Here’s some Monday afternoon inspiration for you. Ivan Castro joined the Army, and was a Ranger before completing Special Forces training. He earned his officer’s commission and joined the 82nd Airborne Division as platoon leader. In September of 2006, in Youssifiyah, Iraq, he was struck by mortar fire and shrapnel, breaking his arm and shoulder, and also leaving him blind. After spending 17 months recovering, he asked for an assignment with Special Operations Command, getting duty with 7th Special Forces Group.

He’s determined to keep on fighting, even though he’s now blind.

When Capt. Ivan Castro joined the Army, he set goals: to jump out of planes, kick in doors and lead soldiers into combat. He achieved them all. Then the mortar round landed five feet away, blasting away his sight.

“Once you’re blind, you have to set new goals,” Castro said.

He set them higher.

Not content with just staying in the Army, he is the only blind officer serving in the Special Forces — the small, elite units famed for dropping behind enemy lines on combat missions.

As executive officer of the 7th Special Forces Group’s headquarters company in Fort Bragg, Castro’s duties don’t directly involve combat, though they do have him taking part in just about everything that leads up to it.

“I am going to push the limits,” the 40-year-old said. “I don’t want to go to Fort Bragg and show up and sit in an office. I want to work every day and have a mission.”

Since the war began in Iraq, more than 100 troops have been blinded and 247 others have lost sight in one eye. Only two other blind officers serve in the active-duty Army: one a captain studying to be an instructor at West Point, the other an instructor at the Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth, Kan.

Castro’s unit commander said his is no charity assignment. Rather it draws on his experience as a Special Forces team member and platoon leader with the 82nd Airborne Division.

“The only reason that anyone serves with 7th Special Forces Group is if they have real talents,” said Col. Sean Mulholland. “We don’t treat [Castro] as a public affairs or a recruiting tool.”

…

Though not fully independent, he spent a weekend before starting his job walking around the Group area at Fort Bragg to know just where he was going. He carefully measured the steps from car to office.

“Obviously, he cannot do some things that a sighted person can do. But Ivan will find a way to get done whatever he needs to get done,” Mulholland said. “What I am most impressed with, though, is his determination to continue to serve his country after all that he’s been through.”

Castro works out regularly at the gym and runs, his legs powerful and muscular. And though he has a prosthetic right eye and his arms are scarred by shrapnel, his outsized personality overshadows his war wounds: Nobody escapes his booming hellos, friendly banter and limitless drive.

He ran the Boston marathon this year with Adm. Eric T. Olson, commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command. Last year it was the Marine Corps Marathon. He wants to compete in the Ironman triathlon in Hawaii and graduate from the Army’s officer advanced course, which teaches captains how to lead troops and plan operations.

Mulholland said Castro, who was awarded a Purple Heart like others wounded in combat, will always be part of the Special Forces family.

“I will fight for Ivan as long as Ivan wants to be in the Army,” Mulholland said.

His heroism, bravery, and determination is beyond just admirable and inspirational. It’s awe-inducing. I cannot personally imagine being blind, period, let alone being a blind member of the Army’s Special Forces. Captain Ivan is just another example that the heroes serving in our military are the best and brightest among us.

The next time you start to feel sorry for yourself, or feel like you can’t soldier on, remember Captain Ivan and other soldiers like him, who refuse to give up or let themselves become victims.

On a tip from James, a reader who is also a soldier in the Army (my personal thanks for James for his service, as well!).

Ah, San Francisco: the perfect little microcosm of liberalism in action. If you want to know what America would look like if liberals took over, then all you need to do is look to San Francisco, the place Nancy Pelosi calls home.

The newest example is the free ride service for illegal Honduran crack dealers, funded by city taxpayers.

San Francisco juvenile probation officials - citing the city’s immigrant sanctuary status - are protecting Honduran youths caught dealing crack cocaine from possible federal deportation and have given some offenders a city-paid flight home with carte blanche to return.

The city’s practices recently prompted a federal criminal investigation into whether San Francisco has been systematically circumventing U.S. immigration law, according to officials with knowledge of the matter.

City officials say they are trying to balance their obligations under federal and state law with local court orders and San Francisco’s policies aimed at protecting the rights of the young immigrants, who they say are often victims of exploitation.

Federal authorities counter that drug kingpins are indeed exploiting the immigrants, but that the city’s stance allows them to get away with “gaming the system.”

…

Barred by state law from sending drug offenders to the California Youth Authority and bound by a 1989 city law defining San Francisco as a sanctuary city for immigrants - meaning officials do not cooperate with federal immigration investigations - juvenile officials settled on an unorthodox strategy.

Rather than have the drug offenders deported, they have recommended that Juvenile Court judges and commissioners approve city-paid flights home to Honduras for the offenders with the aim of reuniting them with their families.

The practice, federal authorities say, does nothing to prevent offenders from coming back, while federal deportation legally bars them from ever returning. Federal officials also say U.S. law prohibits helping an illegal immigrant to cross the border, even if it is to return home.

…

Joseph Russoniello, the U.S. attorney in charge of the San Francisco area, said he was “flabbergasted that the taxpayers’ money was being spent for the purpose of ferrying detainees home. You have to have a perfect storm of dumb moves to have it happen.”

Must be nice to know that your hard-earned money is funding a free plane ride for crack dealers. Of course, this is all done in the name of the children, with city officials crying over the “abuse” and “exploitation” of the crack dealers who police suspect aren’t really juveniles, but adults masquerading as such. A city official, William Siffermann, says that this approach is being used because deportation could keep the lovely illegal immigrant drug dealers from becoming citizens in the future.

Well, duh! That’s the whole point! Why in the world would we want to make convicted drug dealers and criminals citizens? These aren’t the kinds of people we need to be welcoming into the country. We’ve got enough criminals as is without opening our arms to MS-13 gang members and Honduran drug dealers. These sanctuary cities seem to just love these criminals and want to make them citizens, though, for reasons I just cannot understand. Wouldn’t you normally want to keep these kinds of criminals out?!

Meanwhile, cases like this mysteriously keep popping up (emphasis added):

A suspected gang member charged with killing a father and two of his sons after a minor traffic incident has been ordered held without bail.
Twenty-one-year-old Edwin Ramos of El Sobrante is charged with three counts of murder that each carry the enhancement of being committed as part of a street gang.

He faces the possibility of life without parole or the death penalty if convicted.

Ramos is accused of killing 48-year-old Tony Bologna, and his sons Michael and Matthew after the Bologna’s car blocked Ramos’ car from making a turn onto a narrow San Francisco street.

Authorities say Tony Bologna put his car in reverse to let Ramos pass, and [Bologna] and his sons were gunned down.

Police say Ramos is a member of the Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13, gang.

Immigration authorities say they believe Ramos is in the country illegally and could try to deport him once the case is resolved.

Aren’t sanctuary cities the greatest? Illegal immigrants are free to come to your city and trash it, without any interference from city officials. It won’t matter how many drugs you bring in or crimes you commit, because San Fran Nan & Co. will bend over backwards to accomodate you and to keep you there. They are, however, working tirelessly to make sure the military is completely eradicated from the city.

San Francisco: liberalism in action.

Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin

I know that John does this every quarter, but I don’t think I’ve done a list of my favorite blogs before. I’m not listing them in any particular order here, but these are my top picks, my must reads — these come highly recommended by Yours Truly, and therefore, you should definitely read them

I was reading a post today at Moonbattery about Amnesty International that included this picture:

It also linked to this story from CNS News about yet another ridiculous Gitmo protest:

Amnesty International USA brought a life-sized replica of a Guantanamo Bay prison cell to Washington on Wednesday. But amenities provided to prisoners — bedding, toiletries, a copy of the Koran and three meals a day — were nowhere mentioned.

AIUSA says it timed its Washington, D.C., stop — part of a national tour — to coincide with a House Judiciary subcommittee’s hearing on harsh interrogation techniques.

Dressed in orange jump suits, “chained” together and holding placards that spelled out “Stop Torture,” AIUSA members and other activists staged a rally at the foot of the Washington Monument.

“The purpose is to try to bring to the American people a little bit of the reality of what the United States government is doing to human beings in Guantanamo,” Larry Cox, executive director of AIUSA, told Cybercast News Service.

“We want people to actually see what’s being done in their name, to get a sense of what it means to be held for not just one year or two years, but as many as six years in a box,” he said, “where you can’t move around, where you’re almost totally isolated, where you’re put in stress positions that are extremely painful, when you’re humiliated like that, when you haven’t been charged or tried for any crime.”

Cox’s description of Guantanamo, however, contrasts with other reports of the facilities where individuals suspected of terrorist training and activities have been held since it opened in 2002.

According to Globalsecurity.org, an online security and military database, detainees at Guantanamo are given basic supplies, such as clothing, towels, sheets, blankets, soap, shampoo, toothbrush and toothpaste.

They also are given a copy of the Koran and three “culturally appropriate” meals. Prayer rugs also are distributed, and a recorded call to prayer is broadcast five times a day.

…

The cell on display on the Mall is 10 feet long, 7 feet wide and 8 feet tall. It has a toilet, a sleeping bunk and a small window. The AIUSA says it is an example of a Camp 5 cell.

According to Globalsecurity.org, however, Camp 5 is a permanent two-story maximum security complex with cells that measure 10 feet by 20 feet and have a toilet, bed and a sink.

“Those that are considered the most dangerous and those deemed to have the most valuable security are housed there,” the Web site reports.

The Web site also reports that there are a variety of other quarters. Detainees who cooperate with staff and help to develop intelligence are relocated to less restrictive quarters, the Web site reports.

In Camp 1, detainees wear tan uniforms instead of orange ones, and social interaction is allowed, including pairs who can kick soccer balls around. Thirty one percent of detainees at Guantanamo are in Camp 1.

Camp 4 has dormitories that hold up to 20 detainees and detainees are allowed to eat, sleep and pray together. They wear white uniforms, have lockers for personal belongings and common recreation areas for games and team sports. Chess, checkers and cards, the Web site says, are the most requested games.

The “GITMO = TORTURE!!!” meme is old and tired. I think I’ve stayed in motels crappier than Gitmo. What I really wondered about this story, though, had not a whole lot to do with yet another dumb protest of Guantanamo Bay. Yeah, yeah, we get it. We’re not treating the terrorist murderers nicely enough for you liberals. We should be welcoming them into the United States with open arms and absolve them of their crimes, no matter how horrible. Understood.

I saw the picture Van Helsing posted though, and the text gave me a thought. In case it’s tough for anyone to read, here’s what it says on the signs in the picture:

THE WORLD CAN’T WAIT! DRIVE OUT THE BUSH REGIME!

I couldn’t help but read that and wonder… what are these people going to do after Bush? I mean, he’s got less than a year left as President. He’ll step down. A new President will step up. America will still be in tact. There will be no massive takeover, no shredding of the Constitution, no last-ditch effort to hold on. The “Bush regime” will come to an end.

How are these people going to handle that??

There are so many lefties who are absolutely consumed with hatred of W. Once he’s out of office and there’s no one left to hate, what are they going to do with themselves? There’ll be no more need for protesting the “Bush regime”. There’ll be no more reason to carry on with BDS. It’ll be over. And I can’t help but think that these lefties who hate W will be massively disappointed that their conspiracy theories weren’t true. It seems to me like these people were enjoying their misery these past eight years thoroughly. It probably makes them feel so important to carry on with all of these protests, so sophisticated to deny America and align themselves with terrorists and their appeasers. They get attention for their stunts. And with Bush out of office, all of that will go away.

I can only imagine the emptiness these people will feel, especially if Obama gets the Presidency… because with McCain they can continue on with their merry charade, bleating feebly about how this is really Bush’s third term, and Karl Rove is behind the whole thing anyways, and by the way, have they told you about Halliburton conspiring with the Jews to take out Palestine?

These are the type of people who absolutely thrive on bad news. They want everything to be going to hell, because then they get to protest and perform. When things aren’t going badly, they have to create an alternate reality where everything is horrible and it’s up to them and their humanitarian, leftist goodness to come in and save the day. Aw.

So, I’d imagine that they’d be terribly disappointed if their guy wins, because then, their entire existence will be erased. They’ll have their Marxist President, and everything they’ve been working towards will likely happen.

The question is, what then? After the “Bush regime” has been driven out, what are these idiots going to do? My guess is, they’ll probably do one of two things. They’ll either keep protesting about nothing the way they have been for the past eight years, claiming that McCain’s presidency is really just a shadow presidency and that Bush is still in charge. OR, they’ll sit around, soaking in their nostalgia, wishing for the good ‘ole days when they had a reason to feel important.

Kind of sad either way.

Obama has a history of being ardently against guns. For example, look at this questionnaire he filled out showing us his anti-gun agenda from the Politico:

Of course, now that the DC handgun ban has been overturned, Obama’s singing a different tune. He wants us to believe that he just loves the Second Amendment, and would never want to take guns away from honest Americans! Unfortunately for him, though, not everyone’s sipping the Obamamessiah Kool-Aid. He seems to think that everyone is so enamored of him, that they won’t bother looking at what he’s said in the past.

Take this video from Hot Air, for example:

See, in today’s politics, there’s this newfangled thing called the internet. It means that millions of Americans are able to do their own research, separate from the biased and shoddy reporting done by the mainstream media, and that your ultra-liberal background won’t just quietly fade away with no one the wiser. If you’re the most liberal Senator in Washington, we’re going to know about it. But of course, what can Obama do except lie about where he stands? He has to run on an empty vehicle of HOPE! and CHANGE! because if Americans knew just how liberal he really is, he knows he’d never win. So it’s spin, spin, spin for Obama.

So when it comes to guns, what’s the answer for Obama? That he was for the unconstitutional handgun ban in Washington, D.C. before he was against it? Sorry, buddy. That didn’t cut it in 2004. And it’s not gonna cut it now.

Hat Tip: Gateway Pundit

Sorry, I’m just not excited about this at all. Know why? Because there never should have been a handgun ban in the first place. So as far as I’m concerned, this decision was way overdue, and it’s about damn time. The sad part is that the decision should’ve been 9 - 0, if the activist justices like Stevens and Bader-Ginsburg, for example, were actually concerned about staying true to the Constitution. But they aren’t, and so we get the 5 - 4 decision. (Sigh.) So while I’m happy that the ban was lifted, I just can’t seem to garner much excitement beyond IT’S ABOUT DAMN TIME. Rachel, on the other hand, is absolutely thrilled.

In honor of this, I think I might go shooting this weekend. Maybe break out the shotgun. We’ll see.

Here’s the AP story on the “historic” decision — because, you know, this is an entirely new concept and all. I’m quoting them, and if they have a problem with it, oh well. When bloggers start getting paid for the endless poaching of our writing by the mainstream media, then I’ll start paying them.

Silent on central questions of gun control for two centuries, the Supreme Court found its voice Thursday in a decision affirming the right to have guns for self-defense in the home and addressing a constitutional riddle almost as old as the republic over what it means to say the people may keep and bear arms.

The court’s 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns and imperiled similar prohibitions in other cities, Chicago and San Francisco among them. Federal gun restrictions, however, were expected to remain largely intact.

The court’s historic awakening on the meaning of the Second Amendment brought a curiously mixed response, muted in some unexpected places.

The reaction broke less along party lines than along the divide between cities wracked with gun violence and rural areas where gun ownership is embedded in daily life. Democrats have all but abandoned their long push for stricter gun laws at the national level after deciding it’s a losing issue for them. Republicans welcomed what they called a powerful precedent.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, straddling both sides of the issue, said merely that the court did not find an unfettered right to bear arms and that the ruling “will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.” But another Chicagoan, Democratic Mayor Richard Daley, called the ruling “very frightening” and predicted more violence and higher taxes to pay for extra police if his city’s gun restrictions are lost.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain welcomed the ruling as “a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom.”

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia, a once-vital, now-archaic grouping of citizens. That’s been the heart of the gun control debate for decades.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said an individual right to bear arms exists and is supported by “the historical narrative” both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

President Bush said: “I applaud the Supreme Court’s historic decision today confirming what has always been clear in the Constitution: the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear firearms.”

Isn’t this just genius?

First it was a proposed ban on plastic bags.

Now, a member of the influential Madison Plan Commission wants to ban the restaurant drive-through — or at least restrict the ubiquitous symbol of America’s auto-centric lifestyle.

“Given the concern about all the carbon going into the atmosphere, I’m not sure we should be building more places for people to sit idling in their cars,” says Eric Sundquist, who was appointed to the citizen panel by Mayor Dave Cieslewicz this spring.

I think I’m in awe of the sheer brilliance of this plan.

Whoops! Did I say brilliance? I meant stupidity, as that is quite possibly the stupidest thing I have ever heard in my entire life.

This plan came about because of a new Starbucks opening, and there was debate on whether or not to let the coffee shop have a drive-thru. What these idiots think they’re doing by wasting people’s time with pointless restrictions like this is beyond my comprehension.

But, as Van Helsing points out,

With enough restrictions, we’ll be forced to get out of our cars and go inside to get coffee, thus lowering carbon emissions, cutting gasoline usage, and striking a blow against “America’s auto-centric lifestyle.” Where would we be without authoritarian bureaucrats?

Without authoritarian bureaucrats, we’d be in America. With them, it’s generally called “Europe”. Let’s keep the two separate, hmm?

Stuff like this is why Bobby Jindal is so frikkin’ awesome. The Supreme Court activists justices said that the state of Louisiana can’t execute child rapists, and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal retaliated by signing the “Sex Offender Chemical Castration” bill. Sah-weet!

Today, Gov. Jindal signed the “Sex Offender Chemical Castration Bill,” authorizing the castration of convicted sex offenders. They get a choice: physical or chemical. Oh, and they don’t just get castrated and leave - they still have to serve out their sentence.

From the release:

SB 144 by Senators Nick Gautreaux, Amedee, Dorsey, Duplessis and Mount provides that on a first conviction of aggravated rape, forcible rape, second degree sexual battery, aggravated incest, molestation of a juvenile when the victim is under the age of 13, or an aggravated crime against nature, the court may sentence the offender to undergo chemical castration. On a second conviction of the above listed crimes, the court is required to sentence the offender to undergo chemical castration.

Gov. Jindal made it absolutely clear that signing this bill today was about more than just sending a no-tolerance message across his state: “I want to send the message loud and clear – to the Supreme Court of the United States and beyond – make no mistake about it, if anyone wants to molest children and commit sexual assaults on kids they should not do so here in Louisiana. Here, we will do everything in our power to protect our children and we will not rest until justice is won and we have fully punished those who harm them.”

Anyone want to take bets on how long it will be before liberals start moaning and crying over how cruel and unusual this is, and how we can’t possibly do this to these poor, poor men? Anyone?

See, looking out for the welfare of the victims — and of course, the “children” that liberals claim to so valiantly crusade for — never seems to matter so much to liberals. They’re much more concerned with making sure that murderers, rapists, and their ilk are never, ever uncomfortable or unhappy in any way whatsoever. Start talking about actually punishing them for their crimes, and liberals get furious with righteous indignation. They’re never quite as concerned about the actual crime committed, though. That doesn’t seem to bother them as much.

In any case, high five to Bobby Jindal for showing that, unlike a lot of Republicans, well… he’s still got balls.

Hat Tip: My colleague Jay at Stop the ACLU

Glad to see it. If my 48-year-old mother started dating one of my former classmates, who is 19-years-old, I’d probably cut her off, too.

From Perez Hilton:

“Honestly, I don’t know what to say because I can’t relate to her right now. I’m extremely shocked. I know if I was 48-years-old, I wouldn’t date a 19-year-old. I just don’t feel it’s her. And through all this stuff, I really need my mom, and she’s doing her own thing. I don’t talk to her anymore. I see her at the jail visiting Nick and she asks me why. I say, ‘I don’t condone what you’re doing. I’m on my path, and you’re on your path.’ I told her, ‘I’d love to have you in my life, to see you and talk to you, but the kind of things you’re surrounding yourself with, it doesn’t make sense to me.”

I guess Linda’s got her priorities, and her daughter isn’t as important to her as the 19-year-old sex toy. Does this perhaps give us yet another example that the whole “cougar” movement is steeped in ultra-selfishness? You’d think that Linda might look at how this relationship is affecting her daughter and break it off for the good of her children. But NO. It’s so much more FUN! to date a 19-year-old, regardless of how your children feel about it. Who cares how betrayed and humiliated your daughter feels? You’re happy, and that should make your kids happy, and if it doesn’t, well then, too bad for them. They should be more accepting. Isn’t that right?

As I said,

Oh, and to Brooke? You do not have to support your mom in this. You have every right to tell her how selfish what she is doing is, and how hurt, angry, disgusted, betrayed, and humiliated you feel. You aren’t required to get behind something like this just because your mother has the maturity of a dysfunctional sixteen-year-old.

Glad to see that Brooke’s not hiding her feelings on this one.

For what it’s worth:

Do you believe there wasn’t a pregnancy pact? I don’t know that I do, but it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t change the utter foolishness of getting pregnant on purpose as a teenager.