When the news first hit, it was hard to swallow: college football defensive coaching legend Jerry Sandusky, one of Penn State’s best, had been caught with more than just his pants down. The report was that a graduate assistant went to the locker room and heard “slapping noises” that he recognized as being sexual and, to his horror and revulsion, found Sandusky having full-on sexual intercourse with a 10-year-old boy. Disgusting, isn’t it? It would be if that were where the story ended. Disgusting doesn’t come close to covering what happened.

That was back in 2002. The assistant, who isn’t named in the grand jury’s finding of fact, didn’t go to the police. He called his father. His father didn’t tell him to go to the police, either – he told the assistant to tell Joe Paterno, Penn State’s legendary head coach. He waited until the next morning to call Paterno. Then, Paterno failed to call the police – HE called Tim Curley, who was Penn State’s athletic director, who then called Gary Schultz, the university head of business and finance. Even campus police were never informed. Apparently, Sandusky’s keys were taken away and he was told not to bring young boys to the Penn State locker rooms again. Oh, and they informed Second Mile, Sandusky’s charity for underprivileged youth.

Never, in any of this, did anyone stop to think that the police needed to be notified of what had happened. Not once did any of the people involved in that particular incident ever consider whether they needed to make sure that Sandusky would never be able to commit such a horrible crime again. As a result, other boys were sexually assaulted for years afterward. What’s more, by the time the 2002 incident happened, Curley testified that he knew of a similar incident in 1998 that Sandusky had been investigated for. You’ll love this part: Curley and Schultz both testified before the grand jury that they didn’t recall being told of all-out sodomy between Sandusky and this young boy. And when the university president, Graham Spanier, testified, he says that Curley and Schultz described the incident to him as “horsing around in the shower”. He also said they had no intention of ever reporting anything to the police. Then, the grand jury found that Curley and Schultz lied in their testimony that they had never been told that the “inappropriate contact” was “sexual in nature”.


Now that the feces has hit the oscillating rotator, Penn State has been forced to fire Joe Paterno and his name will be stricken from the school’s championship awards. The school had to cancel a football game due to the lack of coaching staff. Incredibly, students and alumni actually rioted in protest of the actions being taken. Pundits Tammy Bruce, Michelle Malkin and fiction author Brad Thor were all attacked by Penn State alumnui on Twitter for their stance on the meltdown. The common response? “Joe Paterno was 74 years old! He had a lapse in judgment! You can’t punish him and the football team for that!”

That’s even more unbelievable.

This is what happens when morality is no longer allowed in universities. You have liberals indoctrinating kids in our colleges to believe ideas about secular humanism, socialism and anti-religious ideals and we wonder why Jerry Sandusky gets away with child molestation for years after being caught in the literal act. You can see why in the reactions of Curley and Schultz – they were more concerned about the reputation of Penn State in the heat of the moment than they were with the well-being of a child. They were willing to sweep the whole thing under the rug to temporarily save their reputations. This was not a lapse in judgment; it was a deliberate, concerted effort to hide the truth, that a man who had unfettered access to young boys and to secluded areas on the campus of Penn State was committing unspeakable acts on young boys. We have, as a society, essentially said that God and morality have no place whatsoever in society (despite the fact that we have laws, which come from…um, morality), and we balk when something like this happens.

While the graduate assistant might be able to plead ignorance – which I disagree with, but conceivably he could – nobody else can. His father, at the very least, should have told him to immediately call the police. When he didn’t, Paterno should have. And when HE didn’t, the people above him – Curley and Schultz – should have. I’ll tell you right now, if I ever caught one of my friends doing anything like that, I don’t care how long we’ve been friends. First I will beat you soundly, then I will hold you for police. It should have insulted Paterno, Curley and Schultz when they discovered what he was using them and their facilities for. Instead, they tried to cover it up and protect him. Now we have entire groups of Penn State students angrily protesting the fallout, complaining that they shouldn’t have to pay. Wait right there while I check on whether I care…

Nope. My give-a-damn is busted.

Teach Your Children The Limits

In my July post Put the Candles Out, I wrote about the murder of 15-year-old Lawrence King at the hands of 14-year-old classmate Brandon McInerney. In that piece I talked about what led up to the shooting; I said then and I still say there is no justification for what Brandon did. He should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Something else I said at the time, however, was that Lawrence’s behavior was unacceptable. I had long since removed my personal email address from the website, but two liberals that I have known for a very long time sent me very hateful messages for what I said and severed all ties with me over that post. If they read what I’m about to write, they’ll be sending me death threats.

Yesterday, Tammy Bruce tweeted a news story from Denver about a seven-year-old boy named Bobby who essentially lives like a girl. He wants to join the Girl Scouts. His mother had apparently contacted the Girl Scouts about it and got a positive response – sure, bring him! We’re an inclusive organization, and if a child identifies as a girl, they can be a Girl Scout! Well, Mrs. Montoya took Bobby to the local troop only to be turned away by the troop mother, who said he couldn’t join because he “has boy parts”.

Okay…lemme speak from experience here.

When I was a kid, as far back as age five, I wanted to be a boy. My mother dressed me up in dresses and cute stuff but I wasn’t interested in girl stuff – He-Man and GI Joe were my heroes. Later I got heavily into Voltron and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. My sister started an impressive Barbie collection, but I was more interested in going to the shooting range with my dad. I traded baseball cards with my brother. I practiced hard pitching with my grandfather. I wanted to be a Boy Scout; in fact I wished, after my friend’s older brother did it, that I could become an Eagle Scout (but to this day a girl would not be accepted, and it should stay that way). I got into politics and philosophy, learned to play guitar when I was 10, and if allowed I never would have worn another dress in my entire life. When grunge became popular I stole my dad’s old combat boots and wore them to school with my slashed jeans (actually, I had to sneak them into school and change because if my mother saw what I was wearing she’d have had apoplexy). The worst that my parents can say about me as a kid was that I was more interested in music and recreational reading and writing than I was in doing schoolwork.

My mother went way too far on a lot of things, but the one thing I can say for certain that I’m glad she wouldn’t budge on was the fact that I was not a boy. She could have gone about it much differently, but I’m glad that she insisted that I wear a dress to church. I wouldn’t be caught dead in one now, but that’s beside the point. My mother knew what I was too young and dumb to realize: when you deviate a little bit from the norm, it’s rebellion; when you deviate too far from the norm, you’re an instant target. And when you’re a kid you really don’t know what you are or want to be.

I wanted to be a boy when I was a kid, but now that I’m an adult I like being a woman. Yes, I’m a lesbian. I like women (as long as they are also lesbians). I lost interest in changing my gender when I was in junior high school. While I wish my mother would have enforced the rules just a tad differently, I have to say that I’m glad she didn’t wantonly feed into the fact that I wanted to be a boy.

It is important to let a child explore and, to some degree, be who or what they want. It is far more important, however, to set limits on children. What this little boy and his mother do not realize is that just by dressing and acting like a girl, he’s made himself a huge target. By going on the evening news for a feature spot, however, they’ve made him a pariah. In the feature, he admits to being bullied. Do you think that’s going to get better or worse now? Parents will tell their kids to stay away from him at school. Kids at school will be more merciless than before. He’s not learning limits – if his mother doesn’t rein him in quickly, he’ll end up acting like Lawrence King, prancing around school in stiletto thigh-high boots and wearing makeup, flirting with boys in the hallway who are not of that orientation and don’t understand what’s going on. If he survives that, he’ll go on to learn the hard way that the real world of adults can be just as cruel, if not more so.

Childhood is definitely a time of exploration and questioning. It is also the best time to set limits and teach rules. Bobby doesn’t know what he wants or what he is just yet; the greatest injustice his mother can commit is to fail to teach him that the real world has expectations no matter who or what you are and if you don’t have some semblance of normalcy in your life, the world will eat you alive. It is very unhealthy to allow any child to live as the opposite gender. He is going to grow up being loved and accepted at home and not understanding why the kids at school can’t stand him – and you’ll never be able to explain it. He will, however, grow up and get over having a few rules in life.

Supporting the Message, but Damning the Hypocrisy


Along with health reform and a President which caters to special interests, out comes another wacky interest group called Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine who are displaying posters throughout popular places like Union Station where 14 are hanging. 

Apparently, the White House is very upset and they should be.  But let’s speculate if this had been a poster about one of Sarah Palin’s children.  This poster in no way compares to the verbal beating Palin’s family has taken nor does it compare to the disgusting display of alleged “comedy” from David Letterman a few months back.

(Side-note: another liberal female shows her devotion to female liberal intelligence and advancement by dating Bristol Palin’s baby’s daddy).

This group shows a girl in this poster who happens to be a vegetarian and the group is ticked because schools in Miami public schools are not offering vegan meals.

My late grandmother used to say “chickens always have a way of coming home to roost.”  Will he risk ticking off a bunch of energetic activists that can haunt him forever?  Or will they continue this tiff until the group takes the posters down?

Either way, when you build a career catering to special interests, what else can you expect when you choose one or two over the others?

Family Ties

Seeing some of the things I’ve seen, I will never understand how so many judges come to the conclusion that all attempts must be made to keep kids with their biological parents.

When I was a freshman in high school, my family lived next door to a soldier who had a wife he’d met in Germany and four adopted kids. This family was generally very nice, but living next door to them, we learned quite a lot. Mom and dad believed that any consumption of any food that contained sugar or preservatives was a sin, and were able to quote passages from the bible that they felt justified their position. What made this so strange was that they would not allow their kids to eat anything not made in their home. I kid you not, these children were not allowed to eat anything at anyone else’s home, at church, or at school. They were frequently sent to school without lunches. I babysat them twice, and on both occasions every one of those kids displayed an amazing fear of their parents. Another neighbor was a teacher at their school, and she found all three of the school-aged kids with bruises that belied physical abuse.

Those kids were never removed from the home. The last I heard, dad had been transferred to another duty station and nothing had been done.

Fast forward to my adult years, and I became a youth corrections officer. I learned something very quickly there: many of the kids had parents who were either drug-abusing pieces of trash who had abused their kids (and in that group, the vast majority were single parents). There were boys in the facility I worked in who didn’t like to have anyone behind them because they’d been continually molested as small children. There were both boys and girls in other facilities whose parents would show up on visitation day either drunk or high (or both), even some who would smuggle narcotics in to the kids. One kid had learned to make hooch from his prison-bound father in a letter and had become quite proficient in making it himself. In many of these cases, if you looked deeper into a kids’ past you’d find that a judge somewhere had continued to insist on sending the kids home with mom or dad despite many incidents that proved the parents to be incapable of raising their kids.

I worked for a couple of different shelters after that and saw six-year-olds insisting on being called Tupac or Snoop Dogg, heard kids too young to understand profanity using some of the most creative curses I’d ever heard, and seeing other kids performing mock sex acts all the time because of the things they’d been exposed to. Those cases were especially difficult, because I knew most of these kids were going to eventually go home to the parents who damaged them so severely. I knew that many of them would wind up in the juvenile detention facilities that I’d worked in previously, and there was absolutely nothing that a peon like me could do about it.

Holding my niece, playing with her, and seeing her face light up when my brother or sister-in-law would smile at her gave me pause to wonder how in the hell any living, breathing, feeling human being could possibly cause so much harm to such a small, defenseless person. I sat down to play my guitar for Delaney and she just sat and listened; it was the only time she was so still and calm while she was awake. She learned to clap when I walked into the room after hearing her mom and dad clap when I got done playing. She isn’t a perfect kid, but she’s beautiful and an absolute joy to all of us. I cannot fathom any person wishing harm to something so innocent.

For some reason, the law largely sides with biological family in all cases involving abuse, neglect or molestation. Judges seem to think it’s more important to keep a child with at least one biological parent than it is to keep them safe and sound. When a CPS worker stands up in court and explains to a judge that mom is a raging alcoholic at 19 and has been arrested for DUI three times with her two kids in the vehicle and the judge sees fit to return those kids to mom yet again, there’s a major problem. While human imperfection dictates that we’ll never cure ourselves of the festering plague of child abusers any more than we will of any other criminal, we can at least make an attempt to stand up for the smallest and most innocent of all victims. Sometimes it seems it will never change.

Family ties should never be more important than what’s best for a child.

Suggestions of a New Banner?

Guys, it’s no secret that I have loved Sarah Palin since her arrival in November.  I thought she was cool with her no-nonsense persona and loved that her family and life were really very similar to that of the rest of the nation.  Even after the election, the more liberals continue to call her “stupid” or “corrupt,” the adjectives seemed to make me love her even more – seeings as what some of those same people say about Reagan to this day.

My problem is with Bristol – her daughter.  I have no problem ridding the Republican party of phony conservatives like John McCain or any of the members of Congress who voted “yes” to any part of Obama’s spendorama.

Bristol and the father of her child I gather are officially announcing a split.  No marriage and no two-parent home for the baby they just brought into the world.

This girl (Bristol) was raised by two loving parents and is now purposely subjecting a child to a life without a permanent father figure.  I cannot support this and will not even though her mother is the best thing for our country in my eyes.

The question is, where does this leave Sarah?  Of course Bristol is an adult now.  Is Sarah obligated to make a statement on this?  Or is this still just a private family matter?

Knowing what single motherhood has done to this country in terms of crime and poverty, it seems to me that issues which start out as “private family matters” become public matters when someone is victim of a crime committed by a child raised without a strong father or our tax dollars are raised to support children who are being raised by single mothers without educations or careers.

I’ve seen it first-hand and I’ve seen it abroad.  Kids raised without dads have a 50-times higher rate of turning out to be crappy adults that the rest of us have to put up with forever.  I wouldn’t have a problem with “private family matters” if the troubles that come out of the situations stayed within the families as well.  But frankly, it doesn’t.

The governor should encourage her to put that kid up for adoption at once, should adopt the child herself to be raised by her and Todd, or should encourage Bristol to get over herself and to marry the guy she once loved enough to make a baby with. 

This child deserves a dad who is not around only on the weekends.

Palin’s daughter Bristol splits from fiance

Coulter’s Bitter Whip of Knowledge Strikes Again


I was thinking of coming out in defense of Ann much earlier in the week, but I happen to know she’s thoroughly enjoying the “firestorm” she seems to miraculously create every time she cites problems in our society.  In fact, the same problems she cites are the same problems liberals cite when they’re trying to convince us to be more tolerant of illegal immigration or to explain why they need to take more of our money to pay for the irresponsibility of others – or as a liberal would call them: “social in-justices.”

Coulter’s appearances also demonstrate exactly what is wrong with liberals – and why their reasoning is lacking.

On “The View” Monday, Whoopi immediately begins the segment by throwing in (and she throws it up again toward the middle of the interview) by stating that Ann Coulter is not married or a mother.

Whoopi demanded to know “what is your problem with single mothers?” in response to Ann’s brilliant chapter in her new book “Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault on America” that addresses the problems of illegitimacy.  Coulter cites statistics showing that illegitimacy has grown over 300% since the 1970’s and goes on to deliver other facts like that 70% of the prison population is a product of single motherhood, like huge percentages of gang members, teenage runaways, high-school dropouts being the products of single mothers, and like stating how the black/white crime rates become balanced when you erase the factor of single motherhood.

I’m curious.  Why do liberals feel that Ann’s marital status is relevant?  Why does Whoopi suggest that Ann would have to have children to offer a more informed opinion?

What kind of an idiotic argument says: “before you can attack a problem, you must first contribute to it!”  This would be like me telling liberals that they couldn’t have an opinion on taxes until they actually pay some.  How about someone tell Whoopi or Joy that they can never again criticize the Iraq war until they start a war of their own?

Coulter goes on to validate the fact that some women do; in fact, do it on their own when they have no other choice like; for example, in the case of Barack Obama whose father left his mother to raise him alone.  In doing so, she points out that Obama’s book revealed Obama identifying himself more with his father because he was black than with his mother who stayed around and paid the bills.

The girl to Coulter’s right is basically pointless in this interview as well.  First she asks if Coulter had compassion and if she had worked on developing a solution to the problem; meanwhile her fellow-black co-worker, Whoopi is asking Ann why she doesn’t contribute to the problem herself before having an opinion on an issue that is affecting all Americans.  Of course Coulter has compassion.  I have compassion.  Our compassion does not lie with the “victims” created by liberals to argue for insane cases like illegal immigration or higher taxes.  Our compassion lies with the real victims Ann describes in that chapter like the kids themselves who often grow disconnected and frustrated without a dad.  Our compassion lies with the victims created by one of these frustrated kids when they shoot a convenience-store-worker as part of some crackpot gang initiation, when they rape somebody, when they steal from someone, etc.  Yet rather than offend one out of ten single-mothers who happen to churn out kids that do not become criminals, the entire left-wing media and left-wing of the Senate want to continue to put that burden onto us.

Then, in an attempt to cool Barbara’s fire from Ann’s comment about her tone as she read excerpts from her book before Ann came out, the girl decided it was time to drag out the “you’re too mean and I don’t appreciate that” card to impress the scores of simple minds in the audience.

Elisabeth Hasselbeck also proved just how irrelevant she is to the Republican Party in this interview.  Like her co-hosts, she decided to focus on Ann’s tone rather than the substance.  Excuse us Elisabeth, what were we thinking?  After all, we see how successful you have been with your liberal counterparts by handing them lollipops on a daily basis.

When will “Republicans” like Hasselbeck understand that “sweet and acerbic” does not work with liberals who are “working” tirelessly to destroy this country?  Take a look at the blogs, or hell, watch MSNBC for more than ten seconds.

The funniest thing is the way liberals are reading the title.  The headline today on GayWired reads that Coulter and Matt Lauer are both “hypocrites of the week” because:

NBC’s Matt Lauer interviewed conservative author Ann Coulter on the Today Show this week after previously claiming she couldn’t be invited back on the program simply to be ‘outrageous,’ and because Coulter squirmed her way back onto the show to promote her new book about ‘Liberal Victims’ by playing the comely victim.

Of course she was a victim.  The Today Show tried to ban her.  Since when is censorship an American thing?  Which radical Iranian leader was invited to speak at Columbia University again?  This is how simple a liberal’s mind is.  They immediately assume that Coulter is proclaiming that there are no such things as “victims.”  Wrong!  She’s saying that liberals turn the wrong people into victims and because of such they simultaneously open the flood-gates to real victim hood. 

Now, of course, liberals want to pretend that her research and facts are false.  Even if liberals were half right (which they never are), we can then say that in lieu of 70% of the crimes committed by juveniles and young adults happening at the hands of illegitmacy, we can settle on 35%.  That would mean if we wiped out single motherhood tomorrow, that our country would be 35% more peaceful. 

Moreover; liberals use the same facts and blatant common knowledge to press their own issues.  In an article a couple of years ago, Lourdes Garcia Navarro (coincidentally in the middle of the conservative fight to keep illegals out of our country) stated:

When Mexicans migrate to the United States, many leave their children in the care of extended families. That’s causing problems back in their home communities, with children doing poorly in school, dropping out or turning to crime.

In the rural village of San Andres Nicolas Bravo in the province of Malinalco, Alexis Silva Carreno, 14, has nearly been expelled from school several times. He says his troubles can be pinpointed to the day in 2001 when his father left for the United States.

Alexis began drinking and hanging out with friends who were part of a local gang led by Mexican youths who had grown up in the United States. He started doing drugs and was eventually sent to a state home for troubled kids.

The headmistress of the school attended by Alexis then said:

“When they don’t have their father or mother, they lack confidence … in the academic sphere,” she says. “It means that they will be more likely to miss school and to drop out. They are also less respectful of their grandmothers or uncles or their teachers.”

And in one bleeding-heart attempt for us to give a damn about illegal aliens from Mexico, activist Ellen Calmus cried:

because crossing the border illegally has become more difficult and costly, migrants don’t want to risk returning to see their families.

But let Ann Coulter cite the similarities in order to expose the scrupulous misguidance of the left and the victim cards they hand out, we get the pleasure of watching Barbara Walter’s head explode while her less-than-competent co-hosts pick up the pieces.

The Right to Life

In debating the death penalty with some people, I’ve noticed something.  The majority of those who are against the death penalty support abortion rights.  It’s something I don’t understand in the least.  I’m not sure I want to.

This is where a gaggle of people go, “waitaminit–you’re a lesbian!  You’re supposed to be pro-choice!”  Well, I’m ‘posed to be a lot of things according to society.  The only thing I’m supposed to do is pay taxes and die.  It is possible, believe it or not, to believe in women’s rights and yet still believe that the unborn have rights, too.

There is a massive difference between the death penalty and abortion.  I love it when pro-abortion activists point out that I believe in the right to life and yet still believe in the death penalty, because the instant they turn around and protest an execution, I’m right there, nipping at their heels. 

I believe that life begins shortly after conception; when the heart is formed and begins to sustain that little life, that is when I believe an embryo becomes a life that should not be terminated.  This occurs at four weeks.  Past that, I believe abortion to be murder, taking a life that has no voice.  And the only purpose for it is convenience. 

Shouldn’t a woman have the right to choose when she will reproduce?  Shouldn’t a woman have the right to decide what to do with her body?  Absolutely!  That choice can be made before you hop in the sack with some guy, whether you know him or not, and create the condition you say you don’t want to be in.  Everything comes with consequences; if you drink too much, you get drunk and likely sick.  You can avoid getting sick by stopping before you get drunk.  If you then drive, you stand a good chance of getting into a wreck and hurting yourself or someone else.  If you break the law, you’re likely to get arrested; in that case, you no longer have the right to choose what to do with anything.

I run the risk of pissing a few off with this one, but it’s true.  Gay couples obviously can’t get pregnant.  But anyone who sleeps around–gay or straight–runs the risk of contracting who knows how many different STD’s, not the least of which are Hepatitis B and AIDS, both of which are equally deadly.  If you do not control yourself and your reactions you are begging for trouble, and pregnancy for straight couples is one of the big ones that causes issues.

What if you get pregnant after a rape?  Honey, if you’ve been raped, you need to go to the hospital, have a rape kit done, file a report and the doctor will offer you a morning-after pill that’ll take care of that.  You should have more respect for yourself in that instance than to let the piece of $@#^ who did it get away with it. 

A child cannot decide whether it wants to live.  It has no voice.  It does, however, have a beating heart, fingers, toes, eyes, a brain, and a soul.  It is incapable of doing wrong and has no ability to choose.  A criminal, on the other hand, has moved past that stage; he knows the difference between right and wrong, has the ability to choose, and has chosen to do wrong.  When that criminal takes a life for no purpose other than convenience, he is making a choice that will have a consequence–and it may very well be giving up his own life in return for the one he stole.

We have laws against animal cruelty.  Why?  Because animals do not have free will and thus are completely innocent.  Should we show more concern for other species simply because they’re cute?  The same rules apply to all who are pure, regardless of their appearance.  The right to choose begins before you do something that comes with a hefty consequence, not after.

An Argument For Leather – Belts

Thank God this happened in Canada.  But it’s sure to happen here soon.  Let’s just hope that US Courts are not as dumb.

A Canadian court has lifted a 12-year-old girl’s grounding, overturning her father’s punishment for disobeying his orders to stay off the Internet, his lawyer said Wednesday.

The girl had taken her father to Quebec Superior Court after he refused to allow her to go on a school trip for chatting on websites he tried to block, and then posting “inappropriate” pictures of herself online using a friend’s computer.

You HAVE to be kidding me.  The question is – how did this case even make it into a courtroom?  In the US, parents that take a hand or a belt to a kid’s ass are subjected to a new, alarming scrutiny as the government attempts to assert itself into the realm of child-rearing.  But this didn’t even involve corporal punishment.

According to court documents, the girl’s Internet transgression was just the latest in a string of broken house rules. Even so, Justice Suzanne Tessier found her punishment too severe.

Too severe??? I would argue that it probably wasn’t severe enough.  I’d love to hear from our “resident mom,” airforcewife, on this one.  I’m probably just arguing from the perspective of someone whose butt was blistered many a time growing up.  I can honestly say that I’m glad my parents were able to exercise that option.  It made me a better person.


Another Pledge Fiasco

Fresh from Bouler, Colorado

About 50 Boulder High School students walked out of class Thursday to protest the daily reading of the Pledge of Allegiance and recited their own version, omitting “one nation, under God.”

The students say the phrase violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

They also say the daily reading of the pledge over the school public address system at the start of the second class takes away from education time and is ignored or mocked by some students.

Good grief.  Here we go again.  Considering that the group who sponsored the move, The Student Worker Club, has only a dozen members, I would be willing to bet that several of the students were apathetic idiots who walked out to avoid class.  Of course that is pure conjecture on my part.  I suppose that it is entirely possible that all 50 students were actually highly unprincipled cynics who actually believe the garbage spewed by the group’s president.

“Boulder High has a highly diverse population, not all of whom believe in God, or one God,” said Emma Martens, a senior and president of the club, which has about a dozen members.

“We didn’t think it was fair for the whole school to have to listen to it. It’s almost religious oppression,” she said.

Of course, I’m more bewildered by the statement that came from the high school’s principal –

Principal Bud Jenkins told the Camera newspaper on its Web site Thursday the pledge will not be moved, but added he was proud of the students for standing up for their beliefs.

I guess it’s all just hopeless.  People consistently amaze me.  And the whack jobs just keep getting younger and younger. 


Insert Witty “Butt” Headline Here

Go ahead and add this story as another chapter in this nation’s often-absurd Book of Socio-Political Correctness (I think I just invented a new term).  Apparently two hardened seventh-grade criminals were sexually assaulting classmates.  Steyn describes the atrocities committed by Cory Mashburn and Ryan Cornelison –

Messrs Mashburn and Cornelison are pupils at Patton Middle School. They were arrested in February after being observed in the vestibule, swatting girls on the butt. Butt-swatting had apparently become a form of greeting at the school – like “a handshake we do,” as one female student put it. On “Slap Butt Fridays,” boys and girls would hail each other with a cheery application of manual friction to the posterior, akin to a Masonic greeting.

This “crime” committed by the boys originally drew charges of felony sexual assault.  Although the charges were later downgraded to misdemeanors, the DA is still advocating that the boys be required to register as sex-offenders, a move that would haunt Cornelison and Mashburn for the rest of their lives.  The DA, Bradley Berry, even suggested that the “assault” committed by the boys was serious and that such “cases are devastating to children.”  I love Steyn’s response –

No, sir. The only one devastating children’s lives is you. If you “win,” and these “criminals” are convicted, 20, 30 years from now – applying for a job, volunteering for a community program, heading north for a weekend in Vancouver and watching the Customs guard swipe the driver’s license through the computer – there’ll be a blip, something will come up on the screen, and for the umpteenth time two middle-age men will realize they bear a mark that can never be expunged. Because decades ago they patted their pals on the rear in a middle-school corridor.

Clearly, this case is a reach.  Students at the school (even some of the victims) almost universally describe schoolhouse hijinx that comes nowhere close to the status of a “sexual assault.”  I am a law-and-order guy, but as more and more DAs and government prosecuters buy into the PC garbage of the left, we are left with trials and decisions that cross over into the realm of absurdity.  In turn, we are left with more and more folks who will be forever scarred by some overreaching DA.

Maybe we can co-star Mike Nifong and Bradley Berry in a new flick.  “D.A.s Gone Wild” comes to mind.