Confederate Yankee
May 27, 2010
Don't Ask. Don't Tell. Don't Attend.
It seems Barack Obama and his liberal allies are all for accelerating the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," allowing gays to openly serve in the military.
It's a matter of efficiency.
That way they can ignore
both groups at once.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:15 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
It is my understanding that if they eliminated gays, then we would no longer be able to operate our submarine fleet.
Posted by: David at May 27, 2010 03:43 PM (coY4Z)
2
Being gay is no longer a crime.
Gays are a integral part of our society
We all work with gay coworkers, live beside gay neighbors, even have gay members in our own families. We buy goods and services from gay businesspeople, we have gay teachers in our schools teaching our children, we have gay politicians.
It is impossible to live and work in society and not come into contact with openly gay people.
So it's time the military stop pretending that it can operate in a gay free world by asking gays to hide in a closet.
Posted by: norris hall at May 28, 2010 12:25 AM (aCbrI)
3
They are not "gay", they are homsexual so could we please call them by their true name???
I work aboard Camp Lejeune NC and the folks I talk to oppose this and they hate the "don't ask" law as well, homosexuals are perverts and must not be allowed to pollute our military, and those gangs members should be kicked out too, before you attack me I ask you to watch a few videos of the Folsome Street homosexual fair and then tell me you want those perverts in our military.
I had two of three children serve our nation during Gulf 1 and both told me that they were offended many times by homosexuals who felt some kind of right to demand sex from whomever caught their eye and complaining only got my children in trouble, so I vote NO.
Posted by: duncan at May 28, 2010 11:27 AM (lGcPs)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 26, 2010
Chicago's Handgun Ban Fails to Save Home Invader
An elderly Chicago couple is alive today because they ignored Chicago's unconstitutional handgun ban and killed the armed invader breaking into their home:
An 80-year-old Chicago man shot and killed an armed man who broke into his two-story house in a pre-dawn home invasion Wednesday on the city's West Side.
At about 5:20 a.m., the homeowner and his wife, also in her 80s, discovered the intruder entering their home through a back door. The homeowner, who had a gun, confronted and killed the burglar on the doorstep, police said. Cops said the intruder also fired his gun during the struggle.
"It's a good thing they had a gun, or they might be dead," said Curtis Thompson, who lives next door to the couple, the Chicago Sun-Times reported.
Neighbors described the elderly couple, who both walk with canes, as pillars of the community in Garfield Park, where home invasions have been all too frequent.
Their neighbor, Shaquite Johnson, told MyFoxChicago that the two are "heroes" for fighting off the attacker — and that the shooting means there is "one less criminal" walking the streets.
Chicago Mayor Richard Daley immediately assailed Johnson for referring to the deceased as a criminal, and instead called the home invader a "valued constituent."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
04:26 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Well, on the plus side, a Democratic vote by the perp is now 100% assured in the next election.
Posted by: Will Gant at May 26, 2010 06:24 PM (vrSQq)
2
To use Daley's own words against him, maybe if the robber had stuck his gun up Daley's butt then Daley would understand. :-D
But of course Daley, who enjoys 24/7 police protection, doesn't have to worry about his personal safety.
Posted by: pst314 at May 26, 2010 07:55 PM (XP0Bd)
3
Anyone care to start a rumor that Daley's fetish is to have a weapon stuck up his butt? Notice how he always has multiple cops around him, and there's always one that looks pissed off. Now we know who drew the short straw today...
Posted by: Will Gant at May 26, 2010 09:36 PM (vrSQq)
4
Hope I can act as decisively when I'm 80. Inspiring.
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
[For a light hearted take on our present peril]
Posted by: LibertyAtStake at May 26, 2010 10:13 PM (PmNi0)
5
Wait...the intruder had a gun too? Oh noes! He better register it! Or turn it in so he can live a life full of unicorns, Cubs baseball and ice cream!
Posted by: MunDane at May 27, 2010 06:23 AM (dlS06)
6
They are heroes!! Their generation stood up for their rights and they just stood up again. I'm proud of them.
Posted by: SilverMoon at May 27, 2010 11:23 AM (8bTQ5)
7
Less cops for Delay, and more to patrol Chicago streets. Especially since apparently the mayor is not in any danger.
Posted by: ron at May 27, 2010 12:47 PM (UxnCY)
8
I reckon he will have to cover his a**.
The butt of a gun or is that butt-gun?
Posted by: Odins Acolyte at May 27, 2010 02:06 PM (brIiu)
9
Ahh, there you are again, MunDane. Do you see now the reason for having a 'house gun' or guns? Especially if you are in your 80s and not as fast on your feet as you once were. You can call the police. If there's time. And they can come. But no matter how fast they get there, they'll only be able to avenge your murder.
Marianne Matthews
Posted by: Marianne Matthews at May 27, 2010 03:07 PM (Aaj8s)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Fleeing the Scene: Obama Doesn't Want to Be Tied to Obamacare
It appears that the White House objected to ABC's Jake Tapper referring to Obamacare as Obamacare, considering it a pejorative.
Hey, the rest of us hear "Obamcare" and think of plenty of pejoratives as well, but since you forced this down our gullets, Barack,
own your mistake.
You are admitting Obamacare is a mistake, yes?
If it isn't a mistake, then why aren't you proud of it, this legislation you wanted so badly to be your legacy?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:04 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Heh. Well, we could always oblige Obama by always referring to it as nationalized health care. I'm sure he'd love that, too. :-D
Posted by: pst314 at May 26, 2010 07:57 PM (XP0Bd)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 25, 2010
Spending-Crazed Congress About to Pass Bill That Creates Billions in Taxes, Billions More in Spending, And Wrecks the Economy... Media Deathly Quiet
Hot Air posted on this, or I would have missed Keith Hennesey's deconstruction of this monstrosity entirely:
The bill:
- increases infrastructure spending by $26 B over ten years;
- extends a raft of expiring tax provisions, mostly for one year
- provides funding relief for certain employer pension plans;
- raises a bunch of taxes, mostly on businesses and a certain kind of partnership income called "carried interest;"
- extends unemployment insurance benefits, increasing federal spending by $47 B over the next two years;
- increases Medicare payments for doctors for eighteen months at a $63 B cost;
- increases health insurance subsidies for the unemployed (through "COBRA"
by $8 B over the next two years; and - increases federal Medicaid spending by $24 B for a six-month policy change.
CBO gives us the net budgetary effects of the bill over the 11-year period 2010-2020:
- $40 B net tax increase;
- $174 B spending increase;
- $134 B deficit increase.
I count at least four reasons this bill deserves the title The Hypocrisy Act of 2010.
Make certain you read the entire thing, so that you understand Nancy Pelosi's radical Democrats are ramming through yet more health care spending by cramming in and adding to provisions of Obamacare, erasing even the
pretext of the lie that Obamacare saves money.
How much more of this graft, tax and spend Congressional abuse can the economy stand before imploding?
I can only hope that when all is said and done, and this nation's economy collapses under the weight of their ever-present greed, that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama get their just desserts.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:01 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
amen and I second your wish!
s4r
Posted by: s4r at May 25, 2010 02:58 PM (u0FmQ)
2
I don't understand your concern. This agenda worked very well for Greece, Spain, Portugal, Argentina, Ireland, USSR, East Germany, I could go on. So if they found this agenda to be satisfactory, then who are we to argue? I keep thinking that we need to support Obama's agenda, then maybe he will allow us to reform the old Confederacy. At least, the country will be so broke that it will not be able to stop us this time.
Posted by: David at May 25, 2010 05:31 PM (ZgM5r)
3
David,
Don't worry. If the Confederacy is meant to be it will have it's chance before to long. The problem is forming it out of the chaos and finding enough common ground with our neighbors to hold it.
Capitulation is very close....
s4r
Posted by: s4r at May 25, 2010 09:17 PM (u0FmQ)
4
It is unraveling in a hurry. I think we need to remember those that caused it and confiscate their wealth not only to help pay for the damage but to ensure they're in the same boat as the rest of us.
Posted by: Yankeedoodle at May 26, 2010 07:00 AM (57MUP)
5
Their wealth? And far, far more! These bills represent capital crimes and treason, as well; they should "pay in full measure" according to what they have attempted to do to our country and our way of life!!!
Let's see now, how many knots in that hangman's noose?
Posted by: Earl T at May 26, 2010 12:54 PM (1ZpeL)
6
Some people don't remember the adage, "If you don't know your history, history will repeat itself. The generation before you allowed the people we placed in power to take out, revise and dumb down our now generation. We did not teach our children or ourselves to stay involved with what is happening in our communities. Town meeting and community involvement. We put these people in power and we can take them out. We are all getting tired of "Wag the Dog politics". I don't want lip service, I want real service for my money.
Posted by: Lincoln at May 28, 2010 10:35 PM (OqGT7)
7
You speak of capital crimes and treason. The wealthy bankers have our polititions in their pockets. The Federal Reserve Bank is a privately owned concern. It is NOT a government of the people. We now have prisons that are publicly traded on the stock market. You don't know the half of what is going on with the Top one per cent. We have officials who tell police officers they have a quota to make each month to keep their jobs. That the courts are putting children in private jail facilities(owned by investors) and getting kick-backs to put them their to fill up their cells. That illegal aliens are also housed in the same type of facilities and we the tax paying citizens are footing the bill to keep them there. Chew on that for a while. THEN TELL EVERYBODY YOU KNOW AND WHO THEY KNOW TO VOTE. VOTE THEM OUT. STARTING WITH NANCY P. OF CALIFORNIA. AND ANYONE ELSE IN GOVERNMENT WHO WANTS TO BREAK THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS AND THINK THEY CAN DO WHAT THEY PLEASE.
Posted by: Lincoln at May 28, 2010 10:53 PM (OqGT7)
8
Does anyone realize that the power people (Top 1% )they only want a two party system?????Because it works for them to control you. You are conditioned from birth to believe this. Its not your fault. Like pavlovs dog you believe what the schools teach you. What they want to teach you, (the donkey and the elephant.) They are both the same. I know you dont want to believe this, it goes against all of your programing. It's true nontheless. You want change for yourself, find an independent and vote for them. That is the guy who will bring you honesty and real change. Especially if you get enough of them elected. Keep on trying to keep the foxes out of the hen houses. It's a full time job. It's your quality of life you will be protecting. We were told when we were young that we would be able to retire at 65. The powers that be now have taken that and medicare away, maybe for the rest of your life. While they retire on your blood, sweat and possibly tears. There is a song sung by Tennessee Earnie Ford "Sixteen Tons" Look it up. Then think About It.
Posted by: Lincoln at May 28, 2010 11:24 PM (OqGT7)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Thugs Want Their Cut; and They'll Wreck The Nation to Get It
A Democratic senator is introducing legislation for a bailout of troubled union pension funds. If passed, the bill could put another $165 billion in liabilities on the shoulders of American taxpayers.
The bill, which would put the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation behind struggling pensions for union workers, is being introduced by Senator Bob Casey, (D-Pa.), who says it will save jobs and help people.
As FOX Business Network's Gerri Willis reported Monday, these pensions are in bad shape; as of 2006, well before the market dropped and recession began, only 6% of these funds were doing well.
Although right now taxpayers could possibly be on the hook for $165 billion, the liability could essentially be unlimited because these pensions have to be paid out until the workers die.
Labor and the Left have been using their political power for years to extort exorbitant benefits out of companies, and they've done as good of a job in managing their pensions as they have the government.
As the article states, 94% of these union pensions were in trouble
before the recession.
Now Democrats want their incompetent constituencies bailed out by the taxpayers—
again—and the bailout is, as the article states, unlimited. If passed, we will have to pay for this forever.
Not just no, but Hell no.
I don't know if it is arrogance, stupidity, or simply corruption, but Democrats can't seem to fathom that the public trough is not bottomless. They seem to think that they can keep appropriating funds that don't exist, and that if they pass laws, money will magically appear from somewhere to pay for it all.
Its amazing that so many on the left ridicule those of us who believe in God, and yet stake the entirely of their future on hopes of a fiscal miracle.
Washington is an addictive culture, and now more than ever before, Democrats operate like
drunken sorority girls, living completely in the moment, doing whatever feels good without any thought towards the future, hoping that when they wake up in the morning, mom and dad will be there to settle up for all the damage they've caused.
Quite frankly, the collective actions of the Democratic Party in the House of Representatives, Senate, and White House could not be any more of a threat to this nation if it tried. Their fiscal irresponsibility is a far greater threat to this nation's future than collective actions of al Qaeda, Iran, and North Korea.
If we do not radically change the behavior of both parties in Washington (and the Democrats in particular), this nation will collapse, just as Greece and the European Union seemed destined to do in coming days.
Despite warnings sounded around the globe, free-spending enemies of our way of life such as Senator Bob Casey continue to push our nation towards insolvency at a quickening pace. No one in government or depdent on the government is willing to stop them... nor will they be,
as the get rich off the labor of the taxpayers.
Paychecks from private business shrank to their smallest share of personal income in U.S. history during the first quarter of this year, a USA TODAY analysis of government data finds.
At the same time, government-provided benefits — from Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps and other programs — rose to a record high during the first three months of 2010.
Those records reflect a long-term trend accelerated by the recession and the federal stimulus program to counteract the downturn. The result is a major shift in the source of personal income from private wages to government programs.
The trend is not sustainable, says University of Michigan economist Donald Grimes. Reason: The federal government depends on private wages to generate income taxes to pay for its ever-more-expensive programs.
Most Americans hope that the elections in November will allow us a chance to save our nation via the ballot box.
Sadly, if we can't find a way to shut down the reckless spending of our current crop of politicians and force them towards the path of fiscal accountability and restraint before the mid-terms, any resulting change in personnel may come to late to save our way of life, or our nation's future.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:01 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
No, no, you guys are right. All of those negotiated pensions should be allowed to fold, sending millions into abject poverty in their later years Hey, what could be more American, and more conservative, than ensuring poverty for millions. As long as we can keep the government's hands off of the estates of the richest 1% of the country, that is.
Posted by: Remarkulus at May 25, 2010 10:33 AM (BES0Z)
2
Remarkulus, are you real so dim, and so indoctrinated, that you actually believe that it will be the richest 1% that will bear the burden for the incompetent administration of these pension funds? No, ALL OF US--or at least all of us who pay taxes--will be stuck with the bill, at least until the entire nation defaults thanks to profligate spending.
You aren't worried about saving millions from poverty.
By attempting to create another unfunded mandate, you're insuring it.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 25, 2010 10:42 AM (gAi9Z)
3
It is too late for the ballot box to save us. We must cleanse our government of the parasites. We must reverse the damage. That calls for more radical methods. We cannot keep doing thing s the same way and expect different results. Get real.
We must do it another way or we are doomed to sicialism or worse, Marxism. No. Not on my land.
Posted by: OdinsAcolyte at May 25, 2010 10:58 AM (brIiu)
4
It is to late already. AT this point it does not matter what they put on we can't/won't pay it. The people really think things are getting better. So other than the Tea Partier's they is no one that cares. We are just going to have to watch this come down and hope/pray that we can build something after wards to replace it. I am sorry to sya it but I think we have lost the Republic and the nation as we know it.
s4r
Posted by: s4r at May 25, 2010 01:07 PM (u0FmQ)
5
So they guys making $20.00 an hour will cover for the guys who made $40.00 an hour?
Posted by: Picric at May 25, 2010 02:34 PM (xJEYd)
6
Remarkulus wants the "rich" to bail everyone out and rescue them from ill-considered decisions.
Screw that. If the union pensions are underwater, then either raise pension contribution rates or lower benefits. This is their problem, not anyone else's. If (as is very likely) union thugs and gangsters have stolen the money, then go after their estates and the auditing firms who made the theft possible.
The same should be done for over-generous public pensions too.
Posted by: iconoclast at May 25, 2010 06:03 PM (Srqoz)
7
All of those negotiated pensions should be allowed to fold, sending millions into abject poverty in their later years
Pish posh! They've got Social Security to save them, Remarkulus! What a Great Society!
Posted by: Pablo at May 26, 2010 07:29 AM (yTndK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 24, 2010
Calderon Lied, and Democrats Applauded
And no, it isn't about the issue you think it is.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:07 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
It's All Fun For Them, Until One of Their Little Unionized Terrorists Get Shot
I was offline most of the weekend, spending the bulk of Saturday and Sunday in an NRA Personal Protection Outside the Home course with a class filled with NRA instructors. All of us were concealed carry permit holders, and all had previously taken the Personal Protection in the Home course (more on the courses at another time, perhaps).
As a result, I didn't get a chance until today to read about
Nina Easton's account of a SEIU/NPA mob action that terrified the teen-aged son of a Bank of America lawyer, who was alone when the mob poured out of 14 buses and stormed their home.
I was not there and cannot provide details, context, or the perceptions of the young man trapped inside the home, but I would not begrudge anyone the right to arm themselves if their home is suddenly surrounded, swarmed by a crazed and shouting mob.
Grasping the size of the angry horde massing outside, trapped family members have every reason to go into a state of high alarm, as any reasonable person would under these completely unreasonable circumstances.
If a homeowner in such a situation felt that a chanting mob banging forcefully on door and windows was attempting to break into the home,
they would be fully justified under the laws of many states if the decided to start firing a gun through the door into the tightly packed mob behind it in order to stop what they felt was a felony home invasion in progress.
This is not an extreme nor unusual statute, but a simple acknowledgment of castle doctrine and stand your ground laws applied to a bizarre situation. The simple fact of the matter is that the union mob need not intend harm upon the family they've besieged, they merely need to act in such a way as to make those poor trapped souls feel in fear for their lives from the mob actions. At such a point, angrily thrown rocks, kicked doors and punched-out windows could unleash a volley of gunfire, causing casualties among those attempting to terrorize a family at home.
No jury on earth would convict a family trapped by 500 thugs screaming through bullhorns and causing them to reasonably suspect that their lives were in danger from a mob they thought was breaking down his door, and it's doubtful there would even be a prosecution in many jurisdictions.
Barack Obama's comfort with thug politics and love of strong-arm behavior may get some of his supporters killed one day, and he'll have no one to blame but his own tactics and allies.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:19 PM
| Comments (28)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
CY ... I endorse what you say 100%. I know that if some depraved organization like SEIU sent in 14 busloads of rowdy thugs to come on my property and terrorize me, I'd be standing in my doorway with my trusty Taurus The Judge revolver and daring them to come one step closer if they wanted a butt full of buckshot. Texas is 'my home is my castle' territory, and I'm 82 years old and not as strong and nimble as I used to be. But one thing I've learned -- you don't back down and hide from bullies. You face them down. And in Texas if they get shot on my land, I get no-billed by the Grand Jury. And you get, well, maybe dead.
Marianne Matthews
Posted by: Marianne Matthews at May 24, 2010 03:31 PM (Aaj8s)
2
As Glenn Beck put it, this guy was coming home from his younger son's baseball game. His older son, 14, was in the house alone and scared out of his wits. That man had a decision to make.
According to Glenn's account, the cops refused to do anything out of fear of the mob. At that point, I say the guns come out. But, this guy more than likely does not believe in guns and these thugs and hoodlums were terrorizing the wrong people. Again. Start harassing the politicians who corrupted his nation through their greedy and anti-america laws.
Posted by: captainfish at May 24, 2010 03:46 PM (+2+jA)
3
Apparently, the cops in question not only would not do anything about this home invasion, they had escorted these purple gang criminals to the house!
In the states that have castle doctrine in effect, it would be proper to open fire on those organized crime members.
SEIU: 21st century organized crime; our new "Purple Gang".
Posted by: John Thomas at May 24, 2010 06:40 PM (er7+p)
4
DC FOP:
"The FOP is unaware of any MPD officers being involved in this activity. MPD has denied that any vehicles or officers were sent into Maryland. In addition, the details were provided without any confirmation or citation to the source of the allegations. Finally, the details that were provided do not match or conform to MPD protocols for protests or other actions by MPD.
"I would also note that if there were in fact non-Maryland law enforcement or security at the event, there are over 30 police departments and dozens of "special police" (security guards) business and agencies in the District of Columbia. Many of those organizations wear uniforms and drive vehicles that include the name "District of Columbia."
Posted by: Neo at May 24, 2010 06:52 PM (tE8FB)
5
Metro PD:
"The reporting that the Metropolitan Police Department led members into Montgomery County and to the home of a bank executive is wholly false. The MPD shadowed the unpermitted march, while in the District of Columbia, to ensure that no one in the march was injured. At NO time did the MPD enter Montgomery County, Maryland. Upon arriving at the Maryland line the MPD notified the Montgomery County Police of the approaching march and then stayed in the District of Columbia."
Posted by: Neo at May 24, 2010 06:55 PM (tE8FB)
6
Just tweaked one of my lefty friends with this.
Me: Man, I wish I could afford a machine gun.
Him: What possible event could require you having a machine gun handy?
Me: A 500 strong mob, with the cops doing nothing about it, assaulting my house.
Him: Like that could ever happen.
Me: *hands him the article*
Seriously though, this is scary. It's like the damn Red Guards beating people up and destroying property in the name of socialist progress. No good can come of this.
Posted by: Britt at May 24, 2010 07:37 PM (VN7Wi)
7
In Connecticut, I have a concealed carry permit for my .44 spl.
In Connecticut you can shoot and kill a rapist in the act in his back (legally). You can shoot and kill the driver of a car bearing down on you with intent to it you.
You CANNOT pull and shoot a mob of 30 people, all armed with aluminum baseball bats (sporting equipment) who are beating you to death.
Weird, huh?
You also cannot shoot and kill anyone OUTSIDE your house. The trick is to get the thugs to break down your door and ENTER your home...then, well, get out the body bags.
ALSO! Connecticut is one of the few states you can LEGALLY own full automatic sub-machine guns. In the history of the state, NO CRIME has ever been perpetrated with a LEGALLY owned machine gun.
A friend of mine owns about 20 and 2 or 3 suppressors (silencers). Don't break into his home by accident.
Posted by: Connecticut Yankee at May 24, 2010 08:00 PM (Ws1to)
8
Connecticut Yankee said
ALSO! Connecticut is one of the few states you can LEGALLY own full automatic sub-machine guns. In the history of the state, NO CRIME has ever been perpetrated with a LEGALLY owned machine gun.
________________
No, what's funny is that select fire weapons are illegal in CT, but full auto ones are legal. So you can't own an M16, but you can own an M249. After, of course, paying the 200 tax and registering your light machine gun with the feds.
Quite a few states allow their citizens to own full auto weapons. Yet you still see weird things like I mentioned. Know your states laws, and the laws of any state you're going to be in.
Posted by: Britt at May 24, 2010 08:56 PM (VN7Wi)
9
Actually, if the mob of 500 was intent of turning you into a greasy spot, one gun-wielding person would be unlikely to provide more than an honor guard to Valhalla, all fantasies to the contrary. Even with automatic weapons, it would just make the splatter a bit larger.
I daresay, the kid did the right thing, locking himself someplace safe and the dad staying away. The police are just as culpable here. Trespassing is a crime, loitering is a crime, failure to disperse is a crime, protesting without a permit is a crime...all of which would have and should have resulted in a rather full county jail.
And as for the person talking about waving a gun around in public...even in Texas, they would arrest you, for the absolute stupidity of waving a loaded gun around if nothing else.
Easiest way to get the SEIU off the lawn: Turn on the spriklers. I heard they hate bathing.
Posted by: MunDane at May 24, 2010 09:36 PM (dlS06)
10
Neo:
FOP is lying. Monty County has confirmed that DC Metro did indeed provide the escort.
Posted by: Bohemond at May 24, 2010 09:40 PM (GznpF)
11
MunDane ... Evidently you are unfamiliar with the laws of Texas regarding firearms. I, however, am not, since I am a resident of this wonderful state. Texans are allowed to have reasonable numbers of guns at home, both long guns and side arms, without having to register them. And they are allowed to defend their homes and surrounding property from home invaders, with the guns they own. As long as the invading criminals are on my property, I can shoot them if they refuse to leave. And, as I said, I would be no billed by a Grand Jury, if the case ever came to court. Texans don't like strangers who threaten little old ladies in tennis shoes.
Concealed carry permits are fairly easy to get in Texas, although there are so many applications right now that there is a delay of a few months. We take our constitutional rights seriously here, MunDane, and we are the border state with the longest border with Mexico -- even longer than the border Arizona shares with Mexico.
I don't know what part of the country you're from, MunDane, but I suggest that you could, with a little exploration on the Internet, find out the gun possession regulations and carry permit regulations for all the states, if you would investigate before popping off.
Somehow, I don't think you'll do that. You seem to prefer ignorance to enlightenment.
Marianne Matthews
Posted by: Marianne Matthews at May 24, 2010 10:37 PM (Aaj8s)
12
Marianne,
Even in Texas, if you point a gun at a cop, they will shoot you.
Even in Texas.
Posted by: MunDane at May 25, 2010 06:46 AM (dlS06)
13
It would have been a great time to water the lawn...
Posted by: Scott Wiggins at May 25, 2010 08:07 AM (sE08M)
14
Appearing in the your front doorway (an open upstairs window would actually be ideal) with a shotgun at port arms would have been an affective crowd dispersant. Bet you wouldn't even have to speak, much less raise your voice.
If nothing else it would let the local LEOs know that they need to end the situation pronto. If the cops try to approach you simply close the door and tell them you are willing to discuss the matter once they disperse the crowd. Otherwise they are gonna need a warrant to come inside.
Posted by: ThomasD at May 25, 2010 08:46 AM (21H5U)
15
If the cops did indeed "escort" the protesters then they are liable for criminal prosecution. They've overstepped the bounds of their sovereign immunity.
Posted by: Jerry in Detroit at May 25, 2010 08:52 AM (OQ4ml)
16
MunDane ... Why would I shoot at a cop? Cops are my friends, not my enemies. If an SEIU mob in 14 buses drove down my street and started to make trouble for my neighbors and me, I would already have called the Constable Patrol and the cops. And they would already be on their way. When they got here, they wouldn't try to protect the thugs in their purple shirts. They would be protecting me. That's the way it works here in Texas.
Marianne
Posted by: Marianne Matthews at May 25, 2010 09:13 AM (Aaj8s)
17
Actually, I was thinking the same thing, namely that if a mob of chanting angry people came onto my lawn, the guns WOULD come out.
I wouldn't necessarily start shooting just because a mob was standing around chanting, but if anyone were breaking my windows or banging on the front door; or if I though they were heading in the direction to do that; or if any of them were carrying weapons or making overt physical threats, they'd get shot with no hesitation whatever.
I think in all 50 states an angry mob banging down your door would qualify as "reasonable belief of imminent grievous bodily injury or death".
Being on your own property (with or without children present), having absolutely no ability to retreat, facing numerous attackers simultaneously, and ALREADY having called the police would together literally make the strongest legal case possible for defensive use of deadly force. If you can't employ deadly force legally under those circumstances, you can't employ it period. I'll take my chances with a grand jury, even in liberal states.
Note that in practice, more likely than not, just a few shots fired (even into the air) would probably cause the mob to disperse.
In terms of actual hardware, a true machine gun would not only not be necessary, it would probably be suboptimal. A simple AR-15 or AK type gun would probably be ideal.
Posted by: looking closely at May 25, 2010 09:43 AM (YpVHs)
18
All the comments about needing a machine gun or heavy artillery to disperse this mob is a little overkill. It is the carry permits that make would be muggers think twice about robbing someone, or other violent crimes. If the SEIU and the rest of the "Intimidators" had known there were guns in the house would they have been as bold? I would not go looking for trouble, but I will give my troubles some trouble of there own.
Posted by: Picric at May 25, 2010 10:31 AM (xJEYd)
19
Shoot them. You have every right to.
Posted by: OdinsAcolyte at May 25, 2010 10:59 AM (brIiu)
20
Much as there is the visceral desire (and in most states the recognized right to defend your person with lethal force at your residence), to inflict bodily harm on these SEIU thugs, the instant result revealed several things: 1) the SEIU likes to terrorize anyone who is a perceived class opponent; 2) the SEIU are now being perceived more and more as thugs pursuing a socio-political ideology supported by the democrats and 3) SIEU will terrorize children to achive their aims. This will hurt them more than they realize.
The cloak that the SEIU wraps itself in, to protect the working class, is now torn free to reveal the purple shirted thug underneath.
While SEIU's terror campaign resulted in no physical injuries (though I think that teenager will be scarred for life by their tactics). The fact that no SEIU thugs were hurt reduces any sympathy that could be directed to the SEIU thugs. In adddition the SEIU now look like purple shirted jackbooted thugs terrorizing a teenager with no respect for other people's property or common decency or respect for fellow human beings. There is no talking point that excuses their behavior.
We can't buy that kind of publicity against these cretins.
Posted by: Penfold at May 25, 2010 11:01 AM (1PeEC)
21
I'd have fired for effect.
Posted by: cmblake6 at May 28, 2010 01:35 AM (04buQ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 23, 2010
Agents of Incompetence, Part 423
Just when you think that Customs and the ATF have plumbed the depths of ignorance regarding claims that airsoft guns can be converted into machine guns, A dim-witted Fox News account dives deeper into the abyss.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:33 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I would seem that someone on that level would understand what a gun is and what is does before making comments. If you really want to see stupidity, check out the comments section.
Posted by: David at May 24, 2010 12:19 PM (coY4Z)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Oh My Word
If you use duct tape instead of paint to cover the entire exterior of your car...
you might be a redneck...
...a really, really disturbed redneck.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:09 PM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
You might also be trying to disguise your new stolen car.
Posted by: David at May 23, 2010 02:22 PM (coY4Z)
2
A very good way to change the color of the car. It is a nice job. I would hate to have to try and get that glue off the car.
Posted by: OdinsAcolyte at May 24, 2010 10:44 AM (brIiu)
3
HEY NOW.. I resemble that remark.
Posted by: captainfish at May 24, 2010 03:47 PM (+2+jA)
4
This guy also had way too much time on his hands.
Posted by: Lord Whorfin at May 25, 2010 09:49 AM (ZlUue)
5
It's a stealth coating meant to foil attempts at laser based speed checks

Posted by: GaMongrel at May 26, 2010 08:58 AM (0JM7b)
6
Either a disturbed redneck or one of the people from "Mythbusters," who have done some truly amazing things with the stuff, including making a workable cannon out of it. No kidding.
Posted by: Bleepless at May 26, 2010 05:39 PM (sRxdX)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 22, 2010
Arkansas Cop-Killers Were Sovereign Citizen Extremists
The two police officers gunned down in Arkansas Thursday were killed by a father and son that were part of the radical sovereign citizen movement.
The Arkansas State Police on Friday identified the pair — killed Thursday during an exchange of gunfire with the police — as Jerry R. Kane Jr., 45, of Forest, Ohio, and his son Joseph T. Kane, believed to be 16.
About 90 minutes before the shootout with the police, Sgt. Brandon Paudert, 39, and Officer Bill Evans, 38, were killed with AK-47 assault rifles after stopping a minivan on Interstate 40 in West Memphis, Ark., the authorities said.
Jerry Kane, who used the Internet to question federal and local government authority over him, made money holding debt-elimination seminars around the country. He had a long police record and had recently complained about being arrested at what he called a “Nazi checkpoint” near Carrizozo, N.M., where court records showed he spent three days in jail on charges of driving without a license and concealing his identity before posting a $1,500 bond.
Sheriff Gene Kelly of Clark County, Ohio, told The Associated Press on Friday that he had issued a warning to officers on July 21, 2004, saying that Mr. Kane might be dangerous to law enforcement officers. Sheriff Kelly said he had based his conclusion on a conversation the two men had had about a sentence Mr. Kane had received for some traffic violations.
Sheriff Kelly said that Mr. Kane complained in 2004 about being sentenced to six days of community service for driving with an expired license plate and no seat belt, saying that the judge had tried to "enslave" him. Mr. Kane had added that he was a "free man" and had asked for $100,000 per day in gold or silver.
I have never seen or heard of a "sovereign citizen" that wasn't a chronic screw-up that was drawn to the movement to excuse their own chronic bad decision-making. Many—like Joe Stack, the man who flew a plane into IRS offices earlier this year in a vengeful murder/suicide—are tax cheats and scam artists with great disdain for government and law-enforcement officers. They feel the law is the cause of their problems... not their own corruption and moral turpitude.
The world is better off without such people.
It is a shame that they sometimes take good people with them when they self-destruct.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
05:23 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The late Kanes, Sr and Jr. seem to share a philosophy, hating banks, with,let us see, ACORN, from where Barack Obama graduated, SEIU, from where Obama gets money and rent-a-thugs and Obama himself, who has expressed hatred of banks, and cops.
Posted by: DavidL at May 22, 2010 05:50 PM (EmDLH)
2
The "sovereign citizen" movement bears some resemblance to another organization that had heavy criminal membership, took a political stance that questioned the legitimacy of many laws and many of whose leaders wound up in violent confrontations with law enforcement: none other than the Black Panther Party.
I think that California's ban on open carry of loaded long guns was in reaction to the Panthers' doing so.
Posted by: Peter B at May 23, 2010 01:17 AM (cU0wK)
3
Amen.
Though not a great fan of government, I realize the options are far worse. At least this government, to this time, may be mitigated by elections, lawsuits, and other civil tools. If I may not always be happy with things as they are, I also know I would probably never be completely happy with any situation, owing as much to my own difficulty with imperfection of which I am as culpable as the next man. Though too, a government is merely a collection of men, so the errors of each are added, then multiplied, so I would be grateful at seeing government much more limited.
Bah!
Posted by: Doom at May 23, 2010 09:21 AM (HgkpM)
4
How much do you want to bet that the fact that AK-47's were used will be used as a "rallying cry" for the "assault weapons" ban crowd?
Glad those two nut cases have had their gene stock removed from the pool. Too bad they had to take a couple of good guys out first, though.
Posted by: Gray Wolf at May 23, 2010 10:44 AM (AEwmP)
5
This is the first I've heard of these criminals. Where are the blood dancers, screaming for more gun bans? This crime seems tailor made to suit their agenda.
Is the lack of reaction another sign of the death of the anti-gun crusade?
Posted by: Brad at May 24, 2010 05:44 PM (Xk55q)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 21, 2010
Politically-correct ROE Seeks to Turn Afghanistan into Beirut
God forbid we send out soldiers into battle with loaded weapons:
Commanders have reportedly ordered a U.S. military unit in Afghanistan to patrol in a manner that could handicap them.
Some soldiers are being ordered to conduct patrols without a round chambered in their weapons, The US Report has learned from an anonymous source at a forward operating base in Afghanistan. Our source was unsure if the order came from his unit or if it affected other units.
On war correspondent Michael Yon's Facebook page, commenters stated that this is a common practice in Iraq, while others said that it is occurring in Afghanistan as well. According to military protocol, "Amber" status requires weapons to have a loaded magazine, but the safety on and no round chambered.
"The idea that any combat unit would conduct any operation, including patrolling and even manning a security post -- in which direct action may-or-may not take place -- and not having weapons loaded, borders on being criminally negligent in my opinion," says Lt. Col. W. Thomas Smith Jr., a recognized expert on terrorism and military/national defense issues. "This is nothing more than infusing politically correct restrictions into already overly restrictive rules of engagement. And this PC nonsense is going to get people killed."
I wonder how high up this order originated, and with good reason. The order to put the Marines in Beirut on "amber" status is rumored to have come when then Senator Joe Biden became infuriated when he visited the base and found that the guards were armed with locked and loaded weapons.
This email came to me from a Marine roughly two years ago:
I am a former Marine, having served from '78-'86 When the barracks in Beirut went down, three Marines I knew went with it. Two were Marines I had attended a school with, and were acquaintances at best. The third was a Marine captain that had, immediately before his mission in Beirut, been my company executive officer.
Many years later, I met another former Marine who had been a senior NCO there. We began to exchange stories of our time in the Corps, as former Marines are prone to do. When the subject of the Middle East arose, he told me a disturbing tale. In a nutshell, Biden, a few weeks before the bombing, had visited the barracks. He had a fit at the defensive posture of the unit, which had prudently set up barricades, automatic weapons emplacements, etc. Per Biden, they were not deployed as appropriate to their "peacekeeping" mission - too warlike, and "sending the wrong message."
He demanded that the fortifications be dismantled. The senior NCO on the scene respectfully reminded the senator that he was not in the chain of command. After throwing a tantrum, Biden and the rest of the congressional fact-finding mission left for home. A few days later, word came down from the Pentagon to comply with Biden's instruction. Evidently, Biden had located a spineless officer at the Pentagon. Also included in the order were some changes to the ROE (Rules of Engagement) that slowed response to any attacks. (Marines were not allowed to keep their weapons loaded) The one Marine, a young lance corporal, who was able to fire on the truck as it headed toward the barracks was only able to do so because he had kept his weapon loaded in spite of the order, after the unit first sergeant had hinted he would turn a blind eye. This is the same young Marine, that suffering from survivor guilt, took his own life shortly after.
I was unable to confirm this story at the time, just as I am unable to confirm it now. We do know, however, that our troops in Afghanistan are faced with absurd rules of engagement created by REMFs (I'll let you look that up on your own), bureaucrats, and politicians like those presently in power.
It appears they won't be satisfied until they get our soldiers and Marines massacred... again.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:11 PM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Marines, as well as other military personel are expendable for the chickenhawk button pushers of both parties who fancy themselves warriors strutting on the world tv networks. The last time any american was defending American soil and not killing for empire was 1860 to 1865 and Jefferson Davis was president. Marines should be standing on American soil, and no where else. Put and end to the welfare/warfare state and return to liberty. That solves problems like being defenseless in another country.
Posted by: ranger at May 21, 2010 01:48 PM (a2VJn)
2
This cannot be true and if it is; I would disobey that order. When I got home I would hunt down that weenie who made the order.
Posted by: Odins Acolyte at May 21, 2010 04:07 PM (brIiu)
3
Shades of 1968-1969. Although I was in the Air Force, I saw the ROE's come through that limited free fire areas, limited weapon status (loaded, unloaded, round chambered, etc.) based on where field actions were located. Most of us who pulled base perimeter guard duty became very compentent at quickly (and silently) ejecting that chambered round when the Guard Captain made his rounds. You always had enough notice as the Sgt. that accompanied him would make enough noise for a full flight. I couldn't understand the logic of standing guard with an unloaded weapon. Didn't make sense then, doesn't now.
As my TI was want to intone - grab your left ear with your right hand ....
Posted by: Rubber_Ducky at May 21, 2010 04:29 PM (eXugL)
4
The problem has been around since Biblical times, remember the bricks without straw? If we are going to put our military in harm's way the least we can do is give them the tools to do the job, define what the job is and then leave them alone to do it.
The consequences are terrible when Congress is micro-managing the civilian sector and horrific when the military is the victim.
Posted by: NevadaDailySteve at May 21, 2010 05:39 PM (+xi30)
5
Son mentioned, after first tour in Iraq, that when in the watchtowers on one base they were supposed to have the chamber clear. Didn't understand it then, still don't.
Posted by: Firehand at May 21, 2010 08:43 PM (UQUiP)
6
During the Baader-Meinhof/Red Army Faction days in Germany, I was living in one of the bases that the gang had threatened to attack, because of all the dependents there. It was considered serious enough to post "armed" guards all around the kaserne (base) for several weeks, if I recall correctly.
I do recall that none of the troopers had a loaded weapon. They were completely empty. I suppose the troopers were supposed to use their rifles as clubs if an attack were to occur.
So this sort of nonsense is not new.
Posted by: iconoclast at May 22, 2010 10:40 AM (ig61B)
7
What is strange is that I live next to one of the largest air bases in the US. The guards there are chambered and ready to fire. In fact, if you get on the flight line after dark, it is shot first then identify who you used to be. Why are the rules more lax in the US than abroad?
Posted by: David at May 22, 2010 04:37 PM (coY4Z)
8
I remember well standing perimeter guard duty at night, at Da Nang AB in 1970. Those were the longest 12 hour shifts I ever endured. Two of us in a tower 20' up. We were always safed and loaded, and no one ever checked on us except by radio. We each had an Ammo can full of loaded clips, plus one in the rifle. This was right after TET, so everyone was tense.
Our Kill zone was a 100' cleared strip with three coils of Razor wire on each side. It was lit with just about enough light to see by. Not fun.
Posted by: Marc at May 23, 2010 03:57 PM (20fK0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Know Your Pests
It is a small-minded, greedy and instinctive creature that survives on a scavenger's diet, but prefers to feast upon the succulent roots of of established growth, whittling away at the underlying base until it can no long support life, killing it from below.
And then there is the vole...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:18 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Of course Mr. Obama ignored the rat passing in front of his podium. Like the joke about sharks refusing to eat drowning lawyers, it's a matter of professional courtesy, donchaknow.
Marianne Matthews
Posted by: Marianne Matthews at May 21, 2010 10:59 AM (Aaj8s)
2
Witty, and yet true, so dang true.
Posted by: Michael at May 21, 2010 11:36 AM (PU7e+)
3
I bet it followed Obama all the way from Cabrini-Green!
Posted by: Rip VanBullwinkle at May 21, 2010 06:16 PM (T/k/7)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Breaking: Mexican President Calderone Lied to Congress
Let's not let a little thing like a huge lie get in the way of self-serving rhetoric (my bold below):
"There is one issue where Mexico needs your cooperation. And that is stopping the flow of assault weapons and other deadly arms across the border," Calderon said to a standing ovation from U.S. lawmakers.
Calderon said the increase in violence in Mexico had coincided with the 2004 lifting of a U.S. assault weapons ban.
The 10-year ban on the sale of assault weapons to civilians expired without being extended by Congress. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has said the administration favors reinstituting the ban, though guns rights groups oppose it.
Calderon said he respects Americans' Second Amendment right to bear arms but said many of the guns are getting into the hands of criminals.
SEIZING GUNS
Mexico has seized around 75,000 guns and assault weapons in the last three years, Calderon said. He said more than 80 percent of them came from the United States and noted there were more than 7,000 gun shops along the border.
This was part of the same speech where Democrats gave Calderone a
standing ovation for criticizing laws meant to protect Americans from his predatory citizens.
Calderone's claim that more than 80% of guns came from the U.S is a
bald-faced lie.
The actual figure is less than 18%, and the number of guns purchased from dealers that made their way to Mexico was only eight percent; the majority of guns traced to the United States were stolen.
The bulk of firearms in the hands of the cartels are military weapons purchased on the black market, with a sizable percentage purchased or stolen from the Mexican government itself.
Corruption in Calderone's own government has provided far more machine guns to the cartels than he could ever dream of getting from U.S. gun stores.
That is the uncomfortable truth that he would rather ignore.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:20 AM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
When the 90% lie came out I posted about that but the reality is, 80% is likely high but you have to take into consideration all the machine guns that the US.GOV gives to Mexico for anti-drug efforts and the guns the Mex.gov buys from US arms makers to equip the cartels, I mean the military and police, in Mexico.
The AK's, likely not coming from the US in any way shape form or fashion but the rest could very well be coming into Mexico from the US just not the way that he is claiming.
Posted by: TXGunGeek at May 21, 2010 09:52 AM (RWCgS)
2
I think the 80% figure is pure bs, but where did you come up with 18% and 8%?
Posted by: Lloyd at May 21, 2010 10:32 AM (hzdcw)
3
I suspect that Mexican President Felipe Calderone gave a speech written by the Obama White House, reflecting Obama administration priorities. I find hard to believe that Calderone even understands the meanings of the word written for him. Calderone talks about upholding an Obama version of American values, while defending Mexico, draconian in comparison, immigration policy. In Mexico,a foreigner would be arrested for giving a speech criticizing his host nation.
More smart foreign policy.
Posted by: DavidL at May 21, 2010 10:33 AM (EmDLH)
4
As I understand the gun law, there are not any rapid fire weapons available to the US citizen or for sell except with very stringent regulation. The only thing about an assault rifle is that it looks mean. It still only fires one shot with one trigger pull, and does that inaccurately. If I am wrong, please let me know.
Posted by: David at May 21, 2010 10:46 AM (coY4Z)
5
You're wrong, David. Many assault rifles are very accurate. A buddy of mine takes his deer every year with his AR-15. I prefer a bigger bullet than that, but I'd have no problems doing so if I had to.
Posted by: skip at May 21, 2010 12:13 PM (RZhcI)
6
Thanks skip, my experience has been somewhat different. But still, these weapons are not rapid fire. As far as I know they just look bad.
Posted by: David at May 21, 2010 02:23 PM (coY4Z)
7
Ah, the old Scary Black Rifle ban.
Posted by: Pablo at May 21, 2010 03:54 PM (yTndK)
8
Aw heck, let's just annex it already. It's easier to set up a boarder fence.
Posted by: The Albatross at May 21, 2010 05:24 PM (Foj90)
9
The 80% line is intentionally mis-leading.
It is not the percentage of weapons recovered from the drug cartels.
It is not the percentage of weapons thought to be of US origin.
It is the percentage of weapons verified to be of US origin, of those that were submitted validation.
So what is being discussed is 80% of some other percentage.
Example: If 5% of the total weapons recovered were thought to be of US origin, and 80% of those were confirm, the actual percentage of weapons is 4%. Of course, the 80% is a bigger club than the more more technially correct 4%.
This is how statistics can be made to lie.
Posted by: Matthew at May 21, 2010 06:36 PM (cqCQM)
10
This guy has the same speech writer as Obama. Here is a little neglected fact, Yes the socalled assault weapons probably ARE coming from the US. BUT if his Criminals, I mean Illegals, err rather Mexican NATIONALS would STOP STEALING them from the lawful owners who are US Citizens they wouldnt end up in Mexico. AND if he wants those gunshops to move away from the border he needs to stop his thugs criminals, thieves rapists and murderers from crossing the border to commit their crimes... Simple Applied Logic... something Politicians just cant figure out how to use.
Posted by: Scott at May 22, 2010 09:50 AM (BuTHu)
11
Only about 20% of weapons captured in Mexico have a serial number. 80% of the weapons with serial numbers came from the U.S. Since every weapon in the U.S. is required to have a serial number, then the percentage of guns in Mexico that come from the U.S. is about 16% - not 80%.
Posted by: Jack at May 23, 2010 01:08 PM (VXjlm)
12
Since every weapon in the U.S. is required to have a serial number, then the percentage of guns in Mexico that come from the U.S. is about 16% - not 80%.
Does that percentage include firearms legally transferred to Mexico and subsequently sold on the black market to cartels and gangs?
Posted by: iconoclast at May 23, 2010 06:36 PM (MZd0C)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 20, 2010
Mexican President Craps on Our Laws, Democrats Applaud
Where do you begin?
Felipe Calderon's faltering nation relies on dollars sent home by illegal aliens to support his anemic economy, so it is little surprise that he'd want U.S. sovereignty compromised and immigration enforcement efforts impuned.
What is utterly pathetic, however, is that he could make a speech in front of our Congress attacking laws Americans have passed to protect our citizens from the kidnappers, drug dealers, and murderers that are his nation's most worrisome export,
and receive a standing ovation from Democrats.
I no longer question the patriotism of the Democratic Party.
That question has been answered.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:45 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
"I no longer question the patriotism of the Democratic Party. That question has been answered."
There was any question? Hah!
This fact is the greatest division between the Democratic Party leadership and the vast majority of the rest of America, and has been since 1972. The big thinkers of the Party believe that nationalism is icky and backward, and that they are above that kind of primitivism. The party of Big Government, the party of mixed economy Socialism, is also the party of Internationalism. Their truly isn't much distance between the ideology of the modern Dem and his European-Union brethren across the Atlantic.
So naturally the Dems applauded Calderon. They couldn't help themselves, it's instinctual. Of course they favor Mexicans over Americans, after all aren't Americans rich and Mexicans poor?
Posted by: Brad at May 21, 2010 01:48 AM (Xk55q)
2
Obama sought to show that he, too, is fed up with his own government’s failure to fix a system widely seen as broken.
Obama appears to be losing Obama
Posted by: Neo at May 21, 2010 09:59 AM (tE8FB)
3
I thought the speech to Congress then the reaction of our great politicians was about as low as it gets. How can any decent individual in the US vote for these jerks? I am including the Republicans that also cheered aspects of the speech. Then to listen to the news interview (with Wolf!) and here how this guy admit that Mexico is far worse than anything we could dream up.
Our country or rather government has ceased to function. If Novemeber does not start the cure, then we will have to amputate.
Posted by: David at May 21, 2010 10:52 AM (coY4Z)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Coward In Chief
Physical evidence proves that a North Korean homing torpedo sank the south Korean frigate Cheonan on March 26. Despite the fact that 46 sailors were killed in the attack, our gutless administration refuses to faces the incident honestly, refusing to call the sinking of the Cheonan an act of war.
Administration officials would not go so far as to label the attack an act of war -- White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said he would not get into "hypotheticals" when asked if the dispute could lead to war. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the United States is focused on supporting its "strong ally" while at the same time considering "stability in that region."
Mirroring his bosses, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates also
refused to state the obvious:
The Pentagon's top leadership refused on Thursday to label the sinking of a South Korean ship an act of war.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates says the United States supports the finding that North Korea sank a South Korean warship in March. South Korea announced the finding this week.
Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, say the next move is up to South Korea. They would not discuss what options the U.S. might have, even though the U.S. is a close ally of the South and maintains tens of thousands of troops on the North Korean border to defend the South.
We are governed by an administration who cannot honestly address events out of fear of having to
act issue a strongly worded statement if they admit out loud what occurred.
One day this President's craven acquiescence to evil is going to get people killed.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:49 PM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Surely he appoligized. I can't believe that he would let an opportunity like this to go by without humbling himself to the Koreans.
Posted by: David at May 20, 2010 03:43 PM (coY4Z)
2
THE US NAVY HAS HAD LISTENING IN EVERY OSCEAN IN THE WORLD AND TRACKS EVERY SUBMARINE 24/7.BY NOT SHARING THAT INTELLIGENCE WITH OUR ALLY,THE ADMINISTRATION WAS COMPLICIT IN THE ATTACK BY ENABLING THE N. KOREANS.
Posted by: CLYDE at May 20, 2010 03:53 PM (74zhr)
3
Clyde
Please stop yelling.
But you may be right. However, the ocean is a big place and unless there are listening posts nearby that can pick up the sub in attack mode (hard to do when the state boundaries are so close together), it seems unreasonable to accuse the USA of enabling NK.
As for letting SK decide what to do--it is their country, after all. We are their ally, but our troops or ships were not attacked (this time). If SK decides that having Seoul brought down with tens of thousands of civilian deaths is worth it, then they can decide how to proceed.
Posted by: iconoclast at May 20, 2010 04:21 PM (ig61B)
4
First off, I doubt that an all electric mini-submarine would be detectable by the traditional passive sonar arrays, so it is entirely possible the no one heard anything until the torp was in the water.
Second, I think it was instapundit (PBUH) that noted that something like 30% of the SK population is within artillery range of the Norks, so getting huffy with a madman is contraindicated for national survival.
Posted by: MunDane at May 20, 2010 07:38 PM (dlS06)
5
"...so getting huffy with a madman is contraindicated for national survival."
Not to mention a whole possible series of reasons for this event other than "Kim ordered this." such as:
"Oops, you mean that red button fires the torpedo?"
"Captain, it appears to be a short in the firing circuit."
"Ha! I have sunk one of the Imperialist Southern Warships, certainly I will be greatly rewarded for this."
"Um....Captain, I don't think that was one of the torpedo simulators we launched."
And of course the best one.
"I'm not catching the blame for this. Nobody says a word about this, we'll edit the inventory records to show we never had that torpedo, and nobody will ever know."
Posted by: Georg Felis at May 20, 2010 10:39 PM (i5bRG)
6
Funny the administration has no qualms going after American citizens......Maybe we can tell BarackCommieJeezus the Tea Partiers sank it, war would be declared and Billy boy Ayers dreams of putting all the non-believers in camps can come true....... Ask Larry Grathwohl about that.
Posted by: Jeremy at May 20, 2010 11:07 PM (Wqp+u)
7
Perhaps the NK sub commander watched too many reruns of a bootleg of "The Bedford Incident"
Screaming sub commander, "Well if he fires one then I'll fire one!"
Nervous torpedo tech, "Fire 1, sir!"
Posted by: Brad at May 21, 2010 01:58 AM (Xk55q)
Posted by: diogenes.online at May 21, 2010 07:41 AM (2MrBP)
9
Someone help me out here. Did Gibbs suggest that the South Korean ship "hypothetically" sank? That the Norks fired a "hypothetical" torpedo? Every time I think he can't get any stoopider, he goes and does it. Good grief.
Posted by: Tim at May 21, 2010 11:12 AM (nc6/K)
10
"Act of War", I believe that declaration has to come from South Korea not the US. We would be immediately involved of course. It would be a very short lived and costly vicious affair. The sad fact is like Iran it is coming......
Posted by: JerseyGeorge at May 21, 2010 05:49 PM (tVehK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Rand Paul's Dilemma
As soon as he won the Republican primary in Kentucky, Rand Paul was accused of being a racist by those on the political left. Ben Smith got his digs in at Politico, and of course, Think Progress ratcheted up their outrageously outrageous outrage up to "11," and their usual talking points-following crowd immediately followed suit.
Paul has trapped himself in an untenable position thanks to being a fairly rigid libertarian, and James Joyner
does an excellent job of explaining how a
non-racist libertarian such as Paul can paint himself into such a corner.
Paul’s views are identical to those I held when studying Constitutional Law as an undergrad and not all that far removed from my current position. There's no question in my mind that private individuals have a right to freely associate, that telling owners of private businesses whom they must serve amounts to an unconstitutional taking, and that it's none of the Federal government's business, anyway. Further, in the context of 2010 America, I absolutely think that business owners ought to be able to serve whomever they damned well please — whether it's a bar owner wishing to cater to smokers, a racist wanting to exclude blacks, or a member of a subculture wishing to carve out a place for members of said subculture to freely associate with only their kind out of purely benign purposes.
The problem, circa 1964, was that there really was not right to freely associate in this manner in much of the country. Even once state-mandated segregation was ended, the community put enormous pressure on business owners to maintain the policy. That meant that, say, a hotel owner who wished to rent rooms without regard to color really weren't free to do so. More importantly, it meant that, say, a black traveling salesman couldn't easily conduct his business without an in-depth knowledge of which hotels, restaurants, and other establishments catered to blacks. Otherwise, his life would be inordinately frustrating and, quite possibly, dangerous.
In such an environment, the discrimination is institutionalized and directly affecting interstate commerce. It was therefore not unreasonable for the Federal government to step in using their broad powers under the 14th Amendment. I'm still not sure parts of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (especially the issue in question here) or the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (especially treating individual states differently from others) are strictly Constitutional. But they were necessary and proper in the context of the times.
Paul's position may very well be accurate, but as Joyner points out, the probable unconstitutionality of portions of the law had to be weighed against standards of reasonableness in the context of the times in which the law was passed. The strict view Paul has taken is probably a constitutionally correct libertarian interpretation, but that is utterly irrelevant to the rhetorical campaign being waged against him.
In short, these stories do not seem to show that Rand Paul harbors racist sentiments or sympathies, but that his libertarian values are being used against him. I suspect that Democrats may try to keep pushing this issue or raise it again in the fall. Paul is going to have to come up with a less wonky response to this emotion-driven issue.
Right now, he doesn't seem to have one.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:37 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
It is sad commentary on the state of our republic than Dr. Paul's attempt consequences of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are demonized by Morons.
For her part, Rachel Maddow demonstrated nothing beyond the idea that the state has the power to prohibit of what she does not approve.
Only the world of the liberal is not selling lunch to Dr. King a moral outrage of the highest order, but killing your unborn baby is a precious constitutional right. Lucky for her, Maddow's mother did not exercise her rights.
Posted by: DavidL at May 20, 2010 11:03 AM (GNRwl)
2
DavidL,
Yeah Lucky for her and unlucky for us.
Posted by: Oldcrow at May 20, 2010 12:29 PM (bitxf)
3
How old was Rand in 1964?
For that matter I think that the CRA was one of the absolutely worse bills ever passed. It robbed States of their rights and distoryed the concept of private property. Attitudes toward blacks were changing at the time and the bill was not needed.
The result, we are all in prison as a result of this bill. We can not board a plane without exceptional hassel (useless). We have exceptionally ignorant voters as a result and many are voting several times on the back of this bill. The situation in Arizona is a result of this bill. The list could go on and on.
Posted by: David at May 20, 2010 01:05 PM (coY4Z)
4
as Joyner points out, the probable unconstitutionality of portions of the law had to be weighed against standards of reasonableness in the context of the times in which the law was passed.
That makes no sense. Would you say that the Second Amendment could be scapped based on "standards of reasonableness in the context of the times in which the law was passed"? The entire point of having a constitution is that it makes it difficult for Congress to pass laws eliminating certain rights.
If we're going to let Congress and the courts ignore the constitution, than lets tear up that old piece of paper and be done with it.
Posted by: flenser at May 20, 2010 05:02 PM (k+dZ4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Mexican Pirates Robbing Americans At Gunpoint in Border Lake
Somebody call John Kerry and his swift boat, as it seems he might be useful after all.
While the U.S. government does nothing, the violence and criminality spilling over from Mexico's civil/drug war
continues to escalate:
Officials in Zapata are warning boaters on the waters of Falcon Lake to be on alert.
The alert comes after at least three pirate types of attacks within the past month.
Zapata County Sheriff Sigifredo Gonzalez says, "They have been victims of piracy and I dare say that word. They have been robbed by people using AR-15’s or handguns to their heads. It's just not safe to go to the Mexican side anymore."
It's not safe on the American side of this border lake created by the damming of the Rio Grande between Mexico and Texas, either. The most recent event occurred
this past Sunday, as suspected Zetas cartel gunmen robbed fishermen in American waters on the lake.
Meanwhile, the Obama Administration, allowing Mexican President Felipe Calderon
a soapbox to rant about Arizona's new anti-criminal immigrant law, refuses to do anything to control our southern border or protect American citizens.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:28 AM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Sounds like a target rich environment. Hook up the boat, lets go fishing.
Posted by: 1sttofight at May 20, 2010 08:36 AM (AfcDN)
2
I' with ya 1sttofight. I was going to write something else until I seen yours. LOL
Posted by: dgj at May 20, 2010 11:20 AM (g/BUt)
3
How about the fact the Mexican president scolds us for the Arizona law. Then when asked about what they do in Mexico? They demand papers and limit the ability of people to move about.
Posted by: David at May 20, 2010 01:08 PM (coY4Z)
4
I have several ideas that could help to reduce some of the problems.
1. End the war on drugs. Legalize everything. If you want an antibiotic, go to Walgreens and buy it. If you need some Percocet, same thing. Why do we have to go to a doctor to obtain medications? The concept does not make sense. I am sure you can argue that doctors know what we need, but try getting an appointment within a week for an urgent need. And from my experience (as a physician) I don't see that doctors are all that great on mundane matters.
The same goes for the hard stuff. Imagine the amount of money saved if we stopped the DEA. There is also a ton of money spent on the after effects of illecit drugs that most people are not aware of.
2. Allow the Mexicans to come here and work. The only thing, illegals can never have citizenship. There children can not become citizens by simply being born here. They can not vote and they can not be in a union. They can not have welfare and can only have unemployment for a short period. Also, they have to surrender there job to a citizen if the citizen wants the job.
This seems fair and answers the concerns of the left about being socially aware.
Posted by: David at May 20, 2010 03:12 PM (coY4Z)
5
This seems fair and answers the concerns of the left about being socially aware.
Without going into the details of your suggestion, I would say that what the left "wants" has little to do with any concrete proposal they demand. What the left wants is power--undiluted power to effect whatever societal change occurs to them. Assuming that agreeing the with left on any proposal will somehow sate their appetite for power is misguided.
Posted by: iconoclast at May 20, 2010 04:24 PM (ig61B)
6
We are in Texas. We are allowed guns. We are allowed to defend ourselves. I don't see a problem. I happen to have a nice .45 with a 30 round clip. Excellent for fishing so long as you go after one of those 100 pound catfish.
Posted by: Odins Acolyte at May 21, 2010 04:59 PM (brIiu)
7
We should have Coast Guard gun boats or a couple of Texas Rangers on patrol.
Posted by: kent smith at May 21, 2010 06:13 PM (okGuz)
8
Clearly that sheriff is a racist white, just look at his name. Siegfriedo...can you say Nazi?
Posted by: Idiot Lefty. at May 23, 2010 08:17 PM (VN7Wi)
9
Left/Right it does not matter both sides are brainwashed by propaganda put out by the corporate elite. As long as braindead Americans continue to be divided instead of United the elite will continue to control you.
Posted by: Mike at May 24, 2010 01:38 PM (ufFOF)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Happy Everybody Draw Mohammed Day
I'm no artist, but I did swipe one of the original Mohammed cartoons several years ago to create a satirical suicide bomber-themed clothing brand, "MOGOBANG - Sportswear for Infidels"
I think all of one person bought the shirt, but that wasn't the point; having the freedom to create such an item was. Muslims are attempting to undermine that freedom as they do so many others. In our society, such challenges to free speech rights cannot stand (and yes, that includes the right of Comedy Central to create a show
mocking Christianity).
You don't have to like such speech, but you do have to tolerate it. Over at Pajamas Media, Zombie puts considerable thought into discussing the importance of such blasphemy in
The New Free Speech Movement.
At Reason, they're having a
drawing contest.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:34 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I cannot draw. I made a collage with some items around my apartment and photographed it. Mohammed's turban is a dishrag that was used this morning to wipe up some bacon grease. The glasses are US Navy issue aviator glasses. Mohammed's beard is my dirty, stinky, $h!tstained underwear. For an unartistic, uncreative guy, I think I did well.
http://tiltingsuds.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/everybody-draw-mohammed-day/
Posted by: sean at May 20, 2010 09:57 PM (zaAkh)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 19, 2010
Keeping up a Proud Family Tradition
On the up side, at least she kept dry.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:43 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
If I were married to a Kennedy, I would stay drunk as well.
Posted by: David at May 19, 2010 02:55 PM (coY4Z)
2
Driving drunk right outside of a school?...Planning to put passengers in danger?...
I guess this completes her family initiation...
cnredd
Political Wrinkles
http://politicalwrinkles.com
Posted by: cnredd at May 19, 2010 03:18 PM (XdXvF)
3
That family has been working for years to finally consume Old Joe Kennedy's stash of bootleg liqour. Only about another thousand barrels of whisky to go.
Posted by: Comanche Voter at May 19, 2010 06:00 PM (ktYjH)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Much Ado About Something
Arlen Specter was knocked out in his first run as a Democrat, even with President Obama's support. Blanche Lincoln faces a runoff against her Democratic Primary opponent, both of which are currently being handily beaten in polls by the Republican opposition. Ron Paul's son claims a Tea Party victory in Kentucky. Jack Murtha's seat in Congress was saved for the Democratic Party by the greed of his pork-addicted constituents.
You can find pundits on both sides to
spin the results as a
victory or a
disaster (just as long as you sign their checks), but the simple fat of the matter is that last night's votes don't really amount to much, and November is very, very far away.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:30 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
As I understand the situation in Murtha's district, the area is heavy union and liberal. Also, the winning Dem is not much liked by the administration as he talks like a Rep.
Posted by: David at May 19, 2010 02:54 PM (coY4Z)
2
‘Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.’ We’re going to see how much difference that makes now.” -- B. Obama
Worked great for Arlen Specter ... NOT
Posted by: Neo at May 19, 2010 05:57 PM (tE8FB)
3
Well . . . I suppose that upon the election of a pro-life, pro-gun anti-Obamacare Democrat, Democrats can still hope that they can cobble together a few more Critz-like candidates and beat back a tidal wave. But it seems that, despite hope, they may not be able to change much . . . even when their hope produces a limited success like this.
Posted by: Neo at May 19, 2010 07:33 PM (tE8FB)
4
Why would you want the Republicans back in charge anyway. We may never recover form the Bush years.
If you look at history a country usually falls apart after a leader like Bush.
Destroyed economy. Wars with no end in sight.
It's a miracle that things seem to be turning around.
Why would you want them back in power.
So they can finish us off.
They did all they could to destroy the country.
We had a surplus when Bush was elected.
Have you not realized Conservatism is a complete myth.
No Republican President has ever made Govt. smaller.
Tax cuts for the rich do not create jobs.
Your stupid on defense. You tried to make torture legal.
How stupid are you.
Your ideas were a total failure. They turned a surplus into our biggest deficit.
8 years of failure and you want more.
WTF. Do you hate your country.
I can point to the Clinton years and show the success of a Democratic polices that benefited all Americans. 20 million jobs created and surplus.
Can you. Didn't think so.
Conservatism is a myth.
Now your hoping Obama fails so America will turn to you for solutions.
We saw your solutions. They were a complete failure.
Posted by: sensistar at May 19, 2010 11:01 PM (dVKzM)
5
sensistar,
First, Bush was a liberal. He was known as having liberal tendencies in Texas and proved his credentials when elected. The only good thing about Bush was that he was not Kerry or Gore.
Clinton's success was secondary to the efforts of Reagan. His tax cuts and policy were coming into effect after the first Bush tax hike was absorbed. We have never had an opportunity to really try trickle down economics as neither party will stop the spending in Washington which is the real reason we can't get ahead. Conservatives are not happy with either party. It is just that Obama and the Dems are clearly trying to kill our country and the Repubs seem less effective at the job.
But regardless, what we need is two countries. Like we tried in 1860. Then you can do your thing up there and we can live in freedom and peace.
Posted by: David at May 20, 2010 01:20 PM (coY4Z)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 53 >>
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.3287 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.3161 seconds, 145 records returned.
Page size 112 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.