Confederate Yankee

August 04, 2008

B5ers Go Discovery Channel

At great risk to their "street cred" as milbloggers, Blake "Laughing Wolf" Powers and Jim " Uncle Jimbo" Hanson are trying out for hosting duties of a new Discovery Channel show, Blow Crap Up.

Actually, the show is titled Super Testing, but I think my description is more accurate.

Anyway, this is what they're looking for:


We’re looking for someone who is:

* In his late 30s to early 40s.

* Smart – he needs to be credible in his interactions with scientists and engineers. Science, stuntman, or engineering background is a strong plus. He does not have to be an "expert" in science or engineering per se, but should grasp the science or engineering concepts at least well enough to ask the kind of intelligent questions that our intelligent viewers appreciate.

* Tough, but an "Everyman" – He should be credible dealing with military officials, mechanics, pilots, test subjects – the whole range of folks who build things and sometimes blow things up all in the name of progress. Military, construction, or mechanical engineering background is a strong plus. He should come off as knowledgeable but likeable – and definitely a man's man.

* Charismatic, but not too "hosty" – He should be able to explain the who-what-where-when-how of the testing in a clear, direct, and always conversational way. We need someone who seems comfortable in his own skin and comfortable on camera. But he should also be comfortable letting the light shine on the real stars of the show – the people who he encounters, who make "super testing" a reality.

Do either of these guys fit the bill? If you think they do, you can vote for Laughing Wolf here, or Uncle Jimbo here.

Have at it, kids.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:36 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Race Card Solitare

If McCain's comparisons of Barack Obama and Paris Hilton are offensive, the Democratic nominee should start by blaming the person who first made that comparison.

Himself.

And in context:


There's nothing exotic or complicated about how phenoms are made in Washington, and, more to the point, how they are broken.

"Andy Warhol said we all get our 15 minutes of fame," says Barack Obama. "I've already had an hour and a half. I mean, I'm so overexposed, I'm making Paris Hilton look like a recluse."

The new senator from Illinois is dazzling another venue, in this case the Gridiron Club. It is early December and Obama won't start his new job for a few weeks. But he comes well steeped in the basic physics of hype.

"Well steeped in the basic physics of hype"?

RACIST!

(Big hat tip to Seton Motley of Newsbusters.org)

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:21 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

The Compassion of the Progressive Left

That saddest thing about reader reaction to Raw Story's article about Bob Novak's retirement due to a "dire" brain tumor diagnosis?



These are their moderated comments.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:47 PM | Comments (26) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

The Pain Tool

How arrogant is Nancy Pelosi in making this statement?


"We have a planet to save. We have an economy to grow," Pelosi said on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos". "And we can do that if we keep our balance in all of this and not just say but for drilling in unprotected and these protected areas offshore, we would have lower gas prices."

In what alternate reality do Democrats believe that continued reliance on the building of oil rigs in third-world nations is better for the planet than building much cleaner, greener oil rigs off our shores?

We're going to need the oil regardless of where it comes from, and the Democrat-led Congress is conceding the chance to "go green" by switching as much of our consumption as possible to domestic extraction methods we can control. Pelosi isn't saving the planet, she is forfeiting a unique opportunity in this nation's history to help create an environmentally-friendly domestic conventional energy market.

But then, Pelosi isn't trying to save the planet, she's trying to drive up prices. She and other liberal democrats are hoping to force us to concede to their desire for funding more R&D into alternative energy sources that do not yet exist. In effect, she wants us to put a substantial amount of our eggs in a basket that hasn't been built yet, and starve for years to come while it is being constructed, and hope that it works.

And they say Democrats don't support faith-based initiatives.

Which brings us to the second point, our economy. How can we grow an economy when Democrats are doing all they can to put a stranglehold on the extraction of fuels and development of energy sources that makes it run?

It is devastatingly clear that Democrats are purposefully crippling the economy by refusing to take steps to lower conventional energy prices, and indeed, are taking steps to make our energy concerns become a crisis by habitually and continually challenging attempts to extract proven domestic energy sources, and challenging attempts to upgrade or build new power plants. They want us to panic, and agree to fund new, unproven energy sources and technologies under duress.

That isn't democracy. That's extortion.

As for prices, elementary students can readily grasp the concept that raw materials acquired locally are going to be cheaper that paying the same globally-set prices for that material, and then paying the costs of having to ship them halfway around the world... but again, this isn't a concern for this crop of Congressional Democrats. They view your pain view it as a tool to wrest concessions from you.

So much for all the empty rhetoric about caring about the middle class.


* * *

CY Commenter "Matt" related this experience on The Economy Killers thread last week:


Ya know something?

Ive been going through a program called troops2roughnecks. It is a class put on by the troops transition team.

Well we had our first class today, and I learned an interesting tidbit of information that the politicians seem to ignore.

Like any big business, oil and drilling companies do things with tactical intent. Back in the 70s and 80s the drilling companies drilled thousands and thousands of oil and natural gas wells off the coast of the US, then capped them. They do this because they, and everyone else, knows that business is an investment. So you drill and cap, then when market price rises you extract. That way you did a bulk of the work at a lower price. Then the ban was enacted, so these wells sat and were not exploited.

Now we are looking at the ban being lifted.

According to the instructor who has over thirty years of experience in the oil fields, and has worked in everything from a routabout to CEO claims that the oil (and these are proven wells) can be turned over to market within six months. SIX MONTHS!

According to him, there were over 3000 wells dug in the Gulf, around a thousand dug off the coast of California, and between 500 and a thousand dug off the east coast. He says that something like 90% of them were proven oil.

So is there someone in the oil industry who out there can confirm or deny what this guy told Matt on the record? Are there thousands of proven and capped oil and natural gas wells off our coasts that can be producing a flow of domestic energy in months, that Nancy Pelosi and our Democrat-led Congress are stone-walling?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:35 PM | Comments (26) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Activists: Killing Animals is Bad, Targeting Researcher's Family with Firebombs is "Necessary"

All my friends on the left were outraged by the Tennessee church attack last week because of the reasons for the attack cited by the deranged shooter. They (not law enforcement) subsequently labeled the shooting "domestic terrorism."

I'm sure they will issue equally ferocious condemnations of this attack shortly.


The FBI today is expected to take over the investigation of the Saturday morning firebombings of a car and of a Westside home belonging to two UC Santa Cruz biomedical researchers who conduct experiments on animals.

Santa Cruz police officials said Sunday the case will be handed to the FBI to investigate as domestic terrorism while local authorities explore additional security measures for the 13 UCSC researchers listed in a threatening animal-rights pamphlet found in a downtown coffee shop last week.

[snip]

While a spokesman said he didn't know who committed the act, the Woodland Hills-based Animal Liberation Front called the attacks a "necessary" act, just like those who fought against civil rights injustices. Spokesman Dr. Jerry Vlasak showed no remorse for the family or children who were targeted.

"If their father is willing to continue risking his livelihood in order to continue chopping up animals in a laboratory than his children are old enough to recognize the consequences," said Vlasak, a former animal researcher who is now a trauma surgeon. "This guy knows what he is doing. He knows that every day that he goes into the laboratory and hurts animals that it is unreasonable not to expect consequences."


You heard the man. According to our learned left-wing doctor, researchers that are trying to get an understanding of how the brain works deserve to have their children burned to death.

The local police captain was less than impressed.


Clark, the Santa Cruz police captain, said it was "unconscionable" for anyone to defend such acts: "To put this on par with any of the human rights issues is an absolute insult to the integrity of the people who fought and went through the human rights movement. This is what people do when they have an inability to articulate their point in any constructive way. They resort to primal acts of violence. Any reasonable person would need a logic transplant to begin to understand this level of degraded thinking."

Degraded thinking? From the animal rights crowd?

Surely, you can't be serious.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:55 AM | Comments (29) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

August 02, 2008

Herbert's Hissy Fit

Bob Herbert is not happy:


Gee, I wonder why, if you have a black man running for high public office — say, Barack Obama or Harold Ford — the opposition feels compelled to run low-life political ads featuring tacky, sexually provocative white women who have no connection whatsoever to the black male candidates.

In addition to being unhappy, Herbert's also a purposefully dishonest hack—Harold Ford was linked to "tacky, sexually provocative white women" because he infamously attended a Playboy Superbowl Party, as Accuracy in Media hammered home:


He [Ford] was at an event where scantily-clad women were featured attractions. How can a Democrat, a member of a political party that caters to feminists, defend that?

Would it have been accurate to depict the Playboy-type model in the ad as black? Anybody who takes a passing glance at Playboy knows that the vast majority of the "models"―the Playmates or Playboy Bunnies―are white. By chance, I was flipping through my cable channels the other night and came upon a show on the E! channel titled "The Girls Next Door," featuring Playboy founder Hugh Hefner and his current crop of Playboy "girlfriends." All of his girlfriends are white. A quick visit to the Playboy website finds no black models at all.

So an ad featuring a white and blonde Playboy-like floozy, saying, "I met Harold at the Playboy party," is quite accurate, regardless of whether Ford is black or white. But desperate pro-Democratic Party liberal media figures want to find something despicable in a commercial that is based on a simple truth.

Likewise, it is a simple truth that like Britney Spears or Paris Hilton, Barack Obama is famous primarily for being famous.

During his short time as a state legislator in Illinois, he accomplished very little of note and arguably less than many of his state office peers. Not even through his first term as a U.S. Senator, Obama is running for President based upon even less. He has not been able to establish himself as anything other than a Senate backbencher, has pushed through no bills of national significance, failed at consensus building, and has proven to be unwilling or unable to reach across the aisle to build bi-partisan support.

Like Britney Spears, Obama is great on stage, and a trainwreck of non-stop gaffes when left unattended by handlers. Like Paris Hilton, Barack Obama is famous, but no one can precisely explain why he is famous. He has risen to astronomical heights based on "buzz" instead of accomplishments, and if he falls in November, is likely to never be heard from again.

He is nothing more or less than a political pop star.

Bob Herbert, of course, doesn't want to admit this fact. Like so many who have peddled to Obama's defense, his greatest fear is that Barack Obama might be judged by the content of his character... or his lack thereof.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:56 PM | Comments (73) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

August 01, 2008

Obama's Netroots Supporters Continue "Blog Burning"



Let's Party Like It's 1933.

Tell me once more how progressives love free speech.


This blog has been locked due to possible Blogger Terms of Service violations. You may not publish new posts until your blog is reviewed and unlocked.
This blog will be deleted within 20 days unless you request a review.

Its the same message Concrete Bob received and Rosemary posted for him.

This is bulls**t as it appears that someone does not approve of the idea of free speech especially when the speech doesn't conform to their ideas.

Online activists thought to be loyal to Barack Obama are once against using Google's software tools to target rival political blogs for elimination as spam blogs. This occurred earlier this year when Democratic bloggers with a preference for Hillary Clinton also found themselves locked out of their own blogs, all because of spurious and apparently orchestrated claims that these blogs are spam blogs. Pro-Obama activists were blamed for those attempts at censorship as well.

Like John at Argghhh!, I don't think for a second that the Obama campaign has any official knowledge of this attempt to hamstring or terminate rival political viewpoints, but as Obama once won an election by exercising procedural tricks to have his rivals thrown off the ballot, it is certainly in line with the kind of character he has displayed in the past.

Update: Republican revolt in "Pelosi's Politburo."

Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats fled the House of Representatives, turning off the microphones and the lights as Republicans continued to debate energy policy without them.

They seem to be having loads of fun with it:


Rep Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) just pretended to be a Democrat. He stood on the other side of the chaber and listed all of the GOP bills that the Dems killed.

He then said "I am a Democrat and here is my energy plan" and he held up a picture of an old VW Bug with a sail attached to it. He paraded around he house floor with the sign while the crowd cheered.

Update: Drat! Another good 2-minute hate down the toilet.


08/02/08 Update: As noted in the Instapundit link above posted yesterday, the lockout is not targeted at specific sites, but is widespread.

From Blogger's Blogger Buzz:


We've noticed that a number of users have had their blogs mistakenly marked as spam, and wanted to sound off real quick to let you know that, despite it being Friday afternoon, we are working hard to sort this out. So to those folks who have received an email saying that your blog has been classified as spam and can't post right now, we offer our sincere apologies for the trouble.

I jumped the gun when I accepted emailed claims from some of my fellow bloggers without verifying them independently , and I apologize.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:30 PM | Comments (39) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

The Economy Killers



Welcome to a preview of your future, now.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have recessed Congress without passing a single appropriations bill, and the WSJ informs us that this is the first time that has happened since the 1950s.

They've effectively shutdown Congress, because of one simple reason: despite a steady increase in global demand that assures energy prices will continue a relentless rise in the long term, they refuse to allow any new domestic energy production.

Oil.

Natural Gas.

Coal.

Nuclear.

It doesn't matter. We have it, we need it, but Democrats don't want us to tap it, dig it, drill it, or use it. They feel that it is their responsibility to force Americans into using unproven energy sources, many of which are still on the drawing board. They will simply starve the nation's economy of our current resources, forcing every higher energy prices, forcing us to try to migrate to energy sources we don't yet have and which may not work, relying on an infrastructure that hasn't been built, and which may cost trillions.

Nancy Pelosi wants you to pay ten dollars for a gallon of gas. You'll be forced to drive a smaller car, restrict your travel, and use less carbon-producing fuels.

Harry Reid wants fewer coal and nuclear-fired electricity plants, and to charge you ever more for your air conditioning, your cooking, your electronics, your necessities, and your toys.

You'll payer higher costs on everything—food, clothes, medicines—and those higher costs will be passed along to businesses. Those businesses may have to start laying off all but critical personnel, and those surviving businesses will pass along the higher prices of their products and services to you, if you still among those who have a job.

You'll be forced to cut back on usage, or consider pouring money into expensive more energy-efficient appliances and home upgrades to "save" the environment and what remains of your bank account. So much for that college fund for your kids, or saving for your retirement, or having money set aside for family emergencies or illnesses.

How bad do you think it will get if Barack Obama, the untested progressive freshman Senator who seems to think he is running a coronation instead of a campaign, is elected President?

Do you think think that the exalted candidate of the fringe left environmental movement and Friend of Gore is going to suddenly shift towards a common-sense energy policy if elected? He doesn't have one now, so why would he change when he was the unwavering support of global warming truthers and a unified far left Congress behind him?

Of course, this may not be an issue for you. You may not mind adjusting to newer, smaller vehicles that cost more and can do less. You might think that the increased taxes are worth it. You may have extra money in your home budget that you would otherwise waste on frivolous things if not required to use them to pay for necessities like natural gas and electricity. I'm thrilled for you. Really. I am.

But for those of us who don't have extra money laying around in piles, this should be your wake up call.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:15 AM | Comments (58) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

New "Distraction" Alert: Obama Accused of Collecting $24,321.41 From Gaza Strip

Which is illegal if true, but the illegality of foreign campaign contributions well over the $2300 individual limit pales in comparison with the probability that the vast sum of money most likely would have come from Hamas, a terrorist group that had endorsed Obama earlier in the year.

For his part, Obama has publicly maintained that while he "understands" Hamas' view of him, he will not meet with them (Obama campaign advisor Rob Malley resigned in May for meeting with Hamas).

It may also be worth noting that Obama's church of 20 years, Trinity United Church of Christ, reprinted an article in their July 22, 2007 church bulletin by Hamas official Moussa Abu Marzook, denying Israel's right to exist (Obama has since severed ties with the church).

Obama has been consistent in condemning Hamas and defending Israel's military responses to rocket attacks.

Apparently, that message hasn't been received in Gaza.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:14 AM | Comments (32) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

July 31, 2008

Two Americas: One Where Kids Are Always Useful Political Props...

.. and that other America, where John Edwards has discontinued a scholarship program to send rural high school graduates to college, now that he is no longer running for President.

Presumably, he now needs that money for another kind of child support.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:06 PM | Comments (28) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

The Morning After

John McCain's latest ad comparing Barack Obama to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears didn't impress me that much, but appears to have made an impression on all the right people.

Why is such a simple association gaining traction, when far more troubling aspects of Obama's life being ignored or swept away?

People don't want to think about the fact that Barack Obama has no executive experience, that this legislative accomplishments are meager, and that his resume is thin. It scares them to look too deep into what he hasn't been able to accomplish... and so they don't.

People don't want to think about the fact that Obama is the first presidential candidate in our nation's history with direct ties to domestic terrorists, or radical, conspiracy-mongering clergy... and so they don't.

They look at the commanding stage presence. They bask in his oratory, carefully scripted not to offend, or to ask too much. They indulge themselves in his promise that he can be everything they need. They set aside reason. They set aside details. In a swoon, they think only about how he makes them feel now.

While followers of Obama have often been compared to religious zealots, the comparison is a false one. Zealots—true believers—can tell you from rote memory the articles of their faith, the details, the specifics that touch their core, often by chapter and verse.

Obamaphiles have been challenged time and again to answer what Obama believes in, to provide the substance behind their devotion, to explain what makes Obama "the One."

Most supporters offer a blank look when asked about his substance. Others get confused, then angry, though they don't even know why. Some rattle off a list of party-held positions or personally-held beliefs. Some, like the candidate himself, simply wave off such requests for substance as a "distraction."

Rachel Lucas and others come the closest in accurately describing Obama lust. It isn't a religious experience. It's beer goggling.

After almost eight years of frothing media pounding on the Bush Administration in particular and Republicans in general, and the addled mumblings and several years of toothless bravado of Democratic leadership, continuous campaign chasers, and plenty of cheap shots, we're all tipsy, tired, and ready to fall into the arms of the first attractive thing that comes along.

Barack Obama sweeps in wearing a pretty smile. He tells us we're beautiful. He utters sweet nothings in our ears, telling us we are the ones we've been waiting for.

He whispers, "It's different not because of me, but because of you. Because you are tired of being disappointed and tired of being let down. You're tired of hearing promises made and plans proposed in the heat of a campaign only to have nothing change."

And as he smiles that beautiful smile, and it all sorta make sense if we don't try to dig too deep. He's trying hard to charm our pants off, and we're inclined to believe him, because believing is easier.

He's pretty, and he's glitzy, and he's popular, and he's hoping you won't realize the trainwreck he is until the morning after the election.

Paris. Barack. Britney.

It resonates for a reason.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:42 AM | Comments (29) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

July 30, 2008

Choose The Facts You Want...

...as there seem to be plenty of "facts" to choose from.

James Hider in the UK TimesOnline is just one journalist of many rushing to tell the tragic story of a young Palestinian ruthlessly gunned down by an Israeli soldier:


Israeli soldiers shot dead a young Palestinian boy today during heated protests in a West Bank village close to Israel's huge separation barrier.

Hammad Hossam Mussa, believed to be around nine years old, was mortally wounded by an Israeli bullet as protestors threw rocks near the West Bank close to the village of Nilin.

[snip]

Salah Al Khawaja, a member of Nilin's Committee Against the Wall, said Israeli troops fired live rounds at a group of protesters who ran into Nilin after security forces dispersed demonstrators using rubber-coated bullets.

"Protesters arrived at the wall's construction site outside the village and the soldiers started to open fire with rubber bullets and tear gas. This pushed the protesters back into the village where the boy was hit by a live bullet in his chest," he said.

It doesn't much look like a chest wound.



Other news accounts offer variations of the basic story that roughly corroborate the image, though the L.A. Times reports that the boy was in a crowd; the New York Times claims he was resting under a tree. Also, the boy's age ranges from 9, to 10, to 11, to 12 depending on the news outlet.

It's very sloppy journalism, but symptomatic of reporting from the region.

Interestingly, according to the New York Times, the Israeli Army "had no knowledge of the shooting."

The IHT states that Palestinian officials refused an Israeli request for a joint autopsy, which may cause some raised eyebrows considering the Palestinian history of faking deaths even on video. The Palestinian autopsy states that the bullet that killed the boy came from an M16, a weapon both sides have.

It will be interesting to see the results of the Israeli investigation into this case, even though judgement has already been passed in the eyes of the word's media.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:42 AM | Comments (39) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Summer Camp?

That is what Reuter's says this picture portrays.



The caption reads, "Palestinian youths attend a summer camp organised by the Islamic Jihad movement in Gaza City July 30, 2008."

The Islamic Jihad, of course, is a terrorist group established with the goal of wiping out the Jewish state of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic Palestinian state. Their interests include Qassam rocketry, suicide bombings, and martyr operations.

This isn't a "summer camp" as we would recognize it. This is the modern Hitler Youth.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:22 AM | Comments (25) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

July 29, 2008

Lynching, Lynching Everywhere...

Just when you thought the Huffington Post couldn't become any more self-parodying, someone comes along to make it even more laughable:


Despite his background as a comedian, Stephen Colbert is known by many of the authors who have appeared on his show as one of the toughest interviewers in the business. But on July 28, when country music superstar Toby Keith stepped on the set of the Colbert Report to promote his movie, Beer For My Horses, he was greeted by his host with nothing less than reverential admiration. After a jovial, back-slapping sit-down with Keith, Colbert turned the stage over to his guest for a performance of the song that inspired the title and theme of his forthcoming "Southern comedy."

While Keith belted out "Beer For My Horses," Colbert's studio audience clapped to the beat, blithely unaware that they were swaying to a racially tinged, explicitly pro-lynching anthem that calls for the vigilante-style hanging of car thieves, "gangsters doing dirty deeds...crime in the streets," and other assorted evildoers.

Or perhaps Colbert, his audience, and the millions of people who have heard this song since it first hit number 1 in 2003 are simply far more grounded in reality than Mr. Max Blumenthal, who apparently sees a chance to scream "oppression!" behind every rock, tree, and country-western movie and music lyric.

After listing the lyrics to what was until now the uncontroversial lyrics of a song
about a "thirst for justice," Blumenthal whines that:


During the days when Toby Keith's "Grandpappy" stalked the Jim Crow South, lynching was an institutional method of terror employed against blacks to maintain white supremacy.

Though it will doubtlessly come as a shock to Mr. Blumenthal, this song, co-written by Scotty Emerick, is not autobiographical, any more than Keith's "I Love This Bar" is an ode to an illicit man-on-mahogany affair.

The song is entirely fictional and rhetorically set in the Old West, as the imagery of horses, whiskey, saloons, gun smoke, outlaws, and the "long arm of the law" clearly evoked for anyone reasonably grounded in this reality.

Conveniently,Blumenthal glosses over that the lyrics of Keith's song include the all-important words "It's time the long arm of the law put a few more in the ground." This singularly expressed and culturally understood idea of the Old West deputized posse, led by sheriffs and marshalls operating under the color of law and made famous in hundreds of western movies and television shows over decades as part of our shared cultural heritage that Keith is drawing on utterly undermines Blumenthal's creation.

It is a delusion undone, revealing far more about Blumenthal's tortured psychology than Keith's lyrics, Colbert's insightfulness, or America's past.

Mr. Keith has every right to whimsically sing about whiskey for his men and beer for his horses, even as he might suggest that Mr. Blumenthal can (and probably should) take a nice tranquilizer with his merlot.

Perhaps for tomorrow's amusement Arianna Huffington can find a delusion even more spectacular than Blumental's latest—with Naomi Wolf lurking in the background, that is always a possibility—it's that prospect of ever more unintentionally funny, lethally-refined insanity that keep us coming back, time and again.

08/08/08 Update: Toby Keith himself hears about Blumenthal's moronic lynching claims, and tees off:


"It's about the old west and horses and sheriffs and posses and going and getting the bad guys. It's not a racist thing or about lynching. The song was a hit and the words lynch and racism has never come up until this moron wrote this blog."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:44 PM | Comments (66) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Selective Outrage

Sunday's shootings at a Unitarian Universalist church in Knoxville, TN was a horrible tragedy caused by a man with a laundry list of psychological issues and naked hatred against anyone unlike him.

As horrible as these events were, the death toll at the church could have been far worse. Jim David Adkisson was armed with a semi-automatic 12-gauge shotgun and 76 cartridges, but only managed to fire three rounds before being overpowered by the congregation. I wrote about the string of small miracles that occurred at the church, a series of coincidences that kept an awful event from becoming even worse.

As innocuous as that post was to most normal people, online progressive activists and bloggers, wasting no time in trying to twist the tragedy to their political advantage, flooded my inbox and the comments section of that post with crude language and spittle-flecked, half-formed thoughts of rage.

Some claimed that by writing this post, I was "a lying fascist thug," apparently for merely pointing out that in addition to his stated hatred of gays and liberals, he targeted a church "after expressing beliefs to neighbors in the past that he had an abiding anger against Christianity, an anger that appears rooted in his childhood." It was later confirmed that Adkisson did have issues with religion dating back to his childhood, and that the specific church he targeted was one that was once attended by his ex-wife.

Another went off on a rant in another direction, hissing, "So if he had targeted a mosque, that would be OK because it wasn't a church, I presume. You know, them 'sand people' and all that..."

Rarely have I seen strawmen created and then slaughtered with such ferocity, especially by a political group so thoroughly untroubled by the thought of the slaughter most experts predicted would occur in Iraq if their calls for an immediate pullout in Iraq had been heeded in the past few years.

Another stated "your side launched a terrorist attack yesterday. Two innocent Americans died. Why does your side hate America so much?"

Indeed, the meme that the attack was domestic terrorism seems quite popular among some on the far left, and they have trotted out this tragedy as example of a specific kind of domestic terrorism, one that they've branded as "eliminationism."

They spare no bile or blame in asserting that Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and others in the conservative movement indirectly contributed to Adkisson's abbreviated rampage.

Give their newfound concern about domestic terrorism, and their stated disgust with those who would advocate threats of harm as a political tool via eliminationism, I find it the pinnacle of hypocrisy that they offer unswerving support and near-Messianic devotion to a political candidate who began his ascension up the political ladder with a fundraiser at the home of a well-known pair of domestic terrorists.

Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn belonged to a group that declared war against the United States, bombed the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, and other buildings, and attempted to blow up a dance of American soldiers and their dates, only to have the pipebombs prematurely detonate instead, taking only terrorist souls.

The leftwing political blogosphere has no tolerance for domestic terrorists at all...

...unless they're long-time friends of their Presidential candidate.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:20 AM | Comments (259) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

July 28, 2008

Small Miracles

There was a shooting at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, TN yesterday during a children's play. Two people have died, and seven more are recovering from injuries that resulted when an unemployed man with a long history of verbal hostility against Christians targeted this specific congregation because he also hated liberals and gays.

While many in the political blogosphere will no doubt focus on the fact that Adkisson said he hated liberals and gays, the fact of the matter is that the didn't target a gay club or local progressive political groups, he specifically targeted a church. He did so after expressing beliefs to neighbors in the past that he had an abiding anger against Christianity, an anger that appears rooted in his childhood. The church appears to have been targeted because it embodied at least three things this pathetic human being hated, not just the one or two things I know certain critics will single out as they view the world through their own warped prisms.

Adkisson had apparently planned to keep murdering church-goers until gunned down by police. He planned to keep killing innocents until he died in a hail of police bullets... suicide-by-cop. But he was instead tackled and restrained by church-goers just seconds into his attack as he attempted to reload after shooting his shotgun's magazine dry.

The two people that died were 60 and 61. Those wounded were 38, 41, 42, 68, 69, 71, and 76. Though Adkisson walked past an assembled group of children outside the sanctuary awaiting their stage call, he did not fire on them. No children were physically injured, and no parents of young children were killed, creating orphans. There is reason to be thankful for that.

Though he was found with 73 live 12-gauge shotgun cartridges, he was only able to fire 3 before being tackled while trying to reload. Most semi-automatic and pump shotguns hold 5 rounds of 12-gauge ammunition, unless plugged for bird-hunting. Those two additional shots would have taken less than a second to fire, and could have hurt several more people, at least. There is reason to be thankful that the previous owner of the gun was probably a bird hunter. There is reason to be thankful that Adkisson apparently didn't know enough to remove the plug.

Sunday was a horrible day for the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church, and there will be terrible days ahead as they seek to recover, and to heal.

But most will heal, and a day that could have been far worse was not, thanks to small miracles.

Update: Apparently there are some people who want to go on a shrieking political bender about this tragedy (both right and left), but that isn't going to happen here. Comments off.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:11 PM | Comments (25) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

July 25, 2008

When Denied A Chance to Turn Wounded Troops Into A Photo Op, Obama Declined to Meet with Them at All

Why did Barack Obama cancel his visit to see wounded U.S. soldiers yesterday at Landstuhl Medical Center in Ramstein, Germany?

According to the Politico and the Chicago Sun-Times, the Obama campaign is blaming the military, claiming that the Obama campaign was told the visit "would look too political."

But according to MSNBC, Obama and his Senate staff could have visited wounded troops; he simply couldn't bring along his campaign staff and the media.

The campaign's response? They withdrew the request to visit the troops.


The official said "We didn't know why" the request to visit the wounded troops was withdrawn. "He (Obama) was more than welcome. We were all ready for him."

If he can't use them as props, it seems Barack Obama has little use for the military. Come to think if it, that is roughly how they factor into his feckless foreign policy plans as well.


Update: Spin away, fanboy. Greg Sargent tries to cover for Obama, citing what we already knew: that Obama's campaign staff (and the media) was prohibited from visiting the hospital. It's a particularly weak attempt at deception, as it overlooks—purposefully, it seems—that there was precisely nothing stopping Obama from bringing members of his Senate staff with him, or simply visiting the troops himself.

But Sargent also claims that Obama didn't bring his Senate staff with him.

Uh-oh.

So explain something to me, Obama fans: how can Obama go on his "look at me" tour of American bases with only his campaign staff, and not with any of his Senate staff, and still claim his trips were part of a congressional fact-finding delegation?

If he only brought his campaign staff, and no Senate staff as Sargent claims, then I'd like to know if American taxpayers picked up any of the costs associated with his multi-nation, round-the-world trip, or it was Obama's campaign alone that picked up the bill.

Update: HuffPo contributor Brandon Friedman also tries the dishonest route:


Barack Obama canceled a pre-planned visit to the troops in Germany yesterday after being told by the Pentagon that the trip would violate a Pentagon policy prohibiting campaign stops on military installations. No problem there.

No problem, of course, except for the fact that flatly isn't what the Pentagon said.

Let's type this slower so that Friedman, Sargent, and the Obamaphiles in the media can follow along:

Obama was never told he could not visit wounded soldiers. In fact, he was told they were prepared for his visit.

What he was told is that he could not bring his campaign staff and the mass media. He had to go as a Senator, not a president candidate.

Once Barack Obama found out he would have to visit wounded American soldiers alone—guarded only by his massive Secret Service and State Department security detail—he balked.

Let's make that a bit more clear:

Barack Obama withdrew his request to visit the troops.

He could have gone, but made the decision not to go on his own, without his campaign entourage.

It's so simply even a journalist could get it right... if they wanted to.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:30 AM | Comments (106) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

So Did Obama "Blow Off" Troops, Or Didn't He?

Writing in today's New York Daily News, James Gordon Meek states that U.S. Army officials have disputed an email sent out by an American serviceman stationed at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan, where the author claims that Barack Obama disrespected American servicemen by refusing to meet with them.

The email was published here in full yesterday, and read:


Hello everyone,

As you know I am not a very political person. I just wanted to pass along that Senator Obama came to Bagram Afghanistan for about an hour on his visit to "The War Zone". I wanted to share with you what happened. He got off the plan[sic] and got into a bullet proof vehicle, got to the area to meet with the Major General (2 Star) who is the commander here at Bagram. As the Soldiers where lined up to shake his hand he blew them off and didn't say a word as he went into the conference room to meet the General. As he finished, the vehicles took him to the ClamShell (pretty much a big top tent that military personnel can play basketball or work out in with weights) so he could take his publicity pictures playing basketball. He again shunned the opportunity to talk to Soldiers to thank them for their service. So really he was just here to make a showing for the American's back home that he is their candidate for President. I think that if you are going to make an effort to come all the way over here you would thank those that are providing the freedom that they are providing for you. I swear we got more thanks from the NBA Basketball Players or the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders than from one of the Senators, who wants to be the President of the United States. I just don't understand how anyone would want him to be our Commander-and-Chief. It was almost that he was scared to be around those that provide the freedom for him and our great country.

If this is blunt and to the point I am sorry but I wanted you all to know what kind of caliber of person he really is. What you see in the news is all fake.

Meeks' article counters:


But angry Army brass debunked the Obama-bashing soldier's allegations, which went viral Thursday over the Web and on military blogs such as Blackfive.

The e-mail claims Obama repeatedly shunned soldiers on his way to the Clamshell - a recreation tent - to "take his publicity pictures playing basketball."

"These comments are inappropriate and factually incorrect," said Bagram spokesman Army Lt. Col. Rumi Nielson-Green, who added that such political commentary is barred for uniformed personnel.

Obama didn't play basketball at Bagram or visit the Clamshell, he said. Home-state troops were invited to meet him, but his arrival was kept secret for security reasons.

Meek's article provides another much needed perspective to the story of Obama's visit to Bagram, and makes what I think is a fair case that the officer who wrote the Bagram email was basing his email on his limited first-person perception of events, and that he wrote his post without the benefit of knowing all the facts.

It is vitally important for us to know that Barack Obama didn't play basketball in Afghanistan, nor did he visit a specific tent. We should be grateful that Meek ferreted out the truth and debunked those scurrilous allegations.

But LTC Nielson-Green's refutation of these two rather minor specific points does not at all address the most important allegation made in the viral email, the author's perception that soldiers on base were "blown off" by the junior Senator.

In fact, the PAO admits that Obama only met with selected soldiers. Only service-persons from Illinois were invited to meet him, and soldiers not from Illinois (the author of the email is from Utah) were indeed not met by the junior Senator. Though no doubt a touchy situation for the military, the key premise holds.

The same handful of faces are seen in all the pictures released to the media from Obama's visit. If you were not a soldier from Illinois or otherwise selected serviceman, you were not allowed to meet Obama. The question then arises whether the decision to limit contact with the troops was a decision made by the military brass, if that was a decision made by the Obama campaign, or by joint agreement.

The second email published, from someone at an air base as Obama swung through Iraq stated in part that Obama's visit was "A disgraceful PR stunt, using the troops as a platform for his ego and campaign."

To date the second email has gone unchallenged and a senior officer I interviewed confirmed on background that Obama's visit to Iraq was nothing more than a campaign stop masquerading congressional delegation visit.

Update: James Gordon Meek of the Daily News has posted an update in the comments, noting contact with the author of the email, and his dialing back of the now viral claim. It reads:


"I am writing this to ask that you delete my email and not forward it. After checking my sources, information that was put out in my email was wrong. This email was meant only for my family. Please respect my wishes and delete the email and if there are any blogs you have my email portrayed on I would ask if you would take it down too. Thanks for your understanding."

My military sources don't seem to agree with Meek's assertion that the email constituted a violation of military regulations barring political statements, as the email was sent only to family members. That the email was distributed beyond that was beyond his control.

It bears noting that the Iraq email has not be challenged by anyone, and Obama's refusal to meet with wounded GI's because his campaign staff and the media couldn't come with him is a far bigger story, and one that has done Obama far more damage.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:35 AM | Comments (74) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

July 24, 2008

G.I. In Afghanistan: Obama "Blew Them Off"

Blackfive posted this email yesterday and has another supporting account (added below in an update) from another member of the military who was also present during Obama's carefully scripted P.R. World Tour.

I think you should read it.


Hello everyone,

As you know I am not a very political person. I just wanted to pass along that Senator Obama came to Bagram Afghanistan for about an hour on his visit to "The War Zone". I wanted to share with you what happened. He got off the plan[sic] and got into a bullet proof vehicle, got to the area to meet with the Major General (2 Star) who is the commander here at Bagram. As the Soldiers where lined up to shake his hand he blew them off and didn't say a word as he went into the conference room to meet the General. As he finished, the vehicles took him to the ClamShell (pretty much a big top tent that military personnel can play basketball or work out in with weights) so he could take his publicity pictures playing basketball. He again shunned the opportunity to talk to Soldiers to thank them for their service. So really he was just here to make a showing for the American's back home that he is their candidate for President. I think that if you are going to make an effort to come all the way over here you would thank those that are providing the freedom that they are providing for you. I swear we got more thanks from the NBA Basketball Players or the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders than from one of the Senators, who wants to be the President of the United States. I just don't understand how anyone would want him to be our Commander-and-Chief. It was almost that he was scared to be around those that provide the freedom for him and our great country.

If this is blunt and to the point I am sorry but I wanted you all to know what kind of caliber of person he really is. What you see in the news is all fake.

I guess it should come as little surprise, then, that Obama has dropped meetings with U.S. soldiers stationed in Germany—including wounded soldiers from the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan— in favor of meeting with French and German civilians.

Priorities, you know.

Update:

The second email from a member of the military in Iraq , forwarded to me from Blackfive:


I had a first hand view of Barrack Obama's "fact finding" mission, when he passed through this base.

While I can't name it, it's one of the largest air bases in the region, with up to 8000 troops (depending on influxes and transients in mobilization/demobilization status), mostly Airmen and Soldiers, but some Marines, Sailors, Koreans, Japanese, Aussies, Brits, US Civil Service, contractors including KBR, Blackwater and Halliburton, among others in the news. The overwhelming majority of all of these are professional, courteous and disciplined.

Problems are rare.

Casualties are also rare. This base has a large hospital for evacuation—twenty plus beds. I have yet to see a casualty in one, though I am told there are about three evacuations a week through this region, of which two on average are things like sports injuries, vehicle accidents or duty related falls and such. You can tell from the news that the war is going well. The ghouls are now focusing on Afghanistan, since there is no blood to type with here.

This oped is of course subjective and limited, but I will try to present the facts as I saw them. I wasn't able to see much, which makes a point all by itself.

When his plane arrived (also containing Senators Reed and Hagel, but the news has hardly mentioned them), there was a "ramp freeze." This means if you are on the flight line, and not directly involved with the event in question, you stay where you are and don't move. For a combat flight arriving or departing, this takes about ten minutes, and involves the active runway and crossing taxiways only. For Obama's flight, this took 90 minutes, during which time a variety of military missions came grinding to a halt. Obviously, this visit was important, right?

95% of base wanted nothing to do with him. I have met three troops who support him, and literally hundreds who regard him as a buffoon, a charlatan, a hindrance to their mission or a flat out enemy of progress. Even when the rumors were publicly admitted, almost no one left their duty sections to try to see him, unless they were officers whose presence was officially required.

Mister Obama's motorcade drove up from the flight line and entered the dining hall toward the end of lunch time. Diners were chased out and told to make other arrangements for food, in the middle of the duty day.

Now, there are close to 8000 troops on the base and its nearby satellites. No one came up from the Army side (except perhaps a few ranking officers). The airbase resumed operation, once he cleared the flightline, as if nothing had happened. The dining hall holds about 300 people and was not full. The troops did not want to meet him and the feeling was apparently mutual. In attendance, besides the Official Entourage, were the base's senior officers, some support personnel, and a very few carefully vetted supporters who'd made special arrangements. No photos were allowed. No question and answer with the troops. No real acknowledgment that the troops existed.

Obama left around 1530, during the Muslim Call to Prayer, so he's not a practicing Muslim. He was in a convoy guarded by (so I'm told) both State Department and Secret Service Personnel.

Less than three hours…

Within 48 hours he was in Afghanistan. It takes most troops longer than that to in-process and get cleared on safety, threats, policies and such. Yet he somehow made a strategic summary by not talking to anyone and not seeing anything.

Twenty-four hours after that, he was in Kuwait, back here, and then home, so fast we didn't even know he arrived the second time at this base.

I can't imagine any officer of the few he met told him anything other than what they tell the troops, and what their own leadership at the Pentagon tell them—we're winning. Our troops are stomping the guts out of the insurgency. The surge worked and is working. If the insurgents have to divert to Afghanistan, it means they can't fight in Iraq anymore. We should not change the rules and retreat with the enemy on the ropes as we did in Vietnam. We should finish kicking their teeth in. The Iraqi government now controls 10 of 18 provinces, with US assistance in the rest. Let us win the war. 90% of the troops I know, even those opposed to the war, say that is the way to win. Victory comes from winning, not from "change." In fact, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is on record as opposing Obama's strategic theory.

Since he obviously knew in advance that's what they'd tell him, and since he didn't care to talk to the troops (we're told by the Left that the troops are horrified, shocked, forced to commit atrocities with tears in their eyes, distraught, burned out, fed up with losing, etc) and find out how they feel, and was barely in country long enough to need a shower and a change of clothes, we can only call this for what it is.

A disgraceful PR stunt, using the troops as a platform for his ego and campaign.

In comparison, I've seen four star generals and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on this base. They each held an all ranks call, met with and briefed the personnel, and took questions on every subject from tour length to uniform design to rules of engagement to weapon choice to long term policy, from the newest airmen to the senior NCO with TEN 120-180 day tours since Sep 11. It's very clear they want to know what the troops think, and to keep them informed of events. It's equally clear mister Obama does not.

From here we must move to my op part of the oped.

Obama clearly doesn't care about the troops, doesn't care about America, doesn't care about anything except hearing his own voice and the chance to sit at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue…From where he'll bring us the proven Democratic wartime leadership of Bosnia and the Balkans (US forces still there), Somalia (US forces prevailed despite being ill equipped by executive order, and taking heavy casualties), Haiti (what were we doing there again?), Desert One (oops?), Vietnam (where we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory), Korea (still there), WWI, and the fluke success of WWII won by such wonderful liberal notions as concentration camps for Japanese Americans, nukes, FBI investigations of waitresses who dated soldiers in case they were "morally corrupt" and the (valid) occupation of and continued presence in Italy, Japan and Germany for 60 years, which they are conveniently pretending won't happen with Iraq.

That's not "change." That's "failure we can do without."

Update: Second-day coverage continues here.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:04 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

On The Surge: McCain Was Sorta Right, Obama Was Dead Never Wrong

It is rather amusing watching the media and lefty bloggers chase after John McCain for the candidate's continued insistence that the surge set the stage for the Sahawah or Awakening movement. McCain may be using questionable terminology when claiming that the surge predated the awakening, but only if we're talking about the increase in troop strength, which alone would have accomplished nothing.

What made the surge successful—and what McCain can quite fairly argue—is that the counterinsurgency doctrine that began prior to the formation of the Sahawah movement and capitalized on the growing Sunni discontent with al Qaeda is part of or are at least a precursor to the official surge of additional U.S. troops into Iraq.

Critics in the media and blogosphere somehow seem to be under the delusion that merely an increase in troop strength was the reason for the surge succeeding, but it was changes in strategy and tactics used by the greater number of soldiers that made the difference. Of course, how are liberals supposed to get their facts straight when even their experts can't?

McCain was right to go after Barack Obama's confused history of the surge the Sahawah movement, the decline of Shia militias, and the influence political and military movement by U.S. forces had in making each possible.

American forces provided support, funding, material, and often carried out raids on behalf of the Sunni tribes battling al Qaeda. Perhaps the Sunni tribes could have eradicated al Qaeda in time on their own—they had the home field advantage—, but it is a incontrovertible historical fact that they did not achieve their success without substantial U.S. assistance. Did the Sunni Awakening movement officially begin before the official start of the surge? Yes. Did it begin without any U.S. involvement? No. Could it have succeeded? We'll never know. It should worry the American people that Barack Obama does not seem to understand any of this.

Likewise, the more recent decline of Shia militias occurred because U.S. force trained and equipped the Iraqi the IA forces that stormed Barsa and Sadr City, we provided air and ground support during those raids, and of course, were securing other areas which freed up Iraqi forces to take the lead in these assaults which seem to have largely broken the Madhi Army and related Shia gangs. The success of Iraqi security forces over Shia militias did not happen in a vacuum, but because of substantial U.S. involvement. Barack Obama does not seem to understand this.

The security gains made in Iraq simply would not have occurred as quickly or as successfully as they did without U.S. forces. That Barack Obama would try to minimize that is understandable, as it to admit American forces were vital to the current state of affairs in Iraq would be an admission that he was wrong about the surge, and as we all know, Barack Obama is never wrong.

And so Barack Obama wasn't wrong about standing against the surge. He was not wrong for advocating the abandonment of the Iraqi people when things got tough. Barack Obama is never wrong.

And just pray the freshman senator isn't elected to a position where he'll "never be wrong" about issues affecting your life.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:30 AM | Comments (125) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

<< Page 116 >>

Processing 0.09, elapsed 0.3703 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.2888 seconds, 682 records returned.
Page size 659 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.