I've moved — check out my new blog at cassyfiano.com!

Redirecting in 10 seconds...

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Just because I can

I'm posting this video again. No reason. It's just always fun to watch this wonderful video!

I came across it browsing on Iowa Voice and thought, what the heck. It never gets old.

I feel pretty!

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

Deport Them Now!

Michelle Malkin and Hot Air have issued a call to arms: a movement created to pressure the government to deport convicted criminal aliens.

We've seen it over and over again the past few months: illegal aliens killing someone while driving drunk; rapists; murderers -- most of them with past convictions who not only were not deported, but allowed to walk the streets, free again.

Michelle's column explains why we need to act:

My fellow Americans, we have a problem. We spend billions of dollars on homeland security, but our government can’t even track and deport convicted criminal aliens. These are not the well-meaning “newcomers” who just want to “pursue economic opportunities” by “doing the jobs no one else will do.” These are foreign-born thugs, sex offenders, murderers, and repeat drunk drivers who are destroying the American Dream.

...

The terrible kidnapping and murder of 12-year-old Zina Linnik in Tacoma, Wash., on July 4th is a typical example of the criminal alien revolving door. Terapon Adhahn, Linnik’s suspected kidnapper and killer who allegedly snatched her from the backyard of her home, is a permanent legal resident from Thailand. He was convicted of incest in 1990. Adhahn had sexually attacked his 16-year-old relative and pleaded down from a second-degree rape. Two years later, he was convicted of intimidation with a dangerous weapon. Section 1227(a)(2)(C), Title 8, of the U.S. code dealing with immigration states: “Any alien who at any time after admission is convicted under any law of…using, owning, possessing, or carrying…any weapon, part, or accessory which is a firearm or destructive device…in violation of any law is deportable.”

But Adhahn was not deported. In fact, as Lorie Dankers, spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Seattle, admitted: “He escaped our attention.”

Just like illegal alien gangster Mwenda Murithi , who was arrested 27 times without deportation before being arrested in the shooting death of 13-year-old innocent bystander Schanna Gayden last month in Illinois.

Just like illegal alien thug Ezeiquiel Lopez, who built up a six-year rap sheet without deportation before being arrested in the murder of Deputy Frank Fabiano two months ago in Wisconsin.

Just like illegal alien Juan Leonardo Quintero, who had been previously deported after committing crimes from indecency with a child to driving while intoxicated, but who traipsed back into the U.S. last fall and was arrested after allegedly shooting Houston police officer Rodney Johnson four times in the head during a routine traffic stop.

...

It is not “anti-immigrant radicals” who are fed up with the failure to kick out and keep out criminal aliens. Zina Linnik’s uncle, Anatoly Kalchik, points out that his family was a family of legal immigrants who all obeyed the laws. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported: “Zina’s uncle was angry that the suspect had not been deported after being convicted in a sex crime. “We are all immigrants, but we come legally,” Anatoly Kalchik said of his family. He added that the adults all cleared a criminal background check. ‘If someone is a sex offender, or any kind of offender, he has no business being in America,’ he said.”

...

Rep. David Price, a North Carolina Democrat, is sponsoring legislation to require monthly prison and jail checks by DHS to track incarcerated illegal aliens, increase spending on criminal alien deportations, and expand a program known as 287(g) to encourage more local and state officials to cooperate with the feds to help identify and deport criminal aliens in their hometowns.

Why the hell aren’t we doing all this already? How many more innocent lives will be taken or ruined before we do?

After the defeat of the Bush-Kennedy amnesty bill last month, I received tons of e-mail from readers asking: “What can I do?” Answer: Don’t wait for Washington. Sign up to help pressure our government to rid this country of convicted criminal aliens at www.deportthemnow.com.

For Zina. For Schanna. For Deputy Fabiano. For Officer Johnson. For our safety, sovereignty, and the protection of the American Dream for those who deserve it.


Make sure the read the column in its entirety.

Michelle is right -- this has gone on far too long. Since the government won't act, its time that we do. Visit Deport Them Now and together, we can send a powerful message to the government that they cannot ignore.

Media Mythbusters

Lorie Byrd of Wizbang just e-mailed me to announce the launch of a very cool site, Media Mythbusters wiki.

On the site's blog, Lorie explains why she decided this site needed to be built:

In 2006, the Associated Press ran a story about six Sunnis who were doused with kerosene and burned alive while nearby Iraqi soldiers watched and did nothing. The source for the story was identified as Captain Jamil Hussein of the Iraqi police force. The story received wide coverage and was even cited by NBC news as the tipping point that led them to begin referring to the war in Iraq as a civil war.

Digging by bloggers (in particular Curt at Flopping Aces) revealed that not only was the story not substantiated, nor could a “Captain Jamil Hussein” be found, but that the AP had cited Captain Jamil Hussein as the source for more than 60 other stories, most about Sunni on Shia violence. Eventually, in reaction to questions from bloggers, much of the “Sunni burning six” story was retracted and “Captain Jamil Hussein” was eventually determined to be a pseudonym. I wondered how the untrue story got reported as widely as it did, considering the suspicion surrounding the source from the very beginning. I looked for some type of online archive in which suspicious stories and sources were tracked and I was unable to find anything. In order to find previous similar stories it was necessary to search many different major and new media sources to piece together a full picture. There were already some excellent sites tracking media bias, but no one site archiving information about stories that had been found to be inaccurate or untrue.

I tossed around the idea for such an archive with some of my blogger friends and a few liked the idea and suggested the site be in wiki format so that many contributors could post there as new information became available. The result is the Media Mythbuster wiki.


You can browse the various stories on the site already, such as Rathergate, fauxtography and the Captain Jamil Hussein story, or submit a news tip yourself. As a wiki site, you can submit or update stories as they come. It's another great way to show the mainstream media that they will not be able to be unaccountable for irresponsible journalism anymore.

Make sure to check it out!

The real reason Al Gore invented global warming

It all makes perfect sense now!!



Hat Tip: Newsbusters

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Michael Vick in trouble for illegal dogfighting

Too bad. He was a great runningback -- er, quarterback who just likes to run a lot and throw very little.

I don't know what kind of trouble he will be in for this, but I'm sure the Falcons won't be happy if he is convicted:

Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick was indicted Tuesday by a federal grand jury on charges related to illegal dogfighting.

Vick and three others are charged with competitive dogfighting, procuring and training pit bulls for fighting and conducting the enterprise across state lines.

The dogfighting operation was named "Bad Newz Kennels," according to the indictment, and the dogs were housed, trained and fought at a Surry County, Va., property owned by Vick.

The indictment alleges that the 27-year-old Vick and his co-defendants began a grisly dogfighting operation in early 2001 in which dogs fought to the death — or close. Losing dogs were sometimes killed by electrocution, drowning, hanging or gunshots.

If convicted, Vick and the others — Purnell A. Peace, Quanis L. Phillips and Tony Taylor — could face up to six years in prison, $350,000 in fines and restitution.

Authorities seized 66 dogs, including 55 pit bulls, and equipment commonly used in dogfighting. About half the dogs were tethered to car axles with heavy chains that allowed the dogs to get close to each other, but not to have contact — an arrangement typical for fighting dogs, according to the search warrant affidavit.

Before fights, participating dogs of the same sex would be weighed and bathed, according to the filings. Opposing dogs would be washed to remove any poison or narcotic placed on the dog's coat that could affect the other dog's performance.

Sometimes, dogs weren't fed to "make it more hungry for the other dog," it said.


Of course, PETA had to jump in with a statement:

PETA’s offices, located just over an hour away from Michael Vick’s rural mansion—where we now know dozens if not hundreds of dogs were forced to fight to the death in the pit—has been receiving vague allegations of Vick’s involvement in illegal animal fighting activity for years, sadly without much concrete evidence to back it up. While local authorities—who have historically mishandled dogfighting cases—sat on evidence in this case, the U.S. Attorney’s office was obviously determined to get the job done. The professional sports world is plagued with players who have been accused, charged, or convicted of cruelty to animals, abusing pit bulls, and dog fighting, and we hope that this indictment sends a loud and clear message to players and the NFL that celebrity is not a sufficient excuse for breaking the law, and that animal abuse should never be tolerated under any circumstances.
-PETA Director Daphna Nachminovitch


TMZ has more:

Vick was charged with illegal competitive dogfighting, which involves training pit bulls to fight against other dogs. When authorities searched Vick's property this month, they found 54 pit bulls and a host of brutal items including a "rape stand," used to hold dogs in place for mating; an electric treadmill modified for dogs and a bloodied piece of carpeting.


So far, Vick has only been indicted, not convicted. So, who knows whether he is guilty or not.

However, whoever is guilty of this -- whether it is Vick or a family member of his exploiting his generosity, as he claims -- this is a sickening crime, and I hope whoever is found to be the culprit is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If Vick is found guilty, he should be given no leniency whatsoever.


Can't run your way out of this one, Vick.

Britain says no to student's Christian purity ring

And so the downward spiral continues:

A teenager whose teachers had stopped her wearing a “purity ring” at school to symbolize her commitment to virginity has lost a High Court fight against the ban.

Lydia Playfoot, 16, says her silver ring is an expression of her faith and had argued in court that it should be exempt from school regulations banning the wearing of jewelry.

“I am very disappointed by the decision this morning by the High Court not to allow me to wear my purity ring to school as an expression of my Christian faith not to have sex outside marriage,” Playfoot said in a statement Monday.

“I believe that the judge’s decision will mean that slowly, over time, people such as school governors, employers, political organizations and others will be allowed to stop Christians from publicly expressing and practicing their faith.”

Playfoot’s parents are key members of the British arm of the American chastity campaign group the Silver Ring Thing, a religious group which urges abstinence among young people.

Those who sign up wear a ring on the third finger of the left hand. It is inscribed with “Thess. 4:3-4,” a reference to a Biblical passage from Thessalonians which reads: “God wants you to be holy, so you should keep clear of all sexual sin.”

During the case, Playfoot’s lawyers argued that the ban by her school in Horsham, West Sussex, breached her human rights to “freedom of thought, conscience and religion” which are protected by the European Convention on Human Rights.

Lawyers for the school denied discrimination and said the purity ring breached its rules on wearing jewelry.

They said allowances were made for Muslim and Sikh pupils only for items integral to their religious beliefs and that, for the same reason, crucifixes were also allowed. But it argued that the purity ring was not an integral part of the Christian faith.

Playfoot said in her statement she would consult her legal team to consider whether to appeal.


This is, at the very least, disappointing.

First of all, why a ban on jewelry to begin with? If some kid wants to wear a ring, is it really going to bother anyone? I never understood schools that did that. I mean, if there's a dress code, I can understand not allowing anything ostentatious. But a ring, or a necklace underneath a blouse, or modest-sized earrings, are not going to hurt anyone, or be a distraction, or anything like that.

I mean, I went to Catholic school. We wore uniforms and were still allowed to wear necklaces, rings, earrings -- any kind of jewelry we wanted as long as it wasn't ostentatious.

And why on Earth would a school want to discourage its students from abstaining from sex? I would think they would want to promote that ring and what it stood for, not punish her for wearing it. That just doesn't make sense.

Well, hang on. I forgot that Britain is overrun with moonbats today, so scratch that. In the United States, we're running as fast as we can in that direction, too, so who knows?

On top of that, they allow Muslim and Sikh students to get around the jewelry ban, but why not this? They say they allow crucifixes too, but who knows if that is true or not? And if it is, I'd be willing to bet it is only because banning crucifixes would be too vulgar a display of anti-Christian bias.

And how can they not understand how it is a symbol for Christianity when it has a Christian verse enscribed onto it? Although, I'd be willing to bet they understand it perfectly fine.

Whatever the truth behind the banning of this ring is, even in the best possible scenario it is still, at the least, saddening -- that a girl will be prohibited from wearing a ring encouraging chastity and abstinence, two things schools should be promoting.

Mitt Romney, Pretty Boy Extraordinaire!

What is happening to men in this country? I mean, sheesh.

You see so many worrying about hair gel and exfoliators and moisturizing and waxing... isn't that supposed to be our department? Our meaning women? I mean, I get keeping yourself clean and looking nice, but come on. It's not unusual to find men who take longer to get ready than I do, and that's an automatic strike against you. God help you if I were to find out you spent more money than I do on "health and beauty" supplies.

Enter Mitt Romney.

Everyone knows how much of a pretty boy he is anyways -- Ben Affleck hypocritically called him a Ken doll -- but good Lord. I think he's trying to catch up to John Edwards:

What kinds of things do you think of when you hear "communications consulting"?

Speechwriting? Message strategy?

Well, "communications consulting" is how presidential candidate Mitt Romney recorded $300 in payments to a California company that describes itself as "a mobile beauty team for hair, makeup and men's grooming and spa services."

Romney spokesman Kevin Madden confirmed that the payments -- actually two separate $150 charges -- were for makeup, though he said the former Massachusetts governor had only one session with Hidden Beauty of West Hills, Calif. That was before the May 3 Republican presidential debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif., co-sponsored by MSNBC and The Politico.

"We used them once but booked time twice and still had to render payment for the appointment time," said Madden, who said the disbursement was listed as "communications consulting" because it was paid from the communications division's budget.

Politicians often wear makeup for photo and video shoots. Federal campaigns, on at least 26 different occasions since 2002, reported paying for haircuts and other primping -- services totaling $7,443, according to an analysis by The Politico of Federal Election Commission data. And Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards refunded $800 his campaign shelled out for two haircuts after he was criticized for them.

But Stacy Andrews, who made up Romney for Hidden Beauty, said he barely needs makeup.

"He's already tan," she said. "We basically put a drop of foundation on him … and we powdered him a little bit."


All right. I get if you're going to be on national television, you need to look good and wear a little makeup. But $300? $300?! For a little drop of foundation and some powder?

I think I spend 1/6 of that on my total beauty "budget", if you can even call it that. I never throw shampoo and conditioner bottles away, so I practically have the shampoo aisle from Walgreens in the closet in my bathroom, albeit with assorted half-empty bottles. You can get foundation and powder for $5 a pop, and I promise you it is just as good as the high-end stuff. It's not that I wouldn't ever use the high-end stuff, but I buy it sparingly and use it sparingly (as in, only for special occasions) so it lasts a while. I don't bust out the Sephora products to go to Winn-Dixie. There are so much more important things I can be spending my money on than make-up!

Now, don't get me wrong, I doubt most women are as stingy as I am when it comes to make-up and hair care and that kind of thing. But I doubt most women spend anywhere near $300 on make-up in an entire year, much less in one sitting. And to hear a man is spending that much money for a bit of foundation and some powder? Couldn't his wife have just done it for him? I mean, honestly.

God help him if he ever has to go to the Middle East as President. His make-up might get smudged!

Seriously, folks. Do you want someone in office so concerned about make-up that they spend $300 in a single sitting?

Maybe John Edwards and Mitt Romney could run on a ticket together. The Breck Girl and the Ken Doll... a victory for pretty boys everywhere!

Previous:
Ben Affleck, Meet the Kettle

Saturday, July 14, 2007

Crossing the line one too many times

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

...

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



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



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

As Michelle Malkin put it,

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


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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

accountability:
noun
responsibility to someone or for some activity

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

This kind of hatred should not be embraced any longer.

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

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


Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin

Friday, July 13, 2007

Can you be someone's Angel?

Well everyone, today I'm asking for your help and generosity for a great charity.

Anyone familiar with Soldiers Angels?

Soldiers' Angels was started by a self-described ordinary mother of an ordinary young man turned hero, Sgt. Brandon Varn. Brandon was deployed in Iraq and has since honorably completed his mission and has returned back to his proud and loving family.

In the summer of 2003, he wrote home expressing his concern that some soldiers did not receive any mail or support from home. Being a caring and loving mother, she decided not to allow a situation like that to continue. She contacted a few friends and extended family to ask if they would write to a soldier or two. Within a few short months, Soldiers' Angels went from a mother writing a few extra letters to an Internet Community with thousands of angels worldwide.

With more and more merchants donating services, money and items for packages, the Angels reorganized as a 501 c 3 non-profit so all donations would be tax deductible. Soldiers' Angels currently supports tens of thousands of American Service Members stationed wherever we raise our nation's flag, and that number continues to grow daily. Soldiers' Angels are dedicated in supporting our military during and after their deployment.

In December of 2004 a worldwide support forum was created in the hopes of providing a place where the needs of our heroes could be fulfilled.


In July 2006 this ordinary mothers youngest son, Bretton Varn started Boot Camp and looks forward to serving his country.

May God Bless Our Troops


I joined Soldiers Angels a few years back, and my first "adoption" was Cpt. Chuck Ziegenfuss -- or, more specifically, his unit. He was injured in Iraq (I'm happy to say he's recovered well, his blog has regular updates on his condition as well as general military happenings), and became a partner in Soldiers Angels Project Valour-IT program, which supplies voice activated laptops for injured veterans.

The organization has grown far beyond a service to send letters and care packages to our troops. They offer multitudes of teams and programs dedicated to helping not just those fighting, but their families, as well as injured veterans and the families of fallen heroes.

As I'm sure you can see, it is a fantastic organization.

And right now, they could use your help.

Yesterday, I received an e-mail, asking for angels to donate $5-$10 towards injured veterans and their families:

I work with Patti, helping her with the many, many wounded and their families when they need help of one kind or another.

You just cannot imagine how many of these e-mails we get from case workers, counselors, VA case workers, and then, we get them from the soldiers or wives themselves.

They have fallen through the cracks and just need help to survive.

Angels, we need your help. We don't want you to send Soldiers Angels all of your money, but even $5.00, $10.00, etc.

I personally am issuing a challenge to each and everyone one of you: a challenge of $10.00.

Angels, please help us help them.


So, what do you think? Can you spare five or ten bucks to an extremely worthy organization dedicated to serving our troops? It's not a lot of money to ask, but if everyone donates a little, it can make a huge difference in a soldier's life -- and the life of his/her family.

Show that you're willing to do more to support the troops than just slap a sticker on the back of your car.

Please send all donations to:

Soldiers Angels
1792 E. Washington Blvd
Pasadena, Ca 91104


*You can also visit the Soldiers Angels website to donate via PayPal.*