Confederate Yankee
June 10, 2008
Toddler Shot with CCH Holder's Gun
The sad story out of Columbia, SC, is an example of why I find some methods of carrying concealed completely unacceptable:
A 4-year-old girl grabbed her grandmother's gun and shot herself at a Sam's Club store in Columbia, S.C., authorities said.
Police Department spokesman Brick Lewis said the child took the gun from her grandmother's purse Monday and shot herself in the chest.
He said the child's grandmother has a valid permit to carry a concealed weapon. She has not been charged with a crime.
While I'm sure to have folks disagree on this point, I simply don't find off-body carry to be responsible. If you have your carry weapon in a purse or a bag, you put yourself in a situation where you will, during the course of your day, willingly relinquish control of your weapon numerous times. No person on this planet keeps a purse, bag, or briefcase in hand at all times, often placing it in a seat, shopping cart, on a desk, etc.
For unarmed people this is not an issue; shoplifters, purse-snatchers, and other thieves aren't rampant at our homes or places of work, and the very worst that can occur as a result of someone else accessing a bag or case is identity theft. For those who chose to carry a firearm, you should be held to a higher standard of responsibility, and when you carry off-body in a bag, you create a situation where unauthorized access arms curious children or thieves with a lethal weapon.
Frankly, the grandmother in this case should be charged for criminal negligence (or something similar) and have her carry permit revoked. She knew she was going to be around small children, and apparently left a lethal weapon unsecured in a purse in a shopping cart with a small child.
I'm glad that the child looks like she will recover, but Grandma should not be allowed to make such an irresponsible mistake again, and I'd urge my fellow CCH holders to carry on your person, or not carry at all.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:28 AM
| Comments (43)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I only disagree with you in that she should have her carry permit revoked. I firmly hold that your CCH is embodied in the Constitution. That being said, I also believe she should be charged and convicted of something thus making her a felon and then ineligible to own a weapon. I don't mind reasonable restrictions.
Posted by: MAJ Gross at June 10, 2008 08:41 AM (Da6a7)
2
I agree with everything except charging the grandmother. She will have to live with the death of this child, her granddaughter, for the rest of her life. I really can't think of a harsher punishment.
Posted by: tracelan at June 10, 2008 09:04 AM (ZlXVq)
3
Sorry, I should read the whole story before commenting. Thankfully the little girl didn't die. Boy do I feel stupid.
Posted by: tracelan at June 10, 2008 09:08 AM (ZlXVq)
4
I'm afraid I must disagree. While carrying in a purse is not optimal from a weapon control standpoint, I know several women who do use that method of carry (not exclusively) and they pull it off well because they understand the potential dangers you outlined and take measures to keep control of their purses at all times. The point here is not that purse carry should not be allowed, but that it does require more attention to detail than other methods.
Carrying a concealed weapon at all requires changes in attitude, dress, awareness, intention, behavior and even association and movement. This lady apparently never had the opportunity to learn this, or, like all human beings, failed to be perfect. This is, of course, not an excuse. What excuse is there for this kind of failing? What words could possibly explain or justify it? And knows this better than this grandmother?
As a former police officer of nearly two decades of experience, I've seen many situations where decent citizens, through a moment's inattention, were the cause of great grief. Prosecute this woman? There is nothing the state can possibly do to punish her beyond the punishment she will render to herself each and every time she thinks of this incident, each and every time she sees her granddaughter or her daughter. Justice without mercy is a cruel and hollow thing indeed. And what would the lesson of such prosecution be? I think every possible lesson is quite clear already, certainly to this unfortunate woman and her family.
We should also keep in mind that the antis will leap upon this situation as justification for ending concealed carry and banning all weapons. We know that such situations are newsworthy because of their extreme rarity. Let's not give the antis any ammunition they don't already have.
We allow people to drive knowing that some percentage of the population is going to make mistakes and that people will die as a result of those mistakes. We also know that that percentage of the driving population will always be far higher than mistakes made by the percentage of the population that carries concealed. Something, perhaps, to keep in mind?
Posted by: Mike at June 10, 2008 10:09 AM (BUK9V)
5
I don't have a problem with carrying in a bag that one keeps with them--for some people, it's sometimes just not an option to have the gun strapped to their hip. However, with a small child around she should have known better than to keep it anywhere the child could reach and access it. The news story is sketchy on details, but it sounds like she was negligent--I'll be surprised and disappointed if she isn't charged with something.
Posted by: Matt at June 10, 2008 10:24 AM (cXWnh)
6
Prosecute this woman? There is nothing the state can possibly do to punish her beyond the punishment she will render to herself each and every time she thinks of this incident, each and every time she sees her granddaughter or her daughter.
Is that the new standard now? If you do something, but feel really, really bad about it, then you don't have to face charges?
No, justice doesn't have anything to do with her feelings, but with treating her the same as anyone else who gave a child access to a weapon through an act of negligence.
I stand committed: in my opinion she should be charged.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 10, 2008 10:31 AM (xNV2a)
7
Sure the grandmother should be charged--but the law shouldn't try to restrict people's choice in the matter.
There was a news story a while back about a five year old being run over in his own driveway by his sixteen year old brother. I'm not positive on the ages but they're analogous. How then would the law handle this? Restrict parking in your own driveway? Restrict children under ten from playing in driveways? You see my point.
Accidents will happen no matter what. We'll *never* create a risk-free, accident-free society.
Posted by: Peter Grigor at June 10, 2008 10:39 AM (LO+ca)
8
Purse carry is stupid. Granny has demonstrated that she cannot be trusted with a CCP. Don't turn her into a felon for being stupid until after we get to turn all the stupid shize that liberals do into felonies.
Purse snatching is probably the #1 crime against women on the streets, and that means lost gun. Also, a rapist would have to be stupid to let a woman unzip and reach into a purse whilst he does what, waits for her?
That being said, a purse snatching happens in a second. A toddler getting to the purse (or was is sitting next to the child?), then opening the purse, then finding the gun, holding it, then bang. That takes time, and yes, negligence. Felony? I dunno. But she was certainly stupid.
Posted by: Smarty at June 10, 2008 11:08 AM (Jk5cI)
9
Charge her; CC usually has some requirements. If she violated them, then the law was broken that way.
The kid could've reached in and got nail polish remover and drank that, many different things.
Smarty- most folks with CCP would have the gun out *before* the rapist has physical control of them.
Posted by: Foxfier at June 10, 2008 03:11 PM (3aOlt)
10
You sure are quick to wish the arm of the law upon people. Like that one fellow who chased down and subdued criminals with his assault rifle whom you said you wish was arrested.
Shit happens. Children are stupid. You can't prevent little Johnny from leaping into a flooded creek to see if he can swim it. You can't stop Tom from climbing on top of his own truck while its on cruise control. You can't stop Billy from juggling knives. Zack will set up a ladder, climb on top of his roof, and leap off to break his leg. And when asked 'why?' he replies "I don't know." (true story)
I guess his parents deserved jail time for not locking up that ladder, or watching him like a hawk, hmm?
This knee-jerk 'someone must be held accountable' attitude is a liberal absurdity. Accidents happen. Life is imperfect.
This attitude that people need to be arrested for doing things that you don't agree with is dangerous. You need to see that.
Posted by: Dawnfire82 at June 10, 2008 07:36 PM (/DaqQ)
11
And here I thought holding people responsible for doing stupid shit that can get people killed (like leaving a loaded gun in a purse in a shopping cart with a kid)was a good idea. Silly me.
Drunk driving? Have at it. We don't need laws for that sort of stuff, either. If you hit somebody, you'll feel horrible about it, and isn't that enough?
Moron.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 10, 2008 08:00 PM (HcgFD)
12
We do not know all of the facts relating to this incident and so, we make assumptions that may or may not bear on the reality of the incident. As a former police officer, I certainly believe in the law and the fair and just application of the same. But we hire police officers, prosecutors and judges to exercise their discretion because we recognize that even though the law may well be applicable in a given instance, it is not always justice to apply it.
I assume that there are laws in the jurisdiction where this incident took place that might be brought to bear against the grandmother. Perhaps this grandmother is a coke head. Perhaps she's a reprobate for any number of reasons. If so, she is far more likely to be prosecuted in this situation and probably justifiably so. But if she is what one might consider an "average" grandmother, a woman who deeply loves her daughter and granddaughter and dotes on both, it may well be more just not to favor prosecution, or at least, to throw a smaller book at her.
The rule of law is, without question, vital to a free society. However, wiser men than us have also built the exercise of human discretion into the system on many levels. Sometimes it fails, but to paraphrase Winston Churchill's aphorism about democracy, the American system of jurisprudence is the worst system, except for every other system that has been tried from time to time.
Again, without being the investigating officer, without knowing all of the facts and nuances, without actually knowing the people involved, without actually having had the opportunity to speak with them, to spend time with them, to question and re-question over time, to watch them and get a sense of who and what they are (that's a part of the discretion about which I speak) it's hard to make an absolute judgement. Knowing only what I know through this website, I tend to lean toward mercy. It may interest you to know that I make that statement as an officer who made far more arrests in my career than all of my fellows.
Posted by: Mike at June 10, 2008 09:13 PM (BUK9V)
13
Confederate Yankee -
You're the one here promoting emotionally-based reactions.
Most of the rest of us are saying "Yes, that's bad-- apply standing laws as needed."
Posted by: Foxfier at June 10, 2008 11:29 PM (3aOlt)
14
I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but it seems to me that there is very likely a law against negligence leading to injury or death, and the grandmother would seem to be chargeable under such a statute.
You are getting on CY for assuming there is a law that covers this, but you're making the same mistake in reverse, assuming that there isn't a law covering it. Et tu, kettle?
Posted by: C-C-G at June 11, 2008 07:58 AM (X5vKa)
15
If the kid died, negligent homocide would be a possibility. Negligant injury to a child?
But seriously, we seem to have laws on the books that bias the law against conservatives. Liberals do stupid shit all the time, but their kind of stupid shit isn't illegal, or at least isn't prosecuted.
Posted by: Smarty at June 11, 2008 11:21 AM (Jk5cI)
16
C-C-G-
Please note, I said to apply the laws as they relate.
Rather than hooting and hollering about how horrible it is that some people CC in a set way, and there otta be a law and it should be retro active, because the poor little kid could've killed herself.
Please, explain how "apply the law" is an appeal to emotion?
I see it as no different from the kid getting carkeys and hurting themselves with the vehicle.
Posted by: Foxfier at June 11, 2008 07:00 PM (3aOlt)
17
Foxfier, I did not name you, my comment was not directed at you, rather to those who were getting on Bob's case. Nor did I ever use the phrase "appeal to emotion."
Guilty conscience?
Posted by: C-C-G at June 11, 2008 09:41 PM (X5vKa)
18
Interesting...my reply got eaten.
Short version:
CCG-
the only person who suggested NOT enforcing laws did not even mention CY, let alone "pile on."
Given that lack, you must have been interpreting any disagreement as "piling on" and since I'm one of those yelling "HOLD UP! just follow the laws," it's logical to respond as if you WERE speaking to me.
Posted by: Foxfier at June 12, 2008 04:27 PM (3aOlt)
19
I'd never heard the term "carry off-body" and I've used and owned firearms since I was a child. I suspect other gun owners, and that lady, may also be unaware of that aspect of your argument. The point makes some sense, but I can see that it could easily be debateable, eg., Why do they sell bags and purses explicitly designed for CC?
With at least one caveat (if she was grossly negligent under the law) I agree with the officer's posts that it was a horrible accident and should be treated as such.
Posted by: DoorHold at June 15, 2008 10:32 AM (2oa5y)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 09, 2008
Eeyore to Get New Tail
Though I doubt it helps her much.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
04:33 PM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I thought you were referring to Allah, not MichelleO!
But be ready for MichelleO 2.0--complete with children, cookies, and milk. That must have been another MichelleO that was finally proud of her country....
Posted by: iconoclast at June 09, 2008 05:23 PM (/6k5q)
2
In the era of YouTube, her attempted makeover won't work. Google (who owns YouTube) can yank the "offending" videos as often as they like, someone else will be there to post them again.
Posted by: C-C-G at June 09, 2008 06:09 PM (X5vKa)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Prequel: Obama's Legacy Already Lamer Than Gore's
At least manbearpig is falsely credited with creating something of value.
Obama?
Not so much.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:35 PM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Dang, read the comments at your link. We have officially become a nation of morons.
Posted by: Two Dogs at June 09, 2008 01:42 PM (O4ko5)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Vote for Obama, You Bunch of Knuckle-Dragging, Bible-Thumping, Gun-Toting Racists
That is the subtext, oui?
Joyce Susick is the type of voter who might carry Barack Obama to the White House — or keep him out. A registered Democrat in a highly competitive state, she is eager to replace George W. Bush, whom she ranks among the worst presidents ever.
There's just one problem.
"I don't think our country is ready for a black president," Susick, who is white, said in an interview in the paint store where she works. "A black man is never going to win Pennsylvania."
Susick said her personal objection to Obama is his inexperience, not his color. "It has nothing to do with race," she said.
Obama has national political experience that is dwarfed by that of Dan Quayle, a resume devoid of leadership experience, economic policies that look like they were designed by Jack Kevorkian, and a collection of friends and associates better viewed by a grand jury than an electorate, but the media wants you to think that only your inherent racism is keeping you from voting from him.
Why, you don't even know how racist you are.
Many voters hide their feelings from pollsters and it is possible that some do not even realize race's influence on their behavior.
You might even be racist
and senile.
Robert Miller, 72, who lives in a government subsidized room in Bedford, said the Constitution should be amended so it will "not let any colored people run for the White House." He seemed unsure about his voting record in recent elections, but vividly recalled voting for Dwight Eisenhower in 1956.
You may not recognize the symptoms, folks, but you know the cure: vote Obama.
Update: Carol Platt Liebau
discusses the meme.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:14 PM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Any election will be won by whichever side turns out the largest per centage of its base. Both sides have severe problems. But the side that offers specifics instead of bromides; a positive plan instead of goals; firm pledges instead of campaign promises will win.
The party that offers a program instead of purely negative spots or vapid slogans will win.
Now tell us which campaign offers the positives and which offers nothing but negatives, vapid promises and fear mongering?
Personally I see no difference between these two candidates only hollow suits.
Posted by: Thomas Jackson at June 09, 2008 02:15 PM (LHaZf)
2
If you're racist and you know it
clap your hands
If you're racist and you know it
clap your hands
If you're racist and you know it
vote for Obama
so you don't show it
If you're racist and you know it
clap your hands
Posted by: zhombre at June 09, 2008 04:32 PM (DlZv4)
3
Question for the Obama kool-aid drinkers out there.
If it is racist not to vote for Obama because of his skin color, is it not equally racist to vote for him because of his skin color?
I know, I am gonna be called a racist just for asking that.
Posted by: C-C-G at June 09, 2008 06:07 PM (X5vKa)
4
What would they say about people who would not vote for Obama but would vote for let's say Watts or even Powell. I forgot. They're not real blacks.
Posted by: Shoprat at June 09, 2008 07:25 PM (Ci6D2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The General Election Gets Dirty
Over the course of the weekend my comment sections on several posts was hit by anti-McCain comments (summarily deleted) that appear to be astroturfed, claiming that McCain's actions during his imprisonment and torture at the hands of the North Vietnamese was dishonorable, echoing a theme that his drawing disability pay for lingering injuries resulting from his torture was dishonorable (and apparently sinfully unattractive to at least one key Obama-supporting blogger).
After a 2004 campaign in which Democrats were first to play up the service of one Vietnam veteran, they are now lurching back towards the more familiar ground of spitting upon them. We should expect more of this.
This morning I was sent a chain email (origins murky and unknown, but based upon stilted syntax and racial overtones, I'll suggest it originated from a Clinton supporter prior to Obama's clinching of the nomination), including pictures of Obama's African relatives as the new "First Family."
It included pictures of his Kenyan grandmother, Sarah Hussein Onyango Obama, Obama's stepmother Kezia, half-bother Abongo, half-brother Malik, his father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., and other unidentified African family members.
The email mentions (but doesn't show a picture) of Raila Odinga, Prime Minister of Kenya who claims to be Barack Obama's cousin. The email claims that Odinga signed a 'Shariah pact' with Kenyan Muslims (
disputed) and that Odinga's son was named after Fidel Casto (
fact).
It mentions Barack Sr. was born and buried a Muslim.
It also alludes to the Democratic frontrunner as literally being a bastard, as Barack Sr. never divorced his first wife, and also the candidate's parents took part in shotgun wedding, citing Barack Jr. in his autobiography as saying, "How and when the marriage occurred remains a bit murky, a bill of particulars that I have never quite had the courage to explore."
Having not read the book, I cannot verify if that quote is accurate, but all of the other claims are apparently undisputed in Obama's Wikipedia bio. Facts or not, these are irrelevant cheap shots, as if the candidate had a say in the matter of when he was born, or under what conditions.
It also claimed that Abongo "Roy" Obama, the candidate's half-brother, is a militant Muslim, and cites Barack's book (it didn't say which book) as saying the black man must "liberate himself from the poisoning influences of European culture," claims also
published to little fanfare.
Neither of these lines of attack—on McCain's shattered teeth and other abuse in the Hanoi Hilton, or on Obama's origins and distant African relatives—are libel to convince any voters to change their minds, but it does seem to show that the 2008 general election is going to be one of the nastiest Presidential elections yet.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:32 AM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Freudian slip? In your last paragraph you should have written "Neither of these lines of attack . . . are liable to convince any voters". Both are "libel" (or slander -- I always get those mixed up).
Posted by: Dr. Weevil at June 09, 2008 04:24 PM (2WAZC)
2
Unlike John Kerry (D-Christmas in Cambodia), who still hasn't released his full military records, we know precisely what John McCain (R-Renegade) did to earn his Silver Star, Navy Commendation Medal, Legion of Merit with a "V" and one gold star, Distinguished Flying Cross, and Bronze Star with a "V" and two gold stars.
He may not be a true conservative, but John McCain is a true hero.
Posted by: C-C-G at June 09, 2008 06:05 PM (X5vKa)
3
Dr. Weevil: Libel and slander are both forms of defamation. Slander is defamation in a transitory form, especially speech; libel is defamation in a fixed medium, especially writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast.
(I'm not a lawyer. I just looked it up on Wikipedia.)
Posted by: Pat at June 09, 2008 10:56 PM (0suEp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 07, 2008
Fighting the War With the President We'd Like To Have
Fred Kagan, via Instapundit:
For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.
The two men brought different backgrounds to the test, of course. In January 2007, McCain had been a senator for 10 years and had served in the military for 23 years. Obama had been a senator for 2 years and before that was a state legislator, lawyer, and community organizer. But neither presidential candidates nor the commander in chief gets to choose the tests that history brings. Once in office, the one elected must perform.
You can have at the helm a President who have seen the worst of human nature, survived it and thrived, or a man who has never led anything as consequential as a Cub Scout troop.
There is a truism among small arms trainers that you will not rise to the occasion when the fecal matter hits the fan, but you will default to your level of training.
Precisely what is Barack Obama prepared for?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:26 PM
| Comments (28)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
hmmm, I wonder if the Lightworker can say "Present" when the fecal matter hits the fan?
But I can imagine the advice he would get from Wright, Ayers, Khalid, Rezko, Pfleger, Dorn, and Ayers.
Posted by: iconoclast at June 07, 2008 03:12 PM (TzLpv)
2
Snobama will engage in a policy of pre emptive surrender but is this really worse than utilizing the military to fight a war when its rules of engagement render it effectively bound and gagged?
Does anyone trust or believe in McCain when he brays that Americans must not stoop to "torture" or else American troops will wind up tortured, beheaded and the subject of videos sold in the Middle East? Further before parading McCain as an example of American heroism someone should look into his valiant fight to recognize North Vietnam and thrash MIA families. Apparently McCain believed Kerry's magic hat stories while he threw the Swift boat veterans under a bus.
Trust McCain? To do what? Side with Snobama?
Posted by: Thomas Jackson at June 07, 2008 04:35 PM (LHaZf)
3
Good point, Thomas, but there is one place where McCain stands head and shoulders above Obama. McCain at least says he won't pull troops out. Of course, how far you trust his statement is up to you. He is, after all, a career politician.
Posted by: C-C-G at June 07, 2008 05:51 PM (X5vKa)
4
Precisely what is Barack Obama prepared for?
Driving a UPS truck making Unicorn deliveries.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 07, 2008 11:54 PM (c55NW)
5
C-C-G:
McCain has opposed Bush's domestic internal security measures; he has not pushed for either an increase in the size nor expenditures for the military while touting his well know positions on military interogations.
I assume in the future all such interogations will be to play hip hop music (at moderate volumes) till they break and if the terrorists happen to like it they will switch to Vic Damone records.
What I do not understand is why our politicians can see fit to put our fighting men in jeopardy while refusing to ask for a declaration of war. Nor can I understand anyone who will risk war while refraining from using all resources to achieve victory.
I doubt McCain will either wage all out war nor would seek out eliminate the sponsors of terrorism. Do you believe McCain is capable of this or is just willing to settle for some variation of a kinder, gentler way of waging war?
At least with Snobama we know who the enemy is. I'll not vote for another closet lefty, like Bush.
Posted by: Thomas Jackson at June 09, 2008 02:25 PM (LHaZf)
6
Good points, TJ, and I'm not saying McCain doesn't have problems. Heck, I am still considering writing in "Fred Thompson" rather than vote for McCain.
The point I was making, however, is that McCain at least doesn't wanna pull troops out of Iraq on 21 January 2009.
Posted by: C-C-G at June 09, 2008 05:44 PM (X5vKa)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 06, 2008
Sodom and Obama
I can think of no better words to describe the unrepentant man-love Mark Morford gushes forth with regarding ObamaMessiah:
Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul.
The unusual thing is, true Lightworkers almost never appear on such a brutal, spiritually demeaning stage as national politics. This is why Obama is so rare. And this why he is so often compared to Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., to those leaders in our culture whose stirring vibrations still resonate throughout our short history.
Wow. Most adults can at least fake objectivity (or make their fandom more opaque) when discussing politicians, but Morford is merely one of an embarrassing string of media figures giddily in love with the idea of being in love with their idol. He is incapable of addressing Obama as the quite flawed human man that the is. Barack Obama is far from being a "Lightworker" whatever that is, and as his associations with various pastors and priests have made clear, he'd prefer to be a "Darkworker," thank you very much and pass the Black Liberation Theology.
In reality, far from being the antidote to George W. Bush, Barack H. Obama is far closer to being the flip side of the more corroded parts of the very same coin.
Smug. Arrogant. Stupid. Unerringly Partisan. These are some of the more choice (and publicly repeatable) words of critics directed at George W. Bush.
Often used to describe the sitting two-term President's personality, up-bringing, detachment, and cocksure certainty, words such as "smug" and "stupid" and others like them apply equally well to the new Democratic President candidate, even though he has yet to complete a single term in office on the national stage.
Ivy-League educated with admitted substance abuse in their younger, more intemperate days, Barack Obama and George Bush have far more in common than either man would like to admit. Bush is viewed as out-of-touch for his family's wealth and dynastic political successes; Obama for his Hyde Park liberal elitism and association with a string of America-damning radicals and cadre of domestic terrorists.
Both men deliver prepared speeches (Bush adequately, Obama eloquently), but both gaffe frequently when forced off-script. Bush mangles syntax with reckless abandon; Obama mangles history (including his own) with feckless disregard for the facts.
Bush and Obama are both exceedingly stubborn men, and will not change policy viewpoints, even though emerging realities render their positions comically obsolete. The "surge" in Iraq bookends this commonality. For years Bush refused to acknowledge a new strategy and tactics were needed in the war, while in 15 months since the surge was implemented, Obama has resolutely refused to acknowledge that the new strategy and tactics have worked. Neither man will admit that his position was at fault. Their egos are too large.
Before winning office in 2000, George W. Bush created a record as Governor of Texas as someone who was capable of bridging the partisan divide between Democrats and Republicans. That bipartisanship did not survive the brutal politics of Washington D.C. Barack Obama's campaign has attempted the impossible stunt portraying him as "post-partisan," a candidate beyond political parties. Morford is one of many who are eager to brush aside reality to embrace that comforting fable, but nothing in Obama's record supports that construct.
Obama, in his short political career, has actually established a clear record of either abdicating responsibility (voting "present" time and again), or of taking radically liberal partisan positions, in every level of government in which he has ever served. It is no accident that the National Journal listed him as the Most Liberal U.S. Senator, even to the left of Socialist Bernie Sanders. Barack Obama is not bi-partisan. He is radically polarized when engaged, and out of touch the rest of the time, a near-perfect mirror image of everything liberals claim to hate about George W. Bush.
But Mark Morford can't see that. More importantly, he
won't see it. Having poisoned himself with hatred against our sitting President, he creates an illusion where Obama is the antidote to Bush, when instead he is hair of the dog.
Jesus wouldn't support watching babies die, even in San Francisco. Only someone of far darker values would find holiness there, in the place where Morford worships a false idol as a god.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:38 PM
| Comments (38)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Just so you know, it's "Morford."
And yes, slavish hero-worship is the cornerstone of left-wing thought.
Posted by: tsmonk at June 06, 2008 03:44 PM (j0chB)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 06, 2008 03:46 PM (xNV2a)
3
tsmonk's observation also explains why so many Left trolls will say, on blogs and list-servs, "All you Republicans who worship Dubya yaddayaddayadda."
Even where the conservatives have been lambasting Bush on everything from immigration to increased domestic spending to the Medicare drug bill.
It's what they're accustomed to doing themselves.
Posted by: Lurking Observer at June 06, 2008 04:15 PM (JO8zc)
4
I just threw up a little.
Posted by: grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at June 06, 2008 04:52 PM (gkobM)
5
It's just as gushy as the drivel Exciteable Andy writes about Obama. It's clear that he has a crush, sexually or otherwise, on the dude. Objectivity has gone out the window altogether.
Posted by: Aaron at June 06, 2008 04:53 PM (GAf+S)
6
Part of the training of a "lightworker," I've just heard, is to be forced to sit for 20 years every Sunday in the pews of a racist demagogue and pretend to enjoy it. It was such a relief to learn this.
Posted by: Rein at June 06, 2008 05:53 PM (uf8br)
7
What utter claptrap. Maybe Leader Obama the Lightworker will be high priest of the Global Warming religion.
Geez wonder if we're all going to have to learn the Obamagruss.
Posted by: El Jefe Maximo at June 06, 2008 05:57 PM (1W19T)
8
Good LORD! I'm with grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr... I think I'm going to retch again... Fawning Sycophantic Nauseating... adequete words fail me (esp. since you bar obscenity Bob) to read such drivel...
Posted by: Big Country at June 06, 2008 08:54 PM (niydV)
9
who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet
Its 3:00am and there's a problem somewhere on the planet. Who you gonna call to solve it?
Obama the "lightworker" who'll chant and wave a unicorn at the miscreants?
Or the US Marines who will adjust said miscreant's attitude in a more permanent manner?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 06, 2008 09:00 PM (c55NW)
10
I think this is Mark Morford's theme song....
I expect everyone of my crowd to make fun
Of my proud protestations of faith in romance,
And they'll say I'm naïve as a babe to believe
Every fable I hear from a person in pants.
Fearlessly I'll face them and argue their doubts away,
Loudly I'll sing about flowers in spring,
Flatly I'll stand on my little flat feet and say
Love is a grand and a beautiful thing!
I'm not ashamed to reveal
The world famous feelin' I feel.
I'm as corny as Kansas in August,
I'm as normal as blueberry pie.
No more a smart little girl with no heart,
I have found me a wonderful guy!
I am in a conventional dither,
With a conventional star in my eye.
And you will note there's a lump in my throat
When I speak of that wonderful guy!
I'm as trite and as gay as a daisy in May,
A cliché comin' true!
I'm bromidic and bright
As a moon-happy night
Pourin' light on the dew!
I'm as corny as Kansas in August,
High as a flag on the Fourth of July!
If you'll excuse an expression I use,
I'm in love, I'm in love,
I'm in love, I'm in love,
I'm in love with a wonderful guy!
I'm as trite and as gay as a daisy in May,
A cliché comin' true!
I'm bromidic and bright
As a moon-happy night
Pourin' light on the dew!
I'm as corny as Kansas in August,
High as a flag on the Fourth of July!
If you'll excuse an expression I use,
I'm in love, I'm in love, I'm in love,
I'm in love, I'm in love, I'm in love,
I'm in love, I'm in love, I'm in love,
I'm in love, I'm in love, I'm in love,
I'm in love with a wonderful guy!
Posted by: MarkJ at June 06, 2008 10:41 PM (IKzfP)
11
New motto for Morford - "I Can't Believe It's Not Parody!"
Sheesh.
Posted by: Grey Fox at June 06, 2008 11:42 PM (Sxx6k)
12
Who can deny Snobama is one of the legion of the Left's lightbearers?
I mean he attended the equivalent of black Nuremburg rallies for twenty years marching with their torch held high! And just as the chorus of brownshirted fanatics yelled for their leader we see the trolls annointing their new leader. Just look at the Snobama posters if you thought Stalinist art work was out of fashion.
All hail the new fuhrer.
Posted by: Thomas Jackson at June 07, 2008 04:47 PM (LHaZf)
13
Remember the name ..
Chance Gardner
.. life imitates art.
Posted by: Neo at June 07, 2008 11:28 PM (Yozw9)
14
Dear Sir,
I wish to take issue with this article in re Bush and the "surge". The surge has been successful because:
1.) A large number of Iraqis switched sides - AQ and the Shiite militias killed a large number of civilians. This has resulted in local support and vastly improved tactical intelligence.
2.) The Iraqi Defense Forces have become minimally proficient and relatively free of infiltrators.
3.) The central government has gradually built its strength and reputation to the point that local power structures have much more confidence in both the intentions and competence of Baghdad.
4.) A large part of the leadership of AQ and the militias have been taken out.
These factors were not realized until the time of the surge. I don't believe the surge would have had nearly as much success if it had been undertaken earlier.
Some things just take time. In the words of Herb Brooks (a giant of the software industry): I don't care how many women you put on the job, it's still going to take nine months to get a baby.
Regards,
Roy
Posted by: Roy Lofquist at June 08, 2008 03:49 PM (n2NAY)
15
Does a Lightworker use a Lightsaber? Sheesh.
For people who make their moral position clear by looking down their noses at "clingy religion" they're pretty far-gone on the stew of a fabulist whole-cloth belief system.
Posted by: DirtCrashr at June 09, 2008 02:25 PM (VNM5w)
16
Dirt, the lefties need something to replace God in their souls... so they turn to the power of government and standard-bearers for same, such as Obama, and deify them.
Posted by: C-C-G at June 09, 2008 05:47 PM (X5vKa)
17
The admirers of Obama would have us believe that he is the messiah and the "hidden Imam" rolled into one. Given his propensity of hiding his middle name, and his penchant for prophecies (cited all to often in a blog by that name) one could be forgiven for assuming that Obama shares more than his middle name with the 12th Imam!Dwelling on Morford's description,here's another lightworker who has dire warningsfor Obamessiah!
Posted by: zeph at June 12, 2008 08:10 AM (NrXlT)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
JUNE 6, 1944. Patton: Links in a Great Chain
[Repost]
General
George S. Patton's Normandy Invasion Speech:
"Be Seated."
"Men, this stuff we hear about America wanting to stay out of the war, not wanting to fight, is a lot of bullshit. Americans love to fight - traditionally. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle. When you were kids, you all admired the champion marble player; the fastest runner; the big league ball players; the toughest boxers. Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win - all the time. I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost, not ever will lose a war, for the very thought of losing is hateful to an American."
"You are not all going to die. Only two percent of you here today would die in a major battle. Death must not be feared. Every man is frightened at first in battle. If he says he isn't, he's a goddamn liar. Some men are cowards, yes! But they fight just the same, or get the hell shamed out of them watching men who do fight who are just as scared. The real hero is the man who fights even though he is scared. Some get over their fright in a minute under fire, some take an hour. For some it takes days. But the real man never lets fear of death overpower his honor, his sense of duty to this country and his innate manhood."
"All through your army career you men have bitched about "This chickenshit drilling." That is all for a purpose. Drilling and discipline must be maintained in any army if for only one reason -- INSTANT OBEDIENCE TO ORDERS AND TO CREATE CONSTANT ALERTNESS. I don't give a damn for a man who is not always on his toes. You men are veterans or you wouldn't be here. You are ready. A man to continue breathing must be alert at all times. If not, sometime a German son-of-a-bitch will sneak up behind him and beat him to death with a sock full of shit."
"There are 400 neatly marked graves somewhere in Sicily all because one man went to sleep on his job -- but they were German graves for we caught the bastard asleep before his officers did. An Army is a team. Lives, sleeps, eats, fights as a team. This individual heroic stuff is a lot of crap. The bilious bastards who wrote that kind of stuff for the Saturday Evening Post don't know any more about real fighting, under fire, than they do about fucking. We have the best food, the finest equipment, the best spirit and the best fighting men in the world. Why, by God, I actually pity these poor sons-of-bitches we are going up against. By God, I do!"
"My men don't surrender. I don't want to hear of any soldier under my command being captured unless he is hit. Even if you are hit, you can still fight. That's not just bullshit, either. The kind of man I want under me is like the lieutenant in Libya, who, with a Lugar against his chest, jerked off his helmet, swept the gun aside with one hand and busted hell out of the Boche with the helmet. Then he jumped on the gun and went out and killed another German: All this with a bullet through his lung. That's a man for you."
"All real heroes are not story book combat fighters either. Every man in the army plays a vital part. Every little job is essential. Don't ever let down, thinking your role is unimportant. Every man has a job to do. Every man is a link in the great chain. What if every truck driver decided that he didn't like the whine of the shells overhead, turned yellow and jumped headlong into the ditch? He could say to himself, "They won't miss me -- just one in thousands." What if every man said that? Where in hell would we be now? No, thank God, Americans don't say that! Every man does his job; every man serves the whole. Every department, every unit, is important to the vast scheme of things. The Ordnance men are needed to supply the guns, the Quartermaster to bring up the food and clothes to us -- for where we're going there isn't a hell of a lot to steal. Every last man in the mess hall, even the one who heats the water to keep us from getting the GI shits has a job to do. Even the chaplain is important, for if we get killed and if he is not there to bury us we'd all go to hell."
"Each man must not only think of himself, but of his buddy fighting beside him. We don't want yellow cowards in this army. They should all be killed off like flies. If not they will go back home after the war and breed more cowards. The brave men will breed brave men. Kill off the goddamn cowards and we'll have a nation of brave men."
"One of the bravest men I ever saw in the African campaign was the fellow I saw on top of a telegraph pole in the midst of furious fire while we were plowing toward Tunis. I stopped and asked what the hell he was doing up there at that time. He answered, "Fixing the wire, sir." "Isn't it a little unhealthy right now?," I asked. "Yes sir, but this goddamn wire's got to be fixed." There was a real soldier. There was a man who devoted all he had to his duty, no matter how great the odds, no matter how seemingly insignificant his duty might appear at the time."
"You should have seen those trucks on the road to Gabes. The drivers were magnificent. All day and all night they rolled over those son-of-a-bitching roads, never stopping, never faltering from their course, with shells bursting around them all the time. We got through on good old American guts. Many of these men drove over forty consecutive hours. These weren't combat men. But they were soldiers with a job to do. They did it -- and in a whale of a way they did it. They were part of a team. Without them the fight would have been lost. All the links in the chain pulled together and that chain became unbreakable."
"Don't forget, you don't know I'm here. No word of the fact is to be mentioned in any letters. The world is not supposed to know what the hell became of me. I'm not supposed to be commanding this Army. I'm not even supposed to be in England. Let the first bastards to find out be the goddamn Germans. Someday I want them to raise up on their hind legs and howl, 'Jesus Christ, it's the goddamn Third Army and that son-of-a-bitch Patton again.'"
"We want to get the hell over there. We want to get over there and clear the goddamn thing up. You can't win a war lying down. The quicker we clean up this goddamn mess, the quicker we can take a jaunt against the purple pissing Japs an clean their nest out too, before the Marines get all the goddamn credit."
"Sure, we all want to be home. We want this thing over with. The quickest way to get it over is to get the bastards. The quicker they are whipped, the quicker we go home. The shortest way home is through Berlin. When a man is lying in a shell hole, if he just stays there all day, a Boche will get him eventually, and the hell with that idea. The hell with taking it. My men don't dig foxholes. I don't want them to. Foxholes only slow up an offensive. Keep moving. And don't give the enemy time to dig one. We'll win this war but we'll win it only by fighting and by showing the Germans we've got more guts than they have."
"There is one great thing you men will all be able to say when you go home. You may thank God for it. Thank God, that at least, thirty years from now, when you are sitting around the fireside with your grandson on your knees, and he asks you what you did in the great war, you won't have to cough and say, 'I shoveled shit in Louisiana.' No, Sir, you can look him straight in the eye and say, 'Son, your Granddaddy rode with the Great Third Army and a Son-of-a-Goddamned-Bitch named George Patton!'"
"That is all."
God Bless the veterans of
the Great Crusade launched on this day in Normandy, France in 1944, and the soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen that today carry on that same fighting spirit.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:02 AM
| Comments (30)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
While I love Patton, and the speech, there is a slight problem: The speech was to the 3rd Army.
The US 3rd Army was not activated until noon on 1 August 1944 (with Gen. George Patton commanding.) This was almost two months after the D-Day Invasion.
Sorry :\
Posted by: Innismir at June 06, 2008 11:20 AM (3qoy+)
2
"Kill off the goddamn cowards and we'll have a nation of brave men"
I recently read somewhere that a 'self-confessed war protester' from Vietnam stated that in reality he wasn't against the war, but more along the idea that he was afraid to go to the war and get killed, and that the majority of the Anti-Vietnam War protesters were 80% motivated by fear (read cowardice) of going to the war.
Read into it what you will but it definately shows what happened to America...
Posted by: Big Country at June 06, 2008 11:50 AM (niydV)
3
Looks like Geo. S. Patton never met a modern Democrat. During his time even Democrats wanted to win wars. This is the kind of change Obama believes in.
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at June 06, 2008 12:07 PM (J5AYY)
4
"Kill off the goddamn cowards..."
What about 'canary bird' McCain?
You've heard about 'canary bird' McCain?
With your rule McCain is...
Posted by: BrotherBoneHead at June 06, 2008 08:59 PM (Do+2y)
5
Bonehead. Ya may want to read up on what others that were there said about him.
Posted by: Matt at June 07, 2008 02:14 PM (qDnDT)
6
Sorry, My Friend 'Matt' I believe in Ghosts, Ufo's and more important, Dinosaurs.
Thanks for for the PR.
Posted by: Matt at June 07, 2008 07:58 PM (Do+2y)
7
Mr. Owens, no snark intended, and no disrespect, either, of General Patton, a man of great personal bravery and tactical excellence.... but what exactly fuels the ongoing love of the right-wing with perhaps the oddest duck who ever gained fame in the modern U.S. Army?
By that I mean that the U.S. Army has always produced magnificent general officers.... and, unlike Patton, those equally skilled (if not so famous generals) didn't suffer from manic-depressive disorder, didn't crudely brag about cheating on their wives, didn't smack soldiers suffering from combat fatigue, didn't manipulate enemy-casualty statistics to make their victories look even bigger than they were, didn't go out of their way to humiliate their subordinates, didn't make a fetish of army chickenshit in the front lines, didn't live like royalty at their headquarters, didn't beat civilians with their swagger sticks, didn't urge soldiers to shoot enemy prisoners, didn't cover up war crimes in their commands, didn't expound on the need to execute their social inferiors, didn't hold extreme racist and anti-semitic views, and didn't literally revel in death and destruction.....
I'd suspect that if any one of our sons was ever handed a helmet and rifle and told to fight a war, we'd rather he serve under a General Ridgway or Gavin or Abrams or Bond or Walt or Davis or Ware--men who were great soldiers, but humane, too--than someone like Patton.
Many an American GI in North Africa, Sicily, and Europe would have loved to have blown Patton's head off.
Again, of all the great generals this country has produced, why the right-wing fetish with Patton?
I mean, to celebrate D-Day, you talk about Patton, and not a general who actually participated in the Normandy landing!
Posted by: KeithNolan at June 08, 2008 04:41 AM (IuwGQ)
8
Yeah neither of those two idiots above are me.
Posted by: The Real Matt at June 09, 2008 09:26 PM (9V6Vj)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Latest. The Greatest.
The Final HamNation.
Obama on Your Shoulder.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:55 AM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
June 05, 2008
Surviving Barack Obama
The pro-life movement has often referred to abortion advocates as "baby killers" for supporting the deaths of inconvenient and unwanted pregnancies, though rarely has that criticism been as valid as when applied to radical left-wing freshman senator, Barack Obama.
Obama supports the negligent homicide—and I use that term after careful consideration as being
the most accurate descriptor—of babies that survive the best efforts of abortionists and accidentally enter the world alive.
As Michael Gerson noted
with obvious revulsion in the Washington
Post in April:
Obama has not made abortion rights the shouted refrain of his campaign, as other Democrats have done. He seems to realize that pro-choice enthusiasm is inconsistent with a reputation for post-partisanship.
But Obama's record on abortion is extreme. He opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion -- a practice a fellow Democrat, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once called "too close to infanticide." Obama strongly criticized the Supreme Court decision upholding the partial-birth ban. In the Illinois state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion. And now Obama has oddly claimed that he would not want his daughters to be "punished with a baby" because of a crisis pregnancy -- hardly a welcoming attitude toward new life.
Yes, you heard that correctly. Even though wealthy and quite capable of supporting an inadvertent pregnancy, the Democratic Party's choice for President would consider his own grandchild a punishment. Should the child somehow survive the abortion "Grandpa Barack" apparently wants, Obama would support withholding medical care to his born grandchild. Barack Obama would let him or her die in the hospital through purposeful neglect after having been born alive.
There is no hope here. This is not the kind of radical, dehumanizing change that most Americans realize Obama supports.
Daniel Allott continues shredding Obama's radical support of postpartum infanticide in the
Wall Street Journal's The Audacity of Death today, beginning with an interview of Gianna Jessen, an abortion survivor that Obama would have seen die, and then launches into the specifics of Obama's chilling record:
As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama twice opposed legislation to define as "persons" babies who survive late-term abortions. Babies like Gianna. Mr. Obama said in a speech on the Illinois Senate floor that he could not accept that babies wholly emerged from their mother's wombs are "persons," and thus deserving of equal protection under the Constitution's 14th Amendment.
A federal version on the same legislation passed the Senate unanimously and with the support of all but 15 members of the House. Gianna was present when President Bush signed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act in 2002.
When I asked Gianna to reflect on Mr. Obama's candidacy, she paused, then said, "I really hope the American people will have their eyes wide open and choose to be discerning. . . . He is extreme, extreme, extreme."
"Extreme" may not be the impression the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have bought Mr. Obama's autobiography have been left with. In "The Audacity of Hope," Mr. Obama's presidential manifesto, he calls abortion "undeniably difficult," "a very difficult issue," "never a good thing" and "a wrenching moral issue."
He laments his party's "litmus test" for "orthodoxy" on abortion and other issues, and even admits, "I do not presume to know the answer to that question." That question being the moral status of the fetus, who he nonetheless concedes has "moral weight."
Those statements are seriously made but, alas, cannot be taken at all seriously. Mr. Obama has compiled a 100% lifetime "pro-choice" voting record, including votes against any and all restrictions on late-term abortions and parental involvement in teenagers' abortions.
To Mr. Obama, abortion, or "reproductive justice," is "one of the most fundamental rights we possess." And he promises, "the first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," which would overturn hundreds of federal and state laws limiting abortion, including the federal ban on partial-birth abortion and bans on public funding of abortion.
Then there's Mr. Obama's aforementioned opposition to laws that protect babies born-alive during botched abortions. If partial-birth abortion is, as Democratic icon Daniel Patrick Moynihan labeled it, "too close to infanticide," then what is killing fully-birthed babies?
It is of course, infanticide.
If Barack Obama is smart, perhaps he can restart the false "Obama is a Muslim" meme to distract us away from his far more damnable short-comings as a father, presumptive grandfather, and human being.
Update: Read this, via
Rightwingsparkle in the comments at
Ace of Spades:
Jill Stanek, a registered delivery-ward nurse who was the prime mover behind the legislation after she witnessed aborted babies' being born alive and left to die, testified twice before Obama in support of the Induced Infant Liability Act bills. She also testified before the U.S. Congress in support of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.
Stanek told me her testimony "did not faze" Obama.
In the second hearing, Stanek said, "I brought pictures in and presented them to the committee of very premature babies from my neonatal resuscitation book from the American Pediatric Association, trying to show them unwanted babies were being cast aside. Babies the same age were being treated if they were wanted!"
"And those pictures didn't faze him [Obama] at all," she said.
It's not that Obama didn't know. It's that he doesn't care.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:03 AM
| Comments (44)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Democrats pretend to care about the 4,000 Americans that have died, in Iraq, protecting our freedoms but fully supported the murder of 289,650 babies in 2006. Calling them brain dead is being kind to them.
Posted by: Scrapiron at June 05, 2008 12:04 PM (GAf+S)
2
A terrific if frightening post.
Posted by: mekan at June 05, 2008 12:38 PM (hm8tW)
3
Nicely done. You just got another reader.
Posted by: captkidney at June 05, 2008 01:31 PM (T2aVC)
4
Much has been made of the fact that NARAL supported the federal Infants Born Alive Act, but this was not the law that Obama opposed. He opposed similar legislation on the Illinois state level.
The recent overturn of the Virginia ban on so-called partial birth abortion, while the federal law survived, may suggest why this could be. Differences in the phrasing of the Virginia law made it less defensible. The federal law only criminalizes doctors who set out to perform an intact dilation and extraction, but the Virginia law also applies to doctors who set out to perform a legal procedure but end up delivering the fetus intact by accident. Because the only way a doctor could be sure to obey the Virginia law was to refrain from performing any second trimester abortions, it was considered to put an undue burden on women.
I suspect there was something similar going on with the Illinois laws, and I would like to see for myself. There was probably something in the Illinois law that was more about scaring doctors than it was about protecting babies born alive--because once they're born, they're babies.
Posted by: DRF at June 05, 2008 01:35 PM (ux6vN)
5
Have these people never heard of adoption?
If we're so enlightened these days where's the shame in adoption if there isn't any in abortion?
I feel old, and morally out of date.
Posted by: Retread at June 05, 2008 02:19 PM (P/AfD)
6
But adoption requires that the person carry the baby to term and we wouldn't want the poor darlings to feel guilty about giving away the child, would we?
/obvious sarcasm
Posted by: ECM at June 05, 2008 03:31 PM (q3V+C)
7
If Barrack Hussein Obama had been conceived a few years later, judging by what his mother did with him in his lifetime, he surely would have ended up in the waste receptical at a Planned Parenthood clinic. I wonder if Obama believes in post natal abortion. If so, he should get in line.
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at June 05, 2008 03:57 PM (J5AYY)
8
DRF, the Illinois bill had an amendment added to make it precisely identical to the bill that was passed at the federal level.
Obama still voted "present" on the amended bill.
Therefore, it is quite logical and reasonable to assume that he'd have opposed the federal bill as well.
Posted by: C-C-G at June 05, 2008 06:11 PM (+icbL)
9
From what I've seen of B(H)O, he hasn't seen an abortion procedure he didn't like. Of course, I highly doubt he's ever SEEN an abortion which might actually explain his views on the subject.
Posted by: Mark at June 05, 2008 09:18 PM (KDHro)
10
It's sad how many don't understand nuance and context. Abortion doesn't exterminate valued life, as some here suggest. It removes undesirables from the gene pool. Poor white offspring, immigrant filth, and god forbid, a zebra from a trust fund daughter's one-time fling with an exotic African man.
While it may be puzzling to Obama that he's the very ilk abortion intends to protect the sophisticated culture from, most others on the left have little difficulty decoding what abortion is really about.
Posted by: redherkey at June 05, 2008 10:10 PM (kjqFg)
11
You gotta wonder if BO is gonna shed his skin color ala M. Jackson.
Posted by: torabora at June 05, 2008 11:33 PM (HkjSo)
12
Now as amazing as it sounds there are no requirements to report and abortion being performed for statistical purposes.
Based on voluntary reporting
http://www.mccl.org/abortion_statistics.htm
49,523,945 abortions 1973-2007
The clock is ticking....
One baby is aborted every 26 seconds
137 babies are aborted every hour
3,304 babies are aborted every day
23,196 babies are aborted every week
100,516 babies are aborted every month
Every day almost enough babies to equal the total death toll in Iraq.
Yet in the same breath these are also the same people who believe the death penalty is excessive.
Posted by: JustADude at June 06, 2008 02:16 AM (1aM/I)
13
Abortion positions aside, if this is what he'd do the weakest and most vulnerable of us when against all odds they manage to emerge alive rather than a much more convenient dead, what chance does anyone else stand with him?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 06, 2008 08:21 AM (c55NW)
14
Reading these comments you'd think he performed all these abortions personally and is favorite personal hobby. This is all a red herring to stir up the zoo. Obama isn't forcing anyone to have these abortions. Republicans talk big about taking responsibility for one's own actions but instead of blaming the women who are having the abortions or the doctors performing them, it has to be Obama's fault that these things are happening because he voted no/present on bills that might have made it illegal. If he had voted yes, the bill was passed and these abortions still happened (as they did when it was illegal) wouldn't it still be his fault? The reality is that laws aren't designed to save lives, they are designed to punish those that break them. Why didn't the doctors and nurses try and save the babies after they were born? Why did Jill Stanek simply take pictures of these babies dying and not try and prevent it? Why isn't someone arresting these medical professionals for negligent homicide? Are there laws on the books that state that if a mother wants the fetus dead, even after its born then doctors HAVE to let it die? I don't think there are (maybe I'm wrong on this). How long after birth then do the mothers have this right, till the kid is 18?
Posted by: matt a at June 06, 2008 10:18 AM (jRTMP)
15
How long after birth then do the mothers have this right, till the kid is 18?
In some societies, until around age 4 or 5.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 06, 2008 03:22 PM (c55NW)
16
matt a:
Well, Peter Singer has argued that you should be able to kill off severely handicapped children after birth for at least a year or two, if not longer.
Separately, the courts have ruled that parents may deny their children medical care on religious grounds. The most prominent example is Christian Scientists. That would apply through the age of 18.
Posted by: Lurking Observer at June 06, 2008 04:20 PM (JO8zc)
17
It's really all about religion. I would like to think you are rea!ly concerned about killing a SINGLE cell. It's not! It's all about what your bible quoting leaders say. What I find interesting is that throughout history religions have been in the forefront of most wars. And all these wars were about enforcing religious views. You seem to ignore that. Or are you in denial?
Posted by: truthseeker at June 07, 2008 03:55 PM (Rv0yU)
18
1. Where is Obama's campaign money coming from? He says the average citizen and will not take money from special interst groups? Average citizens do not have THAT much money. I think it is coming from the middle east.
2. How much foreign affairs experience does he have? None
3. Look at his voting record. Apparently his strings are being pulled by some powerful people. He is very careful and does not vote unless he thinks it would better him. Be damned with the voters.
4. Like it or not, look at who the first lady would be. This woman cannot keep her foot out of her mouth! Do we want her representing America?
5. Sure he is charismatic but so was Hitler. Do we want a president that is charismatic but no experience?
6. Obama has seemed to pop out of nowhere. Do we dare risk him running the country until he has proven himself in the trenches? NO!!
Posted by: ListeningIntently at June 07, 2008 04:00 PM (PV0W/)
19
If Snobama were in a car wreck and I just put him in a quiet corner and neglected to give him the required medical care till nature took its course what would I be charged with?
Nuff said. People who support this type of bill are no better than those who manned the ovens the Germans operated.
Posted by: Thomas Jackson at June 07, 2008 04:53 PM (LHaZf)
20
Republicans pretend to care about all the fetuses ever to have been aborted, Scrapiron, but fully supported the murders of 1,103 inmates since 1976. I see. Apparently, the right to life ends at the moment of birth.
Posted by: Kat at June 08, 2008 02:50 AM (CYSoR)
21
No Kat, it doesn't end at the moment of birth, but rather upon conviction of a capital offense.
Nice try though.
--Jason
Posted by: Jason Coleman at June 08, 2008 07:38 AM (ZJEB6)
22
Conviction by a justice system populated by mostly well-intentioned, but fallible, human beings. Though I'm sure the murders of dozens of *real* criminals would make up for any one innocent person accidentally being put to death.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=45&did=292
But this is veering slightly off the point. The point is that many liberal individuals (such as myself) don't believe that life begins at conception. Call it "infanticide" and all the other horrible things that you use to stir up passion among pro-lifers, but our stance is that you're wrong.
I don't want fetuses to be aborted. I think it's a horrible decision for a young woman to have to make. But I'm not going to tell someone, "Congratulations that your condom broke/you were raped/you didn't understand the consequences of having sex because you've only been exposed to abstinence teachings. You're going to be going into hours of labour after straining your body's resources for nine months! But take heart. Afterwards, you're going to make the decision to either raise this child you're not equipped to deal with, or put him/her in a crowded, overworked foster care system full of children who will never be adopted. Cheers!"
Posted by: Kat at June 08, 2008 05:09 PM (Gkit2)
23
"Conviction by a justice system populated by mostly well-intentioned, but fallible, human beings."
I'll take my chances with the law of man administered by man and through a jury of my peers over any other alternative.
The point remains that one does not lose their rights at birth, as you asserted, but rather when a capital offence has been committed, tried and convicted.
Personally, I believe that life begins at viability, and as science makes such viability younger and younger, we must adjust to guarantee the rights of all men (generic sense) until such time as they may lose them via the rules we have all previously agreed to and codified.
Abortion is a matter for the states in my view, and BO failed my test (not my only one, and not the only one he's failed), AND since we are playing this out in various federal arena's I also notice he is failing there too.
--Jason
Posted by: Jason Coleman at June 08, 2008 06:38 PM (ZJEB6)
24
I wouldnt get too emotional on BHO for Pres. He will not win anyway. To be politically correct I will not say exactly why he wont but not to worry. Americans can see through him and see where is wife and his pastor and many of his aquaintences are coming from. A place I dont ever want to revisit from the past.
Posted by: bob at June 08, 2008 06:45 PM (zeG3W)
25
Two questions, Kat.
First, please name for me even one person who has been executed who has now been proven innocent. Just one. And don't give me the excuse that the investigation stops after execution... with all the anti-death-penalty lawyers and activists out there, surely one of them could have found one case by now.
Two, please provide your source for the assertion that a child put up for adoption will never be adopted. Given the number of people who are adopting children from outside the US, including a number of quite famous people, it seems unusual that there'd be huge numbers of adoptable kids (meaning their legal status is clear of impediments to adoption) who are waiting. So you will please provide your evidence, since I cannot prove a negative, i.e., I can't prove that such a waiting list doesn't exist.
Or, you'll just call me names and/or spin. I kinda suspect that's the tactic you'll take.
Posted by: C-C-G at June 09, 2008 06:36 PM (X5vKa)
26
So, Kat, here's a twofer:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,364765,00.html
First, how many did she kill? Four? Or five?
Second, how fallible was the jury in her case?
Third, are you prepared to guarantee that this person will never be paroled? That liberals, perhaps even yourself, in 30 or 40 years won't be claiming that this woman, who will have behaved herself in jail all this time, who will have earned a college degree, who will have written children's books to atone for her sins, should, in fact, be paroled?
Posted by: Lurking Observer at June 10, 2008 12:23 AM (Omh6/)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 04, 2008
RE: The Michelle Obama "Whitey" Video
I've not posted on the existence of the alleged Michelle Obama "Whitey" rant being pushed by pro-Hillary bloggers who will not be named. They, of course, claim Republicans are behind acquiring such a video, a bit hard to swallow considering the dirty tricks team the Clinton's have put together between Little Rock, Pennsylvania Avenue, and New York. Frankly I think it is a bogus claim, as it lacks specifics or credible sourcing, even this latest version, pulled from (shocking, I know) another pro-Hillary blog.
The Michelle Obama Rant Tape was filmed between June 26th - July 1st 2004 in Chicago, IL at the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition Conference at Trinity United Church: specifically the Women's Event.
Michelle Obama appeared as a panelist alongside Mrs. Khadijah Farrakhan and Mrs. James Meeks.
Bill Clinton spoke during the Conference, as did Bill Cosby and other speakers, but not at the panel Michelle attended.
Michelle Obama spoke at the Women's Event, but referenced Bill Clinton in her rant --- his presence at the conference was the impetus for her raving, it seems.
For about 30 minutes, Michelle Obama launched into a rant about the evils of America, and how America is to blame for the problems of Africa. Michelle personally blamed President Clinton for the deaths of millions of Africans and said America is responsible for the genocide of the Tutsis and other ethnic groups. She then launched into an attack on "whitey", and talked about solutions to black on black crime in the realm of diverting those actions onto white America. Her rant was fueled by the crowd: they reacted strongly to what she said, so she got more passionate and enraged, and that's when she completely loses it and says things that have made the mouths drop of everyone who's seen this.
The "tape" is a DVD that Trinity United sold on its website, and possibly offered free for download up until March 2008 when Trinity's site was scrubbed and the DVDs were no longer offered for sale.
Despite all the damning specifics offered, it is the last sentence that makes this claim so unlikely.
Early on in the heat of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright fiasco, major news organizations purchased dozens, if not hundreds of DVDs from Trinity United Chruch of Christ. Some were looking merely for Wright's rants, and some were not doubt hoping to observe the family in the congregation during one of Wright's more obscene rants to trap Barack in a "gotcha" moment. If they would have likely uncovered a rant like the one proposed above they wold have run it that very night. Do you think that the media could sit on such a bombshell? They may
like Barack, but they
love an exclusive, and the rush would be on to see which network or cable news show could scoop the others.
If Michelle Obama was caught in such a rant on video, and the video was sold on DVD or was available for download from the church, it would have been exposed
months ago. Pro-Hillary bloggers can continue to KKKarry on pushing this story, but I see no reason to find their claim credible.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:39 AM
| Comments (39)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Do you think that the media could sit on such a bombshell?
Yes. They buried Hillary's kerfluffle with that guy Peter Paul fairly well.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 04, 2008 12:51 PM (c55NW)
2
"Do you think that the media could sit on such a bombshell?"
They sat on all kinds of stories that might have affected Governor Clinton's candidacy- including allegations of rape and serious corruption- because, if those allegations were investigated, they might have tilted votes towards a second term for then-President Bush.
They're still awful selective on what they publish about Barack: check out how few hard questions get asked him about Trinity Baptist, the Rezko connection, "Without Preconditions", or the Ayres connection, and how seldom even obtusely uninformative answers from Barack or his flaks bring about follow-up questions; one may assume for the same reason.
So I have to ask, CY: Is this a trick question?
And are you sure you want to repeat a Obama trope and accuse anyone who follows up this story of racism ("KKKarry") ? Because that's low-class; the kind of thing I'd expect to see on Kos or Firedoglake.
Posted by: DaveP. at June 04, 2008 03:33 PM (8mvgK)
3
The days of the media wanting a controversy or scoop more than anything are long gone. Now the media is nothing more than a wing for the democrat party. Not only would the media cover it up they would buy up all the copies available and destroy them.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at June 04, 2008 03:46 PM (kNqJV)
4
How did Rev. Wright's stuff stay buried for so long?
The media made Obama a "rock star" last year. The amount of positive press coverage on him was huge.
You have to assume it is more than highly likely media outlets sent people out looking for more info on Obama - not to find dirt but just to cover the man, because he wasn't a known figure as they were making him a super star.
But, we didn't get Wright's stuff for months and months.
I am, however, skeptical if the stuff was available on the net, because I would have figured bloggers would have been all over the site once the Rev. Wright story did break big, and most bloggers wouldn't have thought twice about getting the stuff up on You Tube and elsewhere.
If the tape doesn't exist, however, some important people are going to look like gigantic asses - Sean Hannity being one by the way he teased the idea he might have the tape on his show a couple of days ago...
Posted by: usinkorea at June 04, 2008 03:58 PM (cZ3mu)
5
Tony Rezko — the high-flying developer and fast-food magnate who was once a major campaign fund-raiser for Gov. Blagojevich and Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama and one of the governor’s closest advisers — is now a convicted felon.
A federal jury in Chicago convicted Rezko this afternoon on 16 of 24 charges he faced in a political corruption trial that cast a harsh light on the Blagojevich administration.
I wonder if he's thinking "Pardon Me" ?
Posted by: Neo at June 04, 2008 05:12 PM (Yozw9)
6
The question is, if Hillary (or Rush, or Hannity, or Mark Levin) had such a tape, why wouldn't they have brought it forward by now?
There's no tape because, simply put, there is no tape. You can't show what doesn't exist.
This whole rumor was (IMHO) a feeble attempt by Clintonoids to raise more questions about Obama. And it's highly unnecessary... there's more than enough legitimate questions about the junior Senator from the Chicago Democratic Machine.
Posted by: C-C-G at June 04, 2008 06:44 PM (+icbL)
7
From what I'm hearing it's now open for debate, subject to interpretation, invariably to be spun as the MSM wishes.....
Opponents to Obama are claiming she says "Whitey....this and Whitey .... that."
And Obama supporters are claiming Michelle is saying:
"Why'd he...this or that."
Referring to Bush.
Damn. Isn't it alway's Bush's fault!
Posted by: Maggie Mama at June 04, 2008 07:28 PM (K8rep)
8
If I were somehow invested in who wins the presidency, and I had the tape, and I were not in the MSM, I would have held the tape.
It doesn't make sense to me that Hillary would hold it back. I'm sure someone could make an argument why she might, but if I were in her camp, and I had this tape, I would have let it out soon after the Rev. Wright controversy started to die out.
If I were on the Republican side, I would have withheld the tape because of the amount of conflict and divide the Hillary-Obama race to the finish is creating. That race is doing damage to either candidate's chance of winning.
I probably wouldn't use the tape until well into the Dem convention or later. I would try to wait until it is just Obama and McCain were running against each other and battle lines had been clearly defined and we had a good idea which way the wind was blowing.
I'd worry using it now would give the media and the Dems too much time to apply counter-measures over the long run.
However, other factors would influence my decision - like how much the rumors are setting a negative stage for interpretations of the video once it does come out. If I were in the Obama camp, I'd be putting out different kinds of messages about what such a tape would mean ---- and especially calling the use of such a tape "dirty politics" and so on ----- doing my best to try to frame how the tape plays to American voters.
The tape might have to surface (if there is one) before the holders of it would like...
I personally think showing the tape now, if you are on the Republican side, is fine. I don't think Americans are as short-sighted as most believe. Even with the Rev. Wright controversy having mostly passed, I think it has done lasting damage to Obama in the minds of many of the swing voters who might otherwise have voted for him.
One thing all this talk has reminded me of is the Clarence Thomas debacle:
when one of the Dem operatives waited until the weekend before the early-week confirmation vote was to take place before leaking the sexual harassment charges.
Posted by: usinkorea at June 04, 2008 11:02 PM (6kS5w)
9
It doesn't matter if the tape exist or not, why would anyone want to vote for a person that has stayed with a church or pastor that preached such hatred?
Obama had to hear that type of sermon many of times within the 20 year span. He is only breaking away for the church and pastor because of the campaign. He said that in a round about way duing his statement about leaving the church.
Posted by: Just Curious at June 06, 2008 12:19 AM (Oe7rJ)
10
The tape is just racist fantasy. There are racist white people out there who love to dream about black people being racist against them. It's like feminists who imagine all men are chauvinists, it validates their hatred. Good on you, Yankee, for not pimping this story like some of the chumps on the blogosphere.
Posted by: BT at June 07, 2008 06:18 PM (8j82b)
11
some of the other items I have read seem to be plausible....that is was for sale on the web site of the church...that early purchases were made by Republicans like Giuliani and then viewed by top insiders like Rove et al.....The since it was purchased and the web site was scrubbed of all archives... the Obama camp knows the cat is out of the bag and waiting to be used ..... timing is critical.....3 more months until the Dem. convention and then 9 weeks after that for the election, which could rsult in the threatened Al Sharpton riots....this will be much more than the "Swift boats" campaign. It will be more like the "Terrible Swift Sword" of Providence so the truth can go marching on.
Glory, glory Hallelujah!
Posted by: William R. Smith at June 08, 2008 08:07 AM (0PJNH)
12
Racists pray this video exists . . . the overwhelming bulk of America simply does not care. We will look at the issues and vote based upon that. I no more tie Obama to Wright than I do McCain to Hagee. Obama going to a muslim school as a kid is about as important to me as McCain collaborating with the VC.
You see, the ability to reason is utterly beyond racists.
Posted by: Scy at June 08, 2008 10:50 AM (Wy2G7)
13
want to see the real video?
Go here
http://silencedmajority.blogs.com/silenced_majority_portal/2008/06/michelle-obamas.html
Posted by: Slugbug at June 08, 2008 01:08 PM (oiRnP)
14
I FOUND THE VIDEO!!!
http://lmosworld.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Juan at June 09, 2008 02:29 PM (L+LD2)
15
I found the real video!!!!!!!!!!
Http://IThinkYouAreStupid.com/2008/06/michelle.html
Posted by: Morris at June 12, 2008 12:11 PM (H0twy)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
What Lies Will He Tell Today?
Over at Hot Air this morning, Ed Morrissey points to an article in the Weekly Standard about Barack Obama's opposition to the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment designating Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) a terrorist organization:
These designations are more than just rhetorical; labeling the IRGC as a terrorist organization brings to bear a range of powerful sanctions that crack down on its ability to work in the global financial system.
The proximate cause of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment was a growing dossier of evidence from General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, documenting the IRGC's role in financing, training, arming, and directing extremists in Iraq responsible for the murder of hundreds of American and Iraqi soldiers and civilians.
Of course, that's not the full extent of the IRGC's malign influence. The group is an acknowledged supporter of terror (a fact even Senator Obama concedes), training, financing and arming Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and most recently, the Taliban. At home in Iran, the IRGC now dominates the regime, with 9 out of 21 seats in the Ahmadinejad cabinet held by former IRGC and IRGC-affiliated officials. The IRGC is also a vital player in Iran's licit and illicit economies, and dominates important sectors like construction.
Needless to say, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment won broad support in the Senate, passing 76-22. Senator Hillary Clinton voted for it, as did Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senator Chuck Schumer, and Senator Dick Durbin.
Senator Obama, however, was one of a handful of senators who opposed the amendment--which had aroused the ire of the left-wing blogosphere. In the frenzied minds of DailyKos and Moveon.org, Kyl-Lieberman--or "Lieberman-Kyl," as they preferred to call it--was nothing less than a stealth declaration of war on Iran.
So if the National Journal's Most Liberal Senator is still taking marching orders from Kossacks and the "General Betray Us" radicals of Moveon.org, where, precisely, is Obama's claimed but never seen bipartisanship? It doesn't exist. It never has.
As Ed
astutely notes:
There are only two reasons to oppose the application of sanctions on Iran. Either one wants to go to war and skip all of the other options, or doesn't believe Iran to be a threat and a sponsor of terror. Into which group should we put Barack Obama?
Obama, who resolutely refuses to acknowledge changing fortunes in Iraq (the more than year-long string of successes there are not changes he can believe in), obviously takes the later, "see no evil" view.
Pro-Palestinian Obama will try to gloss over his record (such as the Kyl-Lieberman vote) and his
past associations today as he addresses
AIPAC. Perhaps someone in the audience will ask Obama why he allowed a pair of grants totaling $75,000 to go to the Arab-American Action Network, a group that calls the establishment of Israel as a "catastrophe," while director of the ultra-liberal Woods Fund.
Barack Obama supports Israel the way
R. Kelly supports Girl Scouts. It's time someone calls him on it.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:03 AM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
June 03, 2008
Yon: War Could be Over By Year's End
A stunning prediction from Michael Yon:
One of the biggest problems with the Iraq War is that politics has frequently triumphed over truth. For instance, we went into Iraq with shoddy intelligence (at best), no reconstruction plan, and perhaps half as many troops as were required. We refused to admit that an insurgency was growing, until the country collapsed into anarchy and civil war. Now the truth is that Iraq is showing real progress on many fronts: Al Qaeda is being defeated and violence is down and continuing to decrease. As a result, the militias have lost their reason for existence and are getting beaten back or co-opted. Shia, Sunni and Kurds are coming together -- although with various stresses -- under the national government. If progress continues at this rate, it is very possible that before 2008 is out, we can finally say "the war has ended."
This comes as part of Yon's offer to tour Iraq with U.S. Senators—including the Presidential candidates—so that they can make informed decisions regarding the progress of the conflict.
If Yon is accurate, then Democrats (including Barack Obama) who continue to insist that the war is lost are going to lose all of their credibility in coming months. They will of course try to pivot, and make up some excuse to take credit for the success of operations in Iraq if such a situation develops.
History will not remember pro-defeat politicians or activists kindly.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:09 PM
| Comments (37)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Things seem to get improving in Afghanistan as well. This will also remove another Democratic talking point; that our commitments in Iraq have kept us from achieving victory in Afghanistan.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at June 03, 2008 02:13 PM (oC8nQ)
2
They will of course try to pivot, and make up some excuse to take credit for the success of operations in Iraq if such a situation develops.
Hasn't that already started, with the claim that opposition to The Surge is what made it successful?
Posted by: teqjack at June 03, 2008 02:41 PM (CEphM)
3
"History will not remember pro-defeat politicians or activists kindly."
It will not matter for the lections because the MSN will not let it matter.
Posted by: davod at June 03, 2008 03:00 PM (llh3A)
4
Harry Reeds declaration of "this war is lost" will be an enduring historical statement about the democrat party during the GWOT.
Posted by: grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at June 03, 2008 03:35 PM (gkobM)
5
oh please...... any success in Iraq is because of the Iranians. i know this because i saw it on the news.
/sarc
Posted by: redc1c4 at June 03, 2008 04:35 PM (c820g)
6
Official Democratic Statement on the Iraq War, February 2009:
Today, President Barack Obama announced the end of hostilities in Iraq, and all U.S. forces are being withdrawn from that country posthaste.
"Our success in Iraq is because of our failures," the President said in his official statement. "As I predicted in 2006, the surge of troops instituted by the previous administration was a futile effort. This futility has led directly to our victory."
Obama also stated that his recent 275% tax increase is actually a tax decrease and the current record unemployment that zoomed to 87.3% since his inauguration has been a boon to the economy.
"At this rate," Obama said, "the nation's impending collapse will lead to unequaled prosperity."
Posted by: Just Askin' at June 03, 2008 05:50 PM (esv00)
7
After the Democrats forced us out of Vietnam, the GOP won every Presidential race until the end of the Cold War except one: Carter, which was likely a reaction against Nixon. The people remembered, in other words.
If Obama gets into the White House and forces us out of Iraq, the Dems can expect another couple of decades of being out of the Oval Office.
Posted by: C-C-G at June 03, 2008 09:47 PM (+icbL)
8
Looks like Iraq is trying to grow up...http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0430491220080605?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
When I first read this article, I was encouraged, but then I read this: "What are the threats that require U.S. forces to be there?" asked Nadeem Al-Jaberi, a co-founder of the al-Fadhila Shi'ite political party, speaking through a translator.
"I would like to inform you, there are no threats on Iraq. We are capable of solving our own problems," he declared. He favored a quick pullout of U.S. forces, which invaded the country in 2003 and currently number around 155,000. (end quote)
This clown is either extremely naive or he just really enjoys chewing on the hand that is currently feeding him.
Posted by: Torino Rossi at June 04, 2008 11:22 PM (aX1vr)
9
Damn! So much for my paycheck...
Posted by: Big Country at June 05, 2008 03:01 PM (Uw4zr)
10
How does it go? ...Dream River wider than the sky...
Posted by: BrotherBoneHead at June 05, 2008 03:47 PM (HeqsW)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 02, 2008
Edumacated
It appears that our education system is failing us once more, as a collegiate newspaper published an anti-gun editorial penned upon completely false information.
It is sad enough when one editorialist makes up the basic facts his story hinges upon; it's worse when editorial board signs off on
this kind of ignorance:
In 2004, a federal ban on assault weapons expired.
Now, four years later, Mayor Michael Nutter and Governor Ed Rendell want to reduce violent crime nationally by convincing Congress to re-enact the ban.
The ten-year federal ban forbids the possession, manufacture, use and import of assault weapons. And according to a 1999 National Institute of Justice study, it reduced the percent of crime committed with assault weapons, including police murders, by a significant amount.
The only thing that the editorial board of the
Daily Pennsylvanian got right in this editorial is that the ban expired in 2004.
As we well know, the so-called "assault weapons" ban in the 1994 Crime Bill:
- Did not ban the manufacture of semiautomatic firearms. In fact, companies that manufacture semi-automatic firearms, such as Bushmaster and Olympic Arms thrived throughout the length of the ban, and Kahr Arms was founded as a direct result of a market created by the ban;
- Did not ban the transfer of semiautomatic firearms. Sales of semiautomatic firearms actually increased during the 1994-2004 ban.
- Did not ban the possession of semi-automatic firearms. This includes weapons defined as "assault weapons" under the ban, as long as they had been manufactured prior to the law going into effect, and tens of thousands of semi-automatic firearms made and sold during the ban;
The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was irrelevant; if anything it had the unintended effect of making such firearms more desirable, increasing their popularity.
Sadly, this mythical view of the accomplishments of the 1994 AW Ban is common "conventional wisdom" in left-leaning journalism and politics. Unlike so many views held in the community-based reality, however, the perception has nothing to do with the truth.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
05:32 PM
| Comments (25)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Remember the great correction in the NYT from last week where a reporter stated that, since the US had committed biowarfare, the AIDS/CIA fable was a rational belief. Of course the Times had to later concede that there was "no evidence" of such an event. Obviously the MSMers, graduates of fancy schools of Marxist this and that know a universe of things that are not only untrue, but stupidly so and anti-American to boot. Remember this, friends, when your children are college bound.
Posted by: megapotamus at June 03, 2008 11:32 AM (LF+qW)
2
Let us not forget that the antigun forces, desperate to find support for their beloved ban, did studies which found that ten years of the ban had no effect on crime whatever. It did not reduce "gun violence," to say nothing of "assault weapon violence," because both terms were and are media/anti-gun inventions and exist only in the fevered imaginations of those who believe that the way to combat crime is to punish the tools used by criminals.
There was, however, another salutatory effect of the ban. Because magazines (yes, magazines; the only currently manufactured firearm in widespread circulation that uses a "clip" is the M1 Garand rifle) were limited to only 10 rounds, manufacturers miniaturized handguns to those dimensions, giving rise to my Glock 26 and a variety of other similarly small firearms. Unintended consequences indeed.
Posted by: Mike at June 03, 2008 07:30 PM (mSx64)
3
To anyone that is fighting the fight against the gungrabbers, try using this as a reference.
http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/4.0/GunFacts4-0-Screen.pdf
Now, let it be known that of ALL the firearms crimes committed last year, only 2% were committed with rifles (this means any kind of rifle).
Now know that more people were killed last year by someone beating them to death with hands and feet only than were killed with a firearm.
The left really pisses me off.
Posted by: Matt at June 07, 2008 02:10 PM (qDnDT)
4
What's this? An anti-gun article that doesn't use the phrase "common sense laws?" I thought Soros made that a mandatory requirement.
Since the incorrectly labeled "assault weapons" are used in such an insignificant portion of crimes (not insignificant if you're the victim, I suppose) I can imagine a "study" finding a drop from, say, 2.01% to 2.00% being used to declare the ban a success. But that's just a guess as the studies I'm aware of found no association between that law and a drop in crime.
Doesn't matter, they're all living in another world where facts are irrelevant to their goals.
Posted by: DoorHold at June 08, 2008 09:24 AM (V/7GJ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Nagin Endorsement Now Key to Obama Campaign
When you've got to throw
this many people under the bus, it's going to take a
lot of buses.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:57 AM
| Comments (26)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
OUCH!
That's gotta sting.
Posted by: Tully at June 02, 2008 09:35 AM (kEQ90)
2
Look at it this way, if school bus Nagin had done his job, Comrade Obama wouldn't have a talking point.
Posted by: bill-tb at June 02, 2008 09:59 AM (7evkT)
3
In exchange for his endorsement, Nagin will become Secretary of Transportation in President Obama's administration.
Posted by: C-C-G at June 02, 2008 06:11 PM (+icbL)
4
Any reason to believe these folks ? ..
The Michelle Obama Rant Tape was filmed between June 26th - July 1st 2004 in Chicago, IL at the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition Conference at Trinity United Church: specifically the Women’s Event.
Michelle Obama appeared as a panelist alongside Mrs. Khadijah Farrakhan and Mrs. James Meeks.
Bill Clinton spoke during the Conference, as did Bill Cosby and other speakers, but not at the panel Michelle attended.
Michelle Obama spoke at the Women’s Event, but referenced Bill Clinton in her rant — his presence at the conference was the impetus for her raving, it seems.
For about 30 minutes, Michelle Obama launched into a rant about the evils of America, and how America is to blame for the problems of Africa. Michelle personally blamed President Clinton for the deaths of millions of Africans and said America is responsible for the genocide of the Tutsis and other ethnic groups. She then launched into an attack on “whitey”, and talked about solutions to black on black crime in the realm of diverting those actions onto white America.
Maybe the MSM can do their jobs and put this to rest.
Posted by: Neo at June 04, 2008 09:32 AM (Yozw9)
5
Obama has thrown so many people under the bus that I'm surprised the wheels still touch the ground!
Posted by: Brent at June 08, 2008 08:45 AM (anfwE)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 01, 2008
One Campaign in Two Sentences
I've had extremely questionable judgment for the past twenty years.
Would you give me four more?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:07 AM
| Comments (30)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Short, sweet and the truth about Hussein in two sentences, one of them really short.
Posted by: Scrapiron at June 01, 2008 12:15 AM (I4yBD)
2
News flash for Senator Barack Hussein Obama:
Twenty years of sitting and listening to that sort of sermon--nearly all the Sundays of your adult life--aren't wiped away by a letter of resignation.
If you think this is going to stop questions, Senator, not only do you have another think coming, you're as politically clueless as you appear to be; and that boggles the mind.
You and your buddies in the MoveOnMedia can proclaim that this is over and done with all you want, Senator. This ain't Chicago, and people aren't going to drop a subject just because you and your Kool-aid drinkers say it's out of bounds.
As I've said before, it's called the First Amendment, Barry; it applies to conservatives too, much to your discomfort, and you might as well get used to it.
Posted by: C-C-G at June 01, 2008 09:20 AM (+icbL)
3
The messiah(pbuh)is done stick a fork in him why do I know this? Well you see my mother who is staunch Democrat has always voted a straight Democrat ticket(I am a conservative libertarian) told me she would not vote for the messiah(pbuh) she will either not vote for a Presidential candidate or vote for MCcamnesty, now let me tell you we never ever talk politics for obvious reasons and she brought this up to me not the other way around, she was willing to vote for either the messiah(pbuh) or the hildabeast but no longer why? Because the pfleger speech and also she believes they are (they being the DNC and the messiahs(pbuh) supporters are treating the hildabeast badly). My mother is your typical middle of the road Democrat not to radical but left of center and she and those like her are the majority of voters in the party I really believe that MCcamnesty is going to win in a landslide. When will the fools in the Dhimmi party get a clue that the worst thing to happen to their party was the take over of the hard left?
Posted by: Oldcrow at June 01, 2008 02:22 PM (HbBzh)
4
Endlessly fascinating, isn't it? I mean the pundits who are apparently flummoxed by the Obamassiah's behavior and associations of the last two decades or so. They can't understand why the great unwashed, obviously inferior to the enlightened like themselves, home grown nitwit terrorists, racist reverends and oh so chic radical priests take offense at the enlightened, superior beings that they are. What's all the fuss?
It's really quite simple. Rational people don't choose to associate with racists, murderers, haters and radicals of any stripe. Recognizing such people as unhinged, destructive, anti American and anti-civilization, they steer clear of them, or should they find themselves unwittingly receiving such revealed wisdom from the pulpit of a church, do not make the mistake of patronizing that "church" again. Rational people are well grounded in right and wrong, concepts that continually elude the enlightened. They do not associate with deranged scum because they (the scum) are wrong in every way, in their very being, because by associating with them, they lend their civility to the uncivil, their integrity to those who have none. They don't associate with them because it is wrong and they know the difference.
What then do Obama's associations reveal about him? It's obviously beyond the chattering classes, but most Americans can figure it out. It is far more than mere political expediency (though one should never dismiss that factor in the machinations of a Chicago machine politician like Obama) Obama associates with such people because he likes them. He shares their beliefs. He is comfortable in their presence, in their superior glow which suffuses all about them. He is one of them, twenty years ago and now.
The danger is that, even more this year than when Kerry was running for the presidency, the media will say and do anything to destroy McCain and deify Obama. Truth? Fact? Not a consideration when a greater truthiness is in the offing. While MSM integrity is in tatters, it isn't completely destroyed. Will it be enough this year? God help us if it is, for the Ayers, Wrights, Pflegers, Rezkos and yes, the Obamas, will be our masters, a role for which they believe themselves divinely--to the terribly limited extent to which they acknowledge a deity--appointed to the task. They will not hesitate to use every power at their command to make us do what they alone know is good for us, nor will they fail to usurp any power or individual right in the pursuit of such noble goals.
Posted by: Mike at June 01, 2008 07:27 PM (mSx64)
5
CCG:
I don't think the problem will be those of us remembering who actually care, it will be the MSM's ability to forget and then demonize those with recall.
Mike:
An extremely well thought out comment and I agree wholeheartedly. We will be forcefed his BLT inspired by Marx.
Posted by: Mark at June 01, 2008 10:18 PM (KDHro)
6
What I find fascinating are the arguments of Obama supporters that going to the same church for twenty years in no way suggests that Obama actually accepted Wright's (or Pfleger's) arguments.
Some have suggested that it's like having a friend that you disagree about baseball with. You don't give up the friend simply because they're Yankee supporters and you're a Red Sox fan, now do you?
Others have suggested that, as Pfleger is a Catholic priest, criticism of Obama implies that those who disagree w/ Pfleger should abandon the Catholic Church.
The intellectual twists and turns are simply breath-taking.
Posted by: Lurking Observer at June 02, 2008 08:40 AM (aBk9Z)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 31, 2008
Bitter and Clingy Bleg [Bumped]
Bumped to the top.
The M&P Compact isn't the only handgun I've got out on loan. Here's a stock picture of the very nice J-frame 637 CT (Crimson Trace Laser) I've been carrying. That little capsule-shaped bump at the top of the grip is the laser aiming module.
I've had some very nice items loaned to me in recent weeks for a long-term story I'm developing, including this one.
Nice, isn't it?
The only downside of this project is that while I've found the shooting industry to be very gracious and giving, there are still some out-of-pocket expenses involved, and finances are a bit tight right now as we adjust to the new baby, as you might expect.
If you can chip in a couple of bucks, I'd greatly appreciate it, and if you can't that's cool, too.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:09 AM
| Comments (24)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I prefer a good ole chunk of American or Brazilian steel myself, but I've heard good things about the M&P. Did they give you money to feed it too? Seems the price of ammo goes up just about every day...
Posted by: the pistolero at May 30, 2008 09:22 AM (uNxV7)
2
S&W didn't give me money to feed them, but ATK and Winchester have me taken care of, ammo wise.
It's the "other stuff" that will start piling up quickly--range fees, targets, training (I'd love to get at least one more formal class in), etc.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 30, 2008 09:32 AM (xNV2a)
3
I see a removable (drop clip) in the weapon so if Obambi is elected you can expect the Peeeloshi/Obambi weapon confication police to be at your door. That is the first, (anything with a removable clip) weapons they have planned for removal from the hands of the 'American citizens'. Think they need a constitutional amendment to violate your rights. Forget it, they are the American Communist Party, aka democrats, and the constitution is simply a yellowed piece of paper.
Posted by: Scrapiron at May 30, 2008 06:11 PM (GAf+S)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 30, 2008
The Men in His Life
Father Michael Pfleger, lynching advocate and 22-year friend and mentor to Barack Obama, found his testimonial whitewashed from the official Presidential campaign website by Monday, even before his latest rant against Hillary Clinton and white entitlement before Obama's long-time and current congregation at Trinity United Church of Christ.
Predictably, as he always does when one of his associates is revealed as a radical, Obama feigned shock
proclaimed his disappointment. Pfleger apologized.
Both men would like for you to think that this kind of outburst was unexpected and rare, but it seems that public radicalism has characterized Pfleger's entire career, and perhaps drew the men together to when Obama met Pfleger for the first time more than 20 years ago.
Michael Pfleger is just one of the men who have helped mold the man who is now the presumptive Democratic nominee. Hiding behind a cool facade and rigidly-enforced message discipline is a candidate who has had his philosophies and ideals forged around men who have roots in fomenting race-hatred and hard-left political ideologies.
Barack Obama, Sr. abandoned his son when he was a toddler and only met with him once more before dying in 1982. Obama Sr. first married to a woman named
Kezia in a tribal ceremony and never divorced her. Senior left a pregnant Kezia in Kenya with and infant soon to enrolled at the University of Hawaii on an academic scholarship. It was there he took his second wife, Ann Dunham, who
did not know he was already married. Barack Hussein Obama, Junior was born six months later. Senior left his second wife and son when he was admitted to Harvard, and divorced Dunham in 1963. Senior returned to Kenya with another American woman he met at Harvard and joined the Kenyan Ministry of Transportation as an economist, writing a paper
Problems Facing Our Socialism that advocated 100% taxation. This aligned him with Kenyan communists, and alienated him from the sitting government, and effectively torpedoed his career.
Frank Marshall Davis was a member of the Communist Party USA, mentored Obama during his high school years, and was alleged to be his role model as a black man when few others were around to make an impression, as Obama was only
one of three black students at his school as he was being raised in the home of his white grandparents. Obama wrote admiringly of Davis in
Dreams from my Father. A poet, Davis' poems "Smash-on, victory-eating Red Army" and "Christ is a Dixie Ni__er" which dismissed Jesus as " another New White Hope" probably wouldn't endear Davis to too many of Obama's supporters of any race.
Reverend Jeremiah Wright came into Obama's life after the future senator graduated Columbia and became a community organizer,
railing against the Reagan Presidency, "where Reagan and his minions were carrying on their dirty deeds."
Wright led Trinity United Church of Christ, a church dedicated to Black Liberation Theology, a toxic mix of Marxism and Black Nationalism based upon the work of James Cone, who claimed in
Black Power and Black Theology (via
Say Anything):
Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. . . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.
Wright's sermon "The Audacity of Hope" which stated that we live in a society "where white folks greed runs a world in need" inspired Obama's second book, using that same title.
Wright's racism, paranoia, and conspiracy theorizing, including his most recent outbursts that finally forced Obama to repudiate his pastor after doggedly following his teaching as a member of Wright's congregation for 20 years, are well-documented and mercifully do not need to be repeated. What is not as well know is that while Obama has distanced himself from Wright, he has not renounced membership in the radical church Wright grew and lorded over until his recent retirement.
Lest you begin to think Barack Obama sought guidance merely from men consumed by a love of radical political ideologies driven by race hatred comes
Bill Ayers, who proves that Obama's fascination with radical and sometimes violent political ideologies is color blind.
Ayers is well known as an unreformed domestic terrorist, who was part of the Weather Underground, a radical leftist group that bombed American government buildings, targeted a soldiers' dance for a mass-murder (before Ayer's then-girlfriend Diana Oughton blew herself and other Weathermen up while making pipe bombs for the attack), and which later killed police during an
infamous armored car robbery along with members of the Black Liberation Army.
Obama kicked off his political career at Ayer's home, and served with Ayers as a member of the ultra-liberal
Woods Fund. Ayers has also served with Obama on numerous panels and they knew each other in social circles. Before he became a debilitating factor in Obama's presidential campaign, Ayers was said to be regarded as a friend of Obama, according to his campaign staff.
By comparison,
Father Michael Pfleger, while a frothing radical in any other company, actually looks sedate compared to other men who have helped shape and mold Barack Obama.
There are other men in the freshman Senator's life who have no doubt had a far more benign influence on who he has become, but one is forced to wonder what kind of radicalism floats through Obama's mind, based upon the company he's kept.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:00 PM
| Comments (23)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Obama finds it hard to understand why people look to his associations to find something out about him. Most candidates have a track record of some sort to refer to, but he doesn't. I don't hear him talk about what he did in the Illinois Senate or in his four years in the U.S. Senate. He's a do nothing guy who's written two books. I'm not buying his books to find out what he's like when he has no track record. That brings me back to what he's about in the first place. And then I see these guys.
One of these associations, alone, would have torpedoed any other candidate.
Posted by: SAM at May 31, 2008 09:43 AM (GAf+S)
2
At the rate they are having to scrub Obama's web site it won't be long till all that is left is a blank page with the Obama banner at the top and a Pay Pal button.
Posted by: Just A Grunt at May 31, 2008 01:32 PM (wN+/J)
3
SAM, the reason Obama finds it hard to understand his problems is because he was raised around hard-line socialists and the Chicago Democratic Machine. The sorts of people that the rest of the nation finds so outrageous are par for the course in the hyper-leftist enclaves that he's been dealing with his whole life.
If Obama had any hint that the folks here in "Jesusland" would have been offended by Wright, Ayers, Pfleger, et al, he'd have dumped them long ago, if he had any political smarts at all. The fact that he didn't either indicates that he didn't realize they'd be an issue, he has zero political instincts, or some combination of the two. I vote for option #3.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 31, 2008 04:40 PM (+icbL)
4
I just wish we could get these men and quotes into the news magazines. People seem to see only his vapid smile and hear only his uplifting but vacuous remarks. He's an "empty suit" but a suit filled to the brim with evil, who needs to appear empty to those who question him.
Posted by: Shoprat at May 31, 2008 07:08 PM (8PCIZ)
5
Here's a breaking news story: Obama resigns from Trinity!
Took him long enough.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 31, 2008 08:18 PM (+icbL)
6
This guy's past is a minefield. The wisdom that a man will be known by the company he keeps predates the bible. The MSM flatly refuses to pursue any of it. This election will be a real world test of Lincoln's "you can fool some of the people" adage. Great post. Linked. http://wolfhowling.blogspot.com/2008/06/interesting-posts-from-around-web-1.html
Posted by: GW at June 01, 2008 11:18 AM (GAf+S)
7
What does this tell us about the state of American politics when a man of so little achievement and talent could be the nominee of one of our political parties for president?
Is this the best America has to offer?
Posted by: Thomas Jackson at June 02, 2008 11:20 PM (LHaZf)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Calcified
John McCain may be the older of the two, but Barack Obama is the candidate hopelessly lost in the past.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:44 AM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
CY,
Looking for your piece on McClellan's book with the "shocking revelations" that the Bush Administration misled the public and used propoganda to start the war.
The only thing "shocking" is that McClellan thinks these are "revelations".
Also, I'm ready to accept your apologies for being mocked when i shot the holes in the whole "liberal media" meme a few months back.
Seems it's now confirmed that corporate executives forced the pro-Bush, pro-war narrative reporting by the MSM.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0805/28/acd.01.html
Told ya so!
Posted by: Robert in BA at May 31, 2008 08:44 AM (zKYT8)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 29, 2008
McCaffrey Rips Times for "Dishonorable" Innuendo
The lefty blogosphere and some of the more unhinged Democrats in Congress have worked themselves into a lather over claims made in a New York Times article, Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon's Hidden Hand, which claimed that the Department of Defense was using retired military officers hired by news agencies as military analysts to spread propaganda.
The most "ethical Congress
everTM," never missing a chance to launch a politically-charged investigation if it could somehow be blamed on the military or Republicans, sent letters to some of the military analysts, essentially asking them if they were shills for the Administration.
General Barry R. McCaffrey (ret.) responded in no uncertain terms.
Here's a taste:
If you want to read the rest,
Michael Yon has the exclusive.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
05:48 PM
| Comments (26)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Nothing that the paper that ran the "General Betray Us" ad does surprises me any more.
It's almost like they WANT their circulation to drop right through the floor.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 29, 2008 06:52 PM (+icbL)
2
Normally the West Point program is only 4 years. Gen. McCaffery means that he was a 17 year old cadet, while West Point subsidized the NY Times by purchasing copies of the paper for Cadets.
Posted by: Don Meaker at June 02, 2008 08:29 PM (4x8W0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 121 >>
Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.113 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.0881 seconds, 165 records returned.
Page size 157 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.