Draw a House!

The Anchoress created a house on this neat little website that tells you stuff about your personality based on a house you draw. Please do not be appalled by my horrible drawing -- this is why I am a writer, not an artist. Those are little flowers lining the walkway, and a swing on the tree in my front yard. Oh, and the little box with the squiggles is supposed to be a garden.

You are sensitive and indecisive at times. You are a freedom lover and a strong person. You are shy and reserved. If you've drawn a cross on each of windows, you always want to live alone. You are very tidy person. There's nothing wrong with that because you're pretty popular among friends. Your life is always full of changes.

You will avoid being alone and seek the company of others whenever possible. You love excitement and create it wherever you go. You see the world as it is, not as you believe it should be.

You added a flower into your drawing. The flower signifies that you long for love. It also safe to say that others don't see you as a flirt. You don't think much about yourself.

You can draw a house yourself and add it to my street. We'll all be neighbors! Or, you can just pop in and take a look around.

Have fun and happy drawing!

Obama: I don't need no silly flag pin

Wearing a flag pin has been almost a prerequisite for politicians. While not wearing one in and of itself is not a shocking offense, Barack Obama's reasoning for why he decided not to is a little bit strange:

An eagle-eyed reporter for the ABC affiliate in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, noticed something missing from Democratic presidential contender Sen. Barack Obama's, D-Ill., lapels.

"You don't have the American flag pin on. Is that a fashion statement?" the reporter asked, at the end of a brief interview with Obama on Wednesday. "Those have been on politicians since Sept. 12, 2001."

The standard political reply to that question might well have been, "My patriotism speaks for itself."

But Obama didn't say that.

Instead the Illinois senator answered the question at length, explaining that he no longer wears such a pin, at least in part, because of the Iraq War.

"You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin," Obama said. "Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest.

"Instead," he said, "I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism."

...

"I'm less concerned with what you're wearing on your lapel than what's in your heart," Obama said Thursday while campaigning in Independence, Iowa.

"You show your patriotism by how you treat your fellow Americans, especially those who serve. And you show your patriotism by being true to your values and ideals. And that's what we have to lead with, our values and ideals," Obama said.

Of course, if he had said that in the first place, he might have avoided any controversy.

What's the best way to protest the war in Iraq? Why, stop wearing a flag pin, of course! That'll show those warmonger, bloodthirsty, anything-for-oil Republicans!!!

And Obama wonders why he has the reputation of a junior senator with no experience and no common sense. Instances like this (and this and this and this) prove that time and time again, he just doesn't know when to shut up.

Hat Tip: Gateway Pundit

The Code Pink wackos strike again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But what about the Berkeley attitude?

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

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

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

Here is how they defaced the center:





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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hat Tips: Michelle Malkin, Stop the ACLU

Murtha threatens to withhold funds from "Republican" war

In yet another (unsurprising) move to remind voters that Democrats don't want us to succeed in Iraq, Rep. John Murtha has decided that he wants to withhold funds from this "Republican" war.

Calling Iraq a "Republican" war, an angry Rep. John Murtha today joined several top Democrats in threatening to withhold the nearly $200 billion in emergency military spending that President Bush has requested.

"It is the Republicans in Congress who continue to hand this president a blank check with no policy restrictions for the war in Iraq," said Mr. Murtha, D-Johnstown, who chairs the powerful House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. "This is their war."

Rep. David Obey, D-Wisc., chairman of the full House Appropriations Committee, said he and Mr. Murtha would try to use their power of the purse to force President Bush to change course.

"I have no intention of reporting out $200 billion," Mr. Obey said.

The chairman also said he will soon introduce legislation for a war tax surcharge for all Americans -- except members of the military and their families -- to cover the conflict's huge costs. The tax, he said, could add as much as 15 percent to the federal income tax bills of the wealthiest Americans, while low- and middle-income Americans would pay about 2 percent.

Mr. Obey predicted that such a tax would collect as much as $145 to $150 billion each year, near the annual price tag of the Iraq war.

"If you don't like the cost," he said, "then shut down this war."

Mr. Murtha angrily denied that their approach would imperil soldiers already on the battlefield, saying Congress could provide enough funds for basic needs through the annual defense appropriations bill currently under consideration.

"We're going to take care of the troops. Period," he said.

Yes, because cutting off the funding to our troops is how they need to be taken care of.

They're really grasping at straws, aren't they? Anything to cut and run, and if they can't get their way, they'll slap a war tax surcharge on us -- that way, they can force us to surrender. Obey said it himself -- if you don't like the cost, shut down the war. The consequences of doing so on our national security and on the people of Iraq are inconsequential to him and the rest of the surrendercrats.

And didn't Murtha just put it perfectly? This really is the Republican war. The vast majority of Republicans are for keeping the United States safe and not plunging Iraq into turmoil, most likely causing civil war and genocide, and giving Iran and Al Qaeda a new safe haven from which they can more easily attack the United States.

The Democrats' war, however, is on the United States itself. They'd much rather we plunged the United States into dhimmitude and all live under Sharia law, as is rapidly happening in Europe. Defend the United States? Please. What could a liberal possibly find that would be worth saving here? They want to ruin everything about this country that is great to turn it into their own elitist and socialist paradise, and have no qualms about letting Al Qaeda and the terrorists win.

He really couldn't have put it any better. Republicans = winning in Iraq. Democrats = surrender.

Hat Tip: Moonbattery

Alyssa Frank found safe

Yesterday, I wrote a post about abducted Florida teen Alyssa Frank, who an Amber Alert was issued for.

It is my great pleasure to announce that Alyssa has been found SAFE after the abductor dropped her off at an Alabama Wal-Mart.

A Florida teenager lured into custody by a convicted sex offender with a violent history is alive and safe today after he dropped her off at a Wal-Mart store near the Alabama state line more than 400 miles from home.

Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd announced the discovery of 15-year-old Alyssa Frank at an afternoon news conference today after appealing to the public for help earlier in the day. Judd said that Frank now was with Florida authorities.

Judd said that Mitchell brought the girl to a Wal-Mart location and told her to meet him five minutes later. He then disappeared. "He looked for an area to dump her. And for that, we're grateful," Judd said. "Quite frankly, we're thankful he didn't kill her."

Florida authorities will continue to hunt for Mitchell, who they believe is driving a 2000 black Chevrolet Lumina and has several tattoos on his arms and fingers. Mitchell was charged in 2002 with lewd and lascivious battery on a victim 12-15 years old. He has at least 14 arrests on his criminal record and has been charged in the past in connection with robbery, weapons smuggling and making bomb threats. Judd said they believe Mitchell is carrying a handgun.

"We are relieved because she is alive and because she is well," Judd said, "but other children are not safe as long as our suspect is at large. That's why we still ask for the communitry to help us."

Let's continue to keep our eyes peeled -- this man could be anywhere, and as Judd says, there's no telling what more he could do. Someone else's child could be the next one taken, and the next one might not come home.

Let's bring this criminal to justice.

Quote of the Day

“I don’t regret not having been drafted... because I made out big,” she told an Israeli paper this week [on Israel's mandatory military service]. “Why is it good to die for one’s country? Isn’t it better to live in New York?”

-- Leonardo DiCaprio's girlfriend Bar Rafaeli

Have you seen these people?

An Amber Alert has been issued for 15-year-old Alyssa Frank, missing from Central Florida. All my readers, but especially my Florida readers, keep your eyes peeled. The man who kidnapped her is a hard criminal convicted of lewd and lascivious battery, grand theft auto, aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, and more. This girl is probably in grave danger:

A police manhunt is under way statewide for a Jacksonville sexual offender suspected of kidnapping a 15-year-old Central Florida girl he met on the Internet.

William Joe Mitchell, 46, had been communicating with Alyssa Frank on her Myspace.com account and she told friends she was planning to run away for love, Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd told the Times-Union this morning.

Alyssa's parents noticed she was missing shortly before 6:30 a.m. Monday from their home near Bartow and called police. Investigators learned about Alyssa's communication with Mitchell - he led her to believe he was 24 years old - and put out a statewide Amber Alert this morning. They said they believe Mitchell traveled to Bartow from Jacksonville to pick up Alyssa.

"He is predator and a pedophile and he groomed this child and convinced her this was a loving relationship," Judd said. "She left under the cloak of darkness in the middle of the night to be with him."

Jacksonville police went to Mitchell's last known address in the 1400 block of Lane Avenue, but did not find him. He moved there about two weeks ago from another Jacksonville home in the 2200 block of Evergreen Avenue. Judd said other sexual predators lived at that home.

State records show that Mitchell was released from the Baker County Correctional Institution in December after serving a sentence for lewd and lascivious battery on a girl in St. Johns County. He is on probation in that case.

Records also show other convictions for Mitchell as far back as 1981, all but one in St. Johns County. Those included prison time served for accessory to armed robbery, escape, aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and grand theft auto.

Judd said police have no idea where Alyssa and Mitchell were headed.

"We believe she's in grave danger," Judd said. "Our goal is to find her and return her to her family alive. Our second goal is to take Billy Joe Mitchell into custody."

Mitchell, also known as Billy Mitch, is a white male, 5-foot-10, 158 pounds with brown eyes and blue hair. He also has tattoos of "Lisa" and a cross on his left arm, "We" and "Bill" on his right arm and "Love" on his fingers.

He was last seen driving a 2000 black Chevrolet Lumina with license plate G02-5EL.

Alyssa is a white female, 5-foot-9, 200 pounds with hazel eyes and curly brown hair. She has freckles and three piercings on both ears. She may be wearing a pink or black "Tinkerbell" shirt, jeans and black tennis shoes with gray and black checkered shoelaces.

Anyone with information should call the Polk County Sheriff's Office at (863) 533-0344, (800) 226-TIPS or 911.

Stay on the lookout regardless of where you are, as police have no idea where the two are headed, but especially stay sharp if you live in Florida. That's someone's daughter, sister, niece -- try to help police bring her home safe.

This will be the only story I post today as I consider Amber Alerts to be of upmost importance, and this one in particular involves a criminal in my own city. Look at the picture, memorize it, and stay alert.

Shakira gives $45mil to charity

Singer and belly dancer Shakira has long been one of my favorite artists. I love her quirky lyrics, honest singing, and good Lord, that dancing. I took belly dancing lessons so that I could learn to dance more like her.

She doesn't seem to be too caught up in the Hollywood lifestyle, though. You don't see her out getting trashed all the time, flashing her girly bits everywhere, or sleeping with every leading man who will look her way.

Now, she's just given an astounding $45 million to charity!

Colombian pop star Shakira announced a $40 million donation on Thursday to repair damage caused by an earthquake in Peru and a hurricane in Nicaragua.

Shakira is the co-founder of the Latin America for Solidarity Foundation, ALAS, which means wings in Spanish, with Nobel Prize winning author Gabriel Garcia Marquez.

"I've seen first-hand many of the challenges facing Latin America," she said in a statement.

The two-time Grammy Award winner, who started another foundation to help poor children in Colombia when she was only 18, said 40 million infants do not go to school and 51 million people don't have access to clean water in Latin America.

"These are challenging problems that no one person can address, but working together everyone can help make a difference," she added.

The ALAS effort for Peru and Nicaragua includes partners like the Spanish Agency for International Cooperation, Telefonica, America Movil and the Red Cross.

It aims to guarantee investments for rebuilding education, sanitation and water systems in both countries.

Shakira also announced a three-year, $5 million commitment for projects for children in the region, where about 40 per cent of the population lives in poverty.

Most celebutards give a $1 million check to the popular charity of the day (pocket change for them) and then make sure to pose for lots and lots of pictures to make sure they can drum up some good publicity for themselves. Very rarely do they give significant amounts of money, create foundations, or take the time to actually learn the details of the charity they are supporting.

Two thumbs up for Shakira!

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