Mr. Gorbechev…Nice Tie Today….

My blog is not green. That is not a statement.

As an American, it is my obligation to support free, open, honest elections and oppose any efforts to suppress that.

So, rather than turn my blog green (because it’s a hassle to go back and forth and it would totally mess with my OCD need for color coordination) I am taking this opportunity to say I support free, open, honest elections for peoples of all nations without fear of repression or reprisal.

And as such, I support the Iranian people in their desire for free, open, honest elections without fear of repression or reprisal.

Friday, the House voted nearly unanimously to pass a resolution to supports "all Iranians who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties and the rule of law."

Not to support a specific candidate in the election. Not to intervene either militarily or diplomatically.

Just a plain statement of support for the above qualities, all central American – Conservative – values.

Only one Representative took a stand against the Conservative principles of freedom, human rights, civil liberties and the rule of law.

Republican Ron Paul.

I wish I could say I was surprised, but I’m not.

If it wasn’t Ron Paul, I would think it was a joke. But this is also the man who, early in the primaries, said that America hadn’t been attacked by a foreign power in 250 years. Which is why there is no holiday on December 7.

So really, this is just par for the course.

We now have Paul on record opposing a resolution that says the following (language from the resolution):

• "(1) expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law; • "(2) condemns the ongoing violence against demonstrators by the government of Iran and pro-government militias, as well as the ongoing government suppression of independent electronic communication through interference with the Internet and cell phones; and • "(3) affirms the universality of individual rights and the importance of democratic and fair elections."

His excuse? “We know very little beyond limited press reports about what is happening in Iran." (source)

In that ludicrous statement, Paul betrays his ignorance of the situation by blaming a lack of information on “limited press reports.”

Almost all of what we know of what is going on in Iran has come not from official press agencies, but rather from individual Iranian citizens using networking sites like facebook (until it was banned) and now Twitter.

In fact, Twitter was so essential to the communication between Iranian dissidents and the outside world that Twitter rescheduled maintenance so as to not interrupt their flow of communication. Go here for more info regarding the importance of Twitter in the Iranian Revolution.

The official statements from the Iranian government, however, say that Ahmadinejad won by a landslide in an legitimate election where it took 20 minutes to tabulate over 350,000 ballots.

To Paul, apparently, that’s enough to create reasonable doubt.

Here’s what the real issue is, though. What did this resolution actually do?

Did it order the military to go to Iran? No.

Did it claim one person did or should have won the election over another? No.

Did it threaten to intervene in the Iranian elections? No.

Did it do really anything in a practical sense? No.

So there was no imperialism (which totally screwed the Japanese, they’re nothing but American serfs nowadays, right?) or “policing the world” (like with those poor innocent Nazis, we had no business interfering in their peacekeeping enterprises) as some have alleged.

All the resolution did was officially state that we, as Americans, support free, open, honest elections and condemn violence against individuals, specifically as it regards the situation in Iran.

So then, what is the point in opposing it?

Reagan took a much more direct, oppositional, antagonistic stance when he went to Berlin and gave his famous imperative to the Soviet Union.

But you’re right, that was a huge imperialist, meddlesome screw-up. No reason to follow that fellow’s footsteps.

One wonders how Paul would have responded had he been in office at the time. Actually, no, we don’t have to wonder. This vote shows us exactly how he would respond.

Hold him accountable, ladies and gentlemen. You’ve called other good Conservatives RINOs for less.

Yes, It's Just Miracle Grow

What, you mean that's NOT normal??

Ho. Ly. Crap.

I never thought I would see the day when not only MSNBC, but Rachel Maddow of all people, criticizes Obama. And it's totally justified.

Preventative Detention.

You have to see this

This is Jon Voight's speech last night at the 2009 Republican Senate-House Dinner. It's not very long, but it's so worth the watch. His delivery isn't dynamic; the words carry their own power with nearly no inflection, and yet they are dynamite.

Westboro ala Hajib

Remember Westboro Baptist Church?

Westboro is a political activist group masquerading as a Baptist church that, a few years ago, terrorized military funerals in Oklahoma (as well as other states). As a result, State Rep. Paul Wesselhoft along with others passed a law protecting military funerals from being harassed.

I saw these people in action because right after the bill was passed, they came to Wesselhoft's church - my church - on a Sunday morning and protested, holding up their "God hates you" signs as families drove into the parking lot. The most bizarre thing about this was that several groups from my school, UCO, came to counter-protest Westboro. So, across the street, we had the crazy Kansans with their infamous God Hates Fags paraphernalia. On the church's property, there was a hodgepodge of counter-protesters from groups representing war veterans, Christians, feminists, marxists and atheists. I know this because I saw the flyers around campus for almost two weeks advertising the counter-protest and outlining which groups were "sponsoring" the counter-protest (pretty much all of them).

One wonders if they all would have turned out to counter-protest Code Pink or Cindy Sheehan, who has the exact same MO as Westboro "Baptist Church". Actually, no, one doesn't wonder. Obviously, the answer is "no."

Westboro does not "peacefully assemble" at funerals and protest, though that would be disgusting enough. They show up to try and provoke funeral-goers. That's how they make their bank. They get in the face of the father of some fallen soldier, provoke him to the point that he would hit one of the Westboro nuts, then they sue the pants off the soldier's family and get funding for their next "rally."

So this law by Wesselhoft did not infringe upon their right to speak and peacefully assemble in as much as their assembling was not peaceful in intent or nature. The same way that your right to keep and bear arms disappears when you abuse that right and murder someone in cold blood, like Private William Long.

As you know, Private William Long, an Army recruiter, was assassinated by an Islam convert. The killer, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, was later found to have maps and information suggesting that he would attack further targets, including a Jewish center, a Baptist church, a day care center for children and a post office.

But, hey, this had nothing to do with his Muslim faith. Somehow it was OUR fault.

Or at least, that's what this person wants us to believe.

Shortly after the shootings, a memorial service was held for Private Long on a roadside. A woman didn't appreciate it, and pulled a Westboro.

While I hate to give this woman circulation and airtime, I think it's important we see the kind of people who, like Westboro, do not mourn the death of a soldier, and in fact revel in it. A soldier who took an oath to die in order to protect their ability to spit on his grave.

This was filmed by one of the guys at the memorial service. I wish he wouldn't have put commentary and graphics on it and just left the video clean, but whatever. It's the only copy I could find. And either way, it doesn't obscure what this woman was spewing. You can do what I did and play it in the background while looking around facebook.

Watch. Share. Never forget.

Hat Tip: The Lambeth Walk

Happy Memorial Day

And thus be it ever
When free men shall stand
Between their loved homes
And the war's desolation

Blessed with victory and peace
May this heaven-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made
And preserved us a nation

Then conquer we must
When our cause it is just
And this be our motto:
In God is our trust

And the Star Spangled Banner
In triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free
And the home of the brave

~Francis Scott Key

You Didn't See Anything

If you're here and reading this you've heard about the embarrassment that was the Wanda Sykes speech at the WHCD. But, on the off-chance you haven't, here's the vid:

Did you notice anything? Like our illustrious President yukking it up when Sykes wished Rush dead and called him the 20th hijacker (who we have captured and successfully "tortured" [bathed] information out of to stop the Library Building attack)?

Over the weekend the blogosphere had a field day, not only with Sykes' remarks, but with Obama's reaction. But then, after hearing his speech, it appears his taste in humor is right on par with his taste in cabinet appointments.

But TODAY, today the Obama White House found nothing funny about Sykes' speech at all. The official press release states: White House not laughing about Sept. 11 joke. "The White House is keeping its distance from an entertainer's joke comparing commentator Rush Limbaugh to a terrorist." Yeah, a distance of about three feet.

This is standard MO for Obama. Deny, deny, deny, because the media will say whatever he wants them to say.

"I went to Rev. Wright's church for 20 years and never heard one of those sermons they play on TV."

"I barely knew Bill Ayers."

"I didn't bow, I was looking for my contact."

And now, "I laughed, but I didn't think it was funny."

Right up on par with "I smoked, but I didn't inhale," don't ya think?

Just smile and wave, boys. Smile and wave.