Friday, July 31, 2009

A Beer And A Shot

The shot is a photograph, not a whiskey chaser. (I know Midnight Rider will be disappointed). (DANG IT, PASTO, YOU'RE SUCH A TEASE! -- MR)


This picture truly is worth at least a thousand words. Thomas Lifson has the full story at American Thinker. or POS?

I am stunned that the official White House Blog published this picture and that it is in the public domain. The body language is most revealing.

Sergeant Crowley, the sole class act in this trio, helps the handicapped Professor Gates down the stairs, while Barack Obama, heedless of the infirmities of his friendand fellow victim of self-defined racial profiling, strides ahead on his own. So who is compassionate? And who is so self-involved and arrogant that he is oblivious?

In my own dealings with the wealthy and powerful, I have always found that the way to quickly capture the moral essence of a person is to watch how they treat those who are less powerful. Do they understand that the others are also human beings with feelings? Especially when they think nobody is looking.

Like this...

Obama shows his manners THIS way...

Halal Guide Ponies In Chicago?

Hat tip to PaleoCon Command Center, citing this source:
"One woman in Chicago has found an original way to live with her disability. She is blind, and says her Muslim faith forbids the use of a guide dog. Instead, she's found a replacement -- the guide horse."
Brooke, the webmistress at PaleoCon Command Center, says:
Um... Is the pony potty-trained as a dog would be, or does it just 'go' like most horses do? Are businesses and public places required to give this Muslima and her pony access?

I get making exceptions for those with disabilities, but a horse? That's just a wee bit bigger than a guide dog.

If a dog is haram, I would suggest a guide pig, as I hear they are quite intelligent, cute, and would fit better in most public places... Heh.
Sometimes you just have to laugh at the absurdity of Islam.

Better watch out for pony pies on the public transportation system of Chicago and possibly in other public places as well.

Beyond the Pale


Here's a comment (sent by a "friend of ours") I think we need to take into consideration when reading this story:

I was at the Pentagon’s 9-11 Memorial last September 11 as a guest of Mark Levin’s.

President Bush was the keynote speaker.

It was not only normal procedure for the Secret Service to be out in full force three city blocks wide around the Pentagon.

They were in full combat gear with M-16 assault rifles locked and loaded what we call in the Army full battle rattle.

It is also normal operating procedure for the secret service to have the back window down with sharpshooters in the back following a convoy.

None of this was out of the ordinary. Normal operating procedures for protecting POTUS. Gateway Pundit is wrong on this one.

MR adds -- well, as I said in comments, there were alot of these comments at Gateway also, so I'd believe I fumbled here HOWEVER it does not answer the question as to where those muzzles were pointed. Safely, ok. At the crowd (as the original letter states) then my comment still stands. We're not likely to ever know for sure.


This may be a strange comment but, as a guy who regularly carries and handles firearms, what these guys did -- pointing a loaded weapon at someone (especially someone non-threatening) is inherently dangerous, very stupid and against every rule of gun safety there is and HIGHLY unprofessional.

That said, the bigger issue is






from Gateway Pundit with a huge thanks to Christian Soldier for the headsup.'

OBAMA SECRET SERVICE Pulls Guns On Conservative Tea Party Protesters In Bristol

The Obama caravan drives through Bristol, Virginia this week.

This came in the email after Dear Leader's town hall event on Obamacare in Bristol, Virginia:

Hey Gateway Pundit. I attended the town hall event in Bristol,VA today.
Though very few were allowed inside, there was an amazing turnout outside of
people protest healthcare reform, among other things. I hope to send you
pictures soon of some great signs I saw. It was expected that those in
opposition to the bill would outnumber those in favor by 10-1
, but I feel it was much, much more.

I do have a question I was hoping you could answer. During the motorcade
when the president was arriving, there were several vehicles following the limo
that contained the secret service. All of the vehicles had all the windows
rolled down, and back hatch open on the SUVs with the men holding their, I assume assault rifes, machine guns, drawn on everyone lining the streets.
Needless to say it took my breath away at the sight of them, and made my friends and I dizzy with fear. I have seen the secret service before, but never like this. While they were intimidating, I never felt in danger. The guns were not drawn when the motorcade was leaving the event. But I turned on a local talk radio program as we were leaving and all the calls were about witnessing the guns being pointed at them and nothing else until the end of the program.

Having said all that, my question is, is this normal protocol during such
an event? It very well could be, but after I had to get over the shock of it, I
began to feel offended. We were all there peaceful, and have no problems with
Obama the man, we have problems with his policies and wanted him to know the
opposition was there to be heard, and know that a strong opposition did indeed
exist, and that so many people don't approve of his policies, with this bill in

So, is this normal, and I'm making a mountain out of mole hill, or did they
make an exception in this mainly conservative area?


Destiny Baker

NO Destiny. It's not normal for the secret service to pull their assault guns on conservative protesters as they drive through town.

Destiny sent this picture of the caravan driving through Bristol:

Here's a close up of the secret service vehicle with the guns drawn on the protesters:

postnote from Midnight Rider: This is what nascent tyranny looks like. Intimidation. If they come and take our guns then only THEY will have them to use in such manner.

Molon Labe. If they accuse you of being a member of a militia for it be proud that you have them that worried.

That's EXACTLY what the Founder's intended when they gave us The Second Amendment.

"When the government fears the people, you have liberty;

When the people fear the government, you have tyranny."

Thomas Jefferson

Hussein's Healthcare: YAY or NAY?

US to Israel: Leave the military option against Iran to us

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report

The weeklong US-Israel marathon in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv ending Thursday, July 30 was the platform for the Obama administration's first unveiling of a new US diplomatic-military program for Iran and its nuclear threat, DEBKAfile's military and intelligence sources disclose. The three-staged program was presented by US defense secretary Robert Gates and national security adviser James Jones to prime minister Binyamin Netanyahudefense minister Ehud Barakchief of staff Lt. Gen. GabyAshkenazyMossad chief Meir Dagan and military intelligence head Amos Yadlin.

The new approach consists of three steps for thwarting Iran's drive for a nuclear bomb:

1. Diplomatic engagement as far as it will go. The American officials assured Israel they were aware of the diminishing chances of this track succeeding in view of the Islamic regime's domestic troubles, but the US administration is still determined to give it a chance up until early September.

2. If diplomacy fails, Washington will embark on the phased introduction of increasingly harsh sanctions against Iran, such as an embargo on exporting refined oil products including gasoline to Iran and a blockade on its sea ports.

3. If Iran continues to forge ahead with its nuclear and missile development, the US will resort to its military options. DEBKAfile's military sources report that the American visitors shared with Israeli leaders their specific plans of actions with details of the resources they planned to wield.

Gates and Jones wound up their presentation by stating unambiguously: Iran is a big power issue and it behooves the United States as the leading world power to handle it. So leave it to us and act like an American ally and friendly government. The role they assigned Israel was to leave its military option on the table in order to keep Tehran under pressure.

Our Jerusalem sources report that the Netanyahu government will study the new Obama administration's program and decide how to approach it. On the one hand, Israel's political and defense leaders were provided with the first detailed and coherent Washington has devised for dealing with the prospective Iranian nuclear menace.

It meant that Israel is not alone in the field against the Islamic Republic and has been relieved by the American plan of action of the need to resort to unilateral military action.

But on the other, the intelligence estimates the US and Israel traded in their talks this week differ on Iran's timeline for assemblingnuclear warheads and devices. By asking Israel to leave the Iranian nuclear threat to the United States, Gates and Jones were also telling Israel to accept US intelligence's longer estimate of this timeline. This might in the long run turn out to be inimical to Israel's security interests.

Widespread Panic
Travelin' Light


From Reliapundit:


Discrimination is the single greatest wound in American history and could never be solved over a beer. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever. There are more black men in prison than in college and literally thousands of black men are arrested across this country each day.


  • IT ISN'T.




Her statistics are pure bullshit: 

"According to 2005 Census Bureau statistics, the male African-American population of the United States aged between 18 and 24 numbered 1,896,000.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 106,000 African-Americans in this age group were in federal or state prisons at the end of 2005. See table 10 of this report. If you add the numbers in local jail (measured in mid-2006), you arrive at a grand total of 193,000 incarcerated young Black males, or slightly over 10 percent.

"According to the same census data, 530,000 of these African-American males, or twenty eight percent, were enrolled in colleges or universities (including two-year-colleges) in 2005. That is five times the number of young black men in federal and state prisons and two and a half times the total number incarcerated. If you expanded the age group to include African-American males up to thirty or thirty five, the college attendees would still outnumber the prisoners."


Now if you compare the total number of black men in prison from age 18 to 90, you obviously get a bigger number. But that is not a valid comparison.

McChrystal Wants More Troops

New Strategy in Afghanistan:

The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan is preparing a new strategy that calls for major changes in the way U.S. and other NATO troops there operate, a vast increase in the size of Afghan security forces and an intensified military effort to root out corruption among local government officials, according to several people familiar with the contents of an assessment report that outlines his approach to the war.

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who took charge of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan last month, appears inclined to request an increase in American troops to implement the new strategy, which aims to use more unconventional methods to combat the growing Taliban insurgency, according to members of an advisory group he convened to work on the assessment. Such a request could receive a chilly reception at the White House, where some members of President Obama's national security team have expressed reluctance about authorizing any more deployments.

Senior military officials said McChrystal is waiting for a recommendation from a team of military planners in Kabul before reaching a final decision on a troop request. Several members of the advisory group, who spoke about the issue of force levels on the condition of anonymity, said that they think more U.S. troops are needed but that it was not clear how large an increase McChrystal would seek.

"There was a very broad consensus on the part of the assessment team that the effort is under-resourced and will require additional resources to get the job done," a senior military official in Kabul said.

A request for more U.S. troops in Afghanistan could pose a political challenge for Obama. Some leading congressional Democrats have voiced skepticism about sustaining current force levels, set to reach 68,000 by the fall. After approving an extra 21,000 troops in the spring, Obama himself questioned whether "piling on more and more troops" would lead to success, and his national security adviser, James L. Jones, told U.S. military commanders in Afghanistan last month that the administration wants to hold troop levels flat for now.
More US troops on the way?:

One senior administration official said some members of Obama's national security team want to see how McChrystal uses the 21,000 additional troops before any more deployments are authorized. "It'll be a tough sell," the official said.

Even so, McChrystal has been instructed by his superiors -- including Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen -- to conduct a thorough assessment of the war effort and articulate his recommendations. While McChrystal has indicated to some of his advisers that he is leaning toward asking for more forces, he has also emphasized that his strategy will involve fundamental changes in the way those troops are used.

One of the key changes outlined in the latest drafts of the assessment report, which will be provided to Gates by mid-August, is a shift in the "operational culture" of U.S. and NATO forces. Commanders will be encouraged to increase contact with Afghans, even if it means living in less-secure outposts inside towns and spending more time on foot patrols instead of in vehicles.

"McChrystal understands that you don't stop IEDs [improvised explosive devices] by putting your soldiers in MRAPs," heavily armored trucks designed to withstand blasts, said Andrew Exum, a fellow at the Center for a New American Security in Washington who served on the assessment team. "You stop them by convincing the population not to plant them in the first place, and that requires getting out of trucks and interacting with people."

The report calls for intelligence resources to be realigned to focus more on tribal and social dynamics so commanders can identify local power brokers and work with them. Until recently, the vast majority of U.S. and NATO intelligence assets had been oriented toward tracking insurgents.

The changes are aimed at fulfilling McChrystal's view that the primary mission of the international forces is not to conduct raids against Taliban strongholds but to protect civilians and help the Afghan government assume responsibility for maintaining security. "The focus has to be on the people," he said in a recent interview.

To accomplish that, McChrystal has indicated that he is considering moving troops out of remote mountain valleys where Taliban fighters have traditionally sought sanctuary and concentrating more forces around key population centers.

The assessment report also urges the United States and NATO to almost double the size of the Afghan security forces. It calls for expanding the Afghan army from 134,000 soldiers to about 240,000, and the police force from 92,000 personnel to about 160,000. Such an increase would require additional U.S. forces to conduct training and mentoring.

McChrystal and his top lieutenants have expressed concern about a lack of Afghan soldiers to patrol alongside foreign troops and to take responsibility for protecting pacified areas from Taliban infiltration. In Helmand province, where U.S. Marines are engaged in a major operation, fewer than 500 Afghan soldiers are available to work with almost 11,000 American service members.

Some U.S. and European officials involved in Afghanistan policy warn that the Afghan government does not have the means to pay for such a large army and police force, but McChrystal and his assessment team believe additional Afghan troops are essential to the country's stability. U.S. officials have said that they would like European nations to help cover the cost of training and sustaining additional Afghan forces.

The strategy advocates changes in what happens after Afghan soldiers graduate from boot camp. Instead of just placing small groups of U.S. trainers with Afghan units, the assessment calls for a top-to-bottom partnership between Afghan and NATO security forces that involves everyone from generals to privates working in tandem. "We've got to live together, we've got to train together, we've got to conduct operations together," one senior U.S. military official in Kabul said. "Everything we do has to be done together."

The assessment also calls for U.S. and NATO forces to be far more involved in fighting corruption and promoting effective governance, describing the risk to the overall mission from ineffective and venal government officials as being on par with the threat from top Taliban commanders. "These are co-equal ways we could lose the war," said Stephen Biddle, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who served on the assessment team.

The team, which spent more than a dozen hours meeting with McChrystal over the past month, was made up of several prominent national security specialists from a variety of think thanks in Washington, including the American Enterprise Institute, the Brookings Institution and the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Respectfully, with the exception of increasing the quantity of Afghan security forces I disagree with the good General on a number of fronts.

Until we address the issue of the ISI in Pakistan, which created, harbors and finances the Taliban, as well as the inherent limitations of any foreign entity in Afghanistan (see Alexander the Great, Persian Empire, Roman Empire, British Empire, Russian Empire, Soviet Union, etc.), we are never going to realize any rational objectives...

What's in the Obamacare Bill?

Here is a rundown on the second half of the Obamanation Bill to Socialize Medicine:

* PG 502 Line 5-18 Government builds the “Center” to conduct, support, & synthesize research to define our HealthCare Services.
* PG 502 Section 1181 Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research Established. – Hello Big Brother – Literally.
* PG 503 Line 13-19 Government will build registries and data networks from YOUR electronic medical records.
* PG 503 Line 21-25 Government may secure data directly from any department or agency of the US including your data.
* PG 504 Line 6-10 The “Center” will collect data both published & unpublished (that means public & your private info)
* PG 506 Line 19-21 The Center will recommend policies that would allow for public access of data
* PG 518 Line 21-25 The Commission will have input from HealthCare consumer reps – Can you say unions & ACORN?
* PG 524 18-22 Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund set up. More taxes for ALL.
* PGs 525-620 deals with the Govt basically taking over nursing homes, long-term care facilities (think assisted living) through regulations of the facilities, the owners of sd facilities, the employees of sd facilities and even the land owners of that sd facilities reside on. Additionally as you read these 90+ pages you can come to the conclusion that any Health related svcs will be determined and rationed by the Govt for our senior citizens and others in nursing homes. This one post should do enough to raise awareness of the control the Govt is exerting over the older population of American citizens.
* PG 620 Line 1-9 The Government will define, prioritize, and nationalize your Health Care Services.
* PG 621 Lines 20-25 Government will define what Quality means in HealthCare. Since when does Government know about quality?
* PG 622 Lines 2-9 To pay for the quality Standards Government will transfer $$ from to other Government Trust Funds. More Taxes.
* PG 624 “Quality” measures shall be designed to assess outcomes & functional status of patients.
* PG 628 Section 1443 Government will give “Multi-Stake Holders” Pre-Rule Making input into Selection of “Quality” Measures.
* PG 630 9-24/631 1-9 Those Multi-stake holder groups including Unions & groups like ACORN deciding HealthCare quality.
* PG 632 Lines 14-25 The Government may implement any “Quality measure” of HealthCare Services as they see fit.
* PG 633 14-25/ 634 1-9 The Secretary may issue non-endorsed “Quality Measures” for Physician Services & Dialysis Services.
* PG 635 – 653 Physicians Payments Sunshine Provision – Government wants to shine sunlight on Docs but not Government.
* PG 654-659 Public Reporting on Health Care-Associated Infections – Looks okay.
* PG 660-671 Doctors in Residency – Government will tell you where your residency will be, thus where you’ll live.
* PG 676-686 Government will regulate hospitals in EVERY aspect of residency programs, including teaching hospitals.
* PG 686-700 Increased Funding to Fight Waste, Fraud, and Abuse. You mean the Government with an $18 mil website?
* PGs 701-704 Section 1619 If your part of HealthCare plan that isn’t in Government HealthCare Exchange but you qualify for Federal aid, no payment.
* PG 705-709 SEC. 1128 If Secretary gets complaints (ACORN) on HealthCare provider or supplier, Government can do background check.
* PG 711 Lines 8-14 The Secretary has broad powers to deny HealthCare providers/suppliers admittance into HealthCare Exchange.
* Pg 719-720 Section 1637 ANY Doctor who orders durable medical equipment or home medical services MUST be enrolled in Medicare.
* PG 722 Section 1639 Government Mandates Doctors must have face-to-face with patient to certify patient for Home Health Services.
* PG 724 23-25 PG 725 1-5 The same Government certifications will apply to medicaid & CHIP (your kids) Pg 735 lines 16-25 For law enforcement purposes, the Secretary of Health & Human Services will give Attorney General access to ALL data.
* PG 724 Lines 16-22 Government reserves right to apply face-to-face certification for patient to ANY other HealthCare service.
* PG 740-757 Government sets guidelines for subsidizing the uninsured (That’s your tax dollars peeps) Pg 757-762 Fed Government will shift burden of payments to Disproportionate Share Hospitals (DSH) to States. (Taxes)
* PG 763 1-8 No DS/EA hospitals will be paid unless they provide services without regard to national origin Pg 765 Section 1711 Government will require Preventative Services including vaccines. (Choice?)
* Pg 768 Section 1713 Government – Nurse Home Visitation Services (Hello union paybacks)
* Pg 769 11-14 Nurse Home Visit Services include-economic self-sufficiency, employment advancement, school-readiness.
* Pg 769 3-5 Nurse Home Visit Services – “increasing birth intervals between pregnancies.” Government Abortions anyone?
* Pg 770 SEC 1714 Federal Government mandates eligibility for State Family Planning Services. Say abortion & State Sovereign.
* Pg 789-797 Government will set & mandate drug prices, controlling which drugs will brought to market. Bye innovation
* Pgs 797-800 SEC. 1744 PAYMENTS for grad medical education. The government will now control Drs education. PG 801 Sec 1751 The Government will decide which Health care conditions will be paid. Say RATION!
* Pg 810 SEC. 1759. Billing Agents, clearinghouses, etc. required to register. Government takes over private payment system.
* PG 820-824 Sec 1801 Government will identify individuals ineligible for subsidies. Will access all personal finances.
* Pg 824-829 SEC. 1802. Government Sets up Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund. Another tax black hole.
* PG 829-833 Government will impose a fee on ALL private health insurance plans including self insured to pay for Trust Fund!
* PG 835 11-13 fees imposed by Government for Trust Fund shall be treated as if they were taxes.
* Pg 838-840 Government will design & implement Home Visitation Program for families with young kids & families expecting kids.
* PG 844-845 This Home Visitation Program includes Government coming into your house & telling you how to parent!!!
* Pg 859 Government will establish a Public Health Fund at a cost of $88,800,000,000. Yes thats Billion.
* PG 865 to 876 The NHS Corps is a program where Drs. perform mandatory HealthCare for 2 years for part loan repayment.
* PG 876-892 The Government takes over the education of our Medical students and Drs.
* PG 898 The Government will establish a Public Health Workforce Corps. to ensure supply of public health professionals.
* PG 898 The Public health workforce corps shall consist of civilian employees of the U.S. as Secretary deems.
* PG 898 The Public health workforce corps shall consist of officers of Regular & Reserve Corps of Service.
* PG 900 The Public Health Workforce Corps includes veterinarians.
* PG 901 The Public Health Workforce Corps WILL include commissioned Regular & Reserve Officers. HealthCare Draft?
* PG 910 The Government will develop, build & run Public Health Training Centers.
* PG 913-914 Government starts a HealthCare affirmative action program thru guise of diversity scholarships.
* PG 915 SEC. 2251. Government MANDATES Cultural & linguistic competency training for HealthCare professionals.
* Pg 932 The Government will establish Preventative & Wellness Trust fund – intial cost of $30,800,000,000-Billion.
* PG 935 21-22 Government will identify specific goals & objectives for prevention & wellness activities. Control You!!
* PG 936 Government will develop “Healthy People & National Public Health Performance Standards” Tell me what to eat?
* PG 942 Lines 22-25 More Government? Offices of Surgeon General -Public Health Services, Minority Health, Women’s Health
* PG 950- 980 BIG Government core public health infrastructure includes workforce capacity, lab systems; health information systems, etc
* PG 993 Government will establish school based health clinics. Your kids wont have a chance.
* PG 994 School Based Health Clinic will be integrated into the school environment. Say Government Brainwash!
* PG 1001 The Government will establish a National Medical Device Registry. Will you be tracked?
* PG 1003 9-11 National Medical Dev Reg ‘‘(iii) other postmarket device surveillance activities” you WILL be tracked.
* PG 1018 States give up some of their State Sovereignty.

Crossposted at The Dougout

The After Party Radio Show

Fu2rman and I did another radio show last night. Click here to listen, I think you will enjoy it.

Topics included:

Hot Dog on a Stick girls squeezing lemons (my lemon?). 

Lamar Odom finally signs with the Lakers, for less money? Dengler & The Fu2rman know why. 

We discuss David Ortiz the latest steroid user, and steroids in general. 

The movie Idiocracy was set 500 years in the fu2r, but is it already here? 

Finally we get to the Obama Beer Summit, and Obama tells us he fixed the economy, go eatcupcakes! Is it Marie Antoinette time for him?

The Red Cross Just Wanted Us To Know ...

The Red Cross stopped by Infidel Bloggers Alliance and left us a message this morning. They just wanted us to know that they are not eliminating the Red Cross logo because they are afraid of Muslims. 

They only developed the "Red Crystal" logo for "certain circumstances". Other than these unspecified circumstances (read situations in which Muslims are involved), they will still use the Red Cross.

You know what? Fuck the Red Cross. 

But, here's their statement anyway, just so you can be an informed "World Citizen":

I noticed an uptick in online conversation about our emblem recently. Since many of the comments seemed to be a bit misinformed, I thought it might be wise to use this space to clear up any misconceptions. I reached out to one of our International Law Advisors to help clarify the issue:

The following is from Claire Clement, International Law Advisor at the British Red Cross:

You may have heard whisperings that an additional protective emblem to the red cross and red crescent has been introduced – the red crystal emblem. In fact, the red crystal was adopted by the international community back in 2005. In recent weeks, the UK Parliament has passed national legislation that recognises the red crystal emblem as having the same meaning and protected status as the red cross and red crescent in the UK. Below are answers to some frequently asked questions about the new additional emblem.

Q: Why do we need an additional emblem?

A: The introduction of an additional emblem was necessary for two reasons. First, there is a real concern that in certain contexts the red cross and red crescent emblems may not always be respected, despite their neutral meaning. The red crystal was introduced so that those who use the emblems, such as the medical services of the armed forces, can enhance their protection in these contexts.

Second, a small number of States and their National Societies felt unable to use the red cross or red crescent emblems, or alternatively wished to use both together, for example Israel and Eritrea. The red crystal emblem may be used by these States and, with the approval of their government, the National Society within the State. This will enable these National Societies to play their full part as members of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.

Q: Why a “red crystal”?

A: After a thorough consultation process, the name “red crystal” and the shape itself (a square frame on its edge) were chosen because they are widely accepted as having no religious or political significance.

Q: Will the red crystal replace the red cross and red crescent emblems?

A: No. The red crystal is an additional emblem to the red cross and red crescent. All three emblems have the same neutral meaning and are protected under international and national laws.

Q: Who will use it?

A: In the UK, the red cross emblem will continue to be used. However the government may approve use of the red crystal in certain circumstances. For example, the medical services of the armed forces may be authorised to use the red crystal (or indeed, the red crescent) in situations where they feel it will provide better protection than the red cross, such as during certain international deployments.

Q: Will the British Red Cross continue to use the red cross emblem?

A: Yes. The red cross is one of the most recognisable symbols in the world, and has served the British Red Cross well since its establishment in 1876. The British Red Cross will not change its name, and will continue to use the red cross emblem to promote its own humanitarian activities. In rare cases, the British Red Cross may, with the approval of the government, choose to use the red crystal emblem for a limited time, in order to facilitate its humanitarian work.

By the way, I have no idea who the chick in the photo is. However, going purely by looks, I'd say she looks like the kind of One-Worlder Idiot who would construct such a message and believe it sufficed as an explanation.

And, you know, not to outdo her, but I'm gonna dig into the history of the Red Cross here a little bit.

Did you know that the Red Cross was founded as a Christian organization, to help people in need back in 1863. In 1919, they chose to take on the "Red Crescent" as a symbol because Muslims rejected the Cross as a symbol.

However, when Israel asked for a "Red Star" of David symbol to be recognized within their state, Red Cross leader Cornelio Sommaruga replied, "If we're going to have the Shield of David, why would we not have to accept the swastika?"

So, in other words, the Red Cross (a Christian organization) has no problem pandering to Islam, it has no problem pandering to political correctness (Red Crystal seems to be a particularly Pagan symbol), but there' is no way in hell they are going to pander to those Nazi Jews.

Like I said, Fuck the Red Cross. For all the good they have done, they owe the world an apology.

Hey Ro!

One of their early incarnations. . .

This one's for you.

(far and away my favorite of theirs)

Make Me Smile

Palin Won't Make It easy for Either Party

American Thinker:

Sarah Palin: A Leader Without A Party
By Stuart Williamson

The Democrats -- and the Republicans too -- may find the next stage of Sarah Palin's public career uncomfortable. True to form, Sarah Palin, her Governorship behind her, clearly and forthrightly declared her intent: to take up arms against the forces dedicated to tearing down our Constitution, destroying our principles of government, disparaging our history of defense of democracy and free enterprise, weakening our military, and saddling generations to come with oppressive debt and entitlement programs. She did so in the same inspirational, forceful manner that won her immediate and enthusiastic acclaim when she joined John McCain on the Republican ticket in ‘08.

Her words, her dynamic style, her good humor and high spirits, as well as her clear dedication to the traditional values of Middle America, have created a great wave of euphoria among conservatives across the country, in the Tea Party movement as well as those who embraced her last fall.

Those in the Obama camp who have savaged her, and the commentators who have criticized her for being a quitter, a political weakling, doomed forever as a loser, are about to get their first lesson in Palin 101: The word "quit" is not in her vocabulary. She is not a reactive defender. She is a fierce and fearless attack machine. She earned her nickname Sarah Barracuda, on the basketball court. She polished those skills in the rough and tumble of the frontier politics of Alaska.

She is unswervingly honest. She hates liars and cheats. She spent many years exposing powerful entrenched opponents in a state whose politics had become sleazy, and has a keen nose for corruption What she says, she means. She makes no idle promises. This honesty is what brought her into politics in the first place. She ran for mayor of Wasilla because she questioned the motives of the favored candidate. She cleaned up local government. Her integrity is what propelled her to high approval ratings as she rose to the governorship. Her honesty is transparent, it shines through. It resonates with voters, differentiating her from run-of-the mill opportunistic professional politicians.

For Palin, integrity in government transcends all other considerations. Many politicians and pundits find this hard to believe, or even understand.

The truth is: Sarah Palin is not really a "politician". She did not get into politics to seek power or wealth. She bears no resemblance to the typical politician, who graduated in Law specifically to enter politics; or to the successful businessman who runs for office to gain profit advantage or status; or to the mediocrities who rises through nepotism or dynastic ambition like a Kennedy or a Gore. Or to any party hack out of the Chicago machine.

She has not brought herself into this fight at this point because she wants to be President...or Vice-President...or Senator....or Cabinet member. She is in this solely because she feels, deeply, that our traditional principles and values, already betrayed by both parties, are in serious jeopardy through the aggressive efforts of committed socialists. She is prepared to make a personal sacrifice in the cause of defeating them. If she succeeds, she'll be happy to just go back to Wasilla and the Alaskan way of middle class life she loves.

Remember, she made it clear in her resignation that she was going to remain "outside" the political fences. For she is going to turn her guns on the GOP -- big time. She wants nothing to do with the Republican National Committee, and not just because she has been reading Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny. She has fought the GOP top dogs since her first days in Wasilla. When she was appointed by the Governor to chair the Oil & Gas Conservation Commission and found out the Republicans were dealing under the counter with the private companies, she resigned and blew the whistle. When her party wouldn't support her for Governor she ran on her own -- against their open opposition -- and won. And promptly attacked waste and corruption within the Republican state government.

Then she was drafted by McCain, sparking some indignation in the RNC. She promptly charged the flailing campaign with her energy and her personality, attracting huge numbers of people to GOP rallies, and most likely some new voters. But she got no support from the sclerotic RNC managers -- and the great fighter pilot couldn't shoot straight. Then he bailed out on her after the election, and she received no thanks for her valiant effort; not only was she simply dumped, but reviled and mocked by the insiders and elitists she had worked with.

Post-election, repulsively hammered by the Democrats, abetted by her enemies in the Alaskan GOP ranks, and their Eastern Beltway buddies, she has pressed on, in ways that none of them ever would have anticipated.

Should anybody be surprised that she would have nothing but contempt for the party whose key figures continue to question her competence and ability to govern? That she has publicly disowned them, pledged to work outside them? She owes the Republican organization nothing. She not only knows that she does not need them to gain a strong voter segment, but that they would hang her high if she remained in the fold.

I'm sure she relishes the prospect of not just holding on to her faithful within the party, but to swelling their numbers by many millions of other Republicans, independents and disenchanted Democrats over the next year.

Palin means exactly what she said. She will make no deal with the RNC, and will operate entirely outside its control. She will go after individuals and policies and the rudderless, dim-wiited, ossified RNC with the same vigor and eloquence she goes after the socialist administration.

Sarah Palin as the intelligence, the political skills, the downhome eloquence, the vision and the dedication to influence the swing vote come fall of 2010. She will have attracted the support of power brokers unhappy with the floundering RNC and attracted those "comers" within the party who share her views. As the election nears, incumbents as well as new challengers for Congressional positions, will want to be identified with her.

Palin has the upper hand. She will call her own shots next year, whether the GOP likes it or not.
Her conservative critics should stop twittering and blathering about her "fitness for the Presidency". And her fans should lay off it. Who says she wants it? Or any other high national office? It is very doubtful that she will personally run for the presidency, even if pressured. She spent enough time during the McCain campaign to see, close up and clearly, the dirty underside of national politics, and the shallowness of life in DC and the big cities. I suspect it repels her. Four years in the White House? When she could be back in Wasilla with her family, friends, her fishing and hunting, plus an assured income from speaking, writing, commentating... all at her own discretion and timing? Get real!

But boy, are the Democrats and the Republicans in for a rough ride!