughs him/her out of court.


Rhionnan O'Donnabhain: A Portrait of Selfishness

Michigan woman sues Starburst for being chewy

Seriously, I have had it up to here with these ridiculous lawsuits.

From Fox News:

Starburst Fruit Chews are exactly as their name would indicate: chewy. But one Michigan woman says the candies are so chewy, they should come with a warning label.

Victoria McArthur, of Romero, Mich., is suing Starbursts' parent company, Mars Inc., for more than $25,000 for "permanent personal injuries" she claims she sustained after biting into one of their yellow candy in 2005.

"I don't know, maybe about 3 chews and it literally locked my jaw … and it just literally pulled my jaw out of joint," she told MyFoxDetroit.com.

McArthur's lawyer, Brian Muawad, says the candies caused her to develop a condition known as temporal mandibular joint dysfunction. McArthur says she has had trouble chewing, talking and sleeping since the incident.

McArthur says she just wants to make sure nobody else meets the same end she did when she decided to indulge her sweetooth.

"I don't want to see anybody else have to go through what I have gone through from eating a piece of candy that was supposed to be soft chew," she said.

So basically, she had a few Starbursts, her jaw got kinda sore, and a light bulb went off. To their own credit, Mars told the woman to blow off, and refused to settle. The suit is going to court, where it can waste thousands of our taxpayer dollars.