Anonymous

Rarely have I seen such a chilling video as this. At least not since Giuliani attempted to make the nation collectively shit its pants with this stunning advertisement. Now I understand the fear of the tin foil wearers.

What terrifies me isn't so much the errie masses of Guy Fawkes masks lining the streets of Los Angeles, nor is it the fact that I sympathize greatly with the way the Scientologists conduct their business. It's the amorphousness of the organization that really grinds me the wrong way.

You see, I'm a patriotic American who values the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in their entirety. That's why I demand that my thoughts, values, and opinions be constantly dictated to me by a third party. I have a full load of college classes and a job to take care of, so I can't always be bothered to come up with reasonable, fact-based approaches to social issues and government policy. I try my best to think outside the box when I can, but at the end of the day unless a pundit agrees with me I'm pretty much lost.

I can't understand how an organization comprised of thousands upon thousands of people can organize a worldwide protest on multiple continents, much less have it all go down on the exact same day. There are no chapter leaders, nobody to officially demonize on the cable news show. How are we supposed to counter these people and their arguments? With facts to be presented on a level playing field, man-to-man? I'm no good at that!

At least with the Code Pinks and ANSWER's of the world, there are leaders to target, demonize, harass, and eventually arrest, and crazy people to laugh at. Police in Atlanta were completely baffled when they had no power structure they could effectively dismantle. The LAPD even resorted to being nice for a change. Just watching the video makes me ill:

More information on the Anonymous protests, as well as upcoming events, can be found at a number of different locations. Anonymous seems to be everywhere, so a simple Google search should get you what you want.

More information and commentary may come later in the day. In the mean time, enjoy the comments section. I have to go close my curtains and buy a dog.

The McCain Citizenship Controversy

Petty has taken a back seat this political season and let Asinine handle the steering. In a way it is humorous when the liberal MSM has no alternative but to start questioning someone's national origin in a desperate attempt to invalidate their campaign. Lord knows that the political climate is appaling when I have to start doing the opposition's work for them, but there have been a number of issues regarding McCain that could have sparked more controversy than this.

My article was frank, because that's what the issue requires. There's no story here. And even if there was, it would most likely end up backfiring in the Democrats' collective faces. Just because he's a foreigner he can't be President? Sure there's a Constitutional argument clearly made against it, but that rule is so archaic that penning up an amendment would actually be a rather progressive move. It would be a shame if the Democrats found themselves in an anti-immigrant stance simply because it would mean a Republican presidency.

Almost makes me wish they'd try it, just to watch them slowly implode as a party.

Yes, McCain was born in Panama on a military base. And contrary to popular belief, a foreign US military base is not US soil. Read the statute if you don't believe me (7 FAM 1116.1-4). Also take note when it states that "Prior to January 13, 1941, there was no statutory definition of 'the United States' for citizenship purposes. Thus there were varying interpretations. Guidance should be sought from the Department (CA/OCS) when such issues arise." This issue would end up in the State Department, who probably wouldn't really care all that much.

Personally - and I know a number of conservatives also feel this way - this scares me much more than an old white man being born in Panama to white parents:

Shocking.

Nobody cares where McCain and Obama were born

As Sen. John McCain clinches the Republican nomination, it is important to analyze issues regarding the Arizona senator, which, up until now, have gone largely overlooked. A little-known fact about John McCain is that he was, in fact, not born in Arizona. He was actually born in Panama, on a military base called Coco Solo in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 (yes, he is that old).

Why is this relevant to his presidential run? Because the Constitution makes a clear determination as to who is eligible for the highest office of the United States, and non-natural-born citizens need not apply. Unfortunately for McCain, the Panama Canal Zone has never been an official territory of the United States.

The fact that his father was a member of the U.S. military and he was born on a military base is irrelevant as well. Contrary to popular belief, foreign military bases are not considered to be U.S. soil, and those born there must become naturalized. This issue is addressed specifically by the State Department in 7 FAM 1111.2(c), which states that a child born on a military base overseas “does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.”

But allow me to be perfectly clear: His status as a United States citizen is not in question. The rights of natural-born and naturalized citizens are equal, as decided by the Supreme Court case of Schneider v. Rusk in 1964, and none of this would have any impact on his status as a senator. But it does raise questions as to his eligibility as a potential president.

McCain’s staff is confident that this is not going to be an issue. The senator ran for the office of president in 2000, losing the Republican nomination to Bush, and they are sure that the issue was satisfactorily investigated then. Theodore Olson, an adviser to the McCain campaign, said in a New York Times article titled “McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out,” stated that he doesn’t “have much doubt about it,” but added that he would continue his research.

In the end, this should be the least of his issues. I have yet to see a poll in which “McCain’s citizenship” has been a major influence in how people are planning to cast their ballot come November.

Besides, issues such as national origin are antiquated, and aren’t seriously considered by us conservatives. That’s why we don’t care if McCain was born in Panama, or that Sen. Barack Obama spent four years growing up in Indonesia training to be a Manchurian candidate that will destroy us all.

We don’t reduce ourselves to such lows.

The Mauve Hand - The Homosexual Agenda Invades Soap Operas

As if As the World Turns didn't give us enough to cringe about, my friends at the American Family Association - the noted defender of free speech for white evangelical Christians - inform me that they have gone so far as to show a gay couple in an open, committed relationship:

The American Family Association is calling on Procter & Gamble to adopt a neutrality policy on controversial issues, especially when it comes to pushing the homosexual agenda on network television.

Procter & Gamble (P&G) owns the long-running soap opera As the World Turns, which features a fictional romance between two young men. In fact, last August the CBS daytime soap became the first to feature two homosexual men kissing.

The Homosexual Agenda is more than a witty name to give your persona in City of Villains. It is a reality that has dominated our nation's discourse and turned this Judeo-Christian nation away from the one true God (the one that Supports Our Troops). Luckily they know just how to respond:

"What Procter & Gamble has done by not having a neutrality policy on any controversial issue [is] they've now put themselves in the middle of this battle between homosexual activists and those who aspire to more traditional family values -- especially on network TV in the public forum," argues Sharp.

The AFA spokesman is hopeful P&G will simply opt not to get involved in controversial topics, such as a homosexual kiss on television, and adopt a policy toward that end. But "the best thing that they could do," he suggests, "is to go ahead and drop these two characters [from the show]."

I will give a great, heaving "Amen!" to that, sister. What many Americans fail to realize is that "neutrality" towards a controversial social issue does not mean "approaching an issue with the intent of dismantling stereotypes and prompting discussion", but means "abhorring the practice completely and damning all who think otherwise."

Americans should contact P&G and express their outrage at this blatant support of the homosexual lifestyle. How can we as a nation conduct a reasonable, rational discussion on gay rights when gays are constantly being flaunted in soap operas as "human beings" who "express genuine emotions" or otherwise attempt to garner our sympathy? The audacity!

And if that wasn't enough, can you believe that they have managed to infiltrate Christian programming as well! Imagine my horror when I witnessed this debauchery:

"The contents don't squirt in your face?"

"A point at the top for ease of entry?"

"Just the right shape for the human mouth and curved towards the face?!"

I'm getting goosebumps just thinking about it...

EPA Demonstrates Proper Judgment

Normally organizations whose titles contain the word "environmental" and "protection" make their way onto my prestigious "List of Objectionable People". I pretty much assume that such groups are in league with America's enemies, be they Communists, hippies, peaceniks, terrorists, Muslim extremists, communist terrorists, hippie extremists, Muslim communists, terrorist peaceniks, or any other mortifying combination of those terms.

But recently the Environmental Protection Agency demonstrated that it was willing to defy the snarling of left-wing lunatics, and start doing its job objectively and without influence.

Under pressure from the chemical industry, the Environmental Protection Agency has dismissed an outspoken scientist who chaired a federal panel responsible for helping the agency determine the dangers of a flame retardant widely used in electronic equipment.

Toxicologist Deborah Rice was appointed chair of an EPA scientific panel reviewing the chemical a year ago. Federal records show she was removed from the panel in August after the American Chemistry Council, the lobbying group for chemical manufacturers, complained to a top-ranking EPA official that she was biased.

If there's one thing that scientists should be, it's objective. We conservatives understand that. That's why when a situation like this arises, we feel obligated to speak out. For too long our environmental policy has been shaped by the misguided notion that the industry should be wholly removed from the process of determining whether their products are potentially harmful to the American people. As if they have something to gain from manipulating the process in order to mask dangerous elements of their products.

The chemical, a brominated compound known as deca, is used in high volumes worldwide, largely in the plastic housings of television sets.

Rice, an award-winning former EPA scientist who now works at the Maine Department of Health and Human Services, has studied low doses of deca and reported neurological effects in lab animals. Last February, around the time the EPA panel was convened, Rice testified before the Maine Legislature in support of a state ban on the compound because scientific evidence shows it is toxic and accumulating in the environment and people.

Chemical industry lobbyists say Rice's comments to the Legislature, as well as similar comments to the media, show that she is a biased advocate who has compromised the integrity of the EPA's review of the flame retardant.

Exactly. How are we supposed to trust the panels findings when they are chaired by individuals who have actively studied the effects of the chemical in question? It is absurd that we should expect the EPA to conduct a fair and unbiased investigation into deca when their scientists release scientific findings showing that it has the potential to cause serious damage to living organisms.

EPA officials removed Rice because of what they called "the perception of a potential conflict of interest." Under the agency's handbook for advisory committees, scientific peer reviewers should not "have a conflict of interest" or "appear to lack impartiality."

Luckily this system has its checks and balances. When the American Chemistry Council, a lobbying group representing the chemical industry, felt that their product might be getting a raw deal, they demanded that Rice be removed from the panel.

Think of it kind of like the Executive and the Legislative branches of our government, with
the EPA as Congress and the ACC as the President. When Congress looks like they might not agree with everything the President wants them to, the President just starts removing senators he doesn't like. This ensures that the whole process runs as smoothly as possible, and that there are no unnecessary conflicts of interest.

Because the only people truly qualified to determine impartiality in the EPA are the ones who stand to maintain millions in revenue based on their decisions. That's why we call America "The Land of the Free".