“You know what man? I am going to literally — if she gets elected president, I am going to hang out on the grassy knoll all the time, just loaded and ready — because you know what? It’s for my country. It’s for my country. If I got to sacrifice myself, it’s for my country.”

This was in response to Palin’s comments on Paul Revere (which of course have been proved to be accurate, not that you’ll hear that in the mainstream media). And as you can hear in the video, the audience’s response was to laugh. Apparently, joking about assassination is A-OK as long as it’s someone like Sarah Palin. Yet somehow, it’s the right that supposedly needs lessons in civility. I guess we just don’t understand that it’s perfectly acceptable to murder someone for their political beliefs, so long as the murderer is a liberal and the victim is a conservative. No wonder these morons idolize people like Che Guevara.

Of course, this will be waved off as an overreaction by the too-sensitive right. But is it? Palin’s parents have said that they have to sleep with guns because of the death threats they receive. The FBI arrested a man who had sent photocopies of a receipt for a gun he had bought and of a one-way ticket to Alaska to the Heaths. A gun-toting Palin stalker was arrested 50 miles from her home. Sarah Palin has said herself that she receives death threats on a regular basis. Were Sarah Palin a Democrat, then these incidents would be all over the media. Titus’ remarks would be denounced as fueling violent rhetoric against an innocent woman just trying to serve her country. But, alas, Palin has an (R) next to her name instead of a (D). So death threats and stalkers are brushed under the rug, and assassination is comedy.

So much for civility in politics.

—–

Follow Cassy on Twitter and read more of her work at CassyFiano.com and Hard Corps Wife.

I shopped at Hallmark quite a bit while Matt was deployed. When I found out we were having a boy, I wanted to send him a themed care package with a ton of “Its A Boy!” stuff to surprise him. Hallmark was where I got a lot of those things.

Had I known they would be so willing to disrespect the troops and their families, I would never have spent a cent there.

Monday was Memorial Day. Maxine — and thus Hallmark — chose to commemorate the holiday by running the following comic on Maxine’s official Facebook page:

This insulted and offended multiple military family members, including a Gold Star wife. They decided to express their feelings about the cartoon, and were summarily attacked, insulted, and degraded by the commenters there. After a good amount of time, Hallmark finally issued a weak apology. But it was far from over. Maxine’s fans continued to berate the family members, myself included, who had the gall to express our opinion: that we found the cartoon offensive. Yes, I know, most of America does indeed see Memorial Day as just another day off of work. That doesn’t mean any of us like it, or that we want a cartoon character furthering that sentiment. And this is where it got interesting.

The moderator for the Maxine page got to work. No, whoever it was did not delete the rude, insulting, vile comments directed towards military families. Instead, they were deleting our comments. Comments calling us “inbred hicks” and “retards” were allowed to stand. We were told that we didn’t support the military, that we were complainers and whiners just pretending to be offended, we were told to shut up and go away. We were insulted and attacked for merely expressing an opinion. And Hallmark didn’t delete a single of their comments. (Susan Katz Keating has just a few examples.) This action made it clear: their words said one thing but their actions said another, and that was that Hallmark does NOT support our troops and the military.

Now, this wouldn’t have been as big of a controversy as it has turned into if it wasn’t for this. Imagine being a Gold Star wife and having people insult you for merely saying that you were offended — and that Hallmark decided to side with them. Hallmark could have chosen to delete the comments attacking her and other military family members, but instead, they sided with them and allowed the abuse to continue. Here’s an example of the type of comment that Hallmark endorses:

“Yet I find it very disturbing that closed minded Inbred Hicks have nothing better to do than to trash a Cartoon Figure its a waste of Energy, really people get a grip on reality . Maybe the Bible Belt Inbred’s need to do something for their country than sit behind a computer & complain get a life seriously.”

That is simply inexcusable in my book. They censored dissenting comments while allowing insulting personal attacks on military families to continue. I can’t see how a company that supports the military would ever let that happen. Susan points out how the situation got worse and worse, and how Hallmark has even visited her website — but still has done nothing.

Stalwart troop supporter Carrie Costantini jumped into the discussion and tried to educate the Maxine fans on why the cartoon was offensive. Carrie even gave a tutorial on what Memorial Day actually is, and what it means to people who have lost a loved one in combat. The Maxine fans hooted ever louder. Their responses showed them to be people who care very deeply about when their new Keepsake Ornament catalogs will arrive, but not at all about telling a Gold Star mother to “get a life.”

Despite the fact that “Maxine” frequently responds to people who leave comments on the page, Hallmark allowed the dialog to continue unmonitored. The Maxine Brigade grew increasingly snide, belittling, and hostile. Anyone who objected to the cartoon was cast as a whiner, or stupid, and worthy of extreme mockery.

This extended “Hallmark Moment” continued much of the day.

I posted a couple neutral questions, myself, asking Hallmark to respond to the complaints. “Maxine” remained silent. I posted again. Still nothing. Finally, I questioned whether Hallmark would have been willing to use a different holiday in place of Memorial Day in the cartoon. What if, for example, the Maxine character joked about Martin Luther King Day. Within minutes, Hallmark removed my questions. Then they surfed into the blog and read a couple posts.

Are we all overreacting? I’d imagine that people without skin in the game might say yes. But as a Marine wife, this is insulting to me. I refuse to shop at Hallmark from now on and hope that everyone who reads this does the same. I sent Hallmark the following message expressing my displeasure — I have yet to receive a response. I encourage everyone reading this to also send a message of their own. I sincerely hope that word gets out about this and that Hallmark comes around.

Our troops and their families have sacrificed too much to be disrespected this way.

To Whom It May Concern:

Sincerely,
Casandra Chesser

I hear Marines often quip that they are at war, and America is at the mall. And every Memorial Day, I’m reminded that in large part, it’s true. Memorial Day is supposed to be a solem, somber day. It’s supposed to be a day to honor and remember the sacrifices of our fallen heroes, the men and women who gave their last full measure of devotion to their country in the name of freedom.

Instead, it’s become just a holiday that gives us a day off of work. It’s a day for BBQing, for beer; a day to go to the beach or to the pool. Maybe there will be a parade with some veterans or servicemembers. But remembering the fallen? Honoring their sacrifice? For far too many Americans, it simply doesn’t happen.

I remember Matt’s last deployment to Iraq. He had called me when two of his buddies had been killed; I believe it was the first time anyone he had known had been killed. I couldn’t see him, but I could picture him. He was yelling into the phone, practically incomprehensible with grief and rage. He repeated, over and over again, that he wanted to find the [expletives] who did this and [expletive] kill them. On the other end of the line, I felt completely helpless. My heart was breaking for him, and I didn’t know what to do or say. There are no words comforting enough for that kind of situation.

Two months ago, he returned home from Afghanistan, and we lost more Marines. Not too long after my husband had left last August, I got a phone call from one of our friends. Her husband is Matt’s best friend, and is with 2nd Battalion, 9th Marines. He had deployed about a month before Matt did. She was crying into the phone, and for one sinking moment, I thought her husband had died. Instead, she was passing on some bad news: a mutual friend, Sergeant Jesse Balthaser, had been killed in Afghanistan. His girlfriend was pregnant with their child.

I would have to pass the news on to Matt when he called home next. I was sick with the thought of it; he called that same day and I almost immediately started crying — probably not the best way to break the news, but I hated what I had to tell him. He was upset, but took it well and spent most of the phone call reminiscing about Balthaser and telling me about him. Balthaser had wanted to join the Marines in high school, so much so that his parents had to sign paperwork to let him enlist while he was still in high school. This was his third deployment. He stepped on a roadside bomb, which killed him instantly. Matt told me about his sense of humor and how he played guitar. He told me that he liked being the center of attention and always made people laugh. He said that whenever you were around him, you couldn’t help but be in a good mood. He lifted everyone around him up.

I didn’t know what to think about the fact that he took the news so much better than before. But eventually, as a Marine, you start to adjust. And Matt’s unit, 1st Battalion 8th Marines, didn’t escape their share of casualties. Considering they were deployed to Helmand Province, a major hot zone, it wasn’t surprising. But it didn’t make it any better.

The first was Lance Corporal Joshua Ose.

He was killed by small arms fire while on patrol in Afghanistan. He had only been there for about two weeks. Like Balthaser, he enlisted while still in high school. His parents described him as an adventurer, an outdoorsman who loved to hunt with his dad and was always taking risks — like jumping off of a bridge in his hometown into a river swollen by recent rainfall. He was a gun enthusiast, and would play paintball on a local farm with his friends. He played for two days before he left. His family has a history of military service going all the way back to the Civil War, and Josh felt strongly that serving his country was something he needed to go. He believed in the Marine Corps and he believed in the mission in Afghanistan.

Next, we lost Hospital Corpsman Edwin Gonzalez.

He died after a roadside bomb exploded during combat operations. Doc Gonzo, a newlywed, was nicknamed Superman and had a huge “S” tattooed on his chest. His friends gave him the nickname after he was in two car accidents, and both times came out without a scratch. He served with his high school’s JROTC. His friends plan on meeting the sixth of every month to remember him (his birthday was February 6th), and to honor his life — not his death. He became a corpsman with the dream of eventually becoming a doctor.

We then lost Lance Corporal Raymon Johnson.

Lance Corporal Johnson died after he stepped on an IED. Being a Marine was his dream. His family did everything they could to convince him not to enlist — even taking him to Walter Reed to see the wounded soldiers there — but he could not be dissuaded. His twin brother, Ramon (a soldier in the Army), described him as someone that always lit up the room whenever he came home. One of his friends named her new son after him. Marines with 1/8 saw him as someone they could trust and open up to, someone who would look out for them. He was described as motivated and an inspiration to the Marines around him.

Next to fall was Staff Sergeant Javier Ortiz-Rivera.

Staff Sergeant Ortiz was married with three children. His wife said that he was dedicated to his Marines and was proud of them. He had started a Bible study in Afghanistan and said that he was blessed to be deployed with the men he was serving with. He was a devout Catholic and had been an altar server. He had talked of serving his country since he was a child. One of his friends reported that he had proclaimed that Jesus Christ died on the cross for his salvation; he would die for his country to keep his family safe.

Staff Sergeant Stacy Green was the next to give his life.

Staff Sergeant Green had been serving in the Marine Corps for ten years. This was his fourth deployment. In high school, he played football and helped lead the team to win their state championship game. He was the life of the party, someone who was outspoken and always made everyone around him laugh. His brother said that he loved being a Marine, and that it changed his life. He was described as someone with courage and character. He was engaged to be married.

Finally, we lost Lance Corporal Jose Hernandez.

Lance Corporal Hernandez loved being a Marine. He followed his younger brother into the Corps after graduating high school. He died after stepping on a land mine. His childhood dream was to join the Marine Corps. He had a way of making people laugh, even when they were sad, angry, or scared. He had a big heart, and was someone who knew what he wanted in life and went for it. He wanted to serve his country. Hernandez would have turned 20 the week after he died.

These are just seven of the countless servicemembers who have given their lives for their country. These are just our fallen. Today, I hope that you’ll see their names, look at their faces, and read what is just a small fraction of the lives they led. So often, we turn the fallen into nothing more than a man in a uniform who became a hero. We need to remember not just the sacrifices they made, but the lives they lived and the people they were. Take the time to remember the 6 men we lost from 1/8, to remember Balthaser, and everyone who gave their lives so that we could be free.

—–

Follow Cassy on Twitter and read more of her work at CassyFiano.com and Hard Corps Wife.

What’s the newest trend in feminism today? SlutWalks are all the rage, where women dress like sluts and proudly embrace their sluthood. This will apparently have the double effect of fighting back against blaming the victim for being raped, as well as being empowering for women — because being a slut in modern feminism is supposedly empowering. Of course, all that these SlutWalks are really doing is proving that the death knell for femisogynists is continuing to ring.

Pseudo-feminists advocating for sluthood is nothing new. Instead of being looked down upon, sleeping around is considered to be embracing sexuality. It’s healthy, empowering, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a misogynistic anti-feminist prude (and probably a right-winger to boot!) So the comment made by a Toronto policeman that “women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized” naturally meant that femisogynists should revel in sluthood! And while the Toronto cop’s comment may have been what kicked the event off, fighting back against victim-blaming is nowhere near the only goal of these SlutWalks. Unsurprisingly, organizers want women to be proud of their sexuality and to reclaim the word slut.

Historically, the term ‘slut’ has carried a predominantly negative connotation. Aimed at those who are sexually promiscuous, be it for work or pleasure, it has primarily been women who have suffered under the burden of this label. And whether dished out as a serious indictment of one’s character or merely as a flippant insult, the intent behind the word is always to wound, so we’re taking it back. “Slut” is being re-appropriated.

We are tired of being oppressed by slut-shaming; of being judged by our sexuality and feeling unsafe as a result.

Ah, yes, the ever-present threat of slut-shaming. Why can’t more people be supportive of sleeping around with a different random guy every night? Clearly, if more people were supportive of being a slut, there would be less rape. Or something.

So far, there have been SlutWalks in Toronto, Dallas, London, Ottawa, and Boston. There are many, many more planned, all around the world, in cities like Montreal, Orlando, Tucson, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Philadelphia. This is all to the liking of many noted femisogynist leaders. Jaclyn Friedman appeared at the Boston SlutWalk as a featured speaker. Feministing has multiple posts glowing with approval of the SlutWalk. Jill Filipovic said she was with the walkers in spirit. And Amanda Marcotte offers up the most common defense of the SlutWalks: it’s, like, supposed to be funny, you humorless prudes:

I’ve been broadly supportive of this, because it brings together two of my favorite things in the world, feminism and humor.

… Of course, since Slutwalk is built around humor, it baffles the humorless. And so defenders of Slutwalk have entered into this maddening space that is the equivalent of trying to explain a joke to the humorless, and if you’ve ever tried to do that, believe me, it may be the biggest waste of time on the planet.

Oh, I get it! Debasement of women as humor! Hilarious! And it’s progress, too. It’s just what the original feminist leaders envisioned when they were fighting for equality: the right for women to be called sluts and be proud.

In reality, there is nothing feminist about being a slut. While fighting back against the vile act of blaming the victim for being raped is certainly admirable, acting as if sluthood is something to be proud of is ludicrous. There’s nothing empowering about sleeping around or being called a slut, any more than an African-American being called the n-word could be called empowering.

And while the emotional consequences of sluthood could be debated — many women end up feeling used and depressed while others don’t — the potential for physical harm can’t be debated. Consider the facts. 1 in 5 women have herpes, and the rates of most STDs have climbed since 1997. For young girls, it’s even worse — 1 in 4 teenage girls currently have an STD. Teenage girls who have sex are also more likely to be suicidal or depressed. Clearly, being a slut is not something to be encouraged — if for no other reason than to safeguard one’s own health. But that matters not to the femisogynists — in their minds, men sleep around freely, so women should, too.

Holding SlutWalks is not empowering, and there’s nothing feminist about being a slut or being proud to be called one. The modern feminist movement keeps getting more and more out of touch. The goal now is to take a term used to dehumanize and debase women and turn it into a badge of pride, so that women can embrace their sluthood? This isn’t empowerment or liberating or feminist. It’s ridiculous and an embarrassment. If femisogynists want to know why they are becoming more and more irrelevant, these SlutWalks are a shining example.

—–

Follow Cassy on Twitter and read more of her work at CassyFiano.com and Hard Corps Wife.

American leftists have never really cared much for things like national security, anti-terrorist initiatives, and the United States military. Too much manly posturing scares them, for one thing. Protecting things like freedom, capitalism, and traditional Judeo-Christian values disgusts them. It’s why they always side with Palestine over Israel, for example. And it’s why they’re so anxious to get the United States to lose the War on Terror–and blatantly ignored a possible terrorist attack this week.

The news that a Yemeni passenger attempted to storm the cockpit of an American Airlines flight, while screaming “Allahu Akbar!”, should have been breaking news. Instead, it drew surprisingly little media attention. Even authorities seem to be rather lackadaisical about the potential terrorist attack, claiming that they don’t know what his motive was — despite the fact that we just killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda and the man who planned the 9-11 atrocity which just so happened to also involve hijacking airplanes.

Prior to 9-11, most of the Western world did not take jihad against the West seriously. There were many, many warning signs along the way, but they were ignored. After that fateful September day, it couldn’t be ignored any longer, and since 9-11, Al Qaeda and Muslim extremists have continued to try to attack the United States, as well as multiple European countries. The jihad wages on, while most of the country looks the other way. Leftists pretended to care about national security and stopping terrorist attacks for a little while after the horror of 9-11, but that facade quickly grew too difficult to keep up for them. They then proceeded to do everything they could to get us to lose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Last week, when the news broke that we finally caught and killed Osama bin Laden, leftists pretended to be jubilant. Though deep down many of them mourned, they were mostly excited that they now had another reason to claim we no longer need to fight the War on Terror.

That paper-thin meme should have been blown apart Sunday. But of course, leftists live by their own warped logic.
Browse around the left-leaning blogs and you’ll be lucky if it even gets a mention. Over at the Huffington Post, they edited out the eyewitness account of the man screaming “Allahu Akbar!” as he tried to storm the cockpit. The writers at Wonkette declared that the entire event was not at all a threat, that it’s completely normal, and the fact that conservatives are taking the incident seriously is racism, or something.

The conservative Internet has uncovered UNMISTAKABLE EVIDENCE that The Muslims of America are planning to set aside their Sharia checklist for a moment to avenge the death of Osama bin Laden. On Sunday, some guy from Vallejo, California on a flight from Chicago to San Francisco went nuts, screaming and pounding on the cockpit door, according to the Associated Press. This is something that happens on airplanes! People do weird things! Flying is freaky for a lot of people! In the same article, the AP notes another guy on another flight Sunday tried to open the plane door of the aircraft he was on. But that second guy isn’t of Arab descent, so the MUSLIM WATCHERS are only freaking out about the first one.

Yes, because someone trying to break into the cockpit of a plane, screaming “God is Great” is Arabic, is a totally normal occurrence during American travel.

Authorities have yet to say this is terrorism, because it’s pretty obviously not. But the people who really understand Muslims, bigots who have never studied Islam, know the truth: this was a DRY RUN by the Muslims, who will soon be inside every plane in the country, KNOCKING ON A DOOR. Scary! Don’t knock so hard, Muslims! You will kill all us white people with your door knocking!

While it may be the easier route to pretend that terrorists have stopped attacking the United States, the simple truth is that they haven’t. 9-11 was less than ten years ago. And while there have been multiple attacks on Europe since then, and attempted attacks on the United States — most recently, the Christmas Day Bomber, the attempted bombing of a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Portland, and the Fort Hood massacre — it’s so much easier to treat everything as a big joke, or to smear vigilance as racism. The truth is that this very easily could have been a legitimate terrorist attack or a dry run to practice for one in the future. But if you’re a leftist, why take news like this seriously? If the evil conservatives are, then clearly leftists need to either ignore or deride the issue, no matter how important or relevant.

—–

Follow Cassy on Twitter and read more of her work at CassyFiano.com and Hard Corps Wife.

I just can’t imagine what they must be going through right now. My husband is due back from Afghanistan relatively soon. To lose our home and everything we owned immediately afterwards would be devastating. I don’t know where this family is staying, but they are in desperate need of any and all household items. Furniture, appliances, clothes, everything they owned is gone. If any of you can find the generosity to donate any household goods or money to this family, it would be so appreciated. I just would hate to think that a Marine could come home from fighting for his country in Afghanistan to a disaster like this, only to have his country fail to support him when he needed it most. Please help get the word out. It would mean a lot to not only the family, but to me and the Camp Lejeune community in general.

You can mail checks and/or goods to the following address. If you have any questions, or if you are local and would like to know where to drop off goods, feel free to e-mail me at cassy@cassyfiano.com.

1st Sgt Daniel Mangrum
H&S Company
1st Battalion 2nd Marines
2nd Marine Division
PSC Box 20094
Camp Lejeune, NC 28542

Thank you in advance for all of your generosity and support.

UPDATE: Well, that was fast! Last night, I found out that apparently they are buried in donations right now, which is fantastic news. They have been overwhelmed with cash, clothes, furniture, appliances, supplies, everything – so they don’t need
anything more at this point.

Thank you so much for your help and generosity!

–

Follow Cassy on Twitter and read more of her work at CassyFiano.com and Hard Corps Wife.

The world of leftist feminist extremists was rocked to its very core this week. Seven years after founding Feministing, Jessica Valenti (one of the most well-known femisogynists) announced that she was leaving the blog she created. Besides being busy with other projects, she’s 32 now, which is like, totally old, and Feministing is only for young femisogynists. And everyone knows that 32 is practically grandma territory. And while Valenti said she would still be involved in an advisory capacity, her departure caused much sadness and sorrow among lefty feminists in the blogosphere. Here at NewsReal, though, we thought: what better time than to honor Jessica Valenti’s femisogynist legacy at Feministing?

Like most blogs being written by femisogynists, you can find the typical subjects at Feministing. They write about the glories of abortion, bash conservative women, reinforce feminist myths, and defend sluthood culture. But this post isn’t about the typical Feministing posts. This is about the ones that went above and beyond, the ones that took ridiculousness and idiocy to a whole new level.

Runner-up: Taylor Swift is a sexist anti-feminist

Most people applaud Taylor Swift. She’s a young woman who has built a career on her talent alone as a singer and a songwriter. While she’s attractive, she hasn’t used her looks or her sexuality to advance her career. Her music isn’t filled with sexual themes, she doesn’t parade around on stage half-dressed like most other pop stars, and she doesn’t carry on in public sleeping around, getting drunk, and doing drugs. In short, Taylor Swift has proven herself to be a classy, talented woman. She sings, plays guitar, writes her own songs, and produces her own music. She’s become a self-made superstar, selling over 10 million albums. You’d think feminists would cheer her, right? Well, there are different rules when you’re talking about femisogynists. And in feminazi-land, Taylor Swift is sexist. What makes her so unfeminist? Well, she writes about love, and stuff. Heterosexual love. And duh, that’s sexist!

The song is typical Taylor: true love (heterosexual, monogamous and blonde love, I should say) is tested and ultimately prevails. Despite the hardships, Taylor and her One True Love make it work and make it last and have two adorable blonde babies because their love is, like, so strong. Some observers have noted that instead of daydreaming about a prom date, Swift is now singing about a husband and father to her children, a sign that she might be attempting to grow up in the public eye without taking the “sex it up” route that aging teen starlets are so prone to. All the same, this song doesn’t deviate from her tried, tested and very popular formula.

… It can be so difficult to switch of the voice in your head that says, “this is really sexist!” long enough to watch a so-bad-it’s-good reality TV show or grind to reggaeton. There are lots of critiques to be made of Taylor Swift’s message and branding and yeah, Beyonce really did have the best music video of all time.

If Taylor Swift was more “empowered” by her sexuality or something, a la Britney Spears perhaps, would that make her less sexist? Heaven forbid she write about the things she wants to write about — they might not be Feminist Approved! After all, doesn’t she know that all things female must be approved by the fascist feminists first? What’s worse is that other girls like Taylor Swift. Young girls might be attracted to the idea of true love, a husband, and a family. How horrible! All of this because a few so-called feminists said so. Traditional love, romance, marriage? Anti-feminist! Building your own career on your terms with music based on your own thoughts and feelings? Eh, that doesn’t matter. Femisogynists demand that women pass an ideological litmus test in order to be welcomed into the club, and Swift fails — by virtue of being too traditional. It’s not about women making their own choices anymore. Their choices must be approved first.

10. Hating photo models.

Meet Daniella Sarahyba, a Sports Illustrated swimsuit model. A few years back, she committed the unthinkable sin of partnering with Taco Bell for a promotion allowing customers to direct her in an online interactive photo shoot. Feministing was, predictably, outrageously outraged!

One of our readers sent us an email recently, rightfully confused as to why Taco Bell’s hot sauce packets are now printed with a website that leads you to perhaps the creepiest ad campaign ever. “Direct Daniella” has the user follow around a swimsuit model, taking pictures of her in a weird stalkerish webcam way.

Reader Karlen wrote, “What this has to do with lousy ‘Mexican’ fast food is beyond me.” Indeed. So I did a little digging. Turns out, Taco Bell has joined up with Sports Illustrated to promote the magazine’s swimsuit issue.

Exotic, huh? It’s like a big ole chalupa of sexism and grossness wrapped in some fetishization of women of color. De-licious.

Right. A supermodel willingly participating in a promotion where men get to — gasp!! — photograph her is disgusting and sexist. Of course, one could argue that the entire point of modeling is to be photographed. So what is causing the outrage here? That your average Taco Bell customer gets to be the photographer instead of a “professional”? That a woman might be seen in a skimpy outfit? That men might enjoy seeing her in said skimpy outfit?

It’s a good thing that women have been cured of all their ills. Clearly, there are no issues troubling women around the world if this is what feminists need to focus on. Oppression in the Middle East, sharia law, stonings, honor killings… nah, that stuff is no big deal. Not when you compare it to a supermodel getting photographed on a beach. Sports Illustrated, now that’s real sexism.

9. Dress codes are meant to oppress women.

In most grown-up offices, there are things called “dress codes”. For men, this usually requires dress slacks, a button-down shirt, and depending on the formality of the job, a tie and suit jacket. For women, it’s of course more complicated. Some offices, for example, want women to wear pantyhose; others don’t. For women, the rules can be much more varied — we have more fashion choices than men do, after all. Regardless of how lenient or strict the dress code is, though, the point is the same. There’s a dress code to follow, and that dictates what is and is not acceptable to wear to work.

Typically, baring cleavage in the workplace is considered a major no-no. Not in Feministing’s world, though. For them, women should be able to dress however they damn well please, dress codes be damned!

Apparently this woman’s supervisor sent this charming note because someone had been complaining (!) about her showing a bit of cleavage. According to the sender, “as I’m currently 7 months pregnant, i could be wearing a turtleneck and still be showing ‘too much’ cleavage.”

Ugh.

Here is the note being referenced:

So, this woman was apparently showing enough cleavage that it was being complained about. Her boss sends her a friendly e-mail asking her to please make sure to cover up more. And the mature, professional response from the women who claim to be all about equality is… no. Because office rules shouldn’t apply to women, especially pregnant women. This woman’s (male) boss clearly is sexist. And in typical femisogynist fashion, this makes the woman in question, who found it impossible to keep the girls under wraps, some kind of “victim.” Obviously, when a woman is pregnant there is not enough cloth on the planet to cover up her breasts, so clearly she’s being victimized by the patriarchy. Right?

Despite the demands for rules to not apply to them, women are supposed to be taken seriously in the workplace. Call me crazy, but it doesn’t seem possible to demand special treatment and equality at the same time — and yet somehow still expect to be treated as a professional. But then, it’s a pretty fair representation of the women at Feministing. Is it really about equality? No, not so much. What it is about is whining, keeping women as perpetual victims, and demanding special treatment.

Ah, femisogynists. Keeping women empowered by making them victims who throw hissy fits when asked to follow the same rules the rest of the world has to follow. Now there’s some real progress, right?

8. Consequences are sexist.

Last year, Rima Fakih of Michigan won the Miss USA pageant. She’s a stunningly beautiful woman, who also happens to be Muslim. This caused a small measure of controversy, but it wasn’t nearly the biggest scandal surrounding Fakih’s crowning. Shortly after winning the 2010 Miss USA title, a radio station released photos of Fakih participating in a contest… a Stripper 101 contest, that is. Some people were shocked, others shrugged their shoulders. Fakih was ultimately allowed to keep her crown and went on to compete in the Miss Universe pageant. End of story.

In Femisogynist Land, though, this was an act of terrorism — gender terrorism, to be specific.

Groggy and tired, I tossed the phone back on my nightstand and returned to my nightmare, knowing full well that unlike Ms. USA and the millions of other women in America, I get to wake up from my nightmare, whereas each day, they collectively continue to live the nightmare of not having ownership of their own bodies and sexuality, and ultimately, live in fear that at anytime, anything they do, as women, is subjected to public debate simply because their bodies are seen as public property.

Although the stories of “fallen” women – women who, society sees, acted outside of their gender roles for simply embracing their sexuality, are often treated as breaking news, they are far too common and until as Americans, we reject the notion that society is the owner of women’s bodies, more women will continue to live in fear, more young lives will be ruined, and more girls and women will be sexually assaulted and not get the justice they deserve. Until we avert our eyes from the telivision, voice our opinions and give women’s bodies back to their rightful owners, the gender terrorism that takes place through the fear thrusted upon women, will continue to take place.

… It’s a familiar world – it’s a world Sarah Palin and Elana Kagan live in. It’s a world Carrie Prejean and Rema Fakih live in. It’s a world that far too many of your friends and mine, our sisters and classmates, lovers and neighbors, continue to live in – and it’s a world we each have a responsibility to change, because for too long, too many of them have been denied the rights to simply be, the rights to dress as they wish without fear, to embrace their sexuality, get justice should they be raped, and to be respected as human beings and adults, making conscious decisions about their lives.

So the new brand of gender terrorism isn’t what rational people would call it. Women being buried alive, stoned to death, killed for family honor, female genital mutilation? Nah, that’s not terrorism. Being held responsible for participating in a stripper contest? TERRORISM!

The most ridiculous part of this story, of course, is that while this was a media feeding frenzy for a while, Fakih ultimately didn’t suffer anything. She didn’t lose her Miss USA crown. She was allowed to compete in the Miss Universe pageant. Life went on as usual for her. But even if she had faced some kind of punishment for these photos, would that classify as some kind of terrorism? Um, yeah! We live in a country where women don’t have to worry about being stoned to death, or having their genitals mutilated, or honor killings. But before you go feeling all patriotic and proud, remember that women are expected to be held accountable for their actions — actions like taking place in a stripper contest — and women should have no repercussions for their actions, ever. Right?

Rima Fakih willingly participated in this radio station contest. She chose to let herself be photographed stripping, and to an extent, it came back to haunt her. For most women, this could be considered something to learn from: think before you act, especially if you plan on a career in the public eye. Participating in stripper contests where photos will be posted on the internet of you stripping is generally considered poor judgment. Women, like everyone else, need to learn that life is simply not fair, and that there are consequences to your actions. Rima Fakih got off easy. How many bosses in an office setting would fire an employee after seeing those photos on the internet? It also should be noted that in many Middle Eastern countries, Fakih would face much worse than being fired for photos like these. But again, this is America, land of gender terrorism. Islamic extremism is just a different culture, and we shouldn’t judge.

American women live in a country where there is endless opportunity. Opportunity comes with responsibility though, and having to be responsible for one’s actions is not terrorism.

7. Female soldiers’ duty is to do whatever they please.

A little over a year ago, an Army general came under fire for banning pregnancy while deployed. Feministing partnered with the ACLU to express their outrage that soldiers would actually have to be held accountable for getting pregnant while deployed.

The pregnant servicewoman is really the canary in the mine here: Inevitably her pregnancy will be revealed and she will be punished. However, the man who impregnated her will only be punished if she turns him in. Already, according to news reports, one woman who has been punished and sent home under the policy has refused to reveal who her partner was. It is reasonable to think that many more servicewomen will refuse to turn in their fellow soldiers, thereby making this an equal opportunity policy in name only.

Moreover, this policy will eviscerate existing Department of Defense policy that protects the anonymity of sexual assault victims while ensuring that they can get the services they need. Of course, Maj. Gen. Cucolo has stated he won’t punish anyone who becomes pregnant as a result of an assault, but under his policy pregnant assault victims will have to publicly come forward in order to avoid punishment.

If we really want to help servicewomen avoid unplanned pregnancies and maintain military readiness, why don’t we ensure that birth control and emergency contraception are readily available to all servicewomen, including those in Iraq and Afghanistan? Currently, Department of Defense policy does not require that emergency contraception be available (it’s optional); and a recent report by Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America suggests that, “due to space,” other common forms of birth control are not always available either.

It does a dishonor to the more than 200,000 servicewomen who serve in Iraq and Afghanistan to suggest that they do not take deployment seriously. To guarantee that they can continue to serve on par with men, Maj. Gen. Cucolo should make sure that his servicewomen can access the reproductive health care they need, including contraception and emergency contraception, rather than punishing them for getting pregnant.

The answer, as per usual with femisogynists, is more access to birth control and abortion. Because, you know, abstaining from sex and exercising some self-control is just way too much to ask of women. And there’s also that little nugget of truth that feminazis like to ignore so often: birth control is not foolproof. It’s not a magical get-out-of-pregnancy free card. Sometimes it fails. What then? There’s also the simple issue of fraternization — soldiers are not supposed to be sleeping together, and especially not when deployed, but you bet your buns that it happens, thus requiring this pregnancy ban to come into effect.

At the time of Feministing’s original posting on the issue, there were seven soldiers punished for pregnancy while deployed. Three were men. The one facing the harshest punishment? Male, because he was married and outranked the soldier he got pregnant. With the exception of that one soldier, the soldiers were charged with fraternization and given a letter of reprimand.

Not exactly the career-ending, anti-woman crisis they were making it out to be, huh? (But we can’t let facts get in the way of an agenda.)

This whole issue boils down to responsibility, again. Even women have to be held responsible for their actions. Considering pregnancy is not a freak accident that strikes down women at random, this would be filed under “think before you act” and “accept the consequences of your actions”.

But we already determined that responsibility is just, like, so sexist and all. Why empower women when you can keep them as perpetual victims who demand special treatment?

6. Rapists are victims of the patriarchy. Just like women.

You might wonder what kind of person would think that we’re too tough on rapists. Most people see the act of rape as an act of supreme evil — and this is one of the rare things that femisogynists and normal people can agree on. But not so fast! Rape is horrible, but at Feministing, they also have a rather… unusual… point of view: we’re just too hard on rapists these days.

I think a big part of that problem is that we demonize rapists too much.

Everyone pictures rapists as psychopaths, hiding in the bushes with knives. As feminists we’ve worked really hard to dispel that myth, explaining over and over that most rapists assault someone they know – friends, acquaintances, dates, and partners.

A big part of the reason that people aren’t catching on to what that really means is that they are still picturing men who commit sexual assault as evil or morally corrupt. If their friend isn’t evil or morally corrupt, he couldn’t possibly commit sexual assault.

Some rapists are just master manipulators, and hide the fact that they are vicious predators, as evil as any real human could be. I don’t really believe in evil, and I’ve known men personally who were certainly not anywhere near it, yet still committed the horrible crime of rape. A lot of guys who commit sexual assault actually do have a conscience, and actually don’t want to be sexually assaulting women.

We need to become more effective at separating the act from a good vs. evil judgment of a person. We can’t be naive and think that having a polite chat with a rapist will necessarily stop him, but we have to acknowledge the complexities of individuals. There are a lot of men who need a lot of education, but we need to find a way to talk about rape that places the responsibility for rape squarely on the perpetrator’s shoulders without *necessarily* condemning him forever.

We need to show people that they can reconcile their belief that their friend has a good heart with the reality that he has committed rape. Rape is a terrible crime with terrible consequences, I know this personally. But when so many men think that the whole sexual assault discussion doesn’t apply to them or their friends because they aren’t knowingly, intentionally, maliciously committing sex crimes, we’re losing an audience that might actually want to change.

Just as we need a performance model of sex (as articulated brilliantly by Thomas Macaulay Millar in Yes Means Yes), we need a performance model of sexual assault. The crime is about the actions of an individual, not the goodness or evil in his or her heart.

Awwww. Rapists have hearts! AND, sometimes they don’t want to assault anyone. They just, um, do it anyways. Because they can’t help themselves. We should go easy on these poor little guys!

Of course, out here in the real world, it’s understood that someone who is willing to force a woman to have sex with him against her will is not someone with a good heart, that he actually is morally corrupt and evil. Rape is indeed an evil act. Moral relativism is at play here, and it is despicable.

You cannot separate someone from their actions. Is every rapist pure evil? No, but once you commit the act of rape, you have forever lost your ability to call yourself a good person. A good person does not commit evil acts, and rape is indeed an evil act. That someone who claims to be working on behalf of women could ever, for any reason, make excuses for rapists is disturbing indeed.

5. A feminazi-mom is a bit too interested in her daughter’s sex life.

When is a mother-daughter relationship too close? At what point are boundaries crossed?

Most people can probably come up with examples of times that their mother embarrassed them. This post from Feministing puts them all to shame. (Warning: major ickiness alert ahead.)

Darling Daughter,

You have ripened before my eyes, and I marvel at the incandescent changes. Your hormones are in overdrive, and I swear that I can hear them humming as they reshape your body and wreck havoc with your moods.

As your mother, I want your journey into womanhood to be only filed with rich discoveries and free of fear; as a woman, I know that is asking the impossible. But here is what I can offer: some advice and a very practical gift.

Sex with the right partner will be tender and fun, fast and furious, dizzying and daring. But this doesn’t happen overnight. The very important first step is self-knowledge, and that’s why this note comes attached to a vibrator. Women’s bodies are mysterious and mercurial and require unhurried exploration. I want you to fully explore your own body before you share it with someone else. Why? Because I want you to discover the wonderful point of orgasm when your mind ceases to function and the growing ripples rise and erupt into shudders that will transport you. Encode that in your memory, and take notice of how your body and thoughts gradually establish their fragile equilibrium.

Please, sweetheart, don’t settle for anything less.

When you find yourself at the mercy of inexpert fumbling (and you will), I want you to have intimate knowledge of exactly what you like and want. This will be your power. Use it gently.

I’m also giving you this gift because you are kindling, and every touch, every kiss is an incendiary spark. You will not be capable of extinguishing the desire, but a vibrator gives you a highly effective option to quench your sexual thirst. Before you engage in sex, ask yourself two questions. Do I trust this person? Does s/he make me feel good about myself?

Years ago, I was in the throes of an obsessive affair, and a very wise friend sat me down and asked me. “Would you give this man the keys and the Title to your car?” It seemed a ludicrous query. Of course I wouldn’t. I barely knew him. “And yet,” she continued, “you are willing to give him your body and your heart. Aren’t they more precious than a car?”

I have ruminated over this question many times, with many men. If I can’t exclaim “YES!” definitely and unequivocally, I slow things down. I hope you will do the same.

Too many of your friends will take huge emotional and physical risks to explore intense sexual sensations. A vibrator offers you the chance to celebrate your passion, to inject yourself with a boost of adrenaline, and build the scaffolding of your sexuality without risk or fear. Experience your own impulses and appetites first; you will have years to communicate and honor these self-truths with another.

I love you.

2009-05-31

Talking to your kids about sex? Good. Giving them vibrators and gushing about how wonderful you visualize their orgasms will be? Um, gross.

Re-read the letter above, and ask yourself: does this sound like a letter from a mother to her daughter? There’s something disturbing and almost incestuous-sounding about it. This is a woman who is a little too excited about, to use her language, the “ripening” of her daughter and the orgasms she will soon experience.

The other thing I have to wonder about is if this woman ever stopped and actually thought about her daughter. How many teenage girls would read that without feeling disturbed and humiliated? How many teenage girls would be enthusiastic about using a vibrator given to them by their mother? I doubt this ever crossed her mind as the mom lovingly crafted her erotic letter of joy over the ripening of her teenage daughter.

She got two thumbs up from everyone at Feministing, though, so who cares? She can pat herself on the back for being such a good progressive little feminist, and that’s all that matters.

4. Idolizing an an extremist who dreams of gendercide.

Valerie Solanas is a feminist extremist and an attempted murderer. She was an advocate for gendercide and wanted to create an all-female society. At Feministing, this makes her a hero.

I have been a huge fan of Valerie Solarna’s for a few years now, she is as instrumental to my radical feminism and queer theory as Beauvoir or Lorde. I am curious, for most of the people on this website tend to be more of the liberal feminist types, what do you all make of this manifesto? You don’t have to read “the whole thing”, but it’s not very long so I hope I persuade you to do so by simply saying it is WORTH reading. I’d love to hear your thoughts of shock, disgust, dismay, love, laughter, joy, and how this manifesto compares to our awful contemporary postion, as womyn…in this world.

Love, Emma Goldman

Commenters for the most part were right on board with Solanas. Some dismissed the SCUM manifesto as satire; others said it was appropriate and needed to offset “the patriarchy”. But what exactly is the SCUM manifesto? (You can read it here.) Well, SCUM stands for “Society for Cutting Up Men”. She blames all men for war, “niceness, politeness, and ‘dignity’”, and “money, marriage and prostitution, work and prevention of an automated society”, fatherhood and mental illness, prejudice, religion, prevention of conversation and friendship, ugliness, disease and much more. She says that we need to eliminate men from the planet and create an all-female society. She shot Andy Warhol, and all of this earned her the respect and admiration of notable feminist extremists like Ti-Grace Atkinson, Robin Morgan, and Florynce Kennedy.

Over forty years later, she’s still being held up as someone to be admired and looked up to in feminazi land. But somehow, it’s men who are the violent misogynists destroying our society.

3. Men are slightly less valuable than dogs.

What would the femisogynist response be if men said that all wives and mothers were useless hunks of flesh? It’s quite common to see man-bashing on the feminist left, although we’re somehow to believe that they’re after equality and that they don’t actually hate men. That’s hard to believe when you read actual femisogynist blogs, though. Take this entry, where husbands are derided as useless hunks of flesh and women are encouraged to leave not only their husbands, but their children, too.

On my Twitter feed I came across this article, from a woman explaining why she was late for work. Turns out she is, somehow, the only person responsible for rounding up the kids in the morning:

So where the f*ck is her husband, who presumably sired the kids in question?

Women of the world: it’s time to leave those useless hunks of flesh called “husbands” and “fathers” who feed off your labour while you earn 70 per cent of their wages.

And by the way: don’t forget to leave them custody. Leave your guilt at the door. The kids will work out fine. Your husband will have to make sure of that, just like you would if you were the sucker. Don’t be.

After all, men earn more money. They can look after the kids better. Let them.

This post was a Feministing editor’s favorite the week that it was published, by the way. Calling all men useless hunks of flesh is not only A-OK, but in feminazi land, it’s laudable. They shout about the patriarchy and complain about misogyny, yet they have no problem whatsoever with hateful, violent rhetoric against men. It’s just as sexist, if not more so, than the patriarchy they pretend to be fighting.

Today’s feminist extremists aren’t content with equality, they want superiority. They can’t see that they’re the sexist ones now.

2. All men are monsters.

In case you men out there didn’t already know it, you all hate women. Deep down inside, you all dream about beating up and raping women. You may think you’re not a sexist product of the patriarchy, but you really are. In case you aren’t convinced, it’s all spelled out for you at Feministing.

I also know that when I affirmed for myself that I wanted to partner with women, I was taking a risk and AGAIN living in opposition to the patriarchy. How dare I not be sexually available to men! How dare I not become a man’s wife!

I am also fat, and fat-loving. This, again, is not something a man wants me to be. I take up space. I don’t apologize for my size. The diet and fashion industries, largely run by men, want women to disappear (size double zero???). I refuse. I actively resist the push for me to get smaller and be quieter.

I am also masculine, and a woman. I am not transgendered, I use female pronouns and I use my girly first name. This, I think, is the biggest of the unspoken affront to the patriarchy. This is, also, the only aspect of my identity that regularly makes me afraid. I am afraid to use public restrooms-which I have to confront as my daughter is potty-learning right now. I am not afraid to be there, I am afraid of what might happen to me when someone realizes what I am. Just this week, I followed two women into the “ladies” room, and one of them did a double take at me, then went and looked outside at the pictogram on the door. As she did that, I said, “I am a woman and I am in the right bathroom.” She of course got all kinds of embarrassed and apologetic, from which I turned away. I try to tell myself her embarrassment is not my responsibility, but my fear is about what she does with her feelings. Does she go tell her male partner about me and he takes it upon himself to correct what is wrong with me? Sometimes, I think I am being paranoid. But then another transperson is killed, and I get reminded that maybe I am not paranoid. Like I said, I am not transgendered, but my gender is certainly transgressive. And rigid gender ideas are the props of the patriarchy. If we start to push the boundaries of gender, we push at the foundation of patriarchal power. I do that, everyday, with my man panties and my men’s deodorant (as if deodorant or underwear have a gender).

But ultimately, what I do that is in opposition to the patriarchy is live, and breathe and be. Men don’t like women (there I go with that reductionist shit again). In fact, men beat, rape and control women. In some places, women’s presence outside of the home is considered obscene. In other places, the qualities that women are encouraged to have (empathy, for example) are looked at with disdain and even contempt (Michael Steele, I am looking at you!).

I know that my very existence, even if I worked at the zoo, is in opposition to the patriarchy. I might not have to defend using gendered language, but I would still be afraid of what might happen when I use the bathroom. I would still not be a man’s servicer. I’d still get pegged as a humorless, strident man-hater. I’d still get called a bitch, a dyke, a whore and a cunt. I would still fear for my sexual safety. And even so, I would still get up every day, put on my man panties and go out into the world. That audacity is how I live my life in opposition to the patriarchy, just like every woman does.

Right. Every woman has to live in fear because men are EVIL. Men beat and rape and abuse women. Not some men, not a few men. Nope, all men. Men either beat and rape women, or they wish they could.

Now, let’s just imagine that some male blog ran a feature saying something similar about women. Femisogynists would be up in arms — but spouting this kind of hateful rhetoric against men is not only allowed among feminist gender bigots, it’s commonplace. These aren’t a few fringe postings that pop up every now and then. The feminist movement once fought for equality, but thanks to sites like Feministing, it’s filled with nothing more than hypocrisy and hatred nowadays.

1. Even men who treat women well are evil.

Hatred of men is never-ending for feminazis. No matter what you do, you’ll never be good enough. Men will always be rapists and batterers — women never do anything wrong, don’t you know? — and it doesn’t matter if you think that you’re a good man or not. Everything you do is sexist, whether you know it or not.

Am I saying that all men are terrible rapists and batterers? No. Really, I am not. But just like I benefit from my white skin without knowingly doing anything actively racist, men benefit from the rape and battery of women whether they are actually rapists or batterers.

… But, if we look at misogyny as a continuum, where the far end is the extremes of rape and battery, I bet we would be hard pressed to find a man who hadn’t participated at some point on that continuum of the hatred of women. No, he didn’t rape anybody, but he likes to look at “barely legal” porn. No, he hasn’t beaten his girlfriend, but he doesn’t speak up when his buddies tell blond jokes. No, he doesn’t force anyone to watch him masturbate, but he can’t look at a woman’s face when he talks to her. No, he doesn’t demand to be served by his wife, he is even a volunteer at a rape crisis center-where he dominates every conversation and talks more than he listens.

So blond jokes equal assault, pornography equals rape, not looking a woman in the face equals forcing her to watch him masturbate, and talking too much cancels out volunteering at a rape crisis center.

It doesn’t matter if you treat women with respect, if you never rape, beat, or abuse anyone, if you volunteer to help women in crisis. You’re a violent, sexist, cruel man no matter what you do.

These posts, by the way, were not dismissed on Feministing. They were cheered and applauded. Sexist, hateful rhetoric against men is not condemned or dismissed. It’s described as beautiful, courageous, honest, and deep. It’s not only accepted, but it’s honored — because it’s fighting the patriarchy, of course.

Just for argument’s sake, let’s say that there is all of this hateful, violent, anti-woman rhetoric swirling around. The answer to this, for man-hating feminists, is to sink down to that level. Rather than being the better person, women are told to lower their standards and to be just as violent and sexist towards men. The phrase “two wrongs don’t make a right” is apparently not applicable in the battle against the imaginary patriarchy. They are just as sexist, if not more so, than the patriarchy they claim to be fighting, but they’ll never see that. They live in an echo chamber, where the same violent, hateful, anti-male thoughts are just bounced around over and over and over again.

Feministing proves that today’s femisogynists are not feminists at all, but angry, bitter, immature women who wouldn’t know equality if it bit them in the face. They demand special treatment, demonize men, and make women into perpetual victims. Yet they somehow can’t understand why, outside of their own little echo chamber of the femisogynist blogosphere, they have no relevance in the real world whatsoever.

This is Jessica Valenti’s legacy after seven years of Feministing. She created a community where angry, bitter women can indulge themselves in whiny overreactions, violent rhetoric against men, sexism, and constant victimhood. Tell me, how exactly does any of this help women achieve equality?

–

Follow Cassy on Twitter and read more of her work at CassyFiano.com and Hard Corps Wife.

I guess we shouldn’t be too surprised. The Nobel Committee probably needs a break from honoring people who actually fight for human rights, like Liu Xiabao, and really needs to get back to honoring real peacemakers. Wikileaks fits right in with prior winners such as Yasser Arafat, Kofi Annan, Jimmy Carter, and Barack Obama. They’ve done absolutely nothing to further peace, but liberals sure love them, so who cares? They’re way more trendy than boring winners like Xiabao.

Stortinget parliamentarian Snorre Valen said he nominated WikiLeaks because it has helped “redraw the map of information freedom.”

“Liu Xiabao was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize last year for his struggle for human rights, democracy and freedom of speech in China,” Valen wrote on his blog. “Likewise, WikiLeaks have contributed to the struggle for those very values globally, by exposing (among many other things) corruption, war crimes and torture.”

There’s also the complicity of Wikileaks in possible torture and death, but who cares about that? Wikileaks callously released the names and whereabouts of Afghan informants helping US troops drive out the Taliban — a truly corrupt, murderous, terrorist regime — putting not only the lives of the informants in danger, but also the lives of their families. (Even Amnesty International was disgusted by this.) Julian Assange doctored a video of an Apache shooting insurgents in Baghdad, calling it collateral murder, but his little act of exposure in Afghanistan could lead to real collateral murder. The “courage” of the Wikileaks document drop also put the lives of US citizens and troops in danger, but hey, maybe that’s why they’re being nominated.

Julian Assange also admitted that Wikileaks was responsible for a Kenyan massacre that followed one of their document drops, but who cares? The Kenyans were informed before they were slaughtered. I’m sure that, were they alive, they would totally say it was worth it.

See? Wikileaks is important. Sometimes, putting the lives of brave citizens trying to overthrow terrorist regimes at risk is worth it, because it makes Julian Assange a liberal celebrity. Causing the deaths of Kenyan innocents is all good because the Kenyans got some free information they didn’t have before they died. What was I thinking?! Wikileaks is clearly worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Hat Tip: Right Wing News

–

Follow Cassy on Twitter and read more of her work at CassyFiano.com and Hard Corps Wife.

One of the biggest news stories this week has been the exposure of Dr. Kermit Gosnell’s house of horrors masquerading as an abortion clinic in Philadelphia, PA. Since the grisly reality of what was happening behind those closed doors came to light, there was an immediate firestorm of outrage and controversy surrounding the issue. Pro-life activists have argued that legislators were willing to overlook the massive issues that repeatedly came to light because they are afraid of the backlash from the abortion lobby. Pro-abortion activists among the feminist left, most notably Amanda Marcotte, have given only the tiniest condemnation while excusing the abortion atrocities in the name of choice. But is a murderous butcher posing as an abortionist really the best argument for choice, and how entrenched in an abortion agenda must one be to make excuses for these abuses?

Operation Rescue published heart-wrenching photographs from Gosnell’s butcher shop. Looking at them was immensely difficult for me — these children were barely older than my son is now.

I had a 4D ultrasound this week, and posted some of the videos on my Facebook page. Last night, I got an e-mail from Kate at Blatherings Blog asking if she could post one of them on her blog. I told her yes, and here is the video she chose to post:

That’s my son, Ben, at 29 weeks yawning. I have other videos of him sucking his thumb and moving around. On other ultrasounds I’ve seen him kick his little feet and wave his little arms. I’ve not only heard his heart beating, I’ve seen it. I look at those images and wonder what he’ll look like when he’s born, I wonder if he’ll want to play soccer and hockey like his dad did, if he’ll follow his dad’s footsteps and join the Marine Corps, if he’ll get married, what his children will look like. I look at those images and see an entire future, a lifetime of hope and promise, spread out in front of me. I could never look at those images, hear that heartbeat, and feel him moving inside me, and consider killing him. I couldn’t imagine how anyone could make that choice. I’ve always been pro-life, but I can’t understand how someone who has carried a child can remain pro-abortion.

I caused a firestorm of controversy back in October when I pondered this, daring to ask how pro-abortion extremist Jessica Valenti felt about abortion now that she’s carried and birthed a child of her own.

When Valenti heard her baby’s heart beating, did she think it was just an abortable clump of cells? When she saw her daughter moving in her uterus, was it a fetus or a baby? When she felt her baby kicking, did she have any doubt about what she was carrying? If she had miscarried (and thank goodness she didn’t), would she have thought she lost some fetal tissue or would she have thought she lost her baby? A pregnant woman knows the truth. It’s why so many women feel they need to lie to themselves or avoid an ultrasound before an abortion. If they were to admit the truth to themselves, they wouldn’t be able to live with themselves.

These are questions she’ll probably never answer. (She blogged about her pregnancy only once.) To answer truthfully would be to undermine what she’s spent years fighting for. After all, when you see the little baby squirming and moving on that ultrasound screen, there’s no doubt about what it is. But to admit that a pregnant woman is carrying a baby, and not a meaningless clump of cells, would be to open Pandora’s Box for pro-abortion radicals like Valenti. If it’s a baby, then to abort it is murder. Quite a sticky situation for a femisogynist to get herself into, isn’t it?

It’s the same situation pro-aborts like Amanda Marcotte, Jill Filipovic, and Vanessa Valenti find themselves in now as they struggle to defend abortion rights in the wake of the Gosnell controversy. To let themselves be as outraged as the rest of decent society is would undermine everything they’ve been fighting for. And who cares if a few infants and one woman died for abortion rights? They’ve got an agenda to push.

Interestingly, NARAL celebrated Blogs for Choice Day yesterday. Is this an example of the choice we’re supposed to fight for as women? To pretend that this is some kind of an aberration is a joke. How many other hospitals, medical departments, health boards, and DAs are looking the other way in the name of protecting abortion rights? Abortion advocates refuse to even address the possibility. This is a one-time problem, one wackjob who has nothing to do with abortion and all other abortion clinics are “safe”. The question is, if this really has anything to do with women’s rights and freedom of choice, then why can’t we ask these questions? Why the lack of regulations for abortion clinics? If this was really a question of choice and women’s rights, abortion extremists like Amanda Marcotte would be outraged and demanding to know the answers to these questions. After all, it is women who are suffering, and it is women who extremists like Marcotte claim to be fighting for.

If you want to know how soulless the abortion movement really is, then just look at their response to Gosnell’s House of Horrors. What kind of person must you be to see the atrocities that took place at this clinic and argue for more abortions? It says a lot about abortion advocates, that they would brush the murder and abuses of women and children under the rug to protect the right to have an abortion. But before we can understand the depths of the pro-abortion feminist left’s depravity in their reaction to the Gosnell case, we need to understand just what went on behind those closed doors.

The grand jury report is ghastly. Dr. Gosnell is charged with eight counts of murder, seven of which were infants. These infants were delivered alive and viable, before Gosnell murdered them by snipping their spinal cords. In addition to letting mothers give birth to their babies and then murdering those babies, the grand jury report shows that Gosnell had no concern for the health of the mothers, either. The introduction of the report shows that this man is a sadistic monster.

This case is about a doctor who killed babies and endangered women. What we mean is that he regularly and illegally delivered live, viable, babies in the third trimester of pregnancy – and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors. The medical practice by which he carried out this business was a filthy fraud in which he overdosed his patients with dangerous drugs, spread venereal disease among them with infected instruments, perforated their wombs and bowels – and, on at least two occasions, caused their deaths. Over the years, many people came to know that something was going on here. But no one put a stop to it.

… One woman, for example, was left lying in place for hours after Gosnell tore her cervix and colon while trying, unsuccessfully, to extract the fetus. Relatives who came to pick her up were refused entry into the building; they had to threaten to call the police. They eventually found her inside, bleeding and incoherent, and transported her to the hospital, where doctors had to remove almost half a foot of her intestines.

On another occasion, Gosnell simply sent a patient home, after keeping her mother waiting for hours, without telling either of them that she still had fetal parts inside her. Gosnell insisted she was fine, even after signs of serious infection set in over the next several days. By the time her mother got her to the emergency room, she was unconscious and near death.

A nineteen-year-old girl was held for several hours after Gosnell punctured her uterus. As a result of the delay, she fell into shock from blood loss, and had to undergo a hysterectomy.

One patient went into convulsions during an abortion, fell off the procedure table, and hit her head on the floor. Gosnell wouldn’t call an ambulance, and wouldn’t let the woman’s companion leave the building so that he could call an ambulance.

Why did no one at the hospital report these incidents? As Michelle Malkin pointed out, it likely wouldn’t have mattered if they had reported him. The Pennsylvania Department of Health knew of clinic violations for decades, and did nothing. The Pennsylvania Department of State was repeatedly given evidence of the horrible conditions at Gosnell’s clinic and did nothing. The Philadelphia Department of Public Health inspected Gosnell’s clinic multiple times and did nothing. There was decades worth of oversight on multiple levels where officials willingly closed their eyes to the abuses and violations going on at the Gosnell House of Horrors.

Even an evaluator from The National Abortion Federation visited Gosnell’s clinic and called it “the worst abortion clinic she had ever inspected”. Gosnell even told her about the death of Karnamaya Mongar. Was any action taken? No. The goal of NAF is allegedly “to ensure safe, legal, and acceptable abortion care, and to promote health and justice for women”, yet they turned a blind eye to Gosnell’s clinic, just like Pennsylvania authorities. They were more concerned about protecting their agenda than they were concerned with protecting the lives of women.

While pro-lifers have rightfully demanded to know why it is state officials let these atrocities continue on for decades, pro-abortion extremists have somehow decided that this case has nothing to do with abortion — and demands less regulation in the abortion industry. If only pro-lifers didn’t make abortions so difficult to obtain, then none of this would have ever happened, or something.

The lack of outrage from the political left and from pro-abortion activists is disturbing. As The Anchoress noted, the hypocrisy is overwhelming.

While many pro-aborts claim that this has nothing to do with abortion, to truly believe that boggles the mind. After all, how different is partial birth abortion from what Dr. Gosnell was doing? The only difference is that part of the baby remains inside the mother’s body — and that abortion extremists defend the “right” to perform late-term, partial birth abortions on babies that are viable and able to survive outside the womb. It’s also worth pointing out that, if Barack Obama had his way, what Dr. Gosnell did would be considered legal.

Meanwhile, femisogynists (rather than being outraged at the abuses women were forced to endure at Gosnell’s hands) are scurrying to excuse this. They pay lip service to the outrage of the situation, and then quickly go right into abortion-defense mode.

Amanda Marcotte begins by quickly contorting herself into an intellectual pretzel trying to blame the pro-life movement for this madman.

That shady abortion providers get patients at all is something we can safely blame the anti-choice movement for. Most doctors in this country are pro-choice, and many would like to provide abortion, but as Slate’s Emily Bazelon demonstrated in the New York Times, the stigma of doing so makes it that much harder to do. Good medical care costs money, but very few women seeking abortion can get coverage, in no small part because of anti-choice initiatives like the Hyde Amendment. If you’re seeking an abortion but can’t afford it, going to a doctor who provides substandard care on the cheap is certainly going to be an attractive option.

These particular charges involve late-term abortion, and all I could think upon reading the news story was, “I wish these women could have gone to Dr. George Tiller,” because he was renowned for the quality of care provided at his Kansas clinic. But sadly, that wasn’t even an option, even for those who could afford it, as Dr. Tiller’s life was taken by an anti-choice extremist in 2009. When vacuums are created, we shouldn’t be surprised when they suck in a bunch of junk.

Amanda’s premise is flawed on virtually every level. First, Dr. Tiller was murdered in 2009. The violations at Dr. Gosnell’s clinic go back decades, so many of the women violated at his clinic could have gone to Dr. Tiller. Also, this wasn’t a case of women choosing to go to an abortion butcher like Dr. Gosnell because it was cheap, or because better options weren’t available. As Rachael Larimore pointed out in her rebuttal, Philadelphia houses several abortion clinics, one of which offers financial assistance. Pennsylvania offers no-cost birth control and emergency contraception to women who qualify. And while Planned Parenthood charges less than $1,000 for first trimester abortions, Dr. Gosnell was charging his patients $2,500 or more for his late-term abortions.

Jill at Feministe tried to pretend that he was just a murderer and not an abortionist, and therefore this has nothing to do with abortion.

Contrary to what Great Moral Authority On Abortion William Saletan has to say about the matter, I think we’re all pretty well agreed that if the charges against Kermit Gosnell are true, then dude is a criminal and needs to go to jail. Killing a baby after it’s born and has taken breaths? Is not abortion. It should be, and is, a crime punishable by law. And Kermit Gosnell is being criminally prosecuted.

Also, women don’t get late-term abortions for fun. Seriously. No one is like, “I think I will continue this pregnancy for as long as legally possible before I undergo an invasive medical procedure that is rendered longer, more expensive, and more complicated because I waited six months to have it.” No. It’s actually more like, “I really wanted this baby but now it turns out that there’s a fetal abnormality incompatible with life, and if I continue this pregnancy I risk my own health and/or life to give birth to a baby that either will not live or will only live in extreme pain for a very short while.” Fun stuff like that.

That’s a falsehood, of course. Most late-term abortions are actually not done to save the life of the mother or because the baby won’t survive. There have been virtually no studies done on late-term abortions, with the exception of the Guttmacher Institute over 20 years ago. In a survey of 1,900 women who had abortions, 420 had late-term abortions. Of those 420, only 2% had a late-term abortion due to a fetal abnormality. Most women just claimed they didn’t know they were pregnant or misjudged their gestation. And what is Jill’s point? That killing a baby when he is delivered is murder, but doing it moments beforehand when he’s still partially in his mother’s birth canal is A-OK? To someone like her, there’s no difference. And it wasn’t as if Dr. Gosnell was only killing babies in the “bad” way. He performed many, many, many “acceptable” late-term abortions. He’s being charged with 33 illegal late-term abortions, but killed hundreds in this manner.

Vanessa Valenti at Feministing basically regurgitates Jill Filipovic and Amanda Marcotte’s nonsensical arguments. It’s not about abortion, but even if it was, this never would have happened if women had better access to abortion clinics anyways. Nevermind the 33 counts of felony abortion and exorbitant prices patients were charged. Gotta tread carefully here, because if they express too much condemnation, then it could infringe on abortion rights!

The pro-abortion feminist left is going to great lengths to brush this controversy underneath the rug in order to protect abortion rights. They claim to be fighting for women, but are willing to overlook instances where women are abused and injured, and even killed. Yet somehow, we’re supposed to believe that these are today’s champions of women’s rights — women who can barely muster more than a shrug of the shoulders over the murder of one woman, the murders of seven infants, and the butchering of countless other women who were fortunate enough to survive a visit to Gosnell’s clinic. If one ever needed an example of just how far these women who call themselves feminists are willing to go to protect their sacred cow, you would need only look at their reaction to Kermit Gosnell butcher shop.

–

Follow Cassy on Twitter and read more of her work at CassyFiano.com and Hard Corps Wife.

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

The vote was 245-189.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dishonorable mention: Hanoi Jane has no shame

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

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

Which brings us to the first of this top 10.

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

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

10. Amanda Marcotte blames the men

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

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

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

Right.

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

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

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

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

8. No Labels has no class

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

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

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

7. Sherrod Brown blames health care hate speech

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Glenn LaFantasie: The American experience created Loughner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Daisy Hernandez thanks God the shooter was white

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. It’s all Sarah Palin’s fault

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

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

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

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

No matter; Moulitsas just dug in even further.

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

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

Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva also blamed Palin:

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

Joan Walsh jumped into the fray:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Death threats.

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

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

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

——

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

–

Follow Cassy on Twitter and read more of her work at CassyFiano.com and Hard Corps Wife.

I disagree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

–

Follow Cassy on Twitter and read more of her work at CassyFiano.com and Hard Corps Wife.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

–

Follow Cassy on Twitter and read more of her work at CassyFiano.com and Hard Corps Wife.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

–

Follow Cassy on Twitter and read more of her work at CassyFiano.com and Hard Corps Wife.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

–

Follow Cassy on Twitter and read more of her work at CassyFiano.com and Hard Corps Wife.

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

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

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

The subject this time was Hooters’ catering to children.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

–

Follow Cassy on Twitter and read more of her work at CassyFiano.com and Hard Corps Wife.

Well, when you consider that the driving force behind his nomination was Meghan McCain, it suddenly makes sense. Meggie Mac wrote another ghastly column, wasting space on The Daily Beast this week defending her choice to nominate Zuckerberg.

I was one of the people on Time’s panel to nominate and argue over who was most deserving of the title. My two choices were the Tea Party and Mark Zuckerberg. The Time panel consisted of myself, Joe Trippi, Google’s Marissa Miller (who petitioned hard for Steve Job’s to be considered for person of the year), Wyclef Jean, and the executive director of the American Society for Muslim Advancement Daisy Khan. Everyone chose both interesting and year poignant candidates. Other notable people that were discussed were Nancy Pelosi, Glenn Beck and the country of Haiti.

Hang on — stop right there. Did I just see Meghan McCain write Steve Job’s? As in, she added an apostrophe into the name of Steve Jobs, the co-founder and CEO of Apple? And someone, please, explain to me what exactly this sentence means:

Everyone chose both interesting and year poignant candidates.

Perhaps the most pressing question that needs to be answered is why in the name of God this blonde bimbo hasn’t been assigned the desperately needed team of editors to scrutinize every word of drivel that she writes. But this is about Mark Zuckerberg, so let’s continue.

Time’s choice is like the man himself, innovative and controversial. The “Person of the Year” is an illusive title that has historically showcased, for better or worse, the individual who has had the most distinctive impact on the previous year. In 2010 Facebook hit its five hundred millionth member. A feat no social network has ever achieved before. David Fincher and Aaron Sorkin’s The Social Network was also released to both commercial and critical acclaim. Mark Zuckerberg has become the first true millenial rockstar, and he is ushering in a completely new era.

At the end of the day, Mark Zuckerberg really is the most forward thinking and relevant candidate, even beating Julian Assange and the Tea Party. He transcends all of these people and, dare I say, even countries because all of these subjects are more than likely be read about, discussed, and debated via users on—where else?—Facebook. I believe that Mark Zuckerberg is the Henry Ford of our times and Facebook is the Model-T.

There you have it, folks: according to brilliant pundit Meghan McCain, Mark Zuckerberg is just as genius as Henry Ford, and Facebook — a website that’s primarily used for wasting time — is an invention as historically significant as the Model-T.

Previous people to have been awarded the now-defunct honor of being name the Time Person of the Year include Charles Lindbergh, Walter Chrysler, Winston Churchill, Harry Truman, Martin Luther King Jr, Henry Kissinger, Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II, and Bill Gates. More recently, esteemed winners have included… er, Barack Obama and you. Mark Zuckerberg cements it: the Person of the Year award has officially jumped the shark.

Sure, a lot of people use Facebook for lots of different reasons. What has Mark Zuckerberg done this year, in 2010, to make him the Person of the Year? Well… his website inspired a movie that made a lot of money. A lot of people signed up to use Facebook. And… that’s about it.

Other people considered? Well, there’s Julian Assange, who while not likeable to most normal human beings certainly had a major impact on the world this year, thanks to Wikileaks. He also came in first in Time’s online voting poll. Mark Zuckerberg came in tenth, behind Lady Gaga, Glenn Beck, Steve Jobs (or Job’s, as Meggie Mac spells it), the Chilean miners, and the unemployed American. The Tea Party movement? While it didn’t make it into the top ten of the online voting poll, that would also arguably be a better choice.

Let’s see, founder of an internet site famously used for wasting time vs. a movement that redefined politics and halted socialism in its creeping tracks. I guess for Meggie Mac, it’s no contest. After all, those Tea Partiers sure do like Sarah Palin a lot, who is Meggie Mac’s arch-nemesis, so clearly she can’t side with them. (For that matter, Sarah Palin would’ve been a better choice than Mark Zuckerberg, too.)

Hey, maybe next year we can make the Kardashians the Persons of the Year! Their TV show is really cool and stuff! Right, Meggie Mac?

In all seriousness, while Facebook has indeed impacted many, many people, there was nothing in the year 2010 that made Facebook particularly newsworthy. As Ed Morrissey pointed out yesterday, Time is a little behind on the times.

Apparently, Time didn’t know that Facebook launched in February 2004, and had achieved the status of most trafficked social network by the end of 2008. If the issue was impact, it seems as though Time is two years too late in awarding this.

Honestly, though, what other real and significant impact has Facebook had? It has spawned a Hollywood movie, which is probably why Time bothered to notice it after more than six years. It’s a popular meeting space, and it allows people to reconnect to old friends, as well as waste vast amounts of time with imaginary farms and wannabe virtual Mafia dons. Facebook is mostly a time suck. At least Twitter had an impact last year in the attempt by the Iranian people to rebel against the dictatorship in Tehran.

But of course, Meghan McCain, political genius, wouldn’t need to bother with finding out stuff like that, would she? There was that Facebook movie that came out, y’all!! Come on!

Of course, while Meggie Mac might be the intellectual lightweight responsible for arguing that Mark Zuckerberg deserves the title of 2010′s Person of the Year, the blame ultimately falls with Time itself. What else did they expect? When you put a moron like Meghan McCain on your panel to choose the Person of the Year, what else are you going to get but a moronic choice?

–

Follow Cassy on Twitter and read more of her work at CassyFiano.com and Hard Corps Wife.

Much has been made of this incident. Luckily, the only person shot ended up being the shooter, who was shot by a security guard and then apparently took his own life.

And it was because of just that — luck.

Much has been made of the woman seen in the beginning to the clip, Ginger Littleton. A member of the school board, Littleton tried to stop Duke by hitting him with her purse, before he knocked her to the ground and pointed the gun at her. He ended up letting her go. Littleton said she felt that she needed to do something to stop the shooter from the defenseless men left in the room before the police could get there.

Before the shooting, board member Ginger Littleton, who initially exited the meeting, snuck back in and tried to disarm Duke, swinging her purse at his arm holding the gun.

“I knew that he had the gun right there. There wasn’t anything I could do. My plan A was to try to get the gun away from him. Unfortunately, because I’m probably not smarter than the average bear, I did not have a plan B,” Littleton told “Early Show” co-anchor Harry Smith.

Littleton’s attempt was unsuccessful. Duke, a large, heavyset man dressed in a dark pullover coat, got angry, turned around, and she fell to the floor, as board members pleaded with her to stop. Duke pointed the gun at her head and said, “You stupid b–” but he didn’t shoot her, she said.

Littleton said she it was her concern for her defenseless colleagues that drove her to take such a risk.

“Their shield was a three-ring binder and [their] lethal weapon was a ballpoint pen. They were lined up like ducks in a pond. And this guy was very scary. So, I could either leave and I knew something bad was going to happen. I could either leave and try to live with myself if it did or go back and try to at least delay or divert until we could get some help,” she said.

Littleton was exactly right: her colleagues had nothing they could use to defend themselves against this crazed gunman. As you can see in the video, the gunman was there for over six minutes. He was able to walk in with a gun and fire multiple gunshots at unarmed, defenseless men before a security guard was able to get into the room and take him down. The school board superintendent, Bill Husfelt, was able to do nothing but plead for his life when the gun was pointed at him.

Had it not been for the fact that Clay Duke was unable to aim correctly, how many lives would have been lost yesterday? It was nothing but luck that kept those school board members alive.

Now, imagine if someone, anyone, in that room had been carrying a gun. How quickly could Clay Duke have been brought down? Had someone there been armed, he might not have been able to fire his first shot. It’s another example of why it is so important to carry a weapon. In the countless instances of mass shootings, they all have one thing in common: had someone present been carrying a gun, countless lives would have been saved. Gun control advocates like to ignore that little nugget of logic, but keeping guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens does nothing but ensure that they are defenseless when confronted with a gun-wielding criminal (who likely didn’t care about breaking handgun laws to acquire their weapon). Making schools gun-free zones does nothing but set up easy targets for situations like the Columbine shooting, the Virginia Tech massacre, and this school board shooting to continue happening. A gunman can rest assured that no one will be there to take him down while he murders innocent people. Gun control does nothing more than make innocent, law-abiding citizens sitting ducks when a dangerous situation arises.

We should be thankful that no one was hurt or killed in the altercation yesterday — and remember the importance of maintaining a well-armed populace.

–

Follow Cassy on Twitter and read more of her work at CassyFiano.com and Hard Corps Wife.

In Berkeley, that person — Bradley Manning — is considered a hero.

An Army private jailed for allegedly leaking sensitive military data is a hero and should be freed, according to a resolution under consideration by the Berkeley City Council.

The council is expected to vote Tuesday on whether to declare its support for Pfc. Bradley Manning, who’s suspected of providing WikiLeaks with classified military documents and a video depicting an Army helicopter attack in Baghdad in which 11 civilians were killed.

Manning, 22, currently in the brig in Quantico, Va., faces 52 years in prison if convicted. Manning has not commented on his guilt or innocence.

“If he did what he’s accused of doing, he’s a patriot and should get a medal,” said Bob Meola, the Berkeley peace and justice commissioner who authored the resolution. “I think the war criminals should be the ones prosecuted, not the whistle-blowers.”

The proposed resolution originated from the same commission that declared the Marine Corps “unwanted intruders” in Berkeley in 2008. The council’s ensuing approval – and reversal – ignited some of the city’s most raucous protest in years and prompted more than 25,000 e-mails to City Hall.

This time, however, the commission’s vote was not unanimous. The resolution passed on a 7-3 vote, and it’s likely to be just as contentious when it meets the City Council.

… Berkeley’s proposed resolution thanks Manning “for his courage in bringing the truth to the American people and the people of the world.”

The courage of the men and women in uniform currently defending the freedom of the Berkeley buffoons doesn’t matter. Berkeley moonbats have a long history of attacking the military, and the Marine Corps in particular. When a Marine Corps recruiting center opened in Berkeley, all hell broke loose, with Code Pink leading the way. The center was vandalized twice. Protestors started a near riot and attacked the police. The same commission looking to honor Bradley Manning passed a resolution, along with the City Council, calling the Marines “uninvited unwelcome intruders”.

Considering Berkeley’s anti-military history, it’s not altogether surprising that they would choose to honor someone like Bradley Manning. What exactly did Bradley Manning do that was do despicable? Well, he is allegedly the person who gave Wikileaks access to thousands upon thousands of files which have been released and are potentially harmful to our military.

The first to debut was the “Collateral Murder” video, which showed the deaths of two Reuters journalists who had chosen to embed with terrorists. This caused a firestorm of controversy against our military, which was once again smeared and slandered as being made up of ruthless, cold-blooded murderers.

Wikileaks then proceeded to release 90,000 pages of classified documents, which outed Afghan informants. This was unforgivable. The bravery of our United States troops is known and appreciated by most Americans, but many underestimate the danger that Afghan civilians put themselves in when they choose to work with us to bring the Taliban down. These informants, if discovered, will be murdered. Their families will be murdered. They took an incredible risk, and displayed unbelievable courage and bravery, and were rewarded by being sold out by a gay soldier who apparently felt like he was teased too much. (Because, you know, if someone hurts your feelings in high school you should definitely betray your country, put your fellow troops at increased risk, and sell out Afghan informants whose lives are on the line.) It’s reprehensible, and if any of these informants are killed, it’s Bradley Manning who has their blood on his hands.

Of course, saying all of this is like preaching to the choir. Most Americans find Manning’s actions to be despicable. Not the residents of Berkeley, however. No, to them Manning’s a hero. Someone to be honored. (This is also likely to be the only time that Berkeley ever sees fit to honor an American soldier.) Interestingly, this news report comes fresh on the heels of the news that Al Jazeera is now going to be broadcast over Berkeley radio waves.

These people don’t just drink the moonbat Kool-Aid, they bathe in it.

–

Follow Cassy on Twitter and read more of her work at CassyFiano.com and Hard Corps Wife.

Yesterday, December 7th, 1941 — a date which will live in infamy — the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

… With confidence in our armed forces — with the unbounding determination of our people — we will gain the inevitable triumph — so help us God.
— from Franklin D. Roosevelt’s December 8, 1941 speech to Congress.

Today marks the 69 year anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor. The surprise attack shocked the nation and catapulted the United States into World War II. It was, at the time, the worst attack on American soil. 1,178 were wounded. 2,043 were killed. The water itself burned and bodies of the injured and the dead piled up.

As more are more Pearl Harbor survivors and World War II veterans leave this Earth, it becomes more and more of a distant historical event that we no longer honor and no longer remember. Each year, Pearl Harbor gets a little closer to becoming one of those events that we will only know of thanks to a few pages in a history book. The vast majority of survivors are gone now, and when there are none left, who will keep their memory alive? Who will honor the sacrifices of the fallen? Where survivors once fought the Japanese, they’re now fighting time — fighting to keep the memory of their fallen brothers alive, fighting to ensure that we continue to remember and honor Pearl Harbor always.

This summer, my husband and I chose to go to Hawaii for his pre-deployment leave. One of our first stops was at Pearl Harbor and the USS Arizona Memorial. We had the honor and privilege of meeting several survivors before riding out to the watery tomb of the 1177 American heroes killed that day. 33 survivors of the bombing of the Arizona chose to be interred with their shipmates.

We watched the black tears bubble to the surface, but the remains of the ship are less visible than ever. Standing before the solemn wall of names of those killed sobers you in a way we weren’t completely prepared for.

Seeing the names of these heroes was an emotional moment. Far more saddening was the behavior of the people at the memorial. The park ranger on the boat on the way to the remains of the Arizona laughed and joked about partying that weekend. When learning there were servicemembers aboard — my husband, a sailor, and an airman — she said nothing and continued laughing about her weekend party plans. Once we arrived at the memorial, I was appalled at the lack of respect shown. People ran around the memorial, laughing and joking. I couldn’t understand how anyone could treat the tombs of American heroes so callously. It was a warning sign, in my eyes, that too many have stopped seeing the attack on Pearl Harbor as the horrific day that it was, a day that deserves solemn remembrance and honor.

We can still make a choice, though. We can choose to remember the sacrifices of the men who fought valiantly and died with honor in service to their country.

We can remember men like Frank Flaherty. When it became known that the USS Oklahoma was going to capsize and the order was given to abandon ship, Flaherty chose instead to remain at his post with a flashlight, illuminating the way so that the rest of the turret crew could escape. Flaherty perished with the ship and was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor.

We can remember men like Doris Miller, Navy Cross recipient. On the bridge of the USS West Virginia, Miller refused to leave his mortally wounded captain, despite enemy bombing and strafing and heavy fire. At great risk to himself, he moved his captain to a safer place and then returned to the bridge where he continued to man and operate a machine gun until ordered to leave the bridge.

We can remember men like William Turner, awarded the Bronze Star. Stationed at the Ewa Marine Corps Air Station, he jumped into the rear cockpit of an airplane with a fellow Marine, Master Sergeant Peters. Both men used the rear machine guns to fire at attacking Japanese planes, and despite being wounded, managed to shoot down one of the enemy planes. Private Turner ultimately died of the wounds he received that day on December 12th.

We can choose to let their memory fade away. Or we can choose to honor their valour, their bravery, their sacrifice.

Remember Pearl Harbor. Remember the men who fought and died 69 years ago today.

They fought together as brothers-in-arms. They died together and now they sleep side by side. To them we have a solemn obligation.
- Admiral Chester W. Nimitz

That was the most horrible scene you could ever think of. Shipmates there, you can’t save them.
- Ship Cook George Brown

When you go home, tell them of us and say for your tomorrows they gave their todays.
- John Maxwell Edmonds

–

Follow Cassy on Twitter and read more of her work at CassyFiano.com and Hard Corps Wife.

It seems almost unfair for an intellectual lightweight like Meghan McCain to take Palin on. While I personally find the Palin-Reagan comparisons a little insulting to the Gipper, Palin is still vastly more intelligent than the majority of PDS-sufferers and is certainly smarter than Meggie-Poo. If this was a boxing match, Sarah would be Mike Tyson facing off against Meggie Mac as Screech. While McCain’s rambling, nonsensical columns are usually full of schadenfreude-y goodness, the columns where she attempts to attack Sarah Palin are simultaneously the most groan-worthy and the most entertaining. In her latest pathetic excuse for a column, Meggie Mac calls Palin “uneducated” … right before she admits that she has no clue what the commonly-used term “blue bloods” means and had to Google it — and she still got it wrong.

Meggie Mac is, like, so insulted that Palin called the Bushes “blue bloods.” She didn’t know what the term meant (apparently she never came across it during her 100% academically-earned degree at Columbia), but since everything in the world obviously revolves around Meggie-Poo, it clearly was a personal hit on her. She was so insulted by Palin’s latest anti-Meggie Mac screed that she even took the time to Google the term “blue bloods” so she could figure out just what Palin was talking about! Now that, folks, is some good journalism.

Welcome to the echo chamber! This week’s (or possibly month’s) latest rhetorical talking point is “blue bloods.” And guess what? In the way it has been used I am probably considered one and so is the entire Bush family, not to mention countless others. And who else would deliver such a catchy media talking point than, yes, Sarah Palin. The reference to “blue bloods” was made after former President George H.W. Bush and his wife Barbara said in an interview that they thought Mitt Romney was essentially the man to watch in 2012, followed by an extra zinger from the notorious straight talking former first lady Barbara Bush who said she thinks “Sarah Palin should stay in Alaska.” Sarah Palin responded on the Laura Ingraham radio show saying “of course they think that, the Bush’s are blue bloods.”

I actually had to Google what the meaning of “blue bloods” was, although I could surmise that it was some kind of knock against education and coming from a family of some success. Yes, in essence that is what this statement meant. Families that work hard and achieve a long line of successful people are “blue bloods” and thus, she implied the opinions of said people are jaded and elitist, even if that family lineage has a long history of public service and leadership within Republican Party. Of course, Sarah Palin is also living the American dream, albeit a different one without the help of any kind of family lineage. She has a successful career that probably most Americans would want by earning millions for her reality show, appearances on Fox, and getting paid to go places and speak her mind. Both of these narratives exemplify why this country is still as Ronald Reagan famously put it “a shining city upon a hill.” America is a place where people can create their own success so their children can have more opportunities than they did. Neither the Bush family’s success nor Sarah Palin’s are relevant to the political conversation regarding who is best suited to be the next GOP leader. Both stories are simply the American dream and taking issue with one kind of path towards success versus another is very dangerous. Lest we forget, Sarah Palin herself is now a multi-millionaire.

Horrifying grammar aside — good grief, is the Daily Beast really so hard up that they can’t employ the requisite team of editors desperately needed to make sense of McCain’s drivel-filled ramblings? — all McCain did here was prove that, as usual, she has absolutely no clue what she is talking about. Daddy’s money that bought Meggie Mac her degree at the oh-so-reputable Columbia University clearly was worth every penny. And while Meghan McCain had absolutely nothing to do with Palin calling the Bush family “blue bloods,” since Meggie Mac is the center of the GOP’s political universe, it’s obvious that Palin was really talking about the McCain family.

Interestingly enough, Sarah Palin got the term exactly right — and coincidentally, it does apply to Meggie Mac as well. The term also doesn’t mean what McCain thinks it does (from her expert Googling, of course). The term “blue blood” means a wealthy, aristocratic family. The Bushes — and yes, the McCains — could be considered blue bloods. People like Meggie Poo who are born with silver spoons in their mouths thanks to Mommy’s beer empire fortune are prime examples of brats born into blue blood families. Being called a blue blood isn’t necessarily an insult, and it certainly isn’t a knock against education and success. Meggie Mac, after all, would be a prime example of how being a blue blood does not equal educated and successful. Sarah Palin got a degree and worked her butt off to become the successful multi-millionaire she is today, but why let silly things like facts and common sense get in the way of jealousy-induced Palin-bashing?

McCain got into an Ivy League university based on her father’s name and her mother’s bank account. She got a “career” as a columnist, author, and political pundit thanks to her father, too. She has no experience and no qualifications that make her deserving of such success, but thankfully for her, she’s got a daddy willing to buy a career for her. It also helps that she’s willing to bash Republican women, conservatism, and the GOP in general to the left-wing media whenever possible. She happily soaks up the attention and publicity, never realizing she’s nothing more than a useful idiot who is playing right into the hands of lefties searching for someone to sell out the Republican Party. Whether she knows she’s being used or if she is just that stupid is open to interpretation.

Laughably, in this column she whines that “moderates” like her are completely innocent of causing any party infighting, yet for some reason always get blamed for it. Sniffle.

None of this is all together surprising except for the fact that historically it is the moderates—or people like yours truly—who get accused of starting party infighting and this statement from Sarah Palin showcases that on a very basic level the underlying cultural separation in this country is also happening within the Republican party itself.

It’s interesting that Meggie Mac would make this claim. For all of her inexperience (has the woman ever held a single job that her daddy didn’t buy for her?), she could actually be an asset to the GOP. If she put even a fraction of the energy she currently spends attacking the Republican Party towards attacking the socialist Left currently destroying our country, she could actually do some good. But no — McCain would rather use her tiny pea brain to fight the party she claims to love. We’re supposed to just go along with it and believe her when she says it’s for our own good.

It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with keeping her coveted interviews and speaking gigs and guest spots on “The View,” could it?

Apparently, we are supposed to abandon the conservative values that the GOP is supposed to stand for in favor of things like gay marriage and amnesty. Never mind that Republicans have lazily been abandoning said conservative values for years, and doing so is exactly what opened the door to Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. If we just keep leaning more to the left more to the center, we’ll be popular again!

Wait, didn’t we try that in 2008 with her father’s presidential run? Didn’t quite work out the way Meggie Mac thought it would though, did it?

If Meghan McCain wants to help the Republican Party, she can start by going away. Not everyone loves Sarah Palin, but she brings an undeniable level of enthusiasm to the GOP that has been missing for far too long. (Heck, had it not been for Sarah Palin, McCain’s presidential aspirations would have failed even more miserably.) Meghan, meanwhile, contributes nothing and serves as a useful cheerleader for those who want to make Republicans look bad. Maybe Meggie Mac can take that blue blood money and see if Daddy can buy her a job writing for Playboy. She’s got the IQ for it, as well as the … other necessary assets.

–

Follow Cassy on Twitter and read more of her work at CassyFiano.com and Hard Corps Wife.

There are few people easier to offend than the “lactivists”. These are the breastfeeding moms who think that breastfeeding is akin to something holy and sacred, and get outrageously outraged if you mention that formula-feeding is just as good as breastfeeding — and even more so if they aren’t allowed to breastfeed anytime, anywhere they wish. Every so often there will be a story in the news about some hapless manager of a restaurant or a store asking a breastfeeding mom to cover up. The lactivists promptly descend upon said establishment to show their “right” to breastfeed in public and show their boobs to the entire world. The latest target of lactivist rage is Facebook, for daring to limit how much boob can be shown in breastfeeding photos.

The Facebook breastfeeding controversy is nothing new. For three years now, lactivist moms have been complaining that Facebook has been pulling photos of moms breastfeeding their babies. Time Magazine, however, posted an article a week ago fanning the flames, spotlighting a mother who has had her account suspended four times.

In one of the photos that keeps getting Emma Kwasnica’s Facebook account suspended, the Montreal-based mother and breast-feeding activist is tandem nursing, with a newborn at one breast and a two-year-old at the other. Classical art and public health be damned, Facebook has censored countless breast-feeding photos for violating the company’s terms of use, a policy that has inspired more than 250,000 people to join a Facebook group called “Hey Facebook, Breastfeeding Is Not Obscene!” Kwasnica has protested her four account suspensions by e-mailing administrators and keeps doggedly reposting photographs and organizing virtual “nurse-ins” via her Facebook group, Informed Choice: Birth and Beyond.

The Facebook group mentioned above, arguing that breastfeeding isn’t obscene, would like you to believe that the nasty people who run Facebook are just breastfeeding haters who are looking for an opportunity to promote bottle-fed babies over breastfed infants. Hey, what’s a good protest without a little conspiracy thrown in for good measure, right?

Recently, Facebook has started ‘pulling a myspace’ by not allowing people to post profile pictures of babies nursing. The pictures have been reported as ‘obscene’ and have been removed- their posters warned not to repost or fear being kicked off of Facebook.

We’re wondering: what about a baby breastfeeding is obscene? Especially in comparison to MANY other pictures posted all over Facebook that really are obscene.

Facebook, we expect more from you, and we expect you to realize that nursing moms everywhere have a right to show pictures of their babies eating, just like bottle-fed babies have a right to be seen. In an effort to appease the closed-minded, you are only serving to be detrimental to babies, women, and society.

So does Facebook really have a secret anti-breastfeeding agenda? Uh, not so much.

While lactivist moms like to pretend that breastfeeding is so sacred that it means they can violate Facebook’s Terms of Service, that’s not quite the truth. Nor is Facebook hunting down and deleting profiles of mothers with pictures nursing their children. The woman mentioned in the Time article, Emma Kwasnica, currently has a profile photo of her nursing her baby with pretty much her entire breast on display. But hey, just ignore that. This is controversial, dammit. Also ignore that Facebook doesn’t censor the lactivist groups angry about the Facebook breastfeeding controversy. (You might think that if Facebook really had an anti-breastfeeding agenda at play here they would delete the groups, too, but ssshhh — stop thinking so logically! Jeez!)

Reality isn’t quite so controversial. Women can show breastfeeding photos to their heart’s content, displaying as much boobage as they desire — as long as the nipple or the areola is not shown. And so the controversy becomes diluted. Facebook doesn’t give a hoot if you’re showing breastfeeding pictures provided you don’t show too much of the boob. A Facebook spokesman even gushed about how beautiful and natural breastfeeding is.

“We agree that breastfeeding is natural and beautiful and we’re very glad to know that it is so important to some mothers to share this experience with others on Facebook… photos containing a fully exposed breast – as defined by showing the nipple or areola – do violate [the site's] terms on obscene, pornographic or sexually explicit material and may be removed… the photos we act upon are almost exclusively brought to our attention by other users who complain.”

This is the same standard applied to pictures of girls in skimpy outfits and bikinis. If Facebook suddenly decided that displaying the entire breast was A-OK for breastfeeding moms, then why can’t women post topless pictures? Far from catering to the closed-minded, it seems clear that Facebook is trying to fairly police their obscenity standards. And their Terms of Service do not allow photos showing a fully exposed breast. Is the real beef here that lactivist moms don’t get special treatment? Gee, how horrible — they’re expected to follow the exact same rules as everyone else while using Facebook. What an outrage!

One might think that there’s no controversy here whatsoever. After all, no one is required to use Facebook. Facebook is a private organization with its own rules and standards, and even if they were deleting every breastfeeding photo on the site, they are absolutely free to do so. Angry lactivist moms would likewise be free to stop frequenting Facebook and perhaps create their own social networking site where moms can show off their fully exposed breasts to their heart’s content.

Of course, you would have to assume you’re dealing with reasonable people willing to consider rational arguments. You would be dead wrong — after all, lactivists have a history of going overboard with overblown protests.

Over a year ago, I wrote about how one lactivist threw a temper tantrum over a Chik-Fil-A manager asking her to cover up while breastfeeding. As I noted at the time,

I have to say, I feel for the manager in this situation and not much for the breast-feeding mom. First of all, a restaurant owner or manager should absolutely be allowed to decide how their business operates. If they don’t want breast-feeding moms in their place of business, then that’s their business. It may cost them customers, sure, but it’s their decision to make. Second, you see these stories all the time. Some establishment doesn’t want a mom to breast-feed in public without covering up, or wants them to use the restroom, and you see scores of breast-feeding moms out there in protest. But do those moms ever stop and think about the other patrons? No, because it’s all about them. They want to breast-feed in public, dammit, and to hell with what anyone else thinks. They’re going to stamp their little feet until they get their way, much like the children they’re breast-feeding would do. It doesn’t matter whether or not other customers are uncomfortable, it doesn’t matter if business operators should be able to run their businesses the way they should be run. Women should be allowed to breast-feed in public whether the public likes it or not. When you really think about it, it’s pretty childish.

The lactivist moms don’t seem to care how other people feel about them whipping out their boobs for everyone to see, do they? While most people have no problem seeing a woman breastfeeding in public, they don’t feel particularly comfortable when you can memorize the exact size, color, and placement of the breastfeeding mom’s nipples. A little discretion is all that’s usually asked for, and that request is met with the outrage of a temper tantrum thrown by a two-year-old. They pretend that breastfeeding is some kind of civil right, when it’s nothing of the sort. No one is trying to stop moms from breastfeeding. They’re just asking that when a mother decides to breastfeed in public that she doesn’t give everyone around her a glimpse of what they can also see in Playboy.

I’m expecting my first child next year. I plan on breastfeeding, and there will probably be times when I have to do it in public. Does that mean I feel the need to force my breasts on everyone else? Nope. Does it mean that I suddenly don’t mind seeing every detail of another woman’s boobs? Not really. Unlike lactivist moms, I don’t think discretion is an outrageous request — heck, I don’t want scores of other people looking at my breasts. I also don’t particularly care to make other people feel uncomfortable, and openly breastfeeding without covering up even a little makes many people feel uncomfortable. Most women don’t look at another women’s boobs and think “SEX”, but it doesn’t mean they want to see them, either. Most men don’t mind seeing a woman’s breasts, but when it’s a breastfeeding mom they’re uncomfortable as well — after all, if they so much as glance in her direction for a fraction of a second too long, then they get called a pervert and a creep.

But hey, who cares about how other people feel about it?? Breastfeeding is natural. So women shouldn’t have to show discretion when breastfeeding, right? Well, urinating and defecating are natural, too. But we don’t encourage people to do either of those things in public, do we? A lot of things are natural, but that doesn’t make them suddenly sacred.

Earlier this year, Lori Ziganto wrote about a new Obamacare provision for working mothers to get their very own special breastfeeding rooms at work. Unrelated to the Facebook controversy? Maybe, but it’s an example of how government can step in and force private businesses to cave to outrageous demands from lactivist mommies wanting special treatment.

How far do the Facebook lactivists want to go to get their way?

–

Follow Cassy on Twitter and read more of her work at CassyFiano.com and Hard Corps Wife.

TSA’s newest group of potential terrorists? Soldiers returning home from Afghanistan, where they actually were fighting terrorists. Their brilliant strategy to keep us safe from these potential mass-murderers? Letting them keep their rifles and pistols, but taking away their real weapons: nail clippers!

So we’re in line, going through one at a time. One of our Soldiers had his Gerber multi-tool. TSA confiscated it. Kind of ridiculous, but it gets better. A few minutes later, a guy empties his pockets and has a pair of nail clippers. Nail clippers. TSA informs the Soldier that they’re going to confiscate his nail clippers. The conversation went something like this:

TSA Guy: You can’t take those on the plane.

Soldier: What? I’ve had them since we left country.

TSA Guy: You’re not suppose to have them.

Soldier: Why?

TSA Guy: They can be used as a weapon.

Soldier: [touches butt stock of the rifle] But this actually is a weapon. And I’m allowed to take it on.

TSA Guy: Yeah but you can’t use it to take over the plane. You don’t have bullets.

Soldier: And I can take over the plane with nail clippers?

TSA Guy: [awkward silence]

Me: Dude, just give him your damn nail clippers so we can get the f**k out of here. I’ll buy you a new set.

Soldier: [hands nail clippers to TSA guy, makes it through security]

This might be a good time to remind everyone that approximately 233 people re-boarded that plane with assault rifles, pistols, and machine guns–but nothing that could have been used as a weapon.

Nevermind that these soldiers had been inspected multiple times already. Nevermind that these soldiers had been kept in a secure holding area for two hours. Nevermind that these soldiers were returning from war, where they risked their lives to keep us safe. TSA must inspect them anyways, because hey, they could be terrorists.

Don’t you feel safer now?

Aside from the obvious absurdity of taking nail clippers away from someone carrying a rifle — because nail clippers are clearly more dangerous than a rifle — this is outrageous. This is how we’re treating our men and women in uniform now? Here we have men returning from war, from fighting the same terrorists that TSA is purportedly trying to keep us safe from, and they’re being treated like criminals. This goes beyond pure stupidity. It’s insulting. It’s insulting to our men and women in uniform, it’s insulting to the Americans who actually value their sacrifice, and it’s insulting to anyone who possesses even a modicum of common sense.

–

Follow Cassy on Twitter and read more of her work at CassyFiano.com and Hard Corps Wife.

When you discover that some of the people saying we shouldn’t be there turn out to be family members of our troops, it’s infuriating. Imagine my surprise when I find out that family members of the Marines in my husband’s unit, currently deployed to Afghanistan, have been saying these things.

There are several online forums, mostly on Facebook, for unit family members to try to keep informed. They aren’t official unit pages, but family members can go on there to talk to each other and try to find support or keep themselves infomed. I’ve been noticing over the past few weeks that there have been a lot of comments about how we shouldn’t be there, that it’s a lost cause, and that we just need to bring them all home. I’ve noticed that, for some reason, it’s mainly moms saying these things, too. And while it’s a very small number of unit family members saying these things, I’ve quite frankly had enough.

My husband calls home and every now and then, he’s demoralized. He’s tired, he’s hungry, he’s dirty. Marines in his unit have been killed, and other Marines have been injured. He misses me, he misses being home, and he doesn’t want to do it anymore. I tell him, every time, that I support him and his mission. That I’m waiting for him. And I remind him of why he joined the Marine Corps, why he was willing to fight. I remind him of what he’s fighting for. It lifts his morale and it gives him his motivation back.

When their sons call and tell them the same thing that my husband tells me, I wonder what these women tell them. Do they get told about how we shouldn’t be in Afghanistan? Do they get told about how we should pull out? Do they get told that this war is not worth fighting? I can only hope they keep their opinions to themselves — or that their sons never see their comments on Facebook — because what they are basically telling their sons is that their sacrifice is meaningless in their eyes, that the deaths of their fellow Marines were meaningless. I can only imagine how demoralizing it must be to know that the family you have back home, the people you likely are fighting for, don’t support you and the sacrifice you’re making.

One mom mentioned that she had asked everyone she knew what they thought about the “debate”, about whether or not Afghanistan was a lost cause that we should just pull out of. She somehow was puzzled that none of the military men in her family would comment. Gee, I wonder why.

Do they not get it? You cannot support the troops without supporting their mission. It’s as simple as that. And of all people who don’t support our Marines and their mission, the family members of those Marines should be their most ardent supporters. It breaks my heart sometimes. As it’s been explained to me by my husband and various other Marines, they don’t think America hates them. They think that America just doesn’t care. I used to argue so passionately against that, but I’m starting to think I know where that attitude comes from.

I remember sitting in an algebra class in high school when the speakers crackled overhead telling all faculty to stop what they were doing and turn the televisions on in every classroom. A plane had flown into one of the World Trade Center buildings. We were stunned, but just assumed it was a mistake. Then we watched as another plane flew into the second tower, and it suddenly became clear. It became very clear. The next few days were emotional and terrifying. I spent much of 9-11 crying, like most of the students at my school. I cried in the days that followed, watching footage of people jumping to their death to escape the fiery inferno inside the towers. I cried hearing of the heroism of the passengers on Flight 93. I cried listening to the phone calls of passengers who knew they were going to die and wanted to tell their loved ones “I love you” one more time. I cried for the heroes who ran into the buildings while everyone else was running out. The country, as a whole, wept and grieved and vowed to never let this happen, ever again. I, along with many other Americans, knew that this meant war. Many people, my husband among them, reacted to the horror of 9-11 by joining the military. They wanted to fight for their country, to avenge the deaths of their countrymen, and to make sure that this never happened again.

Islamic extremists have been trying to kill us for more than 30 years now. During the Carter presidency, American embassy staff were held hostage in Iran. Marine Corps barracks in Beirut were bombed, killing almost 250 American servicemen. There was the first WTC bombing in 1993. In Somalia, also in 1993, 18 American troops were killed and the body of one was dragged through the streets while Somalians cheered. In 1996, an Air Force housing complex was bombed in Saudi Arabia. US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed. The USS Cole bombing happened in the year 2000. All of these attacks were perpetrated by violent Muslim extremists. 9-11 didn’t come out of nowhere. It was a long time coming. We ignored what we saw happening for over 30 years and pretended that if we just left them alone they would stop trying to kill us. It culminated in the worst attack on American soil ever on 9-11.

But now, with almost 10 years without any attacks on American soil, people are already calling for us to stop the fight. It’s not from lack of trying — from the shoe bomber to the underwear bomber to the Times Square bomber, they’ve kept on trying to kill us. Luckily, we’ve been able to thwart those attacks. You’d think it would be a reminder that this war isn’t over, and that it won’t be over until we eradicate the threat of Islamic terrorism. Did anyone really think we could do that in just a few years? It’s going to take time, it’s going to take a lot of sacrificing. We’ve got a 30 year mess to clean up. For some of us though, it’s a sacrifice worth making.

This is why my husband and I both support this mission. We choose to support it. I am five months pregnant and I don’t want my son to ever have to go through a 9-11. We want a better future than this for our children. We can stand up to this threat, finally, or we can ignore it like we did for the last 30 years and let our children deal with it. Which do you support? Me personally, I’d rather take care of this now, even with the sacrifice that requires, than pass the buck on to my children to carry and endure.

Others, I guess, actually were content to pass the buck onto their children, and now they find the sacrifice too great. The solution for them is apparently to keep hiding their heads in the sand and just let their grandchildren handle it 20 years from now. I find that unacceptable.

The worst part about this, though, is that people who should be supporting our troops more than anyone else apparently cannot. These are our brothers, our sons, our husbands, and while it’s annoying when ordinary Americans can’t support our troops, it’s unforgivable in my book for family members of our troops to not support them. If this is how they feel, then they need to keep their mouths shut and their opinions to themselves until this is all over and done with. Can you imagine how unmotivating it must be to know that your own family doesn’t support what you’re fighting for? I can’t think of anything more demoralizing. To me, this is a badge of dishonor. We have one Cindy Sheehan. We don’t need any more.

–

Follow Cassy on Twitter and read more of her work at CassyFiano.com and Hard Corps Wife.

As a parent, how would you react if this was your child? Most parents teach our children that no one is allowed to touch them. They’re not exactly used to having people pat them down, nor are they capable of understanding why a rude stranger would be forcibly touching them all over their body. For a child, that must be terrifying. Are we supposed to let our children think its acceptable for strangers to touch them against their will?

In this video you can see the entire problem with our airport security system. Why did this child need to be patted down? Does she look like she might be a tiny terrorist? Sure, TSA has a policy that if the metal detector beeps twice everyone must be searched, regardless of age. So let’s just terrify children, who cares? As the TSA official stated, it’s not the policy that’s the problem, it’s “how we handle the child”. After all, why should we exercise common sense? The Taliban uses children as human shields, so surely soccer moms from, say, Nebraska, could be doing the exact same thing. And hey, if CAIR has their way, it will only be soccer moms and their children who get patted down. Muslim women wearing hijabs? Nope, sorry. No patdowns for Muslim women. Considering the absurdity of TSA’s current policies, I wouldn’t doubt that they’d find it perfectly acceptable to accost terrified children and let hijab-wearing Muslim women right on through. Figuring out which one would be most likely to smuggle a bomb is irrelevant anyways.

We have to ask ourselves: do we really feel like we’re going to be any safer with these idiots patting down children? We have a security system in place that refuses to profile the people most likely to be terrorists — they could be called racists, heaven forbid. Most of us are reasonable people, and are willing to accept some inconveniences in the name of airline safety. But these aren’t mere inconveniences anymore, and as we saw last Christmas, they aren’t keeping us any safer. There is one group of people responsible for every incidence of terror in the skies, and I’m pretty sure that three-year-olds are not included in that group.

–

Follow Cassy on Twitter and read more of her work at CassyFiano.com and Hard Corps Wife.

Feministing founder Jessica Valenti likes to write about just what makes a “real” feminist, and what doesn’t. Obviously, being a conservative is an instant disqualifier in her book, because why on Earth should a movement that seeks equality let women actually have differing points of view? Right at the top of her list of women not allowed in her ultra-exclusive girls club version of feminism is Sarah Palin. Sure, Sarah Palin may be a successful, accomplished woman who took on Alaska’s boys club and won, but who cares? She doesn’t get a tingle up her leg at the thought of killing babies, so she’s not allowed in the clubhouse. This week, when given the chance to debate a real live Valenti-approved anti-feminist, though, Jessica Valenti took the opportunity… to tuck her tail in between her legs and run as fast as her legs could take her.

While Palin is femisogynist Enemy Number One, she’s just at the top of a long list of hated conservative feminist women. Express an opinion that Valenti & Co. don’t agree with, and you’re smeared as anti-feminist and anti-woman. Of course, calling a woman anti-woman makes about as much sense as calling a Jew anti-Semitic, but what do they care about things like common sense, logic, and intellectual diversity? Amanda Marcotte, for example, recently said you can’t be a feminist unless you are a left-leaning liberal who advocates for universal health care, abortion, and other liberal extremist pet causes. Marcotte also recently argued that women are too stupid to tell the difference between the evil fake conservative feminism, and the Amanda Marcotte Approved real feminism. Jessica Valenti wrote a piece filled with rage at the idea that anyone could call Sarah Palin a feminist, because Palin doesn’t pass Valenti’s Official Feminist Litmus Test. Believe something different than what Valenti believes, and you’re out of the club, lady. As I said in response to Valenti’s anti-Palin hit piece, all of this boils down to having the “correct” political beliefs. Equality has absolutely nothing to do with Valenti’s brand of feminism anymore.

Change your name to your husband’s when you get married? You’re a slave to the patriarchy and an anti-feminist. Personally and politically pro-life? Anti-woman! Believe in small government, fiscal responsibility, and the free market? ANTI-FEMINIST! Believe in closing the borders and enforcing our immigration laws? Don’t believe in universal health care? Think global warming is all a fake? These all make you an anti-feminist, too.

And while the femisogynist crowd acts as if conservative women are stealing feminism, you can see that the truth is that we’re reclaiming it — reclaiming it as a movement for equality, reclaiming it from bitter, angry women who hate men and marriage, and reclaiming it as a movement for all women, not just women who pass an ideological purity test.

No, we’re not stealing feminism. We’re putting it back in its rightful place.

But let’s say, just for fun, that Valenti’s version of feminism is the only correct form of feminism, and us conservative women really are evil, anti-woman harpies. Valenti should have no problem debating us on the issues, then right?

Wrong.

Jessica Valenti has no problem whatsoever writing screech-filled missives about conservative feminists, hiding behind her computer screen. When she got the opportunity to actually debate a real live conservative feminist, she ran away as fast as she could — based on her “feminist” principles, of course.

Wednesday of this week, MORE magazine held a panel for young feminists, which Jessica Valenti was invited to be a part of. When Valenti found out that someone who didn’t rigidly follow her extremist orthodoxy to the letter was going to be part of the panel, well, she just wouldn’t be a part of that.

I was originally slated to be a part of this panel, but when I found out that Allison Kasic – who works for the virulently anti-feminist Independent Women’s Forum – was also a panelist, I decided to pull out.

I’ve been writing a lot lately about the faux feminism of the Right – how conservative women who have long fought against feminist ideals and goals are now identifying as feminists in an attempt to woo women’s votes for the GOP. I think it’s an incredibly dangerous trend facing the movement – if those who work actively against women’s interests can claim feminism as their own, the movement will become meaningless.

Given all that, it felt hypocritical for me to be a part of a panel that named Kasic a feminist leader. I didn’t want my presence to lend credibility to the false notion that people who work against women’s rights are feminists.

Yes, I could go on the panel to argue about the definition of feminism and the co-opting of the movement. But when I agree to be on a panel I’m accepting the terms of a debate – and it’s not a debatable point whether people whose policies actively harm women are feminists. I don’t want to validate that this is a question open for reasonable conversation. (Especially given that the success of anti-feminist women and orgs like IWF is largely based on their ability to get on panels and make this an open discussion – it’s part of their strategy.)

Oh no!! Someone who disagrees with Jessica Valenti might be part of a panel discussing feminism! And they’re a — gasp!! — conservative feminist!! Clearly she can’t be a part of that, right? Jessica Valenti’s credibility would be damaged, and that would hurt the feminist movement!

Because, you know, Jessica Valenti is the sole voice of what feminism stands for and its credibility.

Now, every other speaker on this panel is a liberal extremist femisogynist, including Courtney Martin, who blogs at Valenti’s website Feministing. Allison Kasic was the one conservative voice. But this just can’t be allowed, can it? In Valenti’s world, apparently not only should feminists with differing opinions not be allowed a seat at the table, they shouldn’t even be allowed to speak, much less debate their views.

Of course, one might wonder why Valenti would be so worried about debating Kasic. If Valenti’s version of feminism is indeed so intellectually superior, then why would it matter if Kasic was on the panel or not? This would be a perfect opportunity for Valenti to show how wrong conservative feminists are. But oh no, she’s making a principled stand! Or something. Because Kasic’s employer, the Independent Women’s Forum, is (in Valenti’s words) “virulently anti-feminist.” So why not debate her, and show her for the virulent anti-feminist that she really is?

The only reason that femisogynists like Valenti try so hard to shut down conservative feminists like Palin and Kasic is because they’re intimidated by them. Women like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann resonate with women more than women like Jessica Valenti and Amanda Marcotte ever have — or will. The average woman doesn’t identify herself as some kind of helpless oppressed victim of the patriarchy. The average woman doesn’t see marriage as a form of institutional slavery. The average woman doesn’t believe in universal health care or abortion on demand, or half the things that radicals like Valenti advocate.

Feminism has turned into a dirty word for most women, who won’t call themselves feminists anymore. And that’s thanks in large part to the work of women like Gloria Steinem and her 60s era radicals, as well as the work continued by women like Valenti and Marcotte today. Sarah Palin has more American women realizing that feminism could actually speak for them than Valenti ever could, and part of the reason is that Palin has never called for an ideological litmus test in order to be a feminist. Feminism didn’t start as a movement that only spoke for certain women. It spoke for all women. The women who fought for feminist and equality for women didn’t fight so that certain women wouldn’t be allowed to express their views or excluded.

But funny, that’s exactly what people like Jessica Valenti, who call themselves feminists, are fighting for. And when conservative women finally stop letting themselves be pushed into the shadows, and reclaim feminism for themselves, it opens a huge crack in the facade of fascist feminism that the femisogynists have created.

It turns out that Valenti is nothing more than a giant intellectual coward. If her credibility on what feminism really means is so strong, then what does she have to lose? If she was the superior one, then she wouldn’t demean feminism by debating Kasic. If her views were correct, then Kasic would be the one who would lose credibility. Kasic would be the one who would be embarrassed. So what is Valenti so afraid of?

This isn’t a principled stand by Jessica Valenti. This is a woman who is afraid she’ll be made a fool of. This is a woman who can’t stand for women with opposing viewpoints to express them because she knows it threatens what she stands for. She even said herself, this is strategy for her, a tactic — a tactic to drown out opposing voices. Jessica Valenti couldn’t make it any more clear: she’s nothing but a coward and a fake who wouldn’t understand what feminism is if it hit her in the face.

–

Follow Cassy on Twitter and read more of her work at CassyFiano.com and Hard Corps Wife.

235 years later, Marines remain faithful. When Semper Fidelis was adopted as the motto of the Marine Corps, it was taken to heart. From Marines who remain fanatically devoted to their country, to the Corps, and to their fellow Marines, to the wives who stand devoted by their husbands’ sides through war and peace, we remain steadfastly faithful through the good and the bad, the easy times and the times when you feel like you can no longer go on.

As a Marine Corps wife, Semper Fidelis is my vow, too. It is my duty and my honor to stand beside him, to be always faithful not only to my husband but to the values of the Marine Corps as well. It takes honor to be a Marine Corps wife. It takes courage and commitment, especially when your husband is fighting halfway around the world and you don’t know if he’ll be coming back or not. It takes a special kind of woman to be the wife of a Marine. When you marry a Marine, you aren’t just marrying the man. You’re marrying the Marine Corps as well, and Semper Fidelis applies to the women left behind as well as the men who don the uniform.

There are many nights when I can’t sleep for fear. There are many times when I feel like I can’t go on alone anymore, living in terror and loneliness. There are times when I would love to have my husband never deploy again, for us to live a life of civilian peace. And there are those occasional phone calls, where he tells me he doesn’t think he can do it anymore, either. Being a Marine, or the wife of one, doesn’t mean there are never moments of doubt, or fear, or anger. It means that we persist despite those feelings; we continue on because we believe in the Corps, we believe in what we are fighting for. When he feels like he can’t keep going, I raise him up. When I feel like I can’t do it anymore, I remember the man that he is, the pride I feel in his courage and his convictions, and I remember that our shared sacrifice will lead to a better world for our children and our grandchildren. I support him unconditionally, and I will remain faithful to the very end. Semper Fidelis is my motto, too.

Today, remember the Marines around the world who sacrifice every day defending our freedoms. Remember the families left behind. And remember the Marines who made the ultimate sacrifice, Marines who heard their country’s call and gave their all.

One Marine in particular deserves to be remembered on the Marine Corps birthday: Corporal Jason Dunham. Born on November 10th, Cpl. Dunham gave his own life to save the lives of his Marines, and was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor for his valor and bravery.

“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”

It is because of Marines like Jason Dunham that this country remains the land of the free. Remember the fallen today, and honor those still fighting.

–

Follow Cassy on Twitter and read more of her work at CassyFiano.com and Hard Corps Wife.

Useless college degrees are nothing new. From degrees in art history and philosophy to women’s studies and queer musicology, academia loves to come up with majors that will be absolutely zero help to graduates in the real world. Given this, it makes sense that colleges across America would get the brilliant idea to glom onto the growing fat acceptance movement. After all, taking Fat Studies might not help you get a single job, ever, but you’ll feel better about yourself, so who cares?

Schools across America are now offering Fat Studies classes. What, exactly, is the point of these classes?

Fat Studies scholars say their mission is to promote weight awareness and acceptance among populations of all types. The sociological study of obesity has been creeping into academia for over a decade, often as a subtopic of Women’s Studies or Health Sciences. But only recently has weight become a subject of study in its own right. “There would be no Fat Studies if there were no obesity epidemic,” says Esther Rothblum, a lesbian studies professor at the University of California, San Diego, and one of the earliest to research the psychology of weight bias.

The Fat Studies Reader, a compendium edited by Rothblum and her colleague, Sondra Solovay, and published to much fanfare in late 2009, is fast becoming a cornerstone of Fat Studies curricula. Its 53 contributors ask the same questions that professors now pose to their students: How is weight perceived in different countries? What do media depictions of larger sizes say about our social priorities? What if there were a “fat gene,” and what if we could test for it prenatally?

Spurred by growing national concerns about obesity, many schools now offer undergraduates a place to discuss these questions. Courses that deal with Fat Studies and body image have been taught at schools, including Oregon State University and Rutgers University. Newer still, however, is the growing interest among students and scholars who aren’t fat themselves.

The fact that the fat acceptance movement has come this far is a sad commentary in and of itself. It’s true that Hollywood promotes an unhealthy body image; it’s true that women are pressured to conform to an unrealistic, unhealthy ideal. The somewhat surprising reaction to this by some has been to promote fat pride, instead of focusing on promoting healthy, normal bodies. Femisogynists in particular have been vocal about this — that obesity can be beautiful and that fat people shouldn’t need to change to fit the narrow ideas of a patriarchal society. The health benefits to losing weight and not remaining obese, of course, is never mentioned. Is it any surprise that Fat Studies sprung out of the women’s studies movement? The most ridiculous aspect of this is that obesity is something that people can control. It isn’t like gender or race. Obesity is a lifestyle choice, for the 99% of overweight Americans who don’t have an endocrine or thyroid disorder and just choose to stuff their faces with junk food without ever being physically active.

Should someone who is obese hate his body? No, of course not. But he also doesn’t need classes telling him that he is perfect just the way he is, he doesn’t need a fat acceptance culture telling him that it’s OK to be obese. If someone wants to eat all day long without ever exercising, then that’s his prerogative. It doesn’t mean that we have to spoon-feed him propaganda about how obesity is acceptable.

We do have an obesity epidemic in the United States; more adults and children are overweight than ever. Femisogynists have been telling women over and over again that they should be fat and proud, that they don’t need to change — and any criticism of overweight people is quickly shouted down as anti-feminist and misogynistic. (Consider this mind-boggling video featured at Feministing.) I would imagine that this boils down to the ridiculous femisogynist premise that you can never criticize women (unless of course they’re conservative women like Sarah Palin). After all, being a so-called feminist means never being subjected to any standards, ever — except those imposed by other self-proclaimed feminists, of course.

More and more, we’re being told that obesity is an acceptable lifestyle choice — and there are even people, like Kate Harding, who claims that being overweight can be healthy. The reality, of course, is somewhat different.

Right now, around 35% of adults are considered obese, and about 17% of children are obese. Obesity is currently the number two cause of preventable death in the United States, behind tobacco. Some of the health consequences for obese adults include increased risks of the following: coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes, cancer (endometrial, breast, and colon), hypertension, dyslipidemia, stroke, liver and gallbladder disease, sleep apnea and respiratory problems, osteoarthritis, gynecological problems – and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. It’s also just obesity in adults. Obesity in children causes even more health problems.

It seems pretty obvious that while overweight people should not be shamed, obesity should likewise not be celebrated or promoted. And that is unfortunately what’s happening. Being against unhealthy beauty standards doesn’t mean promoting obesity, either — just because you are against starvation, it doesn’t mean you have to be for gluttony. People don’t need to be told to lose weight to satisfy some kind of vapid Hollywood beauty standard; they need to lose weight for their own health and well-being. If they choose not to, well, then that’s their decision. But that doesn’t mean that we as a society should coddle the obese or pretend that it’s an acceptable lifestyle choice, because it isn’t. No one thinks that smoking cigarettes is an acceptable lifestyle choice anymore, but that people have the right to smoke if they so choose. We need to have a similar attitude towards fatties who can’t stop eating or get off the couch.

The other issue of contention here is the ever-present need for out-of-touch college professors to constantly find new victim groups. Hey, why not fat people too, right? It’s grievance mongering and social engineering for profit, and it’s outrageous. Consider the amount of money spent on college tuition, books, and fees. It’s typically tens of thousands of dollars. Aside from the grievance mongering, how does Fat Studies benefit students in the real world? When students graduate in Fat Studies, where are they going to find an employer who will be impressed? McDonald’s? Oh, Fat Studies, that’s great — they’ll be perfect with our overweight customers!!

All joking aside, this has to be one of the most useless programs in academia today — aside from queer musicology, of course. It’s a rip-off. Students go to college to learn and prepare themselves for a career, not to feel good about themselves and raise their self-esteem — or to be indoctrinated into ridiculous lefty political correctness. I’m sure that countless parents would be thrilled to find out that they were paying to send their children to what basically is a very, very expensive feel-good support group.

–

Follow Cassy on Twitter and read more of her work at CassyFiano.com and Hard Corps Wife.

Maryann Philips, one of the Marine team members, gives a moving example of why we need to keep working to raise money for our wounded heroes.

“We try not to withdraw care here in theater,” Eastridge said.

But every once in a while it happens. It’s usually someone with brain injuries so severe they’re likely to die during transport. They’re allowed to die here, with troops at the bedside. “That just affords them that last little bit of dignity,” he said.

He stopped, and his eyes filled with tears.

The conference is run by Col. Brian Eastridge, a 47-year-old trauma surgeon with 23 years in the Army. He grew up in Damascus, Md., graduated from Virginia Tech and the University of Maryland School of Medicine. He now heads the Joint Theater Trauma System, which organizes trauma care in both wars.

Over five deployments, Eastridge has seen the entire arc of worsening wounds and increasing survival that has marked trauma care during the Iraq and Afghan wars.

Dressed in brown camouflage battle dress, he sits halfway around a large U made of wooden tables. Around him on the walls are idealized scenes of Afghan life painted by a local artist – a girl leading a caravan of camels, children being taught arithmetic at the base of a tree, kids flying kites. Eastridge runs the conference with somber efficiency, offers comments sparingly and addresses his listeners mostly by location-”Kandahar,” “Landstuhl,” “Walter Reed.”

The rapid-fire reports are dense with medical jargon and anatomical description. It’s a narration of one disaster after another, and of how things were kept from getting worse, and made better, by skill, speed and attention. It’s the aural equivalent of watching a dozen high-wire acts in which some people are rescued mid-fall.

Here’s just one.

“Dismounted IED” injury is jargon for wounds caused by a bomb or mine that are suffered outside a vehicle. The soldier had tourniquets placed for partial amputation of both legs. One liter of a special IV fluid was given in the helicopter, and the patient arrived at the Kandahar hospital in and out of consciousness and in shock.

In the operating room, surgeons temporarily tied off the arteries going to the legs and repaired a tear in a major vein. There was massive damage to the area between the legs. One leg was amputated at the knee. In a second operation the next day his wounds were rewashed and a finger, broken in the explosion, was fixed with external hardware.

That same day the soldier was evacuated to Bagram, where his wounds were washed out and the pelvic region was re-explored. A “foreign body”- the speaker didn’t say whether it was dirt, metal or something else – not seen in the first operation was removed. He suffered a collapsed lung after surgery, which was fixed.

He stayed there two days before flying by critical care air transport to Landstuhl.

Seven days after suffering his wounds the soldier arrived at a hospital in the United States. He had another collapsed lung, and pneumonia. His right foot, initially thought to be salvageable, wasn’t healing and the surgeons planned to amputate it at the ankle. He had further surgery to his abdomen and numerous operations to start repairing the missing floor of his pelvis.

“This was one of the biggest pelvic injuries I’ve ever seen,” said one of the surgeons in the United States. Eastridge later said he hears that a lot from surgeons in the United States who haven’t been deployed yet.

This was not an uncommon case.

We say it so much, but really — our men and women in uniform have given so much for us. I can’t imagine making the sacrifices they’ve made, and I can’t imagine the world that they’re living and fighting in right now. They’re fighting an enemy half a world away that uses women and children as human shields; that cuts the noses and the ears off of innocent women; that will throw acid on little girls for daring to want an education; that will rape women and then stone them for adultery. They’re facing pure evil. And sometimes, they don’t come back safe and whole.

Are we really going to leave these wounded warriors with nothing, no help, no support, after what they’ve given for us? Please make a donation. It’s the least we can do.

There are other ways you can give, too. Villainous Company is holding a Demotivator contest, and for each entry submitted, $20 will be donated to Project Valour-IT. The categories are: Best Air Force, Army, Navy, and Marine demotivators, Best “Embracing the Suck” poster, and Best Salvo from the Distaff Side. Here’s one entry for the Marines:

So you can help make a difference without even having to spend any money. Get on over to Villainous Company and enter your Demotivator!

Finally, here’s an adorable video of a future Marine in the making. And remember, give until it hurts!! It’s the least we can do.

–

Follow Cassy on Twitter and read more of her work at CassyFiano.com and Hard Corps Wife.

Don’t believe me? Here’s the costume I’ve already bought, because I know you guys will come through for us:

I just hope my preggo belly can fit into it!!

So, get those donations going if you would like to see me humiliate myself in a Navy goat costume before the entire Internet. Get that thermometer jumping!

The direction our country will go in the future will be determined by the results of today’s elections, so these are important things to talk about. I want everyone to remember, however, that there are people who defend that right for us. Our men and women in uniform are the ones who defend one of our most cherished rights — heck, in several states that very right is being refused to service-members deployed overseas — and right now, they need us.

Project Valour-IT helps the wounded warriors who have given so much for us while defending our freedoms. Today is a great reminder of how much they’ve done for us, and what they give to us. Take today, election day, as an opportunity to give something back to them. They defend our freedoms, and the need has never been greater. Let’s not let them down, especially when they didn’t let us down. They heard a call to serve their country and answered it without hesitation; today, let us serve them. Donate what you can, even if it isn’t much.

Also, we have some very generous donors who have agreed to match donations for the Marine team. Between 2:00 and 4:00 this afternoon, we’ll be looking to raise $250… and there’s some incentive in it for you, too — if you like seeing bloggers like me embarassed, anyways! Stay tuned to find out what will happen if we raise $250 in 2 hours this afternoon…

A lot of people look at UFC fighters — and athletes in general — as warriors. Think of the NFL alone. How many ads do you see that show football players, or hockey players, or UFC fighters, as warriors preparing to go to battle? Of course, while these men are obviously incredibly impressive athletes, they aren’t warriors.

On January 8th of this year, UFC fighters Gabriel Gonzaga, Marcus Davis, Rashad Evans, Forrest Griffin, former Marine Brian Stann, and UFC founder Dana White spent the day learning what being a real warrior is all about. They visited Marines at MCB Quantico, and it was clearly a humbling experience for them.

See, the difference between athletes and Marines is that Marines have to be warriors. They don’t go to battle and then go to a locker room when it’s over. It’s kill or be killed for them. They have to be the best they can be, because if their lives are on the line when they go to battle. It isn’t just a game.

This is somewhat personal for me. With my husband in Afghanistan, I can sleep well at night knowing that he, and the Marines he’s deployed with, have received the best possible training, and the best possible equipment, they can get. It’s life or death out there. My husband has been in an IED blast. He was lucky to only get a concussion. They’re in firefights constantly. They’ve lost two Marines and one corpsman. These Marines have to be warriors, they have to be at the top of their game, if they’re going to survive.

These UFC fighters got a taste of what all of this means, and how serious the training Marines go through is. Honestly, I thought that they would breeze through the MCMAP, Marine Corps Martial Arts Program. They didn’t. I thought that, as professional athletes, the Marine Corps obstacle course would be a piece of cake for them. It wasn’t. The Marines showed up these professional athletes, these men who do mixed martial arts for a living, in every way possible. These fighters were humbled by these men, these boys.

They showed them what real warriors are.

This is what supporting Project Valour-IT is all about. These men answered our nation’s call, gave all they had to give, and never looked back. At the time of their greatest need, we cannot abandon them. When these warriors have given so much to defend us and our freedoms, can’t we give a little to help them?

–

Follow Cassy on Twitter and read more of her work at CassyFiano.com and Hard Corps Wife.

1. Marines have the best uniforms, hands down. Even our camis look better than the other branches (velcro, really?). And as everyone knows, chicks really dig a guy in uniform.

2. Marines know how to fight. That’s why they’re called America’s 911 force:

In the true spirit of “jointness” I offer the following as “Everything you need to know about differences in service culture. All in good fun, of course.

US Marine Corps Rules for Gunfighting

1. Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one.
2. Decide to be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH.
3. Have a plan.
4. Have a back-up plan, because the first one probably won’t work.
5. Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
6. Do not attend a gunfight with a handgun whose caliber does not start with a “4.”
7. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap. Life is expensive.
8. Move away from your attacker. Distance is your friend. (Lateral & diagonal preferred.)
9. Use cover or concealment as much as possible.
10. Flank your adversary when possible. Protect yours.
11. Always cheat; always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.
12. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived.
13. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating your intention to shoot.

Navy SEAL Rules For Gunfighting

1. Look very cool in sunglasses.
2. Kill every living thing within view.
3. Return quickly to looking cool in latest beach wear.
4. Check hair in mirror.

US Army Ranger Rules For Gunfighting

1. Walk in 50 miles wearing 75 pound pack while starving.
2. Locate individuals requiring killing.
3. Request permission via radio from “Higher” to perform killing.
4. Curse bitterly when mission is aborted.
5. Walk out 50 miles wearing a 75 pound rucksack while starving.

Army Rules for Gunfighting

1. Select a new beret to wear.
2. Sew combat patch on right shoulder.
3. Change the color of beret you decide to wear.

US Air Force Rules For Gunfighting

1. Have a cocktail.
2. Adjust temperature on air-conditioner.
3. See what’s on HBO.
4. Determine “what is a gunfight.”
5. Request more funding from Congress with a “killer” PowerPoint presentation.
6. Wine & dine ‘key’ Congressmen, invite DOD & defense industry executives.
7. Receive funding, set up new command and assemble assets.
8. Declare the assets “strategic” and never deploy them operationally.
9. Tell the Navy to send the Marines.

US Navy Rules For Gunfighting

1. Go to Sea.
2. Drink Coffee.
3. Watch porn.
4. Send the Marines.

KEITH J. PAVLISCHEK
COLONEL, U.S. MARINES

3. Being the smallest of the services forces us to be creative. Marines fight smarter, not harder. Jim Mattis wasn’t kidding when he said the Marine style is a blend of chivalry and ferocity: no better friend, no worse enemy.

4. The Marine Corps Silent Drill Team. Poetry in motion:

5. Tradition: we still celebrate ours. Mess nites, dinings in and out, St. Barbara’s day and the Marine Corps Ball: no one celebrates their rich history with more flair and elan than the Marine Corps. We still dress for dinner, we still pull out cigars and the smoking lamp for the men (and sometimes the ladies!).

We still light candles in memory of fallen comrades and those who have been wounded in the service of this nation. We do not forget. If you’ve ever been invited to a Marine Ball, don’t pass up the opportunity to attend. Those of us who have passed the quarter century mark may roll our eyes a bit, but we still go every year and still tear up when the same old passages are read. What began on November 10, 1775 in Tun Tavern is still remembered in giant ballrooms, decorated hangars, and dingy conference rooms all over this planet. Marines gather as one family to celebrate that which unites and binds us: a love of Corps, country, and above all, each other.

6. Esprit de corps: Which, as you should know, is no cheese-eating surrender monkey Phrench-sounding label, but something each Marine takes to heart on the day he or she finally earns the right to be called “Marine”. To call the average Marine a soldier, troop, sailor, or airman to is risk a speedy and ungentle correction. There are only Marines, an appellation which (unlike soldiers, sailors, or airmen) is always capitalized. Now *that’s* respect.)

7. Toughest mascot. Think about it:

Army: a mule
Air Force: a stinkin’ bird?
Navy: ummm… a goat
Marines: a bulldog. Nuff said.

8. Marine PT. Did the HVES mention that we’re just better-looking?

9. Marine wives. There is an old Spanish saying, “No hay rosas sin espinas.” I think it fits Marine wives well: tough, but tender; beautiful but enduring. On the day my husband finally leaves the Corps, my most precious memories will be of the officer and enlisted wives I have been privileged to work with, laugh with, cry with, and share this wacky thrill ride that is military life.

10. The Navy-Marine Corps team: as much as we love to rib the Navy, we couldn’t do our job without them. On any Marine base, along with green you’ll see Navy khaki. Navy corpsmen go to battle with us and dress our wounds. They are at once healers, life savers, and soldiers as tough and brave as any Marine. Navy chaplains pray with us and bury our dead. They weep with us and help us to try and make sense of the incomprehensible.

And it is Navy ships which carry us to distant shores so we can do what we do best: respond as America’s 9/11 force. They provide devastating firepower on target when we need it. We are proud to be a part of the sea service. But that said….until November 11th…

Beat Navy!

So for now, let’s show them what the Marine team is made of, and give until it hurts!

–

Follow Cassy on Twitter and read more of her work at CassyFiano.com and Hard Corps Wife.

Why am I supporting the Marines? Well, my husband is a Marine. He’s deployed to Afghanistan right now. We’ve lost Marines in our unit, and I have friends in other deployed units that have also lost Marines. Then there are the Marines who are not killed, but are injured — Marines who can benefit from a wonderful program like Project Valour-IT.

Project Valour-IT does so much good work for wounded warriors. Here’s an example of some of what they do:

Project Valour-IT began when Captain 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 (now a Major) 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.

In the years since its founding in 2005, the project has acted to meet emerging needs and its mission of supporting the the severely wounded has expanded. In addition to voice-controlled laptops, Valour-IT now helps provide active and whole-body video games such as Wii Sports, which is used to great effect in physical therapy, and personal GPS systems that help compensate for short-term memory loss and organizational/spacial challenges common in those with brain injuries.

So far, Project Valour-IT has provided over 4100 voice-activated laptops to wounded veterans. They also provide Wii game systems to help build motivation and speed recovery through whole body game systems, and handheld GPS devices to help wounded vets regain confidence and independence.

This is truly a great charity that deserves our help. So won’t you please donate a little to give to the warriors who sacrifice so much for us? Our goal this year is for each team to raise $15,000 by the end of the campaign, which is November 11th.

And of course, if you do decide to donate, you should of course donate to the Marine team. We’re usually one of the smallest teams, but we have the most heart!

Here’s how you can help support the Marine team to benefit Project Valour-IT.

You can visit the Marine team’s page, or donate through the widget below. There’s also a Valour-IT auction where you can bid on military books, memorabilia, etc.; the winning bidder can (unless otherwise specified) choose which team the funds go to. If you have a blog, you can sign up to join the Marine team here.

So, let the competition begin! Here’s a video to get your USMC spirits up, and please, get to donating!

–

Follow Cassy on Twitter and read more of her work at CassyFiano.com and Hard Corps Wife.

Hey, we gotta make voting easier for those illegal aliens somehow!

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned Arizona’s requirement that people show proof of citizenship to register to vote.

The split decision by a three-judge panel determined that the requirement to show proof of citizenship — passed by voters in 2004 — is not consistent with the National Voter Registration Act.

Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, temporarily sitting by designation, and Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta, with chief judge Alex Kozinski dissenting, said Prop. 200 creates an additional hurdle, while the national act is intended to reduce “state-imposed obstacles” to registration.

The majority noted that Congress was well aware of the problem of voter fraud when it passed the voter act, and built in sufficient protections, including applying perjury penalties to applicants who lie about their eligibilty.

Yeah, there’s all this voter fraud and stuff, and voters already decided that this was what they wanted, but we’ll just overturn it anyways! Heck, why should only US citizens get to vote? Illegal alien votes would bring in so many more votes for Democrats, after all.

As Michelle Malkin points out, the Obama Department of Social Justice has been trying to keep states from ensuring that only US citizens vote in our elections. But this is a whole new degree of insanity. What we have here is judges that used the bench to endorse and facilitate voter fraud. It’s absolutely outrageous — and unfortunately, not surprising in the least.

–

Follow Cassy on Twitter and read more of her work at CassyFiano.com and Hard Corps Wife.

Clearly, telling a former Army officer that he is unfit to lead isn’t going to be a winning strategy for Princess Murkowski, as the audience reaction obviously showed.

As many of you know, Joe Miller is a West Point graduate. He served as an Army officer during Desert Storm, earning a Bronze Star for leadership in combat. Yet somehow, Lisa Murkowski felt it would be a good idea to twist Miller’s honorable military service around as a negative? She knocked a man awarded a Bronze Star for leadership in combat… as unfit to lead. It is shameful that a sitting United States senator would attack a decorated Army officer on the basis of honor and leadership, but apparently there’s no low Lisa Murkowski won’t sink to in her desperate bid to keep Daddy’s little present.

Meanwhile, what has Lisa Murkowski ever done to qualify her as some kind of leadership expert? Well, after law school, she failed the bar exam four times before finally passing it, became a lawyer, was elected to the Alaska House of Representatives, and then had a Senate seat gifted to her by her father.

Wow, what extraordinary leadership experience and qualifications.

Meanwhile, isn’t it a bit hypocritical for Murkowski to attack Miller on the basis of honor? Murkowski is the one who lost a primary, conceded the race, and promised to abide by the will of Alaska voters. She, of course, did no such thing and launched a write-in campaign, ignoring the will of the voters — exactly the thing she promised she wouldn’t do. Yeah, that’s real honorable.

Right now, Miller is trying to raise $1.5 million in a final push before the election. He’s currently at a little over $1 million. Maybe we should all donate to his campaign and make sure that Alaska’s version of Ted Kennedy be kicked out for good this time.

–

Follow Cassy on Twitter and read more of her work at CassyFiano.com and Hard Corps Wife.