January 18, 2008

Gun Control Legislation Fails in Virginia

Though that isn't quite the spin put on it by Larry O'Dell of the Associated Press:

Emotional pleas by relatives of Virginia Tech shooting victims failed Friday to persuade a legislative committee to close a loophole that allows criminals and the mentally ill to buy firearms at gun shows.

The House Militia, Police and Public Safety Committee voted 13-9 to kill legislation that would require unlicensed sellers at gun shows to conduct criminal background checks on buyers. Such checks now are required only on transactions by federally licensed gun dealers.

Thirty-two people were killed at Virginia Tech on April 16 by a mentally disturbed student who committed suicide as police closed in.

The Committee made the right choice, as the proposed legislation was ignorant, irrelevant and unworkable, just as this article's lede is prejudicial and purposefully misleading.

The "gun show loophole" is mostly a fable, and always has been, with only 2% of guns used in crimes being tracked back to gun shows. Most criminals obtain their firearms from family or friends who obtained firearms legally or illegally from another source.

This proposed legislation would have forced private individuals to conduct background checks on perspective buyers at gun shows, an idea not very well thought out, as it would mean that private individuals would have to turn over sensitive personal information —name, date of birth, address, driver's license number or other form of picture ID, social security numbers (optional, but many buyers don't know that), etc—to other private individuals they don't know and would probably never see again to run though the background check. In this day of increasing identity theft, what could possibly go wrong?

Real criminals, lazy, but not stupid, would certainly be willing to sell a firearm at a gun show for several hundred dollars in exchange for personal information to which they could fraudulently charge thousands. The background check would be done through FFL holders, for an additional fee.

In addition, the background check and associated hassles would only would only be applicable at the gun show, and nowhere else.

Citizens who didn't want to go through the hassle of paperwork would simply complete the transaction at another location, entirely legally. Be honest, would you drive five minutes to save 20-30 minutes of paperwork, and a processing fee?

So would most other people.

It was bad legislation borne of emotionalism, exploited by the cynical, creating serious problems and accomplishing little or nothing.

Gun control forces tried to exploit the still-fresh tragedy of the Virginia Tech massacre to force this legislation through, and went so far as to bring family members of those wounded and killed to plead their case in from of the committee.

The proposed law would not have had any effect on Seung-Hui Cho. None. It would not have saved one life at Virgina Tech.

Cho passed criminal background checks and purchased his pistols from licensed dealers who followed the letter of the law, as O'Dell finally brings himself to mentions in the very last paragraph of his article.

As for O'Dell, his inability to research the critical flaws in this legislation before posting his article is childishly irresponsible. It's too bad the Associated Press couldn't have had a serious, thoughtful journalist write this article, where people might have actually learned something useful.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:07 PM | Comments (28) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Homeland Under Fire From Raging Veterans

David Burge is typically known for his satirical efforts at Iowahawk, but like many great satirists before him, his work is often merely a cover for a razor-sharp wit addressing pressing social ills in a more palatable form.

In light of recent developments in the media, I've broken cover regarding my day job, which I've rarely discussed until this point, in an in-depth interview with Mr. Burge featured in his latest article, Bylines of Brutality.

Read it all, and wonder how we've allowed the problem to go on for as long as it has without getting these veterans the psychological care they so desperately need.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:33 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

An Ayatollah from Arkansas

A day before the South Carolina Republican Primary, David Limbaugh has cast his support behind Fred Thompson:

Commentators are citing the unpredictability of the Republican primary contests as proof that Reagan conservatism is dead when precisely the opposite conclusion is warranted.

The main reason the conventional wisdom is being shattered in the primaries is that conservative voters, so far, have not been persuaded there is an electable, reliable conservative in the race.

But as I've stated before, I believe Fred Thompson is a reliable, consistent conservative. There are others in the field I could support, but not without some reservations. The more I learn about Fred and observe him in action, the more convinced I become that he's the right choice...

...Supporters have asked Fred to step up, and he has -- he has shone brilliantly in the last month, setting himself head and shoulders above the pack in many cases. Now it's time for conservative voters to step up and quit placing artificial limitations on Fred, and on themselves.

Fred has answered the conservatives' call. Shouldn't we answer his?

For those of you who don't know, David Limbaugh is the brother of talk radio powerhouse Rush Limbaugh, who refuses to endorse any Republican candidate during the primaries as a matter of policy—a policy, I may add, that has not kept Rush from slamming many (if not all) of the other Republican candidates—while singing Thompson's praises on more than one occasion.

The "conventional wisdom" (which I think is batting "O-fer" this primary season, so take it FWIW) is that South Carolina will knock either Thompson or Mike Huckabee out of the race with a poor showing.

I've made no secret that as an evangelical Christian myself, Mike Huckabee makes me cringe, and that of the candidates we have, I think Thompson is certainly the best choice.

If South Carolina is a "race for survival" between Thompson and Huckabee, I hope that South Carolina Republicans who generally support the other candidates—Huckabee, Romney, McCain, Giuliani, and Paul— would instead consider casting their vote for Thompson tomorrow.

Why?

I have to tell my fellow conservative Christians that Mike Huckabee is the worst possible representative of our faith and our conservative principles in the race.

His stated intentions to change the Constitution to follow his interpretation of the Bible will only earn us distrust among the vast majority of Americans who aren't Southern Baptists, and his unsolicited support for the Confederate flag is politically tone-deaf and will alienate many voters not already turned off by his desire to ban political free speech—except when his supporters use it to tar other candidates, that is.

We deserve better than an ayatollah from Arkansas.

I'd like for you to consider casting your vote for Fred Thompson if you want a Southerner to continue in the race, but I'd ask that whatever you do, you vote against Mike Huckabee.

Our religion, our region, our party, and our country deserves better.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:18 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

One Rag To Smear Them All

Ralph Peters of the NY Post has dropped his second editor bomb on the New York Times for their smear of American veterans in a column titled "The New 'Lepers.'"

A taste:

The purpose of Sunday's instantly notorious feature "alerting" the American people that our Iraq and Afghanistan vets are all potential murderers when they move in next door was to mark those defenders of freedom as "unclean" - as the new lepers who can't be trusted amid uninfected Americans.

In the more than six years since 9/11, the Times has never run a feature story half as long on any of the hundreds of heroes who've served our country - those who've won medals of honor, distinguished service crosses, Navy crosses, silver stars or bronze stars with a V device (for valor).

But the Times put a major investigative effort into the "sensational" story that 121 returning vets had committed capital offenses (of course, 20 percent of the cases cited involved manslaughter charges stemming from drunken driving, not first- or second-degree murder . . . ).

Well, a quick statistics check let the air out of the Times' bid to make us dread the veteran down the block - who the Times implies has a machine gun under his bathrobe when he steps out front to fetch the morning paper. In fact, the capital-crimes rate ballyhooed by the Gray Lady demonstrates that our returning troops are far less likely to commit such an offense.

His previous editorial on the subject generated a huge response as well.

Why?

The Times article—the first in a series of vet-bashing articles that the Times has prepped to smear our soldiers—is fundamentally dishonest.

Out of all veterans that have been to Iraq and Afghanistan—estimates are that there are 1.5 million them, with roughly half still serving and half (749,932) discharged—the Times was able to compile just 121 deaths.

Read the Times article, and you are treated to five vignettes culled from those 121. The first four encompassing the majority of the article, telling the stories of Matthew Sepi, Archie O'Neil, Stephen Sherwood, and Seth Strasburg, are all about men who "snapped" and shot people to death.

What the Times did not print were those stories that didn't fit their template, and indeed, perhaps should not have been included in their count of 121 at all.

As I noted in my Pajamas Media article published yesterday:

Of those 121 summaries, 40 do not show direct ties between the stresses of deploying to combat zones and the homicides for which these veterans were charged, and of those, 14 were of highly dubious nature.

• The appropriately named Travis D. Beer, an Army reservist deployed to Iraq, pleaded no contest to motor vehicle homicide, and had two prior arrests for driving under the influence. The Times does not note if those prior arrests occurred before he deployed to Iraq.
• Jonathan Braham, a Marine veteran of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, shot a man whom he thought had sexually abused his stepson. According to the Times’ own reporting, he was adamant that his service in Iraq did not play a role in his decision to shoot the alleged abuser.
• Brian Epting was sentenced to six years for vehicular homicide when he lost control of his car while drag racing in 2005 and killed Robert Duffy, a World War II veteran. Is the Times seriously implying that his deployment to Iraq in 2003 is to blame for a drag racing death?
• Michael Gwinn Jr. has a history of domestic violence.
• Robert G. Jackson was diagnosed as a schizophrenic, as was Johnny Williams Jr., which cannot readily be tied to military deployments. Likewise, James Pitts has psychiatric problems predating his deployment to Iraq.
• Michael Antonio Jordan had a juvenile criminal record and was involved in gang activity.
• Christian Mariano was acquitted for acting in self-defense, and yet the Times still included him on this list.
• Jason R. Smith, a National Guard veteran and Atlanta narcotics officer, shot elderly Kathryn Johnston in an infamous no-knock raid, and is currently being treated for post-traumatic stress disorder, but his attorney cannot say what the proximate cause of his PTSD may have been.
• Aaron Stanley's sideline occupation as an alleged methamphetamine and marijuana dealer may have had more to do with his homicides than his deployment to Iraq. Vernon Walker killed two fellow soldiers while dealing drugs.
• Larry Jaimall West was a member of the Crips street gang.
• Jared Terrasas had a conviction for misdemeanor spousal abuse prior to his deployment to Iraq
• Jessie L. Ullom had already been charged with abusing his infant son before he saw combat.

The only criteria the Times seems to have followed was to list all veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan who have killed someone upon returning to the United States, and they included those with mental illnesses that could not be attributed to military service (schizophrenia), vehicular homicides involving alcohol or drugs (manslaughter, not murder), cases where the veterans have not even had trials, and even one case where a soldier was tried and acquitted on the grounds of self defense.

Obviously, the would have preferred that this veteran, Christian Mariano, had not gone to picked up a female friend that had been beaten up by her boyfriend. They would have preferred that when he was attacked by a group, that he had not defended himself with his pocketknife. The would have rather that Khyle Dittrich had succeeded in strangling Mariano.

Then he would have been a veteran that they could support in death, the only kind of veteran the Times seems to like, other than those that join their favorite discount customer, MoveOn.Org, and similar groups.

Bu the New York Times has no interest in telling the true tale of a veteran who only wanted to help a battered woman.

Better to make him part of a dishonest statistic.

They have no interest in telling the story of the 1.5 million veterans of this nation's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan who lead productive lives, and save lives, and contribute to our communities, and freedom. Instead, they highlight four atypical veterans out of 1.5 million to smear the all.

Once again, the New York Times engages in the vilest kind of yellow journalism.

Walter Duranty would be proud.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:11 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

January 17, 2008

Family Politics

Should the exploits of relatives harm the chances of a Presidential candidate? (h/t Gateway Pundit)

Jimmy Carter wasn't responsible for the actions of his brother Billy, and it could hardly be said that Roger Clinton's problems are in any way the fault of brother Bill. Likewise, Hillary isn't to blame for Hugh Rodham's cash-for-pardons scandal.

So would it be fair to hold Barack Obama's feet to the fire for the Kenyan government's claim that his cousin Raila Odinga is behind ethnic cleansing in Kenya that has so far taken 600 lives?

Odinga is having to defend himself and his supporters from charges brought by the Kenyan government of ethnic cleansing following disputed Presidential elections in that African nation. He has condemned one of the most shocking incidents, where his supporters—reputedly Odinga's fellow Luo tribesmen—blocked the doors of a Christian church and burned dozens of Kikuyu men, women, and children alive inside.

Odinga's father led the communist opposition party during the Cold War and he was educated in East Germany. His brother is named after Fidel Castro. Far more troubling than his past, however, is Mr. Odinga's current pact with the National Muslim Leader's Forum, an hardline Islamist organization. Odinga has promised to institute harsh Sharia courts throughout the country if he was elected, and to ban Christian preaching.

But what does this have to do with Obama?

Daniel Johnson had this to say in a recent article in the NY Sun:

In August 2006, Mr. Obama visited Kenya and spoke in support of Mr. Odinga's candidacy at rallies in Nairobi. The Web site Atlas Shrugs has even posted a photograph of the two men side by side. More recently, Mr. Odinga says that Mr. Obama interrupted his campaigning in New Hampshire to have a telephone conversation with his African cousin about the constitutional crisis in Kenya.

What should Americans make of Mr. Obama's Kenyan connection? If he has been putting tribal or family considerations above America's national interest by supporting Mr. Odinga's anti-Western candidacy, it raises serious questions about his judgement.

At the time of his visit in 2006, President Kibaki's spokesman complained that Mr. Obama was behaving like a "stooge" of Mr. Odinga—which was at best undignified for a visiting American senator, and at worst unwarranted interference in the internal politics of another country.

Even more serious are the doubts raised by Mr. Obama's attitude toward Islam, which has so far received much less scrutiny than might be expected in a post-September 11 presidential election.

If Mr. Obama did not know about Mr. Odinga's electoral deal with the Kenyan Islamists when he offered his support, then he should have known. If he did know, then he is guilty of lending the prestige of his office to America's enemies in the global war on terror. We need to know exactly what Mr. Obama knew about Mr. Odinga, and precisely when he knew it.

To be fair to Barack Obama, he has no direct control over Mr. Odinga or the actions of his party or their fellow Luo tribesmen in a country on another continent.

Nor do I think he is putting distant tribal ties ahead of those of his own country, and I find the insinuation about his "attitude toward Islam" a bit much, considering Obama's well-known membership in a Chicago congregation of the Church of Christ (yes, even though Obama's pastor is a fan of racist Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan).

It simply isn't fair to judge Obama on any merits but his own.

But his judgement is part his own merits, and associating with an anti-western political leader, even when that leader is a relative—and perhaps precisely because that leader is a relative—brings up issues that Obama would do well to tamp down now, before another candidate seizes upon the issue.

Bill and Hillary Clinton can only distance themselves from their brothers but so much. They are, after all, brothers.

Obama, however, is not even on the same continent as Odinga, and would do well to let people know that their views are thousands of miles apart, as well.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:02 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

At PJM: The New York Times Hits Veterans Yet Again

Did you read the article at the New York Times this past Sunday about the astronomical homicide rates among veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan?

If you didn't, Samantha Sault captured a nice roundup of earlier blog reaction, which discovered that the Times left out key statistics in order to complete their smear.

It only gets worse from there.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:31 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

January 16, 2008

Huckabee Supporters Caught Push-Polling Fred Thompson

Supporters of the budding theocrat who would like to change the U.S. Constitution to bend to his idea of God's will, are the obvious suspects.

The more I see of Mike Huckabee, his temper, ever-changing positions, and his sweet-as-sugar deceptiveness, the more I think he damages the image of Christians in the eyes of other Americans.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:11 PM | Comments (22) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Harper's Defaults on Horton's Credibility

It appears that Roger Hodge, Editor of Harper's, Ellen Rosenbush, Managing Editor of Harper's, and Vice President of Public Relations Giulia Melluci, will not support claims made by Harper's contributor Scott Horton, who made the claim on August 24, 2007 that an unnamed "thuggish neocon" journalist fabricated a story while Horton was in Iraq.

Horton has refused to provide evidence of the story in question, as have his editors and Harper's Public Relations. We can only conclude at this time that such a story never existed, and that Horton's claim was fraudulent.

Mr. Hodge, Ms. Rosenbush, and Ms. Melucci were contacted to provide support for Horton's article on August 29 and December 29, 2007, in addition to previous docuemented attempts to Mr. Hodge and Ms. Rosenbush on August 27 and Ms. Melucci in a separate August 27 email, with a follow-up email to Ms. Rosenbush and Ms. Melucci on August 28. All of these followed an unsuccessful attempt to get Scott Horton to provide support for his claim on August 24.

This apparently fraudulent claim is not Horton's only ethical lapse; in a Pajama's Media article posted on January 4, I revealed that Horton's clear conflict of interest in writing about Associated Press photographer and terrorism suspect Bilal Hussein. Horton had been a member of Hussein's defense team, and his former legal partner is Hussein's present counsel.

Ironically, Horton's most recent post quotes Nietzsche:

He who does battle with monsters needs to watch out lest he in the process become a monster himself. And if you stare too long into the abyss, the abyss will stare right back at you.

If Harper's had any remaining pride, ethics, or editorial judgment, that quote would be his epitaph.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:14 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

January 15, 2008

Birds of a Feather

Glenn Reynolds notes this from the Detroit Free Press:

The Michigan Democratic ballot is a sham that was rigged by Hillary Rodham Clinton, her husband and her supporters to give the nation the impression that she's the leading candidate in Michigan, an angry former Sen. Don Riegle said Monday.

Riegle appeared at a rally in Detroit today to encourage would-be supporters of Barack Obama and John Edwards to vote uncommitted in Tuesday's primary. Riegle said he supports one of the two, but wouldn't say which.

"What happened in Michigan is not very different from what used to happen in the old Soviet Union," Riegle said. "The Clinton machine manipulated the ballot. They don’t care how they win, only that they do. It's wrong and people need to know that."

I wonder... where would Hillary have learned such a vile trick?

Perhaps from one of Barack Obama's previous campaigns:

The day after New Year's 1996, operatives for Barack Obama filed into a barren hearing room of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.

There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city's South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama's four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot.

I presume former Sen. Don Riegle would support Edwards, then?

(Note: I vaguely recall another blogger brought up Obama's prior history earlier today, but I can't recall who it was to give them credit).

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:19 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Murderous Marine's Vehicle Found

In Morrisville, NC... my wife works nearby and says the helicopters are still overhead:

Morrisville police are at a Microtel hotel were they believe they have found the vehicle belonging to the killer of a pregnant Marine.

A nationwide manhunt is under way for Marine Cpl. Cesar Armando Laurean, who is wanted for killing Lance Cpl. Maria Lauterbach, 20. She was 8 ½ months pregnant at the time.

Video shows that license plates on the truck at the hotel matched those on a black Dodge pick up that police said belonged to Laurean. The hotel is off Airport Boulevard near Interstate 40.

Though near RDU International Airport, there is no indication he attempted to get a flight out of North Carolina, and the last suspected sighting of Laurean placed him in Louisiana.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:11 PM | Comments (25) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

SockPuppet Super Lawyer

For a reputed legal scholar, Glenn Greenwald has an awfully poor understanding of the law that even this layman can poke gaping holes in.

In his typical long-winded, tedious style, he bloviates in support of Dennis Kucinich's attempt to sue his way into the Nevada Democratic debate:

The complaint (.pdf) filed by Kucinich is simple and straightforward. He alleges that he had a binding contract with MSNBC once they offered and he accepted the terms of his participation in the debate, and that MSNBC's refusal to allow him to participate constitutes a breach of that contract. He also alleges that his exclusion violates the mandates of Section 315 of the Communications Act, which requires broadcasters -- who operate the public airways, i.e., airways which are public, not private, property -- "to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance."

Nobody can opine meaningfully on the propriety of the court decision here without first knowing about, and then analyzing and resolving, those legal claims.

So according to Greenwald, Kucinich's claim rests upon two points:

• that he has a binding contract with MSNBC.
• That his exclusion violates Section 315 of the Communications Act.

Is either claim valid?

As The Liberal Journal points out, MSNBC's lawyers argue (.pdf) that the Federal Communications Act does not apply to a debate being broadcast on cable television, as the Act applies only to broadcast television (Section 315 [47 U.S.C. §315] (c)(1): "the term "broadcasting station" includes a community antenna television system".

The MSNBC lawyer's also claim that Kucinich failed to exhaust his adminstrative remedies by not filing his claim first with the Federal Communications Commission. Kucinich, essentially, attempted to short-circuit the process.

Second, MSNBC claims that an invitation does not constitute a contract.

And then there is the question brought up by Political Machine of whether or not a state judge even has the jurisdiction in a national cable broadcast.

There is no Constitutional right to free airtime on cable television, nor a Constitutional right to participate in a debate, nor even anything like a valid contract here.

Kuncinich has no case, and as is often the case, Greenwald has no credibility.

But then, Glenn Greenwald's credibility was never very high to begin with.

Update: Kucinich gets tossed by the Nevada Supreme Court. The lower court "manifestly abused its discretion in determining tha a contract existed between the parties," and they tossed the Section 315 claim as well.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:01 AM | Comments (54) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

January 14, 2008

Send in the Emoting Clown

Oh, Erica Jong, could you be any more of an argument against Hillary Clinton if you tried?

I am so tired of pink men bombing brown children and rationalizing it as fighting terrorism. I am so tired of pink men telling women (of all colors) what to do with their wombs--which connect with their brains--in case you forgot. I am so tired of pink men telling us we should stay in Iraq for generations. I am so tired of pink men buying bombs and cheating schools. I am so tired of pink men having wives who stand behind them and nod sagely on television. I am so tired of pink men expecting that someone--a brown, black, yellow or white woman--will trail behind them changing light bulbs, taking out garbage, washing laundry, keeping food in the house, taking care of kids of all ages, of parents of all ages. I am so tired of pink men whose wives double or triple the family income thinking they can spend it without doing a damn thing at home. I am so tired...

This not so-subtle plaintive wail in support of Hillary Clinton, full of high drama and lacking in substance, is perhaps precisely the reason we shouldn't elect a feminist of Jong's generation President. Unable to rationally argue from an intellectual position on why the former First Lady has the experience, integrity, or policy positions to warrant her ascension, Jong instead insists that merely being female is reason enough to be President.

Is this the best argument that she can put forth, that a woman should be elected because of her gender, not because she has superior talents or ideas?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:04 PM | Comments (25) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

"Most of the these people are not rational"

Oh, you've just got to love the fruits, nuts, and flakes attracted to one Ronald Ernest Paul:

The voices came from everywhere. California. Ohio. Florida. Michigan. Very few were from New Hampshire.

A man from Texas e-mailed that he was "contacting, by certified mail, the Attorney General of New Hampshire . . . and requesting a complete investigation and prosecution of any and all parties involved."

A police dispatcher in New London said yesterday she'd received inquiries about the clerk's office phone.

Call got a handful of calls that night at home, refusing to pick up whenever an out-of-state number appeared on her screen.

She got about five more the next day in her office. She tried to get work done. She called the Massachusetts company that makes the licenses for dog owners in her area. The guy had heard of her.

"Wow," the man said. "This is the second time this week I've seen your name."

"Where?" Call asked.

"I've gotten a dozen e-mails about how you've destroyed the New Hampshire primary."

"Why?"

"We make voting machines."

"The problem is," Call said yesterday, "we don't use voting machines."

She went home and locked her doors. She called her mother in North Carolina. She cried. The calls kept coming. She unhooked her answering machine and requested an unlisted number.

"I was drained emotionally and physically," Call said. "That's when I really started to freak out. Thursday it hit me, that most of these people are not rational. That's when I became scared."

He actually got 31.

Out of 920.

For this, irate and unhinged Paul supporters from around the nation have bombarded her office and home phone with cries of fraud and treason, and even a death threat.

Over a human error in transcribing results, an error that was corrected the next morning.

Let it be known far and wide that Ron Paul got a whopping 3.37% of the primary vote in Sutton, New Hampshire.

And leave this poor woman alone.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:44 AM | Comments (23) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Prayers for "Big Country"

Long-time CY commenter William "Big Country" Coughlin is recovering in the United States from wounds sustained in the Middle East theater of operations (most likely Iraq, but I cannot yet confirm that detail).

The wounds are not life-threatening but have him confined to a wheelchair since late December. He hopes to make a full recovery and return to duty in Iraq providing logistical support within five weeks.

If you will, say a prayer for him and other contractors killed or wounded in the line of duty while supporting our military.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:02 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 Aye, aye, cap'n. Prayers going up now.

Posted by: C-C-G at January 14, 2008 09:22 AM (F+vKR)

2 Thanks Bob... it means a lot. I'll be around and give you a full intel dump offline tommorow... Thanks to everyone else as well and your good wishes are appreciated!

Posted by: Big Country at January 14, 2008 09:23 PM (SIzGZ)

3 Big Country, my email--well, one of mine, at least--is available through my blog (click on my nickname under Contributors)... if you'd like to include me in part of the intel dump, I'll be sure to pass it along to like-minded prayer warriors.

Posted by: C-C-G at January 14, 2008 11:02 PM (F+vKR)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

January 11, 2008

Is Mike Huckabee Smarter Than A Fifth Grader?

As an evangelical Christian, I've long been bothered by Mike Huckabee's attempts to use his Christianity as a "holier than thou" political weapon against other candidates for President, even as he has lied about everything from his support of scholarships for illegal aliens (he wanted them), to his desire to raise taxes(he asked for them), to claims he has a theology degree (he didn't complete it).

This lack of honesty we generally associate with a previous Man From Hope has also been compounded by Huckabee's legendary problems with his temper, which have occasionally led to juvenile personal attacks (PDF) against his critics.

Huckabee exposed his childish side again this morning in a scatalogical reference directed at Fred Thompson. Thompson had ripped Huckabee's big government liberal tendencies during last night's Republican debate in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.

This morning in an interview with Joe Scarborough, Huckabee snapped:

Well, I think Fred needs some Metamucil. I think it would help a lot if he gets some.

Mike Huckabee, who almost has a theology degree, may be smarter than a fifth grader, but betrays yet again that he could only hope to be that mature.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:40 PM | Comments (35) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 Huckabee is nothing more than a poseur with (almost) a theology degree who is MORE liberal and facetious than Bill Clinton in a Republican suit. Evangelicals and Republicans had better pray Huckabee is not the nominee.

He would be a good televangelist with his quick middle school wit. He likes to say "you know you're over the target when you're getting flak". I say it's time to shoot the sanctimonious RINO down once and for all.

Posted by: martin at January 11, 2008 05:29 PM (LS8NJ)

2 I am agnostic, and Mike Huckabee percular brand of religion bothers me. No matter what Huckabee does he claims to have a religious basis for it In that regards Muckabee reminds me a lot of the Reverends Jackson and Sharpton.

Posted by: DavidL at January 11, 2008 06:58 PM (hFrwp)

3 David... nice name, btw, I've worn it myself for over 40 years.

Anyway, I am an evangelical Christian... you know, the people that are all supposed to be falling prostrate at the feet of the Huckster... and if it comes down to Huck vs. Hill, I have vowed to write in "Charlie Brown" rather than vote for either one.

I guess my point is, not all evangelicals approve of the Huckster.

Posted by: C-C-G at January 11, 2008 07:36 PM (F+vKR)

4 Heh! Nice one CY.

Huckster makes my skin crawl...and as a Christian, I might add that Hucky-baby got his "blessed assurance" handed to him by the conservatives in the Southern Baptist Convention for his liberal--repeat--liberal beliefs--so he left, along with a lot of other liberals.

It doesn't matter what he calls himself...he still cannot change the truth. He's a liberal, tax-raising, arrogant politician. And while I know most of them are that very things--I have a special aversion to those who hide behind the Cross to get votes. DISGUSTING.

Wolves in sheep's clothing, baby...wolves in sheep's clothing.

Posted by: WB at January 11, 2008 07:57 PM (pT0Zd)

5 When a so-called Republican and self-described "Christian Leader" starts calling conservatives "Shi'ite Republicans", ya gotta wonder if the guy is really a Republican or just a Donkey in an Elephant suit.

Posted by: C-C-G at January 11, 2008 10:43 PM (F+vKR)

6 I am a Catholic... and I view Huck as the Republican Jimmy Carter.
Without the endearing qualities.

It says something about how alienated the Believing Community feels itself to be from the Republican Party as a whole, that they would support Huck. It's also worth noting that the same could be said for small-government Libertarians and their support for Texas' own answer to Dr. Evil.

Posted by: DaveP. at January 12, 2008 12:33 AM (q6tuN)

7 I was almost chosen as the Pope.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 12, 2008 07:29 AM (ERV3B)

8 You're unbelievable. Huckabee is the man and I'm going to laugh at all of you when he gets the nomination and wins the WH! Quit with all your snide comments and look at what he really says.

Posted by: tennismama at January 12, 2008 07:41 AM (9k3jz)

9 tennismama, of the first four links, two are video of Huckabee saying precisely what he's accused of saying, and another is a letter typed be his own hand. The fifth link is direct, from a transcript (I can get video for you as well, if you'd like).

We have listened to "what he really says," and we've looked at his record.

Mike Huckabee is a liberal. I'm sorry if you can't grasp that.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 12, 2008 08:59 AM (HcgFD)

10 Huckapoo-poo I say! The guy is cut from the same sleazy, slick cloth as the other guy from Hope....I'm a conservative Republican Christian and no way does he get my vote! Huckapoo-poo is just a flash & will not win another primary! Rest easy!

Posted by: Val at January 12, 2008 09:19 AM (7NM6T)

11 Huckabee whines about getting the "religion" questions, but it is HE who invited such scrutiny by campaigning as the "Christian" candidate.

What is most distressing to me as an evangelical Christian is the defense of Huckabee by my EC friends who simply refuse to look at Huckabee's liberal RECORD, but instead are mesmerized by the siren song of his "Jesus talk".

I'm from Louisiana, one of the most evangelical conservative states in the south. Yet we're 1rst in convictions of our elected officials. Our politicians are masters at appearing in churches and pandering to Christian voters, all the while rolling the dice that these same voters won't take the time to check the candidate's RECORD against their RHETORIC. Such deception works in LA because voters allow themselves to be deceived. It occurs every election cycle here, and it is happening on the national stage with Huckabee.

I am not implying that Huckabee is dishonest or a criminal. But he talks a conservative talk, and walks (and votes) the liberal walk.

I just wish EC America would carefully examine Huckabee's record, which is patently liberal on every single issue except abortion.

EC America needs to wake up, check the full record, and realize that we aren't electing Jesus.

Posted by: ES at January 12, 2008 09:44 AM (eLMdy)

12 Lets be honest. All of these GOP candidates have their share of liberal ideas and have supported left wing positions at some point. Of course the most conservative being Alan Keyes who gets no mention anywhere. We must stop blinding ourselves with some belief that we must have thoroughbred conservatives. None exist. Even the Great Ronald Reagan signed Amnesty.

I will take ANY of these Republican candidates over Hillary -Obama-Edwards. And do so with great enthusiasm.

Another large Dem victory not only brings in a Dem President but could very easily bring about a Super Dem Majority in Senate and a greater Majority in the House. Harry Reid with 60 Votes is unacceptable. GOP would be all but extinct at that point.

Posted by: Dennis D at January 12, 2008 09:48 AM (780G9)

13 Issues aside, how is the Metamucil crack funny? Or rather, explain to me the basis of the alleged joke, whether you think it is funny or not, whether or not you think it was in bad taste or not. It just goes over my head and leaves me confused.

It's like Huckabee said Fred should wear a hat, or paint his house yellow, or get a dalmatian. I don't understand the reference.

Posted by: Aplomb at January 12, 2008 06:11 PM (+/na4)

14 The problem with your scenario, Dennis, is that with the Huckster, we're basically getting Obama or Hillary with an R after his name instead of a D. Their policy proposals, with but one or two exceptions, are essentially carbon copies of one another.

Aplomb, the Huckster was trying to insinuate that Fred is constipated. Fifth-grade humor seems a bit generous, third-grade is more like it.

Posted by: C-C-G at January 12, 2008 06:57 PM (F+vKR)

15 I wouldn't vote for Huckabee if he nominated ME as his running mate... and I know of no one that will vote for him either. In primary OR general.

Posted by: Verlin Martin at January 12, 2008 09:03 PM (QJoz4)

16 There is a little bit (some like Huckabee, a lot) of liberalism in all the Republican candidates. [Unfortunately, Bush and his compassionate conservatism is largely to blame because he won on that platform] That said, I believe that Fred is the most conservative of the bunch.

Posted by: czekmark at January 12, 2008 10:10 PM (5Jrbj)

17 Mr. Huckabee seems to manifest the slippery ethics of another Arkansan while playing a game of identity politics.

I happen to be a Baptist. Baptists have no Pope to enforce ideological purity, so we have a set of "distinctives" that you either agree with or not. If you fail to agree with them, you are really engaging in false advertising. One of those Baptist distinctives is "Separation of Church And State." Maybe you've heard of Roger Williams and Rhode Island, or that letter from the Danbury Baptists to Mr. Thomas Jefferson.

For Mr. Huckabee to say, "vote for me because I'm Christian," and then target his appeal to Evangelical pastors does violence to my notion of the separation of Church and State. (Granted, the Founders were more concerned to protect the Church from the State than politicians are today. But everyone who isn't an Evangelical has that same notion. Thus, Mr. Huckabee polls in the teens among non-evangelicals.) By engaging in faith-based identity politics, Mr. Huckabee is engaging in un-Baptist behavior.

Evangelicals will not bring in the Kingdom of Heaven by seizing the reins of Leviathan. If Evangelicals give government the power to do so, it will corrupt us and serve the ends of Antichrist. Mr. Reagan was a good fit for Evangelicals, because he said government IS the problem. If you're worried about the Antichrist, you're worried about big government. Mr. Huckabee threatens to undo this happy alignment of interests.

If you're not Evangelical or Baptist, I'm sorry about all the "inside baseball" of that last paragraph.

Posted by: steve poling at January 13, 2008 02:05 AM (eVZAb)

18 As an Arkansan who has endured Mr. Huckabee's kind of government I cannot in good conscience vote for him. At the time he ran for governor he was the "lesser of two evils" candidate. That's what he would be if he gets the nomination.

He allowed our state to become saturated with illegals. Along with them came a surge in crime and disease (TB). Car insurance in this area is almost unaffordable due to the number of uninsured drivers. What used to be middle class neighborhoods are now brightly painted slums with a pit bull in every yard. What used to be excellent schools are now breeding grounds for gangs. (My daughter is a teacher in Jr. High. She has personally broken up knife fights.) I am a Christian but I will not be voting for the hipocrite Huckabee. All he needs is a comb over and a diamond ring. In my book he rates right up there with used car salesmen, telemarketers and journalists.

I am voting for the mature candidate - Fred. Forget change. Forget experience by osmosis. Forget charisma. Give me a mature candidate.

Posted by: Razorgirl at January 14, 2008 05:18 PM (aUY9H)

19 Welcome to the FredHeads, Razorgirl!

I actually got a campaign e-mail today from Fred's campaign using the term FredHead, so it's an official moniker.

Posted by: C-C-G at January 14, 2008 08:05 PM (F+vKR)

20 when he gets the nomination and wins the WH!

I got $10,000 says that don't happen.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 14, 2008 08:56 PM (ERV3B)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Kos Revises History

Over at the Daily Kos, himself posts Let's have some fun in Michigan, an appeal for Democrats to vote from Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney in Michigan on Tuesday, January 15th, hoping to keep him in the race because:

...the more Republican candidates we have fighting it out, trashing each other with negative ads and spending tons of money, the better it is for us.

Kos justifies this tactic by pointing out that Michigan Republicans pulled a similar dirty trick in 1972 to vote for segregationist Democrat George Wallace, noting that Republicans' made up a third of Wallace's vote total.

In 1972, Republican voters in Michigan decided to make a little mischief, crossing over to vote in the open Democratic primary and voting for segregationist Democrat George Wallace, seriously embarrassing the state's Democrats. In fact, a third of the voters (PDF) in the Democratic primary were Republican crossover votes.

But that isn't the whole story, and Kos purposefully leaves out the nasty truth: even without a single Republican vote, segregationist Wallace would have still won handily in 1972 Michigan, by more than 111,000 votes.

Michigan's apparently segregationist Democratic mainstream gave him at least 538,953 votes (I subtracted 1/3 of Wallace' total, as if all Republicans added to Wallace's vote total to arrive at that figure, even though 1/3 of the Republican cross-overs actually voted for McGovern. This figure is heavily biased in favor of his flawed argument, and he still loses), 111,259 more than also-ran George McGovern's 425,694 according to Kos' own source.

Kos can rightly claim that Republicans crossed over in 1972. He just can't credibly claim they affected the outcome.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:32 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

At PJM: Assassinating Obama?

There have been quite a few articles written in the past week speculating that Democratic Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama might be assassinated by a shadowy cabal of gun-toting racists (or Halliburton and Blackwater).

In my latest Pajamas Media article, I trace that rumor back to it's true source, and find that that paranoia stems from the media's own stilted views of the American people.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:23 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

January 10, 2008

Thompson Takes South Carolina

The Republican debate in Myrtle Beach was a clear win for Fred Thompson, and that seems to be the building prevailing sentiment. Everyone else seemed content to play defense and just attempt to hold ground. They failed.

As for Ron Paul... it was hard for both the moderating team and the candidates to hide their mix of pity and disgust. I almost expected to see a note with his home address pinned to his jacket.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:34 PM | Comments (42) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Liberal Math

I don't often go after individual bloggers, but statements made yesterday by "dday" at Hullabaloo warrant direct comment.

Discussing a new report that places the number of Iraqi's killed since the start of the war until June of 2006 at roughly 151,000, "dday" wrote:

NPR was trying to spin this as somehow a LOW number of Iraqi civilian casualties in the last three and a half years, because it comes in lower than the Lancet study. But it remains 150,000 human lives, dead, senselessly, for an unnecessary war of choice. And that only goes up to June 2006, and the authors of the study admitted they were unable to reach certain areas that were "too violent."

Not to mention the 3,900-plus soldiers, including 9 in the last two days. And the numbers of wounded are incalculable.

All to remove a dictator who wasn't nearly as efficient at killing Iraqis.

Saddam Hussein "wasn't nearly as efficient at killing Iraqis"? Only in his community-based reality.

Between 70-125 Iraqi civilians were killed per day during Saddam Hussein's reign.

Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power.

That gives us a range of 600,000-1,000,000 civilians killed during Saddam's stewardship, with a median average of 97.5 Iraqi civilians killed per day during his reign, or 780,000. Over 24 years, that is a median average of 32,500 Iraqi civilians per year...

But this isn't a true "apples to apples" comparison, is it?

This does not include military deaths that occurred during Saddam's "unnecessary war of choice" with Iran from 1980-88, which which accounts for roughly one million more lives on both sides, nor casualties sustained as a result of his other "unnecessary war of choice" that resulted from his invasion of Kuwait, where an estimated 100,000+ died during the first Gulf War in 1990-91.

Combining the number of civilians killed by Saddam and number of soldiers killed on all sides during his two "unnecessary wars of choice," and we find a median estimate of 1.88 million killed during his 24-year reign, or 235 people a day.

The Iraq War started on March 20, 2003, and this study ran through June of 2006. In that time, 151,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed, or 126.04 per day.

Add in 10,000 estimated terrorist/insurgent/militia dead and roughly 2762 through that time period Coalition military deaths, and you arrive at a rough total of 163762 total violent deaths, or 136.7 total violent deaths per day through June 2006.

235 violent deaths per day over Saddam's reign including his wars.

137 violent deaths per day in Iraq over the first three years of the present war.

You do the math, and try to paint Saddam's continued reign as a preferable state of affairs.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:04 AM | Comments (37) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Air Strikes Hit 40 Targets in Iraqi Offensive

From 2nd BCT, 3rd Inf. Div. PAO, via email press release:

More than 40 targets were hit Jan. 10 after precision air strikes destroyed reported al-Qaeda safe havens in Arab Jabour. Thirty-eight bombs were dropped within the first 10 minutes, with a total tonnage of 40,000 pounds.

The precision air strikes supported Operation Phantom Phoenix, the overarching operation that includes Operation Marne Thunderbolt.

[snip]

Two B-1 Bombers and four F-16 fighter jets, directed bombs at three large target areas. Each bomber made two passes and the F-16s followed to complete the set.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:24 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.1843 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.159 seconds, 248 records returned.
Page size 195 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.