Confederate Yankee
January 09, 2008
Citi Merchant and First Data Corp's Backdoor Gun Control
Citi Merchant Services and First Data Corp has decided to implement their own form of gun control, refusing to process credit card transactions between firearms retailers, distributors, and manufacturers, according to a press release issued by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association for the firearms industry (h/t Hot Air).
CDNN Sports, Inc, a Texas-based firearms distributor, provided a copy of the
notice of termination in which states in part:
We discussed with Mr. Crawford [of CDNN Sports Inc] said termination due to the sale of firearms in a non-face-to-face environment. Keep in mind that a violation of the Gun Control Act occurs when a gun offered online is sold to an individual in another State; the act prohibits selling a handgun to a resident of another state. Shipping across state lines is also banned, yet guns for sale online reach people across the country. We at Citi Merchant Services are unable to monitor or track adherence to these Gun Control laws.
A charitable explanation of this decision would be to state Citi Merchant Services and First Data Corp lawyers are grossly incompetent. Online retailers
do not sell firearms to individuals, and to suggest otherwise is ignorant, if not duplicitous.
Firearms "purchased" online are shipped from a distributor to a local Federal Firearms License (FFL) holder who has authority to sell firearms from the federal government. Once this FFL holder—typically retail establishments— receive the firearm, all individuals must complete a FBI NICS background check via Form 4473 and/or comply with state and local firearms regulations regarding retail firearms purchase. It is only after these background checks are satisfied that the local retail purchase actually occurs, face-to-face. There is never a direct sale from the online site to a non-FFL holding retail customer, as the termination notice incorrectly states, and does not in any way violate GCA '68.
At worst, this is an attempt at backdoor gun control, preventing manufacturers from shipping firearms to distributors, and from distributors to retailers. In doing so, Citi Merchant Services and First Data Corp seem to assert that it is their responsibility to enforce laws, which is a patently absurd position. They are not the FBI nor the BATF, the two federal agencies tasked with enforcing these laws.
The firearms industry, of course, can easily voice their displeasure with their wallets by changing to other credit card transaction processing services that actually employ lawyers capable of understanding the applicable law.
I hope the company or companies that profit from this send Citi Merchant Services and First Data Corp lawyers a nice gift basket.
Update: I'll send you over to
SayUncle for a response from Citi Merchant Services and First Data, showing that they are, indeed, completely ignorant of the law and how firearms sales are conducted.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:48 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Well, that Citi card has a zero balance anyway.
I guess I'll be sending to them in shreds with a little note attached.
Posted by: iamnot at January 09, 2008 04:32 PM (q0Pd2)
2
I'm sure he's already aware of this post Bob, but in case he's not I forwarded a link to Insty. If he chooses to link it maybe a little publicity will help change some minds at CITI.
Posted by: Boss429 at January 09, 2008 05:39 PM (rl0py)
3
I am not tearing up my Citi-Bank Visa. I am not cancelling my account. I am reserving it to make all my online gun purchases. (I do have a C&R FFL.)
At least this is what I will do till June when the 0% interest special deal is up.
Posted by: Ron W at January 10, 2008 09:39 AM (6Ive1)
4
Sounds more like the legal departments have got them in a CYA mode.
They are exercising excessive caution possibly with the idea of not being involved down the line as a member of the chain in the sale of a gun that some hot shot lawyer decides to sue all the way up the distribution chain as enablers of some gun related incident.
They as bean counters look at the dollar volume in a year and balance their profits versus their projected worst case liability.
So it may be strictly a cold business calculation on their part.
Posted by: Lurker at January 10, 2008 09:43 AM (1aM/I)
5
Well having worked for Citibank in a previous incarnation, I can tell you they have cancelled accounts before for people and companies involved in the firearms business. It began with Sandy and apparently has continued. Too many self serving dolts in that company to survive if you have a mind and the desire to actually do something useful....
Posted by: ScottG at January 10, 2008 09:50 AM (pJXwV)
6
It would be interesting to see if they can notice how many NRa members/supporters they used to enjoy for customers.
Posted by: Bill Teller at January 10, 2008 10:56 AM (406FR)
7
Hmmm... I canceled $60k worth of credit with Citi after they sponsored the RaTHergate/Bush National Guard show on CBS.
I guess I'll have to get a card of theirs just for Gun purchases. I wonder if I can get one with an NRA logo?
Posted by: Bombast at January 10, 2008 11:01 AM (8FvLX)
8
Well, coincidentally, I was doing my online banking and ordering a check sent to them this morning. Then I read this. The check is now for the full amount and contains a cancellation notice referring to their anti-gun policy. Now I need to go write a letter to make it stick...
Posted by: ubu at January 10, 2008 02:09 PM (fURYZ)
9
Well, coincidentally, I was doing my online banking and ordering a check sent to them this morning. Then I read this. The check is now for the full amount and contains a cancellation notice referring to their anti-gun policy. Now I need to go write a letter to make it stick...
PS: I think you broke mu.nu; it's rejected me repeatedly due to comment overload.
Posted by: ubu at January 10, 2008 02:11 PM (fURYZ)
10
Never assume conspiracy where stupidity will suffice.
Posted by: Just Sayin at January 10, 2008 02:15 PM (G/ufG)
11
Both phones now roll over to voicemail:
June Rivera-Mantilla (631-683-7734) requests that you not leave a voicemail, but send email to questions@firstdata.com
Her purported supervisor, Robert Tenenbaum (631-683-6570) claims he is not her supervisor, and repeats the request that email be sent.
Fair enough. Sent email, with questions, and a request for a response. Left both individuals a voice message (I don't take direction well), asking to be informed as to who June's supervisor actually is, and for his/her contact information.
Sounds like they are both having a special day.
Kirk
Posted by: Largenfirm at January 10, 2008 02:57 PM (ek3ah)
12
Here is NSSF's response to the anti-gun corporate policy employed by First Data and Citi Merchant Services.
January 10, 2008
Dear :
This is to confirm the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s receipt of your e-mail response on behalf of First Data Corporation and Citi Merchant Services on Wednesday, January 9, 2008, concerning First Data and Citi Merchant’s unilateral decision to stop processing credit card transactions involving the lawful sale of firearms by law-abiding, federally-licensed, firearms distributors/retailers. Regrettably, your e-mail serves to confirm the anti-gun corporate policy of First Data and Citi Merchant Services and that the article in our publication “Bullet Points,” and subsequent posting to our Website, was based on a correct and accurate understanding of that policy as articulated in the December 26, 2007, letter to Mr. Charlie Crawford at CDNN Sports Inc.
We had hoped to hear from First Data Corporation and Citi Merchant Services that this was not your corporate policy and that the letter was merely the ill-considered actions of a single employee.
Your anti-gun corporate policy is based on ignorance of the law applicable to the sale of firearms. It is perfectly legal, in fact commonplace, for a federal firearms licensee in one state to sell a firearm to a non-licensee (consumer) from another state. What you fail to appreciate is that the firearm is not shipped in interstate commerce directly to the consumer. Rather, as required by federal law, the firearm is shipped by the selling licensee to another federal firearms licensee in the state of residence of the consumer who is purchasing the firearm. The consumer acquires the firearm from that licensed dealer in a face-to-face transaction after completion of a Firearms Transaction Record, commonly referred to as an ATF Form 4473, and a federally-mandated background check to ensure that the purchaser is legally permitted to buy the firearm.
Furthermore, the policy of First Data and Citi Merchant Services interferes with the receiving and shipping of inventory from and to federally licensed firearms retailers, distributors and manufacturers. This inventory supplies not only law-abiding Americans, but military and law enforcement agencies as well.
June River-Mantilla’s original correspondence contained so many errors that one could only deduce that it was an uniformed mistake that would consequently be corrected. Instead, we learned yesterday that First Data Corporation and Citi Merchant Services stands behind the policy, which affects not only firearms retailers, manufacturers and distributors, but also law enforcement agencies at the federal, state and local levels of government and law-abiding citizens.
NSSF will not remove its Web posting nor will we rescind or alter our story. However, if we receive written confirmation from you that, after having researched the law, First Data and Citi Merchant Services have changed their corporate policy, we will consider publishing that fact in a follow-up story.
Sincerely,
NSSF
Posted by: NSSF at January 10, 2008 03:27 PM (7uoGf)
13
I'd love to know whether the VPC or a similar gun grabbing group sent correspondence to these guys trying to misrepresent the nature of what is going on with their customer's internet business. Thinks like "interference with contract" "alienation of prospective business relationships" and "defamation (per se)" come to mind.
If I were CDNN I'd file the lawsuit just to get discovery of whether those sorts of things were going on in the back ground. As it stands, they've got a basic "good faith and fair dealing" claim in most states anyway.
Posted by: Gonzo at January 10, 2008 03:59 PM (C0McP)
14
Here's a copy of the note I just forwarded to all my credit card providers through their various account management Websites
--------------
Please answer the following question regarding my account. Is First Data Corporation or Citi Merchant Services in any way involved or associated with my credit card account - including the processing of charges?
Unfortunately, it has been brought to my attention that FDC and Citi Merchant Services have initiated a campaign against Firearms Dealers.
I have been very pleased with my service from your company up to this point and it is my sincere hope that your firm has no exisitng relationship with FDC or Citi Merchant Services. As a lifetime participant in shooting sports and a lifetime member of the NRA - I could not abide such a policy and would be forced to cancel any associated accounts. Please advise as to the nature of any such relationship.
With Thanks,
Posted by: SHOTandTACKLE at January 10, 2008 05:20 PM (l/qhb)
15
SHOTandTACKLE,
I'm pretty sure you're asking the wrong party. If I understand it correctly, FDC and CitiMerchant are providing their services to the business (for example, a gas station) itself, basically handling the credit card processing for them.
Posted by: Kevin at January 10, 2008 08:25 PM (kZVsz)
16
Kevin,
Generally what you say is correct - but it is important to recognize that FDC processes many (in fact, I believe, the majority) of all credit card transactions in the United States. What's more, as I recall, they have the largest credit card production and distribution facility in the country (an incredibly secure site in Nebraska) and I know for a fact that they produce and distribute many of the cards issued by big name banks.
I agree that the problem is largely one tied to merchant services but I believe that a company must be held accountable for the actions of its employees, divisions, and key vendors. If my cards were issued or produced by FDC - then I will look to get a card from another issuer.
I have already cancelled one of my cards over this. I guess its just a personal choice - but as an FFL - it's a pretty simple one for me.
Posted by: SHOTandTackle at January 11, 2008 01:52 AM (l/qhb)
17
Is Bloomberg hidden somewhere in this picture?
Posted by: davod at January 11, 2008 09:07 AM (llh3A)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Ron Paul: Just Go Away
Ron Paul needs to simply go away.
Long-simmering rumors about his ties to bigots of many stripes have lurked in the background for years, only explode yesterday with well-documented examples of racism, hatred towards gays, and murky associations with
conspiracy theorists,
neo-Nazis, and
secessionists.
Some seem satisfied with Paul's
weak claim that myriad examples of this inflammatory rhetoric went out under his name for over a decade without his knowledge or blessing. This requires a willing suspension of disbelief and an avoidance of reality only too typical of the paranoid fringe that have flocked to his campaign.
If he has any sense of decency, Paul should withdraw from the 2008 Presidential race, and should also consider vacating his Congressional seat. The voters of Texas'
22nd 14th District deserves better representation than this.
We all do.
Update: CNN gets in the action with a feature story called
Ron Paul '90s newsletters rant against blacks, gays.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:15 AM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Actually, I don't mind the Ron Paul campaign.
By serving as a magnet for those with loony ideas about the nature of reality, it makes it easy to identify the nut-cases amongst those I know.
If it wasn't for Ron Paul, these folks would just find another Dear Leader to follow... like, say, Ross Perot. It's not like the Paulites are gonna support someone (relatively) reasonable like Fred or Mitt or even Rudy.
Posted by: C-C-G at January 09, 2008 09:41 AM (ojkss)
2
I was very disappointed this weekend to see that Maurices BBQ here in South Carolina had Ron Paul pamphlets available for customers. Maurices BBQ is famous for their carolina style mustard based BBQ. They are equally famous (or imfamous) for continuing to fly the Confederate flag in front of their restaurants even after it was removed from the top of SC State House. I've always supported the right of private citizens to display their heritage, but with the new revelations about Paul, I am beginning to doubt that this is about history.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at January 09, 2008 11:55 AM (oC8nQ)
3
Mustard-based?
Sir, do not besmirch all that is holy by intoning that slop is actually BBQ.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 09, 2008 11:57 AM (vxbTC)
4
1. Odd that a blog that calls itself "Confederate" Yankee has such a problem with a candidate who seems to have some Confederate sympathies himself.
2. "Ron Paul needs to go away."
Are you truly this shallow and myopic, CCG, or are you simply as petty as the NRO that you love-to-hate in other posts? How is it that you've missed the point that Ron Paul, for all his warts, is simply an rallying-figure for an America that has lost its faith in this war, this government, this president, this Madam Speaker (and her ilk), these media, this political "process" that will only install another RepubliCrat in the White House who will uphold the status quo during his/her tenure, etc, etc, ad nauseum? With the Paul campaign, you are getting a dose of bonafide, heartland America,* and like your Lefty counterparts, mis-portray it as 'AmeriKKKa' as much as you can.
What is most telling about your reaction to the skeletons in Paul's closet, however, is how very dated your thinking is. You assume that the Ron Paul campaign is about Ron Paul--much like the Bushists (if indeed there are any still out there) and Clintonistas make their campaign efforts ABOUT their Chosen Ones instead of whatever issues they seem to endorse (because if they did indeed make it about ISSUES, the self-styled Right and Left would see that there isn't enough of a difference between the two parties to make voting for one or the other worth one's while.) So no, the Ron Paul voter won't be making a cult out of Paul's middle initial or his fabled charismatic charm (he really hasn't any); they are simply sick of a Washington that no longer really cares about We The People it pretends to represent, and it is an indictment of the Bush-cum-Clinton camp that someone as lacking as Ron Paul can make such a showing.
Ergo, the 'PaulBots' are quite the opposite of the knee-jerk supporters the slur suggests--instead of the mental calisthenics Bush or Clinton supporters often turn in order to wrap their minds around their candidate's every piss-poor decision, the Paulists feel that they actually OWN this 'revolution' and that not even Paul himself can derail it. Nonetheless, why you can't seem to get the age-old concept of the-message-is-bigger-than-the-man is not really so baffling: You're just working off the ancien politics of yesteryear, where political parties and machines matter so much. So, as-you-were, "Confederate" Yankees: Go on denouncing, ridiculing, belittling, etc.: It only shows that like your Lefty complements, you are both out of touch with America and afraid of it at once.
(*Heartland Americans are, by-and-large, conspiracy theorists by nature, it seems, and poll after poll has shown their inherent distrust of the government's versions of what happened at Waco, or to the Alfred P. Murrah Building, or in Dallas on November 22, 1963 for that matter. This is old hat. [This distrust of centralized Washington is as American as apple pie, too--T. Jefferson: "Our kind of government is not based on trust...it is based on suspicion."]
Americans are, by-and-large, isolationists.
Americans are, by-and-large, against unrestricted access to abortion.
Americans are, by-and-large, suspicious of the UN.
Americans are, by-and-large, against any kind of special recognition or state sanction of homosexuality.
Etc.
These are planks in the Paul campaign, donchaknow, and it wouldn't matter if a talking toad were to croak these issues, a great many Americans would echo the same.)
Posted by: j at January 09, 2008 12:05 PM (miTHt)
5
j, how this blog's name came about is very well documented, and has nothing whatsoever with successionist nutters, but thanks for trying the ad hom.
Paul does attract disaffected portions of America, which is fine, but he has never made more than (even?)a half-hearted attempt to separate himself from extremists, and is now well documented, is either one himself, or willing to lend his name to them for decades at a time.
You are judged by the company you keep, and in Paul's case, that is not a pretty picture at all.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 09, 2008 12:39 PM (vxbTC)
6
Slop? If you wake up at dawn tomorrow, and there's a guy dressed like Colonel Sanders on your lawn carrying dueling pistols, don't go outside.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at January 09, 2008 01:07 PM (oC8nQ)
7
Again you seem to be missing the boat: The "disaffected portions of America" you speak of are, whether you'd like to admit it or not, *mainstream*. He has tapped into this mainstream, which is why both Montana militia-types and left-leaning urbanites who are posting his banners downtown find themselves under the same aegis for once. My point to your posts is that he is larger than himself, and that imagining that if Ron Paul were to go away his so-called movement would disappear only constitutes naive wishful thinking on your part.
Posted by: j at January 09, 2008 01:12 PM (miTHt)
8
Mainstream? 3% of the population is "mainstream?" What's the new slogan gonna be j? "the 3% mainstream rEVOLution?" Bwahahahahaha!!!!!
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at January 09, 2008 01:29 PM (Lgw9b)
9
Capitalist Infidel:
The mainstream of disaffected nutcases, perhaps? ;-)
Posted by: Patrick Chester at January 09, 2008 01:58 PM (oQWuH)
10
No, fools: The "Great Silent Majority" Nixon talked about, who do, in fact, hold to the values I listed above. The 3% are only the most impassioned, I would imagine--remnants of once die-hard Dems or Repubs. Disaffected as the mainstream is, it will probably continue to vote RepubliCrat for some time to come, or not at all (as many Americans don't): You have no idea how many people I've spoken to who've said, "I *would* vote for him, but don't think he has a chance of winning." They connect with him, you see, these average Americans you (and the Leftists) decry as "disaffected nutcases"; you think a mere 3% has given him 100% of the money and support they have? I haven't done jack-squat for the man, so I wouldn't register in the 3% either.
Keep dancin', tho, 'round and 'round the fact that the RP phenomena-thingy is, as I said, "an indictment of the Bush-cum-Clinton camp [when considering that] someone as lacking as Ron Paul can make such a showing."
Posted by: j at January 09, 2008 02:19 PM (miTHt)
11
Keep dancin', tho, 'round and 'round the fact that the RP phenomena-thingy is, as I said, "an indictment of the Bush-cum-Clinton camp [when considering that] someone as lacking as Ron Paul can make such a showing."
Squirrels have always gathered nuts. It is in their nature. It doesn't make him king of the forest, or any more special than even the last squirrel.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 09, 2008 02:29 PM (vxbTC)
12
"Squirrels have always gathered nuts."
Interesting. That is what most of the world said when Bush got a second term.
Posted by: j at January 09, 2008 02:43 PM (miTHt)
13
Since Paul gets about 3% of the vote what did that make Perrot who got around 20%?
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at January 09, 2008 05:29 PM (Lgw9b)
14
J,
Ron Paul is a nut job. Does he have some positions that I can agree with? Yes. I'm sure Jeffrey Dahmer had some positions that I could agree with too, but that doesn't make him any less of a nut job.
Your belief in Ron Paul makes you either simple, or also a nut job. Your "revolution" is lovely to see in all of its glory, winning primary after primary. You and your revolution are the equals of the Kucinich revolution. You will have as much success, and people with think just as highly of you and crazy Paul when it is all over.
No matter how you try to defend it, Paul is a racist, anti-semetic, conspiracy theorist. Either he is too sloppy and stupid to check what goes out under his name for over 20 years (which makes him stupid and sloppy), or he actually agrees with what was sent out under his name (and which, by the way, put money in his pocket) for 20 years. Either way, the guy is an idiot and a bad person. How you, and the rest of the bots that are unable to see facts staring you in the face, manage to rationalize around this, is insane.
I'm willing to admit that Bush does a lot of things I don't like, but those are policy decisions that I disagree with, not racism, anti-semitism, and paranoid conspiracy theories. You are agreeing with the latter, not the former.
Posted by: Great Banana at January 10, 2008 10:27 AM (JFj6P)
15
Long-simmering rumors about his ties to bigots of many stripes have lurked in the background for years, only explode yesterday with well-documented examples of racism, hatred towards gays, and murky associations with conspiracy theorists, neo-Nazis, and successionists.
I think you mean "secessionists", as in people who want to secede.
(What is a "successionist"? Someone who strives to succeed, perhaps? Sounds good to me.)
J: say all you like that Democrats and Republicans are "out of touch with the mainstream". The bottom line, however, is the votes. If Ron Paul can't get enough votes to make a difference, then putting a talking toad in his place won't help.
So far he doesn't have it. Never mind getting as many votes as Ross Perot did; so far he hasn't even gotten the 7% John Anderson did in 1980.
When a candidate's positions are truly more "mainstream" than his or her opponents, the ballots will prove it. So I'll happily eat my words, sincerely and profoundly, when President Paul is inaugurated. I will, that is, provided YOU are willing to eat YOUR words if-and-when Rep. Paul's "rEVOLution" fizzles and burns out, as I strongly suspect it will.
There's nothing wrong with starting a new movement and doing your best to get momentum for it. But declaring yourself the winner before the contest starts -- well, that's just silly.
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
Posted by: Daniel in Brookline at January 10, 2008 10:28 AM (ETuqd)
16
If Ron Paul steps aside, who will step forward to lead his fanatical followers. David Duke?
Posted by: Banjo at January 10, 2008 03:49 PM (1DQ52)
17
First of all, you have demonstrated yourself in the same mold as the rest of the PC brain-washed masses. Pointing out that the government is not being forthcoming or honest about what happened on 9/11 one earns the label "conspiracy theorist". If a person thinks that whites have as many rights as blacks, then "neo-Nazi". If a person has kin folk who served in the Confederate Army and embraces their Southern Heritage, then lets call them "successionists". Certainly no one wants to be labeled any of those things so everyone keeps quiet.
I'm actually not a big fan of Ron Paul, but I am supporting his campaign. We need a few more people in the public arena to be ask the right questions and not be afraid of the narrow-minded bigots such as the author of this hit piece.
Posted by: BCR at January 10, 2008 06:23 PM (Zng7G)
18
Ron Paul no longer represents Texas District 22. He represents Texas District 14.
Posted by: lurker at January 10, 2008 06:26 PM (KjsE5)
19
I am amazed at the venomin against Ron Paul. He certainly has some groups that support him that are outside of conventional political thought. But at the same time, he is the only candidate that has a conservative message and truly desires to get the government out of our lives. Why do you people want the government to wipe your backsides and decide every aspect of your lives?
Posted by: David C. at January 10, 2008 07:23 PM (4Ime0)
20
David, please look at the policy positions of former Senator Fred Dalton Thompson, and then tell me again that Ron Paul is the only candidate that is espousing limited government... if you can do it with a straight face, that is.
Posted by: C-C-G at January 10, 2008 09:51 PM (ojkss)
21
Interesting. That is what most of the world said when Bush got a second term.
While America was saying "No, thank you." to John Kerry. Thing is, the rest of the world doesn't get a vote. But what were they saying when they elected or reelected Blair, Howard, Merkel, Sarkozy, etc...?
Posted by: Pablo at January 11, 2008 06:44 PM (yTndK)
22
CCG posted "David, please look at the policy positions of former Senator Fred Dalton Thompson, and then tell me again that Ron Paul is the only candidate that is espousing limited government... if you can do it with a straight face, that is."
How many Americans can vote for the continuation of American Empire with over 700 overseas military bases in over 130 countries as our own infrastructure, housing market, dollar value and overall economy continue to crumble. Fred Thompson is another pompous ass who wants to "kick ass" in the Middle East.
Please, my fellow Americans: Don't stir up hornets' nests around the world. Our children will get stung. Let's elect a president who will stop wasting 1/2 of our income taxes to buy weapons and piss off 130 countries. Only Kucinich, Paul and Gravel will do this.
Posted by: smdahl at January 13, 2008 06:03 PM (IboTk)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 08, 2008
Dear Network and Cable News Outlets
Not to point out the obvious to the oblivious, but at a time when newsrooms are loss-leaders at best, you might be financially better off in getting your wildly inaccurate pre-primary punditry from bloggers.
I'm pretty sure I could be every bit as wrong as Zogby, Rasmussen, etc for $50K-$100K less per state.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:38 PM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Uh-oh
...whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul's name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.
I doubt this is the last we'll see of this kind of article targeting the company Paul keeps, either.
Update: More on this via Daniel Koffler at Pajamas Media, starting with this (dis)taste of pull-quotes from "Ron Paul's Political Report" newsletter from the 1980s and early 1990s.
"[O]ur country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists—and they can be identified by the color of their skin."
"I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city [Washington, D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
"We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational."
"The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics."
"The criminals who terrorize our cities—in riots and on every non-riot day—are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to "fight the power," and to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible. Anything is justified against 'The Man.' And 'The Woman.'"
This looks bad for Paul...very bad. That hasn't kept his true believers from bombarding
PJM's comment thread.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:28 PM
| Comments (27)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
That looks to me like somebody is doing a takedown of Ron Paul.(I'm not a supporter of Paul).
The larger issue raised by the quotes is something that has concerned Democrats for decades-may have even been caused by Democrat's social programs.
Blacks have been welcomed and encouraged to pursue opportunities in the private sector for many decades. Many have quietly pursued them
to meaningful prosperity, but the underclass gets all the press as if they are the courageous.
Posted by: Mockin'bird at January 08, 2008 03:23 PM (h4hIX)
2
Paulistas defending the Chosen One in 3, 2, 1...
Seriously, I don't oppose Paul and his little group of religous nutbars because of how he felt about blacks or gays in 1995; I oppose them because of how ignorant they are of foreign affairs and economy today.
This IS the man who said that Viet Nam was better off and more successful now than Koerea is, because America's continuing military presence in Korea holds them back and Viet Nam threw us out...
Posted by: DaveP. at January 08, 2008 03:24 PM (1AZTv)
3
That PJM comment thread nucking futs!
Seriously. That is some good crazy. Like weapons grade crazy. Charlie Manson is gonna be awful jealous.
Posted by: Lamontyoubigdummy at January 08, 2008 04:10 PM (2T3uc)
4
Seriously, Lamont, that's another thing. I look at Ron Paul's supporters and I see attempted spinning of facts, total villification and demonization of anyone who disagrees, appeals to emotion instead of arguements based on facts and reality, flat-out bigotry, ad hominem dismissals of inconvenient truths...
Look at the Paulistas at the PJM comment threads, and you'll see many of the (nonpolicy) reasons I left the Democratic Party in the first place.
Posted by: DaveP. at January 08, 2008 05:14 PM (1AZTv)
5
Dave: I used to think it was funny, but those people bend fanatical psychotic more and more every day. If we'd have had the internet back then, these crazy bastards would've shilled for Jim Jones.
K-Lo, over in the Corner, just posted the story only (with no additional comment). Within minutes her inbox was full of these:
"Subject: I'll never trust the NRO again
Auto forwarded by a Rule
There's gotta be consequences to what you people are doing. Hannity got chased off the streets... he's lucky that's all that happens. Rudy got locked in a bathroom in a boat in MI. The revolution is real, not symbolic... I wouldn't smack at a hornets nest.
Paul is not a racist. He's very kind. All of his supporters aren't as kind or layed back. They take things like this serious.
The media is generating hate and their own version of blowback. In America, blowback lead to 9/11. What will your blowback lead to? We're really starting to hate you folks. I was a journalist, I read the NRO, I vote GOP. I hate you. I can't imagine how others feel right now about reading that misleading crap."
Need thorazine much?
Posted by: Lamontyoubigdummy at January 08, 2008 05:38 PM (2T3uc)
6
Yes, it reduces Ron Paul in my mind, but I notice that the Author of the piece himself says he doesn't think that Ron Paul is Racist. But that he's a cynic and wants to stir the pot. Keep that in mind, the person who wrote the piece admits that he's doing it just to screw with Ron Paul and his supporters. Unfortunately, everyone seems to enjoy dancing to the tune. The timing is suspicious and I think well planned to try to eclipse Ron Paul on the very day that he could be having his best primary day of the year.
Posted by: Mark at January 08, 2008 06:00 PM (zwNmS)
7
Have you seen the video of the Paul supporters chasing after Sean Hannity?
Since when does "reverence for the Constitution" include physical intimidation of those whose exercise of the First Amendment produces opinions you disagree with?
These guys are poisoning the waters for actual libertarianism, and Paul is just standing there with his hands in his pockets and claiming he can't be held responsible.
Posted by: DaveP. at January 08, 2008 06:09 PM (1AZTv)
8
Personally, after the Scott Thomas Beauchamp caper, I'd not believe TNR if they told me water was wet.
Mind you, I still believe Paul is a nutcase and his supporters are even worse, but I wanna see non-TNR verification of this story before I'll accept it.
Posted by: C-C-G at January 08, 2008 07:56 PM (ojkss)
9
There are some seriously batcrap, monkeyhumpin' crazy people following RP around.
Posted by: Conservative CBU at January 08, 2008 07:56 PM (La7YV)
10
Consider the source: TNR.
As much as I despise Ron Paul, the practice of TNR is to produce fiction.
I'm a risk manager of the Austrian school. I regularly follow The Mises Institute's commentary. While I find their isolationism unfortunate and incorrect (you'd have to classify me as a neo-libertarian), the Austrian school has been the most accurate in predicting macroeconomic trends.
The fact that The New Republic would associate the Austrian economic school with this nonsense is the unfortunate outcome of inept trust-fund baby leadership combined with "lowest common denominator" journalism degrees.
God forbid Ron Paul ate carrots at some point in his life. These statistically-ignorant fools would have found a way to disparage vegetable producers worldwide.
Please consider the source in this garbage. Foer's clearly convinced me that he will run this piece of trash into the ground and enjoy every moment of its demise.
Posted by: redherkey at January 09, 2008 12:31 AM (kjqFg)
11
Also consider that this isn't a new story either - its been reported before. But if this actually has an effect on the paulbots, who knows - I mean they haven't taken over fittobepres.com yet.
Posted by: Will at January 09, 2008 09:15 AM (WOkK4)
12
Funny that some wish to attack TNR for publishing facts that anyone out there who wants to can verify.
Even if you want to consider it a hit piece, are you denying that these newsletters exist? If not, what do you think of someone who would allow his name to be plastered over these sorts of statements for multiple years?
If you are denying they exist, well, you've got a great scoop to bury TNR once and for all. Go to it.
Posted by: fishbane at January 09, 2008 02:37 PM (5955P)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Huckabee's Radical Immigration Shift
Break out the shovel:
Mike Huckabee wants to amend the Constitution to prevent children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens from automatically becoming American citizens, according to his top immigration surrogate — a radical step no other major presidential candidate has embraced.
Mr. Huckabee, who won last week's Republican Iowa caucuses, promised Minuteman Project founder James Gilchrist that he would force a test case to the Supreme Court to challenge birthright citizenship, and would push Congress to pass a 28th Amendment to the Constitution to remove any doubt.
This is a radical shift from an immigration position of
just a little over a month ago as reported in the same newspaper, where his position as governor of Arkansas was labeled "an absolute disaster."
"Every time there was any enforcement in his state, he took the side of the illegal aliens."
As Mark Levin
notes, this is a massive flip-flop from Huckabee, who supported making the children of illegal aliens eligible for college scholarships and called legislation to crack down on illegal immigration in Arkansas "inflammatory and race-baiting" while governor just two years ago, a fact he did not dispute in the GOP debate in New Hampshire on September 5, 2007.
Issues2000.org has much, much more on Huckabee's shifting positions.
Update: Hmmm... backing down on a previous pander? Perhaps his moral compass needs to be re-magnitized.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:19 AM
| Comments (25)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Saying anything to get elected....I don't believe him for one minute....period.
Posted by: Jaded at January 08, 2008 12:04 PM (0lpqx)
2
Huckabee is a disaster!
Posted by: Cory at January 08, 2008 12:12 PM (VqXuo)
3
Mike Huckabee is a pandering piece of dung.
This guy has absolutely no decency about him what so ever.
Posted by: edward cropper at January 08, 2008 12:32 PM (yYiEy)
4
Ireland voted this type of change in. We should, but on a national referendum as they did. Betcha the Dems don't want what the majority does want, so won't let us vote, ignoring the Constitution, like Assachusetts Dems screwed their electorate on the gay marriage issue.. Stuns me why they get elected.
Posted by: frizzbee at January 08, 2008 01:03 PM (EaIA0)
5
Mike Huckabee just released this statement:
I do not support an amendment to the constitution that would prevent children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens from automatically becoming American citizens. I have no intention of supporting a constitutional amendment to deny birthright citizenship.
Posted by: John at January 08, 2008 01:15 PM (r31FK)
6
The cynical part of me is inclined to believe that this immigration gambit is not sincere. It gives Mr. Huckabee the appearance of being an immigration hawk. But how reasonable is it to expect that an Immigration Amendment to the Constitution would be any more viable than an Abortion Amendment?
Pro-life politicians have long known they can hold this position, cost-free, without actually doing anything about it. "Sorry, our hands are tied by the Federal courts."
Similarly, can I take any proposed reforms seriously when there is zero chance of getting enabling legislation through Congress?
I apologize for being so uncharitable to think this of Mr. Huckabee. Perhaps he could dispell such cynicism by taking positions that actually cost him something.
Posted by: Steve Poling at January 08, 2008 01:18 PM (eVZAb)
7
While I am all for a hard line on illegal aliens, the whole amending the Constitution to deny birthright citizenship seems rather extreme, and idiotic.
Posted by: Penfold at January 08, 2008 02:09 PM (lF2Kk)
8
People need to take a breather and relax. Huckabee has corrected the record and will not propose a constitutional amendment on citizenship. However, having considerable experience as a governor he fully understands the shortcomings of current federal immigration policy and its implementation. With this background he has developed a comprehensive federal plan to address this invasion--a plan that should be embraced by every persons seeking the presidency.
Posted by: Scott at January 08, 2008 02:27 PM (IG5mI)
9
People need to take a breather and relax. Huckabee has corrected the record and will not propose a constitutional amendment on citizenship. However, having considerable experience as a governor he fully understands the shortcomings of current federal immigration policy and its implementation. With this background, he has developed a comprehensive federal plan to address this invasion--a plan that should be embraced by every persons seeking the presidency.
Posted by: Scott at January 08, 2008 02:28 PM (IG5mI)
10
Huckabee will say anything it takes. If anyone but romney thompson or hunter get in LEARN SPANISH. And be ready to keep paying illegals
bills so dems can get votes and reps. can have cheep labor. Sorry to be such a downer but someone needs to say it.
Posted by: Larry at January 08, 2008 03:16 PM (BPNgZ)
11
"A man who will lie to to get a job will lie while on the job."
I like his position. I also think he really believes in his current position. I also know that he is about as capable of holding onto his current position until Jan 20th, 2009 and not likely 24 hours longer than that.
Huckabee's worst quality is his ability to be persuaded so easily that he let an unrepetent rapist out of jail so he could rape and murder.
Posted by: Allen S at January 08, 2008 04:10 PM (pf7q9)
12
Huckabee has already been shown to be a liar on his tax increases. Therefore, I don't find it a bit surprising that he's speaking with forked tongue again.
That he would lie so easily suggests he is more politician than pastor. And if he is truly as Christian as he and his supporters say he is, might I suggest he review the Scriptures, specifically verses like Psalm 119:29, Proverbs 3:3 and 12:19, and Colossians 3:9, among many others.
Posted by: C-C-G at January 08, 2008 08:02 PM (ojkss)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Obama's Damaged Foreign Policy
Over at Hot Air, Bryan notes that Barack Obama's foreign policy plan doesn't exist.
I wish I could agree with him, but as I read the page
now and click the "
Read the Plan" link, that isn't true.
It isn't non-existent. Its just damaged and unreadable.
But then, we knew that, didn't we?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:01 AM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Bob,
I regret to inform you that your post is factually incorrect. Obama's foreign policy is in fact non-existent.
Here's the proof.
;-)
Posted by: Justacanuck at January 08, 2008 11:21 AM (hgxwr)
2
There's no there there. Sorta like Mr. Clinton.
Posted by: C-C-G at January 08, 2008 08:03 PM (ojkss)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The New Hampshire Primary Begins...
...with a route in the tiny hamlet of Dixville Notch, where Hillary Clinton didn't pick up a single vote among the 17 voters. Barack Obama got seven votes, John Edwards picked up two, and Bill Richardson picked up one. On the Republican side, John McCain picked up four vtoes, ?Mitt Romney two, and Rudy Giuliani picked up one.
As noted in the Fox News article, the small towns that opened door to voters at midnight are far too small to be seen as reflective of the state's trends.
Scott Elliott of
Election Projection is predicting a very narrow 34% to 33% win for Republican candidate John McCain over Mitt Romney, and a significant 41% to 34% victory for Obama over Clinton, the once-favored Democratic candidate once seen by many as the inevitable Democratic winner.
Independent voters are the key to this primary, with the ability to vote in Democratic or Republicans. Mitt Romney's campaign is said to be hoping for enough independent voters to cast votes for Barack Obama and possibly siphon votes from John McCain to give him a victory. I think that is exactly what will happen.
My guesses are just that (guesses), but here they go.
- Democrat
- Obama: 42%
- Clinton: 32%
- Edwards: 18%
- Richardson: 6%
- Others: 2%
| - Republican
- Romney: 33.5%
- McCain: 33%
- Huckabee: 11.5%
- Giuliani: 10%
- Paul: 8%
- Thompson: 4%
| |
I didn't include Duncan Hunter on the Republican side because I don't think he'll make even 1% after his hissy fit yesterday.
Update: So, how do we read the latest at
Drudge that the New Hampshire Secretary of State is rushing to bring ballots to "Seacoast – Hampton, Portsmouth – and Southern Hillsborough – Pelham, Nashua" and other cities running low on Democratic ballots?
If you run with the theory that independents are choosing between Obama and McCain, we could be looking at the seeds of a mild McCain upset by Mitt Romney due to the independents crowding onto Democrat ballots.
This would seem to all but end John McCain's presidential aspirations.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:43 AM
| Comments (36)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Well, even if McCain can squeek out a win due to "fake Republicans" voting in an "open primary", Romney can still claim a BIG MARGIN amongst Conservatives.
Posted by: Bill Mitchell at January 08, 2008 01:54 PM (eKIpW)
2
Even if Romney comes in 2nd, he still leads in delegates, money, and numbers of people voting for him total. He is placing well in every state and doesn't use a tag team partner like Huckabee and McCain do. Go Mitt!
Posted by: Cory at January 08, 2008 02:03 PM (VqXuo)
3
Sinking McCain sinks the Republicans this time, I'm afraid.
Posted by: El Jefe Maximo at January 08, 2008 02:05 PM (HVtOM)
4
"Sinking McCain sinks the Republicans this time, I'm afraid."
And yet if we vote for McCain in the general we still won't have a Republican president no matter who wins.
Posted by: Pat at January 08, 2008 02:18 PM (lbEgX)
5
Mitt must lose. he says all the right things, but what i glean from it all is a lack of authenticity. He just tells people what focus groups say they want to hear.
My own acquaintance with Latter Day Saints is such, that initially i was excited about the Romney campaign, and even gave him the benefit of the doubt on his flip-flops on abortion and SSM. The LDS people I know are honest to a fault, and hard working t a fault. While Mitt meets the second criteria, I just don't trust the man.
So for me, the Mormon factor was never an issue in the negative sense, in fact it weighed in his favour.
I like Mike Huckabee and his message, which is more christian in the true sense than any of the past "religious right" candidates.
However, I think the man for this hour in history s John McCain.
I may not agree with his every position, but at least I know he's going to tell me what I need to hear, not neccessarily what I want to hear.
I believe he is the best person to counter the Islamic radicals, and another problem: Vladimir Putin. He can go toe to toe with this new Comissar-Tsar.
Kudos to Mitt for bringing up the issue of the Peoples' republic of China as a threat to the economy, but it would have more resonance had he started talkingabout that earlier, instead of slinging mud at Mssrs. Huckabee and Mccain.
Finally, there's the electability factor. We smigly say that Hillary Clinton is not likeable. By nominating Mr Romney, the GOP would essentially be placing their own Hillary Clinton at the top of the ticket.
McCain and Huckabee both score well on likeability and integrity. McCain and Giuliani score well on national security and dealing with/standing up to bad guys.
Mitt, ufortunately comes off as the man who's trying to be everything to everyone, and that simply does not work. In a tight spot, you need to rely on judgemnet and principles, there's no time to pull a focus group together.
Posted by: Neal Ford at January 08, 2008 02:31 PM (POmED)
6
No one will vote for a 72 year old president. It is insane. McCain would be another Bob Dole and he has all of his characteristics such as insensitivity, inability to withhold his caustic nature due to his seniority in the senate etc. The liberal media fears Romney which is why they have been piling up on him. He's a true leader with an incredible history of success and intelligence. No one can call him stupid like they called Bush (who had the same GPA as Kerry)
Posted by: Max at January 08, 2008 02:32 PM (xgJzq)
7
McCain's not a Republican - he's a RINO. How many of you can remember:
1. The Gang of 14.
2. The Keating 5.
3. McCain-Feingold.
4. Offering $50.00 per hour for picking lettuce for a whole season.
5. Voting against Bush tax cuts.
Need I mention any more? McCain and Republican are what I would call an oxymoron. Emphasis on "moron".
Posted by: Ron at January 08, 2008 02:36 PM (4YGpc)
8
And there is always the possibility that Fred Thompson finishes on top in SC and he can beat Hillary or Obama.
Romney is great. McCain would never win. He might pull in independents, but the base would not turn out. Certainly not the Christian right he has often bashed, nor those who were paying attention to him during shamnesty, nor those who care about SCOTUS, or wonder why he stood with John Kerry and against the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
Anthropogenic Causation of Global Warming is an issue near and dear in the heart of leftists who want to expand government, so why is John McCain embracing it? Anyone who thinks it really is about the environment needs to rethink it - and ask themselves why the advocates fly so many jets so often, and why they own big houses and big cars.... if they think it is a 'crisis'. It's about economics, so what is McCain doing? Creepy.
Romney or Thompson or Romney and Thompson, either way.
Posted by: Kathy at January 08, 2008 02:40 PM (W8PQG)
9
Sounds like a good Democrat election. Vote early and often. I love tradition. It would be awesome to look at the driver's licenses.
Posted by: Flyoverman at January 08, 2008 02:51 PM (/ZYFC)
10
While I don't vote single issue and am not an activist on this, I wonder why people call Mitt a flip flopper when he has changed from pro choice to pro life...?
Isnt' that the kind of change conservatives WANT to see in people? Isn't this a GOOD thing?
Changing the other way, or changing more than once, that would be a problem.
But name something other than abortion that mitt is an FF on... I don't understand anyone who says they don't trust him.
Posted by: Dave at January 08, 2008 02:52 PM (4WkoO)
11
Ron Paul is steadily gaining, making good progress without blowing a lot of cash and energy.
Posted by: Schratboy at January 08, 2008 03:33 PM (V1ZX0)
12
Why isn't anyone bringing up the fact that Obama is of Muslim background. He only recently changed to Catholic. I also had heard that he sworn on the Quran when he was sworn into office.
Comments please
Concerned voter......
Posted by: Rich at January 08, 2008 03:53 PM (+G+G6)
13
Rich -
Obama wasn't sworn in on the Quran - check it:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp
Posted by: Bobby at January 08, 2008 04:44 PM (/Uidp)
14
Not enough dem ballots? Sounds like the VRWC at work to me.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 08, 2008 04:56 PM (ERV3B)
15
I rejected Huck because in Iowa he wore his cross on his sleeve and invoked the bible beyond reason. Therefore he won't win the general. If the Evangelicals reject Romney because he is a Morman, he won't win either. Insane Paul can't win. My main issues are Islamofascism and illegal aliens. So McCain is definitly out. Hunter is my first choice on these issues.
Posted by: Frank Lee at January 08, 2008 06:23 PM (1wL8P)
16
Rick,
You are off on two out of two. Not only didn't Obama take his oath on the Quran, he also isn't Catholic. Your source for such might be a tad questionable.
Posted by: Denis at January 08, 2008 07:19 PM (XKRTZ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 07, 2008
I Wouldn't Get Too Excited...
...over news that Osma Bin Laden's security coordinator was captured in Lahore, Pakistan.
Not because it couldn't happen, but because
the source is Pakistan's
The Nation, the same news organization that
reported the claim last week that Benazir Bhutto was killed by a laser.
As a result, I'd consider their credibility just a
wee bit suspect.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:13 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Iran Pushes Its Luck
Iranian Revolutionary Guard fast-attack boats came with 200 yards of American Navy vessels in the Strait of Hormuz Saturday, almost provoking American forces to open fire:
Five Iranian Revolutionary Guard boats harassed and provoked three U.S. Navy ships in the Strait of Hormuz, a major oil shipping route off the Iranian coast, over the weekend, CNN reported on Monday.
Citing unidentified U.S. officials, CNN said the Iranian vessels came within 200 yards (metres) of the U.S. ships in international waters in the strait on Saturday, and U.S. sailors came close to opening fire.
Oil prices rose about 30 cents to over $98 a barrel after the CNN report, with traders citing increased risk of disruptions to oil shipments along the key shipping route.
U.S. military officials told CNN the boats were "attack craft" that they believed were operated by Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard.
The Iranian boats made threatening maneuvers against the U.S. warships and threatening radio transmissions, the officials told CNN.
The captain of one U.S. vessel was in the process of giving the order to shoot when the Iranian ships began turning away, CNN said.
A radio transmission from one of the Iranian ships said, "I am coming at you. You will explode in a couple of minutes," CNN reported, citing a U.S. official.
After the threatening radio communication, U.S. sailors manned their ships' guns and were very close to opening fire, it said.
There was no immediate U.S. comment.
If this account is accurate, these Iranian craft were literally within seconds of being destroyed. The order to fire was on the lips of the U.S. Navy captain as the Iranian boats threatened a suicide attack as they came in, only to turn away at the last second.
Occurring on the eve of President Bush's
trip to the region which hoped to spur on the peace process between Israelis and Palestinians, the apparent attempt was to force American forces to defend themselves and trigger a new crisis between the United States and Iran.
As we look to tomorrow's primary in New Hampshire, I'm forced to consider how the various presidential candidate's would have responded if such a provocation had occurred on their watch.
I think it goes without saying that on the Democratic side the candidates are less than inspiring in this kind of crisis, with only Hillary giving me the slightest hope of anything less than a Carteresque response. I think the same holds true for Huckabee and Paul on the Republican side of the equation, and with his foreign policy "experience," I imagine Huckabee's first response would be to wonder why the Irish were mad at us in the first place, and reflexively issuing an executive order raising import taxes on Guinness in retaliation.
Romney may do okay in such a situation, but I know I'd rather have McCain or Thompson in office if it ever "hit the fan" with Iran, as indeed it may on the next President's watch.
We were apparently just seconds away from a shooting war this past Saturday.
Who would you want in office
if when they try this again?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:19 AM
| Comments (32)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: Snooper at January 07, 2008 10:46 AM (QaDHz)
Posted by: Mockin'bird at January 07, 2008 11:18 AM (tqGzh)
3
Ditto -- .. thought the whole McCain/Feingold thing still doesn't sit well with me.
Posted by: Dan Irving at January 07, 2008 11:43 AM (zw8QA)
4
My family always joked when a favorite show was canceled that we were too smart for the average. If a show was smart and funny, we could almost always count on it failing. Americans, on average, can be a box of rocks.
Thompson can't win because he is too smart for the box of rocks. When a presidential contender raises his hand to acknowledge a disbelief in evolution, we need to take that as a sign of inability to handle the job of President, unfortunately, the box of rocks thinks it has found a common soul..duh.
Me, I am a Thompson supporter.
Posted by: Tracy Coyle at January 07, 2008 11:50 AM (V09c+)
5
We have the President I want in office if a conflict between Iran and us begins. McCain is not willing to do whatever it takes to protect the Nation. The rest are all unknown.
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at January 07, 2008 12:39 PM (dsL94)
6
Just wanted to say: It's "Iran pushes ITS luck", not "Iran pushes IT'S luck". From Wikipedia: "There are seven possessive pronouns in modern English: mine, yours, his, hers, its, ours, theirs."
As for the topic matter: those Iranians are crazy...
Posted by: Grammar Nazi at January 07, 2008 12:45 PM (RkwYf)
7
...with so much trepidation and foreboding, I must remember to stock up on Guinness.
Posted by: everydayjoe at January 07, 2008 12:46 PM (d3xkN)
8
thanks, GN. That was just sloppy...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 07, 2008 01:32 PM (vxbTC)
9
It is certainly fair to call the Iranians at large "crazy" but not because of this action. This is a classic probing attack intended to gauge the US response and perhaps provoke an incident spinnable by our own traitor class in this country as a justification for Iranian actions from the Embassy attack to killing our troops in Iraq and elsewhere. It was a success in the former and with repeats will lull our sailors into complacency until one of those floating boxes contains a limpet mine. I cannot believe that the phrase "USS Cole" is not accompanying all media treatment of this incident. The war with Iran is 30 years old. It is time we prosecute it.
Posted by: megapotamus at January 07, 2008 02:28 PM (LF+qW)
10
CY,
Man I respect your judgement, and I love your blog... But McCain? Yes, he's been ok on Iraq, but less than inspiring in other areas of National Defense. Personally, I'd like to see Fred or Romney.
Jim C
Posted by: Jim C at January 07, 2008 04:58 PM (ON55K)
11
Fred. I don't think McCain has the stones any longer. He's no longer a warrior imo. He''d be more worried about his press. I think Romney would also strike back and give a go order without too much hesitation.
Posted by: Laddy at January 07, 2008 05:37 PM (Q0Dnt)
12
Well, we are coming up on the 20th anniversary of "Operation Praying Mantis" so maybe this is just nostalgia on the part of the Iranians.
Posted by: John F. MacMichael at January 07, 2008 07:47 PM (MiID8)
13
Gee... I want Obama... he'd sit down and calmly talk to the Iranians, and everyone would love everyone, and there'd be free Pepsi, and condoms for all the free love festivals.
--NOT!--
Gimme Fred!
Posted by: C-C-G at January 07, 2008 07:51 PM (ojkss)
14
What ever happened to the "shot across the bow" as a warning to aggressors? Wait let me guess it is no longer a PC ROE..?
Posted by: Joe buz at January 08, 2008 09:01 AM (YLGud)
15
Steve Schippert, over at NRO's The Tank, thinks this stunt was primarily about Iran's manipulating oil prices. I think he has a good point.
Posted by: notropis at January 08, 2008 10:29 AM (OvDHA)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Pajamas Media War on Terror Conversations
Claudia Rosett and Roger L. Simon braved the freezing New Hampshire temperatures last week to talk to Republican Presidential candidates Rudy Giuliani and John McCain about the War on Terror, in the latest of Pajamas Media's War on Terror Conversation series.
The Rudy Giuliani conversation is
here.
The John McCain conversation is
here.
An earlier conversation with Fred Thompson is
here.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:10 AM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Is it me or is Fred the only one that gets it?
Posted by: Snooper at January 07, 2008 09:34 AM (QaDHz)
2
No, it's not just you (although you would be excused for thinking so). While other candidates in both parties are squabbling over who owns the copyright to the word CHANGE, Fred is quietly making the best case that he's the only serious candidate in the race.
Bob, congrats on a nice job on Fred's interview with Roger Simon. I agree with Fred -- it was a thoughtful interview with appropriate time for a complete answer.
Posted by: capitano at January 07, 2008 11:01 PM (+NO33)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
DaybyDay Fundraiser
Chris Muir of DaybyDay—one of the best online cartoon series going—is raising funds, and could certainly use your support.
Like most bloggers, Chris is not a full-time cartoonist, and
DaybyDay takes up a tremendous amount of time to write, well,
day by day.
Drop on over and
toss him a couple of bucks, will you?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:01 AM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
January 04, 2008
A Blogger Dies at War
Blogger and soldier Andrew Olmsted, who often posted as G-Kar at Obsidian Wings, was killed in combat yesterday in Iraq. As far as you know, he was killed defending a village composed solely of innocent women and children from hundreds of insurgents.
Knowing the risks he took as a soldier, he composed
a moving, reflective final post to be published in the event of his death.
In Major Olmstead's last paragraph he expressed doubts in an afterlife. I sincerely hope he finds himself today in Heaven, pleasantly surprised.
His writing is archived at
http://www.andrewolmsted.com/
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:23 PM
| Comments (31)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Ave atque vale, frater.
Posted by: DaveP. at January 04, 2008 04:14 PM (1AZTv)
2
CY, thanks for emailling me the heads-up on this. It just goes to show how much less ideological differences are when set beside human tragedy.
Regards, C
Posted by: Cernig at January 04, 2008 05:07 PM (aKi/z)
3
Rest in peace, Soldier.
THE FINAL INSPECTION
The soldier stood and faced his God,
Which must always come to pass.
He hoped his shoes were shining,
Just as brightly as his brass.
"Step forward now, you soldier,
How shall I deal with you?
Have you always turned the other cheek?
To My Church have you been true?"
The soldier squared his shoulders and said,
"No, Lord, I guess I ain't.
Because those of us who carry guns,
Can't always be a saint.
I've had to work most Sundays,
And at times my talk was tough.
And sometimes I've been violent,
Because the world is awfully rough.
But, I never took a penny,
That wasn't mine to keep...
Though I worked a lot of overtime,
When the bills got just too steep.
And I never passed a cry for help,
Though at times I shook with fear.
And sometimes, God, forgive me,
I've wept unmanly tears.
I know I don't deserve a place,
Among the people here.
They never wanted me around,
Except to calm their fears.
If you've a place for me here, Lord,
It needn't be so grand.
I never expected or had too much,
But if you don't, I'll understand."
There was a silence all around the throne,
Where the saints had often trod.
As the soldier waited quietly,
For the judgment of his God.
"Step forward now, you soldier,
You've borne your burdens well.
Walk peacefully on Heaven's streets,
You've done your time in Hell."
Posted by: Bill Faith at January 04, 2008 05:45 PM (Ueqy8)
4
This is such sad news. Words are inadequate.
Posted by: beth at January 04, 2008 07:29 PM (awyCJ)
5
Bob..it has been a while.
This is sad news indeed. I am forwarding this to my son now serving in Iraq.
Posted by: Snooper at January 04, 2008 07:55 PM (QaDHz)
6
I sincerely hope he finds himself today in Heaven, pleasantly surprised.
Bob, a man this great finds himself not in Heaven, but exploring beyond the rim with G'Kar and Dr. Franklin.
Posted by: TheEJS at January 04, 2008 08:12 PM (JyC8j)
7
This is such sad news. Words are inadequate.
Posted by: beth at January 4, 2008 07:29 PM
she speaks words that are very true
Posted by: Butch at January 04, 2008 08:42 PM (/c9Cu)
8
Whenever I read one that one of these fine young men has perished doing the job that needs to be done, I wish I was young enough again to go re-up and take his place.
God speed Major Olmstead, my heartfelt thanks and gratitude for your ultimate sacrifice, and my prayers for the ones you have left behind.
Review troops, long past review.
Posted by: Conservative CBU at January 04, 2008 08:49 PM (La7YV)
9
What an individual. Just shows you how great our brave men and women truly are. And that they believe in what they are doing. WOW is about all I can say. AMEN. God Bless him and all our other brave protectors.
Jason
Posted by: Jason at January 04, 2008 09:50 PM (6ey40)
10
My son lost his best friend in Iraq and then came back from Afghanistan with his body broken.
My heart goes out to MAJ Olmstead and, especially, to his bereaved loved ones.
Thank you, MAJ O., for your service to our country!
Posted by: m. r. o'donnell at January 05, 2008 01:58 AM (RcUPg)
11
the forces of censorship never learn...
http://___112.imageshack.us/___112/9365/censoredpostsm5.png
http://www.freeimagehost.eu/image/c287b71968298
Posted by: censorship_never_works at January 06, 2008 02:55 AM (SyATH)
12
"Censorship" you didn't give a rats ass about the immense suffering and deaths of ordinary Iraqis under Saddam, so your well thought out comments stink of nothing more than unintelligent bias.
However, Maj Olmsted, as a member of the US Military, the group of people you soley blame of inflicting death on ordinary Iraqi's, defended your right to voice such drivel.
Bu he also defended the right for any website administrator to delete any comments they chose on their website for any reason, especially if they find the comments inappropriate to the subject at hand.
Would you dare attend the funeral or memorial service of a soldier and in the midst of those paying respect and mourning make the same outlandish remarks you made on what is the 'virtual' equivalent of a memorial service to this man.
And if you did, and they had you removed from the premises, it would not be an act of censorship.
There is a time and place for everything.That you are incapable of understanding that speaks to your mental state.
So take your bogus concerns for deaths of Iraqis and your bogus claims of censorship and shove them where your head is obviously spending a great deal of time. In Basra these past two months, the ONLY people killing Iraqis are OTHER IRAQIS.
Posted by: Huntress at January 06, 2008 09:57 AM (SfNIo)
13
Major Andrew Olmsted
May Angels Sing Thee To Thy Rest, Sweet Prince.
Godspeed!
Hooah!
Posted by: Huntress at January 06, 2008 09:58 AM (SfNIo)
14
Hey, "censorship_never_works", would you say the same things about those Powers That Be on DailyKos or DemocraticUnderground who routinely delete conservative comments and/or users?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Posted by: C-C-G at January 06, 2008 11:01 AM (ojkss)
15
Obsidian Wings is largely a left leaning blog, and hilzoy, who posted Maj. Olmsted's final post is most assuredly a lefty. That said, the thread linked was one to remember and grieve for Maj. Olmsted. And you, "censorship", are a Grade A douchebag for politicking on a thread where it was expressly discouraged in order to honor the memory of their fallen friend.
Would you dare attend the funeral or memorial service of a soldier and in the midst of those paying respect and mourning make the same outlandish remarks you made on what is the 'virtual' equivalent of a memorial service to this man.
Huntress, I suspect that he would and that the only thing that would prevent him from doing so is cowardice. Simple decency and/or respect would not enter into his equation.
Thank you, Andy. May your sacrifice be eternally rewarded.
Posted by: Pablo at January 06, 2008 01:13 PM (yTndK)
16
Pablo, "censorship" has already violated Major Olmstead's wishes... the late Major wrote:
I do ask (not that I'm in a position to enforce this) that no one try to use my death to further their political purposes. I went to Iraq and did what I did for my reasons, not yours. My life isn't a chit to be used to bludgeon people to silence on either side. If you think the U.S. should stay in Iraq, don't drag me into it by claiming that somehow my death demands us staying in Iraq. If you think the U.S. ought to get out tomorrow, don't cite my name as an example of someone's life who was wasted by our mission in Iraq. I have my own opinions about what we should do about Iraq, but since I'm not around to expound on them I'd prefer others not try and use me as some kind of moral capital to support a position I probably didn't support. Further, this is tough enough on my family without their having to see my picture being used in some rally or my name being cited for some political purpose. You can fight political battles without hurting my family, and I'd prefer that you did so.
And so, of course, a lefty has to do just what the late Major asked him not to.
I could go on, but that would be to do myself what I am accusing "censorship" of... and I have already trodden perilously close to that line, so I won't step further in that direction.
I will just say, I wish "censorship" had the guts of Major Olmstead, to step into harm's way to protect others.
Posted by: C-C-G at January 06, 2008 03:51 PM (ojkss)
17
Feeling the loss; RIP Maj. Andrew Olmsted.
MAJ Andrew Olmsted was killing in action January 3, 2008, and I just do not have any words to say how sorry I am to his family and friends. ... He did leave us one last post which he gave to hilzoy to post in such a case as this. So at least he deafed the grips of death with a final farewell. An excerpt:
PS. Thank you, Confederate Yankee, for bringing this to our attention. I just wish it could have been on brighter terms.
Posted by: Rosemary's Thoughts at January 08, 2008 05:44 AM (bNd+s)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Harper's Horton Scandals Heat Up
Horton Hears a Boo: Journalistic Hijinks at Harper's Exposed is now up at Pajamas Media and has already been linked by both Instapundit and Powerline.
It turns out that
Harper's writer Scott Horton, who has been a leading cheerleader for imprisoned Associated Press photographer and terrorism suspect Bilal Hussein, was a former investigator for Hussein's defense team, a disclosure that he has failed to make in his recent attacks against the U.S. military's handling of the Hussein case.
This particular bit of journalistic malpractice is unrelated to another budding scandal surrounding Horton's
still unsupported August 24 claim that an unnamed "thuggish neocon" journalist fabricated a story while Horton was in Iraq.
Repeatedly pressed for comment and proof of the anonymous article Horton alludes to, Harper's Editor Roger D. Hodge, Managing Editor Ellen Rosenbush, Vice President of Public Relations Giulia Melucci and Horton have thus far refused to support or retract his claim. Hodge, Rosenbush, and Melucci were contacted as recently as December 30, but remain mute, apparently hoping to stonewall their way through this scandal.
In light of these developments, perhaps Andrew Sullivan may want to reconsider his
statement that, "Scott Horton has as much integrity as anyone I know."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:09 AM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
"Scott Horton has as much integrity as anyone I know."
--Andrew Sullivan
Well, strictly speaking, Sullivan's words may be precisely the truth.
Posted by: Bill Smith at January 04, 2008 10:45 AM (WflwE)
2
Could Horton have been fabricating and debunking charges against Bilal in the safety of his own mind? With an apparent huge ego and need for publicity, that may be the case.
Scott Horton, super lawyer, patriot, human rights advocate, partisan hack jouralist extraordinaire badly in need of an ethics refresher.
Posted by: daleyrocks at January 04, 2008 11:00 AM (0pZel)
Posted by: Dusty at January 04, 2008 11:23 AM (GJLeQ)
4
Ooh! Ooh! Can I be the thuggish neocon?
Posted by: Peter at January 04, 2008 03:23 PM (AiJXe)
5
I agree with Bill's comment!
Posted by: Huntress at January 06, 2008 09:59 AM (SfNIo)
6
"Scott Horton has as much integrity as anyone I know."
That says more about Sullivan than Horton.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 06, 2008 10:41 PM (ERV3B)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 03, 2008
Stunning Iowa Prediction from Election Projection: Huckabee by 11%, Thompson within 1% of Romney
Specifically, Scott Elliott is predicting the Republican race in Iowa at Huckabee 30%, Romney 19%, Thompson 18%, Paul at 14%, and McCain at 13%.
On the Democratic side, he has Obama blowing away the rest of the field with 38%, Edwards picking up 29%, and Clinton finishing third with just 25%.
Coming from anyone else I'd not give these numbers a second look, but Elliott's track record
speaks for itself when using his
formulas.
He is however, using his intuition instead of a formula for this particular prediction, so keep that in consideration.
Update: Hmm...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:30 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Positive ID On Bhutto Assassination Gun
Abid Jan of dictatorshipwatch.com has posted a link to another image of the firearm used in the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto in the comments of this earlier post that identified the weapon as a Steyr M.
Here is the new photo.
This is a much better photo the the grainy picture originally released by the Associated Press, and because of this, the sidearm's distinctive characteristics a a definitive match for the Steyr M-A1 variant, proving the earlier supposition by "karlJ" beyond a reasonable doubt.
Her is a Steyr M-A1 as pulled from the Steyr
web site, with three distinguishing characteristics highlighted.
Here is a rotated and magnified version of the picture submitted by Abid Jan, with those same distinguishing characteristics highlighted.
Why would the assassin use a a Steyr M-A1?
Availability is typically a prime concern, as an assassin will use the weapon he has access to, but online research suggests that there is little indication that the M-A1 is normally exported to Pakistan in any numbers, suggesting that this was a purpose-specific acquisition.
The M-A1 is touted by Steyr for its relatively unique
trapezoid sighting system, which the company touts as "a new and innovative stepping stone towards quicker target acquisition." The 111-degree grip angle is also said to put the shooter's hand more in-line with the bore of the pistol, reducing upward muzzle movement and enabling faster follow-up shots, and the guns relatively light weight (27oz. empty) theoretically enhances control, allowing faster follow-up shots.
Sadly, at the bottom of the Steyr site in red text are the words
NO AUSTRIAN WEAPONS FOUND WITH TERRORISTS!, and a link to
a story from last year, where an irresponsible British journalist claimed Steyr HS 50 sniper rifles purchased by Iran were being supplied to terrorists in Iraq, a claim
I also debunked.
This time, through no obvious fault of the company, they cannot make that claim.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:25 AM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Does the M-A1 fire laser beams?

Posted by: C-C-G at January 03, 2008 09:43 AM (ojkss)
2
Only on the DU. And Kos, Huff Post, etc

Posted by: William Teach at January 03, 2008 12:03 PM (NaHh8)
3
Looks like a pretty solid match, but in the first photo it seems to have a more rounded trigger guard. Perhaps an earlier model?
Posted by: Uncle Pinky at January 03, 2008 01:38 PM (5mmSd)
4
I think from the trigger guard's shape it looks like the original M rather than the M-A1, a much newer model. Scroll down a bit to see the picture from the earlier post.
Even the newer model, however, shoots 9mm Parabellum, not laser beams.
Posted by: karlJ at January 03, 2008 06:20 PM (Kg2UJ)
5
I don't agree that the pistol's origin necessarily points to a purpose specific acquisition. It would be available to anyone willing to buy black market arms. Whether it was opium derived Taliban money, or came out of the ISI's budget is unknown, but she was wanted dead by lots of people with the means to get this sort of thing.
Last time I was in that general area, a quality pistol sold for about $1300. This is well within the budgets of any number of bad actors. With AK-47's going for about $150 in much of that part of the world (can't say for Pakistan specifically), pistols are a major status symbol, and European weapons doubly so.
The marketing talk about the sights is just that. I've used them, and while usable they are hardly a leap forward. Most serious users replace them with standard post and notch style.
Posted by: karlJ at January 03, 2008 06:37 PM (Kg2UJ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 02, 2008
Late Thompson Surge in Iowa
According to Zogby. Adds Peter Robinson at NRO's The Corner:
Iowa Republicans, in other words, have wanted Thompson to do them the courtesy of actually campaigning—and now they’re beginning to realize that he has. First Thompson conducted a two-week bus tour of Iowa at which he campaigned in more than 50 towns and cities. Then he taped a 17-minute video in which he makes his case more calmly, deliberately, and and with incomparably greater respect for the issues than has any of his opponents. And? For a lot of Iowa Republicans, that’s all they needed.
Over at
Hot Air, Allah is
soliciting predictions of what percentage of the vote Thompson takes in Iowa.
I'm keeping
my prediction to myself, but you're welcome to drop yours in the comments.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:10 PM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
PPP-Nuts: Dr. Evil Killed Bhutto...
...with a "la-ser."
Former prime minister and PPP Chairperson Benazir Bhutto was targeted with the latest laser beam technology, being used by the American forces in Iraq, PPP sources told TheNation Tuesday.
Baitullah Mahsud and Taliban don't have such technology. After bomb blasts in Karachi on Oct 18, Mahsud sent two messages to Benazir in which he said that they have neither any hostility against her, nor would make any attempt to kill her.
"When Benazir was admitted to Rawalpindi General Hospital, Dr M Musaddiq Khan told a PPP leader that he saw such a case for the first time in his life. These wounds were not of bullets, Dr said and added that she had expired before shifting to the hospital and a part of her brain and blood had spilled over from her head," the sources unveiled.
Believe it or not, quasi-respectable news agencies are also picking the story up, including
The Australian. Even blogs, including
The Moderate Voice, are running this at face value.
Truly, we have lost the War on Drugs.
There are indeed man-portable and vehicle mounted laser units in the world's militaries, but all of those smaller than a locomotive are "dazzler"-type
non-lethal weapons, meant to blind people or sensors... they cannot kill someone.
Those military lasers powerful enough to kill missiles—or anything else—are so large that the have to be mounted on ships or multi-engine aircraft. One of the smallest versions ( and few actually close to production use; most others are still experimental) the MTHEL, or Mobile Tactical High-Energy Laser, is "mobile" is that it can be carried by three tractor-trailers before being assembled into a fixed weapons system.
The beam created by these huge and very expensive lasers is not small, either. The MRACL tested at White Sands New Mexico had a beam
5.5" square.
In that regard,
A.J. Strata is wrong when he states:
But if a high powered laser were to be used it would leave just as much of a signature as a bullet. A nice clean, cauterized path would be clearly evident.
In actuality, locomotive-sized laser weapons would work on human beings the same way they work in shooting down missiles and artillery shells. It superheats them until they blow apart. As Bhutto's head did not burst like Jiffy-Pop, this stupid theory
should quickly be put to rest. Unfortunately, as soon as some nutter figures out
who owns such defense weapons systems the conspiracy theorizing is only likely to get worse.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:23 PM
| Comments (25)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Dear Lord the moonbats are running wild with this one...
Posted by: Conservative CBU at January 02, 2008 03:40 PM (La7YV)
2
He didn't recognize the wound, ergo it must be that _new_ weapon that's going around.
Makes sense to me.
Posted by: Zorachus at January 02, 2008 04:31 PM (yJ5ul)
3
Dude,
I never assumed she was hit with a anti-missile laser BECAUSE it would have vaporized her! Anyway - it is a hoot!
Posted by: AJStrata at January 02, 2008 04:40 PM (65XHs)
4
The moonbats desperately need this to be another evil Bush plot.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 02, 2008 04:41 PM (ERV3B)
5
"These wounds were not of bullets..."
Clearly then these wounds could only have been caused by a controlled demolition.
Posted by: sherlock at January 02, 2008 05:18 PM (cq3pU)
6
How very depressing that any media outside of al Jazeera would run this with a straight face.
Ray Robison is the author of Both In One Trench: Saddam's Secret Terror Documents
http://www.bothinonetrench.com
Posted by: Ray Robison at January 02, 2008 05:43 PM (Cgo1/)
7
But can it melt steel....?...
Posted by: usinkorea at January 02, 2008 07:11 PM (pFVwv)
8
I blame the Alan Parsons Project:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Duj2oZIC8U
Posted by: JayC at January 02, 2008 08:01 PM (+1O2Q)
9
Cheney probably had his genetically modified vampires, the ones that can operate in daylight, standing by as backup. They're awesome. I read about them on TV.
We got the bestest weaponz.
Posted by: daleyrocks at January 02, 2008 08:28 PM (0pZel)
10
Oh dear. While I'm hardly a physicist, I do know about about laser propagation as it applies to weapons. Even our most advanced laser weapons (those that aren't under the cloak of a black project anyway) are indeed very, very large. The aircraft bourn anti-missile laser now under development requires a gutted and highly modified 747 to contain its components, is good for only a handful of shots, and kills missles by focusing its beam on them for a span of seconds, long enough to burn through the very thin aluminum or carbon fiber skin of the missle. When that occurs, aerodynamic drag does the rest, tearing the missle to pieces. There is no known, even remotely man portable, laser capable of instantaneously penetrating a human body in the way some suggest here. Remember, we can generate laser beams, the problem is that for them to be effective as weapons, an enormous amount of power is required, and that quantify of power input, more than anything else, is what makes laser weapons so large.
Besides, what sense would it make to zap someone with a laser weapon, even if such exised? Islamic terrorists have those? Talk about leaving a trail of breadcrumbs back to one's doorstep...
Posted by: Mike at January 02, 2008 08:39 PM (/vNsr)
11
Anything to try and smear Dubya.
The next step: claim--even if not true and easily debunked--that Halliburton was involved in laser weapon research. I dunno if they were or not, but that's clearly the next step of the barking moonbats.
Posted by: C-C-G at January 02, 2008 09:55 PM (ojkss)
12
"Bush lased, Bhutto blazed"
Posted by: Ray Robison at January 02, 2008 10:15 PM (+R1GO)
Posted by: daleyrocks at January 03, 2008 01:01 AM (0pZel)
14
Wow, I didn't know we had lasers that could cause depressed skull fractures! Sounds more like gravity beam.
Posted by: Tully at January 03, 2008 08:40 AM (kEQ90)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Too Little, Too Late: Scotland Yard to Probe Bhutto Assassination
For what little it is worth:
Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf said Wednesday that British investigators are heading to Pakistan to help clear up the confusion surrounding Thursday's assassination of Benazir Bhutto.
"I am very thankful to [British] Prime Minister Gordon Brown that when I made this request he accepted that," Musharraf said in a nationally televised address.
The Scotland Yard team, he said, "will solve all the confusion" surrounding how Bhutto died last week.
Musharraf expressed his condolences about the killing of Bhutto, who he said "has been martyred by terrorists."
Frankly, I have my doubts on what good this investigation will do, and that is not meant as a slight against Scotland Yard, but instead against what little evidence they will have on hand.
The crime scene where Bhutto was apparently shot and a suicide bomber detonated had been cleared
within hours; the debris, blood, and any remaining evidence washed away. Benazir Bhutto has been interred, as have the bodies of the victims of the suicide blast, and it remains to be seen if Bhutto's husband, Asif Ali Zardari, will allow Scotland Yard to exume Bhutto's remains for an autopsy.
The remaining evidence seems to include:
- part of the head of the suicide bomber
- forensic evidence in the two vehicles that transported Bhutto
- the assassin's pistol, tentatively identified as a Steyr M
- several video tapes of the attack
- still photos
- eyewitness accounts
- X-rays
- doctor's notes
The documentary evidence will presumably add little to the investigation. The media-provided X-rays seem to show little, and a formal autopsy was never performed. Both pundits and professionals have examined the video, and it would be surprising if they hold much in the way of substantial new information, outside of audio recorded on the videotapes which may prove or disprove the theory of additional gunshots being fired. The eyewitness accounts are very conflicted, and as a rule, are typically unreliable.
If positively identified, the suicide bomber may provide some clues as to his associations, but that is far from a certainty.
Then there are the two vehicles in the attack, if they have not been compromised.
The first was the vehicle that Bhutto was riding in at the time of the attack, and it could presumably tell us quite a bit about the blast itself, and may account for any bullets fired low that hit the vehicle. An examination of the right rear sunroof lever may be able to account for the blood on the lever, and if bent or stressed, may give some insight into how hard Bhutto hit the lever, if at all. Bhutto's supporters transferred the former prime minster to a second vehicle on the way to the hospital as the first had suffered significant damage as a result of the blast, but I would expect it to have less useful forensic evidence.
The pistol's serial number should give investigators an idea of the firearm's origins, and if bullets or shell casings are recovered from the crime scene or the vehicle (or less likely, Bhutto) that match those cartridges presumably still in the recovered pistol's magazine, it could verify that the weapon was that used in the assassination attempt.
Scotland Yard's entry will provide the appearance of something being done, but it comes long after the most useful evidence has been literally washed away.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:13 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I highly doubt CSI:Rawalpindi will ever be green lit. I don't have much faith in the forensic ability of the police in Islamabad let alone the little garrison town where Mrs. Bhutto was murdered.
Posted by: Dan Irving at January 02, 2008 03:19 PM (zw8QA)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
There They Go Again
Stop me if you've heard this before, but the Associated Press has run yet another exaggerated massacre story in Iraq based upon questionable sources they claim are Iraqi police officers.
On Monday, AP
ran the claim:
A suicide bomber attacked a checkpoint manned by a group fighting against al-Qaida in Iraq, killing 12 people in one of a series of strikes Monday against the largely Sunni movement singled out by Osama bin Laden as a "disgrace and shame."
[snip]
In the most serious attack against one of the groups Monday, a suicide bomber drove a minibus rigged with explosives into a checkpoint in Tarmiyah, 30 miles north of Baghdad, police and a member of the local awakening council said.
The explosion killed 12 people, said Adil al-Mishhadani, a member of the council. The council commander, who gave his name only as Abu Arkan for security reasons, said later that the dead included three children on their way to school and nine council members.
Three people were missing, Abu Arkan said.
Not so fast. MNC-I states that only two civilians (not 12) were killed in the attack, two were injured, and two civilians (not three) were missing.
Once again in this article, the Associated Press used anonymous Iraqi Police officers of dubious credibility to make up the bulk of their sourcing, with journalists apparently being nowhere near the scene.
As a result, the number of false reports of massacres and exaggerated reports of attacks in Iraq by the media seems to be
on the rise.
Perhaps we should consider this trend the media's "surge?"
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:07 AM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Daveed Gartenstein-Ross over at Counterterrorism Blog has a pretty good article up about how the AP seems to be confused between the Awakening Councils and Concerned Local Citizens (CLC) groups.
To paraphrase:
While the Awakening councils are on the US payroll under the CLC program not all the CLC groups are part ofthe Awakening Movement. Some are former members of the IAI (Islamic Army of Iraq) and the 1920s Brigades that have yet to recognize the elected Iraqi government as legit.
As for the skewed numbers - it seems even Iraqi officers know that Western media would rather buy a spectacle than accurate, but possibly boring, news.
Posted by: Dan Irving at January 02, 2008 11:43 AM (zw8QA)
2
The hard right has been complaining about the MSM for 40 yeas. They used to just come right out and say that the ***s control Media and Hollywood, but now they use code words.
Posted by: John Ryan at January 02, 2008 02:08 PM (TcoRJ)
3
Thanks for proving Godwin's Law for us, Mr. Ryan.
Please leave now, before you embarrass yourself further.
Posted by: C-C-G at January 02, 2008 10:00 PM (ojkss)
4
The hard right has been complaining about the MSM for 40 yeas.
And the hard left complains about the right dominated media.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 03, 2008 06:39 AM (ERV3B)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 31, 2007
Bhutto Assassination Weapon ID'd?
On December 27, Pakistani police recovered a pistol from the scene of Benazir Bhutto's assassination in Rawalpindi, Pakistan.
I tweaked the low-res version in PhotoShop, rotated it 90 degrees, and played with the color balance to provide better contrast. Here is the modified, rotated photo, inset into the original.
I emailed that "green" photo this morning to
Confederate Yankee commenter "karlJ," who has worked in the region as a contract medic, who thinks it could be a
Steyr M 9mm pistol.
Based upon the shape and angle of the grip and the angled rear of the slide (which makes it distinct from similar polymer-framed
Glock,
Springfield XD and
M&P pistols), I think that "karlJ" is probably correct.
Barack Obama
has yet to link the pistol to Hillary Clinton's vote on the Iraq War.
Update:
Photo editor William G.S. Smith, seems to think that the ID of the assassination weapon as a Steyr M is positive, and sends along this comparison.
01/02 Update: Hey, Nuts. The truthers at
whatreallyhappened.com have linked to this post to float the theory that the shooter was Pakistani special forces:
Now guess who uses the Steyr M 9X19mm handgun exclusively - the Pakistani army - special forces division.
An interesting theory... and completely divorced from reality.
I can find zero evidence that the Steyr M has been purchased by
any branch of the Pakistani military in an online search... not so much as a single pistol. Pakistani police units bought a limited number of the old Steyr GB pistol in years past, but there is no confusing the two handguns, and the folks at whatreallyhappened.com apparently just decided just to make up a story about the M being "exclusive" Pakistani Army SF issue to float a witless conspiracy theory... shocking, I know.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:45 PM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
there is no evidence that any bullets hit bhutto.
the video shows no blood, and it shows her moving her arm VOLUNTARILY, up and back as if to voluntarily move back into the vehicle.
she does not slump-down.
the scarf is not moved by a bullet.
if she'd been hit then she'd have slumped and there'd be blood on the scarf and a splatter we;d see - as from JFK in the zapruder film.
the movement of her arm is dispositive to me.
rewatch the video.
let your eyes do the thinking and not the msm.
Posted by: reliapundit at December 31, 2007 02:35 PM (BpRBS)
2
Does that use square backed rounds?
On a serious note, is the Steyr a standard sidearm for the Army, police or security teams over there? I checked Wiki, and all I found was that the Army uses Steyr rifles for sniper duty.
Posted by: doubleplusundead at December 31, 2007 02:58 PM (P17op)
3
Pistol bullets do not cause the dramatic sort of damage you saw in the Zapruder film except in movies. People do not always immediately slump when hit, even in the head. There is frequently not even enough blood immediately visible from the outside for the shooter to know he was making hits.
The incident took just a second or two between impact and her being pulled into the car. Having seen many gunshots over my career, foreign and domestic, the fact that there is no immediately visible blood or instant incapacitation is no evidence the victim wasn't shot.
I make no claims beyond that.
I have never seen a Steyr pistol over there, but that doesn't mean anything as everything is available to any organization with the money.
Posted by: karlJ at December 31, 2007 04:18 PM (Kg2UJ)
4
I checked with Beauchamp and TNR and was told that their anonymous sources were "absolutely positive" that the Steyr uses "square cartridges" and "square barrel" and is "exclusively carried by Pakistan Army Special Forces".
I have been told that TNR has "damning and inside information on the assasination" and will be running a special piece on it in their next issue. TNR also believes that "the issue will be so damning to the Pakistani President and informative on what is 'really' happening in Pakistan, that all 6 of their readers will buy a copy."
Posted by: WB at December 31, 2007 10:59 PM (yR9hl)
5
Here is the link to the initial picture of the gun reported by Geo TV:
http://www.humsurfer.com/view/image-of-the-gun-that-killed-benazir-bhutto
Related story is here: http://www.humsurfer.com/view/image-of-the-gun-that-killed-benazir-bhutto
Hope this helps.
Thanks
Abid Jan
Posted by: Abid Jan at January 02, 2008 10:33 PM (NEYl4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 134 >>
Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.1952 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.1763 seconds, 176 records returned.
Page size 140 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.