Confederate Yankee
August 16, 2010
It's On: Issa Calls on GAO to Investigate Obama's Propaganda Mill
He actually phrases it a bit more delicately than that in his letter (PDF) to the Acting Comptroller General, but not by much.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:51 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I've been wondering about this when those ads like "Obama wants to help you refinace .. or go to college" started appearing over a year ago.
Posted by: Neo at August 17, 2010 03:05 PM (tE8FB)
2
Chanel Handbags 2009
Chanel Handbags 2010
Chanel Purses
Chanel Handbags
Chanel bags
Coach Handbags
Coach Bags
Coach Purses
Coach Outlet
Coach Classic
Coach Luggage
Cheap Coach Purses
Cheap Coach handbags
Coach Wallets
Coach Tote Bags
Coach Crossbody Bags
Posted by: top-coachbags.com at August 20, 2010 08:09 AM (ApKAm)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Die Quietly, Ladies
The Washington Post reports this morning that the Food and Drug Administration is considering revoking the approval of the anti-breast cancer drug Avastin. Some are already identifying this as an attempt by the Obama Administration to use the FDA to give political cover for "Death Panel" Donald Berwick, Barack Obama's controversial recess appointment for the director of Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).
Berwick is a staunch advocate of the flawed and failing British Health Care system, including their care rationing schemes.
Ace makes a very compelling argument that this is "the Chicago way" at its very worst. Obama continues to cravenly hide from the public the unarguable fact that under Obamacare, services and treatments will be rationed.
Call it a death panel. Call it whatever you will.
The fact remains that under Obamacare, a bureaucrat, not a doctor, will ultimately decide whether or not you life is worth the price of medications and procedures that could prolong your life, and/or the quality of your life.
Our friends on the left seem willing to sacrifice their mothers, wives, daughters and even themselves to this barbaric and deceptive practice.
Die quietly, ladies. It's for the good of the Party.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:47 PM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
You obviously don't understand the FDA. They are saying that the drug is dangerous to use. Of course the women who use the drug are going to die within a short period of time without it. But the logic of the government is that they will not be having any problems with the drug.
On the other hand, I have never been able to understand this logic either. Where is Jim when we need him, he could explain it to us.
Posted by: David at August 16, 2010 04:21 PM (fw2az)
2
One other word on government medical care. They are not currently paying their bills. Almost everyone that I know in the medical industry is having significant trouble right now due to the fact that Medicare/Medicaid are not paying their bills. They have done this to an extent in the past but now it is much worse. One physical therapist is almost out of business as a result.
Posted by: David at August 16, 2010 04:40 PM (fw2az)
3
S.O.P. for socialists. Although I LOVE your byline about liberalism being a persistent vegitatve state, the truth is, as they admitted in the press earlier this year, the libs are quietly moving America in the direction of a socialist state. Marxist theory regards the socialst state as the transitional phase between capitalism and communism.
In short, they know EXACTLY what they are doing!
http://m.facebook.com/pages/The-Enemy-Inside-Out/127323863980144?r9209deb8&refid=0&rd71c8543
Posted by: David C Schupbach at August 16, 2010 05:11 PM (BwNKv)
4
Hi David,
The logic of the FDA's decision seems pretty obvious to me:
An FDA advisory committee voted 12 to 1 on July 20 to withdraw Avastin's authorization for advanced breast cancer based on two new studies that the advisers concluded had not shown that the drug extends life. Not only that, the committee concluded that the studies indicated the drug slowed tumor growth for even less time -- perhaps as little as about a month. "The vast majority opinion of the committee was that the drug was not doing very much, and what it was doing was more than offset by the negative," said Wyndham Wilson of the National Cancer Institute, who chaired the committee. Avastin can cause a variety of potentially serious side effects, including blood clots, bleeding and heart failure. "In our best judgment, we did not feel this drug was safe to give relative to its benefits," Wilson said.
CY,
My insurance company has to OK every drug, procedure, treatment I get, or they don't pay for it. It's not my Dr's decision what gets paid for, it's my insurance company's decision. How is that any better than having the decision made by Dr's who are employed by the government? How does your health insurance work, does your insurer cover everything your Dr prescribes, or are there limits and restrictions? You act as though there's no one currently in the loop other than Dr's and patients and I'd love to know who covers you if that is the case.
Posted by: Jim at August 16, 2010 05:12 PM (YPeWM)
5
"But Avastin is also one of the most expensive of a new generation of anti-cancer medications that only eke out a few extra months of life."
In the above sentence from the WaPo link, notice the combined use of the phrase "one of the most expensive" and "eke out a few extra months of life." That tells me other Stage IV cancer drugs are in the FDA's cross hairs. Too expensive for the "general welfare" of the people as leftians like to stretch that clause in the Constitution. Or in other words; F 'em!
Posted by: Col Bat Guano at August 16, 2010 06:04 PM (kM9uV)
6
Avastin is a product of Genentech, a member of the Roche Group.
There is about $1 billion and 7 million man-hours invested in Avastin.
Posted by: Neo at August 16, 2010 06:58 PM (tE8FB)
7
Jim,
I knew you would come through. It is amazing to see the convoluted logic at work. As to the insurance relationship with patient and doctor, I am afraid that is your government at work again. They institued those measures about 25 years ago in the guise of HMO's. Thus empowering all insurances and all plans to interfere in the doctor/patient relationship. It the free market was able to work, we would have a very quick return to the traditional doctor/patient relationship. And, medical care would be much less expensive.
Posted by: David at August 16, 2010 07:20 PM (N6gW+)
8
Jim,
The efficacy of this drug is about 30%. Now considering that you are talking about terminally ill people, that is not too bad.
If this is the future of medical care, were the government is short changing us because they are racking up the expenses on producing a drug and then saying it is too expensive, then we can kiss our a## good by. The next thing you will see will be the govenment interfering with the production of the next generation of antibiotics. These are necessary as the current drugs are not working. But I am sure they could care as they are the ones that felt a book of fiction was real and thus eliminated DDT and resulted in the death of about 50 million people.
Posted by: David at August 16, 2010 07:30 PM (N6gW+)
9
David,
I quoted from the link CY provided, it says the two new studies found no extension in lifetime for breast cancer patients. Where are you getting your 30% figure from, perhaps one of the cancers that Avastin was developed to treat, like colon or lung? If you have data suggesting it's effective vs breast cancer I'd love to see it.
Posted by: Jim at August 16, 2010 08:37 PM (7EVtA)
10
Here's what the manufactuer says about using Avastin to treat this particular cancer:
There are no data demonstrating an improvement in disease-related symptoms or increased survival with Avastin
The 30% figure is indeed the case for other cancers. http://www.avastin.com/avastin
Posted by: Jim at August 16, 2010 08:54 PM (7EVtA)
11
Congrats Yankee! you got your own Media Matters paid troll. You got noticed and are moving up in the world...
Jim, I will ask you what I ask all the other paid shills. When did you leave you soul at the door, or are you so stupid to think that socialism is a good thing?
Twit.
Posted by: Toaster802 at August 17, 2010 09:31 AM (O+v+t)
12
Hi Twit,
I took googled 'avastin efficacy breast cancer' and found (first link) that the guys who make the drug say it doesn't extend the life of people with breast cancer and has some pretty bad side-effects like heart failure.
I'm not the one here making money off this, that would be CY, but apparently I'm the only one who skips the multi-paragraph chatter about the Chicago Way and instead goes looking for the underlying facts of this particular case. I'm sorry that didn't go over well inside your bubble.
Again if you have different information please share it, and you might want to let Genentech know too, they're apparently socialists trolls as well.
Posted by: Jim at August 17, 2010 10:05 AM (7EVtA)
13
Chanel Handbags 2009
Chanel Handbags 2010
Chanel Purses
Chanel Handbags
Chanel bags
Coach Handbags
Coach Bags
Coach Purses
Coach Outlet
Coach Classic
Coach Luggage
Cheap Coach Purses
Cheap Coach handbags
Coach Wallets
Coach Tote Bags
Coach Crossbody Bags
Posted by: top-coachbags.com at August 20, 2010 05:12 AM (ApKAm)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Propaganda Presidency
I was afforded an embargoed copy of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform's report, "Analysis of the First Year of the Obama Administration: Public Relations and Propaganda Initiatives" this weekend, and it made for an interesting read.
You can ready all about it at
Pajamas Media.
I'd also recommend Ed Morrissey's take on it at
Hot Air.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:34 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Bob, does any of this constitute any impeachable offenses, if anything is directly tied to BHO?
Posted by: Gray Wolf at August 16, 2010 06:41 PM (WgKkU)
2
Chanel Handbags 2009
Chanel Handbags 2010
Chanel Purses
Chanel Handbags
Chanel bags
Coach Handbags
Coach Bags
Coach Purses
Coach Outlet
Coach Classic
Coach Luggage
Cheap Coach Purses
Cheap Coach handbags
Coach Wallets
Coach Tote Bags
Coach Crossbody Bags
Posted by: top-coachbags.com at August 20, 2010 05:11 AM (ApKAm)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Prevent It... Because They Want It, Too
[The following essay is a guest post from CY commenter Mike McDaniel, following up The Ground Zero Mosque: Prevent It, Because They Want It]
Among the advantages of adulthood are experience and perspective. If we pay attention, have good teachers—not only in classrooms--and an active conscience, we can put aside childish things like self-delusion, doing the same things over and over while expecting different results and hubris. If not, we become leftists, and if we're really impaired, President of the United States. We also learn--and it's interesting that these lessons appear to be most easily grasped and applied by God and gun clingers--that aphorisms that sounded remarkably profound when we were young are in reality, pretty stupid, and easily recognizably so, when we're adults. Thus is "love means never having to say you're sorry," transformed by experience, the ability to recognize and act upon reality and adult morality into "love means being able and willing to say you're sorry, and meaning it."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:40 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
What do you think the response from the Arabs would be if the Israel's tried to build a Mega-Synagogue at the site of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem?
Posted by: Robert L at August 16, 2010 01:53 PM (23CEm)
2
Better yet what do you think the Muslim response would be if Jews tried to build a huge synagogue in Mecca or Medina?
For people who are always whining about others respecting THEIR rights Muslims are completely blind to the rights of others.
Posted by: NevadaDailySteve at August 16, 2010 02:39 PM (+xi30)
3
Which is inappropriate?
A) Building a Shinto shrine for Japanese faithful at the USS Arizona memorial in Pearl Harbor.
B) Building a Christian church at Ground Zero in Hiroshima, Japan.
C) Building a mosque near Ground Zero in New York City.
D) All of the above.
An appropriate response from Islam would be the donation of several hundred million dollars toward the restoration of the World Trade Center rather than the construction of a mosque.
Posted by: Just Sayin' at August 16, 2010 03:43 PM (kLeoS)
4
I agree with all of the above.
The Constitution and its Bill of Rights is NOT a suicide pact.
This isn't even about a "mosque." It's about an Islamic "cultural" center that will do "outreach."
Bull. Places like this are typically used as a bases for radical indoctrination, and terrorist training.
The Lutherans having a Vacation Bible School this ain't.
Posted by: Bill Smith at August 17, 2010 08:55 AM (1OIGj)
5
How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.
...Winston Churchill
Posted by: Toaster802 at August 17, 2010 11:52 AM (O+v+t)
6
Chanel Handbags 2009
Chanel Handbags 2010
Chanel Purses
Chanel Handbags
Chanel bags
Coach Handbags
Coach Bags
Coach Purses
Coach Outlet
Coach Classic
Coach Luggage
Cheap Coach Purses
Cheap Coach handbags
Coach Wallets
Coach Tote Bags
Coach Crossbody Bags
Posted by: top-coachbags.com at August 20, 2010 05:10 AM (ApKAm)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 15, 2010
Obama Backs Away On Manhattan Mosque Defense
Barack Obama came out as being supportive of the so-called Ground Zero mosque proposal, but quickly revised his phrasing yesterday in the wake of immediate public criticism.
Speaking to reporters today, President Obama drew a sharp line under his comments last night, insisting that his defense of the right to build a mosque does not mean he supports the project.
"I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding," he said.
And with that, Sir Robin bravely ran away.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:16 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
And that 15 million acre land-grab? Does that right go back to our founding?
Posted by: Joan of Argghh! at August 15, 2010 08:27 AM (o2Qfb)
2
Whatcha wanna bet we get an elaboration on the clarification of the Friday night statement?
It appears he was for the mosque before he was against it.
Posted by: David L., Lower Alabama at August 15, 2010 09:12 AM (bv1hq)
3
This fool was at the WH at a dinner for the end of the celebration of Ramadan surrounded by Muslims. There was never any debate about their right to build the mosque under any of our laws but the propriety of building it. Building this mosque is similar to the group of religious crazies that go to service men and women's funerals to thank God they died. They have the right to do it but does anyone think they should? Obama knew exactly how his words would be taken and now he is having to eat them. He acts almost like the world is without any communication from any of his events. Like the infamous San Fran speech about clinging to guns and bibles. This isn't a very smart man despite what the left keeps telling us.
Posted by: inspectorudy at August 15, 2010 11:59 AM (KOOZL)
4
Why does anyone think that allowing radical muslims to build a veritable end zone dance on the site where thousands of Americans were murdered by their co-religionists is a right enshrined in our Constitution? Only idiots who view the Constitution as a suicide pact it seems.
Posted by: iconoclast at August 15, 2010 06:01 PM (/PcAI)
5
Chanel Handbags 2009
Chanel Handbags 2010
Chanel Purses
Chanel Handbags
Chanel bags
Coach Handbags
Coach Bags
Coach Purses
Coach Outlet
Coach Classic
Coach Luggage
Cheap Coach Purses
Cheap Coach handbags
Coach Wallets
Coach Tote Bags
Coach Crossbody Bags
Posted by: top-coachbags.com at August 20, 2010 05:04 AM (ApKAm)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 14, 2010
An Affront from Now to 9/11, to the Shores of Tripoli
Remember when Air Force One buzzed Manhattan for a photo op and spread terror among New York City, still (understandably) sensitive of careening airliners because of 9/11?
The Prince of Snides shows
that kind of sensitivity again.
But let me be clear: as a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are. The writ of our Founders must endure.
The Won cites Jefferson's views of religious tolerance... accidentally underscoring the fact that the United States has been fighting against militant Islam
since the very founding of our nation.
This is also the same Thomas Jefferson
who said:
"[a] strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means."
We are led—and I use that term with all due reservation—by a would-be ruling class that repeatedly
bows in supplication instead of celebrating American exceptionalism. Our current President is just the latest feckless example of that spineless mold.
There are rights, and there are
rights. Mass murderers never have the right to prance and pose over the remains of their victims. If Barack Obama doesn't understand that, he simply is not fit to be President, and is barely worthy of being called a citizen.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:27 AM
| Comments (27)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
very troubling times.
and they are of our own making. americans elected this dangerous fool. the media refused to vet him and the american public didnt care.
Posted by: rumcrook¾ at August 14, 2010 02:26 AM (60WiD)
2
Well, it's not surprising that President Chump supports the mosque. The majority of Americans are against it, so, of course, he's for it. His barking moonbat nutroots base is for it, and he needs to ingratiate himself with them a bit, so, of course he's for it.
Posted by: William Teach at August 14, 2010 07:01 AM (7yTel)
3
Obama say:
"...Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan..." I think he's right about that. But Americans have the right to hate them for it, as long as Americans don't get caught saying it while assaulting one of the provocative Muslim builders." BTW, unless you are an authorized professional, don't try this at home.
Posted by: Fred Beloit at August 14, 2010 11:49 AM (Urmd0)
4
Here's the full text of Obama's remarks at August 13, 2010 Iftar dinner. http://thepage.time.com/obama-remarks-at-august-13-2010-iftar-dinner/
I am a conservative Republican and certainly no Obama apologist. However, The White House, as I'm sure you are aware, has a tradition of hosting iftars that goes back several years, just as we host Christmas parties, seders, and Diwali celebrations. I'm sure the fine china and good silverware was used, but to imply that the event was more "lavishly celebrated" than these other functions is simply misleading.
Your readers should read the complete text of his remarks and highlight anything they think is seditious, un-American, or just snide and then post their rationale on those points to which they object. I can see nothing in his statements that could possibly interpreted as a belief that "mass murderers have the right to prance and pose over the remains of their victims". Geezz, take off the tinfoil hats, people.
Posted by: jg at August 14, 2010 12:02 PM (Aul0p)
5
As usual, Mr. Obama is setting up a straw man and then proving how wrong the man is. No one that I am aware of is arguing that Muslims should not build mosques and practice their religion. What we are appalled by is that this somewhat mysteriously funded group of Muslims is choosing to build a mosque right on the doorstep of Ground Zero, where practitioners of their Muslim faith killed more than 3000 of our American people. Ground Zero remains a sacred site to many of the families who lost members whose bodies have never been recovered. So this choice of site is a deliberate "Gotcha" insult to these families and to all Americans who have tolerated this affront.
We are additionally offended by the smug moralizing of Mayor Bloomberg who chose to lecture Americans on their failure of "tolerance." My advice to this singularly tin-eared Mayor is, "Get real, you elitist nincompoop." You offered the Imam in charge of this atrocity another site further from Ground Zero, and he/they rejected it. That says it all, doesn't it? The insult, the "Gotcha" gloat is deliberate. And hateful.
Marianne Matthews
Posted by: Marianne Matthews at August 14, 2010 12:34 PM (Aaj8s)
6
With respect to the comment by JG, I understand that the Iftar dinners at the White House did not begin with the Obama administration. Of course, religious tolerance is a valued American tradition, but Pres. Obama dances around the sunshine by emphasizing that point while ignoring the main one, which is:
Building a mosque is not the problem, it's WHERE the proposed site is that is the point. For all of Obama's and Bloomberg's bluster about religious tolerance, try walking into this proposed example of religious tolerance with a Cross around your neck carrying the New Testament. To do so would be interpreted as grosslly insensitive to those attending the mosque.
But to build it so close to the Ground Zero site is not insensitive according to its proponents.
At this point I wouldn't be shocked if Pres. Obama defended the building of a Shinto shrine on Corregidor, or Pearl Harbor.
The man is a preening peacock intent on establishing his bona fides with people have already established their own, back on 9/11/01.
Posted by: Fivebyfives at August 14, 2010 02:12 PM (yV5rr)
7
I have no sympathy at all for Islam. Nor do I have any for Judaism, Christianity, or any other belief system that promotes the idea of an invisible bearded man who lives in the sky and tells us what to do. It's all hogwash. Still, I believe it's wrong to oppose this mosque on the grounds that the 9/11 hijackers were Muslims. I no more blame all Muslims for 9/11 any more than I believe all Catholics are pedophiles. Most of the opposition to this mosque comes from nothing more than fear of an unfamiliar "other".
Posted by: Will Butler at August 14, 2010 04:07 PM (J72gA)
8
"My God sent his Son to die for me, but the "god" of Mohammed wants me to send my son to die for him."
Once you start building from that little observation it doesn't take long to reach some very troubling conclusions about who this "god of Mohammed" really is and what we are fighting against.
Posted by: Rik Dergis at August 14, 2010 04:18 PM (GOx5K)
9
i could tell the First Muslim was practicing taqiyya because he included the telling phrase "let me be clear", which is what he always says just before he obfuscates....
jq the concern troll needs to go eat a few more paint chips there in mommy's basement.
Posted by: redc1c4 at August 14, 2010 04:50 PM (d1FhN)
10
Yahweh, the "god" of the Jews and Christians commanded his people in Numbers 31:7-18 to massacre women and children, except of course for virgins (cause aren't they always a lot of fun?). Islam is no more or less bloody than any other monotheistic faith. Why? Because they are all the creation of MAN, in all his violent, hate-filled, blood-soaked glory. Singling out Islam for criticism is just plain disingenuous.
Posted by: Will Butler at August 14, 2010 05:01 PM (J72gA)
11
Lets just go with Obama is unfit for his job. I hope enough people realize that in November . . .
Posted by: jd at August 14, 2010 09:00 PM (yUxVN)
12
I suggest building a Serbian Orthodox Cathedral in Srebrenica to help the healing process.
Posted by: Cobalt Shiva at August 15, 2010 11:50 PM (KCVUU)
13
Will Butler,
There is a lot from your post which may deserve discussion, but I leave it at this
"Islam is no more or less bloody than any other monotheistic faith."
1st - You can strike out "Islam" and replace with 'X' and it would not change your analysis, because they are all the same, right?
2nd - Why specify "monotheistic faith"? Is there a polytheistic or animist (or other) faith which would render your statement null? In either case, let us replace "monotheistic faith" with 'Z'.
3rd - Per your own statement, 'X' is a subset of 'Z'.
4th - Let us replace "bloody" with the functional characteristic f(). Only YOU know what "bloody" means, but we don't want to sound derogatory.
5th - "is no more or less" means identical to, '='.
So, what you are saying is that,
f(X) = f(Z)
Therefore, all subsets of Z are X...
X = Z
"Islam" = is the "monotheistic faith" to the exclusion of all others.
This is what you meant, correct?
Posted by: Druid at August 16, 2010 12:23 AM (9bSMF)
14
A couple of comments. One, where in the hell do you moral equivilent idiots come up with all religions are just as violent? Not in the last 50 years as far as I can tell. Second, the Muslims may have the legal right to build on this spot but are you all too stupid to realize that these are the same people that are claming to be the religion of peace and that they want to build it to improve relations with the survivors of their great victory known as 911? Would any of you want to do something so evil to a large group of people who have all lost a loved one that you would defy their wishes? You would do this at the same time you are saying it is to promote good will? This isn't a sport complex or a shopping mall that brings noise and traffic. This is a knife in the wound left by these Muslim fruit cakes. They have one goal and that is to dance on the graves of the fallen.
Posted by: inspectorudy at August 16, 2010 01:19 AM (KOOZL)
15
How did all Muslims become "mass murderers"?
I don't recall anyone tagging all white, buzzcut gun nuts like that after Tim McVeigh. No one suggested all Christians were killers after the abortion clinic terror bombings of the 90's, or the doctor shootings of the last 10 years.
Come to think of it, no one is upset about the statue of Lee at Gettysburg, where the body count he caused was much higher. And why is no one pissed that they're building a shopping mall on the actual ground of the Towers. Not 2 blocks away (where there's already a mosque and a titty bar), ON THE SITE. A strip mall.
But back to the ignorant "mass murderers" comment... here is the problem with your movement. You're tagging an entire group of people because of the actions of a militant and militarized group that has perverted and twisted the religion.
You people, and I start with Owens, hate Obama SO MUCH that you are knee-jerk opposed to anything he stands for.
What is truly hysterical is that in opposing this mosque, you're tossing your small government beliefs out the window. You're asking the government to intervene, at any cost and in any way, to stop a private organization from doing something that even the most rabid among you clearly agree that they have the right to do. What happened to limited government? Or is that only for when it suits you.
It seems you like the Constitution, which is CLEARLY on the side of those wishing to build a place of worship, only when it suits your xenophobic ends.
I'll remind you that John Adams defended the redcoats accused in what came to be propagandized as the Boston Massacre. He defended those accused of the greatest atrocity on American soil to date. And he was horribly disturbed at the awful treatment of the Tories in America as the revolution progressed. I'm sure that Adams and his fellow patriots - the real ones, not you phonies - would laugh at you now.
How much longer until you all, lead by Mr. I Hope They're Afraid, get yourselves some armbands and begin deciding who is a "real American" and what to do with those who won't march in lockstep with you?
Posted by: Bob at August 17, 2010 01:55 AM (jsQWZ)
16
BTW 5x5s, there are two Shinto shrines quite near Pearl Harbor and they've existed there peacefully for years.
And there's a statue of Lee at Gettysburg. And a gun show quite close to the Murrah Building every year. I think we also still allow Catholic churches next to playgrounds where kids congregate.
Posted by: Bob at August 17, 2010 02:00 AM (jsQWZ)
17
Amazing "Bob",
You sure do KNOW what everyone else thinks, don't you? You should try giving your muslim friends the same level of respect you give Americans.
WRT 'mass murderers', I would question anyone who reveres a mass-murdering pedophile brigand as the most perfect human ever, but not you?
Posted by: Druid at August 17, 2010 07:12 PM (9bSMF)
18
Druid,
I don't know what everyone else thinks, I'm going off of what's ween written right in this comment section. Interesting that no one has refuted it.
What "mass-murdering pedophile brigand" do I revere? If it has to do with religion, that's not me. I'm agnostic, if not outright athiest.
What does strike me as the GOP cranks up the xenophobia machine is that the Republican plan for fixing the economy - which is their stated goal - is apparently trying to convince Americans that foreigners are bad.
They've got lots of things to say about immigration (mostly fabrications) and terror babies and muslims (mostly outright lies), but not a word about the economy.
Stay classy GOP.
Posted by: Bob at August 18, 2010 10:14 AM (jsQWZ)
19
What "mass-murdering pedophile brigand" do I revere?
Why do you think I was referring to YOU, Bob?
At least when the thuggies are banging on your door you can take comfort in knowing that they cannot be after you because you are 'agnostic' on human sacrifices.
Aside from that, you seem to be living in your own little world where everyone has to respond to your allegations or they magically become true. Why don't you read your own comments with open eyes and see how much you project.
Posted by: Druid at August 18, 2010 07:42 PM (9bSMF)
20
Bob, do you understand the post addressed to Will Butler above?
Posted by: Druid at August 18, 2010 09:00 PM (9bSMF)
21
Chanel Handbags 2009
Chanel Handbags 2010
Chanel Purses
Chanel Handbags
Chanel bags
Coach Handbags
Coach Bags
Coach Purses
Coach Outlet
Coach Classic
Coach Luggage
Cheap Coach Purses
Cheap Coach handbags
Coach Wallets
Coach Tote Bags
Coach Crossbody Bags
Posted by: top-coachbags.com at August 20, 2010 04:57 AM (ApKAm)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 13, 2010
Kossack: 9/11 was "More About Optics than Actual Harm."
A blogger at the popular progressive blog Daily Kos has attempted to smear many Americans with a very wide brush of anti-Islamic bigotry, while at the same time espousing a decidedly bizarre progressive view of the worst terror attack in this nation's history.
...a new CNN poll that shows that 68% of the nation opposes the construction of the community center in Manhattan. The question asked was about a mosque which I find a little misleading, and it used the inflammatory "Ground Zero" name for the site of the Twin Towers, but that is not really the point. This new data shows a couple of things that we know already to be true. First off, the majority when asked their opinion will almost always be against the rights of a minority. This is a particular hot issue because of the 9/11 attacks where carried out by Muslims, but it is to be expected even if that were not the case.
Muslims are only a small minority in the United States, with somewhere between 1.3 million and 7 million of our citizens being practitioners of this faith. This makes Muslims between .3% and 2.1% of the over all population. However world wide the followers of Islam are closer to 25% of the planetary population.
Given that they are such a small minority in this nation, it is odd that so many of our fellow citizens see them as such a threat. Yes, the 9/11 attacks were horrific, but they were more about optics than actual harm. The economy was already taking a hit before the Twin Towers fell. The reaction of the nation to seeing two major buildings in New York fall on T.V. has boosted the attack out of proportion. While the loss of even a single life is to be condemned and the devastation these deaths caused the families of those killed, more than this number of teens are killed every year in car crashes. These are also tragic losses but we do not make the kind of high profile issue of it that the 9/11 attacks are.
It is this sort of disconnected, community-based reality that these elitists have fabricated for themselves that had led the majority of the nation to find these elitists not just out of touch, but dangerously out of step with the rest of the nation.
There is certainly plenty of room to debate whether or not the contested Islamic community center and mosque being proposed in lower Manhattan is appropriate. There is room to debate whether or not whether Islam, as a oppressive and intractably conjoined mixture of religion and a totalitarian political movement, is what the Founders meant to extend unlimited protections to under the First Amendment.
Trivializing the losses of 9/11, both personal and cultural, is not a way to win your argument.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:19 AM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I see.
So it wasn't seeing the Twin Towers fall killing over three thousand people -- well over the number at Pearl Harbor -- that was horrific.
No. It was the REACTION of "the nation" that was "out of proportion."
These people have a mental illness. They are in major Denial of what occurred.
Teen deaths from car accidents are not the PLANNED result of a deliberate ATTACK, you festering idiots.
Posted by: Bill Smith at August 13, 2010 11:06 AM (yusoH)
2
Bill, I think the blogger was saying that if we hadn't been able to watch the Twin Towers fall, then it wouldn't have been so horrific. Remember, the author points out the the worst part of 9/11 was that it was 'optic', meaning we were able to watch it.
It seems the blogger is trying to use the analogy of a tree falling in a forest, if no one is around, then it doesn't make a sound.
Very strange reasoning these leftists have.
Posted by: Kate at August 13, 2010 12:01 PM (tEnZZ)
3
Americans didn't watch the attack on Pearl Harbor unfold in real time. It didn't make for a more muted response.
Optics might have been the goal of the terrorists on 9/11. But to put a mosque there is rubbing salt in a wound. It would be akin to putting up a Shinto shrine on Oahu in 1943.
Posted by: brian at August 13, 2010 12:24 PM (y05cf)
4
How many members of a minority are able to kill off 3000 people in one fell swoop? 19. How many suiciders does it take to kill dozens in a mosque, on a bus, in a school? 1 or 2?
A potent and deadly minority, indeed.
Posted by: Jewel at August 13, 2010 12:26 PM (6wuLW)
5
Point one:
The Lmsm doesn't allow us to see those images anymore and hasn't since a couple of days after the killings.
Point two:
I suggest that sticking the witless fools that inhabit dk in a hundred story building, then setting the floors below them on fire would give them all a whole new out-look on the meaning of terror.
Posted by: emdfl at August 13, 2010 12:37 PM (Ksn5c)
6
You know, cut Kos some slack. I think he's on to something.
After all, the battleships hit at Pearl Harbor were really kinda obsolete already, and did not play a major part in the war even after they returned to service. And the P-40s destroyed on the ground would have been replaced in a year or two. And Nagumo didn't even touch the oil tanks!
Plus, it is unlikely that we really could have used that fleet to fight our way across the Pacific to save the Philippines anyway.
Pearl Harbor was obviously more about optics than actual harm...
Posted by: Horatius at August 13, 2010 01:11 PM (6EyLE)
7
I represented the family of a 22 year old young woman who was on the second jet to crash into the tower. Tell me that 9-11 was all about optics.
The enduring grief at the loss of a very bright and able young woman has lasted for years with her parents.
I'd like to meet that little Kossack prick. We can settle it in an alley. I'm am old man now, but I think I'm angry enough to whale the living tar out of that little punk.
Posted by: Mike M. at August 13, 2010 02:01 PM (ktYjH)
8
Kate:
No, I think the blogger was doing everything possible in his malleable reality world to minimize what actually did happen. I have news for you. Whether anyone is around or not, the tree is still DOWN. The harm is that it's down, not its sound.
As another commenter pointed out, Americans were enraged almost instantaneously upon hearing about Pearl Harbor. Men started beating down the doors of recruiting offices the very next day. They understood immediately what had happened without any news reel footage, or "optics." That came later. Libs may be swayed by imagery or lack of it, but rational people are affected by FACTS
As libs do, they blogger tries to alter reality by playing with language, in this case, by ridicule:
"…the INFLAMMATORY "Ground Zero" name for the site of the Twin Towers…"
We are supposed to feel foolish for feeling "inflamed," you see. Well, I don't.
He tries to minimize the very real threat that a few terrorists pose:
"…it is ODD that so many of our fellow citizens SEE THEM AS such a threat."
Wow. 19 of them killed over 3,000, but we are odd, and unduly influenced by the facts. BULL.
These are sick, strange people.
Posted by: Bill Smith at August 13, 2010 03:59 PM (yusoH)
9
What is the little prick trying to say about the small portion of the US population being Muslim? Hey asswipe cancer starts out as a small part of a human body in the begining too. Islam is the cancer of the modern world and not a religion or a faith. It is enslavement and total subjugation of its followers. If we as a nation don't wake up and treat it as a cancer it will surely kill us all.
Posted by: inspectorudy at August 13, 2010 04:27 PM (KOOZL)
10
Islam isn't so much a religion as it is a political project. Any political project which aims at the destruction of our constitution should be suppressed, and its adherents detained or deported.
Posted by: David Davies at August 14, 2010 07:47 AM (hI9dq)
11
OK, let's play this game some more.
It wasn't the actual actions of the HUAC and Joe McCarthy that was so serious, it was the overreaction by the left about being pursued for sedition and treason.
And it wasn't the actual actions of Hoover and the FBI when they penetrated leftist organizations with the intention of promoting illegal activity, it was again the overreaction of the left to that minor occurance.
Finally, it wasn't Nixon's coverup of Watergate that was so serious, it was the overreaction of the Democrats and a few Republicans to those revelations that caused our first POTUS to resign.
Yeah, we can go a long way with this kind of argument...
Posted by: iconoclast at August 14, 2010 02:44 PM (/PcAI)
12
"HUAC and Joe McCarthy"
There you go again. House Un American Activities - Senator McCarthy.
I know in this climate is is hard to believe but the House and Senate had Democrats and Republicans who were against Communism.
Posted by: davod at August 14, 2010 03:10 PM (GUZAT)
13
Never forget that the libs were so worried about 9/11 having an effect on their election prospects that the first anniversary was billed as a day of giving and rememberance.
Posted by: davod at August 14, 2010 03:16 PM (GUZAT)
14
And as much as it pains the democom to admit it, McCarthy for the most part was correct.
Posted by: emdfl at August 14, 2010 08:46 PM (L5EHR)
15
I think the proposed mosque at Ground Zero is a danger to the country because of the message it sends.
It may be that the guy wanting to build the mosque has a right to do it but there are times when some things just should not be allowed.
Thomas Jefferson said it best: "A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property, and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means." --Thomas Jefferson
Posted by: NevadaDailySteve at August 16, 2010 03:46 PM (+xi30)
16
Copied the wrong quote and hit post before I noticed.
"[The] law of necessity and self-preservation... [render] the salus populi supreme over the written law." Thomas Jefferson.
Posted by: NevadaDailySteve at August 16, 2010 03:52 PM (+xi30)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 12, 2010
Dear America: Liberals Want You to Know How They Feel About You
The Coffee Party was a flop. The Other 95% bombed. Crash the Tea Party made progressives a laughingstock. So can they make it any worse for themselves?
Yes they can!
Dem group launches 'F*ck Tea' campaign
Last summer, Democrats argued that the Tea Party movement was the astroturf creation of corporate groups. Now that the grass-roots conservative resurgence has emerged as a clear force on the right, the left is making a different case: That tea parties are simply the enemy.
To that end, the Agenda Project, a new, progressive group with roots in New York's fundraising scene and a goal of strengthening the progressive movement, has launched the "F.*.c.k. Tea project," which is aimed, the group's founder Erica Payne wrote in an e-mail this morning, "to dismiss the Tea Party and promote the progressive cause."
The article goes on to say that Payne is a co-founder of a group of liberal mega-donors that ultimately fund the Center for American Progress, Media Matters and Think Progress. They also have a
profane video (NSFW) that mocks Tea Party supporters and imagines liberals as clever and urbane.
You really must see it to believe it.
My advice? Distribute this far and wide, without distortion. Let America know what the would-be ruling class thinks about them in their quest for more and more power. Let our citizens know how Democratic elitists (and some Republicans as well) feel about their concerns about our economy, our sovereignty, and our nation's future.
I expected this kind of "let them eat tapas" attitude from Michelle Antoinette in private, but never expected her palace guard to be so open about their disdain for the concerns of the majority of America in public.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:39 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Quoting from a responder to another site: “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they get violent, then you win.” Ghandi" This kind of thing just makes you know that we are having the desired effect. Next comes public foaming-at-the-mouth by the lapdog media on national TV.
Posted by: garrettc at August 12, 2010 01:53 PM (DQjJA)
2
Very true garrettc, once they start ridiculing you and getting violent you win.
Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state.
I pray for peace.
But I prepare for war.
It looks to me like CY is getting ready to lose, how does it look to you?
Posted by: Jim at August 12, 2010 03:05 PM (YPeWM)
3
What exactly do these tiny minds have against tea? I prefer coffee, myself, but to hurl such invective at an innocent beverage...
Posted by: alanstorm at August 12, 2010 03:34 PM (1KVW3)
4
Voters to mount “F*ckD em” campaign.
Fits perfectly with Nancy Pelosi’s “NewD irection”
Posted by: Neo at August 12, 2010 03:36 PM (tE8FB)
5
Have the geniuses behind this new campaign been drug tested?
Posted by: daleyrocks at August 12, 2010 04:31 PM (WOj7E)
6
Remember the "Sarah Palin is a c*nt" shirts that were going around during the 2008 campaign?
It seems the tolerant left is once again on display.
Posted by: Troika37 at August 12, 2010 05:01 PM (pPbiA)
7
As I understand the original intent of the Tea Party, it was organized to protest excessive government spending and consequently excessive tax burdens. Most seem to want smaller government. It clearly being demonstrated that big government does little for the economy and personal freedom. I don't see how these objectives are so repulsive.
However, I have seen more injection of religious themes, particularly down here is the South. This includes abortion and to an extent evolution topics. This will clearly turn off a large number of individuals that want more personal freedom in the movement. I stated this in a recent discussion on RedState and was blocked from the blog. So I must have hit a nerve.
We do need to support the original intent of the movement and restore the country to its original fundamentals. I don't really think that voting is going to help that much.
And Jim, make sure you finish your homework before responding. School has started and the first few days are important.
Posted by: David at August 12, 2010 05:43 PM (fw2az)
8
Coffee parody was a flop? Really? I'm still getting spam (which now is routed automatically to a black hole) from C P U S A.
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at August 13, 2010 05:24 PM (mMcLI)
9
The left shows its usual class.
Posted by: David Davies at August 14, 2010 07:49 AM (hI9dq)
10
Jim: "It looks to me like CY is getting ready to lose, how does it look to you?"
To me? It looks like Jim is in deep denial of reality and wishing for a result that is about as likely as the Democrats holding both Houses of Congress this November.
Well, as likely as Democrats holding both Houses of Congress this November absent Clinton- and Carter-appointee judges overturning the results of elections.
Posted by: Mark L at August 16, 2010 09:05 AM (2X4q0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Another Debunking of the Laredo Invasion
Regular reader Bill Smith forwarded me this story from Texas GOP Vote that continues to blow gaping holes in the claims of the sensationalists I've dubbed the "Laredo Truthers."
Just like the people they were named after, the complete lack of evidence supporting their argument only deepens their suspicions that a cover-up
must have occurred, and the less evidence there is, the higher the conspiracy must go.
The probability that there never was an incident, or there was a hoax, or minor infraction embellished to the point of being unrecognizable is far less fun to promote, and at this point, several of the key promoters of this story have bet all their credibility on it being true.
I'll let you pick who to trust.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:49 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
August 11, 2010
The Laredo Truthers Ride Again
The same folks that bought San Diego-based rumors of a Texas invasion by drug cartels several weeks ago are standing by their stories, and now attempting to claim vindication.
Kimberly Dvorak, the San Diego County Political Buzz Examiner that started the story, now
claims to have evidence that her story is true.
Her evidence? An image that she claims is a a screen from a police blotter report.
Digger's Realm is now
trumpeting this as absolution, as is Mondo Frazier from
Death by an Thousand Papercuts and
Big Journalism.
They choose to believe that a supposed computer screen, obtained (or fabricated) by unrevealed sources, that cites neither the name or address of the ranch or the person making the call to law enforcement, proves their case.
The want us to believe that the police officers and sheriffs units that weren't ID'd were deployed, and that the lack of any report of contact or observation by these unknown LEOs is justification for the claims that the various law enforcement agencies and named officials cited in the story who said it didn't happen, are lying.
We still don't have an address. We still don't have a victim. We still don't have anyone with any eyewitness accounts, or physical evidence that such an event took place.
People will believe what they want, regardless of facts. That is the only evidence of anything I've even been able to discern regarding this story.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:37 PM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
It's starting to sound like you are wrong on this one, CW

Posted by: Kevin at August 11, 2010 04:17 PM (GKXDW)
2
I have a simpler question: all issues of provenance aside, why does that "computer screen dump" look like something off a Commodore PET circa 1984? Straight B&W display, no sign of windows, all caps, the only sign of modernity is the san-serif, proportional-spaced font. And I know some people think Texas cops are illiterate redneck bozos, but two and three typos per line isn't believable either.
Posted by: wolfwalker at August 11, 2010 07:43 PM (/5zlb)
3
Hey I got some ocean front property in Las Vegas I'm willing to let go of cheap if any of the brethren here at Yankee Confederate are interested.
Posted by: SR at August 11, 2010 08:21 PM (SZoZW)
4
I retired in 2009 after 30 years as a police lieutenant with Asheville, NC and this does not look like an authentic record to me. As already mentioned it is in black and white and looks like an old style CRT display from the 80's or early 90's. I have had contact with numerous agencies over the last 5 years and almost all agencies with Computer-Aided Dispatch or in-car computers (even very small agencies can afford them now) use modern ruggedized laptops running Windows XP/Vista, etc. with sharp color displays with standard Windows fonts. This is also NOT a computer aided dispatch record of a call - notice the date/time stamp at the bottom shows 7/24/2010 at 7:42 am while the opening of the narrative lists a date of 7/23/2010 - almost all police systems time/date stamp each comment so this narrative was written at least 7 hours after the events supposedly happened. A police dispatcher would know that the system automatically time/date stamps the entries and thus there would be no need in the very intense environment they function in to be redundant by typing the date - you just type the info and let the system date it for you. It also does not read to me like a dispatch record and I have seen thousands of them. What it really looks like to me is an old style car to car message of the kind officers often send each other (those also get time/date stamped by the system). This is equivalent to text messaging on a cell phone. I can tell you from experience that officers with time on their hands will send all kinds of weird joke messages when they are bored in the early morning. If I had to bet, this looks to me like a car to car message from one officer to another on an old system sent to start rumors, start a practical joke, shoot the s**t, etc. We are also not seeing the total screen - if this was a dispatch record, the header to the screen would probably contain the address, date/time, type call, etc - if it is a car to car message there would also be a header telling which unit it was from and which unit it was to, etc. If it is any kind of legitimate police computer message there would be a header of some type, not just an isolated message. This can't be a legitimate law enforcement record. By the way, the mis-spellings are what you would expect from a car to car message typed early in the morning when an officer has worked all night and is tired and trying to type in a hurry while seated in a cruiser.
Posted by: David R. at August 11, 2010 08:37 PM (RYBT1)
5
[Posted by David R. at August 11, 2010 08:37 PM]
Interesting. Can you tell me, what exactly do they mean by a police blotter report. Are those official documents? Are the messages sent back and forth car-to-car, as you say -- the jokes and goofs and such -- part of some record also, or do they basically disappear into the ether after being sent.
I'm just wondering if someone attempts to present a message such as this as an official police document, and it is fake, whether that is illegal, something like impersonating a police officer, especially if they are using real officers' names in the message.
Posted by: Dusty at August 11, 2010 09:06 PM (3WVdK)
6
So, if this is a hoax I hope the hoaxer will be exposed by CY. We wouldn't want them to be able to yank your chain again. Someone might get hurt.
Posted by: Steve at August 11, 2010 09:39 PM (pQYM9)
7
Dusty,
Police blotter is sort of an obsolete term that refers to the big bound record book that desk sergeants kept in the old days in which they listed all the calls for service, crimes, incidents, etc. that happened during their shift. The modern equivalent is the listing you can get from a computer aided dispatch system of the calls, crimes, etc. that happened during a particular time period. The listing is just a report printed by the system - the official records would be the underlying records for each call for service, the incident reports taken on crimes, records of traffic stops, etc that the list summarizes. The official documents are kept for a significant period of time (in NC it is 5 years for misdemeanors and 20 years for felonies) per state statute. The car to car messages are kept for a period of time as determined by the individual agency (the case law is somewhat uncertain as to whether the car to car bulls**t messages constitute official department records which would have to be maintained for a specific period of time). They don't just disappear into the ether. My agency keeps the car to car records as long as there is computer storage space which in practical terms because they are text messages means they are available for years. I frequently warned the officers who worked for me to be careful about the car to car messages because they could come back to haunt them. As far as the legality of the fake message, it would depend on the laws of the particular state. In NC, if it was a joke message with NO intent to make it an official document or to deceive for monetary gain, it would probably not be illegal - however, if an officer made up the message, even as a joke, it could subject him to departmental discipline for conduct unbecoming. If someone falsely used the officers name in an attempt to deceive or have it taken as an official record, there very possibly could be some criminal charges. Hope this answers your questions.
Posted by: David R. at August 11, 2010 09:54 PM (RYBT1)
8
This alleged blotter describes how law enforcement received an emergency call from a worried rancher; how law enforcement responded with appropriate force; how law enforcement found the mountain was a molehill and how law enforcement left some plainclothes in the area to keep an eye on things, just in case.
It does NOT describe how an army of drug thugs and cartel commandos took over a ranch and thwarted law enforcement's attempts to restore order.
If the wild-assed stories were accurate, we'd have heard about hostages, shooting, injuries, sieges and ultimately, arrests.
Like Bob, I'm still calling BS.
Posted by: David L., Lower Alabama at August 11, 2010 10:29 PM (bv1hq)
9
Hope this answers your questions.
[Posted by David R. at August 11, 2010 09:54 PM]
Yes, it did, David, and a very nice job of doing so. Thanks much.
Posted by: Dusty at August 11, 2010 10:37 PM (3WVdK)
10
Absent further data, that screenshot is simply not believable (need we go back to Rathergate all over again?). While my expertise in information security (with 25+ years experience) isn't in the forensics field, I find it troubling that someone would expect me to believe a text interface that was so rudimentary that it lacked screen placement (e.g. curses/ncurses), yet featured proportional type (check out the "squeezing of space" around the letter I, for instance). Give me a green or amber screen (not white on black btw) with fixed type spacing and some oppressive full-screen terminal formatting, be it ANSI, VT100, etc.
Oh, and the wrap that suggests a picture from an old monitor is amusing but distorted. Give me $500 and I'll waste an hour or two to provide a Rathergate-inspired clone.
Posted by: Hatless Hessian at August 12, 2010 12:33 AM (7r7wy)
11
Sorry folks, if this did hsppen, there woulda been a big battle, and the Sheriff dept. would be bragging about asses kicked and bad guys killed. not some silly cover up. This is Texas were talkin about, after all.
Posted by: JP at August 12, 2010 03:05 AM (Tae/a)
12
There's no such thing as "LSO" (Presumably "Laredo Sheriff's Office"). It's the Webb County Sheriff; Laredo is a city in Webb County.
Rathergate Redux . . . all Dvorak needs to do now is proclaim this to be "fake but accurate."
Posted by: Cobalt Shiva at August 12, 2010 07:44 AM (KCVUU)
13
So Kevin, you believe that CY is *wrong* for doubting flimsy claim. The burden is on the person making the claim, not on others to "debunk" it.
Scientific method is cool.
Posted by: brando at August 12, 2010 09:46 AM (IPGju)
14
Note also that there is no "Laredo Sheriff's Office." Laredo is a city and has a Police Department. Laredo is located in Webb County which has a Sheriff's Office.
Posted by: Federale at August 12, 2010 11:19 AM (PWWdd)
15
Holy crap, Batman! A screenshot of a CRT display? It doesn't get any more authoritative than that, does it? And yet CY is still fighting a valiant rearguard action against the tidal wave of TWOOF!!!!11!!eleventy!!!!
We need to ask ourselves, who is bankrolling CY? It's obvious he's in the pocket of some powerful shadowy group. So come clean, man - just how did Big Laredo get to you?
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at August 14, 2010 03:02 PM (M5l4f)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Another Corruptocrat Dies
Another corrupt member of the would-be ruling class goes to meet his eternal judge.
Former Rep. Dan Rostenkowski, the Chicago Democrat who became the leading architect of congressional tax policy in the Reagan era but later went to federal prison for corruption, died Wednesday, a family friend said. He was 82.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:43 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
The Ground Zero Mosque: Prevent It, Because the Want It
[The following essay is a guest post from CY commenter Mike McDaniel]
"The capitalists will sell us the rope which we will use to hang them!" Vladimir Ilyich Lenin was fond of saying. While there was a kernel of truth in his observation, not only did Lenin and his successors fail to understand their enemy, ultimately the Soviets couldn't afford to build the gallows. Cultural misunderstanding and self delusion have been the downfall of more than one nation.
And so we find ourselves contemplating the construction of a mosque overshadowing Ground Zero. Many Muslims and a great many leftists are speaking with one voice and using the same propaganda techniques. Foremost among them is a sort of constitutional Ju-Jitsu whereby the freedoms and tolerance inherent in the Constitution and the Judeo-Christian ethic are used against America.
"Tolerance demands that we allow Muslims to build a Mosque wherever they want but particularly here! Freedom of religion! Freedom of speech! Freedom of assembly and association! Tolerance! Muslims around the world will see that we like them and they in turn will like us! Muslims have legitimate grievances and building the mosque will address them! They want to build it there to establish a dialogue! It's a community center where we can all come together and build, you know, like, a bridge or a community or something!" They cry, boldly thrusting their receding chins fractions of an inch forward.
There is one reason to prevent the construction of this mosque that is compelling and self evident. It is the only reason we need: We should prevent it because they want it.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:36 AM
| Comments (27)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
There is this basic American concept, enshrined in the constitution, of freedom of religion.
Obviously, it wasn't codified into law to protect the religions no one objects to. It was made into law to protect the religions people hate. That's the point!
Either your for freedom of people to practice their religion where and how they want, or you're living in the wrong country. You'd like Iran.
Oh, and it's a community center that contains a small mosque. Like how YMCAs contain small chaples.
Posted by: Steve at August 11, 2010 12:04 PM (pQYM9)
2
Oh, and it's a community center that contains a small mosque. Like how YMCAs contain small chaples.
Posted by: Steve at August 11, 2010 12:04 PM
And how many Jews and Christians will be allowed to set foot in this 'Community Center'? Will they be able to say a prayer in this 'small chapel'?
Let me ask you some things, Steve...
How do you feel about the name Cordoba House Mosque?
Do you understand the signifigance of that name?
Should people who's religious beliefs include slavery of women, murder of gays, and denial of religious freedom of other religions be allowed to freely practice that religion?
Posted by: StanInTexas at August 11, 2010 12:21 PM (XO0X4)
3
Steve, No one is advocating religious intolerance, except the Koranimals. This "community center" is a victory shrine, plain and simple. If they had wanted to put anywhere other than basically ACROSS THE STREET from the smoking hole in the ground where the twin towers used to be, no one would have said a word. Are you familiar with the terms "Dar Al Harb" and "Dar Al Islam"? Look them up sometime, along with the term "Dhimmi". Don't be surprised if a picture of Mayor Bloomberg is next to the definition.
Posted by: Jeremy at August 11, 2010 12:25 PM (eMy3J)
4
This "community center" is a victory shrine, plain and simple.
This is a lie.
Another classic right wing lunatic--trashing the Constitution while wrapping himself in the flag, and violating the 9th Commandment while claiming to defend Christendom.
Posted by: mondo dentro at August 11, 2010 12:32 PM (MfZI5)
5
First off, it doesn't matter what someone told you the purpose of the mosque is, or that it's a mosque vs a community center. Or even that it's not really that close to the site where the World Trade Center stood. The one fact here is that the constitution makes freedom of religion, IN PARTICULR UNPOPULAR RELIGIONS, a pillar of this country.
America, love it or leave it! Learn the rules. They work to everyone's benefit, eventually.
P.S. Nobody demanded a halt on constructing Christian churches in Oklahoma Ciry post McVeigh.
Posted by: Steve at August 11, 2010 12:38 PM (pQYM9)
6
mondo dento,
You wish to call this a lie. What are you basing this contention on?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 11, 2010 12:38 PM (gAi9Z)
7
That's a good one, CY. You just make stuff up and you're asking me that question?! What are you basing your contention on?
By the way, it disgusts me that you take as your moniker a reference to the greatest single act of treason ever committed against our Republic.
Put you money where your mouth is and take up arms. Stop being a coward who just incites other to do so. I look forward to the second defeat of the Confederacy.
Posted by: mondo dentro at August 11, 2010 01:02 PM (MfZI5)
8
Steve,
I hear you. You support freedom of religion (now that it is convenient).
But what are your thoughts on the separation of church and state? The last I heard tell, most secular lefties were utterly opposed to the mixture of state power and religion. Islam, to it's very core, is an aberration to that separation, being entirely formed as a politicized religion.
It would seem that if there was any logical consistency about the left-wing insistence about the absolute separation of religion and state power, that Islam, as the most purely inter-meshed hybrid of both, must be banned... and therefore, all mosques.
You're on both sides of the issue. Please pick one.
Or is the truth far more simple, and that you hate Republicans more than the misnamed Religion of peace that delights in using you as useful idiots?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 11, 2010 01:08 PM (gAi9Z)
9
Islam, to it's very core, is an aberration to that separation, being entirely formed as a politicized religion.
No kidding. That's why lefties (and not just the secular ones) say "a pox on both your houses" when it comes to fundamentalists. But my political view on that topic has nothing to do with the Constitution's enshrinement of freedom of religion.
Let me ask you this, CY, since you seem to think you have the standing to challenge others' consistency: if a Moslem blows up a government building, that's terrorism, but when a Christian blows up a government building, why is that just some sort of "aberration" carried out by a "deranged individual"?
Posted by: mondo dentro at August 11, 2010 01:18 PM (MfZI5)
10
mondo dento,
I ask for specific evidence for your contention that the author of this post lied. You have not provided any... none. We must therefore conclude that either you cannot find any evidence to support your contention, or that you know the truth and prefer to avoid it.
In other words, you are a blowhard.
As for the name of this blog, I'd reference the About page of this blog, which rather clearly explains that the name of this blog came not from a desire to re-fight the Civil War, but from my mocking of another dim-witted left-winger... rather much like yourself!
Of course, that undeniable and well-documented truism has never stood in the way of dullards creating their own reality-based community in which a blog originally named to slam a lefty and which also symbolized the convergence of two cultures through marriage has been misrepresented.
Rather like your belief that this essay MUST be a lie it is something you just "know"... damn the facts, or reality.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 11, 2010 01:23 PM (CwGYU)
11
If a Muslim murders innocents and attempts to blow up a building (it doesn't have to be a government building, and typically isn't since they are usually well defended), shoots up women and children, blows up a bus, crash airliners, etc, they do so to strike a blow for their religion, following mandates specifically recognized in their religion, for a favored place in the afterlife promised by their primary prophet and faith for destroying unbelievers and heretics.
If someone calling themselves a Christian committed an identical act, he does not do so with the blessing of his religion's primary prophet... instead he acts 100% counter to his faith, the teachings of his prophet, and instead of striking a blow that will send him to heaven, more than likely has committed his soul to Hell.
And I'm still waiting for you to defend your claim the the author lied, and beginning to think your a rather predictable drone without much to contribute to the conversation.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 11, 2010 01:34 PM (CwGYU)
12
First off, it doesn't matter what someone told you the purpose of the mosque is, or that it's a mosque vs a community center.
So, first it is a community center, now it doesn't matter what it is. How convenient that you get to change your argument mid-stream
Or even that it's not really that close to the site where the World Trade Center stood.
Close enought that a piece of one of the plane landed on it.
The one fact here is that the constitution makes freedom of religion, IN PARTICULR UNPOPULAR RELIGIONS, a pillar of this country.
Unless that religion is Christian. Then it is all about 'separation of church and state'. Sorry, but the Constitution says nothing about allowing unpopular religions anywhere. All it says is that we have the freedom to worship as we please without government interfering. Of course, if a particular religion worships by killing people that don't beleive as they do, that's a bit different, isn't it?
America, love it or leave it!
Right back at you, skippy!
Learn the rules.
Already know them. You, on the other hand, could use a refresher.
They work to everyone's benefit, eventually.
So long as we convert to Islam or live as 2nd class citizens, you'd be right. I happen to like my freedom.
P.S. Nobody demanded a halt on constructing Christian churches in Oklahoma Ciry post McVeigh.
First, McVeigh was not a Christian or following Christian doctrine. That cannot be said of the Muslims terrorists.
Second, Christian churchs are still not being rebuilt in the same area due to governmental interference. Why is a Mosque getting fast-tracked through?
Posted by: Steve at August 11, 2010 12:38 PM
Posted by: StanInTexas at August 11, 2010 01:44 PM (XO0X4)
13
...on the other hand, though, I've heard another theory about the mosque.
It's a real estate scam.
It turns out that the guys who want to build it own only half of the lot, and have a lease (with option to buy) for the other half, and have been paying quite a lot of money every year for a while now. They don't seem to have the money to purchase the land, though, and seem to have come up with this scheme to fund a purchase/buyout of their failed investment. If they get enough money to buy it, but not enough to build, they win anyway...
Posted by: cirby at August 11, 2010 01:45 PM (ci9Rh)
14
"Being entirely formed as a politicized religion." Really? While a number of radicals have tried to politicize Islam in recent years, to state that it was "entirely formed" as a politicized religion is just plain, flat out incorrect. As someone once said, you're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts.
Posted by: Abdullah the Butcher at August 11, 2010 02:02 PM (UPFnn)
15
It is true that the Constitution protects religion. But what do we do when we are at conflict with a religion?
Perhaps the greatest diservice that Bush did was to frame the current war in terms of teror. This is like FDR saying he wants to fight Zero planes. Our war is with Islam. The majority of Muslims have not denounced the actions of 9/11 and it is framed into aspects of their religion and celebration. That is why Americans do not want a religious center near the area of Muslims killing of innocents.
Compare and contrast to the IRA. They carried out terror acts but were roundly denounced by Christians and especially the Catholic church.
Posted by: David at August 11, 2010 02:22 PM (dccG2)
16
That guest post hits the nail squarely on the head.
Those who doubt or deny the stated facts really need to educate themselves about islam (I refuse to capitalize it) before we're turned into a bunch of dhimmis in our own land.
The proposed mosque at Ground Zero is but a single step in the long process of imposing conversion or submission upon us.
As was stated, in the view of the muslims, there are ONLY 3 choices available to us: Convert, Submit (dhimmitude), or Die. It's that simple. It's what they're taught and it's what they believe.
I choose the 4th choice: None of the above.
Posted by: Charles at August 11, 2010 04:59 PM (P2cPq)
17
Anyone who would call Islam a religion is nuts or a Muslim. It is a socio-political legal control system. God or Allah is only used to convert or kill anyone whom they meet and as the bad guy to control Muslims. Islam controls a Muslim's life from birth through death and all laws of the federal or local levels come second to Sharia laws. They condone honor killings and female mutilation as well as total subjugation of women. They are taught that to advance the cause of Islam one is allowed to lie, cheat and in anyway be dishonorable. They allow no religion to occupy their space in property, deed or membership. This is truly a suicide pact that the West has signed onto by allowing this evil cancer to flourish. If we as a nation had any self respect we would forbid any Mosque in the 911 site and also require that any meeting or other events inside a Mosque must be recorded and video taped. To keep it fair do the same to all real religious houses of worship. Muslims and preachers like Jeramiah Wright would be exposed for what they truly are, haters.
Posted by: inspectorudy at August 11, 2010 05:10 PM (KOOZL)
18
he one fact here is that the constitution makes freedom of religion, IN PARTICULR UNPOPULAR RELIGIONS, a pillar of this country.
The Constitution says nothing of the sort. It says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
It does not say that a state body (Con Ed, in this case) has a positive obligation to lease property to any religion. And it says nothing about "in particular unpopular religions"
Posted by: flenser at August 11, 2010 05:56 PM (GVBZS)
19
Flenser,
Islam is unpopular just like Nazism was unpopular. Muslim's have been killing innocents for at least 50 years. To what end? That they don't like Israel. Guess what, I don't feel that Israel should have been formed in the manner that it was. In fact, most who would look at the history of the state would not be happy with what happened. But take it out on Israel. Or target politicians. But to attack innocent people in the name of a religion is to discredit that religion and make it a political body. Their is a big difference.
Posted by: David at August 11, 2010 08:23 PM (fw2az)
20
"P.S. Nobody demanded a halt on constructing Christian churches in Oklahoma Ciry post McVeigh.
Posted by Steve at August 11, 2010 12:38 PM "
Why would they do that? McVeigh was an atheist
Posted by: Dan Kauffman at August 11, 2010 08:46 PM (5ZsaL)
21
hoe boy are the leftists stupid on this.
Islam was formed as a militant religion.
When a person today gets lost down a hole fore several days without food and water and comes out spouting gibberish, we consider them delirious.
A certain general did this once and a religion got based on this maniac's rantings. That is islam.
This general then got his followeres to conquer some lands and ruled (far less enlightened than the history re-writers would have us believe) until the areas people drove them back out.
When Osama Bin Hidin demands the return of the lands to sharia law, he means Spain, Portugal, Parts of France Russia, Georgia, India, Hungary, etc. Any place they ever won a battle they think they are owners of. Even if they got kicked out the next week.
I'm sure the leftists would also let Mongols demand their lands back conquered by Kahn.
Freedom of Religion is not Freedom FROM Religion. this is the problem most leftist fools have, especially the atheists among them. I too am an atheist, but 99% of the hissy fits tossed by these maroons are baseless, and that other 1% are just over reaction. Yet, all these same fools are now all for backing this. "To promote better understanding". Understand This.
CONVERT OR DIE. That is what Islam is telling you. They might decide not to kill you, but enslavement is just fine with this religion. There is a reason just about every modern case of slavery in the day and age is committed by followers of islam. Roots? The white man did not chase africans around to capture them for shipment. . . they bought them from Islamic Arabs.
OKCity?
Christianity does not celebrate the attacks. Islam does. A majority of them danced in the streets at the news of the attacks. McViegh was agnostic at best and a fool who was not supported by the holy book (any version of the bible) or given assistance and support from any church. You cannot say the same thing about Atta and the deadly fools with him. His Koran covers what he did and several mosques gave material support to him and his band.
Tell you leftist fools what. . . las change it from a mosque/community center to a Church.
A big cathedral with a center to promote the pastor's teachings. . . you all for it?
You still support this idea?
Lets make it the phool Phred Phelps' Baptist congregation who wants a big church on this site so they can make the claim it was because god hate gays. And they will teach gay hating in their little center attached.
You'd be all for it then too, right?
Maybe then you'd know how any right thinking person feels on this matter.
And being as muslims do not tolerate gays, there is not much difference in the teaching of them and Phecking Phelps.
Posted by: JP at August 12, 2010 02:59 AM (Tae/a)
22
Can someone especially Steve and Mondo show me the exact wording in our constitution where it says these folks who in my opinion are devoid of simple common sense have the right to build a mosque at ground zero?
Are you folks that devoid of common sense to realize that the place needs to be moved a distance away. Are you so far out of your own USA citizens way of thinking that you simply cannot think llogically how it is a bad idea for this mosque to be put where it is put. Let me guess, you also support Fred Phelps quest to humiliate people who are grieving the loss of their relatives who have defended your sorry arses over seas is okay with you too...eh? SO here we are , 70% of Americans do not want mosque build yet you seem to think 70% of Americans whom you walk amongst daily are out of touch with the constitution...hmmm...again show the wording of where it says they have the right to build a mosque there. NIOw put all yoru silly civil rights religious freedom mumbo jumbo aside and talk as an individual American...you actaully really think this mosque is a good idea knowing deaaamm well the heartache it will cause your fellow Americans? Really?
Posted by: ted at August 14, 2010 07:10 AM (XPcxw)
23
if you read the Karan (Original ones and not the Koran they sent to the west) you would see that Islam is not a religion, hell like worshipping Satan!
Posted by: jim at August 14, 2010 03:38 PM (0qENz)
24
Confederate Yankee wrote:
"Steve,
I hear you. You support freedom of religion (now that it is convenient).
But what are your thoughts on the separation of church and state? The last I heard tell, most secular lefties were utterly opposed to the mixture of state power and religion. Islam, to it's very core, is an aberration to that separation, being entirely formed as a politicized religion.
It would seem that if there was any logical consistency about the left-wing insistence about the absolute separation of religion and state power, that Islam, as the most purely inter-meshed hybrid of both, must be banned... and therefore, all mosques.
You're on both sides of the issue. Please pick one.
Or is the truth far more simple, and that you hate Republicans more than the misnamed Religion of peace that delights in using you as useful idiots?"
========================================================
I'm not surprised that you advocate banning an opinion that you don't agree with. Saddened, but not surprised. What you don't understand, CY, is that while Steve and myself may not approve of all Islamic tenents, we don't fear them and we don't have a need to impose our tenets on them because...wait for it...we don't live in an Islamic society.
I see nothing contradictory about Steve's position. You are the one trying to impose an American ideal of separation between church and state on a Muslim platform that does not have that tradition. It sounds like more neo-conservative "soft imperialism". Look how well that worked out for previous Republican administrations.
I see that it bothers you that a Muslim community center/mosque will be build near 'Ground Zero'. Go protest your little heart out. I think that you are paranoid and ignoring the basic principles of the U.S. Constitution but you would not be the first and you won't be the last.
Posted by: Kenley Davis at August 17, 2010 02:26 PM (WRUzF)
25
IF they build it, burn it down. Or have a protest rally of millions of people, and tear it down by hand. If they rebuild, re-burn/tear down. It's NOT a matter of religious freedom, it's a matter of sensitivity to fellow citizens who lost loved ones on 9/11/01!
If the American people lack the will and courage to burn or tear down this slap in the face of ALL AMERICANS, then put a gay bar on one side and a Women's Rights Organization on the other.
Insist that Christians be allowed to enter the Mosque/community center or whatever they decide to call it. And every time one visits, take a part of it back out the door with you.
The radical muslims who are pushing the building of this mosque want to use "tolerance and sensitivity" against us to manipulate us into allowing them to build this insult but are themselves totally intolerant and insensitive to the victims of the jihadist attack against America on 9/11/01!
My last word to them is: well, it starts with an F and ends with a K and is often symbolized with the extension and presentation of the middle finger.
Posted by: Spook at August 19, 2010 11:56 AM (9rPq2)
26
Oops. Correction. That should've been, "ends with a U" not "K."
Posted by: Spook at August 19, 2010 11:59 AM (9rPq2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 10, 2010
Otter Crash Kills Five, Including Former Senator
Via Fox News:
Former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, one of the longest-serving senators in U.S. history and a tireless advocate for his state, was killed in a plane crash southwest of Anchorage Monday.
A spokesman for the family, former chief of staff Mitch Rose, confirmed to Fox News that Stevens was among the five dead. He was 86. Colleagues of the veteran lawmaker, who had waited all day to learn of Stevens' condition, mourned his loss and described him as an Alaskan "hero."
Hero to some, example of entrenched corruption to others, Stevens was the third prominent and controversial old guard Senator to die in recent memory, with Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Robert Byrd (D-WV) also passing away within the past year.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
05:21 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Yep, sorry I can't grieve for the death of the old school, corruption entrenched liars and theives. Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd and now ole' Stevens. I hate that my heart has become so hardened as I know someone must have loved them but I deeply resent what they have done to this country, thus me and my loved ones. So, good bye to another contemptable pol, and may God sort'em out.No tears here.
Posted by: bad-daddy at August 10, 2010 05:31 PM (VlpEo)
2
bad-daddy, with contempt for them all, I agree whole-heartedly. The remainder, I fear, may take a little more effort to remove to their rightful resting places.
Posted by: twolaneflash at August 10, 2010 08:01 PM (svkhS)
3
Well they have to go, one way or the other.
All of the self serving old corruptocrats like this dude need to go. Assuming room temp is as good a way as any.
Posted by: maxx at August 10, 2010 09:42 PM (bFNvP)
4
Disclaimer: I am an Alaskan.
He brought billions of dollars here (Alaska) that were taken from others (non-Alaskans) in taxes. He was, no doubt, part of the problem.
However, he was out of office. I would, perhaps, feel differently about him if he was still serving. If a serving government official dies, and that death helps the nation by ridding us of the problem, that is good.
Stevens' death, however, helped nothing. His damage doing days were over. He was just an old frail man.
Justin
III
Posted by: Justin at August 11, 2010 01:57 AM (gjh5h)
5
They happen in threes. No sorrow for a corrupt old man who had nothing but his own interests at heart.
Posted by: Old Retired Petty Officer at August 11, 2010 02:11 AM (amSdl)
6
Justin,
Being out of office makes little difference. They still have influence and use it. In my experiences, the absolute worse are the mid to lower level beuracrats that use their limited influence to try and position themselves for whatever gain or just to watch you hurt. Thes are as bad as the politicians.
Posted by: David at August 11, 2010 09:33 AM (dccG2)
7
a corrupt old man
The evidence of his being "corrupt" would be what, exactly?
The Stupid Party really surpassed themselves with Stevens. Yeah, it ended up giving the Democrats sixty votes in the Senate, but the important thing for Republican voters was making a grand and really STUPID gesture.
Posted by: flenser at August 11, 2010 10:41 AM (GVBZS)
8
"but the important thing for Republican voters was making a grand and really STUPID gesture"
=================
Yes, we did that in 2008, and got Dumbo as a result. We will correct our error in November, and again in 2012.
Posted by: Robert at August 12, 2010 06:11 AM (BYECi)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 09, 2010
Defending Liberty
Now posted as well at Andrew Breitbart's Big Government.
Update: Greg at
Rhymes with Right riffs of this in
We Are The Revolution People.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:54 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
August 08, 2010
Defending Liberty
Over the course of the past week I've written several entries that have infuriated the would-be tyrants among us.
- A Nation on the Edge of Revolt warned that "either the American people—not extremists, but good and decent patriots like your neighbors and yourselves—will revolt and destroy the ruling class and reform our government based upon first principles, or the United States we know as our forefather conceived it is dead."
- Closer to Midnight attempted to answer a veteran's question about why patriotic Americans that value our First Principles should prepare for a possible conflict if the corruption of our government cannot be tamed at the ballot box.
- We Get Letters! and We Get (More) Letters! chronicle the typical threats issued by followers when they cannot intellectually defend their unconstitutional actions with a reasoned justification for their behavior.
- The Edict-Makers notes the continued destructive path of the would-be ruling class, and the abuses they would heap upon the Constitution and citizens in their desperate quest to grab more power for themselves.
- Pre-Revolutionary, last but not least in this series of posts, highlights the revelations of experienced Democratic operative Pat Caddell as he notes the fracturing of his party and the attempt of the elites in the party to rule instead of serve the American people.
It will come as no surprise at all that those institutions and individuals that serve as adjuncts to the would-be ruling class have attacked this series of posts.
Media Matters attacked them twice.
Conservative media figures openly discussing revolution...again places me among the company of Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh as some of the conservatives in the media that note well and understand this point in history... though they obviously offer their own spin to evoke a response from their readers.
Wash. Examiner's Owens suggests right-wing violence will be necessary, hopes we "feel threatened" is their same-day response to
Closer to Midnight (link above), partnered with a none-too-subtle attempt to pressure the Washington
Examiner into silencing me and others who would raise the alarm about the constitutional abuses and usurpations being orchestrated by their masters.
Other leftists have followed the lead of
Media Matters, and continue down the path of disinformation they hope will help them divide and conquer this nation's citizens.
At left-wing
Daily Kos, "bernardpliers" attempts to claim that I advocate "
an explicitly racial war." The author selectively drops quotes from this blog in this entry, and of course,
not one of them supports anything at all like a conflict driven by concerns over race. Only the left is concerned with race. Unsurprisingly, the rest of the post concerns itself with noting possible points of division within the various groups opposing their encroaching tyranny, instead of attempting to defend their actions and goals.
The "divide and conquer through race" strategy is nakedly on display at
Balloon Juice as well, where "Dennis G." makes his
attempt to claim that opposition to would-be ruling class machinations are nothing more or less than an attempt to revive his vision of the Confederacy of the Civil War.
This axis of weevils may be blatantly dishonest, but they have a clear agenda. They would like to portray opposition to their plans as racists. They would like to portray political and media figures (even admittedly minor ones such as myself) that stand in opposition to their usurpation of liberty as neo-confederates, attaching the stigma of slavery and defeat to their opposition. It is a clever rhetorical device and an emotional one. It will succeed in inflaming the easily led, but the primary goal of this attempt at labeling their opposition is to try to silence the good and decent people who recognize our present Constitutional crisis, and would stand against it.
So let us take on this attempt at division and deception as directly as possible.
Liberty is colorblind. It does not see in shades of yellow or beige or brown or black. Liberty speaks without accent, and with all of them. It cares not whether your ancestors hail from misty islands, verdant savannahs, frigid steppes, or tropical jungles. Liberty is
liberty, freedom of men and women, freedom of thought, freedom of the spirit, and freedom from constriction and stasis, that all real men and women crave like water or air.
We care about liberty. We are devoted to our nation, because we acknowledge and weigh its faults and superlatives, and know that we represent the best hope for true freedom and equality mankind has to offer. We are not blind to the mistakes and evils of our collective past; we seek them out, and overcome them. We will not be guilted into becoming a second-class nation because some choose to cling to division as a method of control.
We are revolutionary. We are
evolutionary. We look to restore the government to its proper role, as servant of the people. It must once again be made into a precision instrument that empowers, replacing this corrupting enterprise that seeks to punish and enslave the people for the enrichment of the self-styled elite.
Good men and women know that the story of these United States is far from over, and we will not accept the leftist trope that our nation's best days are behind us. We are a nation of incredible ingenuity, kindness, and hope. We are a nation of dreamers, but we are also a nation of action.
We will not be guilted into silence, nor bullied into becoming a lesser state.
We will not stand by and trade the bright future of our nation for the weight of oppression, and we will not be silenced or defined by those comfortable in their chains.
Feel pity for the poor souls who wallow in the misery of mediocrity and unrequited dreams, but refuse to be defined by them. We are Americans, citizens of the United States, defenders of liberty and represent the best this world has to offer.
And we will never accept being anything less.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:14 AM
| Comments (27)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I'd like to thank the mindless left for being the catalyst for you to write this brilliant piece that accurately describes not only the conviction in my mind, but also in my heart.
The left can continue to try to obfuscate the issues at hand, but in the end they only succeed in painting themselves into a corner as their attacks show to the world their true intent.
Bravo! (and pass the ammo)
Kind regards,
David
Posted by: David at August 08, 2010 10:03 AM (bUq5q)
2
Doesn't matter what you write or say. If you oppose them and their boy, you're a RACIST. The fact that these scum are actually only projecting their own race-based emotions/desires on to anyone disagreeing with them will never enter their pointy little heads.
The good news here is that except among themselves and their media pimps and whores(and the dnc - but I repeat myself), their charges of someone being a racist no longer carry any weight.
As some put it so well a while back, I don't hate/depise obumble because he SAYS he's black(which in itself is a stupid), but because he IS RED.
Posted by: emdfl at August 08, 2010 11:16 AM (cFRUM)
3
Thank you for putting it so eloquently. I've tried to respond before, but wind up so angry I can't write words you could print.
Those of us who actually have lives and are too busy -- and not inclined to make it our business to tell others how to live and what to do with what they earn and create anyway -- are far beyond fed up. I've heard the arguments of the Far Left ad nauseam: Bush did this, Bush did that; you're a racist; any reasonable person can see . . . ; I'll come and burn a flag of rebellion on your lawn; etc.
It doesn't seem to occur to these busybodies that you can only push a free man/woman so far. (Too much to expect, I guess, that they might learn a little from history.) When governments take over the lives of the people, they always go to the extreme. And good and innocent people always get hurt before some semblance of balance is regained.
Let the flag-burner show up on my lawn. We'll have a very short discussion. I, like many others, don't look for or start trouble, but I have plenty of it to go around.
Posted by: Goatroper at August 08, 2010 11:32 AM (l0xOh)
4
Still my favorite saying when confronted with the RACIST label is-
"I am not a racist, I believe that if you spend the time to get to know someone you can find a much better reason to hate them"
Makes them slack jaw every time.
Posted by: AndyJ at August 08, 2010 11:35 AM (Lik9t)
5
Very well and eloquently said - thank you!
Posted by: Gray Wolf at August 08, 2010 11:52 AM (WgKkU)
6
Liberty is colorblind. It does not see in shades of yellow or beige or brown or black. Liberty speaks without accent, and with all of them. It cares not whether your ancestors hail from misty islands, verdant savannahs, frigid steppes, or tropical jungles. Liberty is liberty, freedom of men and women, freedom of thought, freedom of the spirit, and freedom from constriction and stasis, that all real men and women crave like water or air. Love this comment. As accurate account of my beliefs as I've ever seen expressed anywhere. Thank you CY. and keep your powder dry until November.
Posted by: A Nobody at August 08, 2010 01:39 PM (fEnA4)
7
OK, we talk about the coming violence because we see the actual violence the left is responsible for and we are the ones instigating things?
Was it a leftist or a right-wing person who bit a guy's finger off during a until-then peaceful protest?
Was it a leftist or a right-wing person who grabbed an elderly woman's sign out of her hands and beat her over the head with it?
They can mock me all they like, I consider the source and it doesn't bother me. They can call me racist until the cows come home, I know my feelings on race.
It's when they shove their unConstitutional swill down my throat that I get ready for something.
Posted by: NevadaDailySteve at August 08, 2010 02:02 PM (2JOzu)
8
Of course they lie. They have to, it goes to first principles, when they so egregiously misstate their guiding philosophy. They know "We want to dispossess and enslave everyone" is a hard sell.
They cannot debate because there is no debate - not if they know they can't be honest about their position, so they have to demonize and slander their opposition.
Just bear that in mind, always, and refuse to play the game by their own twisted rules, because the only rule they are faithful to is "Power - whatever the cost."
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at August 08, 2010 02:02 PM (EbRF0)
9
The political elite’s taunts mean little to me because I am a free man, no one owns me nor will anyone direct me. I’ve never required my government to provide me with a job or security; these things are best supplied for me through personal responsibility and initiative. Many of us have served our country in the military, own businesses and hire employees, all of us pay our taxes, provide for our family, act responsibly and vote. We are an accomplished people and we do not need the political class to tell us whether we are good enough or smart enough to decide how to live our lives well. A revolution will not be started by responsible freemen like us but rather by goblins. All of us should be prepared to defend against tyranny and lawlessness within the bounds of the constitution.
We face two serious problems in the coming months (maybe) year(s); contempt of law and the bankruptcy of the entitlement system. The political elite doesn’t respect the wishes of we the people and rule without our consent. This has been happening for years but became widely noticed during the Obamacare fiasco last year. Our politicians use the tactic of favoring one group of citizens over the others to divide us. Because of their gerrymandering we experience unequal justice through all areas of government. When laws are viewed as unjust then respect for all laws will evaporate. This leads to more tyrannical and oppressive rules from the elites and less respect from the people, a vicious circle. The second problem will be the near future crash of the entitlement system which now feeds the goblins. Goblins do not belong to any one race but rather to a group of non-producers who lack initiative, work ethics, skills and personal responsibility. Good people never become goblins just like good people never become fascists. The goblins are the dirty workers of the fascists. When entitlements end or are seriously cut back the goblins will start starving and the political class will lose control over them; rioting, looting and mayhem will begin. The political class will do everything they can to retain power and control, the flash point for revolution will have arrived.
Posted by: peakbagger at August 08, 2010 03:12 PM (nxB84)
10
Great article Bob. My solution to this leftist propaganda and smear machine is to readily admit to being racist. Then ask what the next question is. If we all do this it will have no meaning and will not make headlines.
Posted by: inspectorudy at August 08, 2010 04:29 PM (KOOZL)
11
Only the left is concerned with race.
If you are going to oppose the left, you have to be concerned with race also.
Otherwise it's like saying "Only the Axis are concerned with North Africa".
Posted by: flenser at August 08, 2010 06:26 PM (PgihX)
12
flenser:
No, just let the left have racism. Say, 'yeah, so what?' It's not like you WANT to occupy Africa, do you?
I'm a racist, by their definition. And damned proud to be so as well.
Posted by: Bill Johnson at August 09, 2010 10:27 AM (9X1+H)
13
We talk violence because the ballot does not work.
We keep doing things the same way and expect different results? Time is short. The only way to stop the 3rs American Revolution is to hold a Constitutional Convention. Endthe One man offic e of the president and replace it with 3 men. Keep the three branches of government. Stop the annual meeings of Congress. They long ago ran out of relevanr legislation and now have nothing to do other than miss with American lives. Place term limits on everyone. Make thr Supreme Court another stop in the road from bill to law. These few things would solve a lot of problems.
Posted by: Odins Acolyte at August 09, 2010 01:23 PM (brIiu)
14
With due credit given I have posted this in my office. Thanks for saying what I think and feel. Very inspiring.
Posted by: maxx at August 09, 2010 05:30 PM (bFNvP)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 07, 2010
Cop-Killing Leftist Terrorist Buck Dies
Marilyn Buck, another friend of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn involved in left-wing terrorism with The Weather Underground and Black Liberation Army, has died:
On Oct. 20, 1981, she was part of a group of Weather Underground and Black Liberation Army members who ambushed a Brink's armored car carrying $1.6 million at a mall in Nanuet, N.Y.
One guard was killed at the scene. A second was badly wounded. Two police officers were subsequently killed after they pulled over one of the getaway cars.
Buck accidentally shot herself in the leg during the gun battle with police, but she escaped and remained free for four years.
During that time, she was involved in a series of bombings that included a 1983 nighttime blast at the Capitol that didn't hurt anyone but damaged Senate offices. The bomb was purportedly placed to protest the U.S. invasion of Grenada.
Liberals love to pretend that their terrorist acts were a relic of the 1960s, but Buck and her allies were committing murders, bombings, and armed robbery well into the 1980s. Buck was captured in 1984 and confessed to some of her crimes in 1988 to protect her co-conspirators.
Bernadine Dohrn was thought to be an accomplice during the Brinks robbery/murders in 1981, and did seven months for criminal obstruction of justice related to that case. Bill Ayers was at Banks College. Barack Obama was blocks away at nearby Columbia.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
04:51 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
but..but..but the Libs promised me that the Weathermen never killed anybody.
Posted by: brando at August 13, 2010 09:45 AM (IPGju)
2
Chanel Handbags 2009
Chanel Handbags 2010
Chanel Purses
Chanel Handbags
Chanel bags
Coach Handbags
Coach Bags
Coach Purses
Coach Outlet
Coach Classic
Coach Luggage
Cheap Coach Purses
Cheap Coach handbags
Coach Wallets
Coach Tote Bags
Coach Crossbody Bags
Posted by: top-coachbags.com at August 20, 2010 04:47 AM (ApKAm)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
We Get (More) Letters!
Omar Little (omar.little2009@gmail.com) seems to have the same wonderful outlook on life that Omar Thorton does... and I think he's a fan!
Bring the revolution on you racist c**kscker.
If you like, I'll even let you take the first shot. At me. I'll send you my address. You can come to my house. Bring a nuclear bomb if you want. I'll take you weapon from your weak racist *ss, shove it up your *ss and pull the trigger until it goes click. Because it is obvious that you racist c**ksucker confederates need yet another *ss kicking.
You are a typical racist f**k - all loud talk, but a weak *ss p*ssy when someone tells you to jump.
You'll note that Omar uses the same reason and eloquence we've come to expect from the SEIU crowd. He speaks the language of violence well, and he certainly thinks it is intimidating.
But he isn't done yet.
Or maybe I'll come down to your house
And burn the flag of treason on your front lawn. I'll stand there, a symbol of all that liberalism you hate, your sworn enemy. I'll give you as long as it takes for your flag to burn to take your shot. But you're a p*ssy and probably don't even own a gun.
I'm amused. I told him as much.
We should expect more "love letters" from people like Omar, individuals that either imagine themselves to be part of the would-be ruling class, or who are content to subsist on the scraps of liberty that would remain if such tyranny is fully realized. You'll note that like our
last letter writer he's full of vitriol... just not much else.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:08 AM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Humorous with a hint of ridiculous. A whine for everyday enjoyment.
Omar, I hear your mother squealing for you.
Posted by: maxx at August 07, 2010 11:48 AM (bFNvP)
2
Something tells me Omar has never lived in the South. I know that if he caused a problem in my front yard, I would have trouble getting in the first shot.
Posted by: David at August 07, 2010 12:20 PM (OznaX)
3
Looks as if Spencer Ackerman has competition for the Most Dangerous Man Alive title.
Although... "pull the trigger until it goes click?" Where have I heard that before?
Of course. So here we have a guy whose model of hyper aggressive masculinity is the jumpsuit wearing pedophile bowler from Big Lebowski.
Dude.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at August 07, 2010 01:20 PM (ew7v4)
4
Yeah, these nancy-boy SEIU tough-types are a riot! One threatened to pop me between the eyebrows at fifty yds with his 9mm, he was such a marksman. But when I pointed out that his frontsite would obscure almost my entire body at such range, all he whined about was how I was a such chicken! They have to sound "tough" because deep down they know they are all bluff and fully recognize they're entirely out-gunned!
Posted by: Earl T at August 07, 2010 02:02 PM (vCsOH)
5
Does "Omar" realize his side one, that the left wing of the Democratic Party (but I repeat myself) is in charge in the Senate, House and Presidency?
You'd think he'd be happy about that...
Posted by: Exurbankevin at August 07, 2010 11:42 PM (toqoX)
6
I just invited him, and sent him my address. I'll let you know how that turns out.
Posted by: MichigammeDave at August 08, 2010 07:42 AM (6zkIK)
7
I bet Omar holds his pistol sideways and as high as he/she can reach when he/she fires it. Thus he/she can not hit the broad side of the barn at 25 feet range.
Posted by: 1sttofight at August 08, 2010 09:15 AM (yj6H5)
8
Geesh. What a freakin' poserboy.
I have had to do some ghastly things on behalf of this country. I still get nightmares every now and then. I hope that, somehow, common sense breaks out before all hell does.
But I'm also enough of a student of history to know that common sense is not very common, particularly when the ruling class decides starts saying--and apparently believing--idiotic platitudes like "we are the change we've been waiting for."
Posted by: Cobalt Shiva at August 09, 2010 11:18 PM (KCVUU)
9
"omar.little"? Perhaps he's compensating for a problem with organ size? What an out-and-out loser!
Posted by: Charlene at August 10, 2010 08:47 AM (kMO63)
10
I love idiots who learn to shoot at the movies. Keeep it up, make it easy for those of us who actualy spend time on a range. Bring it on Omar, you will never hear the round that gets you.
Posted by: EWoldcrow at August 10, 2010 10:58 AM (Kal6m)
11
Chanel Handbags 2009
Chanel Handbags 2010
Chanel Purses
Chanel Handbags
Chanel bags
Coach Handbags
Coach Bags
Coach Purses
Coach Outlet
Coach Classic
Coach Luggage
Cheap Coach Purses
Cheap Coach handbags
Coach Wallets
Coach Tote Bags
Coach Crossbody Bags
Posted by: top-coachbags.com at August 20, 2010 04:44 AM (ApKAm)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 06, 2010
The Tone-Deaf Tour Continues
Michelle Obama's conspicuous consumption is even infuriating our allies, including the U.K.'s Daily Mail, which rips the free-spending First Lady and her entourage:
Michelle Obama today faced a fresh wave of attacks over her lavish break in Spain with 40 friends, which could easily cost U.S. taxpayers a staggering £50,000 a day.
The First Lady has been lambasted for her extravagance at a time when the economy is still struggling. One blogger went so far as to brand her a modern-day Marie Antoinette.
And her critics will be further annoyed when they learn that the president's wife had a Spanish beach closed off today so that she, her daughter and their entourage could go for a swim.
I'm sure if they made an effort they could find a way to plot a more tone-deaf public spectacle to reinforce the notion that the first family is grossly out of touch with the economic pains being experienced by so many Americans... but it might be tough.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:35 PM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Let's call it the "Marie Antionette Tour"
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
"Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive"
Posted by: LibertyAtStake at August 06, 2010 08:20 PM (PmNi0)
2
Or the "Let Them Eat Cake Tour"
Posted by: Dave-O at August 06, 2010 09:06 PM (qHB+r)
3
It was the worst of times, it was the worst of times. Any new inventions, Dr. Guillote?
Posted by: Zeek at August 06, 2010 10:52 PM (VSDEe)
4
An ARROGANT and NO CLASS First Lady, she has been an embarrassment to the USA since day one !!
When she FINALIZES all her "vacations", she will be received well on the campaign trail ...lol !!!
Democrat candidates couldn't ask for a better poison pill !!
Posted by: Jenna at August 07, 2010 07:09 AM (eXdIs)
5
Let Them Eat Lobster
The simple truth is Barack Obama is a narcissistic flim flam man, in the hip pocket of elite financiers like George Soros. The President, like Nero, is fiddling while his country burns. He couldn't care less about the plight of the unwashed masses. In fact, unlike so many of his democratic cronies, he's even incapable of crocodile tears. It comes as no surprise that his wife acts out the same derangement in character. They are two peas in a pod.
Posted by: Thingumbob at August 07, 2010 08:44 AM (YNduh)
6
I have to wonder why in the heck she needs a 68 strong security detail. Seems rather excessive. Like her entire trip.
Posted by: William Teach at August 07, 2010 09:41 AM (7yTel)
7
She needs a 68 man security-detail because she brought 40 friends along with her on our dim(s). Those guys have to do three shifts/day and cover every place the wookie (and her friends) want to go in advance.
Posted by: emdfl at August 07, 2010 09:56 PM (aIOap)
8
I'm so glad that Michelle has already seen all of America, so we won't be bothered by those air traffic delays and motorcades once Barack gets a new job in about 2 years.
Posted by: Neo at August 08, 2010 08:35 AM (tE8FB)
9
THis is such a disgrace of to the position she is holding. Closing beaches, extravagant spending, The "Material Girl" is sending all the wrong signals to the world. Did SHE EVEN think of going to the Gulf Coast of Florida for her vacation, they are celebrating the National Seafood festival.. Or is THIS BELOW her new held position of "Queen" Beyond dissapointed.... Reference other first ladies, Bush, Clinton, who had the class to go to thier own homes, lake houses, friends estates, national parks for a break.. Who does she think she is, a celebrity..
Posted by: Tom at August 08, 2010 11:10 AM (5KJji)
10
Chanel Handbags 2009
Chanel Handbags 2010
Chanel Purses
Chanel Handbags
Chanel bags
Coach Handbags
Coach Bags
Coach Purses
Coach Outlet
Coach Classic
Coach Luggage
Cheap Coach Purses
Cheap Coach handbags
Coach Wallets
Coach Tote Bags
Coach Crossbody Bags
Posted by: top-coachbags.com at August 20, 2010 04:42 AM (ApKAm)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Brady Center VP Assaulted
Verbally. By what should have been a receptive audience.
Poor Dennis Henigan... Even the
Huffington Post audience knows better than to listen to him anymore, and they
shred him in the comments for his ignoble effort.
When you lie for a living, don't be surprised when even the dimmer members of your audience eventually turn on you.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
05:33 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Bob, you ruined my movie watching plans this evening. I spent the time reading the comments on that HuffPost article, and I was truly astounded. Almost every comment was either outright pro-gun, or at least I-don't-like-guns-but pro-Freedom. Mostly outright pro-gun.
Posted by: Bill Smith at August 07, 2010 12:25 AM (yusoH)
2
Chanel Handbags 2009
Chanel Handbags 2010
Chanel Purses
Chanel Handbags
Chanel bags
Coach Handbags
Coach Bags
Coach Purses
Coach Outlet
Coach Classic
Coach Luggage
Cheap Coach Purses
Cheap Coach handbags
Coach Wallets
Coach Tote Bags
Coach Crossbody Bags
Posted by: top-coachbags.com at August 20, 2010 04:41 AM (ApKAm)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Howard Zinn, The Left's Darling Dead Propagandist
Howard Zinn has long been a darling of pseudo-intelligent leftists (Matt Damon and Ben Affleck come to mind) and his "People's History of the United States" has long been lauded by the progressive university. Because of his near rock star popularity and influence among the self-styled intelligensia it is a bit surprising that information recently declassified by the FBI showing that Zinn was an active communist has seen so little exposure.
Little, as in
next to no media exposure at all.
While Google's search-bot is not the be-all, end-all of devices to ascertain whether or not a story has been buried, I think it is fair to say that the ruling class that suckled at Zinn's anti-American teat are more than a little embarrassed at his outing, and hope to keep his tale under wraps. Online news outlets such as
Pajamas Media are publicizing the scandalous story, but you are seeing no reaction whatsoever to this discovery on cable or network news, in newspapers, or in political magazines like you would if it was discovered that a prominent conservative academic was a member of a radical right wing group that we were at ideological war with for half a century.
Why the silence?
It is simple, really.
Dead communist Zinn is still very much the hero for the left; they dare not tarnish his hallowed image. Further, his contemporaries still exist, and his students still carry great influence in the Democrat/Media complex... you may argue that thy are the Democrat/media complex. Rest assured, they are not silent to protect Zinn's legacy.
They are silent to protect themselves.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:34 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Kind of like the treatment they give their boy in the white house, aye whot?
Posted by: emdfl at August 07, 2010 09:58 PM (aIOap)
2
Chanel Handbags 2009
Chanel Handbags 2010
Chanel Purses
Chanel Handbags
Chanel bags
Coach Handbags
Coach Bags
Coach Purses
Coach Outlet
Coach Classic
Coach Luggage
Cheap Coach Purses
Cheap Coach handbags
Coach Wallets
Coach Tote Bags
Coach Crossbody Bags
Posted by: top-coachbags.com at August 20, 2010 04:40 AM (ApKAm)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 43 >>
Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.2146 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.1957 seconds, 191 records returned.
Page size 158 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.