Confederate Yankee
September 19, 2008
And?
Some of the defenders of Scott Beauchamp's trio of fables in the New Republic simply can't let go of the fact that his stories were poorly written fiction. There's always been an odd attachment by some of them to justify his lies, almost as if his stories of minor atrocities were dismissed, then no atrocity claims would ever be taken seriously again.
Today, several left wing blogs have
latched on to a story than has been simmering for months, the trial resulting from the execution of prisoners by members of Beauchamp's battalion between mid-March and mid-April of 2007 near Baghdad. They are trying to use that story to somehow resurrect Beauchamp's credibility.
"See? This guys in Beauchamp's battalion committed atrocities, so his stories must
have been real!"
Uh, no.
During the debunking of Spencer Ackerman's cartoonishly bad "
Notes on a Scandal" roughly a month ago, I compared the military investigation into Beauchamp's lies to that very same far more serious and still developing homicide investigation to make a point:
Ackerman’s biggest point of contention that Beauchamp's stories may be true are the claims that five soldiers contacted the New Republic to vouch for the accuracy of the claims made in the article — but that none of the soldiers were willing to go on the record in the magazine for fear of retaliation by the Army. Ackerman himself presents no evidence that he spoke to a single one of these soldiers, so we don't know if that claim has any merit, but I did get in touch with an officer yesterday involved in the saga who referred to claims of fears of retaliation as "a bald-faced lie."
The claims made in "Shock Troops" — insulting a burned woman, wearing bones as a hat, running over dogs — are barbaric, but at best are minimal crimes if true. Punishment for even those soldiers involved in acts such as those Beauchamp described would be administrative punishments carried out at the base, while those who would have witnessed such acts would face no penalty for reporting them. Lying on a sworn statement, however, is far more serious, and could potentially result in a court martial and prison time. Does anyone seriously want to argue that 22 men would risk their careers and freedom to lie for Scott Beauchamp, a soldier who had gone AWOL on several occasions and who many of these men did not trust?
In addition, whistleblower laws protect witnesses of crimes, whether minor cases of cruelty as reported by Beauchamp, or murder, and we need look no further than Beauchamp's own brigade for evidence proving this.
An Article 32 hearing for Staff Sgt. Jess Cunningham, Sgt. Charles Quigley, Spc. Stephen Ribordy, and Spc. Belmor Ramos will begin next week to determine whether these four soldiers in Beauchamp's battalion executed Iraqi prisoners.
It was other soldiers in Beauchamp's battalion that stepped forward and reported the far more serious crimes of executing captives. It is highly improbable that soldiers trained to do their duty would report their fellow soldiers for serious crimes, while men in the same battalion, presumably with the same training, would participate in a cover-up of far more minor violations, fearing non-existent reprisals, and risking their careers by participating in a cover-up to do so. The argument made by Beauchamp, swallowed so easily be Ackerman, is absurd.
The one particular detail of the murder investigation that has the left so suddenly feisty is that one of the soldiers facing charges (added as a defendent in the 1 1/2 months that has passed since the story cited was written) is SFC John E. Hatley, a soldier that has been cited for an
email he wrote to milblogger SFC Cheryl MacElroy (RET).
Vietnam war historian Keith Nolan wrote this afternoon seeking my reaction to this development as he recalled I mentioned Hatley's email, and this is what I told him:
Mr Nolan,
Yes sir, I did quote from and refer to an email between SFC Cheryl McElroy and a SFC Hatley. I've contacted McElroy to see if she can contact the Sgt she emailed and determine it is the same Hatley. If it is the same Hatley, it would certainly destroys his credibility if he is judged to be guilty of such crimes.
What interests me is that Hatley isn't mentioned among the accused at all in this earlier article. I wonder what changed since late July.
As for how that impacts the overall case against Beauchamp? It doesn't.
It was still against SOP (not to mention suicidal) to change a HMMWV tire while on urban patrol in his area, and doubtful that a run-flat equipped vehicle would stop anyway.
There are still no such thing as a square-backed bullet in modern firearms, and Glocks are still among the most popular handguns in Iraqi culture, despite Beauchamp's claim that only Iraqi Police carry them.
There is still no burned female contractor. She simply never existed. I have an independent civilian contractor at that Kuwaiti base and military officers on the record supporting that.
Bradleys and other tracked vehicles still cannot maneuver as he described, and that comes straight from the company that manufactures them.
As for the most plausible story he told, that of someone abusing human remains, I've got two dozen signed affidavits in my hands (well, photocopied onto a CD) that makes the all sorts of slightly different claims you would expect regarding several bones found at a COP under construction, but not a single one of a guy wearing a rotting skullplate with flesh attached for part of the day and night.
Hatley's account was a supporting anecdote I relayed, but it played no significant role in my investigation or conclusions.
Hatley may very well prove to be guilty of murder and of lying in a email about how all of his soldiers are "consistently honorable."
But Hatley's guilt or innocence in a separate matter is of little more than a footnote in Beauchamp's stories, all three works of fiction that editor Franklin Foer finally decided that even he couldn't support.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:29 PM
| Comments (48)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Mr. Owens, many thanks for addressing my question regarding further developments in the Scott Beauchamp story. The biggest development, of course, is that Beauchamp's first sergeant (who responded to the running-over-of-dogs stories by attacking Beauchamp's character, and proclaiming that none of his soldiers would act in so unprofessional a manner) is now being court-martialled for the execution of four hand-cuffed Iraqi detainees.
This development has got to be a little embarrassing to those who tend to view our GIs through rosy glasses, and who took such glee in verbally pounding a combat infantryman named Beauchamp because he wrote some stories about nasty stuff (running over dogs, etc.) that is absolutely commonplace in wars. (Speaking to Iraq/Afghanistan directly, you can go to YouTube and find videos of a Marine throwing a puppy off a cliff, other videos of GIs shooting and mocking wounded dogs, lobbing CS grenades into a goat-tender's herd, harassing Iraqi children, etc.)
I guess I never understood the Beauchamp pile-on. None of us knows the man, his unit, or anything about their area of operations. None of us really know what did or did not happen. The arguments against Beauchamp always seemed to be a matter of his stories defying what civilians believe to be common-sense about how the military operates. No vehicle commander would allow his driver to smash through civilian property, change tires in a combat zone, run over dogs, etc., etc., etc.
Except that combat zones breed their own kind of insanity in which common-sense is not always the norm. I mean, just think about the prisoner executions that took place in Beauchamp's unit: the accused are not young soldiers with immature personalities, but the unit's top NCOs, the very soldiers who should have known better.
In other words, at first glance, it seems impossible that Beauchamp's first sergeant--the top-kick of the whole company--would personally be blowing prisoner brains out with his M16.
But, apparently, he did. At least, according to the U.S. Army.
See what I'm getting at? It makes no sense to run over dogs and smash up civilian property. It also makes no sense for a first sergeant to shoot prisoners--yet it happened.
American GIs perform all kinds of heroic, and compassionate, acts under fire. We have great troops, for which we should be proud and thankful. But the military metes out violence, and attracts alpha males who believe in action over words.... and things tend to get crazy sometimes.
Remember the drug problems that plagued the military in the final dog days of the Vietnam War? I know veterans of the 1970-72 who did crazy stuff like snort smack before going out on combat missions. Potentially suicidal? Sure. Real? You bet. Hell, one guy showed me an old 8mm home movie of his squad snorting and smoking heroin before moving out on their M113 Armored Cavalry Assault Vehicles.
Guys under stress do all kinds of crazy things. Won't run over dogs? Think again. A first sergeant who lies about the professionalism of his troops, and goes on to personally shoot prisoners? Believe it.
Thanks Again,
Keith Nolan
Posted by: KeithNolan at September 19, 2008 10:38 PM (2iAhy)
2
The backlash wasn't about Beauchamp revealing soldiers were capable of atrocities--I think a little thing called Abu Ghraib pretty much let that cat out of the bag--the problem with Beauchamp's stories was that so many key elements of his stories were so obviously contrived.
He couldn't provide any support for any of his three stories, and three of the five scenarios in those three stories were proven false.
I'll direct you again to this post's lede:
Some of the defenders of Scott Beauchamp's trio of fables in the New Republic simply can't let go of the fact that his stories were poorly written fiction. There's always been an odd attachment by some of them to justify his lies, almost as if his stories of minor atrocities were dismissed, then no atrocity claims would ever be taken seriously again.
Hatley was a relatively minor character and his email was not key in debunking any of the claims.
Yet again, the most fascinating aspect of the saga is the complete inability of some to admit they were so invested in a lie that they seek any excuse at all to keep hope alive that he was telling the truth.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 19, 2008 11:22 PM (HcgFD)
3
No, the most fascinating element was the wig out over Beauchamp' stories and the man hours spent disscecting it.
Now it comes out, in the past few months that members of the unit, including one that impugned Beauchamp's character actually committed murder. THAT should be the big story and a bit of humble pie for you all. However, I see that it isn't.
Instead it's still the retread of Beauchamp's stories.
You really need to ask yourself why you can't conceive of a unit that murders unarmed men would have trouble running over a dog or making fun of a burned woman.
Armchair warriors are too funny. My husband makes macabre jokes about his "confirmed kill" in Vietnam being some poor farmer's water buffalo. This stuff happens.
When murder happens, THAT should be the story that the untold man hours are spent on. You don't see this I know, but here you are still banging away at Beauchamp.
Hatley is NOT a footnote, Beauchamp is. For Pete's sake, what is wrong with you? Where are your priorities? Murder trumps all, does it not? Even in war.
Posted by: capelza at September 20, 2008 12:25 AM (y8g5P)
4
Capelza: nice not to be alone here, as I usually am at right-wing blogs!
Thanks,
Keith Nolan
Posted by: KeithNolan at September 20, 2008 01:18 AM (2iAhy)
5
Mr. Owens, for what it's worth, I have absolutely no personal investment in the Scott Beauchamp story. I don't know a damn thing about the man or his unit. My gut feeling is that Beauchamp took some real incidents, and dressed them up a bit for publication.... but that's only a gut feeling.
The fact remains that the only people who know what happened in Scott Beauchamp's unit are the people in that unit--and the military investigators who pinned down the story of four detainees being executed by the unit's top sergeant.
No one did any real reporting into the Beauchamp story.... and I guess no real reporting will take place until Beauchamp's compadres are out of the army (that is, beyond the reach of military justice), and interviewed en masse by a level-headed reporter with no ax to grind.
Maybe Beauchamp was a fabulist. Maybe not. Maybe he was something in between. Neither you nor I know, nor did any of the thundering right-wing bloggers who were calling for combat infantryman Beauchamp to be fragged.
Support the troops indeed.... until the troops say something that isn't a GOP Talking Point. Then smearing the troops is the name of the game. See: the Bonus Marchers, the Winter Soldiers of Vietnam, the Winter Soldiers of Iraq, etc.
Goodnight,
Keith Nolan
Posted by: KeithNolan at September 20, 2008 01:31 AM (2iAhy)
6
Keith,
You are not making a reasonable argument. Executing prisoners is not the same type of behavior as the Shock Troops actions. If STB was describing prisoner abuse, the executions would show some pattern of behavior. Shock troops stuff was high school pranks with macabre styling. The general concept is not unbelievable, its the particulars that seem bizarre. Not only that, but there is nothing that proves that STB was telling the truth. Even with what we know about My Lai, if someone said they had used nerve gas there, we would need specific evidence. If atrocities are really that common, then report on a real one.
Also, there is no smear of STB going on beyond arguing that he was not telling the truth. You are making a case of bad journalism into some kind of crusade for whistle-blowing soldiers. Seriously, if TNR simply posted a retraction back in the day, this story would not really be discussed. Isn't getting the truth about this story important?
Perhaps you don't believe so. The Winter Soldier hearings were plagued by fraud, with some soldiers never having been to Vietnam or having never been in combat. Yet you cite them as part of some brave minority that is silenced. Do we have to take every anti-war or anti-government story as an article of faith?
Posted by: OmegaPaladin at September 20, 2008 02:15 AM (IWZML)
7
For what it's worth, OmegaPaladin, I've done tons of research into the original Vietnam Winter Soldiers. Far from being frauds, I was able to verify many of their credentials as real vets, and was able to either personally corroborate their stories, or found contemporary news accounts, and official publications, that confirmed their stories.
For example, the official, multi-volume USMC history of the Vietnam War confirms numerous Winter Soldier stories, including several atrocities, the murder of a company commander, and media-censored cross-border raid into Laos by the 9th Marines in '69.
Won't bore you with reams of details (nor post the atrocity photos I uncovered from other veterans which spoke to the events discussed by the Winter Soldiers), but, suffice to say, I personally believe that the smearing of the Winter Soldiers as frauds and liars was one of the dirtiest tricks of the Nixon Administration.... and of the Swift Boat crowd during Campaign 2004.
Best,
Keith Nolan
Posted by: KeithNolan at September 20, 2008 03:07 AM (2iAhy)
8
No "real reporting," Mr. Nolan?
I personally interviewed the lead investigating officer in this case, personnel at 3 different bases including the two in Iraq and Kuwait where incidents were alleged to have occurred, the company that manufactures the Bradley IFV (to see if it can move the way Beauchamp claimed) and a civilian contractor that served at the base where the burned woman never existed in Kuwait. I even exchanged multiple emails with his wife, Elspeth Reeve.
I obtained and studied dozens of documents related to the official investigation via FOIA, and discovered that Beauchamp even backdated one if his own statements to CYA, but wasn't very bright, because he directly referenced the previous statement.
Scott Beauchamp was and is a fabulist in his stories.
Or Mr. Nolan, are you gong to claim special knowledge of unique square-backed bullets that only you and Mr. Beauchamp know exist?
Or do you know more about Glock handguns and their distribution in Iraq than those who have actually been to Iraq?
Or are you going to claim that you know more about the way Bradley IFVs can move than the company that designs, tests, and builds them, or can identify the mystery woman no one else saw, or can name?
You prove that don't know anything about the reporting of this story, admit that "I don't know a damn thing about the man or his unit" and that you're commentary is based on "only a gut feeling," and rahter clearly disclose that your primary reason for complaint is that your "gut" tells you that this is about "GOP Talking Points."
You should have stopped there.
Capelza,
You state, "You really need to ask yourself why you can't conceive of a unit that murders unarmed men would have trouble running over a dog or making fun of a burned woman."
Who said that I couldn't?
I've been quite well aware of the executions, and wrote about them a month ahead of the left-wing blogs, who are only lately coming to the story. I've just got enough sense to know that the actions of soldiers in Co. D (where the executions took place) wouldn't necessarily have any direct ties to the actions of Co. A (Beauchamp's unit), and that neither case is related to each other.
What you and Nolan and others can't seem to grasp is that because one group may have committed murder, it doesn't change the facts of Beauchamp's fiction.
As noted time and again, the burned woman does not exist and never did. She is a fictional construct, what Major Russo and LTC. Sams in Kuwait said was a myth or urban legend. I spoke with (and still keep in close contact) with a civilian logistics expert that was stationed there as well. He also denies her existence.
Of course, none of Beauchamp's defenders want to admit the other obvious falacy, which was that Beauchamp's anecdote about her was supposed to reveal the callousness of men who had been in combat, but the event he described wold have happened before he'd ever seen combat. Oopsie.
Bradley IFVs cannot be made to move the way Beauchamp describes. Literally dozens of veteran tracked vehicle commanders and drivers came forward to dispute that, but perhaps most tellingly, so did Doug Coffey, of BAE, the company that manufactures the Bradley.
There are no square-backed bullets or cartridges in any weapons system know to man. Such an inherent design flaw would lean to constant jamming due to failures to feed and chamber a round.
Glocks are wild distributed and coveted in Iraq another lie he told exploded by none other than the NY Times.
Hatley is indeed just a "footnote" in Beauchamp's story.
Sadly, he is also alleged to be a murderer in his own, far darker story, one you should note that I am not disputing because this isn't about talking points, no matter how often you try to convince yourself that it is.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 20, 2008 06:42 AM (HcgFD)
9
"Maybe Beauchamp was a fabulist. Maybe not."--KeithNolan
That's one heck of a euphemism, and you even hedge that.
Posted by: brando at September 20, 2008 09:06 AM (UB1+D)
10
I'm no fabulist, I am, however fabulous. Just ask the German ladies that dig me....
Posted by: Scott Thomas at September 20, 2008 09:40 AM (oN769)
11
No insult intended, Mr. Owens. I just don't think "real reporting" can be done when guys are in fear of getting Article 15s and court-martials, and are being talked to long-distance by somebody they don't know.
Getting service personnel to admit to misdeeds is no easy task, by the way. Over the years, I've interviewed dozens upon dozens of Vietnam veterans who, mindful of their reputations and that of the units in which they were proud to serve, insisted that they and their comrades adhered precisely to the letter of military law.... only to bump into the odd character who blew all those interviews apart by breaking out old photos of hootches being burned, villagers beaten, and heads being chopped from dead VC.
Again, I have nothing invested in the not-so-exciting saga of Scott Beauchamp, and have no idea if he was telling the truth, lies, or something in between.
I'm curious: did any GI with whom you made contact admit to ANY misdeeds?
You know, instead of just beating Scott Beauchamp about the head and shoulders (and, as indicated above by OmegaPaladin, his stories just aren't that interesting or shocking), maybe you should write a detailed account of his unit's time in Iraq, with commentary on leadership, morale, mission, good deeds, bad deeds, etc.
Best Wishes,
Keith Nolan
Posted by: KeithNolan at September 20, 2008 10:13 AM (2iAhy)
12
Correct me if I'm wrong: this is an investigation, not a verdict. Or does innocent until proven guilty only apply to terrorists like Obama buddies Dohrn and Ayers, or treasonous @ssholes like John "I went to Paris to kiss VC @ss" Kerry?
Posted by: SDN at September 20, 2008 10:49 AM (jjZ8y)
13
Keith:
The fact remains that the only people who know what happened in Scott Beauchamp's unit are the people in that unit--and the military investigators who pinned down the story of four detainees being executed by the unit's top sergeant.
Also Keith:
For what it's worth, OmegaPaladin, I've done tons of research into the original Vietnam Winter Soldiers. Far from being frauds, I was able to verify many of their credentials as real vets, and was able to either personally corroborate their stories, or found contemporary news accounts, and official publications, that confirmed their stories.
So, Keith knows what happened in Vietnam, despite his not having been there and despite it having been 35+ years ago, and yet no one can know, but those in Beauchamp's unit, what happened contemporaneously in Iraq, despite having done their own research, interviews and investigation. Is that about right, Keith?
Posted by: Pablo at September 20, 2008 10:54 AM (yTndK)
14
I've been quite well aware of the executions, and wrote about them a month ahead of the left-wing blogs, who are only lately coming to the story. I've just got enough sense to know that the actions of soldiers in Co. D (where the executions took place) wouldn't necessarily have any direct ties to the actions of Co. A (Beauchamp's unit), and that neither case is related to each other.
It all happened in the Army, Bob, which as we know is chock full of dead end killbots who would probably be in jail if they weren't off killing brown people for Bu$hco. It's just one big unit of babykillers, whom, by the way, we support when it's politically expedient to do so.
Posted by: Pablo at September 20, 2008 11:00 AM (yTndK)
15
"I've interviewed dozens upon dozens of Vietnam veterans who, mindful of their reputations and that of the units in which they were proud to serve, insisted that they and their comrades adhered precisely to the letter of military law.... only to bump into the odd character who blew all those interviews apart by breaking out old photos of hootches being burned, villagers beaten, and heads being chopped from dead VC."
Keith - As CY has repeatedly pointed out, we are not talking about the types of violations of the UCMJ you describe in your comment regarding Beauchamp, making your comparison ludicrous on its face. The punishments for participants with in any of the activities would be mostly administrative. Why do you keep ignoring significant points like that and the physically impossible details of Beauchamp's stories raised by writers such as CY. It creates gaping holes in credibility for observers such as yourself.
Posted by: daleyrocks at September 20, 2008 12:21 PM (drWdT)
16
Let me get this straight, this far left wing fanatical nutjob Keith is trying to connect two completely separate events to prove that Beauchamp's proven lies were actually the truth? How sad and pathetic! Bob, why are you even responding to this obviously intellectually dishonest Keith character? He's lying and I'd bet, even though he's a far left wing fanatic knows he's lying.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at September 20, 2008 12:38 PM (kNqJV)
17
Okay, Capitalist Infidel, so I'm a "far left fanatical nutjob," who is both "pathetic" and "intellectually dishonest."
Wow! Do we know each other? I might mention that I voted for Reagan, Bush I, and Dole, and was geared up to vote for McCain in 2000 until ol' George W. somehow grabbed the nomination from him. My only anti-GOP crime is that I was never able to pull the lever for someone like George W.
This makes me left-wing?!
Please!
Your buddy,
Keith
Posted by: KeithNolan at September 20, 2008 01:22 PM (2iAhy)
18
Pablo, don't mind your insults, but don't think you have a grasp of what is involved in doing research into military subjects. (My apologies if your half-a-name hides one of the great journalists or writers of our time.)
Regarding Vietnam, yeah, when guys break out their old letters and diaries and photo albums and home movies, you get a pretty good drift of what "really happened."
Regarding Iraq, when guys are still in uniform and don't want to get caught up in the gears of the military-justice system, yeah, it's a little harder to get down to what "really happened."
When it comes to Beauchamp, I find it weird that he served in a unit so professional that no one would ever run over a dog, but shooting hand-cuffed detainees was considered acceptable. (And, no, I don't think the military is made up of mindless killbots, for pete's sake. I just think that humans are volatile and emotional creatures capable of anything under the right set of circumstances.)
Posted by: KeithNolan at September 20, 2008 01:38 PM (2iAhy)
19
Bwahahahahaha!!!! Everyone who believes "Keith" ever voted for a Republican please raise your hand........anybody?........didn't think so. Do these nutjobs think they are fooling anyone when they lie like that? What a sad and pathetic little man!
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at September 20, 2008 08:47 PM (kNqJV)
20
Mr. Nolan, have you ever driven a tracked vehicle? Does the phrase "thrown a track" mean anything to you?
Unlike a wheeled vehicle with run-flat tires, when you throw a track, you aren't going *anywhere* until you get the track back on the road wheels. Armored soldiers (I used to be one) don't like to throw track and don't really care for drivers that do it. You can't move, so you are a sitting target. You have to get outside of the armor to fix the track, so you a vulnerable to small arms fire. Bad juju.
I don't doubt that they ran over dogs that ran in front of the vehicle. I do doubt that they would try to swing the ass end of the vehicle as they are driving by in an attempt to swipe the dog.
Maybe the leadership of that outfit was more lax than I can imagine; I'd expect a high causality rate from them if that were so.
Posted by: Mark A. Flacy at September 20, 2008 11:50 PM (aumNn)
21
Mark, facts don't mean anything to left wing fanatics like Mr. Nolan. You're fighting a losing battle. The only thing that matters to them is their viciously anti-military ideology.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at September 21, 2008 08:30 AM (kNqJV)
22
Regarding Iraq, when guys are still in uniform and don't want to get caught up in the gears of the military-justice system, yeah, it's a little harder to get down to what "really happened."
As has been noted, the only reason there's a story in the new allegations is because guys who are still in uniform called for the gears of the military justice system to turn. As for Beauchamp, the violations alleged would be relatively minor and the military justice system hasn't batted an eye at any of it.
Your argument was that "The fact remains that the only people who know what happened in Scott Beauchamp's unit are the people in that unit--and the military investigators who pinned down the story of four detainees being executed by the unit's top sergeant." This is false. Much of what did happen, and more importantly, what didn't happen is knowable and documented. You're assertion that fear of reprisal has hidden the deep dark truth of burnt women and square bullets is, frankly, ridiculous.
BTW, I have not insulted you, Keith. Yet. So, you shouldn't mind.
Posted by: Pablo at September 21, 2008 11:39 AM (yTndK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Are We Fighting a Holy War?
(h/t
Instapundit)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:29 PM
| Comments (31)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
When you consider that all the prayers cited were given in major presidential addresses, I think Gov. Palin did a darn fine job in a mostly impromptu prayer at her local church. I will never forgive Charles Gibson not only for his condescending arrogance, but also for purposely leaving some good parts of the interview on the cutting room floor. That's despicable; he has permanently sullied his reputation.
Posted by: marybel at September 19, 2008 07:31 PM (e+2Jh)
2
Very dishonest of Gibson, suggests that the quotes were assertions or statements of fact by Palin, when they were parts of clauses, the grammar making all the difference in the world -- "pray that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan" is much different than "that plan is God's plan." Just shameful of Gibson.
Posted by: ER at September 19, 2008 08:29 PM (C9+q9)
3
Gibson is finished. We're seeing an entire class of people whoring themselves into extinction. It's beginning to play out like a kind of post-modern Grimm's fairy tale
Posted by: rrpjr at September 19, 2008 09:55 PM (uf8br)
4
Hello from Fort Smith Arkansas, the current immigrant capital of the nation.
It may be of interest that there are people going around here registering people to vote who are NOT U.S. Citizens. AND, they're telling them to vote for Barak Hussein Obama.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. Don't you have to be a U.S. Citizen to vote?
They're registering both legal "green card" holders and illegals.
I have a friend in Oklahoma who told me they're doing this outside the Tyson factory in Heavener, OK also and reportedly telling them that only Obama will ever let them stay here.
Posted by: Ansersen at September 19, 2008 11:58 PM (sf8ri)
5
I used to cut Gibson some slack but no more, I grew up in the 40’s
and thank God every day for that. I really feel sorry for my 18 year
old Grandson!!!
Posted by: Gator at September 20, 2008 09:05 AM (uaTZE)
6
Gator, it is sad to see what the left has done to the political discourse in this country.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at September 20, 2008 12:57 PM (kNqJV)
7
Rather than defend her belief that we should ask for God's blessing in our endeavors, that God protect our troops and that we all pray for their safety, she should have called the phrase "holy war" into question.
Not that the resulting conversation would have been better than Palin's response, but c'mon, that's not a phrase anyone in the media would confront Obama with, is it?
It would be interesting to hear Obama's response though, considering he spent twenty years hearing about a "holy war" where God must favor black people or be killed Himself.
Posted by: DoorHold at September 21, 2008 11:28 AM (mlM1l)
8
Sarah Palin is excellent. May God richly bless her and keep her safe. She is gracious and firm in response to disgusting attacks. I love the way she calls him 'Charlie' and is so polite and respectful to a man who has joined the dark side. Her graciousness contrasts so markedly with his arrogance and the contempt he displays for her. What a great compilation in the video. It is a holy war against the insane Muslim Islamo fascists haters and their many times asserted aim to destroy Western democracies ( I include my threatened country of Australia )Christianity and Israel's very existence, freedom and democracy.
Posted by: Jennifer Parfenovics at September 24, 2008 04:52 PM (chy63)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Elon Poll: McCain/Palin Appeal Crushes Obama/Biden in NC
It is fair to call a 54-37 advantage "crushing,": isn't it?
Republican presidential candidate John McCain fared better than his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, when North Carolinians were asked about their opinions of the two candidates.
Fifty-four percent of people surveyed in an Elon University Poll view McCain favorably, compared to 37 percent who view Obama favorably.
Asked about the vice presidential candidates, Republican Sarah Palin was viewed favorably by 49 percent. The Democratic candidate, Joe Biden, was viewed favorably by 41 percent.
Gut reaction? North Carolina is about as much a battleground state as New York, just leaning the opposite way.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:57 AM
| Comments (23)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Y'arrrr, I be not so optimistic...It could be a lot closer; there be a lot of dumb, emotional landlubbers 'round here. Of course, I live in Orange, so maybe that's skewing my view a bit.
plus, there be lots of northerners moving into me neighborhood lately...
The American public, as such, is fickle and there are still many weeks to go before the election...
Posted by: HKpistole at September 19, 2008 12:39 PM (/j9KS)
2
What was the latest national poll to come out? Oh wait, Obama's up 5. The Palin bounce is over. You take North Carolina, we'll take the election.
Posted by: mj at September 19, 2008 01:01 PM (bIZLx)
3
like I said, dumb emotional landlubbers...
Posted by: HKpistole at September 19, 2008 03:21 PM (/j9KS)
4
And the moonbats come out...
Posted by: Conservative CBU at September 19, 2008 06:01 PM (M+Vfm)
5
According to CQ Politics, it is likely a McCain State, but I did see a poll today PPP, which has it 46-46.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_NC_92168.pdf
On CQ, see
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/polltracker/2008/09/latest-statebystate-general-el-59.html
#
North Carolina: McCain has a statistically insignificant 50 percent to 47 percent lead over Obama with 3 percent undecided in a [Rasmussen Reports poll] conducted Sept. 18. The margin of error is 4.5 percent. Republicans have carried this state in the last five elections. Republican Favored.
I think the Elon poll was what pollsters like to call an "outlier"--which means how did we screw this one up this badly.
Posted by: ted at September 22, 2008 04:12 PM (8s9tr)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Dreams From My Pastor
You can't have a mentoring relationship of over 20 years without some give and take and melding of ideas, and it looks like the reflexive tendency to stoke racial conspiracies that are a well-documented part of Reverend Jeremiah Wright's character have rooted and grown deeply in at least one member of his flock, Barack Obama.
This morning in the
Wall Street Journal, talk show host Rush Limbaugh
rightfully rips Barack Obama for a racially-charged Spanish-language campaign ad designed to bully Hispanic voters into the Democratic camp, using fear and distortions so great as to be outright lies:
I understand the rough and tumble of politics. But Barack Obama -- the supposedly postpartisan, postracial candidate of hope and change -- has gone where few modern candidates have gone before.
Mr. Obama's campaign is now trafficking in prejudice of its own making. And in doing so, it is playing with political dynamite. What kind of potential president would let his campaign knowingly extract two incomplete, out-of-context lines from two radio parodies and build a framework of hate around them in order to exploit racial tensions? The segregationists of the 1950s and 1960s were famous for such vile fear-mongering.
Limbaugh then shows that the Limbaugh "quotes" used by the Obama campaign came from several
parodies before concluding:
The malignant aspect of this is that Mr. Obama and his advisers know exactly what they are doing. They had to listen to both monologues or read the transcripts. They then had to pick the particular excerpts they used in order to create a commercial of distortions. Their hoped-for result is to inflame racial tensions. In doing this, Mr. Obama and his advisers have demonstrated a pernicious contempt for American society.
We've made much racial progress in this country. Any candidate who employs the tactics of the old segregationists is unworthy of the presidency.
"Any candidate who employs the tactics of the old segregationists is unworthy of the presidency."
Indeed, that should be automatic and reflexive disqualification in this day and age. For that matter, a candidate that goes a radical church based on a racist cult theology advocating the killing of God if God isn't sufficiently committed to one race above all others shouldn't be a factor in his party's nomination process, but Barack Obama, who was a member of a church espousing Black Liberation Theology for 20 years, is still here.
It is the height of hilarity this campaign season that the same media and blogosphere critics who are in hysterics over Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin belonging to a Assemblies of God church—the world's largest Pentecostal denomination—until six years ago when she joined a more traditional church, is utterly unconcerned that Barack Obama was a proud member of a church build upon the principles of Black Liberation Theology—a faith breach-birthed from the the radical politics of the Black Panthers and Malcolm X—until the inherent racism seeped out into YouTube of Jeremiah Wright's sermons.
But Jeremiah Wright's influence still remains in Barack Obama, as does the influence of long-time terrorist friends and fundraisers, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.
Perhaps Rush should consider himself lucky that he was merely the victim of racial slander, and not the target of a nail-studded pipe bomb.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:07 AM
| Comments (25)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
"Any candidate who employs the tactics of the old segregationists is unworthy of the presidency."
What did you expect from the party of Franklin Pierce, Stephen Douglas, Andrew Johnson, Bull Connor, Lester Maddox, Jim Folsom, George Wallace...
Posted by: William at September 19, 2008 09:21 AM (Vc5bU)
2
Whoa, way to go at the end. I've thought lately that, media fantasies aside, Team McCool has been too soft when discussing Ayers. Hannity always uses the long form address, "Unrepentent former terrorist William Ayers" which is accurate but a little clinical. How about "Weatherman/bomber"? Ayers IS a bomber, he just proved to be an incompetent one. The Chicago Mafia is fond of declaring that the Weathermen only intended property damage. The design specs of the bomb that thankfully blew up so much of the Weathermen organization puts the lie to that. It is astonishing that people are STILL ignorant of these facts. That cannot persist. McCain needs to go on serious offense with the unholy trinity of Wright/Rezko/Ayers. Of course this is just the Chicago contingent of Barry's anti-American biography. Another rich vein is in Hawaii. Why have no reporters gone to Indonesia to plumb the depths of Barrianna there? Too cold?
Posted by: megapotamus at September 19, 2008 09:26 AM (LF+qW)
3
mega, the Weathermen killed police officers and security guards, tried to firebomb a judges family to death, and plotted a mass murder that very well could have caused the highest number of casualties due to a terrorist attack on American soil prior to 9/11. Their intent to murder has been downplayed because of their lack of success and Obama's ties to Ayers.
Perhaps it is time for that to change.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 19, 2008 10:22 AM (zqzYV)
4
Barack has his own "nail-studded pipe bomb" and her name is Michelle. She just needs to go off, and again and again. She's so "cute" when she unconsciously explodes with the truth about the America Barack and she have in mind for us: truth squads, labor camps, reparations, submission to the United Nations....
Posted by: twolaneflash at September 19, 2008 10:59 AM (05dZx)
5
With any luck, Michelle and Barry will be run out on a rail and never be heard from again. And on Limbaugh, he's like a broken clock, right twice a day!
Posted by: southerngrace at September 19, 2008 02:41 PM (onpv8)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 18, 2008
Hacker Exposed. Guilty Party Remains Running For President
David Kernell, a 20-year-old University of Tennessee-Knoxville student and son of Tennessee state representative (D-Memphis), has been contacted by the Secret Service and FBI as part of a formal investigation into the hacking of the private email account of Alaska Governor and Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin.
We're sure to learn more about the case as it develops, but as it does, I think I'll largely echo
Vanderleun's advice to cut the kid a little slack.
Certainly, he is an adult and is presumably intelligent enough to know what he did was both illegal and immoral, but it appears that he may also be a victim himself, of sorts.
An entry on a blog alleged to be Kernell's speaks in the first person of having been institutionalized on several occasions for acute depression starting when he was just nine, and again when he was 14 or 15. In the tumultuous five years since his mid-teens until his current age of twenty, it would far from surprising to discover that this young man again needed inpatient medical care to deal with his personal demons. If he still is in such a state, I'll merely pray for him and hope that he can get the care that he needs.
What I am far less inclined to forgive is how we got to this point.
In less than a month, Sarah Palin has gone from the well-liked governor of a remote state to the most slurred and slandered politician in America today.
I'd like to be able to point a finger at an isolated source acting in bad faith as the culprit in the most vicious string of unfounded personal attacks I've seen against a politician and that politician's utterly blameless family in my lifetime. I'd like to be able to point my finger at Andrew Sullivan at
The Atlantic for all the vicious smears he has pushed as a political Perez Hilton (minus the charm and influence, of course). But Sully is just an angry boil; a sign of infection, wishing he could be the cause.
In the concerted effort to destroy Sarah Palin, her husband, and her children, we've seen the progressive blogosphere and professional media adopt the no-holds barred, street-fight viciousness of a community organizer fighting for scraps. The petty brutality has trickled down from the man they idolize, a man cool enough to befriend and use aging terrorists and racist ministers as they can help him, and callous enough to discard friendships decades old if it suits him, without a backward glance.
For all his eloquence behind a teleprompter, Barack Obama is still at heart a thug, and his disciples learned well from their master.
In Wasilla, Alaska, two Democratic National Committee "opposition researchers" are scouring the archives of the Palin's hometown paper for any hint of a scandal.
It will
never stop.
Until it stops working.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:37 PM
| Comments (46)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Putting aside the fact that the kid is a nutcase (medically), he'll get off just because he has a dad with a huge -D- behind his name.
It's not like the .gov is going to go after a big -D- like they would any -R-... because of the backlash from the unhinged.
Posted by: Kurt P at September 18, 2008 10:55 PM (wWMQq)
2
I suggest a change of headline. The headline as you wrote it makes it sound like you're claiming the Obama campaign is guilty of the hacking. Which, as far as any reports I've ever seen, they weren't. They had no connection to the hacker.
Your point about the politics of personal destruction and the climate they create is well-taken, but the headline makes it sound like you're alleging a direct connection between the Obama campaign and the hacker, and is just begging to be deliberately misunderstood.
Posted by: Robin Munn at September 18, 2008 10:57 PM (9madq)
3
There is a direct link between the State Legislator, his son and the Obama campaign.
Just like with all other Palin smear on the Daily Kos, Huffington Post, Move On, etc.
The Chicago taskforce of bloggers is run out of the campaign headquarters, this is a fact.
Barack is a thug, like Castro, like Mao, like Stalin.
Posted by: Carlos Echevarria at September 18, 2008 11:48 PM (CsNoJ)
4
http://carlosechevarria.blogspot.com/2008/09/exposedan-obama-hacker.html
Do not give this Obama thug a pass, he knew full well what he was doing because he even said he was looking for dirt, plus that the FBI would be coming for him.....his daddy is a Democratic hack.
HE NEEDS TO BE ARRESTED, LET HIM USE THE INSANITY PLEA, BUT HE IS A MENACE TO SOCIETY, just like Barry is a cancer....
Posted by: Carlos Echevarria at September 19, 2008 12:01 AM (CsNoJ)
5
No slack from me. The kid needs to do time in Club Fed. So do the people who put him up to it.
I'm tired of this $h!^.
Posted by: filbert at September 19, 2008 12:13 AM (MZFhi)
6
I have to agree with the rest. This is war, not polite debate. All Dems need to be destroyed before they destroy the USA. Do we possibly want to be ruled by the likes of Kwame Kilpatrick, Chris Dodd, or Charlie Wrangel? Murdering crooks and liars who would betray anyone and anything for their own despicable self-aggrandizement.
If you can't fight in the streets, you deserve to lose. One of the biggest weapons the fascist left has against the (classically) liberal West is our sense of honor and fairness. That sense works for us most of the time. But when faced with an existential threat, we need to change from normally decent people to unforgiving executioners.
This fool is not a victim no matter how pathetic he seems. Crucify him, his father, his political affiliations, and anyone even moderately associated with him. You are right that he is just a foot soldier for Obama and the "progressive" filth, but destroying foot soldiers is required to win a war. Give as much quarter as the Democrats would give--absolutely none.
Posted by: iconoclast at September 19, 2008 01:45 AM (AHcbR)
7
I agree with not cutting him any slack. He suffers from depression, not schizophrenia. I'm pretty sure that depression doesn't cause someone to be incapable of understanding right from wrong.
Posted by: Anna at September 19, 2008 02:07 AM (Gl1yS)
8
The "insanity defense" generally applies only in murder cases. A thief can't be be 'not guilty by reason of insanity' any more than you can get out of a parking ticket by 'pleading insanity'.
Posted by: ptg at September 19, 2008 07:35 AM (DMGlD)
9
This punk is a criminal. Prosecute him to the full extent of the law. Depression is not a license to commit felonies.
Not only did he hack in but then he published these emails. He is a left-wing political operative and needs to be treated like the knowing criminal he is.
It never ceases to amaze me how the left garners sympathy for all the felons who are on their side yet prosecutes conservatives heartlessly.
i.e. Enron people go to jail. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac people, run by Clinton cronnies who commited ten times the amount of fraud, money wise, get off with no jail.
Its time to send liberals to jail too.
Posted by: RA at September 19, 2008 07:39 AM (poJU6)
10
Democrats sure have learned a lot from Hitler and Fascism in general.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at September 19, 2008 07:55 AM (kNqJV)
11
That reminds me: On election day in November 2004 five fine upstanding Milwaukee liberals (including the sons of two prominent Democratic Party officials) slashed the tires of two dozen get-out-the-vote vehicles rented by the local Republican Party.
Posted by: pst314 at September 19, 2008 08:22 AM (OA547)
12
In the Iran-Iraq war, the Iranians sent children off to be 'martyrs' by having them march through minefields to set the mines off.
Obama campaign is doing the same thing with kids like this one.
Posted by: molon labe at September 19, 2008 08:50 AM (E1i8w)
13
While I am sympathetic to depression and people with mental demons, he did know what he was doing. As for Sarah, I actually think this only boostered her popularity. I already liked her. This just makes me more determined to vote for her...wishing it was Palin/McCain.
Posted by: Terri at September 19, 2008 09:44 AM (A+FOM)
14
This Obama thug (D-UT Knoxville) is not criminally insane. To be considered criminally insane, a perp can't exhibit manifest awareness that his actions are illegal or that there might be legal consequences for his actions. Merely by operating under the perceived cloak of anonymity to perform his (D-UT Knoxville) dirty trick, he (D-UT Knoxville) makes it obvious that he (D-UT Knoxville) was trying not to get caught.
You know, years ago, the Supreme Court got out its microscope and found a 'right to privacy' in the Constitution that was not only invisible to the naked eye, but also so sacred as to allow a woman to abort her unborn child. How much stronger, then, should the law's reaction be to this Obama thug's (D-UT Knoxville) violation of Governor Palin's privacy?
Posted by: U.T. Viles at September 19, 2008 09:59 AM (eGoEc)
15
I agree with one and all that are sympathetic to the kid, but if this was right the reverse, and it was a Conservative kid that had done this, the Left would be out to ruin the kid and his family.
To date we have heard nothing definitive from THE ONE MANCHILD COMMUNITY ORGANIZER about any of these attacks on Governor Palin, or her family. His "words, just words", ring hollow and sound much akin to his initial denouncements of Rev. J. Wright, Father Pflegger, Tony Rezko and all those like Raines and Johnson in his camp. Now I know those zombies on the Left are going to say he did come out against the media when he said children were off this list, but he did not scold the media for their actions and did not define those attacks on the Palin children as the vile, despicable attacks that they were and continue to be. And how easy for him to say stay off the kiddies when his are 9 and 6.
We have all read the stories about how he has released the hounds of the Dem 527s and if you think he is not okay with all this then you need to check yourself in somewhere where they give you a nicely pressed, with buckles, little white jacket. His "get in your neighbors face" mantra should serve as one indicator that he is going militant, and do not spare the innocent or running a clean campaign. He has even gone so far as to call John McCain dishonorable! I have called Senator McCain many a name, but dishonorable was not one of them. THE ONE MANCHILD COMMUNITY ORGANIZER is no longer pushing the envelope in decency, he has now gone totally postal in his race baiting statements, and not addressing the absolute outrageousness of incidences like this publishing of Governor Palin's emails, daughter's cell phone number, husband's personal info, Track's email address, (who is on his way to Iraq!), and all the personal pictures of the family. Sometimes silence speaks volumes, and "words, just words" are not necessary to know where a person stands.
And if you need "words, just words", all this racists doo-doo also reflects a deep misunderstanding of who those of us are that live between the parentheses. THE ONE MACHILD COMMUNITY ORGANIZER needs to sign up for a Dale Carnegie course, and read Frank Luntz's book about word usage. Dittos for his camp! The whole tone of this campaign has been to use "words, just words" to inflame kids like this, and others to sabotage, smear, or annihilate any GOP and in particular the McCain/Palin ticket and it does not matter how it gets done.
The DNC would be wise to back off and denounce these kinds of actions because I believe the Chicago style politics are not going to be something the American voters are going to cotton to.
Posted by: freeus at September 19, 2008 10:10 AM (zxRJP)
16
Heck I lived in Chicago for 25 years, and during the time that I used to live there, I never cottoned to the Chicago style politics. Conservatism is a dirty word in that town.
Chicago is a fun town, food, night life and such. However the politics suck.
I'm glad to be living in NC now.
Posted by: gfchicago at September 19, 2008 10:30 AM (cBFi2)
17
Sorry - I am not even remotely inclined to be forgiving. The reason this nonsense continues to happen is because we make excuses for "poor David" or "poor whoever" and don't insist that people start to take responsibility for their bad behavior. Dems already are blaming the victim for this unlawful act and even getting away with it! No. The nonsense stops here! Prosecute him and send him to jail very noisily and publicly. He has committed a crime and he knew he was doing it even as he was engaged in the act.
And while we're at it - let's start enforcing The Logan Act, starting with B. H. Obama's illegal negotiations with the Iraq prime minister!
Dems have been getting away with murder (in some cases literally) for years and it is high time for them to start being forced into accountability for their immoral, illegal, completely boneheaded and dangerous (to the nation) behavior!
We can start with young David.
Posted by: Gayle Miller at September 19, 2008 11:20 AM (zX5o+)
18
gfchicago, me too, I grew up in Chicago, from 1970 to 2005. Moved to Monroe North Carolina in September 2005
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at September 19, 2008 01:31 PM (kNqJV)
19
If the young man did it he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Cut him no slack and let everyone know it's against the law to hack into someone's personal and private email account. This goes for any conservative, liberal, republican or democrat. No one should be above the law. Leftards are the ones always screaming about privacy. Do leftards remind anyone else of the famed Stasi organization in East Germany? There were spies everywhere ready to turn each other in. This is what today's democrats remind me of, rats. They want to destroy anyone that gets in their way. This is a result of the Gore and Kerry loses. And I am quite confident that in the end McCain will win although it will be as close as the previous two elections. Trust me, I predicted back in February that McCain would pick Palin. No foolin!
Posted by: Dix Handley at September 19, 2008 02:03 PM (VuvDi)
20
All these attacks from the Democrats are going to back fire on Election Day. Let there be no doubt.
Most voters are going to realize that the Democrats have a rookie, unaccomplished junior senator on the top of their ticket, and they are going to have an enlightenment.
Watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8ph_FrL-MQ
Posted by: AmericaForever at September 19, 2008 02:45 PM (gcRCy)
21
I've been diagnosed as depressed before, nothing a little social interaction and Xanax won't fix. It never once gave me the urge to hack into a person's e-mail.
I say lock him up, he did the crime so he can do the time. Throw Obama in the cell next to him. That will surely cure my current depressed state
Posted by: southerngrace at September 19, 2008 02:46 PM (onpv8)
22
No mercy. What these commie bastards haven't yet realized is that when America DOES wake up, we are the meanest mothers on the block. They need to be made aware of this, and NOW. Before it's too late for it to matter. The election is a month and a half away. We have the truth on our side, and *ahem* "The truth shall set you free"!
Posted by: cmblake6 at September 19, 2008 05:58 PM (QSVQf)
23
When Obama's campaign sends action "wire alerts" to his minions to cause mayhem (think Kurtz and Freddoso on Chicago AM radio)and tells people in rallies to "get in" people's "faces," he knows full well from his Alinsky agitator training, how half-baked, emotionally disturbed "ambassadors" might react. Obama certainly implicitly encouraged this kind of behavior. Obama is a Chicago-incubated thug who is complelety complicit when his people do thuggish things. Yes, I do blame Obama. If this kid had found anything compromising, who would benefit? Obama. As it is, Palin's email is innocent, boring family stuff. And Obamalinsky didn't have to pay a dime or risk any exposure for that data. The kid was a fool and a partisan tool. For his demented devotion as a minion of the Obamessiah, he will be publicly excoriated and may see federal time. Maybe Obama will pay for the Prozac?
Posted by: mrybel at September 19, 2008 08:10 PM (e+2Jh)
24
In Wasilla, Alaska, two Democratic National Committee "opposition researchers" are scouring the archives of the Palin's hometown paper for any hint of a scandal.
Cites please?
Posted by: skylark at September 20, 2008 04:45 PM (j0b9v)
25
Cite? The publisher herself, responding to an email of mine.
It's that little thing called "research" the media won't do anymore.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 20, 2008 04:55 PM (HcgFD)
26
Well, when the media does "research" it usually cites its sources, which is always helpful, wouldn't you agree?
So this information came from the publisher of the Frontiersman herself? Care to give an exact quote?
And perhaps you can date it too, because in responding to the McCain ad claiming they "airdropped" 30 lawyers into Alaska, the Obama campaign and the DNC said this:
“I’m not sure how many times this question has to be answered, but hopefully this will be the last time,” Mr. Earnest said in response to a reporter’s question. “There are no Obama or D.N.C. staffers or researchers that were air dropped into Alaska.”
. . .
Michael Gehrke, research director of the Democratic National Committee, scoffed at all of this:
“Sadly, I don’t have 30 lawyers, researchers, investigators or even wolves at my disposal. We have sent a grand total of zero people to Alaska to research Governor Palin. We’ve got all these McCain houses to keep track of.
NY Times
However, I have read that at least one local Democratic researcher did approach the paper early on and was told that the McCain camp itself had made no effort to search the paper's archives while "vetting" their VP candidate.
Posted by: skylark at September 20, 2008 06:56 PM (j0b9v)
27
How long ago was it that the Clintons were all over the airwaves attacking Rush Limbaugh for setting the tone for the right wing and blaminmg him for something much like this dirty work.
By the way - he's not just a kid. Three years earlier than his age, I was in Korea and had no choice but to act mature and responsible. We need to stop coddling wrong because a"kid" did it.
Posted by: Don L at September 21, 2008 03:02 PM (PE+dR)
28
I am sooo sick of the attacks on Gov. Palin!!! It makes me soooo mad!! McCain did good by picking her...by all this hatred of her has wakened the sleeping giant...the conservatives!!!
Posted by: Sandra Binder at September 21, 2008 06:27 PM (DTEiw)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Architects of Fanny Mae Collapse Are Core Obama Advisors
Ace has the Doomsday List of Obama advisors that had a hand in the collapse.
If Barack Obama respects the American people he should ask these individuals to step down from their roles in his campaign for the financial trauma they've helped cause.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:31 PM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Curiouser and curiouser.
Posted by: twolaneflash at September 19, 2008 05:18 PM (05dZx)
2
Not surprised at all, the two financial giants were a DC fief, run by anointed Democrats as a reward for service, to plunder and reward themselves as they saw fit.
Posted by: DirtCrashr at September 20, 2008 09:04 PM (VNM5w)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Eeyore: Don't Vote For a Candidate Because "She's Cute"
Sound advice, I should think.
Likewise, you probably shouldn't vote for a candidate just because his wife is proud of her country for the first time.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:53 PM
| Comments (23)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Is it just me? Or does Michelle Obama remind you of Aunt Esther from "Sanford and Son"?
http://snarkweighsin.blog-city.com/ooglyuglyratings.htm
Posted by: George at September 18, 2008 06:56 PM (WA19M)
2
If her husband were to be elected this November it'll be the first time I've ever been ashamed of my country.
Posted by: Bill at September 18, 2008 07:15 PM (N3TQR)
3
Well, I was going to vote Obama/Biden because of the incredible cuteness of Biden, but gee, Michelle, ya talked me out of it. :-)
George, I thought of Aunt Esther too, although the very first time I saw Michelle O. I thought she was an attractive woman. After you've seen her several times with that "weaned on a pickle" expression on her face, Aunt Esther does come to mind.
I can picture her standing over Obambi saying "Look, sucka,...,"
Posted by: Donna V. at September 18, 2008 09:23 PM (r6ITZ)
4
OK-
Vote for the candidates that are comfortable with firearms and military service
Posted by: Jones in CO at September 21, 2008 08:51 PM (KOkrW)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
WaPo Editorial Board Beclowns Itself
As much as we in the blogosphere love to the describe nonsensical utterings of journalists, pundits, and talking heads as "self-parodying," it is rare that national news outlets truly earn that as well as the Washington Post editorial board has done with their editorial lamenting the demise of the D.C. gun ban and the passage of a House Bill that seeks to normalize D.C. citizen's rights along the lines of those recognized throughout most of the rest of the country.
The hysteric and unsigned op-ed,
Open Season on the District, is really quite a wonder to behold.
THE U.S. SENATE represents the last, best hope to stop the mindless push to enact a dangerous gun law in the District. And stop it the senators must.
That "dangerous gun law" would bring the district's gun laws in line with the majority of gun restrictions in the United States, areas that have far less gun crime that historically have far less gun crime than D.C. a fact the editors purposefully avoid mentioning.
The House voted yesterday to adopt a measure that would gut the District's gun laws and that goes far beyond the Supreme Court's finding this summer of an individual right to bear arms. The bill would prohibit the District from requiring that weapons be registered -- the most reasonable and benign of measures. It would allow ownership of semiautomatic handguns and rifles and would place no age restriction on gun possession. And it would effectively strip the District of the ability to enact any regulations that could be seen as unduly burdening gun ownership. If even registration is seen as unduly burdensome, that leaves little room and little hope for other reasonable provisions.
Weapons registration, far from being "reasonable and benign," is recognized as a prelude to confiscation, and historically been used as such around the world. As a result, registration is very unpopular in the United States and is shunned in most cities and states.
Likewise, semi-automatic handguns and rifles are by far the most popular firearms purchased and owned in America today. The
Post editorial board, like many who have a visceral dislike of firearms and little or no practical experience with them, either confuses semi-automatic weapons with machine guns (fully automatic weapons), or seeks to confuse and alarm the uninformed reader.
As for the comment on age restrictions, that is a purposeful deception verging on outright fabrication by the
Post, and demands a correction. By Federal law, citizens must be 18 to possess handguns or handgun-only ammunition, and 21 to purchase handguns in the United States. It is true person of any age may possess a long gun (shotgun or rifle), but must be 18 by federal law to purchase one. The applicable law was designed so that minors can possess (hold, use) a firearm to participate in shooting sports. Clearly, the
Post is engaging in fear-mongering to scare their readership to adopt their fear-based point-of-view.
The bill is not only a slap in the face to home rule, it is an affront to common sense and safety. How are police supposed to trace guns used in crimes if they are unregistered?
This is a pair of non-sequiturs.
"Home rule" does not excuse governments on any level in the United States from violating the Constitution, and that includes the District of Columbia. Somehow, I rather doubt the
Post would venture forth with the home rule argument if the subject in question was the restriction of their First Amendment freedoms to engage in deceptive editorializing.
The registration of a firearm is irrelevant in tracing a weapon actively being used in crime, and once such a gun is confiscation the serial number is used for an ATF trace, currently used in every state, including the vast majority of those without gun registration.
How are they to protect lawmakers, dignitaries, visitors, workers and residents when guns are treated like any other product to be bought and sold with no restrictions?
Again, the "no restrictions" claim is more than hyperbole, it is a purposeful, calculated lie, as the federal laws alluded to above make clear.
As for protecting Americans and visitors, we've been doing precisely that throughout the rest of the United States for several hundred years with most areas suffering a far lower gun-related felony crime rate than D.C., this is another misleading question based upon a false assertion.
While many gun rights advocates tout their bona fides as law-and-order types, they apparently have no trouble ignoring the testimony of scores of police chiefs and law enforcement officers across the country who believe that sensible regulation saves lives.
Of
course many police chiefs view gun restrictions favorably. Their primary and most immediate concern is to keep their
officers alive, and if forced to admit it, their secondary concern is to minimize legal risk to teh department. A disarmed citizenry poses a lower risk to the police both legally and practically, and minimizes the chances of police being successfully sued in court for wrongfully killing an armed citizen. As police know they cannot be sued for failing to prevent crimes, they would much rather have their officers encounter disarmed victims at a crime scene than show up to find an armed and agitated citizen standing over a dead rapist or armed robber.
It doesn't mean that their preferences are better for anyone than themselves.
And never mind that even Justice Antonin Scalia, among the most conservative jurists in the land, went out of his way in District of Columbia v. Heller to note that a constitutional right to keep and bear arms and reasonable government regulation -- including registration and a ban on assault weapons -- are not mutually exclusive propositions.
Another non-sequitur. Scalia's opinion as a SCOTUS justice is not designed to be a law unto itself. His job is to interpret laws and determine if they meet Constitutional standards. The author of this editorial can just as easily argue that Scalia's opinion in
Heller would support H.R. 6842, the very law this editorial so obtusely and emotionally argues against.
The drafters and supporters of this bill have done what many thought was impossible: They've made Justice Scalia look like a liberal.
Again, hyperbole that does not advance their argument, but which perhaps further advances the argument that they are finding it difficult to base their opposition on anything other than gut-level fears.
The National Rifle Association championed the bill, and House Democratic leaders caved in to its demand that the bill be brought to a vote after the organization threatened to withhold endorsements of conservative Democrats in tight races this year. Conscientious senators of both parties must now stand up to these intimidation tactics and prevent a dangerously bad bill from becoming law.
Unlike the editors of the
Post, who have decided that they will attempt to tell you how to think, I'll do what they will not.
Here is the
full text of House Resolution 6842, otherwise know as the National Capital Security and Safety Act. Read it for yourself.
Note that the law merely extends Second Amendment rights commonly held in the rest of the 50 states to citizens of Washington, D.C, and abolishes a patently silly D.C. law that arbitrarily labeled nearly every magazine-fed firearm machine guns.
And once you've read the law, and noted how the
Post has chosen to misrepresent it, wonder how you can ever trust them to objectively report or editorialize on any subject, ever again.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:53 AM
| Comments (25)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Let them screech. If anyone had told me 15 years ago that the DC gunban would be under seige in this Year of Our Lord 2008, I'd have thought you were starkers. But here we are. With the Second Ammendment alive and well despite decades of assault by these cretinous totalitarians we can be (somewhat) assured of the health of the republic.
Posted by: megapotamus at September 18, 2008 12:04 PM (LF+qW)
2
I disagree with your explanation of why some police chiefs support gun bans. Generally, big city police chiefs are political appointees of big city, leftist mayors. Small city police chiefs and rank and file cops are not afraid of armed civilians, and in fact prefer to deal with CHL carrying civilians. See how you are treated when you are subject to a traffic stop while holding a concealed carry license. It is practically a get out of jail card.
Posted by: George Bruce at September 18, 2008 02:02 PM (RNKWq)
3
"...or seeks to confuse and alarm the uninformed reader."
Bingo.
Posted by: Mike at September 18, 2008 06:22 PM (U1PqM)
4
a
excel
prime
diploma
buy
vertigo
ebay
where
houses
sauvignon
250
xp
buy
products
buy
buy
chair
cheap
forging
pass
buy
moynihan
where
buy
buy
buy
online
cabinets
robot
should
online
company
stamina
suit
sylvanian
player
condoms
buy
buy
buy
buy
generic
stationary
travel
ears
check
451
buy
bozeman
dove
the
cheap
in
style
hosta
buy
new
buy
buy
online
collar
procyclidine
gold
i
buy
to
best
chept
kamagra
absentee
your
com
k229
buy
directory
photo
buy
in
tall
online
old
buy
buy
3000lb
arkansas
ds
i
can
buy
buy
sell
buy
to
movie
buy
buy
to
in
sale
hyundai
wildlife
firewood
through
dildos
tapes
buy
buy
pyrrole
buy
gas
jazz
iv
three
buy
play
hoover
buy
buy
e
saturday
estriol
lodge
coupon
cutouts
winter
cpap
online
a
perfume
buy
farms
buy
sorto
mobile
buy
buy
a
gas
armour
a
k
uk
buy
online
and
wholesale
console
silve
buy
plane
rca
mini
putnam
buy
male
to
prinophyllum
u
best
buy
rogaine
luxury
online
buy
earring
buy
buy
inventory
pokemon
of
can
source
bostock
buy
stain
green
buy
oranise
upholstery
kamagta
buy
crack
cucumbers
puppy
the
c
printed
1855
equipment
a
no
buy
pc
dollars
online
i
buy
electric
altobelli
buy
usa
player
buy
buy
pheromone
2005
buy
online
property
where
can
best
buy
fabric
mets
buy
buy
zyrtec
credit
bourbon
suunto
buy
plugs
grocery
locations
where
buy
online
no
buy
30
gronquist
buy
buy
occuvite
magnetix
cooper
buy
drive
in
makeup
exotic
where
buy
puppies
hair
online
buy
if
buy
t83
zolpidem
for
butalbital
sardines
software
buy
no
line
buy
homes
heart
girls
paneer
buy
tee
ammolite
the
buy
capstar
11
insurance
becky
place
best
graphite
ingridients
to
xmas
buy
microphone
miler
can
a
buy
street
buy
best
battery
ducklings
baby
storage
perscription
buy
fitted
steel
where
games
wars
uk
lisence
to
buy
bundle
where
to
saga
transmitter
blue
online
telecaster
document.getElementById('buymeall').style.display='none';
Posted by: buymeall at September 19, 2008 09:29 AM (7Ihut)
5
"The National Rifle Association championed the bill ..."
Shoot! (A little firearm lingo there.) They better have championed that bill, that's what we PAY them for.
And as George Bruce replied, many police chiefs and rank and file officers support the NRA and the Rights of civilians.
I find it ironic that the people and organizations that support the Second Amendment are often referred to as "gun nuts," when it's the people and organizations devoted to destroying the Second Amendment that are clearly deranged.
Posted by: DoorHold at September 21, 2008 12:05 PM (mlM1l)
6
Begging your pardon, but you have the wrong bill. The one you reference, H.R. 6842, was introduced by DC non-voting Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton and would do nothing else but require that the DC government to actually pass laws in compliance with the Heller decision. It would give them 180 days to do what Wilmette, IL managed to do in less than a week.
The bill you're looking for is H.R. 6691, the Second Amendment Enforcement Act. You can find that write-up here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.6691:
This bill passed the House this past Wednesday. (Posted at my blog, if you'll pardon the shameless plug: http://hoodathunk.wordpress.com/2008/09/18/house-passes-legislation-to-lift-dc-gun-regs-dc-works-to-stall-as-long-as-possible/)
Posted by: Ric James at September 22, 2008 12:05 AM (hn7Rm)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Josh Howard Expresses his Love of Country, Obama
"Star-Spangled Banner going on right now. I don't even celebrate that sh*t. I'm black, God d*mn it. Obama '08. Obama and all that sh*t."
Details
here.
I've got nothing to say against the Democratic candidate here, but find the disrespect of country from a punk who makes millions of dollars a year for
playing a game is infuriating.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:52 AM
| Comments (30)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
It's apparent to me that those who hate this country, those who would and do say, "God damn America," those who believe this country and its leaders to be evil, will, by and large, be supporting Barack Obama in this election.
I don't believe in guilt by association, but I would think there would come a point when those who plan to vote Democrat out of habit, loyalty, or conviction, and who aren't members of the loony left, would ask themselves, "Do I really want to throw my lot in with these people?"
Posted by: Diffus at September 18, 2008 10:25 AM (MR/ge)
2
Wonder if this guy commutes to Barry's church in Chicago...
Posted by: Conservative CBU at September 18, 2008 11:28 AM (M+Vfm)
3
There's this mook and there's also Kobe Bryant. Let's hope as he ages, the guy matures. But yes, much of this sort of sentiment, usually quite unfocused, has found an outlet in Team Obama. They do not foster it or encourage it explicitly (much) but the weight of the wrong adherents is a facet of politics. McCain's associations, such as they are, are open to exposure as well as some folks might have noticed.
Posted by: megapotamus at September 18, 2008 12:09 PM (LF+qW)
4
If Karl Rove was in charge of McCain's campaign, he'd be saying Thank you, Jesus! for this gift. It would already be a commercial and getting heavy airplay in every red state in the Union.
Posted by: Robert at September 18, 2008 12:24 PM (LjV4b)
5
Am I to understand that I'm being asked to base my vote on the unpatriotic spewings of some half-wit of whom I've never heard before?
BTW, ever heard any of Ted Nugent's pro-GOP riffs? Whew!
Best,
Keith Nolan
Posted by: KeithNolan at September 18, 2008 01:17 PM (2iAhy)
6
Explain patriotism to Josh Howard? Why bother? It's a civilized thing; he wouldn't understand.
Posted by: pst314 at September 18, 2008 01:54 PM (OA547)
7
"...whom I've never heard before"
Well, as long as you've never heard of him, then I guess he doesn't exist.
You've just used the Argument of Ignorance.
Posted by: brando at September 18, 2008 01:55 PM (qzOby)
8
And I want to be careful to note that I'm not calling you an ignorant person. Just that you committed a logical fallacy.
Posted by: brando at September 18, 2008 10:50 PM (UB1+D)
9
Keith, if you actually take the notion of patriotism seriously and view it positively your days as a Democrat are numbered to say the least. Welcome aboard.
Posted by: megapotamus at September 19, 2008 09:32 AM (LF+qW)
10
Hey, Megapotamus. Not that it matters, but:
A.) I take the notion of patriotism very seriously. (Spent my entire adult life writing about Vietnam veterans. See "Ripcord," etc.)
B.) My days as a Democrat are actually brand-new. I was a hardcore Republican before 2004. (Couldn't stomach all the lies told about Kerry and the Vietnam War by the Swift Boat crowd.)
Best,
Keith Nolan
Posted by: KeithNolan at September 19, 2008 11:36 AM (2iAhy)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
"We Are The Vermin We've Been Waiting For."
Treacher unloads on the anti-free speech tactics of the "Obama Action Wires" talking points that left wing activists are using to try to intimidate opponents and overwhelm radio station phone systems.
It's the same oppressive mindset that is behind other intimidation tactics, such as the release and abuse of the Palin family's phone number, the hacking of Sarah Palin's email account, and the unrelenting "opposition research." They now go far beyond debating the qualifications and judgment of candidates, and now have adopted tactics meant to bully, slander, smear and humiliate the candidates, their spouses, and even minor children of candidates.
Today's progressive radicals still have the mindset of Bill Ayers, they've merely found new tactics to employ.
Bristol Palin is being harassed by a petty celebrity trying to goad her into having an abortion. Others, having discovered family telephone numbers, have left obscene messages demanding nude photos.
How long until unhinged "progressive" activists target Willow Palin, a 14 year-old girl, with unfounded rumors designed to sully her reputation? (Answer:
They already have).
How about elementary school-aged Piper? When are they going to insist she's being molested, or is deviant in some way?
How about baby Trig? Many pro-abortionists are already irate the Down's Syndrome child was allowed to live.
What is next, Obamaphiles?
I shudder at the thought.
Update: The bullying tactics of the
official Obama campaign
revealed:
A message goes out over Barack Obama's Web site with the names, phone numbers and e-mails of editors and producers foolish enough to host Obama critics. With Mr. Obama's extensive digital following, and his extensive fund-raising and contact lists, shutting up the Democratic nominee's critics with a fraction of Mr. Obama's millions of supporters is relatively simple. The digital legions plug phone lines, crash servers and intimidate the advertisers of these media outlets. This must be another instance of the "new" politics that Mr. Obama frequently talks about.
These are just the official tactics admitted to by the Obama campaign. It kind of makes you wonder what they're up to that they won't admit.
Headlining Drudge now:
OBAMA TELLS SUPPORTERS: 'ARGUE AND GET IN THEIR FACE'
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:19 AM
| Comments (30)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Some where,some time they will get their A**
handed to them in a lawsuit,then they can try
out a homeless shelter!!
Posted by: Gator at September 18, 2008 08:13 AM (uaTZE)
2
What astonishes me is the astonishment over all this (not here, but elsewhere in the conservative world). This is leftism down through history. It never changes. Never. But what astonishes most of all is how slow McCain and his people are to get it, to see this election as the violent break from all the old rules of conduct that it is. He's still playing the game like the clubman clinging to his Marquis of Queensbeery. Time's running out, Senator.
Posted by: rrpjr at September 18, 2008 10:03 AM (uf8br)
Posted by: Neo at September 18, 2008 10:55 AM (Yozw9)
4
Any Obamite who gets in my face will get an accidental finger in the eye. I am not defenseless nor do I suffer fools well.
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at September 18, 2008 11:01 AM (a6wVH)
5
Obama, you fascist, just pull off the mask, already.
We know you're a Marxist and that the Black Theology ideas motivate your policies.
If one of your rabid sycophants gets in my face, I will gladly b-slap the stupid out of them.
Posted by: RogerCfromSD at September 18, 2008 12:14 PM (XV0Hf)
6
I long to see the passion in the hippie who cries out to me (or anyone) "Obama believes in the Second Ammendment!" Oy. But I hope some Obot out there does have the stones to actually discuss things. You can be certain of their utter ignorance of any facts regarding these issues and it would be, as they say, a teachable moment. We don't see too many of those.
Posted by: megapotamus at September 18, 2008 12:14 PM (LF+qW)
7
The media is still the bigger story. The way they went after Palin exposes the nature of the left more than the cyber people, because the media is supposed to be main stream and professional and unbias - which Americans have known for some time is BS - but with Palin, the full extent and ugliness of it has been exposed clearly.
We can also see the results of Bush Derangment Syndrome. Building up that much hate against Bush was likely to spill over past him. It is the new form of politics from the left.
In the 1980s, the conservatives successfully make the word liberal into a four-letter one, but it did not have this type of visceral hate to it. It was much more about ideology and political philosophy than hate.
What we have now is personal and group hate. It isn't good for anybody.
Posted by: usinkorea at September 18, 2008 02:06 PM (Taj12)
8
A perfect example of why Conservative attempts at "Bi-Partisanship" with Leftists is always doomed to failure - the Left is like Islamists - they only ever work to their own advantage.
Posted by: DirtCrashr at September 18, 2008 02:08 PM (VNM5w)
9
Looks like the left has learned some things from their Islamist allies.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at September 18, 2008 06:21 PM (kNqJV)
10
gods of a poxed doxy! these people are unspeakably ugly, are there no depths to which they won't sink? if there was any thought in my mind that might have led me to vote for obama it is gone now. there is no way i would associate myself with such unreasoning hatred. mccain/palin will have my vote most surely, if for no other reason than to counter the obscenity that spews from the obamamaniacs.
"gunner"
Posted by: "gunner" at September 18, 2008 09:52 PM (MnXJK)
11
All the signs of the Dems and libs in complete desperation mode.
Posted by: Biggirl at September 19, 2008 07:54 AM (6WY1D)
12
I agree with what is said about the left, but it also applies to the right. Like any and all extremists & fundamentalists, no one else can be right except you. And this kind of thought in a pluralistic society dooms America. It goes contrary to the ideals of democracy in this great republic. Thank God the American majority is centrist, who can think for themselves!!!
Posted by: Amerigo V. at September 19, 2008 09:38 AM (vtiE6)
13
The other day an Obama supporter at work, with whom I've usually had a congenial relationship, said to me as I walked into his office, "Hello, my right-wing friend."
I saw that coming, fortunately, so I didn't express much surprise. I just carried out my business with him and ignored his sarcastic salutation. Like the schoolyard bullies they are, they want to provoke you into a confrontation because it's good entertainment for them.
I don't play that game.
Posted by: proud2b4family at September 19, 2008 03:46 PM (Htnoo)
14
See if he likes, "Hello, my Marxist dupe."
Posted by: Jim Treacher at September 20, 2008 05:37 PM (NV3P1)
15
I agree with a previous comment, this is what they do. Lie and cheat and bully. Were there any lies about Bush I or II, or Reagan, or their wives, or anyone even remotely associated with the GOP, or anyone who doesn't worship the Donkey?
Then again, there are plenty of stories circulating about members of the left-wing. I believe most of them.
Posted by: DoorHold at September 21, 2008 12:17 PM (mlM1l)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 17, 2008
Hope and Change
A drug-abusing minor celebrity has offered 17-year-old Bristol Palin a $25,000 bounty to abort her child.
Hackers have
broken into Palin family email accounts, and posted some of the contents, including family photos, online.
Another site claimed to have a Palin family phone number and left a message
asking for nude pictures of 17-year-old Bristol.
For once, I'm at a loss for words.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:21 PM
| Comments (31)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
And these people are claiming the moral high ground??
Unfortunately, among the liberals there are those whose tactics are very similar to fascism. Instead of debating ideas, they are attempting to frighten off their opponents.
Shame!
Posted by: Rona Michelson at September 17, 2008 03:30 PM (ICcDn)
2
God bless Sarah Palin's Secret Service detail.....
Posted by: Techie at September 17, 2008 03:53 PM (kBNeM)
3
Sensitive. Tolerant. Caring.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at September 17, 2008 03:57 PM (yG+tb)
4
The left believes what journalists are telling them. As the MSM gets worse their true believers will get worse. They're tearing the country apart in their attempt to drag Obama over the finish line.
Posted by: Looking Glass at September 17, 2008 04:14 PM (QWqkz)
5
McCain campaigns response to the email hackers:
“This is a shocking invasion of the Governor’s privacy and a violation of law. The matter has been turned over to the appropriate authorities and we hope that anyone in possession of these emails will destroy them. We will have no further comment.”
Posted by: Sara at September 17, 2008 04:52 PM (Wi/N0)
6
McCain campaign response to the hackers:
“This is a shocking invasion of the Governor’s privacy and a violation of law. The matter has been turned over to the appropriate authorities and we hope that anyone in possession of these emails will destroy them. We will have no further comment.”
Posted by: Sara at September 17, 2008 04:54 PM (Wi/N0)
7
It will be interesting when the Secret Service/Postal Inspectors/FBI/whichever agency is the responsible investigative arm gets involved.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at September 17, 2008 05:09 PM (TUWci)
Posted by: Jeff at September 17, 2008 05:31 PM (+UTtV)
Posted by: Bill Smith at September 17, 2008 06:31 PM (ITo1P)
10
Liberal Fascism at work, they got their orders, now it's Palinnact.
Posted by: DirtCrashr at September 17, 2008 06:45 PM (VNM5w)
11
Why the unrelenting smear campaign by the democrats versus Sarah Palin? The answer is really quite simple and was voiced recently by Jeneane Garafalo:
"Democrats as people are fundamentally more decent, that's what makes them Democrats" HBO's "Real Time", Sept. 12 (at 6:33 into video)
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/16/janeane-garofolo-great-jail-all-republicans
There you have it, from the horse's mouth. If other people have a problem with having their lives smeared and ruined by Democrats, they should always bear in mind that "Democrats as people are fundamentally more decent." I guess it is only as politicians that they are fundamentally more wicked and corrupt.
ROTFLMAO!
Posted by: ariell at September 17, 2008 07:35 PM (eV/n3)
12
There you have it, from the horse's mouth. If other people have a problem with having their lives smeared and ruined by Democrats, they should always bear in mind that "Democrats as people are fundamentally more decent."
Right. And the "decent souls" will then turn around and ask "What kind of a mother is Palin, to be willing to subject her family to the sort of filth and slander that we are throwing at them?"
In Dem world, everyone is eternally a victim, except those with a scarlet "R" after their names. Conservatives and their families can never be victims, because they're evil and barely human, so anything Dems do to or say about them is not only justifiable but praiseworthy.
Posted by: Donna V. at September 17, 2008 07:57 PM (NZ2hB)
13
This is incredibly foul.
I didn't think I could be shocked any more, but they've managed it.
Posted by: Trish at September 17, 2008 08:41 PM (D9zRv)
14
The steps towards dehumanizing Sarah Palin and her family continue.
Posted by: Jinx McHue at September 18, 2008 10:21 AM (GZri3)
15
The Axelturfing Brigades seem somnambulent lately. Their hearts just aren't in it, I suppose. Couldn't some troll be bothered to explain to us how this is all for the Greater Good? Come on, guys.
Posted by: megapotamus at September 18, 2008 12:42 PM (LF+qW)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Calabrese: Media Ignores Obama's Undermining His Own Country, Because They Want The Same Things
It is now becoming abundantly clear that Barack Obama, in a meeting with Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, tried to undermine his own country's negotiations with Iraq during his July visit to Baghdad. Even the Obama campaign can't deny it because there were multiple witnesses to the exchange.
So once again, conservatives begin raising the question: Why is the mainstream media ignoring this story? They're treating it like they treated the John Edwards affair story, which they ignored until they no longer could. But this is much more serious. The Democratic nominee for president of the United States attempted to scuttle a crucial status-of-forces agreement between the U.S. and the government of Iraq. He blatantly urged the Iraqis to stop negotiating with the Bush Administration and wait until the next president – presumably him, at least as far as he's concerned – takes office.
[snip]
Why is the mainstream media ignoring the story? Well, first and foremost, because they want Obama to win the election. But it goes deeper than that. They're ignoring the story because they don't see anything wrong with what Obama did.
I'd love to give you more but that would violate fair use guidelines, so go
here to read the rest.
Barack Obama
illegally interjected himself into U.S. foreign policy and blatantly attempted to undermine a sitting President, secure in the knowledge that the Justice Department will not charge him with a law that hasn't been enforced in over 200 years, and knowing that the media doesn't care.
Want media attention?
Have some half-wit bail bondsman, head-wound patient, or strung-out meth junkies thrown in jail for threatening to kill Obama, even though not a single one of them could be considered a serious threat.
You'll get coverage in every major national and international news outlet for days as they fall all over each other to report that these isolated incidents are an example of how average, inbred racist rubes (Americans) cannot stand the thought of a
Halfrican-American President.
But when Obama meddles in affairs that touches the lives of 140,000 soldiers—white, black, brown, yellow, and red—in a combat zone, purely for his personal political advantage?
Dead silence.
Not. A. Word.
It's a matter of priorities, folks. They want to protect Barack Obama, no matter how many Americans he endangers.
But who is going to protect us from him?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:40 PM
| Comments (25)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Barak works on the war negotiation side, while other Democrats get the US oil-deals squashed and Iraq signs with China instead... It's a pincer move by Boss Pelosi and the Party of Defeatiture, doing what Stalin taught them how.
Posted by: DirtCrashr at September 17, 2008 06:48 PM (VNM5w)
2
We can no longer trust the media to treat all informaton with the same priorty. They are misinforming the American public intentionally by not reporting on the this important issue. All of a sudden they are fact checking every comment ever made by Palin, but do not fact check anything of significance by Obama. Where were they during the whole campaign with fact checking? Only now they start - it is so obvious the media is now the tool of the left. Time to boycott seriously.
Posted by: Krystal at September 17, 2008 07:02 PM (I4yBD)
3
Who will protect us from Obambi,why Obambi him
self,if he makes it odd's are he will implode
with in 2 years carried from office in the nasty
white coat drooling and blubbering to him self
doo/da doo da!!!you see that!!!
Posted by: Gator at September 17, 2008 11:05 PM (uaTZE)
4
The answer is that they (the media and the democrats) have done it before and it worked.
In August 1971, I was an air force captain flying F4s from Danang AB, Republic of Vietnam. LT (JG) John Kerry, still in the USN Reserves, went to Paris to negotiate with the North Vietnamese delegation. He encouraged the communists to continue the fight as he and the anti-war activists undermined our efforts at home.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/824yefgv.asp
Posted by: arch at September 18, 2008 08:03 AM (SyNBd)
5
Oops, I'm too late with the Kerry material. The Democrats are the party of treason, folks. That is the simple fact. They hate America and seek to destroy her or at the least open her up to destruction at the hands of others. This is why they oppose missile defense, domestic energy, 2nd Ammendment... this is the Unified Field Theory that explains so much that is inexplicable. The Party of Treason. That is what it is. That is all it is.
Posted by: megapotamus at September 18, 2008 12:46 PM (LF+qW)
6
"... who is going to protect us from [Obama]?"
Those of us who get off our duffs and vote.
Posted by: DoorHold at September 21, 2008 12:24 PM (mlM1l)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Freshman's Arrogance
New York Post columnist Amir Taheri continues to hammer Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama today for secretly meddling in U.S. foreign policy in Iraq for his own naked political gain. Taheri first made these allegations on Monday, quoting Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari on the record as saying that when Obama visited Iraq in July, he tried to convince Iraqi government officials to not work with President Bush's Administration.
Obama told the Iraqis that President Bush's administration was in a "state of weakness and political confusion," and tried to convince the Iraqis to wait to negotiate on troop-level agreements until the next administration took office in 2009. At the time of his trip in July, Obama had a
comfortable lead in the polls over John McCain and was assuming he would likely be President.
The
American Spectator reports from sources inside the campaign that Obama's advisers were stumped for more than five hours trying to figure out a response to Taheri's article, because:
- the account was true
- there were at least three other witnesses to the conversation between Obama and Zebari
- the campaign felt there were enough reporters in Iraq that "were aggressive enough" to debunk a denial, causing the campaign even more embarrassment.
Instead, Obama's campaign attempted to rebut Taheri's article with a snide accusation that Taheri was confusing the Status of Forces agreement with a Strategic Framework Agreement, with a statement
that read:
"This article bears as much resemblance to the truth as a McCain campaign commercial. Barack Obama has consistently called for any Strategic Framework Agreement to be submitted to the U.S. Congress so that the American people have the same opportunity for review as the Iraqi Parliament," said Obama spokeswoman Wendy Morigi. "Unlike John McCain, he supports a clear timetable to redeploy our troops that has the support of the Iraqi government. Barack Obama has never urged a delay in negotiations, nor has he urged a delay in immediately beginning a responsible drawdown of our combat brigades."
Tellingly, the Obama campaign
never attempted to push the Post for a correction or retraction of Taheri's charges, and observers
quickly noted the campaign's response seemed to confirm the story.
Taheri's response in today's New York
Post gives the Obama campaign both barrels, first stating that if there was any confusion about the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and Strategic Framework Agreement (SFA), the confusion came on the part of the Obama campaign, as the documents are closely intertwined. Tom Maguire notes the campaign's apparent confusion in
Barack Versus Barack On Iraq, which shows Obama's
own web site is consistent with Taheri's claims.
Ed Morrisey at
Hot Air excoriates Obama for his "me first, country second" arrogance.
First, Senator Obama has no authority to negotiate on behalf of the executive branch, which has sole authority to conduct foreign policy. Second and most important, Obama attempted to interfere against the interests of the United States. He can ask all the questions he wants, but when Obama started pressing Iraqi officials to stop negotiations with the executive branch — in other words, break one level of diplomatic contact and freeze a military alliance in time of war — that crossed a line and clearly violated the Logan Act. It also makes clear that Obama would do anything to get elected, even harm diplomatic relations between the US and an ally.
And while many are focusing on Obama's interference in foreign policy, Taheri also noted in his Monday article that Obama tried to use his trip to pressure the military to support his political goals.
As he has made clear on numerous occasions, the first-term Senator has consistently pledged a date-based withdrawal built according to his own timetable, not a conditions-based withdrawal determined by upon security and political considerations and competencies on the ground.
Obama pressured U.S. commanders for a "realistic withdrawal date," a date that would have been used as a transparent sop to his radical left-wing political base, and an attempt to unethically put those U.S. military commanders in a position of potentially influencing the course of the 2008 U.S. presidential elections. Commanders declined to be baited.
Barack Obama attempted to compromise the pledge of military commanders to remain apolitical, while actively undermining the foreign policy of the current administration while our soldiers are still deployed.
Barack Obama clearly values what is best for Barack Obama, but does he value anything else?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:58 AM
| Comments (23)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
He is in violation of the Logan Act and should be prosecuted forthwith...
Posted by: Carlos Echevarria at September 17, 2008 03:23 PM (CsNoJ)
2
And meanwhile the US oil deals go south because of pressure from Democrats, and China signs on instead - all to benefit The Party.
Posted by: DirtCrashr at September 17, 2008 06:50 PM (VNM5w)
3
This vaguely reminds me of the Clinton impeachment period:
It is one thing to lie to the press and American people about having sex with an intern.
It is a fundamentally different thing to lie about it under oath in a sexually harassment lawsuit.
But, Clinton was just able to get away with it among the American people because enough voices in the media kept saying it was just about sex.
Obama will have a much easier time - really no difficulty at all - getting away with this, but he shouldn't be able to:
As a candidate, you can undermine the current administration's foreign policies all you want in the press and American public opinion.
It is a very different matter to seek to undermin those policies when talking to a foreign head of state or high level government figure....
Posted by: usinkorea at September 17, 2008 07:57 PM (558QN)
4
Barry carries on the difficult work of treason pioneered so ably by John Kerry. It seemed that the Clintons selling out to Red Chinese interests was as low as one could go. The Dems are strung up between Obama and the Clintons? That is far worse than the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea. It's fire whichever way you turn. If you ever must predict the actions of a Democrat the treasonous position/action is the safe bet. Every time.
Posted by: megapotamus at September 18, 2008 12:51 PM (LF+qW)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
U.S. Embassy in San'a, Yemen Survives Car Bombing, Assault
Word coming in right now claims that at least one primary blast thought to be a car bomb and numerous smaller blasts thought to be RPGs were detonated near the front gate of the U.S. Embassy compound in San'a, Yemen, and the blasts were followed by gunfire.
Sky News is saying the attackers were
dressed as soldiers, and notes that the Yemeni branch of the Islamic Jihad had made threats just three days ago.
Reuters
notes that the U.S. Embassy says no Americans were among the wounded.
According to
CNN, ten police and civilians were killed, as were six attackers.
Developing...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
04:19 AM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I'm glad to see our Marines and diplomats came through okay, though the loss of the civilian and police life is quite sad.
Posted by: OmegaPaladin at September 17, 2008 08:19 AM (IWZML)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 16, 2008
Obama: Don't Listen to McCain. Do What He Says!
Barack Obama is presently droning on about the economy with the kind of rhetoric you would expect from a liberal of the bigger-the-government-the-better-the-government stripe, but what I thought was hilarious was his attack against John McCain for suggesting we need a 9/11 type commission to study what has gone wrong recently, only to turn around several minutes later and insist that we need a regulator's committee.
So we need a committee, not a commission.
Is that what Obama means by "change?"
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:45 AM
| Comments (25)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Off topic, but why isn't anyone talking about this "change" either?
http://www.caglepost.com/column.aspx?c=7785&pg=1
Posted by: Kyle at September 16, 2008 02:30 PM (pNuYx)
2
The difference is that McCain would possible get credit for one, while Obama gets credit for the other. That's the only difference I see.
Posted by: Shoprat at September 16, 2008 02:58 PM (yfavd)
3
Obama is afraid if they form a commission to investigate what happened with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, they will find a lot of money was donated to Obama and Sen. Chris Dodd. Who knows who else was paid by these two failures. We know the CEOs of these two institutions were paid extremely well. Were these two Senators paid to turn their backs on a problem? I am sure that is why Obama does not want an investigation. He just wants to blame those who had nothing to do with the situation. Ayers and Obama, joined at the hip.
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at September 16, 2008 04:18 PM (J5AYY)
4
If you want a good example of what the US economy is going to look like when the libtards get done with their shenanigans, take a look at almost bankrupt Calimexifornia or Michigan. One hair away from bankrupt! I really don't have a very good feeling about this one sportsfans.
Posted by: Tonto (USA) at September 16, 2008 11:53 PM (Qv1xF)
5
Ron, The party thats in its death rattle phase is clearly the democrats. The best they could come up with the past two elections were a couple of lifelike robots that couldnt even defeat the most unpopular president ever. And then they trot out a slick weasel with no experience who dazzles people with his talk of change while conducting buisness as usual? As you say hopefully a real alternative will come out of this.
Posted by: Bill at September 17, 2008 09:39 AM (jOxIA)
6
A commission and a committee are actually quite distinct, a commission is a temporary congressional body which is formed to create a report and recommendations, like the 9-11 commission, while a committee is a congressional body that is tasked with preparing legislation on a specific topic, and monitoring the government agencies related, like the committee on energy and commerce, both may be a good idea tho.
Posted by: drag at September 18, 2008 12:48 AM (+kpeE)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Did Obama Attempt to Undermine the President in Iraq?
Amir Taheri raised the issue in yesterday's NY Post. I try to help provide some answers in my latest post at Pajamas Media.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:16 AM
| Comments (26)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Clearly, Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., is in clear violation of the Logan Act and should be prosecuted forthwith.
This is so crass, so perverse...he has no shame, what an utterly repugnant sorry excuse for a man!!!
Posted by: Carlos Echevarria at September 16, 2008 11:37 AM (CsNoJ)
2
Reading some of the mindless crap proffered on your little site here provide an answer of whether all "New" Republitards are just lying weasels unable to discern fact from rumor where reality only serves a purpose if it is your purpose.
I had seen your picture with a caption similar to "remind me again what happened last time democrats picked an attorney general?" with a picture of the murderous debacle of Waco. So, remind me again what happened under a republican president and congress, as Giuliani would say, 9-11?
It's just sad. The Republicans (Which I've become embarrassed to be registered as) are probably in their death-rattle phase now. Hopefully a real party can come from it.
Posted by: Ron Smith at September 16, 2008 07:30 PM (NPQds)
3
A swing and a miss! Try again, ronsmith.
Posted by: ccoffer at September 16, 2008 08:44 PM (svvN8)
4
Obama is a democrat. There can be no question about "how low will he go" in anybody's mind. Dems are lower than a snake's belly in a wagon rut in Death Valley, naturally. It's part of the guilt trip they love to get off on. He wanted Iraq to hold off on withdrawl agreements until after the election....he said so. He admitted it. The peckerhead has no shame! (How could he with a wife that looks like Angela Davis with an attitude...or hemmoroid prob?) I wonder if they're into the whole S&M thing together. Hmmmmmmmm.
Posted by: Tonto (USA) at September 17, 2008 12:02 AM (Qv1xF)
5
Ron:
False analogy.
George Bush did not attack the pentagon or the world trade center. Al Qaeda hijacked 4 US airliners and crashed them into the building, wtc and a field shanksville PA.
Democrat Bill Clinton's AG ordered an armored attack (under general wesley clark, democrat) on the branch davidian compound.
Posted by: arch at September 17, 2008 08:18 AM (SyNBd)
6
Ron is a registered Republican? Yeah right. It's another Moby-op, tiresome, tiresome stuff. Hey Ron, if you are so embarrassed get the phuk off the team. Get the phuk out of dodge. Watch that screendoor. But no, you are a lying little weasel which means you must be a Democrat. Or Green. Stay Commie.
Posted by: megapotamus at September 18, 2008 12:56 PM (LF+qW)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Will Obama Honor His Commitment to the Af-Pak War? Will We?
As I write this I'm IM-ing Michael Yon on the far side of the world, and the Iraq War's most experienced embedded combat journalist is frustrated with the lack of interest in the Afghanistan-Pakistan War. Yon's Death in the Corn, Part 1 is a riveting story in a war the mainstream media has largely abandoned in order to cover far more pressing issues, such as developing new smears to float against Sarah Palin in a desperate attempt to extend the expiration date of Tina Fey's career on Saturday Night Live.
Yon's current series of combat dispatches from inside C- Company 2 Para of the British Army in Afghanistan's Helmand Province alludes to near constant war with the Taliban, but the reader interest simply doesn't seem to be there.
Ironically, the same media that tried to subvert the war in Iraq with a flood of biased reporting is far more effectively neutering support for the campaign against the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan through negligence and indifference.
Americans will support our soldiers when they can see what they are fighting for. Americans must be able to empathize with our soldiers, and those they would set free. That is the reason Yon's iconic photograph of the Iraq war, of Major Mark Bieger
cradling an Iraqi girl named Farah as he rushed to get her aid when she was mortally wounded by an car bomb, mattered so much. It proved that humanizing element. But even as powerful as his photos are, and as compelling as his writing is, Yon cannot carry the coverage of the Af-Pak War on alone.
And the Af-Pak War promises to get far worse before it gets better.
Al Qaeda and the Taliban have been using the tribal regions of Pakistan along the Afghan border as a sanctuary with the blessing and support of the ISI, Pakistan's most powerful intelligence service. President Bush, frustrated by the refusal of the Pakistani government to more actively act as an ally against al Qaeda and the Taliban, secretly authorized cross-border special forces raids, the authorization of which was of course loudly trumpeted in pages of the New York
Times.
As a result, an embarrassed Pakistani military was compelled to announce they
would fire on U.S. forces if they crossed the border. Allies? Perhaps we never really were, though we certainly liked to pretend that it were so. That illusion now seems to be falling away.
Interestingly, Pakistan's involvement, and the need to take the fight into the tribal regions, may have been one of the things that Barack Obama's army of 300 policy advisers got right, and as Chrstopher Hitchen's notes, may lead a
much more involved and bloody war.
Sen. Barack Obama has, if anything, been the more militant of the two presidential candidates in stressing the danger here and the need to act without too much sentiment about our so-called Islamabad ally. He began using this rhetoric when it was much simpler to counterpose the "good" war in Afghanistan with the "bad" one in Iraq. Never mind that now; he is committed in advance to a serious projection of American power into the heartland of our deadliest enemy. And that, I think, is another reason why so many people are reluctant to employ truthful descriptions for the emerging Afghan-Pakistan confrontation: American liberals can't quite face the fact that if their man does win in November, and if he has meant a single serious word he's ever said, it means more war, and more bitter and protracted war at that—not less.
Two-important questions are raised by Hitchens' article.
- Will Republican Presidential candidate John McCain adopt Obama's more muscular approach in dealing with Pakistan's support of the Taliban if elected?
- Will Barack Obama have the mettle for a rare and prolonged break with his base and the Democratic Party he has voted with 96-percent of the time if elected, to fight the war he argues must be fought?
If McCain adopts a more muscular support, his track records suggests that he is willing to shoulder the burden of being unpopular, if it means seeing the war through to victory.
Barack Obama? He's never had to stand on his own before, and I'm not sure he's even tried.
If he is elected, and rises to the challenge of his rhetoric, I suspect he'll be as surprised as the rest of us.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:11 AM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Maybe Michael Yon could take another iconic photograph of an American soldier cradling a dying Afghan child.
Only thing is, the child is probably dying because of an American missile or bomb strike, launched from many miles away in this heroic war.
Posted by: Suilamhain the Observant at September 16, 2008 10:38 AM (VRb5p)
2
Realy, Mr. Observant? What group of religious practitioners has killed more muslims than any other in the entire history of the world?
Answer: muslims.
Enjoy your Kool-aide.
Posted by: Mark at September 16, 2008 01:33 PM (4od5C)
3
Not very observant,
I'm not seeing what's wrong with using technology to fight the war harder and more focused on the enemy. If you have a method of fighting the Taliban (remember, this is AFGHANISTAN), I'm sure the military would like to hear it. If you don't, then kindly put a sock in it and appreciate the fact that life is not perfect. If you want to fight the bastards behind 9/11, sometimes innocents will die.
Posted by: OmegaPaladin at September 17, 2008 01:17 AM (IWZML)
4
Another leak to the media. Where does it say in the constitution that the nation needs to know every strategy the Administration is using to fight a war.
The Pakistanis knew about the cross border raids. This was not a problem until the Bush authorization bcae public. Then they had to declare they would fight the US if our forces crossed th border.
Posted by: davod at September 17, 2008 07:50 AM (GUZAT)
5
Guys, no point giving me flak over this, it's the Afghan people you have to persuade. They are the ones who are suffering form all this "collateral damage". They are the ones who are turning away from the government who promised them a better life, and turning back to the Taliban.
Gates is right now over apologizing and promising the US will do a better job in future and not kill so many civilians.
Maybe if you were willing to go in on the ground and fight these people, there would not be so many mistakes. You would still have the advantage of devastating firepower, targeting, and superior training. But of course some of your guys might get killed.
I'm not saying that US soldiers arent willing to do this. But its patently obvious that the US people as a whole is not willing to stomach the casualties.
So the Afghan civilians will continue to die...
Posted by: Suilamhain the Observant at September 17, 2008 08:05 AM (VRb5p)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Infanticide-Attempt Survivor Speaks Out Against Obama
Hope is the reason Gianna Jesson won't be voting for Barack Obama.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:13 AM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I guess she's above his pay grade?
Posted by: Conservative CBU at September 16, 2008 10:10 AM (M+Vfm)
2
I guess that the aborted children from 18 or more years ago won't be voting for Obama either. The Aborted Babies for Obama Club doesn't have that many members if any.
Posted by: Mad Jayhawk at September 16, 2008 12:17 PM (vXK4o)
3
I'll be running this tomorrow as the first of three pro-life video posts (clustered to release throughout the morning.)
Posted by: Scott at September 16, 2008 03:05 PM (ehpt/)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 15, 2008
Still Milli Vanilli
Kathy N, a reader from Barack Obama's home state of Hawaii, wrote this morning to say that in late August she came to the conclusion that Barack Obama has a lot in common with Milli Vanilla, and that she was rather impressed that I'd come to the same conclusion six months earlier.
Does the comparison
still hold up?
As more comes out seeming to indicate that Barack Obama was nothing more than a lip-synching puppet for Bill Ayers funneling
tens of millions of dollars in grant money to Ayers, Mike Klonsky, and other former radicals it seems only one conclusion is possible.
Girl you know it's true.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:07 AM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
You gotta blame it on McCain!
Posted by: Jayne Cobb at September 15, 2008 01:30 PM (+MtXg)
2
Revolutionaries normally have to rob banks to fund their zealous activities - unless they have friends who unlock the bank's back door for them...
Posted by: DirtCrashr at September 15, 2008 04:15 PM (VNM5w)
3
Girl you know its true;
Ooo, Ooo, Ooo.
If you don't for Obama;
you're a klansman.
I smell a Grammy!
Posted by: ccoffer at September 15, 2008 07:51 PM (QbgJu)
Posted by: oddybobo at September 16, 2008 08:00 PM (dVFQh)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 14, 2008
FYI: Yon From Afghanistan Tonight on BlogTalk Radio
Michael Yon, currently embedded with British Paras in a combat outpost in Afghanistan, will be a guest Sunday Sept 14 at 11:00 PM on The JihadiKiller Hour on BlogTalk Radio. Listen if you can.
Yon's next dispatch "Death In the Corn" will be posted at
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/ tomorrow.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:00 PM
| Comments (23)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
It was a great show tonight! Remember that you can listen to the archive of it at the same site... You won't have the fun troll smashing time we did in the chat room though.....
Posted by: TBinSTL at September 15, 2008 02:36 AM (2vLkB)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 109 >>
Processing 0.05, elapsed 0.5095 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.4917 seconds, 182 records returned.
Page size 160 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.
