April 21, 2010

FBI & IRS Raid NY State Senate Majority Leader

Hello, corruption:

Federal authorities raided a government-funded clinic run by the state Senate's majority leader, one day after New York's attorney general accused him of siphoning money from it.

About a dozen FBI and IRS agents appeared Wednesday at the Soundview Healthcare Network in the Bronx, where a big canopy above the front door lists Sen. Pedro Espada Jr. as its president and CEO.

The agents removed Espada campaign posters and other items from an 8-foot-tall, 25-foot-long storage container behind the building. They also stacked boxes on the grass, and agents wearing blue or green gloves leafed through the contents and wrote notes.

Espada spokesman Steve Mangione didn't immediately respond to requests for comment left on his cell phone and through e-mail.

FBI spokesman Jim Margolin said only that the search was part of an ongoing investigation.

On Tuesday, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo announced a lawsuit accusing Espada of siphoning $14 million from the clinic. It said the money was used for lavish restaurant meals, trips to Las Vegas and Espada's campaign.

After hours of searching, investigators were still unable to recover Espada's party affiliation.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:18 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

April 20, 2010

Amazon Sues North Carolina to Protect Customer Data

Amazon.com is suing to stop the NC Department of Revenue to block the state from collecting individual customer data:

Amazon contends in the suit that it routinely provides the Revenue Department with "voluminous information" about its sales to North Carolina as part of routine audits of the company's compliance with sales and use tax laws. The information includes the date and total price of each transaction, the city, county and ZIP code to which each item was shipped and Amazon's standard product code for each item, which allows officials to see the description of every product purchased.

In March, however, the Revenue Department threatened to hold a civil contempt hearing for Amazon if the company doesn't also turn over the names and addresses of anybody in North Carolina who has purchased goods off its website since August 2003, according to the suit. The company said that amounts to nearly 50 million purchases.

"If Amazon is forced to comply with this demand, the disclosure will invade the privacy and violate the First Amendment rights of Amazon and its customers on a massive scale," the suit states. "The (Revenue Department) does not need personally identifiable information
about Amazon's customers in order to audit Amazon's compliance with state tax laws. All it needs to know is what items Amazon sold to North Carolina customers and what they paid, and Amazon has already provided that information."

This would seem to be a significant invasion of privacy by the Department of Revenue, and I will be very interested to see if they can find a reasonable way to justify this intrusion.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:38 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Bill Clinton: Child Torturer and Killer

I'd never heard this before.

CS gas was used at the compound, in order, as senior White House adviser George Stephanopoulos said, echoing senior Justice Department statements, to "try and pressure" those in the compound. It was hoped, he said, that as this "pressure was increased, the maternal instincts of the mothers might take over and they might try to leave with their kids" (Washington Times, April 23, 1995).

But the FBI knew beforehand that adults in the compound had gas masks; the gas therefore would not put pressure on them. On whom, then? If the FBI knew that the adults had gas masks, but went ahead with the gas attack anyway, it is plain that this "pressure" was brought directly against the children because, as the FBI knew, they could not fit into adult– size gas masks. "Maternal feelings", the FBI hoped, would be unleashed in the mothers by watching their children choking, gasping and blistering from the gas.

The plan Reno approved and took to President Clinton for approval contemplated the children choking in the gas unprotected for forty-eight hours if necessary, to produce the requisite "maternal feelings". By taking aim at the children with potentially lethal gas, their mothers would be compelled, according to the FBI plan repeatedly defended by the Clinton administration afterwards as "rational" planning, to flee with them into the arms of those trying to gas them. [Emphasis added.]

An independent report on Waco written by the Harvard Professor of Law and Psychiatry, Alan A. Stone, for the then Deputy Attorney General Philip Heymann, says it “is difficult to believe that the US government would deliberately plan to expose twenty-five children, most of them infants and toddlers, to CS gas for forty-eight hours”. Unfortunately, however, that appears to have been exactly the plan.

The effect of CS gas on an unprotected infant exposed for only two to three hours is discussed in the report; in that case report, dating from the early 1970s, the child’s symptoms during the first twenty-four hours were upper respiratory; but, within forty-eight hours his face showed evidence of first degree burns, and he was in severe respiratory distress typical of chemical pneumonia. The infant had cyanosis, required urgent positive pressure pulmonary care, and was hospitalized for twenty– eight days. Other signs of toxicity appeared, including an enlarged liver.

Professor Stone's report is measured, careful and damning.

There is more at Volokh, and Dr. Stone's report suggests that some of the infants, toddlers, and children died as a direct result of suffocation caused by the CS gas.

President William Jefferson Clinton signed off on a plan that he knew would cause innocent babies and children to suffer the effects of CS gas... in fact, the entire plan hinged upon their torture and suffering.

Someone please explain to me why Clinton should not be brought up on felony charges and spend the rest of his life in prison for agreeing to a plan that counted on the torture of 25 innocent infants and children. Convince me that he shouldn't face the death penalty for those that suffocated to death because of his decision.

Clinton had the audacity to try to tell us Sunday to be wary of another Timothy McVeigh. Evil bastard that he was, McVeigh's plan didn't hinge on the torture and abuse of children. Bill Clinton's did.

His life should end in a federal prison.

Sadly, we all know that will never happen.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:49 AM | Comments (24) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

April 19, 2010

Top AQI Terrorists Killed

It has taken several years of hard work, but the top two leaders of al Qaeda in Iraq have been confirmed killed in a joint U.S./Iraqi operation:

Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki announced Monday that two top insurgent leaders had been killed, including a somewhat mythic figure who has operated under the name Abu Omar al-Baghdadi. Mr. Baghdadi has been reported dead or detained several times previously, and his very existence had been called into question a few years ago by American military leaders.

After Mr. Maliki’s press conference, the American military released a statement verifying that Mr. Baghdadi was killed in a joint raid between Iraqi and United States forces in the dark hours of Sunday morning near Tikrit, near Saddam Hussein’s hometown.

Also killed, according to Mr. Maliki and American officials, was Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, also known as Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a largely Iraqi group that includes some foreign leadership.

The simple fact of the matter is that al-Baghdadi was a fictional character when he began, and was a voice played by an actor. Later a former officer-turned-terrorist picked up the moniker, and it is this second al-Baghdadi that was killed.

al-Masri's death was the most important of the two, but it was nice that both were terminated together, which should serve to fragment the group further.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:42 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

More Thuggish Threats of Teabagger Violence

That is what you call it when Democrats are arrested for threatening Republican politicians with violence, right?

A 66-year-old man was arrested Sunday for threatening Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R-Fla.) last month, the FBI said.

The man, Erik Lawrence Pidrman, was arrested by FBI and local law enforcement agents Sunday afternoon.

Pidrman left a voice mail at Brown-Waite's district office saying, "Just wanna let you know I have 27 people that are going to make sure that this ***** does not live to see her next term."

Pidrman was a $250 Democratic donor to the 2008 Hillary Clinton campaign and a self-described blackout drunk.

Sounds like he'd be right at home in the State Department.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:17 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Organized Thuggery Getting More Organized in NC

The Washington Post notes this morning that North Carolina Democrats are attempting to create a hard-left third party to oust those NC Democrats who voted against Obamacare. The State Employees Association of North Carolina (SEANC) is building an organization called North Carolina First in order to punish Democratic Reps. Larry Kissell, Heath Shuler and Mike McIntyre for their "no" votes on Obamacare.

It is worth noting that SEANC is a part of SEIU, the purple-shirted thugs that have assaulted people at several town hall meetings. SEANC is only marginally less bullying, as a family friend and a prison guard found out when blue-shirted SEANC members shouted down and intimidated attendees at a health care townhall meeting in Greenville, NC, last August 11th.

SEANC and SEIU are cut from the same dirty cloth, and so there should be little doubt that North Carolina First is actually Democratic Party First, Union Power Second, North Carolina Third (or Lower). I guess the more accurate DPFUPSNCTOL was a bit unwieldy and hard to fit on a sign.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:11 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

...And He Still Doesn't Understand

Bill Clinton took to the pages of the New York Times yesterday with an op-ed entitled What We Learned in Oklahoma City.

The former President laments the lives lost when Timothy McVeigh detonated a massive truck bomb outside the Alfred P. Murrah federal building 15 years ago today. He struck the right notes as we remember and mourn those who died in this act of mass murder.

But Clinton showed that he still doesn't understand the heart of the nation he led, nor its purpose or dreams with one telling paragraph:

Finally, we should never forget what drove the bombers, and how they justified their actions to themselves. They took to the ultimate extreme an idea advocated in the months and years before the bombing by an increasingly vocal minority: the belief that the greatest threat to American freedom is our government, and that public servants do not protect our freedoms, but abuse them. On that April 19, the second anniversary of the assault of the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, deeply alienated and disconnected Americans decided murder was a blow for liberty.

Clinton is dead wrong when he questions whether or not the greatest threat to American freedom is our government. Of course it is. The Federal government is a far greater threat to our liberties than any external threat.

Protected by the breadth of the two great oceans and the world's most dominate air and naval forces and the most experienced, combat-capable Army and Marines in world history, there simply is no threat of foreign military invasion. Nor is any nation likely to challenge our economic might externally, as the American economy is the economic engine of the interconnected world... if it collapses, it hurts them as well.

It is a literal fact that the only significant and constant threat to our liberties is government, and especially the over-reaching federal government.

Clinton was always admired by liberals and reviled by conservatives for his ability to tell the American people a lie with the greatest sincerity. Perhaps that is still his greatest asset, as he tries to tell us just weeks after a far-left Democrat Party rammed through legislation that mandates we purchase a product of their choosing or face fines, that our public servants seek protect our freedoms, when it is obvious to us all that they abuse them.

He goes on to mention almost in passing the most telling thing about our would-be tyrants, when he nearly whispers:

Americans have more freedom and broader rights than citizens of almost any other nation in the world, including the capacity to criticize their government and their elected officials...

We almost have more freedom.

We almost have more rights.

What the former President will not mention is that our freedoms are declining under our current radicalized President and Congress. We now rank eighth in economic freedom, with "notable decreases in financial freedom, monetary freedom, and property rights."

The sad fact Clinton himself intentionally contributes to oppression, with this very op-ed attempting to draw parallels between today's peaceful protests against a power-crazed federal government, and the Oklahoma City terrorist attack that was a response to his Justice Department's inept handling of the Branch Davidian siege that left dozens of men, women and innocent dead.

The former President strays back on message almost accidentally, if for but a moment, when he mentions that, "Criticism is part of the lifeblood of democracy," and "Civic virtue can include harsh criticism, protest, even civil disobedience. But not violence or its advocacy."

The sad fact of the matter, however, is that neither the explosively-tempered Clinton nor our notoriously thin-skinned current President or liberal Congress can handle even the most mild criticism without waging full-scale counterattacks in response. There has been precious little violence except that committed by leftists. There hasn't even been civil disobedience.

Instead, we have a former President hoping to tie an act of domestic terrorism 15 years ago to freedom-loving groups often led by genial mothers and grandmothers today. Why? Because they've organized protests, and have made remarks critical of his preferred ideology.

Bill Clinton's government was responsible for killing more American civilians on American soil than any President alive, and he seeks to chide Tea Party protesters for pithy signs espousing a return to the core principles of our Founders.

Have a Coke and a smile, Bill, and quit attempting to smear your fellow Americans for desiring freedom instead of government control.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:58 AM | Comments (33) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

April 18, 2010

Why the Sudden Anti-Gay Hysterics From the White House?

I don't know the first thing about Judge Elena Kagan and couldn't care one bit about her sexuality preferences, anymore than I care about Samuel Alito's sex life.

The Obama White House, however, certainly made a scene when it got hysterical over Ben Domenech's claim that possible Supreme Court nominee was openly gay. Kagan's preference is apparently common knowledge on gay blogs, but apparently not something the White House wants broadcast.

Domenech eventually retracted his claim under pressure, but not before vehement White House denials made it appear that a charge of being gay was on par with child molestation.

I'm not really sure what message the Obama Adminstration is trying to send by telling everyone they support gay rights on one hand, only to turn around and make being gay sound like the most objectionable sin possible on the other.

At the very least it is bad optics, and quite possibly, evidence of their own underlying bigotry.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:58 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

April 17, 2010

Don't Fire Up The Black Helicopters Just Yet...

It was several years ago—during the Bush Administration—that Ward Brewer was pitching the idea of reconfiguring a small fleet of retired naval vessels into long-term, heavy-lift emergency response vehicles that could provide food, water, shelter, power, medical care and emergency transportation in the event of a major national disaster or terrorist attack.

The idea had a lot going for it.

In the big scheme of things it is relatively inexpensive (remember, we're talking in government dollars) and could turn retiring Tarawa-class Amphibious Assault Ships into even more important national assets than they were as weapons. Loaded with first responders and equipment, such vessels would have been a godsend in the response to the recent earthquake in Haiti, not to mention the hurricane season.

For various reasons, plans for what I'd quickly dubbed the &qout;Salvation Navy" never came together, but that doesn't mean that Ward's ideas weren't good ones. His ideas found champions in various political and military leaders, along with similar plans already under discussion.

One of those ideas evolved into cross-training military units to perform roles in disasters, and plans were made to create both interim and long-term solutions.

Sadly, some of the same sort of conspiracy theorists that think 9/11 was an inside job to hide Barack Obama's Kenyan birth quickly assigned a sinister purpose to the unit in question, which observant blogger David Luckie noticed in a conspiratorial column in the Examiner.

Nutty, much?

In October of this year, one month prior to the November midterm elections, a special army unit known as 'Consequence Management Response Force' will be ready for deployment on American soil if so ordered by the President.

The special force, which is the new name being given to the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 3rd Infantry, has been training at Fort Stewart, Georgia and is composed of 80,000 troops.

According to the Army Times,

They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack.

The key phrase is 'may be called upon to help with civil unrest.'

This afternoon a local radio talk show host reported that he had been in contact with a member of the military. This military source stated that the armed forces have been alerted to the strong possibility that civil unrest may occur in the United States this summer, prior to the midterm elections of 2010.

The gist of the column was to gin up fears that Barack Obama was building a massive Gestapo-like force to be unleashed so that he could seize control of the government and declare himself Emperor... or something. Read the rest, if you want.

Mr. Luckie, who blogs at I Bleed Crimson Red, simply shreds the conspiratorial ranting of the Examiner columnist by actually talking with real, honest to God people-who-know-what-they're-talking-about.

It won't dissuade those poor souls that need conspiracies the way the rest of us need oxygen, but Luckie's demolition of this myth of Obama's secret Army should satisfy any questions most normal people have about the unit.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:58 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Latest on the Bautsch/Brown Attack in New Orleans

The Hayride continues to make the case that the attack on Bobby Jindal's 25-year-old campaign fundraiser Allie Bautsch and her boyfriend Joe Brown after an event at Brennan's last Friday night was politically motivated.

I agree that is by far the most likely scenario. The reports the victims made to police make it clear that when they left the restaurant they were followed and then set-upon by left-wing protestors that had attempted to rush the restaurant much earlier in the evening, and which had chased another person into a cab shortly before the attack on Bautsch and Wilson.

Ambushed from behind by 3-5 thugs, Wilson suffered a concussion, broken nose, and broken jaw. Bautsch had her ankle broken. Both will take months to heal.

High-ranking Democrats and their media allies continue to trumpet the threat of "right wing violence." That call to caution isn't completely unwarranted, as the recent arrest of the Hutaree militia-cult proves. But the simple fact of the matter is that most violence of this sort comes from leftists, and the media spends most of its time finding way to ignore that fact.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:46 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Numerous Bigots Photographed At Tea Party Protests

I've written several articles about the Tax Day Tea Party protests this past week for Pajamas Media and PJTV, noting that left wing groups hoping to infiltrate the movement and portray themselves to the media as racist Tea Party protestors largely never materialized.

But that isn't to say there weren't distinct examples of bigotry and hatred on display at some rallies. We've posted pictures of some of these this racists and bigots at Pajamas Media in a post entitled, 'Left' Behind: Tolerance and the Tea Party.

Update: Zombie finds the few spasmodic counter-protesters at the San Francisco Tea Party, doing a very bad job of fitting in... if they were even trying at all.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:42 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

April 16, 2010

Obama: Let Them Eat Cake

We learned during the 2008 Presidential campaign with his "bitter clingers" comment that Barack Obama's true feelings seep out when his guard is down in front of a friendly crowd.

It came out again last night at a Democratic Party fundraiser in Miami:

President Barack Obama said Thursday he's amused by the anti-tax tea party protests that have been taking place around Tax Day.

Obama told a fundraiser in Miami that he's cut taxes, contrary to the claims of protesters.

"You would think they'd be saying thank you," he said.

Point One: Obama is lying about cutting taxes. Sure, he's cut a few, but he's raised others, and the massive spending bender he and his allies in Congress have gone on since the 2008 elections mean that a significant increase in taxes is now mandatory... and we aren't even talking about the billions in unfunded liabilities Democrats are tacking on to the federal deficit that will drown future generations.

Point Two: How tone-deaf can a politician be? The very day that hundreds of rallies are held across the nation, with tens of thousands of protesters drowning out the scattered voices of his supporters, he chooses to mock the concerns of growing number of Americans. That goes beyond mere arrogance to outright stupidity.

"You would think they'd be saying thank you."

History will remember that with those sneering words, Barack Obama further alienated the liberal wing of the Democratic Party from Main Street America and converted on-the-fence conservative Democrats and independents into tens of thousands of new Tea Party Patriots.

Thank you, Barack Obama. Every time you utter gems like these, you move us one step closer to restoring this Republic to the principles our Founders held dear.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:50 AM | Comments (50) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 "Americans paid a lower share of their national income in taxes in 2009 than at any time since 1950. Thanks to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, 98 percent of working families got a tax cut this year. The rich, too, have been treated very kindly by the tax code in recent years. The top marginal tax rate on income is fully half of what it was 30 years ago, and the top rate on capital gains is at its lowest point since 1933."



http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/04/taxday2010.html



If you have different numbers than those I'd love to see them.

Posted by: Jim at April 16, 2010 09:45 AM (TNxYU)

2 I saw Obie-Doll make that comment last night on the news. It was right after they were showing an anti-tea party protest. Like always they made the anti-tea party spokesman look like a brave daring, resourceful,intelligent,and hip person. Then they found the village idiot to speak for the tea party people.

To me the anti-tea party guy looked very much like a 911 'truther' that I saw on a TV special on them a few months ago. In fact I am pretty sure it was him. Why am I not surprised that a 911 'truther' would believe that high taxes are good for us?

Oh... one last thing. The MSM outlet I was watching was also proclaiming that the anti-tea party protests were going on all over the country.

Posted by: Carl at April 16, 2010 09:53 AM (3qHyb)

3 I should add something about the poll that just came out showing 62% of us are fine with the amount we pay in taxes, which puts all those thousands of unhappy voices into perspective.

As for the bit about the need for future taxes because of spending, see Reagan, Bush and Bush, I don't recall seeing you make this argument about Reagan tripling the national debt, or Bush funding exactly $0 of two wars and Medicare D and doubled the debt. If you want to be taken seriously you need to be consistent.

Posted by: Jim at April 16, 2010 10:00 AM (TNxYU)

4 http://www.newsweek.com/id/236383

"By all estimates, the budget outlook is daunting. The latest projections of the Congressional Budget Office reckon the cumulative deficits under President Obama’s policies to be $12.7 trillion from 2009 to 2020. In 2020 the estimated annual deficit will be $1.25 trillion, or 5.6 percent of the economy (gross domestic product), despite assumed “full employment” of 5 percent. And the deficits get larger with every succeeding year. Given unavoidable uncertainties, these precise projections are likely to prove wrong. But their basic message seems incontestable: there’s a large and growing gap between the government’s promises and the existing tax base.

"How big a tax increase would be needed to close the gap? Well, huge. To put things in perspective, all federal taxes (income, payroll, and excise) averaged 18.1 percent of GDP from 1970 to 2009. Under CBO’s assumptions about Obama’s policies, taxes in 2020 would already be slightly higher, at 19.6 percent of GDP. But on top of that, there’d need to be a further tax boost approaching a third to balance the budget, because spending is projected at 25.2 percent of GDP. Needless to say, this would be the largest tax burden in U.S. history, even including World War II."

I guess what I'm really trying to say is "Thank you, Mr. Obama. Thank you for making it so I'm going to have to pay a metric assload more in taxes so that you and your ever-dwindling number of sheep can live in the nanny state that you've always dreamed America should be."

Because you know damn well he isn't going to stop spending. That right there is just crazy talk.

Posted by: TheGonz at April 16, 2010 10:09 AM (Nq+8a)

5 Well, aside from the 4 Trillion or so we spent on wars that have no real purpose, I guess the few billion we spend on economic recovery after the Wall Street bankers trashed it could be considered a waste.

Seriously, at some point deficit hawks are going to have to put forward a real idea about spending, one that addresses the fact that about 85% of all spending is for SS/Medicare/Defense/Debt service; in other words, someone is going to have to kill one of the sacred cows, instead of just braying like a donkey about the Deficit Boogeyman.

Posted by: Liberty60 at April 16, 2010 10:20 AM (79/pj)

6 Jim,
I am beginning to realize that you are a student that has very little world experience and likely has never paid a tax.

Yes, the rate of taxes we pay is less. However, the amount is more! That is because in the past we were allowed significant deductions. Those are not present now. Most of the tax reductions are secondary to Bush tax cuts that expire this year. Still we pay too much.

Now as to 62% being fine with what they pay, I am sure they are as 50% of the folks don't pay any tax at all. Those of us that actually work for a living are sick and tired of paying taxes and the spending in Washington. In fact, we are so sick that unless something changes soon, it will be changed in a very dramatic manner.

Obama's message is use a little more KY and bend over more.

Posted by: David at April 16, 2010 10:50 AM (jHK8i)

7 Two questions for Jim and his ilk. One is philosophical, the other pragmatic.

1) Is it morally right for someone to take from me the fruits of my labors and use it for his own personal benefit; and, if your answer is yes, is it morally right for someone to use the government as his agent for the same purpose?

2) As I am an independent contractor in the 25% marginal tax bracket, approximately 40% of the next dollar I earn goes to the federal government (25% in income tax and 15.3% in Medicare and Social Security taxes. What do you think that percentage ought to be?

Posted by: Diffus at April 16, 2010 12:03 PM (HmSSN)

8 Jim- I think you actually have your numbers backwards, 66% of Americans believe we are overtaxed

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/taxes/april_2010/66_say_america_is_overtaxed

Also, don't forget that the majority of the debt racked up during the G.W. Bush administration was during the last two years due to the Pelosi and the liberal majority in congress. The wars we were/are fighting are a relatively small percentage of that.

Posted by: Sailboffin at April 16, 2010 12:47 PM (FXkSP)

9 For anyone to try and make a comparison to what has happened in this last year to anything in US history is insane! We have spend more in one year than in our entire history multiple times over. When are we going to take the off balance sheet Fanni/Freddi mess (what 6.5 trillion) and the rest of the over (with the new healthcare) 27 trillion dollars (and healthcare will be much much larger than the 2 to 3 trillion they are guessing at) on to the 14.5 trillion we have authorized as our national dept. Please look at those numbers again and think what that means.

When you take all of the stimulus away and our GDP normalizes I will be surprised if our real GDP is over 4.5 Trillion and dropping. We can't even begin to pay the interest on this mess at the current interest rate let alone the 5 to 12% it is going to. At this point please just shut up about who caused all of this because it is US and we need to fix it before there are absolutely no options......

P.S. I am sick of the where were you when Bush was in office. We are over a year into this administration - you own it! If not get out of the way and we will find someone that will!

s4f

Posted by: s4f at April 16, 2010 01:25 PM (u0FmQ)

10 David,

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I've been paying payroll and income taxes since 1988, payroll taxes beginning in...1982 or 83?

Note that payroll taxes are also...taxes. About 10% of the population pays neither payroll or income taxes, and I sure as hell don't want to trade my life for theirs.

I can play the guessing game as well, let's see, I'm guessing you collect SS and Medicare and that you paid less in taxes this year than last.


Diffus,

Do you drive on public roads? Is your homeland defended by the US Military? Is your home protected by public police and fire services? Do/did you parents and grandparents collect more SS and Medicare benefits than they paid? Your money isn't going to someone else, it's going towards the society you and I benefit from living in. Things we directly, and indirectly need.

What's the magic number? I don't know. What I do know is that the American tax burden has been right around 16-20% of GDP since 1945, it's about 15% this year.


Sailboffin,

The 62% figure is from this poll:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/poll-most-find-their-income-tax-fair/


This one is more interesting though because it's been asking the same question since 1947, Are your taxes too high, about right, or too low.



Mar. 1947 54 40 0
Nov. 1947 63 32 0
Mar. 1948 57 38 1
Mar. 1949 43 53 1
Feb. 1950 57 40 0
Feb. 1951 52 43 1
Feb. 1952 71 26 *
Feb. 1953 59 37 *
Feb. 1956 55 35 1
Apr. 1957 61 31 *
Mar. 1959 51 40 2
Feb. 1961 46 45 1
Feb. 1962 48 45 0
Jun. 1962 63 32 1
Jan. 1963 52 38 1
Feb. 1964 56 35 1
Feb. 1966 52 39 0
Mar. 1967 58 38 1
Mar. 1969 69 25 *
Feb. 1973 65 28 1
Feb. 1976 58 33 1
Feb. 1977 65 28 1
Feb. 1980 68 27 *
Feb. 1982 69 26 *
May 1982 60 32 *
Feb. 1984 63 33 1
Feb. 1985 60 32 *
Jun. 1985 63 32 1
Feb. 1987 59 35 1
Feb. 1988 55 39 1
Feb. 1989 56 37 1
Feb. 1990 59 37 *
Mar. 1990 63 31 2
Feb. 1991 55 39 1
Mar. 1991 55 37 2
Mar. 1992 56 39 2
Feb.-Apr. 55 41 1
Mar. 1993 55 41 2
Jan.-May. 1994 63 33 1
Apr. 1994 56 42 *
Dec. 1994 66 30 1
Feb.-May 1996 65 31 1
Apr. 1996 64 33 1
Mar. 1997 58 38 1
Feb.-Jun. 1998 63 31 1
Apr. 1998 66 31 1
Apr. 1999y 65 29 2
Jul. 1999 60 37 *
Sep. 1999 68 28 1
Feb.-Jun. 2000 64 31 1
Apr. 2000 63 33 1
Apr. 2001 65 31 1
Feb.-Jun. 2002 59 37 1
Jan. 2003 47 50 1
Feb.-Mar. 2003 51 43 3
Apr. 2003 50 46 2
Apr. 2004 50 43 3
Apr. 2005 51 44 2
Oct. 2005 43 48 3
Apr. 2006 48 44 2
Apr. 2007 53 41 2
Apr. 2008 52 42 2
Apr. 2008 55 41 1
Apr. 2009 46 48 3


http://www.aei.org/docLib/AEIPublicOpinionTaxes2010April.pdf


The answer varies poll to poll, somewhere between about 50-50 and 70-30, but, it's been like that since the question has been asked.

Like I said, if you guys had been posting here worried about how you and your kids were going to pay for Bush's Medicare D or Iraq I'd have more faith that you weren't just playing politics with the issue every time a Democrat is in the White House.


"Reagan proved deficits don't matter"

Dick Cheney 2002

Posted by: Jim at April 16, 2010 07:12 PM (TNxYU)

11 ike,

Obama's approval ratings are already hitting the 40% level. Bush didn't get that low until he was into the lame duck stage of his second term, if memory serves correctly.

He keeps running off at the mouth and going the way he's going, and the GOP could ride the reanimated corpse of Barry Goldwater to victory in 2012, never mind an actual live, breathing candidate.

Posted by: TheGonz at April 16, 2010 08:54 PM (Nq+8a)

12 Jim, its odd how you made sure to list the specific items supported by tax dollars that you did. I don't think anyone would argue that those specific items aren't good/worthy projects. I pay road taxes and I can drive on roads. Taxes pay for the military and the police and they protect all taxpayers. The problem arises when the taxes are simply wealth redistribution projects whereby the payer receives very limited or no benefit. Do we have roads set aside for minorities only? Why do some children go to college basically free based upon superficial qualities, yet I have to pay for my child's education?

Obama and Congress should be treated like teenagers. They get to act like adults as long as they show their ability to stay within reasonable limits. This president and congress effectively have maxed their credit cards and raced dad's Ford. It's time the adults (taxpayers) took their cards and keys.

Posted by: RicardoVerde at April 16, 2010 09:39 PM (1Ap7+)

13 Approval ratings are crap, how do you confirm them. The right is going to have their arse handed to them because they have no one to run against Obama who took 52% the last time a poll counted. You can erase my posts it is not going to defeat Obama in 2012.

Posted by: ike at April 16, 2010 09:44 PM (7dpRu)

14 RicardoVerde

I mentioned the things that make up the vast bulk of the budget, what you're talking about is just noise on the edges. Everyone is going to have programs at the edges they support, and ones they don't, that's life.

You already know the arguments for things like affirmative action style scholarships, and just as obviously you don't think they're valid, or important. As the same time you know, I'm sure, people who like you pay a lot of taxes and do value those programs. If they didn't have significant support from voters -- who tend to be earners -- they wouldn't exist.

And if your beef is with things like race or income based scholarships, why blame Obama or this Congress? Who are the adults in this scenario exactly???

Posted by: Jim at April 16, 2010 10:10 PM (TNxYU)

15 Pish posh Jim. The point was not to discuss specific programs, the point was that few argue when the benefits are basically for all.

The sum total of G.W. Bush's deficits for ALL years were roughly equivalent to Obama's FIRST year. THIS president and THIS congress are breaking several generations piggy banks. The malcompetence is staggering.

I am the adult and I am taking the keys.

Posted by: RicardoVerde at April 16, 2010 10:40 PM (1Ap7+)

16 "I am the adult and I am taking the keys."

An apt quote for dealing with the mental adolescent on this board. The naked sense of entitlement is fascinating. Since the adolescents on here failed to answer the question @12:03 I suppose they DO support the Kenyan's brand of gunpoint charity.

Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at April 16, 2010 10:55 PM (Eg9Id)

17 Well you're right, when asked about specific programs most anti-tax folks sign off on the big ticket items, and yet they still complain.

Obama's first budget year was 2010, not 2009, just like his last one will be 2013 or 2017. His first year also came smack at the bottom of a huge recession caused in no small part by the policies of the adults you want back in control.

Besides, the big ticket item Obama did add to the budget was the stimulus package, one of those things that did benefit all. And let's just skip the whole argument that the stimulus didn't work, I know that's what the Republicans in Congress keep saying, and then they go home and talk up all the jobs they brought to their districts and states as their part of the stimulus. I can post the link to 30 or so examples if you care to see them.

Posted by: Jim at April 16, 2010 11:06 PM (TNxYU)

18 Hi Nine,

Read 7:12PM and get back to me. You're the one who is upset about having to pay for stuff you need.

And spare me the gunpoint crap, the only President I know who collected taxes at gunpoint was George Washington. Please feel free to tell me how George misunderstood the Founder's intent for the role of the Federal government.

Posted by: Jim at April 16, 2010 11:13 PM (TNxYU)

19 "caused in no small part by the policies of the adults you want back in control."

Too ignorant to realize that, no, I do not want the late 1990's - mid 2000's breed of politician back in control.

"if you guys had been posting here worried about how you and your kids were going to pay for Bush's Medicare D or Iraq"

Attempt to stifle debate with illogical premise. If you support spending for the war then you cannot criticize the Magic Negro's budget allocations.

Too stupid to realize that you can criticize the Magic Negro and be opposed to the Iraq war, which I am.

"one of those things that did benefit all."

Lie

"the only President I know who collected taxes at gunpoint was George Washington."

Lie

"Please feel free to tell me how George misunderstood the Founder's intent for the role of the Federal government."

Strawman, plus false appeal to popularity of historical figure. Deliberately conflates desire for limited government with desire to pay no tax.

Wow - blasphemy against the Anointed One sure doesn't do much for proggies' minds -

Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at April 16, 2010 11:24 PM (Eg9Id)

20 "Lie" isn't much of a rebuttal.

Here are 114 Republican Congressmen talking about the benefits to their constituents from the stimulus.

http://thinkprogress.org/touting-recovery-opposed/


Whiskey Rebellion, look it up.


I'm not saying you can't support the wars and criticize the President, I'm saying you can't be silent for years about not paying for the wars and then pretend you care about deficits.

And yeah, I have no idea who you personally want in power, nor do I care. We have a two party system, that's reality, if you want to dream about another reality go ahead. Throw in some unicorns while you're at it.

Posted by: Jim at April 16, 2010 11:33 PM (TNxYU)

21 ""Lie" isn't much of a rebuttal."

Lie.

"And yeah, I have no idea who you personally want in power, nor do I care."

Hence the wailing about blasphemy against his beloved Affirmative-Action jeebus.


"I'm saying you can't be silent for years about not paying for the wars and then pretend you care about deficits."

Fixation on controlling discourse. Wonder where he got that trait from.

"Here are 114 Republican Congressmen talking about the benefits to their constituents from the stimulus."

Yet again, the stupid assumption that I'll fall in line so long as the slime in Washington have "R"'s next to their names. How quaint. Also contradicts claim not to know or care who I want in power.

Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at April 16, 2010 11:48 PM (Eg9Id)

22 Nine,

You do realize when I said "the adults you want.." I was specifically replying to Ricardo, right? I mean you're not insane enough to think every time someone says "you" in a post they are talking about Nine-of-Diamonds, right?

Oh, sorry, too many words, let me craft a response just for you:

Truth.

Posted by: Jim at April 16, 2010 11:54 PM (TNxYU)

23 http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=175861

48 out of 50 states have lost jobs since the Stimulus Package passed. Only Alaska, North Dakota, and the District of Columbia have seen job growth.

California, according to the projections that the stimulus people did when they were fabricating this whole thing, was supposed to have a net GAIN of 396,000 jobs by the end of December 2010. As of January 2010, they have posted a LOSS of 558,800 jobs.

So please, ike, enlighten me. . .

How, in the next 10 or 11 months, is California going to come up with 954,800 jobs to match up with the promised projections from the stimulus folks? Hell, how are they going to come up with 558,800 jobs so they can get back to where they were before the totally awesome, wonderful stimulus package kicked in? And that's just one example. . .there are other states that are every bit as screwed here as California is.

Yeah, you're right. . .I don't see it happening, either.

Posted by: TheGonz at April 16, 2010 11:59 PM (Nq+8a)

24 "Oh, sorry, too many words"

Nope. The more the better...

Serial liar who commits logical fallacies, is unintelligent, & can't answer direct questions? I wonder if anyone's ever seen Jimboid & the Majick Negroid in the same place at the same time.

Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at April 17, 2010 12:02 AM (Eg9Id)

25 Gonz,

Do you think the job numbers would have been better without the stimulus? I don't.

Posted by: Jim at April 17, 2010 12:03 AM (TNxYU)

26 TheGonz, you obviously haven't caught on to Affirmative Action Boy's new "jobs saved or created" metric. Thanks to his decisive action, maybe Amerikkka was saved from certain 100% unemployment. And if we "stimulate" the economy hard enough, maybe we'll all start crying tears of gold and puking out unicorns. You can't prove we WON'T, can you?

Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at April 17, 2010 12:09 AM (Eg9Id)

27 "Do you think the job numbers would have been better without the stimulus? I don't."

Of course not. Praise Affirmative Action Jeebus, and Glory Be. The oceans ain't risin' no mo, so a little benefit like the booming economy is hardly anything to get excited over. Divine powers, don'tcha know.

Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at April 17, 2010 12:12 AM (Eg9Id)

28 Jim,

http://michaelscomments.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/unemployment-projection-march-2010.gif

Why, yes. . .yes I do think that things would have been better without the stimulus. According to the projections of Obama's own people, it would have been.

But hey. . .paying back political favors isn't something one can do for free now, is it?

Posted by: TheGonz at April 17, 2010 07:40 AM (Nq+8a)

29 Jim, take a basic civics course. Presidents don't spend one dime. Congress (controlled by Copperheads since 2006) writes the budgets. Also, see this little chart, which shows clearly that the deficits were shrinking under Bush UNTIL Copperheads got the Congress.

Posted by: SDN at April 17, 2010 10:15 AM (S78cq)

30 I'm probably going to get jumped, but I'm going to speak honestly about this subject.

Social security is bankrupting us, medicare is bankrupting us, Obamacare is going to speed this up...and the costs of the Military also adding to the bankruptcy.

I'm not saying to cut the whole damn military budget, I'm just saying it needs to be trimmed down. Meanwhile, SS, Medicare, and Obamacare need to be thrown completely out, along with all those cushy pointless bureaucratic government jobs that pay WAAAAAYYYYY too well for that skill level.

In all honesty, the military really is a HUGE budget item. If you disagree, you are lying to yourself. We could still have the best military in the world and spend quite a bit less. Not only that, but we still have the manufacturing, technology, and infrastructure to ramp up production of war materials if a huge conflict is imminent or already starting.

Basically, after we slaughter all the left's sacred spending cows, it might not be a bad idea to cut military spending to the point where we are still the most powerful nation, but not quite the military juggernaut of planet Earth. If we did all those things, there would be very few taxes and the government would still be running a surplus. Our nation would be much safer financially, and just as safe militarily.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at April 17, 2010 01:04 PM (uVv+L)

31 Gonz,

So despite all the Republicans talking up the jobs created and saved in their districts due to the stimulus -- Obama was paying back political favors to the opposition party??? -- you think the stimulus didn't have a positive impact upon employment because a projection of how bad the recession would be that was made in late 2008 was too optimistic. A projection vs the on the ground reality. No doubt you're comforted by the projections of reductions to the deficit and to health care costs made by those same Obama people. ha ha


SDN,

The costs of Iraq and Medicare D weren't going to show up in the deficit before the money was being spent. Medicare D was passed in Jan 2005, crap hit the fan in Iraq in 2005-06. The Surge was 2007. None of that money was spent because of a Democratic Congress, are you seriously trying to claim that the Surge and Medicare D were Democratic proposals that Bush was against?


Where were the Taxed Enough Already people in 2004-2008? Taxes were higher. 100% of the costs of Medicare D and Iraq were unfunded. Where were you guys?

Posted by: Jim at April 17, 2010 04:11 PM (TNxYU)

32 Bravo Jim,

When you have them screaming "lie" at the truth of the Whiskey Rebellion and resorting to racist Magic Negroid attacks, they've been exposed. you show far more patience with them than do I.

Posted by: ChrisJ at April 17, 2010 04:39 PM (jsQWZ)

33 Wow; less than 50 posts in and the usual suspects have to resort to 0bama opponents are "Waysist". Say it with me: MAGIC NEGRO. Oddly enough, this term was coined by Leftist David Ehrenstein (sp) - not a conservative.

"Where were the Taxed Enough Already people in 2004-2008?"

Once again, tries to dictate when people can and cannot protest the government. How progressive!

And he's too stupid to understand that:

1) the inflation 0bammy's going to create is itself is akin to a tax, and

2) it is devastating to the economy for a gov't to have large unfunded future liabilities, even if you haven't yet levied the taxes to pay for them.

Not to worry - their little Affirmative Action idol will sprinkle the fairy dust & make it all go away.

Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at April 17, 2010 05:10 PM (Eg9Id)

34 Hey Nine

1) It doesn't matter WHO coined a racist term. It's still racist when you repeat it. You're a racist, plain and simple.

2) No one is saying when you can and cannot protest, but it's interesting that you weren't out there when Bush was giving massive handouts to the top 2% (which I assume you're not in), ran up massive unfunded liabilities (paying off two wars which he ran off the books and left us holding the bill on, Medicare part D, etc...) and disabling the Constitution by gathering massive executive power (via Cheney) and with assaults on due process and posse comitatus.

You can certainly protest whenever you feel like it, but it just looks funny when #44 gets federal taxes to their lowest level in 50 years with a tax cut for 95% of working Americans and you protest him, when you didn't go after the guy who ran up the bill, padded the accounts of Goldman Sachs and then let them raid the economy.

Might it be that you only like tax cuts when it's a white President giving you them? By your Obammy the Magic Negro comments, I'm willing to bet that's the case.

You are a racist, and everything you say is being viewed through that lens. Stop the race baiting and maybe more people will take you seriously. Until then, hike up your Klan robe, it's dragging in the mud.

How sad.

Posted by: ChrisJ at April 18, 2010 05:47 PM (jsQWZ)

35 Well now, let's see...recent polls indicate the Tea Party movement has the support of about 25% of the public. That's around 75 million Americans, americans who, according to the polls are wealthier and better educated than average (ie: people who vote and have long memories), and who, again, according to the polls, encompass a substantial portion of independents and not an insignificant portion of democrats.

A rational politician would rather advocate torturing small, furry animals as a spectator sport than taking on such a potent political force. Of course, if you are a god, as the media has often claimed, such pedestrian political concerns obviously don't apply to you and you're free to spit into the political wind as often as you like. After all, who can stand against your magnificence and pristine power?

As the ancient Greeks often said, hubris (excessive pride) will incur the wrath of the gods every time, and the higher and mightier the miscreant exhibiting such hubris, the harder the fall.

Posted by: mikemcdaniel at April 18, 2010 07:17 PM (qjRSd)

36 "Until then, hike up your Klan robe, it's dragging in the mud."

Waysist! Waysist! Waysist!

Sorry - Bobby Byrd got ahold of that robe before I could - lol.

"(paying off two wars which he ran off the books and left us holding the bill on"

reading comprehension fail! Too dumb to actually read prior comments & find out I'm opposed to the wars.

Now go starch Senator Byrd's linens before he puts a boot in your rear, boy! It's so hard to get good hired help these days...

Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at April 19, 2010 12:38 PM (Eg9Id)

37 It's racist when Byrd did it and it's racist when you do it.

My point is not the war spending, but the lack of opposition to the fiscal mismanagement of the Bush years. But he was white, so all is forgiven.

Posted by: ChrisJ at April 19, 2010 03:40 PM (jsQWZ)

38 "My point"

False. Making "points" is beyond your capability, laundry boy.

Aside from wailing about blasphemy against your Affirmative Action idol and supporting commeters who make off-the wall claims (do you really want to postulate that George Washington's was the only administration to use coercive power to tax?), you just haven't really done too much in the way of making points.

My mistake - logic is "racis'" and "be keepin' you down".

Screeching about how everyone else is "racis'" just ain't gonna cut it no' mo. Been there, done that, got the commemorative Bill Ayers t-shirt.

Now get back to work on Mr. Byrd's sheets, boy. Two cups of detergent-not one.

Oh, and you know you want to say it:

MAGIC KNEE - GROW!

Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at April 19, 2010 05:01 PM (Eg9Id)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

April 15, 2010

Too Bad We're Not Building New Garbage Scows

Politicians—more than likely led by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi— have pressured the Navy into naming a new San Antonio-class amphibious ship after ex-Marine and Democratic pork champion John Murtha.

Once put to sea, the Murtha, a amphibious transport dock (LPD), will take part in landing Marines on hostile shores before then retreating to a safe distance to call a press conference to accuse them of intentionally killing women and children in cold blood.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:43 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Boston Leftists Just Not That Sharp

Some hipsters tried to heed Scott Levin's cry to "crash the tea party" yesterday in Boston.

Their efforts were, well, see for yourself.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:24 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

CrashTheTeaParty.Org Founder's Twitter Page Goes Dark

Jason Levin's twitter account, http://twitter.com/xenex11/ no longer exists.

I wonder why.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:51 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Tea Party Crashers With A Sense of Humor

I suspect that as coverage unfolds throughout the day that we're going to discover that the bulk of individuals and groups trying to "crash" Tea Party protests are going to be young and surly and obviously out of their element, but at least one group at the Washington, DC Tea Party yesterday last year had a great sense of humor... and a nice flair for the dramatic.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:30 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Reminder: Expose The Party Crashers

If you attend one of today's Tax Day Tea Party protests and run across those looking to malign the movement, capture them in photos or video and send it to tpcrashers@pjtv.com.

More on how to do that (and constructive advice how to interact with those involved) at Pajamas Media.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:18 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Another Lie Bites The Dust

That members of the Congressional Black Caucus lied about the use of racist language during their walk through a crowd of Tea Party protestors prior to the Obamacare vote is all but certain. Only the handful of black Congressmen—who took an unusual path to Congress through the crowd in a thinly-disguised attempt to provoke a response—claim that "n*gger" was screamed at them.

Dozens of videos were shot that day, at the time and location where the delegation trolled through the crowd. No one took the bait. The Caucus' own camcorder-toting underlings could not capture one slur. Men once championed as civil rights icons for standing against racism against blacks were revealed as cynical bigots who will use race as a weapon for the cheapest of political stunts.

Recently, so have tried to reignite the lie, claiming that Democratic Rep Heath Shuler (NC) walked with the Caucus and heard the imagined slurs.

That has now been debunked as well.

But he wasn't there. He was near Barney Frank, and did hear already documented slur uttered at his expense (though somehow missed the alleged f-bomb the foul-mouthed Frank uttered to elicit that response).

Heath Shuler was nowhere near the race-baiting liars of the Congressional Black Caucus when they slandered thousands.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:55 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

April 14, 2010

Marine Closes "Armed Forces Tea Party Patriots" Page After Controversy Erupts

When you join the military you agree to abide by the rules and regulations noted in your enlistment contract. While I am aware of regulations that prevent service members from certain kinds of advocacy, I wasn't aware it was meant to go this far:

A Camp Pendleton Marine has removed his Facebook page after his comments fueled a free-speech debate about whether troops are allowed to criticize President Barack Obama's policies while serving in the military.

Sgt. Gary Stein said he was asked by his superiors to review the Pentagon's directive on political activities after he criticized Obama's health care reform efforts and then was asked this week to talk about his views on the MSNBC cable TV channel.

Stein said his supervisor told him of his right to an attorney about the matter. He said he decided to close his Facebook page and review his military code obligations. He also contacted private attorneys who told him he had done nothing wrong.

[snip]

Camp Pendleton spokeswoman Maj. Gabrielle Chapin said the Marine Corps is not considering filing charges and simply wanted him to be aware of the rules so he did not break them.

The Pentagon's directive states that military personnel are not allowed to write anything to solicit votes for a political cause, sponsor a political club or speak before any gathering that promotes a political movement.

I don't know the regs. Did this Marine cross the line, or not?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:46 PM | Comments (22) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Match Game?

As we discussed some last night, Bobby Jindal's campaign finance director Allee Bautsch and her boyfriend Joe Brown were hospitalized after they were assaulted Friday night after leaving a fundraiser at Brennan's Restaurant in the French Quarter.

There are at least two very similar descriptions of the primary assailant.

NOLA notes:

...in his 20s, looked "dirty," and wore his hair in an auburn-colored ponytail. The man was 6 feet, 1 inch tall with a thin build, police said. He wore a light-colored T-shirt and dark pants.

WWLTV says:

...a white man who appeared to be dirty, in his 20s, about six feet tall with a thick build and thin face. He had a beard and auburn-colored hair in a pony tail

As it so happens, a parade of protesters on their way to harrass the SLRC and Jindal's fundraiser at Brennan's were caught on camera and posted in a series of videos on YouTube.

One video in particular, titled "SRLC Protest 9 April 2010 - Onward to Brennan's" captured a brief shot of a young man who comes close to matching those general descriptions at the 1:40 mark on the video.

I caution that this is by no means a smoking gun proving that this is the man who assaulted the couple (he can be seen walking with a child at the 2:00 mark of this video). Odds are that he is not related to the attack, but I hope that the New Orleans Police are showing this and similar videos captured around Brennan's that evening to Bautsch and Brown so that they either identify or rule out assailants that may have been caught on film.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:04 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Processing 0.04, elapsed 0.8923 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.8669 seconds, 167 records returned.
Page size 145 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.