Here, you are urged and encouraged to run your mouths about something important.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010


Last week, 13 year-old Cody Alicea rode to school on his bike while sporting a U.S. flag. When he got there, he was ordered by the school to remove the flag because it could cause 'racial tensions.' The reasons cited by school officials were utterly disgraceful and got to the root of why so many American patriots are up in arms these days. Cody was told to remove the flag because while he has a First Amendment right to free speech, he should be responsible with it.

Via UPI:
Denair Unified School District Superintendent Edward Parraz said Cody Alicea, 13, was told not to fly the U.S. flag from his bike while at Denair Middle School after complaints from other students, KCRA-TV, Sacramento, Calif., reported.

"(The) First Amendment is important," Parraz said. "We want the kids to respect it, understand it, and with that comes a responsibility."

Parraz said racial tensions boiled over at the school this year around the Cinco de Mayo holiday.

"Our Hispanic, you know, kids will, you know, bring their Mexican flags and they'll display it, and then of course the kids would do the American flag situation, and it does cause kind of a racial tension which we don't really want," Parraz said. "We want them to appreciate the cultures."
Yes, I did say this was a 'Feel Good' story. Days after the outrageous stance taken by the school, they relented after public pressure and Cody was allowed to ride to school with his flag again.

However, this time he had an entourage! Much more HERE.

h/t Gateway Pundit


What do you get when you mix an arrogant lifetime politician on trial for ethics violations with a dash of indignation over the fact that he doesn't have an attorney despite never being denied the opportunity to retain one? Answer: a theatrical and incoherent argument based on a faulty premise followed by the departure of the politician on trial. That's what happened in the trial of Registered socialist congressman and member of the Congressional Black Caucus, Charlie Rangel (D-NY).

Take note when Rangel talks about why he doesn't have counsel. It's too expensive, he can't afford it, and none of the multiple attorneys he knows personally are willing to take the case on ethical and legal grounds. Translation: they won't do it if they don't get paid and Charlie seems to be a little light on cash. Welcome to the conundrum so many of the "little people" face on a daily basis, Charlie. At the end of this clip, you will see G.K. Butterfield attempt to defend Rangel's incoherent argument. Before you ask why, know that he is also a member of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), though NOT one of the 30 members of the 42 member group registered as a socialist.

Can you believe this guy was re-elected earlier this month by a wide margin? His constituents are either socialists or high.

Via MediaIte:


After prosecutors in the Article 32 hearing - which is used to determine if there's enough evidence for a court martial - presented 56 witnesses over several days last month, all with gripping and horrifyingly compelling testimony, the defense mounted by the Fort Hood shooter, Nidal Malik Hasan, lasted a grand total of four minutes. Such a weak attempt at a defense in an Article 32 is not necessarily uncommon. That said, Hasan's attorney seemed to be conceding to the reality that there will be a court martial.

Via the San Antonio Express:
FORT HOOD — Prosecutors took nine days and 56 witnesses to finish their part of an evidentiary hearing for an Army psychiatrist charged with a shooting spree one year ago, but the defense took just four minutes.

The hearing wrapped up Monday morning shortly after Col. James Pohl, an Army judge who presided over a series of Abu Ghraib proceedings five years ago, asked Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan if he had anything to say.

“No,” Hasan replied.

Pohl, the investigating officer for the Article 32 hearing, will recommend whether a trial should be ordered for Hasan, who is charged with 13 specifications of premeditated murder and could get the death penalty.

A post spokesman said a decision on a trial is expected at the beginning of next year.
If there is anything good to come out of the hearing, it may be the repeated requests made by Hasan's attorney, John Galligan, who has been demanding - rather unsuccessfully - that he receive investigation results of his client's time at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

In light of what has leaked about all the red flags raised by Hasan's behavior, the Department of Defense is not looking forward to being significantly shamed by revelations of what it didn't do to prevent this massacre.

h/t to Weasel Zippers.
Accuracy in Media
American Spectator
American Thinker
Big Government
Big Journalism
Doug Ross
Flopping Aces
Fox Nation
Fox News
Free Republic
The Hill
Hope for America
Hot Air
Hot Air Pundit
Jawa Report
Jihad Watch
Michelle Malkin
Naked Emperor News
National Review
New Zeal Blog
News Real
Pajamas Media
Red State
Right Wing News
Say Anything
Stop Islamization of America
Verum Serum
Wall Street Journal
Washington Times
Watts Up With That
Web Today
Weekly Standard
World Net Daily

Blog Archive