House Republicans made good on their promise to repeal Obamacare today, and somewhere, Harry Reid is curled in a fetal position crying.

The House voted on Wednesday to repeal the sweeping healthcare law enacted last year, as Republicans made good on a central campaign pledge and laid down the first major policy marker of their new majority.

The vote was 245-189.

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said the healthcare law on the books would increase spending, raise taxes and eliminate jobs.

“Repeal means paving the way for better solutions that will lower the costs without destroying jobs or bankrupting our government,” Boehner said in remarks on the floor before the vote.

“Let’s stop payment on this check before it can destroy more jobs or put us into a deeper hole.”

The vote to roll back the president’s signature domestic achievement of the 111th Congress just 10 months after its passage underscores the deep divisions that still surround the new law. But whether House action will signal the beginning of a rapid dismantling of the healthcare overhaul or serve merely as a historical footnote remains to be seen.

Democratic leaders in the Senate have vowed to shelve the repeal bill, and Obama has said he would veto repeal if it ever reached his desk.

With those threats in mind, GOP leaders dared the Senate to take up the measure, and they promised to fight the healthcare law in other ways if repeal failed.

Harry Reid has put on a brave face, saying that a vote for repeal in the Senate would be a waste of time because it would undoubtedly fail. Not only that, but Reid claims Americans want Obamacare! Of course, if either of the above were a certainty then surely it wouldn’t matter if they voted on it in the Senate. If Americans truly love Obamacare so much, then this would be his golden opportunity to show how the radical Republicans who hate the poor are out of touch and out of control, and the Senate Democrats are the ones who really care about the country.

Reality is that there are a number of politically vulnerable Democrats in the Senate (hello, Ben Nelson?) who can’t afford to vote for Obamacare a second time. Democrats from swing states won’t necessarily feel comfortable screwing over their constituents by voting to support Obamacare for a second time, especially when they’ve got to face those constituents next year. Is it likely that an Obamacare repeal would pass the Senate? No, but it is possible, which is why Reid is probably crying into a little pink blanket somewhere right now. He’s politically in a tough spot. If Obamacare is so great and makes voters so happy, then what’s the problem with having another go-around with it in the Senate?

What is for sure is that even if the repeal were to pass in the Senate, there aren’t enough votes to overturn Obama’s veto. And Obama would veto the repeal, which is fine, because it would just make him look even more entrenched, radical, and out of touch. Republicans, meanwhile, are promising that if they can’t repeal Obamacare, they’ll defund and delay it as much as they can.

“Today we are keeping that pledge, and it is a start,” GOP Whip Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) said.

If repeal were ultimately unsuccessful, Cantor has said, Republicans would “do everything we can to delay and defund the provisions of the bill.”

This is exactly what Republicans need to be focusing on if they want to remain in office. We need to restore some sense of fiscal sanity to Washington, and that’s what Republicans need to concentrate on doing for the next two years.

Originally posted at David Horowitz’s Newsreal:

Last weekend, we all watched in horror as news of a horrific tragedy played across our television screens. A psychotic gunman went on a killing spree in Tucson, Arizona, where he shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in the head and killed Federal Judge John Roll. In all, six people died, including a nine-year-old girl, and over a dozen were injured. Rep. Giffords’ survival and recovery have so far been nothing short of a miracle, but the nation still grieves for the lives lost and tries to understand how this happened. As more and more is known about the murderer, it becomes clear that Jared Lee Loughner was a psychotic nut unmotivated by politics either on the Left or the Right. The Left, however, still wasted no time exploiting this tragedy to smear Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, the Tea Party, and conservatives in general. If you needed an example of how unhinged they have become, you need look no further than their reaction to the Tucson shootings.

Dishonorable mention: Hanoi Jane has no shame

Almost immediately after the shootings, Jane Fonda jumped into the fray. Her Twitter feed blamed Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, the tea party, and conservatives. Palin, she said, was directly responsible for the shootings. Nevermind that there was no known motive for the shooting; nevermind that Loughner alone is responsible for choosing to take the lives of innocent people. It’s all Sarah Palin’s fault! The tweets were captured over at The Right Scoop:

Jane Fonda has an arrest record — unlike Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck — for assaulting a police officer. She’s most famous for her treasonous actions during the Vietnam War. She posed for pictures on an anti-aircraft gun used to shoot down American planes. She made radio addresses calling American troops war criminals and murderers. She then came home and told the country that our POWs were being treated leniently and that there was no torture. The ultimate irony is that Fonda’s own actions directly led to further torture and abuse and American POWs, yet she sees no problem blaming innocent people decades later for something they had nothing to do with. If anyone needs to acknowledge their own complicity in torture and violence, it’s Fonda herself.

Which brings us to the first of this top 10.

We spend a lot of time at The Feminist Hawks’ Nest exposing modern femisogynists for what they are: fake feminists and man-haters with no interest whatsoever in furthering anything beyond their own pro-abortion, socialist agenda. The “feminists” stole feminism, a movement rooted in equality for all women and which sought to make men and women equals, and turned it into a completely warped version of what it used to stand for. Instead of seeking equality between men and women, femisogynists engage in virulent man-hating. Instead of empowering women, femisogynists do all they can to make women feel like perpetual victims in need of government protectors. Instead of accepting that women have different opinions and political ideas, they shun any woman who does not strictly adhere to their approved politics: pro-abortion and big government. Are all women pro-abortion Democrats? No, but they’ve got an agenda to push, and therefore, a pro-life conservative cannot be a feminist to them. Only certain women count to these “feminists,” and we at The Feminist Hawks’ Nest have tried to expose this and reclaim feminism for what it should be: a movement that speaks for all women, not just some, and seeks equality, not hate.

Unsurprising, when the femisogynists saw an opportunity to smear the so-called patriarchy and conservative women all at once, they gleefully leapt on board. Again, it matters not to them that there is absolutely no evidence to back up their claims. They’ve got an agenda to push, remember?

10. Amanda Marcotte blames the men

Amanda Marcotte’s rambling, incoherent drivel after the shootings surprised no one familiar with her writing. A one-trick pony, Marcotte again used her one trick: blame the men, the patriarchy, and the eeeeevil right wing!

As I’ve said before, the three biggest base-moving issues on the right all have to do with anxious masculinity: squelching reproductive rights and the female control over female bodies they represent, squelching gay rights because they subvert the tradition of sex and marriage being acts of male dominance over women, and gun nuttery, which can be summed up as wingnut fears that Democrats (feminized in their minds) are coming to take away their phallic symbols.

… It’s a combination of factors. It’s the individual’s own personal problems and it’s the right wing noise machine ratcheting up the hysteria and it’s white male rage that would exist even without the amplification just because women and racial minorities are making gains.

The other thing one should remember when dealing with today’s femisogynists is that they’re absolutely obsessed with sex. It permeates so much of what they believe, and you can see an example of that in Marcotte’s inane ramblings above. The Tucson shootings somehow have something to do with reproductive rights, traditional sex, and guns as phallic symbols for men. I was curious about one point in particular: if guns are male phallic symbols, then what does that mean for me, a female, who owns two? I guess I must want to be a man, because clearly guns couldn’t be used for anything other than phallic symbols, and certainly not for protection or sport. Everything we are learning about Jared Lee Loughner has shown that he is an apolitical wack job who had an obsession with Giffords dating back to 2007, before Sarah Palin was even on the national political scene. There’s also no anti-feminist, anti-abortion ramblings among Loughner’s ramblings, yet somehow, abortion and gay rights and feminism somehow ticked this guy off and made him go on a shooting rampage.

Right.

9. Jessica Valenti: Masculinity is the root of all evil

We’re supposed to applaud strong women — provided, of course, that they are strong lefty women — and cheer their empowerment and strength. Strong men? Well, that’s just the old-school masculinity rearing its ugly head, and should be destroyed. Men are supposed to be emotional whiny boys with not an ounce of masculinity in them whatsoever. Femisogynists constantly excoriate masculinity, using it as an excuse for every social ill they can think of. Jessica Valenti has used masculinity as a scapegoat for this shooting, unsurprisingly, although she gives not one example of the “violent masculinity” she claims permeates our culture and led Jared Lee Loughner to feel empowered enough to take the lives of six innocent people.

In a country that sees masculinity – especially violent masculinity – as the ideal, it’s no wonder that this type of language resonates. But it’s a sad state of affairs when women in politics have to resort to using the same gendered stereotypes that kept all women out of public service for so long.

… In the Colorado Senate primary, Republican Jane Norton accused her opponent of not being “man enough”; in the Delaware Senate primary, Republican Christine O’Donnell said that her opponent was “unmanly”; Angle told Harry Reid to “man up”; and Palin praised Republican Arizona Governor Jan Brewer as having “the cojones that our president does not have” to enforce immigration laws.

So all of these conservative women saying things like “man up” are examples of how violent masculinity is the ideal in American culture? Call me crazy, but if one is claiming that violent masculinity is responsible for something, maybe they should use some examples of, I don’t know, actual violence to back up their claims. And while feminized sissy boys might be preferable to femisogynists like Valenti and Marcotte, it isn’t feminized sissy boys that would step into the fray to save the lives of innocent people. Daniel Hernandez ran through gunfire to come to Gabrielle Giffords’ aid; a woman and two men tackled Loughner and prevented further bloodshed. What would one of Valenti’s wussy boys do? Run and hide? Perhaps I’m biased, as the wife of a Marine and all, but strong, masculine men are a benefit to society. It’s masculine men who will risk their lives to save those of strangers; it is masculine men who are willing to give their lives to save those of their family; it is masculine men who understand the meaning and value of chivalry and true respect towards women. And regardless of how masculine or feminine a man may be, isn’t the whole point of feminism supposed to be equality? Last I checked, feminism isn’t about warping men into women. Last I checked, feminism is supposed to be about the freedom to be who you want to be and lead the life you choose to lead. Where does outlawing masculinity and turning American men into feminized sissy boys factor into feminism? And what does it have to do with the Tucson shootings, anyways? (Answer: nothing.) Anyone who looks at Jared Lee Loughner and sees “masculinity” has a warped view of masculinity indeed, and is quite clearly looking to do nothing more than further their own twisted agenda.

8. No Labels has no class

No Labels came about as a supposedly “bipartisan” organization that would welcome people who didn’t consider themselves to be either on the right or the left (otherwise known as people with no principles). Get it? No labels! Of course, most of these “independent” groups are just lefty establishment groups trying to avoid being called liberals so that they can trick people into voting for Democrats. The reaction to the shooting by No Labels founder Mark McKinnon is also telling, as it is straight out of Rahm Emanuel‘s playbook.

“It’s a real tragedy, but it’s also a real opportunity,” said Mark McKinnon, co-founder of No Labels, a nonpartisan group founded last month.

Wow, this, like, totally sucks that all those people died, but dude, this is such an awesome opportunity for us, man!

What kind of heartless ghoul must you be to look at the deaths of six innocent people, including a nine-year-old girl, and see “a real opportunity”? Why, call me crazy, but it sounds just like Rahm Emanuel’s mantra of “never let a crisis go to waste”. And that’s the entire mindset of the left in reaction to this shooting, isn’t it? It’s a real opportunity for them: an opportunity to smear the right, to smear Sarah Palin, to smear the tea party, and to get voters back to the Left. Who cares about tragedy when you’ve got such a great opportunity?

7. Sherrod Brown blames health care hate speech

Democrats forced Obamacare down the throats of Americans who overwhelmingly rejected it. They then faced a reckoning in November, when the GOP made amazing gains in Congress and ultimately took back the House. John Boehner, now the Speaker of the House, is already leading Republicans towards repealing the disastrously unpopular bill, and Democrats are not happy about it. They don’t like that the public is still unhappy about Obamacare, they don’t like that they were so resoundingly defeated in November, and they don’t like that Republicans could possibly crumble the foundation they laid to build their socialist dream. And since so many Americans were really angry about the health care bill, then hey, maybe all that “violent rhetoric” could have made Jared Lee Loughner, an apolitical psycho, kill six people! And while we’re at it, if we blame anger over the health care bill, maybe we can get more people to support it too! No one wants to be aligned with an Obamacare-hating mass murderer, right? And what do you call it when you are a Democrat and someone disagrees with you on political policy? Why, hate speech, of course!

What runs through your mind, I think about the meetings I’ve had, where I’ve had where I’ve had staff nearby and there is people that in the audience that are really, really angry. Often is was about health care, often is immigration. There is a lot of hate speech. They see a lot of it on the radio, on the TV, hear it on the radio.

Right. Because people couldn’t possibly be angry all on their own about massive government expansion and the passage of a bill constituents didn’t want passed. They’re being brainwashed by their conservative talk radio overlords and the puppetmasters on Fox News! Silly Americans can’t think for themselves.

6. Bob Kerrey: the health care bill ticked Loughner off

One of the great things about being on the left is that you never need to concern yourself with silly little things like facts. You can just say whatever you want, regardless of whether or not there is any evidence to back it up, and the echo chamber known as the mainstream media will repeat it over and over again, and voila! Instant manufactured “fact”. Bob Kerrey gives us an excellent example: Loughner was angry because of the health care bill!

Tomorrow they were going to vote to repeal this health care bill — and it’s not going to go anywhere in the Senate — it’s one of the reasons that this guy was angry and pretty obvious that he is, at least from me, where I sit that he’s mentally ill and deeply troubled.

Of course, there’s no evidence whatsoever that Loughner knew that there even was a health care bill passed. Everything we’re learning about him shows that he is a psychotic man who was apolitical and angry at Gabrielle Giffords — allegedly because he didn’t like the answer she gave to a question he asked about grammar. No matter; Republicans might repeal this health care bill and the tea party sure as heck didn’t like it, so we’ll just use that as a convenient scapegoat anyways!

5. Glenn LaFantasie: The American experience created Loughner

Anti-American chic is nothing new on the left. So naturally, if there’s some kind of tragedy, it’s America’s fault! We’ve seen this countless times on the left since 9-11: we brought it on ourselves, Islamic terrorism only exists because of American imperialism, the Taliban are murderers because our troops are baby-killers, blah blah blah. It’s nothing new, but it’s still despicable rhetoric that isn’t grounded in even a shred of reality. Now we have a new national tragedy, which is something new that lefties can blame America for.

Nowhere is America-hating more en vogue than our college campuses. Leftist academics who hate America are a dime a dozen, so it was only a matter of time before one of them came out to drone on about how America sucks and that’s what caused the shooting. Glenn LaFantasie, a Civil War professor at Western Kentucky University, has volunteered to be that America-hating leftist academic.

Public officials who condone the use of torture in recent times should, by rights, give pause when they try to condemn the actions of Jared L. Loughner, Timothy McVeigh or the Unabomber. But, typically, our public servants see no contradiction, no hypocrisy, in advocating extreme political violence against our alleged enemies around the globe while condemning political violence when it is aimed against the government—or, more precisely, against them. In other words, political violence is legitimate when the government commits it; but it is appalling when individuals commit it against the government or its representatives. Political violence committed by individuals is explained by marginalizing those perpetrators as crackpots. Political violence committed by the government is justified as guaranteeing national security.

So not only is America to blame for Jared Loughner’s actions, America is also made up of evil violent torturers who have no right to complain about violence against one of our elected representatives. They’re just getting what was coming to them. In that sense, what Jared Lee Loughner did isn’t evil or even wrong; it’s completely justified because hey, we made him this way.

LaFantasie claims that Americans are all violent and filled with bloodlust. Of course, if we truly were all bloodthirsty violent savages, we probably wouldn’t be mourning the loss of the six people killed and praying for the recovery of Gabrielle Giffords. But don’t let that get in the way of believing that America is to blame for this or anything!

4. Spike Lee: America is the most violent country in history

Another place that loves to hate America is Hollywood. Director Spike Lee sat down with Meredith Vieira and proclaimed that America is the most violent country in the history of civilization. And it’s the NRA’s fault, too!

Just ignore ancient civilizations like the Aztecs with their ritual human sacrifices. Ignore Nazi Germany and the millions of innocent people they killed and tortured. Forget about Mao’s China, with tens of millions of people butchered. Forget about Islamic terror states like Iraq or Iran, where innocent people are routinely raped and murdered, little girls forced to undergo torture in the form of female genital mutilation, sanctioned pedophilia, and stonings for “crimes” like adultery. Nevermind communist atrocities in countries like the Soviet Union, where dissidents were either murdered or thrown into gulags. It all pales in comparison to America and the NRA.

3. Daisy Hernandez thanks God the shooter was white

Race-baiting is nothing new on the left, and considering that this massacre happened in Arizona, it was just a matter of time before someone went there. And go there someone did — NPR contributor Daisy Hernandez, who breathes a sigh of relief that the shooter was a gringo.

Your tax dollars are going to pay for this racist drivel: that she, and the Latino community, are currently feeling “brown relief”. Grief, shock, anger? Eh, not so much.

When she heard the news, she wasn’t concerned with the people injured or killed. She didn’t care about the shock and grief the families of the six murdered were feeling. Nope — Loughner was a gringo, and that’s all that mattered to her. Her first thought was not for the Americans brutally murdered, it was for her own racist ideologies. Only after she determined the shooter’s race was white could she bother with the otherwise mundane details… like the murder of a nine-year-old.

2. Clarence Dupnik: It’s all because of the tea party, and no, there’s no evidence.

Typically, the job of law enforcement is to investigate, not to spread unfounded rumors and instigate anger. Clarence Dupnik apparently never got that memo.

Since the shootings, people have looked to Sheriff Clarence Dupnik for the facts. Sheriff Dupnik, however, is much more interested in spreading rumors and fanning the flames of the angry public. Within hours, the he started blaming the right for the shootings — despite the utter lack of evidence to prove it — and hasn’t stopped. He blamed Rush Limbaugh.

The kind of rhetoric that flows from people like Rush Limbaugh, in my judgment he is irresponsible, uses partial information, attacks people, angers them against government, angers them against elected officials, and that kind of behavior in my opinion is not with consequences…. The vitriol affects the [unstable] personality that we are talking about… It’s my opinion that the hard right is deliberately fueling the fire against elected officials and the administration because they think it benefits them in the election process…. [Limbaugh] is a master at this type of diatribe. He inflames people against people like me, against Democrats and liberals, and this benefits the other party… Maybe even a majority of people in this country think that government is broken, that politics at the Washington level is broken. And they’re very very angry about it. They’re tired of all the crap that goes on, where people can’t sit down and act in a fashion that’s in the best interests of the American people. Political ideology aside, I think it comes to what’s in the best interest of the people in America. And anybody with half a brain who’s been watching what’s going on for the last two years knows that just the opposite has been happening. It’s my feeling that the anger that’s being purveyed by people in radio and some on TV is done deliberately because it benefits one particular party… You’re talking about a person who is unstable to begin with, and they are motivated in some cases by the rhetoric they hear and see. In general terms I think that people who make a living preaching hate, to hate the government, to be angry at the government, to destroy the government, to do it to elected officials and so forth, have some responsibility even though it may be free speech. I don’t think free speech goes without some responsibility and some consequences.

He claimed that Arizona was a mecca for prejudice and bigotry.

When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government — the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous. And unfortunately, Arizona, I think, has become sort of the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry.

He went on the air with Megyn Kelly and blamed vitriol and rhetoric for the shooting… and admitted he had no evidence to back that theory up.

The most outrageous part about Dupnik’s constant ramblings is that this man is the sheriff of Pima County. He’s an elected official, but the position of sheriff was not created for someone to fight partisan battles. He is not there to take sides. He is there to investigate crimes and to discover the facts, and as Dupnik has admitted himself, the facts don’t back up any of his assertions. Yet he still keeps running his mouth, making irresponsible statements, blaming people and ideologies that have nothing to do with Loughner’s motivations. If ever someone needed to be recalled from office, it’s Clarence Dupnik.

1. It’s all Sarah Palin’s fault

When President Bush was in office, we had Bush Derangement Syndrome. With Bush out of office, lefties needed a new figure to hate, and they immediately zeroed in on Sarah Palin.

It took only moments after news of the shooting broke for lefties to immediately blame Sarah Palin. While the left pointed the finger at her for her supposedly violent rhetoric, they became more unhinged and violent themselves. Markos Moulitsas — perhaps most famous for cheering the deaths of four American contractors in Iraq and saying “screw them” — was among the first to jump on the Blame Palin bandwagon.

Moulitsas linked to a map that quickly became the center of the “it’s all Palin’s fault” meme:

Of course, as Michelle pointed out, DailyKos could be considered just as much to blame, with a post trumpeting that Gabrielle Giffords was dead to the poster, a second DailyKos post by Moulitsas himself putting a target on Gabrielle Giffords, and that Democrats had their own versions of the target map.

No matter; Moulitsas just dug in even further.

MoveOn.org also jumped into the fray, with an inflammatory e-mail claiming that Palin was responsible.

And violent tendencies have been inflamed by the careless and irresponsible rhetoric of certain political leaders. Sarah Palin’s infamous ‘target list’ displayed Democratic districts, including Rep. Giffords’, in crosshairs, as if viewed through a gunsight.

Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva also blamed Palin:

She – as I mentioned, people contributing to this toxic climate – Ms. Palin needs to look at her own behavior, and if she wants to help the public discourse, the best thing she could do is keep quiet.

Joan Walsh jumped into the fray:

Michael Daly, in the New York Daily News, went so far as to say that Giffords’ blood was on Palin’s hands.

Here is what Sarah Palin said on the Facebook page where she depicted Gabrielle Giffords in the cross hairs of a rifle scope: “Don’t retreat! Instead – RELOAD!”

Well, the guy who shot Giffords yesterday managed to keep firing until he killed six, including a child, and wounded 13 .

Palin would no doubt say that she was only speaking in metaphor, that she only meant her followers should work to unseat Giffords and 19 other Democrats who had roused her ire by voting for health care.

But anyone with any sense at all knows that violent language can incite actual violence, that metaphor can incite murder. At the very least, Palin added to a climate of violence.

This is just a small sampling — the Palin hate completely permeated the left. And what was the result of all of the Palin blaming?

Death threats.

A Palin aide also spoke out, confirming that she was receiving death threats at unprecedented levels.

An aide close to Sarah Palin says death threats and security threats have increased to an unprecedented level since the shooting in Arizona, and the former Alaska governor’s team has been talking to security professionals.

Those on the left called on Sarah Palin and the right to be more careful about their rhetoric, but had no problem with violent rhetoric being thrown at Sarah Palin. This isn’t exactly surprising (see Michelle Malkin’s primer on the progressive climate of hate), but it is revealing. Was the vitriol towards Sarah Palin from the left really about concern for Gabrielle Giffords and public safety, or did they just see an opportunity to try to smear and silence Sarah Palin and jump on it? Considering that there is no evidence whatsoever that Jared Lee Loughner even knew who Sarah Palin was, it clearly is the latter.

——

These unhinged reactions show that left will use anything to smear their enemies and promote their sick, twisted agenda. Six people are dead, and all these moonbats could do was try to find ways to pin this on conservatives, engage in race baiting, blame America, and exploit the tragedy to further their own agenda. If one ever needed a primer on the sickness that infects the American left today, all they would need to do is read the examples listed here.

Everyone is buzzing about the Tucson pep rally memorial service yesterday. The consensus seems to be that Obama was presidential and gave a wonderful speech that hit all the right notes. Ed Morrissey went so far as to say it might be the finest moment of his presidency. Rich Lowry called it a magnificent performance. Jim Hoft said it was the best speech he’s ever given. William Jacobsen called it a good speech, better in writing than in delivery. Charlie Martin was pleasantly surprised at the tone of the speech. And on and on and on. The overwhelming response seems to be fawning praise. It’s so amazing! The president gave a good speech! How wonderful!

I disagree.

Everything I saw at that memorial service last night disgusted me. First, there was the fact that this event, which was supposed to be a memorial service, was given a slogan. It was branded. The brand was stamped all over university buses preceding the event to advertise, as well as free t-shirts handed out to people who attended the service.

Oh, and the concession stands were open, too. Because you can’t pay your respects to those murdered by a madman without a large Coke and some popcorn, right?

Yet we’re somehow surprised at the pep rally-like atmosphere? Please. Add in some styrofoam Greek columns and you’d have Obama’s speech at the Democratic National Convention all over again. The disgusting, disrespectful whooping and cheering was infuriating — but not surprising. Obama played into it. Not once did he ask for solemnity or respect. Instead, he basked in the blow of the fawning adoration he’s undoubtedly missed since being elected. (Michelle points out that the raucous atmosphere was shockingly missing during President Bush’s memorial service after the Virginia Tech massacre.)

Best moment of his presidency? That says a lot more about how awful our president is than it does about how wonderful his speech was. It’s sad that we are so drawn into mere words that we ignore all actions. Giving a good speech does not make one a good leader, but judging by the reaction to Obama’s speech last night, we have apparently forgotten that little fact.

And for an event that, according to Obama himself, was supposed to be about “unity”, there was shockingly little present. Jan Brewer was booed as she spoke. The mayor of Tucson, for some strange reason, was not invited to speak, apparently because it was more important to hear from Obama’s cabinet members. The unity only applies to certain people, I guess. And his Democrat buddies certainly have wasted no time ignoring the call to unity — they’ve gone right back to attack and smear mode. Will Obama continue the call for unity while his bullies in the mainstream media continue on their merry little way? I’m not going to hold my breath. His speeches might sound pretty, but they don’t change anything.

This wasn’t a memorial service. It was a campaign speech. Have we really forgotten the 2008 campaign already? This event tonight was identical to nearly every stump speech he gave while campaigning to be president, right down to the soaring oratory. This is why I’m a little confused as to why so many on the right are so excited that Obama gave a good speech. Why is that something to be so amazed by? His speechwriters wrote a nice speech for him, and he read it off of his teleprompters magnificently. It meant nothing. The call for unity was as shallow as virtually every other platitude he came up with in virtually every speech he gave while running for president. I halfway expected the crowd to start chanting, yes we can! If anything, this speech should serve as a low point. Obama allowed what should have been a somber memorial service for the nation to pay our respects to the dead turn into a pep rally, and I think we’ve all got a sneaking suspicion why.

MSNBC’S Morning Joe had a panel today, where it was agreed that conservatives had been unfairly targeted and smeared after the Tucson shooting this weekend. Mark Halperin, ever the logical commentator, agreed — and then promptly complained that conservatives didn’t simply put up with the unfounded lies and vicious smears, arguing that we should just abandon our “war stations” and turn the other cheek.

And, And I… and I… and I… I’ve already made that, that criticism as well. They’re right. But rather than seizing on it and turning the other cheek, they are, they’re back at their war stations. And that’s, and that’s not going to help us.

War stations?! Isn’t that inflammatory, military-style rhetoric??

The panel descended into lunacy from there, with Joe Scarborough lecturing conservatives to use this as a wake-up call on rhetoric… despite just saying that conservatives had been unfairly blamed for the shooting and that there was no connection between rhetoric and the shooting. What does that matter, though, when there’s a potential to make conservatives look bad?

The really idiotic talking point, though, came from Mark Halperin. He apparently thinks that, yes, liberals are lying and unfairly smearing conservatives — but that’s not the problem. The problem isn’t the lies, it’s that conservatives won’t just sit back and take it. How dare conservatives bother to defend themselves?! That’s inflammatory rhetoric, dammit!

Gee, maybe conservatives wouldn’t need to defend ourselves if the biased liberal media would stop spreading lies, unfounded rumors, and hateful vitriol about conservatives and stick to just reporting, I don’t know, the facts.

Originally posted at David Horowitz’s Newsreal:

The nation is still reeling after the horrific mass shooting in Arizona this weekend, which left Rep. Gabrielle Giffords fighting for her life, multiple bystanders injured, and six dead, including a nine-year-old girl and a federal judge. People were clamoring for answers, and the left wasted no time blaming the tragedy on Sarah Palin and the tea party. Once the shooter was identified, it quickly became clear that Jared Lee Loughner was an anti-government, anti-religion nut with no discernible ties to any political figure. Democrats in Congress, meanwhile, had bigger fish to fry than just Sarah Palin. Remembering the leftist mantra of “never let a crisis go to waste”, they quickly jumped into action, eager to exploit the tragedy to push forward anti-Constitutional legislation.

First up is Rep. Robert Brady, who wants to introduce legislation making it a crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as a threat against a member of Congress or a federal official. Get that? He doesn’t want to bother with actual threats anymore. He wants the government to decide just what kind of speech is threatening and what isn’t.

Rep. Robert Brady, D-Pennsylvania, said he will introduce legislation making it a federal crime for a person to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a Member of Congress or federal official.

Brady’s decision to offer the legislation comes less than 24 hours after a gunman attempted to assassinate Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Arizona, in a shooting that claimed the lives of a federal judge, and a nine year-old girl, among others.

“The president is a federal official,” Brady said in a telephone interview with CNN. “You can’t do it to him; you should not be able to do it to a congressman, senator or federal judge.

“This is not a wake up call, this is major alarms going off,” he said.

Rep. Brady is clearly referring to the now infamous map Sarah Palin used to illustrate Democrats in districts McCain carried in 2008 who voted for Obamacare.

Of course, Sarah Palin is hardly an anomaly in using this kind of rhetoric. Democrats used an almost identical-style map, and Markos Moulitsas urged his followers to put a bullseye on moderate Democrats, including Gabrielle Giffords. (Michelle Malkin has more on the left’s culture of hate.)

There will always be any number of people who look to push the envelope. And military style-rhetoric in politics is nothing new, from Clinton’s war room to Palin’s target map. It doesn’t make it right to start legislating speech just because it makes some people feel uncomfortable. The truth, as any person possessing a modicum of common sense could tell you, is that there is a world of difference between someone publishing an overt threat — “I want to kill ______ ” — and putting targets on a map urging people to vote the congressmen featured out. This is simply an easy way for lawmakers like Rep. Baker to infringe on our constitutional right to free speech and to silence political opponents.

After all, what would the ramifications be if this legislation were to pass? Anything that could be perceived as a threat isn’t exactly specific criteria for what is and isn’t a crime. And it could lead to some pretty sickening clampdowns on political speech. Who would decide what is and is not considered a threat? And what kind of oversight would there be to ensure that politicians (like, say, Rep. Baker) aren’t overstepping their bounds and simply targeting political opponents? I’m curious if Rep. Baker would charge any of the people responsible for the incidents of unhinged rage Michelle Malkin listed with crimes. It’s the tea partiers who are unhinged and violent, not the peaceful, tolerant left, right?

Legislation like this has nothing to do with keeping members of Congress safer and everything to do with giving power-hungry lawmakers like Rep. Baker more authority over Americans — Constitutional right to free speech be damned.

And while Rep. Baker’s new legislation may be disturbing, his exploitation of this tragedy doesn’t come close to Rep. Carolyn McCarthy’s.

Carolyn McCarthy entered politics after her husband was murdered and her son injured in the mass shooting aboard the Long Island Rail Road by Colin Ferguson. Ferguson killed six and injured nineteen. After the tragedy, McCarthy became one of the nation’s leading anti-gun advocates. Naturally, she leapt on the Arizona shooting as an easy excuse to further her anti-gun agenda. She did the same thing after the Virginia Tech Massacre, even though she could not correctly identify exactly what it was she was trying to ban. Now she’s got another chance to push legislation that is squarely against our right to bear arms, protected in the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

One of the fiercest gun-control advocates in Congress, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), pounced on the shooting massacre in Tucson Sunday, promising to introduce legislation as soon as Monday targeting the high-capacity ammunition the gunman used.

McCarthy ran for Congress after her husband was gunned down and her son seriously injured in a shooting in 1993 on a Long Island commuter train.

“My staff is working on looking at the different legislation fixes that we might be able to do and we might be able to introduce as early as tomorrow,” McCarthy told POLITICO in a Sunday afternoon phone interview.

Gun control activists cried it was time to reform weapons laws in the United States, almost immediately after a gunman killed six and injured 14 more, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, in Arizona on Saturday.

I don’t doubt that gun control activists like McCarthy have good intentions. Knowing a loved one was a victim of gun violence will undoubtedly make you want to take action. However, the saying “the road to Hell is paved with good intentions” exists for a reason, and taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens does nothing but ensure that they are defenseless when confronted by a criminal who undoubtedly will not care about gun control laws.

The idea that guns cause crimes is ludicrous. The only thing that causes crimes are the people that commit them. A well-armed populace is a well-protected populace, and even the FBI found that a rise in gun sales meant a decrease in violent crimes. Consider, for example, that gun sales surged after Obama was elected. In 2009, after the surge in gun sales, violent crime dropped in every category: armed robbery, assault, vehicle theft, and even murder, which dropped an astounding 10%. You can see the exact opposite in countries like Great Britain, where handguns are banned — and violent crimes are the norm. In 2008, they doubled down on their idiocy and sought to ban knives because the rate of stabbing deaths had grown so alarming. It’s absolutely ludicrous, because even if guns and knives didn’t exist, people out to spill the blood of innocent people would still find a way to do so – and probably wouldn’t mind circumventing weapons laws to do so either.

What we can see, however, is that law-abiding citizens who do have guns can prevent crimes by being in a position to defend themselves. Imagine how different mass shooting sprees, too, could end up if even one of the victims had been armed. From the shooting that killed Carolyn McCarthy’s husband, to the Virginia Tech massacre, to the recent recent school board shooting, to this weekend’s shooting in Arizona — one armed citizen could have stopped the crazed gunman in each situation.

Unfortunately, when you have an unarmed populace, you have innocent people who have no recourse other than to cower and pray for mercy from a murderer until police arrive. This isn’t an indictment of police, of course, but it’s good to keep in mind the saying, when seconds count, police are just minutes away. Whatever the situation — someone breaks into your home, tries to steal your car, or starts shooting up the mall while you’re there with your family — being armed and able to defend yourself is an asset, not a liability. Gun control does nothing except make law-abiding citizens sitting ducks before criminals who will still arm themselves and be emboldened knowing that their victims can’t fight back.

Aside from this common sense line of thinking, there’s one other thing that needs to be remembered before Rep. McCarthy is allowed to push anti-gun legislation in the wake of this tragedy. It’s unconstitutional. We have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and people like Carolyn McCarthy are exploiting the Arizona shooting in order to infringe on that constitutional right. If Rep. McCarthy has a problem with our constitutional right to bear arms, then perhaps she shouldn’t be serving as a member of Congress. Maybe she could consider moving to Britain, where they share her distaste for guns. Would she feel safer there, I wonder? If she does not like guns, then she does not have to own one. That doesn’t give her the right, however, to keep others from owning guns.

Judging from the legislation these two lawmakers are pushing, reading the Constitution in the House didn’t mean much — at least not to Reps. Baker and McCarthy. Each are looking to infringe upon our constitutionally protected rights. They should be ashamed of themselves, using the deaths of six Americans to further their own political agendas.

Horrifying news today: Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-AZ, has been shot point blank in the head at a public event today in Tucson, AZ. Multiple other people were shot as well, including several of her aides. (The number of other victims is disputed depending on which source you read.)

Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head at close range by a gunman Saturday morning outside a grocery store in Tucson while holding a public event, Fox News has confirmed.

Eight others were shot, including three of the Arizona Democrat’s aides, at Giffords’ “Your Corner” event held at a Safeway grocery story. A suspect is in custody.

Giffords was taken to a hospital but the condition of those shot was not immediately known, a senior congressional aide told Fox News.

The three staffers who were shot worked out of Giffords’ Arizona office.

Giffords has held multiple “Your Corner” events over the past four years, the aide told Fox News, adding that she had held three previous events that this venue before.

Giffords was re-elected to her third term as representative of Arizona’s 8th Congressional District. She is married to astronaut Mark Kelly.

Rep. Giffords has died of her injuries, along with six others, according to NPR. The identity of the gunman is still unknown. Obviously, being that this has happened in Arizona, the question of whether a drug cartel could be behind this must be raised.

I’ll update as more information comes out. Please keep her family in your thoughts and prayers.

UPDATE: Fox News is reporting that the gunman is currently in custody and also was shot. Hopefully, we find out the motive behind the heinous shooting. Fox is also reporting that a child is among the dead.

UPDATE: Conflicting reports are coming out now. Fox News and NPR are reporting that Giffords has died. Reuters and MSNBC are reporting that Giffords is still alive but in critical condition. The word on Twitter is that her office is reporting that she is still alive and in surgery. Let’s hope this is true and that she pulls through.

UPDATE: Seems to be confirmed that Giffords is still alive and is currently in surgery. Praise God.

UPDATE: Unsurprisingly, the left is blaming Sarah Palin for this atrocity. Disgusting. An event like this SHOULD NOT BE POLITICIZED.

UPDATE: Death toll is currently reported as being at five, including one of Giffords’ aides.

UPDATE: According to FNC, the total victim count is 19 shot, 5 dead. US District Court Judge John M. Roll is among the injured.

UPDATE: State Sen. Lopez is reporting on FNC that the bullet went in through her temple and that she is currently responding to commands; members of her staff in worse shape than she is in. Briefing from UMC coming soon. Sen. Lopez also blaming the violence on “tea party people”. Sigh.

UPDATE: FNC reporting that District Judge John Roll was killed in the shooting. Awful.

UPDATE: The AP is identifying the shooter as 22-year-old Jared Laughner.

UPDATE: Dr. Peter Rhee reports that the neurosurgeons are finished working on Gabrielle Giffords and that they are optimistic that she will recover, although she is still in critical condition. They have 10 patients, 5 in critical condition and 5 currently in the OR. The one patient who died was a nine-year-old girl.

UPDATE: Laughner’s YouTube page is allegedly here. FNC reporting that his Myspace page has been pulled, but that his last entry was “Goodbye Friends”. Screencap of his Myspace is here.

UPDATE: Jan Brewer has ordered all flags to be flown at half staff. Michelle has a round-up of some of the vile liberal reaction to this tragedy.

Originally posted at David Horowitz’s Newsreal:

In times past, if a person exhibited persistent delusions, doctors and scientists would try to cure the person of their delusions. A person who saw themselves as an animal or a different gender or a different person needed to be cured of their delusions and made to accept reality: that a human is not really a rabbit, that a boy is not really a girl, and that Joe Smith down the street is not really the president of the United States. In our more tolerant, enlightened world though, we choose to indulge delusions. After all, who are we to tell someone what their reality is? Transgendered people say that they are, in reality, not the gender they were born. This is their reality, and we choose to accept and tolerate their perversion of the truth. Of course, an adult can also choose to do whatever they want with their own life. But should we still look the other way when a parent encourages a child to cross-dress?

Dyson Kilodavis is a five-year-old boy. His favorite colors are pink and red, and he enjoys dressing up in dresses and skirts, and wearing pink lip gloss. His mother, Cheryl, initially resisted. But then, she decided she just wanted to make him happy, and let him be “a princess boy”.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

As author Ken Corbett, who wrote Boyhoods: Rethinking Masculinities, noted in the video, this is about parents reshaping the social world our children grow up in. Is it for the better?

Dyson apparently started showing a preference for girly things at the age of two. He’s been dressing up like this for three years now, because instead of stepping in and telling their son no, his parents just want to let him be happy. Obviously, this must be the new job of a parent: give your child whatever they want as long as it makes them happy, no matter how wrong it is. A child of two or three or four or five does not understand what transgender or cross-dressing is. A two-year-old certainly doesn’t have any deep feelings about it. Instead of refusing to indulge the phase Dyson went through at two, his parents chose to go along with it, letting their son become a princess boy and showcasing it for the world to see.

Do they ever think about the life they are setting their son up for? The teasing, the bullying? How about the confusion when Dyson wonders why no other little boys at school wear dresses and lip gloss? What kind of psychological effect will this have on Dyson in the long run? None of these things matter, apparently — the Kilodavis’s are making their son happy in the short-term, and that’s all that matters.

There have been cross-dressers for hundreds of years, but they have always been the minority. Gender roles have existed for centuries, and now in our more enlightened age we’re just going to toss them out of the window on the whim of a child. It’s one thing for an adult male to decide to live his life as a female. It’s quite another for a parent to let a child do the same — you don’t play social engineer with your children.

On top of all of this, what does it say about parenting today when we are expected to give in to whatever our children want, just because it will make them “happy”? As parents, the job is not to give our children whatever they want. Sometimes, we have to say no. Sometimes, we have to make a choice that will make our kids unhappy, simply because it is the right thing to do. In Dyson’s case, he’s been robbed of a normal childhood, and potentially a happy childhood at that, simply because his parents would not tell him no. As the adult in the family, it is your responsibility to say no when your child makes ridiculous demands. Just because your son or daughter says they want something doesn’t mean they should get it.

What’s sad is that this isn’t a decision Dyson is old enough to make for himself. At eighteen, he’s old enough to understand the implications of dressing like a girl. At five, he has no idea what any of this means, which is why actual parenting would be necessary, and why letting him go through with this kind of behavior is potentially dangerous. He doesn’t know what this could do to his childhood. His parents do, and they apparently do not care. That’s not exactly responsible parenting.

But then, parenting would mean not indulging little Dyson’s delusions, which could make him unhappy, even though it’s the right thing to do. And we can’t ever have an unhappy child, can we?

It is that time of year again — time to vote for Gay Patriot’s Grande Conservative Blogress Diva! And for the first time ever, yours truly is nominated. Now, what exactly is the Grande Conservative Blogress Diva? Well…

After extensive consultations with our committee, we have determined that the following blogresses, divas all, are the nominees for the coveted honor of Grande Conservative Blogress Diva 2011, the tiara commonly known as the “Ethel” in honor of one of perhaps the greatest Republican diva of all time.

Runners up will be honored as Conservative Blogress Diva Regent, also known as the Agnes or Endora in honor of another staunchly Republican diva.

Remember, to qualify as a conservative blogress diva, a nominee need only be a strong woman who commands the respect of gay male conservatives. She need not be conservative herself.

Let the cat fight competition begin.

Last year’s winner — and the winner the year before that — was Pamela Gellar, with neoneocon serving as regent. And I just cannot tell you how much I would love to be this year’s winner. (Do I have to pull out the hubby-serving-in-Afghanistan and the baby cards? Because I totally will.)

You can vote once a day, so I need everyone to please vote every day. I am up against some stiff competition — Michelle Malkin, Mary Katharine Ham, Tammy Bruce, Melissa Clouthier, Fausta Wertz, Ann Althouse, just to name a few — so I need your votes! Right now, I’m trailing to Clarice Feldman from American Thinker, so please go get me in the lead!

Originally posted at David Horowitz’s Newsreal:

There have been a lot of different responses to the news that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell has been repealed. President Obama is planning to sign the bill this week. Supporters are touting it as a victory for civil rights. Before the Senate passed the repeal, critics continued to voice concerns, including the Commandant of the Marine Corps. Some have continued to voice those concerns — others, however, have taken those concerns one step too far. At what point does concern turn into hysterics, and when does it becoming insulting to our honorable men and women in uniform?

My husband is currently serving in Afghanistan in the Marine Corps. He loves his country and the Corps. His MOS — military occupational specialty — is an 0311, an infantry rifleman. This is a combat MOS. Like many Marines, he wasn’t a fan of repealing DADT. The number one concern I have heard from many Marines around Camp Lejeune was how the repeal would affect unit cohesion, although there are many other issues that come into play. The benefit of DADT has been that it allows the military to remain neutral on homosexuality. Now, the military will have to reconcile service with the gay rights agenda. How will the military now be forced to handle a gay soldier in a relationship? Will they be forced to approve of gay public displays of affection? What about those in the military who aren’t comfortable with their children seeing two men kiss while they’re doing their grocery shopping in the commissary? How will the military be forced to handle a gay soldier who gets married in a state that allows gay marriage? Will gay spouses receive military benefits now, too? And what about the gay servicemembers who aren’t married because their state doesn’t allow it, but are in committed relationships — do they qualify for benefits, too? Will gay and straight servicemembers be allowed to sleep in barracks together? What about when a unit is deployed, and the men are forced to sleep in even closer quarters? What will happen to the soldier or Marine who is uncomfortable with sleeping next to a gay man?

There are a lot of questions and concerns about repealing DADT, and no easy answers. The beauty of the system was that it allowed the military to remain neutral on each and every one of these issues. The military didn’t approve or disapprove. Now, the military is forced to take a stance, and in many instances, I fear it will be in favor of gay rights, giving special treatment to gays. I also am not a big fan of politicians using the military to basically conduct a social experiment, especially when we are fighting two wars.

Obviously, I am not a fan of repealing DADT. My feelings on the matter were very close to those of General Amos, the Commandant of the Marine Corps. However, now that the repeal is passed, there is only one thing to do, and that is accept it and move on. Adapt and overcome. While there will be many tough decisions to make, and the adjustment period will undoubtedly be difficult, I have no doubt that our servicemembers can and will adjust. Adapt and overcome.

Today, I logged onto my Facebook, and saw the following in my inbox.

Change your profile picture to black to mourn the death of the United States military as we know it.

How widespread a meme this is on Facebook, I don’t know. But it’s far from a rarity. Joseph Farah, as an example, wrote an article trumpeting the “fact” that servicemembers will be apparently be quitting the service in droves, so upset will they be over the prospect of — gasp!! — serving alongside gay men and women. He’s even urging them to do so. Apparently, there are some people who just can’t fathom that our men and women in uniform might actually be honorable people who will be able to rise above sexual orientation. This infuriates me.

There have been many people expressing a similar opinion, and I find it to be a massive insult to our military. The rhetoric — on both sides of the issue — has been massively overblown.

The question I have for the people who feel this will destroy our military is this: do you think all of the men and women currently serving are so severely homophobic that they cannot continue to serve their country with honor?

If your answer to that question is yes, then shame on you.

General Amos has pledged to support the repeal, doing the honorable thing. (Funny how so many of our servicemen and women tend to do that, huh?)

“Above all else, we are loyal to the Constitution, our Commander in Chief, Congress, our Chain of Command, and the American people,” said Commandant Gen. Jim Amos, in a prepared statement released Sunday.

… “As stated during my testimony before Congress in September and again during hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this month, the Marine Corps will step out smartly to faithfully implement this new policy. I, and the Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps, will personally lead this effort, thus ensuring the respect and dignity due all Marines.

“On this matter, we look forward to further demonstrating to the American people the discipline and loyalty that have been the hallmark of the United States Marine Corps for over 235 years.”

Gen. Amos disagreed with the repeal and fought it every step of the way. It passed anyways, and so he is putting service before his own objections. Many Marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen will likely do the exact same thing. This must be shocking to the people who think so little of our military that they won’t be able to survive serving alongside gay men and women. (Imagine how shocked they would be if they ever found out that many times servicemembers already know who in their unit is gay, and don’t care.)

As of right now, the military will be writing the rules on the new policy. And so far, it looks like many of the concerns I, and many others, have are being addressed.

No public displays of affection. No separate bathrooms. No harassment and no special treatment.

… What if a recruiter refuses to process recruits who say they are gay? What about a sailor who requests a new sleeping area to get away from a gay roommate? Can a service member file a complaint against a chaplain who preaches against homosexuality? And can a gay or lesbian service member get leave to travel home when their partner is ill?

In each case the recommended process is careful and deliberate. The recruiter and the sailor should be counseled about the new rules — but in both cases commanders have the authority to approve a move if they believe it’s necessary in order to maintain unit stability. And, yes, chaplains can still preach what they believe.

The health and social benefits, however, are a murky area that Pentagon officials say they are trying to work through.

In some cases, service members may be able to designate a same-sex partner for benefits. In most cases, however, they are treated much like unmarried heterosexual couples. So, same-sex partners will probably not be able to share on-base housing, and commanders don’t have to make allowances for same-sex couples when making duty assignments around the globe.

Does this mean all the questions are answered and the concerns are addressed? No, but it does look like this is being handled (for now) the best possible way. Perhaps we should wait to go into a rabid panic until there’s actually a reason to panic, and we aren’t quite there yet. Unless, of course, you have no faith in our military.

Why is it so unbelievable that the military would be able to figure out the best way to implement homosexuals serving openly? As the wife of a Marine, I find it deeply insulting to our men and women currently serving with honor to suggest that the mere addition of gay men and women will somehow make our entire military crumble. Understand this: the vast majority of heroes in uniform are better than that. The few that are not won’t last.

The New York Times recently ran an article interviewing a handful of Marines. Most of them, not surprisingly, were just fine with the repeal, although they expressed some reservations about — you guessed it — serving in combat. (Personally, I wouldn’t let the final word on that be several boot Marines who haven’t even graduated yet from the School of Infantry.) My guess on the combat situations? Yes, there will be reservations and the men will be uncomfortable. But if the gay troops prove themselves in combat then I guarantee that those reservations will disappear. When you’re fighting the enemy, you aren’t worried about who the guy next to you is sleeping with. You’re worried about whether or not he’s a good shot and if he’ll have your back in a firefight.

Our troops have been able to defeat some of the worst kinds of evil throughout history. When our country was founded, our military started with a small band of ragtag patriots who were able to overthrow an oppressive empire. Since then, they’ve encountered unspeakable evils and enemies that seemed impossible to defeat, and have come out on top almost every time. We have the greatest military the world has ever seen, yet a small group of people set on hysterics over the DADT repeal would have you believe that this same military can’t overcome gays serving alongside straights.

What an insult to our men and women in uniform, who as I am writing this are fighting thousands of miles away to defend our country and our freedoms from another unimaginably evil enemy. They deserve better.

Our troops have overcome much worse than the repeal of DADT, and given time, they’ll adapt and overcome this too. It’s too bad that we can’t have the faith in them that they have earned, and so richly deserve.

Originally posted at David Horowitz’s Newsreal:

Hooters squares off against anti-Hooters feminazi Patty Bellasalma.

When you think of a “sex establishment”, what’s the first thing that comes to mind? If you answered something along the lines of a strip club or an adult novelty store, then congratulations — you’re a normal American. Usually, an establishment needs to actually sell sex-related goods in order to be considered a sex establishment. For the National Organization of Women, that’s just far too narrow a description of a sex store. To them, all that’s needed for an establishment to be accused of selling sex is attractive female employees — and so, of course, they’re targeting Hooters. Apparently, by hiring attractive women to work in the restaurant wearing skimpy clothes, Hooters is not only selling sex, but they’re selling sex to children. Oh, the humanity!

The rabid femisogynist leading this ridiculous charge is Patty Bellasalma, pictured above. (Does the difference in the two pictures explain her hostility towards Hooters?) Patty is the president of NOW’s California chapter, and she is just trying to look out for the children. They aren’t looking out for the womyn this time — nope, it’s for the kids.

The National Organization for Women filed complaints against local Hooters restaurants Thursday, but not for exploiting its scantily clad waitresses by subjecting them to leering and groping customers.

The subject this time was Hooters’ catering to children.

The restaurants in San Francisco, San Bruno, Sacramento and Orange County are classified as “adult entertainment” establishments but also serve minors, NOW’s California chapter said in papers filed with police and prosecutors.

What’s more, the organization said, Hooters provides child menus, high chairs and booster seats, and sells T-shirts in children’s sizes that identify the wearer as a “Future Hooters Girl.”

Patricia Bellasalma, NOW’s California president, asserted that Hooters is violating state and local laws prohibiting sexually oriented “adult” businesses from serving minors. The chain is also violating federal employment standards, she said.

Hooters’ stance on the subject is that they do not cater to children and families, but that they serve everyone who comes into the restaurant. The horror! Don’t they know that they’re selling sex to children?!

Oh, wait… they don’t. Apparently, they’re just too ignorant to understand that skimpy clothes automatically equal sex. So, of course, NOW will be campaigning to keep children away from beaches and swimming pools next, right? After all, women wear far less to the beach than any Hooters girl wears, so naturally that’s a sexual environment as well. And I guess we should also add in television, pop concerts, the mall, fashion billboards … anything else that features scantily-clad women? We can’t have children in a XXX environment, after all, and NOW’s new position is that women in skimpy clothes are obviously sex workers.

Is there really any wonder why femisogynists are so scorned in today’s America?

British feminazis recently tried to block the opening of a Hooters, complaining that Hooters is worse than Playboy. Right — a restaurant whose waitresses wear shorts and tank tops is worse than a magazine that features graphic pictures of nude women. Is the real issue here that man-hating femifascists cannot stand the idea of an establishment that — gasp!! — caters to men? Obviously, if femisogynists don’t like something, no one should be allowed to enjoy it.

And this boils down to the heart of the issue. It’s amazing how anti-choice feminazis are, considering how they claim to be such champions for choice. True equality for women means that women can choose to forge a life for themselves, whether that means being a stay-at-home mom, building a career in corporate America, or working at a place like Hooters. It isn’t something that femisogynists should have any say over, but make a choice that they disagree with and you’ll be shamed right out of the sisterhood. Dress in a skimpy outfit in a restaurant that largely caters to men, and you’ll definitely be out of the club.

What Ms. Bellasalma can’t seem to wrap her puny mind around is that parents have the choice to take their kids with them to Hooters. While no one would ever call Hooters a classy establishment, it’s not nearly as bad as NOW is trying to make it out to be. It’s a sports bar with mediocre food and attractive women wearing shorts and a tank top. Children don’t get exposed to sex at Hooters anymore than they would seeing women wearing bikinis at the beach. And while I would never buy my daughter a shirt that says “Future Hooters Girl,” I would also never try to ban other parents from doing so. Advocating for real choice means that you don’t get to dictate the choices people make, but that goes against everything that today’s modern feminazis stand for.

Nevermind that women willingly work at Hooters. Nevermind that some parents willingly patronize Hooters with their children. It’s not their choice to make — it’s NOW’s choice to make. (And you thought modern feminism was about women being able to make their own choices!)

It’s rather disturbing that femisogynists can, with a straight face, campaign so rabidly for abortion and yet somehow still claim to be fighting for the children. It’s also disturbing that an organization that claims to work on behalf of women would waste their time on something so insignificant, while continually ignoring the abuses and oppression forced onto women in the Middle East, thanks to the barbarism of sharia. Women are forced to endure beatings, oppression, female genital mutilation, and even stoning — yet the National Organization for Women is wasting its time going after an American sports bar.

And they call themselves feminists. It’s a clear example why most parents would rather take their daughters to Hooters wearing a “Future Hooters Girl” shirt than take them to a NOW rally wearing a “Future NOW Member” shirt. At least at Hooters, women can make their own choices. You can’t really say the same for the mindless sheep led by Patty Bellasalma at NOW.