Confederate Yankee
July 02, 2008
Liberal Blogger Shot During Mugging In D.C.
Liberal blogger Brian Beutler was shot three times during a mugging last night in Washington, D.C., apparently over a cell phone.
Let's hope that he has a full and speedy recovery.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
05:03 PM
| Comments (39)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I click on the Spectator link and get...
Reported Attack Site!
This web site at www.spectator.org has been reported as an attack site and has been blocked based on your security preferences.
http://safebrowsing.clients.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?client=Firefox&hl=en-US&site=http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp#13426
What happened when Google visited this site?
Of the 96 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 1 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 07/01/2008, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 04/05/2008.
Malicious software is hosted on 2 domain(s), including h25.6600.org, dns5.8866.org.
Posted by: SSG Jeff (USAR) at July 02, 2008 05:37 PM (yiMNP)
2
I am reminded of the saying that a neo-conservative is a liberal who was mugged. I hope that he recovers, and that the experience causes him to rethink a few things.

Posted by: Grey Fox at July 02, 2008 05:44 PM (7/1Sr)
3
Bob, clean up on aisle 2
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at July 02, 2008 05:45 PM (kNqJV)
4
That was quick, thanks

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at July 02, 2008 05:45 PM (kNqJV)
5
It's not possible, there are no gun dealers in DC.
Posted by: DirtCrashr at July 02, 2008 07:08 PM (VNM5w)
6
I, too, will offer my prayers for a speedy recovery for Brian.
However, the more cynical part of me wonders how long before some lefty claims that this is because of the Heller decision knocking down DC's gun ban?
Posted by: C-C-G at July 02, 2008 07:15 PM (n8vfc)
7
You can bet the thugs just obtained they're weapons 'legally' in D.C. Liberals can start becoming part of the solution or continue to be the problem.
Posted by: Scrapiron at July 02, 2008 10:26 PM (I4yBD)
8
Outside the beltway has a post indicating he'll be alright. Though I'll believe it if he survives the hospital infection. :-) I'll clog the connection with a few prayers, too.
The Spectator notes his spleen was removed and suggest the severity of that loss, but I know someone who lost it in an accident when 8 and has never had an issue in over forty years. Here's hoping he has the same post-loss experience.
Thanks for pointing it out to me, CY.
Posted by: Dusty at July 03, 2008 08:55 AM (GJLeQ)
9
But...but HOW can this BE???!!! Guns are outlawed in D.C.! This just ISN'T possible, as the guy who shot him would have had to break the law to have the gun in the FIRST place! The guy would have had to commit a crime to have it.
Oh YEAH, the guy who shot Beutler was a mugger and ALREADY committed crimes!
If Beutler recovers, MAYBE he'll learn the lesson that if you make having a gun a crime, only the criminals will HAVE guns.
Posted by: chiefpayne at July 03, 2008 09:30 AM (clifi)
10
I hope all ends well for him, and will say a prayer. But I wonder if he wished that he had a gun when he was mugged, or if he wished there were more gun laws?
Posted by: Matt at July 03, 2008 10:12 AM (rHW2R)
11
I guess we will find out in a few days how he reacts and if he learns his lesson. Perhaps this is a liberal intelligence test. See how he does.
Posted by: Johnnie at July 03, 2008 10:17 AM (onLkk)
12
Strange, a leading liberal blogger who hasnt put a post up in a month and a half? Hummmm
Posted by: web at July 03, 2008 03:26 PM (LMvXl)
13
May Brian have a speedy recovery and a steady aim after he buys some protection, goes to school and learns how to protect himself, his family and his property.
Washington DC, is not safe even for esteemed liberal Senators in SUV's with expense account gasoline.
Who, me worry?
Posted by: Typical White Person at July 03, 2008 07:13 PM (08Idx)
14
Grey Fox, I don't know why you would be reminded of that, because you invented it. "Neo_Conservative" is a term invented by liberals to describe Jews who became hawks after 9/11. They aren't quite conservatives (hence the NEO), but not quite under the multi-culti suicide spell of the rest of the Jews and Liberals.
That being said, I hope his attacker was a member of the Preferred Minority (tm), as so to really cause him some angst.
Perhaps he can write us an essay on how gun control saved his life.
Sorry guys, liberals cause high crime rates and encourage victimhood. I cannot muster much sympathy.
Posted by: Smarty at July 04, 2008 09:44 AM (OBONn)
15
Smarty,
Maybe it is "conservative," not "neo-conservative." The basic saying is an old one, however. I am not old enough to have invented it. Bill Buckley might have...
Posted by: Grey Fox at July 05, 2008 01:42 PM (fLd3U)
16
You are right, sorry I freaked out. Liberals constantly work at twisting the language, and it ticks me off when they sucker people into their "new" meanings.
Posted by: Smarty at July 06, 2008 09:51 AM (OBONn)
17
Hope he recovers with no complications. Too bad the Supreme Court took too long to offer him the option of saving his own life.
Posted by: DoorHold at July 06, 2008 11:43 AM (VOAix)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Durham Democratic Party/Satanic Cult Shuts Down Web Site After Second Official Arrested
Demonic Change we Can Believe In?
Diana Palmer, 44, of Cottage Woods Court, surrendered to police Wednesday afternoon. She was charged with being an accessory after the fact of assault with a deadly weapon and was being held in the Durham County Jail under a $95,000 bond.
[snip]
Palmer is first vice chair of the Durham County Democratic Party. Johnson resigned her positions as third vice-chair of the Durham County Democratic Party and vice-chair of the Young Democrats following her arrest.
The county party disabled its Web site Wednesday afternoon.
www.durhamdemocrats.org/ is indeed offine, but their
backup site is functioning.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:24 PM
| Comments (27)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
C'mon Bob... that's just cruel. I mean, I'm sure the rest of the Durham Democrats are rather embarrassed about the whole thing... not that they were Satanists, but that they got caught doing the other stuff.
The question is... should they be happy that Mike Nifong isn't there anymore?
Posted by: SSG Jeff (USAR) at July 02, 2008 02:50 PM (yiMNP)
2
Bob, the backup site is now down too.
Barack Obama: "These were not the satan worshipping democrats that I knew"
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at July 02, 2008 05:48 PM (kNqJV)
3
Hmmm... shades of the old Soviet-era KGB "disappearing" people.
Now we have disappearing websites.
Posted by: C-C-G at July 02, 2008 07:18 PM (n8vfc)
4
I know it is juvenile, but I live not that far from Durham, so, I just have to say ROTFLOL!
Posted by: William Teach at July 03, 2008 10:35 AM (NaHh8)
5
I redid the story for ya: http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y164/wteach/3xmore/durhamDemocratsatanists.jpg,
Plus, a Change we can believe in graphic: http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y164/wteach/3xmore/cooltext93182841.gif
Posted by: William Teach at July 03, 2008 01:28 PM (NaHh8)
6
And this story isn't on the front page of the NY Times because . . . ? ? ? ?
Oh, right. It's about Dummocrats.
Now if it was about our heroic service personnel...well, that would be a different matter.
Posted by: Maggie Mama at July 04, 2008 06:20 PM (K8rep)
7
Well now Satan registration has been confirmed.
Posted by: Thomas Jackson at July 06, 2008 10:44 PM (LHaZf)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
"We're Bringing a Pitiful, Helpless Giant to Its Knees."
Mr. Obama, perhaps you should worry less about disassociating yourself from law-abiding American Muslims, and spend more time running away from your long-time terrorist friends.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:51 AM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Agitated, inflamed, and full of rhetorical overkill? Maybe. Terrorists? No!
Posted by: Little Ern at July 03, 2008 05:43 PM (bUpx3)
2
Nah, nah, nah. Literally placing bombs and trying to murder US Servicemen in order to make a statement that will bring about social and political change.
Who in America would consider that terrorism? Little Ern certainly doesn't. In fact he even put an exclamation mark to prove how much he means it.
I knew someone would rush to defend these monsters. Their ideals are in lockstep with a whole bunch of people.
(pssst. Liberals)
Posted by: brando at July 04, 2008 07:43 AM (Gs5OS)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Insert "Loan Ranger" Puns Here
Is anyone actually surprised?
I can't feign outrage over Barack Obama using his position as a new U.S. Senator to help secure a lower rate on a loan for The Home That Resko
Built Helped Cut a Deal On.
Obama had no prior relationship with the lender, was taking out a $1.32 million loan below market rates, without paying the customary fees. So what?
This is
politics folks, and this a typical example of why people go into a line of work that exposes them to constant ridicule and scorn. It's about amassing power and prestige for the payoff of parlaying that influence into personal gains, be they monetary, or the advancement of philosophical beliefs.
Barack Obama did precisely what every other politician does, and nothing more.
The
only reason this story merits any attention is that Obama's campaign has created a mythology around him that casts him as a reformer.
It is an excellent marketing gimmick, and he'll ride it as long as it is effective and helps the brand he is creating, but make no mistake; like all other politicians operating at this level, Barack Obama holds one conviction, and one conviction only:
I'm going to get mine.
And he did.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:02 AM
| Comments (39)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: Neo at July 02, 2008 09:39 AM (Yozw9)
2
"He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's white?"
Posted by: Neo at July 02, 2008 09:41 AM (Yozw9)
3
Aw, c'mon. Michelle is having trouble buying fresh fruit and riding lessons as it is.
Posted by: bgates at July 02, 2008 10:05 AM (RzFhF)
4
He got a small discount (amounting to $300 a month on a massive mortgage) from a bank that I'm sure wanted his business in part because he and his wife were making $500,000 a year and he had just signed a $2 million book deal. Also, this guy (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/07/most-irresponsible-piece-of-journalism.html) links to myFICA.com which says that people with excellent credit get an average of 50 points off their mortgage rate. Obama got 30 points off, and probably has pretty good credit, given his steady income and lack of debt. Non-story.
Posted by: Dan at July 02, 2008 10:21 AM (H66EY)
5
"This is not the same home loan rate I used to know and respect..."
Posted by: ElcubanitoKC at July 02, 2008 10:24 AM (lhJxs)
6
The fact that 'every' politician does it, is what gives this story legs. Obama being caught in the same deal just gives it more resonance.
Posted by: JohnMc at July 02, 2008 10:25 AM (zAUn9)
7
You should see the rates you can get if you have 8 figures with an iBank. 6 month LIBOR plus 1-2% (depending on your balance) is not unusual for a 30yr. fixed.
If Obama did get this loan after signing a $2mm deal, then he didn't get a very good deal at all.
Posted by: Eric at July 02, 2008 10:56 AM (daj+0)
8
Ha Ha. Too bad for Ob_ma, may his name be praised. Seems that those he preaches agin' - those money hunger speculator types - why they are just fine to do personal business with! And loan people - yes you, you are being cast as the speculator types - by BO. Did you think the no-doc loans were going to continue? or that they would withstand scrutiny?
Posted by: Californio at July 02, 2008 11:05 AM (Tr7Cq)
9
Good credit gets you a reduced rate. Good friends get you no fees. Obama owes somebody a favor for that. Probably arranged by Tony.
Posted by: Jeff at July 02, 2008 11:17 AM (zQ0HK)
10
He got the 'favorable' loan because another bank had made him an offer, but the won't identify the other bank until he can find a bank president to lie and confirm Osama's lie. BWAHAHAHAHAHA
Je$$ie and Al must be beating their heads on a concrete wall, a better liar and con man has taken their 'ripoff' business away.
Posted by: Scrapiron at July 02, 2008 11:24 AM (GAf+S)
11
We have a million dollar mortgage with NT and we did not get the same deal around the same time. We have excellent credit and had owned homes around the world. And we did due diligence on a number of banks and their proposals. Always make banks compete even the ones who carry your cash assets. He got this loan for only one reason: he was an Illinois politician and newly minted US Senator. We got ours because of our credit history and net worth and ability to repay and the assessed value of the property at the time, just everyone else.
Posted by: Jack is Back! at July 02, 2008 11:28 AM (LlDGu)
12
How does getting a low loan rate qualify Obama to be President ?
Posted by: Neo at July 02, 2008 12:15 PM (Yozw9)
13
There had to be a quid pro for this quo.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 02, 2008 01:16 PM (dcqty)
14
"The real question is: Were congressmen getting unique treatment that others weren't getting?" associate law professor Adam J. Levitin, a credit specialist at Georgetown University Law Center, said about the Countrywide loans.
I'd submit that this isn't the question. The answer to that question is already known.
Yes, they were getting loans nobody else could get.
The real question is why aren't we calling this what it is: bribery?
That's the real question. And for those who would argue that well, Obama didn't "do anything" to get the loan ... please tell me you aren't so naive as to not understand that the quid and the pro quo never happen on the same day.
If you want to bribe a politician, you buy him that shiny new house today ... and then ask for the favor next week when you need it.
That's how bribery works.
Posted by: bribewatch at July 02, 2008 02:01 PM (Ncq2X)
15
I'm not so worried about Obama's campaign trying to cultivate a myth, as much as so many of us buying into it.
When did we get this dumb as Americans?
Posted by: ashok at July 02, 2008 03:14 PM (nVW5D)
16
Hate to say it but this is a non issue to me. I bought my house in September 2005 and my interest rate is 5.75%, about the same as Obama. Since I put down 20% I didn't pay any fees or points either. Heck, if you would have bought a house in July 2003 you could have gotten a loan for 3.9%.
I'd have to agree with the liberal wacko above, Obama kind of got screwed with that rate.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at July 02, 2008 05:53 PM (kNqJV)
17
Much adoo about nuthin. My guess is the Obama's FICO score was above 750, so of course they got a favorable rate. Why yammer about this??
Posted by: Michael D. Setty at July 02, 2008 06:38 PM (XvpWw)
18
In Chicago does a home loan come with its own bagman and Union legbreaker?
Posted by: DirtCrashr at July 02, 2008 07:10 PM (VNM5w)
19
The Obamas claimed to be in heavy debt around and before that time. Maxed out credit cards, student loans etc. So to assume they had a high credit score is wrong.
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGU1YzQyODA5MTI3OGQ4YzU4NTc0ZmRkNDhkNzI4MzA=
Posted by: Mikey at July 03, 2008 03:07 PM (T17vG)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 01, 2008
Reporting What They Want You to Hear
I've criticized ABC News on numerous occasions for their coverage of gun-related stories, but their coverage of the Joe Horn shooting incident in Pasadena, Texas is one of the more irresponsible stories they've posted since ... well, since the last one I saw in late April.
Perhaps equally unsurprising is that the Associated Press made the
same crucial omission in a story that has gained national attention.
Joe Horn faced the possibility of being charged by a Texas grand jury after he shot and killed two men who had broken into the home next door. Horn had called 911, told the dispatcher he though they were going to get away, and despite repeated pleas by the dispatcher to stay inside his own home, decided to step outside with a shotgun after declaring his intention to kill them.
He did.
The shhoting seven months ago has inflamed ethnic tensions in the area, and raised questions regarding the ethical use of deadly force to defend property. There are all sorts of opinions on the story, but a key detail that may have significantly influenced the grand jury's decision not to press charges was completely ignored by ABC News and the Associated Press.
As noted in passing by some news outlets including the L.A.
Times, plainclothes police officer responding to Horn's 911 call
witnessed the shooting:
Ballistics tests suggested that at least one of the men had been shot in the back, raising questions about Horn's story.
But a plainclothes detective who witnessed some of what took place later told investigators that the men did not stop when a visibly nervous Horn pointed a shotgun in their direction, and that at least one man appeared to be moving toward Horn when Horn fired.
The Houston
Chronicle likewise noted the
presence of the detective:
Pasadena police have said a detective in plainclothes had parked in front of Horn's house in response to the 911 call, and saw the two men before they crossed into Horn's front yard.
Police believe that neither Horn nor the burglars knew an officer was present.
When Horn confronted the men in his yard, he raised his shotgun to his shoulder, police have said. However, the men ignored his order to freeze.
Authorities have said one man ran toward Horn but had angled away toward the street when he was shot in the back just before reaching the curb.
The tape of Horn's 911 call, testimony from Horn, and forensics were no doubt key pieces of evidence weighed by the grand jury, but it is reasonable to suspect that the testimony of the detective that witnessed the shooting—a
very rare occurrence in cases involving the use of deadly force—was among the most influential evidence heard by the grand jury.
Why, then, was the mention of the detective's eye-witnessing these events and no doubt providing key testimony that influenced the grand jury's decision not to bring charges whitewashed by the these news organizations?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:06 PM
| Comments (32)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Some people believe deadly force is never justified and that the criminal is always right.
In Maryland a criminal killed a policeman with his car. Taken into custody he was found dead. How he died is not yet certain. However this case is now being tried in the press.
While I would certainly wish an inquiry into the reasons and cause of death the press should not speculate nor allow it to be used as an instrument to cause tension.
In fact, I think we would be a better society if we followed the Uk's practise of not allowing coverage of a criminal trial until the verdict is rendered. The rights of the accused should always take priority over the press.
I doubt the media will cover ewither Horn's case or this one with any even handedness or fairness. Its time we stopped allowing the media to play advocate for criminals.
Posted by: Thomas Jackson at July 01, 2008 03:41 PM (LHaZf)
2
Horn should be given the medal of freedom. Taking two illegal, worthless criminals, from this earth was a great service to the citizens.
Posted by: Scrapiron at July 01, 2008 11:23 PM (I4yBD)
3
I hope Mr. Horn policed his brass for reloading and properly cleaned his weapon after using it. I pray to have a neighbor living by me that is his brother's keeper.
Posted by: twolaneflash at July 02, 2008 08:20 AM (05dZx)
4
"Why, then, was the mention of the detective's eye-witnessing these events and no doubt providing key testimony that influenced the grand jury's decision not to bring charges whitewashed by the these news organizations?"
I've asked myself for years: Is the media malicious or just incompetent? The only possible answer is that they are both.
Posted by: Jabba the Tutt at July 02, 2008 08:33 AM (v9rJu)
5
Well, I have nothing against shooting criminals or illegal aliens in the back, but the apparant statements of the plainclothes officer don't really do much for the issue. While it is important that at least one of the criminals first moved towards, but then turned away, still they apparently got shot in the back. Now, in the old days, and Justice OConnor actually endorsed this belief, the police or anyone could use deadly force to stop any criminal; burglar, murderer, rapist, thief, etc. I think that is the point we should get back to. Widespread use of deadly force was one of the reasons crime was so low before the 60s. Really bad criminals just did not have very long lifes. Or they just did not commit crimes where there was much of a chance of confrontation with the public or cops. Getting shot in the back by a cop discouraged much crime.
Posted by: Johnnie at July 02, 2008 10:29 AM (onLkk)
6
I've always been fond of a "Bill of No Rights" which happens to include the following:
If a cop (or armed citizen) shouts something like "stop or I'll shoot", you do NOT have the right to NOT get shot if you don't stop.
Back - front - side - doesn't matter to me. They refused the order and got what they deserved.
Posted by: Mark at July 02, 2008 01:07 PM (4od5C)
7
WRT the the prisoner found dead in custody. You will be happy to know the ACLU is not interested in pursuing the issue. Why? Because everyone involved is Black.
Posted by: davod at July 02, 2008 01:40 PM (llh3A)
8
Texas Penal Code
§ 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Tex. Penal Code § 9.43 (2007)
§ 9.43. Protection of Third Person's Property
A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.
__________________________________________________
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." ("General Introduction to Psychoanalysis," S. Freud)
Posted by: George Bruce at July 02, 2008 02:41 PM (v4XVE)
9
I'm glad they dropped the charges, and not particularly surprised considering the location, but killing burglars who were arguably running away is a questionable act.
As for why important information was left out of the usual suspect's reports, I assume that was a rhetorical question as we KNOW why.
Posted by: DoorHold at July 06, 2008 11:54 AM (VOAix)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Where Do We Go From Heller
By a disturbingly narrow 5-4 decision, the learned minds on the Supreme Court determined last week that the Second Amendment means what it says:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Founders were quite clear on what this Amendment meant, with Thomas Jefferson unequivocally stating, "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." James Madison stated
likewise:
"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..."
The Founders were clear:
the body of the citizenry—even those not formally enrolled—helps comprise the militia, and so it is codified
into federal law.
As the citizenry is the militia, and in light of the
Heller decision, two details of existing U.S. federal gun laws should be re-examined.
The Hughes Amendment
The Hughes Amendment was interjected into the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) of 1986 by Rep. William J. Hughes (D-N.J.), late in the debate and literally in the dead of night. The provision banned the civilian ownership or transfer of any fully-automatic weapon which was not manufactured before May 19, 1986. Though witnesses claim the amendment failed in a voice vote (even though many opponents were absent an empty House), gun control proponent Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) was presiding over the House at the time, and declared the amendment approved. FOPA as a whole subsequently passed House and Senate votes and was signed into law.
Though it will come as a surprise to some, fully-automatic weapons are not illegal for U.S. citizens to own, be they submachine guns, selective-fire assault rifles, or crew-served, belt-fed machine guns. According to the BATF, there are
at least 240,000 machine guns in civilian hands (PDF) in the United States as of 1995, with roughly half of those belonging to government agencies, and the other half belonging to individuals.
The Hughes Amendment cannot claim to have had any impact on gun deaths; there have been only two known deaths attributed to legally-owned machine guns singe 1934. One of those was
at the hands of Dayton, OH Police Officer Roger Waller, who used a department-issue MAC-11 submachine gun to murder a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman in 1988. FOPA, by the way, does not apply to police agencies, meaning it was utterly irrelevant in this case.
A second MAC-11 was used (PDF) by Dr. Shou Chao Ho in the murder of Dr. Carmelito Olaes in 1992 may be the only murder committed with a legally-owned, BATF-registered machine gun since the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 began requiring registration
74 years ago.
So if it hasn't hand any impact on saving lives, what has the Hughes Amendment accomplished?
It has raised the price of those firearms among the most suitable for militia use in these modern times to exorbitant levels. A basic, no-frills M-16A2 selective fire as issued to all U.S. military forces (and therefore, perhaps the most directly applicable firearm for militia use) has a replacement cost for the military of
just $586. Factor in the $200 NFA transfer tax and a gun dealer's profit, and such weapon should still cost an American citizen who has passed the requisite (and extensive) background checks no more than $1500-$2000.
Because of the middle-of-the-night Hughes Amendment banning individual civilian ownership fully automatic weapons manufactured after May 19, 1986, prices for existing machine guns are
exceedingly expensive, as transferable machine guns have become collectors items. The greatest impact of the Hughes Amendment is to make gun collectors, speculators and certain dealers wealthy, at the expense of the intent of this nation's Founders when they imagined the purpose of the militia.
Overturning the Hughes Amendment need not be any more telegraphed nor debated than the original Amendment itself. Simply amending language to overturn the constitutionally-dubious ban to an appropriate bill before the House should return use to a more appropriate NFA-ruled state of affairs that has served this country so well these many years, though that federal law as well could use some updating as well.
Updating the National Firearms Act of 1934
Without question, the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 is what most Americans would consider "reasonable" gun control.
It was passed at a time in American history when criminals engaged in high-profile shootouts with the police during the "Public Enemy"" era of 1931-35, and in the year where Charles "Pretty Boy" Floyd, Bonnie and Clyde, and John Dillinger were all killed in shootouts with authorities.
The NFA was a $200 dollar transfer tax on automatic weapons, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, silencers, "destructive devices" in two categories, and "any other weapon," a category to regulate other weapons not necessarily covered in other classifications, but deemed worthy of taxation and regulation. It was designed to be used a another law enforcement tool against criminals unlikely to pay a transfer tax the equivalent of roughly five months salary at the time.
As a law enforcement tool NFA has been and continued to be an effective tool but is perhaps unduly cumbersome for those civilians who desire to own firearms or firearm components regulated by the law.
As
noted in Wikipedia:
Individual owners do not need any license under the NFA to buy Title II weapons. However, the purchase and sale of NFA weapons is heavily taxed and regulated, as follows.
All NFA items must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Private owners wishing to purchase an NFA item must obtain permission from the ATF, obtain a signature from the county sheriff or city or town chief of police (not necessarily permission), pass an extensive background check to include submitting a photograph and finger prints, fully register the firearm, receive ATF written permission before moving the firearm across state lines, and pay a tax. The request to transfer ownership of an NFA item is made on an ATF Form 4.
Most Americans have little problem with such restrictions being placed upon NFA-defined "destructive devices" that includes explosives, non-blackpowder rifles greater than .50-caliber, or machine guns, but it is perhaps time to reconsider whether or not the short barrel rifle and silencer provisions of NFA are due to be removed.
Short-Barreled rifles (SBRs)
Short-Barreled Rifles (SBRs) are those firearms with a stock that have either a barrel of less than 16-inches, or a total length of less than 26 inches. For firearms with folding or detachable stocks, measurements are taken with the stock fully extended.
SBRs are imminently practical firearms.
Most (not all) SBRs currently in production are short-barreled versions of common assault rifles, and are chambered for either intermediate-power assault weapons, or comparatively low-powered pistol cartridges.
A specific subclass of SBRs, called PDWs (personal defense weapons) has emerged in recent years, designed to bridge the gap between full-size rifles and handguns for military personnel who do not carry a weapon as their primary job function, but who may still be called upon to defend themselves. Different from previous carbines or long-barreled pistols pressed into the role, PDWs are typically chambered with special ammunition that give them greater range and accuracy than pistol caliber bullets common to submachine guns and many carbines, and in military and police guises, often use armor piercing ammunition and are selective-fire.
SBRs are popular among military units and police units because they provide rifle-grade accuracy in a stocked firearm nimble enough for close-quarters use inside buildings. SBR's chambered in .223 Remington/5.56 NATO are particularly useful and
safer alternatives to shotguns, pistols, and larger caliber rifles because the .5.56 bullet, having much less mass than even the lightest typical centerfire pistol bullets, provides adequate stopping power, enhanced accuracy, and far less risk of over-penetration compared to other weapons.
As a public health issue, it would be worthwhile for Congress to weigh the pros and cons of amending the NFA to make at least some SBRs more accessible to the general public.
Doing so may:
- reduce the need to discharge a weapon at all in legally-justified defensive shooting situations, due to a significant intimidation factor/deterrent effect;
- reduce the number of shots fired, as SBRs have more practical accuracy than pistols
- specifically in the case of the 5.56-chambered SBRs, reduce the risk of collateral damage due to over-penetration;
- be a more palatable option for communities that still desire to minimize the number of handguns available to the criminal population, while still providing law-abiding citizens an extremely effective home defense tool.
It is also worth noting that the existing SBR provisions of the 1934-passed NFA have largely been antiquated by technology, with legal pistol variants of both AK-47 and AR-patterned rifles available for sale with only the restrictions placed upon normal handgun sales.
It would make sense to provide the public with this viable alternative firearm for all the reasons noted above, plus the obvious applicability for SBRs as a firearm well-suited for militia use.
The
Heller decisions, including both the majority and minority opinions, has opened a conversation on the role of firearms in American law and society. The usefulness of the Hughes Amendment and the updating of the National Firearms Act are but two small steps we should take to help create and maintain the kind of free society that Jefferson, Madison, and the other Founders intended.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:20 PM
| Comments (27)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
200 million firearms in the hands of 60 million American citizens; we are a voting bloc like no other. Join the NRA and/or other pro-gun organizations and show your muscle.
Posted by: Saint Patton at July 01, 2008 01:46 PM (MQVqX)
2
The NFA is subject to exactly the Same argument as all gun Control laws...criminals don't follow laws they don't want to. Its the definition. the CDC has not been able to find ANY gc law that has had an affect on crime. calling it or any thing "Sensible" gc is to Compromise by giving and not getting.
Posted by: RC at July 01, 2008 02:57 PM (c4cuM)
3
I'm not going to lose any sleep over the price of a machine gun or having to jump through a few hoops in order to own certain weapons.
Posted by: stevesturm at July 01, 2008 06:38 PM (ixXP5)
4
As a Marine who has deployed many times, both in the "regular" infantry, and as a SOF Operator, I have never found an instance where I felt the need to fire on full or burst (minus when I served as an 0331, but full in that MOS is a given). Yet as the constitution is written, and as case law describes it, banning select fire or crew serve weapons does not meet the criteria in the 2A to be prohibited. As has been said in case law from the FF era, "Dangerous and Unusual" weapons are subject to restriction. As seen in case law "Dangerous and Unusual" are defined as a weapon that a soldier is not likely to be trained with.
Now know that rifles (Rifles PERIOD) only account for 2% of weapons used in crime. Now know that rifles classified as "assault weapons" are used in less than a percent of that 2%. Now going along with what CY has stated, only two people have been murdered by select fire or full auto weapons since the thirties.
Come on people. We do not have a gun problem in the US, we have a violence problem. The government will never be able to solve this problem. It is on us to solve it. Solve it through education.
Posted by: Matt at July 01, 2008 09:26 PM (rHW2R)
5
I've quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2008/07/re-where-do-we-go-from-heller.html
Posted by: Consul-At-Arms at July 02, 2008 12:14 AM (1P4oF)
6
Self defence makes sense, and so does property defence. If criminals KNOW it very well could "be their ass", crime rates go down. That's a proven fact and stats are there. Stats on whether people really have the guts to defend their lives and property are a bit more difficult to find. I have asked the question of people before. "Do you have loaded firearms in your home?" At the negative(usually accompanied with a horrified expression), I ask "A victim wannabe, huh?"
Posted by: Tonto (USA) at July 02, 2008 08:01 AM (aSdNE)
7
Unless I'm missing something (I'd have to reread the text to be sure), the Heller decision does not say that the citizenry is the militia, though it does state that in the 1700's the militia was considered to be all able-bodied men of age to serve. It actually decouples the right to bear arms from service in a militia, clarifying that it is an individual right. Thus, it does not necessarily follow that the Supreme Court would ever see fit to dismantle any more gun regulations; at least such regulations were intentionally left untouched by the decision.
Interestingly, the Heller decision would seem to totally undercut the most popular argument against gun registration, which is that it could be used later to confiscate guns. With a Constitutional guarantee of your right to have your guns, this argument doesn't hold water anymore, and the Heller decision clearly leaves intact the power of the state to register and regulate guns in ways that don't prohibit them outright. You could still argue that registration is expensive and ineffective, but the debate has become a matter of practicality, not rights, and the moral element is gone.
Posted by: Nate at July 02, 2008 12:45 PM (9KZ7w)
8
"I'm not going to lose any sleep over the price of a machine gun or having to jump through a few hoops in order to own certain weapons."
That's mighty big of you. Do you want us to lose any sleep over freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to a jury trial or whatever your pet issue is? In the long run, liberty is not divisible.
Posted by: Saladman at July 03, 2008 04:18 PM (LMheB)
9
Nate: Heller does not say that the citizenry is the militia, current U.S. law says that the citizenry is the militia. www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html
Heller does indeed recognize the individual nature of the right, decoupled from militia service. Heller left other gun regs untouched because they were not at issue in the suit, which was a deliberate strategic decision on the part of Levy and Gura.
On the face of it, Heller as it stands allows most current regulations. When you dig into it, though, it appears that Scalia set us up for future 14th amendment incorporation, and for 2nd amendment rights to be given the same degree of protection as the other individual rights in the first ten amendments. This is big if our side plays its cards right.
smallestminority.blogspot.com has some good posts on this if you scroll down to Another Guest Post and Heller High Water.
Posted by: Saladman at July 03, 2008 04:35 PM (LMheB)
10
The whole SBR thingie has to be one of the most inane distinctions in the history of gun banning.
Never mind the semi-autos, some of the handiest carbines you can image were the short barreled lever guns made before the NFA went into effect. Oh sure, many of the originals are specifically exempted, but they are usually rather spendy and often chambered in archaic calibers. It's a shame we can't get newer models.
Posted by: ThomasD at July 05, 2008 03:00 PM (4VdPN)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Obama's Bus List. Now With More Carnage!
Updated with suggestions from the previous post and recent events.
| Under the Bus | Clinging to the Bumper |
NEW! the "fist bump"- NEW! Move-On.org
- NEW! Wesley Clark (sorta)
- Grandma Dunham
- Rev. Jeremiah Wright
- Fr. Michael Pleger
- Jim Johnson - Countrywide
- Michael Klonsky
- Muslim supporters
- babies that survive abortion attempts
- 8,000 Members of Trinity Church of Christ
- Samatha Power
- Obama advisor/Hamas friend Rob Malley
- Austin Goolsbee
- Tony Rezko
- a less than week-old pseudo-presidential seal
- bitter, gun toting, religious white people of rural Pennsylvania
- Scarlet Johansson
| - Marilyn Katz (former SDS radical, Obama campaign PR professional)
- Carl Davidson (former SDS radical, Fidel Castro Fan, webmaster of Progressives for Obama)
- Michelle Obama
- half-brother Abongo Obama, a militant Muslim
- "Uncle Frank" Frank Marshall Davis, role model/mentor and member of the Communist Party USA, poet who authored "Smash-on, victory-eating Red Army"
- Bill Ayers, domestic terrorist and long-time friend
- Bernadine Dorhn, Ayer's wife, fellow domestic terrorist, and Manson Family admirer.
|
It's a good thing the Freshman Senator
has a new ride.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:00 AM
| Comments (23)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
It's probably a safe bet that the only one on the 'bumper' list that will survive Mr. Obama's Wild Ride is his spouse--the rest will become part of that great biomass caught where the rubber meets the road.
Posted by: ECM at July 01, 2008 11:53 AM (q3V+C)
2
This may be putting too fine a point on things, but you might consider, in addition to "under the bus" and "clinging to the bumper," a third category: "sent to the back of the bus." That's where I'd put his wife.
Another person for that category might be Susan Rice. About two weeks ago, when Obama was doing a lot of foreign policy doubletalk, she appeared on Morning Joe in the morning and Laura Ingraham's TV show in the late afternoon, and she was a disaster both times. I haven't heard a peep about her since.
And how about bowling balls?
Posted by: SAM at July 01, 2008 12:52 PM (I4yBD)
3
Please add Jesus, he ridicules taking the Bible literally and has replaced Jesus and Jesus' gospel for a universalist, humanist "social gospel" that depends on humans to redeem themselves and a perverted view of the Bible and support from a variety of Religious Left folks to back up his counterfeit Christianity.
Posted by: Cindy at July 01, 2008 01:11 PM (C9+q9)
4
You forgot Jim Johnson - Countrywide
Also...Dignity*
*unfortunately, Dignity seems to have gotten stuck under the axle and pummeled severely. Obama has "hired" a tertiary, volunteer mechanic in hopes of finding any remaining shred.
Posted by: Lamontyoubigdummy at July 01, 2008 01:29 PM (byDbO)
5
Time to get a tractor trailer, he's gonna need a lot more room. [Bill Clinton soon to be added]
Posted by: skeeter at July 01, 2008 02:27 PM (8TuTA)
6
Throw Obama, THROW! He's a major-leaguer all right.
Posted by: DirtCrashr at July 01, 2008 06:13 PM (VNM5w)
7
Here's my take on the Obama Bus:
http://nomayo.mu.nu/the_obama_express
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at July 01, 2008 06:35 PM (R7LgM)
8
“inartful” now ranks up there with “inoperative” “This is the operative statement. The others are inoperative.”
Posted by: Neo at July 02, 2008 07:36 AM (Yozw9)
9
McCain's first wife is already under the "Straight Talk Express"
Posted by: jon at July 02, 2008 09:41 AM (53wDu)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
At PJM: "Performance-Based" Gun Regulation
Should brewers be responsible for lowering the number of drunk driving fatalities? Should pharmaceutical companies be held responsible for reducing the number of deaths due to the abuse of prescription drugs? Should paint companies be responsible for reducing graffiti?
Of course not.
And the suggestion is
even more unhinged when applied to products we have a Constitutional right to own.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:51 AM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: Matt at July 03, 2008 10:13 AM (rHW2R)
2
Should manufacturers be held liable for illegal use of their products? Lawyers will say: Yes. HELL yes!
It's yet another back-door attempt at reducing or eliminating our Second Amendment Rights and, as far as I know, such attempts have been spectacularly unsuccessful.
I dunno, I almost WANT them to concentrate on stupid liberal tactics that have failed repeatedly. The harder they push, the more we are energized to push back.
Posted by: DoorHold at July 06, 2008 12:13 PM (VOAix)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 30, 2008
Some Obama Fans Really Are In a Cult
Too bad they worship someone other than the Obamamessiah:
Prosecutors said Craig's victims met him through a shared interest in Satan worship. They alleged Craig shackled his victims to beds, kept them in dog cages and starved them inside his Albany Street home.
He was charged with beating one victim with a cane and a cord and with raping a woman.
Johnson, who was third vice-chair of the Durham County Democratic Party and vice-chair for the Young Democrats, was charged with two counts of aiding and abetting. Prosecutors said she knew her husband planned the crime and watched as they were committed.
She has resigned her positions with the Democratic Party, said state Sen. Floyd McKissick, D-Durham.
When reached for comment this afternoon, Obama said, "this is not the Satan-worshiping third vice-chair of the Durham County Democratic Party that I knew."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:05 PM
| Comments (39)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Here comes the beginning of that pivot on Iraq ..Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Monday, in a major speech on patriotism, criticized MoveOn.org for referring to Gen. David Petraeus as General Betray Us last year.
Next, we should expect him to say that ... "while he opposed it from the beginning, we now have to deal with the situation as it exists."
After the "FISA" sellout, how long before the "netroots" are in full revolt ?
Posted by: Neo at June 30, 2008 02:09 PM (Yozw9)
2
That's not even funny. It's a crime. Would you laugh just as much if he was the third vice-chair of the Durham County *Republican* Party?
Posted by: Rachel at June 30, 2008 03:50 PM (R7y6H)
3
Wait, we're not allowed to laugh at crimes anymore? Huh?
Posted by: ECM at June 30, 2008 04:23 PM (q3V+C)
4
Tales about Obama beign the anti Christ are just that. Puts the idea that Democrats are leading this nation to hell some credence
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at June 30, 2008 05:02 PM (J5AYY)
5
Throw Satan under the bus!!
Posted by: DirtCrashr at June 30, 2008 05:09 PM (VNM5w)
6
Durham has had so many political scandals over the last 5 or so years-- I'm actually relieved that this didn't involve an elected official.
Posted by: capital L at June 30, 2008 05:56 PM (iTyqn)
7
Forget the criticism: Democrats have a lot to be proud about from this news. Unlike pansy Republicans who get into trouble for tapping feet in airport bathroom stalls and texting pages (OMG - men texting men!), Democrats go all the way with devil worship, chains, imprisonment, rape, blood and gore.
It's like Bush vs. Obama on the topic of substance abuse... the Bush got a ton of crap for drinking too much scotch. Wow, talk about non-unique. You just know Obama was the man, snorting coke and smoking crack at a pace to make a $25 hooker blush.
And that's what Americans want in a leader. Not some whitebread old flubby-cheeks ninny like McCain who might have gone 26 in a 25 zone ten decades ago and parks in the handicap stall without his tag at the country club, but someone who's walked the walk.
Posted by: redherkey at June 30, 2008 06:30 PM (kjqFg)
8
hey redherkey...take Code Pink bottom and go troll somewhere else....geez...
Posted by: Sandra Binder at June 30, 2008 11:28 PM (DTEiw)
9
I'll call your obscure South Carolinian democrats and raise you a Mark Foley, Jim Gibbons, Larry Craig, Vic Kohring, Bob Allen, etc., etc.
Let's just be honest. Most politicians have something wrong with them. It's a bipartisan issue...
Posted by: Juan Manuel de Rosas at July 01, 2008 02:59 AM (IVQmE)
10
Lots of practicing Satanists on that list, Juan. Lots of people accused of kidnapping.
Moral equivocation, anyone?
And does it come as any surprise that a good little Liberal would attempt to whip out a tu quoque and attempt to draw a false parallel?
'Sure, OUR guys are accused of violent felonies and Satanic worship... but YOUR guy sent an email to a page! THEY'RE JUST THE SAME!!!'
Posted by: DaveP. at July 01, 2008 03:49 AM (6iy97)
11
Obama's gonna need a lift kit for that bus to make more room under there.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 01, 2008 08:09 AM (dcqty)
12
@DaveP.
I trying to make the point that all politicians are screwed up — that there's something screwed up with politicians regardless of partisanship.
And personally, I think it's more than a little ironic that you'll drop a the tu quoque argument in the comment section of a post that's very clearly an association fallacy. But dropping logical fallacy arguments on comment boards is pretty much the lamest thing you can do on the internet. And yes, for the record, that's an ad homminem attack. Sue me.
Posted by: Juan Manuel de Rosas at July 01, 2008 11:33 AM (IVQmE)
13
Obama is a South Park episode in real life that just keeps on getting better.
Posted by: Mekan at July 01, 2008 11:46 AM (hm8tW)
14
"I trying to make the point that all politicians are screwed up — that there's something screwed up with politicians regardless of partisanship."
No, Juan. What you're trying to do is minimuize the horrible things people in your party are exposed as doing, by pointless and logically fallacious references to unrelated things others are doing. And you're doing it purely out of partisanship. (well, maybe ignorance... but I figured that was assumed.)
"So what? They ALL do it!" is no excuse, in a court of law or in real life. Yet, whenever a member of your political cult acts up in public, morally retarded toadies appear in public to make that very same arguement so quickly the sonic boom shatters windows.
So, Juan- let's hear some more about how forcible restraint and assault is morally comparable to tapping a guy's foot in a men's room... according to your lights.
Posted by: DaveP. at July 01, 2008 02:33 PM (HH3SH)
15
Good point, DaveP.
I was taught in elementary school that "but everyone else was doing it too!" is not a valid defense. A teacher asked me if everyone else was jumping off a cliff, if I would do it as well. That cured me of that particular excuse in a big hurry.
Posted by: C-C-G at July 01, 2008 05:33 PM (n8vfc)
16
and this news just after Obama says he supports giving more 'Faith Based Groups' money.
Is this his idea of a "faith based group"?
Posted by: mrclark at July 02, 2008 08:13 AM (mgkfk)
17
Juan Manuel de Rosas at July 1, 2008 11:33 AM sez:
"But dropping logical fallacy arguments on comment boards is pretty much the lamest thing you can do on the internet."
Nope. The lamest thing would be spelling flames. See below.
"And yes, for the record, that's an ad homminem attack."
Ad Hominem isn't spelled like that. This proves you're a dork, if not a friend of satanist kidnappers.
Do I get a hat trick for that?
Posted by: Wolf Pangloss at July 02, 2008 03:28 PM (BJVEF)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Saddest Thing About Barack Obama's Available Military Expertise...
...is that though he has Wes Clark in his corner, the only person he knows with the experience of getting a bomb on target is Bill Ayers.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:32 AM
| Comments (56)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at June 30, 2008 12:47 PM (oC8nQ)
2
Wesley Clark, super genius.
He's going a great job of getting Republicans and others who really don't like McCain all that much to get a chance to really embrace him over an experience for which Obama has no equal.
I'll assume that Wes Clark will be relegated to one of those low level staff positions from which all the Obama gaffes seem to emanate.
Posted by: Neo at June 30, 2008 12:57 PM (Yozw9)
3
BURN!!!
Brilliant, CY, Brilliant!!
Posted by: Huntress at June 30, 2008 12:58 PM (Qn9iF)
4
Ohhh, that's gonna leave a mark!
Posted by: Just Askin' at June 30, 2008 01:24 PM (esv00)
5
A good one, but not true. General Merrill A. McPeak is a military adviser to the BHO campaign. Whatever you think of his term as AF Chief of Staff, he was one hell of a fighter pilot in his day, and that included Viet Nam.
Posted by: Tregonsee at June 30, 2008 01:33 PM (5AN84)
6
I added this to the quote rotator on my right sidebar. Very nice!
Posted by: Chuck Simmins at June 30, 2008 01:35 PM (ZXtMw)
7
It's official .. an Obama spokesman sent out this brief statement as Obama was speaking: "As he's said many times before, Senator Obama honors and respects Senator McCain's service, and, of course, he rejects yesterday's statement by General Clark.".. Wes Clark under the bus.
Posted by: Neo at June 30, 2008 01:35 PM (Yozw9)
8
This is not the Wesley Clark I knew.
Posted by: Gullyborg at June 30, 2008 01:46 PM (VV5EQ)
9
OOOOOOOOOOOO........
That was right on target.
Well said!
Posted by: Bill Smith at June 30, 2008 01:48 PM (IE/I+)
10
Yeah, but McPeak tried to give the Air Force those horrid Delta Air Lines uniforms.
Posted by: TRO at June 30, 2008 02:23 PM (NGLV2)
11
It won't be on the American voters this fall that Baroque Obozo needs 'military advisers' since he never served himself....John McCain doesn't need 'military advisors'.....I'm sure that my pointing this out makes me some kind of 'racist'.
Posted by: Robbins Mitchell at June 30, 2008 02:27 PM (dt7iW)
12
Lemme get this straight.
Wes Clark in 2004, praising John Kerry, said that Kerry had served, and therefore knew what the country needed.
Wes Clark in 2008, attacking John McCain, says that even though McCain has served, he does not know what the country needs.
Yep, Wes Clark is a true disciple of the Politics of Change™ (that is, he changes to fit what he thinks will go over best at the moment.)
Posted by: C-C-G at June 30, 2008 02:38 PM (Hc4y8)
13
Wes Clark also has some experience in targeting the Chinese....
McCain also commanded a squadron for many years after he was released from POW camp. I suppose this pales in Wesley's post combat experience- CNN colour commentator or John Kerry's - Anti-military conspirator. Not being a military guy, I wouldn't know.
John Mac also didn't make helpful home movies to record his exploits for posterity. Has John K released his records yet?
You know with the Kerry/Clark/Clarke tag team helping out Obama's gonna win.
Posted by: wnmc at June 30, 2008 02:48 PM (uhUm8)
14
I'm glad to hear that Ge. McPeak was a Vietnam Ace, but I'm still not happy that he's a virtual Anti-Semite.
Posted by: Roderick Reilly at June 30, 2008 02:50 PM (n27hc)
15
If Clark is such a brilliant military advisor, you'd think he would pick a vulnerable point on which to attack his opponent. McCain has not been running on his military record, but if Clark wants to attack him on it, great, throw me in that briar patch (oops, that may be racist). My fear is that the dems will eventually awaken and attack McCain on the immigration issue. His record in that regard is abysmal and most Republicans part company with him on it. Nothing will rally the Republicans and many non-Republicans behind McCain better than an attack on his military service. Here's hoping they keep doing it.
Posted by: willis at June 30, 2008 03:10 PM (jyN1i)
16
But how is Obama going to run to the right of McCain's immigration policies? Obama favors drivers licenses for illegal immigrants, something that even most pro amnesty politicians (McCain included) have rejected.
Posted by: Sean P at June 30, 2008 03:34 PM (8Trif)
17
My fear is that the dems will eventually awaken and attack McCain on the immigration issue. His record in that regard is abysmal and most Republicans part company with him on it.
The Dems cannot touch the immigration issue without being stung themselves - and badly. Many people, left and right, want a wall and - let's face it - deportation. Esp since the economy's bad. If the Dems try that scheme it will blow back in their faces like it did the Reps back in 2006.
Posted by: Rachel at June 30, 2008 03:47 PM (R7y6H)
18
R. Reilly, McPeak was never an "ace". He flew as a Forward Air Controller, in other words he spotted ground targets for the fighter-bombers and attack planes.
This is not to denigrate McPeak's service, it took no small amount of courage to be an effectic FAC, but he was not in the business of shooting down enemy aircraft.
Having said that, McPeak became a very unpopular General. Most of the Zoomies I ever met need to spit when they say his name.
Posted by: Peter at June 30, 2008 03:49 PM (I4yBD)
19
Can someone explain to me exactly how General Clark is this batty?
Is it pure ambition, plain and simple? Or is there a tendency within the military to be like "that guy's a pain, let me promote him so I don't have to deal with him anymore?"
Please feel free to balance my implied assessment - the man must have done something right as a commander, no?
Posted by: ashok at June 30, 2008 04:02 PM (vmY7S)
20
McPeak became a very unpopular General.
Kind of like Wild Wes Clark, then. As Jim Geraghty put it a campaign or two ago, "Apart from his superiors, whom he disrespected, his peers, whom he lied to, and his subordinates, whom he micromanaged, everybody liked him" (my paraphrase).
I second Rod Reilly, who noted that McPeak seems to have an issue with the sons of Zion. Particularly the ones that try to bitterly cling to religion and guns and their tiny little homeland in the middle of the region of the rabid.
Posted by: Kevin R.C. O'Brien at June 30, 2008 04:20 PM (LkeNv)
21
Well, that's not exactly fair, Wes Clark hit the Chinese Embassy, lots of churches and historic sites, muni water works, civilian transport and dropped tons of cluster bombs on civilians.
Clark is also remembered and reviled in Europe for his infamous photo op with Bosnian Serb Gen. Ratko Mladic:
"Clark accepted as gifts Mladic's hat, a bottle of brandy, and a pistol inscribed in Cyrillic, U.S. officials said. 'It's like cavorting with Hermann Goering,' one U.S. official complained."
http://www.command-post.org/2004/2_archives/008524.html
The MSM fails to point out that Clark was relieved of his command as long as he is a useful idiot for the left.
Wes Clark should STFU while he's ahead.
Posted by: bjmonte at June 30, 2008 04:38 PM (aTHis)
22
Clark is an egocentric and embittered mediocrity who found a certain stardom on the left. Suddenly, he wasn't seen as what he was -- a mediocrity. It went to his head.
Posted by: rrpjr at June 30, 2008 04:51 PM (uf8br)
23
Of course, there is little mention of Clark's violation of Posse Comitatus during the Waco episode, where, as Division Commander of the 1st Cav, he supplied military training, personnel, logistics and technical support and Bradleys and a pair of M-1 Abrams tanks to "help" assault the Branch Dividian compound at the behest of Janet Reno and Governor Ann Richards. For someone who has constantly stated that coercion is never a good option, he has a short memory and so, apparently, do the American people.
His ambition since his earliest days as an officer is recorded and in the memories of those who served with or under him, and by those who commanded him. The last thing anyone wanted to do was to get in his way...he has a mean streak toward anyone who is not fully onboard...regardless of military discipline or rule of law.
Am still trying to find a photo of Mladic and Clark out in Serbia kicking back slivovitz like old college roommates. Seems like most of those on the net disappeared in 2004 after Clark's first foray into presidential politics. Would make a nice ad IF Clark is picked up by Obama as a VP running mate, which a number of Dems have suggested will be a likely paring on the Democrat ticket this Fall.
Clark being from Arkansas, had nothing to do with his rapid rise to upper levels in the military during the Clinton Adminsitration...right? His story parrelled Bill Clinton's...fatherless at an early age, raised by his mother and grandparents, from Little Rock...even a Chicago connection to go hand in hand with Hillary's script...and now, Obama's.
Posted by: coldwarrior415 at June 30, 2008 05:37 PM (LyWON)
24
Actually, General Clark was able to hit the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade with a bomb, but later claimed it was a mistake.
Posted by: ptg at June 30, 2008 06:25 PM (rVWj9)
25
General Clark also attacked allies (Russian forces) in Kosovo. Even the BBC, hardly a pro-Iraq-war organization, says so.
Posted by: C-C-G at June 30, 2008 07:17 PM (Hc4y8)
26
We were 20+ years USAF and had the misfortune to serve under McPeak - an utter idiot more obsessed with uniforms than operations. We were stationed in Europe when Clark was NATO. Even USAF knew what a toad he was.
Posted by: .05Worth at June 30, 2008 07:19 PM (JFdws)
27
So Wesley Clark and Bill Ayers, have about the same level of accuracy. Almost his entire cell, including the Kent State organizer, Terry Gold, were blown up by Diane Oughton; in the process
of building the bomb for the Ft. Dix dance. The
Pentagon bomb was mostly a dud.
Posted by: narciso at June 30, 2008 08:37 PM (I4yBD)
28
Thank you all for the info! The more specific you are, the more it helps.
Posted by: ashok at June 30, 2008 11:03 PM (UpBMf)
29
Among successful military pilots, the Democrats have elder statesman George McGovern, while the Republicans have convicted felon Duke Cunningham.
Figures.
Posted by: Mike at July 01, 2008 12:24 AM (+MY76)
30
The largest voting block in this country that no one really pays a attention to is the 25 million Vets, and by the way they also have families.
This sort of attack might in the words of Isoroku Yamamoto
"awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve"
Posted by: Dan Kauffman at July 01, 2008 07:02 AM (BNCg2)
31
In Col.David Hackworth's words, WEEEZLY Clark is a
true Perfume Officer!!!
Posted by: Gator at July 01, 2008 09:42 AM (uaTZE)
32
Awesome. Mind if I quote you?
Posted by: locomotivebreath1901 at July 01, 2008 10:58 AM (//Ayq)
33
"General Merrill A. McPeak is a military adviser to the BHO campaign...
Which makes him in my opinion a man of questionable values at best...
"he was one hell of a fighter pilot in his day, and that included Viet Nam"...
Without a doubt...
I'm NOT a McCain apologist and for what it matters I'm NOT a supporter of R.I.N.O. McCain (or anyone else who buys into the junk science of human induced global warming for instance) but the two men are indeed heros of the finest sort...
I'm confused how people can change so radically over time like these two seem to have...
Well what do I know?...:-(
Posted by: juandos at July 02, 2008 07:46 AM (ZlIz8)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Code Pink Founder: "I Wouldn't Characterize Anybody Who Fought in Vietnam As A War Hero."
This quote was from Medea Benjamin, co-founder of Code Pink, an organization that gave $600,000 in cash and supplies in "humanitarian aide" to an insurgent-controlled Fallujah several years ago in our current war (the Marines won anyway, which is perhaps why Code Pink is leading the assault against the Marines in Berkeley).
That is just one toxic outburst is a collection of indefensible comments from the radical fringe of the Democratic Party laughably called "progressives" in a series of personal attacks levied at Presidential candidate John McCain and
chronicled by Ben Smith in a
Politico article.
Prominent progressive blogger John Aravosis attacked McCain for breaking under brutal torture in North Vietnamese prisons, and labeled the unwilling use of McCain in a North Vietnamese propaganda film as "disloyalty." Tellingly, Aravosis has never uttered similar words of disapproval against Jane Fonda, who willingly and famously posed for propaganda photos on North Vietnamese antiaircraft guns that were used to shoot at American pilots like McCain.
Other angry souls associated with MoveOn.org,
CounterPunch, the
Huffington Post, and
Mother Jones also have expressed interest in attacking McCain's military record.
Democrat Wesley Clark—notable for his
scarcity of support in the military, notes fighter pilot Lex—also attacked McCain's military experience as an example of poor leadership experience, without, or course, expressing how Obama's thin resume has prepared him to lead anything as consequential as a Cub Scout Troop.
We've known that Barack Obama's base among the radical fringe would bring out some long-seated uglinesses in part of the Democratic Party that makes up his base, but I don't think that anyone could have expected it would come out this soon, this hard, this transparently.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:13 AM
| Comments (39)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
These same people claim John Kerry was a war hero.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at June 30, 2008 10:56 AM (kNqJV)
2
"Democrat Wesley Clark ... attacked McCain's military experience as an example of poor leadership experience, without, or course, expressing how Obama's thin resume has prepared him to lead anything as consequential as a Cub Scout Troop."
I notice you're not answering what Clark said about McCain.
"We've known that Barack Obama's base among the radical fringe would bring out some long-seated uglinesses in part of the Democratic Party that makes up his base"
Sure, a general is part of the "radical fringe." And do you want to say "base" again?
Posted by: Kyle1 at June 30, 2008 11:02 AM (GLk0P)
3
Come to think of it, John Kerry was a war hero, wasn't he? That's why T. Boone Pickens won't answer his mail these days ...
Posted by: Kyle1 at June 30, 2008 11:04 AM (GLk0P)
4
Another point for consideration by Capitalist Infidel -- you might want to read the headline of the post you're commenting on.
Okay, dopes. Over and out.
Posted by: Kyle1 at June 30, 2008 11:05 AM (GLk0P)
5
"We don't want the small, timid, slash and burn, negative campaigning of the past." (Josh Hafenbrack, "Obama Barack Obama Calls For New Political Spirit During South Florida Campaign Swing," [Fort Lauderdale, FL] Sun Sentinel, 3/26/07).
Using Obama's standard, does this make Wes Clark large and/or brave ?
Posted by: Neo at June 30, 2008 11:19 AM (Yozw9)
6
Kyle, I guess your reading comprehension skills aren't too good, I said "these people" meaning radical leftists. But then again I wouldn't expect a far left wing military hater such as yourself to understand.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at June 30, 2008 11:49 AM (kNqJV)
7
I know it's hard for some to comprehend even as much as one sentence but it was Ms. Benjamin who made the war hero comment not Wes Clark. And speaking of war heroes - McCain was tortured into making propaganda statments for NV and Kerry voluntarily collaborated with them. Kerry left Vietnam with his phony purple hearts and smeared the US troops and McCain stayed in captivity instead of bypassing other prisoners. Come again about the war hero stuff? But good name calling - it really makes your point.
Posted by: Bandit at June 30, 2008 12:35 PM (D3sAj)
8
Even Fidel Castro saw fit to have Medea - this plague that walks like a human- exiled permanently from Cuba. Why can't we to the same and have her exiled from America??
Hey Kyle I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in public.
Posted by: Huntress at June 30, 2008 01:10 PM (Qn9iF)
9
Bandit:
So you still adhere to the "Swift Boater" view on Kerry. How about both sides admitting that these men served the United States in armed conflict with honor. Unfortunately they were not commanders like Ike or Grant. These men had much larger responsibilities.
I debate Kerry's and McCain's qualifications for SCOTUS based on their specific military service.
Posted by: muffler at June 30, 2008 01:12 PM (DZmDA)
10
There is about as much basis to compare McCain's and Kerry's military service as there is in comparing a blizzard with a snow squall. McCain still feels the effects of torture, and he chose not to abandon his fellow prisoners.
Kerry, on the other hand chose to get out of Vietnam as soon as a loophole let him. Both men served honorably, but McCain was a hero while Kerry was not.
Posted by: James at June 30, 2008 01:35 PM (hZDqQ)
11
No, Muffler. No. No Rodney King here. McCain served with Honor, and Kerry did not. That's just a fact.
Posted by: Bill Smith at June 30, 2008 01:37 PM (IE/I+)
12
Thoughts on Kerry and the Winter Soldier convocation he spoke at after returning from Vietnam.
Either the Winter Soldier statements are true or they are not. If they are true, then the events would be described in his SF-180 (which he has promised to release but has not) and would not be consistent with his "Silver Star" service. (Consistent with beliefs of the Swift Boat personnel). If the Winter Soldier events are not true, then he is willing to disgrace his fellow soldiers, and his story is not consistent with "Silver Star" service. Of course, if he would release his records--no problem. If he does not, while not proof of status, it sure sets up a nasty adverse inference agaisnt him
Posted by: Steve at June 30, 2008 03:31 PM (pzFzt)
13
Of course Obama wants to put an end to Patriotism as an issue, because Obama is the one who's patriotism is in question! He conveniently condems questioning patiotism, but where was he when his hatchet men came up with General Betray Us??? Also, why isn't Iraq, or Afganistan on Obama's upcoming itinery? Obama knows he can't compete with McCain on the issue of patriotism, so he's trying to make it a non issue. Obama has no experience, except to listen to God Damn America for 20 years!
Posted by: Howard at June 30, 2008 04:48 PM (I3M5G)
14
but where was he when his hatchet men came up with General Betray Us???
Strangely, he was not present at the vote in the Senate to denounce that ad.
What's even weirder was that just prior to that vote, he voted for a weak Barbara Boxer-led measure.
In other words, he scurried from the room in order to avoid a vote which, either way, could be held against him.
Yeah, that's real leadership, Senator Obama.
Posted by: C-C-G at June 30, 2008 05:01 PM (Hc4y8)
15
I fail to see how Wesley Clark's comments are an "attack" on John McCain's military service. It you look at what Clark said he praised McCain's service and called him a hero. Then Clark made the point that serving in the military does not automatically qualify you to be President of the United States. There is nothing there that slams or attacks McCain's service...only his application of such service for use as a prime qualification to be President. To suggest that one cannot make this judgement about McCain's service simply because McCain served, is deeply flawed.
Posted by: Chris at July 01, 2008 11:10 AM (ceOV5)
16
Um, no. Clark did give the pro forma "I honor his service." bromide but reduces McCain's entire war record to crashing two planes and then being shot down. Would someone who reduced Clark's entire military record to his nearly starting WWIII in Kosovo be "honoring" him? Come to think of it, Clark's actual record in service could use a good scrub. The guy is a nut, frankly. But let's not discourage the Clark's and Avarosisi of this world. Their bilious stupidity and cowardice are an asset, on net, so long as they get out. Let the Obamoids defend them. Let's hear Obama on Clark. Let's hear Obama on MoveOn. Let's see if Medea Benjamin, execrable figure that she is, helps Barry with swing votes. Let's hear it all.
Posted by: megapotamus at July 01, 2008 11:21 AM (LF+qW)
17
"But let's not discourage the Clark's and Avarosisi of this world."
I think that should be "Aravoses", no? Or perhaps "Aravosi"?
Posted by: Stoutcat at July 01, 2008 01:25 PM (kKdtK)
18
Chris, that would be a logical position, if General Clark hadn't said in 2004 that Senator Kerry's service qualified him for the Presidency.
In short, what qualifies a Democrat doesn't qualify a Republican, according to General Clark.
Typical lefty double-standard.
Posted by: C-C-G at July 01, 2008 08:38 PM (n8vfc)
19
Stoutcat:
Aravosapod?
Aravoslech?
Aravositude?
Posted by: daveP. at July 01, 2008 11:05 PM (q6tuN)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
He Just Can't Help Lying, Can He?
An email fired out to supporters by the Obama Campaign:
Tonight is the crucial financial reporting deadline for June.
Right now is the time to step up and own a piece of this campaign. I need your help to take on John McCain, the Republican National Committee, and the shady so-called 527 groups that are dedicated to attacking this campaign using millions of dollars in unregulated contributions.
Please support this movement by making a donation of $25 by Midnight tonight:
https://donate.barackobama.com/deadlinejune
Together we are setting a new standard for how presidential campaigns will be organized and funded.
For the first time in a generation, a presidential campaign is putting staff in every single state for the general election. Our staff and the Obama Organizing Fellows are getting to work right now to build on grassroots energy in all 50 states.
And -- unlike John McCain -- we're going to do it without contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs that have held too much power for far too long in this country.
By putting our organizational and financial future in your hands, it's clear who will be responsible for our success and who we will be accountable to in the White House: the people.
But in order to match the resources of our opponents, we're going to have to do more and get more people involved than ever before. Your donation of $25 right now will help make that happen:
https://donate.barackobama.com/deadlinejune
I'm counting on you to take the lead and build this campaign.
The stakes couldn't be higher, and every American who hopes for something better from their government is counting on us.
Thank you,
Barack
We see Obama is still signing his name to an lie so obvious that even NPR is
smacking him around for it. The only 527s of note have been those formed to support the election of Hillary Clinton... or Barack Obama. There are
no significant Republican 527s in 2008, and none are expected. Obama's fundraising pitch is based upon a lie.
I guess we'll know soon how many of his supporters are willing to accept being lied to time and again.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:50 AM
| Comments (24)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: Rich at June 30, 2008 08:35 AM (siQqy)
2
Hypocrisy and lying IS the democrat strategy to win the election
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at June 30, 2008 10:58 AM (kNqJV)
3
To an anti-american democrat a liar is a hero. Hussein tells lie after lie and his 'cult' followers screams for more and more.
Posted by: Scrapiron at June 30, 2008 11:55 AM (GAf+S)
4
Sounds like projection from the Obamamaniacs. "We've got lots of 527s ready to attack McCain, surely he's got some ready to attack Obama!"
Posted by: C-C-G at June 30, 2008 05:05 PM (Hc4y8)
5
Does this Kool-Aid taste funny?
Oh no. Now drink up and donate!
Posted by: twolaneflash at June 30, 2008 07:29 PM (05dZx)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 29, 2008
ATF Takes Machine Guns From Blackwater in NC
22 fully-automatic assault rifles were confiscated by the BATF from Moyock, NC-based Blackwater Worldwide last week after a story was published in the Raleigh News & Observer questioning an arrangement between the private military contractor and the Camden County, North Carolina Sheriff's Department.
Blackwater financed the purchase of 17 Romanian AK-47s and 17 Bushmaster Bushmaster XM15 E2S for the Sheriff's SWAT team as it was forming in 2005. The Sheriff's Department had requested both weapons systems for trial. After training, deputies determined that the AK-47s did not meet their needs for SWAT use, and since that time, the 17 AK-47s and 5 of the17 XM15 carbines have been stored in a weapons locker dedicated to the Sheriff's Department at Blackwater's training facility armory. The other 12 XM15s are deployed with deputies. The department does not have an armory of it's own. Both the Sheriff's Department and Blackwater
insist that the arrangement made three years ago is legal.
Fully-automatic weapons have always been legal to own in the United States according to federal law, though they are prohibited or further restricted in some states. There are more than 240,000 machine guns registered with the BATF as of 1995. Roughly half of those are owned by civilians, and the rest are owned by government entities such as police and sheriff's departments.
As a matter of policy the BATF will not comment on pending investigations, but the most likely cause for the confiscation was the determination by the BATF that the arrangement may have constituted a "strawman" purchase. On the most basic level, a "strawman" occurs when someone who is legally authorized to purchase a firearm knowingly purchases it for someone who they know or suspect cannot buy a firearm on their own. Additional scrutiny applies to the purchase, transfer and possession of machine guns under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) and the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA). NFA places a $200 tax on the transfer of firearms, and FOPA banned the possession or sale of machine guns to civilians manufactured after May of 1986.
The BATF may claim that the three-year-old arrangement, where the Sheriff's Department stores their weapons at Blackwater's armory is a violation of the transfer and possession requirements of NFA and/or FOPA. Anne Tyrrell, spokesperson for Blackwater Worldwide, argues that FOPA does not apply "because we never owned the weapons. The Camden County Sheriff's Department own them."
Tyrrell further claims that BATF agents have known of the arrangement with the Camden County Sheriff for an extended period of time, saying via email:
"All aspects of our contract with a local Sheriff's Department are valid and lawful. Some of the same ATF agents involved in the current inquiry have long been aware of this arrangement as a result of visits to our facility and audits of our firearms programs at Blackwater's request. As a company that is fully licensed to sell, provide training on, or even manufacture weapons---including machine guns---we have worked closely with the ATF to ensure we are in compliance with all applicable federal firearms laws. We look forward to cooperating with the government to resolve this allegation."
Pro-Blackwater blog
Blackwaterfacts backs Tyrrell, claiming that the AFT did a full inventory of the facility in 2005, including the Camden County Weapons locker, after Blackwater alerted the ATF to two employees that worked in the armory were engaged in illegal activity.
If it is accurate that BATF agents had "long been aware" of the existence of the Camden County Weapons locker at Blackwater, but had not seen fit to confiscate them until now, it suggests that new details may have emerged. That detail may have been provided in articles from the News & Observer and the Elizabeth City, NC-based Daily Advance, which note that in addition to merely storing the Sheriff's Department weapons, they may have been used to train police and military units.
Blackwater, which also manufactures vehicles and airships, is the largest security contractor for the U.S. State Department and operates one of the largest tactical firearms training centers in the world. Critics of the company have attacked it as a mercenary army, and Blackwater security personnel in Iraq have been accused of using excessive force in numerous engagements, including a September 2007 incident in Baghdad's Nisour Square where 17 Iraqi civilians were killed.
correction: Moyock, NC not Mynock, as noted by "EC" in the comments.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:31 PM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I smell politics... specifically, lefty anti-war politics.
I could be wrong; I hope I am wrong. But the way the anti-war lefties have treated Blackwater in the past makes the suspicion spring to mind.
Posted by: C-C-G at June 29, 2008 04:28 PM (Hc4y8)
2
Is it a legal confication? Probably. But WTF people. Now they don't trust State sanctioned LEOs with select fire weapons? You have got to be kidding me.
For the record. The weapons that were confiscated are not Machine guns by definition.
CCG, I agree I smell politics. Politics do not belong in either law enforcement nor do they belong in the military.
Posted by: Matt at June 29, 2008 04:39 PM (91A6Z)
3
I agree, I bet there is a Democrat Marxist Congressman in the mix somewhere. Payback, a Democrat speciality.
Posted by: bill-tb at June 29, 2008 07:02 PM (7evkT)
4
"NFA places a $200 tax on the transfer of firearms, and FOPA banned the possession or sale of machine guns to civilians manufactured after May of 1986."
My daughter is a civilian, and she was manufactured -- er, I mean, born -- in May of 1986. Does that mean she can't buy machine guns?
Posted by: Pat at June 29, 2008 10:16 PM (0suEp)
5
More proof that the ATF needs to be converted into a convenience store.
Posted by: Smarty at June 29, 2008 10:49 PM (OBONn)
6
Bob,
Just a correction: BW is based in "Moyock, NC".
Mynock, I believe, is a carnivorous flying creature featured in "Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back" that chewed on the power cables of the Millenium Falcon while she was put down for repairs in the belly of that huge asteroid worm.
Posted by: EC at June 30, 2008 10:30 AM (mAhn3)
7
Pat,
You're over 45, aren't you. That was back when Public Schools actually taught writing.
Posted by: Bill Smith at June 30, 2008 01:43 PM (IE/I+)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 27, 2008
SHOCKER: Associated Press Gets Facts Wrong in Gun Story
In a story about the Federal ATF raid to confiscate assault rifles (real ones for a change) that Blackwater International held in a secure vault for the local Camden County Sheriff that owns them, Associated Press report Mike Baker twice claims that it is illegal for private citizens or companies to purchase automatic weapons.
Fair-use, non-lede quote:
Federal laws prohibit private parties from buying automatic weapons, but allows law enforcement agencies to have them.
This claim is absolutely and unquestioningly false.
The National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) imposed a tax on machine guns, but did not make them illegal to own by private citizens or companies. While extremely expensive, one can legally purchase machine guns from a wide variety of vendors.
Due to a Clinton-era restriction, machine guns manufactured after 1986 are not available for private sale, but this has had the side effect of making these machine guns an investment, and they are being marketed that way.
The media's ignorance of the subjects they write about never fails to amaze me.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:35 AM
| Comments (28)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Actually that MG manufacturing ban was under Reagan as part of the compromise to get the Firearms Owners Protection Act passed. The hope was that it would be undone under a future Republican Congress. It hasn't happen, at least not yet.
Posted by: Dave Brown at June 27, 2008 12:17 PM (nUBV4)
2
I think you meant that machine guns manufactured before 1986 are investments, since they're transferable.
Posted by: Matt at June 27, 2008 02:26 PM (cXWnh)
3
“I hate them, I do hate them.”- Col. Kurtz
I was yelling at the TV a lot on Thursday.
CNN Lou Dobbs had a “legal expert” who said US v Miller was 170 years ago.
As to the MG ban remember MG were registered then the registry was closed. Also in DC handgun had to registered then the registry was closed. England and Australia had registration laws which led to bans.
The Brady bunch’s view of Heller is that registration is allowed and they will start to push on all fronts.
2A supporters need to be able to articulate that the only thing that registration will accomplish is the confiscation and banning of firearms.
Posted by: Mad Saint Jack at June 28, 2008 03:24 PM (pTWVg)
4
The media get well over 50% of the stories involving firearms law wrong.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 29, 2008 07:42 AM (dcqty)
5
You mean that all those layers of fact checkers, editors, gimlet eyed and driven by their desire to print the facts, actually made a mistake in a story. I'm shocked.
Posted by: glenn at June 29, 2008 12:47 PM (zp+Xy)
6
The recent Heller decision talks about the M-16. If you haven't you should read it, search on M-16. The fact that the Second Amendment is an enumerated right makes encumbering it more difficult. Going to be lots of interesting suits in the future.
Who thinks the drive by media gets the gun stories wrong by accident? Who thinks they get them wrong to push and agenda? Thought so ... The AP is the worst of the worst as far as preaching the Democrat Marxist line.
Posted by: bill-tb at June 29, 2008 07:07 PM (7evkT)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
We Must Still be Losing
Tell the Democrats we're running out of people to which we can surrender.
Abu Khalaf (a pseudonym) was the top al Qaeda leader in Mosul, al Qaeda's last reputed stronghold in Iraq, until American soldiers shot him full of holes. Further south, al Sadr's Madhi Army may be falling apart, with perhaps as few as 150 military members.
So, will someone please bring me up to speed on Barack Obama's position this hour? Is he still insisting that it is 2006 in Iraq, that the situation is untenable, and that the best thing we can do is withdraw all our forces in an expensive, resource-abandoning retreat that many experts suspect could trigger a regional war that makes today's gas prices look like a bargain and trigger a worldwide depression?
I ask, because it's rather difficult to keep up with his positions these days as he continues to throw his principles, campaign promises, friends, mentors, and supporters under the proverbial bus to bow at the alter of political expediency.
I kid, of course.
I don't seriously think Obama will change his position on Iraq being lost, as that is the only viable issue of his campaign once you eliminate his Carteresque economic schemes, head-in-the-sand energy policy, his Clintonian heathcare plan, and his beautifully empty platitudes. What he and his allies will try to do is attempt to redefine losing and winning, and try to cast obvious developing successes as defeats. If he can't successfully redefine success into failure, Barack Obama is finished as a viable candidate.
Update: Dr. Krauthammer is equally unimpressed with Obama's constantly shifting positions, and the media's unwillingness to challenge him.
It's an odd relationship Obama has with journalists. He treats them with the arrogant disdain of last night's 2:00 AM hookup, and still they pine over him, happily used, as they're shown the door.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:47 AM
| Comments (28)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
'...it's rather difficult to keep up with his positions these days as he continues to throw his principles, campaign promises, friends, mentors, and supporters under the proverbial bus to bow at the alter of political expediency.'
Please would you stop talking about your fearless leader GWB, IN THIS TONE!
Posted by: BrotherBoneHead at June 27, 2008 09:23 AM (HeqsW)
2
Give him time .. Obama will Hope and Change
Posted by: Neo at June 27, 2008 10:05 AM (Yozw9)
3
Interestingly enough, I accepted the invitation to take a phone survey that had to be taken by a Democratic challenger to my district's House incumbent (Ohio-Jean Schmidt).
What I couldn't get over was the incredible slant that the responses took when it came to Iraq. The one that has stayed with me was, when asked about what the representative's priorities should be, one of the choices I was given was "to clean up the mess in Iraq."
It wasn't the only question with alternatives phrased in the same or a similar fashion. Come hell or high water, some or all of these Democrats are intent on running on losing the Iraq war.
The Democrats got a script in 2006 for Iraq and a script for energy in 1980--and they ain't letting go of either. And I say have at it. Quibble all you want with McCain, but if we can just get through 2008, I think Republicans/conservatives have a lot of good young people in the pipeline.
With the Democratic Congress enacting a lending-industry bailout that suffers from extraordinary conflicts of interest involving Senator Dodd, I can possibly see where the Democrats lose the presidential election and also blow their chance at big victories in down-ticket races. It's kind of like watching the Keystone Kops run for election. Are they really THIS stupid?
Posted by: SAM at June 27, 2008 10:39 AM (I4yBD)
4
Actually, BrotherBoneHead, GWB's main problem is that he stays loyal to people long _after_ he should have tossed them under a steamroller.
Posted by: SSG Jeff (USAR) at June 27, 2008 11:09 AM (yiMNP)
5
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 06/27/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
Posted by: David M at June 27, 2008 11:54 AM (gIAM9)
6
"It's an odd relationship Obama has with journalists. He treats them with the arrogant disdain of last night's 2:00 AM hookup, and still they pine over him, happily used, as they're shown the door."
And this surprises you? Experience will teach you that insecurity trumps all, and they'll keep coming back for more, be it journalists or a significant portion of women.
John
Posted by: Sgt. York at June 27, 2008 12:23 PM (u3pgy)
7
I'm gonna miss W. He really is the opposite of Obama - he was smart enough to go to Yale and Harvard and learn as little as possible there.
The deep problems with Yale and Harvard are evidenced both by the tone and content of this article:
http://www.theamericanscholar.org/su08/elite-deresiewicz.html
I think you'll find that there's a deep sense that certain people think their very being graces the world.
W. actually is aware that power means responsibility, that it isn't a game to keep getting more power or make people feel like you're doing a good job all the time. Power isn't an entitlement.
So yeah, we're winning in Iraq, and there should be credit given, esp. given how "militaristic" our President is depicted as. If you're gonna blame him for everything that goes wrong, then he has to be given credit for what goes right, esp. when things he's indirectly responsible for are used to blame him.
I have a serious problem voting for Senator Obama, because I have doubts about his maturity simply. He looks to me like someone that really believes politics is about being the most popular kid in school. He doesn't seem aware that the second you get the job, the Executive Branch controls you for the most part, not the other way around.
Note to self: there was a President who did know how to be prudent, but good luck getting the Right in this libertarian age where we believe slaves can be freed without a shot fired to accept the full consequences of serious leadership.
The problem is us, the media only tells us what we want to hear. We created the environment where Senator Obama can thrive, we created the environment where President Bush is put down for any exercise of power. Until we change, we're not going to hear the truth fully. We can't even accept we're winning a war, or that terrorism is bad. Elite education isn't just the crafting of a class; it's a statement of what we feel is best in life.
Posted by: ashok at June 27, 2008 02:41 PM (TO+pf)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 26, 2008
SCOTUS Decides For Individual Rights in Heller, Liberal Blogger Calls on Scalia to be Murdered
The Supreme Court issued a 5-4 ruling supporting the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment today, and within moments, a commenter to the liberal blog Crooks and Liars said Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority decision on the case, should be murdered.
David Ehrenstein, an entertainment industry liberal, made the comment. He blogs at Fablog.
Update: As noted by a sharp-eyed "Jabba the Tutt" in the comments, this is the same David Ehrenstein that created the meme of Barack the Magic Negro. Quick, somebody tell Rush!
Update: Wiped. Crooks and Liars has finally scrubbed Ehrenstein's comment.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:26 AM
| Comments (55)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The only problem with the decision is that Justice Scalia left the tactic of licensing intact - want to bet that arm of the DC Bureaucracy will make the DMV look efficient?
"Sure, you can get a handgun license... the processing period is now 50 years."
It could be a form of Jim Crow all over again, this time aimed against gun owners and potential gun owners.
Posted by: Jeff at June 26, 2008 11:07 AM (yiMNP)
2
Not just murdered, but SHOT! Isn't that special?
Posted by: Tully at June 26, 2008 11:10 AM (tUyDE)
3
First, there are many ways that shooting a person near your home is not murder. That's a bit of an over-reaction.
Second, given all the anti-Jim Crow laws on the books already, attempts to make more would probably be quickly stricken down.
I'm happy with the decision and look forward to NYC and Chi having their laws challenged.
I think you three are a bit wound up.
Posted by: _Jon at June 26, 2008 11:14 AM (grH7t)
4
Has anyone reported this threat to the life of a sitting Supreme Court Justice to the Secret Service yet?
Posted by: Monsewage at June 26, 2008 11:20 AM (7BH9R)
5
I'd have to admit having similar thoughts about the dissenters. LOL!
Scalia was exactly right when he said, to the effect, that no other right is so subject to regulation. The intent of the framers was clear: They wanted the individuals in the states to have an effective means of thwarting tyranny on the part of the central government.
Seriously, I don't think this is a difficult decision, and that it was 5-4 says a lot about the kinds of people who get law degrees... IMO.
Posted by: Hucbald at June 26, 2008 11:21 AM (ZOnLj)
6
It is a victory for the gun community. But a small one. Read the full brief and majority opinion. You will see that it leaves a lot open.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Posted by: Matt at June 26, 2008 11:21 AM (91A6Z)
7
Typical lefty extremist -- thinks violence is the answer to getting his way politically, has no problem espousing murder, takes as axiomatic that his fellow lefties are hypocritical by having readily available a weapon he and they don't believe they have the right to keep and bear ....
Posted by: Dusty at June 26, 2008 11:23 AM (GJLeQ)
8
"Typical lefty extremist -- thinks violence is the answer to getting his way politically"
Besides taking the comment too seriously, did you see the various threads, particularly Malkins on the child rape decision?
Talk to me about violence then - and they were dead serious.
Anyway, typical lefty here happy with the decision, not happy with the dissent.
Posted by: angryflower at June 26, 2008 11:28 AM (uMRcI)
9
I'm with Monsewage. Can someone drop a call to the appropriate legal authorities and turn this guy in, please?
I'd do it but I'm tied up at work.
If not, I'll do so later.
Posted by: paul a'barge at June 26, 2008 11:32 AM (T3gfS)
10
It seems obvious to me that States do have the right to license handguns and to require registration of same, as they do with automobiles.
However, if a State should ever use this power (the idea being to deny gun licenses to convicted felons or those with histories of mental illness)
to so delay the issuing of handgun permits (see, e.g., New York City) that, based on this decision, the State or City would be smacked down HARD by every Federal Court in the land which is obligated to follow SCOTUS rulings, even if the Judge(s) do not agree with the SCOTUS decisions.
Posted by: realwest at June 26, 2008 11:34 AM (6vywl)
11
Didn't David Ehrenstein give us "Barack the Magic Negro"? Has to be the same guy.
Posted by: Jabba the Tutt at June 26, 2008 11:56 AM (es30B)
12
How's he gonna shoot him? If he's a Liberal he doesn't even own a gun and relies on 9-1-1 for help.
Posted by: DirtCrashr at June 26, 2008 11:57 AM (VNM5w)
13
I love this. Now it is all a "joke" that is being taken "too seriously" by idiots like angryflower.
No worries, the "proof" that it was a joke is, well, non existent of course. But, never fear, if angry flower waves her arm enough about non-existent comments at Malkin's site this will all go away.
Posted by: The Ace at June 26, 2008 12:05 PM (bptN3)
14
Ehenrenstein deserves a deep cavity search from a LEO enforcing the DC ban before it goes away.
Posted by: Smith N. Wesson at June 26, 2008 12:06 PM (T2Mjf)
15
Angryflower=typical liberal moral equivilence (sic? sorry not goona look it up)
On the one hand we have a vicious child rapist (I'd describe what he did to his stepdaughter but it would make you throw up likely) who was sentenced in a court of law to death...
And those nasty conservative commentors actually want his sentence upheld...
On the other hand we have a liberal hollywood IDIOT who wants to kill a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE because he (gasp) ruled that the words in the constitution have an actual meaning and aren't subserviant to Justice ginsbergs liberal activism...
I mean how DARE he disagree with you... Kill him...
But a child rapist sentenced to death by a jury of his peers? How COULD those evil republithugs want to hurt this poor guy... All he did was rape a child and literally tear up her insides, ruin her for life, then try to pin the blame on "2 kids on bikes"
The sad thins is that many liberals see things just this way (Both are the same) or worse (Kill the judge, treatment for the rapist)
Posted by: sonicpuke at June 26, 2008 12:08 PM (sfxxO)
16
"if a State should ever use this power . . . to so delay the issuing of handgun permits,"
You mean what the fed did with the NFA? A citizen could "own" a machine gun *IF* he licensed it and paid a fee 2Xs and in some cases 3Xs the actual cost of the gun. And in 1986 the fed banned the manufacture for citizen purchase any new machine guns.
Kinda reinforces a prong of the common use test. Restrict it in 1939 ban it in 1986 problem solved.
Posted by: tom gunn at June 26, 2008 12:27 PM (in6C+)
17
Well, of course, sonic. The rapist is a VICTIM, after all, and needs our compassionate understanding. Scalia is a conservative, though, and therefore all's fair and the gloves are off.
Posted by: Mike at June 26, 2008 12:30 PM (6rfXb)
18
Bob, this is the same scumbag that said this about J.C. Watts:
"Reconciliation between a house nigger like Watts and free and proud African-American like Lewis? Not likely."
As we all know, stuff like that will give you enough street cred to get you printed in left-wing major papers & on the must-read list of the bottom-feeding section of the internet.
Link to referenced comment
Posted by: RW at June 26, 2008 12:30 PM (mHiW8)
19
Sorry, here's the URL:
fablog.ehrensteinland.com/2002/12/16/thats-entertainment/
Posted by: RW at June 26, 2008 12:32 PM (mHiW8)
20
I don't think that a Judge should be murdered because someone disagrees with him.
That's just me though.
Posted by: brando at June 26, 2008 12:42 PM (qzOby)
21
TO: All
RE: Mr. Ehrenstein & Other 'Liberals' of His Ilk
"a commenter to the liberal blog Crooks and Liars said Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority decision on the case, should be murdered." -- Confederate Yankee
If this report is accurate, and I have no reason to doubt it, this response is all too typical of so-called 'liberals' these days. If they don't like something they want to murder someone for it.
I guess this could be a classic example of projection, their fear of people having guns of their own. After all, if THEY want to murder someone, I suspect they believe that all the rest of us have similar feelings. Therefore, they live in fear of their neighbors because they think their neighbors are as prone to committing murder as they are.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The truth will out.]
Posted by: Chuck Pelto at June 26, 2008 12:45 PM (XaaHr)
22
Ehenrenstein deserves a deep cavity search. . .
I'm afraid that he would enjoy that.
Posted by: swlip at June 26, 2008 01:06 PM (TN0Mt)
23
5-4. All subject to change if Justice Kennedy decides to take his coffee differently.
Today it's the 2nd Amendment, yesterday the 8th. A few weeks ago, the Supremes tried their hand at military command. Tomorrow, who knows ? The law's whatever Justice Kennedy feels like today. As I said on my own blog, we don't have a republic, we have a clerisy, that acts in its own interest, every bit as much a theological state as the one the Iranians have: except our mullahs study at Harvard, not Qom.
Posted by: El Jefe Maximo at June 26, 2008 01:27 PM (HVtOM)
24
They took Ehrenstein's comment down.
Posted by: thebronze at June 26, 2008 01:31 PM (17zSz)
25
Good thing you screen capped it because it's gone now...:
3 budda Says: great decision
this supreme court session has had many great decisions that are supported by the Constitution
whether you like it or not we all have the right to have a handgun
yay for pro second amendment democrats
Quote This Comment June 26th, 2008 at 7:35 AM - PDT
Posted by: pdxpunk at June 26, 2008 01:55 PM (7n3eV)
26
No, see, you guys don't understand, he was just joking. It was just ironic humor, don't you get it? Saying incredibly vicious things with a completely straight face is "the new funny".
Posted by: DensityDuck at June 26, 2008 02:06 PM (5npD/)
27
TO: DensityDuck
RE: Yeah!
"No, see, you guys don't understand, he was just joking." -- DensityDuck
And I'm sure Armed Liberal would agree.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Posted by: Chuck Pelto at June 26, 2008 02:25 PM (XaaHr)
28
TO: All
RE: Protecting Scalia
I wonder....
....does the Secret Service provide protection to Supreme Court Justices?
If so...
....are they paying Mr. Ehrenstein a 'quiet' interview at this time?
I sure hope so.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[We're from the government. We're here to help you. -- President Ronald Reagan, The Nine Most Horrifying Words in the English Language]
Posted by: Chuck Pelto at June 26, 2008 02:44 PM (XaaHr)
29
"I wonder....
....does the Secret Service provide protection to Supreme Court Justices?"
I believe that would be the province of the US Marshals Service.
Posted by: Achillea at June 26, 2008 03:04 PM (JHiYq)
30
The Supremes' Heller decision gives me a warm feeling in my trigger finger. I've promised to take my daughters (19 & 25) to the range for some pistol practice this weekend. I hope my son, SGT FastLaneFlash, will be home from Fort Stewart to load magazines and clean weapons for us. He loves showing off his mad gun skills to his sisters. Grandpa's old 38 for the girls to start, then to the H-K & Kimber 45's. Sweetness.
Georgia now has a no retreat law. I wouldn't have retreated before they lawed it. Probably a lot of pistol-packing D.C. residents. When The Law is a fool, only a fool will obey it.
Posted by: twolaneflash at June 26, 2008 04:05 PM (05dZx)
31
Yesterday, in anticipation of a positive ruling in Heller, I celebrated by taking both my son and one of his friends to the range. The 18 year old friend wanted to fire handguns for the first time. First he got a safety lecture (4 Rules, range etiquette, and warning that all safety rules would be vigorously enforced).
To warm up, this young man (who several times already has shot skeet with his father, an Air Force retiree) fired a scoped semiautomatic 22LR Ruger 10/22, a Chinese Type 53 Mosin copy in 7.62x54, and a 1917 vintage BSCA Lee-Enfield in 303. The grandfather shooting 22s in the next lane with his son and grandson came over when the Mosin let out its mighty roar, ball of flame and sparks on the backstop. We had a meeting of Aggies (its a Texas thing) and I showed him the Enfield. He commented that it reminded him of his Krag, just showing that one-upsmanship is alive and well.
I let the grandson, a young man shooting his Chipmunk 22LR in the next lane, fire a mag out of the Ruger. His father and grandfather approved, and let me shoot a Chipmunk for the first and second times ever. What a hoot!
Then the young man, and my son, fired a Ruger Mark II 22LR pistol, a Glock 19 9mm, and a Ruger GP-100 (both 38s and 357s).
Other than a gouge on the neophyte's thumb from the recoil of the 357s, no harm came to anyone, a lot of experience was gathered, and now the guy wants a semiautomatic pistol of his own.
Posted by: Mikee at June 26, 2008 04:25 PM (Obsmn)
32
It was a stupid comment by a stupid person. Advocating violence is never the answer. Hope everyone here remembers this the next time a pro-abortion decision is handed down. There was some "kill the judge" talk then too. Doesn't excuse it, it's wrong whether a lib or con does it.
Posted by: Microbru at June 26, 2008 04:30 PM (NBSDy)
33
Guy must be a big admirer of Che. Che was big on killing those who didn't get with the program.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 26, 2008 06:15 PM (dcqty)
34
Cheap dregs from the bottom of the other guy's barrel. Would that they could do the same to yours ... WAIT! Check it out:
If this guy can outswim a great white shark while wearing chum-filled swim trunks, then let him go.
Even better...
If he can outswim a great white shark with Justice Kennedy tied to his legs (and wearing chum-filled swim trunks), then let him go.
Typical conservative -- not only does he not respect due process, he advocates bloodsport with a Supreme Court Justice. It seems everything I believe about conservatives must be true, since this one commenter said this horrible thing.
Posted by: SEK at June 26, 2008 06:53 PM (Rw+x5)
35
By SEK's own logic, SEK must be a child molester.
Posted by: DaveP. at June 26, 2008 07:08 PM (HH3SH)
36
Yes, because people always embody the worst characteristics of people who share their believes. That's not a slippery slope there, it's a logic hill!
Posted by: SEK at June 26, 2008 07:19 PM (Rw+x5)
37
Uh, SEK... one small problem.
Show me where CY took this one comment as emblematic of all lefties.
All I see is him taking the one person responsible for the comment to task, and rightly so.
You're proving that lefties don't see people as individuals, but as groups.
Posted by: C-C-G at June 26, 2008 08:42 PM (Hc4y8)
38
CY wrote this:
The Supreme Court issued a 5-4 ruling supporting the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment today, and within moments, a commenter to the liberal blog Crooks and Liars said Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority decision on the case, should be murdered.
According to you, he felt this single comment on a liberal blog important enough to devote an entire post to. I suppose you could consider him so small-minded, but as I demonstrated above, anyone can be that small-minded. All it takes, you know, is a small mind. I'm giving CY the benefit of the doubt, i.e. I don't think he devoted a post to pointing out the obvious, which is, you must admit, what a "some people I disagree with are CRAZY!?!" post would be.
That said, I love the unintended irony:
You're proving that lefties don't see people as individuals, but as groups.
So my little ol' singular self is proving that lefties treat people as groups, is it?
I'm trying to think of a statement that enacts the very thing it decries more than yours, but I'm at a loss.
Posted by: SEK at June 26, 2008 09:03 PM (Rw+x5)
39
TO: All
RE: Crooks & Liars
After posting there for the last few hours, I get the distinct impression that they live down to their appelation about "crooks and liars".
Go fig....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Posted by: Chuck Pelto at June 26, 2008 09:19 PM (XaaHr)
40
You know, SEK, that comment was rather illogical of me. I was wrong, and I apologize.
Posted by: C-C-G at June 26, 2008 09:52 PM (Hc4y8)
41
So, now liberals want to kill Justices who uphold the Constitution?
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at June 26, 2008 10:17 PM (kNqJV)
42
An Open Letter to Those Who Wonder Why Citizens Would Want to Carry Guns in Public
htt p://hub[*remove]pages.com/hub/An-Open-Letter-to-Those-Who-Wonder-Why-Citizens-Would-Want-to-Carry-Gun-in-Public
Posted by: Jack Burton at June 26, 2008 11:07 PM (fMQ2g)
43
Pro-Abortion? Really? Like for realsies?
That's the second time in the recent past that I've heard the concept of actual pro-abortion being defended.
That's a very, very bad idea.
Posted by: brando at June 26, 2008 11:40 PM (Gs5OS)
44
It seems obvious to me that States do have the right to license handguns and to require registration of same, as they do with automobiles.
I must have missed the amendment affirming citizens the right to drive automobiles. Driving autos is a privilege granted by the states; the keeping and bearing arms is a pre-existing right of every citizen that the Second Amendment states is not to be infringed.
With rights come responsibilities. It is not unreasonable for the states to require proficiency with a firearm (such as passing an NRA-sponsored safety course), but licensing is a stretch. The licensing process can be easily abused by bureaucrats on a whim. Perhaps when the ACLU has no objection to the licensing of printing presses or the licensing of voters, things will be different.
The whole issue of firearms ownership revolves around prior restraint; "we don't want you to have a firearm because you might harm someone". On the other hand, I might also save my life or those of my family.
Since criminals by definition do not obey the law, gun laws only serve to disarm the law-abiding. Today's decision affirms those who have taken responsibility for their own safety.
Posted by: Just Askin' at June 27, 2008 12:00 AM (esv00)
45
Equating this one blogger to the entire american left is just as egregious as when I hear people equate those "God Hates Fags" nuts to all Christians.
Posted by: Juan Manuel de Rosas at June 27, 2008 02:07 AM (IVQmE)
46
For the record, David Ehrenstein is nuttier than squirrel turds and has a huge filthy hole where his soul ought to be. This is pretty tame stuff on the Eherenstein scale.
Posted by: Pablo at June 27, 2008 09:52 AM (yTndK)
47
El Jefe: "As I said on my own blog, we don't have a republic, we have a clerisy"
If you're going to promote yourself, the least you could do is link the post. ;-)
Actually, I'm collecting posts, articles, etc., along those very lines. I've posted about it here:
http://lumpenscholar.wordpress.com/2008/06/19/american-injustice-system/
Posted by: lumpenscholar at June 27, 2008 10:32 AM (L5zbV)
48
Equating this one blogger to the entire american left is just as egregious as when I hear people equate those "God Loves IEDs" nuts to all Democrats.
Phelps is a Democrat. The "look over there" argument, is not quite as symmetrical as you're making it out to be. I also personally know a Liberal Christian Democrat who has told me that Phelps is "A-OK", based on his behavior at military funerals. It always floors me when Democrats pull out Fred Phelps in order to validate horrible concepts, because they're just pointing back at themselves.
Primus-"Horrible behavior A is great, because horrible behavior B is great!"
Secundus-"Um. That makes no sense. Do neither."
Primus-"Obama 08!"
At any rate, murdering a judge is bad.
Posted by: brando at June 27, 2008 11:45 AM (qzOby)
49
At any rate, murdering a judge is bad.
Comity!
Posted by: SEK at June 27, 2008 03:22 PM (Rw+x5)
50
Interesting how the comment just disappeared. Other deleted comments were noted by the "sitemonitor."
Posted by: ginsocal at June 27, 2008 03:39 PM (6hw4x)
51
> I must have missed the amendment affirming citizens the right to drive automobiles. Driving autos is a privilege granted by the states
Driving on the public roads is a privilege. Driving itself is not.
Posted by: James Dixon at June 27, 2008 07:49 PM (4WPpC)
52
Driving on the public roads is a privilege. Driving itself is not.
You may operate a motor vehicle on your own property without a license. Driving outside your property without a driver's license -- whether on a public road or not -- is a violation of state law.
Posted by: Just Askin' at June 27, 2008 09:52 PM (esv00)
53
Ever notice that SOP for the progressives calls for the killing of those who disagree with them?
Posted by: Thomas Jackson at June 28, 2008 02:32 PM (LHaZf)
54
TO: Thomas Jackson
RE: In a 'Word'....
"Ever notice that SOP for the progressives calls for the killing of those who disagree with them?" -- Thomas Jackson
....YES.
They 'kill' me all the time. Especially when I start 'making sense' from my 'evangelical' perspective.
That includes such 'stellar' cretins as Charles Johnson; who can't stand evangelical christians in discussions about ID v. Evolution. Indeed, I had a communique from another individual who has been 'killed' on LGF because of his honestly held understandings.
Go fig....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[I tellz ya, the 'killers' are amongst US.]
Posted by: Chuck Pelto at June 28, 2008 04:25 PM (XaaHr)
55
Isn't this technically classified as "conspiracy to commit murder"? If a conservative posted what that man has said, than it would be all over the news. But since a liberal said it about a conservative, all is well and good in the world. What is wrong with the media today?
Posted by: Carolyn Petersen at June 29, 2008 06:46 PM (OouTi)
56
Dean Lawrence Velvel of some amateur law school wants President Bush executed. David Ehrenstein (whoever the @#$% he is) wants the premier scholar/Justice of the Supreme Court to be shot.
I don't know how much more of this tolerance and compassion I can take.
Speaking of Scalia, Ehrenstein might also wish to murder Scalia over this too.
Posted by: Sisyphus at June 29, 2008 08:41 PM (0YQm/)
57
And don't forget Congressman Bill Delahunt (D-Mass) making a comment that could be construed as hoping Al Qaeda murders Cheney's chief of staff.
Of course, now Delahunt is saying that he meant no ill will, but you can check out his comments and make your own decision.
Posted by: C-C-G at June 29, 2008 09:30 PM (Hc4y8)
58
"Of course, now Delahunt is saying that he meant no ill will..."
He meant no ill will? Is that what Delasoul said? Call me old fashioned, but normally when you wish death on someone, it's pretty much ill-will.
What fools these liberals be.
Posted by: Sisyphus at June 29, 2008 10:41 PM (0YQm/)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Obama: The Bus List
Yet another uncomfortable Obama associate has found his way under the treads of the Hope and Change Express.
This time it was former Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist) chairman Michael Klonsky, a long-time friend of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorhn, Barack Obama's long-time terrorist friends. Ayers and Klonsky have co-authored several works together, and trace their relationship back to their days in the 1960s as radicals in Students for a Democratic Society, back before the Weathermen split off and began active domestic terrorism.
Klonsky had a blog on Obama's community web site. The page was quickly "disappeared" overnight by the campaign with an efficiency that Che-loving Obama fans will certainly admire.
For those of you keeping score at home:
| Under the Bus | Clinging to the Bumper |
- Grandma Dunham
- Rev. Jeremiah Wright
- Fr. Michael Pleger
- NEW!Michael Klonsky
- Muslim supporters
- babies that survive abortion attempts
- 8,000 Members of Trinity Church of Christ
- Samatha Power
- Obama advisor/Hamas friend Rob Malley
| - Marilyn Katz (former SDS radical, Obama campaign PR professional)
- Carl Davidson (former SDS radical, Fidel Castro Fan, webmaster of Progressives for Obama)
- Michelle Obama
- half-brother Abongo Obama, a militant Muslim
- "Uncle Frank" Frank Marshall Davis, role model/mentor and member of the Communist Party USA, poet who authored "Smash-on, victory-eating Red Army"
- Bill Ayers, domestic terrorist and long-time friend
- Bernadine Dorhn, Ayer's wife, fellow domestic terrorist. and Manson Family admirer.
|
The lists is off the top of my head and is no doubt incomplete, and doesn't include the various countries and/or regions the freshman Senator from Illinois has irritated or infuriated with his gaffe-a-matic pandering to his left-wing domestic base and woefully inadequate foreign policy inexperience.
Still it illustrates just how bloody the undercarriage of the Obama bus is, as the candidate who promised a new kind of campaign shows he's lied to the media and his supporters when he promised something other than politics as usual.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:38 AM
| Comments (50)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
This is NOT politics as usual. I've been to scores of rodeos, including 3 Gay ones that raised funds for a pediatric HIV clinic, and I ain't never seen nothing like this. This is theatre of the absurb and a three ring circus all under one tent.
Eisenhower-Stevenson 1952 is the first campaign I remember from my childhood. The Democratic candidate from Illinois got his clock cleaned: 442 to 89 electoral votes. Pray history repeats. I won't say "I Like Mac", but I truly, deeply don't like Obama and his bus of zombies, whether their in it or under it.
Posted by: twolaneflash at June 26, 2008 10:44 AM (05dZx)
2
Last sentence should be "they're in it" not "their in it".
sorry. rented fingers.
Posted by: twolaneflash at June 26, 2008 10:46 AM (05dZx)
3
Just to be fair, it wasn't Obama that threw the Muslim Supporters under the bus.
Posted by: Ryan at June 26, 2008 10:59 AM (eplNU)
4
Just to be fair, it wasn't Obama that threw the Muslim Supporters under the bus.
Sorry, but you're wrong. Obama has been to all sorts of churches, temples, and synagogues, but refuses to come near a mosque, and even told Muslim congressman Keith Ellison to step off:
As Sen. Barack Obama courted voters in Iowa in December, Rep. Keith Ellison, America's first Muslim congressman, stepped forward eagerly to help.
Ellison said he believed that Obama's message of unity resonated deeply with American Muslims. He volunteered to speak on Obama's behalf at a mosque in Cedar Rapids, one of the nation's oldest Muslim enclaves. But before the rally could take place, aides to Obama asked Ellison to cancel the trip because it might stir controversy. Another aide appeared at Ellison's Washington office to explain.
"I will never forget the quote," Ellison said, leaning forward in his chair as he recalled the aide's words. "He said, 'We have a very tightly wrapped message.'"
A "very tightly wrapped message" that has no room for Muslim supporters.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 26, 2008 11:06 AM (xNV2a)
5
He threw Scarlett Johansson under the bus yesterday. Does she count?
Posted by: JWF at June 26, 2008 11:14 AM (1l37M)
6
You forgot his campaign staff************
That's a star for each instance.
Posted by: MaE at June 26, 2008 12:13 PM (HCJxX)
7
CY, you missed Power, Johnson, and they guy who told the Canucks that Barack was lying to Americans about NAFTA.
Posted by: Dusty at June 26, 2008 12:19 PM (GJLeQ)
8
No, I missed your listing of Power. My bad.
Posted by: Dusty at June 26, 2008 12:38 PM (GJLeQ)
9
Dusty, the Obamanation back flipper with a half twist, who met with the Canadian Ambassador in Illinois was Austan Goolsbee from the University of Chicago. The mod also forgot Obama Sr, as he was nowhere to be found in the Obamanation's first ad. Also his step brother Malik who gave an interview to the Israeli press about Obama's 'muslim background'. You also forgot Tony Rezko and that Iraqi/Syrian Ali. You also could add Iraq, as Obama threw that country under the bus, before it even pulled out of the parking lot.
Posted by: Eaglewingz08 at June 26, 2008 01:07 PM (W88Qb)
10
Austin Goolsbee has a prominent place near the under carriage. Don't forget the staffer that signed his name to the questionaire on gun control.
There are many more I'm sure, but the most crowded place is on the curb next to the bus stop.
Posted by: MagicalPat at June 26, 2008 01:37 PM (19pgq)
11
Public Financing. Or are we only counting actual persons?
Posted by: Dudley Smith at June 26, 2008 01:52 PM (jrE47)
12
Eaglewingz08, thanks. My memory isn't what it used to be. I usually fill the gaps with Altavista but I tire of that sometimes. Much appreciated.
MagicalPat: And it's two months still on the road to the convention. That final stretch of road is gonna awfully bumpy, I suspect, at the rate Obama's chucking policies, advisors and supporters of the bus, 'cause the scrutiny and close questioning has hardly started in earnest.
Posted by: Dusty at June 26, 2008 02:02 PM (GJLeQ)
13
Merrill McPeak, one of his top military people, who said that US foreign policy was made in New York and Florida.
Posted by: RPL at June 26, 2008 02:20 PM (QK3tO)
14
I don't see Jimmy Johnson on the list; and he is definitely under the bus...
Posted by: Duns at June 26, 2008 02:49 PM (AexTX)
15
And the seal! The baby Obamadential Seal!
Also, did he say at one point that he couldn't disavow Wright any more than he could disavow the entire black community?
Posted by: Nevicata at June 26, 2008 03:13 PM (OiqCK)
16
Don't forget Tony Rezko?
Also, his mentor who he chose to run against and got here petition names thrown off the ballot. I forget her name right now.
Where does Farrakan stand?
Posted by: jjv at June 26, 2008 03:48 PM (YPE/P)
17
Don't forget Bob the Builder: "Yes, we can!". Under the bus.
http://www.bobthebuilder.com/
Posted by: twolaneflash at June 26, 2008 04:13 PM (05dZx)
18
I don't know if this counts since everyone knows he is lying about his positions regarding the recent Supreme Court decisions, but I guess you could say he threw the liberal justices under the bus. Except there is no doubt he would appoint more justices like the ones he recently criticized.
Posted by: largebill at June 26, 2008 04:21 PM (GiGT5)
19
Obama really does embody the politics of change... he changes staff, friends, and opinions as the winds change.
Posted by: C-C-G at June 26, 2008 05:36 PM (Hc4y8)
20
Did anybody mention his grandmother?
Posted by: Immanual Goldstein at June 26, 2008 07:28 PM (gOa6X)
21
How about the bitter, gun toting, religious white people of rural Pennsylvania?
Posted by: Immanuel Goldstein at June 26, 2008 07:32 PM (gOa6X)
22
Not to mention those stupid Kentuckians, and their next door neighbors, the Arkansasians.
Posted by: Immanuel Goldstein at June 26, 2008 07:35 PM (gOa6X)
23
MY GOD ARE YOU NUTS! THE FIRST THING OBAMA SHOULD THROW UNDER THE BUS IS:
THE ENTIRE CHICAGO COMMUNIST COMMUNITY AND
THE ENTIRE SOCIALIST PROFESSORS LIVING IN HYDE PARK.
CAN HE DO THAT? THIS IS ALREADY TOO LATE FOR HIM.
WHY NOT ENCOURAGE HIM TO RENAME IS DEMOCRATIC PARTY INTO:
1. DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA
2. COMMUNIST PARTY OF USA
That's what we call transparency.
Posted by: seeker at June 26, 2008 09:08 PM (nx0Ey)
24
Clearly those purged by Obama endangered the campaign by their transgressions, and just as clearly, that made them objectively wrong.
These people will need to be reeducated, and engage in positive self-criticism; trenchantly engaging their own deviations from poltically correct thought; and earnestly engaging in thought reform. If the interests of the oppressed demand it, they may hope for rehabilitation.
For now, all Right-Thinking people must close ranks against the Right-Deviationists; exposing their connivance with the Roveite-Republican-fascist minions. Above all, progressives everywhere must hold to the correct line, ever more resolved to follow Obama wherever he leads.
;-)
Posted by: El Jefe Maximo at June 26, 2008 10:07 PM (gEm7p)
25
CY:
You have some updating to do. There are some good pickups.
Someone mentioned campaign financing and another mentioned the seal. You might consider two other lists: one for issues and one for objects.
Thinking about objects, beyond the seal, you could bowling balls because you won't find him going anywhere near a bowling alley. And, preemptively, you might add tanks too. I doubt a Democratic candidate will get caught dead in a tank for 100 years.
Because Obama threw Scarlet Johanson under the bus, I think you can safely move Michelle off the clinging list. Think about the dough they spent in polling, media, and so forth to come up with some formula for her makeover and rollout last week. That said, can you imagine the scowl she gave him the first time she saw him after hearing they'd traded e-mails or texts. I'll bet he'll be in the doghouse for a while.
Posted by: SAM at June 26, 2008 11:57 PM (I4yBD)
26
Add ACORN to the to do list
Posted by: JustADude at June 27, 2008 12:00 AM (1aM/I)
27
He's thrown so many people and principles under the bus, he's had to start picking up Clintonian stragglers to use for wheel fodder.
Plus, I don't know how you throw an entire race under the bus, but if I was black, I'd be watching my bus seat REALLY closely. He may not toss you under the bus, but I bet you end up sitting in the back (again).
As a resident of Illinois, I can tell you all that this is "politics as usual" in this P.O.S. state. I wish I could throw this place under the bus as easy as the "air apparent". (I do mean "air", that's all he's made of.)
Posted by: Dave G at June 27, 2008 07:56 PM (e7C6T)
28
Nice work, Bob!
Just an FYI... We may need to add the Nation of Islam staffers who apparently are still clinging to the bumper.
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/01/obamas_nation_o.html
Posted by: Doug Ross at June 28, 2008 06:00 PM (D0V4F)
29
This is not p[politics as usual, it's Marxism-Communism in disguise.
Posted by: bill-tb at June 29, 2008 07:47 PM (7evkT)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 25, 2008
Multi-Gunshot Suicides Soon to Be On the Rise
So says the Supreme Court.
There is a macabre old urban legend that has floated around for years in which an exceedingly bad person—a wife-beater, a child-abuser, or other such societal dreg—is found perforated with bullets, and knowing local law enforcement officials note that the miscreant's death was a serious suicide, where the deceased if found having shot himself in the head and/or back multiple times, in some variations even taking the time to reload an empty weapon and fire again.
Such stories, of course, are told with a knowing smile.
We find before us—and perhaps a bit beneath us—a Supreme Court of the United States that in this session has found more sympathy and more previously unknown rights for suspected terrorists and child rapists than it has for the average American.
From Bagram to Baltimore, expect to hear some names and dates begin to be associated with this and similar urban legends.
It is a truism of the human experience that when a people sees their system of justice fail due to inequities in the judicial process, they will find justice on their own.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:06 PM
| Comments (44)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Can a modern day country survive when the only justice is that which you take yourself? I've watched several cases of late that were decided by 'liberal' judges that made me say to myself 'if one of my family members was involved there is no power on earth to stop me from taking revenge', on the killer/rapist and the so called judge. That's what the socialist/communist/democrat party has brought you.
Posted by: Scrapiron at June 25, 2008 02:14 PM (I4yBD)
2
With their "decision" (it really wasn't, was it?), I think The Gang of Five has just unwittingly passed the "Community Vigilante Enabling Act of 2008."
Then again, I've got a better idea: work for legislation that will require child rapists to remain in general prison populations once incarcerated.
The good news for these evil excuses for human beings is that they won't officially get the death penalty. Unfortunately, the bad news will be that their fellow inmates will quickly pass their own judgments upon them.
Posted by: MarkJ at June 25, 2008 03:30 PM (ZFVlP)
3
Justice occurs in court rooms only by happenstance.
Justice != administration of the law
Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 25, 2008 05:54 PM (dcqty)
4
A town bully terrorized residents of a Missouri town over a decade ago. Someone got tired of it, and the man died. I don't believe the murder was ever solved.
I think lenient courts have caused other examples of secret vigilanti justice.
Posted by: James at June 25, 2008 06:04 PM (3S/2Y)
5
The concept being what, O purveyors of Justice in Your Own Minds? You're going to break into prison and execute those filthy criminals that the cout didn't have the courage to kill?
Or, even more ridiculously, are you arguing that failing to kill them through the power of the state is tantamount to releasing them back into society? Perhaps it's time to put down the phony outrage, folks. It's starting to get a little threadbare.
Posted by: Officious Pedant at June 25, 2008 06:05 PM (688sS)
6
You're going to break into prison and execute those filthy criminals
No need. They get shanked by the other prisoners once the nature of their crime is discovered.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 25, 2008 06:25 PM (dcqty)
7
With their "decision" (it really wasn't, was it?), I think The Gang of Five has just unwittingly passed the "Community Vigilante Enabling Act of 2008."
Typical idiotic wingnut response. Please provide information about incidents of this in each of the 46 states that don't execute child rapists.
Posted by: slammin' sammy at June 25, 2008 06:32 PM (wQLtx)
8
OK, so let me get this straight. Conservatives are OUTRAGED by this ruling. No one has been executed in the US for anything other than murder in over 44 years. Only one state out of 50 has recently expanded its death penalty to include rape of a child. Two people out of approx. 3500 on death row nationally were scheduled to be executed for child rape, and they were sentenced to death only recently when said state changed its statute.
How the HELL does this ruling change anything for you death penalty enthusiasts?
If you want to expand the death penalty so much, advocate China's execution policies, why don't ya! Embezzlement, drug trafficking, government bribery acceptance? All punishable by death.
I don't think you want to go down the slippery slope of death penalty expansion. It would include too many people beloved by conservatives.
Posted by: Ted at June 25, 2008 07:02 PM (9g+PP)
9
I don't think you want to go down the slippery slope of death penalty expansion. It would include too many people beloved by conservatives.
I find your views intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Posted by: toby928 at June 25, 2008 07:14 PM (PD1tk)
10
Sort of like the way that Jeffery Dahmer was left alone with a known homicidal lunatic for just a few minutes and was unofficially executed.
Posted by: Shoprat at June 25, 2008 07:20 PM (FkH+p)
11
"How the HELL does this ruling change anything for you death penalty enthusiasts?"
Think. Use some logic here.
The five justices decided this case not on the plain language of the Constitution nor on existing case law. Their decision was not based on an established standard of jurisprudence but on where they felt public opinion was evolving.
IN short, they circumvented the will of the people as expressed by the lawful democratic process based on their own suppositions of what the public thought on the matter instead of what the law said.
That has implications that extend far beyond the death penalty. I am sure that such an outspoken member of the "reality-based community" can apply cool reason and extrapolate what some of those consequences might be.
Posted by: Jimmie at June 25, 2008 07:39 PM (scM9Z)
12
IN short, they circumvented the will of the people as expressed by the lawful democratic process based on their own suppositions of what the public thought on the matter instead of what the law said.
Ken Lay, executed. The Dukestir? Executed. Jeff Skilling? Gone. That's where it will lead: back to execution for theft, feeding a fugitive, etc, etc, all of which used to be common practice in this country.
You really want to go down this slope?
Anyway, the conservative outrage is hilarious on its own. SCOTUS makes a ruling conservatives love: good jurisprudence and adherence to the Constitution. SCOTUS makes a ruling conservatives hate: absolute violation of the will of the people and adherence to arbitrary standards.
Just shut up the whining.
Posted by: Ted at June 25, 2008 07:45 PM (9g+PP)
13
SCOTUS makes a ruling conservatives love: good jurisprudence and adherence to the Constitution. SCOTUS makes a ruling conservatives hate: absolute violation of the will of the people and adherence to arbitrary standards.
Yes, and? Would you have us applaud violations of the peoples' will? Or, lament good jurisprudence? I don't quite see where you're going here.
Posted by: toby928 at June 25, 2008 07:57 PM (PD1tk)
14
Yes, and? Would you have us applaud violations of the peoples' will? Or, lament good jurisprudence? I don't quite see where you're going here.
It's hilarious that you think any time SCOTUS makes a ruling you like, it's "good jurisprudence", and any time it doesn't, it's "violations of the peoples'[sic] will". Not sure if you get that though.
Have any of you morons actually read any part of either Justice Kennedy's or Alito's majority or dissenting opinions? They boil down to this:
Kennedy: Execution is not a proportional punishment for rape of a child.
Alito: Yes it is!!
Seriously, he didn't even try to couch it in some constitutional principle, and mentioned states' rights as an afterthought. Alito's main argument was simply that it WAS proportional. So if you want to whine about arbitrary rulings made on the basis of opinion about proportionality, well, just quit whining.
Posted by: Ted at June 25, 2008 08:58 PM (9g+PP)
15
Kennedy: Execution is not a proportional punishment for rape of a child.
Alito: Yes it is!!
Well, the problem is that Kennedy justified that it wasn't proportional based on evolving standards of decency. Given that the trend has been to ADD the death penalty for agg child rape, the evidence is that the evolution points towards a greater acceptance of the death penalty for this crime.
Posted by: XBradTC at June 25, 2008 09:17 PM (kddTy)
16
Ted, wanna talk about proportionality?
Try this one on for size.
A "proportional" punishment for a crime would be to have the same thing done to the perpetrator. But wouldn't that, by definition, be "cruel," since most crimes are cruel?
Maybe ya really don't want "proportional" punishment, hmmm?
Posted by: C-C-G at June 25, 2008 09:20 PM (Hc4y8)
17
I actually am appalled that the death penalty has been remitted for this man. He was already a child rapist, convicted and released into the public to rape again. I think he should be eliminated. I think the Justices were wrong to limit the death penalty to death and state reasons.
Also I think they are more likely to withdraw those later, based on this one.
But the real problem is they want an "evolving" "public opinion." I want something based on the Constitution. And, yes, I have read Kennedy's piece.
Posted by: Suzi at June 25, 2008 10:51 PM (7bGob)
18
Oops. I read the news and it said "serial child rapist." I assumed that he had been convicted. Actually the person he is accused of raping first did not turn him in. (Very common for rapes by people known to the survivor.)
Posted by: Suzi at June 25, 2008 11:24 PM (7bGob)
19
I actually made the slippery slope argument on my blog and it was pointed out that we carry out a death penalty as punishment and nothing else.
My only question is though, what would be the line and who would decide? The only problem is, I would probably prefer torture to child rapists anyhow...oh yeah, then kill em'.
Posted by: Torino Rossi at June 26, 2008 02:58 AM (KiZW8)
20
Applying the death penalty for child rape is a terrible idea and only serves to encourage child murder.
If the crimes of both child rape and child murder carry the same ultimate penalty, then the rapist has nothing to lose if he proceeds to murder his victim after the act. He does, however, have plenty to gain by murdering his victim - namely the elimination of the most important eyewitness to his crime. If the rapist knows that he won't be put to death for child rape, but will be for child murder, then he actually has an incentive to leave his victim alive, which actually makes it more likely that he'll be caught before he claims a new victim.
If you truly care about the welfare of children, then why would you want to encourage rapists to murder the children they rape? Yes, child rape is a horrific crime, but it's better that the child survive the experience than end up dead. How can you possibly argue that the death penalty for child rape improves things?
Posted by: Alex at June 26, 2008 10:01 AM (RXsO5)
21
Ted:
One can understand your position supporting the Supreme Courts making up the law out of thin air. Its well known that the people's will is to be disregarded by superior beings above the law and unaccountable to the popular will.
It is understandable that you feel child rapists should be protected. It is clear what your maoral standards are and what your education backgroundf must be to posit that only murder deserves the death penalty.
This will no doubt make those who torture and leave their victims permanently scarred or disabled happy. It will make those who lose their life savings joyful. It will encourage those who plan treason.
Thanks for your intellectual vigor and brillant analysis. I'm sure you're just the kind of candidate Obama wants for the court.
Posted by: Thomas Jackson at June 26, 2008 04:46 PM (LHaZf)
22
Alex, the same argument can be made for punishing child rapists at all. Granting that there is a greater desire to avoid the death penalty, there is still a very strong impetus to avoid any other sort of penalty, such as life in prison without parole.
So the possibility of killing the victim already exists, to avoid imprisonment; especially given the well-known propensity of prison inmates to "take care of" child rapists themselves. I don't see where taking away one form of punishment lessens that risk to the victim by any more than a minuscule amount.
Posted by: C-C-G at June 26, 2008 05:49 PM (Hc4y8)
23
The ruling to uphold the constitution on gun ownership should be good for the American Communist party (aka democrats) who are suffering BDS. When President Bush returns to Tx to enjoy life millions of BDS sufferers will be looking for a way out. Legally purchasing a firearm will help them along the path.
Posted by: Scrapiron at June 27, 2008 11:31 AM (GAf+S)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Not Alex, Thank God
Like many of you I saw the insipid MoveOn.org "Not Alex" ad, in which a young liberal mother proves her lack of knowledge of our military (we don't draft), ignorance of term limits (John McCain won't still be President in 17 years), parental consent laws (at 18, Alex can make his own decisions, including joining the military is he so desires) and selfishness (send someone else's child to defend her freedoms). At least we can be thankful that Alex's mother didn't exercise her option for "choice"... this time, at least.
Over at Hot Air this morning, Ed posts a rebuttal video from the family of Eric Egland, an Air Force veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan.
I don't know if it is simply a matter of perception, an artifact of the campaign season, or a real and growing divide, but it seems that the values and ideals held by those on the far left are becoming more and more divorced from those traditional values generally credited with this nation's success up until now. They don't seem to be pushing away from just the right, but from the center as well.
Is anyone else seeing anything like this?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:26 AM
| Comments (47)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: yo at June 25, 2008 09:49 AM (ZMvjP)
2
I absolutely see the left pushing away from the core values that made this country great. It's undeniable.
I had a huge arguement with someone last week about a local high school that refused to let military recruiters on school grounds. Enough parents complained, so they were told they cound't come to that school. This is an afluent, liberal town. So - what are they saying? Go find your recruits somewhere else? I don't want my kid fighting for American liberties? Where would we all be if everyone felt this way?
Why does this HS get to make this choice? Why can't the fed. govt mandate recruiters at HS, or take away fed. funding?
Thank God, some people still feel a sense of personal responsibility to keep this country free!
Posted by: Tony at June 25, 2008 10:06 AM (Hshmg)
3
While the insane left has been getting a whole bunch more press lately. (And much of that is, in no small part, due to the extremely left lean the presidential race has set with a Democrat v. a Communist.) I think this is just the nutroots crying loudest. They've always been there, they've just deluded themselves into believing BHO will give them a chance once he's in power, sycophants always do. What they fail to understand, is that he wants the power all to himself. The will propel him as far as they can, then he will toss them under the bus. (he's getting real good at that)
Posted by: Gus Bailey at June 25, 2008 10:39 AM (LZarw)
4
"I don't want my kid fighting for American liberties?"
Maybe they don't think that what the troops are doing *is* fighting for American liberties. Which liberties are they fighting for at the moment, for example? Who is threatening those liberties that should be fought by soldiers?
Posted by: Rafar at June 25, 2008 10:39 AM (EDjeA)
5
PIMF: They will propel...
Posted by: Gus Bailey at June 25, 2008 10:40 AM (LZarw)
6
The lunatic fringe has been part of America since the founding. It is a valid theory to say that the lunatic fringe founded America, or at least a critical mass of our towns.
We should not be surprised that the lunatic fringe, right and left, is alive and unwell.
Posted by: Tertium Quid at June 25, 2008 10:57 AM (HqqaH)
7
"it seems that the values and ideals held by those on the far left are becoming more and more divorced from those traditional values generally credited with this nation's success up until now"
Freedom of speech, non-establishment of religion, free immigration, free land for individuals willing to work it productively, a limited military, heavy government spending on research and development (e.g. NSF/DARPA), a government bureaucracy based on merit instead of party loyalty, free enterprise with moderate and enlightened government regulation. I'm sure with time I can think of some other key items that I would credit with the successes of the USA.
Posted by: Nate at June 25, 2008 11:05 AM (9KZ7w)
8
I appreciate that people are noticing this, but as a child of the left I can't help but feel frustration at the slow and seemingly reluctant realization among conservatives about the Left's true nature and aims. This is the second major thread I've come across this morning on a major conservative blog expressing traces of astonishment that the Left might actually be destructive, malicious or anti-American. I'm afraid a lot of this can be laid at the feet of George Bush, a total failure as keeper of the conservative faith. Reagan understood the Left. He fought them personally in his formative years. He knew their viciousness and relentlessness, and reminded us of our need to remain vigilant, take nothing for granted about liberty or those who threatened it. Bush never "got" the left, and McCain, with his own stubborn, ignorant and sanctimonious illusions of highmindedness, refuses too. I'm afraid we're all paying, and will continue to pay, the price.
Posted by: rrpjr at June 25, 2008 11:16 AM (uf8br)
9
Too many of this generation has everything without working for it. They have become that infamous generation who inherits great wealth without valuing either the wealth or what it took to accumulate it. They are entitled in the worse sense of the word. A long hard depression might actually be good for this and the coming generation. Concern about life's basic necessities, as in a foxhole, tends to clear the crap out of one's head and force focus on the real and now.
In America, the PC movement dominates the educational system, the corporate workplace, the media, government agencies, and has huge inroads in the military. We are a beat down people. The majority (80%+) Christian population is hounded about their beliefs, driven into hiding about their faith, and brow-beaten when they apply moral and ethical values to the world. Most, if not all, of our Congress is weak and uninspiring and corrupt. The massive weight of government is pressing the life out of American society, delivering it to our enemies. We are told to feel good about this since "it's all good"; government will redistribute to make it so. The media will tell you what your guilt and shame load should be.
As someone wrote recently, the left has its own language code: "Need" is now someone wanting my money. "Greed" is me wanting to keep my money. "Compassion" is a politician arranging the transfer. They forgot to mention the "finder's fee" and "carrying charges" added by those "public servants".
I have several liberal Democrat family members. They are mentally ill. Their thought processes are dysfunctional and destructive. Their treatment of others is a gang approach, with demonization followed by shunning for those who question their claim to be more highly evolved and enlightened. Passive-aggression is always on the menu, borderline personality disorder is the norm, and the enmeshment is imprisoning. My clinical experience in my own family is that liberalism is accompanied by socially destructive behaviours, a divisive us-them mentality, a closed and angry mind that must destroy the "them" who don't submit to their tyranny.
Yeah, I'm noticing the divide and the gulf is widening. A lot of liberals are very confused about what constitutes a "right" in America. In my mind, I have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; I am responsible for the maintainence of all three. For liberals, a "right" is anything they can take from someone else and use for their own empowerment. So in the diseased liberal thinking, the whole world could descend on Ellis Island, and it would be the American government's responsiblity to provide and pay for every opportunity they desire. Just don't ask them to sacrifice, unless it's tax-deductible, they get celebrity-credits & bling, and only their good side is photographed.
Dark days ahead in America. I keep seeing the evil-looking hooded eyes looking back at me from pseudo-President Obama's Great Seal. This subliminal programming Obama is doing should frighten any American who has any hope of ever recovering their freedom from current government tyrannies. America cannot afford Obama's ascendancy to demigod. Crashing those hopes for change will be good medicine for the Democratic Party. I'm just not sure what the Republican Party can do with McCain, who has alienated me and others over Amendment I, Amendment II, Right to life, clearing illegals from our soil, securing the borders, et. al....
Yep, we're doomed. Time to try that ex-patriate gig for a few years.
Posted by: twolaneflash at June 25, 2008 11:31 AM (05dZx)
10
rrpjr, I'm afraid you're right. I've already taken my IRA out of the stock market and put it in 10 year bonds. The stock market looks 6 months in advance and doesn't like the idea of a communist taking over the presidency. I've already saved myself thousands of dollars over the last month.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at June 25, 2008 11:40 AM (kNqJV)
11
Plain as the nose on your face, sorry, plain as the nose on my face.
Posted by: glenn at June 25, 2008 01:10 PM (zp+Xy)
12
I only need to see the latest Supreme Court fiat to realize the Left is dedicated to creating a People's Paradise here. Perhaps I missed the day in school when the founding fathers included a nanny state and Big Brother in the Constitution, but this seems to be the aim of the "progressive" Luddites.
Posted by: Thomas Jackson at June 25, 2008 02:05 PM (LHaZf)
13
Rafar:
The Left never is willing to fight. The commies wanted the US to stay out of WWII while the Russians invaded Poland with their German allies. The red diaper types then realized once Hitler invaded Russia that the US had to fight. After all mother Russia's survival was at stake.
Nothing has changed.
Posted by: Thomas Jackson at June 25, 2008 02:08 PM (LHaZf)
14
When both my kids were going thru public school, we were a military family. If one of my kids missed more than a day of school, the school was all over it. You see, schools were crowded and we lived in a military town, so the government subsidized the schools on a per head basis for the children of the military. It was bribing the school system into accepting the overflow enrollment because of military bases in the area. I don't remember the exact amount, but it was substantial, like $90 a head per day of attendance. So, if your child got sick and missed a day or two of school, it cost the school a substantial amount of money. If you needed to take your child out of school for anything other than a doctor's excused absence, they were marked as truant.
Both my kids were barred for an entire semester from participating in extracurricular sports because they were "truant" due to me keeping them out of school the day their Dad was returning after a 13 month deployment and we were meeting the ship for the big welcome home celebration. The school didn't care about their loss of education for that missed day, just the loss of $180+ because of their absence from the role for purposes of getting that government subsidy. In additon, I was called to school for "parental counseling" and not once was my children's education the subject, instead I had a huge guilt trip laid on me for taking lunch and educational tools away from all the other children. The vice principal called me selfish and unconcerned about the damage to the school my children's absence caused.
This is the same school where a couple of years earlier, my then 7 year old had been told by his teacher that "God doesn't listen to prayers for baby killers," referencing his Dad's service in combat in Vietnam.
Posted by: Sara at June 25, 2008 03:04 PM (Wi/N0)
15
Gus my boy;
'...they've just deluded themselves into believing BHO will give them a chance once he's in power, sycophants always do. What they fail to understand, is that he wants the power all to himself. The will propel him as far as they can, then he will toss them under the bus. (he's getting real good at that)'
Seriously, you meant GWB. A typo, No?
Posted by: BrotherBone Head at June 25, 2008 03:59 PM (HeqsW)
16
Bonehead, if that was true- if even half of what the Retarded Left (Our Motto: "Who Needs Facts- It's True Because I FEEL It Is!") says about President Bush were true- you wouldn't have the balls to be saying anything about it.
Of course, you'd probably approve of pretty much ANY "imperial" excess, as long as it was done by a liberal.
Scratch a Democrat, find a totalitarian.
Posted by: DaveP. at June 25, 2008 04:06 PM (HH3SH)
17
Ask yourself this: In what other era would we have seen either major political party nominate a candidate for president who had openly disparaged United States servicemen in testimony before Congress; conducted talks with officials of a nation with which this country was at war while the uniform of the United States Navy still hung in his closet; presented himself as having thrown medals received for valor and meritorious service away while protesting the war in which he had earned them; attended a meeting at which the assassination of government officials was discussed; begun his political career at the home of a domestic terrorist who was not only unrepentant, but who also claimed that he regretted not having conducted more terrorist operations; spent 22 years in a church whose pastor routinely disparaged this country?
Some of the things you do and choices you make ought to automatically disqualify you from serious consideration as president of the United States, chief executive of the government, and commander-in-chief of the armed forces. That the choices made by John Kerry and Barack Obama did not preclude them from being the nominee of the Democrat Party indicates that about half the country has lost its moral compass.
Posted by: Diffus at June 25, 2008 05:15 PM (MR/ge)
18
Has anyone examined B. H. Obama to see if there are any representation of sixes on his person, anywhere?
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at June 25, 2008 05:44 PM (J5AYY)
19
Rafar, how about the right of civilians to not be killed by Islamic terrorists?
Isn't that one good enough for you?
Posted by: C-C-G at June 25, 2008 06:31 PM (Hc4y8)
20
"I don't know if it is simply a matter of perception, an artifact of the campaign season, or a real and growing divide, but it seems that the values and ideals held by those on the far left are becoming more and more divorced from those traditional values generally credited with this nation's success up until now. They don't seem to be pushing away from just the right, but from the center as well.
Is anyone else seeing anything like this?"
This has been their agenda for the past 40 years. Before they were a bit more subtle and hid behind a mask. The difference is that now they no longer even try to hide their true face now that they feel they are so close to succeeding.
Posted by: Nahanni at June 25, 2008 07:16 PM (B92fu)
21
...Why can't the fed. govt mandate recruiters at HS,...
Because if they did this country would not be free.
"Vindiciamus"
Posted by: Vindiciamus at June 25, 2008 09:03 PM (s+HoW)
22
Excellent commercial!!! Move-On.Org is an "idiot" organization only promoting it's "pinhead" agenda and has no clue what heroism and sacrifice shaped this country - the same heroism and sacrifice that keeps them safe in order to spew their hatred!!!
Posted by: Terry Carriere at June 26, 2008 04:16 AM (q5hat)
23
In reading my normal daily dose of Lefty bloggers from the Milwaukee area--and I stay with those who are seemingly 'moderate' Lefties--I find myself asking whether these folks are on the same planet as I am.
The trend began about 6 months ago--perhaps co-incident with the rise of Obama.
Posted by: dad29 at June 26, 2008 08:35 AM (hzU2Q)
24
twolaneflash
Time to try that ex-patriate gig for a few years.
That's no solution, that's running away from the fight. I'm seeing the same things you are, and I'm stuck in a country where US forces are stationed in to protect it, but a patriot has few friends over here (Japan). If America throws down her weapons, who will guard the world's freedoms? Where do we go home to?
Yep, we're doomed.
Let's not give up so easy. The founding of America was close to a miracle and likely Providential, if we lose it once, it may be for ever. Don't let the bravery and sacrifice of Omaha Beach, Tarawa, Iwo Jima, and a thousand other battles be in vain; rather let their example be a source of humility and determination. Freedom is easier to defend than to establish, and we are indebted to those who gave their all to give it it to us. Fight on, Sir.
Best regards, Peter Warner.
Posted by: Peter Warner at June 26, 2008 12:16 PM (MQOIb)
25
I think the difference between the Left then-and-now is our replacement of religion with a more libertarian ethos. When I say "our," I mean all of us, not just the Left.
If you were a Communist back in the 50's, you'd probably know a thing or two about Scripture, it was all over the place. You had to know what you were fighting against, at the least.
Now you can be an Evangelical Conservative and not know what the Trinity is.
For the Left, the lack of any real concern for religion except disdain is making them think any form of knowledge that isn't centered around their paranoia is an attempt to control them. Their "values" are obsessed with preserving their "freedom," but they have no clue about basics because they don't want to know anything.
It sounds strange to say this, but at its core, what religion is about is the fact we don't know everything, and that when we act, we should act as people who have tried our best to know and do, as people who can respect others who have values because we have values.
Posted by: ashok at June 26, 2008 07:37 PM (EhweZ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 24, 2008
A Sad Day for Copperheads
You won't easily find it on Fox News or CNN or Google News, but somewhere, between the shocking news that Don Imus might have a race-relations problem and the ground-breaking development that Palestinians have engaged in self-defeating random violence, most of us seemed to miss that a dream is more than halfway towards completion.
Al Anbar province in Iraq, once described as all but lost, will become the tenth Iraqi province handed over to Iraqi government control:
The U.S. military will transfer control of security in Anbar Province to Iraqi forces this week, the governor of the region said Monday, a remarkable turnaround given that the region was considered lost to insurgents less than two years ago.
Anbar will be the 10th of 18 provinces in Iraq to return security matters to Iraqi control since the U.S.-led invasion of 2003, but it will be the first Sunni Arab region to do so.
Mamun Sami Rasheed, governor of Anbar Province, said the handover ceremony would take place Saturday. "We have been dreaming of this event since 2003," he said.
With ten provinces down and eight to go, we are passing a milestone of sorts. More than half of the country will be under the control of a democratically-elected Iraqi government, the first freely-elected Arab government in modern history. You would think that Democrats would be thrilled at this step towards freedom, as the turnover also means we are one small step closer to a withdrawal from Iraq, which they claim to be their goal.
Barack Obama isn't trumpeting the good news, however. Left-leaning blogs also appear to be silent on the issue, or nearly so, if Memeorandum is a guide. Instead, liberal bloggers there seem more interested in reacting to Glenn Greenwald's latest long-winded rant about FISA (while ignoring Greenwald's own history of wiretapping, of course).
Al Anbar? It doesn't seem to exist.
With ever passing day that Iraq inches towards success or takes a dramatic leap, it becomes ever more apparent that many Democrats in this country, be they members of the news media, the new media, elected officials, or the activist left, don't just want the United States out of Iraq. They want us cast out or withdrawn in defeat.
The al Anbar handover is symbolic in nature as well as practical, and good news for two Democratic nations. Sadly Democratic leaders cannot join in sharing the good news, because what is good for the United States and what is good for the citizens of Iraq is not good for Harry Reid, or Nancy Pelosi, or Barack Obama.
How sad this day must be for Democrats that are more loyal to their nation than the spite-based political ideology of their fellow travelers.
Update: Peter Wehner, writing at NRO's The Corner, concludes:
Iraq has gone from broken to fragile and slowly mending. Even now, though, leading Democrats seem wholly uninterested in the outcome in Iraq; all they care about is withdrawing American troops. It is a commitment they hold with ideological and theological intensity – and if they are ever allowed to act on their convictions, misery and death and defeat would follow.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:47 PM
| Comments (29)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
This is progress. Not stagnation. Not mired in a quagmire. Not caught in the middle of a civil war.
Tis a sad day when the Democrats feel they can benefit more from their country losing a war than they can from their country winning a war.
They are Democrats first and somewhere down the list, they are possibly Americans.
Posted by: SouthernRoots at June 24, 2008 02:22 PM (EsOdX)
2
They are the NeoCom wing of the Democrat Party and represent as much as 1/3 of the D votes. We can only hope that the good democrats of classical Liberal mind will wake up and leave this horrible anti freedom party that has been taken over by the NeoCom anti americans.
Posted by: Moultrie at June 24, 2008 02:45 PM (0Pp69)
3
Since The Supreme Court seems intent on taking over the battlefield, and making the conduct of this war a legal quagmire, at what point will Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. haul the traitorous Democrats before an Inquisiton of Treachery? The Democrats deserve to be physically and fiscally punished for their abandonment and demoralization of American military personnel and their families in a time of war. Shame be upon them all. Let it be so, Lord.
Posted by: twolaneflash at June 24, 2008 05:02 PM (05dZx)
4
It would seem to me that the news peg here would be when power is actually transfered over to the Iraqis this Saturday, not the fact that there was an announcement of the fact. If I were an editor, I'd wait until Saturday to run a story because then there would be some eye-catching photos from the ceremony to run with the story. (Right now, there's no media to run with the article.)
We'll see if the story runs on Saturday. Personally, my guess is that they'll be a smattering of articles then, but they'll all be buried deep in the paper or a couple clicks from the various sites' main page. Nothing on the front page...
Posted by: Juan Manuel de Rosas at June 24, 2008 05:49 PM (IVQmE)
5
Juan, it's entirely possible that there may not be any ceremony. Such an event would be a prime target for the terrorists. It'll probably happen very quietly without a lot of pomp and circumstance.
No ceremony, no nice pics for the papers. I suspect that even if there is a story, it'll be buried on page G97 or something like that.
Posted by: C-C-G at June 24, 2008 07:41 PM (Hc4y8)
6
The democrat and terrorists have been partners and in agreement since before the invasion. The U.S. must lose the war and be leave in shame. I guess the democrats are still trying to project some of their guilt for the Millions of deaths in Southeast Asia on to others. Won't happen, you can carry that guilt to the grave and beyond. What did the democrats predict, 30,000 American deaths and an American would never set foot in Iraq. At least we now know, never trust a democrat and that is now and in the future.
Posted by: Scrapiron at June 24, 2008 09:34 PM (I4yBD)
7
What seems to have happened in Iraq in the last few months is that the Iraqi mainstream has finally done some liberating of itself. With the help of the troop surge ordered by President Bush, the mainstream Sunni tribes have liberated themselves from the grip of Al Qaeda in their provinces. And the Shiite mainstream — represented by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and the Iraqi Army — liberated Basra, Amara and Sadr City in Baghdad from both Mahdi Army militiamen and pro-Iranian death squads.
The many voices that rose in favor of the invasion, that have now claimed some sort of buyer’s remorse or insanity in the aftermath, have learned nothing. It’s easy to be a wimp.
When Bush started the adventure into Afghanistan (before Iraq), the first thing that the local partners in the region asked is whether America was in this for the duration, or would they be left with an American mess to clean up. Clearly, Bush said what he meant and meant what he said.
Friedman’s column can be read to say that finally, in the last year or so, the Iraqis believe Bush meant it too. Beleived it enough to take on UBL’s al Qaeda that planned to make Fallujah the capitol of the caliphate. Believed it enough to take on their Shia brothers from Iran. Believed it when the Democratic leadership in the Congress showed none.
Posted by: Neo at June 25, 2008 11:55 AM (Yozw9)
8
You're talking about a class of people (Democrats) who believe higher taxes leads to prosperity, lower taxes leads to ruination, government control over entire segments of industry and services leads to goodness and fairness and light and puppydogs for everyone, a disarmed public is safer from criminals, and the list goes on and on of, well, exactly the opposite of what anyone with a working brain believes. Yet it STILL surprises you that they can't admit there is progress in Iraq? There CAN'T be progress in Iraq, it just wouldn't make any sense to them. It's beyond their comprehension. It's like an ant trying to comprehend particle physics.
Posted by: DoorHold at June 29, 2008 07:29 PM (gJn3F)
9
"More than half of the country will be under the control of a democratically-elected Iraqi government, the first freely-elected Arab government in modern history."
Does this this sound anything like a sovereign nation to you?:
5o American bases;
complete legal immunity from Iraqi law for US military/contractors;
right to launch deadly attacks anytime, anywhere in the country;
right to launch attacks on other nations from Iraq;
total control of Iraqi airspace; etc.; etc.
Small wonder no one believes 'the good news' when it comes.
Posted by: j at June 30, 2008 02:56 AM (Lo7Nc)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 119 >>
Processing 0.04, elapsed 0.2341 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.2053 seconds, 339 records returned.
Page size 236 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.