The Answer is a Resounding, "NO!"

The question is, "Should Florida Pastor Terry Jones be held responsible for deaths in Afghanistan?" Now, I know the current crop of idiots sitting in Congress thinks that the answer is yes, but Jones did not go and chop any heads off. It was -wait for it- the MUSLIMS. Yes, the Religion of Perpetual Outrage, back at it again. Or did they just not ever stop? This will come as a surprise to a lot of people - including Lindsey Graham - but we have a little thing in this country called "freedom of speech." It's not just for reporters, it's for everyone. Including slightly wacky pastors who decide to poke nests of bloodthirsty marauding vipers in the eye with a stick. You can do that in America. You can't do it in, say, Iran.

But with all these religions and different groups going around causing violence, maybe there is a point to be made here. I mean, if these different groups go around offing each other all the time, we'll have World War III before you know it. After all, who can forget -

- How the Christians called for the death of the artist who made the "piss Christ" exhibit? Oh wait! They didn't!

- How angry Buddhists went out and protested after the statues of Buddha were destroyed? Well, the statues were destroyed, but the Buddhists weren't rioting.

- How angry rednecks rioted in the streets after an American flag was burned! If you don't remember hearing about this, that's because it never happened.

-How Hindus and Sikhs murdered Muslim men for grooming their daughters for sex! I would have given them an excuse note for that one, but they didn't. Indeed, the article says that the two communities should commended for the restraint they showed.

- How the Jews firebombed the Muslims for their building a mosque on the remains of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem! If this didn't make the news where you live, that's because it didn't happen!!

No, invariably, there's only ever one group of 'people' that get angry over every little thing, and that's the Muslims. And these people are angry over everything. I am not kidding. Which religion in the works itself into a frenzy over an imagined vision of their god's name on an ice cream wrapper? That would be Islam. Which group of people in the world get into a snit because of a collection of privately owned porcelain pigs? Yep, Islam again. What religion demands that interfaith rooms be declared Muslim-only? Oh come on, guess!

Here is a list of things that Muslims find offensive. I don't call Islam the Religion of Perpetual Outrage for nothing. These people are ALWAYS angry. Which is fine by me - if you want to be miserable your whole life, then by all means don't let me stop you, but don't you DARE try and tell me what I can and can't do. In America, if you want to burn a Koran, that is your free right to do so.

The only thing Terry Jones is responsible for is the fact that he burned a Koran. Nothing more. He was not responsible for the fact that ten people died in Afghanistan. The blame for that rests solely on a religion that hates everyone and everything.

Related: Should We Blame a Florida Pastor for Deaths in Afghanistan?

Apocalypse WOW

Welcome to the reckoning. We have met the fiscal apocalypse, and it is smack dab in the middle of the heartland. As Wisconsin goes, so goes the nation. Let us pray it does not go the way of the decrepit welfare states of the European Union.

- Michelle Malkin

It's been a busy week, and I don't just mean because of college, which is enough to keep anyone busy. The news this week has been an explosion. First I think it was this week that Mubarak stepped down. Maybe it was last week. Who knows. Either way, there goes another US ally - thanks for nothing, Barack. I anxiously await the 2012 election, or, as I like to think of it sometimes, your Day of Reckoning.

That was the beginning of the explosions, but they just kept coming after that. I posted down

here already about Lara Logan's rape in Egypt. I heard through the blogosphere, but without confirmation, that the CBS execs sat on this story because they didn't want it getting out, lest it reflect badly on Obummer.

Well, turns out the blogosphere scuttlebutt was correct. CBS did indeed sit on the story. From Gateway Pundit, who got it from Jewish World Review:

A funny thing happened on the way to the glorious democracy ostensibly emerging in Egypt. CBS reporter Lara Logan, “covering the jubilation” as CBS put it, was surrounded by a mob of men screaming, “Jew, Jew!” who beat and sexually assaulted her. She is currently recovering in a U.S. hospital from injuries described as “serious.” Despite the fact that the incident occurred last Friday, CBS sat on the story until it became apparent that other members of the media had gotten wind of it. Why? The bet here is that this incident interferes with the mainstream media-established narrative regarding the true nature of some “freedom-loving” Egyptians. People yearning for democracy aren’t supposed to be anti-Semitic thugs or sexual predators as well. Thus, a genuine news item became an “un-story.”

…What is really going on in the Middle East? Upheaval–of a largely undefined nature. Where is it leading? Despite mountains of “expert” analysis, one really knows, not even the participants themselves. The American news media? A pack of Walter Durantys with narratives as tailored as those the NY Times Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter spun about the great “democratic reformer” known as Josef Stalin. A group of narrators as practiced in the art of taqiyya, which is defined as lying to protect Islam, as the Islamists themselves…

…And not just Islamists. In my entire career as a columnist, I can’t recall a time when so many members of the Fourth Estate were so willing to run interference for a president and his administration. Can anyone remotely imagine CBS spiking the same story if George W. Bush were president? Lara Logan would have been the poster girl for “unrealistic expectations of democracy in Egypt.” Bush would have been thoroughly excoriated for his idea that freedom is “G0d’s gift to mankind,” even as Barack Obama’s water-carriers have been characterizing the events in Egypt as “one the great triumphs of the human spirit” (Thomas Friedman, NY Times), or “a massive eloquent validation of the moral force and power of non-violent civil disobedience” comparable to the “legacies of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King.” (Clarence B. Jones, Huffington Post).

The media actively obstructed the news. And they wonder why we're all getting our information from either FOX or the blogs. Hm. I can't fathom why. (<- Sarcasm.)

And then we have the Wisconsin boondoggle. For those of you who don't know the whole story behind this, let's go back to beginning and start from there. From Michelle Malkin:

The lowdown: State government workers in the Badger State pay piddling amounts for generous taxpayer-subsidized health benefits. Faced with a $3.6 billion budget hole and a state constitutional ban on running a deficit, new GOP Gov. Scott Walker wants public unions to pony up a little more. He has proposed raising the public employee share of health insurance premiums from less than 5 percent to 12.4 percent. He is also pushing for state workers to cover half of their pension contributions. To spare taxpayers the soaring costs of Byzantine union-negotiated work rules, he would rein in Big Labor’s collective bargaining power to cover only wages unless approved at the ballot box.

Malkin also posted the salary information on her blog. These screaming union thug teachers up there make about $50,000 a year in salary and THEN they get benefits. Nice. And these people are whining because they have to pony up a few extra dollars.

Oh, and they might also be mad because they'll lose their collective bargaining power, which if I am not mistaken means they can't control how much vacation time they work and how long they work in a day, never mind that no private sector employee gets to do that.

But no, the teachers got angry, and they had rallies, and then, in the strangest twist of the week, the Wisconsin Democrats fled. Right out of the state. They apparently did this to keep the Wisconsin police from rounding them up and dragging them back to the State house. Or jail, inasmuch as these Dems have now broken the law.

And then we learned that Obama and the Democrats were behind the union rallies:

Now folded into the Democratic National Committee, Obama’s campaign group Organizing For America is already actively engaged in Wisconsin and is beginning to ramp up organizing efforts in Ohio, though observers say the latter process is about a week behind that in Wisconsin. The group is also beginning to dig into Indiana, whose legislature is considering a bill to limit collective bargaining by teachers.

I can't imagine what they're going to try and do in Indiana, seeing as Mitch Daniels wisely got rid of public-sector unions when he came into office. I do know that there is a bill in the legislature here to do a school voucher program, and I support that. The public school teachers here hate it. I didn't know they had collective bargaining rights down here.

Governor Walker, the man in charge up in Wisconsin, told Obama that he was working on balancing the budget, and maybe Obama ought to work on balancing his. Three cheers for Governor Walker!!

It's been one heck of a week. I don't know what kind of plot twist to expect next in this story, though I hope in involves the Dems getting dragged back to Wisconsin to their jobs. Then after the vote, I hope they get tossed in jail. I'm tired of Dems being able to break the law with impunity.

One more thing I want to mention before I close: the House of Representatives voted to defund Obamacare and Planned Parenthood, which is good news. The lying Democrats though, are another story. Take a gander at this:

The House on Friday voted largely along party lines to prohibit funding for President Obama’s healthcare reform law and eliminate funding for family planning.

In a quick succession of two-minute votes, the House adopted three amendments to their stopgap budget bill that eliminates healthcare reform funding through the end of the fiscal year. The House also approved, 240-185, an amendment barring federal Title X family planning grants that was aimed squarely at Planned Parenthood.

The vote on the Planned Parenthood amendment from Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) was postponed Thursday night after three hours of bitter debate during which Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) revealed she once had to have an abortion. She made the revelation on the House floor after Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) described in graphic detail an abortion procedure.

“I really planned to speak about something else but the gentleman from New Jersey just put my stomach in knots because I’m one of those women he spoke about just now,” Speier said. “I had a procedure at 17 weeks pregnant with a child who moved from the vagina into the cervix. And that procedure that you just described is a procedure that I endured.”

Jackie Spier is a liar. Do you know how we Conservatives know this? Read her statement again: “I had a procedure at 17 weeks pregnant with a child who moved from the vagina into the cervix. And that procedure that you just described is a procedure that I endured.”

I hate to give anatomy lessons, but a baby does not gestate in the vagina. She could have had an ecoptic pregnancy, but not if it lasted for 17 weeks, as she would been in agony or dead by that time. Liar.

Really, it's been quite the week.

Surrounded by Kooks and Nuts

I can't get away. Well, there's a bunch a crazy news out there, let's get started.

If Barack Obama gets impeached for nothing else, it ought to be this. He said that the U.S. can absorb another terrorist attack, even if it's like 9/11. Even if it's worse.

Woodward’s book portrays Obama and the White House as barraged by warnings about the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and confronted with the difficulty in preventing them. During an interview with Woodward in July, the president said, “We can absorb a terrorist attack. We’ll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever… we absorbed it and we are stronger.”

I don't care how strong we are, you oaf. I don't want to be a casualty of the next attack. The article continues.

But somehow I can’t escape the feeling that this flippancy comes from Obama’s envy that George W.Bush got a “big event” to make his presidency while all Obama has gotten is a bad economy, massive job loss, and dissatisfaction at every level of society. No big disaster that he could make his nut on. Heck he even wasted the BP Oil spill with weeks of inactivity.

Others agree with me. “This is just another example of the Obama Administration’s flippant attitude towards the War on Terror – a war they refuse to even identify or address. Instead of assuming the United States can just ‘absorb’ another terrorist attack, President Obama should be focused on creating a serious global strategy and fighting the dangerous ideology of Islamic extremism to ensure an act of war like September 11th never happens again,” said David Bossie, executive producer of the film America at Risk.

But Obama doesn't care we get attacked again or not... hmm... maybe he is a closet Muslim.

Let's move on! I don't know how may of my readers follow Gateway Pundit's blog, but there has been a hit piece put out on him by Leftist organization Media Matters. Congratulations, Gateway! You're doing something right!

On a much more serious note, a woman in Virginia is about to be executed for arranging her husband and step-son's murder. I wouldn't mention this, but that nutjob who's running Iran had something to say about it, and I feel that deserves a moment. Here's what he said:

An Iranian news agency reported Tuesday that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused the West of launching a "heavy propaganda" campaign against the case of an Iranian woman who had been sentenced to be stoned to death for adultery but failing to react with outrage over the imminent execution of Lewis in Virginia.

Why would we fail to be outraged over Lewis' execution but get worked up over the Iranian woman who's going to be stoned for adultery? Oh, I don't know... how about...

- Lewis had a trial by jury, and I'm sure that the jury actually contained women.

- There was actual evidence of wrongdoing by Lewis.

- We aren't biased based on gender, unlike Islam which believes that a woman's testimony is worth only half of a man's.

Nope. No reason whatever. I don't think that Iranian woman committed adultery. I think she was probably framed, and is going to die for it now, but I don't have all the facts so I shouldn't be making judgements.

The latest post-racial news came in, and it wasn't so post-racial after all. From Gateway Pundit's blog, Two men charged with violent racist attack on white teen:

DNA recently linked Ahmed Mohamed and Jonathan Baquiring to the attack in which a 16-year-old boy was robbed, taunted with racial insults, burned with a lit cigarette and punched repeatedly. Mohamed, 22, and Baquiring, 21, each were charged Monday with first-degree robbery and malicious harassment, the state’s hate-crime statute.

Baquiring was booked into the Seattle Correctional Facility just after 6 p.m. Tuesday, according to the King County Jail Booking Register. His bail is set at $500,000.

Seattle police are still searching for Mohamed.

King County Deputy Prosecutor Samantha Kanner will also seek to have Mohamed held on $500,000 bail once he is arrested, according to charging papers.

The victim, Shane McClellan, said he was walking home around 2 a.m. when two men, whom he described as black and Filipino, asked him for a light.

He said the two men then robbed him and beat him for four hours, whipping him with his own belt while saying things like, “How do you like it, white boy?” and “This is for enslaving our people,” according to the police report.

McClellan, who is white, said the two men also poured Four Loko energy beer on him, burned him with a cigarette and urinated on him, police said.

When are you going to come out and denounce this, President Obama? We're supposed to be beyond race now, aren't we? But you'll hide, again. You make me sick.

If this post-racism, someone needs to hit the reset button.

I'm Still with Israel

Guess what's ba-ack? The pro-Israel banner. 'Cause I still support Israel.

In case you missed the news, a bunch of "peace activists" tried to run a blockade in Gaza. IMAO put it best when they said these are "the sort of peace activist who want nothing more than war." Because that's exactly the kind of peace activist that tried to get into Gaza.

All sorts of things have come out about this flotilla attack. Hillary Clinton had to go open her big mouth:



"We support, in the strongest terms, the security council's call for a prompt, impartial, credible, and transparent investigation."

From the U.N.? Don't make me laugh, lady. You and I both know that the U.N. hates Israel and can't do jack squat right.

"We support an Israeli investigation that meets those criteria."

Boy, I wish I could lie like that without my conscious driving me up a wall. Maybe it's a bit early to be calling her words a lie, but I just this feeling that I'm gonna be right. We'll deal with Gaza here in a minute.

(Palestinian authority, what Palestinian authority? Yes I know I'm supposed to keep going but I couldn't help that one.)

One more for good measure:

"Ultimately the solution to this conflict must be found through an agreement based on a two-state solution negotiated between the parties."

Okay. My friend Ron Mossad had a lovely post on the two-state solution so I won't deal with it here. You can go here if you're interested in more on that. Okay, back to the point.

So Mrs. Clinton wants a fair investigation. I wonder, will that investigation include this video:



For the first few seconds of this video you can some soldiers boarding the boat. Then you see a "Peace activist" tossing a rock at a soldier. And the subtitles take care of the rest.

Wow. That's about the same kind of peace I expected from the religion of Islam - oh wait....

Gateway Pundit, through YNet News adds this statement from the soldier who was thrown over the side of the ship:

R. was the soldier who was thrown from the deck, as shown in the footage distributed by the IDF. "I was in front of a number of people with knives and clubs. I cocked my weapon when I saw that one was coming towards me with a knife drawn and I fired once. Then another 20 people came at me from all directions and threw me down to the deck below."

"Then I felt a stabbing in my stomach. It was a knife. I got the knife out, then somehow got down to the lower deck where there were more people. This was when the soldiers had got control of all the boat except the lower deck. Me and another soldier managed to get to the deck, and we jumped into the water, from where our forces collected us. Another soldier who was beaten hard lost consciousness. Other soldiers covered him until we managed to get him out."

Hmm. That doesn't sound so peaceful to me.

Obama came out and condemned Israel. Then again, they did put his friends in danger (Not that that's an excuse):

Former Weather Underground leaders William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, as well as Code Pink founder Jodie Evans, helped organize the Free Gaza Movement, which launched the six-ship flotilla from Turkey to Israel that ended in a violent clash with Israeli Defense Forces, BigGovernment.com reported.

... This wasn’t the first time that the Free Gaza Movement, whose board of directors include well-known leftists Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein, sent vessels to Gaza to deliberately provoke a reaction from Israel.

... And if there’s any doubt that this was a political set-up instead of a humanitarian mission, the fact that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez promised to join a future convoy should dispel any doubts.

Well isn't that some interesting food for thought. So now that we know this was set up and now that we know that those peace activists weren't peace activists - unless stabbing someone in the stomach is now 'peaceful' - who's fault is it now?

Here's a hint: not Israel.

__________________________________
Further reading:

Ron Mossad: 10 Dead as Israeli forces storm Gaza Freedom Flotilla
Ron Mossad: More info on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla
Gateway Pundit: Netanyahu: This was no Love Boat
And for the people who think that this incident took place in 'International Waters': Click here.

News Blurbs & a New Poster

First I have some news blurbs for you guys, then I want to talk about my new sidebar poster. Yep, that's I call my Pro-Israel, Let Freedom R.I.P., Fairness Doctrine, and Project 2,996 posters.

And now I have a new one, but news first.


Apple is a Democrat Organization

Maybe they think that if they kiss up to Obama he won't run them out of the country with tax hikes.

I call that 'delusional.' And I'm so glad I don't have an iPod. From Gateway Pundit:

Republican Ari David ... sent this today. The Republican candidate running against far left socialist Henry Waxman is being denied his free speech by Apple Computer , Inc. Apple officials notified Ari David that they were rejecting his submission for an app. They told his team that they were doing so on the grounds that they deemed the content in the app was defamatory against Henry Waxman.

By 'defamatory' they mean "told the complete unvarnished truth." You can see the list of unvarnished truths at GP's blog; I'm not going to relist everything.


This isn't the first time Apple has done something like this. But it does reinforce my happiness that my my mp3 is not an iPod.



Barack Obama Sinks Low... Again


This would be news if it wasn't, what, the 18,000th time? I stopped counting a year ago. Obama proves how stupid and delusional he is.

If you're drinking anything while reading this, you need to swallow and set your cup down before continuing, okay?

Good. Here's the headline: Obama Says Daniel Pearl's Beheading Captured World's Imagination.

Did you go off teleprompter again, Barack? Beheadings are NOT fuel for the imagination. They are sick and wrong!

That’s crazy sick. Obama told reporters yesterday that the video of Islamic radicals sawing off a Daniel Pearl’s head with a butter knife “capured the world’s imagination.”

“Obviously, the loss of Daniel Pearl was one of those moments that captured the world’s imagination because it reminded us of how valuable a free press is.”

No, Barack. It was horrifying.

And… It had nothing to do with freedom of the press. They beheaded Daniel Pearl because he was an American and a Jew. They beheaded Daniel Pearl because they were Islamic radicals. Something you have not yet figured out.

Obama astonishes me. Just when you think he can't get lower, he does. Cutting someone's head off with a butter knife. I might need to throw up now.

And, the third news story: Arizona Tells Los Angeles to Shove Off

Okay, so maybe they didn't quite say it like that, but still. This brings a tear to my eye. A happy tear. Thank heaven some people -and states - are standing up for liberty. The letter I'm about to cross-post here comes from a Representative of the Arizona Corporation Commission, Gary Pierce, and was sent to the mayor of Los Angeles.

Dear Mayor Villaraigosa,

I was dismayed to learn that the Los Angeles City Council voted to boycott Arizona and Arizona-based companies — a vote you strongly supported — to show opposition to SB 1070 (Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act).

You explained your support of the boycott as follows: “While we recognize that as neighbors, we share resources and ties with the State of Arizona that may be difficult to sever, our goal is not to hurt the local economy of Los Angeles, but to impact the economy of Arizona. Our intent is to use our dollars — or the withholding of our dollars — to send a message.” (emphasis added)

I received your message; please receive mine. As a state-wide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona’s electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the “resources and ties” we share with the City of Los Angeles. In fact, approximately twenty-five percent of the electricity consumed in Los Angeles is generated by power plants in Arizona.

If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation. I am confident that Arizona’s utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands. If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona’s economy.

People of goodwill can disagree over the merits of SB 1070. A state-wide economic boycott of Arizona is not a message sent in goodwill.

Sincerely,

Commissioner Gary Pierce

This guy is a hero. Well done, sir, well done.

And on that note, allow me to unveil my new Arizona Rocks! poster. Which, because I now love Arizona, has been shamelessly linked to an Arizona travel site, just to spite liberals.

It's definitely the most flamboyant of my sidebar posters, that's for sure. And I hope no one in Arizona is to mad at me for using part of their flag for the background, but I like how it looks like that. Some of the colors might have to be changed, and I'm sure it'll get moved around a few more times, but I'll deal with that later.

My Take on Arizona's New Law & Illegal Immigration

And in case you don't know, Arizona passed a law enforcing the border, and Obama is furious over this. Look at all those lost potential Democrat voters!

Well, now the illegals are protesting, including disrespecting the American flag, and I've have enough of this lunacy. It's like Rush Limbaugh said in his parody of Al Shaprton: "We will continue to act ridiculous until we get what we want."

I've had enough of this lunacy. I really have. So here's a comment that I posted on There's My Two Cents earlier today:

I grow weary of this, especially now that the Mexican government is shown as one big hypocrite.

If you disrespect American culture, get out of the country.

If you think we have to learn Spanish to cater to you, get out of the country.

If you think I need a great job so I can pay for your welfare, get out of the country.

If you think you have a 'right' to be here, without a green card, get out of the country.

If you think you have the right to vote when you're here illegally, get out of the country.

If you think disrespecting my country's flag will endear your plight to me, get out of the country.

If you think I should boycott Arizona because they decided they were tired of the BS from illegals, get out of the country.

If you think Arizona and Texas belong to Mexico, you should consider leaving the country.

If you're sneaking over the border so your child can be born in America and you can stay because he's an American citizen, you should think about leaving.

And if you're an illegal alien, or support illegal aliens being here and want to give them amnesty, you should get out of America. Right now. Because my patience has absolutely, completely run out.

This applies to illegals and Liberals.

I am so sick and tired of this lunacy. I have no patience left for it. If you start speaking Spanish to me, you'd better have your green card ready to show me, because you don't have one, I will kick your butt from here to Arizona and then call the police to report an illegal alien. I am just that angry.

Everyone seems to think that Arizona has some type of human rights violations going. I'm surprised the bloody U.N. hasn't run around screaming about it. But the only things illegals bring to this country is bloodshed and illegal drugs and they only thing they take out is American wealth. You'll get in a butt load of trouble if you're caught in Mexico without your papers, and we're expected to do nothing to protect our own borders? Especially when when illegals are shown to be violent? Are you freaking kidding me? And the ones that aren't shooting people and dealing drugs are still here ILLEGALLY* and either holding jobs that Americans could use or living off American welfare. This bothers me.

So feel free to run around screaming racist and racism and blaming the Republicans and the Tea Party and the Right-wingers and whoever else you feel like blaming, because I no longer care.

And if I find you're here illegally, I will restrain you by force if necessary and I will call the cops.

Comprende?

*For the people who don't know (here's looking at you, Democrats) this means these people are breaking law by being here.

What About Canadacare?

A hat tip to commenter's at Gateway Pundit for directing me to this article by Let Freedom Ring. Muchas Gracias, people! Read the whole article, it's a good read. Here are a few selections from it:

I’ve long thought that Canadacare was vastly overrated. Thanks to Drudge highlighting this article, I now have proof galore that Canadacare is a disaster. Here’s what I’m referring to:

SASKATOON — The incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association says this country’s health-care system is sick and doctors need to develop a plan to cure it.

Dr. Anne Doig says patients are getting less than optimal care and she adds that physicians from across the country, who will gather in Saskatoon on Sunday for their annual meeting, recognize that changes must be made.

“We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize,” Doig said in an interview with The Canadian Press. “We know that there must be change,” she said. “We’re all running flat out, we’re all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands.”

The pitch for change at the conference is to start with a presentation from Dr. Robert Ouellet, the current president of the CMA, who has said there’s a critical need to make Canada’s health-care system patient-centred.

Health care systems that aren’t “patient-centred” are worthless. If the patient’s needs aren’t the health care system’s highest priority, then that system’s priorities are worthless. PERIOD.

So much for that old complaint that Canadians have better healthcare then Americans, eh? Wait, it gets better.

Who cares if everyone is insured if there are 17 week waiting periods for primary care physicians and longer waits for specialists? Who cares if everyone is insured if Canada has one-third of the MRI machines per capita that the United States has?

The question that conservatives should’ve been asking John Q. Public is whether they were willing to trade breakthroughs in equipment and life-saving procedures so that everyone is insured. We’ve failed in that type of messaging. Starting immediately, I won’t make that same messaging mistake again.

It must’ve about killed them to write this:

His thoughts on the issue are already clear. Ouellet has been saying since his return that “a health-care revolution has passed us by,” that it’s possible to make wait lists disappear while maintaining universal coverage and “that competition should be welcomed, not feared.” In other words, Ouellet believes there could be a role for private health-care delivery within the public system.

It must’ve been painful for someone who’s worked in a single-payer system to admit that “competition should be welcomed, not feared.” It must’ve been eye-opening and painful. While Obama and the Democrats have tried extolling the virtues of single-payer, albeit in code, Canada is moving in our direction. (Isn’t irony wonderful?)

Yes. Yes it is. Like I said, so much for that old fable that Canadians get better healthcare. If you wanna wait for 17 weeks before you can see a doctor, that's fine by me, but I don't want to, so don't you dare try and force everyone else onto the same plan.

Oh yeah, too late, Obama's already trying. Well, I'll leave it up to the rest of you to decide how long you want to wait for a doctor.

Critics Beware!!

Michelle Malkin and Gateway Pundit report that the White House is asking snitches to hand in information about people like me, who don't support a government health plan socialized medicine.

From Gateway Pundit:

Today, Barack Obama initiated the first stage of his Marxist snitch network.The White House asked supporters to report anyone who publicly opposes President Obama’s plan to implement a government-centric overhaul of the health care system.

And from the White House website itself:

Scary chain emails and videos are starting to percolate on the internet, breathlessly claiming, for example, to "uncover" the truth about the President’s health insurance reform positions.

Except the truth is scary. I don't know about you, but I don't relish the thought of have life-saving medicine denied me, or being told I have to wait for surgery - sometimes because there aren't enough beds. How would you like it if this happened to you and your family because Barack Obama decided to force us all on a government plan?

Oops, there I go again. Anyway, back to the White House:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

How about Obama's Healthcare plan? That's pretty fishy.

Red State adds:

...[A]s we’ve seen in the health care debate to date, the term “disinformation” is used by the Obama White House as a catchall to describe any opposition to the President’s push for single-payer, government-run health care — meaning the White House wants to be informed of any forwarded emails or blog posts or any “casual conversations” that could be taken as opposition to their health care overhaul plan.

The White House has, as yet, offered no explanation of what it is they plan to do with the tips on policy opposition they hope to receive from citizen informers.

Really? That's odd. I'd like to see what they'd do, especially with the Constitution itself blocking them.

I wonder why Obama wants people who tell the truth reported to him ... could it be that the Internet lets the truth out? And, why does it even matter to Obama? It sure didn't matter back in the Bush-bashing days. Obama and his cronies do not have the right to restrain bloggers who tell the truth since, as I said earlier, it goes against the very first amendment of the Constitution.

You've probably seen it before, and if you haven't, I've had it on this blog for nearly as long as I've had DR4I. It goes like this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Of course, Obama has no trouble getting rid of or ignoring these sorts of things whenever it becomes to inconvenient for him.

You see, I have the right that, since I don't like Obama's Health care plan, I can speak out against it. Now what Obama's trying to do here I don't know, and I'm not sure I want to fathom.

The real question is, do you want to know the truth about this government health care plan, or not? I've offered a bit of the truth, just a sampling of what's happened in other countries that have a government health care plan. I strongly encourage you to go look through this archive , which is full of the truth from other countries that have government run health care. These are the things the media will never show you.

Yahoo Finance reports:

If you prize choosing your own cardiologist or urologist under your company's Preferred Provider Organization plan (PPO), if your employer rewards your non-smoking, healthy lifestyle with reduced premiums, if you love the bargain Health Savings Account (HSA) that insures you just for the essentials, or if you simply take comfort in the freedom to spend your own money for a policy that covers the newest drugs and diagnostic tests -- you may be shocked to learn that you could lose all of those good things under the rules proposed in the two bills that herald a health-care revolution.

In short, the Obama platform would mandate extremely full, expensive, and highly subsidized coverage -- including a lot of benefits people would never pay for with their own money -- but deliver it through a highly restrictive, HMO-style plan that will determine what care and tests you can and can't have. It's a revolution, all right, but in the wrong direction.

That whole article is worth reading. Socialized medicine, A.K.A. "Government health care reform" has never worked, and never will work. The only way it would work was if everyone had the exact same problems. But they don't. This health care bill will hurt more people than it helps. The government can't run a program like this. No government can.

So now Obama wants to know who's out there telling the truth about his health care plan. I wonder how that's gonna play out.

One Final Point:

THE HECK WITH GENDER AND RACE!!!!

I promised screaming if it ever came down to this. Well, it's come to this. Michelle Malkin reports about an op-ed piece in the Seattle Times which raves:

"Sotomayor's nomination is historic also because she is living successfully with diabetes."

I'm going to show you some really tasty bits from the pile of manure. Let me tell you something else before we begin: as a type 1 diabetic, I. Am. Pissed.

The nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court has made diabetes a factor in the confirmation process. Diagnosed at age 8, she is the first nominee to have the disease, and the position's life tenure has raised valid questions about her health while also giving her critics an opening.

Except no one gives a rip about her diabetes. Except the idiots who wrote this, and now me because they brought it up. What we give a rip about is the fact this woman has a axe to grind and she's taking it to court with her.

"I believe that that a wise Latina woman, in the riches of her experience, would come to better conclusion then a white man who hasn't lived that life."

If that's not word for word, it's pretty dang close. Any 'white man' who said it would have that would have been run out of town in a hurry. Why is this witch given a free ride because of her skin color?

Type 1 diabetes is a disorder in which the immune system destroys the body's insulin-producing beta cells. (The more common form of diabetes, type 2, is associated with weight gain and aging.) No one is declaring victory over diabetes, which is increasing at epidemic rates and imposes huge burdens on patients, their families and the entire health-care system.

But Judge Sotomayor's nomination should be given its historic due. If a Latina would have never been considered for the highest court 40 years ago or even 20 years ago, neither would have a person with diabetes. Workplace discrimination was common; social stigmas flourished; misperceptions were the norm.

Until insulin's discovery in 1922, there was no effective treatment. Your diagnosis was your death sentence. Insulin, however, allowed patients to live by the grace of this miracle drug — making them, as Dr. Joslin said, "the explorers of uncharted seas." But those waters were hardly calm.

When you're done with your hero worship, I'd like to have a word with you. Tell me, oh wise ones, what exactly constitutes living successfully with diabetes? Good blood sugars, perhaps? Remember, none of us have perfect blood sugars all the time, not even her, I would dare to say. Is it because she has an insulin pump? A fancy blood glucose meter? How is this historic? How is she successful? Pray tell, oh wise ones, so poor stupid diabetics like me may follow in her wise example.

Make no mistake, good diabetes care requires financial resources, a qualified health-care team and personal commitment. Too many patients still fall short of their goal and our health-care system is far from perfect. But our improved tools are paying dividends. In a typical half-day clinic at the University of Washington Diabetes Care Center, nine or 10 patients collectively can boast of more than 300 years of diabetes duration. Patients with what was once called "juvenile diabetes" are now Medicare age.

We won't predict what type of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor will be, but we do know that her health care will be guided by tools and technology that none of us have yet imagined.

You don't have to predict. Us Conservatives have been doing that for awhile now. She can be summed up in one word: racist.

We started off in this op-ed with awe and wonder that this diabetic had been nominated for the Supreme Court, and now we get a lecture on diabetes.

Either way, I'm still upset. She's incompetent, preferring to judge based on skin color rather than on the merits of an actual case. That will only lead to trouble if this woman is confirmed. Count on it.

And don't you dare try and play on diabetes for sympathy again.

See Also: What Ricci Says About Sotomayor - And Obama

Pass the Plastic Bags, Please

The spaz-tastic U.N. is back at it again:

Single-use plastic bags, a staple of American life, have got to go, the United Nations' top environmental official said Monday.

And if you look here, you'll see one good reason not to stop using plastic bags: Because the U.N. wants us too.

Although recycling bags is on the rise in the United States, an estimated 90 billion thin bags a year, most used to handle produce and groceries, go unrecycled. They were the second most common form of litter after cigarette butts at the 2008 International Coastal Cleanup Day sponsored by the Ocean Conservancy, a marine environmental group.

"Single use plastic bags which choke marine life, should be banned or phased out rapidly everywhere. There is simply zero justification for manufacturing them anymore, anywhere," said Achim Steiner, executive director of the U.N. Environment Programme. His office advises U.N. member states on environmental policies.

Why are we taking advice from the U.N.? These are the idiots who proclaimed global pandemic and chaos when the swine flu (No, I will not call it H1N1) was in and 150 people outside Mexico were sick.

The ban is already being tested in China, where retailers giving out thin bags can be fined up to $1,464. According to one nationwide survey, 40 billion fewer plastic bags were given out in grocery stores after the law's enactment. In addition, Ireland managed to cut single-use plastic bag consumption 90 percent by levying a fee on each bag that consumers use.

In the United States, only San Francisco has completely banned plastic bags. Los Angeles will do so in 2010. Also, Washington, D.C.'s city council is set to vote on a five-cent-a-bag tax later this month. On first reading, the bill passed unanimously. Similar proposals have failed in New York and Philadelphia.

Keith Christman, senior director for the plastics division of the American Chemistry Council, responded that the term "single-use" is misleading because most people actually reuse plastic bags, "for example, to line their trash cans."

I'm very glad to see that the ban failed outside the liberal state. And yes, I do reuse plastic bags. You know those little trash cans most people have in their bathrooms? Those plastic grocery bags work very well as liners for them.

"A ban on plastic bags could also cause some unintended consequences," he said. In particular, the increased demand for paper bags would double greenhouse emissions and create "a dramatic increase in waste," Christman said.

I love how, if given enough space, environmentalism will strangle itself out.

Leading U.S. plastic bag manufacturers aim to increase the recycled content of plastic bags to 40 percent by 2015, he added. That would reduce plastic waste by 300 million pounds a year.

Taking care of the planet is not a bad thing, but environmentalism is, as it puts the planet before people on the planet.

Not to mention that the U.n. can't do anything right to save anyone's life. Now we can see the new load of crap these people expect us to stomach.

I'll take 100 plastic bags, please.

Muslims: "Don't Talk To Us, Dhimmis!"

Well, I'm back from my vacation, and look who never takes a day off: The Religion of Purported Peace. Do these people ever stop whining? Seriously...

More from the Religion of Peace Perpetual Outrage.

First, an update. You remember the guy who decided to sue because he had to cook pork? Well, I have great news. He lost.

A Muslim chef who accused the Metropolitan Police of religious discrimination when told he must handle pork has lost his tribunal case.

Hasanali Khoja was told he would be expected to handle pork products at his new job at the Empress State Building in Earls Court, west London.

The 60-year-old from Edgware, north-west London, also said racist gestures were made to him when he complained.

The force was it was "pleased" at the tribunal's decision.

Mr Khoja said earlier he was "stressed and humiliated" at the prospect of handling pork products, which Islam considers to be unclean.

He said even wearing gloves or using tongs to cook would not protect him from the risk of splashes.

The catering manager had also claimed that he was the victim of racism by an official when he went to discuss his situation.

Jihad Watch is right: and exactly what race is Islam again?

A Metropolitan Police spokeswoman said: "We are pleased to have been cleared of allegations of discrimination on the basis of religion or belief against Mr Khoja."

She added: "Mr Khoja remains a valued member of staff."

Two words for you, lady: Fire him.

Now, the Muslims feel insulted. Again:

When the landlady of my Toronto apartment building said an outraged neighbour had filed a complaint about me over an apparently inappropriate hallway interaction with his wife, my mind raced through the countless conversations I've had with fellow tenants, none of which seemed a possible source of offence.

It turns out, it wasn't a salacious transaction that had caused the complaint, but rather a neighbourly and -- to me -- entirely forgettable greeting, little more than a brief "good morning" as I passed my neighbours on the way to work.

Still, it was enough of an affront for the man -- once a doctor somewhere in the Middle East, my landlady clarified -- to feel I had broken a cultural taboo. The incident started an awkward feud which has involved warnings not to repeat my indiscretion and one face-to-face shouting match, which included allusions to my impending death.

I expect the battle will wage on, as we appear to be stuck at an impasse.

His Muslim upbringing has ingrained in him a sense of entitlement to demand I not speak directly to his wife; and my prairie upbringing has ingrained in me a duty to strive for polite cohesion with my neighbours.

My landlady, who has handled the complaint with tittering trepidation, hasn't helped dispel the friction. She has told me to adhere to the demands because the man "could be dangerous," directing me to literally turn my back to the couple as they pass, never make eye contact and never hold the elevator for them, no matter what.

...Life among neighbours has become increasingly complicated by multiculturalism, in this case making even the most affable salutation or good Samaritan gesture a practice in walking on eggshells. But in trying to adapt to a patchwork of often conflicting cultures, has civility become the casualty of accommodation?

Of course, denying me the right to greet a woman in our shared hallway fails to measure up to reported conflicts that have caused a culture clash, such as Canada's reaction to a recent Afghan law allowing some husbands to withhold food until their wives agree to sex, or the case of a Toronto-area father and son accused of killing a daughter who refused to wear a hijab at school.

....The alternative to this is to live amongst strangers in an icy standoff, fearful that the slightest attempt at community might be viewed as an affront. The alternative is to abandon prairie law, turn your back and close your eyes. And that sounds terrible.

All you have to do to set off Muslims is say hello on your way to work.

Nice.

From the Stupid Files: About Those Photos...

On the one hand, I'm torn. I want Obama to release those photos so everyone can see just what goes on back at Gitmo and therefore kill the liberal's main screaming point: "Torture! Torture!"

On the other hand, as soon as those are released, countries that actually engage in torture (For liberals, I mean "Not America") are going to laugh until they cry.

The thing is that what goes on at Gitmo... do you realize people over on FanFiction.Net can write stories that involve more torture and still never go above a T rating?

ABC News reports:

President Obama defended his decision to fight the release of photos showing detainee abuse, saying it would only put American troops in harms way and create a backlash against Americans.

Backlash against Americans, or against his administration? I tend to think it's the latter.

"The most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger," the president said before departing on his trip to Arizona. "Moreover, I fear the publication of these photos may only have a chilling effect on future investigations of detainee abuse."

How can you inflame anti-American opinion anymore than it already is? Heck, even liberals hate this country. The last free outpost in the world, and the biggest threat is actually on the inside.

Oh, and Barry? Muslims have always hated us. You're fighting a losing battle.

"I want to emphasize that these photos that were requested in this case are not particularly sensational, especially when compared to the painful images that we remember from Abu Ghraib," Obama said. "It's therefore my belief that the publication of these photos would not add any additional benefit to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals."

I think I missed the Abu Ghraib thing, so I went out and looked it up. Ah, yes, Abu Ghraib. We were heaven help us, we actually engaged in torture. Real torture. We were actually playing by the Muslim's rules that time. (And you know liberals can't stand that!)

Now, in case you're wondering what kind of atrocities go on at Gitmo, Ann Coulter has the explanation:

Without any pretense of an argument, which liberals are neurologically incapable of, the mainstream media are now asserting that our wussy interrogation techniques at Guantanamo constituted "torture" and have irreparably harmed America's image abroad.

Only the second of those alleged facts is true: The president's release of the Department of Justice interrogation memos undoubtedly hurt America's image abroad, as we are snickered at in capitals around the world, where they know what real torture is. The Arabs surely view these memos as a pack of lies. What about the pills Americans have to turn us gay?

The techniques used against the most stalwart al-Qaida members, such as Abu Zubaydah, included one terrifying procedure referred to as "the attention grasp." As described in horrifying detail in the Justice Department memo, the "attention grasp" consisted of: "(G)rasping the individual with both hands, one hand on each side of the collar opening, in a controlled and quick motion. In the same motion as the grasp, the individual is drawn toward the interrogator."

The end.

This is what liberals are screaming about. This is insane.

But wait - it gets worse.

And that's not all! As the torments were gradually increased, next up the interrogation ladder came "walling." This involves pushing the terrorist against a flexible wall, during which his "head and neck are supported with a rolled hood or towel that provides a C-collar effect to prevent whiplash."

People pay to have a lot rougher stuff done to them at Six Flags Great Adventure. Indeed, with plastic walls and soft neck collars, "walling" may be the world's first method of "torture" in which all the implements were made by Fisher-Price.

As the memo darkly notes, walling doesn't cause any pain, but is supposed to induce terror by making a "loud noise": "(T)he false wall is in part constructed to create a loud sound when the individual hits it, which will further shock and surprise." (!!!)

Those of you who are squeamish, turn back now. Even Miss Coulter felt the irony:

If you need a few minutes to compose yourself after being subjected to that horror, feel free to take a break from reading now. Sometimes a cold compress on the forehead is helpful, but don't let it drip or you might end up waterboarding yourself.

Indeed. Now, for the continuing inhumane torture methods:

I will spare you the gruesome details of the CIA's other comical interrogation techniques and leap directly to the penultimate "torture" in their arsenal: the caterpillar.

In this unspeakable brutality, a harmless caterpillar is placed in the terrorist's cell. Justice Department lawyers expressly denied the interrogators' request to trick the terrorist into believing the caterpillar was a "stinging insect."

Human rights groups have variously described being trapped in a cell with a live caterpillar as "brutal," "soul-wrenching" and, of course, "adorable."

Good heavens, no! Not a caterpillar!!

What kind of caterpillar? A Monarch? Swallowtail? Cabbage White? Sweetheart Underwing? That's a big moth, so it might have a big caterpillar. Maybe one from inside an apple?
If it had to be a caterpillar, couldn't it have at least been one from a cercropia moth? At least that one looks moderately scary. But I digress.

There's My Two Cents has a bit more info on the waterboarding that liberals are screaming about.

...I don't recall ever seeing this procedure in such detail before, though I've read about it any number of times. It's amazing to watch in action, don't you think? No actual danger being posed to the person, but almost instant capitulation.

Torture: "the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty"

Is this torture? No way. Anyone who thinks this is torture has their eyes closed to what real torture is. Slicing and dicing body parts is torture. Electrical shocks, crushing of fingers, and permanent physical damage is torture. Forcing someone to watch while their spouse or child is raped and cut apart is torture. Those are the things that our enemies do (it's well documented, if you don't believe me).

We tip the guy down and pour little bit of water up his nose.

Waterboarding is not torture because there is no permanent physical damage, nor is there any mental anguish [radical Islamic terrorists strive for and worship death, so there is no anguish found in the panic reaction they talked about in this video]. Waterboarding is a phenomenally effective way to get information out of captives quickly without harming them. Our own soldiers go through it as part of their training.

Follow the link to watch the video he's talking about.

I think we can safely say that Crazyville - located in Washington D.C., in case you wanna visit - has once again taken stupid to a whole new level.

I looked at the Abu Ghraib photos, okay? "Oh no! Our eeeevilll soldiers stripped someone! They threatened them with dogs!" Sorry 'bout that. Next time, we'll make sure the soldiers use actual methods of torture, you know, knives, whips, chains, that sort of thing.

Which, by the way, that stuff does not happen at Gitmo. Liberals are running around screaming that the sky is falling when they've only been bonked on the head by a tiny, half-developed acorn. If there's anything about this country that deserves scorn, well, let's just say it's not our soldiers or Gitmo.

I think this video kind of puts it in perspective, even if the ending is kind of weird.



Compared to what other countries do to their prisoners, liberals have NOTHING to be complaining about.

Muslims: "We Deserve Special Treatment!"

You're never gonna believe this. Wait, maybe you will. The latest from the religion of...

...You know, just forget it. Read:

A Muslim chef is suing Britain’s largest police force, claiming he suffered religious discrimination because he was expected to cook bacon and pork sausages for breakfast.

Hasanali Khoja is due to put his case against the Metropolitan Police to an employment tribunal, which starts a 10-day hearing in London tomorrow.

The case has caused outrage in the British press and has been seized on by far right political parties, being branded “the madness of multiculturalism” by the British National Party.

Nice to see someone has some sense. That's what this is: madness.

Mr Khoja, 60, whose claim is being backed by both the Association of Muslim Police and the National Black Police Association, says he was refused permission not to handle pork when he took a job as catering manager at a police headquarters in west London.

Instead, he said his supervisor suggested he wear gloves when preparing a “999 breakfast” – a policeman’s favourite that includes bacon, pork sausages and black pudding, which is made from pigs’ blood.

“I felt very unhappy about it. I was very upset and angry because it is not permissible in my religion,” said Mr Khoja, who is an adviser on Muslim food issues on the government’s Foods Standards Agency.

“I was threatened that management would sack me if I did not follow instructions. But I never enrolled to cook pork. I refused to do it. I never did it and I never would.

“I had a letter from the human resources department saying that I would not be required to cook any pork. But this was not exactly what I wanted as a guarantee.

“The Met has shown no sensitivity towards my religion. Their response has been ill-thought and discriminatory.”

Wow. No sensitivity. The religion of Islam, reaping what it sows.

Say it with me: "Karma."

“My original contract did not include any kind of cooking. I was hired as a senior catering manager,” he said. “I protested at the move [to west London] and at having to cook pork.

“I was placed on paid, special leave for a year. No Muslim in my position should have to face such harassment.”

What the? How is that harassment? I woulda fired ya. Paid leave is not harassment.

However, his plight has generated little sympathy in the mainstream of British society. Richard Littlejohn, a columnist for the Daily Mail, wrote: “There are some stories which are so preposterous on so many levels that it is difficult to know where to start.

Amen.

“Whoever heard of a chef being excused pork? Naturally, he now wants a large sum of money by way of compensation. The Met has a long and undistinguished record of grovelling to this kind of opportunist bullying.

“What astonishes me is that he ever applied for a job cooking for policemen in the first place. What, precisely, did he think they serve up in a police canteen – vegetarian samosas?

“If he had a fundamental objection [to cooking pork], he should go and work somewhere else. Hiring a chef who won’t cook sausages to work in a police canteen is like hiring a lifeguard who can’t swim.

“Typically, I would imagine, the police were so terrified of being accused of ‘racism’ that they took him on regardless.”

Unfortunately, that's probably true.

But Khalid Sofi, Mr Khoja’s lawyer, insisted there was “an important issue of principle at stake” in the case, with ramifications for the police and wider society in Britain.

“He has genuine and strong religious beliefs and expects that they will be accommodated,” he said. “’The Met is a very large organisation and could easily have met his demands.

Yeah, that would be nice, IF Islam tolerated other religious beliefs, which it does not. Now before you start screaming "Racist" you do realize it's illegal to carry a Bible in Saudi Arabi, right? Some real tolerance goin' on right there.

I've heard a few stupid lawsuits but boy, this takes the cake. The majority ought to kowtow to the minority. That's what this idiot lawyer is saying when he says the Met could have met his client's demands. It COULD have, but that would mean making the majority (the organization) give up pork for the minority (this idiot).

“Mr Khoja’s case raises the general question of the Met accommodating the needs of the Muslim community at a time when there is a lack of confidence in the police among Muslims.

“We are confident that we have a very good claim. Religious discrimination law obliges employers if possible to accommodate genuine religious needs.

“This case goes in to wider issues of diversity and I think it raises significant issues in the current climate.”

Oh, it raises some issues alright. I just don't think they're ones you want raised.

A spokesman for the National Black Police Association said: “It was suggested that he could wear gloves to cook bacon and sausages. This, of course, was no good because it is the principle involved and not about just handling the meat.

“It was all very, very nasty. They were telling him to do something that was against his faith.”

How can I put this...

GET A DIFFERENT JOB!!

Good grief, this is almost worse then the woman who sued McDonald's 'cause she burned herself on hot coffee. Now who in defense of the Majority is going to sue Mr. Khoja, his lawyer, the Association of Muslim police, and the National Black Police Association?

Here's hoping the judge throws this case out of court.

About Speech Impediment Man's Hate Crimes Bill

It's probably not nice of me to call Barney Frank 'Speech Impediment Man.' But really, that's what I think of when I think of him.

But enough about him needing speech therapy. This is about bill HR 1913, A.K.A the hate crimes bill.

This bill goes against the first amendment by taking away your right to freedom of speech. The bill passed the Congress. Hopefully it dies in the Senate, but I don't know. I haven't heard anything about it yet. (Please note from this point down this blog post is rated T for teen. Only those thirteen and older, please.)

From Earned Media:

On Wednesday, April 29, the U.S. House is scheduled to vote on so-called "hate crimes" legislation, which would give "actual or perceived" "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" the same federal protection as race. Last week the House Judiciary Committee refused to exclude pedophiles from the bill's protection. The Committee also refused to include veterans. Moreover, the bill does not include the elderly.

H.R. 1913 (Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009) is not about stopping crime but is designed to give "actual or perceived" sexual preference or "gender identity" (which is still classified as a mental disorder) the same legal status as race. The DSM IVR (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual used by psychologists and psychiatrists to diagnose mental disorders) lists more than 30 "sexual orientations" and "Gender Identity Disorders," including pedophilia. The hate crimes bill does not limit "sexual orientation" or "gender identity" and, thus, includes all these disorders and fetishes. The use of "actual or perceived" includes those with disorders or deviant sexual preferences and those who do not have such disorders or fetishes, so long as it is alleged that the person charged allegedly "thought" the other person had such disorder or fetish.

The hate crimes bill also provides that the federal government, under the direction of the Attorney General guidelines, may award grants to local law enforcement agencies to address these alleged incidents. In other words, the federal government can pay for so-called "sensitivity training" and coercive pro-homosexual propaganda.

Mathew Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: "Sexual orientation and gender identity include pedophilia and every imaginable deviant fetish. Cross-dressers and pedophiles find refuge in this so-called hate crimes bill, while veterans and grandmas are left to fend for themselves. Obviously, this bill is not about the prevention of crime but is all about pushing a radical sexual anarchy. This bill will crush free speech and trample free exercise of religion."

Pedophilia is a crime, sorry. Having sex with minors is known as "statuary rape." Now, if you suffer from any of the fetishes "disorders" listed above, you may wish to leave this blog, because from here on down, I will be exercising my right to freedom of speech.

I've already been over pedophilia, so let me go over the rest of it. Cross-dressing. How can I best put my opinion of this? Um... EW! Yeah, I think that sums it up. That is disgusting.

But the real thing here is that this is Barney Frank's bill. That yaoi freak (A.K.A Homosexual) doesn't want anyone to be able to say anything against him, so he composed this bill to stop that from happening.

In doing so, he has blatantly disregarded the first amendment, and I quote:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Freedom of speech. That's what's at stake here. Do you think pedophilia's wrong? I sure do, and, under my first amendment rights, I can say so. Do I think homosexuality is wrong? Yes, and I will say so. Homosexuality is described in the Bible as a sin. Leviticus 18:22:

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

God said it, and that's the way it is. But this bill will get pastors and religious groups in trouble for speaking out against this sin. It will get police and courts in trouble for going after pedophiles. It will get any sane, rational American in trouble.

By the way, whatever happened to amendment 14 of the Constitution? You know, the one that says no rebelling against the U.S.? Doesn't trying to overturn the very first amendment count as rebelling against the U.S.?

I'm not endorsing slander, here, before the people who point fingers and shriek get up in arms. I believe homosexuality is wrong, and I demand that under the Constitution - since I am a U.S. citizen - that I be allowed to say so.

Isn't it a hate crime to try and take away my freedom of speech?

(P.S: For more on the Biblical veiw of homosexuality, click here.)

Sure! Let's Fly A Jet Low Over NYC. It's Not Like That Will Cause Panic.

How stupid is Obama? No, I want this question answered. 'Cause you aren't going to believe what this idiot just went off and did.

He decided to have Air Force One fly low over New York City. For a photo op.

The Obama administration is doing their best to keep New Yorkers on their toes:

An Air Force fighter jet and one of President Barack Obama’s official planes on Monday flew low over the Statue of Liberty in an approved photo opportunity that startled some New Yorkers who have memories of the September 11 attacks.

New York City officials notified some businesses but not all city agencies or the general public. People in New York remain sensitive to such incidents in lower Manhattan, site of the 2001 attacks involving hijacked airliners that destroyed the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center.

Many people left their buildings, and stock prices extended losses at the time.

The U.S. Air Force, which operates the president’s plane, said the “aerial photo mission” involved an F-16 fighter jet escort and one of the Boeing 747s designated as Air Force One when the president is aboard. Obama was not on board.

Police said federal authorities told them not to disclose the information ahead of time but to direct inquiries to the Federal Aviation Administration.

...Look for Obama’s people to claim it was a selfless gesture on the part of the president to take New Yorkers minds off the swine flu.

Heckuva good job there, Barry. Looks like our Dear Leader has already gone off and forgotten 9/11, but hey! What do you expect from someone who has 9/11 Syndrome and used to listen to Jeremiah "G-Damn AmeriKKKa" Wright?

Here's a great headline from MSNBC: "Obama: New York City flyover was 'mistake'" Yeah. No kidding. Here's what Obambi had to say to MSNBC:

"It was a mistake," he said in response to a reporter's question. "It was something we found out about along with all of you. And it will not happen again."

I don't know about anyone else out in the blogosphere, but I highly, highly doubt that. He probably knew right from the start.

One of the president's official planes and a supersonic fighter jet zoomed past the lower Manhattan skyline in a flash just as the work day was beginning Monday. Within minutes, startled financial workers streamed out of their offices, fearing a nightmarish replay of Sept. 11.

For a half-hour, the Boeing 747 and F-16 jet circled the Statue of Liberty and the lower Manhattan skyline near the World Trade Center site. Offices evacuated. Dispatchers were inundated with calls. Witnesses thought the planes were flying dangerously low.

But the flyover was nothing but a photo op, apparently one of a series of flights to get pictures of the plane in front of national landmarks.

What the crap? Why does he need pictures of the plane in front of landmarks? But if you have to be that stupid, Barack, Doug Powers was right: There's this thing called 'Photoshop.' But I digress...

It was carried out by the Defense Department with little warning, infuriating New York officials and putting the White House on the defense. Even Mayor Michael Bloomberg didn't know about it, and he later called it "insensitive" to fly so near the site of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

...The FAA notified the New York Police Department of the flyover, telling them photos of the Air Force One jet would be taken about 1,500 feet above the Statue of Liberty around 10 a.m. Monday. It had a classified footnote that said "information in this document shall not be released to the public or the media."

The same FAA that grounded all aircraft after 9/11 caused massive panic by not telling anyone about this idiot stunt of Obummer's. Nice.

Workers in lower Manhattan were stunned by what they saw.

John Leitner, a floor trader at the New York Mercantile Exchange Building, said about 1,000 people "went into a total panic" and ran out of the building around 10 a.m. after seeing the planes whiz nearby.

"We were informed after we cleared out of there," Leitner said. "I kind of think heads should roll a little bit on that."

I'd be a bit stunned, too. Out all the ghoulish, tasteless things Obama could have done, this is by far one of the worst. Video footage:



Conservative blogger 2Cents put it quite nicely: "What in the world were they thinking?!"

But it would appear that Obama wasn't.

Disgusting.

I'm a Terrorist!

Who'da thunk?

Anyway, here's the deal. The Department of Homeland Security has issued a report calling all sane, rational, patriotic Americans, in effect, terrorists. If you are against any of the following things, you are a now a right-wing extremist (List from Bare Naked Islam):

The Report specifically mentions the following political beliefs that law enforcement should use to determine whether someone is a “rightwing extremist”:

-Opposes restrictions on firearms
-Opposes lax immigration
-Opposes the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship and the
expansion of social programs
-Opposes continuation of free trade agreements
-Opposes same-sex marriage
-Has paranoia of foreign regimes
-Fear of Communist regimes
-Opposes one world government
-Bemoans the decline of U.S. stature in the world.
-Upset with loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India
-. . . and the list goes on

Do you see this? Do you see this? These people have violated almost every aspect of the U.S. Constitution. Right off the bat I can pick off that it violates the first and second amendments.

I fit most of the things on this list, therefore I am, if not a terrorist, at least a right-wing extremist. (I know this is the liberals doings. Barack Obama is a left-wing extremist, and they haven't issued a memorandum against him.)

Let's look at that list again:

[X] Opposes restrictions on firearms

Check.

[X] Opposes lax immigration

Check.

[X] [X] Opposes the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship and the expansion of social programs

Double check.

-Opposes continuation of free trade agreements

I don't know what that means, but if it's what I think it is (or if it involves any Communist country in any way), I'm against it.

[X] Opposes same-sex marriage

Check.

[X] Has paranoia of foreign regimes

Check

[X] Fear of Communist regimes

Absolutely. Especially with the freakin' communist regime Obama's trying impose on me!

[X] Opposes one world government

Check.

[X] Bemoans the decline of U.S. stature in the world.

[X] Upset with loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India.

Check and check.

So, this is a hit list against Conservatives, violating the core principle of the Constitution of the United States. Here, I'll make it easy for you. This is what you should have said:

"To all law enforcement officers. Today is tax day; be on the lookout for tea partiers protesting the money The One has spent. He is the president, and he must not be questioned.

We expect these Conservatives and Tea baggers to be out in full force today, and they may get out of hand. [Ironically, I'd like to interrupt this fictitious narrative to point out that no one did. Except CNN.]

Protesting what the president is doing is a violation of federal law. Be prepared."

Or something like that. When, once again, ironically, protesting anything the government does is not a federal offense in this country!

Fortunately, this story has a somewhat happy ending. This Right-wing risk assessment was released because of the Tea parties, but not everyone the DHS's crap. Michelle Malkin reports:

Senators Coburn, Brownback, DeMint, Burr, Murkowski, Inhofe, and Vitter sent the following letter to DHS Secretary Napolitano yesterday concerning the DHS conservative hit job:

You can follow the link up there to get the whole letter. It's good stuff.

Well, I'm off to go off and be a terrorist proudly and patriotically support my country.

Iraq War Hero Denied Entrance to The U.S.

Well, it wasn't Obama this time, it was the State Department. Oh, for the love of our allies:

The State Department has made a decision to make an Iraqi translator, Jasim, wait another three years for a visa. One of the reasons that the denial was issued was that, Jasim, as part of the Kurdish Peshmerga, infiltrated Uday Hussein's organization to steal data and then stole Uday's car to escape. He was captured, tortured, and then released six years later when Saddam let all the prisoners go on the eve of the Invasion in 2003.

The theft of Uday's car is looked upon as criminal and not political.

"On several occasions while our guys were putting rounds down range, Jasim put himself in harm's way to pull the wounded out and treat them," Keene said. "Jasim is a hero to everyone he has ever met."

After the invasion, Jasim became a legendary translator, assisting
above and beyond.

"I owe my life to Jasim ... hands down," said Master Sgt. Jason Krieger, who went on over 200 combat patrols with Jasim. "I consider him a brother, not only in arms, but in love as well."

For six years, Jasim has put his life on the line to help our troops. His stepbrother paid the ultimate price for Jasim's heroism.

Jasim said his stepbrother, in fact, was captured in the fall of 2007 and was tortured to death in an effort to get to him. The U.S. Army officer who received and processed the report on the murder, Major LeslieParks, told FOXNews.com that Jasim's stepbrother was tortured with an electric drill through his eyes.

So his application had letters of recommendation, awards and certifications from soldiers, and the DoD and DHS approval.

Do I smell liberal, or just error? I can't help but wonder... The most relevant bits from Fox News:

An Iraqi translator who has earned commendations for risking his life repeatedly to save the lives of many American soldiers in combat has been denied a visa to live in the United States because of nonviolent actions he took to overthrow Saddam Hussein — at the same time the U.S. government was calling for regime change in Iraq.

Jasim, whose name is being withheld for his safety, has received strong support from the U.S. military, and the Department of Homeland Security approved his application for a visa. But the State Department has denied Jasim a visa because he was arrested in 1996 for actions against the Saddam dictatorship.

Some of Jasim's supporters, however, believe the real reason he's been denied a visa is that he has become a "nuisance" to State Department personnel at the Baghdad Embassy. The State Department, citing privacy concerns, declined to discuss Jasim's case.

Because Iraqi translators are seen by jihadists and former Baathists as "traitors," Jasim's life is at greater risk the longer he stays in Iraq, according to multiple State Department and U.S. military officials. A number of translators and their families have already been tortured and/or murdered.

Wait, it gets better. Keep reading:

U.S. military officials familiar with Jasim's case believe that he will be in even greater danger after U.S. forces withdraw from most of Iraq next year.

The State Department, meanwhile, has told Jasim that he must wait three more years before he can apply for a waiver of its visa rejection.

When he applied for his visa, Jasim feared it might be denied by an overworked consular officer on the basis of his arrest, so he attached a letter explaining the full circumstances.

Jasim wrote that his hatred of Saddam was formed at a young age, as the regime murdered five of his relatives during his childhood. Barely into adulthood, Jasim joined the Peshmerga, a largely Kurdish group whose primary goal in the 1990s was to overthrow Saddam — an objective supported by the Clinton administration.

The Pehmerga assigned Jasim to obtain documents and eavesdropping equipment that were in the possession of Saddam's ruthless son, Uday, and Jasimn said that he stole Uday's car in order to retrieve the documents and equipment.

Soon after, he was arrested, and he was sentenced to life in prison. For the next six and a half years, he was routinely tortured, he said.

On the eve of the Coalition invasion in 2003, Hussein released many prisoners as a "goodwill" gesture, and Jasim was among them.

... Four experts in visa policy, including three former consular officers who reviewed Jasim's case history for FOXNews.com, said they found the official reasoning for Jasim's denial puzzling...

They said a specific provision in the law relating to "crimes of moral turpitude" should define Jasim's action of stealing Uday Hussein's car as "political," thus making him eligible for a visa. The first exception listed in the relevant law is that "purely political" actions do not qualify as "crimes of moral turpitude."

...Even if the State Department were to ignore the political motivations of Jasim's actions, each expert agreed that standard car theft likely wouldn't
disqualify an applicant with an otherwise clean record.

"It's not such a serious crime that you could say anyone who steals a
car is ineligible for a visa. Then you consider that it happened over a decade
ago, while he was young, and he has no other criminal history," explained a
former consular officer who served two tours. But, he stressed, "It certainly
seems political to me."

It's just not good enough for the State Department. I won't be emailing them becuase my family is frowning on me for even suggesting that I email, but here's what I would have written:

Dear Sir:

It has come to my attention that a man known as "Jasim" who assisted us in the war on terror, has been denied a visa to the United States. I would like to know why this is.

Thank You.

Because first, I want to know why (And car theft doesn't seem like a good reason). Then I'll take it from there. From Gateway Pundit:

Here is the link to the contact email form.The main switchboard phone number is here: 202-647-4000 The Press Office is (202) 647-2492 Contact Congress.

Be polite, be professional, be unwavering in letting them know they are going to be hearing a lot more about this bureaucratic issue that could easily be resolved.

I might ignore my family and email them yet, but I doubt it. I smell liberal at the back of this...

The Great Britian Gaffes

On behalf of sane, rational Americans everywhere (read: everyone who didn't vote for Obama), I'd like to apologize to England's leaders; Gordon Brown and the Queen.

I am deeply, deeply sorry for what NObama has done. We are doing our best to ensure he does not get a second term. In the meantime, please accept our apologies for the slights and breaches of etiquette.

No, Americans, I'm not kidding. This is what your hope and change has done:

Barack Obama met the Queen at Buckingham Palace today and gave her a gift of an iPod loaded with video footage and photographs of her 2007 United States visit
to Richmond, Jamestown and Williamsburg in Virginia. In return, the Queen gave the President a silver framed signed photograph of herself and the Duke of Edinburgh - apparently a standard present for visiting dignitaries.

It is believed the Queen already has an iPod, a 6GB silver Mini version she is said to have bought in 2005 at the suggestion of Prince Andrew.

UPDATE: Pool reporter Richard Wolf of USA Today says that an Obama aide told him the President also gave the Queen a "rare songbook signed by Richard Rodgers". END UPDATE

An iPod. He gave the Queen an iPod...

Oh for the love of freedom. JammieWearingFool reports:

Jake Tapper updates with the entire playlist that Obama had loaded on the Queen iPod.

"Send in the Clowns," Judy Collins,

Sadly, 53% of the American people did just that in November.

In case the Queen can't get to sleep fast enough, the megalomaniac also included his own speeches.

What a sport.

Oh for the love of decency! It gets worse:

I just hope that its power can be recharged in the UK. They have a different power-system also.

First it was the region 1 encoded DVDs for Gordon Brown, and now it's the iPod for the Queen. Oh for the love of anything other than liberalism.

My deepest, most sincerecest apoligies to Great Britian. Remember, not everyone voted for this idiot. Please don't hold him against us.