Colorodo teens make the pledge politically correct

Michael Newdow must be very, very proud of these kids.

If you don't remember, he was the atheist who wanted the words "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance because he was (sniff, sniff) offended! He claimed it was not ok for his daughter to have to recite those two little words every day, even though the daughter in question and her mother had no problem with it whatsoever. That didn't get in the way of his shameless exploitation of her, though, because the concerned parent attack comes off much better than the intolerant liberal moonbat attack does. He also wants to have "In God We Trust" removed from all U.S. money, apparently unconcerned about the hassle (to put it mildly) it will cause for the Treasury.

If a moonbat is offended, then we all gotta pay.

With that in mind, I present to you the Boulder High School Student Worker Club:

Members of the activist club "Student Worker" are calling on students to leave class every Thursday at 8:30 a.m. — when the pledge is recited over the intercom — and rally in the courtyard to say a revised version of the pledge.

Club President Emma Martens, who's leading the protest, wrote this new version: "I pledge allegiance to the flag and my constitutional rights with which it comes. And to the diversity, in which our nation stands, one nation, part of one planet, with liberty, freedom, choice and justice for all."

Martens said her group is concerned that the traditional pledge read daily at the start of second period classes takes away from school time. She also said the phrase, "one nation, under God," violates the separation of church and state.

"Boulder High has a highly diverse population, not all of whom believe in God, or One God," she wrote in an e-mail to the Camera.

"We didn't think it was fair for the whole school to have to listen to it," Martens said between classes today. "It's disrespectful and in complete violation of the separation of church and state. It's almost religious oppression."

She said the group has written a letter to Principal Bud Jenkins asking that Boulder High hold the recitation — which the school must make available by state law — in the auditorium during both of the school's two lunch breaks.

"That's so students can go if they want, but not everyone is required to listen to it," Martens said. "I don't want them to break any laws by not saying it. We just want them to do it so we don't have to hear it every day."

One of the first things I thought when I read this was her complaint about how reciting the Pledge of Allegiance "takes away from school time". Having hordes of students troop out to the courtyard at 8:30 to say her moonbat version, though, is apparently ok.

She also took the liberty of remaking our flag, because I guess having stars to represent each of the states in the union is not satisfactory, either. No, a peace sign is much better:



Now, lets just examine this new liberal-friendly Pledge:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag and my constitutional rights with which it comes. And to the diversity, in which our nation stands, one nation, part of one planet, with liberty, freedom, choice and justice for all."

This girl covered all of the requisite liberal talking points, didn't she? Diversity? Globalism and environmentalism? "Choice" (meaning abortion, I'm sure)? Perversion of constitutional rights? She's got every base covered!

What's almost funny, if it wasn't so sad, is how she equates the phrase "Under God" to religious oppression. If she wants to know what real religious oppression looks like, she should do some research. She could start here, or here, or even here, where she can learn about real oppression by country. People being enslaved and murdered because of their religion is real oppression. A whiny high school student crying over a centuries old phrase to get attention so that she can feel important is not opppression.

And there's of course the obligatory "separation of church and state" argument, a phrase which actually appears nowhere in the Constitution. If she wants to leave out "under God", then she's free to go right on ahead, but that's never enough for liberals. They ensure that if one person is offended, we all suffer the consequences. Besides, why should facts and respect for the beliefs of others matter? It doesn't stop any other liberal moonbat, and it sure as hell won't stop her.

Hat Tips: Moonbattery, Michelle Malkin

10-year-old investigated for race hate crimes

British police are investigating 10-year-old Jake Stedman for a race hate crime.

The investigation was put into place after 35-year-old unidentified Slovakian woman (keeping the identity of the minor a secret apparently was never thought of) chased him around an alley, hitting him with an iron bar and sent him to the hospital.

Little Jake, though, is the one facing aggravated assault charges!

Police are considering charging a 10-year-old boy with a race hate crime after he was beaten by a Slovakian woman with an iron bar.

Jake Stedman needed hospital treatment after the attack in Chatham on Friday, when he was allegedly beaten around the head and neck after being chased down an alley, and was left with two black eyes.

But police are now looking into claims from the 35-year-old woman who allegedly attacked him and who is currently on police bail, that he made racist remarks by telling her "to go back to her own country".

If charged with racially aggravated assault, Jake, who has only just reached the age of criminal responsibility, would become the youngest person in the country to face a race hate charge.

"It is very early stages but we are investigating whether the boy should face any charges," said a police source.

"There have been allegations that he used racist language and it is necessary for us to investigate the claims."

The incident occurred as Jake and his friends were playing outside a local convenience store when a group of four Slovakian women passed by.

The boys allegedly called out to the women and threw soft fruit at them.

See, in moonbat-infested Europe, the woman who assaulted a child and sent him to the hospital is the trustworthy one. The child, on the other hand, needs to be punished with a charge of racially aggravated assault?!

Thing is, police don't know that Jake even said or did anything to those women -- it's still being "investigated". So why isn't this woman being locked up?

And even if Jake did tell them to go back to their own country, since when is rudeness equal to beating someone with an iron bar?

Yes, Jakey should not have been rude to the women just because they are immigrants. It is not a nice thing to do. It is not the same, however, as an adult woman (who should know better) chasing him around an alley, beating him with an iron bar and sending him to the hospital!

Is this Britain's version of the Jena Six? A minority is insulted by something a white person did, so therefore, they are allowed to retaliate in any way they find prudent, even if that means using extreme violence?

The sad thing is how much western civilization is now controlled by "feelings". If someone's feelings get hurt, then something's gotta change, someone's gotta pay. This woman's feelings were hurt, I assume, so that means that not only is she allowed to beat the ever living crap out of this kid, she's also allowed to file charges against him for a hate crime. Are rudeness and intolerance is officially the worst crimes one can commit? Say the Slovakian woman killed little Jake Stedman. Would the police say it was ok because he was being a rude little brat? All a murderer needs to do nowadays is cry about how oppressed he or she has been, and how horrible it's been for them living with intolerance and oppression every single day and moonbats will race to their defense, claiming that society created this murderer and that they can't be held accountable for their actions.

If charged, Jake will be the youngest Briton to be charged with a race hate crime.

Hat Tip: Moonbattery

Valedictorian sues school over graduation speech

Liberty Counsel is an organization that will file suit whenever schools censor religious or politic speech. And they filed a suit yesterday on behalf of Erica Corder, valedictorian at Lewis-Palmer High School in Colorado:

During her 30-second message Erica spoke about her faith in Jesus Christ. Afterwards, she was escorted to see the assistant principal, who said she would not receive her diploma because of the speech she had given. Principal Brewer later indicated that her comments were "immature." He said that she could only receive her diploma if she apologized to the school community. Erica prepared a statement saying the message was her own and was not endorsed by the principal. Brewer insisted that she include the words: "I realize that, had I asked ahead of time, I would not have been allowed to say what I did." Erica complied because she feared the school would withhold her diploma. She was also afraid that the school would put disciplinary notes in her file and would generate negative publicity, which could prevent her from becoming a school teacher. Principal Brewer sent out Erica's message in an e-mail to the entire high school community. Soon after, Erica received her diploma.

Liberty Counsel sent a letter on behalf of Erica to the Lewis Palmer School District Board of Education, explaining that her First Amendment rights had been violated, and requested that the district apologize for the e-mail that Erica was forced to write and institute a written policy to ensure that no future constitutional violations occur. The school board has thus far taken no remedial steps. Meanwhile, Erica continues to be the subject of public criticism from school officials.

I've never understood the objection to letting students speak about their faith publicly. To do otherwise is censorship and infringes upon freedom of speech. I mean, there is no freedom to remain unoffended in the Constitution, and if you get offended over a 30-second speech about Jesus, then you need to get yourself some thicker skin.

While schools reacting to students' public displays of Christianity like this regularly, they almost never react negatively if it is a non-Christian. Christianity alone is under attack. And with Erica's case, they took it a step too far, in not only witholding her diploma, but actually threatening to disciplinary notes in her file and publicly criticize her, therefore threatening her future as a teacher.

Now, Liberty Counsel does not usually file suit. After a letter, the school apparently will respond. But Lewis-Palmer High School didn't, and has taken no steps in apologizing for their behavior, and Erica continues to be the subject of public criticism by school officials. They had no choice but to move forward, a decision that was fully warranted.

When does this assault on Christianity stop? When will Christians decide they're tired of being bullied and stand up for themselves?

Hat Tip: Stop the ACLU

Padilla found guilty

The jury returned a verdict today in the case against Jose Padilla and his two co-defendants.

The charges:

Count 1 - Conspiracy to Murder, Kidnap, and Maim Persons in a Foreign Country as part of a conspiracy to advance violent jihad
Count 2 - Conspiracy to Provide Material Support for Terrorists
Count 3 - Material Support for Terrorists
Counts 4 and 5 are against Hassoun for unlawful possession of a weapon and making a false statement
Counts 6 through 10 are against Hassoun for multiple charges of perjury
Count 11 is against Hassoun for obstruction

Good to hear.

From Yahoo News:

“A verdict was reached Thursday in the trial of Jose Padilla and two co-defendants charged with supporting al-Qaida and other violent Islamic extremist groups overseas. The jury verdict was scheduled to be read at 2 p.m. EDT before U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke in Miami’s downtown federal courthouse, according to an announcement from her chambers. The jury of seven men and five women deliberated for about a day and a half following a three-month trial. Padilla, Adham Amin Hassoun and Kifah Wael Jayyousi face possible life in prison if convicted of all three charges in the case.”

I'm exceedingly happy he was found guilty, but life in prison? He was tried in Miami. We still use the death penalty here in Florida, and once upon a time in the United States, we executed treasonous bastards like Padilla. Not so in the softer, fluffier America, huh?

Michelle Malkin has the timeline leading up to the scumbag's involvement with Al Qaeda and designation as an "enemy combatant" by President Bush, as well as his Al Qaeda "application form" (I never knew Al Qaeda bothered with a paper trail, but skip on over to Michelle's blog to see it for yourself):

May 1988: Padilla turns 18, released from juvenile detention in Chicago on probation until age 21.

October 1991: Padilla arrested in South Florida on gun and traffic charges. He serves 10 months in prison.

Early 1993: Padilla, while employed at Taco Bell in Davie, FL, inquires about converting to Islam.

1994: Padilla begins using the name Ibrahim.

1998: Padilla leaves U.S. to study Arabic abroad.

1999: Padilla travels to Afghanistan.

2001: Padilla meets with Abu Zubaydah. Padilla and an unnamed associate receive explosives training in Pakistan.

Early 2002: Padilla meets with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and is ordered to return to the U.S. for reasons still unclear.

May 2002: Padilla arrested on a material witness warrant related to September 11, at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport.

June 2002:Padilla designated “enemy combatant” by the president and moved to military custody in South Carolina.

And of course, HuffPo isn't disappointing. They're positively howling over this "outrage".

Didn't you see the movie "Judgement at Nuremburg"
Judge Ernst Janning, played by Burt Reynolds, gave Jews their day in court and convicted them of being Jews. Padilla has been convicted of being a member of a Muslim sect.

It is the saddest story, these times have ever seen.

They're hangin' men and women for the wearing of the green.

Apparently you have missed the most significant aspect of this situation: The man suffered incomprehensible torture, for years, at the hands of the American military. He was tortured to the degree of having irreversible brain damage -- which has been proved. He confessed at the hands of his TORTURERS. Perhaps the smile you see on his face is the same smile that would register on the face of a mentally retarded individual. His brain is fried.

Idiots like you, and the people who voted for Bush and his fascist fanatical party, who tortued and convicted this man shame this country.

And on HuffPo...

The Day of Rage begins.

He was convicted B/4 he even went to trial.

That "evidence" is enough to put someone away for life? A document with his fingerprints on it? Give me a break!
All I can say is the next time you're handed a document be sure you are wearing gloves.

Typical rightwing spin....Defend truth and honor and be labeled a traitor.

When due process is carried out by fascists, it's no longer due process, it's fascism.
This trial looks awfully similar to what was going on under Hitler's regime. Anyone who dared to say something against him was a "terrorist." Anyone who dared to question the courts was immediately transferred to a Lager. Time have changed, fascism has evolved, Lagers would be too expensive today, destroying the lives of dissidents by just spying on them and then charging them with phoney BS is a lot easier...

And so on and so forth. There's even a comment about how "songs will be sung" about Padilla, because he's a martyr or some crap (someone gag me).

Moonbats crack me up. They complain non-stop about Gitmo and how we are convicting terrorists without sending them to trial, and letting them be judged by a jury of their peers. We then do that, and a wanna-be terrorist asshole is convicted, and they're still upset.

Just not happy until we let Al-Qaeda do as they please, eh? Don't question their patriotism though, not even when they're standing with terrorists and Al-Qaeda wanna-bes, rather than Americans.

Anyways, if I had my way, this guy would be having his final meal tonight before he gets hanged tomorrow rather than having the pleasure of growing old in jail on my dime.

But I'm a heartless conservative bigot, so what do I know, right?

Another Code Pink hunger strike

Cindy Sheehan's famous hunger strike included coffee, ice cream, and Jamba Juice smoothies. The hunger strike was so effective, that Michelle Malkin was able to gain weight when she jumped on board!



But, alas, the Code Pink wackos never give up.

Well, at least until they get hungry, and then they can run merrily over to Jamba Juice and get some blended strawberries, mangoes, or whatever else kind of smoothie they want, because that's how real hunger strikes work and all.

This time though, they don't even seem to know what exactly they're protesting:

"Code Pink, a national grassroots peace movement inspired by Bay Area women, organized the protest to call for an immediate end to the war in Iraq and immediate impeachment proceedings against President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

Protesters walked from the bridge to the Pacific Heights home of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., set up camp, cooked one last carbohydrate-heavy meal and began a hunger strike. About 40 gathered on some terraced steps near the senator's home, along with a half-dozen police officers.

"We have about eight people who are going to stop eating, including me," Code Pink spokeswoman Nancy Mancias said.

On Wednesday, the group plans to relocate the hunger strike to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's home on Broadway, where they will urge the San Francisco Democrat to hold a town hall meeting with constituents.

Code Pink leaders believe both lawmakers should be doing more to bring the troops home and to rally other Democrats to call for an end to the war.

"Feinstein voted for the war spending bill, and even though Pelosi didn't, she's not doing enough to convince others to join her," Mancias said.

...Their hunger strikes have drawn worldwide attention. In summer 2006, the group was invited to meet with members of the Iraqi parliament in Amman, Jordan, to discuss diplomacy."

So... they're having a hunger strike to get Nancy Pelosi to meet with constituents? That's it?

These loonies have hunger strikes for everything, but -- surprise, surprise -- even though almost none of their goals have been met, they are all eating! I mean, we're still in Iraq but I haven't seen one Code Pink moonbat keel over from starvation yet.

As John Hawkins notes at Right Wing News::

Do these Code Pink loons even understand the whole concept of a hunger strike? You don't just, not eat for a few days, or eat smoothies and ice cream for a few days, like Cindy Sheehan, and then start eating again even though your demands aren't met. You're supposed to withhold sustenance from yourself until you get what you want or keel over dead.

Stupid Code Pink hippies -- they practically protest full-time and they can't even do that right.

You know, maybe this is just a method to try and lose weight for them. It could be the new fad diet: the Protest Diet! Find something that pisses you off and say you're going on a hunger strike to end it. Don't eat for a few days, lose five pounds, and then quit, all the while making yourself seem like you really, really care.

Considering the moonbats are so fond of not eating, why don't they just become Catholics? We fast all the time, especially during Lent. But then, they wouldn't be able to make themselves feel all important and influential that way, so I guess that's out, too.

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!

Sherry Glaser terrifies Clinton supporters

Zombie is reporting that moonbats from CODEPINK and Breasts not Bombs infiltrated Shrillary's campaign headquarters for a debate-watching party (visit the link for uncensored, NSFW pics if you so dare). They gleefully paraded around the party topless, as Shrillary supporters chanted her name like a bunch of zombies.

Sherry Glaser was, of course, in attendance.

This woman just creeps me out. Seriously, there seems to be something wrong with her. I visited her website and found a rather interesting blog entry, written November 20 of last year, in which she storms into a military recruiter's office and demands him to make the troops stop raping and murdering innocent people (emphasis mine):

A couple of weeks ago Breasts Not Bombs staged a demonstration outside the Military recruitment center in Ukiah, California because we feel that office is the first introduction to our young men and women as to what it means to be a soldier. We felt the need to find the root and address the aberrant and excessive violence that has led our military to commit war crimes like rape and murder. Though there were ten of us on the street that day, we opted not to take our shirts off. We blamed it on the weather and well, it was a major street and we had concern about traffic. But the truth is I was afraid. Afraid to bare my breasts to again be subject to judgement and ridicule for my outrageous behavior and my bountiful bosom. Although it was a spirited and well supported action, It felt disappointing. We even took the opportunity to go into the recruitment office and converse with the Sergeant in charge. Although he could not take responsibility for the troops run amok or even point me in the direction of those who might be, besides a "few bad apples." It felt like we built a bridge. He could see our humanity and we could see his. We were civil, kind and very calm. But, inside I'm bursting with terrible rage and sorrow. It's so strong that I'm compelled to tear off my shirt, pull out my hair and weep. Yes, it's dramatic, but it feels like this really is an emergency. I mean why is so unacceptable to bare my breasts. Why does the public at large have such a definitive and immediate reaction to my flesh, but the death of 2,900 American Soldiers and upwards of 200,000 Iraqi's elicits little response. Every day that our government debates and hem and haws there are REAL PEOPLE being violently killed.

What keeps me under wraps is also the simple size of my breasts, how they look. They are enormous, yes. It feels like I am carrying the sorrow of the world right under my nose. I wonder if so much of the breast cancer we are seeing is the unexpressed grief of this world. I dream of weeping, bare breasted with a million other women on the White House Lawn. I long for a world wide weep. Why are women kept in such restraint. What is so scary about our breasts.

This woman is so severely unhinged!

Look, lady, it isn't like Anna Kournikova or Jessica Alba is standing there with their tops off. No offense, but there is no one that wants to see your breasts! No one! You aren't a spring chicken anymore. It isn't all women's breasts that are scary, just yours.

And of course, there's the standard liberal line about how our troops are rapists and murderers. I would love it if she said that to me. Love it.

Her entire rambling post just goes to show how moonbats work and think. Not to mention, I don't think she could go a single sentence without butchering it grammatically.

I just don't get it, what is it that makes people take her seriously?! And she cries about how terrified she is of baring her gigantic, droopy breasts, but she does it... all the time. Whenever she has the opportunity to, actually. Yeah, she's terrified, all right.

And on top of the craziness, she thinks Shrillary is not far left enough? My God. I'd hate to think of what her ideal candidate would be like.

Hat Tip: Moonbattery, who so graciously added red bars to the picture below.

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

She's ba-a-a-ck!

Did anyone think she wouldn't be?

Cindy Sheehan has been threatening to run for public office against Nancy Pelosi -- as an independent, of course, since she now hates the Democratic Party as well -- if she doesn't try to impeach President Bush.

Well, today, she made it official.

I bet Nancy Pelosi is just shaking in her high heels!

Bidding farewell to her former peace camp near President Bush's ranch, Cindy Sheehan began a nearly two-week trek toward Washington D.C. on Tuesday with her sights set on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Officially announcing her run against Pelosi in 2008 if the San Francisco congresswoman doesn't move to impeach Bush by July 23, Sheehan said she relates to the people in her home state and chided Pelosi for keeping troops in danger.

"I know what Californians care about," said Sheehan, who plans to run as an independent. "They don't care about the ruling power elite."

Sheehan first told The Associated Press on Sunday about her plans to challenge the top-ranking Democrat. She made it official Tuesday at Camp Casey, named after her 24-year-old son who was slain in Iraq and whose death first led Sheehan to Crawford in 2005 to demand a meeting with Bush.

Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said Tuesday that Pelosi's "focus is on ending the war in Iraq."

"She believes that the best way to support our troops in Iraq is to bring them home safely and soon," Daly wrote in an e-mail to The Associated Press. "Democrats will continue to hold the Bush Administration accountable by having votes in July to change course in Iraq; to responsibly redeploy our troops; and to refocus our effort on protecting Americans from terrorism."

But Sheehan said Tuesday that's not enough.

"You can't bring the troops home if you give George Bush $100 billion to wage this war," she said. "You're not supporting them. You're keeping them in harm's way."

Sheehan's caravan then plans to leave for Houston, the first stop on what her supporters termed a "journey for humanity."

Sheehan, who turned 50 on Tuesday, in May stunned fellow anti-war activists by announcing that she would sell the 5-acre protest site. She said she felt her efforts had been in vain and that she had endured hatred and smear tactics from the left as well as from the right.

Sheehan said Bush should be impeached is because she believes he misled the public about the reasons for going to war, violated the Geneva Convention by torturing detainees and crossed the line by commuting the prison sentence of former vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

Sheehan has said she lives in a Sacramento suburb but declined to disclose which city, citing safety reasons. The area is outside Pelosi's district, but there are no residency requirements for congressional members, according to the California secretary of state's office.

Sheehan spent a final long weekend at her 5-acre lot before ceremoniously handing the keys to its new owner, California radio talk show host Bree Walker.

Come on -- she can't seriously think she has a prayer of winning!

Hot Air had this video posted, of Cindy Sheehan on Fox News saying that "the little voice in Cindy Sheehan's head" was what told her to run.



I've said it so many times, but her son must be spinning in his grave right now. He joined the Army in 2000, and then re-enlisted in 2004 -- after the Iraqi War had begun, and he apparently even knew his unit was being sent to Iraq when he re-enlisted.

Casey Sheehan is a hero who made the ultimate sacrifice for his country -- and his mother jumped onto that opportunity to exploit his sacrifice and dishonor him, in order to push her own radical agenda.

Is there anything sadder than that?

But, as I said, it isn't like she has a prayer of winning. Nancy Pelosi has held that seat for 20 years. She ain't going nowhere.

Meanwhile, my buddy John Hawkins of Right Wing News has what very well could be her very first campaign ad:



Previous:
Cindy Sheehan: So Long and Good Night!

Nancy Pelosi: Go Team Canada!

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



Here's a close-up:



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

Admiral (Adm) or General (Gen)

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

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

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

Hat Tip: Qando

Seattle Presents: Moonbats-In-Training!

A Seattle school board meeting went awry after adults in charge refused to make mini-moonbats act like... well, adults. Sprinkle a little military hatred on top, and you've got yourself a perfect moonbat sundae.

From The Seattle Times:

A protest of military recruiting in Seattle Public Schools has shut down tonight's School Board meeting.

Acting President Darlene Flynn recessed the meeting before she could even take roll because about 30 students marched into the meeting room chanting, "Yo School Board, what's up? We're here to say we've had enough."

Some students covered with fake blood collapsed on the floor, then were carried around the room. After the demonstration, the students spoke to the meeting's attendees in support of a proposed policy they wrote that would require military recruitment to be confined to twice-yearly recruitment fairs.

After more than a half-hour, the board convened with the district's attorney to discuss its course of action. Board members re-entered the board meeting room, where the students demanded 10 to 15 minutes to address them.

Instead, board member Brita Butler-Wall made a motion to reconvene in a small boardroom. The media — but not the public — were allowed inside while the board continued its business.

"We couldn't hear each other, and if you can't hear each other, you can't do the public's business," Flynn said.

At 7:45 p.m., the board voted to return to the boardroom after a break. The protesters had moved outside.

Blatant military hatred aside (although, what else can you expect from the Starbucks State?), why were these kids allowed to carry on like this? Once upon a time, you were required to make a point intelligently, using facts, not hysteria. Not for moonbats, oh no -- gross emotionalism is what they use as ammo, and that's what these kids did, and they got away with it.

A toddler learns that if he throws a temper tantrum, he will either be punished or rewarded. And that's what these kids did -- threw a massive temper tantrum and they were rewarded. Rather than actually maintain control of the school board meeting, Acting President Darlene Flynn just awarded legitimacy to their hissy fit and taught them that throwing hissy fits will get them whatever they want.

All of that aside, what is it about the left coast that makes them hate the military so damn much? I feel bad for anyone stationed in Seattle.

Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin

Osama bin Laden, you're my hero!!

That is the premise of a new prize-winning play from "playwright" Dennis Kelly, who wrote it after the war in Iraq begun. He won $20,000 and Britain's Meyer-Whitworth award last November, and it has now begun appearing in Sydney, Australia.

Is Osama a hero? That's the provocative beginning of a new play about the "war on terror".

A SCHOOL assignment asks students to name a contemporary hero who is prepared to give up personal wealth for what he believes in and is inspirational to many people.

The show, with a cast of five, now comes to La Mama with the stated aim of getting audiences to consider some of the implications of the so-called "war on terror".

"It's a deliberately provocative title designed to shock us into action," says the play's director, Syd Brisbane. "Dissent about what's happening is hard to find. You need strength and purpose to keep the debate moving forward."

The play functions as a microcosm of the world after the terrorist strikes on New York and Washington, with violence now much more paramount.

Gary, played by Xavier Samuel, is the student who believes in honesty and names Osama bin Laden as his modern hero. This results in him being seized by people from the housing estate where he lives, and bound and gagged.

Bins and garages have been blowing up on the estate and Gary gets the blame. The playwright, whose earlier play Debris was performed in Melbourne last year, described Osama as a "brutal play" that expressed his own confusion about the state of the world.

Brisbane says it is quite political, with Gary's plight used to symbolise that of others accused of terrorism. "When he says there is no proof against him, he's told the evidence isn't necessary in dealing with terrorists."

Funny how things like this are always labeled as "provocative".

Of course, it turns Osama bin Laden into a moral hero, and his supporters are people who are oppressed and believe in "honesty". Not terrorists, oh no -- the big, mean, USA is the real terrorist. We don't really catch "terrorists", we catch innocent people who are only expressing themselves by blowing themselves and other people up, and acting out against American oppression. We should look up to them -- better yet, let's just all do what they say, and convert to Islam and live under Shariah law! They're good, honest people with our best intentions in mind, right? Right?

Unfortunately, this is nowhere near out of the ordinary for the liberal arts community. Art today is no longer about making beautiful, meaningful works of art to inspire others. It is meant to offend and disgust the average person. If decent Americans are not outraged, then they haven't done their job.

And this is just another example.

Expect a glowing review from the New York Times -- perhaps Maureen Dowd could gush over how hot she thinks "Gary" is the way she gushes over how hot Eminem is -- any day now.

Hat Tip: MoonBattery

Snap, crackle, and pop right oughtta here

Cereal is probably one of my favorite foods. I know that sounds weird, but my dream pantry would probably have the entire cereal aisle at Winn-Dixie. I never get tired of it. With the exception of wheat cereals and those weird "organic" cereals, I could eat any cereal over and over and over again.

This probably goes back to when I was a kid. I loved sitting there with my Rice Krispies, listening to them "talk" to me, like the three elves (named Snap, Crackle, and Pop) said they did on the commercial. I wasn't as big a fan of Fruit Loops, but I loved Toucan Sam, and the leprechaun from Lucky Charms... well, I loved all the cereal commercials, with kids chasing them around to get these great cereals. It used to be that cereals were considered part of a wholesome and complete breakfast. Not by itself, of course, but the commercials would show these breakfasts with toast, bacon, eggs, orange juice, and a bowl of said cereal.

Now, moonbats are taking nannyism to a new level, and are going after Toucan Sam, who has been around since 1963, and Snap, Crackle, and Pop, who have been around since 1933. The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) wants the mascots done away with.

Hannah Storm from CBS's The Early Show crowed about this victory over children's cartoon characters:

“Well, that’s a great idea Nancy, because you can’t even take your child to the grocery store because they’re clamoring for the products with characters on them. When are we going to see them disappear?”

The CSPI, along with Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC), and two Massachusetts parents have threatened to file a lawsuit against Kellogg's to get rid of the characters, and Kellogg's in turn has decided to limit those commercials during children's shows.

Remember Saturday morning cartoons? Those commercials were a perfect match. I guess moonbats would prefer PSA's about safe sex practices, and tolerance for ways different than our own, like homosexuality and global jihad wars. They could sandwich Trojan Man commercials right in between them.

The CSPI feels that because cereals contain sugar, that means that they are unhealthy. They don't seem to understand that if kids remain active, as they used to be growing up, that won't matter. Kids are growing, they are full of energy, and no one needs to be freaking out over the fact that a bowl of cereal has some sugar in it.

Perhaps if parents didn't allow their children to have every game console underneath the sun, along with their own personal TVs and computers, and made them go outside and play, be active, we wouldn't see so much childhood obesity. Maybe it is the parent's decision what the child does or doesn't eat, and none of the CSPI's damn business.

Also, Ms. Hannah Storm, it shouldn't matter if your kids are "clamoring over" these cereals with cartoon characters on them. If you don't want them to eat them, you say NO, and that's the end of the story. If you are unable to do that, and give in every time your kids whine that they want something, you shouldn't be a parent. That leads to what we called "spoiled brats" when I was a kid -- what a shocker!

And what about kids' snacks with cartoon characters on them? Go down the snack aisle and you'll see all kinds of snacks with Spiderman, the Disney Princesses, and all kinds of cartoon characters on them. Will they go after those next? Will all children's foods have to be sold to us in identical, plain packaging because parents can't be trusted to say no to their kids if they feel something is unhealthy?

Slippery slope, slippery slope...

If we let radical left-wing groups like the CSPI continue to run free unchecked, we will truly see what a fascist nation is like. Funny how leftists are crowing about how George Bush is a fascist, when the nanny state they want to implement is exactly what will lead to that.

Hat Tip: NewsBusters

If you listen to Rush, then you can die for all they care

Can liberals sink any lower? Is it possible? Wait a second, I shouldn't say that. As soon as I begin to think that, they do.

From Broward County in my home state of Florida, Democrats are refusing to put emergency broadcasting on a local radio station because it began airing Rush Limbaugh:

Rush Limbaugh has long been a thorn in the side of liberals, but now, because of him, some Democratic politicians don't even want to join with a local radio station to broadcast hurricane information.

Radio station WIOD, AM 610, has been the official channel for emergency information from Broward County government for the past year. The County Commission, all Democrats, balked at renewing the deal Tuesday, unable to stomach the station also being home to Limbaugh's talk show.

Commissioner Stacy Ritter said she did not want to support a station that's out of step with area politics. Ritter, a Democratic stalwart in the state Legislature before being elected to county office, cited talk shows hosted by Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and WIOD's partnership with Fox News.

"They have every right to speak, but we don't have to do business with them," she said.

Limbaugh has long been a fixture on WIOD, but no county official raised an issue about him or the other shows when the deal was approved for the first time a year ago.

Ken Charles, WIOD's director of AM programming, said the station's talk show lineup has no relationship with its news coverage and that the county should focus on the benefits of teaming with the station.

"It's a shame that people would let politics get in the way of saving lives in a hurricane," Charles said.

Ritter's concerns were echoed by Commissioners Ken Keechl, a former president of the Dolphins gay Democratic club, and Suzanne Gunzburger, who served on the vote-tallying board that recounted the 2000 presidential election.

But Commissioner John Rodstrom, a one-time young Republican leader who later became a Democrat, said the county should not politicize emergency management.

"If we are going to start censoring what people write in the paper or speak on the radio or television, that's a slippery slope," Rodstrom said. "This is necessary. It's something we need to do for emergency response."

Well, at least there's one sane Democrat there, Commissioner Rodstrom. But honestly, that just floors me. Well gee, you're a Republican, so we aren't going to warn you when a hurricane's coming, or some other dire emergency. We don't like Rush Limbaugh so this is your punishment for airing him. Honestly -- only liberals. Funnily enough, if the situation were reversed, you just know that liberals would be howling about how it is censorship, calling the ACLU, and holding massive press conferences whining about how "we need to protect our first amendment rights!".

Ritter says she does not want to support a station "out of touch" with area politics (meaning, of course, her's). What does that have to do with it? Liberals carp on and on about how much they cherish free speech and diversity, but they only mean free speech in the sense that they get to say whatever they want in front of adoring audiences chock full of impressionable college students and fellow Democrats, and only skin deep diversity and never ideological diversity. It's the most hypocritical thing I've ever seen, watching them talk about free speech and censorship. These are the idiots who go on national television and whine -- in front of hundreds of TV cameras -- that liberals are censored and can't get their message out because of evil conservatives. Which is why, if a conservative board of anything ever did something like this, there would be such a fuss raised they'd be hearing about it on the moon.

But... wait... where's the ACLU when liberals try to censor conservatives? Where's the national media scandal over this? Anyone? Anywhere?

Do I hear crickets chirping?

Hat Tip: Newsbusters

Did she learn nothing at all?

Good grief. I guess you can't teach an old dog new tricks, after all.

Amanda Marcotte is, unsurprisingly, still going on foul-mouthed tantrums. Now, I'm not about to say people shouldn't swear or whatever. Believe me, I can have the mouth of a sailor sometimes. But there is a time and a place for that. That's why you won't see me swearing here, or in front of my parents, or at work, and so on and so forth. I'm not about to go on crazy, obscenity-laced screeching rants and then be shocked and shaken when they're used against me after I try to get involved in politics. If you can't make an intelligent point without erupting into hate-filled screeds, then either you need to see a psychologist, NOW, or you aren't very intelligent. Take your pick.

And of course all your hate-filled writings came out, Amanda. What did you expect? That no one would bring it up during your foray into politics? Turns out the Edwards campaign didn't like them too much. And yet apparently, her writings have not changed. I mean, you'd think someone would learn from the experience. Guess not:

Update: To all the people linking to this post, if you gave half as much a sh*t about the lives of our troops as about the fate of a hypothetical bumper sticker in a very silly joke, then this war would already be over.

How hard your life must be if the very idea of finding that someone has vandalized a bumper sticker that proclaims your @$$hole status would make you freak out. Having imagined a bumper sticker removal, perhaps you can imagine rebuying the “I’m An @$$hole” bumper sticker.

Ignore the sexist origins of the word. “C*nts”=@$$holes.

Break something. Set something on fire. Tonight you can find a way to resist. That @$$hole with a Bush bumper sticker? It can be removed.

And no, she didn't use asteriks or spell it with an @$$. Shockingly enough. And please -- like any liberal actually cares about our troops. It's nothing more than a talking point for them.

She also included a lovely song which includes phrases like "sh*t floats" and "c*nts are still running the world." It also makes mention of the "fact" that "the working class is now obsolete". Gee, that's funny. Because I work. I'm not lower class, but I am definitely not rich either. So where would that put me then? Hmm...

Moving on. The lovely, soothing song also mentions "In theory, I respect your right to exist, but I will kill you if you move in next to me," presumably talking about upper-class citizens. But perhaps I'm interpreting wrong. It then goes on to croon, "The free market is perfectly natural. Do you think that I'm some kind of dummy? It's the ideal way to order the world. F*ck the morals, does it make any money?"

Ugh, I think I'm gonna choke on my all-soy granola bar.

Last but not least, I perused the wonderful comment section:

one minivan, two bush stickers AND a stop partial birth abortion sticker.

i stopped in my tracks and started swearing at an empty vehicle. i probably looked crazy. the boyfriend assisted me forward as i kept swearing. i wish i had thought to just peel off the stickers.

what a simple yet brilliant idea.

I’m not particularly interested in setting fire to my own belongings, but I just found out my landlord is a Republican, so…

A friend used to steal support our troops magnets off of peoples cars and stick them on his car as trophies. Amazingly, no one ever gave him a hard time for it. He would watch his victims to see what they did. IF i recall, half the time the victims did not get replacement magnets, the other half did replace them. He used to say even though he was being a thief, he was a troop supporting thief b/c he rooted out all the fakes and got the genuine people to buy more magnets, supporting the troops even more. Then he would say something like “The money off of those magnets goes to the war effort, right? right?” As he said this he would always ham it up, like make some kind of sad-puppy face, or innocent child face, or what he called the trusting man-child. I’m not sure how to describe that last one. It’s a tragedy he went into cooking instead of acting after High School, he was such a talented thespian. Well, we all know what homophobia can do to people.

Hee, I just really love this song. It makes me angry-gleeful. (by Ms. Marcotte herself, from the comments section)

Wow, I can’t believe that people are making a thing out of the bumper sticker comment. Conservatives really have a deaf ear for jokes, don’t they? The comment was inspired by the half-silly/half-angry tone of the song, but I wouldn’t expect bona fide Bush voters to get something so complicated as that. (from Ms. Marcotte again)


And so on and so forth. She claims it was all a joke, but her readers didn't seem to take it that way. I have a Soldiers Angels ribbon on my car, along with a Duncan Hunter bumper sticker, and yeah, I'd be furious if someone ripped them off. What right do they have? Am I running around ripping bumper stickers off of other people's cars? No. If a conservative advocated their readers to rip bumper stickers off of leftists' cars, you can bet they'd be screaming censorship even before a single bumper sticker was ripped.

But, regardless. Amanda, it may be too late for you to save yourself. If you aspire to go to the next level, your hate-filled, obscenity-laced rants will keep on coming out because you just can't seem to learn to tone it down a bit. You know, maybe make an intelligent point without dropping an f-bomb for once. I know as a leftist that might be hard, but try. Then you wouldn't be such an easy target and people might actually be able to -- gasp!! -- take you seriously.

Hat tip: Ace of Spades

But don't accuse them of hating the military!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hat tip: Right Wing News

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

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

Pelo proudly describes her precociously politicized students' handiwork:

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

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

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

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

Obama stirs up racial tensions for political gain

Breitbart.com:

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Tuesday that the Bush administration has done nothing to defuse a "quiet riot" among blacks that threatens to erupt just as riots in Los Angeles did 15 years ago.

The first-term Illinois senator said that with black people from New Orleans and the Gulf Coast still displaced 20 months after Hurricane Katrina, frustration and resentments are building explosively as they did before the 1992 riots.

"This administration was colorblind in its incompetence," Obama said at a conference of black clergy, "but the poverty and the hopelessness was there long before the hurricane.

"All the hurricane did was to pull the curtain back for all the world to see," he said.

Obama's criticism of Bush prompted ovation after ovation from the nearly 8,000 people gathered in Hampton University's Convocation Center, particularly when he denounced the Iraq war and noted that he had opposed it from the outset.

Repeatedly, he referred to the riots that erupted in Los Angeles after a jury acquitted four police officers of assault charges in the 1991 beating of Rodney King, a black motorist, after a high speed chase. Fifty-five people died and 2,000 were injured in several days of riots in the city's black neighborhoods.

"Those 'quiet riots' that take place every day are born from the same place as the fires and the destruction and the police decked out in riot gear and the deaths," Obama said. "They happen when a sense of disconnect settles in and hope dissipates. Despair takes hold and young people all across this country look at the way the world is and believe that things are never going to get any better."

Good grief. Yet another liberal calling the Bush administration racist -- I'm so surprised I think I may have a heart attack! Yawn.

Yeah, yeah, I got it, I got it. The LA riots from sixteen years ago -- why are we still discussing this? -- are all white America's fault. We're all a bunch of big, fat racists trying to keep the black people down. The LA riots were just a bunch of people trying to make a political statement, driven to the point of desperation. So they rioted, stealing and fighting and generally causing chaos and destruction. And it's all our fault, and the same thing's gonna happen all over again because us white racists are just keeping the minorities under our collective thumb.

Is this the best that the "articulate", "intelligent" Barack Obama can come up with? If I ever see a liberal black politician have an original thought in his head about race, then I will truly die of shock. Because for liberal minorities, its always the same: keep stirring up racial tensions, blame every ill that befalls a minority group on white America, and never allow them to take responsibility for anything. And always remember: you are a victim! It is NOT your fault! A bunch of black people that you don't know and aren't related to who have been dead for over a hundred years were enslaved by white people (and Africans enslaved other Africans first... in Africa... before selling them to us here in the USA... but that doesn't fit into the liberal agenda)! You deserve reparations!

I'm not excusing slavery, or racism, or the KKK, or anything else like that. But good grief, I am so sick and tired of white people, and/or the Bush administration, being blamed for every single little thing that goes wrong for minorities. Katrina must be Bush's fault -- not the idiot (and black) mayor of New Orleans, who didn't think ahead to use the hundreds of buses in bus barns (which were later flooded) to evacuate low-income families who couldn't get out in time, or the female governor of Louisiana (who waited over 24 hours to contact federal authorities about making Louisiana a national state of emergency).

And of course, the obvious answer to ending the poverty and homelessness and hopelessness that plagues minorities in America would be to send taxes skyrocketing through the roof, and socialize everything, right? Of course the best course of action would be to throw those low-income minorities onto every government aid program known to man, rather than making them take responsiblity for themselves and, oh, I don't know, stand on their own feet?

And since when did Barack Obama want to give hope to people? Wasn't his book called The Audacity of Hope?

Hmm... what exactly is the meaning of the word audacity?

au·dac·i·ty
–noun, plural -ties.
1. boldness or daring, esp. with confident or arrogant disregard for personal safety, conventional thought, or other restrictions.
2. effrontery or insolence; shameless boldness: His questioner's audacity shocked the lecturer.
3. Usually, audacities. audacious acts or statements.
- Synonyms:
1. nerve, spunk, grit, temerity, foolhardiness. 2. impudence, impertinence, brashness.

The nerve of hope... the insolence of hope... the shameless boldness of hope... yep, audacity just had a better ring to it. I'm sure that Obama truly wants to inspire hope for minorities. A liberal would never try to stir up racial tensions for their own political gain. Just ask Rev. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

Hollywood finally finds Heaven!

In their own twisted sense, at least.

From World Net Daily:

A man who is believed to have killed up to 100 million people in his life is to be the subject of a positive $60 million biographical film portrait, if a Hollywood producer gets his way.

"Challenging Heaven" by Steven North will tell the story of the founding of Communist China with Mao Zedong in the role of George Washington.

North is currently trying to romance Beijing into offering support for the project.

"This is a very positive portrayal of Mao, and we are hoping that once the script clears the approval process, China will come forward with services and support," he said.

North is hoping to begin shooting after next year's Beijing Olympics.

"I need an army," North explained.

About 70 million Chinese were killed or died as a result of his brutal reign. That figure does not include millions of Tibetans, Koreans and members of other ethnic groups and nationalities.

In fact, the name of the Mao movie is significant. Mao once described himself as "without law and without heaven."

Only in Hollyweird could this ever happen. Only ridiculously idiotic Hollyweird liberals would find Mao someone who could be portrayed in a positive light. Only a Hollyweird producer could compare a mass murderer like Mao to George Washington.

I'm curious to see what the reaction will be from the rest of Hollyweird. Given how much they love Castro, Stalin, and Chavez, I'm sure they'll jump right on board.

Democratic debate tougher than cotton balls!

CNN and Wolf Blitzer hosted the Democratic debate last night, with the usual puffball soft questions, designed to let it as obvious as possible how much each candidate hates our troops, democracy, and America. Pull out of Iraq now! Socialize, socialize, socialize! We must submit to the UN!

One of the best parts (for me, anyways), was when Hillary Clinton disagreed with John Edwards about the global war on terror being a "bumper sticker slogan" because... she's a New Yorker , and has seen first hand the effects of terror.

Since when is Hillary Clinton a New Yorker?! Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't she have to purchase property in New York in order to hold a Senate seat there because she isn't a New Yorker? And does this mean that those of us not in New York are unable to comprehend how horrific 9-11 was?

Then there was John Edwards' line, "I don't know if I know what a rich person is!"

Gee, John, could it be someone who spends $400 on a haircut, and then an additional $225 at a spa and salon called the "Pink Sapphire" in "services"? Or maybe someone who made their living chasing ambulances and charging ridiculous fees pretending to be the advocate for the little guy?

Only two candidates -- Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel -- had the guts to mention that Clinton and Edwards both voted for the war initially.

At the end of the debate, each candidate was asked what they would do in their first 100 days of office. John Edwards said he would travel the world to "re-establish America's moral authority" -- because, ya' know, John Edwards just has so many morals! And the first 100 days as president of America should not be spent in... America!

Clinton and Obama both said bringing the troops home from Iraq, although Obama added in national health care. Hillary didn't need to, because we all know how she feels about health care.

Kucinich had the realistic goal of "reshaping the world for peace" and ending ALL nuclear weapons, everywhere! After he's done with that, he and Miss America will braid each other's hair and have a pillow fight.

Other responses included a $40k a year minimum wage for teachers (Richardson), and more ending the war in Iraq (Biden).

Some oddball answers were "restoring constitutional rights" to the country (Dodd), and not actually ending the war in Iraq, but simply reminding congressional leaders that they should (Gravel).

Funnily enough, although Shrillary said she'd pull out our troops now, she still refuses to admit that her vote was wrong. Whatever's most popular at the time, eh, Hillary? Oh, and she also mentioned her husband, saying, "Bill Clinton, my dear husband, would be sent around the world as a roving ambassador." Ugh.

Each candidate also said they'd get rid of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military as well.

Maybe next time, the Democrats will actually get asked real questions... like whether John Edwards prefers cherry or strawberry lip bloss better.

A Marine's perspective on serving, Iraq, and the military

I ran across a thread on the Democratic Underground, upset about a USA Today story about three former Marines and Iraq veterans-turned-anti war activists set to stand trial for participating in anti-war rallies in uniform. This conduct, of course, breaks military policy forbidding any member of the military to participate in any political activities or demonstrations while in uniform.

When can veterans stop saluting and start speaking out?

The question is more than a matter of protocol. As some returning Iraq veterans join anti-war protests, free speech advocates say disciplinary cases against three outspoken former Marines could stifle dissent by those who may know the most about conditions in Iraq.

The cases involve members of the Individual Ready Reserve, a group most servicemembers enter after active duty. Unlike regular reservists, they receive no pay and are not required to drill or attend annual training. Their only obligations are to inform the military of a change of address and to return to active duty if called. There are 150,000 members of the IRR.

Adam Kokesh, who served in Fallujah, is one of them. A member of Iraq Veterans Against the War, Kokesh wore his camouflage uniform, with all insignia removed, on March 19 during a mock "combat patrol" past the White House. Soon after his picture was in The Washington Post, Marine Maj. John Whyte e-mailed him that he may have violated regulations that forbid wearing all or part of a uniform "while engaged in political demonstrations or activities."

Kokesh, 25, e-mailed back, addressing the officer with a profanity.

Monday, Kokesh faces an administrative discharge hearing that accuses him of violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Pentagon policy on the wearing of uniforms and being "disrespectful" to a superior. A military board could convert his honorable discharge into an "other than honorable" one, which could reduce his veterans benefits. Today, he and supporters will board a "peace bus" in Washington to take him to the hearing in Kansas City.

"I'm a civilian with the full rights of a civilian until I am called back by the Marine Corps," Kokesh says.

The military doesn't see it that way. The Marine Corps would not comment on specifics of Kokesh's case because it is pending. Marine Maj. Stewart Upton, a Pentagon spokesman, said all troops are instructed that they are forbidden from wearing a uniform at a political event, regardless of whether they are on active duty or retired. "If he says he's a civilian, then why is he wearing the uniform?" Upton asks. "What is he trying to communicate by his action?"

Two other Iraq veterans, Sgt. Liam Madden, 22, of Boston and Cpl. Cloy Richards, 23, of Salem, Mo., also face disciplinary proceedings because of anti-war activities.

From what I can glean from the story, it seems to me that the military's only objection is participating in the demonstrations while in uniform, and not necessarily the participation itself. But, DU members responded with the typical hysteria:

It's amazing. It's not enough to send 'our troops' over to Iraq without armor, without any real plan to accomplish 'the mission,' and without proper long-term medical care for them if they get hurt. No, now we have to remind them that they are slaves for life to the military and can't have any civil rights, even when they get home. Excuse me, what are they fighting for again in Iraq. Oh yeah, freedom.

You shall not speak... unless you agree with all your government says.

If veterans can't speak out, then who can?

When can veterans stop saluting and start speaking out? That is the question; when can vets who are OUT not have to fear condemnation and perhaps punishment from the government they so faithfully served?

5. You're not supposed to wear the uniform to a political event... whether still in the military or not...but, this is weird, too. I can't begin to count the times I've seen service members in uniform at republican political events and yet nothing happened to them. I hope the lawyer shows photographs and explains these guys are being singled out because of their opposing views.

Given the response on the Democratic Underground, I thought I'd ask a buddy of mine, a Marine fresh out of Iraq, his thoughts on this "controversy" and the Iraq war in general. He asked for his name to be left out, but here is what he had to say:

Rank:
Lance Corporal.

Position in the Corps:
Gunner

Length of time served:
4years

Where have you been stationed/served?
1)Marine Corps Security Forces Battalion
2)1 Bat 6th Mar 2nd Mar Div Camp Lejeune, Deployed to the Anbar Province in Iraq

What is your opinion about the USA Today article criticizing the military's Uniform Code of Military Justice, stating that all troops are instructed that they are forbidden from wearing a uniform at a political event, regardless of whether they are on active duty or retired?
It isn't regardless -- he wasn't retired, he was on IRR (Individual Ready Reserve) which means he is still held to the UCMJ until his time is served. He caused his own problems by failing to obey the regulations. Rules are Rules.

Do you feel that this policy would be considered censorship?
No, we chose the day we enlisted to set aside some of our rights to defend those of others. We live with set rules and regulations, It was our decision to join so the "censorship" technically is self imposed.

What kind of progress do you feel we have made since our occupation in Iraq began four years ago?
More than you could possibly imagine. We have reopened countless schools, hospitals, and police staions. Area's which once rivaled Baghdad for the worst area in Iraq, now have gone a couple months without a single firefight, when averaging 60+ a week less then a year ago.

How does negative press in American media affect soldiers serving overseas? Does it affect the level of support you (soldiers) feel you are receiving?
It does and it doesn't. It does not affect the level of support we are feeling, because everyday we received letters from people across the nation that none of us knew thanking us for our sacrifice. As for some of the media, at times it angered us passionately, such as with Cindy Sheehan. But for the most part it didn't bother us, though I think we all could agree it would be nice if they [the media] showed what we accomplished while over here, rather than concentrating all of their efforts on finding the negatives.

What was/were your job/duties while in Iraq?
To provide security for my convoy.

Given the chance, would you go back to Iraq again? Yes or no, and why?
Yes...I just have to think back about my time there and I can think of an endless amount of reasons, so it is kind of hard to narrow it down. I love my job. And I can't stand the fact that there are men out there [in Iraq] hurting innocent people.

Did you get to meet anyone interesting while in Iraq?
I got to meet Chuck Norris in Iraq. Real nice guy. He was cool, thanked us for our service, posed for close to a quadrillion pictures, don't even want to contemplate the amount of fake punches he threw. He wore Marine Corps cammies and he thanked us for our service and sacrifice. He treated us like we were the famous ones and he was just a fan. It was pretty awesome.


Thanks to my friend for the interview and the invaluable service to our country -- he is truly a hero.