Confederate Yankee
July 09, 2010
Oakland Riot After Mehserle Verdict
Reminds you of Congress, doesn't it?
The trouble Thursday boiled down to a racially diverse mob of about 200 people, many bent on destruction no matter what, confronting police after the day's predominantly peaceful demonstrations ended.
Sporadic conflicts were quelled quickly early in the evening, but by late night at least 50 people - and maybe as many as 100 - had been arrested as small groups smashed windows, looted businesses and set trash bins on fire.
The violence was contained for much of the early evening within a one-block area near City Hall by an army of police officers in riot gear, but around 10 p.m. a knot of rioters broke loose and headed north on Broadway toward 22nd Street with police in pursuit.
They smashed windows of shops including the trendy Ozumo restaurant, and one building was spray painted with the words, "Say no to work. Say yes to looting."
This was a bunch of progressives/socialists/anarchists bound and determined—regardless of what the jury decided in this case—to do to Oakland what our progressive Congress and President is doing to our nation.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:46 AM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
There's no good reason for destroying property as was done. That said, you seem quick to label and pass judgement.
Minds and morals require cultivation. I think it's a mistake to underestimate the depth of poverty and violence in Oakland and the impact it's had on kids who see the incongruity better than their parents.
You can only beat a dog for so long...
Posted by: Justin at July 09, 2010 10:57 AM (IgfX8)
2
Oh, give me a break. From the article:
Officials said the main instigators appeared to be organized "anarchist" agitators wearing black clothing and hoods. Many of the most aggressive demonstrators smashing the windows of banks and shops were white.
i didn't label these progressive pukes. Witnesses did.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 09, 2010 11:13 AM (gAi9Z)
3
There was no "riot" in Oakland, CA (or anywhere) over the Mehserle verdict.
There was a relitively small (initially peacful) demonstration in Oakland, CA where the police made 100 arrests of the same jobless vandals that show up at every demonstration or celibration (regardless of the cause) to make trouble and a police vehicle accidentlly backed into a woman who had to ba taken to the hospital.
The Mehersle shooting was not about race. It was about an inexperienced and unqualified transit cop who confused his 9mm for a taser and accidentlly shot and killed a man--criminal negligence to be sure, but no murder and certainly not a race-motivated shooting.
Dispite the officer's apparent inability to find his taser with both hands (so to speak) there was no evidence of prior on-the-job excessive force or on or off the job racial animus.
The officer was (and should have been) found guilty of involuntary manslaughter. Case closed.
Posted by: StephenG at July 09, 2010 11:31 AM (oz4IX)
4
Justin,
Have you ever met one of these "poor" people that you cry about? Do you know anything about their social dynamics?
I do. I have taken care of these people for about 40 years in one way or another. To sum it up, they are not like anything you could ever imagine. I am not talking about race. There is an equal mix of black and white and whites are actually increasing in number in the "poor" category. The underlying, unifying characteristic of the bunch is that they are lazy. They are so lazy that they will often not sign up for social programs that would provide them with money and health care. When we ask about symptoms and question about breathlessness, we often have to try and determine if they have a true underlying heart or lung problem that would cause the symptom or if the problem is secondary to the fact that they have never done anything physical in their lives. That includes walking up stairs or crossing a parking lot.
Their ignorance and laziness leads to poor life choices and thus poor health, poor diet, poor houseing and on and on. I once built a house for one of these poor people only to see it destroyed within 6 months due to laziness and an attitude that they do not have to take care of anything.
Posted by: David at July 09, 2010 12:19 PM (kAs1H)
5
I still say we give the anarchists their wish
any protest that these black clad, masked fools show up at we should be free to start shooting them out of hand. This is anarchy and some of us are far better at it than they are. That is why we don't like it.
Posted by: JP at July 09, 2010 02:02 PM (Tae/a)
6
'organized "anarchist" agitators'?
I'll take "Oxymorons" for 800, Alec.
Posted by: Random Commenter at July 09, 2010 04:53 PM (tT5Zj)
7
Posted by JP at July 9, 2010 02:02 PM
It is very amusing that these young punks who fancy themselves anarchists really couldn't survive in the society they wish to create. They aren't really anarchists in the true sense of the term; they are really doctrinaire Trotskyites (if I understand their confused babblings correctly).
Tangle these spoiled kids up with the ones who would be released when someone says "Cry Havoc and let slip the dogs of war" and it would be a short and ugly sight.
Posted by: iconoclast at July 09, 2010 04:53 PM (MZd0C)
8
Organized Anarchists and Master-Card Marxists had been putting up demonstration posters and planning for weeks. Enough so that word got out and one of the arrestees was from out-of-state - solidarity with Oscar! Oscar who's postmortem indicated a blood-alcohol tox of .2 with cocaine and some shit stronger than Dilaudid when he and his buddies were roughing up the BART coucourse. Someone who wasn't always as pretty as his sanitized picture.
After the speeches, when it got dark the anarchists pulled up their bandannas and went to work. For them a riot is a party.
Posted by: DirtCrashr at July 12, 2010 04:43 PM (dRMSX)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 08, 2010
Hints of Conspiracy in Polish President's Crash Investigation?
When investigators start asking about the possibility of man-made fog and interference with the plane's instruments from a distance (a plane recently renovated by the Russians shortly before it crashed, I may add), we end up with the elements of a great conspiracy theory... or a Tom Clancy novel.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:00 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I saw a video from a local news show at the crash scene and they reported so many suspicious events that occured right after the event. There were several gun shots fired during the immediate crash search and people that were not on the plane vanished from different places the same day. Bodies were taken away without permision of the local authority and unauthorized people were present at the scene. It may turn out to be bogus but nothing like that would ever take place here.
Posted by: inspectorudy at July 09, 2010 09:46 AM (Vo1wX)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Predictable: Leftists Wet Themselves Over LA Guns In Church Law
Louisiana's Bobby Jindal signed a law allowing guns in church... and the law seems a bit absurd:
Burns' bill would authorize persons who qualified to carry concealed weapons having passed the training and background checks to bring them to churches, mosques, synagogues or other houses of worship as part of a security force.
The pastor or head of the religious institution must announce verbally or in weekly newsletters or bulletins that there will be individuals armed on the property as members of he security force. Those chosen have to undergo eight hours of tactical training each year.
There is no federal law against carrying guns in church.
In many states there are few if any restrictions regarding legally concealed handguns in church, or for that matter, openly carried firearms, though doing so might earn you some odd looks.
The odd and chaffing bit of this law is that Louisianans carrying weapons must be part of some known security force, and that the church must broadcast such information to church members in every weekly bulletin... perhaps so so timid soul doesn't get the vapors upon seeing a bulge in the pastor's pocket (Yes, pastors carry concealed carry weapons too).
As you may have been able to predict, the typically
law-ignorant left is
freaked out over the the law,
obviously unaware that the law is hardly unique except in it's oddly restrictive requirements.
They apparently think—or prefer— that the right to self protection ends for the faithful at the church door.
Even more sadly, they desperately cling to their own impulsive insecurities and stereotypes. They are apparently still firmly convinced that the mere possession of a firearm will cause someone to go in to an
uncontrollable, homicidal rage:
If you're like most Americans, there's probably been a time in your life when you've been sitting in church, listening to a particularly ennui-inducing homily or enduring another warbly version of "Holy Holy Holy" and thought, "Man! I could really reach for some steel right now, squeeze off a few rounds, and let these fools know what the score is!"
The author of this screed should obviously be kept far away from all firearms, at all times. Responsible citizens, however, are ill served by poorly written and overly-restrictive laws.
Update: Don Surber has another take, calling the the signed bill "
the ultimate law to freak out liberals."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:32 AM
| Comments (25)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I know what you mean, with only 4 states now banning firearms in a place of worship, their must be daily shootouts in the other 44 states (2 states don't allow carry at all).
Where is all the blood in the aisles?
Posted by: MattK at July 08, 2010 10:52 AM (mK7YZ)
2
Churches may one day have to consider having armed volunteers, given the level of crazed hatred being exhibited by many on the loony left toward believers. Back in 2007 there were a number of assaults on Colorado churchgoers, culminating in an incident in which a female armed volunteer deep-sixed an attacker.
Posted by: Spartan79 at July 08, 2010 11:47 AM (MFBDm)
3
Spatan, you may recall some church shootings in Colorado a while back. The lady who stopped the shooter was a volunteer guard for the church and was packing heat at the time.
Banning guns from places works every time....for the killers.
Texas used to ban them from restaurants, and then one day a guy walked into a Luby's and started firing.
One lady, now a state legislator, said all she could think about was "If my gun wasn't out in the car, I could stop this".
She was the person who introduced the repeal of the stupid ban.
Posted by: JP at July 08, 2010 12:02 PM (Tae/a)
4
Leftists against LA GUNS? Will you still at least buy our records?
Posted by: Tracii Guns at July 08, 2010 12:20 PM (5ap+X)
5
It's never enough for you, is it? What kind of dude is named Tracii anyway?
Posted by: Axel Rose at July 08, 2010 02:36 PM (aRm4V)
6
My problem with this is the eight hours a year of "tactical training"??
Which reinforces the "security force" aspect.
In other words, the ONLY way you can carry a gun in church is TO BE A PART of a security force that has official training.
Now, what kinds of organizations can you think of that support armed guards?
Black Panthers? hmmm?
Posted by: captainfish at July 08, 2010 04:27 PM (nnwz9)
7
I used to have a gun control mindset, but these days I've become convinced that you guys simply cannot feel at ease walking around in public unless you are armed. I've never personally feared for my life sitting in church -- I have feared for my sanity during some particularly long sermons -- but if you need to be armed to feel safe so be it.
Posted by: Jim at July 08, 2010 05:07 PM (YPeWM)
8
I haven't been in church for awhile but as I understand it, due to laws against carrying on school property, if the church has a school you have to arrange to be a volunteer security guard in order to carry legally.
I've long thought these laws are silly. I'm recognized as responsible enough to carry a firearm, except when I step over here?
Posted by: Mark at July 08, 2010 09:21 PM (haYX4)
9
This is, of course, childishly irrational, as liberals tend to be.
They imagine all these terrible scenarios which are the products of their own overheated imaginations. There was a movie, Forbidden Planet, where almost the entire population of a planet had been wiped out by "monsters from the id." That is, by monsters created by their own evil minds.
In my view, libs are afraid of their own violent tendencies, which they cannot admit to themselves, so they project them onto us evil gun owners.
Posted by: Bill Smith at July 08, 2010 10:27 PM (1oqgw)
10
Shortly after those shootings in Colorado, a friend was approached by his pastor who asked him, knowing he was active in shooting sports, if he carried concealed in church. The friend said he found himself taking a moment to answer, then replied in the affirmative. The pastor said, "Good." [I spend part of the year in Ohio: you have to get permission to carry in church...]
Posted by: OldeForce at July 09, 2010 12:17 AM (CLcEQ)
11
Laws making it the default to forbid carrying firearms in a church where carrying is permitted in most other circumstances strike me as dangerously close to an establishment of religion in the sense that the Founders would understand it. Some denominations might like the ruling, but other denominations most assuredly would not. Privileging one denomination with respect to another is precisely what the establishment of religion clause was intended to prevent.
Posted by: David at July 09, 2010 11:25 AM (TEIU+)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 07, 2010
Are You Not Entertained?
This past Saturday evening in Alton, Illinois, a 911 call was placed reporting a dumpster fire, and when firefighters arrived, they were attacked with bottle rockets and larger fireworks capable of serious injury or death. The attacks continued even after police arrived (to the apparent delight of the community's residents) The crowd's violent urges only seemed to fade when officers engaged the mob with pepper-balls, a form of the agent used in pepper-spray adapted for use in paintball guns.
Eventually the police ran out of ammunition and withdrew, but they and the fire department returned to engage in further combat later that night with the mob. They've returned to fight arson every day since.
To date, no one has been killed or seriously injured in this on-going crime spree in a sad little public housing complex in a town north of Saint Louis.
Nor has there been much media attention for what the Associated Press
described as a mob luring police and fire units into an ambush "as entertainment for hundreds of people who gathered at the Oakwood Housing Complex to watch."
I thought we lived in a more civilized country.
Obviously, I was wrong.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:47 PM
| Comments (27)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
You know what would be really entertaining? Watching the cops and firefighters watching the complex burn down.
Posted by: Tim at July 07, 2010 02:50 PM (xq7pr)
2
This should be reported, it is shocking to me that people would do this and I say past time to cut off all welfare and force them to work .
Posted by: duncan at July 07, 2010 03:03 PM (lGcPs)
3
Rest easy.
Illinois stopped being a real part of America in the 1960s. As with California and New York, those people have nothing to do with the rest of us.
They're nothing but a burden now, parasites who have nothing in common with real Americans.
Posted by: democratsarefascists at July 07, 2010 03:03 PM (GdalM)
4
Has anyone checked to see if this estate is inhabited by the same "Youths" that set fire to cars in France?
Posted by: Davod at July 07, 2010 03:42 PM (GUZAT)
5
I would be much more entertained watching the entire complex burn to the ground. Or seeing members of the mob shot with something more lethal than a paint ball filled with pepper gas.
But we couldn't allow either to occur. It would be inhuman or something...
Posted by: iconoclast at July 07, 2010 04:14 PM (Srqoz)
6
This doesn't just happen in Illinois. I retired on April 1, 2009 as a Lieutenant with 30 years with the Asheville, NC Police Department and this was a regular occurrence for us for at least the last 10 years on July 4th in the housing projects. It wasn't until the last 5 years that we have even been allowed to fire back with pepperball guns. I personally have been hit several times with fireworks during these occasions. Believe me, once we were allowed to, we used pepperballs, tossed teargas, and put everyone in jail that we could safely get our hands on. It has only been in the last few years that we have even been given enough manpower to handle the problem (usually we had to handle it only with the patrol officers only on duty). The biggest thing that would have helped us would have been the Housing Authority evicting the troublemakers, but we never could seem to get them interested even when we had videotape and criminal charges to back it up. Despite what liberals would have you believe, most housing projects are and will continue to be war zones.
Posted by: David R at July 07, 2010 05:38 PM (RYBT1)
7
The result of decades of CLASS WARFARE!!!! Blame who you will for the start of class warfare, but the animals who do these things think they have the right to do this "To the Man."
As already stated, it would be much better entertainment to let the fires run and burn down the complex - then maby they will relocate to D.C, San Francisco, The Big Apple or L.A.
Posted by: mixitup at July 07, 2010 09:15 PM (Z21cb)
8
We do! They don't. Like France and other nations, we have ceded certain parts of our nation to barbarians for political reasons and through gerrymandering. What was your question again?
Posted by: Doom at July 07, 2010 11:17 PM (6gT2k)
9
It seems that it is well past the time to cut off all utilities going into the site--no more electricity, water, or sewer service. lock the scum in for a few weeks, nothing in or out.
Posted by: John Cunningham at July 07, 2010 11:37 PM (m10dE)
10
You guys have no sense of humor.
Cops come to housing project where fireworks are illegal (Illinois) although sold 500yds away Missouri. No one has been hurt...except the girl with the pepper spray ball
All of you commentators have been watching too much "Escape From New York". My wife is from Alton, it will all calm down. I am disturbed by the "real America" and the barbarians, parasites and those people.
OK which one of you is Snake Plisken. It is sad to see that you have devolved to a "Get off my lawn" guy.
BTW distrust the liberal press except when they identify public housing occupants as a mob and divine their state of mind "luring police for entertainment".
Posted by: wheaton pat at July 08, 2010 05:34 PM (gkX/Q)
11
Hey Wheaton - read the post 4 up from your post - David R - a real police officer with 30 years experience - I guess he needs some of your sense of humor so he can discount all the things he SAW and EXPERIENED in those 30 years!!!! hmmmmmmm
Posted by: mixitup at July 08, 2010 06:04 PM (Z21cb)
12
It wasn't just firecrackers and bottle rockets - they shot the big commercial grade mortars at us and yes we did have officers injured with burns and hearing problems, etc. Also they were pretty indiscriminate and hit some of their own children. Quite frankly, I don't believe most news reports either, but I know what I experienced and it wasn't just a one time or one location event.
Posted by: David R at July 09, 2010 10:52 AM (RYBT1)
13
David R. I apologize for my comment. All I read was that the bottle rockets and firecrackers.
The big commercial stuff is an aggravated assault. Is part of the problem that 2 other public housing projects were closed in town.
I hope someone buys you a beer at Johnson's Corner. I hope it is still there.
Posted by: wheaton pat at July 09, 2010 03:11 PM (gkX/Q)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
BREAKING: Democrat Senators Still Not Dead
Wishing politicians dead is one of the most normal actions a human being can undertake. Sending out fake press releases announcing their deaths?
New, and annoying:
At least three Democratic senators have been subjects of false reports of their deaths in the past two days, prompting the U.S. Capitol Police to open an investigation into the matter.
Several news outlets received a hoax e-mail news release, announcing the death of Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) on Tuesday. Leahy, 70, who participated in July 4 events, is alive and well, according to spokesman David Carle.
"It was spoofed to look as if it had come from the office," Carle said.
A copy of the e-mail, posted on the Web site of Washington's WTOP radio, said Leahy had died of liver cancer.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), an 86-year-old appropriator who recently announced he is free from a form of stomach cancer, was also spoofed, his office confirmed.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who serves on the Judiciary and Appropriations committees with Leahy, was subjected to a hoax of the same kind on Monday, her office confirmed. Similarly, she was said to have died of cancer at her home.
You might assume all of these bogus messages are coming from the same person (and you'd probably be right).
Has anyone seen Helen Thomas lately?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:19 AM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Feinstein sure looked dead on TV the other day. Are you sure about that?
Technically all three could be labeled as brain dead.
Posted by: David at July 07, 2010 08:28 AM (dccG2)
2
"Has anyone seen Helen Thomas lately?"
I got an email that said she had died....
Posted by: arb at July 07, 2010 09:24 AM (aDDc7)
3
Death isn't a career barrier in the Democrap party.
After all, most of their voters are dead, too.
Posted by: democratsarefascists at July 07, 2010 03:04 PM (GdalM)
4
maybe someone forgot to type "brain" in front of the word "dead".
Posted by: J.T, Wenting at July 08, 2010 03:17 AM (jMRqb)
5
I knew Lautenberg was a senior citizen but I didn't know he was 86. Does Chris Christie get to appoint a successor if the likely happens?
Posted by: CJ at July 11, 2010 02:15 AM (R0sMp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 06, 2010
Holder's Injustice Department Sues Arizona... On Grounds of Embarrassment?
The bleating and whining from President Obama and his progressive allies that Arizona's new immigration law is blatantly unconstitutional has been exposed as so much bluster today, as the best the our anti-rule-of-law government can come up with is a weak case built up preemption:
The Justice Department has decided to file suit against Arizona on the grounds that the state's new immigration law illegally intrudes on federal prerogatives, law enforcement sources said Monday.
The lawsuit, which three sources said could be filed as early as Tuesday, will invoke for its main argument the legal doctrine of "preemption," which is based on the Constitution's supremacy clause and says that federal law trumps state statutes. Justice Department officials believe that enforcing immigration laws is a federal responsibility, the sources said.
The glaring weakness in the DOJ's claim is that the Arizona law precisely echoes the federal law, by design.
The reality of the case is that Arizona intends to enforce their version of the law, while Obama-led Executive Branch had no intention of enforcing the federal law.
I'm admittedly not close to being a lawyer, so perhaps my readers can explain something to me.
If this case is the Obama Administration's explicit admission that they do not intent to uphold the law, does that mean that Obama has breached his oath of office? Doesn't this case provided grounds for impeachment?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:57 PM
| Comments (26)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I doesn't matter if it is impeachable if no one is going to start the process. Elections have consequences - how many times have we heard that lately? More importantly, if the federal government chooses the path of nullification then the states will step up and do the same. We are fast approaching the point that if the state governors do not step up and use nullification to put the federal government back in it's box - there will only be one thing left.....
Posted by: ken at July 06, 2010 04:16 PM (u0FmQ)
2
This is entirely personal and political. Obama's case has no chance of winning. First, the legal issues:
(1) States share concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal Government in matters of law enforcement. This doctrine applies here: the state may enforce federal laws. That local and state officers do not do so on a daily basis is a matter of convenience, resources, and mutual agreement to avoid unnecessarily stepping on toes.
(2) The states may give their citizens more rights than those provided by the US Constitution, but not less than the Constitution. This doctrine applies only in that illegal immigrants have no specific legal protections under the Constitution, and are clearly subject to federal immigration laws.
(3) Where state and federal laws are in conflict, the doctrine of preemption applies. In other words, where there is a conflict in state and federal law, federal law wins. This doctrine applies here because the Arizona law was written to exactly mirror federal law. There is no conflict with federal law, therefore preemption does not apply. Keep in mind too that no unconstitutional law, state or federal, is legitimate. The Arizona law mirrors and does not conflict with, by design, federal immigration law and that body of law is clearly constitutional. Again, the feds lose.
(4) There is ample precedent, even in the 9th Circuit which encompasses Arizona and where this case will be initially heard, that clearly recognizes that states may enforce federal law. This is not a matter of one obscure case from the early 1800;s, but a long and specific body of law on this case. Again, the feds lose.
No rational attorney considering this case on its merits would have brought it recognizing for the loser it is from its inception. This is not a close call case. This is particularly true in that the only issue raised by the federal brief is preemption and the law on that is very clear. This law, because it is, in every way, federal law, is not preempted by federal law. To win, the court would have to believe that federal immigration law is preempted by the same federal law and that long standing precent does not mean what it clearly says.
So, back to the personal matter. I'm making inference here, but there is evidence to believe that our President takes any affront very personally indeed. And coming from the Chicago Political Machine, personal affronts must be punished. And for our President, an affront occurs when anyone fails to praise him appropriately or dares to profess a criticism or differing opinion.
Politically, Obama is in trouble. He knows that his only hope is to rev up as much minority and leftist base support as possible, thus, this hopeless gesture of raw meat thrown to the base. But some 70% of Arizonans support the law, and that number has to include a great many Hispanics. It is a particularly leftist blindness to see minorities as being of one, easily manipulated mind, a mind controlled by the liberal elite. I suspect that in November, that blindness will be once again exposed for the folly it is.
Posted by: mikemcdaniel at July 06, 2010 07:31 PM (AL1KP)
3
Well said Mike.
Here is a link to MichelleMalkin.com where she makes the same arguement: http://michellemalkin.com/2010/07/06/doj-vs-arizona-the-battle-over-preemption/
Tarheel Repub Out!
Posted by: Tarheel Repub at July 07, 2010 07:08 AM (+LRPE)
4
I'm kind of hoping that this US Gubmint under BarryO fails to uphold many laws, like tax laws, gun laws, fails to redistribute our countries wealth overseas, little laws like those.
The flip side is, AZ is correct, BarryO and his cronies are marxist knuckleheads, and most likely we're stuck with them embarassing the country and our citizens before the world. To say nothing of failure to fulfill his oath of office, BarryO and Holder are letting an obvious danger and crisis on the AZ border continue. To say nothing of NM, TX, and CA. November can't come soon enough.
Posted by: Robert17 at July 07, 2010 09:01 AM (LaaRT)
5
I hope that every American, regardless of where he lives, will stop and examine his conscience about this and other related incidents. This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened. All of us ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as one would wish his children to be treated, but this is not the case.
I know the proponents of this law say that the majority approves of this law, but the majority is not always right. Would women or non-whites have the vote if we listen to the majority of the day, would the non-whites have equal rights (and equal access to churches, housing, restaurants, hotels, retail stores, schools, colleges and yes water fountains) if we listen to the majority of the day? We all know the answer, a resounding, NO!
Today we are committed to a worldwide struggle to promote and protect the rights of all who wish to be free. In a time of domestic crisis men of good will and generosity should be able to unite regardless of party or politics and do what is right, not what is just popular with the majority. Some men comprehend discrimination by never have experiencing it in their lives, but the majority will only understand after it happens to them.
Posted by: Benito at July 07, 2010 03:21 PM (t9AvQ)
6
Dear Benito:
I suspect few who read this site would disagree that the Golden Rule should be practiced by all, and that everyone's rights should be respected. But that's not at all the issue with the Arizona law, nor is it the issue with the immigration "controversy" in general. The issue is one of the respect for the rule of law.
Illegal immigration is a crime. It is a crime in every nation on Earth. It is a crime because one of the principal powers and responsibilities of sovereignty is to establish laws respecting immigration and naturalization and to enforce them. Those in the country illegally do not have, by law, the constitutional rights of legal residents. This too is the law in every nation on Earth. That America routinely affords those illegally in the country substantial privileges and protections is a measure of the kindness of Americans and of American generosity, but it should never be mistaken for the idea that those breaking the law by their mere presence within America's borders are somehow deserving of the benefits of legal citizenship. Citizenship, in any nation, must mean something. Those arguing for unlimited immigration argue for the destruction of the nation and of the rights and traditions that caused them to flee to America.
The Arizona law, for example, exactly mirrors federal law. It does not in any way establish new law that is more restrictive or draconian than already existing federal law. In fact, federal law is, in many way, far more demanding and restrictive. Anyone complaining about the Arizona law actually has an argument with the US Congress, not Arizona.
Americans support Arizona, and are angry about illegal immigration not out of racism or hatred, but because we are a fair, just people who believe in the rule of law and who understand that without the rule of law, applied evenly and fairly, we are all damaged and diminished and our rights will not be respected. We demand that the government close the borders because every problem we face due to illegal immigration starts with the crime of illegally crossing the border. Stop that first crime, and every crime and difficulty that flows from it will also cease. But we know from long experience that our federal politicians cannot be trusted to do that, and so the states are beginning to do what the Federal government will not. And they do, under our federalist system, have that power no matter how much President Obama and his supporters don't like it.
Americans are a kind people, people who give more and more freely than the peoples of any other nation, and by a huge margin, to those in need. We sympathize with people who leave their dangerous, desperately poor nations to seek a better life here. But without the rule of law, American becomes what they have fled.
If you truly want immigration "reform," understand who Americans are. Support an absolute and effective closing and continual control of our borders. Once that is established, you'll find Americans who appreciate freedom and justice more than willing to support changes in the law that allow honest, hard working people to work and live in America, and to become, legally and completely, assimilated Americans. Continue to call Americans racist, denigrate our states for doing no more than discharging their legal, moral duty to protect their citizens when the corrupt federal government will not, fly the flags of other nations and spout racist slogans in the streets, and Americans will not--and this should not be a surprise--support you. Do the citizens of other nations support such behavior within their borders?
Posted by: mikemcdaniel at July 07, 2010 04:08 PM (AL1KP)
7
Well said, Mike McDaniel!
Posted by: Ruth J Campshure at July 08, 2010 07:40 AM (X0qet)
8
It seems that Rhode Island has done pretty much the same as Arizona, by executive order.
It seems that Rhode Island was previously sued ... unsuccessfully.
Estrada v. State of Rhode Island, No. 09-1149
Posted by: Neo at July 08, 2010 11:07 AM (tE8FB)
9
“All Men are created equal”! The founders had it right, when attempting to form a perfect union and they also knew that they were not there yet but knew we one day would get there. Lincoln moved us forward as did JFK and LBJ. This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.
It is my contention that this AZ law is not constitutional and will fail when challenged (unless, of course, they keep adding more amendments), pretty funny for this so called perfect law, that many internet bloggers claim it was copied “Word for Word” from the Federal law, which I frankly do not believe, if it was then no amendments would have been made, right?, of course, keep those lies coming.
As for the undocumented workers, as was attributed to Ronald Reagan “It’s the Economy, Stupid”. When the economy is good you say let’s all celebrate “Cinco de Mayo, my brothers” but when the economy is down “it’s all your fault, you damn immigrant”. This too will pass, the real problem is the narcos, arms and people smugglers and that’s what the focus should be on.
Don’t you find it funny that no one ever voted for Brewer for Governor, she is trying to get elected on the back of undocumented workers, it’s all about politics, do not be fooled. In the last few months Busy Brewer has passed S.B. 1070, no permit conceal weapons law, the famous Birthers law, banning Ethnic studies law, (could she be behind the Mural in Prescott, Arizona) and if history is a lesson and if she can read, she should look up Arizona’s House Bill 2779 from two years ago (which failed when legally challenged) and the craziest one the boycott of Martin Luther King Day, not wanting another holiday, how crazy is that. I believe there is an undercurrent to their enactment of new laws, they real love following a distinct pattern. Poor Brewer, in an attempt to gain sympathy, in an interview she first said her father had died in Germany fighting the Nazi in World War II (which ended 1945) and we find out her father was never in Germany and died in California in 1955 (watch her play the victim card, again) and then she went to Washington and came back empty as always, poor dear.
Posted by: Benito at July 12, 2010 08:12 PM (t9AvQ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Butterfly Defect
My latest entry at the Washington Examiner.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:56 PM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
CY - excellent article - short and to the point. The "law of unintended consequences" is literally destroying this country and it's natural freedoms as outlined by the founding fathers. I personally would add a twist to your article and train of thought. I, and a number of conservatives think that what the core members of this administration, led by Obama - are creating and fostering this damage ON PURPOSE!! There is an evil end game in their minds.
Many think this is happening by incompetence or inexperience in leadership. Au contrair - his evil end game is to create so much damage, chaos and public discontent that the very same public will scream for a savior - and a new KING we will have, and his name is Obama!!!!
I know, it reads like a lunatic conspiracy theory - but just sit back and watch and cry as you NATURAL FREEDOMS are usurped.
Posted by: mixitup at July 06, 2010 01:38 PM (Z21cb)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Is a .30-06 the Best Round for Aliens?
I always thought the .223 was purpose-built for little green men, but to each his own:
Fairfield Police Sgt. James Perez said Dane Eisenman, 57, responded to a classified advertisement for a .30-06 rifle about a month ago. While filing out the paper for the rifle, police said, he mentioned to the seller what he would be using the weapon for.
"He said he was going to use the weapon to kill aliens," Perez said.
The seller was unsure if Eisenman was referring to space aliens or illegal aliens, Perez added. Sgt. Perez said Eisenman told the seller of the rifle every 36,000 years, aliens who live under the sun come to Earth to kill humans, and he needed to be prepared because "They're going to be coming soon."
The U.S. Justice Department immediately
vowed to fight any laws aimed at resisting their invasion.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:19 AM
| Comments (34)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Military-industrial complex secret: the "AE" in ".50 AE" actually stands for "Alien Exterminator".
Posted by: Runcible at July 06, 2010 11:21 AM (g8YRd)
2
The calibers that are mentioned in the prost are fine for regular aliens, but what about zombie aliens? Something to consider. The .223 and the 30-06 are fine, but I'd prefer the 375 H&H for both penetration AND knock down energy.
Posted by: Ralphie at July 06, 2010 11:54 AM (ZOl7o)
3
"aliens who live under the sun"
Ah! They live in the shadow of the sun! I never thought of that.
Posted by: Bob Hawkins at July 06, 2010 12:20 PM (CdyZ5)
4
Except that traditional, chemical energy firearms are useless against space aliens. They have force fields, remember?
No indeed, the only guns that will bring down a space alien is a water pistol or a Super Soaker. Mel Gibson proved it in Signs. In an emergecy, just throw a glass of water on 'em.
Posted by: Donald Sensing at July 06, 2010 03:12 PM (l+MvQ)
5
I'll take the plasma rifle in the 40 watt range.
Posted by: Ah-nold at July 06, 2010 05:19 PM (nc6/K)
6
Okay, he has Grays covered, but what about Reapers and Cyberdiscs?
Posted by: Dixie at July 06, 2010 08:28 PM (ocmre)
7
10 mm, explosive tip, caseless, standard light armor-piercing round.
Posted by: RobinGoodfellow at July 06, 2010 09:06 PM (/fozP)
8
30-06 is wonderful, but it should be delivered through a Browning Automatic Rifle. Otherwise, .45ACP from a 1911 pistol would be my preferred alternative.
JMB(PBUH) built them to stop most anything. I doubt if aliens are exempt.
Worst case, I'll go with a BHP, but my love for JMB designs is a bit stifled by my distaste for the Europellet. But they do make them in a .40 now, so all is not lost on that front either.
Posted by: jefferson101 at July 06, 2010 09:41 PM (hym18)
9
Okay, he has Grays covered, but what about Reapers and Cyberdiscs?
Blaster bombs, of course.
As for Chryssalids, fire everything at them until they're all down.
Posted by: Patrick Chester at July 06, 2010 09:53 PM (RezbN)
10
I actually prefer the .308 Lapua boat-tail, moly coated. Just like NCIS Special Agent Gibbs.
Posted by: Gunpowder Chronicle at July 06, 2010 10:10 PM (7ecJO)
11
Ah-nold wrote:
"I'll take the plasma rifle in the 40 watt range."
Ummmm... don't you mean 40 GIGA-watt range?
A. C.
Posted by: A. C. at July 06, 2010 10:16 PM (jFSHY)
12
The aliens who live under the sun are some of the worst aliens the universe has to offer. But boy do they have nice tans.
Posted by: Kevin at July 07, 2010 07:23 AM (GKXDW)
13
Idiot. Its a 40,000 year cycle.
Posted by: OdinsAcolyte at July 07, 2010 10:32 AM (brIiu)
14
Donald: "I'm Melting! Melting! Oh! What a world, what a world!..." (Wicked witch of the West)
Posted by: OdinsAcolyte at July 07, 2010 10:35 AM (brIiu)
15
"Phased-plasma pulse rifle in 40-watt range"
Posted by: Federale at July 07, 2010 12:17 PM (ceoOP)
16
Clearly the police should be empowered to demand proof of humanity from those they suspect might be aliens.
Also, let's build a fence around the earth.
Posted by: libarbarian at July 07, 2010 05:30 PM (vkZdM)
17
"Also, let's build a fence around the earth."
Then we'd be the Ringworld.
And attract Puppeteers.
Quick, someone call Niven & Pournelle!
Posted by: Lazarus Long at July 08, 2010 08:08 AM (+MZ0U)
18
Ah-nold wrote:
"I'll take the plasma rifle in the 40 watt range."
Ummmm... don't you mean 40 GIGA-watt range?
A. C.
Posted by: A. C.
Shockingly enough the actual quote is "40 watt". Dude, it's PLASMA. 40 watts is enough.
Posted by: arthur at July 08, 2010 10:45 PM (a9o5m)
19
I guess if we're talking the classic "little green men" 5.56mm is the stuff. Get the job done and you can carry lots of rounds.
But if we're talking larger, heftier aliens, like maybe from Predator, then maybe we want something like 12 ga slugs for close in work and .338 Lapua for distance.
I see that I'm going to have to expand my collection once again, darn it.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at July 08, 2010 10:49 PM (gr4J9)
20
H&H .700 Nitro Express for short range. There's no such thing as overkill. Make the FNG carry your ammo. (Contact me for payment arrangements for long-range recommendations.)
Posted by: Thorvald at July 10, 2010 12:03 AM (0ut85)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
British Methodists Sign Up to Help Islamists Build Ovens
And the sad thing is that these cattle don't seem to understand the first bit about the path they have chosen:
The decision last week by the Methodist Church of Britain to launch a boycott against goods emanating from settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem will send a shiver down the spine of anyone with a feel for where the rancid, global campaign against the Jewish state is currently heading.
The boycott will involve transactions of the church itself, and extends to encouraging all affiliated Methodists to follow suit. The Methodists boycott no other country.
The fact that an institution professing allegiance to values of love, truth and justice should have succumbed to an agenda of hatred, hypocrisy and barbarism is sadly emblematic of the degraded spirit of our times, and of the moral inversions which blow through them.
But who, these days, can really be surprised about such happenings in modern Europe? It is only the banality, to appropriate Hannah Arendt, of this particular evil that still has the power to shock us. For, in watching the discussions at the Methodist Conference which approved the boycott, there was little in the way of the visceral hatred of Israel which we have become so accustomed to seeing in academic settings or in the trade unions. Here was a group of almost stereotypically ordinary, middle-class, English Christians calmly reciting every hackneyed anti-Israeli calumny in the book.
I want to say that American Methodists and perhaps Presbyterians have either already adopted those measures or are flirting with them. Anyone know the answer to that?
It always amazes me how "good" people can not just turn a blind eye to evil, but actively participate in it by allowing themselves to be fed beliefs they should know not to be true.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:40 AM
| Comments (23)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I know that there have been individual conferences of the United Methodists in the USA boycotting companies that "profit" from the Israeli actions in the "occupied territories" but I'm not aware of a denomination wide move.
In the religious cafeteria that is the US, you get everything from John Haggai's Israel love fest to actions like this.
Funny thing is we are taught to look at things in the Bible like this - content in context. So how the UMC or anyone can look at the context the state of Israel sits in, and their actions versus those of the Islamists that surround them - then decide the Israelis are the ones who need pressure applied is beyond me.
Posted by: David Wilson at July 06, 2010 09:51 AM (uts7w)
2
God made a covenant with Abraham(Genesis 12:3) - "I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you." I have been taught that covenant applies also to the "children of Abraham". That any so-called Christian sect could be so ignorant of scripture is appalling. I, for one, know which side of that fight that I want to be on.
Posted by: Diogenes Online at July 06, 2010 10:55 AM (2MrBP)
3
I pretty much gave up on organized religion back in the World Council of Churches days (are they still around) after a Presbyterian "minister" made it clear I was not welcome because I wasn't paying enough.
I had already discovered that nothing in the path to salvation as described in the Gospels required and organized religion.
Lately I have noticed that I hear more faith, Bible, and Christian instruction listening to Glenn Beck than I do in church.
And a side-by-side comparison of the Revelations and the morning newspaper is an interesting exercise.
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at July 06, 2010 11:09 AM (OmeRL)
4
At the time I was feeling the call and coming back to Christianity, I looked at my originating "churches" and found them empty for a vast array of reasons. What about a man lying with a man is an abomination is unclear? What is man being the head of the household as a duty confusing. What about a... Ah, fogetabout it.
At the time, the Presbyterian "Church" (one of them? the main one I guess) had decided to be anti-Semitic as well. I realized I had to go elsewhere, and did. God felt no more comfortable there than I did, from the way my call has worked. Wouchies.
Posted by: Doom at July 06, 2010 11:41 AM (6gT2k)
5
This sounds just like the situation in the 1930's when the Jews were trying to get out of Germany. The churches went out of their way to keep them in Europe.
As to the Methodist here, that was my church and they have gone nuts. It was better when we had north and south branches.
Posted by: David at July 06, 2010 01:18 PM (dccG2)
6
Diogenes,
There are a number of "so-called Christian sects" that view the Abrahamic covenant in relationship to, and as completed in, the New Covenant. Thus the true Israel is the Church, not a nation-state created in 1948 by some, most certainly not all, Jews. To adhere to this theology is neither anti-Semitic, nor by any means pro-Islamic. Before 1948, it would have been incomprehensible for most Christians to have adopted the views on Israel or the Jews that have been accepted since then by pre-millenial dispensationalists, who have been dominant within evangelical Protestantism especially since the 1960s.
Posted by: Sol at July 06, 2010 02:05 PM (tgJe9)
7
To paraphrase Joseph Goebbels: tell the lie; make it big; repeat it often, and people will eventually believe it.
Methodists. Presbyterians. Doesn't matter. Some Catholics even believe it's OK to murder the unborn.
Baptists, of course, are immune to such blithering nonsense.
Posted by: locomotivebreath1901 at July 06, 2010 04:22 PM (XnwS7)
8
Mark D. Tooley has written, extensively, on United Methodist Church and its anti-Israel stance, its love fest with Chavez, and its call for impeachment of President George W. Bush (in 2006). The Methodist Federation for Social Action has played a strong leadership role in writing and promoting the relevant petitions in the individual United Methodist Church conferences. The Federation, which has been independent of the church since the 1950s, still has its offices in the same building with the national offices of the United Methodist Church in Washington, D.C. So, do not expect the United Methodist Church to be cheerleading for Israel.
Posted by: Miriam LeGare at July 06, 2010 10:35 PM (H6tDY)
9
Anyone have a list of businesses run by Methodists so I can boycott them in retaliation?
Posted by: Kevin at July 07, 2010 07:27 AM (GKXDW)
10
I know for a fact piddling few listen to their pastors for political advice. Israel need not worry about it. Its not like they are Baptists.
You know how to keep a Baptist from drinking when he goes fishing? Go with him.
Posted by: Odins Acolyte at July 07, 2010 10:40 AM (brIiu)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 05, 2010
Paul Krugman...
... is an economic genius?
Today, American workers face the worst job market since the Great Depression, with five job seekers for every job opening, with the average spell of unemployment now at 35 weeks. Yet the Senate went home for the holiday weekend without extending benefits. How was that possible?
The answer is that we’re facing a coalition of the heartless, the clueless and the confused. Nothing can be done about the first group, and probably not much about the second. But maybe it’s possible to clear up some of the confusion.
By the heartless, I mean Republicans who have made the cynical calculation that blocking anything President Obama tries to do — including, or perhaps especially, anything that might alleviate the nation’s economic pain — improves their chances in the midterm elections. Don’t pretend to be shocked: you know they’re out there, and make up a large share of the G.O.P. caucus.
In Krugman's world, money does grow on trees. Otherwise, how could he responsibly advocate the government going ever deeper in debt, spending money it does not have at a time when experts are predicting that the policies of Congress and the President are
plunging us from recession into
depression?
I'm not an economist myself, and so I'm sure Mr. Krugman could come up with dazzling explanations full of expensive language to explain his position, but I'll simply counter him by pointing out some inescapable truths:
- growing the size of government at the expense of the private sector is bad for the economy
- increasing government control over specific industries makes it more difficult for new companies to penetrate that market sector, protects large incumbent companies in that sector, and stifles innovation
- you cannot spend your way out of debt
- poor people, dumb people, and lazy people don't create jobs
- if government gets out of the way, wealth can be made from thin air
Let's look at those simply claims in a little more detail.
Growing the size of government at the expense of the private sector is bad for the economy.
Government does not create wealth. Government does not pay taxes. It is easy for even the simple layman to understand that when government job creation approaches private sector job creation, bells and whistles should go off in warning. You can never have parity between government and private sector jobs, and once the percentage of government jobs grows too high, there are not enough private sector dollars generating taxes to support the government.
At the present time, only government hiring is growing, along with government salaries in some areas. Why should we trust Democrats who want to grow the size of the government, when that position is entirely self serving?
Increasing government control over specific industries makes it more difficult for new companies to penetrate that market sector, protects large incumbent companies in that sector, and stifles innovation.
Recent regulations proposed to "save" or "regulate" the financial sector have no intention of protecting the people from the avarice of bankers. Quite to the contrary, Democrats are creating "reform" that rewards their campaign donors at the banks by making it harder for upstart banks to establish themselves or grow. With decreased competition, these existing large banks can grow ever more predatory, and borrowers will payer higher fees and penalties for declining levels of service.
You cannot spend your way out of debt.
Seems simple right? Many of us learned this the hard way in college, financing our nightlife on promises of easy credit. By the time we graduated, we have mountains of credit card debit that had nothing to do with the cost of tuition and textbooks. Faced with hard choices, we quit spending money and paid off out debts.
So why is the response of Democrats, including Mr. Krugman, to keep spending money we don't have, to sustain a lifestyle we can't afford?
Poor people, dumb people, and lazy people don't create jobs.
I've never been employed by someone who made minimum wage, and no company survives without intelligent and hard-working leadership. Democrats love to build up a strawman of the evils of the rich, but forget to address an obvious truth: the rich are rich because they seize opportunities to make money and work very hard to do the work others will not or cannot do. Their skills are in short supply, and so they come at a premium. On the other hand, the poor, unintelligent and lazy are guilty of perpetuating behaviors that ensure they remain poor. They have poor saving, investing and spending habits, tend to be impulsive, and think little about the long term impact of today's excess spending.
Sound like any political party you know?
If government gets out of the way, wealth can be made from thin air.
Bill Whittle of PJTV has made this point so eloquently on his show
Afterburner many times. Ideas initiative and hard work has made men like Warren Buffett and Jay Z wealthy. They used their talents to make wealth from nothing.
But back to the point of Krugman's accusation that "heartless, the clueless and the confused" Republicans are acting irresponsibly. Republicans have simply asked for Democrats to stop extending unemployment benefits without paying for it, and even went so far as to find a way of paying for the extensions, using unspent stimulus money.
Krugman's friends in the Democratic majority refuse to pay for the benefit extensions with the unspent stimulus money they have in pocket. Instead, they attempt to add to our already out of control debt.
Tell us again Mr. Krugman... who is clueless and confused?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:55 PM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
In Krugman's world, money does grow on trees.
Well, it is made of paper, y'know...
Krugman is like a lot of liberals: he thinks "money" and "wealth" are synonyms. They aren't. He also thinks that wealth-as-measured-by-money is a natural right and should be distributed as evenly as life and liberty.
He is, of course, mistaken. Wealth is not evenly distributed any more than talent is.
Posted by: wolfwalker at July 05, 2010 06:34 PM (aijDA)
2
I am an economist with a Ph.D. from a top 20 institution and all that. Given this post, I feel safe saying that you have a better grasp of real world economics than Paul Krugman.
Posted by: Swampleg at July 05, 2010 08:21 PM (P/UlL)
3
I didn't know it was possible, but it seems that Mr. Krugman is an Ex-economist.
Posted by: RicardoVerde at July 05, 2010 09:46 PM (1Ap7+)
4
I think you have it wrong. Paul Krugman is simply a partisan Democrat. He will say whatever helps the Democrats and/or hurts the Republicans. He doesn't really believe it.
He sees this as a great opportunity, because the media will always refer to him as a Nobel prize winning economist, and so any lie he tells will carry some weight.
He's not clueless and confused at all.
Posted by: John at July 05, 2010 11:25 PM (ivCv1)
5
Indeed, Mr. Krugman knows exactly what he is advocating. That it has nothing whatever to do with rational economic policies that will reduce debt and increase employment, and stimulate economic growth is secondary, if something that is at all within the universe of Mr. Krugman's concerns.
Surely Mr. Krugman knows that only citizens who are productively employed can pay the taxes that pay unemployment benefits for those who are not employed. Surely he knows--at least intellectually--that government does not create wealth and that any jobs it conjures into being must be paid for by the same, ever dwindling pool of productive, tax paying citizens. Surely he realizes that there are not enough rich people in the world to pay all the taxes necessary to prop up a European style welfare state in the United States and that if that was ever tried in earnest, the rich would simply move someplace else. Surely he knows that the United States is essentially broke. So how then can Mr. Krugman advocate for that which manifestly makes no practical or economic sense?
Easy. He's a doctrinaire socialist espousing socialist doctrine. He, like our President, wishes to destroy the economic system of America the better to create the conditions where it will be easy to impose a European social welfare state with most citizens utterly dependent on governmental largess, thus, a huge pool of Democrat voters and a permanent Democrat voting majority, hence a worker's paradise with the enlightened elite--such as himself--handing out the ever dwindling crumbs shaken from the pockets of an ever dwindling number of working, productive Americans.
He may--and I emphasize may--be thwarted however, because Americans are not Frenchmen or Swedes. Not only are we far more independent and culturally different, we are, to the horror of liberals, statists and communists everywhere, armed and capable and willing to use those arms if necessary. In addition, Europeans understand, for the first time in decades (witness the recent G20 meeting where they told Obama where to go when he begged them to continue spending money they don't have) that the world cannot afford America to be like them, and in fact, they can't afford to be like them anymore. And yet, Mr Krugman, Obama and the other true believers want us to plunge madly down the socialist commode.
We're beginning to wake up. Perhaps, after November, we can limit the damage to some degree until we can throw out those who hate America. Bizarre, is it not, that we're talking about our President and those who follow him?
Posted by: mikemcdaniel at July 05, 2010 11:55 PM (AL1KP)
6
The dems didn't force it like the budget or other quasi-illegal legislation for one simple reason...
letting it lapse kept the Unemployed at under 10%if they had extended it then the rate would be somewhere around 11%. They really don't want that, so they claim Rep blocks, and go home with a "lowered" rate of 9.5% down from 9.6% even though they lost more jobs last month.....see Dem math is fun!
Posted by: JP at July 06, 2010 01:21 AM (Tae/a)
7
"By the heartless, I mean Republicans who have made the cynical calculation that blocking anything President Obama tries to do — including, or perhaps especially, anything that might alleviate the nation’s economic pain"
Since Obama hasn't actually tried to do anything of the sort, what exactly is Mr. Krugman basing this on?
Posted by: alanstorm at July 06, 2010 01:15 PM (1KVW3)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 04, 2010
Any Black Rifle Experts Out There?
So I'm going to ask something that might seem a bit hypocritical here.
I've written on CY and at Pajamas Media about how the 5.56 NATO round needs to be replaced in the military, and that M16/M4 weapons system is getting long in the tooth, and that it should probably be replaced. I still feel that way...
as it applies to the military. I want them to have weapons that are lightweight, ridiculously reliable, accurate, easy to maintain and perfectly lethal. I also want a pony.
But for
my needs, an AR-type rifle fits the bill. Specifically, I'm looking at a carbine with a 16" barrel and mid-length gas system chambered in 5.56 (I'll also probably get a 6.8 SPC upper from
Bison Armory at some point, but that is down the road).
I've narrowed my choices down to 2 options:
I'll be using whichever one I get for tactical carbine courses that I've been interested in learning/writing about as part of a side project of mine. I'll primarily be running 55-grain metal case ammo (both .233 Remington and 5.56 NATO) for classes, but will keep 50-grain Winchester Silvertips for home defense and stock 5.56 NATO 55-grain MC for the
zombie apocalypse. I'll also be getting a CMMG .22 LR conversion kit for cheaper practice.
If anyone is familiar with either (or even better both) of these mid-length carbines, I'd love to hear what you think about them.
And whether or not I should look at 62-grain zombie ammo instead of the 55-grain stuff.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:00 PM
| Comments (33)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Basically the AR15 is a proper civilian choice...you won't need to shoot through brick walls. A normal man can carry it. With a decent scope it's easily possible to put 30 rounds into a 2-3" target at 100 yards, far more than is needed for "home defense." In fact, that's the problem with the concept of black rifle "defense." If you mean defending the country, fighting, sniping in the streets...OK, I'll give you that, but for your property, a 12 gauge with OO Buckshot down the hall or into the front entry makes a lot more sense, and a backup .45 for finishers.... My advice is worth what you pay for it.
Posted by: rascalfair at July 04, 2010 01:52 PM (qKb1N)
2
The two weapons you've mentioned are fine rifles, however, you may wish to explore the offerings of a variety of other manufacturers. The weapons you've mentioned are essentially custom offerings that are substantially more expensive than rifles that would serve you equally well. The AR family is indeed a good choice for civilian use because it is easy to customize and a wide variety of accessories that will arguably make the weapon more effective are widely available at reasonable prices.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that you'll be equipping your carbine with a red dot type sight of some kind, a flashlight, and even a laser sight. You'll need a four rail fore end for this. You can buy a rifle, equipped from the factory for this purpose, or merely spend about $60.00 on an aftermarket fore end. Instead of spending some $1300+ on a tricked out factory gun, spend $900.00 on a more basic carbine and with careful shopping, you can equip it very well very reasonably and have a weapon every bit as effective as the higher priced guns, probably for about the same price as the higher priced guns as delivered from the factory without any of those accessories.
You can spend more than a thousand dollars on a variety of sights, or about a hundred on sights that will work as well. You can spend hundreds on "tactical" flashlights and mounts, or $35.00 on a Sure Fire G2 Nitrolon and about the same on a Vitor mount. I've been quite happy with $40.00 BSA red dot sights, for example, on a variety of weapons.
The bottom line is it might be wise to avoid spending more for bells and whistles, particularly at this point in your AR shooting career, and add accessories as you come to better understand your needs and desires, and the difference between them. Any competent tactical carbine course will help you in this regard.
I've found Cheaper Than Dirt to be a good source of AR accessories, and MagPul magazines and stocks to be reliable, reasonably priced, and an improvement over factory stock equipment.
As far as a conversion kit goes, save a few more bucks and buy a S&W .22LR AR. They're identical to the real thing in appearance, ergonomics, and are just plain fun to shoot. In addition, you'll be throwing a lot less dirty lead down the barrel of your .223 weapon, which is always a good thing.
Regarding ammunition, outfit yourself with one competent weapon and one type of ammo and learn the combination very well. Effective technique, tactics, and shot placement matter, not which whiz bang cartridge/gun was used. A well placed shot with a basic carbine is far more effective than a miss with a very expensive rifle shooting the newest world beater round.
Posted by: mikemcdaniel at July 04, 2010 03:08 PM (AL1KP)
3
Instead of the conversion kit or a full 22LR AR, you might want to just get a full 22 Upper. since the 22 conversions are blowback instead of gas driven, if you get a 22 upper, it will have a proper 22 barrel and no gas tube, which might keep the upper a little (tiny) bit cleaner. 22LR is already super dirty so it won't make much difference...
although a seperate 22 upper means you'd have extra optics, grips, etc... so thats extra cost there...
Posted by: John at July 04, 2010 11:45 PM (PS5rK)
4
The rifles mentioned are fine, fine rifles, but consider your opening statements. The difference between the high end ARs and the less expensive ARs in terms of pure performance is relatively small. I have 2 carbines from Stag Arms (caveat: Stag is a show sponsor) that shot sub-MOI at 100 yards with Wolf ammo out-of-the-box. Ditto for an S&W (no caveat: S&W is not a sponsor, darn it!) I bought at GUNSITE a few years back. Rather than buying an all bells and whistles gun, it might make sense to get a basic gun and decide what bells and whistles you actually want.
I also recommend complete .22 uppers rather than conversion units or dedicated .22s. Better to use your lower with the trigger/accessories you're used to with the convenience of being able to pop on a new upper. I use and recommend the relatively expensive Tactical Solutions .22 upper, and it has been just super!
Michael B
Posted by: Michael Bane at July 05, 2010 12:01 PM (qqZAg)
5
I have a Noveske N4 light with a 14.5" pinned barrel - great rifle, I love it, and would recommend it highly to anyone who is looking for an upper which will outshoot you and outlast you. You wouldn't be wasting any money in this purchase.
BUT
Michael Bane also has excellent points in his post - look at what you want and how you will use it - you may be better served with an "average" AR and more money for practice & ammo than a top-end rifle. You may need the top end. YMMV - and of course your desires do play an element in it.
If you have specific questions on the Noveske feel free to ask sir.
Posted by: Sean at July 05, 2010 07:22 PM (VAuQx)
6
I also went for the Noveske - but the Light Low-Profile, because I wanted a rail for the flashlight and the Aimpoint I already had, AND I was having a 50th Birthday Moment...
Since I'm in California I had to build the lower myself, to the CA legal-spec. It's heavier than my wife would care to handle (but not heavier than my Match AR) so I'm not going to be getting her very interested in shooting it.
Posted by: DirtCrashr at July 05, 2010 07:47 PM (dRMSX)
7
ive either had (as issue) or owned basic ar's and m16's for 25 years, the only optional new change that I would consider changing my colt ar for would be one with a piston.
cleaner and less carbon fouling.
ruger has good warranties and last year came out with a piston driven AR at a very reasonable price point and added some nice extras for sites and furniture that you would have to add to other basic ar platrforms. its worth taking a look at it
as far as ammo... im a traditionalist. I would go with 5.56 because you can stockpile some ammo at a relatively reasonable price becuase. and I wouldnt own a semi auto without firing a 1,000 rounds through it and breaking it in and having at least 1,000 rounds in stock.
other than that I would go ar-10 308
Posted by: rumcrook¾ at July 05, 2010 07:49 PM (60WiD)
8
Reliability is king.
That's why I put a Leupold prismatic sight on my Mini-14 and keep it handy with factory mags.
Always feeds, always fires, always extracts. No need for forward-assist, magazine testing or checking the color of the follower.
Safety is right in front of trigger guard.
Can chamber a round without breaking cheekweld.
Posted by: Hyman Roth at July 05, 2010 08:34 PM (WOmgn)
9
Just a few more comments after checking the specs on the two specific weapons you mentioned. Again very nice rifles, but quite pricey. The Daniel Defense weapon, for example, has a Magpul trigger guard enlarger, which is doubtless well made, but absent Hulk-like hands, unnecessary (the standard trigger guard can be unlatched and folded down onto the trigger guard for Arctic conditions--gloves). Each will run in the neighborhood of more than $1500.00, and for that price, you could easily buy a basic AR carbine (16" barrel, standard sights with standard carrying handle) for about $900.00 from a variety of manufacturers.
You can easily, for the cost of a 4-rail fore end, and a 3/4" scope riser, add any type of red-dot optic you'd like and still come in more cheaply than the original price of the other rifles. In fact, you could easily have those three items, a very capable flashlight and mount, and even a quality laser system with a bit of careful shopping. And even if you don't buy another accessory, the extra $600.00 will buy 2000 rounds of ammo with a bit of careful shopping.
But as a starting point, I'd go for the basic weapon, buy several thousand rounds of ammo, and then get competent training. May I recommend Chuck Taylor of the American Small Arms Academy (on the web)? He teaches around the world at much more reasonable prices than many other schools and you'll learn a very great deal in a very short time, including what accessories you might really need or want. For one of his basic rifle classes you'd need your weapon, at least 500 rounds of ammo, and at least four magazines. He'll let you know anything else you'd need.
Good luck, and please contact me directly if I can help in any way.
Posted by: mikemcdaniel at July 05, 2010 11:37 PM (AL1KP)
10
Go to M4Carbine.net and search and read away. All the answers you seek will be there. Especially if you are looking at Noveske and DD. I would also consider BCM (Bravo Company Manufacturing) in there as well. Their quality is equal to both but with a slightly smaller price tag, and their 16" mid-length uppers are amazing.
Also, view this chart on comparisons of brands and quality control that they put their products through: http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=6642
If you want good reviews on the Noveske, DD (and BCM) rifles, search m4carbinet.net via Google. Those brands are heavily covered there.
Posted by: Blake at July 06, 2010 11:37 AM (nQU3B)
11
I'm sorry to ask such an ignorant question, but what does the term "black rifle" mean? Surely the color of the firearm doesn't matter (or does it?), so I assume you must mean something else.
I've only ever shot handguns, so my ignorance on the subject of rifles is profound. Thanks!
Posted by: Mary in LA at July 06, 2010 12:03 PM (JYxmy)
12
Now that I think of it, I did shoot a shotgun once, but never a rifle. Thanks for the education!
Posted by: Mary in LA at July 06, 2010 12:04 PM (JYxmy)
13
Hi Mary,
"Black rifle" is commonly used to describe the military and civilian versions of the AR-15/M-16/M-4 family of Eugene Stoner designed 5.56 rifles and carbines.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 06, 2010 12:12 PM (gAi9Z)
14
What the two Mike/Michaels said.
Don't pay extra for "Noveske" on the side, or even "Daniel Defense". (I mean, given your stated goals and needs.)
I own two lowest-bidder parted-together AR-pattern rifles.
Know what? They're fine. They shoot fine. They're more than accurate enough for non-competitive shooting (and probably just fine for low end for-fun competitive shooting).
There's no need to pay $1500 for an AR.
Pay half that and spend the rest on optics and ammo.
(I'd also like to say that "black rifle", in my experience, covers the entire set of semi-automatic military-clone rifles, including the FAL, G3/CETME, and SIG rifles as well as the AR family.)
Posted by: Sigivald at July 06, 2010 05:03 PM (WIejT)
15
Thanks, C.Y. and Sigivald!
Now, the next question in my mind: Where can I go to try one out? CA gun laws being what they are, I might have to take a vacation out of state. :-)
Posted by: Mary in LA at July 06, 2010 05:28 PM (JYxmy)
16
Dear Mary:
Check local gun shops, or get in touch with the NRA (internet works fine). There are NRA certified instructors (I am one) throughout the nation and the NRA can put you in touch with them.
Failing all of that, should you ever find yourself in north Texas, I'd be pleased to be of help to you.
Posted by: mikemcdaniel at July 07, 2010 04:17 PM (AL1KP)
17
Stick with M193 (or Federal XM193, or Winchester Q3131 -- they are BOTH M193 loads). This is the old "M16A1" 55 grain load -- which works just fine from 1:9" and 1:7" twist barrels, as well as it's intended 1:12" barrel.
The round explosively fragments when it hits meat at 2600 - 2700fps or faster -- that's a skosh more than 100 yards from the muzzle from a 16" carbine.
Other 55gr loads DO NOT have the same terminal performance due to being downloaded slightly or made with stronger jackets. Wolf ammo suffers from both issues.
At civilian defensive ranges (as opposed to military engagements), from a 16" or 20" barrel (as opposed to the 14.5" M4), M193 ammo is fine. US M855 (any version) is ALSO fine, but you lose about 20 yards of that "explosive fragmentation" range.
SS109 ammo (the 62 grain NATO spec that M855 for teh M16A2, M249, and M4 is built to) IS NOT FINE -- SS109 doesn't address jacket construction in detail, and US M855 is DIFFFERENT than most everyone's SS109, as they make the jackets the saem way they've been making sptizer FMJ bullets for deacades -- i.e., somewhat like the M193 round, with similar effects on soft targets when they hit at similar velocities. (The US doesn't do it to enhance wounding -- it does it for RELIABILITY reasons. Thus, it isn't being done for "increased suffering", so no Hague violation.)
The other nice thing about M193 or M855 ball is that since their casualty enhancement effects are due to teh bullets reaction to hitting a liquid medium (meat is a liquid medium) at high velocity, if they pass through HARD surfaces (like a wall), they tend to scrub off enough velocity to not do the whole "explodey fragmentation" thing. That means that misses with ball rounds result in smaller tract wounds if they hit a bystander downrange, as opposed to SP or HP rounds, which may well open up to max expansion -- and that is THEIR primary casualty enhancement method.
Posted by: Geodkyt at July 08, 2010 01:34 PM (F6Jj4)
18
Hmmm.
TBH I generally prefer the AR-180 for civilian use. Built more like an AK in terms of solid reliability than the M4/M16. It can consume all manufactures of .223 ammo. Accepts M4/M16 magazines.
IMO I prefer it a lot. Probably it has a lot to do with the bolt carrier which in this case is a solid block of steel supported by two steel rods and articulated by a gas piston and not a gas tube.
Posted by: memomachine at July 08, 2010 09:45 PM (MwCol)
19
Hey Mary
Depending on what part of L.A. you're in you could probably rent one @
http://www.thelosangelesgunclub.com/
on 6th/Alameda
or
http://www.laxrange.com/
Posted by: DAve at July 09, 2010 09:27 PM (0WzhP)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Champions Don't Quit
Few of you probably know this, but long before I ever though about politics or blogging I was a sports writer. I don't follow sports as often as I once did and hardly ever write about them anymore, but every once in a while I'll witness the greatness and grit that sports can show in individuals.
UFC 116
showed that in spades, and particularly in the two most important matches of the night.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:10 AM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Happy Birthday, America
Sometimes it is difficult to see past the hot dogs and fireworks to remember that the Fourth of July is that day that brave and determined colonists declared themselves independent from the most powerful nation on earth, and in so doing, took the first bold steps towards developing a nation that become the bulwark of liberty and freedom for the following centuries.
Remember our founders on this day and the importance of the Declaration they created.
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:03 AM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
For some reason the computer screen showed the D Of I first without seeing your introduction. As I just glanced at it I was agreeing that, yes, over the last year Obama has certainly done all that until I realized the reference was to George.
We are long over due to correct our differences.
Posted by: David at July 04, 2010 12:01 PM (kAs1H)
2
Sometimes I wonder if we, as a people, are not back where we started. That is oppressed and facing the most powerful nation on earth, again. And, whether my suggestion is true or not in absolutes, it needs to be true in some regard. The fact is, our guarantees were not simply given, they were offered along with all the tools those gentlemen thought we might need to make the rights effective. So, whether we are in, about to go in, or no where near, the beginning of the thick of it... we are indeed in the thick of it.
Anyway, thanks for the post. Have a wonderful day. And eat up! Your helping the economy, don't you know!
Posted by: Doom at July 04, 2010 03:08 PM (6gT2k)
3
This year's Independence Day celebration has made me realize two extremely important facts -
1) Ribeye is by far the best meat on a cow for steak (people who live in hippie states might know them as 'delmonico' or 'club' steaks)
and
2) Paprika is not just to color the meat. It's an important part of the flavor of a grilled steak. Pile that dust on.
Posted by: Kevin at July 04, 2010 07:52 PM (LQ3SI)
4
Thanks for the reminder.
Posted by: Jim at July 07, 2010 08:48 AM (OxI/Y)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 02, 2010
Dull Steele
A new RNC Chair: now that's change i can believe in.
"Keep in mind again, federal candidates, this was a war of Obama's choosing. This was not something that the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in," he said. "But it was the president who was trying to be cute by half by building a script demonizing Iraq, while saying the battle really should be in Afghanistan. Well, if he is such a student of history, has he not understood that you know that's the one thing you don't do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan?"
We don't need a Chairman that gets his war advice from
The Princess Bride.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:06 AM
| Comments (39)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
"Fool!" cried the hunchback. "You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia,' but only slightly less well known is this: 'Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.'"
Posted by: RNB at July 02, 2010 10:34 AM (fe/Mk)
2
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Posted by: Stoutcat at July 02, 2010 12:42 PM (8LmGF)
3
and Sarah Palin should be that change, Steele has to go...
Posted by: dgj at July 02, 2010 01:29 PM (g/BUt)
4
I am not sure what he was trying to say, but I have to agree with him on Afghanistan. We are following in the historical footsteps of every country that has tried to fight there. And we are losing, just like every country before. The nature of the ground there is such that a handfull of people can do a considerable amount of harm to even the most sophisticated military. When you add that to the idiotic ROE that we have adopted, then you have a reciepe for disaster.
Since everything that Obama touches turns to crap, then lets get out while the getten is good. As to the terrorist, they are over here now that The One has decided to allow every illegal in the world into the country undocumented. Whey would they be in Afghanistan, when they can come here, cross the Mexican border, be assured no one will stop them or ask for papers, obtain housing, food and education from the government?
Posted by: David at July 02, 2010 03:58 PM (kAs1H)
5
worse...that line was added by Meathead. It is not in the book. He is getting his war advice from a pinko hollywood director.
Posted by: JP at July 02, 2010 04:11 PM (Tae/a)
6
David's right. I am no fan of Steele, but objectively, there's nothing erroneous about what he said.
Posted by: dad29 at July 03, 2010 08:17 AM (T1YgM)
7
"Nothing erroneous"? Much as I dislike the man, even I'm not so far gone as to have forgotten that he had nothing to do with getting us involved in Afghanistan. He's mis-managed it of course, but blaming him for our being there in the first place is ridiculous!
Posted by: Jason Bontrager at July 03, 2010 08:50 AM (Azdp+)
8
"It's the truth of course". David I'll bet you are not married or even dating with that truth all the time crap. Dad29 many things can be said that are not erroneous but do not need to be said. Try that philosophy on your wife next time she asks your opinion on her weight. Have you ever played poker? I'll bet not because everything in life is poker and the truth needs to be used only when absolutely necessary. Afghanistan is a mess but you don't broadcast to the opponet that you must get out as soon as possible and that it was a huge mistake to go there in the first place. Life is a little more complicated than that and requires a little more thought than you seem to be able to muster.
Posted by: inspectorudy at July 03, 2010 10:31 AM (Vo1wX)
9
C'mon folks, be honest , he got the job because he is mostly black, just like Barak hussein , and at the time his skin color mattered more than his brain power or ethics/morality/honesty/etc.
He is a sham of a man, but he is black.
Posted by: duncan at July 03, 2010 08:43 PM (lGcPs)
10
Posted by duncan at July 3, 2010 08:43 PM
Well, well, well. We have another moby here attempting to tease out some racist remark. You guys are getting pretty transparent.
Posted by: iconoclast at July 03, 2010 08:59 PM (LGCVn)
11
I was defending him completely up until Scozzafava... Florida with Crist didn't help either. These people to me made it look like he doesn't know what he's doing- and the "white guys are scared of me" is for the birds... there's nothing scary about this guy save the fact he can't read people and seems a bit to occupied with racial theories for my taste.
He seems like an ill-conceived, fashionable and supposedly pragmatic choice in the wake of Obama's election- it's really not working out
I'm ALL about party unity going into the fall, and preach it incessantly; but what's up with his apologizing for being conservative? He needs to study the life and wisdom of The Gipper, man- you didn't see him meekly apologizing for being right
He seems like a decent guy, really- but not focussed on what he should be, obviously
Enjoy your 4th... a 4 mo all out political war for the future of this country starts Tuesday
Posted by: Reaganite Republican at July 04, 2010 07:53 AM (vdbJV)
12
Goldman wrote both the book and the screenplay, so it's his line regardless. Anyway, life *is* pain and anyone who says otherwise *is* selling something.
Posted by: Mike Schilling at July 04, 2010 10:56 PM (gJuL0)
13
he [Obama] had nothing to do with getting us involved in Afghanistan
Yes--but if you read the entire transcript you find that Steele's remarks are accurate.
Bear in mind that I have no love for Steele--to me, he's just another (R) politician/disappointment.
What Steele refers to is Obama's campaign statements where he tried to split the baby, calling Iraq a "bad" war and Afghan'n a "good" war.
That way, Bammy could both appease the anti-war Left AND the anti-OsamaBinLadin Right.
Metaphorically, Bammy tried to straddle that fence and is now suffering some pain in the......ahhhh....crotch, and Steele is having schadenfreude over that problem.
Posted by: dad29 at July 05, 2010 08:02 AM (T1YgM)
14
Iconoclast, I am no moby and I thorougly endorse that fellows characterization of the facts. Of course Steele ascended to his position chiefly because of his race. This is a mistake when Dems do it and equally a mistake when Reps do it. From the phraseology though, it does seem that you have spotted a moby operator.
Posted by: megapotamus at July 05, 2010 01:37 PM (BbBeH)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Will General Petraeus Change the Afghan RoE?
Soldiers and civilians alike have complained that Gen. Stanley McCrystal's rules of engagement in Afghanistan. Now that Gen. David Petraeus has taken over the fight since McCrystal's self-immolation, will new RoE lead to fewer US and Afghan civilian casualties?
I ask the question in my
latest article at
Pajamas Media.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:04 AM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
July 01, 2010
Scholars: Obama One of the Bestest Presidents Evar!!!
No... they're serious.
George W. Bush was no FDR, but Barack Obama could be.
That's the verdict of 238 of the nation's leading presidential scholars, who - for a fifth time - rated Franklin Delano Roosevelt the best president ever in the latest Siena College Research Institute poll.
In office for barely two years, Obama entered the survey in the 15th position - two spots behind Bill Clinton and three spots ahead of Ronald Reagan.
When asked for comment about the poll, noted Presidential Scholar researcher Richard James offered his own terse opinion.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
05:53 PM
| Comments (27)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Proving once again the uselessness of surveys of presidential scholars. The quote from the survey's number cruncher was priceless. It's almost as if the Daily News reporter wanted to out Lohnstrom for the idiot he must be.
Posted by: kyle at July 01, 2010 06:26 PM (8uzdZ)
2
I think they are rating the TOTUS not the POTUS
Posted by: Neo at July 01, 2010 10:23 PM (tE8FB)
3
Says more about the current crop Presidential Scholars than it does about the Presidents. Quite the indictment of our educational systems, isn't it?
Posted by: ruralcounsel at July 02, 2010 08:27 AM (x/iNx)
4
I see the campus drug culture is alive and well.
Posted by: Stretch at July 02, 2010 12:34 PM (0D7oJ)
5
Now, now, let's not be hasty. Remember that Mr. Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize before his first day in the Oval Office. He won it for just being, well, him. With that precedent, it's hardly presumptuous to declare him nearly the finest president America has ever had after less than two years in office and after spending more money during that time than every other president before him. That's worth something, historically speaking, isn't it?
Posted by: mikemcdaniel at July 02, 2010 02:37 PM (AL1KP)
6
As they say, "these are the best of the best of the best". Make high of a standardized test and you are automatically a brain. Funny, but the majority of the people that I know who scored well on those exams never were able to do well in the world. There seems to be no testing for logic or street smarts.
Also, what are we teaching the kids that they chose the presidents who have pushed a socialistic agenda and radically changed our freedoms?
Posted by: David at July 02, 2010 04:05 PM (kAs1H)
7
That they selected el Jefe Maximo, Presidente for life as number one tells you all you need to know. Anyone who took a college course from one of these "scholars" is probably messed up for life.
Posted by: Ken Hahn at July 02, 2010 07:55 PM (Xle5/)
8
Those Profs were right if we are talking about ignoring the constitution and pushing socialism on people who do not want or need it. FDR had many communists working for him. So does Obama
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at July 03, 2010 12:15 AM (rj2SV)
9
That's nothing. I've had a lib tell me that Obama is the greatest thing to ever happen to the human race.
He was dead serious too. Better than the Gutenberg Press, or soap, or indoor plumbing, or penicillin. When I scoffed, he doubled down and promised that it was true, and that "everyone" agreeed with him.
I conceeded that 52% of the population agrees with him.
Posted by: brando at July 05, 2010 09:12 AM (9eRs4)
10
Any school touting that is not one I would attend or recommend...
Posted by: OdinsAcolyte at July 07, 2010 10:42 AM (brIiu)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
During Immigration Speech, Flying Golden Demon-Snakes Erupt From Obama's Hands
I love the pictures Drudge digs up...
Source.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:37 PM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Obamagician - "And for my next trick...."
Posted by: arb at July 01, 2010 01:26 PM (6IFDe)
2
Oh Bullwinkle, that trick never works!
Posted by: Stoutcat at July 01, 2010 09:42 PM (8LmGF)
3
And for his next trick, he'll pull taxpayer dollars out of Nancy Pelosi's ears...
Posted by: RandomThoughts at July 01, 2010 10:25 PM (WwIUf)
Posted by: slackerratbasterd at July 01, 2010 11:07 PM (YnDHv)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
A Whale Skimmer Still Anchored By Administration, EPA
The most powerful oil-skimming vessel in the world languishes in port, anchored by incompetency in the White House and absurd EPA red tape:
The A Whale arrived in the Gulf on Wednesday, the Coast Guard said. It was anchored in Boothville, Lousiana, about an hour south of New Orleans.
"While the ship is ready to work, it still doesn't have approval to engage in the effort," said Frank Maisano, spokesman for TMT Shipping, the vessel's owner and operator, in a statement.
Officials from the company are meeting with BP and the U.S. Coast Guard Thursday morning, he told CNN. "We don't know what will happen," he said, but added it's expected that parameters for a test of the vessel will be discussed -- "they'll give us a plot and we'll test the technology."
Has a government ever been overthrown for environmental incompetence?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:46 AM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Incompetence? Oh now; the EPA and the Obama Administration know exactly what they're doing. True, their actions are destructive, foolish, and if done by an enemy of America would be grounds for a declaration of war...Hey! Maybe they are an enemy of America?
Posted by: mikemcdaniel at July 01, 2010 12:55 PM (AL1KP)
2
A Taiwanese-flagged vessel, named "A Whale," which is 3 1/2 football fields long and looms 10 stories high - outfitted with 12 vents on either side of its bow, which experts hope will be able to suck up as many as 21 million gallons of oil-tainted water each day in the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster – has offered its services in the attempted clean up.
So will the President Kick Ass and get the permissions needed expediated?
http://just-me-in-t.blogspot.com/2010/07/just-who-makes-decisions.html
Posted by: justmeint at July 02, 2010 04:41 AM (3/bBX)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Which Country Was He Was Elected to Lead?
The Deepwater Horizon oil disaster continues nearly unabated. Our economy is in shambles, our national debt is exploding, our jobless claims are rising, home sales are slumping, and even liberal economists describing our financial situation as a depression.
How does our President respond?
By
pandering to criminal aliens.
It would be nice to have a President who cared about the state of
our nation, but this is what we deserve for electing a man running on a nebulous and empty slogan of change.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:36 AM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
James Carville was leaving messages on Obama’s voice mail, telling him he’d better get down to the Gulf Coast, and Obama — not quite used to the accent — thought he was saying he needs to get down to the Golf Course.
Posted by: Neo at July 01, 2010 01:44 PM (tE8FB)
2
I fully expect Reid and Pelosi to introduce the comprehensive amnesty and Democrat importation act right after the recess.
Posted by: Ken Hahn at July 02, 2010 07:58 PM (Xle5/)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Slow Expansion of my Media Empire Continues...
I don't think Andrew Brietbart is feeling any pressure, but I've starting writing for another media outlet.
As most of my regular readers know, I've been a part of
Pajamas Media since the beginning, and I've built up a pretty nice
body of work there over the years.
I'm happy to announce that I've recently joined the Washington Examiner's stable of writers in the
Opinion Zone as well. You can read my first three entries via
my staff bio... please do, and tell me what you think.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:25 AM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Congrats Bob. I look forward to reading more great articles from you.
Tarheel Repub Out!
Posted by: Tarheel Repub at July 01, 2010 11:23 AM (+LRPE)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 48 >>
Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.128 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.1081 seconds, 167 records returned.
Page size 138 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.