shotbanner.jpeg

August 31, 2004

Code Puke

Michelle Malkin points us to some old friends of Shot In The Dark, Code Pink:

One of the leading protest groups in NYC is Code Pink, "a women initiated grassroots peace and social justice movement that seeks positive social change through proactive, creative protest and non-violent direct action." They champion military deserters, support mothers who refuse to get c-sections to save the lives of their children, and hate Hummers.

These people are very familiar to us here in Minnesota, of course - partly because of their endless, intellectually-vacuous but physically-paltry opposition to the Minnesota Personal Protection Act.

And partly because, sorry to say, they're tied with the Twin Cities' once-useful Utne Reader.

Of course, opposition to the MPPA is the least of the Pinks' sins:

Benjamin could learn a thing or two about Chavez from her own fellow peace activists. Human Rights Watch has tracked the Chavez regime's threat to press freedom and the murder of opposition leaders here. Militares Democritos covers Chavez's links to al Qaeda and more here. John Perazzo has more background on Code Pink's dictator-loving gals here.

When will the mainstream media expose the lingerie-tossing ladies of Code Pink for what they really are? "Peace activists?" Bull. They're cheerleaders for blood-spattered socialism, waving around their ideological underwear at the feet of Hugo Chavez like groupies at a Wayne Newton concert.

Code Pink, Utne fans, Chavez groupies - what's the diff?

Posted by Mitch at August 31, 2004 08:06 AM | TrackBack
Comments

Heck yeah. Who was it said, roughly, these people don't want to live in a dictatorship. They want to *run* one.

Posted by: Brian Jones at August 31, 2004 09:44 AM

Thomas Sowell said, roughly, they want to be our shepherds which means they want us to be sheep.

Posted by: Fred Boness at August 31, 2004 11:39 AM

"support mothers who refuse to get c-sections to save the lives of their children"

I don't get this. What kind of 'mother' would let her child die to avoid surgery? And if the child's life is in danger, isn't it usually the case that the mother's is also?

It certainly would have been the case with my wife. The C-section probably saved both her and our daughter. (A 12-pounder isn't going to come out the regular way, no matter how hard you try.) Scary stuff at first, but after the fact, we both want our second to be born that way.

I know I have no real right to comment on it, being a man and all, but isn't a natural birth just as traumatic as a C-section, for most women? My wife was 90% recovered after the first week, and after a month, she's doing nearly everything she used to before pregnancy.

Posted by: Kris at August 31, 2004 12:11 PM

"support mothers who refuse to get c-sections to save the lives of their children"

I wasn't aware that this was an occurrence, much less a cause celebre. I wonder if this practice is behind some percentage of elective late-term abortions? Because unless a C-section could be lethal to the mother (in which case they should take extreme measures not to become pregnant), this smells like murder to me.

I have to look into this and post more later.

Posted by: mitch at August 31, 2004 01:09 PM

So Mitch, ain't it great the way the big thing at the convention seems to be those band-aids with the little purple hearts on them, you know, mocking a war veteran for allegedly not being wounded enough?

All class, that GOP.
/jc

Posted by: Slash at August 31, 2004 03:11 PM

Any veteran---especially an officer--- who has his medal citations rewritten to include flowery admiring phrases about himself--15 years after the fact-- deserves to be mocked.

Posted by: bethl at August 31, 2004 04:15 PM

Any veteran---especially an officer--- who has his medal citations rewritten to include flowery admiring phrases about himself--15 years after the fact-- deserves to be mocked.

Posted by: bethl at August 31, 2004 04:15 PM

Slash,

I'm not aware that that's the "Big thing". that's a new one on me.

Posted by: mitch at August 31, 2004 04:32 PM

Not to mention, 14 years after he pretends to throw them away. Once he did that, he lost all moral claim to them. His using them as campaign props now tells me all I need to know about him.

And a lot about his supporters, actually.

Posted by: Brian Jones at August 31, 2004 09:36 PM

Amazing that all "Slash" can come up with in the comments to Mitch's post re Code Pink is that asinine reference to the purple heart band-aids. "Mothers" deliberately (and with a sense of entitlement) choosing to let their babies die rather than have a c-section, for God's sake, and he has to mention the band-aids....waaaah. Amazing and sad.

Posted by: Colleen at August 31, 2004 11:10 PM

Colleen: Exactly.

Slash: People have a right to their opinions (at least until the Clinton Supreme Court makes the First Amendment discretionary). It's a group of veterans - people who were genuinely wounded, and served full tours in 'nam, who brought the claims. Kerry hasn't addressed them with anything but platitudes.

By the way, Slash, it's considered bad form to leave off-topic comments in a post thread. We've discussed Kerry at great length in earlier threads, and we're not done with him yet. But this thread is about Code Pink.

Rules are for you, too, Counselor.

Posted by: mitch at September 1, 2004 02:16 PM
hi