Did you get your white feathers yet?

You might want to start stocking up and sending them to Washington. The House just passed a measure setting a timetable for withdrawal in Iraq no later than April 1, 2008 - how appropriate (emphasis mine):

The Iraqi government is achieving only spotty military and political progress, the Bush administration conceded Thursday in an assessment that war critics quickly seized on as confirmation of their dire warnings. Within hours, the House voted to withdraw U.S. troops by spring.

The House measure passed 223-201 in the Democratic-controlled chamber despite a veto threat from President Bush, who has ruled out any change in war policy before September.

"I believe we can succeed in Iraq, and I know we must," Bush said at a White House news conference at which he stressed the interim nature of the report.

Describing a document produced by his administration at Congress' insistence, he said there was satisfactory progress by the Iraqi government toward meeting eight of 18 so-called benchmarks, unsatisfactory progress on eight more and mixed results on the rest.

To his critics — including an increasing number of Republicans — he said bluntly, "I don't think Congress ought to be running the war. I think they ought to be funding the troops."

Democrats saw it differently.

A few hours after Bush's remarks, Democratic leaders engineered passage of legislation requiring the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops to begin within 120 days, and to be completed by April 1, 2008. The measure envisions a limited residual force to train Iraqis, protect U.S. assets and fight al-Qaida and other terrorists.

The vote generally followed party lines: 219 Democrats and four Republicans in favor, and 191 Republicans and 10 Democrats opposed.

"The report makes clear that not even the White House can conclude there has been significant progress," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

To Bush and others who seek more time for the administration's policy to work, she said, "We have already waited too long."

Republicans sided with Bush — at least for now. The bill "undermines Gen. Petraeus, undermines the mission he has to make America and Iraq safe," said the House GOP leader, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio. "What we have here is not leadership, it's negligence."

Why do they do this? If this even passes through the Senate, all that's going to happen is that it will get vetoed. And you've just successfully accomplished a multitude of very, very bad things:

You've told our troops that they can't win in Iraq.

You've told our enemies that if they just hang on long enough, they can defeat us, turning us into the paper tiger Osama bin Laden said we were.

You've told America that you don't care about what the results will be in Iraq, because you think this would be a better move politically, evidenced by the purposeful ambiguity in the bill.

This is sickening.

Just weeks ago, Congress approved funding for the war and told General Petraus to report back in September.

Isn't it... July? Oh, yes, that's right, it is, because my birthday is in about three weeks. But I guess that's our fault for thinking that Dems would give this strategy even the smallest chance to succeed.

Nancy Pelosi blathers on about how there has been no progress and that they've waited "far too long". What would be significant progress for her? And at what point did she first start advocating for troop withdrawals? The week after the surge? The month after? Whenever it was, it wasn't enough time for it to work. But that's because Dems don't care about it working; they just want to cut-and-run, regardless of the cost.

As Van Helsing from Moonbattery puts it:

We are fighting more than one enemy in Iraq, but all of them are fighting us in the name of radical Islam. Specifically, our main enemies are the same al-Qaeda that flew planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and proxies of Iran, which invaded our embassy in an act of war and held Americans hostage for 444 days.

These are the people to whom Democrats would have us surrender.

The cost of surrender will be extreme. America will officially have the status of the "weak horse." Iran will be ascendant in the region. In the short term, there will be a critical threat to the energy supply that is required for our economy to run. In the long term, Iran will dominate the Middle East and metastasize into a nuclear superpower: a Soviet Union run by Islamic terrorists who don't mind dying so long as we die too.

As for Iraqis, their reward for trusting America will be genocide on a scale we haven't seen since the Democrats and their lackeys in the media forced our retreat from Southeast Asia.

Shockingly enough, CNN actually has a video of a family in Iraq saying they want US forces to stay (thanks to Beyond the News for the clip).



Dems have sent their message. They don't support our troops (but don't question their patriotism!). They don't care about national security or what the aftermath will be in Iraq (but don't question their patriotism!).

And the fact is, it is not Congress' job to tell our military how to run operations or deal with the troops. That is the President's job, which he said himself yesterday:

I don't think it makes sense [for Congress to tell] our military how to conduct operations or deal with troop strength . . . I don't think Congress ought to be running the war. I think they ought to be funding the troops.

Liberals, of course, were shocked, shocked at this display of aggression, as they put it.

And where did President Bush get that idea? Well, our Constitution -- specifically, Article II, Section 2:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.

And of course, don't expect Harry Reid or Pioneer Pelosi to actually, you know, answer your questions:

TAPPER: I'm sorry, if I could just follow up very quickly...Do you think the Iraqi people will be safer with U.S. troops out?

REID: It is clear that the Iraqi people don't want us there. It is clear that there is now a state of chaos in Iraq. And it is up to the Iraqi people to make themselves safe….We can't do it. It's time the training wheels come off and they take care of their own country. We have spent billions dollars. We're now spending $12 billion a month on Iraq. That's enough. In the last six months of the surge, six months, 600 more dead Americans, $60 billion more of American taxpayers' money. We, Democrats, unitedly believe that's enough.

TAPPER: With all due respect, Senator, you didn't answer my question.

REID: OK. This is not a debate.

TAPPER: Will the Iraqis be safer?

REID: We're answering questions. (calling on someone else) Yes, young man? Anyone else have a question?

There are very specific words that we can use to describe what the Dems in Congress are pulling, or to describe them. The words "traitors" and "cowards" are somehow floating to the front of my mind...

I think it's time to break out Michelle Malkin'sWhite Feather campaign again.

Reader and Vietnam Vet Jack Haley e-mails:

The White Feather has been a symbol for cowardice. I suggest that white feathers be sent to the leaders of the Senate and House for the cowardly vote that abandons our soldiers around the world.

I was in Vietnam the day that the 101st took “Hamburger Hill” — the headline in the Stars and Stripes was Teddy Kennedy’s statement to the effect that it was all such a waste. I am sure it raised the spirits of the folks on top of the hill — I know it gave my morale a boost. Surely these leaders of our country will head out on a USO tour to encourage the troops further.

As far as I am concerned this is a Congress of Quislings.

I'm buying my white feather today. And there are 223 Congressmen/women who need one.

And hey, John, where's the Project Payback for this?

BREAKING NEWS: Al Qaeda wants to kill us!!

Right now, you could knock me over with a feather, I'm so shocked.

It's been all over the news that Al Qaeda is gathering strength and still wants to attack the United States:

Al-Qaida is stepping up its efforts to sneak terror operatives into the United States and has acquired most of the capabilities it needs to strike here, according to a new U.S. intelligence assessment, The Associated Press has learned.

The draft National Intelligence Estimate is expected to paint an ever-more-worrisome portrait of al-Qaida’s ability to use its base along the Pakistan-Afghan border to launch and inspire attacks, even as Bush administration officials say the U.S. is safer nearly six years into the war on terror.

The document also discusses increasing concern about individuals already inside the United States who are adopting an extremist brand of Islam.

Government officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the report has not been finalized, described it as an expansive look at potential threats within the United States and said it required the cooperation of a number of national security agencies, including the CIA, FBI, Homeland Security Department and National Counterterrorism Center.

At a news conference Thursday, President Bush acknowledged al-Qaida’s continuing threat to the United States and used the new report as evidence his administration’s policies are on the right course.

“The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on Sept. 11,” he said. “That’s why what happens in Iraq matters to security here at home.”

I think this is the most shocking news of the YEAR. Extremist Muslims are prepared to join up with Al Qaeda?! And Al Qaeda still wants to kill us?!

Well, thank you Captain Obvious!

Michelle Malkin already pointed out in May that 1 in 4 younger US Muslims would support suicide bombings as acceptable, and 3 in 10 of all US Muslims have favorable views or no opinion of Al Qaeda.

A little behind on the times, huh?

What did the MSM think that Al Qaeda was going to do? Stop trying? Of COURSE they are going to be trying to establish cells and operatives inside the United States. And what did the MSM think that Al Qaeda was going to do with its' varied bases? Hold slumber parties, watch Michael Moore crockumentaries, and hold pageants to choose their 72 virgins?

Basically, the MSM is trying to incite fear into the American public, and simultaneously smear President Bush for not withdrawing from Iraq right now -- to concentrate on terrorism elsewhere, of course.

John Hawkins at Right Wing News has a post about how the AP is being deliberately misleading:

Here's the relevant part of the article, which is based on the interpretation of a report, by anonymous sources, that the AP hasn't seen, and that we are therefore unable to peruse ourselves,

"Al Qaeda is "considerably operationally stronger than a year ago" and has "regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001," the counterterrorism official said, paraphrasing the report's conclusions. "They are showing greater and greater ability to plan attacks in Europe and the United States."

The group also has created "the most robust training program since 2001, with an interest in using European operatives," the official quoted the report as saying."

Those quotes, which have obviously been cherrypicked and paraphrased by someone looking to embarrass the Bush administration, say that Al-Qaeda is stronger than they were a year ago and have, "regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001."

Although it's impossible to say how accurate that interpretation of the report actually is since it's based on the paraphrased words of an anonymous source, it expressly DOES NOT say Al-Qaeda is as strong as they were in the summer of 2001. Technically, these statements could be true...

"Al Qaeda is "considerably operationally stronger than a year ago" and has "regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001"

.....if Al-Qaeda was at 30% or 40% of their summer of 2001 strength. So therefore, the headline is deliberately misleading and designed to give people a false impression about this report which is, quite frankly, so thinly sourced that the AP shouldn't have published it in the first place given the controversial conclusion that it draws with its headline.

Frankly, I'm surprised the MSM is even taking the position that there are Muslims that want to kill us. Usually, they rant on about how Islam is a "religion of peace", America is an oppressor, and our foreign policy brought this all upon us, and if we'd only be more understanding and tolerant, Al Qaeda would just leave us alone.

But, if instilling fear into Americans can get the approval rate for the war in Iraq to drop a little lower, the MSM will jump all over it.

Sports OUT loud!

Well, well.

Apparently, the gay and lesbian community now need to have their own sports niche carved out for them: a new magazine devoted to homosexuality in sports called Sports Out Loud:

Each issue of Sports Out Loud will include a slew of sports and sports-related articles: insights into the world of professional sports, news on local gay sporting events, profiles of athletes, health and nutrition news, information on the latest training and athletic gear. Plus, we’ll have on-going columns that will touch on the humorous side of sports, allow readers to gain information on the best way to train for specific sports and how best to treat injuries.

Look, I don't have anything wrong with anyone who is gay, or a lesbian, or bisexual, or whatever it is they choose to be. But does it need to be celebrated? I mean, good Lord... we have Gay Pride parades, Gay Days, a gay presidential debate (dems only, obviously), and now even gay sports magazines.

What happened to equality?

Do I need to run around celebrating my straightness? Should I organize the first-ever Straight Pride Parade? How about straight day? And I could publish a magazine called "Straight Sports Monthly" on top of all that, too.

How long before GLAAD would sue me?

I don't care if a sports star is gay or straight. Does it matter? I don't see how it does, or how the gay and lesbian community needs a whole separate magazine. Do homosexuals have different weight routines and ways of best treating injuries? Or would they be just as well served reading Sports Illustrated for that information?

Columns that touch on the humorous side of sports for homosexuals? What does that mean, a funny column about how to avoid hitting on your straight teammate when you're naked in the locker rooms together? I mean, come on.

What makes a gay athlete any different than a straight one?

I just don't understand why it needs to be celebrated so much. Once upon a time, minorities -- from racial minorities to those with different sexual preferences -- were fighting to be equal, but it's gone way over that line now. It's like we must make sure that minorities are separate, distinguished, honored.

Look, when I'm watching football, all I care about is that my Gators in college and Jaguars in the NFL win. I could care less if the person who just scored that amazing touchdown or made an awesome tackle is gay, straight, whatever. All I care about is that they play well. Why do we need to make such a big deal over an athlete being gay? OK, cool, you're gay. Good for you -- now can you win? Because that's all that should really matter in sports.

You know, then again, maybe I should publish "Straight Sports Monthly". You know, just to even the playing field.

11 most frustrating things about the Cut-And-Run crowd

Over at Right Wing News, John Hawkins has posted a list from one of his readers, The 11 most frustrating things about the Cut-And-Run crowd:

The opponents of the war often display several common threads which cause me some frustration:

1. Failure to understand that more than just Iraq is at stake.

2. Failure to understand that the whole bit about WMD's, whether Bush lied, blah blah, is old news and that "where we go from here" is the only question worth asking.

3. Failure to understand that our troops may be bringing freedom to Iraqis, but in reality they're fighting for the security of the US, not Iraq.

4. Failure to grasp that the problem with the War on Terror is not that it's too aggressive and ruthless, but rather that it has not been aggressive and ruthless enough.

5. Failure to understand that the war in Iraq WILL continue, with or without American involvement. If we leave, Saudi Arabia and Egypt will supply weapons to the Sunnis while Iran supplies them to the Shiites. Turkey is likely to invade the Kurdish north, as well.

6. Obsession with comparisons of the Vietnam War and its aftermath, and the resulting attempts to force a square peg into a round hole.

7. Failure to offer any workable solutions - other than abandoning the effort entirely.

8. Failure to recognize that our enemies and their state sponsors are not interested in helping us build a democratic Iraq and that they do not share our political goals.

9. Obsession with "talking" with people who want us dead.

10. Refusal to recognize that some people in this world are just plain rotten, that the fact is we're all naturally evil, not naturally good.

11. Willingness to call the US genocidal, racist, and cruel, without ever applying those labels to our enemies where they belong.

I will admit that some of the left-leaning posters....appear to be attempting an honest discussion on the issue. They are hobbled less by wickedness, and more by simple naive thinking. Remember, these are the same people that believed Neville Chamberlain and his announcement of "peace in our time" back in 1938. Right before the world exploded into a war that killed millions. I doubt we will ever get through to them....

Posh and Becks get HOT!

Victoria "Posh" and David "Becks" Beckham are gracing the cover of W Magazine with a sizzling hot pictorial inside.

I'm not a big fan of Posh's super-skeletal skinniness, with bones poking out everywhere, but I have to admit -- she looks unbelievable in these pictures. And of course Becks does, but he always looks perfect.













Hat Tip: Perez Hilton

No wonder she likes Hugo Chavez so much

I didn't come across this lovely "I Have A Dream" speech, Psycho Sheehan style, until a few minutes ago.

Following in the vein of her dictator idols like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Castro, Psycho Sheehan has freely admitted that she wants "neo-cons" and "neo-connettes" thrown into Gitmo detention centers and the terrorists currently housed there presumably freed.

I'm sure Casey would be so proud!

Did the little voice in her head prompt her to come up with this, too?

She posted this lovely message on her Camp Casey Peace Institute website, right underneath a banner proclaiming that it is "Summer of Love 07 on a Journey for Humanity" (emphasis mine).

Like, groovy:

We are going to walk from Atlanta, GA to Congress beginning July 13th and ending up in DC on July 23rd to send the mis-leaders back home to face the music of justice in their own districts.

It is about time us “peasants” (in the eyes of the Fascist Ruling Elite) march on DC with our “pitchforks” of righteous anger and our “torches” of truth to demand the ouster of BushCo. I have a dream of the detention centers that George has built and
filled being instead filled with Orange Clad neo-cons and neo-connettes.

If Congress won’t dig BushCo’s political grave, it is the People’s job to do so. Thomas Jefferson said that we need a Revolution every 20 years, or so, to keep
our Republic honest. Over 225 years have passed since our last Revolution (if you don't count the War Between the States) and we are long overdue for one. Turn off your TVs, kiss your pets goodbye, bring the kids and flock to the federal seat of corruption, or join us on our walk there, for a People's Accountability Movement to be in the face of the Criminal BushCo and the Complicit Congress for the
last week of session before they go on their undeserved vacations (why do they get vacations when the Iraqi parliamentarians don’t?)

On the eve of our first revolution: You know it’s right!

I always love hearing people like Psycho Sheehan talking about keeping the United States the way our Founding Fathers intended, and point the finger at the Bush administration as Fascists, while simultaneously trying to stifle our God-given rights.

Let's use an example from Psycho Sheehan's speech -- the one about throwing people who don't agree with her political views into Gitmo cells. That doesn't sound much like a Republic or a Democracy, does it? Although I'm sure her idol, Stalin, would support it wholeheartedly.

Meanwhile, also on the Camp Casey Peace Institute website, Psycho also keeps a blog in which she claims she was "dragged" back into the political realm "kicking and screaming":

I’m not backing off. I tried to remove myself from the political realm of the US, what BushCo is turning into an Evil Empire, but the blatant audacity of George commuting Scooter’s sentence (he’s not ruling out a full pardon --- and you know he will) has dragged me kicking and screaming back in. I can’t sit back and let this BushCo drag our country further down into the murky quagmire of Fascism and violence, taking the rest of the world with them!I have sat quietly back these past five weeks as the slaughter in Iraq sorrowfully surges along with George’s bloody escalation---and as the philosophical opposition to the war has soared to almost four out of every five Americans.

Right, right, she sat back sorrowfully for five weeks, and realized no one gave a damn what she was doing, so she had to find a way to make herself be "dragged kicking and screaming" back into the public spotlight, because she hates being ignored and forgotten, which is exactly what she was.

She also misspells the word "breach" a little further down, spelling it "breech". Petty, but I couldn't help myself.

And that was a smooth move, inserting "Evil Empire" in there so fluidly. She would know -- after all, she is learning from the best!

The rest of the blog is mostly incoherent rambling, jumping from one subject to the next, in which she acknowledges that she is, in fact, an attention whore -- well, sort of.

And what is this whole "Summer of Love" crap?? Come on, didn't we move on from all that hippie crap? I mean, hello, I thought the Summer of Love was reserved for 1967 only, and that we could move on from that embarassment. It's like, "celebrate humanity with free love and free drugs -- we all could use some extra STDs or diseases, so spread those legs and inject those needles!" Just make sure to throw some flowers in your hair and hold up a peace sign while you're at it. If we all hold hands and stop showering, all the world's problems will go away!

And now Psycho Sheehan has her own "Summer of Love", in which she loooooves everyone soooo much, that if you disagree with her, you deserve to be thrown into jail. For the good of the country, of course. She's a moral authority and all, remember? And if all else fails, she won't for one second hesitate to whip out the "My son died in Iraq!" card.

The funniest part is imagining her saying all of this in that annoying, small, nails-on-a-chalkboard little girl voice. You can't help but laugh. It's like Minnie Mouse, the Dictator!

Does anyone still take her seriously? Anyone?

Am I hearing crickets chirping??


Psycho gets kisses from her mentor, Hugo Chavez. Now HE'S a leader, right, Psycho?

Hat Tip: Once again, Michelle Malkin

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!

I can use a gun, but you can't!

So goes the mantra for celebrities and liberal politicians when it comes to our Second Amendment rights.

Michelle Malkin has a post about Jesse Jackson's new war on guns, alongside a post on a Texas Democrat who opposes our right to defend ourselves, and yet he shockingly used a gun to defend himself!!

Fox News has the story about the hypocritical politician:

A state lawmaker who opposed a bill giving Texans stronger right to defend themselves with deadly force pulled a gun and shot a man he says was trying to steal copper wiring from a construction site, police said Monday.

Rep. Borris Miles told police he was fixing a leak on the second floor of the Houston house he's building Sunday night when he heard a noise downstairs and saw two men trying to steal the copper. After Miles confronted the pair, one of the men threw a pocketknife at him, Houston Police spokesman Victor Senties.

Miles, a former law enforcement officer, shot the man in the left leg, police said. The wounded suspect was being treated at a Houston hospital. Police were trying to identify the other suspect.

Miles, a Democrat, voted against a bill that gives Texans stronger legal right to defend themselves with deadly force in their homes, vehicles, and workplaces. The so-called "castle doctrine," passed by the Legislature this year, states that a person has no duty to retreat from an intruder before using deadly force. The law goes into effect Sept. 1.

Well, there's a huge surprise. Like celebrities and politicans have never practiced hypocrisy before. Still, it's fun to point it out whenever it happens to remind people of it. Liberals never care about "little people" like us, they just want to make sure they are safe and comfortable in their little ivory tower, while we suffer the consequences to keep them there.

Moving on, "Rev." Jesse Jackson is trying to squash one of our most important civil rights... in the name of civil rights. He's holding a 25-city anti-gun protest on August 25, the anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King's march in Washington, D.C.

Dr. King was, of course, a gun owner.

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is planning a counter protest:

While Rev. Jesse Jackson is feverishly organizing a 25-city anti-gun protest on Tuesday, Aug. 28, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) wants gun owners to visit gun shops and shooting ranges, and contact their state and federal lawmakers on that date to demand that they support our Second Amendment rights.

Jackson’s day of national protest is timed on the anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King’s 1963 March on Washington, D.C.

“The great hypocrisy here,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan M. Gottlieb, “is that Dr. King’s historic march was to promote and defend civil rights. What Jesse Jackson is planning is designed to crush America’s most important civil right. A right that Dr. King exercised by owning a handgun.”

Jackson wants to limit the number of firearms a person may purchase in a calendar year, place new restrictions on who is allowed to legally own a handgun, and mandate longer waiting periods.

“While Jackson and his gun-grabbing cronies want to make it more difficult, if not impossible, for average Americans to keep and bear arms,” Gottlieb said, “gun owners can exercise their Constitutional rights, and tell their lawmakers to defend the Second Amendment. They can visit a gun shop, buy a gun or ammunition, or visit a range and exercise their rights.

“Being from Chicago,” Gottlieb said, “it is astonishing that Jackson has failed to see the correlation between that city’s Draconian handgun ban and Chicago’s violent crime rate, yet he wants to lead a nationwide protest against a constitutionally-protected civil right. Rev. Jackson evidently has forgotten the question raised in Luke, Chapter 6: ‘Can the blind lead the blind’?”

“Holding law-abiding gun owners responsible for crimes they did not commit, which is what restrictive gun laws do, is like bearing false witness against thy neighbor,” Gottlieb said. “I might suggest that anybody joining in this protest remember the words of Matthew, who said ‘Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”

All to continue along in "Rev." Jesse Jackson's mission to take everything Dr. Martin Luther King stood for and turn it onto its head.

I wonder if Jackson's security detail carries guns. Anyone know?

Paris Hilton gives new definition to "Golden Arches"

Buh da buh bah bah, I'm lovin' it...

Chrissie Hynde opens restaurant

Interesting. Chrissie Hynde, who hates America, is opening a restaurant in Akron, Ohio:

Like J.Lo, Britney and Diddy before her, rock chick Chrissie Hynde is the latest music artist getting into the restaurant biz. Table three needs earplugs!

The Pretenders frontwoman is opening a vegetarian Mediterranean restaurant, called VegiTerranean, in the culinary capital of Akron, Ohio. Middle of the road!

Hynde grew up in Akron and will perform at the eatery's September 15 grand opening. Rock and rolls!

Remember when she wished that we would all get bombed and that the Muslims would win?

"Have we gone to war yet? We (expletive) deserve to get bombed. Bring it on."

"Let's get rid of all the economic (expletive) this country represents! Bring it on, I hope the Muslims win!"

I'm thinking there's some delicious irony that could be had here.

She wants the United States to get bombed? Well, I can think of a good place for the Muslims she wants to win to start...

Also, she doesn't want any economic "expletive" in this country anymore, but, wait... doesn't she make money off her albums? Her concerts? Merchandise? And now, the restaurant she's opening? Hmm...

Someone should just tell celebutards like her not to speak unless it comes from a pre-approved script.

Or, take a page out of Martin Sheen's book and put a piece of duct tape across their mouths.