UPDATE: NBC Reverses Decision to Air Ads by Freedoms Watch Thanking Troops

Swiped directly from Spree at Wake Up America:

The other day we showed you the new Freedom's Watch ads, thanking the troops and urging Americans to thank the troops (both 30 second videos below) and NBC had rejected the ad and refused to air them on their stations.

The ad is part of a seven-figure newspaper and television campaign by Freedom's Watch, a conservative group that supports administration policy in Iraq.


NBC said it declined the ad, not because of its message, but because it invites viewers to go to Freedom's Watch's Web site, which advocates support for the war. NBC has a policy against airing controversial issue ads.


"Anybody in the world who would look at this ad would come away with nothing other than 'we should be thankful for their service,'" Freedom's Watch president Bradley Blakeman said.

The President of Freedom’s Watch, Brad Blakeman, issued a letter to John Kelly of NBC to express his disappointment that NBC would not air those ads and Newt Gingrich actually went on Fox News and called for a Boycott of NBC (YouTube video of that found here)

The letter that Brad Blakeman sent to NBC:

December 7, 2007
John Kelly
Senior Vice-President of NBC News Network Sales
30 Rockefeller Plaza
12th Floor
New York, NY 10112


Dear Mr. Kelly,


We understand that NBC, MSNBC and CNBC (the “Networks”) are refusing to sell advertising time to Freedom’s Watch (“FW”) to air a series of advertisements that thank our troops for their service and encourage the American public to show their appreciation for the sacrifices they have made on behalf of our country. It is our understanding that the purported basis for the denial is the Networks’ demand that FW remove reference on the advertisement to the FW website.


Given your past rejection of FW advertisements in August 2007 and your history of airing ads addressing controversial issues, as addressed in detail in my correspondence to you of August 28, 2007 (to which we have received no response), we are left to believe that your denial to FW is a subjective decision because the network officials disagree with FW. It is hard to comprehend how your demand to remove the FW website is anything but direct censorship of the positions taken by FW, particularly our support for the War on Terror. It is highly troubling that the Networks favor censorship over airing a magnanimous effort to thank the many men and women of our Armed Services who protect our freedoms every day.


FW has requested to purchase time on your networks to air advertisements thanking our American troops for their service and for spending time away from their family and friends this Holiday season. The FW website, www.freedomswatch.org, provides information to the American public about numerous ways to support our troops. For example, the FW website provides readers with links to Books for Soldiers, Adopt a Platoon and other worthy causes dedicated to assisting our troops during this Holiday season.


It is deeply troubling that the Networks appear to be rejecting an effort to air messages that thank our troops for their sacrifice and, in so doing, remind Americans of the sacrifices made by them this Holiday season. An effort to thank our troops should not be silenced by national broadcast and cable networks. Your denial begs the question of whether the Networks disagree with FW and, due to the level of your disagreement, you would prefer to censor FW’s effort to thank our troops and encourage an outpouring of support from the American people for them. A detailed explanation of your censorship appears to be very necessary.


If you refuse to air FW’s advertisement, we thus request an explanation of your basis in writing or station policy within two (2) days from the date above as time is of the essence.


Thank you for your prompt attention to this request. Please respond to me at the above address.


Very Truly Yours,


Bradley A. Blakeman
President and CEO

Happily, NBC reversed their decision as reports today tell us, and has decided to allow those ads to run on their stations.

WASHINGTON (AP) — NBC reversed course Saturday and decided to air a conservative group's television ad thanking U.S. troops.


The ad, by the group Freedom's Watch, asks viewers to remember the troops during the holiday season. NBC had refused to air the ad because it guides viewers to the Freedom's Watch Web site, which NBC said was too political.


But in a statement issued Saturday evening, NBC said:


"We have reviewed and changed our ad standards guidelines and made the decision that our policy will apply to content only and not to a referenced Web site. Based on these amended standards the Freedom's Watch ad will begin to run as early as Sunday."


NBC' head of standards and practices, Alan Wurtzel, notified Freedom's Watch's media consultant Saturday by e-mail, writing: "This will confirm that the Freedom's Watch spot is approved for air."


Freedom's Watch President Bradley A. Blakeman welcomed the decision. "We're actually very happy that NBC has agreed to change its position because it will only help the troops be properly thanked," he said.

Needless to say, some are not happy about this reversal, but I am going to put both 30 second videos below and you be the judge if they sound "political" or are just thanking the troops abroad.

As we celebrate the holidays, it is important to remember the sacrifices these brave men and women stationed throughout the world make each day to defend our freedom. Freedom’s Watch is honored to support their services and say ‘thank you.





You be the judge.

Sphere: Related Content

Brazil Uncooperative in Extradition of Suspected Murderer

Written by S.A. Torrence, cross posted with permission from Digital Journal. (Consider clicking that link and voting please). Also swiped from Spree at Wake Up America.

Claudia "Cris" Cristina Hoerig shot and killed her husband in March 2007 then fled to Brazil before her husband's body could be discovered. Brazil is not cooperating with the U.S. in extraditing the fugitive.

Major Karl Hoerig's memory lives on at Youngstown, Ohio Air Force Reserve Base as a friend and a fellow airman who served his country. He was a pilot both in the military and on civilian side and flew over 200 combat missions in Afghanistan and Iraq with the 910th Airlift Wing's Hercules C-130's. He served for 25 years in the military.

Karl met his wife, Chris, online and they were married in Las Vegas in 2005. It is reported that their marriage was rocky. Karl had even confided in colleagues at Southwest Airlines that he was unhappy in his marriage and afraid his wife may try something. He was planning on moving out on March 12, 2007. On that fateful day he was shot 3 times ,twice in the back and one point blank in the back of his head, and left for dead by the suspect, Claudia Christina Hoerig.

According to the Trumbull County Sheriff Christina purchased a .357 Smith and Wesson revolver with a laser tracking device at a shop in Braceville, OH two days before the murder. She then practiced at a shooting range in Warren, OH and had the handle of the gun fitted for her small hand. After committing the unthinkable she then used her privilege as a pilot's wife and procured a free flight to Sao Paulo, Brazil the same day. The America's Most Wanted website calls the murder of Karl Hoerig premeditated and cruel.

According to militarycorruption.com Chris dumped Karl's body in the basement, emptied his bank accounts which amounted to around $10,000 and wired $9,000 more to family in Brazil. Her vicious ways were not limited to Karl, it has been revealed that she ran up thousands of dollars in credit card debt with a previous husband.

Dr. Thomas J. Bote said he was married to "the hellion" from 1990-99. He told cops that she was both mentally and physically abusive to him. Her dishonesty about finances caused many a fight. At one point, the doctor said, his former wife had 20 credit cards going and was bleeding him dry. When the credit card debts piled up to the max, he couldn't stand it any more, and they had a big battle. The mild-mannered doc lost. He told investigators when he confronted her about the wild spending she laughed and presented him with divorce papers. Claudia Christina Hoerig Six months have passed and Brazil still has not cooperated with extraditing Christina who has a warrant out for her arrest. Karl's family was reluctant to speak with the media and wanted to give law enforcers and investigators time to work on the case. The pain they have felt finally led to plea to the public to write to their congressmen and senators and exert pressure on Brazil to return the fugitive who is living freely and has not been arrested by Brazilian authorities. The plea has been herd by Congressman Tim Ryan, representative of the 17th district of which Newton Falls, Karl Hoerig's residence, falls under.

Tim Ryan is ready to introduce legislation which will put pressure on the Brazilian government. He says two pieces have been drafted that would call for re-negotiating the US/Brazil Treaty, and limit foreign aid to that country.Last year the United States gave 14 million dollars to Brazil. Congressman Ryan is prepared to introduce the legislation if Brazil refuses to extradite Hoerig, and will also be working on legislation to put restrictions on people traveling from Brazil to the United States as well as tariffs on Brazilian products. "If they say she is not coming back, we drop the legislation immediately, " Ryan told reporters. "They need to know we are fed up." Claudia Christina Hoerig has dual citizenship in the United States and Brazil and is hiding behind Brazilian policy that allows the country to refuse extradition of its citizens.

[Update from Spree-] Here is the link to contact your Congressman/woman and let them know you want some justice.

Sphere: Related Content

Liberals Insert 'Hate Crimes' Into Defense Bill – Call Now!

Cross posted from Wake up America

This CONSERVATIVE ALERT is a special message from RightMarch.com:

Liberals Insert 'Hate Crimes' Into Defense Bill -- Call Now To Demand They Remove This Provision:

1-202-224-3121

ALERT: Liberals on Capitol Hill are at it again.

This time, they're firing with both barrels: holding up much-needed funding for our troops, AND pushing pro-homosexual "hate crimes" legislation… all at the same time!

Led by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), proponents of the pro-gay provision have stalled the 2008 Defense Authorization Act, which was supposed to be passed by October 1st. They know that this bill is a "must-pass" bill, so if they can get their provision passed along with it, they can finally achieve their goal of punishing the "thought crimes" of pastors, Christians, and supporters of traditional values in America.

We MUST fight to get this provision REMOVED from this bill -- but we have to do it TODAY!

TAKE ACTION: To force this contentious legislation into the Defense Authorization conference report is a disservice to our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines on the front lines in this war against terror. This is just another example of how the liberal Democrat majority is playing politics with our military and the war against terror.

Along with attempts to micromanage the war on terror by putting timelines and other demands in the Iraq War supplemental, the liberals are more interested in scoring political points than producing legislation that helps our troops and having it signed by the President. Please, call as many as you can of the Senate and House members of the Defense Appropriations conference committee listed below, and urge them to remove the "Hate Crimes" provision in the Defense spending bill:

SENATORS ON THE CONFERENCE WHO VOTED FOR HATE CRIMES

Carl Levin, Chairman (D-MI): 202-224-6221

Ted Kennedy (D-MA): 202-224-4543

Robert Byrd (D-WV): 202-224-3954

Joe Lieberman (I-CT): 202-224-4041

Jack Reed (D-RI): 202-224-4642

Daniel Akaka (D-HI): 202-224-6361

Bill Nelson (D-FL): 202-224-5274

Ben Nelson (D-NE): 202-224 -6551

Evan Bayh (D-IN): 202-224-5623

Hillary Clinton (D-NY): 202-224-4451

Mark Pryor (D-AR): 202-224-2353

Jim Webb (D-VA): 202-224-4024

Claire McCaskill (D-MO): 202-224-6154

John Warner (R-VA): 202-224-2023

Susan Collins (R-ME): 202-224-2523


REPRESENTATIVES ON THE CONFERENCE WHO VOTED FOR HATE CRIMES

Chairman: Rep Ike Skelton (D-MO): 202-225-2876

Rep. Solomon Ortiz (D-TX): 202-225-7742

Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI): 202-225-2726

Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA): 202-225-1880

Rep. Susan Davis (D-CA): 202-225-2040

Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA): 202-225-8901

Rep. Rick Larsen (D-WA): 202-225-2265

Rep. Vic Snyder (D-AR) 202-225 -2506

Rep. Vic Snyder (D-AR): 202-225-1188

Rep. John Spratt (D-SC): 202-225-5501

Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ): 202-225-6501

Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN): 202-225-4311

Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA): 202-225-2965

Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-TX): 202-225-4831

Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO): 202-225-2161

Rep. Jim Marshall (D-GA): 202-225-6531

Rep. Jim Saxton (R-NJ): 202-225-4765:

Please, make as many calls as you can TODAY!

Sincerely,

William Greene, President
RightMarch.com

(Note from Spree- If they want to pass a hate crimes bill, let them do it as a stand alone, NOT in our Defense Bills- it is games like this that have their approval ratings at the lowest levels in history.)

P.S.: I realize that's a long list -- but this legislation is moving THIS WEEK, so every call and every minute counts! Be sure to send this Alert to EVERYONE you know who wants to make sure that Congress REMOVES the pro-homosexual "hate crimes" provision from the upcoming Defense Bill. Thank you!

Sphere: Related Content

Good News From Iraq FINALLY Being Acknowledged

Via Wake up America, cross posted by request from Miss Beth.

Due to embedded journalists with combat units in Iraq, the American people were able to get the news, despite the reporting "boycott" the mainstream media had placed, and those reports by the embeds, as they filtered into the publics homes started a reversal of support for the our actions and the surge.

Not long ago we were treated to a rare glimpse into the reporting, or to state it better the non reporting, of news in the mainstream media, by Robin Wright from Wapo and Barbara Starr from CNN, when they told the world (caught on video for prosperity) that good news from Iraq should not be reported.

Certain news outlets are now starting to buck Ms. Wright and Barbara Starr's assertions that good news is not news, bad news is news and no news is good news.

One of the biggest surprises was (Hat Tip to QandO) the New York Times on November 16, 2007, where they printed two news articles that were not buried on page A-19, all of which showing the success of the surge and the counterinsurgency strategies implemented by General Petraeus.

Giving credit where it is due, Kudos to NYT.

Perhaps it was other countries media taking our media and politicians to task for refusing to acknowledge what is happening and has been for the last 6 months in Iraq.

Perhaps it was voices from the front, soldiers, in Iraq, using the ability of the internet to get word to America and calling our media out on their refusal to report the truth, or the amounts of embeds like Totten, Roggio and Yon, that have funded themselves and risked their lives to bring the truth from Iraq home to the American people.

Maybe it was some of the editorial writers from the very newspapers that refuse to print the actual news, calling them on their duplicity.

THE EVIDENCE is now overwhelming that the "surge" of U.S. military forces in Iraq this year has been, in purely military terms, a remarkable success. By every metric used to measure the war -- total attacks, U.S. casualties, Iraqi casualties, suicide bombings, roadside bombs -- there has been an enormous improvement since January. U.S. commanders report that al-Qaeda has been cleared from large areas it once controlled and that its remaining forces in Iraq are reeling. Markets in Baghdad are reopening, and the curfew is being eased; the huge refugee flow out of the country has begun to reverse itself. Credit for these achievements belongs in large part to U.S. soldiers in Iraq, who took on a tremendously challenging new counterterrorism strategy and made it work; to Gen. David H. Petraeus, the architect of that strategy; and to President Bush, for making the decision to launch the surge against the advice of most of Congress and the country's foreign policy elite.

Perhaps it was portions of our own media that refused to stay quiet and started calling their counterparts in the MSM, on their journalistic ethics.

News from Iraq gets better by the day, but the media have done their best to downplay the turnaround and congressional Democrats have basically pulled the covers over their heads and pretended it doesn't exist.


There's an eery silence out there about what's going on in Iraq. It's almost as if the silence is, well, intentional.

Perhaps it is more simple and self serving than all those possibilities.

They might just not want to be on the wrong side of victory now that the "trend" is undeniable.

Where the media goes, how long before the Democrats follow like good little lapdogs?

From the IBD editorial, linked above:

Stranger still is the Democratic Party's response, as reflected in its recent actions in Congress.


We expected a certain amount of sheepishness on their part. After all, wasn't it just Sept. 11 that Hillary Clinton told Gen. David Petraeus his progress report on Iraq required "a willing suspension of disbelief"? What we didn't expect was all the self-delusion and denial that now seems to mark Congressional Democrats' efforts on Iraq.


The Democrats are denying our troops the funds they need to finish their job by playing games like Friday's, when they tried to tie $50 billion in funding to massive troop withdrawals, beginning almost immediately.


The measure failed in the Senate by seven votes. But the question remains: Why would they do such a thing in a war America is on the verge of winning?


Meanwhile, as if that vote wasn't enough, Democrats ripped Iraq's government — apparently oblivious to what's going on in Baghdad.


"Every place you go you hear about no progress being made in Iraq," Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday. "The government is stalemated today, as it was six months ago, as it was two years ago. It is not getting better; it is getting worse."


Virtually nothing in those three sentences is true — unless you replace "Iraq" with "Congress." Yet, Reid speaks for his party.

Captain's Quarters shows just a small part of the political success Iraq is seeing now that the security situation is allowing for it:

Maliki just approved the trial of two high-ranking Health Ministry officials linked to Moqtada al-Sadr for hundreds of murders and abductions, some from hospitals. Maliki has also proposed an amnesty long demanded by Sunnis to release all but the most violent of the accused native insurgents as another step towards reconciliation. He has isolated Sadr politically and traveled to Sunni strongholds in the west to build trust for steps to come. All of this has occurred in the last three months as violence began to ebb throughout the country.

The depth of the Democrats denial regarding Iraq is shown by their most recent, 41st failed attempt to force America to surrender in Iraq, just as the media is finally telling the American people that we are winning without a doubt.

They are so invested in defeat and failure that to acknowledge the truth which is hitting them in the head with a shovel, would be political suicide.

The problem they now face is that denying the progress and success is also political suicide because every day Americans are being told.

The other day I stated that the Democratic politicians had 2 choices before them:

Choice #1: They can acknowledge what is right in front of them and risk the ire of their far left, liberal base, like MoveOn.org and Code pink and the liberal bloggers that have shown they will "go after" anyone that dares speak up and tell the truth. (As they have done with Brian Baird and what they call the Bush Dog Democrats)


Choice #2: They can continue to ignore the progress and success that is being seen in Iraq and mollify their far left, liberal base, while they alienate the moderates of their party and the independents.


Neither choice is enviable but I cannot feel any sympathy for them because this is a position they have placed themselves in by betting against America, betting against the Iraqi's, betting against our military and betting against General Petraeus and his counterinsurgencies strategies.

I also had a little note to Hillary Clinton, Dingy Harry Reid and the rest of the Democratic politicians:

Note to Hillary Clinton: Your continued statements about the policies in Iraq being "failed", requires us to have a "willing suspension of disbelief" that you are able to tell the truth and are qualified to be the commander in chief of our fine military which you have staked your political career on betting against. You owe General Petraeus a public apology Hillary.

(Click image to enlarge and read Hillary's words to General Petraeus, said for the whole world to hear)

Note To Harry Reid: Hows that "Iraq is lost" comment going for you now Dingy Harry?

The war in Iraq "is lost" and a US troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country, the leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress, Harry Reid, said Thursday.

Note to the rest of the Democratic politicians... eventually you are going to have to pick choice #1 or choice #2 from above because the days of ignoring it and hoping that things will go bad in Iraq are over, and it is time for you to either tell your moderates and the independents to go to hell or to tell MoveOn.org and the far left liberal, unhinged faction of your base to go to hell.


You have left yourself no middle ground. They will not let you have it both ways.

So, whats it to be Democrats?

We are waiting.

SPEAK UP, WE CANNOT HEAR YOU.

Sphere: Related Content

Vets Say, ‘Don’t Play Politics With Soldiers’ Lives’

Via Wake up America

Their Action Alert:

Congress to attach pullout to needed troop funds

Our soldiers need you to act today.

1. Congress is expected to vote on the War Funding Bill today. Speaker Pelosi plans to attach "immediate withdrawal" language to a bill intended to fund our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. If the bill passes the House and the Senate, President Bush will veto it. And this veto is exactly what Speaker Pelosi wants...because it makes the President look bad, and delays funding for the war.

2. Call the members listed below – tell them playing politics with our troops is unacceptable and you want the troop bill funded without troop withdraw language.

3. Email your family, friends and co-workers this email. Ask them to join with other patriots around America who will stand up and demand Congress do the right thing.

4. Feel free to post this info on your favorite blog or website – help us spread the word!


Who should you call?


Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-AZ) – (202) 225-2190
Rep. Jerry McNerney (S-CA) – (202) 225-1947
Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-FL) – (202) 225-5792
Rep. Nancy Boyda (D-KS) – (202) 225-6601
Rep. Zach Space (D-OH) – (202) 225-6265
Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-IN) – (202) 225-4636
Rep. Chris Carney (D-PA) – (202) 225-3731

Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) – (202) 224-5641
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) – (202) 224-2523
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) – (202) 224-3744
Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) – (202) 224-3753
Sen. John Sununu (R-NH) – (202) 224-2841
Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) – (202) 225-6316
Rep. Tom Latham (R-IA) – (202) 225-5476


* Remember: These calls will take less than 45 minutes of your total time. Please help our soldiers today!

Prepare for your call

Things to remember when calling members of Congress:

* Be courteous. A young staffer is likely answering the phone.

* If you are calling a member of Congress who is not from your state, say "I am [name] calling on behalf of our troops fighting overseas. I am a member of Vets for Victory and I'm calling to ask Representative / Senator [name] to fund the troops and not support a deadline for withdrawal from Iraq. Our soldiers are making steady progress and I believe we need to let them finish the job without political interference. Please pass along this message to the Representative / Senator."

* If you are calling a member from your home state, say "I am [name] from [City, State] calling on behalf of our troops fighting overseas. I respectfully request to speak with Representative / Senator [name]." When they ask to take a message, say "I am a member of Vets for Victory and I'm calling to ask Representative / Senator [name] to fund the troops and not support a deadline for withdrawal from Iraq. Our soldiers are making steady progress and I believe we need to let them finish the job without political interference. Please pass along this message to the Representative / Senator."

* When you're done with the calls, just shoot a quick email to info@vetsforvictory.com and let us know so we can count our calls.

Press release

Vets say, ‘Don’t play politics with soldiers’ lives’

Iraq Vets denounce the holding hostage of much needed war funding

A quick look at who and what Vets For Victory is:

November 14, 2007 – Vets for Victory, an organization of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and those that support them, is demanding that Congressional leadership stop using funding bills to make political statements. The veterans noted that Congressional leaders are frustrated with not being able to change military policy in Iraq. Now, vets say, they are trying to legislate defeat by holding hostage critical war funding that the troops need by attaching an irresponsible call to abandon Iraq as the troops continue to fight with success. “Congress knows the new counter-insurgency strategy has produced successful results,” said Lt. Col. (ret.) Steve Russell of Vets for Victory. “They also know that by not funding the current effort, American troops will not be able capitalize on their work against those who would like to destroy Iraqi and Afghan self-governance and a better way of life. This shameful tactic is both irresponsible and dangerous for our soldiers.”

The members of Vets for Victory have seen the fight firsthand and have faced the enemy. They speak about the kinds of evil the enemy use to weaken the very nations that soldiers have sacrificed so much to protect. Now these vets say they will not stand by and watch House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid legislate what the enemy has been unable to accomplish in Iraq and then endanger their brothers and sisters who are still serving abroad.

“Taking away the funding for the troops is akin to sending them into war and then taking away their tools to fight. It is not the American tradition to abandon our troops as they fight in the field. We cannot allow General Pelosi to undermine our troops to save her political image. Why take them out of a fight that they are about to win and that will make Americans safer at home and give Iraqi and Afghan citizens a much brighter future?” – Lt. Col. Steve Russell (ret.), Founder and Chairman, Vets for Victory.

Ok folks... Lets start making some calls, our Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans and active military rarely ask us to do a thing except to let them do their jobs, so when they do ask something of us, to take 45 minutes out of our lives.... I think it is the least we can do in return for all they have done and continue to do for us.

Sphere: Related Content

San Francisco Should NOT Be Part of America

A follow up to the previous post, cross posted from Wake up America.

Yesterday I wrote a post on the utter nerve of Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer for daring to criticize the U.S. Coast Guard, which is a branch of the U.S. Military for their response to the recent oil spill.

Considering that San Francisco has been shown to be completely anti-Military, they are lucky that the U.S. Coast Guard has the obligation to help them at all.

In the Comment section, HCdl and Beth, the instigators said:

Is it too late to consider that concept of giving California back to Mexico?

Please?

With cherries on top?
Hawk | Homepage | 11.11.07 - 7:03 pm |

We could start a petition...then pelosi, boxer, feinstein and all of hollyweird would be citizens of mexico and technically illegal aliens----ah, the irony of it.
Miss Beth | Homepage | 11.11.07 - 8:11 pm |

Well, FINE THEN.

Beth's wish is my command.

San Francisco Should Not Be Part Of America

Text of the petition:

There was a time when California belonged to Mexico. A portion of California, known as San Francisco has declared themselves and proven time and again that they are completely anti-Military.

They have voted to ban the ROTC programs from their schools, over the objections of the students that voluntarily joined.

They have voted to remove all recruitment centers from their schools and they make a habit of protesting recruitment centers in the Bay Area.

Yet when disaster strikes, like the recent oil spill in San Francisco, they criticize the U.S. Coast Guard, which is a branch of our U.S. Military, for not acting fast enough to help them.

I, for one, am sick of their hypocrisy and their anti-American, anti-Military, ungrateful ways, and although I know this petition cannot force the USA to give the portion of California called San Francisco, back to Mexico, I believe that patriots of America, those who do appreciate the fine, unselfish service of our brave military, should make a statement letting those in San Francisco know what we think about them and their actions.

I think we, the people, that are proud of our Military men and women should make those in San Francisco feel as unwelcome in America, as they make our Military feel in San Francisco.

If you would like to have your voice be added as one that would prefer if San Francisco be given back to Mexico, free of charge, then please sign this petition.

Petition powered by ThePetitionSite.com

SIGN THE PETITION.


This has been a public service announcement, we will now go back to regularly scheduled programming.

Sphere: Related Content

K.A.R.M.A.--San Francisco Now NEEDS the Military?

Cross posted from Wake up America by Miss Beth

Sometimes something just hits me wrong and this San Francisco oil spill is one of those things.

Not because it happened, things happen.

But the utter NERVE of Feinstein and Boxer, bugs me.

Senator Dianne Feinstein flew into San Francisco today to lambaste the oil-spill response effort of the past week as inadequate, saying it revealed a disturbing lack of readiness for disasters in the Bay Area.


"It's pretty clear cities around the bay should have been brought in faster than they were," Feinstein said after being briefed on the response details by federal and state officials. "We will see what we can do about the management systems of the San Francisco Bay to prevent these types of incidents from ever happening again."


The senator said she would meet with national Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff on Monday to discuss what can be done to improve the communications and preparedness systems in the Bay Area. She had already written a letter to the secretary Friday urging a "full and expedited investigation into the cause of the accident as well as the Coast Guard's response."

The United States Coast Guard (USCG) is at all times a branch of the U.S. military, a maritime law enforcement agency, and a federal regulatory body.

Let that sink in for a second. The Coast Guard is a branch of the military.............

Anyone else have the word "karma" running through their head right now?

So, San Francisco, the town that is all proud of being anti-Military and has declared itself a military free zone. (From 2005) now is complaining that they didn't get a quick enough "military" response?

Not content with simply protesting the war, they've trained their sights on all things military. In an apparent effort to rid the city of any semblance of its military history, various leftist groups, and even some city officials, are trying to erase the military's presence altogether. In short, San Francisco has declared itself a military-free zone.


Following on the heels of their success in sometimes violently shutting down job fairs that include military recruiters on college campuses, the counterrecruitment movement is now looking to broaden its influence. Instead of merely protesting the existence of military recruiters on campuses, the movement wants to ban them altogether. Proposition I, a measure that will be on the ballot this November, seeks to do just that.

San Francisco, the city that approved a measure, dubbed "College Not Combat," that opposes the presence of military recruiters at public high schools and colleges, is now crying that the "military" response wasn't good enough?

The measure, dubbed "College Not Combat," opposes the presence of military recruiters at public high schools and colleges. However, it would not ban the armed forces from seeking enlistees at city campuses, since that would put schools at risk of losing federal funding.


It encourages city officials and university administrators to exclude recruiters and create scholarships and training programs that would reduce the military's appeal to young adults.


"We now have the moral weight of the city behind us, and it's definitely a valuable asset to have in our corner," said Bob Matthews, an activist for the proposition.

San Francisco, the city whose school board in November of 2006 decided to phase out the ROTC program over the objections of those that volunteered for the program, is now pissing and moaning about the MILITARY response to the oil spill?

After 90 years in San Francisco high schools, the Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps must go, the San Francisco school board decided Tuesday night.


The Board of Education voted 4-2 to eliminate the popular program, phasing it out over two years.


Dozens of JROTC cadets at the board meeting burst into tears or covered their faces after the votes were cast.

So, after doing everything in their power to kick anything military out of their city, they now are complaining that the military's response wasn't good enough for their liking?

Too freaking bad.

K.A.R.M.A.

Considering San Francisco wants nothing to do with anything military, it is too freaking bad the U.S. Coast Guard, which is a part of the military, has the obligation to go near them or help them at all, in my opinion.

I know it is the Coast Guards job, I do, but as southerners say, it just sticks in my craw that any branch of the military has to help those ungrateful, hate filled maggots that do everything in their power to degrade, slander and harass our military men and women, and takes every opportunity to stab those they expect to protect them and help them, in the back.

Perhaps Boxer and Feinstein should try thanking them for their service instead of trying to blame them for not being quick enough with that service.

K.A.R.M.A.

[Update] Since the friendly, wonderful, instigators in my comment section asked for it... here is the petition to sign if you think San Francisco shouldn't even be part of America.

Give it, free of charge, back to Mexico..

Sphere: Related Content

Help Soldier's Angels Help Our Troops With Project Valour-IT

Update: My brother is a Navy man and served 16 years. So, I chose Navy. However, my uncle was Air Force, my cousin was a Brig. Gen. (Ret., U.S. Army) and I was once engaged to a Marine. Since I plan on leaving these buttons up until November 12, 2007, I've decided to post all four of them and let my readers make their own choice on whom to contribute to. With that in mind, here are the buttons:

Update 2: The original buttons weren't working neither is the new button code in Firefox. Follow the link below to make your donations for this very worthy cause.

Read the article below for the full details and help out a very worthy cause.

This will stay on top until the end of the drive, November 11, 2007.

I swiped this from Spree at Wake Up America and Stop the ACLU! They are reminding us it is that time of the year again folks to help our wounded soldiers receive a laptop with voice control software.

If you have a blog, consider joining a team, Army, Navy, Air Force or Marines and help Project Valour IT.

About Project Valour IT:

Project Valour-IT began when Charles "Chuck" Ziegenfuss was wounded by an IED while serving as commander of a tank company in Iraq in June 2005.

During his deployment he kept a blog (an online personal diary, opinion forum, or news analysis site-called a milblog or military weblog when written by a servicemember or about military subjects). Captivating writing, insightful stories of his experiences, and his self-deprecating humor won him many loyal readers. After he was wounded, his wife continued his blog, keeping his readers informed of his condition.

As he began to recover, CPT Ziegenfuss wanted to return to writing his blog, but serious hand injuries hampered his typing. When a loyal and generous reader gave him a copy of the Dragon Naturally Speaking Preferred software, other readers began to realize how important such software could be to CPT Ziegenfuss' fellow wounded soldiers and started cast about for a way to get it to them.

A fellow blogger (blog author) who writes under the pseudonym FbL contacted Captain Ziegenfuss and the two realized they shared a vision of providing laptops with voice-controlled software to wounded soldiers whose injuries prevented them from operating a standard computer. FbL contacted Soldiers Angels, who offered to help develop the project, and Project Valour-IT was born.

In sharing their thoughts, CPT Ziegenfuss and FbL found that memories of their respective fathers were a motivating factor in their work with the project. Both continue their association with this project in memory of the great men in their lives whose fine examples taught them lasting lessons of courage and generosity.

There are many ways you can help our troops, you can find out how here.

Click the "chip in" button on the above graphic and do your part.

Sphere: Related Content

Update on the GOP Making Spectacles of the Democratic Politicians in the House

I had fun yesterday watching the Democratic politicians squirm because of the resolution that Dennis the menace Kucinich out on the floor to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney.

I had even more fun tracking the reactions on the left as they figured out exactly what had happened.

Today the fallout from the brilliant move of turning the tables and spot lighting the idiocy of the Democratic politicians by the GOP, is still raining down.

The Hill:

House Republicans on Tuesday nearly forced Democratic leaders to vote on a resolution to impeach Vice President Cheney.

Anti-war presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) introduced a privileged resolution, used to circumvent the committee process, to get his impeachment measure to the House floor.

The vote to kill Kucinch’s privileged resolution began as a largely party-line affair, but halfway through the vote, Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) persuaded Republican leaders to get rank-and-file GOP lawmakers to change their votes to force the debate.

At one point, the vote to table the motion stood at 246-165. Once Republicans began switching their votes, momentum swung the other way. When the vote stood at 205-206, some Democrats began switching their votes.

The vote to kill Kucinich’s resolution finally failed 162-251, giving Republicans the opportunity to watch Democrats debate whether to impeach Cheney — a debate in which many liberal Democrats were more than willing to engage.

House Republicans clearly enjoyed watching Democratic leaders squirm during the series of votes, which lasted more than one hour.

“The determination was made that if Democrats are going to waste time and resources with a resolution like this, then it should be thoroughly debated,” said Brian Kennedy, the spokesman for Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), adding that the charges against Cheney were “ludicrous.”

Nadeam Elshami, a spokesman for Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), accused Republicans of “wasting time.”

Stopping here for a quick note to Pelosi. It wasn't the Republicans that offered the resolution, it wasn't the Republican leaders that tried to "table" a resolution that one of their own party members put on the floor and it wasn't the Republicans that begged for a debate when they really didn't want one.

Perhaps the speaker would like to turn that gaze inward into her own party and tell them to stop wasting time.

All the Republicans did is give the Democrats the middle ring of the circus they created and have turned Congress into and then made sure the spot light was shone directly on the divisions within the Democratic party.

What happened next exposed the ideological fissures in the Democratic Caucus. Kucinich stared down Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), who has been critical of the war but does not want to get bogged down in a political impeachment quagmire. Pelosi has taken the same stance.

Hoyer and Democratic leaders succeeded by a 218-194 vote to get a majority of Democrats to stop further debate. The House then voted by the same margin to send Kucinich’s resolution to the House Judiciary Committee, where it will be left to languish and die.

Since taking power, Hoyer and Pelosi have said that impeachment is “off the table.” He told reporters on Tuesday that he expected Kucinich’s resolution would fail when it reached the House floor, but prediction did not pan out.

“This administration has approximately 12 months to 14 months to go. We have some major priorities. We believe that we need to pursue those policies and focus on those policies,” Hoyer said.

In a separate statement, Hoyer called the debate “a continuation of Republicans’ gotcha games that achieve nothing more than short-term entertainment for themselves, while showing their disdain for the importance of the people’s business.”

Actually Mr. Hoyer, your own party showed that disdain by playing games to which the Republicans finally they decided they wanted to play with you.

Republicans were helpful and gave Kucinich exactly what he wanted... you were the one working against your own party member.

Now we see more divisions and something else the Republicans spot lighted... the division of the Democratic supporters.

Hat tip to Liberty Pundit for point us toward the comment section of the Daily Kos (the people that claim to own the Democratic party) piece where they called the Republicans, "mischievous".

Examples of some of the comments over at Kos:

Commenter "Cheney":

Impeach Conyers ass for collusion.

Cheney again:

'cause it aint going to happen with Pelosi and Conyers in office.

And now I see the light. Pelosi doesnt want to be Vice Prez. Her hands would be tied. Imagine how cool it would be to ship her ass out of Congress and muzzled in the White House.

Two birds, one stone.

She'd be W's Bitch. Oh wait.... too late.

The comments continue along that vein.

I am reminded of a saying I read once about ripping the roof off hell and looking inside.

The Republicans ripped that roof off of hell, yesterday, and allowed the American public to take a good hard look, on C Span, at the Democrats inside.

You can see the initial reactions from the left side of the blogosphere in my post from yesterday... just for laughs!!!

Quite amusing and I once again thank Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) for the entertainment. Since I now live in AZ, you have my vote at your next election.

Cross posted from Wake up America.

Sphere: Related Content

Republicans Laugh at Democratic Debacle

Rep. Dennis Kucinich put forth a motion to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney and Steny Hoyer had announced earlier that he would kill the motion by offering a motion to table it.

The 15 minute vote has turned into over an hour and initially, according Malkin the vote was 207 yeas (to kill), 204 nays (to support), and 22 not voting.

Then in an amazing move, the politicians started switching votes, at one point 133 Republicans were voting against killing the measure.

The flurry continued as per Malkin:

Update 3:43pm Eastern. The vote to kill Kucinich’s impeachment resolution is wrapping up. C-SPAN’s tally shows 207 yeas (to kill), 204 nays (to support), and 22 not voting.

The nays include 133 Republicans.

Not sure what’s going on. Maybe Republicans want it to pass to embarrass the House leadership?

Lots of last-minute switching…now it’s 204 yea, 207 nay…192 yea, 219 nay…189 yea, 222, nay…

A simple majority is needed to kill the resolution. 218 is the magic number.

Caught up? Good. Confused? Join the club, many that are watching this spectacle are.

(CORRECTION MADE HERE)

From USA Today, we get an explanation of exactly what has happened here.

Update at 3:39 p.m. ET: We thought that the vote to table was over -- the clock said 0:00 -- but lawmakers are still switching things around and Kucinich is within a few votes of getting his bill to come up for a vote.

Update at 3:43 p.m. ET: At least 149 Republicans have voted in favor of considering the impeachment resolution. Hoyer's motion, which would have blocked a vote, looks like its going to fail by at least 31 votes.

Update at 3:53 p.m. ET: The 15-minute vote began at 2:53 p.m. ET. It's been an hour, and they're still voting. The tally stands at 170-242 right now. Hoyer needed 218 votes to push the bill off the agenda. He's 72 votes short.

Update at 4:02 p.m. ET: Hoyer's motion failed 251-162. The House is now voting on whether to vote on whether the resolution should be sent to the Judiciary Committee.

Update at 4:25 p.m. ET: The vote to decide to vote (yes, you read that right) just ended. By a 218-194 margin, the House has to vote on whether to send the resolution to the Judiciary Committee. That's happening right now.

Update at 4:30 p.m. ET: Perhaps we should pause to explain. When most Republicans unexpectedly -- and on orders of GOP leadership, the AP is reporting -- switched sides and voted against tabling the measure, they essentially forced Democrats to keep talking about it on the floor. That's in direct contrast to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's wishes. She has said an impeachment of Cheney or President Bush is off the table.

"We're going to help them out, to explain themselves," Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, told the AP. "We're going to give them their day in court."

Hoyer and Peloi had stated they did not want this under full debate, the Republicans just made sure that their wishes were thwarted and forced them to use another method to get out of a full debate on this impeaching Cheney.

"[House Speaker Nancy Pelosi] and I have both said impeachment is not on our agenda," Hoyer told reporters. "That does not make a judgment on that issue."

What an unbelievable turn of events.

This post was corrected as the proper numbers came in. My apologies.

[Update] From the WAPO:

GOP Forces Debate on Cheney Impeachment

House Republicans, changing course midway through a vote, tried to force Democrats into a debate on a resolution to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney on the grounds he purposely led the country into war against Iraq.

The GOP tactics reversed what had been expected to an overwhelming vote to table, or kill, the resolution by longshot Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich.

Midway through the vote, with instructions from the GOP leadership, Republicans one by one changed their votes from yes _ to kill the resolution _ to no, trying to force the chamber into a debate and an up-or-down vote on the proposal.

At one point there were 290 votes to table. After the turnaround, the final vote was 251-162 against tabling, with 165 Republicans voting against it.

"We're going to help them out, to explain themselves," said Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas. "We're going to give them their day in court."

Kucinich, an anti-war Democrat from Ohio, has long pushed for a vote to impeach Cheney, but has failed to win the backing of the Democratic leadership. After Kucinich introduced the resolution, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., immediately moved to table it.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "has said that impeachment is off the table and that the new direction Congress is focused on responsibly and honorably redeploying our troops out of Iraq, covering 10 million uninsured children and meeting our national priorities long neglected by the Bush Administration," said her spokesman Nadeam Elshami.

Amusing to say the least.

Roll call on the the motion to table is here.

Weekly Standard points out another important factor here:

4:23 Update: The House begins a 5-minute vote on whether to send Kucinich's impeachment resolution to the Judiciary Committee. The bill won't be acted upon, so this is another way to kill it.

4:31 Update: Looks like the Democrats successfully regrouped after that first vote surprised them. The House just voted 218-194 to send Kucinich's impeachment resolution to the Judiciary Committee. This effectively kills the bill, preventing a debate on impeachment.

It's interesting that on such a weighty question as impeaching the vice president of the United States, votes can change so quickly. While the roll calls are not yet available, it seems there were plenty of Democrats who voted to go forward with impeachment when they thought it would fail, who suddenly voted against impeachment when it mattered. I guess it was all just about politics after all -- even for the supposed 'true believers.'

Bottom line is the Republicans turned the tables on the Democrats and forced them to vote to send it to the Judiciary Committee to kill it.

Wait for the netroots reactions, I will update with them as they come in.

The nutty roots are beginning to understand what just happened.

After Downing Street.org:

4:41 The motion to send it to the Judiciary Committee passed with only about 5 Dems voting No and 3 Republicans voting Yes. Presumably the 78 or so Dems who voted No on tabling believed that to be enough to appease their constituents, while 5 Dems actually had integrity enough to put the Constitution ahead of Pelosi and Hoyer. There was no discussion of a time limit for the Judiciary Committee to report back (even though there are precedents for insisting on one with impeachment resolutions). This bill has, of course, ALREADY been in the Judiciary Committee for months, and that committee has done nothing with it.

Roll call. These 5 Dems voted right: Filner, Kaptur, Kucinich, Waters, Towns.

More explanations from Capitol Briefing:

Democratic leaders long ago rejected any consideration of impeaching Cheney and President Bush as an irresponsible move supported only by the far left, so they tried today to table Kucinich's impeachment resolution. After initially having more than enough votes to kill the resolution - the "yea" tally to table impeachment topped out at 291 - Republicans decided they had a chance to politically shame Democrats into a full debate on the sensitive issue. Republicans gleefully said they wanted the debate to show the public how many Democrats would actually support impeaching Cheney, which they consider a move supported only by a fringe element of anti-war activists.

More than 120 members, predominantly Republicans, then switched their votes in favor of holding a one-hour debate on the issue, with a final vote of 251-162 supporting a debate on impeachment. Rather than allow a debate fraught with political risk, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) moved to send the Kucinich resolution to the Judiciary Committee, whose chairman, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), has publicly speculated about impeaching the president or vice president but has declined taking any action since taking the gavel in January.

Defusing any chance of an actual impeachment debate today, the House then voted 218-194 to send the motion to Conyers's committee, with Democrats overwhelmingly supporting the move.

I guess they really didn't want the debate after all.....Heh

Think Progress:

UPDATE: The House just voted 218-194 to send Kucinich’s impeachment resolution to the Judiciary Committee, thus killing the bill and preventing a debate on impeachment.

MSNBC:

*** Update *** Now we are being treated to the spectacle of Democrats who had voted to table/kill the measure changing THEIR votes. They don't want to be in a postion of defending Dick Cheney if they don't have to.

*** Update II *** The House has just voted to refer the Kucinich impeachment resolution to committee. That means it's dead.

Slapping updates up as the reactions come in after everyone figures out what just happened....LOL

Weekly Standard adds an update:

There were 81 Democrats who voted to have an impeachment debate when they were pretty sure it would be tabled, then turned around and voted to prevent a debate when it was clear one might occur. Those opportunists are:

Neil Abercrombie
Tom Allen
Joe Baca
Tammy Baldwin
Bruce Braley
Lois Capps
Mike Capuano
Yvette Clarke
Bill Clay
Emanuel Cleaver
Steve Cohen
John Conyers
Joe Crowley
Elijah Cummings
Danny Davis
Pete DeFazio
Norm Dicks
Lloyd Doggett
Mike Doyle
Keith Ellison
Sam Farr
Al Green
Gene Green
Raul Grijalva
Luis Gutierrez
Phil Hare
Maurice Hinchey
Mazie Hirono
Paul Hodes
Rush Holt
Mike Honda
Darlene Hooley
Jay Inslee
Jesse Jackson
Sheila Jackson-Lee
Hank Johnson
Stephanie Tubbs Jones
Paul Kanjorski
Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick
Barbara Lee
John Lewis
Dave Loebsack
Carolyn Maloney
Betty McCollum
Jim McDermott
Greg Meeks
Mike Michaud
Brad Miller
Gwen Moore
Jim Moran
Grace Napolitano
Solomon Ortiz
Mike Pallone
Bill Pascrell
Ed Perlmutter
David Price
Charlie Rangel
Laura Richardson
Lucille Roybal-Allard
Bobby Rush
Jan Schakowsky
Bobby Scott
Jose Serrano
Carol Shea-Porter
Brad Sherman
Louise Slaughter
Hilda Solis
Pete Stark
Bart Stupak
Betty Sutton
Mike Thompson
John Tierney
Ed Towns
Nydia Velázquez
Mel Watt
Anthony Weiner
Peter Welch
Bob Wexler
Lynn Woolsey
David Wu
Albert Wynn

The Hill:

The vote to table the privileged resolution, offered by Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinch, began as a largely party-line vote to kill the measure, but Republicans developed a strategy to force Democrats to debate the resolution by supporting Kucinich. GOP leaders felt as though it was in their interest to debate the measure because it would make Democrats look bad.

After more than an hour of waiting for the vote to close, the motion to table the resolution failed by a vote of 162-251 after Democratic leaders failed to convince a group of liberal caucus members to side with them.

Republican lawmakers and aides credited Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) for coming up with the idea.

Rep. John Shadegg, thank you Sir for the best laugh of the day!!!!

Done with Mirrors has a great analogy:

But the best laugh-line of the day comes from one of the people you've learned to turn to to listen for it. He says impeaching the vice president, a constitutional duty if "judgment" leads the Congress to think he deserves it, would interfere with the wonderful and useful work currently underway in that august body. (Like declaring the Iraq effort a failure just when it seems to want to become a success.)

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, whose panel has jurisdiction over impeachment proceedings, has described the impeachment effort as a potential disruption.

"If the speaker were to let this thing out of the box, considering the number of legislative issues we have pending," the Michigan Democrat told Fox News, "it could create a split that could affect our productivity for the rest of the Congress."

"Productivity," after all, is to this Congress as "parenting" is to "Britney."

[Update] Quote of the day...heck, quote of the week comes from High-ranking Democratic Rep. Alcee Hastings said he was not happy with Kucinich's attempts to raise the matter on the floor in an attempt to circumvent the normal legislative process.:

Kucinich "is on a quest of his own. He sees flying saucers and he acts like one," Hastings said.

Hysterical!!!!!!

No More Mister Nice Blog isn't particularly happy:

First Mukasey skates, then Democratic leaders move to bottle up Dennis Kucinich's Cheney impeachment bill -- and then, in case the Dems didn't look weak and ineffectual enough, Republicans pulled a fast one on them and started voting for the bill, which led Democrats who'd voted for the bill (on the assumption that, thank God, it wouldn't pass and frighten anyone) to switch to a no vote in order to ensure it wouldn't pass.

Geldings. A party of geldings.

...House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, whose panel has jurisdiction over impeachment proceedings, has described the impeachment effort as a potential disruption.

"If the speaker were to let this thing out of the box, considering the number of legislative issues we have pending," the Michigan Democrat told Fox News, "it could create a split that could affect our productivity for the rest of the Congress."

Affect your what?

Your productivity?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Followup post here.

Cross posted from Wake up America

Sphere: Related Content

Westboro Baptist Church Video of What They Do To the Children

Earlier I showed you that the daughter of Fred Phelps, founder of Westboro Baptist Church was in court and we explained who the Westboro cult was, the things they did and I asked if some of those things weren't considered child abuse.

Today we see reports that the daughter of Fred Phelps, Shirley Phelps-Roper, is in court today asking a Sarpy County judge Monday to order prosecutors to spell out in writing why she is charged with flag mutilation, negligent child abuse, contributing to the delinquency of a minor and disturbing the peace. They say the details of those charges will be important to Phelps-Roper's defense.

Thanks to Jay at Stop The ACLU because he found this heartbreaking video of what Westboro does to their children.



I ask the same question. Is this not child abuse and brainwashing?

My heart breaks for these poor children.

Cross posted from Wake up America

Sphere: Related Content

Westboro Baptist Church (Cult) In Court Again

After the Father, Albert Snyder, of a slain Marine, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, decided to take the Westboro cult disguising themselves as a church, to court for invasion of privacy for disrupting them while they were trying to bury their hero son, a slain Marine, we brought you news that the father won the landmark case and was awarded $11 Million dollars in damages.

You can see what type of site these Westboro freaks run called God Hates Fags (Site now says the Domain is invalid) and you can hear the insane Fred Phelps throwing a hissy about the judgment (video at that link) when he was interviews by Rick Sanchez.

Today we see reports that the daughter of Fred Phelps, Shirley Phelps-Roper, is in court today asking a Sarpy County judge Monday to order prosecutors to spell out in writing why she is charged with flag mutilation, negligent child abuse, contributing to the delinquency of a minor and disturbing the peace. They say the details of those charges will be important to Phelps-Roper's defense.

HEH.

Security was tight today as Westboro Baptist Church member Shirley Phelps-Roper appeared in Sarpy County Court to answer charges that she mutilated a flag and put her child in danger while protesting at the funeral of a Bellevue, Neb., soldier.

Although the Sarpy County Sheriff's Office prepared for a possible protest by members of Topeka-base Westboro Baptist Church, none materialized. A few family members and her attorney accompanied Phelps-Roper, 50.

According to Bellevue police, Phelps-Roper had her 10-year-old son stomp on an American flag. Church members had obtained a city of Bellevue permit to protest.

The church, founded by her father, Fred Phelps, has protested across the country at the funerals of numerous soldiers, alleging that their deaths were God's retribution for America's toleration of homosexuality.

Last Wednesday, a Maryland jury awarded nearly $11 million to a man who sued Westboro Baptist for invasion of privacy after its members protested at his son's funeral.

The pretrial hearing centered on a defense motion requesting that the prosecution describe in detail the specific facts that support the charges, which include disturbing the peace, contributing to the delinquency of a minor and negligent child abuse.

Her attorney, Bassel El-Kasaby, argued that without specifics on what actions broke the law in each case and who was victimized he can't prepare his case.

"I don't think you can disturb the peace of a police officer or firefighter," he said.

He said it was "unorthodox" and potential "overreaching" by prosecutors to charge Phelps-Roper with contributing to the delinquency of a minor and negligent child abuse.

"I'd like to know who the victim is and what harm they suffered," he said.

He said if the flag mutilation charge is found unconstitutional, the other charges likewise may be dismissed, but he needs to know the relationship between the charges.

Deputy Sarpy County Attorney Marc Delman resisted El-Kasaby's request, saying he didn't want to limit the basis for the charges.

Delman told the judge that Phelps-Roper had "cleanly, openly and notoriously" made her son step on an American flag while her church protested at the funeral of William Bailey.

"Clearly the Bailey family was very upset by this," he said. Delman said Phelps-Roper's contempt for the flag gave rise to the case, but the rest of the charges stemmed from other actions as well, including slogans on signs and other conduct.

Phelps-Roper, outside the courtroom, said she didn't force her son, Jason, to do anything.

She said he has grown up attending protests and acted on his own.

"He laid it on the ground, and he stood on it. And he stood there peacefully," she said.

Sarpy County Attorney Lee Polikov says each charge stands alone, from desecrating the flag, to exposing children to this type of environment.

Polikov says, "I'm more and more convinced that these kids are put in peril all the time when they're out being forced to do adult-type of activities so the charges are firm."

Phelps-Roper's attorney. Bassel El-Kasaby, seems to be constructing much of his case around a 1990 U.S. Supreme Court ruling allowing flag burning as protected free speech.

Lee Polikov doesn't buy it.

"Yes, speech is protected," he says. "But not protected in every situation."

When I showed pictures of the signs the children were forced to carry while this cult protested at military funerals, I asked if this was mental or emotional abuse.

They have children spewing this hatred.... is this emotional and mental child abuse?


They even hold signs praying for more dead kids.


I am glad I grabbed a couple of the pictures from the site because now, all the URL's for that site are saying it is not a valid Domain.

Wonder whats up with that?

I truly hope that any family they harass takes action against them. These families have suffered enough and should be permitted to bury their loved ones in peace.

I cross posted this at Stop the ACLU.

HUGE HAT TIP to Jay at Stop the ACLU... he found Shirley Phelps-Roper's YouTube page!!!!

Last but not least, take a look at this six minute video showing the abuse Westboro puts their children through.

Heartbreaking.

Cross posted from Wake up America

Sphere: Related Content

Musharraf Declares Emergency Rule: Martial Law in Pakistan

Via Wake up America

[Update below-Text of the ‘Proclamation of emergency’

Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistan leader declared Emergency Rule in Pakistan Saturday, suspending the constitution.

Pakistan’s Supreme Court was expected to rule on the legality of General Musharraf’s re-election last month and this appears to be a step to forestall such a ruling.

All independent news outlets in Pakistan were blacked out and then the police force surrounded the Supreme Court building with the justices inside and the chief justice's home, ordering them to sign a “provisional constitutional order” under threat of dismissal for any that did not sign.

New York Times:

At least 6 of the court’s 11 justices gathered in the court and rejected the order, according to an aide to Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. Aitzaz Ahsan, a prominent lawyer, who led protests against General Musharraf this spring, was detained by the police after saying that opposition groups would announce a schedule on Monday of nationwide strikes and protests.

Before being detained, he accused General Musharraf of “criminal flouting of the Constitution,” adding that “the people and the lawyers cannot be suspended.”

General Musharraf was expected to speak on national television late on Saturday evening. Pakistani government officials said Friday that emergency rule could be justified because of clashes in the past week between security forces and Islamic militants in the Swat Valley, in the North-West Frontier Province, and because of the increasing number of suicide attacks against military and police installations.

As of 9 p.m., Chief Justice Chaudhry and the other justices had gone to their homes, surrounded by police and with the phone lines cut, witnesses and officials said.

Wapo:

On Friday, U.S. officials had tried to pressure Musharraf to avoid declaring emergency rule or martial law. Adm. William J. Fallon, chief of the U.S. Central Command, met with Musharraf and had tried to encourage him to back down from his plan.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Saturday that the United States was "deeply disturbed by reports that Pakistani President Musharraf has taken extra-constitutional actions and has imposed a state of emergency."

"A state of emergency would be a sharp setback for Pakistani democracy and takes Pakistan off the path toward civilian rule," he said in a statement. "President Musharraf has stated repeatedly that he will step down as Chief of Army Staff before re-taking the presidential oath of office and has promised to hold elections by January 15th. We expect him to uphold these commitments and urge him to do so immediately."

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, traveling in Turkey, said the United States had "made clear it does not support extra-constitutional measures because those measures take Pakistan away from the path of democracy and civilian rule."

"Whatever happens we will be urging a quick return to civilian rule," she said, and a "return to constitutional order and the commitment to free and fair elections."

Musharraf won election last month to a new, five-year term as Pakistan's president. But the Supreme Court is still reviewing whether he was eligible to run in the first place.

Most analysts predict that the court will rule in Musharraf's favor and allow him to begin his new term. But the case has been dragging on for weeks, and Musharraf's current term expires Nov. 15.

AP:

Seven of the 17 Supreme Court judges immediately rejected the emergency, which suspended the current constitution. Police blocked entry to the Supreme Court building and later took the deposed chief justice and other judges away in a convoy, witnesses said.

Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, a longtime rival of Musharraf who recently returned from eight years of exile, flew back to Pakistan from Dubai where she was visiting family. She left the airport under police escort; her house was surrounded by paramilitary troops.

The government halted all television transmissions in major cities other than state-controlled Pakistan TV. Telephone service in the capital, Islamabad, was cut.

The order drew swift complaints from the United States and Britain — Musharraf's main Western allies. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged restraint on all sides and a swift return to democracy in Pakistan.

Via Weasel Zippers, the Earth Times reports:

Islamabad - Pakistan is considering enforcement of Islamic laws in Pakistan's north-western Swat valley to meet the demands of pro-Taliban militants who briefly seized and then released around 100 security personnel after nine days' fierce fighting that left more than 200 people dead. "The government is considering the implementation of Sharia law in the view of the demands of the local people," said Ali Muhammad Jan Aurakzai, governor of the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) in which the valley is situated.

The problem of dealing with a nuclear armed Muslim country, especially one that is home to bin Laden, is we are often forced to choose between the "lesser of two evils" in who we back publicly. This latest action by Musharraf just made that choice more difficult.

Via Hot Air we see that Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto has returned to Pakistan.

Last time she showed up, a couple weeks ago, there was a bombing that killed 140 people and now reported are showing us that paramilitary troops have started deploying in front of her house.

«She is waiting to see if she is going to be arrested or
deported,» Wajid Hasan said after speaking to the former Pakistani prime minister by telephone from London.

Bhutto, seen by many supporters as key to a possible return to democratic rule, flew from United Arab Emirates, where she was visiting family just two weeks after she was targeted by assassins upon her return to Pakistan after eight years in exile.

More on Bhutto from Captain's Quarters:

The West will not find this to their liking. They had pressed Musharraf to cut a deal with Benazir Bhutto to transition back to democratic processes, hoping that the deal would give them both a stronger political position and marginalize the Islamists. The radicals have their own agenda, however, and have worked to destabilize the political situation before the alliance between Bhutto and Musharraf could have any effect.

A declaration of emergency means the upcoming parliamentary elections will not take place as scheduled in January. That will almost certainly split Bhutto from Musharraf, and it will mean that Musharraf will have to rely on his power base with the Army. That may not hold firm in a protracted fight against Islamist rebels, as the military's morale has already been questioned. It's a dangerous situation, and the declaration makes it even more so.

Reported by The Telegraph, Britain is very concerned also:

Britain has expressed grave concern at the move, which effectively postpones any election, saying the country's future depended on ensuring the rule of law.

The Pakistani leader declared the state of emergency before a crucial Supreme Court ruling on his future as president. The move thrusts his country deeper into political turmoil as it struggles to contain spreading Islamic militancy.

"All friends of Pakistan will be concerned by the turn of events today," British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said in a statement.

Blogger reactions:

The Long War Journal by Bill Roggio:

It is unclear what effect, if any, the declaration of a state of emergency will have on the Taliban and al Qaeda insurgency in the Northwest Frontier Province. The Associated Press of Pakistan, the official government news outlet, stated both "terrorist attacks and judiciary’s interference led to imposition" of the state of emergency.

"The two page proclamation that came into force at once states that banning of some militant groups took terrorist activities to an unprecedented level of “violent intensity” posing a grave threat to the life and property of the citizens of Pakistan," the Associated Press of Pakistan news release stated. "The order says that emergency has been imposed in the wake of suicide bombings, explosions of Improvised Explosive Devices, rocket firing and bomb explosions, besides a spate of attacks on State infrastructure and on law enforcement agencies."

The Pakistani military has been demoralized by the fighting and troops are surrendering or being captured and beheaded by the dozens. The Taliban has fought the military to a standstill in North Waziristan and Swat, and the government continues to seek negotiations.

The Astute Bloggers:

AS REPUGNANT AS A MILITARY JUNTA IN PAKISTAN IS, IT IS FAR BETTER THAN A JIHADIST GOVERNMENT. MUSHARRAF DESERVES AND NEEDS OUR SUPPORT.

* THIS IS STOP-GAP NECESSITY. NOT AN ULTIMATE SOLUTION.


THAT'S BECAUSE PERSONAL FREEDOM AND THE LITERAL KORAN ARE NOT-COMPATIBLE.

IF YOU WANT ONE, THEN YOU HAVE TO FIGHT AGAINST THE OTHER.

Macsmind:

Musharraf must have sniffed out a not too favorable decision and pulled the trigger. This is not good from several standpoints. First there is the critical need we have a for a strong ally in Pakistan, but that relationship Musharraf has always been tenuous with him walking the line between pleasing us and keeping the more radical elements happy at home. Remember that in 2006 he wrote in his book that we had “twisted his arm” into cooperation with us.

Secondly there is the uncoming free elections in January which most likely won’t happen. All of this spells “Not Good” as Musharraf has shown over the last eight years that he intends to stay in power to some extent and he has loyal control of the miliary, oh and by the way “NUKES”.

Washington Times:

Remember that Osama bin Laden is believed to be hiding somewhere on Pakistan's western frontier. Remember that Pakistan has nuclear weapons. This situation could get scary.

Michael van der Galiën:

TPMCafé where one Chuck Keller wonders - in all his BDS - whether George Bush will copy Musharraf’s behavior. I get a little bit sick of the extremists on both sides, but especially of the extremists on the left who believe that Bush is evil reincarnated. Get a grip people. As for this:

Take care, America. Be careful, Americans. Watch what Musharraf does. You may be looking into the mirror at your future.

No more coffee for you today.

Michael van der Galiën is correct, as Astute Bloggers points out, "THIS SITUATION IS NOT A SURPRISE. PAKISTAN HAS HAD MILITARY RULE FOR MOST OF THE LAST 60 YEARS.", then we have the fact that Pakistan has had nuclear weapons since before Bush became President, in fact, in 1998, while Clinton was President Pakistan announced it successfully conducted five nuclear tests, the Bush Derangement crowd ignores all of that to blame Bush for the problems in Pakistan......then again, we know that if they stub their toe it is automatically a conspiracy of Bush and Cheney that forced them to be klutzy.

The BDS crowd also is crowing about how Pakistan in more worrisome that Iran is, completing oblivious to the fact that if we allow Iran to attain nuclear weapons, we will be facing these very same problems with Iran AND Pakistan.... talk about clueless idiots.

More Beeeeeeeeeeeeee Deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Esssssssssssssssssss ....these people are seriously mental and need a shrink.

More reactions at memeorandum.

[Update] Musharraf addresses nation:

ISLAMABAD, Nov 3 (Agencies): Chief of Army Staff, General Pervez Musharraf addressed the nation (Saturday) about 1845GMT. President General Pervez Musharraf said in his address that Pakistan was at a dangerous juncture. Extremists, he said had challenged the writ of the government. The country’s unity is in danger without emergency rule, he added. He said terrorism and extremism had reached their limit and his country's sovereignty was at stake. “Pakistan has reached a dangerous point, and is undergoing an internal crisis. Whatever is happening is because of internal disturbances,” he said in a pre-recorded televised address wearing a Sherwani. “I fear that if timely action is not taken, then God forbid there is a threat to Pakistan's sovereignty.” He said some media channels had added to uncertainty in the country, but did not specify which. He also accused the courts of setting free 61 men who he said had committed terrorist acts. He said there will be no change in government during the state of emergency; parliament will continue to function. He said that he remained committed to holding parliamentary elections.

More from Michael van der Galiën.

[Update] Text of the ‘Proclamation of emergency’

ISLAMABAD, Nov 3 (APP): Following is the text of the Proclamation of Emergency declared by Chief of the Army Staff General Pervez Musharraf on Saturday:

“WHEREAS there is visible ascendancy in the activities of extremists and incidents of terrorist attacks, including suicide bombings, IED explosions, rocket firing and bomb explosions and the banding together of some militant groups have taken such activities to an unprecedented level of violent intensity posing a grave threat to the life and property of the citizens of Pakistan;

WHEREAS there has also been a spate of attacks on State infrastructure and on law enforcement agencies;

WHEREAS some members of the judiciary are working at cross purposes with the executive nd legislature in the fight against terrorism and extremism thereby weakening the Government and the nation’s resolve and diluting the efficacy of its actions to control this menace;

WHEREAS there has been increasing interference by some members of the judiciary in government policy, adversely affecting economic growth, in particular;

WHEREAS constant interference in executive functions, including but not limited to the control of terrorist activity, economic policy, price controls, downsizing of corporations and urban planning, has weakened the writ of the government; the police force has been completely demoralized and is fast losing its efficacy to fight terrorism and Intelligence Agencies have been thwarted in their activities and prevented from pursuing terrorists;

WHEREAS some hard core militants, extremists, terrorists and suicide bombers, who were arrested and being investigated were ordered to be released. The persons so released have subsequently been involved in heinous terrorist activities, resulting in loss of human life and property. Militants across the country have, thus, been encouraged while law enforcement agencies subdued;

WHEREAS some judges by overstepping the limits of judicial authority have taken over the executive and legislative functions;

WHEREAS the Government is committed to the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law and holds the superior judiciary in high esteem, it is nonetheless of paramount importance that the Honourable Judges confine the scope of their activity to the judicial function and not assume charge of administration;

WHEREAS an important Constitutional institution, the Supreme Judicial Council, has been made entirely irrelevant and non est by a recent order and judges have, thus, made themselves immune from inquiry into their conduct and put themselves beyond accountability;

WHEREAS the humiliating treatment meted to government officials by some members of the judiciary on a routine basis during court proceedings has demoralized the civil bureaucracy and senior government functionaries, to avoid being harassed, prefer inaction;

WHEREAS the law and order situation in the country as well as the economy have been adversely affected and trichotomy of powers eroded;

WHEREAS a situation has thus arisen where the Government of the country cannot be carried on in accordance with the Constitution and as the Constitution provides no solution for this situation, there is no way out except through emergent and extraordinary measures;

AND WHEREAS the situation has been reviewed in meetings with the Prime Minister, Governors of all four Provinces, and with Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, Chiefs of the Armed Forces, Vice-Chief of Army Staff and Corps Commanders of the Pakistan Army;

NOW, THEREFORE, in pursuance of the deliberations and decisions of the said meetings, I General Pervez Musharraf, Chief of the Army Staff, proclaim Emergency throughout Pakistan.
2. I hereby order and proclaim that the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan shall remain in abeyance.
3. This Proclamation shall come into force at once.”

His comments include the statement that inaction at this moment is suicide for Pakistan.

Sphere: Related Content