Here’s some fun news for your Tuesday: Obama’s Department of Justice, led by Eric Holder, is very concerned about voter fraud, especially in Georgia. They’re so concerned, in fact, that they’re allowing non-citizens to register to vote there.

Georgia’s Secretary of State, Karen Handel, is understandably not pleased, and she released a statement saying as much.

Obama Justice Department Decision Will Allow Non-Citizens to Register to Vote in Georgia

Decision Bars Georgia From Continuing Voter Verification Process

Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel issued the following statement following the U.S. Department of Justice’s denial of preclearance of Georgia’s voter verification process

Atlanta – “The decision by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to deny preclearance of Georgia’s already implemented citizenship verification process shows a shocking disregard for the integrity of our elections. With this decision, DOJ has now barred Georgia from continuing the citizenship verification program that DOJ lawyers helped to craft. DOJ’s decision also nullifies the orders of two federal courts directing Georgia to implement the procedure for the 2008 general election. The decision comes seven months after Georgia requested an expedited review of the preclearance submission.

“DOJ has thrown open the door for activist organizations such as ACORN to register non-citizens to vote in Georgia’s elections, and the state has no ability to verify an applicant’s citizenship status or whether the individual even exists. DOJ completely disregarded Georgia’s obvious and direct interest in preventing non-citizens from voting, instead siding with the ACLU and MALDEF. Clearly, politics took priority over common sense and good public policy.

“This process is critical to protecting the integrity of our elections. We have evidence that non-citizens have voted in past Georgia elections and that more than 2,100 individuals have attempted to register, yet still have questions regarding their citizenship. Further, the Inspector General’s office is investigating more than 30 cases of non-citizens casting ballots in Georgia elections, including the case of a Henry County non-citizen who registered to vote and cast ballots in 2004 and 2006.

“It is important to underscore that not a single person has come forward to say he or she could not vote because of the verification process. Further, while DOJ argues that the process is somehow discriminatory, the historic voter turnout among Hispanic and African-American voters in the 2008 general elections clearly says otherwise.

“This decision provides a specific example of the inherently illogical and unfair nature of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. It is a sad day for the rights of our state and for the integrity of our elections. I remain committed to continuing the fight for citizenship verification. In the coming days, I will consider every option available to the state, including the possibility of legal action.”

Follow the link for more background on Georgia’s problems with non-citizens registering to vote.

Of course, in our new softer, fluffier America, voting is no longer a privilege only for citizens (and even citizens aren’t given voting as a right). It’s something that everyone has the right to do! Hell, why don’t we just let everyone in the world vote in our elections, too? I mean, why not? We’re accepting fraudulent votes and the votes of illegal aliens now… so why not the votes of Obama’s adoring European pals, too? And hey, who cares if the states are supposed to be in charge of elections? This is Obama’s America. Screw the Founding Fathers, they were just old, racist white guys anyways. We voted for change… and we got it.

Are you happy, Obama fans? Is this what you voted for?

In all seriousness, though, Georgia should absolutely fight this, and very publicly at that. If they do, I’d wager that Eric Holder will be forced to back off. If the American people find out about this, I’m sure there will be a justifiable outrage. We all knew that Obama & Co. were going to overreach, and they’re doing that right now. We can’t let them get away with it.

Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin

(2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...

The separation of church and state is one of the biggest myths out there. There is no separation of church and state clause in our Constitution, although people do have a right to freedom of religion. The separation of church and state argument comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson, and was noted by Jefferson as a reassurance that the state would not interfere with any church. That’s basically what the First Amendment and the Establishment Clause say: that the government cannot meddle with anyone’s religious freedoms or with the structure of a religious organization.

Well, I guess in Connecticut, that constitutional right no longer matters, because the (Democrat-controlled) Judiciary Committee has introduced a bill giving the state the right to organize Catholic parishes and diocese according to state requirements:

The Lawlor-and-McDonald-controlled Judiciary Committee has introduced Raised Bill 1098, a bill aimed specifically at the Catholic Church, which would remove the authority of the bishop and pastor over individual parishes and put a board of laymen in their place. You can read Rep. Lawlor’s defense of this bill, Bridgeport Bishop William Lori’s response and more here.

We need as big a turnout as possible for the public hearing on Wednesday, especially from non-Catholics. As Ben Franklin told the Founders while they were signing the Declaration of Independence, “either we hang together or we will all hang separately.” Legislators need to understand that this bill is an attack on everyone’s religious liberty.

If the legislature can replace a bishop with a board of laymen in the Catholic Church, they can just as easily replace the governing lay structure of Congregationalist or Baptist churches with someone set up as a bishop. In fact, it was resistance to such government interference in the internal life of the church that gave birth to several of our most historic denominations. Thanks to this awful bill, our generation must now rise up to defend those hard-fought victories for religious liberty that were won for us by our ancestors.

This should send a chill down your spine, Catholic or not. What this will do is basically take away the existing organization of the Catholic church, and replace it with a governing board selected by the state. The pastors, bishops, and archbishops in Connecticut would see all of their authority in the church taken away. The archbishop or bishop would have a seat on the board, but would have no right to vote. This bill is directed only at the Catholic church.

American Papist has the defense of this despicable bill from Mike Lawlor himself:

… the current state statutes governing Roman Catholic corporations … were enacted in 1955. SB 1098 is a proposal to make changes in that law, which was suggested by parishioners who were the victims of theft of their funds in several parishes, and these parishioners feel that the state’s existing Roman Catholic Corporate laws prevented them from dealing with the misuse and theft of funds.

I agree with you that the whole notion of having a statute governing the church seems like an intrusion on the separation of church and state, but the current law does that already. Perhaps we should repeal the whole thing, but if we are going to have a corporate law of this type, it probably should make sure there cannot be deception of parishioners.

Here’s the problem with that reasoning. Theft and fraud are already against the law. If a parishioner believes that theft and/or fraud has taken place, then they can take legal action. If they feel they’ve been deceived, then obviously there’s no legal action they can take — there’s no law against lying or deception, even if it’s not very nice to lie to or deceive someone. A parishioner can, though, stop donating money to that particular parish. They can attend another parish. Or they could cease attendance of Catholic churches altogether. No one is required to donate money to their church, nor are they required to attend a particular church. The government, however, does require people to donate their money, and what recourse does an unhappy citizen have when they feel their money is being mishandled?

The Bridgeport Diocese has responded to these accusations and to this bill. They also, interestingly enough, noted that the state of Connecticut has racked up a $1.5 billion deficit, and therefore probably has no right to try to manage the finances of an organzation whose finances are already quite sound.

This past Thursday, March 5, the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut State Legislature, which is chaired by Sen. Andrew McDonald of Stamford and Rep. Michael Lawlor of East Haven, introduced a bill that directly attacks the Roman Catholic Church and our Faith.

This bill violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. It forces a radical reorganization of the legal, financial, and administrative structure of our parishes. This is contrary to the Apostolic nature of the Catholic Church because it disconnects parishes from their Pastors and their Bishop. Parishes would be run by boards from which Pastors and the Bishop would be effectively excluded.

This bill, moreover, is a thinly-veiled attempt to silence the Catholic Church on the important issues of the day, such as same-sex marriage.

The State has no right to interfere in the internal affairs and structure of the Catholic Church. This bill is directed only at the Catholic Church but could someday be forced on other denominations. The State has no business controlling religion.

The Pastors of our Diocese are doing an exemplary job of sound stewardship and financial accountability, in full cooperation with their parishioners.

For the State Legislature — which has not reversed a $1 billion deficit in this fiscal year — to try to manage the Catholic Church makes no sense. The Catholic Church not only lives within her means but stretches her resources to provide more social, charitable, and educational services than any other private institution in the State. This bill threatens those services at a time when the State is cutting services. The Catholic Church is needed now more than ever.

We reject this irrational, unlawful, and bigoted bill that jeopardizes the religious liberty of our Church.

Catholic or not, all Americans should be outraged over this. This bill is a gross overreach of power, not to mention a disgusting infringement on Connecticut citizens’ constitutional religious liberties. The government has no right whatsoever to regulate the structure of any religious organization.

Please call Senator McDonald and Representative Lawlor, and let them know that what they are doing is unacceptable. Again, whether or not you are a Catholic or a citizen of Connecticut is irrelevant. All Americans have the right to freedom of religion, and an infringment on that right anywhere can affect all of us. This is an ugly step towards fascism, and we cannot stand for it.

Senator Andrew McDonald:
(800) 842-1420; (203) 348-7439
E-mail: McDonald@senatedems.ct.gov

Representative Michael Lawlor:
(800) 842-8267; (203) 469-9725
E-mail: MLawlor99@juno.com

Hat Tip: Hot Air

(4 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...

This is likely only because of the heat they were feeling thanks to FIRE. But they have cancelled the program.

Late Thursday, University of Delaware President Patrick Harker released on the school’s website a Message to the University of Delaware Community terminating the university’s ideological reeducation program, which FIRE condemned as an exercise in thought reform. He stated, “I have directed that the program be stopped immediately. No further activities under the current framework will be conducted.” Harker also called for a “full and broad-based review” of the program’s practices and purposes. While concerns remain about the University of Delaware’s commitment to free expression, FIRE commends President Harker for his decision to immediately terminate the Orwellian residence life education program.

This is a victory. A small one, but hopefully these small victories will add up and the systematic moonbattization of academia can come to an end.

A big thumbs-up to FIRE. Make sure to show them your support.

Previous:
Brainwashing at the University of Delaware

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

I am in shock at this.

The University of Delaware subjects students in its residence halls to a shocking program of ideological reeducation that is referred to in the university’s own materials as a “treatment” for students’ incorrect attitudes and beliefs. The Orwellian program requires the approximately 7,000 students in Delaware’s residence halls to adopt highly specific university-approved views on issues ranging from politics to race, sexuality, sociology, moral philosophy, and environmentalism. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is calling for the total dismantling of the program, which is a flagrant violation of students’ rights to freedom of conscience and freedom from compelled speech.

“The University of Delaware’s residence life education program is a grave intrusion into students’ private beliefs,” FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. “The university has decided that it is not enough to expose its students to the values it considers important; instead, it must coerce its students into accepting those values as their own. At a public university like Delaware, this is both unconscionable and unconstitutional.”

The university’s views are forced on students through a comprehensive manipulation of the residence hall environment, from mandatory training sessions to “sustainability” door decorations. Students living in the university’s eight housing complexes are required to attend training sessions, floor meetings, and one-on-one meetings with their Resident Assistants (RAs). The RAs who facilitate these meetings have received their own intensive training from the university, including a “diversity facilitation training” session at which RAs were taught, among other things, that “[a] racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality.”

The university suggests that at one-on-one sessions with students, RAs should ask intrusive personal questions such as “When did you discover your sexual identity?” Students who express discomfort with this type of questioning often meet with disapproval from their RAs, who write reports on these one-on-one sessions and deliver these reports to their superiors. One student identified in a write-up as an RA’s “worst” one-on-one session was a young woman who stated that she was tired of having “diversity shoved down her throat.”

According to the program’s materials, the goal of the residence life education program is for students in the university’s residence halls to achieve certain “competencies” that the university has decreed its students must develop in order to achieve the overall educational goal of “citizenship.” These competencies include: “Students will recognize that systemic oppression exists in our society,” “Students will recognize the benefits of dismantling systems of oppression,” and “Students will be able to utilize their knowledge of sustainability to change their daily habits and consumer mentality.”

At various points in the program, students are also pressured or even required to take actions that outwardly indicate their agreement with the university’s ideology, regardless of their personal beliefs. Such actions include displaying specific door decorations, committing to reduce their ecological footprint by at least 20%, taking action by advocating for an “oppressed” social group, and taking action by advocating for a “sustainable world.”

In the Office of Residence Life’s internal materials, these programs are described using the harrowing language of ideological reeducation. In documents relating to the assessment of student learning, for example, the residence hall lesson plans are referred to as “treatments.”

In a letter sent yesterday to University of Delaware President Patrick Harker, FIRE pointed out the stark contradiction between the residence life education program and the values of a free society. FIRE’s letter to President Harker also underscored the University of Delaware’s legal obligation to abide by the First Amendment. FIRE reminded Harker of the Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), a case decided during World War II that remains the law of the land. Justice Robert H. Jackson, writing for the Court, declared, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”

“The fact that the university views its students as patients in need of treatment for some sort of moral sickness betrays a total lack of respect not only for students’ basic rights, but for students themselves,” Lukianoff said. “The University of Delaware has both a legal and a moral obligation to immediately dismantle this program, and FIRE will not rest until it has.”

FIRE is a nonprofit educational foundation that unites civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, due process rights, freedom of expression, and rights of conscience on our campuses. FIRE would like to thank the Delaware Association of Scholars (DAS) for its invaluable assistance in this case. FIRE’s efforts to preserve liberty at the University of Delaware and elsewhere can be seen by visiting www.thefire.org.

It’s just unbelievable. There are no words. Fun fact? Freshman are required to live in the dorms unless they have family nearby.

What’s really fun is that Democrats like John Edwards want everyone to go to college. And why not? Then everyone will be brainwashed into being perfect little zombie-fied moonbats.

Please feel free to contact the University of Delaware and demand that they stop this. We live in a free society, and to be completely frank, this is bullshit. NO ONE should have to put up with that. NO ONE.

Patrick Harker, President, University of Delaware: 302-831-2111; president@udel.edu
Kathleen G. Kerr, Director of Residence Life, University of Delaware: 302-831-1201; kkerr@udel.edu

Also, please make sure to visit the FIRE website and show your support. It’s a great organization, fighting against the indoctrination of the people who will be running our country in the future.

Hat tip: Moonbattery

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

Not in the new movie, anyways.

My newest post at Wizbang covers it all:

G.I. Joe was unabashedly patriotic. Many fans were, of course, excited to hear about the new movie to be released by Paramount.

But of course, in the liberal land of Hollyweird, a Real American Hero is just unacceptable. Nope, it’s gotta be a global hero. G.I. Joe will be a global operation, not an American one, and G.I. Joe now stands for Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity:

The studio’s live-action feature film version of G.I. Joe will no longer revolve around a top-secret U.S. special forces team but rather an international operation.

In a follow-up to their confirmation that Stephen Sommers will direct G.I. Joe, Variety offers this new description of the team: “G.I. Joe is now a Brussels-based outfit that stands for Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity, an international co-ed force of operatives who use hi-tech equipment to battle Cobra, an evil organization headed by a double-crossing Scottish arms dealer. The property is closer in tone to X-Men and James Bond than a war film.”

…

So why the changes? Hasbro and Paramount execs recently spoke about the challenges of marketing a film about the U.S. military at a time when the current U.S. administration and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are at a low-point in global polls. When a studio makes a film as expensive as G.I. Joe will likely be, they want to know that as many people as possible around the world will want to see it. In other words, G.I. Joe — “A Real American Hero” — is a tough sell.

Nothing is sacred to liberals. Nothing patriotic or American is worth preserving. And I’m sure it never crossed their little liberal minds that perhaps if Hollywood made movies in the vein of those released during WWII, in which America, the military, and our soldiers were portrayed as strong, patriotic heroes, rather than today’s military movies in which the United States is always the bad guy, war is always “wrong”, and our soldiers are morally corrupt, people wouldn’t have such a negative outlook on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (the mainstream media should get that memo, as well). They could be supportive and make movies that showed America, our troops, and their mission in a positive light. But that would go against the liberal agenda. What’s even worse is that one of the scripts they had was evocative of the patriotic G.I. Joe, but they chose to go with a script that was less militaristic, described as “X-Men meets Mission: Impossible”.

Make sure to read the whole thing.

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

You know, I think liberals were right when they said Iraq is just another Vietnam. We’ve got liberals insulting our troops right and left, with politicians clamoring for defeat while crying “QUAGMIRE!” and simultaneously smearing our troops with this kind of garbage — just like in Vietnam.

Presidential hopeful Barack Obama was warned by a friendly voter Monday to avoid public spats with his Democratic rivals – but remarks he made later could add fuel to the criticism against him.

Maggie North of Claremont told Obama he risks becoming part of the usual political scene if he keeps being drawn into well-publicized disputes with rivals. He and chief rival Hillary Rodham Clinton have jabbed at each other over foreign policy, the war on terrorism and the use of nuclear weapons.

…

But during a later appearance before about 800 people in Nashua, Obama made a comment likely to further the spats he was warned about.

Answering a question on how he would refocus U.S. troops out of Iraq to better fight terrorism, he said, “We’ve to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there.”

Earlier this month, Obama drew criticism when he said he would send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists even without local permission, if warranted.

John Kerry did it and won the Democratic nomination. Maybe Obama thinks it will work for him, too. After all, every Dem thinks crap like that of our troops, because they hate them. It’s just that most of them are seasoned politicians who are smart enough not to say it out loud (most).

However — that anyone would say something like that, let alone say it to gain political profit, about our troops in Iraq is despicable in my book. There is nothing lower than insulting, smearing, and debasing the sacrifice of the men and women over there risking their lives for Obama to act like a donkey’s ass. They protect his right to slander them, yet this is how he repays them?

There really is nothing lower.

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

Silly, silly Democrats. Do they really think they’re going to get away with stuff like this without it getting out? Even if no one in the House talks, there’s something called CSPAN — remember? And stuff like this always gets out, especially if it’s been videotaped.

Eric Cantor explains what happened:

High drama on the house floor tonight. Dems brought an Agriculture appropriations bill to the floor greatly expanding government programs, yet again. Republicans moved to recommit the bill to committee, in order to add language prohibiting any taxpayer funds under the agriculture programs from going to illegal immigrants.

The Democrat chair closed the roll call when Republicans had won – as the electronic voting tally indicated enough votes to return the bill to committee. Shouting erupted on the floor, as the Democrats attempted to change the outcome of the vote after the gavel had come down – the vote was closed.

Republicans attempted to adjourn, but we were ruled out of order. Confusion set in as members waited at least five minutes for the chair’s decision.

Republicans members then began to leave the floor in protest, after Democrats proved they would go to whatever lengths necessary to further their agenda. A bad call by the chair, the vote was closed. Then the Democrats allowed their members to continue voting to change the outcome. An outrage. Is this a democracy or a dictatorship?

All but a few Republicans refused to vote on final passage since it became obvious that a fair vote would not happen.

UPDATE:Republicans are conferencing this morning after the travesty that occurred last night on the floor of the house. The overwhelming sense of the members is, we have to stand up and reject the democrats manipulation of the rules of the house to further their attempts to thwart Republican efforts to stop government benefits from flowing to illegal immigrants. Republican house members are demanding that democrats right their wrongs.

That is SO ethical! Pioneer Pelosi is right. Most ethical Congress ever.

The Politico has more:

Details remain fuzzy, but numerous Republicans argued afterward that they had secured a 215-213 win on their motion to bar undocumented immigrants from receiving any federal funds apportioned in the agricultural spending bill for employment or rental assistance. Democrats, however, argued the measure was deadlocked at 214-214 and failed, members and aides on both sides of the aisle said afterward.

One GOP aide saw McNulty gavel the vote to a close after receiving a signal from his leaders – but before reading the official tally. And votes continued to shift even after he closed the roll call – a strange development in itself.

Whatever the final tally, acrimony quickly exploded between lawmakers on either side of the aisle as Democratic leaders tried to plot a solution, while parliamentarians on either side argued over protocol.

Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) eventually offered a motion to reconsider, according to floor staff on either side, ostensibly giving members a chance to recast their votes. But the maneuver sparked a chorus of angry protests from the Republicans, yelling “shame” on Democrats, while they returned fire with angry volleys of their own.

When Democrats finally moved to consider the spending bill as the last vote of the night, furious Republicans left the chamber en masse to protest the maneuver. The House eventually recessed at 11:18 p.m. But Republicans quickly discovered that there was no longer any record of the controversial vote and immediately charged Democrats with erasing the bad result.

Best part of all?

It was caught on camera. All of it:

Here’s Eric Cantor reacting on the floor:

You know, are the Dems really this arrogant? It seems they must be. I mean, you’ve got them publicly admitting that they want failure from Iraq because it would benefit them politically, and now you’ve got Pioneer Pelosi’s most ethical Congress ever using strong-arm tactics to cheat on a vote, all of which is caught by videotape and aired on CSPAN. I mean, are they idiots? Their approval rating is lower than George Bush’s (and that’s saying something!), yet they keep acting as if the American people are too stupid to catch onto what they are doing! It’s the damnedest thing I’ve ever seen! I mean, how much more blatant can you be? At least attempt to hide your bullshit. But, in their arrogance, they don’t think they have to.

And the vote the Dems so furiously wanted to defeat? It would keep illegal immigrants from getting taxpayer funding in the agriculture bill.

Man, they sure do love America, those Dems.

As Kathryn Jean Lopez noted, is this a democracy or a dictatorship?

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

They really, really support the troops! Really, they do!

These idiots keep blathering on about how they don’t want us to win in Iraq, and then get furious when we call them cowards, traitors, and defeatocrats (emphasis mine):

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party’s efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.

Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.

“I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us,” Clyburn said. “We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report.”

Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be “a real big problem for us.”

So basically, he is rather blatantly admitting that he doesn’t want there to be positive signs of progress from Iraq because it would hurt the Dems politically.

Haven’t we conservatives been saying that all along? And now, he just proved us right.

But don’t question their patriotism, oh no. It’s patriotic to wish for your country to fail, don’t you see? It’s a good thing for the terrorists who want to attack and kill us to win in Iraq. They love America SO much!

As Misha from Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler says,

Try them, convict them and execute them for treason.

Or, if that’s too rough for you, let’s just cram them into container ships and send them off to whichever totalitarian dystopia they’re worshiping at the moment, because a free country has absolutely no use for them. Whatsoever. They’d probably f*ck up the harvest if we used them as fertilizer.

Hat Tip: Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler

Previous:
Democrats side with terrorists
Did you get your white feathers yet?
Navy SEAL memorial dedicated over liberal protests

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

trea·son (trē’zən)
n.

Violation of allegiance toward one’s country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one’s country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.

A betrayal of trust or confidence.

Would giving money to terrorists in Iraq today constitute treason? I don’t think the Greatest Generation would have stood for this, but we just roll over and take it, because after all, the groups in question are acting for “peace”.

Misha from The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler has the story of how two American “anti-war groups” gave $600,000 in cash and supplies to terrorists in Iraq:

A New York Times best-selling author says members of the supposed “peace movement” delivered hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash and supplies to terrorists engaged in a bloody street battle against United States Marines in Iraq.

The latest book by Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson (U.S. Air Force-Ret.) is called War Crimes: The Left’s Campaign to Destroy Our Military and Lose the War on Terror. In the book, he claims that two anti-war groups — “United for Peace & Justice” and “CODEPINK: Women for Peace” — literally gave aid and comfort to terrorists when they delivered $600,000 in cash and supplies they claim was humanitarian aid to civilians.

According to Patterson, Congressman Henry Waxman (D-California) facilitated the transaction for CODEPINK by signing a letter allowing them to get the cash and supplies into Fallujah.

“Here is an American Congressman …. Here are American citizens who belong to these organizations,” says Patterson. “They travel to Iraq and they are materially supporting, they are aiding and abetting the enemy that is killing American Marines. If that’s not treason, nothing is.”

Patterson says that is not the only treacherous thing these groups have done. “When the Iraq war first started, CODEPINK and Medea Benjamin went to Baghdad and opened an office designed to try to encourage American soldiers to desert, go AWOL, and not fight the war,” he explains. “Again, that’s aiding and abetting the enemy.”

The author laments that the story has received virtually no coverage by the U.S. media.

Misha responds:

Assuming for the moment, since that’s all one can responsibly do until some evidence is produced, that he’s got the goods and that his “i”s are dotted and his “t”s crossed, CODEPINK, in association with a U.S. Congressman, conspired to and succeeded in funding the terrorist scum that we’re at war with, the swine killing our servicemen and -women, and we all know that those cavedwelling apes don’t use their funds to buy apple pies and band aids with.

Do you have a relative or loved one over in the sand box right now? In that case, he or she may, at this very moment, be fired upon with weapons bought and paid for by CODEPINK, in association with Henry Waxman (D-al Qaeda).

I have a loved one in the sandbox right now. I have friends there. How about you?

It doesn’t surprise me in the least that CODEPINK would do something like this. However, it is absolutely infuriating that a United States Congressman would facilitate the transaction.

There should be a full investigation put forth to investigate this, and if it is true, then every last person involved should be executed for treason. PERIOD.

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

Snopes.com FINALLY acknowledged the Help My Baby Live scam:

Recipe for a hoax: Establish a web site announcing that you are going to bring about (or allow) some dire circumstance unless you can raise a specified amount by a given deadline. Set up a mechanism on your web site to receive donations publicly (or at least make it appear that you’re receiving donations, even if you really aren’t). Stand back and watch with amusement as people heap opprobrium on you for daring to consider such a terrible thing, much less crassly tying it to money.

No matter how many times the scenario plays out, people keep falling for it. Once it was supposed rabbit owners claiming they were going to kill and eat their bunnies unless their exorbitant demands for money were met by self-imposed deadlines; more recently it’s been Help My Baby Live, a site on which an ostensibly expectant couple maintains they’re not “financially secure enough” to raise a child and are going to opt for an abortion unless they can raise $50,000 in donations within three months.

… there are several clues that indicate the “Help My Baby Live” site is not on the level, but rather a prank to yank the collective chains of a gullible audience:

The PayPal account initially used on the site to accept donations (which has since been shut down by PayPal) was tied to a Matthew Schiros, whose name shows up as the author of an anti-abortion blog entry (which has since been removed from the internet).

Interesting, to say the least. But the “evidence” tying Matt Schiros to the site is simply that he is listed as the administrative and techical support for Invisihosting, a company I think he works for, and that the site is simply using the hosting company’s PayPal account.

In the Snopes.com forum for this topic, this was posted:

The source code for the page reveals an e-mail address of schiros+paypal@invisihosting.com hooked to the PayPal account. Googling on ’schiros’ and ‘invisihosting’ links the name ‘Matthew Schiros’ to the e-mail address ’schiros@invisihosting.com’ and that blog.

- snopes

The Democratic Underground is all over it, labeling Matt Schiros a right-winger, and indicative of pro-lifers, claiming it is the work of “wingnuts” and wondering how many “anti-choice people” they’ve hoodwinked, and what their “real motives” are.

On CourtTv’s message boards, a user posted an e-mail exchange between him/herself and Matthew:

Matthew,

I was directed to this website http://www.helpmybabylive.com/ from a very busy bulletin board that I frequent. Well as you can tell I was appalled by the very nature of this website so I wanted to find out who in the world would make such a heinous or fraudulent website. Well naturally they were a bunch of cowards, so they went through you to get the anonymity they were wanting and that YOU are allowing. So, I decided to email you and ask you politely to remove that website. I realize that it is most likely in your interest to allow sites like this and this is how you are making money, but I think you should take into account that not everyone is going to do good with anonymous sites and that it may fall back on you. I am waiting anxiously for your reply.

Thanks so much

Here is his information incase you would like to give him a piece of your mind about the process he uses to allow others to basically do what they want and not get caught. He is an accomplice imo and should be treated as such.

Registrant:
InvisiHosting, LLC

1817 E. Oltorf
Apt 2103
Austin, Texas 78741
United States

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: HELPMYBABYLIVE.COM
Created on: 16-Jun-07
Expires on: 16-Jun-08
Last Updated on: 16-Jun-07

Administrative Contact:
Schiros, Matthew schiros@invisihosting.com
InvisiHosting, LLC
1817 E. Oltorf
Apt 2103
Austin, Texas 78741
United States
5124664146

Technical Contact:
Schiros, Matthew schiros@invisihosting.com
InvisiHosting, LLC
1817 E. Oltorf
Apt 2103
Austin, Texas 78741
United States
5124664146

————————————————————————-

Hello,
Thanks for your email. You’re not the first person to email us about this site, and you won’t be the last.

InvisiHosting is about empowering the absolute freedom of speech on the Internet, unconstrained by any outside party that might want to restrict content according to their own personal preference or sense of taste.
We’ve got both an ethical and contractual obligation to our customers to not play censor, or content monitor, or any other such thing. If the site in question is illegal, have no doubt that we will be informed by the proper authorities and directed to remove it, but it is not our job to become the good taste police.

Think of the logical consequences of your request, that we remove their site. Would you restrict all speech only to things that you agree with, or, at the least, are not personally or morally offended by? That’s the same attitude that the Muslims who rioted after the publication of the Danish cartoons took, that free speech’s limit is someone else’s feelings. If we are truly to be a free society, everyone must be allowed to say whatever they’d like about whatever they’d like without fear of retribution.

I understand that you don’t like the site, but our position will always be that the solution to speech one disagrees with is counter-speech, not censorship. If you’d like to set up a page of your own decrying their behavior, we’d be happy to host that as well, because we believe in free speech for everyone.

I hope you’ll think this over, and I appreciate your comments.

Matt Schiros

Matt Schiros, however, also is apparently not new to posting offensive websites, such as www.amiblackornot.com which allegedly (I have not visited the site) asks visitors to rate “how black” the people pictured on the site are by using racial slurs.

So, who knows? I’d still be interested in finding out the truth, whether it is Matt Schiros behind the hoax, or someone else.

Previous:
Help my baby live?
PayPal pulls out!

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...