May 04, 2010

An Ideology of Naked Bigotry and Hate

Barack Obama purposefully described millions of American citizens with a sexually-explicit slur. Left-wing MSBNC shill Contessa Brewer is upset that the Times Square attempt couldn't be blamed on Tea Party protesters, and laments the fact that she can't ignore that most terrorists are indeed Muslims.

There has to come a point where the vicious partisanship shared by Brewer, Obama, and other progressives has to be recognized as nothing less than first-order bigotry and hatred that is antithetical to the hopes and dreams of what Americans aspire to be. Far from being able to carry out Dr. King's dream of being able to judge people just on the content of their character, we are instead saddled with a "progressive" movement blind to character, that uses the imagery of minority status as a cudgel, and which demands rigid ideological conformity from it's followers with no dissent allowed.

If you doubt this—even for a second—find a progressive forum and politely question any part of their orthodoxy.

Suggest that gays should be entitled to a co-equal status to marriage, but not actual marriage. Ask sincerely why adoption is not preferable to abortion. Mention that while you didn't agree with his Presidency, you think that George Bush was a good man who sincerely cared about people. Mention that you just "don't get" all the anger directed at Sarah Palin.

Then duck.

Such thinking—such questioning—is not allowed. Dissenters are brutally mocked and ridiculed. Internal conformity is demanded. Their hatred of the Other has spawned a movement less tolerant than the Klan and no more ideologically variable than the Khmer Rouge.

The ultimate irony, of course, is that they think they have diversity on their side. Perhaps they do have a point. They do have a diversity of color.

Just no diversity of acceptable thought, or any tolerance for those that would think for themselves.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:40 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Comfortably Dumb

David Neiwert at Crooks and Liars makes an asinine and snarky post this morning about the capture of Times Square bombing suspect Faisal Shahzad, writing:

The next time you hear some right-winger (most notably Dick Cheney) sneer at the Obama administration's "law enforcement approach to terrorism," remember this.

Neiwert is either dumb as a post, or worse, assumes his readers are.

The law enforcement approach to terrorism that conservatives disagree with concerns terrorist events and suspects outside of U.S. territory.

Many liberal Democrats prefer to treat international terrorism as an international law enforcement matter, a laughable strategy considering the ideological (and occasional state) support many terrorists receive in the countries they use as their base of operations. The military approach—which, I hasten to add, has been largely adopted by the Obama Administration because it works—involves surveillance and military interdiction instead of arrest warrants. The Predator drones strikes inside Pakistan that have stepped up under Obama, and occasional raids in the Horn of Africa, are perfect examples of this in practice.

I defy Neiwert to product anyone—former Vice President Dick Cheney included—who calls for military strikes on American soil against suspected terrorists. No, we trust our federal, state and local law enforcement officers to use their expertise to track down terrorists on American soil, and they did just that in this instance, and admirably well.

Niewert is abusing a strawman. Worse, he's insulting the intelligence of his readers.

Or at least I hope he is.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:24 AM | Comments (22) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Arrest Made in Times Square Terror Attack

The usual suspects:

Federal authorities arrested a U.S. citizen of Pakistani descent Monday night at New York's JFK International Airport in connection with Saturday's attempted Times Square car bombing.

The man was identified as Faisal Shahzad, of Connecticut, Attorney General Eric Holder said. Shahzad was attempting to board a flight to Dubai at the time of his arrest, Holder said.

A total of three people were taken off the flight, but information is scarce about the other two.

And the Taliban video claim? It was posted from Connecticut as well. As it starred known Taliban, that video claim that this was a Taliban attack seems even more solid than earilier.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:12 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

May 03, 2010

Hutaree Cultists Out On Bail

When they were first arrested after being accused of plotting the murder of police officers in hopes of starting a civil war, the charges against the militant Hutaree cult sounded serious and shocking.

After reviewing the evidence, however, the judge in the case has lashed out at the government for deficiencies in the case and ordered the suspects freed on bail:

In a blistering attack, U.S. District Court Judge Victoria Roberts in Detroit said prosecutors had failed to persuade her the defendants were a danger to the community.

While they may have engaged in "offensive and hate-filled speech," it was not at all clear that they had conspired to break any laws, Roberts wrote.

"Discussions about killing local law enforcement officers -- and even discussions about killing members of the Judicial Branch of Government -- do not translate to conspiring to overthrow, or levy war against, the United States Government," she wrote in a 36-page opinion.

The fury of the judge does not seem to bode well for the government's case.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:57 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

It's National Pet Week

Enjoy your pets...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:11 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Violent Leftists Riot in Asheville May Day; National Media Silence Results

Imagine, if you will, what would happen if a group split off from a Tea Party protest and went on a rampage, smashing windows and vandalizing cars. Eleven are arrested, and some of those have known ties to right wing militia groups.

Don't you think that dozens of stories would have flooded network news and talk shows, and that government officials—perhaps Obama himself—would decry the right wing violence?

Well, that likely would occur if the violence was right wing in origin, but when a group of radical leftists split off from the main crowd at a pro-communist May Day parade in Asheville, NC over the weekend and went on a rampage, the national media utterly ignored it.

I've found only a handful of local stories about the violence, and none dare identify it as left wing in origin, though the Mountain Express comes closest.

Last night around 10:45 p.m., vandals shattered glass at several businesses around the Battery Park Avenue area, including the Eye Center, Bella's, the Asheville Citizen-Times, the entrance to the Grove Arcade, Cucina 24, an RBC Centura ATM and the glass etching landmark across the street from the Arcade. Several cars in the area were also damaged. Reports at the time described around 20 people wearing dark clothing, breaking windows.

"The subjects were wearing masks and face coverings and are estimated to have damaged at least eight vehicles and five businesses," an announcement from the Asheville Police Department reads. "Officers from all districts responded, as well as a K-9 unit and Forensics staff."

So far, 11 people have been arrested by the APD. Most are from outside the Asheville area. They are:

Jordan M. Ferrand-Sapsis, 24, of Oklahoma City, Okla.; Naomi Rachel Ullian, 26, of West Chestnut St. Asheville;
 Marshall Rogers Tingler, 24, of Oklahoma City
; Daniel Heinz Regenfcheit, 26, of Carrboro; Karen Leigh Alderser, 19, of Carrboro.; Alissa Marie Batzold, 18, of Carrboro; Havely Carolyn Carsky, 23, of Meadow Lake Road, Asheville; Randall Duncan Stezer, 17, of Graham; Wyatt Sherman Allgeier, 19, of Mount Pleasant; Cailin Elizabeth Major, 25, of Milwaukee, Wis.
; and Nicholas Ryan Entwistle, 19, of Kansas City, Mo.

The article goes on to mention that two of those arrested are anarchists, affiliated with known radical left-wing groups. You won't find any mention of the politics of those arrested, even though their leftist radicalism seems to be at the heart of their violent rampage. The evidence is too circumstantial, I'm sure the media would suggest, even though Ferrand-Sapsis helps publish a radical prison newsletter routinely censored for incitement, and Major is being sued for civil rights violations for attacking churchgoers as part of militant pro-gay group Bash Back.

Don't look for Chris Matthews or Keith Olbermann to froth with outrage over the violence; it comes from their side. Don't expect Janet Napolitano to issues vague warnings about left wing terror. Don't expect Congressional liberals to express faux "concern."

You see, left wing political violence doesn't exist... even when it does.

Update: Ed Morrissey notes a similar riot—and anemic media response—in Santa Cruz, CA.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:42 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

May 02, 2010

Taliban Claims Responsibility for Times Square Bomb Attempt

Let's see Mayor Bloomberg continue to downplay this:

A top Pakistani Taliban commander took credit for yesterday's failed car bomb attack in New York City.

Qari Hussain Mehsud, the top bomb maker for the Movement of the Taliban in Pakistan, said he takes "fully responsibility for the recent attack in the USA." Qari Hussain made the claim on an audiotape accompanied by images that was released on a YouTube website that calls itself the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan News Channel.

The tape has yet to be verified, but US intelligence officials contacted by The Long War Journal believe it is legitimate. The Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan News Channel on YouTube was created on April 30. Officials believe it was created to announce the Times Square attack, and Qari Hussain's statement was pre-recorded.

"This attack is a revenge for the great & valuable martyred leaders of mujahideen," Qari Hussain said. He listed Baitullah Mehsud, the former leader of the Pakistani Taliban who was killed in a Predator strike in August 2009, and Abu Omar al Baghdadi, the former leader of al Qaeda Islamic State of Iraq who was killed by Iraqi forces in mid-April. And although he was not mentioned, an image of Abu Ayyub al Masri, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, was also displayed in the images accompanying the audiotape.

You can view the video yourself at The Long War Journal. I don't think we can emphasis enough that this has every appearance of being a legitimate Taliban attack inside the United States, plotted overseas, and not the work of an isolated homegrown jihadi acting on his own initiative.

The bomber obviously has access to the explosives and vehicles as they are extremely common components. The question now is whether the bomber has orders to make a second attempt.

(h/t AllahPundit on Twitter)

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:24 AM | Comments (31) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Possible Fuel-Air Explosive Terrorist Attack In Times Square Goes Awry

I'm just getting up to speed on the news of a failed terrorist attack in New York City' Times Square, where authorities responded to the scene of a smoking vehicle after calls about an explosion, and found the bomb:

Police officers from the emergency service unit and firefighters flooded the area and were troubled by the hazard lights and running engine, and by the fact that the S.U.V. was oddly angled in the street. At this point, a firefighter from Ladder 4 reported hearing several "pops" from within the vehicle. The police also learned that the Pathfinder had the wrong license plates on it.

Members of the Police Department’s bomb squad donned protective gear, broke the Pathfinder's back windows and sent in a "robotic device" to "observe" it, said Deputy Commissioner Paul J. Browne, the police department's chief spokesman.

Inside, they discovered three canisters of propane like those used for barbecue grills, two five-gallon cans of gasoline, consumer-grade fireworks — the apparent source of the "pops" — and two clocks with batteries, the mayor said. He said the device "looked amateurish."

Mr. Browne said: "It appeared it was in the process of detonating, but it malfunctioned."

I'm going to disagree with the Deputy Commissioner, and suggest there is nothing amatuerish about this bomb. I agree with Allahpundit that appears the 3 bulk propane tanks and 10 gallons of gas were to be the explosives in a fuel-air explosive, one of the deadliest weapons in modern warfare. While not as polished as those used by mlitary forces (including our own), the explosive power of these devices in IED form are fierce, as a burster charge spreads a flammable cloud of fuel, that is then detonated by a secondary charge to form a massive overpressure wave that is extremely lethal.

This particular device seems to have failed because the bomb builder simply got his chemistry slightly askew, and had the fuel air mix inside the vehicle too low (which I somewhat doubt), or more likely, had too much fuel in the cabin of the vehicle so that the potential bomb didn't have the air it needed to breath and detonate properly. If the fireworks had ignited when the fuel-air mixture was optimum, we'd be reading a story of carnage this morning like those we've seen in Iraq, with hundreds dead.

They need to find the individual terrorist or terrorist group behind this and fast, because odds are that they now know exactly what they did wrong with this bomb, and they are not likley to make the same mistake again.

Update: South Park related? The evidence is thin, but it isn't entirely unreasonable.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:35 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

May 01, 2010

National Enquirer Ready to Break Obama Cheating Scandal... That I Wrote About Two Years Ago

Go to the Enquirer for the taste of exploitive naughtiness and rumors of video, and then to this October 29, 2008 CY story for the details the Enquirer left out of their teaser.

Keep in mind that I interviewed the driver (who is not a professional limo driver, but the National Operations Director for a PR firm Obama had hired for his 2004 Senate race), published the story here, and then offered the source's contact info to the MSM so that they could do their own investigations... but ABC News and NBC News had already interviewed the driver, and chose to squash the story.

Other media outlets also apparently knew of the affair and the willing witness, and sat on the story as well.

Let's be very frank. If any of these new organizations had printed the truth regarding Barack Obama's affair with Vera Baker just a week prior to the election, he would not be our President.

The lesson here?

If you have important information about a political candidate for the most powerful elected position on planet Earth and need it to be dissiminated, make sure you make your first call to a reputable news organization without a partisan axe to grind... like the National Enquirer.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:01 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

April 30, 2010

Do They Suspect Sabotage?

Glenn Reynolds points out the odd behavior of law enforcement agencies in the growing Gulf oil spill disaster.

Mr. Obama said SWAT teams were being dispatched to the Gulf to investigate oil rigs and said his administration is now working to determine the cause of the disaster...

[snip]

...Napolitano said the Homeland Security and Interior departments are conducting a joint investigation into what caused the explosion on the rig.

I understand that Homeland Security may have a valid role investigating the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion, especially if there are concerns that it may not have been an obvious accident and that sabotage needs to be ruled out.

But unless SWAT means something in some other context than paramilitary special weapons and tactics teams, I'm not understanding why these units are being deployed to oil rigs, when to the best of my knowledge, that is both well outside their normal jurisdiction, and presumably, beyond the average SWAT team's skill set.

Don't get me wrong... I'm not bad-mouthing SWAT officers, but how many of them have the kind of background to investigate oil rigs? The logical use of such teams on a rig would be to provide security and deter criminal actions, right?

So why does the President think that oil rigs need SWAT teams instead of engineers?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:49 AM | Comments (42) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Dems: "Show Me Your Papers"

Let me see if I understand this logic.

The pro-criminal immigrant lobby is crying that Arizona's self-defense immigration law is the equivalent of Nazi Germany and other totalitarian states requiring people to carry onerous documentation everywhere they go, drudging up the ominous imagery of MP40-toting German soldiers demanding, " show us your papers."

The Democratic response?

Something even more intrusive:

Democratic leaders have proposed requiring every worker in the nation to carry a national identification card with biometric information, such as a fingerprint, within the next six years, according to a draft of the measure...

[snip]

“The cardholder’s identity will be verified by matching the biometric identifier stored within the microprocessing chip on the card to the identifier provided by the cardholder that shall be read by the scanner used by the employer,” states the Democratic legislative proposal.

The American Civil Liberties Union, a civil liberties defender often aligned with the Democratic Party, wasted no time in blasting the plan.

"Creating a biometric national ID will not only be astronomically expensive, it will usher government into the very center of our lives. Every worker in America will need a government permission slip in order to work. And all of this will come with a new federal bureaucracy — one that combines the worst elements of the DMV and the TSA," said Christopher Calabrese, ACLU legislative counsel.

It sounds crazy, right? Not hardly. You just need to understand their agenda.

The government-loving nanny-state left wing would want more control over the lives of our nation's legal citizens... even as the proposed law would do absolutely nothing to stop criminal immigrants that work in the underground economy, off the books, as millions of criminal aliens already do.

The simple fact of the matter is that importing as many criminal aliens as possible and converting them into voters is the long-term survival strategy of the Democratic Party, and they will never champion laws that protect the integrity of our nation's borders or strengthen our national defense if those run counter to the needs of the Party.

The Democratic Party—and I wish to clarify that I mean the progressive left wing that currently runs the Party—are driven entirely by their desire to grow their power and exert control over this nation's citizens through intrusive government, and are quite content to use invaders who are not citizens as pawns in that game.

This latest stunt is just one more example of their strategy, and another reason the left wing must be destroyed to restore this nation to the land of opportunity our Founders intended.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:44 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

April 29, 2010

So, What Is Jaleel White Doing These Days?

He'd be perfect for the lead.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:12 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Obama Shows His Marx

Via Hot Air comes Mark Levin, catching Barack Obama going off-teleprompter for a moment and letting his socialism slip out:

We're not, we’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that’s fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money. But, you know, part of the American way is, you know, you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or providing good service. We don’t want people to stop, ah, fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy.

Previous leaders of our Republic have proudly boasted of this nation as a land where anyone can grow up to be anything they aspire to be with hard work and determination. Barack Obama is the first to attempt to saddle that dream and denounce that aspiration, saying "no, you've had enough."

What an arrogant, anti-American bastard we have saddled ourselves with as President.

And what shallow, easily-led fools were are for putting him there.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:01 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Open Carry Advocates Are The Shooting Community's Second-Worst Enemy

We can count on gun control advocates to tell lies and twist truths in an effort to demonize gun owners, but most citizens realize the mindless zealotry and distortions up, front, and so pay these groups little mind.

Far worse for gun owners are those in our midst that confuse their right to bear arms with their imagined right to shove them in your face... metaphorically speaking, of course. While guns rights seem to be gaining ground across the nation, the confrontational, combative nature of some open carry advocates is detrimental to all gun owners, a fact many readers don't seem to agree with in my latest article at Pajamas Media.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:01 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 I am sure the right to bear arms will do us a lot of good when the arms in question are home, locked up in a safe, and we are carjacked. This is why I quit reading PJM about a year and a half ago.

Posted by: TimothyJ at April 29, 2010 01:06 PM (IKKIf)

2 You obviously didn't understand the article, or the comments.

The open carry demonstrations cited in the article both instances made the attendees look like extremists. Several of the individuals at each event are proven extremists or publicity seekers( which I chose not to delve into in the article), and they optics they created at these events (taking firearms to a political speech; creating an event that was nothing more or less than a thinly-veiled threat) is bad for the shooting community at large.

Further, I said nothing at all about leaving firearms at home, locked up in a safe. You made that assumption all on your own, and it was the wrong one.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 29, 2010 01:21 PM (gAi9Z)

3 What I got from the article is you don't like open carry, for a variety of reasons, some valid, some explicitly buying into the liberal media take.

You also said in the comment thread, "As a practical matter, the primary reason I can think of is that it makes them the first target of any criminal."

That only happens if the number of folks who are open-carrying is arbitrarily low. Imagine a situation where some appreciable fraction is open-carrying. Is that likely to be a criminal target? Of course not. In fact, given three possible scenarios, if both open and concealed carry is allowed:

1. No person at the potential criminal target is openly armed. Some might be concealed-carrying.

2. A low number of people at the potential criminal target are openly armed. Some might be concealed-carrying.

3. A larger number of people at the potential criminal target are openly armed. Some might be concealed-carrying.

Which of these 3 situations is the criminal more likely to target? Of course it would be 1, and 2 more likely than 3.

Posted by: Skip at April 29, 2010 04:03 PM (RZhcI)

4 Friends, let's come to an agreement. Can we agree that guns are really good for solving the problem of those damned deer that keep eating my cucumber and pea plants, and the 'coons that punch their paws into my watermelons to eat, like, one single bite before moving on to kill the next melon?

Let's dwell on the good things about guns and how they help ME instead of worrying about other people. That's what's important. To me at least.

Posted by: Kevin at April 29, 2010 05:21 PM (LQ3SI)

5 I can see Bob's point about open carry for no other purpose than to be in your face. Let's look at gay rights for a moment. I think they should have the same rights to do to each other that the rest of do but I don't want to see them tounging each other any more than I want to see straights tounging each other in public. Is it legal? Sure but not very pleasant. It's the same with guns. Only uniformed police carry their firearms openly displayed. All other cops carry theirs concealed. Even in the gun totin Old West towns passed laws that forbade guns in certain venues. One obviously was a saloon. So I don't get it when some people have to take every thing to the absolute extreme and make the rest of us uncomfortable in public. Would you like to take your family to a Little League game with AR15 carrying spectators sitting all around you?

Posted by: inspectorudy at April 29, 2010 05:34 PM (Vo1wX)

6 As a matter of fact, there is VERY little need for immediately-accessible personal defense weapons for the vast majority of US citizens.

While the NRA runs what...a dozen?....instances/month of some good citizen preventing a crime (or several) with a personal defense weapon, that number is very small in comparison to the population as a whole.

I've had a weapon nearby for about 10 years, and have driven through some damn seedy areas, in some cases, parking and walking to/from a business appointment. No problems. I also use common sense and am not wandering around a drug-crime area in the middle of the night.

Anyhoo.......your take on these folks is correct. They are showboats and are not a credit to responsible gun owners.

Probably another commie plot.

Posted by: dad29 at April 29, 2010 08:15 PM (6nQNP)

7 In other words, CY, don't do anything to make liberals call us nasty names. Might as well shut down the blog. Or join Charles Johnson.

They are never going to leave us alone. The sooner Americans (as opposed to Copperheads) recognize that fact, the better. Appeasement NEVER works.

Posted by: SDN at April 30, 2010 01:12 AM (oKuKu)

8 Ah, yes. The "good" gunowner who is quiet, demure, and no one knows is a gun owner, versus the "bad" gunowner who isn't willing to lie down and pretend that it isn't their right that being infringed upon.

Isn't nice to know our rights are all dependent upon someone's PR campaign concepts of "playing nice"?

I just don't see Open Carry as being particularly provocative. Which pretty much undermines your argument in my eyes.

Posted by: ruralcounsel at April 30, 2010 07:24 AM (JSFt7)

9 I actually agree with you, at least half way.
I think gun owners should give a lot of thought to the PR aspects of open carry. I am a poster and reader of the OpenCarry.org forum and I recently posted just such concerns there. Of course there are some who think they should go literally everywhere with a gun strapped on. I think your right that such thinking will repel the typical non gun person and scare hell out of many.
On the other hand, a recent attempt to pass an ordinance against open carry in Topeka failed due to strong public resistence to the idea of banning open carry.
I think open carry is a right best used with discretion and sagacity. In my Kansas City suburban town we enjoy the right to open carry but if I were to start packing when I went to the HyVee grocery store I am confident that Mission would soon react by banning it. By using discretion, if the NEED ever arises to start open carrying, it will be there to keep my gun from being confiscated and me arrested.

Posted by: Gary Foster at April 30, 2010 12:32 PM (GqnnX)

10 Most CCW permit holders would rather remain unnoticed and unknown to any bad person that they may encounter. When you go to the store are you ready for someone to grab your weapon when you have two bags of groceries in your hands? Are you alert like someone who is paid to be alert for their 8 hour shift? What do you accomplish by wearing openly the arm you think you may need someday? Read the piece in the Friday's WSJ about open carry. It's by a woman but she is right.

Posted by: inspectorudy at April 30, 2010 06:50 PM (Vo1wX)

11 Provacative a few years ago was openly being black in an all "all white" business. There was nothing wrong, except the enemies of freedom created a public stigma, making something normal (a man having lunch at the lunch counter, or riding in the front of a bus) into something provocative. Saying that a man having lunch in a certain place was 'provacative' - revealed much about the inner thoughts and fears of the accusers.

Today, enemies of freedom go after guns. "Don't bring that gun to my lunch counter" or some such. The act is normal, natural thing, acknowledged in the Constitution. Finding it 'provacative' reveals much about the accuser. Saying that a man carrying a gun while he eats lunch in a certain place is 'provacative' - reveals some flaw in the heart and mind of the accuser.

Bearing arms is a natural right. Saying it's provacative reveals much about the thoughts and fears of the accusers.

Posted by: sofa at May 01, 2010 02:33 PM (2jilc)

12 CY

I read your editorial, and while I agree about the counterproductive results of the public demonstrations you describe, conflation of those demonstrations with the situation inside California is wrong.

In California open carry is already illegal. The anti-gun laws of California are so bad that carry of a loaded weapon, concealed or unconcealed, is illegal for the general public, with only rare exceptions. So the open carry events in California are of unloaded weapons. Unloaded! But even that ticks off the anti-gun politicians so much that even unloaded carry is now targeted for extermination via assembly bill 1934.

California is a 'may issue' state; police have wide discretion over who gets a permit to carry a concealed weapon. And, of course, the general practice of most of the police agencies in California is to abuse that discretion. So it is impossible for the overwhelming majority of Californians to get a permit.

Politics are already so toxic in California that improving this situation through legislation is impossible. California is gun-control central, ruled by a supermajority of Democratic Party legislators who are doubly entrenched in office by a partisan gerrymander of election districts.

I don't see how public reaction to open carry of unloaded weapons could make the situation any worse in California than it already is. That's probably why the next objective of the pro-gun litigation offensive after Washington D.C. and Chicago will be California.

In other words, so what if AB-1934 passes into law? It will have no practical effect, since self-defense outside the home with a firearm is already impractical under current California law.

California isn't the bellwether it might have once been. Next door Arizona is going to unlicensed concealed carry despite how anti-gun California has become. So I don't think gun rights in the rest of the nation are in any danger because of events inside California.

It's damned hard to be a gun enthusiast and resident of California. I've witnessed close up how bad things have gotten over the last 21 years, with scant prospects for relief. I would hope that as a previous resident of New York and a current resident of North Carolina that you could show a little empathy for those of us still trapped behind enemy lines.

Open carry of unloaded firearms in California is probably a futile gesture, but not likely counterproductive. And at least it shows the spark of resistance is still alive inside California, that we still have the gumption to fight back against our anti-gun persecutors.

Posted by: Brad at May 03, 2010 05:17 AM (Xk55q)

13 There are some States that require people to open carry if they do not have a CHP, or a CWP,etc. So, what some might take for "in your face" are people just following the law.

Posted by: citizenofmanassas at May 03, 2010 08:49 PM (ps4OZ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Violent, Racist Senator Discovered... Guess Which Party?

Oh, come on... you already know:

It looks like the circus and childish antics are rearing their ugly head once again in Albany.

It started as an angry blow-up, and then it escalated. A state senator with a history of anger management issues says his race-based rant was part of his fight against the "evil of white supremacy."

Brooklyn State Senator Kevin Parker is a well-documented hothead, and on Wednesday he took to the airwaves to unapologetically defend his latest shouting match.

"It's par for the course for what we have to do in Albany – fighting the forces of evil," Senator Parker said.

Parker shockingly identified the "enemies" he's fighting as other senators.

"These long-term, white supremacist, you know, Republican senators," he said.

Don't ask Parker to rationally explain why state senators doing their jobs are white supremacists... he can't give you a rational answer, because there isn't one. The best he can do is claim minority status and perpetual victimhood in an embarrassing display of the intellectual bankruptcy that has paralyzed modern "progressive" thought.

If that wasn't bad enough, consider this wasn't his first temper tantrum. He may soon face jail time because of his violent, childish behavior.

There have been other temper tantrums involving the senator. Last year he was accused of felony assault after doing $1,000 in damage to the car of New York Post photographer William Lopez and smashing his camera after he snapped Parker's picture.

Two years ago, an aide filed charges against Parker, claiming he pushed her during an argument and smashed her glasses. In 2005, Parker was accused of punching a traffic agent in the face. The charges were dropped after parker[sic] agreed to take anger management classes.

Senator Parker is due in court next month on the assault case. Sources tell CBS 2 his attorney is trying to cut a no-jail deal, but the district attorney isn't buying it.

Of course, I'm probably a racist for pointing this out.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:14 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

April 28, 2010

In Praise of Profiling

Arizona's law targeting criminal immigration has drawn tremendous amounts of fire for giving law enforcement officers in that state the procedural tools to require citizens prove who they are, and that they are in the country legally, if (and only if) they are stopped for suspected law-breaking.

Criminal immigrants, their support organizations, and various groups that seek to profit from these criminals are trying to claim that the law is illegal and unconstitutional "racial profiling," and that it will unfairly focus law enforcement on minority populations by targeting the criminals that reside in or transit this nation illegally.

Jamelle Bouie provides us with a typical anger-filled example of this thought pattern:

One of the most objectionable things about Arizona's law is the blatant racial profiling, but that doesn't seem to phase most conservatives. Jonah Goldberg doesn't see a problem with it. George Will doesn’t see a problem with it. Byron York doesn't even understand that it is racial profiling (note to Mr. York: the difference between flashing your ID at the DMV and being asked for your papers is that the latter will only happen if you're brown). There's a straightforward explanation behind this tacit support for racial profiling in Arizona; simply put, conservatives have long been defenders of racial profiling in law enforcement.

You only have to look back five months — after the failed "underpants bombing" — to see conservatives voice their enthusiasm for anything that would give extra scrutiny to brown people. Tom McInerney, a retired Air Force general, proposed that we "be very serious and harsh about the profiling," especially if "you are an 18 to 28-year-old Muslim man," in which case "you should be strip-searched." The National Review's Andy McCarthy endorsed the view of the Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens, who argued that profiling was necessary given that "suicide bombing is a purely Islamic phenomenon." Even conservative elected officials are willing to voice their enthusiasm for profiling. In an Armed Services Committee hearing on Fort Hood, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) declared that he "believes in racial and ethnic profiling."

In fact, the conservative enthusiasm for racial profiling goes beyond national security and immigration. Conservatives tend not to see a huge problem with the fact that African-Americans are disproportionately stopped and searched by law enforcement.

There is a simple reason that humankind has used profiling techniques for thousands of years: they work. And there is another unpleasant fact that some would rather ignore:

This nation has been in a long emotional discussion concerning the use of profiles by law enforcement officers. Unfortunately, this debate has been entitled, "racial profiling." There is a saying in debating, "If you can define the terms, you win the contest." Utilizing the term, "racial profiling," ensures that the debate will be negative in tone and divisive in nature. I propose that instead of inflaming emotions, we take a look at what actually is being done in this area of enforcement. This issue is so important to law enforcement and its efforts to interdict drugs and terrorists that a dispassionate examination is essential.

No government agency or law enforcement association, in their interdiction training, teaches that race is a characteristic of criminals. Not the Drug Enforcement Administration, United States Customs, The International Association of Chiefs of Police or any national police association, period. Officers are taught to look at the individual for characteristics or indicators of criminal activity. These characteristics, when seen in clusters by trained officers, have been recognized as a valid investigative tool by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Those who purport to be shocked that ethnic groups are over represented in the population arrested for certain criminal activities must have been in a prolonged coma. The fact is that ethnic groups control the majority of organized criminal activity in the United States. They also tend to hire as their underlings and couriers others of their same group. Why? Because these are the people they grew up with, feel comfortable around and because it's human nature.

The truth is, if you work criminal interdiction in this country, you will not arrest the same percentages of ethnic groups as represented in the U.S. general population. People may not like it but that is the reality.

Profiling certain groups for certain types of criminal activity is legal, justified, and proven under fire in the justice system.

Jamelle Bouie may not like reality, but reality doesn't change based upon what is convenient or easy, or because the community-based reality would rather not address empirical truths.

It is an unquestioned statistical fact that black males are more likely to be arrested, incarcerated, unwed fathers, school dropouts, and victims of violent crime than any of their peers in any other significant ethnic group not because of some bias against them, but because they drop out of school more frequently, embrace cultural norms that devalue the family structure, fatherhood, emotional maturity, and responsibility, and they commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes (often at the expense of their peer/victims) with weapons that can lead to serious injury or death.

Likewise, because of our geography and sociopolitical dynamics in this hemisphere, is it far more likely that criminal immigrants will be from nations in Central and South America, and therefore, of the native and/or Hispanic ethnicities that dominate those regions. Obviously, ethnicity is not the only criteria that law enforcement officers use in building a profile. They also look for indicators and characteristics that may indicate illegal behavior or criminal affiliation, and it these additional markers that often make the difference between a simple speeding ticket and a more detailed investigation that may lead to criminal arrest.

But to pretend that there is anything wrong, immoral, or unconstitutional in recognizing ethnicity as part of an overall profile is absurd.

Profiling—think of it as characteristic clustering—has been used and refined around the world for thousands of years, because it is an effective tool that catches criminals and cuts down time wasted interrogating law-abiding citizens who have done nothing wrong.

If one didn't know better, one might think these liberals were champions of criminal behavior. But that couldn't be right. Could it?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:31 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 This has gotten to a real stupid stage. The legal immigrants I know do not like the Illegal flow. They have brought in some relatives, like moms and dads, but care for their own families, even buying houses for them. They help them on the path to Citizenship.

The people who violate the law and are here Illegally are the ones that holler the loudest. Of course! They are the low side of society and can't be here legally because they don't believe the law applies to them. Free ride.

If you apply for Citizenship here you are required to learn enough English to pass the entry test. If you are totally Illiterate you don't even get to apply.

Illegals can not understand enough English to even talk to a police officer if apprehended. Ethnic profiling...I call Bull Hocky. You don't understand English at all, You need to provide proof that you belong here.

Every Legal Immigrant I know has at least a drivers license or a TX res ID. This really needs to be re framed as ID profiling. Let's do it.

Posted by: Marc at April 28, 2010 11:20 PM (20fK0)

2 Very well said, past time to reclaim our country.

We need a wall and armed guards to keep these illegals out of America. We could close military bases abroad and put those soldiers on our boarders .

Posted by: duncan at April 29, 2010 01:13 AM (lGcPs)

3 "Jamelle Bouie may not like reality, but reality doesn't change based upon what is convenient or easy..."

Obviously not the opinion of many Liberals. Their reality seems to come straight off the pages of the New York Times. Possibly the comics page...

Posted by: Georg Felis at April 29, 2010 07:28 AM (i5bRG)

4 There are many obvious reasons to despise the old segregationists. However, there are less obvious reasons. Because of the way they used identity and other tests to deny genuine civil rights, it is now virtually impossible to insist on even the most basic identification in civic activities. It is hard to find an activity, from boarding an airliner to renting a motel room in many states, which does not require basic identification. When voting, arguably the most important act of most individuals, is now virtually impossible to verify qualifications. The same is being seen in areas which are points of entry for illegals. Showing you are legal, and a citizen, is something I have done in the SW, and done with pride.

I think we should take a page from Tom Clancy. We should enact exactly Mexico's laws, and treatment, concerning illegals in their country. The problem would solve itself rather quickly.

Tregonsee
Proud son of a naturalized parent.

Posted by: Tregonsee at April 29, 2010 08:18 AM (FUpQx)

5 What people fail to realize is the history of illegal immigration into our country. This is not the first time that we have had to deal with the issue. As far as I can tell, the first big amnesty was in the 50's. Then there have been several since under both Republicans and Democrats. The latest effort is the biggest. Each time the government says they will do something different and they don't. I think the anger on the side of the conservatives reflects the fact that we are sick of the way our country is being governed. We have had enough and it is being reflected in our taking a stand to tell Washington this fact. The problem is that Washington does not listen.

The other issue that I have is why are people fighting so to return illegals to Mexico. The only people that stand to financially gain from their being here are the businesses that hire them at significantly reduced wages. So why are the labor unions fighting to keep them here? It would seem to be the opposite. Why are blacks fighting for them? They are taking the jobs that blacks would be able to hold, possibly at higher wages (the only reason I am picking on blacks is that is were the greatest unemployment is and there leaders are in the mix demanding rights for these criminals). Why does the left want these people, they don't seem inclined to vote liberal tickets? So what is in it for the people protesting deportation of illegals?

Posted by: David at April 29, 2010 10:15 AM (VfLqK)

6 David - You raise some good points and ask some good questions. The simple answer is: VOTES-VOTES-VOTES. The demos figure they have in their pocket 95% of the black population, 85% of the jewish vote - so if they could control 65% - 75% of the LARGEST growing population in the USA - then they will be in power for ever. Scary plan, but one that NEEDS to be defeated!!!!!

Posted by: mixitup at April 29, 2010 11:48 AM (g+U1o)

7 mixitup,
I agree, votes seems to be the motivating concern. But consider this, 70% of Americans back the Arizona plan and want illegals targeted. Also, does Obama really still control the Jewish vote? He has done everything possible to piss them off. As to main stream Hispanics and Blacks, do they really want all these illegals running around? If the Dems are counting on votes, I am willing to bet they have made a mistake.

Posted by: David at April 29, 2010 12:03 PM (VfLqK)

8 I am unsure of this "conservative" word you use. They must be rather horrible people, people who would eat their own children. They should not be allowed in the public square, much less in public service. They should be shut up and locked away if "conservative" means what you say it means.

Posted by: TimothyJ at April 29, 2010 01:12 PM (IKKIf)

9 I admit that even though the Arizona law does little more than copy US Code into a State law, I have some concern that it may be quite prroblematical to apply, given that [with some exceptions, such as buying alcohol] US citizens are not required to carry ID: deciding whether lack of ID indicates possible non-citizenship needing further checking, or just normal practice for an individual, can be difficult/

But I am far from as upset as all that. Many laws can be misused: if you are wearing shoes, you are in physical possession of a "deadly weapon" - at least, that is one of the charges that may be brought if you kick someone. Has anyone ever heard of someone being jailed for wearing shoes? Stealing them, perhaps, but merely wearing?

Posted by: John A at April 29, 2010 01:51 PM (LEb+F)

10 John A - You are so wrong. Don't know what state you live in, but here you MUST have your drivers license(read:"papers") on you when driving. If you get stopped for speeding with no license you are going to local jail!!!!/0r a nasty ticket at best. Secondly - I would like to see you get on a plane without your ID - good luck!!! Lastly, in my state you can't vote without an ID - they will turn you away, and a utility bill won't cut it!! To bad all states don't have that law - think it might cut down on voter fraud???? hmmmmmmmmm

Posted by: mixitup at April 29, 2010 02:55 PM (Z21cb)

11 Please read the laws that are passed by elected officials. Rhetoric will not impact the law. Good day.

Posted by: johnny a at May 01, 2010 04:44 PM (aDsSy)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Dingy Harry: Defying My Will is "Un-American"

November can't get here soon enough:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) accused Republicans of being "anti-American" by demanding changes to a Wall Street regulation bill before it's debated openly on the Senate floor.

Speaking to reporters just before the Democrats' third attempt to break a GOP filibuster on the issue, Reid said that Republicans "keep stalling, keep stalling." He charged Republicans with trying to pick apart the bill before it even comes to the floor where both sides could offer amendments and openly debate the measure.

"Even some Democrats would like to offer amendments on this bill," Reid said. "All of this talk from Republicans about wanting to do something about this bill before it gets on the floor is really anti-Senate and anti-American."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:26 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Reuters Confirms: AZ Law Targeting Illegal Aliens Is Likely to be Very Effective

Granted, that was probably not the intent of this article lamenting the personal concerns of several illegal aliens, but that is nonetheless exactly what they reveal. They interviewed three of these criminals (you do remember that all illegal immigrants are criminal by definition, don't you?). One said he would stay, but try to keep a low profile. Another said he would return home to Mexico. The third said he would leave for another state.

While grossly too small to represent anything approaching a useful sample size, this anecdotal evidence strong suggests that many criminal aliens will leave Arizona as a result of their new law.

If the law survives the legal challenges that are sure to come, it may have the effect of relieving some pressure on overburdened social services, will free up positions for lower-skilled citizens that need work, and presumably lower crime rates as well.

If those hypothetical results turn out to be verifiable facts, how quickly do you think other states will adopt similar measures?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:57 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

April 27, 2010

Who Should You Believe, The Spectator or the Actuary?

The American Spectator claims that the White House and Health and Human Services hid the true cost of Obamacare prior to the vote.

Medicare's Office of the Actuary denies the report was delayed. Some are attempting to parse the wording of his statement into a non-denial denial, but it seems rather straightforward on first read.

The American Spectator sources inside HHS—and they do appear to be multiple sources—indicate they and the White House has the report well in advance of the report, while the Actuary is claiming they didn't release the report until after the report.

We have a conflicting stories here, both claiming to come from insiders. Who to believe? My answer: both of them.

I think it is probably 100% accurate that the Actuary did not release the final and official report until after the vote.

I think it is also quite possible—actually, probable—that the Actuary was working on their report drafts with the draft versions of the Congressional legislation the entire time, and that HHS and the White House were privy to these late-stage report drafts and knew what the final report would say well in advance of the vote.

The question that a responsible news media needs to ask the Actuary is whether or not they were working on late-stage drafts of their report based upon the Democratic legislation in the weeks before the vote, and whether the White House, Congress and Health and Human Services were aware of those draft reports, and what kind of figures these drafts were suggesting.

The Medicare Actuary's denial in no way clears the Democrats in Congress and the Obama Administration, it merely suggests that they are practiced enough in their duplicity to not be caught red-handed.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:58 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Supporters of Illegals are Siding with Criminals

What a joke.

Linda Greenhouse and the rest of the shrill Reds at the New York Times are quite welcome to their own opinions about Arizona's recently passed immigration laws, but they are not entitled to make up their own community-based realities that for all intents and purposes are lies.

Despite her hysterical cry that Arizona is a police state, the simple fact of the matter is that Arizona needs better policing. In case you've been head-down in a cave, you might have heard that there is a full-scale drug war going on just over the border between drug cartels and the Mexican government, and that the gangs are not only financing their war through drugs smuggled across this border the federal government won't defend, but also by kidnapping people inside the United States and holding them for ransom.

Where are the drugs coming across the border?

Where are the kidnappers infiltrating?

Where are they taking hostages?

Where are they running drugs?

The answer to all of these is, of course, Arizona.

I suspect if Linda Greenhouse had her community under constant threat of violence from heavily-armed drug dealers, had to worry about her friends and relatives being snatched off the street for ransom, and had to worry about the potential for facing a hail of gunfire from a skittish human smuggler as a part of her life, then her opinion of Arizona's law would change, and change quickly.

Arizona isn't becoming a police state, it is merely defending itself from becoming a police-less state. Their former governor and current Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, has forsaken them. She has not protected Arizonans or America from the drugs and drug violence raging over the border, and her boss, Barack Obama, does not care either... perhaps content that his own illegal alien aunt lives in Boston, supported by American taxpayers.

Never have I seen such rage and resistance to protecting something as common-sense and fundamental as our nations' territorial integrity and our national sovereignty.

Illegal aliens do not belong here. They are here—see if you can follow—illegally.

Liberals and radicals are supporting criminal behavior by opposing Arizona's immigration law, which had to be passed because of the shameful actions of the federal government.

There is good news for illegals, though. It looks like they'll be welcome in San Francisco.

I trust they can find their way across the state border.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:17 PM | Comments (25) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.3107 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.2918 seconds, 221 records returned.
Page size 177 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.