English Hotel Refuses Service to Armed Forces Personnel

Check this out.

Soldier forced to sleep in car after hotel refuses him a room

The Metro Hotel in Woking, which was under fire today

Hannah Fletcher
A wounded soldier home from Afghanistan on sick leave was forced to spend the night in his car after a hotel refused him a room.

Corporal Tomos Stringer was told by staff at Metro Hotel, in Woking, that it was company policy not to accept members of the armed forces as guests. The 24-year-old had travelled to the Surrey town to help with funeral preparations for a friend killed in action.

It was so late that Cpl Stringer, who had broken his wrist jumping off an Army truck as it was attacked, had no choice but to bed down in his tiny, two-door car, arm covered in plaster.

Cpl Stringer, of 13 Air Assault Support Regiment, The Royal Logistic Corps, has now returned to Afghanistan, but his mother, Gaynor Stringer, from Criccieth, north Wales, told The Times that she is still furious about the incident.

“I’m very, very angry. It’s discrimination. They would never get away with it if it was against someone of ethnic origin,” she said.

She said they had received neither an apology nor an explanation from the hotel, which is part of a family entertainment centre called The Big Apple and owned by a company called American Amusements.

"In America, they treat soldiers as heroes,” said Mrs Stringer, whose son joined the Army when he was 16 and has done multiple tours of duty in Iraq, Northern Ireland and Afghanistan.

“We went to Disney World with Tomos and the whole family was moved to the front of the lines. Everybody was standing up and clapping and cheering.

“Here, soldiers can’t even get a bed for the night.”

The incident has prompted widespread condemnation from senior members of the Government, MPs, servicemen and their supporters.

Hywel Williams, the MP for Caernarfon, Derek Twigg, the Defence Minister, and Bob Ainsworth, the Armed Forces Minister, have written to the hotel.

Mr Twigg wrote: “Although I do not know the precise circumstances, I think it is deplorable for the management of a hotel to have a policy not to accept military personnel and that this case is especially egregious given that the individual concerned was on injury leave from Afghanistan.”

Mr Williams said: “It is unacceptable and outrageous that anyone is discriminated against in this way. “

But perhaps even more worrying for Metro Hotel are the legions of army men and enthusiasts rising up in the forums of the unofficial British Army website to call for a boycott of the hotel.

Some have suggested booking the hotel in huge numbers only to cancel it at last minute. Others are encouraging their colleagues to post negative comments on websites offering customer reviews of the hotel.

One review site has already received half a dozen such comments.

“As a serving member of the British armed forces, I’m disgusted to see that one of my colleagues was refused a room in Metro Hotel in Surrey...because their policy is to refuse all army personnel,” wrote one.

“Anyone considering using any services of this company should definitely not bother. I'm sure a more patriotic company can be found with far superior services.”

Another wrote of the hotel: “Cons - No beds for our country's heroes.”

Negotiating With Terrorists

I don't think there's anything wrong with what the President said, which you can read below. The reason the liberals are going nuts about this is so that they can imply that that they agree with his statements without coming out and saying that they agree with the big bad Bush man. Also, Obama is going to do whatever he has to to get more press. I hope McCain ignores this woman who's led Congress to historically low approval ratings...

Oh yeah, read the article here too.

---

Pelosi: Bush comments 'beneath the dignity of the office'


Democratic House leaders are calling out President Bush for a speech in Israel in which he seemed to suggest that Sen. Barack Obama wants the United States to "negotiate with terrorists."

In his speech, Bush said: “Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along."

The White House insists that Bush was "referring to a wide range of people, not any single person." But Obama's campaign says it appeared to be a swipe at him, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that Bush's remarks were "beneath the dignity of the office of the president and unworthy of our representation" at the celebration of Israel's 60th anniversary.

Referring to Sen. John McCain, Pelosi said: "I would hope that any serious person that aspires to lead the country, would disassociate themselves from those comments.”

As Pelosi was speaking, House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel issued a statement in which he said: "The tradition has always been that when a U.S. president is overseas, partisan politics stops at the water's edge. President Bush has now taken that principle and turned it on its head: for this White House, partisan politics now begins at the water’s edge, no matter the seriousness and gravity of the occasion. Does the president have no shame?”




By Daniel W. Reilly 11:26 AM

Gas Price Survey

I've been saying it...

---

Gasoline prices top concerns over jobs, health troubles By KEVIN FREKING, Associated Press Writer
Tue Apr 29, 6:21 AM ET



Paying for gasoline easily tops the list of economic woes facing families in the United States, according to a survey on how changes in the economy have affected people's lives.

About 44 percent of survey participants said paying for gasoline was a "serious problem" for them. Across all income levels, the cost of gas was the most frequently cited economic concern. The price of gas nationally averaged $3.60 a gallon on Monday, according to the Energy Department.

More than a quarter of households earning more than $75,000 a year described paying for gasoline as a serious problem. For those with incomes of less than $30,000, about 63 percent felt that way.

In a distant second and third place among participants' economic concerns were: getting a good-paying job or raise, 29 percent; and paying for health care and health insurance, 28 percent.

Following in fourth place was difficulty paying rent or mortgage, 19 percent.

Many participants in the survey, nearly three in 10, said they put off or postponed getting health care they needed in the past year. Nearly a quarter of participants skipped a recommended test or treatment. Nearly the same number didn't fill a prescription.

The survey of 2,003 adults was conducted April 3-13 on behalf of the Kaiser Family Foundation, which conducts health research. The survey's margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Originally posted here.

Happy Tax Freedom Day

New video from Remy Remz! Enjoy!

4/20 At CU

HAHAHAHA!!! Oh, man. If you're going to try and advocate a drug like weed, you're probably going to get the best responce if you're NOT high at the time. This is pretty funny, I hope you enjoy.

Disclaimer: I don't smoke weed and this post does not represent my opinions on the matter. It's just pretty funny. If you're going to look into it any more than that, please click here instead.

Hillary's Bosnia Footage Revealed!

It was too dangerous for Bill, so they sent Hill.

John McCain First to Address High Gas Prices

...the way that a presidential candidate should be. I'm all for going green and all that crap, but it's more important to me to reduce the cost of gas. I'm selling my car upon leaving for the Air Force for several reasons, but one of them is to try my hand at life without a car - indefinitely. Gas prices are atrocious, and the presidential candidates should be addressing the problem as one of their top five concerns. John McCain is the first to make an attempt. Find the original article here.

McCain Proposes Break in Gas Taxes
Apr 15, 6:31 AM (ET)
By LIZ SIDOTI

PITTSBURGH (AP) - John McCain wants the federal government to free people from paying gasoline taxes this summer and ensure that college students can secure loans this fall, a pair of proposals aimed at stemming pain from the country's troubled economy.

At the same time, the certain Republican presidential nominee says Democratic rivals Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton would impose the single largest tax increase since World War II by allowing tax cuts pushed to passage by President Bush to expire.

"Both promise big 'change.' And a trillion dollars in new taxes over the next decade would certainly fit that description," McCain said in remarks prepared for delivery Tuesday. "All these tax increases are the fine print under the slogan of 'hope:' They're going to raise your taxes by thousands of dollars per year - and they have the audacity to hope you don't mind."

That was a play on the title of an Obama book.

McCain twice voted against the very tax cuts he now supports; he says failing to extend them would amount to tax increases for millions of people.

The four-term Arizona senator was presenting his proposals - and blistering his Democratic rivals - in a wide-ranging economic speech at Carnegie Mellon University.

It's part of an ongoing effort to counter the notion - fueled by his own previous comments - that he's not as strong on the economy as he is on other issues. He's also seeking to fend off criticism from Democrats, including Obama and Clinton, that his small-government, free-market stances don't mesh with people feeling the pinch - particularly those hurting now.

His speech comes a day after he said he believes the country has already entered a recession, a label the Bush administration has resisted even as a credit crisis, a housing slump, soaring energy costs and rising layoffs combined to soften the economy.

To help people weather the downturn immediately, McCain was calling for Congress to institute a "gas-tax holiday" by suspending the 18.4 cent federal gas tax and 24.4 cent diesel tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day. He also renewed his call for the United States to stop adding to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and thus lessen to some extent the worldwide demand for oil.

Combined, he said, the two proposals would reduce gas prices, which would have a trickle-down effect and "help to spread relief across the American economy."

Addressing the feared fallout of the ongoing credit crunch, McCain also said the Education Department should work with the country's governors to make sure that each state's guarantee agency - nonprofits that traditionally back student loans issued by banks - has both the means and the manpower to be the lender-of-last-resort for student loans.

Lawmakers, students and financial experts are worried that the credit crisis might make it more difficult for students and their families to find loans. Nearly two dozen lenders have dropped out of the federally backed student loan program.

Among other proposals, McCain said he would:

_Raise the tax exemption for each dependent child from $3,500 to $7,000.

_Require more affluent people - couples making more than $160,000 - enrolled in Medicare to pay a higher premium for their prescription drugs than less-wealthy people.

_Offer people the option of choosing a simpler tax system with two tax rates and a standard deduction instead of sticking with the current system.

_Suspend for one year all increases in discretionary spending for agencies other than those that cover the military and veterans while launching an expansive review of the effectiveness of federal program.

Censorship On College Campuses

Find ye ole article here.

---

Satirical Words are 'Violence' in Colorado
by Jessica Peck Corry (more by this author)
Posted 04/10/2008 ET
Updated 04/10/2008 ET


One of the most pressing problems in higher education today: No one in power knows how to laugh. Especially women, and particularly the radical, man-hating sort.

Just ask Chris Robinson, a student at Colorado College, a small private liberal arts school located in picturesque Colorado Springs. Robinson, originally from Maine, has been found guilty of violating the school’s anti-violence conduct code.

His crime? Daring to mock “The Monthly Rag,” a leaflet produced by the school’s Feminist and Gender Studies program, and one in which references to male castration, instructions on “packing,” defined as the act of “creating the appearance of a phallus under clothing,” and an advertisement for the book “Dr. Sprinkle’s Spectacular Sex” were all included.

Robinson, together with a friend who has asked that his name not be used, produced a leaflet titled “The Monthly Bag,” a clearly satirical response to the aforementioned publication.

Published under the pseudonym of “The Coalition of Some Dudes,” Robinson’s leaflet used a similar format, but included statistics dispelling the gender wage gap, a quotation about a sexual position (a play on one referenced in The Monthly Bag), and information about female violence and abuse against men. Most notably -- at least to the college’s leftists, the leaflet jokingly referenced “chainsaw etiquette.”

The satire was, apparently, too sophisticated for the school’s liberals. President Richard Celeste wasn’t laughing. In fact, he sent out a campus-wide email condemning the work. “The flyers include threatening and demeaning content, which is categorically unacceptable in this community. . . .Anonymous acts mean to demean and intimidate others are not [welcome].” Celeste then asked the authors to come forward, which they did less than an hour later.

To reward their honesty, the college charged the two male students with violating the college’s anti-violence code. Both were put on trial, a terrifying two-week process where their accusers were allowed to question them about everything from whether they’d ever taken a gender studies course to how they saw their roles in society as white men. “I was terrified,” said Robinson, a 3.9 student who will spend next semester in Syria studying Arabic and who plans to apply to Yale for law school after graduating next year. “These people had the power to sanction me for something roughly equivalent to hate speech. That’s very serious.”

After waiting 17 days “in a Kafkaesque waiting room,” a verdict was given. Last month, Dean of Students Mike Edmonds found both men guilty of “violating the student code of conduct policy on violence.”

For their punishment, Robinson and his friend will now have to wear the metaphorical scarlet letter, with the administration insisting that they initiate a campus dialogue on the issues brought up by their actions. Although Edmonds acknowledged that the intent of the publication was to satirize “The Monthly Rag,” he wrote to the students that “in the climate in which we find ourselves today, violence -- implied violence -- of any kind cannot be tolerated on a college campus.”

Edmonds feebly tried to justify his censorship by telling the students that “the juxtaposition of weaponry and sexuality" in an anonymous parody made students subjectively feel threatened by chainsaws or rifles.

In other words, Edmonds believes college students are too weak and too impressionable to handle a good politically-incorrect laugh at the expense of liberals who take themselves way too seriously.

Political satire -- even when intended to provoke an active discussion on diversity-related issues, is too scary for insecure leftists who have been coddled their entire lives. Never mind the college’s own “diversity and anti-discrimination policy” that mandates that “no idea can be banned or forbidden. No viewpoint or message may be deemed so hateful that it may not be expressed.”

Colorado College, like schools across the country, has built an entire industry around perpetuating the self-victimization of minorities and women, believing both groups are weaklings in need of special protection and isolation.

The college boasts of its “Glass House,” a “nurturing living environment for ethnic minority and supportive majority students.” The college also maintains its active Diversity Task Force, a 22-person diversity police working to establish “processes for voicing and addressing complaints, and monitoring the effectiveness of these processes.”

In a response to Inside Higher Ed, an online education site, Celeste defended the verdict against the students. “The students involved in creating this publication were found to have violated the college community’s standards, but they were not sanctioned or punished,” he said.

Apparently, being forced to "engage the college community in more inclusive dialogue, debate and discussion on freedom of speech" isn't meant as punishment. Sounds like fun. Maybe the campus feminists can even reenact the Salem Witch Trials while they are at it.

According to Colorado College’s Web site, a year at the school costs more than $44,000.

I pity the parents paying for their daughters to major in Feminist Studies. These young women must be so busy “packing” that they don’t have time to study the great works of Western Civilization. And why would they want to study Plato or Socrates? After all, according to radical feminists, the West has only perpetuated the oppression of women.

At least Robinson has kept his sense of humor. I asked him if the case has helped him get dates. While he is in a committed relationship, he says it has helped his co-author-in-crime tremendously. “Women flock to him like wild game,” he said. “They say they like him because he’s a real man.”

All of this would be funny if it weren’t quite so sad. While the feminist rhetoric polluting our colleges is laughable, its effect on ordinary students -- and especially young men -- is something we can no longer ignore.

*The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) originally reported on this story.

Lieutenant Colonel Robert Maginnis On Obama and National Defense

My favorite quote from the following article is...uh, well, the following: Senator Obama’s national security views expressed in his 52-second video reflect that of a knee-jerk liberal academic who thinks that the US is the primary threat to world peace. His views are dangerously naive and his statements suggest a shallow understanding of national security issues and in some cases his facts are wrong. Mr. Maginnis is a retired Army lieutenant colonel, a national security and foreign affairs analyst for radio and television and a senior strategist with the U.S. Army, and this is what he has to say.

Obama Promises to Dismantle Our Armed Forces
by Robert Maginnis
Posted 04/10/2008 ET

YouTube has an undated 52-second clip of Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barrack Obama outlining his plans for America’s national defense. Obama’s presentation demonstrates either total naivete about important national security programs or he is just pandering for votes among the extreme left.

Watch Obama’s message and consider some inconvenient facts about his national security promises.

“I’m the only major candidate to oppose this war from the beginning and as president I will end it.” No one likes war: especially those who have to do the fighting and dying. Yet, our military leaders make clear that the consequences of a rapid withdrawal from Iraq as Obama seeks would be disastrous not only for American interests in the region but for Iraq itself. It would provide a propaganda victory for al Qaeda and Iran because they will be able to claim they defeated America. Further, it could worsen the Iraqi civil war, create an unstable Mideast and further spike oil prices.

“Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending.” Anyone who has worked with the military for any length of time knows there is waste, often in weapons systems. Recently, the Government Accountability Office found that 95 major weapons systems -- including the Joint Strike Fighter and the Littoral Combat Ship -- have exceeded their original budgets. These cost overruns could be the result of waste or mismanagement or, perhaps, the development and fielding of sophisticated new weapons with constantly changing requirements is difficult and inefficient.

The senator should understand there is a difference between waste and defense spending. But does he? There is no reason to think so in any of his speeches or position papers. Obama’s employer, the US Congress, indulges in pork barrel earmarks contributing to wasteful Pentagon spending. Earmarks circumvent merit-based systems to create jobs in favored congressional districts and saddle the military with unwanted -- wasteful -- programs.

“I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.” Recently, both our sea-based and ground-based missile systems proved to be successful. On Feb 20, the USS Lake Erie armed with an SM-3 missile destroyed a wayward satellite traveling at more than 17,000 MPH more than 100 miles high. In September, 2007, our ground-based midcourse defense system killed a dummy missile over the Pacific using an interceptor stationed in Alaska. The US Bureau of Arms Control warns, “The ballistic missile danger to the US, its forces deployed abroad, and allies and friends is real and growing.”

“I will not weaponize space.” America’s current policy is not to weaponize space. However, it’s important for policy makers to recognize the US’s dependence on space. Our banking, communications and navigation systems almost entirely depend on satellites. Space lines of communication are as essential for commerce today as sea lines of communication were two centuries ago. Does Obama mean he wouldn’t provide defensive systems for our satellites? Apparently so.

Surrendering space to rogue nations and pirates places our economy and military at risk. Anti-satellite weaponry will proliferate and must be countered.

“I will slow our development of future combat systems.” Our combat systems are becoming ancient. Our air force is flying aircraft which are based on 1940s and 1950s technology and our army is driving 1960s and 1970s vintage vehicles. Older equipment is expensive, time consuming to maintain and potentially dangerous.

The Army’s Future Combat Systems (FCS) is the first full-spectrum modernization effort in nearly 40 years. It will replace Cold War-era relics with “full-spectrum” operations capable modular systems designed to operate in complex terrain. It can also be adapted to civil support, such as disaster relief.

Failing to develop future combat systems puts American warriors at risk and unnecessarily jeopardizes our security.

“… and I will institute an independent defense priorities board to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.” Congress created the QDR as an every four-year analysis intended to balance defense strategy and programs with resources.

In 2007, the Government Accountability Office, an “independent defense priorities board” in its own right, published its analysis of the most recent QDR. It lauded the Bush administration for sustained involvement of senior officials, extensive collaboration with interagency partners and creating a database to track implementation of initiatives. The GAO faulted Congress for failing to clarify its expectations regarding what budget information the Pentagon should provide.

To make matters worse, Congress’ 2008 Defense Authorization Act created two new and redundant every four year analyses. One is an independent military assessment of roles and missions and the other identifies core mission areas, competenceis and capabilities.

Obama is right to criticize the QDR because it has become an exercise in fantasy but his Congressional colleagues keep piling on new requirements. The senator can help the Pentagon by scaling back on the analyses requirements. Just tell the military what the country can afford and then have the services explain what they will buy and how much risk we will have to accept.

“To seek that goal I will not develop new nuclear weapons.” That’s dangerous. Our present nuclear arsenal will atrophy if it isn’t modernized. According to the head of the military’s Strategic Command, Air Force Gen. Kevin Chilton, our warheads are aging and weren’t designed to last forever, making him nervous. “I liken it to approaching a cliff -- and I don’t know how far away from that cliff I am,” Chilton said.

Ambassador Linton F. Brooks, administrator of the US’s National Nuclear Security Administration, said we have a new program that will potentially reduce the number of warheads and make them safer. It’s called the Reliable Replacement Warhead program and “contemplates designing new components for previously tested nuclear packages.” The RRW would create, Brooks said, a "reduced chance we will ever need to resort to nuclear testing" again.

“I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material…” Nations capable of producing nuclear weapons produce fissile material for their atomic arsenals. Many of these same nations produce fissile material to fuel their nuclear power plants which light millions of homes and are a cheap, clean energy source in a world concerned about hydrocarbon pollution.

Efforts to control the production of fissile material date back to the 1946 Baruch Plan but that attempt was abandoned during the Cold War. In 1992, President George H.W. Bush announced that the US no longer produced fissile material for nuclear weapons and in 1993 President Bill Clinton called for Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty negotiations. While this is a worthy goal it is not achievable in an energy hungry world.

“… and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair trigger alert...”

The US nuclear forces are not on “hair trigger” alert. Only a portion of America’s deployed nuclear forces maintain a ready alert status.

Besides, our policy does not rely on a “launch on warning” strategy. Rather, our forces are postured to provide flexibility by raising the readiness status of the force and by putting weapons systems on alert when necessary.

“… and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.” Our nuclear arsenal is a deterrent against enemies with similar systems. Deep cuts without verifiable reciprocal cuts would be dangerous. However, we are making progress via the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty which proposes a reduction of the overall threathold of up to 1,500 warheads. Russia has approximately 4,162 and the US has 5,866 strategic warheads and both nations possess thousands of tactical weapons and reserve stocks as well.

Senator Obama’s national security views expressed in his 52-second video reflect that of a knee-jerk liberal academic who thinks that the US is the primary threat to world peace. His views are dangerously naive and his statements suggest a shallow understanding of national security issues and in some cases his facts are wrong.

Find the original article here.

Fedor Carries the Olympic Torch

Sit on that, Sean Hannity.

Fedor Carries Olympic Torch in St. Petersburg
By Evgeni Kogan

[4/9/2008] In a traditional lead-up to the Beijing Olympics, the Olympic torch touched down in St. Petersburg, Russia, on Saturday before heading off to England and France, continuing its world tour.

The torch was taken along a 12-mile route through the wide streets and boulevards of the historical river city by a relay of 80 Russian sporting champions, cultural icons and national heroes.

After starting at the Soviet World War II memorial, it passed Petropavlovsk Fortress and St. Isaac's Cathedral before finally arriving at the Palace Square in front of the State Hermitage Museum -- the setting for the beginning of the 1918 Communist Revolution.

The first carrier of the torch was Galina Zybina, 77, an Olympic shot put gold medalist at the 1952 Games, the first year that the Soviet Union took part in the competition. Zybina was a survivor of the 900-day German blockade of the city during World War II, during which approximately 2 million of the residents died from a lack of food and the harsh Russian winters.

The ceremony to light the torch was conducted by city governor Valentina Matvienko, flanked by soldiers in period uniforms and serenaded by a military orchestra. Zybina's starting of the relay was said to be "deeply symbolic."

Former Pride heavyweight champion Fedor Emelianenko (Pictures) also carried the torch, and for the sport of mixed martial arts in Russia, it is perhaps also deeply symbolic that he was asked to participate.

The public profile of MMA has been rising steadily throughout the last 10 years, particularly in St. Petersburg due to the city being a base for the Red Devil Club and a continuing host of the M-1 Mixfight events.

Nationalism is a very important part of the Russian culture and psyche. Though its uptake of popular culture is on par with any Western country, Russia still holds in very high regard its national victories. The whole country, young and old, celebrates a variety of war and peacetime achievements.

Under a bright blue spring sky, Fedor, wearing an official Beijing Olympics training shirt and sporting the number 42, carried the torch alongside such national heroes as Zybina, Olympic figure skater Evgeni Plushenko, St. Petersburg soccer star Andrei Arshavin and the first woman in space, Valentina Tereshkova.

"The Olympics is the pinnacle of sporting achievement, and the torch is the game's symbol," said Emelianenko, who on Tuesday told Sherdog.com he'll fight Tim Sylvia (Pictures) this July. "It's therefore a treasure. I was very honored to be asked to participate and carry the torch for my part of its journey with such accomplished company, including a great number of world-class athletes, whom I hold in very high regard."

The carriers in each country were chosen by each nation's Olympic Committee representatives along with local authorities. The 31-year-old Emelianko's participation is perhaps the strongest sign yet of the sporting establishment's acceptance of MMA.

This is particularly interesting in Russia, where MMA does not have the broad audience it enjoys in the United States or Japan. That's not to say it is unknown. There is "Boets," a television channel dedicated to the fighting arts and, famously, Russian President Vladimir Putin is a big fan. However there aren't significant gate numbers, events are few and far between and pay-per-view does not exist.

This isn't only the case with MMA. All Russian professional sports have a long way to go before they are commercialized to the level that the United States enjoys.

Hence MMA in Russia has not forced itself on mainstream sporting consciousness purely through its economic might and the media presence that follows it. It has quietly done its own thing, appealing to the country's grass roots combat sports fans, slowly gaining acceptance and a following.

Sean Hannity and MMA

...and I'm not a fan of his brand of entertainment. I am a conservative, and I can't stand this guy. This video goes right along with the previous one I posted featuring Bill O'Rielly spewing the same kind of crap.

Listen... people get paralyzed playing hockey and football. You don't see people rushing to take their kids out of these sports, do you? If you can't handle seeing kids do MMA then don't fucking watch it.

However, I am sick of people like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Rielly (I can't stand either one of them honestly; I'm a Rush fan and Sean, who comes on right after Rush, simply can't compete. I'm sure he doesn't feel too bad about this; no one can compete with Rush), with whom I'd love to agree on so many things, spout off nonesense and do what they can to hurt the image of a sport that millions love and practice.

Sean, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by thinking that you're not dumb enough to truly believe what you say about MMA. More likely you've simply found something else upon which you can go off because you think your audience will like hearing you bad mouth something they don't like. Well, guess what? I'm a conservative, and I like MMA. Yes, McCain has my vote but his previously stated positions on MMA are based on what the sport was and not what it is. Today those positions are wrong, and so are you. Stop bashing the sport I love.

Absolutly Sorry

Enough people complained. Check it out:

Absolut apologizes for Mexican vodka ad
From the Associated Press

6:58 PM PDT, April 5, 2008

MEXICO CITY — The Absolut vodka company apologized Saturday for an ad campaign depicting the southwestern U.S. as part of Mexico amid angry calls for a boycott by U.S. consumers.

The campaign, which promotes ideal scenarios under the slogan "In an Absolut World," showed a 1830s-era map when Mexico included California, Texas and other southwestern states. Mexico still resents losing that territory in the 1848 Mexican-American War and the fight for Texas independence.

But the ads, which ran only in Mexico and have since ended, came as the United States builds up its border security amid an emotional debate over illegal immigration from their southern neighbor.

More than a dozen calls to boycott Absolut were posted on michellemalkin.com, a Web site operated by conservative columnist Michelle Malkin. The ads sparked heated comment on a half-dozen other Internet sites and blogs.

"In no way was it meant to offend or disparage, nor does it advocate an altering of borders, nor does it lend support to any anti-American sentiment, nor does it reflect immigration issues," Absolut said in a statement left on its consumer inquiry phone line.

Some fringe U.S. groups also claim the land is rightfully part of Mexico, while extreme immigration foes argue parts of the U.S. already are being overtaken by Mexico.

"In an Absolut world, a company that produces vodka fires its entire marketing department in a desperate attempt to win back enraged North American customers after a disastrous ad campaign backfires," a person using the moniker "SalsaNChips" wrote on Malkin's Web site.

A plan for comprehensive immigration reform designed to deal with an estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States -- the vast majority from Mexico -- collapsed last summer under the emotional weight of the debate.

Absolut said the ad was designed for a Mexican audience and intended to recall "a time which the population of Mexico might feel was more ideal."

"As a global company, we recognize that people in different parts of the world may lend different perspectives or interpret our ads in a different way than was intended in that market, and for that we apologize."

Vin & Sprit, Absolut's Sweden-based parent company, will be acquired by French spirit maker Pernod Ricard SA under a deal reached last week.

Absolut

I've had my last drink of Absolut Vodka, and here's why. Of course, you could always just read the article below, but whenever I copy something into my blogs, I like to put a link to the original publication just to make it a smidgen less likely that I'll get sued.

Perhaps the folk of Sweden think this is a great idea to get lots of Mexicans to buy their product. Perhaps they're right. I just wonder if they counted on how much business they're losing by running this ad, even if it is indeed only being run south of the border (the real border, that is).

Heh, hey, you never know. Maybe so many Mexicans will get into Absolut and be too drunk to illegally cross the border (again, I'm referring to the real border). I suppose there is good in any situation...

Mexico reconquers California? Absolut drinks to that!
The latest advertising campaign in Mexico from Swedish vodka maker Absolut promises to push all the right buttons south of the U.S. border, but it could ruffle a few feathers in El Norte.



The billboard and press campaign, created by advertising agency Teran\TBWA and now running in Mexico, is a colorful map depicting what the Americas might look like in an "Absolut" -- i.e., perfect -- world.

The U.S.-Mexico border lies where it was before the Mexican-American war of 1848 when California, as we now know it, was Mexican territory and known as Alta California.

Following the war, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo saw the Mexican territories of Alta California and Santa Fé de Nuevo México ceded to the United States to become modern-day California, Texas, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado and Arizona. (Texas actually split from Mexico several years earlier to form a breakaway republic, and was voluntarily annexed by the United States in 1846.)

The campaign taps into the national pride of Mexicans, according to Favio Ucedo, creative director of leading Latino advertising agency Grupo Gallegos in the U.S.

Ucedo, who is from Argentina, said: “Mexicans talk about how the Americans stole their land, so this is their way of reclaiming it. It’s very relevant and the Mexicans will love the idea.”

But he said that were the campaign to run in the United States, it might fall flat.

“Many people aren’t going to understand it here. Americans in the East and the North or in the center of the county -- I don’t know if they know much about the history.

“Probably Americans in Texas and California understand perfectly and I don’t know how they’d take it.”

Meanwhile, the campaign has been circulating on the blogs and generating strong responses from people north of the border.

“I find this ad deeply offensive, and needlessly divisive. I will now make a point of drinking other brands. And 'vodka and tonic' is my drink,” said one visitor, called New Yorker, on MexicoReporter.com.

Reader Paul Green goes into a discussion on the blog Gateway Pundit of whether the U.S. territories ever belonged to Mexico in the first place, and the News12 Long island site invited people to boycott Absolut, with one user, called LivingSmall, writing: “If you drink Absolut vodka, you can voice your approval or disapproval of this advertising campaign with your purchases. I know I will be switching to Grey Goose or Stoli and will never have another bottle of Absolut in my house.

“Hey Absolut ... that's my form of social commentary.”

-- Deborah Bonello and Reed Johnson in Mexico City

By the way, it's pretty ridiculous to think that most people in the North East don't know the history. That's two insults now.

President Theodore Roosevelt

I just decided that I'm going to buy and read a biography on the man. If anyone knows a good biography on Teddy, please let me know. A quick search on Amazon brings up about 10 of them, and I really want to know more about this guy. Everything that I know about him at the moment says to me that he's one of my heroes, and I want to be as well informed about the man as I can. Anyway, here are some words of his that I think are great. I pulled them from this site.

In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is loyalty to the American people.

Again, if anyone knows of a good biography on the man, please send the info my way. Thanks in advance!

A Disgrace

This is a disgrace and the Americans responsible should be absolutely ashamed. I'd be suprised if they were, but they certainly should be.

Obama's Race Speech

Usually I read Ann Coulter's articles for the humor as much as the intellectual commentary. Often (not always) what she has to say is very close to what I might have to say on a given topic. This week's article has hit the nail on the head more closely than any other has. I had to repost it. I hope I'm not violating any copyright laws by doing this. Just in case, I encourage you to read the post in its original context by clicking here.

Throw Grandma Under the Bus
by Ann Coulter (more by this author)
Posted 03/19/2008 ET
Updated 03/20/2008 ET


Obama gave a nice speech, except for everything he said about race. He apparently believes we're not talking enough about race. This is like hearing Britney Spears say we're not talking enough about pop-tarts with substance-abuse problems.

By now, the country has spent more time talking about race than John Kerry has talked about Vietnam, John McCain has talked about being a POW, John Edwards has talked about his dead son, and Al Franken has talked about his USO tours.

But the "post-racial candidate" thinks we need to talk yet more about race. How much more? I had had my fill by around 1974. How long must we all marinate in the angry resentment of black people?

As an authentic post-racial American, I will not patronize blacks by pretending Obama's pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, is anything other than a raving racist loon. If a white pastor had said what Rev. Wright said -- not about black people, but literally, the exact same things -- I think we'd notice that he's crazier than Ward Churchill and David Duke's love child. (Indeed, both Churchill and the Rev. Wright referred to the attacks of 9/11 as the chickens coming "home to roost.")

Imagine a white pastor saying: "Racism is the American way. Racism is how this country was founded, and how this country is still run. ... We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority. And believe it more than we believe in God."

Imagine a white pastor calling Condoleezza Rice, "Condoskeezza Rice."

Imagine a white pastor saying: "No, no, no, God damn America -- that's in the Bible for killing innocent people! God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human! God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme!"

We treat blacks like children, constantly talking about their temper tantrums right in front of them with airy phrases about black anger. I will not pat blacks on the head and say, "Isn't that cute?" As a post-racial American, I do not believe "the legacy of slavery" gives black people the right to be permanently ill-mannered.

Obama tried to justify Wright's deranged rants by explaining that "legalized discrimination" is the "reality in which Rev. Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up." He said that a "lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families."

That may accurately describe the libretto of "Porgy and Bess," but it has no connection to reality. By Rev. Wright's own account, he was 12 years old and was attending an integrated school in Philadelphia when Brown v. Board of Education was announced, ending "separate but equal" schooling.

Meanwhile, at least since the Supreme Court's decision in University of California v. Bakke in 1978 -- and obviously long before that, or there wouldn't have been a case or controversy for the court to consider -- it has been legal for the government to discriminate against whites on the basis of their race.

Consequently, any white person 30 years old or younger has lived, since the day he was born, in an America where it is legal to discriminate against white people. In many cases it's not just legal, but mandatory, for example, in education, in hiring and in Academy Award nominations.

So for half of Rev. Wright's 66 years, discrimination against blacks was legal -- though he never experienced it personally because it existed in a part of the country where he did not live. For the second half of Wright's life, discrimination against whites was legal throughout the land.

Discrimination has become so openly accepted that -- in a speech meant to tamp down his association with a black racist -- Obama felt perfectly comfortable throwing his white grandmother under the bus. He used her as the white racist counterpart to his black racist "old uncle," Rev. Wright.

First of all, Wright is not Obama's uncle. The only reason we indulge crazy uncles is that everyone understands that people don't choose their relatives the way they choose, for example, their pastors and mentors. No one quarrels with idea that you can't be expected to publicly denounce your blood relatives.

But Wright is not a relative of Obama's at all. Yet Obama cravenly compared Wright's racist invective to his actual grandmother, who "once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."

Rev. Wright accuses white people of inventing AIDS to kill black men, but Obama's grandmother -- who raised him, cooked his food, tucked him in at night, and paid for his clothes and books and private school -- has expressed the same feelings about passing black men on the street that Jesse Jackson has.

Unlike his "old uncle" -- who is not his uncle -- Obama had no excuses for his grandmother. Obama's grandmother never felt the lash of discrimination! Crazy grandma doesn't get the same pass as the crazy uncle; she's white. Denounce the racist!

Fine. Can we move on now?

No, of course, not. It never ends. To be fair, Obama hinted that we might have one way out: If we elect him president, then maybe, just maybe, we can stop talking about race.

Ann Coulter is Legal Affairs Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS and author of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," "Slander," ""How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)," "Godless," and most recently, "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans."

Advertise Privacy Policy Terms and Conditions
Copyright © 2008 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.

Berkeley Backs Off On Banning Marines

Sanity exists:

Find the original article here.

BERKELEY, Calif. -- As six Republican senators devised a plan to yank $2.3 million in federal funding for Berkeley programs, the mayor of the famously liberal city apologized Wednesday for his hard stance against a Marine recruiting center.

Two City Council members vowed to soften their stance as well.

At their Tuesday council meeting, leaders will discuss scrapping a letter that might be perceived as targeting the center or the Marines.

The letter said that the recruiting center was not welcome on Shattuck Avenue and that the Marines were uninvited and unwelcome intruders.

"That letter will probably be pulled back and maybe more moderate language will be put in place which is appropriate I think," said Berkeley mayor Tom Bates.

"Subtly stated in the resolution is perhaps an impugning of the soldiers fighting for us in Iraq and other places," Berkeley City Councilman Laurie Capitelli. "And that was never the intention but that really needs to be cleared up. As I walked to my car that night I realized I regretted it and I had made a mistake."

Bates said the city didn't mean to offend anyone in the armed forces and the focus should have been on the war not the troops.

The letter was originally approved in January and has not been sent.

City officials said they got a flood of e-mails, many asking them to reconsider their position.
Councilmembers have said they would replace the "intruder item" with words expressing their support for the troops but not the war in Iraq.
The Republican plan would give the funds, intended for a school lunch program, UC Berkeley and ferry service, to the Marines instead.
"Patriotic American taxpayers won't sit quietly while Berkeley insults our brave Marines," said one of the senators.
The recruiting center opened about a year ago and quickly became a target of anti-war protesters including the group Code Pink.
Last week the council passed resolutions giving Code Pink a place to park out front. Some have said that meant the city giving was giving the group a place to continuously protest the Marines.
"What we're doing is we're announcing a bill that we intend to get on the floor to strip transportation from the city of Berkeley," said East Bay Republican Assemblyman Guy Houston. "What they have done in Berkeley is they have set aside a parking spot and in my opinion a public right of way, a public transportation corridor, specifically for a private organization -- in this case Code Pink -- to harass and annoy the United States Marine Corps and their recruiting efforts. We think that playing around and having an agenda with the public right of way is subject to ramifications. There is $2.3 million in proposition 1B transportation dollars. We think that should be in jeopardy."
Others on the Berkeley City Council seemed quite firm on their stance, NBC11's Christie Smith reported.
Sen. Barbara Boxer and Rep. Barbara Lee said they plan to fight the Republican bill.
IBSYS.nbcvideo.appendVideo(
14364953,
168904,
220,
240,
22008);
Code Pink announced they would have what they called a "24-hour peace-in" leading up to Tuesday's city council meeting. They will be camping out but will have a lot of company. A group of pro-troop protesters will also be there.
"I was under the impression that we have the right of free speech," said Xanne Joi of Code Pink. "To me, I thought free speech meant you get to say what you want without recrimination."
Group members have made their organization infamous by intentionally getting arrested at protests and congressional hearings.
SLIDESHOW: Code Pink Images
An Olive Branch
Berkeley City Councilman Gordon Wozniak extended an olive branch to the Marines. He went to breakfast with a recruiter Thursday morning.
"Berkeley is supposed to celebrate diversity and free speech and we welcome homeless people here. We welcome illegal immigrants. We give them sanctuary. We should welcome the Marines. I mean they're basically dedicating their lives to protect their country."
Wozniak said he does not support the harsh language of the letter to the Marines originally authorized by the city.
Ann Cooper with the Berkeley Unified School District wants both sides to play nice.
"Senators sitting 3,000 miles away are trying to take food away from the children of Berkeley," said Cooper. "Why? Because the Marines and the city aren't playing nice -- and that's just not OK."

Ann Coulter Hits The Nail On The Head, Again.

See the article I'm referring to in its original context by clicking here.

---

Wow...I haven't even read the entire article. The first few sentences grabbed me, and slapped me across the face with their DEADEYE accuracy. The purpose of this alcohol encouraged post will be to bring forth the specific points that I found particularly insightful.

Democrats claim Gen. David Petraeus' report to Congress on the surge was a put-up job with a pre-ordained conclusion. As if their response wasn't. Couldn't have hit the nail more squarely on the head there. This quote needs no explanation for its inclusion in this post.

This week makes it six years since a major al-Qaida attack. I guess we weren't distracted. But it looks like al-Qaida has been. This seems to be the least understood part of the violence in Iraq. It is indisputable that we are fighting against at least some form of terrorism in Iraq, and terrorism associated with groups who hate the West, the U.S. especially. The violence you see in Iraq is in Iraq...not Main Street U.S.A. This is a good thing. The violence is being brought to the U.S. military, which is the best prepared group there is in the world who do what they can to make sure the violence stays out of America. If our military has to fight on the other side of the planet to make sure there is safety on our own streets at home, I fail to see a problem until participation in our military is no longer 100% voluntary...and again, I'd like to remind anyone who may have forgotten (or who is reading this and doesn't know me) that I tried to join the military straight out of high school...I was turned away due to asthma. If indeed, the draft that I can't fathom seeing in my lifetime does come to be, I'll be the first one to renew my interest in serve. That is if my wife says its ok, heh.

...But liberals soon began raising yet more pointless quibbles. For most of 2003, they said the war was a failure because we hadn't captured Saddam Hussein. Then we captured Saddam, and Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean complained that "the capture of Saddam has not made America safer." (On the other hand, Howard Dean's failure to be elected president definitely made America safer.) HAHAHAHA! Seriously though, this sounds like Democrats predicting the General's report on Iraq to be downtrodden, and then doing everything they can to discredit him and the report itself (before it is even presented!) when it turns out to be...well, almost uplifting.

Next, liberals said the war was a failure because we hadn't captured Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Then we killed al-Zarqawi and a half-dozen of his aides in an air raid. Then they said the war was a failure because ... you get the picture. Yes, I do get the picture. I pity the foo' who doesn't.

Now our forces are killing lots of al-Qaida jihadists, preventing another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, and giving democracy in Iraq a chance -- and Democrats say we are "losing" this war. I think that's a direct quote from their leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, but it may have been the Osama bin Laden tape released this week. I always get those two confused. HAHAHA!! Man, half of what this woman says is brilliant, and the other half is hilarious!

OK, they knew what Petraeus was going to say. But we knew what the Democrats were going to say. If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. HAHAHAHA!!!! Oh, man, I love it. Ok, now that I've quoted half the article, read it in its entirety below...

---

From the Halls of Malibu to the Shores of Kennedy

By Ann Coulter

Democrats claim Gen. David Petraeus' report to Congress on the surge was a put-up job with a pre-ordained conclusion. As if their response wasn't.

Democrats yearn for America to be defeated on the battlefield and oppose any use of the military -- except when they can find individual malcontents in the military willing to denounce the war and call for a humiliating retreat.

It's been the same naysaying from these people since before we even invaded Iraq -- despite the fact that their representatives in Congress voted in favor of that war.

Mark Bowden, author of "Black Hawk Down," warned Americans in the Aug. 30, 2002, Los Angeles Times of 60,000 to 100,000 dead American troops if we invaded Iraq -- comparing an Iraq war to Vietnam and a Russian battle in Chechnya. He said Iraqis would fight the Americans "tenaciously" and raised the prospect of Saddam using weapons of mass destruction against our troops, an attack on Israel "and possibly in the United States."

On Sept. 14, 2002, The New York Times' Frank Rich warned of another al-Qaida attack in the U.S. if we invaded Iraq, noting that since "major al-Qaida attacks are planned well in advance and have historically been separated by intervals of 12 to 24 months, we will find out how much we've been distracted soon enough."

This week makes it six years since a major al-Qaida attack. I guess we weren't distracted. But it looks like al-Qaida has been.

Weeks before the invasion, in March 2003, the Times' Nicholas Kristof warned in a couple of columns that if we invaded Iraq, "the Turks, Kurds, Iraqis and Americans will all end up fighting over the oil fields of Kirkuk or Mosul." He said: "The world has turned its back on the Kurds more times than I can count, and there are signs that we're planning to betray them again." He announced that "the United States is perceived as the world's newest Libya."

The day after we invaded, Kristof cited a Muslim scholar for the proposition that if Iraqis felt defeated, they would embrace Islamic fundamentalism.

We took Baghdad in about 17 days flat with amazingly few casualties. There were no al-Qaida attacks in America, no attacks on Israel, no invasion by Turkey, no attacks on our troops with chemical weapons, no ayatollahs running Iraq. We didn't turn our back on the Kurds. There were certainly not 100,000 dead American troops.

But liberals soon began raising yet more pointless quibbles. For most of 2003, they said the war was a failure because we hadn't captured Saddam Hussein. Then we captured Saddam, and Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean complained that "the capture of Saddam has not made America safer." (On the other hand, Howard Dean's failure to be elected president definitely made America safer.)

Next, liberals said the war was a failure because we hadn't captured Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Then we killed al-Zarqawi and a half-dozen of his aides in an air raid. Then they said the war was a failure because ... you get the picture.

The Democrats' current talking point is that "there can be no military solution in Iraq without a political solution." But back when we were imposing a political solution, Democrats' talking point was that there could be no political solution without a military solution.

They said the first Iraqi election, scheduled for January 2005, wouldn't happen because there was no "security."

Noted Middle East peace and security expert Jimmy Carter told NBC's "Today" show in September 2004 that he was confident the elections would not take place. "I personally do not believe they're going to be ready for the election in January ... because there's no security there," he said.

At the first presidential debate in September 2004, Sen. John Kerry used his closing statement to criticize the scheduled Iraqi elections saying: "They can't have an election right now. The president's not getting the job done."

About the same time, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said he doubted there would be elections in January, saying, "You cannot have credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now" -- although he may have been referring here to a possible vote of the U.N. Security Council.

In October 2004, Nicholas Lemann wrote in The New Yorker that "it may not be safe enough there for the scheduled elections to be held in January."

Days before the first election in Iraq in January 2005, The New York Times began an article on the election this way:

"Hejaz Hazim, a computer engineer who could not find a job in computers and now cleans clothes, slammed his iron into a dress shirt the other day and let off a burst of steam about the coming election.

"'This election is bogus,' Mr. Hazim said. 'There is no drinking water in this city. There is no security. Why should I vote?'"

If there's a more artful articulation of the time-honored linkage between drinking water and voting, I have yet to hear it.

And then, as scheduled, in January 2005, millions of citizens in a country that has never had a free election risked their lives to cast ballots in a free democratic election. They've voted twice more since then.

Now our forces are killing lots of al-Qaida jihadists, preventing another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, and giving democracy in Iraq a chance -- and Democrats say we are "losing" this war. I think that's a direct quote from their leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, but it may have been the Osama bin Laden tape released this week. I always get those two confused.

OK, they knew what Petraeus was going to say. But we knew what the Democrats were going to say. If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid.

---

See the article I'm referring to in its original context by clicking here.

---

Fred Throws In His Hat

Fred Thompson announced that he's finally officially in the race. I'm not saying that I'm going to end up making him my pick or not; I'm nowhere near making a decision yet. However, I did want to note it, and at the same time put up this hilarious picture. That is all, have a wonderful day!

Yahoo, MSN sign blogging 'self-discipline' pact in China

This belongs on every American blog. The blog is another way that we, as Americans, exercise our first amendment rights. The people of China do NOT have this right, and unfortunately, companies who want to do business there must comply with the demands of the government. So, I'll use my blog, a tool for exercising my rights, to help pass this story along. It will also be posted on The Janicik Report.

Find the original article here.




Yahoo, MSN sign blogging 'self-discipline' pact in China

Aug 24 01:28 PM US/Eastern
US Internet giants Yahoo and MSN confirmed Friday they had signed a code of conduct for their blogging operations in China that committed them to protecting the interests of the Chinese state.

Yahoo, Microsoft's MSN and other blog providers in China this week signed the "self-discipline" pact, under which they pledged to "safeguard state and public interests," according to a statement from the China Internet Society.

The pact "encourages" the Internet firms to register the real names, addresses and other personal details of the bloggers, and then keep this information.

The firms also committed to delete any "illegal or bad messages", according to a copy of the pact posted on the society's website.

Along with sex and violence, China's communist rulers have also deemed that opinions critical of it or the spreading of democratic ideology are not allowed.

Yahoo China and MSN told AFP they had signed the pact, but did not give any further comment.

"I can confirm that we signed the pact this week," Yahoo China's Beijing-based spokesman Dou Xiaohan said.

MSN China spokesman Feng Jinhu said: "We've signed the pact but there is no press release on that. On your other questions, we will get back to you as soon as possible."

US Internet companies such as Yahoo, Microsoft and Google have previously caused uproar abroad for bowing to the Chinese government's demands by agreeing to censor websites and content banned by the nation's propaganda chiefs.

They have repeatedly insisted that they have no choice but to follow local rules and regulations in China.

Yahoo came under particular criticism for cooperating with requests by China to pass on personal information of its users, leading to the jailing of several cyber-dissidents.

International press freedom group Reporters Without Borders condemned Yahoo and MSN for agreeing to the blogging pact.

"The Chinese government has yet again forced Internet sector companies to cooperate on sensitive issues. In this case blogger registration and blog content," it said in a statement.