Look at this picture, and the words on the sign (Courtesy of Zombie):

At first glance, the sign, while vulgar to some people, seems clever.  The problem is that it is unintentionally hypocritical.

I have no doubt that the majority of anti war peace advocates are just that: Advocates of peace who protest peacefully and non violently.

But.

There are also others who see their mission to end the war one that must be done at all costs.  And all who stand in their way must be crushed.

Take this story for example (Courtesy of Melanie Morgan):

Peace Thugs.

There is no other way to describe the people who terrorize Churches in Chicago, who splatter blood, human feces, and fire paint bombs loaded with glass at pro-troop supporters across the country. These incidents are well-documented in Move America Forward's 'Sedition Report' on-line at www.moveamericaforward.com.

The violence hit closer to home in Berkeley, Ca. where our pro-troopers were shoved, pushed and battered with peace signs by anarchist groups like Funk The War, The World Can’t Wait, Global Exchange, and International A.N.S.W.E.R. two months ago. (More on that story later.)

Over the weekend, I broke the story in West Chester, Pa. about a young female blogger who was assaulted while doing her job documenting both the pro-troop and anti-war dueling rallies.

‘Skye’ at MidnightBlue.com was slapped twice by a member of the anti-war movement, a peace terrorist, while video-taping an exchange between both sides.

She was terribly traumatized by the incident, and did not release the video right away.

It's out there now.

And it's shocking.

Grown men slapping women.

Is this how they want to bring 'peace' to the world, by hitting females until they agree with them?

I have blogged for several years now, and one constant theme I keep seeing over and over is the hypocrisy on the liberal side when it comes to matters like this.  If you are rude to them, they brand you every hateful name they can, but they excuse their own rudeness with justifications.

Maybe that the only way to get these idiots in church.

Idiots, plain and simple.  Why defile a church and disrupt an Easter Service to protest a war that the Catholic Church already opposes?

Someone please, explain this to me?

Ani-war protesters attack Catholic parishioners in Chicago Update: Bail set a little … high

A group of anti-war protesters interrupted an Easter Mass in Chicago yesterday, stunning parishioners with their shouts during Cardinal Francis George’s homily. They then squirted stage blood on the congregation, leading to their arrest and an angry confrontation in the gathering space outside the hall. As it turns out, the protesters not only were mostly incoherent, but also very, very late (via Memeorandum):

Six people were arrested at Holy Name parish’s auditorium Sunday after disrupting an Easter mass to protest the Iraq war.

The group—whose female and male members identified themselves as Catholic Schoolgirls Against the War—stood up at the beginning of Cardinal Francis George’s homily and shouted their opposition to the conflict, which marked its fifth anniversary last week. As security guards and ushers tried to remove them from the service, the demonstrators squirted fake blood on themselves and parishioners dressed in their Easter finery.

The red substance, which one protester later described as “stage blood,” initially drew gasps and a few terrified yelps from the 600 worshipers at the mass. The shock, however, quickly transformed into anger as people booed the six while they were escorted from the parish auditorium.

Why did they target the Chicago cathedral? Almost three months ago, Cardinal George met with President Bush. The protesters explained (much later) that the Cardinal should have challenged Bush to end the war during that private meeting. They failed to explain (a) how they know that Cardinal George didn’t do that, and (b) why it took them ten weeks to protest the meeting.

I predicted long and tirelessly last year that he would bide his time and eventually make a run for the nomination, but I admittedly was wrong.  He faded out and rested on his Global Warming awards.

Or was I?

According to at least one Super Delegate, if the Convention becomes a brokered convention, there is a ripple under the surface that maybe a BoreGore/Clinton or Gore/Obama ticket would unite the party.

Wouldn't that be a kick in the pants?  To not only disenfranchise the voters but do so with a completely unvoted for nominee.

Mark Tomasik: Don’t discount Gore-led ticket

U.S. Rep. Tim Mahoney, whose district includes much of Martin and St. Lucie counties, is hoping he won’t have to attend the Democratic Party national convention in Denver in August.

If he does go, that will mean the Democrats still haven’t decided a nominee for the presidential election. And if neither Sen. Hillary Clinton nor Sen. Barack Obama has clinched the nomination by August, Mahoney says we may see a brokered convention, meaning the nominee could emerge from a negotiated settlement.

“If it (the nomination process) goes into the convention, don’t be surprised if someone different is at the top of the ticket,” Mahoney said.

A compromise candidate could be someone such as former vice president Al Gore, Mahoney said last week during a meeting with this news organization’s editorial board.

If either Clinton or Obama suggested to a deadlocked convention a ticket of Gore-Clinton or Gore-Obama, the Democratic Party would accept it, Mahoney said.

But will the democrats around the country?

That seems to be the real question.  Will all this wheelin' and dealin' cause a revolt in the party?

Amazing how the party has become so divisive.

And if they shun Obama for a Gore/Clinton ticket, that still leaves open the possibility of racial tensions just to make this summer a summer to remember.