Confederate Yankee
November 17, 2008
Big Country Checks In
Long-time readers of CY may know "Big Country" from his first-hand reflections of the situation in Iraq as someone who has spent more time in theater than out of it since the war began. He just got back to Baghdad, and shot me the following in an email.
Just touched down 3 +/- hours ago at Sather AB. Dude... INSANELY changed doesn't begin to describe this place. I've landing in Baghdad under fire before and watched random acts of anti-aircraft fire overhead as the locals would try and unsuccessfully utilize old triple a flak guns... I've seen Baghdad under lock and key so to speak throughout 04 and 05. NUTHIN and I do mean NUTHIN can begin to describe the change. Quick observations included the fact that the city was all lit up where it had never been before. Try standing on the runway and not having to worry about random acts of rockets, mortars and suchlike. Try no body armor seen on anyone anywhere since I've been here... This place is so laid back its stupid dude... I'll post more to you and my blog later... but as Yon said "We Won." I'd have to add "In Spades!" to that.
Seems to be a lot of that going around lately.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:36 PM
| Comments (30)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
You have good blogs, but your liberal posters who get on here are sacriligeous to say the least.
They think it's "noble" to be sacriigeous, profane, godless, and basically... depraved. That's my impression of them.
Well, great news about Iraq. I'm quite concerned about our troops in Afghanistan.
I hope this quietness isn't a "strategy" on the parts of insurgents... (so that we pull out and then rise back up again) and Iraq can maintain peace.
Posted by: l at November 18, 2008 12:42 AM (tdrxf)
2
Mark your calendars, November 22nd is VI Day(Victory in Iraq).
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at November 18, 2008 09:47 AM (oC8nQ)
3
Yea, but nobody knows we won! Do you think the media will ever report it? It certainly can't make them look good if they do.
Posted by: Jim at November 18, 2008 10:31 AM (WacVk)
4
It is Obama who will lead the charge in rehabilitating Iraq as an cause. He will do it because it benefits him. Success in Iraq can be politically parlayed into greater exertions in the GWOT. What's that? Barry don't believe in no GWOT? Well, he has claimed to the contrary though no one has seen fit to hold him to any specifics. In any event, whether he believes in the war is immaterial as it certainly believes in him. Our adversaries are not won over by his smile and baritone homilies regardless of the insipid, late and wasting claims of Team Obama. If the Obies don't know that today they will learn it tomorrow and then, friends and foes, war will obviously be the answer. Oddly enough.
Posted by: megapotamus at November 18, 2008 11:35 AM (LF+qW)
5
If we had done what Obama wanted this day would have never come. I give Thanks and prayers daily for those who serve in our Military. I'm also Thankful that John McCain and others supported the Surge. At least he got that right.
I just hope Obama can't screw it up.
Posted by: BiasedGirl at November 18, 2008 05:24 PM (wlvY+)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Clinton to Be Secretary of State?
The Guardian is reporting that Hillary Clinton will join the Obama administration as Secretary of State:
Hillary Clinton plans to accept the job of secretary of state offered by Barack Obama, who is reaching out to former rivals to build a broad coalition administration, the Guardian has learned.
Obama's advisers have begun looking into Bill Clinton's foundation, which distributes millions of dollars to Africa to help with development, to ensure that there is no conflict of interest. But Democrats do not believe that the vetting is likely to be a problem.
Clinton would be well placed to become the country's dominant voice in foreign affairs, replacing Condoleezza Rice. Since being elected senator for New York, she has specialised in foreign affairs and defence. Although she supported the war in Iraq, she and Obama basically agree on a withdrawal of American troops.
Clinton, who still harbours hopes of a future presidential run, had to weigh up whether she would be better placed by staying in the Senate, which offers a platform for life, or making the more uncertain career move to the secretary of state job.
I would
love to know what kind of calculus helped Clinton determine that joining Obama's Administration furthers her higher political aspirations more than staying in the Senate would. Has Hillary given up on a future presidential run, or is she going to try to work an angle from within the administration... perhaps planning on using the position to bolster her foreign policy credentials?
Your guess is as good as mine on this one.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:57 PM
| Comments (49)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
"CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN!"
uh huh, right...
Posted by: DIAF at November 17, 2008 09:02 PM (M+Vfm)
2
I suspect that the offer--if it's real and not an internet rumor and/or hoax--comes with Obama demanding that Bill and Hillary cease sniping at him from behind. However, we all know what frequently happens when a SecState leaves the Administration that promoted him/her to that position (see Powell, Colin).
Obama may have removed a thorn from his side for the moment only to have it turn into a knife in his back later.
With all that said, though, with Hillary at SecState I will actually feel safer than with some other Dems Obama might have named.
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at November 17, 2008 09:16 PM (Jqe+A)
3
There is talk now that McCain may serve a future role after his current Senate term expires.
Posted by: Jacko at November 18, 2008 12:21 AM (FK2Ha)
4
It's a feint. Clinton would be an idiot to quit her safe seat and power base in the Senate to become an Obama flunky who could be fired at will. I would guess that the Obama admin is blowing smoke to cover up another motive.
I predicted six months ago that she would aim for first woman to become Senate Majority Leader. I have seen nothing to change that assessment.
Posted by: Tully at November 18, 2008 12:23 AM (tUyDE)
5
I don't see how this could work given what we know of the two. Obama is a man who'd seek to win an election by having opponents thrown off the ballot. The Clintons proved themselves ready to be as ruthless as they needed against people who threatened him.
If Sec. of State were a token appointment, I can see Obama offering it, but can't see Hillary accepting.
I can see Hillary accepting State, but can't see Obama giving it to her.
Foreign affairs is the biggest area where Obama will be tested. He will face immediate domestic economic issues, but he is shielded somewhat by coming in after the start of the crisis and the fact Congress has a very big say in the economy.
On FA, he is weak and standing alone.
Hillary can try to claim any major successes as her own and any major failures as his.
Her office would likely leak like a Hoover dam with the gates open if any FA crisis should hit the fan, like Israel.
Overall, if she gets the position, I can picture us seeing the a Sec. of State openly breaking with the admin over some major crisis and resigning -- thereafter to immediately start campaigning for 2012.
Posted by: usinkorea at November 18, 2008 05:00 AM (+qACS)
6
Hey, usinkorea, thanks for your idea about breaking with the Administration... it helped codify some thoughts of my own about what Hillary could be up to. I hope ya don't mind, I referenced them on my own little blog.
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at November 18, 2008 08:39 AM (Jqe+A)
7
Clinton would at least be a serious choice. Kerry.... not so much. We shall see what we see but I would be pretty surprised at this. SoS is a high enough office to appeal to Hillary I should think but it would mean Barry hugging a viper to his bosom. Hillarity for us but perhaps not for the nation. Still, there are worse (FAR worse) potentials. I've heard Richardson mentioned and with Edwards out for the moment he is officially the second stupidest person in national politics. After Joe Biden.
Posted by: megapotamus at November 18, 2008 11:41 AM (LF+qW)
8
Another good point to remember is that, if Obama doesn't make the offer--no matter the excuse he comes up with--the Hillary supporters will go ballistic.
Obama has to decide between letting an enemy into his inner circle and letting her followers possibly rip the party apart.
And this time he can't vote "present."
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at November 18, 2008 09:08 PM (Jqe+A)
9
Whether it's real or not I don't know, but I think it would help Hillary for 2016 in the sense that it gives her diversity in her experience. Senate experience plus the diplomacy and foreign policy experience that goes along with being Secretary of State will make a powerful resume.
Sadly, I don't see anyone on the conservative side that's primed to be on deck with a similar level of experience either to topple Obama in 2012 or to run against a Hillary-type candidate in 2016.
Posted by: Mike Gray at November 18, 2008 11:50 PM (fBnZs)
10
Mike, if the 2008 election is not a fluke, it seems to have disproved the idea that experience will always win.
Let's not be the ones who bury our heads in the sand and ignore the lessons of past elections... let's let the Democrats do that, while we learn from our mistakes.
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at November 19, 2008 08:23 AM (Jqe+A)
11
1. This is still a rumor at this stage of the game so it is all speculation so far.
2. You have to consider the question: Who does this rumor help? It certainly does not help Obama, he’s dammed if he does, and dammed if he doesn’t. That leaves…Hillary. Hope she washed her fingerprints off this leaker.
3. In order to scotch Hillary’s ambition to play Brutus at the elbow of Caesar, all Obama has to do is require a full and complete listing of the donors to the Bill Clinton Ego and Legacy Center (a work in progress), and all present and scheduled speaking engagements and fees paid to Big Bill. If they cough them up (Ha, fat chance), it would be trivial to leak them to a hungry media, while declaring Hillary has too many conflicts of interest. If/when they do not cough them up, he can just announce she is unable to be appointed due to “unresolved questions of conflict of interest”.
4. I really expected him to select Gen. Powell as Sec of State. It would allow him to have the only Sec of State that has served both Dem and Repub presidents, he has already passed all the background checks once, he has proven he supports Obama (a confession that has washed away a multitude of sins in Liberal eyes), and another experienced minority in the Inner Circle. Plus as a bonus prize, in the event something goes wrong at State, he can be kicked under the bus as a “Former Bush Administration Official”.
Posted by: Georg Felis at November 19, 2008 10:20 AM (H0Orl)
12
Yeah, I have very similar notions on Powell. He would be competent but that competency may be put to work on unworthy policies. Is it my imagination or is Hillary actually better on GWOT than alleged Republican Powell? If we had followed the Powell doctrine Iraq would have been immediately vacated after Saddam's disposal with results that don't need to be predicted because they actually came true. If Powell was used and tossed as Georg suspects (an entirely plausible scenario) it would be a good hard lesson for him and something like justice given his chicanery on Libby and other GWOT matters. We might actually be in the age when black politicians evolve to merely being politicians. Race loyalty will not trump power politics for Barry; another lesson that needs learning hard and quick.
Posted by: megapotamus at November 19, 2008 10:44 AM (LF+qW)
13
CW, I definitely agree that experience does not always win, and this election was proof of that. However, it only helps and with 8 years to prepare (4 would be better for us, but they have to assume

, then padding her resume is a good idea for them. Especially if we can't muster a strong candidate.
Posted by: Mike Gray at November 19, 2008 11:18 AM (XiVKO)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Dan Quayle with Good P.R.
WaPo's Howard Kurtz belatedly notices the mainstream media's bromance with President Elect Barack Obama and the utter lack of foundation for that relationship, and wonders how the impossible expectations people have developed for his Presidency will fare once it becomes obvious that he can't be what he has allowed people to fantasize.
For all the love and devotion he has inspired because of what he is, who he is still is still a largely unvetted, untested and inexperienced politician prone to exquisite gaffes when not following a prepared script. I jest in the headline that President Elect Obama is "Dan Quayle with Good P.R." but even that sadly over-inflates Obama's record.
By the time Quayle was Vice President, he'd been twice elected to the House of Representatives and twice elected to the Senate, and his ticket with George H.W. Bush won the 19
92(no coffee today)88 Presidential election with a 53–46 percent popular vote margin by capturing 40 states and capturing 426 electoral votes.
But even worse that his insufficient record—and his associations with various radicals—is his utter foolishness in letting people create such high expectations of him when he knows they cannot be met.
In some ways I pity Obama for the unpopularity and outright hatred he is going to receive from his manic supporters when reality dashes their unrealistic hopes, but then I look at how Obama fed that mystique, encouraged unrealistic expectations, and made empty promises to everyone.
Barack Obama cannot be what he allowed the media, his own campaign, and his most ardent supporters built him into. No one can.
And he will have no one to blame but himself.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
04:24 PM
| Comments (34)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
CY
Pretty sure that Bush 41 was elected in 1988.
Posted by: iconoclast at November 17, 2008 05:42 PM (ex0JG)
2
I am not feeling sorry for Obama but for myself. This man is going to distroy the US. We have an unexperienced individual with no talent who is going to try and take on the worst global financial crisis in over 100 years. That plus the fact that every nation will try to test him with armed conflict. If we survive the next 4 years, we will be lucky.
Posted by: David Caskey at November 17, 2008 05:50 PM (MeVsU)
3
We have experience individuals taking on the worst global financial crisis in over 100 years and I feel no more confident. They certainly have talent too, but their primary talents are for self preservation and venality. The thought that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Fwank and Chris Dodd will be instrumental in directing the new Congress makes me want to puke.
Posted by: zhombre at November 17, 2008 06:12 PM (WfSvm)
4
CY, there is one thing that gives me a little bit of hope.
Once the young kids who supported Obama--most of which never lived through the Carter years--discover what most of us learned during that administration, they will probably turn against leftism in large numbers. Not all of them, of course, but a good chunk, I suspect.
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at November 17, 2008 06:49 PM (XuBCY)
5
Is obamalamadingdong the new Elvis? I've never even heard him sing!
Posted by: Tonto (USA) at November 17, 2008 08:07 PM (Qv1xF)
6
Obama is the end product of Identity Politics.
They voted him in because he was black. End of story.
Posted by: DIAF at November 17, 2008 09:04 PM (M+Vfm)
7
DIAF - You don't know how so right you are. The election of Barry only showed how racist 95% of our black brothers and sisters can be. If I was ever to admit that I voted for a candidate ONLY because he was white - a racist I would be branded.
CY - I don't think Barry's minions will ever give up on him - no matter what he does or doesn't do. He will forever blame George and the "wrascally" Republicans for all the ills of his administration - and the drive buy media will give him a life long pass.
Sad to say, 62+ million of the naive, stupid and ignorant have unleashed a plague on the greatest nation on God's green earth. Call it the OBAMARIEDPILOSI pestilance. God help us all!!!
Posted by: mixitup at November 17, 2008 11:29 PM (Zp2bb)
8
Ignorance on the part of the electorate ...
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/11/shocker-obama-supporters-are-completely.html
Posted by: Adriane at November 18, 2008 04:16 AM (wJlIy)
9
Today is the 30th anniversary of Jonestown. I just thought I'd throw that in along with this quote;
“a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will say to yourself, ‘I have to vote for Barack’”
That mystikal light never did shine it's heavenly light upon myself. And for that I feel proud. Whenever a politician tries to link him/herself with the divine, a red flag should automatically go up…should. For some reason, people were allowed to project their highest visions of humanity onto this…figure. If someone on the political right had done anything remotely like this, they would have been ridiculed and then silenced immediately.
Posted by: xerocky at November 18, 2008 06:29 AM (kX5hh)
10
Every time I try to laugh this whole Obama thing off I am reminded that in 1934, a democratic Germany elected Adolph Hitler in the midst of an economic collapse. Hitler, a mesmerizing speaker, was their "hope and change" candidate. The SA were his ACORN.
Hitler imposed strict gun control, nationalized industry, initiated an internal security force, abrogated treaties, built a personality cult & a welfare state, altered education, made youth serve their communities and took over the media. If you read the Nazi Party's 25 point platform, Obama would support at least 12. Last week his staff told him he could do whatever he wanted by executive order.
We are in big trouble.
Posted by: arch at November 18, 2008 07:09 AM (PwX2X)
11
Combine Obambi with the culture war fronts: Illegal Drug use made legal, gay marriage, shortened prison sentencing, the elimination of the death penalty, illegal aliens made legal, the dumbing down of our educational system, financial irresponsibility made socially acceptable, free medical care regardless of ability to pay anything, the trying of US troops for combat related "crimes", the prosecution of US executive branch officials on ginned up "charges", the slaughter of millions of unborn babies, und so wieter, we are heading for 1860 all over again. Just like the last time it's R's vs. D's.
Posted by: torabora at November 18, 2008 07:40 AM (4wAcB)
12
At this point, I'm willing to let events play out, for better or worse.
What choice do we have, really? Obama won the election fair and square, and the last person I want to sound like is some disgruntled DemLib whining about 2000 or 2004.
Betsy's page has a very good assessment on this point:
http://betsyspage.blogspot.com/2008/11/refusing-to-accept-defeat.html
Does it mean I will stand idly by while a Dem-majority Congress pushes the Stalinist Fairness Doctrine or an anarchic Open Borders policy?
No it doesn't. Not by a long shot. But time will tell if President Obama is just another fumbling Jimmy Carter or Michael Dukakis, particularly vis-a-vis Iraq and Afghanistan (or any future terrorist attack on American soil, God forbid).
If that is the case, it will be a long time before another liberal Democrat wins the White House, I can guarantee you that.
But people underestimated Harry Truman as just a haberdasher from Missouri, and he proved to be far more than that. Not that Obama is Harry Truman by any stretch, mind you, but persons considered ineffective or insignificant that have occupied the White House have surprised in the past.
See what happens.
Posted by: Johnny Simpson at November 18, 2008 08:38 AM (5utPM)
13
With the election of Obama The Republic died, welcome to the world of dictatorship!
Posted by: Fearless at November 18, 2008 08:40 AM (BSttx)
14
I agree with the above..when all those young idiots which voted for Obama experience 11% unemployment, the turn is going to be ugly like for the Carter debacle. That is if we can weather the storm?
What is going to be amazing to watch is that after talking about the pending recession every quarter since President Bush was elected only to be refuted with growth and lower employment, we are now actually going into a recession, if not a depression, and the MSM is going to have to spin that 10% unemployment and a negative economic growth is actually proof of Obama's superior judgement and is good for America.
Even now, for the 1st time history, the stock market has CRASHED beginning the morning after the election results became a certainly. The MSM has avoided the obvious explanation in search of ever more complex explanations and today I saw several articles which said: "Experts are just bewildered, unable to explain why the crash".
Clue: Election of a full-fledged marxist who has constantly shown his ineptness along with the disaster of Pelosi\Reid and people are running for the hills.
Posted by: LogicalUS at November 18, 2008 08:50 AM (1qLzq)
15
Yes the media environment, if not the investment environment has staged an amazing reversal. Is it not astounding how the collapsing Dow of today is a much cheerier prospect (going by the MSM accounts) than the lofty rise of yesterday? We saw the media types fail in their efforts to talk down the economy under Bush. It is unlikely they will succeed in talking it UP for O. But they will try while they can. Given the financials of their own companies, this may not be long. But phooey on predictions of the American demise. If you really believe the tenets of "conservatism" you must know that Obamanomics have only one end: disaster. We may well hit the brick wall but not at full speed. We will recover. All it will take is for Barry to abandon some of the more lunatic bromides of the Dem base. Two weeks since the election and the undercarriage of the bus is already jammed with the detritus of the Primary Obama. By Christmas this guy could be a simulcrum of Bush 41 which I would not much like on the merits but think of the joys the Left's gnashing teeth will bring. That's tasty stuff. It might not be worth the $40k I've lost to date but hey, silver linings don't find themselves.
Posted by: megapotamus at November 18, 2008 11:54 AM (LF+qW)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 16, 2008
Staged?
Maryland Gomez, 61, was
killed early Saturday morning when a tornado destroyed her home in Kenly, North Carolina. The Raleigh
News and Observer ran the photo above, dominating page 1A above the fold in their Sunday paper. The photo is credited to
Cary News photographer named Michael McLoone, and shows a Gomez family photo of the victim amid the wreckage of her home.
I may very well be wrong, but I suspect that this photo is staged.
Tornadoes are capable of astounding choreography, dancing over one home without disturbing a shingle, only to smash a neighboring home to kindling. Sometimes they'll even demolish an entire home, only to leave items in a single room almost untouched.
But I find it very hard to believe that:
this particular tornado,
on this particular night,
smashed this particular home,
and killed this particular woman,
and placed this particular photo,
ripped so delicately from its frame,
on this particular half of a smashed table,
with no human intervention,
while all beyond it is chaos.
Update: The N&O responds via email:
...There was no staging or Photoshop manipulation involved in the photo My [sic] Michael McLoone from the tornado aftermath. The situation was exactly as the photographer found it, and was not altered. This was indicated by the photographer in his communication with the photo desk on that day, and I have confirmed that in another conversation. Several friends, family members, and neighbors had been through the site, working to recover belongings of the family, and others had brought items found nearby back to the scene, where they were left.
It appears that the family photograph may have been placed on the table by human hands in the aftermath of the storm; the editors are simply claiming that the photographer was not responsible for the manipulation.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:20 PM
| Comments (32)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
It does look odd to have that one untouched picture there, but I gotta wonder... why would someone doctor a photo like that? Where's the benefit to the photographer?
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at November 16, 2008 09:46 PM (XuBCY)
2
CY -
You aren't suggesting that the media primps might be pimpin", are you?
Posted by: emdfl at November 16, 2008 09:47 PM (N1uaO)
3
I wouldn't say "doctored," and am tempted not to lay blame on the photographer. I'm a career reporter, with a lot of photo experience from working for papers with no dedicated photobug. It's not unusual, if the scene's been cleared, to arrange the detritus for a poignant picture, the same way did at that accident scene.
You work to ensure the cutline reflects the intervention. Photo guys suggest their own cutlines but, in the view of copy editors, most shooters are terrible writers. So the copy guys rewrite the caption, often leaving out some context.
As you may have in claiming dishonesty on the photographer's part.
Posted by: dave in eclectic at November 16, 2008 10:04 PM (UkwwY)
4
Lets dont go there please.
Posted by: rosco at November 16, 2008 10:46 PM (S2Ge/)
5
tornados are wierd. i'm from a small town in WI that has been hit several times over the last decade (mostly minor, one died a couple years ago)
anyway, my dad owns and operates a company that manufactures packaging. the presses that make the stuff are several tons. a semi trailer full of the packaging weighs almost nothing.
a tornado hit one year, ripped off parts of the roof, and most of the presses were moved several feet, if not tens of feet.
the foam packaging on the other side of the room, stacked up neatly to dry, didn't move an inch. to this day it is still the creepiest thing i've ever seen.
Posted by: John at November 16, 2008 11:07 PM (PS5rK)
Posted by: Adriane at November 17, 2008 02:29 AM (wJlIy)
Posted by: Gator at November 17, 2008 10:28 AM (uaTZE)
8
Dave,
Rearranging a scene to form a "a poignant picture" is staging the news, a dishonest manipulation no different ethically than doctoring a photo in PhotoShop, or selectively editing a quote to place it in a different context.
In each and every instance, it distorts reality, and therefore distorts the news. I'm very sad that you've worked for editors with such "moral flexibility" that they allow such shoddy journalism.
As for my part, I never claimed with any degree of certainty that this photo was staged, but instead said that I suspected it was, and provided my reasons for thinking so. I provided plenty of context to explain why I thought this photo may have been staged.
It remains to be seen if the photo editors of the News & Observer will be as transparent in explaining how this photo came to be.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 17, 2008 10:54 AM (HcgFD)
9
Where's the stuffed animals?
Posted by: PA at November 17, 2008 02:47 PM (OqXyp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 14, 2008
"The Iraq War is Over. We Won."
Though he'd been on a mission all day and was about to drop, Mike Yon just called from Iraq to let me know that the war is over, and we've won. Whatever it is that is left of violence, there isn't combat. Roughly half of the men in the unit of the 10th Mountain Division he was out on missions with are veterans with previous tours of Iraq and Afghanistan, and in eight months into their deployment in southern Baghdad, they haven't fired a single bullet in combat.
Our soldiers in Iraq have played many roles and worn many hats, but it seems that their primary role now is that of a peacekeeper, providing support to a government and a people that seem increasingly capable of handling their own affairs.
We can declare victory because President Bush wouldn't quit on his troops. If Barack Obama had his way, a triumphant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would have had a chance to have made the same claim over the Caliphate of Iraq.
Glenn Reynolds has more.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:41 PM
| Comments (59)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Great!
Can the troops come home now?
Posted by: dr. luba at November 14, 2008 05:05 PM (Z7Dhg)
2
What I respect about CY is the courage of your convictions. You post your opinion. You allow
feedback. You even accept comments from folks like me. Give yourself credit..(I certainly do)
I am sure you are as intelligent a Glen R. I am sure you would find it easier to have a blog like Glen...you know...not open to comments!
I post here in dissension at times. Sometimes I am proved wrong. Sometimes I am offered logical insight,that causes me to re-think a position.
Can we agree that this is a haunting...scary song?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYmIKcP7Nbc ?
Posted by: nogopostal at November 14, 2008 05:30 PM (HHrdm)
3
I am still waiting for our troops to come home from Kosovo. And we have much less reason to be there than in Iraq, luba.
Posted by: iconoclast at November 14, 2008 06:44 PM (ex0JG)
4
Nice to see you giving out your respects, Nogo. You could always Wander our way if you’d like (check link in sig). Be warned though, you'll be subject to all the rules posted, like everyone else (and your first post will be moderated, like everyone else's--that's an anti-spam feature).
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at November 14, 2008 06:46 PM (PnuiE)
5
We won and the surge and Petreaus were only part of the reason why. We won because we didn't up and quit which we would have done if the Democrats had had their way.
Posted by: Zhombre at November 14, 2008 07:57 PM (WfSvm)
6
Good point, Icono.
There are also still troops in South Korea, and US involvement there was also initiated by a Democrat... President Harry S. Truman, to be precise.
When can they come home, Dr. Luba?
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at November 14, 2008 08:17 PM (PnuiE)
7
And, in case the good Doc hasn't noticed, the surge troops are home as well as a brigade or two more. I expect a couple more by mid spring. The Iraqis have their country now. Will it devolve back to dictatorship or something worse? We don't know, but we've given them the chance. It will be up to them. Good job US armed forces!
Posted by: RicardoVerde at November 14, 2008 10:05 PM (PBTsv)
8
Ricardo - dr. luba self-identified as a rabid pro-crime anti-semite on the Obama Conned thread. I don't think he notices much in terms of what happens in the real world.
Posted by: daleyrocks at November 14, 2008 10:25 PM (odYIP)
9
I am deployed in Baghdad right now, so, I can vouch for this. The troops are coming home. The current plan is for all US troops to be out of the major cities by the end of 2009 and all troops will be out of Iraq by the end of 2011. My FOB is closing soon! Thirteen of the eighteen Iraqi provinces have been turned over to Iraqi control; the rest are scheduled to be given back to the Iraqis within the next few months. Violence is way, way down. Smells like victory to me.
I have no problem with reminding people what they said and did so I can say, "I told you so!" This is a timetable based on victory, not on cutting and running from a supposedly unwinnable quagmire. We can put this one in the "win" column, folks.
Posted by: PapaMAS at November 15, 2008 12:15 AM (lR2tC)
10
ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G)
Surely you're not going to forget to mention all the other places U.S. Forces are stationed and from what President or party they originate?
Please do tell
Posted by: Dr. Bong at November 15, 2008 12:17 AM (8QxG3)
11
Forgot - past your beddy-bye-time.
Maybe next time.
Posted by: Dr. Bong at November 15, 2008 12:22 AM (8QxG3)
12
Bong
350,000 US servicemen and women are in 130 countries around the world. As for what POTUS was responsible for stationing them, that is as moronic a question as I have ever heard. Do we go back to Jefferson for evaluation? Twit.
Posted by: iconoclast at November 15, 2008 02:48 AM (JP1UC)
13
Will this be the last time the U.S. wins anything?
http://rightklik.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Jason at November 15, 2008 03:02 AM (sQ3gH)
14
Icono: So how many servicemen did we lose last week in Kosovo? South Korea? Germany?
Posted by: dr. luba at November 15, 2008 03:07 AM (Z7Dhg)
15
Dr Bluba,
How many policemen, firefighters, paramedics/ambulence drivers, etc do we lose in inner cities every day? Should we pull them out too?
Posted by: Todd at November 15, 2008 07:38 AM (Pyq82)
16
Yes, Bong, I do tend to go to bed early. You see, I have a job, which frequently includes working Saturdays (making a 6-day work week) in order to get the work out in a timely manner. Maybe that's why I got my last promotion around 4 months ahead of the average time for that particular promotion.
I am pretty sure that a concept like that has never occurred to a lefty like you, you'd rather sit around in your parents' basement sipping Starbucks and waiting for your next gubment check.
Good day, sir. I said, good day!
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at November 15, 2008 08:21 AM (PnuiE)
17
Did you see this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xR0ryvVvA7U
Posted by: jcheney at November 15, 2008 09:30 AM (rb8Ui)
18
How many times has this war been over again?
Posted by: salvage at November 15, 2008 10:56 AM (Cix1B)
19
Icono: So how many servicemen did we lose last week in Kosovo? South Korea? Germany?
Posted by dr. luba at November 15, 2008 03:07 AM
If we lose any we leave? Is that your point? Sort of like a UN, Spanish or Italian military deployment? Or do you have any point other than trivial sarcasm?
Give it up, dr. love.
Posted by: iconoclast at November 15, 2008 11:38 AM (JP1UC)
20
How many times has this war been over again?
Posted by salvage at November 15, 2008 10:56 AM
which war? the original mission or the insurgency? There were, if you bother your little brain cells enough to look it up, two separate wars.
Posted by: iconoclast at November 15, 2008 11:41 AM (JP1UC)
21
So how many servicemen did we lose last week in Kosovo? South Korea? Germany?
How many policemen did we lose last week in DC, Chicago, LA, NYC, Boston?
Should we also pull out of there?
You're a fountain of lefty talking points.
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at November 15, 2008 01:23 PM (XuBCY)
22
How many policemen did we lose last week in DC, Chicago, LA, NYC, Boston?
Should we also pull out of there?
You're a fountain of lefty talking points.
One important distinction between Iraq and, say, Chicago is that Chicago is our country and we're supposed to be there, whereas Iraq is somebody else's country and our presence is not required.
Posted by: mck at November 15, 2008 07:54 PM (CwxZw)
23
Too often forgotten are the families...that live in limbo during when someone is in their second/third deployment.
With all due respect...anyone who fears an Obabma Presidency ..You surely do not have a family member in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Keep your fears in balance....
A simple question...
How involved are you in seeing that your State makes sure families of deployed troops are not living on food stamps?
It is sure easier to put a sticker on our vehicle
supporting our troops...then it is to demand our elected officials (most of whom did not serve) to do the right thing.
Posted by: nogopostal at November 15, 2008 08:39 PM (HHrdm)
24
yep..of course I meant Obama..without bias..(ok maybe)
These are pics not to be afraid of..
http://www.scouttufankjian.com/main.php
Posted by: nogopostal at November 15, 2008 08:52 PM (HHrdm)
25
How convenient.
President Bush has taken heaps of abuse he didn't deserve... got the victory there in spite of Obama...
And now Obama can step into office to take credit that isn't his when the troops come home victoriously.
Well, I'm thankful for the victory and for the safety of our troops since the surge.
"Thank you, President Bush."
Laura
Posted by: laura at November 15, 2008 09:28 PM (tdrxf)
26
mck, as soon as the legally constituted Iraqi government formally and officially asks us to leave, we'll leave.
So far, they haven't.
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at November 15, 2008 10:10 PM (XuBCY)
27
CW, that's an excellent point. And may I say, as soon as the legally constituted San Francisco government asks us to leave, I'm more than ready to abandon that mess.
Posted by: Tim at November 15, 2008 10:21 PM (sp1sQ)
28
Do ya think we can take their refusal to cooperate with federal immigration laws ("sanctuary city") constitutes a request to leave, Tim?
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at November 15, 2008 10:25 PM (XuBCY)
29
Oops, that comment didn't make logical sense. That's what I get for trying to type while eating a taco.
What I meant to say is, do ya think we can take their refusal as a request to leave?
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at November 15, 2008 10:25 PM (XuBCY)
30
History will paint the Iraq War as a US victory. We removed a dangerous tyrant from power, established a democratic government and liberated 25,000,000 people in the center of the Middle East. We also defeated al Qaeda in what they called the central battle of global jihad, denying them sanctuary in an oil rich nation and the Capitol their Caliphate.
We all agree that there were major problems with the Iraq War as there are with all wars. We did not anticipate the levels of barbarism to which AQI would sink. Hummers are jeeps, not tanks. We needed more troops to occupy the country. These judgments are made with 20-20 hindsight. As always, our armed forces adapted, fought with courage and humanity and in the end prevailed.
George W. Bush did not waiver. Terrorists found themselves prey not predator in more places than most people realize. The reason we have not been attacked again is that the jihadis were running for their lives. America showed that we had the political will to win.
We should worry about the political will of the incoming administration. When we are again challenged (and challenged we will be) what will an anti-American, anti-defense, corrupt Illinois politician do? Deer in the headlights.
God help us all.
Posted by: arch at November 16, 2008 11:27 AM (PwX2X)
31
From nogopostal "With all due respect...anyone who fears an Obabma Presidency ..You surely do not have a family member in Iraq or Afghanistan."
My husband is in the National Guard and spent a year over there. They lost a man in their unit just weeks before their year was up and they came home.
My oldest son joined the National Guard in February.
Patriotism does not come with a guarantee that you won't die for the good of your country.
I "fear" an Obama presidency because of his threat to our democratic republic, the sanctity of our Constitution, the ruin of capitalism, and the dissolution of morals and values in our sacred American culture.
I chuckle now at that preceding paragraph; do I really believe that this man is capable of all of this? Ah, maybe not, but all who he is tied to are, and the American people that he has duped are by their apathy and complicity in his schemes.
Posted by: Diane at November 17, 2008 09:31 AM (0rha0)
32
One important distinction between Iraq and, say, Chicago is that Chicago is our country and we're supposed to be there, whereas Iraq is somebody else's country and our presence is not required.
Posted by mck at November 15, 2008 07:54 PM
A majority of Americans and the US Congress disagreed with you. They weren't as isolationist as you. And spare me the whining lies of "Bush Lied". No one believes that, not even a toad like you.
Reading the thoughtless, bumper-sticker slogans that attempt to pass for thought on the part of the Left really makes me wonder if there is any intelligent life in the Democrat party.
Posted by: iconoclast at November 17, 2008 12:14 PM (JP1UC)
33
Yes, thank you President Bush. Barry should be held accountable to his defeatist blabbery on any moral grounds but politically not so much. As McCain said ad nauseum, he would rather lose an election than lose a war and he succeeded on both fronts. At this point however it is politically more dangerous to "end" the war; the bugout scenario beloved of Dem primary voters than to simply continue the policies of the hated Bush to stand down as the Iraqis stand up. No, the defeatists did not want this. They wanted chaos and bloodshed they could hang on Bush's neck but that ship has sailed and even Barry knows it. In hilarious ironic other news, the front that may indeed prove "unwinnable" is the one the Dems doubled down on to claim they were not Quakers but only for sensible prosecution of the Good War, Afghanistan. Barry is now married to Afghanistan like McCain was to Iraq. Unlike service in the Illinois Senate, the Presidency does not allow votes of "present". Ultimately Barry will, quietly and alone, thank Bush for Iraq and curse him for Afghanistan. For what is politics but claiming you will do one thing when you intend another and in the end doing some third thing that has nothing to do with either? No less a gamesman than Saddam (the Other) Hussein said that. Barack left the black and white world of Lefty Purism behind whether he likes it or not. I think he will not. But those of us so certain that he will pull an immediate face plant are perhaps in for something less than vindication. As Bush Sr has said, you only get a chance to be two things in politics; a bitter dissappointment or a pleasant surprise. I'm hoping for the latter which will be, for many of our friends, the former.
Posted by: megapotamus at November 17, 2008 02:11 PM (LF+qW)
34
Why hasn't President Bush claimed victory yet? Also why hasn't the MSM (at least conservative sources) claimed victory yet? I don't think this is right.
Posted by: smarty at November 17, 2008 11:09 PM (Fxs8A)
35
Naturally, Bush/Cheney will get zero credit for the situation in Iraq, and the Stalinist American media will be sure to ignore anything positive. There are more important matters to attend to like Obama's new dog and Sarah Palin's suits.
Posted by: Sisyphus at November 19, 2008 08:39 PM (xbclW)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Obama Conned
Dear 52,
It seems the man you entrusted with your vote lied about his relationship with domestic terrorist and attempted mass murderer Bill Ayers.
Many of you either didn't hear about Ayers, or accepted Obama's evolving explanations that Ayers was "just a guy in his neighborhood," or someone that he thought had gone through some sort of terrorist rehabilitation—perhaps at the Yasser Arafat wing of the Betty Ford Clinic.
But now that Ayers has come out and admitted that their relationship is very close—"
family friends" is how he put it—how does that make you feel?
I ask, becuase as Malcolm once explained, you've been hoodwinked. You've been had. You've been took. You've been led astray, led amok. You’ve been bamboozled.
You've been conned in to voting the family friend of a known terrorist into the White House.
How does that make you feel?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:24 AM
| Comments (82)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
CY:
I wonder if the Obamamaniacs are learning the meaning of "buyer's remorse" yet.
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at November 14, 2008 08:38 AM (PnuiE)
2
What were Nixon's crimes again? You know, the worst president ever, hated by millions and referenced as the greatest con in Presidential history?
That's right, Nixon was guilty not of breaking and entering in the Watergate burglary, but of LYING about his association with and awareness of the criminals.
Now we have Ayers admitting that Obama lied about his association with the unprosecuted, unrepentent domestic terrorist who was instrumental in the death of people in his conspiracy to blow up Federal buildings? (Incidentally, just how does Ayers escape prosecution when I had understood murder and felony manslaughter had no statute of limitations?) Now we know one thing about Obama: before even taking office, he's a worse criminal than Nixon.
Posted by: redherkey at November 14, 2008 08:55 AM (kjqFg)
3
Poor Ayers...If only he had posessed the foresight to enlist in the US Navy or Air force, he could have bombed and slaughtered as many people as he wanted. Not only would he not have had to go into hiding, he could have run for president.
Posted by: mrlizard at November 14, 2008 09:20 AM (7gEl9)
4
Red, I think Ayers got off on the proverbial "technicality". I think the judge was underwhelmed with the actions of the PD and the prosecution.
Posted by: Gus Bailey at November 14, 2008 09:28 AM (LZarw)
5
He will have it spun by the media, who he has in his back pocket, as something else other than a lie, and the masses that voted for him will believe it. I have noticed that you cannot sway or logically talk to a liberal socialist, they just do not comprehend what you say. We are in big big bama trouble.
Posted by: Kevin at November 14, 2008 09:36 AM (Ag3fW)
6
The excerpt also acknowledges the fundraiser in the Ayers house to launch The One.
That was denied by him and the campaign.
Nonetheless, The One gets a pass on all of this because even though Ayers is an unrepentent Marxist pseudo-revolutionary, he gets a great big bear hug from the Lefties because his heart is in the right place. That is how he got made respectable in the academy.
Did the Weathermen ever announce a truce after their Declaration of War on America? They didn't have to, they became the establishment.
Posted by: Teleprompter Messiah at November 14, 2008 10:01 AM (+L1YR)
7
The Lame Stream Media has became the state (democrat) ran media. Even the fact that 'not as many' of them are needed (thousands already out of a job) under the state run media hasn't opened their eyes. Maybe when they get down to one outlet and millions of former 'news' employees are on the unemployment line they will wake up. But then it will be too late, they will have bacame shift supervisors, or whatever they call you after 30 days of employment, at McDonalds.
Posted by: Scrapiron at November 14, 2008 10:02 AM (I4yBD)
8
mrlizard, too bad the AF hasn't accidently dropped an armed 500 pound bomb on your hole.
Posted by: Scrapiron at November 14, 2008 10:05 AM (I4yBD)
9
Gus - good point. Didn't realize Ayers had his day in court. Was it his wife then that wore out those pursuing her for her crimes and never saw justice?
There are some nice things about the upcoming Obama administration:
1. Minorities no longer have a right to a chip on their shoulder. We're all in it equally now.
2. Federal documents (like birth records, selective service registration, taxes) don't really have to be accurate to be called good.
3. If your neighbor has something nicer than you, it's yours!
It's gonna be a fun four years.
Posted by: redherkey at November 14, 2008 10:54 AM (kjqFg)
10
>Red, I think Ayers got off on the proverbial "technicality". I think the judge was underwhelmed with the actions of the PD and the prosecution.
"Guilty as sin, free as a bird," is what Ayers has been quoted as saying when he was let go.
...and to mrlizard: Die in a fire.
Posted by: salfter at November 14, 2008 01:57 PM (w8Wvb)
11
At a function with some pretty close friends who happen to be deep blue Ohio folks and assuming I am the same they spoke quite bitterly post-election about the Ayers "slander" declaring it not merely untrue, not merely overstated but an outright fabrication; McCarthyite of course, that had absolutely no grounding in fact. Camille Paglia of all people has dressed down the media for their failure to reveal the simplest of known facts. Will they ever hear this? Ayers shut his yap for tactical reasons. The necessity for that has passed. I think we know him well enough to expect the oral diarhea to continue and escalate.
MrLizard, John McCain and the other military men of yester- or this year do what they do under orders from a consensual government formed under our Constitution. This government is not infallible but the contrast to a handful of uber-wealthy malcontents bent on blowing up six or eight dozen debutantes to make the point that War Is Bad is plain to anyone with the sense or the soul of a fruit fly. You should eat more fruit.
Posted by: megapotamus at November 14, 2008 02:31 PM (LF+qW)
12
The mere tip of the iceberg. Obama lied his ass off through the whole campaign. He bought all the votes that made him prez with money he has no hope to ever have for "programs" that will never materialize. How those asshats going to act than? Will they feel betrayed? Blame it all on residual "Bush" policy? No. I think they'll stay stupid, they're liberals after all.
I love the Mark Twain line: "Suppose you were a dishonest, incompetent, and immoral liar, and you were a member of congress?....But then I repeat myself." I EXPECT such behavior from Obama, or any democrat, for that matter.
Posted by: Tonto (USA) at November 14, 2008 02:35 PM (Qv1xF)
13
"That's right, Nixon was guilty not of breaking and entering in the Watergate burglary, but of LYING about his association with and awareness of the criminals."
- Redherkey
What's your point? That Obama is complicit in crimes committed by the Weathermen when he was young boy because he has had associations with Ayers as an adult man, decades later? How the hell does that compute?
"Now we have Ayers admitting that Obama lied about his association with the unprosecuted, unrepentent domestic terrorist who was instrumental in the death of people in his conspiracy to blow up Federal buildings? (Incidentally, just how does Ayers escape prosecution when I had understood murder and felony manslaughter had no statute of limitations?) Now we know one thing about Obama: before even taking office, he's a worse criminal than Nixon."
Again, the fact that Ayers has been unprosecuted is not a point against Obama, you moron. Furthermore, you really reveal your basic ignorance of Ayers and the Weathermen in that they targeted inanimate objects and never killed or seriously injured one person.
But the bottom line here is why Obama has any direct link to the unprosecuted "crimes" of Ayers simply because he worked with the man decades after they were attempted?
Nixon, for god's sake, was directly linked to the work of G. Gordon Liddy (a man for whom McCain is very fond) and the plumbers. There's just no logical basis for making such an analogy.
Posted by: sugarbiscuit at November 14, 2008 02:59 PM (V203B)
14
y'all is dumber than rocks ...
Posted by: Jkat at November 14, 2008 03:19 PM (kh9nw)
15
Actually Ayers has the blood of four or five Weathermen on his hands. It was a bomb of his design that nearly blew up Dustin Hoffman all those years ago. That is called felony homicide but since I'm glad those freaks are dead and regret only that Ayers, miserable creep that he is, was not present that shouldn't count. You will find however two fatalities tied unambiguously to the Weather Underground but their incompetence should not be a defense. They declared war on the US, prosecuted it and failed miserably. They did not target inanimate objects; just missed. This is cool? The lunatic Symbionese Liberation Army of Patty Hearst fame was also a Weather off-shoot for folks who found these greasy commies too soft.
Ayers escaped incarceration, as I understand it, because so much of the evidence against him was gleaned through wiretaps conducted by intelligence agencies without warrants as opposed to the FBI and was inadmissible. Ayers, proud puke that he is, has always slyly claimed credit for the broad actions of his crew while never speaking of specifics which might provide an untainted path to the hoosgow. Ayers can claim great influence on the events of today however, not least because it was the inability to prosecute that floating turd that showed the Patriot Act a necessity for the GWOT. Barry's culpability may well be dismissed under the flag of ignorance if you must dismiss it (and the Obies must) but the truly tainting association here is that Ayers picked Obama as a vehicle for his own political aspirations. If you are unclear on those Mr Ayers promises further clarifications. We can be certain these will not be of an explosive nature at least until Barack is back in Hyde Park. Hopefully.
Posted by: megapotamus at November 14, 2008 03:45 PM (LF+qW)
16
Bob,
I'm feeling elated still, thanks for asking. I still look forward to the restoration of the rule of law and adult governance.
How do I feel about Bill Ayers? Meh. This nation has more important issues to address. Though I hope the Republicans don't - please keep running this all the way through 2012. With Sarah Palin. Palin 2012!
Posted by: Funkhauser at November 14, 2008 04:10 PM (qGucG)
17
"Seriously, you guys are hilarious, pathetic, and apparently really, really stupid, but mostly just tiny and completely inconsequential."
Acorvid - I think you've got some cognitive dissonance going on here. We didn't believe Obama's obvious lies about his relationship with Ayers in the first place. Ayers now confirms that the relationship was more extensive than Obama let on during the campaign and you say we are the ones with the problem?
Dude, get a grip.
Posted by: daleyrocks at November 14, 2008 04:18 PM (odYIP)
18
When I was a kid, one of my father's pinochle friends was a loud, unrepentant anti-semite. He was, technically, a family friend.
When I was a resident, I took care of many felons, including and old guy who had shot some kids to get them off of his lawn. By caring for them I gave them aid and comfort.
I guess that makes me a rabid pro-crime anti-semite.
Posted by: dr. luba at November 14, 2008 05:14 PM (Z7Dhg)
19
I can see by the third-grade taunting that one of the far left blogs must have linked.
Sugarbiscuit, are you and your numb allies really so ignorant as to believe Ayers and his cronies never killed anyone?
San Francisco Police Officer Brian V. MacDonald was killed by Bernadine Dohrn, Ayers wife, according to FBI informant Larry Grathwohl, who heard the story directly from a bragging Ayers.
Dohrn later did time for her suspected role the Brinks Armored car robbery in Nyack, NY that left two other policemen and a Brinks guard dead. By the way, this occurred while Ayers, Dohrn, and your messiah all lived in the same Columbia University neighborhood while Obama was a college student, not an eight-year old.
Under the direction of Ayers, the Weather Underground also attempted three mass murders, the bombing of a soldier's dance at Fox Dix, and two blast targeting police targets in Detroit. Al three of these terrorist attack were designed to kill as many people as possible, including police officers, soldiers, and civilians.
The Fort Dix blast, of course, never happened, as Ayers girlfriend and a couple of other would be bombers had a case of premature detonation, destroying a Greenwich Village townhome instead. The two attempts of mass terrorist bombings in Detroit--including one that would have flattened a restaurant filled with African-American diners that Ayers wrote off as acceptable collateral damage--was thwarted by informant Grathwohl.
Your messiah is the protege of a failed terrorist, instead of a successful one. And you think that is worth being proud of?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 14, 2008 05:15 PM (HcgFD)
20
"I guess that makes me a rabid pro-crime anti-semite."
dr. luba - Only if that is what you want to call yourself. Most people wouldn't but progressives are kind of nutty. Otherwise, it's bad logic.
You are not responsible for your father's card playing friend.
You had a hippocratic oath to treat the criminals. It's not like they were asking you to give them Ru486 against their religious beliefs or anything, was it?
Posted by: daleyrocks at November 14, 2008 05:32 PM (odYIP)
21
Dohrn later did time for her suspected role the Brinks Armored car robbery
Surely, that can't be right? Can you do time for stuff that you are suspected of? Don't you have to be convicted?
Posted by: DR at November 14, 2008 05:35 PM (2TvrP)
22
Dohrn did seven months in the early 1980s--far less than she deserves for her role as a terrorist--for refusing to testify in front of the grand jury. The stolen IDs used to rent the vehicles used in the Brinks robbery were traced back to Dohrn's shop, and they jailed her in contempt when she refused to testify about the extent of her role.
Within a decade after her release, she presumably met a Michelle Robinson at work in a Chicago law firm, and there are said to be witnesses to Dohrn babysitting her two young girls in more recent years. Of course, Robinson's name is Obama now.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 14, 2008 05:45 PM (HcgFD)
23
Wow! What a SHOCK-A!!! Prez. elect Obama-lama-ding-dong LIED(!!!???) to his synchophantic droogs? Say it ain't so, Prez! Say it ain't so!
Posted by: Sparky at November 14, 2008 05:57 PM (I4yBD)
24
Are y'all sure this is worth getting worked up on a friday night over? I mean, honestly, Bill Ayers? Why would you allow something like this to occupy that much mental space?
Posted by: heh at November 14, 2008 08:33 PM (a9UgG)
25
David Geffin, the billionaire Hollywod king pin who dumped the Clintons for Obama, said "All politicions lie". He went on to say he could not support Hillary because, in his opinion, her husband had lied so much he had become "reckless". Obama lied about Ayers, but to the public who elected him this was not only not reckless, but irrelevant since he promised them so much, mostly in the form of someone else's cash, in return for passing over his lies. Over a million people will pay to see their saint inaugerated in January. He will take command of a government with no effective opposition left to his will, at least initially, and perhaps for years. An improving economy and success in Iraq, both of which he will have had little to do with, may strenghten him even further. The situation will be unprecedented, even compared with 1932 and 1963. Will he be the leader of a country or the selfish leader of a party only? He showed some class when he reminded the scum sucking press of his mother's age at his birth when they were leering at Palin's daughter, and perhaps some real fragility when he referred to himself as a mutt. But these were only two episodes in a campaign of otherwise continuous deception, a real sign of internal weakness.. He owes a lot to others. If he is strong he won't pay them everything he owes. If not we'll all pay more than we bargined for.
Posted by: mytralman at November 14, 2008 09:12 PM (0mKiN)
26
"Why would you allow something like this to occupy that much mental space?"
heh - I was taking a break from polishing my light bulbs. What's your excuse for getting worked up enough about this to come here and comment about it? Seems like it's not a good use of your mental energy based on your comment.
Posted by: daleyrocks at November 14, 2008 09:37 PM (odYIP)
27
Boy, was it ever satisfying to watch you folks drown in your misguided ignorance. I won't be back anymore now because you're irrelevant, and there are more important things for me to do.
Posted by: Dave at November 14, 2008 10:09 PM (y3K50)
28
Bravo, Daley! You took the words right out of my mouth!
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at November 14, 2008 10:27 PM (PnuiE)
29
Swimming in the shallow end of the gene pool this fine evening has been so enlightening.
Bon Soir
Posted by: Kevin at November 15, 2008 12:03 AM (8QxG3)
30
And let me point out to you, the American people will not, as you say, give Obama a pass on even 10% as much crap as they gave Bush. Fortunately, there's not a human alive that could reach that magic 10%. Out here in the real world, we're so worn out by King Bizarro-Midas, it's gonna take us a lot to get outraged again. Just ask the youngest child in a family of ten how much shit he can get away with before his folks will call him on it; you'll see what I mean.
Posted by: sjohn at November 15, 2008 12:39 AM (N+dqs)
31
Kevin - Is anybody writing about Ayers over there at racistdogfakes? I know you only stopped by to comment because you really don't care about this, but just wanted a few belly laughs over what the rubes on the right were saying.
Posted by: daleyrocks at November 15, 2008 01:35 AM (odYIP)
32
How do I feel? Far better than the blood-drenched dupes who ever got suckered into casting a vote (or, God help them, two) for deadly Dumya. The funny part is 10-20 years from now all you Bushies will deny ever having voted for him, such is your cowardice and lack of character.
Posted by: JoeG at November 15, 2008 01:48 AM (P2KjJ)
33
The real problem is that the whole country is about to be led astray because so many people are willfully ignorant.
http://rightklik.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Jason at November 15, 2008 03:14 AM (sQ3gH)
34
The real problem here is that the whole country is about to be led astray because so many people are willfully ignorant.
http://rightklik.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Jason at November 15, 2008 03:15 AM (sQ3gH)
35
Obama's associations with Ayers and Dohrn are relevent, as is the fact that Barack won't release his Columbia or Harvard transcripts. The Dems had lots of fun joking about Bush's C average at Yale; what kind of student was Obama?
Posted by: Tom TB at November 15, 2008 06:04 AM (LY+0r)
36
Tom TB:
What kind of student was Obama?
From Wikianswers:
"After graduating high school from Punahou School in Hawaii, Barack Obama attended Occidental College for two years, then got his B.A. from Columbia University. He later got his law degree from Harvard Law School (where he became the Harvard Law Review's first black president), graduating magna cum laude. Obama was also a lecturer of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School."
Looks like he was a very good student.
I know that some people in the States prefer that their elected officials be pampered affirmative action sons of rich people who only get into prestgious places of learning because the building they are living in is named after their grandfather, others want those who are actually intelligent. ;-)
Posted by: ukobserver at November 15, 2008 06:29 AM (G9VnL)
37
Brendan:
I quit reading your nonsense a long time ago.
That's obviously a lie, since you had to read the page in order to comment on it.
I'd say better luck next time, but that wouldn't be true.
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at November 15, 2008 08:33 AM (PnuiE)
38
Nobody cares about Ayers except for those who are predisposed to care about Ayers.
Posted by: mck at November 15, 2008 09:59 AM (CwxZw)
39
mck - Well, nobody cares about Ayers except those who have issues with their President-elect cavorting with unrepentant marxist terrorists and lying about the relationship. Sharing views about social justice and education is another thing that Obama, Ayers and Rev. Wright also have in common, but a lot of people want to ignore that as well.
Ayers complains that using guilt by association is a terrible political tactic. For the left it is a convenient political tactic. They screamed holy hell about George Bush knowing Ken Lay, but completely ignored the relationship between Bill Clinton and Ken Lay. For the left, history starts today.
Posted by: daleyrocks at November 15, 2008 11:18 AM (odYIP)
40
Right on the money, CY
While being friends with marxist domestic terrorists is a reasonable issue--though not for folks who clearly give killers a pass as long as they are doing it to push the USA to the left--there are other issues now.
Like how we were lied to during the entire campaign regarding BO's relationship with Ayers. BO--and the press--had zero compunction to lie to all of us. And, to make it worse, BO and his cronies did not even care enough to maintain the lie for more than a week or so after he was elected. A disturbing combination of dishonesty and arrogance.
What's next? What were BO's other intentional lies during the campaign? Does this concern anyone who voted for him? Do you really think he only lied to get the independents' vote and that BO didn't lie to get your vote too?
Posted by: iconoclast at November 15, 2008 12:12 PM (JP1UC)
41
"Your messiah is the protege of a failed terrorist, instead of a successful one. And you think that is worth being proud of?"
Bwah hah hah hah.
I love how you conservatives insist on peddling this "Obama as messiah" story. That's all in your fevered little minds. My messiah is Christ, and apparently yours is not, because you certainly don't seem to know your commandments. The election is over. You lost. People aren't buying what you're selling. When will you realize that your extreme brand of conservatism has failed in the market place of ideas, just like communism?
Posted by: William E. Canning at November 15, 2008 01:40 PM (L+gAt)
42
You're partially right, William. George W. Bush's "compassionate" big-government, big-spending, open-borders policies aren't selling.
So, let's see how successful those same policies are when tried by Barack Hussein Obama.
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at November 15, 2008 07:06 PM (XuBCY)
43
William - Louis Farrakhan is the one who first called Obama "The Messiah." The rest of us simply mock that title.
Posted by: Troika37 at November 16, 2008 01:16 PM (/Fj/T)
44
You've been conned in to voting the family friend of a known terrorist into the White House.
Well, ~30% of those were in favor of Ayers and Wright having a friend in the White House. So they (folks like William) are pleased that they put one over on the rest of us.
Posted by: iconoclast at November 16, 2008 01:27 PM (JP1UC)
45
Obama himself could be revealed to be another Ted Bundy and have a dozen bodies buried in his back yard and it simply wouldn't matter.
Posted by: PA at November 16, 2008 05:29 PM (OqXyp)
46
"I can see by the third-grade taunting that one of the far left blogs must have linked.
Sugarbiscuit, are you and your numb allies really so ignorant as to believe Ayers and his cronies never killed anyone?"
- Confederate Yankee
Um, until Ayers is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of killing anyone, yeah I'm going to choose to be "so ignorant" as to believe Ayers didn't kill anyone.
That's the rule of law, you reactionary tool.
Posted by: sugarbiscuit at November 16, 2008 11:41 PM (V203B)
47
Mr. Lizard,
Here's my concern. Obama is real smart and didn't bomb the US Capitol... he ran for President. And he and Ayers are just alike in their communist plans.
Did you know the Weathermen stated that it would be necessary to kill 25 million Americans to put Marxist Socialism into place here in the US??
Would you have "buyers remorse"... then?? If a man with the shared goals as Ayer's got into office of President??
You said this, "Poor Ayers...If only he had posessed the foresight to enlist in the US Navy or Air force, he could have bombed and slaughtered as many people as he wanted. Not only would he not have had to go into hiding, he could have run for president."
Lemme ask you a question. If Ayers was elected President, that man who supports Chavez in Venezuela in forcing socialism on the people there as a dictator, that man whose group said they'd kill 25 million Americans to force on America what has been forced on Venezuela by Ayers' friend Chavez, well... what do you think Ayers would do with the military under his control, etc, etc., from the office of President??
Did it ever occur to you that Obama may just be... his shadow?? And may do just what Ayers would do??
In other words, what are you thinking??
Posted by: laura at November 17, 2008 01:59 AM (tdrxf)
48
William E. Canning,
You are not a Christian. The Bible says that no murderer has eternal life.
You don't know the commandments: thou shalt not kill.
You voted for a man who voted to let babies born alive after failed attempts at prenatal murder be killed - murdered EVEN AFTER having been born alive by God's own grace after an baby-killing doctor attempted prenatal murder.
You pro-abortion thugs are straight from hell and children of the devil.
You're not Christians.
The Bible says that no murderer has eternal life.
You're going to hell and none of your denials line up with what the Bible says: no murderer has any place in Heaven.
You are going to hell... and your attempt to use the name of Jesus Christ will result in "I never knew you."
Don't lie to me. You are no disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ. You are a murderer and Satan himself is a murderer. You are his child.
Don't lie like your daddy the devil.
Posted by: laura at November 17, 2008 02:11 AM (tdrxf)
49
Tell me, sugarbiscuit, by your own standards, doesn't that also mean that George W. Bush is not a "murderer" as the anti-war folks like to claim, because he himself has never been convicted of it?
Funny how that double standard works, isn't it?
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at November 17, 2008 08:36 AM (XuBCY)
50
ukobserver is obviously ignorant of the definition of "affirmative action". As for the presumptive genius of Barack Obama, the first black editor of Harvard Law... NEVER wrote a single article? Not even BEFORE becoming editor? Howzat?Like the Presidency this office is filled by election not on scholarly merit. Barry was a glad-hander's glad hander much like Rhodes Scholar without portfolio Bill Clinton. The intelligence of Barack Obama is, like the stupidity of George Bush, something declared rather than demonstrated. Bush's Brain awaits the judgement of history and we know already that the Obies are finding many of his policies are actually merely common sense, as on FISA. Barry's Brain is just now getting its first public airing. I'm breathless....
Posted by: megapotamus at November 17, 2008 02:26 PM (LF+qW)
51
Once-A-Marine-Always-A-Marine:
President Elect Obama’s Challenge: The Campaign Speaks To “Radicalism.” National Review Online (NRO) By: Stanley Kurtz Posted On: September 23, 2008 7:00 AM:
http://xn--obamas%20challengethe%20campaign%20spea ...
“The Chicago Annenberg Challenge stands as Barack Obama’s most important executive experience to date. By its own account, CAC was a largely a failure.
And a series of critical evaluations point to reasons for that failure, including a poor strategy, to which the foundation over-committed in 1995, and over-reliance on community organizers with insufficient education expertise.
The failure of CAC thus raises entirely legitimate questions, both about Obama’s competence, his alliances with radical community organizers, and about Ayers’s continuing influence over CAC and its board, headed by Obama.
Above all, by continuing to fund Ayers’s personal projects, and those of his political-educational allies, Obama was lending moral and material support to Ayers’s profoundly radical efforts.
Ayers’s terrorist history aside that makes the Ayers-Obama relationship a perfectly legitimate issue in this campaign.”
**Note: Many young Americans in uniform (men & women), upon returning home from the War in Viet Nam, to include others like myself who volunteered to fight in the War, but, for what ever reason, never set foot on Viet Nam, were spit on, called baby killers, refused service at some public establishments and threatened with our own lives by individuals and/or groups, the likes of Bill Ayers and his cronies, who were blaming us for the War, and, as a result, we were ordered by our base commanders to go low profile and not wear our uniforms when traveling off our home bases, thereby not attracting attention to ourselves.
I found this to be deplorable because, we were serving our Country, which we had given our oath to defend and, literally, had nothing to do with the politics of starting the War.
And to add insult to injury, when President Elect Obama, was an Illinois Senator he had the VA initiate an IG investigation in 2005 into the possible fraud of VA Service-Connected Disability Compensation Benefits by those Veteran’s that were receiving 100% Unemployability benefits due to their Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
These Veterans were the most vulnerable due to their PTSD condition, and had worked for many years (approx. 30 years) to get those benefits granted by the VA.
As a result one of my very close Viet Nam Veterans, who was a Purple Heart recipient, ended up committing suicide in October of 2005 because, he was concerned that his benefits would be taken away from him and, subsequently, his spouse.
Note: My, approximately, sixty-two (62) years of hands on eye-opening experiences with both men and women in uniform and Veterans came from: enlisting at the age of seventeen (17) and honorably serving my country for twenty (20) years, as a Marine Corps Mustang (served as an Enlisted and a Commissioned Officer), my father’s, approximately, forty (40) year battle with his PTSD symptoms, as a result of his military service during WWII, and my four (4) year tenure as a State Veterans Service Officer.
I served in the Marine Corps during the course of the entire Viet Nam War (1964-1984), where I lost many of my close young American friends, and my post-military retirement experiences as a State Veterans' Service Officer, where I continued to loose some of my close Viet Nam Veteran friends due to suicide.
To include my own father, who survived the Battle of The Bulge during WWII, but lost his own battle with PTSD at the young age of fifty-nine (59), due to his approximately forty (40) years of self-medicating with alcohol, like many of his WWII Veteran friends.
In 2006, I also was diagnosed as suffering from PTSD, which gives me some insight into what these young Americans returning home from combat are dealing with and was able to best assist them to deal with their symptoms, during my four (4) years as a State Veterans' Service Officer.
A position which I, to this day, believe was one of my most rewarding and self satisfying positions that I’ve served in during my approximately forty-four (44) year professional career because I was able to, once in for all, honorably serve those individuals that have given so much for their country by assisting them and their loved ones to apply for and be granted their entitled and, much deserved, VA benefits.
Note: This is, extremely, ironic that approximately forty (40) some years later our President Elect Is AMIGOS with this TERRORIST.
Although, I know That I am NOT being politically correct, because he and some of his 1960s cronies (now all college professors) don't consider him a FORMER TERRORIST-he was just a rich young college kid that was bored with life and, instead of getting drafted to go fight for his country, he entertained himself by setting off bombs in his own country, although, they all say that those bombs were never intended to hurt or kill people-sounds like someone else that once said, "I smoked pot and never inhaled"), but, I feel strongly that “ONCE-A-TERRORIST-ALWAYS-A-TERRORIST”.
(New) Is President Elect Obama being blackmailed by other high ranking officials here at home and abroad?:
http://blog.myspace.com/tom_heneghan_intel
BOTTOM LINE: If my concerns are proven to have MERIT, which, tragically, the American people may NOT even find out about until after President Elect Obama takes office and governs our country for the next four years, all I can hope and pray for, this late in the game, is that my concerns are unfounded, but if they are NOT: “Good Bless Our United (Not Divided) States of America.”
"FOOD FOR THOUGHT”
Semper Fi!
Posted by: WeroInNM at November 20, 2008 03:41 PM (aKCmZ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 13, 2008
The Disqualification That Will Not Die
This election was filled with attempts to disqualify Barack Obama from seeking office for a multitude of technical violations. Some attempted to claim he was born in Kenya, and therefore not a U.S. citizen, and others attempted to claim that this childhood adoption by his stepfather and his Indonesian citizenship stripped him of his U.S. citizenship.
Others had previously attempted to claim Obama was ineligible for federal office because they claimed he did not register for the Selective Service System as required by law. I though I had
debunked this claim in an investigation I did for Pajamas Media, when I contacted a Selective Service representative and he verified Obama's registration.
Mr. Owens,
Barack Hussein Obama registered at a post office in Hawaii. The effective registration date was September 4, 1980.
His registration number is 61-1125539-1.
I though that confirmation was the end of this line of doubt, but Debbie Schlussel reports that a retired agent who obtained a copy of Obama's registration via a FOIA request suspects that the registration was forged.
How solid is the case they've made? I have no idea.
On the surface it raises some very interesting questions and
potential inconsistencies, but I simply lack the technical (and historical) background to judge how much merit the individual claims are, or know if any are potential "smoking guns."
Take a look folks, and let me know what you think.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:17 AM
| Comments (49)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I think this crap needs to be given a rest.
Failure to register for selective service won't disqualify anyone for running for president, and continuing to concentrate on this picayune stuff is the domain of the "_DS addled".
Posted by: Mikey NTH at November 13, 2008 12:06 PM (O9Cc8)
2
Any action that could have the consequence of elevating Joe Biden to the highest office in the land should be undertaken with the greatest care and reluctance.
Posted by: megapotamus at November 13, 2008 12:24 PM (LF+qW)
3
Something stinks in Obama land or he would simply release his birth records, not have them sealed. Someone else can settle this as it's 'above my pay grade'.
Either way it will be settled with the coming 'civilian defense force'. The dodge the draft democrats will be forced into 'boot camp' instead of allowed a spring break on the beach. That alone will be worth the price of admission, which will be total loss of freedom. 99% of democrats have already sold their soul to the devil, why not allow them to sell their freedom to a dictator? Germany said it couldn't happen, Cuba said it couldn't happen, Venezuela said it couldn't happen. See how well 'it couldn't' happen worked for them.
Posted by: Scrapiron at November 13, 2008 12:44 PM (I4yBD)
4
Just one more example of WHY WE SHOULDN'T HAVE ELECTED THIS MAN FOR PRESIDENT. The things we know about this man are troubling to say the least and yet his "followers" will not listen to anything negative even if it's true. I do not trust this man at all.
Posted by: Kare at November 13, 2008 01:00 PM (I4yBD)
5
Took a postcard and held it up to the 001 of 002 for a straight line, and discovered that the 002 is slightly elevated above the rest of that line. Normally, typewriters (What?) of that day would continue along an absolute straight line unless a correction was made after taking the form out of the typewriter. Just sayin'.
Posted by: TimothyJ at November 13, 2008 04:07 PM (IKKIf)
6
Good lord, don't you people ever give up? The election wasn't dead even like the last two, Obama won by a LANDSLIDE! The electorate have spoken decisively. Get over it, and show us you really mean "country first" and not just when republicans are in charge. Stop acting like spoiled, whiny children do when they don't get their own way. We're all in this together, so start acting like it.
Posted by: neomonkey at November 13, 2008 07:40 PM (Zxabu)
7
Would've listened to you, neomonkey, if I had ever heard that said by the Democrats over the last eight years.
I say forget the picayune stuff (see comment #1 here), but the Democrats have sown the wind. They may yet reap the whirlwind. And if that happens they can only look at each other for the source of that.
Remember? Chimp? Moron? Nazi? Dictator? Civil Rights expunged? Remember?
Enjoy the next few years - I know I will be 'more in saddness than otherwise blah blah'.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at November 13, 2008 08:07 PM (TUWci)
8
Yep..There are no FBI checks on Party Candidate's for President. Obama had no access to classified material while a Senator because such a check would have surely turned up birth certificate discrepancies. Hell 40 years ago there was extensive background on me as a kid of 19 before I would get my Cat III clearance as a military crypto operator...
If a basic FBI check cannot find the "smoking gun"
on our President-Elect,;
how many others in office and military service have slipped by...This is really scary!
Posted by: nogopostal at November 13, 2008 08:18 PM (HHrdm)
9
NeoMonkey,
Six percent hardly qualifies as a landslide.
But I have a question for you, since we’re all in this together and we should all start acting like it, would it be okay with you if I started acting like you?
If so, get over it because Obama has a HUGE black hole in his past that no one has accounted for and this funny-looking SSS Registration Form adds more black mass to the black hole.
The questions raised by DS are fair and reasonable questions that deserve fair and reasonable answers, and I personally do not believe that some monkey boy shouting, “Get over it,” is either fair or reasonable, however much you may disagree.
Posted by: CTN at November 13, 2008 08:23 PM (D9bjD)
10
from Neomonkey:
"Stop acting like spoiled, whiny children do when they don't get their own way. We're all in this together, so start acting like it."
Oh I see, we're not supposed to act the way you guys did over the last 8 years.
Posted by: Todd at November 13, 2008 08:48 PM (f1N26)
11
If you could show video of Hussein O murdering and raping 3 year old children the SCOTUS would be scared to do anything about it. The American people have already overlooked his life of crime and association with terrorists. Nothing is left to be done but help him to fail and fail big time. When the welfare crowd, 90% of his voters, figure out they will get less from Hussein (what's left over after his high priced criminals friends from Fannie and Freddie get through) than they would from any other politician they'll turn on him like rabid dogs. It's going to be fun to watch. I like his idea that college students on spring break attend a boot camp instead of visiting the beach. That's go over like a turd in the punch bowl.
Posted by: Scrapiron at November 13, 2008 10:24 PM (I4yBD)
12
Did you know, neomonkey, that in 1998 the elder Bush won a larger percentage of the votes than Obama did this year?
Did the term "landslide" get used much after that election?
It's so easy to debate lefties, they have such a stunted view of history.
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at November 13, 2008 10:28 PM (PnuiE)
13
Bush the smarter ran in 1998 who knew?
Posted by: stupidityburns at November 13, 2008 11:43 PM (6oxG5)
14
I The "8" key is right next to the "9" key. Mr. Wanderer just needs to not post so quickly. PIMF.
Posted by: Patrick Chester at November 14, 2008 12:56 AM (RezbN)
15
Hi CY,
Put what to rest? Barack has yet to show his official birth certificate. Last I heard he went back to Hawaii and asked that it would be sealed from view. He did this when he went to see his dying grandmother. Why would anyone do this if he hasn't got something to hide? Some government representive publically spoke out about it in the positive but why not simply show it. Why did he keep his school records secret. Its like he never wrote a thing. It's like his congressional record where he voted I believe over 100 times "present" instead of "yes" or "no". Like a chameleon he is hiding and still is. The kool-aid drinkers are all shouting for us to fall in line but to what? I will pray for him but I won't be blind sided. They are still in denial that this guys best friends are radical extremists. Yet his records that could not be hidden blaringly show this. People, Barack Hussien Obama is not a Washington politics as usual elected President. He is a radical marxist and he has a plan and its not for the people. His rise was not instant but planned and calculated. Bill Ayers is a bird of the same feather and a close friend of his but these people don't seem to understand this and are in fac in denial. We are being told to believe he will be a centrist but that's just more kool-aid. To bring down the USA is the goal. CY you wrote on article on Obama's very close ties to Ayers than what was revealed didn't you? We should not look at Obama's actions under a false centrist perspective but at his every move as calculated with the mind and heart of an Ayers.
Remember the playbook and that its based on rules for radicals not righteous morality and virtue. ACORN was just the tip of the iceberg.
Posted by: TonyUSA at November 14, 2008 02:00 AM (WTz/p)
16
"Yep..There are no FBI checks on Party Candidate's for President. Obama had no access to classified material while a Senator because such a check would have surely turned up birth certificate discrepancies."
I am not sure the FBI does security checyuten ks on Senators or Congressmen? I do recall one Congressman being taken off the intelligence committee because he wouldn't sign a paper swearing not to divulge classified information.
Posted by: davod at November 14, 2008 03:41 AM (GUZAT)
17
Unfortunately, this will probably get us nowhere. Even if Obama's citizenship could be disproved, where would we go from that point? Who would become president? How would that be decided? http://rightklik.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Jason at November 14, 2008 05:16 AM (sQ3gH)
18
"Good lord, don't you people ever give up? The election wasn't dead even like the last two, Obama won by a LANDSLIDE! The electorate have spoken decisively. Get over it, and show us you really mean "country first" and not just when republicans are in charge. Stop acting like spoiled, whiny children do when they don't get their own way. We're all in this together, so start acting like it.
posted by neomonkey at November 13, 2008 07:40 PM"
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Seriously, AHAHAHAHAHHAAH you have GOT to be kidding...
Posted by: DIAF at November 14, 2008 06:10 AM (M+Vfm)
19
During the last seven years, we have endured the nutty left-wing rants of "government conspiracy" regarding the events of 9/11, the reasons for invading Iraq, and poppycock cries of vote stealing and voter suppression in 2000 and 2004. To us conservatives, these pieces of drivel seemed like one derangement syndrome after another. Speaking for myself, I suspect the average conservative looks at these nutcases and says, "Don't you have anything better to do?"
Now, we are presented with claims (some supported better than others) that Obama is perhaps not a natural-born citizen; that perhaps he did not register for Selective Service; that perhaps he is a hidden radical leftist (based on his past associations and friendships) posing as a centrist; that perhaps he is more Marxist than Capitalist.
My feelings are probably like most conservatives: these claims may or may not be true, but who wants to resemble the nutcases of the left who would believe almost anything (government involvement in 9/11 and other conspiracy theories)? It's a natural reaction -- heck, I have it and shudder every time I read another "Obama is not a natural citizen" lawsuit or read another claim of a forged document. Frankly, most of me just doesn't want to know and would prefer to get on with life, challenge the Obama administration on traditional conservative principles, and let the country decide the outcome of that debate in 2010.
But, here's the one idea that I just can't seem to get over: LAWS MEAN THINGS. They are the core of who we are as a civilized society. We can't gloss over discrepancies and questions about potential violations of the Constitution and relevant laws just because we fear to be labeled as a "right-wing nutjob" or because we are embarassed to be affiliated with those who raise these questions. The questions raised are fundamental and should be answered.
For me, the entire "Is Obama a legitmate, lawful person to be President?" line of reasoning is not a picture, but rather a mosaic: where single piece of colorable evidence by itself does not form a picture, but where hundreds of small lies and issues over time begin to reveal a picture of a man whose life history may have been altered or even manufactured to fit the mold of a legitimate president. That should concern anyone, regardless who you supported in the election. Just my two cents.
Posted by: W-K-B at November 14, 2008 07:08 AM (6DvsC)
20
Consider the source. Debbie Schlussel is not a completely rational person. I stopped visiting her site over a year ago when she started flame wars with other conservative blogs. I do not consider her site a reliable source.
Posted by: SicSemperTyrannus at November 14, 2008 07:11 AM (Mv/2X)
21
True, Patrick, and I--unlike the lefties and Obamamaniacs here (but I repeat myself)--can admit I made an error.
I hereby admit I made an error typing the number "1988."
Now, let's see you folks admit that you made an error calling a 6% victory a "landslide."
Reagan vs. Mondale is a landslide. Obama vs. McCain is not.
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at November 14, 2008 08:20 AM (PnuiE)
22
"Now, let's see you folks admit that you made an error calling a 6% victory a "landslide."
Reagan vs. Mondale is a landslide. Obama vs. McCain is not."
Let's take "landslide" off the table, then, but let's replace it with "mandate." In '04, Bush said that his smaller victory constituted a mandate for everything he stood for. I don't remember any on the Right disagreeing with that characterization. The Obama victory, then, constitutes an even-more-clearly-stated mandate for what Obama's stated principles, does it not?
Let's go further. If we are to take the Right at its word--both in '04 and in '08--wasn't this election a referendum on the following: socialism in the United States, having an American-hating First Lady, having a Muslim president, having a president who "pals around" with terrorists, and so on (and on and on)? And didn't the American people vote "yes" on all counts?
Posted by: mck at November 15, 2008 10:23 AM (CwxZw)
23
Of course, it does not matter if he registered or not, or when he did so. The only requirements to serve as president are those found in Article II of the Constitution, and they do not include draft registration status. Any attempt to disqualify Obama based upon statutory issues is therefore constitutionally flawed and doomed to failure.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at November 18, 2008 05:55 AM (oY7pe)
24
Bob and the others, I am Stephen Coffman, the retired ICE agent who revealed Senator Obama's Selective Service registration form.
If you have an explanation as to why the Document Locator Number (DLN) appears to be a "08" number and not a "80" number, I would greatly appreciate it. As of today, all I have gotten is hate emails from Obama supporters (and lots of supportive emails from others).
My entire career has been the finding out of the facts. Nothing more. I have declined several offers of being on talk shows. I am not interested fame. 15 minutes or less. Just the truth.
So, please give me an explanation of the issues about the form and if they are plausible, I will announce that everything is okay.
So, what is the explanation for the DLN, the questions about the postal stamp, the form date, the fact the 1980 form was withdrawn, the differences in the dates of the signature and the postal stamp, etc.
So Bob, when you were doing the research to debunk the rumors about Obama's Selective Service registration why didn't you FOIA the actual form like I did?
You apparently merely sent an email - that is all. That is not investigating. That is like a Police asking the burglar, "Did you break in?" and accepting his response of "No." and letting him go.
You can do better than that Bob.
In fact, I think that is why you are upset. It has been shown that you were taken in and did not follow through.
But I will await your response.
My email for ANYONE who has any legitimate answers or questions is:
retirediceagent@sbcglobal.net
I await the responses. Of course you are within your rights to say that it does not matter that someone apparently forged government documents.
And please remember I have not alleged it was Senator Obama who allegedly did the deed. It could have been a "helpful" SSS employee.
But there is enough (in my professional opinion) to warrant an investigation. And I did provide SSS with the information prior to giving it to Debbie Schlussel.
And I would be more than willing to visit SSS at my expense, to review their files to verify the information if they do make a statement that it was not forged. As of now, they have not announced anything.
Stephen
Posted by: StephenCoffman at November 18, 2008 07:38 PM (7kYO8)
25
I was "taken in," eh? Oh, well... somehow, I'll get by.
I find the chip on your shoulder and vaguely accusatory tone rather amusing, Stephen. You think I'm upset over something?
What, precisely?
I thought the questions you raised were interesting enough to bring it up in a post for my readers to discuss, but I have no expectations of it changing anything. I agree with Rhymes with Right that you can run this down and prove every accusation with 100% certainty and it probably won't make a bit of difference in whether or not Obama is eligible to serve as President.
I wish you all the best of luck with your continued investigation, but your appearance here and your tone are comical.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 19, 2008 12:09 AM (HcgFD)
26
Not to get into an argument, but I guess my concern is that you claimed to have debunked a valid issue when all you really did was post one email from the suspected violator. To me that was poor research.
As you may recall we exchanged emails when you first posted Amon's vague reply.
In response to your request, I promised to post here if I was wrong. So my coming on your board and providing you with my findings (as promised) is now comical?
"Rhymes with Right" is probably right in that it will not have a negative impact on Senator Obama.
But what is apparently overlooked is that a federal agency (Selective Service) which operates on the "honor system" may have "falsified records" for political reasons.
I received my draft notice in June 1972 and did serve. I recall the political aspects of the Selective Service back then. It was a tool to be used against those who had different political opinions. I had hoped that the new Selective Service would operate outside the political arena.
The whole Selective Service registration file for Senator Obama may be totally above board and there could be a logical explanation for all the points (however, at this point I do not think so, but I am open).
What bothers me is that the Selective Service (who was provided with the information weeks before this became public) has taken the Ostrich defense of "sticking their head in the sand."
Remember I have not accused Senator Obama of anything. The problems with the registration form could be the result of a "helpful employee" of the Selective Service.
In closing, Bob you have a reputation of exposing the truth. Please maintain that reputation by doing appropriate research BEFORE you "debunk a rumor." Otherwise you do a disservice to your readers.
Stephen
Posted by: StephenCoffman at November 19, 2008 09:15 AM (7kYO8)
27
The consistent dismissive attitude of those refusing any attempt to reconcile the obvious inconsistencies or informational black holes regarding Obama's birth, education, work, legislative record, et al is similar in voracity to the Obots worshipfest.
If it looks like a swan, talks smooth like a Disney Dumbo movie crow, and tells you it's the stork bringing presents- what should you do? Perhaps some checking is in order. Does anybody know someone else whose background is so consistently inconsistent, who was not of dubious character?
Obama has not once attempted to disprove any criticism with facts or proof- he merely engages in ad hominem attacks, telling everybody he is simply too busy with important things (or is that "too important with busy things"?) to address such questions.
You got answers, I got questions. Why is it that these two naturally harmonic paths refuse to cross?
Hiding the truth takes exponentially more energy than embracing the truth. To embroil oneself in such a situation means one of two things:
1) A mental condition prevents a person from being straightforward about anything. This person misleads at every turn and doesn't know why, it just "seems" easier than telling the truth.
2) The cost analysis indicates that the truth is so damaging, Herculean efforts are well justified in its suppression, regardless of the amount of flack taken.
I suspect that Obama is hiding material facts that would destroy the Omyth he spent so long nurturing. He has done this so long, it is a reflex action at this point.
My suspicions all could be easily and quickly proven unfounded, if Obama would release the records that every other politician is willing to release. These are the records that tell us who he is. Obama is fond of telling everybody who he is, but refuses to provide one iota of evidence supporting his narrative. Is it crazy refusing to concede this obvious point of contention?
Questions are feared only by those who fear the answers...
One Man Alone
Posted by: One Man Alone at November 20, 2008 01:11 AM (OtDfb)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 12, 2008
What's the Greater Irony Here?
That more people read this spoofed version of the NY Times today than the real print edition, or that the radical left wing stories offered in the spoof are probably too right wing for the real newspaper's editorial board?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:35 AM
| Comments (23)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Anybody besides me wonder what is behind the story:
That on election night Obama hustled his wife and kids off the stage pretty fast?
That when they visited the White House he traveled in a car separate from his family until they got close to the White House?
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at November 12, 2008 11:41 AM (OmeRL)
2
Looks like he learned his lesson from Bill about what happens when you let your wife pretend she is co-president. Maybe there is hope for BHO yet.
Posted by: Tregonsee at November 12, 2008 02:02 PM (DYI6z)
3
It's nice to see that as the NYT has become an increasingly worthless rag for the Democratic party, its reputation has actually suffered. It gives me some hope.
http://rightklik.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Jason at November 13, 2008 05:52 AM (sQ3gH)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Random Shots
Armed with a single-shot .22-caliber rifle, an eight-year old in Arizona ambushed his father, shooting him in head and chest, pausing to reload between each shot. He then methodically killed a second man who lived at the home, again with shots to the head and chest, again pausing to reload between each shot. Despite blind and immediate media speculation of child abuse, there is nothing to indicate the father was anything other than a loving father and hunter who taught his son to shoot so that they could share his love of the outdoors. The moral of the story? Love your kids. Teach them to shoot if you want. But always lock up your firearms.
In Alaska, Gov. Sarah Palin's controversial helicopter-borne culling of wolf packs has
proven to be life-saving for an Alaskan caribou herd in danger of extinction. At times, shooting even beautiful wild things is a better option than doing nothing. Her pragmatic approach to wildlife management offers a caribou herd a second chance. Don't look for the animal rights groups that attacked Palin for the culling program to congratulate her on it succeeding.
Advocating the shooting of people, however, especially the President-Elect, isn't a good idea, as some N.C. State students are no doubt learning.
State has what it calls the
Free Expression Tunnel where students are encouraged to communicate controversial ideas and thoughts without criticism as an exercise in free speech. That free expression stops when racial slurs are spray painted, along with the graffiti "
Shoot Obama." The NAACP is now involved, pushing for the students involved to be punished by the University since criminal charges will not be filed. The right to free speech is not a freedom from responsibility.
But what about shooting some friends of the President-Elect? Is that permissible?
Someone pointed out that Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, and others in the domestic terror group called the Weather Underground formally declared war against the United States, but that they were not aware that the WU ever signed a formal peace treaty. If someone decided to take a shot at members, could they argue they were targeting known enemy combatants?
I strongly suspect that defense would utterly fail in court, so I'd advise not testing it. Besides, if someone was successful in terminating them as they
planned to do to 25 million of us, what would President Obama do? He'd no longer be The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers.
And speaking even more of Obama and guns, it appears that his campaign and election have done wonders for gun and ammunition sales, even as his policies seem ripe to wreck the rest of the economy.
Gun shops across America are seeing a massive increase in sales of both guns and ammunition as a result of Obama's historic victory. His record of supporting bans on all semi-automatic firearms and all handguns, his stated desire to reinstate the ineffectual Clinton-era ban on assault weapons, and fears that a Democratic Congress may attempt to raise prohibitive taxes on firearms has led to a shortage of certain kinds of firearms and ammunition across the country. In particular, semi-automatic rifles that would potentially be affected by such a ban are difficult to keep in stock, and many retailers are back-ordered.
I only how much more sales will increase when Americans learn that
Obama actively sought to undermine the Second Amendment as a director of the rabidly anti-gun Joyce Foundation.
Quite by accident, Barack Obama seems poised to do more to increase gun ownership by American citizens than any President in history.
If I wasn't so bitter and clingy, I'd be thrilled.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:49 AM
| Comments (37)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The gun blowback is a good example of the dialectic and another dollop of evidence for the wisdom of equanimity these days. If you believe in this conservatism stuff you have to also believe that there is NO way Barrytopia can in any sense succeed. Sorry Barack, American Presidents do not "rule". The American spirit and apparatus are hostile to the notion. Try it and you will find them hostile to you. Our experience tells us that Thesis will always bring Anti-Thesis so it should be no surprise that Compassionate Conservatism should leave in its wake Merciless Liberalism. Equally unsurprising will be the peals objecting to the Commier facets of Obamerica and that those beloved policies from the Iowa Caucuses will find themselves under the bus. With Ayers and Wright's rehabilitation in motion there is more room anyhow.
Posted by: megapotamus at November 12, 2008 11:16 AM (LF+qW)
2
"Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers"? Perfect!
Posted by: Toni at November 12, 2008 11:39 AM (OoGre)
3
Meg
You have the pendulum right.
As for Obama actually "ruling", I think that the natural division of power between our three branches of government will make any POTUS ruling a difficult thing. Imagine Pelosi and Reid giving up lots of power--heh, not so much.
Not to mention that the Presidency is a LOT larger than Obama--expect complete meltdowns on a regular basis as his cabinet and advisors repeatedly piss off friends as well as appease our enemies.
The press will cover for him quite a bit, but the MSM always needs some political blood to drink. With no Republicans or conservatives around that leaves---guess who? Not that it will change their blatant bias in the next election, but it will make it hard for Obama and the Democrats to get away with murder until the mid-term elections.
Posted by: iconoclast at November 12, 2008 01:22 PM (ex0JG)
4
Has everyone forgotten last June's SCOTUS decision on our right to bear arms? Not the President...not Congress can over rule that...DON'T PANIC!
as a side note. Does anyone really have a problem with a law mandating trigger locks on all guns kept in our homes? Yes I know many of us already do, however too many do not.
Posted by: nogopostal at November 12, 2008 02:23 PM (HHrdm)
5
Nogo, what you don't know could fill volumes.
Heller Vs DC does not in any way block Congress from attempting to ban handguns or semi-automatic firearms (two things Obama has supported in the past that are popular on the left) or his current stance in favor of re-instituting some sort of "assault weapons" ban. Heller was narrow and focused in scope; obviously, it hasn't overturned a very similar handgun ban in Chicago, or similar bans in other metro areas. It only directly affects Washington DC.
As for mandating trigger locks on firearms in the home, I'm strongly opposed. As someone who sold firearms I strongly advise using a safe or trigger lock when conditions warrant, but they are not needed in every home, nor warranted in many conditions.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 12, 2008 02:56 PM (HcgFD)
6
Nogo just knows what the talking heads on MS-National-Barack-Channel tell him.
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at November 12, 2008 05:41 PM (PnuiE)
7
What part of this decision leaves a loophole..
Specifics please..
Google the response to this important decision from gun owners and the NRA on yer own..
Can you cite ANYTHING that this important decision does not provide me and my family our rights to own my handguns/hunting rifles in Denver or where you live?
Yes..helmet laws save lives and brain injuries..yes seat belt laws save lives...
Yes lock laws just might prevent children from accidentally/or on immature kids killing themselves or others..
Not every law put in place to protect idiots from harming themselves and/others is a bad thing.
Love yer guns without checks?
http://www.gunguys.com/?p=3240
I am a gun owner..when we had our children back in the '80's we locked our guns.
When you sold/sell guns..was/is your real concern children in the house..or the sale?
Posted by: nogopostal at November 12, 2008 05:43 PM (HHrdm)
8
When you sold/sell guns. Do you provide locks at no cost? If not..why not..
do you at least provide this info?
http://www.ci.mtnview.ca.us/city_hall/police/services_n_education/free_gun_locks.asp
Posted by: nogopostal at November 12, 2008 05:55 PM (HHrdm)
9
Since when are gun dealers responsible for gun safety in someone's home?
Bloody hell, liberals have no clue how the real world works.
Posted by: DIAF at November 12, 2008 07:23 PM (M+Vfm)
10
What part of "Heller only specifically applied to the District of Columbia" is too difficult for your synapses to process, nogo? It was not a broad decision, but a narrow one, weakly decided 5-4. The City of Denver could pass a law tomorrow banning semi-automatic rifles and pistol or "X" gun that you own, and Heller would not apply nor help you in the least. The Hellerdecision gave you nothing.
Obviously, you haven't read it.
And what, pray tell, is your brilliant point in citing the Gun Guys post about the shooting in Sumter? That a convicted felon who was not allowed to own a firearm, and who was more than likely a drug dealer, would not have killed that little boy, because of that the one extra law you attempt to impose on him, that he would ignore? When will you, and people like you, ever learn that passing more laws never stops criminals from ignoring them?
As for your comment about whether I was more interested in safety or sales, I'll simply reply that I'd wager I know far more about the safe storage, carrying, deployment, discharge, and cleaning of firearms that I suspect you can even process, and I always erred on the side of safety, even turning down FBI NICS-approved transfers when I didn't think the customer would be sufficiently responsible.
Bite me, troll.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 12, 2008 07:31 PM (HcgFD)
11
I don't have a lock on the revolver in my nightstand, since putting a gun lock on a loaded pistol is a really bad idea. And having a locked and unloaded pistol is useless for anything more than throwing at an intruder.
If and when I sell that pistol the purchaser will have to purchase their own lock.
All that said, the risks for accidental death for children 0-14 are remarkably low--75 in 2005. Kids visiting my house which is near the water are more in danger of drowning that getting into my firearms and hurting themselves.
Posted by: iconoclast at November 12, 2008 07:32 PM (ex0JG)
12
"guns without checks"
So, nogo, here's a question for you — if that drug dealer with the AK is so dangerous...why in the bloody hell is he not still in jail? I mean, I can't help but get the idea that you anti-gunners don't have any problem with dangerous people walking the streets as long as they allegedly can't get a gun.
Posted by: the pistolero at November 12, 2008 07:49 PM (QmK+E)
13
Yep, gun shows and stores are doing a booming business (pun intended) all right. Taxes on guns, ammo and the "makins" of ammo are all something to get paranoid about. And there may be laws in the works to be passed by an anti-gun congress to outlaw certain guns. Some lawmakers MAY have clues about resisting too much of that or face a "recall". The midterm elections should have some running scared as the present congress has an approval rating in the single digits. The last straw, and the subsequent loss of their office, could well be connected to overbearing gun laws. Lots of people have been talking about Australia lately, and not in positive terms. Too many bad guys out there, and they carry whatever they want. You don't need a gun to kill anyway. Just get a ninja comic book and there's a dozen ways demonstrated for you there. I'm still at the "wait and see" position. I really think Obamasiah is going to make LOTS of boo-boos. He really isn't the sharpest crayola in the box anyhow. Look, he already has!
Posted by: Tonto (USA) at November 12, 2008 08:24 PM (Qv1xF)
14
Time to educate myself on guns and go get one.
http://rightklik.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Jason at November 13, 2008 06:01 AM (sQ3gH)
15
Time to educate myself on guns and go get one.
http://rightklik.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Jason at November 13, 2008 06:02 AM (sQ3gH)
16
I see Nogo made himself unwelcome at another blog.
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at November 13, 2008 07:28 PM (PnuiE)
17
Presidents govern, they do not rule.
Pres. Obama and his supporters would be advised to remember that else Congress - no matter what party holds it - remind him of it.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at November 13, 2008 08:12 PM (TUWci)
18
I dunno, Mikey, it might be fun to watch Pelosi and Reid schooling Obama on who really holds the power.
It'd also be the first time I'd be cheering those two on. -LOL-
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at November 13, 2008 10:30 PM (PnuiE)
19
"Teach your children to shoot." Looks like pops might have taught them a little too well. You're never too young to exercise your 2nd amendment rights.
And by the way, Ayers and Dohrn took on the FBI and the US Government and came out just fine. Don't think they have too much to worry about from the intrepid followers of the Confederate Yankee.
Posted by: mrlizard at November 13, 2008 10:32 PM (7gEl9)
20
"And by the way, Ayers and Dohrn took on the FBI and the US Government and came out just fine."
Oh yeah. Way to cheerlead for those murdering scum, mrslizard. Will you be having Ayers' babies now?
BTW some of his retard followers didn't do so well, however. Remember the planned attack that backfired when thier bomb exploded prematurely, killing themselves instead.
Posted by: Todd at November 14, 2008 08:44 PM (f1N26)
21
No one is worried about Ayer's past. It's his future involvement with Hussein O, and the lies Hussein O has told which were immediately absorbed by the mental retards on the left that should be of concern. The left already has buyers remorse but won't admit it. Q: Who is taken out in the first wave when a dictator takes over? A: The Elitest who claim to be educated. It might be worth losing the constitution to see that happen.
http://www.9neesan.com/massgraves/ Future of the liberals who are by nature traitors to their country and government and will not be allowed to survive.
Posted by: Scrapiron at November 16, 2008 12:13 PM (GAf+S)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Avoiding the Obvious
I don't usually read Businessweek, and if Bill George is typical of the kind of author they publish with any frequency, I think that is probably a sound decision.
Barack Obama: A Leader for the 'We' Generation is a nauseated gush of emoting from George that one reads in building suspense, waiting for a punchline that never comes.
Somehow, the author pens a screed on Obama's executive leadership qualities that completely avoids discussing his one actual turn as an executive.
George trumpets the coming of the One as only a true believer can, beginning:
The sweeping victory of Barack Obama ushers in a new era of leadership that will affect every aspect of American institutions and that sounds a death knell for the top-down, power-oriented leadership prevalent in the 20th century.
A new style of "bottom-up, empowering" leadership focusing on collaboration will sweep the country. A new wave of 21st century authentic leaders will take oversee U.S. institutions of every type: business, education, health care, religion, and nonprofits. These new leaders recognize that an organization of empowered leaders at every level will outperform "command-and-control" organizations every time.
The 20th century leaders focused on money, fame, and power, earning the title of the "me" generation. Their leadership destroyed many great institutions, as evidenced by the failures of Enron, WorldCom, and dozens of companies like them. The recent fiascos on Wall Street can be traced to the failure of "me" leaders who put themselves ahead of their institutions.
Mr. George is a Harvard Business School professor of management practice and former CEO, but from his emotion-driven rhetoric, you have every reason to suspect you might have stumbled into the conspiracy-and-unicorn-laced
Huffington Post by accident.
Bottom-up leadership is of course preposterous; the people at the bottom of business culture in companies both large and small are those that are either to inexperienced to have yet shown evidence of leadership, or are those who simply have no talent or "head" for it. As for a collaborative model of leadership, anyone who has participated in a PTA project or organizing a youth league team dinner knows that collaborative, decision-by-committee leadership immediately leads to paralysis and incompetence.
Or in other words, Congress.
But putting an inexperienced leader in charge is our pending Presidential reality, so perhaps George's praise of bottom-up leadership is a desperate bid for hope—but somehow, I don't think so. No, Mr. George clearly, has bought into hope as a business model. Even the MBAs at the Vatican won't go that far.
But what is most notable in George's praise of the kind of leadership Barack Obama's leadership will inspire, is his utter refusal to discuss Obama's singular, failed turn as an executive.
As I noted in the comment's of George's praise and worship piece:
Mr. George, it seems very significant omission that you failed to mention Obama's one actual executive leadership experience, the multi-million dollar failure known as the Chicago Annenburg Challenge (CAC).
The CAC was shut down after Obama and his mentor, a former domestic terrorist named Bill Ayers, helped funnel grant money to groups more interested in indoctrination than education (Ayers' Small School Workshop got more than $1 million). The Chicago school children that were supposed to be helped by more than $100 million in funds saw the bulk of it frittered away, with dismal results.
You cannot justify your grandiose claims based upon a thin record of proven failure, sir.
You own your readers an explanation, Mr. George, for providing them with unsound counsel.
Bill George doesn't want to discuss is Barack Obama's actual and
proven record of failure in his only previous executive position.
Let's hope for our nation's sake that at least Obama has remained sober enough to realize that empty promises of hope and change are find for the stump, but hemlock in the boardroom.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:29 AM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
You could even set aside the obvious lack of objectivity and the willingness to ignore facts...think about the fact that Obama hasn't even STARTED yet. Can't we let Obama get through his first year, or maybe a couple of months as president before declaring that he is the best leader of all time.
http://rightklik.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Jason at November 13, 2008 06:08 AM (sQ3gH)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 11, 2008
His Final Veterans Day
Please take a moment today to remember those who've served in this nation's military. We owe them our freedom, and owe them our heartfelt thanks.
I'll be offline most of the day today paying my last respects to a WWII U.S. Army veteran, my grandfather, R.W. Barbee, who passed this past Saturday.
Rest in peace, Poppy.
We love you.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:52 AM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
ÇåÏÇÝ íÇÓÑ ÇáÞÍØÇäíÕæÑ ÔÈÇÈÕæÑ ÓÚÏ ÇáÍÇÑËíÊæÈíßÇÊ ÇäÌáíÒíÉÊæÈíßÇÊ ÚÈÏÇáãÌíÏ ÚÈÏÇááåÝæÊæÔæÈ 11ÊÍãíá ãÇÓäÌÑ 9ÊæÈíßÇÊ ÑÇÔÏ ÇáãÇÌÏãäÊÏíÇÊ
Posted by: htof at January 05, 2009 10:40 AM (cha4K)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 10, 2008
Firm Equates Increase in Gun Sales to Possible Increase In Bio-Chemical Attacks
Because those Yokel-Americans that buy firearms based upon the incoming Adminstration's hopes of reinstating failed firearms bans are also bitterly clinging to vials of Anthrax and Sarin:
BOSTON, MA, Nov 10, 2008 (MARKET WIRE via COMTEX) — "A disturbing increase in reports that gun sales are dramatically increasing now that the presidential election is over indicates that other forms of intentional mayhem such as bio-chemical assaults might also increase," said BioDefense Corporation ( http://www.biod.com), producers of the new MAIL DEFENDER complete mailroom security solution.
"Incoming mail containing white powder discovered recently at major metropolitan daily newspapers, wire services and hundreds of other offices across the country are not 'hoaxes.' Rather, they are 'bio-chemical assaults,' with obvious intent to harm, disrupt, or even kill," said a spokesperson for BioDefense Corporation.
Large corporations, major financial institutions and businesses forced to lay off employees in difficult economic times are the bio-criminal's "bull's eye." Recent media tracking shows that mentions of "anthrax" and "white powder" hoaxes in newspapers, magazines, radio, TV and online media number in the thousands every week.
"MAIL DEFENDER, already hard at work at several high-level government and financial institutions, is the first line of defense against these criminal acts," the BioDefense spokesperson added. "A simple letter mailed for 42 cents should not have the power to disrupt and stop large organizations, unfairly tie up first-responder resources, and otherwise add to today's already anxiety-ridden environment," he said.
So Boston-based Bio-Defense hopes to reduce "today's already anxiety-ridden environment," by drawing utterly unsupportable correlations between the lawful purchase of a legal and Constitutionally-protected commodity by law-abiding U.S. citizens and vague reports of terrorist acts, in order to sell a product that they—surprise, surprise—just happen to have on hand.
I'm guessing they aren't part of the condescending
52.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
05:44 PM
| Comments (33)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
If it moves product, who cares if its correct.... speaking for them of course....
Posted by: Buffoon at November 10, 2008 06:10 PM (Mpx5f)
2
Using their same logic, since Barry Obama believes in fascist liberal ideas, Volkswagen makes the best car. Their ideas are nonsensical.
Posted by: Two Dogs at November 10, 2008 06:37 PM (/L1mn)
3
What's a little bio-chemical warfare between friends?
If I got a letter with white powder I'd probably just lick it, cause I'm curious like that.
I think I've got "48" syndrome. Apparently I'm not the only one.
~T the D
http://thedrunkelephant.blogspot.com/
Posted by: T the D at November 10, 2008 09:37 PM (Y+dgk)
4
I expect they would have reach the same conclusion if there was a sudden, unexplained increase in weed wacker sales.
Posted by: George Bruce at November 10, 2008 10:10 PM (14xK6)
5
I expect they would have reach the same conclusion if there was a sudden, unexplained increase in weed wacker sales.
That's their spring ad campaign.
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at November 10, 2008 10:37 PM (PnuiE)
6
Actually, I took it to mean that it's going to be an active spring zombie season.
Seems equally reasonable to me.
Posted by: Lurking Observer at November 10, 2008 10:44 PM (aR0aQ)
7
I'll go with the Zombie outbreak scenario too. Makes as much sense as anything else.
Posted by: PA at November 11, 2008 12:52 AM (OqXyp)
8
I would think an increase in purchases of baked beans would indicate a possible increase in bio-chemical attacks....
Posted by: Patrick Chester at November 11, 2008 02:57 AM (RezbN)
9
...or refried beans, for that matter.
Posted by: W-K-B at November 11, 2008 05:30 AM (6DvsC)
10
Great Scott! If these idiots leap to conlusions like that, I don't want them thinking about, playing with, researching, or anywhere near ANY biohazardous material. Put down the vial and slowly back away from the white powder, boys. Back to kindergarten with you!
Posted by: Stoutcat at November 11, 2008 09:22 AM (kKdtK)
11
Now here is some REAL change... the mere PURCHASE of a firearm is "intentional mayhem". And of course that is true, just ask any anti-2nd loon. It's like Frosty the Snowman with his magic hat. Once the gun is purchased (or hell, I guess manufactured) it springs to life as a malevolent imp of steel and lead kind of like a cell phone exposed to the evil radiation in Transformers.
Posted by: megapotamus at November 11, 2008 10:47 AM (LF+qW)
12
Can you kill zombies with anthrax? If so, maybe we'd better stock up....
I don't any stinkin zombies making my dog bark all night.
Posted by: Ricky at November 11, 2008 02:09 PM (Y0ai0)
13
Yeah, and maybe what they are smelling is just the oder of burning nitrates...
Posted by: emdfl at November 11, 2008 03:30 PM (N1uaO)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Hope and Change al Qaeda Can Believe In
He has apparently learned nothing.
President Elect Barack Obama is looking at Jamie Gorelick as a possibly candidate for Attorney General. Gorelick is best know for her role in Bill Clinton's Justice Department creating a "wall" that kept American intelligence and law enforcement agencies from communicating with each other, which contributed significantly to security lapses that
led to al Qaeda's success on 9/11.
But even without that taint of corruption, Gorelick would signal a return to incompetence and infighting. Gorelick played a major role in keeping counterterrorist and law-enforcement agents from sharing information and "connecting the dots" before 9/11. In a series of judgments at the DoD and at Justice during her tenure in the Clinton administration, Gorelick hamstrung our efforts to find and disarm terrorist infiltrators by discouraging any cooperation between intelligence and enforcement efforts by making "the wall" much more significant than Congress ever intended.
Gorelick wound up serving as a panelist on the 9/11 Commission, but she should have been served a subpoena instead. Two memos from Clinton-appointed US Attorney Mary Jo White made this point crystal clear, as did an explanation from someone involved for years in the counterterrorist effort. Gorelick imposed an unrealistic standard on intelligence gathering that led directly to the 9/11 attacks. As AG, she would have even more power to reimpose those same limitations, and leave us just as blind as we were before those attacks.
Gorelick's fundamental incompetence played a role in the deaths of thousands of Americans, and that Obama is even considering her for such a position merely serves to highlight his own lack of judgment.
Obama is also
secretly planning U.S. trials for terrorist prisoners of war. Like Bush's military tribunals, such trials fly in the face of the Geneva conventions and established historical customs, which stands firmly against the trial of POWs during a conflict for fear of unfair show trials. As I understand it, the proper method of dealing with POWs is to hold them in confinement until the conflict is over or until a prisoner exchange is implemented. Look for an Obama Justice Department unfettered by reality to set many, many terrorists free because soldiers fighting a war aren't equipped to collect evidence and play CSI-Tora Bora the way unreasonable ideologues prefer.
We learn all of this after finding out that al Qaeda, with all of their usual bluster, is
once again claiming to have plans afoot for new wave of terror strikes on the West that will dwarf 9/11.
After 9/11, President Bush did everything within his power to keep another wave of terror attacks from claiming lives on U.S. soil. Obama's
obvious contempt for President Bush seems to be detrimentally impacting his decisions, as he seems to imagining he can somehow return to a 9/10 world.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:11 PM
| Comments (49)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Rahm Emanuel and Jamie Gorelick - two Clinton retreads right off the bat. This is change?
Posted by: Tim at November 10, 2008 01:44 PM (3Wewy)
2
It's simply astonishing how many Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac people Obama has working for him - or is looking at.
Yes, Jamie Gorelick had her fingers all over that pie too.
Posted by: Jeff Shultz at November 10, 2008 01:45 PM (UrQ4c)
3
"Like Bush's military tribunals, such trials fly in the face of the Geneva conventions and established historical customs, which stands firmly against the trial of POWs during a conflict for fear of unfair show trials."
You have misread the Geneva Conventions, CY. The prisoners at Guantanamo are not POWs. Prisoners of War are uniformed members of the military of an enemy nation who are captured in combat. The Guantanamo prisoners were not part of any national military, and they carried out attacks against U.S. personnel while disguised as civilians. Under the Geneva Conventions, their status is that of spies or saboteurs, and they are not entitled to any trial. It would have been legal and legitimate to summarily execute them.
Posted by: Pat at November 10, 2008 03:04 PM (0suEp)
4
If this happens, the unofficial policy in the field will become, "no prisoners."
Posted by: VC at November 10, 2008 03:23 PM (UooVE)
5
You are wrong about both POWs and trials. First, POWs can and were tried for crimes they committed both as combatants and for cimres they committed as POWs. During WWII, the U.S. tried numerous POWs for crimes they committed while imprisoned. We also tried POWs during WWII for war crimes, as we also tried unlawful combatants, such as spies, sabateurs, and enemy soldiers in American uniforms (as in the Battle of the Bulge). However, they were tried before special courts martial, or in the case of the Bulge combatants who were sumarily executed, consisting of three officers and, while they had appointed attorneys and were not forced into self-incrimination, they had few other rights, as was recognized at the time. It is disappointing that your are repeating the ahistorical nonsense of the radical left.
Posted by: Federale at November 10, 2008 03:53 PM (arbSw)
6
We're in some deep trouble....
http://jumpinginpools.blogspot.com/2008/11/al-qaeda-planning-huge-attack-for-obama.html
Posted by: Matthew Avitabile at November 10, 2008 04:46 PM (T1KL4)
7
You are missing the obvious. Obama, Gorelick, et al, do not support a weak policy toward terrorists because they are weak. THEY SUPPORT IT BECAUSE THEY WANT A TERRORIST ATTACK, WHICH WOULD BE FOLLOWED BY MARTIAL LAW AND CONFISCATION OF ALL FIREARMS IN AMERICA.
Posted by: Ken at November 10, 2008 04:47 PM (9+b3e)
8
Ken, I think you're a over-excited, my friend.
Even his mentor Bill Ayers isn't delusional enough to believe that the citizens of the United States would stand for nationwide martial law and firearms confiscation, even if a nuclear attack on an American metropolitan area were to take place.
100 9/11s could not be used to justify such acts, and he knows he would face a justified open revolt were he to try to attempt such naked rape of the Constitution.
Obama's gun control agenda is quite real, but I don't think he's that full of himself.
Not yet, anyway.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 10, 2008 05:08 PM (HcgFD)
9
Are you kidding? Half the country loves and worships this man with blind emotion. They will allow him to do many things in his own name without as much as a sideways glance. As long as conservatives are in the minority, Obama has free reign...I truly believe he is psychopathic enough to try anything once. These worshippers could even accept martial law "for our own good," all the time proclaiming it is Bush's fault that caused Obama to "have" to do it. He has little regard for the Constitution anyway.
Posted by: Mainah at November 10, 2008 07:17 PM (0rha0)
10
And I think we now understand the purpose of Obama's domestic army. When I read the comment about how Americans wouldn't stand for the confiscation of their guns, I concurred, thinking there just wasn't anyone large enough to enforce such unpopular directives. If Obama tried that, we'd have farmers setting their fields afire like they recently did in Argentina.
But a national Hope and Change Schutzstaffel that counterbalances the Acorn SA is a serious threat to civilian protest. And ask yourself, how unlikely is it that high school and college student "volunteers" would be asked to go conduct community safety campaigns, intimidating registered gun owners with leaflet campaigns promoting new safety campaigns? I've already listened to an Obama campaigner at work talk about how us rural hunters will be allowed to check our guns out of the community repository where they're kept for safekeeping outside of hunting season.
The SA and SS were fundamental to the Reich's rise, silencing all opposition until it was too late. I know first hand from affluent families I stayed with in Germany how they were caught off guard by Hitler's rise, and the safeguards Obama is now disabling are the very same ones Hitler manipulated.
Posted by: redherkey at November 10, 2008 07:56 PM (kjqFg)
11
redherkey, you are correct. Hussein O is proposing the exact model used by Hitler. The only thing he hasn't considered. Hitler died a violent death and had no know off spring/wives left or they would have joined Hitler in the fires of hell. Attempting such nonsense is like volunteering your family for the slaughter house.
Posted by: Scrapiron at November 10, 2008 10:50 PM (I4yBD)
12
I often wonder how much Hitler was an accidental consequence. As someone who has both Czech and German ancestry, with many Czechs buried in Jewish cemeteries (which was quite the shock to us), it's always been a puzzle how such remarkably intelligent, scientifically advanced people gave rise to such relativistic nonsense. I spent time with several affluent German families in my youth who shared treasured books on the dangers of Hitler (printed ~1931-33 from my recollection) and claimed they warned of his rise, but nobody took their warnings seriously.
A few years ago, I experienced the same rationalization in Caracas, working with telecom peers at CANTV, the Venezuelan monopoly phone company. They had just elected Chavez and felt his populist message was just marketing necessary to attract the common voter. "He's smarter than that," they'd observe and claim he certainly didn't believe all that radical talk. I commented that I had heard the exact language from the elder German generation that had experienced Hitler. Today, we know the outcome of dismantled Democratic controls in Venezuela. It also led to tyranny and dictatorial control.
We now begin this path in the United States. If we are to have any chance, we all must realize that the only traction we will have is early. We must punish the media severely for selling us out. Banish all MSM channels, publications, and advertisers in your household. And we must fight Obama's efforts to create a domestic army. He already has a million-man ACORN brownshirt army, but he's seeking legitimacy in the eyes of the middle class and dirty street thugs and inner city agitators don't accomplish that.
Posted by: redherkey at November 10, 2008 11:21 PM (kjqFg)
13
Jamie Gorelick was the author of Clinton's brilliant "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Also, as a member of the 9/11 commission, she covered up the Clinton failures to strike Bin Laden. Very bad choice.
Re: gun control. Expect Obama to issue gun bans, steep excise taxes on guns and ammo and prohibit concealed carry by executive order day one. I'm standardizing on 45 ACP and 30-06 reloads, with the capability to reload 5,000 rounds of each. Looks like I'll be buying two field grade garands by January 19th.
Posted by: arch at November 11, 2008 04:50 AM (5XVEI)
14
A couple of others have already said it, but, although I'm no lawyer, my reading of the GC I did back when Gitmo was such a hot topic also led me to believe that ---- the conventions specially spell out who is a lawful combatant (or civilian), and these types of combatant like we have at Gitmo were specifically left out of the convention rights.
Posted by: usinkorea at November 11, 2008 01:28 PM (lqgct)
15
I think we need to rally around Palin now. She is able to speak above the MSM and reach and mobilize real Republicans. Palin 2012!
Posted by: Stick at November 11, 2008 08:23 PM (gwL5r)
16
Gorlick is more responsible for the death of 3,000 Americans than any single person not part of the 19 hijackers. She should have been tried, convicted and shot in 2001, not made into a left wing hero.
Posted by: Scrapiron at November 11, 2008 09:21 PM (I4yBD)
17
I'm curious why Obama would even consider such a controversial choice for AG. Why pick a fight that even if you win, will leave you damaged? It isn't like there's a shortage of attorneys on the left...
And any number of those leftist attorneys would have such a record that confirmation as AG would be guaranteed and with little controversy. Why give Republicans a rallying point?
Posted by: xbradtc at November 12, 2008 01:18 PM (mhgH5)
18
xbradtc, it's simple... Obama has lived and worked his entire adult life in a protected lefty bubble, so he doesn't comprehend the possibility of handing the GOP a good weapon to attack him with.
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at November 12, 2008 05:43 PM (PnuiE)
19
mammamia; fim zovirax,
; køb propecia,
; prijs vitamin c; premarin; køb lasuna,
; zyprexa bestellen; zoloft; aldactone; købe toprol xl; betapace hinta,
; koop augmentin,
; købe lozol; ismo; duetact; grifulvin v; koop green tea,
; ostaa zebeta; comprar fosamax; fim cialis professional,
; køb energy patch,
; french red wine; prijs flagyl er; xenical; fosamax apteka; yerba diet; comprar micardis; comprar orlistat; fim atacand,
; betapace kopen; dostinex tabletki; arava; ostaa styplon; viagra cena; medrol cena; køb glucotrol xl,
; koop zyban,
; comprar rogaine; køb levitra,
; indinavir hinta,
; lynoral; prijs himplasia; actonel bestellen; atrovent; nolvadex; koop breast enhancement gum,
; ostaa robaxin; fim seroquel,
; købe zoloft; flagyl er; dostinex; købe monoket;
Posted by: jtsfds80 at November 16, 2008 05:21 PM (eIjmD)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Dear 52...
Yes, I saw your messages. Dozens and dozens of them. How wonderful that you want to reach out now, after the last eight years.
You
do remember the last eight years, right?
You lost in Florida. Remember how you reacted? "Selected, not elected," and "Not
my President" were the order of the day. But that was just the beginning. You kept nursing your grudge, cultivating it, stocking it, and formed insular, community-based realities to echo and increase your hysteria.
That budding insanity you reveled in helped lead to ever-more vicious rants and vitriol, of course, including the "Chimperor" angle, where the lesser accomplished of you bashed the President's intellect, and later, of course, the frothing "Bushilter" and "Darth Cheney" rants.
Perhaps even worse, you let your contempt for President Bush and Vice President Cheney spread to hate those who put their lives on the line to serve this nation in your defense.
What, you don't remember these proud moments?
You swallowed false media accounts of civilians massacres uncritically because it reinforced your simplistic worldview and your biases against our soldiers, and even paid for the full-page "General Betray Us" ad in the New York
Times.
You tried to lose the Iraq War and pull our troops out even as the surge was succeeding, even when such a defeat could endanger hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Iraqi civilian lives. Why? Just to hang a defeat on George W. Bush's neck... and to validate your worldview.
So pardon me, if after eight years of your hate, if I find your sudden desire to mend fences and become one big happy family to be just another self-serving ploy.
The sad fact of the matter is that after years of whining, screaming and crying that you've been ignored, cheated, and oppressed, you are now in charge,
and you will have no more excuses for the failed ideologies you continue to support.
You have an impressive majority in the Senate. You have an insurmountable majority in the House of Representatives. You have a President-Elect with a
record of being far, far left (not to be confused with his recent moderate campaign rhetoric that is already being abandoned). You've got all the power, and all the responsibility.
After all these years of carping, you're now in charge, and we'll see how your ideas stand up under real world conditions. Good luck with that.
You elected a man whose singular accomplishment prior to winning the Presidency was fertilizing an egg.
He has no record of executive leadership. He has no foreign policy experience. He has no economic experience. He was under-performing
state Senator laughed at by his peers just four years ago.
And so it is very obvious that you want us to buy into his Presidency not because you want us to share his great visions of hope and change and unicorns, but because you've suddenly realized what kind of disaster you put into the White House. You don't want to share success; you want cover when it all comes apart.
So enjoy your two years of unquestioned power, 52. We'll see you at the midterms, and see if you're still smiling and reaching out when it isn't so self-serving.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:27 AM
| Comments (56)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Free elections may not be allowed within two years!
Posted by: fearless at November 10, 2008 09:53 AM (BSttx)
2
Amen, CY. I say we treat them with the exact same respect as they have treated us for the last 8 years.
Posted by: HKpistole at November 10, 2008 11:13 AM (/j9KS)
3
I was in Madison WI, when the "I'm sorry web campaign hit." It was a 15 minutes of fame that lasted 14 minutes too long. I am not going to stand here and rant aimlessly, I am going to rant deliberatly. CY you stepped up and hit this post out of the park.
Posted by: Picric at November 10, 2008 11:24 AM (+hnIk)
4
It is already started. Obama will have his own Willie Horton moment--and it is not worth the price (Willie Horton wasn't worth the price of avoiding Dukakis).
Posted by: iconoclast at November 10, 2008 11:31 AM (JP1UC)
5
Two weeks after the 2004 election, I might have bought it. Now it sounds like: "I'm sorry baby, I won't do it again, you know I love you, don't you?"
No deal.
Posted by: Patrick Chester at November 10, 2008 11:56 AM (MOvul)
6
Well cool. When I feel the need to address "the one" as a chimpanze faced boofer I'm just going to go ahead. They can call me a racist or whatever. But, be advised, there's not a predjudiced bone in my body. I just don't like that bat-eared, chimp faced, skinny legged, wimpy armed, muslim and radical connected piece of mouse feces....so there! I can't wait to vent my spleen on all the bone headed, stupid, unconstitutional and socialist crap the libturds and ole bat ears are going to try to put us through for the next 4 years. I already have my "He ain't my Prez, and neither is Hitler" bumper sticker on the way. I'm going to crack all over the "peoples party and their dear leader" every chance I get. Seig Heil, Obambi!
Posted by: Tonto (USA) at November 10, 2008 12:08 PM (Qv1xF)
7
Agree completely - I'm not sucking up to anyone in "reconcilliation" - 8 years of hatemongering, daily vitriol does not go away with a "ahhh, let's be the bigger party and show them". I'm entitled to free speech and dissention - I've heard that crap for 8 solid years and they will now get theirs in spades.
Posted by: Enlightened at November 10, 2008 01:09 PM (CHJ2J)
8
I'm not ready to make nice
I'm not ready to back down
I'm still mad as hell and
I don't have time to go round and round and round
Remember that little ditty, kids?
Posted by: Pablo at November 10, 2008 01:15 PM (yTndK)
9
Right on TONTO...Couldn't have said it ay better
Posted by: Ken at November 10, 2008 02:36 PM (MJZoZ)
10
Chimpyurkelmaobama is not my President, and his supporters are not my countrymen.
Posted by: Ken at November 10, 2008 04:53 PM (9+b3e)
11
I'm sympathetic to the above but I doubt that the 52ers are substantially the same people burning Bush in effigy and the vast majority of 52ers have absolutely NO idea with whom they are sharing their political beds. I'm in a conciliatory mood for the simple reason that none of what Barack proposes has a prayer of doing anything but making everything immediately worse. Let's not maneuver folks into reactionary zealotry defending their messiah. The dire facts; the brownouts and jihadism will speak for themselves. I am seeing some buyers remorse already in those usually apolitical people who fell in with the Lamb of Chicago. This ain't gonna be pretty but it could well be funny. And the nation, yes, will survive.
Posted by: megapotamus at November 10, 2008 05:11 PM (LF+qW)
12
You are so right. To He!! with the whole lot of them. I am going to stay pissed off for at least 2 years, maybe 4. I think he is going to screw it up really bad. We need to get some PIs on his case and find out what the Media and others refused to uncover. Lets Palin him.
Posted by: Marc Boyd at November 10, 2008 05:25 PM (Zoziv)
13
This from the folks that brought us "Sarah Palin is a C%&t" t-shirts and referred to Republican political rallies as reincarnations of Nuremburg.
I'll show President Urkel the same courtesy you all showed his predecessor. I'll also point out his creepy cult of personality issues.
You can also stop with the BS of referring to anything you don't like aired being a "distraction" from the "real issues".
Posted by: Teleprompter Messiah at November 10, 2008 06:29 PM (+kP2/)
14
Dear 52:
Bite me.
xoxoxo,
48
P.S. Looking forward to your hopey-changey signs when Palin/Jindal come to Washington and sweep up after you guys....
Posted by: jana at November 10, 2008 07:13 PM (vSRlG)
15
Come on, folks... let's be the adults and let the lefties act like little kiddies.
I don't support Obama, and never did, but we on the right don't need to descend into ODS the way the lefties descended into BDS.
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at November 10, 2008 07:25 PM (PnuiE)
16
CW:
These jerks called down the thunder by being jackasses. The being a "better person" stuff only works if your opponent is civilized. In Democratspeak "bipartisanship" means rolling over for their guff and asking for more. Count me out.
Bullies need punches in the nose.
Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, Michael Moore, etc. They've earned the ire they get. Lickspittle apologists for statism.
Posted by: Teleprompter Messiah at November 10, 2008 07:46 PM (+kP2/)
17
TM, we got into this mess because the Republicans are acting like Democrats... spending like crazy, increasing the size and reach of government, demonizing the corporations that provide products and services we need, and so on.
If you think that acting like the wacko lefties will help convince the non-political-junkies out there (who, by the way, make up the bulk of the electorate) to return conservatives to power in 2010 and 2012, you go right ahead and run with that.
Me, I will take another path.
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at November 10, 2008 08:15 PM (PnuiE)
18
CW:
I don't want to get along with Leftie thugs. These people are despicable.
I also don't want to put off those of good will.
I don't have ODS. I just want to give a big FU to those who wish Conservatives ill and do so with gusto. I don't want to play nice with bad faith haters who now preen their insufferability.
The tone got set by the Olbermann fans. To hell with them.
Posted by: Teleprompter Messiah at November 10, 2008 11:01 PM (kTFE5)
19
Teleprompt:
Reading comprehension lesson:
"Come on, folks... let's be the adults and let the lefties act like little kiddies."
Does not mean, "let's get along" with them.
HTH. HAND.
Posted by: Patrick Chester at November 11, 2008 03:03 AM (RezbN)
20
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3MiD_U4CHQ
Kumbaya won't cut it. Nor would I suggest we resort to the childish name calling we have endured for the last eight years. We will not need to do so. There are real issues with which to reenforce our credibility.
Obama is very dangerous and we will soon see how dangerous.
The people who support him have invited another 9/11 style attack by trivializing the threat of islamic extremists just as the Clinton and pre-9/11 Bush administrations did. We need to remind everyone that those measures taken by the post-9/11 Bush administration have prevented another attack. As they dismantle this shield - unilateral disarmament, open borders, treating terrorists to full US civil rights - we need to say, "You are inviting an attack." When it hits a blue city such as New York, Washington, Chicago, San Francisco or Los Angeles, we can say, "I told you so."
Obama is inviting a nuclear Iran and a more aggressive Russia. He has announced that he will not use nuclear weapons, will stand down our nuclear alert forces and will not strike preemptively even with conventional weapons. After assuring the Poles that he would support a missile defense system there, he has changed his position 180°. When Russia invaded Georgia, Obama warned the Georgians! Russia will pressure Western Europe with oil and natural gas, provoke an incident with Ukraine and support Iranian air defenses. We will not intervene.
Before Tel Aviv vanishes under a mushroom cloud, we need to remind the 75% of American Jews who voted for Obama and all those swooning Europeans who cheered him that Obama does not just appear weak. He is weak. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Vladmir Putin are counting the days until January 20th.
Posted by: arch at November 11, 2008 05:42 AM (5XVEI)
21
TM:
The best possible way to get under the lefties' collective skin (pun intended) is to take back power from them in 2010 and 2012, leaving them howling in impotent frustration as the minority again. Just look what it did to them the last time the GOP controlled both the White House and Congress.
However, juvenile attacks on Obama now will seriously damage the chances of the electorate giving the GOP back the reins of government. Unlike the excesses of the left, examples of which CY has displayed above, the excesses of the right will be well-publicized by the MoveOnMedia.
In short, you can have your fun now, calling Obama names and such, or you can get your satisfaction later, watching them implode after losing again. Indulging in the former severely reduces the chances of being able to indulge in the latter.
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at November 11, 2008 08:02 AM (PnuiE)
22
Patrick:
Thank you. You appear to understand where I am coming from. Anyone who goes back and re-reads my previous comments here (as C-C-G) or visits my new blog will have to conclude that I am not really interested in appeasing Obama; I still oppose him, I just choose to express my opposition in less juvenile ways.
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at November 11, 2008 08:07 AM (PnuiE)
Posted by: Gary at November 11, 2008 08:20 AM (tHeks)
24
Patrick and CW:
I am not advocating trying to outsophomore the childishness of the Lefties. I am advocating a stern response to disgusting smears.
For eight years we have endured the demonization of the Left. The President was demeaned, insulted, referenced as a dictator, denounced as a Nazi, and generally pilloried for anything that went wrong. If you want to get a rise out of a Liberal tell them how much you admire Dick Cheney.
The apoplexy is fun to watch.
In that toxic atmosphere comes a paradigm of what is and is not fair game. The Palin smears moved us into terra incognito. Sadly, that means nothing is off the table as far as our opponents are concerned. To them, everything is fair game.
I understand your call for restraint and measured response. However, that assumes your opponent follows Marguess of Queensbury rules. Guess what. They don't. They follow Saul Alinsky rules.
Following Saul Alinsky rules let them win.
By all means let us purge and jettison the detritus of compassionate conservatism (which turned out to be Liberalsm lite)and go back to first principles. But do not think for one moment that expressing your opinions in a clear and forceful manner will win any friends on the Left. Conservatism interferes with the romantic self-regard of a Liberal. By advocating Conservative ideas you are preventing utopia from being realized.
I guarantee that you will be referenced as attempting to reproduce the Third Reich, you evil, blackhearted, greedy, book burning, liberty-denying toady of nefarious corporate interests.
Who. Whom.
I suggest you watch the British movie Col. Blimp to understand my meaning.
War begins at midnight.
Posted by: Teleprompter Messiah at November 11, 2008 09:50 AM (2/2Kk)
25
52, I'm encouraged by the learning opportunity Obama will provide you. You and your emotional peers choose this unqualified and dangerous candidate against all the advice of economic, foreign affairs, defense and constitutional experts. You've been made aware that his election will result in serious attempts to harm the constitutional framework, will result in an all-out attack on the productive citizens in order to empower those who avoid work and calculated risk taking, and seeks to eliminate the capacity for further opposition to the political machine of Obama's minders.
But you're absolutely right about one thing: I will smile with you. When your family goes hungry because of the incapacity of its socialist President to provide for you, I'll smile. When you lose your job because Obama's mandates make you more expensive than someone in Brazil or India, I'll smile. When your children can't get the medical treatment they need because Obama's state-run program must ration increasingly scarce resources, I'll smile.
You see, many of us understand emotional, irrational voters won't ever change unless they experience true hardship. They're used to leeching off of others in our community, and empower people like Obama to do the stealing for them. But when there is too little to be stolen to re-appropriate to the parasites, you'll go hungry. Look at the greatness the Great Depression made in those that survived it. Yes, one could argue that the "grasshopper" people like 52 didn't make it, leaving a population primarily of hard working "ants." But I'm an optimist.
Already, every hard working professional I know is sheltering assets and income. Aggressive grabs by Obama will only shield more, and many are already cutting growth, avoiding future gains and preparing to burn the fields if Obama comes any further. The black swans announcing the emergence of the Laffer curve are nearly here.
Posted by: redherkey at November 11, 2008 10:13 AM (kjqFg)
26
herk, we call that "Reality Therapy". I think it was Matthew Arnold who said "Experience is the schoolmaster of man and he will learn from no other." Personally, my tastes are simple and that certainly seems to obtain more for the supposedly avaricious Republicans than the generous and tranquil Democrats. Are the teenagers (in mind if not in fact) going to like compulsory volunteerism, confiscatory redistribution, stagflation, double-digit mortgage rates, double-digit unemployment, single-digit margins AND $12 gas? Hey, if I have a clear spot to lay down I'm feeling pretty good. These counter-culture types can't do without a latte for an afternoon. That can't go on for long.
Posted by: megapotamus at November 11, 2008 11:01 AM (LF+qW)
27
Sorry, I'm not extending the hand of friendship and conciliation just because a bunch of moouthbreathers made some crayola signs asking me to.
Am I supposed to just forget the last eight years of you calling me a Nazi? Or that I'm a criminal for supporting my country's war effort?
Or the blatant campainging for Obama by the press in this country, and the rampant vote fraud?
Kiss my backside. Then maybe I'll think about forgiving you. Don't hold your breath though.
Posted by: DIAF at November 11, 2008 03:57 PM (M+Vfm)
28
You gotta love the tolerant and patriotic 'Stalinist' 'Liberals'.
http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2008/11/love-and-freedom.html
In my very Blue state I was knocked off the rolls as a Republican and as an Independent. Next, I will register as a Democrat, I bet I won't get knocked off then.
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
give up the search for truth
stop trying to show people
how the world really works
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
Bush was worse than Hitler
and Stalin and Mao
and Castro combined
.
Posted by: USpace at November 11, 2008 05:39 PM (zH7OF)
29
TM, if you think I am looking for friends on the left, you have totally and completely misunderstood me, and probably never read any of my older comments (as C-C-G) or my new blog.
I suggest a bit of research is in order before accusing me of something.
For the record, what I want is to convince the vast swath of the electorate that only pays attention to politics from Labor Day to Election Day every other year that conservatives are worthy of being in charge, and that lefties are not. It has nothing at all to do with making friends on the left.
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at November 11, 2008 05:54 PM (PnuiE)
30
Hussein's staff selections look more like the cast for a new movie titled 'Organized Crime, Inc'.
Posted by: Scrapiron at November 12, 2008 12:15 AM (I4yBD)
31
Hussein's staff selections look more like the cast for a new movie titled 'Organized Crime, Inc'.
Or "Democrats Inc."
Come on, Obama, where's the fresh faces with new ideas? Why are you staffing your administration with old Clinton retreads?
Is this really the "change" that 52% of America voted for?
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at November 12, 2008 08:29 AM (PnuiE)
32
CW:
Bud, I didn't mean to be taken as you advocating seeking out to pal around with Lefties. I just think you don't understand the terrain in Obamaland.
I think the way to show that you are an adult and Lefties are emotional children is to correct the dear kiddies. However, these emotional children have learned that they can dominate by creating an atmosphere where your opinions are not "respectable" and threfore, not expressable. This finds support in MSM precincts because journalism students think the same way: you and your opinions are beyond the pale. It reinforces the Leftist heroic self image to be a "truth to power" person.
For eight years the President has pursued a reasoned and pragmatic approach in intelligence gathering and the detention of enemy combatants. Yet for all his good motives and reasonable moves he was visciously smeared by these folks. His supporters were likened to Nazis. Amerikkka.
Well, now the responsibility for national security is on their shoulders. I anticipate that good King Barack will not vary much from President Bush in these policies. Who's the Nazi then, kiddies? You selected and voted for him. It was change you could believe in. Now, you own it.
I am not saying start attacking without foundation. I am saying mock the hell out of them for their naivete and gullability.
"But you promised..." is my war cry for the next two years. Besides the psychic satisfaction it will give me, it will also happen to be true.
Posted by: Teleprompter Messiah at November 12, 2008 10:12 AM (+kP2/)
33
I say the only time we should "reach across the aisle" is to punch a hippy, or a Democrat.
Posted by: SicSemperTyrannus at November 12, 2008 04:01 PM (cqZXM)
34
TM, why should we follow their script?
I intend to disagree without being disagreeable. That way they can't realistically claim I am being mean or hateful without looking like total and complete whiners themselves.
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at November 12, 2008 05:46 PM (PnuiE)
35
TM: Take a lesson from Professor John J. Pitney, Jr.:
To conservatives in general: lighten up. The Obama administration will give many occasions for outrage. Sometimes it will be important to voice that outrage, but yelling should not be standard operating procedure. As the 2008 campaign showed, President-Elect Obama and his followers know how to parry angry attacks. Whenever appropriate, use humor. Mockery drives them bonkers.
That last sentence has been true for a long, long time... remember the lefty response to Reagan's "well, there you go again" and "The ten most dangerous words in the English language are 'Hi, I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.'"
Lefties take themselves so very seriously that they cannot stand even the slightest ridicule. Therefore, that is much more effective than yelling or screaming back at them.
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at November 12, 2008 07:01 PM (PnuiE)
36
CW:
We are reading the same hymn book. I did remark:
I am not saying start attacking without foundation. I am saying mock the hell out of them for their naivete and gullability.
Posted by: Teleprompter Messiah at November 13, 2008 07:39 PM (+L1YR)
37
Dear 52,
You guys voted to give the DemoKKKrats control of the whitehouse and congress in what is near a super majority, all but assuring they will also be able to stack the courts in their favor. By doing so you have brought us all a huge excrement sandwhich. So I just have one question, and I'm confident I speak for the rest of the 48 when I ask, would you kindly take back our share? I think that would go a long way to healing our divisions.
Posted by: Todd at November 13, 2008 08:59 PM (f1N26)
38
I've quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2008/11/re-dear-52.html
Posted by: Consul-At-Arms at November 15, 2008 01:03 AM (IfX3L)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 07, 2008
Prop 8 Meltdown
Proposition 8 in California passed Tuesday, a ballot measure in defense of the traditional definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. Michelle Malkin has been following the backlash from supporters of gay marriage, some of which are threatening arson and murder against churches and minorities in what we can hope is merely online venting, even though there is at least one man in jail who assaulted and elderly couple over their signs supporting the ballot initiative.
I can empathize with gays who want to marry their partners, but do they really think that threatening to burn churches—or worse, actually carrying out that threat—is going to do anything but hurt them in the long run? And do the dolts at the Huffington Post really think that an attempt to attack the Mormon Church over this issue is really accomplish anything other than further marginalizing gay marriage proponents?
I'm generally agnostic on gay marriage, and suspect my willingness to vote on a proposition for or against it would be swayed by how the two side of the debate handled themselves.
Agree with them or not, the Catholics and Mormons that supported Prop 8 did so (as best I can tell) as we hope citizens will, raising money, holding rallies, etc. What have the California gay marriage proponents offered in return? Threats against the churches. Racist epithets. Bullying tactics meant to intimidate and terrorize those that financially backed Prop 8.
All else being equal, my gut reaction is to empathize with those being attacked by angry mobs. I suspect others feel that way as well.
Gay marriage supporters may have legitimate arguments, but nobody is going to hear them over calls for violent and repeated shouts of "n*gger!"
Not content with losing the battle for public opinion, they now seem intent on forfeiting the war.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:05 PM
| Comments (52)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The problem is that the people voted to entrench the traditional definition of marriage in response to judicial tyranny. If the Gay community is angry, they should direct that anger to the courts who usurped the will of the people.
Society defines what marriage looks like -- we place age restrictions on marriage, for example. In the end, civil debate and discourse is what we should be engaged in, not violence and vandalism, as witnessed by this angry mob of degenerates.
Posted by: Richard Romano at November 07, 2008 11:48 PM (kycO9)
2
Society has the right to set limits.We have anti-bigamy laws that say a man can have only one wife at a time.In some societies a man can legally have more than one wife at a time.
Forty-one states now have statutes saying marriage is between one man and one woman.
Posted by: Frank at November 08, 2008 01:03 AM (4gHqM)
3
Why is it that we are supposed to accept the decision of the people, but they gays can't? Are they above the system when it doesn't go their way?
Posted by: joe at November 08, 2008 01:10 AM (K4XlS)
4
We've already had this exercise out here on the left coast. Because of judicial tyranny fomented by the left this is exercise #2.
Same sex marriage is all part the the agenda to wreck Western Civilization. The result will be a Socialist Superstate where government will supplant individual identity. The advance of civilization will be arrested as individual initiative will be subsumed to the will of the collective.
Personal pleasure will be the one guiding principle. That will be fostered by the states encouragement of wanton sex and drug use. Life will be cheapened through abortion and assisted suicide. Behavior will be modified in schools and "training facilities". Financial wealth will be subsumed to political wealth.
In short, it will suck to be you. And.You.Will.Embrace.Your.Slavery.
Posted by: torabora at November 08, 2008 01:20 AM (f+xTz)
5
Gays, atheists and many other anti-God movements in America are all part of the same effort by Satan to change the world the only way he can. Think about it. America and the world and our entire value system has gone south with the advent of radio, TV and accelerated by the internet. Why are all these happening at the same time. No meer coincidence for sure. Obama's ascendency as the internet president is obviously part of the equation. Believe it or not.The world is headed to the end.
Posted by: jimmy at November 08, 2008 02:45 AM (RuxnF)
6
Please name your "legitimate" arguments CY. I would like to hear them.
Posted by: TonyUSA at November 08, 2008 03:53 AM (VEDDm)
7
Ya know what's really funny? In California, Proposition 8 would have failed if it was just up to the white voters, who opposed it 51-49.
Black voters, however, supported it by something like 70%.
A similar thing happened in Florida with Proposition 2.
In short, Barack Progressive Obama's own supporters nixed this bill.
Food for thought.
Posted by: C-C-G at November 08, 2008 09:17 AM (PnuiE)
8
more food for thought
Hispanics also voted for the bill, another sector of the Obama Nation.
My SIL and I propose that Obama in fact did not "carry all of the minority vote", otherwise he would have won TX, AR, LA, AL, and MS where the "minortiy vote" would have far outnumbered the "white vote"
I personaly view the failures of these kinds bills in the face of a win for Dems in Washington as both a gleaming sliver of hope for conservatives over progressives, and a wake-up call for the GOP to make us see where we need to perk up our public appeal.
Posted by: Vin at November 08, 2008 09:49 AM (4GWtm)
9
CY it's simple for you to throw out " supporters may have legitimate arguments" but what, may I ask do you consider legitimate???
Posted by: TonyUSA at November 08, 2008 10:32 AM (9cTu/)
10
What do I consider a legitimate argument?
There is the pragmatic argument that marriages can be performed as a civil and/or religious service, and that blocking civil ceremonies because of cultural sensitivities essentially based upon Christian religious beliefs is wrong if we allow these same people to have spousal rights as "partners."
This shouldn't be a matter of degree. Either all gay relationships and rights should be forbidden under the eyes of the law, or none should.
I also have a hard time as a Christian picturing Jesus condemning a gay couple to Hell for loving each other. There are far worse sins we see every day in conventional relationships. Unless you're Fred Phelps insane, of course.
Those are my thoughts. You mileage, of course, may vary.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 08, 2008 11:09 AM (HcgFD)
11
Homosexuality is sexual behavior, not genetic code. To many people homosexual behavior is not acceptable, just as prostitution - another sexual behavior - is not acceptable. Scientists are furiously working hard to make it a human condition, and thereby make it a human RIGHT.
Sexual behavior is not a right. By choosing to have abnormal sex (and I mean that in the sense that gays are a very small percentage of the population, so thusly "normal" sex is in the majority. Abnormal being the opposite of normal for want of a better term)a person does not automatically become entitled to a new set of "rights".
The claim being made that proponents of 8 are descriminating against gay human rights is absurd, they have EVERY right afforded married couples in domestic partnership laws.
Marriage is a "UNION" between a man and a woman. That also means a sexual "UNION" for pro-creation purposes. Gays in no way, shape, or form can fulfill that "UNION" without scientific intervention.
Marriage is an institution that was created for and belongs to one man and one woman. Gays will not become normal by subverting the traditional practice of marriage to validate their sexual behavior of choice.
Posted by: Enlightened at November 08, 2008 12:34 PM (8Clmq)
12
When they claimed this issue was one of 'rights' and ran to the courts seeking what they couldn't otherwise accomplish they lost any sympathies I may have had.
Live by the Constitution die by the Constitution.
Posted by: ThomasD at November 08, 2008 04:12 PM (UK5R1)
13
I would be curious to find out the percentage of homosexuals who do not support the initiatives of the militant fringe, and just want to live their lives without assailing traditional values as "bigoted" and "hateful". If gay is your way, that's o.k., I just don't see what is to be gained by a continued assault on normalcy. This is all about legitimizing an aberrant behavior by giving it state sanction.
Posted by: J-dog at November 08, 2008 04:46 PM (8Xolk)
14
It's actions like these, the riots in CA, the blantant use of name-calling and, to put it bluntly, whining, that illustrate the immaturity of those who can't differentiate between a person and their actions in the first place. The whole reason we are faced with this dilemma to begin with is because too many people believe that our choices are subject entirely to our temptations. They aren't even as mature as Forrest Gump- instead of stupid is as stupid does, they've regressed to stupid is as stupid feels. What kind of society would this be if everyone expected everyone else to "tolerate" their indecent behavior? The fact that they go so far as to object to the workings of democracy, simply because it worked against them, is an ominous manifestation of actions they believe are justified.
I have respect for a person with feelings that deviate from the "norm." I have even more respect for that person who admits they have a problem, and lives an upright life anyway. None of us are strangers to problems. And none of us are perfect. I don't expect everyone dealing with homosexual tendencies to deal with it perfectly. But I DO expect the people of this nation to be able to voice their opinion and for that opinion to be respected.
Posted by: Summer at November 08, 2008 08:21 PM (7X1xm)
15
CY, thank you for replying. Fallen mankind wars against God. We are all sinners and have fallen short of His glory. So your reply that there are far worse sins is correct but sexual perversion is still sin. Politically those who practice homosexuality are trying to create themselves as a gender. There are males, females then gays, lesbians then bisexuals and transgenders and therefore they are absolutely normal and natural. This is a lie though for marching at the tail end of a parade of these people were the pedophiles. Sexual Orientation should be defined not as gender but as to what you lust after and practice engaging in sexual acts with morally or immorally. The depths of mankind's perverted behavior does not end with the LGBT's list it goes on with pedophiles with no age limit, beastiality, ect. God defines what is moral and that is a sexual relationship between one man and one woman in holy matrimony till death do they part. With that said it doesn't leave any of us without guilt does it but please let us not further rebel by erasing the lines and boundaries of this institution given by God called marriage and justify every "sexual orientation" under the sun. With such laws putting wind in their sails they set off into our schools and churches no different than storming our streets.
They are trying to teach our children in our schools to indulge in these behaviors and be misled that it is normal. They are trying to sexually "educate" our children at kindergarten level. They are trying do away with free speech and of religion and silence the churches from speaking against immorality and uplifting morality making it a hate crime to do so. Like I said fallen mankind wars against God.
Posted by: TonyUSA at November 09, 2008 12:01 AM (9cTu/)
16
As long as the GLBA community sells itself out exclusively to the progressive left, it will be a "safe token" constituency that will be given table scraps just like the rest. There's no market of ideas and no competition for their votes. They're a safe voting block that can be ignored, counted to vote for whatever Democrat is thrown up in the election.
I'm as anti-progressive as they come, living in a flyover state in a rural county, making enough to be on Obama's target list, possessing an advanced education in a quantitative field, attending church regularly and believing in small town, conservative values. But you'll also find many like me to be libertarian oriented and seeing my second amendment rights on the same level as appreciating the rights of gay couples to have the same tax and civil liberties recognition.
Now, if you misappropriate the term marriage and try to obtain those rights under that approach, you're screwed. A few thousand years of an incompatible definition really works against you. But tell me we're going to make marriage a religious recognition, and in the eyes of the law, call all domestic partnerships just that, and you've got my vote.
So it comes down to this: the longer the GLBA community pisses on the swing voters and continues to be a safe progressive voting block, the longer they'll keep wearing the chains. It's no different than the fate poor welfare plantation blacks face. Sharecropping will never set you free.
Posted by: redherkey at November 09, 2008 12:19 PM (kjqFg)
17
Now, if you misappropriate the term marriage and try to obtain those rights under that approach, you're screwed. A few thousand years of an incompatible definition really works against you. But tell me we're going to make marriage a religious recognition, and in the eyes of the law, call all domestic partnerships just that, and you've got my vote.
I'll agree to that.
There is no major religion--even the "religion of peace," Islam--that recognizes marriage between people of the same gender.
Not to mention that human civilization has gotten to this point--which, despite what you'd like to see in the future, is far far superior to the stone age--using the formula of "one man and one woman" for marriage.
In short, I ain't sure the concept of marriage is "broken," so I am highly skeptical of the attempts to "fix" it.
However, civil unions are just that: civil. They don't mess with the definition of marriage, don't step on any religious toes, and if the laws are written right, give all civil and legal benefits conferred by marriage.
The fact that the lefty homosexuals (as opposed to those homosexuals who are conservative or in the middle) want to co-opt the term "marriage" says a lot about their true goal.
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at November 09, 2008 01:14 PM (PnuiE)
18
Maybe it was an oversight that you did not include a link to justify your assertion "but nobody is going to hear them over calls for violent and repeated shouts of "n*gger!"
Perhaps you were overcome by the moment in which the video of this took place. I can understand.
Is this appalling action available on youtube?
Please link your source that we may share your outrage based on..oh...fact.
By the way..if it is a direct quote..the word "nigger" should not be censored. Just as George Calin should ever be censored for his use of the word "fuck".
Why aren't there any great GOP comedians?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCz0-HY1TLU
Posted by: nogomore at November 09, 2008 03:36 PM (JL9w0)
19
This "but nobody is going to hear them over the calls for violent and repeated shouts of n*gger!"
I am sure it is just a slip..you forgot to link to youtube or other video verifying your claim.
I give to you this.(Name 3 significant comedians that were Republicans)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCz0-HY1TLU
Posted by: nogomore at November 09, 2008 03:42 PM (JL9w0)
20
FL passed a similar state constitution amendment on the 4th that passed by a WIDE margin.
Posted by: PA at November 09, 2008 07:08 PM (OqXyp)
21
WTF CY?
"I also have a hard time as a Christian picturing Jesus condemning a gay couple to Hell for loving each other. There are far worse sins we see every day in conventional relationships. Unless you're Fred Phelps insane, of course."
Who is condemning gays with Prop 8?
We are only trying to define "Marriage".
You should be MUCH MORE CAREFUL what you post.
I am big fan CY, and I agree with the beginning part of your quote. But to suggest those that want "Marriage" defined as between One man and One woman are condemning gays is preposterous...
Posted by: babj615 at November 09, 2008 08:20 PM (q3zNO)
22
I believe everyone is ignoring the real pragmatic reason why people are opposed to gay marriage. After going though all the work and pain and trouble and effort of raising children, most people look forward to having grandchildren. Homosexual children do not provide grandchildren. Although some homosexuals seem to be that way from an early age, others learn to be homosexual. This should not be encouraged and every parent who has raised children has the right to be opposed to those who would encourage their children to become homosexual.
The attacks by the gay activists against the boy scouts, where parents work hard to see their children brought up, has made me forever opposed to the gay "community" and their political machinations. The more news that gets around of black people being cursed and churches attacked the more dislike people will have of something that they already instinctively oppose. Parents want grandchildren.
Posted by: snookered at November 09, 2008 08:23 PM (h3PdB)
23
The real deal is money. Declaring gay marriage as "legal" is about insurance eligibility and tax exemptions. The rest is pure horse puckey. A "Commitment" is not dependent on a piece of paper. It's about the money. Spare me the lies!
Posted by: Tonto (USA) at November 09, 2008 11:59 PM (Qv1xF)
24
"Agree with them or not, the Catholics and Mormons that supported Prop 8 did so (as best I can tell) as we hope citizens will, raising money, holding rallies, etc. What have the California gay marriage proponents offered in return? Threats against the churches. Racist epithets. Bullying tactics meant to intimidate and terrorize those that financially backed Prop 8."
I'm sad to say, that whenever I was out rallying against 8 I would have cars drive by and yell "faggots" and other profane homophobic comments. Funny thing is, a large portion of the people at these rallies, including myself, were straight.
If that isn't ignorant, discriminatory, and completely unacceptable, I don't know what is. The homosexuals have a right to be angry because they are being stripped of their fundamental rights. I would be angry too. It's a personal attack, regardless of what "non"-homophobic spin these biggots try to put on it.
Last time I checked America wasn't a theocracy. I'm Christian, but I am sick of them trying to implement their personal beliefs into the law.
Posted by: James at November 10, 2008 07:29 PM (p3j2/)
25
"I'm generally agnostic on gay marriage, and suspect my willingness to vote on a proposition for or against it would be swayed by how the two side of the debate handled themselves."
The problem with your statement is that you should not have a vote on this. This issue should not be up for a vote. No one is voting on straight marriages. No one is voting on whether you decide to marry a person outside your race. How dare you presume to base your vote on whether you like one party's tactics over the other. This is people's lives we are talking about.
Posted by: Kyle at November 10, 2008 09:06 PM (3ieu3)
26
This is people's lives we are talking about.
Well, no. It isn't. Tell me, how is life for gay couples in California substantively different today than it was this time last week? Are they less committed to each other today? Have they been torn away from each other? Are there things they could do a week ago that they can't do today, other than have the state label their relationships "marriage"?
How are we talking about people's lives? We're talking about their level of satisfaction. We're talking about equating their relationships with hetero relationships. We're not talking about peoples' lives any more than we are when we talk about Card Check. Perhaps less so.
Posted by: Pablo at November 10, 2008 10:19 PM (yTndK)
27
com Leave a guestbook entry or perhaps email me & we can exchange updates, small buffalo chicken wing dip recipe, =-PPP, jps coffee holland, =[[[,
Posted by: Thecla at November 14, 2008 05:32 AM (sHAGK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
To Serve The State
Via Gateway Pundit, Barack Obama's plan to require government service from middle, high school, and college students:
The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nation’s challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.
I am all for volunteering, and think it is something that people should do as they are able. My wife and I find it to be spiritually rewarding in addition to being something that helps the community, and I'm proud to say that our elementary-aged daughter recently raised hundreds of dollars worth of food and cleaning supplies for a local animal shelter based on her desire to help.
But such service—any service—requires earnest and enthusiastic volunteers to be successful in the long-term, not dis-spirited, perhaps resentful draftees.
The required service Obama proposes is nothing more than dressed-up impressment or conscription, and is unpaid forced labor. Stripping the racial overtones from slavery by requiring all to participate doesn't make it any less degrading. Involuntary servitude is reprehensible in any guise, and we should not suddenly embrace it as a consequence of "change" under the
Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers.
Claudia Rosette is wary of the motives of our statist President Elect, and rightfully wonders if he is a
threat to individual freedoms.
Time was when America's creed could be summed up pretty well by the words of the 18th-century revolutionary Patrick Henry, whose reply in 1775 to the oppressive ways of British colonial rule was: "Give me liberty, or give me death."
In the American system built around that creed, the monstrous original failing and contradiction was the institution of slavery. America paid for that with a civil war, followed by another century in which, finally--about the time of Obama's childhood--segregation and discrimination began to give way to the equality and opportunities that Obama has now surfed to the presidency. Liberty prevailed.
The irony is that Obama arrives at the threshold of the White House steeped in ideas that subordinate individual freedom to the collective. In his campaign and his victory speech, Obama declares that America's "timeless creed" is now, "yes, we can." This is not a defense of liberty. It is a declaration so malleable and generic that it could have applied to anything from Lenin's Bolshevik Revolution to the Little Engine that Could.
Obama has called repeatedly upon America's people to sacrifice. What's not yet clear is whether this will entail sacrifice in the common defense of liberty, or whether it is liberty itself that will step by step be sacrificed in the name of the common good. If the latter, the implications are indeed world-changing. For the past century, America has stood as the world's great bulwark of freedom. That can no longer be taken as a given. Americans will be hard pressed to support freedom elsewhere if they do not protect it at home.
A propensity towards tyranny comes easily for statists, and when Obama trumpets his desire for radical change and hope, you would be wise to listen closely to what he is actually proposing and pushing to implement as law. Is he talking about what is best for individual Americans, or is he pushing his belief of how a larger government is better for... someone?
Update: At least he's a gutless statist.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:01 PM
| Comments (54)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
And those who have retired are encouraged to participate as well. For crying out loud, what is wrong with this man?
Posted by: Karen at November 07, 2008 02:08 PM (GAf+S)
2
Karen there is absolutely nothing wrong with calling for people to volunteer. It's where Obama requires state-ordered servitude that we lose our liberty.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 07, 2008 02:10 PM (HcgFD)
3
You know something, this is really bothering me. I don't need Barak Obama stepping in to attempt to shape my children. That's MY job.
Posted by: karen at November 07, 2008 02:14 PM (GAf+S)
4
How Orwellian: required volunteering.
I'm sure this dissonance will be lost on the swooning masses eager for THE ONE to usher in the new utopia.
What's missing from this dichotomy is the implicit notion that Americans don't already volunteer/donate/serve. Especially with regard Faith & Church.
But I think that's the whole point for Pres. elect Statist. His vision is to supersede any private faith or belief.
Welcome to the Obama Nation.
Posted by: locomotivebreath1901 at November 07, 2008 02:27 PM (nDaZn)
5
At my small Jr College that I attended we were required to do 20 hours of Service to the comunity so I can see the value of the service. There were many choices of things to do ranging from parks and recreation to working the local events. However I feel that we should let the students do their job first, which is to learn. Then focus on comunity service. Forcing people to do something is not going to get a job done well, and will not make you like the job. It must come from the heart to have meaning and the desired effect.
Posted by: Picric at November 07, 2008 02:33 PM (+hnIk)
6
Great blog you have here. I'm willing to add you to my blogroll if you're willing to link me. Let me know.
There is nothing wrong with doing community service but being forced to do it and volunteering is one thing. I'm a college student and there is no way in hell I'm doing 100 hours of community in service. In fact, there is no way in hell I'm allowing the government to force me to do a single minute of community service.
Posted by: Christopher Hamilton at November 07, 2008 03:33 PM (nqa1D)
7
Is everyone going to have to register with the Unselective Service Office now?
Posted by: georgeh at November 07, 2008 03:44 PM (1tw+N)
8
On re-reading, I'm not sure this policy would withstand a challenge on 14th amendment grounds.
This has none of the necessity that a military draft has to support it.
The Obama Administration had better think very carefully about whether or not they want to take a chance on being found by the Supreme Court to be engaging in slavery.
Posted by: georgeh at November 07, 2008 03:53 PM (1tw+N)
9
I see no exemption for kids who are already active in their community, and would have to recognize this as a direct attack on America's existing civic institutions.
My children are active in scouts, church, supporting their small rural school district and many other activities. My son's eagle project involves many dozens of hours planning, developing and building a community prayer garden at the church using low-maintenance native plants.
He's also very active in conservation projects as we live in a rural county which has great need for volunteer efforts like the removal of invasive plants.
In Barack's America, those who produce and contribute already in society will be punished. We know that from his tax plans, and it's clear he's going to carry that message through to our children.
Posted by: redherkey at November 07, 2008 04:22 PM (kjqFg)
10
This would ne approved by both houses as there are to many conservatives who think volunteering is a good idea.
Posted by: davod at November 07, 2008 04:29 PM (GUZAT)
11
Does Barack realize that many college students actually work to pay a part of their college bills?
Posted by: Garrett at November 07, 2008 04:29 PM (DQjJA)
12
What's with all the "Corps"? Is he in love with the CCC and the Peace Corps or what?
Posted by: Jeff Shultz at November 07, 2008 04:43 PM (UrQ4c)
13
I am against this idea for the same reasons as others have mentioned.
I'll add that --- what I love about it (snarky kinda love) is how it became big on college campus:
Where in the United States has liberalism been the mainstay - where have the had unmatched power?
On campus.
And where do you see the powers that be creating "speech codes" and "free speech zones" and forced community service.
Way back in the early 1990s, my undergrad school started forcing students to get so many credits in "cultural events" per semester or you couldn't graduate.
This is liberalism? Taking away freedoms? I thought that was what neoconservatives did???
I hate things like this.
I also marvel at the gated and non-gated middle to upper middle class neighborhoods, the ones lined with Obama-Biden signs, that have codes on how high your grass can grow or how far apart the slates of your picket fence must be -- not allowing you to completely block a view of your own yard....
I always marveled how people I was in college with who were very liberal and politically minded - would graduate, have their parents find them a cushy starter career, and start buying a house in a neighborhood where you had to live up to the community's code...
Posted by: usinkorea at November 07, 2008 05:13 PM (LyFAd)
14
At my small Jr College that I attended we were required to do 20 hours of Service to the comunity
Someone at that school needs to read the US Constitution. Specifically the 13th amendment.
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
Posted by: PA at November 07, 2008 05:15 PM (OqXyp)
15
I try not to link sites that may appear too lefty.
I do respect that I am an outsider here.
As such I will leave it to you to find (if you did not watch) President-Elect Obama's Press Conference.
At the very least,; I would hope you would see, even if you disagree, someone respond with intelligence sorely lacking for the past 8 years.
Posted by: nogomore at November 07, 2008 06:03 PM (JL9w0)
16
Perhaps the youth corps could be called Young Pioneers and wear red, white & blue uniforms:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Soviet_Union-1972-Stamp-0.04._50_Years_of_Pioneers_Organization.jpg
Posted by: zhombre at November 07, 2008 06:16 PM (WfSvm)
17
Volunteer? Maybe. Required community service? A fine opportunity for sabotage. Everybody can play. The harder one pushes, the harder the other pushes back. What's next? Public flogging?
Posted by: Tonto (USA) at November 07, 2008 06:37 PM (Qv1xF)
18
Barack H. Obama was a community organizer, had a long relationship with Syrian-born slum-lord convicted felon Tony Rezko, and what do the residents of the public housing projects Rezko and associates constructed have to show for it? I challenge anyone to find a single resident that is better off today, then when Barack Obama arrived in Chicago. If you can't fix a neighborhood, you've gone daft if you think you can save the world.
Posted by: Tom TB at November 07, 2008 06:39 PM (HjJMq)
19
What is wrong with putting in community service as part of an educational curriculum? After all, it IS educational. Kids need ways to learn how to integrate what they absorb (or not) in the classroom into real work exercises.
Most of my classes required some sort of community engagement or service, whether helping database items at a museum, or scanning images at a library for an online digitalization project, or monitoring growth of shrubs and trees planted to ease soil erosion, or eliminating invasive plant species at parks. Students gain experience, network with potential future employers and references, and build skills that you don't get in the classroom.
Posted by: Aaron at November 07, 2008 07:31 PM (3mRj4)
20
Nogo, ask Barack Confused Obama if there are 57 or 58 states.
Ask him if an asthma patient needs an inhalator or breathalyzer.
Then tell me more about the vaunted intelligence of your secular savior, particularly when he doesn't have a teleprompter in front of him.
Posted by: C-C-G at November 07, 2008 08:22 PM (PnuiE)
21
Aaron, if your class required it, and yet you still had free will to decide for yourself as to whether you signed up for that class and the degree it led to, then that is still not forced. You were choosing to do it. I had classes like that at university too, and I chose to sign up for the classes.
This is different. The way it's written on his website, there would no option to opt out or to choose to do something else instead. Serving would be required, and the description is not specific enough as to say what type of field the required service would be in or whether it's anything to do with one's personal views, beliefs, and chosen concentrations.
Posted by: Matthew O'Brian at November 07, 2008 09:28 PM (Um3UF)
22
Wait & see what avenues of "community service" will "qualify" for this "voluntary requirement"....
you can bet the list will be political.
Posted by: BD57 at November 07, 2008 09:39 PM (t3KcB)
23
ahahahh sore losers... go crawl underground and dont resurface until 2012. and pick a decent VP next time, morons BhAhahaaa
Posted by: Harrison at November 07, 2008 10:02 PM (3S2Hw)
24
The phony is running around pretending to be the 'president elect' has offices pushing his agenda under that office name while he is not the president elect unless I missed the vote being certified by the electoral college and congressional approval. Right now he simply the same old criminal AH from Chicago.
And to the lefties, when and if he makes it into office we owe him the 'exact' same respect the democrats have shown GWB. We may be able to equal the disrespect but no way anyone can exceed it, so we have a free fire zone.
First official exposure to the media he insults one of the finest first ladies in history. Oh, he apologized after someone hit him on it, but that doesn't cover the fact he's a flaming AH.
Posted by: Scrapiron at November 07, 2008 10:21 PM (GAf+S)
25
Harrison, before you start gloating, consider this (emphasis mine):
So consider this, my fellows in arms: On Tuesday, the Left — armed with the most attractive, eloquent, young, hip, and charismatic candidate I have seen with my adult eyes, a candidate shielded by a media so overtly that it can never be such a shield again, who appeared after eight years of a historically unpopular President, in the midst of two undefended wars and at the time of the worst financial crisis since the Depression and whose praises were sung by every movie, television, and musical icon without pause or challenge for 20 months . . . who ran against the oldest nominee in the country’s history, against a campaign rent with internal disarray and determined not to attack in the one area where attack could have succeeded, and who was out-spent no less than seven-to-one in a cycle where not a single debate question was unfavorable to his opponent — that historic victory, that perfect storm of opportunity . . .
Yielded a result of 53 percent.
If your party, with all those advantages, can't gain more than 53 percent against the GOP, then you should truly be worried.
But I doubt you're smart enough to see why you should be worried.
And that, neighbor, worries me.
Posted by: C-C-G at November 07, 2008 10:34 PM (PnuiE)
26
I have long thought that the WPA and CCC could be put back into use for
the homeless and the chronically unemployed, it worked for FDR and they
Accomplished one hell of a lot. They would work strictly on Public works
Projects and be paid, housed and fed .This counties infrastructure is a
bloody mess and these folks could put is back into shape. As for Ayers
there are ways!!! As for this country turning socialist only if we let it.
Lock and load!!
Posted by: Gator at November 07, 2008 10:50 PM (uaTZE)
27
But of course! Now I understand! Up until this point the civilian organization that was going to secure America and have as much funding and power as the military was a bit of a mystery. What would such an organization do after all? Don't we have a federal. state and local police forces, local fire departments, emergency services of all kinds?
Mirable dictu! Obama is so far ahead of all the lesser mortals (that's everyone but him, folks)! Who do you think is going to watch, track and force all of America's high school students to do community service, no doubt organizing for social justice? In it's brilliance, it's stunning...and not a little reminiscent of every despotic regime that has ever blighted humanity. There are tens of millions of bright faced kids, just waiting for the direction of the dear leader. And there will need to be millions of domestic security workers to ensure that they follow the dear leader's directions.
Posted by: Mike at November 08, 2008 12:32 AM (jbhAv)
28
I just checked back at Obama's site, and the page has changed! They have removed the "requirement" parts and have added an exchange of tuition money for the hours.
Posted by: Vin at November 08, 2008 01:23 AM (4GWtm)
29
Obama has proposed making community service or community post graduate employment a condition for student grants and loans. Forcing students to work for the government in return for taxpayer funded items strikes me as involuntary servitude.
Forcing retired people to provide community service is fine with me, but I'm very expensive. My terms include $1,500 a day plus expenses, NET 30 days.
Thank you very much!
Posted by: arch at November 08, 2008 08:13 AM (5XVEI)
30
Ya know, I've been thinking... wasn't there, oh, about 70 or 80 years ago, in a European country, a program that required all boys from 14-18 to join and serve their country? And a similar program for girls 10-18?
Ah, yes. Here it is.
Everyone bow down and worship The One, now.
Posted by: C-C-G at November 08, 2008 08:58 AM (PnuiE)
31
For my real response:
And I think it's more pretty smoke
First, it assumes that communtiy service is not already being performed, and that the satisfaction of helping your fellow man, and fostering a stronger sense of community is not reward enough on it's own. I do not want my lessons of charity and moral obligations to be underminded by the president because he is teaching that you should get paid for living up to expectiations of community envolvement.
It also does not say if any community service counts, or if you have to perform additional services that have been government approved. We (the kids and I) already put in about 300 hrs a year to community service.
They took out the part about 100 hours per year, for $4,000 per year, and left it that you will put in 100 hours and get $4,000 off your education. $4,000 over 4 years will not acheive much, especially if you had to carry a full load, and work, on top of finding that extra 2 hours a week outside of work, classes, and studying for that first year in order to get it.
It left open to receive an extra $4,000 for services rendered, even if you have already secured your college tuition.
Many states offer plans that allow you to open an interest bearing account with the state that will lock in the price of your child's tuition on the date you open it, which over 18 years would equal thousands of dollars a year in price-hike savings, plus what you have in your account.
Many states now offer free tuition to state college for all citizens that have met varying residency requirements (ours included, but it is only in the start-up phase and will take a few years to get going)
Many government grants are available for college, jr college, and trade school for those that have physical, mental, or financial disadvantages. These will pay between 75% and 100% and carry no repayment requirements, as long as you graduate.
Job Corps, Peace Corps, and many church missionary programs all provide some degree of free education in exchange for as little as one year of volunteer service.
The military has always provided 100% coverage for education, and you can ride that out for as many years as you want, and get as many degrees as you want, in exchange for 4 years of service to your country.
Armed with all of these facts and options, I really find his (revised) plan to be falling slightly short of "wonderful"
Posted by: Vin at November 08, 2008 09:38 AM (4GWtm)
32
This all jogged my memory. Whatever happened to the Thousand Points of Light program way back when (Bush 41)? Did it merge with Bush's Faith-Based Initiatives program?
Posted by: Grace Nearing at November 08, 2008 09:03 PM (GAf+S)
33
CCG..straight up..
Do you really need links when W had to slink in to an office the SCOUTS..said he deserved? As oppsed to what will take place this January?
Irony may just be the fulcrum of our lives...
CCG..your Party of fear and hate is gone..
A difference between your beliefs and ours?
You truly believe what worked last century matters this tine?...
What happened to the riots?
How sad it is to all of us...when everything we know..is wrong.
Posted by: nogomore at November 09, 2008 04:25 PM (JL9w0)
34
How sad it is to all of us...when everything we know..is wrong.
You should know that better than anyone else.
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at November 09, 2008 07:56 PM (PnuiE)
35
Please fact check your links and don't rely on Gateway Pundit again. I went to the site and it says nothing about required service. Looks like he fell for an LGF photoshop.
Posted by: Isaac at November 10, 2008 02:45 AM (wa6OX)
36
Isaac:
I had commented on this earlier, the original site has been edited since this was posted.
We have the same discussion going on over at my blog as well, because we DID go to the source to fact check......but true to form, when he was caught on something that became unpopular, someone came along to clean it up in an attempt to void our suspicions of this man and his motives and will pretend that we just made it up.
Posted by: vin at November 10, 2008 06:00 AM (4GWtm)
37
Isaac,
See Vin's comment, above. I went to Obama's site to verify before posting. Perhaps you should verify your facts before making accusations.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 10, 2008 06:33 AM (HcgFD)
38
Isaac isn't mistaken. He's lying.
He knows full well that the website was changed.
Otherwise he'd be an ignornat fool, and I like to give people the benifit of the doubt.
Posted by: brando at November 10, 2008 08:55 AM (qzOby)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Bad News In The Badlands
Khar, Pakistan:
A homicide bomber attacked a gathering of anti-militant Pakistani tribesmen Thursday, killing nine and wounding 45 in a northwestern region where the military has clashed with insurgents for months, officials said.
The attack in the Batmalai area of the Bajur tribal region was the latest to target tribal militias that have sprung up — with government backing — to take on Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters nested along the Afghan border.
Pakistan launched an offensive in Bajur three months ago to dismantle what it said was a virtual Taliban mini-state that is a source of militants flowing into Afghanistan.
The Salarzai tribesmen were preparing to stage an assault on local militant hide-outs when the blast occurred, said Iqbal Khattak, a government official. Malik Rahimullah, a tribal elder, said the bomb exploded as soon as armed contingents began to move.
He and officials initially said it appeared that a remote-controlled bomb was used, but later Khattak said mutilated body parts of an apparent homicide bomber were found, and that witnesses said they saw a young man rushing into the crowd before the explosion.
Amir Khan, a tribesman, said the scene was littered with severed limbs and that several tribal elders were among the dead.
After failing in their own efforts against the Taliban, al Qaeda, and related groups, the Pakistani military has attempted to spur a tribal rebellion against these groups akin to the "Awakening" movement in Iraq. These efforts will fail.
Period.
The question is whether or not the war in the tribal areas will spread into a civil war, and how secure Pakistan's nuclear warheads will be in the event of such a conflict.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:03 AM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
...and with this, and Russia's rattling its saber again, it looks like Joe Biden was partially right for once. Barack Appeaser Obama will face an international test, but it won't be 6 months after the inauguration... it will be less than 6 days after the election!
Posted by: C-C-G at November 07, 2008 08:00 AM (PnuiE)
2
All of that will end now that Hussein is in office. He will heal the planet...or at least let these primitives kill each other without interference from the USA.
Nukes? Hussein stopped development of Nukes back in 2009. That will stop them from attacking the USA!!
Posted by: iconoclast at November 07, 2008 11:33 AM (JP1UC)
3
CY, Why do you think it will fail? An attack like that would piss me right off and send me on a kill mission to hunt down every taliban in a 100 mile radius. They'd spend days screaming for mercy.
Posted by: Tonto (USA) at November 07, 2008 06:48 PM (Qv1xF)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 06, 2008
Good News: Obama's Election Spurs New Appreciation For Constitution
Especially the Second Amendment:
John Faulkner and his wife, Brenda, thought Wednesday was a good day to buy a handgun.
"I'm 37 years old, and this is the first time in my life that I am really scared for our future," said Faulkner, an oil field worker, as he perused the collection of weaponry in A Pawn Shop here.
At Aurora's Firing Line gun shop, Steve Wickham was also purchasing. "Anything I can get my hands on," he said as he cradled a $699 9mm handgun.
Same thing in Lakewood: "I was selling guns before I even opened the door," said George Horne, owner of The Gun Room. "It's gone completely mad. Everyone is buying everything I've got on the shelves. Sales have been crazy."
By midday Wednesday, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation's "Insta- Check" background check — required for the sale of a firearm and typically about 8 minutes long — was jammed with waits lasting more than two hours.
Gun-shop owners and buyers said the urgency was fueled by Barack Obama's presidential win and Democrats' increasing their majority in Congress.
"I'm here because of Obama," Wickham said. "I think he's misinterpreted the Second Amendment. It's not about the right to hunt. It's about the right to defend yourself."
These scenes are being
repeated all across the country.
As severe the rush is now, it would be even worse if more Americans knew of Obama's attempt to
corrupt Constitutional scholarship while at the anti-gun Joyce Foundation. Barack Obama is a gun-banner at heart, and there is every reason for Americans to doubt his campaign's more moderate rhetoric when compared to his actual record.
Buy guns, America. It's good for the economy, good for the development of our nation's moral character, and our last bulwark against tyranny.
While you're at it, consider hitting the Paypal link in the sidebar to the right as a belated blogoversary present. What, you think that
SLR 106FR is going to buy itself?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:55 AM
| Comments (64)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I always wonder about the wingnut gun fantasy on display here. If the gummint really does go fascist and Obama signs the US over to the UN (just guessing I'm not sure how this supposedly works), then the UN solders come to your city, and you are planning resistance to them, then I assume you are going to come out of your little bunker firing your semi-auto pop gun, then the Apache that is with the UN troops (the US military cooperates with them, I assume) fires a hellfire missile at your house and you vanish along with your basement full of cheetos and Guns & Ammo mags. Is that how this works? Makes no sense to me.
Posted by: toyboat at November 06, 2008 02:47 PM (cC3Yf)
2
And no doubt toyboat will be pointing out who in his neighborhood owns guns. Maybe he'll get double ration points. That ought to keep him happy until it's his turn.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at November 06, 2008 03:43 PM (1ii59)
3
toyboat, I am not worried about UN soldiers. I'll take Joe the Plumber over the Belgian army any day. I am also not worried about the US military firing on US civilians. They won't and Barry knows that.
That's must be what the Civilian Defense Force is for.
Posted by: George Bruce at November 06, 2008 04:34 PM (v4XVE)
4
No Steve, I'm just saying what the hell good does it do you to have any kind of handgun or any commercially available firearm at all? I'll even spot you a real-live M-60, an honest to gawd machine gun! WTF are you going to do against the UN/US goverment, or whatever weird fantasy hybrid of the two? If that really came to pass, I guess you die with a gun in your hand? Go out in a blaze of glory?
I guess the wingnut scenario is the definition of "self-righteous suicide."
I tease the wingers, but I really don't get this. If the scenarios I have heard (antichrist, UN takeover, use of US military inside US) really come to pass, no amount of guns or bullets is going to help you. Even small town SWAT uses armored vehicles, an M60 is useless against them. I guess logic just can't penetrate this fantasy.
Posted by: toyboat at November 06, 2008 04:43 PM (cC3Yf)
5
A hand gun is great for driving off theft and rape minded home invaders ... Obama supporting laws that make you a criminal for protecting your family in this way, not so great.
Posted by: Adriane at November 06, 2008 04:56 PM (wJlIy)
6
The explanation you are looking for toyboat on your 'what if' nightmare scenario if it actually does take place is this: there will millions of Americans in open rebellion against that 'current' government. That rebellion will be based upon this line from the Declaration of Independence:
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
That's MILLIONS of your fellow countrymen/women. Even a hypothetically vaunted US/UN government could not and would not act in the way you suggest.
Posted by: Mark at November 06, 2008 05:04 PM (4od5C)
7
I never though I'd even consider purchasing a gun...but I am.
I've always believed in a person's right to own firearms for hunting and/or protection, but it just isn't something I ever wanted to own.
But something about this election (beside the obvious things) has got to me. I wonder if this election has ushered in the beginning of the end of our rights.
I surely hope not, but it could be. And we all need to exercise and value those rights, no matter what happens to them.
Plus, I'm just plain scared. I don't wanna be a fear-monger...but dangit, I'm kinda scared! If push comes to shove...I'd like to know I can defend myself.
~T the D
http://thedrunkelephant.blogspot.com/
Posted by: T the D at November 06, 2008 06:34 PM (Y+dgk)
8
toyboat and others like him would still bow before King George, while professing how glad they were to be second-class citizens instead of outright slaves.
Others in the colonies, however - less than 10-percent of the population - thought that freedom was more important that mere survival, and armed with little more than the small arms of the day, they began a rebellion against the most powerful and feared military force that the world knew at the time.
Unless our public schools have completely failed you know how that ragtag militia of civilians fared, and that the culture of rebels they established became the greatest force for protecting individual freedom and human rights this world has ever known.
Of course, a more practical explanation may be in order.
toyboat first makes the assumption that the U.S. military would unquestioningly side with the government in a conflict against U.S. civilians. I strongly doubt that this would occur. U.S. Army leaders in training at West Point are taught to be loyal to "duty, honor and country," in that order. That would demand they first protect their fellow citizens against an abusive government, not become part of it.
But nor do I think all military units would abandon a corrupt central government, so let's assume some military units would side with the government, and some would side with the patriots.
If neither side establishes clear military dominance, and economic, demographic, and other factors are roughly equal, then the side that has more popular support and more asymmetrical war-fighting capability typically wins.
How big of an influence could civilian gun owners play?
There are around 3 million members of the U.S. military if you include active duty, guard, and reserve forces. Only a small fraction of these are frontline combat troops. Until someone provides me with a better estimate, I'll guess that there are less than 800,000 trigger-pullers or those that could easily be converted to that role.
If just 40% of the U.S. population owns firearms that is 120 million American gun owners (this is though to be a low estimate). If even a substantial minority of American gun owners - say 2-3 percent - were to actively join a conflict as irregulars, then it would effectively add 2.4 million-3.6 million low-level combatants to the mix and significantly influence a conflict.
Presumably, you can grasp the significance of this?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 06, 2008 06:38 PM (HcgFD)
9
Toyboat just called gun owners "Wingnuts".
That's a quotable one. So acording to Liberal logic, if you own a gun then you must be a "wingnut".(his words) No exceptions.
Therefore all the people that are not actually "wingnuts" (which is almost everyone), must relinquish all their weapons?
You might want to recheck your compass. US Forces take an Oath to the Constitution. The last time I checked, mass murder was against the UCMJ. You forgot that. BBZZZZZTTT. You lose. Thanks for playing.
The hope that an Obama Led US/UN troops wiping out the US populace is sure a weird Liberal fantasy. Although you want it to happen, I sure don't.
I know a lot of Liberals, and they haven't voiced this position yet. One Toyboat is just a crazy Liberal. But more will make it a trend.
Posted by: brando at November 06, 2008 07:17 PM (7proa)
10
Well, I bought a rifle on the 5th of the month. It is actually a purchase I have been contemplating for some time but didn't have the money - the funds were available at the same time that I decided that if I was going to get one the sooner the better, and the auction was ending that day. It is a SMLE, an old design but with a stellar record for reliability, rate of fire, and reasonable accuracy - the queen of bolt-action battle rifles.
I am thinking of scenarios ranging from home defence to retaking a neighborhood from rioting thugs in the absence of effective government intervention (think Rodney King riots...), not shooting at government troops. Not really expecting any of these, but I was a Boy Scout once.
Posted by: Grey Fox at November 06, 2008 07:41 PM (xRy9W)
11
toyboat and any outher leftnut go rent the move Red Dawn and you will see exactly how it will play out
Posted by: Rich in KC at November 06, 2008 07:56 PM (siQqy)
12
Liberals hated Operation Red Dawn.
Posted by: brando at November 06, 2008 08:29 PM (7proa)
13
Besides Toyboat not 'getting it' is the fact that IF things go into depression era meltdown, the criminality that we can expect will be FAR beyond the 'norm' that was seen in the 1920-1930 era. The main reason de'etre for this is a self inflicted wound of removing religion from the public arena. Nowadays, because G*d and Religion have been expunged from the public view, the criminals nowadays have an exceptional visciousness that has never been seen before. I call it the "Columbine Generation." Many kids raised sans parents, sans G*d, and sans a solid moral background make for some true to life "Natural Born Killers." Even some of my bros in uniform over in Iraq stated that they felt 'nothing but recoil' when pulling the trigger... this means that if we face a depression style era like the 1929 crash and the subsequent follow up, we can expect a particularly vicious breed of criminal and well armed one for that matter, and may even have governmant training as well in a worst case scenario.
Posted by: Big Country at November 06, 2008 09:32 PM (hKGWC)
14
I think the whole UN takeover senario is a fantasy. The reality is that if Obama and the libs in Congress have their way, owning and possessing firearms and ammo is going to get difficult...and damned expensive. I've been to 2 gunshows and people were buying guns and ammo at a frenetic pace. Taxes on ammo (even 10 cents each) would discourage most people. People are buying powder, shot, shells and reloading equipment too. The deal will be: It ain't illegal, but we'll put enough taxes and regs on it to make it difficult. I figure that a year from now, I can sell a gun I buy today for much more than I paid for it. Ammo too. And if not, no problem, I like to shoot. I'm not worried about holding off the UN army. That's just BS.
Posted by: Tonto (USA) at November 06, 2008 10:15 PM (Qv1xF)
15
Well, CY: the good news is, that particular weapon is even more affordable at GunBroker.com.
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=115273513
Posted by: W-K-B at November 06, 2008 10:24 PM (gsmLO)
16
Gee, Gustav, that is so reassuring, especially since, apart from the first statement, I wasn't worried about those things to begin with and no one here has made a contrary statement.
As for your second suggestion, I might suggest that a good doctor and/or therapist might be able to cure your love of Obama. Wise and well balanced people don't fall for cults of personality as a general rule...
Posted by: Grey Fox at November 06, 2008 11:06 PM (xRy9W)
17
Toyboat really likes the Apache vs. Glock fantasy, I see. Lots of assumptions and ignorance inherent to said fantasy, though. As Mike Vanderboegh points out...
"...artillery and nuclear bombs are of limited utility to a government when the battlefield is its own cities, towns, transportation hubs and commercial centers. Then it becomes like Iraq, only far worse. It becomes a rat hunt where the rats outnumber you, and often, at the point of decision, beat you in the one thing that is most fundamental in an up-close infantry fight: rapid and deadly accurate rifle fire. Shouting Borg-like that "resistance is futile" may scare the faint-hearted, the weak-minded and certain children under the age of ten. It does NOT scare us."
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2007/05/guest-editorial-resistance-is-futile.html
Posted by: the pistolero at November 06, 2008 11:10 PM (QmK+E)
18
Toyboat is one of those who will give up their freedom willingly in order to remain safe for a little while longer. If anything really serious were to occur, all the toyboats in the world would become either irrelevant or informers.
But, as tonto said so well, taxing firearms so much that people willingly disarm is much more the current leftist strategy. Sounds like some reloading equipment is in my future. I can sell rounds to friends as well as keep myself well-supplied.
Posted by: iconoclast at November 07, 2008 01:09 AM (TzLpv)
19
"That's a quotable one. So according to Liberal logic, if you own a gun then you must be a "wingnut".(his words) No exceptions."
I guess that makes Joe Biden a "wingnut", too.
Whodathunkit?
Posted by: Nahanni at November 07, 2008 01:26 AM (S4wMM)
20
This afternoon I'm driving over to the Civilian Marksmanship Program facility at Anniston AL to look at their surplus M1 rifles.
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/obama_promises_to_stop_americas
They sell Garands in several grades and I want to judge which I should buy. Prices range from $499 to $1400. Also, they have 30 cal military ammunition for 24¢ a round in lots of 400.
Will let you know what I find. The Garands are semi automatics, but they are far from pop guns.
Posted by: arch at November 07, 2008 05:49 AM (5XVEI)
21
Sorry about the wrong link. Try
http://www.odcmp.com/
Arch
Posted by: arch at November 07, 2008 06:00 AM (5XVEI)
22
Seems toyboat has never heard of the tiny, crude but effective Liberty Pistol.
Posted by: Joe Mama at November 07, 2008 08:30 AM (Fw0e9)
23
Plenty of Liberals own guns including our local anti-gun activist and money-launderer CA President Pro-Tem Senator Don Perata who even has a concealed-carry permit - of course nobody else is allowed to have a CCW permit.
But on a Nationwide level: Waxman is coming. "Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., is challenging Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., for the chairmanship of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee." - So, Nancy Pelosi is going to toss the embarrassing four-rent-controlled-apartment John Dingell over, and with Waxman you get the ultimate left wing West Coast uber-liberal.
If Waxman wins expect the Consumer Products Safety Commission to have jurisdiction over firearms.
If Waxman wins, expect a gun show ban - if Waxman wins, expect a gun control orgy.
Barack didn't spend all that time cooking up and paying-for anti-gun judicial reviews at the Joyce Foundation for nuthin'.
Oh yeh, absolutely NO (no-no-no!) correlation between the Down tanking and Obama, but absolute correlation between skyrocketing gun-sales and Obama...
Posted by: DirtCrashr at November 07, 2008 12:09 PM (VNM5w)
24
Where the hell were you people when Bush started tapping our phones and ok'd searching our houses without warrants? Ok'd arresting us without charges? Ok'd imprisoning us indefinitely without trials? Ok'd using secret (made up? who could know?)evidence and secret witnesses to convict us. Took away habeas corpus. Where were you when these laws got passed? You do know that because of what you all supported Bush doing that Obama will now be able to do the same, right?
Oh wait- I remember- you were criticizing liberals for being paranoid and wanting to help terrorists. Take a look at the PATRIOT act that most conservatives wholeheartedly supported.
I fully support the second ammendment, but, damn- conservatives sure loved the intrusion on our rights when Bush whispered it into their ear. I support Obama but I don't want him, Bush, or anyone else doing it. Now?...Now?...Now it's time to tool up?
You fools on the right did a great disservice to your country when you goosestepped for Bush and screamed at your fellow citizens because they disagreed. Now most on the right don't even like him. Thanks for helping to erode our freedoms. The difference between the right and liberals? You'd be all too happy to have us punished by Bush. We'd never support Obama punishing you for simply disagreeing.
Ask that clown Hannity, who actually had his job saved by the ACLU before he was on Fox.
Posted by: Isaac at November 08, 2008 04:50 AM (wa6OX)
25
Interesting trip to CMP mentioned above.
They have a new facility just north of I-20. Apparently, they get newly rebuilt rifles every tuesday, so wednesday is the day to be there. I'm very glad I went over in person rather than ordering online. One word of caution. I-20 goes to 6 lanes passing Taladega and everyone thinks they are on the speedway. If you're driving 70, you need to be on the shoulder.
They have three basic grades all safe to load and fire - rack, service and correct.
Rack grade rifles ($495) are pretty rough since most went through WWII and/or Korea. Barrels are worn; wood is mismatched and there is some pitting and considerable wear. If you are looking for a museum piece they are authentic. If you look carefully and use a gauge, you can find one that should shoot pretty well.
Service grades ($595) are in much better condition. The barrels have less wear. Most were built after 1952 and saw no major wartime abuse. You can buy one that has all Springfield or all H&R parts but the looks tend to vary quite a bit. If Congress starts making gun-ban noises, I'll drive back and select two service grades. It saves me $20 on FedEx and I won't have to take the luck of the draw.
Correct grade pieces ($950 to $975) are what I really want. They look new. In fact, they are exactly like the ones we used to field strip at Culver every morning. The wood is new birch or walnut and they have leather slings. Little to no wear. It would be safe to order a correct grade online.
Depending on the damage my wife and 6 grandchildren do this Christmas and how the IRS treats me, I will probably buy one correct grade or two service grades in January 2009.
Posted by: arch at November 08, 2008 07:46 AM (5XVEI)
26
There is no way any size military force UN or otherwise that can take on Millions of the American people and win. Hell how long were we in the tiny country of Nam, look at our present situation in Iraq! Gorilla warfare on home ground is a no brain'er, we win they loose.
There is no equal to fighting in your own territory. Simple! I have no desire to shoot any of my fellow Citizens in uniform or otherwise. Just don't mess with my Family, Home or my Guns! That WILL get you Shot!
Posted by: Askjel at November 13, 2008 12:22 AM (hCfl4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Blameshifters
My feeling about John McCain's candidacy are well known. I've never been a supporter, but simply felt he was a far better option than the man who eventually won.
Now that the campaign is over, however, some of McCain's staffers are seeking to blame others for the loss, instead of accepting defeat at the hands of an Obama campaign that was better focused, organized, and managed.
Michelle Malkin,
Hot Air and
Ace are just some of the blogs hunting down the anonymous McCain campaign sources so willing to blame someone else for their faliings. Red State has gone so far as to launch
Operation Leper to run down and publicly name those unwilling to accept that it was
their poor political skills and poorly run campaign that contributed to a campaign that never found its footing. So far they've named three McCain campaign staffers. I would not be surprised if there are a few more.
The people need to find another line of work.
John McCain's staff—no doubt including those leaking—ran an often unfocused campaign. If they want to start casting blame at those responsible, they better find a mirror first.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:12 AM
| Comments (37)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
These people need to remember that Sarah Palin is the only reason John McCain didn't get an even worse beatdown than he did. Those crowds of 20,000+ weren't coming to see McCain or Steve Schmidt. They were coming to see our very own rock star, Sarah Palin. Right now, "unnamed staffers" are a lot more expendable than Palin.
BTW, I'm from just up the road from you, over here in the Soviet Socialist Republic of Durham. 76% for The Obama this time, that officially makes us bluer than even Asheville or Chapel Hell. Argh.
Posted by: Moose at November 06, 2008 11:47 AM (mAhn3)
2
Conservatives take responsibility for their actions/inactions. Just another example of why I've called McCain, "McRino", from day one. He staffed his campaign with like-minded people but chose an actual Conservative for his VP. Then he forced a muzzle on that biggest asset - Palin.
McCain the veteran, POW, and war hero has always had my respect. McRino, the politician, never did. His campaign and staff have earned my scorn.
Posted by: Mark at November 06, 2008 12:17 PM (4od5C)
3
Where is John McCain?
Where is the oh-so-honorable John McCain?
He needs to get off his arse and go out and publicly and stongly condemn, contradict and refute these aspersions.
He always did it for Obama.
Posted by: Bohemian at November 06, 2008 12:58 PM (NLmWQ)
4
"Conservatives take responsibility for their actions/"
Oh, really?
How about the last 8 years?
Why don't you take all those guns and put them to good use like pointing them at each other.
Oh, wait. You are.
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAelevnty7!!@!
Posted by: Danny Guam at November 06, 2008 02:37 PM (1JA/S)
5
It's fun to watch the right continue their total obsession with enemies and eat themselves alive, while the rest of us dance in the streets.
Posted by: angryflower at November 06, 2008 02:49 PM (uMRcI)
6
As usual, the lefty-trolls come out when truth is spoken. Recently several lefty-trolls complained about a very few commenters here in other threads who "refuse to accept B(H)O as their President". I'd love for those fabulous individuals to tell me if President Bush was EVER "their President".
TRUE Conservatives take responsibility for their actions. These 'campaign workers' blaming Palin for the campaign's shortcomings fail to understand the following question/answer. If Palin was "thoroughly vetted" by the campaign (several 'campaign workers' now claim she is one of the big reasons he lost), why did McRino offer her the position? Obviously, they didn't properly do their job(s) in the first place. Now they are attempting to lay the blame for THEIR failures at feet of the only reason McRino actually had a ghost of a chance.
Despicable.
I reiterate; Palin was the only reason McRino had a ghost of a chance.
Posted by: Mark at November 06, 2008 03:01 PM (4od5C)
7
I knew this was gonna happen.
It's dead obvious these staffers are the ones to blame for the poorly run campaign. The McCain campaign sucked monkey balls and everyday when I would read the news I would cringe inside because I knew McCain & Palin were going to lose because of it. It wasn't John McCain or Sarah Palin that lost this election, it was the people running the campaign, and I wanna know the names of ALL the rats squealing now so I know who to watch out for in the future.
Posted by: scarlett at November 06, 2008 03:47 PM (1Rl0B)
8
Right now, "unnamed staffers" are a lot more expendable than Palin.
I hope to hell the people in charge of the GOP agree...because if they don't, we're probably going to find out just how much worse things can really get.
Posted by: the pistolero at November 06, 2008 05:34 PM (QmK+E)
9
The lefty trolls are too stupid to know the same thugs and tax collectors that came with Hussein O will come after them to. I'll enjoy watching them make fools of themselves for a few months and then start whining when reality catches up with them. Meanwhile buy guns and lots of ammo to protect yourself and your family. Know your neighbors, if they are lefties don't turn a hand to protect them. It won't take the criminal element more than a few days to figure out where they can rob without fear, and they'll stay away from homes where people are well armed.
I'll buy several cases of Ammo myself. Have several weapons already from a personal carry 38 to long range high powered rifles. Hussein's first move (already planned) is to jack the tax so high on ammo you can't afford to buy it. Get a reloading kit and plenty of supplies. Not a problem to store and easy to use.
Posted by: Scrapiron at November 06, 2008 06:35 PM (GAf+S)
10
I'd like to ask these blameshifters some questions: Who else could McCain have picked that would have been better?
Romney? The MoveOnMedia would have had a field day with the disagreements between the two (and it's worth noting that, of course, they've not said a word about Biden's criticism of Barack Anti-Military Obama).
Pawlenty? Just as unknown as Palin was, but a lackluster speaker without anywhere near the real record of real reforms that Palin has.
Huckabee? Kiss the fiscal conservatives goodbye.
Lieberman? You want Obama to win 49 of the 57 (or 5

states?
Jindal? Not much more experience as a Governor than Palin (maybe even less, haven't looked at the exact dates each took office), and he was in the middle of a real scandal with his state government raises.
Once you take a good, long, hard look at the alternatives, Palin suddenly doesn't look so bad.
And another point that's been brought out by other commentators... McCain picked her. Doesn't that reflect more negatively on McCain than it does Palin, even though she accepted?
Posted by: C-C-G at November 06, 2008 07:07 PM (PnuiE)
11
On the other hand, I think we can expect to see some mea-culping from MSM on McCain/Palin, aimed to appear neutral again (just in case people would buy it):
http://drslogan.wordpress.com/2008/11/06/media-mea-culpa-and-other-predictions/
Posted by: Jeff Tyler at November 06, 2008 07:18 PM (iaV9O)
12
The mandate that Obama received (and yes is was a mandate) came mainly because Americans rejected the dumbing down of our nation.
Many just wanted a President that could speak with subject noun agreement. The belief that intellect was somehow "elitist" was rejected.
The is a reason that Statistics demonstrate those voting for the GOP have a lower education.
This election demonstrated that the "left" is now the center.
The fact that so many still embrace Palin is proof in point.
A simple question..how many here volunteered actual time (canvassing or phone banking) for any candidate of your choice?...dDidn't think so.
Folks willing to put in the time allowed Obama to take Florida, Virgina, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada. It also made possible for Dem gains in the Senate and House.
Millions took time out because we felt it was that important. Dems lost in 2004 because we were against Bush and not for Kerry. If Palin is your hope in 2012...cool.
"Goddam well I declare,
have you seen the light.
Their walls are built with
cannonballs,
their motto
is Don't tread on me."..Robert Hunter
jist speculatin'
Posted by: nogomore at November 06, 2008 07:46 PM (JL9w0)
13
nogo, did you know that Obama received fewer votes than Bush did in 2004?
If that wasn't a mandate for Bush, how can it be a mandate for Obama, who received fewer votes?
As for the rest of your screed, it's no more correct than what I just pointed out. Check out any video or audio of Obama off the teleprompter. He calls an asthma inhalator a breathalyzer, says he's been in 57 states, etc.
Posted by: C-C-G at November 06, 2008 07:53 PM (PnuiE)
14
I think that I have a plan for the future.
The Republican future.
Posted by: Two Dogs at November 08, 2008 02:13 AM (6qN3R)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 05, 2008
Bitter, Clingy, and Discounted
Fearing a gun-grabbing President-Elect and Congress, Ruger is issuing an "Inaugural Special" on Mini-14 magazines.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
04:52 PM
| Comments (29)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
CY: Congratulations! Your blog is one of my "must reads", and you've done some terrific original investigative work. Please keep up the great work.
Posted by: Paco at November 05, 2008 05:37 PM (QIA+4)
2
Thanks for the heads-up. I don't have a Ranch Rifle right now, but I just ordered several spare high-capacity mags based on my recollections of 1994. One wonders just how soon it will be before a number of firearms manufacturers and vendors will be running specials in a similar vein.
Posted by: Michael at November 05, 2008 08:54 PM (goPYP)
3
I just want to raise my son with values and moral aspects. I am concerned that the world is more about making things equal, than it is about teaching to strive harder for the material things. Working for mediocrity is only middle. We should strive to be the upper echelon.
Posted by: CliffTex1016 at November 06, 2008 12:31 AM (fNbQW)
4
Wow CliffTex. What would Jesus say to your idea that the world should striver harder for material things rather than working toward equality?
Posted by: Smarty at November 06, 2008 02:28 AM (cplqV)
5
"We should strive to be the upper echelon" ???
Upper echelon = elite
But aren't you right-wingers always banging on about the elite, and how bad they are?
What gives?
Posted by: Suilamhain the Observant at November 06, 2008 07:11 AM (VRb5p)
6
Hmmmmm .... Trolls!
It's what's for dinner!
Posted by: Dan Irving at November 06, 2008 09:16 AM (zw8QA)
7
Right Dan, I especially like how Shoolawan the Obfuscative had to redefine upper echelon in order to deliver his crushing blow with the Hammer of Hypocrisy™. Be careful what you wish for, troll, your scheme collapses if the upper echelon slides back into your mediocrity of non-achievement.
And Smarty: Jesus wants everyone to try their best, not wait around to have their gas and mortgage bills paid. It's the moochers who have failed to live up to their responsibilities. The only equality Jesus is interested in is when everyone finally gets up off their asses and fulfills their duties to earn their place in Heaven. Jesus' sacrifice merely opened the Gate. He can't make the moochers and the looters walk through it.
Posted by: GISAP at November 06, 2008 10:19 AM (g5kuC)
8
ah..The SCOTUS ruled this summer on our right for guns. Neither the President nor Congress can change that. If you are buying guns, please support the small business owner in your neighborhood selling them. Also, if you have children..please be responsible enough to use trigger locks.
Posted by: nogomore at November 06, 2008 07:53 PM (JL9w0)
9
That post really made me chuckle. And I like what nogomore posted. Guns can be handy tools but make sure to keep the kids safe. I think firm instruction and repeated safety lessons make more sense than locks. That's the way I learned. An unloaded and locked up gun is like a lawn mower with no gas....pretty useless.
Posted by: Tonto (USA) at November 06, 2008 10:40 PM (Qv1xF)
10
Watch for Obama, Pelosi, Reid etc to raise taxes and regulate sales and licenses(and raise fees on them too.....way up)to make things as difficult as possible for gun owners and sellers and gun owner wannabes. Watch for a resurgence of all the crap the NRA fought through for the last 20 years for us too. Join the NRA. Keep clinging to your Bible and your gun, the light at the end of the tunnel has been extinguished only temporarily.
Posted by: Tonto (USA) at November 06, 2008 10:48 PM (Qv1xF)
11
Thanks for the info and the link. Husband thinks I really do love him now that I told him about it and let him buy four (4!). He's a happy hubby now!
Posted by: P-3W at November 07, 2008 04:09 PM (wvIgD)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 102 >>
Processing 0.05, elapsed 0.5585 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.5307 seconds, 396 records returned.
Page size 318 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.